Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.65 AVERAGE
3.65 AVERAGE
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
funny
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I'll pick this back up some other time. Feels like winter reading or just when my ADHD brain can deal with 1000 pages of one thing.
funny
A fantastically fun satirical Victorian novel. It's humorous (see: character names), and ridiculous, and realistic. It's fascinating and frustrating to watch all that Becky destroys and how thoroughly she destroys it. Even the sympathetic characters, Dobbin more so than Amelia, are shown to be foolish and ultimately stifle their own happiness. As the author states, Vanity Fair is a novel without a hero that leaves you without a resolution, but it's a great ride. Very strong recommend.
adventurous
inspiring
lighthearted
relaxing
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
funny
lighthearted
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Thackeray:
I never imagined, dear Thackeray, that my experience reading your most famous novel might end up being somewhat disappointing. You know what people usually say: perhaps it was not your moment to really enjoy that read, maybe if you give it a try again, in the future... or perhaps, it will never be for you. Either way, I want to be truly honest with you: overall, I didn't like reading your magnum opus, Vanity Fair. I'm sorry but, my moment or not, I prefer to say the whole truth, my truth, which is basically the way I felt throughout this journey. But firstly, Let's talk about the good stuff, is it fine? I've always believed if you have something good to say, say it first.
I completely enjoyed the funny, ironic way you decided to narrate this novel. Your narrator was the best part of the whole book; no, seriously, you have no idea how many times I laughed at something really simple, even ridiculous, and just because of the narrator. I suppose you are the narrator, aren't you? A memorable way to live in your own novel forever, I guess.
Your characters, especially the main ones: how can I not love them? Tell me, how am I going to forget them? There are things in life which are impossible to forget, and this is definitely one of those things. Amelia, Becky, Rawdon, Dobbin, Miss Crawley, Jos, Pitt, George, Jane, Georgy, Mrs. Bute (I just typed these names in the way they came to my mind) are an important part of me right now, and this feeling is possible because of you, Thackeray.
I found some of your thoughts/reflections* as well as some chapters which were crucial over the course of the story quite important and enjoyable to read. For instance, there is one chapter (chapter 35) that is present vividly in my mind, at which you talk about significant topics, so significant that I couldn't help but think of my own life and the place where I am right now. Thanks for such a meaningful moment.
And finally, those descriptions of the Napoleonic Wars... I'm still speechless, I can't find the right words to express my admiration for such powerful descriptions. For example, I'm remembering that one** which was very long, and at the same time, quite short to express everything you wanted to say; in my view, another notch on your belt.
So far, so good, right? and that was nonetheless the shorter part. Now, it is time to say the negative stuff, and explain why this book is only a 3-star novel for me.
Well, Thackeray, first of all, I want to ask you something so directly, with all due respect: why are you rambling a lot? 800 or so pages and you never, never stopped rambling. At the very beginning, I must confess it was interesting, but once you are on chapter 15, chapter 25, chapter 40, and so on, this experience turns out to be unbearable, underwhelming, disappointing. If you had had something important to say for the sake of the story, fine, no problem at all, but you were lost at some point, weren't you? You preferred a not-to-the-point book to a clear, maybe straightforward yet well developed story.
Now, let's say a 'rambling story' is not a problem: then, why were you rambling on insignificant topics and leaving the important ones out of the novel? When something necessary for the plot—main plot or subplots—happened, it was solved so fast that I, as a reader, wasn't able to enjoy or even appreciate what was happening, whereas when there was something completely unnecessary, for instance, those guests who were in a soirée whose names you had to mention, one by one, and also their titles, even what they were wearing, when such characters (almost) never came back to the story again – why on earth did you do that, Thackeray? Also, it was noticeable that you didn't know what to do with your main and secondary characters, and even you constantly introduced new ones; at some point there were too many characters, and some of them were less important for the story than Miss Crawley's lap dog.
Lastly, do you want to know why this novel is my biggest disappointment, only among all the Victorian novels I have read so far (and I believe I have read a decent amount of them, by the way)? Because you had no idea how to finish this story, and therefore, as a result, we had here one of the worst endings we can find in a novel: no ending at all. Two paragraphs to close Amelia's story, and as for Becky, there is no a proper, fair ending, one character who just ended up in 'the same place' she started. As for the rest of the characters, it was also disappointing, you can't finish all the subplots at the end of the last chapter as if you were writing a grocery shopping list: one paragraph, one ending, another paragraph, another ending. 67 chapters and this is what we got. It is not fair, Thackeray, it is unacceptable, unbelievable.
You knew I had a terrible experience with another massive book recently, and therefore, I had all my expectations for your novel. So, at this point I can't help but believe that perhaps huge books are not working for me right now, or maybe it was just a sad coincidence. Either way, Vanity Fair, even though its narrative was great (I can't complain about that), was one of those Victorian classics that I knew I would enjoy from beginning to end; unfortunately, my experience with your book turned out that I don't want to read any of your other novels, at least not for a long, long time.
Sorry again, Thackeray, you know this is not personal, and yet I don't regret saying the things I have said in this letter.
Best,
A picky(?) reader
----
* “Have you ever had a difference with a dear friend? How his letters, written in the period of love and confidence, sicken and rebuke you! What a dreary mourning it is to dwell upon those vehement protests of dead affection! What lying epitaphs they make over the corpse of love! What dark, cruel comments upon Life and Vanities! Most of us have got or written drawers full of them. They are closet-skeletons which we keep and shun.”
** “All our friends took their share and fought like men in the great field. All day long, whilst the women were praying ten miles away, the lines of the dauntless English infantry were receiving and repelling the furious charges of the French horsemen. Guns which were heard at Brussels were ploughing up their ranks, and comrades falling, and the resolute survivors closing in. Towards evening, the attack of the French, repeated and resisted so bravely, slackened in its fury. They had other foes besides the British to engage, or were preparing for a final onset. It came at last: the columns of the Imperial Guard marched up the hill of St. Jean, at length and at once to sweep the English from the height which they had maintained all day, and spite of all: unscared by the thunder of the artillery, which hurled death from the English line—the dark rolling column pressed on and up the hill. It seemed almost to crest the eminence, when it began to wave and falter. Then it stopped, still facing the shot. Then at last the English troops rushed from the post from which no enemy had been able to dislodge them, and the Guard turned and fled.”
I never imagined, dear Thackeray, that my experience reading your most famous novel might end up being somewhat disappointing. You know what people usually say: perhaps it was not your moment to really enjoy that read, maybe if you give it a try again, in the future... or perhaps, it will never be for you. Either way, I want to be truly honest with you: overall, I didn't like reading your magnum opus, Vanity Fair. I'm sorry but, my moment or not, I prefer to say the whole truth, my truth, which is basically the way I felt throughout this journey. But firstly, Let's talk about the good stuff, is it fine? I've always believed if you have something good to say, say it first.
I completely enjoyed the funny, ironic way you decided to narrate this novel. Your narrator was the best part of the whole book; no, seriously, you have no idea how many times I laughed at something really simple, even ridiculous, and just because of the narrator. I suppose you are the narrator, aren't you? A memorable way to live in your own novel forever, I guess.
Your characters, especially the main ones: how can I not love them? Tell me, how am I going to forget them? There are things in life which are impossible to forget, and this is definitely one of those things. Amelia, Becky, Rawdon, Dobbin, Miss Crawley, Jos, Pitt, George, Jane, Georgy, Mrs. Bute (I just typed these names in the way they came to my mind) are an important part of me right now, and this feeling is possible because of you, Thackeray.
I found some of your thoughts/reflections* as well as some chapters which were crucial over the course of the story quite important and enjoyable to read. For instance, there is one chapter (chapter 35) that is present vividly in my mind, at which you talk about significant topics, so significant that I couldn't help but think of my own life and the place where I am right now. Thanks for such a meaningful moment.
And finally, those descriptions of the Napoleonic Wars... I'm still speechless, I can't find the right words to express my admiration for such powerful descriptions. For example, I'm remembering that one** which was very long, and at the same time, quite short to express everything you wanted to say; in my view, another notch on your belt.
So far, so good, right? and that was nonetheless the shorter part. Now, it is time to say the negative stuff, and explain why this book is only a 3-star novel for me.
Well, Thackeray, first of all, I want to ask you something so directly, with all due respect: why are you rambling a lot? 800 or so pages and you never, never stopped rambling. At the very beginning, I must confess it was interesting, but once you are on chapter 15, chapter 25, chapter 40, and so on, this experience turns out to be unbearable, underwhelming, disappointing. If you had had something important to say for the sake of the story, fine, no problem at all, but you were lost at some point, weren't you? You preferred a not-to-the-point book to a clear, maybe straightforward yet well developed story.
Now, let's say a 'rambling story' is not a problem: then, why were you rambling on insignificant topics and leaving the important ones out of the novel? When something necessary for the plot—main plot or subplots—happened, it was solved so fast that I, as a reader, wasn't able to enjoy or even appreciate what was happening, whereas when there was something completely unnecessary, for instance, those guests who were in a soirée whose names you had to mention, one by one, and also their titles, even what they were wearing, when such characters (almost) never came back to the story again – why on earth did you do that, Thackeray? Also, it was noticeable that you didn't know what to do with your main and secondary characters, and even you constantly introduced new ones; at some point there were too many characters, and some of them were less important for the story than Miss Crawley's lap dog.
Lastly, do you want to know why this novel is my biggest disappointment, only among all the Victorian novels I have read so far (and I believe I have read a decent amount of them, by the way)? Because you had no idea how to finish this story, and therefore, as a result, we had here one of the worst endings we can find in a novel: no ending at all. Two paragraphs to close Amelia's story, and as for Becky, there is no a proper, fair ending, one character who just ended up in 'the same place' she started. As for the rest of the characters, it was also disappointing, you can't finish all the subplots at the end of the last chapter as if you were writing a grocery shopping list: one paragraph, one ending, another paragraph, another ending. 67 chapters and this is what we got. It is not fair, Thackeray, it is unacceptable, unbelievable.
You knew I had a terrible experience with another massive book recently, and therefore, I had all my expectations for your novel. So, at this point I can't help but believe that perhaps huge books are not working for me right now, or maybe it was just a sad coincidence. Either way, Vanity Fair, even though its narrative was great (I can't complain about that), was one of those Victorian classics that I knew I would enjoy from beginning to end; unfortunately, my experience with your book turned out that I don't want to read any of your other novels, at least not for a long, long time.
Sorry again, Thackeray, you know this is not personal, and yet I don't regret saying the things I have said in this letter.
Best,
A picky(?) reader
----
* “Have you ever had a difference with a dear friend? How his letters, written in the period of love and confidence, sicken and rebuke you! What a dreary mourning it is to dwell upon those vehement protests of dead affection! What lying epitaphs they make over the corpse of love! What dark, cruel comments upon Life and Vanities! Most of us have got or written drawers full of them. They are closet-skeletons which we keep and shun.”
** “All our friends took their share and fought like men in the great field. All day long, whilst the women were praying ten miles away, the lines of the dauntless English infantry were receiving and repelling the furious charges of the French horsemen. Guns which were heard at Brussels were ploughing up their ranks, and comrades falling, and the resolute survivors closing in. Towards evening, the attack of the French, repeated and resisted so bravely, slackened in its fury. They had other foes besides the British to engage, or were preparing for a final onset. It came at last: the columns of the Imperial Guard marched up the hill of St. Jean, at length and at once to sweep the English from the height which they had maintained all day, and spite of all: unscared by the thunder of the artillery, which hurled death from the English line—the dark rolling column pressed on and up the hill. It seemed almost to crest the eminence, when it began to wave and falter. Then it stopped, still facing the shot. Then at last the English troops rushed from the post from which no enemy had been able to dislodge them, and the Guard turned and fled.”
This was so long and so many different things happened that it's probably impossible to write a comprehensive review. I can see how it would be an absolute goldmine / bottomless pit for an English student. There were bits I thought were brilliant and there were also bits which bored me to death. Sprawling across so many characters and such a long time frame, it was a little bit like Middlemarch, except it was soooo cynical! The gloomy portrayal of human nature (vanity vanity vanity) was good fun but also very frustrating when all the characters were so flawed. I almost felt like the "a novel without a hero" description was a challenge for the reader to find a hero in it after all, so I got quite grumpy when I kept being thwarted in my attempts to make one of the characters into one. I enjoyed the little sardonic quips and condescending preachiness of the narrator, and the way it was sometimes made out that he(?) was also a character in the story when the rest of the time it was straightforward 3rd person omniscient POV.
funny
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This comedy originally published in serial format follows two friends- gentle, demur Amelia and dazzling, scheming Rebecca- as they navigate the highs and lows of life and society. Thackeray presents himself as master of ceremonies and puppet master of this “story with no heroes” that spans over a decade, which provides a truly unique and interesting voice. I really did find parts of this very funny, even as each character clambers up the social ladder and exposes the worst in human nature. However, the last half was a SLOG to get through. It’s a memorable story with memorable characters, but had it been more concise I might have enjoyed it more. There are also a few characters and jokes in this novel that have not aged well.
challenging
lighthearted
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes