Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.65 AVERAGE
3.65 AVERAGE
I bought a beautiful copy of this book many, many years ago. I love the way it looks and feels, the weight, the font, the illustrations copied from the original edition, everything. I was determined over the years to actually read it! Tried several times, but never made it more than 50 pages before I gave up. The last time being about 2-3 years ago and I’ve actually kept on a table near my bed since, moving only to dust occasionally! When a “DNF” book prompt came up on my 2021 reading challenge I knew this had to be the one. I admit it was a struggle that I nearly gave into again, multiple times. But I’m weirdly proud to say I read every page and can now say I read it. But I guess that’s it. Unfortunately, unlike some classics that really stand the test of time, this one did not! Oh well! Parts were mildly entertaining but far too much was sexist and racist that any giggle it might have elicited was often followed by a cringe. That said, it did grow on me as it progressed.
adventurous
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
"I warn my "kyind friends", then, that I am going to tell a story of harrowing villainy and complicated - but, as I trust, intensely interesting - crime. My rascals are no milk-and-water rascals, I promise you. When we come to the proper places we won't spare fine language - No, no! But when we are going over the quiet country we must perforce be calm. A tempest in a slop-basin is absurd. We will reserve that sort of thing for the mighty ocean and the lonely midnight.
The present chapter is very mild. Others - But we will not anticipate those."
Welcome to Vanity Fair. Here you'll meet lots of greedy, selfish people who are happy to grind down others in their climb up the social ladder. Who cares if good and honest folk are sent to debtor's prison because of you? The only thing that matters is your own social advancement. If you have to lie and cheat, scheme and deceive, and leave your morals behind so be it. The only thing that matters is Society and material goods that you can flaunt in the face of your rivals.
Becky Sharp is a piece of work. She is cunning, scheming, a fabulous actress and liar and she will let absolutely nothing stop her on her way up the social ladder. And I mean nothing - she'll commit murder to get money. She has made social climbing her profession, and she is damn good at it - possibly because she has nothing like a conscience. She knows what a conscience is and is good at pretending that she has one (just like she pretends to love her child when it is convenient to her, or to pretend that she'll have money for the rent tomorrow), but Becky doesn't do anything that doesn't benefit herself. Kindness, helpfulness, friendliness etc. are only practiced by her when she can gain something by it herself.
"The Rector's wife paid me a score of compliments about the progress my pupils made, and thought, no doubt, to touch my heart - poor, simple, country soul! as if I cared a fig about my pupils!"
On the other hand, you have Amelia. Good, honest, kind and dutiful, Amelia is the embodiment of a good, almost saintly, stay-at-home-and-love-your-children-Recency woman. Amelia is also boring and ridiculously loyal to George (who, by the way, didn't want to marry her, who is tired of her as soon as he has said "I do" and want to elope with Rebecca a month after his marriage.) Amelia is also the object of good, kind and faithful William Dobbin's affections. He holds a torch for her for 18 years, always helping her out, giving her and her son money while they are poor. The man is always there for her, but Amelia can't marry him because George. Dead, stupid, selfish George! Dobbin's speech to Amelia towards the end, his "you are so selfish and ungrateful, you do not deserve my love and I am leaving!" speech, gave me "honestly me dear, I don't give a damn!" vibes, and I was cheering him on. That good, angelic girl was so selfish, uncaring and ungrateful for years and I thought it was brilliantly done by Thackeray, to show that people are not black and white; that saintly Amelia was capable of immense selfishness, taking advantage of Dobbin's affections for her - and good on Dobbin for finally moving on with his life and leaving her to regret her own stupidity.
And then Rebecca comes and, on the surface, is very kind in uniting her and Dobbin, but also she is just getting them out of the way so she can get Jos to herself and get his money...
This is a vicious critique of Victorian society and its love of money and social status (and are we any better today?), told with sarcastic wit and humour by Thackeray who loves to butt in and comment on his characters and their motivations. He is almost a character in himself, and I love it. If this is his usual style, he can tell me stories any day of the week. I'll go put the kettle on.
The present chapter is very mild. Others - But we will not anticipate those."
Welcome to Vanity Fair. Here you'll meet lots of greedy, selfish people who are happy to grind down others in their climb up the social ladder. Who cares if good and honest folk are sent to debtor's prison because of you? The only thing that matters is your own social advancement. If you have to lie and cheat, scheme and deceive, and leave your morals behind so be it. The only thing that matters is Society and material goods that you can flaunt in the face of your rivals.
Becky Sharp is a piece of work. She is cunning, scheming, a fabulous actress and liar and she will let absolutely nothing stop her on her way up the social ladder. And I mean nothing - she'll commit murder to get money. She has made social climbing her profession, and she is damn good at it - possibly because she has nothing like a conscience. She knows what a conscience is and is good at pretending that she has one (just like she pretends to love her child when it is convenient to her, or to pretend that she'll have money for the rent tomorrow), but Becky doesn't do anything that doesn't benefit herself. Kindness, helpfulness, friendliness etc. are only practiced by her when she can gain something by it herself.
"The Rector's wife paid me a score of compliments about the progress my pupils made, and thought, no doubt, to touch my heart - poor, simple, country soul! as if I cared a fig about my pupils!"
On the other hand, you have Amelia. Good, honest, kind and dutiful, Amelia is the embodiment of a good, almost saintly, stay-at-home-and-love-your-children-Recency woman. Amelia is also boring and ridiculously loyal to George (who, by the way, didn't want to marry her, who is tired of her as soon as he has said "I do" and want to elope with Rebecca a month after his marriage.) Amelia is also the object of good, kind and faithful William Dobbin's affections. He holds a torch for her for 18 years, always helping her out, giving her and her son money while they are poor. The man is always there for her, but Amelia can't marry him because George. Dead, stupid, selfish George! Dobbin's speech to Amelia towards the end, his "you are so selfish and ungrateful, you do not deserve my love and I am leaving!" speech, gave me "honestly me dear, I don't give a damn!" vibes, and I was cheering him on. That good, angelic girl was so selfish, uncaring and ungrateful for years and I thought it was brilliantly done by Thackeray, to show that people are not black and white; that saintly Amelia was capable of immense selfishness, taking advantage of Dobbin's affections for her - and good on Dobbin for finally moving on with his life and leaving her to regret her own stupidity.
And then Rebecca comes and, on the surface, is very kind in uniting her and Dobbin, but also she is just getting them out of the way so she can get Jos to herself and get his money...
This is a vicious critique of Victorian society and its love of money and social status (and are we any better today?), told with sarcastic wit and humour by Thackeray who loves to butt in and comment on his characters and their motivations. He is almost a character in himself, and I love it. If this is his usual style, he can tell me stories any day of the week. I'll go put the kettle on.
I have nothing else to say other than almost every character in this novel annoyed me so much. I get it was the point of the book: representing vanity and the human vices. So, for that, I don't give it 1 star but 2 because it did its job.
Other than that, the story was not to my general liking.
Other than that, the story was not to my general liking.
Love the ironic meta commentary in this Victorian novel. The ending was a little too happy for me.
It took me quite a while to finish this book, and I attribute that to the many pages dedicated to details that in no way mattered to the plot, and that's also the reason why I'm giving this otherwise masterpiece of Thackeray a star less.
Nonetheless, I really liked it. It's a brilliant satire, and the fact that the reader does not often enter the minds of the characters, but only watches what they do, and hears what the author tells about them, and then with some direct prompting from the author, judges them, puts the point of the satire across very effectively.
I quite liked the characters employed in the creation of this satire. If I have to choose a favorite character, it'll have to be Rawdon. His sensitivity with his son despite being made fun of because of it by his wife just did it for me. He's the kind of man Victorian novels do not really portray, and I loved that this one did. I quite liked Dobbin for the most part of the novel, but when he declares in the end that Amelia wasn't worthy of his love just because she couldn't return it, it just made me think of the whole 'friendzone' thing we have going on in this present time, and I'm sorry, but since when did it become necessary that you loving someone so deeply and doing all you can for them would warrant you their love in return? I could completely understand if he had just stated that he needed to move on, but him considering himself entitled I just couldn't.
Other than that, the best aspect of Vanity Fair, for me, was definitely the difference between Amelia and Rebecca, which so accurately defines how women were perceived in Victorian England. Either the women had to be perfect angels, meek and submissive, like Amelia, or they had to be artful minxes, to borrow Dobbin's words, like Rebecca. There could not be something in between these two extremes. If it were not for how she treated her husband and her son, Rebecca could have been the powerful woman that threatens the patriarchal set up of society (she knew she didn't really want a child, I suppose, and she definitely knew she deserved better than Rawdon, but only if she hadn't treated Rawdon Junior like she did), but alas, she had to be at the end of one extreme, and although she's not as trapped within patriarchal constructs as other Victorian women, she remained but an insensitive and indifferent woman.
Thackeray impeccably impress on the reader the futility of Vanity Fair but he does not underestimate its values either. He admits that roast beef is good, although it vanishes like all pleasures of Vanity Fair. It's all about money and false values. But the theme of poverty and old age was what made me feel touched by the story. I probably wouldn't have felt so strongly about it if it were not for the cruelty of these that was perfectly put in words by Thackeray.
To conclude, it was indeed a masterpiece, and I loved it.
Nonetheless, I really liked it. It's a brilliant satire, and the fact that the reader does not often enter the minds of the characters, but only watches what they do, and hears what the author tells about them, and then with some direct prompting from the author, judges them, puts the point of the satire across very effectively.
I quite liked the characters employed in the creation of this satire. If I have to choose a favorite character, it'll have to be Rawdon. His sensitivity with his son despite being made fun of because of it by his wife just did it for me. He's the kind of man Victorian novels do not really portray, and I loved that this one did. I quite liked Dobbin for the most part of the novel, but when he declares in the end that Amelia wasn't worthy of his love just because she couldn't return it, it just made me think of the whole 'friendzone' thing we have going on in this present time, and I'm sorry, but since when did it become necessary that you loving someone so deeply and doing all you can for them would warrant you their love in return? I could completely understand if he had just stated that he needed to move on, but him considering himself entitled I just couldn't.
Other than that, the best aspect of Vanity Fair, for me, was definitely the difference between Amelia and Rebecca, which so accurately defines how women were perceived in Victorian England. Either the women had to be perfect angels, meek and submissive, like Amelia, or they had to be artful minxes, to borrow Dobbin's words, like Rebecca. There could not be something in between these two extremes. If it were not for how she treated her husband and her son, Rebecca could have been the powerful woman that threatens the patriarchal set up of society (she knew she didn't really want a child, I suppose, and she definitely knew she deserved better than Rawdon, but only if she hadn't treated Rawdon Junior like she did), but alas, she had to be at the end of one extreme, and although she's not as trapped within patriarchal constructs as other Victorian women, she remained but an insensitive and indifferent woman.
Thackeray impeccably impress on the reader the futility of Vanity Fair but he does not underestimate its values either. He admits that roast beef is good, although it vanishes like all pleasures of Vanity Fair. It's all about money and false values. But the theme of poverty and old age was what made me feel touched by the story. I probably wouldn't have felt so strongly about it if it were not for the cruelty of these that was perfectly put in words by Thackeray.
To conclude, it was indeed a masterpiece, and I loved it.
Loved the first third, the rest dragged on and on....!
This is a 1840's 1850's lampoon of British society. As such the humor is even drier than present Brit humor. I like dry black humor so I found this work amusing and at times funny. I could not but catch myself smiling at the jokes at the aristocracies expense. And, much to the chagrin of the folks at the library and my wife, I would laugh loudly at times. Even more interesting from a lessons learned point is that I read Vanity Fair while also reading Atlas Shrugged.
Reading both at the same time one wonders how so many people can take the latter as a blueprint for how to run a government. Now I still have 600 or so pages of Atlas Shrugged to read, but I already see major difference with Rand's work and Thackeray's. Thackeray writes of a world as it actually is. Warts and all, but how the world he lived in actually worked. The social climbing for promotion. The dinner parties that put you in debt but you don't pay and fob off the creditors with a promise and a smile. The back biting of society that can destroy a career or make it. A world where influence at court is more important at times than actual ability. This last part is especially important as Thackeray has several characters who will never rise above Captain or major since they have not the means of buying their commissions. How several characters loose all their money because of panic in the markets, but their friends who were insolated from the panic by the government or the throne lost nothing. These friends who survived by the governments grace then look down upon those who lost all and enjoy further humiliation of their former friends. All very accurate for the 1800's until the Great War.
Now contrast this accurate vignette of British life with Rand's work. Nothing in Atlas Shrugged actually exists so far as I can see. Absolutely nothing. Wile the GOP claims that Democrats have left us with a state similar to the U.S. in Rand's fantasy. Unless laws have been passed limiting profit, who each corporation will employ, or get their materials from, or how much of each unworked product must be sold to each manufacture regardless of what the company makes, or how much each producer of raw materials must sell to each producer of raw uncut product, or which mode of transport each product must move by; unless these laws were passed last night while I slept Ms. Rand's world is pure fantasy. No laws have been passed that limit the ability of any person or corporation to make, sell, profit by, employ, or other wise work towards an Atlas world. I will not make any comment about an Atlas world until I have completed Ms. Rand's work but comparing her unreality to Thackeray's reality, albeit Lampooned reality, Thackeray's work is a much better start point as to what is/was wrong with how Government functions than Rand's.
You don't have to read Vanity Fair along side Atlas Shrugged, but if Vanity Fair is not on your reading list you do need to add it. Thackeray's work is that good a funny in a dry British way.
Reading both at the same time one wonders how so many people can take the latter as a blueprint for how to run a government. Now I still have 600 or so pages of Atlas Shrugged to read, but I already see major difference with Rand's work and Thackeray's. Thackeray writes of a world as it actually is. Warts and all, but how the world he lived in actually worked. The social climbing for promotion. The dinner parties that put you in debt but you don't pay and fob off the creditors with a promise and a smile. The back biting of society that can destroy a career or make it. A world where influence at court is more important at times than actual ability. This last part is especially important as Thackeray has several characters who will never rise above Captain or major since they have not the means of buying their commissions. How several characters loose all their money because of panic in the markets, but their friends who were insolated from the panic by the government or the throne lost nothing. These friends who survived by the governments grace then look down upon those who lost all and enjoy further humiliation of their former friends. All very accurate for the 1800's until the Great War.
Now contrast this accurate vignette of British life with Rand's work. Nothing in Atlas Shrugged actually exists so far as I can see. Absolutely nothing. Wile the GOP claims that Democrats have left us with a state similar to the U.S. in Rand's fantasy. Unless laws have been passed limiting profit, who each corporation will employ, or get their materials from, or how much of each unworked product must be sold to each manufacture regardless of what the company makes, or how much each producer of raw materials must sell to each producer of raw uncut product, or which mode of transport each product must move by; unless these laws were passed last night while I slept Ms. Rand's world is pure fantasy. No laws have been passed that limit the ability of any person or corporation to make, sell, profit by, employ, or other wise work towards an Atlas world. I will not make any comment about an Atlas world until I have completed Ms. Rand's work but comparing her unreality to Thackeray's reality, albeit Lampooned reality, Thackeray's work is a much better start point as to what is/was wrong with how Government functions than Rand's.
You don't have to read Vanity Fair along side Atlas Shrugged, but if Vanity Fair is not on your reading list you do need to add it. Thackeray's work is that good a funny in a dry British way.
3.5*
The first half of Vanity Fair is actually good. Like, would read again. "What happens after the half way mark" I hear you ask? Nothing, mate. Absolutely bloody nothing. Which, for 400 pages is a lot of nothing. There are so many characters, all of which are half-developed, so that the plot dissolves into a tale of tepid upper-class monotony. Bit harsh maybe. The first half is really good though - if Thackeray stopped at 400 pages it would've made the novel so much better.
The first half of Vanity Fair is actually good. Like, would read again. "What happens after the half way mark" I hear you ask? Nothing, mate. Absolutely bloody nothing. Which, for 400 pages is a lot of nothing. There are so many characters, all of which are half-developed, so that the plot dissolves into a tale of tepid upper-class monotony. Bit harsh maybe. The first half is really good though - if Thackeray stopped at 400 pages it would've made the novel so much better.
I’m not really sure what to think of this novel. The audiobook version which I listened to was abridged, yet still felt long-drawn. One bonus though, is that it was narrated by Robert Hardy, a.k.a. Cornelius Fudge.
It felt like nothing really happened. The story followed the lives of a set of people, but it didn’t feel like it had a plot - more like several plots, which didn’t even intertwine in an interesting way. At times I felt like there were too many characters, and I had a hard time differentiating between different characters and their plot lines. It all got jumbled up.
I did enjoy the slightly humoristic/sarcastic writing style, and some characters were very well written.
To sum up; not a boring novel, but not a very interesting one either.
It felt like nothing really happened. The story followed the lives of a set of people, but it didn’t feel like it had a plot - more like several plots, which didn’t even intertwine in an interesting way. At times I felt like there were too many characters, and I had a hard time differentiating between different characters and their plot lines. It all got jumbled up.
I did enjoy the slightly humoristic/sarcastic writing style, and some characters were very well written.
To sum up; not a boring novel, but not a very interesting one either.