Scan barcode
mylogicisfuzzy's review against another edition
2.0
I probably read this too quickly and would have liked it more had I read it in instalments. Found it too light and even frivolous, which is somewhat bizarre as it deals with injustices and suffering so I just wanted to finish it. I think what bothered me the most are the underdeveloped characters and the fact that the novel wavered between sentimentality, satire and a critique of society but never quite achieving any of those purposes. Still, I can see why it was popular in the 18th C.
lnatal's review against another edition
3.0
Free download available at Project Gutenberg.
ADVERTISEMENT
There are an hundred faults in this Thing, and an hundred things might be said to prove them beauties. But it is needless. A book may be amusing with numerous errors, or it may be very dull without a single absurdity. The hero of this piece unites in himself the three greatest characters upon earth; he is a priest, an husbandman, and the father of a family. He is drawn as ready to teach, and ready to obey, as simple in affluence, and majestic in adversity. In this age of opulence and refinement whom can such a character please? Such as are fond of high life, will turn with disdain from the simplicity of his country fire-side. Such as mistake ribaldry for humour, will find no wit in his harmless conversation; and such as have been taught to deride religion, will laugh at one whose chief stores of comfort are drawn from futurity.
OLIVER GOLDSMITH
ADVERTISEMENT
There are an hundred faults in this Thing, and an hundred things might be said to prove them beauties. But it is needless. A book may be amusing with numerous errors, or it may be very dull without a single absurdity. The hero of this piece unites in himself the three greatest characters upon earth; he is a priest, an husbandman, and the father of a family. He is drawn as ready to teach, and ready to obey, as simple in affluence, and majestic in adversity. In this age of opulence and refinement whom can such a character please? Such as are fond of high life, will turn with disdain from the simplicity of his country fire-side. Such as mistake ribaldry for humour, will find no wit in his harmless conversation; and such as have been taught to deride religion, will laugh at one whose chief stores of comfort are drawn from futurity.
OLIVER GOLDSMITH
purpleflame's review against another edition
3.0
I had to read this for a uni course and I've got to say that, no, it's not one of the best I've read but it also isn't the worst. I have read a few books pertainig to the 18th century and I quite enjoyed this one compared to the others.
The plot is actually quite good though I sometimes found myself having to re-read paragraphs and others were just really a bore.
Like I always say, I hope my review doesn't hinder your expectations as what I dislike may become one of your favourite reads. All books deserve to be read once!
The plot is actually quite good though I sometimes found myself having to re-read paragraphs and others were just really a bore.
Like I always say, I hope my review doesn't hinder your expectations as what I dislike may become one of your favourite reads. All books deserve to be read once!
ninjamuse's review against another edition
3.0
In brief: The vicar of Wakefield has a pleasant life and family, but when a series of misfortunes strike, how will he provide for them? Specifically, how will he ever marry off his daughters now?
Thoughts: It’s probably best to go into this one with the same mindset as a stage comedy. Things just happen. Coincidences abound. The vicar almost gets his son married—but then a merchant runs off with his savings! He successfully sells his horse at market—to a conman! And so on and so forth. Which is not to say that I found any of that annoying, being used to novels where plot and theme are a bit tighter and more believable, because this is a satire, a comedy, and a 250-year-old novel, so my expectations were about on par. I didn’t even mind the wordiness or the fact that, when the vicar really gets going, I had to reread a page to figure out what he was saying. Also, the characters are more rounded than I thought they’d be!
I had fun reading this, in other words, though it’s not the best bit of 18th-century writing I’ve read. There’s a lot of parody and satire in it, from the small and domestic misfortunes that are treated as the end of the world to the vicar’s stubborn insistence on being kind and forgiving to everyone (including the aforementioned conman) to his views on marriage to the bit near the end where he’s sure he’s converting an entire jail but they’re making fun of him the whole time. I suspect there’s also a bit of parody in how quickly and randomly tragedy strikes, but I haven’t read any other sentimental novels so I can’t comment.
And yes, if you couldn’t tell from my summary, there are Austen vibes. (She must’ve read this. It was a bestseller and, well, let’s just say there are mistaken identities and a rake who’s taken for an honest man and the vicar reminded me a lot of Mr. Bennett at times.) That alone would make this worth reading, but it was enjoyable apart from that and I’m glad to have read it, and read it when I did so I could appreciate what Goldsmith was doing. I can totally picture it being read aloud in social settings with people tittering behind their fans and then debating the satire over sherry or embroidery.
Recced, but not fannishly. ‘Twas good and holds up, but is also not the best novel in the world.
Warnings: Period sexism. One scene with the g-slur describing a fortune teller. Several reports of comedic abduction.
7/10
Thoughts: It’s probably best to go into this one with the same mindset as a stage comedy. Things just happen. Coincidences abound. The vicar almost gets his son married—but then a merchant runs off with his savings! He successfully sells his horse at market—to a conman! And so on and so forth. Which is not to say that I found any of that annoying, being used to novels where plot and theme are a bit tighter and more believable, because this is a satire, a comedy, and a 250-year-old novel, so my expectations were about on par. I didn’t even mind the wordiness or the fact that, when the vicar really gets going, I had to reread a page to figure out what he was saying. Also, the characters are more rounded than I thought they’d be!
I had fun reading this, in other words, though it’s not the best bit of 18th-century writing I’ve read. There’s a lot of parody and satire in it, from the small and domestic misfortunes that are treated as the end of the world to the vicar’s stubborn insistence on being kind and forgiving to everyone (including the aforementioned conman) to his views on marriage to the bit near the end where he’s sure he’s converting an entire jail but they’re making fun of him the whole time. I suspect there’s also a bit of parody in how quickly and randomly tragedy strikes, but I haven’t read any other sentimental novels so I can’t comment.
And yes, if you couldn’t tell from my summary, there are Austen vibes. (She must’ve read this. It was a bestseller and, well, let’s just say there are mistaken identities and a rake who’s taken for an honest man and the vicar reminded me a lot of Mr. Bennett at times.) That alone would make this worth reading, but it was enjoyable apart from that and I’m glad to have read it, and read it when I did so I could appreciate what Goldsmith was doing. I can totally picture it being read aloud in social settings with people tittering behind their fans and then debating the satire over sherry or embroidery.
Recced, but not fannishly. ‘Twas good and holds up, but is also not the best novel in the world.
Warnings: Period sexism. One scene with the g-slur describing a fortune teller. Several reports of comedic abduction.
7/10
More...