Scan barcode
camazing's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
3.0
dhughes10's review
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.5
crh_hrc's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.25
jennylimmy's review against another edition
3.0
What to make of this strange, spare book? Barnes’s fascinating, almost hypnotic titular character reminds me strongly of teachers I have (platonically, worshipfully) adored. His narrator is an interesting vessel: he mentions two failed marriages and children, but never goes into details because they are not, to the narrator’s own mind, of actual interest to anybody except himself. Instead, a long section on Julian the Apostate, and a later addendum to the Juliana — is there more Julian than Elizabeth in this book? An interesting structure, not cohesive to me, though I believe that is the point.
kelbi's review against another edition
3.0
Too intellectual to be enjoyable and not very interesting
ciaochow's review against another edition
3.0
“From what I did and what I said, Let them not seek to find out who I was”
Part One was an intriguing introduction to the character of Elizabeth Finch. We know she is a lady who has interesting ideas and charm. Out of her wide reading, she divisively recommends people to read Hitler, says we must understand the ideas of our enemies - one that she links to the early Christian church and her fascination with Julian the Apostate. She encourages everyone to re-evaluate and reflect on history, religion and our world views; something I really appreciated.
Part Two was quite painful, and one I don’t think I saw coming (this is my first Julian Barnes novel). It is essentially a non-fiction chapter reviewing our posthumous memory of Julian the Apostate. I absorbed her/Neil’s anti-Christian - or rather anti-monotheism? Anti-monoculture? She seems to be conflating them into her conception of Christianity as a religion - ideas quickly and found them to be lacking from a critical point of view. We appreciate probing and skepticism, but the narrator/EF proves that they are historians, not theologians after all!
Part Three seemed like a satisfactory denouement. Barnes’ three part format becomes clear: parallels are drawn between the figure of EF introduced in Part One, and the history of Julian the Apostate as revised in Part Two. EF is as much of a myth as the history she criticised. She is mythologised in the imagination of her students, acknowledges the narrator and his fellow classmates - ultimately she is unknowable.
Several moments:
- EF believes that the row of the historian is to challenge historical narratives and correct them. Perhaps the sharp reader will notice that her anti-Christian (or was it monotheistic again? What’s the difference to her?) worldview is no alien to contemporary fiction? (Sally Rooney, for starters.)
- The Christian belief is ultimately not a theory of human virtue as it is often inferred throughout Part Two (but rather a history of divine grace). EF is right in saying Christians did not invent virtue, but the goal of the Christian is also not to simply be virtuous by human standards. I feel if this was addressed, the book would have looked quite different?
Phew!!! This may read like an unintelligible rant, but here are some thoughts I am noting down for myself to remember. I did not enjoy this book like I expected I would (I mean this is based off Anita Brookner!), although I could not put it down. An intriguing novel!!!!!
Part One was an intriguing introduction to the character of Elizabeth Finch. We know she is a lady who has interesting ideas and charm. Out of her wide reading, she divisively recommends people to read Hitler, says we must understand the ideas of our enemies - one that she links to the early Christian church and her fascination with Julian the Apostate. She encourages everyone to re-evaluate and reflect on history, religion and our world views; something I really appreciated.
Part Two was quite painful, and one I don’t think I saw coming (this is my first Julian Barnes novel). It is essentially a non-fiction chapter reviewing our posthumous memory of Julian the Apostate. I absorbed her/Neil’s anti-Christian - or rather anti-monotheism? Anti-monoculture? She seems to be conflating them into her conception of Christianity as a religion - ideas quickly and found them to be lacking from a critical point of view. We appreciate probing and skepticism, but the narrator/EF proves that they are historians, not theologians after all!
Part Three seemed like a satisfactory denouement. Barnes’ three part format becomes clear: parallels are drawn between the figure of EF introduced in Part One, and the history of Julian the Apostate as revised in Part Two. EF is as much of a myth as the history she criticised. She is mythologised in the imagination of her students, acknowledges the narrator and his fellow classmates - ultimately she is unknowable.
Several moments:
- EF believes that the row of the historian is to challenge historical narratives and correct them. Perhaps the sharp reader will notice that her anti-Christian (or was it monotheistic again? What’s the difference to her?) worldview is no alien to contemporary fiction? (Sally Rooney, for starters.)
- The Christian belief is ultimately not a theory of human virtue as it is often inferred throughout Part Two (but rather a history of divine grace). EF is right in saying Christians did not invent virtue, but the goal of the Christian is also not to simply be virtuous by human standards. I feel if this was addressed, the book would have looked quite different?
Phew!!! This may read like an unintelligible rant, but here are some thoughts I am noting down for myself to remember. I did not enjoy this book like I expected I would (I mean this is based off Anita Brookner!), although I could not put it down. An intriguing novel!!!!!
chloecherryblue's review against another edition
The start was great, the middle really slowed and shifted focus away from Elizabeth Finch to Julian which was incredibly dull. DNF
gorecki's review against another edition
3.0
At its core, Elizabeth Finch is about a teacher. An inspirational one at that and how some teachers unlock something in us that binds us to them for life. An appreciation we develop for them in our hearts and minds. But it’s also about her students, about teaching by making people read between the lines and figuring things out for themselves. Once I finished it, it reminded me of my literature classes in school where our literature teacher would ask us “what is the author trying to tell us?”, and in Barnes’ case - I’m not sure. I suppose it depends on how you read it. Is this an ode? Is this a fictional memoire? Is this a fictional biography? Is it a research paper?
I found Parts One and Three beautifully written in typical Barnes style - retrospective, looking at things in hindsight from various angles and dissecting the smallest observations: how someone doesn’t smoke, how they don’t move, how they don’t say something and by that tell you something.
Part Two was the section that threw me off for a while. I utterly enjoyed it’s topic and as someone who respects others’ religious beliefs but is still of the firm opinion that organised religion has caused humanity more damage than good, I found Barnes’ writing on the aggression, oppression, misleading and manipulation of early Christianity extremely satisfying and on point. But at the same time, I failed to find the connection between it and the other two parts of the book. Was it brilliant and educational on its own? Yes, yes it was. But would I have lost anything from the story if I’d omitted it? No, not at all.
Overall, a beautiful Barnes, erudite and deep as usual, but also vague and hard to put a finger on or decipher. I prefer to read it as an ode to a teacher. And a fictional memoire. And a fictionalised biography. And a research paper. And I might have missed the point of what the author is trying to say, but I found a few other points in it and I’m okay with that.
I found Parts One and Three beautifully written in typical Barnes style - retrospective, looking at things in hindsight from various angles and dissecting the smallest observations: how someone doesn’t smoke, how they don’t move, how they don’t say something and by that tell you something.
Part Two was the section that threw me off for a while. I utterly enjoyed it’s topic and as someone who respects others’ religious beliefs but is still of the firm opinion that organised religion has caused humanity more damage than good, I found Barnes’ writing on the aggression, oppression, misleading and manipulation of early Christianity extremely satisfying and on point. But at the same time, I failed to find the connection between it and the other two parts of the book. Was it brilliant and educational on its own? Yes, yes it was. But would I have lost anything from the story if I’d omitted it? No, not at all.
Overall, a beautiful Barnes, erudite and deep as usual, but also vague and hard to put a finger on or decipher. I prefer to read it as an ode to a teacher. And a fictional memoire. And a fictionalised biography. And a research paper. And I might have missed the point of what the author is trying to say, but I found a few other points in it and I’m okay with that.