Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.4 AVERAGE
3.4 AVERAGE
I love this book I thought it was great, well written and did a perfect job of competing the characters. I think this book is one of my favorite classics and it’s just lovely.
Am început să citesc romanul și prima jumătate a fost atât de frumoasă - conturarea personajelor, a lumii în care trăiesc și soarta unei femei care se trezește cu un soț neiubit și copii de crescut - toate acestea au avut potențial.
Însă a doua jumătate a cărții mi-a displăcut profund. Poate am citit romanul mult prea târziu, poate nu în momentul potrivit; dar imaginea doamnei Morel, o imagine atât de promițătoare la început, s-a spulberat în clipa în care băieții ei au devenit adulți.
Dacă Will a fost un tânăr cu un viitor strălucit, plin de uși deschise, moartea acestuia a dus la destrămarea familiei, nu înainte de a se întrevedea, între Will și mama, o relație care cu siguranță ar fi ajuns să-l distrugă oricum. Dispariția peersonajului, după ce i-a fost construită povestea atât de bine, m-a derutat.
Apoi, Paul, un personaj pe care nu am putut să-l plac sub nicio formă: incapacitatea de a lua o decizie concretă, obsesia pentru ce va spune mama, cum va spune mama, mama, mama, mama, egoismul mascat prin intermediul căruia le supune pe cele două iubite din viața sa - Miriam și Clara - la niște trăiri pe care ele nu le merită. Paul e un băiețel căruia îi este frică să o supere pe mama și implicit, să-și trăiescă viața, să decidă el pentru el ce e bine și ce nu e, să își caute fericirea altundeva. Și mai e și relația lui cu Baxter, soțul Clarei - o relație atât de stranie, care seamănă mai mult cu o încercare de a fi altcineva, dar într-o direcție greșită.
Paul și mama sunt personajele care mi-au stricat toată pofta lecturii, pentru că relația lor sufocantă, aflată undeva la limita incestului, nu a făcut nimic altceva decât să-mi potențeze nemulțumirile legate de acțiune și modul în care sunt tratate celelalte personaje. Miriam, la rândul său, e o ființă mult prea îndepărtată de realitate, iar Clara e femeia care are o gândire pragmatică, fără a se sinchisi prea mult de faptul că își disprețuiește soțul și, implicit, alegerea.
Personajul care mi-a plăcut a fost tatăl, domnul Morel. Dintre toate, a fost singurul pe care am putut să-l văd așa cum este: sincer, mizerabil, indiferent, egoist, dar fără a purta masca fățărniciei. Un personaj bine reprezentat și care nu a suferit schimbări drastice ale personalității pe parcursul romanului, în urma vreunui eveniment mai mult sau mai puțin important.
Însă a doua jumătate a cărții mi-a displăcut profund. Poate am citit romanul mult prea târziu, poate nu în momentul potrivit; dar imaginea doamnei Morel, o imagine atât de promițătoare la început, s-a spulberat în clipa în care băieții ei au devenit adulți.
Dacă Will a fost un tânăr cu un viitor strălucit, plin de uși deschise, moartea acestuia a dus la destrămarea familiei, nu înainte de a se întrevedea, între Will și mama, o relație care cu siguranță ar fi ajuns să-l distrugă oricum. Dispariția peersonajului, după ce i-a fost construită povestea atât de bine, m-a derutat.
Apoi, Paul, un personaj pe care nu am putut să-l plac sub nicio formă: incapacitatea de a lua o decizie concretă, obsesia pentru ce va spune mama, cum va spune mama, mama, mama, mama, egoismul mascat prin intermediul căruia le supune pe cele două iubite din viața sa - Miriam și Clara - la niște trăiri pe care ele nu le merită. Paul e un băiețel căruia îi este frică să o supere pe mama și implicit, să-și trăiescă viața, să decidă el pentru el ce e bine și ce nu e, să își caute fericirea altundeva. Și mai e și relația lui cu Baxter, soțul Clarei - o relație atât de stranie, care seamănă mai mult cu o încercare de a fi altcineva, dar într-o direcție greșită.
Paul și mama sunt personajele care mi-au stricat toată pofta lecturii, pentru că relația lor sufocantă, aflată undeva la limita incestului, nu a făcut nimic altceva decât să-mi potențeze nemulțumirile legate de acțiune și modul în care sunt tratate celelalte personaje. Miriam, la rândul său, e o ființă mult prea îndepărtată de realitate, iar Clara e femeia care are o gândire pragmatică, fără a se sinchisi prea mult de faptul că își disprețuiește soțul și, implicit, alegerea.
Personajul care mi-a plăcut a fost tatăl, domnul Morel. Dintre toate, a fost singurul pe care am putut să-l văd așa cum este: sincer, mizerabil, indiferent, egoist, dar fără a purta masca fățărniciei. Un personaj bine reprezentat și care nu a suferit schimbări drastice ale personalității pe parcursul romanului, în urma vreunui eveniment mai mult sau mai puțin important.
I would love to do a psychological study of the characters in this book because whew, the trauma, the mental illness, the manipulation. The very unfortunate mother-son relationships! It was quite a tome, even for an audiobook. Overall I enjoyed it, when I could keep all of the characters in line - with all of the women being Very Flawed and A Little Intolerable, it was hard to tell them apart sometimes.
While I was reading this, I kept thinking it was a solid 3. It had some good moments and a lot of not so good moments and a lot of just plain weird stuff happened. I thought that the language was often too flowery and the book went on far too many tangents talking about the beauty of flowers and man's place in the universe. And don't get me started on Walter Morel's obscure dialect! I had no idea what he was saying half the time. (And yeah, there was a handy glossary of dialect forms at the back of the book but I didn't discover it until page 440 - too late to do any good. I still have no idea what that character said when he spoke.)
It sounds like I didn't like it, based on that, doesn't it?
Well the book accurately portrays a man of stunted development and a serious Oedipal complex that keeps him from having meaningful relationships with women (though he does try to have meaningful relationships).
But what pushed me from a 3 to a 4 was the last paragraph of the book. Rather than be brought down by tragedy, Paul chooses to overcome it and it seemed to end on a hopeful note. (Maybe I'm an optimist, but it seemed that way to me.)
Not an easy read, but worth it in the end. Much of the book is very depressing though.
It sounds like I didn't like it, based on that, doesn't it?
Well the book accurately portrays a man of stunted development and a serious Oedipal complex that keeps him from having meaningful relationships with women (though he does try to have meaningful relationships).
But what pushed me from a 3 to a 4 was the last paragraph of the book. Rather than be brought down by tragedy, Paul chooses to overcome it and it seemed to end on a hopeful note. (Maybe I'm an optimist, but it seemed that way to me.)
Not an easy read, but worth it in the end. Much of the book is very depressing though.
There were moments where I COULD NOT put down the book, but at the same time, there were many parts that were very repetitive. It’s a great book though.
WELL I FINALLY DID IT YALL. I finished the book after almost four months of on and off reading. Get ready for my essay because I have so much to say and I'm gonna give myself a main character moment right now. Also please someone read this book so I can talk about it in a discussion lol. AND THIS HAS SPOILERS
Although it might not seem like it given the amount of time it took me to read through the book, it honestly was engaging from start to end and never failed to surprise me, especially the second part of the novel. I was scrolling through reviews after I finished, and I found this quote that someone cited as a review of the novel in 1913.
"Indeed, you do not realize how astonishingly interesting the whole book is until you find yourself protesting that this thing or that bores you, and eagerly reading on in spite of your protestations...You think you are reading through an unimportant scene; and then find that it has burnt itself on your mind."
OKAY SPOILER BEGINNING WARNING
I think that this quote perfectly summarizes what it feels like to read Sons and Lovers. Overall, I really loved this book, but I completely recognize why some would argue that this book is a waste of time. (Spoiler alert - Paul turns out to be the worst kind of sexist where he thinks that he's not sexist and treats women well because he learned everything from his mother and doesn't hit or ignore women like his father.) Yet, I don't think that Lawrence's intention is to publicly make it known that he and Paul are in fact sharing the same opinion, even though the book is supposedly semi autobiographical. Instead, I think he's emphasizing the toxicity of the Morel family and resulting tragedy of Mrs. Morel's obsessive love for Paul. As the book progresses, Paul (in my opinion) continues to evolve into the same persona of his father (he is even addressed as Morel towards the end instead of Paul), showing that his proper dialect and his 'refined' taste for painting hasn't saved him from hurting the women closest to him. The only redemption in Gertrude's eyes is that, unlike her husband, his soul belongs completely to her and her will, so therefore she must have succeeded in raising a family that would never carry the traces of her abusive husband. Unfortunately, this ignites this destructive restlessness in Paul, that ultimately only his mother can emotionally provide.
Nonetheless, the main reason I loved this book was because, like many of my favorite classics, it shows how (good or bad), human nature remains the same. I literally laughed at how ENTIRE passages could be found in a Jojo Myers book if you tweaked some of the language here and there. This quality really shined through both Miriam and Clara's separate relationships with Paul.
Firstly, Miriam's struggle in her decision to "sacrifice" her virginity to Paul in order to validate their relationship beyond the emotional/intellectual realm. This was such a surprise as a reader, because she's constantly characterized in the beginning as a meek and ardently religious woman, and contrary to the doctrine of the church, sex isn't the stereotypical union of 'souls' like she wholeheartedly believes. Rather, it becomes a necessary physical act to further their relationship. She already knows that she 'dominates' Paul emotionally without the component of sex, the very reason Paul hates her, so she reasons that sex will pay off as a display that she has it in her to submit her control over his soul. This torturous give and take in their relationship was (painfully) amazing to observe as a reader and heightened when Paul broke up with her (and the breakup scene could be part of any contemporary romance novel, tbh).
Then, in Paul's relationship with Clara, he believes he's completely in love with her, when in reality he is more in love with the idea of dominating her as this noble and dignified woman(makes more sense in the book). She, as a separated wife and adamant/reserved suffragette seems like the antithesis to Paul, but of course she falls completely in love with him. This time, they begin having sex pretty much immediately in their relationship, only for Clara to come to bleak realization that Paul only loves her the most at night and never shows his affection outwardly as he did in the beginning of the relationship before they had sex. Although this was all heartbreaking to read, you have to admire Lawrence's ironic twist of the independent suffragette loving the most internal sexist of all, Paul, and completely submitting to him, while Miriam (the stereotypically meek and 'plain Jane') had complete domination over his soul. Furthermore, the fact that sex is only physical in Miriam + Paul's relationship, and then functions as the only emotional respite for Clara and Paul is just perfectly (in a very perverse/destructive way) ironic. I really didn't expect sex to be a central theme in this book since extramarital sex was so taboo at the time, but this is exactly the reason I love this book. Lawrence shows that people are literally the same then as they are now. I mean tropes have to start somewhere, and Sons and Lovers has plenty of them.
The entirety of this book, for me, was about me trying to choose whether Paul would go to Clara or Miriam. That's what I thought was the premise of the book, but of course his mother persists as really the only love he could ever have. I truly thought that the book would end with either the heartbreak of Clara or Miriam, but in reality, the heartbreak lies in Paul. Everything falls apart all because of the love between Gertrude and Paul, and he warps into the person he despises, his father, especially after Gertrude's death. He loses his ability to paint, to express himself intellectually, his drive at work, begins to drink, and realizes that he will never happily have either Clara or Miriam. All this time, his soul ultimately belonged to his mother, hilarious considering that the root of all of his romantic relationships were because he wanted his partner to belong to him in every sense of the word. In the end, he belongs to Gertrude alone, and he lives the emotional turmoil that she didn't want for him, while also always remaining loyal to her as she desired.
Thanks for attending my Ted Talk. Please someone read the book so all of the garbage essay makes some sense :)
Although it might not seem like it given the amount of time it took me to read through the book, it honestly was engaging from start to end and never failed to surprise me, especially the second part of the novel. I was scrolling through reviews after I finished, and I found this quote that someone cited as a review of the novel in 1913.
"Indeed, you do not realize how astonishingly interesting the whole book is until you find yourself protesting that this thing or that bores you, and eagerly reading on in spite of your protestations...You think you are reading through an unimportant scene; and then find that it has burnt itself on your mind."
OKAY SPOILER BEGINNING WARNING
I think that this quote perfectly summarizes what it feels like to read Sons and Lovers. Overall, I really loved this book, but I completely recognize why some would argue that this book is a waste of time. (Spoiler alert - Paul turns out to be the worst kind of sexist where he thinks that he's not sexist and treats women well because he learned everything from his mother and doesn't hit or ignore women like his father.) Yet, I don't think that Lawrence's intention is to publicly make it known that he and Paul are in fact sharing the same opinion, even though the book is supposedly semi autobiographical. Instead, I think he's emphasizing the toxicity of the Morel family and resulting tragedy of Mrs. Morel's obsessive love for Paul. As the book progresses, Paul (in my opinion) continues to evolve into the same persona of his father (he is even addressed as Morel towards the end instead of Paul), showing that his proper dialect and his 'refined' taste for painting hasn't saved him from hurting the women closest to him. The only redemption in Gertrude's eyes is that, unlike her husband, his soul belongs completely to her and her will, so therefore she must have succeeded in raising a family that would never carry the traces of her abusive husband. Unfortunately, this ignites this destructive restlessness in Paul, that ultimately only his mother can emotionally provide.
Nonetheless, the main reason I loved this book was because, like many of my favorite classics, it shows how (good or bad), human nature remains the same. I literally laughed at how ENTIRE passages could be found in a Jojo Myers book if you tweaked some of the language here and there. This quality really shined through both Miriam and Clara's separate relationships with Paul.
Firstly, Miriam's struggle in her decision to "sacrifice" her virginity to Paul in order to validate their relationship beyond the emotional/intellectual realm. This was such a surprise as a reader, because she's constantly characterized in the beginning as a meek and ardently religious woman, and contrary to the doctrine of the church, sex isn't the stereotypical union of 'souls' like she wholeheartedly believes. Rather, it becomes a necessary physical act to further their relationship. She already knows that she 'dominates' Paul emotionally without the component of sex, the very reason Paul hates her, so she reasons that sex will pay off as a display that she has it in her to submit her control over his soul. This torturous give and take in their relationship was (painfully) amazing to observe as a reader and heightened when Paul broke up with her (and the breakup scene could be part of any contemporary romance novel, tbh).
Then, in Paul's relationship with Clara, he believes he's completely in love with her, when in reality he is more in love with the idea of dominating her as this noble and dignified woman(makes more sense in the book). She, as a separated wife and adamant/reserved suffragette seems like the antithesis to Paul, but of course she falls completely in love with him. This time, they begin having sex pretty much immediately in their relationship, only for Clara to come to bleak realization that Paul only loves her the most at night and never shows his affection outwardly as he did in the beginning of the relationship before they had sex. Although this was all heartbreaking to read, you have to admire Lawrence's ironic twist of the independent suffragette loving the most internal sexist of all, Paul, and completely submitting to him, while Miriam (the stereotypically meek and 'plain Jane') had complete domination over his soul. Furthermore, the fact that sex is only physical in Miriam + Paul's relationship, and then functions as the only emotional respite for Clara and Paul is just perfectly (in a very perverse/destructive way) ironic. I really didn't expect sex to be a central theme in this book since extramarital sex was so taboo at the time, but this is exactly the reason I love this book. Lawrence shows that people are literally the same then as they are now. I mean tropes have to start somewhere, and Sons and Lovers has plenty of them.
The entirety of this book, for me, was about me trying to choose whether Paul would go to Clara or Miriam. That's what I thought was the premise of the book, but of course his mother persists as really the only love he could ever have. I truly thought that the book would end with either the heartbreak of Clara or Miriam, but in reality, the heartbreak lies in Paul. Everything falls apart all because of the love between Gertrude and Paul, and he warps into the person he despises, his father, especially after Gertrude's death. He loses his ability to paint, to express himself intellectually, his drive at work, begins to drink, and realizes that he will never happily have either Clara or Miriam. All this time, his soul ultimately belonged to his mother, hilarious considering that the root of all of his romantic relationships were because he wanted his partner to belong to him in every sense of the word. In the end, he belongs to Gertrude alone, and he lives the emotional turmoil that she didn't want for him, while also always remaining loyal to her as she desired.
Thanks for attending my Ted Talk. Please someone read the book so all of the garbage essay makes some sense :)
To him now life seemed a shadow, day a white shadow, night, and death, and stillness, and inaction, this seemed like being. To be alive, to be urgent, and insistent, that was not-to-be. The highest of all was, to melt out into the darkness and sway there, identified with the great Being.
This book moved very slowly at times and there's a lot. There's so much that I don't know. There is a significance in nature, something greater than our individual selves. Colorful. And darkness. And there's love too, but that seems to be inconclusive so far...
someone pls help me
This book moved very slowly at times and there's a lot. There's so much that I don't know. There is a significance in nature, something greater than our individual selves. Colorful. And darkness. And there's love too, but that seems to be inconclusive so far...
someone pls help me
challenging
reflective
sad
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
