Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.65 AVERAGE
3.65 AVERAGE
This satirical book was quite funny in places, and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Interesting that Becky's callous gold-digger attitude was obviously detrimental to those around her, but Amelia's oblivious trodding over Dobbin's heart during her obsession with George is almost more hurtful, even though she's always described as so sweet.
adventurous
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-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
It took me a good while to read but it was magnificent.
Sometimes good things come for those who wait. That's how I feel about reading Thackeray's Vanity Fair. It took me nearly five months to plow through its pages, but it was very worth it. Vanity Fair follows the lives of Becky Sharpe and Amelia Sedley, two young ladies attempting to find their way in Victorian society. For Becky Sharpe, an orphan without a pedigree, she uses her conniving wit and deceit to survive and thrive in society. Meanwhile, Amelia is the typical Victorian damsel-in-distress awaiting her "George" in shining armour.
Most people tend to shrink at the size of a Victorian novel. As my prof says, they are door stoppers, and I can attest, Vanity Fair makes an excellent door stopper. Vanity Fair is also hilarious and apt to give the most serious person a fit of chuckles.
I would recommend reading a few Victorian novels before tackling this monster-of-a-book in order to have a full appreciation for the humour.
Most people tend to shrink at the size of a Victorian novel. As my prof says, they are door stoppers, and I can attest, Vanity Fair makes an excellent door stopper. Vanity Fair is also hilarious and apt to give the most serious person a fit of chuckles.
I would recommend reading a few Victorian novels before tackling this monster-of-a-book in order to have a full appreciation for the humour.
funny
lighthearted
mysterious
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
medium-paced
I do not believe this work would be included in the literary canon were it not for its period relevance and critique of 'substandard' literature. It is fine, but it is predicated on historical context that seems a little foolish to the modern reader. That being said, I wrote about how I thought Prey by Michael Crichton was trash like an hour ago, so maybe elitism is the hallmark of a literature snob and Vanity Fair is a transcendent masterpiece.
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
200 Pages In:
This is a BIG book. I remember picking it up a few years ago and losing steam around page 70, but it is so clearly one of the great masterpieces of English literature that I decided to read it again. I'm glad I've allowed myself to sink into it this time. For readers not used to Victorian novels, the language can be a bit too flowery (and therefore somewhat jarring), but it's something you can get used to with practice. If you can get past that, Thackeray is truly a master of satire, sarcasm, and characterization.
The themes in this book are timeless. This is perhaps not such a great thing, since Thackeray's view of humanity is decidedly dark. Most of his characters will choose money over happiness or "doing the right thing"; the more benign characters are generally unintelligent and place their faith in the least reliable people. This probably reflects Thackeray's life experience. The Wikipedia entry about him certainly doesn't tell the story of a happy, cozy life, and my understanding is he behaved quite a bit like the elderly Miss Crawley in his old age (read the book to figure out what that means).
I also think the contrast between Amelia Sedley and Becky Sharp is absolutely brilliant. Now that I am about at page 200, it seems that Amelia's and Becky's lives will run roughly parallel to each other throughout the novel. Yet, one of them is characterized as an absolute villainess while the other is supposed to be shallow but not particularly evil. The question I've begun to ask (and I think Thackeray wants me to ask) is why society, and the author, would judge two women who ultimately make pretty similar decisions so differently. Certainly, there are differences in the two women's characters, but social class, family support, and early life histories play a major role. More thoughts on this when I finish the book.
NOW THAT I'M FINISHED
I finally finished... four months later! (or three years, if you count my first try at getting through this one). So many thoughts about this book, and many of them are different now than when I was at page 200. Once I got to page 400, the novel became so unremittingly dark that I could only do a chapter or two a night, and this even when Thackeray was humorous. I think instead of writing a review, I'll just go by themes I felt were important in this book, as well as where I take issue with Thackeray's view of humanity.
REDEMPTION: I think one of the most depressing things about this novel is that it, although some of the characters change and grow as people, it is generally too little too late. Let's look at how this plays out with multiple characters:
George Osborne: He is an insipid, vain, and shallow person for the first 100 pages or so. He is then lucky enough to marry a woman who is completely devoted to him and decides that he would rather chase after someone else. He figures out that maybe he should love his wife, and then... he dies with his face in the dirt one day later.
Mr. Osborne: He is a horrible friend to Mr. Sedley, disowns his son and never has a chance to reconcile, and is bitter and crotchety for much of the novel. He decides to redeem himself by wrenching George Osborne, Jr. from his mother and spoiling him worse than he did his own son. At the end of his life, he wants to reconcile with Amelia but dies before he is able to tell her in person.
Rawdon Crawley: He is essentially a profligate gambler (and murderer if we count his dueling history), kind of an idiot, and totally irresponsible. He does, however, become a devoted father and loves his wife. He ultimately does get the opportunity to make a (sort of) honest living but this involves being exiled to an island in the middle of nowhere and discovering (I'm going to believe that he was not involved in this) that his wife was cheating on him.
Dobbin: After following Amelia around like a puppy dog for 18 years and being constantly put down and rejected, Dobbin finally realizes she doesn't deserve him. SO HE GOES AND MARRIES HER ANYWAY.
This is probably the most spectacular example of this pattern in the whole book. I'm still debating whether it is the most depressing. What is perhaps more depressing is that other characters in the book really don't grow or change at all. Which brings me to topic #2:
DEATH: People generally die pretty miserably in this book. They tend to be surrounded by people, but, for the most part, those people are trying to speed them along to their graves so they can get their money.
I think it is interesting that Becky Sharp is accused of murdering Jos at the end of the book when Pitt Crawley, Sr. and Aunt Crawley appear to have died in similar circumstances (and yet, the relatives are considered to be perfectly respectable in those cases). I'm assuming Thackeray noticed this and was trying to make a point.
The only person who dies in a sort of okay way is Mr. Sedley. He is able to reconcile with his son and daughter and is at least pretty comfortable. Of course, before he dies he loses his entire fortune and all his friends and lives in penury for about 15 years. He also makes his daughter miserable. But, really, who's keeping track?
Speaking of daughters, let's talk about:
WOMEN: It is hard for me to know how much Thackeray buys into Victorian ideals about women and how much he is trying to criticize them. On some level, I wonder if he was confused about the same issue. Amelia, in many ways, represents the Victorian ideal. She is asexual, passive, a thoroughly devoted mother, and she mourns her husband FOREVER. It is because a character like Amelia was so glamorized in the Woman in White that I dropped that book. Thackeray is different here in that he portrays Amelia as nice in some ways, but as wimpy, selfish, and, ultimately, not very good as either a wife or a mother. While Amelia is a complex character, I think Thackeray had pretty clear feelings about her (namely, that he didn't like her very much).
Becky is, of course, the opposite of the Victorian ideal. She is ambitious, unscrupulous, smart, and aggressive. And, unlike with Amelia, I think Thackeray was more muddled in his feelings about her. Becky does a lot of terrible things in the book: she is a horrific mother, she almost certainly cheats on her husband, and, while I don't believe she exactly murdered Jos Sedley, I do think she contributed to him dying sooner than he would have otherwise. Yet, Becky is also one of only two characters in the book who is intelligent and who perceives reality with any sort of clarity (the other one is Dobbin). She also has softer feelings; she clearly has some lingering affection for Rawdon, she does a good turn by Amelia, and she is good enough at care-taking that I have to believe there is some genuine element to some of her solicitousness.
So why do I think Thackeray is muddled in his feelings about Becky? Because she is the one character in this book who has a significant glitch in her characterization. One of the things that Thackeray is supremely good at is making everyone's actions make sense in terms of their character, even when you really wish they would do something different. And, with Becky, it makes complete sense why does most of the stuff that she does, including cheating on her husband and kinda sorta murdering someone. But why is she such an indifferent and uncaring mother?
Becky is clearly capable of some warmth and affection (although it is limited and often connected with her self-interest). She also appreciates honesty in others, even when it turns things against her (like with Dobbin at the end). So why does she completely neglect her own son? Thackeray never really goes into this and never reveals Becky's internal monologue about her own child, even though he at times shows us glimpses about what she is thinking about other things.
The best explanation I can come up with is that it is probable that Becky was sexually abused as a child (given that her father was constantly drunk, she was expected to help him pay off his debts, and she was constantly around older men), and that this has left her unable to connect or attach with her baby or anyone else. There is a part of me that even wonders if she is happy that little Rawdon goes to live with Lady Jane because this ultimately protects him from her. This is, of course, something that would have been historically very difficult for an upper middle class Victorian man to write about or understand, and so we get the character that we get. And that is a character, who, unlike everyone else in the book, has some inconsistencies.
To continue on the topic of women, I think it is also interesting to think about how limited Becky's and Amelia's options were at the time this book was written. Both women end up being completely dependent on the men in their lives to make their fortunes. While Becky is generally smarter than the men she meets, she ends up tying her lot to some very unreliable ones. Amelia, on the other hand, is a complete idiot but ends up doing okay because she is lucky enough to catch a smart, decent guy. One wonders how this whole story would be different in a world in which each woman had the opportunity to truly fend for herself (actually, I think we know the story would have been much more favorable to Becky in that case).
So... that pretty much summarizes my thoughts about Vanity Fair. I am glad I finally stuck through this book, and it has certainly made me think a lot. I just wish Thackeray liked people more, but I guess you can't have everything.
This is a BIG book. I remember picking it up a few years ago and losing steam around page 70, but it is so clearly one of the great masterpieces of English literature that I decided to read it again. I'm glad I've allowed myself to sink into it this time. For readers not used to Victorian novels, the language can be a bit too flowery (and therefore somewhat jarring), but it's something you can get used to with practice. If you can get past that, Thackeray is truly a master of satire, sarcasm, and characterization.
The themes in this book are timeless. This is perhaps not such a great thing, since Thackeray's view of humanity is decidedly dark. Most of his characters will choose money over happiness or "doing the right thing"; the more benign characters are generally unintelligent and place their faith in the least reliable people. This probably reflects Thackeray's life experience. The Wikipedia entry about him certainly doesn't tell the story of a happy, cozy life, and my understanding is he behaved quite a bit like the elderly Miss Crawley in his old age (read the book to figure out what that means).
I also think the contrast between Amelia Sedley and Becky Sharp is absolutely brilliant. Now that I am about at page 200, it seems that Amelia's and Becky's lives will run roughly parallel to each other throughout the novel. Yet, one of them is characterized as an absolute villainess while the other is supposed to be shallow but not particularly evil. The question I've begun to ask (and I think Thackeray wants me to ask) is why society, and the author, would judge two women who ultimately make pretty similar decisions so differently. Certainly, there are differences in the two women's characters, but social class, family support, and early life histories play a major role. More thoughts on this when I finish the book.
NOW THAT I'M FINISHED
I finally finished... four months later! (or three years, if you count my first try at getting through this one). So many thoughts about this book, and many of them are different now than when I was at page 200. Once I got to page 400, the novel became so unremittingly dark that I could only do a chapter or two a night, and this even when Thackeray was humorous. I think instead of writing a review, I'll just go by themes I felt were important in this book, as well as where I take issue with Thackeray's view of humanity.
REDEMPTION: I think one of the most depressing things about this novel is that it, although some of the characters change and grow as people, it is generally too little too late. Let's look at how this plays out with multiple characters:
George Osborne: He is an insipid, vain, and shallow person for the first 100 pages or so. He is then lucky enough to marry a woman who is completely devoted to him and decides that he would rather chase after someone else. He figures out that maybe he should love his wife, and then... he dies with his face in the dirt one day later.
Mr. Osborne: He is a horrible friend to Mr. Sedley, disowns his son and never has a chance to reconcile, and is bitter and crotchety for much of the novel. He decides to redeem himself by wrenching George Osborne, Jr. from his mother and spoiling him worse than he did his own son. At the end of his life, he wants to reconcile with Amelia but dies before he is able to tell her in person.
Rawdon Crawley: He is essentially a profligate gambler (and murderer if we count his dueling history), kind of an idiot, and totally irresponsible. He does, however, become a devoted father and loves his wife. He ultimately does get the opportunity to make a (sort of) honest living but this involves being exiled to an island in the middle of nowhere and discovering (I'm going to believe that he was not involved in this) that his wife was cheating on him.
Dobbin: After following Amelia around like a puppy dog for 18 years and being constantly put down and rejected, Dobbin finally realizes she doesn't deserve him. SO HE GOES AND MARRIES HER ANYWAY.
This is probably the most spectacular example of this pattern in the whole book. I'm still debating whether it is the most depressing. What is perhaps more depressing is that other characters in the book really don't grow or change at all. Which brings me to topic #2:
DEATH: People generally die pretty miserably in this book. They tend to be surrounded by people, but, for the most part, those people are trying to speed them along to their graves so they can get their money.
I think it is interesting that Becky Sharp is accused of murdering Jos at the end of the book when Pitt Crawley, Sr. and Aunt Crawley appear to have died in similar circumstances (and yet, the relatives are considered to be perfectly respectable in those cases). I'm assuming Thackeray noticed this and was trying to make a point.
The only person who dies in a sort of okay way is Mr. Sedley. He is able to reconcile with his son and daughter and is at least pretty comfortable. Of course, before he dies he loses his entire fortune and all his friends and lives in penury for about 15 years. He also makes his daughter miserable. But, really, who's keeping track?
Speaking of daughters, let's talk about:
WOMEN: It is hard for me to know how much Thackeray buys into Victorian ideals about women and how much he is trying to criticize them. On some level, I wonder if he was confused about the same issue. Amelia, in many ways, represents the Victorian ideal. She is asexual, passive, a thoroughly devoted mother, and she mourns her husband FOREVER. It is because a character like Amelia was so glamorized in the Woman in White that I dropped that book. Thackeray is different here in that he portrays Amelia as nice in some ways, but as wimpy, selfish, and, ultimately, not very good as either a wife or a mother. While Amelia is a complex character, I think Thackeray had pretty clear feelings about her (namely, that he didn't like her very much).
Becky is, of course, the opposite of the Victorian ideal. She is ambitious, unscrupulous, smart, and aggressive. And, unlike with Amelia, I think Thackeray was more muddled in his feelings about her. Becky does a lot of terrible things in the book: she is a horrific mother, she almost certainly cheats on her husband, and, while I don't believe she exactly murdered Jos Sedley, I do think she contributed to him dying sooner than he would have otherwise. Yet, Becky is also one of only two characters in the book who is intelligent and who perceives reality with any sort of clarity (the other one is Dobbin). She also has softer feelings; she clearly has some lingering affection for Rawdon, she does a good turn by Amelia, and she is good enough at care-taking that I have to believe there is some genuine element to some of her solicitousness.
So why do I think Thackeray is muddled in his feelings about Becky? Because she is the one character in this book who has a significant glitch in her characterization. One of the things that Thackeray is supremely good at is making everyone's actions make sense in terms of their character, even when you really wish they would do something different. And, with Becky, it makes complete sense why does most of the stuff that she does, including cheating on her husband and kinda sorta murdering someone. But why is she such an indifferent and uncaring mother?
Becky is clearly capable of some warmth and affection (although it is limited and often connected with her self-interest). She also appreciates honesty in others, even when it turns things against her (like with Dobbin at the end). So why does she completely neglect her own son? Thackeray never really goes into this and never reveals Becky's internal monologue about her own child, even though he at times shows us glimpses about what she is thinking about other things.
The best explanation I can come up with is that it is probable that Becky was sexually abused as a child (given that her father was constantly drunk, she was expected to help him pay off his debts, and she was constantly around older men), and that this has left her unable to connect or attach with her baby or anyone else. There is a part of me that even wonders if she is happy that little Rawdon goes to live with Lady Jane because this ultimately protects him from her. This is, of course, something that would have been historically very difficult for an upper middle class Victorian man to write about or understand, and so we get the character that we get. And that is a character, who, unlike everyone else in the book, has some inconsistencies.
To continue on the topic of women, I think it is also interesting to think about how limited Becky's and Amelia's options were at the time this book was written. Both women end up being completely dependent on the men in their lives to make their fortunes. While Becky is generally smarter than the men she meets, she ends up tying her lot to some very unreliable ones. Amelia, on the other hand, is a complete idiot but ends up doing okay because she is lucky enough to catch a smart, decent guy. One wonders how this whole story would be different in a world in which each woman had the opportunity to truly fend for herself (actually, I think we know the story would have been much more favorable to Becky in that case).
So... that pretty much summarizes my thoughts about Vanity Fair. I am glad I finally stuck through this book, and it has certainly made me think a lot. I just wish Thackeray liked people more, but I guess you can't have everything.
emotional
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
slow-paced
challenging
funny
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This feels like an achievement. What a journey!!
The variety of mostly unlikeable characters was intriguing and the ending fairly satisfying.
These were some of my favourite commentary quotes.
"At any rate, never have any feelings which may make you uncomfortable, or make any promises which you cannot at any required moment command and withdraw. That is the way to get on , and be respected, and have a virtuous character in Vanity Fair."
"It is the pretty face which creates sympathy in the hearts of men , those wicked rogues. A woman may possess the wisdom and chastity of Minerva, and we give no heed to her if she has a plain face."
"You poor little earthenware pipkin, you want to swim down the stream along with the great copper kettles. All women are alike. Everybody is striving for what is not worth the having."
"As they say the persons who hate Irishmen most are Irishmen, so, assuredly, the greatest tyrants over women are women."
"That must be a strange feeling when a day of our life comes, and we say, "tomorrow, success or failure won't matter much; and the sun will rise, and all the myriads of mankind go to their work or their pleasure as usual, but I shall be out of the turmoil."
The variety of mostly unlikeable characters was intriguing and the ending fairly satisfying.
These were some of my favourite commentary quotes.
"At any rate, never have any feelings which may make you uncomfortable, or make any promises which you cannot at any required moment command and withdraw. That is the way to get on , and be respected, and have a virtuous character in Vanity Fair."
"It is the pretty face which creates sympathy in the hearts of men , those wicked rogues. A woman may possess the wisdom and chastity of Minerva, and we give no heed to her if she has a plain face."
"You poor little earthenware pipkin, you want to swim down the stream along with the great copper kettles. All women are alike. Everybody is striving for what is not worth the having."
"As they say the persons who hate Irishmen most are Irishmen, so, assuredly, the greatest tyrants over women are women."
"That must be a strange feeling when a day of our life comes, and we say, "tomorrow, success or failure won't matter much; and the sun will rise, and all the myriads of mankind go to their work or their pleasure as usual, but I shall be out of the turmoil."
When I was thirteen I made it a point of pride to refer to this author by all three of his names. Like a DJ thing, as if “Makepeace” was some over-the-top claim.
I would also feign confusion if someone referred to Vanity Fair as a magazine or anything other than a novel about Becky Sharpe.
In short, I was a uniquely insufferable teen, but I remember myself, and this book, fondly.
I would also feign confusion if someone referred to Vanity Fair as a magazine or anything other than a novel about Becky Sharpe.
In short, I was a uniquely insufferable teen, but I remember myself, and this book, fondly.