Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.66 AVERAGE
3.66 AVERAGE
Great book about grief and choice. I’ve decided to walk back my bias against Henry James that I developed in High School, and now want to read his other novels. I love how he interjects as a narrator in his books. I’d recommend this book to anyone!
ALERT: THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW!
Goodreads asks what you learned from the book. Here are a few things I learned. (SPOILER ALERT):
1. I don't think marrying a guy who's poor counts as doing something "good" with your money.
2. If the guy you like demands complete and utter submission from his daughter, you might not want to marry him, because there's a good chance he'll expect it from his wife as well, especially if you live in the 19th C. I'm all for children having some discipline, but crushing a little girl's will doesn't make her charming; it's just sad. (Pansy Osborne was for me the most haunting character of the book -- I can't get her out of my head!)
3. If absolutely everyone you know is opposed to your marriage, I don't know, you might want to rethink it. (I mean, there are plenty of fathers who oppose marriages, and it seems ok to me to rebel against them, but this was different. The only literary exception I can think of is Anne Elliot; perhaps Isabel was thinking of her. )
I read the Penguin Classics version of this novel, and it had the worst introduction I can remember ever reading, by a scholar named Geoffrey Moore. This introduction was primarily plot summary supported by weak biographical criticism. But at one point, he writes the annoying but intriguing statement that Isabel is:
"perhaps the first feminist in English fiction (even though she achieves very little). I say this in full recognition of the Elizabeth Bennets, the Cathys, the Jane Eyres, the Becky Sharpes and the Dorothea Brookes, because, however independent they strive to be, they have little in common with Isabel. For one thing they do not have her (American) advantages, and for another they are not allowed to indulge -- as Isabel is, to an extreme degree -- in what Poe called 'ratiocination.'" (16).
Then, without further ado, Moore is back to plot summary, with no further discussion of this statement.
Ok, so first off, if you consider Cathy Earnshaw (I'm assume this is who he's talking about?) to be a feminist, you might be smoking crack, or at least have a distorted view of feminism. I don't know, you might call Wuthering Heights a feminist book for some reason, but Cathy a feminist? I don't think so. Ok, so besides that. Why is Isabel so different from these other characters, especially Dorothea? What the hell are American advantages??? I do think I understand this idea about ratiocination, since by all means Isabel does indulge quite a bit in rational thinking -- until she gets to the extremely freaking important question of her marriage to a guy everyone hates!! -- and James is certainly interested in indulging himself in documenting and explaining each tiny thought of his characters, especially Isabel, but I wonder why Moore claims this makes her more of a feminist. Particularly when compared with Dorothea. I mean, it seems to me quite clear that James was trying to out-Victorian George Eliot. I don't know that much at all about James, but Eliot is his obvious model, right? There were many times, actually, when I felt like I was reading Daniel Deronda without Daniel Deronda. Isabel is less spoiled than Gwendolyn, but their stories are similar otherwise, no? And Dorothea's desire to do good with her money turns out way better than Isabel's does!
Ok, my review is all over the place. But maybe someone who's interested in these questions wants to respond. In any case, I liked the novel very much, though I prefer Eliot, and Edith Wharton for that matter. My favorite character was Henrietta Stackpole, even though she was a little bit of a caricature, and the one that affected me most was Pansy Osborne, whom I hated but also worried about. I'm stilll worried about her.
Goodreads asks what you learned from the book. Here are a few things I learned. (SPOILER ALERT):
1. I don't think marrying a guy who's poor counts as doing something "good" with your money.
2. If the guy you like demands complete and utter submission from his daughter, you might not want to marry him, because there's a good chance he'll expect it from his wife as well, especially if you live in the 19th C. I'm all for children having some discipline, but crushing a little girl's will doesn't make her charming; it's just sad. (Pansy Osborne was for me the most haunting character of the book -- I can't get her out of my head!)
3. If absolutely everyone you know is opposed to your marriage, I don't know, you might want to rethink it. (I mean, there are plenty of fathers who oppose marriages, and it seems ok to me to rebel against them, but this was different. The only literary exception I can think of is Anne Elliot; perhaps Isabel was thinking of her. )
I read the Penguin Classics version of this novel, and it had the worst introduction I can remember ever reading, by a scholar named Geoffrey Moore. This introduction was primarily plot summary supported by weak biographical criticism. But at one point, he writes the annoying but intriguing statement that Isabel is:
"perhaps the first feminist in English fiction (even though she achieves very little). I say this in full recognition of the Elizabeth Bennets, the Cathys, the Jane Eyres, the Becky Sharpes and the Dorothea Brookes, because, however independent they strive to be, they have little in common with Isabel. For one thing they do not have her (American) advantages, and for another they are not allowed to indulge -- as Isabel is, to an extreme degree -- in what Poe called 'ratiocination.'" (16).
Then, without further ado, Moore is back to plot summary, with no further discussion of this statement.
Ok, so first off, if you consider Cathy Earnshaw (I'm assume this is who he's talking about?) to be a feminist, you might be smoking crack, or at least have a distorted view of feminism. I don't know, you might call Wuthering Heights a feminist book for some reason, but Cathy a feminist? I don't think so. Ok, so besides that. Why is Isabel so different from these other characters, especially Dorothea? What the hell are American advantages??? I do think I understand this idea about ratiocination, since by all means Isabel does indulge quite a bit in rational thinking -- until she gets to the extremely freaking important question of her marriage to a guy everyone hates!! -- and James is certainly interested in indulging himself in documenting and explaining each tiny thought of his characters, especially Isabel, but I wonder why Moore claims this makes her more of a feminist. Particularly when compared with Dorothea. I mean, it seems to me quite clear that James was trying to out-Victorian George Eliot. I don't know that much at all about James, but Eliot is his obvious model, right? There were many times, actually, when I felt like I was reading Daniel Deronda without Daniel Deronda. Isabel is less spoiled than Gwendolyn, but their stories are similar otherwise, no? And Dorothea's desire to do good with her money turns out way better than Isabel's does!
Ok, my review is all over the place. But maybe someone who's interested in these questions wants to respond. In any case, I liked the novel very much, though I prefer Eliot, and Edith Wharton for that matter. My favorite character was Henrietta Stackpole, even though she was a little bit of a caricature, and the one that affected me most was Pansy Osborne, whom I hated but also worried about. I'm stilll worried about her.
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
dark
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Exhausting, like a subtle thriller of the psychology, Henry James's intricate sentences made me follow his heroine Isabel Archer's walk through life and the concern others have for her with some riveting apprehension.
Oh, and good ending. Very realistic and satisfying, I thought.
Oh, and good ending. Very realistic and satisfying, I thought.
challenging
emotional
relaxing
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A very wordy read about how picking the wrong spouse can screw up your life. I’ve never been more disappointed in a main character than i am in Isabel Archer.
