Scan barcode
vssavm's review against another edition
funny
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
jlclerf's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
funny
lighthearted
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
rosekk's review against another edition
3.0
I wasn't sure what to expect from this book, but it was sitting on my bookcase waiting to be read, so I gave it a go. It was... a steady read. At no point did I feel like I couldn't put the book down, but at the same time I found myself steadily working through it. It was an interesting reading the descriptions of old english society, and the story really didn't seem to have a true protagonist.
ptigrisjr's review against another edition
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
A novel without a hero, and the world absolutely piles on any character who dares to try fill that vacancy.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Domestic abuse, Infidelity, Racism, Sexism, Slavery, Toxic relationship, Xenophobia, Toxic friendship, Colonisation, War, and Classism
For a book from the 1800s, it's not too bad for its time.sherwoodreads's review against another edition
It's a satire, and as such, distorts human behavior in an unpleasant fashion that is sometimes humorous and sometimes makes me wince. I am less interested in the storyline than in where it fits in the history of literature. Like the fact that I'd wager anything Thackeray wrote this as an anti-Silver Fork Novel. Since my previous reading I've become aware of just how much he despised the Silver Fork tradition--he wrote slangs against the authors, and he published riffs like the Book of Snobs and so forth, before this one came out.
Spoilers ahead.
Mostly this book hits the Silver Fork tropes--rich relatives, heirs, birth, and even Waterloo (heroes usually battle nobly there, or else someone nobly dies) but we don't hear anything about George Osborne's fighting prowess. We catch up with him face down, dead, and later the narrator tells us that his seal was robbed off his body.
The famous ball given by the Duchess of Richmond also gets its innings, but we see it as a gathering of grasping phonies in all their glitter. Becky Sharpe tries afterward to get back into the old aunt's good graces by buying war detritus from the local beggars doing a brisk sale in stuff they robbed off bodies, and pretending the stuff was trophies of war.
Vanity Fair has the requisite "good" hero and heroine, but neither of them end up happily--they are eroded, battered, and finally defeated by the ambition, greed, maliciousness, and pettiness all around them, even though they end up together: by then it doesn't matter.
So anyway, here's Thackeray in dialogue with Lister and Bulwer and Disraeli and Catherine Grace Gore.
Then there's Becky Sharp, whose beauty (once she gains her position in society) and her "Fiddle-dee-dee" jolt me right out of the story and pitchfork me into Gone With the Wind. Scarlett O'Hara is Becky Sharp a generation later, and in the U.S. Civil War. Both are survivors, they both neglect their kids, they have innate style and ability, though Becky never falls in love, and Margaret Mitchell anchors Scarlett to her grand passion that she loses just as she gains the object. They both steal, lie, and Becky murders; they both make good money in post-war speculation.
So I see Mitchell in dialogue with Thackeray.
The thing that makes the book work is the narrative voice. It's fascinating, how Thackeray makes an extremely dark story come to life by constantly reminding us that the characters are just puppets (though here and there he shifts paradigm with lines like "Dobbin told me recently that actually what happened was . . .") and his narrative commentaries on time, history, literature, social phenomena, and his own story: he is in dialogue with his century, as well as parodying a specific, extremely popular subgenre, the Regency era Silver Fork novel.
There's a gripping passage near the beginning when Becky first leaves Amelia's house, in which the narrator talks about the days of the carriage now gone, and gives vivid details, then wonders what the writing genuises now in baby clothes will say about those days, will horse and carriage pass into myth like Bucephalus? It's this aspect that makes the story bearable for me, though I think the postmodern reader might like how humans manages to survive, even to triumph is small ways in spite of the general sorriness, and sordidness, of human nature. At least humanity can laugh at itself. Maybe that's a good sign.
Spoilers ahead.
Mostly this book hits the Silver Fork tropes--rich relatives, heirs, birth, and even Waterloo (heroes usually battle nobly there, or else someone nobly dies) but we don't hear anything about George Osborne's fighting prowess. We catch up with him face down, dead, and later the narrator tells us that his seal was robbed off his body.
The famous ball given by the Duchess of Richmond also gets its innings, but we see it as a gathering of grasping phonies in all their glitter. Becky Sharpe tries afterward to get back into the old aunt's good graces by buying war detritus from the local beggars doing a brisk sale in stuff they robbed off bodies, and pretending the stuff was trophies of war.
Vanity Fair has the requisite "good" hero and heroine, but neither of them end up happily--they are eroded, battered, and finally defeated by the ambition, greed, maliciousness, and pettiness all around them, even though they end up together: by then it doesn't matter.
So anyway, here's Thackeray in dialogue with Lister and Bulwer and Disraeli and Catherine Grace Gore.
Then there's Becky Sharp, whose beauty (once she gains her position in society) and her "Fiddle-dee-dee" jolt me right out of the story and pitchfork me into Gone With the Wind. Scarlett O'Hara is Becky Sharp a generation later, and in the U.S. Civil War. Both are survivors, they both neglect their kids, they have innate style and ability, though Becky never falls in love, and Margaret Mitchell anchors Scarlett to her grand passion that she loses just as she gains the object. They both steal, lie, and Becky murders; they both make good money in post-war speculation.
So I see Mitchell in dialogue with Thackeray.
The thing that makes the book work is the narrative voice. It's fascinating, how Thackeray makes an extremely dark story come to life by constantly reminding us that the characters are just puppets (though here and there he shifts paradigm with lines like "Dobbin told me recently that actually what happened was . . .") and his narrative commentaries on time, history, literature, social phenomena, and his own story: he is in dialogue with his century, as well as parodying a specific, extremely popular subgenre, the Regency era Silver Fork novel.
There's a gripping passage near the beginning when Becky first leaves Amelia's house, in which the narrator talks about the days of the carriage now gone, and gives vivid details, then wonders what the writing genuises now in baby clothes will say about those days, will horse and carriage pass into myth like Bucephalus? It's this aspect that makes the story bearable for me, though I think the postmodern reader might like how humans manages to survive, even to triumph is small ways in spite of the general sorriness, and sordidness, of human nature. At least humanity can laugh at itself. Maybe that's a good sign.
abbie_bryant's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
mirasmitty's review against another edition
funny
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? Yes
4.0
giftiz's review against another edition
4.0
What an anti heroine, so very modern
Henry James, you hack, this is how you write:
1. Impressive quick witted female character, 2. (Scary) manipulator, 3. Society
Henry James, you hack, this is how you write:
1. Impressive quick witted female character, 2. (Scary) manipulator, 3. Society
jackf's review against another edition
funny
informative
lighthearted
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5