A review by alex_rothschilds
The Bostonians by Henry James

5.0

I personally found the book remarkable, much to the contrary of the lieu of negative reviews one can find online. To me, James constructs a brilliant, full, and real cast of characters that are able to successfully represent sections of American society of the time, of south and north, and graciously proposes a more nuanced portrayal of the different sides. I can even recognise his characters in people I know! The book is half about a love corner (like the V shaped ‘love triangle’) and about societal issues of feminism, with odes to the civil war and queer issues. Whilst many reviewers seem to see the romance as the more emphasised, I propose that in fact taken on the whole, the two are rather balanced in the readers mind. This is very much pronounced when one considers the narrative surrounding the romance, in which one cannot simply consider the romance on its own without considering the issue of women's emancipation. And the fact that the very ideas raised and proposed in the book can be viewed as relatable in todays age speaks to the underscored genius of the book. 
Here are my further thoughts which include spoilers:

In viewing Olive and Basil’s battle over Verena, which may be viewed pseudo-romantically, as many including I tend to believe, it places them all in brutal light: the uncompromising, harsh, sometimes even cruel looking reactionary, paired with the ruthless, cold revolutionary, with Verena placed in between as the battle ground. In considering the contexts of each person, I view everyone as entirely justified in arriving at their stances. And beyond these characters, even James’ side characters are deeply interesting and endearing to me, whether that be the ‘moderate’ cynical doctor, the old guard abolitionist/feminist, and the upper class women of the novel. In a way, such attitudes of each character are extremely applicable in todays social political battlefield, where one can find the centrist middle class, the wavering upper classes, opportunists, proggresives, and conservatives, blinded or forced by ideaology each onto their own paths. In such a way, I feel this is James’ brilliance, misunderstood by many of his contemporaries: in the way we, or society, seem to face the same issues, the way he is able to forsee them, and the way he portrays them in intimately understandable terms. Another point to note his the narrator, and how he frames the battling factions, of feminism and reactionaries. The reasoning of Basil rings familiar, especially in our day and age, with the new wave of alpha male macho gym culture blended with a conservative edge, and that of the woke, the radical liberal queer feminists. In this way, it serves as a reflection, and a warning to those wrapped up in their own ideologies. It is not that one shouldn’t be ideological and push their perspectives, but one should engage, and consider critically of others whilst maintaining such stances. It is this message, though muddled, conveyed through the narrators slight preference for Basil and the universal adoration of Birdseye, compared with Olives harsher portrayal. Societal centrism, which is particularly strong in this day and age, is reflected in Dr Prances’ stance, who i see in many, many people I know today, and Verona. At the core of this ‘centrism’ is really, I view, the vying for independence, the ability to think ones own mind. In this way Basil is right about Olives’ use and manipulation of Verona (not that she’d be treated better with Basil, sorta highlighting reactionary irony, which is still present today). Reactionary conservative ideology is aptly portrayed as multidirectional and muddled, with Basil on the one hand saying to leave women issues for women, whilst wanting to subjugate them all into the house and childrearing. How similar it is to today, in which claims of upholding general freedom are contradicted by deeply conservative and reactrionary counteractions. For revolutionaries and ideaological proponents, a key lesson is to listen to the people. Feminists should give women the right to choose. But in considering this message, one cannot demonise Olive: In a intensely patriarchal world, Olives’ rage and mistrust is justified, and within the context of the novel, and today, Verona’s choice isn’t very clearcut, given both paths lead down to a lack of independence. It is within this lens that I view Olive slightly favourably despite her depiction and unlikability. Perhaps this unlikability is another ode to feminism, and how sex changes our perceptions of persons. Then again, as a man, who am I to say: I humbly offer my opinion and leave the issue of women, as Basil ironically says, to the women. As an extra note, Dr Prance particularly endeared to me given how many people i Know who are like her.

 
All in all, i say ignore the criticism. From my interpretation and analysis, the book is far more well rounded than the critics suggest. Perhaps this is my ‘unpopular take’ lolz.