Scan barcode
xtinamariet's review against another edition
3.0
perceptive writer, but on the whole a bit overblown.
hwwhybreading's review against another edition
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
bourbm9's review against another edition
3.0
I would give this 3.5 stars if I could, but I don’t feel generous enough to give it 4. Mick’s storyline, for me at least, feels the it’s successful. I understand her motives and her personality. Nothing she does lacks believability.
When it comes to Mr. Singer I simply do not understand any of it. What’re his motivations? Why does he give so much of himself to people who give him nothing in return? He was just a saintly character the everyone felt comfortable taking advantage of without ever really trying to understand him.
Mr. Brannon is just a strange person. He seems to obsess over people. He has a weird relationship with Mick and Blount that are entirely one-sided. He’s weirdly in love with Mick even though she’s a child. And they never really talk to each other or spend time together. But he also doesn’t give off lecherous vibes, he’s just emotionally attached in an unsettling way. And then with Blount he allows him to eat and drink at the restaurant without expecting any form of payment even though his restaurant is losing money. And Blount always treats him dismissively.
Then Blount himself is some sort of failed leader of the people. He wants to unite the working class but is also a raging alcoholic and ultimately impotent in his attempts to change anything. How storylines tended to be boring. Filled with a lot of sweating, smelling of beer, and violence.
Dr. Copeland as a character in relation to Mr. Singer didn’t make sense to me. Where was the attraction? Why did he bond with him so deeply?
I guess Singer served as some sort of secret keeper for everyone since he’s deaf and mute. Like he’s some magical, living, breathing journal.
I did find my motivation to keep reading dropping off at certain points. But I can see how others may enjoy this book more than I did.
When it comes to Mr. Singer I simply do not understand any of it. What’re his motivations? Why does he give so much of himself to people who give him nothing in return? He was just a saintly character the everyone felt comfortable taking advantage of without ever really trying to understand him.
Mr. Brannon is just a strange person. He seems to obsess over people. He has a weird relationship with Mick and Blount that are entirely one-sided. He’s weirdly in love with Mick even though she’s a child. And they never really talk to each other or spend time together. But he also doesn’t give off lecherous vibes, he’s just emotionally attached in an unsettling way. And then with Blount he allows him to eat and drink at the restaurant without expecting any form of payment even though his restaurant is losing money. And Blount always treats him dismissively.
Then Blount himself is some sort of failed leader of the people. He wants to unite the working class but is also a raging alcoholic and ultimately impotent in his attempts to change anything. How storylines tended to be boring. Filled with a lot of sweating, smelling of beer, and violence.
Dr. Copeland as a character in relation to Mr. Singer didn’t make sense to me. Where was the attraction? Why did he bond with him so deeply?
I guess Singer served as some sort of secret keeper for everyone since he’s deaf and mute. Like he’s some magical, living, breathing journal.
I did find my motivation to keep reading dropping off at certain points. But I can see how others may enjoy this book more than I did.
gardnerhere's review against another edition
4.0
Wait...what? She was twenty-f'n-three when she wrote this? C'mon.
I was all ready to write this thoughtful review explaining why this full-hearted but ultimately miserable novel is an almost-classic (replete with careful consideration of its several faults) which is all well and good and it's a novel that deserves such a treatment and so on and such and such AND SHE WAS TWENTY-F'N-THREE?
Given that, it's easier to forgive this novel its stridency, its tendency to slip into (personal and global) political rant thinly disguised as dialogue, its brash presumptuousness. This would have been a damn-fine mid-career effort for an important novelist (which is precisely what I presumed it was), and she was just a kid.
Holy hell.
Okay then, so this bleak, bleak book is a heart-wrencher to many. For me, the characters were a little too desperate, a little too monomaniacal, a little too self-involved (even when they claim to be devoted to others) to be entirely sympathetic. They all need so desperately, and it all makes much more sense as a first novel. The yearning, revolted, desperate heart so patently behind every page now seems not strained but natural, not an effect striven for but a truth impossible to conceal. McCullers bled on these pages as only a young'n can--earnestly and without pause--and the resulting novel sits so close to what [a:Jon Krakauer|1235|Jon Krakauer|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1199903308p2/1235.jpg] calls the raw throb of existence that it's almost too much to take. Twenty-f'n-three. You gotta be kidding me.
I was all ready to write this thoughtful review explaining why this full-hearted but ultimately miserable novel is an almost-classic (replete with careful consideration of its several faults) which is all well and good and it's a novel that deserves such a treatment and so on and such and such AND SHE WAS TWENTY-F'N-THREE?
Given that, it's easier to forgive this novel its stridency, its tendency to slip into (personal and global) political rant thinly disguised as dialogue, its brash presumptuousness. This would have been a damn-fine mid-career effort for an important novelist (which is precisely what I presumed it was), and she was just a kid.
Holy hell.
Okay then, so this bleak, bleak book is a heart-wrencher to many. For me, the characters were a little too desperate, a little too monomaniacal, a little too self-involved (even when they claim to be devoted to others) to be entirely sympathetic. They all need so desperately, and it all makes much more sense as a first novel. The yearning, revolted, desperate heart so patently behind every page now seems not strained but natural, not an effect striven for but a truth impossible to conceal. McCullers bled on these pages as only a young'n can--earnestly and without pause--and the resulting novel sits so close to what [a:Jon Krakauer|1235|Jon Krakauer|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1199903308p2/1235.jpg] calls the raw throb of existence that it's almost too much to take. Twenty-f'n-three. You gotta be kidding me.
frazzle's review against another edition
5.0
I guess books like this are what the term 'modern classic' is for.
Big themes - social inequality, political philosophies, unrequited and secret loves - almost unbelievably big for a 23 year old to tackle, and tackle well.
Her reading of Dostoevsky and the other greats really tells. (Though I guess some of her political characterisation might unkindly be called a touch facile?)
She captures the profound disillusionment when the depths of each of our secret longings meet the cold realities of existence.
But most of all, just a bloody good story.
Not one I'd heard of before, but one that will stay with me for a while yet.
Big themes - social inequality, political philosophies, unrequited and secret loves - almost unbelievably big for a 23 year old to tackle, and tackle well.
Her reading of Dostoevsky and the other greats really tells. (Though I guess some of her political characterisation might unkindly be called a touch facile?)
She captures the profound disillusionment when the depths of each of our secret longings meet the cold realities of existence.
But most of all, just a bloody good story.
Not one I'd heard of before, but one that will stay with me for a while yet.
debyc's review against another edition
5.0
I remember buying this book almost 20 years ago when I was in high school, trying to find a story that my father would approve of me reading (Manga and teen romance was all trashing my brain... and still does to this day lol). I could never get into it, but my dad would read bits of it and tell me how impressed he was with McCullers for writing such a deep book in her early 20s. This was one of three books I kept of his, and the first of the three that I've finally read.
But maybe that makes my star rating a bit biased. I knew I wanted to love this book. What really got me though was that this book was written... 83ish years ago, before the end of WW2-- and yet, so much of it is still relevant today. Not just the main theme of loneliness and isolation, but of social oppression and racial injustice. We have come so far as a nation, and yet we haven't.
But maybe that makes my star rating a bit biased. I knew I wanted to love this book. What really got me though was that this book was written... 83ish years ago, before the end of WW2-- and yet, so much of it is still relevant today. Not just the main theme of loneliness and isolation, but of social oppression and racial injustice. We have come so far as a nation, and yet we haven't.
anfrensley's review against another edition
5.0
I like Member of the Wedding more, but it sucks how overshadowed McCullers is by other southern writers.
meadams's review against another edition
3.0
I know I read this years ago, I remembered the characters, but not much else. It was a difficult read, lots of religion and politics. Lots of yelling, fighting and strong opinions, but for what?