Reviews

The Golden Bowl by Henry James

Only show reviews with written explanations

jonkmcconk's review

3.0

Read for my degree, which can sometimes pose an obstacle to the full enjoyment of a text; however, regular seminars are useful for penetrating deeper into prose that would otherwise go over my head. Having examined James' fiction from The Europeans through The Portrait of a Lady to this, it's clear that the older he got he developed a dense, loquacious style with a heavy use of subordinate clauses. I find that style difficult to get on with, and in that regard I'm grateful for group discussion to probe beneath the abundance of quite irritating side-tracks and get to the meat of the story. Luckily, the story is a very subtle, inward-looking study of adultery and its effect on the social bubbles in the Anglo-American upper class. James' gentle handling of characters that could easily be framed as irredeemable villains is refreshing and demonstrates that curiosity, not judgement, is one of his primary motives.

insertsthwitty's review against another edition

Go to review page

3.0

Henry James is still the master of exposing a character and relationship dynamics through the art of conversation, but this book ultimately lacked balance. The writing is stretched to the maximum (of Henry James' ability rather than the plot, which itself would not allow for such a long book).

e_oneita's review

Go to review page

4.0

While The Golden Bowl is not my favorite James novel (that honor goes to The Spoils of Poynton a brilliant, acerbic, dramatic tour-de-force), I fully recognize it as one of the great novels of the early twentieth century. I did enjoy it, and while challenging to read (parallels to Joyce are very apt), I found it absolutely gripping. My summary of it for others was "four entitled people behaving badly". The gist of it is that four people have far too much time on their hands, which leads to pain and suffering. My interpretation of the novel was that every single character is a victim, in some way or another, by their own privilege and position. While the two wealthy Americans (Adam Verver and his daughter Maggie) are certainly better off in raw stability/ability to do whatever they please, James masterfully illustrates how they have trapped themselves in a gilded cage (a theme that carries throughout the book)- their life is so perfect that it can't sustain, and the first shock will have devastating effects. Cue the arrival of the beautiful Charlotte, whose spirit and vivacity enthrall the Ververs, as well as Maggie's new husband, "the Prince"- who happened to have a love affair with Charlotte some months before he met Maggie.

Interestingly, Gore Vidal said he "hated Maggie", which he explained away as an indictment on her entitlement and

Spoiler

her manipulation of the Prince, Charlotte, and even her father, in the latter half of the book

. However, my own interpretation- perhaps now so far removed from the "genteel American heiress" archetype as to render it an overly romantic image- is that Charlotte is absolutely at greater moral fault. James repeatedly describes Charlotte as an enchanting asset to any society she moves through, and while Vidal was sympathetic to sustaining love and the desire to be with one's paramour regardless of pesky wives, Charlotte has no actual need to enter into the Ververs (and Prince's) lives in the way she does. She is poor, yes, but she moves in high society and could therefore easily secure another partner. Instead, she marries Mr Verver, and convinces the Prince that a rekindling of their own love affair is simply "natural". One can then easily sympathize with Maggie, who very slowly begins to realize that her husband- and her father's wife- are not loyal. This is particularly devastating for Maggie, who both genuinely loves the Prince, and who wishes to shield her father from pain.

There's more I could write, but I should stop there, before I describe the entire plot. After I read this, I read what others had written about it, to see how well my own interpretations lined up with others. The answer was "not very well", which I think truly shows how impressive this novel is. Every reader will engage with the novel in fundamentally different ways, according to their character, and according to where they are in their lives (as also noted by Gore Vidal in his review of the novel). I highly recommend reading it, despite the challenges presented by the stream-of-consciousness writing (and the long novel length, compared to other James tales).

savaging's review

Go to review page

1.0

Another mistake on those 100-best-books lists.

The main metaphor is a golden bowl, given as a wedding gift. And perhaps that bowl is very fine quality or perhaps very cheap, like -- get this -- the husband's fidelity!!! And then at just the right scene the bowl -- you'll never guess -- it cracks!!!

Alright, I'll admit that Henry James can fulfil my primate social-animal desire to delve into the world of interpersonal psychology, and imagine a person imagining what another person is imagining. If this book had been written about normal people, it could have been interesting, if a little flat. But written as it is about the astonishingly wealthy (who behave as though they have the right to purchase the monogamy of their indebted spouses) -- it is a crime.