lola425's review against another edition
3.0
I really liked the first quarter of the book, disliked the second quarter, started liking it again the third quarter and not so much by the fourth. I wasn't sure how I was supposed to feel. Should I have felt that everyone (from Cecil's time) became who they became because of Cecil's death or were they already on their way to becoming who they were before Cecil came along. And would a living Cecil changed everything or simply pushed people off track for awhile. George, for instance, as taken as he was with Cecil, we don't find him miserable at the end of his life. He looks back on his dalliance with Cecil with some joy, albeit still a largely unspoken one. And still you wonder what trouble a living Cecil might have stirred up. Of course, Cecil managed to stire things up from beyond the grave as the interest in his poetry sparked a biographical and litcrit industry that ultimately led to the revelation of all the secrets that Cecil initiated and that his immediate family and circle tried to keep hidden.
Once again, in a story that migrates between the historical and the modern, I find myself left cold by the modern narrative. Peter and Paul's flirtation was interesting, but once the story shifted to Paul, I lost interest. I didn't feel the motivation behind his passion for Cecil's story. He felt to me like a passionless scholar looking to out Cecil to fortify his own theories. I'm not sure that's how I should have felt.
Once again, in a story that migrates between the historical and the modern, I find myself left cold by the modern narrative. Peter and Paul's flirtation was interesting, but once the story shifted to Paul, I lost interest. I didn't feel the motivation behind his passion for Cecil's story. He felt to me like a passionless scholar looking to out Cecil to fortify his own theories. I'm not sure that's how I should have felt.
okenwillow's review against another edition
1.0
Je découvre la plume enchanteresse d’Hollinghurst avec ce roman. On succombe au style de l’auteur dès le premières pages, c’est si beau, délicat, recherché, que j’ai eu l’impression de lire un auteur mort du XXe. Malheureusement, on se rend compte à peu près aussi rapidement du degré d’ennui et d’insipidité de l’intrigue. Alors que tous les ingrédients étaient là pour me séduire, (époque, propos, pays, style) la construction et l’absence d’intrigue ont eu raison de ma patience. Le personnage de Cecil Valance sert de vague fil conducteur à plusieurs histoires, qui se déroulent tout au long du XXe siècle, et sont souvent séparées par plusieurs années. Des personnages réapparaissent dans une nouvelle histoire sans autre lien apparent qu’eux-mêmes. On a la sensation de lire un recueil de nouvelles déguisé, un roman dont le découpage ne permet pas au lecteur de s’attacher aux personnages. On saute un peu du coq à l’âne, avec chaque fois (du moins jusqu’à la moitié du livre) une mini-histoire qui s’écoule en un court laps de temps (un week end, une soirée) avant de faire un saut dans le temps avec une autre histoire. À chaque fois, il ne se passe rien, chaque épisode étant le prétexte à un exercice de style, réussi, certes, mais d’un ennui rare. Après un léger et furtif regain d’intérêt à 20% du livre, j’ai fini par abandonner à 47%.
J’ai lu et entendu bien des choses au sujet de ce roman, presque toutes dithyrambiques, la plus idiote étant la comparaison avec Dickens et les Brontë. Je crois que lorsque l'on fait ce genre de parallèle on prend les gens pour des ânes. Les personnages n’ont pas le temps d’avoir de l’épaisseur, on ne les suit pas assez longtemps pour s’intéresser à eux. Il ne se passe rien, trop de non-dits tue le non-dit et on finit par ne vraiment rien dire. À force de jouer la carte de la subtilité, on en devient vide et plat. Isolément, ces épisodes n’ont aucun intérêt, il est possible qu’une lecture complète du roman mette en lumière un formidable propos et un final qui explique tout, mais j’en doute, et me farcir des heures d’ennui pour un dénouement potentiellement sympa mais très probablement aussi insipide que le reste ne me sied guère. Et pourtant, quelle plume exquise !
J’ai lu et entendu bien des choses au sujet de ce roman, presque toutes dithyrambiques, la plus idiote étant la comparaison avec Dickens et les Brontë. Je crois que lorsque l'on fait ce genre de parallèle on prend les gens pour des ânes. Les personnages n’ont pas le temps d’avoir de l’épaisseur, on ne les suit pas assez longtemps pour s’intéresser à eux. Il ne se passe rien, trop de non-dits tue le non-dit et on finit par ne vraiment rien dire. À force de jouer la carte de la subtilité, on en devient vide et plat. Isolément, ces épisodes n’ont aucun intérêt, il est possible qu’une lecture complète du roman mette en lumière un formidable propos et un final qui explique tout, mais j’en doute, et me farcir des heures d’ennui pour un dénouement potentiellement sympa mais très probablement aussi insipide que le reste ne me sied guère. Et pourtant, quelle plume exquise !
snowmaiden's review against another edition
4.0
This book begins in 1913 and ends in 2008, spanning almost a whole century. I really liked the first section and would have gladly spent a whole novel in that setting with those characters, but that wasn’t the author’s intent. Instead we take great leaps forward through the twentieth century and beyond, seeing how the lives of the 1913 characters are interpreted and reinterpreted by successive generations. I really enjoy Hollinghurst’s gentle and discerning style, but I felt the emotional impact of the book was less than it could have been. Also, certain characters changed in ways that didn’t make sense to me. Still, I am eager to read something else by this author.
ashdreads's review against another edition
2.0
I don't normally give books two stars, but in all honesty I kind of wish I just put this one down after the first two parts and let it go. I read this in the first place because it was nominated as one of the 2012 books in this year's Tournament of Books, so I kept hoping that the story would somehow become more interesting... unfortunately for me it did not.
In a lot of ways the writing style reminded me of The Northern Clemency. Another book by an English author that I struggled with. It felt with both that the plot just meandered along with really no action whatsoever.
There is a recap of the plot at the end of the kindle edition I read. If I were to do this over, I would just read those few pages and call the book read. It would have saved me from what I consider a fairly painful and ultimately disappointing reading experience.
Also for the life of me I can't figure out why the book is titled, "The Stranger's Child". Does anyone know?
In a lot of ways the writing style reminded me of The Northern Clemency. Another book by an English author that I struggled with. It felt with both that the plot just meandered along with really no action whatsoever.
There is a recap of the plot at the end of the kindle edition I read. If I were to do this over, I would just read those few pages and call the book read. It would have saved me from what I consider a fairly painful and ultimately disappointing reading experience.
Also for the life of me I can't figure out why the book is titled, "The Stranger's Child". Does anyone know?
fictionfan's review
1.0
When all the world was gay...
I normally start a review with a little blurb giving an idea of what the book’s about. Unfortunately, despite having read 53% of this immensely overlong tome, I’m not at all sure if it’s about anything much at all. And I’m not enthusiastic enough to read the other 47% in the hopes of finding out.
It starts off pretty well, with a lengthy section set before World War 1. Young George Sawle has invited a fellow student from Cambridge to visit his family. Cecil Valance is already making a name for himself as a poet and George’s younger sister Daphne is romantically thrilled at the idea of meeting him. It’s quickly clear however that she will have to compete with her brother for Cecil’s attentions. At every opportunity the two of them, Cecil and George, go off to find a place they can be private together for a bit of still-illicit rumpy-pumpy. This doesn’t stop the lovely Cecil from flirting with 16-year-old Daphne and even on one occasion sexually assaulting her. Though maybe that was supposed to be a seduction scene – I can’t be sure. These things are often a matter of perspective. Meantime a friend of the family, Harry, whom everyone thinks is courting Daphne’s widowed mother, is in fact attempting to seduce Daphne’s other brother, Hubert.
It’s beautifully written and very evocative, not only of the period, but of all the books that have already been written about that period. Brideshead Revisited and The Go-Between sprang immediately to my mind and other reviews mention Forster, Woolf, DH Lawrence, et al. Is it derivative, then? I’d say certainly, though I gave him the benefit of thinking it’s deliberately so. The idea that all the men were either actively gay or being pursued by gay men seemed a bit unlikely on a purely statistical basis, but I made allowances for fictional licence. At this point I thought it had the potential to be excellent.
Then suddenly it skips forward to 1926. Cecil, our main character, is dead. And yet there’s still 80% of the book to go. Not to worry! George is now married though still gay. Daphne is married too, but wants to have sex with another probably gay man, whom, let’s be honest, George wouldn’t mind having sex with either. But please don’t be thinking Hollinghurst discriminates – Daphne is also hit upon by a gay woman. I was still interested enough at this point since some of the original characters were still central, and this section is largely about how they all felt about Cecil, alive and dead. And the writing is still beautiful.
Then whoops! 40% and suddenly we leap forward again, this time to around 1960, I think. And all of a sudden we have two new central characters, Peter and Paul. They’re both gay, you’ll be amazed to learn. The descendants of the original families are still around but they’re mostly new to the reader too, since many of the original characters are now dead.
I simply lost interest at this point. Long descriptions of Paul’s job at a bank and Peter’s life as a master at a prep school did nothing for me, and frankly, just as much as it’s unrealistic to have no gay characters in fiction, it’s equally silly for the vast majority of the men to be gay. Perhaps it’s an attempt to redress the balance, but balance is a tricky thing – it’s so easy to lose. But much more importantly than that, there appears to be very little connecting plot holding the various sections together. Yes, Cecil’s house appears each time and yes, some characters continue to be related to him, but more distantly with each passing time jump. I suspect Hollinghurst may be making points about how society’s treatment of gay men changed over the last century, and perhaps also about how the reputations of poets tend to fluctuate as each new generation of critics re-assesses them. Maybe if I was willing to read the other six hours’ worth (according to my Kindle) all would become clear, but, I ask myself, do I care enough to do that? And I answer – nope. Oh, well. Still, it’s beautifully written.
It probably deserves four stars for the quality of the characterisation and lovely prose, but since it bored me into abandonment, one star is all it gets.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
I normally start a review with a little blurb giving an idea of what the book’s about. Unfortunately, despite having read 53% of this immensely overlong tome, I’m not at all sure if it’s about anything much at all. And I’m not enthusiastic enough to read the other 47% in the hopes of finding out.
It starts off pretty well, with a lengthy section set before World War 1. Young George Sawle has invited a fellow student from Cambridge to visit his family. Cecil Valance is already making a name for himself as a poet and George’s younger sister Daphne is romantically thrilled at the idea of meeting him. It’s quickly clear however that she will have to compete with her brother for Cecil’s attentions. At every opportunity the two of them, Cecil and George, go off to find a place they can be private together for a bit of still-illicit rumpy-pumpy. This doesn’t stop the lovely Cecil from flirting with 16-year-old Daphne and even on one occasion sexually assaulting her. Though maybe that was supposed to be a seduction scene – I can’t be sure. These things are often a matter of perspective. Meantime a friend of the family, Harry, whom everyone thinks is courting Daphne’s widowed mother, is in fact attempting to seduce Daphne’s other brother, Hubert.
It’s beautifully written and very evocative, not only of the period, but of all the books that have already been written about that period. Brideshead Revisited and The Go-Between sprang immediately to my mind and other reviews mention Forster, Woolf, DH Lawrence, et al. Is it derivative, then? I’d say certainly, though I gave him the benefit of thinking it’s deliberately so. The idea that all the men were either actively gay or being pursued by gay men seemed a bit unlikely on a purely statistical basis, but I made allowances for fictional licence. At this point I thought it had the potential to be excellent.
Then suddenly it skips forward to 1926. Cecil, our main character, is dead. And yet there’s still 80% of the book to go. Not to worry! George is now married though still gay. Daphne is married too, but wants to have sex with another probably gay man, whom, let’s be honest, George wouldn’t mind having sex with either. But please don’t be thinking Hollinghurst discriminates – Daphne is also hit upon by a gay woman. I was still interested enough at this point since some of the original characters were still central, and this section is largely about how they all felt about Cecil, alive and dead. And the writing is still beautiful.
Then whoops! 40% and suddenly we leap forward again, this time to around 1960, I think. And all of a sudden we have two new central characters, Peter and Paul. They’re both gay, you’ll be amazed to learn. The descendants of the original families are still around but they’re mostly new to the reader too, since many of the original characters are now dead.
I simply lost interest at this point. Long descriptions of Paul’s job at a bank and Peter’s life as a master at a prep school did nothing for me, and frankly, just as much as it’s unrealistic to have no gay characters in fiction, it’s equally silly for the vast majority of the men to be gay. Perhaps it’s an attempt to redress the balance, but balance is a tricky thing – it’s so easy to lose. But much more importantly than that, there appears to be very little connecting plot holding the various sections together. Yes, Cecil’s house appears each time and yes, some characters continue to be related to him, but more distantly with each passing time jump. I suspect Hollinghurst may be making points about how society’s treatment of gay men changed over the last century, and perhaps also about how the reputations of poets tend to fluctuate as each new generation of critics re-assesses them. Maybe if I was willing to read the other six hours’ worth (according to my Kindle) all would become clear, but, I ask myself, do I care enough to do that? And I answer – nope. Oh, well. Still, it’s beautifully written.
It probably deserves four stars for the quality of the characterisation and lovely prose, but since it bored me into abandonment, one star is all it gets.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
njensen's review
hopeful
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
bendalrymple's review
challenging
reflective
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? Yes
4.0
auxane0902's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0