serialreader's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
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
1.0
mandyistiny's review against another edition
4.0
"I suppose about the only good in pretending is the fun we get out of fooling ourselves that we fool somebody."
Set in an unnamed Midwestern town shortly following WWI, this Pulitzer Prize-winning work follows the lower middle class Adams family as protagonist/aspiring social climber Alice Adams aims to improve her social station and win the heart of a wealthy suitor.
This is the third of Booth Tarkington's books that I've read, and I'm officially making it my mission to read as many as I can get my hands on. I love how he structures his storylines and character arcs, and the sense of tension I felt throughout was palpable.
Set in an unnamed Midwestern town shortly following WWI, this Pulitzer Prize-winning work follows the lower middle class Adams family as protagonist/aspiring social climber Alice Adams aims to improve her social station and win the heart of a wealthy suitor.
This is the third of Booth Tarkington's books that I've read, and I'm officially making it my mission to read as many as I can get my hands on. I love how he structures his storylines and character arcs, and the sense of tension I felt throughout was palpable.
jannie_mtl's review against another edition
5.0
Not only a compelling story but Tarkington's depiction of the personality of his female protagonist is spot on. Alice is in both a silly, vain girl, and a smart, dedicated daughter. It is this contradiction that makes the novel so interesting and that keeps it moving forward. A pleasure to read, and I look forward to other works by this author.
ejdecoster's review against another edition
2.0
For book club. I didn't get totally into the book - the writing felt dated and heavy, and the plot a little sluggish - but there were interesting character elements for discussion and it was nice to read something a little out of my usual zone.
skendall's review
lighthearted
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Written in 1921, it is set in an unnamed small American city--mention of inescapable soot makes it seem like it's in coal or manufacturing country. The main characters are white, and though they are not overtly cruel to the black people who appear or are mentioned, they talk about them in rather dehumanized terms. The N word is not used but just about every other term that now seems objectionable. Maybe an accurate reflection of the time and place, but just a heads up for readers.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racial slurs
schmoterp's review against another edition
4.0
Not in 10,000 years would I have chosen to read this book on its own, but my attempt at understanding history and culture through a chronological read of Pulitzer winners has led me to its 4th recipient in Tarkington's Alice Adams. I have been pleasantly surprised by this one, compared to earlier Tarkington works. At its core, it's a story about knowing oneself and though it's written almost a century ago, for me it still can be influential to readers today. Her heroism is understated but it is still there nonetheless.
My "review" almost reads like a book report so I'm just going to "spoiler" the majority of it.
Alice, like many of the affluent youthful girls of her time, is principally concerned with marriage. Today, America practices a relative meritocracy (insert anti-capitalist joke here) but post-WWI, America was still grappling with a change in business culture and marriage still predominantly followed the money. Nepotism and familial betrothals were methods to keeping the money close - a concept that Tarkington directly describes as Arthur Russell is introduced as the likely pairing for Mildred Palmer, Alice's "most intimate friend". Arthur is just about as perfect for Alice as can be. He's tall, handsome, has money, and inexplicable he is head-over-heals for Alice. The trouble is, Alice is not affluent; she and her family have no money. There was a time when Alice's father may have had the potential for growth within the powerful, industrious firm owned by J.A. Lamb, but he was not anymore and hadn't been in the story's recent history. As such, Alice's social standing was a mockery among her old acquaintances. I believe Alice knew this, at least at some level. If that is true, then Tarkington is commenting about the power social pressure has on individual thinking. Routinely, Alice contemplates her rationale for doing things that are questionable to her: picking flowers manually, cleaning soot-stained baseboards, the arrangement of flowers. She does these things because they are taught to her by her "friends" but more importantly, they are the expectations of her mother. When her father is threatened, she immediately goes to his aid throughout the book; but when she is threatened, she retreats and gives in to her mother. It is only when she finally accepts her reality that Alice is able to stand up to her mother and to do so without hesitation or contempt.
I did find her final dinner with Arthur to be extremely sad. Other reviewers found Mr. Russell's character to be annoying and shallow but I found him to be quite the opposite. I wasn't a budding adult in the 1920's but I'm not convinced that the feelings on being intoxicated with a girl have changed too much since then. Alice was a pretty girl, but...or rather, AND, she was whimsical and flirty. Although not many descriptions were given to other young females, the reader is definitely given the impression that Alice is different than the likes of Henrietta Lamb and Mildred Palmer. If I saw such a vision at a dance, I imagine I would have been taken with her too. I found Arther's approach to her to be completely believable and genuine. But...what I do not understand is how he did never come back to see her. His greatest intentions of staying infatuated with her were doused when he heard things about her family, her greatest fear and the fear she herself planted. Their final conservation outside her home was of him sullenly denying anything was the matter and her insistence that there must be because......well, she was Alice Adams so there must be something. I believe that all things being equal he would have come to love her the way good men love their women; and I believe that all things being equal, she would have returned his love in the way she clearly did. It's sad because social pressures convinced her to pretend to be someone she wasn't when she was perfectly perfect in his eyes and social pressures convinced him that to be with her, supposedly, wouldn't be worth the trouble despite his heart crying otherwise.
Nevertheless, Alice ends her summer contented with her uncertain but almost assuredly mundane future. She has realized that she does not want to be foolish anymore pretending to be someone she clearly is not. There is a bravery in this that I admire. We are taught all our lives with falsehoods that we can be "anything we want", but this is at best fodder for an office inspiration poster and at worst complete bullshit. The reality is that we cannot be whatever we want - but we can be what we are. Alice, in the end, accepts who she is and where she comes from and finds a peace that many people, including her mother, ever attain.
On Mrs. Adams, she is, of course, the true antagonist of the story. There really is no other option. She is manipulative, conniving, and despite her apparent selflessness, she is entirely self-serving. She cared not for her past romance with her husband. She cared mostly of social status and, by extension, the money required to achieve it. But past all that, I was more struck by her dominance of the household. In modern society, I have observed that "traditional" male dominance is all but entirely removed from culture. The powerful female character is front-and-center of popular cinematic outlets. So, it was a wonder to me that in post-WWI the father of the house is so dominated by his "subservient" wife. Mr. Adams was bullied to trespass his employer knowing full well it was wrong. Mrs. Adams questioned her husband at every possible turn, unless he was doing as she wished. At first, I was generally sympathetic for her, trying to believe that she was only doing what she thought was best. But ultimately, she failed to ever learn the important lesson previously discussed, which may have been why Alice eventually could.
In contrast, I feel that Tarkington ended up giving Mr. Adam's too much credit. For him, things ended well enough. He had no true ambition for greatness. His greatest ambition was loyalty which, in all likelihood, he probably perceived he kept with Mr. Lamb. He had no inclination for social status but just that his family was cared for and as happy as one could expect. Still, he got off easy and I feel the author gave the perception that his actions were alright.
Regarding the racial language - this was most unfortunate. Black characters in the book were all servants to white people and this is generally to be expected given the time and place of the story. At one point, Tarkington describes Alice as being afraid to reveal her "niggardliness" which I originally felt was a direct comparison of the Adams' to the lower caste in their society, a way to demonstrate the equalities in the races. However, particularly with the way Alice addressed the waitress, Gertrude, I found the whole experience disconcerting and tainted. I'm not sure if Tarkington was trying to address race in past-WWI high society, but it felt, in a word, wrong.
I really enjoyed this book. I am not quite sure if I would have liked it better if the ending were different but despite that I still very much enjoyed it. I don't think I can pinpoint exactly my reluctance for giving it a full 5 stars except that it wasn't THAT good, just really good. I do admire Alice's courage and, in another life, I think I would have loved to meet her.
My "review" almost reads like a book report so I'm just going to "spoiler" the majority of it.
Spoiler
Alice, like many of the affluent youthful girls of her time, is principally concerned with marriage. Today, America practices a relative meritocracy (insert anti-capitalist joke here) but post-WWI, America was still grappling with a change in business culture and marriage still predominantly followed the money. Nepotism and familial betrothals were methods to keeping the money close - a concept that Tarkington directly describes as Arthur Russell is introduced as the likely pairing for Mildred Palmer, Alice's "most intimate friend". Arthur is just about as perfect for Alice as can be. He's tall, handsome, has money, and inexplicable he is head-over-heals for Alice. The trouble is, Alice is not affluent; she and her family have no money. There was a time when Alice's father may have had the potential for growth within the powerful, industrious firm owned by J.A. Lamb, but he was not anymore and hadn't been in the story's recent history. As such, Alice's social standing was a mockery among her old acquaintances. I believe Alice knew this, at least at some level. If that is true, then Tarkington is commenting about the power social pressure has on individual thinking. Routinely, Alice contemplates her rationale for doing things that are questionable to her: picking flowers manually, cleaning soot-stained baseboards, the arrangement of flowers. She does these things because they are taught to her by her "friends" but more importantly, they are the expectations of her mother. When her father is threatened, she immediately goes to his aid throughout the book; but when she is threatened, she retreats and gives in to her mother. It is only when she finally accepts her reality that Alice is able to stand up to her mother and to do so without hesitation or contempt.
I did find her final dinner with Arthur to be extremely sad. Other reviewers found Mr. Russell's character to be annoying and shallow but I found him to be quite the opposite. I wasn't a budding adult in the 1920's but I'm not convinced that the feelings on being intoxicated with a girl have changed too much since then. Alice was a pretty girl, but...or rather, AND, she was whimsical and flirty. Although not many descriptions were given to other young females, the reader is definitely given the impression that Alice is different than the likes of Henrietta Lamb and Mildred Palmer. If I saw such a vision at a dance, I imagine I would have been taken with her too. I found Arther's approach to her to be completely believable and genuine. But...what I do not understand is how he did never come back to see her. His greatest intentions of staying infatuated with her were doused when he heard things about her family, her greatest fear and the fear she herself planted. Their final conservation outside her home was of him sullenly denying anything was the matter and her insistence that there must be because......well, she was Alice Adams so there must be something. I believe that all things being equal he would have come to love her the way good men love their women; and I believe that all things being equal, she would have returned his love in the way she clearly did. It's sad because social pressures convinced her to pretend to be someone she wasn't when she was perfectly perfect in his eyes and social pressures convinced him that to be with her, supposedly, wouldn't be worth the trouble despite his heart crying otherwise.
Nevertheless, Alice ends her summer contented with her uncertain but almost assuredly mundane future. She has realized that she does not want to be foolish anymore pretending to be someone she clearly is not. There is a bravery in this that I admire. We are taught all our lives with falsehoods that we can be "anything we want", but this is at best fodder for an office inspiration poster and at worst complete bullshit. The reality is that we cannot be whatever we want - but we can be what we are. Alice, in the end, accepts who she is and where she comes from and finds a peace that many people, including her mother, ever attain.
On Mrs. Adams, she is, of course, the true antagonist of the story. There really is no other option. She is manipulative, conniving, and despite her apparent selflessness, she is entirely self-serving. She cared not for her past romance with her husband. She cared mostly of social status and, by extension, the money required to achieve it. But past all that, I was more struck by her dominance of the household. In modern society, I have observed that "traditional" male dominance is all but entirely removed from culture. The powerful female character is front-and-center of popular cinematic outlets. So, it was a wonder to me that in post-WWI the father of the house is so dominated by his "subservient" wife. Mr. Adams was bullied to trespass his employer knowing full well it was wrong. Mrs. Adams questioned her husband at every possible turn, unless he was doing as she wished. At first, I was generally sympathetic for her, trying to believe that she was only doing what she thought was best. But ultimately, she failed to ever learn the important lesson previously discussed, which may have been why Alice eventually could.
In contrast, I feel that Tarkington ended up giving Mr. Adam's too much credit. For him, things ended well enough. He had no true ambition for greatness. His greatest ambition was loyalty which, in all likelihood, he probably perceived he kept with Mr. Lamb. He had no inclination for social status but just that his family was cared for and as happy as one could expect. Still, he got off easy and I feel the author gave the perception that his actions were alright.
Regarding the racial language - this was most unfortunate. Black characters in the book were all servants to white people and this is generally to be expected given the time and place of the story. At one point, Tarkington describes Alice as being afraid to reveal her "niggardliness" which I originally felt was a direct comparison of the Adams' to the lower caste in their society, a way to demonstrate the equalities in the races. However, particularly with the way Alice addressed the waitress, Gertrude, I found the whole experience disconcerting and tainted. I'm not sure if Tarkington was trying to address race in past-WWI high society, but it felt, in a word, wrong.
I really enjoyed this book. I am not quite sure if I would have liked it better if the ending were different but despite that I still very much enjoyed it. I don't think I can pinpoint exactly my reluctance for giving it a full 5 stars except that it wasn't THAT good, just really good. I do admire Alice's courage and, in another life, I think I would have loved to meet her.
dreesreads's review against another edition
2.0
I can't believe this won a Pulitzer.
This is not a deep read. The descriptions of black people and in working people in general are crude.
Alice Adams in a young 20-something. She (and her mother) desperately want her to land a good (read: wealthy and/or important) husband. But since she was 16, fewer and fewer young men have come to call. She's grasping, and they are now looking for wives, not girls. And Alice's father is a department head. He's not a business owner, he's not wealthy. They have had to scramble to put Alice out there, meanwhile they have given her younger brother none of this and he is just going to take it.
So, she is not a desirable wife for the "quality" husband she wants. In the end, mother and daughter (and father) see what must be done and start to settle into their proper places within society.
Ugh.
This is not a deep read. The descriptions of black people and in working people in general are crude.
Alice Adams in a young 20-something. She (and her mother) desperately want her to land a good (read: wealthy and/or important) husband. But since she was 16, fewer and fewer young men have come to call. She's grasping, and they are now looking for wives, not girls. And Alice's father is a department head. He's not a business owner, he's not wealthy. They have had to scramble to put Alice out there, meanwhile they have given her younger brother none of this and he is just going to take it.
So, she is not a desirable wife for the "quality" husband she wants. In the end, mother and daughter (and father) see what must be done and start to settle into their proper places within society.
Ugh.
bibliokris's review against another edition
3.0
A very influential book when published; today a bit difficult to read, with much repeated language, racism, and a somewhat predictable plot. Positives--Alice takes charge of her life and moves forward, letting go of her attempts to live as a wealthy young woman, when her family wasn't wealthy.
Some of the dialogue could be seen as humorous, and the pathos of some situations is moving.
Some of the dialogue could be seen as humorous, and the pathos of some situations is moving.
ldjdbooks's review
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
pharmacdon's review against another edition
4.0
The story is set in a lower-middle-class household in an unnamed town in the Midwest shortly after World War I. The center of the story focuses on the young girl Alice Adams who tries to climb the social ladder and her flirtations with Arthur Russell who belongs to the upper class. But later on “She breathed more rapidly but knew that he could not have detected it, and she took some pride in herself for the way she had met this little crisis. But to have met it with such easy courage meant to her something more reassuring than a momentary pride in the serenity she had shown. For she found that what she had resolved in her inmost heart was now really true: she was "through with all that!”
This book won the Pulitzer Prize for the Novel in 1922.
This book won the Pulitzer Prize for the Novel in 1922.