Scan barcode
merholley's review against another edition
4.0
You should probably read this book because it is pretty hilarious. If you don’t want to, though – if you’re a wuss about page length and the words Waterloo and Wellington aren’t enough to overcome it – there are some acceptable alternatives about which I will gladly tell you now. While the feature film was TERRIBLE, COMPLETELY SPOILED THE STORY, and didn’t pay attention to ANY of the jokes (shaking my fist at that ruiner, Mira Nair!), the A&E miniseries is really good. Like, really, really good. I could watch it over and over - and have. The other, perhaps even better alternative, however, is the modern retelling of Vanity Fair, The Real Housewives of D.C., starring Michaele Salahi as Becky Sharp.
I mean, really all the Real Housewives are retellings of Vanity Fair – they all tell the same basic story – but D.C. is the only one that implicates all the grandeur of aristocracy and national security, so I think it’s the one that’s so similar it makes me pause for a moment at its awesomeness. I was horrified to hear that there is talk D.C. will be canceled, so I invite you to prevent this tragic wrong and start catching up on all the D.C. Housewives you can get your hands on. Or, you know, write a letter to your local Bravo TV rep, or whatever you do to save a show.
Anyway, for those of you who want substantive information, the story of Vanity Fair, the story of the Housewives of D.C. (and all the Housewives, for that matter), is that somebody throws a party and doesn’t invite one of the girls, and then that girl crashes the party anyway. Then, people fight. The cool thing about the D.C. Housewives is that the crashed party is at the White House, and the people-fighting part involves a congressional hearing. Vanity Fair is the same, but the people fighting are at the Battle of Waterloo at one point. In VF and D.C., the uninvited girl is the truth-challenged social climber, and both have pretty poignant commentaries on wealth and credit, imo.
It's been quite some time since I read this book, to be honest, but I remember vividly that once, while reading this book, I had to put it down and sit for a minute because I was laughing so hard that I couldn’t see the page anymore at this situationally hilarious joke. I still remember the joke, and I still think it is so funny. The Housewives are pretty much like that too. It is tragic that probably the traditional Vanity Fair crowd and the traditional Housewives crowd don’t mix more often. Stories about social climbing are so fun! Even if they are both really long taken in one sitting. They are serials! Don’t try to cram them if you don’t want to. But if you like to hear stories about people who, like, really like to party, these two are the same, but both worth checking out. I guess it depends on whether you feel like picking up a “classic” or saving a show from extinction. Or, if you don’t have a lot of other things going on, or a lot of parties of your own to crash, you could do both! You won’t regret it.
I mean, really all the Real Housewives are retellings of Vanity Fair – they all tell the same basic story – but D.C. is the only one that implicates all the grandeur of aristocracy and national security, so I think it’s the one that’s so similar it makes me pause for a moment at its awesomeness. I was horrified to hear that there is talk D.C. will be canceled, so I invite you to prevent this tragic wrong and start catching up on all the D.C. Housewives you can get your hands on. Or, you know, write a letter to your local Bravo TV rep, or whatever you do to save a show.
Anyway, for those of you who want substantive information, the story of Vanity Fair, the story of the Housewives of D.C. (and all the Housewives, for that matter), is that somebody throws a party and doesn’t invite one of the girls, and then that girl crashes the party anyway. Then, people fight. The cool thing about the D.C. Housewives is that the crashed party is at the White House, and the people-fighting part involves a congressional hearing. Vanity Fair is the same, but the people fighting are at the Battle of Waterloo at one point. In VF and D.C., the uninvited girl is the truth-challenged social climber, and both have pretty poignant commentaries on wealth and credit, imo.
It's been quite some time since I read this book, to be honest, but I remember vividly that once, while reading this book, I had to put it down and sit for a minute because I was laughing so hard that I couldn’t see the page anymore at this situationally hilarious joke. I still remember the joke, and I still think it is so funny. The Housewives are pretty much like that too. It is tragic that probably the traditional Vanity Fair crowd and the traditional Housewives crowd don’t mix more often. Stories about social climbing are so fun! Even if they are both really long taken in one sitting. They are serials! Don’t try to cram them if you don’t want to. But if you like to hear stories about people who, like, really like to party, these two are the same, but both worth checking out. I guess it depends on whether you feel like picking up a “classic” or saving a show from extinction. Or, if you don’t have a lot of other things going on, or a lot of parties of your own to crash, you could do both! You won’t regret it.
dennisfischman's review against another edition
4.0
Re-reading this right now for The Guardian book group on Goodreads.
reidob's review against another edition
4.0
Another in my effort to read as many as I can of the classic novels of other centuries. This is a delightful romp satirizing early 19th Century Great Britain and is particularly brutal to the upper classes of that era. The subtitle of the book is "a novel without a hero", precisely because Thackeray cannot find a single person worthy of that distinction among his characters.
Of course, this could easily become a grind in the hands of a lesser artist, but Thackeray is truly a master of his craft. Whenever the story begins to flag, you can almost feel him understanding this, and the gears of the story shift to another scene or another character.
The plot revolves around a group of friends, young people who are stratified entirely on the basis of their economic well-being. All of these wealthy, spoiled, mostly shiftless creatures are seemingly incapable of real work and provide, at best, a drag on the working world. Unfortunately, their parents also control the working world and pay most of the salaries of the working class, so there is very little choice but to serve them. Some of these are the nouveau riche, made rich in the early industrial age, and portrayed as crude and grasping. Others are a sort of aristocracy subdivided by titles and fortunes into distinct strata that one can only hope to ascend.
Though I thoroughly admire Thackery's mastery of the form, the sheer, deep cynicism of his vision is so venomous as to be somewhat off-putting. There is truly no one to love here, and even the most innocent of his characters is entirely oblivious of the sufferings of others. Perhaps some segments of British society of the time resembled this group of narcissists, but one would hope the author found a least a few kind and decent people around him, because I have to believe they existed somewhere.
Still, a fine and well-written book and well worth the investment of time and emotional energy involved. Give it a look!
Of course, this could easily become a grind in the hands of a lesser artist, but Thackeray is truly a master of his craft. Whenever the story begins to flag, you can almost feel him understanding this, and the gears of the story shift to another scene or another character.
The plot revolves around a group of friends, young people who are stratified entirely on the basis of their economic well-being. All of these wealthy, spoiled, mostly shiftless creatures are seemingly incapable of real work and provide, at best, a drag on the working world. Unfortunately, their parents also control the working world and pay most of the salaries of the working class, so there is very little choice but to serve them. Some of these are the nouveau riche, made rich in the early industrial age, and portrayed as crude and grasping. Others are a sort of aristocracy subdivided by titles and fortunes into distinct strata that one can only hope to ascend.
Though I thoroughly admire Thackery's mastery of the form, the sheer, deep cynicism of his vision is so venomous as to be somewhat off-putting. There is truly no one to love here, and even the most innocent of his characters is entirely oblivious of the sufferings of others. Perhaps some segments of British society of the time resembled this group of narcissists, but one would hope the author found a least a few kind and decent people around him, because I have to believe they existed somewhere.
Still, a fine and well-written book and well worth the investment of time and emotional energy involved. Give it a look!
torrie23's review against another edition
5.0
Another great classic. This book really makes you root for the characters.
bookdragon42's review against another edition
1.0
DNF. I gave it 100 pages, but life is too short to read awful books just because they have been labeled "classics."
iameannis's review against another edition
5.0
I really enjoy Thackeray's writing and the somewhat bitter portrayal of his characters. I've slowed down on this book since the story arch changed. I intend on getting back to it, but I am little bit promiscuous with my reading. It's hard to stick to one book at a time for me. Since the book was published as a serial, I figure that it's not a complete cheat to read it only a chapter at a time.
sarahbc93_'s review against another edition
1.0
Oh my god. Kill me now. I’ve never wanted to throw a book out the window more than this one.
The book is 601 pages long, this could easily have been trimmed down to 400 ish. I can’t stand many of the characters, in fact the only one I like is Major Dobbin.
The spilt of the narratives didn’t seem fair, we spent 90% of the book with Becky and the rest with everyone else. Which wasn’t great.
All in all, I’m never going to read this again.
The book is 601 pages long, this could easily have been trimmed down to 400 ish. I can’t stand many of the characters, in fact the only one I like is Major Dobbin.
The spilt of the narratives didn’t seem fair, we spent 90% of the book with Becky and the rest with everyone else. Which wasn’t great.
All in all, I’m never going to read this again.
chlopen's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
mutable_me's review against another edition
3.0
I wouldn't call this my favorite victorian novel by any means, but I've always been fascinated by the trick Thackeray pulls on the reader here. Despite his proclamation of the text as "A Novel Without A Hero", over the course of the sprawling narrative of the crafty, amoral Becky Sharp and her somewhat boring victorian-stock-heroine schoolmate and former friend Amelia Sedley, I had begun to read Vanity Fair as a standard Dickensian tale of misadventures and tragedy barreling towards a somewhat contrived, happy resolution. Imagine my surprise then, arriving at the conclusion, whereupon (without revealing too much!) Thackeray pulls the rug out from under the reader, revealing that Becky is every bit as bad as we've imagined her, and that even the supposedly heroic characters are flawed and perhaps not so noble after all.
That said, for all the fun comedy bits and Becky's place as one of the most interesting victorian female protagonists, like many satires the book is perhaps just a bit too cynical for its own good. While Thackeray performs some clever tricks with his reader's expectations, when all is said and done he still plays primarily to the staid middle-class victorian morality one would expect from a novel of this vintage, and that is somewhat disappointing.
That said, for all the fun comedy bits and Becky's place as one of the most interesting victorian female protagonists, like many satires the book is perhaps just a bit too cynical for its own good. While Thackeray performs some clever tricks with his reader's expectations, when all is said and done he still plays primarily to the staid middle-class victorian morality one would expect from a novel of this vintage, and that is somewhat disappointing.