bcgg's review against another edition
3.0
Rich warm and as inviting as Penelopes Conservatory
This is the first of Rosamunde Pilcher's massive hits. A satisfying read. I particularly like how she weaves in delicious images of flowers and scents to every scene as if she is painting a picture. Many images of cobbled stone villages and interesting characters throughout. Don't miss reading her book September if you enjoyed Shell Seekers.
This is the first of Rosamunde Pilcher's massive hits. A satisfying read. I particularly like how she weaves in delicious images of flowers and scents to every scene as if she is painting a picture. Many images of cobbled stone villages and interesting characters throughout. Don't miss reading her book September if you enjoyed Shell Seekers.
hgranger's review against another edition
3.0
I finished the book a couple of days ago and have had a hard time writing a review. For some reason, I feel guilty for not liking it more, and at the same time a little frustrated that it’s so popular and lauded for being such an amazing book.
I did like some things about it: First, Pilcher is a master at describing atmosphere and environment. The reader is right there in the kitchen at Orchard Street, in the sun on Ibiza, in Penelope’s garden. Second, the themes of the book are important to think about and write about—living your life to the fullest, finding true joy, not settling for the sake of convention, war, death, loss, love, parenting, allowing your children to grow up and make their own mistakes, as well as continuing to live life on your own terms even if your kids don’t approve.
So what did I not like? First, the characters were off. Not quite one-dimensional, but still somehow flat. Pilcher makes it clear who is likeable: if you’re tall, thin, perhaps not conventionally beautiful, but still somehow stunning, and bohemian, then you are a good person. Anyone who isn’t like that gets basically no redeeming qualities. They’re fat, selfish, boring, mean, abusive, lazy, etc. etc. We never find out what motivates anyone who is a bad character. Ambrose is a jerk, Noel is selfish and lazy, and dates anorexic girls with eyes like grapes/ gooseberries, Nancy is only driven by ambition and prestige which incidentally is exactly what Olivia is like, except Nancy is stupid and fat so she has a stupid husband and awful kids, while Olivia is thin and clever, so she is dating sexy men and living a wonderful life. And so it goes.
Then there is a strange undercurrent of not quite racism, but something. Everyone in the book is white. Yes, the book was written in 1987 so I understand that it was a different time and that writing and the world has changed since then. But part of the book takes place in London in the 1980s and London was definitely multicultural by then. The only nod to anything other than white Protestantism comes when speaking of the Friedmans, but seriously, Pilcher refers to their “pale refugee faces” — at Penelope’s funeral in 1984. What does that even mean? They still have “refugee faces” 40 years after the end of the war? Do you want to just come out and say they look “Jewish”? It just feels a little icky.
Finally, there are a few other things that rubbed me wrong. 1) By 1980 epilepsy was perhaps not researched in depth, but it was understood reasonably well enough to medicate fairly successfully. Having Danus decide he’s doomed to eternal loneliness and misery because he may have epilepsy is a stretch. 2) Why did bohemian, free-spirited Penelope go back to Ambrose? 3) What was the deal with all the drinking and driving? Was that a thing in the 1980s? 4) “Life without something to believe in would be intolerable.” Ok, it’s fine if that’s how you feel but making your atheist, free-thinking character say it feels like it’s forced into the narrative. Especially as there is no evidence of her believing in anything at all throughout the book. 5) How old was Sophie when she married Lawrence??? (And why was she referred to as Sophie and not mother/ Maman/ etc?) 6) And speaking of Sophie, who the hell thought a pleasure trip to London during the blitz was a good idea? This last one was a repeated convenient way to get rid of characters when they outlived their usefulness or when a different character needed a painful lesson in life’s temporary character.
So all in all, it’s probably a 2-2.5 star read, but I am trying to rate a bit more generously as my New Years resolution.
I did like some things about it: First, Pilcher is a master at describing atmosphere and environment. The reader is right there in the kitchen at Orchard Street, in the sun on Ibiza, in Penelope’s garden. Second, the themes of the book are important to think about and write about—living your life to the fullest, finding true joy, not settling for the sake of convention, war, death, loss, love, parenting, allowing your children to grow up and make their own mistakes, as well as continuing to live life on your own terms even if your kids don’t approve.
So what did I not like? First, the characters were off. Not quite one-dimensional, but still somehow flat. Pilcher makes it clear who is likeable: if you’re tall, thin, perhaps not conventionally beautiful, but still somehow stunning, and bohemian, then you are a good person. Anyone who isn’t like that gets basically no redeeming qualities. They’re fat, selfish, boring, mean, abusive, lazy, etc. etc. We never find out what motivates anyone who is a bad character. Ambrose is a jerk, Noel is selfish and lazy, and dates anorexic girls with eyes like grapes/ gooseberries, Nancy is only driven by ambition and prestige which incidentally is exactly what Olivia is like, except Nancy is stupid and fat so she has a stupid husband and awful kids, while Olivia is thin and clever, so she is dating sexy men and living a wonderful life. And so it goes.
Then there is a strange undercurrent of not quite racism, but something. Everyone in the book is white. Yes, the book was written in 1987 so I understand that it was a different time and that writing and the world has changed since then. But part of the book takes place in London in the 1980s and London was definitely multicultural by then. The only nod to anything other than white Protestantism comes when speaking of the Friedmans, but seriously, Pilcher refers to their “pale refugee faces” — at Penelope’s funeral in 1984. What does that even mean? They still have “refugee faces” 40 years after the end of the war? Do you want to just come out and say they look “Jewish”? It just feels a little icky.
Finally, there are a few other things that rubbed me wrong. 1) By 1980 epilepsy was perhaps not researched in depth, but it was understood reasonably well enough to medicate fairly successfully. Having Danus decide he’s doomed to eternal loneliness and misery because he may have epilepsy is a stretch. 2) Why did bohemian, free-spirited Penelope go back to Ambrose? 3) What was the deal with all the drinking and driving? Was that a thing in the 1980s? 4) “Life without something to believe in would be intolerable.” Ok, it’s fine if that’s how you feel but making your atheist, free-thinking character say it feels like it’s forced into the narrative. Especially as there is no evidence of her believing in anything at all throughout the book. 5) How old was Sophie when she married Lawrence??? (And why was she referred to as Sophie and not mother/ Maman/ etc?) 6) And speaking of Sophie, who the hell thought a pleasure trip to London during the blitz was a good idea? This last one was a repeated convenient way to get rid of characters when they outlived their usefulness or when a different character needed a painful lesson in life’s temporary character.
So all in all, it’s probably a 2-2.5 star read, but I am trying to rate a bit more generously as my New Years resolution.
katreadsalot's review against another edition
5.0
I truly loved this book/listening experience. Hayley Atwell was amazing. This book encompassed so much - beautiful English countryside, an interesting family, WWII historical fiction, and a love story. It was the perfect slow-moving, quiet, yet powerful read that I needed this summer.
fromsarahsbooknook's review against another edition
4.0
Pretty sure Olivia is basically never hanging out with Nancy and Noel again.
karaklos's review against another edition
2.0
Disappointing. I enjoy multi-generational family stories and historical fiction but The Shell Seekers fell a little flat. While there are a lot of interesting themes, none of them are delved into in a meaningful way. The main characters are extremely unlikeable and both the timeline and storyline are meandering. The author forces her own opinion of characters upon the reader as good or bad. There are also a lot of storyline tangents that seem to only make the book longer (600+ pages) vs. having a true purpose.
As is typical with stories that alternate between past and present, the past is much more interesting than the present. The backdrop for the past is WWII England where an older gentleman artist, his very young wife, and daughter live. They are free spirits...the daughter Penelope calls her mother by her first name (“she’s more like a sister!” we’re told multiple times) and normal social and living conventions aren’t followed. It is nailed into the reader’s head that their bohemian way of living is the best way to be. This portion is very light on history.
The “present” is the 1980’s and focuses on Penelope’s three adult children and a couple of ancillary characters. The three adult childrens’ characters are caricatures, all unlikeable and selfish, with terribly boring and meaningless lives. All three are terrible but Olivia for some reason is considered “special” but we are only told this (not shown this). Penelope can’t stand her other two children or her grandchildren but takes no ownership for their characters. Much of the book is spent describing these boring people. One thing I especially couldn’t stand is that 32 year old Olivia calls Penelope “mumma” which made me cringe each time I saw it.
The plot aimlessly drifts back and forth without any purpose. You learn about a character, thinking this is integral to the storyline. It isn’t. I kept asking where is the author going with this and highlighting sentences that were clearly supposed to be meaningful but were foolish.
There are aspects I enjoyed. The descriptions of Cornwall had me googling to see what it looks like today. I was also interested in finding out what happened with the artwork in Penelope’s possession which had become valuable.
Overall a very long, aimless read.
As is typical with stories that alternate between past and present, the past is much more interesting than the present. The backdrop for the past is WWII England where an older gentleman artist, his very young wife, and daughter live. They are free spirits...the daughter Penelope calls her mother by her first name (“she’s more like a sister!” we’re told multiple times) and normal social and living conventions aren’t followed. It is nailed into the reader’s head that their bohemian way of living is the best way to be. This portion is very light on history.
The “present” is the 1980’s and focuses on Penelope’s three adult children and a couple of ancillary characters. The three adult childrens’ characters are caricatures, all unlikeable and selfish, with terribly boring and meaningless lives. All three are terrible but Olivia for some reason is considered “special” but we are only told this (not shown this). Penelope can’t stand her other two children or her grandchildren but takes no ownership for their characters. Much of the book is spent describing these boring people. One thing I especially couldn’t stand is that 32 year old Olivia calls Penelope “mumma” which made me cringe each time I saw it.
The plot aimlessly drifts back and forth without any purpose. You learn about a character, thinking this is integral to the storyline. It isn’t. I kept asking where is the author going with this and highlighting sentences that were clearly supposed to be meaningful but were foolish.
There are aspects I enjoyed. The descriptions of Cornwall had me googling to see what it looks like today. I was also interested in finding out what happened with the artwork in Penelope’s possession which had become valuable.
Overall a very long, aimless read.
cathydavies's review against another edition
4.0
It is fascinating to reread something like the Shell Seekers at the realize how dated it is in some ways. Perhaps it isn't dated but I have changed so much that I get impatient with the selfishness of the characters and their upper middle class Britishness. Why are they so essentially naive and self centered at the same time? How did they get away with that for most of their lives?
Still lovely to imagine Cornwall and it's wild coasts.
Still lovely to imagine Cornwall and it's wild coasts.
buddygator's review against another edition
5.0
One of my favorites! I re-read this every 5 yrs or so, and am always discovering something new. Whether that’s identifying differently with a character or noticing a detail for the first time, this one is worth it every time. And yes, even though I know what happens, it still makes me cry (in a good way!).
kelly_virginia's review against another edition
emotional
lighthearted
relaxing
slow-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