Saturday, June 07, 2008
First impressions
I ended up truly loving this book. I had a few reservations at the outset, before I started reading, that it might basically deal in British quaintness and eccentricity and not have much else going on. (I've come to be leery of "quirkiness" as a selling point in fiction/film). But this struck me as authentically odd and wonderful. (I don't know if I really have a question here other than did you like the book? Were you surprised by it in any way?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I loved it. I know what you mean about the British-ness and how that's not enough to carry a novel. I think the narrator had a lot to do with raising the bar here. The character was so real and basically guided the rest. The eccentricity became sort of a backdrop.
Yes, that's a good way to put it: the eccentricity becoming a backdrop to Cassandra's real and sympathetic voice.
Mostly, I did enjoy the book. The quirkiness was endearing at first, a most. Somewhere along the way I did begin to think it was another stone in the cultural bulwark of unrealistic romantic love. Then I thought maybe I was jaded.
"another stone in the cultural bulwark of unrealistic romantic love."
Ack! That is the theme of Shakespeare's "Troilus and Cressida." But pshaw! What did Shakespeare know?
didn't it seem a little goofy to you? Two impoverished, solitary girls improbably meet two weathly men. There are a series of twists and turns, hijinks and traumas. Then every one falls in love with the right person (Simon will get there) and the story closes. Meanwhile everyone grows up.
too neat for me in the end, I guess.
Oh, I didn't think so. I actually thought it wasn't too tidy, and I liked that. I mean, wouldn't it have been nicer if Cassandra had fallen for Stephen in the end? And I didn't get the impression that Simon would come around. I figured Cassandra was going to have to live with her heartache for a while.
I didn't think it was tidy at all, certainly not like some of the tidy endings you see in Jane Austen, our heroine's idol. She and Rose long to live in an Austen novel (and in the more darkly romantic novels of the Bronte sisters).
I'm not at all convinced that Cassandra will end up with Simon. She had the chance to leap into his arms, but she didn't because she realized he still loved Rose, that she, Cassandra, was his second choice, and that he would really just be settling for her. And she says "that isn't enough."
It's not a naive and tidy view of love that she realizes at the end. It's complex and bittersweet, I think. She refers to the "follow-my-leader game of second-best we have all been playing — Rose with Simon, Simon with me, me with Stephen, and Stephen, I suppose, with that detestable Leda Fox-Cotton. It isn't a very good game; the people you play it with are apt to get hurt."
Even if Simon comes to truly love her at some point (like Marianne came to love Colonel Brandon in Austen's "Sense and Sensibility"), Cassandra doesn't get a straightforward fairy tale ending. She gets a lot of pain, too. She gets the realization that comes to all young people at some point that love is not about deserving it. Not for her with Simon. Not for Stephen with her. It's a much deeper mystery than she had ever fathomed.
I think when she writes "I love you" repeatedly at the end that it's about so much more than Simon, if it's about him at all. It's about having experienced the beauty and joy of love and embracing that as a worthwhile experience, heartache and all. She may end up with Simon. Or she may come across another man who loves her with Stephen's passion and whom — rarity!— she also happens to be wild about.
Hum. I guess I was the only one irritated by the book. Only at parts, mind you. I had a conversation with myself yesterday morning (Cassandra would be proud) to decide if I believed in romantic love. As of now, I'm undecided.
Perhaps my problem is that, as you say kc, love is a deep mystery. But I think that mystery has little to do with the infatuation that comes from the start of romance. Rather the mystery emerges after people buckle down and do the difficult work that builds strong relationships. Starry eyes just don't carry all that far by themselves.
Cynical? Perhaps. But that's my view and it left the book feeling a little impossible, or naive or something that was irritating to me.
Wow, that's really interesting. I've never heard of someone not believing in romantic love. Didn't you say you were a big fan of Valentine's Day?
You do kind of make it sound like drudgery. In my opinion, buckling down and doing the difficult work is sure a lot easier if you've got a little romance and passion.
Right Erin, of course passion and romance are important parts of a relationship, just like physical attraction and playfulness are.
My problem is not with passion, its with infatuation. And unrealistic expectations of what relationships are about caused by the predominate tenor of love stories.
I love Valentine's Day, not because of its Hallmark qualities. I'm a fan of Valentine's Day because it remembers St. Valentine and his devotion to God. That makes it a Christian holiday, to me. Above all it reminds me of the primacy of God's love that is the foundation of the universe. V-day says we were made by a loving Creator in order to love God and others, chocolate and flowers quite aside.
Sorry to turn it theological, just telling ya what I think.
oh, and I think love is ultimately expressed by what you DO, not how you feel. Love is concrete acts of kindness, forgiveness, generosity, thoughtfulness, etc. Not flutters in the chest. I mean those are nice and all, they feel good, but they are not "love" that will stand the test of time. Hopefully the chest flutters lead to the actions but just as often they fail to, when the polish wears off.
Okay I'll stop now.
Well, I gotta disagree with you there. I think if you're not feeling it, if you're not having flutters, maybe you're not in love. There's certainly a difference between loving someone and being in love. But then again, I certainly believe in romantic love.
I was talking with a friend a few weeks ago, and she was saying that even after 25 years of marriage, she still gets flutters when she hears her husband's car pull into the garage each night. This is a person who knows all about working at a relationship and making compromises and concrete gestures. Why does the polish have to wear off?
To me, if you don't want flutters, why bother to have a lover? Just have your family and friends and call it a day.
What's the difference b/w loving someone and being in love?
Well, you may reject the whole premise, because to me it's about feelings. It's the definition of romantic love. It's the difference between how you feel about your close friends vs. how you feel about your lover. And it's not just physical attraction. There's a deep emotional desire for that person, for intimacy with that person.
I don't reject your premise at all. I do wonder though if this is a matter of temperament. I am a "thinker" far away and above a "feeler." Perhaps you and I expereince such things differently.
Or perhaps I should just defer to your wisdom here considering I am the single one.
I am curious, where would you imagine children to fall in that dichotmy? Are they people you love or people with whom you are IN love?
No need to defer -- I certainly don't think myself an expert. I must admit my opinion is based more on personal experience and observation than an academic analysis. Strangely enough, I consider myself much more of a "thinker" as well.
Interesting question about children. Not having had that experience, I don't quite feel qualified to answer. I often read a parenting column by John Rosemond, who has said that one of the major problems with the current generation of parents is that they are IN LOVE with their children. The children are the center of attention in the family, the parent-child relationship is the most important relationship, the children are treated as though everything is about them, etc. His position is that parenting is about leadership, and you can't be an effective leader to someone you're in love with.
I love you two thinkers!
And what about dogs? Love or in love?
AEL, when you were at my house, I very distinctly heard you say, "I think I'm in love with you, Mabel."
And clearly, Dodie Smith, the author of "The Hundred and One Dalmatians," was in love with a dog or two.
I just read this description of Smith in her later years: "She was tiny, forthright, unsentimental and extremely well dressed." This is exactly how I imagine you two thinkers in your dotage. Hehe
Hehe. I think those people who dress up their dogs in little outfits and serve them canned food on little glass dishes are definitely in love with their dogs.
Also, I would totally aspire to be tiny, forthright, unsentimental and extremely well dressed.
What can i say, Mabel made me swoon.
As to tiny, forthright, etc. I beleive I have a new life goal.
Meanwhile, I'll be your paunchy, waffling, prodigiously sentimental and shabbily dressed companion, OK?
Post a Comment