Well, Henry James was either a freaking genius totally beyond the praise or criticism of lowly, unworthy readers, like yours truly OR a self-inETA:
Well, Henry James was either a freaking genius totally beyond the praise or criticism of lowly, unworthy readers, like yours truly OR a self-indulgent, pompous ass and I, for one, am still yearning for a chance to be able to travel back in time and throw this book at his self-indulgent, pompous head!
Even though I am presented with the subconscious of the characters to an almost painfully detailed degree, yet I feel totally detached from them. Whether it is the language or the literary technique or my misguided attempt to "bond" with the characters on some level to be able to care for them or at least to understand them a little, I find it impossible.
It's like looking at a grand, gorgeous aquarium with splendid, majestic, colourful fishes swimming around, but even though you try to take in & delight in all the details, you have to realise that you just can't, because the water is muddled or the glass containing them somehow magnifies & distorts your view and you get a splitting headache by looking through it too long.
Let it be said that this time, HJ did not irritate the hell out of me, which is a huge improvement!
Original review:
Dear Henry James,
after all these years I still cannot decide if it's just me or you or the both of us (aka the fault in our stars).
[image]
Maybe we met in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe there will come a time when a possible reunion ends in desperate hugs and tears & the question of "why did we waste all those precious years?" arises.
I don't know ... Let's give our relationship another try in 2019.
Whenever I think of Henry James (and that does not happen too often), the words obfuscating & convoluted come to mind besides WTF is this supposed to Whenever I think of Henry James (and that does not happen too often), the words obfuscating & convoluted come to mind besides WTF is this supposed to be all about? Maybe I will give him another try in years to come .......more
ETA on 17 Aug/2020 On second read, I am still standing by my original opinion. It's an interesting read in itself and as a "product" of its time, but fETA on 17 Aug/2020 On second read, I am still standing by my original opinion. It's an interesting read in itself and as a "product" of its time, but for me as a modern reader, and especially in comparison with Jane Austen, it's just too excessive. There's too much of everything, like a pantomime.
Original review 2,5 stars
As an Austen fan and having read Northanger Abbey where Fanny Burney's Camilla is mentioned, I thought I'll give the book a try. Although it proved quite enjoyable for a time, after 500 pages and countless misunderstandings later, where the MCs, Camilla & Edgar, almost seem to make it just to end up further and further apart, I got really bored.
The novel is DIDACTIC and SENTIMENTAL at the same time and these tendencies just do not mix well in this particular story. Maybe Burney could have pulled it off, if both readers & characters were spared further 500 superfluous & insipid pages of suffering just so that Burney could drove home her point which was crystal clear after reading the first 500 anyway.
Burney might have inspired Jane Austen, but Austen exceeded and outsmarted her in every way. Where Austen's plots are tight without any unnecessary subplots and going-ons, just for the sake of writing another 200 pages, Burney keeps repeating events, her characters find themselves over and over in similar circumstances without adding anything new to plot or to characterisation. Admittedly, Jane Austen also used cliché characters but her genius breathed life into them, while Burney's characters - even or especially the main characters, with the exception of the wonderful Eugenia - stay flat and tiresome.
Yes, I know, it was not easy for F.B. In her time, novel-writing in general, but especially by women, was frowned upon, while novel reading was considered a guilty pleasure. It also goes with the literary tradition of the era that heroines other than perfect goody two-shoes or repentant sinners were out of the question. Still, I found Camilla one of the most frustrating ingenues who tiptoed in all her naivety and gullibility into print. Think of a singing-to-the birdies Disney-heroine and you are not far off. And all the world and their sons are in love with her. Her family, friends and admirers assume her perfect because of her being pretty and kind but without much else to prove their point. Neither did the author feel the need to emphasize Camilla's good qualities with any actual actions really outside the realm of the cliché and dull. As a result, she remains a rather one-sided character without any real progress than being understood rather than misunderstood by her love interest, Edgar at the end of the painfully long 1000 pages.
Yes, Edgar, the hero with a handsome face, noble heart and a great inheritance. But in reality he is a huge, superficial, judgmental ASS, who does not even try to give Camilla's (always misunderstood) actions the benefit of the doubt, but always judges by appearances.
They do make a nice couple ... NOT.
Camilla'sister, Eugenia is by far the most interesting and profound character of the novel. Her personal tragedy - her early beauty deformed by an illness and being in love with a guy who's blinded by the skin-deep beauty of their shallow, stupid cousin, Indiana - and the courage she bears it with make her endearing. Hers was the only subplot that I followed with the most interest and sympathy. And she may well be one of the first "Nerds" in fiction, (and I mean it utterly appreciatively, in case you wonder). She is intelligent, educated, bookish. ... Hmmm....
The novel still proved an interesting experience for me to know what was considered popular reading in that period, but all in all, I find the novels of Maria Edgeworth (Burney's and Austen's contemporary) more palatable, though nowhere as perfect as the JA novels....more
Loading...
