![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Title: Vanity Fair
Author: William Makepeace Thackeray
Genre: Classics
Thingummies: 3
Synopsis: Two girls, one a respectable gentlewoman and one the daughter of bohemians, attempt to make their way through British high society during the Napoleonic Wars.
Thoughts: I never quite figured out what the lesson Thackeray was trying to teach was.
Oh, on the surface, it's incredibly bluntly obvious. The numerous asides to the conceit of the "Vanity Fair", which expresses all the downfalls of the human race, makes it pretty clear this is intended as a morality tale. He repeatedly reminds us how bad it is to be venal and materialistic. Becky Sharp, the social climbing little vixen, is endlessly portrayed as a scheming viper. Amelia, on the other hand, simpers sweetly along to be rewarded with a love ostensibly worth her in the end.
The thing is, on closer examination, nothing is quite so clear-cut. Oh, Becky is frequently awful to people. It's implied at the end that she might even have killed someone. But even the narrator cannot help but sympathize with her from time to time. She's in a social situation where she's expected to just be genteelly poor and accept that she's a social pariah, because of her parents. She doesn't particularly want to be starving and dependent and looked down on by respectable folk for being "no better than she should be". Yes, she does some awful things--but plenty of other people do awful things without being punished because they have "better" blood. And the things she gets castigated for are usually stupid, as opposed to the actual awful things she's done. By the end, Thackeray can't seem to quite give her the terrible fate she seems destined for. Meanwhile, her selfishness leaves plenty of people wrecked behind her--but so does the attempts at goodness by many of the other characters. Almost no one makes off well.
Amelia, on the other hand, starts off as the image of perfect goodness and humility. Dobbin, too, begins as all that is noble and righteous. By the end, they're both fools. I suppose they deserve each other, from beginning to end--my sympathy for them dwindled at roughly the same rate.
So while this starts off as a morality play with the implication that the just will get their desserts in the end, and the unjust will finally be punished for their transgressions, basically everyone ends up tattered and dirty, without any particular rhyme or reason to who gets a happy ending and who does not.
There is skill and wit to be found here, but it can't really hold a candle to some of the novels in whose company Vanity Fair is often kept. It lacks the passion of the Brontes, the deep psychological insight of Eliot, and the warmth and wit of Austen. Becky Sharp is clearly the most interesting character, and she's a spiky one true to her name--she's entertaining, but hardly endearing. It's not a bad book, but it's really not up to the level of others in the same category.
Author: William Makepeace Thackeray
Genre: Classics
Thingummies: 3
Synopsis: Two girls, one a respectable gentlewoman and one the daughter of bohemians, attempt to make their way through British high society during the Napoleonic Wars.
Thoughts: I never quite figured out what the lesson Thackeray was trying to teach was.
Oh, on the surface, it's incredibly bluntly obvious. The numerous asides to the conceit of the "Vanity Fair", which expresses all the downfalls of the human race, makes it pretty clear this is intended as a morality tale. He repeatedly reminds us how bad it is to be venal and materialistic. Becky Sharp, the social climbing little vixen, is endlessly portrayed as a scheming viper. Amelia, on the other hand, simpers sweetly along to be rewarded with a love ostensibly worth her in the end.
The thing is, on closer examination, nothing is quite so clear-cut. Oh, Becky is frequently awful to people. It's implied at the end that she might even have killed someone. But even the narrator cannot help but sympathize with her from time to time. She's in a social situation where she's expected to just be genteelly poor and accept that she's a social pariah, because of her parents. She doesn't particularly want to be starving and dependent and looked down on by respectable folk for being "no better than she should be". Yes, she does some awful things--but plenty of other people do awful things without being punished because they have "better" blood. And the things she gets castigated for are usually stupid, as opposed to the actual awful things she's done. By the end, Thackeray can't seem to quite give her the terrible fate she seems destined for. Meanwhile, her selfishness leaves plenty of people wrecked behind her--but so does the attempts at goodness by many of the other characters. Almost no one makes off well.
Amelia, on the other hand, starts off as the image of perfect goodness and humility. Dobbin, too, begins as all that is noble and righteous. By the end, they're both fools. I suppose they deserve each other, from beginning to end--my sympathy for them dwindled at roughly the same rate.
So while this starts off as a morality play with the implication that the just will get their desserts in the end, and the unjust will finally be punished for their transgressions, basically everyone ends up tattered and dirty, without any particular rhyme or reason to who gets a happy ending and who does not.
There is skill and wit to be found here, but it can't really hold a candle to some of the novels in whose company Vanity Fair is often kept. It lacks the passion of the Brontes, the deep psychological insight of Eliot, and the warmth and wit of Austen. Becky Sharp is clearly the most interesting character, and she's a spiky one true to her name--she's entertaining, but hardly endearing. It's not a bad book, but it's really not up to the level of others in the same category.
