In other parts of the world, they love John Green. Here in St. JR's, we love John Irving.

According to my dictionary, Green is of the color of growing foliage, between yellow and blue in the color wheel. While Irving on the other hand, is a genius, hard-working, persevering person who can manage time efficiently; knows how to balance important aspects of life. This has led me to conclude that Irving is a much more suitable name for a writer than Green, and has also solidified my belief that Irving is a much better novelist than Green. It just struck me that the definition of Irving is so close to Irving's nature as a writer. "knows how to balance important aspects of life" So true. John Green, taking nothing away from him, has much to learn from John Irving. The hordes of teens crying because of John Green's melodramatic deaths will benefit much more if they try reading John Irving. I think I'll feel much better about the collective future of the human race if the crazy teenage obsession towards John Green was given to John Irving instead.

Moving on, John Irving's The Cider House Rules is a thought-provoking novel that's both entertaining and affecting. As expected from Irving, the novel is filled with characters to feel for. Characters that have the weirdest backgrounds, the funniest thoughts, the craziest names. Yet they appear more real than the real characters in our lives, the characters we know. It has always been Irving's strength, his characters. Homer Wells, the protagonist, is an orphan boy whose search for identity manifests a richness of the human spirit that is unlike any I have ever read. His story is a marvel to watch as it unfolds. During the first parts of the book, I couldn't help feel that grim aura that enveloped St. Cloud's. That fog-like cloud, that mist that was ever present, that presence of loneliness, of unwantedness, of reckless abandon. That feeling that every orphan felt etched inside their bones. The feeling that every woman had whether their case was that of an abortion or of the orphan conception. I felt it. “Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.” That Homer turned to Dickens and Bronte for guidance was fitting. His several experiences with foster homes made him realize that he belonged in St. Clouds. He learned "to be of use". So he became the assistant to Dr. Larch, the director of the orphanage and also his father figure. The relationship between Dr. Larch and Homer Wells has got to be one of the most touching examples of a father-son relationship in literature albeit not by blood. From St. Clouds he would move to Ocean View Orchard. I'm not going to get into specifics, this is not that kind of a review. You need to discover that on your own. I'm just gonna say that his journey towards finding out who he is ultimately ends in a self-discovery that touches the heart. It's a very special book.

One of the most important if not the most important point of the book has got to do with abortion. Dr. Larch did abortions in St. Cloud's and wanted Homer to follow in his foot-steps. Homer, though he thought abortion should be legalized, didn't want to perform it. He believed that fetuses have souls. “Here is the trap you are in.... And it's not my trap—I haven't trapped you. Because abortions are illegal, women who need and want them have no choice in the matter, and you—because you know how to perform them—have no choice, either. What has been violated here is your freedom of choice, and every woman's freedom of choice, too. If abortion was legal, a woman would have a choice—and so would you. You could feel free not to do it because someone else would. But the way it is, you're trapped. Women are trapped. Women are victims, and so are you.”

“These same people who tell us we must defend the lives of the unborn-they are the same people who seem not so interested in defending anyone but themselves after the accident of birth is complete! These same people who profess their love of the unborn's soul-they don't care to make much of a contribution to the poor, they don't care to offer much assistance to the unwanted or the oppressed! How do they justify such a concern for the fetus and such a lack of concern for unwanted and abused children? They condemn others for the accident of conception; they condemn the poor-as if the poor can help being poor. One way the poor could help themselves would be to be in control of the size of their families. I thought that freedom of choice was obviously democratic-was obviously American!”

“If pride is a sin ... moral pride is the greatest sin.”

I have come out of this book much more aware of my position towards abortion. Before I read this book, I would have said that I was against abortion. I didn't like the thought of killing babies, but I hadn't really reflected on the gravity of the situation. With the insights I've gotten from the book, and after my struggle with my thoughts. I have finally decided that I am against anti-abortion laws. It actually doesn't matter if you believe that it is wrong or not. What matters is that people who think otherwise should have the choice to avail it. If I have learned anything in my short life, it is never to impose my will upon others. And I believe that anti-abortion laws, is just that. Imposition of self-righteousness. I'm not forcing my belief upon you, I'm not starting a debate. I'm just stating my opinion. Nothing else. This book opened my eyes, if not removed that veil of ignorance around it. It's just saddening that abortion is still illegal in my country. Here's to hoping that it'll change soon.

Another important point of the book has to do with rules. The name of the novel, The Cider House Rules, concurs to the idea that rules play a very important role in this novel. Actually, it has more to do with breaking the rules. “We got our own rules.” The words of Mr. Rose, the boss of the apple-picking crew, when Homer asks him why the men don’t follow the rules posted in the cider house. Mr. Rose’s words underscore a major theme of the novel: when the rules don’t make sense, people have to make their own rules. Homer learns this lesson when he begins to perform abortions. Although the procedure is illegal, he feels he must “break the rules” to do what is right. In the end, he chose to be the Hero of his own life. He chose to make his own rules.

As I end, let me leave you with an excerpt that I think greatly encapsulates the message of the book:

“It´s natural to want someone you love to do what you want, or what you think would be good for them, but you have to let everything happen to them. You can't interfere with people you love any more than you're supposed to interfere with people you don't even know. And that's hard, ..., because you often feel like interfering -you want to be the one who makes the plans.”

I really, really wanted to like this book, and I thought it was very good initially, but the more I read, the less I liked it. Unlike many others, the subject matter (abortion) didn’t bother me at all. What bothered me was an overall lack of connection with the characters and the fact that I honestly felt that this more than 600 page book was never going to end! I think that he could have written this in 300 pages or less. I found myself frequently checking to see how much there was left to read.
One thing that annoys me quite a bit with Irving is his obsession with weight, specifically, with regards to women and weight. It seems to be a major issue with him. I don’t like that sort of crap at all. Many years ago, I read a terrible book by him, “The 158-Pound Marriage”, named after one of the characters who weighed the “dreaded” 158-pounds. How could she?! Quelle horreur! To be that obese! The story line for that one was the absolute worst – about two couples who swapped partners, swingers basically.
I’m giving it two stars, because I feel a wee bit generous and because I have to be honest in that I liked it at first.

3,5/ 5

Der Roman hätte mir wesentlich besser gefallen, wenn nicht weite Teile aus völlig belanglosen und uninteressanten Nebenschauplätzen bestanden hätten.

I did enjoy this story but found myself bored at times; it's too long!

Over all a pretty crappy book. There were some good points. There were some very powerful and strong characters, and then some really flat see-through personalities. Ultimately the book had a very good point. Everyone makes rules, and as people we have to pick which ones we follow and which ones we don't. Should we follow rules? Should we make our own rules? How relevant and practical are actual rules in the real world? More specifically, how relevant are ant-abortion laws? As the readers we take two journey's, one as the doctor, who learns when to bend the rules for ethical reasons. We also watch young Homer as he learns about the purpose of rules. Ultimately though, it is the character of Melanie, who I feel is the hero of the story. Melanie, despite appearing to be mildly sociopathic, seems to be the only one holding any integrity and morals. In the end she gives Homer a good kick in the ass as she sees he has essentially disowned his own son. It saddens me her character was completely taken out of the movie. The character I hated the most was Candy. Candy is a character clearly invented by a man, for men. She seems to have no other emotions but being helplessly attracted to men. She never objects to any thing anyone does, her emotions are never considered, except that she desires men, and can’t chose between them. When Homer takes a pregnant Candy away from her family to endure pregnancy and birth with a bunch of strangers, Candy never seems to mind. Not even during Christmas does she mind being held in hiding from her father whom she is very close too, and her friends and close family. She is just simply there pleasantly happy.
The book is badly written. There is often foreshadowing for something that never happens, as if author took out large chunks of plot, but forgot to go back and edit it. Candy isn't the only flat character, and there's a lot of useless information about things that don't really add to the plot, or have to do with anything. Often there are scenes, words that are extremely disturbing. This would be fine if these awful scenes contributed to story, or plot, or were interesting, or placed in strategic places. Instead they are there merely to make the reader uncomfortable. For example, the whole pornographic picture with the woman and the horse, is that really necessary to explain about Homer's sexual development and Melanie’s violence? Or must we really hear the details about Candy getting shaved before her abortion, and how Homer saved her hair? These scenes distract from the plot, leave a bad taste, ultimately painting the world as a crude, awkward, unnatural place. Perhaps that is how Irving sees the world, and this book is his betrayal. That's interesting.

John Irving is one of my favourite authors and possibly the one I have loved the longest. This was the second book I read of his and the first I read in English which might be why for the longest time if someone asked for my favourite books "The Cider House Rules" was among them. Now having re-read it for the first time in maybe ten years, I hate to admit but my ex-boyfriend was right. As brilliant as this book is and as much as I love the characters - The World According to Garp is better. Which is a shame because I hate to admit I was wrong about anything, especially books.

I still think it is pretty brilliant book and the character's Irving creates are as special as they come. He crafts his stories carefully and thoughtfully and makes you feel for them even though they behave like idiots. You want to shake them and shout at them - pretty much like you would want to with real friends of yours - which makes Irving's work so special. Still, I get why people dislike this book. It is dogmatic at times and the debate about pro life/ pro choice feels forced. For me this does not change the fact that I adore this book.

First thing I should say is that I’ve never seen the film, only parts of it, but that was enough to have an idea that the film was NOT the book; as is usual, some parts are rewritten for the screen and some things can’t be shown but more important is that a key character from the book is eliminated. I think that much of this is due to the director, Lasse Hallström, who has probably directed more ABBA videos than cinema; I’ve only seen one of his films, “Chocolat”, based on the Joanne Harris book, and I get the idea: feel-good with some adult situations but nothing so serious that you couldn’t go with your grandmother without feeling embarrassed. (By the way, I’m “grandparent age” and know we’re not so much shocked as occasionally bored by overuse of some words and attempts to shock; thank you but we’ve already been there, done that, we’ve already heard most of the words and don’t ask what we’ve done because YOU may be shocked!)

The story centers at first on Dr. Wilbur Larch, a gynecologist who heads an orphanage but is also ahead of his time in believing that every woman has the right to choose a safe (and illegal) abortion rather than having a child. In this way, women disembarking from the train in his small town either come at a late stage in their pregnancy to give birth and leave their child behind to (hopefully) be adopted, or at an early stage for a safe medical abortion rather than trusting to some backroom butcher. (In the book, there are examples of both cases.) One of the orphans left behind, first by his mother and then four unsuccessful adoption attempts, is Homer Wells. (The final attempt ends in a typical Irving tragicomic bizarre fashion, an Irving trademark.) Homer is also paired with a slightly older non-adoptable girl, Melonie, who was eliminated from the film but is extremely important in the book; in fact, it’s doubtful that Homer would have developed the way he did without her. Homer is a complete innocent until he meets the worldly-wise Melonie, rejected by even more prospective homes by her bad attitude and licentious behavior; she is the first corrupting influence on Homer, through a photo which depicts an act which I doubt any of us has seen in person, let alone participated in, and is directly connected to Dr. Larch’s backstory and his career as an abortionist. She is also part of one of the threads to the story because she is not only an early corrupting influence but a sort of later moral compass.

There’s a strong comparison between John Irving and Charles Dickens in that they both have various simultaneous storylines that touch at some points, then separate again, but also have strange detours which seem to not have any real connection to the main plot – until they do. I’m not putting them on the same level, of course; Dickens wrote serialized novels which have stood the test of time while Irving has been wildly inconsistent. This was my sixth Irving novel, after “Garp”, “Hotel New Hampshire”, “The Fourth Hand” (best forgotten, in my opinion), “Widow for One Year”, and my personal favorite, “Prayer for Owen Meany.” As usual, it featured quirky characters and bizarre incidents, some of which ended in strange deaths. Although I wasn’t all that impressed by the beginning – it seemed slow and focused on eccentricity more than plot development, I was soon caught up in the story and it moved up on my list of Irving favorites. I have three more of his in my “to-read” pile and I can only hope that they can come close to this novel. If you’ve only seen the film, you can still read the book without expecting it to be the same; it’s worth the trouble to discover all that may have been left out.

Incredible book. You can watch my review here - http://youtu.be/NINrIZE1Dco

The book started really very well. I liked the first part, I had also a lot of laugh-out-loud moments and I was curious to see what would happen next. I was totally in the story and also liked the characters, they were all so particular and eccentric. But going on with the reading I get bored by the story and, above all, by the characters. These never changed, they always said the same things and behaved the same way. It is as if they didn't have a development: they were the same from the beginning of the book till the end, at least 30 years later. Also, from the second part of the story every event and every behaviour of the characters was predictable. I already could foresee what would happen and what they would have done. Maybe the only character that had a small change in her personality and that surprised me was Melony. I arrived at the end of the book that I had enough of the characters and their lives.

Ką čia parašyt... ką čia parašyt? Knyga, reikalaujanti laiko ir apmąstymų. Sunkoka istorija. Abortai, vieniša motinystė, rašytos ir nerašytos taisyklės ir supratimas, kad kasdieninio gyvenimo taisyklės negali būti detalizuotos, užrašytos ir priskirtos kažkuriai kategorijai.

I read this book a long time ago (more than 20 years), but today seems like a good day to review it. It was published in 1985 and starts in the 1940s.

It's a long, complicated, literary novel that tackles the issue of abortion and also racism.

"Good night, you princes of Maine, you kings of New England." That's how the elderly Dr Larch says goodnight to his collection of orphans.

Larch is an abortionist who took to the task after seeing the suffering of prostitutes forced to seek unqualified help in this area. He also accepts unwanted babies into his orphanage. He's a complex individual, addicted to the ether with which he sedates his patients.

The story follows one of the orphans, Homer, and as he grows Larch comes to see him as his successor, training him appropriately. As a young man Homer leaves the orphanage and becomes involved with a couple who run a cider orchard. The work is primarily done by black labourers who live in the Cider House and have the eponymous list of rules as their own private constitution to maintain order/civility in the difficult circumstances of their lives. Homer and later, his son, mix with the labourers and many questions about American society and various personal relationships and power dynamics are asked.

The book doesn't preach at you. It navigates the fraught waters of race and abortion in the US over several decades as Homer passes through various stages in his life. It's primarily about people, about the strange, prickly, violent, loving individuals that occupy its focus.

Like much literary fiction there are no answers given, no winners, just lives lived. People are flawed, inconsistent, hard to understand, but ultimately they're the company we get as we march through the years.

In the end, Homer resolves his feelings about Dr Larch, the orphanage, and the career Dr Larch had mapped out for him.

Irving is a skilled and sensitive writer, the book is an engaging read. The focus on found family, relationships, procreations, fathers both biological and those who step into the role, all provide a framework on which the issue of abortion, unwanted babies, and broken lives can be exhibited, inspected, and explored.


Join my Patreon
Join my 3-emails-a-year newsletter #prizes

..

„Tie patys žmonės, kurie mums sako, kad privalome saugoti dar negimusių kūdikių gyvybę, - jie yra tie patys, kurie nebenori saugoti nieko kito, tik save, po to, kai atsitiktinai pradėtas kūdikis jau būna gimęs.“

5/5

Kad ir ką darai, būk naudingas. Kad ir kur bebūtum, kad ir ką bedirbtum – tik būk naudingas. Galbūt darbas nebus Dievo, bet argi visi darbai, kurie ne jo, tampa Šėtono darbais? Ar viskas gyvenime tik juoda ir balta? Ar nusižengimas taisyklei tampa nuodėme? O galbūt didesnė nuodėmė būtų jai paklusti? Kartais reikia tiesiog pagyventi ir pamatyti, bet argi ne tai yra didžiausia įmanoma prabanga, tenkanti žmogui? Galėti laukti ir stebėti, atsitraukiant ir nesikišant? O kada nesikišti taptų nuodėme? Kokį sprendimą būtų galima laikyti pačiu asmeniškiausiu? Ar tą, kuris pasirenka gyvybę sukurti, ar tą, kuris pasirenka gyvybę nutraukti? O ir galiausiai, kur brėžiame ribą – kas yra gyvybė? Kur brėžiame ribas sprendimų, kuriuos priimdami prisidengiame Dievo taisyklėmis? O galbūt taisyklės skirtos tik žmonėms? Kuriamos tik žmonių? Atviros interpretacijoms?

Johnas Irvingas vienoje pastraipoje moka pasakyti daugiau, nei kiti rašytojai pasako per visą knygą. Jis kuria tokį gyvą, tokį tikrą pasaulį, dėmesį skirdamas ne visiems, toli gražu, bet dievaži, kuomet jau atsuka rampos šviesas į veikėją, jis sužiba pačiomis įvairiausiomis įmanomomis spalvomis. Ir visai kaip spalvos, taip ir žmonių savybės čia nėra nei gražios, nei negražios – jos tiesiog yra. Visiems atviri keliai rinktis, suprasti, spręsti – kokias taisykles kurtis ir kokių laikytis – nes nesvarbu kur ir kada gimėme, visi turime teisę į taisykles, savas ar svetimas, kaip ir visi turime teisę prieš jas užsimerkti. Ir bet koks taisyklių primetimas, svetimų, nesuprantamų, niekada neatneša tokios pabaigos, kurios norėtum ar tikėtumeis. Irvingas, kaip ir didžioji dalis jo veikėjų, nesiima nei aiškinti, nei teisti. Jis rodo – tik tuomet, kai paleidi stipriausius primestus įsitikinimus – ką mylėti, kaip mylėti, kaip gyventi ir su kuo, tik tuomet iš tiesų gali pradėti ne šiaip egzistuoti.

Vis dažniau sakau, kad mažai tikrai storų knygų turi tvirtą pateisinimą būti tokiomis storomis. Dažniausiai niekas nenukentėtų, kokiam šimtui puslapių nubyrėjus. Taip ir čia – keli apkarpymai šen ar ten, keli išmesti dažniausi pasikartojimai būtų tikrai knygos nesugadinę. Ir vis dėlto, net nuobodžiausias Irvingo puslapis vis tiek persmelktas talentu, prieš kurį neįmanoma užsimerkti. Daug čia vietos įsižeisti, priimti asmeniškai, susierzinti, bet Irvingas nemanipuliuoja nei skaitytoju, nei jo emocijomis. Jis rodo kaip yra ir kaip būna, leisdamas tam, kuris verčia puslapius, į viską žvelgti sekant savo paties moraliniu kompasu. Jo veikėjai, tokie gyvi ir tokie tikri, absoliučiai žmogiški, todėl ne visada pateisinimami, gyvenimai, plaukiantys savomis vagomis, bet kaip ir upės subėgantys į vieną vandenyną, tokį neaprėpiamą, nenuspėjamą – visai kaip pats gyvenimas. Nes Sidro namų taisyklės nėra tik romanas. Tai gyvenimas.