The Cider House Rules

Это очень добрая книга, хотя временами слишком праведная, иногда чересчур откровенная – в чём в чём, в ханжестве Ирвинга нельзя упрекнуть, это книга о сиротах, брошенных матерями, книга о молодых матерях, брошенных мужчинами, книга о гинекологах, делающих моральный выбор – когда появляется душа у младенца и этично ли делать аборты или этично ли не делать аборты, если он может помочь женщине избавиться от нежеланной беременности? В книге много натуралистичных подробностей, но их шокирующая реалистичность с медицинскими подробностями из акушерской практики придает диагностической честности этой книге. Эта книга, призванная пробуждать подавленный голос совести у безответственных отцов и несчастных матерей сирот, у общества, отказывающем женщинам в праве отказаться от нежеланной беременности, не оказывающего поддержку одиноким матерям, вынужденным отказываться от своих детей. В ушах звучат безутешные рыдания Кудри Дея о том, что «он самый лучший», думающего, что красивая чета Кенди и Уолли пришла выбирать ребенка для усыновления и что они остановили выбор на почти взрослом Гомере. Да, он самый лучший и вообще все ребятишки в приюте – самые лучшие. Он пишет о Сент-Облаке, как о нечто вневременном, внепространственном и незыблемом (сироты не любят перемен) с внешне кажущейся унылостью, но наполненной светом и теплом. И действительно, брошенные дети в этом приюте имеют свою большую семью.
Дилемма делать или не делать аборты решается в пользу абортов.
Что в книге показалось слишком уж невозможным – тройственный союз в течение 15 лет. Никто не догадался, никто не сорвался, все бесконфликтно и безревностно. Это не человеки. Если Кенди спит одновременно с двумя мужчинами, и Гомер остается спокойно принимающим наличие другого сексуального партнера в ее жизни, это кажется противным человеческой природе, - либо он ее не любит, либо он абсолютно бесчувственен. Сама Кенди тоже считает приемлемым ради непричинения боли Уолли, открытую полигамность (хотя бы для одного из партнеров). Кроме того, пусть даже Гомер все изучил на практике, как в век назад повивальные бабки, его согласие практиковать родовспоможение и аборты без медицинского образования, кажутся не просто смелыми, но и где-то даже преступными, во всяком случае, ему приходится взять другое имя. Кроме того, проповедуемая жизненная философия «жить, чтобы приносить пользу», безусловно, заслуживает всяческого уважения, и, наверное, бывают такие люди, но их мало. Даже сам Гомер сначала стремился быть счастливым мужем и отцом, и только потом решил посвятить себя «промыслу Господню» - родам женщин, не желающих детей, и абортам тех, кому по сроку беременности возможно освободиться от бремени.
Роман поднимает огромное количество социальных, этических, гендерных, расовых, политических проблем, проблем семейного насилия, нетерпимости, он просто раскалывает моральными дилеммами все общество, начиная с зародышевого состояния. Это роман, который защищает право женщин самим выбирать свою судьбу. К сожалению, все еще в большом количестве стран аборты запрещены, и поднимаемые проблемы остаются в повестке дня.

I first read Cider House Rules shortly after it was first published back in 1986. I had only read one other John Irving book back then, The World According to Garp and I loved that at the time. Irving is a consummate storyteller. His world building is epic. He can put you right into the towns that he is writing about and leave you there until you are finished. His characters become your friends. He is one of the few authors that has been able to make me feel like that. I wanted to reread Cider House Rules for two reasons, one was that I have been revisiting novels that I loved in my youth and the other was that I recalled this was a compassionate book about abortion. The setting of the novel was during WWII in Maine.

I didn't remember much except a vague feeling of fondness for Irving and that the political commentary was in line with my own thoughts back then. Fast forward 30 years and I find that it is still an interesting read, though the brilliance that I felt in 1986 was not quite as bright. I'll cut to the chase; I wasn't particularly attached to the characters. In fact, I didn't like them in a way that endears a book to me. I disliked the love triangle between Homer, Candy and Wally and the child that they raised as a threesome. That whole story was just cliched drama. I wasn't thrilled with the characterizations of the people of color in this book, however, I wasn't thrilled with any of the characterizations in the book, so it was a wash The most horrible crime in this book was rape and incest with a father and his daughter. That's a crime Irving reserves for the very rare black characters in his books. The redemption for those characters (all Irvings characters seek redemption) is murder and death. The girl murders her father who is found alive and refuses to implicate her before he dies. That's a huge issue for me with his characterizations. Irvings obliviousness to systemic racism and sexism is horrible. The abortion discussion was compassionate but somewhat superficial. The characters had discussions of women being in charge of their own body (male characters FFS). There just wasn't much nuance and in my mind the topic requires nuance.  For example I only remember one abortion for convenience and that was a couple of "decent" wealthy kids that felt they were too young to get married. All of the other mentioned abortions were under conditions few people would argue about: incest, rape, prostitutes, child pregnancy etc. And Homer Wells has moral/ethical objections to abortion, but he has an epiphany and sees the error of his thinking just before Wilbur dies. Sigh. Not that I disagree with Irving, but to me the way it was approached came across as cursory. Choice was the only frame of reference for discussion in the book and that choice was debated by males alone. Though females were the subject of the debate, they were not in the discussion at all (maybe peripherally). Lastly, this book was long. Don't get me wrong, it's an important book that takes on complex issues surrounding women's rights to reproductive health. It isn't my favorite Irving novel, but it is worth reading. It's lost its luster over 30 years.

3.25ish Stars

Listened to the audiobook. Grover Gardener was excellent.

2022: DNF 1/4
Póki co nie mam do niej serca, a brzmi jak coś co mogę pokochać.

2025: To świetny przykład, że czasami trzeba poczekać, aby to docenić. 4,25/5

Veličanstven roman! Najbolji koji sam pročitala ove godine, a sigurno se nalazi i u top 10 najboljih naslova koje sam pročitala u poslednjih nekoliko godina.
Irving je mađioničar, tako suptilno i polako uvlači čitaoca u priču da ovaj ni ne primeti da je njegov zarobljenik.
Žao mi što sam prošle godine posle pročitanih stotinjak stranica napravila pauzu, ali ovo je onaj tip romana za koji je potreban pravi trenutak, a ovo je bio moj.
I dalje sam pod utiskom, pa sve što mogu da kažem jeste čitajte Tuđa pravila, nećete se pokajati, naprotiv, kao i ja poželećete što pre da uzmete u ruke neki naredni naslov Džona Irvinga.
Ocena: 10 ⭐

Believe it of not, I didn't know the plot of this book before I dove in. I feel like I should have had some idea given the popularity of the book and the Academy Award winning movie adaptation, not to mention (as I learned) the somewhat controversial nature of the themes. I pulled it out of my to-read pile because I was looking for a well-written, engaging fiction novel, and I felt like John Irving would be able to deliver on these requirements. He definitely did, but this also ended up being a really timely read given the recent US Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The story takes place in the World War II era and is a coming of age story of the orphan Homer Wells. Homer Wells grows up in an orphanage under the father-like care of Dr. Wilbur Larch, an obstetrician who is also a secret abortion provider. It is important for Homer Wells to be "of use" so he trains as a medical assistant under Dr. Larch, but their relationship is strained due to their differing views on abortion. Even after Homer Wells leaves the orphanage to pursue a path away from obstetrics, complex situations surrounding unwanted pregnancies, a patient's choice, and the need for abortions continue to follow him throughout his adult life which causes him to constantly reassess his beliefs on the subject.

John Irving is a masterful and imaginative storyteller, and The Cider House Rules is no exception. Given the central themes of the book, I found this to be a really thought-provoking read, but it was also fun and profoundly engaging. And the book comes with the cast of colorful, eccentric characters that are expected of John Irving. It's the reason I keep come back to his books. From the main characters to the orphans and nurses to the patients, there's all kinds of whimsy and neurosis and vivid backstories to keep you on your toes. I loved them all, but I admit I was a little surprised when I finished the book and realized that Melony, a strong female orphan with a very challenging personality, had become one of my favorite characters.

Clearly, I was not disappointed in my choice to finally read this one, and this story is going to stick with me for awhile. I will always keep coming back to Irving for his fantastic storytelling and unforgettable characters.

How the bigotry, insanity, and inhumanity of institutionalized stigmatization of and hatred against women, especially regarding pregnancy, marriage and the control about bastardization of humans, lead to disgusting world views and practices that were omnipresent just a few decades ago and still are in many parts of the world, is a key element of the novel.

Orphanages for kids that could have parents, but are born under the stigma of being illegitimate and thereby the societal death and endless disgrace and danger of ostracism for the mother, are a logical result and a part of the setting oft he bittersweet tragicomedy Irving serves the reader.

Strong women, emancipation, and feminism are a key element of Irvings´ writing, possibly a side effect of growing up without a father and having an even deeper relationship with his mother, which leads to an idealization and glorification of femininity.

The role of fathers. How they react, what they think, want, feel, how different their opinions and mentality are in comparison to the mothers, how stupid social conventions influence the child-father relations, and what true manliness is. Maybe too influenced by the fact that Irving had no father, he dealt with this topic with an intensity many bad, disinterested, or overstressed fathers can´t or don´t want to invest.

Autobiography and his writing are often the same and I couldn´t name a writer who added so much of himself, even very intimate and personal details, in his work. Only Irving knows how much is fictional and how much is true, but I find it amazing to use the gift of writing to make oneself immortal by taking pieces out of one's real life and make them fictional masterpieces.

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...

Well, after two long and somewhat tedious months, I have managed to push myself through to the other side, and I'm ecstatic to say, I have finally finished The Cider House Rules. This was a massive disappointment to say the least, and as always, I'll explain why.

This book has many positive and glowing reviews, but for me on a personal level, it did absolutely nothing for my pleasure as a reader, or, my mental health. ( I wanted to desperately give this book away)

The Cider House Rules could have been 200 pages less, and I still wouldn't have enjoyed it any better. The actual narrative was long-winded, tiring, and for the most part, consisted of pretty pointless descriptions that contributed nothing to the plot. The characters were skeletal in description, and I felt terribly distant from them. There was a complete lack of tension and whenever anything even remotely exciting happened, it was extremely anticlimatic. It got to the excruciating point, of me just not caring. And really, characters called Angel and Candy, do more than just make me shudder.

Something else I noticed with Irving, which wasn't immediately apparent, is his rather odd obsession with women and their weight. This obviously doesn't sit well with me, and to be honest, who the hell cares how much a woman weighs? It obviously matters a great deal to Irving.

There was no real structure to Irving's writing, and apart from the obvious medical terminology, his style was simple, and unsatisfying, and it appeared as though some sentences were strangely cut short at times.

For a book primarily based on adoption and abortion, I honestly expected to have a winner here, but unfortunately, I'm left with a terribly bitter taste in my mouth, and a dislike for Irving.

„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.