3,5/ 5

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

~ Za surovost nema izgovora, ali - u jednom sirotištu možda imamo obavezu da ljubav uskraćujemo, jer ako ne uspemo da uskratimo ljubav u sirotištu, stvorićemo sirotište iz koga nijedno siroče neće želeti da ode. Stvorićemo Homera Velsa - istinsko siroče, zato što će njegov jedini dom zauvek biti u Sent Klaudsu. Neka mi bog (ili ko god već) oprosti. Ja sam stvorio siroče; zove se Homer Vels i pripadaće Sent Klaudsu zauvek. ~

~ U jednom ranijem unosu u dosije o Homeru Velsu - u unosu koji je doktor Larč izbrisao, pošto je ton bio neprimeren, ili bar neobičan za istoriju - doktor Larč je zapisao - Ništa i nikoga ne volim koliko Homera Velsa. Tačka. ~

~ Odrasli ne traže znamenja u poznatom, primetio je doktor Vilbur Larč u Kratkoj istoriji Sent Klaudsa, ali jedno siroče večito traži znamenja. ~

~ Ali neka pravila su samo pravila. Prosto moraš oprezno da ih prekršiš. ~

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.

I don't know how Irving does it. Again, in this book nothing spectacular happens. We just follow some very human characters in their everyday lives, with all its ups and downs, with its beautiful sides as well as its sad ones. But I just loved to read this, mainly because I cared for the characters. Most of them are so kind and warm, they have so lovable quirks and their passion sometimes leads them to make stupid mistakes. It's easy to connect with them and in my opinion, that is the particular beauty of this story.

Це та книга, яка назавжди залишиться зі мною. Таких сильних емоцій від книги я давно вже не отримувала. Для прикладу, я їхала в метро, читала, обличчя було мокре від сліз і я сміялась в голос. Люди навколо точно подумали що зі мною не все гаразд

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.

Vele jaren geleden maakte ik een korte Irving-periode door, waarin ik zijn twee bekendste boeken 'The World according to Garp' en 'A Prayer for Owen Meany' las. Fantastische boeken (vooral het laatste is me bijgebleven) en voldoende om John Irving in de categorie 'absoluut te lezen' te plaatsen.

Ik keek er dus echt naar uit om deze Cider House Rules te lezen, en mijn verwachtingen waren hoog, misschien wat te hoog.
Want eigenlijk vond ik het hoofdpersonage van dit boek maar vlak en zelfs wat saai, evenals zijn grote liefde. Ik begreep hen beiden ook niet zo goed. Gelukkig waren er nog Dr. Larch en Melony die zorgden voor wat originaliteit, maar zij zijn niet de personages waarrond dit boek draait.

Maar hé, Irving blijft Irving, met zijn personages met een hoek af, hun levensverhalen en de soms absurde situaties. Sowieso is het goed leesvoer. Maar in mijn herinnering waren die twee eerder gelezen boeken toch beter.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke"

In what many consider John Irving's masterwork, we're asked to consider abortion and the rights of society in imposing laws on its citizens. Even the title, The Cider House Rules is an allusion to this idea of rules and the authority to impose them. The Cider House Rules were posted by well intentioned people who didn't live in the cider house and who didn't really understand what life there was like. It's also unclear just exactly what gives them the authority to impose and/or enforce them. One of the nurses working with "Saint Larch" sums it up rather well at one point..."It's because even a good man can't always be right, that we need ... rules.”

Even if it were not for these important themes, this is a worthwhile read. The characters are charming, and even the villains are understandable, and for the most part forgivable. The storytelling is first rate, engaging and entertaining. There are even some comedic moments that are overwhelmingly ironic and at the same time laugh out loud funny.

And as to the movie version... Irving did the screen adaptation himself. He made it gentler and more endearing, and though he eliminated several interesting characters to make a simpler, movie friendly plot, I've seen the movie (before and after reading the book) and it's still eminently watchable. It doesn't feel like it's missing anything too critical. I'm sure that the cameo by Irving as the stationmaster is a salute to one of the characters who was cut though I felt sorrier to see no hint of Melony. However, a book can be more detailed and darker than a movie without losing its audience, and given that the film won Irving an Oscar for best screenplay, apparently the movie community agrees that this adaptation was well done.

John Irving has been called the American Dickens and it's probably because of that that so many Dickens titles were featured in this story but they worked quite well and the quotes that were pulled added to the overall effect quite well.

No matter what your stand on abortion, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, I'm sure that if you read "the Cider House Rules" you'll be pro-Irving.

Džiaugiuosi, kad įveikiau. Toks detalus pasakojimas apie visus istorijos veikėjus reikalavo daug susikaupimo, o pačioje pradžioje tiesiog erzino. Gerai, kad į pabaigą veiksmas pagreitėjo.

I loved this book; it is thoughtful, intense and moving with some very humourous moments. The characters are real, flawed, believeable and Irving makes you care about them. The pro-life, pro-choice debate is well handled as are the other hefty topics like being in love with two people, family, betrayal, the nature of home and belonging and the brutality of life.
There are graphic scenes in it and in the middle of the book a couple of the minor characters disappear rather suddenly. These are however minor quibbles. I will certainly be reading more Irving; if his other books are this good then in the pantheon of American novelists he will be close to Philip Roth (for me that is saying a lot)
One of the minor characters Melony for me was the most haunting and the most honest and puts the whole book in perspective at the end.

Мені мало 5ти зірочок для цього роману, тому що він захопив мене так, що кілька днів з ним я прожила у далекому штаті Мен, на узбережжі океану, в яблуневих садах. Роман такий багатогранний, як саме життя. Тут немає понять правильно/неправильно, бо кожне правило має винятки. Чи має право жінка робити аборт і якщо ні, то що робити із сиротами, яких жінки не взмозі виховувати? Що таке обов'язок, відповідальність і посвята себе якійсь справі? І кохання тут таке складне, неоднозначне і я досі не зрозуміла, як до всього, що сталося з героями, ставлюся. Мені було щиро шкода кожного з них. Ірвінг пише і про домашнє насильство, расизм, інцест, а також багато про медицину тих років. Самі події в романі розвиваються протягом 30-40-50х. І війна також не минула стороною наших героїв.

Одним словом, в щирому захваті! Зріднилася з героями і тепер "житиму" з ними ще деякий час. Бо такі романи так просто не відпускають.

Дайте мені ще Ірвінга

You know how when you're young and maybe more idealistic you say that you will never do something because it's wrong, immoral, sickening, etc, then you grow up and find yourself doing that very thing?

This is a book about that.

It's also a book about orphans and abortion and how some babies are destined to be one or the other. Delivering the baby or delivering the mother, Dr. Larch calls it, and also, the Lord's work and the Devil's work. There are some beautiful passages about why legalizing abortion is necessary and I love John Irving for it.

'Those who plead for the lives of the unborn should consider the lives of the living. Mr Roosevelt - you, of all people! - you should know that the unborn are not as wretched or as in need of our assistance as the born! Please take pity on the born!'

And Dr. Larch, with his rules and his heart, is the star of this book; he is often in the background, but his (silent) longing for Homer to come back home is always present. Maybe now I understand how my parents feel.

Suddenly, it was clear to him - where he was going. He was only what he always was: an orphan who'd never been adopted. He had managed to steal some time away from the orphanage, but St Cloud's had the only legitimate claim to him. In his forties, a man should know where he belongs.

And then there is Homer's heart and Wally's heart who both harbor complicated, painful loves (when is love ever uncomplicated and painless anyway). You don't even understand how painful Wally's love is until you read this passage, which is a life lesson to Angel Wells, as well as me.

'And the thing about being in love, Wally said to Angel, 'is that you can't force anyone. 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,' he added, 'because you often feel like interfering - you want to be the one who makes the plans.'
'It's hard to want to protect someone else, and not be able to,' Angel pointed out.
'You can't protect people, kiddo,' Wally said. 'All you can do is love them.'

Final thoughts: Maybe if I have a son someday I can call him Angel. And this is my favorite John Irving novel (so far).

He was of use, he was in love - and was loved - and he was expecting a child. What more is there?