I had been recommended this book numerouse times by friends and when I read it I realised its actually one of those books that I wish I had not finished and given up halfway. This was the first Irving novel that I have read and it will be the last as I found this novel totally overwritten and boring, I did not like and feel anything for any of the characters and the reason I did finish the book I wanted to find the reason that this book is such a big hit, sadly I didn't and therefore only a 2 star read for me.

A narrative can be an effective way to make a social statement, and that is certainly Irving's intention here. The story is meant to convince the reader that abortion should be legal.

But I expect Irving's story only serves to affirm those who already agree with that stance.

For one thing, Irving greatly misrepresents the realities of abortion. Rather than being clean and painless, even modern abortions involve tearing a living fetus apart. And Irving would have the reader believe that abortions are primarily sought by women who have suffered rape, abuse and incest, but the reality is that such cases account for a very small percentage of abortions each year.

For another thing, Irving attempts to compromise with those who oppose abortion by suggesting that they can allow it to be legal while refusing to be involved in it themselves. But such overt philosophically hypocrisy is enough to to make Kant roll over in his grave. And it also shows a profound lack of understanding about the convictions of those who do oppose abortion.

Beyond these rhetorical and philosophical considerations, the story is poorly written. The characters are unlikeable, they aren't given a goal to strive for, and they never grow or change as they develop. The plot is also unnecessarily slow.

In short, the book is overly didactic, intellectually dishonest and poorly written.

Неймовірна книга, яка занурювала мене в свій настрій і атмосферу без поспіху, без штучності. Найкраще в ній, як автор прописав героїв. Кожного ти відчув і зрозумів. І це почуття гумору

My favourite John Irving novel. Very interesting likeable characters, lots of plot and some very entertaining moments.

Bellissimo da leggere, nonostante sia un bel mattone l'ho divorato in pochi giorni. Le tematiche che tratta il romanzo sono ancora molto attuali. Una delle più belle scoperte di quest'anno.

Labai labai patiko, nors ši knyga tikrai neskirta skaityti šventiniu laikotarpiu. Knygoje netrūksta tamsumos ir skaudžių temų: abortai, palikti vaikai, narkomanija, nusivylimas, melas. Tačiau tuo pačiu joje galima rasti ir šviesos: draugystė, pirmoji meilė, tikėjimas, viltis, likimas. Jausminga ir priverčianti susimąstyti knyga. Gailiuosi tik vieno, kad taip ilgai „marinavau“ ją lentynoje, bijodama jos storio.

Kaip man patiko daktaras Vilburis Larčas. Toks knygos Dievas, kuris pats sau atsako už savo veiksmus, čia priima našlaičius, čia daro abortus, viskas priklauso nuo to, ko nori atvykusi nelaiminga moteris. Vieną minutę ant jo norisi pykti, kitą jau džiaugiesi, kad jis yra. O jo atsidavimas našlaičiams pasigėrėtinas, mažai tokių atsidavusių savo darbui žmonių.

„Labanakt, Meino princai, Naujosios Anglijos karaliai“.

The Cider House Rules rules! … and so does its author, John Irving.

There is not a lot that I can say about this book that would likely stir much interest in most people. It’s a long book. Most of the important events it describes transpire very slowly over many years, even decades. Nearly all of the characters are generally run-of-the mill, with little to endear them to the reader.

Incredibly, for me, these seeming shortcomings actually contributed to making this probably the best work of fiction I have read in a long time. This is a story about real people, living in the real world, dealing with real problems and the real complexities of life and relationships.

The controversial subject of abortion, which is central to this story, is also likely to dissuade many people from reading this book—as it did for me for a long time. But I am so glad I finally talked myself into it.

Just a couple of short passages that I found intriguing and enlightening (highlighting is my own):

n  … but Dr. Gingrich was not so interested in the outcome of the situation in St. Cloud’s as he was fascinated with his secretive study of Mrs. Goodhall’s mind, in which he found such a complex broth of righteous delusion and inspired hatred.n

- - - -

n  “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.”n

I was not expecting it to be so timely, but I ended up reading John Irving's epic exploration of abortion and childhood in the wake of the controversy stirred by new pro-abortion proposals in New York and Virginia.

To the extent Irving contributed anything to the ever fraught and intense subject, I suspect that moment has passed. He certainly presents the two main arguments with as much fairness as he can muster given his obvious support for the pro-choice side. But no one who has settled their mind on either side will likely change it by reading this book (to be honest, the controversy over the film has probably ensured that very few people who passionately oppose abortion will ever choose to dive into 500-plus pages of source material).

It's a shame that the book has been caught up in the culture wars because as a piece of literature, The Cider House Rules is excellent. The sprawling story of Homer Wells' coming of age is beautifully written and kept pulling me through some fairly long stretches of description and definition that ranged from unsettling (fairly graphic descriptions of obstetric procedures) to tangential (Wally's experience in Burma, the workings of apple farms). Irving is a good enough writer that such rabbit trails, though not essential to the plot, never seem unnecessary either.

Several issues bothered me enough to keep this from getting all the way to five stars. In no particular order (and obviously not of equal levels of importance):

• Irving insists on adopting the 19th century convention of leaving a blank space for the year despite describing easily datable real-world events that take place during that time. This leads to the absurdity of describing America's entry into World War II in 194_. Hey John, we know what year that is, and so do you. Just put it in there!
• Irving displays an unaccountable fixation with public hair – the shaving of women is mentioned numerous times; Wells at some point saves some of Candy's pubic hair from her abortion, and instead of finding this creepy and off-putting, she decides it's romantic; and the subject comes up a couple of other times without any need.
• Irving really enjoys telling us what orphans are like by making evidence-free assertions like, "Orphans seek stability," which is either anodyne to the point of absurdity (um, don't most humans seek stability?) or stereotypical to the point of offensiveness. He does this many, many times, when what he really means is, "The orphan I've created for this story does/feels/looks for these things." #notallorphans (I assume).
• After maintaining a fairly straightforward chronology through the first three-fourths of the book, the plot jumps forward 15 years for the final two chapters, thus requiring flashbacks to fill in the gaps. In the end, it works – but the disconnect is jarring, and I'm not convinced it was necessary. The leap short circuits a confrontation Irving was prepping readers to expect (and which occurs later as an anticlimax instead), leaving me to wonder what was the point of several dozen pages worth of exposition and conversation.

This last point is significant enough that in the hands of a lesser writer it would have ruined the book for me. It's a testament to Irving's skill and the magisterial beauty of this book that such a disruptive and largely unnecessary decision merely mars rather than destroys the story.

But that's enough negativity. Cider House really is a terrific story, with numerous magical and memorable moments and subplots intertwined through it, all written with a straightforward grace that connects the reader to characters who on their own might not be easy to love, or even like. The journey of Melonie alone is worth the price of admission; she is perhaps one of the best characters written in American literature.

It certainly doesn't settle any debates regarding the legal or moral correctness of abortion, but Cider House Rules does manage to humanize some of the people who feel compelled to seek one, and in that it manages something that is much too lacking in modern discourse on the subject while also telling a beautiful if sprawling story about what it means to find your way back home.

Original rating (2007): 4* / Rating now: 3.5* -> Average: 3.75*

I first started The Cider House Rules on honeymoon. Thirteen years on, I remembered the orphanage and cider farm settings, the dynamic between Doctor Wilbur Larch and his protégé, Homer Wells, and Homer’s love for his best friend’s girl, Candy. I also remembered that this is a Trojan horse of a novel: it advocates, not very subtly, for abortion rights through pictures of women in desperate situations. Luckily, by the time I first read it I was no longer slavishly devoted to the American Religious Right. But this time I felt that even readers who consider themselves pro-choice might agree Irving over-eggs his argument. My memory of the 1999 film version is clearer. It severely condenses the book’s 40 years or so of action, cutting subplots and allowing Tobey Maguire and Charlize Theron to play the leads all the way through. A shorter timeframe also more neatly draws a line between Rose Rose’s experience and Homer’s change of heart about offering abortions.

I had a strong preference for the scenes set at St. Cloud’s orphanage in Maine. Dr. Larch is celibate and addicted to ether – all a result of his first sexual encounter with a prostitute. He has an ironclad conviction that he is doing the Lord’s work for the pregnant women who get off the train at St. Cloud’s, whether they come for an abortion or to leave a live baby behind. Homer Wells is the one orphan who never finds an adoptive home; he stays on and becomes Larch’s trainee in obstetrics, but vows that he won’t perform abortions. As a young adult, Homer is pulled away from the orphanage by his puppy love for Wally and Candy, a couple-in-trouble who come up from his family’s apple farm. Homer thinks he’ll go back with his new friends for a month or two, but instead he stays at Ocean View orchard for decades, his relationship with Candy changing when Wally goes off to war and comes back disabled.

I had forgotten the bizarre scenario Larch has to set up for the orphanage’s board of trustees to accept his chosen successor, and the far-fetched family situation Homer, Candy and Wally end up in. The orchard sections could feel endless, so I always thrilled to mentions of what was happening for Dr. Larch and the nurses back at St. Cloud’s. The Dickensian influence – lots of minor characters and threads tying up nicely by the end; quirks of speech and behavior – has generally been the aspect I like the most about Irving’s work, and while I loved the explicit references to David Copperfield here (a few kids get their names from it, it’s read aloud to the boy orphans every night, and its opening question about whether the protagonist will be the hero of his own life or not applies to Homer, too), I did find the novel awfully baggy this time. I even put in a slip of paper where I felt that things started to drift: page 450.

One further note to make about the film: it, rather unforgivably, eliminates Melony, a larger-than-life character and necessary counterpart to the book’s multiple passive females. She’s the de facto head of the girl orphans, as Homer is for the boys, and initiates Homer into sex. But her feelings for him are more of hero worship than of romantic love, and when he breaks his promise and leaves St. Cloud’s without her, she sets off to hunt him down. Her odyssey, delivered in parallel, is nearly as important as Homer’s (see what I/Irving did there?).

While I loved the medical history material and Dr. Larch’s moral fiber, this time I found Homer a little insipid and annoying (he answers nearly every question with “Right”), and the plot somewhat slack and obvious. In my memory this is probably #3 out of the Irving novels I’ve read, below A Prayer for Owen Meany and The World According to Garp – both of which I’d also like to reread to see if they’ve retained their power.

Originally published on my blog, Bookish Beck.

Homer, is an orphan boy who comes to "freedom" through a young couple. Candy, his best friend's girlfriend, sparks unknown feelings in Homer and the orphanage where he lived, says goodbye to children, and in the end, her doctor. The world, the people - this is God's work, but the devil does not rest and this can be seen in every corner of the world. Even in those who don't even live in the world. It's a very good book, interesting, but tedious and so you lose interest at some point.

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.

3.5/5