Well it took me a while to get through it, but I ended up really enjoying the book. A very ironic and witty story patronising British society during the Regency period. It was actually quite sad how it all ended up in the end. What tumultuous and difficult lives these characters led. So much false propriety and dishonesty. Oh there were the few moral pillars but they didn't usually fair too well amongst these sorts. Anyway, quite an enjoyable read. Which was most definitely enhanced by the audio narration and performance of Mr. John Castle.

I enjoyed Vanity Fair for the most part, but it did feel a bit tedious at some points, especially George and Amelia's often frustrating storyline. The ending of Amelia's story and how she finally developed some agency was refreshing to see, but I wish we could have seen more of that.
On a similar note, I felt that Becky's character was a missed opportunity to show an unconventional female character one could still root for. Unfortunately, she was made to be more and more unlikeable - of course she'd neglect her own child and only care about money - and the ending to her story was intended to serve as a sort of moral lesson, I presume. There was also a bit too much moralizing in the authorial comments for my taste. I do think this book would do well as a period drama style tv show.

"Романом без героя" называл Теккерей свой роман. Он огромен, эпически охватывая несколько десятилетий от девичества до зрелого возраста героинь, с которых начинается и завершается повествование - Ребекки Шарп и Эмилии Седли, но, как и обещает автор, они не главные героини. По исторической шкале это соответствует периоду до и после наполеоновских войн. Все общество является главным героем, и движущие силы ярмарки тщеславия - своекорыстие, эгоизм, самолюбование, желание преуспеть или не отстать от других - предметом исследования в сугубо житейских декорациях разных сословий - торгово-коммерческих, мелкого дворянства и высшего света.
Главным достоинством романа мне показалась способность достоверно изображать характеры, к многим из которых можно найти "прототипов" из реальной жизни.
Сатирическое изображение морали и нравов английского общества в начале девятнадцатого века не является узко национальной картиной, жизненность наблюдений человеческих характеров и пороков ставит этот роман на одну ступень с бальзаковской "Человеческой комедией".

Excessively Long Book Syndrome: It takes ages to read and it's more than a 100 years old, therefore it must be great, right? Wrong! So wrong, in this case, that the editor's claim that it "has strong claims to be the greatest novel in the English language" is laughable. It's not even the greatest such novel of its century by a huge stretch - seriously, the best works of Hardy, the Brontes and Austen are all better by a country mile, not least because they don't carry such a ridiculous weight of excess verbiage. A modern editor would need to employ slash and burn to prune this jungle back. Most of the excess is Authorial Voice going off along lengthy tangents before getting back to describing the action. It's extreme even by Victorian standards.

Leaving the sheer length aside, the tone of the book ranges from scathing, sarcastic and satirical to farcical, comical and ironical by way of such stations as bitter, sympathetic and moralistic - with the clear message that Earthly pursuits are all vanity, as encapsulated in the title metaphor, which is repeated ad nauseum through-out. Beyond that there are clear attitudes in regard to the conduct of both women and men that go back-and-fore across the line between cliche-Victorian stereotypes and socially progressive campaigner. The over-all bitter and satirical tone, however, seems to detract from rather than strengthen the power of these themes; Hardy's all-out Tragic approach is much more effective (and he is far more advanced in his views anyway). The same goes for Anne Bronte's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, where the real terrors of marriage to an addict are laid bare. Austen's wit and humour and wish-fulfillment in Pride and Prejudice is far more entertaining and has a female character everyone can get behind and root for. That's completely absent here; the two contrasted female protagonists are on the one hand, increasingly evil as the story progresses and on the other, dull and lacking all perception of character in others. It's hard to like either of them after about the first third of the book. Instead we have a Stoic hero, who whilst admirable in many ways, is also unexciting for the most part.

By now you may be wondering why I staggered through all the 811p of relatively small print constituting the main text. (The rest is notes and other "apparatus'). Occasionally I wondered whether it was worth it, myself, but in fact, there is a good, if diluted, story here and some snort-worthy humourous cracks and comic scenes as well as drama: there are times when Thackeray focuses on his story-telling and the book becomes involving. Sufficiently so to drag the reader (or at least this one) through to the end simply to find out how the whole mess of family conflicts and marital disasters turns out for everybody (and there are so many characters that even Thackeray can't keep them all straight at times, renaming a serving maid or two here and there and the like.) And there are two great moments, two great sentences, one at the half-way point, at Waterloo, the other right at the end in the closing paragraphs, that show a way forward to a superior kind of writing - but I can't tell you what they are without spoiling everything.

Over-all, yes it was worth the effort, but when it comes to famous gigantic novels, Les Misearbles and War and Peace are vastly more rewarding.

A look at the foibles of people and their motives. Thackeray's characters display all the aspects of "vanity". By definition, vanity is either "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements" or "the quality of being worthless or futile". Vanity can also be "a dressing table" but I suspect that Thackeray didn't have this definition in mind (:D).
Thackeray manages to give each of his characters an aspect of vanity that conflicts and contrasts with their circumstances, life predicament or situation. He manages to juggle them all into a well told story.
That said, this story is a bit too wordy and too long. There are descriptions that are pages long and have nothing to do with the storyline (but some are witty).
The characters are who & what they are; they don't experience growth or development; they don't learn from their experiences. They are complete as they are. I found this difficult as it would mean that these people aren't living their lives but merely moving through it. Perhaps that is something Thackeray meant to portray.
Another peeve is the Narrator. He's witty and, at times, delightful. But he skews the events and perhaps the people....and, therefore, perhaps the story.
Amelia and Becky are the two main characters. As Thackeray intends, neither is a heroine.
Becky, the "bad" girl, is bright, intelligent, witty and both fun and horrifying to read about. Her antics are so self-advancing. But can a poor, penniless girl be blamed for using her wiles and ways to find a moneyed husband....for finding her way to security in the only way her society allows her to? She will stop at nothing and believes she can accomplish all; that is her vanity.
Amelia, the "good" girl, is a milksop. She's privileged, wealthy and her life is laid out for her. She has to try for nothing; it is all given to her. She is the other definition of vanity. Oh boy....
The other characters are no better. Drinking, gambling, boasting; it's all there.
However, Thackeray has managed to put all these totally flawed people together in a delightful, although overly-long, manner. The story never bored me. At times it made me laugh.
In the end, it leaves the reader with a bit of a mystery, too. What more can one want from a story?

Recommended, despite being wordy.

I don’t have a problem with readers who can overlook and contextualize the racism at the heart of this novel, who can appreciate Vanity Fair’s many admirable qualities. Ultimately, I could not. The further I got into the story, and the more I learned from external sources what a racist asshole Thackeray himself was, the sicker I felt. I bailed at the halfway point, and all I’ll remember in the future about this novel is the bigotry.

(And no, I don’t want to argue with anyone about this.)

Cómo me sorprendió y divirtió este libro en el que el narrador mantiene un continuo diálogo con el lector y en el que disecciona en una mordaz caricatura a la sociedad de su tiempo, donde el tanto tienes tanto vales es ley y donde la mujer solo tiene una salida airosa: el matrimonio.

Un libro que llega a provocar carcajadas y que se lee siempre con una sonrisa, aunque no sea siempre alegre. No hay piedad por nadie, ni por los hombres ni por las mujeres, cuya situación parece denunciar aunque sin quitarles a ellas ni un gramo de su responsabilidad y con un cierto grado de misoginia. Por su parte, los hombres, que pueden ser ambiciosos, ridículos, vengativos, patéticos, antipáticos, vanidosos, son, en el fondo, nobles.

Fantástica la mala leche, la forma en que el narrador dice las cosas sin decirlas e incluso diciendo las contrarias; como juega con el lector, en ocasiones levantando el velo solo un poquito, en otras desvelándolo completamente, algunas más dejándonos todo a la imaginación. Sus continuos comentarios al margen dirigidos al lector son tan interesantes como la propia historia. Una delicia de libro.

Fascinating portrait of 2 woman, Rebecca, cunning, scheming, cared nothing for her son or husband and wanting of wealth and high social status and Amelia, symbolized as her conscience who values family and goodness. Throw in the hero of the story, Dobbin who not only distinguishes himself with bravery at Waterloo but who deftly guides the other characters through their lives (but not the dastardly Rebecca).
A thoroughly enjoyable read which left me wanting for more on how their lives played out and hoping Dobbin and Amelia truly enjoyed their golden years together.

The premise I believe that Mr. William Makepeace Thackeray reveals here in his accomplished novel Vanity Fair is people are complex , yet still they strive for their own self- interest above everything, all else is irrevelant. Our Becky (Rebecca) Sharp is a prime example of this fact she goes too far in climbing the ladder to respectability, lies, cheats and steals to reach goals unattainable if her ways were nominal. A poor orphan when the teenager married Captain Rawdon Crawley lacking intelligence though, nonetheless from a wealthy family before the decisive battle of Waterloo, Napoleon's last bloody struggle. And her maybe friend Amelia Sedley also of the consequence becomes widowed to a man who loved another, Becky, no surprise unfaithful husband George Osborne. A tiger cannot change his stripes and this truism applies to our anti- heroine Becky most emphatically as she enters High Society.These people spend money they can't afford just to give the impression of limitless riches which few have but debts acquired, a silly condition in order to deceive the quite pompous empty lives of their fellow hypocrites trying to show how great it is to be them, in opulent parties, if only the public knew the reality. The numerous people fall for the concept and many will regret this fallacy like Becky however the family of her estranged husband hates her with a passion and disowns the pretentious woman, here the writer shows his knowledge of England. The impoverished Amelia disliked by her father-in- law with her little son George, pines for her late mate while Captain William Dobbin loves her but is rejected feeling guilty, she. Mr.Thackeray's best book gives a glimpse into the human character warts and all, the good and bad not the superficial but the authentic, this is quite refreshing. A European tour after the war by Amelia tells us her situation has improved and meeting Becky in a small German town not very comfortable for them however a place which helps both reach their ultimate destiny. The fun if that is the proper word in Vanity Fair (this the correct title) as Miss Becky Sharp manipulates those who deserve to be fooled by the smart, pretty girl who for a time gave the mirage of being one of their kind. Not quite an honest person but neither were the so called elites and we the countless reader are the delighted benefactors.

Thackeray influenced his contemporaries as well as the coming modernists with this one. Told inventively, an early example of a somewhat unreliable narrator, and with much subtle humor, this book has stood the test of time; it has been adapted to film on multiple occasions and continues to entertain.

THIS BOOK IS ABOUT A GIRL WHO WAS ALIVE AT THE WRONG TIME.

I realize that I'm not making friends here by only giving what is considered a masterful piece of literature what amounts to a "meh" review but that's really how I felt about this book.

On a small scale, I thought the writing was too long-winded. This is not a fancy story and it could have been told more concisely. I was mostly bored reading it.

On a bigger scale, I had serious issues with the heroine. Rebecca is the type of woman who has always made my stomach churn in anger and to ask me to sympathize, even for a brief moment was just too much for me. I ended up despising every single character in the book. Which, if you want to get all literatti about it might be a good thing - having a visceral reaction to the written word is often seen as a power few can manage but it didn't make me like the author, the characters or the plot any better.