1.tI liked the company of Thackeray who is breezy, ebullient and cynical about everyone’s motives. And he’s very confident too. He thinks he knows everything, although there’s not a word about how the poor live here, that’s not his subject. So he’s like the mid-19th century version of Tom Wolfe or Jonathan Franzen, two authors (among many others) who also think they know everything. I don’t mind them thinking that. It’s a good quality in a writer who’s trying to depict all of society.

2.tAn example of his cynical sermonizing – here he waxes forth about our – yours, mine - postmortem fate :

Which of the dead are most tenderly and passionately deplored? Those who love the survivors the least, I believe. The death of a child occasions a passion of grief and frantic tears, such as your end, brother reader, will never inspire. The death of an infant which scarce knew you, which a week’s absence from you would have caused to forget you, will strike you down more than the loss of your closest friend… and if you are old, as some reader of this may be or shall be – old and rich or old and poor – you may one day be thinking for yourself – “These people are very good round about me; but they won’t grieve too much when I am gone. I am very rich, and they want my inheritance – or very poor and they are tired of supporting me.”

3.tI can’t believe everyone who has read this has read every page. For instance the eight pages of satire about the small German Duchy of Pumpernickel (p 726-732). Or the detailed descriptions of charades at upper class parties (p 594-601). Mother of God, these sections are unreadable. This is what drags the rating down to 4.5 stars.

4.tWhy is this book 800 pages long? Many passages like this:

The house was dismantled; the rich furniture and effects, the awful chandeliers and dreary blank mirrors packed away and hidden, the rich rosewood drawing-room suite was muffled in straw, the carpets were rolled up and corded, the small select library of well-bound books was stowed into two wine-chests, and the whole paraphernalia rolled away in several enormous vans to the Pantechnicon, where they were to lie until Georgy’s majority.

5.tThe author breaks the fourth wall all the time, as they liked to do in the early-ish days of novelling, before such stuff was frowned upon as being uncouth and inartistic. So on p 296 we get :

In the course of the evening Rawdon got a little family note from his wife, which although he crumpled it up and burnt it instantly in the candle, we had the good luck to read over Rebecca’s shoulder.

“We” here means the author and the reader. And later on page 721 whilst talking about his main characters holidaying in Germany he suddenly announces

It was on this very tour that I, the present writer of a history of which every word is true, had the pleasure to see them first, and to make their acquaintance.

6.tThe author is not embarrassed to jump in and comment directly on his characters, like this :

I like to dwell upon this period of her life, and to think that she was cheerful and happy. You see she has not had too much of that sort of existence as yet, and has not fallen in the way of means to educate her tastes or her intelligence. She has been domineered over hitherto by vulgar intellects. It is the lot of many a woman.

You wouldn’t get a modern novelist doing any such thing but it’s kind of fun.

7.tHe has a brilliant section called “How to Live Well on Nothing a Year”. Essentially, you could maintain your place in well-to-do society by racking up credit extended to you by umpteen tradesmen and servants (who would do it because you had a place in well-to-do society!) and robbing Peter to pay Paul continually ; plus, the wife would inveigle loans out of rich old guys who thought they might have a chance to get something going with her; and the husband would contribute with winnings from cards and billiards. It’s a precarious way of life but if you have strong nerves it can be done.

8.tWhich leads us to the issue of Becky and her husband Rawdon. Becky is the best, most interesting character by far. Lots of commentators describe her as in some way morally questionable, even “bad”. At first this seems quite unjust. She has no family, she’s as poor as a mouse, so she schemes and ducks and dives to land a husband with money. This goes awry (she gets the husband but he doesn’t get the expected inheritance) so she dodges and weaves and figures out how to live well on nothing a year (see above). In the time-honoured way of plots in novels, all her maneuvering and manipulating and cajoling and flattering and flashing of bosoms is just about to pay off handsomely when it all goes tits up. Not her fault. She’s a woman trying to get by in a world where money and position is everything.

Then she disappears from the novel for a hundred pages or so. When we meet her again she’s a fully fledged demimondaine and now you can say her moral bankruptcy has blossomed – Thackeray makes a song and dance about not being able to set down exactly what she’s been up to because this is a family show, so he drops hint after hint, ending in the possibility of murder. All the ambiguity is I suppose understandable; but after it all she’s still the only character with a zest for life in the whole mutton shop.

9.tMeanwhile her husband Rawdon is a military gentleman until he resigns from the Army and then – does nothing. Continues with his cardsharping and pool-sharking but as for gainful employment, raises not one hand. And Thackeray who likes to describe most other aspects of these people’s lives ignores this as not worth commenting on. Rawdon writes a pitiful letter from debtor’s prison at one point :

I wasn't brought up like a younger brother, but was always encouraged to be extravagant and kep idle.

And that’s all the explanation you get.

10.tThe subtitle of Vanity Fair is “A Novel without a Hero” meaning that we are not following one particular character and we do not see the story through any one person’s eyes. Nor yet, really, is it that much of a story. A couple of women make rash marriages. After which there are some ups and downs. There was a song in the 1920s called “After You Get What You Want you Don’t Want It” and Thackeray believes people are exactly like that so happy endings and neat bows are not his thing. He leaves us with the image of Vanity Fair itself, that whirligig of human foolishness, rocketing on like a perpetual switchback ride. Best thing to do is not get on in the first place, the ride is not worth the admission fee, but if you’re on, then don’t fall off, because the drop will be considerable hard on your feelings.

'Le ambizioni sbagliate'

Libro di metà '800, colloca le vicende narrate tra l'inizio del secondo decennio e gli anni '30 di quel secolo, per un'estensione temporale quindi di oltre un ventennio.
"La fiera delle vanità" ben rappresenta il periodo di transizione fra la cultura romantica e quella realistica : sicuramente c'è l'intento di tracciare un quadro della società del tempo; l'autore però non rimane estraneo alle vicende, anzi quasi manzonianamente commenta, induce esplicitamente il lettore a riflettere.
Possiamo cogliervi anche istanze illuministiche nell'uso della satira per correggere i vizi di arrivismo e ipocrisia, falso perbenismo e raggiro.
Protagoniste della scena, borghesia e nobiltà. Diversamente dall'Italia però, dove la borghesia arricchita tendeva a vivere come l'aristocrazia parassitaria, in Inghilterra i nobili ambivano a far fruttare i loro beni economici con spirito imprenditoriale borghese, tanto da determinare una certa commistione fra le due classi privilegiate. Ed è proprio in questo ambito che si muovono i nostri personaggi.

Il concatenarsi degli eventi, con rapide svolte e colpi di scena, risente delle esigenze dell'iniziale pubblicazione a puntate del romanzo. Altra carenza che ho rilevato riguarda lo scarso approfondimento psicologico.
Tali aspetti 'deboli' risultano compensati da una capacità di forte rappresentazione socio-economica, da cui emergono gli stili di vita di un mondo tutto volto all'ostentazione e al successo sociale, delineato con acuminata vena satirica, che dà allo stile una vivacità e un'arguzia che contribuiscono a rendere piacevole la lettura. La deliziosa scrittura dona alle pagine una lieve patina d'antan, con quella gradevolezza ottocentesca che la buona letteratura inglese del tempo sa elargire a piene mani.

Lo scrittore ci avverte che nel testo non ci saranno eroi.
A mio avviso, ciò non risulta del tutto vero : il personaggio positivo, in qualche modo accostabile a Pierre di "Guerra e pace", emerge gradualmente lungo la narrazione, carattere che si scopre ben prima della conclusione del poderoso romanzo. E il lettore, ovviamente, fa il tifo per lui.

Un buen retrato con muchísima crítica y sarcasmo de la sociedad de los primeros años del siglo XIX, en una Inglaterra envuelta en las Guerras Napoleónicas y en plena carrera imperialista.
El autor no deja títere con cabeza.
Pero me da la sensación de que se me escapan detalles. Es una lectura que en mi caso requerirá una relectura dentro de unos años.

4.5
Ameeei, um dos melhores do ano até agora.

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.

”Ah! Vanitas Vanitatum! Which of us is happy in this world? Which of us has his desire? or, having it, is satisfied?”

One giant scary monster-classic down, many more to go. However, I have to admit this was no picnic! Though it takes time to get used to the narrative and Thackeray’s unusually sardonic style filled with bitter irony, I managed to finalize the novel with love&hate feelings.
We all read the content, back cover, introduction and reviews, we know the drill and more or less what to expect but I wasn’t prepared for this. This novel is full of anti-heroes, unlovable characters and abhorrent behaviors. There’s not a single protagonist here that I related myself with or feel sympathetic towards. Thackeray knows how to criticize, belittle and make fun of society and I respect that. The English people we have here are civilized savages, who worship money, live in pretensions, prioritize names-titles and positions above anything else. The burning desire for status and greed is the main focus of the book and we watch the little minx Rebecca with awe while she climbs the societal ladders. The whole story centers around one thing and that is money: the privileges that come with money and the status it provides. The rise and fall of families, shifting dynamics and fugitive glories create an unstable atmosphere in the lives of the main characters. It’s quite fascinating to watch the evolution of the two friends Amelia and Rebecca starting from the first chapter, when they graduate from school and start their lives with fresh excitement and hope for the future until the last page and see how their lives ended up much different from their expectations.
A fun criticism of society and a precious classic novel for the lovers of the genre and overall an enjoyable read.

What possibly fascinates me the most about this novel is how despite the immaculately detailed portrayal of the English society of that time, the novel's anti-hero Becky remains something of a dark mystery. The novel introduces us to both of its female protagonists: Becky Sharp and Amelia Sedley early on. At start it feels a bit like bildungsroman- but Vanity Fair has an unreliable narrator and is undoubtedly ironic. I mean if it wasn't so ironic and featured morally questionable characters, you could confuse it for a bildungsroman. Well, Amelia is not morally questionable by most standards but she is a bit of a bore (alright, a big bore). The contrast between the two ladies is absolutely brilliantly carried out throughout all of the book. At start, the difference between the two girls are mostly in their position but later we get to see how completely different they are one from another. As the novel follows Beck and Amelia, their marriages and lives during and after the Napoleonic Wars, the readers gets a such a detailed view into many aspects of their lives (as well as those of their families) that the novel starts to feel like a study of British society.

At the same time, Becky remains a mystery. We are not privy to her most intimate thoughts and many of Becky's actions remain something ambiguous, especially as the novel progresses. You are not quite sure what to think about Becky. Sure, the author hints of Becky's 'darkness' often but her lively spirit somehow counteracts that and makes you admire the way she puts up the fight. Compared to boring Amelia, Becky is a heroine filled with life and courage. Even if you find Becky to be morally problematic (and it's hard not to), compared with the boring Amelia, Becky absolutely shines. You are often tempted to admire Becky as a reader, but at the same time (almost as he was aware of that), the author keeps you on your toes and implies Becky might be truly wicked.

Vanity Fair is, in many ways, a book without a hero. When it was published as a single volume, it was with the subtitle A Novel without a Hero while when published as a series the subtitle was- Pen and Pencil Sketches of English Society. Both of these subtitles are very telling of what author was trying to achieve with this novel. William Makepeace Thackeray did achieve a lot with this book- he created a classic that stood the test of time and that can still keep us on our toes.

I feel I've reached a milestone, having finally read this. I'd spent years avoiding it – partly its length and negative comments from people unable to finish it. I found it very readable and hugely entertaining. I now feel quite bereft as I had got to know Thackeray's characters pretty well and came to regard some of them as old friends, others as familiar foes. I'd expected to be bored but it is difficult to be bored by Vanity Fair, just over indulged perhaps.

It is a satire on Life and Society, the names chosen by Thackeray for many of his characters makes this very clear. This was my first Thackeray, so not sure how representative V.F. is of his other work. For me there were shades of Jane Austen, Dickens and Henry Fielding here and of course oblique references to Bunyan and Pilgrim's Progress, hence Vanity Fair I guess?

Set c.1815 – c. 1837 there is plenty of action on the part of the characters and the world in which they move, including the battle of Waterloo. It is timeless in its appeal, in its depiction of human nature, the fickleness of fashion and morality.

It is long and at times taxingly wordy but it is a gem of a book and I can see why it entices readers back to it again and again. One to read at least once before you die!

With this, completing 10 of 339 from The Rory Gilmore Reading List.

4.5/5 stars

Yet another book from the rory gilmore reading list that I enjoyed reading. The show didn't disappoint me, neither did its reading list. I'd a fantastic time reading Vanity Fair.

n  "Are not there little chapters in everybody's life, that seem to be nothing, and yet affect all the rest of the history?"n

Would you be convinced to read Vanity Fair if I told you that this is a novel without heroes. No? Okay. Would you be convinced enough to read it if I told you that Vanity Fair was an inspiration for Tolstoy's War and Peace? Yes? Thought so.

At first, I was intimidated by the size of the book, but once I started reading the first chapter, there was not stopping it. I just could not put the book down. Thackeray created a classic that stood the test of time and that can still keep us on our toes. Throughout the novel I felt like I was reading a drama series. And I mean that in the best possible way.



Becky Sharp is one who is a master in manipulation. You might hate her but you can't pretend that you don't admire her cleverness and practical attitude. Amelia, on the other hand is the purest soul you can find on Earth. If I've to describe both, Becky is the brain whereas, Amelia is the heart.



I'd read Gone with the Wind just before Vanity Fair and I somehow found analogy between two of the characters of Vanity Fair to that of Gone with the Wind. Becky's character was somewhat similar to Scarlett O'Hara's and Amelia's character was similar to that of Melanie's. Having said that I want to state this too that Scarlett O'Hara was cleverer. Scarlett was written by a woman after all.

n  "A woman may possess the wisdom and chastity of Minerva, and we give no heed to her, if she has a plain face. What folly will not a pair of bright eyes make pardonable? What dullness may not red lips are sweet accents render pleasant? And so, with their usual sense of justice, ladies argue that because a woman is handsome, therefore she is a fool. O ladies, ladies! there are some of you who are neither handsome nor wise."n

Vanity Fair has brilliance and we can't deny it. I'm glad I read it and experienced Thackeray's satire. His writing style was so on point. It was infuriating. It revealed awful truths about the world we live in. Thackeray didn't care if his readers were having a great time with the novel. He wanted to make a statement. He wanted to disturb us from our comfortable seats and boy do I love him for that.

I would like to end my review with a question that I'm leaving for you. Should we be like Rebecca, smart, intelligent and practical who knows how to extract the best out of a situation and transform according to the situation's demand? Or should we continue to live by our qualities and virtues and never change just to gain worldly belongings?

Review Posted: 19 August 2022.

Visit My Blog to read this and all my other reviews.

در ادبیات فارسی واژهٔ «خودفروشی» به معنای فاحشگی نبوده و به معنای جلوه‌فروشی، خودنمایی و خودستایی است.
کتاب تصویری تلخ و بی رحمانه از طبیعت پیچیده انسان نشان میده
مکانی پر از انواع فریب کاری ها، دروغ ها و ادعاهای واهی
در بازار خودفروشی انسان ها به دنبال منافع شخصی خودشون هستن و برای نیل به هدفهای خود از هیچ چیزی ابایی ندارند..
جایی که جز طمع و خودخواهی هیچ چیز ارزش واقعی نداره..
جایی که پول و‌ ثروت و مقام باارزش ترین چیزهاست...

Thackeray's opus is a wonder. Long, yes, but so very good in so many ways.

He's part Oscar Wilde, part Jonathan Swift, with a dash of Dickens, but all his own voice.

Since the story is so long and sprawling, I only jotted down a few notes on my impressions.

* He breaks the 4th wall, some times with savage glee, yanking it down making you look at yourself and the characters in a new light. Other times he does it with delicacy, sliding back the wall and making you feel like it's just him and you in the same room, both of you enjoying the wit and banter of this story, you his equal and friend.

* It's long. He wrote it in installments, and got paid by the pound. Okay, maybe not by the pound, but it was in his best interest to keep the story going. And so it goes on for a long time. However, I was never bored, never wanting to skip this chapter and get it over.

* Becky Sharp? Wicked, resourceful, likable and detestable. All too human, which is why I liked her, and deplored her. Brilliant dance of vagueness and ambiguity about how rotten she was, fantastic ending of her partial rise and questions of her motives. She is an archetype, some times playing the saint, other times playing Clytemnestra.

* The title. It's from "Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan. Vanity Fair sits out side the town Vanity on the path to heaven. Thackeray uses this motif to expose humanity's frailties and foibles.

* All of humanities weaknesses gently mocked, virtues decried as so much humbug and hypocrisy, upper class skewered under his pen and he kept going all the way down to the lower class now and then.

* Sometimes it feels like a morality play. Just a touch.

There is so much more to say, but I would never be able to do this book justice.

I strongly recommend this book. Yes, it's long, but you might just find a wonderful adventure among humanity in Vanity Fair.

Thackeray:

I never imagined, dear Thackeray, that my experience reading your most famous novel might end up being somewhat disappointing. You know what people usually say: perhaps it was not your moment to really enjoy that read, maybe if you give it a try again, in the future... or perhaps, it will never be for you. Either way, I want to be truly honest with you: overall, I didn't like reading your magnum opus, Vanity Fair. I'm sorry but, my moment or not, I prefer to say the whole truth, my truth, which is basically the way I felt throughout this journey. But firstly, Let's talk about the good stuff, is it fine? I've always believed if you have something good to say, say it first.

I completely enjoyed the funny, ironic way you decided to narrate this novel. Your narrator was the best part of the whole book; no, seriously, you have no idea how many times I laughed at something really simple, even ridiculous, and just because of the narrator. I suppose you are the narrator, aren't you? A memorable way to live in your own novel forever, I guess.
Your characters, especially the main ones: how can I not love them? Tell me, how am I going to forget them? There are things in life which are impossible to forget, and this is definitely one of those things. Amelia, Becky, Rawdon, Dobbin, Miss Crawley, Jos, Pitt, George, Jane, Georgy, Mrs. Bute (I just typed these names in the way they came to my mind) are an important part of me right now, and this feeling is possible because of you, Thackeray.
I found some of your thoughts/reflections* as well as some chapters which were crucial over the course of the story quite important and enjoyable to read. For instance, there is one chapter (chapter 35) that is present vividly in my mind, at which you talk about significant topics, so significant that I couldn't help but think of my own life and the place where I am right now. Thanks for such a meaningful moment.
And finally, those descriptions of the Napoleonic Wars... I'm still speechless, I can't find the right words to express my admiration for such powerful descriptions. For example, I'm remembering that one** which was very long, and at the same time, quite short to express everything you wanted to say; in my view, another notch on your belt.

So far, so good, right? and that was nonetheless the shorter part. Now, it is time to say the negative stuff, and explain why this book is only a 3-star novel for me.
Well, Thackeray, first of all, I want to ask you something so directly, with all due respect: why are you rambling a lot? 800 or so pages and you never, never stopped rambling. At the very beginning, I must confess it was interesting, but once you are on chapter 15, chapter 25, chapter 40, and so on, this experience turns out to be unbearable, underwhelming, disappointing. If you had had something important to say for the sake of the story, fine, no problem at all, but you were lost at some point, weren't you? You preferred a not-to-the-point book to a clear, maybe straightforward yet well developed story.
Now, let's say a 'rambling story' is not a problem: then, why were you rambling on insignificant topics and leaving the important ones out of the novel? When something necessary for the plot—main plot or subplots—happened, it was solved so fast that I, as a reader, wasn't able to enjoy or even appreciate what was happening, whereas when there was something completely unnecessary, for instance, those guests who were in a soirée whose names you had to mention, one by one, and also their titles, even what they were wearing, when such characters (almost) never came back to the story again – why on earth did you do that, Thackeray? Also, it was noticeable that you didn't know what to do with your main and secondary characters, and even you constantly introduced new ones; at some point there were too many characters, and some of them were less important for the story than Miss Crawley's lap dog.
Lastly, do you want to know why this novel is my biggest disappointment, only among all the Victorian novels I have read so far (and I believe I have read a decent amount of them, by the way)? Because you had no idea how to finish this story, and therefore, as a result, we had here one of the worst endings we can find in a novel: no ending at all. Two paragraphs to close Amelia's story, and as for Becky, there is no a proper, fair ending, one character who just ended up in 'the same place' she started. As for the rest of the characters, it was also disappointing, you can't finish all the subplots at the end of the last chapter as if you were writing a grocery shopping list: one paragraph, one ending, another paragraph, another ending. 67 chapters and this is what we got. It is not fair, Thackeray, it is unacceptable, unbelievable.
You knew I had a terrible experience with another massive book recently, and therefore, I had all my expectations for your novel. So, at this point I can't help but believe that perhaps huge books are not working for me right now, or maybe it was just a sad coincidence. Either way, Vanity Fair, even though its narrative was great (I can't complain about that), was one of those Victorian classics that I knew I would enjoy from beginning to end; unfortunately, my experience with your book turned out that I don't want to read any of your other novels, at least not for a long, long time.

Sorry again, Thackeray, you know this is not personal, and yet I don't regret saying the things I have said in this letter.

Best,

A picky(?) reader

----

* “Have you ever had a difference with a dear friend? How his letters, written in the period of love and confidence, sicken and rebuke you! What a dreary mourning it is to dwell upon those vehement protests of dead affection! What lying epitaphs they make over the corpse of love! What dark, cruel comments upon Life and Vanities! Most of us have got or written drawers full of them. They are closet-skeletons which we keep and shun.”

** “All our friends took their share and fought like men in the great field. All day long, whilst the women were praying ten miles away, the lines of the dauntless English infantry were receiving and repelling the furious charges of the French horsemen. Guns which were heard at Brussels were ploughing up their ranks, and comrades falling, and the resolute survivors closing in. Towards evening, the attack of the French, repeated and resisted so bravely, slackened in its fury. They had other foes besides the British to engage, or were preparing for a final onset. It came at last: the columns of the Imperial Guard marched up the hill of St. Jean, at length and at once to sweep the English from the height which they had maintained all day, and spite of all: unscared by the thunder of the artillery, which hurled death from the English line—the dark rolling column pressed on and up the hill. It seemed almost to crest the eminence, when it began to wave and falter. Then it stopped, still facing the shot. Then at last the English troops rushed from the post from which no enemy had been able to dislodge them, and the Guard turned and fled.”