I have read this book so many times over the years, that i cannot even recount them.

Vanity Fair is a portrait of it´s time and society - an excelent portrait, i will say. It has it all: the rise and fall of a pair of swindlers, the stupidity and prejudice of the upper-classes not to mention the part that is set during the Napolionic Wars - brilliant!

And Mr. Thackery gave me my favourite heroine: Rebecca Sharp. And for this i thank him.

She is as humaine as it can be - although she does not end well, and was selfish and ruthless, she also had spunk to go round. She never knew how to content herself or love those who where desperate to love her - she was always in the persuit of something more, higher, better.... until the downfall.

Romanzo monumentale per costruzione, dimensione storica e, anche, lunghezza, ma Thackeray da buon vittoriano "obbligato" a pubblicare a puntate è capace di tenere sempre viva l'attenzione. Certo qualche digressione qua e là forse se la sarebbe potuta evitare, ma complessivamente la lettura è scorrevole e interessante.
Il titolo originario avrebbe dovuto essere "Romanzo senza eroe" ed è vero, in quest'opera i protagonisti sono almeno 5 e ognuno di loro a turno ruba la scena agli altri, del resto "La fiera delle vanità" è sicuramente un titolo più bello, letterariamente fondato e altrettanto valido visto che Thackeray ci tiene a ricordare spesso al lettore quanto possa essere sciocca la buona società dell'epoca. Il romanzo ha un chiaro intento morale. I buoni sono buoni (ma anche troppo ingenui e creduloni), i cattivi sono cattivi e quindi meritevoli della punizione eppure... le vicende parallele e speculari di Amelia e Rebecca trovano una strana coincidenza in un finale dal sapore amarognolo che le mette una davanti all'altra.
La forza del romanzo è sicuramente l'azione e la capacità di coinvolgimento del lettore nelle vicende di personaggi che appaiono, però, complessivamente un po' piatti e senza sfumature. In quasi 900 pagine di romanzo, lo spazio per un'analisi psicologica di motivazioni e emozioni è risicata al punto che forse, l'unica ad essere qualcosa di più che una rappresentazione bidimensionale, è proprio Rebecca e anche qui la sua tridimensionalità viene fuori più in quello che l'autore tace e lascia all'immaginazione del lettore che in quello che racconta.
Sorprende, ma a mia opinione azzeccatissima, la scelta di non mostrare la battaglia di Waterloo che, pur essendo uno degli snodi portanti del romanzo, viene liquidata in poche righe molto ben congegnate.

Abbreviations
Introduction
Chronology of Thackeray's Life and Works
Select Reading List
A Note on the Text

--Vanity Fair

Notes
Appendix: Parody
Textual Variants

Which of us is happy in this world? Which of us has his desire? or, having it, is satisfied?

Vanity Fair may be brilliant, but it is extremely bloated and uneven. For each page that features interesting characters and compelling dialogue, one must trudge through a greater measure of dull, relentless and misplaced description, aside and detail. Thackeray just goes on and on, spilling onto the page everything he can possibly think of, without any consideration for what is interesting and what is not. The story seems not to be driving anywhere in particular, but it drives on regardless, and the driver enjoys nothing more than tediously pointing out each minute element of the scenery passed along the way.

This is a novel built on comic wit and satire, which, I've come to realise, aren't really my thing, especially when coupled with Nineteenth Century concerns and sensibilities and packaged in bland realism. Give me a metaphor now and then, or something! Of the mostly unappealing and forgettable cast of characters, Becky was the one I felt least indifferent too, and she represents almost all of what I enjoyed about this novel. I found myself frequently tuning out when she wasn't around, barely expending the effort to keep track of which Crawley was which, or who was married to whom, or in which park did each now happen to take their walks of an afternoon (as compared to last week), and who enjoys a little claret with their meals now and then, and is tonight's veal to their liking? - all for very little payoff.

I think to enjoy this novel you have to have some sort of affinity for its excesses, to be captivated by its time and place, its wit and voice and style, in order to follow, eagerly and attentively down each unremarkable cul-de-sac. For my part, I followed, but reluctantly, and with very little enthusiasm. If Vanity Fair were about 300 pages shorter I might have enjoyed it, but as it stands I'm just pleased to have gotten through it.

چند سالی بود که دلم میخواست بخونمش وبالاخره تونستم تقریبا یک ماهی و با ربکا ،آملیا،جو،ویلیام و بقیه زندگی کردم
صفحات اول کتاب که شروع کردم داستان من برد به دنیای نوجوانی و یادآوری داستان بابا لنگ دراز و از همونجا جذبش شدم جالبه برام که کتاب و تا انتها خوندم اما شخصیت محبوبی که بخوام بخاطر اون صفحات ورق بزنم پیدا نکردم ،من از خود تکری خوشم اومد.
از ساده نوشتنش تو تمام اون لحظاتی که من خواننده و صدا میزد ،اونجای که باید داستان ادامه میداد بهم میگفت لازم به گفتن من نیست شما خودت همه رو میدونی.توصیفاتی که اکثر نویسنده ها براشون مهمه و اینجور مخاطب جذب میکنن واس تکری بی اهمیت بود
اولین کتابی بود که ازش خوندم اما واقعا سبک و نوع نگارشش ودوست داشتم .پیشنهاد میکنم کتاب و حتما بخونین

Il romanzone dell’estate 2023, che non ha potuto accompagnarmi in spiaggia o in vacanza perché la mole non lo ha permesso, ma che ha segnato le giornate estive calde ed oziose, sul divano con l’aria condizionata accesa, o in balcone la sera lunga sul divanetto. Una piacevolissima compagnia.
Mi sono sempre piaciuti i romanzoni ottocenteschi, con una pletora di personaggi, ognuno con proprie caratteristiche peculiari, non totalmente positivi né totalmente negativi, mi vengono in mente Casa desolata di Dickens o La pietra di luna di Wilkie Collins, per restare in Inghilterra. In più in Tackeray ho trovato una ironia così manifesta, divertente, apparentemente in superficie, che invece colpisce ed affonda un mondo ed un’epoca, la società del periodo vittoriano.
Le protagoniste principali sono due donne, che conosciamo all’inizio come giovani studentesse uscite dalla scuola per signorine che preparava le fanciulle al matrimonio, e con noi giungeranno alla maturità, Rebecca Sharp ed Amelia Sedley: due donne lontane tra loro anni luce per carattere, la prima spregiudicata, astuta, intelligente, arrampicatrice sociale, egoista, la seconda dolce, morbida, remissiva e insipida. Intorno a loro una rutilante fiera di personaggi, una variegata vetrina nella quale si muovono ipocriti e vanagloriosi, arrampicatori sociali e puttanieri, nobili depravati o decaduti e borghesi uomini d’affari le cui fortune finanziarie si muovono come le onde di un mare in burrasca, uomini d’armi e volitive signore, sciocchi funzionari dello Stato, con i loro seguiti di maggiordomi e camerieri. Nessuno si salva dallo sguardo cinico dello scrittore.

Il finale lascia sorpresi per la modernità, perché il romanzo non termina col solito prevedibile finale dei “buoni” che vincono e “i cattivi” che hanno la meritata punizione, ma lascia una porta aperta a un futuro in cui, come nella vita, i buoni e i cattivi non sono così radicalmente “condannati”ai loro ruoli.

I approached this book with trepidation since it was so long and written so long ago. I was prepared to be burdened and bored but I really enjoyed it. It took me about ten weeks to read, and that was at a very busy time of my life, so it probably would not have taken so long under ordinary circumstances. I especially liked the ending as I expected that a female character would be the character who suffered most because of vanity -- but it was not! I liked this story so much that I might even consider a re-read -- for me, a rarity!

“Which of us is happy in this world? Which of us has his desire? or, having it, is satisfied?”

Vanity fair! A novel without a hero! A puppet show! The puppets are the flawed and unlikeable characters and the acts are hypocrisy, callousness, betrayal and artfulness.
Narrated by Thackeray himself who is unreliable and voluble, the story is about two opposites. The manipulative, cunning, scheming and pleasure-seeking Becky Sharp and the weak, naive and kindhearted (in my opinion stupid and annoying) Emmy Sedley.
Vanity Fair is the portrayal of human nature at its worst. It is about the vanity of human affairs and not an easy book to like. It took me more than 3 months to read it, whereas I finished Les Miserables and War and Peace respectively in 3 and 4 weeks and devoured Charles Dickens novels like they were chocolate dipped peanut butter crackers!

And so as Dante says, “Abandon all hope - You Who Enter Here.”

Classic Victorian novel – “Novel without a hero” but with an anti-heroine, the charming but scheming and above all manipulative, upwardly mobile Becky Sharp.

Two main female characters – the rich Amelia Sedley and the grocer/singer’s daughter Becky Sharp. When they leave school, Becky almost receives a marriage proposal from Amelia’s brother Jos (an official in India but also a bon viveur), but he is too drunk and instead she goes to the drunken Baronet Sir Pitt Crawley as governess to his children. Pitt has a brother nearby Rev Bute Crawley and two children – Rawdon, a soldier who is a big favourite of his rich aunt Mrs Crawley and Rev Pitt (who isn’t!). When Sir Pitt’s wife dies he proposes to Becky who is then forced to reveal she is already married – to Rawdon who are then cast off by their family and cut out of Mrs Crawley’s will. Meanwhile Amelia has always been assumed by both sets of families to be due to be implicitly promised to the handsome but proud and shallow George Osborne. However, Mr Sedley is financially ruined costing Mr Osborne money and the two completely fall out and both separately renounce the union. William Dobbin, George’s best friend (who saved him from bullying at school but then whose family rose above him so that Dobbin is George’s officer) and a secret admirer of Amelia’s – convinces George to go ahead with the marriage as Amelia is otherwise dying of a broken heart. Both couples (as well as Dobbin and Jos as a civilian) immediately depart to Brussels in the build up to Waterloo. Becky flirts outrageously with George who promises his love to her within his first week of marriage but George is killed in the battle leaving Amelia with child.

Amelia returns to her financially ruined family and looks after George Jr while re-inventing her memory of her husband, Dobbin and Jos return to India while Dobbin secretly funds Amelia and the child. Amelia in desperation for the state of her son and parents gives George Jr over to Mr Osborne and his family to care for – thus securing more money and a partial reconciliation, while George Jr grows up to be as vain and pretentious and self-important as his Dad. Dobbin returns to England (with both character thinking the other has been married in the meantime) but when he explains his feelings to Amelia she rejects him saying she must remain faithful to (her false/idealised) memory of George. Eventually on Mr Osborne’s death he acknowledges Amelia and returns George’s custody to her.

Becky meanwhile plots an upward path in society – initially by her ability to string along creditors. Mrs Bute initially gains Mrs Crawley’s favour but overplays her hand and instead Pitt Crawley inherits the majority of her wealth. Becky then pulls a masterstroke of persuading Rawdon to congratulate Pitt on this and achieves the result of her and Pitt being re-recognised by the family, which then boosts her presence in society, which is further boosted by the favour of the rich and illustrious Lord Steyne (with whom she may be having an affair). Rawdon discovers this and vows to fight Steyne in a duel but is persuaded to instead take a governor position in the tropics – however he refuses to be reconciled to Becky and hands his son Rawdon Jr (who Becky has never cared for except when advantageous in public– a point which Thackeray seems to think summarises her character) to his brother to look after.

Jos, Dobbin, George Jr and Amelia tour Europe. While in Germany they meet the down-at-heel Becky who has been driven from city to city where her initial attempts to charm the local gentry is thwarted by rumours of her true character and situation coming, it is hinted, by Lord Steyne’s design. Dobbin finally repudiates Amelia, and decides she is not high-minded and worth enough if she will not respect his years of devotion to her and departs to England. Amelia has already repented of her behaviour and written a letter imploring him to return when Becky finally shatters her myth about George. Amelia and Dobbin marry (although not in a Jane Austen “happy ever after” way but almost because Amelia is too weary to resist any longer) while Jos and Becky travel together until Jos died (with some suspicion Becky did it for his will). The book ends with Amelia reflecting that Dobbin for all his kindness is fonder of their daughter than her and with the quote “which of us has his desire, or having it, is satisfied”.

This last piece summarises the book well – most of the characters are unhappy and there is much comment on the true state of human relationships (e.g. the lack of true care of children for their parents).

Whereas Jane Austen stops at the point of marriage - this book consciously explores what happens after marriages, marriages made out of love but frustrated by circumstances and particularly by family disapproval due to social conventions.

Narrator is a strong character in the book – often commenting cynically on the vanities of mankind although also making contemporary comments (which make the book difficult to follow now). Although the crucial part of the book is set around the Battle of Waterloo there is explicitly no description of the battle, expect from the viewpoint of the non-combatants, this focus on those “left behind” was, for me, one of the most impressive parts of what is certainly an impressive and sweeping, if depressing, novel.

You should probably read this book because it is pretty hilarious. If you don’t want to, though – if you’re a wuss about page length and the words Waterloo and Wellington aren’t enough to overcome it – there are some acceptable alternatives about which I will gladly tell you now. While the feature film was TERRIBLE, COMPLETELY SPOILED THE STORY, and didn’t pay attention to ANY of the jokes (shaking my fist at that ruiner, Mira Nair!), the A&E miniseries is really good. Like, really, really good. I could watch it over and over - and have. The other, perhaps even better alternative, however, is the modern retelling of Vanity Fair, The Real Housewives of D.C., starring Michaele Salahi as Becky Sharp.

I mean, really all the Real Housewives are retellings of Vanity Fair – they all tell the same basic story – but D.C. is the only one that implicates all the grandeur of aristocracy and national security, so I think it’s the one that’s so similar it makes me pause for a moment at its awesomeness. I was horrified to hear that there is talk D.C. will be canceled, so I invite you to prevent this tragic wrong and start catching up on all the D.C. Housewives you can get your hands on. Or, you know, write a letter to your local Bravo TV rep, or whatever you do to save a show.

Anyway, for those of you who want substantive information, the story of Vanity Fair, the story of the Housewives of D.C. (and all the Housewives, for that matter), is that somebody throws a party and doesn’t invite one of the girls, and then that girl crashes the party anyway. Then, people fight. The cool thing about the D.C. Housewives is that the crashed party is at the White House, and the people-fighting part involves a congressional hearing. Vanity Fair is the same, but the people fighting are at the Battle of Waterloo at one point. In VF and D.C., the uninvited girl is the truth-challenged social climber, and both have pretty poignant commentaries on wealth and credit, imo.

It's been quite some time since I read this book, to be honest, but I remember vividly that once, while reading this book, I had to put it down and sit for a minute because I was laughing so hard that I couldn’t see the page anymore at this situationally hilarious joke. I still remember the joke, and I still think it is so funny. The Housewives are pretty much like that too. It is tragic that probably the traditional Vanity Fair crowd and the traditional Housewives crowd don’t mix more often. Stories about social climbing are so fun! Even if they are both really long taken in one sitting. They are serials! Don’t try to cram them if you don’t want to. But if you like to hear stories about people who, like, really like to party, these two are the same, but both worth checking out. I guess it depends on whether you feel like picking up a “classic” or saving a show from extinction. Or, if you don’t have a lot of other things going on, or a lot of parties of your own to crash, you could do both! You won’t regret it.

Probably First Realistic Femme Fatale of Modern Lit
The Prototype for Most Who Followed

"Now I ain't sayin' you a gold digger, you got needs.
*** Get down girl, go 'head, get down."
"Gold Digger," Kanye West, Ray Charles, Renald Richard, 2005

Becky Sharp is perhaps modern lit's first exemplar of today's femme fatale. Clever, charming, attractive, as well as artful, duplicitous, hyper-ambitious, a superself-centered woman who uses sex as one of her tools to manipulate men but only to serve her needs. She is the anti-heroine without a scruple in this (subtitled) "novel without a hero." "I think," she says, "I could be a good woman if I had five thousand a year."

I think we've all known at least one Becky Sharp, she usually comes from relatively nothing yet is the first to ridicule those less fortunate. "Old Sir Pitt...chuckled at her n  airs and gracesn, and would laugh ... at her assumptions of dignity and imitations of genteel life."

There is really only one character who could be characterized as "redeeming" in the entire lengthy novel. Nonetheless, I was thoroughly impressed with and enjoyed reading this 1848 novel which is set in England around the time of Waterloo.