MegaFan, después de Charlotte Brontë, de La Feria de las Vanidades. Un libro que se va directo a la lista de mis clásicos preferidos imprescindibles, maravilloso derroche de ironía y humor el de el ingenioso y satírico William M. Thackeray en esta genial obra. Lo bien que me lo he pasado a pesar de lo mucho que me han enervado casi todos sus personajes jajaja.. Cerrar el libro y echar en falta seguir leyéndolo ha sido todo en uno, y es que a veces ochocientas ochenta y cinco páginas parecen insuficientes cuando han pasado volando.
Voy a consolarme viendo la serie.

This book might be unique in that it not only claims to have no hero, but in fact has no hero. What it does have is a cast of duplicitous, weak or inane characters, none of whom stir much in the way of either pity, empathy, or affinity. It also has the bad girl to end all bad girls, Miss Rebecca Sharp. I doubt anyone would argue that Becky is not the most interesting character in the book, and while some might admire the good little Amelia, few could actually like her.

Vanity Fair is quite a bit longer than it needs to be and some chapters meander aimlessly, but this, I believe, can be attributed to the method in which it was released. When a book is being presented to its audience in a serial form, it must go on for a prearranged period of time and acquire a certain length. Were it being edited for release as a novel today, I feel sure it would be shortened considerably.

Thackeray breaks the fourth wall constantly, talking to the reader and urging him to see the point he has just made, in a way that can become irritating at times. But, even this conceit works for me for the most part. Toward the end of the book, the narrator explains that he has “just met” the principles, which sent my head spinning, for how could one know all the details set forth in such omniscient fashion if one just had a chance encounter with these people toward the end of their stories? Up to this point, I had accepted the narrator as an all-seeing sort of presence, not a literal acquaintance of the characters, so it was discombobulating to say the least.

Vanity Fair is a moral tale, or more correctly a tale about lack of morals. One wonders if this society actually had any or if everything that passed for morals was pretense.

At one point, Thackery compares the behavior of these persons to a mermaid and her tail:
Those who may peep down under waves that are pretty transparent and see it writhing and twirling, diabolically hideous and slimy, flapping amongst bones, or curling around corpses; but above the waterline, I ask, has not everything been proper, agreeable, and decorous, and has even the most squeamish immoralist in Vanity Fair a right to cry fie.

I believe he is trying to impress upon his reader that this is a world of pretense, a world that cares more for appearance than it ever could for virtue. Indeed, we watch Becky Sharp navigate this society in the most unscrupulous way possible, and we cannot help feeling that her flaws and shortcomings are more about survival than evil.

And, there seems to be a particular emphasis on women and their relationships to one another:

I am tempted to think that to be despised by her sex is a very great compliment to a woman.

and

As they say, the persons who hate Irishmen most are Irishmen; so, assuredly, the greatest tyrants over women are women.

It does indeed seem that it is the fairer sex, who are proposed to have the gentler hearts, the nurturing instincts and the sweeter dispositions, who wield the knife most cruelly. The men, while equally dissipated, seem somehow more gullible and unaware than hateful or manipulative.

I had a hard time deciding what rating to give this tome. I did enjoy it and found myself caught up in the story at times. There were also moments when I might have laid it aside and never picked it up again without the slightest hesitation. It is not the best of Victorian literature to me...it has none of the power of Eliot, none of the charm of Dickens, and none of the atmosphere of Hardy. In short, it cannot be ranked with the best of its time, but it cannot be dismissed either. I could not help feeling sorry for Thackeray, knowing that he suffered in comparison to Dickens in his lifetime and will continue to do so throughout literary history.

I am happy to have read Vanity Fair at last. There are surely some important ideas addressed and some things of value that can be taken away from it, but it is not the kind of book that pleads well to be read again.

"Il mio benevolo proposito è questo, amici e compagni: guidarvi attraverso i vari spazi della Fiera di Vanità, tra negozi e spettacoli, nel più sfolgorante insieme di rumori e di spensieratezza, per poi tornare tutti a casa alla propria triste solitudine."

"Ah! Vanitas vanitatem! Which of us is happy in this world? Which of us has his desire? Or having it, is satisfied?"

And so ends VANITY FAIR. Thackeray's purpose seems to be to expose the universal condition of vanity and, to achieve it, he takes his two female characters, Amelia Sedley and Becky Sharp, and uses them to explore and expose the workings of vanity. Amelia will be used for the private sphere (home and affections) and Becky, for the public sphere (social climbing and social status).

In my opinion, the problem of this novel is its narrator. Thackeray once defined the novel as a "sort of confidential talk between writer and reader." Well, I feel that there is simply too much of this kind of talk. The narrator is annoyingly intrusive and not only that, his voice is somewhat puzzling. Sometimes he plays the fool, at other times he plays the preacher. He can be a man of the world and also cloyingly sentimental. And he is very repetitive. He underlines a point already made absolutely clear, or he illustrates his point in several ways and, if he thinks this is not quite enough, he will point its moral. His extended musings produce breaks in the continuity of the novel and for this reason, I found that the novel dragged for ever. Undoubtedly, Thackeray can be a bore.

However, some interesting things happen as well. The remarkable thing about VANITY FAIR'S moral universe is that good does not triumph over evil. This doesn't happen often in the English nineteenth century novel. Sexual forces (rather than money) are the real determinants of the action and this points to the idea that deferential attitudes towards women, the sentimental idealisation of women, the protective masculine displays towards women are merely hypocrisies. This was true in Victorian England and surely it still holds some truth in Western culture today.

So if you are a patient reader, able to bear the garrulous narrating voice, you will find an unusual satirical novel which describes a panorama of life in Victorian England with irony and wit.

Vanity Fair is first and foremost a satire. William Thackeray laces numerous jibes and barbs into his writing, mocking the obsessions of Victorian British society, almost all of which have to do with fame, power, money, or at least the appearance of having at least one of those. But it's also a romance, as we follow William Dobbins' decades-long pursuit of Amelia Sedley; a coming-of-age story, as we follow Rebecca Sharp's continual efforts to advance herself in British society despite not having the appropriate background; and part classic Victorian family drama, with generations of descendants interweaving around and through each other's lives.

Overall, Thackeray is masterful at keeping these various balls in the air. In addition, he has created one of English literature's most compelling characters in Becky Sharp, whose independence, cleverness and ingenuity are well ahead of their time even if she uses them for selfish, if not malicious, purposes, and supports her with a rich array of fascinating and layered supporting and minor characters who appear and reappear throughout the story. Finally, he overlays all of it with an acerbic, even cynical wit, some of which remains laugh-out-loud funny today.

Unfortunately, the novel is not perfect. Thackeray goes back and forth on whether he's telling us the years in which these events took place. He calls at least one character by two different names. Several times characters appear in a location before having left to get there! In other words, he gets sloppy, which makes a long book with numerous characters that much more confusing. More frustrating, Thackeray "breaks the fourth wall" and speaks directly to the reader over and over again. Even making allowances for the greater frequency of that literary device in Victorian literature, Thackeray uses it too much – opening many, if not most, chapters with long essays about tangential topics to the plot and sprinkling various comments, typically concerning the supposed tendencies or character flaws of women, throughout the narrative. Obviously, the ongoing disruption of the plot does not make it easier to read!

Finally, I "read" this book by listening to it on Librivox, which is free, and I got what I paid for. Often, Librivox readers will be somewhat hit-or-miss, but in this book, there were several readers whose reading style actively impeded my ability to comprehend what was happening. That's not Thackeray's fault, but it did affect my enjoyment of the book – one that I would say is not well-suited for listening anyway, given his writing style, the complexity of the plot and the number of characters with speaking roles.

Overall, I liked Vanity Fair, and I'm glad to have read it, but if you plan to jump in, I recommend 1) reading in print, 2) skimming past the authorial intrusions, and 3) pausing to read the Cliff's Notes analysis every 10 chapters or so.

Vanity Fair is a masterpiece. This is the second time I've read it, and my opinion of it only increased. It's witty, it has a main character (Becky) who is memorable and complex (though, I will allow, not as complex as she would be if written in more modern times), and its style is engrossing and addicting.

It is this combination that makes the 700-plus pages worth the reading.

Much of the reader's interest is wrapped up in what could be oscillating feelings about Becky Sharp, a character who is much maligned in our novel, but who would, in our modern era, be a Twitter and YouTube star, with rumors of her ascent to the US Presidency at the ready. Becky is conniving, determined, clever and brash; and is in the end all the more sympathetic because one wonders what the country at that time could have offered her: servitude and unwanted advances, as is pointed out early in the novel.

Thackery was experimenting with novelistic form, a practice of many authors of the time (The Female Quixote, Tristram Shandy). Now, having a story without a hero seems almost prerequisite (the TV series Search Party, or Pretty Little Liars, two more recent examples). Yes, stories like these seem more realistic, as we live in a world (or, at least, have a government) overrun by those who seek out their own self-interest and a great many who are content to bemoan a situation but are inclined to be silent. However, Thackery had what now seems a quaint interest in morality; behind his humor is critique of a self aggrandizing society and a small plea for something more. There is no sermonising in Vanity Fair, just humor. We may be beyond the overt morality of the Victorian era, but it does us some good to live there once in a while. We tend to emerge with a greater sense of purpose. I have every sense I will return to this novel again; greatness, as this novel suggests, is hard to find.

A+

Това, което от съвременна гледна точка не разбрах съвсем, е като че ли умишленото опростяване и отрицание на Беки Шарп в края на книгата. И някак преекспонираната награда на пълната наивност и доживотна безпомощност на Амелия. Наивност и доброта без здрав разум и понякога твърда ръка често са безполезни и още по-често - мачкани. Но за викторианските писатели това е идеалът, дори за сладкодумния и остроумен Текери. Просто “добрата” героиня в дните на кралица Виктория е наивна, всеопрощаваща и абсолютно безпомощна.

This book really wasn't for me. Don't get me wrong, some parts were very enjoyable and humorous, while others, not so much. The Rebecca, Becky character, I just couldn't stand! She was such a snob and just so full of herself! She just wanted to be one of the rich and famous! Three stars.

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.

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.

"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".

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.