Alexander R.
The long journey through one of the most acclaimed British classical works is finally over. First and foremost, I really enjoyed the "Oxford World's Classics'' edition, with a wonderful introduction (contains a lot of spoilers, I suggest reading it after), genealogy tree (comes in handy (especially in the beginning when you try to memorize who is everyone and why there are so many people) + footnotes around 20 pages which provide a necessary explanation for someone who is not well-rounded in 19-20 century England.
Now with this finished, let’s get to the actual review!
The book is beautifully written, which does require some time getting used to the rich and vast vocabulary used in most classical works of fiction. By being amazingly vivid, it draws before your eyes a freshly painted pictures such as that of the typical Englishmen somewhere under the big oak-tree in vast lands of suburban London.
The story spawns throughout the change of the English society, mainly one family clan "Forsytes". Also, it is worth noting that the attention time devoted to each of the family members and other characters gets narrower along the timeline of the three parts. In the first one "The Man of Property" we get the widest range of events to observe and many separate plot lines or even observations of characters. Whereas the last one "To Let" still mentions them in one context or another, it is way more focused on proving a resolution though the cogitations of protagonists (Honestly, I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped to, but nevertheless you do understand why it is written in such a way, it is a logical conclusion on to the dynamic journey).
One of the things which makes a classic is probably the characters, their depth, believability and likability. Most characters are not one-dimensional good/bad cliché, but we do see some character development through change, others not, highlighting the sad reality that some people are pig-headed/stubborn in their ways, while other adapt to the dynamical changes in society and the world at large.
My favorite character without a doubt is Mr. Soames Forsyte. One of the key figures throughout the story, being a rather complex and well-written character, he also transmits one of the underlying ideas analyzed carefully in the story, namely "Property and possession or Beauty" along many other prevalent in human nature, coming from a particular class/stratum of the middlemen in the UK. There are a few moments scattered throughout the story, which make you question whether he is the hero or villain (or maybe none and you shouldn’t make quick superficial judgments, eh? More importantly his inner monologues and cogitations (people who read will get this reference) incentivizes you to reflect on your own life and decisions.
The only flaw in the book, which by many may be viewed as it's forté is Irene. Yes, I understand why Mr. Galsworthy wrote her in such a way, yes, she is also one of the key characters, yes, she does illustrate the larger restrictions put upon women in those times. The problem comes that when you try to squeeze so many vital moral and human dignities into one character she becomes almost ‘’saint-like’’ and thus one-dimensional (Yes, there are situations in which we are shown that she does have some doubtful moments, but I can count them on the fingers of one hand). The issue lies not in the character of Irene, but in the contrast to all other characters, who are very dynamic and well-written, showing various sides to them and enduring the situations, which in turn make them change their ways (or not) Vs the almost literal personification of all the good humanity can offer distilled into one human being acknowledged by ALL other characters, it does take you away from fully enjoying the story.
For those who have no time to read, to sum up: if you like complex character-driven story, reflection on human relations/nature and beautiful language observed through the lenses of Victorian and post-Victorian England, the book can quite literally become your getaway from the mundane chores of everyday life.
Mr. Galsworthy's "Saga" is a perfect illustration of what a book is supposed to be when we ought to think of a perfect example to follow in this genre. In my opinion, nothing shows more vividly the impact and the quality of a masterpiece as using it as a measuring tape for other works of fiction, even despite a few flaws here and there, which some might argue are also a necessary part of a masterpiece. Imperfection makes perfection, am I right?
P.S. Yes, the book pacing is slow at times, you may not have the patience to push through it, but it's quite worth it in the end. Perhaps, the chosen pace is an important reflection of the story's timeline as it is a necessary part of getting the correct "Feeling of times" thus emerging you fully into the epoch, but how do I know? Nobody tells me anything. (you will get this reference if you read the book).
The long journey through one of the most acclaimed British classical works is finally over. First and foremost, I really enjoyed the "Oxford World's Classics'' edition, with a wonderful introduction (contains a lot of spoilers, I suggest reading it after), genealogy tree (comes in handy (especially in the beginning when you try to memorize who is everyone and why there are so many people) + footnotes around 20 pages which provide a necessary explanation for someone who is not well-rounded in 19-20 century England.
Now with this finished, let’s get to the actual review!
The book is beautifully written, which does require some time getting used to the rich and vast vocabulary used in most classical works of fiction. By being amazingly vivid, it draws before your eyes a freshly painted pictures such as that of the typical Englishmen somewhere under the big oak-tree in vast lands of suburban London.
The story spawns throughout the change of the English society, mainly one family clan "Forsytes". Also, it is worth noting that the attention time devoted to each of the family members and other characters gets narrower along the timeline of the three parts. In the first one "The Man of Property" we get the widest range of events to observe and many separate plot lines or even observations of characters. Whereas the last one "To Let" still mentions them in one context or another, it is way more focused on proving a resolution though the cogitations of protagonists (Honestly, I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped to, but nevertheless you do understand why it is written in such a way, it is a logical conclusion on to the dynamic journey).
One of the things which makes a classic is probably the characters, their depth, believability and likability. Most characters are not one-dimensional good/bad cliché, but we do see some character development through change, others not, highlighting the sad reality that some people are pig-headed/stubborn in their ways, while other adapt to the dynamical changes in society and the world at large.
My favorite character without a doubt is Mr. Soames Forsyte. One of the key figures throughout the story, being a rather complex and well-written character, he also transmits one of the underlying ideas analyzed carefully in the story, namely "Property and possession or Beauty" along many other prevalent in human nature, coming from a particular class/stratum of the middlemen in the UK. There are a few moments scattered throughout the story, which make you question whether he is the hero or villain (or maybe none and you shouldn’t make quick superficial judgments, eh? More importantly his inner monologues and cogitations (people who read will get this reference) incentivizes you to reflect on your own life and decisions.
The only flaw in the book, which by many may be viewed as it's forté is Irene. Yes, I understand why Mr. Galsworthy wrote her in such a way, yes, she is also one of the key characters, yes, she does illustrate the larger restrictions put upon women in those times. The problem comes that when you try to squeeze so many vital moral and human dignities into one character she becomes almost ‘’saint-like’’ and thus one-dimensional (Yes, there are situations in which we are shown that she does have some doubtful moments, but I can count them on the fingers of one hand). The issue lies not in the character of Irene, but in the contrast to all other characters, who are very dynamic and well-written, showing various sides to them and enduring the situations, which in turn make them change their ways (or not) Vs the almost literal personification of all the good humanity can offer distilled into one human being acknowledged by ALL other characters, it does take you away from fully enjoying the story.
For those who have no time to read, to sum up: if you like complex character-driven story, reflection on human relations/nature and beautiful language observed through the lenses of Victorian and post-Victorian England, the book can quite literally become your getaway from the mundane chores of everyday life.
Mr. Galsworthy's "Saga" is a perfect illustration of what a book is supposed to be when we ought to think of a perfect example to follow in this genre. In my opinion, nothing shows more vividly the impact and the quality of a masterpiece as using it as a measuring tape for other works of fiction, even despite a few flaws here and there, which some might argue are also a necessary part of a masterpiece. Imperfection makes perfection, am I right?
P.S. Yes, the book pacing is slow at times, you may not have the patience to push through it, but it's quite worth it in the end. Perhaps, the chosen pace is an important reflection of the story's timeline as it is a necessary part of getting the correct "Feeling of times" thus emerging you fully into the epoch, but how do I know? Nobody tells me anything. (you will get this reference if you read the book).