For years I've been told that Thomas Hardy is as good, and maybe even better, than Jane Austen. In my mind that is a very bold statement, especially since the recommendation came from a loyal Austen fan.I am sad to report back that my expectations were too high. I spent the first one hundred pages comparing the scenes, characters and dialogue to Austen, and it wasn't the same! Big surprise, right, it is a different author. I complained a bit; thought the characters and time period were "too provincial" feeling. And then, I started to let the story stand on its own, or maybe it began to stand on its on, because Hardy is a great author, and it is a great story!
The book is a bit darker than Austen's novels, but still has a lot of comic relief. The setting is what really differentiates the two authors--Austen's scenes are set to the back drop of stately manors, balls and sitting rooms while Hardy is more pastoral, plain and impoverished.
On one hand I really liked the protagonist, Bathsheba, and I really related to her--can we say fiercely independent? :) But it took me a loooong time to stop thinking Gabriel Oak was a love-sick puppy. I suppose his constancy with his feelings, and Bathsheba's flighty whims, can be compared to some people I know . . .
1 comment:
This was a question on Jeopardy and the guy lost because he called the book, The Maddening Crowd--a very common mistake.
Post a Comment