February 2015 Discussion: The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton (spoilers)
 

The time has come to discuss the February 2015 MobileRead Book Club selection, The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton. What did you think?

Books are like art. Sometimes you look at art and appreciate a picture created with vivid colours, intricate detail, or interesting texture. Sometimes that piece of art is the Voice of Fire and you wonder why somebody else thinks it is worthy of a million dollar price tag and its own room in a gallery.

For me, this book was a very beige painting. The descriptions of the setting didn’t enchant me, but perhaps that was intentional on the writer’s part. She was poking fun at the social conventions of the time, and maybe the locale too. The story wasn’t captivating, but it was a subtle commentary on New York high society. Not really dramatic material. Nor my cup of tea. I generally like a little more action.

I thought the main character Newland Archer was a melodramatic spoiled rich brat. He had everything going for him but he couldn’t get his head out of the clouds. He wasn’t in love with the Countess Olenska, he was in love with the idea of a romantic fantasy. May gave him ample opportunity to call off the engagement and he didn’t, so he had nobody to blame for his situation but himself. I was thrilled that the book had the happiest ending possible. He and May remained married, had kids, and he never ran off with the Countess.

I did not feel that the Countess Ellen Olenska was ever in love. It’s a shame that she was married off at a young age to a brute, but I didn’t see her hooking up with a dull guy like Newland. Now that she was “free”, she enjoyed artistic company and defying social norms. I saw her as an early flapper type and not someone that would settle down with one person.

My favourite character was the old lady Manson Mingott. At least she had some spunk.

I’m glad I read this book. It was a good reminder that there are books out there that employ a richer vocabulary than many current offerings. It was an exercise for the brain, trying to tease out the hidden gems in the subtle storyline. It was also a reminder of what I didn’t like about high school English class.

Maybe some questions in the interest of discussion.

So was Archer actually a victim of social norms?


Was this book a romance? What was romantic about it?


Did you like this book?

That's my impression as well, especially as each time they met, he hardly recognized her. He had built up a completely fictitious picture in his mind of her appearance. Nor was she as unconventional and free from the restraints of society as he believed her to be. Her main claim to fame in that area was that she refused to let herself be tied forever to a marriage that was most unhappy for reasons that were never made entirely clear.

OK - I'm ready to start reading this. Things got a bit delayed. Hopefully it will flow smoothly.

I read this years ago and I thought it even better than I remembered. A masterpiece, in fact. I was enthralled; there were so many depths to the story and for me, the portrayal of a tiny portion of New York society at a very particular time was fully realized.

I agree that the love story wasn't the tragedy, but lives lived only partially, on the sidelines and in the shadows, without the people's being fully engaged. Also that early decisions reverberate forever, which is the human condition. That Newland was conscious of his limitations and his choices and that he actively chose not to engage, was also tragic for me. Although, as with HIMS and treadlightly, I don't feel sorry for him on that account. Thoreau's famous statement, "The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation," applies here - and at a time when most scratched out a barely subsistence living (and indeed made the leisure and opulence portrayed here possible) it's impossible to waste pity on someone who had choices.

I loved how Wharton evoked the sense of society living in the shadow of Vesuvius. Willful blindness even as they deplored "change" and "trends." The Civil War had ended a scant decade ago and you'd never know it, nor, more locally, that Boss Tweed had just been brought down. But New York liked to pretend that its money was old and clean, even though the reverberations of Beaufort's failure showed that it wasn't the case.

And the women! They ruled. Catherine Mingott, Mrs. Archer, Mre. Welland, and even May - Newland was helpless against them, as he thought he was so far-seeing in wishing as much social latitude for women as the men had.

It is so beautifully written. One of my favorite bits was the the broken Cupid who had lost his bow and arrow at the decaying farm in Portsmouth, just as May was triumphing in the archery competion in Newport. Not subtle (Wharton wasn't always subtle), but in that juxtaposition, we knew who would win.

About 11% in. I like it thus far because I kind of like the back-handed compliments the author pays the characters. Also, the language itself is very good, but I expect that after reading Ethan Frome.

I wanted to read it and chime in, but gave up on the book. It's too difficult for me. I admit it. I had the same difficulty with P&P but in The Age Of Innocence there are more characters to keep track of. I'm out of my depth.

I think she served another purpose, too, to point up an essential difference between Americans and Europeans. No matter how privilege and cultured, Americans were perforce a different stock and not just quasi or aspiring Europeans.

Ellen was an orphan, brought up by a peripatetic aunt one of whose husbands had a papal title, Ellen herself married abroad and had a title, and yet she was inherently American and wanted to be an American. Her love for Newland was in part because he awakened that sense in her. She chose to embrace that but had to renounce it, for May's sake and for the sake of Newland's own integrity as an American. While she frequently and amusingly deplores Americans' taste, I think Wharton claims the moral high ground for Americans and that has her personal stamp of approval.

I liked this book more than I was expecting to. I liked the window into the time and place and enjoyed the characters.
Because this was chosen for our romance book, I was expecting a little more, well. . . action. I thought things would get a little more fiery, Heathcliffe and Catherine like. After figuring out that wasn't going to happen I just really enjoyed the book.

I've failed to get much more than a third of the way through this book. I'm persistent, but I find my mind wandering off the book easily and I'm not in the slightest engrossed.

For me, the characters are all rather shallow and none of them seem likeable or intriguing in any way. I know this might be because people were all about "keeping up appearances" and the correct types of behaviour, but I'm just not feeling this at all. There also doesn't seem to be much romance in it - just lots of people gossiping about other people behind their backs.

It's a shame, one of my friends said she'd read everything that Wharton has written and loved them all.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I came to it with very high expectations and although it didn't quite hit me the way Ethan Frome did, I found that as I progressed I became more and more absorbed in the book.

I'm not sure if "sympathise" is the right word, but I appreciated the view from Newland Archer's vantage point. I do have a question though if anyone is interested. Do we think that Wharton's portrayal of a man of his time in the 1870's?

This is a bit of a side-track, but in a Q&A session with Janny Wurts, a fantasy writer, she mentioned being petitioned by Raymond Feist to assist him with what is known as The Empire Trilogy. Apparently, Feist wanted a central female character and he felt that he was not going to be able to do her justice. This fascinated me at the time, because it hadn't occurred to me that writing from the perspective of a different gender would present challenges.

So here is Wharton, totally inhabiting Newland Archer for the duration of the novel. Do we think that she did him justice? I know next to nothing about the New York gentleman of the 1870's, but I felt that she knew Archer intimately, and the portrayal really resonated with me.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I loved the book. It brought the time and place to such realistic life and told what I consider a very romantic story and yet the whole thing was imbued with delightfully witty scorn. I agree that it's a masterpiece.

Though both are good, I preferred this book to Ethan Frome. This is the author’s milieu - ergo this story felt more genuine.

I also enjoyed this book and was fascinated by the details of the lives of the privileged in 1870's New York. May is a more interesting character than Newland Archer realized, and I loved how Wharton was able to indicate more than was apparent to Newland, the narrator.

I'd love to hear what others think of the ending.

I finished the book today. I really enjoyed it and loved the witty commentary on 19th century American social conventions. It was a little hard to get into it the first few chapters. I had to put it away and come back to it when I was in a different mood. I thought the book was certainly a romance. At times there was quite the passion felt underneath the words and love demonstrated by lack of action to unite.

The ending was unexpected. Finally there were no barriers that would prevent them from uniting. I suppose he chose to live with the memory of Ellen rather than risk the possibility that time and life experiences would have rendered them too different from each other and tarnished that memory. The other possibility could have been for them to fall back together like time had never happened. Although I think that would have diminished the impact of the rest of the book that kept them apart.

I was thinking while reading the book that I wished the character of May was more developed, but then her awareness is revealed finally in the last chapters.

I actually didn't feel it was much of a romance, but it's pretty in line with our history or romance picks that have nearly always been classics.

This relates back to my comment about me not thinking this is a romance, but I don't think Newland was ever in love with Ellen. I'm not really sure about the reverse because it was hard to get a feel for Ellen in the book. However, for Newland, I felt that Ellen represented something - an itch that he couldn't scratch, a freedom he was not prepared to grasp.

That's why I think there were always comments about her leaving his mind entirely for months at a time and forgetting what she looks like. When it came to the end, there were no surprises for me. With no natural walls or obstacles to give him an excuse, why on earth would he meet again the woman who was really just a symbol.

I think he had his moment of testing his limits before being subdued by the society around him, guided by his dutiful and manipulative wife. I thought May was an excellent example of the polite but suffocating New York society of which Wharton writes.

It's difficult for me to feel sorry for Newland, because I never felt that he seriously wanted to escape. And so his "play" at breaking away reminded me of the times I'm "serious" about retiring from working life. Yes my working life is a burden and I do have a choice to be rid of it - but it's not a choice I'm going to make because I would rather choose the lifestyle I have. I think that is how I picture Newland. He can see where he's heading, and he has some issues with it - for (more or less) sound reasons. But of the two lives he can live, he's only going to choose the one that leaves him comfortable.