well-written book. newland archer seems set to condition in the path of tradition created by his well-off new york ancestors by marrying, may welland, another descendent of well-off new yorkers. that is until the arrival of her cousin, countess ellen olenska. she rocks newland's world and that of the tight-knit, upper-crust new york society. ellen is off the cuff and unconventional and she draws newland in; his love is not only for her but for that of change and throwing off the shackles that nice, conventional, duty-bound new york has chained him in. may represents all the things of that society and, therefore, doesn't make newland's heart skip a beat but makes him feel he's done what he should and that's what bothers him!

wharton draws her characters well (reading the descriptions of old catherine are awesome) and makes you empathize with the deadened spiritual crisis newland fights through in wanting to strike out on his own from the path that's been laid out for him. ( )

The Age of Innocence is a truly beautifully written book which transports us seemingly effortlessly into the drawing rooms of upper-class "old" New York in the 1870s. It's a wonderful story, peopled by all those exceedingly 'proper' types with their ridiculous double standards, who never really said what they thought. The characters are portrayed with great insight, but also compassionately .

A quote: "It was the old New York way of taking life" without effusion of blood": the way of people who dreaded scandal more than disease, who placed decency above courage, and who considered that nothing was more ill-bred than 'scenes', except the behavior of those who gave rise to them."

Wharton gives us an acutely observed social commentary of the time: when manners, pedigree, 'form', and the resultant social acceptance are all.

I give thanks (yet again) that I was born into the time and place I was, rather than then . . . ( )

A worthy story to read, such a nice one that show how the person could live in struggle because of the family's tradition and how the person may leave his love for his child or family.
Laila ( )

No doubt she simply echoed what was said for her; but she was nearing her twenty－second birthday, and he wondered at what age "nice" women began to speak for themselves.
....
It would presently be his task to take the bandage from this young woman's eyes, and bid her look forth on the world.

And earlier
And he felt himself oppressed by this creation of factitious purity, so cunningly manufactured by a conspiracy of mothers and aunts and grandmothers and long－dead ancestresses, because it was supposed to be what he wanted, what he had a right to, in order that he might exercise his lordly pleasure in smashing it like an image made of snow.
...
He could not deplore (as Thackeray's heroes so often exasperated him by doing) that he had not a blank page to offer his bride in exchange for the unblemished one she was to give to him. He could not get away from the fact that if he had been brought up as she had they would have been no more fit to find their way about than the Babes in the Wood; nor could he, for all his anxious cogitations, see any honest reason (any, that is, unconnected with his own momentary pleasure, and the passion of masculine vanity) why his bride should not have been allowed the same freedom of experience as himself.

...

he asked himself if May's face was doomed to thicken into the same middle－aged image of invincible innocence.
Ah, no, he did not want May to have that kind of innocence, the innocence that seals the mind against imagination and the heart against experience!

This was Newland Archer contemplating his bride-to-be. And who says those times are lost? I see that innocence manufactured day-by-day, done all too well. It would happen to me too, I will walk into my bridal chamber literally terrified out of my skin. And the point of the whole elaborate marriage ceremony is that it is a pantomime set up to fool the bride. And just because I understand this doesn't change the fact that I will be willingly fooled by it, fooled into believing that it all ends on the day of marriage.

This cognitive dissonance, the ability to separate the theory of sex from its application, is by no means unique to me. I know enough girls- including me- who are perfectly willing to believe that a couple who have spent entire nights in one small room, have never- to use the prevalent slang- done it. Who would laugh at explicit jokes all day, yet at the end of it, would remain the archetypical 'nice' girls, not only virgins, but virginal.

Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach terrified me, literally, when I first read it, and I still have a morbid fascination with it. But lets stick to the book we are talking about. If we are talking about the book. But we are not. We are talking about me, and reading my story inbetween the lines of The Age of Innocence. The story of closed gossipy societies, and the girls who belonged in them. Of coming home, and never leaving it. Of bad, unhappy marriages, ruined by both too much passion, and too little. Of girls trained from their birth, and bound by the lessons. Of boys who did not know what they wanted. Of desire. Of love.

To Archer's strained nerves the vision was as soothing as the sight of the blue sky and the lazy river. They sat down on a bench under the orange－trees and he put his arm about her and kissed her. It was like drinking at a cold spring with the sun on it; but his pressure may have been more vehement than he had intended, for the blood rose to her face and she drew back as if he had startled her.
"What is it?" he asked, smiling; and she looked at him with surprise, and answered: "Nothing."
A slight embarrassment fell on them, and her hand slipped out of his. It was the only time that he had kissed her on the lips except for their fugitive embrace in the Beaufort conservatory, and he saw that she was disturbed, and shaken out of her cool boyish composure.
....

May seemed to be aware of his disappointment, but without knowing how to alleviate it; and they stood up and walked silently home.

.....
He gave a reckless shrug. "It's too late to do anything else."
"You say that because it's the easiest thing to say at this moment－－not because it's true. In reality it's too late to do anything but what we'd both decided on."
...
If he could have got her in his arms again he might have swept away her arguments; but she still held him at adistance by something inscrutably aloof in her look and attitude, and by his own awed sense of her sincerity.
At length he began to plead again.

And that is it really. You play the cards you are dealt, and really, this is not a bad story to be in- it might be tragic, but I prefer tragic to placid, anyways. And if that sounds too flippant, it was meant that way, because happiness is not funny.
--

Storyline and characters are very consistent, style of writing is suggestive, and the book is written in formal English. It's about a man who wants to have the best of both worlds, no one had a happy ending. It's a little tragic the way the events unfolded but that's life in this perfect world. They're sometimes unpredictable especially in the end, all the while May is living in an ideal setting of married life, she chose to ignore that while her husband is married to her, he's in love with her cousin, Ellen Olenska. The way the author wrote Archer's feelings is vivid, one can see into his mind. There are a lot of sacrifices made her by the three central characters. Ellen - not giving in to temptation of being Archer's mistress, May - accepting that Archer loves another but didn't let it interfere with her happiness, Archer - just when you're looking for that dramatic reunion in the end, it doesn't happen. He was given the chance to be free of a marriage he does not want but out of duty or society's morees, he endured it. ( )

Edith Wharton had an impeccable ability to make upper society look as ridiculous as it really is. This time she takes on upper New York society in the 1870s.

The double standard shown in this book between men and women is just asinine. Countess Olenska is shown as unfortunate because she left her cruel husband. Because of his follies, she is punished for leaving him.

The Age of Innocence shows the ridiculous standards of old New York. You couldn't even sneeze in public without someone knowing and gossiping how unsanitary you are. This is just an example, not used in the book. Bottom line, you could not do anything without being exposed to the horrible monster called gossip. The people who you regularly converse with (your friends, I guess, although I wouldn't call them that) one week could shun you the next.

People's lives were structured by these standards. A man and woman who could have such happiness together could not otherwise be together because of something in one of their pasts. Newland Archer married May because it's what society basically wanted. It was s safe marriage, free from scandal.

Wharton is the queen of satire, in my opinion. She was also an author not big on the happy ending. So far, this is my favorite of her work. ( )

I can't believe it took me so long to read this! I absolutely loved it! A beautiful and devastating novel about love and loss set against the backdrop of old New York. Gorgeous and unforgettable. This will be added to my list of favourite books of all time. ( )

New York, eind 19e eeuw. Newland Archer heeft zich juist verloofd met May Welland, een vrouw uit zijn maatschappelijke klasse die zich braaf houdt aan alle conventies. Een nichtje van May, gravin Olenska komt terug naar New York op de vlucht voor haar man. Archer raakt onder de indruk van de gravin.
Wharton schets met veel gevoel voor detail een beeld van de high society in New York. Mensen doen zoals het hoort en vergeten om echt te leven. Ik heb het boek met veel plezier gelezen. Ik vond het leuker dan "The portrait of a lady" van Henry James waarmee het vaak vergeleken wordt. Het boek is ook verfilmd door Martin Scorcese maar die film heb ik nog niet gezien.
Uitgelezen: 14 mei 2000 ( )

I found the Age of Innocence to be an incredibly beautiful book. It has been a long time since I've read anything so masterfully written. It is a book that resonated with me on many levels and won't be forgotten very easily. The characters are wonderfully portrayed. It is a story of a romance that struggles against the norms and unwritten rules of the upper-class of NYC in the 1870's. More fundamentally though the book is also about the constraining/bounded environments/communities/affiliations that we all operate within. How some of us strive to breakout or go against the grain of these realms and take the associated risks. It is a novel of breaking free and seeking something more meaningful and deeper. It has my highest recommendation! ( )

I first read this book in high school then again in college, it remains one of my favorite books. Though the hopeless romantic in me just loathes the ending! I often stop reading just before the final moments so I can envision the ending MY way. LOL Sorry Edith! ( )

This Pulitzer Prize winner examines New York’s upper crust society through the life and decisions of Newland Archer. Archer hails from one of New York’s top families and his engagement to sweet May Welland sets him up for a lifetime of perfect affluence – and perfect monotony. He doesn’t seem to mind, until May’s cousin, Ellen Olenska arrives. Fleeing from an unhappy marriage to a Polish Count, ‘Poor Ellen’ looks and acts differently than the rest of society. Archer is captivated by her freshness and under her influence, begins to view his social circle through a new lens.

I was captivated by this book. When I started reading, I did so more because it was a ‘classic’ than because I was interested in the plot. By the second chapter, I was completely hooked by the clever satire and wittiness, by the ridiculous and hilarious characters, and by Edith Wharton’s lovely, lovely writing. She painted every scene with such detail that I could almost hear the faint opera strains wafting from the pages and see the questionable dishes presented by the Archer’s lackluster chef.

What I most enjoyed about Wharton’s writing was her ability to subject this elite world to such exacting scrutiny without ever appearing bitter or mean-spirited. In fact, she often did so with humor:

The immense accretion of flesh which had descended on her in middle life like a flood of lava on a doomed city had changed her from a plump active little woman with a neatly-turned foot and ankle into something as vast and august as a natural phenomenon.

As for the characters and their stories, I followed Archer and May’s and Archer and Ellen’s relationships with great interest. I struggled with which to cheer for, as I found great beauty and great flaw in each of the potential pairings. I don’t want to give away the end, but I ended the book with very mixed feelings. I wanted to keep reading. I wanted things to end differently. And I was surprised by how much I had misjudged several of the characters.

If you haven’t yet had the chance to read this book, please go find a copy. It really was lovely.

http://decklededges.wordpress.com/200... ( )

Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence, was my favorite read of the summer. I had previously read Ethan Frome which I also enjoyed, but Edith Wharton’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel was definitely a cut above. The character of Newland Archer is truly a work of art. His internal struggle between fulfilling his societal duty (and staying with his wife May), or running off with his true love (Ellen), is filled with suspense and passion. The emotions of these three main characters seem to emanate from the pages of the novel. Edith Wharton brings the novel to a marvelous (albeit stunning) close, and wonderfully completes the novel. The Age of Innocence is an emotional powerhouse, and a must read for any fan of Wuthering Heights or Middlemarch. ( )

Loved loved loved it. Was interesting to see NY life in that time. ( )

Seeing this title as a Playaway audio book at my library finally convinced me to read(?) it. I also downloaded a print(?) version from Gutenburg.org for "backup." I knew I liked the story from seeing movie versions. I wanted to learn more about why, in the final scene, Newland doesn't go upstairs to see Ellen. It was a different era and society, for sure, but was he exacting some sort of revenge on Ellen? On himself? Just being a jerk? Being senile? Stupid? Honorable? To me, it's a fascinating situation. Don't we all anguish over going to class reunions? Don't we wonder about meeting an old lover? On purpose? By accident? Well, I've skipped the class reunions and I'd probably do a "Newland Archer" for the same reasons, namely, laziness, poor memory, and too much else to do. Angie: Ethan Fromme, Age of Innocence, and House of Mirth! ( )

Seeing this title as a Playaway audio book at my library finally convinced me to read(?) it. I also downloaded a print(?) version from Gutenburg.org for "backup." I knew I liked the story from seeing movie versions. I wanted to learn more about why, in the final scene, Newland doesn't go upstairs to see Ellen. It was a different era and society, for sure, but was he exacting some sort of revenge on Ellen? On himself? Just being a jerk? Being senile? Stupid? Honorable? To me, it's a fascinating situation. Don't we all anguish over going to class reunions? Don't we wonder about meeting an old lover? On purpose? By accident? Well, I've skipped the class reunions and I'd probably do a "Newland Archer" for the same reasons, namely, laziness, poor memory, and too much else to do. Angie: Ethan Fromme, Age of Innocence, and House of Mirth! ( )

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classics" for the first time, then write essays on whether or not they deserve the label. The Age of Innocence is book number 29 in this series.

The story in a nutshell:
To truly get the full implications of The Age of Innocence, it's of crucial importance to understand the following: that although it's set in 1870 (during the height of Victorianism), it wasn't written and published until fifty years later, in 1920 (the beginning of Modernism), an older Edith Wharton looking back on her youth but with a thoroughly contemporary eye. And the reason that's important is that the novel itself is a look at a New York that didn't exist anymore even in the year the book first came out, thus making it enjoyed from the first day for the same historical reasons we do here in the 21st century -- an impossibly quaint and provincial Manhattan that was still barely developed above 25th Street or so, where the only people to be found in the area now known as "Midtown" were a small incestuous circle of the upper-class, an American version of the old British aristocracy held together through such Atlantic Seaboard touchstones as business associations, Ivy League schools, summering in Newport, and family names that stretch back to the Mayflower. Back in the late 1800s, the area around what is now Central Park was still considered a far suburb of New York "proper" (that is, everything below Houston Avenue), the only people there this inbred group of old money, living in their gigantic mansions tucked within what was still at the time half-wilderness, and coming up with an elaborate set of rules and unspoken etiquette to determine how their entire complicated society would work (with the worst fate imaginable being collectively "snubbed" by the members of this clique, suddenly losing access to all the resources that made up your lifestyle in the first place, party invitations and club memberships and private boxes at the opera).

It's within this environment that we watch the fate of young forward-thinking chap Newland Archer, a true Victorian gentleman if there ever was one: educated, cultured, with a natural head for both business and science, even with a perfect if not old-fashioned fiancee, the bubbly and slightly dimwitted May Welland (youngest adult member of the Mingott clan, one of the "major families" holding this convoluted upper-class society together, with the grouchy and headstrong Mrs. Manson Mingott as its matriarch, holder of all the family's money and therefore all the family's power). But, see, Newland and his pals have been talking a lot recently about this so-called "New Woman," the redefinition of femininity that was taking place among educated youth during this period in history; a new understanding about marriage where young wives were expected to be not only as educated as their husbands, but also as political and as bawdy, spending their days protesting in the streets for suffrage and bringing their uninhibited desires to the boudoir at night. It's not that Newland doesn't love May, a fact that Wharton goes out of her way to show throughout the book; it's just that when he meets her cousin Ellen one night, aka "Countess Olenska" -- one of these New Women who ran off to Europe and married into the actual Prussian nobility, just to have the marriage fall apart and come slinking back to New York -- Newland suddenly realizes how much better a woman like her would be for his life, and how she sparks in him the kind of intelligent, world-weary passion that the domesticated, gender-role-believing May simply cannot. And this is another reason why the publishing date of this book is important, because the Modernist women at the beginning of the "Roaring Twenties" Jazz Age were dealing with this issue all over again -- the relationship between independence and personal identity and traditional romantic happiness -- and you can see this novel as just as much a comment about their situation as the one of the late Victorian Age, kind of like how Robert Altman's M*A*S*H is actually about Vietnam although set during the Korean War.

The majority of the book, then, concerns itself with the situation that develops between all these people in this hothouse environment, as Newland and Ellen come to realize their attraction to each other but hardly ever acknowledge it out loud, and also as the rest of this society comes to realize it too, and starts quietly deciding behind closed doors what exactly they're going to collectively do about it. And this is yet another reason that it's important to know about the schism between this book's setting and its publication; because instead of impulsively running off together and "living happily ever after," as would've happened in the breathy Victorian romances actually being written in the late 1800s, here all the parties involved come to a much more Modernist yet heartbreaking conclusion, that ultimately it just isn't fair of Newland and Ellen to destroy the lives of not only May but the entire Mingott family, just because there was bad timing involved as to who exactly met who in what exact order. Not only do Newland and Ellen come to realize this, but even May herself comes to understand just what kind of sacrifice the two make for her sake, leading to a resolution not exactly sad but not exactly happy either; so a thoroughly Modern story, in other words, even as at the end they watch this old elaborate caste system around them fall apart during the first few decades of the 20th century.

The argument for it being a classic:
Well, for starters, it was the first-ever novel by a woman to win the Pulitzer, and is also mentioned in just about any list you come across of the greatest novels of all time (plus was adapted into a high-profile Martin Scorsese film in 1993, a controversial production among the book's fans, which doesn't hurt either). But awards and platitudes aside, argue its fans, there are two main reasons why The Age of Innocence should be considered a classic: because of the aforementioned complex way it combines Romanticism and Modernism, both nostalgically presenting the former while ingeniously mixing in the latter; and also because it was one of the first-ever truly perfect Realist stories ever written, a style of writing favored by such turn-of-the-century authors as Wharton and her good friend Henry James, which believe it or not was actually considered a cutting-edge literary theory at the time. After all, it was the immense popularity of this novel (almost from the day it was released) that was a big factor in Realism becoming such a dominant form of storytelling in contemporary novels, so dominant in fact that most of us no longer realize it even has a special name. (For those who don't know, Realism simply means "a story told in a way so that it sounds and feels like it could've actually happened in real life," and is the way that 95 percent of all contemporary novels are now written; this is compared to the habit during the Victorian Age for all novels to be either fairytales or to sternly preach a moral lesson impossible to actually live up to, or perhaps be a ridiculously unrealistic bosom-heaving love story.)

The argument against:
Ironically, the biggest argument against The Age of Innocence seems to be just how much of an understanding one needs to have about the circumstances behind its publishing in order to grasp its full power; because if you don't know all the details I've thus far described, it's incredibly easy to see this book as just some outdated potboiler about how rich people suck, the exact attitude you tend to find among online reviews from people who didn't care for it. No matter how powerful the book itself might be, argue its critics, to drag around this much historical baggage violates the spirit of how we're defining "classic" in this essay series; that in order for a book to truly be considered such, it needs to transcend its specific original time period, so that anyone can pick it up randomly at any point in the future and still enjoy it for what it is. Even less than a hundred years since its original publication, argue its critics, The Age of Innocence threatens to no longer do this; and that's why it should certainly be considered both a historically important and well-done book, but not necessarily a timeless classic.

My verdict:
So if you've ever asked yourself, "I wonder what the absolute oldest novels are to establish the kind of specific English we use today," a strong argument could be made for The Age of Innocence being one of them; that's what I kept thinking while reading it, anyway, that it's so far the oldest book in the CCLaP 100 to feel like it could've actually been written yesterday. (I mean, yes, Madame Bovary comes close, as far as capturing the literary spirit of our contemporary times; but Wharton's novel is so far the oldest to feel like you could literally slap a fake 2009 copyright notice on the front page and not make people even blink.) And that's because of a whole series of what turns out to be some pretty subtle details, things you see mentioned in essays about Wharton again and again: not just this brilliant mix of Romanticism and Modernism she pulls off, for example, but also an incredibly dry and dark sense of humor (this book is surprisingly funny, but only to those who like, say, 30 Rock or Arrested Development); the resigned acknowledgment among all the characters as to the cruel ironic nature of the world; even the plain-spoken language and simple sentence structure used (which after all was a major hallmark of the Realist writers, the insistence that language itself stay out of the way as much as possible of the actual story being told, versus the flowery purple-prose messes of the Victorian Age and older.)

The biggest secret, though, as to why The Age of Innocence is so enjoyable is because of the various levels at which it can be enjoyed; for example, one of the first and most obvious pleasures of the book is simply the sumptuous visual images of Old New York that Wharton conjures up, and if one wants they can easily enjoy this novel simply as a melodramatic piece of historical fiction, to lose oneself in the exquisitely remembered finery of Wharton's actual youth (although make no mistake, this is not an autobiographical novel -- Wharton was only ten or so in the years this book takes place). But then if you want, you can also enjoy the novel for the complex way it neither condemns nor approves this ridiculously elaborate code of behavior among this circle of upper-class acquaintances; this was the world Wharton herself quite happily lived in her entire adult life, after all, and there's a reason that she used to call this book her "apology" for her earlier, much more damning House of Mirth. (In fact, one of this book's strongest arguments is that maybe it's not so bad after all to stop yourself from ruining the lives of everyone around you, just because you get a boner from cynical girls with short haircuts who make bad life decisions and have spent time in Europe, and that there's maybe something actually to this elaborate set of etiquette that marked the "civilized height" of the Victorian Age.)

Now, that said, I also agree with the book's critics in at least one respect -- that if I hadn't studied up beforehand on both Wharton and the history of this book, I wouldn't have nearly enjoyed it in the nuanced way that I did, a clear violation of the spirit behind this CCLaP 100 series in the first place. Although it's still a small enough problem here in the early 2000s for me to confidently label the book a classic for all of us, I have a feeling that it's in its last days in history of being considered such, and that a mere fifty years from now it will be considered as badly dated as the work of such early Victorians as Nathaniel Hawthorne is now starting to more and more seem to us Obamian-Age citizens. After all, if there's one big surprise I've learned since starting this essay series, it's just how fluid our entire concept of "artistic classic" actually is; and although I happily call The Age of Innocence one at this particular moment in history, I'm not sure exactly how much longer this will be the case. Do yourself a favor and read it soon, since as a "grandchild of Modernism" you will be one of the last people in history to fully be able to appreciate it in all its subtle glory.

Is it a classic? For now ( )

This is a cultured, crafted and understated classic novel. The Age of Innocence speaks of so much in the small actions and habits of a dying New York socialite privileged class. It reminded me most of Chekhov played to a jazz backing rather than the melancholic strumming of rural guitars. Much is subsumed including the passions and the love affairs – exquisitely inferred in gestures and tokens. This is not a particularly easy read but it is a luxurious and rewarding one. ( )

Edith Wharton is an insightful writer, but many of her works are too "gloom and doom" for my taste. ( )

After reading The Age of Innocence I can understand why it is considered a classic. The writing is excellent. It is elegant. But since this book was written of 80 years ago, it makes it harder to read. In fact it was slow going. It wasn't that Wharton used words unfamiliar to me but the style made me slow down and absorb what was being written and going on.

I am going to say that this is a character based novel. While not as in depth John Steinbeck's East of Eden, the characters (mainly Archer and Olenska) take center stage. I would love to say that I really felt in touch with the characters and that I loved them but I was rather indifferent to them. Maybe because this is a story about old New York society and it's inhabitants and I just couldn't wait. But Wharton does put a lot of emphasis of making sure the reader knows and understands the characters and there actions.

The plot of the books was familiar but excellently done. Basically it is a story about "forbidden love" and the chooses people make in their lives and how those chooses affect them later. I am not going to give the story way but I did enjoy getting to take a glimpse into the varies rules of old New York and how they dictates ones actions and decisions.

Pros: Writing, Characters, Plot, History
Cons: Slow read

Overall Recommendation:

I want to give this novel a great write up but I don't know how to express who much I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed it more for the writing than anything else. For you want to read a well written story than this is it. But if you are looking for action or drama, than skip it. ( )

A work of sublime artistry. An involving story of the caste system which operated in the New York high society of the early 1900s.

When Newland Archer pays court to Countess Olenska, a friend of his fiancee's family, he finds his position in society in danger as the Countess is seen as flaunting convention by leaving her abusive husband.

Beautifully written, quietly devastating, ( )

Written by Edith Wharton and published in 1920, this book is written from the point of view of a man, Newland Archer, (which I wasn't expecting) and takes place in 1870's New York. It is about the social mores of the time - what you can and can't do within the social structure.

Newland wanted the Countess Olenska, even though he publically disparaged her. You could FEEL how much he wanted her in this book.

Can't say a lot about this classic without saying too much, I suppose. I found the ending to be excruciatingly sad, although everyone lived relatively happily ever after.

I found it very interesting that just within Newland's life, radical changes had occurred within the social structure, such that his own son would be marrying someone who would've been inconceivable in Newland's earlier days.

Something I thought was very interesting throughout the book is that Newland would imagine an entire conversation with his fiance, and then take action on this imaginary conversation as if it actually occurred.

I think that there was only one innocent person in the whole book, and that was the Countess herself, who didn't seem to be pretending to be someone else, like everyone else was.

More than a month after finishing reading this book, and it still resonates with me, which I think is a sign of a great book. This book invoked feelings of frustration, longing and sadness. So, 5 stars! ( )

Life imitates art imitates life. ( )

I really loved this story, even though I didn't expect to do so. I read it in one sitting at Starbucks- the story gripped me so much that I couldn't put it down! The story in itself is not too complicated- it's the story of a man who loves a sweet, innocent woman until her cousin with a bad marriage and a questionable reputation comes back into the picture. His struggle to do the right thing by both his wife to be and her cousin is difficult to read. I wasn't sure which woman I wanted him to marry.
Overall, Wharton appears to have had her finger squarely on the pulse of the society of that day. Our hero does 'the right thing' as they say. However, when faced with the perfect chance to have his heart's greatest desire, he finds himself unable (or unwilling) to reach out and take it- the grip of society is still to strongly at work in him.
Though I found the book to be slightly depressing, I enjoyed the realism of Wharton's writing and can't wait to read more of her works! ( )

I really loved this - well-written, lancinating novel about the social uppercrust, the aristocracy, if you will, of New York City in the late 1800's. More specifically, a young man, Newland Archer (even the name is oh-so-snobby) falls in love with his fiancee's exotic cousin who is seeking a divorce ( scandalous!) from her Polish Count of a husband.

I was morbidly fascinated by all the social rituals - how things are "done," what is acceptable and what is simply 'vulgar' or 'common.' I also thought the writing was exquisite especially in conveying the tense atmosphere in which painful truths are understood, but not articulated. Such repression! The ending is interesting - for obvious reasons I can't expound - but it is an aestheticly pleasing, yet not an emotionally satisfying turn of events. Poor Newland -- sacrificing one's happiness on the altar of social propriety.

All in all, a deserved American classic - entertaining, yet literature. This is my first Edith Wharton but certainly not my last.. ( )

The book takes place among the rich and privileged in New York in the 1870s. The story begins just as the main character, Newland Archer, has become engaged to his sweetheart, May. May’s cousin has just arrived from Europe where amidst some scandal, she has left her emotionally abusive husband. Archer immediately feels an attraction for the cousin, Countess Olenska. The story is mainly about the struggle Archer experiences as he falls in love with the Countess and realizes that his May, isn’t exactly what he had imagined her to be.

I really didn’t like the story. I found the characters and their emotions completely unbelievable. Archer had only a few encounters with the Countess before he was madly in love with her and she with him. And I say encounters because they hardly even talked to each other. They just seemed to sit around and stare at each other. Kind of a strange basis for a love affair. There just wasn’t any depth to the characters.

I also found the story really slow. I had a really hard time getting into the story and even then I just kept waiting for something to happen and nothing ever did! I could tell the whole story in a couple of sentences and there wouldn’t be any important information missing! But I won’t, because I don’t want to spoil the ending for those of you who may still want to read the book.

This book did win a Pulitzer and in spite of everything else I’ve said about the book, I can see why it did. The writing is really good. It was very poetic and the descriptions were particularly good. At times her writing was satirical as well. She allowed us to see the ridiculousness of some of the social traditions that existed at that time.

Overall, I think it’s definitely a book worth reading as long as you aren’t expecting much of a story. ( )