What do you think?
Rate this book
A Meeting by the River
Two English brothers meet, after a long separation, in India. Oliver, the idealistic younger brother, prepares to take his final vows as a Hindu monk. Patrick, a successful publisher with a wife and children in London and a male lover in California, has publicly admired his brother's convictions while privately criticizing his choices. First published in 1967, A Meeting by the River delicately depicts the complexity of sibling relationships - the resentment and competitiveness as well as the love and respect.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
23 people are currently reading
1832 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Isherwood
164 books1,518 followersEnglish-born American writer Christopher William Bradshaw Isherwood portrayed Berlin in the early 1930s in his best known works, such as
Goodbye to Berlin
(1939), the basis for the musical
Cabaret
(1966). Isherwood was a novelist, playwright, screenwriter, autobiographer, and diarist.
With W.H. Auden he wrote three plays— The Dog Beneath the Skin (1932), The Ascent of F6 (1936), and On the Frontier (1938). Isherwood tells the story in his first autobiography, Lions and Shadows .
After Isherwood wrote joke answers on his second-year exams, Cambridge University in 1925 asked him to leave. He briefly attended medical school and progressed with his first two novels, All the Conspirators (1928) and The Memorial (1932). In 1930, he moved to Berlin, where he taught English, dabbled in Communism, and enthusiastically explored his homosexuality. His experiences provided the material for Mister Norris Changes Trains (1935) and Goodbye to Berlin (1938), still his most famous book.
In Berlin in 1932, he also began an important relationship with Heinz Neddermeyer, a young German with whom he fled the Nazis in 1933. England refused entry to Neddermeyer on his second visit in 1934, and the pair moved restlessly about Europe until the Gestapo arrested Neddermeyer in May 1937 and then finally separated them.
In 1938, Isherwood sailed with Auden to China to write Journey to a War (1939), about the Sino-Japanese conflict. They returned to England and Isherwood went on to Hollywood to look for movie-writing work. He also became a disciple of the Ramakrishna monk, Swami Prabhavananda, head of the Vedanta Society of Southern California. He decided not to take monastic vows, but he remained a Hindu for the rest of his life, serving, praying, and lecturing in the temple every week and writing a biography, Ramakrishna and His Disciples (1965).
In 1945, Isherwood published Prater Violet, fictionalizing his first movie writing job in London in 1933-1934. In Hollywood, he spent the start of the 1950s fighting his way free of a destructive five-year affair with an attractive and undisciplined American photographer, William Caskey. Caskey took the photographs for Isherwood’s travel book about South America, The Condor and The Cows (1947). Isherwood’s sixth novel, The World in the Evening (1954), written mostly during this period, was less successful than earlier ones.
In 1953, he fell in love with Don Bachardy, an eighteen-year-old college student born and raised in Los Angeles. They were to remain together until Isherwood’s death. In 1961, Isherwood and completed the final revisions to his new novel Down There on a Visit (1962). Their relationship nearly ended in 1963, and Isherwood moved out of their Santa Monica house. This dark period underpins Isherwood’s masterpiece A Single Man (1964).
Isherwood wrote another novel, A Meeting by the River (1967), about two brothers, but he gave up writing fiction and turned entirely to autobiography. In Kathleen and Frank (1971), he drew on the letters and diaries of his parents. In Christopher and His Kind (1976), he returned to the 1930s to tell, as a publicly avowed homosexual, the real story of his life in Berlin and his wanderings with Heinz Neddermeyer. The book made him a hero of gay liberation and a national celebrity all over again but now in his true, political and personal identity.
With W.H. Auden he wrote three plays— The Dog Beneath the Skin (1932), The Ascent of F6 (1936), and On the Frontier (1938). Isherwood tells the story in his first autobiography, Lions and Shadows .
After Isherwood wrote joke answers on his second-year exams, Cambridge University in 1925 asked him to leave. He briefly attended medical school and progressed with his first two novels, All the Conspirators (1928) and The Memorial (1932). In 1930, he moved to Berlin, where he taught English, dabbled in Communism, and enthusiastically explored his homosexuality. His experiences provided the material for Mister Norris Changes Trains (1935) and Goodbye to Berlin (1938), still his most famous book.
In Berlin in 1932, he also began an important relationship with Heinz Neddermeyer, a young German with whom he fled the Nazis in 1933. England refused entry to Neddermeyer on his second visit in 1934, and the pair moved restlessly about Europe until the Gestapo arrested Neddermeyer in May 1937 and then finally separated them.
In 1938, Isherwood sailed with Auden to China to write Journey to a War (1939), about the Sino-Japanese conflict. They returned to England and Isherwood went on to Hollywood to look for movie-writing work. He also became a disciple of the Ramakrishna monk, Swami Prabhavananda, head of the Vedanta Society of Southern California. He decided not to take monastic vows, but he remained a Hindu for the rest of his life, serving, praying, and lecturing in the temple every week and writing a biography, Ramakrishna and His Disciples (1965).
In 1945, Isherwood published Prater Violet, fictionalizing his first movie writing job in London in 1933-1934. In Hollywood, he spent the start of the 1950s fighting his way free of a destructive five-year affair with an attractive and undisciplined American photographer, William Caskey. Caskey took the photographs for Isherwood’s travel book about South America, The Condor and The Cows (1947). Isherwood’s sixth novel, The World in the Evening (1954), written mostly during this period, was less successful than earlier ones.
In 1953, he fell in love with Don Bachardy, an eighteen-year-old college student born and raised in Los Angeles. They were to remain together until Isherwood’s death. In 1961, Isherwood and completed the final revisions to his new novel Down There on a Visit (1962). Their relationship nearly ended in 1963, and Isherwood moved out of their Santa Monica house. This dark period underpins Isherwood’s masterpiece A Single Man (1964).
Isherwood wrote another novel, A Meeting by the River (1967), about two brothers, but he gave up writing fiction and turned entirely to autobiography. In Kathleen and Frank (1971), he drew on the letters and diaries of his parents. In Christopher and His Kind (1976), he returned to the 1930s to tell, as a publicly avowed homosexual, the real story of his life in Berlin and his wanderings with Heinz Neddermeyer. The book made him a hero of gay liberation and a national celebrity all over again but now in his true, political and personal identity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 119 reviews
September 24, 2025
WE GO DOWN TO THE RIVER
Il fiume Gange all’alba.
Dopo la felice stagione berlinese, una felice stagione californiana.
Isherwood è ormai parte della comunità degli espatriati trapiantati in sud California, ha pubblicato Un uomo solo tre anni prima, e anche qui mette a segno un buon risultato.
Per quanto mi riguarda, più che buono: perché ci vuole il suo talento per farmi apprezzare una storia che parla di misticismo, fede, o quel che è, sovrannaturale, reincarnazione, budda, dio, o quello che è.
Fiume Gange al tramonto.
Sotto forma per metà di un carteggio, e metà di un diario, il romanzo racconta da una parte Oliver, fratello minore sradicato e un po’ pecora nera (Africa, Croce Rossa, ora India dove sta per diventare monaco induista) – e Patrick, fratello maggiore, all’opposto, uomo d’affari spregiudicato (editore), sposato con due figlie e relazione omosessuale in corso (con maschio ben più giovane).
Patrick vorrebbe che Oliver ci ripensasse, non abbracciasse l’induismo fino al punto di farsi monaco, quella che dal suo punto di vista è una scelta di rinuncia alla vita e al mondo.
Lui stesso, però, appare incapace di scegliere: la storia col giovane Tom si chiama amore, amore ricambiato – perché non abbracciarla fino in fondo, lasciare moglie e figlie e vivere il nuovo, e apparentemente, vero amore?
Incontro davanti al quadro.
Comunque, anche la scelta di Oliver non è così rocciosa e incrollabile: fino all’ultimo s’interroga se ha fatto la giusta cosa. Nessuno dei due possiede, e neppure conosce, la verità.
La dicotomia della struttura narrativa, carteggio-diario, si amplifica e moltiplica in quella di vari temi che si possono considerare concentrati in queste pagine. Padre-figlio. I due fratelli riproducono anche questa perenne antitesi. Occidente e Oriente. Ragione e sentimento, dove il secondo è essenzialmente la spiritualità. Il mondo, e quindi la vita, contrapposto alla fuga, da intendersi in questo caso come morte.
E ciò nonostante Isherwood riesce a restare ‘leggero’, a far sorridere ogni tanto, e anche a commuovere.
Incontro alla finestra
Il fiume Gange all’alba.
Dopo la felice stagione berlinese, una felice stagione californiana.
Isherwood è ormai parte della comunità degli espatriati trapiantati in sud California, ha pubblicato Un uomo solo tre anni prima, e anche qui mette a segno un buon risultato.
Per quanto mi riguarda, più che buono: perché ci vuole il suo talento per farmi apprezzare una storia che parla di misticismo, fede, o quel che è, sovrannaturale, reincarnazione, budda, dio, o quello che è.
Fiume Gange al tramonto.
Sotto forma per metà di un carteggio, e metà di un diario, il romanzo racconta da una parte Oliver, fratello minore sradicato e un po’ pecora nera (Africa, Croce Rossa, ora India dove sta per diventare monaco induista) – e Patrick, fratello maggiore, all’opposto, uomo d’affari spregiudicato (editore), sposato con due figlie e relazione omosessuale in corso (con maschio ben più giovane).
Patrick vorrebbe che Oliver ci ripensasse, non abbracciasse l’induismo fino al punto di farsi monaco, quella che dal suo punto di vista è una scelta di rinuncia alla vita e al mondo.
Lui stesso, però, appare incapace di scegliere: la storia col giovane Tom si chiama amore, amore ricambiato – perché non abbracciarla fino in fondo, lasciare moglie e figlie e vivere il nuovo, e apparentemente, vero amore?
Incontro davanti al quadro.
Comunque, anche la scelta di Oliver non è così rocciosa e incrollabile: fino all’ultimo s’interroga se ha fatto la giusta cosa. Nessuno dei due possiede, e neppure conosce, la verità.
La dicotomia della struttura narrativa, carteggio-diario, si amplifica e moltiplica in quella di vari temi che si possono considerare concentrati in queste pagine. Padre-figlio. I due fratelli riproducono anche questa perenne antitesi. Occidente e Oriente. Ragione e sentimento, dove il secondo è essenzialmente la spiritualità. Il mondo, e quindi la vita, contrapposto alla fuga, da intendersi in questo caso come morte.
E ciò nonostante Isherwood riesce a restare ‘leggero’, a far sorridere ogni tanto, e anche a commuovere.
Incontro alla finestra
February 11, 2022
Having read and loved a variety of Christopher Isherwood's correspondence, this epistolary novel seemed to be a natural progression. That said, my eyes tend to glaze over at the mention of Isherwood's mysticism, but this one had enough else going for it--family dynamics, Hollywood, India, a gay love-affair--to keep me turning the pages. And I found the details of monastic life in India to be surprisingly fascinating. Did I read Patrick's letters to his lover Tom with more relish than some of the others? Obviously. Yet by the end I found myself slightly repelled (probably meant to be) and perturbed by what seems to be a sudden one-eighty. Honourable mention to Patrick's 'rather big penis,' which made me laugh, and the trashy paperback given to Patrick by Tom, all of which added to the (initial) charm. Perhaps I simply have Iris Murdoch on the brain (in fact, I do) but there did seem to be something Murdochian about the rather obscure struggle between the brothers, Patrick and Oliver.
Read
January 31, 2023#should I stay or should I go
#1 GO!
DNF
Segunda tentativa. Christopher Isherwood não é para mim.
#1 GO!
DNF
Segunda tentativa. Christopher Isherwood não é para mim.
January 12, 2020
11th book of 2020. I'm a huge Isherwood fan; he's probably one of my favourite writers. As I've said on previous reviews, I feel a strong affinity with him - I think we could have been good friends if I were born in a different time and we happened to meet.
I often think I'm allergic to letters in fiction. As soon as a book breaks into a letter, I roll my eyes. Something about them, they've always bothered me. This book is predominantly written in letters, and yet, I didn't hate it. In fact, I enjoyed it. This is Isherwood's final novel, about two brothers reconnecting after many years. The younger of the two, Oliver, sends a letter to his elder brother Patrick. Oliver - living in a Hindu monastery. Patrick - a successful publisher, married, with two children, but having an affair with a young man. He goes to the monastery to stop Oliver from renouncing the world. It has themes of family, sexuality, religion and spirituality. It's not my favourite Isherwood, but still a good read. The use of the letters is done well. Isherwood crafts it cleverly, seeing the different opinions from the brothers about the same conversation, or seeing Patrick describing the same event to his wife and then to his mother, and how they differ.
I often think I'm allergic to letters in fiction. As soon as a book breaks into a letter, I roll my eyes. Something about them, they've always bothered me. This book is predominantly written in letters, and yet, I didn't hate it. In fact, I enjoyed it. This is Isherwood's final novel, about two brothers reconnecting after many years. The younger of the two, Oliver, sends a letter to his elder brother Patrick. Oliver - living in a Hindu monastery. Patrick - a successful publisher, married, with two children, but having an affair with a young man. He goes to the monastery to stop Oliver from renouncing the world. It has themes of family, sexuality, religion and spirituality. It's not my favourite Isherwood, but still a good read. The use of the letters is done well. Isherwood crafts it cleverly, seeing the different opinions from the brothers about the same conversation, or seeing Patrick describing the same event to his wife and then to his mother, and how they differ.
April 21, 2014
"Marriage [is] an inhibition which automatically makes possible the concept of adultery."
Even as one of my all-time favorite authors, I have avoided some of Isherwood's late works, those in which he wrote of his conversion to Hinduism and close spiritual involvement with Swami Prabhavananda. I needn't have worried, at least with his A Meeting at the River (1967). Isherwood was a master craftsman who treated his readers with more respect than any author I can recall. In any case, this book is not evangelization. Spirituality is an important component, but it's at least equal to its theme of the repression of normal homoerotic sexuality. And as is usual with Isherwood, it includes some of his own personal experience recast as fiction.
A Meeting at the River is a tale of two brothers, one strong, one weak; one able to dedicate his life to an ideal, the weaker one harming the lives of those around him because he is unable to do the same. Patrick, the 40ish-year-old older brother, has a wife Penelope, two daughters, and a mother who live in London. Patrick himself is on a worldwide "business" tour to Los Angeles, and then on to India to meet his brother, and finally Singapore.
Oliver, the 30ish younger brother, is a committed humanitarian aid worker in India who has become disillusioned with the effectiveness of his work and has taken up with a Hindu swami, fully embracing the beliefs of Hinduism and intending to become a monk. Unfortunately, the swami recently died, only further committing Oliver.
The novel is written as an exchange of letters and diary entries. As it begins, Patrick is in Los Angeles. We soon learn that he is controlling information to his wife, mother, and Oliver, telling each of them only what he wants them to know. Suspicions increase as he lies or misrepresents to everyone about Oliver's situation, mocks Hinduism to his wife, idealizes it to his mother, and challenges it to Oliver.
Then, on the way to India to meet his brother to get him to renounce the spiritual quest, he writes a surprising letter to "Tom," a much younger 18-year-old male college student in Los Angeles, declaring his everlasting love and reveling at the incredible sex they had together at a California beach. Well, we know exactly what's going on here: a bored closeted older gay man married to a woman from whom he needs emotional stability has fallen for the excitement of a younger man from another generation. This is what the author Isherwood himself did, except he wasn't married. In 1953 when he was 49, Isherwood met 18-year-old Don Bachardy on a California beach. They stayed together for 32 years until Isherwood's death in 1986. The reactions of others to their relationship, negative as well as positive, are detailed in Isherwood's published diaries.
(A short aside: many will have seen this plot many times over and over. It's ubiquitous today. But it wasn't in 1967, and it was scandalous then. Even Isherwood, who had become a literary star by then, waited decades to be able to tell it. Besides, no one has ever told this story with the ability of Isherwood, not even Gore Vidal or James Baldwin, both worthy, somewhat-contemporaries.)
At this point the book takes two tracks: one following Oliver toward becoming a monk, the other watching as Patrick, envious of his brothers ability to choose a path in life, swings wildly from Tom to Penelope in his letters, from the excitement of a young male lover, to the stability of a wife, unable to choose one or to juggle both. After a disastrous phone call from a drunken Tom in Los Angeles, Patrick uses this as an excuse to dump Tom in a totally hilarious ultra-ironic letter that's the epitome of anti-gay, normal hetero-marriage attitudes. Some readers will choose the "straight" way of reading this, as most probably did in 1967, and see that Patrick made the right choice to endorse tradition. Others—and this is the correct reading—will realize this is pure Isherwood satire. He sticks it to homophobia, and in 1967 he couldn't do it "straight"—it reads as "camp." I was laughing so hard I had to pause for awhile.
Isherwood had an axe to grind regarding his own long-term relationship with a much-younger man: society's intolerance of such, and its inhuman insistence on traditional marriage. Patrick chooses wrongly, chooses heterosexual marriage, chooses against his own nature, that is completely clear, and his future happiness is uncertain, to be sure. His last advice to Tom, as he throws away the best thing that ever happened to him, is: "Now, Tommy dear, do try to keep an open mind toward whatever the future may bring you and don't dismiss it out of hand if it happens to be wearing a skirt!" Ouch! The insincerity simply screams! This, despite that he and Tom have had the best sex of their lives. Too funny. Of course, this is Isherwood's biting criticism of the homophobic, traditional society in which he lived.
How does the novel leave Patrick at the end? Well, I won't spoil the several surprises, but I will say that there is evidence (a "poor tiresome child from Stockholm"?) that Patrick will be unable to conform to the "inhibitions of marriage." As for Oliver, he stays true to his dream, and his relationship with his brother Patrick is the only authentic thing Patrick has left. This is the spiritual "good news" in the book.
A Meeting at the River is the bridge from the quiet, tragic, closeted A Single Man (1963) to his later militant Christopher and His Kind (1976) which—better late than never—made Isherwood a hero of gay liberation, brought him "officially" out of the closet, showed him finally without his characteristic irony, as he really was. It only took him 72 years (!!!) to get there, and what a great literary legacy he created along the way. I think he would approve of us using him as a spiritual inspiration today.
Even as one of my all-time favorite authors, I have avoided some of Isherwood's late works, those in which he wrote of his conversion to Hinduism and close spiritual involvement with Swami Prabhavananda. I needn't have worried, at least with his A Meeting at the River (1967). Isherwood was a master craftsman who treated his readers with more respect than any author I can recall. In any case, this book is not evangelization. Spirituality is an important component, but it's at least equal to its theme of the repression of normal homoerotic sexuality. And as is usual with Isherwood, it includes some of his own personal experience recast as fiction.
A Meeting at the River is a tale of two brothers, one strong, one weak; one able to dedicate his life to an ideal, the weaker one harming the lives of those around him because he is unable to do the same. Patrick, the 40ish-year-old older brother, has a wife Penelope, two daughters, and a mother who live in London. Patrick himself is on a worldwide "business" tour to Los Angeles, and then on to India to meet his brother, and finally Singapore.
Oliver, the 30ish younger brother, is a committed humanitarian aid worker in India who has become disillusioned with the effectiveness of his work and has taken up with a Hindu swami, fully embracing the beliefs of Hinduism and intending to become a monk. Unfortunately, the swami recently died, only further committing Oliver.
The novel is written as an exchange of letters and diary entries. As it begins, Patrick is in Los Angeles. We soon learn that he is controlling information to his wife, mother, and Oliver, telling each of them only what he wants them to know. Suspicions increase as he lies or misrepresents to everyone about Oliver's situation, mocks Hinduism to his wife, idealizes it to his mother, and challenges it to Oliver.
Then, on the way to India to meet his brother to get him to renounce the spiritual quest, he writes a surprising letter to "Tom," a much younger 18-year-old male college student in Los Angeles, declaring his everlasting love and reveling at the incredible sex they had together at a California beach. Well, we know exactly what's going on here: a bored closeted older gay man married to a woman from whom he needs emotional stability has fallen for the excitement of a younger man from another generation. This is what the author Isherwood himself did, except he wasn't married. In 1953 when he was 49, Isherwood met 18-year-old Don Bachardy on a California beach. They stayed together for 32 years until Isherwood's death in 1986. The reactions of others to their relationship, negative as well as positive, are detailed in Isherwood's published diaries.
(A short aside: many will have seen this plot many times over and over. It's ubiquitous today. But it wasn't in 1967, and it was scandalous then. Even Isherwood, who had become a literary star by then, waited decades to be able to tell it. Besides, no one has ever told this story with the ability of Isherwood, not even Gore Vidal or James Baldwin, both worthy, somewhat-contemporaries.)
At this point the book takes two tracks: one following Oliver toward becoming a monk, the other watching as Patrick, envious of his brothers ability to choose a path in life, swings wildly from Tom to Penelope in his letters, from the excitement of a young male lover, to the stability of a wife, unable to choose one or to juggle both. After a disastrous phone call from a drunken Tom in Los Angeles, Patrick uses this as an excuse to dump Tom in a totally hilarious ultra-ironic letter that's the epitome of anti-gay, normal hetero-marriage attitudes. Some readers will choose the "straight" way of reading this, as most probably did in 1967, and see that Patrick made the right choice to endorse tradition. Others—and this is the correct reading—will realize this is pure Isherwood satire. He sticks it to homophobia, and in 1967 he couldn't do it "straight"—it reads as "camp." I was laughing so hard I had to pause for awhile.
Isherwood had an axe to grind regarding his own long-term relationship with a much-younger man: society's intolerance of such, and its inhuman insistence on traditional marriage. Patrick chooses wrongly, chooses heterosexual marriage, chooses against his own nature, that is completely clear, and his future happiness is uncertain, to be sure. His last advice to Tom, as he throws away the best thing that ever happened to him, is: "Now, Tommy dear, do try to keep an open mind toward whatever the future may bring you and don't dismiss it out of hand if it happens to be wearing a skirt!" Ouch! The insincerity simply screams! This, despite that he and Tom have had the best sex of their lives. Too funny. Of course, this is Isherwood's biting criticism of the homophobic, traditional society in which he lived.
How does the novel leave Patrick at the end? Well, I won't spoil the several surprises, but I will say that there is evidence (a "poor tiresome child from Stockholm"?) that Patrick will be unable to conform to the "inhibitions of marriage." As for Oliver, he stays true to his dream, and his relationship with his brother Patrick is the only authentic thing Patrick has left. This is the spiritual "good news" in the book.
A Meeting at the River is the bridge from the quiet, tragic, closeted A Single Man (1963) to his later militant Christopher and His Kind (1976) which—better late than never—made Isherwood a hero of gay liberation, brought him "officially" out of the closet, showed him finally without his characteristic irony, as he really was. It only took him 72 years (!!!) to get there, and what a great literary legacy he created along the way. I think he would approve of us using him as a spiritual inspiration today.
April 22, 2025
this was so white lotus season 3
September 1, 2021
I too seldom get to write so simple and declarative a review: this book is beautiful and humane, lovely and aching with all of the best stuff of (capitalized) Life.
(Star docked for epistolary, which is rarely ever attractive to my dilettante sensibilities)
(Star docked for epistolary, which is rarely ever attractive to my dilettante sensibilities)
July 2, 2020
Full review to come.
February 19, 2013
On the one hand, I enjoyed reading A Meeting by the River. Isherwood's eloquent excellence aside, the portrayal of the love-hate relationship inherent in (some) familial relations I found to be extremely well executed, if a bit forced, for its (un)bridled passion, character exploration - or rather, exposition - as well as candour. As is to be expected from such a subjective form, the narrators are very trustworthy and it is up to the reader to see through their truths and lies, go beyond their words and (in)securities, and figure out what is between the lines. In all, a lot of their monologues/soliloquies rang true with me.
On the other hand, however, this novel was not an altogether enjoyable read. Patrick's eloquent charm is very seductive but as it soon enough becomes apparent that it is an act which he puts (consciously or not, dependent on the reader) so as to conceal the horror of his devil-may-care attitude, his likability diminishes.
What makes the novel extremely interesting, though, is the transition the characters seem to make, or rather, the change in perception that seems to be at the very core of the plot. While the novel starts off with Patrick being the older and seemingly more experienced sibling, quite the character, even if he can be delightfully racist in his charming ways, in the course of the book, Oliver grows out of the younger brother complex that Patrick attaches to him, and proves to be more of a/the character than the delusional 'Paddy', whose charm suddenly wears off. Isherwood's gradual portrayal is amusing in that way.
Although the ending may be perhaps a bit too airy, it is actually quite subtle, especially if we consider the book's primary theme to be that of the brotherly competition, thus reducing the whole Hindu storyline to background catalyst for Patrick's and Oliver's acting out or, perhaps, acting in.
A side note: the homoerotic moments may not appeal to everyone but are right up my alley.
On the other hand, however, this novel was not an altogether enjoyable read. Patrick's eloquent charm is very seductive but as it soon enough becomes apparent that it is an act which he puts (consciously or not, dependent on the reader) so as to conceal the horror of his devil-may-care attitude, his likability diminishes.
What makes the novel extremely interesting, though, is the transition the characters seem to make, or rather, the change in perception that seems to be at the very core of the plot. While the novel starts off with Patrick being the older and seemingly more experienced sibling, quite the character, even if he can be delightfully racist in his charming ways, in the course of the book, Oliver grows out of the younger brother complex that Patrick attaches to him, and proves to be more of a/the character than the delusional 'Paddy', whose charm suddenly wears off. Isherwood's gradual portrayal is amusing in that way.
Although the ending may be perhaps a bit too airy, it is actually quite subtle, especially if we consider the book's primary theme to be that of the brotherly competition, thus reducing the whole Hindu storyline to background catalyst for Patrick's and Oliver's acting out or, perhaps, acting in.
A side note: the homoerotic moments may not appeal to everyone but are right up my alley.
February 10, 2010
A sketch, written as a series of letters (how quaint) and Isherwood's last book.
It would be tempting to undervalue the skill of the author here - the tone seems casual, with subtle changes in pitch depending on who will receive the letter that is written. Character and action are set both by reportage and conspicuous absences.
The counterpoint between the two brothers can easily be read as the complex split in each person's desires; to be ascetic and mindful, at the same time as wilful, selfish and egocentric. It reminded me of Plato's Symposium a little, the debates on love, on sex and the nature of being. And they are arguments on ideas, more than character.
But I enjoyed Oliver and Patrick more than cut-outs. Patrick takes the part of Milton's Satan - he's the more attractive character but the conclusion sees him learn nothing, perpetuate his duplicities and self-denial. He flirts with passionate love for another man, but it's a game, an amulet to ward off old age.
I've always enjoyed Isherwood's post-Vedanta writings, they are so curious, frail and unholy. I too want to embrace the willpower and giddy freedom of the mystic, but also to fuck everybody and eat cake with both hands.
It would be tempting to undervalue the skill of the author here - the tone seems casual, with subtle changes in pitch depending on who will receive the letter that is written. Character and action are set both by reportage and conspicuous absences.
The counterpoint between the two brothers can easily be read as the complex split in each person's desires; to be ascetic and mindful, at the same time as wilful, selfish and egocentric. It reminded me of Plato's Symposium a little, the debates on love, on sex and the nature of being. And they are arguments on ideas, more than character.
But I enjoyed Oliver and Patrick more than cut-outs. Patrick takes the part of Milton's Satan - he's the more attractive character but the conclusion sees him learn nothing, perpetuate his duplicities and self-denial. He flirts with passionate love for another man, but it's a game, an amulet to ward off old age.
I've always enjoyed Isherwood's post-Vedanta writings, they are so curious, frail and unholy. I too want to embrace the willpower and giddy freedom of the mystic, but also to fuck everybody and eat cake with both hands.
March 13, 2018
Glorious. I enjoyed every aspect of this story and find it hard to believe it was written more than 50 years ago because I could relate to so much of it. The ending in particular is just pure joy.
March 6, 2022
A Meeting by the River is an epistolary novel about sexuality, spirituality, and desire. I have been looking for a book like this for a very long time, and I'm glad that I found this (although I admittedly would have preferred more raunchy letters between Patrick and Tom). The only thing that really bothered me is the mildly incestuous undertones in the book - I feel as though I must have misread something, as no other reviews of this book address this topic, but it felt relatively prominent. Other than that, this short novel is absolutely stunning.
July 11, 2022
A meditation on life and the paths we take in pursuit of fulfillment. I find pieces of myself in both Oliver and Patrick. This was my first Isherwood novel and I look forward to diving deeper into his artful storytelling.
April 5, 2021
Kako uglavnom subjektivno ocenjujem knjige, morala sam Išervudu da snizim ocenu.
Ako ne volite romane u epistolarnoj formi, this won't do. Osim tog stilskog opredeljenja, imala sam još puno problema s ovom knjigom. Rođena braća šalju jedan drugom nadugačka pisma; jedan je u Indiji i priprema se da postane hindu sveštenik, dok je drugi na relaciji Engleska-Amerika i bavi se izdavaštvom, a sada snima i film. Iako se nisu videli 5 godina, stariji brat odlučuje da otputuje za Indiju i vidi se sa mlađim u pokušaju da ga odvrati od ove ideje.
Razumem da njihovi odnosi nisu najtopliji ikad, ali ta strogo formalna uštogljenost njihovih pisama mi je išla na živce. Ništa manje formalna nisu bila ni pisma starijeg brata koja je slao majci, ženi, a možda mrvicu neformalnija su bila za njegovog ljubavnika.
Ono što me je dodatno odbilo od knjige je i moja nezainteresovanost za ove likove. Obojica su mi bili odbojni, proračunati, podrivali su i mrzeli jedan drugog. Daleko od toga da volim samo mice od likova, ali ovo je bilo mnogo naporno za čitanje, pogotovo što je taj njihov toksičan odnos nije imao neki konkretan uzrok, niti rasplet, a bogami ni kraj.
Išervud veoma školski piše, zna se gde je početak, sredina i kraj rečenice, ali to je dodatno oduzelo bilo koju nadu da će ovaj roman zaličiti na nešto. Iz tog razloga nisam dovršila njegov kultni A Single Man; Tom Ford je od tog romana napravio FILMČINU i sad bih radije opet gledala to nego ikada više čitala nešto od Išervuda.
Ako ne volite romane u epistolarnoj formi, this won't do. Osim tog stilskog opredeljenja, imala sam još puno problema s ovom knjigom. Rođena braća šalju jedan drugom nadugačka pisma; jedan je u Indiji i priprema se da postane hindu sveštenik, dok je drugi na relaciji Engleska-Amerika i bavi se izdavaštvom, a sada snima i film. Iako se nisu videli 5 godina, stariji brat odlučuje da otputuje za Indiju i vidi se sa mlađim u pokušaju da ga odvrati od ove ideje.
Razumem da njihovi odnosi nisu najtopliji ikad, ali ta strogo formalna uštogljenost njihovih pisama mi je išla na živce. Ništa manje formalna nisu bila ni pisma starijeg brata koja je slao majci, ženi, a možda mrvicu neformalnija su bila za njegovog ljubavnika.
Ono što me je dodatno odbilo od knjige je i moja nezainteresovanost za ove likove. Obojica su mi bili odbojni, proračunati, podrivali su i mrzeli jedan drugog. Daleko od toga da volim samo mice od likova, ali ovo je bilo mnogo naporno za čitanje, pogotovo što je taj njihov toksičan odnos nije imao neki konkretan uzrok, niti rasplet, a bogami ni kraj.
Išervud veoma školski piše, zna se gde je početak, sredina i kraj rečenice, ali to je dodatno oduzelo bilo koju nadu da će ovaj roman zaličiti na nešto. Iz tog razloga nisam dovršila njegov kultni A Single Man; Tom Ford je od tog romana napravio FILMČINU i sad bih radije opet gledala to nego ikada više čitala nešto od Išervuda.
January 29, 2023
Die Geschichte zweier Brüder in Briefen und Tagebucheinträgen. Sehr lesenswert!
January 9, 2017
Oliver aspira a ser monge de um mosteiro hindu. Pouco antes da cerimónia de consagração, das margens do Ganges, escreve ao irmão, Patrick, com quem não falava há alguns anos. Pede-lhe que conte à mãe, já que ele próprio não tem coragem para o fazer. Patrick corre para a Índia, ao encontro do irmão. Julga ter a obrigação de o salvar de tal destino, mas, na verdade, foge de si mesmo, da sua vida de homem casado que não sabe como conciliar com a paixão que sente por outro homem.
Escrito a várias vozes, em jeito epistolar ou como confissão, este conto de Isherwood é uma brilhante reflexão sobre a personalidade dos dois irmãos e sobre como nem tudo é o que nos parece ser.
Escrito a várias vozes, em jeito epistolar ou como confissão, este conto de Isherwood é uma brilhante reflexão sobre a personalidade dos dois irmãos e sobre como nem tudo é o que nos parece ser.
December 12, 2022
Extremely readable and fun to puzzle out due to the many fragmented relationships seen through only two characters. Who are we when we perform identity for people around us? Especially ones who have known us for 20, 30, 40 years? Ties the complexity of ongoing, complicated family relationships into a tidy package that lets the reader make their own conclusions.
July 16, 2018
A slender meditation on the staying power of sibling relationships. Isherwood presents two broken brothers, both trying, in their own specific way, to find a way forward in their attempts to heal their self-inflicted wounds.
December 22, 2024
Although epistolary stories are not my favorite , in the form of writing and structure of the narrative, I still enjoyed the book.
Interesting the contrasting viewpoints of the two brothers. As a reader you are caught in the middle, and do not know and cannot decide which one to support .
You can only read and analyze the story.
A form of meditation , between letters to family ( mother, wife and lover ) and abandonment of Western life, between dust and dryness, renunciation of identity, and dedication to inner spiritual confinement… by a river
Interesting the contrasting viewpoints of the two brothers. As a reader you are caught in the middle, and do not know and cannot decide which one to support .
You can only read and analyze the story.
A form of meditation , between letters to family ( mother, wife and lover ) and abandonment of Western life, between dust and dryness, renunciation of identity, and dedication to inner spiritual confinement… by a river
July 6, 2025
The final piece of literature by Christopher Isherwood caught me off guard. Following an epistolary format, this story narrates the journey of two diametrically opposite siblings towards mutual understanding. it is comprised of both letters and journal entries, which makes this reading experience all the more immersive. I may be visiting his famous Berlin trilogy in the near future
5/5
5/5
December 4, 2022
Quick read, spiritual novel. One English brother writes his other to ask him to inform their mother he is taking sannyasi as a monk; the other has all the secrets, and a visit before he takes his vows has all sorts of great secrets coming out. Really enjoyed this fast-paced spiritual novel.
October 25, 2013
Christopher Isherwood is a writer I’ve been meaning to read for a while and when my Pa gave me a copy of A Meeting by the River as a gift - a book he read while a young man though today has completely forgotten - I thought now was the time. I wouldn’t have picked this Isherwood if it’d been up to me, I was more interested in A Single Man, which was made into a film a few years ago starring Colin Firth, or the even more famous Berlin Stories which became Liza Minnelli’s Cabaret, but A Meeting by the River it was to be. And it’s not a long book either at under 200 pages. But boy, what a chore it became…
Like a lot of 60s novels, this one is fascinated with Eastern spiritualism. Two estranged brothers meet up in India where the younger, Oliver, is about to take his vows and become a Hindu monk which makes his older brother Patrick, a well-to-do English publisher now working in Hollywood, dismayed. Patrick has gone to India to try to change Oliver’s mind before it’s too late.
I’ve read many literary books I hated all the way through before - it’s how you get a literature degree - so I thought I could get through this; but then I remembered I’m not longer in uni and can read purely for fun now, so I gave this up. Objective literary criticism - if such a thing can exist - says that if a character or characters seem real, whether you like them or not, then it is true art, and Patrick and Oliver did seem realistic.
Subjective literary criticism - or simply literary criticism - sways me the other way. Is this entertaining? No. Does it reveal anything particularly interesting about different cultures, sibling relationships, or religion? No. So what does it do? Nothing much of anything. We learn about the pettiness of both brothers via Oliver’s diary and Patrick’s letters, the mediums through which the story is told, but are spiteful characters difficult to write? I don’t think so - likeable characters, though, characters you care about are extremely hard to write and are the acid test of a truly great writer.
And while Isherwood is a decent writer, the trope of having Patrick write his letters to three people - his mother, his wife, and his gay lover - to show his differing writing styles (prim and decent to his mother, gossipy with his wife, dark and sexual towards his boyfriend), revealing different sides to the story, was very on the nose and not nearly as clever as I’m sure he thought it was.
Isherwood writes well which is different from both writing well and telling a compelling story, the latter of which I value and prefer more. I can appreciate the artfulness of it, but I can’t say I enjoyed a single page of it. Two thirds of the way through I dropped it in my bag of books headed to the charity shop and immediately felt better. Isherwood has probably written better books, and maybe the others I mentioned are better starting places, but A Meeting by the River is definitely not one of them.
Like a lot of 60s novels, this one is fascinated with Eastern spiritualism. Two estranged brothers meet up in India where the younger, Oliver, is about to take his vows and become a Hindu monk which makes his older brother Patrick, a well-to-do English publisher now working in Hollywood, dismayed. Patrick has gone to India to try to change Oliver’s mind before it’s too late.
I’ve read many literary books I hated all the way through before - it’s how you get a literature degree - so I thought I could get through this; but then I remembered I’m not longer in uni and can read purely for fun now, so I gave this up. Objective literary criticism - if such a thing can exist - says that if a character or characters seem real, whether you like them or not, then it is true art, and Patrick and Oliver did seem realistic.
Subjective literary criticism - or simply literary criticism - sways me the other way. Is this entertaining? No. Does it reveal anything particularly interesting about different cultures, sibling relationships, or religion? No. So what does it do? Nothing much of anything. We learn about the pettiness of both brothers via Oliver’s diary and Patrick’s letters, the mediums through which the story is told, but are spiteful characters difficult to write? I don’t think so - likeable characters, though, characters you care about are extremely hard to write and are the acid test of a truly great writer.
And while Isherwood is a decent writer, the trope of having Patrick write his letters to three people - his mother, his wife, and his gay lover - to show his differing writing styles (prim and decent to his mother, gossipy with his wife, dark and sexual towards his boyfriend), revealing different sides to the story, was very on the nose and not nearly as clever as I’m sure he thought it was.
Isherwood writes well which is different from both writing well and telling a compelling story, the latter of which I value and prefer more. I can appreciate the artfulness of it, but I can’t say I enjoyed a single page of it. Two thirds of the way through I dropped it in my bag of books headed to the charity shop and immediately felt better. Isherwood has probably written better books, and maybe the others I mentioned are better starting places, but A Meeting by the River is definitely not one of them.
January 28, 2019
An excellent book with a warm ending that gave me chills. The plot is simple: two brothers reunite in India after years of not speaking or seeing one another. The entire novel is told through letters or journal entries, which allows the reader to see inconsistencies in what a single character tells one person vs. another. Essentially, one of the brothers is a perpetual liar; the other (whose story is told through journaling) is more sensitive, yet truthful...even casting himself as a victim, at times.
I feel that some readers may see the two men as dynamic characters who better themselves by the end of the story; others may find the men entirely static. (I'm actually looking forward to reading others' reviews of this book, to see different interpretations.) I can see it both ways (dynamic vs. static), personally, but things are complicated when the some of the most honest lines in the entire book are ruminations spoken by the brother who (until then) had only been manipulative. (Though, it's entirely possible that the veracity of his statements could, in fact, be further efforts to manipulate the reader of his letter (his wife)).
The final act of both brothers pleasantly surprised me. Oliver's realization that, even if his brother's action had been for dramatic effect (thus, inauthentic), it's still a type of demonstration of love. The final lines:
I feel that some readers may see the two men as dynamic characters who better themselves by the end of the story; others may find the men entirely static. (I'm actually looking forward to reading others' reviews of this book, to see different interpretations.) I can see it both ways (dynamic vs. static), personally, but things are complicated when the some of the most honest lines in the entire book are ruminations spoken by the brother who (until then) had only been manipulative. (Though, it's entirely possible that the veracity of his statements could, in fact, be further efforts to manipulate the reader of his letter (his wife)).
The final act of both brothers pleasantly surprised me. Oliver's realization that, even if his brother's action had been for dramatic effect (thus, inauthentic), it's still a type of demonstration of love. The final lines:
Everybody was smiling and murmuring, as much as to say how charming it was of Patrick to play this scene according to our local Hindu rules, and how very right and proper it was that we two brothers should love each other.
June 24, 2023
my first isherwood novel and needless to say, im excited to soon delve into his other works. a short book exploring the relationship between two wildly different brothers when faced with an event that will significantly alter both of their lives, presented through a series of letters and diary entries.
isherwood is masterful in his ability to slowly and intricately divulge information about the two central characters and their relationships with each other as well as their family and loved ones. for instance, underneath the formality and nostalgia of patrick and oliver’s initial letters to one another, the fractures within their relationship are gradually revealed, such as oliver’s role as their mother’s favourite and patrick’s veiled mistrust in oliver’s life choices.
i was particularly interested when reading the letters patrick sends outside india, and how the unique tones indicate his specific intentions with each recipient; the difference in sentimentality between patrick’s early letters to his wife in london and those to his lover in los angeles demonstrate his honest desires, an attitude which shifts in his letters once he rejects the latter, as well as the placating and comforting voice he employs as he writes to their mother.
finally, the ending was the perfect conclusion to the themes explored in the book, and marked the novel as a truly authentic consideration of the complexities of the sibling dynamic, as well as discussing a refreshingly gentle reflection upon spirituality and religion.
isherwood is masterful in his ability to slowly and intricately divulge information about the two central characters and their relationships with each other as well as their family and loved ones. for instance, underneath the formality and nostalgia of patrick and oliver’s initial letters to one another, the fractures within their relationship are gradually revealed, such as oliver’s role as their mother’s favourite and patrick’s veiled mistrust in oliver’s life choices.
i was particularly interested when reading the letters patrick sends outside india, and how the unique tones indicate his specific intentions with each recipient; the difference in sentimentality between patrick’s early letters to his wife in london and those to his lover in los angeles demonstrate his honest desires, an attitude which shifts in his letters once he rejects the latter, as well as the placating and comforting voice he employs as he writes to their mother.
finally, the ending was the perfect conclusion to the themes explored in the book, and marked the novel as a truly authentic consideration of the complexities of the sibling dynamic, as well as discussing a refreshingly gentle reflection upon spirituality and religion.
March 22, 2019
This is more of a character study than a full novel, as it mostly focuses on the relationship between two brothers as one of them prepares to move into the next phase of his life. Patrick you only learn about through his letters to his family and lover while you only see Oliver through his diary, which gives everything a certain feeling of distance. That does make it interesting in Patrick's case as Oliver seems to have a different view of Patrick when compared to how Patrick represents himself in the letters to his lover and wife, which are also quite different in comparison with each other.
Both brothers also seem to represent different elements of Isherwood's personality. Patrick seems to share his sexuality (although he could easily be bisexual rather than gay) and the work in film, along with a certain amount of the front he portrays to the world, which seems to be pretty outgoing. Oliver shares more of his spiritual side and the self doubt. It's difficult to know which of them is closest to Isherwood's actual character and it almost seems like Isherwood was debating that in some ways himself. It seems symbolic that Oliver is shedding his old self to become someone new and I wonder if that's what Isherwood was aiming for in this book.
Both brothers also seem to represent different elements of Isherwood's personality. Patrick seems to share his sexuality (although he could easily be bisexual rather than gay) and the work in film, along with a certain amount of the front he portrays to the world, which seems to be pretty outgoing. Oliver shares more of his spiritual side and the self doubt. It's difficult to know which of them is closest to Isherwood's actual character and it almost seems like Isherwood was debating that in some ways himself. It seems symbolic that Oliver is shedding his old self to become someone new and I wonder if that's what Isherwood was aiming for in this book.
April 10, 2022
The authenticity of this story was beautiful. Its about 2 brothers who are both struggling with 1 decision that can completely uproot their lives - one brother takes the chance, the other leaves the opportunity behind. And the internal conflict of both of their decisions is masterfully picked apart, so much so that we don’t even know what the right choice is. Specifically with Patrick - I think we get such a flurry of highs and lows and confidence and desperation with his letters that we can’t really tell at the end if what he’s doing is right, so I ended up respecting Oliver more for his resolve.
July 21, 2013
Tools mostly as a series of letters with the odd diary entry, this book dress you in by revealing more about each of the brothers as it goes along, not just their history, but the way they think, and the way they think the other thinks.
Patrick it turns out is thoroughly without morals and too selfish for words, manipulating all those around him..... great character!!!
Patrick it turns out is thoroughly without morals and too selfish for words, manipulating all those around him..... great character!!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 23, 2018
Stuck between a 2 and a 3. I did like it so I decided on 3. Perhaps not something that I would read everyday but I've been meaning to read Isherwood for ages and I treat all his books as classics (and queer classics).
A meeting by the river is a story focusing on two brothers: Patrick (Paddy) and Oliver (Olly) and is told all in letters and journal entries. At first they start to write to each other, then when they meet letters are sent to their mother, Penny and Tom and Olly writes to process.
The story starts when Olly sends a letter to his older brother asking him among other things to let their mother know that he is in India to take his final sannyas and become a Hindu swami. At first, the brothers communicate rather well and I had hopes that they would have a mature relationship. Then I got a deeper look into their characters.
Olly is scared and he's confused and stubborn but he didn't bother me. He was trying to be mature ever if he was scared that he was running away from his life and love for Penelope - Patrick's wife. Patrick was quite a realistic character but he almost had no redeeming qualities. He plays games with everyone, he playacts, he's selfish and humiliates people, gaslights and puts responsibility into other people's hands while being immature enough to not take any responsibility at all...so yes, I felt like slamming a door in his face whenever he wrote. The thing with Patrick is, you cannot take anything at face value! He says one thing and it may have happened but taken in a different context, it doesn't have the same meaning.
Paddy is 'recently in love' with Tom, a young adult from Los Angeles -referred to in the book as a boy but I will not use that word! Pretty sure that Paddy knew what he was doing and all the influence he had on Tom but then he says he didn't realize the age gap or maturity gap there was. I am pretty sure that Tom, whoever he is, is probably more mature than Paddy. Paddy who is also a coward and for all his bravado, likes to be safe 'and free' not to be who he is in public but to have a persona then do as he wishes and then asks for forgiveness and for his wife to keep them going. Ugh a deplorable character but the joke is on him because there is room for change in his character.
Even if Patrick wanted to stop his brother from taking the final vows because he didn't think that was what he really wanted, the way he went about it - the deceit, lying about him, trying to embarrass him, not being direct, invoking a lot of doubt then not helping him figure it out and laughing about it! - was totally wrong. I hope he matures and develops after the story ends.
All in all, the characters were interesting, there was queer content, I liked the setting - especially because Olly was not colonial or superior about the fact he was English though he did have a culture shock, Paddy of course was racist and colonial - I liked discovering a bit about the swami culture and I liked seeing old words (I used to study sanskrit philosophy). It's a good classic though as is evident from above, I was frustrated with Paddy. It does make me want to read more Isherwood.
As a classic it is binary (few mentions of sex). It features a bisexual character and the brothers had a sort of at one point potentially-incestious closeness (but nothing happened).
A meeting by the river is a story focusing on two brothers: Patrick (Paddy) and Oliver (Olly) and is told all in letters and journal entries. At first they start to write to each other, then when they meet letters are sent to their mother, Penny and Tom and Olly writes to process.
The story starts when Olly sends a letter to his older brother asking him among other things to let their mother know that he is in India to take his final sannyas and become a Hindu swami. At first, the brothers communicate rather well and I had hopes that they would have a mature relationship. Then I got a deeper look into their characters.
Olly is scared and he's confused and stubborn but he didn't bother me. He was trying to be mature ever if he was scared that he was running away from his life and love for Penelope - Patrick's wife. Patrick was quite a realistic character but he almost had no redeeming qualities. He plays games with everyone, he playacts, he's selfish and humiliates people, gaslights and puts responsibility into other people's hands while being immature enough to not take any responsibility at all...so yes, I felt like slamming a door in his face whenever he wrote. The thing with Patrick is, you cannot take anything at face value! He says one thing and it may have happened but taken in a different context, it doesn't have the same meaning.
Paddy is 'recently in love' with Tom, a young adult from Los Angeles -referred to in the book as a boy but I will not use that word! Pretty sure that Paddy knew what he was doing and all the influence he had on Tom but then he says he didn't realize the age gap or maturity gap there was. I am pretty sure that Tom, whoever he is, is probably more mature than Paddy. Paddy who is also a coward and for all his bravado, likes to be safe 'and free' not to be who he is in public but to have a persona then do as he wishes and then asks for forgiveness and for his wife to keep them going. Ugh a deplorable character but the joke is on him because there is room for change in his character.
Even if Patrick wanted to stop his brother from taking the final vows because he didn't think that was what he really wanted, the way he went about it - the deceit, lying about him, trying to embarrass him, not being direct, invoking a lot of doubt then not helping him figure it out and laughing about it! - was totally wrong. I hope he matures and develops after the story ends.
All in all, the characters were interesting, there was queer content, I liked the setting - especially because Olly was not colonial or superior about the fact he was English though he did have a culture shock, Paddy of course was racist and colonial - I liked discovering a bit about the swami culture and I liked seeing old words (I used to study sanskrit philosophy). It's a good classic though as is evident from above, I was frustrated with Paddy. It does make me want to read more Isherwood.
As a classic it is binary (few mentions of sex). It features a bisexual character and the brothers had a sort of at one point potentially-incestious closeness (but nothing happened).
November 18, 2025
At the centre of this book is an exploration of perspective. Told through a mixture of letters and diary entries, the whiplash you experience reading one brother's account and then the other's is visceral. Ultimately, they both think they know each other. And they're not entirely wrong. But often in their criticisms of each other, they brush up against their own flaws. Patrick is self-important, hides behind mockery to hide his own feeling of inferiority. And Oliver does the opposite, even to the point of becoming a Swami, giving himself over to a life of servitude. He gives himself over to inferiority in order to escape it. He criticises Patrick for believing his own way of life superior, but does the same.
Isherwood's command of style is what makes this succeed. The prose does not allow you to escape the tragedy of both brothers—the tragedy of thinking that you know yourself, when really you don't understand the first thing about your own motivations, patterns, the places they keep leading you.
Patrick's letters are a prime example of the function of perspective in the novel. In one letter, he tells his wife one version of the story. In the next, he waxes lyrical to his lover Tom, and you turn the page again to find him telling his mother an entirely new spin. Then you see Oliver's diary entry, and realise that the truth really must lie somewhere between the two of them. At many points in the novel it's painfully clear that they are blinded by their disdain for each other. Two brothers, both eager to criticise each other without realising that they are more similar than they think.
This is really excellent. I did not expect to be so hooked, and ultimately to be so utterly disarmed. If you do read this, abandon all hopes of deciding whose story is the truth. It's not relevant. The strength of the novel lies in its refusal to come down on one side, in its ability to present so many different versions of truth without privileging one over the other. It's brilliant. Both Olly and Patrick become insufferable, but it's also embarrassingly easy to emphasise with them.
This may not be everyone's take, but I think the ultimate tragedy of the novel is that they were both so stubborn that they chose to make themselves unhappy, or rather shut down the possibility of looking outside of their reality, just to spite each other. They both perform versions of themselves that they wish to be. For Patrick this is obvious in every word he pens, in the contradictions he creates in his letters to his loved ones - it's so obvious that he seeks to shape their perception of him. For Olly, this is more physical. He becomes a monk, isolates himself from all he has previously known, in order to deny his own ego.
rating as of 18/11/2025: 5 stars
Isherwood's command of style is what makes this succeed. The prose does not allow you to escape the tragedy of both brothers—the tragedy of thinking that you know yourself, when really you don't understand the first thing about your own motivations, patterns, the places they keep leading you.
Patrick's letters are a prime example of the function of perspective in the novel. In one letter, he tells his wife one version of the story. In the next, he waxes lyrical to his lover Tom, and you turn the page again to find him telling his mother an entirely new spin. Then you see Oliver's diary entry, and realise that the truth really must lie somewhere between the two of them. At many points in the novel it's painfully clear that they are blinded by their disdain for each other. Two brothers, both eager to criticise each other without realising that they are more similar than they think.
This is really excellent. I did not expect to be so hooked, and ultimately to be so utterly disarmed. If you do read this, abandon all hopes of deciding whose story is the truth. It's not relevant. The strength of the novel lies in its refusal to come down on one side, in its ability to present so many different versions of truth without privileging one over the other. It's brilliant. Both Olly and Patrick become insufferable, but it's also embarrassingly easy to emphasise with them.
This may not be everyone's take, but I think the ultimate tragedy of the novel is that they were both so stubborn that they chose to make themselves unhappy, or rather shut down the possibility of looking outside of their reality, just to spite each other. They both perform versions of themselves that they wish to be. For Patrick this is obvious in every word he pens, in the contradictions he creates in his letters to his loved ones - it's so obvious that he seeks to shape their perception of him. For Olly, this is more physical. He becomes a monk, isolates himself from all he has previously known, in order to deny his own ego.
rating as of 18/11/2025: 5 stars
November 16, 2018
As an epistolary novel, this doesn't quite come off because nobody writes such long letters, with blow-by-blow accounts of conversations. However, this is a rather neat morality tale. The main protagonists are 2 brothers with divergent personalities: Oliver has always been an idealist prone to espousing causes in an ever-failing effort to find inner peace. Patrick is an urbane and successful publisher with a beautiful wife and 2 daughters he makes a great show of loving.The brothers meet again in India after many years of estrangement at the point when Oliver is about to take his final vows as a Hindu monk. While Patrick sounds sympathetic to this project in his letters to Oliver, in his letters to his wife Penelope he expresses contempt for the idea and a desire to coax Oliver into changing his mind "for his own good", of course. In fact, Oliver harbors more doubts about his vocation than he admits to Patrick, but it's Patrick who has the most secrets, namely that he is bi-sexual. The over-the-top love letters he sends from India to his latest lover Tom make the young man try to phone him, at which point it becomes obvious that Patrick is the type who loves falling in love but never follows through. The most amusing letter is the one in which he basically asks his wife to tidy up the mess, as she always has done in the past. What's interesting about the way the story is told is that you are led to expect that, somehow, the meeting between the brothers that gives the book its title will be momentous and affect them and their relationship, but in fact that is not really the case. Even when they stop lying to each other Oliver and Patrick do not really communicate and in the end, Oliver does take his vows, to the great satisfaction of Patrick who does not want his charismatic brother back in circulation in the world. In coming to India Patrick had no more intention of truly reconnecting with his brother than he intended to leave his long-suffering wife for his latest toy boy. Both brothers persevere in their essence, one a seeker, the other a pleasure seeker. Yet somehow Patrick's selfish visit and appalling, histrionic behavior have been of some benefit to Oliver.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 119 reviews