What do you think?
Rate this book
Vandover and the Brute
Posthumously published in 1914, Vandover and the Brute is probably Frank Norris's first complete novel, much of it written when he was a student at Harvard in 1894-1895. The subject matter made it unacceptable to turn-of-the-century taste, and when the book finally did appear one reviewer declared that "it ought to have been issued for private circulation only" ( Bookman ). The setting of the story is San Francisco in the 1890s. Vandover, fresh out of college and the son of a wealthy owner of slum properties, has dreams of being an artist but lacks the discipline to fulfill them. His seduction of a young woman results in her suicide and the death of his own father. Cheated by false friends of part of his patrimony, Vandover gambles away the rest. Finally, as Warren French writes in Frank Norris , "he becomes a bum reduced to cleaning the offal from the slum houses he once owned. His degeneration has also been marked by attacks of lycanthropy, during which he pads around on all fours, naked, howling like a wolf." Although present-day critics would agree with one of the few favorable early judgments—that "it is a first novel of which any writer might be proud" ( Boston Transcript )— Vandover and the Brute has yet to be established in its proper place in American fiction. Warren French's introduction points out that while the novel is usually considered as an early, unrevised example of American naturalism, it needs to be seen now as a principal example of a "decadent" literature that flourished briefly in the United States in the 1890s as the influence of the genteel tradition was collapsing. It presents the portrait of an artistic young man comparable to the portrait of a young matron in Kate Chopin's now much discussed novel The Awakening .
354 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1914
9 people are currently reading
239 people want to read
About the author
Frank Norris
360 books124 followersNaturalistic novels of noted American writer Benjamin Franklin Norris, Junior, brother of Charles Gilman Norris and sister-in-law of Kathleen Thompson Norris, about American life include
McTeague
in 1899.
This novelist during the Progressive era predominantly authored works that include The Octopus: A California Story (1901) and The Pit (1903). Although he not openly supported socialism as a political system, his work nevertheless evinces a socialist mentality and influenced socialist-progressive writers, such as Upton Beall Sinclair. Philosophical defense of Thomas Henry Huxley of the advent of Darwinism profoundly influenced him like many of his contemporaries. Norris studied under Joseph LeConte, who at the University of California, Berkeley, taught an optimistic strand of Darwinist philosophy that particularly influenced him. Through many of his novels, notably McTeague, runs a preoccupation with the notion of the civilized man overcoming the inner "brute," his animalistic tendencies. His peculiar and often confused brand of social Darwinism also bears the influence of the early criminologist Cesare Lombroso and the French naturalist Émile Zola.
This novelist during the Progressive era predominantly authored works that include The Octopus: A California Story (1901) and The Pit (1903). Although he not openly supported socialism as a political system, his work nevertheless evinces a socialist mentality and influenced socialist-progressive writers, such as Upton Beall Sinclair. Philosophical defense of Thomas Henry Huxley of the advent of Darwinism profoundly influenced him like many of his contemporaries. Norris studied under Joseph LeConte, who at the University of California, Berkeley, taught an optimistic strand of Darwinist philosophy that particularly influenced him. Through many of his novels, notably McTeague, runs a preoccupation with the notion of the civilized man overcoming the inner "brute," his animalistic tendencies. His peculiar and often confused brand of social Darwinism also bears the influence of the early criminologist Cesare Lombroso and the French naturalist Émile Zola.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 2, 2022
April 21, 2017
I have been pondering this book for four days and have already three drafts of a review on my laptop. Reviewing it has been a struggle. I cannot say that this book was "enjoyable" any more than Norris's novel McTeague was enjoyable. But not all books are meant to be enjoyed. Yet I was fascinated, mesmerized almost. I simply could not stop reading this, even though it seemed long and laborious, without a clear destination or message.
These two novels by Frank Norris show humans who are struggling with the brutish aspect of their own humanity, consciously or unconsciously. McTeague, the stereotypical big, hulking, stupid man, was not intelligent enough to be aware of his struggle and the result was destructive behaviour directed at another person. Vandover, on the other hand, was a very intelligent, sensitive, gentle soul who fought consciously to gain the upper hand but ended up hurting himself.
Vandover's journey through life was a very sad one. His invalid mother died when he was eight years old as the family arrived on a train from Boston to begin a new life in San Francisco. Vandover was a sensitive child with an aptitude for drawing and painting and a desire to be a good boy and live a long time and go to Heaven when he died and see his mother. He was deeply affected by early disappointments -- his mother's death, his father's lack of attention to his needs, and the expectation that he would attend Harvard following high school graduation instead of studying art in Paris.
At the age of eighteen, Vandover has lost his rudder. Apathetic about being at Harvard, he permits himself to be influenced by his domineering and manipulative room-mate. Vandover's introduction to the "fast" lifestyle of the "college boys" unleashes "the brute" (the part of himself which prefers pleasure and self-indulgence) and he sets out on a course of self-destruction.
Should the reader choose to follow Vandover's journey into adulthood (it is not a pretty picture), they will watch helplessly as Vandover lurches from one personal catastrophe to another. Every time he senses "the brute" gaining strength, he clings to one "last hope" after another but ultimately he runs out of "last hopes".
Vandover and the Brute was published in 1914 (15 years after McTeague). There had been seven other works published in the interim. I thought it curious that Norris had returned, so many years after the publication of McTeague, to the same theme. A quick look at Norris's biography solved the mystery. Frank Norris had died in 1902. Vandover and the Brute was written in 1894-95 (four years before McTeague) and was the fifth work of his to be published posthumously.
Frank Norris was (according to Encyclopedia Britannica) "the first important naturalist writer in the United States." The work of a trail-blazer is often controversial. Norris's writing was no exception. Neither the reading public nor the family members who survived after his death were ready for the style and subject matter of his novels. Even now, a century later, his writing may offend some readers. But it raises some important questions about morality, social class, and addictive behaviour which continue to be relevant today. To my mind, this is the mark of literary genius. It is so sad that he died in the prime of life.
April 17, 2017
Just finished. Rating and review to follow.
Still reading (March 8) --
The book is most definitely sexist, chauvinistic, misogynistic -- these words all apply -- but I keep reading because I wonder if the author is presenting his own beliefs or is criticizing the society in which he lives. My curiosity keeps my TBR shelves overcrowded. One novel leads to others by the same author and on to biography and literary criticism -- and so goes the merry-go-round. Are we having fun yet? LOL
I have been pondering this book for four days and have already three drafts of a review on my laptop. Reviewing it has been a struggle. I cannot say that this book was "enjoyable" any more than Norris's novel McTeague was enjoyable. But not all books are meant to be enjoyed. Yet I was fascinated, mesmerized almost. I simply could not stop reading this, even though it seemed long and laborious, without a clear destination or message.
These two novels by Frank Norris show humans who are struggling with the brutish aspect of their own humanity, consciously or unconsciously. McTeague, the stereotypical big, hulking, stupid man, was not intelligent enough to be aware of his struggle and the result was destructive behaviour directed at another person. Vandover, on the other hand, was a very intelligent, sensitive, gentle soul who fought consciously to gain the upper hand but ended up hurting himself.
Vandover's journey through life was a very sad one. His invalid mother died when he was eight years old as the family arrived on a train from Boston to begin a new life in San Francisco. Vandover was a sensitive child with an aptitude for drawing and painting and a desire to be a good boy and live a long time and go to Heaven when he died and see his mother. He was deeply affected by early disappointments -- his mother's death, his father's lack of attention to his needs, and the expectation that he would attend Harvard following high school graduation instead of studying art in Paris.
At the age of eighteen, Vandover has lost his rudder. Apathetic about being at Harvard, he permits himself to be influenced by his domineering and manipulative room-mate. Vandover's introduction to the "fast" lifestyle of the "college boys" unleashes "the brute" (the part of himself which prefers pleasure and self-indulgence) and he sets out on a course of self-destruction.
Should the reader choose to follow Vandover's journey into adulthood (it is not a pretty picture), they will watch helplessly as Vandover lurches from one personal catastrophe to another. Every time he senses "the brute" gaining strength, he clings to one "last hope" after another but ultimately he runs out of "last hopes".
Vandover and the Brute was published in 1914 (15 years after McTeague). There had been seven other works published in the interim. I thought it curious that Norris had returned, so many years after the publication of McTeague, to the same theme. A quick look at Norris's biography solved the mystery. Frank Norris had died in 1902. Vandover and the Brute was written in 1894-95 (four years before McTeague) and was the fifth work of his to be published posthumously.
Frank Norris was (according to Encyclopedia Britannica) "the first important naturalist writer in the United States." The work of a trail-blazer is often controversial. Norris's writing was no exception. Neither the reading public nor the family members who survived after his death were ready for the style and subject matter of his novels. Even now, a century later, his writing may offend some readers. But it raises some important questions about morality, social class, and addictive behaviour which continue to be relevant today. To my mind, this is the mark of literary genius. It is so sad that he died in the prime of life.
April 17, 2017
Just finished. Rating and review to follow.
Still reading (March 8) --
The book is most definitely sexist, chauvinistic, misogynistic -- these words all apply -- but I keep reading because I wonder if the author is presenting his own beliefs or is criticizing the society in which he lives. My curiosity keeps my TBR shelves overcrowded. One novel leads to others by the same author and on to biography and literary criticism -- and so goes the merry-go-round. Are we having fun yet? LOL
December 25, 2007
This book is an amazing display of dualities - between Vandover, the preppy college kid in 1890s California, and his morally sick alter ego, The Brute. This book shows how the contrasting moralities of the different socioeconomic classes and genders coexist in the late 19th century city. Gone are the tender fireside scenes of "Little Women" and in their place are the vice districts that draw in people from all walks of life. This is novel about America's "adolescence" as it spanned the gap between the 19th and 20th centuries. Those who've read anything by Dostoevsky will recognize the mourning of morality, but unlike Dostoevsky, Vandover's tale does not leave a lot of room for hope. this is an excellent, quick read that really makes you think!
March 28, 2022
This is Norris’s first novel, which was unpublished until after his death at age 31 in 1902, the same year that Zola died. I was not even aware of this novel for a long period, thinking he had written only three novels, McTeague, The Octopus and The Pit, all of which I read and enjoyed. I now understand its obscurity as it reads like a first effort of an author with better works to come.
The story is about one person, Vandover, and the theme is this Harvard educated gentleman’s struggle with his inner brute. I was often reminded of Zola’s novel translated as “The Beast Within.” This is a theme that Norris would go on to more effectively explore in his next novel, McTeague.
I did enjoy the first half of the novel in the portrayal of Vandover in his early years at Harvard and as a San Francisco socialite. Although Vandover is caddish, Norris gives him enough of a well-rounded character that one feels some empathy for him. I thought the depiction of San Francisco society was interesting, especially the overly-stereotyped ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ girls. However, the novel got away from Norris when he started writing about Vandover’s degradation.
I found Norris unconvincing in portraying Vandover succumbing to the innate ‘beast’ or ‘brute’ within. He keeps on mentioning Vandover’s battle with his inner brute and must have used the word ‘brute’ at least 50 times. He even goes as far as having Vandover bay like a wolf, describing him as suffering from lycanthropy. However, besides being heavy-handed in their portrayal, Vandover’s so-called brutish actions didn’t seem that brutish to me. He degrades himself by drinking to excess, hanging with loose women and gambling away his fortune. The story is really just the typical story of a pampered youth getting waylaid by alcoholism and a gamblisg addiction rather than any “inner brute.” I may be unfairly evaluating the book by today’s standards of addressing addictive behaviors, but the behaviors just didn’t seem that ‘brutish.”
I am glad I read this book, though. Norris writing style is just as it is in his later 3 novels; clear, descriptive and eminently readable. Norris is probably my favorite stylist of the naturalists; over Dreiser, London and Crane and, at least equal to, his great influence, Zola. The problem I have with this novel is not with technique but with Norris’s exposition of his theme. Based on this, I rate this novel as 3 stars. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who is not already a Norris fan.
The story is about one person, Vandover, and the theme is this Harvard educated gentleman’s struggle with his inner brute. I was often reminded of Zola’s novel translated as “The Beast Within.” This is a theme that Norris would go on to more effectively explore in his next novel, McTeague.
I did enjoy the first half of the novel in the portrayal of Vandover in his early years at Harvard and as a San Francisco socialite. Although Vandover is caddish, Norris gives him enough of a well-rounded character that one feels some empathy for him. I thought the depiction of San Francisco society was interesting, especially the overly-stereotyped ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ girls. However, the novel got away from Norris when he started writing about Vandover’s degradation.
I found Norris unconvincing in portraying Vandover succumbing to the innate ‘beast’ or ‘brute’ within. He keeps on mentioning Vandover’s battle with his inner brute and must have used the word ‘brute’ at least 50 times. He even goes as far as having Vandover bay like a wolf, describing him as suffering from lycanthropy. However, besides being heavy-handed in their portrayal, Vandover’s so-called brutish actions didn’t seem that brutish to me. He degrades himself by drinking to excess, hanging with loose women and gambling away his fortune. The story is really just the typical story of a pampered youth getting waylaid by alcoholism and a gamblisg addiction rather than any “inner brute.” I may be unfairly evaluating the book by today’s standards of addressing addictive behaviors, but the behaviors just didn’t seem that ‘brutish.”
I am glad I read this book, though. Norris writing style is just as it is in his later 3 novels; clear, descriptive and eminently readable. Norris is probably my favorite stylist of the naturalists; over Dreiser, London and Crane and, at least equal to, his great influence, Zola. The problem I have with this novel is not with technique but with Norris’s exposition of his theme. Based on this, I rate this novel as 3 stars. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who is not already a Norris fan.
April 27, 2016
Vandover and the Brute has an interesting publication history. It was considered too scandalous to be published in the late 1800s but today often just gets pegged as "historically significant" (Dana Seitler). So which is it: fascinatingly salacious or academically of interest?
Personally, I think Vandover is likely to appeal to more academic readers than to those looking for an entertaining read. The novel touches on a number of themes common to naturalist writing; it's quite a treasure trove for those who may wish to explore social determinism, biological determinism, race suicide, degeneration, masculinity, etc. Plot-wise, it's a bit dull.
The dullness is partially a result of intentional authorial choices. Protagonist Vandover is stuck in the rut many scholars see as part of naturalist writings; he cannot really progress. So, while on one hand a large of amount of things happen in the book (which I won't specify to avoid spoilers), it's also possible to say that nothing happens at all. Imagine a graph of Vandover's life as an oscillation, like a sine curve.
However, Vandover is only stuck in some parts of his life. In others, he's actively degenerating. This is what attracts many people to the book: the story of a man regressing into animal. However, I found the description of this more exciting than the actual execution of it in the book. Norris takes a rather strong narrative role and actively comments on what he wants readers to think/know. He's pretty explicit about the man turning to brute plot point. I didn't think there was much to interpret here; one just observes that it's happening and moves on.
I enjoyed reading Vandover somewhat because I did it for class, and the discussion was fairly interesting. However, I don't think it's something that would have appealed to me if I'd read it on my own.
Personally, I think Vandover is likely to appeal to more academic readers than to those looking for an entertaining read. The novel touches on a number of themes common to naturalist writing; it's quite a treasure trove for those who may wish to explore social determinism, biological determinism, race suicide, degeneration, masculinity, etc. Plot-wise, it's a bit dull.
The dullness is partially a result of intentional authorial choices. Protagonist Vandover is stuck in the rut many scholars see as part of naturalist writings; he cannot really progress. So, while on one hand a large of amount of things happen in the book (which I won't specify to avoid spoilers), it's also possible to say that nothing happens at all. Imagine a graph of Vandover's life as an oscillation, like a sine curve.
However, Vandover is only stuck in some parts of his life. In others, he's actively degenerating. This is what attracts many people to the book: the story of a man regressing into animal. However, I found the description of this more exciting than the actual execution of it in the book. Norris takes a rather strong narrative role and actively comments on what he wants readers to think/know. He's pretty explicit about the man turning to brute plot point. I didn't think there was much to interpret here; one just observes that it's happening and moves on.
I enjoyed reading Vandover somewhat because I did it for class, and the discussion was fairly interesting. However, I don't think it's something that would have appealed to me if I'd read it on my own.
March 9, 2016
I ran across this title in Anne Rice's "The Wolf Gift." I was under the impression that this book was about to werewolves, but it is not. The main character suffers from bouts of "lycanthropy," acting like a wolf a few times in the book, but he is not a werewolf. That being said, this is a good tale about the ills of modernity and metropolitanism (in San Francisco) at the turn of the 20th century (late 1800s). Basically, this is a tale of how a privileged young man squanders his inheritance after indulging in gambling, prostitution, and drinking. The narrator speaks in the 3rd person, but the book still does a great job of getting into the mind of someone that doesn't realize they're spiraling into depravity. This isn't a tale of gothic horror, but the genre--particularly Poe's influence--definitely shadows Norris' writing, and I enjoyed the book for it.
March 15, 2017
This is an unfinished manuscript of Norris's that was published posthumously. The book has marks of that; some descriptions and monologues of characters go nowhere. Norris LOVES describing a place down to its minutest detail, so I wonder if he had more time he would've cut down on a few of them. I skimmed many of them without missing out on much.
This is a DARK book about one man's degradation into animalistic madness through the syphilis he got sleeping with prostitutes. Moral of the story: Life sucks, but don't sleep with prostitutes. Like, it might seem cool and all when you're hanging out with your Harvard buddies but actually you'll get an STD and your "friends" will rob you of your fortune and then you'll really be in a pickle, man.
This is a DARK book about one man's degradation into animalistic madness through the syphilis he got sleeping with prostitutes. Moral of the story: Life sucks, but don't sleep with prostitutes. Like, it might seem cool and all when you're hanging out with your Harvard buddies but actually you'll get an STD and your "friends" will rob you of your fortune and then you'll really be in a pickle, man.
February 10, 2009
I used this book in my naturalism course to discuss the brute figure in Norris' fiction. It does not show Norris' true strength as a writer-- that is probably why it was published posthumously.
May 15, 2018
Truly unsettling.
November 21, 2017
Comme souvent chez Norris, on reste éberlué devant de nombreux passages qui ont mal vieilli, teintés d'antisémitisme et de misogynie, mais on reste aussi estomaqué devant la puissance évocatrice de certaines scènes marquantes. Le naufrage d'un bateau et les conséquences tragiques sur l'humanité du protagoniste; la déchéance causée par les vices illustrée par une transformation littérale en bête carnivore; le regard innocent et cruel d'un enfant pauvre sur celui qui est maintenant plus pauvre que lui.
April 28, 2024
I have two chapters left of this book and haven't got the strength to finish. Such misery! It is impossible not to feel profound pity for Vandover. I saw myself in him and suffered alongside him, reminded of my own mistakes and follies. The book offers surprising twists and turns of fate, much too true to reality and while the first half of the book kept my interest, it is this second half (although unfinished) that truly resonates with me, terrifies me and has me truly shaken up. The descriptions of the madness are so vividly painted, the horror of it all feels so real, I can't help but admire Frank Norris. It has been years since a book has left me utterly miserable, struggling for breath, crying heavy tears. It feels as though this book is a cautionary tale about what could've been, had I made different decisions a handful of times. I believe everyone would experience the same visceral reaction if they read this, because, in the end, each of us has a brute inside, which we fight and try to keep dormant with varying degrees of success throughout our lives. We're never safe from the brute until the day we die and this daily struggle is what the author is portraying, if I was to explain it as simply as I could. As with any good story, and I believe this one to be brilliant, there are many interpretations, metaphors and meanings to be found and each time I come back to this novel in the future, as I am sure I will, there will be something new to uncover or discover about myself, other people and, in the end, the world.
I would like to finish this tonight, if only to completely eradicate my stupid optimism and hope that Vandover will be saved and have his art come back to him, however, I highly doubt it.
Edit: Now that I've read the book, I believe it to be one of the saddest tales I've read, mostly because it's so real. People fall down on their luck all the time, tragedies completely change a person beyond recognition, the brute wins much too often. Vandover is all of these millions of people. Every time I've seen a beggar, I've wondered what their life has been like and there's just something so profoundly sad about having a good life and loosing it. I don't blame Vandover completely for his fate. Yes, he made mistakes, but he is also a product of misfortunes which slowly, but surely, twisted his soul to the point where he could not fight back anymore.
I would like to finish this tonight, if only to completely eradicate my stupid optimism and hope that Vandover will be saved and have his art come back to him, however, I highly doubt it.
Edit: Now that I've read the book, I believe it to be one of the saddest tales I've read, mostly because it's so real. People fall down on their luck all the time, tragedies completely change a person beyond recognition, the brute wins much too often. Vandover is all of these millions of people. Every time I've seen a beggar, I've wondered what their life has been like and there's just something so profoundly sad about having a good life and loosing it. I don't blame Vandover completely for his fate. Yes, he made mistakes, but he is also a product of misfortunes which slowly, but surely, twisted his soul to the point where he could not fight back anymore.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 8, 2020
I’m in awe that Norris wrote this novel at the age of 24, as it contains the world-weary wisdom of a novelist twice his age, even as it has the shock value that can only come from a younger writer. The content isn’t anything more sensational than might be found in Zola, Maupassant, or Ibsen, but leave it to the United States to deem it too risqué for publication in the 1890s. The narrative is tighter and more straightforward than McTeague, as Norris charts the rapid downfall of a young man who is a slave to the brutish side of his nature. The “brute” of the title is the shadow side of Vandover -- a sort of inner Mr. Hyde that constantly upsets his higher aspirations to move to Paris to pursue his art and marry a nice society girl. Instead, his drinking, sexual cravings, and gambling lead him into a pit of despair, misery, poverty, and physical/psychological deterioration.
Norris seems preoccupied with sight (or lack thereof) as he writes several times that Vandover looked with “eyes that saw nothing.” One of Vandover’s favorite expressions is “out of sight!” -- which reinforces his own blindness to events right in front of his face, but also provides an amusing bit of linguistic history for those who thought that phrase was coined decades later. (Stephen Crane also uses the phrase in Maggie: A Girl of the Streets and Other Tales of New York -- both writers were using their own generation's latest slang.) I liked this novel better than McTeague and The Octopus , although I only read the first third of that one before having to give it up for schoolwork; I can’t wait to read the entire thing one day. If Norris had lived a full life, he likely would have been one of the greats rather than merely a representative of American Naturalism to be mentioned after Crane, London, and Dreiser.
Norris seems preoccupied with sight (or lack thereof) as he writes several times that Vandover looked with “eyes that saw nothing.” One of Vandover’s favorite expressions is “out of sight!” -- which reinforces his own blindness to events right in front of his face, but also provides an amusing bit of linguistic history for those who thought that phrase was coined decades later. (Stephen Crane also uses the phrase in Maggie: A Girl of the Streets and Other Tales of New York -- both writers were using their own generation's latest slang.) I liked this novel better than McTeague and The Octopus , although I only read the first third of that one before having to give it up for schoolwork; I can’t wait to read the entire thing one day. If Norris had lived a full life, he likely would have been one of the greats rather than merely a representative of American Naturalism to be mentioned after Crane, London, and Dreiser.
November 25, 2025
Ugh. I really wanted to like this book more. I see a lot of myself in Vandover, but I think because I read this as part of a Naval Academy English class, the experience was kind of ruined for me. After suffering through "The House of Mirth," this book reminded me too much of the trauma I endured reading Edith Wharton. Our class focused a lot on Vandover's lack of motivation and failure to take responsibility of his own life. The first few chapters were giving "The Secret History" by Donna Tartt in the best way, but when it started to plummet, it went fast and hard. It was a ride I didn't really care to be a part of after about a hundred pages, but my professor loved this book, so I was dragged behind the wagon. I didn't really like Vandover's morphing into a wolf at the end of the book, and the ending left me oddly unsatisfied.
November 28, 2007
not as good as mcteague in terms of impact, but often engrossing. descriptions of 1890's san francisco bar-hopping (oyster bars with snake pits) as these upper class young male elite of sf (one of the characters is named geary) partake in drugs and alcohol and loose women, drawn to a life they ultimately consider beneath them. again, full of flawed, not quite likeable characters. i was amused by a discussion these elite college grads have about obligations to women after teh seduction is over. eventually, the main character who is honestly named vandover fights insanity/his inner brute--a wolf which comes to dominate him (the little hipster!). he sits back and watches as the things that could save him slip away... his father, his lady, and his art. yes, yes the perils of vice and ones inner beast, a common tale... nonetheless a good book as norris is a great, descriptive writer whose books must have been truly shocking at the time.
October 29, 2011
The naturalists certainly didn't have a Pollyanna view. Do not read these books of which Vandover is a prime example if you are feeling down as I think you might feel too drawn to the downward spiral.
I believe this was the first book by Norris and it does falter in some spots as the plot incessantly moves towards Vandover's degradation. The highlights of the book for me were the descriptions of how life was lived in San Francisco at the end of the nineteenth century.
I believe this was the first book by Norris and it does falter in some spots as the plot incessantly moves towards Vandover's degradation. The highlights of the book for me were the descriptions of how life was lived in San Francisco at the end of the nineteenth century.
February 17, 2015
I picked up this first Norris novel on a whim, and I'm glad I did. My recent experience with a turn of the century author, and I'm talking about you Henry James, was not an experience I relished. It was overly flowery -- too over-descriptive and over-melodramatic, and I stereotype writing from the era in that way. Norris writes very cleanly in comparison. I found the book much easier to read and enjoy. This is the story of the downward spiral of a wealthy Harvard grad in San Francisco in the 1880s and 90s. You get a real feel for the times, with wonderful descriptions of society parties, bar life, vacation cruising from San Francisco, and, since Harvard is involved, lawyering and budgeting personal expenses. By the end, I found myself rooting against Vandover, but also feeling a bit sorry for him.
June 10, 2013
I saw Poe's fatalistic influences without the floral flourishes. Although it was written a century ago I can see it as a parablistic warning to American society today. Thought its ending was a little weak and anticlimactic. I liked it well enough that his other novels and essays are on my “to read someday” list.
September 7, 2007
Almost as good as McTeague. Norris rulez.
January 7, 2015
Glad I finally read Frank Norris.
February 19, 2018
Fantastic for its pure naturalism, something I simply did not expect out of a novel from the period, particularly from the American school. In rendering Vandover's life, Norris abandons all literary conventions in favor of realism, and the result is a character that shocks even contemporary readers for how closely he resembles a true everyman - the scion of the middle bourgeoisie with some innate artistic talent, Vandover's ruin is driven not so much by his brutish lusts or vices, but by his apathy. Interspersed with shocking scenes of man's inhumanity to man and quick, almost anti-climactic death scenes, Vandover's story is the story of life itself, and the reader is driven not just to sympathize him but, to their horror, empathize with him as well.
I would also be remiss if I did not praise the ending of this book. In the hands of an uncreative hack schooled in literary conventions, there could be but one ending to such a story of debauchery and ruin. But Frank Norris is not an uncreative hack. The ending he foreshadows is not the one he provides, and the switch makes the one he does include all the more of a punch to the gut, not just to the reader, but to the materialistic society he inhabits. This is the signature of a true master, and it is a shame Norris is not held in higher regard today.
I would also be remiss if I did not praise the ending of this book. In the hands of an uncreative hack schooled in literary conventions, there could be but one ending to such a story of debauchery and ruin. But Frank Norris is not an uncreative hack. The ending he foreshadows is not the one he provides, and the switch makes the one he does include all the more of a punch to the gut, not just to the reader, but to the materialistic society he inhabits. This is the signature of a true master, and it is a shame Norris is not held in higher regard today.
November 9, 2022
wolf wolf
January 28, 2024
Posthumous Norris set in San Francisco; his flare for grim inevitability on full display.
March 26, 2022
Poor Vandover? I guess? A good representation of the genre.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews