Reading the Chunksters discussion

Here is week 2...I'm still reading it, but what do you all think?

frankly, i'm not sure i get the point...is it going to be a romance like Jane Eyre? am i going to learn how i should act, by reading about becky and her downfall/rise etc. like The House of Mirth? i am still reading it, and i'm assuming that eventually i will see the direction this little 'fair' is taking...i am reading other things though...so...i like george osbourne. :)

Stephanie wrote: "frankly, i'm not sure i get the point...is it going to be a romance like Jane Eyre? am i going to learn how i should act, by reading about becky and her downfall/rise etc. like The House of Mirth? ..."

It's a bit early to know, but we might recall the subtitle of the book: A Novel without a Hero. I suspect that he also means without a Heroine.

Everyman wrote: "It's a bit early to know, but we might recall the subtitle of the book: A Novel without a Hero. I suspect that he also means without a Heroine."

subtitled?...just looked at my copy...again...um...no subtitle...at all. not that a subtitle would have helped...

I think Thackery was trying to do something new and daring in stepping away from the literary standard of his time and create something more grotesquely real. Unlike the popular literature of the day, real life doesn't have heros and Thackery wanted to reflect that in his satire. However literature tends to have a life of its own and I have a feeling Vanity Fair may have run away from him and made Becky an anti-hero.

...or the villian...I'm interested to see which

Stephanie wrote: "Everyman wrote: "It's a bit early to know, but we might recall the subtitle of the book: A Novel without a Hero. I suspect that he also means without a Heroine."

subtitled?...just looked at my c..."

Mine doesn't have a subtitle either, but he makes a big deal out of the lack of a heroine in this book in one of the first few chapters. I need to start using my "bookmark" option more so I can be more accurate.

I read a book called "Forever Amber" a while ago and I kept waiting for the...protagonist to become a changed person, to see the errors of her way, but she didn't and I wonder if I'm in for the same type of ride with Becky's character.

I don't mind characters that have different values than I do, and I don't mind rooting for the "bad guy" while I read. I do mind uninteresting characters (in a prominent role any how, uninteresting characters do have a place in some stories) and so far Becky has not disappointed me.

Woops, I see that "Forever Amber" has a topic in this group, so many of you are familiar with it.

Am I overstepping any boundaries to ask if anyone else sees the similarity between Amber and Becky?

Rebecca wrote: "It's interesting how so many characters saw right through Becky immediately, but weren't in the least bit shocked or upset by her scheming. It seems like nearly everyone in the novel is somewhat cynical (save Amelia, of course, and maybe Dobbin) when it comes to social climbing."

Nice comment. Certainly Thackeray doesn't seem the least bit shocked or upset by her -- he seems to applaud her efforts to get herself married as well as possible, and regretful when Jos has his meltdown and the whole thing falls through.

I agree with everyone realizing that Becky was not who she claimed to be including Amelia's parents.
I think she's in for a bit of a wake up call now that she is with Crawley.
I'm still trying to figure out what the deal with Dobbin is too. I guess I'll have to keep reading to find out.

Vauxhall seems, at least as described by Thackeray, like a perfect contemporary rendition of Vanity Fair. Prancing around in finery, drinking, debauchery, even a bit of wenching, with the pickpockets and flim-flam artists also depicted by Bunyan in his Vanity Fair. I thought it a horrid place and had to metaphorically wash my brain out after reading it.

I'm sure Thackeray is saying something about his view of the nobility with Sir P8tt Crawley (what a name for him -- creepy crawley!), but I'm not really sure what he's saying beyond the obvious disgust.

What a bizarre character Crawley is... Thackery obviously has an axe to grind (although what anyone could have against money-obsessed MPs and lawyers I have no idea).

As a fellow coarse and vulgar resident of Hampshire myself, I'm not sure whether I should be insulted or not, although I did do some research and found that Thackery lived in my town from the age of 6 and described the society there as being a possible model for Austen's novels (I can assure you that this is no longer the case!). My local shopping centre is named after him.

I think Thackery is just satirising the upper class of the era, playing on the stereotype of them being inbred, uncouth and impovrished (financially and morally) compared to the wealthy and sophisticated middle class that had been building strength.

A number of Thackeray's character's seem to have a dominant passion (or passions) that more or less defines them. For example, Joseph's is gluttony. Sir Pitt Crawley's is stinginess, which he carries to the absurd extreme of spending more money than he saves in litigating over his rights to money and property. These defining passions seem somehow in keeping with the Vanity Fair theme.

Bob wrote: "A number of Thackeray's character's seem to have a dominant passion (or passions) that more or less defines them. For example, Joseph's is gluttony. Sir Pitt Crawley's is stinginess, which he carr..."

Absolutely. Thackery certainly seems to be trying to create comically exaggerated charicatures. I'd take it further and say it applies to the girls too. Becky is defined by her self-centredness and spite and Amelia is her counterpart, all selflessness and compassion. They're almost too overblown to be realistic but we can recognise the traits in people we might meet in the real world.

Everyman wrote: "(what a name for him -- creepy crawley!)"

YES! He really does seem creepy!

Joseph annoys me. I feel happy that the proposal fell through, because a strong woman like Rebecca deserves a strong man, which, to me, Joseph certainly is not. She would have tired of him easily.

I'm finding Thackeray's commentary and random conversations about people unrelated to the story entirely too distracting. Maybe it's just because I'm reading this at night before bed when my brain is already a little fuzzy... but it makes it hard to understand what's really going on. I didn't see what apparently others saw as far as "seeing through" Becky. I get the feeling that it's going to take me reading this book two or three times to really grasp everything.

Rebecca wrote: "What I meant by characters seeing through Becky was the way they would acknowledge that she was actively trying to social climb and net Joseph as a husband - I'm thinking especially of Mr. and Mrs...."

I agree...even the driver who dropped at Crawley's realized it and was rude to her.

I also agree that some of the side "conversations" Thackery includes are a bit distracting. I find myself wondering if I missed something or somebody along the way.

I am very curious to see how things develop with Crawley.

Candice wrote: "EJoseph annoys me. "

Don't you think he's supposed to? I wonder whether Thackeray intended him to be just a comic figure, or whether he intended him to be a poke at the neer-do-wells who went out to India to be BMICs (Big Men In Continent). I don't know what Thackeray's view of the British administration in India was.

Rebecca wrote: "It seems like there are a number of passages where we see a new character's opinion of Becky and they see immediately that she's trying to get "above her station". "

It would be hard for her to get below her station, wouldn't it? Other than being a streetwalker, it seems hard to imagine anybody much lower on the status ladder than Rebecca.

Everyman wrote: "Don't you think he's supposed to? I wonder whether Thackeray intended him to be just a comic figure, or whether he intended him to be a poke at the neer-do-wells who went out to India to be BMICs (Big Men In Continent). I don't know what Thackeray's view of the British administration in India was..."

I just thought he was making fun of the vain unmarried dandy in the way we'd make fun of the teenager with the funny haircut and the jeans below his backside today.

Interesting factoid - Thackery was born in India and spent the first six years of his life there...though I don't know what his opinion of the colony was. Apparently he was much impressed with England.

Kristi wrote: "Here is week 2...I'm still reading it, but what do you all think?"

This is my first time reading a book in a schedule and I don't think I can do it. I couldn't help reading ahead of the schedule because (aside from the fact that it's good) I have other books I want to read but can't move on to them because I feel like I'm cheating on Thackery.

For me it's kinda like watching 10 minutes of the Lord of the Rings movie, then going to watch 10 minutes of Kill Bill, and going back and forth.

I did give it a try, but every time I went to read another book Thackery kept calling my name telling me to come back, and it wasn't fair to the other author.

I will continue reading, and checking up on the discussions, but I'll refrain from those comments that will be spoilers.

Juliette, just keep notes of what you want to discuss in each section, and when we get there post your thought. No problem.

Juliette wrote: This is my first time reading a book in a schedule and I don't think I can do it. I couldn't help reading ahead of the schedule because (aside from the fact that it's good) I have other books I want to read but can't move on to them because I feel like I'm cheating on Thackery.
"

Be thankful, then, that you didn't live in the Victorian era. Many -- I would even say most -- novels then were initially published in serial magazine issues, so that you would have to wait either a week or a month between one installment and the next. Some novels stretched out for up to two years. You would have had not choice BUT to read them slowly!

The Count of Monte Cristo was published in short segments in a daily newspaper, stretching over 140 installments -- if it was published 7 days a week (I don't know about weekend publication) it would have taken 20 weeks, or nearly five months, to get to the end of it.

By reading these books slowly, interspersed with our life activities (including reading other books -- there were many serialized at overlapping times so you could be reading and Dickens, a Wilkie Collins, a George Eliot, a Gissing, all simultaneously) we are doing homage to the original intent of the authors!

Good point Everyman, and it does make me feel better about "cheating" on the authors. I just need some time and practice to get used to this way of reading, I've had over 30 years to develope my reading style and, well, you know the saying about old dogs and new tricks.

According to Wikipedia, Vanity Fair was published in 20 MONTHLY installments - about 45 pages each. So we're talking more than a year and a half to get through the whole thing.

Bob wrote: "According to Wikipedia, Vanity Fair was published in 20 MONTHLY installments - about 45 pages each. So we're talking more than a year and a half to get through the whole thing."

Keeping in mind that in the days before TV, radio, etc., visiting, dining out, and salons were habitual activities of the upper-middle and upper classes, and with everybody who is anybody reading these installments, they must have provided a very useful staple of dinner table and drawing room conversation. Plenty of time between installment to pore over and discuss all the ins and outs of the story and characters.

Everyman wrote: "Keeping in mind that in the days before TV, radio, etc., visiting, dining out, and salons were habitual activities of the upper-middle and upper classes, and with everybody who is anybody reading these installments, they must have provided a very useful staple of dinner table and drawing room conversation. Plenty of time between installment to pore over and discuss all the ins and outs of the story and characters..."

Sounds like the historial equivalent of a weekly TV sitcom.

Amanda wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Keeping in mind that in the days before TV, radio, etc., visiting, dining out, and salons were habitual activities of the upper-middle and upper classes, and with everybody who is ..."
Sounds wonderful. Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong time period, but then I think of how women were treated in the past and I change my mind.

Juliette wrote: "Sounds wonderful. Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong time period, but then I think of how women were treated in the past and I change my mind..."

The clothes were pretty cool if you got born into the right class and financial background, but I think the ability to choose your own husband and divorce a heel definately puts my preference in the here and now. If your husband didn't approve of you reading Vanity Fair, you didn't get to read Vanity Fair!

Juliette wrote: "Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong time period,"

I don't think so, I know so! I was born to be an English squire with a huge manor house and a library containing virtually every book known. But I was born a few centuries too late and an ocean too far westward. Sigh.

Everyman wrote: "Juliette wrote: "Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong time period,"

I don't think so, I know so! I was born to be an English squire with a huge manor house and a library containing virtually..."

Could you honestly give up all your modern literature? Besides,I'm sure being an English squire wasn't all it's cracked up to be. I can never understand why Americans romantisise historical Britain so much - I like it the way it is. Give me equal rights, child labour laws and anti-biotics anyday!

Amanda wrote: "EI can never understand why Americans romantisise historical Britain so much - I like it the way it is. Give me equal rights, child labour laws and anti-biotics anyday!
"

You don't think I would make a good Bingley, or maybe Knightley? I could easily give up modern literature, since I would of course have learned Greek and Latin at school and be able to read all those, plus Milton, Shakespeare, and many others in the original tongue. Milton had plenty to read, and I would be a century or so after him. And of course, I would have to have a manor house with plenty of servants headed by a top notch butler, cook, and housekeeper, quite a few thousand acres let to tenants and available for fox hunting and shooting, not to mention the home farm (and a few acres under glass) for all my fresh foods, eating more healthily than most people today, and on top of all that, of course, a goodish sum in the 3 percents. Yes, I could live that way!

It's alright for the privileged few in that position Everyman, but they were a minority and lived so at the expense of others - income disparity was huge! Seen as my family tree contains maids, docklands workers, ferrymen, etc. and I have no family fortune to my name, I'm quite glad for our more egalitarian modern society.

Amanda wrote: "It's alright for the privileged few in that position Everyman, but they were a minority and lived so at the expense of others ..."

But of course, that was God's will, and to complain about it or seek to change things was to go against God's will, and therefore was blasphemy.

Okay, okay, don't get mad at me. I don't make the news, I just report it. Get mad at them for believing that!

I shall Everyman! In fact, I think I'll start a rally! :P

You are right though, the allure of middle England in times past is very seductive in imagination if not necessarily in fact. I quite fancy being a lady of independent means in a sterilised medieval europe myself!

Amanda wrote: "I quite fancy being a lady of independent means in a sterilised medieval europe myself! "

Perhaps you would be my lady in this past life? My wife would not enjoy it there.

Why sir! What are you suggesting?

Amanda wrote: "Why sir! What are you suggesting?"

Why, I thought it was quite obvious.

Should I be blushing? This is a public forum you know :P

Amanda wrote: "Should I be blushing? "

Gracious no. All very civilized here.

Well, I suppose if you want to blush, you may. But I don't think it's necessary, I'm certainly not intending to!

I was resting my eyes last night and thinking about VF, and pondered what their life would have been like if Jos had actually proposed to and been accepted by Becky, and they had gotten married. Would she have prevented him from dragging her back out to India? Would she have been able to shape him up? Or would he have dragged her down to his level of indolence? Would she have been able to wheedle horses, carriages, gowns, jewels out of him, or would have have turned out to be tightfisted with his money and made her do with cheese parings? Would they have satisfied each other sexually, or would one or the other, or both, have sought outside lovers? If they had succeeded in having children, what sort of mother would Becky have been? (Not very good, in my opinion!)

Not that it happened, and I doubt that Thackeray will bring that "love" interest back into the story and pair them off (I think he has bigger fish to fry than that), but it just struck me as I was pondering to wonder what Thackeray would have done with these characters if he had decided to go ahead and marry them off to each other.

Never underestimate what birth can do to a woman's character. As she is Becky would not make a good mother, but having a child can really change some (not all) women. I've seen some truly selfish women completely transform into someone different and loving after giving birth while others who weren't so selfish become so because of the attention a child gets. If Becky were a real person, I would say that it could go either way, but since Thackeray is in charge, if Becky had become a mother with Jos at the beginning, I could see her using the child to manipulate others for her own gain (probably like her father did with her and his creditors).
Holy run on sentence Batman (apologies to those who are cringing).

As for Jos and Becky together at the beginning, I shudder, those two would have killed each other within the year.

Okay, I'm in the middle of this section. xD Slowly (but surely!!!) getting caught up!

Most of all I am enjoying Thackeray's tone of voice. He draws me in and explains to me the 'useless' scenes at Vauxhall, which I found so refreshing! It's so nice to have an author talk to me... hardly any of them apply that literary device today. (And what's it called, anyone know?)

Here's to catching up to this section today!

I just finished reading all your comments and picked out a few I felt I wanted to respond to:

Everyman wrote: "Be thankful, then, that you didn't live in the Victorian era. Many -- I would even say most -- novels then were initially published in serial magazine issues, so that you would have to wait either a week or a month between..."

This is actually something that I really love about only reading a certain amount of chapters in a time frame. It makes me feel like I'm actually transported back into the time period and receiving my 'novel' at the same rate they are. (Except, we do per week, but I do believe that Kristi cut it up in the same intervals that it was published in!)
The only problem I have is that I forget most of what happened in the book by the time I pick it up again, since I read so many other things in between!

Bob wrote: "A number of Thackeray's character's seem to have a dominant passion (or passions) that more or less defines them. For example, Joseph's is gluttony. Sir Pitt Crawley's is stinginess, which he carr..."

Great insight, Bob! I was thinking that they were all very easy to put into their respective places (square peg into square hole, round peg into round hole...) but it seems to me that Thackeray is using a like of clichéd characters. The only question I then have: were they a cliché before he used them too?

Juliette wrote: "Woops, I see that "Forever Amber" has a topic in this group, so many of you are familiar with it.
Am I overstepping any boundaries to ask if anyone else sees the similarity between Amber and Becky?"

I recently read Forever Amber and completely adored it! Amber was such an interesting main character, and so realistic with all her flaws that I couldn't help but cheer her on, even though she was selfish and cruel and greedy.

As to Becky vs Amber, I think I'm going to have to read more of Becky. I've seen the movie, but it has been a while, and I don't remember all the things that she gets up to. But in general, I think we can say that the two are very similar. Amber manages to 'achieve' a lot more (at least in the way of social climbing, definitely not in the way of personal happiness), but I forget how Becky is at the end of the novel.

Let's compare more later! :)



In general, on this section:

I started to get a bit bored with these chapters, but if Thackeray feels he needs to toss in 2 pages of genealogy, then I'm sure that there is a reason for it. At least it wasn't too long to pore over, and now that Becky is with the Crawleys, I'm sure things will start going crazy real soon!

♥Xeni♥ wrote: "it seems to me that Thackeray is using a like of clichéd characters. The only question I then have: were they a cliché before he used them too? "

That's a really neat question. You're right that he uses fairly cliched characters as they look to us. But were they cliched for the original audience, or were people so constrained by the class structure and very strict rules of protocol, manners, and proper behavior that they are fairly representative descriptions of life then but look cliched to our far more liberal and flexible modern society?

I think this is also one reason Becky stands out so much -- she is definitely NOT a cliche! (Though whether that's a good or bad thing we will have to discuss as the book proceeds!)

♥Xeni♥ wrote: "Iif Thackeray feels he needs to toss in 2 pages of genealogy, then I'm sure that there is a reason for it."

The reason may well show up, but also, family and genealogy were much more important in defining who you were and your place in society back then than they are now, so this information was probably greatly appreciated by his original audience as an aid to their understanding of the characters.

Everyman wrote: "That's a really neat question. You're right that he uses fairly cliched characters as they look to us. But were they cliched for the original audience, or were people so constrained by the class structure and very strict rules of protocol, manners, and proper behavior that they are fairly representative descriptions of life then but look cliched to our far more liberal and flexible modern society?

I think this is also one reason Becky stands out so much -- she is definitely NOT a cliche! (Though whether that's a good or bad thing we will have to discuss as the book proceeds!)..."

Oh I think Thackery was most definitely creating cliche characters. They're like grotesques in a Punch and Judy show and I really think that is how the reader is supposed to take them. Thackery was writing Vanity Fair in the time that the satirical cartoonists were increasing in popularity (and in truth never really went away!), poking fun at anyone and everyone within society and creating social stereotypes of everyone from the landed gentry and judges, to prostitutes and politicians (especially). I am sure Thackery was trying to be glib.

I think you're right in saying that Becky is the non-cliche character though. She feels fresh and real and no wonder that she was so popular with her readers (remember this was written in serial, so Thackery was receiving letters from Becky fans whilst he was still writing it!). I'm not sure if it is true, but I once heard that Thackery originally meant to make Amelia the main focus! What a different novel that would have been, and no wonder Becky stole center stage.

That is some interesting information Amanda! It definitely explains some things. I hadn't realized that satire stems mainly from this era, so reading the book with those eyes will change my perspective a bit.

Also, Everyman, it makes sense that geneology would be included then. I had forgotten to put two and two together... it's very different from our modern society that only cares about what career you have or who you might know (okay, well that latter part hasn't changed too much).

Denise wrote: "I agree with everyone realizing that Becky was not who she claimed to be including Amelia's parents.
I think she's in for a bit of a wake up call now that she is with Crawley.
I'm still trying ..."

I am still catching up and was wondering about Dobbin myself... I will keep on reading!
I like how the author keeps promising for better chapters ahead!!

Amanda wrote: "Everyman wrote: "That's a really neat question. You're right that he uses fairly cliched characters as they look to us. But were they cliched for the original audience, or were people so constraine..."

Becky, stole center stage the second she threw the dictionary out the window...