Rating: 
Summary: Choices
Review: I like books that offer a new perspective to my somewhat one-dimensional life, and that is why I enjoyed reading The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton. Growing up in the modern day, Generation Y society has allowed me to voice my opinion whenever I have desired, and I have always been able to think and do as I have liked. Because I have grown up this way and have been surrounded by peers who also have this same mind-set, I have mistakenly assumed that this is how life in America has always been. Reading The Age of Innocence, however, offered me a new perspective on life in past America and opened my eyes to my ignorance and naivete in regards to social history and the radical changes that have taken place in recent years. One finds this book enjoyable to read because Wharton makes it easy to relate to the protagonist. The Age of Innocence profiles and features a man named Newland Archer, a somewhat typical New Yorker who molds his life after a pattern that 1920s society deems acceptable. He follows the typical male role for his time, and subconsciously expects the society in which he lives to adhere to the same set of strict rules he is forced to rigidly follow- the unspoken social etiquette that one is required to live by in order to have any chance at upper class distinction and honor. Archer is everyone and everyone is Archer, and the reader can understand his need to conform and give up the exciting way of life symbolized in the mysterious and abnormal (at least for Archer's society) Countess Ellen Olenska. I appreciate Wharton's depiction of this society, and the time she spends detailing its every habit, thought, and action. I felt like I was not only reading a good story, but that I was also learning a bit of history also. The author's inclusion of love was key to keeping my curiousity peaked. I kept wondering who or what Archer would choose- stability and predictability in the form of his betrothed May Welland, or passion and ostracism in the form of her cousin. Like most who lived during this time, Archer chose to continue the cycle of appearances, rules, and social order and gave up the chance to lead a somewhat interesting life, thereby fating himself to live a completely ordinary existence. I was forced to continually think and analyze while reading this book, and I enjoyed the opportunity to do so. I had to piece together random events and characters and keep track of the many relationships in the novel. I constantly compared modern day society to Archer's community and surroundings wondering how things would be different today. I think that we live in a time where almost no one is innocent, and our society doesn't even try to pretend that innocence exists (as I think Wharton's did). We advocate following our emotions or "hearts," and we express individuality to an extreme. Today Countess Olenska's lifestyle would most likely faze no one, and she would actually be given the chance to integrate herself into society and be accepted by her peers, receiving the opportunity to have friends and find love once more. And yet, with all of the differences that exist between "the age of innocence" and the twenty-first century, there are still many similarities that make it possible for one to relate to and bond with the characters presented in the novel. Many people today are presented with varying options- some of which would allow them to lead "normal,"acceptable, but extremely boring lives and others which would require them to withstand criticism from family, friends, and society in general, but which might ultimately lead them to happiness. I wondered after reading this book if Archer was truly happy with his decision to marry May Welland or if he spent the rest of his life wondering what could have been. I debated whether or not Archer was weak or whether he thought that he was making the right decision by choosing to remain faithful to May. Was the Countess only a fleeting thought, a passing obsession? Or did she actually have an impact on Newland? While reading this book, I was forced to constantly question, examine, and explore the values to which society adheres. Reading The Age of Innocence requires an immediate and intense response, and one cannot get away with merely skimming the surface story. Instead, one must delve into the symbolism and hidden themes and meanings that are strung along and woven into the novel's central message. I love the depth that Wharton presents with her written words and implied messages. I am pleased with the complexity of her characters, and how she shows their thoughts, actions, and attitudes- some of which stay the same and some that change- but all of which contribute to the story as a whole. If interested in a thought-provoking and interesting fictional, yet historically accurate respresentation of the lives of early twentieth century Americans, I would definitely recommend The Age of Innocence. It captures one's minds and entangles one's emotions in the plot as it describes passions and obligations and choices that everyone experiences at some point in their lives. Edith Wharton is successful in capturing her audience's attention, and it is almost impossible for one to put down this book once they start reading it.
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad
Review: Well, despite my sister telling me: "Josh, you'll hate that book..." and my book cover swarming with flowers and birds, my feelings are neutral-not negative-towards The Age of Innocence. I'll give it 3 stars instead of the 1 I promised myself I would. I've glanced at some of the other reviews here, and patience is just what you need when reading this book. Also, keep track of people's names and their relation to each other. That had me confused for a while. Wharton does an excellent job of introducing the reader to high-class New York society in the late 19th century. By going into great detail about the city's extravagant homes, people's attire, and seemingly foreign practices of the day, it is possible to get the impression of how high class society lived at the time. She did an excellent job in creating imagery for me as I read through the book. Though I will never watch it, I can see the settings for the movie. As for characters, I enjoyed Archer and Madame Olenska the best, as I'm sure everybody did. What made Archer interesting was his craving for independence. He actually uses his brain (unlike the other characters) and contemplates his society and his life within it, and recognizes that the traditions of his society are restrictive and boring. However, he can't find anybody to help him cultivate this need for independence--until Madame Olenska comes along. Returning from Europe, Olenska is independent and brings foreign ways of thinking to New York. She is different: Exactly the type of life that Archer wishes to live as compared to his fellow New Yorkers. Olenska's presence stimulates Archer's attraction for her and his growing contempt for New York society. However, Archer is engaged to and eventually marries Olenska's cousin, May. It is this forbidden love for Olenska that drives the plot and builds the tension through the book. My apologies, I really didn't find that aspect of the book that interesting. Sure, I was curious as to what would happen between those two, but it didn't have me gripping the edge of my seat. I never got into the Jane Austen phenomena, all of the courtships and forbidden love affairs never appealed to me...maybe it's because I'm male. I guess what I considered most important about this book was its relation to me. High-class New York society in the late 19th century is related to a stressed out college student in Utah? Yup. I sometimes wonder if I'm cast from a mold like most of the characters in the Age of Innocence were. I am thinking specifically of May. She grew up expecting to be married to a rich man, never thinking on her own. When she and Archer marry, Archer realizes how shallow she is, how she begins to develop the characteristics of her mother. After finishing this book, I was able to think about my place in society and how much I conform to tradition and convention. I liked this book because it made me consider things pertaining to my real life.
Rating:
Summary: Formalities and Relationships
Review: As I read this book, I realized that it is very similar to many of the other Victorian novels that I have read. It exaggerates many of the same themes, particularly when it comes to the societal rules around which the characters evolve. They always have the mothers, gossiping and conniving to set their daughters up with the best catch in town, seldom regarding any feelings for love. The men, always watching to make sure that they are keeping up with their professional life and pleasing the women, seem to have more intellectual depth. The daughters almost always follow their mothers and do as society expects of them. I've always been taken aback by the formality of these books as well. Age of Innocence is no exception. There are innumerable social taboos and intricacies of form that are vital to a reputation in society. The men and women are all expected to understand the proper manners for calling on others and holding parties. One must know who is acceptable to associate with, and who is not. Wharton covered these formalities well. All of the families in the novel are defined in their own classes, engagements are expected to be held of behalf of certain people, and proper rules are to be obeyed in the company of others. But Age of Innocence stepped onto a different level from other Victorian novels. Wharton used her characters to make an outright mockery of many of the social expectations. By showing Newland's distaste for form and disregard for many of the formalities, the author openly shows the banal characteristics of the other characters. She also uses Countess Olenski's inadequate knowledge of American society to define the formalities as absurd. When the Countess arrives and breaks the social norms of New York, the others marvel at the gall of being disreputable. By emphasizing these difference, Wharton shows the hypocrisy and almost ignorance of the members of the New York society. For my taste, Wharton's mockery of formality was done more effectively than most Victorian novels. I had a difficult time in understanding the relationships Newland had with the two central female characters, May and Ellen. In the beginning, Newland truly seemed to love May. With the mystery and enchantment of a new face, I wondered if Newland really even had basis for his adoration of Ellen. He sees very little of her and speaks to her very infrequently before he decides that he is in love with her. I was left a little suspect. I saw his care for her as something new and exciting that seemed enticing, but lacked real substance. Newland's relationship with May is based on a more solid understanding of character and personality. He has spent the time to get to know her and understands that he truly cares for her and can be happy with her. Had Newland begun a serious relationship with Ellen, he may have encountered many difficulties and misunderstandings. On the other hand, setting aside the assumption that Newland knew little of Ellen, he seemed to be passionately in love with her. The love he feels for May throughout the novel seems to be more out of convenience. Newland may have been able to happily overcome the form of society that he seemed to so detest and he may have also been happy alone with Ellen. But as the book goes, he chooses to settle for the marriage of convenience. I initially had wanted him to seek his passionate interest and leave May. But as he married May, I changed my mind. The scene that depicts the wedding made me feel immediately sorry for May. To her, it was likely the happiest day of her life, yet her husband was entirely absorbed in something else. I once heard a quote that nothing is worse than a marriage without love, except a marriage in which the love is one-sided. May devoted her entire self to Newland, and throughout the entire marriage he was unable to look at what he had. He spent all the time dreaming of Countess Olenski, wishing he could find a way to be with her, and wanting to know what she was doing or feeling. How unfair to May. Undoubtedly, May had an idea of Newland's absence of affection and must have been sorely hurt, as hinted at multiple times throughout the book. The end of the book threw me off entirely. I didn't know whether to be glad, or mad. I still don't know. On the one hand, Newland was so close. He had hoped for and wished for this moment for 26 years, and now that he didn't have May or distance to stop him, he stopped himself. I'm not quite sure why. Was he too proud to face his mistake? Was he afraid that he'd be disappointed or let down after all that time? I didn't understand. So when he walked home alone from the apartment, I sat in awe of what was going on. On the other hand, I saw it as a good thing as well. It almost seemed like finally, after May had died, that he realized that he had chosen a different life. He had a family to care for and his own place in society as a result of his life with May. Did he finally realize that he had settled for a different life when he chose May? If so, it seemed like he had finally come to terms with his life as a whole, giving the book a complete finish. But I'm not sure that that is why he left. It was an interesting way to end the book and I was very intrigued by it. Overall, I found the book rather captivating as it focused on the two relationships. At times, I was bothered by the formalities, but I think that was one of the key points in the book. Overall, I was impressed with Wharton's writing style and found the book impressive.
Rating: 
Summary: The Age of Innocence?
Review: Books can portray a vast array of emotions, and the author is always trying to make the reader feel a certain way. Edith Wharton definitely accomplishes this task in her novel, but she takes her sweet time doing this. The book starts out very dull and leaves the reader clueless as to were he is. Wharton changes names and dialect too fast to keep up with, and you definitely need to read the material more than once to keep the stpry straight. The story is set in the late nineteenth century in New York City. This time was a great time in history: it was the Victorian Age. The world was at rest and economies were booming. I think that Wharton did choose an excellent setting for her message. The message she tries to convey is one of one's own interests versus societies interests. We see Newland Arthur struggle with this decision, and by watching him discern which decision is right, we also start to think of which would be right. Newland can choose between the respect of his contemporaries and the society he lives in, or he can go with what his heart truly desires. I think that the message in this book is definitely one that needs to be addressed, but I also feel that maybe someone else could have displayed the same message in a manner more interesting and captivating to the reader. So would I recommend this book to other readers? of course. If you like the more thought provoking, developing stories, then I feel that Wharton may be just what you need. But if you're like myself and appreciate the types of books with guns, blood and gore or at least an intereesting subject then i suggest you steer clear of Wharton's "Age of Innocence".
Rating:
Summary: A Sign of the Times
Review: Although the story line was not my favorite out of Wharton's books, I did like The Age of Innocence for what it seemed to be, a social commentary of the time. Age of Innocence is a mirror of the society where Edith Wharton lived. The book was written concerning the high society around the turn of the century. May Welland, the van der Luydens, and Countess Olenska represent the stereotypical characters that made up that society, although with a little closer examination they embody not only the stereotype, but much more. Wharton is able to make the characters come to life. I must admit that I'd seen the movie before I read the book, and I was not looking forward to the read. However, once I got involved with the characters, they seemed to come to life even more than the actors on the big screen. Especially the characters of Newland Archer and Countess Elaine Olenska stand out. In one way they are complete opposites, Archer is a man completely accepted by the upper class community, while Countess Olenska is avoided at all costs until Archer intervenes. Yet, both find themselves in the same community with the same types of restrictions. Archer reminded me a lot of myself in certain ways. He questioned a lot, but he could not always force himself to do what he desired. I think that's one reason that he appealed to me so much. What made it more difficult for me to read was the involvement between the countess and Archer. Although nothing really happened as far as an all out affair between them, knowing that Newland was engaged was painful. It was difficult to know what side to cheer for because if he stayed with May, he may not ever be truly happy, but with anyone there is always that possibility. Over all I liked the book, but if I had a choice between The House of Mirth (also by Wharton) and The Age of Innocence, I would read The House of Mirth. All of the same type of social commentary is present, with out the suggestion of adultery. I think that Wharton really is an effective author and that she knows just how to make characters come alive while showing how their surroundings affect them.
Rating:
Summary: Old themes die hard
Review: This was a book that I thought was going to be a boring story that I would dread to read, and never want to recommend to anyone. However, this book was quite the contrary to my assumptions. Instead of being boring, the story kept a good pace, and instead of the characters all being uninteresting, they all showed individual qualities which I enjoyed. The story of the book isn't that far from some of our modern day themes in the media, but it is instead set at a much earlier time. The beginning is a good setup for how the rest of the book plays out. It gives you a feel for how the characters act, and how they think about each other. This is a main idea that is really effective, is showing people's attitudes throughout the book, and letting us see how they can change through events, and other people's influences. The setup for the book is well done by Wharton through her use of dialogue and descriptions of characters in the opening scene. I often find it hard to get into a book, because it often times starts out too slowly. This is not the case with The Age of Innocence, because characters and plots begin to take shape within the first few chapters of the book. By giving a good introduction to the book, Wharton is able to successfully tell the remainder of the story. The main character in the book, Newland Archer, is portrayed very well by the author, and lets you get a very good feel for his personality and emotions. His aristocratic attitudes come through very strong in the beginning of the book, and help you understand the rest of the characters. Her descriptions of him are relevant to many of the attributes of characters in today's television shows. He is young, engaged, and in many ways very snobbish in his thoughts towards others. The story unfolds nicely through Wharton's methods of advancing the plot through a series of events that keep your pages turning. Some of the raciest topics today involve a woman in a horrible marriage, and a passionate love affair. The Age of Innocence does a good job of combining the two into a good blend of appropriate 19th century social interactions and a tale of deception and lies. The comment on aristocratic society is done well by Wharton and really shows during certain conversations, and how they speak about their peers. What seems to matter most is not what you are, but rather who you are, and how you acted and were supposed to act in your given class. By showing how Countess Ellen Olenska acted in her new society, Wharton illustrates how the culture can be shocked and taken totally by surprise if someone doesn't act in the exact mold of the society. I enjoyed reading along and seeing Newland Archer have his eyes opened by the new women in his life. By doing this in a slow and subtle way, you almost feel like you are also seeing things in a new way, rather than how you started the book. The events in the book tended to be not hard to follow, which made me very happy. In some other books like Age of Innocence, such as some of Jane Austin's material, I have become somewhat lost, and that makes it hard to get into a book. However, Wharton does a good job of keeping you with the story, and not confusing the reader. This is a good tool, because it helps focus on what is going on in the book, rather than focusing too much on what she is trying to express in her writing. One thing about the book I didn't like in some ways, but liked in others, is what path archer decided to take on which girl to choose. I don't want to give it away, but I wanted him to take the other girl, and it was frustrating to me that he didn't do what his heart told him to do. However, what I did like about that, is the fact that it teaches us a good lesson, because of how things went after he made his final decision. We are taught what the right thing is by how Newland Archer chose what to do. What I liked about this book in particular was how things turned out in the end, and how Wharton hinted towards it throughout the entire novel. What you think would be a happy ending is not what comes about in the conclusion. I was pleasantly surprised by the events in the last scene, but as I thought back over previous occurrences in the story, it didn't seem all that far fetched. It was not what I expected, yet it was what I loved most about the book. So overall, I liked the book for many reasons. The style of writing which Wharton used was sophisticated, yet understandable, and fitting for the subject matter. The portrayal of each characters personality was achieved through her use of dialogue, and in the case of our main character, Newland Archer, through thoughts. Conversation and gossiping was a good tool in describing the state of social rankings. The conclusion of the book proved to be a very surprising yet pleasing scene. This is what can make or break a book, and this book was definitely boosted by the conclusion. So all in all it wasn't just another boring old book.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly intriguing
Review: When I began reading Age of Innocence, I had already convinced myself that I wouldn't like it. I've read several books written in the same time period, and I have developed an immense dislike for them. Much to my astonishment, Edith Wharton caught me off guard. By the time I had read the first chapter, I was hooked. My favorite facet of the novel was Wharton's brilliant depiction of New York society. Instead of simply telling the reader that the society was extremely biased and hypocritical, Wharton paints a picture of the society through the characters she creates. From the local commentary of Lawrence Lefferts and Sillerton Jackson to the escapades of Mr. Beaufort, the structure and ideas of the society are made crystal clear to the reader. It is against this picture of the society, painted by the minor characters, that Wharton introduces the main characters in the novel. The Countess Olenska serves as a brilliant contrast to those characters who are compelled by duty to continue following the social conventions of the day. She actually enjoys her life, and it is not until late in the book that she realizes that she does not fit into the social picture, and that her presence is an embarrassment to her family. Newland Archer is also contrasted to the society at large. He recognizes its limitations and biases, and dreams of escaping. As the observant man that he is, he also realizes that he would do much harm by failure to conform, and so he abandons his dream of escaping and accepts the life that society expects him to live. In the course of vigorous arguments about this novel, I have found that I am outnumbered in my interpretation of this novel. Despite this fact, I will offer my opinion in the hopes that future readers of the book will not feel pressured to accept the popular analysis of the book. Contrary to popular belief, I do not feel that Newland ruined his life by controlling his passion for the Countess Olenska. I believe that his relationship with her was not one of love, but one of lust. Following his hormones instead of his common sense could have led him to serious problems. In the end, Newland leads a full life, and is content with his decisions. His vision of what might have been still haunts him at times, but I did not get the sense that he regretted the course of action he took. All in all, I enjoyed this book and highly recommend it. While there was not much external action in the book, the internal struggle that Newland goes through more than compensates for this deficiency. This novel made me think a lot about what my values are and what is important to me in my life, and I feel that it will provide any reader with ample food for thought.
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece???
Review: I give the Age of Innocence three stars. Although the book has plenty of good literary elements, it falls short of a "masterpiece designation." I was immediately turned off by the superficial background. The book was centered in uppity New York, setting from the very beginning the idea of social class and expectation. I do not enjoy dealing with such issues in real life, and I especially do not enjoy reading about such matters in a book. I find reading such things a waste of my unfulfilling because they are so superficial. Frankly I was disgusted with the whole scenario. I value individualism, honesty, genuinity, compassion and love. These essential values were sacrificed by the characters for personal advancement, lust, greed, pride, duty and fear. I understand that Edith Wharton used the actions of the characters to make a point, even to condemn some of the characteristics of her characters, but still I did not enjoy the book. I would rather read the story of the good a person did by their high standard of values than read a book about the misery of a person who had a less honorable set of values (especially when that person doesn't even really learn from their mistakes). I din't approve of the characters and I didn't approve of their actions and so I din't approve of the book. Perhaps if there would have been a foil, at least one decent person to offer relief from the cruel, selfish superficiality of the rest of the characters, I would have enjoyed the book more. I would, however, like to acknowledge some of the praiseworthy aspects of Age of Innocence. First of all Edith Wharton does an exceptional job of creating vivid scenary. I had no problem envisioning just how elaborate all the New York operas, balls, etc. were. The characters were all well developed done with a nice touch of showing not telling. She included good detail and imagery that helped draw me into the story. Wharton also created a good plot. As disgusted as I was reading about Archer's love triangle with Countess Olenska and Ellen, I was interested in finding out how it would be resolved. And enhancing the plot were coinciding conflicts not directly related to the cenral conflict. The book therefor was decent. I had more problem with the content of the book than the structure or writing style of the book. Edith Wharton did prove herself as a talented writer in The Age of Innocence, but I feel she could have done a better job in the theme of the book.
Rating:
Summary: The good in The Age of Innocence
Review: I thought that the book The Age of Innocence was written very well. Edith Wharton did a nice job of showing and not just telling. She gives great descriptions of the way everything looks and the way the characters felt. She paints an image of both May and Countess Olenska by not only giving a description of their looks, but also by telling a little of their background. She lets us see what the characters look like in the eyes of both Newland Archer, and Nineteenth Century New York society. This helps us to put our place in their shoes instead of just looking back on the book. This use of description and painting an image is one reason that I liked the book. I enjoyed the book for other reasons as well. One of these is the way that it made me, as a reader, think of how I would have acted in Newland Archer's shoes. Would I have left May for Ellen? It made me realize that although true love is the main focus of many books and movies in our era, that it is not always what it seems. Was Newland really in love with Ellen or just infatuated by her sense of ignorance and love of freedom. It seems almost like both he and Ellen were more in love with the characteristics that the other possessed rather than being in love with each other. I like the way that Edith Wharton Developed this and let us see that sometimes we have to remember that emotion and passion aren't the most important facets of life. There are more important things. There is also more than one way to be in love. The Age of innocence showed me this. I also enjoyed the fact that this book was written from Archer Newland's viewpoint. Had it been written from May's viewpoint it would have bored me and other readers. It would be interesting to see how this book would be written from Ellen's viewpoint. She had such an adventurous life that it would have made an interesting novel. There were a couple reasons why I didn't like this book. One was that I got very frustrated with the way that Newland was going behind May's back. He tried to justify it every time by saying that May wanted him to check up on her, or she was after all his family. He may not have been immoral, but his thoughts were. He should've let May know what was happening. She knew, but they didn't ever talk about it. You cannot have a good relationship without any communication. It seemed like all that any of the characters ever communicated in the book was gossip. The book would've been better to me if there were more meaningful and truthful conversations. The most outright conversations between any of the characters were between Archer and Ellen. Even these conversations just skimmed on the edge of what each character was thinking. This started to get frustrating to me as I read the book. It was bad in that way, but it was good in that it made me think of what I would've said in their places. The ending was almost controversial to me. I don't know for sure if I liked it or not. As a person living in today's society, it was not what I expected. It did, however fit very well with the book. I enjoyed it and thought that it was a great way to end the book. All in all I liked this book and I would consider reading it again. It was entertaining and also thought provoking. Edith Wharton did a very good job on this book. It is definitely a good on to read.
Rating:
Summary: Learning things from an average book
Review: I was rather surprised, actually, to find that I only drifted off to sleep twice in the course of reading Wharton's Age of Innocence. The minute I read the back cover of the edition I'd picked up (for reference sake, that's the Bantam '96 edition) at my university bookstore, I groaned. Over three hundred pages of this trash?! I groaned again. I'm only eighteen years old. I can't relate to this book, I thought to myself. I don't know and I don't care about the New York upper class of 1870. My romantic career is still in infancy, limited to grand delusions of crimson roses, candlelit dinners, and walks on an exotic beach shore under the pale luminescence of the twilight moon. And they are delusions, trashy substitutes for real dreams because they are mere reflections of society's glamorized standards for romance and love. These criteria are superficial and selfish because they place environment of setting and concern for materialism over feeling, consistent with the attitude Wharton portrays of 1870 New York. It was this contrast between Archer's society and his perplexed individual, between this engulfing pseudo-reality and his search for meaning, that prevented me from nodding off a third time. Society is the composite of contemporary human influence, theory, and trend on a given individual. Naturally, with the evolution of time and the effects it has and continues to bring, my society is somewhat different than Newland Archer's. However, there is a common tie: both he and I feel the closest and most frequent agents of society strongest. For me, this is the college people with whom I associate. For Newland, this was the erudite crust of New York. And crust is an accurate description-these people, the Beauforts, Lefferts, Jacksons, Wellands, and the rest of that unmotley crew, lived on the surface. From their dressing standards to their social activities, these outward displays were the only definitive aspects of their characters. They hid behind golden masks. They couldn't risk taking them off-they might not have been able to recognize their real and poorly defined faces in the mirror. They lived in their own world, devoid of idealism, yet denying reality, striving for...well, nothing. "But none of these young men had much hope of really advancing in his profession, or any earnest desire to do so; and over many of them the green mold of the perfunctory was already perceptibly spreading" (112). Newland's frustration grows page by page. May seemed to be symbolic of his society as a whole, and later in the novel, Wharton reveals that "he [Newland] had long given up trying to disengage her real self from the shape into which tradition and training had moulded her"(290). On rare occasions May began to slip the mask off her face. Once, after Newland made a mundane comment about dress and the dining location of the evening, May stood and "moved forward impulsively, as though to detain him: their eyes met, and he saw that hers were of the same swimming blue as when he had left her to drive to Jersey City. She flung her arms about his neck and pressed her check to his. 'You haven't kissed me today,' she said in a whisper; and he felt her tremble in his arms" (280). The pity is that these are rare. May's devotion to the shallow creed of her culture is firm. When Newland tells her how they could watch Easter ceremonies in Seville and even be married during Lent, May replies: "Oh, do go on Newland; I do love your descriptions." I can imagine the irritated Newland responding "But why should they be only descriptions? Why shouldn't we make them real?"(130). Any dreaming is certainly better than none at all. The clincher was the thought running through Archer's mind during his wedding ceremonies that "real people were living somewhere, and real things happening to them..." (162). Perhaps this is what is so attractive about Countess Olenska-she was the embodiment of his two desires. He dreams of being with her, doing real things with her, real things that will achieve the ideal as they face the Gorgons (255) together and live to dream after. I am grateful to be at a religious institution where the search for truth and the quest for the ideal are more prevalent than they might be somewhere else. However, I am not naïve enough to claim the other side of human nature, the side devoted to materialism and vain symbolism, doesn't exist, because I see it even here. I see it in myself, in my occasional desires to take easy roads and to quit the effort it takes to be myself-to be real. The denouement of the novel was melancholy, and sobering. "There are moments when a man's imagination, so easily subdued to what it lives in, suddenly rises above its daily level, and surveys the long windings of destiny. Archer hung there and wondered..." (311). Wondered what he could have been. Wondered what he had become. Wondered what life meant. I got the impression from the last chapter that his life was comfortable, but hollow. "Something he knew he had missed: the flower of life" (307). He had little passion for anything. Though respected in the community, Archer Newland didn't hold that same degree of respect for himself. He instead had become the "mere grey speck of a man compared with the ruthless magnificent fellow he had dreamed of being..." (314). I am only eighteen years old. I know little about the world and the Gorgons that reside on this sphere. But this much I know: if a man gives up his ability to dream at the knell of society, he gives up on the chance that his dreams might someday come true. If there was anything I gained from this book, it was the reinforcement of this idea. So often it seems as if people obsequiously yield to society's belief that there is only one spectrum in which to view things. And though they may claim otherwise, it is an array of gray. I want to see things in sky blues, in emerald greens and in vibrant reds. For these are the colors of dreams.
|
