![]() ![]() They are, on first encounter, similar to Dickens’ people, who were inspired by popular stage melodramas: strongly drawn, not particularly well shaded.īut as Vanity Fair progresses, many of the characters start slipping sideways out of their defined roles. Thackeray’s approach to his characters is also complicated. But there are times when his voice is humorous, generous, almost warm – tolerant even forgiving of human weakness. He is often satiric, scolding, caustic, angry, even cruel. On the moralizing, I find that the range of emotional colors Thackeray brings to his comments enriches the novel rather than making it poorer. ![]() On the flabby and rambling plot charge, I think Thackeray is clearly guilty. And its cast of characters lack vivid life (except perhaps for the famous Becky Sharp) and are flattened by the novel’s satirical tone. Thackeray’s constant moralizing exhausts the patience of the reader long before the book comes to an end. Such as … Vanity Fair’s plot is flabby and rambling. He’s a “middle of the pack” novelist, better than Trollope, not as good as Dickens, whose best work still has significant problems. William Makepeace Thackeray’s Vanity Fair is (I think) one of the best works of literature in the English language.īut I am serious. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |