Goodreads | Loren's review

Loren's review

Tender Is the Night (Penguin Modern Classics)
by F. Scott Fitzgerald

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4670.Tender_Is_the_Night?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="Tender Is the Night (Penguin Modern Classics)" border="0" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/photo.goodreads.com/books/1165448014m/4670.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4670.Tender_Is_the_Night?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">Tender Is the Night</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3190.F_Scott_Fitzgerald">F. Scott Fitzgerald</a> 
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/20077096?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
 rating: 3 of 5 stars This book is revered by critics and deservedly so. It was not the most delicious - nor the most rewarding - read, but it did have its moments and of course morals to impart. 
 
 My real problem with the book is not the cringemaking faux-pas committed by Dick towards the end, it is not how a mid-life crisis destroyed a man's marriage and social standing, rather I disliked the style in which it was written. Yes, I understand it was the 1930s and writing was different then, But it just felt wrong. I've read archaic pieces of writing before and always been able to appreciate the imagery created and the work as a whole but the writing in this just seemed underdeveloped. 
 
 It was the descriptive passages. Taking up 95% of the book were these huge chunks of description (which I am not as a rule opposed to) which did not fail to describe adequately, rather they lacked a consistent time-flow: The tiniest detail will be examined and then a huge personality change is dropped on the reader without the slightest fore-warning.
 Upon re-reading this novel I noted that this is mainly within Rosemary's passages and I concede that this may be because of the way the character is portrayed; She is fickle, she decides she is in love with Dick almost on a whim. Regardless, I stand by my statement that the writing jumps around - like the timeline. I have heard that Book II is placed first in earlier editions, perhaps this would have made more sense as the descriptions are as paced as the main character's thought processess: Calm, precise, moving smoothly and developing with ease. This would have been an easier introduction for the reader to grasp, a more telling feel of what was to come and is simply more fitting as Dick turns out to be the main character; why not start where it all began?
 <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/245084?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

Loren's review
rating:
recommended for: Libraries

** spoiler alert ** This book is revered by critics and deservedly so. It was not the most delicious - nor the most rewarding - read, but it did have its moments and of course morals to impart.

My real problem with the book is not the cringemaking faux-pas committed by Dick towards the end, it is not how a mid-life crisis destroyed a man's marriage and social standing, rather I disliked the style in which it was written. Yes, I understand it was the 1930s and writing was different then, But it just felt wrong. I've read archaic pieces of writing before and always been able to appreciate the imagery created and the work as a whole but the writing in this just seemed underdeveloped.

It was the descriptive passages. Taking up 95% of the book were these huge chunks of description (which I am not as a rule opposed to) which did not fail to describe adequately, rather they lacked a consistent time-flow: The tiniest detail will be examined and then a huge personality change is dropped on the reader witho...more

Like this review? yes flag

comments (showing 0-0 of 0)

newest »

date

all Loren's books »