What do you think?
Rate this book
Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?: More Puzzles in Classic Fiction
The exciting sequel to the enormously successful Is Heathcliff A Murderer?, John Sutherland's latest collection of literary puzzles, Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?, turns up unexpected and brain-teasing aspects of the range of canonical British and American fiction represented in the World's Classics list. With bold imaginative speculation he investigates thirty-four literary conundrums, ranging from Daniel Defoe to Virginia Woolf. Covering issues well beyond the strict confines of Victorian fiction, Sutherland explores the questions readers often ask but critics rarely discuss: Why does Robinson Crusoe find only one footprint? How does Magwitch swim to shore with a great iron on his leg? Where does Fanny Hill keep her contraceptives? Whose side is Hawkeye on? And how does Clarissa Dalloway get home so quickly? As in its universally well received predecessor, the questions and answers in Can Jane Eyre Be Happy? are ingenious and convincing, and return the reader with new respect to the great novels they celebrate.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
5 people are currently reading
419 people want to read
About the author
John Sutherland
240 books195 followersJohn Andrew Sutherland is an English academic, newspaper columnist and author. He is Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
July 28, 2023
Can Jane Eyre be Happy? More puzzles in Classic Fiction is a follow-up to John Sutherland's excellent first book of this type, "Is Heathcliff a Murderer? Puzzles in Nineteenth-century Fiction". It is another book of literary conundrums, ideal for enthusiasts of the Classics to get their teeth into. The author is a British academic, a distinguished Professor of English literature, and an author. The conundrums here all have their source in classic English novels, plus a couple of American ones, hence it is far more stimulating and satisfying topic for a reader who is conversant with the novels themselves. However, he writes so entertainingly that each piece could act as a trigger to read an unknown work.
The premise here is that a novel should be authentic and believable; both internally consistent and also true to the times. Thirty-two novels are chosen and for all except four, there are separate essays. Two are paired in a joint piece, twice. John Sutherland carefully analyses the text, highlighting apparent inconsistencies, anachronisms and oversights. He explains historical references, which a modern reader may not know, and also points out the context within the author's body of work. Sometimes it becomes clear though, that the author probably just forgot a minor detail.
So are these all mistakes on the part of the author? Are we just trying to catch the great authors out? Well, it seems to vary. Here is one example:
"What Does Mr Pickwick Retire From?"
It is possible that you have read the whole of "The Pickwick Papers", perhaps even more than once, assuming that you know the answer to this. In fact though, not only does Dickens never tell us anything about Mr Pickwick's profession, but he tells us very little about the character's history at all. Mr Pickwick simply starts to conduct his "club", as a sort of hobby in late middle age, already being retired from the hurlyburly of an unspecified profession.
Mr Pickwick is clearly educated and quite wealthy. We learn through events in the text that he has no knowledge of firearms, plus he is lost when confronted by lawyers, so he cannot have either been in the Army, or have had anything to do with the Law. We do not know if he inherited his money, although it is unlikely since he is "retired". Neither do we know how far his education was pursued; he never mentions any university friends or societies, nor any political affiliations. In fact he seems to have no friends outside the "club" at all. We do not know where he comes from. He has no regional accent, but does not seem to know much of London except the small area where he lives. The only things we do know, are the fact that he likes tomato sauce with his chops, that he lives in rented rooms on the third floor, and even people who have never read the book may well instantly recognise his genial, rotund, bespectacled appearance:
A little bit of background knowledge helps. "The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club" was written long before Dickens ever planned his novels. It was also published in serial form, with "no going back". He did not even invent the appearance of his hero, having been commissioned to write short pieces to accompany Seymour's plates, and make them into a sort of "picture novel" as was then the fashion. Of course he developed it into far more and it kicked off his amazing career. (For more about this see my review link here). In this case, the scenario was set up before Dickens ever came on the scene
It is therefore not surprising that the details are sketchy (if you will pardon the pun). The only clue we have to Mr Pickwick's erstwhile profession, is when he gives his final speech,
"Nearly all of my previous life having been devoted to business and the pursuit of wealth..."
And that's all we get! John Sutherland points out another twist which had never occurred to me. In "The Pickwick Papers" is a boastful character called Mr Jingle. He has a habit of making ridiculous claims, seeming to have done everything, everywhere. He simply has too many pasts. Sutherland suggests that Mr Pickwick's past might have been deliberately kept mysterious, as an antithesis to Mr Jingle's,
"this opposition between Pickwick (man with no past) and Jingle (man with a hundred pasts) is a joke that Dickens chose to keep running to the end of his novel."
This is just one instance. You might prefer to read one of the double ones, "Why is Fagin hanged and why isn't Pip prosecuted?", or "How Good a Swimmer is Magwitch?". Or a single one by a different author, "Who Gets What in Heathcliff's Will?", (Wuthering Heights) "How Good an Oarswoman is Maggie Tulliver", (The Mill on the Floss) "Is Black Beauty gelded?", "Who will Angel Marry Next?", (Tess of the D'Urbervilles) "What cure for the Madwoman in the Attic", (The Yellow Wallpaper), or even, cheekily, "Where does Fanny Hill Keep her Contraceptives?"
In each of the thirty-two chapters, or essays, John Sutherland quotes extracts of other authors' novels, explaining how they can sometimes be seen as evidence that something else is going on below the surface of the book; something which is not explicitly described. It's a fascinating read for those who have a certain type of mind. For others, it might prove frustrating, seem to miss the point, or be merely irrelevant. If like me you enjoy these "brainteasers", you will be pleased to hear that the author went on to write a further third one in the series. They are nice to dip into just after you have read a particular novel, although some puzzle fanatics with good memories might enjoy reading the book straight through.
Here is an alphabetical list of authors, each of whom have an essay devoted to one or more of their novels in this particular volume:
Jane Austen (2)
R.M. Ballantyne (included with Dickens)
Charlotte Bronte (2)
Emily Bronte
John Cleland
Wilkie Collins
Arthur Conan Doyle
James Fennimore Cooper
Daniel Defoe
Charles Dickens (4 - plus 2 "doubles")
George Eliot (3)
Henry Fielding
Ford Maddox Ford
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Thomas Hardy (3)
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Jack London
Anna Sewell
Laurence Sterne
W.M. Thackeray
Anthony Trollope (2)
Virginia Woolf
The premise here is that a novel should be authentic and believable; both internally consistent and also true to the times. Thirty-two novels are chosen and for all except four, there are separate essays. Two are paired in a joint piece, twice. John Sutherland carefully analyses the text, highlighting apparent inconsistencies, anachronisms and oversights. He explains historical references, which a modern reader may not know, and also points out the context within the author's body of work. Sometimes it becomes clear though, that the author probably just forgot a minor detail.
So are these all mistakes on the part of the author? Are we just trying to catch the great authors out? Well, it seems to vary. Here is one example:
"What Does Mr Pickwick Retire From?"
It is possible that you have read the whole of "The Pickwick Papers", perhaps even more than once, assuming that you know the answer to this. In fact though, not only does Dickens never tell us anything about Mr Pickwick's profession, but he tells us very little about the character's history at all. Mr Pickwick simply starts to conduct his "club", as a sort of hobby in late middle age, already being retired from the hurlyburly of an unspecified profession.
Mr Pickwick is clearly educated and quite wealthy. We learn through events in the text that he has no knowledge of firearms, plus he is lost when confronted by lawyers, so he cannot have either been in the Army, or have had anything to do with the Law. We do not know if he inherited his money, although it is unlikely since he is "retired". Neither do we know how far his education was pursued; he never mentions any university friends or societies, nor any political affiliations. In fact he seems to have no friends outside the "club" at all. We do not know where he comes from. He has no regional accent, but does not seem to know much of London except the small area where he lives. The only things we do know, are the fact that he likes tomato sauce with his chops, that he lives in rented rooms on the third floor, and even people who have never read the book may well instantly recognise his genial, rotund, bespectacled appearance:
A little bit of background knowledge helps. "The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club" was written long before Dickens ever planned his novels. It was also published in serial form, with "no going back". He did not even invent the appearance of his hero, having been commissioned to write short pieces to accompany Seymour's plates, and make them into a sort of "picture novel" as was then the fashion. Of course he developed it into far more and it kicked off his amazing career. (For more about this see my review link here). In this case, the scenario was set up before Dickens ever came on the scene
It is therefore not surprising that the details are sketchy (if you will pardon the pun). The only clue we have to Mr Pickwick's erstwhile profession, is when he gives his final speech,
"Nearly all of my previous life having been devoted to business and the pursuit of wealth..."
And that's all we get! John Sutherland points out another twist which had never occurred to me. In "The Pickwick Papers" is a boastful character called Mr Jingle. He has a habit of making ridiculous claims, seeming to have done everything, everywhere. He simply has too many pasts. Sutherland suggests that Mr Pickwick's past might have been deliberately kept mysterious, as an antithesis to Mr Jingle's,
"this opposition between Pickwick (man with no past) and Jingle (man with a hundred pasts) is a joke that Dickens chose to keep running to the end of his novel."
This is just one instance. You might prefer to read one of the double ones, "Why is Fagin hanged and why isn't Pip prosecuted?", or "How Good a Swimmer is Magwitch?". Or a single one by a different author, "Who Gets What in Heathcliff's Will?", (Wuthering Heights) "How Good an Oarswoman is Maggie Tulliver", (The Mill on the Floss) "Is Black Beauty gelded?", "Who will Angel Marry Next?", (Tess of the D'Urbervilles) "What cure for the Madwoman in the Attic", (The Yellow Wallpaper), or even, cheekily, "Where does Fanny Hill Keep her Contraceptives?"
In each of the thirty-two chapters, or essays, John Sutherland quotes extracts of other authors' novels, explaining how they can sometimes be seen as evidence that something else is going on below the surface of the book; something which is not explicitly described. It's a fascinating read for those who have a certain type of mind. For others, it might prove frustrating, seem to miss the point, or be merely irrelevant. If like me you enjoy these "brainteasers", you will be pleased to hear that the author went on to write a further third one in the series. They are nice to dip into just after you have read a particular novel, although some puzzle fanatics with good memories might enjoy reading the book straight through.
Here is an alphabetical list of authors, each of whom have an essay devoted to one or more of their novels in this particular volume:
Jane Austen (2)
R.M. Ballantyne (included with Dickens)
Charlotte Bronte (2)
Emily Bronte
John Cleland
Wilkie Collins
Arthur Conan Doyle
James Fennimore Cooper
Daniel Defoe
Charles Dickens (4 - plus 2 "doubles")
George Eliot (3)
Henry Fielding
Ford Maddox Ford
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Thomas Hardy (3)
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Jack London
Anna Sewell
Laurence Sterne
W.M. Thackeray
Anthony Trollope (2)
Virginia Woolf
September 18, 2017
Mildly interesting speculations about minor inconsistencies in famous novels. I read some of the novels analyzed in this short collection of commentaries, but still I did not find the insight particularly interesting.
For instance one essay is speculating about who Angel will marry after Tess execution.... Will he marry Tess's sister? Who knows, but also - in my case -who cares?
The only conclusion, hardly mind-blowing, is that even the best plotted, most famous classics may have some flaws.
For instance one essay is speculating about who Angel will marry after Tess execution.... Will he marry Tess's sister? Who knows, but also - in my case -who cares?
The only conclusion, hardly mind-blowing, is that even the best plotted, most famous classics may have some flaws.
Want to read
October 2, 2014I could read this.
May 19, 2024
Read in the same vein as the one previously mentioned. This one does a better (and dare I say it, more interesting) job of pointing out the plot holes in some of those classic favourites. I especially liked the Jane Eyre one, thank you title.
January 23, 2024
This is enlightening, thought-provoking and great fun. I feel that I now have a better insight into many of the books that Sutherland discusses. Just as important, I feel that I will now be less inclined to get angry when I find apparent authorial errors in the works of lesser writers.
Now for discussion of Sutherland's own work: I think he is maybe a bit too harsh to Dickens and Eliot on a couple of points. First, Maggie Tulliver's boat: I imagine that it was a sturdier working boat of the sort that one might expect Bob Jakin to have, rather than the narrow skiff shown in the illustration that Sutherland reproduces. Second, I don't agree that 'wooden machinery' is unlikely to have been found in St Ogg's in 1839; watermills (just like the mill on the Floss) were still using wooden gearing wheels and frames into the 1930s and beyond in some places; and in any case this machinery 'on one of the wharves' may have been redundant machinery waiting to be shipped away for disposal. On Dickens and swimming, I am not sure that it is correct to assume that sailors in the 18th and 19th centuries were necessarily good swimmers; I think Robinson Crusoe was probably exceptional in that regard. On the other hand I am equally unsure that Magwich and Compeyson would have had to swim to get away from the hulk on which they were held; contrary to what Sutherland says I think the pictorial evidence suggests that prison hulks were often moored very close to shore and may even have grounded at low tides, so their escapes would have involved more wading than swimming. And prisoners did sometimes escape from the hulks; Dickens was not making it up.
I look forward to re-reading a number of old favourites dealt with here and trying some of the books discussed that I have not yet had the pleasure of reading. In both cases my enjoyment will, I am sure, be increased by reflecting on Sutherland's commentaries.
Now for discussion of Sutherland's own work: I think he is maybe a bit too harsh to Dickens and Eliot on a couple of points. First, Maggie Tulliver's boat: I imagine that it was a sturdier working boat of the sort that one might expect Bob Jakin to have, rather than the narrow skiff shown in the illustration that Sutherland reproduces. Second, I don't agree that 'wooden machinery' is unlikely to have been found in St Ogg's in 1839; watermills (just like the mill on the Floss) were still using wooden gearing wheels and frames into the 1930s and beyond in some places; and in any case this machinery 'on one of the wharves' may have been redundant machinery waiting to be shipped away for disposal. On Dickens and swimming, I am not sure that it is correct to assume that sailors in the 18th and 19th centuries were necessarily good swimmers; I think Robinson Crusoe was probably exceptional in that regard. On the other hand I am equally unsure that Magwich and Compeyson would have had to swim to get away from the hulk on which they were held; contrary to what Sutherland says I think the pictorial evidence suggests that prison hulks were often moored very close to shore and may even have grounded at low tides, so their escapes would have involved more wading than swimming. And prisoners did sometimes escape from the hulks; Dickens was not making it up.
I look forward to re-reading a number of old favourites dealt with here and trying some of the books discussed that I have not yet had the pleasure of reading. In both cases my enjoyment will, I am sure, be increased by reflecting on Sutherland's commentaries.
March 27, 2022
A follow on to Is Heathcliff a Murderer?: Puzzles in Nineteenth-Century Fiction
The most interesting chapters for me were "How good an oarswoman is Maggie Tulliver?" from George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss, which unfortunately destroys the climactic final scene, and "How good a swimmer is Magwitch?" from Dickens' Great Expectations, which points out that no one, no matter how fit, could swim with an iron on their leg. And also points out why the readers and the author didn't even think to question it - recreational and competitive swimming wasn't a thing yet so almost no one was a swimmer back then.
Several other good ones too. The chapter for the title "Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?" is a lot more involved than that, and the title is a bit misleading. More like "Does Rochester really love her and is he really reformed?" Sutherland more than implies that he doesn't really love her because he's just settling for her and questions whether his reformation would stick if he wasn't disabled. A lot of discussion of the Bluebeard fairy tale and contemporary bigamy laws in this chapter.
Books I'd like to read after reading this book: Jane Eyre and The Last of the Mohicans. Maybe reread some Dickens and pick up some Jane Austen. I already plan on rereading The Scarlet Letter.
The most interesting chapters for me were "How good an oarswoman is Maggie Tulliver?" from George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss, which unfortunately destroys the climactic final scene, and "How good a swimmer is Magwitch?" from Dickens' Great Expectations, which points out that no one, no matter how fit, could swim with an iron on their leg. And also points out why the readers and the author didn't even think to question it - recreational and competitive swimming wasn't a thing yet so almost no one was a swimmer back then.
Several other good ones too. The chapter for the title "Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?" is a lot more involved than that, and the title is a bit misleading. More like "Does Rochester really love her and is he really reformed?" Sutherland more than implies that he doesn't really love her because he's just settling for her and questions whether his reformation would stick if he wasn't disabled. A lot of discussion of the Bluebeard fairy tale and contemporary bigamy laws in this chapter.
Books I'd like to read after reading this book: Jane Eyre and The Last of the Mohicans. Maybe reread some Dickens and pick up some Jane Austen. I already plan on rereading The Scarlet Letter.
August 22, 2025
I was lent this one by a friend and it's interesting enough to dip in and out of (a question a day is absolutely doable, for example).
Even I, a professional nitpicker, wouldn't have thought to ask most of the questions raised here, which maybe tells you all you need to know about my reading-for-pleasure habits, lol. The answers are occasionally presented with more confidence than the evidence actually warrants, and I did find myself thinking more than once that Sutherland might have somewhat missed the point, or at least the wood for the trees.
I'd be interested to read the book that preceded this one, but not sure I need to have my own copy of either. YMMV.
Even I, a professional nitpicker, wouldn't have thought to ask most of the questions raised here, which maybe tells you all you need to know about my reading-for-pleasure habits, lol. The answers are occasionally presented with more confidence than the evidence actually warrants, and I did find myself thinking more than once that Sutherland might have somewhat missed the point, or at least the wood for the trees.
I'd be interested to read the book that preceded this one, but not sure I need to have my own copy of either. YMMV.
October 7, 2020
Good fun. Just went to the chapters for those books I have read (which means I skipped a lot) but it did bring them back to me. The pieces are all short and accessible, but the chapter on Mansfield Park, for example does add some political context that would not necessarily have occured to me at the time.
December 2, 2021
An interesting book,a novel way(no pun intended)of looking at plot holes in the storylines of famous books.it helps that you know the books covered.i admit I hadn't but it doesn't detract from the enjoyment.there are other books in this series which I have purchased,hoping that they are as entertaining.
January 3, 2021
Another puzzle of classic fiction and very enjoyable. I think what I liked in particular is that each essay was a focus of one puzzle in a classic book, not 'reviewing' a whole novel. It gave a focus to ponder on.
Read
April 19, 2021Plot points. Bronte. Trollope. Hardy. Fun questions.
November 5, 2022
Always entertaining and provocative as John Sutherland has fun with some people’s fixed ideas. All good ideas can stand a good kicking, all entrenched ideas need a good kicking.
April 6, 2023
Only read the chapters of the books I have read before. Fun little gem, but nothing that really adds to the story.
November 11, 2013
The second book in the author's treatment of fictional stories as 'real life.' It should come as no surprise that Jasper Fforde has been known to use these books.
So, yeah, here we find Jane Eyre, Fanny Hill, Fagin, Maggie Tulliver, Clarissa Dalloway, etc. Peeking through the undergrowth, we can also catch sight of some American classics: Black Beauty, The Madwoman in the Attic, Hester Prynne, Hawk-eye... I've come to expect interesting commentary, so here's the down and dirty on the books I've read (or the chapters that were amusing):
So, yeah, here we find Jane Eyre, Fanny Hill, Fagin, Maggie Tulliver, Clarissa Dalloway, etc. Peeking through the undergrowth, we can also catch sight of some American classics: Black Beauty, The Madwoman in the Attic, Hester Prynne, Hawk-eye... I've come to expect interesting commentary, so here's the down and dirty on the books I've read (or the chapters that were amusing):
Robinson Crusoe: "Why the Single Print of a Foot'?" Having never read the book, I'd not come across this phrase until I read the Crusoe-esque book previously this year. I can see why it would be disconcerting to picture a single footprint. On the other hand, I came up, independently, with the same solution as Sutherland: walking near the shore, walking on stones....Can't wait to get the next book in the series.
Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure: "Where does Fanny Hill keep her contraceptives?" Indeed, what contraceptives? Fascinating that this was in print in 1749. Good answer, as well.
The Last of the Mohicans: "Whose side is Hawk-eye on?" My answer: his own. Sutherland's answer: (basically) his own.
Oliver Twist and Great Expectations: "Why is Fagin hanged and why isn't Pip prosecuted?" ...for aiding and abetting a criminal act. Because Fagin is creepy, dirty, Jew and Pip is the hero of his book.
Wuthering Heights: "Who gets what in Heathcliff's will?" He dies before he can change it to disinherit. Cathy's doing? According to Sutherland, yes.
Jane Eyre: "Can Jane Eyre be happy?" Boiled down, Rochester's track record with women sucks. Is Jane going to 'live happily ever after?' Doubtful, according to Sutherland. Depressing thought.
The Mill on the Floss: "How good an oarswoman is Maggie Tulliver?" Too good for reality. She's taught how to row about 50 pages from the end, and still manages to control her boat in a flood, until some "wooden machinery" is driven into it. What the hell is "wooden machinery?"
Daniel Dorinda: "Is Daniel Dorinda circumcised?" Wow. Birth control and circumcision and Jews. In one book. Who says literature is boring!
Tess of the D'Urbervilles: "Who will Angel marry next?" The presumption at the end of the book is that he'll marry Tess's sister. But in Victorian law that was illegal at that time. So perhaps she was meant to remain virginal and pure, unlike Tess....?
The Yellow Wall-Paper: "What cure for the Madwoman in the Attic?" One of my absolute favorite stories...was it the cure that made her mad? [Of course. Hey, Sutherland, take a Women's Studies class once, ok??] And what aspect of it was the maddening one?
Mrs Dalloway: "Clarissa's invisible taxi." A lovely walk around London to purchase flowers. At the end of her walk, Mrs D suddenly is back at home; how did she do it?
August 20, 2023
The Bronte sisters' leading men possess no endearing qualities. Having first read an Illustrated Classics comic book of Wuthering Heights as a nine-year old, I was on to Heathcliff the minute I saw this sullen little boy, about the same age as me then, on the page. The spineless Hindley Earnshaw and Edgar Linton fare no better. Ditto Pere Earnshaw for being such a poor judge of character. Reading the actual novel in my twenties only confirmed my childhood sentiments.
But Jane Eyre's brooding Edward Rochester, whom I only came across in my mature, discerning thirties--him I fell for. Throughout the novel's negligible highs and dramatic lows, I championed the unfortunate Rochester as strongly as I did poor Jane and their romantic interludes, a testament to Charlotte Bronte's mastery in storytelling and/or the Disneyesque influence my generation grew up on. Because how indeed could Jane Eyre ever find happiness as the wife of a bigamist who has locked his wife in a tower while our liege plays the alpha Prince Charming? Thank you, John Sutherland, for the un-pedantic discussions, and steering me to the belated realization that yes, Edward Rochester is actually just a pretty boy version of Bluebeard.
* The book discusses 34 stories, but I've only read eight novels and am familiar with another six, having come across them in movie adaptations or the Classics Illustrated comic books. And although this book has ruined George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss's ever making it to my future reading list, I hope the rest of the inconsistencies and spoilers highlighted here do not diminish my reading experience when I do get around to reading the other books. Among Sutherland's selections, works by Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, and Thomas Hardy are given the most preference. Great Expectations, which I've read, is notably discussed twice; as much as I enjoyed his books, I have always felt the audacity of the coincidences after contrived coincidences in Dickens's novels. The eight novels I've read so far are:
1 Mansfield Park by Jane Austen
2 Emma by Jane Austen
3 Great Expectations by Charles Dickens (showcased twice)
4 Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
5 Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
6 Black Beauty by Anna Sewell
7 The Yellow Wall-Paper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
8 The Good Soldier by Ford Madox Ford*
* But for the malicious, delightfully suspicious mind of John Sutherland, the thought never occurred to me: was Nancy Captain Ashburnham's illegitimate daughter and the reason for his suicide? Which now makes me wonder: was Heathcliff Mr Earnshaw's illegitimate son, the product of a dalliance with some gypsy girl from Liverpool?
But Jane Eyre's brooding Edward Rochester, whom I only came across in my mature, discerning thirties--him I fell for. Throughout the novel's negligible highs and dramatic lows, I championed the unfortunate Rochester as strongly as I did poor Jane and their romantic interludes, a testament to Charlotte Bronte's mastery in storytelling and/or the Disneyesque influence my generation grew up on. Because how indeed could Jane Eyre ever find happiness as the wife of a bigamist who has locked his wife in a tower while our liege plays the alpha Prince Charming? Thank you, John Sutherland, for the un-pedantic discussions, and steering me to the belated realization that yes, Edward Rochester is actually just a pretty boy version of Bluebeard.
* The book discusses 34 stories, but I've only read eight novels and am familiar with another six, having come across them in movie adaptations or the Classics Illustrated comic books. And although this book has ruined George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss's ever making it to my future reading list, I hope the rest of the inconsistencies and spoilers highlighted here do not diminish my reading experience when I do get around to reading the other books. Among Sutherland's selections, works by Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, and Thomas Hardy are given the most preference. Great Expectations, which I've read, is notably discussed twice; as much as I enjoyed his books, I have always felt the audacity of the coincidences after contrived coincidences in Dickens's novels. The eight novels I've read so far are:
1 Mansfield Park by Jane Austen
2 Emma by Jane Austen
3 Great Expectations by Charles Dickens (showcased twice)
4 Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
5 Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
6 Black Beauty by Anna Sewell
7 The Yellow Wall-Paper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
8 The Good Soldier by Ford Madox Ford*
* But for the malicious, delightfully suspicious mind of John Sutherland, the thought never occurred to me: was Nancy Captain Ashburnham's illegitimate daughter and the reason for his suicide? Which now makes me wonder: was Heathcliff Mr Earnshaw's illegitimate son, the product of a dalliance with some gypsy girl from Liverpool?
April 27, 2018
LOVE these books. I have the whole series and re-read them regularly.
August 22, 2016
I was a little leery going in because I thought it might be boring with the author getting hung up on small, incidental but I was very happy to find this was not the case.
The author presents his theories, proof and conclusions in a very easy to access manner and very funny sometimes.
While I didn't always agree with the author's conclusions they were interesting to read.
I've bought the rest of the series and will be reviewing them as well.
The author presents his theories, proof and conclusions in a very easy to access manner and very funny sometimes.
While I didn't always agree with the author's conclusions they were interesting to read.
I've bought the rest of the series and will be reviewing them as well.
August 10, 2014
I love John Sutherland's books, picking apart as he does works of great literature and putting them through a fact-checking process. And he really knows his stuff, both in terms of historical accuracy/inaccuracy and in the level of detail he has paid his primary sources. He always makes me want to rush back and re-read the original so I can see for myself what he's deduced.
October 30, 2015
I only found five of the essays in this collection particularly fascinating in the sense that they changed my view of a novel or made me understand it better. Those were "Why is Fagin hanged, and why isn't Pip prosecuted?", "Who gets what in Heathcliff's will?", "Can Jane Eyre be happy?", "Is Daniel Deronda circumcised?" and "Clarissa's invisible taxi."
February 2, 2017
Although this book is actually the second in a series of books by this author that address puzzles in fiction, it was the first one that I stumbled across and read. I enjoyed it so much that I made a point of acquiring the other books in the series.
Did I like it? Absolutely!
Would I reread it? I have, repeatedly.
Would I recommend it? Yes.
Did I like it? Absolutely!
Would I reread it? I have, repeatedly.
Would I recommend it? Yes.
July 8, 2009
I only read about the books I knew. I hadn't heard of The Yellow Wallpaper.
Didn't like his remarks about Jane Eyre that Jane was second choice to Blanche Ingram, to me Jane Eyre is a love story. Some interesting points about the law in Dickens' novels.
Didn't like his remarks about Jane Eyre that Jane was second choice to Blanche Ingram, to me Jane Eyre is a love story. Some interesting points about the law in Dickens' novels.
October 23, 2011
holy cats! I never ever made the bluebeard legend comparison to the Jane Eyre storyline, and Sutherland is totally on the money with his insights! The other puzzles are great too, but i am floored that I never thought to stop and think about Bronte's Eyre in investigative depth.
August 4, 2016
As with his first book, you need to be an avid reader of classic fiction to get the best from this - I was only beaten by two of the books he dissects, and of course I will now read them! He writes very entertainingly and you can only admire his stamina.
August 20, 2007
If you've read a fair amount of Victorian literature, you'll love this sequel to "Is Heathcliff a Murderer?"; this time he goes a back to the 1700's and up to early 1900's in range.
October 30, 2007
I totally disagree with the title essay, but otherwise this is a fine follow-up to his last book of literary puzzles.
November 7, 2009
What a fabulous book about books! John Sutherland examines puzzling minutia from popular and famous classics and comes up with logical answers. For book nerds everywhere.
October 6, 2010
Entertaining take on classic novels.
July 8, 2011
Rather a skewed POV of the Rochester/Jane dynamic. More to fit in with the premise of the book I think. Not one I'll return to
October 13, 2013
Fluffy little brain teasers about classic literature, what's not to like?
March 11, 2014
Not bad but at times pointless but funny.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews