Vanity Fair (Centaur Classics) [The 100 greatest novels of all time

Thackeray, William Makepeace. Vanity Fair

Once Vanity Fair was once an optional choice for A Level GCSE students, but has for many years been replaced by more modern, shorter and more ‘relevant’ texts such as Lord of the Flies or Of Mice and Men. This is understandable but a pity because ealier texts have much to offer, historically as well as culturally. Apart from offering the reader a good story Vanity Fair is an amusing look into the Regency world in which social positions are rigidly demarked, marriages are arranged and for the clever and adventurous the challenge of social climbing is a fine art. Becky Sharp is the queen arriviste in her rise from being the daughter of an impoverished artist and a dancer who entertained princes to becoming secretary and a gracious lady who spurned the pretences of other hostesses whom she sees as jealous and catty snobs. For Becky has charm and the ability to flatter and, after a stint of being a governess to a debauched and lecherous peer, ultimately becomes the protegée (and presumably mistress) of Lord Steyne. But Thackeray had to be careful of his readership so Becky has finally to be punished and excluded from polite society, so he dished the dirt on his sparkling heroine and turned her into little short of a murderess. This leaves a somewhat sour taste in the mouth of the modern reader, who roots for Becky, the prime mover of the novel.

The novel is subtitled ‘A Novel Wthout a Hero; but Becky’s friend Amelia Sedley is somewhat cynically offered by the author as the ‘ideal’ heroine, and is suitably rewarded in the end with a loyal but dull and clumsy husband, William Dobbin, so the Victorian reader is given its needful ‘happy ending.’ Amelia is soft and tender-hearted and shocked by her friend’s indiscretions, but it is the rebellious Becky whom the reader admires, the one who attempts to turn Victorian society on its head. Becky is, after all, a ‘moderrn’ woman, more so than even the Bronte or George Eliot heroines.

William Makepeace Thackeray was a contemporary of Charles Dickens, and the two of them had a friendly rivalry in London at the time Vanity Fair was first published, as a serial novel, in 1847-48. Thackeray himself declared Dickens to be the better author, but I personally prefer Vanity Fair to any of Dickens' works. Thackeray's characters are so vivid and unforgettable: dear Amelia Sedley (the sweet ingénue who's a fool for love); wicked Rebecca Sharp (the orphan who schemes her way into high society); honest William Dobbin (the brave, romantic soldier); jolly Jos Sedley (the gullible, cowardly gourmand). The plot was scandalous for the time, a veritable gossip column of some 750+ pages, in which the author ruthlessly pokes fun at upper-class 19th-century England. He chuckles as he describes how the "noble classes" vainly contort themselves to maintain appearances, out-posturing and out-snobbing one another, stabbing their friends in the back, reveling in the deaths of their rich relatives, all under the knowing eyes of their servants, who struggle to eek out the most meager of livings. It's hilarious, yet touchingly set against the heart-rending background of Napoleon's scourge of Europe and the Battle of Waterloo. The Easton Press edition is, like all the other volumes in The 100 Greatest Books Ever Written collection, beautifully bound in genuine leather and printed on archival-quality paper with gilded edges. This edition also includes over 200 illustrations by William Makepeace Thackeray himself, who was a noted illustrator during his own time. The illustrations are lively and amusing and really bring the characters to life as the author intended.

Perhaps inevitably the period in which this book was written reflects the formal almost stilted style while it's a slow read.

There's much class conscious snobbery in the divide between the classes though to some extent this was compensated by the dry wit.

A complex novel involving many sub plots and characters almost too numerous to mention but with perseverance you eventually get some handle on the shifting scenes.

Thackeray does eventually build out well drawn characters and this is appreciated even though some of them are snobbish and plain unlikeable but I didn't feel I could warm to the foolish George and all the social climbing.

The setting setting and period of Vanity Fair suits just that vanity.

There's a chapter in this classic 1848 English novel titled "A Cynical Chapter." I would venture to say that the whole novel could be classified with this subtitle; it's a most cynical and satiric look at English society at the time, in particular, and at the essential nature of human beings, in general. The actual subtitle of the novel is "A Novel Without a Hero," and that's also very accurate, as it soon becomes apparent that all the characters are guilty in varying degrees of human failings. Not one character escapes Thackeray's cynical analysis and comes out as entirely admirable. Some are foolish and self centered, some are shallow and self deluded, some are hypocritical, and some turn out to be what we now term as sociopaths.

The central character, Becky Sharp, is the most despicable, and yet she is the most interesting. She is smarter, more manipulative, more pragmatic, more self-aware. She has the attractiveness of many a subsequent literary and cinematic anti-hero; we perhaps secretly admire her even while realizing her guilt, just because she is successful in winning the game. (This human tendency -- to admire the winner -- is an additional testament to the accuracy of Thackeray's assessment of human nature.)

The plot follows Becky, the daughter of an impoverished artist and a Paris dancer, as she strives to advance her fortunes and her position in society, mainly through the seduction of various men. The secondary plot follows Becky's kind (and naive) friend Amelia, whose good qualities are obscured by her blind devotion to an ideal rather than to a reality.

This is undoubtedly one of the most well executed novels in the English language, accomplishing flawlessly its goal of a realistic examination of human motivations and failings. Thackeray was a contemporary of Charles Dickens, and the contrast is immediately apparent. Dickens specialized in idealized good characters and blacker-than-night bad characters. In Thackeray, all the characters are pictured in varying shades of gray.

This is yet another novel which I re-evaluated after many years between readings. When I read this in my twenties, I perceived it as excessively cynical. Now, I believe it to be an accurate depiction of the human condition.

I admit that I only got interested in reading "Vanity Fair" after watching the BBC dramatization Vanity Fair several years ago. It wasn't an easy read, but what a revelation into the workings of English society at the time. William Makepeace Thackeray's work focuses on the adventures, or rather misadvenures of two British women, Rebecca Sharp and Amelia Sedley, and traces their ups and downs till the 1830s. Both women are total opposites in character and make for a compelling character study, and the secondary characters enhance the storytelling with all of their flaws and dramatics. A keen-eyed satirist, Thackeray critiques the society of the time with perceptive observations and I was captivated by the detailed commentaries in the form of an engaging narrative. I have since come to consider "Vanity Fair" one of my favorite works in English literature, and was happy to note that Charlotte Brontë herself was an admirer, dedicating her second edition of "Jane Eyre" to Mr. Thackeray.

I purchased the Easton Press' 1979 leather-bound edition with moire endpapers recently and love this gorgeous keepsake edition. It is part of Easton Press' The 100 Greatest Books Ever Written series and contains 200 drawings made by the author for the first edition. I hadn't realized Mr. Thackeray was such an accomplished artist! The drawings or sketches are truly a delight to peruse. Given that this is quite a hefty tome, I appreciated the satin ribbon marker, a nice touch, and found in all the leather-bound editions published by the Easton Press. I shall enjoy gazing upon this beautiful edition and perusing its contents whenever I feel like it while my well-thumbed paperback with all of its annotations serves as my reading copy.

A depressing story of a world saturated in irrepressible vanity. It was a sickening read, full if adultery and pointless endeavors of social climbing. After spending weeks on end trying to stumble through this massive book, you come away with a dissatisfied, despondent air. I highly discourage anyone from wasting their time on this fruitless novel.

Note: This review is from a Thackery collection for kindle.

I'm not going to sum up the plot. Many others here have done so quite effectively. But I do want to address the book's length, it's detailed in in the eyes of some, and its overblown narration. Yes, this book, like many from the nineteenth century, is much wordier than what we're accustomed to today. But consider what you're getting from Thackery. The following sentence, from late in the book, describes Jos, the obese self-absorbed bachelor brother of our more respectable heroine (Amelia) going to the place where Becky, the bad-girl protagonist, told him she was staying. Jos and she had one disastrous "date" early in the novel and now, Jos is back after having spent many years in India and he runs into down-on-her-luck Becky at a gambling party the night before. Naturally (because when it comes to women, he's got nothing better going on in his life), he's intrigued by this old but way-to-brief flame. Here's the description of Jos going up to Becky's room (this is all one sentence):

"In consequence of the fetes the house was full of company, the tables in the street were already surrounded by persons smoking and drinking the national small-beer, the public rooms were in a cloud of smoke, and Mr. Jos having, in his pompous way, and with his clumsy German, made inquiries for the person of whom he was in search, was directed to the very top of the house, above the first-floor rooms where some travelling pedlars had lived, and were exhibiting their jewellery and brocades; above the second-floor apartments occupied by the etat major of the gambling firm; above the third-floor rooms, tenanted by the band of renowned Bohemian vaulters and tumblers; and so on to the little cabins of the roof, where, among students, bagmen, small tradesmen, and country-folks come in for the festival, Becky had found a little nest--as dirty a little refuge as ever beauty lay hid in."

OK. Yes, it's long. But is it something that should be skimmed or skipped. Consider what Thackery is doing for you. He isn't just telling you that Jos climbed up to the top floor and found Becky occupying a dirty room, which is pretty much the way many contemporary writers would have given it to you. With Thackery, you're trudging up right alongside Jos, feeling his reaction to the chaos around him. Speaking for myself, I felt a bit out of breath by the time I - oops, Jos - reached the top floor and felt a bit squeamish by the whole environment. A modern writer might have told you that Jos was panting and felt squeamish. Thackery doesn't waste words telling you that. (Amazing! Thackery is actually thoughtful about his word choices) He doesn't have to. You FEEL it yourself. This is what a writer like Thackery does for his readers.

There are so, so, so many sentences, paragraphs, etc. like this. This is not idle description tossed in as a matter of formality. This is an IMAX-type experience generated by words, instead of technology.

This is a very long novel. Count reading time in weeks or longer, as did its original audience, who read it in serialized form. But that's OK. You don't want to rush something like Vanity Fair. Play along. Jump into it. Allow yourself to enjoy the full experience of what a literary master like Thackery can do.

Thematically written, this novel about young women treading their way through womanhood seems mundane and axiomatic to a 21st century reader - but one must remember that the author of this novel was born in early 19th century. So, the boy-meets-girl/boy-loses-girl/boy-gets-girl/boys-drops-girl/boy-regets-girl theme overplayed against girl-can-get-anyone, but-chooses-the-wrong-one/girl-loses-guy/girl-becomes-ostracized is something we have read numerous times, and seen too many movies culture; but was novel to this author's generation.

This writer, influenced by the British greats - Dickens-like irreverence seems to be the most easily found - makes this parody both poignant and sharp in its criticism of English high society.

There is the good girl - Amelia Sedley - who befriends the not-as-good girl - Becky Sharp - and the two enter womanhood with the Napoleonic-feared world while watching their husbands going off to save the queen. One ends up a widow, and the other a wife to a potentially wealthy man. One lives high and mighty while the other has to deliver her son to his grandfather to assure that he can live a life better than their poverty which Dickens brought to our attention around the same generation - Dicekns and this author were born in 1811 and 1812.

As much as Amelia can be abundantly written about as an angel, literary censures could only allow suggestive statements about Becky who is played as a prostitute and murderess. Neither of Becky's stronger character traits is graphically evidenced nor proven by actual fact, but the hints are there.

Writing styles of this author remain as impressive today as they did in his years of old. The impressively articulate method of descriptive analysis of personalities, characteristics and scenery with ornate use of the language can only be seen too infrequently in today's literature. So, as old as the story line may seem to be, the writing seems ageless.

Arguments exist that this novel, unlike its peers, uniquely is devoid of a hero. Amelia is just a survivor benefiting from others, Becky is a Scarlett O'Hara without a soul, and their husbands are young rich kids who are either killed at too young an age (and not an angel upon his death) or fail to use the financial and social advantage received in life to be anything more than a gambler or huckster.

Like great war novels this has many layers. War and Peace  or Gone with the Wind may be the ultimate novels of this genre, but each author must have been influenced by this work written almost one century prior to Gone and more than three decades before War.

I've read Vanity Fair several times but this was my first time listening to it (reader Wanda McCaddon) and having spent the better part of the last 4 days immersing myself in it, I've come to the conclusion that this is one of the greatest English novels and possibly the equal of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

I gave Vanity Fair the school try and persevered through half of this soap opera until I forced myself to the "why bother?" question. Only occasionally did I smile at the author's talent. The characters are two dimensional archetypes; personifications of avarice, class consciousness, snobbery. Neither of the two heroines have enough definition to win me over. 900 some pages about a social climber cluttered up with lots of miscellany. No compelling plot, no evil villain. It's better left as a serialization read over a couple of years as sort of an old Knot's Landing. Not a fault, but this is not easy reading in that you'll have to check the footnotes every few seconds for obsolete British and French language and references.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

Vanity Fair is a classic well-worth the read, though it is can seem overly-detailed in spots. It is about the journey of some early 19th century English people of different social strata seeking after higher status.

It clearly references John Bunyan's `Pilgrim's Progress' which describes a fictional place where people lust after the vain and meaningless things in life. `Pilgrim's Progress', in turn, obviously draws on the book of Ecclesiastes which describes life itself and its pursuits (without God) as ultimately meaningless or vain: `Vanity of vanities' says the Preacher. `All is vanity!" in short, it is about seeking after things that will not last, in pursuit of inflated self-worth which is also passing.

Becky Sharpe is the lead character in this drama. She is a charming, but irritating girl from humble beginnings who ruthlessly works her way up in society and has her ups-and-downs in the process. She reminded me of Scarlett O'Hara from `Gone with the Wind'. If you recall, the beautiful Vivian Leigh was in almost every scene, making the viewer despise or admire her depending on what she was up to. Becky did likewise. Both Becky and Scarlett were Dicksonian, a bit overdone but fun to follow.

The story makes us ask a lot of very vain questions. How does she manage to finagle her way with such success? What does that society think is important? Who sets the standards? It also asks questions through the characters. Who were you seen with last week? Did you see such-and-so in the paper, and who was at such-and-so party? Look at the medals on that dignitary! How many titles does he have, and who is he talking to? What did you think of the menu for that get-together - was it up to standard? How do I rank compared to others in my class? How much money is he or she worth? What do I have to do to reach the next level?

It is what occupied and preoccupied the characters, what they thought about when they got up in the morning, and when they went to sleep at night. And that's what the story is about. It has a lot of twists and turns and keeps your interest - though it does make you slog through more than you might be used to.

I recommend you read it but be patient!

Rebecca is worse than I remembered from first reading the book in college. A really bad mother, she "hates" her son (Thackeray's word) precisely because she is supposed to love him and she does not. Thackeray is really good on how people turn on people to whom they are obligated, whether by virtue of relationship or by virtue of owing a debt of gratitude for generosity and kindness, the hater justifies his or her lack of heart and ingratitude in making the other out to be the villain. Thackeray is really good on "no good deed goes unpunished".

does Rebecca murder Jos? That's the impression I got.

As bad as Rebecca is, as dishonest, as lying, as thieving, as heartless, as conniving, she at least feels the need to pretend to the world to be good. Her mask slips when she has no need to impress people because they have no power, as when she is mean to Lady Jane. But mostly she feels she must be a hypocrite. That shows the power of morality in those days. You had to at least "assume the virtue" though you had it not (to paraphrase Shakespeare?).

After the big Lord Steyne scandal, Rebecca is exposed. Her attempts to rehabilitate herself fail because as soon as people find out about her, they don't want to associate with her anymore. Today, everyone would say, poor Rebecca is a victim. There would be no scandal or disgrace attached to her, though she were ten times worse.

Thackeray says perhaps with $5,000 a year Rebecca could be a good woman. That sum itself, enormous in those days, shows the lie of that statement. I can be a good woman if I have a million a year, it is like saying. As we see in the book most people are not rich yet not bad like Rebecca.

Dobbin is better than I remembered. He starts out good but stupid. He ends up very intelligent and worthy of respect by that most severe of judges, adolescent youth, in this case Amelia's spoiled son and his friends. Dobbin is the hero of the book. Thackeray could not resist having a hero. Thackeray is cynical, but he is not angry. Thackeray is a critic of human nature. He is not the sort to say I hate the English but rather, unfortunately, people are like this. And just as you think someone is horrid, he shows you that they are not as bad as you think, not as selfish or unfeeling. He is not as cynical as Balzac. He does not break the reader's heart.

Amelia seems to start out like one of Dickens downtrodden and near perfect heroines, like Little Dorrit. But Thackeray lets us see the foolishness and vanity and blindness in Amelia. She is not sentimentalized like Dickens' heroines.

A lot of the book is about female self sacrifice, duty, and devotion which usually goes unappreciated by men and children. But Thackeray does not conclude that this means that women's lives are worse than men's or that they are ultimately less happy. Amelia devotes herself to her father's old age. The duty is hard for her, but she is still happier than her father who dies a failure in his own eyes. But Amelia gets satisfaction out of her devotion and ends happier than her son's grandfather as well, a selfish and resentful man. He wasted his life in anger. Her life was not wasted. She loved and was loved. From Thackeray's panoply of men and women, it is hard to say who is better off. Women in their relationships seem to have more satisfaction than men in theirs or men in their work.

This was a ground breaking work at the time and is still sadly relevant today in it's depiction of the false values of 'Vanity Fair' ie society. Innocents such as poor Amelia Sedley, the failing merchant's daughter who worships her caddish officer fiance and later husband, George Osborne, are marked out as victims in this world of predators, hypocrits and false idols.

Only people such as Becky Sharp,a bohemian artist's daughter who is determined to advance herself, even at the cost of compromising her reputation with the debauched old Marquis of Steyne, can hold their own in a world of such false values.

While this is called 'a novel without a hero' in fact there is one, of sorts, in the honourable and brave, if clumsy and often ineffectual, Dobbin, who worships both Amelia and George.

Set during the Napoleonic Wars, this is a wide ranging and massive book. I would be dishonest if I didn't admit there are long and often dull digressions, but there are often flashes of brilliance, too.

For instance, this hauntingly evocative description of the battle action at the end of chapter thirty two:-
**Spoiler follows**.

'...Then at last, the English troops rushed from the post for which no enemy had been able to dislodge them, and the Guard turned and fled. No more firing was heard at Brussels - the pursuit rolled miles away. Darkness came down on the field and the cit y; and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart.'

In fact, I think the novel is too hard on poor George, whose memory Amelia so worships. For sure, his motives are depicted as often inadmirable, but after all, he does sacrifice his chances of a fortune in marrying Amelia, urged on by Dobbin or not. When Becky finally disillusions poor Amelia, she knows only part of the story but speaks with typical authoritativeness. We know more; we have seen George's remorse on the eve of the battle as he writes his last leter because in his foolish infatuation with Becky he has sent her a note asking her to go away with him. Then, he wishes 'the night's work undone' and bitterly regrets his squandeirng his small inheritence and his neglect of Amelia. But Becky doens't know this, and Amelia never seems to find it out...I found this very sad. I have read that Thackeray based Georges to some extent on a friend of whom he was jealous, coveting his wife; and the harshness with which he treats George does seem to point to some such emotional confusion.

Most people are put off this story by the length, but I have to admit to having read it several times myself (! Geek, or what?) Thackeray is often dryly cynical, yet given also to fits of sentimentality; he was perhaps far less the cynic than he might at first seem.

There are flashes of brilliance in it, and bad writing too. There are interesting insights - particularly into the oppression of women.

It is unfortunate that the proprieties of the time forbid Thackeray from making explicit sexual themes in the story. For instance, does Becky have an adulterous relationship with the awful Marquis? Her far more attractive husband Rawdon Crawley certainly believes so to wish to call him out.

Then, does Amelia find Dobbin physically attractive at the end (or does Thackeray refuse to believe that a virtuous woman has such feelings)? We have no way of knowing if she becomes reconciled to his huge feet, clumsiness and the other features she once found so unappealing.

In Vanity Fair the wicked, like Becky Sharp flourish; decent, honourable people fall by the wayside and nobody looks back. Many feminists find Becky sympathetic; not me, but she makes for an intriguing read.

During my misspent youth I avoided books like this like plague. James Bond anyone? Any way, I got old and started backtracking a little. Maybe a little more patient and a little more insightful. Wanted to see why classics became classics.
Anyway, I really liked this book. Although obviously written a looong time ago, it has a certain modernity to it. For a buck on kindle, give it a try. You will need to stick with it for awhile before it starts picking up. Recommended.

It's one thing to have authored several books. It's quite another to have other authors write about the author of those novels. This is the case with Thackeray. His style of writing is both smart and humorous and several books have been written about his style, and for good reason.

Getting through over 1,000 pages of a novel written in 19th Century British English can certainly be a challenge, and you probably won't breeze through Vanity Fair, but if you do take the time to get through it, you will be richly rewarded. William Makepeace Thackeray's sense of humor in satirizing the upper classes of England at the time comes through strongly and his vivid details bring both the characters and locations come alive.

Join the two lead characters, Rebecca and Amelia, as Thackeray chronicles their lives from their earliest years at Ms Pinkerton's Academy for Young Ladies to old age. Their stories take them to varied locations looking for different relationships and dreams of a different type. In following them on their journeys, Thackeray utilizes his keen knowledge of the times and locations to life with richly textured descriptions. More interesting, however, is his use of satire to show how happiness, sadness, back-stabbing, and both good and bad relationships aren't affected by society or class. There is no magic formula for living the ideal life and both Becky and Amelia find out the hard way that life can be both challenging and rewarding.

Take a leap into this perilous journey through drama, romance, action, comedy and historical-based fiction and you won't be sorry. Enjoy!

As you'd expect from the title (which comes from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress), Vanity Fair is social commentary. But it is also satire and a love story.

I wanted to read this after having seen a DVD based on it. The movie was beautifully costumed and filmed, but something seemed to be missing and I felt that I didn't fully understand the story. I knew that reading the book would give me much more depth.

After reading it, I do feel satisfied, although as it turns out the movie actually followed the book pretty closely. I guess it's just all the extra detail that allows a reader to know and understand the characters better.

At first glance, Vanity Fair looks like a typical Victorian morality tale in which the good guys live happily ever after and the bad guys get what they deserve. I've heard Becky Sharp described as one of the most evil villains in all of literature. In the movie she seemed to be more three-dimensional, rather than all bad. I thought that was a modern touch added to make her character more believable.

But with a closer reading one sees subtle hints that Rebecca may not be totally evil. We see how hard she has struggled for every little thing she gets, and what she is up against. We see that her husband colluded in her behavior, or at least looked the other way during most of their marriage in order to enjoy the benefits of her schemes. We begin to see that perhaps life - and especially other people - may have been unjust to Rebecca at least to some extent. And especially as the story approaches its end, we see another side of her, however short-lived.

Thackeray himself seems ambiguous about his character. Most of the time he seems to think the worst of her, but at times he seems sympathetic. To add to the confusion, some of her supposedly shocking behavior is only vaguely hinted at, and is thus left open to the reader's interpretation. I like this (even though it was probably done only because at the time one just didn't speak of some things in polite society, including print.) It is fitting to Thackeray's satiric approach; it adds realism and depth; and it respects the reader's intelligence in allowing us to make our own assessment of Rebecca. Just as in real life, we usually don't know exactly what other people have done and what their motivations were, and must try to decide for ourselves whether they are good people or not.

And it isn't just Rebecca that Thackeray is ambiguous about. He has equally mixed feelings about Amelia. The epitome of Victorian virtue, she is always quiet, modest, gentle, kind, obedient, loyal, forgiving, etc. Yet at times he calls her a weak little fool. And gradually he shows us how her unwavering loyalty to her husband might look more like obsession, stubbornness, selfishness, and pride. Personally, I found Amelia too weak and insipid to be likeable. Her naiveté can be excused for a while as the inevitable result of a too-sheltered life, but when it remains unchanged after decades of adulthood and life experiences, the reader questions her intelligence.

I really don't like either of them all that much. I lean towards preferring the spirited Rebecca, but am held back by feeling that some of the things she did were unforgivable. Even Major Dobbins isn't entirely lovable, although that is probably an artifact of 21st-century culture. What was seen in Victorian times as a proper gentleman's duty to protect the "weaker sex" now appears controlling and disrespecting of another person's boundaries.

But I like it that I don't completely like the main characters. They seem real: shades of gray rather than black and white. This is something you don't often see in 19th-century writing (for example, compare this to Anna Karenina and especially to Madame Bovary.) As with the others, though, Rebecca is a terrible mother who is described as not just indifferent to her son, but actually hating him. Apparently that is mandatory for female villains in Victorian literature. But to me, it makes Rebecca less believable. True, not all mothers are good, but the story would have been more plausible if there had at least been some struggle between Rebecca's selfishness and affection for her son, even if the selfishness won.

As I've said, Vanity Fair is satire rather than a morality play. All satire contains elements of humor, and that's one of the delightful things about this book. Pay attention to names in particular - they range from subtle entendré to downright silly. There's also some great wordplay, including invented language. It's often subtle, especially in the context of the wordy and pretentious 19th-century style of writing (and it's easily confused with obsolete vocabulary) - so watch for it. I appreciated the immediate access to the dictionary on my Kindle!

A working knowledge of French (and to a lesser extent, German) would be helpful, as it isn't uncommon to encounter untranslated foreign phrases. At the time this book was written, most literate British people would have been familiar with those languages. I enjoyed the challenge, especially since sometimes these foreign phrases were garbled, ungrammatical, and misspelled (i.e., mispronunced) in order to demonstrate (and poke fun at) a poorly-educated speaker's lack of fluency.

The book did run on a little too long (another artifact of that wordy 19th-century writing.) At times it dragged, especially during one long section about 9/10 of the way through, although it did pick up again later. One reason for this is the way Thackeray sometimes goes off on a long tangent, describing events and characters that really have very little to do with the story, and accomplish nothing to move the plot along. The edition I read included a commentary at the end, in which it stated that Thackeray did this intentionally, in an attempt to emulate the 18th-century style of writing that he admired more than the "realistic," more straightforward, style popular in the 19th century during which he lived and wrote. (This was also said to be the reason why Thackeray directly addresses the reader at times.)

But most of the time the book was interesting, and often humorous.

Thackeray's description of the game of Charades as played in the 19th century was particularly intriguing. Newly brought over to England from France where it had been invented, it was incredibly elaborate, requiring great expense and preparation - the kind of thing you'd expect to see at the court of Marie Antoinette. And speaking was allowed, as were musical hints, even lyrical music. (Naturally a live orchestra was required.)

As in often the case in classic literature, there is some racism in Vanity Fair. It is relatively rare and mild (compared to, say, Mark Twain), but could be offensive.

I would have liked to have seen the author's own drawings which illustrated the original edition (and some later ones.) I missed out on those since they weren't included in my (Kindle) edition. I might check the library for a copy that has them.

(699 pages)

Quotes from Vanity Fair:

" . . . a kiss, which was like the contact of an oyster."

"Which of the dead are most tenderly and passionately deplored? Those who love the survivors least, I believe."

"What are benefits, what is constancy, or merit? One curl of a girl's ringlet, one hair of a whisker, will turn the scale against them all in a minute."

"She didn't wish to marry him, but she wished to keep him. She wished to give him nothing, but that he should give her all. It is a bargain not unfrequently levied in love."

"It was myself I deluded and persisted in cajoling; had she been worthy of the love I gave her, she would have returned it long ago. It was a fond mistake. Isn't the whole course of life made up of such? And suppose I had won her, should I not have been disenchanted the day after my victory? Why pine, or be ashamed of my defeat?"

I'm no expert on classic literature, however, I have read other "classic" books but struggled with this book.
Personally, the story being told by the narrator was a really great choice, and I do appreciate all the wit, irony, and satire that flowed from the pages. HOWEVER, even with all the character (and characters) the story supplied, I couldnt get past page 93.
Why? It reminds me of a good friend (or the narrator in the book) telling you a story that keeps unfolding and for the life of you, you cant figure out how to stay intetested after 5 hours of rambling about 10 subplots, 10 historical locations, and 500 annoying people that you cant seem to get interest in- there's just too much detail about anything and everything, and too many characters. Even if they are normal, flawed people, and the book is showcasing "real" and not "warm/fuzzy" , theres too much else in the book to keep me from appreciating it as much as I wish I could.

There's a reason VANITY FAIR has been in print for a century and a half. Thackeray's depiction of early 19th century English life is a cross section cutting across all social lines, fulling displaying the feral indifference of an economic system with no safety net for the poor, and in which the wealthy were entitled to all merely by the fact of their existence.

But despite his offhand jeers, it was obviously not Thackeray's intent merely to write some tell all diatribe assailing the foibles and inequities of the British class structure. He has accomplished a lush tableau filled with sharply delineated characters, and fueled by a sure knowledge of psychology and group dynamics.

More to the point: this is pure STORY, I will not analyze plot specifics here as i have no wish to spoil things for the reader -- but I couldn't put it down.

Also interesting to me was how the style became more and more imbued with a tinge of pessimism as it progressed -- the transition is almost imperceptible, and I question whether it was deliberate. Still, if you compare the almost rollicking youthful enthusiasm of the book's opening chapters to the near despair of its later portions, you will clearly see what i mean.

Also sweet is the final sentence, rated by the American Book Review as one of the 100 Best Last Lines: "Come children, let us shut up the box and the puppets, for our play is played out."

* * *

Pearce Hansen is the author of STREET RAISED, available now for the Kindle

Vanity Fair is about the adventures of the young Becky Sharp, born to humble circumstances but given certain opportunities to raise herself, which she takes full advantage of, sometimes to her benefit, more often to her detriment. As heroine's go...well...she isn't one, hence the book's subtitle, "A Novel Without a Hero". It is written as social satire. For a man fully entrenched in Victorianism, the early part of the century provided a great deal of fodder for novel material. But there's nothing funny about it. The Napoleanic War, the fight for Social survival, the harsh realities of a class system, and thrown into this is the avaricious and scheming Becky Sharp, who takes advantage, and with a realism that at times persuades the reader to sympathise with her. In her path, however, she leaves a wake of ruin. Sympathies change, though, as the book progresses, and while, at first, we may have rooted for one non-heroine, by the end, we are rooting for quite another. The book has a happy-ish ending, with a sobering monologue to put all in its place and to cast a shade of reality over it. But one is left, at the conclusion, with the impression that Thackeray rather tired of his characters before he had quite completed his novel. Overall, it was an interesting look into a Victorian gentleman's view of the decades before him, but it is not by any means one of my favourite books of the era.

Even though this novel was written 164 years ago, there is much in it that still applies today. Thackeray describes Vanity Fair as "a very vain, wicked place, full of all sorts of humbugs and falseness and pretensions." In this novel Thackeray skewers a world full of endless social climbing and people acting solely out of self interest. He lets us see what an empty exercise this is as the false friends made one day will easily turn and disavow you the next. We see the amount of pain that ricochets around when people act soley out of greed and self seeking. It is this artificial world that emphasizes parties and social status that Thackeray seeks to satirize.

When I began to read about the life of Thackeray, I was fascinated to learn of the biographical elements in Vanity Fair. Thackeray himself fell in love with a married woman named Jane and tried for years to woo her away from her husband. The character of Dobbins was essentially his alter ego. Both were described as physically ungainly men with a hesitancy around women. Thackeray felt Jane's husband was a cold, brutish thug who was unworthy of her. He wrote many letters to Jane and gave her many gifts in the hope of enlightening her that he was the better man and enticing her to return his affection. Jane accepted the gifts and the letters, and seemed to encourage him. She and her husband were not in a good financial situation and at one time Thackeray told them they could move into his house with him. This did not happen and Thackeray said he later realized it was not a good idea. Thackeray's infatuation with this woman was going on the whole time he was writing Vanity Fair. Is it any surprise that there are three characters in the novel named Jane or Janey, and they are some of the few truly good people in the novel? One biographer of Thackeray stated that he felt Thackeray wrote the novel to Jane in an veiled attempt to convince her to quit her life with her husband and take up with him. The biographer wrote that it was clear to Jane and the people that knew them both, how the Dobbins and Amelia situation paralleled their own. Understandably, Jane's husband got fed up with this situation, and had Jane put an end to the relationship three years after the novel was published. Thackeray said he had by this time realized it was a hopeless cause himself.

There are two themes of this novel that have a significant connection to Thackeray's life. One theme is a son's separation from his mother (both little Rawdon and Georgie) and the second theme is parents who attempt to thwart or sabotage the marriage plans of their children (both the Osbornes and the Crawleys). When Thackeray's mother was 19 she fell in love with a man that her family felt was not of a suitable status for her to marry. To thwart the relationship, her grandmother told her that this young man had died and that she must now travel to India with her mother. The grandmother then told the young man that her granddaughter was no longer interested in him. The next year Thackeray's mother met Thackeray's father and married him in India. Thackeray was born the next year. Four months later, Thackeray's father invited a young man to dinner, and you guessed it, this man was Thackeray's mother's old love. Conveniently for the newly reacquainted couple, Thackeray's father died four years later from some sort of fever. Thackeray's mother was then free to marry her former courter. What proved to be difficult for the young five year old Thackeray was that his mother then sent him away to England to attend a boarding school. Thackeray wrote that this had a long term traumatic affect on him as the school was quite tyrannical and horrible, and he didn't see his mother again fpr 3 1/2 years.

I also found it interesting was that Thackeray was born a gentleman and received an excellent education at Cambridge. At age 21 he received his inheritance which he then promptly squandered. He had extensive gambling losses plus he invested in two newspapers which later proved to be scams. With these losses, Thackeray learned what it was like to suffer poverty and the accompanying loss of status and esteem from people. He was said to be resentful of the unfairness of this experience because he felt he essentially was still the same person. He thus could create this devastating loss of social esteem that Amelia and her family go through.

One last biographical note is that Thackeray admitted that the character of Miss Crawley, the wealthy aunt that everyone was trying to ingratiate themselves with in hopes of becoming her heir, was based on his own sharp tongued and snobbish grandmother. The amusing part is that his grandmother saw herself in the portrait of this character and was flattered.

I think that what I liked best about this novel were the witty asides by the narator. The running commentary he provides on human nature is often insightful and damning. A couple examples I noted are "What a charming reconciler and peacemaker money is". Another is: "If a man has committed a wrong in his life, I don't know any moralist more anxious to point his errors out to the world than his own relations". I also liked the line where Becky says "I could have been a good woman if I had 5000 pounds a year". She goes on to say how she could have been have been a good person who sat by the fire, did needlework and inquired about a relative's arthritis. However, we know that Becky's personality is such that she was far too restless and scheming ever to have lived this life. This goes along with the anecdote of how Becky would pretend to be knitting a sweater for her son whenever she had company and she wanted to appear to be a contented and caring mother. The only problem was that she worked on it so little that her son had already far outgrown it.

This novel proved to be hugely successful for Thackeray. It was initially published in installments, and it was quite popular in the very social circles that Thackeray was skewering. They could probably recognize certain types of people they knew in the novel, but could they see themselves? Can we ever?

Scholars can make careers out of analyzing this wonderful novel, so I'll comment on the edition I'm reading, the Barnes and Noble full-size paperback. The text size is just within the range of "comfortable" for a middle-aged reader, a feature not easy to find in the great classics.

The footnotes and endnotes greatly enhanced my reading experience, as did the insightful introduction.

I hope more publishers realize that modern readers want to tackle the classics, but we do need help in the form of notes explaining foreign phrases and cultural terms and allusions from another land and time. And we need text large enough to make the reading a pleasure rather than a squinting endurance test. This B&N edition is a winner.

Lord knows there are enough hungry doctors of literature willing to annotate and introduce the classics!

Note that Modern Library Classics full-size paperbacks are also often excellent. In any case, if text size is an issue, better try to examine the actual book before deciding, because even these publishers have a few titles with tiny print.

Vanity Fair is not a book for the casual reader. It will probably always be neglected in schools and will be unread by those without patience. However, if you are willing to devote yourself to reading this long novel, it is well worth it.

The main characters that the story centers around are Becky and Amelia, two girls who are polar opposites, yet their lives intertwine in fascinating ways. In many ways they are caricatures, but the book is long enough to give them complexity and in the end you have two unexpectedly interesting and multifaceted characters. Of course they are not the only characters, there are probably 500 more of various importance. Some readers may have difficulty keeping track of them all, especially when several have the same last name. However, Thackeray manages to keep focus through all the characters and it ends up that there are only about a dozen major characters, all very well developed.

The story itself is concerned mainly with the relationships and wealth of Amelia and Becky, but there are as many subplots as there are characters. Occasionally the story becomes stagnant, but there are enough stories and settings that I never became bored. The influence of the Napoleonic Wars is much stronger in Vanity Fair than in any of Austen's novels, which creates some interesting settings such as the battle of Waterloo, as battle that has a profound influence on the story. There is plenty of humor in the story as well and also Thackeray's famous societal commentary. This makes having notes in the book important, as there are references to events, places, languages, and things that a modern reader would normally not be familiar with.

This is a long book and the beginning isn't much fun to read, but it is interesting and insightful once you get into it. The setting might be over a hundred years ago, but the people in it are not outdated and their motivations and characters will seem familiar to the modern reader. Whether or not someone would like this novel comes down to if one can get past the length, archaic language, obscure references, and number of stories and characters. It certainly took me awhile and I almost stopped reading it, but I came to care for the characters enough that I began enjoying it.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her, no matter what she does. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her, no matter what she does. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her, no matter what she does. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her, no matter what she does. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

If only for the prodigious use of symbolism and the author's unerring sense of verbal wit, Thackery's hefty masterpiece "Vanity Fair" should be taught by all primary school teachers. Where else can a budding George Osborne or Rebecca Sharp gain the insight and rules they'll need for their societal climbs? Fairs of vanity are all around us, and where better to equip one's self with the requisite social mores, the perfect dandified behavior, and the suggested utter lack of shame, than in Thackery's fun and brilliant tome?
No other novel so effectively presents one character after another, with whom we fail to rally behind. Throughout the novel the much-catered-to reader finds himself on the verge of throwing his support behind one player after the next. But, alas, there are no heroes to be found. In fact, all of the fair's members, save perhaps the quixotic Captain cum Colonel Dobbin, and maybe the saintly though financially hapless Mr. Sedley senior, continuously thwart any attempt on the reader's part at finding one shred of pure decency-anywhere, or with anyone-in this Vanity Fair. Instead, what Thackery presents his readers is page after page of dubious morals played out in tedious drawing rooms filled with corpulent Nobs, impecunious dandies, and rarefied, although highly mannered, well-born dimwits.
Pathos is in no small evidence in "Vanity Fair." Whether it's Amelia Sedley's blind and masochistic love for the rakish George(s) in her life (the son by George senior very much resembles his pathetic father even by the age of 8), or the zenith Mrs. Crawley (a.k.a. Becky Sharp) reaches when at last she is allowed to become "a virtuous lady" (through an interview at Court), the Fair is full of lead-tipped struggles and victories.
We're not meant to shed a tear for anyone in this book. Instead, we're allowed an unabridged glance at the players and the stages that made up the Vanity Fair of Thackery's day. The point is--the fair is always open (and always has been, since time immemorial); only the characters and the costumes change.

It's only now that I notice the subtitle "novel without a hero", and that is what struck me most about this novel- the lack of heroes. Indeed, just about all of the characters are flawed in some way, but I beg to differ that there is no hero. Surely the good and honest Major Dobbin qualifies. He may be gawky and awkward, but that makes him so much more endearing than the stereotypical Prince Charming type, or reformed rascal that we might expect to see in a typical contemporary Victorian novel.

In some ways, Vanity Fair is a typical Victorian novel. There are lots of characters that can be difficult to keep track of, it is kind of soap-opera-ish, and as it covers a long period of time, it is very long, tending to drag in the middle. However, the action really picks up in the last couple hundred pages, so it is well worth it to keep reading.

Another winning quality of Vanity Fair is the narration. It is a hyperbole and parody of the typical Victorian narration. Not only is the narrator an omniscent, third-person who passes judgements, but he is a wisecracking and exaggerated one as well.

I think Thackeray also deserves a lot of credit for not making the story predictable. I honestly didn't know quite how the story would wrap up, and as it neared the end I could tell that it wasn't going the way of a Hollywood movie plot (thankfully!).

When I read the summary of Vanity Fair, I was led to believe that it was all about Becky Sharp and that it was her story alone. Although you could argue in the end, it really is all about Becky and how she manipulates people, the characters of Amelia and Dobbin are too well-developed and interesting to play second fiddle to the scheming Becky.

In summary, Vanity Fair has more depth, wit, and honesty than your typical Victorian novel, so I highly recommend it!

This book is on my list of all-time favourites. It is a novel that exposes social hypocrisy and sham, and a social satire of Thackery's era. It was written in the mid-nineteenth century. This book is often referred to as "a novel without a hero". It does not in fact have a male hero, but it does have a wonderful female creation. Becky Sharp is a brilliant fictional creation. The novel covers so many different areas of society and Becky's effect on them and their effect on her as she moves through the story. We see many different ways of life from this time, and they are portrayed so very well. The elements that we see are army society, city merchants' society, country gentlefolk's society, genteel poverty, fashionable society, life below stairs, and we see them all so clearly. Most remarkable of all, Thackery's heroine's profound effect on her readers is so different than what we are normally used to. Becky has no redeeming human qualities at all. She is a liar, a hypocrite, ungrateful, dishonest, mercenary and mean. But these qualities make her appear so real because the reader is aware throughout what kind of person that she is. We are under no illusions. I could go on and on because I love this book so, but you need to read this wonderful novel for yourself.

This audio book is the first time I have been through `Vanity Fair' and I thought it was a good way to be introduced to this work. The narrator was Wanda McCaddon. I have heard her before in other classic works and she consistently does a good job as she did in this case. Her characterizations and intonations were good and I think that always helps in getting into the story. The only small complaint I have is that the narrator of the story is clearly male, so it would have been nice to have a male reader. Thackeray uses the narrator's voice a lot, so it would have been a better choice.

The story itself is clearly full of satire, which poked fun at the upper class in England during the early 19th century. Thackeray does an excellent job bringing out and emphasizing almost every flaw one would expect from this class of people. They are obviously caricatures, but are still close enough to the truth to make you think that you know people like those characters. Even his rare protagonists are almost too good.

I recommend this audio book to any one interested in this great classic.

William Makepeace Thackeray subtitled "Vanity Fair", his masterful comic novel, "A Novel Without a Hero". But while this big, baggy eight-hundred page monstrosity of comic characters and situations may lack a hero, it has two of the most memorable characters in English literature: Amelia Sedley and Becky Sharp. The contrapuntal, shifting fortunes of these two women drive the narrative of this big book, painting, along the way, a brilliant satirical portrait of English and European society at the time of the Napoleonic wars.
We first meet Amelia and Becky in the opening pages of the novel, leaving Miss Pinkerton's School for the wider world of fortune, love and marriage. Amelia Sedley, the naive, sheltered daughter of a rich London merchant whose fortunes will dramatically change over the course of her life, "was a dear little creature; and a great mercy it is, both in life and in novels, which (the latter especially) abound in villains of the most sombre sort, that we are to have for a constant companion so guileless and good-natured a person." In contrast, Becky Sharp, the impoverished orphan of an artist and a French opera singer of dubious repute, was a calculating, amoral social climber. "Miss Rebecca was not, then, in the least kind or placable . . . but she had the dismal precocity of poverty."
From the opening pages, Thackeray captures the reader's interest in these two characters and carries the reader through marriages, births, deaths, poverty, misfortune, social climbing . . . even the Battle of Waterloo! While Amelia and Becky wind like a long, contrasting thread from the beginning to the end of this story, there are also plots and subplots, intrigues and authorial asides, and one character after another, all of this literary invention keeping the reader incessantly preoccupied and enthralled. Reading "Vanity Fair" is the furthest thing from "killing time" (as the dusty, misguided literary critic F. R. Leavis once said); it is, rather, the epitome of the nineteenth century English comic novel, a masterpiece in every sense of the word.

Listened to the audio version read by Wanda McCaddon. The story is wonderful, sarcastic, tragic and humorous. Overly long and full of explanations of societal norms and human failings, it is still a delight, made more so by the enthusiastic reading and wonderful voices supplied by Miss McCaddon. Highly recommended.

Many consider William Makepeace Thackeray (1811-1863) a minor novelist who wrote in a time when George Eliot, Charles Dickens, and Anthony Trollope ruled the roost of British literature. Out of all of his works, "Vanity Fair" is the most recognizable in literary circles, although Stanley Kubrick immortalized Thackeray's "Barry Lyndon" in a film of the same name. "Vanity Fair" appeared in serial form in 1847-48, a process of publishing used to great success by Charles Dickens. The introduction to this Everyman's Library edition, written by Catherine Peters, says that the title of the book came from John Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress," an immensely popular work in circulation at the time.
"Vanity Fair" centers on the exploits of two British women, Rebecca Sharp and Amelia Sedley, beginning roughly at the time of the Battle of Waterloo and ending at some time in the 1830's. The two women are polar opposites: Becky is a conniving, domineering, sometimes insensate woman who constantly attempts to secure a position in high society. Amelia is a rather plain, simple girl who trusts people too often and ends up getting her heart stomped on repeatedly. The two women are ostensibly friends, spending their youth together at a finishing school and occasionally running into each other throughout their lives. Thackeray often likes to place the two in opposition to one another: when Amelia falls into a crisis, Becky is moving in the highest circles of society. When Amelia comes into luck, Becky's fortunes plummet. This see-sawing action helps move the novel through a series of intricately detailed scenes showing off Thackeray's sense of humor, his caustic critiques of English society, and his insightful commentary into the human condition.
Arrayed around these two figures is a veritable constellation of major and minor characters, all with their own foibles that Thackeray exposes in minute detail. There is Joseph Sedley, Amelia's obese and selfish brother who nearly marries Becky in the beginning of the book. George Osborne appears through part of the book as Amelia's fiancée and eventual husband, a vain man with an eye for the ladies and a spendthrift attitude. George's friend William Dobbin also figures prominently in the story. Dobbin is an admirable man, marred by his inability to come to terms with the feelings he has for Amelia. Other characters appear and disappear rapidly, too many to outline here. It is sufficient to say that Thackeray does not worry about overburdening the reader with too many cast members, and with nearly 900 pages in the book, he definitely has the time to adequately describe numerous scenes and people.
I do not know much about literary tags, but I will say that Thackeray must certainly fall into the category of a realist writer. His goal with "Vanity Fair" was to write a story that went against the romantic hero/heroine novels of his day. The subtitle to this book, "A Novel Without a Hero," clearly outlines the author's intentions to oppose unrealistic, feel good literature that failed to properly reflect genuine life. In this respect, Thackeray succeeds admirably by creating characters that exhibit both good and bad traits during their lives. For example, Becky steals and schemes her way through life but performs an amazingly beautiful service for Amelia at the end of the book. Does this make Becky a heroine? Hardly, as Becky does not change her ways after this event. Thackeray constantly sets us up to see a heroic act, only to dash our hopes a few pages later.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of the novel is Thackeray's acidulous wit. Everyone comes in for a drubbing here, from the aristocracy to the common man. Names often reflect the author's scorn: nobles carry such embarrassing monikers as Lord Binkie, Lady Bareacres, and Lord Steyne. Sharp is an effective name for Becky, exposing her character and incisive wit. "Vanity Fair" is full of backstabbing, lying, adultery, stealing, pride and general rowdiness, and no one is above these base behaviors.
A slight problem with the story concerns the numerous narrative digressions that wax philosophic about relationships, women and their roles in society, and bad behavior. These insertions do become taxing at times even though they often help move the story along. Thackeray wants to make sure you know what he is trying to accomplish; he wants you to see yourself and your friends and family in these character sketches.
A bigger problem for me concerned this particular edition of the story. There were no footnotes or endnotes in the Everyman's Library version to help explain the jargon or place names of Thackeray's England. While the author's use of language never approaches the level of Walter Scott's Scottish vernacular, to cite an extreme example, it is still a problem at times. I recommend picking up the Penguin Classics version of "Vanity Fair," since Penguin editions usually employ explanatory notes.
"Vanity Fair" is a long yet worthwhile read. The book is hardly unreadable, an unfair label often attached to this agreeable story. If you enjoy reading 18th century English literature, you must read "Vanity Fair."

I was surprised how much I enjoyed this book. If a novel should tell an engaging and page-turning story, and use language artfully and beautifully, Vanity Fair is excellent on both counts. I was amazed how modern the narrator's voice was in wit and satire. I had to smile and chuckle many times during one of his asides, when he assures you of his humble sincerity in relating this tale, and cites the reader's virtue as the reason he will spare the more vulgar details. I am also a fan of Patrick O'Brian, a 20th century writer who also uses the English language masterfully and sets his stories around the Napoleonic Wars, so it was a delight to read Vanity Fair, written not long after that period. You need to have a sense of humor and be willing to accept the imperfect virtue of us all to fully enjoy this book. I would highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in learning about our cultural history ("our" being Western Civilization), and enjoys a good story. Vanity Fair truly is a great book.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her, no matter what she does. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her, no matter what she does. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

All the world, in every social class, is simply a Vanity Fair, where people compete for money, power and status. Like Thackeray rightly says, hypocrisy is the main cement keeping society whole. If we told the truth to each other all the time, we couldn't live together. Our homes would be caves, there would be no parties and many businessmen would go broke. On the contrary, though we all speak ill of all the rest, we frequent and tolerate each other. This book is a treatise on worldly philosophy, cynical but profoundly realistic.

Becky Sharp and Amelia Sedley leave Miss Pinkerton's school for young ladies and go out into Vanity Fair. Their baggage is different: Amelia, rich, is too good and passive; Becky, poor and orphaned, is totally selfish, amoral and cynical. To live in this world she's prepared; she's armed and dangerous. She's very beautiful and a great actress. She's the perfect social climber. Amelia invites her to spend a few days with her, during which Becky tries to seduce Amelia's brother Jos into marriage, but fails thanks to Amelia's fiancee. Although she can't marry the fat, fool and proud Jos, he never forgets her. So Becky has to go as governess to a rural manor called Queen's Crawley, where the boss is the old, degenerate, and corrupt Sir Pitt Crawley, with whose second son, Rawdon, Becky will eventually marry, after many adventures and scheming. Both Rawdon and George Osborne, Amelia's fiancee, are called to fight at Waterloo, where a tragedy will happen. William Dobbin, a friend of Osborne, is in love with her but silently, and will always be her loyal friend. The years pass, and while Amelia's family sinks in poverty and disrepute, Becky climbs in the world, with morally questionable but effective methods. The ending, of course, won't be spoiled here.

Under the facade of a frivolous story, kind of a soap opera, Thackeray talks to us about the way we are, of the futility of ambition and the turnarounds of life. Written with a morbid, acid and ruthless sense of humor, the author uses his novel to have a chat with us readers, question us, and reflect with us, which makes it even more enjoyable. Just when Thackeray sees the disgust in our face, he asks us: What would you have done in this situation? Do you really feel so morally superior? Do you not live in Vanity fair too?.

Although the story is basically sad, it is full of life and told in so funny a way that you will laugh and take a moment to think about what you have just read. There are plenty of subplots, digressions, and asides, but all of them make sense. It is thankfully long, since a shorter book would have it hard to convey in all its power the variety of life. In few books does British wit shines so much as in this one, an epic of domestic life which honors its subtitle: "A novel without a hero".

I found Vanity Fair almost impossible to rate and am ending up giving it four stars. In many ways this is a thoroughly modern work. The voice is consistently sarcastic, indeed consistently funny. The ending is spectacular: witty, daring, not at all what I (confidently) expected. At the same time I am convinced this cannot, should not be read like a modern novel.

The plot follows two young ladies, one rich and one poor, at least to begin with, one virtuous and the other opportunistic, in their trajectories through late-Georgian society. From husbands to family members to more distant hangers-on, one is regaled besides with the careers of a far wider cast of characters. A social satire at heart, moreover, Thackeray's masterpiece does not shrink from psychological detail nor from moral inquiry. At the same time, for all the fascinating banter, this remains an ever-disconcerting book. The modern novel is plot-driven. Even in a work like, say, Franzen's Freedom or Hollinghurst's The Line of Beauty, where the point is in social portrayal, all the elements end up moving to one end, driving the reader forward in unison. I would argue the contemporary equivalent of Vanity Fair is the (high-quality) TV serial. This was published in instalments. It was, and is in this edition, illustrated. And it takes the time to explore an infinity of side plots and twists and to keep painting its characters until the very last page. This is to be read in instalments, to be savoured, perhaps alongside other readings, at pace. Finding myself incapably of doing that, I now fail to give it five stars. And if this is unfair, so is the denouement of Vanity Fair.

Just like its title suggests, this book is as frivolous and superficial as it gets. Tons of uninteresting characters in a hard to follow, and uninteresting narrative. The main character, Rebecca, shines at moments, and disappears at others, and there's too much bulk material to keep on reading.

At Miss Pinkerton's Academy for Young Ladies, two girls are leaving the security of the school for the marital opportunities of the world; one is all heart and no head, the other all head and no heart. Becky Sharp and Amelia Sedley are girls from two very different backgrounds; Amelia has been raised in wealth and privilege, whilst Becky is an orphan whose late parents were a painter and an opera singer. Their prospects for the future are looking very different indeed, but Becky in particular is determined to make a way for herself in the world, to claw her way up the social ladder, to integrate herself fully into Vanity Fair and establish a place for herself in the world...no matter what the cost.

So what is "Vanity Fair"? The title originated in John Bunyan's allegorical "Pilgrim's Progress", which describes the Christian's journey to the Celestial City, passing though the dangers and temptations that await them in life, represented by several metaphorical destinations. Vanity Fair is one such place, filled with "whores, bawds, wives, husbands, children, masters, servants, lives, blood, bodies, souls, silver, gold, pearls, precious stones, and what not" - a list of commodities where the lives of men and women are ranked alongside gold and jewels.

Many years later, William Makepeace Thackeray borrowed the conceit for the novel he was publishing serially in "Punch" magazine, which was in fact the perfect title for the story he was creating. Set in Napoleonic England, Vanity Fair is the country, society and state of mind in which his characters dwell, wrapped up in affairs of greed, materialism, warfare, society and intrigue. Such is the world that innocent Amelia and conniving Becky are sent out into, both to walk their very different - but often interconnecting - paths. Amelia is betrothed to her childhood sweetheart and family friend George Osborne, a handsome but spoilt young man - not that she is aware of that, being utterly blinded by her love and devotion to her young soldier. She's too blind to even notice the adoration of the clumsy and nervous Captain Dobbin, traits which keep him from being a hero in her (and everyone else's) eyes.

On the other hand, Becky (after failing to secure a match with Amelia's brother Joseph Sedley) finds employment as a governess in the household of Sir Pitt Crawley, a lecherous and sinful old man whose estate has long since fallen into disrepair. However Becky is determined to make the most of it, especially when it comes to winning the favour of the rich Miss Crawley, the family's "maiden aunt" - which may furthermore throw her into the path of the rakish Rawdon Crawley.

Though the subtitle is "A Novel Without a Hero" (apt, since all of the male characters subvert the idea of what we would deem "heroic"), Amelia and Becky can perhaps be considered the novel's heroines, as it is their stories that make up the narrative drive of the book. Amelia certainly fits the bill of a beautiful, romantic, helpless little Victorian heroine, but even more so is the character of Becky, of whom Thackeray himself said: "I like Becky in that book. Sometimes I think I have myself some of her tastes." Utterly ruthless, heartless, witty, charming and determined, Becky is still as much of an enigma today as she was in Thackeray's day. Though by contemporary standards it is rather easy to admire Becky for her intelligence and survival tactics (as the recent "Vanity Fair" movie adaptation starring Reese Witherspoon certainly did), there is a definite darkness to her that makes you rather uneasy.

Take for example the early scene of Becky throwing back the gift of a dictionary in the faces of her school-mistresses Miss Pinkerton and Miss Jemima: an act of defiance and rejection. But though we like and admire her for thumbing her nose at the snotty Miss Pinkerton, we are equally aware that she has done the same to Miss Jemima, who has gone out of her way to ensure Becky receives the parting gift of a dictionary like the other girls. Such is Becky's dilemma, that she not only rejects scorn and snide remarks; but also acts of kindness and charity toward her - life for her has long since ceased to be anything but a competition. As it stands, we can neither completely sympathise with Amelia nor completely condemn Becky - both are women struggling to survive in a world where their welfare is completely reliant on men.

Also of interest is the narrator's voice within the text; presumably representing Thackeray himself rather than some omnipresent being, who treats and describes his characters as puppets that he's manipulating in the setting of Vanity Fair. As well as this, he is a character in his own right, who recounts meetings and discussions with the characters, documenting the notes and letters they send to each other, and incorporating historical events and figures (most obviously the Napoleonic War) into his text. Due also to the fact that he's often contradicting himself, the narration itself comes across as one of the more fascinating aspects of the novel, and to my knowledge has never been attempted to such a degree before or since in literature.

"Vanity Fair" is not for the faint-of-heart reader; it is long, complicated and sometimes tedious (I found the pace slowed down considerably after the Battle of Waterloo). However, there are rewards for those that stick with it - it is frequently hilarious, often fascinating, and leaves you with a distinct feeling of melancholy unease, especially if you yourself are living in Vanity Fair. Thackeray's characters you see, are doomed to live out their lives in that hollow and ultimately meaningless place - and their lives stand as a testiment and a warning as to going there yourself.

As the only novel of the time that gave Charles Dickens a run for his money, and penned by an author of whom Charlotte Bronte (author of "Jane Eyre") said: "stands alone in his sagacity, alone in his truth, alone in his feeling...Thackeray is a Titan," Vanity Fair remains one of the great pieces of Western literature. Start reading!

This book follows the life of two friends, Amelia Sedley and Rebecca Sharp in English society from about 1815 to 1825. Amelia is born into a prosperous family, however they are soon to fall on hard times. Rebecca, on the other hand, marries into a wealthy family, but her respectability is paper thin. Amelia and her family try to make an honest living and are shunned by society while Rebecca cheats and swindles her way across Europe without censure. The contrast in "Polite Society's" reactions to the two women show that social standing has little to do with honor and virtue, and is more at the whim of the elite.

It is a worthwhile read, despite several slow parts. I think modern writers have forgotten how to write a novel (modern writers write screenplays) and it is a delight to follow an author through twists and turns that don't translate well to the big screen. Groundbreaking at the time, this is an old story for the 21st Century reader. We've seen many variations on this theme. As you read, try to appreciate the effect this book would have had in 1848.

Vanity Fair is alive after two centuries, readable despite its great length, because Thackeray so entertainingly skewers the moral foibles of early 19th Century British society - the fawning, the greed, the hypocrisy, the pack mentality, the cowardice. It is reassuring to the misanthrope in us that nothing has changed about human nature since the time of Napoleon.

Above all of its qualities, two things stand out about Vanity Fair: Becky Sharp, one of the most compelling characters in English literature, and the ironic narrative tone in which the tale is told.

First, Becky: If you were to catalog her sins, Thackeray's "little adventuress," would rank with some of fiction's worst villains, nearly on a par with Shakespeare's Iago or Dickens's Uriah Heep. Why, then, does the reader find himself rooting for her? Because Becky is resourceful, cynically self-aware and always in the middle of the action. Also because Becky is a lot like ... not like us, of course, but a lot like certain people we know: willing to cut an ethical corner or undercut a friend if it will work to their advantage and there's a decent chance they won't get caught. Part of Becky's fascination is that despite her relentlessly me-first attitude, she is the farthest thing from a narcissist. While a narcissist can only see what's in the mirror, Becky is a gifted observer of others, which makes her a brilliant mimic and con artist, able to locate the hidden soft spots where her victims are vulnerable to flattery or more elaborate forms of deceit.

Second, the tone: The genius of Vanity Fair's comedy is the pretense that the reader is in the hands of a reporter who has no axe to grind and no particular preference for one character over another. In fact, the narrator is loading the dice at every throw and humorously signaling when he should be taken at face value and when he means exactly the opposite of what he's saying. Vanity Fair is a long book, in the tradition of the three-volume novel then in vogue. What helps make the book glide by is that the narrator is such urbane good company. He's a bit like the legendary director Alfred Hitchcock, who used to sign off from his 1950s crime-and-suspense show by noting, in a nod to American TV's then-prevailing morality standards, that the criminal in today's episode ultimately was brought to justice. He would deliver this news with a face so sour and a tone so arch that the viewer fully understood that Hitchcock's sympathies lay more with the wily villains than with their insipid victims.

An extra bonus is some of the greatest character names this side of Dickens: Lady Jane Sheepshanks, Fanny de Butterbrod, Lord Tapeworm, Lady Bareacres, Ensign Stubble and the Rev. Beilby Binny, to name a few.

We've all heard something along the lines of 'Dickens / Hardy / Victorian writers were paid by the word.' This was supposedly believed for many years; then it supposedly came out in later times, that that was all tosh. Well, after ploughing through Middlemarch a while back, then this, Vanity Fair, I am not so sure it was tosh / urban myth.

There is a good tale here, there really is, but, just like Middlemarch, it is overlaid / encased / runs parallel with an absolute load of bunkum. The basic tale of a reasonably limited number of central / sub-central / supporting characters, is churned to literary gruel by a widening to include not so much sub-plots as minimal below-trivial side stories, side characters, side issues. It was obviously not enough for Mr Thackeray to have, say, the Osbornes, Crawleys, Sedleys and the Diana-Villiers-Maturinesque Ms Sharpe (Yep, bad comparison - Sharpey came first by over a century, but still . . .) book into a hotel perhaps, no, no, that won't suffice; we get the low down on the rest of the guests too, as well as their families at home, their maids and 'boots' etc, and what they did and didn't do. Ok, ole Dicko did this too, but he did it better and more judiciously in a literary sense, but I am afraid to say, at least in my opinion, ole Makey - Thackers just churned out a load of waffling tripe. Worse still, and like the good lady of Middlemarch, these annoying super-padders were the worst possible examples in the old show/tell caper. Where these unwelcome extenders do differ, is that in Middlemarch, it was reams of stuff on the psyche of humanity via author POV, here it is more of the outer planes: who was who, what did they do, WHO did they do, where did they do it and why, and tons of it, and again, the lion's share of this was all in narrative not dialogue, page after page of it.

Ok, so we can write off a good 250 maybe even 300 pages of the 900 or so as being unnecessary guff, but what is left?

To call the two young ladies - Amelia Sedley and Rebecca Sharp, fresh out of school / college, the main central characters, while not being inaccurate is at the same time too limiting. They are the vehicle for the reader to enter into the (but sadly formulaic) world of the Victorian London and Country 'Big Houses'. And we get to know various families, and of course their standing and lack of it, their money - and lack of it, and their vices and virtues, with one or two having both sides of the coin at once. Think of a drawing room farce, any of them; think of the characters gathered on any given night in any given 'season', and you will find them here in Vanity Fair.

What is lost now, though, is our familiarity with many things which were in the nation's consciousness at the time. The author, writing for the time he was in, referenced many things, people, places and events in such a way as if we would know them without having too much explained to us. To be fair to the author, it can hardly be his fault we don't know, 150 or so years later, why Sir or Lady Whoever did or said what they did or said, or went where they went. But I can imagine many sections in the book which leave us now, none the wiser, but some wag in an inn in Smithfield in 1870 sharing some tidbits from the serialisation with any old Sam Weller or Barkus as they snorted their hot rum and water.

So, to sadly cite the usual formulaic cliched folks and happenings, if blushing maidens, bristling majors, or even bristling cads, precocious younguns, granddmothers / maiden aunts tut-tutting, the staff gossiping, will-bagging of an oldie on his or her last, and more, then, the punctuating tripe notwithstanding, then this could be called a good read. For me though, the excess baggage isn't just 'there', it actively spoilt it for me.

rather than reviewing the plot, writing, or historical background, i focus on the oxford world's classic paperback edition. like others have said, one of the best things about this edition is the inclusion of thackeray's illustrations. the endnotes are also arranged by page number, making it relatively easy to find them. most of the notes are helpful, such as explaining the various indian terms or explaining who or what thackeray was lampooning. and some are even crucial, such as the meaning of the names of becky's lawyers. on the other hand, there seems to be an excessive number of references to the prior edition by the tillotsons, incomplete discussions of thackerey's edits, and incomplete discussions of historical context (for example, i found myself relying on wikipedia more than the notes for information about the crawley family and their relationships to political leaders and events).

i found no printing errors in this edition, except for those that are apparently in the original ("mr. jos shaves off his moustachios"). in addition to the endnotes, there is a concise introduction and a discussion of the effect on the novel of writing it in monthly serials (better to read both after you're done).

This was a real pleasure to read. It is beautifully written, extremely amusing and very accurate concerning the streak of vanity that flows through human nature. Like most authors of his day, Thackeray wrote this in serial form for a newspaper and the introduction of the book reveals that he was in it only for the $, hadn't properly thought about the structure of the book and just figured out what was to happen as he went along. This keeps the reader guessing as to the direction of the novel and each chapter becomes a novella revolving around one set of characters. The plot keeps twisting and turning at a delicious rate and Thackeray's occasional interventions to give his opinion about his characters made me laugh out loud. However, fact that the book was a series does become frustrating at times, when there are some inconsistencies in the characters. For example, one character (not giving anything away)emerged at the beginning of the novel as quite a headstrong, sympathetic and innocent character, yet during the novel she turned a little too quickly into a calculating, Machiavellic and frankly evil one. Another similarly went from lovable rogue a la Heathcliffe to dull and stupid in a matter of chapters. Nonetheless, I strongly recommend this book. It definitely rings true on many levels and all of us humans have vanity and greed dormant somewhere inside us.

While there are many lovely and funny things in this book, the degree to which one is likely to enjoy this novel depends upon how one responds to Becky Sharp. Thackeray does a marvelous job of setting forth both her very considerable charms and her undeniable flaws. On the one hand she is irresistibly charming, lovable, vivacious, beautiful, a brilliant conversationalist, charismatic, delightfully flirtatious, and immensely talented. On the other hand, she is deceitful, unfaithful, untruthful, grasping, and manipulative. Myself, I loved Becky, and consider her to be one of the most thrilling anti-heroines in English literature.
This novel is simply a great read. Like any good Victorian classic, there is an amazing array of wonderful characters. Unlike many similar novels, where you always know that all of the main characters are going to end up married--the only impediments being how the lovers will be united (the great exception being Trollope, where everyone might end up married, or everyone might end up not; he is a very difficult to anticipate storyteller)--I found it difficult to anticipate who would end up with whom.
The historical period is the same as for PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but while in that awesome novel the Napoleonic Wars merely provided a pretext for having soldiers present in towns for balls, in this novel the War is very, very much a War, and as such exerts a strong influence on the plot. In PRIDE AND PREJUDICE there is no hint that soldiers might actually have to fight and perhaps die.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

This is the novel I always go back to when I want to recapture that great "Primal Read." It's almsot impossible to put Thackeray's masterpiece down: its depiction of the corrupt world of the Prince Regent seems to leap off the page and acquire its own reality, so that for days after I first read this I seemed to be living in Thackeray's universe rather than late twentieth-century America. Its genius is not only in its humor (which is considerable--episodes like Becky Sharp's impression of the Countess of Southdown are almost unforgettably funny) but in its rounded depiction of characters who seem to have lives of their own outside of the book itself. No character, no matter how trivial, does not get his or her own moment, and just when you've written off one of them as two-dimensional Thackeray suddenly makes you aware of that character's ability to suffer in an acutely human way. Thackeray never wrote anything better, but nor did perhaps any other Victorian novelist.

This Naxos abridgement of the 800+ page Thackeray novel stretches across five CDs, and one of my frequent thoughts while listening to Jane Lapotaire's excellent reading was "Thank goodness they didn't transcribe the full novel".
To the modern ear, used to today's "Show -- don't tell" scriptwriter dictum, there is far, far too much exposition and far too few scenes in Thackeray's classic. Thackeray can certainly do scenes of real drama -- witness the moment in which Rawdon catches Becky with her lover and the ensuing combat. But for most of the reading we seem to be in catch-up mode, forever being told things that have happened off-camera.
Much credit to Jane Lapotaire for a fine reading of this work. Her French accent is, as one might anticipate from someone with her surname, very good. Although Becky is her tour-de-force, Lapotaire does well to bring the male characters alive, often with a certain hoarseness!
I have seen at least two TV serialisations of this novel, both by the BBC, and neither seemed quite as comprehensive an account of this long, winding tale at this Naxos abridgement.

A Review Of _Vanity Fair_, by William Makepeace Thackeray

I started reading _Vanity Fair_ a few months ago, because I thought it was a Great Classic of English literature, and that reading it might be an interesting experience. By the time I had gotten about 30 or 40 pages into it, I was beginning to realize that it was shaping up to be possibly the most boring thing I have ever read in my entire life. Only strict discipline, and determination to finish what I had started, got me through to the end of the book.

Thackeray has described the book as " a novel without a hero." A better description might be "words without a story." In the entire 753 page novel, I don't think there were more than about 30 pages in which anything was happening that was worth paying any attention. Thackeray didn't have the modern concept of trying to hold the reader's attention. He didn't have to compete with television or radio. It's pretty obvious that he was getting paid by the word.

This book might be thought of as the English _War and Peace_. Just as Tolstoy told the story of the Napoleonic wars from the point of view of ordinary Russians, so does Thackeray tell the same story from the point of view of ordinary English families. Just as czar Alexander I was an important character in Tolstoy, so is the Duke of Wellington an important character in Thackeray.

One of the book's most annoying features is Thackeray's habit of interrupting the story to tell us his opinions. Tolstoy, of course, frequently did the same thing. Apparently, this is what passed for good writing in the 19th century.

Oh, by the way, if this review seems somewhat disoriented and rambling, then that makes it a fair review. The book is the same way.

I would not recommend this book to anyone. If you have to read it for school, then good luck. Keep a notebook by your side, and jot down notes about the characters to help keep them straight in your mind. Thackeray keeps introducing new characters. It gives him an excuse to make the story longer and thus get paid more. Many of the characters have multiple names. (Amelia Sedley is sometimes called "Emmy", and sometimes called "Mrs. George Osborne." At the end of the book she becomes "Mrs. William Dobbin." Oops. Did I just spoil the story for you? Don't worry. There wasn't much to spoil. Dobbin is often called "Dob" or "the Major". Joseph Sedley is called "Jos". Amelia's first husband is sometimes called "Captain Osborne" or just "the Captain." Becky Sharp is sometimes called "Mrs. Rawdon Crawley." Oh, there I go with the spoilers again. You'll thank me later.)

George Osborne's death in the battle of Waterloo is perhaps the single most important climax of the whole book. Thackeray doesn't bother to foreshadow it at all. He just plops it on you like an afterthought.

Thackeray himself has described Becky Sharp (Rebecca Crawley, or Mrs. Rawdon Crawley) as the heroine of the novel. Surely, he must have had tongue planted firmly in cheek when he wrote this. Becky has no heroic qualities at all. She is a conniving backstabber who will do anything and say anything to promote herself. You would not want your daughter or your niece to adopt Becky Sharp as a role model for her life. No, if this book has a heroine, it must be Amelia Sedley Osborne Dobbin. She patiently accepts the unfairness of life, and strives to make the best possible life for her son, in stark contrast to Becky, who doesn't care whether her son lives or dies, although she puts on a big show about how much she loves him.

If you're thinking about buying this book, borrow a copy first. See if you can read a few pages without feeling extremely bored.

Before I close this review, perhaps I should point out that my copy is a QPB Classics edition. Copyright 1991 by Book-Of-The-Month Club. The picture on the front cover is of candlesticks on a dining table. Other editions may have features that make them better. For example, I understand that Thackeray drew sketches that he intended to be included with the story. They are not included with the Quality Paperback Book Club 1991 edition.

But I still say, if you want to read a really good, funny novel about people and their hypocritical ways, read _The Catcher In The Rye_, by J.D. Salinger instead.

One thing I learned AFTER leaving school books and English classes behind was how to really read books with a deep, subjective understanding. Too often teachers tell you to love a book simply because it has been "a classic" for centuries. But that alone is no excuse. If you love or hate it, it should be for specific reasons. You should feel no obligation to love Vanity Fair. I hated it! And these are the reasons:

1) I hate virtually all the characters (if not all)! Aside from Dobbin and Lady Jane, everyone else is taxing to the nerves, for varying reasons (and even Dobbin can be frustrating). Either they're tedious, selfish, stupid, gullible, deceitful, scheming, arrogant, or any combination of these and worse character traits. It is impossible for me to enjoy a book when I can't stand the characters.
2) Thackeray's descriptions of women. I do not contend with the author on the reality that women of his description do exist, but I disagree with some of his ideas about how people, in general, feel about such women. Obviously, plotting Becky Sharp is a pestilence to anyone who gets in her path. Unfortunately, she is also nearly the only women in the book who at least THINKS. Amelia, on the other hand, is a total nitwit, who has never been taught how to think, and Thackeray seems to like it that way, since he describes her as the type of mild, innocent personality that makes men "want to take of her." Even innocence has its limits. To be a thinking woman does not of itself make a conspiracy, and to be a thoroughly gullible woman is highly frustrating to the surrounding populace. This is why Lady Jane is as close to a sensible person as you can get in this book. The author seems to endorse the very stereotypes of women that Austen spent her time battling.
3) Thackeray's writing style annoys me to death. He is the king of useless tangents. He'll start off on some explanation of something that has no direct bearing on the story. He even writes an entire chapter about a party house, near the end, in which none of the characters appear, and which has no direct significance to the story at all. He could have simply devoted a few lines to the idea that some people waste their time in a futile parade of social uselessness without plaguing the readers with a full, unrelated chapter. His writing is tedious, and I was screaming, "Get on with it!" Even my librarian sister (who loves reading) couldn't get through his endless blab.

Yet, there are still reasons to read such a work, even if it does not appeal to you personally. It is not a terrible work, though there are many better. The story, though nauseating in its presentation sometimes, is not bad. And there is some use in gathering an understanding of how ideas about women have changed since the author's time. If there is any moral to be gotten from both sides of the story it is that people who lack sense and/or ethics damage and harass the innocent people around them (i.e. the innkeeper and his family who ended up in debt and anyone who had to listen to Amelia's misguided ramblings about her husband). There is also use in comparing Thackeray's writing style to other authors. So, there is both thematic and structural analysis to glean, even if the story does not strike a chord with you. Bottom line: I would check it out from the library and give it a try before paying for it. If you really love it, then buy it and read it again. But feel free to decide for yourself.

Ok, I'm just going to say it: I am feeling extremely smug right now that I just finished a "period" book of almost 1,000 pages entirely of my own volition. This is no light read and for me, reading it just for the sake of reading it was the literary equivalent to running a marathon in high heels.
Now, as for my sentiments towards the book, to be perfectly honest, I was quite under whelmed. I suppose one could argue that Vanity Fair serves as a predecessor to the modern day satire and romantic fluff that keep Katherine Heigl and Jennifer Aniston in a job, but I really don't understand why it is held with such high esteem in comparison to the classics of Thackery's contemporaries. Here we have the exhausted storyline of two people from opposite sides of the tracks leading parallel lives whilst facing the trials and toils symptomatic of their social pedigrees. There's Amelia, the aristocratic debutante with a disposition so saccharin sweet it sometimes made me want to drop kick a nun, and Rebecca, a soul-less viper that is motivated by nothing but self interest. The setting is early 19th century England and the story is really a glorified essay of the authors reflections on human stupidity, simplicity, and superficiality. Unlike Dickens, where every character no matter how insignificant will eventually reappear to play and integral part in the plot, the characters in Thackery's Vanity Fair took on the feel of marionettes performing in a silly but ostentatious puppet show. Perhaps that was the point, but honestly for 900+ pages, it got to be VERY tedious.
Like I said, I am proud of myself for sticking to it, but I will recommend only to those who possess an endless supply of patience for romantic comedy made over in mercury based powder.

After struggling with it for approximately six months (when a normal book takes me 3-4 days), I finally finished Vanity Fair, and I can honestly say that it was worth reading.

I disagree with so many who fawn at the knees of William Makepeace Thackery and laud his satire, for it isn't such. A book of this type is no more satire than 1984. Both are clear in their despising of their characters and their means and motives. Gulliver's Travels was a satire. This was not. As some have pointed out, this was intended to provide the grist for the mill of the popular taste. That doesn't mean that it is bad or not worth reading.

It is actually quite a well-written book, in turns fast and slow, although it certainly doesn't leave us with a feeling of morality on the parts of any of the characters, except perhaps Dobbin. Becky is clever and shrewd, and ruthless. Amelia is simpering, stupid, maudlin, and undeserving. The characters are simply who the author wants them to be. Mistake that not for satire, though.

For those who are curious about Victorian times, or enjoy Napoleonic Saga and British Empiricism, this will thrill you. For those who loathe it, this would be tiring, and you may want to skip it. For those who are curious, merely hang on, and watch the show.

B

Harkius

What more can I say about Thackeray's Vanity Fair than what has been said already? It is a vast, sprawling, untidy, maddening, delightful, sarcastic, sometimes bewildering, magnificent and utterly enjoyable novel. When I picked it up to begin reading just two weeks ago I thought I might be in for a long haul, but the 877 pages have just flown by.

Is there a character anywhere in English literature anything quite like the scheming, resourceful, amoral Becky Sharp? I doubt it. Everyone owes it to himself or herself to enjoy this great romp at least once in a lifetime.

I would highly recommnend getting this Oxford World Classics paperback. It is a reprint of the 1908 Oxford edition and every one of Thackeray's own drawings is included, often highly amusing and clever at that.

I would give if 5.5 stars if I could.

Amelia and Becky are schoolmates together at a fancy young ladies' finishing school in England in the 1800s. When the two leave together, Amelia is sobbed over, remembered fondly, and given a gift by the headmistress. Amelia comes from a good family and is very wealthy.

Becky, on the other hand, is a poor orphan who had to earn her stay at the school by teaching French to the younger girls, and her graduation is not mourned by anyone. Once free from the stifling environment of the school, Becky is able to look around and the world and find the best way of getting ahead in it.

This book follows the paths of Amelia and Becky as they each make their way through society and, for very different reasons, marry and gain families of their own. Becky and Amelia both struggle to be liked, to be accepted, and to make their way through their socially complex England.

The story of these characters is fascinating, and it is especially compelling to watch Becky, who is always on the lookout for the most advantageous opportunities provided to her. Amelia's story is much less turbulent, as she is not at all the conniver Becky is.

The book was a bit of a slog; it took a long time for me to read and I sometimes felt like I was missing some of the jokes. The characters and the story were still very interesting, though, despite being written in the style of the time.

I first saw the Reese Witherspoon movie a year ago, not having read the book. I was intrigued, so bought a copy, feeling quite virtuous for having bought a classic novel with the intention of reading it. It took me over a year to get around to reading it, during which time it sat on the shelf silently convicting me of my good intentions to read the classic work. I finally picked it up and decided to try it, to "improve my mind". Boy, was I surprised to find myself laughing and utterly engrossed in it. It is written in a different style of English from that of today, of course, but it is not as difficult to get through as, say, Jane Austen (whose books I do enjoy, so stop shrieking at me, all you JA fans). It is written tongue firmly in cheek and with delightful sarcasm and satire and cynicism. I am about halfway through as I write this and the more I read, the more I'm struck by the resemblance between Becky Sharp and Scarlett O'Hara. I wonder if Margaret Mitchell was a fan of this book?

I urge you to give this book a try, if you want a very funny and witty experience. I am enjoying it very much.

I finally finished it. Felt like I was reading War and Peace for a while! Worth it though. If you are reading reviews because you have started the book and not sure if you have the heart to finish it, keep going. If you are reading reviews because you are thinking of buying this book, make sure you get the Annotated version.

Fantastic female characters juxtaposed to each other, somewhat reminded me of the characters of Cousin Bette, Scarlett O'hara and Melanie from Gone with the Wind. Sharp criticism of the British aristocratic culture of the 19th Century in a deliciously twisted/cynical way. Great writing "...for so it was that Becky felt the Vanity of human affairs, and it was in those securities that she would have liked to cast anchor""...I believe that remorse is the least active of all a man's moral senses---the very easiest to be deadened when wakened: and in some never wakened at all. We grieve at being found out, and at the idea of shame or punishment; but the mere sense of wrong makes very few people unhappy in Vanity Fair."

After reading over 150 classics as part of my study of books for students of English as a Second Language, I rate this book in my top 8! It will sit along with Dickens' The Pickwick Papers, Dickens' David Copperfield, Cervantes' Don Quijote, Spyri's Heidi, Wyse's Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller and Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings on my BEST BOOKS of all time shelf. Thackeray's command of English is awesome. I LOVE the way he talks to us as readers throughout the book. It makes you feel like he's talking to you. Fantastic style. At times the book slows a little with details of British life in 1815-1825 and side character issues, but from Chapter 35 on it truly becomes a superb work in English Literature. Chapter 35 stands as a devasting view of the effect of war on the people back home. Truly brilliant! His emotional descriptions and characterizations(expecially the names of people!) are superb. His subtle wit is among the best I have read. Just put aside 2-3 weeks to read and enjoy this superb example of writing as English can be. Thackeray calls it the "vanity of human affairs" (Vanity Fair). It truly is. I had left this as the last book to read among my classics collection. This was a stroke of luck, because it made me reflect on all the other books and realize Thackeray is a much underrated writer and unfortunately died before he could write more... Be patient and enjoy a good read...

When reading 19th century literature, I must continually remind myself that at this time folks did not have TV, movie theaters or the internet and that a big source of entertainment came from reading novels. At the time of VF's publication, people were probably entertained when authors stepped outside of the story to pontificate on some philosophical issue or filled 100 pages with fluff without which would have no impact whatsoever on the main story. I am not. VF, like many novels of the period, was first issued in serial format and the authors were paid by the line. In this case, with all of the fluff, WMT would have made his fortune on VF alone and would not have had to write another line to sustain himself. Chapter 51, "In which a charade is acted which may or may not puzzle the reader", ostensibly admits this; and this is neither the beginning or end of the fluff. That said, there is a good story here although, because of all of the fluff, I was anxious for it to come to an end as I grew tired of the story line. However, I disagree with WMT that this is a novel without a hero. I think that Major Dobbin is as much a hero as any despite WMT's efforts to deride him. This is a long novel and, if you are patient and don't mind the fluff, there is a good story within.

It's obvious Thackeray is the king of satire. What's not so obvious is that he was ahead of his time in his writing style. His voice could be that of a star blogger on the Internet. The sardonic wit, the cynicism. Have things changed so little?

His characters are not so much flawed as they are downright hateful. Even Dobbin, the saint and only true innocent in the book, is annoying in his loyalty to the bloodless Amelia. Still you're happy when he wins her in the end. As for Becky Sharp, you can't help but root for her early on. Towards the middle of the book, however, you begin to hate her. Thackeray is brilliant. You can forgive a woman anything except not loving her child. Once Becky rejects her son, she is no longer endearing. You can't care anymore. And he doesn't focus on her so much anymore, as if that was the end of the one character you had the most feelings for.

But using the technique of day-time soap opera with its thousand and one sub-plots, Thackeray urges you to read on regardless of the fact that you don't like any of the characters. You wonder where its going to end. Is anyone ever going to be happy? Is anyone ever going to get punished? Some of the characters do get punished of course, but some of them don't, or they don't know they're being punished. What good is it if they don't know it?

It's hard to accept a story where a lot of the bad guys don't get punished. And yet, in the end, you can't help but being satisfied. I have no idea why. Is it because Dobbin finally does get Amelia? That Becky does seem to get what she deserves? And what does Becky deserve? Less than Amelia? Is Amelia happy in the end?Happier than Becky? Probably not. And that alone would probably make Becky happy if she thought about something besides herself for once. All I know is that as long as those two are miserable, I'm happy.

Sue Lange
author, Tritcheon Hash, [...]

If you like the big, sprawling novels of the 19th Century, full of dozens of characters with a supporting cast numbering in the hundreds, novels like Dickens's Bleak House or David Copperfield, George Eliot's Middlemarch or either of the Tolstoy novels, then Vanity Fair may be for you. I won't duplicate what other reviewers have already described below. Instead I'll mention a couple of points that haven't received enough attention.
First, what sets this novel apart from others of its kind is the active role of the narrator, presumably the author himself, or perhaps an unnamed character. Analogizing to sportscasts, this narrator is not content with doing the play-by-play; instead he(she?) constantly butts in with color commentary on the characters, exhortations to the reader, and rhetorical moralizing on such issues as men's treatment of women (bad), women's treatment of women (possibly worse), the harm that comes from living beyond one's means (which extends well beyond the spendthrift), and the question of what makes a gentleman and what makes a lady (honor and honesty). This is all done with such a sense of irony, satire or sarcasm that it's hard to tell when the narrator is being serious. It is this narrative distance from the characters that sets this novel apart from the sentimentality of Dickens, the earnestness of Eliot, the moral seriousness of Tolstoy. I don't think this is cynicism on Thackeray's part but rather an unwavering commitment to seeing the world as it really is, unblinkered by any ideology, philosophy or religion.
The second point derives from the first. There are no heroes or heroines, and no villains. All of the characters, regardless of gender, age, class are possessed of both good and bad qualities. Those on the good end of the spectrum are capable of bad acts: Amelia exploits Dobbin's love, and Dobbin foolishly lets her. Those on the bad end of the spectrum do good things: Lord Steyne obtains a government post for Rawdon Crawley; Becky Sharp Crawley brings about the reconciliation of Dobbin and Amelia. Not only that, but after 800 pages and fifteen years the baddies end up about as well off as the goodies. So what is the moral of this tale? Well, it's the old saw that you should be careful of what you wish for, because you just might get it. That caution applies even to such lofty goals as love and fidelity, and it goes double for fame and fortune.

William Makepeace Thackeray (1811-1863) was born in Calcutta, educated in England and died on Christmas Eve 1863. Along the way he was an illustrator, lecturer, journalist, editor and most notably a great novelist. During his lifetime Mr. Thackeray's works ran second only to the immortal Boz Charles Dickens in popularity and copies sold. His masterpiece is "Vanity Fair."
The title is taken from Puritan John Bunyan's "Pilgrims Progress".Thackeray used it to as the ttle of his 800 page behemoth of a Victorian three-decker. Vanity Fair examines with irony, wit and realism life in Napoleonic Europe. The vast panoramic work has countless character but the main ones are:
1. Becky Sharp-one of the greatest bad girls in all of fiction who inspired Margaret Mitchell's Scarlet O'Hara in Gone With the Wind. Becky is the daughter of an impecunious painter and a French show girl. Her father dies and Becky must be sharp in intellect to survive. Becky is a shrewd baggage of lies, deceptions and intrigue who also is charming, talented in music and art.She beguiles the reader. Becky leaves Miss Pinkerton's Academy by tossing out the coach window Dr Johnson's dictionary symbolizing her earthy awareness of life as it is lived. She is a rebel and lives today as she did in 1848 when Thackeray created her.
2. Amelia Sedley will remind you of Melanie in GWTW. Her father loses his fortune and she marries the playboy idiot George Osborne. George is killed at Waterloo so Amelia is forced to raise their son Georgy in poverty. Amelia is an innocent ninny who lacks intelligence though her motherly love is commendable. The reader wants to smack her for her refusal to have sense enough to know that William Dobbin is madly in love with her!
She has a stupid brother Jos Sedley who becomes the love slave of Becky. He spends years in India and grows wealthy, fat and dumb.
3. George Osborne weds Amelia but at the Duchess of Richmond's Ball in Brussels on the eve of Waterloo he writes a love note to Becky. George is spoiled by his rich family. He is egotistical and greedy.
4. William Dobbin is the best friend of George and is in love with Amelia. He is a faithful and loving friend who is always there to help Amelia when she is in in a jam. Life a faithful old horse who might be named Dobbin he is a man with a good heart and mind. His love for a married woman is based on Thackeray's own infatuation with a married woman Jane Brookfield.
5. Rawdon Crawley is a British officer who is the son of the old rogue Sir Pitt Crawley of Queen's Crawley estate. He loves gambling, girls, drink and Becky Sharp. Becky will have a stormy marriage which will founder on her affair with Lord Steyne. Rawdon's borther is Pitt Crawley Jr. who inherits the estate and weds a good woman named Jane Sheepshanks.
Thackeray's work will hold your attention despite its great length. His account of the civilian experience of the battle of Waterloo is superb. Thackeray has humor, pathos, sadness and joy within these pages. To fully enjoy Vanity Fair you need to read it rather than watch it on a DVD! Victorian novels are often long due to the fact they were published serially in magazines.

This review is not for the contents. The font size of the text is super tiny and extremely difficult to read so buy any other edition but this! Btw, I can find no publisher or press information in the book.

Greed, gold-digging and deception sit at the heart of "Vanity Fair." It's no joke that it's subtitled "a novel without a hero" -- William Makepeace Thackeray mercilessly skewered the pretentions and flaws of the upper class all throughout it. The result is a gloriously witty social satire.

It opens with two young women departing from a ladies' academy: dull, sweet Amelia (rich) and fiery sharp-witted Rebecca (poor). Becky Sharp is a relentless social climber, and her first effort to rise "above her station" is by trying to get Amelia's brother to marry her -- an effort thwarted by Amelia's fiancee. So instead she gets married to another family's second son, Rawdon Crawley.

Unfortunately, both young couples quickly get disinherited and George is killed. But Becky is determined to live the good life she has worked and married for -- she obtains jewels and money from admiring gentlemen, disrupting her marriage. But a little thing like a tarnished reputation isn't enough to keep Becky down...

"Vanity Fair" is actually a lot more complex than that, with dozens of little subplots and complicated character relationships. Reading it a few times is necessary to really absorb all of it, since it is not just a look at the two women in the middle of the book, but at the upper (and sometimes lower) social strata of the nineteenth century.

The main flaw of the book is perhaps that it sprawls too much -- there's always a lot of stuff going on, not to mention a huge cast of characters, and Thackeray sometimes drops the ball when it comes to the supporting characters and their little plots. It takes a lot of patience to absorb all of this. However... it's worth it.

Like most nineteenth-century writers, Thackeray had a very dense, formal writing style -- but once you get used to it, his writing becomes insanely funny. Witticisms and quips litter the pages, even if you don't pick them all up at once. At first Thackeray seems incredibly cynical (Becky's little schemes almost always pay off), but taken as a social satire, it's easier to understand why he was so cynical about the society of the time.

Becky Sharp is the quintessential anti-heroine -- she's very greedy and cold, yet she's also so smart and determined that it's hard not to have a grudging liking for her. Certainly life hasn't been fair for her. Next to Becky, a goody-goody character like Amelia is pretty boring, and even the unsubtle George can't measure up to Becky.

To sum up "Vanity Fair": think a period soap opera with a heavy dose of social commentary. In other words, it doesn't get much better than this, Thackeray's masterpiece.

VANITY FAIR is a sprawling epic novel that tells of the struggle of nearly everyone in it either to gain money or to bemoan the not having of it. This relentless groping toward money is not a trait normally associated with heroism, yet the subtitle suggests Thackeray's connection between the two: A Novel Without a Hero. This does not imply that the novel ambles along interminably with the central figure or figures merely deficient in the manly arts of dash and verve. Rather, for the protagonist to be heroic, such a person must exhibit the willingness to be so. In VANITY FAIR, Thackeray maintains a circumspect distance between character and reader by imposing an obstacle, namely himself, as that obstacle.

Thackeray sets up the reader to view his creations as un-heroic in two ways. First, he paints them as essentially flat. Amelia, in her passive attitude toward life is the polar opposite of Becky Sharp, who is bursting with energy and passion. Together, they alternate respectively from purposeful villainy to willing victim, from street smarts to pathetic naivety, and from patent guile to equally patent guilelessness. As one acts on her respective traits, she rises in the world in a financial sense while as the other acts on her traits, she falls. Later, they alternate roles, and the novel turns into a push-pull context with their changes in position occurring solely as a function of their acting on those impulses. In Amelia's case, these impulses are passive-aggressive. In Becky's, they are purely aggressive. But in neither case, is either heroic.

Thackeray regularly intrudes in the narrative so that he directs the responses and attitudes of the readers. The more he plays the omniscient narrator, the less convincing is the fleshing out of any character. It then becomes quite difficult for the reader to look past the puppeteer's strings to see that character in any terms except the flatness that Thackeray wishes. The best that one can say about Amelia is that she creates dramatic conditions that call for the real dramatic center: Becky Sharp. This is not to say that Becky is the hero in the morally positive sense. But she is the focal point of bursting enthusiasm. As she throws a dictionary out the window in a fit of petulant rage, Becky impacts on the reader in a way that no one else can. Becky spends the rest of the novel throwing metaphorical books out countless windows as she schemes, flirts, and uses men shamelessly, all the while escaping criticism from a morally neutral author. One does not admire Amelia for her passivity nor Becky for her aggressiveness. One tends to ignore the former and notice the latter. Long before the reader comes to the morally ambiguous ending when Thackeray bemoans: "Ah! Vanitas Vanitatum! Which of us is happy in this world?" the reader has learned that the totality of VANITY FAIR's strong points--and there are many--do not compensate for the moral vacuum that the author leaves at the center where there ought to be someone or something more interesting

This is my favorite of several hundred great books I have read. I was prejudiced towards all that Jane Austen had written when I picked this 815 page book up in 1996, and I later had to admit that Thackeray outdid Jane in many ways. The best aspect of the book was the way in which the supposed main character, Becky Sharpe, lost her status as having been the main character by the time the book ended. The good people became the main characters. This brilliant twist in novel writing was later to be seen in "Daniel Deronda" and in "Gone With the Wind". Which leads to an interesting point: I feel too many Americans think that Margaret Mitchell meant to portray Scarlett Ohara as the heroine right down to the end of the latter novel. I think that it was clear that Melanie was the real "Mensch" all along. Many people go so far as to suggest that the latter novel was actually copied off of Vanity Fair.

This novel is one of my five or so favorites, and one of a kind. I think there is also a case for saying it is one of the best and most original ever written. It is certainly one of a kind. Structurally, it has some flaws, but the brilliance of its wit and its unflinching confrontation of harsh realities make it a novel to read and re-read. I can't think of any modern writer who is prepared to look life so fully in the face, and still laugh. You will be plunged into Georgian England, and enjoy every vivid minute of Thackery's genius.

"Vanity Fair" is Thackeray's masterpiece and on a par with the best of Dickens' work. Alternating deftly between tragedy and comedy, it is a story rich in character development and historical accuracy. The famous pre-Waterloo ball given by the Duchess of Richmond is described in detail and is one of the highlights of the book. Becky Sharp is certainly a model for all the other treacherous femme fatales that follow her in literature, particularly Scarlett O'Hara. "Vanity Fair" is undoubtedly one of the great works of the 1900's and it has surely stood the test of time. It may be "A Novel Without a Hero" but its characters are real flesh and blood human beings.

I once read that "Vanity Fair" had been classified as one of the "most boring classics" by a group of English professors, who hopefully have all been fired, as they can NOT have had any appreciation for the incisive use of the English language, the witty skewering of Victorian society, the rollicking plot, or the unforgettable characters. Becky Sharpe isn't likeable -- but in the end, you have to admire her insatiability and efficiency. Amelia and Dobbin live out the stereotypical storybook romance -- but Thackeray dares to show how the story usually ends. This is one of the few books that had me consistently laughing aloud; virtually every page has a stinging comment or revealing moment that catches the attention. Although it's a "classic" (think leather-bound dusty volumes with edifying quotes from the latin), this is as vital, insightful, and "modern" a novel as you could hope to read. (And for the record, I think comparing Thackeray and Austen is like comparing Stephen King and Alice Walker -- they're writing at the same time, but the similarities end there!)

Vanity Fair is a wonderful book about many different characters in English society (1813-1830) and all the hypocrisies in "high society". It can be read in modern society because human nature is still the same; and the same attitudes about wealth, fame and social status are just as applicable now as they were then. Vanity Fair is not just great because it is sharp and cynical, it also has characters with depth. None of the characters are perfect and all have their faults, the same way all people do. It's refreshing to be entertained by people who are not simply Hollywood cardboard cutouts but real and accessible people.

"Vanity Fair" was written by Thackeray for a magazine publication with no intention, at least during it's early stages, of becoming a novel. I think that this explains why it occassionally jumps from one line of thought to another, adding very little to the depth of the tale. It manages to keep the interest, but sometimes I found myself thinking "What is the point of this?"
This criticism aside, I found the characters to be cleverly described. I would form an opinion about the nature of one character, only to have that opinion changed by his or her subsequent actions, or Thackeray's critical observations of those actions. At times, I found this frustrating. But I quickly learned to appreciate it. My knowledge of the characters grew with time, at that was realistic.
Overall, a recommended read. There are greater classics, but this is still one to enjoy. It gives an interesting perspective on life of the wealthy, and former wealthy, English during the Napolean era.

I belong to a web site (Cybernation i do believe it's called) and they send you a "quote of the day". You know, something to keep me upbeat and on the road to success and that. So I got a quote today by this Mackeray gentlman. And it says that he's a british arthor. So what I do is go to www.the store.com and look him up to see if he's recently written a book or two. He's been dead for a while but he has written this book that I'm reviewing. Actually, I'm not reviewing it cuz i didn't read it but i got to tell you the quote really hit close to home. something about loving foolishly is better than not loving at all, but loving wisely is better than anything. how true....how true. thank you and may this review be helpful in someway to someone out there.

This is one of my favorite novels of all time. I was a little daunted by the length but once I started I just couldn't put it down. Thackeray's satirical depiction of his characters is hilarious. The ever-resourceful Becky Sharp uses her wits and her many talents to survive and climb up the social ladder. She is always driven by self-interest and can certainly hold her own against the best of them. I found it impossible to hate her despite her constant scheming and plotting. On the other hand Amelia Sedley, who is portrayed as a good and kind timid little thing was very hard to stomach. Her constant pining for George Osborne who is a shallow and ridiculously conceited (but oh so handsome!) prat made me dislike her immensely. She is totally blind to his character and worships him in a really pathetic way. He is her shining sun and all else fades into the background when he deems to honor her with his presence. When he neglects her all she can do is think of him. What's worse is how she completely uses Dobbin to no end. She knows on some level how much Dobbin loves her (but never admitting this to herself), she keeps insisting they are just friends, yet she certainly has no scruples in accepting his gifts to her and her son. I really couldn't stand her. Dobbin is a gentleman in every sense of the word and I thought way too good for pathetic whiny Amelia. I thought his only character flaw was his blind adoration of his friend George, just like Amelia. I found Becky to be the most realistic (in that people are generally self-serving) and entertaining character. No one who has read this novel can call it boring.

I really didn't know that much about this book before I started reading. I thought it was just a magazine for most of my life. I started reading the novel on a whim and found this to be one of the most engaging books I've ever read. I say that Thackery is eye to eye with Dickens as far as writing ability. The characters in Vanity Fair actually have a unique personality and the plot has enough twists and turns to keep my modern attention span held.

It is impossible to compare this to any other 19th century English novel, or to compare Thackery with Dickens, or anyone else. That being said, it's almost as if there was a Mendelian cross between the astute (and gentle) social observations of Jane Austen, and the savage and bitter analysis of human nature of Jonathan Swift.
Regarding the novel's pace, the author presents a complex, rounded view of the numerous characters, major and minor, and this couldn't have been done at a best-seller type pace. Every character is a mixture of good and evil, of weakness and strength.
This is a work to be savored for its' wisdom - and I believe there is a great deal of wisdom in the novel. Above all, I don't see how it's not possible to not be fascinated by the two female "heroines," nor to want to know what theie eventual fates are. A GREAT, PROFOUND WORK OF IMAGINATION.

The book's introduction states that the literary types have an ongoing argument whether this book concerns social satire or whether it is merely a means to commercial remuneration. Clearly it is both, but the style is clearly that of a serial. In some part it is a contribution to the argument of who will have the better life journey, Rebecca (capable, and unencumbered by scruples), or Amelia (a simpleton [as stated by the author in the next-to-last chapter], and hobbled by a highly developed moral structure). One does get a good view of life in England around the year 1815, but you would not miss out on much if you gave it a pass.

This is a hilarious book that is so full of humor it's almost shocking. I watched the A&E version of the movie first and that helped me to remember characters and follow the story line a little easier. It is a great comedy.

Vanity Fair
I began to read Vanity Fair after seeing the BBC series. The series is superb but the book just surpasses it. Thackery was one of the great cynics of the 19 th Century and this work is his masterpiece. Like all great works it is rooted in its time, yet says things for our time. The human heart has changed little and Thackery would not have been surprised by the 21st Century. Do not consider this to be cultural duty, this is a great book with ideas that can change your life and make you reflect on your own vanities.

This book is intriguing, despite its flaws. It's entertaining, thought-provoking and if it were more believable, it might be a bit didactic.

My problem is that I couldn't find a character that I could relate to in even the slightest way. Becky is evil. George is a jerk. Rawdon has no personality at all, nor does Dobbins (who could be the hero if he had a personality). I tried to like Amelia, but despite her integrity and her good heart, she is just too dumb. The rest of the characters are too quirky and transient to even consider.

I think Thackeray wrote with a lot of insight into human nature, but the characters were not drawn very well and they do things that they wouldn't really do. To contrast, Jane Austen's Emma, though filled with faults, is entirely likable because her thoughts and actions are human and easy to relate to. Reading "Vanity Fair", I was constantly saying to myself, "Why did she do this?" and "Why didn't he do that?" But maybe that's what Thackeray intended.

One thing I liked about it was what I take to be the theme: that sometimes, the thing you think you want more than anything else in the world turns out to be "not worth having". Indeed, every character in this novel learns that lesson and we all learn it sooner or later in life. If you look at the parallels drawn between characters, this shines through and, although the characters don't seem to learn much from it, the reader does.

I was captivated throughout the 700+ pages and that is another redeeming factor. I learned a little about Waterloo and the Napoleon years, and about London and Paris society during that time. It is worth reading and that's why I give it 4 stars, but it's not in my top 10 Victorian novels.

I read Vanity Fair because it was the only English book available and because I had a lot of time on my hands. Had I been encompassed about by the demands and stresses of everyday life, I would never have made it through this novel. Its plot unfolds slowly and methodically. In this way, it is very unlike modern fiction. Characters are given hundreds of pages filled with everyday encounters to evolve, rather than a short, speedy novel with a plot that races by. In order to enjoy the pace of the book, it's necessary to take time to read it. It is not one to be consumed in a few days, though I'm sure it can be. Rather, let the events unfold in pieces, as they were meant to.

There is a level of social commentary and satire in Makepeace-Thackeray's masterpiece that I have never found in another book. It takes the entire book to decide who you are rooting for to rise in the hierarchy of Victorian England. In the end, I decided I was rooting for them all to fail, which gives life to the subtitle of the book: "a novel without a hero". There is time to discover the many faults of all the various characters. Different though they may be, in the end, none of them deserve the status they long for. And maybe that's the point: status above others is something that no one "deserves".

Though I admit that this book is slow-paced and not always easy to get through, don't let this discourage you from reading it. It is an absolute gem of wit and irony. The two girls it mainly follows, privileged Amelia who has fallen from her financial throne, and spunky Becky, who is willing to claw, connive and marry her way to the top, represent such different philosophies on life. The book manages to record the lives of some dozen other less important characters as well. This leads to the illusion of really knowing the lives of Amelia and Becky: their youthful mishaps, life-long acquaintances, and final fates. Vanity Fair is as intricate a novel as one could hope for, and it is well worth the effort it takes to read it.

Ok, I'm known for rambling and mixing up my thoughts, so here's just a few of my jumbled impressions of Vanity Fair.
Firstly- Despite the majority of readers thinking otherwise, the unwilting, witty and yes, selfish Becky Sharp was my favourite character of all. I felt I could really relate to her, which probably says something bad about me here :-S She's the ultimate femme fatale, as I think has been mentioned in another review. She's artful, but lovable, even though the latter is probably a result of the former here. But, most of all, she's real. We all know someone like her, and yes, in my experience, a lot of females have at one point or another strived to be like her. She has that mystique that we all want.
Secondly, as has also been mentioned in previous reviews, I feel like Thackeray could just as easily written this saga nowadays. He seems to have a very modern perception of the era. It is also a story that can be taken out of the 1800's and laid over the 2000's. The ideas are just as relevant now as they were then.
Thirdly, and yes, this has also been mentioned, although this book didn't make me laugh out loud at every page, it has a more deep thinking, teasing, cynical kind of humour embedded into it.
Summing up, I would describe this as a timeless analysis of a group of characters that we can all relate to. It might not be a story that has been put together perfectly (being written in serial form), but its content is excellent, in my opinion.
I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but those who have the time and inclination to really think not only about the story, but about themselves, and how they relate to the issues within.

This is a great book. I came to this expecting a classic period piece in the Pride and Prejudice vein (and there is nothing wrong with that). My motivation for reading it was that I love Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. I thought the satirical tone of Kubrick's film was mostly from the filmmaker. But Vanity Fair (and the title is a pretty obvious hint) is a satirical dissection of the British upper clash around the time of Napolean. Thackeray is quite unrelenting in his disdain for these frivolous people and their pointless principles. And Thackeray defines each character along a spectrum between totally self serving and childishly naive.

I tried reading this book for several years. When I finally did finish it, I was underwhelmed. But Becky Sharp is an ageless character. There are many Becky Sharps in this world. Amelia is truly one of the most pathetic characters I’ve ever read. Can anyone possibly think so little of themselves?

Rebecca Sharp, although charming and witty, isn't born into the nobility of England. But she is determined that she will become part of it before she dies. Her best frinde, Amelia Sedley, has a sweet and gentle neture. Her only ambition is to be married to a handsome army officer called George Osborne. However, Rebecca flirts with George eben when he is marrived to Amelia. Will the friendship of these girls last ?
This book is quite interesting and attractive, but the beginning is quite boring. I also think that their are too many names in the beginning and this make me confused. I need to read for more times to get the meaning. But this is a nice book for us to read during spare time.

One of the greatest triumphs of the 19th Century / Victorian novel is the way in which it masters the English language, utilizing it with such eloquence that, nearly bordering on indulgent by today's standards, is nothing less than breathtaking. This combines with the ability to create characters so thoroughly developed that the reader cannot help but be invested in their fate (be it with or without sympathy). Thackeray's Vanity Fair is, in my opinion, a near perfect example of the greatness of the Victorian novel. The sheer length of his epic allows him to spare no expense giving the reader every detail of his characters, in addition to a very pointed and often-amusing critique of 19th Century military society. His novel is as much a satire of social ascendency as it is a love story. One can be gripped by the trials of Becky and Amelia and amused by his criticisms with equal fervor. He weaves the stories of the characters in such a way that the reader's opinion of them may (and perhaps, should) change several times. The end (not to reveal one detail) underscores Thackeray's committment to Vanity Fair as a novel of satire. He provides excellent characterization of every possible sentimental disposition, from the absolutely wicked to the unquestionably benevolent. While pages of the book may seem tangential to the plot, his 'digressions' are not without merit as examples of satire or his eloquent style.
I can say that I am disappointed at the apparent ignorance of this novel by many curricula. While authors like Austen, Charlotte and Emily Brontë, Dickens and even Trollope are well-known, Thackeray seems to be somewhat unheard-of in general society. While I am no less a fan of the former writers (I can claim the 19th Century British novel as my favorite genre), I think that Thackeray (and Vanity Fair in particular) is worth at least comparable attention and acclaim. I recommend Vanity Fair for any fan of 19th Century British literature, pointed social satire, or classic world literature in general. This epic will appeal to the romantic and cynic with equal depth.
Note: I recommend especially the re-issue of the Penguin Classics edition. While admitting myself as a fan of the series in general, this edition's exclusion of Thackeray's hand-drawings is, as noted by editor John Carey, a likely advantage for the novel's reader.

I'm not reviewing Thackeray's novel, which is truly fantastic, but rather this Penguin edition, which is truly terrible. There are two major problems with this edition: the explanatory notes, which are clumsy, and the lack of Thackeray's illustrations. First, the notes: for some reason, the editors decided to divide the notes according to chapter numbers, rather than by page numbers, so that you need to remember what chapter you're reading in order to find the right note. This is extremely inconvenient. The Oxford edition, in contrast, more sensibly lists the notes by page number.

Second, the illustrations. In the Penguin edition's introductory "Note on the Text," the editor, John Carey, says that he chose to leave out the illustrations because they are "embarrassingly bad" owing to Thackeray's "incompetence as an artist." The fact is, some of the illustrations are really funny and good. More generally, a long text *with* illustrations is simply more entertaining than one without. Again, the Oxford edition does better by including all of Thackeray's images.

I generally really like Penguin editions of Victorian novels: their versions of Dickens's works are the best out there, I think. But Vanity Fair is an exception.

So do yourself a favor: read *Vanity Fair* and read the Oxford University Press edition.

This is a very difficult book to review, because I'm not actually sure what I thought about it or how I felt about it. It's widely accepted as a masterpiece of British literature, and there's good reason why it's a classic and why it's still widely read today.

This book was hard to read, hard to understand, and hard to enjoy--but it's meant to be that way. I see it as part of Thackeray's statement about the society he's describing. This makes it difficult to decide if I should give the book four stars, because it succeeds in it's endeavor and is rather brilliant, or two, because it succeeded in being wordy, confusing, and being populated by unpleasant people. I gave it three, which is for sure wrong, but will hopefully warn those who need a warning what it is they are getting themselves into by starting this trek through the good and bad times in the life of Miss Becky Sharp and through the highest and lowest offerings of British Regency society.

I first read this novel twenty-five years ago, and while I found it funny and excellent entertainment at that time, I didn't realize that it is also a very great book. Now I do.

Readers who've found the novel too long are, I suspect, not regular readers of Victorian novels, which were traditionally published in newspapers, bit by bit. They're always long--that's their distinction from modern novels. More than most however, Vanity Fair opens with a bang, and from the first page on through more than 800, I found it hard to put down.

Through the cast of characters we see for ourselves the pervasive greed and hypocrisy of the 19th century British Empire. Jos Sedley, the Ex-collecter of Bogley Walla, the unfortunate Rawdon Crawley, George Osborne and the immoral, resourceful Becky Sharpe are some of the most vivid characters in English writing. The narrator's voice is perfect--though hardly appealing. It's not sentimental. The "objectivity" of a journalist's timidly expressed irony feeds into the reader's need to feel smug -- so that when shocking moments come (and they sure do) we are stunned. The narrator's voice here is much more inventive than one realizes immediately. In this and many other ways Thackeray's story-telling isn't typical of Victorian novelists--Eliot or Dickens for example. In the works of those authors we always know just what moral position the narrator has. (I should mention that I also finished re-reading Middlemarch before re-reading Vanity Fair.) Comparing the grand stateliness of George Eliot with Thackeray's voice made me see just what a tricky work of art Vanity Fair is. But Thackeray, too, makes his story come to life. The description of the Battle of Waterloo is one of the most brilliant things I've ever read. It's hard to believe that he wasn't there.

In the edition I read I found that C.L.R. James, the left-wing Trinidadian author and historian--an author I admire and enjoy reading, began reading Vanity Fair at the age of eight, and re-read it regularly throughout his long life. He claims to have learned more about the minds of white colonial empire-builders from this original and epic work than any history he read. Interesting...

This book was long, but I definitely enjoyed it. A couple of sections I skimmed over, but the heart of the story is compelling. I never thought of putting it down, mostly because, one of the main characters, Rebecca, fascinated me.

Much like the author, I could not completely make up my mind about Rebecca. I had to find out what would become of her in the end. Even in the end I could not decide whether she was bad or simply had several bad circumstances occur.

It was a good social commentary, and I am glad I read it. However, it is not a book I will ever pick up to read again partly due to its length, but also because once was all I needed. There were no overly complex ideas that warrant any more than a one time reading.

I picked up this book, and groaned at the sight. 700 pages of dense small text?! Numerous minor characters to remember? Arghhh...

But then, when I finally got enough time to read it, it is brilliant. Thackeray is a great social critic-and many of his criticisms of the upper class could be applied to high school and situations today. The novel is an epic, a journey to be sure, and is better than a current day soap opera, as some of the reviewers said. I thought it was more like Jane Austen - romance + criticism + 5 more families + many more minor relationships.

I'm definitely looking forward to rereading this book again (maybe not for a while though-it's a LONG book!) when I'm older

Vanity Fair is disconcertingly lengthy, has little of laconic intellect, contains tedious catalogues of scarecly developed characters, exhibits lapses in stylistic consistency, and often verges on melodrama. Yet despite all of this, it is a vibrant and scathing portrait of 19th century British society and a luxuriant horde of nuanced characterizations and delightfully fascinating personas. Who can resist the manipulative charms of the cunning Becky Sharp, the author's wry yet ambiguous account of the foolish Amelia, the pompous arrogance of the witless George Osborne? The novel is enriched with refreshingly orignal characterizations and improvizations which converge within the context of a festival of luxuriously self-important peoples delightfully naive at their own vapidity. The compelling lives of Sharp and Sedley weave through the narrative and bind it with textual unity even within the context of a tale spilling over with an astounding diversity. Stubbornly "modern", instantly readable and blessed with a sense of interest and immediacy, Vanity Fair truly is a landmark in English fiction, and a novel worthy of its lofty reputation.

I had this book on my shelf unread for years, thinking it was tedious and boring, but what a revelation when I picked it up after seeing the movie. The note of the other reviewer re C.L.R. James, the left-wing Trinidadian author and historian, was apt, and uncanny, as I found this book could have easily be called "Westmoorings", an area in Trinidad populated by people of the exact mindset (and indeed I have heard many times the very same spoken words as the characters). Indeed, there are many places in the Caribbean, or world, populated by people like this. I see why this book is historically taught in literature in high school in the US but not in the Caribbean.

"Vanity Fair" by William Makepeace Thackeray, published 1924

This is a funny story with some funny names, to wit, Becky Sharp is sharp in getting her way. Miss Sharp was in a finishing school with another girl in the early 1800's, they both left at he same time. Miss Sharp in a snit because the school mistress did not do her honor as Miss Sharp felt was her due. He friend just left. The story does not get much further than that: good things happen to Becky, and bad things happen to Amelia Sedley. Miss Sharp does get her comeuppance, and Miss Sedley does get to be happy, but that is just so much ho-hum, and here we go again. You know that Miss Sharp will do something else to 'improve' her situation.

William Makepeace Thackeray was a wonderfully insightful and intelligent rabble-rouser. In this tale he converses with his reader in a gossipy tone and with spectacular wit. He also reveals to his readers truths of the era through his dissection of Victorian society from all angles; lowly peasant to regal heights. As a modern philosopher of his own society during the Victorian era, Thackeray is utterly charming.

Vanity Fair must have been a phenomenon not unlike `Sex and the City' which debuted over a decade ago on HBO television. Vanity Fair, when it was released, was released in "monthly numbers" for over 1 1/2 years in periodical format. Readers were drawn to the lives of Becky and Amelia because of their scandalous behaviour and their readers had no quips about producing their hard-earned pounds to read of what would ultimately become of these two fascinating and rather naughty girls. Purposely suspenseful plots "hooked" the London public. Thackeray became a star amongst the literati supreme of London. By inserting himself, his thoughts and views of England, as well as the nature of man, war, poverty and these spruiks about the boastful aristocratic society into the work, he presents himself and his own opinions to the world through this wonderful book, Vanity Fair.

This novel is as important today as it was when it was released, especially for those who studying historical life as it was from day to day. We are given plain and simple viewpoints on the somewhat normal, the fashionable, the destitute and the poverty striken women of the era. Very interesting, always charming and just an all around splendid read--albeit a very long one.

This book is often called biting or cynical, but what most appealed to me was its realism. It is very different from many other books written during this time period in that it doesn't get too sentimental about innocence. Amelia is in many ways the ideal woman of her day, but Thackeray sees her as a human being with weaknesses as well as virtues. Becky would normally be branded as the gold-digger or adventuress, but she has some excellent qualities which really shine through, particularly towards the end of the book. It is an enjoyable read, filled with wit and humour as it explores the ups and downs of the heroines' lives. The only slight drawback is that it is very long and sometimes convoluted (the only reason I couldn't give it 5 stars) but the conclusion for me was absolutely worth it. A classic for a reason.

This is a rich, complex epic story. As other reviewers mentioned, the main issues of the book are still relevant today. The female characters aren't that great. One is the stereotypical virtuous 19th century woman who is basically a doormat-she gets a bit tiresome. The male characters were more sympathetic. One of the best parts of the book is seeing how some characters evolve and some do not. The book does take a while to get through, but it is worth the effort.

this one was very long with many ups and downs. it would be very interesting for a few chapters, then not interesting for chapters, and then interesting again. alas, the end of the book was not interesting and that is the feeling that i took away.
it tells the story of miss sharp as she attempts to climb to the highest levels of society while making fun of society. what it has to say about society seems to be hit or miss in its humor, telling in its examples, and long winded over all.
i dont think i liked this one.

Thackeray's characterization of the different personalities that were prevelent in his day, and subsequently in our's is as psychologically accurate as Shakespeare. Becky Sharpe, Amelia Sedley, George Osborne, William Dobbin,and Rawdon Crawley: The lives of these people are intertwined with one another and insightful narration. This book contains the widest display of Thackeray's skill in any of his works.

Yes, you must take your time reading it.

Yes, you must weave your way through Thackeray's references to the culture of his time.

Yes, it is worth your time to read.

Vanity Fair is, quite frankly, a staggering achievement. It is a witty, engaging, and scathing look at status in society: How people get it, how people lose it, and how people get it back. And in 840 pages, Thackeray manages to encompass virtually every interlocking element of 19th Century England.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the other two reviews, both of which refer to this book as boring. Every page is rewarding, and only becomes more so with repeated readings. Becky Sharp is a relentlessly interesting, amoral character, and we can only watch the arc of her life with fascination and grudging respect.

Thackeray refers to Vanity Fair as "A novel without a hero," and rightfully so. No one is spared his barbs, including the sweet, yet dull, Amelia. Thackeray holds up a mirror to the pretensions of the middle and upper classes, but does so without sanctimony or tendentiousness. All in all, it is a very approachable book.

So, read Vanity Fair. You will want an edition with copious footnotes (I prefer the Oxford edition) so you understand some references to the events of Thackeray's day. However, once you get used to the rhythms of Victorian prose, you will find it a very energetic and entertaining read, and the themes it encompasses remain true to our day.

I assumed this book was some tedious classic, and had never felt any pull to read it. Its immense size and the century of its creation were daunting-- too long, too many words, too long ago. I took it along however on a trip to England and was enthralled. I "could not put it down", i was so drawn into the story and the lovely clear writing. Mr. Thackeray was a wise man who deeply understood a wide range of personalities in all layers of society. A tremendous and lasting achievement in fiction. Almost 200 hundred years old, but fresh and modern in its sympathy for the human spirit and unsparing depiction of social conventions. And very very funny.

Unusual book. I am happy I read it, and I likely the generally sarcastic tone. Main problem with it is that it is just too long. I guess Mr. Thackeray must have been paid by the word, so he felt the need to expand upon a lot of unnecessary things. If it were about half as long, it would be a very good read.

Who among us could not appreciate the social satire in this novel that translates perfectly to modern day? Heh. Thackeray's constant rhetorical questioning does get a little annoying at times, but that's my only complaint. If you are tired of dry, boring, altruistic, overly melodramatic, and/or maudlin novels from this era, this is the book for you. Even though times have changed considerably, Thackeray's observations on society still ring true as if they were written yesterday. You will see people you know in his characters, and perhaps, although you might not want to admit it, yourself. Becky Sharp and her "artful" ways will draw you in and you will lose sleep, but it's worth it.

In his novel, "Vanity Fair", W.M. Thackeray weaves an enjoyable tale that will prove pleasing to many audiences. Within his work, Thackeray explores the role vanity plays in his characters lives. This novel is set in various places in Europe and is focused around two main female characters, Ameila and Rebecca. The novel opens as the girls are leaving a boarding school and follows them througout most of their lives. Both experience different types of marriages and come from different backgrounds, but their friendship remains strong throughout the novel. Chapters usually focus on either Amelia or Rebecca and ocassinally incorporate both into several, especially the first few. I find this to be a very intreseting and helpful style of organization. Thackeray also directly addresses his readers during various parts of the novel and helps them to form their own opinions about the topics at hand. Within the novel, our main characters prove themselves to be very dynamic and interesting. Amelia and Rebecca have very different personalities, that do clash at times, but thier interaction adds to the drama of the novel. The humorus explaination of other flat characters, such as Sir Pitt, help this novel to take a on lighter tone after more serious matters are discussed. Although this novel incorporates more serious undertones about roles humans play in society and the importance of wealth and status, it also brings forth a warm romance that many readers are sure to enjoy. Wealth does prove to be an important aspect of this novel, as it is in many pieces written during this time period, and plays roles in both of the main characters lives. Amelia and Rebecca experience both poverty and riches, each at different times, throughout the novel. As the characters true personalities are revealed, throughout the novel, many shocking secrets are brought forth. And, as many novels do, the reader will most certianly find themselves wishing they could tell the characters what they should do. Although, I personally find Thackeray's style somewhat exhausting, as he repeats previous facts and discusses unrealted imformation, he does create a very enjoyable novel that is sure to entice readers for many decades to come.

I originally watched the film on an airplane, and the airline cut off the ending. Wanting to know the conclusion, and being a bigger fan of books than the films of the books, I bought a copy of Vanity Fair while on vacation.

I was immediately surprised to find that the Fair referred to in the title was not 'fair of face', but an actual carnival - a clever theme wound through the book. Of course a novel of this length can't be completely captured in the film, but I was surprised to find so many of the sharp details had been omitted.

Other reviews cover the plot and rightly praise the humorous writing, so I won't duplicate that here. I'll conclude by saying this book is a wonderful read for those like me who enjoy this genre. Those who don't will probably find the length daunting and the description of Victorian etiquette to be a bore.

Becky is so conniving and so good at it that the reader begins to pull for her. Becky's talents and skill help her outwit the aristocrats who originally found her so inferior. She loses the reader's admiration wihen she neglects her son. Lots of comically selfish and shallow people made me think..."Am I like that?"...I think we all share some of the less than admirable traits portrayed in this wonderful book!

When I read the book I got the impression that I was given a unique oportunity to look at the Victorian society and recognise the things that were both good and bad about it. The novel is "without a hero", as Thackeray proclaims, but it is about the life and development of two women Becky Sharp and Amelia Sedley. By comparing and contrasting the two of them, Thackeray manages to show his readers that society in the Victorian Era influenced the development of the character of his heros, but not to the point of actually making them what they turn out to be. It is a wonderful book, full of insight and ever so true for our own time as well. If you want to know many truths about the Victorians and their lives, that's the book to read... You will, undoubtedly, enjoy the experience

The reputation of Thackeray's "Vanity Fair" perseveres to this day, but I'm not sure it demands to be read in preference to many of its contemporaneous peers. In the twenty-first century it simply fails to entertain on the level it was intended when it was written in the 1840s, and even its literary value is dubious. The novel asks rhetorically why we are never satisfied with the things we achieve in life, and the question reverberates in a canyon of echoes as Thackeray repetitively beats the theme to death with a story that is too long and too dull. Of course it satirizes the hypocrisy, materialism, and frivolity in the higher strata of English society, but it hardly excels in this regard when compared to so many other novels, particularly Dickens's, of the same era that do likewise with more subtlety and intelligence. If "Vanity Fair" can be considered a socially valuable novel merely because it satirizes society, then nearly any novel can be considered socially valuable.
Set in the 1810s and 1820s, "Vanity Fair" is basically the tale of two young women, Amelia Sedley and Becky Sharp, making their respective ways through English society after leaving school. Amelia, a virtuous girl from an affluent family, marries George Osborne, the son of a man with whom her father has a financial quarrel. Becky, a beautiful, vivacious girl from an artistic but broken family, takes a job as a governess for a repulsive old man named Sir Pitt Crawley and eventually marries his son Rawdon. Both husbands are British military officers who fight under the Duke of Wellington against Napoleon in the Battle of Waterloo; only one comes home alive. The novel then becomes a study in reversal, followed by a sort of restoration, of fortune -- Becky uses her charm to climb the ladder of high society while Amelia struggles to support herself and her young son.
My biggest problem with "Vanity Fair" is Thackeray's general style. His prose is serviceable but unrefined; he has a poor sense for the arrangement of detail, constructing lopsided paragraphs and dispensing useless information like complimentary mints at the door of a restaurant. His serious characters fail to invoke sympathy and his few comical characters fail to amuse. Perhaps it was his intention to avoid caricatures, but he can't fairly be called a realist either. Additionally he chooses to write with the voice of a narrator whose tone is gossipy bordering on the obnoxious. Occasionally he does offer a psychological or social insight that is interesting if not profound, but these moments seem more like digressive interjections than integral parts of the story.
I know I'm being picky with this novel, but I expected better considering its permanent status in the English literary canon. As a Victorian novelist, Thackeray cannot compete with Eliot, Hardy, Dickens, the Brontes, or even Wilkie Collins or Samuel Butler; rather, he unfortunately seems to be on the same level as Anthony Trollope, whose voluminous chronicles of the straight-laced middle class are written well but leave a bland aftertaste. Despite its purport to be something more, "Vanity Fair" is merely a genteel, fluffy, uneventful soap opera penned by an author who attempts to be wry but instead compels his reader to wade through a Slough of Despond.

This novel is brilliant on so many levels. It works as an hilarious send up of societal pretensions, a keen psychological analysis into how we lie to ourselves, and a profound philosophical meditation on the futility of our pursuits large and small. The novel is funny, poignant, and a very enjoyable read - even at 800 pages.

Not a particularly beautifully written book since it was written in installments. Bits of the end have clearly been tacked on. The characters are somewhat two-dimensional. But does every book have to be chock full of fleshed out characters? Certainly not. It's great fun to read. If you, like me, enjoy long novels that move fairly quickly you'll love Vanity Fair.

After finishing, I mostly felt like I just slogged through the novel out of duty instead of excitement. The characters in general are very entertaining, and the variety of their situations truly is fascinating. And it is a joy to get immersed in that era, with its cultural and economic strata so deliciously scandalized. But, it just felt very long, with one situation after another feeling drawn out. Perhaps I missed a sense of psychological complexity in the characters that I appreciate in Dostoevsky. And his writing style is very direct but not poetic in itself. And I didn't like his first-person narrative commentaries.

Overall, it's an entertaining epic, and I loved the depiction of that society most of all.

i think this is one of my top favorites of all the classical works I've read. William Makepeace Thackeray, shows his masterpiece here. It's long, but well worth the read, and you learn a lot from it, and it really is a good and interesting story, with characters yoou really get to know.

Thackeray's "Vanity Fair" is at once a fascinating glimpse into the aristocratic Europe of the early 1800's while also serving as a masterful critique of the modern human drama. While it takes some time for the story to really pull you in, you can expect a rather enjoyable ride once it does. Thackeray does a good job of developing the characters and their personalities, and you will often find yourself thinking "I know people like this." In short, "Vanity Fair" is a 200-year-old story which, if anything, has only increased in relevance.

I very rarely put down a book before finishing it, even if I don't like it. This one was impossible for me to read, though, and even though I tried, I could only get a quarter of the way through it (200 pages) before I decided life is just too short for such aggravation.

I wanted this to be one of those books that you can get lost in and sticks with you once it's over...it's very long, spans many years in the lives of the characters, interesting plot idea, definitely seemed to fit the bill of a pleasurable read. It didn't turn out to be one of those books, however. To begin with, it's slow. On top of that, the story unfolds through a narrator (the author I suppose) who goes off on tangents unrelated to the story, making personal observations on people and life and society in general that last for paragraphs and even pages. Very frustrating! The book would have been half as long if the author had stuck to what we wanted to read about...the story.

I gave this book 2 stars instead of one because I can see how the story itself would be an engaging one. Too bad the author's own voice torpedoed it.

Edited: I finally picked up Vanity Fair again and forced myself to finish it. I hate leaving anything undone and couldn't leave the book unfinished. I still love the actual story and I still have no patience for the interminable narrative.

As Thackeray's Vanity Fair was my first serious foray into 19th century british literature, I found it a bit daunting at first. After I acquired a rhythm for his style of writing, I quickly lost myself in the story. Never before had I read a book where so much attention was paid to detail. Everything is described eloquently. The story itself is hilarious and heartbreaking at the same time. After finishing the book, I have forced many of my friends and family to sit down and read it. They too love it, and are recommending it to their friends.

...with characters one, at novel's end, almost feels as if one knows. Epic in its proportions, the novel spans both the decades and the lives of its characters. From the first page, with Becky and Amelia's hilarious exit of Miss Pinkerton's Academy, to the end, I found myself truly caring for the characters and their fates. Thackeray's style is wickedly satirical and simply delightful. What a wonderful read.

Becky Sharp is one of literature's first social climbers, a woman who slept her way to the top! I came across the following review of Vanity Fair on The Atlantic Monthly's website - the review dates back to May 1865. Read and enjoy!
[...]

I think that Vanity Fair is one of Mr. Makepiece's masterpieces and that it is the best book I have ever read of his. In fact, it is the only book from him that I have ever read of him. Kinda funny don't ya think? Vanity Fair is just a good book. Just a Fan, Anonymous!

I believe that the reviewer below who gave this work 2 stars should have rephrased his/her review of "This is the most boring book I have ever read. It has no meaning." as "Since there was no uncensored and excessive violent language and themes, this was really boring for me. My limited intellect could discern no meaning."

The abridged audio version of this book boils 800+ pages down to 3 cassettes, which results in a recitation of the plot with little characterization, historical background or social context. The reader was very good however, and if she does the unabridged version I'd opt for that one.

The book is really good, even though it is really long, it is not boring. So many characters and things going on. And it still surprises me after all those years relationships have still the same tricks. The human physiology never changes.

I first read this book when I was in the eight grade in order to gain points for a school program called accelerated reader. It took FOREVER to read this book, and althogh it is a very witty story, it is an increadibly long, and sometimes boring read as well. I recently read it agian, and watched the movie too(Which I don't recomend to anyone, unless you are a fan of Reese Witherspoon or Legally Blond)and althouhg I found a lot more flavor in it, I had to literally put the book down for a long time and take a nap or eat a lot of sugar in order to continue. But if you are like me and you feel you MUST read as many classics as you can, Vanity Fair is a must in your classics list.

Vanity Fair is an extraordinary intelligent, beautiful and touching masterpiece. Thackery's point of view is incredible modern, cynical and - in certain chapters- even bizarre. I've enjoyed it word by word and I recommend it to every reader that truly loves 19th. Century literature. Although its greatness, I recognize that it's not an easy-reading novel.

I picked up Vanity Fair because it was in the bookcase and I had never read it. I quickly became obsessed with this book and was unable to put it down! I am ranking this as one of my all-time favorite books. The subtlety and brilliance Thackeray displays is beyond description. His depiction of 19th century Europe is both shockingly brutal and absolutely hilarious. But the thing that really impresses me is how this society, whose morals are based entirely on money, whose members spare no effort attempting to gain and display status, and where the less fortunate are shown no mercy is such a mirror to our society today. I guess some things never do change! I just saw the preview for the film which they have made and it is obviously not going to follow the story (how could it in a 2-hour movie?). So don't plan to skip the book and just "see the film" - you will miss the point entirely.

"Vanity Fair" by William Makepeace Thackeray, published 1924

This is a funny story with some funny names, to wit, Becky Sharp is sharp in getting her way. Miss Sharp was in a finishing school with another girl in the early 1800's, they both left at he same time. Miss Sharp in a snit because the school mistress did not do her honor as Miss Sharp felt was her due. He friend just left. The story does not get much further than that: good things happen to Becky, and bad things happen to Amelia Sedley. Miss Sharp does get her comeuppance, and Miss Sedley does get to be happy, but that is just so much ho-hum, and here we go again. You know that Miss Sharp will do something else to 'improve' her situation.

Vanity Fair is an important book. Its implications about feminism, greed, lust, and manipulation were prevelent then and are prevelent today. The book has doubtlessly provided a model for many modern satires, and thus there are many modern books that are much easier to relate to. Read this one because it is a classic, not becuase you want a good beach book. If you don't take time to absorb the period wit and atmosphere, you might as well read something else.

William Makepeace Thackeray gives a brilliantly witty view of society in the 19th century. Though it's about 300 pages too long, if the reader perseveres, he will be rewarded. The character of Becky Sharpe is one of the best in the history of literature.

The ultimate magical treasure book, I choose not to read it, but just let it's magic work while it sits on the shelf. This is a good book to own, but not to read. It gives a feeling of mastering the world. And I can always turn a few more pages when I'm 44 or 56, or 202, just to add some more juice to my life. Reading it seems like a compromise, but it is certainly a work of art from what I've read. Enjoyable, but a little scary.

This classic is very difficult to read. Not only is it boring, but the way it's written is weird and jumpy. I did not enjoy the book. I only got through a few chapters before I gave up. It is also very long.

I had first read this book a couple weeks ago for my ninth grade english class. This book is very hard to follow i didnt enjoy reading the classic language they use. It was difficult to understand. I also saw the movie recently and i usually like the book better but this time i loved the movie much more. I was not familiar to the author before this novel, but i have to say i enjoyed him. The story i think drags on and on. I was about to fall asleep. I dont usually enjoy classic novels, but this one was a winner. I enjoyed the story, it just was long and hard to understand. so if you like a good classic story, and to read then i would recommend this book to you. If not i suggest you see the movie instead.

I really wanted to like this novel. I am a huge book lover, and especially this sort of older novel. I am sorry to say I was disappointed. The novel is much longer than it needs to be. I do not have a problem with long novels in general (in fact, I've read The Mists of Avalon an embarassing number of times), but I do have a problem with novels that are long for no good reason. I also understand this novel was released in short bits over the course of many months, but that does not excuse the meandering storyline. Thackeray jumps back and forth both in time and in place. He wastes many a paragraph describing things that have no importance in the novel, or people who have no bearing on the story. Then, to make matters worse, he simply jumps over, or glosses over the seemingly most important parts of the story.

Another problem I have with the novel is the way he writes the characters. None of them come across as all that endearing, except perhaps for Dobbins, who is so devoted and constant as to be unbelievable.

I didn't hate the novel (hence the 2 stars), but I doubt I will ever bother to re-read it.

I read a lot of the reviews & can't help wondering, were we all reading the same book? There were a few I agreed with, in that I found this book so boring & the narration was so long & full of nothing that it was like someone just rambling on & on. I normally spent a good 4 to 6 hours a day reading on my Kindle. But this story did not motivate me to pick up my Kindle much so I read it about 1 hour each day, until I couldn't take it anymore. I was forcing myself to read this book, when normally I have to force myself to put the Kindle down. That is when I have found a good story that has grabbed me in the first few pages. This book was like forcing myself to swallow a huge bitter pill. Maybe I missed something, so hey, take the advice of the 5 star reviewers & read it for yourself.