Scan barcode
deannalovesbooks's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
daja57's review against another edition
3.0
Lizzie Greystock is a scheming, lying minx who persuades Lord Eustace to marry her; he soon dies having fathered a son. She is left the income (£4,000) from the Scottish estate for life and, so she claims, a £10,000 diamond necklace. But lawyers for the estate claim that the necklace is an heirloom. All is set for a legal battle in which possession is nine-tenths of the law.
She also wants to marry again, to gain a protector. She catches penniless Lord Faun in her wiles but he then wants to withdraw from the engagement because of the potential scandal about the necklace. So she then sets her cap at her cousin, barrister and MP (and also penniless) Frank Greystock. But he has pledged himself to governess Lucy Morris though all his friends tell him that he must break off this engagement because he cannot afford to marry on his barrister's income whilst still having the expenses that accrue to an MP (unpaid in these days). Every man who comes close to Lizzie is captivated by her beauty and turned inside out by her verbal dexterity in which she recasts all their honourable motives as bad and makes them believe that the only thing that they can do is to marry her; if she will have them.
The legal complexities surrounding whether the necklace could have been a gift, and the will-he-won't-he surrounding Lizzie and her two lovers make up the essence of the plot on the long-winded first half od the novel.
About half way through the book, after a typically Trollopian invocation of the joys of fox-hunting (he was a keen hunter and liked to include a scene about hunting in every novel), we meet a set of penniless adventures Lord George, Sir Griffin, Mrs Carbuncle and her daughter Lucinda Roanoke, and the preacher Mr Emilius. With the arrival of this crew the story really takes off and the plot begins to develop. The second half of the book is more like a thriller in the style of Wilkie Collins while the first half was a very slow social comedy with a plot worthy of Jane Austen.
As with Austen, we are entirely within the world of gentility. The novel depends for much of its tension on whether Lord Faun or Frank Greystock will behave like gentlemen according to their code of honour. There is comedy when Frank inadvertently rides the horse of a merchant. The lower classes are either clowns or crooks. And Lizzie's wickedness stems from the way she uses her position as a lady to get away with lying (she is believed by a jury even after she admits lying on oath on a previous occasion) and, perhaps, with stealing.
Trollope exposes his anti-Semitic prejudices. Moneylenders are repeatedly associated with Jews and Mr Emilius is suspect despite being a Church of England preacher because he is suspected of Jewish roots: "the fashionable foreign ci-devant Jew preacher"; "The man was a nasty, greasy, lying, squinting Jew preacher"; he has a "hooky nose". These were, of course, the prejudices of Trollope's age and social context (as were the anti-lower class prejudices noted above) amd therefore can be explained and understood, if not necessarily pardoned. But it does reflect badly on this novel as a work of art, because the use of stereotypical characters is lazy writing (and lazy thinking).
The central character of Lizzie, a clever but manipulative woman who is transparently awful while at the same time being hypnotically alluring, fundamentally a heroine who believes her own lies, who thinks she is much put upon, forced to fight for what is rightfully hers, is excellent. Frank, the hero, is another complex character: a man who knows what he wants to do to secure his long-term happiness but is too weak not to be repeatedly tempted by Lizzie and by the general opinions of his class of society. Another good character is Lord Fawn, who wants to please everybody and, of course, ends up pleasing no-one. Mr Emilius, despite his unpleasantness, is sexually magnetic. Trollope can draw characters with strengths and weaknesses. But Lucy Morris is much too good to be true and most of the minor characters, such as kind Lady Fawn ("known as a miracle of Virtue, Benevolence, and Persistency"; Ch 3), or cross Lady Linlithgow, or conscientious Mr Camperdown, are one dimensional.
I first read this book in August 2015 and I enjoyed it. Trollope is still popular among today's genteel middle classes who form a, important part of the reading public. Why? Reading it again in July 2023, I find that Trollope is hugely flawed:
The first half is too long and too dry. The second half rattles along. Although, in terms of pacing, the principal turning point occurs almost exactly half way through, the slowness of the first half compared to the second unbalances the pace of the book.
He desperately needed an editor. Not only does he write at far too much length, but there are errors:
Frank Greystock is over thirty and simultaneously nearly thirty.
One of the key points of the plot hinges on whether the diamonds were taken from the jewellers in Scotland on 4th September or in London on 24th September but Trollope tells us that Lizzie's honeymoon lasted six weeks in Scotland which meant that she couldn't have been in London until mid-October making this key point, repeatedly mentioned, irrelevant.
In chapter 24 we are told that there are only "a few stunted trees around" Portray Castle because trees don't prosper but earlier Lizzie had been accused of cutting down a forest of old oaks.
Trollope writes using the omniscient point of view. The narrator's voice repeatedly intrudes from time to time:
"Although the first two chapters of this new history have been devoted to the fortunes and personal attributes of Lady Eustace, the historian begs his readers not to believe that that opulent and aristocratic Becky Sharp is to assume the dignity of heroine in the forthcoming pages." (CHAPTER 3 Lucy Morris)
"the poor narrator has been driven to expend his four first chapters in the mere task of introducing his characters. He regrets the length of these introductions, and will now begin at once the action of his story." (CHAPTER 4 Frank Greystock)
The intrusion of the author can be done with great effect. It can be Brechtian, reminding the reader that it is just a story. It can be a way of adding humour; Henry Fielding in Tom Jones does this. It can comment on the action. Trollope doesn't seem to have any coherent reason for his intrusions. It just adds words.
The concept of suspense seems alien to Trollope. The diamonds have vanished so Trollope immediately tells us where they are because "The chronicler states this at once, as he scorns to keep from his reader any secret that is known to himself."
Trollope repeatedly flouts the dictum 'show, don't tell'. He shows and then he tells. From his omniscient narrator's point of view, he tells us the innermost thoughts of each of his principal characters. He describes their characters at length, in almost as much detail as he describes their physical characteristics. He leaves almost nothing to the reader's imagination. And if you haven't got it the first time round, he tells you again. And again.
And perhaps this is the secret of his success. The reader doesn't have to do any work. Thus, Trollope is accessible to all. He is the fiction equivalent of easy listening. You can just let Trollope waft over you. And, nowadays at least, because he is a Victorian novelist and therefore regarded as highbrow, you can claim literary bragging rights for having read him. But he wrote 47 novels and most of them were long: never mind the quality, count the quantity is a maxim that springs to mind.
She also wants to marry again, to gain a protector. She catches penniless Lord Faun in her wiles but he then wants to withdraw from the engagement because of the potential scandal about the necklace. So she then sets her cap at her cousin, barrister and MP (and also penniless) Frank Greystock. But he has pledged himself to governess Lucy Morris though all his friends tell him that he must break off this engagement because he cannot afford to marry on his barrister's income whilst still having the expenses that accrue to an MP (unpaid in these days). Every man who comes close to Lizzie is captivated by her beauty and turned inside out by her verbal dexterity in which she recasts all their honourable motives as bad and makes them believe that the only thing that they can do is to marry her; if she will have them.
The legal complexities surrounding whether the necklace could have been a gift, and the will-he-won't-he surrounding Lizzie and her two lovers make up the essence of the plot on the long-winded first half od the novel.
About half way through the book, after a typically Trollopian invocation of the joys of fox-hunting (he was a keen hunter and liked to include a scene about hunting in every novel), we meet a set of penniless adventures Lord George, Sir Griffin, Mrs Carbuncle and her daughter Lucinda Roanoke, and the preacher Mr Emilius. With the arrival of this crew the story really takes off and the plot begins to develop. The second half of the book is more like a thriller in the style of Wilkie Collins while the first half was a very slow social comedy with a plot worthy of Jane Austen.
As with Austen, we are entirely within the world of gentility. The novel depends for much of its tension on whether Lord Faun or Frank Greystock will behave like gentlemen according to their code of honour. There is comedy when Frank inadvertently rides the horse of a merchant. The lower classes are either clowns or crooks. And Lizzie's wickedness stems from the way she uses her position as a lady to get away with lying (she is believed by a jury even after she admits lying on oath on a previous occasion) and, perhaps, with stealing.
Trollope exposes his anti-Semitic prejudices. Moneylenders are repeatedly associated with Jews and Mr Emilius is suspect despite being a Church of England preacher because he is suspected of Jewish roots: "the fashionable foreign ci-devant Jew preacher"; "The man was a nasty, greasy, lying, squinting Jew preacher"; he has a "hooky nose". These were, of course, the prejudices of Trollope's age and social context (as were the anti-lower class prejudices noted above) amd therefore can be explained and understood, if not necessarily pardoned. But it does reflect badly on this novel as a work of art, because the use of stereotypical characters is lazy writing (and lazy thinking).
The central character of Lizzie, a clever but manipulative woman who is transparently awful while at the same time being hypnotically alluring, fundamentally a heroine who believes her own lies, who thinks she is much put upon, forced to fight for what is rightfully hers, is excellent. Frank, the hero, is another complex character: a man who knows what he wants to do to secure his long-term happiness but is too weak not to be repeatedly tempted by Lizzie and by the general opinions of his class of society. Another good character is Lord Fawn, who wants to please everybody and, of course, ends up pleasing no-one. Mr Emilius, despite his unpleasantness, is sexually magnetic. Trollope can draw characters with strengths and weaknesses. But Lucy Morris is much too good to be true and most of the minor characters, such as kind Lady Fawn ("known as a miracle of Virtue, Benevolence, and Persistency"; Ch 3), or cross Lady Linlithgow, or conscientious Mr Camperdown, are one dimensional.
I first read this book in August 2015 and I enjoyed it. Trollope is still popular among today's genteel middle classes who form a, important part of the reading public. Why? Reading it again in July 2023, I find that Trollope is hugely flawed:
The first half is too long and too dry. The second half rattles along. Although, in terms of pacing, the principal turning point occurs almost exactly half way through, the slowness of the first half compared to the second unbalances the pace of the book.
He desperately needed an editor. Not only does he write at far too much length, but there are errors:
Frank Greystock is over thirty and simultaneously nearly thirty.
One of the key points of the plot hinges on whether the diamonds were taken from the jewellers in Scotland on 4th September or in London on 24th September but Trollope tells us that Lizzie's honeymoon lasted six weeks in Scotland which meant that she couldn't have been in London until mid-October making this key point, repeatedly mentioned, irrelevant.
In chapter 24 we are told that there are only "a few stunted trees around" Portray Castle because trees don't prosper but earlier Lizzie had been accused of cutting down a forest of old oaks.
Trollope writes using the omniscient point of view. The narrator's voice repeatedly intrudes from time to time:
"Although the first two chapters of this new history have been devoted to the fortunes and personal attributes of Lady Eustace, the historian begs his readers not to believe that that opulent and aristocratic Becky Sharp is to assume the dignity of heroine in the forthcoming pages." (CHAPTER 3 Lucy Morris)
"the poor narrator has been driven to expend his four first chapters in the mere task of introducing his characters. He regrets the length of these introductions, and will now begin at once the action of his story." (CHAPTER 4 Frank Greystock)
The intrusion of the author can be done with great effect. It can be Brechtian, reminding the reader that it is just a story. It can be a way of adding humour; Henry Fielding in Tom Jones does this. It can comment on the action. Trollope doesn't seem to have any coherent reason for his intrusions. It just adds words.
The concept of suspense seems alien to Trollope. The diamonds have vanished so Trollope immediately tells us where they are because "The chronicler states this at once, as he scorns to keep from his reader any secret that is known to himself."
Trollope repeatedly flouts the dictum 'show, don't tell'. He shows and then he tells. From his omniscient narrator's point of view, he tells us the innermost thoughts of each of his principal characters. He describes their characters at length, in almost as much detail as he describes their physical characteristics. He leaves almost nothing to the reader's imagination. And if you haven't got it the first time round, he tells you again. And again.
And perhaps this is the secret of his success. The reader doesn't have to do any work. Thus, Trollope is accessible to all. He is the fiction equivalent of easy listening. You can just let Trollope waft over you. And, nowadays at least, because he is a Victorian novelist and therefore regarded as highbrow, you can claim literary bragging rights for having read him. But he wrote 47 novels and most of them were long: never mind the quality, count the quantity is a maxim that springs to mind.
karinlib's review against another edition
4.0
As with all Trollope novels, this took a while to get into, but once I did, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and l liked how he ended this one.
booksandlipsticks13's review
challenging
lighthearted
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
amlibera's review against another edition
4.0
Done! I have to say that this is not my favorite Trollope novel that I have read. At a certain point, I became heartily sick of Lizzie Eustace and stopped reading for months. I think that mostly because what I enjoy about Trollope is not the incident as much as his character studies. He does women in particular really well and there is insight into the mind of the Victorian woman that Trollope himself may not have even been directly aware of. Lizzie Eustace is her own worst enemy --so much so that she isn't quite as true to life as others of Trollope's women. But I'm glad that I read it and I look forward to more Trollope in the nearish future.
cemoses's review against another edition
4.0
Trollope is an easy nineteenth century writer to read. This is the first book I read in the series and it stands on its own. The book was good enough for me to get the other book in the series.
The book gets a little slow in the middle. There is a long description of a hunt which I found boring. Many of the characters are very manipulative and not sympathetic. In the middle I found this hard. However, then the plot picks up.
On the whole a good nineteenth century novel by which I mean tells a somewhat leisurely story, which I often like, and it has a stronger plot line than most modern novels.
The book gets a little slow in the middle. There is a long description of a hunt which I found boring. Many of the characters are very manipulative and not sympathetic. In the middle I found this hard. However, then the plot picks up.
On the whole a good nineteenth century novel by which I mean tells a somewhat leisurely story, which I often like, and it has a stronger plot line than most modern novels.
srbaird's review against another edition
relaxing
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
krobart's review against another edition
4.0
See my review here:
https://whatmeread.wordpress.com/2023/01/10/review-2099-the-eustace-diamonds/
https://whatmeread.wordpress.com/2023/01/10/review-2099-the-eustace-diamonds/
katie_pfotzer's review against another edition
2.0
I hate reading classics because you’ll be in the middle of a delightful story that presents women in a sensitive and nuanced way and then BAM it’s antisemitic.