Scan barcode
msand3's review against another edition
5.0
There's something about James Hilton's novels that generates in me a powerful emotional connection to both the characters and the "idea" explored in the work--in this case, the vertigo, confusion, and desire to re-gain a lost past felt by Britons as they entered the darkest days of WWII. Hilton's work can be passionate without being overly-sentimental, can explore the past without relying on easy nostalgia, can remain hopeful without resorting to unrealistic expectations, and can instill a hope for future unity without seeming preachy or nationalistic. Plus, the guy is an expect in plot structure.
I had already seen the movie Random Harvest, so I knew the main details of the plot and twist ending. (Indeed, the ending of that movie is among my favorites in classic Hollywood cinema.) Even so, I found myself surprised by the details and (important) subplots in Hilton's novel that were not emphasized on the big screen--specifically the events with the parson, who obviously represents the rapidly fading eccentric old England.
I much prefer Hilton's plot structure to that of the film, if only because the ending emphasizes the twist, whereas the film audience already has knowledge of the situation. (I'm being vague to avoid spoilers.)
I can also understand why this was one of the best-selling novels of the war period. How many readers in 1940 would have felt like they were emerging from a twenty-year sleepwalk? I think Hilton is unfairly labelled a "popular writer," as if he is merely pop-philosophizing for entertainment. I think it's a testament to his skills as a novelist that his works could be thought-provoking, resonate emotionally with readers, AND be adapted into so many classic films.
I had already seen the movie Random Harvest, so I knew the main details of the plot and twist ending. (Indeed, the ending of that movie is among my favorites in classic Hollywood cinema.) Even so, I found myself surprised by the details and (important) subplots in Hilton's novel that were not emphasized on the big screen--specifically the events with the parson, who obviously represents the rapidly fading eccentric old England.
I much prefer Hilton's plot structure to that of the film, if only because the ending emphasizes the twist, whereas the film audience already has knowledge of the situation. (I'm being vague to avoid spoilers.)
I can also understand why this was one of the best-selling novels of the war period. How many readers in 1940 would have felt like they were emerging from a twenty-year sleepwalk? I think Hilton is unfairly labelled a "popular writer," as if he is merely pop-philosophizing for entertainment. I think it's a testament to his skills as a novelist that his works could be thought-provoking, resonate emotionally with readers, AND be adapted into so many classic films.
sathyasekar's review against another edition
5.0
I read this book first almost a decade ago and I still can feel the satisfaction and pleasure within me when I finished the book. A pleasure only great books can bring. I keep re-reading the book very often and due for another read. Beautiful prose, simple folks and deep emotion make it evergreen.
More...