Scan barcode
yvettekeller's review against another edition
4.0
A great, funny book by a great writer, but only if you can overlook the racism, misogyny and eugenics throughout.
This fiction requires more than a suspension of disbelief. It also requires a suspension of modern sensibilities, or at least the ability to acknowledge offense without letting it spoil the fun.
Although eugenics is frequently the butt of the joke, being the antagonist’s goal in the book, it being openly addressed was shocking enough to me to pull me out of the story and put it down. That’s why it took me so long to read the whole thing.
Wodehouse has many many other funny books that are less challenging to the moral stance of the modern reader. Still, this book is sweet, funny, and deeply insightful about relationships and character motivations even while enjoyable plot twists and general hi jinx ensue.
This fiction requires more than a suspension of disbelief. It also requires a suspension of modern sensibilities, or at least the ability to acknowledge offense without letting it spoil the fun.
Although eugenics is frequently the butt of the joke, being the antagonist’s goal in the book, it being openly addressed was shocking enough to me to pull me out of the story and put it down. That’s why it took me so long to read the whole thing.
Wodehouse has many many other funny books that are less challenging to the moral stance of the modern reader. Still, this book is sweet, funny, and deeply insightful about relationships and character motivations even while enjoyable plot twists and general hi jinx ensue.
aerolich's review
emotional
funny
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
jonathanrobert's review
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
ergative's review
2.0
What a fascinating glimpse into Wodehouse's development as a young writer! This is one of his very early novels, and it shows the transition point between his (thankfully) short-lived exploration of Serious Literature into the lighthearted comic whimsy that was his real genius. This book is the tale of a young couple, Ruth and Kirk, who get married and have a baby, and must navigate conflicts arising from income and family background and child-rearing, and do so in a desperately boring, tedious, predictable, stupid way. Every bit of narrative relating to their conflicts and struggles is so tropey and tiresome. There is nothing of Wodehouse's wit and sparkle in it. It's like every other stupid, portentous, moralising bit of twaddle from the 1920s, complete with some ingrained racism that comes with the era: Ruth and Kirk's baby is nicknamed 'The Great White Hope' by his prizefighter godfather, Steve, a nickname arising from all sorts of problematic origins. Ruth's aunt is also an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and although she's not presented as someone to admire, the nature of her demerits arise more from her overbearing pushiness---rather explicitly connected with her feminism and belief in the equality of women--than from the actual content of her eugenic philosophy. I had to work pretty hard to make myself believe that the perpetual references to 'the future of the race' in the context of eugenics meant 'human race' and not 'white race', because, to be honest, it could just as easily have been the latter as the former.
The plot itself is ridiculous and stupid and depends on characters changing their fundamental nature and relationship with each other for absolutely no reason other than that Wodehouse needs to insert conflict here and resolve conflict there. It also seems utterly blind to the wild amounts of privilege that allows him and his characters to proceed in complete ignorance of the actual challenges he presents them with. 'I think it will be rather fun being poor again,' says Ruth at the end, completely forgetting that back when they were poor they were so broke that her husband had to go away for a year to Colombia, where his best friend died, and in his absence his son got sick and almost died himself. Things were genuinely quite grim! But the plot demands that they recognize the evils of wealth and embrace poverty, and so they conveniently forget that poverty brings its own evils--and, crucially, evils that you are powerless to control. Rich people can decide not to be dicks. Poor people can't decide not to starve. It's ridiculous and stupid.
I should note here that later Wodehouse plots are also ridiculous and stupid. But they know that they're ridiculous and stupid, and indeed, they lean into the ridiculous stupidity intentionally. The characters are good-hearted, well-meaning youngsters, to be sure, but they are all impetuous and more than a bit dim, so when they make dumb decisions for the sake of the plot, those decisions are consistent with their characterization. It's all in the service of generating entertaining chaos. Here, by contrast, characterization is twisted in knots to serve a plot that Wodehouse didn't really know how to write, and which would still have been boring and tiresome even if a better writer had written it better.
And yet this book is not a complete failure, because Wodehouse is Wodehouse, and no matter how much he wants to write a Deep, Thoughtful Morality Tale, he can't help including entertaining chaos in little scenes dotted all over, where his future strength starts to peek its head around the corner. When we're dealing with the side characters, rather than tedious boring Ruth and Kirk, all sorts of delightful details begin to come to the fore. Steve's dialogue is full of 1920s slang that perplexes everyone he speaks to. William Bannister Winfield, the titular baby, is very good--not because he himself is an adowablw baby, but because of the way the narrative presents his perspective in a sort of understated straight-man manner that somehow highlights all the absurdities inherent in babies. Take this bit, where we learn about the preparations for a visit from Steve and Bill to reconcile Ruth's father, Mr Bannister, a wealthy, stodgy grump of a Wall-Street financier. Mr Bannister did not approve of Ruth's marriage, but Steve is convinced that once he sees Bill, he will come to his senses:
Perhaps the real mistake of the expedition was the nature of its baggage. William Bannister [the baby] had stood out for being allowed to take with him his wheelbarrow, his box of bricks, and his particular favorite, the dying pig, which you blew out and then allowed to collapse with a pleasing noise. These properties had struck his parents as excessive, but he was firm; and when he gave signs of being determined to fight it out on these lines if it took all the summer, they gave in.
(It's the 'collapse with a pleasing noise' that gets me.) Throughout the following interview with the grandfather, already entertaining in the contrast between Steve's highly colloquial, increasingly flustered slang and the grandfather's curmudgeonly crusty unfriendliness, Bill's interactions with these toys are all used to exquisite comic effect. Perhaps recognizing that he was on to something good, Wodehouse gifts us towards the end of the novel another outstanding set piece featuring Steve and Bill in the countryside of Connecticut, which is as good as anything he wrote in the rest of his career. Really, if he had re-written the entire book from the perspective of Steve, it would have been terrific. It was only the decision to center boring old Ruth and boring old Kirk, and make the primary conflict a boring old trope, where the acquisition of wealth makes you a bad person, and in order to become a good person again you must lose all the money.
In sum, entertaining chaos is Wodehouse's real forte. When the goal is to write a moralising tale about the dangers of excessive wealth, he flounders and fails. When the goal is to write an absurd romp about young twits being dumb, he excels. Nowhere is that so obvious as in this book, where the moralising tale about Kirk and Ruth is a slodgy puddle of muck, while the absurd romps surrounding Steve and Bill are sparkling delights.
The plot itself is ridiculous and stupid and depends on characters changing their fundamental nature and relationship with each other for absolutely no reason other than that Wodehouse needs to insert conflict here and resolve conflict there. It also seems utterly blind to the wild amounts of privilege that allows him and his characters to proceed in complete ignorance of the actual challenges he presents them with. 'I think it will be rather fun being poor again,' says Ruth at the end, completely forgetting that back when they were poor they were so broke that her husband had to go away for a year to Colombia, where his best friend died, and in his absence his son got sick and almost died himself. Things were genuinely quite grim! But the plot demands that they recognize the evils of wealth and embrace poverty, and so they conveniently forget that poverty brings its own evils--and, crucially, evils that you are powerless to control. Rich people can decide not to be dicks. Poor people can't decide not to starve. It's ridiculous and stupid.
I should note here that later Wodehouse plots are also ridiculous and stupid. But they know that they're ridiculous and stupid, and indeed, they lean into the ridiculous stupidity intentionally. The characters are good-hearted, well-meaning youngsters, to be sure, but they are all impetuous and more than a bit dim, so when they make dumb decisions for the sake of the plot, those decisions are consistent with their characterization. It's all in the service of generating entertaining chaos. Here, by contrast, characterization is twisted in knots to serve a plot that Wodehouse didn't really know how to write, and which would still have been boring and tiresome even if a better writer had written it better.
And yet this book is not a complete failure, because Wodehouse is Wodehouse, and no matter how much he wants to write a Deep, Thoughtful Morality Tale, he can't help including entertaining chaos in little scenes dotted all over, where his future strength starts to peek its head around the corner. When we're dealing with the side characters, rather than tedious boring Ruth and Kirk, all sorts of delightful details begin to come to the fore. Steve's dialogue is full of 1920s slang that perplexes everyone he speaks to. William Bannister Winfield, the titular baby, is very good--not because he himself is an adowablw baby, but because of the way the narrative presents his perspective in a sort of understated straight-man manner that somehow highlights all the absurdities inherent in babies. Take this bit, where we learn about the preparations for a visit from Steve and Bill to reconcile Ruth's father, Mr Bannister, a wealthy, stodgy grump of a Wall-Street financier. Mr Bannister did not approve of Ruth's marriage, but Steve is convinced that once he sees Bill, he will come to his senses:
Perhaps the real mistake of the expedition was the nature of its baggage. William Bannister [the baby] had stood out for being allowed to take with him his wheelbarrow, his box of bricks, and his particular favorite, the dying pig, which you blew out and then allowed to collapse with a pleasing noise. These properties had struck his parents as excessive, but he was firm; and when he gave signs of being determined to fight it out on these lines if it took all the summer, they gave in.
(It's the 'collapse with a pleasing noise' that gets me.) Throughout the following interview with the grandfather, already entertaining in the contrast between Steve's highly colloquial, increasingly flustered slang and the grandfather's curmudgeonly crusty unfriendliness, Bill's interactions with these toys are all used to exquisite comic effect. Perhaps recognizing that he was on to something good, Wodehouse gifts us towards the end of the novel another outstanding set piece featuring Steve and Bill in the countryside of Connecticut, which is as good as anything he wrote in the rest of his career. Really, if he had re-written the entire book from the perspective of Steve, it would have been terrific. It was only the decision to center boring old Ruth and boring old Kirk, and make the primary conflict a boring old trope, where the acquisition of wealth makes you a bad person, and in order to become a good person again you must lose all the money.
In sum, entertaining chaos is Wodehouse's real forte. When the goal is to write a moralising tale about the dangers of excessive wealth, he flounders and fails. When the goal is to write an absurd romp about young twits being dumb, he excels. Nowhere is that so obvious as in this book, where the moralising tale about Kirk and Ruth is a slodgy puddle of muck, while the absurd romps surrounding Steve and Bill are sparkling delights.
jonmhansen's review against another edition
4.0
It's a bit more serious than the usual Wodehouse, although that's not saying much.
siguirimama's review
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
groucho's review
2.0
A very un-Wodehouse like story. Quite serious, with a death, a marital split, child abuse and similar things. Not at all the "musical comedy without the music" that Wodehouse described his work as. The inevitable happy ending is cliché-ridden. Not enjoyable.
andyg's review
4.0
Much more satirical (to the point of being much less funny!) than the mainstream of his later work, this book explores many political and social themes of the time with elegantly turned phrases and Wodehouse's genius for timing.
I continue to prefer books written 90 years ago and set in the present to books written now and set 90 years ago. I can't tell if its the language or the unspoken social conventions that seem so much more authentic. Maybe I'm a chronological snob. Anyway, this book is a prime example.
I continue to prefer books written 90 years ago and set in the present to books written now and set 90 years ago. I can't tell if its the language or the unspoken social conventions that seem so much more authentic. Maybe I'm a chronological snob. Anyway, this book is a prime example.
More...