Oliver GoldsmithCríticas

Wildly popular satirical novel of the Victorian era. Probably best left to students/devotees of the literature of the era, because who else would really care about a satire of the pop novel of the time? Yet it can still be read with some enjoyment today, with similarities to the Book of Job and to Voltaire's Candide noted, and a sense of why this was one of Dickens's favorite novels.

The first half seems considerably stronger than the second; it possesses a light tone and some quite comic scenes poking fun at the characters - one involving a commissioned painting of the "humble" family is pure gold. The second half however swings wildly about, with long harangues on the political merits of monarchy and the problem of prison reform seeming like they were shoved in from elsewhere to bulk up the book, before the soap opera-ish grand finale in a prison cell, where a disguise is removed, one thought dead is returned, a love thought lost is restored, a villain receives his comeuppance, yada yada yada.

Three and a half stars. The second half was better than the first -- after the first half, the influence on Little Women became quite clear to me.
What I like about this book is that it invites the reader to reflect on the possibility of happiness in extremely difficult circumstances, just like War and Peace does.

4.5*
2020 reread - just what I needed today!
--------
2016 reread:
I still think that this play needs to be seen to fully appreciate it but I liked this audiobook recording of a live performance. It was easier to listen to this time (I have had more practice!) and thus I found it even funnier than when I heard it a few years ago.
-----------------------
May 2014 review
4.5 stars. This full cast audiobook was a fun way to revisit one of my favorite Restoration comedies. However, I did find that some of the humor was a bit harder to visualize listening rather than reading.

Curtis rag paper

FB: (Vintage Paperback and Pulp Forum). Another late '60s book from high school. "She Stoops To Conquer" was originally published in 1773. The comedic plot, a young lady poses as a serving girl to win the heart of a young gentleman too shy to court ladies of his own class, could be of a movie coming out this year, or anytime in the past 100 years.

I was a bit surprised to learn that there was a debate over whether or not this 1766 Goldsmith novel is a satire. I think if it is read as anything other than a satire, its import is lost. The humor hidden just beneath the surface is the only thing I can imagine would have garnered it its popularity or held its recognition over the years. It was very popular in the 19th Century and has reportedly influenced many writers.

The Vicar is a sanguine character, who grabs the silver lining from cloud after cloud. He’d tell you that glass is half full and then say it was more than one body needed and give part of it away to his fellow man. He seems a little naive with today’s vision, but he cares far more about honor and integrity than money or position, and we could use a few more of his ilk, I think.

Goldsmith made me laugh more than once with his dry humor, i.e.

However, when any one of our relations was found to be a person of very bad character, a troublesome guest, or one we desired to get rid of, upon his leaving my house, I ever took care to lend him a riding coat, or a pair of boots, or sometimes a horse of small value, and I always had the satisfaction of finding he never came back to return them.

Or, in a longer passage, one of the characters embarks to Holland where he means to earn his living by teaching English to the Dutch. I addressed myself therefore to two or three of those I met whose appearance seemed most promising but it was impossible to make ourselves mutually understood. It was not till this very moment I recollected, that in order to teach Dutchmen English, it was necessary that they should first teach me Dutch. How I came to overlook so obvious an objection, is to me amazing; but certain it is I overlooked it.

Tell me you didn’t nod a little and smile.

The plot is thin and full of cliches. In a modern writer, I would toss it out the window, but somehow its date and language make it very palatable. There is some sermonizing (what would you expect from a book written in the 1700s?), but again, I didn’t find it objectionable and actually thought many of his ideas well ahead of his time. He pressed for reform efforts instead of punishment for minor crimes and decried a system in which two crimes, dissimilar in nature, such as murder and theft, often received the same punishment, death by hanging.

But a contract that is false between two men, is equally so between an hundred, or an hundred thousand; for as ten millions of circles can never make a square, so the united voice of myriads cannot lend the smallest foundation to falsehood.

I was struck by the wisdom of that statement and how it applies, perhaps even more, to us in this day of mass media. The truth can be buried beneath so many lies that it seems to disappear, but the lies will never be the truth, no matter how many times they are repeated.

I found this book easy to read and mostly fun to watch unfold. It was pretty predictable, but that is because subsequent authors have used the same intrigues since. I caught glimpses of Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo and Alexandre Dumas, and had to remind myself that Goldsmith predated them all.

My grandfather gave me an old book of plays when I was a young teenager. This was one of my favorites. It's basically a romantic farce. It has held up pretty well since it was first performed in London in 1773. It is very accessible since I read it at probably 13 years old. So if you're at all interested in seeing what was being performed on stage between Shakespeare and Cats, give it a try.

Summary: The “memoir” of the vicar, who experiences a series of financial and family disasters, ending up in prison, and how matters resolved themselves.

It was one of the most popular novels of the eighteenth century, and were it not for the poverty of Oliver Goldsmith and the efforts of his friend, Samuel Johnson, it might not have seen the light of day:

“I received one morning a message from poor Goldsmith that he was in great distress, and, as it was not in his power to come to me, begging that I would come to him as soon as possible. I sent him a guinea, and promised to come to him directly. I accordingly went as soon as I was dressed, and found that his landlady had arrested him for his rent, at which he was in a violent passion: I perceived that he had already changed my guinea, and had a bottle of Madeira and a glass before him. I put the cork into the bottle, desired he would be calm, and began to talk to him of the means by which he might be extricated. He then told me he had a novel ready for the press, which he produced to me. I looked into it and saw its merit; told the landlady I should soon return; and, having gone to a bookseller, sold it for sixty pounds. I brought Goldsmith the money, and he discharged his rent, not without rating his landlady in a high tone for having used him so ill.”

SAMUEL JOHNSON

The story centers around the memoirs of Dr. Charles Primrose, the vicar of a rural parish, who was well-off due to an invested inheritance, enabling him to donate his “living.” On the eve of his son George’s wedding to wealthy Arabella Wilmot, he receives word that his investor has gone bankrupt and skipped town, leaving the Primroses in poverty. The change in status as well as a theological dispute with the bride’s father result in a breaking of the engagement. Things go from bad to worse. They take refuge on the estate of Squire Thornhill, a notorious womanizer. They turn a thatch roofed home into a comfortable refuge while George seeks to support himself in the city, succeeding as an actor. Both son and father are swindled by a smooth-talking “sharp” losing their remaining animals. The family’s hope turns on securing good husbands for the daughters. Squire Thornhill visit and is drawn to Olivia. Then a mysterious gentleman, Mr. Burchell visits, and rescues Sophia from drowning, but Dr. Primrose is reluctant to trust him.

Thornhill heads off any possibility of George and Arabella getting together by arranging a commission to the West Indies, with Goldsmith agreeing to a note to fund George. Meanwhile, Olivia has been abducted, it being thought, by Mr. Burchell, when in fact it was Thornhill, who arranged a fictitious marriage, a tactic he apparently used with several women. Olivia is rescued by Primrose, but shortly after returning home, the house burns, with Primrose being badly burned on the arm, Thornhill calls the note which Primrose cannot pay, and is thrown into jail, while the violated Olivia grows more and more ill and dies.

This is one of those “sentimental” stories where in the end, all things are righted. I won’t say how but I will tell you that even Olivia lives and a succession of weddings and a restoration of Primrose’s fortunes occurs.

It is kind of like the book of Job without Job’s agonizings. Primrose continues to trust to God’s providence and act with rectitude. While wanting to recover what was lost, he is able to be content with little. Even in jail, he embraces his pitiful surroundings and sets about evangelizing the prisoners.

The other feature of this story is its lightning fast reversals–dramatic changes in a sentence or a paragraph. Goldsmith doesn’t let moss grow under his plot. In the end, things turn out as one might hope, but the series of disasters it takes to get there and the seeming impossibility of undoing them might stretch credulity at points.

This was the only novel Goldsmith wrote but it was a good one. After all, don’t we all like a story where good prevails and all who should, live happily ever after? Life isn’t always like this, perhaps one of the reasons for the timelessness of stories like this.

Every now and then there's nothing like a good classic. (Groucho Marx voice:) And this is nothing like a good classic!

It's wild and crazy. Fortunes are lost, houses burn down, reputations are ruined, ruffians roughhouse, people come back from the dead, and digressions digress a la galore. The vicar has six lovely children, two of them marriageable daughters. At heart, it is a classic Marriage Plot; and that's OK by me.

Witty, clever, excellent. I'd love to see this performed.

A wonderful little book! Contains a list of Heinemann's favourite classics; a portrait of Goldsmith; a 4-page introduction; Johnson's epitaph on Goldsmith; dedication and text of The Traveller; dedication and text of The Deserted Village; 7 pages of advertisements for Heinemann's favourite classics, each headed "Luxury for Sixpence"; a specimen page each of Lays of Ancient Rome, Sesame and Lilies, Comus, Evangeline, Sohrab and Rustum, King Richard III, and an illustration from The Cricket on the Hearth.

MBB-7

From Wikipedia; subtitled A Tale, Supposed to be written by Himself – is a novel by Irish writer Oliver Goldsmith (1728–1774). It was written from 1761 to 1762 and published in 1766. It was one of the most popular and widely read 18th-century novels among Victorians. I thought I had read this, but so long ago I could not even begin to tell you what it might be about, so I put it on my tbr takedown list for 2021 and now that I've read it, I still can't say whether I read it before. It is a tale written by (supposedly) the vicar himself that relates his idyllic life as vicar, his family, and the mishaps they experience. The history of how it come to be published (to pay rent) is interesting indeed. It was sold to Francis Newberry (relative of John Newberry) and went unpublished until 1766. STructure includes some poetry, some sermons, and fables. It is a fictitious memoir as it is supposedly written by the vicar himself. The novel supports the basic goodness of man and also a satire on the sentimental novel. There is similarity to Job's difficulties in the book of Job (Holy Bible). The novel is mentioned in George Eliot's Middlemarch, Stendhal's The Life of Henry Brulard, Arthur Schopenhauer's "The Art of Being Right", Jane Austen's Emma, Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and David Copperfield, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Sarah Grand's The Heavenly Twins, Charlotte Brontë's The Professor and Villette, Louisa May Alcott's Little Women and in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther, as well as his Dichtung und Wahrheit. It is on several lists including; 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die and The Guardian's 1001 Novel's Everyone Must Read,½

An 18th-century comic/sentimental novel about a prosperous vicar and his family who finds themselves in reduced circumstances.

The book starts off slowly, establishing the situation, characters, and details which will become important later. The middle chapters of the book present a gentle satire of rural society of the period. Towards the end, the story takes on a more melodramatic tone as the vicar and his family encounter a series of increasingly serious misfortunes.

I found the book to be a pleasant mix of satire and sentiment. Recommended as light reading for those who enjoy English literature.

I am torn about this one - yes, it is a classic, and I have the feeling that without it, Austen would not have been possible (at least not the way we know her). But the characters appear uneven (well, there is really only one character, everyone else is pretty one-dimensional), and while there are nuggets of social commentary, one also has to wonder how that character can get to that particular realization.
So, is it just an overwritten Job version or do we see some real development? I think the first.

Read in high school!

More than I expected from the 18th century, and with an interesting pre-Dickensian rant against British jails.

Also, the Librivox recording is quite good.

It’s probably best to go into this one with the same mindset as a stage comedy. Things just happen. Coincidences abound. The vicar almost gets his son married—but then a merchant runs off with his savings! He successfully sells his horse at market—to a conman! And so on and so forth. Which is not to say that I found any of that annoying, being used to novels where plot and theme are a bit tighter and more believable, because this is a satire, a comedy, and a 250-year-old novel, so my expectations were about on par. I didn’t even mind the wordiness or the fact that, when the vicar really gets going, I had to reread a page to figure out what he was saying. Also, the characters are more rounded than I thought they’d be!

I had fun reading this, in other words, though it’s not the best bit of 18th-century writing I’ve read. There’s a lot of parody and satire in it, from the small and domestic misfortunes that are treated as the end of the world to the vicar’s stubborn insistence on being kind and forgiving to everyone (including the aforementioned conman) to his views on marriage to the bit near the end where he’s sure he’s converting an entire jail but they’re making fun of him the whole time. I suspect there’s also a bit of parody in how quickly and randomly tragedy strikes, but I haven’t read any other sentimental novels so I can’t comment.

And yes, if you couldn’t tell from my summary, there are Austen vibes. (She must’ve read this. It was a bestseller and, well, let’s just say there are mistaken identities and a rake who’s taken for an honest man and the vicar reminded me a lot of Mr. Bennett at times.) That alone would make this worth reading, but it was enjoyable apart from that and I’m glad to have read it, and read it when I did so I could appreciate what Goldsmith was doing. I can totally picture it being read aloud in social settings with people tittering behind their fans and then debating the satire over sherry or embroidery.

Recced, but not fannishly. ‘Twas good and holds up, but is also not the best novel in the world.

Warnings: Period sexism. One scene with the g-slur describing a fortune teller. Several reports of comedic abduction.

7/10

The Modern Husband, Henry Fielding

My only previous experience with Fielding was Tom Jones and it didn't go all that well; the authorial voice in the novel overwhelmed everything else and for the most part I kept thinking, "this is supposed to be funny," rather than, "this is funny."

Well, this is a stage play - authorial voice can't be a problem. But would it be funny? Frankly, no. I didn't find it funny at all and I think a director would have to be very inventive to drag much visual humour into it. That said, I don't think it's a bad play - it's just that its merits don't include belly laughs, or even chuckles, really.

It's very satirical - primarily of its contemporary audience who are portrayed as going to the theatre, turning up late, to be seen and to gossip and intrigue, with the stage action being a mere distraction. The are further made out to be a bunch of vice-driven gamblers and libertines more interested in the appearance of virtue than any kind of morality at all.

Women are shown to be the main victims of all this, with husbands prostituting wives in order to maintain appearances when in financial difficulty and rich predators corrupting all and sundry through abuse of power, influence and money.

The most interesting character here is not the young newly wed wife who maintains her principles when all around have none but the older wife who has capitulated to her husband's demands that she act as mistress to others in order to raise income when his legal affairs have consumed all their money.

Mrs Modern is no saint, being quite vindictive at times and an inveterate gambler and intriguer, but it is clear that circumstance and her husband have exerted enormous pressure on her and that she was reluctant to start down the round to infamy. She points up the fundamental social problems (the imbalance of power between men and women inside and outside marriage) more clearly than the young virtuous woman she tries to ruin.

I find the satire rather biting and what the play lacks in humour it makes up for in righteous anger. A much simpler, quicker and superior work than Tom Jones.

The Clandestine Marriage, Garrick and Colman

Clandestine marriages were a hot political topic at the time of writing (mid 1700s), with numerous young lovers eloping to Gretna Green in order to get married against parental wishes and avoid arranged marriages that had little motivation beyond the financial and social climbing aims of parents. This play comes down heavily and unsubtly on the side of young love, with every character's portrait singly coloured using a paint roller in order to fit in with the necessary scheme. A bunch of stereotypes, really, the worst of which is the Swiss idiot who exists solely so he can be portrayed as a moron with a silly accent whilst serving as confidente to someone else who is pivotal to the plot. Stereotypes heightened for comedic effect, bumbling around chaotically getting into a huge tangle that gets resolved extremely quickly in the fifth Act with much ado and hullabaloo preceding.

It's saving grace is that it is funny, whilst making its swipe at marriage laws, the crude taste of the nouveau riche merchants and speculators, the snobbery of Old Money and the notion that income is more important than affection when it comes to marriage. It would be even more so in performance, so it's disappointing to learn that the play has received little attention in recent years, though it has been filmed once. This, however, does not apply to the Epilogue which, despite its attempt at meta-humour about Society and Theatre, is just utter garbage.

She Stoops to Conquer, Goldsmith

By far the most famous play in this collection, I'm sure, and with 3 of 4 read, I'm pretty confident it's the best, too. There's much fuss in the Introduction and notes about how Goldsmith rejected the "Sentimental" tone of his contemporary playwrights but it seems much ado about nothing to me: This play is all mischeif, intrigue, misunderstanding, romantic shennanigans and parents who interfere and overbear, winding itself up to total comedic chaos in Act 4 and resolving neatly in Act 5. Hence, just like every other famous play of its era - but up there as one of the best examples. It's obviously situationally funny off the page and no doubt hilarious in performance. Great fun.

Wild Oats, O'Keefe

Veering more in the direction of farce and piling the coindicences higher than the other entries in this volume, Wild Oats nevertheless delivers the laughs, no doubt gaining much in performance.

This collection gives a nice overview of 18th Century comedy and preserves some of the more obscure but still worthwhile examples - but She Stoops to Conquer stands head and shoulders above the rest, deserving of its fame.

L.A. Theatre Works audio presentation of the classic play full of mistaken identities and endless hijinks. Two friends end up at an estate where they're supposed to make a good impression and one of them is to woo the daughter of the lord of the manor. However, they are informed by the mischief-making son that it's an inn. Comedy ensues. A funny way to spend a couple hours and it definitely doesn't hurt that James Marsters plays one of the leading roles.

When Margery and Tommy Meanwell are orphaned, after their father is driven off his farm by the greedy landlord, Sir Timothy Gripe, the two young people find themselves in a terrible situation. Their wealthy relatives won't take them in, and although a well-meaning clergyman attempts to help Margery, after her brother goes to sea, Sir Timothy and Farmer Graspall (what an aptronym that is!) force him to abandon her. Despite her poverty, Margery has the two shoes given to her by the kind Mr. Smith - something for which she rejoices, leading to her nickname "Margery Two Shoes" - and she sets out to improve herself, teaching herself to read. When she warns Sir William Dove and Sir Timothy about a plot against them, the former establishes her as a teacher in a little country school. Here she adopts many teaching methods that were new and progressive for that time (the 18th century), incorporating movement into her lessons, and emphasizing the importance of kindness to our animal friends. Becoming something of a moral authority in the locale, Margery is accused of witchcraft because of her many animal companions, but she is championed by Sir William. Eventually she marries Sir Charles Jones, is reunited with her brother Tommy, and becomes a benevolent force in her area...

First published by John Newbery in 1765, The History of Little Goody Two Shoes; Otherwise Called Mrs. Margery Two-Shoes was a ground-breaking work, in the history of Anglophone children's literature, and although many contemporary readers might find it overly didactic, it actually had considerably more levity and entertainment value than the children's books - many of them produced by the Puritans, and other religious figures - that preceded it. It is not the source of the term "little goody two shoes," which we today understand to be a person who is nauseatingly rule-driven and "good," but it certainly popularized it. What's fascinating about this, is that the word "goody" is actually an abbreviated form of the English honorific "Goodwife," which was used to address women of a social status lower than "mistress" (i.e.: the mistress of a house), and didn't have the same connotation of overwhelming and obnoxious virtue that it currently does. Perhaps when the original meaning of "Goody" was lost, people assumed it meant "good," and came to think that "little goody two shoes" had a mocking ring to it.

However that may be, the story here was engaging, and had many fascinating elements. The author begins with a discussion of land leasing and its injustice, which opens a window into the social issues of the day. The educational methods used by Margery were also interesting, and the focus on humane treatment of animals eye-opening. This latter is a theme one sees often in 18th-century children's literature. Sir William's comments on the stupidity of witchcraft accusations - "a Woman must be very poor, very old, and live in a Neighborhood, where the People are very stupid, before she can possibly pass for a Witch" - were both apt and entertaining. Finally, the social rise of Margery is of note - she starts out as the orphaned daughter of a poor farmer, and winds up a wealthy, titled lady - as the 18th century sees the very beginning of the breakdown of the nobility as the primary authority in England. The authorship of this book is contested - like all of Newbery's books, it was published anonymously, although some attribute it to Oliver Goldsmith - but whoever created it certainly did something different! Recommended to all readers with an interest in 18th-century English children's books, or in the titles published by John Newbery.

There is an ongoing debate about whether The Vicar of Wakefield is serious or a satire. I tend toward the former opinion, for while the utter hypocrisy of the characters and the unbelievable serendipity of its plot have all the stuff of satire, I think this is just a coincidence. Goldsmith is not a satirist in the manner of Swift or Haywood: the absurdities of his novel are almost certainly a result of incompetence rather than biting social humor.

The novel itself is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. There is a debate about politics, for instance, in which the protagonist, Charles Primrose, ties himself up in knots trying to explain the importance of liberty, only to end up by affirming that the highest expression of liberty is actually monarchy.

"What they may then expect, may be seen by turning our eyes to Holland, Genoa, or Venice, where the laws govern the poor, and the rich govern the law. I am then for, and would die for, monarchy, sacred monarchy; for if there be any thing sacred amongst men, it must be the anointed sovereign of his people, and every diminution of his power in war, or in peace, is an infringement upon the real liberties of the subject."

We must treasure liberty - by cultivating monarchy. We must value the misery of poverty - by aspiring to riches. We must be honest - but it is okay to lie and deceive to cultivate "virtue." These recurrent hypocrisies run throughout The Vicar of Wakefield in a way that makes the characters seem like a bunch of social climbers of the most cynical kind. There is no sense of actual virtue, love, or kindness in the social relations on display here: everything is a performance designed to raise social status.

Of course, The Vicar of Wakefield, for the sheer extent of its influence, is a necessary text to read in a historical sense. But let's be honest: it is an awful book, lacking in plot or entertainment, full of hypocrisy, with a narrative that at times borders on the territory of an eighteenth-century American Psycho in its sheer lack of conscience or restraint.

I literally only wanted to read this because of a passing reference (or two) in Jane Austen's Emma! (Harriet gives a copy to Robert Martin, and Mrs Elton misquotes the verse about woman stooping to folly, I think!) I found an old library copy and couldn't resist. But, having suffered through Evelina and the like in the past, I had to brace myself. Goldsmith is slightly more witty than Burney, but still dedicates whole chapters to random subjects.

The story, even in such a short book, is bonkers. Talk about melodrama! The vicar of the title lives an idyllic life with his loving wife and large family of two daughters and four sons until the proverbial hits the fan. He loses all his money, they have to move to another parish miles away belonging to a dodgy landowner who puts Willoughby and Wickham in the shade, his eldest daughter elopes but nobody is sure who with, the family house burns down, he's thrown in jail for not paying his rent, where he finds his son, sent away to earn his fortune, who has killed someone in a duel. I think!

Mental, densely packed, but still just about readable!

Goldsmith's only novel. Novel writing was in an early stage and the dialogue is totally unrealistic, but no matter. The characters are mouthpieces for various viewpoints that Goldsmith had. The storyline is a cumulation of disasters, but things are reversed not totally convincingly at the end. I had always assumed that the book had something to do with the city of Wakefield in Yorkshire, but the story is set in a village closer to London.

A pair of young women work their wiles to catch and marry the men of their choices. Deception plays a strong part.