|
|
2.0étoiles sur 5
Here we go again (SPOILERS), Mai 17 2002
Par Un client
I read this book to see if things had improved any since EMILY OF NEW MOON. Instead, they have gotten worse.Looking over the reader comments on the Emily books, I am bewildered by how many claim that the stories and main character are more believable and 'real' than Anne and her series. In what way? How many of you out there were orphaned as children, adopted by rich hoitytoity relatives, blessed with powerful ESP and incredible writing talent, befriended by three other extremely gifted children (one sharing a psychic link with you) from creepy, unsupportive homes, etc. etc.? How many of you would be as upstanding and virtuous as these children are, in spite of such potentially personality-warping circumstances? I thought not. Anne might be too good to be true, but she isn't THAT far gone; Gilbert and Diana and Marilla are more human than Teddy and Ilse and Aunt Elizabeth (interesting though that last character is); and frightening yourself with gruesome fancies of a Haunted Wood is more likely than drawing a map, in a psychic trance, to find a lost child. The good stuff that is in this book--the real human moments that Montgomery includes in even her lesser stories--is weighed down by a lot of junk. Like what? Like Ilse, for instance, whose monotonously madcap personality overshadows Emily's own bursts of rebellion. Like psychic abilities, a flashy device that adds nothing to Emily's character or the story--the book's best chapter, in which Emily is accidentally imprisoned in a church, could have done just fine without them. Like cardboard enemies--Evelyn and Aunt Ruth and assorted malicious gossips--who have no redeeming qualities, except a few mentioned in passing to keep the characters from seeming absolutely ridiculous (Aunt Ruth's clannishness isn't a virtue; more like a neutral characteristic that chances to come in handy). By the same token, Emily could use a few more flaws. One of the silliest passages in the book is when she overhears a load of spiteful gossip about herself, and decides to think over each statement to see if she is indeed guilty of any of it. She isn't, of course, except for a few token bits dwarfed by the absurdity of the other charges. She then examines her physical self to determine if she is ugly, and the author goes into detail about how lovely she is, and Emily's verdict is that although she sometimes LOOKS rather pretty, she isn't actually pretty. Realism? Since I've come this far I suppose I'll check out EMILY'S QUEST and see if poor Emily, with her unwanted ESP and undesired suitors (4 or 5 of them), becomes any more compelling. But I doubt it.
|
de L.M. Montgomery
de L.M. Montgomery
de L.M. Montgomery
de L.M. Montgomery
de L.M. Montgomery
