- Was it deeply thoughtful or merely entertaining?
- Which were your favorite characters?
- What did you think of the writing style?
- What was your take on the plot?
- Were the characters and events believable, comparable to historical facts?
- Would you rather read a pirate story?
- Should Tracy Chevalier write a sequel?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Digest it.
Please leave comments about your opinions and thoughts on the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If I had to rate this book on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the best) I would rate it a 6. It was entertaining, but not one of those books I would want to read over and over again. I think Chevalier used excellent description, but she used too much foreshadowing. I HATED all the male characters, all of them seemed too concerned with themselves and no one else. In fact, every character seemed that way except Griet. The characters and events did seem believable to me. Some of the foreshadowing made a few events seem cheesy. (i.e. the tile breaking foreshadowed Griet's family breaking apart) I feel like a sequel is not needed. I felt satisfied with the ending, not wondering what happened to Griet or the Vermeers. I'm glad I read the book, but I don't intend to read it again or recommend it to anyone. What do you all think?
ReplyDeleteAlso: Arg, a pirate tale prolly would 'ave been better than this.
- Kat
I had commented that all his paintings are in the same room. Good job! I was right! lol
ReplyDeleteI'm ALMOST at the ending! So far, my thoughts: the characters are richly detailed, though Griet's writing is simple and spare. The way she incorporates her artistic view of the world into her story (like how certain voices sound, the color of Vermeer's eyes) is sharply accurate.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I wouldn't rather read a pirate story. :P
ReplyDeleteKat describes my sentiments pretty close. I enjoyed the description. The story line was very believable. It would have been nice if Chevalier shown more evidence of her research into her subject. The book did not inspire me to learn more about Veneer and his work. I was fairly interested in the book until the last section where it's her 10 years later. It could of at least been more romantic, or have some kind of 'feel good' sentiments. Why did it have to be a butcher? He could have been a sweet shepherd boy, and she would end up a shepherd girl. That way, it would of at least been cute.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this book was that there was such a huge departure from Griet's perceptions of reality and actual reality. For example, her master saw a strand of her hair therefore she sees herself as a loose woman and leaves the house to get down with her boyfriend. There just wasn't enough drama in all the daily activities (why should it be such a scandal that she crushes pigments for "him" other than the fact that all the characters are hyper-sensitive and passive-aggressive?).
ReplyDeleteNone of them were really likable either. I was especially irritated by Griet's sensless obsession with the painter and her disgust for Pieter. He was always nice to her but she just dismissed him. She would be likable if she had a shred of honor. I think the story should have ended where Pieter comes to propose: she would have a thorough look into Pieter's handsome eyes, where she would find a revelation and decide to ditch the painter and leave with Pieter right then and there.
That being said, I enjoyed the writing style which was very perceptive and detailed. It could have used more symbolism and definitely more real drama (Why are the sister and the painter the only ones to die???). However the unromance of it all in the end is probably very close to real life and the difficulty in making a decision while so wrapped up in inexplicable emotions.
I liked the fact that she ended up with the butcher boy. but I do agree that people were freaking out over really stupid things- big deal, so she was grinding colors for him! big deal, he saw her hair! Well, who am I to judge what a big deal is... I did not live back then:-)
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason she had an obsession with Vermeer was because, the first time he visited her at her home, she realized that they both saw the world in a similar way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, she wasn't seeing what his life was really like, and so she based her adoration for him on her own fabrication, a fake perception of his world.
Vermeer was a good person, sure, but if she wasn't so tied up in having him care for her, then she would've noticed more quickly that Pieter really cared for her.
yes. exactly. admirers who are absorbed in a fantasy are really creepy.
ReplyDeleteMy impression was that Pieter had the hots for her more than actually caring for her. Vermeer was the only person in that book that cared about something more substantial about her, although it was just how she sees colors. In the end, I think Kat's right, there is not one true sympathetic charactor in the book, as everyone there is too concerned about themselves than to offer any real help to poor Griet.
ReplyDeleteI think that's a good observance, too.
ReplyDeletePieter wanted a good little doormat wife. He didn't want Griet to be 'corrupted' by Vermeer, since Pieter wanted her for himself.
Vermeer wanted someone other than his wife to talk to (or, well, listen to). He loved his wife, but she was awfully hard to take sometimes. He went to Griet for friendship, not thinking of how that might affect her family.
That makes alot of sense. Griet is a good doormat wife. She was a good maid who didn't eavesdrop too. I guess her character was satisfied with simply fulfilling duties, and not pursuing any 'dreams'. It makes sense that Pieter would be wary of an artist's influence on his woman. There's a chance that Vermeer might awaken some kind of aspiration in her, and she wouldn't be satisfied with marrying a butcher.
ReplyDeleteYeah. That competition would definitely make it more difficult for Pieter to marry her, even if he did (and I think he did) love her, in a way. He wanted a simple, easy life.
ReplyDeleteGood observations. I agree.
ReplyDelete