Snobs (edition 2006)

The story sounds very promising, an ambitious woman marries a title and has to live with the consequences. When considering that the author is Julian Fellowes, the creator of Gosford Park and Downton Abbey, to name the two most famous screenplays he has written. Obviously, he is a skilled writer, and obviously, he knows his subject- especially as the story is told from the point of view of a friend of the upstart, who is an actor. And so is Julian Fellowes.
In spite of all this, I did not warm to this book at all. I was disappointed by the lack of satire, I thought the characters were surprisingly one-dimensional, and reading it I had a sense that JF is trying not to offend anyone, and plays it safe. The result is a book where you feel the author knows how to write, the story has potential, but the book is forgettable. Even bland. ( )

Very Mitford indeed -- it has to be a deliberate tribute. But just as readable as Nancy Mitford, so well done Julian Fellowes. Actually it also reminds me a bit of E. F. Benson's early work. ( )

v good ( )

Entertaining satire on the British class system; somehow lacks true sparkle. ( )

Edith Lavery is an upper middle class girl whose mother has raised her with grandiose dreams of the high aristocracy and gets an in by marrying the heir to the Uckfield titles and properties. Unfortunately, reality fails to equate dreams and, as boredome sets in, she finds a convenient distraction in a visiting actor. She must decide which realm she will now live in, with the mid level and passionate or the austere snobs of the upper echalon.

I find the quote on the front of this book to be an odd one. It is not high praise for Fellowes' prose or witty commentary on the book's content, but rather simply, 'Mr. Fellowes knows his turf well.' I can only hope that Dominick Dunne knows mroe about the British aristocracy than I to make such a straightforward statement, because I can do no more than say that, with the thorough picture he has painted of the world, it certainly seems so. Indeed, it is one of the most enchanging aspects of a tale of humanity and folly.

Going into this book, I did not know what to expect--I merely picked it up because he wrote Gosford Park, a movie I adore. [Actually, now that I think of it, someone handed it to me for that reason and I was all, 'Hey! Awesome!' and stuff.] The story itself is told, yet again, in first person. However, Mr. Fellowes saves the reader from the tireless Is and Mes by having it not be the main character, but rather a friend of the main character relating the story. This friend is an actor who, by nature it would seem, is an observer of people [which makes sense]. He watches and participates and gleans all of the information and then presents it in a straightforward and no-nonsense manner, contrary to so much of the first person one might read which is tainted with distractions, humour or excessive emotions and distracts from the story [see: the book I'm reading right now and will soon finish and post on...hopefully I won't be a liar]. All in all, I absolutely adored the presentation of the information that became the story. It was witty and clever in its own quiet way, and revealed much to the reader without being overly exposition-based...or, it was entirely exposition, but deftly handled so as not to make the reader feel like they were immersed in a social history lesson.

As an American with virtually no social standing [I would say none, but that would preclude me from social activity in its entirety], who has no interest or desire to discover the inner workings of the upper echalon on either side fo the pond, Fellowes shows me the game. He says, straight forward how these people work and why they make some of their decisions, but also makes room for them to be absolutely human and be off the beaten path or just kind of stupid. He also makes no excuse for how they live, leaving the reader a clear picture of his story with the freedom to decide on their own what they think, neither clearly villifying the lifestyle or over praising it.

It feels odd, writing so much about a book anymore. I feel as though I've been getting shorter and shorter in these little blurbs with no actual desire for brevity--I've just had nothing to say. Thankfully, Fellowes broke me of my train by being completely unlike anything I've read recently or, quite possibly, ever. I do not usually enjoy stories about the purity of humanity--not purity in the moral sense, of course, but rather purity in the raw sense. I do not usually enjoy very real stories about very real people who decide to do very stupid things. If a story is well-written and involves situations like such, I have trouble reading them because I hurt for these little imaginary characters who have no real faces. I don't like seeing people in pain, or doing stupid things that will bite them in the end, and that goes for characters in books as well. ( )