I Capture the Castle (1948)

This is a book that has become one of the classic British comic novels, and it’s one that I loved at once when I first read it, many years ago. I was a bit nervous about re-reading it: would the eccentric charm have worn off? - I needn't have worried. It stands up to the passage of time very well. In fact, I'm probably more susceptible to Cassandra’s carefully calibrated naivety now than I was thirty-five years ago.

What is apparent when you re-read it is that it is a very technically-sophisticated piece of writing. Smith has to work very hard behind the scenes to keep up the illusion of seventeen-year-old Cassandra scribbling away in her notebooks as events unfold around her. (And to borrow plot ideas shamelessly from Jane Austen.) It's all very cunningly arranged, so that you scarcely catch a glimpse of the stage machinery whirring away behind the scenes, but when you look closely you see that you are in a theatre and watching a well-made play, in which every actor has a part proportioned exactly to his or her importance, every prop and feature of the scenery is used for something at the relevant moment. And every bit of charm and nostalgia has a suitably deflating joke attached to it in the proper place. Brilliantly done, not a line wasted!

Of course, the other thing when you re-read a book is that you’re usually more aware of context than you were the first time round. I knew from the start that I was not reading an autobiographical first novel by a young writer, but a mature work by an established playwright whose own background had little in common with her characters. Moreover, I knew she was writing it in exile in the US during the war, and that the Englishness was contrived at least as much to suit the tastes of American readers as for the “home” market. (Compare Wodehouse’s wonderfully nostalgic books written during and after the war and also set mostly in an idyllic thirties England.) That knowledge doesn't take away your enjoyment of the book, but it does help you see what the author is up to. ( )

Beautifully written. I was truly, completely "enchanted" by this narrator and story. I always take that word, in a synopsis, with a single grain of salt but this time it was really accurate and deserved. This was a reading experience that compared with Jane Austen and maybe three other books so far - maybe less.

All these characters were so perfectly described, with all their quirks, that I felt like I was there, invisible, living in the castle and seeing and hearing everything that was happening as I read over Cassandra's shoulder. ( )

A book you appreciate at so many different levels depending on what age you are. I love Cassandra. ( )

A book you appreciate at so many different levels depending on what age you are. I love Cassandra. ( )

I would actually like to give this book 3.5 stars, but Goodreads still doesn't allow half stars (shakes fist).

The main reason I decided to read this book is because of my love for British literature; however, I was surprised at how much I liked Cassandra's narration of her life. She does a wonderful job describing the quirky personalities that inhabit her household. Too often stepmothers are depicted in a negative light, so it was very nice to see that Topaz truly loved the entire family and acted as a wonderful mother to Cassandra, Rose, and Thomas.I was very much annoyed by Rose. Her greed and inability to accept her family's financial situation was a bit disturbing, but by the end of the book I really did appreciate her more as a character, though only slightly. I also suppose that it was Mortmain's fault. As a father, he should have done a lot more for his children instead of leaving them to fend for themselves. Thanks goodness for Topaz! The relationship between Cassandra and her father reminded me very much of Flavia de Luce's relationship with her own father in the Flavia de Luce series. Being that both books are set in practically the same time period, I'm wondering if this is indicative of most father-daughter relationships of the time. I'll have to read more British literature from this era, though.

Back to Cassandra. I will say that I liked her character a lot more when she wasn't pining over the love of her life. I tend to question whether or not her "love" for "you know who" isn't just schoolyard love. She doesn't every actually admit to loving him until he kisses her. The fact that she's never been with any other men or dated leads me to believe that she's mostly hung up on him because he's an older man who happened to give her her first real kiss. I'm also a little annoyed with the fact that this older man continues to lead her on. I do not believe for one second that he loves her. I think he sees her as a playful child, and though he might love her, he will never be IN love with her. I'm annoyed by this whole relationship between Cassandra and the older gent, because poor Stephen must sit idly by. I wonder if Cassandra is unwilling to allow herself to feel anything for Stephen because they've known each for too long and because she spends so much time pining over Simon. I think the most admirable character in this entire book is Stephen, and I'm very much disappointed by the fact that he will probably lead the most unhappiest life of all because of Cassandra's refusal to see her affection for the other man for what it really is--affection. I don't know, perhaps I'm being too hard on Cassandra because I like Stephen as a character so much, but her longing for the older gentleman just didn't feel real to me. It felt like for the latter part of the book she was trying to convince me that she was in love, but I just wasn't buying it. Something about her feelings for him didn't feel real.

Overall, everything about the book was fine, but I think I was most concerned with the love triangles that developed near the end. While I enjoyed reading it, all I can really think is poor Stephen... I hope that in the world of fiction, his character moved on and was able to find true love, because he was CERTAINLY most deserving of it. ( )