I found this book tremendously enjoyable. My prior impression of Somerset Maugham was that he was a good short story writer whose novels are looked down upon for being a bit plot-driven and a bit stylistically simple. I was thrilled to discover that neither of those (imagined?) criticisms is valid. I think Maugham is very good at all elements of the novel, without being excellent at any of them. The characterisation is mostly good, and when it leans a little bit toward cliche it's in a way that's still sympathetic. The prose is crystal clear, with just enough authorial voice to engage the reader. A lot happens in the book, but none of it is unrealistic and much of it is illustrative rather than integral to the story.

It helps that this book falls into just about my favourite genre of art, which doesn't so much ask the big questions as ask what would happen if we took the big questions seriously. The Good Place and I Heart Huckabees are two examples of this genre from other media, while books like [b:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy|386162|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, #1)|Douglas Adams|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1559986152l/386162._SX50_.jpg|3078186] series play with the same ideas.

This is a tricky book to recommend, because I expect going into it with low expectations and no idea what it's about will greatly enhance the experience. Nevertheless, if you're considering reading it, do. ( )

A bunch of people who know I'm a reader recommended this book to me. "It's amazing, a must read, wow!" It was okay. I don't get all the fuss, guess it just wasn't my style. Guess I'm more of a Larry Darrell, while the author and proposed audience was supposed to be more of an Elliot Templeton? (And that reference only works if you've also read the book) Maybe it's also that a lot of the book was centered around religion that kind of turned me off, but I read "The Shack" and really enjoyed that, so that couldn't be it. I guess it had to do with a lot of the characters snobbish qualities that irked me a lot, which, while a sign of the times (aka the settings and year, the book was written in) I found rather bothersome. All in all it was well written and had some rather enjoyable qualities, but not one I intend to ever pick up and read again. ( )

I don't think that I've ever read a book where the author of the book is also the narrator in a work of fiction. Maugham does this well even though he keeps things moving along chronologically with occasional hints that he will need to fill the reader in on something further into the story. This technique also allows for some moments of humorous self-deprecation. Overall, I enjoyed the book - even the philosophical parts which were nicely spaced throughout the story. The consequences of people's choices in life always make for good reading and this is a wonderful example of how well it can be done. ( )

An excellent classic. Great character development and an interesting story. ( )

This is a book filled with keen observations on human nature. The author inserts himself into the story as a friend and confidant to a group of upper‑class Americans in Chicago and then Europe during the period after the first world war. The friends' personalities range from the near-narcissistically self‑absorbed to one seeking to ‘sink his separate self and become one with the universal self’. As characters they are all fully realized - endearing, intriguing, and sometimes frustrating in their own way. I never got the feeling that the author meant for them to be judged or looked down on, just seen as living, breathing individuals, warts and all, each searching for a sense of fulfillment. ( )