When was vanity fair written

One hundred years after the publication of Clarissa no 4 in this series , Thackeray not only revels in the possibilities of the genre, he even illustrated his own work with some decidedly inferior woodcuts. Vanity Fair was published in serial form including some memorable cliff-hangers, for instance Becky Sharp's revelation of her marriage to Rawdon Crawley from January to June Thackeray, on top form, cheerfully exploited an ebullient tradition, transcending all his previous efforts as a writer, novels such as The Luck of Barry Lyndon Early drafts of the book, which had the working title "a novel without a hero" lacked the all-important figure of William Dobbin, a thoroughly good and likable character who owes much to Thackeray himself.

Unlike Bunyan, Thackeray was hardly a die-hard Christian, but rather a man who relished a life of pleasure and luxury, and who, on the evidence of his letters, found much of the Bible either ludicrous or distasteful. As a title, however, "Vanity Fair" set the tone of the novel in its depiction of a society, rather as "The Bonfire of the Vanities" did for Tom Wolfe who also illustrated his own work in Thackeray's intention was satirical and realistic.

Writing mid-century, he set his masterpiece in Regency England during the Napoleonic wars, intending the lessons of his tale to be applied equally to his own times. In contemporary terms that would be like a modern literary novelist setting their scene during the second world war, or the blitz. The climax of the novel comes with the battle of Waterloo. What challenges did you and the screenwriter, Julian Fellowes, face in adapting this novel? Vanity Fair has been one of my favorite novels since I was sixteen years old.

I know it very well, as does Julian Fellowes, who adapted the screenplay. Besides maintaining Becky Sharp as the narrative spine of the film, I was keen to preserve the democratic swirl of the book and to that effect wanted to keep all the important subplots alive. Sometimes we amalgamated a few characters into one person Lady Southdown, for instance to preserve the hypocrisy, ambition, and greed that is of course the foundation of what Thackeray referred to as Vanity Fair.

In depicting England, I followed Thackeray completely. That is my joy as a director as well: to amplify the frame with a heightened reality that crackles with life. Oriental details pepper his book: he wrote in detail of how pashmina shawls were coveted, chinoiserie furniture, Indian embroideries, inlaid marble—you name it.

I simply took these details and ran with them. What are your thoughts on Becky Sharp? Becky is a complicated character. I wanted to preserve her complexity, her ambition, her folly, yet work with an actor like Reese who is just plain irresistible to watch.

Reese was my first and only choice for playing Becky Sharp; she has wit, guile, and that enticing quality called Appeal that makes an actor a movie star. It was delicious working with her—she is an old pro in her young tiny bones: always impeccably prepared, a great listener, and calm and generous with her fellow actors.

She never tires. Dobbin was one of my favorites. Dobbin was the moral center of the story and needed to be played by an actor who was not afraid to be transparent about his emotion, yet not be boring in suffering.

Rhys Ifans, thank you, thank you! What do you think Vanity Fair has to offer to readers and viewers of the twenty-first century? Start earning points for buying books! Uplift Native American Stories. Share: Share on Facebook. Add to Cart. Aside from Becky, who are your favorite characters in the novel? Vanity Fair is subtitled A Novel without a Hero.

In what ways does he differ from a conventional romantic hero? Does he, too, display any of the vanity, hypocrisy, and self-deception common to the other characters in the novel? Thackeray peoples his novel with many colorful secondary characters. Were any especially well drawn or true to life? Which did you find most amusing, pathetic, or loathsome? How does the world depicted in Vanity Fair, with its self-conscious morality and well-defined social strata, compare to our world today?

What is different, and what remains the same? Did you find any that were especially on target or out of bounds? What do they add to the novel? The above described Amelia is involved in that plotline. This book has the best, the longest, the most throughly researched and detailed description of the battle of Waterloo that you are likely to find.

A huge chunk of the book is devoted to that day and the reaction to that day, and it is as epic a war novel as one could hope to find for that space of time. In some ways, I feel like Thackeray was trying to encompass his century as a whole, not just the very specific time of the Napoleonic wars. He deals with class, money, ambition, war, roles and rights of women, questions of morality, and times that inevitably change and change again, pushing the old world and the old ways into ever faster irrelevance.

Just as the 19th century did. I think Becky Sharp might well be a fitting symbol of the whole century: she wants to rise high in society, she wants as much money as she can get her hands on, she wants the appearance of morality but doesn't much care for the actuality , she is from the lower class and spends the book working her way up the ladder tooth and nail through representatives of the "old guard," at any cost to herself or others.

And yet, she still holds sentimental feelings for Amelia, for her husband, she does what she thinks is best for her son however controversial that might be and at whatever cost in pride , and she cannot quite bear to be completely alone I don't know.

I'm really just remembering things I wrote down when I read this over two years ago, re-piecing together theories, so I hope you'll forgive me if they're a wee incoherent. There is more to it than that, but I do not think that any review of reasonable length can encompass everything in this book, particularly when I've already rambled about my favorite things for so long, and things are already this disorganized.

Fitting, I suppose, in such a merrily chaotic book. So I'll just leave you with the quote that I think explains and drives much of the action and is one of the major points of the novel: "Vanitas Vanitatium!

Or having it, is satisfied? The author makes his presence known towards the end of the book. It was both eerie and uncanny. He kept breaking the fourth wall, then he conjured that apparition of his in one of the last chapters. Vanity Fair contains no real heroes. That was a fact that Thackeray himself stated, and who am I to dispute that. This book of his is quite droll in its stitching together.

There is a threat of a continuum, then everything is put back into question. Classics are a strange beast. With them, I feel attachment like it's the result of Stockholm Syndrome.

My delight at finishing these Mesozoic beasts is unique to the genre. Long may it continue. Paul Bryant. An example of his cynical sermonizing — here he waxes forth about our — yours, mine - postmortem fate : Which of the dead are most tenderly and passionately deplored? Those who love the survivors the least, I believe. The death of a child occasions a passion of grief and frantic tears, such as your end, brother reader, will never inspire. I am very rich, and they want my inheritance — or very poor and they are tired of supporting me.

For instance the eight pages of satire about the small German Duchy of Pumpernickel p Or the detailed descriptions of charades at upper class parties p Mother of God, these sections are unreadable.

This is what drags the rating down to 4. Why is this book pages long? The author breaks the fourth wall all the time, as they liked to do in the early-ish days of novelling, before such stuff was frowned upon as being uncouth and inartistic. And later on page whilst talking about his main characters holidaying in Germany he suddenly announces It was on this very tour that I, the present writer of a history of which every word is true, had the pleasure to see them first, and to make their acquaintance.

The author is not embarrassed to jump in and comment directly on his characters, like this : I like to dwell upon this period of her life, and to think that she was cheerful and happy. You see she has not had too much of that sort of existence as yet, and has not fallen in the way of means to educate her tastes or her intelligence. She has been domineered over hitherto by vulgar intellects. It is the lot of many a woman. Essentially, you could maintain your place in well-to-do society by racking up credit extended to you by umpteen tradesmen and servants who would do it because you had a place in well-to-do society!

Which leads us to the issue of Becky and her husband Rawdon. Becky is the best, most interesting character by far. At first this seems quite unjust. In the time-honoured way of plots in novels, all her maneuvering and manipulating and cajoling and flattering and flashing of bosoms is just about to pay off handsomely when it all goes tits up.

Not her fault. Then she disappears from the novel for a hundred pages or so. Meanwhile her husband Rawdon is a military gentleman until he resigns from the Army and then — does nothing.

Continues with his cardsharping and pool-sharking but as for gainful employment, raises not one hand. Nor yet, really, is it that much of a story. A couple of women make rash marriages.

After which there are some ups and downs. He leaves us with the image of Vanity Fair itself, that whirligig of human foolishness, rocketing on like a perpetual switchback ride. Ahmad Sharabiani. Maziar MHK. I realize that I'm not making friends here by only giving what is considered a masterful piece of literature what amounts to a "meh" review but that's really how I felt about this book.

On a small scale, I thought the writing was too long-winded. This is not a fancy story and it could have been told more concisely.

I was mostly bored reading it. On a bigger scale, I had serious issues with the heroine.