Sign in with Facebook
Tadiana ✩Night Owl☽'s Reviews > Martha in Paris
Martha in Paris
by
by
Tadiana ✩Night Owl☽'s review
bookshelves: historical-fiction, not-my-cuppa-tea, whatever
Mar 20, 2018
bookshelves: historical-fiction, not-my-cuppa-tea, whatever
This 1962 book (which I picked up on a $1.99 Kindle sale along with the other two books in this series) is a 9-years-later sequel to The Eye of Love. Martha, an 18 year old Brit who was a willful 9 year old budding artist in the first book and one of an ensemble of characters, is now the main character, as she's sent by her mentor, old Mr. Joyce, to study art in Paris. Since the first book was set in 1932, this one would be 1941, but WWII never makes any kind of appearance, even as a backdrop. It was like some alternative world where Martha skipped the 40s and time-jumped straight to the 1950s.
This book seriously wasn't what I expected.
What I expected:
*Charming, fun Paris!
*Lush descriptions of art.
*A delightful romance, starring a chunky, sympathetic heroine.
What I got:
*A Paris setting, but thin on the details, charming or otherwise.
*Way less art than I expected, considering how devoted Martha is to it.
*A manipulative, self-centered heroine with almost a complete lack of empathy for others - an interesting character, but extremely hard to like.
*A romance that happens only because the shy bank clerk is completely deluded as to the actual character of Martha.
*And (view spoiler), which turns out to be the main focus of the story.
This would have been edgy reading in 1962, but not so much now. Read it if you're interested in a character study of an unpleasant and quirky but talented young woman.
Also, it ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger. To get the rest of the story, you need to read Martha, Eric and George ... another 10-years-later sequel.
This book seriously wasn't what I expected.
What I expected:
*Charming, fun Paris!
*Lush descriptions of art.
*A delightful romance, starring a chunky, sympathetic heroine.
What I got:
*A Paris setting, but thin on the details, charming or otherwise.
*Way less art than I expected, considering how devoted Martha is to it.
*A manipulative, self-centered heroine with almost a complete lack of empathy for others - an interesting character, but extremely hard to like.
*A romance that happens only because the shy bank clerk is completely deluded as to the actual character of Martha.
*And (view spoiler), which turns out to be the main focus of the story.
This would have been edgy reading in 1962, but not so much now. Read it if you're interested in a character study of an unpleasant and quirky but talented young woman.
Also, it ends on somewhat of a cliffhanger. To get the rest of the story, you need to read Martha, Eric and George ... another 10-years-later sequel.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Martha in Paris.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 12, 2018
–
Started Reading
March 12, 2018
–
Finished Reading
March 20, 2018
– Shelved
March 20, 2018
– Shelved as:
historical-fiction
March 20, 2018
– Shelved as:
not-my-cuppa-tea
March 20, 2018
– Shelved as:
whatever
Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Valerie wrote: "There's a kind of casual misery in mid-century writing (the modernist period?) that I find really hard to enjoy. Same for lack of empathy in main characters, rendering them pretty unsympathetic. I ..."That's a really interesting comment, Valerie! This is kind of a middle-brow book, not truly serious literature, which is why the direction it went took me aback. But you may be onto something here.
Maybe it was just the style of the time to write characters who sucked?
It seems to have been at least a style of the times. I'm not big on dislikable protagonists as a general rule, unless they're in a classic novel or highbrow literary fiction where I know it's good for my brain, like broccoli.
It is odd that she made such a point of emphasising the period the first book is set in - frequent references to the date, Henry’s WW1 service etc - then setting the second book in a much later era. I suppose when she wrote the first book she had no thought of a sequel. I agree in general the story is disappointing for the reasons you mention.
(my references are Raymond Carver, Edward Albee, Mary Gordon, etc).