Newland Archer may have replaced Willougby as the biggest f*%ckboy in classic literature.

Free, independent thought is a gift. Simply put, traditional society can be stifling, but Edith Wharton eloquently reminds us, in my mind at least, not to lose the soul in the silly context of it all. ( )

Amazing writing, amazing story. I would not want a word of it changed - but I had to take off a star because Newland Archer was such an asshole that I spent the entire book annoyed at him. Sorry, Ms. Wharton...it's me, not you!! ( )

"We can't behave like people in novels, though, can we?"

4.5-stars, really!!

delicious!!! this is my first wharton (I KNOW!) and while i had already held her in high esteem as a writer and a woman, this book kinda made me fall in love with her. a lot. wharton's prose is beautiful. her eye for detail, incredible. i loved her way with description - sometimes so poetic, other times hilarious and often, both!

* "...her abysmal purity..."
* "The immense accretion of flesh, which had descended on her in middle life like a flood of lava on a doomed city had changed her from a plump active little woman with a neatly-turned foot and ankle into something as vast and august as a natural phenomenon."
* "...he plunged out into the winter night bursting with the belated eloquence of the inarticulate..."
* "...she gave an adipose chuckle and patted his knee with her puff-ball hand..."
* "She had the heedless generosity and the spasmodic extravagance of persons used to large fortunes,..."

this is great stuff!! :)

the age of innocence centers on an upper-class couple's impending marriage (archer and may), and ellen, may's cousin - a countess who has recently fled her marriage and life in europe, so is plagued by scandal. ellen's presence, (along with being may's cousin, she is also a friend of archer's from childhood - this circle of society is tight, yo!) threatens the happiness and stability of archer and may's union. though the novel questions assumptions and morals of 1870s' New York society, it never devolves into an outright condemnation of the institution. apparently, wharton considered this novel an "apology" for her earlier novel, 'the house of mirth', which was more brutal and critical. (and which i need to read RIGHT NOW!! heh!)

i truly enjoyed reading this book and was fully immersed in the time and place wharton created here. i loved coming across ideas in the novel, that for the time it was set (the 1870s), would have been very extreme views, and for the time it was written (1920), would likely still have been rather unpopular. ideas like: divorce, equality for (or more freedom for) women, socializing outside of one's 'class', progressive society - each touched on yet never presented as a lecture or a wagging finger.

according to wikipedia (I KNOW!):

"Not to be overlooked is Wharton's attention to detail regarding the charms and customs of the upper class. The novel has been lauded for its accurate portrayal of how the 19th-century East Coast American upper class lived, and this, combined with the social tragedy, earned Wharton a Pulitzer Prize—the first Pulitzer awarded to a woman. Edith Wharton was 58 years old at the time of publication; she had lived in that world and had seen it change dramatically by the end of World War I. The title is an ironic comment on the polished outward manners of New York society when compared to its inward machinations."

my only, only, 'yeah, but...' is because of:

early on in the novel we are told: "Everyone in polite circles knew that, in America, "a gentleman couldn't go into politics." and yet...by the end of the story, we learn that is, in fact, exactly what archer ended up doing. the last chapter has seen time in the story jump ahead 26 years. we are quickly brought up to speed with births, deaths and marriages. yet this one piece made for an inconsistency for me and left me with questions:

* in making the decision, did archer feel he was no longer a gentleman?
* did beliefs change within his level of society?
* did he, rather, just choose to follow his heart into something he truly wanted to do? if so, was this to offset the manner in which he would have rather followed his heart?
* if he had such a shift in thinking...then why not fight for ellen?

you see -- questions, i have them! :)

i loved the ending so much! i thought it perfect. i wondered often during this read if may and ellen were both held to a fantasized ideal in archer's mind. when archer, finally, says, near the very end of the book: "It's more real to me here than if I went up." i was, like, YEAH IT IS!

i think it was a ballsy choice on wharton's part to end the novel in this way. and i suspect wharton was a ballsy broad! :) ( )

I came across this gem at the semi-annual Friends of the Library book sale. I watched the Martin Scorsese directed movie years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. What I wasn't aware of was that "The Age of Innocence" received the 1921 Pulitzer Prize. Edith Wharton did a phenomenal job of writing this amazing novel. The characters are believable, the plot is a page-turner, and the setting takes you back in time to 1870's New York. If you've read this book, it's definitely worth a reread. If you're looking for a classic, you will not be disappointed! ( )