Palliser series

I have noticed no one ever posts in here but I am curious to see if there are other Trollope fans out there. I've just finished Phineas Redux, the fourth of the Palliser series and I absolutely loved it. I have grown quite fond of Phineas and Lady Laura just breaks my heart. I thought of her as something of a spoiled child at first, not feeling too sorry for her or her plight since she married simply for money and position and if she finds herself miserable, it's her own fault but those last few letters she wrote to Phineas were so devastating, I actually started to feel a little sorry for her. I have two more books to read in this series and then I'm moving on to the Barchester Series.

I love Anthony Trollope's novels, but I have noticed he doesn't seem to have a lot of fans. I prefer him to Dickens any day (except for David Copperfield). It's all about personal preferences though. My personal preference is for characters who are more real, and stories with less melodrama and preaching. I haven't read either of his series though. I have all the books from both series stacked up on my desk, but I haven't worked up the courage to start either series yet. I have read quite a few of his novels that aren't part of a series, and I've enjoyed all of them. Castle Richmond, The Claverings, The Belton Estate, Rachel Ray, and Miss Mackenzie are all enjoyable light reading.

I do think Trollope novels have more of a bite than a lot of Victorian literature, there's more social and political commentary than is generally present. He was ridiculously prolific though, like the Stephen King of his day, I've read several of his books and I still haven't even begun to scratch the surface of his work. The Way We Live Now is the book I started with and from there I've moved on to his series. I would highly recommend the Palliser series, it make seem daunting to begin but they are so readable and likeable, you'll breeze right through them despite their long length.

This weekend I thought about beginning the Trollope series that starts with The Warden, but I got side tracked on an Anthony Trollope biography by Hall. I'm only through the first two chapters, but so far it's been fairly interesting. I decided I wanted to know a little more about the writer before I dive into his series. I have no doubt I'll enjoy both series once I start reading them. I've never read one of his novels that I didn't enjoy. I love that he wrote so many novels. I fall in love with a particular book, then I look for anything else written by that writer to add to my reading list. Usually I'm disappointed to find only a few additional novels, but Trollope had a huge list of novels. I wonder if he wrote so much because he loved it, or if it was more a matter of money for him. As much as I love the novels of his I have read, in my opinion none of them are masterpieces like Pride and Prejudice or The Brothers Karamazov or War and Peace or Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights. I wonder if he had a choice would he have labored more over each individual novel, or if he was happy to write them so quickly and get them out the door so he wouldn't obsess over them. Hopefully I'll find the answers to some of my Trollope ponderings while reading the biography.

Courtny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CourtnyG

I wonder if he wrote so much because he loved it, or if it was more a matter of money for him.

---

I think money was an issue, not the only one, he had a true gift for writing so he must have enjoyed it but I do know that money was one of his motivators.

Quote:

---

As much as I love the novels of his I have read, in my opinion none of them are masterpieces like Pride and Prejudice or The Brothers Karamazov or War and Peace or Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights.

---

I agree with the Brothers Karamazov and War and Peace thing but I'd rather read Trollope over Austin any day. Austin was essentially a romance writer, I think Trollope delved a little deeper and had a broader focus and therefore is a little more challenging but I guess it all depends on what you like, that kind of thing is so subjective.

I adore Trollope and started on the Palliser series in 1983 after I was just married and stranded in a strange country. I didn't have much to do, but my husband had a small but interesting library of classics and four of the Palliser novels were part of it.

I went nuts over him because his characters seemed so incredibly real, as did the situations they found themselves in. I agree that he's generous with social and political commentary. You can get a very accurate picture of Victorian social life, mores and values from reading Trollope. I can't say the same of Dickens, who was more addicted to hyperbole, and tended to create (in my opinion) very two-dimensional portraits of young women.

Lady Laura is very melodramatic, unhappy and confused about her proper goals as a woman. She puts on a good front of confidence before she marries, but makes many mistakes and these result in her downfall.

I absolutely worshipped Lady Glencora, Plantagenet Palliser and Phineas Finn. These characters just leapt off the page for me. To this day, I find it hard to believe that they existed only in the author's imagination. Lady Glen, with her spunk and defiance and un-Victorian independence could have fit in a 20th setting, easily. Plantagenet is equivalent to the modern-day nerd.,with plastic pen protectors on his pockets. Even so, he was a loving spouse and a devoted father. There is a passage in The Duke's Children regarding his confusion about his daughter that made me burst into tears the first time I read it, and sometimes still does. Phineas was incredible -- spontaneous and manipulative at the same time -- a highly principled man but with serious blind spots in his political views that eventually lead to his being sidelined as a character later in the series. I could go on about him, but the point is that the more you study him the more you realize that he is filled with the natural contradictions of a real human being. How did Trollope draw these complex characters? I have no idea.

The other characters in the Palliser series are proportionately real, depending on their importance to the progression of the books.

I have a whole mini-library of Trollope novels -- 29 in all, including his autobiography. He is a fascinating guy, in his own right. He invented the mailbox. In case you didn't know that about him, he really did. He was mail-carrier before (and well after) he was a celebrated author.

If I had to throw away all my other books and only read Trollope for the rest of my life, I'd be contented. No offense to Austen, Hardy, the Brontes and many other great authors on my shelves, but Trollope created whole alternate worlds in his books, characters that could seem as real as your friends and neighbors, and his plots could be amazing. What some authors can do maybe half a dozen times, he did 46 (?) times. I'm trying to think of the number of his books, now. Once I get past the first chapter or two of a Trollope novel, getting bored and switching activities isn't an option.

A really fascinating book of his is: He Knew He Was Right. This is a psychological portrait as well as an examination of the dynamics within a family, from the Victorian perspective.

Ok, I could go on and on about Trollope, but I'll stop now.

This is my first post here and already I've overdone it.

Oh, it's so exciting to see someone who likes Trollope! I really have no one to talk about him with and sometimes that's really frustrating...anyway. I just started The Duke's Children and I'm really liking it so far although I'm still in shock by the sudden death of Lady Glencora, I didn't see that coming. :eek: I wasn't completely thrilled with The Prime Minister, it wasn't bad, it just wasn't one of my favorites of the series, that would be Phineas Redux, I just absolutely loved that book!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poem2poes

I absolutely worshipped Lady Glencora, Plantagenet Palliser and Phineas Finn.

---

Phineas, I love! He really grew so much as a character through the series and I like that he's not a black and white character. He is, for the most part, a very admirable man but he has that bit of a scoundrel in him that makes him so fascinating. Lady Glencora...I have sort of a love/hate relationship with her, much like I do with Lady Laura. There are times when Cora drives me nuts, she's just so...busy and hyper and pleased with herself but she does have a very good heart and is a very loyal friend and once she made the decision to stay with Plantagenet, she really commited to it and didn't seem to do much looking back. And speaking of Plantagenet, he's someone who has grown on me through the series. He's so cold and reserved, he takes some getting used to and he didn't garner much sympathy from me during The Prime Minister because he was so wishy washy, he really did nothing but complain and wring his hands, there were so many times when I just wanted to slap both of them, Glencora and Plantegenet but so far in Duke's Children I'm seeing a different side of him that I'm enjoying. I think he'll be a more interesting character on his own, without Cora's interference.

I've only read 9 Trollope novels so far which for any other author would be a good portion of their library but with Trollope, it's only a very weak start. I've heard and read so much about He Knew He Was Right so I think I'm going to read that before I jump into the Barchester series.

You see how he gets us so involved with his characters. We become angry and impatient with them, criticize them, talk about them as if they were real or as if we were catching up on the latest soap opera.

Lady Laura allowed herself to be pushed about by circumstances. So did Lady Mabel Grex, a character you read about in "The Duke's Children"

Lady Glen, on the other hand, only let herself get pushed once -- when she married. After that, she took charge of her life and even the lives of others. She didn't do any real harm (except in her handling of her daughter's love affair, in "The Duke's Children") and she did do a lot of good. She annoyed me a bit at first, but when I saw the direction she was taking her life through the books, my irritation changed to admiration. After all, there weren't a lot of options for a woman in her situation in Victorian England. She made the most of it, and she avoided the neurotic pitfalls and downturn into failure that Laura and Mabel Grex illustrate.

It's to Trollope's credit that he could write the character of such an unconventional Victorian woman so sympathetically. And also that he could show that obeying one's relatives or conventional cultural mores could be a certain recipe for failure, especially for women.

Plantagenet grew on me, just like he did with you. I didn't like him at first, but by the last book, he had become a respected "friend."

I think I need to spend some more time with "The Prime Minister." I had the same reaction as you. The only book of that series I like less is "The Eustace Diamonds." I know why I disliked it -- it's because Lizzie Eustace was such an unsympathetic and low character. I am not sure why I didn't like "The Prime Minister" so much, and maybe I didn't give it enough time.

What Trollope books have you read that you could recommend to me? I've read a lot, but certainly not all, LOL. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poem2poes

So did Lady Mabel Grex, a character you read about in "The Duke's Children"

---

Lady Mabel Grex was her own worst enemy. She so completely sabotaged everything and every relationship that was good in her life. She was a bitter, bitter woman. She has only herself to blame for ending up alone at the end. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Lady Glen, on the other hand, only let herself get pushed once ... After all, there weren't a lot of options for a woman in her situation in Victorian England.

---

That's very true. She was one of the few women in that book who was able to steer her life, once she accepted her marriage. It was odd to be reminded, in The Duke's Children, of her realtionship with Bruno and her behavior during that time because she had evolved so much by then. She was still headstrong and spoiled but there was definitely a maturity there.

Quote:

---

It's to Trollope's credit that he could write the character of such an unconventional Victorian woman so sympathetically. And also that he could show that obeying one's relatives or conventional cultural mores could be a certain recipe for failure, especially for women.

---

One thing that really struck me after I finished The Duke's Children and was thinking back on the whole series is just how passionate Trollope's writing is, whether you're talking about anger or love or dispair. Those last couple of letters between Lady Laura and Phineas just killed me, the exchanges between Phineas and Mr. Kennedy were intense, the last couple of conversations between Mr. Lopez and Emily Wharton were chilling and the conversations Lord Silverbridge and Isabel had where they were talking about their love were breathtaking. Victorians are often so reserved but Trollope's characters are anything but.

Quote:

---

I am not sure why I didn't like "The Prime Minister" so much, and maybe I didn't give it enough time.

---

This is why I didn't care for it...all the characters were so extreme! Ferdinand Lopez was evil, no shades of grey, just nasty, Emily was ridiculously and needlessly stubborn, there was no strength in Plantagenet's character, he was always second guessing himself and complaing and Lady Glen was out of control with her schemes and manipulations. There really wasn't any character you could grap onto and admire. Another thing I noticed is that Trollope repeated himself a lot, a lot of phrases were repeated, editorial comments were used over and over again, his heart just didn't seem to be into that one.

Lady Eustace had a lot of the same qualities, like you said, no real sympathetic characters, none of the events really touch anyone we care about, only in very remote ways. The only character I liked was Lucy Morris but Trollope married her off to weak-willed Frank and that was a little disappointing.

Quote:

---

What Trollope books have you read that you could recommend to me?

---

Outside the Palliser series, I haven't read that much. Only The Way We Live Now which I highly recommend because it was fabulous and then Barchester Towers which is the second in the Barchester series but I didn't know it was part of a series when I read it so I read it out of order. :eek: ;)

I'm reading He Knew He Was Right. It is not part of the Palliser series but I highly recommend it. Very well done. A question: Can I read Phineas Redux before Phineas Finn? Or does the latter have to be read first?

Truthlover,
I recommend that you read Phineas Finn before Phineas Redux. In many ways Redux is a continuation of the story, in other ways it is not. They key is that Redux takes the reader's knowledge of Phineas' relationships with specific characters -- Chiltern, Lady Laura Kennedy, Madame Max, and members of Parliament -- for granted. His history with those characters is key to how some of the plot unfolds. The plot itself, though, stands on its own. Phineas returns to London to take a seat in Parliament and ends up on trial for his life. There are even elements of the trial that take a minimal knowledge of the Eustace Diamonds for granted. I can keep an eye on this thread, if you have questions.

PabloQ,
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll read Phineas Finn before reading Redux. I really like Trollope. I have read all of the Barset series; some of them are better than others. Of all his novels I liked Orley Farm the best (and it's not even on this website). Barchester Towers is apparently the most famous of all his novels and I got so much out of it. Also very good is The Small House at Allington. The Last Chronicle of Barset is great. What is your favorite so far?

During the discussions given above, some have considered Austen to be just a romantic writer. I think Austen could have written about anything she chose and it would have turned out well. What matters in Austen are the conversations between the characters. These conversations are very intelligent, and appear to be similar to chess games. Each person is saying what he or she has thought over half a million times before speaking, unless you exclude Mrs. Bennett and her youngest daughter Lydia in Pride and Prejudice. They are dumb, and dumb people do exist, and their presence in Austen has a purpose: perhaps to let us know what points the author is not trying to make. In Trollope, it's not so much the intellectual depth of the conversations but the story itself as it twists and turns. We want to know what is going to happen. In Austen, nothing actually happens; the interest centers on the conversational challenges. What is the character going to say, not what is the character going to do, is the question that keeps us turning the pages in Austen. I think of Trollope's works more as parables. For example, the case of Lillie Dale in The Small House at Allington: the story of a woman who was jilted and would not marry anyone for that reason alone. Her reason is good enough, and the novel lets us know why this is perfectly fine and reasonable for Lillie.

It's great that you mention the conversational tone that encompasses Austen's novels, because the same can definitely be said for Trollope's novels, especially in his Palliser novels. It's my personal opinion that the majority of Victorian novels are driven by conversation. I would say that it was more vital for Austen's novels to include vast amounts of conversational banter, as Austen's domestic spheres were a bit more limited than Trollope's. Of course, the end of the eighteenth century wasn't exactly a time where women could voice their opinions. For that reason, it is important to know that the times of Austen and Trollope were different. Trollope wrote during a time where opinions were just starting to become pertinent in public and political venues such as the household and Parliament, while Austen lived during a time where these aforementioned opinions were more frowned upon, hence the free-indirect style as opposed to Trollope's intrusive narrator. His characters are also more externally vocal, especially the women. Characters such as Lady Glencora (who you were introduced to in The Small House at Allington) of Can You Forgive Her? and Lady Laura Standish/Kennedy of Phineas Finn and Phineas Redux made palpable ripples through the aforementioned texts because they had a bit more freedom than characters like Emma Woodhouse, Elizabeth Bennet, Elinor Dashwood, and Fanny Price of Emma, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, and Mansfield Park respectively.

The difference between Austen and Trollope are the times in which the novels were written. Austen's novels thrived on conversation because women had to be intelligent enough to voice their opinions through dialogue while the women of Trollope's novels had the ability to do things that Austen's characters would see as blasphemy such as the act of jilting you mentioned. When reading anything by Trollope, you'll see Trollope try to appease the Victorian public who had a more Conservative mindset by using the tool that is the intrusive narrator. He tries to make his characters sympathetic and apologetic so that the Victorian public accepts the characters for who they are--human. Austen's free-indirect style allows readers to--in a sense--see what characters are thinking, if only because they didn't have the freedom to voice their opinions in the way that Trollope's characters did--hence the games and banter that embodies Austen's novels.