Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Penguin Books Ltd (1993), Paperback, 336 pages
Description
Basis for the Major Motion Picture starring Emma Stone, Ramy Youssef, Mark Ruffalo, and Willem Dafoe, directed by Yorgos Lanthimos. "Witty and delightfully written" (New York Times Book Review), Alasdair Gray's Poor Things echoes Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in this novel of a young woman freeing herself from the confines of the suffocating Victorian society she was created to serve. Winner of the Whitbread Award and the Guardian Fiction Prize In the 1880s in Glasgow, Scotland, medical student Archibald McCandless finds himself enchanted with the intriguing creature known as Bella Baxter. Supposedly the product of the fiendish scientist Godwin Baxter, Bella was resurrected for the sole purpose of fulfilling the whims of her benefactor. As his desire turns to obsession, Archibald's motives to free Bella are revealed to be as selfish as Godwin's, who claims her body and soul. But Bella has her own passions to pursue. Passions that take her to aristocratic casinos, low-life Alexandria, and a Parisian bordello, reaching an interrupted climax in a Scottish church. Exploring her station as a woman in the shadow of the patriarchy, Bella knows it is up to her to free herself--and to decide what meaning, if any, true love has in her life. "Gray has the look of a latter-day William Blake, with his extravagant myth-making, his strong social conscience, his liberating vision of sexuality and his flashes of righteous indignation tempered with scathing wit and sly self-mockery." --Los Angeles Times Book Review "This work of inspired lunacy effectively skewers class snobbery, British imperialism, prudishness and the tenets of received wisdom."--Publishers Weekly… (more)
Media reviews
A witty sendup of the Victorian pantheon as Scottish novelist Gray masterfully demolishes those scientific, cultural, and social shibboleths that so comforted our forebears. Gray has not only pulled off a stylistic tour de force, but has slyly slipped in a stunning critique of the
Show More
late-19th-century. A brilliant marriage of technique, intelligence, and art. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member Ashwell
Less sordid and psychologically painful than 1982 Janine (the author's favourite of his own books, and the only other by him that I've read), and hence possibly a better introduction to Gray.
Still painful, however. Gray is very bleak and Scottish; his books suggest that he has all the sympathies
At the same time it's good writing, at times beautifully poetic; it has a rock-solid sense of (and love for) its Glasgow setting, and it's full of the sort of appendices that make one squirm with glee on the author's behalf - f'rinstance, one of his characters, a Great Victorian General, is adorned with fabricated references from late-Victorian poets, such as Kipling.
He also illustrates his own books - pretty damn well - which I admire and respect and envy. The use of elements from Gray's Anatomy isn't as strong as it could have been, but it's the principle of the thing.
Still painful, however. Gray is very bleak and Scottish; his books suggest that he has all the sympathies
Show More
required to be a Socialist, combined with a deep and abiding distrust of - well, more like visceral disgust at - politics of any stripe, with the possible exception of Scottish independence. This illustrates it nicely: the core story is a macabre but touching Victorian tale of innocence and idealism, goodness and intelligence, going through trials but eventually winning out over wickedness to accomplish personal goals and do some small good in the world. The frame-story is about how the world stomps on innocent idealism with big hobnailed boots and shits on it, no matter how hard it tries, because it doesn't matter how enlightened individuals are if society at large clings to its malicious illusions; and, in any case, enlightenment needn't imply that people are very pleasant to each other. It's pretty manipulative; you get the nice glowy Dickens feeling at the end of the core story, and then the carpet's yanked from under your feet. Not a book to cheer one up.At the same time it's good writing, at times beautifully poetic; it has a rock-solid sense of (and love for) its Glasgow setting, and it's full of the sort of appendices that make one squirm with glee on the author's behalf - f'rinstance, one of his characters, a Great Victorian General, is adorned with fabricated references from late-Victorian poets, such as Kipling.
He also illustrates his own books - pretty damn well - which I admire and respect and envy. The use of elements from Gray's Anatomy isn't as strong as it could have been, but it's the principle of the thing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member amandrake
Poor Things is difficult to classify. It would be gothic, but the style is not tortured; might be a fairy tale, but it's too realistic; could be a romance, but not in the way that term is usually used. I would never say it's a comedy, but in some ways it's very funny. At end, more of a classical
It takes a lot for me to tell someone "you have to read this book." That said, if you like intelligent, original, quirky writing, you really *should* read this book. Plays with literary convention in an completely non-pretentious way. It's delightful.
Show More
tragedy, told from an unusual point of view.It takes a lot for me to tell someone "you have to read this book." That said, if you like intelligent, original, quirky writing, you really *should* read this book. Plays with literary convention in an completely non-pretentious way. It's delightful.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Carissa.Green
My ILL request for "Poor Things" came without the dust jacket, so I got to enjoy this beautiful Scottish Thistle graphic embossing with an aphorism that Alasdair Gray credits to a poem by Denis Leigh. The book has frame story with four distinct parts, Lanthimos adapts the fun part. However, he does
Show More
Victoria/Bella dirty because the most feminist part of the novel, the frame in which she tells her OWN story, is completely cut. She clarifies, disputes, corrects, truth-tells, shapes her own biography and political position in a far less fantastical and far more believable way, as happens to women who can't afford to live in fantasy land. Not so much fun as 150-odd pages of horny "wedding" and sex work, but there you go. Show Less
LibraryThing member alexis3700
Such an odd, odd story. LOVED IT! Was at first very confused why it was recommended to me...
LibraryThing member isabelx
After weeks of dithering over whether to read this month's book club novel, when I couldn't find a copy at the library or a charity shop, I succumbed just before Christmas and I'm glad I did. "Poor Things" won the Whitbread Novel Award and the Guardian Fiction Prize, but I hadn't heard of it before
Alasdair Gray claims in the introduction that this book isn't a novel, as he is just editing an old manuscript that he had come across. This is an old-fashioned conceit, that I have mostly come across in Victorian tales of mystery and horror, and I think it works well in this case. The 'editor' has included the manuscript complete with pictures, a letter from the original author's widow claiming that it is a tissue of lies and some notes on 'historical' places and happenings in the manuscript.
The Glasgow setting was vividly drawn and I was left wondering how much of it was a true description of the Victorian city and the ferment of medical and scientific experimentation and how much was invented. That is always a mark of a good horror story in my opinion.
Show More
it was nominated for the book club. It's a strange story told in an old-fashioned style and I found it very enjoyable.Alasdair Gray claims in the introduction that this book isn't a novel, as he is just editing an old manuscript that he had come across. This is an old-fashioned conceit, that I have mostly come across in Victorian tales of mystery and horror, and I think it works well in this case. The 'editor' has included the manuscript complete with pictures, a letter from the original author's widow claiming that it is a tissue of lies and some notes on 'historical' places and happenings in the manuscript.
The Glasgow setting was vividly drawn and I was left wondering how much of it was a true description of the Victorian city and the ferment of medical and scientific experimentation and how much was invented. That is always a mark of a good horror story in my opinion.
Show Less
LibraryThing member YossarianXeno
The friend who gave me this novel has a long track record of introducing me to unusual and well-written books and their authors (amongst others to William Boyd and Haruki Murakami) and Poor Things was no exception. At its core are three engaging, weird and wonderful characters, Godwin Baxter, a
Show More
reclusive medical genius, a doctor, Archie McCandless and Bella Baxter, the protégé of the former and object of love for the latter. To avoid giving too much away I won't go into detail about the plot, but it starts almost as a 19th century gothic medical horror story but unfolds to be a quasi-political tale of liberal values, particularly in relation to the role of women, in the deeply conservative world of wealthy Victorian Glaswegians. Though primarily set in Glasgow, along the way the slums of Alexandria and a brothel in Paris have important parts in the story. Poor Things is an exceptionally imaginative book that that well worth reading. Show Less
LibraryThing member richardderus
BkC 154
Rating: 3* of five
The Book Description: With its tantalizing reminders of Mary Shelley, Wilkie Collins, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Lewis Carroll, this is an up-to-date nineteenth-century novel, informed by a thoroughly twentieth-century sensibility. Set in and around Glasgow and the
My Review: Arch. Witty at times, fall-down funny once or twice. But when I think of this book, as I seldom do, the word resounding through my head is, "Arch."
There is something of the old-time gay subculture campiness, now fast disappearing in this day of mainstreaming, gaybies, and marriage equality on the march, about this erudite man's hommage to the Gothic romantic classic Frankenstein. NB I did not just imply Gray is a gay man. It's an irreverence for the venerated objects of culture, an inside-outing of tradition, that seems to me less and less to be found, to the great impoverishment of culture in general. Gray has done that here, has in this book sexualized the myth of Frankenstein's monster in a kind of appreciative send-up of both the sexual obsession of modern readers and the repression-through-action of Victorian ones. The exotic Mediterranean locales, specifically the louche climes of Alexandria, the successor to then-Austrian-ruled Venice as the wickedness capital of the world, make the story feel of the time. The aura of sinful wickedness is period as well.
The narrative, and its ending, are 20th-century approved...and probably the best bit of the book.
I take off an entire star, though, for the sheer wearing endless sameness of the arch tone. Put that eyebrow back down, sir! Uncrook that pinky! Alas, he never does. 'Tis a pity.
Rating: 3* of five
The Book Description: With its tantalizing reminders of Mary Shelley, Wilkie Collins, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Lewis Carroll, this is an up-to-date nineteenth-century novel, informed by a thoroughly twentieth-century sensibility. Set in and around Glasgow and the
Show More
Mediterranean in the early 1880s, it describes the love lives of two Scottish doctors and a twenty-five-year-old woman who has been created by one of them from human remains. A story of true love and scientific daring, it whirls the reader from the private operating rooms of late-Victorian Glasgow through aristocratic casinos, low-life Alexandria, and a Parisian bordello, reaching an interrupted climax in a Scottish church. It contains many unsanctified weddings, but hardly any perversions, and, as The Spectator put it, "an unexpected final twist doesn't make the novel seem trivial but, on the contrary, gives the vivid melodrama a retrospective gravity. You become aware that this odd book has been a great deal more than entertaining only on finishing it. Then your strongest desire is to start reading it again."My Review: Arch. Witty at times, fall-down funny once or twice. But when I think of this book, as I seldom do, the word resounding through my head is, "Arch."
There is something of the old-time gay subculture campiness, now fast disappearing in this day of mainstreaming, gaybies, and marriage equality on the march, about this erudite man's hommage to the Gothic romantic classic Frankenstein. NB I did not just imply Gray is a gay man. It's an irreverence for the venerated objects of culture, an inside-outing of tradition, that seems to me less and less to be found, to the great impoverishment of culture in general. Gray has done that here, has in this book sexualized the myth of Frankenstein's monster in a kind of appreciative send-up of both the sexual obsession of modern readers and the repression-through-action of Victorian ones. The exotic Mediterranean locales, specifically the louche climes of Alexandria, the successor to then-Austrian-ruled Venice as the wickedness capital of the world, make the story feel of the time. The aura of sinful wickedness is period as well.
The narrative, and its ending, are 20th-century approved...and probably the best bit of the book.
I take off an entire star, though, for the sheer wearing endless sameness of the arch tone. Put that eyebrow back down, sir! Uncrook that pinky! Alas, he never does. 'Tis a pity.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nostalgebraist
This Frankenstein re-imagining (I realize that word was created by marketing for bad movies but it seems appropriate), with seasoning from various other Victorian tales of the gothic/fantastic, gives a radically extended role to the monster and his (in this case, her) narrative, which was the only
On the basis of that core story, I'd give the book maybe 4 stars at most. However, the core text is not the entire book. It is surrounded by a frame story which calls its accuracy into question. As many other people have commented, the whole thing feels a lot like Pale Fire -- we spend most of the book reading what is heavily suggested to be the work of an eccentric, delusional-or-mendacious hack. In Pale Fire, though, Charles Kinbote's unreliability is entirely conveyed through internal evidence -- we realize he's a hack because he comes off as one (albeit one who can write real pretty). Archibald McCandless, the author of the core story in Poor Things, doesn't exude incompetence the way Kinbote does, and the only internal evidence for his unreliability is the cartoonish quality of the events he relates. This makes the "McCandless is wrong" interpretation almost as hard to believe as the events McCandless relates, because it's hard to connect the sensitive, likable voice of the core text with the rather pathetic man described in the frame narrative.
This is a (small) defect, but it is necessary, because it allows McCandless -- unlike Kinbote -- to charm the reader and thus enlist them, almost against their will, for his side. The core story, in its fanciful unreality, would be a very light confection on its own. But as it started to disperse, near the end, into an intractable mess of worldly facts, I found myself desperately wanting it back. This joyously silly book ends, surprisingly, in a tone of sublime melancholy. The value of all that cartoon silliness and light is in the fact that you can't have them! A realer feeling than realism alone can offer.
Show More
part of Shelley's original I really liked anyway. The core story is full of charm and humor and faux-Victorianism and delightful weirdness, though it's very much a cartoon. Not just in its medically impossible premise but in numerous instances of strange hyper-romanticized behavior -- characters proposing marriage almost at first sight, screaming so loudly that they can be heard for miles around, that sort of thing. Given that such excesses are common but not pervasive, it's never quite clear what level of realism we should expect out of the story at any given moment. But it's still lots of fun.On the basis of that core story, I'd give the book maybe 4 stars at most. However, the core text is not the entire book. It is surrounded by a frame story which calls its accuracy into question. As many other people have commented, the whole thing feels a lot like Pale Fire -- we spend most of the book reading what is heavily suggested to be the work of an eccentric, delusional-or-mendacious hack. In Pale Fire, though, Charles Kinbote's unreliability is entirely conveyed through internal evidence -- we realize he's a hack because he comes off as one (albeit one who can write real pretty). Archibald McCandless, the author of the core story in Poor Things, doesn't exude incompetence the way Kinbote does, and the only internal evidence for his unreliability is the cartoonish quality of the events he relates. This makes the "McCandless is wrong" interpretation almost as hard to believe as the events McCandless relates, because it's hard to connect the sensitive, likable voice of the core text with the rather pathetic man described in the frame narrative.
This is a (small) defect, but it is necessary, because it allows McCandless -- unlike Kinbote -- to charm the reader and thus enlist them, almost against their will, for his side. The core story, in its fanciful unreality, would be a very light confection on its own. But as it started to disperse, near the end, into an intractable mess of worldly facts, I found myself desperately wanting it back. This joyously silly book ends, surprisingly, in a tone of sublime melancholy. The value of all that cartoon silliness and light is in the fact that you can't have them! A realer feeling than realism alone can offer.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jonfaith
A stirring melange of Frankenstein and Pygmalion. I bought my copy of this at a great shop in Camden; I then read half in Heathrow and finished such flying over the Atlantic.
LibraryThing member Eye_Gee
Picked this up on a whim at a yard sale. I've only read a few pages, but I think it's going to be good.
....Well, I was wrong. I dropped it about half way through, which is something I hardly ever do. I give it 2 stars for originality and creativity. Maybe it would have kept me more engaged under
....Well, I was wrong. I dropped it about half way through, which is something I hardly ever do. I give it 2 stars for originality and creativity. Maybe it would have kept me more engaged under
Show More
different circumstances, but the novelty wore off and I found myself slogging through it. You know you're getting old(er) when you realize you don't have time to read all the books you you'd like to read, and that comes with the realization that there's no point finishing the ones you don't like! Show Less
LibraryThing member Charon07
An odd and entertaining novel—part Frankenstein, part Pygmalion, part Portrait of a Lady. The epilogue puts an interesting spin on things, making me wonder how the novel would have read had it been at the beginning.
LibraryThing member Citizenjoyce
It's almost criminal that Yorgos Lanthimos read this book about child-rearing, feminism, socialism, classism, and patriarchy and made a movie only about sexuality. I loved the movie but now am so angry that he removed the full human condition from it. Bella - Victoria was an intellectual, a
Show More
philosopher, a feminist, a scientist, and a political practitioner, and Lanthimos made her into only a sexual being. What a missed opportunity. I would love to see a movie based on the whole book. Show Less
LibraryThing member pgmcc
Poor Things by Alasdair Gray (336pp 1992)
Would I read more books by this author?
Most definitely.
Would I recommend this book?
Definitely.
To whom would I recommend this book?
It would have to be people who can stand a little weirdness and who can cut their way through the superficial carnal aspects of
Did this book inspire me to do anything?
Yes! I am planning a day in Glasgow to visit the main sites in the story. It will make an interesting excursion and give me a photo-journal opportunity.
I acquired this book in 2011 but have only gotten around to reading it now. I bought it while I was reading and loving “Lanark”. “Poor Things” has not disappointed. My reading it now was prompted by a friend who watched the Oscar winning film. This spurred me on to read the book before I watch the film.
Having loved Lanark I was expecting some weirdness. It was not as weird as I expected, but read like an historical fiction with one piece of Science Fiction at its heart. There is so much in the book I cannot see how a screen adaptation could possibly present all the content. My suspicion is that the film deals mostly with the sexual aspects of the story rather than with the primary focus of the book which is the presentation of political viewpoints and the promotion of political philosophies focused on improving the lot of the people rather than increasing the wealth of the wealthy. Comments by friends who have seen the film and reviews of the movie appear to support my suspicions. I intend to watch the film, but in my usual approach to screen adaptations I will not be complaining about how the film does not reflect the book, but rather enjoying the movie as something different from the book, but will be interested to see what was cut out of the story and what has been added in. Given the complexity of the main character I am not surprised it was an opportunity for Emma Stone to win an Oscar. I am looking forward to seeing her performance.
There are several themes to the story with a rather steamy thread running through the earlier parts of the book which, while the film may emphasise this, is primarily a means of hooking the reader to read on and then used as a vehicle to facilitate discussion on various political movements, their core tenets, and to present their impact on the population at large. Also presented are critiques of social norms that were, and still are, abhorrent to the sensitivities of the more liberal minded. It is a strongly feminist book so people should push through the misogyny presented in the early chapters to get through to the powerful messages that follow.
If I was to sum the story up in one sentence it would be:
“This is the life story of girl who experienced life in an accelerated fashion and grew into a determined woman who worked tirelessly to improve the lot of the poor through the advancement of medical practice and women’s rights.”
If I were to ignore the true messages of the book and simply describe it based on the superficial elements I could describe it as:
“The wife of Frankenstein was a nymphomaniac.”
Would I read more books by this author?
Most definitely.
Would I recommend this book?
Definitely.
To whom would I recommend this book?
It would have to be people who can stand a little weirdness and who can cut their way through the superficial carnal aspects of
Show More
the book to see its real purpose and meaning.Did this book inspire me to do anything?
Yes! I am planning a day in Glasgow to visit the main sites in the story. It will make an interesting excursion and give me a photo-journal opportunity.
I acquired this book in 2011 but have only gotten around to reading it now. I bought it while I was reading and loving “Lanark”. “Poor Things” has not disappointed. My reading it now was prompted by a friend who watched the Oscar winning film. This spurred me on to read the book before I watch the film.
Having loved Lanark I was expecting some weirdness. It was not as weird as I expected, but read like an historical fiction with one piece of Science Fiction at its heart. There is so much in the book I cannot see how a screen adaptation could possibly present all the content. My suspicion is that the film deals mostly with the sexual aspects of the story rather than with the primary focus of the book which is the presentation of political viewpoints and the promotion of political philosophies focused on improving the lot of the people rather than increasing the wealth of the wealthy. Comments by friends who have seen the film and reviews of the movie appear to support my suspicions. I intend to watch the film, but in my usual approach to screen adaptations I will not be complaining about how the film does not reflect the book, but rather enjoying the movie as something different from the book, but will be interested to see what was cut out of the story and what has been added in. Given the complexity of the main character I am not surprised it was an opportunity for Emma Stone to win an Oscar. I am looking forward to seeing her performance.
There are several themes to the story with a rather steamy thread running through the earlier parts of the book which, while the film may emphasise this, is primarily a means of hooking the reader to read on and then used as a vehicle to facilitate discussion on various political movements, their core tenets, and to present their impact on the population at large. Also presented are critiques of social norms that were, and still are, abhorrent to the sensitivities of the more liberal minded. It is a strongly feminist book so people should push through the misogyny presented in the early chapters to get through to the powerful messages that follow.
If I was to sum the story up in one sentence it would be:
“This is the life story of girl who experienced life in an accelerated fashion and grew into a determined woman who worked tirelessly to improve the lot of the poor through the advancement of medical practice and women’s rights.”
If I were to ignore the true messages of the book and simply describe it based on the superficial elements I could describe it as:
“The wife of Frankenstein was a nymphomaniac.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member AdonisGuilfoyle
Big nope. Thought the film adaptation looked smug and pretentious but defaulting to the novel didn't inspire me either, sadly. This is basically an old man's ranty rant about history and society disguised as a commentary on the treatment of women: 'You think you are about to possess what men have
Show More
hopelessly yearned for throughout the ages: the soul of an innocent, trusting, dependent child inside the opulent body of a radiantly lovely woman.' Gray also crams every nineteenth century literary device known to man into first half of the book, before flipping the narrative to sneer at those Victorian tropes - and repeating the same old rants from a supposedly feminist perspective. Yawn. I'm glad Emma Stone and the costume designer got something out of the film, but I definitely won't be wasting any more time on Alisdair Gray's griping. Show Less
Subjects
Awards
Costa Book Awards (Shortlist — Novel — 1992)
Guardian Fiction Prize (Winner — 1992)
Language
Original publication date
1992
Physical description
336 p.; 7.64 inches
ISBN
0140175547 / 9780140175547