Sunday, February 8, 2009

Cranford: what the papers are saying

Nothing! The papers are saying nothing! Really it is quite shocking. Cranford seems to have almost slipped under the radar. Almost. I did manage to find a couple of reviews.

The Age says you'll either be charmed or repelled by Cranford. (Trust me, you'll be charmed!)

And David Knox from TV Tonight reckons Cranford is a piece to be treasured. Right on, mate. But how come you only gave it 4 1/2 stars? Seriously, I think it deserves at least 10 out of 5. . . :P

Hope you are all enjoying your weekend! Now, I need to go and get ready for church. . .


Current Mood: Annoyed


Andy Moore said...

I was repelled... to be honest. The bits I saw of Cranford when Mum was watching it was old ladies gossiping - it all looked so trivial and petty and foolish. However, maybe I'll have to watch it from start to finish, in order to do it justice.

The Editrix said...

*Sigh. . .*

Andrew, read the book first, then watch it from start to finish, and make sure you catch all the dialogue!!! :-D

Miss Jen said...

Shocking, indeed!!

Blessed Sabbath day to you, Elise!

~Miss Jen

Perfect picture....very fitting for this post!!

The Editrix said...

Same to you, Miss Jen!

LOL yeah, love that picture! :-)

Theresa said...

Augh,... I hate to be contrary but I tried to read the book... and failed.
I know, I know. I should have stuck by it and plodded my way through it's confusing and somewhat boring depths. But I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
After reading the first chapter I had these questions:
- Who on earth is the main character; the narrator?
- Why on earth is she there with these old ladies?
- Where did she come from then?
- Is she a relative?
- How could her life be so boring that she has to rely on these stories? What has happened to her, is she running away from something? or is she just bland?
- I was also confused about the chronology of the stories and reality, what happened when? when? ay?

I read more than half of the book and those questions [as far as I remember] weren't answered. I didn't want to waste my energy on reading something that didn't make sense or grip me.

Ok, I know you are all going to jump down my throat and tell me I'm wrong. I will be pleasantly surprised if I manage to ever read the book. I loved the characters of the old ladies and the culture of the town. I actually really, really enjoyed those elements.
However I felt the Cranford was seriously lacking in that it wouldn't answer any [ANY] of the questions, simple questions, that I had.
Sorry to say, but a novel needs to be a whole story for me to read all the way through it. Or else, it should have a disclaimer at the beginning to warn the reader that it is a collection of stories strung together.

Sorry to be so harsh, but there you go: that's my opinion.

I'm glad you like it though, it gives me some hope that I might be wrong.

The Editrix said...

LOL! Well, let me say that I can totally understand where you're coming from, Theresa.

I agree, Cranford isn't really a novel in the conventional sense - it's more like a series of semi-autobiographical reminiscings from Elizabeth Gaskell.

It required a bit of patience from me to get through it, but like I have said before, I found it to be a very moving, rewarding book. I was in tears a couple of times - it is has so many poignant, bittersweet moments. It is not necessarily a happy book - it is more sad than the miniseries, but. . . I still loved it. :-)