Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence made her the first woman to win the Pulitzer Prize for the Novel (now known as the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction), with good reason, as Wharton uses the classic love triangle formula to expose the darker side of the seemingly idyllic Gilded Age of the late 1800s while also incorporating some savage wit. It’s also in the Novel 100 (#61), the Modern Library 100 (#58), and the Radcliffe 100 (#42), although it was published two years too early for TIME‘s top 100 list.
Age‘s main character is Newland Archer, a young lawyer in the social elites of New York in the 1870s who is about to marry the pretty but dull May Welland, a socially acceptable match and one he doesn’t question until he meets her cousin, the Countess Olenska. The Countess has just returned to the United States after fleeing a disastrous marriage in Europe to a man who used her ill (although his exact crime is never defined, I inferred that he was beating her), and Archer finds himself drawn to her in an obsession laden with sexual overtones. He ultimately has to choose between his engagement and then marriage to a woman he likes, but for whom he has no passion, and the woman who ignites his passion but for whom he’d have to abandon his family and status while flying in the face of all social conventions.
For a novel built around a serious idea, the choices people have to make between conforming to societal norms and following the riskier paths that offer a chance for greater happiness, Wharton manages to incorporate some bitterly sarcastic humor.
She sang, of course, “M’ama!” and not “he loves me,” since an unalterable and unquestioned law of the musical world required that the German text of French operas sung by Swedish artists should be translated into Italian for the clearer understanding of English- speaking audiences.
No one is spared, but Wharton has a particular enmity for the small-mindedness of the pro-propriety set, who conspire first to send Countess Olenska back to her husband and later to keep her and Newland apart.
On top of the love triangle and its underlying story about choice, The Age of Innocence reflects the social upheaval of the interwar period in which it was written. May Welland represents the longing for the pre-war period, a true age of innocence in which the U.S. hadn’t been embroiled in a major conflict since the Civil War, and prosperity and opulence seemed guaranteed. The Countess represents the future, from the vantage point of the end of World War I, from America’s increasing involvement with foreign nations to the uncertain economic outlook (the book was written in 1920, before the great bull run of the 20s) to the changing cultural and sexual mores of the time. Wharton comes down clearly in favor of the forward-looking viewpoint, but that doesn’t mean that Newland and the Countess live happily ever after.
The Age of Innocence is comfortably in the top 20-25 books I’ve read, more evidence that the most fertile period for the American novel was the time between the wars. It’s an outstanding marriage – pun intended – of wicked humor and social commentary, with a simple plot made interesting through strong characterization.
Keith, now it is time for you to rent the brilliant Martin Scorsese film starring arguably the greatest actor alive, Daniel Day-Lewis. It is underrated Scorsese. Would like to know your thoughts on the movie if and when you see it.
Keith, do you have any recommendations on sports books? I’m thinking about buying Ball Four and Meat Market as my next two, with The Soul of Baseball after that (Joe Poz is the best in the business but he’s beaten that book to death on his blog).
My book collection basically consists of Harry Potter, about 10 poker books, about 10 Boston sports books and a few goodies here and there. I need to upgrade.
I loved The Age of Innocence, but I loved Ethan Frome more. Have you read it? I think it’s much simpler and more subtly brilliant than anything else by Wharton.
Craig, I like Joe Poz quite a bit too, but thought TSoB was just ok. To me, most of the book seemed like an old-timer telling stories about how great things used to be and exaggerating them at that. It’s a quick read, but I just don’t think there is much to it. Ball Four on the other hand, great book. Bouton wrote it over the course of the season without any of his teammates knowing. They weren’t too pleased after finding out. Great stuff in there.
The second war coincides with the first generation raised fully with the cinema. According to the AFI’s top 100, great movies practically began in 1941 (only 3 of the top 30 predate Citizen Kane and all three are from ’39). No doubt the advent television near this time did not help the published word. As I minor plug for a contemporary writer, I’d recommend Jhumpa Lahiri. She won a Pulitzer recently for Interpreter of Maladies, her collection of short stories. Many of the stories were great though I’d avoid her subsequent novel.
Graig, if you have not yet read The Teammates by David Halberstam, I strongly recommend it.I know you said your collection includes Boston based sports books, but that was too vague. If you have read it, sorry. Ball Four is also great.
If you want a great sports read, try Pat Jordan’s “A False Spring” or David Halberstam’s “Breaks of the Game,” although the latter is out of print and harder to find. They are the best sports books I have ever read.
Keith, you should read a short story collection by a “new” writer named Ben Fountain, if you haven’t already. It’s called “Brief Encounters With Che Guevara,” and it generally centers around Americans in foreign places. It won the PEN-Hemingway and Barnes and Noble DISCOVER awards in 2007, as well as a Whiting. Definitely a worthwhile read by a brilliant author who does an excellent job of narrating a story and building compelling characters. Get on the bandwagon before it’s trendy (as in before 2009, which is when his first novel comes out).
Wait a minute…kinda of a minor note, but wasn’t the Age commonly referred to as the Guilded Age in the 20s??? Suppose it doesn’t matter, but…
I think the argument could be made that Archer is in love with the idea of Olenska as much as the actual person. It’s shown over and over again in the book that he’s a romantic who’s dealing with his attraction to her almost as a game(for example when he sees her by the shore and promises himself he’ll only go and talk to her if a boat gets to a certain point.)