Anyanka, I think the title refers to New York, itself. I draw that conclusion from the commentary in the last chapter, when Archer compares and contrasts his own generation of NY society to that of his son's.

A more obvious reference might be to May, herself, who seems innocent (perhaps in the beginning, she is), but we learn that she knows far more than her husband assumes she does. Thus, it could be ironic, in my view.

I absolutely loved this novel....

I think the title is two fold - age of innocence for the high society who pretended that the outside for all intents and purposes did not exist, and innocence that Archer had in beliving he could be part of that society and still think the way he wanted to.

I also loved it, but I found the sudden jump 25 years later to be rather jarring. I understood why she did it, but I didn't like how she did it.

The romance between Archer and Olanski and the conflict they had rang so true. I actually had some sympathy for him - he felt (was) trapped in this little world, and was dying to get out. But how? By pursuing this romance that would hurt this innocent lady (who obviously did know more than he thought!) How did such people survive those days? (probably all living in that artist district)

I was reading some Amazon reader reviews and I found one that just really took me aback. Guy said that the book was wonderful, and wouldn't it be great if we could have a society like that where everyone knew the rules and followed them. Um, I don't think he realized this was a satire. And I wonder if he'd think that way if he wasn't one of the 'high and mighty' in society.

Sort of like all those people who remember their previous lives. None of them rember being serfs or slaves, they were always queens or opera singers or temple priests.

I think the title also referred to the innocence of all the characters. May's innocence of ignorance, the countess' innocence that America would accept her, Archer's innocence about how he could mold May into what he wanted, and then how he could leave her and have the life he wanted with the Countess.

Cindy, I agree that the title has dual meaning, same as almost everything in this wonderful novel. To me, it is only an apparent innocence - everything in Archer's society is pretend and make-believe; isn't that really the opposite of true innocence?

I also felt some sympathy for Archer; however, he struck me as someone who likes the idea of change, but doesn't do anything to make it happen - as per the passage I quoted at the beginning of this thread. He repeatedly delays action until something happens that decisively prevents that course of action.

I remember a quote from Archer, saying to the effect: "Women ought to be as free as men." To me, part of the irony of the novel was that in this strait-jacketed society, the men were actually not as free as they seemed to think they were. The very fact that New York was so small in those days, and that everyone was watching everyone else, and gossiping about who did what with whom, etc. Neither the men nor the women were free, IMO. Another irony, in that the men seem to think they dominate over the women, the underlings, yet the tables are turned toward the end, by the unseen power of the women.

It is, indeed, a satire. I loved the portrayal of the grandmother as "Catherine the Great" and the descriptions of her double chins, tiny hands, etc. coming from mounds of flesh. Wharton's themes are timeless, yet she writes so brilliantly, they are seen afresh, in my view.

Having read "House of Mirth", which is much darker in theme, I felt the difference was money, or lack thereof. How different might have been the fates of some of the women in AOI, had they not been protected by their wealth. All those "cottages" in Newport R. I.!

BTW, one of my favorite quotes in this book:

>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.

The dumbing down to American audiences happened long before our time!

Her way with language was really delightful. I agree about the descriptions of Catherine the Great; there were many like that.

>Neither the men nor the women were free,

Good observation. And yeah, amazing how much power the women actually have...

I finished House of Mirth - what a depressing book! Still the same excellent writing and the same look at the double standards of high society, but oh I wished there was a different ending there. But I strongly suspect the woman (can't remember her name) was a prototype for many others at that time. While it was an excellent book, I still preferred Age of Innocence. It was still tragic for the people who were trapped in that way of life. But it ended on a hopeful note, I thought. And Archer's final decision in the end showed how far he'd come from the age of innocence. He knew better than to go up those stairs.

Cindy, I loved that quote, too!

It seemed to me that the men and the women of that milieu were equally trapped by the rigidities of their society. I saw them as hamsters, endlessly going from operas to dinner parties, on a treadmill.

As for the ending, I was not certain if Archer's final decision was indeed final. I think the author deliberately left that open....

SPOILER AHEAD. OK, since you mentioned House of Mirth, Cindy, did you think that the fate of the protagonist was deliberate suicide? Again, one was left wondering if it was an accidental overdose....What was your take?

Re 'trapped by the rigidities of their society' - both sections of the novel open at the opera; both times we actually come in at the same aria, stuck in a time warp like Groundhog Day! Such a brilliant little indication of stuckness.

Woodnymph, I think Archer's decision was final. - 'It's more real to me here than if I went up,' he suddenly heard himself say. - Archer, no longer trapped by convention, now traps himself in his memories, because he cannot make things happen - things happen to him, or so he believes. He will go back to dreaming, remembering, which is all he ever has done.

He and his kind (Mr Welland being a fine example of another) helped to perpetuate the status quo in old New York as much as the Welland women, by tacitly consenting to be the passive object of their manipulations. Your reading of "Women ought to be as free as men" is right: Archer is not free at all; even 25 years later, he cannot embrace the opportunity to be with the woman he loved.

> Cindy, did you think that the fate of the protagonist was deliberate suicide? Again, one was left wondering if it was an accidental overdose

I thought it was deliberate. She had no other choice, and while she had been using the drug, it wouldn't have surprised me if she took more than she knew she needed. I'd suspect however, given how verboten even the mention of suicide was (and still is in some quarters) that her cause of death would be listed as accidental overdose.

> I was not certain if Archer's final decision was indeed final

I also thought it was final. Enough time had passed, enough had happened, for him to realize that his life was his reality, and he couldn't go back to the dream. Plus I think he knew - being much older - that she would have changed as much as he had.

I managed to skim the last post without taking in too much - I've not read House of Mirth yet and would like to not know too much about it. Perhaps a separate thread?

Oh, Im sorry! I had asked elsethread if we could bring up HofM while talking this one and no one had objections, so I didn't think there'd be a problem.

Suggestion - when comparing her books, please try to not post spoilers or at least mention if a spoiler is coming!

Don't worry, it's almost impossible to not find out the ending of a classic before reading it. It's my own fault as I probably didn't pay that much attention when you first suggested comparing them - but have enjoyed The Age of Innocence so very much that I now want to read more Wharton. I love the clarity and crispness of her style, her dry irony and astute observations.

I just finished this last night and I'm so glad I finally read it. She is remarkably sharp in her observations and descriptions and I truly enjoyed this.

I was completely impressed with the climax of the story - the dinner party where Archer realizes just exactly what is happening. As stated above, he was not free as a man in that society. His realization that the doors were being firmly -- and worse, lovingly -- closed for good between him and Ellen was staggering. And May! I was repeatedly surprised by her grasp of what was going on, and the fact she wasn't angry about Archer's yearnings toward Ellen, she just recognized them as incorrect and went calmly about her way to correct them. At no time did I get the feeling she was conniving or plotting or even jealous or fearful -- she just did what was necessary in a socially correct manner to maintain their life.

I also found it interesting that it was a male character who was caught in this web. I've read many books where the female character is forced to conform or pay the price (The Awakening comes to mind, though I read it decades ago and might be off in my comparison). This is the only book I've read (that I can remember anyway!) where the male character faces the same dilemma and is just as powerless.

I was very surprised he didn't go see Ellen at the end, though that would not have been as fitting an ending. I liked Archer, I liked his progressive thinking, but as Anyanka said, he never DID anything to make change happen.

I'm now waiting for the DVD from the library. I'm really looking forward to seeing how faithful it is to the story.

I finished this yesterday and really need to read it a couple more times to get 'into' it in more depth.

I had never read anything by Wharton and had no prior knowledge of 1870s New York City or its social mores and was very surprised to find that by comparison, what was acceptable/how things were done etc must have made the snobbishness among the 'top people' in Victorian London society look quite laid-back and easy-going.
I suppose the only reason that everyone from that social milieu didn't go mad from claustrophobia was because they were unaware that there was any other way to lead their lives.
I too loved the irony of the first few chapters . . . I always thought Americans didn't/couldn't 'do' it?!

Lots more I could say but wonder what you all thought about the Countess Olenska? Was she more sinned against than sinning? Her former life in Europe is only hinted at, although she seems to have had a 'past'. Do we know how 'caddish' her husband had been to make her leave him? What about the secretary that rescued her, was he the same man as the French tutor Archer and May met in London and again turns up in Boston?
What was her relationship, if any, with the undesirable Julius Beaufort?
I too must try and get a DVD of the film.

Sheri and Vee, I'll be interested in your verdict on the film.

Vee, I was taken aback by the extreme provinciality and stuffiness of Victorian New York, too - the fact that they thought London was comparatively 'loose'. I had always imagined the US as much freer than England in every way.

The secretary and the French tutor are one and the same. I don't think she had a relationship with him, but that impression comes from Archer's second encounter with the man , rather than any of the scenes with the Countess.

She is wonderfully opaque. I think you can read into her anything you like, but it'll say more about you than about her. Same as the New York society people's judgment of her is more revealing of their own attitudes.

Judging from her extremely proper behaviour with Archer, I would assume that she had not had an affair with anyone. However, her flirtation struck me as deliberate and definitely not innocent. She came across as a woman who possibly knew how to get what she wanted from the men around her, without actually giving much in return. Not in a cold and calculating way, but in a histrionic way, with much emphasis on suffering and sacrifice. Someone who prefers drama over contentment - i.e. the exact opposite of May.

I assumed that the Count had been openly adulterous, but there's no evidence for that or anything else in particular. That vagueness seems to be deliberate on Wharton's part, to put us in the same position as all the main characters - having to guess because nothing is ever stated clearly, and therefore probably imagining much worse things than actually happened.

Having read more than one biography of E. Wharton, I think she put a lot of herself in Ellen Olenska. I know that Wharton chose to live a good deal of her life abroad, apart from her husband, and that she had at least one passionate love affair. I think part of the theme of this novel is Wharton's belief that a woman could live "more free" in continental Europe of that time. I also read the novel as a commentary on Wharton's views re the "puritanical heritage" as reflected in the Old New York society. I think it's a subtle attack.

IMO, amidst a society where all the men and women were bored with each other, Ellen was the only non-boring, unpredictable character. Thence, her fascination for the American men, who judged the females in their lives as weak and predictable.

I think the comparison with Kate Chopin's "The Awakening" is very apt. I see Wharton as an early "feminist" author, and very "modern" for her time.

I think Ellen had possibly had affairs in her past. I think Beaufort was only making the attempt and Ellen was trying to evade his attentions.

I'm glad I read the book a second time, as I could pick up more of the nuances. It was then I realized that Ellen had not had an affair with the Secretary who helped her "escape."

Re: House of Mirth: Before my post above, I did put a "Spoiler Ahead" warning....

Thank you :)

>I was taken aback by the extreme provinciality and stuffiness of Victorian New York, too - the fact that they thought London was comparatively 'loose'

I was surprised as well. Reading books like City of Dreams, I got the idea that NYC was a multicultural place from its early days. But I also remember that the founders of the colonies certainly put people in their place, even then. So there was class, and religion. Put them together and you get a strict society with layers of rules that must be followed. So I agree with

>> I also read the novel as a commentary on Wharton's views re the "puritanical heritage" as reflected in the Old New York society

Oh yes. Remember, there was a reason those pilgrims left the mother country - it wasn't religious enough for them. It wouldn't be very hard to change the religious strictness into class strictness

And btw, I am not sure that NYC in the 1870s was much different from London in certain quarters, and in Britain as a whole. Read the novel The Vanishing act of Esme by Maggie OFarrel for an excellent example. Certainly a lot depended on the community, and in this case NYC was very small in comparitive with London at that time, and certainly with NYC now. So it was easy for small groups of people to form cliques and rules, I suppose, to keep out the 'others'

I saw Ellen almost as a metaphor for Allen. We know so little about her, but she certainly lives the life Archer wishes he could. I do think something horrible happened to her with the Count - Archer great shock at the contents of that letter couldn't be just an affair. And I felt pity for her - she didn't fit there, try as she might, and until her grandmother helped her, she was indeed going to be trapped in a life that suited her about as well as a cat in a cage.

Could someone please explain canvas back to me. It is mentioned in connection with dinner parties. Is it some form of food?

Just checking back to the earlier chapters and there is mention that the Countess was living in Lausanne with the secretary a year after he had helped her leave her husband.
Trying to see that through the eyes of the book's characters and not with our 'modern' sensibilities (or lack of them) this would have caused some she's no better than she ought to be looks, through all levels of society.
It certainly embarrasses Archer . . . and isn't he always the last to know what is going on . . . although he sticks up for her saying "Women ought to be free - as free as we are."

Vee, 'canvas back' refers to a type of duck, which I'm going to assume (??) was a delicacy at NY dinner parties.

I'd never heard of it before this book, either. There's a link below:

Here is a link that might be useful: Canvas Back Duck

Thanks, Sheri - I'd wondered about the canvas back too. It's too pretty to eat.

I'm so glad someone asked about canvas-back, as I had never heard of it before.

Here are 2 biographies of Wharton I've read and recommend:

"Edith Wharton: A Biography" by R.W.B. Lewis, N.Y. 1975, Harper and Row.

"No Gifts From Chance" by Shari Benstock, Penguin Paperback, 1994.

I second the other comments on this thread re "Summer", as being one of her best,dealing with controversial themes for that day and time....

I watched the DVD of AOI today. It was very faithful to the book, right down to chunks of dialogue. It was also beautiful to look at -- the china and crystal, the gowns, the food, the rooms, everything was gorgeous. I also liked the use of the narrator.

That said, I found both Winona Ryder (though breathtakingly May-like in looks and deportment, and very eloquent with her glances and expressions) and Daniel Day-Lewis a bit stiff in the delivery of their lines, and occasionally Day-Lewis's English-Irish accent would peek through. I thought Michelle Pfeiffer was terrific. And it was wonderful to see Sian Phillips again - I loved her in the long-ago I, Claudius series.

Having just read the book, I was swept up in seeing how faithful the movie was; I wasn't swept away by the movie itself. It was beautiful, but it didn't feel seamless to me, some of the lighting effects were a bit weird, and I didn't like the actors "performing" their letters and telegrams into the camera. Bottomline, IMHO it was visually gorgeous, but I definitely liked the book better.

Bringing this thread back up for any late-comers. Only 22 comments generated? What ever happened to the others who were reading this? Adam?

I just spent the week in NYC. Walking the streets that Wharton walked was just one of the joys. So funny to think of the Met as being new!

I always thought of old NY as being staid and prim. Maybe because I did read Wharton and James in my youth. London and Paris, and of course all of Italy were wild and bohemian. actually I did think of part of London as being prim but not all of it.

What I find interesting about Wharton is how good she is at portraying the elite of Old NY AND the simple existance in New England of Ethan Frome. I can't imagine James being able to write about such a different millieu.

And where's the discussion on Bel Canto?

Sheri, thank you for your concise and informative movie review!

October draws to a close. So is this it for E. Wharton? I'm always astonished at how much less discussion "classic" older novels seem to engender than more "modern" works, such as the "Thirteenth Tale." (Sad, in a way, don't you think?)

:::>>>I also read the novel as a commentary on Wharton's views re the "puritanical heritage" as reflected in the Old New York society

Oh yes. Remember, there was a reason those pilgrims left the mother country - it wasn't religious enough for them. It wouldn't be very hard to change the religious strictness into class strictness :::

Absolutely and even today Americans struggle with puritancial heritage. European women are less embarassed to go "topless" than American women. A friend of mine had a friend who married a Danish girl, when they were visiting she took off her top and sunbathed in the backyard topless! She was mortified!!

There is still a "class" strictness.. I found this out when I was on an airplane sitting in the bulkhead seat (the seat right behind first classs behind the wall)..so anyway I was four months pregnant...had to use the restroom..so I went to the closest one...in the first class section..yep, I moved the curtain and used their potty. When I got out a very rude man was standing there just to let me know he was waiting to use HIS bathroom. I'll have you know , I'm a quick tinkler, so he was standing there just to make a point.

In regards to AOI, I loved the symbolism of the name "Archer", the cupid statues, the "archery" contest and the description of May's ability with the bow and arrow... I'm sure there are other symbols of love/passion I can't remember.

I think the difference in many classics with modern works is the style of writing. Often the style is such that either draws folks in or turns them off - and so less people participate. As far as 13th Tale, there were so many questions about it because it was sort of a mystery. Many things were not well explained and it was left for the readers to guess. This book couldn't be more straight forward. Finally, everyone seemed to love this book. Thats not the way with TT. Discussions are much more interesting and vibrant when there is some disagreement, in my experience.

Sometimes it helps to have one person in particular (not nec the leader) as the standard bearer, someone so enthusiastic about a work that she is able to encourage other people to read it and participate. That person also is one who is able to ask questions that garner discussions. Said person is incredibly hard to find - but when there, it almost doesn't matter what the book is

Discussions of classics can work. One of my favorite discussions was when another forum tackled the new translation of Beowulf. That went on all month, with hundreds of posts. Fascinating. So I do think it depends on what the book is, and how people take to it.

>I loved the symbolism of the name "Archer", the cupid statues, the "archery" contest and the description of May's ability with the bow and arrow

Wow! Thanks for that observation. I thought Archer an odd name, but now it makes so much sense!

BTW, how did your post get ahead of mine, when I was responding to woodnymph? :) This board does some odd things.....Anyway, my post was in respond to hers

april bloom, good point about the "Archer" and the archery. I seem to recall a point was made about May ressembling the goddess "Diana". Interesting symbolism, as Diana is traditionally depicted with a bow and arrows, as goddess of the hunt. (Thus a dual meaning for the term "hunt", as in the prey being a secure and proper marriage?)

And so true about European culture being far less puritanical than American mores, even today.....

>>I think the difference in many classics with modern works is the style of writing. Often the style is such that either draws folks in or turns them off -That's very true, I must love the old style! lol

May is definitely "Diana"!

:::Diana was the perpetually virginal huntress goddess, :::

Here is a link that might be useful: Read This

April & Woodnymph, thanks for pointing out the Archer/Diana symbolism. I'd missed that completely. May does 'hunt' her husband when he starts straying, wins him back like the trophy at the archery contest. Fair enough, too - she had given him the chance of freedom before they got married.

Re European culture & prudery versus American - can I just point out that European culture varies enormously across the continent? Britain is still a lot more buttoned-up than the mainland; northern Europe is generally freer than the more religious southern areas.

Same goes in America, for instance.. South Beach, Florida is much looser than say... Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

At last I managed to watch the DVD of this acquired through the good offices of the older son. I have to say I really enjoyed the whole film, and as Sheri said the detail of the Victorian period, costumes, heavy furniture, silver, china and the banquets. The pics of the food could have come straight out of the 'Illustrated Mrs Beeton'.
I was surprised by the large number of 'English' actors in the cast and would like to think it was because the whole story is almost more English than American . . . and definitely more English than the English; although I doubt the sensitivities of Hollywood would stretch that far.
For me, I didn't think Michelle Pfeiffer worked too well as the Countess. I didn't see Ellen as 'pink and white' but more sombre; perhaps I would have prefered her as May. Also found D D-Lewis rather gaunt . . .and after all those meals! An Irish accent? He is 'very' English.

Going back to the book.
No-one has remarked on May's ultimate triumph, her announcement to Archer that she is pregnant. Of course, once again he is the last to know and May has even told Ellen without being 'sure' herself. She knows both the Countess and her husband will do the 'decent thing' and Archer wont be able to leave her now . . or ever.

I wasn't sure about the 'archery' connection. It was a popular 'sport' in which ladies could take part and although they mention 'tennis' it had only recently been discovered (under the Centre Court at Wimbledon).

I must find this film. I just heard from a writer/professor friend who adores Wharton as I do. She has just highly recommended E.W.'s "The Custom of the Country" as an excellent read.