TFS:To Let.

I wasn't as taken with this volume as I was with the previous two. I found more much could have been done with Val and Holly - their marriage seems so underrated considering the way their relationship started. Soames has thrown in the towel unable to compete with his daughter and with modernity. Finally, while there were possibilities for a strong feminist message (Irene liberated from the shackles of her slavery and Fleur, the image of the vibrant, head-strong modern woman), it's not convincing (more in the next trilogy??).
Galsworthy's style rings still true and it's a pleasure to read, but it's starting to shape up as a modern soap opera. I found the previous generation more subtle: young Jolyon connected to the old world of property but drawn to his simple life; Irene so passive in her demeanor but impetuous in her decisions; Soames torn between money, emotions, desperately trying to make sense between the two (apparently this will never happen "he might wish and wish and never get it - the beauty and the loving in the world")
The new generation is just there: Fleur, flitting and flirting, almost a stereotype of post-war extravagance; Jon sullen poet, lost with no clear desires.
I would have liked more of Profond who makes a great character foil for Fleur and Mont for Jon - not enough juxtaposition between those characters - it would have given dimension, I think.
Anyway, they've all become family now. I'll give them a rest but I might actually tackle A Modern Comedy to reconnect.

Message 2: Cecilturtle

-Galsworthy's style rings still true and it's a pleasure to read, but it's starting to shape up as a modern soap opera. -

It's an interesting thought.

When is a family story a soap opera and what qualities are necessary for it to rise above that level?

For me, a soap opera is plot-driven. Lots of extraneous characters and deus-ex machina type mechanisms - I felt Profond fit that bill: we really didn't get to know him as a character and he causes chaos like an evil twin brother.

A meaty family saga is all about the people, their relationships and the psychology around them. What is the source of their rebellion/acceptance? Why do they make certain decisions? Why do they bond with certain people but not others? We should be able to answer all of these questions. With Soames, we most certainly can; with Fleur it's less obvious.

My interpretation, anyhow...

I agree with everything Cecilturtle says above. Additionally, I believe a family saga should convey the spirit of the era, while a soap opera would normally not do that as it aims at representing everything as being universal (makes it easier to sell the soap to other countries).

I can't add much more to what Cecilturtle has already said. I agree that the older generation were more subtle, but then they lived in a very strait-laced society in which showing one's personal feelings, even within the family, was not thought to be the right thing to do. WWI and the emerging rights of women changed all that. This is evident in the behaviour and attitudes of the young people in the story. Jon was an exceptional young man who was torn between his love for Fleur and his love for his mother, Irene. He did the 'right' thing and respecting his father's wishes gave up Fleur for the sake of his mother.

It's interesting to look at the time lines. When Galsworthy started to write, he had a more objective eye - there was a distance between the present (the time during which he wrote) and the past (the time about which he wrote). It's easier to reflect about what we know happened.

When he wrote To Let, he was much more describing the time in which he was living - it's a much more difficult and subjective exercise. Perhaps that's why he resorted more to plot.

Does that make sense?!

That makes perfect sense. I suppose he had to tie up all the loose ends too.

I finished part I of To Let some hours ago, and I liked this part too, but not as much as I liked the previous parts of 'TFS'.
I'm not sure why I feel this way, maybe it's because Galsworthy writes less about the characters and more about other things, like paintings, art, journeys etc. And yes, he resorts more to plot (a little confusing (alternating between families) imo.), and is less describing the characters' emotions and thoughts.
But the story is still fascinating and exciting, and I'm really looking forward to reading the next two parts of To Let. First of all wondering what will happen to (between) Jon and Fleur and their families (parents).

One quote that made me think:
"Jolyon took her hand, and said with a wry smile:
'Ah! why on earth are we born young? Now, if only we were born old and grew younger year by year, we should understand how things happen, and drop all our cursed intolerance. (...) '

Maybe I like this quotation because I am now in my late fifties? He,he
I'll have to think a little about this quote: Am I more tolerant today? I'm NOT sure. Maybe I'm tolerant (should I call it 'patient'?) in another way than I was before?
What about you? Do you become more tolerant as you grow older?

I don't know for sure if I'm more tolerant. I definitely see more shades of grey than I used to, and because I understand people and their motivations better, I have probably also become more tolerant.

"(...) if only we were born old and grew younger year by year, we should understand how things happen, (...)"

It is a bit illogical though... after all, understanding stems from life experience, not from age...

And now I'm off to bed to see shades of midnight blue...

#10
"... understanding stems from life experience, not from age..."

Yes, but there might be a relation between age and life experience...
Oh, now I wonder if I mean this because I'm getting older...
Weren't elderly people rather stupid when I was younger??
Didn't I understand the whole world then?
I think I remember I did.

The more you learn, the more you know you know very little, you know. (wasn't that Plato?).
That's a way to understanding, as well. IMO.

I finished To Let yesterday, and I think part 2 and 3 were a little bit "better" than part 1 (cf. #9). The story of the old Forsytes has now come to an end, and so it's natural to take a break from reading 'TFS', I think.
I even felt some pity for Soames. He was really haunted by "bad luck", and all of it wasn't his fault. I wonder what will happen to Fleur and her husband. Will she become very unhappy like her father? And I assume we'll hear more about Jon (and his mother Irene) in the next volume(s).
Well, I'm not going to check it out this year.

I didn't like Soames at all in this volume: while I had pity for him before, it was all gone now. I only felt an emotional draw toward the end when Soames was reflecting, and that was because he was so pathetic, so disagreeable, and so unhappy in the end.

I agree the saga started to feel more plot-driven. The beginning was about characters, but the end was about "what happens next". It was rather disappointing.