The Birth of Venus

Rating:
Summary: Brings Florence to life...
Review: Sarah Dunant has created, quite simply, a beautiful and engaging novel about art and Florence. At its heart, The Birth of Venus is a story of longing and love, but the multilayered poltical, religious and familial storylines bring a richness to the reader that no ordinary romantic story could possibly deliver. Add to that a subtle discourse of gender roles and some history of the Florentine art movement and The Birth of Venus is a sure winner.

Alessandra is the youngest daughter of a well-heeled family in Medici Florence of the late fifteenth century. She has a passion for learning (typically not encouraged in women of the time), a blossoming artistic talent and no interest in fulfilling her typical role and getting married. She just wants to be free of society's constraints so she can paint.

Then, when a young and reticent painter arrives to paint the frescoes on her family's chapel, her life begins to change irrevocably. Against the backdrop of a Florence where religious fundamentalism and a brutal crackdown on art and luxury are changing the face of the city, Alessandra finds herself caught between her own interests and society's expectations.

With an extraordinary sense of character and a writing style that brings and immediacy, vibrancy and life to Florence, Sarah Dunant has penned a truly remarkable novel that should stand for years as the premier novel of Florence and art.

The Birth of Venus is a fun, engaging and wonderful novel. Highly recommended for fans of history, art, Italy or human drama.

Rating:
Summary: Lush and Evocative
Review: The Birth of Venus was one of the best books I read last year. Luch and evocative, it manages both to tell a tale worth telling and to keep you turning pages. Dunant captures the 15th century world of Florence and steeps you in its history without ever getting bogged down. The perfect blend of emotion, plot, description and delight. The art is described as lovingly as the relationships. A treasure.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent story (not a classic, but very good)
Review: A different time, a different perpective, and different roles. While there are some minor technical issues (i.e., the author does occasionally use the wrong tense), this is an great read and very enjoyable. I feel the author captured a time in which things were seen more simply, felt more deeply, and judged by criteria different than the world view we hold today. I empathized with Alassandra. I could believe the frustration and inter turmoil a bright artistic woman would feel in the rigid structure of her time. Her confusion and ambivalence was a good metaphor for the great changes gripping Euorope in the late 1400s.

Rating:
Summary: Anyone else offended by use of contemporary speech?
Review: I enjoyed this book. Descriptions of 15th Century life, art and artists, politics and religion in Florence are beautiful and no doubt accurate. The story is gripping.
I'm no prude, but fewer minutely graphic details appealing to prurient interests would have improved the book for me.
Most of all, however, I deplore the inclusion of contemporary terms in the speech. Each example shocked me back, at least to the 20th Century. How could her editors have let these pass?
How can this be considered "great" writing, in spite of the many positive features of this book?

Rating:
Summary: Gentle, Spiraling Sadness
Review: I loved this book, this is the first novel I have read in a long time that I wasn't able to put down. I actually finished it in a few days, it was well written and held my attention with ease. If you are looking for a fairy tale love story with a happy ever after ending then don't read this book. It starts out with a real eye catcher of an opening and ends on a rather unexpected note. I am not able to spout rhetoric about writing or why this or that plot was stupid or why this one worked, but I do know what I like and I really liked this story. Reading is for pleasure, for provoking thought, for opening the mind and this book does all those things and more.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliantly Constructed Historical Fiction
Review: A truly talented writer of historical fiction can vividly recreate another time, populate it with realistic characters, and enable a reader to find an emotional connection with those characters despite the gap in eras. After finishing The Birth of Venus, I'm convinced that Sarah Dunant is such a writer. Dunant has effectively reconstructed Renaissance Florence by utilizing powerfully descriptive language and strong characters. Of particular note was her use of each Cecchi family member as an archetype for the artist, merchant, politician, and religious classes that were present in 1470's Florence. By putting a human face on these classes, Dunant makes the social and political structures of the time much more accessible.

The book's only drawback is its rushed ending. Dunant spends so much time establishing the era's situations and atmosphere that the exposition of Alessandra's fate seems to speed past the reader. While this quick ending does diminish the book, The Birth of Venus is still a vividly evocative work by a skilled writer.

Rating:
Summary: Starts off with a bang but ending trails off
Review: I was so disappointed after reading this book. I heard what a terrific book it was, listened to Ms. Dunant's interview with Terry Gross, and ran out to read it myself. The prologue is absolutely thrilling, setting up the rest of the story beautifully. I was right with the author until about halfway through, when the book started to lose steam. The question of a serial killer who mutilates his victims is answered a matter of paragraphs and never resolved. The love-interest painter's return and subsequent departure left equally unresolved (in my opinion). And, lastly, the mystery of the main character's death was not only never properly addressed, but just left hanging in the air. It was almost as though Ms. Dunant tired of writing and hastily penned the last chapter in order to send the book to the publisher already! I enjoyed the book (stayed up all night finishing it) but felt let down after reading the final words.

Rating:
Summary: She didn't stick the dismount
Review: Sarah Dunant, previously known for mysteries and a contemporary psychological thriller, "The Edge," this time out tries something entirely different: a fictional portrait of Florence in the late 15th century. After an absolutely stunning prologue set in a convent, the story itself--a first-person narrative related by Alessandra Cecchi, and which readers are told is the testament of "Sister Lucrezia," begins. Alessandra starts her voyage of discovery in 1492, at which point the Medicis rule Florence while Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia--father of Cesare and THAT Lucrezia) rules Rome.

Alessandra, then 14, is the rebel of her prosperous family, quarrelling with her brothers and contemptuous of her older sister. The family intellectual, she is interested in art and strives to be a painter at a time when this was hardly a career choice for women. Soon, to complicate matters, a man described only as "The Painter" arrives from the "North," on a commission from Alessandra's merchant father to paint the Ceccis' private chapel. Naturally Alessandra is intrigued; naturally her mother ensures there shall be no funny business between the two. But of course . . .

Soon the city falls into disorder because of the preaching of the "Mad Monk" Savonarola; the French army is on the way; Alessandra herself hastily marries. She learns that her husband (the marriage is, as was then customary, arranged for her by her parents) has secrets to reveal and Alessandra, with the aid of her slave Erila, does discover some of them, and reacquaints herself with The Painter. Hmm . . .

Finally after plague, civil disorder, a serial killer who mutilates his victims' bodies, Savonarola's "Bonfire of the Vanities," which leads to his downfall (as the fanatic cleric's reign of error topples, Alessandra gives birth in what has to be one of the most excruciating "birthing a baby" scenes ever portrayed in literature), Alessandra joins the convent that we'd visited in the prologue.

And the book falls apart.

Up to this point Alessandra has been portrayed as a strong, rebellious woman and now, when it would seem clear (although apparently not to the author) that she does have other choices, to the convent she goes. She's bet heavily and won, and now the reader is supposed to believe that now she is simply going to meekly take what they give her? I don't think so.

It's a sad thing, really. It's like watching a gymnast on the uneven bars heading for what would seem to be a gold medal performance, but then miss the most simple exchange in her routine as she prepares for her dismount and tumble awkwardly to the mat.

Notes and Asides: No. Whoever The Painter is, Michelangelo he is not. Yes, there are reader's guide questions. Question 8 asks "to what degree is this a novel about a city as much as a character?" Quite a bit.

Rating:
Summary: Predictable and Contrived- ZERO Stars.
Review: UGH. Where do I begin??? I just finished the book for my Book Club meeting this evening and I cannot wait to sit back and rip it apart from cover to cover. It was so predictable and contrived and the language did not fit the times at all. I feel the author tried too hard by trying to get her feminist/anti-religous views into the readers head. She made it a point that Alessandra break every rule of the church while maintaining her predictable feminist beliefs. I do believe that that plot-line would have been a great story if she had been a more believeable and heart-felt character.

Alessandra came across as being a shallow individual with no concern for anyone but herself and her smelly painter. I just couldn't figure out the passion between them because I could only think of the fact that he smelled bad. COME ON! Nice attempt on the authors part to make us believe that Alessandra was some sort of heroine but in reality I found her to be pathetic and whiney. And why on earth did she kill herself? Just to break another rule of the church??? Come on! She was a NUN in a "liberal" convent for goodness sake. They didn't care if she painted or had her hair done (which was probably one of the corniest lines in the book)! If she wanted to be so FREE then why didn't she leave the convent with her daughter and let the painter be a part of their lives? If she was so "liberal" and so smart then I am sure she could have figured out a plan in order to raise her daughter and keep the smelly painter as her lover. Here's an idea....She had all of that money from her loser "dead" husband so why didn't she just get herself a little house in the country and paint and have the painter visit for some action from time to time????

And why on earth did she kill herself?? Just to break another rule of the church? Maybe she felt that since she had already broken most of the ten commandments then she should go for the big one, Thou Shall Not Kill? I just didn't get it and the author didn't seem to either. It was such a stupid ending I was laughing. No one kills themself like that for no real reason. She wasn't depressed or miserable but just selfish beyond belief. I was almost glad she finally died in the end just so I could close the book and be glad it was over.
And what was up with that stupid tattoo??? Oh yeah! The Catholic church says you shouldn't desicrate your body with markings etc... So I guess that was what she was going for. She had to break every rule before she died just to prove some weird point. What was the point though???? Can someone tell me the point of all of that? Did she feel closer to the devil than to God? Is that why? Did she hate God because she was delt some bad cards in her life (none of which were SO bad considering she pretty much got everything she ever wanted in life because she was quick-tongued and a brat)?? Come on. The only 2 things she really wanted in life were to paint and screw the smelly painter. She got both so whats her problem? Times were different then and she should have been more greatful that people were looking out for her so she could have those two oh so important things. What a selfish brat she turned out to be.

And what was up with that serial killer monk?? You never found out much about him except that he was just some brainwashed kook running around gorging people. Why?? What was the point of that plot line? Surely the author could have made it more interesting by making Tomasso or the other idiot brother be the killer! Or maybe Erila or Plautilla! Now that would have even been better. But to suddenly throw in one paragraph saying "oh yeah- this crazy flesh eating monk who we have never heard of did it". Did anyone else think that was stupid???

Basically what I got out of it was: Alessandra didn't care about anyone in her life except for her selfish self. She barely spoke to her sickly father, her brothers were idiots in her mind, her sister was a fat baby producing cow and her sisters husband was a gullible idiot, her mother was just a nag with a very contrived and stupid secret past, her husband was a jerk because he was gay (and meanwhile what did she care?? She didn't like men anyway except for the smelly she-male painter. Her husband told her she could have flings if she were discreet and she couldn't even be un-selfish enough to keep up that end of the bargain. She and the smelly painter could have had a lifelong affair and the husband wouldn't have cared if she only kept it quiet. What a moron she was)... Who did she like except for the painter and Erila?? And I never got the feeling she really LOVED either of them either! OH and the daughter! I almost forgot she existed because Alessandra never seemed to bond with her or care about her well being so she sent her off with the smelly painter-turned-educated-aristocrate and wiped her hands clean of them. How ridiculous was that???

Silly, contrived, predictable. The perfect Hollywood screenplay. Don't be surprised if you see it made into a movie soon with someone like Cameron Diaz playing Alessandra and Russell Crowe as the smelly painter. Maybe that guy Carson from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy can play her husband and Whoopie Goldberg can be Erila since she is so good at talking crassly about sex and masturbation. Heck-maybe I should write the screenplay myself!

Rating:
Summary: Pretty good, overall
Review: While reading this book I almost quit during the first chapter because it was too "21st century feminist plopped down into history". I get really tired of historical women being presented as speaking their minds and wanting a man's life, being told how they'll never find a husband, with an exasperated mother following behind, wringing her hands. Why can't we have women who are strong while being faithful to their culture and times? Anyway...

This book got better and I enjoyed until I got to the last few pages. I thought the ending was totally unbelievable.

So overall, it was pretty good. Not bad, not great.