What do you think?
Rate this book
Fidelity
Fidelity (1915) is a classic that should be put beside books by writers such as Edith Wharton and Willa Cather; yet the novels of Susan Glaspell, who was once considered America's greatest living playwright apart from Eugène O'Neill (and who is best-known for her short play, 'Trifles') have been ignored.
Set in Iowa in 1900 and in 1913, this dramatic and deeply moral novel uses complex but subtle use of flashback to describe a girl named Ruth Holland, bored with her life at home, falling in love with a married man and running off with him; when she comes back more than a decade later we are shown how her actions have affected those around her. Ruth had taken another woman's husband and as such 'Freeport' society thinks she is 'a human being who selfishly - basely - took her own happiness, leaving misery for others. She outraged society as completely as a woman could outrage it... One who defies it - deceives it - must be shut out from it.'
But, like Emma Bovary, Edna Pontellier in 'The Awakening' and Nora in 'A Doll's House' Ruth has 'a diffused longing for an enlarged experience... Her energies having been shut off from the way they had wanted to go, she was all the more zestful for new things from life...' It is these that are explored in Fidelity.
Set in Iowa in 1900 and in 1913, this dramatic and deeply moral novel uses complex but subtle use of flashback to describe a girl named Ruth Holland, bored with her life at home, falling in love with a married man and running off with him; when she comes back more than a decade later we are shown how her actions have affected those around her. Ruth had taken another woman's husband and as such 'Freeport' society thinks she is 'a human being who selfishly - basely - took her own happiness, leaving misery for others. She outraged society as completely as a woman could outrage it... One who defies it - deceives it - must be shut out from it.'
But, like Emma Bovary, Edna Pontellier in 'The Awakening' and Nora in 'A Doll's House' Ruth has 'a diffused longing for an enlarged experience... Her energies having been shut off from the way they had wanted to go, she was all the more zestful for new things from life...' It is these that are explored in Fidelity.
358 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1915
18 people are currently reading
1087 people want to read
About the author
Susan Glaspell
224 books82 followersSusan Keating Glaspell (July 1, 1876 – July 27, 1948) was an American Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, actress, director, novelist, biographer and poet. She was a founding member of the Provincetown Players, one of the most important collaboratives in the development of modern drama in the United States. She also served in the Works Progress Administration as Midwest Bureau Director of the Federal Theater Project.
Her novels and plays are committed to developing deep, sympathetic characters, to understanding 'life' in its complexity. Though realism was the medium of her fiction, she was also greatly interested in philosophy and religion. Many of her characters make principled stands.
As part of the Provincetown Players, she arranged for the first ever reading of a play by Eugene O'Neill.
Her novels and plays are committed to developing deep, sympathetic characters, to understanding 'life' in its complexity. Though realism was the medium of her fiction, she was also greatly interested in philosophy and religion. Many of her characters make principled stands.
As part of the Provincetown Players, she arranged for the first ever reading of a play by Eugene O'Neill.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
March 3, 2025
Persephone books are full of such gems. I already enjoyed Glaspell's story in The Persephone Book of Short Stories, and Fidelity really makes me want to read more of her work.
Fidelity is a fascinating book about early twentieth century America, specifically life in a small insular town in Iowa. For 1915, it's pretty outrageous. Ruth Holland was disgraced ten years before the novel's start when she ran off with an older married man. In the present of the story, she returns to the town of her birth because her father is dying. There, she faces the scorn and outrage of her former neighbours and friends.
It's a book with a lot to say-- about the necessity of destigmatizing divorce, the importance of freedom, how women got more than their share of the blame in matters of adultery --but it's also a larger meditation on the individual vs society, especially when achieving individual happiness is in conflict with societal norms and expectations.
I felt for Ruth, but I was less sympathetic to Stuart. I would have forgiven him this affair— his relationship with his wife was clearly already broken, and this was a time where divorce was not so easily obtained —but it was revealed that this was not his first infidelity and that he already destroyed his marriage by pursuing his wife’s friend. I was very glad that his wife, who is at first dismissed as cold and unreasonably bitter, was given more complex character development in the later chapters.
Also, I won't spoil anything but I want to say I LOVED the ending. It was exactly what I didn't even know I wanted, and not what I expected.
Fidelity is a fascinating book about early twentieth century America, specifically life in a small insular town in Iowa. For 1915, it's pretty outrageous. Ruth Holland was disgraced ten years before the novel's start when she ran off with an older married man. In the present of the story, she returns to the town of her birth because her father is dying. There, she faces the scorn and outrage of her former neighbours and friends.
It's a book with a lot to say-- about the necessity of destigmatizing divorce, the importance of freedom, how women got more than their share of the blame in matters of adultery --but it's also a larger meditation on the individual vs society, especially when achieving individual happiness is in conflict with societal norms and expectations.
I felt for Ruth, but I was less sympathetic to Stuart. I would have forgiven him this affair— his relationship with his wife was clearly already broken, and this was a time where divorce was not so easily obtained —but it was revealed that this was not his first infidelity and that he already destroyed his marriage by pursuing his wife’s friend. I was very glad that his wife, who is at first dismissed as cold and unreasonably bitter, was given more complex character development in the later chapters.
Also, I won't spoil anything but I want to say I LOVED the ending. It was exactly what I didn't even know I wanted, and not what I expected.
March 24, 2017
I knew little of Susan Glaspell when I put this book on my Classics Club list; just that two of her books had been republished by Persephone and that she was both a novelist and a dramatist.
That was reason enough.
The opening of this book told me that she was mistress of each art.
In Freeport, a small town in Iowa, an old man was gravely ill. He was asking for his daughter and his numbers wondered if she would dare to come home. She had left town in the wake of a terrible scandal. She hadn’t come home when her mother died, and that hardened the widely held opinion that she wasn’t the nice girl had thought she was; that she was a selfish, manipulative woman who shouldn’t be allowed in decent society. But if she was ever to come back surely this was the time.
Amy Frankin, the doctor’s wife, was a newcomer to the town and she had no idea what her new friends were talking about, or what disgraceful thing Ruth Holland had done. She would learn that Ruth had fallen in love with a married man, and that, when his health had broken down and his doctor suggest a change of climate, they had left town and set up home together in Colorado.
Ruth Holland was coming home, and she was well aware that it wouldn’t be easy.
“It was over the pain and the sweetness of life that this woman—Ruth Holland—brooded during the two days that carried her back to the home of her girlhood. She seemed to be going back over a long bridge. That part of her life had been cut away from her. With most lives the past grew into the future; it was as a growth that spread, the present but the extent of the growth at the moment. With her there had been the sharp cut; not a cut, but a tear, a tear that left bleeding ends. Back there lay the past, a separated thing. During the eleven years since her life had been torn from that past she had seen it not only as a separate thing but a thing that had no reach into the future. The very number of miles between, the fact that she made no journeys back home, contributed to that sense of the cleavage, the remoteness, the finality. Those she had left back there remained real and warm in her memory, but her part with them was a thing finished. It was as if only shoots of pain could for the minute unite them.”
She wasn’t aware – but she would learn – was that her behaviour had caused terrible problems for her family. That so many things she had said and done would be re-evaluated and misunderstood after her departure. And that friends and neighbours would still say that what she had done was beyond the pale and turn their backs on her.
Deane Franklin, the town doctor, supported her. They had been close friends and he had helped her to when she needed to keep her relationship secret, he had listened when she needed someone to talk to. Amy couldn’t understand why her husband was still drawn to another woman, why his view of what had happened was so different to her friends’ views, or why he would make himself complicit in such a scandalous situation
“I do know a few things. I know that society cannot countenance a woman who did what that woman did. I know that if a woman is going to selfishly take her own happiness with no thought of others she must expect to find herself outside the lives of decent people. Society must protect itself against such persons as she. I know that much—fortunately.”
Susan Glaspell tells her story beautifully. The pace is stately; the perspectives shift; and she moves between a traditional third-person narrative and more modern visits to her characters’ thoughts. There was complexity, there there was detail, and yet there was always such clarity of thought and purpose.
I found it easy to be drawn into the world she created, and to believe that these people lived and breathed, that the events and incidents I read about really happened.
I could see where the suthor’s sympathies lay, but I appreciated that she had understanding and concern for all of her characters and their different views.
I loved the telling of the story, and I loved its emotional depth.
The title of this book was very well chosen. It is underpinned by the question of who or what we owe fidelity. Our spouses? The standards of society? Our families? To the lover with whom we’ve aligned? Or our selves?
There are no easy answers, but the asking of the question allowed Susan Glaspell to make a wonderful exploration of the possibilities and the problems that it presents.
A conversation with an old school-mate – a girl who had came from a much poorer background that Ruth and her friends and had not had an easy life – gives Ruth food for thought and helps her to face the future.
“It’s what we think that counts, Ruth. It’s what we feel. It’s what we are. Oh, I’d like richer living—more beauty—more joy. Well, I haven’t those things. For various reasons, I won’t have them. That makes it the more important to have all I can take!”—it leaped out from the gentler thinking like a sent arrow. “Nobody holds my thoughts. They travel as far as they themselves have power to travel. They bring me whatever they can bring me—and I shut nothing out. I’m not afraid!”
This is a story set in a particular time and place, the world has changed a great deal in more than a hundred years since it was written, and yet it still has the power to touch hearts and minds.
The questions it asks would need to be asked differently today, but they are as important now as they were then.
That was reason enough.
The opening of this book told me that she was mistress of each art.
In Freeport, a small town in Iowa, an old man was gravely ill. He was asking for his daughter and his numbers wondered if she would dare to come home. She had left town in the wake of a terrible scandal. She hadn’t come home when her mother died, and that hardened the widely held opinion that she wasn’t the nice girl had thought she was; that she was a selfish, manipulative woman who shouldn’t be allowed in decent society. But if she was ever to come back surely this was the time.
Amy Frankin, the doctor’s wife, was a newcomer to the town and she had no idea what her new friends were talking about, or what disgraceful thing Ruth Holland had done. She would learn that Ruth had fallen in love with a married man, and that, when his health had broken down and his doctor suggest a change of climate, they had left town and set up home together in Colorado.
Ruth Holland was coming home, and she was well aware that it wouldn’t be easy.
“It was over the pain and the sweetness of life that this woman—Ruth Holland—brooded during the two days that carried her back to the home of her girlhood. She seemed to be going back over a long bridge. That part of her life had been cut away from her. With most lives the past grew into the future; it was as a growth that spread, the present but the extent of the growth at the moment. With her there had been the sharp cut; not a cut, but a tear, a tear that left bleeding ends. Back there lay the past, a separated thing. During the eleven years since her life had been torn from that past she had seen it not only as a separate thing but a thing that had no reach into the future. The very number of miles between, the fact that she made no journeys back home, contributed to that sense of the cleavage, the remoteness, the finality. Those she had left back there remained real and warm in her memory, but her part with them was a thing finished. It was as if only shoots of pain could for the minute unite them.”
She wasn’t aware – but she would learn – was that her behaviour had caused terrible problems for her family. That so many things she had said and done would be re-evaluated and misunderstood after her departure. And that friends and neighbours would still say that what she had done was beyond the pale and turn their backs on her.
Deane Franklin, the town doctor, supported her. They had been close friends and he had helped her to when she needed to keep her relationship secret, he had listened when she needed someone to talk to. Amy couldn’t understand why her husband was still drawn to another woman, why his view of what had happened was so different to her friends’ views, or why he would make himself complicit in such a scandalous situation
“I do know a few things. I know that society cannot countenance a woman who did what that woman did. I know that if a woman is going to selfishly take her own happiness with no thought of others she must expect to find herself outside the lives of decent people. Society must protect itself against such persons as she. I know that much—fortunately.”
Susan Glaspell tells her story beautifully. The pace is stately; the perspectives shift; and she moves between a traditional third-person narrative and more modern visits to her characters’ thoughts. There was complexity, there there was detail, and yet there was always such clarity of thought and purpose.
I found it easy to be drawn into the world she created, and to believe that these people lived and breathed, that the events and incidents I read about really happened.
I could see where the suthor’s sympathies lay, but I appreciated that she had understanding and concern for all of her characters and their different views.
I loved the telling of the story, and I loved its emotional depth.
The title of this book was very well chosen. It is underpinned by the question of who or what we owe fidelity. Our spouses? The standards of society? Our families? To the lover with whom we’ve aligned? Or our selves?
There are no easy answers, but the asking of the question allowed Susan Glaspell to make a wonderful exploration of the possibilities and the problems that it presents.
A conversation with an old school-mate – a girl who had came from a much poorer background that Ruth and her friends and had not had an easy life – gives Ruth food for thought and helps her to face the future.
“It’s what we think that counts, Ruth. It’s what we feel. It’s what we are. Oh, I’d like richer living—more beauty—more joy. Well, I haven’t those things. For various reasons, I won’t have them. That makes it the more important to have all I can take!”—it leaped out from the gentler thinking like a sent arrow. “Nobody holds my thoughts. They travel as far as they themselves have power to travel. They bring me whatever they can bring me—and I shut nothing out. I’m not afraid!”
This is a story set in a particular time and place, the world has changed a great deal in more than a hundred years since it was written, and yet it still has the power to touch hearts and minds.
The questions it asks would need to be asked differently today, but they are as important now as they were then.
March 29, 2015
A wonderful thought provoking book.
Ruth leaves town with a married man in the early 1900's coming back eleven years later when her father is dying.
I was drawn into this book with the plight of Ruth and how she must have felt leaving her family and life behind.
Deane who loved her has now married Amy but all is not well which results in Amy leaving her Husband and going back to her family.
It's not only Ruth that has suffered but the wife that was left behind and when after all those years she agrees to a divorce Ruth no longer wants marriage and leaves for a life of her own in New York.
Hard to believe this was written a hundred years ago as it could so have been written today.
Another excellent read from Persephone books.
Ruth leaves town with a married man in the early 1900's coming back eleven years later when her father is dying.
I was drawn into this book with the plight of Ruth and how she must have felt leaving her family and life behind.
Deane who loved her has now married Amy but all is not well which results in Amy leaving her Husband and going back to her family.
It's not only Ruth that has suffered but the wife that was left behind and when after all those years she agrees to a divorce Ruth no longer wants marriage and leaves for a life of her own in New York.
Hard to believe this was written a hundred years ago as it could so have been written today.
Another excellent read from Persephone books.
July 20, 2016
Encouraged by the good reviews here, I read this novel, but I did not like it at all.
It was too sentimental and tear jerking, this heroine, Ruth, flees to the West, with another woman`s husband, as the book keeps reminding us, the woman whose husband she`s fallen in love, refuses to divorce him, so they have to live without getting married, then after 12 years when finally divorce comes, she refuses to marry the man with whom she eloped!! and says I have to leave you because our love is not like it used to be, like the first days! But this is nonsensical, if it is so, many couples, including those with children, should leave each other, because their love is not like what it used to be! whose love is the same after 12 years? The novel is trying to imply that, as long as LOVE is the aim, you can do anything and this is totally justified, you can go with another woman`s husband, or man`s wife, and it is justified, you can leave your house and your folks, break their hearts and it is justified, but is it? It seems to me that once you are married, the girl in the novel insists that she IS more married than the married couples, once you`re married, you have commitments, Glaspell, in this novels says, your fidelity must be to your heart, not to the spouse you are leaving with, she says when you do not love your wife or husband, like the first days, just leave him, withot a second thought, this is fidelity!
And Ruth has this friend by the name of Dean, this Dean leaves his wife, a two or three month married bride, and goes to Ruth in the dead of the night and they sit and talk and WEEP in the memory of the old days and the poor wife is all alone at home waiting for her husband and what do you think finally happens to Dean and his wife? well, of course they separate, because his wife can not understand his love for Ruth! because these two are so lofty no one can reach them, because his wife is, as Glaspel insists, Common and representative of the old idea!
And finally after killing the mother, destroying the family business, ruining the happiness of three houses, causing two divorces, causing enmity between her brothers, etc. she, without the least regret, states that, the love she experienced on the first days, is worth it all! and that she has not failed and that she would go and search for that love again because that love is life itself, God knows what her next step after the end of the novel is!
I really did not get what this girl wants, what she`s about, she must be suffering from depression or something, she`s all the while weeping, weeping when eloping, weeping when back after 12 years, weeping when divorce does not come, weeping when divorce comes, weeping when talking, weeping when walking and I really did not sympathize with her at all, I totally disliked the character, she`s disoriented and insists shes on the track!
I really wanted to leave it unfinished, but just wanted to see how far Glaspell can go in this sentimentally absurd novel.
It was too sentimental and tear jerking, this heroine, Ruth, flees to the West, with another woman`s husband, as the book keeps reminding us, the woman whose husband she`s fallen in love, refuses to divorce him, so they have to live without getting married, then after 12 years when finally divorce comes, she refuses to marry the man with whom she eloped!! and says I have to leave you because our love is not like it used to be, like the first days! But this is nonsensical, if it is so, many couples, including those with children, should leave each other, because their love is not like what it used to be! whose love is the same after 12 years? The novel is trying to imply that, as long as LOVE is the aim, you can do anything and this is totally justified, you can go with another woman`s husband, or man`s wife, and it is justified, you can leave your house and your folks, break their hearts and it is justified, but is it? It seems to me that once you are married, the girl in the novel insists that she IS more married than the married couples, once you`re married, you have commitments, Glaspell, in this novels says, your fidelity must be to your heart, not to the spouse you are leaving with, she says when you do not love your wife or husband, like the first days, just leave him, withot a second thought, this is fidelity!
And Ruth has this friend by the name of Dean, this Dean leaves his wife, a two or three month married bride, and goes to Ruth in the dead of the night and they sit and talk and WEEP in the memory of the old days and the poor wife is all alone at home waiting for her husband and what do you think finally happens to Dean and his wife? well, of course they separate, because his wife can not understand his love for Ruth! because these two are so lofty no one can reach them, because his wife is, as Glaspel insists, Common and representative of the old idea!
And finally after killing the mother, destroying the family business, ruining the happiness of three houses, causing two divorces, causing enmity between her brothers, etc. she, without the least regret, states that, the love she experienced on the first days, is worth it all! and that she has not failed and that she would go and search for that love again because that love is life itself, God knows what her next step after the end of the novel is!
I really did not get what this girl wants, what she`s about, she must be suffering from depression or something, she`s all the while weeping, weeping when eloping, weeping when back after 12 years, weeping when divorce does not come, weeping when divorce comes, weeping when talking, weeping when walking and I really did not sympathize with her at all, I totally disliked the character, she`s disoriented and insists shes on the track!
I really wanted to leave it unfinished, but just wanted to see how far Glaspell can go in this sentimentally absurd novel.
August 14, 2025
An engaging, calm, and intelligently told story about a young woman's relationship with a married man in prudish America. A brilliant ending, contrasting the independence and freedom she has won with opportunism.
December 6, 2021
"Love was the great and beautiful wonder - but surely one should not stay with it in the place where it found one. Why, loving should light the way! Far from engulfing all the rest of life it seemed now that love should open life to one. Whether one kept it or whether one lost it, it failed if it did not send one farther along the way. She had been afraid to think of her love changing because that had seemed to grant that it had failed. But now it seemed that it failed if it did not leave her bigger than it had found her. [Ruth's] eyes filled in response to the stern beauty of that. Not that one should stay with love in the same place, but rather the meaning of it all was in just this: that it should send one on."
Adored this novel. It reminded me of Main Street by Sinclair Lewis a bit just in terms of it being about a woman in a small town with narrow minded people. Ruth was such an endearing character and I loved watching her grow as a person and deal with the choices she made years down the line. Wonderful ending, too. Will be looking for more by Susan Glaspell!
Adored this novel. It reminded me of Main Street by Sinclair Lewis a bit just in terms of it being about a woman in a small town with narrow minded people. Ruth was such an endearing character and I loved watching her grow as a person and deal with the choices she made years down the line. Wonderful ending, too. Will be looking for more by Susan Glaspell!
February 10, 2018
This is one of the few books I actually think about from time to time even long after finishing reading it. It's about a young woman in turn of the (previous) century Iowa who embarks on an affair with a married man and the fallout of that decision, but it's not what you might think. Written in 1915, it's an incredibly sensitive and honest portrait of family, community and womanhood that has a very contemporary feel. I'm surprised Susan Glaspell isn't better known as a novelist. Where Edith Wharton has the ability to perfectly capture a character's psychology, Glaspell is able to capture their souls. In my book, Fidelity is an American classic.
April 15, 2021
Fidelity is a forgotten classic, an early 20th-century novel (reprinted by the marvelous Persephone Books) about a Midwest woman who defies the rules of society to run away with her lover. The structure is intricate yet easily followed, beginning as Ruth comes home to be with her sick father and then using flashbacks to show how events unfolded in the past. Though her sympathies (and thus the reader's) are clearly with Ruth, Glaspell is careful to show every side of the story, how Ruth's decision affected her family and friends as well as herself; there are no easy answers here.
July 14, 2025
Initially found this slow to get into but ended up appreciating. Enjoyed the period and the setting. Ruth Holland is a "fallen" woman who returns to her small rural town when her father is passing. The hypocrisy and gossip of small town life leaves a lot to be desired.
September 18, 2018
It's 1914, and Ruth Holland is coming back to her father's deathbed in the small American town that she fled with a married man over 10 years earlier. We hear how the affair came about, how love swept away all other considerations at the time, and how the consequences rippled out, not only for the "guilty" pair but for their families and friends.
Ruth certainly suffers for her decision to leave town with the married Stuart Williams, but so do many other people, as she only fully realises all these years later. She has to ask herself, even if it was worth it for her, was it worth all that pain for others?
Susan Glaspell's view seems to be that society shouldn't be so critical of infidelity--but given that it was (the book was published in 1915), perhaps it was only a truly great love that could justify throwing everything over. And did Ruth and Stuart have that or not? Should we judge by our feelings at the time, or can we only know with hindsight? The novel raises these questions but leaves it to the reader to decide.
Ruth certainly suffers for her decision to leave town with the married Stuart Williams, but so do many other people, as she only fully realises all these years later. She has to ask herself, even if it was worth it for her, was it worth all that pain for others?
Susan Glaspell's view seems to be that society shouldn't be so critical of infidelity--but given that it was (the book was published in 1915), perhaps it was only a truly great love that could justify throwing everything over. And did Ruth and Stuart have that or not? Should we judge by our feelings at the time, or can we only know with hindsight? The novel raises these questions but leaves it to the reader to decide.
March 14, 2019
SPOILER ALERT;
I tried, I really tried. About 3/4 of the way through, I finally had enough. I think Glaspell writes well, but I found much to dislike. Over and over again, we are instructed that love is all that counts and the highest good. You might destroy other people's happiness but you are being true to yourself! Severed relationships with friends and your parents and siblings - just plow ahead and go your way. The heroine weeps all the time but always come back to the feeling of self justification.
Her destructive ways continue from the moment she returns home as she draws others to what is almost a cause - free yourself from all constraints! I found it shallow and sort of appalling. Quite often those that disagree with her actions are depicted as puritanical and cartoonish. I think Ruth's original decision could have made for an absorbing read had there been a deeper treatment of responsibility vs. freedom. By championing Ruth at every turn, I think the author made an error. It made her not very interesting.
I tried, I really tried. About 3/4 of the way through, I finally had enough. I think Glaspell writes well, but I found much to dislike. Over and over again, we are instructed that love is all that counts and the highest good. You might destroy other people's happiness but you are being true to yourself! Severed relationships with friends and your parents and siblings - just plow ahead and go your way. The heroine weeps all the time but always come back to the feeling of self justification.
Her destructive ways continue from the moment she returns home as she draws others to what is almost a cause - free yourself from all constraints! I found it shallow and sort of appalling. Quite often those that disagree with her actions are depicted as puritanical and cartoonish. I think Ruth's original decision could have made for an absorbing read had there been a deeper treatment of responsibility vs. freedom. By championing Ruth at every turn, I think the author made an error. It made her not very interesting.
January 16, 2018
A very weak three. I was infuriated by the narrow minded "talk" of the town and how it ruined everyones lives. The blurb about it says that it is about how the main characters infidelity did that but clearly it was not she who caused all the accompanying pain but the people who judged her. I do understand that it is set in 1900's and that kind of attitude was normal then. I generally like old fashioned books but this was beyond my limit and a bit too one dimensional. The love story that caused all the drama in the book was never discussed in detail which robbed the seriousness from it and I didn't feel for the characters although they all really suffered.
November 5, 2018
The story of Ruth, who leaves her social circle to run away with a married man. Years later, her Father is dying so she comes back to town to be with him in his last days. it is only on her return that she fully realises the impact of her decision all those years ago. Was it worth it? It is up to the reader to decide the answer, though the author was surprisingly sensitive to Ruth, especially considering the time this was written (1915)
I did find it dragged a little bit for me in places, and while I enjoyed it, I didn't find it very compelling. We read a lot about the various characters thoughts on respectability, society and fidelity, but I found these passages a bit meandering, other readers may appreciate these musings more than I did, (I may have appreciated them more at a different time).
I did find it dragged a little bit for me in places, and while I enjoyed it, I didn't find it very compelling. We read a lot about the various characters thoughts on respectability, society and fidelity, but I found these passages a bit meandering, other readers may appreciate these musings more than I did, (I may have appreciated them more at a different time).
July 21, 2016
I did not like this novel at all, it is too watery and sentimental and not thought provoking as some say, in my opinion, it is a bunch of theorizing, very second rate, it belongs to the era when women thought not sticking to the classic role of women as faithful wives and kind mothers and benevolent daughters is fashionable, the character is neither of these roles, and nothing more either, she is not a woman of science, nor of art nor of profession, she is not educated, she is just an unfaithful member of any family who insists she is faithful to her own heart! and that is enough for her, as it seems.
I would not recommend it, I think Glaspell is a better playwright than a novelist
I would not recommend it, I think Glaspell is a better playwright than a novelist
February 10, 2018
Beautifully written I loved reading this book, I was drawn into it by the characters who I began to empathise with and wanted them to sort out their misunderstandings.
Written a hundred years ago I was caught up in the drama of a young woman going off with an older married man and the impact it had on her, the family and the town she left behind. She returns to see her dying father many years later and is still scorned by many of her old friends.
I won’t spoil it by telling you the ending but it’s worth a read and I’m looking forward to reading other books by Susan Glaspell.
Written a hundred years ago I was caught up in the drama of a young woman going off with an older married man and the impact it had on her, the family and the town she left behind. She returns to see her dying father many years later and is still scorned by many of her old friends.
I won’t spoil it by telling you the ending but it’s worth a read and I’m looking forward to reading other books by Susan Glaspell.
February 3, 2017
A really beautiful meditation on the horrible prison that conventional morality was in the mid 20th century. Lots of insights about female society. The sadness around the derailing of lives by pettiness and smallness will linger with me for sure.
It has that slight overly polemical quality that some other Persephone press authors have, but I enjoy the passion that these authors bring, and the very clear sense that they're motivated by injustices they've suffered and seen.
It has that slight overly polemical quality that some other Persephone press authors have, but I enjoy the passion that these authors bring, and the very clear sense that they're motivated by injustices they've suffered and seen.
February 19, 2017
There’s something unassuming about the simple grey dust covers that wrap each one of the books published by Persephone. It is a handsome look, projecting a confident uniformity; reminiscent of the green or orange spines of Penguin paperbacks, though a bit more austere. There’s no way in which you can sum up the contents with a glance, as is the intent of so much in the way of modern glossy cover photography.
And so when you start reading a book like 'Fidelity' by Susan Glaspell, it’s startling just how bold it feels when there’s so little to shape your initial expectations of what lies between those grey covers. The opening chapter is gentle, with all the airy elegance of a nineteenth century novel, as if it were pretending to be a story concerned for social airs and graces; but it soon switches perspective to something rich, passionate, and entirely of its time; something which reveals itself to be entirely preoccupied with skewering such a limited view of life.
The story concerns the life of Ruth Holland, a woman who becomes notorious in her small American town of Freeport for having an affair with a married man, Stuart Williams. Initially, we learn about this through a mixture of reminiscence and flashback from the perspective of Deane, the local doctor (and one of her few remaining friends). But then we switch to the present day, where Ruth must return to Freeport now that her father is dying. She is forced into contact with her siblings — half of whom still resent her for what she did to their family name — and with her childhood friend Edith, who refuses to accept her back into society.
Ruth and Stuart have both become pariahs in Freeport, but the reader is left in little doubt that things are worse for Ruth. Few people, with the exception of Deane and her brother Ted, think it at all strange that she should find it effectively impossible to live an ordinary life there. The claim of those who exclude her is that the boundaries of society must be protected from people who would try to break them down. But the novel’s contention is that those boundaries are worthless if the sacrifice they require is rooted in the subjugation of human feeling.
There are two basic modes to the prose of 'Fidelity': one which mimics the high Jane Austen style of narrowly omniscient narration, with a peppering of irony; the other which is a more impressionistic, intimate affair, that follows certain characters very closely. Though there’s a fine eye for detail, concrete description is sparse throughout; I couldn’t begin to tell you what Ruth or Deane looked like, for example. It seems the author was more concerned with the expression of their inner lives than painting pictures with words.
Perhaps that’s what is ultimately most compelling about its style. It feels like something that, on publication in 1915, would have seemed absolutely modern without in the least bit modernist. The writing itself is quite plain, though still prone to long, conversational sentences and knotty sub-clauses. Glaspell was well known as a playwright — she won a Pulitzer for Drama in 1931 — and certainly there’s a few sequences here which could be transferred to the stage without much trouble. But the best moments are those which occur entirely within a character’s mind.
‘…That this girl, whom she had forgotten, should welcome her so warmly stirred an old wondering: a wondering if somewhere in the world there were not people who would be her friends. That wondering, longing, had run through many lonely days. The people she had known would no longer be her friends. But were there not other people? She knew so little about the world outside her life; her own life had seemed to shut down around her…
…After she had several times been hurt by the drawing away of people whom she had grown to like, she herself drew back where she could not be so easily hurt. And so it came about that her personality changed in that; from an outgoing nature she came to be one who held back, shut herself in. Even people who had never ‘heard’ had the feeling she did not care to know them, that she had wanted to be left alone. It crippled her power for friendship; it hurt her spirit. And it left her very much alone. In that loneliness she wondered if there were not other people — people who could ‘hear’ and not draw away. She had not found them; perhaps she had at times been near them, and in her holding back — not knowing, afraid — had let them go by. Of that, too, she had wondered; there had been many lonely wonderings….’
It’s a sort of soliloquising which has little in common with what would come to be known as ‘stream of consciousness’ in fiction. It’s sensitive, but there’s a hard edge to it, almost like a newspaper editorial on the state of this woman’s psyche. In its immediacy it reminds me of those great Edwardian novelists of rich interiors. There’s Henry James and Edith Wharton here, but also Joseph Conrad and Ford Madox Ford. That said, at bottom this is nothing like 'Lord Jim' or 'The Good Soldier' — there is nothing especially tricky about 'Fidelity'. This is a solid, well-built work of realistic fiction. Rather than confounding the reader with the mysteries of human nature, it seems the author is trying to make something plain something they felt all too clearly.
The ending is a curious one. The story can’t quite figure out to resolve itself within the confines of Freeport society. Ruth isn’t permitted to win, of course, and it seems impossible that the world might change in ways that would favour her. And yet it ends on a note of almost triumphant optimism. It settles on a picture that has been building up throughout the book: a strong woman, alone, and happy in her aloneness. Perhaps it is better to light out for the territory on one’s own; for a woman in 1915 to decide to live by herself would have seemed like a revolutionary gesture. But in terms of what we see, that journey never goes much further than the first few steps. The implications of Ruth’s final decision aren’t considered beyond that — but then the advantage of a book is that you can always fall back on the breezy confidence of the open road.
And so when you start reading a book like 'Fidelity' by Susan Glaspell, it’s startling just how bold it feels when there’s so little to shape your initial expectations of what lies between those grey covers. The opening chapter is gentle, with all the airy elegance of a nineteenth century novel, as if it were pretending to be a story concerned for social airs and graces; but it soon switches perspective to something rich, passionate, and entirely of its time; something which reveals itself to be entirely preoccupied with skewering such a limited view of life.
The story concerns the life of Ruth Holland, a woman who becomes notorious in her small American town of Freeport for having an affair with a married man, Stuart Williams. Initially, we learn about this through a mixture of reminiscence and flashback from the perspective of Deane, the local doctor (and one of her few remaining friends). But then we switch to the present day, where Ruth must return to Freeport now that her father is dying. She is forced into contact with her siblings — half of whom still resent her for what she did to their family name — and with her childhood friend Edith, who refuses to accept her back into society.
Ruth and Stuart have both become pariahs in Freeport, but the reader is left in little doubt that things are worse for Ruth. Few people, with the exception of Deane and her brother Ted, think it at all strange that she should find it effectively impossible to live an ordinary life there. The claim of those who exclude her is that the boundaries of society must be protected from people who would try to break them down. But the novel’s contention is that those boundaries are worthless if the sacrifice they require is rooted in the subjugation of human feeling.
There are two basic modes to the prose of 'Fidelity': one which mimics the high Jane Austen style of narrowly omniscient narration, with a peppering of irony; the other which is a more impressionistic, intimate affair, that follows certain characters very closely. Though there’s a fine eye for detail, concrete description is sparse throughout; I couldn’t begin to tell you what Ruth or Deane looked like, for example. It seems the author was more concerned with the expression of their inner lives than painting pictures with words.
Perhaps that’s what is ultimately most compelling about its style. It feels like something that, on publication in 1915, would have seemed absolutely modern without in the least bit modernist. The writing itself is quite plain, though still prone to long, conversational sentences and knotty sub-clauses. Glaspell was well known as a playwright — she won a Pulitzer for Drama in 1931 — and certainly there’s a few sequences here which could be transferred to the stage without much trouble. But the best moments are those which occur entirely within a character’s mind.
‘…That this girl, whom she had forgotten, should welcome her so warmly stirred an old wondering: a wondering if somewhere in the world there were not people who would be her friends. That wondering, longing, had run through many lonely days. The people she had known would no longer be her friends. But were there not other people? She knew so little about the world outside her life; her own life had seemed to shut down around her…
…After she had several times been hurt by the drawing away of people whom she had grown to like, she herself drew back where she could not be so easily hurt. And so it came about that her personality changed in that; from an outgoing nature she came to be one who held back, shut herself in. Even people who had never ‘heard’ had the feeling she did not care to know them, that she had wanted to be left alone. It crippled her power for friendship; it hurt her spirit. And it left her very much alone. In that loneliness she wondered if there were not other people — people who could ‘hear’ and not draw away. She had not found them; perhaps she had at times been near them, and in her holding back — not knowing, afraid — had let them go by. Of that, too, she had wondered; there had been many lonely wonderings….’
It’s a sort of soliloquising which has little in common with what would come to be known as ‘stream of consciousness’ in fiction. It’s sensitive, but there’s a hard edge to it, almost like a newspaper editorial on the state of this woman’s psyche. In its immediacy it reminds me of those great Edwardian novelists of rich interiors. There’s Henry James and Edith Wharton here, but also Joseph Conrad and Ford Madox Ford. That said, at bottom this is nothing like 'Lord Jim' or 'The Good Soldier' — there is nothing especially tricky about 'Fidelity'. This is a solid, well-built work of realistic fiction. Rather than confounding the reader with the mysteries of human nature, it seems the author is trying to make something plain something they felt all too clearly.
The ending is a curious one. The story can’t quite figure out to resolve itself within the confines of Freeport society. Ruth isn’t permitted to win, of course, and it seems impossible that the world might change in ways that would favour her. And yet it ends on a note of almost triumphant optimism. It settles on a picture that has been building up throughout the book: a strong woman, alone, and happy in her aloneness. Perhaps it is better to light out for the territory on one’s own; for a woman in 1915 to decide to live by herself would have seemed like a revolutionary gesture. But in terms of what we see, that journey never goes much further than the first few steps. The implications of Ruth’s final decision aren’t considered beyond that — but then the advantage of a book is that you can always fall back on the breezy confidence of the open road.
May 26, 2021
Fidelity follows Ruth Holland, a young woman who runs away with a married man to the shame of her family and friends back home, and when she returns around 10 years later to attend to her dying father, she begins to fully comprehend how her actions have affected those closest to her. And in a way this book isn't so much about the idea of fidelity, as it is a critique on the institution of marriage itself.
This was a really interesting read, mainly because I had so many conflicting feelings while reading it, and this is mainly due to personal opinions on the subject matter. The writing is very sentimental and internal throughout the novel, with long drawn-out sections of wistfulness on various characters' parts, wondering on the true meaning of love, the true meaning of friendship, what is owed to someone and how society expects you to respond to certain things. Ultimately though the narrative is one where we are meant to feel sorry for Ruth, and see how unfairly maligned she is by the people she used to hold dear. I take some issue with that, because at the end of the day Ruth knowingly went away with another woman's husband, and my own personal feelings on cheating are that I am completely against it. However, I feel like Ruth is still a sympathetic character in that she sacrifices everything for love, when she knows it will affect her ten times worse than Stuart who she leaves with. Stuart to me was a bit of a deplorable character - it was his wife, no matter how unloving, that he left, and yet no one in their town critiques him at any given moment. The hatred is all directed at Ruth, and it is her family who ultimately suffer. So mixed feelings is putting it lightly.
The whole concept of divorce, and the sanctity given to marriage is also very interesting, and I imagine that at the time this was published (1915) Glaspell's take on the subject would have been somewhat controversial. The focus is so much on the self and what an individual wants that I imagine it would have gone against everything people felt about marriage and its importance at the time - I would have loved to be a fly on the wall to see peoples' reactions when this was published. I find Glaspell's approach really fresh and interesting, and I liked the fact that she showed perspectives from many characters so we really felt in their shoes. The character of Deane Franklin, Ruth's best friend, in particular was very interesting because we see his obsession with validating Ruth alongside the tensions it causes between him and his new wife. I feel like her character was unlikable but perhaps a bit unfairly treated due to the specific nature of her surroundings and circumstances, but that might just be my opinion. I just found every single character to be grey in this novel, with pros and cons to them, and I found myself siding with them and against them all simultaneously.
I think the main thing that drags this book down for me though isn't so much the conflict it brings up in terms of how to feel about the characters, but by the long-winded and musing nature of the writing style. Glaspell was sometimes a bit too flowery for my liking, and she could say the same thing in about half the words more often than not. I found many sections to be quite repetitive, and although I was never bored as such, I did feel like I was ready to move on from those moments. But overall I'm glad I read this, it's definitely a very different type of narrative from any I've read before from Persephone, and if it sounds at all appealing I'd say it's still worth a try.
This was a really interesting read, mainly because I had so many conflicting feelings while reading it, and this is mainly due to personal opinions on the subject matter. The writing is very sentimental and internal throughout the novel, with long drawn-out sections of wistfulness on various characters' parts, wondering on the true meaning of love, the true meaning of friendship, what is owed to someone and how society expects you to respond to certain things. Ultimately though the narrative is one where we are meant to feel sorry for Ruth, and see how unfairly maligned she is by the people she used to hold dear. I take some issue with that, because at the end of the day Ruth knowingly went away with another woman's husband, and my own personal feelings on cheating are that I am completely against it. However, I feel like Ruth is still a sympathetic character in that she sacrifices everything for love, when she knows it will affect her ten times worse than Stuart who she leaves with. Stuart to me was a bit of a deplorable character - it was his wife, no matter how unloving, that he left, and yet no one in their town critiques him at any given moment. The hatred is all directed at Ruth, and it is her family who ultimately suffer. So mixed feelings is putting it lightly.
The whole concept of divorce, and the sanctity given to marriage is also very interesting, and I imagine that at the time this was published (1915) Glaspell's take on the subject would have been somewhat controversial. The focus is so much on the self and what an individual wants that I imagine it would have gone against everything people felt about marriage and its importance at the time - I would have loved to be a fly on the wall to see peoples' reactions when this was published. I find Glaspell's approach really fresh and interesting, and I liked the fact that she showed perspectives from many characters so we really felt in their shoes. The character of Deane Franklin, Ruth's best friend, in particular was very interesting because we see his obsession with validating Ruth alongside the tensions it causes between him and his new wife. I feel like her character was unlikable but perhaps a bit unfairly treated due to the specific nature of her surroundings and circumstances, but that might just be my opinion. I just found every single character to be grey in this novel, with pros and cons to them, and I found myself siding with them and against them all simultaneously.
I think the main thing that drags this book down for me though isn't so much the conflict it brings up in terms of how to feel about the characters, but by the long-winded and musing nature of the writing style. Glaspell was sometimes a bit too flowery for my liking, and she could say the same thing in about half the words more often than not. I found many sections to be quite repetitive, and although I was never bored as such, I did feel like I was ready to move on from those moments. But overall I'm glad I read this, it's definitely a very different type of narrative from any I've read before from Persephone, and if it sounds at all appealing I'd say it's still worth a try.
November 22, 2017
Fidelity by Susan Glaspell.
This is a wonderfully well-written book with complex rounded characters who draw you in to the story by the insight you get into their deepest thought, or lack of them. You can’t fail to identify with the ideas that are debated by the book because you are carried along by the subtlety with which characters inner thoughts are revealed.
At the center of this novel is Ruth Holland who shocks middle-class society in the small Iowa town of Freeport by running away with a married man. In 1915 the schoolmate, Dr. Deane Franklin, whose love for her was not returned but who was nonetheless her closest friend has recently married a younger woman, Amy, whose entrance into Freeport society is marred, she feels, by finding out that her new husband still defends, Ruth, who has “lived in sin” for eleven years and is so rejected by local society that her name is normally never mentioned. Through this story Glaspell draws a detailed and somewhat harrowing picture of the way in which the lives of this circle of young women are hemmed in and circumscribed by rules of propriety enforced by the fear of being cast out of the safety net of acceptance and inclusion in this self-important clique.
Glaspell is able to take us into the minds of her characters in such a subtle and sensitive way that we not only come to understand what they think and feel but also how those thoughts and feelings develop. The author particularly focuses on the nature and importance of love in all its manifestations. Through Deane she expresses the belief that true friendship is complex and involves listening, understanding sometimes, and sacrifice of one’s own needs. When Ruth returns in her thirties to visit her dying father the novel then begins to explore very basics of feminism, the right of women to pursue self- realization through friendships that grow with other `outsiders.’ It is almost a primer on feminism which I would recommend to your women and men to show them that no matter far we have come there is still a way to go to get rid of the destructive power of `difference.’
This is a wonderfully well-written book with complex rounded characters who draw you in to the story by the insight you get into their deepest thought, or lack of them. You can’t fail to identify with the ideas that are debated by the book because you are carried along by the subtlety with which characters inner thoughts are revealed.
At the center of this novel is Ruth Holland who shocks middle-class society in the small Iowa town of Freeport by running away with a married man. In 1915 the schoolmate, Dr. Deane Franklin, whose love for her was not returned but who was nonetheless her closest friend has recently married a younger woman, Amy, whose entrance into Freeport society is marred, she feels, by finding out that her new husband still defends, Ruth, who has “lived in sin” for eleven years and is so rejected by local society that her name is normally never mentioned. Through this story Glaspell draws a detailed and somewhat harrowing picture of the way in which the lives of this circle of young women are hemmed in and circumscribed by rules of propriety enforced by the fear of being cast out of the safety net of acceptance and inclusion in this self-important clique.
Glaspell is able to take us into the minds of her characters in such a subtle and sensitive way that we not only come to understand what they think and feel but also how those thoughts and feelings develop. The author particularly focuses on the nature and importance of love in all its manifestations. Through Deane she expresses the belief that true friendship is complex and involves listening, understanding sometimes, and sacrifice of one’s own needs. When Ruth returns in her thirties to visit her dying father the novel then begins to explore very basics of feminism, the right of women to pursue self- realization through friendships that grow with other `outsiders.’ It is almost a primer on feminism which I would recommend to your women and men to show them that no matter far we have come there is still a way to go to get rid of the destructive power of `difference.’
June 16, 2010
This is one of several beautifully printed books I've ordered from London's Persephone Books (another example of why I can't imagine ever using a kindle or e-book!!!) I would never have discovered it had it not been for the fact that Persephone Books only prints lesser-known, but well worth reading, older books written throughout the past 150 years by women. Susan Glaspell is one such writer and her book was set in the early 20th century in Davenport, Iowa, the town where she herself had grown up. It's a remarkable book for several reasons. For one thing its central character isn't bound by the rules and conventions that dictated how women were supposed to live and behave during that era. Instead she leaves her family and friends to elope with the man she loves, even though it means leaving behind what would have been a comfortable and secure life with the young, up and coming doctor who could have given her the kind of lifestyle she was accustomed to. The book is structured in such a way as to introduce the reader to the various characters who are effected by Ruth's decision and how their small-town, hypocritical notions about "society" have trapped them in a way of life that is dictated by rigid norms and superficial values. Having had grandparents who lived in a small Iowa town and would have belonged to Ruth's generation, it was fascinating to speculate that they probably would have been right at home in that world. Most likely they would have judged Ruth and what she did in much the same way as the fictional characters did in this very well written book.
January 13, 2020
Susan Glaspell must be one of the greatest unknown writers in history. She was a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright and author of several novels and short stories. Yet, her name and work are little known today.
I first became aware of Susan Glaspell when I googled best American female authors. Then, in a short story discussion group that I attend, we read "A Jury of her Peers." I was blown away and decided to read more from this great writer.
"Fidelity" is a novel set in Iowa in 1900-1913. Ruth Holland is a young girl who wants to experience life at it fullest. She becomes involved with a married man whose wife refuses to divorce him. Ruth runs way with this man but returns many years later when her aging father is on his deathbed. She finds that she has been shunned by all of "polite" society in her hometown. All but one of her former friends refuse to have anything to do with her.
The novel was first published in 1915. I found the dialogue to be a bit dated, but the message and themes of the book remain vividly relevant today. I found myself considering many aspects of the concept of fidelity: fidelity in marriage, fidelity of friends, fidelity to a rigid, restrictive sense of morality, and even fidelity to oneself.
I loved this book and would wholeheartedly recommend it.
I first became aware of Susan Glaspell when I googled best American female authors. Then, in a short story discussion group that I attend, we read "A Jury of her Peers." I was blown away and decided to read more from this great writer.
"Fidelity" is a novel set in Iowa in 1900-1913. Ruth Holland is a young girl who wants to experience life at it fullest. She becomes involved with a married man whose wife refuses to divorce him. Ruth runs way with this man but returns many years later when her aging father is on his deathbed. She finds that she has been shunned by all of "polite" society in her hometown. All but one of her former friends refuse to have anything to do with her.
The novel was first published in 1915. I found the dialogue to be a bit dated, but the message and themes of the book remain vividly relevant today. I found myself considering many aspects of the concept of fidelity: fidelity in marriage, fidelity of friends, fidelity to a rigid, restrictive sense of morality, and even fidelity to oneself.
I loved this book and would wholeheartedly recommend it.
November 19, 2024
A thought provoking book that must have been even more so when it was published in 1915. A portrait of how society and expectations of the time would react to a young girl running away with a married man Stuart, and how that decision affects the reputation of the family and turns former friends away from her. When she returns to her hometown the full impact of her decision reveals itself. However there is far more emotional depth than that , as the author sensitively describes the dilemma faced by some as they want to reach out to Ruth but society won’t allow it and those whose love for Ruth overrides society’s views. Most striking is the ‘blame’ assigned to Ruth whereas Stuart appears to have no such blame assigned.
I did feel that some parts were too drawn out and were quite repetitive, hence the 3 stars but an intriguing book that leaves the reader to make up their own mind.
I did feel that some parts were too drawn out and were quite repetitive, hence the 3 stars but an intriguing book that leaves the reader to make up their own mind.
April 6, 2013
What an interesting, insightful book! I've never heard of it, but saw it here on Goodreads and found it for free on Kindle.
This is about a young woman in a small town around the turn of the last century who falls in love and runs off with a married man. Most of the story takes place 11 years later, when she returns to the town because her father is dying. The book sensitively explores the effect her actions had on her family, herself, her friends, even the wife left behind. The passages discussing the emotions of returning home after being away and estranged were beautiful and rang true.
I found this book very moving. It also has an interesting feminist angle.
This is about a young woman in a small town around the turn of the last century who falls in love and runs off with a married man. Most of the story takes place 11 years later, when she returns to the town because her father is dying. The book sensitively explores the effect her actions had on her family, herself, her friends, even the wife left behind. The passages discussing the emotions of returning home after being away and estranged were beautiful and rang true.
I found this book very moving. It also has an interesting feminist angle.
May 24, 2016
Beautifully written, brilliant, and unapologetically feminist to boot. One of those rare novels I find myself underlining passages and dog-earing pages to re-read later.
February 20, 2024
This book could have been half it's length. But to each their own ig
February 25, 2025
Este libro ha sido todo un descubrimiento. Me he enamorado de la forma de narrar de la autora.
Una novela que trata temas que aun hoy dan mucho de lo que hablar.
Una novela que trata temas que aun hoy dan mucho de lo que hablar.
February 23, 2021
200th review! Thank the Goddess I enjoyed the read.
I loved it. I cannot believe that this book isn't peddled about more as a classic or as "feminine studies" or the like. I thought that it was well written, if a little repetitive; I thought that the characters were well constructed even when boorish, misinformed and malevolent. I think Glaspell knew the story she wanted to tell and I think she told it incredibly well.
For me the lesson wasn't about romantic love at all, or the way society treats women who don't fall into step; it was more about the experience of watching a world and morphing it into the one you want to live in. It was about fickle truths and faiths that hold people together.
I loved Dean for his steadfast friendship that didn't cost anything. I loved Mrs. Williams for her stoic determination that she eventually understood was a hindrance. I loved Ted for his innocence, and Ruth for her simplicity. I hated the town for being so shallow and cruel. I loved Annie for embracing the future. I saw a lot of myself in a lot of the characters, because no character was 100% right or wrong. They each stood by what they believed to be the right thing. Whether what was right was everything or nothing, the characters felt that they had to choose one way or the other. It cost some characters more than others, but the price was the same. What you're willing to sacrifice for a world and a life that either means everything or nothing to you is entirely up to you to decide.
I loved the ending, and the life Ruth chose. I loved how she succeeded even when others only saw her as a failure. A relationship doesn't have to last a lifetime or forever to make is a success or worth having. If love is infinite, why limit it to one person or thing or way of life? The ending felt triumphant even if, outwardly, very little was accomplished.
I think this story is fantastic. 5/5
I loved it. I cannot believe that this book isn't peddled about more as a classic or as "feminine studies" or the like. I thought that it was well written, if a little repetitive; I thought that the characters were well constructed even when boorish, misinformed and malevolent. I think Glaspell knew the story she wanted to tell and I think she told it incredibly well.
For me the lesson wasn't about romantic love at all, or the way society treats women who don't fall into step; it was more about the experience of watching a world and morphing it into the one you want to live in. It was about fickle truths and faiths that hold people together.
I loved Dean for his steadfast friendship that didn't cost anything. I loved Mrs. Williams for her stoic determination that she eventually understood was a hindrance. I loved Ted for his innocence, and Ruth for her simplicity. I hated the town for being so shallow and cruel. I loved Annie for embracing the future. I saw a lot of myself in a lot of the characters, because no character was 100% right or wrong. They each stood by what they believed to be the right thing. Whether what was right was everything or nothing, the characters felt that they had to choose one way or the other. It cost some characters more than others, but the price was the same. What you're willing to sacrifice for a world and a life that either means everything or nothing to you is entirely up to you to decide.
I loved the ending, and the life Ruth chose. I loved how she succeeded even when others only saw her as a failure. A relationship doesn't have to last a lifetime or forever to make is a success or worth having. If love is infinite, why limit it to one person or thing or way of life? The ending felt triumphant even if, outwardly, very little was accomplished.
I think this story is fantastic. 5/5
January 27, 2022
"Fidelity (1915) is a classic that should be put beside books by writers such as Edith Wharton and Willa Cather; yet the novels of Susan Glaspell, who was once considered America's greatest living playwright apart from Eugène O'Neill (and who is best-known for her short play, 'Trifles') have been ignored.
"Set in Iowa in 1900 and in 1913, this dramatic and deeply moral novel uses complex but subtle use of flashback to describe a girl named Ruth Holland, bored with her life at home, falling in love with a married man and running off with him; when she comes back more than a decade later we are shown how her actions have affected those around her. Ruth had taken another woman's husband and as such 'Freeport' society thinks she is 'a human being who selfishly - basely - took her own happiness, leaving misery for others. She outraged society as completely as a woman could outrage it... One who defies it - deceives it - must be shut out from it.'
"But, like Emma Bovary, Edna Pontellier in 'The Awakening' and Nora in 'A Doll's House' Ruth has 'a diffused longing for an enlarged experience... Her energies having been shut off from the way they had wanted to go, she was all the more zestful for new things from life...' It is these that are explored in Fidelity.
An excellent book; very enjoyable. It was definitely written in the early 20th century: there are whole pages of dialogue dedicated to expounding on philosophical views -- which gets rather boring in the 21st century. But it's an excellent read for all of that, and explores views and ideas that are no longer common today.
"Set in Iowa in 1900 and in 1913, this dramatic and deeply moral novel uses complex but subtle use of flashback to describe a girl named Ruth Holland, bored with her life at home, falling in love with a married man and running off with him; when she comes back more than a decade later we are shown how her actions have affected those around her. Ruth had taken another woman's husband and as such 'Freeport' society thinks she is 'a human being who selfishly - basely - took her own happiness, leaving misery for others. She outraged society as completely as a woman could outrage it... One who defies it - deceives it - must be shut out from it.'
"But, like Emma Bovary, Edna Pontellier in 'The Awakening' and Nora in 'A Doll's House' Ruth has 'a diffused longing for an enlarged experience... Her energies having been shut off from the way they had wanted to go, she was all the more zestful for new things from life...' It is these that are explored in Fidelity.
An excellent book; very enjoyable. It was definitely written in the early 20th century: there are whole pages of dialogue dedicated to expounding on philosophical views -- which gets rather boring in the 21st century. But it's an excellent read for all of that, and explores views and ideas that are no longer common today.
December 20, 2023
Towards the end of the novel, the main character, Ruth, is standing at her window looking out over the frozen Colorado fields at the huddling of hundreds of sheep who are attempting to survive the frigid cold of night. They do so by circling around each other into a tight huddle to warm themselves with their mutual body heat. Inevitably the weaker sheep end up unprotected at the outer edge on frozen legs often dying before morning. The farmers’ rationale? The losses were “small compared to with what would be the cost of shelter for droves” of sheep.
The scene is meant to be a larger metaphor for the thrust of the book and I am surprised the author, Susan Glaspell, waited for the end to use it. The social standard for the survival of decent society in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s relied on all members keeping tightly huddled, observing meticulously understood rules of conduct. Breaking or ignoring these tenets resulted in expulsion from safety to the rigors of the outer rim. In choosing to run off with an older married man, both Ruth and her lover suffer this fate. But Glaspell is not content with a simple tragic tale. Instead she draws deep and expansive psychological profiles using dialogue and internal monologue to portray the damage wrought on Ruth’s circle of family and friends and those intimately impacted by the betrayal.
The novel has been linked to other important feminist writings of the day including Willa Cather, Kate Chopin, Edith Wharton and Charlotte Perkins Wilkins. It is an illuminating read.
The scene is meant to be a larger metaphor for the thrust of the book and I am surprised the author, Susan Glaspell, waited for the end to use it. The social standard for the survival of decent society in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s relied on all members keeping tightly huddled, observing meticulously understood rules of conduct. Breaking or ignoring these tenets resulted in expulsion from safety to the rigors of the outer rim. In choosing to run off with an older married man, both Ruth and her lover suffer this fate. But Glaspell is not content with a simple tragic tale. Instead she draws deep and expansive psychological profiles using dialogue and internal monologue to portray the damage wrought on Ruth’s circle of family and friends and those intimately impacted by the betrayal.
The novel has been linked to other important feminist writings of the day including Willa Cather, Kate Chopin, Edith Wharton and Charlotte Perkins Wilkins. It is an illuminating read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 8, 2016
Visit Literary Lass for more reviews & giveaways
Dissecting fidelity on all levels – romantic, friendship, family. How much influence does society hold over our decisions to buck societal expectations versus our own authentic happiness. Our actions trickle over, hurting others to an extent unknown as Ruth discovers her trail of pain took hostages. You will find yourself contemplating as you drift along with the narrative.
Ruth being the voice of the marital interloper added dimension and texture to her story. Allegiances tested, forgiveness a gift, we learn fidelity is a slippery slope as peer pressure governs for the majority. Those willing to remain loyal and forgiving sacrifice in the name of love and friendship as the community disapproves, even Ruth’s family is divided over her actions and homecoming. A poignant story of a woman desperate to find her place in the world after selecting a controversial fork in the road, the aftermath is taxing and messy but courageously navigated to find oneself.
Great book, no doubt ahead of its time with content written in a challenging era. I appreciate a narrative exploring moral and societal issues. Fabulous book, Ruth is both frustrating and empathetic, understood and misunderstood.
Dissecting fidelity on all levels – romantic, friendship, family. How much influence does society hold over our decisions to buck societal expectations versus our own authentic happiness. Our actions trickle over, hurting others to an extent unknown as Ruth discovers her trail of pain took hostages. You will find yourself contemplating as you drift along with the narrative.
Ruth being the voice of the marital interloper added dimension and texture to her story. Allegiances tested, forgiveness a gift, we learn fidelity is a slippery slope as peer pressure governs for the majority. Those willing to remain loyal and forgiving sacrifice in the name of love and friendship as the community disapproves, even Ruth’s family is divided over her actions and homecoming. A poignant story of a woman desperate to find her place in the world after selecting a controversial fork in the road, the aftermath is taxing and messy but courageously navigated to find oneself.
Great book, no doubt ahead of its time with content written in a challenging era. I appreciate a narrative exploring moral and societal issues. Fabulous book, Ruth is both frustrating and empathetic, understood and misunderstood.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews