Big nope. Thought the film adaptation looked smug and pretentious but defaulting to the novel didn't inspire me either, sadly. This is basically an old man's ranty rant about history and society disguised as a commentary on the treatment of women: 'You think you are about to possess what men have hopelessly yearned for throughout the ages: the soul of an innocent, trusting, dependent child inside the opulent body of a radiantly lovely woman.' Gray also crams every nineteenth century literary device known to man into first half of the book, before flipping the narrative to sneer at those Victorian tropes - and repeating the same old rants from a supposedly feminist perspective. Yawn. I'm glad Emma Stone and the costume designer got something out of the film, but I definitely won't be wasting any more time on Alisdair Gray's griping. ( )

Abbandonato. ( )

Poor Things by Alasdair Gray (336pp 1992)

Would I read more books by this author?
Most definitely.

Would I recommend this book?
Definitely.

To whom would I recommend this book?
It would have to be people who can stand a little weirdness and who can cut their way through the superficial carnal aspects of the book to see its real purpose and meaning.

Did this book inspire me to do anything?
Yes! I am planning a day in Glasgow to visit the main sites in the story. It will make an interesting excursion and give me a photo-journal opportunity.

I acquired this book in 2011 but have only gotten around to reading it now. I bought it while I was reading and loving “Lanark”. “Poor Things” has not disappointed. My reading it now was prompted by a friend who watched the Oscar winning film. This spurred me on to read the book before I watch the film.

Having loved Lanark I was expecting some weirdness. It was not as weird as I expected, but read like an historical fiction with one piece of Science Fiction at its heart. There is so much in the book I cannot see how a screen adaptation could possibly present all the content. My suspicion is that the film deals mostly with the sexual aspects of the story rather than with the primary focus of the book which is the presentation of political viewpoints and the promotion of political philosophies focused on improving the lot of the people rather than increasing the wealth of the wealthy. Comments by friends who have seen the film and reviews of the movie appear to support my suspicions. I intend to watch the film, but in my usual approach to screen adaptations I will not be complaining about how the film does not reflect the book, but rather enjoying the movie as something different from the book, but will be interested to see what was cut out of the story and what has been added in. Given the complexity of the main character I am not surprised it was an opportunity for Emma Stone to win an Oscar. I am looking forward to seeing her performance.

There are several themes to the story with a rather steamy thread running through the earlier parts of the book which, while the film may emphasise this, is primarily a means of hooking the reader to read on and then used as a vehicle to facilitate discussion on various political movements, their core tenets, and to present their impact on the population at large. Also presented are critiques of social norms that were, and still are, abhorrent to the sensitivities of the more liberal minded. It is a strongly feminist book so people should push through the misogyny presented in the early chapters to get through to the powerful messages that follow.

If I was to sum the story up in one sentence it would be:
“This is the life story of girl who experienced life in an accelerated fashion and grew into a determined woman who worked tirelessly to improve the lot of the poor through the advancement of medical practice and women’s rights.”

If I were to ignore the true messages of the book and simply describe it based on the superficial elements I could describe it as:
“The wife of Frankenstein was a nymphomaniac.” ( )

It's almost criminal that Yorgos Lanthimos read this book about child-rearing, feminism, socialism, classism, and patriarchy and made a movie only about sexuality. I loved the movie but now am so angry that he removed the full human condition from it. Bella - Victoria was an intellectual, a philosopher, a feminist, a scientist, and a political practitioner, and Lanthimos made her into only a sexual being. What a missed opportunity. I would love to see a movie based on the whole book. ( )

I read this after seeing the movie and wondering if the book it was based on could be anywhere near as bizarre. I know comparisons aren't fair because books and movies are very different kinds of media but I do it anyway. The biggest difference I found was that the movie left out Bella’s own version of the story which was nowhere near as interesting as McCandless'. So, while that part did add the element of an unreliable narrator, not including it was a smart move because I thought the movie's ending wrapped things up perfectly. Another difference was that the book had less sexuality and more commentary about sexual, social, and political double standards. Since a fair amount of the social and political commentary was satire of British and Scottish conventions, most of it was lost on me. Maybe if I knew something about the regional history and culture I would have liked this more than I did. As it is, I liked the movie better. ( )