It’s probably some failing of mine; I don’t understand the connection of the title. I mean, yes, the story takes place in a rural setting, but that doesn’t seem to be a factor any character dwells upon. I also don’t understand concluding with an unlofty Biblical quote which seems to me derisive.
But that’s not to say I didn’t love this story. I did.
The story is a bit rife with men who are overwhelmed by youthful beauty. And, at least for me, begs the question: Why is it that so often people, when they have an overwhelming passion for another, will insist on a union, believing that they have enough love for both, as though it were some shortcoming on the other’s part which they imagine themselves capable of compensating for? They will beg for the union regardless of denouncements of any reciprocal feeling, and presume they, who love so deeply, would have the hardest part of such a union. They seem to presume that to be showered with compliments, attention, gifts, and affection (as these wooers imagine they can do without resentment for its absence toward themselves) is all the joy and value of love that the loved one could require. Where, in reality, the value of love comes far less from being a recipient of its expression, and far more from it simply and naturally bubbling up from within one’s own heart. To expect someone, let alone the person held above all others as the dearest creature living, to live a life in fear of never being able to conjure that natural wellspring of outpouring joy from their own hearts in any form other than gratitude, is to expect the person you believe worthy of your love to be content as a lifelong miser. If that person could do so, how is it they would be worthy? Oughtn’t that passionate soul to think twice about the inspiration of passion? If it is not the beauty of the soul it likely cannot endure with or without reciprocation.
Trying here, not to give too much away, though perhaps I'm the last to read (or rather, listen to) this 1874 classic; It seems the story progresses beyond this, to the telling of something developed toward harmony and equality, but those final lines give me pause for second thoughts. ([Possible spoiler coming?] Which would be most sad if the author thought to tell me that a beautiful woman can only ever be idolized.)
Speaking of "listening to", I've said it before and will say it again, John Lee is an excellent narrator!
( )

I really wanted to like this book, but it just didn't do it for me. Coming from Thomas Hardy, I was looking for much more morbidity and darkness, and this youthful, devil-may-careish style just doesn't suit him very well. I thought Bathsheba far too wavering a character to take her headstrong attitude seriously, and Boldwood was anything but his namesake, sauntering about with a stick up his ass the majority of the time. I sympathized for Gabriel at first, but as time went on, he became too self-righteous and I stopped vying for him. I honestly think a tragic ending for all of them would have been more suitable, and brutally ironic. ( )

Reason read: TBR takedown
This book was Hardy's fourth published novel. It is set in Wessex (rural sw England) and the idyllic but hash life of a farming community. The time period is Victorian England. The main female character is Bathsheba Everdene. She is not your typical female in that she is an independent female farmer. She does not want to lose her independence. The three male characters, all suitors of Bathsheba, are William Boldwood (gentleman farmer), Gabriel Oak, (hired hand), and Sergeant Troy (Don Juan in uniform).

The themes are love, honour, and betrayal. I found myself at times disliking Bathsheba and other times liking her. Gabriel is the loyal faithfaul friend, William Boldwood is the obsessive, Troy is a false horse and Bathsheba, usually so smart and careful fails to see the danger.

This book is unlike other Hardy books that I've read. It was the happiest. There are references to characters of this book in Mayor of Castlebridge. It is not as tragic as Tess nor as depressing and nihilistic as Jude the Obscure. It can be called a romance with three suitors. ( )

At its very soul, Far From the Madding Crowd isn't an emotional rollercoaster, but a see-saw which, slowly but steadily, keeps shifting between normalcy and heightened passions. The story is set in the English Countryside, and Thomas Hardy paints a beautiful picture of its backdrop while artfully placing the lead characters as isolated individuals in a vastly spacious land.

The story focuses on 4 leads and their intertwined lives in the small town of Weatherbury, and their respective arcs represent the strongest aspect of Thomas Hardy's writing. Besides foolproof characterizations, the writing fully succeeds in making the reader aware of the exact states of the characters through dialogues which are profound and completely representative of their emotions.

While the reader might feel redeemed with the closure provided by the character arcs, they might also notice that the set-ups to various interactions in the story become repetitive, which cause the moments between dialogue to become a bit dull. There is also a heavy reliance on metaphors while describing certain scenes, which, on some occasions might make the reader feel detached from the actual scene and focus more on fully grasping the relentless usage of metaphors.

Far From the Madding Crowd can be best described as a romantic dark-comedy, and through the journeys of its characters, provides some fascinating takeaways to the reader, mainly about dealing with adverse situations and handling romantic heartbreaks. It represents a bumpy ride towards maturity, catalyzed by various canon events, and besides being an engaging story, is bound to give the reader a small dosage of inspiration as it ends. ( )

Old style writing, takes a bit to get into. May get back to