![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neo_ultraHere are some thoughts about the book.
The plot is relatively simple – a retired brewery worker named Harold Fry, who is living his days in a loveless marriage with his wife Maureen, suddenly receives a letter from his ex-coworker Queenie who is apparently dying of cancer. And instead of doing the sensible thing and writing her a card, Harold suddenly and inexplicably even to himself decides to cross the country on foot to visit Queenie at her hospice in Berwick-upon-Tweed.
As I don't actually know the geography of the UK, a map would have been helpful at this point. But as it was, I had only the vaguest idea where Harold was and whereto he was going. To be fair, he himself didn't know either. There was a map at the end of the book tracing his route, but I guess including that map in the beginning would have been too much of a spoiler.
And so the book was basically about a man running (or mostly tottering) away from his problems, while his wife was left behind to deal with the results. This made me somewhat dissatisfied, how come it is always the man who goes on an adventure, and the woman has to stay behind and mind the house? But in the end it turned out to be helpful for her too, so I guess all's well that ends well.
In general, I could sense that the book was really trying to be heart-warming. Harold met all sorts of people and managed to understand and accept them, he let go of his material possessions, and at last looked back at the worst moments of his life.
And his wife finally acknowledged that their son was dead (tbh I kind of suspected it from the start) and started to move on, instead of just existing and blaming her husband for not doing something. At the end they both understood they still loved each other, so in that sense the book had a happy ending.
But the whole premise of Harold's trek was to keep Queenie alive, and for what? It turned out her cancer was so bad, she had a giant tumour growing on her face and her tongue and spine had been cut out. And in this half-vegetative state she managed to eke out a semblance of existence for 80-something days until Harold finally arrived. Wouldn't it have been more charitable just to let her die already? Does UK not have euthanasia? How is it better to just cut off bits of a person until there is almost nothing left, instead of giving them a dignified and easy death?
To me this whole thing was much more horrible than whatever Harold lived through. Sure, finding the body of his son who hanged himself must have been horrible. But I feel like he and Maureen were always too permissive with the boy, they should have put a stop to drugs and drinking. A solid educational thumping would have fixed him, no good has ever come from spoiling children.
Anyhow, the thing with Queenie must have hit me in the feels, I even dreamt the other night an alternative ending where Harold arrives at the hospice and she is actually just a little sick and can walk and talk and everything, and will be just fine, which of course doesn't really happen to hospice patients.
But I can see how many other stories in the book could also hit people in the feels, depending on their experiences. For me things like children and love are topics of little interest, but I suppose many would empathise with the woman who was still waiting for the husband who left her, or the man who wanted to impress his children by doing something spectacular.
Harold met a variety of colourful personalities and strangely many of them were willing to help and support him. So maybe the takeaway from the book should be that deep down in their hearts people are good, even if everyone is going through things? The book was published in 2012 though, so I wonder if this hopeful message rings as true today. I don't feel like the plot of the book could have happened nowadays (apart from the glory-hounding social network shills, we have even more of these so-called influencers nowadays).
Anyhow, good for Harold and his wife that they figured some things out!
The plot is relatively simple – a retired brewery worker named Harold Fry, who is living his days in a loveless marriage with his wife Maureen, suddenly receives a letter from his ex-coworker Queenie who is apparently dying of cancer. And instead of doing the sensible thing and writing her a card, Harold suddenly and inexplicably even to himself decides to cross the country on foot to visit Queenie at her hospice in Berwick-upon-Tweed.
As I don't actually know the geography of the UK, a map would have been helpful at this point. But as it was, I had only the vaguest idea where Harold was and whereto he was going. To be fair, he himself didn't know either. There was a map at the end of the book tracing his route, but I guess including that map in the beginning would have been too much of a spoiler.
And so the book was basically about a man running (or mostly tottering) away from his problems, while his wife was left behind to deal with the results. This made me somewhat dissatisfied, how come it is always the man who goes on an adventure, and the woman has to stay behind and mind the house? But in the end it turned out to be helpful for her too, so I guess all's well that ends well.
In general, I could sense that the book was really trying to be heart-warming. Harold met all sorts of people and managed to understand and accept them, he let go of his material possessions, and at last looked back at the worst moments of his life.
And his wife finally acknowledged that their son was dead (tbh I kind of suspected it from the start) and started to move on, instead of just existing and blaming her husband for not doing something. At the end they both understood they still loved each other, so in that sense the book had a happy ending.
But the whole premise of Harold's trek was to keep Queenie alive, and for what? It turned out her cancer was so bad, she had a giant tumour growing on her face and her tongue and spine had been cut out. And in this half-vegetative state she managed to eke out a semblance of existence for 80-something days until Harold finally arrived. Wouldn't it have been more charitable just to let her die already? Does UK not have euthanasia? How is it better to just cut off bits of a person until there is almost nothing left, instead of giving them a dignified and easy death?
To me this whole thing was much more horrible than whatever Harold lived through. Sure, finding the body of his son who hanged himself must have been horrible. But I feel like he and Maureen were always too permissive with the boy, they should have put a stop to drugs and drinking. A solid educational thumping would have fixed him, no good has ever come from spoiling children.
Anyhow, the thing with Queenie must have hit me in the feels, I even dreamt the other night an alternative ending where Harold arrives at the hospice and she is actually just a little sick and can walk and talk and everything, and will be just fine, which of course doesn't really happen to hospice patients.
But I can see how many other stories in the book could also hit people in the feels, depending on their experiences. For me things like children and love are topics of little interest, but I suppose many would empathise with the woman who was still waiting for the husband who left her, or the man who wanted to impress his children by doing something spectacular.
Harold met a variety of colourful personalities and strangely many of them were willing to help and support him. So maybe the takeaway from the book should be that deep down in their hearts people are good, even if everyone is going through things? The book was published in 2012 though, so I wonder if this hopeful message rings as true today. I don't feel like the plot of the book could have happened nowadays (apart from the glory-hounding social network shills, we have even more of these so-called influencers nowadays).
Anyhow, good for Harold and his wife that they figured some things out!
