Monday, August 17, 2026

Lolly Willowes or, The Loving Huntsman (1926) by Sylvia Townsend Warner


A while back I mentioned here that I thought it might be fun to read a few books from 1926 in order to contrast the experience of reading books written 100 years ago to that of reading what is being published today. Lolly Willowes by Sylvia Townsend Warner is the novel I chose to kick off this project, and that may have been a mistake because this one really didn't work for me. (Thank goodness that, at about 230 pages, it's relatively short.) But as it turns out, I'm the one on the outside looking in when it comes to the critical and public response to Lolly Willowes or, The Loving Huntsman.

Warner had an instant hit on her hands with this debut novel. The novel was praised by both the Times Literary Supplement and the New York Times itself. France's Prix Femina committee shortlisted it for its own literary prize, and it was even favorably compared by some to the work of Jane Austen. Interestingly, too, Lolly Willowes became the first Book-of-the-Month Club selection in the United States. So I'm definitely in the distinct minority when it comes to my level of appreciation for this one. 

Laura Willowes (nicknamed "Lolly" by her young niece) has always been more interested in reading and plants than she has been in eligible young bachelors. So, having already lost her mother, she was unprepared for how drastically her life would change with the death of her father. Suddenly, Lolly finds herself dependent upon her elder brother and his wife Caroline. That means leaving the family estate, moving to London, and becoming the duty-bound "Aunt Lolly" helping raise her nieces for the next twenty years.

But such a life was never going to be enough for Lolly, so bring on an eventual pact with the devil and witchcraft as she seeks to claim a life all her own, one not doled out by the men in her life. 

"Is it true that you can poke the fire with a stick of dynamite in perfect safety?...even if it isn't true of dynamite, it's true of women. But they know they are dynamite, and long for the concussion that may justify them. Some may get religion, then they're all right, I expect. But for the others, for so many, what can there be but witchcraft? That strikes them real, even if other people still find them quite safe and usual, and go on poking with them, they know in their hearts how dangerous, how incalculable, how extraordinary they are. Even if they never do anything with their witchcraft, they know it's there - ready!" 

 

Sylvia Townsend Warner 

Lolly Willowes
is recognized as an early feminist novel and, as such, it has stayed in print for 100 years now - no small achievement. It doesn't particularly work for me, I think, because of its satirical take on the state of women in the early twentieth century. I often struggle with satire as a genre, and it's happened again with Lolly Willowes. I can't emphasize enough, however, that my reaction to the novel should discourage no one from giving it a chance. Women, in particular, may love it. 

12 comments:

  1. I've never read this one, and I'm not sure I want to. But it is short, so maybe one day I'll give it a try.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly, I wish I'd spent my time reading something else. Not the best start to my attempt to read something from 1926.

      Delete
  2. That is a book I will skip reading. For my favorite novelist, he wrote 1850s to 1890s, have you read Anthony Trollope? I suggest starting with The Warden and then next Barchester Towers. The first two of 6 in a set.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read a couple of Trollope's novels, but it's been a long time. May be time to revisit his work.

      Delete
  3. It's a while since I read this and I think at the time I quite liked it but thought it was a bit 'airy-fairy'. A lot of things sort of things hinted at but not quite said. I should read it again, as you say it isn't long and I think it might be worth the effort. I like the idea behind your project. I've read quite a few books written in the 1920s and although they seem like us - I was surprised at how many of their issues we still have - I also think their attitudes to a lot of things were vastly different to ours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this one was so short because Warner chose to "tell" us a whole lot about what had happened instead of "showing" us as part of her narrative. That's probably part of the reason this one didn't work better for me than it did. I'm looking forward to another 1926 novel to see how they compare. Wish me luck.

      Delete
  4. I am not sure I will like the supernatural elements of this book, but I already have a copy and I want to read some books published in 1926 also. So I will give it a try for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't wait to see what you think of it, Tracy. Also, I'm curious to see what others from 1926 are under consideration for you.

      Delete
  5. Gosh I didn't know about this novel ... so glad you reviewed it. Satire can be hard to write ... and if not done well then it goes right out the window. Still I'm curious about the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I'm too much of a literal person when it comes to fiction. Satire doesn't usually set well with me, and this one is no exception. Do let me know what you think of the author.

      Delete
  6. Hi Sam, my apologies I haven't posted more often. I think something is wrong with my receiving replies and posting at my new computer. I tried to read this book many years ago and I felt the premise started out well. Unmarried women after their parents died back then often struggled financially. But the book went off on a tangent with witchcraft. A better story would be Lolly telling her brother no im not moving in with you and being a maid and babysitter and try to see if she could build a new life of her own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kathy, my ability to respond to comments was shut down for about two weeks even though others could post here. The problem magically went away just this morning, so maybe Google finally thought the number of complaints warranted their attention. I completely agree with you on the plot line this one follows; definitely would have been better as you describe it.

      Delete

THE PROBLEM WITH COMMENTS SEEMED TO HIT A PEAK ON SEPTEMBER 4. THERE WERE MULTIPLE REPORTS FROM ALL OVER, AND GOOGLE FINALLY PAID ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM, SO FOR NOW, AT LEAST, IT'S PROBLEM SOLVED.