Anna wrote: "I wish we could leave Freud in the dust!! But yes, as a student in a lit crit class in 2002, I learned Freudian theory as a thing of the past. Useful to consider, but no longer in real practice. No..."

May he rest in peace!

I wish we could leave Freud in the dust!! But yes, as a student in a lit crit class in 2002, I learned Freudian theory as a thing of the past. Useful to consider, but no longer in real practice. Now, I see very little Freud in conferences and journals. Current theoretical approaches are much more likely to consider context, culture, gender etc than psychology as a valid basis for analysis.

Anna wrote: You've summed up a great deal of the criticism out there on Byatt's work in this post. I would only add that it's important not to get too hung up the idea that Byatt is addressing 'contemporary' concerns in literary criticism and academia. This novel was published 19 yrs ago and much of what she is discussing has fallen out fashion. Freudian literary analysis was popular in the when she was writing Possession, but, like any field, lit crit has moved ahead and left Freud (thankfully) in the dust.

Could so much have changed in eighteen years? If so, I would want to steer clear of literary criticism, knowing that its certainties will be relics a few years on. I'm wondering if perhaps the labels have changed more than the ideas. I'm just speculating; I spend much more of my time with literature than with the critics. If only we could really leave Freud in the dust!

Anna wrote: "I almost feel as though Possession is two historical novels. One set in the 19th century and one set in the 1980s"

I agree -- I can't really imagine research on that level without a computer, the internet, or email. Very different world!

Christopher wrote: "I just returned from my two-week photography sojourn and I've finally made time to sit down and run through this thread and see where some of you are with Possession in your reading and discussions..."

Thank you Chris, for this great post; it helps to put things into perspective the way you did. I had set the book down for 24 days and was not happy about it at all, but a friend told me the plot picked up so I returned. I'm now almost done, and I think you are completely right -- this book may be my new Heart of Darkness, which was overwhelming the first time but became more and more of a delight as I reread it and studied it. I haven't yet read the posts in the other discussions yet (post ch 13), but look forward to it and whatever you've written there.

I'm slowly finding the poetry more enjoyable and have only skipped one. This is saying a lot b/c I've never been much of a poetry fan. The stories and myths, though, I find to be just riveting! The interesting thing for me is finding that sometimes the poem IS a story, and not what I usually think of as poetry. This connection helps.

Boof wrote: "Paula wrote: "Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention."

I don't think..."

I feel the same Boof. I am not discouraged by it but not ready for it yet either. I am always encouraged when I read the great posts here. So I definatley will be picking it up at a later time.

Christopher wrote: "I just returned from my two-week photography sojourn and I've finally made time to sit down and run through this thread and see where some of you are with Possession in your reading and discussions..."

Excellent. You've summed up a great deal of the criticism out there on Byatt's work in this post. I would only add that it's important not to get too hung up the idea that Byatt is addressing 'contemporary' concerns in literary criticism and academia. This novel was published 19 yrs ago and much of what she is discussing has fallen out fashion. Freudian literary analysis was popular in the when she was writing Possession, but, like any field, lit crit has moved ahead and left Freud (thankfully) in the dust. Even the kind of feminism she is discussing in the work of Lenora Stern has greatly changed. I almost feel as though Possession is two historical novels. One set in the 19th century and one set in the 1980s.

I'm glad you're back Chris, I've missed seeing you around.

With regards to the book, I can totally see what you're saying and I do fully intend to pick it up again soon. It wasn't that I wasn't enjoying it, I just "wasn't in the mood" if that makes sense. I think I will pick it up again when I don't feel rushed and can take my time to really read it at leisure.

Thanks for your great insights as always.

Christopher wrote: "I just returned from my two-week photography sojourn and I've finally made time to sit down and run through this thread and see where some of you are with Possession in your reading and discussions..."

Great photography, Chris! You've captured the personality of the book beautifully.

I just returned from my two-week photography sojourn and I've finally made time to sit down and run through this thread and see where some of you are with Possession in your reading and discussions. It looks like it kind of runs the gamut. Some of you are enjoying the plot, but not the poetry. Others are liking the poetry, but the plot isn't catchin' afire. While others find it copesetic on all fronts.

I'll tell you that it took me three or four times before the proverbial 'light bulb' went on for me. So, most of you have done much, much better than I did. Also, I hope most of you realize that Byatt is toying with her readers fairly significantly with this novel of hers.

Byatt, is endeavoring to make us work harder than most of us work when we pick up a novel to read. She wants us to go back and look at the Victorian Era poets; and she wants us to appreciate 'em. She wants us to go out and study and read their poetry. She wants us to think about gender inequities and issues in the Victorian period, and then relate that understanding to our current times.

She wants us to understand the relationship between the old Norse (Icelandic) Poetic Edda and later literary traditions. Byatt wants us to be curious about the "Ragnarok," the doom of the Gods, and how it influenced the poets of the Romantic and Victorian periods, writers of Gothic novels, and ultimately proved to be a huge influence on Wagner's Ring Cycle, and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Byatt wants us to become familiar with the Breton myth of the Melusine; and again make that connection between relationships between men and women in the Middle Ages, Victorian and modern times.

Finally, Byatt, as most of you know is a literary critic. She is, throughout the novel, giving us her opinions of current academic research methods, literary interpretation, literary criticism, feminism, and so forth. She has pretty much 'thrown the kitchen sink' at us in this novel. Personally, I think it is pretty damned clever what she has fashioned here; but it took me a number of years before I was able to figure that out.

So, in conclusion, I applaud all of you for hanging tough with this novel. Please keep in mind that reading Possession is kind of like excavating a delicate archaeological ruin. With each sweep of the brush you expose something new; and you may not understand precisely what it means at that moment. Over time, though, with a little pondering and some additional study you'll be left with a much better understanding of this grand saga that she has written. Follow up on the threads that she has exposed, and then come back and revisit the novel in a couple of years. I think Possession is a book that will be read and studied a century, and even two centuries, from now. It is that important. Well, I've rambled enough (probably too much!). Cheers! Chris

Paula wrote: "Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention."

I don't think you're the only one, Paula. I have temporarily put mine to one side for when I am feeling more in the mood and I know some others have done the same. I am hoping that soon I will want to pick it up again and go with the flow.

I actually like the poetry. It's the plot that loses my attention so far.

Paula wrote: "Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention."

I agree! You can read the novel for it's plot without reading the poetry etc. too closely. Overall, it's just a mystery/ love story.

Paula wrote: "Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention."

Paula, this book IS a challenging read! But I also find it very rewarding. Don't worry too much about all the poetry, symbolism etc., just read it for the compelling plot/mystery first. You can always come back for those later. Good luck! : )

Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention.

Elizabeth wrote: "You have seen the hiding Christabel from Ash, Sandy. The concealment is the obstacles she places between them: hiding the letters, jealousy, even the looks that she gave Ash when they were all at b..."

OK. I thought that you were referring to future plot points. I guess I'm just not paying that much attention to her, being too much absorbed by the parrarel Ash/Christabel and Maud/Roland romances, and reading too fast because I want to know what will happen to them.

As I've said before, the story is very rich with multiple layers and will probably take several readings to completely decipher. As this is my first reading, I'll just concentrate on the plot first. Any information on the symbolism or allusion will be very welcome.

You have seen the hiding Christabel from Ash, Sandy. The concealment is the obstacles she places between them: hiding the letters, jealousy, even the looks that she gave Ash when they were all at breakfast together.

Elizabeth wrote: "Sandy, I can't remember how far into the book chapter 13 is, so I don't want to comment *too* much. Still, I think Blanche does a couple of things. She represents a domestic sphere for Christabel, ..."

Hmm... so the glove/Glover has domestic associations, and also a symbol of concealment. I haven't got to the part where she hid Christabel from Ash yet, so I haven't come across that side of her yet.

I'm now at Chap. 20 where Christabel hides out in her relative's Brittany home. The Breton folk tale about the dancing little one is eerie and foreboding --- I wonder what happened to the baby. I have a feeling that Maud is connected to it, perhaps a direct descendant?

Sandy, I can't remember how far into the book chapter 13 is, so I don't want to comment *too* much. Still, I think Blanche does a couple of things. She represents a domestic sphere for Christabel, just like Ellen does for Ash, so you get the domestic imagery of the gloves there. I think Blanche is also one of the most devious characters in the novel. She hides the Christabel from Ash. She hides the letters from Christabel. Her journal is full of misdirection, even when she is writing about the events as they happen. It's interesting. I

Elizabeth wrote: "Yes! The gloves are important. :-) Gloves are like masks, they hide things. People can behave differently when something is hidden or when something is visible. And then gloves are a very womanly/d..."

Thanks for the explanation, Elizabeth. But what is the connection between that image and the name Glover? Since the names all mean something in this novel, I assume that Blanche's surname must have hidden meaning too.

Yes! The gloves are important. :-) Gloves are like masks, they hide things. People can behave differently when something is hidden or when something is visible. And then gloves are a very womanly/domestic article. Think of what the glove has represented to women, particularly in the Victorian era. They had those beautiful, elaborate ones for the middle/upper classes. And they were white! At a time when train travel spat coal dust at everyone, women were wearing white gloves. It's a status symbol, among other things.

"I too was curious about the significance of Norse mythology within the book and it interested me. Perhaps Ragnork could be a reference to the idea of the reinvention of the world, as the Victorian period was a time when things did begin to change drastically and the world was reshaped around them. Looking back into the past was a way of struggling with the old mysticism and the progress in science which was starting to immerge. They were trying to understand their world."

It's a creation myth, which I guess Ash used as a vehicle to express his (and the Victorians') unease about the contrary claims of religion and Darwinism about creation. But what is the significance of the Melusina myth? Perhaps it will become clearer as the story progresses.

I'm thinking about the images of gloves in LaMotte's poem and in that scene between her and Ash in the train before they decided to be lovers. Does the fact that Blanche's last name is Glover has any significance in relation to those images?

I find the writing to be very rich and multi-layered. I'm sure that I'm missing a whole bunch of things, but I can't put it down. The mystery is propelling the story along just nicely.

Nice to have you join in the discussion.

I agree that Byatt does make a distinction between Roland and Maud compared to the Blackadder's and Cropper's within the book. Roland first takes the letters not to seek gains in his career or for money, but some deeper impulse driven by his love for Ash. And then enlists Maud as his unexpected ally in the adventure of uncovering the mystery.

I too was curious about the significance of Norse mythology within the book and it interested me. Perhaps Ragnork could be a reference to the idea of the reinvention of the world, as the Victorian period was a time when things did begin to change drastically and the world was reshaped around them. Looking back into the past was a way of struggling with the old mysticism and the progress in science which was starting to immerge. They were trying to understand their world.

Silver wrote: "But in her satirical approach to these modern scholars, and in the very fact that she based her story around fictional poets, opposed to actually using the example of real life figures I think refl..."

Hi Silver, thanks for responding! I received my book late from Amazon and was not able to join the discussion when everyone else were reading theirs.

Cropper, with his obsessive and self-serving interest in Ash and anything remotely connected with the poet is surely a repellent figure, but Roland and Maud (at least up till now) are not. They seem to act as benevolent guardians of the letters and the poets' legacies. It seems that Byatt is making a moral distinction between those who delve into literary figures' private lives for mercenary (financial or otherwise) motives, and those who do so because of sincere personal convictions. I have only read up to Chap. 14, so I might be wrong on this. Maud and Roland's motives might later turn out to be not as pure as I thought.

Maud's physical characteristics seem to echo both Christabel's and the fairly Melusina's --- I wonder if she is somehow directly related to Christabel (not just through the Baileys).

What is the significance of the Norse and Breton mythologies explored by Ash and Lamotte in their poems? Why specifically those myths instead of others?

Peregrine wrote: "So much is opening to me in the reading both of Possession and of Middlemarch. The crisis of Christian faith I had only the vaguest idea of, from reading The Way of All Flesh. I did not know that t..."

The tension between faith and science in Ash is fascinating. On the same year that he was traveling and collecting specimens with Christabel, Darwin published his Origin of Species. Christabel seems more like a traditionalist than Ash in this matter, though. I wonder whether she'll change her views later, especially after being exposed to Ash's opinions.

But in her satirical approach to these modern scholars, and in the very fact that she based her story around fictional poets, opposed to actually using the example of real life figures I think reflects that Byatt did not all together approve of this digging into the private past lives. She likens Crooper to a vulture.

Silver wrote: "The reflections of Roland in the reading of the letters at Seal Court in which he states:

The truth was, Roland though uneasily, these letters, these busy passionate letters, had never been writ..."

Having just finished a volume of Jane Austen's letters (while being aware that the bulk of them had been destroyed by her sister for privacy reason), I can relate to that question. But in the case of the Ash/Lamotte letters --- they were NOT destroyed by any of the writers or their families, and even deliberately preserved by Christabel, most likely with the intention of having them read by posterity later.

So yeah, I do feel like a voyeur, but a somewhat legitimate one (if that makes any sense at all). Byatt is a sly one isn't she?

The story of the "The Threshold" brought to my mind The Merchant of Venice in which Portia offered her suitors the choice of three different boxes, the descriptions of which were quite similar to those given of the maidens in "The Threshold" As well I wonder if the "Childe" of the story could in fact be Roland, while the rather dull, dour, maid with veiled hair who offers neither brightness nor some deeper inner understanding could be Maud.

I have not yet read A Maggot but for me, I find The Magus to be one of the most brillaint and fascinating books I have ever read. I fell in love with that book.

Darcy wrote: "Chris, what did you think of The French Lieutenant's Woman? Seems like it would be perfect for you ;) Might be another good one for a neo-Victorian read. "

Darcy and Silver, Oh yeah, I'd love to read that again sometime soon. I like John Fowles' writing. The French Lieutenant's Woman and A Maggot were my two favorites of the four or five of his books that I've read.

The French Lieutenant's Woman would make a very good neo-Victorian read. It is an intersting persepctive in the way Fowles examines Victorian soceity.

Chris, what did you think of The French Lieutenant's Woman? Seems like it would be perfect for you ;) Might be another good one for a neo-Victorian read.

So much is opening to me in the reading both of Possession and of Middlemarch. The crisis of Christian faith I had only the vaguest idea of, from reading The Way of All Flesh. I did not know that the study of physiology was so recent as the 19th century. I knew nothing of the geological discoveries, not that I know a whole lot now, but a path has opened. I am loving this stuff! I hope we decide to read some history or some Victorian autobiography together. I read Edmund Gosse's autobiography years ago and wouldn't mind it again, as just one example.

Peregrine wrote: "I'm increasingly becoming interested in reading some of the works of the Victorian, and Norwegian, playwright, Henrik Ibsen. Does anybody recognise any influence of his work in Possession?"

Ibsen's play A Doll's House would fit in here. It deals with feminist desires. And Peer Gint is based on a fairy tale.

I have only read a couple of things by Isben, though nothing so far as really jumped out at me as reminding me of his works, but I will have to keep it in mind in future reading.

I'm increasingly becoming interested in reading some of the works of the Victorian, and Norwegian, playwright, Henrik Ibsen. Does anybody recognise any influence of his work in Possession?

Those are some interesting thoughts and ideas. It is true that it would be an interesting and difficult time being stuck between the idea of God, and new Science and Reason. There were a lot of revolutionary ideas which came out of that period of time. I can understand the Victorians wanting to touch back to the age of the romantics, and look upon the past with an eye of romanticism.

Similar I think to the Renascence wanting to revive Greek culture.

It intrigues me, this age-old conundrum between Science-Nature-God. I am a geologist, by education and practice, and I think it is because of my scientific background that I appreciate so much the writing of most of the Victorian Era poets and authors. Once Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin published their great works it really was a 'punch to the gut.' Everybody had to rethink the way they thought and what they believed.

A bit off topic, but it always amazed me that Wordsworth and Keats really picked up on that philosophical and theological tension between 'Nature' and 'God' long before Lyell's Principles of Geology (1830) was published, or Darwin's Origin of Species (1859). These were monumentally huge works, and most certainly would have had some influence on probably most of the Victorian Era poets and authors. We can see these influences in their books and the poetry that they wrote. There's something pretty cool about the melding, the blending of mythology, theology, and science in the construction of some of Tennyson's or Robert Browning's poetry; isn't there?

Silver Wood, you have made a very good point here; and thanks for bringing it to the group! Cheers! Chris

Silver wrote: "I wonder at the meaning of the significance of Norse myth within this story. Ash's poem Ragnarok is mentioned several times within the story, and I also recall, though I cannot now bring to mind ju..."

I'm thinking that the Twilight of the Gods would have great resonance for people at a time when the existence of God was being challenged by biological and geological discoveries.

I wonder at the meaning of the significance of Norse myth within this story. Ash's poem Ragnarok is mentioned several times within the story, and I also recall, though I cannot now bring to mind just who it was, but there was some professor or scholar who was mentioned to have studied the Norse Eddas.

Susanna wrote: "Roland - appropriate for a man on a quest, no?"

Yes indeed!

Roland - appropriate for a man on a quest, no?

Christopher referred to "the quasi-malevolent Cropper"

Ever since I first saw his name I've been wondering if he's going to "come a cropper"!

Peregrine wrote: "Christopher wrote: . . . Wolfe is a womanizer; Crabb is grumpy . . . (post 20)

Maud Bailey is self-enclosed and off-putting. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines bailey as 1 the outer wall of a ..."

I agree, I think I had the quasi-malevolent Cropper in mind when I said 'Crabb.' It was my bad!

Silver wrote: Is there something much more deeply personal rooted in the subconscious that lends to the intensity and the need to read these letters of the dead and to uncover their secrets?

It's almost as if the writers are alive! Will I be alive so, after my death? Is it my interest that resurrects them? Will someone have such interest in me after I am dead? Will the discovery of some long-forgotten secret of mine resurrect me? Will the force that once lived join with mine, now living, and make me more?

Haha yes that is an interesting point, the reader does get invited into this world of Voyeurism as well, and gets drawn into it eagerly. Even knowing that the letters are Byatt's own creations, and that there was no Ash or LaMotte one finds oneself eagerly devouring the snippets of the letters and diaries which are presented.

It is a funny contradiction though to consider, how one would be appalled at the idea of reading the diary or personal letters of someone still alive, but once they are dead (particularly if they became a public figure in anyway) doing so because justified and in fact seen as an important part of academic study.

I do think Byatt is aware of this irony and displays it within her characterizations of the characters in the book and traces their own voyeuristic endeavors, as well as drawing the reader into them.

Laurele, I was just thinking about that exact problem with biographies. It's weird to read Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Bronte, for example, since the footnotes point out all the places where Gaskell straight up lies to the reader in order to protect Charlotte's legacy.

It's funny--I think you and Silver are right that Byatt seems to think the academic curiosity about an artist's life is a little too voyeuristic. But that's weird, too, because a reader is basically a voyeur. And we're even worse, since we're utterly enthralled by the very investigations Byatt criticizes.

I accidentally mentioned something that happens in Ch. 15 (albeit without too many details)--so so sorry! I've moved the comment to the other thread.

That is a rather interesting insight. Though I wonder than what is the meaning behind the twin brother, and the image of the tailor/Roland seen sitting alone knitting at home, while the princess/Maud goes on wild adventures hunting with her twin.

Picking up on The Glass Coffin, I think the golden-haired princess encased in glass is Maud Bailey, who also has yellow hair, the always-laughing "black artist" is Fergus Wolff, and the tailor is Roland Michell. A tailor is definitely lower class than a princess, and Roland reacts to class differences a few times in the first half of the book anyway. Roland is seen as nondescript by Blackadder ("a copy of Blackadder's standard reference for him . . . praised his diligence and thoroughness and caution, making him sound thoroughly dull. pp. 211-12) and by Wolff ("I can't believe you've got involved with sweet useless Roland . . . p. 235). He's definitely not seen as academic nobility. And yet he does have skill at his craft; he's the one who found the bit that started the paper chase, and he does seem to have quite the ability at followup.

I'm on a roll now! <g> LaMotte, from the French, means "lump, a shapeless mass."