Dave’s Comments (group member since May 24, 2014)

Dave’s comments from the Reading Proust's In Search of Lost Time in 2014 group.

Jonathan wrote: "There's certainly a lot of info in this week's reading. I think I'll continue my method of re-reading the previous week's reading (or part of it) before continuing to the next week's - I usually fi..."

Jonathan wrote "I really feel that the novel has come alive with this volume; hopefully that continues with the next ones. :-) " I share your opinion Jonathan. S & G is my favorite volume. I would be less than honest though if I did not say that the next two volumes were the hardest to get through for me. The first third of the Captive I found tedious and about 2/3rds of The Fugitive was grueling. There are only two social scenes remaining - one in the Captive and one in Time Regained. In the Fugitive I was begging for a social scene but Proust was merciless - providing lengthy interior monolgues.

Renato wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Charlus's letter to Aimé is bizarre but I thought the best bit was Proust's introduction to it where he says it's 'an example of unilateral insanity in an intelligent man addressin..."

Jonathan wrote: "Also, while on this subject, apparently there were talks about Charlus and Jupien's relations?" I interpreted this section as the servants instinctively recognized other servants (something like "gaydar" that Proust addresses by some other name elsewhere). When Francois sees Charlus in the dining room she senses that the man with him is a servant, not his equal. She has heard of Charlus' reputation but did not realize he "dated" servant's. Then she remember seeing Charlus regularly with Jupien at the house in Paris and puts 2 and 2 together. Often with Proust I find myself having to "connect the dots" in how characters form opinions and jump to conclusions. In the Captive it becomes quite complex keeping track of who knows what about whom and separating the basis of such knowledge: speculation, rumor, hearsay, misinterpretation of sights and sounds etc.

With regard to the story of Charlus having dinner with the servant at the Grand Hotel (which leads to the letter) I found it interesting that this was narrated in the third person and the narrator had no direct knowledge of the facts - the only place in the book other than Swan in Love which third person narration is used.

Also found it interesting that Aime occasionally stayed with women and men at the Grand Hotel to suppliment his family's income.

Jonathan wrote: "Thanks re the Verdurin v Charlus episode. Charlus's response makes more sense now. But do you think Mme Verdurin was being deliberately confrontational or just didn't realise that she was saying so..."

I think Mme Verdurin is trying to control and dominate Charlus as she does the other members of her clan. Yes, strangely enough she did not know his relationship with the Duc. For his part Charlus is tolerating the Verdurin clan because it gives him a place to go with Morel where he is invisible to his aristocratic friends. The Mme. Verdurin/Charlus/Morel dynamic is a major subplot in the weeks ahead. I found it one of the best parts of the entire book.

In rereading Swan's Way I had forgotten that the Swan in Love section starts off with the Verdurin's and Proust develops their character's first and adds Cottard in developing the clan before he brings in Odette.

Renato wrote: "Yes, please don't spoil the book. I'd rather interpret it all wrong and be surprised in the end! I think it's part of the process any 'innocent' reader must go through to fully experience ISOLT.

W..."

The passages you cite Renato are quite intriguing. If we have the opportunity to come back to them you may see another interpretation. I held the same opinions all the way through the book. In fact, when you get to my comments in subsequent volumes you will see I get increasingly off track in my understanding of several aspects of the book. Your right, speculating about what's going on is part of the fun of reading.

Renato wrote: "Dave wrote: "Nope, see my response above."

I understand it's not a direct reference, but it's undeniably similar to the situations Proust was living in when writing his novel."

I'm trying to discreetly discourage you from this line of thought Renato without spoiling the book.

Renato wrote: "
“At least, in these awakenings which I have just described, and which I experienced as a rule when I had been dining overnight at la Raspelière, everything occurred as though by this process, an..."

Nope, see my response above.

Renato wrote: "How did you guys interpret the bolded part below?


“Of phantoms pursued, forgotten, sought afresh sometimes for a single meeting and in order to establish contact with an unreal life which at on..."

Throughout the book the narrator aspires to be a writer, I believe the thought of the trees and their longevity give him a "panic attack." Is it a reference to ISOLT? According to the outside reading I have done, no. I thought so too in places like this. But critical assessments repeatedly insist that Proust never interjects himself into the work and the book to be written is not ISOLT. Even when the "author" speaks to the reader directly, that is not Proust "speaking." To go beyond this would involve explaining the ending.

Renato wrote: "I found the quote below really interesting for the point he makes...


“Like an officer of my regiment who might have seemed to me a creature apart, too kindly and simple to be of a great family,..."

I searched the entire Modern Library electronic text of ISOLT for the phrase "my regiment". It only appears twice, as you cited in S&G and in TR in a quote from Saint Loup. I would be hesitant to say it is a typo because time gaps in the narrative are imprecise and time in Service is possible outside the narrated portion. Sometimes significant info is mentioned in passing only once. However, its not a spoiler to say there is no other significance to this "Service" in the book so I would see it is at most only a curiosity.

Jonathan wrote: "The first skirmish between Charlus & Mme Verdurin:"By the way, Charlus," said Mme Verdurin, who was beginning to grow familiar, "you don't know of any penniless old nobleman in your Faubourg who wo..."

I had forgotten about this scene and have been puzzling over it as well. I believe I have a solution. I did a word search in my ebook of S&G for "lodge" and found two previous uses. In each case it was used as "porter's lodge" which from its use is like a gatehouse. Mme Verdurin is asking for "ruined noblemen" to be porters and Charlus seems to be implying that elegant visitors would not stoop be admited to the Verdurin's by a nobleman with whom they no longer associated. It may be a slightly different veiled joke at Mme Verdurin's expense. But Mme Verdurin does not seem to "get it" which I think is what Proust wants the reader to understand.

Renato wrote: "I was reading all about the titles and trying to understand how they ranked against the others and taking it too seriously"

That Proust, he's a sly one! I think that's exactly what he wants the reader to do, start out thinking the titles are important and two thousand pages later realize they are irrelevant!

I didn't intend to come across as arguementative Renato, sorry. I knew what your post was getting at. I see titles in Proust as "historical detail" but the "king of the hill" mentality portrayed remains the same. At least that's the way I relate to this aspect of the book.

Renato wrote: "all of those classes and groups, and aristrocracy and all the titles etc. since we're not used to that here in Brazil. " Have to go for your word on this Renato, but as a lifelong amateur historian, anthropologist and sociologist, I can think of no country, group or tribe that has not been organized with those at the top, in the middle, and most on the bottom. Revolutions, violent or not, make a show of change but only stir the pot. Of course people at the top don't have "titles" per se, but their are distinctions. In the U. S. your postal code, your tax bracket, the color of your credit card etc are the modern equivalent of titles. I'm not a frustrated old revolutionary, just an old detached observer of the local scene.

As for the "working classes", Francoise, Jupien, Morel, Aime, maids, cooks chauffeurs, etc, Proust depicts them favorably in general. They do their jobs well, are loyal, etc. What is less clear is whether Proust was making a social commentary by making these characters so often be available to be screwed literally and figuratively by the upper classes.

Jonathan wrote: "There must also have been a distinction between the 'old' aristocracy and those that were 'honoured' under Napoleon".

Yes it was apparently quite complicate in France in the period Proust was writing. Somewhere there is a discussion (I believe involving Charlus) which lays out distinctions between those whose title were from the ancien regime (Louis XVIII and before), those from Napoleon I, thoses from Charles X, those from Napoleon III, and those who got thier titles from marrying foreign aristocrats. Naturally Charlus (speaking on behalf of all Guermantes) noted their nobility dated from the oldest titles in France (and elsewhere) and that all the others were poseurs.

But while all that seems complicated, Proust has simplified it for readers as the distinction between Swann's Way and the Guermantes Way. Each way a class distinction among other differences.

I believe you are right that Swann had inheirited wealth, although he trained to be an art appraiser. But how M. Verdurin obtains wealth is one of those little casual details that Proust throws out (in this case in the last volume I believe) which is quite significant to the social layer of the book.

One other note Jonathan. You mentioned "leisured" classes Jonathan, keep in mind that one of the "layers" in the book is the transition of "power" in society from hereditary aristocracy to a capitalist upper-class. The Verdurins and the the Swann's may ape the aristocracy in manners, but they are not aristocrats. It is useful to track the social events across the volumes - who hosts them? who are the "routine" guests? who are the "exceptional" guests? Watch the trend.

Jonathan wrote: "they have little else to do but f**k and go to dinner parties."

He, he, he, I love it when folks call 'em as they see 'em - refreshingly brisk observation Jonathan. I agree with your point about the abuse the Verdurin's guests unflinchingly endure. However, I'm at a loss as to what poor Saniette might do with his time though - I know I would not be brave enough to try to set him up with a girlfriend ;)

Jonathan wrote: "...M. de Charlus led me into a corner to have a word with me, not without feeling my muscles, which is a German habit.er...what? Are there any Germans here to verify this? I wonder though, does he ..."

Hmmm, I seem to have missed this detail. Charlus' behavior (whether Germanic or not) seems predictable. That our sickly narrator would have muscles seems improbable. lol

Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "Yes Jonathan, that's him. I bought his complete memoirs for a few dollars on Amazon in the ebook version. "

I recently read The Sun King by Nancy Mitford which was a g..."

I've got that on my list, Nancy Mitford's books are great.

Jonathan wrote: "And marriage to Albertine was brought up as well. Will they or won't they? His mother doesn't exactly sound enthusiastic about it."

Did you read to the end of S&G?

Jonathan wrote: "I keep trying to imagine exactly what Charlus looked and sounded like when he says those words, especially as the narrator says that from those words one can conclude that 'he likes the stronger sex". " I'd say he looks and sounds "obvious" which I interpret to mean he is contemptuous of what the Verdurin's and their little clan think of him. This is going to lead to trouble.