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.

And BINGO, you get first prize Renato, that is exactly what is important - his age!

Jonathan wrote: "I'm quite interested in the 'nuts & bolts' of how he wrote ISOLT and how it evolved over the period that he was writing it. That's why I'm looking forward to reading the Carter bio next year. I'm n..."

I had not seen those books but I doubt I will read them. I'm very much into interpretation of the text as published and have almost no interest in the "nuts and bolts" as you say. Having said that, I'll say I have cheated a bit and looked at Carter's bio specifically to see if info on nuts and bolts would help my understanding. I gave up in frustration. Books that convey such info need to learn the value of tables and graphs. Page after narrative page of this type of prepublication material was sent to or from the publisher on this date tells me nothing. The volume numbers don't correspond to any of my publications, no indication of specific textual material being edited. Its like the adage you don't want to watch sausage being made. But lots of folks find that fascinating.

Renato wrote: " I wondered that if it was the narrator on his dying bed reminiscing on how his life was (or could have been...)"

Your answer is what to me seems like the "circumstance of narration" Renato. What I'm trying to suggest is a calendar year or group of years the text indicates the Narrator is telling the story from. This can never be more than an approximation and you can change your mind as you come across new information. "I don't know right now but I'm looking for clues" is a fine answer too. I would say the best results are those you decide on your own based on what you read. To me it is an important "stake in the ground" from which each reader must anchor their understanding of the story. We can discuss why it is important after we finish.

I've finished my second review where I discuss my rereading experiences. I'll post it after we finish the book. That may help and I'll answer question. But this White Rabbit stuff is not intuitive and each explanation I read merely reflects the reader's experience reading the story.

As we all know now, Proust is a very uncompromising writer. He was a genius, the rest of us are condemned to play catch up ball trying to figure out his book. He has the highest expectations for his readers. Sentences too long? Suck it up and soldier on! Thirty pages about a man tossing and turning seems excessive? Suck it up and soldier on? Book waaay too long? Suck it up and soldier on. As far as I know he never spoke or wrote anything about what we are calling the White Rabbit. He expects us to figure it out on our own. He's comfortably resting in his cool Pere Lachaise Tomb. The rest of us just have to soldier on.

Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "Oh, and I see the sanatorium as a useful narrative device to get out of covering the war years in too much detail."

I agree. It does feel like he's trying to skip over the war period;..."

My guess would be the characters are not yet old enough. A major theme is change over time and he "planned" for a certain number of years to make his point. I've never seen this discussed though.

Jonathan wrote: "And it looks like the last section takes place after the war anyway - presumably that will be the ending that he originally wrote before the war." As far as I know, the ending is as he originally wrote it, perhaps with the addition or subtraction of a character or two, nobody important that I remember. References to time become relative and I cannot remember any historical clues like we have seen in the past.

Oh, and I see the sanatorium as a useful narrative device to get out of covering the war years in too much detail.

Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "My Brothel comment is message 4. The previous three messages do not contain spoilers but message five does contain spoilers. "

Interesting comments Dave. I'm still not sure if it was ..."

I think he struck a good balance between acknowledging and using the war for his story without letting the war take over the story. I read somewhere that some said he "gave into Nationalism" about the war. I don't see that at all. Some of the funniest scenes are in the war and he is extremely sarcastic about so many aspects of society in the war. If he had published after the war such an obiously contemporary story without referencing the war talking about homosexuality would have been then least of his problems.

Renato wrote: "Dave wrote: "A very helpful question I eventually came to start trying to answer is: from what point in time (approximately) is the Narrator telling the story?"

I've asked myself that from time to..."

Proust does not answer the question Renato. We are in White Rabbit country now. This is one aspect that separates ISOLT from a summer beach read. What I have started calling "the point of narration" is an opinion each reader must decide and make use of when rereading. It is not that hard, especially when you read to the end. Throughout the book Proust gives implicit and explicit clues about the answer and there are a number of these clues before the end of the book.

Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "As you will see when you get to my original comments in the last week, I had a unique interpretation of the brothel section. But although I eventually realized I was way out in left fi..."

My Brothel comment is message 4. The previous three messages do not contain spoilers but message five does contain spoilers.

Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I notice on the Wikipedia page that Proust died on 18th November 1922."

Not sure what you had in mind mentioning the date of Proust's death Jonathan, but I know that ..."

I live in my own shell, I didn't know today's date!

What I meant was I kept trying to fit the events in the book to the years of Proust's life. Of course that does not work.

You are right, he had a plan. The end was written at the beginning. Albertine and WWI were added.

As for whether he would have kept on adding, my guess is the publication of each volume narrowed the scope of what he could change.

Jonathan wrote: "Renato wrote: "I have to say I found Charlus's tastes very funny, wanting them to be mean, evil men that would murder people for no reason so he'd feel more pleasure in being spanked.. LOL omg at t..."

As you will see when you get to my original comments in the last week, I had a unique interpretation of the brothel section. But although I eventually realized I was way out in left field, I left it since it still makes sense to me.

Jonathan wrote: "For me, the funniest part of this week's reading was when Marcel bumps into a priest in the brothel and says: 'It was that very rare thing, almost unheard of in France, a rotten priest.' - I'm assu..."

Now Jonathan, lets be charitable, the priest was there to hear confession from the sinners. And even Proust would be astonished to hear that 100 years later the priest might be there to marry the solders!

Jonathan wrote: "I notice on the Wikipedia page that Proust died on 18th November 1922."

Not sure what you had in mind mentioning the date of Proust's death Jonathan, but I know that I was focused on his death for the longest time thinking that his death somehow defines the length of the story.

A very helpful question I eventually came to start trying to answer is: from what point in time (approximately) is the Narrator telling the story?

Hmmm, go off to a doctor's appointment and miss out on some good discussion. Damned that Dr Cottard! He is too slow and too old! And I'm still picking leeches out of my hair!

I would also add Renato that near the end of the book a significant new character is introduced. Shortly after that the Narrator shifts to interior monologue for the remainder of the book. I rushed through that monologue in my haste to finish. I now realize that by doing so I sold Proust and myself short. That final monologue is very insightful. It may not be all that clear on the first read, but if you reread (even if only partially) and consider some of the references it becomes very helpful in understanding the book. At least that is my experience.

The whole last section (going to and attending the Princesses Reception) is the "ending" Renato. I read somewhere it was the last 200 pages.

Thanks Marcelita, you never fail to be so helpful!

I believe you already suspect this Renato, but Proust does not give answers on the last page (or in the last section). He only hands out blank paper and invites the reader to pose questions and answer them as best they can.

Renato wrote: "
"In this book in which there is not a single event which is not fictitious, in which there is not a single personage "a clef", where I have invented everything to suit the requirements of my pre..."

I'm still uncertain what this passage means. On the one hand it seems like one of many times that the author insists his characters are fiction. I don't understand who the real life exception is, and I don't understand why an "homage to my country" compels disclosure. Perhaps Penguin notes, Marcelita, or Carter's bio can help us.

Renato wrote: "I believe this section is among the ones I read faster! So much going on, it was fun and enticing.

Once again, our narrator was quite the voyeur! Not only he likes x-raying people while talking to..."

Yes, this part is really fun. I commented extensively on this week's reading in my initial comments filed in the last week folder.

I would encourage everyone to pay close attention to the letter quoted that the Narrator receives from Charlus. And pay particular attention to the paragraph before that letter which describes the circumstance and timeframe in which the letter is written.