The Year of Reading Proust discussion
This topic is about
Swann’s Way
Swann's Way, vol. 1
>
Through Sunday, 10 Feb.: Swann's Way
The pink lady was described as a "young woman" and a courtesan. She would have been at least a decade younger than Odette, at the time of the Narrator's youth. In those days, "young woman" would not have been Odette's age, especially from the point of view of the youthful Narrator. Odette is married to Swann with a child, so it would look bad if she's also a courtesan. I also doubt that Swann would allow her to continue to be a courtesan and entertaining uncle Adolphe. People do talk, and Swann will only put up with so much smear to his family reputation. There's also another reason why there is a time discrepancy if Odette is the pink lady, but that's for further on in the novel. To be continued...
Aloha wrote: "The pink lady was described as a "young woman" and a courtesan. She would have been at least a decade younger than Odette, at the time of the Narrator's youth. In those days, "young woman" would ..."I have not read the complete work, so for me it is just a guess that the woman in pink is Odette,--partly because Proust does not seem to include things for no reason, even if, as we have already established, he is quite free with concerns about consistency in plot and chronology etc...
Anyway, I found this, which could be considered as a spoiler...
I am not tagging it, because it is a link, but just be aware...
http://proustreader.wordpress.com/200...
Two primary reactions to this week's reading.
One is just: Ew. What a horrible, completely toxic relationship. When Swann tells Odette "Now, if this is what you are, how could anyone love you, for you're not even a person" - which he repeats! not even a person - I wanted to climb inside the pages and strangle him. And, likewise, when Odette responds to Swann's offer of a trip to Beyrouth by asking him for money to treat the Verdurins to the very same trip, without him? Just the same.
But on another level: if I step away from the main thrust of the story, the level of psychological insight is stunning. Swann's self-deception, lying to himself about his ability to stay away, about whether she loves him back. How he tries to believe the best about Odette but the truth penetrates, and causes him such pain.
And Swann still doesn't see Odette at all. It's all inside him; like the magic lantern, all of his thoughts and feelings projected onto an increasingly unwilling body.
One is just: Ew. What a horrible, completely toxic relationship. When Swann tells Odette "Now, if this is what you are, how could anyone love you, for you're not even a person" - which he repeats! not even a person - I wanted to climb inside the pages and strangle him. And, likewise, when Odette responds to Swann's offer of a trip to Beyrouth by asking him for money to treat the Verdurins to the very same trip, without him? Just the same.
But on another level: if I step away from the main thrust of the story, the level of psychological insight is stunning. Swann's self-deception, lying to himself about his ability to stay away, about whether she loves him back. How he tries to believe the best about Odette but the truth penetrates, and causes him such pain.
And Swann still doesn't see Odette at all. It's all inside him; like the magic lantern, all of his thoughts and feelings projected onto an increasingly unwilling body.
Madame X wrote: "Two primary reactions to this week's reading.One is just: Ew. What a horrible, completely toxic relationship. When Swann tells Odette "Now, if this is what you are, how could anyone love you, for..."
This rare reproach by Swann, and that he made it in the first place is the most shocking thing about it, needs to be read in the context of her refusing to give up an outing to what Swann considers to be a very poor piece of theatre, one which people only attend because it is all the rage at that particular moment. He goes on to ask if she is one of those people who are swayed by every whim of fashion like a fish without memory. So his anguished question "how could anyone love you, for you're not even a person" is a reproach not only to her but to himself. I read it as him asking himself how he can possibly love a person with as little critical judgement as a fish. Also, Odette, according to the narrator, doesn't understand the real meaning of this scolding, so the episode didn't shock me as much as her demanding that he fund her trip to Bayreuth with the Verdurins.
Fionnuala wrote: "Just finished this week's piece and came across the line about the 'tête de cocu', Kalliope. Why do I think that cocu is far more devastating than cocotte but so it seems to me. And again we have t..."Thinking more about this. Yes, I agree with you that the tête de cocu is more devastating than the word cocotte... I think I was shocked with the latter because it was mentioned when supposedly we were seeing the woman in pink through the eyes of a socially protected child...
I'm sorry, but the context only makes it worse.
First of all, I didn't have the impression that his outburst was rare but, rather, part of a repeating cycle. During the Beyrouth episode, for example, he mentions that he sends an angry letter to her (p. 314: "he would ask himself how he could have written her that outrageous letter of which no doubt until now she had not thought him capable") before he repents and sends her money. So he's now in the habit of giving her tongue lashings & we know what sorts of things he thinks.
It's abuse, and Odette is lucky not to care for him.
And according to the narrator, Odette understands perfectly. She understands that Swann's still on the hook. That's all she needs to know.
First of all, I didn't have the impression that his outburst was rare but, rather, part of a repeating cycle. During the Beyrouth episode, for example, he mentions that he sends an angry letter to her (p. 314: "he would ask himself how he could have written her that outrageous letter of which no doubt until now she had not thought him capable") before he repents and sends her money. So he's now in the habit of giving her tongue lashings & we know what sorts of things he thinks.
It's abuse, and Odette is lucky not to care for him.
And according to the narrator, Odette understands perfectly. She understands that Swann's still on the hook. That's all she needs to know.
I agree with both Madame X (excellent summary in your comment #166) and with Fionnuala.For me the main thing in the context, and therefore the main difference in the way Swann and Odette treat each other (superficially and fundamentally), is that the former is dramatically in love with her, while what Odette wants is his money. She will therefore attach herself to him to very minimum as long as she still has hold of what she really wants. His words do not hurt her.
Fionnuala wrote: "Madame X wrote: "Two primary reactions to this week's reading.One is just: Ew. What a horrible, completely toxic relationship. When Swann tells Odette "Now, if this is what you are, how could anyo..."
"...very poor piece of theatre, one which people only attend because it is all the rage at that particular moment."
Proust loved the going to the music-halls, which were "all the rage."
I'm going to mosey on over to the Music in Proust thread to continue...
Marcelita wrote: "Proust loved going to music-halls..."I was paraphrasing Swann there but when I reread the piece just now, I understood it slightly differently i.e., that he thought Odette wanted to attend the performance entirely for fashion's sake, because it was The Paris Event of the Season (in 1885 when it was restaged on the event of the composer's death according to the notes in my edition) and not out of any love of Massé. So we still don't know what Swann thought of Massé's music, except that he says he can barely bring himself to pronounce the name Une Nuit de Cléopâtre (again I'm paraphrasing because my copy is in French).
Fionnuala wrote: "Marcelita wrote: "Proust loved going to music-halls..."I was paraphrasing Swann there but when I reread the piece just now, I understood it slightly differently i.e., that he thought Odette wanted..."
I think Swann does not like Massé's music in the least. He uses a very strong word to qualify it:
Ce n'est pas de la colère, pourtant, se disait-il à lui-même, que j'éprouve en voyant l'envie qu'elle a d'aller picorer dans cette musique stercoraire.
Going back to dates, the Nuit de Cléopâtre is from 1888.
(my bolds)
Fionnuala wrote: "Marcelita wrote: "Proust loved going to music-halls..."I was paraphrasing Swann there but when I reread the piece just now, I understood it slightly differently i.e., that he thought Odette wanted..."
In that same paragraph, he did refer to Massé's music as "stercoraire", which is French for excrement.
Odette and Swann are opposites who deserve each other, although I think Odette got the better end of the deal due to her cold and sociopathic devotion to herself. Based on what we read of the Verdurins' and other's opinions of Swann, we can conclude that he is an insufferable snob to taste. I'm not sure whether Odette is fully sociopathic or whether, due to her being forced to be a courtesan at a young age, she has concluded that she will coldly play society's game to get what she wants. We don't really know her except as Swann's observation and soceity's observation of her. In this ballet/opera of Swann and Odette, I see Odette as the silent ballerina, Swann as the tenor, and other characters as choruses that builds up the complexity, with the orchestra playing musical instruments of light, colors, flowers, etc. BTW, anybody else who visually and musically reads a book? Too high on books? :oD
Oops, while I was dawdling posting this, Kalliope already caught that.
Kalliope wrote: "I think Swann does not like Massé's music in the least. He uses a very strong word to qualify it:...stercoraire.."Yes indeed, Kalliope, how did I forget that particularly stercoraceous judgement...
Milly says Massé died in 1884 and that the Opéra Comique put on the Cléopâtre piece on the 25th of April 1885
Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "I think Swann does not like Massé's music in the least. He uses a very strong word to qualify it:...stercoraire.."Yes indeed, Kalliope, how did I forget that particularly stercora..."
Thank you on the 1885. I think I need new glasses...!!!
We have no idea whether Odette was hurt or not. It's a testament to how deeply inside Swann's POV we are that anyone can even imagine that Odette was unmoved by a constant stream of insult from a man who professed to love her.
Here's what we know for certain about Odette: that she started out kind to Swann, flattering him, and her attitude changed to extreme dislike. Why did she change? It might be that she's just an unfeeling puppet of the Verdurins or a sociopath -- or it might be that she was sensitive to his poor opinion and disliked being demeaned.
The Verdurins, before he'd gotten very bad, rebuked Swann for treating Odette like a possession. We've taken it for granted that because the Verdurins are foolish they must be wrong about everything, but that's also Swann's point of view.
Here's what we know for certain about Odette: that she started out kind to Swann, flattering him, and her attitude changed to extreme dislike. Why did she change? It might be that she's just an unfeeling puppet of the Verdurins or a sociopath -- or it might be that she was sensitive to his poor opinion and disliked being demeaned.
The Verdurins, before he'd gotten very bad, rebuked Swann for treating Odette like a possession. We've taken it for granted that because the Verdurins are foolish they must be wrong about everything, but that's also Swann's point of view.
Madame X wrote: "We have no idea whether Odette was hurt or not. It's a testament to how deeply inside Swann's POV we are that anyone can even imagine that Odette was unmoved by a constant stream of insult from a m..."The way way I read it, Swann was remarkably restrained in his criticisms of Odette.
However, I think if we continue to view Odette and Swann in terms of a male/female relationship, we may polarise this argument and miss some of the points Proust intended to make here. What he describes is a very skewed relationship, and it could just as easily be a relationship between two men or between two women, a relationship where one partner is enthralled almost to the point of losing his mind, and certainly a large part of his critical faculties, most but not all of the time, while the other partner is not passionatly involved at all but is using the other for purely mercenary purposes and is unmoved by his sufferings and vacillations.
Fionnuala wrote: "I think if we continue to view Odette and Swann in terms of a male/female relationship, we may polarise this argument and miss some of the points Proust intended to make here."
Abuse is not exclusive to male/female relationships. I am not sure what gender has to do with this at all. Abuse is abuse whether or not it's effective. The "tragedy" for Swann is that his abuse fails to achieve its desired result, that of making Odette obedient to his wishes.
Even a tasteless, venal prostitute deserves better than to be stalked and demeaned, as is Swann's increasing habit.
Odette's great sin, in Swann's eyes, really is being her own person. She is not obedient. She is not submissive. She will not transform herself into an mute, empty vessel so that Swann can project fantasies that are increasingly disconnected from reality onto her.
There's a point where the narrator tells us that "Odettes body itself no longer had a large place in [Swann's physical desire]" (p. 320) - first he wished to erase her personality, now her body.
I'm guessing that some people think it's quite "modern" of me to suggest that Swann's behavior is wrong, but it's in the text. Odette hates it. Her friends tell him to back off. Swann himself is ashamed, and Proust describes his feelings as a disease.
Abuse is not exclusive to male/female relationships. I am not sure what gender has to do with this at all. Abuse is abuse whether or not it's effective. The "tragedy" for Swann is that his abuse fails to achieve its desired result, that of making Odette obedient to his wishes.
Even a tasteless, venal prostitute deserves better than to be stalked and demeaned, as is Swann's increasing habit.
Odette's great sin, in Swann's eyes, really is being her own person. She is not obedient. She is not submissive. She will not transform herself into an mute, empty vessel so that Swann can project fantasies that are increasingly disconnected from reality onto her.
There's a point where the narrator tells us that "Odettes body itself no longer had a large place in [Swann's physical desire]" (p. 320) - first he wished to erase her personality, now her body.
I'm guessing that some people think it's quite "modern" of me to suggest that Swann's behavior is wrong, but it's in the text. Odette hates it. Her friends tell him to back off. Swann himself is ashamed, and Proust describes his feelings as a disease.
Madame X wrote: " I'm guessing that some people think it's quite "modern" of me to suggest that Swann's behavior is wrong, but it's in the text. Odette hates it. Her friends tell him to back off. Swann himself is ashamed, and Proust describes his feelings as a disease. .."Nowhere have I claimed that Swann's behavior is healthy. It is more than clear that his obsession is causing him to lose all sense of proportion. But I cannot see that Odette is a victim. She could cut all ties with Swann anytime she chooses but she prefers not to, his money is too useful.
Fionnuala wrote: "I cannot see that Odette is a victim. She could cut all ties with Swann anytime she chooses but she prefers not to, his money is too useful."
I think they are both quite horrible. But we don't get Odette's perspective, and Swann seems to be a slightly unreliable narrator. We don't know if she was hurt, or if she felt free to leave.
From the perspective of looking at the text, and reading it - I knew going in that I would be reading about an obsessive love. Ten years ago, I felt great pity for Swann, I followed the whole thing through his eyes.
It had never really occurred to me that Proust, whose own lovers fled from his suffocating affection, had left enough clues for us to see the beloved's point of view, that he'd dropped such sharp hints about what the beloved experienced. And so the big revelation of my reading has been to see these moments when Odette tells Swann the things he doesn't want to hear, and he ignores them; to pick up the clues that show us the Swann that Odette knew, who was frightful.
If one of the things that Proust does best is to reveal the difference between an inner and exterior life, the way we think we behave and the way others see us, I think it pays to imagine what sort of man Odette had to deal with.
I think they are both quite horrible. But we don't get Odette's perspective, and Swann seems to be a slightly unreliable narrator. We don't know if she was hurt, or if she felt free to leave.
From the perspective of looking at the text, and reading it - I knew going in that I would be reading about an obsessive love. Ten years ago, I felt great pity for Swann, I followed the whole thing through his eyes.
It had never really occurred to me that Proust, whose own lovers fled from his suffocating affection, had left enough clues for us to see the beloved's point of view, that he'd dropped such sharp hints about what the beloved experienced. And so the big revelation of my reading has been to see these moments when Odette tells Swann the things he doesn't want to hear, and he ignores them; to pick up the clues that show us the Swann that Odette knew, who was frightful.
If one of the things that Proust does best is to reveal the difference between an inner and exterior life, the way we think we behave and the way others see us, I think it pays to imagine what sort of man Odette had to deal with.
I feel bad I've been a little quiet the last few weeks...it's still an uphill battle for me to write about Swann's Way sometimes because, like Proust, I remember it just enough for it to be somewhat familiar and harder to find truly exciting and rapturous passages.But the last section struck me very hard and raised my sympathy for these characters all the more. It's been pretty much reduced to a tired romantic comedy trope these days, but how often do relationships teeter because the parties involved cannot say all they truly mean? The delving into Swann's mind which takes up most of our week's extract is stunning because it reveals him to be exactly what the other characters, particularly the Verdurins, think he is not and wish he was, a man of culture, passion, and strong, at times catty opinions, and more importantly a man falling deeper and deeper in love, against his every inclination. He knows by now that Odette is a duplicitous woman sharing none of his values; but he doesn't care.
More importantly, the narrative begins to fold in on itself. Proust has set up a structure in which Marcel narrates all that was going on in his mind during particular moments of sensation...then suddenly switches to a perspective in which we can't tell if this is Proust or Marcel talking, a purely third person perspective...and we come to realize Swann experiences things the same manner Marcel does, has a rich interior world to fall back on, and that world stays in the face of all external stimuli.
The implication, of course, is that this truly is human consciousness, individual thoughts all following some particular guidelines common to all in the process, and everyone, even the Verdurins, has such thoughts within them. To describe them all would take a book infinitely longer than "Remembrance," but even this glimpse suggests a possible comparison: "The Canterbury Tales." A modern version of Chaucer, with a central, observing figure in a world where everyone has their own story to tell. I'm going to keep this concept in mind over the next few weeks and see what comes of it.
Madame X wrote: ". Proust, whose own lovers fled from his suffocating affection, .."This is the main insight I'm getting from Un Amour de Swann, that Proust is telling of his own experiences as an obsessive lover.
Maybe I'm letting this get out of hand, but here's my understanding of Swann, viewed through Odette's eyes:
- Thinks he's better than everyone (he thinks that Odette & the Verdurins are tasteless dolts & even though he doesn't say so, they pick up on his true feelings)
- Stalkery (he reads Odette's mail, he skulks about outside her house at night, he sets a nanny on her, he drops in unannounced for trivial reasons)
- Resentful (How dare the Verdurins not appreciate him! How dare they not invite him! How dare Odette not give him his full money's worth!)
- Pathetic (A total doormat)
- Cruel (Tells Odette she's not even a person; sends her nastygrams)
Also, have we really all bought into the idea that Swann's taste is impeccable? Because I love Ruskin, really I do, but the dude had his conservative moments. There's the whole Whistler trial, where Ruskin failed to recognize the best and truest heir to Turner's legacy, & I will never forgive him for burning all of J.M.W. Turner's erotic drawings as the executor of Turner's estate.
Likewise, I really like Viollet-le-Duc. His restoration work might be questionable but his original designs are amazing and forward looking.
Swann might have good taste but his isn't the only good taste.
- Thinks he's better than everyone (he thinks that Odette & the Verdurins are tasteless dolts & even though he doesn't say so, they pick up on his true feelings)
- Stalkery (he reads Odette's mail, he skulks about outside her house at night, he sets a nanny on her, he drops in unannounced for trivial reasons)
- Resentful (How dare the Verdurins not appreciate him! How dare they not invite him! How dare Odette not give him his full money's worth!)
- Pathetic (A total doormat)
- Cruel (Tells Odette she's not even a person; sends her nastygrams)
Also, have we really all bought into the idea that Swann's taste is impeccable? Because I love Ruskin, really I do, but the dude had his conservative moments. There's the whole Whistler trial, where Ruskin failed to recognize the best and truest heir to Turner's legacy, & I will never forgive him for burning all of J.M.W. Turner's erotic drawings as the executor of Turner's estate.
Likewise, I really like Viollet-le-Duc. His restoration work might be questionable but his original designs are amazing and forward looking.
Swann might have good taste but his isn't the only good taste.
To be brutally honest, I'm a little disturbed at some of the imputations going round here about Swann and Odette. I don't think we can possibly make judgements about their behaviour based on such modern concepts as assuming that these are free and autonomous individuals who exercise free will in behaving the way they do. In message 179 Fionnuala pointed out that this was a skewed relationship, and that it may reflect something of the kind of relationships that Proust himself experienced. Yes, absolutely. Isn't this skewing, this unsettling dislocation, a function of the kind of opprobrium that society casts on a relationship that it cannot assimilate? It sets the whole thing on a completely unequal footing, because there's always one who invests far more, and has far more to lose. There's one who wields power and one who submits. There's one who holds all the aces and the other who can only try to stand up to that by offering or withdrawing sexual favours. This isn't about flawed personalities or psychology or men and women, it's about inequality, and that inequality is brought about here, between Odette and Swann, by the fact that they do not enjoy a similar social, educational or economic power. And I can well imagine that gay relationships, even if they were legal, were not something that could be openly admitted, and thus there would always be the opening for blackmail, for power games, a bit like all those sex scandals in the sixties between politicians and call-girls, there's always that assumption made by the whole of society that one of the parties is using the other. And the point is that the assumptions made by society poison the relationship itself. Their unequal social standing means that they can never meet on equal terms, and that, in the end, is toxic.
Replying to my own post here: society would be able to accept Swann and Odette's relationship if he played by the rules. That is, if he accepted that Odette is a courtesan who has to take out insurance by keeping more than one gentleman at the ready. If he was merely magnanimous with his money and didn't make a fuss about what she did with it. But Swann's mistake is to believe that this business arrangement is love, and thus confuses the behaviour of a lover with the behaviour of a business partner.
My take on things is that for Proust, love for him has always been defined by his relationship with his mother, his obsessive need for her, and her being held back by the father from coddling him as she would have liked. So he has always sought that desperate need for loving her in others. It may explain Swann's love for a woman like Odette since Odette regards love with men on conditional terms. Proust craves an unconditional love. Does he ever find it?
Karen wrote: "Replying to my own post here: society would be able to accept Swann and Odette's relationship if he played by the rules. That is, if he accepted that Odette is a courtesan who has to take out insur..."You're hit the nail on the head, Karen! Odette was raised to be a courtesan. Sex and relationship is a business. It's natural for her to negotiate material things with Swann, and still keep her options open. Swann had different values than her and became frustrated. They're both also a product of their times where it's normal for men to do certain things, and Odette as a courtesan to do certain things. Terrific analysis.
Karen wrote: "Replying to my own post here: society would be able to accept Swann and Odette's relationship if he played by the rules. That is, if he accepted that Odette is a courtesan who has to take out insur..."
I loved these posts. Thank you. This second one, in particular, was clarifying for me.
I loved these posts. Thank you. This second one, in particular, was clarifying for me.
Proust on Swann, Odette, humility & us Goodreaders:But the absence of a thing is not merely that, it is not simply a partial lack, it is a disruption of everything else, it is a new state which one cannot foresee in the old. LD p. 317
A little periodic sentence, a 'maxim', that concludes it's paragraph.
Karen wrote: "......But Swann's mistake is to believe that this business arrangement is love, and thus confuses the behaviour of a lover with the behaviour of a business partner. ."Yes, that sums up Swann's tragedy perfectly, Karen.
Andrew, the delving into Swann's interior chunterings in this week's section is stunning.
Madame X, you've reminded me of something I read some years ago, derogatory comments Ruskin made about one of Whistler's paintings of London by night, I'll have to search for it put I think he said that it seemed as if Whistler had thrown a pot of paint at the canvas. I didn't know he'd burned Turner's drawings too.
Reem, as I'm realising that Swann's story must reflect aspects of Proust's own attempts at love, it is useful to be reminded of the Narrator's obsessive relationship with his mother. I'm also reminded of the François de Champi story Proust had the mother read to him, the story of an orphan taken in by a miller and his wife who, as he grows up, falls in love with the miller's wife who returns his love, another example of a relationship that breaks the rules.
Eugene, you've chosen the perfect line to sum up Swann's/ the Narrator's/Proust's anguish.
Fionnuala wrote: "derogatory comments Ruskin made about one of Whistler's paintings of London by night, I'll have to search for it put I think he said that it seemed as if Whistler had thrown a pot of paint at the canvas..."Yes, Whistler took Ruskin to court and he wan it, although Ruskin was fined a very small amount and Whistler had to pay for the court costs, which were considerable.
But this court case became the first time that it was established, by law, that a critic could not establish what was good or bad in art.
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal...
Thanks for finding that, Kalliope. Here's the bit I remembered. (Ruskin is referring to Whistler’s Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket.)“For Mr. Whistler’s own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have seen, and heard, much of Cockney impudence before now; but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face.”
I don't want to deny all legitimacy to the psychological approach; as Reem points out, the defining character of the narrator's love for his mother and Swann's love for Odette is this obsessive neediness, and it is a fruitful line of enquiry to question why Swann should have put himself into such a position, why he projects all his feelings of 'love' onto this particular person, what (perhaps subconscious) need does he fulfill by making himself into such an abject figure? How does that reflect on other affairs of the heart that we see?I just think we need to be careful about projecting modern ideas of agency onto these characters whose choices were so constrained by social and economic structures of the time.
Nowadays we have legislation in place that proscribes inappropriate sexual relationships between those who have a duty of care and their clients. Such as doctor and patient, or teacher and student. These are considered inappropriate because there is such an imbalance between the two roles, and we fear they are an open door to abuse. Now, I don't believe it's going too far to say that at that time, and in the middle to upper classes all men had a duty of care towards all women. Women were not allowed the kind of education or training that would have given them financial independence, they were completely dependent on the menfolk around them, first protected by the father and then passed on to the fiduciary care of a husband. Those women who did not manage to reach the safe harbour of marriage had to rely on the generosity of brothers or brothers-in-law, or hope their father would provide. So there's probably a good case to argue that all relationships between men and women were lopsided. What could the woman bring in on her side of the account? A womb.
Odette is vulnerable, she has no protector, she has to make her own way. And she has no protection, no power, nothing that can be used as a bargaining card. There is no dynastic advantage, no financial advantage and no social advantage to an association with her. All she has to offer is herself, and like a professional swimmer or footballer, the time when she can capitalize on her body is short, so short.
Thus, at a time when pair bonding was regulated by all kinds of forces, and the stakes were unevenly divided, what we see here is an extreme case. And it does reflect homosexual affairs doesn't it? Again, there is no dynastic or social advantage to an affair with a man, financial affairs would also be open to dispute as marriage laws do not apply. Think of Bosie and Wilde: Bosie's father threatened to cut him off without a penny if he continued to live with Wilde. So we have lopsidedness and social censure too. Toxic!
ReemK10: "her being held back by the father from coddling him as she would have liked." I think the entire work is a lengthy disquisition on Proust's very dark view of love...and if you reread Combray, you will see that it was his mother who wanted to wean him, as it were, from being coddled. Once his father realized how his son was suffering (something with his mother and grandmother had concealed from him), he caved immediately, and told Mamma to spend the night with her weeping son. Maybe a little more coddling would have made a different man of him...but wld we then have this masterpiece to read? n.b. Goodreads keeps going over capacity, has anyone else noticed? I think it's Us.
I am just posting a lovely drawing of Pierrefonds by Viollet-le-Duc:
A heavenly drawing - where on earth could he have perched to get such a view?
J.A. On reading Proust at ten; I just said I read it (as I obsessively read anything I could find); I didnt say I understood it! I'm still working on that one.
Fionnuala wrote: "A heavenly drawing - where on earth could he have perched to get such a view?"Very perceptive... Well, he certainly had a lot of imagination..!!
Karen wrote: "I don't want to deny all legitimacy to the psychological approach; as Reem points out, the defining character of the narrator's love for his mother and Swann's love for Odette is this obsessive nee..."I really liked your comment, Karen. It changed my mind about how I was thinking about Odette. You wrote a key word, she was "constrained" by a social-economic structure. It's like she really didn't have a choice. Society of that time created the rules, and those rules created this kind of grotesque relationships like Odette-Swann. It was like a "social corset" the one Odette was given, and she had to wear it whether she liked ir or not.
The fact that Narrator doesn't enter into Odette's mind, so we don't know what she is thinking in response to certain Swann's attitudes, made me feel the sensation that Odette was sort of a "piece" in the society gameboard of that time. If Narrator would have chosen to enter in Odette's mind and not into Swann's, then I would find the piece was Swann.
So thanks to your comment, I can see now ISOLT like a big social gameboard. The pieces move psychologically, but they are "constrained" to certain social rules which actually can drive them crazy in different ways, like Swann's obsession for an impossible relationship, or like the woman who spits on her dead father's portrait, or people dreaming to be considered part of a family dinasty (like Guermantes).
It's a little scary to think that all of us are somehow still "constrained" into a social-economic gameboard, you know, it's still being a mad world round here.
What I have found in my first lecture, is that I was looking at ISOLT characters from my own social-economy gameboard (year 2013) and now I'm looking at them from their own gameboard (year 188?), and that is because of your great comment, Karen! Good to know that I've realized of this in the first ISOLT book. Cheers!
Edu wrote: "Karen wrote: "I don't want to deny all legitimacy to the psychological approach; as Reem points out, the defining character of the narrator's love for his mother and Swann's love for Odette is this..."Very good insights here, Edu, and you have enlarged on them and been guided by them, as I have been. This is my first time reading Proust with a group, and it is a completely different and wholly enlightening experience for me. In a parallel experience from my life: I have been doing yoga on my own for years (about 40!) from books, tapes and DVD's, but last year began receiving lessons from a yoga master...the difference is astounding. Just being able to see or be shown things from another's viewpoint is such a learning experience.
Edu, thanks for the kind remarks. I very much like your image of pieces on a chessboard - that conveys well how only certain, very circumscribed moves are allowed. No real freedom of movement (unless you're a queen of course!).Mari, as a teacher of English as a Second Language, I hope that more people have the same experience - that learning with and from others is so enriching.
Mari, Karen: I, too, feel the difference between struggling through on my own, and reading with the support of the group. While I was thinking of this I remembered something from the I Ching. This is from # 58: The Joyous, Lake. "A lake evaporates upward and gradually dries up; but when two lakes are joined, they do not dry up so readily, for one replenishes the other. It is the same in the field of knowledge. Knowledge should be a refreshing and revitalizing force.It becomes so only through stimulating intercourse with congenial friends with whom one holds discussion...In this way learning becomes many-sided and takes on a cheerful lightness."
Elizabeth wrote: "Mari, Karen: I, too, feel the difference between struggling through on my own, and reading with the support of the group. While I was thinking of this I remembered something from the I Ching. This..."I love that, Elizabeth, thank you for sharing.
Elizabeth wrote: "Mari, Karen: I, too, feel the difference between struggling through on my own, and reading with the support of the group. While I was thinking of this I remembered something from the I Ching. This..."Terrific quote, Elizabeth. I love having stimulating discussions with like-minded people.
Aloha wrote: "Terrific quote, Elizabeth. I love having stimulating discussions with like-minded people. "I was thinking that Swann would have loved to use goodreads for having stimulating discussions with like-minded people, at least he sure would have a better time than with the Verdurins... and still have time for searching his virtual Odette!
Andrew wrote: "More importantly, the narrative begins to fold in on itself. Proust has set up a structure in which Marcel narrates all that was going on in his mind during particular moments of sensation...then suddenly switches to a perspective in which we can't tell if this is Proust or Marcel talking, a purely third person perspective...and we come to realize Swann experiences things the same manner Marcel does, has a rich interior world to fall back on, and that world stays in the face of all external stimuli."
Nicely stated, Andrew. It was when the narrative began to fold in on itself...the "sudden switch" where the voice of the narrator began to read as the voice of Proust that I felt "jolted" from the universe of Swann's Way. Still unraveling this in my mind.
I can´t seem to find the post I wrote yesterday.
So, now I´ll try to repeat it.DEAR PROUST FORUMITES:
I am writing from Argentina. The only edition of vol.II
is translated into Spansish,but well,I´ll do my best.
Fifteen years ago I read vol I (Swann) but with a group that put all the stress in the Proust-Bergson connection so I found it very cold.Now,reading your thread I see how much I had missed then.
My lit.professor,Beatriz,told me once that there comes a time in everybody´s life when one is ready to read Proust.I´ve been beating around the bush since last year and suddenly,*sailing* the internet ...HERE YOU ARE!
I am planning to start in vol.II so as to keep up with you people in this forum and so be enthused to read while reading at the same time your Swann thread.
The translation is by Estela Canto,one of Borges´muses so that is an asset I guess.
BTW,I think I can manage it as I have found that the best time for reading is during work hours of which I have plenty- I could teach you a bew tricks if you are interested ;)
.
Welcomei, Patricia. I'm looking forward to your insight on this novel. Kalliope is fluent in Spanish, French and English, so she can help you with any translation questions you may have. Sorry, Kalliope, I'm volunteering you. :o)Enjoy your journey, Patricia!
BTW, we leave the specific threads for focus on the passage for the week so as to not clutter it with messages for readers who do not want to read too many unrelated posts. We can have a general chit-chat in the Group Lounge.
Maybe quite a bit younger. The Narrator implied that he was too young at that time to go to the theatre but was allowed to go out alone to look at the theatre postings on the nearest colonne Maurice (the internet of the day!) and you don't find one of those on every French street so we can presume that, at quite a young age, he had been allowed to wander over a couple of the streets near his parents' apartment and if we also presume that the uncle lived close by then it is possible that he could have been as young as eight, an age when a child might have walked to school alone, in fact he had pretended to be at class when that 'pink lady' visit took place. Also, Elizabeth pointed out that we don't actually know when Swann married Odette, or what age Gilberte was when that happened.