Through Sunday, 3 Feb.: Swann's Way

[Kyle]

It seems that Swann's uncertainty about Odette's feelings back to him might be contributing to his "obsessiveness." Perhaps he would be less obsessive in his behavior if she simply came out and claimed her undying love for him, thereby reassuring him of all the uncertainties he feels in the relationship.

How many of us, in our own romantic pasts, might have benefited from simply knowing exactly how the other person feels and sees us?
*shrug*

[Aloha]

Kyle wrote: "Where is that line between loving/desiring, and obsession? At what point has someone crossed into an unhealthy boundary?"

Love is when you care about another person's well-being, are aware of, and care about all facets of them. Desire and obsession is when you are using that person's image to feed into your selfish need, to feed an ideal, or as escapism.

[Aloha]

A good test is to figure out what the obsession is and burst that bubble. See how it quickly deflates! :oD

[Kyle]

Aloha wrote: "A good test is to figure out what the obsession is and burst that bubble. See how it quickly deflates! :oD"

I guess there's a part of me that is secretly trying to paint Swann in a sympathetic light. There's a certain something about his situation that makes me want him to actually achieve the happiness he's looking for, and to paint him as the moral hero of the situation.

[[deleted user]]

I contend that he could love her and be obsessed with her. I don't think it would be healthy, but if he had more respect for her boundaries and so on then you might be able to say love. But like Aloha says, his obsession doesn't seem to be about her but only to placate his own feelings of anguish and jealousy.

[Aloha]

Kyle wrote: "Aloha wrote: "A good test is to figure out what the obsession is and burst that bubble. See how it quickly deflates! :oD"

I guess there's a part of me that is secretly trying to paint Swann in a..."

Proust paints his characters in a realistic light, with all their good points and flaws. Odette and Swann made their compromises. All relationships are compromises.

[[deleted user]]

Kyle wrote: "It seems that Swann's uncertainty about Odette's feelings back to him might be contributing to his "obsessiveness." Perhaps he would be less obsessive in his behavior if she simply came out and claimed her undying love for him, thereby reassuring him of all the uncertainties he feels in the relationship.

How many of us, in our own romantic pasts, might have benefited from simply knowing exactly how the other person feels and sees us?"

This comment gets to the heart of what interest/value I can find in Swann's staggering dysfunction.

I think everyone has longed for a guarantee. For perfect knowledge of another person, and another person's feelings. But when it comes to other people, there are no guarantees and there is no perfect knowledge.

The anxiety Swann feels is a pure, unmixed expression of an anxiety that really is fundamental to the human condition - but I do not see it as being mixed with other, warmer feelings (like love).

[Aloha]

Odette is using Swann for prestige and money. Swann is using Odette as a reflection of his ideal of art, love, etc. I wondered whether this can evolve into love. After finishing the book, (view spoiler)[I don't see any indication that it turned into love, but as continual compromises between the two. (hide spoiler)]

[Ian]

Kyle wrote: "It seems that Swann's uncertainty about Odette's feelings back to him might be contributing to his "obsessiveness." Perhaps he would be less obsessive in his behavior if she simply came out and claimed her undying love for him, thereby reassuring him of all the uncertainties he feels in the relationship.

How many of us, in our own romantic pasts, might have benefited from simply knowing exactly how the other person feels and sees us?
*shrug*"

Kyle, for me, your description is precisely the heart of the matter.

I spent some time in my review talking about love and jealousy being flipsides of the same coin.

However, it is actually a three-sided coin, the third side being what Proust occasionally called anguish. (He used another word a few times as well, but I just can't recall it at the moment.)

I would use this to describe the uncertainty about the reciprocity of love that you refer to.

It could exist, even where there was no third person about whom the Subject could form jealous feeling.

So, now we have love, jealousy and anguish, all three of which could be subject to obsession.

So obsession describes the degree or level of one of these other emotions, and whether it has got out of control and out of synch with real life.

Obsession is the "too much" bit that follows one of these emotions.

I've just realised that Madame X has mentioned anxiety as well. There is a slightly different emphasis in our two opinions.

[[deleted user]]

The first time I read this book, I remember thinking Swann was very romantic and sexy.

Now I think the wiser course of action, if he came sniffing round, would be to turn tail and run in the opposite direction at great speed.

What a difference ten years can make.

[Ian]

Aloha wrote: "Odette is using Swann for prestige and money. Swann is using Odette as a reflection of his ideal of art, love, etc. I wondered whether this can evolve into love. After finishing the book, [spoil..."

This is where it is so hard to define exactly what love is or should be (or should the normative "should" have nothing to do with it?).

I don't think it's as simple as #268.

And I don't think it's accurate to speak of love not involving compromise.

I think love is all about compromise as and when required, but it shouldn't be seen as trading aspects of your psyche in return for something given in return.

It needs to be an acceptance that there might have been two ways of getting to a destination (the ways of Swann and Guermantes?) and the other is more appropriate in the circumstances, or possibly that there might be a third way, that neither of us had proposed, but emerged as a synthesis in an amazingly spontaneous and beautiful love dialectic, man.

All of this love talk is doing my head in.

[Ian]

Madame X wrote: "The first time I read this book, I remember thinking Swann was very romantic and sexy.

Now I think the wiser course of action, if he came sniffing round, would be to turn tail and run in the opposite direction at great speed.

What a difference ten years can make."

Do you think there are still Swanns around now? What is the 21st century schizoid man analogy?

[[deleted user]]

I have seen guys act EXACTLY like Swann. In my own sphere of being.

[Aloha]

Ian wrote: "Do you think there are still Swanns around now? What is the 21st century schizoid man analogy? "

Of course there are. I still see fatal attractions.

[[deleted user]]

Aloha wrote: "Odette is using Swann for prestige and money. Swann is using Odette as a reflection of his ideal of art, love, etc. I wondered whether this can evolve into love. After finishing the book, [spoil..."

This is a point that hasn't dawned on me. That it is very possible this could change into a real loving situation in the future even thought it is not what most of us would consider love at this point.

[Aloha]

Jeremy wrote: "Aloha wrote: "Odette is using Swann for prestige and money. Swann is using Odette as a reflection of his ideal of art, love, etc. I wondered whether this can evolve into love. After finishing th..."

The chase has to start somewhere. Love doesn't happen overnight. Even arranged marriages can turn into love.

[Ian]

Aloha wrote: "Of course there are. I still see fatal attractions."

Shhss. You promised not to tell.

I mean do they happen for the same reasons as Swann, in the sense of these weird definitions of the ideal aesthetic type and the distinction between desire and love? Or for some other reason(s)?

[Aloha]

Ian wrote: "Aloha wrote: "Of course there are. I still see fatal attractions."

Shhss. You promised not to tell.

I mean do they happen for the same reasons as Swann, in the sense of these weird definitions o..."

Of course people fall in love with the ideal aesthetic types, although the ideal varies. Some guys like the Playboy bunnies type. :o) I would guess that the more idealistic the person, the harder that person would fall if a person who seems to fit the type happens to walk by. And of course, there's love and/or desire. If you're lucky, you'll get both in a relationship.

[J.A.]

Madame X wrote: What a difference ten years can make.


So true.

[Aloha]

Love Blake's poems and paintings. Thanks, Phillida.

[Kyle]

Nice, Phillida :).

[Eugene]

@Kalliope
@Fionnuala

Why I began to read Proust's ISOLT was for his sentences; I wanted to know how he wrote them, what he said with them, what meaning they had in the pre 1914 period that so interests me. I wanted my fear of them, my resistance to them, challenged.

By the way, where is Nick; I haven't seen him around the discussion threads for awhile, I hope he didn't run into Odette.

[Denise]

"I did a search for "plaisir" in the French that is the complete seven volumes, and it showed up 115 times. "Désir" showed up 110 times. According to my Oxford French Dictionary, "plaisir" is "sensual/aesthetic pleasure." "Désir" is desire, which is a "want." Proust left "plaisir" open ended on purpose."
Kyle wrote, "In that case, I feel I must put on my devil's advocate hat and ask, is obsession such a different thing than love? It seems to me that obsession is simply the degree to which something occupies your thoughts and feelings.
Where is that line between loving/desiring, and obsession? At what point has someone crossed into an unhealthy boundary?"

Jeremy wrote, "I contend that he could love her and be obsessed with her. I don't think it would be healthy, but if he had more respect for her boundaries and so on then you might be able to say love."

Pleasure, desire, love, jealousy, obsession, possession. Points on a continuum?
The pleasure of your company or a cup of tea with you; I want/desire your presence(or you sexually); I love you because I need you vs I want you because I love you; Jealousy because you are not giving me attention but attention to another; obsession because I think of you, follow you, spy on you, hunt you down constantly; possession because I haunt you, I control your behavior/thoughts, you are tied to me.

Certainly, all of these states are part of Swann's experience with Odette. The pleasure of her company evolves into a pleasure with her appearance. Pleasure progresses to desire, the wanting of her time, body, conversation etc. IMHO, Swann's love is never "I need you because I love you" but rather, " I love you because I need you" (This is especially true for Odette's "love" of Swann). His love progresses to jealousy of Odette's time/attentions not spent with him. The jealousy is an integral part of his need to always know her location/activities/company she keeps. He thinks of her constantly. And when she is not in his thoughts many things bring her to his mind. The obsession. Possession because he must own her 'education', her evenings,and attempts to mold her to his ideal. He possesses her because he "keeps" her, tied to him financially. However, it is Odette that possesses him. She is not seemingly obsessed by him but she has altered his behavior, controls his time and possesses his every thought.

True love can be neither obsessive or possessive. the old adage, "if you love something let it go" is the true course of love. For it is selfless. This relationship is not selfless. I need you because I love you may grow from pleasure and desire but should not progress to jealousy, obsession or possession. It also occurs to me that obsession and possession are smothering. So they can only smother a relationship.

[Denise]

Phillida wrote: "Here is William Blake on love and obsession. The pebble's song of
obsession is Swann's experience:

"Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself hath any care,
But for another gives its ease..."

Agreed. Thank you.

[Aloha]

Phillida wrote: "Can anyone pinpoint the passage in which one of the gossipy women says that Odette's mother, back in Nice, sold Odette to a rich Englishman when she was barely out of girlhood? That's the only clu..."

It's in next week's section. I posted it in there, Phillida.

[Aloha]

The section in which the introduction of Forcheville into the Verdurin's circle ousted Swann from their circle makes me feel sorry for Swann. He is so throughly deluded that he cannot see everybody for who they are.

[Eugene]

Kalliope wrote: Eugene, you might like to look at Malcolm Bowie's (brilliant) book, Proust Among the Stars (should be in italics). He discusses "these exquisite artistic contrivances" at some length in illuminating ways.

Thank you, I will. I liked his "Postlude..." in Bales' The Cambridge Companion to Proust.

[Aloha]

Eugene wrote: "Kalliope wrote: Eugene, you might like to look at Malcolm Bowie's (brilliant) book, Proust Among the Stars (should be in italics). He discusses "these exquisite artistic contrivances" at some lengt..."

I just purchased a used hardback. I'm moving it up on my reading list.

[Aloha]

Aloha wrote: "Phillida wrote: "Can anyone pinpoint the passage in which one of the gossipy women says that Odette's mother, back in Nice, sold Odette to a rich Englishman when she was barely out of girlhood? Th..."

Sorry, I meant the Feb. 10 one. Losing track of my dates.

[Ian]

What is still missing is some definition of "love" as opposed to desire, pleasure, possession or obsession.

I wonder whether the tendency of some "love" to be a form of possession derives from its passive or "noun" character.

If I consider myself to be "in love", I am in a state or noun.

If I want you to be "in love" with me, I want you to be in the same state of noun, with me.

Within this state, I possess you, again, like a noun. You are in a cage that I have made. I have trapped you. You are not free. (Which is why, to truly love someone, you have to be prepared to set them free, in order to see whether they voluntarily come back, in order to love.)

What is missing from this passive, possessive perspective on love, is a sense of the dynamic or productive or verbal.

Love is something you "do" to someone or together with someone.

To the extent that you do it together, it presumably would have to be mutual or reciprocated.

Otherwise, it is a one-sided, obsessive giving, in order to persuade and seduce and possess. It is a selfish verb, not a caring verb.

Erich Fromm:

"Love has two meanings, depending on whether it is spoken of in the mode of having or in the mode of being.

"When love is experienced in the mode of “having” it implies confining, imprisoning, or controlling the object one “loves.” It is strangling, deadening, suffocating, killing, not life-giving.

"What people call love is mostly a misuse of the word, in order to hide the reality of their not loving. Loving parents are the exception rather than the rule.

"The truth is, there is no such thing or possession as “love.” In reality, there exists only the act of loving. To love is a productive activity. It implies caring for, knowing, responding, affirming, enjoying: the person, the tree, the painting, the idea. It means bringing to life, increasing his/her/its aliveness. It is a process, self-renewing and self-increasing."

(“To Have Or To Be?” pp. 44-45.)"

Fromm also discusses the possessive in terms of "having" (as opposed to "being" or "doing") here in the context of a marriage:

"The change from “falling in love” to the illusion of “having” love can often be observed in concrete detail in the history of a couple who have “fallen in love.”

"During courtship neither person is yet sure of the other, but each tries to win the other. Both are alive, attractive, interesting, even beautiful—inasmuch as aliveness always makes a face beautiful. Neither yet *has* the other; hence each one’s energy is directed to *being,* i.e., to giving to and stimulating the other.

"With the act of marriage the situation frequently changes fundamentally. The marriage contract gives each partner the exclusive possession of the other’s body, feelings, and care. Nobody has to be won any more, because love has become something one *has,* a property. The two cease to make the effort to be loveable and to produce love, hence they become boring, and hence their beauty disappears. They are disappointed and puzzled. Are they not the same persons any more? Did they make a mistake in the first place?

"Each usually seeks the cause of the change in the other and feels defrauded. What they do not see is that they themselves no longer are the same people they were when they were in love with each other; that the error that one can *have* love has led them to cease loving. Now, instead of loving each other, they settle for owning together what they have: money, social standing, a home, children. . . .

"When a couple cannot get over the yearning for the renewal of the previous feeling of loving, one or the other of the pair may have the illusion that a new partner (or partners) will satisfy their longing. They feel that all they want to have is love. But love to them is not an expression of their being; it is a goddess to whom they want to submit. They necessarily fail . . . because . . . a worshipper of the goddess of love eventually becomes so passive as to be boring and loses whatever is left of his or her former attractiveness."

(“To Have Or To Be,” pp. 45-46)"

I question what Swann did - was he only trying to be "in love", without "loving" as a verb or productive activity?

On the other hand, I don't really know what Odette was doing internally inside the relationship while it existed.

There simply isn't enough evidence (at least in Swann in Love), other than the belief that she had other relationships after (or during?) their relationship, but presumably before (view spoiler)[their marriage (hide spoiler)].

[Aloha]

Both Odette and Swann have qualities that can kill a relationship. Swann is too possessive of Odette. Odette is not caring of Swann beyond being his courtesan. When the Verdurins expelled Swann from their circle, she should have refused to be in that crowd. If you truly love someone, you hold them above all others, which Swann, even with his possessiveness, was doing with Odette. Although Swann has a superior air due to his education, wealth and contacts, he does still value Odette even through news of her reputation and infidelities. I feel an emotional distance with Odette.

[Denise]

Ian wrote, " I don't really know what Odette was doing internally inside the relationship while it existed.'

Aloha wrote, "I feel an emotional distance with Odette."

I agree, I do not feel any attachment to Odette. Well, this too poses an interesting angle. However, is this more a function of Narrator's having invested so much into our familiarity with Swann's personality? Most of what we know of Odette is delivered in third person. We are familiar with Swann, on the other hand, both in first and second person . We have access to Swann's personal thoughts which we do not with Odette. So,we are seeing Odette through Narrator's eyes. If this is true, then we do not have the same access to Odette that we do Swann.

That said, she is not a character that draws warmth or compassion. Swann, on the other hand, is more real to us. We know his thoughts, actions and Narrator's perceptions of him. Odette's behaviors do not demonstrate a loving capacity. But would we feel differently about Odette if we knew more of her thoughts and feelings on a first hand basis?

[Denise]

Aloha wrote: "Denise wrote: "That said, she is not a character that draws warmth or compassion. Swann, on the other hand, is more real to us. We know his thoughts, actions and Narrator's perceptions of him. Odet..."

Likewise, good point. I overlooked Verdurins' view of Odette. Also, another perspective on Swann.

[Ian]

Denise wrote: "We have access to Swann's personal thoughts which we do not with Odette. So,we are seeing Odette through Narrator's eyes. If this is true, then we do not have the same access to Odette that we do Swann."

I agree. Even the little we know about Odette's opinion of Swann's shyness before or at the beginning of the relationship is supplied to us as hearsay.

We don't see any of her interior world.

What did she want? What did she desire? What did she get from Swann? What didn't she get from Swann?

I am reluctant to believe, yet, that she was just a cynical, grasping courtesan who just moved onto the next serial lover and provider.

However, that might be the case?

[J.A.]

Why do I keep thinking of Real Housewives of Atlanta whenever I get to Odette's conversations with Swann?

[Aloha]

J.A. wrote: "Why do I keep thinking of Real Housewives of Atlanta whenever I get to Odette's conversations with Swann?"

I think the problem is not that they don't share common interests, but how important those interests are to the individual.

[Marcelita]

Here is the schedule, which keeps those of us who read ahead...mindful that the next discussion begins on Monday. Scroll down to get the Kindle locations. (Thanks, Jason!)
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

[Marcelita]

Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope, I think the detailed description of Odette's homa/world is fascinating, like a painting, built up layer by layer, full of surprising details which our eyes sometimes miss. We end up seein..."

I see Odette as a "performance artist." She intuitively understands how to manipulate Madame Verdurin, Swann, Forcheville, and TBA/others into creating a transformative "lifestyle." (Not unlike a "Pamela Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman" character.)

[Fionnuala]

Marcelita wrote: "I see Odette as a "performance artist." She intuitively understands how to manipulate Madame Verdurin, Swann, Forcheville..."

That's a good metaphor for Odette, striking just the right poses, wearing the right accessories, rarely slipping out of character, a consummate performer...

[Fionnuala]

Eugene wrote: "@Kalliope
@Fionnuala
Why I began to read Proust's ISOLT was for his sentences...

His sentences are one of the things I admire most about Proust's writing and the more of them I read, the more I like them.
I'm less interested in the rationalities of the plot, why he/she does this or that.
I'm content to watch the performance and trust that Proust is always going to lead us somewhere interesting.

[Aloha]

Fionnuala wrote: " Eugene wrote: "@Kalliope
@Fionnuala
Why I began to read Proust's ISOLT was for his sentences...

His sentences are one of the things I admire most about Proust's writing and the more of them I rea..."

I think the fluent French readers would catch more of Proust's writing style, since part of the charm is the rhythm. That would be lost in translation, such that non-French readers would be more interested in the description, plot and psychology, which is also great. For example, to English readers, the prose of English masters are more magical.

[Ian]

Even Proust's short sentences are perfect.

[Aloha]

Marcelita wrote: "I see Odette as a "performance artist." She intuitively understands how to manipulate Madame Verdurin, Swann, Forcheville, and TBA/others into creating a transformative "lifestyle." (Not unlike a "Pamela Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman" character.) "

She is a performance artist as far as the habit built into her as a courtesan, which is to act pleasing, charming, etc. There's a dynamic she showed in her relationship with Swann that is not acting. Swann noted that as the relationship went on, Odette grew distant. If she was faithful to her acting, she would have kept on charming him until he married her, unless there is a psychology to luring the fish closer by yanking the bait further away. I'm not sure that type of psychology works. It only creates more distance in the relationship. To me, that means Odette is not acting at the later point in the dating, but is getting tired of Swann for whatever reason. But this is Proust's mind, not mine, and it worked in this book since he did marry her. Here is the passage that started the description of Odette's cooling off.

...to the timorous emotion which, in the early days when she had known him, she had felt with him, and even far away from him, when she would begin a letter with these words: “My dear, my hand is shaking so hard I can scarcely write” (at least so she claimed, and a little of that emotion must have been sincere for her to want to feign more of it). She liked Swann then. We do not tremble except for ourselves, except for those we love. When our happiness is no longer in their hands, what calm, what ease, what boldness we enjoy in their company!... LD

[Fionnuala]

Aloha wrote: "such that non-French readers would be more interested in the description, plot and psychology, which is also great. "

I am also interested in the descriptions, the plot, such as it is, and the psychology of the characters to a certain extent. I'm just reserved about questioning too closely the logic of their motivations, suspecting that Proust knew what he was about...

[Aloha]

Aloha wrote: "Marcelita wrote: "I see Odette as a "performance artist." She intuitively understands how to manipulate Madame Verdurin, Swann, Forcheville, and TBA/others into creating a transformative "lifestyle..."

BTW, for anybody wanting to note why Proust's writing is effective, note how, within one paragraph (the LD sample I posted above), he transited from Odette being under Swann's control to Swann being under Odette's control. Being able to transit from one passage to another to create a flow and unify a novel is a tough trick, much less trying to do it for a 4,000 pages tome.

[[deleted user]]

Just a couple of friendly reqeusts (please don't be mad!):

We have started discussion next week's section within this week's section. It doesn't bother me because I have already read the section but could potentially be spoilers. I think it is easy to do when you read ahead and forget exactly when something took place. I have had all I could do to not reference things from the next week of reading.

Also, when posting something with the "view spoiler" tag could you please indicate at what point the spoiler occurs? That way for anyone that has read ahead they will know whether it is safe to view the spoiler or not.

Thanks for your consideration!! :)

[Aloha]

Jeremy wrote: "Just a couple of friendly reqeusts (please don't be mad!):

We have started discussion next week's section within this week's section. It doesn't bother me because I have already read the section ..."

Oops! Sorry. I must have mislooked at the markers in my eBook. I'll put the spoiler tag in.

[Aloha]

I'll just go ahead and move it to next week's.

[[deleted user]]

I feel like a prude now!

[Aloha]

Jeremy wrote: "I feel like a prude now!"

No, you're not. Thank you for telling me before it spoils it for others.