The Forsyte Saga - To Let - Part II

[Silver]

Book 3 - To Let

Part II

I.—MOTHER AND SON

II.—FATHERS AND DAUGHTERS

III.—MEETINGS

IV.—IN GREEN STREET

V.—PURELY FORSYTE AFFAIRS

VI.—SOAMES' PRIVATE LIFE

VII.—JUNE TAKES A HAND

VIII.—THE BIT BETWEEN THE TEETH

IX.—THE FAT IN THE FIRE

X.—DECISION

XI.—TIMOTHY PROPHESIES

[Frances, Moderator]

We had spoken of the Freudian aspects of the relationship between Jon and Irene and they come out again in this section, in Jolyon and Irene sending Jon off to the continent in hopes of separating him from Fleur-as if in strengthening the bond between Jon and Irene they would increase the chances that Jon would choose his mother over Fleur. Jon clearly idealizes/idolizes his mother-there's a passage in chapter 3 in which Fleur and Jon are discussing what might have happened-that Irene jilted Soames for Jolyon-when Fleur suggests Irene left Soames for Jon's father and says " 'it may have been a great shock. She may have behaved badly to him. People do." and Jon replies " 'My mother wouldn't.'

Fleur shrugged her shoulders. 'I don't think we know much about our fathers and mothers. We just see them in the light of the way they treat us; but they've treated other people, you know, before we were born' "

Fleur makes her play for Jon-tries to get him to marry her before they can be separated by their parents-and he hesitates-again apparently putting his parents before his love.

In reading this I felt an increasing conflict between my natural inclination to prefer Jolyon and Irene and Jon and to be rooting for them against Soames and his scheming daughter, and my sense that Soames had been emotionally wronged by Irene so many years ago, and that now Fleur will in turn be deprived of her true love. Is this a metaphor for society at large-a core of privileged ones who have been blessed with beauty and a love of art and fine things and who live a charmed and lovely life, separated from the grasping outsiders who want things from them that they can't have because they are the less privileged and so are not entitled to the same happiness? In our admiration for the Aristocracy, for the wealthy, for those who's money allows them to live a life pursuing artistic and intellectual growth, are we allowing them to exclude others from having what they are so fortunate to have? Is Galsworthy endorsing the status quo, or advocating for change?

[Lily]

Not sure I understand your conundrum, Frances, at least within the context of this story. It seems to me that this section deals with two fortunate families that come into contact with each other in star-crossed ways, i.e., all the five you name have access to "a charmed and lovely life," at least in terms of the material means by which to create such. But that is not enough to create happiness -- more forgiveness and kindness would have been required than there was a willingness to create.

[Frances, Moderator]

Thanks for your comment, Lily, I do see that I expressed myself poorly. In mulling over the novel, I felt that in many ways young Jolyon was very "wealthy" in love-3 marriages of his choice, loved by all his wives in turn and with 4 children who admired and respected him-and we are happy to see him have all this. By contrast, Soames feels to me to have always been on the outside seeing others getting what he has wanted for so long-to love and be loved in return-and no matter how hard he works to try to change this and "improve his lot" in love (and yes, he makes incredibly poor choices and acts badly in his pursuits of love) neither of his marriages is in any way a success and he goes through life essentially alone. So I felt this parallel between the haves and have-nots in material wealth (and we all know that starting rich helps tremendously in staying rich or getting richer) and also in "emotional" wealth, that is, in loving and being loved. And now Fleur, having grown up within a loveless marriage, is struggling to change her lot in life.

[MadgeUK]

It was Galsworthy's intention to criticise the lifestyle and mores of the class to which he himself belonged, especially its obsession with wealth, status, and acquisition which did not lead to happiness and could not buy true love.

[Lily]

Thank you both for your comments. Need to be elsewhere today, so will be brief for now. Life is much easier with resources, both material and emotional.

[Casceil]

I finally caught up today. I had fallen about six weeks behind, and only finished In Chancery a few days ago. I've just finished part II of "To Let." I'm still assuming Jon and Fleur will wind up together. Jon didn't say "no" to getting married so much as to sneaking off without telling his parents first. I'm not sure how he will react when he learns that Irene was married to Soames, but I don't think his parents will stand between him and Fleur. My concern has always been that Soames would, but by the end of Part II he seems to have become more thoughtful.

[Silver]

Fleur is one of those characters whom I cannot help but to like. I find her intriguing. Perhaps she should not be attempting to use duplicity in order to get Jon to marry her, and I feel she should have told Jon the truth when she discovered it, yet, I cannot but help but find her charming and whimsical.

I also admire her strength and determination. Maybe she does not go about it in the best way, and does some things she should not do, but I do think she is a great deal stronger than Jon or maybe she is just more practical and less sentimental, but I can appreciate that.

I tend to agree with Fluer that Jolyon and Soames should not allow their own past to interfere in the lives of Fluer and Jon, and that it is high time they both let go of the past and got on with their lives, as Irene and Jolyon are now happily married, and have a child. And Soames has the child he always wanted, and though it was not a son he has come to adore his daughter.

Particularly now living in world where the divorce would not even be as scandalous as it was all those years ago. I think Soames, Irene and Jolyon are all too overly dramatic and doom and gloom about what happened.

Though I can understand Soames' feelings considering he still carries a flame for Irene, and he was wronged be her (though he himself had made some bad decisions)

I thought Jolyon had quite the overreaction to the situation when he compared Irene to an actual slave. After all she is the one who did of her own free will agree to marry a man she knew she did not love and while things may not have worked out as she had hoped and Soames may have held on longer than he should have, it was not as if he truly was this great, abusive tyrant.

I also think that it is ironic, particularly in the case of Irene and Jolyon that after everything they have been through, and how Jolyon once forsook his entire family and wealth for a woman, they would of all people want to prevent two people from marrying each other out of love.

[Lily]

Silver -- for some reason I'm hard pressed to justify, I'm surprised to see your defense of Fleur. My reaction was much as yours, but I have since realized others see another, more manipulative side (or interpretation) of her behavior.

[Silver]

Lily wrote: "Silver -- for some reason I'm hard pressed to justify, I'm surprised to see your defense of Fleur. My reaction was much as yours, but I have since realized others see another, more manipulative si..."

It is true that Flue does have a manipulative streak in her, and while I do not agree with her choice to attempt to get Jon to marry her prior to his uncovering the truth, and wanting to rope him into the marriage before he knows (and thus might change his mind).

There is something about that mercenary sort of female character that has a strong appeal to me. I am someone who loved Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair. I may not agree with all the choices they make, or the things they do, and I might not want to actually be friends with them, but I do find them very intriguing .

And well I am someone who usually does tend to like the villains more than the hero.

Not that I am saying Flue is a villain, but I tend to like the kind of characters you are most supposed to like or that most people don't like. To me they are usually the most interesting.

Part of it is also a sort of underdog mentality. Everyone is so set against her, and Jon I admire her determination and can understand her feeling the need to play outside the rules a little bit.

[Lily]

Silver wrote: "...I am someone who loved Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair...."

LOL! Were you around the discussion when I attempted, in vain, to defend dear Becky Sharp, one of my favorite characters in all literature? (Albeit, far from my only favorite, a list that in recent years has been growing, thx to so many reads prompted by these boards.)

I do have trouble with Fleur's attempts to prompt marriage before giving Jon "the full story." Such lack of full disclosure always has been one of my major concerns with the behavior of Rochester in Jane Eyre . Yet, in all honesty (irony intended), I can look at parts of my life that worked out wonderfully that I might not have undertaken if I had been aware of certain information before making crucial commitments. (And, others that, with the best knowledge reasonably possible, did not work out so pleasantly.)

[Silver]

Lily wrote: "Silver wrote: "...I am someone who loved Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair...."

LOL! Were you around the discussion when I attempted, in vain, to defend dear Becky Sharp, one of my favorite characters in..."

I personally do think that the best course of action for Fluer to make would have been for herself to divulge the truth to Jon. Coming from her might have changed Jon's reactions (view spoiler)[ Opposed to hearing about it later from his father. Personally I do think that Irene and Jolyon were behaving rather selfishly. I thought it was horrible for his father to tell Jon that his marriage with Flue would destroy his mother's happiness. Apparently they do not think a great deal of their own son's happiness. (hide spoiler)]

I know the past can be painful and have some bearing upon our future actions and reactions, but still I am finding it very difficult to fully wrap my head around, and empathize with the way in which Irene and Jolyon still have not moved on with their lives by now. They have had a happy marriage for a very long time and a son together, and it is not as if Soames has been harassing them. Though still hung up on Irene, he has moved on and devotes himself to his daughter. Irene is just as obsessed with Soames as Soames is with her, just in different ways. And I just cannot justify, or agree with them imposing their own past history on their children.

Honestly, I think they are make the whole Irene-Soames marriage even more tragic than it actually was.

Irene in fact got something that most women at that time period did not get. The opportunity to eventually get out of the unwanted marriage and marry someone she loved. And there were certainly worse husbands than Soames.

[Lily]

Silver wrote: "...And there were certainly worse husbands than Soames...."

The final section did finally give me a slightly different kind of sympathy for Irene than I had throughout the novel. Even though there had been foreshadowing earlier, I had downplayed and not put it in historical perspective. To some extent, it made the situation seem even sadder.

[Frances, Moderator]

I agree with Silver's comments that Irene and Jolyon acted very selfishly in making Jon choose between his love and his mother.

Can someone tell me how I can select a passage in someone else's post to highlight at the beginning of mine (As Lily did in the previous post) thanks.

[Silver]

Frances wrote: "Can someone tell me how I can select a passage in someone else's pos..."

If you hit the reply button that appears right under each persons comment then a quote will automatically appear with an exert from their comment at the top of the comment box.

Or the other way you can do it is is by typing in in their name like

(i)Frances worte: copy and paste the text here(/i)

but you would use <> instead of round parentheses

[Frances, Moderator]

Silver wrote: Or the other way you can do it is is by typing in in their name like

(i)Frances worte: (copy and paste the text)(/i)

but you would use <> instead of round parentheses

OK, here goes...

[Frances, Moderator]

Thanks, that works a treat-sorry for the digression on the thread.

[Lily]

Frances wrote: "Thanks, that works a treat-sorry for the digression on the thread."

Frances -- If I want to select some part of someone's post to which to respond, I choose "reply" under their post. Then, when it appears at the top of the comment space, I simply copy that part of their post that I want, highlight between the "" marks, and replace, as one would in WORD.

< i > and < /i > are the html symbols to open and close italics -- if you remove the spaces, as Silver also explained, with a slightly different example. To see other html options available, like "bold" or "spoiler", select (some html is ok) in the upper right above the comment area. A drop down will explain the options available.

PS -- do also know that you can always go back and edit a post you entered. (Even delete it, although I don't consider that fair if any significant time has elapsed, unless one posts a replacement statement that one has done so.) But many of us spot a typo or other mistake that we would just as soon correct -- and the system lets us.

[Frances, Moderator]

Thanks Lily, I'll give that a try with my next post.

[☯Emily]

Let's think about the problems with family get-togethers if Fleur and Jon were to marry. How uncomfortable! Or would the couple spend one holiday with one set of parents and the next holiday with the other set? Soames might start "wanting" Irene again if he saw her regularly.

[Silver]

☯Emily wrote: "Let's think about the problems with family get-togethers if Fleur and Jon were to marry. How uncomfortable! Or would the couple spend one holiday with one set of parents and the next holiday with..."

I would presume that if they got married then Fleur and Jon would just split visits between the families.

Irene and Jolyon as it is pretty much live on the outskirts of the family, by their own choice, for various obvious reasons, I don't see that a marriage between Fleur and Jon would change that.

After all Jolyon's daughter Holly is married to Val, whose mother is the sister of Soames and that has not created in problems with family get togetherness for them.

[Casceil]

Weren't Holly and Val on a farm in a distant country for many years, largely to avoid family friction?

[Silver]

Casceil wrote: "Weren't Holly and Val on a farm in a distant country for many years, largely to avoid family friction?"

I think Val wanted to raise horses, and Jon was visiting them because he wanted to farm, so if he and Fleur married they could get thier own farm somewhere and equally avoid family drama.

[Lily]

Silver wrote: "Irene and Jolyon as it is pretty much live on the outskirts of the family, by their own choice, for various obvious reasons, I don't see that a marriage between Fleur and Jon would change that..."

Personal experience as a widow tells me that things get more complicated when there is a single parent. The easy thing frequently might be to bring the single parent into the larger family, but clearly that is exactly what would be troublesome, indeed impossible, in these branches of the Forsyte family.

[Silver]

Lily wrote: "Silver wrote: "Irene and Jolyon as it is pretty much live on the outskirts of the family, by their own choice, for various obvious reasons, I don't see that a marriage between Fleur and Jon would c..."

I would presume that Fleur and Jon would get thier own place, particularly if he is serious about farming, and Irene could live with them, or they could all live at Robin Hill, and there is no reason for Irene to have to interact with the rest of the family. She could still keep her distance.

Later Irene also indicates to Jon that she is capable of living alone, so there would be plausible solutions around the problem.

[Lily]

Silver wrote: "Later Irene also indicates to Jon that she is capable of living alone, so there would be plausible solutions around the problem. ..."

Sure. But I am okay with Galsworthy's suggesting their difficulty or unlikelihood in certain circumstances. Irene will age at a time with strong possibility of care remaining with family and servants in the home (with servants beginning to disappear after WWI).

[Silver]

Lily wrote: "But I am okay with Galsworthy's suggesting their difficulty or unlikelihood in certain circumstances. Irene will age at a time with strong possibility of care remaining with family and ."

I am someone who does believe in where there is a will, there is a way.

I do not think in any situation that is only one possible choice, or one possible outcome.

It might present certain difficulties, or challenges, but I do not think it is inevitable that if Fleur and Jon get married, Irene will have to be in the presence of Soames.

And to be quite frank when Irene does reach that age in which she might need the care of other family well there is a good chance by then Soames will have already died himself (as I do believe he is older than her).

So there really wouldn't be a problem any more at that point.

[Frances, Moderator]

Most importantly, most parents would want their child's happiness, particularly in something like marriage, and to ask your child not to marry the person they love, not because you dislike the intended partner but because you are uncomfortable with their parent seems very selfish to me (and I say that both as a parent and as a child). I would assume that, given Irene's ability to live alone and the wealth of the family that accommodations could be made so that she and Soames would not need to meet. As Silver points out, it is not as if there are multiple large family gatherings happening any more-Irene and Jolyon have already set themselves apart from the larger Forsyte clan.