The Last Man - Week 3 (Vol II - Chapters I - V)

[Gem , Moderator]

I'm glad I stuck with it (thanks to Rafael) because it really got moving this week. There is a lot to unpack here this week.

Perdita does a complete turn around in her attitude toward Raymond when she finds out he's been held captive. It feels like, to me, that she doesn't have the ability to put life events into a healthy perspective. She (again, to me) threw the baby out with the bathwater when she suspected Raymond was unfaithful (it wasn't clear to me that there was infidelity or she just assumed such) and then was will to travel to a foreign country, taking her child with her, to try to get him out of prison. Of course, her suicide after his death furthers my feeling that she was rather unstable. How do you view all this?

Evadne being on the battlefield seems a bit unrealistic to me. Not only on the battlefield but she then prophesies Raymond's death which he (Raymond) took as a given and I'm not sure I understand why. Do you have any thoughts about this? Any prospective? And why do you think Raymond pushed ahead to enter the city when all his advisors were telling him to wait until the winter (for the cold weather to kill the plague)? What was the purpose of the author in including the death of Raymond's dog?

We heard about the appearance of the Black Sun. What do you think that represented? Very little is said about this occurrence other than it happened and how the rays appeared as shadows. Any thoughts about this?

We see a glaring autobiographical element in the death of Lionel's middle child. Up until this point, I had not noticed the parallels with the author's life but this was poignant. Have you noticed any other autobiographical elements up until this point?

There was a large section extolling the virtues of his eldest son and the beginning of his studies at Eton. What is the importance of this to the story?

I noticed in some of the talk and flowery language about the plague that the author mentioned the extinction of smallpox and that foresight to be pretty amazing and yet the rest of the details of the story are very dated, the author didn't think to advance much in the way of societal structure, warfare, transportation, etc. What do you make of this foresight and why do you think she fell so short in these other areas?

I did find the details of the result of the plague to mirror what is happening today with the COVID virus. Folks unable to pay rent, food being in short supply in part due to the breakdown of transportation and trade, folks having to care for one another. What do you think the author used as a guide for these details?

[Lori, Moderator]

Yes, Perdita seemed unstable, especially for someone with a small child. It seems a bit ironic that Lionel did to Perdita something very similar to what Idris's mother attempted with her, and it, predictably, did not go over well.

Some casual Victorian racism in this section.

I feel bad saying this, considering Raymond’s end, but I’d gotten really tired of him. Not so much of Raymond himself, but of Lionel’s constant, flowery, over-the-top praise of him. In real life, people like Raymond who change their minds at the drop of a hat make me nervous. His sudden willingness to credit Evadne's prediction seems strange for a decorated warrior.

Yes, it's interesting to see the parallels between the economic situation at that time with the plague and today. It's good of Lionel, Adrian, and Perdita to take people in, when they could just as easily have isolated themselves.

[Robin P, Moderator]

I really wanted to like this book but I am finding it ridiculous. The declamatory speeches, the ecstatic praise of Raymond ( who I don’t find admirable), the total lack of psychological motivation all loom larger than with other authors. We saw flowery language with Evelina and coincidence with Dickens, but there was something we could recognize in the way most characters behaved. Here we have stick puppets pulled one way and then another. Some of this is due to the values of the Romantic movement, I suppose. But none of the characters behave in ways a normal person would.

I also saw elements that are true today, including emigrants to Western Europe, economic effects of the plague, etc. The author forecasts smallpox being eradicated but not war, and not the assumption that the Turks are barbarians who need to be removed.

Earlier in the book, Adrian was the ideal and Raymond a darker foil. Now Adrian almost disappears and Raymond is adored by all . I resented that he got so much attention and adoration, when hundreds more died unrecognized. And Raymond’s recovery from captivity seemed awfully quick. I have just posted some info about Alexandre Dumas for our next read and his father was a war prisoner for several years. From a man noted for his size and strength, he returned crippled, his eyesight, hearing and digestion weakened. He was never able to work again and died when his son was a few years old. Many people in this era would have heard stories like that from the Napoleonic Wars. But Raymond bounces back - until he is faced with a curse.

[Kate]

I thought Perdita's break with Raymond was based not on infidelity per se, but because she felt that their complete unity of mind and total sharing were over. I do think she's dramatic, and unstable.

I also thought Evadne's end, and Raymond's response, were very strange. It almost sounded like he recognized some kind of soul-mate status there, which was unexpected. I'm curious about his representing Byron - I don't know much about Byron, but I recently read a historical fiction novel about his daughter, Ada Lovelace, in which he did not come across as admirable. (Sure, it was fiction, but I read a little bit about him later, and the basic facts in the novel were accurate). I wonder if the weirdness of Raymond is part of Mary Shelley working out mixed feelings about a very complicated person?

As for the older son's virtues - I'm assuming that Lionel is the "last man" on earth, based on the title (?) I wondered if the son is really going to have a chance to live up to all the promise Lionel sees in him, given the approaching plague.

I just remembered yesterday the very start of this book: where the unnamed narrator finds the Sibyl's cave near Naples. It sounds like the "leaves strewed about" contain disconnected prophesies in various languages, but the narrator says "Scattered and unconnected as they were, I have been obliged to add links...But the main substance rests on the truths contained in these poetic rhapsodies." That made a little more sense to me out of the wackiness of the style - Mary Shelley is writing something that is supposed to have been written in ancient verses, translated by one narrator (from the cave), who is putting words in the mouth of another (Lionel). No wonder it's not easy reading.

[Detlef]

It’s all very much over the top and very difficult to digest. People don’t talk to each other. Assumption cause total turnarounds. There is not much in the way of psychological development. Unstable characters and over the top reactions do nothing to endear characters to the reader. And the sudden appearance of characters (like Evadne on the battlefield) seem very farfetched and totally unrealistic. Also the reasoning of Raymond to enter Constantinople remains unclear, and it points towards another unstable character, unable to think things through in a reasonable fashion.
The mentioning of the extinction of smallpox points to some thought about the possibilities of modern medicine, but then there is no feeling of progress in the response to the plague. No mentionIng at all about possible research in the medical field. There connection to COVID-19 comes to mind, of course. And some of the reactions of the population are very similar to what happens today.
Having said that, this all still did not make a lot of sense to me. A frustrating book.

[Gem , Moderator]

Lori wrote: "Yes, Perdita seemed unstable, especially for someone with a small child. It seems a bit ironic that Lionel did to Perdita something very similar to what Idris's mother attempted with her, and it, p..."

Good point, I missed that parallel entirely.

Lionel’s constant, flowery, over-the-top praise of him
This seems to be the author's writing style, using 50 words where a good dozen would suffice. I didn't notice this in Frankenstein but then I adore that story and the monster so much that maybe I didn't notice it.

[Gem , Moderator]

Robin P wrote: "I really wanted to like this book but I am finding it ridiculous. The declamatory speeches, the ecstatic praise of Raymond ( who I don’t find admirable), the total lack of psychological motivation all loom larger than with other authors. We saw flowery language with Evelina and coincidence with Dickens, but there was something we could recognize in the way most characters behaved. Here we have stick puppets pulled one way and then another. Some of this is due to the values of the Romantic movement, I suppose. But none of the characters behave in ways a normal person would."
I couldn't agree more, with every point, although I don't know enough about the Romantic movement to have an opinion there... I need to read up on that, specifically.

[Gem , Moderator]

Kate wrote: "I thought Perdita's break with Raymond was based not on infidelity per se, but because she felt that their complete unity of mind and total sharing were over. I do think she's dramatic, and unstable."

Do you think these character traits (or lack thereof) could be as a result of the lack of parenting, love, and stability of her early childhood? I wonder if the author actually thought this threw or simply use this Perdita and her relationship with Raymond as a dramatic element.

Mary Shelley is writing something that is supposed to have been written in ancient verses, translated by one narrator (from the cave), who is putting words in the mouth of another (Lionel). No wonder it's not easy reading.
Brilliant thought!

[Gem , Moderator]

Detlef wrote: "The mentioning of the extinction of smallpox points to some thought about the possibilities of modern medicine, but then there is no feeling of progress in the response to the plague."

Not only that but warfare, weapons, modes of transportation and communication (just a few examples) did not progress at all either. I find all of that disappointing.

Having said that, this all still did not make a lot of sense to me. A frustrating book.
I agree. I heard this was not the easiest book to get through but and "important one." I question that now.

[Robin P, Moderator]

Yes, I think this book is in the category of, “I read it so you don’t have to “. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone! The idea had great promise. Besides everything else, the various sections aren’t tied together. There is the youth section, the war section, then the plague section. The characters don’t behave consistently from one to the next.

[Gem , Moderator]

Robin P wrote: "Yes, I think this book is in the category of, “I read it so you don’t have to."

That was funny!

[Robin P, Moderator]

I feel a little guilty. Even though classics aren't everyone's cup of tea, I generally see enough value to give at least a 3 star rating. In this case, I'm leaning toward 2. She certainly tried hard!

[Lori, Moderator]

Robin P wrote: "I feel a little guilty. Even though classics aren't everyone's cup of tea, I generally see enough value to give at least a 3 star rating. In this case, I'm leaning toward 2. She certainly tried hard!"

Honestly, yeah, me too. Unless the last part is phenomenal. I'm glad I read it, though.

[Daniela]

Chapter V: "O, for some medical vial to purge unwholesome nature, and bring back the earth to its accustomed health!" It's us, isn't it? It is a difficult book to read beacuse of the language, but I also find increasingly difficult the theme of the plague...