How is Gilbert Osmond so bad?

[Hogen10]

Hello: I must state I listened to an excellent BBC audiobook narration by John Wood, whose nuanced reading was delightful. however I guess I missed something while listening, as I find it hard find where exactly Henery James states the bad qualities of Mr. Osmond. He's is advertised as a schemer and money chaser. I can see where he is jaded, and his personality is not pleasant. But I'm surprised why and how we should hate him so. Where are his bad qualities written? Thanks for any comments.

Jim

[Paul]

He proposes to marry Isobel when he's already got a female companion (Madame what's her name). That's not very nice.

[Scull17]

I have a question. Did Isabel's money transfer over to Mr. Osmond once they were married?

I'm trying to understand how this worked in the late 19th century.

[Leo]

Osmond misled Isabel in a matrimonial way. Their marriage was for show. It was bereft of love and affection. He himself was incapable of such personal touches because of his perception of vulgarity. Also, he is dishonest in a manner that withholds secrets, and a separate one that manipulates. Furthermore, I shudder at Pansy's fate.

[David]

I'm a little confused what you think Osmond's good traits are? He is manipulative, unfaithful, arrogant, domineering, and set to destroy Isabel's freedom and independence. He takes Isabel as a wife with the intention of making her his spiritual slave: he hates that she has her own ideas, desires and opinions. He is also obsessed with appearances, and (like Madame Merle), most of his actions and material possessions (and his wife) are for the appearance of living a life that is approved or admired by the society he wishes to keep.

[Carolina]

This book depresses me a great deal, and my personal view of hell is Isabel´s life after getting married with Osmod.

[Shamim]

I have read this book back in 2003 and I have forgotten many details. But I think what I must have found quite queer was why on earth Isabel decide to marry Osmond? To me she seemed like a hard, complex and masochistic woman who reveled in the pain that she was capable of inflicting on her suitors. I think all of us here can settle on the reasons as to why Gilbert Osmond should be labeled "bad". Isn't Isabel "bad" as well? What do you make of that question?

[David]

Shamim wrote: "I have read this book back in 2003 and I have forgotten many details. But I think what I must have found quite queer was why on earth Isabel decide to marry Osmond? To me she seemed like a hard, co..."

I think you mean sadistic, not masochistic? And I really don't see that at all. She is a very independent woman, and she pretty genuinely is against the thought of marrying anyone until she is fooled by Osmond. How does she inflict pain on here suitors? By not marrying them? Seems like an awfully harsh indictment of her choice not to marry Warburton or the American Guy (forgot his name). She's not a stereotypical romantic sex doll like many women written in that period, but I think that makes her more human, not more hard. She is complex, she has real desires and real reservations, she isn't set on marriage, in fact she is set against it until she finds someone who she thinks would make marriage a reward rather than a sacrifice. In the end she bears the punishment of that choice.

I really don't see how you can argue that Isabel is bad, I think you will have to offer up some evidence to support that claim, since James intended her as a symbol of innocence, based on his cousin Minnie.

[Shamim]

David wrote: "Shamim wrote: "I have read this book back in 2003 and I have forgotten many details. But I think what I must have found quite queer was why on earth Isabel decide to marry Osmond? To me she seemed ..."

Thank you for the reply David. Pardon my English, obviously I meant sadistic but used the wrong word, and you were right about that. I think your analysis is correct if you consider Isabel and her motives in comparison to motives and the independence that the women of the present world enjoy. But I think why Isabel seemed to me 'bad' or to be more precise a hard woman, is because Henry James portrayed her in that manner. She was enigmatic, not quite sure what she wanted, and in her own way she raised the expectations of her suitors; and then decided to leave them in the limbo. If you compare that depiction of Isabel as to how Lord Warburton and the American guy was featured, you will find that their characters were sketched in a much more sympathetic and likable manner. Maybe my conclusions had been sweeping and I had been unjust in labeling her as plain 'bad' (which sounds harsh and is too broad a definition), yet one cannot get away from the idea that after reading the novel one will not find in Isabel a noble, likable and kind woman. Maybe such traits are not things that we should expect out of heroes and heroines in novels. But this discussion was about Osmond being 'bad' and that led me to think of others who could also be pigeonholed like that. Thanks again for the comment, and also for the added information that the character was based on Henry James' cousin Minnie.

[Haidy]

Carrie wrote: "This book depresses me a great deal, and my personal view of hell is Isabel´s life after getting married with Osmod."

Actually, what depressed me too is Isabel's life after marriage as she's deprived from her liberty and self-independence and that's freakin' me out :( because her character is typically like mine :(

[Carolina]

Well, I think Isabel refused to get engaged to the other guys because they were mostly attractive and she was afraid to be kept under their scheming and manipulation. But then she falls into a much more dangerous trap: Osmond will not only manipulate but actually destroy her, as he bears no love or true affection or even some respect.

[David]

Shamim wrote: "David wrote: "Shamim wrote: "I have read this book back in 2003 and I have forgotten many details. But I think what I must have found quite queer was why on earth Isabel decide to marry Osmond? To ..."

She doesn't marry Warburton or Goodwood because she doesn't feel anything for them beyond friendship. She's a very proto-feminist model of the contemporary woman: she has male friends (her friend circle is actually mostly male while she is abroad, aside from Henrietta and Mme. Merle), and she doesn't see marriage as the goal of her existence.

You're right, she doesn't know exactly what she wants. Who does? That's equivalent to saying anyone who dates someone and doesn't marry them is "bad" or "leading them on" which is obviously not true. She was actually very candid to both suitors that she didn't want them, once she felt sure that she really didn't. Their persistence doesn't vilify Isabel, though it does place her in an awkward position (for example when Warburton feigns interest in Pansy). I would also say that while Goodwood is rather sympathetic, Warburton is decidedly not, especially when he manipulates Pansy to get closer to Isabel.

Your interpretation of the text seems to take a very narrow view of the role of women in society. I find it difficult to classify Isabel as "bad" simply for not knowing what she wants, or for turning down two "good matches." Mme. Merle is bad, Osmond is bad, you could argue Warburton is bad too. (All these in a very broad defintion of the word "bad," after all none are that 2-D). But I think Isabel is (besides maybe Ralph, Henrietta, Pansy, etc.) the least bad of the cast.

[Joan]

I felt Isabel was determined to live true to herself. I cannot understand or remember why she married Osmond. It was a story of missed opportunities and tragic choices. Isabel wasn't bad just not the best judge of character.

[Shamim]

Hogen10 wrote: "Hello: I must state I listened to an excellent BBC audiobook narration by John Wood, whose nuanced reading was delightful. however I guess I missed something while listening, as I find it hard fi..."

Are "scheming" and "money chasing" by resorting to subterfuge not manifestations of bad qualities? I think during the turn of the century these would have been considered rather undesirable characteristics in a person who wanted to be considered an elite and a snob- things that Gilbert Osmond hankered after.

[Linda]

James' main idea in writing this book was to put Isabel's consciousness as the focus of the novel. So, he shapes the narrative so that we won't have the definitive word on just how evil Osmond is until SHE is ready to see it, but he gives us hints by mentioning from time to time other characters' feelings about the man, while leading us towards Isabel's own awakening. He lets us catch Osmond and Mme. Merle at a moment when they do not realize they are being watched. What strikes Isabel is the fact that they have dispensed with proper "posture" and manners. Osmond does not greet Mme, Merle by rising to his feet, she in turn does not seem offended by his behavior, suggesting familiarity. But we won't get the final word on Osmond till Chapter 42, when we are allowed to make the discovery with her, as she sits before a dying fire, ruminating. "Osmond, deliberately,almost malignantly had put the lights out one by one." "his egotism lay hidden like a serpent in a bank of flowers." Her life with him is a wall at the end of a narrow tunnel, it is darkness and suffocation. His evil is that he hates her because he cannot control her, he cannot keep her from having her own ideas.

[Gilbert]

Yes, Linda's remarks strike me as very pertinent. The power of James's writing is the extraordinary psychic density that he achieves, mostly by precisely saying what a situation or phenomenon is NOT. There is this accumulation of perception. So we readers often are both observing Isabel but also often in something like her subject position. That is, not able to grasp what is unfolding until it has unfolded. A creepy experience that I can't resist.

[Kirsten]

Gilbert wrote: "A creepy experience that I can't resist. "

Well put. It's almost visceral.

[Linda]

I agree

[[deleted user]]

I couldn't get into this book. I didn't understand anything and I felt like there was too much background for Isabel.

[Susan]

Isabel begins the story as a very immature young woman who wants adventure and excitement in her life; as a result, she fails to appreciate those who do surround her with consideration and respect. She is fortunate in that others see more in her that readers do, and her inheritance saves her from an unpleasant fate. As I read the book some time ago I settled into watching this woman grow and redeem herself in the end. I too cringe when I think of Pansy's fate.

[Cynthia]

Another detail: Isabel was proud to be a young woman who liked to entertain herself with new ideas, but Gilbert Osmond considered Isabel's interest in ideas as a flaw in the otherwise perfect ornament he was determined to acquire for himself.

[Gilbert]

Cynthia wrote: "Another detail: Isabel was proud to be a young woman who liked to entertain herself with new ideas, but Gilbert Osmond considered Isabel's interest in ideas as a flaw in the otherwise perfect orna..."
This is so beautifully put. What makes James so irresistible to me is the subtlety and density of psychological detail that fascinates and horrifies me as I read how these two irreconcilable ways of being conflict and how one eventually overpowers the other.

[Hassan]

at the first of chapter 42 we read:(...because his words had put the situation before her...). what is the meaning of this sentence?

[Hassan]

at the first of chapter 42 we read:(...because his words had put the situation before her...). what is the meaning of this sentence?

[Monica]

When Campion made a movie of the book, she is much more explicit, having him strike her and knock her to the floor. This isn't in the book. Campion may have felt justified in extrapolating because abuse is abuse even if it's 'just' psychological. Or she may have felt that James was implying more than he stated. After all, much of his behavior would have been legal at the time and maybe not even questionable, at least among 'sophisticated' Europeans.

But another reason Campion might have done it that way is that much of the information about him is parceled out in hints. For instance, the truly great scene where Isabel realizes that she is keeping the man, the woman who is/was his mistress, and his illegitimate child by observing their posture.

Hints were one of the main ways this sort of information was conveyed at the time, but a filmmaker may have felt that James' way of conveying this information was both too hard to follow and too difficult to convey visually, particularly in a time where information is often provided more explicitly.

The hints are there if you go back and look, but that's what they are. Hints.

I wonder, the more I think about it, whether James realized that the problem wasn't whether she'd made a good choice or a bad choice, but that she was too vulnerable once she'd made any choice.