Wings of the Dove, The: Week 1 - Book First & Second

[Lily]

Bill wrote: "You said that I was reading into the Chapter I what I knew but wasn't there...."

I certainly didn't intend to say that. I intended more to say that you saw what was there because of what you knew. I at least like to believe that I didn't see those same things because I was a naive reader. E.g., I didn't yet know whether Lionel is pathological liar, even if James has written "there was no truth in him." James has certainly presented the possibility, the likelihood, foreshadowing; he had yet to fully substantiate the claim, at least to this reader. Nor was I clear about the character of Kate. Perhaps it was a question of whether I trusted the narrator yet?

From another perspective, I really did not intend to comment on or question what you perceived so much as to relate what my experience had been as a reader new to the story and text.

[Lily]

Bill wrote: "'She stared into the tarnished glass too hard indeed to be staring at her beauty alone.'..."

What are the relevant clues in the text as to what Kate is staring at?

[[deleted user]]

I have re-read further.

Kate's father says that any man that's good enough for Mrs. Lowder is good enough for him---to be Kate's husband. BUT would that man be "good enough" for Kate?

I do rather like that quote of Kate's father: "'You shan't be so beastly poor, my darling,' Mr. Croy declared, 'if I can help it.'" And the only way he can help it...is by having someone else make sure that she isn't poor.

And here I'm feeling sympathy for Mr. Croy. It's the "my darling," and the "Good-bye, love," and the way it is so obvious that he can do nothing whatsoever to help his daughter. "Though he spoke not in anger -- rather in infinite sadness -- he fairly turner her out."

But then....I'm back to loathing him for that closing description: "What he couldn't forgive was her dividing with Marian her scant share of the provision their mother had been able to leave them. She should have dividied it with HIM" (69).

Sigh of disgust. He cares more about the money than he cares about her.

Mmmm. Is he so destitute? Does he have such a need of fine things that he would trade someone he loves for money? Would Kate? Like father like daughter? I hate asking those questions because I really, really like Kate.

Questions: "She had gone to Mrs. Lowder on her mother's death -- gone with an effort the strain and pain of which made her at present, as she recalled them, reflect on the longway she had travlled since then" (70).

WHY was it such an effort for Kate to go to her aunt's? Had there been quarrels between the two families? Is Mrs. Lowder the sister of Kate's mother? One who had apparently married "better" than Kate's mother? Had Kate's mother married for love?

And why is Lionel Croy afraid of Mrs. Lowder? Kate to her father: "Because you're not afraid of any one else in the world as you are of HER?"

Kate's father says that any man that's good enough for Mrs. Lowder is good enough for him---to be Kate's husband. BUT would that man be "good enough" for Kate?

I do rather like that quote of Kate's father: "'You shan't be so beastly poor, my darling,' Mr. Croy declared, 'if I can help it.'" And the only way he can help it...is by having someone else make sure that she isn't poor.

[Lily]

MadgeUK wrote: "...Will passivity continue to be Kate's function?..."

Is she passive? (Coming at her father's request, waiting, not leaving) Manipulative? ('the way she might still pull things round had she only been a man,' offering to live with her father, splitting her inheritance as she has.) Straight-shooting? (Compassionate towards sister and father within the means extended her.)

I don't know yet.

[[deleted user]]

More questions: WHO had given the admonition to Kate not to sell anything, "since everything belonge to the 'estate.'" (70). Mmm. Whoever is was, they used the word "estate" ... although there was almost nothing. So... a person who was familiar with the term? Someone who tended to think that people left 'estates' when they died?

And I've an asterisk in that sentence: "It wouldn't be the first time she had seen herself obliged to accept with smothered irong other people's interpretation of her conduct. She often ended by giving up to them--it seemed really the way to live--the version that met their convenience" (70).

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "...Will passivity continue to be Kate's function?..."

Is she passive? (Coming at her father's request, waiting, not leaving) Manipulative? ('the way she might still pull things ro..."

Or, is she passive BECAUSE she doesn't have any power or leverage?

[[deleted user]]

I have finished reading Book One. Very much enjoyed disliking the sister (Marian). Laughed at loud "Marion would put up, in fine, with somebody better; she (!!) only wouldn't put up with somebody so much worse" (83).

[Bill]

Lily,

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I trust the narrator, I don't think he's unreliable. I trust narrators unless I have a reason not to. I think most narrator's are, in fact, reliable.

But even more to the point, unreliable narrators are exclusively, so far as I know, a function of first person narration. I understand how a first person narrator can be unreliable, I'm not quite sure a third person narrator can be unreliable.

There's always the possibility of more to be revealed, but the characterization of Lionel and Kate are sophisticated and are not, so far as I know, betrayed.

The characterization of Lionel is complex -- he is selfish and pathological -- and I think that "pathology" is not inappropriate. We see him lying to Kate to get her to visit and not even taking the trouble to live up to his lie. He is scheming with no concern for Kate's feelings or the plight of his other daughter. There was "no truth in him" and he feels the inheritance should be spent on him rather than his daughter and four needy grandchildren. The line is wonderfully funny. "He thought she should share it with HIM."

Lily wrote,

Bill wrote: "'She stared into the tarnished glass too hard indeed to be staring at her beauty alone.'..."

What are the relevant clues in the text as to what Kate is staring at?

I think it's this -- it may not be -- but it's the closest thing we have to answer:

There was a minute during which, though her eyes were fixed, she quite visibly lost herself in the thought of the way she might still pull things round had she only been a man. It was the name, above all, she would take in hand—the precious name she so liked and that, in spite of the harm her wretched father had done it, was not yet past praying for. She loved it in fact the more tenderly for that bleeding wound. But what could a penniless girl do with it but let it go?

James, Henry (2011-03-24). The Wings of the Dove, Volume 1 of 2 (p. 6). Kindle Edition.

We don't know precisely. Perhaps she thought that if she were a man she could earn money. The narrator doesn't tell us more precisely, and here I think we must remain ignorant except to infer that Kate was lost in thought.

[Bill]

Adelle wrote: Kate's father says that any man that's good enough for Mrs. Lowder is good enough for him---to be Kate's husband. BUT would that man be "good enough" for Kate?

I don't think he cares.

I do rather like that quote of Kate's father: "'You shan't be so beastly poor, my darling,' Mr. Croy declared, 'if I can help it.'" And the only way he can help it...is by having someone else make sure that she isn't poor.

I read this more sinisterly. I read Lionel as saying, "You are not going to be poor and unable to help me, not if I can help it."

But then....She should have dividied it with HIM"

Sigh of disgust. He cares more about the money than he cares about her.

Or HIS OTHER DAUGHTER either. Marian, loathesome as she may be, is still his daughter with four mouths to feed.

Mmmm. Is he so destitute? Does he have such a need of fine things that he would trade someone he loves for money? Would Kate? Like father like daughter? I hate asking those questions because I really, really like Kate.

Remember, it was the job of parents to be certain that whomever their daughters fell in love was suitable. And suitable meant, to a large extent, comfortable. Remember Lady Bracknell's, "Three addresses inspires confidence -- even in tradesman." On the other hand, there was a concern for propriety. Lady Bracknell also says, "To be born, or at any rate bred, in a hand-bag, whether it had handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution."

Questions: "She had gone to Mrs. Lowder on her mother's death -- gone with an effort the strain and pain of which made her at present, as she recalled them, reflect on the longway she had travlled since then" (70).

WHY was it such an effort for Kate to go to her aunt's? Had there been quarrels between the two families? Is Mrs. Lowder the sister of Kate's mother? One who had apparently married "better" than Kate's mother? Had Kate's mother married for love?

I think it's the character of Aunt Maud, who is interested only in Kate to further her interests by having her marry a great man.

And why is Lionel Croy afraid of Mrs. Lowder? Kate to her father: "Because you're not afraid of any one else in the world as you are of HER?" >

Not clear. Perhaps because of her power to help with money or withdraw the help.

[Bill]

Adelle wrote: "Lily wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "...Will passivity continue to be Kate's function?..."

Is she passive? (Coming at her father's request, waiting, not leaving) Manipulative? ('the way she might still..."

I think she is less passive than having no ability to act. Again, there is very important line about her thinking about she might have done if she were a man.

[Bill]

I do think this line, asterisked by Adelle, extremely important.

It wouldn't be the first time she had seen herself obliged to accept with smothered irony other people's interpretation of her conduct. She often ended by giving up to them--it seemed really the way to live--the version that met their convenience.

But I think it's the question not only of what she lets others but how others powers shape her action.

[MadgeUK]

We see Lionel from Kate's p.o.v. and we later learn, through Merton, that she exaggerates the circumstances of her family. If he was ill, destitute and ostracised by society he would surely welcome her coming to live with him, so perhaps it was noble of him to refuse and to push her towards a better marriage? IMO we need to know more about Lionel to be able to judge him, especially as James' does not reveal what dreadful things we had done.

[Bill]

Madge,

I know HJ was supposed to believe in writing entirely from the POV a character. But honestly, I think he mixes 3rd person limited and 3rd person omniscient.

At the end of the first chapter, for example, the explanation of Lionel's anger that Kate hadn't shared his inheritance with her.

Where does Merton say she exaggerates the circumstances of her family? And, frankly, how would Merton know?

[MadgeUK]

Book second, chapter 3. When describing her family misfortunes: 'Kate confessedly described them with an excess of impatience; it was much of her charm for Denscher that she gave in general that turn to her descriptions, partly as if to amuse by free and humorous colour, partly - and that charm was the greatest - as if to work off, for her own relief, her constant perception of the incongruity of things....therefore when in talk with him, she was violent and almost unfeminine, it was quite as if they had settled for intercourse on the short cut of the fantastic and the happy language of exaggeration. ...It had come to be definite between them at a primary stage...[that] they could think whatever they liked about whatever they would - in other words they could say it....Our young man, it must be added, was conscious enough that it was Kate who profited most by this particular play of the fact of intimacy.'

[MadgeUK]

I came across this comment on WotD today:-

'The point to ask ourselves as critics is whether or not Henry James was intentional in his “un-readability.” Was his intent to tell us a story, or to literally investigate the depths of human consciousness? How much was he influenced by his brother William’s work in the field of psychology? Was he personally (maybe selfishly?) being vague with long, undulating passages of prose, or was it a necessary technique for this type of novel? Empirically, there is little textual evidence to point us either way. But as both a reader and a critic, I think there was a subtle mixture of both. Based on the text itself, there is little doubt that The Wings of a Dove is a tough novel to tackle and digest. It can become increasingly frustrating when trying to pare down James’s complex sentences to their root meaning. However, I think what he has done is intentionally make this type of novel a little more difficult (in terms of syntax) based on the complexities of the human mind. Referencing the Preface to his 1909 New York Edition again, James reflexively admits to his “having to sound here and there a little deep.” My interpretation of this is that he intentionally has to be complex in order to illustrate the concept of complexity, something a novel of consciousness certainly has to contain. Certainly, his work on Wings accomplished this goal.'

Also' 'To be complex or “incomprehensible” is one thing, but to manipulate language to form such a lasting and relevant work, is simply Jamesian.'

So there we have it:)

[Bill]

Thanks, Madge.

In regarding what you quoted above:

Presenting rich fully drawn characters has always been part of literature -- and this is already very much true in the Iliad, which seems (to me) both modern and primitive at the same time.

I cannot imagine any writer ever setting out to be "unreadable". I think writers write to express what they feel, present what they see, share what they think and they don't merely wish to express it but communicate it.

The problem is that sometimes perceptions don't seem to find expression in conventional language or approaches. "Modernism" in literature will soon follow The Wings of a Dove -- and the classic gripe against modernist fiction is that it is difficult to understand. For whatever reasons, in the early part of the 20th century, conventional story telling began to seem false, untrue to the human experience, and writers began to tell stories in less conventional ways. Proust, Woolf, Joyce. Poetry and theater becomes more difficult also.

One characteristic of this work is that it is more densely packed, more complex, more subtle. It demands to be read slowly. We don't zip along until we get to the next plot point. We need to read and read. The experience is more like reading poetry.

I'm impatient too, but the more I can let go my impatience, the more I let the author write his novel (or her novel) his or her way, the better able I am to appreciate it.

The writer above said a mouthful when he said, "It can become increasingly frustrating when trying to pare down Jamess' complex sentences to their root meaning." Believe I'm not used to coming across sentences I can unpack grammatically. I'm leading a discussion on "The Waste Land" by Eliot and there are sentences I don't understand.

He who was living is now dead.
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience.

Well, if we were living, doesn't that mean we're not living now, and if that's the case, how are we dying, and what does "with a little patience" mean -- that we are patient or that we're impatient?

But i understand what I don't understand. With James' sentences I sometimes think I'm walking in a maze, and I need Ariadne and her string to not get lost.

But I well accept the fact that James was going after the complex subtleties of psychological life, after something that was not easily expressed. If I don't understand it completely, well...so what? I understand and enjoy plenty.

Secondly...

More and more, I've been developing a theory of reading speed, and that reading speeds need to be adjusted to what is being read.

James requires being read slowly to be ENJOYED. The enjoyment comes in moving slowly enough to enjoy the scenery. If you're in an area with beautiful houses and exquisite gardens, you probably don't want to tour the area in a car. A bicycle or on foot is the better choice so you're moving slowly enough to appreciate detail.

On the other hand, if you want the thrill of road with twists and turns and fairly boring scenery, you need to be in a car and pick up the pace, because walking the route is too safe, too easy. There aren't the details to enjoy. Thrillers are written that way.

I often find adjusting reading speed can be a challenge. We tend to have standard, somewhat flexible, reading speeds that is fine for most books. But not all of them. And we're not used to making this adjustment.

I was reading Chapter IV this morning at breakfast and finding I need to keep reading more and more slowly -- and then when I got comfortable with a snail's pace, I began to enjoy the chapter a great deal more.

[Bill]

Madge,

I asked for the source of the quotation because I didn't remember Kate's ever suggesting her family's situation was not so serious.

I don't think she's doing that there. I think she's relating the disasters from a comic point of view, she's engaging in satire, perhaps self-satire -- but I don't think that's meant to suggest the circumstances are less serious, simply that she's using the comic mode rather than the tragic one.

It's interesting that she's capable of it, that James describes it as "unfeminine" (which reminds of discussions of why, until relatively there have been fewer female comedians)and

Haven't you ever heard people describe their circumstances, even sometimes horrible circumstances, with wit?

[MadgeUK]

The word used by Merton (and therefore James) to describe Kate's descriptions of her family was 'exaggeration'. 'Bigging it up' we might say today. Another epithet for them was 'dark disasters' - nothing comic there. I see no indication in the text that she is being humorous or that Merton sees her descriptions as being humorous or comic. He is puzzled by her descriptions of her father because she does not explain exactly what her father has done to deserve his reputation but he lets it lie because he feels it may be part of the 'game' of exaggeration they have engaged in. And if the father is drawn in an unsatisfactory, perhaps erroneous, way, then other family members may not be drawn accurately either. The implication may be that Kate is an unreliable narrator. How I have heard people describe their circumstances has nothing to do with how the circumstances are described here. You may see humour or wit, I do not and my interpretation is as valid as yours.

Writers may not set out to be unreadable but they can set out to be complex and James admitted that he was this and perhaps too 'deep'. The long Preface to this book, in which James goes into great depth about what he intended, is proof that the text needed explanation. That many others have described this work as complex and 'incomprehensible' is also indicative and not to be lightly dismissed. Some authors have deep, complex characters and use writing to exorcise their demons. The saleability of their work is not always uppermost in their minds.

The speed at which one reads is a personal matter and does not necessarily have anything to do with the enjoyment of a book. We all read at different speeds, and perhaps read parts of a book more slowly than others. I always savour descriptive passages of scenery and interiors for instance but I often rush dialogue. That is a personal taste about which there is no right or wrong. For many of us, our professional lives, where we have been required to read complex documents within time limits, may now impinge upon how we read for pleasure. I guess there are others here who, like myself, have taken 'speed reading' courses to assist our work and subsequently find it difficult to slow down. Some people are always slow readers, whatever the subject matter. These different approaches do not necessarily affect the understanding of a book. My work has entailed an enormous amount of reading and I HAD to read fast to get through it all but I would challenge anyone who said that I did not understand or appreciate what I was reading. Indeed, one of the advantages of reading a great deal is that you become able to make comparisons of authors, style and content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_re...

[MadgeUK]

...and if that's the case, how are we dying, and what does "with a little patience" mean -- that we are patient or that we're impatient?

To quote the Book of Common Prayer, which Eliot may have had in mind, 'in the midst of life we are in death' and so we are always dying, which of necessity requires patience and, presumably, repentance for sins committed. Lily can probably expand on this.

[[deleted user]]

Random Thoughts on Book 2. I commit to one hour of typing....so I haven't the time to directly interact. LOL, plus... everyone is a couple books ahead. Read/don't read.


(view spoiler)[

There are a few terms that reappear over and over [I included several….but the words are there throughout the rest of 2, and 3 and 4]---and tie in with the theme, or with one of the themes, of WoD. Could be mere coincidence… Or, could be James interweaving these words into his work to keep our unconscious minds thinking on these themes.


• "Mark" One definition of “mark” is “a victim of a swindle.” “Mark” is carny slang, A customer that spends a lot trying to win a game. This term was coined because carnies would alert each other to the big spender by marking him some way (usually by patting them on the shoulder with powdered chalk in hand).

There is Lord Mark, who Mrs. Lauder has marked as Kate’s future husband.

Densher, “It was a little the fault of his aspect, his personal marks” (85).

Kate/Densher…talking with restrictions…’Perhaps made such a mark for them as nothing else could have done” (90).
“the more marked” (92); “the mark on his forehead” (96) [Madge’s take on this was interesting, too, ie: Is Densher the devil…or at least, A devil?”; “with marked but generous wonder” (100).


“Straight” Again, carny slang would be “straight = a game that is played by the rules”

Straight talk = honesty. Playing straight = playing honestly, above board. Who in WoD is playing straight?


“he [Densher] would have failed to play straight into an observer’s hands” (85)
“They [Kate/Densher] had found themselves regarding each other straight” (89).
“But her [Kate’s] consciousness had gone to him as straight as if …” (90).
“might have been straightened out” (93); “no other straight way” (97);


As I noted earlier, “Kate” seems to me a straight-forward name.

“Mrs. Lowder” She certainly had a loud personality. Her furniture the same: big, substantial, florid, NOTICED.

“Densher” It does sound to me like “denture.” Dentures --- not naturally fitting --- designed to fit --- ??? As Densher is designed to fit into Millie’s life?


A revealing aspect of Densher, I think. Towards the end of Book 2, part I, Densher and Kate are talking about Kate’s father.

D: “What has he done?”
K: “YOU could doubtless find out with a little trouble. You can ask about.”
“Densher for a moment said nothing; but the next moment he made it up. ‘I wouldn’t find out for the world, and I’d rather lose my tongue than put a question.’
‘And yet it’s a part of me,’ said Kate” (99).

Will there come a time later in WoD when it would have been advisable for Densher to ask questions about Kate….but he doesn’t ask them?


What a cold statement by Aunt Maud to Densher regarding Kate: “I don’t say it because she’s my niece--that’s nothing to me(108).

Densher unexpectedly slated to go to America. “he hadn’t quite supposed himself the man for the class of job” (110). “he was to start at once” (111). Well, I think Mrs. Lowder arranged for Densher to take the trip.


LOVE the exchange between Kate and Densher: “Suddenly she said to him with extraordinary beauty: ‘I engage myself to you for ever.’ [And Densher] “And I pledge you—I call God to witness! – every spark of my faith: I give you every drop of my life’” (117). So honest, so straight.

And the next paragraph has them plotting how to work round Mrs. Lowder. They talk of how this secret will make them closer and their feelings for one another deeper, of their love for each other “Our being as we are.”

But… the keeping of the secret and the consequences that follow… change them from their “being as we are” (118).

The close of Book 2: Densher leaves the policy of dealing with Aunt Maud … (maybe the policy of dealing with everything) to Kate: “’All to you!’ he tenderly laughed” (119). And then…”There WAS a difference in the air—even if none other than the supposedly usually difference in truth between a man and a woman” (120). And Kate and Densher are no longer quite understanding one another as well as they had a few pages back.

Abysmal. What a nice adjective choice at the close of Book 2, Densher to Kate: “Then that’s exactly why we’ve such an abysmal need of you” (120) Millie, too, is associated with an abyss.
Abysmal: (1) Extremely bad; appalling. (2) Very deep.





(hide spoiler)]

[Captain Sir Roddy, R.N. (Ret.), Founder]

I look forward to revisiting this group read after I finish rereading TWotD later this summer. Well done, people!

[Bonnie]

Reading Wings of the Dove for the first time. I liked - and have read twice - Daisy Miller, Portrait of a Lady, and Washington Square. This prose seems more difficult and reading this thread confirmed... Henry James became more wordy in later years.

Sad to read about Sister Mildred's life.
Although the text says Kate was willing to give up Aunt Maud's money and go live with her father or her sister, I don't get that nicety of feeling from her... suspect of her of being manipulative rather than kindly.
Too soon to know though.