The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Wings of the Dove
Henry James Collection
>
Wings of the Dove, The: Week 2 - Book Third & Forth
@Msg 24 & 30 MadgeUK wrote: "Adelle: I was very sorry to learn of your m-i-l's stroke and I hope that she makes as good a recovery as possible. It is good that you can at least read our discussion occasionally so as to take y..."Adelle: I share Madge's sentiments. (view spoiler)
Rochelle,I think Wharton very much had the new set in mind -- and how things were different from the "real" old money world she group up in. From our point of view, they would have both been incredibly rigid. But from those living through it, there were differences.
Earlier Madge made a comment about Mrs. Stringham being like a guardian angel to Milly and this made me think of the differences between Mrs. Stringham and Aunt Maud in their roles of guardianship and this made me begin to reflect upon the contrasts of the situations between Milly and Kate. Milly has lost of all of her family and is independently wealthy, and so she has no one she needs answer to and does not need to seek out finical support. She has the independence and ability to act as she pleases and purse whatever she wants in her life, and a freedom to marry who she wants insofar as she need not seek a husband who can finically support her and she does not have to worry about fulfilling family obligations.
While Kate is overwhelmed by her family and is being pushed and pulled in every different direction, with her family members all trying to use her as a pawn to their own best advantage. She does not have the absolute freedom to act according to her own wishes but must try and maneuver around the demands her family makes of her and the obligations she feels towards them.
This makes me think of the way in which American women were often contrasted against English women around this time period. American women within 19th century literature are often portrayed as being much less refined, but come across as more brazen, and sort of wild and perceived as having more independence or more opportunity and ability to be independent, and not as bond to certain restrictions.
While English women are shown as being much more traditional, prim and proper, much more confined by societal expectations and more fitting into that Victorian Ideal.
And though Milly and Kate do not necessarily reflect these archetypes, there circumstances are somewhere representative of this. Milly comes with "no strings attached" so to speak in not having anything to bind her or anyone to order her life for her. While Kate has to navigate the landscape of her own overbearing family in her quest to try and find independence for herself and grasp at something of which she wants purely for herself.
Both of them seem to be on this quest of happiness/life and yet both are prevented from achieving their desires because of circumstances beyond their control. Milly is held back by the knowledge of her illness and what that will mean for her future which prevents her from reaching complete fulfillment, and Kate is captive by the demands upon her of her Aunt Maud which prevent her from acquiring what she wants for herself out of life.
Pure freedom is an illusion. No one has it, regardless of sex. I'm not saying that women weren't constrained in ways men weren't. That would be madness, and I'd have to be committed.But pure freedom? I think no one.
Bill wrote: "Pure freedom is an illusion. No one has it, regardless of sex. I'm not saying that women weren't constrained in ways men weren't. That would be madness, and I'd have to be committed.But pure free..."
I was not speaking of absolute freedom, but basic freedom. As in the freedom to marry the person you want to marry, not the person your Aunt preselected, being able to spend your money purely on yourself if you choose, instead of giving it have to your sister and being pressured to give it to your father. The freedom to pursue your own goals not those others predetermined for you. The freedom to be able to figure out what your goals might even be. The freedom to make your own life not the life someone else has created for you and expects you to fit into.
As for pure freedom, well I do not know everyone in the world so I cannot say that no one has it, but I think it is a possibility if one were able and willing to cast aside all expectations, constraints, responsibilities that others impose upon them and that they have been trained by society to impose upon themselves
@Msg 54 -- Thx, Silver. Enjoyed following your thought process.My head is on this piece tonight:
"She [Susan Stringham] wrote short stories, and she fondly believed she had her 'note,' the art of showing New England without showing it wholly in the kitchen. She had not herself been brought up in the kitchen; she knew others who had not; and to speak for them had thus become with her a literary mission. To BE in truth literary had ever been her dearest thought, the thought that kept her bright little nippers perpetually in position. There were masters, models, celebrities, mainly foreign, whom she finally accounted so and in whose light she ingeniously laboured; there were others whom, however chattered about, she ranked with the inane, for she bristled with discriminations; but all categories failed her--they ceased at least to signify--as soon as she found herself in presence of the real thing, the romantic life itself. That was what she saw in Mildred--what positively made her hand a while tremble too much for the pen."
Are "nippers" here "eyeglasses"?
I see this as a statement of Susan's ambition, at least as an author, if not perhaps also as a sexual human woman. ("...in presence of the real thing, the romantic life itself. That was what she saw in Mildred--what positively made her hand a while tremble too much for the pen.") Does anyone know if the critics think James had a specific real life model behind Susan Shepherd Stringham?
Lily wrote: "@Msg 54 -- Thx, Silver. Enjoyed following your thought process.My head is on this piece tonight:
"She [Susan Stringham] wrote short stories, and she fondly believed she had her 'note,' the art ..."
According to my research nippers refers to any device used for cutting or gripping things, such as pliars, or pincers
Bill wrote: "Pure freedom is an illusion. No one has it, regardless of sex. I'm not saying that women weren't constrained in ways men weren't. That would be madness, and I'd have to be committed.But pure free..."
Bill -- Are you commenting relative to this passage?
"...For such was essentially the point: it was rich, romantic, abysmal, to have, as was evident, thousands and thousands a year, to have youth and intelligence and, if not beauty, at least in equal measure a high dim charming ambiguous oddity, which was even better, and then on top of all to enjoy boundless freedom, the freedom of the wind in the desert--it was unspeakably touching to be so equipped and yet to have been reduced by fortune to little humble-minded mistakes."
"...little humble-minded mistakes."
What mistakes? Ones made for [Milly's] lack of understanding culture?
"....a high dim charming ambiguous oddity" Does anyone here know someone they might describe this way, i.e., can we imagine such a young woman? (Not certain I can -- but I'll continue to scan my cerebral picture book of paintings (a la Proust) and recollections of female acquaintances et al.)
What didn't exist for them? The law referred only to males?I believe that it was widely considered to be a male thing and not a female one so the later laws against 'gross indecency' were only enacted for males under what was known as the Labouchere Amendment, under which Oscar Wilde was prosecuted. Sodomy remained a separate crime. That law also sought to protect young girls and women, especially prostitutes, against sodomy etc by men but no mention was made of intercourse between women and to the best of my knowledge no women were prosecuted under it.
Given James' problems with his own sexuality and the laws of the time, it seems to me to be reasonable to assume that he explored gender relations in his novels and that much can therefore be read between the lines about male or female same sex relationships.
Re 'class': WotD is dealing with the wealthy (or once wealthy) upper class and barriers were slower to break down with them than with the working class because they had money and property to protect. It is only recently, for instance, that the British royal family have not intermarried with royalty and have let 'commoners' into their ranks. The American upper class bought their way into the British aristocracy, a theme which Wharton explores and which in Downtown Abbey Lady Cora exemplifies. Earlier we see Trollope pursuing the same theme with wealthy European Jews, who were less successful than the American heiresses.
MadgeUK wrote: "Re 'class': WotD is dealing with the wealthy (or once wealthy) upper class and barriers were slower to break down with them than with the working class because they had money and property to prote..."Thanks, Madge.
(OT--I also noted that in the original description on pbs.org, Cora's family is Jewish, but there has been no mention of it
Click on Cora for the description.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/d...
end of OT)
Thanks I didn't realise Cora was a Jewess. Perhaps Fellowes was harking back to the earlier tradition as I don't think the between-wars American heiresses, such as those parodied by Wharton, were? Incidentally, Wharton and James were great friends but I think she was more upfront about sex than he was, both in her literary and personal life.
Rochelle wrote: "(OT--I also noted that in the original description on pbs.org, Cora's family is Jewish, but there has been no mention of itClick on Cora for the description.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/down..."
I didn't see any mention of "Jewish" here, although certainly "dry goods multi millionaire from Cincinnati" and "Levinson" would be consistent with such.
MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks I didn't realise Cora was a Jewess. Perhaps Fellowes was harking back to the earlier tradition as I don't think the between-wars American heiresses, such as those parodied by Wharton, were? ..."I've found no mention of a great influx of Jewish heiresses into the UK, :-) and the only Jew in Mirth is Rosedale. It was an obscure paragraph I found in the first season, and possibly Fellowes won't even follow up on it. In fact, there's little said about religion in Downton, although the kingdom was more religious than it is now.
Yes, I noticed that about Wharton, because she was also liberated in her private life. James is buttoned up to his chin, maybe even up to his nose. It would be so absurd today that in the film version, Kate and Merton are shown in bed, rather than presenting James' little hints and obfuscations.
.............................
Why aren't you in bed if you're sick? Take some aspirin and orange juice and take a nap!!
meant to mention this in a previous post but than I forgot so I will say it now. I am curious how the connection between Densher and Milly and Kate will affect the friendship between Milly and Kate.
Does any one else see the potentially of a love triangle developing?
Also I cannot recall, was it ever explained specifically why Milly wanted to keep her acquaintance with Densher from Kate? Was it because she was worried what Kate would think of her if she knew that Milly had acquaintance with Densher?
It seemed a bit odd to me that they were turning into this sort of conspiracy and I cannot recall if it was explained why.
Or was it just because Milly and Kate never spoke of him since Milly was instructed not to mention him and Kate herself never brought up the subject, and so now Milly would just feel awkward if her having known him were to come out?
But it seems a bit of an elaborate plan to try and cover up her knowing him just because she did not really have a convenient opportunity to say that she did.
Rochelle wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks I didn't realise Cora was a Jewess. Perhaps Fellowes was harking back to the earlier tradition as I don't think the between-wars American heiresses, such as those parodied by..."I was referring to the Jewish merchants (not necessarily Jewesses) found in Trollope and earlier Victorian novels, not real life.
'Kingdom' sounds strange as we don't refer to it in that way nowadays except as the United Kingdom, or UK. We say 'the monarchy'.
I am bored so keep getting up for awhile. The computer is in my bedroom. I've got paracetamol, fruit drinks and peppermint coming out of my ears! Cleo thinks my being bedridden is great!
I'll give up "kingdom" if you give up the absolutely outdated "Jewess." I don't suppose you'll also agree to give up "whilst" in favor of "while"? :-)
Sorry - what should I say instead? I don't think you can say 'awhilst'!
Don't be sorry; I was just having fun. "while" and "awhile." In some parts of the US, Jewess is an offensive term.
I didn't realise that. Do you just say Jew for male and female nowadays?
Actually, in my experience on this side of the pond, you use the adjective. So we don't usually say, "He's a Jew." We say, "He's Jewish." Rather like "She's English.""Jewess" is more antique than anything else, in my experience. I've never actually heard the word used. It makes me think of Ivanhoe (which is not a recommendation for a read.)
And while Americans will understand "whilst" it also sounds extremely antique, like you just stepped out of the 19th century.
@54Silver wrote: "And though Milly and Kate do not necessarily reflect these archetypes, there circumstances are somewhere representative of this. Milly comes with "no strings attached" so to speak in not having anything to bind her or anyone to order her life for her. While Kate has to navigate the landscape of her own overbearing family in her quest to try and find independence for herself and grasp at something of which she wants purely for herself. ..."I found interesting your comments relative to the portrayal of American women versus English/European ones. Not sure I can generalize, but you certainly have made me aware and I'll watch going forward. In current literature I don't think that distinction holds.
Some of my use of English is antiquated because I am antiquated and also because I am a Yorkshirewoman and the Yorkshire dialect uses words dating back to Chaucer.
Silver: Love your ruminations in post 54 about the differences between American and English women. I thought of it today when I saw photographs of Samantha Cameron and Michele Obama - one buttoned up to the neck and the other baring it all:). One an aristocrat, the other a commoner. I think the differences which James' perceived between our two societies still exist to some degree. The Declared right to be 'free' to pursue 'happiness' is more evident in your society, and in Milly, than in ours, and in Kate. The difference between the New World and the Old. Our society still has more restraining Aunt Mauds than yours although modern travel, and now the social media, are breaking down these barriers.
To take a text from a later writer,Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own
-- Billie Holliday
American has always been noted for social mobility. But I if Kate had money or Milly none, I wonder how restrained Kate would feel or how free Milly would feel.
I remember having dinner a while ago with my next door neighbor, an unmarried attorney who had a good job at a New York law firm, and she mentioned that she may want to get married but didn't need to get married because she could support herself. When she said that, although of course I knew it, the differences between NOW and THEN seemed vivid.
I also read the the conversation between Lord Mark and Milly when they meet at Maud Manningham's dinner table. And I realized -- in a gut way as opposed to a merely intellectual one -- how James is trying to slow the speed of his narrative to show life as it's lived second by second. One has to accept that things that matter, matter in the mind, in the moment by moment life we lead. And if yo read a slow enough rate, it can be absorbing -- except that after a few paragraphs I want a break -- so it makes finishing the novel that much more difficult.
And it's a classic book club problem. It's not merely that people read at different rates but that different books require different rates of reading. Slow books read quickly are boring. But fast books read slowly are boring too. They don't have enough to sustain a slow read. I think it's a question of density.
MadgeUK wrote: "...I thought of it today when I saw photographs of Samantha Cameron and Michele Obama - one buttoned up to the neck and the other baring it all:). One an aristocrat, the other a commoner...."Oh, my! Those are not distinctions my middle-class, literate, somewhat liberal American sensibilities would choose to make. I much prefer the image Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth chose to convey to the world when she allowed herself and Mrs. Obama to touch each other in a friendly way captured by the media (with a hand on a shoulder, if I remember the shot accurately).
Bill wrote: "...I also read the the conversation between Lord Mark and Milly when they meet at Maud Manningham's dinner table. And I realized -- in a gut way as opposed to a merely intellectual one -- how James is trying to slow the speed of his narrative to show life loved by the second...."Bill -- your antecedent of "second"? Maud?
One of my questions about Lord Mark -- what makes him such a superior choice for Kate? I don't get the sense that he is necessarily wealthy nor ambitious, even though he may have a title based on his genealogy.
Lily, Sorry if that was unclear. I meant "life as it's lived second by second." I changed it. As for Mark being a superior choice, I think it's that Maud "believes" in the possibilities of his being highly successful, and the fact that he's an aristocrat.
Densher is hopeless. Even HE doesn't think he'll ever make a living.
Bill wrote: "Sorry if that was unclear. I meant "life as it's lived second by second." I changed it..."@msg 78Thx, Bill. I follow now -- so we are immersing ourselves in a life that is lived at a slower pace? (I can relate to that from Proust -- I have certainly had that sensation there.)
Is it appropriate to get a sense here that dear Maud is deliberately hoping to set up a little rivalry between Milly and Kate, i.e., that if Lord Mark is attractive to Milly, he might seem more so to Kate?
I enjoyed the back-and-forth between Lord Mark and Kate, including:
"He threw out the question, which seemed large; Milly felt that at the end of five minutes he had thrown out a great many, though he followed none more than a step or two; perhaps he would prove suggestive, but he helped her as yet to no discriminations: he spoke as if he had given them up from too much knowledge. He was thus at the opposite extreme from herself, but, as a consequence of it, also wandering and lost; and he was furthermore, for all his temporary incoherence, to which she guessed there would be some key, as packed a concretion as either Mrs. Lowder or Kate. [Bold added.]
Lily,I think James anticipates the modernists. The interest is really the mind -- not the action of the plot -- although I think the plot of this book is interesting. Again, though it's going to be about the moral questions.
Yes, I agree. The back and forth between Lily and Lord Mark was great -- and I read some of it three times.
That was a part I thought might be interesting to read out loud on a conference call and discuss.
There's also Lily's naive delight in Kate (view spoiler)
I've been trying to find some passages to really read critically -- but I haven't the time to write a three-page post.
but I haven't the time to write a three-page post. Perhaps you have spent too much time lobbying for Don Juan? WotD seems to have suffered for that discussion:(.
Lily @ 79: 'Allowed' - what choice did poor HM have?! LOL.I guess they are not distinctions an American would make but they are distinctions made over here - it has not gone unnoticed that both our Prime Minister and his Deputy have aristocratic antecedents and Cameron's wife has them too. Or that a high proportion of the Cabinet are Public School boys. I think James would have noticed it too, sensitive as he was to the class issues of his day (as per Lord Mark) .
Lily wrote: "Thx, Bill. I follow now -- so we are immersing ourselves in a life that is lived at a slower pace? (I can relate to that from Proust -- I have certainly had that sensation there.)"I think with both James and Proust it might be a case of living a text not a life. There's this great quote by James (or possibly about him? I remember reading it when I was reading about his In the Cage) that I can't find right now (but will look for) about how when you read the description of a landscape if the writer is skilful enough it will make you admire not the landscape, but the language of the description (or something to that effect). Both James and Proust are on the edge of realism, the plotlines of their books are still mostly believable but the things the characters think and say are often highly stylized. There's another anecdote about James which says that once he was asked why he writes dialogue the way he does because 'real people' don't talk that way - to which he replied that real people should start talking that way.
In the early 20th century a lot of people were wondering where fiction (especially novels) should go and what they should do, it's interesting to look at James' contribution to this discussion. As early as 1900 (in his essay The Future of the Novel) he was saying that the modern novel will be (already is?) all about (self)consciousness. I have tried to find the essay online, but to no avail. I think I'll just scan my copy (if I remember it well, it's not very long) if other people are interested in reading it.
Thanks Andreea. Very interesting comments, especially about dialogue.
Andreea wrote: "...I think with both James and Proust it might be a case of living a text not a life...."Thx for that insight, Andreea. Will bring it to my listening and reading -- so far more obvious to me upon your very mention of it in Proust than in James!
(Now what would one consider The Night Circus , that bit of whipped cream I'll be discussing this morn that is certainly not real life, but should make a pretty movie, too.)
Andreaa,I want to agree with you, but I'm not sure I do. The efforts in modernism to find the play of the mind and put it down on paper seemed very necessary at the time, there was the sense that more conventional story-telling was played out. It reminds not of something like cubism but the Impressionists need to flee the studio and paint in the fresh air, except for the novelists rather than moving into the air the were moving more deeply into the minds.
And then so often in this book I don't find the writing convinces as much as the insights. personally, I LOVE high style and respond strongly to it. I have no problem with the artificial - all art is. But it's not my felt experience in James. I want to enjoy the writing qua writing more but it is in nailing the movement of the mind, in what I find is somewhat awkward language, is what interests me. I find the awkwardness more than style (personally).
I don't find that with Proust, and I'd find it less so in French, from when I've peaked at the French.
And don't isn't all writing is a matter of that interplay between writing and reality (whatever reality is)> It's only that sometimes we are very aware of the style and sometimes we are under the illusion that it is transparent, either because it is simple or because we are so used to it we don't think of it as style.
But, hey, do you have a couple of paragraphs where you could show what you mean? I'll be happy to do a hyper close read with you.
Bill wrote: "I want to agree with you, but I'm not sure I do. The efforts in modernism to find the play of the mind and put it down on paper seemed very necessary at the time, there was the sense that more conventional story-telling was played out. It reminds not of something like cubism but the Impressionists need to flee the studio and paint in the fresh air, except for the novelists rather moving into the air the were moving more deeply into the minds."I'm afraid matters are a bit more complicated than that - for many reasons only one of which is the fact that there's no reason why anybody would believe that the "play of the mind" is accurately represented through stream of consciousness. If you look at early(er) modernist works (Proust, Mrs Dalloway, The Sound and the Fury, even A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man), s-of-c is mostly confined to and/or most stream-of-consciousness-ly when applied to characters which are in some way mentally ill, distressed or traumatised - and perhaps for good reasons, even today "racing thoughts" are considered a symptom of manic episodes and sleep deprivation (remember the Narrator's insomnia at the start of A la recherche?). The fact that s-of-c gained popularity and started to be used to represent the thoughts of "healthy" characters is a weird and very interesting phenomenon - although perhaps one which is slightly off topic because WotD isn't full blown s-of-c.
But to return to James and WotD, I think an interesting passage to discuss vis a vis language vs reality vs realism is the section towards the end of Book IV when Milly and Mrs. Stringham talk (I'll put it in spoiler brackets because it's quite long and although not very spoiler-y people who haven't finished BIV might still want to avoid reading it):
(view spoiler)
And my comments on it I:
(view spoiler)
and II
(view spoiler)
Note: I think spoilers keep posts relatively neat so I find them very useful. This post has over 1,000 words so I feel like putting everything into one massive long wall of text might be hard to read - both because it's hard to follow that much text on a computer screen and because it just looks horribly boring. I don't expect other people to use them - I just personally find them useful and I hope I'm not confusing people through them.
Thanks. You were impressively prompt. What you said also brings up my issues with this book -- so I want to be precise, or as precise as I can be. I'll try to guarantee a response by Monday evening -- but maybe earlier. I'd really like to thrash out some questions here which I'm still thinking through. I feel I'm a crossroads between personal response and critical intelligence.
It reminds not of something like cubism but the Impressionists need to flee the studio and paint in the fresh air, except for the novelists rather than moving into the air the were moving more deeply into the minds.New ideas are also facilitated by new techniques and changing social attitudes. The Impressionists were enabled to paint en plein air because of the recent invention of paint tubes, and new chemical pigments had made more colours available. James and other 'psychological' novelists (Eliot, Dosteovsky...) were influenced by the emerging 'science' of psychiatry and the work of Freud, Jung and others, which is one of the reasons why the early s-f-c writers used characters who were mentally ill. As research started to show that all of us are susceptible to mind disorders, authors began to portray the workings of the mind more commonly. James had a very close relationship with his elder brother William, a talented philosopher who studied new European psychologists like Pavlov and Freud. William represented America at international conferences devoted to this then controversial discipline and helped found Harvard's psychology department. James' writing reflects these influences more 'scientifically' than earlier writers were able to do and this was an important aspect of his 'modernism' .
Following on from this and referencing Andreea's post, in Jungian psychology the labyrinth is one of the most powerful symbols of the subconscious. In his book ‘Man and His Symbols’, he explains its meaning:
“The maze of strange passages, chambers, and unlocked exits in the cellar recalls the old Egyptian representation of the underworld, which is a well-known symbol of the unconscious with its abilities. It also shows how one is “open” to other influences in one’s unconscious shadow side and how uncanny and alien elements can break in.”
Jung referred to the abyss or labyrinth of the mind as a symbol for being lost in life and called it ‘losing the Ariadne thread’, from the well known tale in Greek mythology. Here we have an example of James' using the Great Book 'Conversation' which Lily and I have referred to in another thread. William Blake also used the same symbolism for the mind in his poetry.
Madge,"Losing the thread" is an excellent description of how it sometimes feels to read one of James' sentences to the end. Where is Ariadne when you need her?
Andreea,
I agree with you completely, and I've been tempted to edit James myself as I've read it. I simply didn't know precisely what you meant before.
My difficulty is that I find the language inconsistent: sometimes wholly indecipherable, sometimes decipherable with a little effort. Perhaps wrongly, I've been reading WotD as a mind (that of James) trying to explain the subtlest variations of emotions -- and sometimes getting lost in the effort, as the difficulty is beyond him. Sometimes I thought he was describing subtleties of feeling I'd never felt. I never thought of the actual incomprehensibility as conscious style -- because it never occurred to me why anyone would want to do that.
But I think you're right!
This is what convinced me: in searching around for paragraphs that I might want to present, I found this description of Milly in Susan's mind: she has
"if not beauty, at least, in equal measure, a high, dim, charming, ambiguous oddity, which was even better,"
James, Henry (2011-03-24). The Wings of the Dove, Volume 1 of 2 (p. 123). Kindle Edition.
That's quite an description. Particularly of a girl. I can imagine going on a blind date and talking to someone after saying, "well, no, not beautiful, but she has a charming, ambiguous oddity, which is even better."
It is very difficult to imagine what that description means with regard to Milly or any woman. On the other hand, it seems an excellent description of James' prose at its most extreme.
Continued...
Then I went back to James and the 4th paragraph of Section IV which I've talked about before.This Milly thinking about Lord Mark. I was thinking of Milly as the reader and James as the writer:
Here it is:
"for all his temporary incoherence, to which she guessed there would be some key, as great a reality as..."
That finishes as "Mrs. Lowder or Kate." But one expects some jewel from James.
And finally, then, the question is "how to read James." By read, here, I don't mean interpret. I mean actually read. What does one do? Try to take pleasure in the ambiguous that is without beauty? Where exactly, I wonder, is the pleasure?James can be quite funny. But then there's a lot that isn't.
Bill wrote: "And finally, then, the question is "how to read James." By read, here, I don't mean interpret. I mean actually read. What does one do? Try to take pleasure in the ambiguous that is without beauty? ..."That is a good question. If I do not strain my brain too much attempting to understand what I am reading, and just take in the verse and try and allow myself to simply enjoy it without worrying over the ambiguities of what is written than I actually do find pleasure within his writing. While at times it may be awkward and difficult, personally I do not think it is altogether without beauty. There are within passages that now and than I find quite striking and which really leap out at me. I do like his writing I just always feel like I am missing something and do not think I understand half of what he is saying.
I agree, Silver. Sometimes he's even easy to understand. It's a question, for me, of when he isn't that makes it a slow read. NOT an unenjoyable one.
I find I go through fluctuations while reading this book. I will start out struggling with it, and trying to grasp what is going on, while feeling quite lost, and than all of the sudden about half way through I will come to a point where I feel I am beginning to understand, and have a clearer vision of what is happening, and than I find myself suddenly again in the forest without a compass and going in circles. Though it would be near impossible with its length at moments I wonder if it would not be beneficial if one could read this book in one sitting, for what I find is that I will reach a point of enlightenment in which I think, finally I get it, but it seems whenever I have to put the book down and start it up again I loose whatever I had and have to struggle to reclaim it again.
Bill wrote: "And finally, then, the question is "how to read James." By read, here, I don't mean interpret. I mean actually read. What does one do? Try to take pleasure in the ambiguous that is without beauty? ..."I keep dozing off and thinking Rosa Dartle is speaking.
Laurele wrote: "I keep dozing off and thinking Rosa Dartle is speaking."::Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw. ROTFL :: How about a buddy read for the rest of the WotD session?
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
The Hireling (other topics)The Go-Between (other topics)
Eustace and Hilda (other topics)
The Sound and the Fury (other topics)
Mrs. Dalloway (other topics)
More...
Not sure that this will be relevant to the conversation at hand, but I will comment that wealth has a history of being used to camouflage behavior deemed unacceptable for society in general.