Wings of the Dove, The: Week 6 - Book Tenth

[Silver]

Here you can diucuss the last book in The Wings of the Dover, as well as dicuss the book as a whole.

[Lily]

Finished a first time through read this morning. Doubt I'll do much re-reading at this point, but will be back to post some reactions later.

[[deleted user]]

Ah ha! At MIL's...but have managed to type up first set if thoughts regarding how I think Henry James viewed Milly. Will post when I get home tonight.

[[deleted user]]

Regarding Milly: How I Think James Viewed Her

(view spoiler)[

Well, you know I loved the book.

The Wings of the Dove, I thought, was such a rich collection of “impressions” and nuances and shadows that the reader is quite capable of coming up with any number of plausible interpretations. It’s like a kaleidoscope.

Every time I would reread, I would see the book differently, would see something else as the main thrust. The facts of the story are less important than the interpretations…

From the very first sentence and repeatedly, James brings our attention to “consciousness” and “appearances” and “views” and what one thinks one sees. (“[the] question, before Mrs Stringham …, made others vain; in accordance with which she saw, or believed she did…]

Here’s what I saw, or believed I saw:

Regarding Milly: How I Think James Viewed Her

Maybe because I know the background story of Minnie Temple, I do think that James wanted to elevate the character of Millie. Like Minnie Temple, Milly Theale was an orphan (Minnie was a poor relation) and though fated to die young, an intense lover of life. James managed to bring her back to life, unencumbered with family histories or family complications, with no ugly details regarding her death, but giving her instead fabulous wealth and the success of realizing her dream and traveling to Europe.

What influenced my view of James’s view of Milly was that about halfway through The Wings of the Dove, I read an extract of Nietzche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Throughout WoD, you know, I’ve been circling the words “mark” and “straight.” And then I started circling “abyss,” as well.

Somewhere there was that line about Milly “looking down over the abyss” and thereafter “abyss” and “abysmal” were words I took notice of.

So there I am. Reading Nietzche. And I know that James read the European philosophers. James would have read Nietzche.

“Zarathustra spoke thus: ‘Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss……I love him whose soul squanders itself, who wants no thanks and returns none: for he always *gives away and does not want to preserve himself…..I love him whose soul is deep, even in being **wounded,…..”

*Milly: “I give and give and give” (353). **Milly is deeply wounded…but she rises for her soul IS deep.

And what I see, or believe I see, is James putting Milly forward as that “rope over an abyss.” Milly’s life changes the lives she touches:


Susan Stringham. Susie’s life had been financially constricted, small and narrow, “having, as she called it, enough to live on—so far, that is, as she lived by bread alone: [and] how little indeed she was regularly content with that diet” (123). Through Milly, her life was enlarged and opened. The fact that Milly “had told her she had never seen any one like her […] became the most important thing that had ever happened to her” (125).

Susan Stringham became financially, yes, so much more than she ever would have been had Milly not touched her life. But more importantly Milly has helped her cross that emotional abyss. There is now a true romantic ideal centering Susie’s life. Milly has given her life meaning.

Kate. Kate’s life, despite her innate potential, promised to be limited and circumscribed---whether she married Densher without money and lived a mean little life like her sister had or she married Lord Mark and lived a compromised life forever tied to Maud’s money … and we’ve seen how even Densher saw that living at Maud’s cost Kate.


At her father’s place her poise and taste and value is apparent, “the degree of it was not sustained by items and aids.” It’s innate. Aunt Maud and Lord Mark see Kate’s value as immense (Densher speaking of Maud, “What she must see in you!” Kate, “Wonders!”) (103), and Merton Densher certainly recognized her “talent for life,” thinking to himself, “What a person she would be if they HAD been rich—with what a genius for the so-called great life…!” (502). The potential is all there. “She hadn’t given up yet” (57) … “but what could a penniless girl do…?” How long until “the tarnished glass” reflected not a distorted image of Kate, but a true image of a tarnished woman living a smudged dreary life in “shabby” rooms life her father’s or in “faded” rooms like Densher’s?

Through Milly’s generosity, rising above the hurt she felt at learning or recognizing the truth of Kate and Densher’s relationship, Kate’s life will be transformed. Her potential won’t be wasted. Milly’s money will allow Kate to cross the financial abyss that yawned threateningly before her. She won’t have to bow to Aunt Maud’s desire that she “marry a great man.”…for Kate will become a great woman…an independent woman … with the means to help her father and her sister. Milly had said, “I’d do anything…for Kate” (305). She at the end did everything for Kate.


Densher. Viewed from the redemption perspective (which I don’t prescribe to—but I think James does) Densher’s relationship with Milly expands his consciousness.

Book Two closes with Kate and Densher discussing men and women. Kate tells Densher that men are “lacking in consciousness, of sensation, of appreciation….men DON’T know. They know in such matters almost nothing but what women show them.” And Densher answers, “Then that’s exactly why we’ve such an abysmal need of you!” (120).

Milly’s repeatedly negating Densher’s discomfort in Venice, making it “easy for him” and her final forgiveness elevate Densher so that he becomes a better man than he otherwise would have been. He had thought that he would never be more than he was; Milly made him more.


Also, I believe that James believes that Densher is redeemed, and thus, James can believe he himself is redeemed, that just as Milly Theale’s forgiveness of Densher allows Densher to cross that abyss of guilt that stretched before him (“So Densher …sharply reflected…asking himself into what abyss it had pushed him” [447]), so too Minnie Temple can be imagined as forgiving James.

That although James betrayed her ---(Not following through on their plans for her to join him in Europe; loving the engaging life and art of Europe more than her.)---he has redeemed himself by writing his masterpiece centered on Minnie… Her muse having inspired him, her spirit being so generous, she at last forgives him.


Sir Luke was already a great doctor…but Milly was his great case which engaged him above all others. Aunt Maud threw dinner parties…but Milly’s presence brought them to a higher level. Even Eugenio, it seems, was improved and raised.

Eugenio’s hand, remember, was for ever…”plunging …into her pocket” and I wouldn’t doubt that Milly left him money, but it was more than that…Milly brought him out: “He was abysmal, but this intimacy lived on the surface” (336).

Milly simply elevated people. She was “a rope over an abyss.”

spoiler (hide spoiler)]

[MadgeUK]

Brilliant analysis Adelle - it 'redeemed' the book for me! Thankyou!

[[deleted user]]

Lol and thanks, Madge. Could be way off, of course :) but I have to write "pieces" since Online is so difficult. Packing computer (ha..."You packing [heat][ie, a gun]?") again today. Hope to find time for Densher. In 2004, I see from my notes, I had seen him as less culpable. Then this reading, through Book 9, I viewed him less and less favorably until I eventually found him repugnant. But Book 10 brought me round to where I still thought very negatively of some of his characteristics and actions...and yet, I started to think in other respects, Well, this is who Densher is, and I felt very sorry for him.

[Lily]

Thank you, Adelle, for virtually carrying this conversation on WotD almost single handedly -- with the emphasis on "almost", because we have also had the benefit of other perspectives. But, you have certainly gifted us with your interest and involvement in WotD.

Meanderings: (view spoiler)[
I think I found the text more troublesome than you have. Each time I think of the book, I find I can give it a different interpretation. I don't attribute a particular glorification to Milly -- she is too full of life to deserve that. (I don't think you do, either, Adelle.) I haven't gone back to check myself, but my sense is that James has written contradictions into the text -- e.g., doesn't he refer to Milly's success in London, then later speak of her failure? Those contrasts feel deliberate, as our minds themselves even sometimes hold one position and then another.

Densher frustrated me -- he seemed unwilling to grab hold of life and then to bear the consequences. Kate was without resources, yet full of familial and sentimental obligations, in an economic world that largely only allowed her to obtain resources through the manipulation of others, rather than through the independent creation of value. (More accurately -- I responded to Densher with frustration -- the responsibility for my feelings is mine, not his!)

The critics confuse me, too. They emphasize the ambiguity that James apparently deliberately writes. Their descriptions of the structure don't always immediately ring true. (E.g., do we really know Kate much less in terms of her feelings and inner motivations than we do Densher?) There was one that questioned whether the book conveyed the messages James intended based on his notebooks, but what were either the intended or the actual messages continued to escape me. I am not so sure but what James may have a little bit condemned himself to the part of Densher who was unable to be the self that could sustain another's will to live, while envying the Kate who was willing and able to cold-bloodedly do so, even with what she ostensibly loved most -- i.e., by offering Densher to Milly, albeit in hope for her own ultimate gain. On other reflections, the book becomes a troubling statement on wealth, poverty, class, relationships, reciprocity. (hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Lily, I'm almost out the door. Agree with you muchly regarding Densher, Kate. Be back late tonight. Ta 'til then.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "

Densher frustrated me -- he seemed unwilling to grab hold of life and then to bear the consequences."

Exactly. Yes, yes, yes. And yet, I really, truly felt sorry for him at the end. Even though I despised him for his pressuring Kate in Venice...for his own satisfaction...and just because he could...and wanted to "prove" himself. Did he say he wanted to "prove" himself or "test" himself and that's why he coerced Kate into going to be bed with him? What kind of a "prove" or "test" makes another person do the proving or the testing? Why, a Densher "test"...just like everything else in his life...someone else had to do it for him.

Good thoughts on Kate, too.

[[deleted user]]

Final Thoughts on Densher

(view spoiler)[



Again, I think Densher must have been incredibly handsome --- all the ladies, Kate, Milly, Maud, even Susan Stringham – found him attractive…but it was that scene in the museum in which the Americans were staring at him---SO attractive in that English sort of way, you know, if you happen to find exceedingly good-looking Englishmen attractive. Lol. And so charming. I think Maud quite liked his charm. Also intellectually engaging…perhaps he was capable of scintillating conversation…

Whatever he had…it was worth almost everything to Kate. “He represented what her life had never given her” (87). At first I had thought this had meant love, but no, a couple sentences later there was this: “It was on the side of the mind that Densher was rich for her and mysterious and strong” (87).


Strong? For the longest time I questioned that. Strong how exactly? Because as Lily as pointed out (“he seemed unwilling to grab hold of life and then to bear the consequences” YES. YES. YES.). And it’s not that Kate didn’t notice this almost immediately: “The young man had affected her as detached, as—it was indeed what he called himself – awfully at sea” (88).

And that’s such a characteristic of Densher, yes? He’s awfully at sea and there’s no one manning the rudder. Densher is seemingly content to drift along. “Densher had indeed drifted by the next morning to the reflection that…” Other quotes along similar lines.

Why is that? I wondered whether James might have written a bit of himself into Densher as well as other characters. Densher had a somewhat similar background to James. Much moving around during his childhood. So? Maybe having had no set home made it difficult for the children to put down roots? William James took years and years to find himself too. Also, both James and Densher are writers. In a way, they’re both spending their lives writing other people’s lives.

Anyway, and I thought this pretty much said it all, Densher thinks regarding Kate: “he might trust her to take care of it for him.” And he lets Milly take care of things for him too, “he might trust her to take care of it for him” (297). But never asking them the important questions.

Densher was curious about Kate’s background. Kate tells him, “YOU could doubtless find out with a little trouble. You can ask about it.” Densher responds, “I wouldn’t find out for the world, and I’d rather lose my tongue than put a question” (99). There are other passages also where Kate tells Densher he COULD ask. Densher wonders what Kate has told Milly. Kate says, “Ask HER, if you like…..Act as you think best” (309). Densher doesn’t ask. It’s seems to me as though he wants plausible deniability.

I happen to believe it’s because Densher is for some reason absolutely incapable of accepting any responsibility. I haven’t all the quotes, but you’ll remember, no doubt that Densher is repeatedly disavowing any personal responsibility. “…it didn’t take him far to remember that he had himself as yet {!} done nothing deceptive. It was Kate…none of his own” (299). Densher to Kate: “It’s not I who am responsible for her, my dear. It seems to me it’s you” (309).

Sigh.

He has no goals or aims save marrying Kate. [“Will you marry me tomorrow?”…you know, without my having any money or prospects…because, you know, I really want you and I don’t need much to live on and apparently I don’t particularly care what your needs are as long as my own needs are met.]

And marrying Kate is an impossible dream without an advancement in Densher’s financial status. I don’t know if Densher CAN’T see that or whether he simply REFUSES to see it. Kate sees straighter. Early on, Densher is putting forward some non-valid theory regarding his and Kate acquiring money from Maud. “He went on with that fantasy, but at this point Kate ceased to attend.”




It is Kate (“only believe in me”) who mans up and steers Densher into the wind towards the only flickering light of opportunity that holds any possibility of marriage for them.

Anyway. I should close this up. So I’ll turn to why I think Densher at the end acted as he did.

Guilt. I don’t believe that Densher managed to cross that particular abyss.

Although Densher has been rationalizing and rejecting responsibility he DOES have a conscience which eventually works its way into his consciousness. And I do feel for him. He feels such guilt towards both Milly and Kate.

Milly.

Densher is well aware, despite his disavowals and rationalizations, that he had actively misled Milly. Susan Stringham believes, and Densher might even believe, that if he had denied to Milly that he had a romantic relationship with Kate, that if he denied that he loved Kate, that Milly would have lived. But he just couldn’t deny Kate. This was where I saw Densher as strong. (edit: maybe "strong" isn't the right word. But his not denying Kate, while more of a non-action rather than an active action, is a choice Densher made for himself...). “The single thing that was clear in complications was that, whatever happened, one was to behave like a gentleman” (367). If Densher, having pressured Kate into coming to his rooms and giving herself to him, denies any feelings for Kate, then he is no gentleman. But if he doesn’t deny her, then Milly dies.

Regarding Kate.

Perhaps Densher’s attitude toward sex was fairly typical for Victorian men. His physical need for Kate was the kind that “made a man ill,” yet sex is vulgar. “…he struck himself as also knowing that he had already suffered Kate to begin finely to apply antidotes and remedies and subtle sedatives. It had a vulgar sound…the verbal terms of intercourse, were, compared with love itself, horribly vulgar” (253). Sex would be acceptable with a prostitute…but Kate wasn’t a prostitute…until Densher forced her to be one, forced her to perform “a service for which the price named by him had been magnificently paid” (400).


There are all those many, many lines about Densher thinking about things “afterward.”

“…he was to give it in afterthought” (262)
“He wondered afterwards” (277)
“it was not till much later on that he found himself, in thought” (277)
“These things were of later evidence” for Densher (279)
“he was afterwards to say to himself” (305)

I think that after Densher left Milly in Venice, having all that empty time, he starting thinking. And he couldn’t live with his thoughts about himself as he started to think of himself. His conscience started bothering him.

There had been a conversation between Densher and Maud. Densher felt a “a small strange dread” of discussions with Maud because her good nature with him, the good nature “in his condition, had a tendency to make him ashamed” (270). If Maud was good natured with Densher, Millie was VERY good natured with him. And vis-à-vis Millie, Densher had very much more to be ashamed of. [*]

Then follows a crucially telling sentence: “his great dread, verily, was of being ashamed” (270). And this, “the whole thing preparing for him as pretty a case of conscience as he could have desired, and one at the prospect of which he was already wincing” (298). And this, “The sharp point was, however, in the difference between acting and not acting: this difference made the case of conscience” (299).

If Densher acted for Milly, then he acts against Kate. If he acted for Kate, then he acts against Milly. But Kate has paid the price he demanded. But Millie.

I think Densher went round and round with himself during two weeks after he left Venice, wrestling with his conscience, until he managed to convince himself that he was superior to what had transpired, and he comes up with the idea of refusing the money---preferably without knowing how much Milly would have bequeathed him---to prove to the others, but more importantly to prove to himself, that he was not the kind of man it looked like he was. But of course someone else--Kate---must pay for this noble gesture. She must be willing to give up her future to assauge Densher's conscience.

And Densher, sigh, makes this uplifting decision within typical Densher parameters: He refuses to look at the amount Milly left him…so that he doesn’t really have to know what he’s giving up; and he refuses to make the actual decision himself: He says to Kate, “You must chose” (508).




Poor Densher. So attracted to Kate because of the vitality and life in her which he knows he himself lacks. Kate would have enabled him to live life with engagement. And Milly, bestowing on him SUCH a generous gift, would have enabled him to live life large. Densher: Poor. Living smaller and less engaged. Alone.

[*] ‘Though he repeatedly said to himself that he bore no responsibility,
methinks he was like the character in the Dr. Seuss story who said,
“I do not fear those empty pants with nobody inside them.
I said and said and said those words. I said them but I lied them.”




(hide spoiler)]

[Lily]

I love your Dr. Seuss analogy, Adelle!

Do you have thoughts about Lord Mark? Somehow, he seems to me the character caught in time, even more so than Densher. Densher was starting to move toward a world of professionalism, rather than inherited or land-based sources of resources, yet he seemed rather oblivious to either opportunity or responsibility, whether in England, America, or Venice.

I find it interesting that James here created a world where wealth seemed largely in the hands of two women, Milly and Maud, both of whom were recipients or vessels of that wealth, rather than creators or potters.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: " I find it interesting that James here created a world where wealth seemed largely in the hands of two women, Milly and Maud, both of whom were recipients or vessels of that wealth, rather than creators or potters. ..."

I hadn't picked up on that. Great observation. Now that I think about it, Portrait of a Lady doesn't have any money makers either. Well, Caspar Goodwood-if I remember the name correctly---he might have been something of a self-made man...but only by suggestion or label....only Henrietta, woman journalist, works for a living...I think.

Do you think maybe it's because James grew up on inherited money?


There are strong women characters; but no strong male characters. Not really. Sir Luke...I would suppose he might fall into that category...if James had fleshed him out...Sir Luke's role is almost a cameo. He's on stage only to hint to us the seriousness of Milly's illness.

Lord Mark. Mmm. I tell you, in the early chapters I had thought that Lord Mark was going to be developed. But then it seemed as though James lost interest in him...as though he turned the story in a different direction than he had originally intended. Don't you just think that there could have been a great story behind Lord Mark? If James wrote men's stories?

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "I love your Dr. Seuss analogy, Adelle!

..."

Lol! Dr. Seuss is always in there!

In my F2F group I used to frquently quote from The Lorax. "I speak for the trees! I speak forthe TREES,"

"What are you talking about?" someone asked.

"Why...from The Lorax! I'm speaking up for the characters-usually "society"--that can't speak for themselves."

Smile. Dr. Seuss---and Ogden Nash...I LOVE Ogden Nash--bent me towards rhyme-words.


http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/p...

Is that fun to read or what?

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "Smile. Dr. Seuss---and Ogden Nash...I LOVE Ogden Nash..."

LOL! Thx for the link. Been years since I've read Ogden Nash. I used to have one of those little gift books lying around that I would pick up and enjoy from time to time.

A few weeks ago my son's wife had just returned from a week of intensive training on a day my son and I had spent roaming museums. We all went to The Lorax (the movie) to finish the evening. Have you seen it yet, Adelle? (I was not overly enamored; while I agree with the messages about needing to care for our environment, somehow it felt a bit like over-the-top Hollywood propaganda to me; that is, influence the kids so they'll influence their parents. Not that is necessarily a bad thing; still, my personal reaction was that it seemed heavy handed. I have not seen the original Dr. Seuss book to compare.)

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "Do you think maybe it's because James grew up on inherited money?..."

Maybe. But I think it had as much to do with the shift in where the sources of wealth were coming from at the time. If my (scant) knowledge of economic history serves me, I believe it was a time when aristocratic and landed wealth was under pressure in England, whereas new wealth was being created on many fronts in America. (E.g., my reference earlier to Edith Wharton's The Buccaneers, let alone Henry's own familial situation.)

From the Wiki entry for Henry James, Sr.: "...amassed a fortune of about $3 million from business dealings in upstate New York State, primarily in Albany real estate and money lending. The building of the Erie Canal was another factor in the James family's prosperity."

There was apparently a major shift to wealth from manufacturing in England with the slow/rapid emergence of professional opportunities, especially engineering or those otherwise related to manufacturing, but also in fields like medicine (Sir Luke) and publishing/journalism (Densher?).

Appreciated your recollections on The Portrait of a Lady, especially Henrietta as a journalist. I keep forgetting her role when I recall that book.

[Lily]

I still carry the sense that Henry James was playing a bit with the ethical issues of a man like Lord Mark "marrying for money" versus a woman like Kate doing the same vicariously, one offering his title, the other offering her beloved in the trade. But, maybe that is just a cynical reading.

(One the saintly Milly would reject; over the other she would spread her dove's wings of blessing. Much as we, the readers, want to know, I see no way that James could have written reading Milly's letters into the text.)

[MadgeUK]

It would seem that Lord Mark was a minor aristocrat who was 'land rich but cash poor'. James does not make it clear whether he had an hereditary title (which would have been desirable to Americans) but the fact that he became a Member of Parliament would seem to suggest that he didn't and was perhaps a younger son who had inherited a baronetcy through the death of an elder one. Perhaps his minor role reflects his minor status.

The 1815 Corn Laws and their repeal in 1835, together with the 1832 Reform Act, exacerbated the decline of the British landed nobility because agricultural tariffs on the importation of grain in the UK sharply reduced domestic grain prices and the value of agricultural land with it. By the 1860's cheap wheat and other foods from America began to be imported to European ports. This was a consequence of the Clipper ships, and later, steamships. British farms were then too small to be mechanised, and American farmers (aided by reaping machines) were able to offer cheaper prices for wheat. The gentry responded by borrowing and by the time of WWI, many were heavily in debt, then punitive war taxes affected them, which is why many great country houses fell into disrepair and could be had for a song by the 1930's. Meanwhile agricultural workers and domestic servants moved to the cities, where they could get better wages working in factories.

Added to all this was the slaughter of WWI when the officer class, drawn from the nobility, were killed in disproportionate numbers and land and titles, which could not be inherited by women, had to be sold to the English merchant class (cf Anthony Trollope) as well as to Americans, to pay off debts incurred before the war.

(The Downtown Abbey series reflects some of these problems.)

[[deleted user]]

I hadn't made the connection before, but yes, there is a something of a parallel (spelling?) that way. I totally loved An American Tragedy. And Sister Carrie. I haven't read Dreiser in probably 30 years. Thanks for the memories.

[Lily]

Martha wrote: "Wings of the Dove is a classic story regarding the class system in England. About the haves and the have nots. James reminds me of F. Scott Fitzgerald, his characters have similar moral dilemma. ..."

Would enjoy hearing you say more, Martha! (I've not read An American Tragedy although I have read Sister Carrie, including most of both versions available today -- the one originally published and the one restored by scholars from the original manuscript.)

[Lily]

Spent part of the evening reading commentary. Will share these thoughts from Edmund Wilson from Henry James: A Collection of Critical Essays edited by Leon Edel:

It may be more appropriate to compare James with dramatists like Racine and Moliere than novelists like Hardy, Dickens, Tolstoy, or Balzac. The logic -- "These poets are not, like Dickens and Hardy, writers of melodrama--either humorous or pessimistic, nor secretaries of society like Balzac, nor prophets like Tolstoy: they are occupied simply with the presentation of conflicts of moral character, which they do not concern themselves about softening or averting. They do not indict society for these situations: they regard them as universal and inevitable. They do not even blame God for allowing them: they accept them as the conditions of life. Titus and Berenice, Alceste and Celimene, Antony and Octavius--these are forces which, once set in motion are doomed to irreconcilable opposition. The dramatist makes no attempt to decide between competing interests: he is content to understand his characters and to put their behavior before us.

"Now, it was James's immense distinction to have brought to contemporary life something of this 'classical' point of view...."

Later, Wilson comments: "...one of the most remarkable things about The Wings of the Dove is the way is which, from the very first pages, Henry James succeeds in making us sympathize with the author of this unquestionably ignoble plot, in making us feel that what she does is inevitable. Kate Croy, though hard and crass, is striving for the highest aspirations she is capable of understanding, just as the more fastidious Milly is."

Agree? Disagree? (I am still trying to figure out exactly how James created so much sympathy for Kate -- because he did for me, but it seemed so not rational.)

[[deleted user]]

I read part of the material that follows WotD in the Norton Edition. I found it so interesting to read how James had initially meant for his story to unfold...and to wonder at the fact that my view of his characters is so different from what James thoughthe intended to portray.

I used italics...because I believe James wasn't consciously (sp?) aware of his own motives.

I see today is the 30th...last day of discussion. So I want to put Jate to bed tonight....:) ...kinda like Densher wanted to.

Thanks, Lily. I much prefered Kate myself.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "I see today is the 30th...last day of discussion. So I want to put Kate to bed tonight....:) ...kinda like Densher wanted to...."

I understand that wanting to move on and will not attempt to hold you here, Adelle, but I am still hoping that some others may continue to want to discuss WotD, particularly how the writing was done, so I may continue to post. :-(

Although I have finished WotD within its reading period and I am well into The Red and the Black, I think it is frequently difficult for many of us to stay within the strict parameters of the reading schedules in online groups. I'd like to figure out more ways that discussions might be likely to dribble on for several weeks, perhaps even a couple of months, after an online group's concentrated effort. I understand the need for focus in any given time period, but that focus also isn't necessarily compatible with the lives we lead, and it seems a shame for a discussion to totally disappear just because some (magical) date has been passed, at least if there are others still around who might continue to be interested in a book. Don't know how to accomplish that in a way that really works, even though I know these columns stay open indefinitely. (I know I do occasionally watch for new postings on something I had been following with interest.)

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "I read part of the material that follows WotD in the Norton Edition. I found it so interesting to read how James had initially meant for his story to unfold...and to wonder at the fact that my view of his characters is so different from what James thought he intended to portray...."

I never did figure that (what James thought he intended to portray). What article in Norton did you think was clearest on the topic? I'll reread it.

Incidentally, I have read that Tolstoy intended to disapprove of Anna Karenina, but eventually found that he could not.

I will ask one last question of you, Adelle. Did you finally read the article on Kate (background thread) that argued for her morality and, if so, do you have any comments on the arguments posited in it? (I just don't get Levinas yet at this stage in my life; maybe, one day.... For me, he is not like Derrida, with at least some of whose ideas I feel an almost intuitive affinity.)

(Oops - Lacan, not Levinas, but. for me,the "not get" applies for both. :-( )

[Lily]

Adeline Tinter argues, in the book cited above, edited by Edel, that James uses material objects to suggest human motivations:

"In The Wings of the Dove art objects again are instrumental in revealing human motives to those whose intelligence can penetrate this 'mystic meaning.' Densher senses that Mrs. Lowder is a symbol of brute force which makes the life force, Kate, subject innocence, Milly, to exploitation. He reads it in 'the huge, heavy objects that syllabled his hostess' story.'"

While I don't disagree that James used descriptions of physical surroundings to further his story, it was not always clear to me which ones were deliberate versus which ones were unconscious and which were deliberate but did not quite work as intended. Both the overall symbolism of "dove" and "wings of the dove" and of mirrors and of wanderings about the city and even of the obviously deliberate, famous, integral set piece with the Bronzino portrait all seemed at some levels to work and at others to fall apart.

(For example, Bronzino's portraits somehow seem to me such elegant people, not haughty, but still of a world apart, perhaps a bit full of themselves in the sense of being aware of who and what they were and were capable of being. Somehow, Millie comes across as having far greater humility and simplicity about her dignity and nobility and wealth. So, why did James select the particular portrait and artist that he did?

On the other hand, the initial image of Kate peering intently in the mirror seems more omniscient of the story the further I get from reading it -- this young woman, intent on never failing to see clearly, peering into a glass whose silvered reflection in this poorly furnished room was probably deeply marred by tarnish, pits, and streaks.

But why the almost too clever parallelism of the wanderings of Millie and of Densher about the byways of London?)

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I see today is the 30th...last day of discussion. So I want to put Kate to bed tonight....:) ...kinda like Densher wanted to...."

I understand that wanting to move on and will not a..."

Oh, Lily, I'llbe more than happyto continue to discuss. I just felt that I hadn't held up my end...hadn't finished reading on time...posted sporatically. I just got home ... Plan to make some coffee and post some thoughts on Kate. "just under the wire". But then, I would love to chat back and forth without feeling like I have a deadline to meet. Thanks, Lily.

[[deleted user]]

At 24 Lily wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I read part of the material that follows WotD in the Norton Edition. I found it so interesting to read how James had initially meant for his story to unfold...and to wonder at the fa..."

Lily, it was a short piece, "From His Notebooks"...page 446.

Lily, no, sorry, I still hVen't got to it...because I figured I really had to write up thoughts on why I liked Kate first. I WILL...realio trulio ... Get them posted tonight.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "Lily, it was a short piece, "From His Notebooks"...page 446..."

Thx! I'll track it down.

Thx, too, for your willingness to stay engaged on this fascinating author and his book for at least a bit yet!

(I'm not up to anything cogent tonight. Hopefully in the morning. But do need to get a presentation on a totally different topic together for tomorrow night, and maybe some grass seed spread on some repair spots on my lawn, and the sprinkler system turned on.)

[[deleted user]]

The Wings of the Dove – Some Thoughts on Kate Croy/Thoughts on WotD in General

Just thoughts. LOL. “Musings,” to use Lily’s word.

(view spoiler)[ Well, I’m playing arm chair psychologist---‘though I haven’t an arm chair and I am not an actual psychologist…I don’t even play one on TV. Be that as it may…

I happen to think that there are two stories. There is the story the James thought he was writing—the story he consciously planned to write: The story that elevates Milly (Minnie Temple) and forgives Densher/(James?) and casts Kate Croy in a dark light…planning and scheming and betraying. And then there is, I believe, the story that James actually wrote—the complex story that engages the reader--the story that James’s unconscious insisted he write: The story in which Kate is the character most admired by James…and me, too.

The unconscious. I read, in the Norton Edition, the Ernest Sandeen piece “A Study of Henry James’s Later Phase.” Sandeen quotes from Graham Greene’s book The Lost Childhood and Other Essays, writing, “Both Portrait and Wings exemplify that ‘idea of treachery, the Judas complex, which Graham Greene points to as James’s ‘ruling passion’ and which was imbedded perhaps in his memory of Minny Temple.” Greene, in his book, writes that one MUST write out one’s issues. And clearly Minnie Temple was an issue for Henry James.

(Aside. Clearly I have issues too. Smile.)

So I believe that James is compelled to write Minnie over and over---like people who marry the same sort of person over and over…hoping to make it “right.” James, trying to give Minnie that life he hadn’t been able to give/or couldn’t give her. You know, really, he probably blamed himself way more than he should have. Minnie was going to die and die young no matter what James did....or didn’t do. But he seems to carry such guilt or obsession. So he writes Minnie/Milly. And he thinks that he is writing Kate as, to quote Madge, “the bad girl.” And he thinks he writes Densher as rising up to his full consciousness and Densher not being to blame and Minnie/Milly forgiving all.


I can’t help it if James and the “real” reviews view the book differently. I can only tell you how I view it.

What I see is James writing that we are ALL flawed. Poor humans; oh so human. Every single character in WotD had flaws. Milly included.

Also, and I found this to be interesting, Kate might have referred to Milly as a dove, but James, in passing, makes connections between almost all/or most of his major characters and wings:

Densher: “But brave though his descent to English earth, he had passed…through zones of air that had left their ruffle on his wings…” (116).

Milly, of course. Susan Stringham, her hat “feathered from the eagle’s wing” (124).

So everyone has flaws … and everyone has wings … everyone needs a little help…everyone could offer another a little help…but who does?

Again, I think James tries to write Milly as magnificent…to atone for the past with Minnie. But I think it’s really Kate that he loves and admires and wishes he could be more like her…or, maybe he IS more like her…and so he unconsciously writes her well.

Yes, Milly spreads her wings and leaves some money to Densher…after she is dead…after she doesn’t need it anymore. Kate, on the other hand, from the little she has, she too spreads her wings to help someone, her sister and her sister’s children, and gives up half of what she has. Whose is the greater sacrifice?

Truth to tell, I just never felt drawn to Milly. She doesn’t want to look at life directly; furthermore, she wants other people to pretend with her…thus forcing all those around her to live a lie…she LIKES living in the make-believe… there’s a quote on that somewhere. ***make believe in Venice *** It was exactly what she didn’t want to know *** etc.** I don’t want know. Etc.

Kate, I believe, is not only the best character in the book, but HAS the best character in the book.

Kate is beautiful, I believe, because Henry James wanted her beautiful. Because if he could be Kate or Milly, he would choose to be Kate.

Kate is the only person in WotD who is shown caring about her family…She cares about them despite their very obvious flaws. Milly, Susan, Densher, seemingly have no family. Maud actually says that the fact that Kate is her niece means nothing to her. Kate says, “That’s all my virtue—a narrow little family feeling” (101). Can you name a virtue of any other character?

James cared about his family.

Kate is the only character in WotD who actually makes a financial sacrifice for someone else. She gives half of her inheritance from her mother over to her sister. Maud gives a pittance to her nieces and nephews…just enough to keep herself in the picture as the rich aunt. Milly, with all her wealth, never once do we see her financially helping anyone, much less helping someone to the point that it would materially affect her.

James made financial sacrifices for his family. Signing over the royalties to one of his books to his sister. Setting aside a strict interpretation of his father’s will so that the younger two brothers, too, would inherit money---against William’s wishes---even though Henry could have used the extra income.

Kate is the about the only character that we don’t see lie:

Maud lies. It is Maud who tells Milly that Kate doesn’t care for Densher. She says to Densher something along the lines of: You owe me. I have told the perfect lie for you.

Milly lies. To others and to herself about her health, yes, but also outright lies. Remember, she instructed the servants to lie, to say that she wasn’t home. She lied to Maud when she told Maud that she “didn’t thinkthat Densher had returned.”

Susie Stringham advocates for lies, telling Densher to lie to Milly, “Deny.”

Densher lies. He lies to Milly about why he stayed in Venice. Although he almost immediately disavowed that lie. But then he lied, saying he didn’t really know why he had stayed in Venice. More telling is the fact the Densher lies to himself, repeatedly telling himself that HE is in the clear…the HE hasn’t done anything wrong…that HE isn’t a low life like Lord Mark…who wants to marry Milly for her money… Whereas we know Densher knows what’s going on. “You would have got fairly near him by making out in his eyes the potential recognition of ideas” (86). Kate loves him in large part because of his mind. He’s a smart guy. Smart enough to convince himself of his own lie---that he bears no responsibility.


Never once do we see Kate lie. Regarding Kate: She repeatedly makes the point that she is straight. “Never be afraid that I won’t be straight with you.” She was “straight” in telling her Aunt Maud about Densher right away. She was “straight” in that she took no steps not to be seen with Densher, “and it was a thing she was clearly incapable of taking” (93). She spoke to Densher about her family situation “with the last frankness” (96). She contradicts Densher faith in her, telling him the truth, that she would have given him up, “I offered to give you up, if necessary, to go to him” (101).

Kate is the only character who tries to warn Milly: “We’re of no use to you-it’s decent to tell you…My honest advice to you would be…to drop us while you can” (235).

Kate is the only character who tells others to ask those important questions, to discover the truth for themselves: To Densher: “You can ask about it” (99). “do what you like” (103).

Kate says “I shall sacrifice nobody and nothing” (102).

She asks Maud for nothing (118). Maud wants to sacrifice Kate to her own ends. Susie is willing to sacrifice Kate to advance Milly’s interests. Densher is willing to sacrifice Kate’s financial future---which he knows is necessary for her---to appease his own guilty conscience. There is an early suggestion that Milly is willing to sacrifice Kate: “If she [Milly] was to keep herself out she could naturally best do so by putting in somebody else. She accordingly put in Kate Croy, being ready to that extent- as she was not at all afraid for her - to sacrifice her if necessary.” And later, this telling sentence: “Milly had her rent to pay, her rent for her future; everything else but how to meet it fell away from her in pieces, in tatters” (217). I think that means that she recognizes she needs to believe that Densher is available. So she WILL believe that Densher is available.

I think she has the same attitude towards Densher being available that she had towards the Palazzo in Venice: “Charming people…evidently, had given up their house to her, and had fled to a distance…to hide their blushes…and she now—her part of it was shameless—appropriated and enjoyed” (337). Kate is charming, knows the value of Densher, and is distancing herself from him so that Milly can appropriate and enjoy him. And like the house, Milly knows that she doesn’t really own the house. She has temporary possession of the house and Densher.

IS Kate willing to sacrifice Milly??? Maybe. Or maybe the interest of Milly and the interest of Kate happen to overlap. Possibly Kate, like Benjamin Franklin, thinks she can do well by doing good. Or more possibly, both young women are aware of the trade they are making. That’s what I think. Kate tells Densher “I shouldn’t trouble about her if there were one thing she did have…She has nothing….I want to make things pleasant for her.’ (283).



Milly will pretend to herself that she believes that Kate isn’t interested in Densher. And Kate won’t disabuse Milly of that pretence.


(hide spoiler)]

Continued.

[[deleted user]]

Continuation:

(view spoiler)[
And then, too, let’s look at the money. If we started the story of Kate AFTER she came into possession of Milly’s money, what an admirable character she would appear. Helping her family. Fully engaging in life. Perhaps with a lovely family story of how Kate’s good friend Milly Theale left her a fortune. We know that’s not quite the way it happened.

On the other hand, that’s exactly how Milly’s wonderful story starts. She inherits a fortune. We know her hands aren’t dirty. But where, pray tell, did such an immense fortune come from. I’m supposing that Millicent’s ancestors made their fortune in the millinery trade….working young girls practically to death at near-starvation wages.

We know that Maud married her money. Maybe a love match. Maybe she prostituted herself out. “Maud Manningham had made…a great marriage.”

See, I think that Maud and her sister, Kate’s mother, married men with money. That they didn’t have much themselves. I base this on the fact that Maud is wealthy now; and Maud has horrendous, vulgar, pedestrian taste. Just check out the furniture. And Maud’s sister apparently married a man with some money. Lionel Croy. And Kate’s mother seems to have pretty bad taste in furniture. I suspect that Miriam has some of it now crammed into her home. BUT, Kate has exquisite taste. I think she inherited that from her father…or learned it from her father…a man higher on the social scale than Mrs. Lional Croy.

So neither Milly nor Maud have pristine money either. Well…MAYBE Maud does…but Maud has other large, florid, vulgar, less than stellar actions.


But most importantly, I think, James admired Kate because she was willing to live, willing to take action. Densher “waited for her to act” (508). Yes, Milly WANTED to live. So did Al Capone and Gengis Khan. What exactly about Milly, really, is so wonderful. Is Milly, sans money and tragically approaching death story, really magnificent?? If so, James completely failed to convey that to me. I have no emotional attachment to Milly.

Kate is well aware that this is HER life…and she tries magnificently to set her own terms. She won’t sell herself cheap…but she can bear a great deal…and she’s willing to…. I thought the ending pages were wonderful. Densher…still unwilling or incapable of acting himself…still with “the desire to escape everything”(507)…but Kate…not afraid to look at the truth,.. “she met it” … And James wrote, “With which Kate slowly rose” (508). Indeed she did.


(hide spoiler)]

Well, anyway, I liked Kate.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: ....Milly will pretend to herself that she believes that Kate isn’t interested in Densher. And Kate won’t disabuse Milly of that pretense...."

At this point, aren't we quibbling about whether Kate "lies" or not? I'm not certain but what Kate deceives herself with a clear headed clarity, even as she looked at herself in the mirror in her father's room. Certainly she conceals from Milly information from her correspondences with Densher and is disingenuous about the museum visit or the extent of their relationship.

Even though honesty is one of the values with which I was imbued, particularly by my father, I don't see any particular moral superiority or inferiority on Kate's part by trying to establish that Kate does not lie, in the sense of not truth telling. It seems to me that one can wander too easily into the never-never land of whether omission carries comparable culpability with commission.

One of the commentaries that has intrigued me was one that suggested we are never directly shown the inside of Kate's conscience, as we are, say Densher's. (Also, that such was a deliberate ploy of James.) Not totally certain I entirely agree, but it does seem we know Kate more by her actions than her thoughts, whereas for many, if not most, of the other characters we hear them pondering about life and their own circumstances.

[Lily]

In painting my own sequel, I like to think that Kate took the money and found a man more worthy than Densher, who ultimately came across to me as almost as much of a slime-bag as Lord Mark -- to be hyperbolic about my reactions to mere fictional characters.

But, I did have sympathy for Millie -- she floated across the stage as a waif at times, a bit of whimsy on the flotsam of life, even a nymph. She didn't totally capture my empathy, however, largely because she seemed incapable of looking life, and death, straight in the face. She tried to escape, and when she couldn't, she caved. Except in writing her will? As was said by someone earlier, Venice, with its masks and charades, was such an appropriate setting for so much of the novel.

I like this line from Irving Howe: "Henry James is a novelist of temptations, temptations resisted, succumbed to, regretted..."

More from Howe: (view spoiler)[
(Howe goes on to comment on how James avoided politics -- that "Unlike Dostoevsky, James had never been singed by radicalism, although he had seen it flickering in his father's Fourierist circle and burning in his sister Alice's mind; unlike Conrad he felt no need to discipline or suppress memories of a family tradition of political revolt. James's conservatism was peculiarly the conservatism of an artist who has measured all the effort and agony that has gone into the achievements of the past and is not ready to skimp their value in the name of an unborn and untested future. And it was the conservatism of a man with a profound sense of human disability, an awareness of catastrophe and failure so great as at times to be crippling in its power...." This of an author writing before the great wars.

Not certain how to relate it to WotD, but Howe also offers that [James had] "a deep distrust, indeed a professional refusal, of abstract ideas." Certainly, he gives us in WotD a case study, rather than a philosophical treatise. (hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Yes, it was not an unbiased view of Kate I wrote. Because you're right that we simply don't see Kate lying verbally like we see the rest lying. Some might deem Kate guilty of something like a sin of omission. Mmm. (Truthfully)...(I would think that.)(But I don't want to speak against Kate because I think there is more to admire in Kate than in any of the other characters.)

But do you think she "conceals" her correspondence with Densher from Milly or does she simply choose not to reveal it. She says that part of her life is her "own business." She has so little in the material sense. She has to "be onstage" at Maud's parties. Why should she have to share her emotional life with others? (Yes, to tell you truthfully, given that scene in the museum, I think Kate already has considered Milly's money and Densher...). But, really, does Kate owe it to others to reveal who she corresponds with? And Milly, at Maud's request, is going to withhold information. Do we then condemn Milly, too?

They both say they view the other as a friend. I believe both of them. Yet they don't reveal everything one to another. When they take off their masks, they have another mask still remaining. But isn't one entitled ?? to not reveal everything?

I realize it seems to cast Kate in a shadowy light. Do Kate and Milly have a right to choose what to reveal? How much of our own lives are we ethically required to share with others?

And what if they both know...but by unspoken consent choose not to verbalize, not to say out in the open? Rather like the status Milly wants regarding her illness... Does Milly have a right to not discuss the state of her health? Then why doesn't Kate have a right to not discuss the state of her romantic life? Why didn't Kate tell her? one might inquire. Why didn't Milly ask? I would respond.

Milly did not want to know.
Should Kate have forced that information on her?
And did Sir Luke have a responsibility to tell Milly the full and exact state of her health?

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: ..."

Those are the conundrums of living that dear Henry had the entangled mind and technical writing skills to lay before his readers -- to their mingled delight and dismay.

(Repeat from msg 21 above:(view spoiler)[
"These poets are not, like Dickens and Hardy, writers of melodrama--either humorous or pessimistic, nor secretaries of society like Balzac, nor prophets like Tolstoy: they are occupied simply with the presentation of conflicts of moral character, which they do not concern themselves about softening or averting. They do not indict society for these situations: they regard them as universal and inevitable.) (hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: ".One of the commentaries that has intrigued me was one that suggested we are never directly shown the inside of Kate's conscience, as we are, say Densher's. (Also, that such was a deliberate ploy of James.) Not totally certain I entirely agree, but it does seem we know Kate more by her actions than her thoughts, whereas for many, if not most, of the other characters we hear them pondering about life and their own circumstances.."

Yes! I just finished that one this morning. There is a little, little of "inside of Kate" in the first chapter...and then even that little bit of "inside of Kate" disappears ! We only see her through the eyes of others...including, sometimes the narrator... So that opening scene with Kate looking in the mirror is about perfect...Does Kate see herself clearly? I think she does. But I don't have confirmation from Kate's internal thoughts.

She doesn't tell Milly about Densher; and she doesn't tell me what she's thinking.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "And did Sir Luke have a responsibility to tell Milly the full and exact state of her health? ..."

Doctors and other caregivers wrestle with this frequently. The U.S. has tried to establish laws to deal with some aspects, such as who has either the right or the responsibility to inform (and who does not; indeed is prohibited from informing). One of the finest workers with hospice patients that I know tells stories of holding the hand (surreptitiously) of doctors as they tell what neither they nor their patients may want to face directly. (Then add families to the mix.)

Working as I have with leading edge technology (at the time), I have long been intrigued and concerned about the status of privacy "rights". Yet, it is often far easier to "wash one hands" or ignore than to engage in even identifying the issues, let alone in addressing them. (To move far from WotD and into the political world that James himself avoided, just contrast the movement of slaves in the underground railroad with the movement of peoples in political distress in these days of cell phones and GPS -- which emigres themselves may not possess.)

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "In painting my own sequel, I like to think that Kate took the money and found a man more worthy than Densher, who ultimately came across to me as almost as much of a slime-bag as Lord Mark -- to be..."

I have no doubt she took the money. Her heart was broken...she had so loved Densher. But she took the money. Her goal was to have both. Densher won't allow her that option.

I, too, imagine her finding a much better man. Not Lord Mark.

And I try to imagine how this alters her relationship with Maud...with her family.

I was thinking of Milly this morning. With so much money in her family...she had possibly never had to deal with financal problems....that had been taken care of. But what if more than one of her family had died of prolonged illness? She wouldn't then, I'm supposing, want to think on that. What if one of them had died of what Milly has?

James leaves so much unknown.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "James leaves so much unknown...."

But one has a sense that James is very deliberate about what he leaves unknown. As someone earlier said (Bill?), it is not Kate's father's specific misdeeds or Millie's particular illness that James wants his reader to concern him or herself about. One of the critics who I can't relocate tonight also specifically comments about this technique (skill?) of James in deliberately not making available to the reader information that might distract from the focus he sought to convey as author of his tale.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "...But what if more than one of her family had died of prolonged illness? She wouldn't then, I'm supposing, want to think on that...."

Certainly we are given hints that the deaths Millie had experienced on the way to orphanhood had profoundly impacted her, from an awareness of life's fragility, to possible melancholy and even depression tendencies (Susan's concerns in Switzerland), to freedoms unusual for a woman of her class and resources, to her almost deliberately blind fervor to live life deeply herself before facing her own inevitable demise.

I am still struggling with the imagery of the Bronzino.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: " James in deliberately not making available to the reader information that might distract from the focus he sought to convey as author of his tale.

..."

Very good point. James is such a detail man. Directing us where HE wants us to look.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: ".I am still struggling with the imagery of the Bronzino.."

I read a couple of pieces online. Sorry, didn't get the addresses copied. I had googled Bronzino Milly James.

1) (I think this idea was also in one of the post-WotD pieces in Norton): regarding the idea of living/the idea of dying: that just as Lord Mark revealed the information that "killed" Milly, it was Lord Mark who brought Milly to the painting that made her aware that she was going to be "dead, dead, dead."

2)the painting...being viewed...being commented on... not engaged with emotionally/just observed for the viewer's pleasure... And the point that Milly so resembles the woman in the painting... One of the guests even observing how much the painting looks like Milly---instead of how much Milly looks like the painting... James is showing us that the people in London weren't seeing Milly as a person... They were viewing her as an object... something interesting... something for their pleasure... something to pass the time.

It is Kate, who knowing Milly as a real person, says, "I hope she's not ill." Or words to that effect.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "One of the guests even observing how much the painting looks like Milly---instead of how much Milly looks like the painting..."

Somehow, I think I must have read this the opposite of some other readings possible. If one has a live person and a portrait is done, don't people comment on how much the painting resembles the actual person? If one said someone looked like a painting of someone long dead, wouldn't one then be making a comment on that person's relationship to the dead?

Does the woman in the painting really look "dead"? I don't think so, especially with the engraving on her jewelry. She looks a bit elegant and not particularly vivacious, but she strikes me as probably in control within the elevated circles in which she moved, at least to the extent women could be said to be in control. She didn't strike me as "dead, dead, dead." But maybe that is the way others (most?) react to that picture. (She reminded me more of the Bronzino at the Met of the young man in black -- master within his own world.)

[MadgeUK]

Some remarks about Bronzino portraits here, like 'His portrait figures—often read as static, elegant, and stylish exemplars of unemotional haughtiness and assurance—influenced the course of European court portraiture for a century' His style was known as Mannerism:-

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

[Lily]

I do think it was manipulative of Kate not to tell Milly of her own relationship with Densher, but I can argue to what extent that was to protect K&D from information getting back to Maud versus to what extent it was to lure Milly into Densher's attentions. I don't know that Kate had a "responsibility" to share her private information, any more than Milly did to share about her health. But, that still doesn't free either from responsibility for what those actions of openness or reticence or withholding did to their relationship.

[Lily]

I will say this, both WotD and Portrait of a Lady entice me to want to read more of James.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "
Somehow, I think I must have read this the opposite o..."

Mmmm...I suppose the comparison could be done either way.

Your first example, seems right to me: a painting is done of a living person, and one comments on how much the painting looks like the living person...as in, "What a great likeness!" because the living person is real, and original, and the painting is only a copy...such a Densher's mother made.

(I had totally missed that in my initial readings.)

In the second example, in which there is a painting done years and years ago, and there is a real live person standing next to that painting...I suppose one could compare either way...but it seems more natural to me---and maybe it's just me---to say "Wow, that painting looks so much like you!" Because I think that the living person is more important than the painting.

Mmmm...yet I guess I can see the reverse, too, "You look so much like the woman in the painting" ... because the painting came first...although, it does rather seem to make the painting more important than the person....that the copy of someone is more important than the original of Milly.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "I will say this, both WotD and Portrait of a Lady entice me to want to read more of James."

2013???

I'm pretty much booked for 2012.

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "...Mmmm...yet I guess I can see the reverse, too, "You look so much like the woman in the painting" ... because the painting came first...although, it does rather seem to make the painting more important than the person....that the copy of someone is more important than the original of Milly...."

Once again, I seem to have read in the contrarian way, i.e., that the "important one", i.e., the living person, is compared to the painting, rather than the painting to the living person.

[[deleted user]]

Well, there you are.

[Lily]

"...They [the characters] are all Jamesian mediators, and one senses that narrator and character-consciousnesses are constantly confabulating and conspiring as they work together to construct of the novel. James comes down to the level of his characters, brooding with them on their problematic choices. He knows no more about the ultimate meaning of life than his characters do...."

http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_w...

From this online review of WotD which I found worthy of the reading, albeit a bit esoteric in places.

Pelagianism:

(view spoiler)[pe·la·gian·ism
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Usage: usually capitalized
Etymology: 1Pelagian + -ism
: the teachings of Pelagius condemned as heretical in A.D.431 and marked by the denial of original sin, the assertion that each individual has freedom of the will to choose not to sin, and the avowal that each person's freedom of the will includes the unassisted initiating power to move toward salvation and to appropriate the divine grace necessary thereto

"pelagianism." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (3 May 2012).
(hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Next on my list, Lily!

Listen, I know that you were reading the Norton Edition. Did you happen to read the piece by Sallie Sears? "Kate Croy and Merton Densher." I liked it---probably because it has basically the same view point as I do...lol...but more articulate and better written! I thought that last section particularly good, starting on page 558.

Regarding Densher view of himself, "His ethical position entails obedience to the law, not the spirit; action alone, and not intent or desire, is what is cupable. So long then as he doesn't DO anthing: tell a direct lie, propose marriage himself to Milly, he is blameless."

Then this...Sallie Sears writes that James had at least started with the intent that "Merton was to have gone through a spiritual transformation--literally a conversion."

"But a conversion implies a degree of self-examination and valuaton (rejection of the sinful self) that never takes place in Merton."

Sears writes of how forgiving Milly was to Densher.
Sears writes of what a self-righteous prig Densher was to Kate--condemning her ... so that he can sactify himself... what all those "tests" for Kate. "Densher's actions and reactions toward Kate are both harsher ans simpler than those of the total work, just as his reactions toward himself are kinder."