Auxiliary Reading Chit-Chat

[Marieke]

I just got the Muhlstein book and also have Proust's collection of essays about reading on the way to my doorstep. Has anyone read these yet?

[Kalliope]

Marieke wrote: "I just got the Muhlstein book and also have Proust's collection of essays about reading on the way to my doorstep. Has anyone read these yet?"

For Muhlstein see Proustitute's review and I think Eugene commented on the other in the Thread Ruskin's Lectures on Art and Architecture.

I have read a 1/3 of the Muhlstein.

[Marieke]

Oh, sorry... I meant has anyone read Proust's essays in reading, which I thought might be interesting to read alongside Muhlstein's book. Clearly I need more coffee this morning.

[Kalliope]

Marieke wrote: "Oh, sorry... I meant has anyone read Proust's essays in reading, which I thought might be interesting to read alongside Muhlstein's book. Clearly I need more coffee this morning."

Marieke, I think I am the one who needs more coffee (or more neurons), because I am getting mixed up between the On Reading and the On Reading Ruskin.

I am trying to find the original French of the various essays contained in either and I am getting very confused.

[Nick]

As in Searls "On Reading?". Or just the essay? I have a copy in my Penguin edition of Against Saint Beuve and other essays. translated by John Sturrock. It really is charming. In fact, the entire book's fun. Some essays not so much of interest to me currently (thoughts on Baudelaire and Saint-Beueve himself for instance), but others are lovely.

[Marieke]

It's a collection of Proust's essays. My apologies I can't link from the app on my phone...one second ill try finding it via the web browser...

[Marieke]

Okay I'll try again...Days of Reading

[Marieke]

It looks like our humble host gave it five stars. :)

[Nick]

Ah, I thought that might be the one you meant. I have yet to read that one (but it always pops up in my eBay favourite searches, as I have an eye kept peeled for any recent Penguin Proust going cheap :P)

[Kalliope]

Marieke wrote: "Okay I'll try again...Days of Reading"

OMG, I was ignorant about that one. I will have to search for its contents and see where they have been collected in their orginal...

Marieke, if I cannot find the "Look Inside" I may ask you to list the titles of the essays.

[Kalliope]

Marieke wrote: "Okay I'll try again...Days of Reading"

It seems it is a series of extracts from the Contre Sainte-Beuve.

[Marieke]

I can't read French, but I will definitely share whatever background info is provided to clarify the essays' provenance. I ordered it from amazon for $8. :)

[Paul]

This will be my first read of Proust, yet I'm hungry to dive in. I wonder if there are any recommendations for preliminary reading that I can look into now. I cheated some and read about 15 pages on Swann's Way yesterday and can't wait to discover what Proust is all about.

[Nick]

I think Kalliope had exactly the same question, Paul! To read supplementary lit is always good, but there's always the case of spoilers! And as I said to Kalliope, there ARE spoilers in Proust, some quite big momentous events! Best IMO to be careful of revealing them to oneself.

Perhaps de Botton's Proust is a good one. I will try and locate a copy and have a look in there (others welcome to look to or offer suggestions!)

One of my fave little gems of criticism is Derwent May's "Proust" and he let's drop perhaps the biggest event in the novel on about the third page of his book!

[Kalliope]

Nick wrote: "I think Kalliope had exactly the same question, Paul! To read supplementary lit is always good, but there's always the case of spoilers! And as I said to Kalliope, there ARE spoilers in Proust, som..."

There is also the Sansom book which for me was the preliminary to the preliminary
Proust and His World. It is out-of-print but I found it very cheaply second hand.

[Marieke]

Proust's Overcoat was nice and I don't think de Boton's book had real spoilers. He does refer to the books, though, so I plan to read it again after working my way through ISOLT.

[Nick]

Proust's Overcoat is a good suggestion!

[[deleted user]]

On the question of spoilers. I don't think we can hold off the auxiliary reads (such as the one I'm most keen on, Deleuze's Proust and Signs) till we've all read all the books - or we have to begin go into 2014.

On the other hand, that means that people doing those reads will tend to be either those of us who have read them all, or don't care about spoilers. I consider myself firmly in the latter camp (I still haven't read the final book in the Recherche, but I'm reading for the ideas and the language rather than the unfolding of the story), but I can see that a lot of us who haven't yet read the books do care about spoilers.

For the Deleuze thread (once I start it - my copy of Proust and Signs hasn't even arrived yet) I would rather not have bits hidden in spoiler tags. I'd rather put up a big 'spoilers inside' warning at the top of the thread and have a free-flowing discussion. Else I think the discussion would end up being pretty convoluted.

So my question (I'm thinking out loud, really) is whether or not these auxiliary reading threads are kind of exclusionary, even if that exclusion is self-inflicted. I suppose there's no real way around it...

[Nick]

Good points. Short of sectioning off out entire group into "Have read" or "Have not read" the Search there's not much that can be done.

I think having a "Spoilers within" disclaimer as a heading or as an understood, tacit warning on all supp. reading threads is a good thing.

Naturally group focus should be on ISOLT itself. Auxiliary reading threads are a nice sideline for those so inclined. For me, this additional reading is just a way of reminding myself how lovely the book is, without reading it again :p If nothing else, hopefully we can get to discussing these extra books in 2014! :D

(And for the record, I am very much a "no spoilers please!" person. I like how others are not, I find that interesting and enviable and "mature" if that makes sense!)

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

There are so many volumes of material that could be "auxiliary" that I certainly hope this group continues long after 2013. There is no way I can do more than scratch the surface of these reads, and I do feel interested in continuing my "education."

[[deleted user]]

Nick: OK, great, I will make sure I label any such thread appropriately.

Elizabeth: Indeed. I wonder what fruit this year will bear (outside Goodreads)? At very least some blog posts I would imagine ... maybe some deeper, article-length ruminations ...

[[deleted user]]

By 'this year' I of course mean next year.

[Rosh]

Marieke wrote: "Okay I'll try again...Days of Reading"

Oh. I'm currently reading this one. I'm an absolute fan of the Penguin Great Ideas series. It's got an essay on John Ruskin, Days of Reading (I & II), extracts from The Method of Sainte-Beuve and Swann Explained by Proust.

I also got hold of the Proust on Art and Literature recommended by Proustitute. I don't think this one has the Ruskin essay though.

[Wayne]

I can still recall so freshly the SHOCKS and JOLTS I got reading for the FIRST time Daphne du M's "Rebecca", Jane's "Pride and Prejudice" and Marcel's "In Search of Lost Time".
Didn't need a Book about the Book to tell me HOW to enjoy it.
And that is how those authors would have wanted their novels to be read.
Not with a critic's Running Commentary.
Save that for later, or with your Second Reading.
They can be essential for that fuller understanding we get so much from.

Don't come to these Classics intimidated by Reputation.
You don't need a crutch to enjoy a good writer.
As Nick wrote elsewhere, just jump in and go with the flow of the story and whatever else it offers.

Like so many, I came to Proust with a Great Deal of Curiosity about the man himself.
So I satisfied myself in that department.
But don't read a book about the book !!!
READ THE THING ITSELF.
So much to offer in every area - wit, challenges of style, philosophy of life, beauty of prose and thought, humour, wisdom... and those oh! so memorable JOLTS!!!
PLUS...you'll know a great deal about the Spirit of Marcel Proust.
HAVE A BALL!!!

[Jim]

Wayne wrote: "I can still recall so freshly the SHOCKS and JOLTS I got reading for the FIRST time Daphne du M's "Rebecca", Jane's "Pride and Prejudice" and Marcel's "In Search of Lost Time".
Didn't need a Book a..."

I must say, Wayne, your ENTHUSIASM IS INFECTIOUS! But sometimes it's nice to have a little extra-textual support for obscure or CULTURAL/TEMPORAL-SPECIFIC references! LOL!!!

Looking forward to reading and discussing with you and the rest of the Proustaceans next year!

[Marieke]

Proustaceans! Haha! I love that.

[Jim]

Marieke wrote: "Proustaceans! Haha! I love that."

In honor of Proust's birth sign, Cancer. I don't know if crabs are considered to be crustaceans, but ya know...

[Marieke]

Crabs are indeed crustaceans. Decapod crustaceans. It's too bad Proust didn't write ISOLT in ten volumes. ;)

[Jim]

Marieke wrote: "Crabs are indeed crustaceans. Decapod crustaceans. It's too bad Proust didn't write ISOLT in ten volumes. ;)"

If he'd only lived a few more years, he might have expanded it to 10...

[Wayne]

Jim wrote: "Wayne wrote: "I can still recall so freshly the SHOCKS and JOLTS I got reading for the FIRST time Daphne du M's "Rebecca", Jane's "Pride and Prejudice" and Marcel's "In Search of Lost Time".
Didn't..."

I think there is a real art in writing a review and creating an enthusiasm to read the book/see the film without giving away huge chunks of the plot.I have noticed that film trailers can do this with GREAT expertise.
Many Goodreads reviewers simply relate the story !!!

Looking forward to future contacts, Jim.
It should be a Year to Remember with Proust and your Proustaceans ever-present!!!

[Scribble]

http://modernism.research.yale.edu/wi...

Interesting article about Proust's literary criticism of Saint-Beuve and how his own criticism influenced his writing of a La Recherche.

[Kalliope]

Proustitute wrote: "@Scribble

That's a very interesting piece (and a good, short preliminary read for all Proust 2013 members, I think). I wonder what someone who is reading the Carter bio would make of the idea of P..."

Proustitute…!!!

You have not read the Carter yet, but you know already so well what is in it…!!

Indeed there is a chapter on the Contre Sainte-Beuve (Chapter 18 in Section V), and in one of my updates (I just checked and it was on the Muhlstein read, not on the Carter) I wrote that I was doing exactly what Proust said should not be done (!!), which is approach a writer learning about his life as if that were the key to his work. But then Proust would agree with me in that I am following what I think suits me best and not what a famous person is saying I should do…!!

So, Carter in a way is producing something not for the Proust followers, but for the Sainte-Beuve fans…!!, by inviting us to approach Proust through his external being.

The basic disagreement with Sainte-Beuve was that the personality of the artist (meaning the artistic being and creator) is not apparent in the physical person that you meet. Proust believed that this inner being only comes out through the artist’s creation.

And yes, you are completely right in that Carter presents Proust’s study of Ruskin as the key to the missing structure to his writings (now I think this is not Carter’s idea really, but Proust’s own – based on quotes), and the critique of Sainte-Beuve as the exercise which allowed Proust to formulate his Narrator, whose voice would correspond to this inner being. This proustian narrator seems to have many facets and to be able to shift viewpoints and is therefore a very rich personality, but of this I cannot yet speak.

I downloaded the French version of Contre Sainte-Beuve but I have not read it yet.. Hopefully after Carter.

[Kalliope]

Proustitute wrote: "It's been a while since I read Contre Sainte-Beuve. If my books weren't all boxed up at the moment, I'd definitely re-read it before January rolls around.

Can you link to the French version, perhaps?"

I bought it for 1 Euro in Amazon Spain, but it is also available in the US, for just under 4 bucks.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_nos...

[Scribble]

Proust had definite reasons for wanting a work analysed in isolation (and I think given society's mores at the time that he wrote, those reasons are valid). That said, apart from this essay I've read nothing about him and will not do so until I've made at least something of an indentation on his work.

My issue with New Criticism or lack of contextual analysis stems from the kinds of intellectual or emotional dishonesty of which writers are capable (eg William Golding Lord of the Flies). I've lambasted a number of authors for sleight-of-hand where they state publically the profession or adherence to one set of values, and then demonstrate in their writing that this patently untrue (even to be viewed as a publicity stunt). Writers, if distilling individual experience as the essence of universal truth to make it accessible to readers, have a moral obligation to be consistent in both word, deed and thought (which is my own value premise and represents my own peculiar idealism).

So I'm wary of regarding a work in complete isolation. On the other hand, Sainte-Beuve sounds completely despicable, if half of what he did is true.

[[deleted user]]

Scribble: is the work, then, for you, primarily an expression of the author?

[Jim]

Scribble wrote: "Writers, if distilling individual experience as the essence of universal truth to make it accessible to readers, have a moral obligation to be consistent in both word, deed and thought (which is my own value premise and represents my own peculiar idealism)..."

But they're writing fiction. What if their personal thoughts and values don't match the demands of the fictional narrative? Your "moral obligation" would be quite an impediment to their creativity, don't you think?

[[deleted user]]

I think Scribble's saying that the question of morality is her own value judgement, rather than a generally applicable aesthetic theory :)

For me, the question is moot; I don't care about authors, only bodies of work. Saying the writer's name is, as far as I'm concerned, kind of a shorthand for 'X's oeuvre'.

I suppose it might be different if one knew the writer in question; but then, I'm not convinced it would be significantly different. In fact, I'm sure the Recherche dramatises exactly that moment (when one meets someone whose work one admires, and what effect that has). If I remember right, more than once...

[Jim]

Joshua wrote: "I think Scribble's saying that the question of morality is her own value judgement, rather than a generally applicable aesthetic theory :)

For me, the question is moot; I don't care about authors,..."

Whenever the words "moral obligation" show up in a declarative statement about art, it is a statement worth questioning. It is the kind of statement that leads to censorship, decency committees, and Reverend-Lovejoy's-wife-type hysteria "OH! Won't someone please think of the children!?!?"

For priests and politicians, I can see having that expectation of moral integrity, but to apply to fiction writers and artists in general, it borders on the dangerous. And to use a maybe extreme example, in order to write "American Psycho" would Bretteastonellis have to hold those kind of psychopathic values in order to write the book?

Would be interesting to know where Proust would fall in discussions about the obligations of the artist, and whether an artist has any obligation at all?

[Scribble]

Joshua wrote: "Scribble: is the work, then, for you, primarily an expression of the author?"

Joshua, I think any expression of the author is their work. Once they produce something, it is separate from them in the same way offspring are separate from their parents. But the author maintains a relationship with that work (whether it is the extreme of neglect or even destruction or a revision and new edition) by both comments directly relating to the work or the author him/herself.

Even Anna Kavan, who stated she wanted to be the "world's best kept secret", and destroyed correspondence and notes relating to herself and work, still informs an opinion about how to approach her oeuvre by that statement.

[Scribble]

Jim wrote: "But they're writing fiction. What if their personal thoughts and values don't match the demands of the fictional narrative? Your "moral obligation" would be quite an impediment to their creativity, don't you think?"

I think that is a decision an individual writer must make for him or herself. My comment was prefaced with a value statement (my own and perhaps something for discussion or dismissal) about the meaning of art ie the distillation of individual experience into universal, accessible truth. If, and only if, this is valid, then it would seem to be rather difficult to construct a work which reflects an internal consistency, if the writer's values were not supported in their own work. What would be the point of the writer producing something?

If a writer wishes to produce something at odds with their value system because of the fictional narrative requirements, this must be their choice - it's just that I find that sort of inconsistency less powerful. Again, a personal predilection.

[Scribble]

Joshua wrote: "I think Scribble's saying that the question of morality is her own value judgement, rather than a generally applicable aesthetic theory :)"

Yes, Joshua, exactly. That is why I deliberately made the statement.

Jim, the declarative statement was not made in isolation or as a universal theory but as a personal (ie relevant to me, perhaps others, perhaps none) observation. I don't hold BEE's work in much esteem. I also think that censorship is a waste of time, and efforts better directed to developing critical thinking skills would lead to better choices by individuals (not just in relation to art, artists or expression, but society in general).

The link above mentions Proust's feelings about his own sexuality and the society of the period of time in which he was writing.

I think that artists are the flip side of scientists. And since we apply ethical constraints to scientists, we might want to consider whether artists should experiment (in order to produce their art, with or without the consent of those who may or may willingly participate in those experiments) in a vacuum of ethics.

Which, naturally, raises discussions about ethics etc. So either way it is a slippery slope - but critical thinking, asking questions, challenging assumptions, ought to help somewhat.

[Kalliope]

Question: an artist/writer who plagiarizes.

Is that moral or immoral, or neither?

Another question: a writer who proclaims he is a Marxist, but who finds ways to avoid paying taxes.

Is that moral or immoral, or neither?

[Jim]

Morals and ethics and values, Oh My!

And so you can bring the arguments back to all the brouhaha with the Saatchi show and the Brooklyn Museum and Chris Offili and Piss Christ, and so on. Belief systems end up being completely relative and so the arena of art is one of the places where you can interrogate all these gray zones that are less acceptable in science for example.

[Scribble]

Kalliope wrote: "Question: an artist/writer who plagiarizes.

Is that moral or immoral, or neither?

Another question: a writer who proclaims he is a Marxist, but who finds ways to avoid paying taxes.

Is that ..."

Not to confound the issue, but in this instance, what would be considered plagiarism?

The second question: the proclamation about being a Marxist - to first determine and accept which definition of Marxism the writer assumes (and adopts, and if so, consistently or on an ad hoc basis) and secondly - what is the relationship between (a particular definition of) Marxism and tax avoidance (and what is the basis for not paying taxes - what is the moral basis for paying taxes?)?

[Scribble]

Jim wrote: "Morals and ethics and values, Oh My!

And so you can bring the arguments back to all the brouhaha with the Saatchi show and the Brooklyn Museum and Chris Offili and Piss Christ, and so on. Belief s..."

I'm not familiar with the brouhaha you mention, Jim - I guess (some of) these are US based institutions/people/media?

I don't advocate not interrogating gray zones in either art or science - merely asking whether it should be done devoid of (at least a cursory discussion of) ethics.

[Jim]

Scribble wrote: "I'm not familiar with the brouhaha you mention, Jim - I guess (some of) these are US based institutions/people/media?

I don't advocate not interrogating gray zones in either art or science - merely asking whether it should be done devoid of (at least a cursory discussion of) ethics..."

Saatchi is a gallery in London that brought a show to NY that caused the catholics to totally wig-out with Rudolf Giuliani leading the shrieking. Debate centered around the use of elephant dung by an African artist in his portrait of the Madonna, which in his culture was not the insult that NY catholics made it out to be, but I digress....

The real question I'm probing in all of this is "obligation". In science and education and law, it is fairly easy to understand obligations of all kinds. Since art does exist in the public sphere it's easy to imagine it has the same obligations as other institutions, but since art serves no life-or-death purpose, what is at stake? And by extension, what should the corresponding obligations for an artist be?

I don't have specific answers. Just digging around...

[Scribble]

Jim wrote: "Saatchi is a gallery in London that brought a show to NY that caused the catholics to totally wig-out with Rudolf Giuliani leading the shrieking. Debate centered around the use of elephant dung by an African artist in his portrait of the Madonna, which in his culture was not the insult that NY catholics made it out to be, but I digress...."

Oh dear. I suppose my 'pragmatic' response to that would be that the curator ought to have seen that one looming...Thank you for explaining.

I think art can ask life-or-death questions, as well as serve any number of purposes which we attribute to it. My own answer is that if the artist is not intent on trivialising their own exploration (particularly of life-death issues) then an internal consistency helps me understand the artist and his/her work better. So the obligation is only a result of my expectations towards their work, ie how I react to their expression of their experience into something I can identify as relevant (hopefully not to just me, but to others as well) and insightful.

[Jim]

Scribble wrote: "Oh dear. I suppose my 'pragmatic' response to that would be that the curator ought to have seen that one looming....."

Well, in that instance, Charles Saatchi knew he was going to create big trouble - and he did - the show was sold out start to finish. Scandal always sells tickets...

BTW, your ideas are important to consider. I've been an artist since childhood and work primarily in photography and painting. I'm newly settled in France and will be setting up a painting studio to work in right after the holidays. I've been searching around for inspiration in my new home here in the Dordogne Valley. This is a crossroads of Cro-magnon (Lascaux, etc;) Gauls, Romans, catholics, crusaders, monarchies, Nazis and the French resistance - lots of variety in terms of value systems. Now it is an idyllic countryside experiencing the growing pains of over-development, so somewhere in this ethical stew, I must try and locate my artistic statement. So far, what's bubbling up is commentary on environmental concerns, which are part of my own moral system, so maybe your entire thesis is correct after all...

[Fionnuala]

With all kindness and full respect for the opinions expressed heretofore, might this quote by William Trevor possibly help the discussion? - “My fiction may, now and again, illuminate aspects of the human condition, but I do not consciously set out to do so: I am a storyteller.”
Perhaps Marcel, too, is first and foremost a story teller...

[[deleted user]]

'Fiction seeks out truth. Granted, it seeks a poetic kind of truth, universals not easily translatable into moral code. But part of our interest as we read is in learning how the world works; how the conflicts we share with the writer and all other human beings can be resolved, if at all; what values we can affirm and, in general, what the moral risks are. Thc writer who can't distinguish truth from a peanut-butter sandwich can never write good fiction. What he affirms we deny, throwing away his book in indignation; or if he affirms nothing, not even our onennes in sad or comic helplessness, and insists that he's perfectly right to do so, we confute him by closing his book. Some bad men write good books, admittedly, but the reason is that when they're writing they're better men than when they beat their wives and children. When he writes the man of impetuous bad character has time to reconsider. The fictional process helps him say what he might nor have said that same night in the tavern. Good men, on the other hand, need not necessarily write good books. Good-heartedness and sincerity are no substitute for rigorous pursuit of the fictional process.'

- John Gardner, The Art of Fiction