Pages

Thursday, 13 October 2022

In Search of Lost Time Vol.2: “like those apparently inanimate objects in a Persian fairy-tale”

I wonder if any reader never gets tired, frustrated, or annoyed reading Proust. There must be an ideal reader out there, savouring every page of Proust as I did with War and Peace or Moby Dick. Much as I enjoy and often blog about visual details, I sometimes can’t help getting impatient when Proust spends pages describing the furniture and flowers in the Swanns’ house and garden, or detailing Mme Swann’s clothes and change of fashion. One drowns in a sea of details, often trivial.

Proust, and thus his narrator, is highly sensitive. My temperament is different. 

“I was left alone there in the company of orchids, roses and violets, which, like people waiting beside you who do not know you, preserved a silence which their individuality as living things made all the more striking, and warmed themselves in the heat of a glowing coal fire, preciously ensconced behind a crystal screen, in a basin of white marble over which it spilled from time to time its dangerous rubies.” (Vol.2, P.1) 

Fortunately I don’t just read for the “reading experience”, so it’s interesting to see what Proust’s doing. The narrator compares the orchids, roses, and violets to “people waiting beside you who do not know you”, and many pages later, comes back to the same idea of the flowers as living, sentient beings. 

“There was always beside her chair an immense crystal bowl filled to the brim with Parma violets or with long white daisy-petals floating in the water, which seemed to testify, in the eyes of the arriving guest, to some favourite occupation now interrupted, as would also have been the cup of tea which Mme Swann might have been drinking there alone for her own pleasure; an occupation more intimate still and more mysterious, so much so that one wanted to apologise on seeing the flowers exposed there by her side, as one would have apologised for looking at the title of the still open book which would have revealed to one Odette’s recent reading and hence perhaps her present thoughts. And even more than the book, the flowers were living things; one was embarrassed, when one entered the room to pay Mme Swann a visit, to discover that she was not alone, or if one came home with her, not to find the room empty, so enigmatic a place, intimately associated with hours in the life of their mistress of which one knew nothing, did those flowers assume, those flowers which had not been arranged for Odette’s visitors but, as it were forgotten there by her, had held and would hold with her again intimate talks which one was afraid of disturbing, the secret of which one tried in vain to read by staring at the washed-out, liquid, mauve and dissolute colour of the Parma violets.” (ibid.) 

He has an interesting, unusual way of looking at things. This, for example, is how he writes about a stool:  

“When, after lunch, we went to drink our coffee in the sunshine of the great bay window of the drawing-room, as Mme Swann was asking me how many lumps of sugar I took, it was not only the silk-covered stool which she pushed towards me that exuded, together with the agonising charm that I had long ago discerned—first among the pink hawthorn and then beside the clump of laurels—in the name of Gilberte, the hostility that her parents had shown to me and which this little piece of furniture seemed to have so well understood and shared that I felt myself unworthy and found myself almost reluctant to set my feet on its defenceless cushion; a personality, a soul was latent there which linked it secretly to the afternoon light, so different from any other light in the gulf which spread beneath our feet its sparkling tide of gold out of which the bluish sofas and vaporous tapestries emerged like enchanted islands…” (ibid.) 

This passage about a stool doesn’t just show the narrator’s hypersensitivity, but also lets us see his obsession with Gilberte and his reverence for anyone and anything related to Gilberte. 

But my favourite part, at least so far, about furniture in Within a Budding Grove is about a few pieces of furniture, including a big sofa, that he inherited from his aunt Léonie and then gives to a brothel as presents: 

“I used never to see them, for want of space had prevented my parents from taking them in at home, and they were stored in a warehouse. But as soon as I saw them again in the house where these women were putting them to their own uses, all the virtues that pervaded my aunt’s room at Combray at once appeared to me, tortured by the cruel contact to which I had abandoned them in their defencelessness! Had I outraged the dead, I would not have suffered such remorse. I returned no more to visit their new mistress, for they seemed to me to be alive and to be appealing to me, like those apparently inanimate objects in a Persian fairy-tale, in which imprisoned human souls are undergoing martyrdom and pleading for deliverance.” (ibid.) 

In the book, we can see that the narrator is rather careless about the items he inherited from Aunt Léonie, selling “a magnificent set of old silver plate” just to send orchids to Mme Swann and later “a big vase of old Chinese porcelain” just so “every day, for a whole year, [he] could smother Gilberte in roses and lilac”, so here he gives away his late aunt’s furniture to a brothel. But the moment he sees the furniture “tortured by the cruel contact to which I had abandoned them in their defencelessness”, he sees them differently. 

The fascinating part, however, is that Proust doesn’t end there. Our memory, he says, doesn’t present things chronologically.

“… I remembered only long afterwards that it was upon that same sofa that, many years before, I had tasted for the first time the delights of love with one of my girl cousins, with whom I had not known where to go until she somewhat rashly suggested our taking advantage of a moment in which aunt Léonie had left her room.” (ibid.) 

Now we see the sofa differently. 

This is Proust’s technique: he depicts a thing, or a person, from different angles, gets us to perceive it/ him/ her in different ways, and transforms the object or person. 


These passages come from the translation by C. K. Scott Moncrieff & Terence Kilmartin, revised by D. J. Enright. 

23 comments:

  1. I liked reading the descriptions (from the 2 1/2 volumes that I have read) but it was the generalization that follows the descriptions that I found tiresome. When he switches to first person plural and then starts making first a statement with a vague abstraction and then starts qualifying it with one subclause after another. I know other readers like it because he says deep and complex things about human perception, subjectivity, memory, nature of self etc... but they are not for me.

    I am also not that interested in the subject of erotic desire and nature of sexual jealousy, which he is obsessed with. I find the subject itself boring, no matter who is writing it and how they are writing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what you mean.
      I have complained about all the long passages about love, obsession, & jealousy too, especially when he generalises about those feelings as you say. He seems to have no idea what a healthy relationship is like.

      Delete
  2. "He seems to have no idea what a healthy relationship is like."

    Hahah! That is precisely one of the major themes in the book, that nobody (especially him) has healthy relationships. Wait'll you get to The Captive and the Fugitive. That's a volume about nothing but obsessive desire, and the narrator lampoons himself mercilessly and endlessly objectifies his desired one.

    The details, though, all those minute sensual observations, are another main idea in Proust, and (spoiler, sorry) when you get to the final book you'll see how the entire project is sparked by a passing detail that reminds the narrator of a detail noticed earlier in life, which reminiscence sort of opens up a whole world to him. "This is Proust's technique," as you say, but first it operates on him before he presents it to us.

    The narrator's world is made of details, which I found fascinating and interesting to read. I agree that when he waxes philosophic, he's unfocused and can get dull.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't mind that he doesn't have healthy relationships. It's when he acts as though his experiences and feelings are universal, with all the we this we that, that he gets on my nerves. I'm like, no, it's just you, shut up.
      I've been enjoying the details until recently, when I got to the part about the furniture and Mme Swann's clothes. Maybe it's too much. Or maybe I'm too stressed about work.
      But now I'm on Part 2 of the book, where he goes to Balbec.

      Delete
  3. I don't think the narrator and Proust feel the same about relationships. The narrator is a bit thick, which for me became more apparent and therefore funnier the longer I read on. But yeah, he wears on the reader. I don't remember the details about the furniture. All the Balbec stuff is great. The girls, Charlus, the hotel staff, it's all great.

    Stress, yes. It spills over into everything. I keep having arguments with every writer I read these days, like they're deliberately annoying me. How dare they.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do think the narrator is a bit thick, but regarding the views on relationships, I can't help feeling that the line between him and Proust is so thin that it doesn't matter.
      Maybe I'm talking nonsense and should wait till I've read all the volumes.
      The stuff about the clothes becomes too much too. I get the point about Mme Swann follows fashion, but it goes on & on for so long.

      Delete
  4. I don't know how well I actually recall the books. It was some time ago, and I've probably compressed and simplified them in my imagination, lining them up with things other people have said about them. Some English (I think) critic once said something like, "How is it possible to discuss novels? One forgets them while one is reading them, and is left with just the memory of our reaction, not of the book itself?" Which is one reason why I blog like you do, during the reading, instead of when I've finished the book. Put things down while you're in the thick of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah.
      I think the late D. G. Myers said there were 2 kinds of book bloggers: those who write one long, polished post after reading a book and those who write many posts, perhaps not quite complete, and see them as a discussion.
      I'm the latter, I guess you also are. I prefer to write about anything that comes up while and after I read the book, rather than force myself to write a big piece at the end. I don't even write reviews.
      The consequence is that I contradict myself and change my mind often, which is fun.

      Delete
  5. I have some tips for that English critic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd be interested in seeing those tips.

    ReplyDelete
  7. After my little vacation I'll write some up. They will all be well-known, but they work for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tips for remembering books? I find that blogging helps.

      Delete
  8. The critic was Percy Lubbock, in his essay collection The Craft of Fiction: "Nothing, no power, will keep a book steady and motionless before us, so that we may have time to examine its shape and design. As quickly as we read, it melts and shifts in the memory; even at the moment when the last page is turned, a great part of the book, its finer detail, is already vague and doubtful. A little later, after a few days or months, how much is really left of it? A cluster of impressions, some clear points emerging from a mist of uncertainty, this is all we can hope to possess, generally speaking, in the name of a book." That's from page one. The books ends with: "Every word we say of it, every phrase I have used about a novel in these pages, is loose, approximate, a little more or a little less than the truth. We cannot exactly hit the mark; or if we do, we cannot be sure of it. I do not speak of the just judgement of quality; as for that, any critic of any art is in the same predicament; the value of a picture or a statue is as bodiless as that of a book. But there are times when a critic of literature feels that if only there were one single tangible and measurable fact about a book--if it could be weighed like a statue, say, or measured like a picture--it would be a support in a world of shadows. Such an ingenuous confession, I think it must be admitted, goes to the root of the matter--could we utter our sense of helplessness more candidly? But still among the shadows there is a spark of light that tempts us, there is a hint of the possibility that behind them, beyond them, we may touch a region where the shadows become at least a little more substantial. If that is so, it seems that our chance must lie in the direction I have named. The author of the book was a craftsman, the critic must overtake him at his work and see how the book was made."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah, Lubbock. He would not need my advice. One of the purposes of that book is to cultivate a "critical reader" of novels who reads complex fiction as intently as he reads poetry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds interesting. Should I read it?

      Delete
    2. Maybe. Tolstoy is one of Lubbock's key author's, although he is really a Henry James guy. You could try Virginia Woolf's essay "On Re-Reading Novels," which is partly about Lubbock's book, and see what you think.

      Delete
    3. Okay.
      I may have read that, but can't remember.

      Delete
    4. Woolf's essays are all great. Perceptive and combative and funny: If the English critic [she includes Lubbock in this list] were less domestic, less assiduous to protect the rights of what it pleases him to call life, the novelist might be bolder too. He might cut adrift from the eternal tea-table and the plausible and preposterous formulas which are supposed to represent the whole of our human adventure. But then the story might wobble; the plot might crumble; ruin might seize upon the characters. The novel, in short, might become a work of art.

      Delete
    5. Haha.
      I prefer Woolf the essayist to Woolf the novelist.

      Delete
  10. Lubbock has some objectionable 18th-century ideas about unity: "A subject, one whole and irreducible--a novel cannot begin to take shape till it has this for its support. It seems obvious; yet there is nothing more familiar to a novel-reader of today than the difficulty of discovering what the novel in his hand is about. What was the novelist's intention, in a phrase? If it cannot be put into a phrase it is no subject for a novel; and the size or the complexity of a subject is in no way limited by that assertion. It may be the simplest anecdote or the most elaborate concatenation of events, it may be a solitary figure or the widest network of relationships; it is anyhow expressible in ten words that reveal its unity. The form of the book depends on it, and until it is known there is nothing to be said of the form." This is worse than a mistake; it is a lie, merely a projection of the critic's failure onto the author. The same lie that German critics leveled at Shakespeare during the Enlightenment. Lubbock accuses War and Peace of failing this test, and by his reasoning, the book is not properly a novel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that is silly.
      Some of my favourite novels are about everything.
      What does he think Anna Karenina is about?

      Delete
  11. Lubbock thinks Tolstoy is a genius, but he also thinks both War and Peace and Anna Karenina are failures, and are so long because Tolstoy struggled with his own technical limitations, avoiding writing passages that were too difficult for his favorite methods. AK is all in scenes, and these scenes, Lubbock says, lack a larger world against which they ought to be portrayed, to give them meaning, and so all of the novel is too small somehow, and a lot of Tolstoy's efforts are basically wasted. Lubbock wishes it were more like Madame Bovary.

    I think that Lubbock is a good observer of what's on the page, but I'm not sure he's right about either authorial intent or on the cumulative effects of what's on the page. He really seems to have a personal metric for what makes a good novel, and he judges work against this metric, rather than adjusting his expectations to the way real art is made. It's the too-common critical flaw of assuming that artists have the aim of pleasing the critic; when they do not please the critic, it is claimed that the artist has failed. Not all critics have this flaw, but many do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love Madame Bovary, but I love Anna Karenina and War and Peace precisely because they seem more like life than works of art; because they have such a natural flow, like life itself; and because the characters also feel natural, not puppets or mouthpieces, like they have a will of their own. I don't think any other novelist that I've read has achieved quite the same effect as Tolstoy does with his characters.

      Delete

Be not afraid, gentle readers! Share your thoughts!
(Make sure to save your text before hitting publish, in case your comment gets buried in the attic, never to be seen again).