Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Angel in the House, in the Living Room (part 2)

  • Here are some scattered other quotes from The Angel in the House that I'm interested in but too lazy to talk about, roughly grouped by theme:
  • Other kinds of knowledge. Her life, all honour, observed, with awe    Which cross experience could not mar, The fiction of the Christian law    That all men honourable are;
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 72  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 09:49 AM

    weirdly pious and cynical at once. is she wrong? is the role of the angel to promote helpful inspiring fictions? all victorian lit more ok with helpful fiction, deceit
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 72  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 09:50 AM

    or does she know the law is fiction. or is the idea that its fiction that its just men
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 71  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 09:51 AM

    or is the fiction just that only men are honorable
  • The positive feedback loop of flattery. On wings of love uplifted free,    And by her gentleness made great, I'll teach how noble man should be    To match with such a lovely mate; And then in her may move the more    The woman's wish to be desired, (By praise increased), till both shall soar,    With blissful emulations fired. And, as geranium, pink, or rose    Is thrice itself through power of art,

    Her charms, perceived to prosper first    In his beloved advertencies, When in her glass they are rehearsed,    Prove his most powerful allies.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 684  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:30 PM

    this seems to be important. consciousness of their own beauty or of male gaze and admiration makes girls love guys more. how does this compare w other accounts.

    Why fly so fast? Her flatter'd breast    Thanks him who finds her fair and good; She loves her fears; veil'd joys arrest    The foolish terrors of her blood;
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 687  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:31 PM

    bella swan


    his praiseful words    The virtues they impute confer.

    Go on flattering, sir; A woman, like the Koh-i-noor,    Mounts to the price that's put on her.'
  • related: weird mirror stuff
    At times, she cannot but confess Her other friends are somewhat blind;    Her parents' years excuse neglect, But all the rest are scarcely kind,    And brothers grossly want respect; And oft she views what he admires    Within her glass, and sight of this Makes all the sum of her desires    To be devotion unto his.

    III.—LAIS AND LUCRETIA. Did first his beauty wake her sighs?    That's Lais! Thus Lucretia's known: The beauty in her Lover's eyes    Was admiration of her own.

    Oh, how I wish I knew your fault,    For Love's tired gaze to rest upon! Your graces, which have made me great,    Will I so loftily admire, Yourself yourself shall emulate,    And be yourself your own desire. I'll nobly mirror you too fair,    And, when you're false to me your glass, What's wanting you'll by that repair,    So bring yourself through me to pass.
  • Male friendship--a different doubling.
    Time was when either, in his friend,    His own deserts with joy admired; We took one side in school-debate,    Like hopes pursued with equal thirst, Were even-bracketed by Fate,    Twin-Wranglers, seventh from the First;
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 1210  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 07:41 PM

    doubling of male friends replaced w het mirroring. like het answer to in memoriam
  • Separate spheres. That nuptial contrasts are the poles    On which the heavenly spheres revolve.
    The spheres are separate, but the whole world revolves around heterosexual marriage and domestic life! Whoa. The hand that rocks the cradle, man.
    Also, "The Comparison":
    Or, if his suit with Heaven prevails    To righteous life, his virtuous deeds Lack beauty, virtue's badge; she fails    More graciously than he succeeds.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Highlight Loc. 274-75  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 12:09 PM

    He's never young nor ripe; she grows    More infantine, auroral, mild, And still the more she lives and knows    The lovelier she's express'd a child.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Highlight Loc. 277-78  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 12:10 PM

    Or say she wants the patient brain    To track shy truth; her facile wit At that which he hunts down with pain    Flies straight, and does exactly hit.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Highlight Loc. 280-81  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 12:10 PM

    For love is substance, truth the form;    Truth without love were less than nought; But blindest love is sweet and warm,    And full of truth not shaped by thought,

    His words, which still instruct, but so    That this applause seems still implied, 'How wise in all she ought to know,    How ignorant of all beside!'
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 828  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 06:18 PM

    gross

    What seems to say her rosy mouth?    'I'm not convinced by proofs but signs.'
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 953  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 06:35 PM

    seeming important. the subjective. are signs seeming. whereas proof is?

    There's nothing left of what she was;    Back to the babe the woman dies, And all the wisdom that she has    Is to love him for being wise.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 1143  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 07:22 PM

    radical reformation of character. also innocence in marriage like freedom. kind of a paradox

    The indignity of taking gifts    Exhilarates her loving breast; A rapture of submission lifts    Her life into celestial rest;

    Perchance, when all her praise is said,    He tells the news, a battle won, On either side ten thousand dead.    'Alas!' she says; but, if 'twere known, She thinks, 'He's looking on my face!    I am his joy; whate'er I do, He sees such time-contenting grace    In that, he'd have me always so!'
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 1147  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 07:24 PM

    see prins and jackson and aurora leigh on women and the general vs particular

    Her secret (privilege of the Bard,    Whose fancy is of either sex), Is mine; but let the darkness guard    Myst'ries that light would more perplex!

    'Be man's hard virtues highly wrought,    But let my gentle Mistress be, In every look, word, deed, and thought,    Nothing but sweet and womanly!
  • But not a double standard: Who is the happy husband? He    Who, scanning his unwedded life, Thanks Heaven, with a conscience free,    'Twas faithful to his future wife.
    ==========
     
  • Subjectivity of love. He meets, by heavenly chance express,    The destined maid; seine hidden hand Unveils to him that loveliness    Which others cannot understand.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 161  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 10:36 AM

    particular to this poem, victorians in general: the subjectivity & therefore the wide availability of love. we're not all competing for helen. there is a special girl for us all

    Say, how has thy Beloved surpass'd    So much all others?' 'She was mine.'
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 1101  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 07:13 PM

    subjectivity and possession. but not uniqueness.

    'Tis that which all right women are,    But which I'll know in none but her.
  • Love as a Virtue. Strong passions mean weak will, and he    Who truly knows the strength and bliss Which are in love, will own with me    No passion but a virtue 'tis.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 176  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 10:41 AM

    this is actually radical post c18. but wd any victorians disagree at this point.
  • Honoria's cousin Frederick. The only real rival for Honoria's affections, but he's not much of a rival at all. She's pretty much not interested in him from the beginning. POV questions about this section:
    She was all mildness; yet 'twas writ    In all her grace, most legibly, 'He that's for heaven itself unfit,    Let him not hope to merit me.'
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 199  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 10:48 AM

    do these messages come from her. or are they superimpositions or misreadings
  • Professions Vs Poets. Saw many, and vanquish'd all I saw Of her unnumber'd cousin-kind,    In Navy, Army, Church, and Law;
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 209  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 10:49 AM

    medieval knight dream. also poet vs the professions. who is the best husband
  • Purity/Milton. And still with favour singled out,    Marr'd less than man by mortal fall,
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 216  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 10:52 AM

    interesting. milton would not agree, right? very anti tradition, unless marred less mean there was less to mar

    And all, by this their power to give,    Proving her right to take, proclaim Her beauty's clear prerogative    To profit so by Eden's blame.
  • Fallen women: Behold the worst! Light from above    On the blank ruin writes 'Forbear! Her first crime was unguarded love,    And all the rest, perhaps, despair.'
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 608  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:13 PM

    classic victorian apology for sexual fall. are they more sympathetic than earlier periods bc theyve invented love. or is the sympathy a reaction to how harsh they are. probably just a symptom of sentimentality plus reform mindedness. woman question



       And doubt not but our God is just, Albeit unscathed thy traitor goes,    And thou art stricken to the dust. That penalty's the best to bear    Which follows soonest on the sin; And guilt's a game where losers fare    Better than those who seem to win.
  • Tension between writing about humble human experience vs. not writing smut.
    How vilely 'twere to misdeserve    The poet's gift of perfect speech, In song to try, with trembling nerve,    The limit of its utmost reach, Only to sound the wretched praise    Of what to-morrow shall not be; So mocking with immortal bays    The cross-bones of mortality! I do not thus. My faith is fast    That all the loveliness I sing Is made to bear the mortal blast,    And blossom in a better Spring.

    How long shall men deny the flower    Because its roots are in the earth, And crave with tears from God the dower    They have, and have despised as dearth,
  • Earthly vs heavenly love.
    That other doubt, which, like a ghost,    In the brain's darkness haunted me, Was thus resolved: Him loved I most,    But her I loved most sensibly.

    I saw three Cupids (so I dream'd),    Who made three kites, on which were drawn, In letters that like roses gleam'd,    'Plato,' 'Anacreon,' and 'Vaughan.' The
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 769  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 05:56 PM

    weird
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 773  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 06:02 PM

    vaughan is the perfect love poet. i guess this is a pretty typically victorian understanding of material vs ideal balance. they're materialists who think the material leads into or embodies the ideal. you can only achieve the ideal thru the material, the local, the specific? see mrs jellyby. but if you are interested in the material only for itself you are bad
    ==========

    heaven will still allow memory of marriage. importance of worldly things asserted;

    And, if the world's not built of lies,    Nor all a cheat the Gospel tells, If that which from the dead shall rise    Be I indeed, not something else, There's no position more secure    In reason or in faith than this, That those conditions must endure,    Which, wanting, I myself should miss.

  • Clouds. lots of stuff about clouds. explaining and justifying womens irrational side?
  •  The everyday/the trivial. She led me; and we laugh'd and talk'd,    And praised the Flower-show and the Ball; And Mildred's pinks had gain'd the Prize;    And, stepping like the light-foot fawn, She brought me 'Wiltshire Butterflies,'    The Prize-book; then we paced the lawn,

    Not in the crises of events,    Of compass'd hopes, or fears fulfill'd, Or acts of gravest consequence,    Are life's delight and depth reveal'd. The day of days was not the day;    That went before, or was postponed; The night Death took our lamp away    Was not the night on which we groan'd. I drew my bride, beneath the moon,    Across my threshold; happy hour! But, ah, the walk that afternoon    We saw the water-flags in flower!

    Is nature in thee too spiritless,    Ignoble, impotent, and dead, To prize her love and loveliness    The more for being thy daily bread? [also this is about marriage not courtship]
  • The Petrarch he gives her. It's really valuable but he doesn't care.
  • Guy's class location. And with the accustom'd compliment    Of talk, and beef, and frothing beer, I, my own steward, took my rent,    Three hundred pounds for half the year; Our witnesses the Cook and Groom,    We sign'd the lease for seven years more,
  • Life-in-life. She sees, and yet she scarcely sees,    For, life-in-life not yet begun, Too many are its mysteries    For thought to fix on any one.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 667  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:27 PM

    what is life in life. sex. motherhood
  • Feminizing of male lover.
    Ah, grief that almost crushes life,    To lie upon his lonely bed, And fancy her another's wife!
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 699  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:35 PM

    lots of boys lying on beds feeling frustrated. ha ha
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Highlight Loc. 701-2  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:35 PM

    He wakes renew'd for all the smart.    His only Love, and she is wed! His fondness comes about his heart,    As milk comes, when the babe is dead.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 702  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:37 PM

    whoa. so this feminizing of the male lover is explicit!! also he is like the mom of the girl bc he nurtures her, devlops her personality. crazy nursing boyfriend
  • weird vulnerability of girl once she's accepted lover. Earlier he talked about her being fleeing prey; now when she's accepted him:
    My queen was crouching at my side,    By love unsceptred and brought low, Her awful garb of maiden pride    All melted into tears like snow;
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 728  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:42 PM

    abjection kinda
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Highlight Loc. 730-31  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:43 PM

    Her soul, which late I loved to invest    With pity for my poor desert, Buried its face within my breast,    Like a pet fawn by hunters hurt.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 731  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 03:43 PM

    this section has some intense stuff. lovers consciousness of his power
  • Marriage and property. Nay, could eternal life afford    That tyranny should thus deduct From this fair land, which call'd me lord,    A year of the sweet usufruct?
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 887  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 06:26 PM

    legal real estate terms. living off income of love. body. is it usufruct to marry someone
  • Women's voices embedded in text. The sister's poems. Honoria's letters.
    'I found your note. How very kind    To leave it there! I cannot tell How pleased I was, or how you find    Words to express your thoughts so well. The Girls are going to the Ball    At Wilton. If you can, DO come; And any day this week you call    Papa and I shall be at home.
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 1082  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 07:09 PM

    girls letters are chattier. see amours de voyage
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Highlight Loc. 1088-90  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 07:10 PM

    Adieu! I am not well. Last night    My dreams were wild: I often woke, The summer-lightning was so bright;    And when it flash'd I thought you spoke.'
    ==========
    Angel in the House (Coventry Kersey Dighton Patmore)
    - Note Loc. 1090  | Added on Monday, July 11, 2011, 07:11 PM

    but though chattier it's more vivid and so more poetical! remember versifying sister. think about women's writing embedded in text
  • Cynicism in epigrams: 'I saw you take his kiss!' ''Tis true.'    'O, modesty!' ''Twas strictly kept: He thought me asleep; at least, I knew    He thought I thought he thought I slept.'



The Angel in the House, in the Blog

So, the weird things about The Angel in the House are

1) you think that because the phrase "the angel in the house" has come to refer, according to Wikipedia, to "women who embodied the Victorian feminine ideal: a wife and mother who was selflessly devoted to her children and submissive to her husband" there will be a lot of stuff in the poem about how great a wife & mother the Angel is, and that you'll get this very domestic portrait of a Victorian marriage. But really the set of poems published in 1854 and 1856 that is commonly referred to as The Angel in the House is all about courtship, not marriage--but

2) sometimes the title The Angel in the House refers to an even larger set of poems, including Patmore's epistolary sequels "Faithful for Ever" (1860) and "The Victories of Love" (1862), which do deal with life after marriage, including its potential disappointments. So when I said I would read The Angel in the House for my orals, did I mean I would read the 1850s poems? Or all the poems? Or what? I compromised by reading the 1850s poems pretty carefully, and kinda skimming the 1860s ones. And this is what I thought!

  • O Muse What's Left to Sing About? Following Milton and Wordsworth and probably Virgil, Patmore situates himself in the epic tradition by refusing the traditional subject matter of the epic tradition: he's not going to write about war, or Olympian gods, or man's first disobedience, or like his magical boyhood or whatever, but instead about the "theme unsung" of love, "the first of themes, sung last of all." Milton may disagree that (human) love is the first of themes, and a lot of people may argue that poets have been writing about love long before 1852. But what Patmore means is that no great epics have been written just about love and courtship; while getting the girl is part of the chivalric tradition, so is killing a dragon etc. And early in the poem, he emphasizes the humble, domestic, everyday qualities of his theme: Vaughan, the poem's main character, and the ostensible writer of the lyric/narrative sequence that follows the framing-story prelude, explains that

    Mine is no horse with wings, to gain
    The region of the spheral chime;
    He does but drag a rumbling wain,   
    Cheer'd by the coupled bells of rhyme.

    So Patmore's claiming there's something rustic, non-cosmpolitan, about his subject matter, as well as about the poem's formal qualities. As you can see, the poem is in iambic tetrameter, a kind of humble, folky meter usually used for ballads or little songs, put into rime croise quatrains, which is also quite ballad-y. So the verse is more singsongy and predictable, and less majestic and stirring, than Milton's or Wordsworth's highly-enjambed blank verse, or even Tennyson's In Memoriam stanzas, which are pretty similar except that the rhyme is embrasse (abba) and not croise (abab), which many critics argue creates a sense of mystery or distance of loss, since you start to forget about the a rhyme by the time it shows up again.  I'm not sure I agree about this sense of loss--really? you guys really forgot about the first line after three lines?--but if you compare the In Memoriam stanza with Patmore's you do feel a difference, and the difference is that Patmore's are more cheerful, homey, predictable. The emphasis on the rumbling wain also suggests a class location for this poem--we suspect this might not be a poem about aristocratic love, but will instead promote those middle-class Victorian values that everyone's always harping about--but this idea is complicated a little by the fact that Vaughan appears to be a totally loaded landowner. It's easier to say that the wain represents an anti-urban perspective, possibly a nostalgia for the cheerful cooperation between landowners and agricultural workers in the face of industrialization that English writers always seem to think existed, and that Elizabeth Gaskell questions in North and South.

    There's also a suggestion that the time for writing epics about war is over--war used to be noble, but now that there's the Crimean War we realize war is meaningless and stupid and we should become more peaceful and domestic in both our policy and our poetry:

    Too late for song! Who henceforth sings,
    Must fledge his heavenly flight with more
    Song-worthy and heroic things   
    Than hasty, home-destroying war.


    So, as in "The Princess" when Tennyson talks about the fossilized mammoth-body of Mars, there's a sense that humanity is progressing beyond war toward peace, but also that sense of belatedness that seems to plague all Victorian poets (but not its novelists; they are the masters of their form)--I kind of want to write a war epic, maybe, but the time for war epics is OVER. I missed it. 
  • Anti-feminist or what? Throughout the twentieth century, feminist critics have expressed exasperation and rage and dismay at the idea of the Angel in the House; Virginia Woolf talked about the need to kill the angel in the house, and other feminist writers have taken up that call to arms. You can certainly imagine why--the unselfishness and purity of the ideal Victorian wife also means disenfranchisement and repression and the sexual double standard, and those things are bad. But when I started reading The Angel in the House I wondered how much of the unselfishness and purity Woolf talked about ("She sacrificed daily. If there was a chicken, she took the leg; if there was a draught she sat in it ... Above all, she was pure") would really be there. And it is there--a page on the CUNY Web site on Patmore (bizarrely hosted in a directory about Thackeray and Vanity Fair) cites this passage

    Man must be pleased; but him to please
    Is woman's pleasure; down the gulf
    Of his condoled necessities
    She casts her best, she flings herself.


    (it goes on in this vein) but in general I found the antifeminism, or sexism, or whatever you want to call it in Patmore to be pretty complicated. In particular, his continued emphasis on the fact that this subject is worth discussing reminded me of the weird phases feminism has to go through, or--to use a less teleological model--of the ways in which valuing something/someone in one way can devalue it/her in another way, the ways in which we vindicate an underappreciated group or a person or an idea only in order to limit or imprison it. In idealizing women Patmore and his contemporaries are saying that women and the world they inhabit and the things they do and think about are worth writing poems about--not just angsty love sonnets but epics. Honoria (the "angel") and her sisters are worth hanging out with, even if they haven't had an Oxford education and even if they don't have traditionally masculine talents and interests. It's patronizing--Jane Austen probably does more work to vindicate that world just by making it interesting to us, and by making her female characters human rather than by preaching to us about how pure and beautiful Elizabeth Bennett is--and it relies on a separate spheres model that only allows women to be interesting because they're Other, and therefore never allows them to participate in the male sphere--but it's part of the puzzle.
  • Structure. Every canto made up of two or three lyric preludes, one of which is often a single, epigrammatic quatrain, treating general topics of love, often totally unrelated to the main narrative, followed by a narrative section that moves the "plot" along. This is actually pretty fun, and it allows Patmore to be annoyingly didactic in some sections, which he must have enjoyed, and to treat some of the problems that accompany love, which he doesn't really do in the narrative sections because Honoria is the perfect woman and their relationship is so great and there is basically no conflict. So interestingly the conflict seems to develop instead in the non-narrative sections, in these lyric or didactic or slightly wicked epigrammatic poems in between the action, which is actually pretty unusual, I think. We think of narrative as the place where conflict develops, but if it's just suggested by these static paratexts, that changes the way we think about "drama" and "conflict" and narrative itself. Way to go, Coventry P!
  • More later!

The Princess at Cafe Madeline

I know I've used Cafe Madeline in a post title before, but, you know, I'm not traveling anymore, so I'm basically going to be in my house, or on the subway, or at a friend's house who also has to do a lot of reading, or in one of a limited number of cafes. And also, imagine a princess at Cafe Madeline! Doesn't that sound like a fancy situation?

I first heard about Tennyson's "The Princess" in college, when I was writing a paper about the depiction of female university students in Victorian women's and girls' magazines (like The Girl's Own Paper). I was excited that there was a whole famous poem that was about BOTH women's education and princesses! Some of my favorite things! But when I took a look at it, I wasn't encouraged to read more--maybe because it seemed to be more a medieval romance with battles and stuff rather than a delightful school story with princesses in it? I think what I wanted was Harry Potter with princess. Okay, I guess Harry Potter + princesses = The Princess School. Anyway, when I started reading "The Princess" this summer, I had a vague memory of not being impressed with it in the past, but a strong feeling of wanting to give it another chance--and, of course, a certain wariness about reading a text that makes FUN of princesses at the university, and women's education in general, which is so mean, because how else are those princesses going to learn Frog-Kissing and Embroidery, and how will Snow, Rose, Ella, and whatever weird name they came up with for Rapunzel forge friendships that will last a lifetime?

The framing story for "The Princess" is set during an educational/recreational treat being held at Sir Walter Vivian's country estate for the local rabble; Sir Walter is a patron of the "Institute" in the neighboring borough, which is presumably an institute of practical education for working men. So from the beginning there's this suggestion of medieval romance (Sir Walter's last name is quite Arthurian) as well as the idea of education for people who haven't historically been educated. A different kind of education is represented by the narrator and his friends, who are on break from college (presumably Oxford or Cambridge) visiting Sir Walter's son. The poem establishes early on that the same kind of education isn't appropriate for everyone. The education offered by the Institute is more like entertainment: "sport/Went hand in hand with Science" as the educators from the Institute do what seems like a series of magic tricks, "rear[ing] a font of stone" and "dr[awing], from butts of water on the slope,/ The fountain of the moment, playing, now /A twisted snake, and now a rain of pearls, /Or steep-up spout whereon the gilded ball /Danced like a wisp." This scientific magic strikes me as both a bread-and-circus type of amusement, and as an indication of how strange and magical C19 scientific advances seemed to Tennyson and his contemporaries (and incidentally how strange this potential class leveling through science might be--"strange was the sight and smacking of the time," Tennyson says of the sporting tenants.) Throughout "The Princess" there's a fascination with geology and paleontology that you also see in In Memoriam, and that seems interestingly fused with images of medieval history and legend. There's something going on in this text where the ammonite is equivalent with the Arthurian: as the visiting college students explore the house (another example of Victorian great-house-showing) they see

Carved stones of the Abbey-ruin in the park,
Huge Ammonites, and the first bones of Time;
And on the tables every clime and age
Jumbled together; celts and calumets,
Claymore and snowshoe, toys in lava, fans
Of sandal, amber, ancient rosaries,
Laborious orient ivory sphere in sphere,
The cursed Malayan crease, and battle-clubs
From the isles of palm:

I guess this is also just a classic cabinet of curiosities, mixing the exotic & oriental with the British historical with fossils--a jumble of knowledge available to British imperialists in 1847. But I don't know. I feel like Tennyson's making use of this jumble to make education & science & knowledge magical again, as part of that weird Victorian medievalism. (Was there ever an era when science didn't seem magical? Maybe just that poor reviled 18th century? but that would have been enough for the Victorians to react against it.)

Anyway, among the legends of the manor is some story about a woman warrior who defended her castle in the Crusades or something. All the aristocratic kids go sit in some ruin with young Walter's aunt and his sisterd Lilia (probably his sister) and talk about the story and how there are no such women now. Lilia retorts

'There are thousands now
Such women, but convention beats them down:
It is but bringing up; no more than that:
You men have done it: how I hate you all!

She says she wishes she was a princess and a poetess who could start her own college and show everyone that with the right education women can be as good as men! And the boys are like, "hey, that would be nice, there are no girls at our college, huh? Imagine if we had

prudes for proctors, dowagers for deans,
And sweet girl-graduates in their golden hair

And Lilia is like, "no way, there would be no boys allowed in my college so you guys couldn't ogle us." Then everybody decides they should tell a story for some reason (I think because Lilia is like, "what do you guys do at college when there are no girls" and they're like "we make up stories"?) and of course the narrator is a poet because he is Tennyson, so he starts.

But the conceit is that "The Princess" is actually serially narrated by all seven of the college friends (like that part in Little Women), and so I was really looking forward to seeing all the funny twists the different college friends  would put in the story, and I was extremely disappointed to find that the whole story is in the exact same consistent meter and voice and tone. The whole time you're like, "No way is this being narrated by seven different guys" and at the end Tennyson explains it by saying the version you just read is the version he smoothed out and made uniform after they improvised it--apparently after they make up the story they're like, "Tennyson, make it poetic for us!"

So the only polyvocality you get comes from these interstitial songs, which are supposedly sung by the aunt and Lilia and the other women listening to the story as little intermissions between each college student's part of the story. These songs are probably the most famous part of "The Princess," because they're considered beautiful little Tennysonian lyrics, while most people aren't that excited about the narrative itself (and apparently Tennyson added the songs later, to make his meaning clearer? but I still don't understand his meaning.) Wikipedia claims that these songs, sung by real women in the framing story, are supposed to provide a genuine and sincere feminine perspective to contrast with the satirical, anti-feminist voice of the main narrative, but I'm not sure it works that way. The songs are all really all about the nuclear family and how sad the wife is that the husband is at war, or that somebody died, so I guess they humanize the women, but they certainly don't make a case for women's education or feminism or something that contrasts with the satire of the narrative.

This is partly because the narrative, while it satirizes women's education and presents a man-hating feminist bluestocking as the primary villain, isn't necessarily misogynist--it ends up presenting what Tennyson probably thinks is a very centrist, balanced perspective on gender and love and learning, a very Victorian separate-but-equal, separate-spheres attitude that reverences women's unique qualities and their humanizing effect on men. So the man-hating feminist bluestocking is bad, but so is the imperialist he-man misogynist homophobic father of the prince who tells the story (and who goes to seek Princess Ida, to whom he was betrothed in childhood and who reneges on their engagement to found this college in the wilderness.) The dad is always like "be a man and fight with men!" and "Man is the hunter; woman is his game . . . We hunt them for the beauty of their skins; /They love us for it, and we ride them down" and he's clearly wrong; more sympathetic but also quite comic is the princess's brother, who says "'sdeath" every three seconds to hilarious effect. Princess Ida herself is kind of a tragic and beautiful figure, although the message seems to be that she should throw off that misguided effort at learning and work on being an emotional caregiver who sings gorgeous love lyrics like "Now sleeps the crimson petal, now the white" and binds up her lover's wounds. But I do think the antifeminism is tempered a little by the suggestion that both sexes are changing, perhaps due to each other's influence (something like this is going on with all the mirror imagery in "Angel in the House" as well), a theme that brings us back to all these dinosaurs and geologic time and history and scientific progress, stuff that Tennyson finds exciting and scary and upsetting and inevitable.

At one point Ida takes everyone on a geologic expedition and points out a big fossil lying on a bank, saying that women's condition will look to future generations of women like this fossil does to us; later, the prince says to his dad that rather than having to go to war with Ida's family

I would the old God of war himself were dead,
Forgotten, rusting on his iron hills,
Rotting on some wild shore with ribs of wreck,
Or like an old-world mammoth bulked in ice,
Not to be molten out.

So there's this suggestion that traditional models of both masculine and feminine behavior might be on their way out, and because of the way in which Tennyson has equated ammonites and fossils and so on with heraldry and Gothic ruins and so on, there's something very sad and anti-English-tradition about this fact, and therefore this text is still very anti-feminist--but I think it's an interesting example of a certain kind of conservative but practical attitude to social progress, one that also comes out at the end, in the framing story, when one of the college friends (the son of a conservative MP) points across the channel to France and is like "what a disaster it is over there!" He says

God bless the narrow sea which keeps her off,
And keeps our Britain, whole within herself,
A nation yet, the rulers and the ruled—

In his analogy, France is like the Princess's college, because it's so revolutionary and terrible, but also England is like the Princess's college, because it's self-contained, celibate, a walled garden. So we know that can't last, either. And Tennyson's speaker gives us his final word of cautious social progressiveness:

'Have patience,' I replied, 'ourselves are full
Of social wrong; and maybe wildest dreams
Are but the needful preludes of the truth:
For me, the genial day, the happy crowd,
The sport half-science, fill me with a faith.
This fine old world of ours is but a child Y
et in the go-cart. Patience! Give it time
To learn its limbs: there is a hand that guides.'

The poem ends with "little Lilia, rising quietly" removing some fancy clothes she'd playfully draped over a statue of the family ancestor Sir Ralph at the beginning of the story, and everyone going home. Lilia's quietness is interesting to me--she was the one who incited the boys to the the story, and in the middle she got sick of their "raillery" and kind of bloodthirstily demanded a battle scene, which she got. We can read her silence at the end as her having been put in her place by the story and by the failure of the Princess's experiment, but on the other hand we didn't get a Taming of the Shrew-type recapitulation; we don't know what Lilia thinks, or what she's going to do when she grows up. Lilia's frustrations, because she's a "real" character and not part of the allegorical story, seem to be recognized by Tennyson as legitimate and real in a way that maybe the Princess's are not, and are another suggestion that he does think things are changing.

In the end, I think Tennyson's coolly centrist attitude comes from the fact that he's not that interested in women's education or feminism or the Woman Question--he thought it would be a nice topical subject for a poem, and as a poet he naturally sympathizes with the women he writes about as well as the men, and he had fun imagining a women's college and writing love lyrics. I think he's more interested in the large-scale change of which women's issues may be a small part--the instability of life and history and the literary tradition and where does he fit in and also where does Arthur Hallam fit in and that, my dear ones, is another story for another time.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Bleak House at Four in the Morning

I finished Bleak House in the wee hours of the morning after Rory came to visit, in a fit of guilt that I had taken the whole weekend off from reading (which I have done every subsequent weekend, incidentally.) Here are some thoughts--since I finished two weeks ago, my thoughts aren't as fresh as they were, so I'm often just referring to passages I underlined or cryptic notes I made on the Kindle, just in case any of that is worth remembering when I return to these notes before my exam:
  • Career Counseling. The question of what people should do with their time is kind of a big one in Bleak House: Rick tries out all the professions and likes them all "well enough"; Horace Skimpole is a non-practicing doctor who expects the world to allow him the luxuries he requires to enjoy life ("He said to the world, 'Go your several ways in peace! Wear red coats, blue coats, lawn sleeves; put pens behind your ears, wear aprons; go after glory, holiness, commerce, trade, any object you prefer; only--let Harold Skimpole live!"); lots of characters live off the Chancery suit in different ways, either profiting by the business it creates, as Krook and Nemo and Mrs Snagsby and Tulkinghorn and Vholes and various other characters central or peripheral to the legal profession do, or by going to court every day like it's a job, but not profiting at all by it, as Miss Flite and Rick and (less patiently) Mr Gridley do. The Chancery suitors & legal types, of course, illustrate how parasitic Chancery is, and maybe how parasitic the law profession is in general--in chapter 39, "Attorney and Client," Dickens says "The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself" and talks about how the main argument against legal reform is that it would ruin respectable men like Mr Vholes, who make their money from the inefficiencies of the legal system. Dickens is being highly satirical here, and his message throughout Bleak House is unmistakably that the legal system is a disaster, and that innocent people are continually crushed by it. But I wonder how these issues about work and efficiency and social welfare--Vholes's parasitism supporting his daughters and his aging father, Guppy's and Uriah Heep's weirdly humble but ruthless ambition, Skimpole's claim that he deserves compensation for being alive--connect to ideas about job creation as an economic and social strategy. We do it now in different ways, but when did the ideas that led to the WPA & so on originate? Are these Victorian ideas? Can you relate them to the concept of workhouses, etc? When is making work an instrument of social welfare, and when is it a waste of everyone's time, or a criminal act?
  • Marriage as a Career Choice. In one of my entries on The Way We Live Now I mentioned being really struck in another Trollope novel, Can You Forgive Her?, by the revelation that marriage for C19 women didn't just mean choosing the career of wife and mother (a role that feminism and post-feminism and anti-feminism has legitimated as a choice for twentieth- and twenty-first-century women, an alternative career to doctor or lawyer or whatever) but also choosing to be part of your husband's "real" career out in the world. I really don't think we take the importance of this factor into account when we imagine being C19 women choosing husbands: we think about the economic impact a husband's career might have, but not the specific skills a wife would need to be married to an MP or a doctor or a lawyer or, in Caddy Jellyby's case, a dancing master. I was really interested in the fact that Caddy, who has served as her mother's amanuensis basically all her life and therefore is well prepared to be a great wife to, like, Tommy Traddles in David Copperfield ("you wouldn't call that a woman's hand, would you?" Tommy says to David, showing him how his wife has been working as his clerk--as usual I paraphrase), takes it upon herself to learn in a few weeks all the dancing and music skills her husband has presumably taken years to learn, and then basically takes over the business:

    You see, my dear, to save expense I ought to know something of the piano, and I ought to know something of the kit too, and consequently I have to practise those two instruments as well as the details of our profession.  If Ma had been like anybody else, I might have had some little musical knowledge to begin upon. However, I hadn't any; and that part of the work is, at first, a little discouraging, I must allow.  But I have a very good ear, and I am used to drudgery--I have to thank Ma for that, at all events--and where there's a will there's a way, you know, Esther, the world over.

    Also, the dancing apprentices are hilarious. They just dance around all day! I can't tell if Dickens is just being hilarious, or if there's some confusion going on during this period about who counts as apprentices learning a trade, and who counts as students learning a skill? Maybe the performing arts have always been a little ambiguous in this sense, since they are a super lower-class job you can get, so you can't go to college to learn them, but on the other hand it seems very strange to group them with trades like blacksmithing or stonemasonry, or professions like medicine or law.
  •  The Exceptional vs the Representative. I read this line--"Chancery, which knows no wisdom but in precedent, is very rich in such precedents; and why should one be different from ten thousand?"--and I wondered whether Dickens really believes this. A Dickensian character is hilarious and delightful because it's so quirky, and yet these characters also strike us, despite their obvious eccentricity, as types. He's constantly showing us people who are different from ten thousand--people who are unusually kind, unusually strange, unusually cruel; people who spontaneously combust; people who are connected to one another through the most unlikely and miraculous strings of coincidences. And yet he also seems to be telling us that this is a slice of typical English life, that the world is full of dangerously 'umble law clerks and noble old soldiers and pathetic, good-hearted urchins, and that people die tragically and pathetically every day in the streets of London, and that spontaneous combustion really does happen, and that the reason you should read this novel is not that everything in here is so surprising but that this is the real world. I think it's a real tension that runs through Dickens, and maybe through all art that seeks to entertain and educate at the same time. You should care about this because it's real life--but it's also much funnier and sadder and sillier than real life, and that's why you should care about it too?
  • More POV stuff. I want to think more about how POV works in Bleak House. This is just a note to self to do it. In the non-Esther sections, where does the narration focus in on a character's particular thoughts, and how long does it do that? When does it move from omniscience to free indirect discourse? Is the definition of omniscience that sometimes you go into a character's voice? I'm thinking of a particular passage where Tulkinghorn is looking at Lady Dedlock:

    So!  Anger, and fear, and shame.  All three contending.  What power this woman has to keep these raging passions down!  Mr. Tulkinghorn's thoughts take such form as he looks at her, with his ragged grey eyebrows a hair's breadth more contracted than usual under her gaze.

    It seems that here we get Tulkinghorn's voice as well as his thoughts, which is maybe unusual for this novel?
  •  More Creepily Deceiving Girls for Their Own Good. (SPOILERS, but I will try to keep 'em vague) Come on, Mssrs Jarndyce and Woodcourt! That was creepy. Possibly worse than that business with Boffin the Golden Dustman and Bella in Our Mutual Friend, and that was HORRIBLE. Also, when Esther first gets the letter that is asking her to be the mistress of Bleak House, does John Jarndyce already mean fake Bleak House?

    Also related to this is Esther's own bizarre self-deception throughout the novel (also related to the weird first-person retrospection issues I mentioned in my last entry.) She's always crying for reasons she can't understand, but which are painfully obvious to the reader: "Still I cried very much, not only in the fullness of my heart after reading the letter, not only in the strangeness of the prospect--for it was strange though I had expected the contents--but as if something for which there was no name or distinct idea were indefinitely lost to me. "
  • Fake Bleak House. Related to the above: so weird to make a fake Bleak House! I guess it's cute that they decorated it how Esther would have wanted it, and the fact that Jarndyce was able to imitate her decorating style means that he knows her really well, and that the work she's done in Real Bleak House is so exemplary it can be easily copied--she's like an Old Master of household management, whose style can be imitated by a school:

    And still, as we went through the pretty rooms, out at the little rustic verandah doors, and underneath the tiny wooden colonnades garlanded with woodbine, jasmine, and honey-suckle, I saw in the papering on the walls, in the colours of the furniture, in the arrangement of all the pretty objects, MY little tastes and fancies, MY little methods and inventions which they used to laugh at while they praised them, my odd ways everywhere.

    but it is also weird. Right?
  • Esther's Old Face. It's hard to tell how ugly Esther is after she gets smallpox. In the movie she looks like this but I guess you can also end up looking like this (be careful; that link is pretty upsetting; also maybe this is a photo of active smallpox and not scars.) Here's a clue:
    And that young lady that was such a pretty dear caught his illness, lost her beautiful looks, and wouldn't hardly be known for the same young lady now if it wasn't for her angel temper, and her pretty shape, and her sweet voice.

    I guess she was pretty, and now she's not; Guppy's behavior is also evidence of this.  Her attitude toward her own face is characteristically Estherian--sympathetic toward her old self as if she was a different person, the least selfish possible kind of self-sympathy:

     I felt for my old self as the dead may feel if they ever revisit these scenes.  I was glad to be tenderly remembered, to be gently pitied, not to be quite forgotten.


    I don't know. I think Esther's feelings about her old face and her old self might be worth revisiting if I'm thinking about doubles & weird forms of doppelganger-love in the future, but I don't feel like thinking about it now!
  • Mr Tulkinghorn: The Anti-Scrooge! Something in the description of Mr Tulkinghorn walking home to his doom reminded me of Scrooge going home before the advent of the three spirits: while Scrooge gets a ton of warnings, which he ignores, Dickens stresses all the supernatural warnings Tulkinghorn could have received but doesn't. I don't really know what to do with this, except that A Christmas Carol is a ghost story where things like that happen, and Bleak House is, uh, extremely realistic (see bullet point on representativeness & realism above?)

    Through the stir and motion of the commoner streets; through the roar and jar of many vehicles, many feet, many voices; with the blazing shop-lights lighting him on, the west wind blowing him on, and the crowd pressing him on, he is pitilessly urged upon his way, and nothing meets him murmuring, "Don't go home!"  Arrived at last in his dull room to light his candles, and look round and up, and see the Roman pointing from the ceiling, there is no new significance in the Roman's hand to-night or in the flutter of the attendant groups to give him the late warning, "Don't come here!"

    The Roman, who gets mentioned every time we go into Mr Tulkinghorn's house, also kind of reminds me of the Last Supper in Scrooge's room, a strangely detailed figurative representation of something grand and historical and significant, that can be read either as fateful, as metaphorically loaded (that gruel is the bad Scrooge's last supper! the Roman will soon be pointing at something significant on the floor of the room! see this passage: "But a little after the coming of the day come people to clean the rooms.  And either the Roman has some new meaning in him, not expressed before, or the foremost of them goes wild, for looking up at his outstretched hand and looking down at what is below it, that person shrieks and flies") or as an arbitrary signifier, something that once meant something to whoever first designed or decorated the room, but that for the social-climbing-but-solitary man in lodgings, the man who doesn't care to decorate or personalize his living space, means nothing, or maybe has some kind of social or economic value--this is a classy room and I am a classy guy. But these empty signifiers are going to take on meaning later, when something happens, because we want to give things meaning. I think Dickens tends to read these objects kind of prophetically/magically, but he also does want to point out to us how little they mean to the lodgers themselves, how single men living in pre-decorated lodgings are not quite living their own lives, maybe are not quite alive?
  • The Bagnets are the best. They're one of those families Dickens puts in to make you feel like things are actually OK with the world. I love Mr Bagnet pretending to have authority but always asking Mrs Bagnet to express his opinion. I love Mrs Bagnet's birthday where she has to eat all this terrible food cooked by her useless family because they want to give her a day off. It reminds me of the Mother's Day where I brought my mom breakfast in bed, and it was, like, raw mushrooms and toast or something.
  • Caddy's baby comes out inky. Well, she has dark veins in her face. Dickens is just being silly here, but also it reminds me of that Thomas Hardy story where the baby comes out looking like the poet the mom was obsessed with. Weird ideas about what can happen in the womb.
  • The weird lyrical passages about how the railroads are coming, or how quiet the night is before the shot rings out that kills Mr T. I guess these passages actually confirm the thesis of that Sketch to Novel book, which is that the sketch-like passages in Victorian novels--the descriptive or discursive passages that disrupt or slow down the narrative--are often nostalgic, resistant to social and industrial change. In the two passages I'm thinking about, the railroad and the gunshot both serve the same function--to interrupt and destroy the peace of a vanished but reimagined landscape.
  • Suddenly it's an adventure novel! There is something a little disorienting about the way both the omniscient narrator's and Esther's narrative become, quite suddenly, a thriller and/or mystery novel, hot on the trail of Lady Dedlock. The scenes at home with Sir Leicester were really touching and sad and slow; the scenes with Mr Bucket and Esther I found kind of hard to follow and a little boring, even though there was a ton of suspense. This might be in part due to Esther's confusion, both about Mr Bucket's reasoning and about what's going on around her, as nicely described in this strange, kind of synesthetic passage:

    At the same time I remember that the poor girl seemed to be yet telling her story audibly and plainly in my hearing, that I could feel her resting on my arm, that the stained house-fronts put on human shapes and looked at me, that great water-gates seemed to be opening and closing in my head or in the air, and that the unreal things were more substantial than the real.
  •  The Ending. Super weird! Well, not nearly so weird as Villette. But does this sentence strike you as the right ending for Bleak House?

     
    I owe it all to him, my love, my pride!  They like me for his sake, as I do everything I do in life for his sake.
    OK, so it reminds us how selfless Esther is. And we're glad she ended up with the guy she ended up with, who has been mentioned subtly throughout the novel. And we're affirming the theme of domestic happiness that we doubted when we first heard of Bleak House, and that we believed in when we first visited Bleak House. But come on! We're ending with random praise of a totally minor character, and no Chancery business or ANYTHING. I guess it's like, "Look, life is going on, she's totally unaffected by anything that happened in this novel," but that seems boring and weird. Right, guys?

Friday, July 8, 2011

More Upsetting Math

OK, I need to go to bed, but here's a math update:

I've now been reading for orals for 44 days, and I've read (almost) 7 books. (I plan to finish Bleak House today, so let's say 7.) So that's an average of 0.159 books/day, slightly down from my June 6 average of 0.167. This is bad, because I need to get that number much closer to 1, but since my reading rate slowed almost to a stop when I was in London, and since I took the whole July 4 weekend off to read Game of Thrones, watch Iron Man 2, play The Sims 2, and bake, it's not as bad as I expected. I'd better buckle down, though! Also, I think reading shorter books will help a little.

In Next Month's "Say Anything": Period Panic

Speaking of the "general understanding of your field" we're supposed to be getting out of orals reading (see last post)--after a month of reading, I still feel very conflicted about what "my field" is or should be. I love these novels; they are super delightful and interesting. But I don't feel like I could write an enlightening scholarly book about them. My other field of interest, 20th-century American poetry, might be easier for me to write about. I took two courses in 20th-century American poetry at other universities last year--my program hasn't been able to provide many 20th-century classes for our cohort--and even though I had a lot of issues with those classes, and often railed about them to Paul, I think little seedling ideas from them took root in my brain, and I've been thinking a lot about poetics and genre and women's poetry and modernity and what it means to be a 20th- or 21st-century woman poet, and I think _that's_ where my interest in domesticity and traditional women's roles come in, more than in the 19th century. Like in the 19th century, the issues are more obvious, right? But, I have contended throughout my academic career, super crucial to understanding how 20th- and 21st-century women artists understand themselves. I think we all think back through the Victorians--the Brontes, EBB, and across the Atlantic, Emily Dickinson--whether we want to admit it or not. So 19th-century and 20th-century stuff is important to me, but it's tricky to get those interests to gel into a dissertation.

I think I'm feeling a little at sea now because I'm reading these big huge novels from the first half of the century, and as I said, they're delightful, but not something I feel like I can write about. But what I'm forgetting is that I probably won't be writing about them: my main 19th-century interests lie in women's writing in the second half of the century, in not-quite-canonical poetesses like Augusta Webster and maybe Amy Levy, and also some novelists and short-story writers, maybe some children's writers. But I definitely want that thinking to extend into the 20th century. It's weird, because I write most easily and happily about poetry, but I love reading and thinking about novels. And the poetry I love most is 20th-century poetry, but I find 19th-century poetry fascinating and useful to help me think about issues that really excite me. So it's tricky for me to choose a "period," and I still don't know if I chose the right one! And genre is obviously an issue too: I know people who get away with doing, like, "transhistorical drama," but you can't do transhistorical everything. And mostly people will discourage you from doing "transhistorical poetry." But on the other hand, as I said to Becca this afternoon, if I end up writing a dissertation on something else, and having to read up on, I don't know, modernist drama double-quick, it can't hurt to have read extra stuff. I mean, these books are really good!

Bleak House at the Outpost

Sounds spooky, huh? I decided to start reading Bleak House again after a six- or seven-year hiatus--I started reading my grandfather's 1888 American edition as a bedtime book right after watching the miniseries in 2004 or 2005, but abandoned it because the book was too fragile to take on the subway and some flexible, portable example of contemporary literary fiction took its place in my attention. So reading Bleak House has been like reading The Way We Live Now--about 200-300 pages of weird triple-vision deja vu, wherein crumbling 1888 pages and Gillian Anderson bathed in beautifully-art-directed blue-green lighting and the lovely pale-gray matter-of-fact sans-serif opacity of my Kindle became a maddening palimpsest, in which traces of my lime-green living room and steel-blue bedroom of years past vied with the places I've been reading now: my purplish-brownish couch (on which I am continuing to fall asleep; better move to the chair); my slightly-less-steely bluish-purple bedroom; the Q train; a coffee place in Brooklyn where Becca and I went to have a "reading day" and where we spent approximately 4 hours gossiping & catching up & commenting on our reading process (the last one mostly done by me, annoyingly interrupting Becca in the middle of Mrs Dalloway, which is mean because it's harder to jump back into the stream of consciousness than it is to just hop back into a Dickensian description of a pile of junk or whatever. Although that is not so easy) and 2 hours reading. It could be the ratio was more like 3.5/2.5. Maybe.

Anyway, I realized I should record some thoughts before I finish reading it, since it is very long. I'm like 60% finished. As with David Copperfield, I feel like I don't have much to say about Bleak House. Dickens is just entertaining: you get caught up in the story, you chuckle at the wacky characters, you imagine Victorian audiences chuckling away and getting spooked and weeping at all the melodramatic stuff: "My child! My child! I thought you were dead!" and "I could not see it. For I was blind!" That type of stuff. But what smart stuff can I say about it? Becca and I were talking today about how it's hard to remember that so much of this orals reading, especially the major lists (the ones that are a kind of survey of a major historical period or field of interest) are to give you background information that will be useful when teaching survey courses, or for teaching in general. And of course to give you a broad general understanding of your field, against which you can understand whatever specific writing you're doing. So it's OK for me to be noticing obvious stuff about Dickens. There are a lot of characters! There are a lot of details! It's funny and sentimental! Everyone knows these things about Dickens already but it's good to see it for yourself. Also everyone is always making references to Dickens. Also I will never read all of Dickens so I will never get all the references.

On to the bullet points:

  • Omniscient Narrator Vs Esther: Style. I found this less jarring this time than last time, but only because I'd read it before! It really is quite jarring to go from this kind of jaded, pseudo-journalistic style to Esther's cheerful, innocent, conversational voice. I guess the omniscient narrator's voice changes depending on where he is and who he's talking about, which also happened in Our Mutual Friend (where the Veneerings' party was narrated in this insanely amped-up, lightning-fast, slangy voice that completely freaked me out! while other chapters were, um, not like that!). The voice associated with Chancery is very choppy, for example: all the sentences are in fragments, almost like the court proceedings are being reported in shorthand by David Copperfield, or as if the street scenes are being "sketched" by the same lively, observant, quick-scribbling young journalist who wrote "Sketches by Boz" (which, of course, they are). The voice associated with the Dedlocks is similar--they're both pretty sarcastic--but it's slower, more ponderous, to go along with "my Lady" being "bored to death" and with Sir Leicester's ponderous family pride and responsibility.
  • Omniscient Narrator vs. Esther: Plot. It's really interesting to follow the different characters from the Esther sections to the non-Esther sections: the reader often knows information Esther doesn't (from the omniscient narrator) or recognizes a character from Esther's narrative (Mr Guppy, for example) who's unknown to another character. So this weird doubled narration allows for a lot of dramatic irony, and for the reader to do a lot of the fun guessing I mentioned in my last Villette entry: which character we've already met is this guy going to turn out to be? Oh he has a fur cap in his hands; it must be Jo!
  • Intrigue! and Serpentine Plots. and the Trickiness of the Serial Mystery. But the double narrative also gets pretty confusing: sometimes you think you should know how some particular bit of intrigue happens, that you must have seen it happen in one of the nine million chapters you've already read, but you realize that you in fact have no idea, and don’t remember Guppy finding out that Nemo’s name was Captain Hawdon at all, or how Guppy got in touch with Mr Tulkinghorn, or how anyone got in touch with Smallweed. Probably some of that stuff was explained in the chapter where we met the Smallweed family, but also little bits of information trickle in after the fact, and you realize you hadn’t been told how Guppy found out about Hawdon, or about Krook’s letters, or anything. The narrator’s omniscient, but we aren’t—and in fact even Esther deliberately withholds information to increase suspense, which I will discuss more two bullets down! Dickens is definitely doing that thing that (I think) Paul finds contemptible in mystery novelists, where the mystery for the reader is based on some fact that the detective sees but does not reveal to the reader until later. I think Dan Brown does this? This is mostly contemptible in a third-person-limited or first-person narrator, because you’re like, “She’s telling us everything she sees and says and does; why is she leaving out this one detail?” The illusion of complicity or identity with the narrator is shattered! 
  • Plot and the Serial Form: There’s also something weird going on with Dickens’s manipulation of the serial form: in the introduction to Our Mutual Friend he says something like, “You were probably surprised by the solution to the mystery, but that’s because this is a serial and every week you kind of forget what happened a couple of weeks ago.” I should get the exact quote because it was very confusing to me, who had read the novel in two or three sittings over about a week, so all the events were fresh in my mind, but I still found the mystery to be kind of . . . silly? I guess I solved it earlier than a serial reader would have. Anyway, it raises all these questions about the serial form, which I think I’ve touched upon when discussing David Copperfield on this blog. Is Dickens trying to make use of the long gaps between episodes to make his readers forget about clues he’s planted earlier in the story? If so, what’s the point of planting those clues? Is he counting on those clues being kind of buried in the reader’s subconscious (to paraphrase Becca paraphrasing Jameson, did the Victorians even have a subconscious?) so that when the mystery unfurls it will seem kind of right to the reader, even if she hasn’t solved it herself? Is he counting on the serial being long and drawn-out enough that we won’t remember that we haven’t gotten certain clues, and so we’ll totally accept that Guppy somehow figured something out about Nemo’s identity? In that case, is the omission of Guppy’s discovery a narrative flaw rather than an intentionally jerky, tricky, bait-and-switch narrative strategy?
  • The Problem of First Person & Retrospect. We had this problem with Woman in White and with David Copperfield and with Villette: how can you write a suspenseful narrative from the perspective of a character who’s obviously still alive, who has a powerful emotional relationship to all these other characters she’s describing, and who knows what happens? An omniscient narrator seems closer to the Author, and so we buy that he or she just wants to tell us an entertaining tale, moving from start to finish, just as it happened. But a character—a Walter or a David or a Lucy or an Esther—has a personal interest in what’s happening; is talking about the first time he or she fell in love with a person to whom he or she is now married, or who is now dead; is often preoccupied with the effects of memory, the difficulties inherent in the act of remembering; is often in a specific place, at a specific time, physically writing out the pages you’re now reading. How does that person justify not saying, “Well, now she’s dead, so I’m sad about that”? They all do a lot of “Had I known then what I know now, I would have wished her dead rather than let her live out what life had in store for her” or “Even now, after what has passed, I feel that I would have acted in the same way,” which is much more exciting and suspenseful than if an omniscient narrator said it. But why not just tell us? Collins has the best solution, which is the conceit that the novel is a pseudo-legal document, compounded of all these semi-official “narratives” which have been commissioned by a character trying to get the real truth. So all the writers of the narratives are like, “I want to tell you more, but I have been asked to just describe what I observed at the time, and not to cloud this narrative with any information I have received since that may cloud my opinion of blah blah blah.” This seems mechanical but also elegant! “Esther’s Narrative” seems to be operating on a similar system—maybe Dickens gave his friend this idea? Maybe he does it more in another book?—because she keeps saying “Oh I feel weird writing about myself,” and it seems like someone’s asked her to write an account of her experiences for some reason. But it still feels really awkward when she’s like, “I read this letter, and you’ll find out what it said later on in this book.” You’re like, “Really? When am I going to find out? Why can’t I find out when you find out? Since when is the narrative convention of Bleak House that I find stuff out when John Jarndyce finds it out? Or, like, when Ada finds it out? Now are you going to make a rule that I can’t find anything out until effing Horace Skimpole finds out? For the rest of the novel I have to pretend I don’t know pounds from shillings and stuff like that? This is bullshit, Esther.” If she means I’m going to find out from Omniscient Narrator in some big scene with like Guppy and Gillian Anderson and like Mr Bucket and stuff, that is REALLY crazy. Does she know the Omniscient Narrator? He is a crazy sardonic God figure who can see into the heads of, like, the dogs in the stables at Chesney Wold. And into the contagion in the graveyard. And into Mrs Snagsby’s head. And into the head of the mom who cradled Nemo to her breast when he was a baby. OK, he doesn’t see into most of these people’s heads—he speculates—but still. I don’t believe for a second that that guy is friends with you, Esther, and told you to write this narrative. Not for a second!
  • Everybody Loves Esther! Esther is a pretty likable narrator, except when she goes on and on about how great everyone thinks she is and how embarrassing and untrue this is. Annoying! A classic problem when you have a first-person narrator and want to show she’s so loveable. Also, so pretty! Esther is like “I was never a beauty,” but everyone keeps mistaking her for Lady Dedlock and Lady Dedlock is an OFFICIAL BEAUTY. Like she’s in the Galaxy Gallery of British Beauty, you guys (even though Mrs Rouncewell tells Guppy that Sir Leicester has never allowed Lady D’s portrait to be copied by an engraver, which is a key plot point, because that means Guppy has never seen a reproduced image of her face, so why does he recognize it? Incidentally—this should get its own bullet point, but whatever—it might be interesting to think about the private/public status of official portraits and country houses—they’re private residences and personal possessions, created through private commissions (and in the case of Lady Audley and Lady Dedlock, commissions made to represent women who are both private property of their husbands but also I guess public figures in the community) but they also have this weird public/commercial role in tourism and in the popular press. Like you can have a Lady Dedlock trading card, basically, and you can go take a tour of her house. The Lady Audley portrait is in a hidden part of the house, so it’s not part of the official tour, and the Lady Dedlock portrait is part of the official tour, but they both get the original ladies into trouble.) I am most creeped out by how all the couples love Esther, and can’t feel properly in love unless Esther is there. Why have all these couples internalized the idea of a chaperone so thoroughly? Those Woman in White guys totally could not have spent like ten minutes together without the sister-in-law. I guess you just brought your sister or your female companion everywhere! And that’s why it’s weird that Dorothea doesn’t want to bring her sister on her honeymoon (but Laura isn’t allowed to bring her sister on her honeymoon in WiW, even though she wants to. I wonder if the tradition hadn’t started then? Or maybe her husband was just a jerk. I mean we know he was a jerk.) Maybe also that’s why the Deceased Wife’s Sister Marriage Act or whatever was such a big controversy: you were already like 33% in love with your wife’s sister before you even married your wife, so it made a lot of sense to marry her when your wife died; but the idea that you could marry your chaperone really messes with the sanctity of the idea of the totally sexless, nice, morally-encouraging chaperone, so, yikes. Also, incest. Of course, regular old real-life Victorians may not have been as into their chaperones as these squeaky-clean fictional lovers are, but the novels are at least trying to promote some ideal that somebody somewhere must have had, and I think that  must have fed into this Deceased Wife’s Sister nonsense. The silliest-sounding reform in all of Victorian history, right? Matthew Arnold says funny (but maybe weirdly conservative?) things about it. (You guys I am not sure I really understand Matthew Arnold’s politics even though I read Culture and Anarchy. But also Victorian politics do not always map onto our politics that well. Their liberals were possibly slightly more liberal than our liberals. Like oh man universal healthcare ouch ouch)
  • Oh Man Confusing British Court System. OK, so Bleak House is probably THE Dickens novel about confusing British court systems. But he really has it in for them. What was that job David Copperfield got? He was a proctor? That meant he was a kind of lawyer or something in some court that dealt with ecclesiastical law + ships? In David Copperfield it was funny because David had never heard of this crazy court and was like, “uh, what? Ecclesiastical law + ships? But they’re kind of classy? Okay, sure.” Incidentally, that’s Richard Carstone’s attitude towards every job he tries out in Bleak House, but I guess the difference is that David works super hard at his bullshit proctor job to make a lot of unnecessary money for his family, and doesn’t stop doing it until he’s making a great income from his part-time job of being Charles Dickens, whereas Rick is a big disaster who gets obsessed with Chancery even though it’s super obvious getting obsessed with Chancery is a bad idea. But anyway, there appear to have been a lot of crazy different kinds of courts in Victorian England! And I thought I was doing pretty good by knowing the difference between an attorney and a solicitor. Also, what is with Ada and Rick being wards of Chancery? I mean, I know you can be a ward of the court if you’re an orphan, but how does that happen? Like, why wouldn’t you just get left to an aunt or something? I guess the deal is that everyone knows they’re supposed to inherit some money from Jarndyce and Jarndyce, so they can’t be sent to orphanages like paupers, but they can’t be given the money because of how stupid Chancery is, so maybe the court is paying for them to be brought up until the case is decided?
  • Bad Lawyers. Especially lower-class guys who can’t afford to be articled clerks (I still do not understand the difference between an articled clerk and a stipendiary clerk—why would you want to pay a bunch of money instead of getting a salary? Maybe it’s like being an officer vs an enlisted guy in the army—you pay a lot of money at first, but in the end you get a better career and are a gentleman? I think that’s what it is: articled clerks can become lawyers or whatever, but stipendiary clerks just stay clerks) but who are super ambitious and are trying to make their way in the world by elbow grease. And, um, trickery and white-collar crime! Also both Guppy and Uriah Heep have weird moms. Stop being so rough on ambitious lower-class guys with moms, Dickens! He makes fun of Sir Leicester for thinking every manufacturing guy is a Wat Tyler, and worrying about social change, but he seems kind of uncomfortable with too much social mobility himself. Like David Copperfield can go from being a kind of abused middle-class guy who is being kept from his proper position in life by his terrible stepfather to a pretty well-off middle-class guy, and his friend Tommy Traddles can go from being a downtrodden but well-educated clerk to being a fancy judge, but you can’t go from being an uneducated ambitious guy to a fancy judge. Maybe with the mom stuff he is teasing us about the Victorian cult of the mom: maybe it seems like a convenient mask for hypocrisy to him? Which brings us to
  • Moms! Actually moms have it pretty rough in Victorian fiction in general: where did all this famed Victorian sentimentality about mothers come from, anyway? Not from classic Victorian novels! Maybe all the mom-worship is in popular sentimental poetry and novels that we all think is trashy and unreadable now. Well, and dead moms are fine. But so much of what I’ve read over the past year seems to be an intentional parody/explosion of the sentimental idea of motherhood. Becky Sharp is like the worst mom ever, but uses her motherhood to get sympathy; Amelia is a loving mom, but her self-immolating dedication to her kid and his terrible dead dad also spoils him and blinds her to Dobbin’s love and her own happiness; Anne Catherick’s mom is the worst; David Copperfield’s mom is pretty nice and pathetic, I guess, but makes terrible decisions that ruin David’s life; the godmother in Villette is fine; Lady Carbury is totally misguided in her mothering of Felix and is just lousy to Hetta; Lady Dedlock is, uh, I guess a loving and penitent mom, at least so far, but kinda cowardly; Mrs Jellyby is a model terrible mom. One of my teachers last semester was saying how the only thing the Victorians really couldn’t forgive was being a bad mom: that’s why Lady Audley is so repellent, for example. I think that might be true (I also think we can’t really forgive it; we forgive bad dads much more easily—oh I should link to that article about how we’re all really Victorians at heart. Here you go!) but I’m also interested in how many bad moms there are. Is it just truth-tellin’ male realist authors trying to take these sentimentalized women down a peg? Is it just that stories with good moms aren’t as interesting, because people with good moms have great lives? (Ooh interesting counterpoint: Steerforth in DC saying that if only he had had a dad to teach him to be a stand-up guy everything would have been different—you need a good dad, too, I guess.) Is it just that, as my teacher suggests, a bad mom is the most thrillingly awful villain the Victorians can imagine?





Villette on Albermarle Road

I finished Villette about a week ago on a walk around the neighborhood. It was a beautiful sunny day, and I think I had spent a lot of it reading and a lot of it decorating cookies for a friend's birthday party, and I had cleverly figured out that I could use the text-to-speech function on the Kindle much more usefully while decorating cookies than I can when running on a treadmill or driving a car, because loud motors are only involved for maybe 15 minutes of cookie-decorating and that is not a part where you would want a Kindle around anyway (because of icing flying out of the Kitchenaid mixer.) So I had been spending a lot of time listening to a robot voice read a lot of stuff in weird Franglais, which is a bad idea! but otherwise I think it was equivalent to really reading Villette, except I didn't underline anything.

Anyway, I went for a walk on a golden afternoon, and read while I walked, and didn't bump into much or get hit by a car, and then I sat under a tree on the very pleasant grassy rosy median on Albermarle Rd because I was too lazy to walk up to the park. Which is too bad, because Lucy Snowe was given some kind of sedative that bizarrely made her hyper and crazy (like what happens to Laura when she has caffeine? or maybe to Paul? except in reverse?) and she goes to the park and there is a crazy festival where Everyone Is. This most certainly would have happened had I gone to the park, because there is always _some_ kind of crazy festival (maybe a bunch of rabbis walking around and chanting! maybe some guys drumming in Drummer's Grove! or drumming in a different grove) and also Everyone Is at the park, going running or whatever. You see your friends from every neighborhood in Brooklyn, because they just came in to whatever entrance is closest to where they live and then they did the circuit. Anyway, my experiences in almost every particular have nothing to do with Lucy Snowe's, so it is fine that instead of going to the park I went to a grassy median where perhaps one is not allowed to read a book. Okay, I can connect it to Villette by saying it is an allee interdite.

Some thoughts on finishing Villette a week ago:

  • Gothic Stuff. So, again, I should read some criticism. But Wikipedia says the novel is notable for its use of Gothic doubling. I guess by this they mean the spooky nun (I will not elaborate in case you want to read Villette and be spooked by the nun.) I think Bronte isn't taking the Gothic stuff as seriously in Villette as she seems to in Jane Eyre, however. I mean, neither novel is Northanger Abbey; in Jane Eyre I guess you could make a case for the Gothic elements being kind of parodic or self-aware or something--like there aren't actually any supernatural elements, but oh wait there kind of are, never mind. And do Gothic novels require supernatural elements? Here is where I tell you I have not read any Anne Radcliffe or any of those ladies. I meant to read them in high school when I was writing a paper on Northanger Abbey and maybe I read like two paragraphs. Anyway, I feel like a lot of Gothic conventions are getting played with in Villette, although on the other hand Lucy seems to have this weird affinity with storms etc that is pretty spooky and serious. And there is the drugging stuff mentioned above. But it all seems to be explained away by cultural differences--the French are weirdly distrustful of their daughters, the Catholics are all superstitious--that make all the surveillance and mystery seem less . . . mysterious than the mystery in Jane Eyre seems to be. It's like, oh yeah, this is just how French people act. They spy on you and drug you and people are always having assignations. Oh, okay.
  • Coincidences. So who came up with the rule that in every Victorian novel everyone has to know each other and turn out to be each other's nieces and uncles and wives and widows and doctors and so on? Like, once you're about a quarter of the way through the novel, you've met every character, and so when a new character shows up after that you're like, "okay, who is he going to secretly turn out to be?" They all do this! Is it some weird attempt at preserving unity of action, after the other unities are totally gone? Do all novels do this, but it's just that Victorian novels have like 600 guys in them? I guess The Great Gatsby does it. I guess Ulysses kind of does it, even. Mrs Dalloway only does it in a weird structural way: Septimus Smith is Mrs Dalloway's double and their paths cross a few times, right? But it's not like he turns out to be her uncle or something. Howard's End does it, kinda: only connect. Counterexamples? 
  • Lucy Snowe:Jane Eyre::?:? Is Jane Eyre as much of a weirdo as Lucy Snowe, I wonder. I think they both have this mixture of totally abject humility mixed with this intense independence and love of liberty and strong will and kind of unpleasant dry wit. I feel like Jane Eyre is more normal, but I haven't read Jane Eyre for ten years so I guess I'd better read it again. Staring at Magneto with his hands around Alice in Wonderland's throat was maybe not enough.
  • PRETTY SPOILER-Y. Passion vs Friendship/Sisterhood. DO NOT READ THIS BULLET IF YOU WANT TO COME TO VILLETTE WITH FRESH EYES. In Jane Eyre Jane emphatically refuses to marry her weirdo missionary cousin St John because she only has sisterly feeling towards him, implicitly privileging the intense (doomed) (or is it) sexual passion she has for Rochester over the kind of companionate partnership St John offers. Or rather she thinks it's fine to have a companionate partnership but you don't call it marriage. In Villette the hot guy is nice and hot but kind of weirdly untrustworthy, and the book seems to be privileging this weird sisterly partnership with a funny-looking (but very fiery) professor, but it's also hard to tell how much the "sisterly" stuff is just more weird humility and how much it's Professor Bhaer-level totally-manufactured sexual desire for the sake of a conventional happy ending. END SPOILER EVEN THOUGH THE NEXT BULLET IS ABOUT THE ENDING IT IS PRETTY SAFE TO READ. WELL MAYBE NOT
  • SPEAKING OF THE ENDING I am actually pretty glad that RBD spoiled the ending for me because I never would have understood it otherwise. More obfuscation! Intentional uncertainty! But also maybe reminding you that this is a work of fiction in a kind of Princess Bride-y way? If I'm remembering the ending of The Princess Bride right. Like if Lucy decides to lie to us, is that different from Charlotte lying to us? Yes, obviously, cry out loyal novel-readers everywhere. The Holmes stories after "The Final Problem" are not canon. That did not really happen, cry I when a million orcs shoot at the Fellowship and only hit Gandalf's hat. Implausible! Also, the fourth wall.