Suffering. What do you do with it when it finds you?
This is my favorite theme in The Portrait of a Lady and it is one that I have seen many of our previous authors contend with. Doesn't James weave it beautifully throughout? He takes it from idea to reality through Isabel who begins the novel as complete stranger to suffering but not without awareness and theories about suffering. She discusses suffering with Ralph and Lord Worburton early on, she sees hints of it in Madame Merle who is careful not to disclose too much of her personal suffering. But, she does not look suffering in the face until she marries Osmond. She does not know what to do with it until the climax of the novel, on the bench with Goodwood, when she decides to embrace it just as our feverish Raskolnikiv and others did. As I thought about this theme, I reflected that James had many great predecessors also choosing to highlight this tragic theme. Tolstoy has Anna, Dolly (even Steva, who I loathe to acknowledge for any purpose) and Levin grapple with it, taking very different courses as a result. Here's a fantastic post on suffering through Raskolnikov, http://readingthegreat.com/yet-there-is-life-embracing-suffering-in-dostoevskys-crime-and-punishment/.
And don't you think Thomas Hardy had a mission in mind with this theme? The two people who contrive to avoid suffering at all cost, Eustacia & Damon, perish in it. Those who embrace it (suffering & the heath) for Hardy, however, are not necessarily the better for it. Thomasin does well. Clym is severely blighted and takes to preaching an empty moralism, and poor Mrs. Yeobright strides right into the heath and toward her suffering with the highest of hopes only to die before returning home. It seems to me that Hardy would answer my initial question, "what do you do with suffering with it finds you" with a casual, "it doesn't really matter" or, if he was in a good mood maybe he'd say, "cross your fingers and hope for the reddleman to show up."
I haven't even thought about resurrecting the suffering theme in Moby-Dick, but I would love to hash that out with a friend or two someday, because I bet there's a treasure chest to be found down there with The Pequod!
Back to our current place in the great conversation with Henry James, though, I am unsatisfied with my reading of this novel. I cannot say that I have very successfully grasped the genius of James' as displayed in the form/formalism of this novel. I can say I was transported, but I felt there was a uniqueness in his writing that I can't put my finger on. It's not just stream of consciousness, but in the novel's shape and in the way his writing made us all-knowing but somehow still foggy primarily on the person of Isabel.
Well, at gotta' put the book down at some point and move on despite our limitations, eh? I do hope to revisit this in case there's any chance I am capable of gaining some insight. If any of you come across some helpful text on this question, do send it my way.
On to Huck Finn! Joy! I am already loving the references to Don Quixote.
Laurel
Ah, Laurel--I always love your thoughts...yes, Hardy does a hopeless job with this theme. Bronte does a fantastic job! naturally...
ReplyDeleteSuffering should probably be a theme in every book, to some extent, because it is an essential part of human life. I guess that is what we are getting at when we ask the question, "What is standing in the character's way, and how does he/she overcome?"
I have to admit that Dostoevsky did hit the nail on the head with his symbolism of burial before resurrection--because "unless a kernel of wheat fall to the ground..." I don't think Isabel grasped that true life can only be found in death--as Jesus was void in the novel. She was simply "choosing" suffering, but for her it would be meaningless...no resurrection.
So, how is life away from "sivilization"?
You need to come to the cottage as soon as possible. That's my answer to your final question.
ReplyDeleteIsabel is "choosing" suffering, you say, but not embracing it. Fair enough. But, why? I don't understand why James' heroine ultimately decides to throw her whole self back into the pit of hell without some hope of redemption? What's he getting at? If Isabel is not going grasp that true life can only be found in death, why does she not end her life like Madame Bovary or Anna? What if she does it for Pansy? What if Isabel is our Christ-figure? She doesn't compare to Jane Eyre, I agree. But this confusion is all evidence of my not understanding what James was doing with Isabel in the first place.
Regardless, thanks for persisting with this blog. It's fun!
Why would anyone choose suffering with no "hope of heaven"? Hmmm...Isabel is not like MB or Anna because ONe, she has grown through her disappointments and not become in-grown. Two, because she accepts her responsibility for her mistakes--that is the downside of independence. Three, because she still has hope for humanity--horizontal hope (we can't go vertical with this character, like Jane and Uncle Tom)-- yes, Os is evil, but he is not the only person in her life...she's got good friendships (unlike our suicidal heroines that cut off community) and maybe she can help Pansy.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think this is much of James' intent with Is--except maybe to show how she accepts the consequences of her free choices. Did you answer Baur's question with this book: are we free or victim to fate?
Anyway, who says that Is. goes back to Os for good? I'm not convinced she does...
Talked to a older lady friend of mine--she said T.S. Eliot admired James' writing...I'm having her send some articles to me. I will pass on if they can "light a spark or two"
Yes, good, good, Lynette! You are right to call in the free or victim question here. I actually really like what I think James did with this:
DeleteHe wanted to make the point, through Isabel, that although we are free to make choices, that freedom has no bearing on our happiness. It's as though he wants his readers to know that freedom is overrated. In fact, he even goes as far as to say that we are actually sometimes victims of our own free choice. This is clear with Isabel who freely chooses to marry Osmond. James shows us that, like Isabel, we are too limited for freedom to matter because we have blindspots that make us foolish or susceptible to people with bad intentions. He does the same thing with Ralph who chooses to put wind in Isabel's sails by giving her a fortune. Instead, this free choice leads directly to her intense life suffering. The imagery he uses is powerful. Instead of a windy sailboat ride, we feel the prison-like atmosphere of her existance. But it's as if James wants to be sure we do not think Isabel was ever without a free choice, which is why he ended the novel as he did. He has her taste the freedom of leaving Osmond on the lips of Goodwood. But, this only causes her to turn from that option and go with more determination than ever before back to Osmond. This ending along with this major theme of free choice is also why I find it hard to believe that she would have other intentions beyond staying with him. But as you, dear friend, are not convinced, I will join the many who feel this was too abrupt a conclusion.
And, do send me those articles. I want to be at least a little more satisfied with this novel and this great novelist.
Thanks for chatting.
Laurel
Also, how did this freedom/victim question go in the discussion? Hoping some of our other friends will chime in. But, what did you come up with, Lynette?
Delete