What do you think?
Rate this book
Down There On a Visit
Christopher Isherwood originally intended Down There on a Visit to be part of The Lost, the unfinished epic novel that would also incorporate his famous Berlin Stories. Tracing many of the same themes as that earlier work, this novel is a bemused, sometimes acid portrait of people caught in private sexual hells of their own making. Its four episodes are connected by four narrators. All are called "Christopher Isherwood, " but each is a different character inhabiting a new Berlin in 1928, the Greek Isles in 1933, London in 1938, and California in 1940. Down There on a Visit is a major work that shows Isherwood at the height of his literary powers.
318 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1962
62 people are currently reading
1440 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Isherwood
164 books1,518 followersEnglish-born American writer Christopher William Bradshaw Isherwood portrayed Berlin in the early 1930s in his best known works, such as
Goodbye to Berlin
(1939), the basis for the musical
Cabaret
(1966). Isherwood was a novelist, playwright, screenwriter, autobiographer, and diarist.
With W.H. Auden he wrote three plays— The Dog Beneath the Skin (1932), The Ascent of F6 (1936), and On the Frontier (1938). Isherwood tells the story in his first autobiography, Lions and Shadows .
After Isherwood wrote joke answers on his second-year exams, Cambridge University in 1925 asked him to leave. He briefly attended medical school and progressed with his first two novels, All the Conspirators (1928) and The Memorial (1932). In 1930, he moved to Berlin, where he taught English, dabbled in Communism, and enthusiastically explored his homosexuality. His experiences provided the material for Mister Norris Changes Trains (1935) and Goodbye to Berlin (1938), still his most famous book.
In Berlin in 1932, he also began an important relationship with Heinz Neddermeyer, a young German with whom he fled the Nazis in 1933. England refused entry to Neddermeyer on his second visit in 1934, and the pair moved restlessly about Europe until the Gestapo arrested Neddermeyer in May 1937 and then finally separated them.
In 1938, Isherwood sailed with Auden to China to write Journey to a War (1939), about the Sino-Japanese conflict. They returned to England and Isherwood went on to Hollywood to look for movie-writing work. He also became a disciple of the Ramakrishna monk, Swami Prabhavananda, head of the Vedanta Society of Southern California. He decided not to take monastic vows, but he remained a Hindu for the rest of his life, serving, praying, and lecturing in the temple every week and writing a biography, Ramakrishna and His Disciples (1965).
In 1945, Isherwood published Prater Violet, fictionalizing his first movie writing job in London in 1933-1934. In Hollywood, he spent the start of the 1950s fighting his way free of a destructive five-year affair with an attractive and undisciplined American photographer, William Caskey. Caskey took the photographs for Isherwood’s travel book about South America, The Condor and The Cows (1947). Isherwood’s sixth novel, The World in the Evening (1954), written mostly during this period, was less successful than earlier ones.
In 1953, he fell in love with Don Bachardy, an eighteen-year-old college student born and raised in Los Angeles. They were to remain together until Isherwood’s death. In 1961, Isherwood and completed the final revisions to his new novel Down There on a Visit (1962). Their relationship nearly ended in 1963, and Isherwood moved out of their Santa Monica house. This dark period underpins Isherwood’s masterpiece A Single Man (1964).
Isherwood wrote another novel, A Meeting by the River (1967), about two brothers, but he gave up writing fiction and turned entirely to autobiography. In Kathleen and Frank (1971), he drew on the letters and diaries of his parents. In Christopher and His Kind (1976), he returned to the 1930s to tell, as a publicly avowed homosexual, the real story of his life in Berlin and his wanderings with Heinz Neddermeyer. The book made him a hero of gay liberation and a national celebrity all over again but now in his true, political and personal identity.
With W.H. Auden he wrote three plays— The Dog Beneath the Skin (1932), The Ascent of F6 (1936), and On the Frontier (1938). Isherwood tells the story in his first autobiography, Lions and Shadows .
After Isherwood wrote joke answers on his second-year exams, Cambridge University in 1925 asked him to leave. He briefly attended medical school and progressed with his first two novels, All the Conspirators (1928) and The Memorial (1932). In 1930, he moved to Berlin, where he taught English, dabbled in Communism, and enthusiastically explored his homosexuality. His experiences provided the material for Mister Norris Changes Trains (1935) and Goodbye to Berlin (1938), still his most famous book.
In Berlin in 1932, he also began an important relationship with Heinz Neddermeyer, a young German with whom he fled the Nazis in 1933. England refused entry to Neddermeyer on his second visit in 1934, and the pair moved restlessly about Europe until the Gestapo arrested Neddermeyer in May 1937 and then finally separated them.
In 1938, Isherwood sailed with Auden to China to write Journey to a War (1939), about the Sino-Japanese conflict. They returned to England and Isherwood went on to Hollywood to look for movie-writing work. He also became a disciple of the Ramakrishna monk, Swami Prabhavananda, head of the Vedanta Society of Southern California. He decided not to take monastic vows, but he remained a Hindu for the rest of his life, serving, praying, and lecturing in the temple every week and writing a biography, Ramakrishna and His Disciples (1965).
In 1945, Isherwood published Prater Violet, fictionalizing his first movie writing job in London in 1933-1934. In Hollywood, he spent the start of the 1950s fighting his way free of a destructive five-year affair with an attractive and undisciplined American photographer, William Caskey. Caskey took the photographs for Isherwood’s travel book about South America, The Condor and The Cows (1947). Isherwood’s sixth novel, The World in the Evening (1954), written mostly during this period, was less successful than earlier ones.
In 1953, he fell in love with Don Bachardy, an eighteen-year-old college student born and raised in Los Angeles. They were to remain together until Isherwood’s death. In 1961, Isherwood and completed the final revisions to his new novel Down There on a Visit (1962). Their relationship nearly ended in 1963, and Isherwood moved out of their Santa Monica house. This dark period underpins Isherwood’s masterpiece A Single Man (1964).
Isherwood wrote another novel, A Meeting by the River (1967), about two brothers, but he gave up writing fiction and turned entirely to autobiography. In Kathleen and Frank (1971), he drew on the letters and diaries of his parents. In Christopher and His Kind (1976), he returned to the 1930s to tell, as a publicly avowed homosexual, the real story of his life in Berlin and his wanderings with Heinz Neddermeyer. The book made him a hero of gay liberation and a national celebrity all over again but now in his true, political and personal identity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews
September 5, 2024
Herr Isyvoo's best is "The Last of Mr. Norris" aka "Mr Norris Changes Trains," 1935. But he can thank playwright John Van Druten for giving him a goldmine that steadily enriches his estate. Pretty much unknown here, his name became familiar w the play "I Am a Camera" (1951), based on his Berlin Stories by Van Druten. In 1966, it became the smash musical (and soon movie) "Cabaret" -- and, lo, gold rained down on Adelaide Drive in Santa Monica Canyon where Ish lived.
You see, for most writers, most of whom face obscurity : there is a God. The author was a nice fella, so why not ? This vaguerie fr 1962 is bad, lifeless writing. These dreary memories roam from London to Greece to the swamis swarming Hollywood and push you into Snoozia. (Denham Fouts, the candy of kings and queens, here called Paul, was apparently a ditzy bore). Van Druten ? He wrote many smart stage hits including The Voice of the Turtle, Bell, Book & Candle and I Remember Mama. And Julie Harris became a star in his play, "I Am a Camera."
Isherwood never had to worry about money again. Plus, he was suddenly famous. Cover drawings for first edition by partner Don Bachardy.
You see, for most writers, most of whom face obscurity : there is a God. The author was a nice fella, so why not ? This vaguerie fr 1962 is bad, lifeless writing. These dreary memories roam from London to Greece to the swamis swarming Hollywood and push you into Snoozia. (Denham Fouts, the candy of kings and queens, here called Paul, was apparently a ditzy bore). Van Druten ? He wrote many smart stage hits including The Voice of the Turtle, Bell, Book & Candle and I Remember Mama. And Julie Harris became a star in his play, "I Am a Camera."
Isherwood never had to worry about money again. Plus, he was suddenly famous. Cover drawings for first edition by partner Don Bachardy.
February 25, 2013
Roman à clef made up of 4 novellas all with the narrator "Christopher"--hard not to get that "key." But it's a Christopher who "is almost a stranger to me. ...We still share the same skeleton, but its outer covering has altered so much that I doubt he would recognize me on the street. We have in common the label of our name, and a continuity of consciousness; there has been no break in the sequence of daily statements that I am I. But what I am has refashioned itself through the days and years, until now almost all that remains is the mere awareness of being conscious. And that awareness belongs to everybody; it isn't a particular person."
Thus memoir becomes novel in that the author is his own fictional character, himself from his own past. And as a fictional character, he can have a fictional past.
The most interesting is the last of the novellas, "Paul." Why names other than Christopher's have been changed escapes me. "Paul" is Denham Fouts and "Augustus Parr" is Gerald Heard, two of Isherwood's most important friends between 1940 and 1953.
"Augustus" introduced Isherwood to oriental philosophy, which became central to his life: "There are three kinds of bondage, aren't there...addiction, preten[s]ion, aversion—what I crave, what I pretend to the world that I am, and what I fear." Here (and, of course, throughout his life and writing) Isherwood deals with addiction and pretension more successfully that with aversion, his fear of the future, dread of the past.
"Paul" is a complex and fascinating character, fictional and real. He sees things with stunning clarity: "Oh, darling Chrissikins! ...You're exactly like a tourist who thinks he can take in the whole of Rome in one day. You know, you really are a tourist, to your bones. I bet you're always send post cards with 'Down here on a visit' on them. That's the story of your life." And it's the story in this and all his other writings.
To Isherwood's great credit, he saw himself with clarity. That's why this book is titled as it is and tells the stories that it does, of being a tourist in your own life. And that life, of course, is a fictional life.
Thus memoir becomes novel in that the author is his own fictional character, himself from his own past. And as a fictional character, he can have a fictional past.
The most interesting is the last of the novellas, "Paul." Why names other than Christopher's have been changed escapes me. "Paul" is Denham Fouts and "Augustus Parr" is Gerald Heard, two of Isherwood's most important friends between 1940 and 1953.
"Augustus" introduced Isherwood to oriental philosophy, which became central to his life: "There are three kinds of bondage, aren't there...addiction, preten[s]ion, aversion—what I crave, what I pretend to the world that I am, and what I fear." Here (and, of course, throughout his life and writing) Isherwood deals with addiction and pretension more successfully that with aversion, his fear of the future, dread of the past.
"Paul" is a complex and fascinating character, fictional and real. He sees things with stunning clarity: "Oh, darling Chrissikins! ...You're exactly like a tourist who thinks he can take in the whole of Rome in one day. You know, you really are a tourist, to your bones. I bet you're always send post cards with 'Down here on a visit' on them. That's the story of your life." And it's the story in this and all his other writings.
To Isherwood's great credit, he saw himself with clarity. That's why this book is titled as it is and tells the stories that it does, of being a tourist in your own life. And that life, of course, is a fictional life.
September 18, 2017
I loved most of this book. The build up to WWII, as in his other more famous writing, is fantastic, and the characters - especially Waldermar - are empathetically but clearly drawn, as are their individual private hells.
I have trouble with the final section though - and I'm still not sure what to think about it. I can't help read it as Christopher falling prey first to spiritual guff (which is fine, just a bit boring) and then to a manipulative narcissistic child-abuser, Paul, to the point where he and his (spiritual guff emitting) friends enable and cover up for that abuse.
The trouble is that if the narrator wasn't called Christopher Isherwood, there's enough information here for me to see it as deliberately unreliable narrating. For example, other people warn him about Paul, and - I think - you're invited to contrast Christopher's refusal to help the far more deserving but needy Waldermar out of Communist East Berlin, with his easy supply of money to fund Paul's Opium addiction.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced the author - because of the world he lived in - would see Paul's abuse for what it was, and so it's the author that's unreliable. At one point Paul tells Christopher he reduced a mother to tears for objecting to his seduction of her prepubescent daughter (he actually said she seduced him), by saying 'people like you want sexual liberation for everyone except your own children'.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what people think. I can't see it discussed anywhere, and all references to Paul (irl Denham Fouts) just glamorise him as a playboy who died young. Am I supposed to sympathise with this tortured soul, or see him as an exploitative monster, or both?
I have trouble with the final section though - and I'm still not sure what to think about it. I can't help read it as Christopher falling prey first to spiritual guff (which is fine, just a bit boring) and then to a manipulative narcissistic child-abuser, Paul, to the point where he and his (spiritual guff emitting) friends enable and cover up for that abuse.
The trouble is that if the narrator wasn't called Christopher Isherwood, there's enough information here for me to see it as deliberately unreliable narrating. For example, other people warn him about Paul, and - I think - you're invited to contrast Christopher's refusal to help the far more deserving but needy Waldermar out of Communist East Berlin, with his easy supply of money to fund Paul's Opium addiction.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced the author - because of the world he lived in - would see Paul's abuse for what it was, and so it's the author that's unreliable. At one point Paul tells Christopher he reduced a mother to tears for objecting to his seduction of her prepubescent daughter (he actually said she seduced him), by saying 'people like you want sexual liberation for everyone except your own children'.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what people think. I can't see it discussed anywhere, and all references to Paul (irl Denham Fouts) just glamorise him as a playboy who died young. Am I supposed to sympathise with this tortured soul, or see him as an exploitative monster, or both?
December 12, 2012
I found this book on a table of throwaways, brought it home, and read it. I lack the insight to understand why some people choose to keep some of the things they do and throw away things like this. If it was left with the hope that someone would come and enjoy it then I say “thank you”; I appreciate the gift.
Anyone who liked Isherwood’s Berlin Stories will probably appreciate parts of this collection that blends memoir with roman a clef, though I suspect that different people will be drawn to different parts and aspects of the book, which flushes out Isherwood’s life experience before and after those Cabaret days in Weinmar Germany we all tend to first think of when hearing his name. The book has four sections, each dedicated to a different (and distinctive) strong personality that impacts his life.
First is Mr. Lancaster, who opens up new experiences to Isherwood by inviting him to Germany for the first time—to Hamburg, in 1928. Mr. Lancaster also represents an older generation’s dedication to social mores and the Empire, and the personal sacrifices such dedication demands. Ambrose is the focus of the second section, an odd eccentric who sets up his own little world on a Greek isle and provides the narrator the place and space to ponder if and how he could or should fit in, and just where that might be and on what terms. This is as war draws ever near in Europe, and Waldemar, the German youth the narrator met through Mr. Lancaster and with whom he went to visit Ambrose’s island, gets his own section that relates the numbing of the British class system against those who would ignore it as day by day the inevitability of the coming war affects life in London. The most precocious of the four personalities is, without a doubt, Paul, who enters Isherwood’s life when he has become a screenwriter in L.A., escaping the travails of war in Europe and lunching with folks in the film industry. Once there, Isherwood made a conscientious commitment to try to follow a path of vedic self-examination laid out by a philosophical mystic the book refers to Augustus Parr (and who is based on, for those interested, real life Gerald Heard). How Paul comes into his life, joins his life, and leaves a major lasting impact is the purpose of this section. I think it is the most revealing of the four sections, for while Mr. Lancaster might come across as pathetic, Ambrose as resolute in his hermetic determination, and Waldemar as a naïve beefcake whose openness of what he wants makes him easily manipulated, it is Paul who has the most power and influence over Isherwood in the end. I am not clear whom he specifically represents in Isherwood’s real life during the WW II years, or if he is a composite character, but he certainly is memorable.
Fans of Isherwood for his elegance of language, his sometimes cutting psychological appraisals, and his dark humor used as a tool to cope in a world that can be so unjust will find elements of all three here.
Anyone who liked Isherwood’s Berlin Stories will probably appreciate parts of this collection that blends memoir with roman a clef, though I suspect that different people will be drawn to different parts and aspects of the book, which flushes out Isherwood’s life experience before and after those Cabaret days in Weinmar Germany we all tend to first think of when hearing his name. The book has four sections, each dedicated to a different (and distinctive) strong personality that impacts his life.
First is Mr. Lancaster, who opens up new experiences to Isherwood by inviting him to Germany for the first time—to Hamburg, in 1928. Mr. Lancaster also represents an older generation’s dedication to social mores and the Empire, and the personal sacrifices such dedication demands. Ambrose is the focus of the second section, an odd eccentric who sets up his own little world on a Greek isle and provides the narrator the place and space to ponder if and how he could or should fit in, and just where that might be and on what terms. This is as war draws ever near in Europe, and Waldemar, the German youth the narrator met through Mr. Lancaster and with whom he went to visit Ambrose’s island, gets his own section that relates the numbing of the British class system against those who would ignore it as day by day the inevitability of the coming war affects life in London. The most precocious of the four personalities is, without a doubt, Paul, who enters Isherwood’s life when he has become a screenwriter in L.A., escaping the travails of war in Europe and lunching with folks in the film industry. Once there, Isherwood made a conscientious commitment to try to follow a path of vedic self-examination laid out by a philosophical mystic the book refers to Augustus Parr (and who is based on, for those interested, real life Gerald Heard). How Paul comes into his life, joins his life, and leaves a major lasting impact is the purpose of this section. I think it is the most revealing of the four sections, for while Mr. Lancaster might come across as pathetic, Ambrose as resolute in his hermetic determination, and Waldemar as a naïve beefcake whose openness of what he wants makes him easily manipulated, it is Paul who has the most power and influence over Isherwood in the end. I am not clear whom he specifically represents in Isherwood’s real life during the WW II years, or if he is a composite character, but he certainly is memorable.
Fans of Isherwood for his elegance of language, his sometimes cutting psychological appraisals, and his dark humor used as a tool to cope in a world that can be so unjust will find elements of all three here.
May 19, 2022
I didn’t know anything about Christopher Isherwood but that he had written the novel, ‘A Single Man’. A book that has been haunting my TBR list for a long time now. However chance would have it that I picked up ‘Down There on a Visit’ first. When I noticed this edition in the bookstore, I was immediately taken in by the beautiful cover. It reminded me very much of one of my favourite books, ‘Brideshead Revisited’. So naturally, I felt I needed it. When leafing through it I noticed a mention of Sebastian Flyte, a character from ‘Brideshead Revisited’, in the introduction which peaked my interest even further. I was not disappointed. This book intrigues from the first sentence: ‘Now, at last, I’m ready to write about Mr Lancaster.’ It got me wondering: why and who is he? To elaborate further would be spoilers, so I highly recommend figuring it out yourself.
‘Down There on a Visit’ is basically a collection of four novellas that give you a glimpse into the lives of some extraordinary individuals through the eyes of Isherwood. They are, in fact, so extraordinary that you sometimes doubt what is true and what might be exaggerated. Isherwood’s writing style and tone is very honest. He’s witty and funny, yet also a bit melancholic and lost. Often I relate to him immensely. Sometimes I feel he is a bit arrogant. But mostly he is just the conduit for more interesting lives and thoughts than his own. Though one might call his life interesting as well, because he got to observe and meet all these people. And even more important, he got to write about them.
Actually, it is interesting to know that this man is mostly famous for autobiographical or semi-autobiographical work. Can you imagine being a writer that doesn’t truly need plot or imagination? You have just lived through enough things worth writing about and being damn good at telling the tale.
Side note: Despite all the praise I could and will bestow upon this cover, I wonder why on earth there is a woman depicted there, because this novel is the most low-key homosexual thing I’ve ever come across and even though there are some women here and there, they don’t really move or effect the narrator in any shape or form. Not like the men do anyway. (Which is, might I add, a shame).
‘Down There on a Visit’ is basically a collection of four novellas that give you a glimpse into the lives of some extraordinary individuals through the eyes of Isherwood. They are, in fact, so extraordinary that you sometimes doubt what is true and what might be exaggerated. Isherwood’s writing style and tone is very honest. He’s witty and funny, yet also a bit melancholic and lost. Often I relate to him immensely. Sometimes I feel he is a bit arrogant. But mostly he is just the conduit for more interesting lives and thoughts than his own. Though one might call his life interesting as well, because he got to observe and meet all these people. And even more important, he got to write about them.
Actually, it is interesting to know that this man is mostly famous for autobiographical or semi-autobiographical work. Can you imagine being a writer that doesn’t truly need plot or imagination? You have just lived through enough things worth writing about and being damn good at telling the tale.
Side note: Despite all the praise I could and will bestow upon this cover, I wonder why on earth there is a woman depicted there, because this novel is the most low-key homosexual thing I’ve ever come across and even though there are some women here and there, they don’t really move or effect the narrator in any shape or form. Not like the men do anyway. (Which is, might I add, a shame).
January 27, 2014
... She is the sort of monster who is often miscalled a good sport. The most monstrous thing about her is her good humor. She never pouts or sulks. She is always cheerful; and as tactless as an elephant.Seems like whether you like this will depend on what you think it is. It's not a short story collection, or four separate novellas, or a connected four-part concoction that only makes sense when you get to the bottom line.
Even if you're ready for some loose, multi-form story-blending (ala Goodbye To Berlin, etc), or some esoteric period travel writing (ala Journey To A War) -- and I was, for either -- this still doesn't stack up. What I think we have here are some random diary / memoir style entries that got interrupted by the world war. And later got reworked, repackaged, as interconnected autobiography. Isherwood himself says he intended these to take their part in a larger work.
This would all still be fine, if the tone of the work (or any aspect, really) could be seen to be carried through all four segments. Even with some twists, a little necessary morphing, the narrative could still progress. In the early going, we get some large characters, and we hope they'll go the distance :
"And that's how you spend your life?" I asked.
Maria smiled teasingly. "That shocks you? You think I should make myself active in some profession? Or become passionate for the politics?"
"No, but--does this kind of thing really interest you?"
"Unfortunately, no--not often! For the most time, it is quite ennuyant, because, you see, people are doing still what they did before. They do not change."
"So then you leave them again?"
"Then I leave them. Yes."
"I suppose you'll be leaving us soon?"
"Oh, here I am not bored! Here there is much to interest me. ...But I think perhaps I must leave soon, all the same. Because I make so much trouble, no?"
Maria gave me a glance of truly vintage coquetry--not a day younger than 1914--from under her sky-blue eyelids.
And yes, that whole feeling harks back to the Berlin / Cabaret vibe that this collection seeks to update, perhaps to transcend. But time and events have moved on, and what was then gets left behind pretty quickly. We're off to Central Europe, to Greece, to England and then, somewhat interminably, to California.
In the process we lose the voice we had come to love, the quietly observant fellow-traveler, and we lapse into a grand 'Finding Oneself' sort of epic. Kind of reminiscent of the ponderous Somerset Maugham forays into self exploration. And too bad, the best thing about Isherwood was always his discreet distance, his modesty, his willingness to stay at the party so we all could watch. Never a combatant, often enough an enabler, but always a raised eyebrow, and a trusted narrator. In California, that all goes wobbly.
"That's very heartless, Maria."
"But monsters are heartless, mon vieux! You know this--do not be so hypocrite! You cannot hold a monster by his emotion, only by puzzling him. As long as the monster is puzzled, he is yours."
February 6, 2023
Was ist der Sinn des Lebens? Rausch, Drogen, Sex, Parties, Liebe? Der Kampf gegen die Langeweile? Die Erleuchtung? Der Hass auf alles und jeden? So viel wie möglich von der Welt zu sehen und ihre Einwohner*innen kennenzulernen?
Die Antwort auf diese Frage liefert Isherwood in seinem Roman nicht, aber er liefert Gedankenanstöße. Nur Zu Besuch könnte passender auch nicht sein als Titel für die z.T. autobiografischen Reisen des Protagonisten Christophers wie auch für die Persönlichkeit. Obwohl oft geprägt von starken Gefühlen stellt er einen naturalistischen Schriftsteller dar, wie er im Buche steht - literally. Sein Ziel, so scheint es, ist die Erfassung der Wesen der Leute, die ihn umgeben. Genau daran brilliert Isherwood auch, denn die Personen in dem Buch wirken wie ausgefleischte Personen mit Hintergrundgeschichte und allem was dazugehört. Die Charaktere strotzen vor wunderbarer Sonderbarkeit und widersprüchlicher Zwiegespaltenheit. Besonders Ambrose oder Paul, wie auch Waldemar, die nach wahren Personen aus Isherwoods Leben modelliert sind, bleiben in Erinnerung. Vor allem Ambrose und Paul stellen mit ihrer offensichtlichen Queerness Personen dar, die für die Zeit sonst ungesehen bleiben. Sie navigieren in einem System, das von Unordnung und Bürokratieferne geprägt zu sein scheint und das Leben scheint ein Tick einfacher zu sein. (gleichzeitig stecken da aber auch andere Kompensationsmittel hinter: Ambroses Reichtum, Pauls Charme etc. Die ihnen ein mehr oder weniger angenehmes Leben bescheren.
So stößt auch in dem Buch auf, dass sich der Autor den Macht- und Diskriminierungssystemen nicht entzieht. Die Nutzung des N-Wortes (in dieser Version zensiert) wie auch Pauls sexualisuerte Beschreibung eines 12-jährigen Mädchens ließen mich verstört zurück. Koloniale Verhaltensmuster, wie Ambroses Wunsch die griechische Insel zu kaufen, Geoffreys queerfeindliche, rassistische oder misogyne Aussagen, generell die Abstemplung fast aller weiblicher Figuren als Lustobjekte für Männer (Isherwood beschreibt keine Frau außerhalb eines sexuellen Kontextes außer vielleicht seine Mutter), Waldemars Misogynie und Pauls Aussage, dass Hitler der einzig vernünftige Mensch sei lassen alle einen sehr Faden Beigeschmack im Mund. Es fällt schwer mit den Charakteren sich zu identifizieren oder mit ihnen zu sympathisieren.
Eine Reise in eine Welt, in die man als Beobachter eintauchen kann. Sie beantwortet keinerlei Fragen, will sie auch nicht, aber zeigt einem möglicherweise was man (nicht) will.
Die Antwort auf diese Frage liefert Isherwood in seinem Roman nicht, aber er liefert Gedankenanstöße. Nur Zu Besuch könnte passender auch nicht sein als Titel für die z.T. autobiografischen Reisen des Protagonisten Christophers wie auch für die Persönlichkeit. Obwohl oft geprägt von starken Gefühlen stellt er einen naturalistischen Schriftsteller dar, wie er im Buche steht - literally. Sein Ziel, so scheint es, ist die Erfassung der Wesen der Leute, die ihn umgeben. Genau daran brilliert Isherwood auch, denn die Personen in dem Buch wirken wie ausgefleischte Personen mit Hintergrundgeschichte und allem was dazugehört. Die Charaktere strotzen vor wunderbarer Sonderbarkeit und widersprüchlicher Zwiegespaltenheit. Besonders Ambrose oder Paul, wie auch Waldemar, die nach wahren Personen aus Isherwoods Leben modelliert sind, bleiben in Erinnerung. Vor allem Ambrose und Paul stellen mit ihrer offensichtlichen Queerness Personen dar, die für die Zeit sonst ungesehen bleiben. Sie navigieren in einem System, das von Unordnung und Bürokratieferne geprägt zu sein scheint und das Leben scheint ein Tick einfacher zu sein. (gleichzeitig stecken da aber auch andere Kompensationsmittel hinter: Ambroses Reichtum, Pauls Charme etc. Die ihnen ein mehr oder weniger angenehmes Leben bescheren.
So stößt auch in dem Buch auf, dass sich der Autor den Macht- und Diskriminierungssystemen nicht entzieht. Die Nutzung des N-Wortes (in dieser Version zensiert) wie auch Pauls sexualisuerte Beschreibung eines 12-jährigen Mädchens ließen mich verstört zurück. Koloniale Verhaltensmuster, wie Ambroses Wunsch die griechische Insel zu kaufen, Geoffreys queerfeindliche, rassistische oder misogyne Aussagen, generell die Abstemplung fast aller weiblicher Figuren als Lustobjekte für Männer (Isherwood beschreibt keine Frau außerhalb eines sexuellen Kontextes außer vielleicht seine Mutter), Waldemars Misogynie und Pauls Aussage, dass Hitler der einzig vernünftige Mensch sei lassen alle einen sehr Faden Beigeschmack im Mund. Es fällt schwer mit den Charakteren sich zu identifizieren oder mit ihnen zu sympathisieren.
Eine Reise in eine Welt, in die man als Beobachter eintauchen kann. Sie beantwortet keinerlei Fragen, will sie auch nicht, aber zeigt einem möglicherweise was man (nicht) will.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 8, 2020
Down There on a Visit was a book full of ups and downs for me. If you like Isherwood as much as I do, then I'm sure you'll find something that takes your fancy within it. Parts of this book riff off his famous Berlin texts (though none of its four sections are actually set in Berlin), parts of it are more aligned with his late career turn towards self-reflexive fictional and autobiographical works exploring gay identity, and some of the most interesting parts of this novel for me explored Isherwood's involvement with Vedanta. In taking the structure that it does - four separate parts which each focalise on different character and effectively read like individual short stories - Down There on a Visit kind of feels like it offers something for everyone. However, as none of these things were sustained for long, it's easy for interest to wane. The innovative structure proves to be both a blessing and a curse. So, whilst I certainly believe that this is worth the read, I wouldn't count it amongst Isherwood's best or most worthy works.
I also found this book difficult to deal with in places due to some of the subject matter. I've been trying to work out how to articulate this for a long time, because I don't believe that any of the people in this book are flat-out irredeemable, awful people, and I'm also fully aware that Isherwood depicts characters who are just as bad - if not worse - in Goodbye to Berlin and Mr Norris Changes Trains, both of which I liked a whole lot more than this one. Whilst it was obvious to me that an entire time, place, and political system was being critiqued in the characterisation of the two Berlin novels, however, I could never quite work out exactly what was being placed into the microscope in Down There on a Visit, if anything at all. Even after having read lots of very good scholarship on this novel (if nothing else, Down There on a Visit is an excellent gateway into all of Isherwood's other works), I'm still not sure. As a result, I'm not fully convinced that there was a genuine purpose for depicting paedophilia, animal rape, and rampant misogyny in this book, and I'm unable to properly reconcile the discomfort I felt reading about them. The paedophilia in particular does not sit well with me. The animal rape incident only spans a couple of pages even though it feels completely unnecessary, and I already knew that Isherwood was misogynistic. In contrast, paedophilia is given much more narrative attention, and I couldn't tell exactly how I was supposed to feel about the episode involving it. That may well simply be my issue. Though I find the text interesting and acknowledge its literary merit, Lolita makes me unbearably uncomfortable too, and I've become increasingly convinced as I've gotten older that it's not as necessary a classic text as most people make it out to be. If I can't handle that, then I was never going to be able to handle this, which handles the matter with much less direction. So, basically, the contents of Down There on a Visit do not sit particularly well with me, and that's the main reason why I liked it a lot less than I thought I would. I'm still not convinced that I've articulated this well, but hopefully the reasons for my discomfort come through clearly enough.
There are many good reasons to read Down There on a Visit. If any one Isherwood work exemplifies his style and concerns, it is this one, so, if you're interested in him as a writer at all, definitely give this one a read. It's also very pleasing open and frank about male homosexuality considering that it was written in 1962. Whilst it's not quite A Single Man, this incarnation of 'Christopher Isherwood' the narrator's honesty about his sex life still felt quite radical to me, so I'd say that this book is also well worth reading if you're at all interested in the evolution of gay literature. However, do be aware going into it that it is not perfect.
I also found this book difficult to deal with in places due to some of the subject matter. I've been trying to work out how to articulate this for a long time, because I don't believe that any of the people in this book are flat-out irredeemable, awful people, and I'm also fully aware that Isherwood depicts characters who are just as bad - if not worse - in Goodbye to Berlin and Mr Norris Changes Trains, both of which I liked a whole lot more than this one. Whilst it was obvious to me that an entire time, place, and political system was being critiqued in the characterisation of the two Berlin novels, however, I could never quite work out exactly what was being placed into the microscope in Down There on a Visit, if anything at all. Even after having read lots of very good scholarship on this novel (if nothing else, Down There on a Visit is an excellent gateway into all of Isherwood's other works), I'm still not sure. As a result, I'm not fully convinced that there was a genuine purpose for depicting paedophilia, animal rape, and rampant misogyny in this book, and I'm unable to properly reconcile the discomfort I felt reading about them. The paedophilia in particular does not sit well with me. The animal rape incident only spans a couple of pages even though it feels completely unnecessary, and I already knew that Isherwood was misogynistic. In contrast, paedophilia is given much more narrative attention, and I couldn't tell exactly how I was supposed to feel about the episode involving it. That may well simply be my issue. Though I find the text interesting and acknowledge its literary merit, Lolita makes me unbearably uncomfortable too, and I've become increasingly convinced as I've gotten older that it's not as necessary a classic text as most people make it out to be. If I can't handle that, then I was never going to be able to handle this, which handles the matter with much less direction. So, basically, the contents of Down There on a Visit do not sit particularly well with me, and that's the main reason why I liked it a lot less than I thought I would. I'm still not convinced that I've articulated this well, but hopefully the reasons for my discomfort come through clearly enough.
There are many good reasons to read Down There on a Visit. If any one Isherwood work exemplifies his style and concerns, it is this one, so, if you're interested in him as a writer at all, definitely give this one a read. It's also very pleasing open and frank about male homosexuality considering that it was written in 1962. Whilst it's not quite A Single Man, this incarnation of 'Christopher Isherwood' the narrator's honesty about his sex life still felt quite radical to me, so I'd say that this book is also well worth reading if you're at all interested in the evolution of gay literature. However, do be aware going into it that it is not perfect.
July 2, 2024
my roman empire
October 27, 2017
I first read this novel in 1980 on my way back from a trip to Europe. I marked very little, and, frankly, I don’t think I understood much of what Isherwood was talking about. I hadn’t yet studied literature in depth. I hadn’t studied Buddhism or the act of meditation. It meant little to me. This reading seemed richer, especially in light of the fact that I’ve read almost all the author’s works including his thousand-page Diaries, Volume One, 1939-60.
One of the main characters of Isherwood’s novel, Paul, scoffs at the character named Christopher Isherwood by saying: “You know, you really are a tourist, to your bones. I bet you’re always sending postcards with ‘Down here on a visit’ on them. That’s the story of your life . . . . (308). So, in effect, the novel is a threading together of four visits down there.
“Mr. Lancaster” begins in London, in 1928, when the character Isherwood is twenty-three and takes a voyage to northern Germany by way of a tramp steamer called the Coriolanus. He does this courtesy of one Mr. Lancaster, who becomes both like a father and a son to Isherwood. Lancaster dies at his own hands, it is conjectured, because of his impotence. And another character, Waldemar, makes his first appearance in the book, this section, which seems more like a short story than a novel segment.
The second part of the novel is “Ambrose,” a former mate of Isherwood’s at Cambridge (one supposes W. H. Auden is the model), who buys property on a Greek island, St. Gregory, and is in the process of building a house in this 1930 segment. He invites Isherwood and his Berliner companion, Waldemar, to venture down to visit. The only other inhabitants of the island are some scamps who, though working as laborers on the new house, also get into a lot of mischief as they head to the mainland each night. The island is rife with snakes, flies, and a host of other problems that probably only young men could tolerate. Yet the place is not without its charms:
The Ambrose story seems to chronicle the then universal loneliness of the homosexual. Now, however, since we are such a liberated group derived from such a liberated society, there exists is no such thing, right?
The “Waldemar” section of the novel is set in 1938 and begins on another boat, this time outside the Dover Harbour. Isherwood, the man, the author, has just returned from his 1938 trip to China with Auden. In this section, Auden is again the model for a different character, Hugh Weston. As character Isherwood and companion Dorothy step off the boat, whom should they run into but Waldemar! There would be no such thing called a novel without the idea of coincidence. Isherwood is terribly concerned with the concept of class and is horrified when on a visit to his family, they treat Waldemar as a low-class ragamuffin, instead of their son’s dear friend. Christopher is also very concerned with the lead-up to war in Germany. Waldemar begs Christoph to take him with him to the US, but Christopher says it is impossible. Yet Waldemar reappears once again!
In “Paul,” the fourth and final part of his novel, Isherwood moves to Los Angeles, the time 1940. He connects with a male prostitute, a gorgeous, highly paid young man who is really difficult to get to know, but Christopher tries. This section reflects Isherwood’s attempts to achieve a spiritual life by way of Buddhism. He makes an acquaintance with a swami, Augustus Parr, and, when Paul indicates that he would like to become more spiritual, the two connect, spend almost an entire day together. This section wears thin before the end, in which Paul, winds up returning to Europe and dying essentially of drug usage. Isherwood, the author, does a little too much deus ex machina to make things turn out easily for him, instead of allowing the story to end with a bit more conflict or complexity.
I think Down There on a Visit is in actually a collection of long stories more than it is a novel. Just because you refer to a character that appears earlier does not make it a novel. Even if Waldemar keeps reappearing in all four parts, one cannot necessarily call this work a novel. A novel is one large sweep of motion, with one climax. This one has four for each part, and then the author has, with great skill threaded the four of them together. I’m not criticizing the execution, exactly. I’m just saying it should have been sold as linked stories (though such a thing had not yet been marketed by the publishers at that time) or four novellas, but not as a novel. That said, one cannot praise Isherwood enough for his sense of lyricism and competence with the English language. They are always superb.
One of the main characters of Isherwood’s novel, Paul, scoffs at the character named Christopher Isherwood by saying: “You know, you really are a tourist, to your bones. I bet you’re always sending postcards with ‘Down here on a visit’ on them. That’s the story of your life . . . . (308). So, in effect, the novel is a threading together of four visits down there.
“Mr. Lancaster” begins in London, in 1928, when the character Isherwood is twenty-three and takes a voyage to northern Germany by way of a tramp steamer called the Coriolanus. He does this courtesy of one Mr. Lancaster, who becomes both like a father and a son to Isherwood. Lancaster dies at his own hands, it is conjectured, because of his impotence. And another character, Waldemar, makes his first appearance in the book, this section, which seems more like a short story than a novel segment.
The second part of the novel is “Ambrose,” a former mate of Isherwood’s at Cambridge (one supposes W. H. Auden is the model), who buys property on a Greek island, St. Gregory, and is in the process of building a house in this 1930 segment. He invites Isherwood and his Berliner companion, Waldemar, to venture down to visit. The only other inhabitants of the island are some scamps who, though working as laborers on the new house, also get into a lot of mischief as they head to the mainland each night. The island is rife with snakes, flies, and a host of other problems that probably only young men could tolerate. Yet the place is not without its charms:
“When we have eaten supper, we sit out in front of the huts, at the kitchen table, around the lamp, unhurriedly getting drunk. As soon as the lamp has been placed on the table, this becomes the center of the world. There is no one else, you feel, anywhere. Overhead, right across the sky, the Milky Way is like a cloud of firelit steam. After the short, furious sunset breeze, it gets so still that the night doesn’t seem external; it’s more like being in a huge room without a ceiling” (85).
The Ambrose story seems to chronicle the then universal loneliness of the homosexual. Now, however, since we are such a liberated group derived from such a liberated society, there exists is no such thing, right?
The “Waldemar” section of the novel is set in 1938 and begins on another boat, this time outside the Dover Harbour. Isherwood, the man, the author, has just returned from his 1938 trip to China with Auden. In this section, Auden is again the model for a different character, Hugh Weston. As character Isherwood and companion Dorothy step off the boat, whom should they run into but Waldemar! There would be no such thing called a novel without the idea of coincidence. Isherwood is terribly concerned with the concept of class and is horrified when on a visit to his family, they treat Waldemar as a low-class ragamuffin, instead of their son’s dear friend. Christopher is also very concerned with the lead-up to war in Germany. Waldemar begs Christoph to take him with him to the US, but Christopher says it is impossible. Yet Waldemar reappears once again!
In “Paul,” the fourth and final part of his novel, Isherwood moves to Los Angeles, the time 1940. He connects with a male prostitute, a gorgeous, highly paid young man who is really difficult to get to know, but Christopher tries. This section reflects Isherwood’s attempts to achieve a spiritual life by way of Buddhism. He makes an acquaintance with a swami, Augustus Parr, and, when Paul indicates that he would like to become more spiritual, the two connect, spend almost an entire day together. This section wears thin before the end, in which Paul, winds up returning to Europe and dying essentially of drug usage. Isherwood, the author, does a little too much deus ex machina to make things turn out easily for him, instead of allowing the story to end with a bit more conflict or complexity.
I think Down There on a Visit is in actually a collection of long stories more than it is a novel. Just because you refer to a character that appears earlier does not make it a novel. Even if Waldemar keeps reappearing in all four parts, one cannot necessarily call this work a novel. A novel is one large sweep of motion, with one climax. This one has four for each part, and then the author has, with great skill threaded the four of them together. I’m not criticizing the execution, exactly. I’m just saying it should have been sold as linked stories (though such a thing had not yet been marketed by the publishers at that time) or four novellas, but not as a novel. That said, one cannot praise Isherwood enough for his sense of lyricism and competence with the English language. They are always superb.
December 23, 2018
I finally read Down There on a Visit and I did enjoy it overall. As I have said 1000 times, his writing style is so enjoyable I think he could write about anything and I would enjoy it to some extent. I really enjoyed how this was broken down into sections based off of the main characters life. Also, this wrap up proves the point that you will not always love every book by an author you love and that is okay.
April 6, 2018
Another compelling pseudo-autobiography. The movement of time from the twenty three year old 'Isherwood' and his first exploration of Berlin to 'Isherwood' in the fifties in America, his grasping at spiritualism, his explorations of life, are fascinating. But really what's more fascinating is the story that he chooses to omit. The author is a viewer - the 'camera,' I suppose, that he refers to in the Berlin novels. But having read Christopher and His Kind it's rather fascinating to read this more constructed narrative and see how artfully Isherwood leaves his own sexual orientation out of the story. He's happy to discuss the sexuality of thinly disguised actual persons, but refers to his sexual partners with initials only, and no gender mentioned. Perhaps this was a wise move at that point in the twentieth century, but it's hard to reconcile this obfuscation with the proudly and openly gay man he presents himself as at other times. Most interesting is how he portrays 'Waldemar' through the filter of a woman who is going to marry him, when the reality of the affair was that 'Waldemar' was his partner. His tenderness for Waldemar shines through in the book, especially after they are separated by war and bureaucracy, and some of those passages feel like the most honest of the book. I would love to be able to read the book without this veil coming down between author and reader.
September 30, 2017
only gave it 2 stars cause the writing is not bad and i was interested in the WWII stuff (tho of course disgusted by the reactions of the characters to the war) ;here i was thinking I was going to read a book by an early liberatory gay icon and its just as racist and sexist as any other book by a rich europe-hopping white guy
June 6, 2022
Aside from the occasional shrugging of shoulders around bestiality, pedophilia, and racism, this was a gay little romp and I had a great time
May 16, 2017
Christopher Isherwood is not a household name. Personally, I had even forgotten that I owned this book. It is only after doing a little inspection on my bookshelves that I came across 'Down There on a Visit'. Fortunately, I managed to read the whole of it. How was it? I mistakenly pressed the one star button, but I was unable to change it. I wanted to give it a two stars. All in all, what am saying is that it was not for me.
The setting. It is set during world war two. The narrator takes us to different countries where we are able to witness the tension and fear before the war. It is not only the government that is affected but also individual lives.
The characters. Apart from Christoph there are a handful of other characters. They are Ambrose, Lancaster, Hack, Aleck, Paul, and Web..ter. The narrator tells us how the war has affected each ome of them.
Their relationships. They are friends and apart from that they participate in various sexual acts which at the time was considered immoral. Sex between men was outlawed prompting Ambrose to ask how the government planned to enforce the law. Would they have policemen watching over people's bedrooms in an attempt to prevent homosexual acts? It sounds impossible. In fact, they are unsuccessful in their relationships with memebers of the opposite sex and an example is Waldemar and Dorothy. In the end, Christoph is also engaged to Paul who has an erection disorder.
The war. The war takes them to very far places. They move from country to country with the aim of searching for happiness. They end up having to do with the evil around them. Some engage in Yoga so as to cope with their limitations and desires.
Conclusion. Christopher Isherwood is very popular in Europe. He is lauded especially for his book 'Good-by to Berlin'. I encourage you to give him a chance you never know what will come of it.
The setting. It is set during world war two. The narrator takes us to different countries where we are able to witness the tension and fear before the war. It is not only the government that is affected but also individual lives.
The characters. Apart from Christoph there are a handful of other characters. They are Ambrose, Lancaster, Hack, Aleck, Paul, and Web..ter. The narrator tells us how the war has affected each ome of them.
Their relationships. They are friends and apart from that they participate in various sexual acts which at the time was considered immoral. Sex between men was outlawed prompting Ambrose to ask how the government planned to enforce the law. Would they have policemen watching over people's bedrooms in an attempt to prevent homosexual acts? It sounds impossible. In fact, they are unsuccessful in their relationships with memebers of the opposite sex and an example is Waldemar and Dorothy. In the end, Christoph is also engaged to Paul who has an erection disorder.
The war. The war takes them to very far places. They move from country to country with the aim of searching for happiness. They end up having to do with the evil around them. Some engage in Yoga so as to cope with their limitations and desires.
Conclusion. Christopher Isherwood is very popular in Europe. He is lauded especially for his book 'Good-by to Berlin'. I encourage you to give him a chance you never know what will come of it.
September 24, 2023
What I love so much about Christopher Isherwood is the way that he simply depicts 1930s Berlin life and how the Nazis destroyed this budding Bohemian movement while largely refraining from remarking upon atrocities. His first-person protagonists -- in this case, a fictitious Christopher Isherwood -- somehow take a back seat to the larger-than-life characters who are still struggling to be eccentric and true to who they are. That's not an easy trick to pull off. And Isherwood's remarkable skill at detachment should be a lesson for today's younger writers, particularly as the United States moves closer to fascism. Obviously this approach is not for everyone. But if we want to know how people lived, then, yes, that means also documenting the pleasure seekers and those determined to live big even as bigger forces came rushing down. I mean, compare Isherwood with poor Stefan Zweig, who was rightly mortified by this. You could accuse Isherwood of being frivolous, flip, or detached, but I don't really feel this way about him. Framing Berlin from several different time periods -- which is the thrust of this book -- offers a unique perspective. It's also amusing to see "Christopher" attempt to make sense of various undated diary entries he wrote while completely blotto. Let us not forget that people still manage to live in dark times. And Isherwood's work is a welcome reminder of this.
January 17, 2021
Isherwood captures the essence of what I can only imagine 1940s teatime gossip atmospheres felt like. Similar to doomscrolling buzzfeed forums and Instagram wordrpress links, after three or four times, it's desperately hard to keep going.
The decadent lifestyle Isherwood maintains is magnetic no doubt, and this experimental autobiographic novel dazzles at times. At others, the prose stalls, jokes fall flat and the narrative is plain boring.
I imagine Isherwood would have been rather popular in modernity's progressive age. How this potentiality affects his craft and literature is a bit more difficult to place. As artifacts and snapshots of culture, his work is very much worth the read.
The decadent lifestyle Isherwood maintains is magnetic no doubt, and this experimental autobiographic novel dazzles at times. At others, the prose stalls, jokes fall flat and the narrative is plain boring.
I imagine Isherwood would have been rather popular in modernity's progressive age. How this potentiality affects his craft and literature is a bit more difficult to place. As artifacts and snapshots of culture, his work is very much worth the read.
June 26, 2024
But have I really changed underneath? Aren't I as irresponsible as ever, running away from the situation like this? Isn't it somehow a betrayal? I don't know . . . I'm bored with feeling guilty. And why should I feel guilty if I don't choose to? Who decides my guilt except myself?
As always, it is hard to rate a book that's based on the author's own life experience. I admit I had to stop reading for a couple weeks during the Ambrose chapter because I found it way too absurd, but I'm glad I picked it up again because I absolutely loved Paul's story - and I truly believe Isherwood is incapable of bad writing.
As always, it is hard to rate a book that's based on the author's own life experience. I admit I had to stop reading for a couple weeks during the Ambrose chapter because I found it way too absurd, but I'm glad I picked it up again because I absolutely loved Paul's story - and I truly believe Isherwood is incapable of bad writing.
September 3, 2020
2. Dünya Savaşı öncesi dönemde gençlik yıllarından başlayıp olgunluk dönemlerine uzanan otobiyografik olduğunu düşündüren bu roman, yazarın hayatına giren farklı marjinal kişilikler etrafında hikaye edilen savaş öncesi eli kolu bağlı kalma psikolojisini çok da güzel anlatan bir dönem romanı olarak okunursa edebi değerinin üstüne tarihi olma özelliğini de ekliyor.
August 6, 2022
Nette Einführung in das achillische Leben der 30er und 40er. Leider fehlte mir etwas die Handlung und die Spannung, weshalb ich mich stellenweise durch das Buch durchquälen musste.
June 26, 2020
Easy read. As always Christopher Isherwood provides real insight into the people he portrays. On the minus side it didn't have the humour of his other works.
June 11, 2019
I visited Gay's the word in London, and didn't feel like leaving without buying a book. I noticed the Isherwoods (never read anything by him before), asked for advice and ended up buying this one.
I certainly want more Isherwood after reading this. The characters are multifaceted and interesting, many of the dialogues and portrayals are funny, and at the bottom of it all there is a constant question of whether there is a point to it all.
It is interesting also to read the introduction by Philip Hensher, showing how the reception of this book was heavily influenced by straights not being able to see qualities of the book because of the gay (mostly bi, actually) characters. Now that straights have become more grown-up about this, more people will probably find this book fascinating...
I certainly want more Isherwood after reading this. The characters are multifaceted and interesting, many of the dialogues and portrayals are funny, and at the bottom of it all there is a constant question of whether there is a point to it all.
It is interesting also to read the introduction by Philip Hensher, showing how the reception of this book was heavily influenced by straights not being able to see qualities of the book because of the gay (mostly bi, actually) characters. Now that straights have become more grown-up about this, more people will probably find this book fascinating...
October 28, 2022
4-4.5
In the first volume of his diaries, Isherwood repeatedly mentions the difficulties he was having writing what became Down There On A Visit. The book had many different forms before he realized what he needed to do. Namely, he had to write about his own experiences in a slightly altered way.
As the character "Christopher Isherwood" says of himself in the beginning of this book, "To reassure himself, he converts [his life] into epic myth as fast as it happens. He is forever play acting." This is something the real Isherwood did. In fact, the Isherwood of this book is a very thinly-disguised version of the real one, and all of the characters and events are fictionalized versions of real people and events in his life. Some of this fictionalization is so slight that it is obvious who is who e.g. which characters are Isherwood's real life friends W.H. Auden or Gerald Heard. Some of it is more heavily disguised, because though in the 1950s Isherwood was pretty openly living as a gay man in California (he lived with his various boyfriends and toured the emerging gay scene), he didn't seem ready to write about it, even in a fictionalized form. But queerness is a major subtext throughout this book.
A lot of the characters here are awful people who do awful things. Sometimes Isherwood is strangely passive about this, as though he recognizes the wrongness of some of it but likes the drama of it all and wants to see what happens next. He wants experience and seems drawn to people who can offer it, even if the costs are high.
The book covers four stages of his life starting in 1928 and ending in 1953 and each section focuses on one or two significant male friendships that shaped him in some way. He starts off as a cocky young man rebelling against his privileged background, coming from a wealthy, landed family and having a Cambridge education. He ends the book as a man in his forties pulled in two directions, seeking a deeper, spiritual meaning to his life while also craving the pleasures of the world.
Having read his diaries, much of this was familiar to me, but it was fascinating to see what details Isherwood chose to alter and to compare a real person, as he wrote about them in his diaries, with his fictional version of them. At times this book felt like Isherwood trying to understand why certain people were so important to him at various times in his life.
Isherwood is very funny, often in a cutting, critical way. But he points his critical lens at himself as much as at others. He is just a really good storyteller, a great scene-setter. His observations about people and their motivations are sharp. I found much of this book funny. Some of this book is, not quite infuriating, but there were situations and dialog that are disturbing on various levels. You don't have to have read his diaries or be familiar with much of his life to enjoy this book.
In the first volume of his diaries, Isherwood repeatedly mentions the difficulties he was having writing what became Down There On A Visit. The book had many different forms before he realized what he needed to do. Namely, he had to write about his own experiences in a slightly altered way.
As the character "Christopher Isherwood" says of himself in the beginning of this book, "To reassure himself, he converts [his life] into epic myth as fast as it happens. He is forever play acting." This is something the real Isherwood did. In fact, the Isherwood of this book is a very thinly-disguised version of the real one, and all of the characters and events are fictionalized versions of real people and events in his life. Some of this fictionalization is so slight that it is obvious who is who e.g. which characters are Isherwood's real life friends W.H. Auden or Gerald Heard. Some of it is more heavily disguised, because though in the 1950s Isherwood was pretty openly living as a gay man in California (he lived with his various boyfriends and toured the emerging gay scene), he didn't seem ready to write about it, even in a fictionalized form. But queerness is a major subtext throughout this book.
A lot of the characters here are awful people who do awful things. Sometimes Isherwood is strangely passive about this, as though he recognizes the wrongness of some of it but likes the drama of it all and wants to see what happens next. He wants experience and seems drawn to people who can offer it, even if the costs are high.
The book covers four stages of his life starting in 1928 and ending in 1953 and each section focuses on one or two significant male friendships that shaped him in some way. He starts off as a cocky young man rebelling against his privileged background, coming from a wealthy, landed family and having a Cambridge education. He ends the book as a man in his forties pulled in two directions, seeking a deeper, spiritual meaning to his life while also craving the pleasures of the world.
Having read his diaries, much of this was familiar to me, but it was fascinating to see what details Isherwood chose to alter and to compare a real person, as he wrote about them in his diaries, with his fictional version of them. At times this book felt like Isherwood trying to understand why certain people were so important to him at various times in his life.
Isherwood is very funny, often in a cutting, critical way. But he points his critical lens at himself as much as at others. He is just a really good storyteller, a great scene-setter. His observations about people and their motivations are sharp. I found much of this book funny. Some of this book is, not quite infuriating, but there were situations and dialog that are disturbing on various levels. You don't have to have read his diaries or be familiar with much of his life to enjoy this book.
December 6, 2016
It really wasn't bad. I just know Isherwood can be so much better. It has been maybe a month or so since reading this book, and already I am forgetting some of the 'stories' included in this collection (this is a novel, but in form it feels more like a short story collection).
The one I found particularly memorable was the very first - the emotional revelations of Isherwood in his youth (as well as his reflections on these revelations as a grown adult) did not read as dated. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the very last story, where Isherwood descends into the murky depths of pacifism and American Zen-Buddhist thought. It felt more like looking at a curiosity than reading a novel: the meditation, the rhetoric... ALL of it - so far away and inauthentic (if I may) that at times it made me wince. But it wasn't bad. It wasn't bad. Just a bit silly. And the good thing is, Isherwood doesn't take himself entirely seriously either, so it is all redeemable.
The final thing I have to say about the book that makes it a genuine curiosity is (if I am guessing correctly) there are several passages where Isherwood describes E. M. Forster (called EM in the book). These passages made me sublimely happy, just because Isherwood's description so perfectly matches the vision I had of Forster in my head already. Personally I have always been interested in the relationship between the two (if you are interested as well, a significant portion of their correspondence has been published - it's quite enjoyable) so seeing it here, in a published novel, made me happy. Not to mention, in the current political climate, reading about Forster's response to the worsening situation in Britain right before WWII was strangely grounding.
The one I found particularly memorable was the very first - the emotional revelations of Isherwood in his youth (as well as his reflections on these revelations as a grown adult) did not read as dated. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the very last story, where Isherwood descends into the murky depths of pacifism and American Zen-Buddhist thought. It felt more like looking at a curiosity than reading a novel: the meditation, the rhetoric... ALL of it - so far away and inauthentic (if I may) that at times it made me wince. But it wasn't bad. It wasn't bad. Just a bit silly. And the good thing is, Isherwood doesn't take himself entirely seriously either, so it is all redeemable.
The final thing I have to say about the book that makes it a genuine curiosity is (if I am guessing correctly) there are several passages where Isherwood describes E. M. Forster (called EM in the book). These passages made me sublimely happy, just because Isherwood's description so perfectly matches the vision I had of Forster in my head already. Personally I have always been interested in the relationship between the two (if you are interested as well, a significant portion of their correspondence has been published - it's quite enjoyable) so seeing it here, in a published novel, made me happy. Not to mention, in the current political climate, reading about Forster's response to the worsening situation in Britain right before WWII was strangely grounding.
June 27, 2019
Down There on a Visit é um dos livros do Christopher Isherwood de que mais gostei, e já li alguns. Como nas suas obras mais populares, também este é escrito na primeira pessoa do singular, e o narrador chama-se Christopher. A narrativa é dividida em quatro partes, cada uma decorrendo em tempos e lugares diferentes, e dominada por uma personagem, que dá o nome ao capítulo. As diversas personagens correspondem a pessoas reais, e vão aparecendo ao longo de todo o livro, mas o verdadeiro protagonista é o próprio narrador.
Como se percebe, trata-se de uma obra fortemente autobiográfica, mas o truque de Isherwood, como acontece noutros livros seus, é tratar a sua biografia como uma ficção, de forma que ficção e não-ficção se tornam quase inestinguiveis.
Um dos aspectos interessantes desta obra, escrita antes de The Single Man, onde a homossexualidade é explícita e assumida, em DTOAV a condição sexual dos personagens nunca é mencionada ou explícita. No entanto, desde a primeira página que Isherwood não nos deixa ter a mínima dúvida, sendo aliás uma das obras do autor em que o tema da homossexualidade é mais determinante no evoluir da narrativa.
Como se percebe, trata-se de uma obra fortemente autobiográfica, mas o truque de Isherwood, como acontece noutros livros seus, é tratar a sua biografia como uma ficção, de forma que ficção e não-ficção se tornam quase inestinguiveis.
Um dos aspectos interessantes desta obra, escrita antes de The Single Man, onde a homossexualidade é explícita e assumida, em DTOAV a condição sexual dos personagens nunca é mencionada ou explícita. No entanto, desde a primeira página que Isherwood não nos deixa ter a mínima dúvida, sendo aliás uma das obras do autor em que o tema da homossexualidade é mais determinante no evoluir da narrativa.
July 30, 2021
I have a lot to say, get ready. Picking up where The Berlin Stories left off, the Christopher character in these stories goes from Berlin in the 30s to London, to Greece at the outset of World War II, to California in the 40s (which felt a lot like the 60s, I guess an indicator of the avant-garde circles he was running in), and then back to Berlin after the war. I really, really enjoyed this book, but didn't always really, really enjoy the character of Christopher this time around.
As much as I love Christopher Isherwood, the characters in Down There on a Visit were a little too selfish, a little too flippant about the war, even more so than in The Berlin Stories. He mostly cavorts with boundary pushing gay men, like Paul in California, who are really only interested in a good time. He also keeps company with some fascist-apologists along with several truly apolitical people, who may as well have been sleeping they were so unaware of world events. In America, it is easier to understand this unawareness, as they are an ocean away without the very obvious markers of fascism right in their faces (see: Dawn Powell.) But even in Europe, Christopher's friends just continue get blitzed and have orgies.
Politically, Christopher Isherwood is probably just left of center. He is sickened by what he overhears with his aristocratic, Nazi-sympathizing uncle Lancaster and continually sobered by what he sees in Berlin. But he rarely says anything to the people around him, and continues to live his rather frivolous life surrounded by them. He is intensely bothered by the Communists. Describing one boring British acquaintance in Greece, he calls her, "one of those upper-middle-class English girls who had caught communism like the flu. I think she really felt she wasn't worthy of her precious workers; they were purer, nobler, far more spiritually dans le vrai than she could ever hope to be. Also of course, she was using her new faith as an instrument of aggression against her family...this I found quite sympathetic." I actually saw a lot of 2021 divisions in this book. That specific kind of showy progressive is very familiar. The last line of that quote is also very indicative of Christopher's stance on just about everything: his only allegiance is to independence, folly, and light trouble making. If he were alive today, he would probably have very similar things to say about the right and the left in this country as he did in the 30s. In another criticism of the left, he writes:
"Fundamentally, I find Chamberlain and the other leaders of our side just as tiresome as Hitler; such people--their friends, their enthusiasms, their opinions, their hobbies, everything about them--are an obscene bore. If only they could all destroy each other in single combat!"
Huh. Strange isn't it? He always keeps you guessing. Sometimes, he's a misanthrope who doesn't seem to care about the stakes of the powder keg he finds himself in, and sometimes he writes the urgency of the situation so perfectly. Here's a good quote as he is escaping Berlin: "On this very train, there must be at least a few people in danger of their lives, traveling with false papers and in fear of being caught and sent to a concentration camp or simply killed outright. It is only int he past few weeks that I have fully grasped the fact that such a situation really exists--not in a newspaper or a novel--but here where I have been living." And he does stick it to the Nazis too. At one point, his good friend Waldemar, who throughout the book is painted as a the kind of German you want to have around, says to Christopher, "We Aryans have got to stick together," and then proceeds to use the N-word about some Greeks! Christopher concedes "I am sure he said this without thinking," then goes on to correctly prescribe the whole nation of the following disease: "That's the disgusting power of propaganda: the Nazis have scattered such millions of poisonous words around that you are apt to find one of them unexpectedly inside your own mouth." See what I mean? He obviously reviles Nazis but he has a way of going above the conflict altogether when it comes to interpersonal interactions instead of focusing on the actual fascist and racist ideology itself. Throughout this book and The Berlin Stories, he seems mostly interested in everyday people and how they respond to the ticking time bomb of the worst atrocities committed by humanity.
This is not an anecdote about Christopher but morbidly, it may as well be: "Some pathetic little man...killed himself after listening to Hitler's speech. He left a note: 'I've never been a hero. Selfish to the last.' " Christopher is not suicidal but he certainly has moments of existential dread and does a lot of things that are seen as selfish but have another, almost moral flavor to them, or at least betray his true feelings and distaste for the injustices he witnesses. Here's another quote: "I have made another discovery about myself and I don't care if that's humiliating or not...nothing, nothing, nothing is worth a war."
The last section, set in California, was by far my least favorite. So much so that I almost dropped this rating down to 3 stars. I hated Paul. He really gave gay men a bad name, who at the time were already spoken about in hushed whispers for pedophilia and other sexual deviancy. Paul was by far the most selfish in a very selfish cast of characters and oddly bragged openly about seducing and being seduced by a 12 year old girl, and had the very annoying affection of calling Christopher "Honey Chile." In this section, there is more orgies and debauchery, Christopher dabbles in meditation, but just about zero political talk. In the last few pages, Christopher goes back to Germany and visits with Waldemar in East Berlin and I was drawn right back in and gave the book 4 stars.
This book gave me SO much to think about. It was an amalgamation of all of his other books I have read (The Berlin Stores for Waldemar, and A Single Man could very easily have been Christopher's story twenty years after his flighty life in California following Paul around.) This was a good one.
As much as I love Christopher Isherwood, the characters in Down There on a Visit were a little too selfish, a little too flippant about the war, even more so than in The Berlin Stories. He mostly cavorts with boundary pushing gay men, like Paul in California, who are really only interested in a good time. He also keeps company with some fascist-apologists along with several truly apolitical people, who may as well have been sleeping they were so unaware of world events. In America, it is easier to understand this unawareness, as they are an ocean away without the very obvious markers of fascism right in their faces (see: Dawn Powell.) But even in Europe, Christopher's friends just continue get blitzed and have orgies.
Politically, Christopher Isherwood is probably just left of center. He is sickened by what he overhears with his aristocratic, Nazi-sympathizing uncle Lancaster and continually sobered by what he sees in Berlin. But he rarely says anything to the people around him, and continues to live his rather frivolous life surrounded by them. He is intensely bothered by the Communists. Describing one boring British acquaintance in Greece, he calls her, "one of those upper-middle-class English girls who had caught communism like the flu. I think she really felt she wasn't worthy of her precious workers; they were purer, nobler, far more spiritually dans le vrai than she could ever hope to be. Also of course, she was using her new faith as an instrument of aggression against her family...this I found quite sympathetic." I actually saw a lot of 2021 divisions in this book. That specific kind of showy progressive is very familiar. The last line of that quote is also very indicative of Christopher's stance on just about everything: his only allegiance is to independence, folly, and light trouble making. If he were alive today, he would probably have very similar things to say about the right and the left in this country as he did in the 30s. In another criticism of the left, he writes:
"Fundamentally, I find Chamberlain and the other leaders of our side just as tiresome as Hitler; such people--their friends, their enthusiasms, their opinions, their hobbies, everything about them--are an obscene bore. If only they could all destroy each other in single combat!"
Huh. Strange isn't it? He always keeps you guessing. Sometimes, he's a misanthrope who doesn't seem to care about the stakes of the powder keg he finds himself in, and sometimes he writes the urgency of the situation so perfectly. Here's a good quote as he is escaping Berlin: "On this very train, there must be at least a few people in danger of their lives, traveling with false papers and in fear of being caught and sent to a concentration camp or simply killed outright. It is only int he past few weeks that I have fully grasped the fact that such a situation really exists--not in a newspaper or a novel--but here where I have been living." And he does stick it to the Nazis too. At one point, his good friend Waldemar, who throughout the book is painted as a the kind of German you want to have around, says to Christopher, "We Aryans have got to stick together," and then proceeds to use the N-word about some Greeks! Christopher concedes "I am sure he said this without thinking," then goes on to correctly prescribe the whole nation of the following disease: "That's the disgusting power of propaganda: the Nazis have scattered such millions of poisonous words around that you are apt to find one of them unexpectedly inside your own mouth." See what I mean? He obviously reviles Nazis but he has a way of going above the conflict altogether when it comes to interpersonal interactions instead of focusing on the actual fascist and racist ideology itself. Throughout this book and The Berlin Stories, he seems mostly interested in everyday people and how they respond to the ticking time bomb of the worst atrocities committed by humanity.
This is not an anecdote about Christopher but morbidly, it may as well be: "Some pathetic little man...killed himself after listening to Hitler's speech. He left a note: 'I've never been a hero. Selfish to the last.' " Christopher is not suicidal but he certainly has moments of existential dread and does a lot of things that are seen as selfish but have another, almost moral flavor to them, or at least betray his true feelings and distaste for the injustices he witnesses. Here's another quote: "I have made another discovery about myself and I don't care if that's humiliating or not...nothing, nothing, nothing is worth a war."
The last section, set in California, was by far my least favorite. So much so that I almost dropped this rating down to 3 stars. I hated Paul. He really gave gay men a bad name, who at the time were already spoken about in hushed whispers for pedophilia and other sexual deviancy. Paul was by far the most selfish in a very selfish cast of characters and oddly bragged openly about seducing and being seduced by a 12 year old girl, and had the very annoying affection of calling Christopher "Honey Chile." In this section, there is more orgies and debauchery, Christopher dabbles in meditation, but just about zero political talk. In the last few pages, Christopher goes back to Germany and visits with Waldemar in East Berlin and I was drawn right back in and gave the book 4 stars.
This book gave me SO much to think about. It was an amalgamation of all of his other books I have read (The Berlin Stores for Waldemar, and A Single Man could very easily have been Christopher's story twenty years after his flighty life in California following Paul around.) This was a good one.
August 8, 2013
What luxury to have this book for company during my holiday. His travels, encounters and insights dwarf my own, but who cares? Isherwood is an exciting, even-handed and witty friend you can live through vicariously.
The 4 long short stories that make up this novel are mostly autobiographical, and what I admire most is how he never lets himself off the hook - he doesn't apply hindsight, or condemn those he didn't condemn at the time. He seems often much fairer about Waldemar, Ambrose and Paul than he is about himself.
I was amused, appalled and enlightened from start to finish. I can see myself returning to this novel again and again. What I would give to be able to write like Herr Issyvoo - but, since I can't, I will just delight in being able to appreciate his writing.
The 4 long short stories that make up this novel are mostly autobiographical, and what I admire most is how he never lets himself off the hook - he doesn't apply hindsight, or condemn those he didn't condemn at the time. He seems often much fairer about Waldemar, Ambrose and Paul than he is about himself.
I was amused, appalled and enlightened from start to finish. I can see myself returning to this novel again and again. What I would give to be able to write like Herr Issyvoo - but, since I can't, I will just delight in being able to appreciate his writing.
November 8, 2011
Isherwood's crisp, clear language, his flair for storytelling, and his keen eye for the details of eccentric personalities are all on display here in great abundance. Of course he's maddeningly reticent about divulging details concerning the love that dare not speak its name, but the book was written a long time ago. My favorite parts concerned Weimar Germany and an eccentric old poofter on a Greek isle, but Isherwood's such a terrific writer I even enjoyed the end of the book, where he delves into navel-gazing Eastern mysticism.
October 3, 2020
Tek Başına Bir Adam'ın yazarı, yine kendi hayatından tortularla bezeli bir roman. 1920'lerden 1950'lere varan bir zaman diliminde geçen Londra'dan başlayıp Berlin, Yunanistan, Paris ve California'ya uzanan bir hikaye. Dönemin en sancılı zamanlarını, 2.dünya savaşı öncesi ve sonrasını, yıkıcı etkilerini sıra dışı karakterler eşliğinde kozmopolit bir anlatımla yer veriyor romanda. Her zamanki gibi yazarla aynı adı taşıyan anlatıcı geçerken uğradığı duraklar misali anlatıyor kahramanlarını. Dönemin sanat, edebiyat ve sinema dünyasını da içine alan hayatlara ışık tututor.
June 12, 2014
As with Goodbye to Berlin this isn't so much a novel as a collection of fictionalized autobiographical pieces. The unifying element being the character Waldemar, however, in real life he wasn't a single person but a series of German youths. For me the Ambrose section was the most interesting, it is loosely based on Isherwood's stay on the island of Saint Nikolas with Francis Turville-Petrie who was attempting to establish a homosexual anarchist commune there.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews