The Year of Reading Proust discussion

This thread is for the discussion that will take place through Sunday, 7 July of Sodom and Gomorrah, to page 82 (to the paragraph beginning: “In the ordinary course of life...”)

Very intelligent and modern way of introducing homsexuality. All in the context of botanics, genetics, and “natural” self-regultory mechanisms. This follows the close look at the institution formed by the Duke and the Duchess of Guermantes, a marriage between first-cousins, and also after the Narrator’s comment that the word “naturel”, as well as “sélection” had acquired a different meaning after Darwin.

So, we now have more background or information about the duel or duels in which the Narrator has been engaged. This was first mentioned when Albertine was impressed by the social “quality” of the Narrator’s witnesses in a duel in which he had participated. Until then there had been nothing in Proust’s text that could have indicated that the Narrator could have been involved in something as serious and dramatic as a duel. By the end of the nineteenth century duels had become more of a formality amongst gentlemen--it really only almost stopped with WWI. But given that it was illegal, and even if they had by then become more of a coded show of honor, they were still disturbing episodes.

So far we were still reading that our Narrator was finally allowed by his parents to go to the theatre on his own. And as our Narrator, in his account, had remained an observant in the whole Dreyfus debate, we could not even have known what could have been the reason for duel mentioned by Albertine, nor against whom had he fought it. The incident came as a surprise; it seemed so unlikely. But as black swans do exist --claims to low probability should not be confused with impossibility--, now we get to hear that the Narrator has been engaged in not one, but several duels. And all are related to his opinion on the Dreyfus affair. We still do not know who his adversaries have been.

And Proust's record sentence: his longest.

It's the one that starts: "Sans honneur que précaire, sans liberté que provisoire jusqu'à la découverte du crime:"

Their honour precarious, their liberty provisional, lasting only until the discovery of their crime;..

In my copy it runs over two pages.

I'm excited to start reading the book and read along everyone's helpful posts on it. I tried reading it several years ago and set it aside after 75 pages. Here's to the second time around :)

Welcome Natacha, good to have you on board.

We're back to the age question again, aren't we? When on earth did this very young man have time to take part in several duels?

100 years ago it was revolutionary to write of pederasty, even Montesquieu warned Proust in a 1913 letter about including the scene that depicted Mlle Vinteuil and her lover, but there is a cost to the homogenization that we see with the acceptance in the United States of gay marriage and that toll is that New York (and probably San Francisco where I lived in the 70's) was stripped of its party atmosphere, particularly the celebration of gay culture that used to exist here in the West Village and later in Chelsea. Michel Foucault loved New York for the gay bars in the meat packing district which are now closed and home to boutiques like Stella McCartney's.

New York was a mecca for homosexuality (and other counter culture ideas); now it's become more quiet, rather boring in fact. There is no reason to come here any longer; you can be openly gay in Cleveland and marry even.

As with all good things there is a cost.

I am sometimes appalled at myself for accepting this Narrator. Think about the opening of this novel and his SPYING. Pretty low, isn't he? A peeping Tom?

And I have been pulled right along with him into the same behavior -- virtually, of course -- yet, really, my prurient curiosity is no different from his. I am just as slimy. Skulking around.

It is intriguing to find myself already so implicated in this peeping Tom behavior in a novel that is going to ask some questions about the morality of human behavior. Already, in the opening pages, I find I don't have a leg to stand on.

Cassian wrote: And I have been pulled right along with him into the same behavior...

But reading is a peeping, all reading.

Kalliope: re the Narrator's adversaries; I would think they would have been anti-Drefusards. Just thought of this: compare the Dreyfus case to Vietnam, as a way of dividing the same society into two vitriolic camps.

Eugene wrote: "but there is a cost..."

Well, New York's loss is the rest of the world's gain. (At least the rest of the Western world.) We have a whole series of Christopher Street Days all round the country here. Gay Pride last week in Toronto - and that travels too. There are still people who need confronting with their own prejudices. It was too easy to ignore the twenty per cent when they were hidden away.

What a tease! I thought for a moment there we were going to get the narrator's name! When he's announced at the princess's soirée. But no.

Kal's not here, so I'll do the honours.

Édouard Detaille (1848-1912)
Le Rêve.
The description from Wiki says: "Conscripts of the Third Republic dream of their predecessors' glory."

And by the way, my notes inform me that Aldous Huxley was the grandson of Thomas, and not his nephew.
Huxley appears on page 38 of my Gallimard folio Classique edition.

Goodness! I am being addressed!

Karen wrote: There are still people who need confronting with their own prejudices.

Yes indeed.

Being wistful about New York as the Narrator was being wistful about Paris in the last pages of Swann's Way and thinking about "wistful", I see that I may be guilty of a misstatement last night in the discussion that concludes The Guermantes Way. I said that the older narrator had no "corporal dimensions". If you see this wistful walk in the bois as taken by the older Narrator then I am wrong; but, as I suspect, I am only partially wrong because at the time of this walk the younger Narrator and the older Narrator have become one and the same.

Now to the subject in hand, Sodom and Gomorrah:

But the second sort seek out those women who love other women, who can procure for them a young man, enhance the pleasure they experience in his company; better still, they can, in the same fashion, take with such women the same pleasure as with a man. ML p. 30

Having read ISOLT before, knowing roughly what happens, this quote is a discovery of this reading, it becomes a signpost for me and a statement to remember and to verify as I read forward.

Aside from the story, this statement fuels one side of the debate as to whether Proust was bisexual.

Eugene wrote: "Cassian wrote: And I have been pulled right along with him into the same behavior...

But reading is a peeping, all reading."

Very interesting about the spying or peeping. It also makes the narrator a kind of detective. In Gothic or genteel mysteries of the period the detective will see or hear things clandestinely, and often equally implausibly, to solve the mystery. The narrator in ISOLT is solving mysteries of the heart.

In this period writers would have their genteel detectives apologize for their bad manners but justify them by the greater need to capture the killer. In ISOLT The narrator doesn't apologize for his behavior because his scientific inquiries into the infinitely varying nature of how humans express sexuality and love require it. Proust wasn't much for light reading but Poe or Wilkie Collins might get in there. Balzac definitely wrote about his great criminal (Rastignac) and great detective.

Hello everyone. Writing from Paris. Taking a break now after a great deal of walking and a Berthillon icecream.

Got myself Proust's Correspondances at the Fnac yesterday.

I have just updated the change of volumes in the groups's page and pushed up the current discussion.

Karen, thank you for the picture. I will fall a bit behind the reading, though.

Elizabeth wrote: "Kalliope: re the Narrator's adversaries; I would think they would have been anti-Drefusards. Just thought of this: compare the Dreyfus case to Vietnam, as a way of dividing the same society into t..."

Yes, I do imagine they were anti-Dreyfusards but he has not given the names.

Kalliope wrote: "Very intelligent and modern way of introducing homsexuality. All in the context of botanics, genetics, and “natural” self-regultory mechanisms. This follows the close look at the institution form..."

I like the botanical metaphor. As far as reading as peeping and the role of the Narrator in spying on the scene, I was wondering why Proust used the Narrator's voice as opposed to the omniscient voice, which would have precluded any judgment on our part. Didn't Proust use the Narrator's voice precisely for us to make these comments?

On page 18 (MKE) it says: " Each man's vice ( we use the term for linguistic convenience) accompanies him after the manner of the tutelary spirit who was invisible to men as long as they were unaware of his presence." Who added the parenthesis part? Proust or Moncrieff et al? I wonder is this different in other editions? What does it say in French?

Then there was a reference that I didn't understand : "Sons of the Indre"(page 25). Indre is a region in France, but what is its significance?

Also ... "cases of inversion in history, taking pleasure in recalling that Socrates was one of themselves as the Jews claim that Jesus was one of them."( page 22). I didn't understand this. Was it a reference to Socratic inversion :"If something is not a bat, then it is not a mammal."
Can someone please explain this part to me.

ReemK10 wrote: On page 18 (MKE) it says: " Each man's vice ( we use the term for linguistic convenience) accompanies him after the manner of the tutelary spirit who was invisible to men as long as they were unaware of his presence."

Le vice (on parle ainsi pour la commodité du langage), le vice de chacun l'accompagne à la façon de ce génie qui était invisible pour les hommes tant qu'ils ignoraient sa présence. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15288/...

In this volume Proust has narration (speakers) that he never or rarely uses in previous volumes; having finished this week's reading I plan to reread the first portion on inversion paying attention to who is speaking. It seems that what is in the parenthesis above is directed at the reader which is unusual.

Sons of the Indre?

Interesting that "...the Jews claim that Jesus was one of them." (an invert)

Marcel Proust wrote: "All this," the reader will remark, "tells us nothing as to the lady's failure to oblige...

This begins an imaginary conversation with the reader that ends with

"Well, did Mme d'Arpajon introduce you to the Prince?" No, but be quiet and let me go on with my story. ML p. 69-70

Who is talking? The "reader" references the youth of his conversationalist (the young Narrator), "...young as you were (or as your hero was, if he isn't you)..." ["you...hero...you"???] and that's another question for later.

There seems to be a potpourri of narrational voices here: the older Narrator who the conversationalist excuses to the "reader" for his previous digressions on memory. With the pages on inversion (I must reread them) that come before this, I think Proust is speaking so why not here. And then the ambiguity of the ending words: "my story"--whose story?--Proust's?, the younger Narrator's, the older Narrator's?

Then to complicate matters further, the novel lapses into an omniscient 3rd person narration of Mme de Arpajon's thoughts in the paragraph that follows as the "story" is continued.

Eugene wrote: "Karen wrote: There are still people who need confronting with their own prejudices.

Yes indeed.
...

Aside from the story, this statement fuels one side of the debate as to whether Proust was bisexual."

Or perhaps homo dreaming of being hetero, or hetero dreaming of being homo, or maybe even a virgin dreaming of being ANYthing! Or is it an established fact that Proust was, what we would call, most ineptly, homosexual?

ReemK10 (Paper Pills) wrote: "...Also ... "cases of inversion in history, taking pleasure in recalling that Socrates was one of themselves as the Jews claim that Jesus was one of them."( page 22). I didn't understand this. Was it a reference to Socratic inversion :"If something is not a bat, then it is not a mammal."
Can someone please explain this part to me.
"

I think its a reference to the facts that Socrates was a homosexual, Jesus was a Jew, & Constitutional Inversion has unleashed homosexuality in the U.S..

(Yea! You Guys have finally reached a point in your reading that I can still remember, so you can look forward to ever so many more pithy observations like this to come from now on!)

Jack wrote: Or is it an established fact that Proust was homosexual?

But that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead, Christopher Marlowe The Jew of Malta, 1592

Nobody really knows but his bed partners.

ReemK10 wrote: I think its a reference to the facts that Socrates was a homosexual & Jesus was a Jew.

That's true...

Eugene wrote: "In this volume Proust has narration (speakers) that he never or rarely uses in previous volumes; having finished this week's reading I plan to reread the first portion on inversion paying attention to who is speaking. It seems that what is in the parenthesis above is directed at the reader which is unusual.
"

I think he's announcing to us readers that he's finally figured out what he wants to do with all his collected musings. Has he come to terms w his homosexuality? Pro or con? Is it an epiphany? Inquiring minds want to know.

(P.S. Get some sleep first, Eugene, I've been misquoted in this group enough already!.)

Eugene wrote: "Marcel Proust wrote: "All this," the reader will remark, "tells us nothing as to the lady's failure to oblige...

This begins an imaginary conversation with the reader that ends with

"Well, did Mm..."

Isn't it interesting that, just as we, the readers, have lately been feeling a definite commitment to finishing the entire Recherche, (that was my experience on finishing Du Côté des Guermantes in any case), that Proust finally acknowledges our existence, places us firmly within the text, dialogues with us in such a playful way.
And I love how he points out the advantages we insomniacs have over those who fall asleep as soon as their heads hit the pillow, and scarcely know that they sleep.
There are so many comments I'd like to make on this section but some of them have been made very eloquently already. However, the scene in the Guermantes garden reminded me of a children's game where the narrator was like an object being passed from one to another until he finally ends up at the Prince's feet.
I have more to add but will do so later as I'm traveling at the moment and depending on wifi...

Eugene wrote: "There seems to be a potpourri of narrational voices here: the older Narrator who the conversationalist excuses to the "reader" for his previous digressions on memory. .... "my story"--whose story?--Proust's?, the younger Narrator's, the older Narrator's?


I laughed out loud at my first pass through this section, not only for the reasons you mention (who? what? me? you talkin' to me? who are you?) but for the rapid flow from 1st to 2nd to 3rd person... one can see why Proust ran into so much resistance with this novel: it doesn't follow the rules.

But memory doesn't follow rules. The attempt to recapture the past sends us through a crazy torrent--scenes like this are golden nuggets for me. It's how I remember time, and how I reminisce. A pause. A question to someone--my old self perhaps--then a return to the musing.

Martin wrote: But memory doesn't follow rules. The attempt to recapture the past sends us through a crazy torrent--scenes like this are golden nuggets for me. It's how I remember time, and how I reminisce. A pause. A question to someone--my old self perhaps--then a return to the musing.

You have it! And you said it so well and simply. You explain Proust's narrative technique,

Eugene: an imaginary conversation with the reader.

This so reminds me of what Laurence Sterne does (far more extensively) in Tristram Shandy, one of the funniest novels in the English language.

Eugene wrote: "ReemK10 wrote: I think its a reference to the facts that Socrates was a homosexual & Jesus was a Jew.

That's true..."

Jack actually said this. Reading your explanations, I went back to reread this section. The words recall and claim stand out this time. There is no definitive proof. They are arguable. More importantly he goes on to say, and maybe I should have extended my quote earlier, "without reflecting that there were no abnormal people when homosexuality was the norm, no anti-Christians before Christ..." I think Proust was trying to get the reader to question the logic behind the definition and reference of the category "they are a race". I think this part is significant when he says " those who remained obdurate to every warning, to every example, to every punishment, by virute of an innate disposition so peculiar that it is more repugnant to other men (even though it may be accompanied by high moral qualities) than certain other vices which exclude those qualities such as theft, cruelty,breach of faith, vices better understood and more readily excused by the generality of men." (MKE22-23)

Proust wants us to question our premises.

I feel that there are going to be sections in this volume that may touch upon topics that may be very sensitive to some, and because I was the one involved in the last misunderstanding, I think I should be the one to bring this up. We have to agree that we are reading for understanding, and that to do so we may need to venture into what may be hurtful territory. I've been called the canary in the coal mine. I don't mind going into the mine and bringing up these topics. I certainly don't want to hurt anyone. Let's not be afraid of trying to have an open discussion.

ReemK10 (Paper Pills) wrote: "Eugene wrote: "ReemK10 wrote: I think its a reference to the facts that Socrates was a homosexual & Jesus was a Jew.

That's true..."

Jack actually said this. Reading your explanations, I went bac..."

I agree with you, Reem, as does everyone else I am sure. Proust indeed wants us to question our premises.

I was quite confused as to which voice was speaking to us but the overall feeling that I have of those pages is that of a fairly neutral observer describing the scene with the same interest as he had described the orchid and the bumblebee. Did I miss any kind of underlying moralizing stance?

Reemk10, I think there was a moralizing stance, but it was a positive one...when the Narrator speaks of the "strange beauty" of Jupien's encounter with Charlus, it's pretty clear how he feels.

@Jack

Proust + bisexuality

http://www.google.com/search?client=s...

Marcel Proust wrote: Blinking his eyes in the sunlight, he seemed almost to be smiling, and I found in his face seen thus in repose and as it were in its natural state something so affectionate, so defenseless, that I could not help thinking how angry M. de Charlus would have been could he have known that he was being watched; for what was suggested to me by the sight of this man who was so enamored of, who so prided himself upon, his virility, to whom all other men seemed odiously effeminate, what he suddenly suggested to me, to such an extent had he momentarily assumed the features, the expression, the smile thereof, was a woman. ML p. 5

This last part of this compound sentence is called a period (made famous by Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106 BC-43 BC) where the sense of the sentence is not completed until the final word is uttered, to mention one of its many syntactic marvels.

Elizabeth wrote: "Reemk10, I think there was a moralizing stance, but it was a positive one...when the Narrator speaks of the "strange beauty" of Jupien's encounter with Charlus, it's pretty clear how he feels."

I think you are right, Elizabeth. I bet by 'moralizing' I meant negative and the impression I had was either more neutral or slightly positive but not negative.

"For one thing this Don Quixote had tilted against so many windmills..."(MKE 72) What does this expression mean?

As Kalliope is not here. I will do the honors:

The famous Hubert Robert Fountain (MKE 75): either it's this:

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/...

or maybe it's this:

http://www.jimandellen.org/HubertRobe...

Eugene wrote: "@Jack

Proust + bisexuality
http://www.google.com/search?client=s..."

Oh yes, something new? Bisexuality and Cubism.

ReemK10 (Paper Pills) wrote: ""For one thing this Don Quixote had tilted against so many windmills..."(MKE 72) What does this expression mean?

As Kalliope is not here. I will do the honors:

The famous Hubert Robert Fountain (..."

I'd say it's definitely the latter. It fits the story better. How could Mme d’Arpajon be sprayed by that small well? The geysir is far more impressive.
Also, Hubert Robert is only the painter's name of picture 1, not the name of the fountain itself.
BTW What a beautiful romantic scenery.

Reem wrote: "For one thing this Don Quixote had tilted against so many windmills..."(MKE 72) What does this expression mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_...

Eugene wrote: "Reem wrote: "For one thing this Don Quixote had tilted against so many windmills..."(MKE 72) What does this expression mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_..."

Thanks Eugene, that's a super cool idiom that I hope to put to use! I haven't read Don Quixote, yet! In a minute there is time...

@Iselin, I wasn't sure as it says, " It could be seen from a distance, slender, motionless, rigid, set apart in a clearing surrounded by fine trees, several of which were as old as itself, only the lighter fall of its pale and quivering plume stirring in the breeze." (MKE 75)

We'll have to wait for the Priestess of Proust to verify which one. ;)

Don Quixote, I think, refers to Charlus, and the Narrator's nervous attempts to get introduced to his host; to his surprise, Charlus is fairly friendly (especially considering their last interview!). The Narrator is saying that Charlus' ability to say Who sees Who, Who is admitted Where, is beginning to wane from overuse. Don Quixote himself went galloping, lance (or his substitute) in hand, at local windmills, thinking they were knights and he was in the Middle Ages. Charlus is kind of in the Middle Ages, too, so it's a great comparison.

Iselin wrote: "ReemK10 (Paper Pills) wrote: ""For one thing this Don Quixote had tilted against so many windmills..."(MKE 72) What does this expression mean?

As Kalliope is not here. I will do the honors:

The f..."

THey are both very romantic, aren't they? I would tend to agree with Iselin that it is the second one.

Eugene wrote: "Reem wrote: "For one thing this Don Quixote had tilted against so many windmills..."(MKE 72) What does this expression mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_..."

THank you for this, Eugene. I always love to hear the origin of an expression.

Elizabeth wrote: "Don Quixote, I think, refers to Charlus, and the Narrator's nervous attempts to get introduced to his host; to his surprise, Charlus is fairly friendly (especially considering their last interview!..."


I like your editorial comment "especially considering..." I might have held a little resentment myself if anyone had treated my hat the way our Narrator did in his little outburst!

Jocelyne wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Don Quixote, I think, refers to Charlus, and the Narrator's nervous attempts to get introduced to his host; to his surprise, Charlus is fairly friendly (especially considering the..."

"I might have held a little resentment myself if anyone had treated my hat the way our Narrator did in his little outburst!"

Back to biography, my weakness:

Proust destroyed Bertrand de Fénelon's hat.
"Proust in Love" by William C. Carter
http://books.google.fr/books?id=UnG0j...

It's 93F in New York; I'll take a taxi with the windows down up to the Met to look at Cezanne for an hour; his still life makes me think of Proust.