Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Due to my personal schedule I am posting this week's discussion a little earlier than scheduled.

Vol 1: Ch.13 – Tristram predicts with confidence that maps will be included at the end of the 20th volume of his concise work. Is this a humorous boast or a threat? What do we make of his opinion on a persons importance compared to their sphere of influence and by the other criteria of profession, knowledge and ability, i.e., their merit.

Ch.14 – He seems to be saying when he writes too seriously, he gets bogged down in the details and thus he decides to write at a more leisurely pace.

Ch.15 - Talk about details slowing things down, he gives an account of all the legal details of his mother’s marriage settlement. I believe the gist of this is that his mother is entitled to travel to London at his father’s expense to give birth to their children, except when she is penalized for faking or having false pregnancy. His mother having a false pregnancy just prior to Tristram’s birth causes the penalty clause to go into effect so Tristram’s birth is doomed to occur in the country. The legalese of the marriage agreement is used as a bit hyperbolic humor – poking fun at the excessive details and the loopholes they invite.

Ch.16 – Apparently that first trip to London was unpleasant due to his father’s complaining.

Ch.17 – We are told his father Walter is virtuous and thus obstinately invoked the marriage clause on principle enforcing the country birth of their next pregnancy.

Ch.18 – The country birth starts a disagreement between his parents about who will attend to the birth in the country. His mother, to Tristram’s admiration, sticks to her desire to use the midwife previously mentioned against his father wanting a male doctor. The mother wins the argument against his father, despite the fact that persuasion hung upon his lips.

Who is Jenny?

Ch.19 – We hear Walter's opinion on names. His argument that names are important in determining how a child will develop still seems to hold a lot weight today. I wonder what he would think about a boy named Sue? The funny part to me was that Tristram was deemed worse than, Nick, ie., the devil.

Ch.20 – Here Tristram chastises a reader, referring to her as Madam, to go back and read the entire last chapter for the clearly provided clue that his mother was not catholic. While the reader is away looking Tristram hopes other readers pay more attention and think when they read. Now it seems details are important. When said reader returns Tristram reveals the clue was in the very last sentence inferring he was not christened until after he was born, while apparently catholic children are able to be christened before they are born and we get a whole lot of French to back this up. By way of a much needed footnote we learn the culmination of the joke is Tristram proposal to:

baptize the homunculi while they are still in the male, by means of ‘a little injection-pipe’, if it can be done without harm to the father!

So we're up to Chapter 20 and the author of this supposed autobiography is not yet quite born. He better pick up the pace pretty soon or 20 volumes will not be enough. Doesn't he say somewhere in this section that he intends to produce two chapters per year indefinitely?

Tristram identified his father as being "somewhere between fifty and sixty years of age" on the night of the clock winding incident.

I’m delighted by how funny much of this still is. And amused by how his father “wins” the argument over who will attend Tristram’s birth—he gets to sit and drink with his choice of advisor and to pay him a large sum for doing nothing while the midwife attends his mother just as she wanted.

Roger wrote: "So we're up to Chapter 20 and the author of this supposed autobiography is not yet quite born. He better pick up the pace pretty soon or 20 chapters will not be enough. Doesn't he say somewhere in ..."

We must be in this one for the journey as a destination seems to be beyond the bounds of probability I suppose there is a point or two to consider in the likelihood he will die of old age before he runs out of things to say, benignly humorous or not. Art imitating life for one, and one brief candle of a time, in all its unique circumstances, to say it in for another.

Susan wrote: "I’m delighted by how funny much of this still is. And amused by how his father “wins” the argument over who will attend Tristram’s birth—he gets to sit and drink with his choice of advisor and to p..."

I'm also finding it funny. I love his tongue-in-cheek humor and the manner in which he takes jibes at his father.

I had to skip the last couple of pages in French because the French I took in high school is extremely rusty. So I didn't even try to figure it out.

I think I'm enjoying this because I'm not anticipating any kind of logic to his ramblings. I'm approaching this with the attitude of listening in on someone who spouts whatever comes into his head without rhyme or reason. I can follow his argument some times. And that's when I enjoy his sarcasm and sense of humor. But I have no clue where he is going at other times. I've opted to throw caution to the wind and enjoy the ride.

I echo David's sentiment in #7. It's a question of enjoying the journey.

Tamara wrote: "I love his tongue-in-cheek humor and the manner in which he takes jibes at his father...."

I had to skip the last couple of pages in French

I wonder if the jibes at the father are from Sterne alone. I get the sense that in explaining his father to the world that Tristram loves and supports him, despite lamenting is status in the world several times now. In reference to his father's opinion on names affecting the outcome of the person they are given to Tristram claims:

I never knew a man able to answer this argument.

This would entail Tristram himself, whose name he was apparently so against, could not negate his father's argument. How would we answer that argument, today? Does anyone here disagree with it? If this is a fact, does the opinion bother us more than the thing itself? Is it an awkward truth?

Not wanting to mess with the controls while driving, I ended up listening to the French portions in their entirety in my car several times. Each time I listened I picked up more and more root words and began to wonder if it was some kind of English spoken in a bad or even a fake French accent - probably not. I won't claim to understand it, but I did pick up enough to know the subject of christening by injection (in-situ?), although without the editors note I would not have got the joke at the end about christening the male's sperm before they fertilize anything.

I am finding the annotations in my edition crucial to my understanding and enjoyment this work.

David wrote: "Roger wrote: "So we're up to Chapter 20 and the author of this supposed autobiography is not yet quite born. He better pick up the pace pretty soon or 20 chapters will not be enough. Doesn't he say..."

This book reminds me of the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother". Is he going to keep building up and postponing to finally move on to the story of his life in the very end of the book? :-) With that sitcom I enjoyed the journey much more than the actual final destination.

David wrote: "Not wanting to mess with the controls while driving, I ended up listening to the French portions in their entirety in my car several times. Each time I listened I picked up more and more root words and began to wonder if it was some kind of English spoken in a bad or even a fake French accent - probably not. I won't claim to understand it, but I did pick up enough to know the subject of christening by injection (in-situ?), although without the editors note I would not have got the joke at the end about christening the male's sperm before they fertilize anything. ..."

I lived in Paris and Geneve for a while and I would like to listen to the audiiobook. Did you get it in audible? Which narrator?

Borum wrote: "I would like to listen to the audiiobook. Did you get it in audible? Which narrator? m..."

I answered your questions in a new post in the reading schedule topic here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Tamara wrote: "I echo David's sentiment in #7. It's a question of enjoying the journey."

I am also reminded of Alexis de Tocqueville's comments on the practical American attitude of wanting to get to the point and make it simple, and how this book might not fit in with those matching that characterization. Who has the time to suffer a jester? Maybe we should make the time.

David wrote: "Who has the time to suffer a jester? Maybe we should make the time. ..."

At the peril of being not apolitical enough, I'll take the risk of asking, do we have a choice?

Maybe a difference we should consider is that TS plays a jester more than he plays a fool.

I have enjoyed this journey, though I believe my level of French (a zero one) has deprived me of a significant part of this fun.

His father was an interesting personage. Being his son is itself source for dramatic life, I can't say anything about being his wife, but it should be an experience.

As the story goes, I wonder if we will ever know who is Jenny?

Cphe wrote: "There doesn't seem to be any "cattiness" for want of a better word in his observations. Seems more "playful" than anything."

But deeply penetrating of the issues of the time and towards those Sterne considered his equals?

Cphe wrote: "We can't be sure though that he was a reliable narrator though can we?"

Does a source have to be "reliable" to be penetrating? Isn't the "playfulness" you suggest sometimes quite effective and able to reach its intention?

Cphe wrote: "Yes of course, I was thinking along the lines of earlier in the novel when TS was just a twinkle in his fathers eye."

(Smiling!)

I just discovered that Candide (Voltaire) was published in 1759. Earlier tonight I had noted this passage at the end of Chapter IX, Book 1 (designation in my Heritage Press edition): "Bright Goddess, If thou art not too busy with Candid and Miss Cunegund's affairs--take Tristram Shandy's under thy protection also."

I guess that suggests Sterne was aware of the current best sellers of his day? (As best I can tell, the "Bright Goddess" is the moon -- not sure I've figured out why that allusion yet.)

Lily wrote: "(As best I can tell, the "Bright Goddess" is the moon -- not sure I've figured out why that allusion yet.)."

The moon was considered the source of inspiration for poets and artists.

Tamara wrote: "Lily wrote: "(As best I can tell, the "Bright Goddess" is the moon -- not sure I've figured out why that allusion yet.)."

The moon was considered the source of inspiration for poets and artists."

Thx, Tamara!

Late to the party but I'm having so much fun with the novel I couldn't resist sharing a few early impressions and thoughts.

I prefer style to plot. I can read a book with no discernable plot or clear structure so long as the author has style, whereas the greatest plot in the world will slip up if the style is off. Sterne's style is a breath of fresh air. The "unforseen stoppages" he mentions, though ostensibly unplanned, have hinted at something vitally important to the author, that is, "not to be in a hurry." This tanegential meandering full of distractions, awkwardly long hyphens and constant reveries on all sorts of Eighteenth Century miscellany isn't incidental to the plot, it is the plot. Style becomes plot here, a bit like how a poet will set out their poem in a certain visual way so illustrate something beyond the words themselves, Sterne is raising grammar, language (whether its French, Greek or legal) and even printing to the foreground. In doing so he creates this philosophy that seems so at odds with so much art nowadays (in books, reading, film etc.) that is so eager to get to the point and be in-the-know.

This kind of writing, in which the reader is robbed of certainty brought to mind the philosophy of Nietzsche who, from what I can gather, was a fan of Sterne. Namely, Sterne seems to speak to Nietzsche's opposition to philosophical systems, the latter being represented in the book by Tristram's Dad:
"he was systematical, and, like all systematick reasoners, he would move both heaven and earth, and twist and torture every thing in nature to support his hypothesis."
There's are other elements in the book that could very well have had an influence on Nietzsche. As of Chapter XIX we've had two characters presented that seem to be philosophically opposed, i.e. Yorick and Walter. Yorick struck me as a "holy fool" (Shandy says in ch. XIX vive la Bagatelle, or, long live trifles, or, foolery) who, like Nietzsche, was opposed to gravity, that is, all seriousness, the latter being again represented by Walter about whom Shandy says: "In a word, I repeat it over again;- he was serious."

The above quote about Walter's systematising has got me interested in Sterne's own philosophy and whether or not the quote might be an attack on the rationalist dogma that was prevalent in his day.

I look forward to adding belatedly to each week's discussions, and, hopefully, catching up with you all.

Nice observations Si. I am getting the feeling that TS and Lawrence Sterne, as well as Sterne's alter ego, Yorick all felt that gravity has its place, but on the whole, everyone could do with a bit of lightening up on things.

I’d forgotten that the “penalty clause” for a false pregnancy was Uncle Toby’s suggestion. It gives a slightly different shade to his character for me — shrewder and more letter of the law than I’d been thinking.