Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Volume 3
Ch.1
Dr. Slop is confused by Uncle Toby’s wish

Ch.2
TS’s father becomes equally confused by his wig, coat pockets and hands to access them.

Ch.3
All of TS father’s zig-zagary reminds Uncle Toby of troop movements leading up to his injury. Seeing his brother becoming red in the face, Toby dismounts (his hobby horse).

Ch.4
TS sets up a simile between body and mind being like a jacket and its lining and reveals the critics of his previous volume in attacking his work::jacket have damaged his lining::mind. Then TS repeats his Uncle Toby’s appeal:

”. . . why should I hurt thee? This world is surely wide enough to hold both thee and me.”

Ch.5
This chapter seems a study in Uncle Toby’s taking things by the right hand and not interpreting his brother’s red face as anger:

Enchiridion #43.
Everything has two handles, the one by which it may be carried, the other by which it cannot. If your brother acts unjustly, don’t lay hold on the action by the handle of his injustice, for by that it cannot be carried; but by the opposite, that he is your brother, that he was brought up with you; and thus you will lay hold on it, as it is to be carried.

Ch. 6
Why does TS father’s statement cause Uncle Toby to start whistling?

. . .if a child was but fairly begot, and born alive, and healthy, and the mother did well after it,——our forefathers never looked further.

Ch.7 – 8
The Doctor’s bag jingles too much for Obidiah, so he secures it, perhaps too thoroughly by tying it up in knots.

Ch.9
TS reminds us the difference between what Dr. Slop is thinking vs. what he says. A footnote in my edition cites Pope’s Essay on Man, II.105–8:

The rising tempest puts in act the soul,
Parts it may ravage, but preserves the whole.
On life’s vast ocean diversely we sail, /
Reason the card, but Passion is the gale …

Ch.10 – 11
Dr. Slop cuts his finger trying to cut the knots and the curses start flying. I thought it was funny how Obidiah’s name gets sprinkled into the formal Curse of Ernulphus, a humorously exhaustive list of curses which is read aloud, which is pretty funny in itself.

Ch.12 - You tell me.

I just finished this section. I think this was the most difficult yet to weave through and still keep the thread of it. I plan on rereading it.

I did like Toby's answer to his brother you cited in Ch 6--I think some of the other posters asked this same question--why are you so concerned about which way the head comes out? It was fine for our forefathers.

The long curse was humorous, but what made it really funny was some of the asides that Walter and Toby throw in--"Our armies swore terribly in Flanders"--made me laugh at the abrupt return to the subject of the armies in Flanders and the incongruity of it in context. Really shows Toby's one-track mind.

In Ch 12, with the connoisseurs, reminded me of something I'd heard about Tom Wolfe's reporting on the modern art scene, and some critics who made a point of critiquing the thickness of the paint on the canvas.

Bryan wrote: "In Ch 12, with the connoisseurs, reminded me of something I'd heard about Tom Wolfe's reporting on the modern art scene, and some critics who made a point of critiquing the thickness of the paint on the canvas."

Is Chapter 12 yet another poke at taking things too seriously and the people that do it? Are there any differences between the critics in chapter 4 and the connoisseurs in chapter 12?

I took it that the critics at least were dealing with the same material as the artist, but the connoisseurs were applying standards that were not even apropos to the artwork.

Several years ago I used to read an Amazon reviewer who would do book reviews that entirely consisted of comments about the quality of the paper, the size of the book, the ease of holding it, etc. etc. That was the other thing this chapter reminded me of. I think that guy was just being a smart-aleck, but I think Sterne is talking about a level of expertise that is abstracted out beyond absurdity.

Maybe a difference without distinction, but I think he saw critics as spiteful and connoisseurs as pursuing such rarified taste for the express purpose of remaining exclusive.

Maybe the right way to read this book is in long sittings, letting it wash over you, rather then in small bites chewed thoroughly.

Roger wrote: "Maybe the right way to read this book is in long sittings, letting it wash over you, rather then in small bites chewed thoroughly."

May be, Roger. But at least one piece of advice I encountered was to not to try to read it like a novel -- but to enjoy it piece by piece. I don't know that chewing it bit by bit is necessary, but savoring anecdotes seems to be working for me. I get mostly just frustrated if I try to spend too much time with it at a sitting. The digressions don't lend themselves to getting immersed in the flow of a plot.

I think I've come up with a better example of the critic/connoisseur debate:

An author writes a book that the reading public enjoys. A critic looks at the style, plot, etc and passes judgment, though who knows what sort of bias lead to his or her conclusions--could be envy, could be spite, could be ignorance--who knows.

A connoisseur, on the other hand, wants a first edition of the book, or a signed copy, which adds nothing to the intellectual content of the book. The connoisseur turns his nose up at a tattered copy that has the same content as a pristine, never read copy.

Lily wrote: "May be, Roger. But at least one piece of advice I encountered was to not to try to read it like a novel -- but to enjoy it piece by piece."

I read each week's discussion straight through about a week ahead of time, no stopping allowed. I find with this book, a discussion week's worth is much too long for me to remember all of the many earlier digressions, events, and topics of opinion, or maybe that is just old age. In addition to reading, listening to the audio book is also a big help. Then I go back and chew on each chapter one at a time, reading all of the annotations, taking notes and looking things up as I go.

It is funny to re-read my own week's discussion starters because for this book they seem rather poor summaries shamefully lacking much much of the subtle nuances of the content. However, if I try to say more it begins to feel like plagiarism, i.e., reproducing the complete text.

Was listening to Tristram early this morning. As I listened to this fairly large group of men (Toby, Walter, Trim, Dr. S, O, ?) all talking and reading together with Tristram's mother in labor in another part of the house, largely out of being heard range, it struck me how different both the structure of many comfortable homes and interactions with knowledge were those many years ago. Now we listen to an expert on film in a meeting room somewhere or watch together a TV special or listen individually to a recording or .... I know, my head is mixing a lot of things, from house architecture to interactions with others to places where discussions occur to .... But, anyway, ....

I am sure some of us recently experienced the Thanksgiving tradition of the men watching football in the living room and the women in the kitchen talking about all the births, deaths and other illnesses of friends and family since the last get together.

Lily wrote: "Was listening to Tristram early this morning. As I listened to this fairly large group of men (Toby, Walter, Trim, Dr. S, O, ?) all talking and reading together with Tristram's mother in labor in a..."

Interesting perspective, Lily! I guess this also indirectly tells us something about the size of their house, clearly bigger than a two-up, two-down cottage

He describes connoisseurs as pompous wind-bags with inflated egos who like to show off their knowledge of rules and are quick to interpret any deviation as a flaw in the work.

. . . their heads, Sir, are stuck so full of rules and compasses, and have that eternal propensity to apply them upon all occasions, that a work of genius had better go to the devil at once, than stand to be prick'd and tortured to death by 'em.

I suspect he is taking a jab at his critics who failed to understand his "genius."

David wrote: "Lily wrote: "May be, Roger. But at least one piece of advice I encountered was to not to try to read it like a novel -- but to enjoy it piece by piece."

I read each week's discussion straight thro..."

I have fallen out of the discussion, but find it is still a lovely addition to the delight of reading the novel. But who can really read it as a novel?! And I think that both small bite or long sitting approaches do not suit it well too (you never know how much of the bite is enough or whether you lose something), it is more like enjoying it as you go. Everything is constantly changing, almost all lops from the beginning of the book are still open, and all, that I thought about this or that, may be immediately changed with the next chapter or sentence.

Lily wrote: "Was listening to Tristram early this morning. As I listened to this fairly large group of men (Toby, Walter, Trim, Dr. S, O, ?) all talking and reading together with Tristram's mother in labor in a..."

I still wonder if Sterne ridiculed this situation (and men's approach to it) or just used it as the background for his jokes and anecdotes.

Alexey wrote: "I still wonder if Sterne ridiculed this situation (and men's approach to it) or just used it as the background for his jokes and anecdotes...."

Personally, I didn't react to it as like the present day split of genders at get togethers that occur at many family parties. Rather, it was playing with what the architecture of dwellings do to relationships. This didn't feel like being in a modern condo or moderate house, but neither was it being at Biltmore. Nor in a peasant's cottage. More like Mount Vernon? Not so large as Hyde Park, but with public rooms where (men's) business might be conducted, while more social or private activities might overlap but largely proceed elsewhere?

Lily wrote: More like Mount Vernon?"

I was thinking the architecture must be similar to some of the homes on display at historic Williamsburg. I liked the parlors, often just to the left or right of the main entrance, where the men's conversation take place as places for the family to relax, like a modern living room, but also a place to receive and entertain guests without having to lead them through the house.

An interesting American Heritage article on The Parlor
https://www.americanheritage.com/parlor

Lily wrote: "Alexey wrote: "I still wonder if Sterne ridiculed this situation (and men's approach to it) or just used it as the background for his jokes and anecdotes...."

Personally, I didn't react to it as l..."

One aspect of this book that I admire -- everyone can read a different novel in it, and if I re-read it, I will surely find it different from what I am reading now.

So, I decided to go back and restart from the beginning, I was getting a little lost with the digressions and open topics. The second time through, it’s all made more sense, and I decided not to worry about open parentheses — maybe the author will get back to them, and maybe he won’t, but there is a narrative under all the diversions. I am slowly catching back up to the schedule.

Questions I’m pondering: Tristram’s mother seems a character we see mostly in reaction to other characters, usually her husband, so “reading” her seems to take more attention by the reader. Dissertations that are inserted into the text — the possible baptism of children before birth, the sermon, and the curses — why are they there? What do they add? And what is the author’s hobbyhorse? Critics, maybe.

Susan wrote: "...Dissertations that are inserted into the text — the possible baptism of children before birth, the sermon, and the curses — why are they there? ..."

Sometimes Tristram, our worthy narrator, comes across to me as a "chip off the old block," as willing to indulge in ruminations far and wide as his father Walter.

Which comment is without considering the objectives of Tristram's creator, our author Sterne.

Susan wrote: " the possible baptism of children before birth, the sermon, and the curses — why are they there? What do they add? And what is the author’s hobbyhorse? ."

My best guess at one of Tristram's hobby-horses is here (Vol1 Chap 8) and he may be referring to his own hobby-horse of writing these volumes:

Be it known to you, that I keep a couple of pads (horses) myself, upon which, in their turns, (nor do I care who knows it) I frequently ride out and take the air;—tho’ sometimes, to my shame be it spoken, I take somewhat longer journies than what a wise man would think altogether right.

The longer journies alluding to his many digressions. I thought there was a more concrete connection elsewhere but I am unable to find it now.

Lily wrote: “Sometimes Tristram, our worthy narrator, comes across to me as a "chip off the old block," as willing to indulge in ruminations far and wide as his father Walter.”

True. And Walter is responsible for including the text re curses and at least in part for the reading of the sermon so he’s setting a great example ;)

David wrote: "My best guess at one of Tristram's hobby-horses is here (Vol1 Chap 8) and he may be referring to his own hobby-horse of writing these volumes:

Be it known to you, that I keep a couple of pads (horses) myself, upon which, in their turns, (nor do I care who knows it) I frequently ride out and take the air;—tho’ sometimes, to my shame be it spoken, I take somewhat longer journies than what a wise man would think altogether right.

The longer journies alluding to his many digressions. “

Thanks for the reference.