Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Vol 3: Ch.13 (9 volume edition)
Is it insubordination or ego between the midwife and Dr. Slop regarding which one should report to the other?

Ch.14
Eloquence and forceps.

Ch.15
Uncle Toby demonstrates how squirts may be understood in different ways.

Ch.16
The Forceps, or a wounded Dr. Slop’s handling of them, appear to be somewhat rough in a demonstration on Uncle Toby’s hands.

Ch.17
The dangers to the baby's head and the **** by the forceps are revealed, and one is declared worse than the other.

Ch.18
Walter’s hobby-horse takes a turn commenting on time and duration, which I took to mean the difference between measured time or clock time and the unique and individual mental perception of time. He also mentions his dislike of clocks. Is he nervous concerning the consequences of being asked if he had wound up the clock? Or as a footnote in my edition says, is he disgusted by the enquiry ‘Sir, will you have your clock wound-up?’ had become popular among street walkers.

Ch.19
Tristram laments his father’s discourse on time and duration was interrupted and lost to the world.

Ch.20
Lost in thought after the conversations ends, Walter and Toby fall asleep. Dr. Slop is upstairs and Trim is busy making mortars of boots. This seems as good a time as any for TS to present his preface to the book which seems to be aimed at his critics who think the volumes suffer from too much wit at the expense of judgement. TS seems to be saying both are needed in balance with one another.

Ch.21
We are told of the great struggle between knowing the hinge needs maintenance, and doing that maintenance, a.k.a., procrastination. Is he saying something about the challenge of knowing better? Is procrastination hereditary?

. . .’tis not mended yet. . .

Ch.22
It turns out the boots Trim was making into mortars were family heirlooms. Walter’s lecture to Toby about Toby’s hobby and the money he spends on it ensue, but are tempered when Toby, honestly convinced of it, says he does it to benefit the country.

Ch.23
Trim informs Walter and Toby that Dr. Slop is in the kitchen constructing a bridge. Before more details are given out, Toby concludes through his hobby-horse filters that it is a bridge for his fortifications.

Ch.24
We hear hints of Uncle Toby amours with the Widow Wadman but a little more of Trim’s amours with the widow’s maid and the destruction of the model draw-bridge by---

Ch.25
Out of respect for Trim’s bridge mishap, they decide to avoid thrusting bridges and to consult someone on a design of a different type.

Ch.26-27
The real bridge Dr. Slop was building was to repair the now born Tristram’s nose, which was crushed by the forceps.

Ch.28
Tristram tells us of the cautious air of sad composure and solemnity there appear’d in my manner of writing these passages concerning his father’s despair over learning of his son’s crushed nose. Is this a case of judgement presiding over wit? If so, why?

Ch.29
We are told in detail how Walter lay on his bed in despair under Toby’s patient and watchful eye and learn another of Tristram’s opinions:

“That both man and woman bear pain or sorrow, (and, for aught I know, pleasure too) best in a horizontal position.”

Ch.30
Tristram tells us he needs about an hour to explain how his son’s crushed nose was not enough to explain the depth of his father’s grief, and how Walter's own great and singular perspective contributed to it.

I alternated between laughing and wanting to throw the book against the wall because of its impenetrability.

I thought a squirt probably referred to a syringe, but just to check, I typed in squirt into Google and got a much different answer than what I was looking for.

I laughed out loud when Sterne says, now it's time for my preface. That quickly turned to bafflement as I wondered just what the hell he was trying to say. Sometimes this book just makes me feel stupid. I'm sure I'll benefit from re-reading.

I also noticed that there was a reference to New Zembla in there somewhere. I thought this might be something Nabokov picked up for Pale Fire, but it turns out there really is a New Zembla--as opposed to Kinbote's plain old Zembla.

Is anyone perplexed that our narrator cannot possibly know the details of all these conversations he has related, since at the time he was in another room, upstairs, preoccupied with exiting his mother?

Roger wrote: "Is anyone perplexed that our narrator cannot possibly know the details of all these conversation he has related, since at the time he was in another room, upstairs, preoccupied with exiting his mot..."

I was going to make a joke about it being first person omniscient, but google says it is rare, but first person omniscient is a legitimate perspective. Does anyone have other examples?

David wrote: "I was going to make a joke about it being first person omniscient, but google says it is rare, but first person omniscient is a legitimate perspective. Does anyone have other examples?..."

Three fairly modern examples are given here: Sweet, Kristie. "Examples of First-Person Omniscient." , https://penandthepad.com/examples-fir.... Accessed 18 December 2019.

The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, where Death is the narrator.
The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold; narrated by the young woman who has died.
Borges and I by Jorge Luis Borges; identity of the narrator is unclear, but knows the thoughts of others. (I have not read this one; I now perhaps better understand my discomfort with the first two, I had never before named their point of view of narration.)

Muddier, imo, as a description, but some other examples and thoughts on this perspective here:
http://theconversation.com/the-rise-a...
Short and rather to the point? -- https://www.quora.com/What-is-first-p...

Roger wrote: "Is anyone perplexed that our narrator cannot possibly know the details of all these conversation he has related, since at the time he was in another room, upstairs, preoccupied with exiting his mot..."

As I remember, the narrator previously mentioned Uncle Toby as his primary source of information about this period, but he should have very sound and undiscriminating memory and be very open to his nephew in sharing unpleasant details.

There is something missing in all of the details of the crushed nose, Dr. Slop making a "bridge", and the father's horizontal depression we are getting through some incredibly detailed hearesay from Uncle Toby or a strange omniscience that I hope is not from beyond the grave.

Nobody seems to be interested in finding out how the mother has fared through all of this or or to see the newborn to review the results for themselves.

What should we think of Uncle Toby's obsession with the warfare while simultaneously having such an extreme humble, generous, and gentle personality? Uncle Toby has twice now been quoted about not harming a fly. What does the difference between his attitude and his preoccupation say; how can they be reconciled? Does one compensate for the other? Is his personality symptomatic of PTSD from his experiences in battle and his wound? Is he really doing this for the good of the nation? Has he perhaps finally settled on modeling defensive fortifications in order to save lives?

Bryan wrote: "I alternated between laughing and wanting to throw the book against the wall because of its impenetrability...."

I feel the same way.

I enjoy the interactions between the characters because I can understand most of it and find it funny. But I get lost when he goes off on one of his tangents and I have no clue where he's going or what he's talking about. It's difficult to make sense of his leaps in thought.

Perhaps what he's doing is illustrating the way the mind works--like a train of images or ideas that zooms along. We catch glimpses of things, barely have time to figure out what we just saw (or read) before he zooms us to a different image or idea.

His father explains it to Uncle Toby:

Now, whether we observe it or no, continued my father, in every sound man's head, there is a regular succession of ideas of one sort or other, which follow each other in train just like—A train of artillery? said my uncle Toby—A train of a fiddle-stick!—quoth my father—which follow and succeed one another in our minds at certain distances, just like the images in the inside of a lanthorn turned round by the heat of a candle.— (Vol. 2:11)

I'm not sure we are supposed to slow down and decipher everything he's saying. Maybe he's being intentionally obscure. Maybe he's laughing at us for struggling to make sense of his incoherent ramblings. Or maybe not. I don't know.

Bryan wrote: "I I thought a squirt probably referred to a syringe, but just to check, I typed in squirt into Google and got a much different answer than what I was looking for."

I have to emphasize caution in Bryan's observations while Googling squirt. The results are not for everyone's hobby-horseical appetite. A note in my text says

The ‘squirt’ is not a real instrument, but alludes to the ‘petite canulle’ of the Sorbonne doctors, and hence is a means of ‘salvation’ only from the Roman Catholic viewpoint.

Cannula would be a much wiser choice to google, in this case it would be used to baptize the baby in utero, i.e., before it is born.

David wrote: "What should we think of Uncle Toby's obsession with the warfare while simultaneously having such an extreme humble, generous, and gentle personality? Uncle Toby has twice now been quoted about not ..."

I am sure that today it would be classified as PTSD, it was my thought since he began to tell Uncle Toby's story. But I think, it is not so helpful to explain personages and their behaviour in the terms they (author and readers) did not think.

So generally agree with Cphe...

Tamara wrote: "I'm not sure we are supposed to slow down and decipher everything he's saying. Maybe he's being intentionally obscure. Maybe he's laughing at us for struggling to make sense of his incoherent ramblings. Or maybe not. I don't know."

Laughing at us - for sure. But still, it does not mean we can not have fun deciphering everything he's saying if we have the fun, of course. This novel gives a lot of ways to enjoy it and each is good.

David wrote: "What should we think of Uncle Toby's obsession with the warfare while simultaneously having such an extreme humble, generous, and gentle personality? Uncle Toby has twice now been quoted about not ..."

His battles were exciting, memorable, honorable, and the high point of his life. And he was wounded and invalided out, so he could not continue his service. I've spent a lot of time around soldiers, and a lot of them are as gentle and generous as you please. I don't see any of the anxiety or distress of PTSD in Toby.

Roger wrote: "David wrote: "I've spent a lot of time around soldiers, and a lot of them are as gentle and generous as you please. . ."

I can agree with this anecdotally, but in the context of Sterne's time I found this:

That ... Toby has had an actual military career as Captain Shandy, shivering in the Irish trenches during King William's wars, is one of Sterne's most profound jokes. What are we supposed to make of the wild incongruity between the character of an English army captain in wartime and the character of the retired suburbam gentleman so pacific and tender that he refuses to injure a fly? Soldiers, especially common soldiers but officers too, had deservedly shady reputations for brutality and lechery in the Restoration and eighteenth century.

Staves, Susan. "Toby Shandy: Sentiment and the Soldier." Approaches to Teaching Sterne's Tristram Shandy. New, Melvyn, ed. New York: MLA, 1989. 80-86)

I also found this:

Thus Trim's and Toby's war games on the bowling-green can be interpreted as a celebration of life through art ­ or the book ­, but the work of art created in this way can only exist in a space especially set aside for it, a consecrated realm, as it were, or, in other words, as a hypothesis. For beneath the self-fulfilment of the liberating game there is still the player's ­ and the author's ­ quest for identity. It has its roots in his fatal wound which is a mark of his human condition, but one which he never understands. .... In a way which is never possible in real life, the model allows Toby to sublimate his wound and temporarily to transcend his mortality in a realm of perfect bliss.

Gysin, Fritz. Model as Motif in Tristram Shandy. Bern, Switzerland: Francke Verlag Bern, 1983)

I find this interesting because if it is correct, in Vol1: chapter 23, where TS describes all the ways to characterize a person before declaring to:

draw my uncle Toby’s character from his HOBBY-HORSE.

in effect identifying his Uncle by his Uncle's quest for his own identity.

Just for fun. When I read it, I did not know that Nova Zembla is a real (dutch) name for Novaya Zemlya: reading this part as mixed of invented and real names without any geographical logic, but it turned out to be more realistic.

David wrote: "Roger wrote: "David wrote: "I've spent a lot of time around soldiers, and a lot of them are as gentle and generous as you please. . ."

I can agree with this anecdotally, but in the context of Ster..."
“That ... Toby has had an actual military career as Captain Shandy, shivering in the Irish trenches during King William's wars, is one of Sterne's most profound jokes. ”

This reference to the Irish trenches is a bit confusing since Namur where Uncle Toby was injured (and the object of his bowling green fortifications) is in Belgium. Google shows the siege of Namur was in 1695. Did Uncle Toby serve in Ireland, too?

I wonder if part of the joke may be that he was injured by the fortification itself—instead of the enemy’s weapons.

One thing that struck me in this section and the previous section was repeated difficulties getting things free — the handkerchief from the pocket, the instruments from their green baize bag, and the baby Tristram into the world.

Susan wrote: "One thing that struck me in this section and the previous section was repeated difficulties getting things free..."

Ha! That is a neat observation. You are right; It does seem like they had trouble pulling things out.

I’m thinking about those old boots Trim turned into mortars because I think it goes to Walter and Toby’s characters. According to Walter, the boots go back to the battle of Marston Moor (1644) in the English Civil War, which would make them at least 74 years old in 1718 when the story takes place. While they may have a sentimental value to Walter, it’s interesting that it’s unknown to Obadiah who gave them to Trim saying that Walter “had left off wearing” them.

Now, Walter declares they are family heirlooms and he would not have taken 10 pounds for them. Per this calculator (https://www.uwyo.edu/numimage/currenc...) that’s the rough equivalent of $2,400 in 2020, clearly way over the market value for old boots. Walter is hyperbolic in his speech and, as various episodes show, sparing with his money. But Toby blithely offers to pay him the whole overstated cost, leading on a lecture from Walter on how he wastes his money on his hobby horse (but one assumes the other items mentioned cost much less than those boots). Toby wants to avoid conflict with his brother and also is totally trusting of him. He is perhaps generous to a fault

PS In fairness to Walter, I don’t think he has any intention of taking Toby’s money for the boots.