Dorothy Richardson discussion

For discussion of Deadlock (1921)

"Richardson’s representation of Miriam’s subjective consciousness and perception of the world around her in Pilgrimage indicates a similar, if less ironic, awareness of the question of the nature of reality being articulated by Bloomsbury and within contemporary philosophical discourse. Where Richardson differs from Woolf and Forster, is that in Pilgrimage the problem of the relation of subject and object, or the nature of reality, is presented as a primarily ontological rather than epistemological project. For Miriam Henderson, the Tansley Street boarding-house where she lives, and objects within it such as her table and window, seem to possess identity. Musing on the walls of her room in chapter three of Deadlock, she not only assumes that they persist when she is not there to look at them, but indeed they seem to her to possess their own mysterious life, observing her and journeying with her though her London life: in the early years as ‘the thrilled companions of her freedom’, then scornful and mocking of her everyday life, ‘waiting indifferent, serene with the years they knew before she came, for those that would follow her meaningless impermanence’ (III 86), and at this point ‘transparent’ (87), their challenge forced into abeyance by her growing companionship with new fellow-lodger Michael Shatov."

From the excellent essay here: http://dorothyrichardson.org/PJDRS/Is...

" In this paper I examine Richardson’s particularly overt engagement with philosophical theories and ideas in Deadlock, the sixth volume of Pilgrimage. Metaphysical questions about the nature of being and of reality pervade Pilgrimage as a whole, in itself a revolutionary experiment in the representation of Miriam’s single consciousness and her perception of and relation to existence and the world around her. It is in Deadlock, however, that Richardson first shows philosophical ideas and inquiry taking persistent and organised shape in Miriam’s maturing thought, as she recalls her early excitement at reading Stanley Jevons’ Elementary Lessons in Logic at school, discusses the ideas of Herbert Spencer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Benedict de Spinoza and Friedrich Nietzsche with her fellow lodger Michael Shatov, attends a course of introductory lectures by the British Idealist philosopher John Ellis McTaggart, and muses upon the nature of existence, knowledge and perception"

Fun quote from about halfway though this one:

She was quite ready and looked about for entertainment for the remaining moments. Actually; a book lying open on Mr. Leyton's table, a military drill-book of course. No. What was this. Wondrous Woman, by J. B. G. Smithson. Why so many similar English initials ? Jim, Bill, George, a superfluity of mannishness ... an attack of course ; she scanned pages and headings ; chapter upon chapter of peevish facetiousness ; the whole book written deliberately against women. Her heart beat angrily. What was Mr. Leyton doing with such a book .? Where had it come from ? She read swiftly, grasping the argument. The usual sort of thing ; worse, because it was colloquial, rushing along in modern everyday language and in some curious way not badly written. . . .

Because some women had corns, feminine beauty was a myth ; because the world could do without Mrs. Hemans' poetry, women should confine their attention to puddings and babies. The infernal complacent cheek of it. This was the kind of thing middle-class men read. Unable to criticise it, they thought it witty and unanswerable. That was the worst of it. Books of this sort were read without anyone there to point things out. ... It ought to be illegal to publish a book by a man without first giving it to a woman to annotate. But what was the answer to men who called women inferior because they had not invented or achieved in science or art ? On whose authority had men decided that science and art were greater than anything else ? The world could not go on until this question had been answered. Until then, until it had been clearly explained that men were always and always partly wrong in all their ideas, life would be full of poison and secret bitterness. . . Men fight about their philosophies and religions, there is no certainty in them ; but their contempt for women is flawless and unanimous. Even Emerson . . . positive and negative, north and south, male and female .... why negative? Maeterlinck gets nearest in knowing that women can live, hardly at all, with men, and wait, have always been waiting, for men to come to life. How can men come to life ; always fussing ? How could the man who wrote this book ? Even if it were publicly burned and he were made to apologise ; he would still go about asquint .... lunch was going to be late, just to-day, of course. . . .

" I say:'

" What do you say," responded Miriam without looking up from her soup. Mr. Leyton had a topic ; she could keep it going with half her attention and go restfully on, fortifying herself for the afternoon. She would attack him about the book one day next week…

Deadlock on the Neglected Books Page:

http://neglectedbooks.com/?p=3998

Slotted this in today, will officially dive in tomorrow. Should be fun.

This so far has been the easiest chapter for me to slide in to from the very beginning, especially with all the good non-Anglo (especially Russian) themes that have quickly come into force. I'm having a hard time imagining not being able to find myself in my current position of reading four works, each originally written in a different language, simply because that's how thoroughly translations have soaked into my reading landscape. The modern age may be little more than a series of variegated dumpster fires these days, but at least the availability of books on an international scale has dramatically improved.