The Obscure Reading Group discussion

This is the final discussion thread for our read of The Sea, the Sea, from Chapter 4 through the end, including the Postscript.

Feel free to discuss anything and everything related to the book here. For anyone who hasn't finished yet, that means there will be spoilers, so beware. (But no more spoilers imagined by me--sorry Cherisa!)

The book seems to have divided us, with some abandoning and some enjoying. I'm definitely in the second camp, but still have a bit to read, so I'll be back and am expecting some very interesting thoughts from you all.

No problem, Kathleen, haha!

One of my pet peeves is what I call the "that would never happened" syndrome (which, to be fair, includes events that maybe COULD happen, but the chances lie somewhere between slim shady and none sunny).

One such event in this book is when 18-yr-old Titus arrives at Chaz's haunted mansion in search of his real dad. As bait for Hartley, Chaz wants to keep Titus there. In their first exchange, C. invites T. to swim in the ocean, which the kid is immediately enthusiastic about.

Um, OK, but Titus has no swimtrunks, of course, so 60-something and heretofore stranger Chaz says they should jump in au naturel because that's how HE does it.

Without a blink of an eye, Titus is in, and these two strangers, two generations apart, jump in the briny like Huck and Tom in the Mississippi.

Yep. The "That Would Never Happen" alarm was blaring.

WARNING: Spoiler for those who aren’t deep into the last section!!

Ken, I agree but the entire Titus thing was iffy. He reminded me of what my fellow Trekkies would call the sacrificial lamb in an episode where suddenly there’s a new crew member and you know someone isn’t making it to the next planet let alone next episode. It was really weak plotting that I didn’t understand or appreciate. If anything, it only showed how truly vapid Hartley is, and laid bare all her lack of depth or worthiness of adoration. Jeez, Chaz felt more guilt over Titus than Hartley did, who obviously felt only relief that burden was gone.

I’ll be back later since I’m only at the beginning of the last section and want to avoid spoilers.

Ah, well. I loved it. The unreality didn't bother me, maybe because from the beginning, I didn't trust any of it. It seems more an example of how unreliable we all may be about our histories.

Thinking about what Cherisa said in the previous thread, about Charles being an extreme version of the way many of us think, and having some pity for him, I agree.

Peregrine says in Chapter 6, “I think it was your illusions of power that fascinated people, not personal magnetism. We were just duped by your conceit. As a man, you’re a softie, I can see that now.” I think this is why he works as a character--we see both sides. Reading this works because Charles sees the truth but he misinterprets it, so we see it and feel at once angry at him and also sorry for him.

So I wonder, what is left for Charles in the end, when the illusions are stripped away? Is this like the stripping away of attachments James speaks of in Buddhism, or something different? Perhaps a nod to all of it being an illusion ...

Good question, Kathleen. It's clear that Iris Murdoch had a passing interest in Buddhism, and the ending's point of emphasis leads me to wonder if she intended readers to see more of Charles' experience through Buddhism's lens darkly (as they don't say).

Ecclesiastes would work, too. Vanity of vanities...

I thought this was a great book. His obsession with Hartley had no bounds. The author handled the relationship with these two and her husband so well. And off to Australia or not- I was caught up in it. Then when James left everything to him after Charles being so bitter bc of James’ wealthy lifestyle. I was sad when Titus died. There went the person I thought could save all this drama. Intriguing stuff.

I still have a ways to go in the book, but wanted to share that partway through History Four, I started hearing Dr. Frasier Crane‘s voice in place of Charles Arrowby’s and haven’t been able to stop that since. :)

Dawn wrote: "I still have a ways to go in the book, but wanted to share that partway through History Four, I started hearing Dr. Frasier Crane‘s voice in place of Charles Arrowby’s and haven’t been able to stop..."

Hoo, boy. And I see Frasier has a new show streaming on some PLUS channel designed to put more pluses in a corporation's bank account. No, thank you!

I do agree that Ch. 4 is the turning point, though. For me, the book started to take off there. The annoyance of Chaz's immature and solipsistic ways began to fade in favor of the crazy-ass kidnapping plot.

And yes, what a frustration Hartley was. She objects but not mightily enough. She's kind to Chaz but not kind by half. Milquetoast without the Vitamin D! Do something, lady! Slap him! Punch him! Kiss him! But no, just the same old dishrag pining for her soldier humdrum husband.

And then the plot elements of death, murder attempts, etc. (poor Titus, poor Chaz who gets pushed from the nest of his self-obsessions into the rocky briney)... and the whole WHODUNNIT bit that rode out a few pages after Chaz survived his fall.

Yes, all good. All must-find-out-what's-happening.

Most importantly, I began to respect Murdoch's characterization of Charles, how she made me hate him yet read on. How deftly I was manipulated! How much like Perry I had become (a drink and a shove and we're on our way).

I even tolerated the over-the-top moments of a jealous woman bombarding an expensive car with rocks, silly as it seemed. I mean, as reader early on, I felt an urge to ambush matters, too!

Dawn wrote: "I still have a ways to go in the book, but wanted to share that partway through History Four, I started hearing Dr. Frasier Crane‘s voice in place of Charles Arrowby’s and haven’t been able to stop..."

Oh, that's a good one, Dawn. I can picture that, now that you say it! Even the theme song, which I heard again after so many years on an add for that new show, would fit! https://genius.com/Kelsey-grammer-tos...

What I wonder is, why does this character make us think of TV shows? That doesn't usually happen to me, but the night after I finished the book I saw an interview with Patrick Stewart, and had this strange feeling that I'd been spending a lot of time with him. Then I realized there was something connecting him with Charles. But Charles is NOT Jean Luc Picard, so what? A day later I remembered there was a show he starred in 10 years or so ago called "Blunt Talk" that I'd forgotten all about. There are a LOT of similarities between those two characters, and I subconsciously connected them. Don't know the theme song for that one, but it was a good show!

Ken wrote: "Dawn wrote: "I still have a ways to go in the book, but wanted to share that partway through History Four, I started hearing Dr. Frasier Crane‘s voice in place of Charles Arrowby’s and haven’t been..."

I agree, Ken. Those two women ... I wonder if there is some reason Murdoch made Hartley like a ghost of a person. I mean, I began to wonder if she was real she was so vacant. And Rosina's ambush was almost a bridge too far for me. But after everything that went before, I just went with it. Like you say, how Murdoch made me just have to know what happens in this outlandish story is the genius here.

Finally finished! Just a few final thoughts...
1) Having rewatched a couple old Frasier reruns, I still have this weird desire to superimpose Frasier onto Charles, maybe since both characters can come across as pompous with delusions of grandeur and can easily go off the handle when questioned or when feeling victimized, yet still earn our sympathies and make us laugh at their absurd behavior - so I'd definitely like to see Kelsey Grammer in the movie version. :)
2) “Did you know that dolphins sometimes commit suicide by leaping onto the land because they're so tormented by parasites?" I really liked James for his leveling effect and for sharing gems like this.
3) Is the answer to Charles' repeated question "who do we love first" ourselves?
4) Why was Hartley wet when she returned home the first time she escaped from Charles?
5) I appreciate that Murdoch let Charles have his aha moments in the last section after James' death so we know he's realized his madness and we can feel assured he won't be getting on a plane to Sydney any time soon. Whew!
6) I think being friends with Charles would make every day feel like opposite day (‘I want to be alone, but pay attention to me!’ ‘Let me be your father, but I can’t possibly be your father’ etc.).
7) This book is a decent PSA about steering clear of your exes.
8) Ken, since the story is set in Europe, it may be plausible that Titus would be so carefree about swimming in the buff with some random old man. They do have more nude beaches than we do. Haha.

What a great book filled with interesting characters and vivid imagery. I agree with Ken regarding Murdoch's talents as a writer. She definitely had me feeling all kinds of emotions and despite my frustrations, I felt compelled to keep reading.

Thanks to everyone for selecting this title and for sharing your thoughts! It was a fun discussion!

Love your thoughts, Dawn. About your #3, who is our first love, that was the conclusion I came to in the end. And great point about James' leveling effect!

As I was reading this I was reminded of the hay day of the night time soap shows of Dallas etc which lasted for years and so many watched for years. Everyone had to know who killed Bobby, etc. (Yes I did watch some with a very obsessed friend.) Though I’m sure Murdoch would despise the comparison, she somehow has created a similar catnip in this book with her writing. I just had to keep going. I have just a wee bit of the Postscript left but had to check in with this conversation.