Brain Pain discussion

Week Three – Jan. 30

This discussion covers:

3. Bergotte
Penguin: 125-151
Vintage: 142-173
First paragraph in Moncrieff translation: "Meanwhile we had taken our places at the table. By the side of my plate I found a carnation..."

Congratulations, if you've been with us so far, you should be somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the book. :) In this section of the book, we finally get to met Bergotte - whose books we've seen the Narrator read as a child in Combray in volume i and about whom he kept hearing from Norpois. Proust frames the Bergotte episode (? is it accurate to talk about episodes in A la recherche?) with a discussion on how a writer's life affects his work - or, rather, how it doesn't affect it at all. Proust had expressed a similar opinion in Contre Saint-Beuve, but such a view seems especially strange in A la recherche which so many people read as a clearly autobiographic text. What is Proust doing here? Directing us to look beyond his persona (beyond his Jewishness, homosexuality and/or dandism?) and read his book in a vacuum? Is he trying to tell us something else? Because, at least I, had the feeling of the author/narrator speaking directly to the (implied?) reader in passages such as, e.g.:

And then I asked myself whether originality did indeed prove that great writers were gods, ruling each one over a kingdom that was his alone, or whether all that was not rather make-believe, whether the differences between one man's book and another's were not the result of their respective labours rather than the expression of a radical and essential difference between two contrasted personality.

(which, by the way, is a passage that is very interesting to discuss on its own)

Andreaa,

I'm back but way behind in my reading.

That question reminds me a little of a final exam I once had. It was one question. It said, "John Donne once wrote 'No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main..." Relate that to what you've learned this semester in Social Psychology 201."

I think the difference between two books are the result of the writer's effort, the medium of language in general and his in particular, his personality (whatever that is -- and talk about a subject for a discussion), his reading, the social environment and the historical moment. And depending on the text, that's not all. Depending on our perspective, one or the other might seem more important at a given moment.

Of course, to say that the work is a product of all those things is not the same as to say that they constitute its meaning (whatever that means). It is a mistake, I think, to confuse the text with things outside it, although things outside the text may help in understanding what's in it.

I would think that if being homosexual, Jewish, and a dandy are given expression in the text, intentionally or unintentionally, than they are fair game -- and I don't know that Proust would disagree.

The essential problem is, what if they're not? Can you meaningfully read them back into a text?

I don't think so.

Bill wrote: "Andreaa,

I'm back but way behind in my reading.

That question reminds me a little of a final exam I once had. It was one question. It said, "John Donne once wrote 'No man is an island entire of i..."

I'm ready anytime to read the Metaphysical poets again!

Yes, and the metaphysical poets qualify for brain pain.

Bill wrote: "Yes, and the metaphysical poets qualify for brain pain."

and metabrain pain...

Jim wrote: "Bill wrote: "Yes, and the metaphysical poets qualify for brain pain."

and metabrain pain..."

And delight.

And so I thought, Laurele,

"I never cared much for moonlit skies
I never wink back at fireflies
But now that the stars are in your eyes
I'm beginning to see delight*

*the actual lyric is "the light"

(by HODGES, JOHNNY / JAMES, HARRY / GEORGE, DON..."

I am two fools, I know,
For loving, and for saying so
In whining poetry ;

(The Triple Fool, John Donne)

Delight is always my goal. Life is too short for anything else.