Sea, The Sea ~ Iris Murdoch ~ 4/02 ~ Book Club Online
patwest
March 14, 2002 - 10:19 am












The Sea, The Sea
by Iris Murdoch






"We are all such shocking poseurs, so good at inflating the importance of what we think we value."—Iris Murdoch, The Sea, The Sea
Around this barb of (unheeded) reflection swirls the rich maelstrom of fantasies, plots, delusions, mind games, and awakenings that makes up Iris Murdoch's popular 1978 Booker Prize-winning novel, The Sea, The Sea. As both a philosopher and a novelist, Murdoch always concerned herself in some way or another with the struggle to develop moral goodness and the concomitant effort to vanquish obsessive self-regard. In The Sea, The Sea, she dramatizes this characteristic moral concern to great effect on a stage crowded with self-absorbed artistic Londoners out of their element in a small seaside village. This novel is considered Murdoch's major work, which won the Booker Prize in 1978. The narrator, Charles Arrowby, is a tyrannical director-playwright, who finds after 40 years again his worn-out childhood sweetheart, bullies her without being able to change, and then starts an affair with an equally monstrous 18-year-old girl.



QUESTIONS

As Charles's grand view and grandiose plans begin to unravel we are sometimes able to see one of the characters without the distortion of his viewpoint.

What direct evidence can be gleaned from a straightforward reportof Hartley's words and actions?


Charles admits that he was profoundly influenced, helped, and in fact shaped, by Clement Makin, the decades-older lover of his youth.
Why then did he continue to claim that the teen-age Hartley was his first and only "true love"?


Murdoch uses a teasing cliff-hanger at the end of a chapter by telling us how Charles momentarily imagined that Hartley had hanged herself. This isn't followed by any introspective evaluation of his error.
In terms of the plot development, would such an event have been a shock, or a relief?
Except for the fact of his being "past sixty,"does Charles ever fullyexplain why he left the theater world?


There are numerous references to Charles's many relationships with women, or "girls," as he likes to think of them. These all seem to start by the need to take a woman away from the influence of another man. They rise to a peak of intensity and then gradually fade as boredom sets in or another interest appears.
Does his midlife infatuation with the aging Hartley fit into this cyclic pattern?

Do you think this is a fatalistic novel? What examples could you give to counter this opinion?

By the end of the novel, do you feel that Charles has learned anything through his experiences?

Is he, or any of the other characters, happier or more virtuous at the end of the novel than at the beginning?
If so, in what way?
If not, how has he failed?"




Tentative schedule for reading of “The Sea, The Sea”:

April   1 -- April   8 .... Chap. 1 History ......... to page 108
April   8 -- April 15 .... Chap. 2 & Chap. 3 ..... Page 108 to 236
April 15 -- April 22 .... Chap. 4 & Chap. 5 ..... Page 236 to 385
April 22 -- May    1 .... Chap. 6 & Postscript...Page 385 to end.

Come and join us here when we discuss this fascinating novel!



Links



Art and Ethics in the Novels of Iris Murdoch   ||   Phillps' Portrait of Dame Iris Murdoch
Iris Murdoch---a Remarkable Woman   ||  Elegy for Iris, by John Bayley



Discussion Leader: Lorrie







Click on the link below
to buy the book


Click box to suggest books
for future discussion!






Lorrie
March 14, 2002 - 11:01 am
Welcome, Everyone!

Are you a fan of Iris Murdoch? Then join us on April 1 when we begin a discussion of her book, The Sea, the Sea, which won the Booker prize. We will be reading the book together, and I understand that there are copies available in paperback at a reasonable cost. We'll make up a schedule to follow in a few days, in the meantime, please post here if you are interested in joining this discussion!

Lorrie

Ginny
March 14, 2002 - 11:02 am
Super, I'm in, have long wondered what all the shouting is about Iris Murdoch, and, would you believe, never read ONE thing of hers, this looks super, I'm ready!!

ginny

Ginny
March 14, 2002 - 11:21 am
Another really exciting thing is that this is the VERY FIRST BOOK voted on by our Readers in 2002, and we hope you'll be Reading Along With Lorrie, it's quite exciting to be voting again!

ginny

Lorrie
March 14, 2002 - 12:01 pm
GINNY! I'm so glad you will be joining us. I have a confession to make---I also haven't had the pleasure of reading anything by Iris Murdoch, so I am doubly looking forward to reading this one. In her biographical sketches, I found that she was a really interesting character, and her bout with Alzheimer's toward the end of her life inspired her husband to write a very moving eulogy. I will put the link to that up in the heading--it's well worth looking over.

Lorrie

MarjV
March 15, 2002 - 09:16 am
I join you two. I've not read a thing by her. I was so excited when I went to an internet link. so I will join the discussion. Just ordered the book from www.half.com.

I have to say....without Senior Net Lit group I would not have read the works I've read in the last couple years. Even tho I don't participate with a lot of posts I still do the read. Such an exciting broadening of fiction for me. Currently I'm struggling thru a German translated new fic that I probably would never have touched.

The Sea The Sea ---A neat link.

Lorrie
March 15, 2002 - 09:24 am
MARJV!! WELCOME! What an upbeat thing to remember about this site! It's true, Marg, I have read many more books here than I would have if I hadn't stumbled on to this site.

Welcome to our group! Please chime in now and then when you can, even if it's to tell us what you feel about the characters, especially that!

Lorrie

SarahT
March 15, 2002 - 01:31 pm
I've read a lot of Iris Murdoch, but never this one, reputed to be her best. I'm in!! Can't wait, and so look forward to discussing it with you lovely people!

Lorrie
March 15, 2002 - 03:41 pm
Another voice heard from!!    Welcome, welcome, Sarah! I'm so glad you will be joining us! We now have an official quorum---let the good times roll!

Lorrie

betty gregory
March 15, 2002 - 11:50 pm
This is wonderful. I had looked at both her husband's tribute and at the new biography that covers her work after watching a special on Murdoch. Was it Judy Dench that played her recently in a movie? Or, was it a play in London? Anyway, I couldn't make up my mind whether to read some of her books first or a biography first.....and here's my answer!! I just ordered the book and can't wait to begin reading!

Betty

Lorrie
March 16, 2002 - 12:13 am
BETTY! This is great!! I am truly glad to see your name here, and it will be great discussing this book together.!

Yes, Judi Dench played "Iris" both in the movie and also on stage, I believe. The story was adapted from the very moving book that Murdoch's husband wrote after her death. I am sorry I missed that special, but here is a review of the movie that might tell you something also.

Washington Post Review

Lorrie

Lorrie

Suzz
March 16, 2002 - 10:54 am
I'm here too. I have had the book for a long time but it just has not made its way to the top of any of my numerous tbr piles ). I haven't read anything by her previously either. I am not sure, though, if I can get it read as I'm kind of plodding through another book that periodically saps my will to live right now.

How is the discussion going to be run? Do we have to have it all read by April 1 or will it be staggered like Ginny did with A House For Mr. Biswas?

Hi to Ginny and all the other people I recognize from the Mr. B discussion!

Lorrie
March 16, 2002 - 07:01 pm
Hi, Suzz! It's great to hear from you, but what a horribly depressing book that must be that you're reading now!

By all means, since you already have the book, do join in with us when we begin on the 1st. This discussion came up (after the votes were in) on such short notice that we don't expect anyone to have read it in its entirety by that time. So we will be more or less reading it as we go along.

Betty, I know you prefer to have read the whole book and then discussing it, and many others do, too, but will you bear with us as we take this a portion at a time? I am ashamed to say that I'm still waiting for my copy, (that's why I haven't posted a schedule yet) but I promise to do so as soon as I have it in hand.

I'm really looking forward to reading this book. It is said to be her finest, and must be something in order to win the Booker prize. This author was a very flamboyant (not sure that's the right word) character, and reading her biography is fascinating in itself.

So hang in there, Everybody, and clear the decks for April 1!

Lorrie

betty gregory
March 17, 2002 - 12:15 am
Lorrie, actually, I'm sorry to report that Ginny has just about ruined my preference for whole-book discussions with her wonderful section by section discussions. So, I like both methods. I'm sure we'll still run across a book that cries out for whole-book discussion, but I see that most can be discussed either way. I still like to have finished reading the whole book before the section by section discussion begins, but, hey, I've been so behind in my reading lately, that sometimes, I end up reading section by section, too! C'est la vie!!

Betty

MarjV
March 17, 2002 - 10:09 am
Good! I prefer sectional reading. Otherwise it seems there are comments that are here or there and people cannot respond if they have not gotten to that point of the book. I like reading all the posts.

Besides my book probably won't arrive for a week.

St Patrick's Day Greets, Marj

Suzz
March 17, 2002 - 10:15 am
Glad to hear it will be sectional. I finally found the book last night after 4 passes through my book shelves myself and one by my son. If it had been a snake ....

The book I'm reading isn't depressing ) ... just a bit plodding and I don't eagerly run to pick it up which is why it's taking so long to read. It's Reason To Hope by Jane Goodall, a non fiction. I have enormous admiration for her and enjoy her books but this one just makes me feel restless and like I'm doing my duty when I sit down with it.

Lorrie
March 17, 2002 - 11:30 am
Betty, how good that you will enjoy the bit by bit method. I have to laugh when I think that actually I didn't have a choice--I am still waiting for the book!

I like Ginny's way of progression, too. I am counting on all of you to interject your opinions as we go along---I'm still a novice at this leading a discussion, that's why I'm always so glad to see our old hands like Ginny and Sarah, and now you other wonderful readers!

MarjV:

"I like reading all the posts." Me, too!

Suzz:

Is that the same Goodall of the gorilla fame?

Top o' the mornin' to ya, and the shank of the day thereof!"

Lorrie

howzat
March 17, 2002 - 10:28 pm
I am still waiting for my copy of the book from half.com, I have never read anything by Iris Murdoch, and I like to discuss as I go (even if I cheat and race ahead a bit.)

Bagley wrote the first book about Iris while she was yet living. She was out of it by then, but people have faulted him for doing it. The second book about Iris, and himself and his new love, was written after she died.

See you on April 1st--if my book gets here.

HOWZAT

Lorrie
March 18, 2002 - 09:53 am
HOWZAT:

Yes, I thought it was so sad when I read about the slow decline of Murdoch's memory capabilities that was so obvious to others. Someone wrote that even her last work had pages of repititious sentences that would break your heart to read.

I haven't read her husbsnd's eulogy, but I understand it was beautifully written and that should make up for his premature printing of the first, I think.

Lorrie

Let's think positively! Your book will be arriving any day now!

MarjV
March 20, 2002 - 02:09 pm
howzat.......I am waiting for mine from there also!!! Usually they come in a week. At least that has been my experience so far.

howzat
March 20, 2002 - 03:45 pm
MarjV, I hope you get your book from Half.com. My order was canceled, but they didn't tell me. I went onsite and checked "My Account" and that's when I found out! I went somewhere else.

HOWZAT

Lorrie
March 20, 2002 - 04:47 pm
Okay! My book finally arrived today, and what a welcome sight that was!

Has anyone seen the movie "Iris?" I understand that it's very good, and people are saying what a great job Judi Dench does playing Iris Murdoch. I can see now that this is going to be one of the tapes I'll be renting after I read the book.

Just glancing through the pages reaffirms my admiration of this woman's writing. She is unique!

Howzat, and MargeV: Hang in there! They could have at least notified you, right?

Lorrie

Ginny
March 21, 2002 - 07:06 am
HELLLOOO there Suzz and all you former happy Readers, delighted to see you again and hope to see many new faces as well.

Lorrie,my book came yesterday and am thrilled not to have an 8 inch TOME which I was afraid it was!

It looks quite manageable, and eternal gratitude to you for taking it on, your discussions are always winners, we're all in the right hands, I'm quite excited about this, have never read Murdoch ( must have been under a rock all these years) and so grateful to you for leading us forth here in our FIRST VOTED ON SELECTION for the year in our Readers' Fiction Series, hope there will be many more.

And thanks to you all for your kindly remarks on our "Read Along With Lorrie" style, it's our own invention here in the Books and nobody else does it as well. Nobody gets our depth either while enjoying the heck out of the experience.

Marj what a super quote, you will see it again!

There's still time for everybody to join us, Lorrie, as she says, is taking it in parts, plenty of time to get on board, what a super group already assembled, what FUN!

I'm really looking forward to this, and am ready to read!

ginny

Lorrie
March 21, 2002 - 08:56 am
Hello to our cello-playing reader Ginny! Yes, I was sort of reassured when i got the book, too, it's not the huge epic I was afraid it would be, so we can do just fine here!

right now I'm working on a feasible schedule for us, and will post it up in the heading as soon as I've got it worked out. Good to hear from you all! Anybody lurking out there who might want to join in this discussion? There's still plenty of time to get the book!

Lorrie

Lorrie
March 21, 2002 - 12:22 pm
On looking over the intoduction to this book by Mary Kinzie, I was appalled by the length of it, and besides much of it dwells on what happens later in the book, and we don't want to jump ahead, do we? So shall we just skip the long Introduction, and maybe refer to it later at the wind-up, maybe?

Anyway, here's the tentative line-up. Does this fit in with your schedules? It better. Hahaha

I'll leave it here for a bit and then ask the "techies" to put it in the heading, if that suits you all. OOOH, I think this is going to be great!

Tentative schedule for reading of “The Sea, the Sea:

April 1 ---April 8-----Prehistory, and History, Chapter One.to page 108
April 8—April 15----Chapter Two and Chapter Three........ Page 108 to 236
April 15–April 22......Chapter Four and Chapter Five............Page 236 to 385
April 22-May 1--------Chapter Six and Postscript: .....Page 385 to end.


Lorrie

ALF
March 22, 2002 - 02:14 pm
Coughing, chocking and rasping, I join you. I've read to page 59 so far. Happy to see many of my favorite people here.

Lorrie
March 22, 2002 - 07:28 pm
ANDY!

It's good to hear from you! Sounds like a really bad cold, you take care of yourself, hear?

By the way, I heard someone say on TV that there will be a segment on Iris Murdoch Monday night on Biography on A&E. She led quite a tumultous life, I hear. Check your tv guide to see the proper time.

Lorrie

SarahT
March 22, 2002 - 07:41 pm
Lorrie - I'd prefer to skip the introduction. I usually do that, because it influences me too much as I read the book. I enjoy reading it afterward to see what I missed!

Lorrie
March 22, 2002 - 07:59 pm
SARAH:

Oh, good, I'm glad you feel that way, too!

Lorrie

SarahT
March 22, 2002 - 08:01 pm
More and more, especially through my association with you beautiful people in SeniorNet, I feel I don't need to read someone else's introduction or review to make up my own mind about a book. Discussing books with you makes me trust my own opinions!!

betty gregory
March 23, 2002 - 10:47 am
Oh, good. We get to skip the introduction, at the first. After reading one that told me things I rather would have learned in the text of the book, I never trusted introductions after that. We could begin our own "dos and don'ts" list for publishers.

By the way, Judy Dench is nominated for a best actress oscar for Iris, Sunday night. Also Kate Winslet for best supporting actress for Iris, as the young Iris, I believe.

Betty

Suzz
March 23, 2002 - 10:54 am
Ok,

I have gotten completely confused here. My book (a pb) has nothing called an Introduction. Page one starts off with a section called Prehistory which is part of the book. If I were to skip Prehistory, I would be skipping almost 100 pages of the text since History, Chap One starts on page 91. I am assuming that the Introduction you are speaking about is confined to a certain edition of the book and that you are not speaking of skipping Prehistory. Am I right? Thx.

Elizabeth N
March 23, 2002 - 01:53 pm
It's often wise to skip the few short paragraphs on the dust jackets as well; they often tell more than I care to know before I start a work of fiction.

SarahT
March 23, 2002 - 05:36 pm
Or, Elizabeth N, they give you a picture of the book that is completely WRONG!!

Lorrie
March 23, 2002 - 09:17 pm
Suzz; No, no, you're just fine here. Apparently you've got a copy of the book without the introduction by Mary Kinzie, which we aarae going to skip, anyway. So we will be starting with the Prehistory, and then Chapter One for the first week. You'll be right on schedule,

Betty:

Yes, after reading about the success of the movie, I'm more determined than ever to rent that film when it's available. I love Judi Dench anyway.

Elizabeth and Sarah:

I don't pay that much attention to those dust jackets, either!

Lorrie

ALF
March 24, 2002 - 06:01 am
What a perfectly delightful read this book is. It is the first Murdock I've tackled and I bsolutely love it! There will lots to discuss when we're ready.

Lorrie
March 25, 2002 - 10:26 am
You can almost hear the sea crashing against the rocks, can't you, Andy?

I found this little anecdote in one of Murdoch's biographies. Once, while traveling on a train, she was seated across from a young woman, who apparently didn't recognize the author, and who was immersed in one of Murdoch's books. (She didn't say which one)

The young woman was so concentrated on her book that she was oblivious to anything around her, conversation, change of seatmates, etc. Iris Murdoch said about this, later, "Well, at least they can't say I can't tell a good story."

Lorrie

ALF
March 25, 2002 - 11:54 am
Oh so true, so true. I love the way she weaves her sentences. I am truly enjoying this story. (Blasted old fool he is.)

MarjV
March 25, 2002 - 02:38 pm
HOWZAT: I am spitting mad. I just checked half.com and mine was also cancelled. I can't believe it because last I got was a confirmation. They must be really messed up with this e-bay/half.com merger.

Ooooooooooo. I am going to write a hot note to customer service. Did you?????

~Hot Marj in Cold Michigan on Monday.........

Ginny
March 25, 2002 - 03:50 pm
I bet they cancelled your two orders because somebody else ordered them! Betcha! Not good!!

That's happened to several people, I don't know why, so sorry!




Talking about "seeing the Sea," haha feast your eyes on this! The Sea!

I thought it would get me into the mood and found it at this truly fabulous site, Webshots which has 70, 000 gorgeous photos you can instantly use for your computer desktop, if you're tired of that blue and your icons, THIS thing almost has you smelling the sea and there's tons more! Thought it woud get me in the mood. hahahaha

Larry Hanna brought it to my attention and another of our DL's said at holiday times you can get rotating things which are just beyond words, so check it out, if you like.

ginny

Lorrie
March 25, 2002 - 04:07 pm
Oh, Marg, that's rotten that they didn't let you know, either. I think someone's right, this merger with ebay is going to cause problems. Anyway, hang in there! We'll still be here when the book does come!

Ginny, that's a fabulous seascape! The power that shows there is awesome, good site!

Lorrie

howzat
March 25, 2002 - 10:53 pm
No, I didn't write them about it. I went to their "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) and saw the answer to my problem: The seller who said he had a copy, didn't have a copy. The end. I'm getting mine from the library.

HOWZAT

MarjV
March 26, 2002 - 05:15 am
Well now........the only copy our library owns is not in-----way overdue. I'll call B & N today and see if I can get a copy at our store. I do not feel ordering & paying sh & hand.

Sigh.......

Lorrie
March 26, 2002 - 11:02 am
Howzat, and Marge V:

This distresses me no end. I hate it when merchants let us down like that, after we trust them and depend on their timely delivieries.

I'm glad you can get a copy of the book at the library, Howzat. If you have any problems with S&N, Marge, let me know. I'll send you mine, and try to scrounge one up somewhere else. This is too bad.

Lorrie

Roslyn Stempel
March 26, 2002 - 02:01 pm
Lorrie, I was pleasantly surprised to see the early show of enthusiasm on the part of those who are preparing to read The Sea, the Sea. I've read most of Murdoch's novels, beginning in 1960 -- do I get Graybeard Brownie points for that? -- and have had an opportunity to re-read this, having bought a used copy for very little money via Amazon's used-book outlet. They were available for as litle as 6 dollars. I feel I won't be giving anything away when I issue a gentle warning to the effect that (plotwise) almost nothing will turn out the way the first part of the book leads one to expect. Certainly Murdoch's imagery of the sea is almost unmatched and her many quirks of style are on fine display. Lorrie, I'm really looking forward to this discussion.

Ros

ALF
March 26, 2002 - 09:58 pm
Strangley enough, roslyn, I thought of you as I read this novel. It is filled with what you taught us during our first course. I loved the imagry, the characterizations and the theme. It is so---so "yummy-" is my word. I will definetly read more Murdoch stories.

Lorrie
March 26, 2002 - 10:45 pm
Roslyn: Murdoch's descriptive images of the setting for this book are, indeed, as vivid as you say, and I have a growing respect for the way she characterizes this first character. Of all the different novels of this author that you've read, did you have one in particular that you liked more than others?

I am so very glad to see your post, and welcome you most heartily to this discussion. I'm so looking forward to sharing views on this book.

Alf:

This will by my first Iris Murdoch novel, also. so together you and I can share the pleasure.

Lorrie

Suzz
March 27, 2002 - 07:40 am
I have decided to unsub from the group and not read this book. I have tried to get into it but don't like it. For those who have been with me on other groups, I utter these dreaded words: flora, fauna, minutia and droning. 500 pages of reading about this man's every thought, meal, swim, plant, and possession? I don't think so. By page 16, I was hoping the narcissistic narrator would drown. On page 17, I decided that wasn't a very good sign and quit reading ). Moving along to greener reading pastures for me. See you on the flip side.

Ginny
March 27, 2002 - 07:56 am
Suzz, you are SUCH a hoot, I hate we will not have you in this discussion, Lorrie will be bereft, but we can hold out hope you will join us in another, and isn't it strange and wonderful how different we all are, but I love the thing!

I have to keep putting it down because its so good ! It's been a long time since I've been so totally caught up in a book. I wondered how the rest of you were seeing it, it's not the flora but the odd twist he gives it, I'm mesmerized, just hooked. I even took it for my late night bedtime reading which I almost never do.

And you wanted him drowned, listen, don't go too far, I want to hear why.

I wondered how much of my own reaction (this is my first Murdoch, too) is taken with the fact that three of us friends (or we were when we started) once rented a house in Cornwall on a cliff overlooking the ocean from the National Trust.

And it came with its own "turret" too, Doyden Castle, essenntially a turret (not a martello tower, which I first heard of in EF Benson's Lucia books) but a real castle tower separate from the house.... I was not going to say this till later but I SWEAR she is writing about this house. The same footpaths to the village, the same abandoned cove, the same views except we could see the sea from the kitchen, the same noises in the night (so much so that I had to sleep in stifling heat, with the windows closed, because the wind moaned and howled all night long when the windows were open, talk about "they call the wind Mariah," I SWEAR this book was written about Doyden House. IF she starts on the tame seagulls I KNOW it's the same, they are famous to this house, or one of them is, anyway.

I may put in a photo later on, the only thing different is the color of the rocks.

You can tell the setting IS England and not New England by the "martello tower."

Don't go too far, Suzz!

ginny

Roslyn Stempel
March 27, 2002 - 08:52 am
Suzz, my Murdochophilia notwithstanding I can understand why you might find this book intolerable. Murdoch was a crafty writer in more than one sense. Knowing a reader's intuitive bias toward a first-person narrator, she seems to have begun immediately to test it by piling on unappealing details about Charles Arrowby's self-centeredness, his vanity, his insistence on gratifying his personal whims about food and comfort, and what appears to be his self-satisfaction in having bidden a dramatic farewell to "the world" and chosen such a wild, lonely, and isolated place for his retirement. Maintaining a balanced attitude toward him reminds me of that fitness exercise that requires staying upright, barefoot, on a pile of soft and slippery sofa pillows: It looks easy, but keeping your balance on that teetery mound requires real concentration. Will he change for the better ? Will he grow? I intend to hang on through the whole ride and draw my conclusions at the end.

ALF
March 27, 2002 - 01:04 pm
I have actually become quite fond of this narcisstic, bon vivant fellow. I could, of course, throttle him because of his self interest but there is something that makes me gravitate toward him. I love all of these characters that Murdock has introduced for our short journey and have slowed my reading down. As Ginny has also done, I've taken this for my nightly read and do so hate this excursion with Mr. Arrowby to end. THAT is when I know the book has been a sensation for me.

Lorrie
March 27, 2002 - 02:40 pm
Oh, Suzz, I am so disappointed you've decided to jump ship. I know this first part of the book seems interminable, but I can't help but feel that there is much more of great interest to follow. Like Roslyn says, perhaps Murdoch is testing us, and we should hang in there until we see what direction she is going.

Ginny, isn't it possible that she could have lived at that same "castle", only naming it something else? Stranger things have happened. Does the description of the village, such as it is, strike a chord? Wow, that must have been some vacation!

Alf, you're so right--I like the sly little way Murdoch keeps sliding in the new characters, just about the time we're thoroughly unenamoured with Charles.

Lorrie

Suzz
March 27, 2002 - 08:40 pm
Ginny -- well now, you're just going to have to find someone else to kick around during this discussion aren't you )). Your mention of Cornwall reminded me that in my brief sojourn with Murdoch *she* reminded me of a walk I took along the coast of Ireland outside of Dublin and the cliffs and sea there. But, Ginny, I still wanted the narrator to drown . And when I was looking along the coast, I loved the sweep of it and the drama of it ... I didn't love each and every rock, wave, pebble and grain of sand )

Roslyn -- I appreciate what you're saying but the problem is that I don't care if he grows or not. I'm not even curious. No offense meant. Far too many great books and fine writers out there to suffer for one second with Murdoch. Some people may but I, personally, don't like literary criticism or deconstruction and don't really care what she, as a writer, was about. I've always been a serious reader and my resume is quite full without Murdoch .. although I can now say I tried her and didn't like her .

Lorrie -- I have been tested by far better writers than Murdoch and not found wanting. hahahahahahahahahah ..... On a serious note, I don't often dance well with Booker Prize winning authors with the notable exception of Penelope Lively. I think there's someone else too but I'm blanking.

Ginny -- please explain me to the rest of the group. LOL ...

Y'all, I just came back to tidy up in case there were any responses to my post. I really am unsubbed and won't be back again to this group. Hope to see you around Senior Net.

Oh, P.S. , someone on a mailing list I'm on who reads Murdoch commented the best starting place with her is The Bell and not The Sea The Sea for those of you who may enjoy her writing and want to visit her again.

Roslyn Stempel
March 27, 2002 - 10:21 pm
when it comes to deconstruction and all that stuff, possibly a dangerous admission on my part in case anyone thinks I'm passing myself off as an expert on literary theory.As Sir Max Beerbohm's famous Oxford Univeersity siren, Zuleika Dobson, --whom I always think of as Marilyn Monroe with a bustle -- said, "I don't know anything about Art, but I do know what I like." I 'spect you've paid your dues, swallowed enough required readings to choke a young horse, and earned the right to discard anything that hasn't grabbed you by the time you 've reached page 57. If we, er, mature readers don't know what we like or dislike by this time, we haven't been paying attention. Ergo, no apology is necessary.

Later, alligator.

Ros

MarjV
March 28, 2002 - 01:38 pm
oh......please slow the comments about the book conctent...just a teensy!

Finally I've found a copy of the book at the B&N which I'll pick up tomorrow (Friday).

Lorrie
March 28, 2002 - 02:59 pm
Okay, MargV: Hear that, everybody? Let's save the comments about the characters until Marge starts reading, is that all right with everybody? MargV hasn't the slightes idea of what we're talking about, she is only getting the book tomorrow, after a real screw-up, right Marge?

Well, we've lost one, but we still have an eager bunch waiting to talk, and I think we're going to be just fine, and Marge, after you start reading, you must read Ginny's post about her "haunted" castle! Shades of Wuthering Heights!

Are you all still with us? Ginny, Sarah, Betty Gregory, Elizabeth, Howzat, and our own Nurse Ratchett, Andy! Report in, please!

Lorrie

Ginny
March 29, 2002 - 09:42 am
I'm here, Lorrie, and raring to go!

ginny

SarahT
March 29, 2002 - 05:08 pm
I'm here, Lorrie, but don't have the book yet. Let's hold on substantive discussion of the book until 4/1!!!

betty gregory
March 29, 2002 - 05:52 pm
Reading, loving it, reading.

Betty

Elizabeth N
March 29, 2002 - 08:25 pm
I'm just lurking Ginny; pay no attention to me.

Traude
March 29, 2002 - 09:37 pm
Lorrie, I am also here, as promised, hoping to tackle Iris Murdoch one more time, this time successfully I hope.

The introduction (presumably written for the paperback edition) is inordinately long IHMO and, in my impatience to get "moving", I found it distracting--moreover, I don't want to be told beforehand what to think and how to interpret things. I am glad we are officially allowed to skip it, at least for now.

Reading -----

Lorrie
March 29, 2002 - 10:54 pm
This is absolutley wonderful!! I am so glad to hear from you all, and I am looking forward to Monday. In the meantime, I will be inserting a couple of questions in the heading above to more or less get the ball rolling.

Never fear, Sarah, we will be starting quite slowly, it looks like.

IN THE MEANTIME, A HAPPY EASTER AND BLESSED PASSOVER WISHES TO ALL!!

Lorrie

Keene
March 30, 2002 - 03:02 am
I'm looking forward to "meeting" all of you and to my first book discussion on SeniorNet. A couple of weeks ago my husband and I saw the movie "Iris" and agree with all reports that it is wonderfully sad with a gifted performance by Judi Dench. My son-in-law is from Cornwall and perhaps this book will help me appreciate his love for his homeland. He and my daughter live in Boston and visit Cornwall once a year. A technical question: I notice in previous posts that some messages are in different typestyles and colors. I have experimented around and can't figure out how this is done when posting. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks.

Keene

Lorrie
March 30, 2002 - 07:26 am


KEENE!


How wonderful to see your name here! Welcome to our group, and ask your SIL if Murdoch's setting is anything like his Cornwall, will you? Yes, I have admired Judi Dench for years and am most anxious to see her rendition of Dame Iris Murdoch. Welcome to our group, we are very glad to hear from you!

I am turning your comment about different font styles over to one of our "techies" who can explain it so much better than I. Alas, I'm afraid I'm lacking in the knowledge of the nuts and bolts of this computer. Stay with us!

Lorrie

Ginny
March 30, 2002 - 07:47 am
Keene!! Welcome! Have sent you a little bit about fonts and colors, and if the rest of you would like to give them a try just holler, there's nothing to it, it IS springish, isn't it? hahahah

Elizabeth! Pay no attention to YOU! Please! My heart lept up when I saw you here and a "Lurking Elizabeth" is better than none, isn't that an old saying?

Welcome! Lurk or not!

We have storms here today so I hope you all have a wonderful Easter or Passover and will join you on Monday, can't wait to see your comments!

ginny

ALF
March 30, 2002 - 01:46 pm
Welcome Keene. You will not be disappointed. I just finished this novel this morning and like Ginny, am raring to go. I loved this book, loved it!

Keene
March 30, 2002 - 05:16 pm
Thanks for the greeting. Did you send the information about fonts and colors? If so, I didn't receive it. Thanks, Keene

Lorrie
March 30, 2002 - 05:42 pm
Keene, our Ginny had to go offline with the threat of severe thunderstorms down there in S. Carolina today and tomorrow, but I'm sure she'll be back to answer your query when it's safe to "boot up" again. Looking forward to hearing from you more on this page, and Welcome, again!

Lorrie

Ginny
March 31, 2002 - 10:33 am
Keene, Lorrie is right, typing in the teeth of a storm with water all over the kitchen floor (dishwasher flooded again,) waiting for kids for lunch.

Yes I sent it when I posted to the email address you have when I clicked on your name? I have resent it to Pat W and asked her to send it on , if neither of you gets it, please post again and I'll post the directions here, maybe more people would enjoy same.

Can't wait till tomorrow,

Happy Holiday, Everyone!

ginny

MarjV
March 31, 2002 - 10:41 am
Thank you , Sarah , for agreeing about holding off the discussion til the 1st.

Sometimes the discussions start way before the date and I, for one, just get too far behind.

Reading it & loving it !!!!

~~~Marj

Keene
March 31, 2002 - 04:50 pm
Ginny and Pat, I received the fonts and colors instructions. When I have a moment I will practice. Am looking forward to tomorrow.

Thanks again,

Keene

SarahT
March 31, 2002 - 05:25 pm
Welcome Keene! I think you'll find we're a really friendly group. So looking forward to discussing this one with you!

Lorrie
March 31, 2002 - 09:50 pm
Good Morning, Everyone!

I assume we have all read up to the beginning of Chapter 2, to page 108, and what a wealth of juicy stuff we have here!

First off, I’d like to get from you all the first impressions you formed of Charles Arrowby, and it will be fun to see how closely we cling to that same impression at the end of the book. And let’s not forget the introduction of all the other characters, unforgettable each one.

I posted a couple questions up above to sort of jump-start the discussion; think on them as you wish, we do not follow any rigid “set in stone” protocol here. I have always liked spontaneity in conversations, and this is no exception. I’m so glad that we’re reading this book together!

Lorrie

Roslyn Stempel
April 1, 2002 - 07:51 am
Lorrie and friends, I should warn you that I am fascinated by Murdoch's stylistic antics and will probably comment on them until you scream with boredom. For example, if you look at the way she records conversation you might notice that she was a wonderful mimic. Each character speaks in a distinctive voice. The show-business people betray their need to be trendy, their fear of being put down or overlooked, and their breathless anxiety to get it all said before someone breaks in. In her descriptions Murdoch often piles three or four adjectives together without commas as if to tell us quickly as much as possible to create a picture.>p> As for Charles Arrowby, I don't think we need to read far along before encountering phrases that suggest the hollowness and fear that drove him to his "retirement," or retreat, to the strange house by the sea. It will be a long time before he can let go of those hints about his sexual prowess, lists of conquests and triumphs, and self-revealing details about his food preferences and the life style to which he aspires.

Ros

Lorrie
April 1, 2002 - 08:57 am
Ros:

Bored? Not at all. In your post you said

"show-business people betray their need to be trendy, their fear of being put down or overlooked, and their breathless anxiety to get it all said before someone breaks in.".....................

Until you pointed that writing style out, I had simply thought that this particular phase was simply disjointed, uncharacteristic. Oh, so many facets to the writing talent of this lady!

Lorrie

MarjV
April 1, 2002 - 10:13 am
My first comment.....Iris writes description in such detail that feels so real I have to keep reminding myself Charles is not a real person telling his own story. Quite remarkable. The detail is so complete it flows for me.

Also, I missed what Rose pointed out. That style then, adds to Charle's manner of sort of chatting at us.

~marj

ALF
April 1, 2002 - 10:20 am
This novel reads like a screen play to me.   The curtain rises and the entertainment begins as Charles reflects while writing his memoirs.  Charles is cast in the role as our star (?) .  He is perfect!  Like any good theatre piece  his performance is flawless as he introduces himself and the other characters in the first act.  We learn of Peregrine, Sidney, Fritzie, Wilfred, Gilbert and Clement.  Throughout the entire novel characters keep peeping in and out; enter stage left and another setting is staged.  As the spotlight shifts from one character to another we become better acquainted with this arrogant, self absorbed, cocky gentleman.   Chas. is a sensational melodramatic personality and I grew to love him as well as pity him.
Chas. describes his father as having "a positive moral quality of gentleness"   and I wondred why it was he never strived to be a bit more like ole daddy.

kiwi lady
April 1, 2002 - 11:27 am
Hello everyone

Have just ordered this book from my library on line. Hope to get it by the end of the week and join in the discussion. I had never heard of Iris Murdoch until the film arrived. Then I became curious. She was quite a prolific writer. I am looking forward to reading her works.

Carolyn

Ginny
April 1, 2002 - 03:27 pm
And I am totally caught up with the descriptions of the flora and fauna, it brings back SUCH memories, I can't help it, the throw away lines:


I have been out picking flowers upon my rocks! I collected a fine mixed bunch of valerian and thrift and white sea campion." (page 73)


I mean, I'm so caught up in it I almost can't see the forest for the trees, have you ever seen valerian growing wild? It's at Alcatraz island, in California, at the prison? I stopped an entire tour short by demanding to know what that plant was. The pictures those few words summon up are almost overwhelming! (And so are the photos I took while on Cornwall, roll after roll of film of little white flowers, etc., am scourging the barn for them now, brace yourselves!)

On the coast of Cornwall there are hundreds of tiny flowers just exactly as she describes and it does tend to take over your concentration and focus if you stay there for any length of time.

Things which broke the spell:

  • I did not have the feeling initally that the narrator was a male. I know he is supposed to be Charles, but to me there was something not masculine about "him." Did anybody else have that feeling? As the pages progressed "he" became more masculine but only just, still am having a slight problem, and I don't know why, despite all the wives, girlfriends, etc., still, it's a woman talking, to me, at the outset.

  • The lovingly carefully delienated meals? There's a lot about food and you can tell I'm no gourmet, at the outset it seemed quite unbearably scrumptuous, but did you notice that as it went on it got a lot more grungy? You can take delight in every soupcon of nuance and texture, except that half of the meals toward the end of this section begin to sound awful? I mean really, it gets almost....I dunno. He's a man who is consumed with the delectation of detail and planning and executing the next gastronomic delight but when he says what it IS? Maybe I don't know how to EAT!@! Pearls before swine apparently.

    What's a trilby hat (page 88) by the way?

  • I feel sorry for Charles. On the one hand he desires solitude and on the other, he wants human contact:

    How huge it is, how empty, this great space for which I have been longing all my life.
    Still no letters.
    (page 15).


    He's such an egotist ("Such is my view, with which some fools will differ." page 37).

    The writing itself is delicious: "here hedonism triumphs over a peevish baffled moral sense." (page 10). That's very fine!

    It's been a long time since I have been able to drown in a book and that's what is happening with this one, it's cast a spell and I hope it does not break.

    Wonderful questions in the heading, our Lorrie, have NO clue on the water thing, wonderful start, Everybody, I do like that play thing, Andrea, they do seem to enter stage right, especially Rosina and to a lesser extent, Gilbert. I love what you all are saying and cant wait to hear from the rest of you! Carolyn, you're in for a treat!

    ginny
  • kiwi lady
    April 1, 2002 - 04:45 pm
    Just a note - The English artistic community were really dramatic and larger than life right in to the twenties and thirties. They seemed to become a bit more mainstream from the forties. Maybe the First and Second World Wars may have had something to do with that. I have been reading a history of English poets and in the history books they were all very exaggerated in their emotions. I think it may have been expected of them by their admirers of the day!

    Carolyn

    Lorrie
    April 1, 2002 - 05:28 pm
    MarjV: In his "chatting at you" kind of way, Charles does seem to convey a lot about himself and his family and friends, doesn't he? He goes into great detail about his early childhood and family life, do you get the feeling that there will be more on this later on? Especially with Cousin James? I was touched by his obvious affection for his father, weren't you?

    Andy, what a great comparison to a play!! Especially here where so many of the foremost characters are connected to theatrical life. Caroline, do you think that is why the villagers seem to look on Charles with derision and amusement? His theatrical background? To them he's the Londoner who swims "bare."

    Ginny, maybe you thought those meals Charles cooked for himself were haute cuisine, but to me they didn't seem all that appetizing. Just how goumet a cook can you be without electricity or running water? That little detail irritated me--Charles was apparently pretty comfortable as far as income was concerned, wouldn't you think he would buy a place that had a few more creature comforts, or perhaps I'm not adventurous enough to see the romanticism here of the primitive way of life.

    He is full of himself, isn't he? But the one thing that intrigues me, mystery lover that I am, is the hint of something macabre or eerie about to happen. A sea monster, yet! And visions in the mirror? Poltergeist happenings?

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 1, 2002 - 05:31 pm
    Carolyn, don't worry about coming in her later than the rest, we are going at a slow pace here. You'll love it once you get going here!

    Lorrie

    Keene
    April 1, 2002 - 06:03 pm
    I'm almost finished with the first reading. Just wanted to check in and say I'm enthralled with what I've read so far.

    Keene

    besprechen
    April 1, 2002 - 08:03 pm
    My mind is so full of ideas as I read the first section, let's see if I can express them. First, I have found a reference in Shakespeare's Henry VIII between characters Katharine and Griffith, discussing the death of Cardinal Wosley: "Noble madam, Men's evil manners live in brass; their virtues we write in water." Act IV, Scene II, line 52. Therefore, I define the phrase "write in water" to mean think, attempt, but never accomplish, to go unknown.

    As someone else mentioned, Charles seems so lonely in this English countryside and keeps referring to the fact: "received no letters since my arrival." In this setting, away from the theatre atmosphere and mannerisms, he will at last try to find true self, to repent of a life of egoism. Most every statement I have read in the book echoes principles of Philosophy. Since Iris was an Oxford trained student of Philosophy, I find snippets of that study showing up in every paragraph, every subject broached by our protagonist. I even suggest positivist egoism for our character: "In its strong form the theory asserts that people always act in their own interests, even though they may disguise their motivation with references to helping others or doing their duty."

    So far, I have not been sympathetic with Charles Arrowby. I find him devoted to his own interest and advancement (as his taste in food and why shouldn't others like the same thing?) and the quality of conceit: conceited, boastful, excessive, self-absorbed. But, Iris presents it all with such painstaking detail, style of writing, self-expression, that I find it a fascinating and different book. I read on.

    SarahT
    April 1, 2002 - 08:13 pm
    Still waiting for the book from the Library, Lorrie. Will jump in once it arrives.

    Lorrie
    April 1, 2002 - 10:31 pm
    BESPRECHEN! WELCOME!

    I had been wondering about the source of that expression "written in water," thank you so much. From your remarks about Philosopy, I wondered if perhaps you have a background there? Teaching, perhaps? In any event, we are so glad to have you join us.

    Keene:

    Does Murdoch's description of the seaside home here bring to mind anything your son-in-law might have told you about Cornwall? It does Ginny here, who has a ghost story of her own to tell about her stay in a similar place.

    Hang in there Sarah, we'll still be here when the book comes.

    Lorrie

    betty gregory
    April 2, 2002 - 01:16 am
    Normally, when reading details of a man's shabby treatment of women, I will begin to ask myself how many more hours will I spend on this? Sometimes, my saturation meter sounds an alarm and I begin to think, just think what I could be doing with my time.

    Murdoch has me in her clutches, though. The intensity of Charles' thoughts about women, his level of protestation.....there's something odd going on here. His voice is just not the usual, male voice putting women down.

    Even his egotism on other subjects is at such a volume that I'm left frowning and wondering, instead of being turned off. Does Murdoch want us to think Charles doesn't feel certain, grounded in his sexuality? His fussy directions with food, his focus or over-concern about the state of his body.....I don't want to OVER interpret Murdoch's words, but they do leave me with questions.

    In the middle of some of his wretched things said about women, I started to wonder about his COMFORT with women. Look at the odd intensity of this, pg. 11:

    "I may add here that one of the secrets of my happy life is that I have never made the mistake of learning to drive a car. I have never lacked people, usually women, longing to drive me, whithersoever I wanted. Why keep bitches and bark yourself?"

    The mixed message is left up to the reader, all the way from no harm meant at all to...women are dogs and are kept. But, there are so many statements of mild, medium or wild disdain that I'm tempted to count them instead of take them at face value. Very mysterious.

    Then, he thinks such good, sweet thoughts about his father!! On page 58, he wonders if his thinking Uncle Abel was so "picturesque" hurt his father, which he "writes with a special piercing sadness."

    On style, I like how Murdoch gradually introduces how the village feels about him. Up to page 108, I'm still not quite sure how he is seen in the village, though toward the middle of the book, she has let us see more and more of how the villagers view him. I won't say more than that, for those not up to the middle of the book.

    Back to women....here is the oddest thing, yet...his fear of women singing, pg. 59....

    "It is probably in some way because of Aunt Estelle that the human voice singing has always upset me with a deep and almost frightening emotion. There is something strange and awful about the distorted, open mouths of singers, especially women, the wet white teeth, the moist red interior."

    I'm usually the last person to make a sexual interpretation, as I think we jump too fast to interpret things sexually. I have to admit, however, that's the first thing I thought when reading the above.

    I need to know what others thought when they read this.

    Betty

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 2, 2002 - 02:13 am
    I'd recommend that we suspend any doubts we might have as to whether Dame Iris was ever uncertain about who her characters were and where they were going. It's tempting to skip some of those wordy descriptions but even in the pell-mell piling up of details there can be a purpose.

    Perhaps someone recalls Noel Coward's wicked number "Marvelous Party," wickedly rendered by the immortal Beatrice Lillie. It echoed in my memory as I read some of charles Arrowby's "theater talk." -- malicious references to the naughty misdeeds of people one was supposed to know by their first names but might actually never heard of, and casual name-dropping of sexual conquests so numerous that they had to be indexed chronologically as "That was before Miss X and just after Miss Y, when Miss Z was pursuing me by phone and letter...."Does one detect a hollow ring?

    Ros

    ALF
    April 2, 2002 - 05:02 am
    Charles tries throughout this entire novel to capture the attention of a woman. Once the attention has been given, he becomes bored and casts them aside. He is the victor. It's a personal response, I know, but I believe in his heart Charles hates women and uses them as him own pawn. He cleverly manipulatives and beguiles all women to suit himself. Does this not come from a young-age trauma? Is this not indicative of a man who is still attempting to get mommy's attention? He rarely saw his maternal grandmother. His mother's sisters figured as two pale 'aunties.' (pg. 23) He loved Aunt Estelle who took "Uncle Abel away into the world of light." She, of course had cousin James to dote on. His mother, Maid Marian, is rememembered as carrying a mask of anxiety.
    "We were poorish and lonely and awkward together."
    Charles needed the adoration of a woman. Oedipus, perhaps? Murdoch brilliantly portrays Charles'es charming seductions.

    Keene
    April 2, 2002 - 07:48 am
    Besprechen, I have the same thoughts that you do regarding the phrase "written in water." My memories are of the time when I was a synchronized swimmer in college and without the constant movement of our muscles, instead of producing the beautiful ballet movements typical of this sport, we would sink to the bottom, unseen. Words "written in water" would disappear in the same manner.

    Betty, the quote "It is probably in some way because of Aunt Estelle that the human voice singing has always upset me with a deep and almost frightening emotion. There is something strange and awful about the distorted, open mouths of singers, especially women, the wet white teeth, the moist red interior," certainly, in my way of thinking, depicts an intense repulsion of women. I have similar thoughts as those you have expressed. What does everyone else think?

    Keene

    Ginny
    April 2, 2002 - 07:56 am
    besprechen , marvelous point on Henry VIII reference to written in water, between characters Katharine and Griffith, discussing the death of Cardinal Wosley!!! Wonderful! And the philosophy tie in, very well said again, well done!

    I love it when somebody points out a literary reference I missed, it's like a treasure chest and I ovelooked the diamond in the corner, well done.

    Betty pointed out two more things that brought me up short, here is a man who is self dependent, we've noted the seeingly self satisfaction in being alone but at the same time wanting to hear from others, but the remark about never learning to drive (thus being dependent on women...[why women particularly, don't men drive?] ) stopped me. Again stopped with the "bitches" remark, is this an old saying, perhaps? I have a feeling it is?

    Charles's treatment of those he does come into contact with is less than admirable, truly he must trade on his fame because his manners and personality leave a lot to be desired, to me.

    Lorrie, I thought YOU would pick up on that cooking, being the chef you are, so NONE of his meals so lovingly dwelt over looked good? There was one early one with salmon or something I thought looked good, but again as you point out cooking with no facilities, the self sufficient gourmet who appreciates flowers and who can't seem to stand women and their open mouths (shades of Prufrock and arm hair?)....he's a complex character, isn't he?

    Or she?

    Carolyn (kiwi lady) mentioned earlier about the overwrought theater people or artistic people of the time and I find I myself had written "melodramatic" next to page 106 in the papergack Penguin edition, and the Rosnia dialogue, am not sure yet if that's for effect or not, am not sure where this is going.

    Roslyn, are you asking of the writing has a hollow ring or if the portrayal of Charles himself seems to strike a hollow note?

    ginny

    Lorrie
    April 2, 2002 - 10:34 am
    I think we're all in agreement that Charles' relationships with women leave much to be desired; don't you wonder how this self-centered egoist can attract so many apparently vibrant women? Follow him around?

    At first Betty sees a real male chauvinist, but right now I'm not sure how she sees Charles. Someone else (Ginny) had the feeling, at first, that Charles was a woman. She says: I did not have the feeling initally that the narrator was a male. I know he is supposed to be Charles, but to me there was something not masculine about "him." As the pages progressed "he" became more masculine but only just, still am having a slight problem, and I don't know why, despite all the wives, girlfriends, etc., still, it's a woman talking, to me, at the outset."

    did anyone else have that feeling? I think I see what Ginny means.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 2, 2002 - 05:36 pm
    I'd like to hear what you all think about Charles' house, Shruff End. Murdoch goes to immense pains to describe this dwelling, gloomy and cavelike, and in many ways it stands as a metaphor for Charles' own mind. Murdoch's descriptions on pages 17 and 18 truly set the mood for the telling of this story, and they don't leave us easily.

    Lorrie

    MarjV
    April 2, 2002 - 05:37 pm
    Water washes objects away.......like if you make a sand castle at the water's edge. That is how I interp that. And it adds to what besprechen posted.

    Lorrie-----And I could not understand how he could be eating ice cream with no frig!!!

    Yes, I also get the feeling it is a woman talking/writing.

    I laughed myself silly at the number of times dear Chas. tells us he went swimming naked!!!! Like ------ Look at my strong male character.

    I just think the nature descriptions are marvelous. I feel like I am sitting/walking right there.

    Marj

    Joan Pearson
    April 2, 2002 - 07:16 pm
    The house by the sea ...I've always wanted. I remember years ago, can it really be 20 years, my 10 year old had a friend he wanted to invite to spend the night and I phoned his mother to talk to her about it. Her son told me that he'd have her call back, that she was at her beach place. He didn't say "our" beach place, he called it hers. She was there in the middle of the week alone, and it was winter. I never forgot that after all these years. I remember your cottage by the sea in Oregon too, Betty. What wonderful memories you must carry of that time!

    To be alone with ones' thoughts and that view ~ "total sea" as Charles describes it. What a great place to get to know oneself... Charles doesn't seem to know where to start his memoirs, his autobiography ~ just as he hasn't found the perfect place to swim yet. Do you think he'll ever really get to it, to writing the memoirs? He's decided to just keep a diary, a journal, for now.

    Do you keep a journal? I used to...until SN happened to me. I think of posting on SN as writing on water, Marj. I keep my journal right here, put into it my innermost thoughts and memories. It's more than that really...you all stimulate thoughts and jog the memory, but in the end, the discussions are over and a new journal begins. Like writing on water instead of creating a permanent record...on paper. To be honest, I don't think it makes a difference writing with water or ink. It's really all about the thought processes. You don't have to go back and reread what you wrote...you live what you write.

    I just got my book this afternoon and this evening was going to tear through to catch up with you all...but I can't, just can not rush through this. As Andy says, it is too "yummy"...just too delicious to rip through, to "phrase read", a`la Evlyn Woods. Have a thought or two on Charles' womanly characteristics, but haven't read enough to comment. What a marvelous book!

    Lorrie
    April 2, 2002 - 10:09 pm
    WELCOME, JOAN!

    It's so nice to see your name here, and I'm glad you you have your book now. On your mention of Journals, I haven't kept a diary ever since my husband read mine one time when I was visiting my sister. I was so disillusioned that he read it that I couldn't bear to start another, and never did. Our Charles has no qualms about writing everything in his.

    Does anyone else get a feeling of suspense, or sinister happenings, or am I imagining that from this part of the book? I get a feeling that there is something a little unreal about to happen, and the mention of sea monsters and ghostly figures adds to this.

    Lorrie

    ALF
    April 3, 2002 - 06:46 am
    Oh Lorrie: That is so painful when someone violates your personal diary . In essence, it violates you. I rememeber, so vividly, as a teenager, my mother reading my diary and discussing it with our neighbor lady. I was mortified and have never written down my thoughts since. Joan is correct when she says this is a journal of sorts, here at SN. I have told my SN friends more about my self and my life than I have anyone else. Why is that I wonder? My daughter forever nags me about writing an epistle of some sorts. She encourages me to write a satire of my nursing experiences, as I tell them frequently. She insists that she have something in writing to carry on after I'm long gone. I am not comfortable putting in writing the sentiments that I have. Perhaps its protective, maybe it's just too painful. The past is the past- why would I want to reexamine some of the "nasties?"?

    Lorrie
    April 3, 2002 - 10:46 am
    I agree, Andy. Knowing that someone has broached your confidence and read your personal diary is akin to being raped, in my estimation. I think I would feel the same outrage and violation in either case.

    Keeping a journal seems to be a fairly common habit among the British characters that I keep reading about, but I'm sure it is not entirely an English chracteristic. It's interesting, in Charles' case, that in writing this "memoir" he believes that he is eschewing the vulgar, self=absorbed power plays that constituted his adult life as a director in the theatre. He believes he is learning "to be good," but self-regard and the manipulation of others are not so easily dispensed with.

    Incidentally, on page 2, while writing in his diary, Charles mentions, while talking of flora and fauna, a certain White of Selborne. "This could be of some interest, if I persevered, even though I am no White of Selborne."

    Does anyone know the significance of this name?

    Lorrie

    Ginny
    April 3, 2002 - 11:47 am
    Hey, Joan, good to see you here! Isn't this a delicious book, tho? Joan P is also a gourmet cook so she will tell us her opinion on the meals as well!




    Lorrie, I don't know about White of Selborne or the trilby hat but the book mentions another strange thing, the Martello Tower, which we first encountered while reading EF Benson's Mapp and Lucia series. Here is a wonderful HTML page explaining what they are: Spread along the South Kent coast into Sussex is a line of small defensive forts built at the time of the Napoleonic Wars known as the Martello Towers.

    And I am going to have to say that the location, by virtue of the appearnce of this Martello Tower, would have to be Sussex, and not Cornwall, doggone it. Do you agree?

    If you scroll to the very bottom you can click on a photo of a Martello Tower and the explanation of how it was built and why, it's fascinating and so was a similar structure (called Doyden Castle) we had in Cornwall, still looking for photos!

    PS: What's a trilby hat?

    ginny

    Lorrie
    April 3, 2002 - 02:41 pm
    Trilby: chiefly Brit. A soft felt hat with indented crown.

    Such a hat was worn in the London stage version of "Trilby", a novel by George du Maurier. (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 3, 2002 - 02:51 pm
    Interesting about the Martello towers, Ginny. But do they all look alike exactly? I understand the reason for the circumference---with that tower in the picture and the way that cannon could be fired from almost any angle, it's easy to see why. And, even though I've never been there, are the coasts of Sussex and of Cornwall all that different?

    Lorrie

    Traude
    April 3, 2002 - 02:56 pm
    "written in water" : it conveys I believe a sense of impermanence, whatever is written is washed away.

    A Trilby hat is a soft felt hat of the Homburg type with a narrow brim and indented crown, according to Jeeves. "Trilby" is also the name of the heroine in a novel by George du Maurier (1834-1896), grandfather of Daphne du Maurier (1907-1989) also of literary fame : e.g. Rebecca, My Cousin Rachel, Jamaica Inn, Frenchman's Creek, and more.

    I am still struggling with the prehistory. And I too had the impression that the first-person narrator is a woman. Perhaps that isn't altogether surprising; Peter J. Conradi writes in his recent biography, Iris Murdoch : A Life, that she wrote essentially about herself, usually at great length, was impervious to criticism and adamantly opposed to editorial changes. Only her American editor is said to have had moderate success in that respect.

    Those windowless inner rooms were interesting, I thought. A toad in the larder ? My my. Oil lamps the handling of which the narrator had learned in America ? When might that have been ? On page 10 he says, There is running water and main drainage, thank God (I have lived without these in America) (!!!) and again one wonders when. Haven't come across a time reference yet.

    Also on page 10 the narrator himself speaks of the preceding recitation as a "tirade". I find his relentless self-absorption irritating.

    I looked up White and Selborne: Rev. Gilbert White was a famous naturalist and author of The Natural History of Selborne. His house near Alton, Hampshire, with the Oates Museum (devoted to 'Titus' Oates of Antarctic fame and Frank Oates, Victorian explorer) is open to the public.

    The references to food and its preparation seem uncharacteristic of a man, especially one whose home was the theater. I'll gladly leave him his boiled onions (mentioned twice so far). And apples stewed in tea ??

    On page 15 in the second paragraph we read, ---Fritzie Eitel successful and done for in California. What does "done for in California" mean ?

    I am forcing myself to read slowly, methodically and dutifully (so far without much pleasure, I confess) and in small doses.

    Just went back to check for typos and saw Lorrie's note about the Trilby hat. Sorry about the duplication.

    Traude
    April 3, 2002 - 03:09 pm
    Adding in haste : The descriptions of the sea and the rocky coast are stunning.

    Joan Pearson
    April 3, 2002 - 06:07 pm
    Traudee, I love those sea descriptions too, the different moods from day to day. Do Charles' moods change with them?
    "...the waves coming flying through beneath me and killing themselves in fits of rage in the deep enclosed rocky area."


    The first thing I thought of when I read about the martello tower was the one in which James Joyce lived as a young man...and then wrote about. That was in Ireland too...so I looked them up and found some interesting information...and photos of his tower and others. Some of this overlaps with what Ginny found...lots of Martello towers, so this could still be anywhere. Did you look up Narrowdean?

    Martello Tower

    James Joyce tower home

    "The story begins on the island of Corsica on the 9th of September 1794. A British force attacked a French headland on cape Martello. The British military were so impressed by the defence that they built their own towers for the defence of England and Ireland. The forts to be positioned about a quarter of a mile apart along the coast of Dublin. Each tower had it's own water reservoir and the walls were about eight feet thick." more on the Martello towers in Ireland and England



    hahahaha...Ginny I am not really the cook you make me out to be, though I do agree with Charles about the basil. If there is one thing that tells me that he's a man, it is the care he takes preparing those meals just for himself. A woman wouldn't do that, would she? Would you?

    I think Ms. Murdoch was surrounded by writers, artists, actors...and in these circles you find the sort of male she is describing. I would imagine that her female characters are also somewhat manly. The line between the sexes is very fine in those possessing artistic temperments, methinks. We haven't really met any women yet (I haven't read Murdoch before), but I do notice that Charles made Lizzie out to be an airhead. After reading her letter to him, I see a stronger woman who seems to know herself better than Charles knows himself

    Lorrie, what makes you fear that something terrible is going to happen? Charles does say something horrible DID happen...but he explains it was that "thing" he saw in the water. An eel?

    I just have to say this here, because the coincidence is amazing. Today, in the Beowulf discussion, we are reading about Beowolf's confrontation with a dragon...referred to in one of our participant's translations as a worm, in another as a serpent. The dragon we are discussing is a sea creature, which symbolizes Beowulf's subconscious...well, now that's not right...he (the dragon), is preventing Beowulf from examining his subconsciousness. Beowulf must struggle with him to find the source of his depression.

    It seems that Charles is writing this journal to find himself, just as Beowulf struggles with the sea dragon. You should have seen my face as I read Charles'description of the creature he spotted in the sea...

    Lorrie, do you think your sense of impending trouble is coming from what that "thing" will do to Charles, or where his inner quest will lead him. Or maybe it's the townies you worry about...

    Ginny
    April 3, 2002 - 08:09 pm
    You know, that's what I like about our Books discussions here, one remark leads to another and VOILA, you can learn so much!

    I had the opinion, and may be totally wrong, that the setting of the book was in England. But because Joan P put that super link and photo to the Martello Tower and its history in Ireland, I went looking again and found out that there were only 101 Martello Towers built in England between 1805 and 1812 to resist the Napoleonic threat. Of those, 74 were on the east coast, and some on the south, the land of EF Benson and Sussex.

    But they weren't all there! One is in St. Mawes! And you may ask yourself where is St. Mawes? And the answer is Cornwall, that's where!

    Here's a super site on the 101 Martello Towers built in England with a mention of those built in other places as well The Martello Tower in England and here's a super photo and article on St Mawes And if you're interested, take a gander at this one, it's on the south towers, but it has on the bottom a whole row of little towers you can click on and see 3-D, etc.

    I bet that's more about Martello Towers than we wanted to know! hahahaaha

    So I still am not sure where I think this is, whether Cornwall or whatever, the yellow rocks keep throwing me, in all other aspects it sure seems like Cornwall to me, but now that we know it doesn't have to be Sussex and I like that because it makes it more romantic and sort of....I dunno imaginary, for some reason.

    Appreciate the Trilby hat, too, Lorrie and Traude.

    ginny

    kiwi lady
    April 3, 2002 - 08:24 pm
    Sorry folks I have just been informed I cant have the book you are discussing for 3 mths. There is only ONE copy in our whole city library and there are 3 people ahead of me on the reserved list. Them's the breaks! I am unfortunately no longer in the position to go out and buy books like I used to. I must say I am disappointed as I was looking forward to being in this discussion.

    Carolyn

    Ginny
    April 3, 2002 - 08:26 pm
    Carolyn, I hate that! I was looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts! Three people ahead of you, gosh!

    ginny

    Ginny
    April 3, 2002 - 08:28 pm
    Joan P, the only thing I can find on Narrowdean, (which I did not think to look up until you suggested it) was this in an absolutely frightening essay on Murdoch by Joyce Carol Oates:



    In The Sea, The Sea Charles Arrowby's escape from London and his attempt to purge himself of egoism by writing his autobiography—near the appropriately named village of Narrowdean....


    ginny

    besprechen
    April 3, 2002 - 08:31 pm
    Could this be Gilbert White, the White of Selborne? The website below gives a map, description, and membership information.

    It is pleasing to see how these discussions have focused attention on so many different details related to this story. Thanks for bringing it to our attention; understanding such detail makes a story more interesting.

    http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~dab/selborne.html

    The Selborne Society was founded in 1885 to commemorate the eighteenth century naturalist Gilbert White of Selborne in Hampshire. It was originally a national organisation, founded to continue the traditions of this pioneer of environmental study by correspondence between members about their observations of natural history. Today's Selborne Society was originally the Brent Valley branch of the national Society, and continues the work of its founders, observing and recording wildlife in part of west London and managing and conserving Perivale Wood Local Nature Reserve as the Gilbert White Memorial.

    Traude
    April 3, 2002 - 10:30 pm
    Joan P, thank you for the links, and Ginny also, and for the interesting thoughts about the mysterious creature; it made me think of the Loch Ness monster. Was it just a figment of his imagination ?

    Lorrie, I too have a strange foreboding that something unplanned, totally unexpected might happen. We'll see.

    Barbara St. Aubrey
    April 3, 2002 - 10:54 pm
    OK my book arrived! The sea, the theater it all sounds lush - I will quickly read and catch up with y'all.

    Have not seen the move yet --

    Ouch on the migranes - just learned last year you can get migranes in your eyes - mine seem to be either the back of my head or over my eyes - still use inexpensive ESGIC rather than Imitrex at $16 dollars a pill.

    Barbara St. Aubrey
    April 3, 2002 - 11:35 pm
    Not Titian's but Jusepe de Ribera - THE FLAYING OF MARSYAS with explanation of the myth

    Titian - The Flaying of Marsyas -- with discription of painting

    Titian: The Flaying of Marsyas -- clearer copy - scroll down a wee bit.

    Tom Phillips and Iris Murdoch

    Lorrie
    April 3, 2002 - 11:57 pm
    Carolyn: (Kiwi Lady) that is so frustrating, about the book, I mean. I think one of the problems is that the movie about Iris Murdoch, "Iris," was the one for which Judi Dench was nominated as best actress for an Oscar, and that sutomatically drove up the demand for any of Murdoch's books. But what a shame for you, and for us!

    PAIGE: How dreadful for you, about the migraines! Of course you may post in whenever you like, we would love to hear from you at any time.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 4, 2002 - 12:03 am
    BARBARA, WELCOME, WELCOME!!

    You were apparently as fascinated as I was about the story behind that painting on the cover, and what was mentioned in the early part of the book. However, we had decided ahead of time that we would skip the Introduction, because it looked quite lengthy and also because we wanted to allow more time for the story proper. That is why we jumped right in to the Part 1. Perhaps when we finish the book there will be time to really get into the background of that painting. Those are fascinating links, Barbara, thank you so much for them.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 4, 2002 - 12:29 am
    Ginny, and Joan:

    I really got wrapped up into the stories of the Martello Towers, thank you both for the links, especially the story about Joyce over there living in one in Ireland.

    Ginny, great detective work pinning down just where this locale is. Does the apparent distance from London mean anything? Charles mentions often of what a long drive it is.

    BESPRECHEN and TRAUDE:

    Both your inquiries about White of Selbourne have to be the same person. After all, when Charles wrote of this he had already mentioned something about "the flora and fauna," which would apply here. Thank you so much for your research.

    Ginny's right---The mention of one thing leads to another, and so on and so on. How many times have you become engrossed in something while looking up another? 'Fess up! Hahahaha

    Lorrie

    bmcinnis
    April 4, 2002 - 08:32 am
    Immediately after seeing the film "Iris," I rushed to our bookstore and saw five copies of this book on the shelf. I must admit that it was Judi Dench that attracted me to this work. She is a favorite of mine and I was not disappointed with her portrayal of Iris Murdoch. I, like others, was not familiar with her writings even though I am an instructor of literature. Having written at such an innovative time the the developoment of the novel, I wonder why this author has not been mentioned more in the anthologies I have read.

    I became immediately engrossed in the background of the painting and the story, at first, didn't seem to "fit." The introduction to this site and the comments so so may discussion participants has helped me a great deal in "getting into" the story. I like the idea of reading the text in sections. It gives me some goals to set each week.

    Lorrie
    April 4, 2002 - 09:12 am
    BMCINNIS: Great! Another voice heard from! Welcome to our group, and I hope you have become immersed in these characters as we begin our story!

    In your post #116 you said" "Having written at such an innovative time the the developoment of the novel, I wonder why this author has not been mentioned more in the anthologies I have read."

    I am going to throw that comment to one of our posters who has a much better knowledge of the written word than I, and who has and is conducting an online course in Literature. Are you still with us, Roslyn?

    Lorrie

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 4, 2002 - 09:57 am
    I was introduced to Iris Murdoch's writing in 1960 through what I"ve always regarded as the best book group ever. It arose from one of the then-popular "Great Decisions" discussion groups, sponsored I believe by The University of Chicago and conducted by a professor of philosophy and literature with a fine sense of what was worth reading. Our first Murdoch was "Under the Net," enjoyable for her style but a little more in the Angry-Young-Men mode that was popular then. I believe she was already well known in the UK and as I recall many of our books had to be ordered from England and weren't yet available in the US. We were immediately enchanted by the novels, which combined fantastic plots, delicious style,wit, intriguing sexual couplings and uncouplings, and a thread of spooky mystery that hinted at the supernatural but was almost always resolved into daylight plainness before the end. Added to all those was the unmistakable moral questioning that came from the philosopher in her: What are good and evil? What is love? How can I balance my material and spiritual needs? How can I best simplify my life and devote myself to what is really important?

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 4, 2002 - 11:47 am
    I've probably said more than I should. I don't think Murdoch was often anthologized because she didn't publish much short fiction, concentrating on literary-philosophical considerations for most of her published work. I'm sorry that I can't recall more details just now and can't stop to look things up, but I'll commit myself to geting more information about Murdoch the philosopher as soon as I'm able to get back to work here.

    Ros

    MarjV
    April 4, 2002 - 12:38 pm
    I too am relishing each sentence in this novel. And the site that Lorrie posted with the painting of Dame Iris stays in my mind.

    Re the discussion above I offer this quote :

    . Taking up the moral development of the individual in a novel rather than a philosophical tract might strike some as a hazardous project, one that could mar both the clarity of thought so necessary for good philosophy and the narrative enchantment so integral to a good novel. And yet it was precisely in her novels that Murdoch so successfully discussed the vital issues of the moral life. Despite this marriage of philosophy and fiction-writing that is so prominent in her work, she always resisted the label of "philosophical novelist," refuting any suggestion that her books might be merely anemic shufflings of philosophical positions by consistently delivering vibrant characters and powerfully effective plots in the realist tradition of such great nineteenth-century novelists as Dostoevsky and George Eliot. The Sea, The Sea is no exception in either the profound issues with which it grapples or in the richness of its fictional world.

    Taken from this site: The Sea, The Sea

    Lorrie
    April 4, 2002 - 02:56 pm
    MarjV; Thank you, Marge, for the link. I have been finding that particular guide very helpful.

    Another mention I found of another Murdoch biography was this less-than-flattering portaiture by the author, Peter Cook. "Obsessive, merciless, an intellectual in love with erotic danger, Iris Murdoch remains mysterious in a tactful new biography by Peter J Conrad."

    Iris Murdoch

    It's an interesting side to Murdoch's personality. something like Ros has been telling us.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 4, 2002 - 03:07 pm
    Ginny, i am fascinated by the pictures of those Martello Towers. I especially like the idea of having a cannon up there that you can swing around to an angle and thereby shoot up all the back-stabbers you might have hanging around out there, right?

    Lorrie

    betty gregory
    April 5, 2002 - 12:17 am
    This is tremendously fascinating to me...how we view Charles, what voice we hear coming from him. Since I work hard to dump all historically and traditionally separated female and male characteristics into one "human" category, then what I might name "careful, detailed, organized, uncertain, fussy," or whatever, someone else, like Ginny, might say sounds like a woman.

    Even those traditional male and female voices/characters that we're familiar with are still just averages. There have always been men who were tuned into details, were good listeners, great cooks, etc.....but these were at the end of the bell curve, not in the middle. So, the "average" was higher in the female population.....good listeners, remembered all the great aunt's birthdays, etc.

    On a different page, but same subject, I "hear" Charles as a gay man, but that's not the truth. I don't yet understand why the author has used some fairly standard stereotyped "gay" characteristics for Charles. See, I don't believe there is such a thing as a "gay" characteristic. Since construction workers and contact sports are two of three top employment choices made by gay men, along with performing arts, then I know for a fact that there are more gay men who don't exhibit expected "gay" behavior than there are gay men who do. I don't know why Murdoch has Charles in the arts, telling so many details about his body (a standard "gay" behavior...stereotyped behavior) and has him fussing over rules for eating food, has him terrified at things that go bump in the night.

    Murdoch has done all this so carefully, but I don't know where she is going with it and I don't know if she has relied on stereotypical characteristics of those who are not so "male,"....women and gay men. I know Ros and, was it Joan?, who see these characters as colorful theater people and that works best for me, too. I think of people like this as "on" a lot of the time, not performing exactly, just very aware, alive to surroundings. And maybe even that isn't fair....to expect certain things just because of a picture I have in my mind of that group. Trying not to categorize is difficult.

    I do know that I feel more empathy for Charles as more characters are introduced....but that comes later. There is one moment that we'll get to next week, or the next?, when I felt such quick, sharp pain, felt so sorry for Charles. That Murdoch could take me all the way from irritation to empathy gave me an appreciation of the power of her writing.

    -------------------------------

    Lorrie and Traude, I feel as you do about the foreboding atmosphere. Murdoch uses the simplest ideas to frighten....the dark, noises in the night, walking along wild, dark places ALONE. Even moments when Charles isn't all that afraid, I am. Isn't this fun....great writing and mysterious goings-on in the same book!!

    Betty

    Barbara St. Aubrey
    April 5, 2002 - 12:42 am
    Rather than Gay I've been using the word 'affectatious' to describe him - I get this picture of a sort of foppy superior theater type who loves gossip and is on the 'in' - and this finding himself is just one more project like decorating his apartment - not taken on as the serious uncovering of ego to find the core - but rather like it is the 'in' thing for him to do just now and he may even have the prestige of influencing others to this calling till its in vogue.

    I love the idea that he is at the seaside - almost like a baptismal fount for his renewal - such stage direction - huh I am telling you auh.

    ALF
    April 5, 2002 - 07:59 am
    Barb: That is a perfect description of ole Chas. He has the airs of a pretentious actor. When he is around people he is very artificial isn't he? All the world is a stage and he is a divine actor. (He thinks). He tries to be so Shakesperian but of course, we, the readers see right into his soul. Don't we? I always have the feeling that he attempts to repress the "real Charles". It's almost as if he deliberately restrains his "true nature" so that others witness a variagated Charles. Is this because he's so unsure of himself as a man or does he do that to camoflogauge his melancholy and his deep rooted anger?

    MarjV
    April 5, 2002 - 12:19 pm
    Thanks , Lorri for the new link in your post above........ Now I also need to look at the Martello tower pics.

    And it is like Charles is trying so hard to be what he might not be...adding to what Alf says.

    Barb --- yes, what a great idea about the baptismal font. And look at all the times he is swimming, sans suit. ~Marj

    MarjV
    April 5, 2002 - 12:24 pm
    Martello Tower Images......I know there were other posts with links. But also,on the image link of Google.com you can see quite an array. And then you can click each one to go further.

    Martello Towers compliments of Google.com

    betty gregory
    April 5, 2002 - 02:03 pm
    Sometimes in my posts, I don't sound like I'm leaving much room for curiosity or for information that doesn't jibe with my thoughts. Ginny, regarding my post about different views of Charles (gay, woman, theater person, human, fussy, etc.), I particularly am interested in hearing more about your thought of Charles as a woman. Even though I like "colorful theater person," I'm curious to know if my first impression of gay male overlaps with or is in any way similar to your impression of Charles as a woman.

    Betty

    Traude
    April 5, 2002 - 03:21 pm
    Betty,

    I read until 3 a.m. this morning, no longer just dutifully but eagerly , I am caught up and going on. And I thought of you then : some time ago you posted in the wee hours of the morning with new insights; I think it was in the Human Stain discussion.

    There are astonishing developments in this story and weighty issues appear. When Charles describes his (much photographed) appearance on pg 32 of the paperback, he refers to "the fine almost girlish texture of my, of course clean-shaven, face". Even so, that Charles could be gay did not enter my mind, just the thought that the narrator somehow sounded more like a woman than a man -- in the beginning, that is.

    And suddenly Charles is distracted from his writing by things that go bump in the night, shaken by the appearance on the scene of not one but several former lovers, and afraid of losing the control he so cherishes.

    There can be no question that the atmosphere, indeed the world of the theater IM described is authentic; a playwright herself, she was familiar with it. But sexual tensions between men and women exist not only in the theater. In this book we come upon questions of power, possessiveness, ownership (!), obedience (!!); lies and cruelty - questions even of good vs. evil . We have much to explore ----

    IM wrote 26 novels, 6 philosophical works, and 4 plays. Her last novel, Jackson's Dilemma (1995), shows the erosion of her brilliant mind, says her biographer, Peter J. Conradi, and adds that she lived through and among her characters. As her illness progressed, she even spoke to them and abut them as if they were living people.

    Ginny
    April 5, 2002 - 06:08 pm
    I don't know, Betty, that's a good question and I don't know the answer, but the voice I "hear" initially is a woman's. It changes near the end of our assigned discussion chapters and becomes more masculine but again I don't know why. I'll try to pay more attention!!

    ahahaha

    But you said when I felt such quick, sharp pain, felt so sorry for Charles. That Murdoch could take me all the way from irritation to empathy gave me an appreciation of the power of her writing.

    But I feel sorry for him now, have since the very first excrutiating loneliness where he kept assuring us he was happy and content and had all he liked and longed for a letter. I feel sorry for him, but am losing that, too, by his rudeness at the end as well, he's changing and so am I (the luxury of the reader)....

    Lorrie, I, too, feel a sense of foreboding, he'll go along and WHAMMO there's a sea monster (I was reading our SN Beowulf discussion and saw to my shock an explanation of the sea monster worm story !! All literature connects! ) he thinks he has a Poltergheist, he thinks he sees "something" in the house, he's always being shocked out of his luxurious or not solitude, and at one point I have written "chills" alongside the page as I actually got goose bumps, the woman can write, nobody can deny that.

    On the Cornwall accents, it's strange again, but on the way home from my trip today I was listening to a tape of a 1946 Sherlock Holmes Radio Show with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce and there was a Cornish character with such an accent I could hardly understand him. I feel cheated I did not meet such colorful characters, it's true I had a bit of trouble understanding them but they were equally non plussed by my southern accent, so it was a stand off! hahahahah

    Actually, tho, now that you mention it, I do recall calling long distance to St. Ives from Port Isaac, and the gentleman answered the phone by saying "Oy!" Now that's different! (But I've seen that on The EastEnders, too, so I am pretty sure it's not Cornish!)

    OY!

    Joan Pearson
    April 6, 2002 - 06:03 am
    Have you settled into the hands of this capable writer? I am able to suspend any concerns that I will be somehow disappointed when the tale is finally unravelled... I am already completely satisfied, wherever she takes us.

    I feel sorry for Charles, as you do, Betty. Not so much because he is lonely, but because he really doesn't undertand the difference between loneliness and solitude. Because he can write the words and still not understand what he is writing about. I think of my kids...their choices, contrary to all the facts before them. You just have to watch them live through their mistakes...you have no choice. But it is so hard to sit back and watch them grapple and make their own way. That's how I feel about Charles.

    Ginny, when you were looking up Narrowdean, you quoted JC Oates...
    "In The Sea, The Sea Charles Arrowby's escape from London and his attempt to purge himself of egoism by writing his autobiography—..."


    Do you think that Charles knows that's what he's doing as he writes this journal? Purging himself of egoism? He does make a funny remark early on...
    "To repent of egoism: is autobiography the best method?"

    I loved the remark, yet don't think he really sees egoism as his problem. But then, what IS his reason for keeping the journal, do you think?

    He is concerned that he is aging, that no one loves him, concerned about who will make his funeral arrangements when he dies, etc, etc... I think this is the reason I feel sorry for him... he doesn't for one minute consider that he does not love. Look at the situation with Lizzie. It's all a game, never once is he considering her. It's all about him, his jealousy. Not because he loves her, but because she doesn't love him enough to come to him when he beckons.

    I think CHarles is going to go through a painful realization, a difficult journey that we are making with him. Along the way, I am finding myself questioning my own life choices and motivations. To me this is one of the real strengths of the writing...Iris Murdoch, the philosopher at work.

    Charles tells us the reason why he has never married. At 18, the love of his life left a hole in his life - from which he was not able to recover. I was stunned to read the line ~
    "On n'aime qu'une fois, la première fois." (You only love once, the first time.")


    At first I dismissed this...of course, he could have recovered, he was only 18. Why couldn't he see that? And Traudee, I'm wondering whether IM lived her life remembering her first love. I haven't read her husband's biography yet, but have seen the movie based on the book. It is clear that he was not the great love her life.

    Then, I look inward, and realize that I have never recovered from my first love either. It has colored my life. And there is always the feeling of "what might have been" that Charles is writing about in his journal. Oh my. I'm not sure where this is leading me either.

    ps. I have to smile at Charles...he has this uncomfortable feeling that he is being watched, yet he continues swimming, sunning "bare". (???)

    pps. I didn't care so much about why or how the ugly green vase went over, but was crushed to see that oval-framed, bevelled mirror shatter. Crushed. Now I demand an explanation. How did this happen?

    Traude
    April 6, 2002 - 08:29 am
    Joan, the destruction of the ugly vase and the lovely mirror was deliberate; the face at the window may have been real, not an apparition - and it does get more chilling. No, I will not give it away, except to say that we the readers will get a very sobering look at "what might have been" ---

    It is clear now that this is a contemporary story ("telly", "after the war"); I had wondered about the early remarks about there being "thank God running water and main drainage (I have lived without these in America") !!!. (I'll go back and check the part about Fritzie whom we haven't seen yet, just heard about.) The house has no electricity and no heating system, hence the oil lamps.

    Lizzie's letter adds to the picture we have formed of Charles on the basis of his reminiscences, though these do already reveal his never-mentioned, ongoing rivalry with his cousin James; the first signs of envy, jealousy, overpowering competitiveness, and --- monumental insecurity. All of this, coupled with the (admitted) huge egoism and his cruel streak don't make Charles a very likable fellow IMHO. (He "summons" lovers !)

    Wherever IM is going with this tale, she seems to be addressing the fundamental relationship between men and women, the friction, the tension. In a journal entry of 9 July 1976 she wrote "Like Socrates, perhaps, love is the only subject on which I am really expert ?" In fact she had many loves and an almost ruinous affair with the (married) Nobel Prize winner Elias Canetti. After 4 years she tore herself away; it was then that the adoring John Bayley came to the rescue, they married, and her life gained stability thereafter.

    Lorrie
    April 6, 2002 - 09:42 am
    JOAN, the very poignant ""On n'aime qu'une fois, la première fois." (You only love once, the first time.") catches at one's heart, doesn't it? I think we all have these feelings of "what might have been" at one time or another.

    I like your comment "Because he can write the words and still not understand what he is writing about." Sums it up neatly, don't you think?

    TRAUDE:

    You mentioned it. I have felt all along that Charles has a cruel streak, the way he manipulates Lizzie proves that, and for that reason I find it difficult to feel an awful lot of sympathy for this man. Perhaps later I may change my mind.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 6, 2002 - 09:48 am
    I am so pleased with the way this discussion is going. Everybody's on track, we all have our own feeling about these complex characters, and it's a joy to see everybody talking to each other!!!

    On Monday I will have some new questions to put in the heading, by then I assume we will all have read up to page 236. For those of you who have finished the book, I am very proud of you for not giving anything away. Good for you!

    Lorrie

    MarjV
    April 6, 2002 - 10:53 am
    The sojourn at Shruff's End is like a retreat one might go on. He gets filled with the beauty of nature and all its complications. Then the complications of his thoughts and visitors begin.

    Traude: your quote on IM and her life re loves is interesting. Sort of like Charles and his many, if we want to name them that, loves.

    As an aside--here is the online dict definition of shruff: Shruff \Shruff\ (?), n. [Cf. Scruff, Scurf.] Rubbish. Specifically: (a) Dross or refuse of metals. [Obs.] (b) Light, dry wood, or stuff used for fuel. [Prov. Eng.] -- web1913

    ~Marj

    Lorrie
    April 6, 2002 - 01:29 pm
    Hey, Ginny! It looks like I'm not the only one was not impressed with Charles' haut cuisine when he cooked. In an article by Peter Conrad from the Guardian, Feb. 9, 1999, he writes:

    "It may have been a myth that Bayley (Iris's husband) was wholly uninvolved in her work during composition. He certainly proposed at least some of Charles Arrowby's whimsical and disgusting recipes in "The Sea, the Sea."..........................

    Har de har har

    MARJV: Nice interpretation links for the derivation of the name of Charles' hideaway.

    kiwi lady
    April 6, 2002 - 04:24 pm
    Thanks to the generosity of one of the participants in this discussion I am going to be able to join in albeit half way through. Thank You! Thank You! I will not mention this lady's name as I do not know whether she wishes to be known as she emailed me privately. This web site truly is a community. I am a fast reader luckily. The book will stay in my collection as a fond memory of this caring lady.

    Carolyn

    Lorrie
    April 6, 2002 - 07:23 pm
    CAROLYN! WELCOME, WELCOME!

    Of course we will respect the confidentiality of your generous donor, we are just pleased to have you with us for any reason. You're in plenty of time, we are just now going into our second week, and I'm sure you will have no trouble catching up. I think you'll find this book a rare treat, as we all are discovering.

    Lorrie

    besprechen
    April 6, 2002 - 08:56 pm
    I continue to find amazing references which I feel necessary to follow-up. Here is one I mention since someone else might find it just as fascinating.

    In the post by MarjV, her link to The Sea, The Sea was a link I had been reading with gusto and where I came upon the statement "evocation of Plato's myth of the cave." Now I feel the need to return to the beginning of the book and find references that match Plato's allegory of the cave. I feel the description of those two strange rooms in Shruff End (no windows, light only from the hallway window) began the reference. Now James has appeared and says "we cannot walk into the cavern and look around." One reading isn't enough to catch all background thoughts the author used to build each of the characters. If the readers need to read a quick synopsis of the myth of the cave, I suggest http://www.nebulus.org/academy/cave/plcave3.html

    Ginny
    April 7, 2002 - 07:28 am
    OH well done, Besprechen and MarjV, on the meaning (double entendre?) of Shruff's End....and the inner rooms!! And Plato's Cave, had never heard that before, thank you so much, and certain elements of it remind me of this, as well?



    Out flew the web and floated wide;
    The mirror crack'd from side to side;
    "The curse is come upon me," cried
    The Lady of Shalott.


    --Alfred, Lord Tennyson



    Here we have three separate pieces of literature, in one Plato speaks of prisoners who only see shadows but can go into the light but what happens when they do, we have The Lady of Shalott who watched the world thru a mirror, she could not look directly out of her own tower (prison?) on the world, but watched it thru a mirror, when she turned to see the knight and his glittering armor, she was lost, and we have Charles ....I wonder if it's too much of a stretch to apply all these ideas to his situation. There does seem to be, as besprechen notes, some connection with the Plato, what interests me is what happens when those "imprisoned" break out.

    Something to keep in the back of my own mind anyway hahaahha




    Lorrie, I'm reassured that my own sort of unease about the "gourmetishness" of the at the meals toward the END anyway, now has two collaborations!! hahahahaa Of course you thought they were awful from the start! hahahaha But I think, who was it who mentionoed the apples stewed in tea or whatever it was? I've heard of that, have you all? Have never EATEN it, mind you, but have heard of it.

    I, too, wonder why so much is made of those two INNER ROOMS. I won't start with Poe, tho. hahahahaa




    Joan P, not sure if this is the work of a man or not, this obsessive chef like preparation? I once attended a demonstration at Escoffier in Paris, took all day, it was their famous Cooking School demonstartions and a more fussy picky man you never want to see, truly, and I did have the feeling his entire being was like that we met him afterwards and he was very happy to meet me till I spoke Enlish from which he recoiled. (If I had tried out my French on him he probably would have fainted? hahahaha) Am not sure, here, perhaps Murdoch intended the fussy gourmet TO be masculine!

    ginny

    Traude
    April 7, 2002 - 08:17 am
    Among IM's philosophical works is Acastos > Two Platonic Dialogues (1986) .

    The book can be read on many levels; and every rereading will lead to deeper appreciation and understanding I believe. It explores the human condition from many angles.

    To me, cousin James (who became a Buddhist) is a much more sympathetic figure than Charles, and so is Peregrine who, miraculously, remains Charles' friend even though the latter callously lured away P's wife, the fiery Rosina, only to discard her later too. On marriage, P. says (pg. 158) "Every persisting marriage is based on fear." And further on " As for marriage, people simply settle into positions of domination and submission." And James makes an interesting observation (pg 174) "The sea, the sea, yes. Did you know that Plato was descended from Poseidon on his father's side ? Do you have porpoises, seals ? "

    It is impossible not to remain glued to the story -- but now I have a luncheon to go to (I am reasonably sure that boiled onions will NOT be on the menu !!!!) and an afternoon lecture.

    MarjV
    April 7, 2002 - 09:23 am
    Loved the myth of the cave. Hmmm. Seeing shadows. what is real - what isn't. Plato would try to explain the truth to set people free. Well, did you ever try to explain a truth that would set another free---unless they want to hear OR can hear, it doesn't work. We are trying to hear what Iris has to relate or teach .

    One gets going and finding links and sitting by the monitor til eyes are bleary/bleared/blearing,blearful/blear-eyed.

    ~Marj

    Lorrie
    April 7, 2002 - 10:13 am
    Besprechen:

    I had been wondering all along about the meaning of those two inner rooms that were described in such length, and your reference in regard to Plato's Cave fits very neatly into that enigma. Thank you for the link, by the way.

    Ginny, I have always loved "The Lady of Shallot," and would the mirror cracking have any connection to the visions of a face that Charles seems to see in his, do you think?

    Traude, what a shame you won't be feasting on boiled onions. They sound wonderful! Hahahaha
  • *************************************************************

    As you have probably noticed, (Oh, yes?) I have stuck in a couple different questions in our heading, please note. Traude already has, I see.

    Betty, in one of the reviews of this book, the character of James, not Charles, was described as a latent homosexual. I found this interesting, in view of one of your former posts. In fact, I am finding this James to be fascinating. I have a feeling there will be more about him as we go along.

    Lorrie
  • Roslyn Stempel
    April 7, 2002 - 03:27 pm
    1) The comparisons to Prospero seem very obvious as Charles himself makes several allusions to Prospero's "forswearing his magic, drowning his books" and generally abandoning the theatrical world, which so much resembles the enchanted island of Shakespeare's magician. Further he alludes to himself as a kind of magician in bringing forth the talents of such performers as Lizzie, his "Ariel." I think there is one "friend" who has some resemblance to Caliban as well, someone chubby, hairy, bearlike whose name I've forgotten. The haunted quality he perceives in the neighborhood off the cliffs and the sea -- "This isle is full of voices."

    I'm not inclined to fret over anyone's gender orientation in this book, as I imagine Murdoch couldn't have cared less. His real relation with the mysterious Fritzie is never fully explained. I have my own theories on the order of "Tried it once, didn't like it." Everyone seems to accept Gilbert's homosexuality without comment.

    Throughout the book you will have noted Charles's constant questioning of who and what James is. Keep your eye on James; there's always a James in Murdoch's fiction.

    From the moment of his re-encounter with Hartley, Charles became for me a totally unsympathetic and almost ludicrous figure. I apologize for using the term "narcissistic," but in the true sense of the myth, he wasn't seeing Hartley at all, he was just seeing his reflection in the pool of their long-ago experience, and very nearly pined away from the effects of his pitiful misunderstanding. Charles was an example of someone unclear on the concept: Hartley long ago realized she couldn't love him enough to build a marriage and she fled; James was too rigid and self-centered, and (apologies again)his self-esteem is depicted as too fragile, to be able to accept her rejection of his love.

    As for the food, it sounds delightful. It's low-fat, except for the heavenly slathers of butter on toast; it's mostly veggie, nutritionally balanced,practically guaranteed not to put on weight, and shows that he has experimented with cooking methods and is definitely not a meat-and-potatoes guy.

    You'll always find a touch in the wizard in one or more of Murdoch's characters, and certainly she herself displays wizardry in the way she uses description and action to show their nobility and their human foibles.

    betty gregory
    April 7, 2002 - 08:38 pm
    It is storming like crazy in the distance, so I'll have to write fast. While we're waiting for chapter 2 and 3 to begin tomorrow, I thought I'd relate an amazing psychological study on the familiar characteristics of "man" and "woman," since we've already been talking about it in the discussion.

    The original study, Broverman and Broverman, is 32 years old, but it has been replicated literally hundreds of times with basically the same results except for slight, gradual changes reflecting growing awareness in our culture. The results of the most recent replications are as shocking as the original study.

    Three large groups of randomly selected people in the mental health field (psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists) (random across age, experience, geographic location, etc.) were asked to complete one task...making a mark between 1 and 10 on a list of opposite male and female characteristics.

    Group 1 was asked to describe a healthy woman. Group 2 was asked to describe a healthy man. Group 3 was asked to describe a healthy adult.

    The page of rated characteristics or descriptions, see below, (all 3 groups received the same page) came from word opposites that have historically been associated with men and women. These look extremely simple, but I've seen the original notes from the months and months it took to come up with the most common, fair and complete opposites. Here are some from memory:

    Cries easily 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10 Never cries

    Enjoys working inside 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10 Enjoys working outside

    Passive 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10 Aggressive

    Follower 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10 Leader

    The study was exactly that simple, using exactly that stereotyped behavior or expected behavior of either women or men. (That page was tested over and over by experts in male and female stereotypes before the study began.)

    Results...The group who was asked to describe "a healthy woman" had rating results where you would expect, toward the end of the scale using stereotypical "female" characteristics (cries easily, enjoys working inside, etc.). The same was true for the group asked to describe "a healthy man." The ratings for "a healthy man" were toward the end of the scale using stereotypical "male" characteristics (never cries, enjoys working outside, etc).

    The 3rd group, who was asked to describe "a healthy adult," had rating results virtually identical to the results from the group asked to describe "a healthy male."

    It takes a while for the implications of these results to sink in. Many who have read about the study in private have told of "it hitting them" a day or two later.

    This was the first and remains the only study to capture the catch-22 many women feel....if you behave like a "woman," you may not be seen as healthy....if you behave like "a healthy adult," you may be seen as acting like a man. Actually, it's a little more serious....if you behave like a woman (those stereotyped behaviors), you MAY BE UNHEALTHY..."follower, passive," etc. (not just be seen as unhealthy). Furthermore, the study implies that unhealthy behavior is expected of women. If you experience growth and independence and let go of some of those stereotyped female behaviors, it may be thought that you are not very "feminine."

    The original study was done with mental health professionals (think about THAT for a minute) and many replications used the same population. Other and more recent replications used people across many professions, but the results did not change.

    The slight changes over the 32 years have been slight changes in the ratings averages (example: 3.9 changed to 3.7), but the differences among "healthy man," "healthy woman," and "healthy adult" stayed the same. In other words, "a healthy woman" is not as passive as she was 32 years ago.

    Inevitably, when someone says (or when I think or say) "like a woman," "like a man," "like a gay male," or any gender category, I will think of this study. I think some of our gender stereotypes today are much more sophistocated and subtle and unrecognized than the ones in that study.......or at least I think mine are insidious and probably lurking just outside awareness.

    Sometimes, a fussy eating routine is just a fussy eating routine??

    I agree, Ros, that Murdoch is not emphasizing sexual orientation or gender roles. Charles just seems like Charles with his oddities......and Murdoch's writing of him is so seamless, as if she knows him so well. If I met him in real life, I'll admit, I'd be fighting off old stereotypes, because even as "gay male" might come to mind (as it did), I would be doing my regular self-scolding. I know that fussing over details is a stereotype of gay, just as eccentricity is a stereotype of "artist" or obsessive theater type. His oddness is intensified, for me, as we meet more characters, and, as I wrote before, I don't know where Murdoch is taking us plot-wise, etc.

    -----------------------------

    Oh, HOW I love to read details of meal preparation in novels, so talk about mixed feelings!!!! as Charles is telling about these weird, sometimes almost sickening, details. Nearly every time was SO dissatisfying, leaving me hungry for ....something, I don't know! Very strange.

    Betty

    Barbara St. Aubrey
    April 8, 2002 - 12:37 am
    I had an attorny friend one time describe another attorny as Affemininate - since there does not appear to be such a word in the dictionary I always hesitate to use it - but Betty it seems to strike at the report you were sharing in that some very few men are not as mocho masculine in speach and habit but aren't gay either - and they are looked down upon by others - even this female attorny who was describing him in a group that included a couple of male and female attornies. Looks like we still have a sterio typical view of folks especially if they are representing a certain profession.

    roidininki
    April 8, 2002 - 07:53 am
    Having already entered into some discussion with Ginny i am surprised that Iris Murdoch was not much heard of over there. I am attempting to do a little geographical research for Ginny [ i think maybe for Lorri]I am inclined to aggree with the author peter Cook about I.R.! Was surprised so many people wanted to see the film [or was it Judi, playing her?]

    Lorrie
    April 8, 2002 - 10:44 am
    PAIGE: I am so glad you can keep up as much as you do, in view of the most uncomfortable headaches you must be feeling. I do hope you're better now.

    BETTY: That Braverman report really bugged me. It was all very scientific, very factual, but my God, such a little change in 32 years!! Are we all so buried in our sexual stereotypes it will take a century of thought to rid ourselves? Depressing. Thank you for that connection.

    ROIDINKINKI: Hello to you in England! I think I know the subject Ginny may have asked you about? Was it anything to do with the Martello Towers, perchance?

    Lorrie

    betty gregory
    April 8, 2002 - 11:23 am
    Interesting, Barbara, about the word effeminate. One way the value of woman in our culture can be measured is how the worst thing a man can say about another man is that he is....like a woman. The grossest slang, pejorative words to call a man are......you know the ones. Even in elementary school, it begins when a boy is called a sissy. Think of what incredible experiences a man might miss, just to avoid being thought of as womanly (I read a paper once about fathers who avoided hugging their children in public). Or, what human needs are denied, such as expressing one's emotions.

    ---------------------------------------

    Back to other things. Does anyone else feel uncertain about why Charles gave up his career? He's still young enough. Is there a hint (where we are in the book) that he was not as successful as he claims? He DOES go on and on about his accomplishments, as people do who are uncertain of themselves. Is this something that is answered more fully in the rest of the book? Is anyone else questioning this?

    Betty

    Ginny
    April 8, 2002 - 12:34 pm
    Hey, roidininki!! Our newest member is about to go on a mission for us, a personal examination of the South of England, specifically Dover, in search of the combination of yellow rocks and Martello towers and has promised to report back now what else can you ASK of a person, I ask you!

    SeniorNet Books RULES!! Where else would our members go to such an extent as to suss out the area! Where else can you GET this? hahahahaha

    Welcome, R!!

    She's got the book too, and will join from a Internet Cafe!




    I'd like to clarify just one tiny thing, when I said that the "voice" I heard initially in Charles was that of a woman, but it began to change for me into the voice of a man later on, I did not mean to question his sexuality, I could care less. Nor Glibert's or anybody elses, I personally don't care. What I was trying to articulate and apparently failing, was that the author, to me, in presenting this character just there initialy, did not present to ME a man, it began to change later and I have no idea why. It was a technique or lack of it (I realize that's heresy but there you are) in the writing that I just wondered if anybody else had noticed or felt the same?

    And again, as we know, we're governed by our own prejudices in that area.

    But that's what I thought, initially. And it does interfere with one's concept if a man is supposed to be speaking but the "reader," whoever tha tis, "hears" a woman.

    And I really don't know why I felt that way.

    Now on the "Appearing Characters from the Past," I found that too a little....bit of a stretch but am struggling to catch up with you all, so will stifle.

    ginny

    Lorrie
    April 8, 2002 - 12:50 pm
    Echoing the frequent occurrence in modernist fiction of the male hero on a quest: In many of her novels, Murdoch utilizes a central male narrator---a device that prompts some critics to accuse her of trying to "write like a man." Do you feel that way about her writing?

    Lorrie

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 8, 2002 - 12:53 pm
    Barbara, I couldn't find "affeminate" in the dic. either but did finally locate "effeminate," which I believe must be the standard spelling. In any case, I think the definition doesn't insist that the traits refer to a homosexual man but rather to a man who displays some of the characeristics that seem more "feminine" than "masculine." After the recent vogue for androgyny it's become difficult to distinguish between the real and the apparent. I'm acquainted with a number of gay men and I must say that they cover the whole spectrum of behaviors from the rather delicate to the profoundly macho. In trying to nail down the gender preference of an individual of either sex, I think we can find we're wrong as often as we're right. It's a fascinating topic for a dialogue -- but as I've written before, I'm not sure it's germane to a consideration of Murdoch's work as I feel she was thoroughly flexible about the whole matter. I do think, however, Barbara, that as Betty has implied, we might want to explore (later! let's finish the book first!) Murdoch's treatment of women and what could be inferred about her views on the attitude of her stratum of society toward women in general and her female characters in particular.

    MarjV
    April 8, 2002 - 04:00 pm
    One of us above mentioned Chars. attitude toward Hartley. Most disgustingly ego-centric I think. He could not stand that she might have been or is happy. He is going to "contrive" to devote his life to Hartley. I. I. I. Absolutely no thought to her wants or needs. Like "take a hike" woujld be my response!

    I like him somewhat when he seemed to be atuned to his natural surroundings.....but here on my pbk page 134 he is becoming a more unlikeable creature.

    ~Marj

    Barbara St. Aubrey
    April 8, 2002 - 04:04 pm
    Aha - so my spelling was off - thanks Ros - and yes, this is an interesting subject but later - the thought I had as to hearing a less than masculine voice was some of the choice of words - do guys say 'Luxurious purple' or 'has occurred to me' - do they 'regret' - 'stopped laughing' -- I think 'has surfaced' rather than occurred and something more straight forward like moaned or morned and 'stopped roaring' would sound more like a guy.

    Yep, I think we are saying we even have sterio typical words that we expect to hear out of a man's mouth. But if Murdoch used these guy words as the vocabulary for Charles I do not think we would get the picture of this persnickety man.

    Interesting to me is where I choose to frequently take my walk through the woods is also the location where near the entry to this area the Homosexual men arrange a quicky meet and use a few trails - I feel safe with them around knowing the vagrant trouble maker is not going to be camping someplace in these woods located so close in town just off a major highway - well upshot none, None of these men look in the least effeminate!

    betty gregory
    April 8, 2002 - 05:11 pm
    You DID make it clear, Ginny, (or to me, you did) that you weren't questioning Charles' or anyone's sexuality. I should have said so clearly, that I thought your comments were neutral. And, yes, I remember you writing that the woman's voice you first heard from Charles faded and became a male voice.

    My view of Charles at the first, on the other hand, DID question his sexual orientation. I read, heard, saw gay male and had to wrestle with that. I could be saying to myself "stereotype!!" and at the same time not knowing what to do with it.

    Ros, I haven't yet given thought to how Murdoch handles female characters (oh, noooooooo, they cried). If I had to generalize at this moment (I'm half way through the book), I'd say her female characters stretch all over the map, beginning with the overly dependent, hanger-on type, which fits Charles' purposes perfectly. Then, there is his first and only "true love," which I'm having a difficult time getting to know, although Murdoch is making it clear that she is not the dream Charles has carried with him all these years.

    Lorrie, are those critics who say Murdoch "writes like a man" talking about the use of a male main character? How ridulous is that!! And what an insult to male authors, as if "like a man" is all the same thing!

    ----------------------------------------

    Some terms, just for clarification. "Sex" is biological only, born either male or female. "Sex" relates to physical distinctions, such as hormones, body size, being pregnant.

    "Gender" is all about what it means to live in this world as either a girl or boy, a man or woman. Gender issues would include sexual discrimination, stereotypes, career and children decisions, equal pay, Roe v. Wade, sexual abuse of children, violence against women, pressure on men to achieve, etc., etc.

    A research study to locate a part of the brain for male aggression would be about sex. A research study to see what percentage of emergency room admissions were attributed to violence against women would be about gender.

    "Sexual orientation," the medical community says, is a biologically based (born with) attraction to the same sex or the other sex. With very few exceptions, we are either hetereosexual or homosexual...our "sexual orientation." People who are homosexual prefer to be called "lesbians" and "gay males." People who are homosexual, who believe they were born that way, don't like the word "lifestyle," as it implies that sexual orientation is a choice.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    April 8, 2002 - 08:47 pm
    Oh, wait, I did have a thought about Murdoch's character Charles' rotten treatment of women. (Anyone like to diagram sentences?) Maybe I shouldn't admit this. My thought was that if it had been a MALE author writing sexist, rotten stuff about female characters (through his male character), I think I'd have trouble with that. I've HAD trouble with that with male authors, as have critics who sometimes question...is this the author? is it the unenlightened male person author?

    At any rate, there is a sense of trust I feel with the female author Murdoch....I trust she is intentionally, with awareness, creating a character who behaves that way toward female characters. If I knew her work better, I could think about whether the price is too high (perpetuation of that attitude, etc.).....but, correct me if I'm wrong, that doesn't have anything to do with being a good author.

    -----------------------------------

    Could I ask my question again about Charles' retirement from the theater? He's not that old. He boasts about his successes. So, why, again, did he leave? That part feels so THIN, so unconvincing to me.

    Betty

    besprechen
    April 8, 2002 - 08:52 pm
    Two days ago I became so engrossed in the story I read until midnight each evening and spent all my spare time today reading. I now have completed reading The Sea, The Sea. I don't want to give away any of the future story, so will spend the week reading the various posts to see how readers are reacting to this weeks reading section.

    Joan Pearson
    April 9, 2002 - 06:35 am
    An interesting question, you put to us in the heading, Lorrie, regarding the similarity between The Tempest's Prospero and our Charles. I've been thinking about it since the very beginning...that ~ and Charles upbringing...in Shakespeare's Stratford-Upon-Avon.

    So many things are not yet clear...I'm not ready to venture beyond what Ros has already mentioned concerning Charles' role as Prospero, the magician. I think there has to be more...and haven't read enough to straighten all that out yet. Besprechen, your restraint is admirable. You could probably fill in all these blanks from your vantage point. You must be smiling at our clumsy attempts to interpret the clues as they begin to fall into place. I think of you as The Tempest's Ariel, the little fairy sprite hovering above all the action. Charles does tell us he "fell in love" with Lizzie when he was playing Prospero and Lizzie was playing Ariel.

    Did you smile at his definition of "falling in love"? "I began to love Lizzie after I realized how much she loved me." hahahahaaha...

    So many other questions arise in trying to respond to Lorrie's question. Why is Charles writing this journal? I don't really buy into the explanation that he is writing to overcome his egotism. He says early on something to the effect that he is writing to create a "lasting memorial" ...quite the opposite of an egotism purge, I think. And certainly more like the Charles on the little stage in my head.

    But back to The Tempest and Shakespeare. He was born in Stratford. He and Hartley grew up and went to school in Stratford. He cut his teeth on Shakespeare...(so did Hartley?) His early life, at home and school, prepared him for the major role he would play in later life...Prospero, the magician.

    These early influences shaped his relationship with James too, but that's another question. An interesting set of circumstances led him to his flight into the ""trickery and magic of art." There was his "strict, evangelical mother" ... "her face a mask of anxiety." He and his father "loved and obeyed and comforted one another in secret". He turned to Shakespeare, to the theatre for all the excitement, "glitter and noise" missing in his dreary existance at home. Secrecy, ~ repression and escapism seem to be key ingredients in Charles' early relationships. Shall we add obsession to the list?

    He writes in his journal..."all good dramatists and directors are obsessed men." (I note that he didn't say "women", Betty.) Somewhere in the early pages, he even used the word, "revenge". I noted this line:
    "The theatre is an attack on mankind, carried on by magic to victimize an audience...", to make them laugh and cry and suffer ~and miss their trains."


    Hmmm...isn't he still trying to do this...to make Lizzie, to make Hartley miss their trains? He wrote in his jouirnal, "the theatre is a place of deception, not a soft dreamland. Prospero, (Charles' last and 'best role') ~ in concert with his faithful sprite, Ariel (Lizzie's role), act to deceive everyone else ~ successfully too.

    It is difficult to know how much further the analogy between Charles'story and The Tempest will go...the monster, Caliban. Who is the monster in Charles'life? I only really see himself! And then there are the incredible coincidences...Prospero has been exiled to a life on a desert island, after living the high life of prominance in Milan...only to have the key players from his past life shipwreck onto the very same island!

    Don't you find it just about unbelievable that Hadley would be living in the very same ocean village where Charles flees (shipwrecks)? Are you now expecting Ms. Murdoch to explain away this coincidence? I don't think she will leave that one hanging. Did Charles have a reason to believe that Hadley was there?

    If we are to find more of The Tempest analogy, I think Lizzie's role as Ariel is to play a part. I'm remembering that the Tempest has a happy ending too, so am hoping that things work out for Charles as well. It doesn't look good, this impossible quest for Hadley. He'll need real magic, not the magician's bag of illusion for this. It occurs to me that Charles has used his own bag of tricks on himself..."self-delusion."

    Sorry this has been so long...blame Lorrie's question...no simple answer to that one!

    Lorrie
    April 9, 2002 - 07:36 am
    Wonderful response to the questions, Jane P!

    I also believe that Charles, echoing Prospero's attempt to transform magic into spirit, depicts the risks and self-deceptions or the spiritual life, the important distinction between imagination and fantasy.

    But those women! Do any of you wonder, with irritation, just how they could allow this man to manipulate them as he does, and seem to come back for more?

    And so colorful! All so different. Rosina, so ferociously glamorous , Lizzie, whom Charles treats abysmally, in my opinion, and of course there Hartley, who has such an emotional hold on Charles. He moves these people around like the self-absorbed manipulator he is, yet ignorant of his own motivations.

    Lorrie

    Joan Pearson
    April 9, 2002 - 08:20 am
    Lorrie, I think that's part of Charles' magic. Like Prospero he has been able to delude these women into believing that they need him in order to be somebody. I know plenty of women who live in the reflection of their husbands'success. The important thing is that they allow themselves to be hypnotized. Have you ever been successfully hynotized? You have to ALLOW yourself to have it work, I think. I never have but would love to hear from someone who has been.

    I find Rosina scarey. If there is a potential "monster" in this story, it could be Rosina. Caliban in the Tempest is Prospero's slave monster who threatens Prospero's daughter, Miranda. Now, Charles has no daughter, but the innocent Hadley might serve in this role.

    Hadley, the only one who does not succomb to Charles' manipulative powers. This leads back to the big question...why did she run from marriage to him all those years ago? Do you think we will ever learn the answer to this question?

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 9, 2002 - 07:44 pm
    Please understand that I am not trying to convince, coerce, or convert anyone to my point of view. It's important to me to keep in mind that a work of literature is the deliberate product of a writer's imagination. The characters are artifacts, not real people, and they are immutable in the sense that no matter how much I might want to alter their behavior, I can't do that because I did not create them. I don't find it productive to speculate about their hidden motivation, neurotic conflicts, or early childhood nor about what they might want to do or would, should, or could do, because -- much as they might remind me of my Aunt Sadie or Cousin Oswald -- they belong to the author, not to me, and they remain the author's to manipulate as she chooses.

    Iris Murdoch was a dazzling weaver of plots. If this is your first encounter with her, I think that as you read more of her works you will begin to see a certain pattern in her weaving and will find that her characters are drawn, and inserted into the plot, for specific purposes which usually become clearer as the story develops. They are almost allegorical in the way each serves a certain moral function. I think The Sea, the Sea might well have won the Booker because the characterizations are so accessible -- it's not hard to decide which ones deserve an "Ooh " an which merit only an "Ugh."

    All this in no way detracts from my enjoyment of Murdoch's novels; quite the opposite; it adds an extra fillip as I think about what's happening on the page. Like Plato's cave-dwellers, we want to think that the shadows we see are real. It helps, I think, to remember that we can enjoy hem but we can't change them.

    Joan Pearson
    April 9, 2002 - 07:57 pm
    Ros, the author included all the detail about Charles' early childhood...Have you read anything posted here that is speculation based on anyone's Auntie? It is Iris Murdoch who planted these details that leads to our attempts to understand their significance and to understand Charles...and where the story will go from here. I haven't seen any attempts to change the characters. The links between The Sea to The Tempest ~yes, this is subjective and speculation.

    I am trying to understand what you are saying about wanting to change a hair on the heads of any of these characters. Will you explain further, as you seem to be earnestly expressing a concern that escapes me. And I do respect what you say, but need to hear the lyrics to that song again.

    betty gregory
    April 9, 2002 - 08:25 pm
    Ros, Joan, would an example be.....that I don't quite "get it" that Charles has retired himself to go off and write his memoirs, that he wasn't clear about either his abrupt, to me, retirement, or his reasons for writing whatever it is he is writing. Ros, would you say, it doesn't matter if it is unclear to me, that Murdoch's character is free to be unclear. That his actions don't have to make perfect sense to this one reader, but have to....what, be consistent within his character? That he makes other abrupt pronouncements and turns of behavior?

    I, too, would like to understand more clearly what you said, Ros. Is my example close?

    Betty

    Traude
    April 9, 2002 - 08:26 pm
    Like besprechen, I was caught in the ever-increasing tempo of the story and didn't stop reading until I had finished the book. It contains incredible riches, is full of historical, literary and linguisting references, and has a running commentary on the complex relationships between men and women and the state of marriage, among other things.

    There is much discourse on the world of the theater, a (" place of hopes and disappointments" where "one lives out in a more vivid way the cyclical patterns of ordinary life" pg. 36, --- "Of course the theatre is sex, sex, sex" pg. 37), on acting, professionalism and more.

    And then there are the women. Clement is mentioned early, briefly, but often referred to throughout. From the name (remembering English PM Clement Attlee) I deduced (wrongly) that Clement was a man. Joan, why Hartley ran away from Charles will be revealed later in the book. There are many unexpected developments, breath-taking twists and turns (and that's no exaggeration) until the very last page.

    The ever-changing sea is vividly, eloquently, lyrically described. The house, Shruff End, makes a different impression on the visitors. Some refer to it as "funny"; Rosina calls it "this ghastly pointless house" (pg. 181), and worse.

    Lorrie, the passionate yearning Charles has for Hartley cannot be explained at this point, it will become more obvious later on -- to the extent possible.

    There are many anglicisms in the book, and the word "odd" appears rather frequently.

    Traude
    April 10, 2002 - 08:05 am
    May I add a PS to my # 165.

    My posts were based on my impressions and feelings as I concentrated on the characters, their (often baffling) actions and the progress of the story. What it all means, a frequently asked question, cannot be determined with any certainty until the very end, I believe, when we do our own summing up. What we are reading are Murdoch's own observations, concerns, opinions (watch for her 'judgment' of the Irish !), and the characters are her mouthpiece, or so it seems to me. And yes, Joan, I agree with you that the only monster in Charles' life was he himself.

    Lorrie
    April 10, 2002 - 11:13 am
    Ros, JoanP, Traude, and All you other readers:

    As we get deeper into this novel, my admiration for this author leaps and leaps. Consider Murdoch's nimble control of this neurotic cast of idiosyncratic characters.!! The book descends into a whirlpool of opposing wills and thwarted stratagems, and we watch with morbid fascination as Charles' serene reflections elude him and he desperaely grasps at the unrealistic phantoms spawned by the long-lost object of a childhood infatuation.

    Yes, Traude, the turbulent swirling of that restless sea stays with us all through this book, I think.

    Andy: I am coming more and more around to your way of describing this book as a huge play, with a truly Kafka-esque cast of characters.

    Besprechen, I assume you're still with us, how about you, Keene? Paige, how are those headaches, and BMcivvis, are you still there? Sarah's off on a jaunt, good luck to her. Let's hear from all you lurkers!

    Lorrie

    Traude
    April 10, 2002 - 12:28 pm
    Lorrie, yes indeed a whirlpool of emotions and there's the real one, Minn's Cauldron.

    Some in the large cast of characters are only mentioned but never appear in the flesh, yet all are part of the tableau.

    Paige
    April 10, 2002 - 03:38 pm
    Lorrie, I'm here, reading everyone's posts and reading as I am able. It was my impression from the start that the sea would be nearly another character, cannot be ignored. I agree with you and with Traude. Glad to see that it continues throughout the book.

    Ginny
    April 10, 2002 - 04:40 pm
    I'm finally caught up and I must say am somewhat appalled at the turn the story has taken, I'm not sure which is the most appalling thing, Hartley's life to date, or Charles's lying to her about the time, saying it's 9:30 or whatever when he knew it was later, no regard for her or her safety at all.

    Lorrie's question in the heading is:

    Charles' appraisal of the marriage state is "that unimaginable condition of intimacy and mutual bondage"
  • How would one reconcile his passionate yearning for Hartley with that?

    I think that Charles's passionate yearning is about Charles, not Hartley. It's clear he does not see things as they are (her appearance, how she feels about him) but rather as he imagines her to be or what he would like her to be.

    I was confused by this statement early on in Charles's musing on Hartley: "I was the king seeking the beggar maid. I had power to transform, to raise up, to heal, to bring undreamt-of happiness and joy." (Page 110)

    I...I....I....I....

    Perhaps you will say that all love is ego- centric, surely it's not quite as ego-centric as this is. He won't take no for an answer. He spies on them. And even after he has heard the conversation he writes the letter, sneaks up, thrusts it into her hand, and runs away like a school boy? He's overcome with....what? She does not return his favor, she's got her own problems, in spades.

    (She, also by the way, thought she'd redeem Ben too, and blames Charles for her problems, the two are a messed up pair).

    I fault him for his constant ego and am not impressed by his protestations of love, he never stops thinking how he will affect the change: it's the hairdresser who has caused the hair problem and he can have her dressed well....not too flashy....just right.

    If "love is not love that alters when it alteration finds," we're not looking at love here, either, but obsession, and seen in that context then the quote by Murdoch at the top of the heading makes a heck of a lot of sense and James's effect on Charles's own identity is one of threat: James is real, Charles is not, and Charles knows it.

    Corned beef and red cabbage and stewed onions notwithstanding.

    Charles in these pages has not redeemed himself as a character, to me.

    I spent a few idle minutes wondering what would happen if my first "love" as you'd call it, suddenly appeared out of nowhere with the same protestations.

    Seen in that light, her going to his house seems an act of kindness which I probably would not have done, if he had not gotten the point the first time he was told there was nothing on, I would not have gotten near him later on, either, I guess she felt sorry for him after reading that letter, she's a better man than he is.

    And the images of fear and foreboding and unease continue contstantly throughout this section, as well, I don't know why, unless we are supposed to think Charles himself is neurotic...OR....something bad IS going to happen.

    ginny
  • besprechen
    April 10, 2002 - 05:03 pm
    Hello, I was caught "lurking" wasn't I? There are a few thoughts I can share about this section of the book. Iris did a good writing job with the character Charles through this section. While reading I was recalling words like: preoccupation, fixation, mania, phobia, compulsion, one-track mind, hang-up and was, in my mind, shouting to him "leave Hartley's marriage alone!" And among all this I wanted to continue reading to see what happened.

    I find the sea echoing, through its different physical characteristics, events that take place in the story, so that it becomes the background music to the story the same as music for a movie.

    I believe the episode in the picture gallery is a demonstration of his sub-conscious overriding the immediate present of his awareness and the result, with the drinking, created a state of "blacking out." And the underlying cause of the mental condition was created by his observation of the Titian paintings and subject matter. There is an unresolved issue within the deep recesses of his mind relating to this subject and it will be revealed in a later part of the book.

    Doesn't James bring a totally different "feel" to a character than we have had up until now? One who can override the theatrical emotions of our characters and bring a breath of "let's be sensible about this." I loved to read his words: "deluging yourself" and "rescue idea is pure imagination, pure fiction."

    I mention one more thing, then I will go back to my "lurking." I felt the remark about Lawrence at Déraa was a "bombshell" at that particular moment. The film about Lawrence presented the episode as a negative influence in the life of Lawrence, and well it might have been. The two web site discussions I read suggest conflicting reports, in notes from Lawrence, that indicate to historians a lie was told about what really took place. Iris places the comment, with all its innuendo then, almost with a shrug, continues the conversation.

    Lorrie
    April 10, 2002 - 05:06 pm
    Ginny, I felt the same way when we went further into the book. Where I had been feeling a littly sympathetic toward Charles before, I certainly don't now. What infuriated me most, was, as you pointed out, how he deliberately lied to Heartly about the time, thus actually putting her in physical danger. He knew that, the cad. And grabbing her on the street, when he knew her husband could see them through his glasses.

    Lorrie

    betty gregory
    April 10, 2002 - 06:16 pm
    Another marathon surviror here, but trashed and battered. Beginning yesterday at noon and reading straight through to mid morning today, I understand the undertow of the book.

    One large section (in next week's discussion) about a lock and key was almost more discomfort than I could stand, but that's about something else and it almost prevented me from continuing to read. I had thought I'd email Lorrie and say, can't do it. That damn plot, however, has a way of working its way under your skin....some of it pure plot and some of it sneaky device. How effective it was for Murdoch to slip into the last sentence of a sub-section or chapter a reversal of plan or a breath-catching cliff-hanger! "The old woman did not resemble Hartley. She was Hartley." How can one not turn the page!! What bell does this ring? Is this an old-fashioned British mystery device?

    A gifted writer and thinker, this Murdoch. I'm in somewhat of a stunned state at the end of the book, struggling to go back to the middle to make comments. (The range of relationship oriented topics she covered is just amazing.) I kept underlining Charles' words of ownership of Hartley....pg. 184, "I also wanted, increasingly, and with a violence which almost burnt the tenderness away, to own her, to possess her, body and soul." As someone (Ginny?) said, this is not about love.....on the other hand, I'd venture that there are so many untruths, distortions, misinformation out there about what love is, that Murdoch's character can be this disgusting without losing believability. Unfortunately.

    Remember my moment of painful empathy for Charles? I can't.

    Betty

    ALF
    April 10, 2002 - 07:33 pm
    young love... first love...
    Charles has never come any further than age what ??? 12? 13?
    He is mired in at an adolescent level and has not matured an iota, has he?  He remains an immature teenager, pineing away over Hartley, his "lost love."  He's dug himself in, believing his misfortune and sorrows shall be allayed when "she" returns her affections to him..
    Oh BOO HOO!  Poor Chas....He belittles and minimizes everyone else's sensitivities  in regard to love, squelching and squashing each lady's warmth in the process--- because? ?   WHY?  He's a child at heart wishing for the admiration of a woman?  He believes the panacea to all his woes will be when Hartley finally displays her heart-felt love to him?  Do you believe she is capable of that?  She surely is wishy-washy thus  far isn't she?  She doesn't know what she wants either, it appears.

    Act II---The playcontinues!

    Traude
    April 10, 2002 - 08:13 pm
    Ginny, Lorrie, "infuriating" indeed; "contemptible" also comes to mind, and "insufferable", even "diabolical".

    No, it's not about love, it is about power, possessiveness, dominance, cruelty, obsession, violence and fear, even good versus evil, as I said earlier.

    Betty, I think I know how you felt at the end of the book; I too was in shock, benumbed, incredulous. And angry.

    Ginny
    April 11, 2002 - 03:43 am
    I also envy those of you who feel compelled to go on a reading marathon, I myself was pushed to finish this section, am not sure why, but marathon did not suggest itself. The earlier Walden like writing seems to have disappeared, or maybe we did not fully understand Charlels, at any rate, it's intriguing and I am going to finish it, without you all however, I doubt I would have. Nobody can deny there's a strong plot here and just enough soupcon of mystery, of inexplicable things, hints of fear, etc., that might keep us all going. Alas what character is the reader to identify with enough to want to see how it comes out?

    I now feel sorry for Hartley as presented here to us and I am glad to have read thus far, there's no doubt the writing is very fine to bring out in the reader these serious reactions to what is, after all, a figment of Iris Murdoch's imagination.

    ginny

    roidininki
    April 11, 2002 - 05:17 am
    Hi everyone am here in Devon not on scout patrol Ginny close to white cliffs of Dover at all.[laugh]Yes Lorrie, Ginny has got me to work on where the Martello towers are and i have said they are between Bexhill on sea and Eastbbourne along this coast othar than that i shall have to look up in reference books here in the libraries if poss. but they keep losing their server so i will get back to you a.s.a.p.Ginny did you get my post in movies and videos about why T.R had to kill Peter? Bye for now and happy reading all.

    Lorrie
    April 11, 2002 - 08:43 am
    Betty, my thanks to the author Murdoch for making this book impossible for you to abandon, we don't want to lose you at this early date---I have a feeling there is much more ahead that will be worthy of lots of comments.

    besprechen, I too, wondered about that scene in the art gallery. I feel that there is a connection here somewhere with the Titian paintings, and it has something to do with the fanged sea-monster in the painting (?) Then, too, I do like the common-sense approach James takes to what Charles tells him. In fact, he seems to be the only one in the book who doesn't rely on theatrics to get a point across.

    Can you elaborate a little further about your mention of Lawrence at Deeraa? I'm afraid I don't really know about this. I've been going back in our posts but cannot find the links.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 11, 2002 - 08:46 am
    Andy, you said it from the beginning. This whole thing reads like a play, or pageant, with the brooding house on the cliff, and the roar and hiss of the ocean as background. Each character makes his or her designated appearance, and we sense something foreboding gathering in the wings.

    betty gregory
    April 11, 2002 - 10:39 am
    I had been thinking about British and American cultural preferences, then your reference to "theatrics," Lorrie, as another clue to our first impressions as the book opened. Add to this something I read not long ago about how "sexy" American male movie stars didn't appeal to the British....they prefere their "sexy" men slender, lanky, even boney. No John Wayne types. Then, there is something I think of as British eccentricity, a dry silliness. All that to say, I wonder if some of our first impressions in the book were responses to British-ness written in by Murdoch.

    Betty

    Lorrie
    April 11, 2002 - 04:00 pm
    Hey, Roidininki!

    I almost missed your post! Good Heavens, I hope your research over there in England will leave you some time to come back here and talk about the book. Don't get lost around all the tourists near those "White Cliffs of Dover!"

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 11, 2002 - 04:11 pm
    I wish that I could look upon all this "Britishness" with an objective eye, but after hearing years of lamenting from my Irish-Catholic parents and grandparents about the "rotten English," and the "dirty Black and Tans," it's difficult think about anything British without a certain amount of skepticism. Even Murdoch felt passionately that Irish Protestants had an incontestable right to call themselves Irish, according to one biographer. Yet Iris Murdoch apparently was unable to write only partially about "The Troubles."

    Lorrie

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 11, 2002 - 05:38 pm
    Betty and Lorrie, when I read your comment about the tinges of British culture in this book, I recalled reading somewhere that many of the writers Americans think of as British are actually Irish. This is true, of course, about George Bernard Shaw and Elizabeth Bowen, a remarkable woman with a talent for creating suspense in the midst of apparently simple plots. While we're on the subject, though I apologize for digressing from Murdoch as the subject, I might mention Barbara Pym, whose novels resemble the murder-at=the-vicarage mystery genre but are actually keen satires; Anita Brookner, whose antiseptic style depicts the Englishwoman's quiet desperation, and Pat Barker, Booker winner for the heartbreaking The Ghost Road and other fiction that makes World War I almost unbearably vivid. And, standing above the crowd forever, there's Virginia Woolf.

    Traude
    April 11, 2002 - 07:17 pm
    Further thoughts on rereading : Shruff End is an ugly red brick house that would look right at home in a Birmingham suburb (pg 13) but is strangely incongruous in its isolation on that wild coast. The house is a real, almost menacing presence, just like Nibletts is in its quiet dullness. The description of the windowless claustrophobic inner rooms at Shruff End made me think of John Fowles' The Collector and The French Lieutenant's Woman .

    Lorrie, isn't the tirade about the Irish in the drunken voice of Peregrine (pg 162) rather astonishing, given the fact that the author herself was Irish ?

    This is not a Bildungsroman of course, but it does show one man's turbulent quest (for wont of a better word) over a few short months' time, and this psychological insight into the human condition is as important in the book as the plot, IMHO, perhaps more so.

    roidininki
    April 12, 2002 - 05:56 am
    Have just got myself a copy so might be able to catch up with you.. what small print tho'! Could this book be in the vein of The French Lietenant's Woman? [John Fowles ] Ginny have left a post in movies about" the reason why "in case you have missed it.

    Traude
    April 12, 2002 - 06:38 am
    roidininki :

    Since I brought up John Fowles and the two books, may I answer. No, Murdoch's book is not in the vein of Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman.

    What struck me is the obsession, the forceful attempt to "own" another person, demonstrated so clearly in The Sea, The Sea, and in The Collector (later memorably filmed with Terrence Stamp and Samantha Eggar, if memory serves), and especially that other person's desperate attempt to escape from what amounts to a physical and emotional stranglehold. In the French Lieutenant's Woman, the character is trying to escape not so much a person as to get out of a somewhat vulgarized picture of the nineteenth century.



    On other British authors : Anita Brookner whom Ros mentioned might be interesting. In book after book from the Booker Prize-winning Hotel du Lac on, Brookner has perfected the image of women living a life of quiet desperation and written exquisitely about loneliness and the illusion of romance. And not the loneliness of women only : in Altered States a male protagonist goes through the same travails. Two years ago I suggested that book for discussion in our evening off-line local brook group. The women in the group enjoyed it a great deal, the (few) men including the male group leader seemed almost embarrassed to admit a male can be lonely too ! Brookner's last book was nonfiction, I hope she is workig on another novel.

    And how about Dame Muriel Spark ? Might we try her here some time ? There is also Margot Livesey and her latest book(her 4th), Eva Moves the Furniture . Livesey was born in Scotland but currently lives and teaches in the Boston area. Ah well, so many books, so little time !!!

    It is good to have you with us.

    Lorrie
    April 12, 2002 - 07:59 am
    Hey, roidininki!

    Are you still over there in Devon, on that mysterious quest of Ginny's, to find the source of the house on the cliff and the Martello tower?

    I share Betty's and Traude's feeling of repugnance at Charles' selfish obsession with "owning" Hartley, and can't help a sneaking little admiration for Rosina's spirit, if nothing else. Incidentally, I thought that scene between Rosina and Lizzie was hilarious, with some black humor all its own, especially when Rosina tells Charles, "But my dear Charles, I know you are a most eccentric creature, but you cannot want a woman who looks eighty and has a moustache and beard!"

    Incidentally, I know it's a bit offhand here, but I wanted to mention about first impressions. I don't know exactly why, his description of himself would not concur, but for some reason I have always pictured Charles as "fat," or stout, a sort of portly middle-aged man, something like Robert Morley, that great British character actor. Funny how mental pictures like this won't go away.

    An afterthought:

    When Charles leaves James' flat, he remembers seeing someone on his previous visit........."I had suddenly recalled, and felt that I had entirely forgotten in the interim, that on the last occasion in James's flat, and just as I was leaving, I had seen, through a half-open door, in another room, a little oriental man with a wispy beard, sitting quietly in a chair." (p.178)

    I have a feeling that this brief mention may have importance as we go on with the story. Those of you who have finished the book, Don't Tell Us!"

    Lorrie

    betty gregory
    April 12, 2002 - 10:19 am
    Hartley may have become the same lifeless person if she had relinguished her rights, her essence, to Charles.....just as she did with her husband. Maybe this is one of Murdoch's comments on what becomes of a woman if she hands over ownership of herself....and what happens to children of those women.

    Betty

    Traude
    April 12, 2002 - 01:00 pm
    Heavens no, Lorrie, there will be no jumping ahead from here. We have too many impressions of what has transpired so far, too many thoughts, and questions, of course.

    As for Charles' appearance - we know he is sixty but his old friends all comment on his youthful appearance; Peregrine says that Charles has to shave only once a month (!) while James does so twice a DAY (!) Perhaps Charles was an eternal Peter Pan, a play he liked to direct.

    Traude
    April 12, 2002 - 01:31 pm
    Even at the end of the book there is no logical, rational, comprehensible explanation of, or about, the little old man Charles sees in James' apartment. We are left to ponder James' Buddhist connection ---

    MarjV
    April 12, 2002 - 05:26 pm
    I must say....I detest Hartley. She is written so well, I think of her as a real person. No backbone at all; unless it is all hidden under a psychological problem. At least Rosina, for the awful actions, is a living fire-full human.

    Whichever of you said it.....yes, the sea is a wonderful telling musical background as if we are seeing a huge long movie.

    I feel as if I'm living with these people --- at Shruff's End. Haven't touched my other books.

    ~Marj

    roidininki
    April 13, 2002 - 03:41 am
    Traude, thankyou for welcoming me, it is so good to feel at home with you all. I began reading last evening. Can i tell you that i am still in Devon and this morning got a letter off to an information centre about the terrain, as Ginny had said Lorrie wanted to know more about it?[yellow rocks for example?] which i must confess to puzzling about myself. I know that the Martello towers were fortress places [and currently tower 28 is 1 mile inland,] have placed them between resorts of Eastbourne and Bexhill-on-sea.I can remember The Collector, yes Traude, it was indeed Terence Stamp and Samantha Eggar.I never really tire of The French Lietenant's Woman but accept that this book is not in this vein. Such detail?Wow!Lorrie i agree with you on mental images, interestingly you have formed a picture of Charles quite unlike my own. I have him as a Charles Dance type are you familiar with him?.It IS amazing how we do picture characters at least i always have, cannot imagine otherwise.Have not read as far as you describe the Rosina and Lizzie scene but Rosina's confrontation with Charles , laying her cards on the table so to speak, was indeed spirited obviously some of you have read the entire book already so i am avoiding going into postings , being that much behind you .I found the detailed references to meals and the cooking of them amazing..not having seen the film i am not aware if this is something of Iris Murdoch ,herself, contained within her description of Charles preferences?

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 13, 2002 - 06:44 am
    I'm going to presume on Lorrie's generosity and take it upon myself to comment on your inquiries about Iris Murdoch's life and times as related to her fiction. Realistically, she and John Bayley were one of those charming and hapless couples whose friends found themselves supplying their needs without their actually having to ask: giving them dinners, providing hospitality for indefinite periods, transporting them, and so on. Iris wasn't particularly attracted to domesticity, while John was what I've heard Brits describe as "a great baby," perhaps the typical absentminded professor, fumbling about helplessly and knowing that someone would take pity and rescue him.There's an anecdote that makes a vivid picture in my memory, about a cocktail party where John in the friendliest way groped in his pocket and held out to another guest, as a great treat, an olive covered with pocket lint which had evidently been reposing there for quite some time. By the time Iris's illness was well advanced they had given up all pretense of housekeeping and clothes were simply piled on the floor, unwashed dishes teetering in the sink, and general chaos prevailing throughout. I think John didn't understand that Iris would have received better care in a nursing facility instead of remaining at home until she was mute, incontinent, helpless, and near to death..

    It is not, however, until her last novel, the poignant Jackson's Dilemma, that her writing reveals evidence of her plight. Some of what people saw as her earlier eccentricities of style were simply examples of her immeasurably rich treasure-house of ideas, theories, and details, her matchless wit, and the unique facility with which she could visualize and work out the fascinating plots that weren't just a hodgepodge of sexual adventures but a serious and challenging set of questions about morality, good, and evil, reality, and the ideal.

    Lorrie
    April 13, 2002 - 08:08 am
    BETTY:

    In your post #180, you mentioned about the sort of "dry silliness" of English characters, and I must say I agree wholeheartedly. And yes, I would say our first impressions were colored by our perceptions of anything "British."

    ROIDININKI:

    You mention the name of an English actor who has been an idol of mine for several years. I became hopelessly enamored of Charles Dance ever since the series "The Raj" all about India under British rule, and then his riveting performance in some movie about Kenya during the 30's. Be still, my heart!

    MARGEV:

    Yes, don't you want to just sort of shake that woman Hardley and get some backbone in her? I mean, all those years of abuse? What a dishrag! Or is that modern woman speaking?

    TRAUDE:

    I am very grateful to you and the others who have finished the book for showing restraint in not "telling all" here. I must admit I haven't finished it, but I am savoring the suspense, because it seems to me that there is something climactic just around the corner.

    ROSLYN:

    I saved this comment for last because I am still in awe of the wonderful post you made (#193)

    That anecdote about Iris and John was quite riveting, and sometimes I think the complete story of this wonderful author and her life is as fascinating as the books she wrote. Your comments about her final days were more poignant to me than the most-praised biographies I have read. That last paragraph in your post is priceless. I assume that you are and have been a fan of Iris Murdoch. True? Thank you for an unusually apt perception.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 13, 2002 - 08:17 am
    I would like to pause here to say that I am so delighted with the obvious pleasue all you readers seem to get from talking about this book. I must admit that when Ginny asked me to lead this discussion I did so with trepidation, first because I didn't feel that I was "intellectual" enough, and second, because I had never read anything by Iris Murdoch.

    I must say you have all, without exception, made it so easy for me, and I am grateful. To my surprise, I am enjoying this discussion, and to me it feels like a group of people sitting around comfortably talking about a good book they were reading. I must admit I am now a fan of this wonderful author. So what had originally been thought of as a chore has now become an effort of appreciation.

    Lorrie

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 13, 2002 - 10:23 am
    I'd like to comment on your question about the difference between Charles's observations about marriage and his fierce desire to possess Hartley again. Murdoch didn't grant Charles any awareness of the kind of reciprocal sharing of tenderness, loyalty, and responsibility that is essential to a real marriage. (We might note that few of the couplings in the book would meet that criterion.), All Charles reveals about his feeling for Hartley is his wish to recapture her submissiveness and his youthful strength,, to force her back into the adolescent bondage she endured until she faced reality and broke away. So determined was he to re-experience his power that he was able to convince himself that he could see her youthful charm beneath the middle-aged dowdiness that had kept him from recognizing her at their first re-encounter. We need to remember that with minimal exceptions we never see Hartley for what she might really be. We see her only through Charles's eyes.

    The reference to King Cophetua and the beggar-maid is revealing: it refers to an old ballad in which a lofty king, loved hopelessly by a poor young woman, reaches down from his great height to elevate her to his side. Thus Charles, the condescending rescuer, planned to shower his graciousness down on the faded remnant of his early love, confident that all would then be well, years, wrinkles, and obstacles vanish,and he could bask in his own magnanimity while she clung to him in humble gratitude. Murdoch was skillfully slicing us a huge pile of baloney .

    Traude
    April 13, 2002 - 02:59 pm
    Lorrie,

    this book is haunting, I find - but then I am known for having a hard time "letting go" after a dicussion is finished. This one, mercifully, is not; there is so much more to explore and comment on (James for one).

    After a deliberately slow, contemplative beginning in 'Prehistory' that introduces the reader to the locus operandi , the narrator and the friends of his past, the 'History' chapters then get to the 'heart of the matter'and the narrative pace quickens.

    Re your question :

    I think the passionate yearning Charles feels for Hartley is an ideal, a beacon to which he obstinately clings, moreover it is in fact an excuse for his shunning marriage. (And it is also a delusion.) Indeed he is not marriage "material". By his own admission he is not terribly concerned about sex and rarely spends the night with a woman he made love to - "In the morning she looks to me like a whore" he says at one point. (And have you noticed his annoyingly calling the women "little" ? As in 'little Lizzie" e.g. ?) As far as Hartley is concerned, the past is still the present for Charles, and not a day passes when he doesn't think of her and their mid-adolescence innocent love. It never occurs to him to consider the inevitable, if unnoticeable, changes every day brings and the toll time exacts on people and their appearance.

    How very good of all of you to share your impressions on what Charles was like. He tells us more than once that he had "help" with his hairline, and I see him as sort of a Peter Pan- a play he loved to direct- forever in flight, agile and ageless. (Oh yes, Charles Dance - a marvelous actor ! And he was so much more real !! Where is he these days, I wonder ?)

    Murdoch, born in 1919, had a distinguished career in academia, disrupted by WW II, and after 1945 worked in displaced persons' camps in continental Europe. According to her biographer, Peter J. Conradi, (Iris Murdoch : A Life), it was a period of intense sexual and worldly initiation for her, and at that time she considered herself in training "for inclusion among the harlots of history". Mercifully for her and for posterity she was rescued from the last of her "demon lovers", Elias Canetti, by none other than John Bayley, who was a junior lecturer at Oxford and younger than Iris. They married in 1956, and so began the second incarnation of Iris as a novelist.

    Their house in Oxfordshire was leaky, rat-ridden and dust-coated and without heating or water mains (!!!); that was the scene whence she wrote her novels - 26 of them in 40 years, in long hand.

    Ginny
    April 13, 2002 - 03:03 pm
    "R!" All the way from England in your hunt for the "yellow rocks!" Brilliant post and I'm in total agreement with Lorrie, thanks to HER and all of YOU here this has become the place to come for wonderfullly exciting and provocative comments in a congenial atmosphere, it's a pleasure to come in here and it's my first Murdoch, too.

    I was struck by Ros mentioning King Cophetua, because when Murdoch was growing up, King Cophetua was quite the rage, if you read EF Benson you will find him in each Tableau Vivant which is staged (and everybody seems to know who he is!!) I must confess before Benson I had not heard of him, but apparently the Tate Museum has, here is King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid by Edward Burne-Jones (1833-1898) in the Tate in London.

    Here's a bit of the story, I would like to know more:



    The subject of the work is an Elizabethan ballad, retold in Tennyson's poem "The Beggar Maid", in which a king searches for a pure wife. After finding her, the king offers his crown in return for the love of the ragged beggar girl, who in Burne-Jones's painting sits as if enthroned while he sits beneath her in homage. The anemones in the girl's hand symbolize rejected love, while the characters represents Burne-Jones's himself and his wife Georgiana; it is said that the head of the king had to be modified to make its model's identity less obvious.


    Isn't it fascinating what one piece of literature will bring up and there's TENNYSON AGAIN!! We simply must read TENNYSON someday here together.

    ginny

    Joan Pearson
    April 13, 2002 - 03:07 pm
    Yessss! I've caught up with you, before the heading topics change. I have read and enjoyed every single post too. But I have one question...how can you marathon-read through these pages? Every paragraph contains an image or a turn of phrase that causes me to stop and savor. Besprechen and Marj, I too am enjoying the concert between the sea and the action. One of my favorites...Charles has made the daring decision to spy on Hartley and he is in a state trying to make a sensible plan to carry this out. Look at the sea at this time, "...a bright fierce little moon was shining, dimming the stars and pouring metallic brilliance onto the sea."

    Along with the language, I even enjoy being yanked around by the abrupt changes every time I think I've got things figured out. I am even enjoying Charles ~ to give you an idea how completely I am into this story.

    I loved it when he tells Hartley that Ben is mad. "That's what mad people do" he tells her. "They see everything as evidence for what they want to believe." Don't you love it? Isn't he describing himself as mad?

    You have all expressed Charles' imperfect concept of what love is...but isn't love subjective...I mean isn't it what one thinks it is? Every time I see Charles think back to Hartley, looking at those early photographs, he starts to think of his mother. What's that about?

    Then there's Hartley bemoaning the fact that everything she does to make things better go wrong. But isn't that what Charles is doing? Hasn't he left her in a fine pickle now? How will she explain to Ben her visit to Charles' house? How did she get home so quickly? She did manage to get home on time. Wouldn't things have worked out just fine if Charles hadn't gone to Ben to tell him where she was?

    So many thoughts on first love come to mind...I will spare you except to say that when you meet up with one you loved when you were young (and beautiful), you see one another as you were way back when. You can look like Hartley does now, beard and all, but your old "friend" can see the young you at the same time. I know this. The memory does funny things...

    Off to read more, feeling somewhat smug that I have pages left to look forward to that some of you don't!

    joan

    ps. pickled walnuts? pickled walnuts?

    pps. Ginny, we were posting together...yes, let's do Tennyson. We've been saying this for years...

    Ginny
    April 13, 2002 - 03:09 pm


    Hahaha, Joan, had I known you were posting I would not have interrupted, super post!

    Love that quote.

    Yes, PLEASE can we do Tennyson!

    Apparently the painting above was inspired by Tennyson's

    The Beggar Maid


    [Written 1833, published 1842).




    Her arms across her breast she laid;
    She was more fair than words can say:
    Bare-footed came the beggar maid
    Before the king Cophetua.
    In robe and crown the king stept down,
    To meet and greet her on her way;
    'It is no wonder,' said the lords,
    'She is more beautiful than day.'

    As shines the moon in clouded skies,
    She in her poor attire was seen:
    One praised her ancles, one her eyes,
    One her dark hair and lovesome mien.
    So sweet a face, such angel grace,
    In all that land had never been:
    Cophetua sware a royal oath:
    'This beggar maid shall be my queen!'


    See any connection?

    ginny

    Traude
    April 13, 2002 - 03:20 pm
    Several minds were on the same wave length at once, it appears !

    betty gregory
    April 13, 2002 - 06:54 pm
    Joan says, "isn't love what one thinks it is?" And Ros writes that Murdoch is serving us bologna when Charles "love" includes a "condescending rescue" of poor, helpless Hartley, and of his "fierce desire to possess her again."

    It is possible that Murdoch is saying too many people behave as if their idea of love is not that far from Charles'. Her extreme characters speak aloud what is still found in subtle but telling behavior in our culture. Or, not so subtle...check the sexual assault statistics or the crowded women's shelters. Presumed ownership of women is still with us. Even silent, numb Hartley is representative of those who give up ownership of self. I will say again, her fate with Charles, if she had stayed with him when young, might not be that different from her life with Ben.

    Ros writes what Charles and Ben do not comprehend about marriage (or love), that is is a "reciprocal sharing of tenderness, loyalty and responsibility." Murdoch writes of tragic lives, of those who never learn about true intimacy.....or, closer to the end, we can talk about which characters were capable of love, which ones knew the difference between artificial and authentic living. What a perfect, perfect setting in the world of the theater....to think about authentic intimacy, about love.

    I'm straining not to give away anything, Lorrie. My generalized points are a little vague, but I hope to be more specific later.

    Traude, I saw the same labeling and trivializing Charles did with women. In this, Murdoch is not exaggerating at all....hidden and insidious in our current, everyday language are clues to how women are seen. "Girl" still owns the place where "woman" should be. I'm also so disappointed/alarmed that the word b____ has made a comeback in pop culture talk, promoted through music lyrics, laughed away by both young women and men. Words are magic, though, powerful in a way that nothing else is. Little girls growing up hearing girls and women called b____ infuriates me!! Well, enough about that.

    Great discussion, everyone. I, also, am taken in by all the descriptions of the sea....and I notice that Murdoch uses the sea and weather to establish or extend mood. In fact, the sea could stand for life in all its variations of mood and level of danger. In this story, the sea offers the entire range from healing properties to death. One of my favorite views of life is the "ebb and flow" of the sea, of the expected ups and downs, the ever changing nature of life.

    Betty

    Traude
    April 14, 2002 - 09:40 am
    True, Betty, how true !

    And to repeat Joan's earlier question, why do women submit to being belittled, become doormats and even victims of abuse ? (And there are several types of domestic abuse, not all physical.) What made Hartley stay in that evidently sado-masochistic relationship -long before Charles returned ? Why do women let themselves be manipulated, why are they so eager to run after a man even if that man, like Charles, coldly casts them aside like a "shadow" ?

    To paraphrase the triumphant exclamation : We have come a long way, baby : we have come a long way MAYBE .

    MarjV
    April 14, 2002 - 10:51 am
    Lorrie - back to what you said, about looking at Hartley thru a "modern" mind. Thruout history there have been strength-full women and the opposite. I mean - consider Esther in the Hebrew scriptures!!! Sharp woman, not one bit a weeny. So I don't think we are just looking at her thru our current eyes.

    Thanks for the Beggar Maid references and the poem! Sure does fit in.

    Great great novel - even when I don't care for one or other of the characters I love the read.

    ~Marj

    Traude
    April 14, 2002 - 11:26 am
    Lorrie, re your earlier question concerning the relationship between Charles and his mother : there is something Oedipal about this I think; note also Charles' loyal attachment to Clement, his first mistress, who is 20 years his senior and fills also a maternal role, and to whom he faithfully returns after his escapades and absences. Also note the "strange feeling" Charles describes when looking at a singer's mouth, the moist red cavity rimmed by the white teeth. That seems a Freudian hint, a little odious, at that.

    BTW Betty, just read an article in the NYT Sunday Magazine about Carol Shields (author e.g. of The Stone Diaries), under the heading Final Chapter .

    She is terminally ill with breast cancer but found the strength to write one more novel. Its title is Unless and she may not see its publication.

    About the book Shields said "I wanted to address the inequalities between men and women that I think are central to all our problems in the world. " (emphasis mine) I am mentioning this enternal truism here only because it fits into this present discussion.

    Lorrie
    April 14, 2002 - 12:10 pm
    Well, these past two chapters have been quite illuminating, don't you think? Still, with every page we turn, the old adage keeps running through my head: "the plot thickens!"

    Tomorrow we will move on to discussing Chapters Four and Five, and I will be posting a few more pertinent questions up in the heading.

    Lorrie

    betty gregory
    April 14, 2002 - 01:44 pm
    Traude, you wrote Joan's question, "Why do women submit to being belittled, become doormats and even victims of abuse?" Depending on the generation (age), family, financial power, support system, previous self image and other general factors, then maybe

    she thinks a Christian woman stays married and keeps trying

    he said he would kill her if she left

    they almost don't make it on 2 salaries, how could she make it alone

    he said he would fight her for custody and his family has the money and clout to make it happen

    he's so convincing when he apologizes, he cries and begs

    her sister doesn't think she's tried hard enough

    her preacher says God will help her be strong enough to stay and help her husband change

    she did leave, then he swore he'd changed and begged her to forgive him

    he was fine until he got fired....

    this is how her father talked to her mother.

    she has lied to so many people at work about the absences, bruises, has given up all her friends, has lived this way so long, is so numb that it never crosses her mind to leave.

    the last time she left, he picked up the kids at school and was gone for a week.

    he's told her for 4 years that she is nothing, a zero, a loser, and now she knows he is right.

    she used to feel confident and optimistic about life, but he's beaten that out of her....now she believes it's her fault that he gets so angry

    She hasn't read any books about women who said, "Wait a minute...you can't talk that way to me...that's abusive" She has only seen one movie when a woman said, "Excuse me, if you can't treat me with respect, then I don't want to know you." No one in her whole family has ever said (when they could have) "The next time you want to be condescending or dismissive, I'll have to ask you to apologize or go home." She has never heard, in her whole life, "Joking about a woman that way isn't funny."

    Betty

    Traude
    April 14, 2002 - 03:06 pm
    Betty,

    with apologies to Joan : checking # 161 I saw that she hadn't really asked THAT question at all. Rather, she said that plenty of women bask in the reflected glory of their mates' achievements. And, obviously referring to the question of dominance and submission, she likened the latter to hypnosis, which presupposes that the subject ALLOWS it to happen.

    I am sorry I placed words into Joan's mouth/post that were really my own.

    Yes Betty, I see all the answers, all the reasons, all valid. Thank you for taking the time to point out the obvious.

    betty gregory
    April 14, 2002 - 04:05 pm
    I've been mulling over Traude's question about garlic and brown sugar in spaghetti sauce. Well, I say brown sugar in minimum quantities...at least a tablespoon...and garlic in maximum quantities...as many as you can stand plus one!! Am I quoting your question accurately, Traude????hehehe???

    Paige
    April 14, 2002 - 04:14 pm
    Traude, really sorry to hear about Carol Shields. Thank you for sharing the news.

    betty gregory
    April 14, 2002 - 04:30 pm
    Oh, Traude, I just now saw your note about Carol Shields....such sad news, and what a powerful writer she has been, dedicated and steady. Each time I've moved, I've put The Stone Diaries in the do-not-sell stack, knowing I would reread it. Thanks for telling of her new book.

    Betty

    Traude
    April 14, 2002 - 07:55 pm
    Betty, Garlic and brown sugar -- in spaghetti sauce ?? I am sure it wasn't I who brought up the question. Brown sugar would be an alien ingredient, I think !

    BTW, Conradi, the biographer, said that IM herself fancied some of the goodies (?) described in the book; in fact, I can see her sitting in front of the reported two stacks of paper, one of them blank, writing in long hand hour after hour, weaving together the strands of her complicated stories. The prepration of complete wholesome meals can hardly have been a priority ! Perhaps the loyal John Baylay had a hand in preparing something similar to Charles' tidbits and a bit improbable combinations, like toast with anchovy paste. Mamma mia !!

    May I use this opportunity to mention that last Sunday I attended a luncheon, book-signing and reading by Anita Diamant from her second novel Good Harbor . This is one occasion I would not have wanted to miss. She was gracious and immensely personable and generously answered questions also about her first novel, The Red Tent. A pleasure !

    besprechen
    April 15, 2002 - 07:03 am
    To me, this is a mind-numbing part of the story. Yes, it would have been easy to quit reading. I agree with another reader about Rosina's sensible words to Charles: he had become ridiculous, husbands never mattered to him, and he once had dignity and style. Thank goodness for James, who talked sense into Charles, received agreement from Gilbert and Titus, even offered a plan to resolve the entire mess. I begin to see James as the catalyst to resolve some of the mixed-up conditions between characters. Did you notice how Murdoch has James seemingly appear in a mysterious way, out of no where? Knows how to handle each situation, always has something prophetic to say, knows when to come, when to go? James is evasive about how he knows certain things, and was there at just the right moment to rescue Charles?

    Traude, I also am having thoughts about Charles that involve his mother. So much emphasis was given to descriptions of incidents involving Charles' upbringing, his mother's unusual outlook on life, her inability to exhibit nurturing love toward him, it seems Murdoch planned this character in great depth even to the adult traits that could have resulted from childhood. Someone spoke of "narcissism," could that have been the result of a father who spoiled and idolized?

    Murdoch does a wonderful job of writing, pulls so many elements into the story. I sometimes feel her story is our sea monster: words arise, wind around other words, take on contorted shapes, take our emotions into its huge story (mouth) then falls back into our mental sea where we wonder when it will again appear.

    betty gregory
    April 15, 2002 - 07:43 am
    Yes, Besprechen, James is mysterious in many ways, appears bearing reason and reality. Beyond the jeolousy Charles has always felt, I find other aspects of Charles' and James' relationship very interesting. I think Murdoch has captured a familiar double-sided-ness of some family relationships.....or that one particular sister or brother from whom so much is expected and the hurt or joy can be so intense. Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

    Betty

    Lorrie
    April 15, 2002 - 08:07 am
    besprechen writes:

    "... I sometimes feel her story is our sea monster: words arise, wind around other words, take on contorted shapes, take our emotions into its huge story (mouth) then falls back into our mental sea where we wonder when it will again appear....."

    How beautifully put, besprechen!

    BETTY:

    I know so well what you mean, having grown up with the constant expectation of my parents that I would "out-do" my older brother, or win just as many scholarships, which I never did, of course. I'm sure there are others who endured the same challenges.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 15, 2002 - 08:15 am
    I would like to point out the new set of questions in the heading above. Perhaps they will stimulate some thought or other you wanted to mention before but had forgotten. These questions will remain in the heading until we discuss the final part of the book. This whole discussion is going spledidly.

    I am particularly interested in Titus. He seems a likeable sort of young man, although to me he seems ambivient about his "real" parents. That whole session about his adoption and what follows seems to me to be too convoluted, and a little hard to believe.

    Lorrie

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 15, 2002 - 09:43 am
    I know this isn't the Cook's Column but I do want to add my endorsement of a small quantity of brown sugar in pasta sauce. I have an idea that the genuine italian tomatoes, such as can be purchased on the gourmet shelves, have an essential sweetness rather than the somewhat acid taste that we often found in the cheaper domestic brands. (Also, as you perhaps know, homegrown Romas taste a lot like plums.) This lack can be replaced by a judicious amount of brown sugar. I've observed that long, long, slow cooking reduces the acidity of the tomatoes, though I suspect Iris and John would have achieved long slow cooking only when they forgot something was on the cooker and were suddenly aroused by a smell of burning. I'll leave it to you to speculate whether they then made any effort to clean the saucepan.

    MarjV
    April 15, 2002 - 09:56 am
    Carol is doing quite well. In the last couple days I have heard her interviewed re her new book "Unless" on CBC radio - and these were live interviews (one was this morning) She talked much about the inequalities......said we must be vigiliant; she feels not enough women are "bean counters". She is really a neat lady. I recommend all her books.

    (I have to go find the quote I wrote down re women novelists ) ~Marj

    Traude
    April 15, 2002 - 11:31 am
    Thinking of Charles' or Iris'apparent predilection for boiled onions, it seems to me that successive layers were gradually peeled off in the narrative, only to reveal underlying, unanticipated substrata (as it were).

    James is indeed a catalyst, very well said, besprechen ! And a guiding influence. His arrival on the scene is twice preceded by a sound resembling the hyoshigi , the ominous clatter of the wooden instruments used on the Japanese stage to heighten suspense or to presage something grave. It happens first just before James materializes in the Wallace Collection (= workmen hammering nearby in the building). The second instance will be revealed later in the book. James, his present life and his past are mysterious, but his understanding of the present and his evaluation of Charles' actions and thought processes are lucid.

    We also discover that Charles' resentment of James is unjustified and that the perceived rivalry between the two existed only in Charles' imagination. However, it echoed the feeling of silent resentment his mother harbored towards James' family, the Abel Arrowbys who, "in the mysterious pecking-order hierarchy of life --- ranked above the Adam Arrowbys." (pg 56). Are the first names deliberate biblical references ?

    Lorrie, it is difficult to answer the multipartite question about the women because of the continuing "peeling away" process; surprises come in shock waves to the end. Just a few thoughts : Lizzie and Rosina have seen Charles in the recent past, Hartley has not laid eyes on him for 40 years. Obviously, the love they feel for Charles is of an intrinsically different nature, and they represent two different worlds. We can't fully evaluate or compare the women until the very end.

    Regarding Charles' visit in the Wallace Collection and his contemplation of Titian's painting of Perseus and Andromeda , myth and metaphor are used in this "interlude". The dragon in the painting reminds Charles of his sea monster; he sees himself as Perseus intent on rescuing Hartley from Ben. (Perseus had killed Medusa and kept her head -- all who gazed upon it turned into stone -- and with the aid of Medusa's head Perseus rescued Andromeda.)

    But Charles is more like Peter Pan than Perseus, and Hartley is not Andromeda, nor Galatea or Cinderella, both alluded to by Murdoch. The parallelism or comparison of myth and metaphor is not completed, the matter is left there and the psychological study progresses instead.

    Traude
    April 15, 2002 - 12:23 pm
    MarjV, I am glad Carol Shields is well enough to give interviews, witness the one in the NYT by Maria Russo.

    Shields, winner of the 1995 Pulitzer Prize and the 1994 National Book Critics Circle Award for The Stone Diaries was told in 1998 that she had Stage 3 breast cancer. She is now in Stage 4. There is no Stage 5. She is receiving palliative care.

    She is surrounded by affection and support from all sides, her husband of 44 years, her 5 children who take turns visiting from their homes across Canada, her friends - among them fellow Canadian Margaret Atwood; cards and letters arrive from all over the world. She is kept informed of the plans for tributes to her work. She tires easily and has to ration her energy. With all my heart I wish her strength and peace.

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 15, 2002 - 02:06 pm
    The person whose life story we are promised at the beginning never comes to life for us: Clement, his first lover, who was old enough to be Charles's mother and who presumably initiated him into mature sex and taught him all about life. It's hard to avoid speculating that this attachment had some connection with Charles's unresolved feelings about his mother and his Aunt Estelle, that almost Joycean character who stood for life's forbidden joys and thrills. I could almost hear dance music whenever her name was mentioned.

    Lorrie
    April 15, 2002 - 02:21 pm
    Right now I am puzzling over the appearance of Titus, the adopted son of Hardley and Ben. Apparently Charles forms an instant attatchment to Titus, even though he knows he is not really Titus's father. Is the real reason for this the thought that Titus might help him (Charles)entice Hardley to come to him, as he has been planning?

    I think there is something very amusing about Gilbert.

    Roslyn, I am still waiting for something momentous to turn up concerning Clement. Wasn't she the real reason Charles began his journal, anyway?

    Lorrie

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 15, 2002 - 02:37 pm
    There is something about the way Murdoch has depicted these women that I find remarkable. In every case, Charles describes his relation with each woman in detail, and we are told of the unmistakeable differences. And yet never does Murdoch rely on erotic depictions,unlike some modern writers. His versions of the affairs with each of the women, Clement, Lizzie, Rosina, and even Hartley were, although quite passionate, oddly demure and chaste as he tells it. In fact, his obsession with Hartley at times struck me as almost "brotherly."

    Lorrie

    kiwi lady
    April 15, 2002 - 03:34 pm
    My book arrived! Thank you thank you Book Angel! I have noted in the cover that you sent me the book and the date and year. It will stay in my book collection as a reminder of the wonderful people who inhabit this cyber community! I will start reading this afternoon after I have come home from helping my daughter babysit four under fives! (Family funeral)

    Carolyn

    Traude
    April 15, 2002 - 04:38 pm
    There are important paragraphs on pg 161 : Charles is in London drinking with Peregrine, and the latter says,

    "The trouble with you, Charles, is that basically you despise women ----"

    and Charles counters,

    "I don't despise women. I was in love with all Shakespeare's heroines before I was twelve."

    Peregrine : "But they don't exist, dear man, that's the point. They live in the never-never land of art, all tricked out in Shakespeare's wit and wisdom, and mock from there, filling us with false hopes and empty dreams. ---"

    That is the case with Charles and his dreams about Hartley -- I believe that Charles is at heart a mysogynist = the cruelty, the insensitivity, the inability (and unwillingness) stop to listen. An aside : to listen, and to listen with the heart, is, of course, an art, one that is dying out ever faster in this day and age ---



    Hartley told Charles about Titus, and Charles "encounters" him in the Wallace Gallery in Rembrandt's painting opposite Titian's Perseus and Andromeda (pg 169) -- long before actually meeting him in the flesh. (pg. 263 ff.) Yes, Charles takes to him, he likes the idea of being a father and considers helping Titus to become an actor. But is he altruistic (for once) or merely selfish ?

    Lorrie
    April 15, 2002 - 07:45 pm
    Hi, Carolyn:

    I'm so glad you have your book, and don't worry about being behind on reading. We are only at chapters 4 and %, so you can catch up in no time at all. We're so glad to have you with us!

    Lorrie

    kiwi lady
    April 15, 2002 - 11:46 pm
    I have read the intro and have to comment that Iris must have been quite a controversial author in 1978. Her style of writing however if I did not know better would seem to me to be of an earlier era. I am not referring to the subject matter but to her style. One certainly has to concentrate and I have to constantly remember not to speed read but to make sure I read every word.

    Carolyn

    MarjV
    April 16, 2002 - 07:42 am
    Here is what I wrote from her interview...."the majority of female movelists transfer moral authority to male - they feel somehow the book will have more weight". She talked about the majority of males in every avenue of business, govt, etc.

    As I heard that I then wondered if the majority of Murdochs novels had a male central character such as The Sea, The Sea.

    ~Marj

    Lorrie
    April 16, 2002 - 08:29 am
    Carolyn:

    Oh, my, I neglected to tell you that we had all decided to skip that lengthy introduction, and start out right with Prehistory, and then so on. We thought the introduction, although interesting, was rather cumbersome for a discussion that would end within a month. Perhaps some of us will want to comment on it at the finish, and if you feel that it helps your understanding of the book, feel free to go ahead!

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 16, 2002 - 08:33 am
    MarjV:

    Interesting point. This is the first Murdoch I have ever read, but for your question I will refer you to Roslyn, who has been a Murdoch fan for some time, or to anyone else who has read more than one book by this author.

    Lorrie

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 16, 2002 - 12:25 pm
    To the best of my recollection most of the major, and perhaps I should say magisterial, figures, in Murdoch's novels are male, with the possible exception of the truly terrifying Honor Klein in "A Severed Head." I know I have taken an oath not to draw inferences about Iris's hangups from her prose, but it does seem as if the hypnotically fascinating and almost supernaturally powerful male looms in her fiction, while the foibles and fancies are usually relegated to the female characters. Having encountered James you won't be surprised to learn that there is a kind of male enchanter in every book , including the allusively titled "The Flight from the Enchanter." These men are endowed with a power that goes beyond hormones, an aura of mysticism which draws weaker individuals to follow them, confess their foibles, and beg for help. We do well to remember, though, that by the final pages Murdoch usually manages to divest even these magi of their apparently superhuman powers and returns everyone to prosy reality.

    In recording his memoirs of Iris, John Bayley mentions that his hope of endless serious philosophical exchanges with his wife was not realized, and that their marital relationship was conducted at an almost infantile level of baby talk and nursery games, as if she were casting off the lofty intellectual cloak of her adult life and thought and taking refuge in childhood. In my opinion this is reinforced by John's refusal to place Iris in a nursing facility where compassionate care could have maintained her at a higher level of functioning than that to which he relegated her. He allowed her to regress to helpless babyhood when it wasn't yet necessary. One of the most brilliant minds of the century became a gurgling infant dependent on John for primary care. Finally he lapped up praise and admiration for this misguided action. Alzheimer's does not always mean an inevitable descent into the pit.

    Joan Pearson
    April 16, 2002 - 05:59 pm
    ...and I'm all caught up, having just reached p.234 minutes ago. Betty, was it you who commented on the seductive little device IM uses to lure from the last sentence of one section...on to the next? I can understand how you finished the book now. I have just forced myself to stop before chapter six. And I also deliberately avoided all of your posts since Sunday ~ to maintain suspense.

    If I am breaking into a discussion thread right now, please excuse my bad manners. I am going to post a few of my own observations and then catch up with yours and get right back to where you are in this discussion.

    First though, may I share something I read in the Travel Section of Sunday's Washington Post...
    Oxford for Dummies


    Doesn't that sound like fun? Do you think they have GROUP RATES? Haahahaha...maybe four to a room?

    Here's the part that caught my eye...in Week Four

    SUMMER COURSES: One-week sessions at Christ Church, Oxford University's largest college, are held July through mid-August. Five to 10 classes are offered each week over the six-week period, 61 in all; a student takes one class per week. A sampling of what's available: 

    • Week 1, June 30-July 6: Film Art, English Country House, Drawing at Christ Church.

    • Week 2, July 7-13: Art of Lying (a creative writing course), Handel in England, History of British Cooking.

    • Week 3, July 14-20: Elizabethan England, English Pub Through the Centuries, Roman Army in Britain.

    • Week 4, July 21-27: Story of the British Garden, Novels of Iris Murdoch, the Tudor Age.

    • Week 5, July 28-Aug. 3: British Empire in India, Ten Great Paintings, Saints or Sinners? Chaucer's View of Women in the Canterbury Tales, Lewis Carroll at Oxford.

    • Week 6, Aug. 4-10: Stars and Planets, Shakespeare on Film, Oxford and the Poets.


    Whether we ever get to Oxford for the Murdoch novel course, I'm ready to read another. Any recommendations, Ros? I am so curious about the Charles character.

    From the intro to The Sea (pg. x)
    "...the typical Murdoch protagonist - male, middle-aged or older, with some artistic inclinations and a long history of skewed self-regard ..."


    What is it about Charles and his ilk that has captivated Iris Murdoch's attention, I wonder?

    Joan Pearson
    April 16, 2002 - 07:04 pm
    My attention has been riveted on the synchonized mood of the sea and the action for some time now, but it was in Chapter Five that I noticed a subtle change. The mood of the sea appears to be announcing, seems to be preceding the action in the story. There was the foaming self-destructive fury of the sea at Minn's cauldron the night Charles was pushed. What was the light that rose from the sea? "A light seemed to rise here in the spray out of the sea itself." I'm wondering if this light will be important...


    But when Charles went out there on the rocks for his last talk with Titus, the description of the sea had me on full alert for whatever violence would follow:
    "The sea, although it looked calm because it was exceedingly glossy and smooth after the rain, was in a quietly dangerously violent mood, coming in on large sleek humpbacked waves which showed no trace of foam until they met the rocks in a creamey swirl."





    The women, the women... do I detect disdain towards women in Murdoch's depiction of the women? No, not really. What do they have in common? They were all drawn to Charles. Well, don't tell me Hartley is not drawn to him as she runs in the opposite direction. If she wasn't drawn to him, she'd probably go off with him as an escape from her dreary marriage. But she is, so she can't.

    Maybe it's better to say that they were all involved with Charles at one time, until they realize that he is only playing with them. I think it is interesting to look at how they go on AFTER they break up with him. It appears that Hartley has been the most successful. (?)

    Rosina...hates Charles and will never forgive him for breaking up her marriage and leaving her, forcing her decision to abort his child. She is the Caliban of the piece, in my opinion. She is still a threat to Charles...no, a threat to Hartley, or maybe just to the "rescue plan"....where IS she anyway? Is she in Niblett's with Ben and Hartley?

    Lizzie is a hopeless Romantic who believes that love can conquer all. I recognize something of myself in Lizzie. Her devotion to Charles will probably pay off. She's slimmed down and looks young again. Charles is clearly attracted to youth, ísn't he? It is his memory of the young Hartley that has befuddled him.

    I have so many other thoughts and questions ~ but am looking forward to reading your comments first...I'll go back now to the posts since Sunday.

    besprechen
    April 16, 2002 - 08:43 pm
    Summer Courses in England: something one can only think about and know it would, indeed, be one of life's unforgettable experiences. What an appropriate "find." Thanks for sharing.

    ALF
    April 17, 2002 - 08:00 am
    Joan: I am absolutely drooling!!!

    Joan Pearson
    April 17, 2002 - 08:10 am
    Besprechen...Walt Disney once said, 'if you can dream it, you can do it!' Let's keep dreaming and who knows? Andy, we'll put you on the list...do you mind sharing one of those singles? Four ways?

    I have read through all of your posts and will remark only briefly as I see I have plopped right down into the middle of a rather serious discussion.


    * Ros, you are now addressing Iris Murdoch's relationship with her husband...I have not read his book, but did see the movie based on his book. I didn't understand then why she married him, though am beginning to sense that she, like Charles, was tired of the glitzy, phoney London high life and found a refuge in what she knew would be a simple life away from it all with John. I'm interested if John's book deals with the early days of their marriage. Of course, this would be told from his perspective, not hers... I think that to understand Charles, it is necessary to understand Iris Murdoch, or at least her motivation in writing about Charles. John was in a sense both her rescuer and her jailer, wasn't he? Much like Charles in that regard (only).
    Thanks for the explanation of the Perseus as rescuer. Who's head must roll is Charles is to rescue Hartley, I'm wondering? He clearly hasn't given up yet, has he?

  • besprechen, I liked your characterization of Murdoch's writing as the monster. Lovely!

  • Lorrie, I understand Charles' desire for a "brotherly", a chaste relationship with women. He says it's because he doesn't like "messes" ...and that's what a relationship with a woman always turns out to be. When did he learn this lesson"? As a young boy?
    I think he believes that a quiet, pure, brotherly relationship with Hartley would not be 'messy'. Ha!

  • Traudee, that is an important reference, isn't it? ...that Charles learned all about women from Shakespeare before he was 12 years old. Shakespeare's unruly women must have made a lasting impression. I don't think it is "love" and loss for Hartley that has shaped his relationship with women, though.

    I still don't know what to make of James. Charles had a deep interest in James' mother. They seem to share that. Did something happen when they were young? Yes, James is mysterious...so is Charles'relationship or feelings for his aunt. James is so quick to explain Charles' psychological state to him ~ is he also aware of Charles' attitude towards him, to his mother? Those of you who have finished the book may have this information. I don't understand James, but DO find it interesting that James went into the military, which Charles' mother probably would have approved before Estelle would...and Charles went into the theatre to his mother's dismay and his aunt would have applauded...

  • Finally, Traudee...do you see Charles' as a misogynist? He is quite selfish. I suppose we all are to some extent? When he finds that he is too deeply involved with a women, he backs out of the relationship. I think he has a problem, not quite mad, but generally confused. I don't think he hates women...just puts them on a pedestal and then can not tolerate their reality.


  • You are providing such a delightful discussion! Thank you all!

    ps. Burning sugar, white or brown smells baaaaaaaaaaad! And tastes bad too!

    Traude
    April 17, 2002 - 08:17 am
    Hi Joan, thanks for stopping by ; you must be feeling much better and I am glad.

    Further surprises will stun readers when they reach the assigned goal for this week, chapters 4 and 5, ending on page 385. Perceptions may change by then.

    MarjV
    April 17, 2002 - 09:15 am
    I love this commentin your response, Ros :

    " We do well to remember, though, that by the final pages Murdoch usually manages to divest even these magi of their apparently superhuman powers and returns everyone to prosy reality."

    And having read what you've said about Murdochs spouse, I am fully angered at him. I believe in quality of life and he sure did not provide it for her,not that nh always give that....but some do. Maybe he had in mind a sense of freedom for her that would not be in an institution. Thanks for you thoughts re her use of the male character.

    ~Marj

    Lorrie
    April 17, 2002 - 09:30 am
    Wonderful post (#234) Joan!

    So many of you speak of how the sea acts as an accompaniment to the story in the book, and how true that is! A very good example of that is on page 288, with the confrontation of Charles and Ben: ..........."The rythmic hissing roar of the powerful mechanical waves entranced me for a moment, as without looking down I could sense their chrning movement in the rocky pit below"........

    I, too, am still a bit bewidered by James. I feel that there is still much more, even past these chapters, that we have to learn about this enigmatic man.

    For a brief period there, the story was beginning to sound like a French farce, with all the comings and goings of the people at Shruff End. It seems almost like a scene from Grand Central Station. Even Peregrine shows up.

    Lorrie

    roidininki
    April 18, 2002 - 03:01 am
    MargeV, oh you have asked myquestion [inpart, to Ginny] "why does Murdoch write her main characters as male?"and this comes up again in a later posting from Joan Pearson..."what is it about Charles and his ilk that has captivated I.M,s attention i wonder?"Am i the only reader to find this dialogue of Charles so "corny".. it has to be read to be believed!Lorrie i thought exactly the same as you questioned, is this all turning into a French[type] farce, i could picture all the characters running around as in tthe aforementioned!!!!Someone mentioned earlier how the era seemed so , how can i say it.. i don,t know really, save to say i cannot equate the time it was supposedly set in with the dialogue.. i,m sure the more educated of you will be able to use the correct terminology?Roslyn, that is quite a slamming you gave Bayley, but i think on the whole this was one weird couple and precisely why i didn,t want to watch the movie i,m sure!if i hadn,t known better than to be told I.M had A,s. i would have suspected some kind of mental disorder. Rather than think her ramblings are a magnificent piece of work.. and how she uses the words free and freedom?[so many times]i have been hard pushed to keep going with this, and can honestly say it is the hardest read i have ever undertaken because it irritates me rather than pleases me.The characters names are absolutely ridiculous!An irritation in itself!As yet i have no geographical info to relay back to those of you interested in the setting ,but feel the area is sort of a mixup of places.Minns Cauldren Particularly interestd me as i found a similarity with" a carved out by the sea rock" called Durdle Door [in Dorset, which is further west than the Martello towers]I do believe that Murdoch was not happy being born a woman to conclude!

    betty gregory
    April 18, 2002 - 08:40 am
    Roidininki, you wrote, "I do believe that Murdoch was not happy being born a woman!".....or not happy with the world into which she was born a woman? She does say a lot in this story about how two main characters treat women (Charles and Ben) and how some female characters turn out after having come into contact with these men.

    I agree, Traude, that further reading might alter some perceptions.

    ----------------------------------------

    I've been struggling throughout to find a way to describe how I see these characters, as a whole. And the sea. I feel about them how many of us felt about the descriptions of the food.

    When reading elaborate details of a meal, I expect to enjoy it thoroughly, the same with descriptions of the ocean....I expect to mentally swoon and wish I could be there. Not so in this book. The descriptions of the sea are not relaxing, beautiful, do not remind me of the times I've happily looked out on changing colors and hypnotic movement of waves, etc.

    The food is odd. The sea is menacing, frightful, herald spooky things to come. The people. Well, the people are.....see, here is where words fail me. Ok, "farce" fits in, because I don't quite relate to them as 100 percent everyday people. Even beyond quirky theater people, they are. What sane fellow goes around announcing that he wants to own, possess a woman.....though I don't doubt for a minute that these are true undercurrents in how he feels about women, but to say the words aloud????? That's not a great example, but I don't have one.

    My thoughts that don't quite fit what I want to convey are....these are extreme representations of people, caricatures (see, that doesn't fit), fairy tale, almost.

    The end of the book is more realistic, though, to me, than the rest of the book.

    Betty

    Lorrie
    April 18, 2002 - 09:21 am
    I would like to know what your thoughts are on Titus. Do you feel that Charles is using him to help lure Hartley away from Ben, or do you think his affection for his new-found "son" is genuine?

    I rather admired the sympathy Titus showed for Hartley when Charles so cruelly locked her up in his house. He warned Charles about Hartley's "hysteria," which was portrayed so vividly later.

    This hysterical outburst of Hartley's on page 302 & 303----Do you think this is an indication of a sort of madness of Hartley's? I wonder if this will be enlarged upon in further reading.

    Lorrie

    ALF
    April 18, 2002 - 10:59 am
    Lorrie: I felt our self-serving Charles used his "new found affection" for Titus for one reason only. Charles is a manipulative man and he thought that perhaps Titus could be a bridge between he and Hartley. I'm sure he felt if he could get Titus to agree to stay on in his house by the sea, Hartley would soon follow suit. I think that all of Charles'es affections are bogus , nothing but a sham.

    FARCE- that is an ideal word Betty for our cast of characters. Neil Simon over and over.

    Traude
    April 18, 2002 - 12:11 pm
    Yes, Lorrie, as Andy said, Charles used Titus as a means to an end : to "get to" Hartley and make her come to Shruff End; he manipulated the young man because he had done so all his life, professionally as a stage director, and in his personal life as well.

    The intent is clearly spelled out on pg 46 when Charles says "We were now close to each other. He was slightly taller than me. (*) Enormous vistas of thought were unrolling in my mind. (!!!)



    By the same token Charles did take a liking to the disheveled youth with the hare lip and got "an impression of intelligence". "I had also noticed his clear almost reflective articulation, although he spoke with the flattened Liverpool-style voice which was now the tribal accent of the young, and which I had found my novice actors so reluctant to abandon." (still pg. 246).

    (*) BTW "taller than ME" does not sit well with me. Fussy as I am, I would have preferred "taller than I".



    The name "Titus" alone could lead to all sorts of historical and literary associations ---

    Traude
    April 18, 2002 - 01:00 pm
    Lorrie, you have mentioned the "imprisonment" of Hartley, so I will follow up.

    There had been several references to "cages" (plural and singular) to "boxes", and now we see the upstairs windowless "inner room" in all its horror. Charles is keeping her there under lock and key; yes, he fears she is suicidal, but his gross deception and cruelty are appalling - actually quite beyond words.

    As for hysterics, well, what was the poor soul to do ? Is it conceivable that she has had such "attacks" before ? With Ben ? when he had obsessively, relentlessly tortured her with his insane jealousy about the past that wasn't ? I can imagine such scenes. Theirs was a sado-masochistic union, I think. Titus (vaguely) refers to Hartley as a "fantasist" - does that term apply ??

    Betty, besprechen, you both finished the book. What do you think ?

    To teeter out on my precarious limb here : it seems to me that the stifling inner room where Hartley is held captive is representative of Charles' own closed mind, his very own prison.

    MarjV
    April 18, 2002 - 01:12 pm
    I'm thinking about"using" people. As Charles maintained relationships with others, up to this point in the novel anyway. Murdoch sure did capture that way of being. If you know or have been the recipient in a relationship like that you can see how it rings just right. And one doesnt catch on for awhile, if at all when caught in such a place.

    The reference to "boxes", etc. continues right to the very end.

    Traude, I like your comment >: "it appears to me that the stifling inner room where Hartley is held captive is representative of Charles' own closed mind, his inability to even acknowledge any thought process save his own. "

    And thanks for remembering that pg 46 quote about Titus. Did Charles ever not have "enormous rolling vistas of thought" concerning himself, the I-man.

    ~Marj

    Traude
    April 18, 2002 - 02:39 pm
    Hello Marj,

    I have been plowing (very slowly) through Conradi's bio of IM; it is scrupulously detailed, proceeds in chronological order, and contains so many references to so many people that tracing all of them and their lives AND utterances about Murdoch could keep one occupied for a very very long time.

    With your indulgence, I will refer later to a few facts about Iris herself because that might help us in our interpretation of The Sea, The Sea.

    Back soon.

    betty gregory
    April 18, 2002 - 03:53 pm
    Alf, It was Lorrie who mentioned "French farce."

    Traude, I think it was Charles' bedroom where Hartley was being kept, if I remember it correctly, but your imprisonment references still apply. See if what I was thinking fits with what you were saying....Charles acts out one type of imprisonment with Hartley...the same Hartley who has been imprisoned by her old promise to make Ben happy and by her relinquishment of self in that relationship.

    "Hysteria" and "hysterics"......just my personal drive-me-up-the-wall button gets pushed with these words. Commonly used to describe women's behavior, only, and usually carries a meaning of out of control and unfounded emotion. Well, hey, Hartley may have been too SLOW to react to her situation, but once she began to let out her reaction to being held a prisoner, I'd say her reaction was right on target. Not too efficient, of course, but however she finally expressed her rage is ok with me.

    ......and the definition of hysterectomy is?????? and the old root of hysteria???? common to women and a disorder of the uterus

    Betty

    Lorrie
    April 18, 2002 - 05:12 pm
    Well, I must say I really like some of the comments everyone is making here. In fact, I look forward every day to see what someone else's interpretation of a particular passage in the book is, and I am never disappointed.

    Traude, and MargeV:

    Your analogy of the "closed boxes" and "cages" seems quite apt here, and I can see other instances of this comparison in other chapters. I also liked the reference to closed boxes as like Charles' closed mind, which no one can argue was obvious to the reader.

    Andy:

    Your original description of this whole story as a staged play is still very apt. The characters all seem to come and go, making their appearances at vital times, and some of them are truly dramatic stage entrances.

    Betty:

    Your reference to "hysterics" and its sources is sort of old-fashined, wouldn't you say? The word makes me think of Victorian maidens who would swoon easily, probably because they were laced so tightly in their corsets.

    I have an elderly neighbor down the hall who was trying one day to describe a sort of spell she had been having. "Years ago," she said, "whenever a woman was feeling dizzy or faint, she was said to have the "vapours," and that best describes what I am feeling." Your post reminded me of that.

    Lorrie

    kiwi lady
    April 18, 2002 - 06:38 pm
    Goodness me I am still far behind but will comment on Charles in as much as I have got to know him. Firstly when some of you thought he was a bit sort of eccentric in his living style I started to worry! I had a very chaotic life once and now I just want like Charles to have peace and quiet. I can understand it. The description of the sea near his home is hard for me to imagine. Our sea is always blue or green it is not often we get seaweed infestations which would give the sort of purply look he describes at times.

    His relationships with the women in his life are not so unusual. He just wants his cake and eat it too. I have known quite a few men who have acted like Charles, making sure they never get in too deep and end up marrying. Selfish I call it.

    I also think the women in his life deserve what they have got as they have put up with everything he dished out. Many of us know women who have done this very thing or heavens even some of us may have put up with too much in the past.

    I am finding this discussion very interesting. I am going to make a big effort to catch up this weekend as I have nothing planned.

    Carolyn

    Lorrie
    April 18, 2002 - 09:36 pm
    HI CAROLYN:

    You seem to have grasped the rudiments of Charles' character quite nicely, I think, and the remark you made about his women "deserving what they got" was quite illuminating. Don't read too fast, Carolyn, you don't want to miss any of this woman's beautiful writing.

    A short while ago I found myself skipping some descriptive passages, and then I remembered a post that Roslyn made early on, about this. I went back to find it, and will post it now as a good reminder. Roslyn says: ......"I'd recommend that we suspend any doubts we might have as to whether Dame Iris was ever uncertain about who her characters were and where they were going. It's tempting to skip some of those wordy descriptions but even in the pell-mell piling up of details there can be a purpose"...........

    Lorrie

    kiwi lady
    April 19, 2002 - 02:01 am
    I also find his cooking fascinating. He seems to have a real obsession with frankfurters in particular and he has really odd ways of preparing his vegetables. I cannot imagine anything more disgusting than eating boiled onions. YUK! He combines junk food with super healthy food.

    I am not skipping any of the writing and its hard for me as a speed reader to do this. I am reading every word which is quite unusual for me.

    Charles reminds me of a friend of mine who lives on his yacht on the Gold Coast in Australia in his day to day life. My friend is obsessed with healthy living. His life is so regimented I would not be able to put up with it but he is the kindest person I know. I think Charles is not at all a nasty person just extremely self absorbed. When everyone says he is an egotist he also in other ways is the opposite. His inner self is not as assured as outward demeanour presents to the world. I continue with my reading of this fascinating work. I hope we will do a further discussion on another of Iris Murdochs works. (Hopefully one I have ordered from the library! LOL)

    Carolyn

    Traude
    April 19, 2002 - 07:03 am
    Carolyn, you are so right ! This book has to be read with the utmost care - for a full understanding of Charles and the events he sets in motion.

    The day after Titus' arrival at Shruff End Charles decides it is time "to speak seriously" (pg 256). "Titus was looking handsomer again today" ---); Charles brings up the subject of Ben and Hartley (pg. 257).

    Charles : "--He (Ben) still detests me, I imagine, and God knows what he really believes. Maye he doesn't know himself. But I'm beginning to think he doesn't matter much."

    Titus : "Why, pray ? "

    Charles : "Because I think your mother is going to leave him."

    Titus : "She never would. Never. No way."

    Charles : "I think she would under certain circumstances. I think she would if she could only conceive of it as possible. If she saw it as possible she would see it as easy."

    Titus : "But where would she go ?"

    Charles : "To me."

    Titus : "You mean --- you want her ?"

    Charles : "Yes."

    Titus: "And so you want me to persuade my mother to leave my father ? You've got to be joking ! That's a lot to expect in return for lunch and dinner."

    As ever practical and money-conscious, Charles adds "And breakfast and tea" .

    "You're a cool one", says Titus.

    Young Titus is no fool and has a perfect understanding of the situation; later on pg 257 "I'm to be a lure - a kind of - hostage --.

    Though still consumed with his unstoppable planning and the imponderable day-to-day changes, Charles steps away from it all for a brief moment, musing "Was I not perhaps meddling with something dreadful ?"



    We aren't done with Titus either; that will have to be brought up later.

    Traude
    April 19, 2002 - 08:23 am
    Betty,

    I checked the text, the third full par. on pg 278 of the paperback.
    "I showed her the bathroom. I waited for her. I led her up and into my bedroom, but it was quite clear that she would not sleep with me. It was in any case better now to leave her alone. A kind of superstitious terror had taken hold of her, which took the force of a frenzied desire for unconsciousnes. 'I want to sleep, I must sleep, only sleep matters, sleep, I will sleep.' I had had the sense to anticipate this situation and had made up a bed on the floor of the little centre room upstairs, with the mattress off my divan. I had also provided a candle, matches, even a chamber pot. I offered her a pair of pyjamas, but she lay down at once in her dress and pulled the blanket up over her head as if she were a corpse covering itself. And she did seem then to go to sleep instantly : the quick flight into oblivion of the chronically unhappy person.

    I withdrew and left her. I closed the door and quietly locked it on the outside. I would never now lose that nightmare image of a distraught woman rushing to drown herself in the sea. I went to my room and kicked my shoes off and crawled into bed.----"

    Lorrie
    April 19, 2002 - 08:38 am
    To go back just a bit in this story, early on when Charles was describing his first days at Shruff End, he writes about how he keeps collecting various stones, and discarding them, for a sort of rock garden (?) that he was building. Do you see in this another metaphor of Murdoch's?

    Lorrie

    MarjV
    April 19, 2002 - 08:41 am
    He collects people in much the same manner...doesn't seem to matter as to gender, age, etc.

    Didn't even think about it until you mentioned it Lorrie.

    Joan Pearson
    April 19, 2002 - 09:06 am
    ...ooh, yes, Lorrie. I never gave the rock collecting much thought, though I did notice the descriptions of the beautiful stones he'd been collecting. Marge, Charles does collect people, doesn't he? Does he discard the stones? He seems to take them from their natural environment and rearrange them as he likes ~ at his own place. But then he freely gives them away to others, without thinking much about it, doesn't he? He is attracted to the stones initially ...when he picks them up, but is careless with them once he possesses them.

    But how can we carry that analogy on to Hartley? He never had control over her from the start. He thought he did, but she ran away before he was able to put her in his bucket and carry her home. Now he wants her (he still actually believes that she will come to him, doesn't he?) When she becomes part of his collection, will he want her still? Or will he then toss her away. Is this what Hartley knows about him? Is this why she will not come back to him?

    Why do you suppose she did not marry him when they were young. Did she feel that he had tossed her aside when he went off to London?

    In the back of my mind, is Shakespeare's own story - his life, his wife in Statford. He left Ann for the high life in the London theatre...only to return at the end of his career as an "old" man of 57 to retire, to settle down and resume their married life...

    Lorrie
    April 19, 2002 - 11:45 am
    JOAN:

    I also wondered why Hartley had broken off with Charles, was it simply because he had gone away to become an actor? That was an interesting comparison to Shakespeare's own life.

    Oh, My, Oh My! I have finished reading Chapter 5 and am still in shock over Titus's death. For some reason I had formed a sort of affection for this young man, and his senseless drowning fills me with real regret. Charles seems to think he was murdered, but I simply can't form an opinion on that yet. I can see that I simply must finish this book over the weekend. There is still so much to discover.

    Lorrie

    Traude
    April 19, 2002 - 01:09 pm
    The rocks, yes. Actually Charles does place value in the rocks and their arrangement; he chooses one for Hartley with great care, and James picks one he, James, likes. Watch for what happenes to those two rocks. Later it will be revealed why Hartley ran away and hid from Charles 40 years earlier.

    The question concerning first-person narrative in a man's voice is dealt with in the biography by Peter Conradi who says "Male first-person narative liberated her. She had hit upon an idiom in which she felt instinctively at home ----- which enabled her to speak confidently through a masculine persona."

    In Oxford, Murdoch stood out because of the shaggy haircut (she wore throughout her life), her shapeless clothes and beat-up canvas shoes. Her contemporaries remembered her as dumpy, square-headed with the face of a young lioness. Boyfriends saw her as either a knight in armor or as a fairy princess. Few who met her could resist her. (Decades later she wore black plimsolls to Buckingham Palace when the queen made her a dame.) Some of her relationships were frightfully intense, a few ran parallel to each other (!). This is of importance because she has drawn on those relationships in her books.

    I have not read John Bayley's books, nor seen the movie, but the version Peter Conradi gives in his scrupulously detailed, methodical biography deserves some attention for that reason.

    Joan Pearson
    April 19, 2002 - 04:09 pm
    Lorrie, it is a shock into reality when Titus dies, isn't it? Up to this point, we have something akin to a farce, with ominous clouds gathering. But death? Titus? I think I'll go mad trying to understand this. Yes, Charles believes he was murdered, but haven't you come to disregard anything Charles believes by this time? Every single thing he says, believes or thinks, I dismuss because I believe he is living in a dreamworld.

    But who IS Titus? Will we ever learn this...(don't answer this, Traudee, even though the answer is on the tip of your tongue.)



    Charles recognizes a tone in Titus' voice, but can't place it. Then there's the scene where Titus is introduced to James and Charles notices in their exchange, a flicker of recognition. Did they know one another from somewhere?

    Back to the rocks...remember James arranging his rocks into a "mandala" pattern? I just had to look that up out of curiousity...here's a picture of the design ~Mandala



    Do you remember the night that James' mandala pattern got messed up ...Titus is the one who picked it all up. Charles' border remained undisturbed. What does this MEEEEEAAAN? Anything? Something?

    betty gregory
    April 19, 2002 - 06:13 pm
    Oh, bless you, Traude, for finding that passage and you're absolutely right....he took her to the small, center room. I must have too quickly read "leave her alone" and imagined Charles backing out of his room to go sleep in the little room, but that clearly isn't the case. Sorry. Sorry. So, it's worse than I thought. How awful.

    -----------------------------------------

    Glad you're with us now, Carolyn (Kiwi), and how immensely helpful is your comment about Charles' internal uncertainty not matching his external certainty!! What I didn't anticipate, though, was that some of his friends know him better than he thinks they do. Just wait!

    ------------------------------------------

    I had to look up "plimsolls," that thing that Traude said Murdoch wore to Buckingham palace. British sneakers!

    Betty

    Ginny
    April 20, 2002 - 05:53 am
    I’m finally caught up here and am not sure I have anything of substance to add to your very insightful comments, but I can’t help noticing a couple of things that stuck out at me in these two chapters.

    It seems to me strange that so many of the minor characters seem to lecture the protagonist on illusion and reality. I was not paying much attention to Titus and Rosina but when Hartley and James took up the theme it did begin to make an impression. The plethora of characters converging on the house reminds me of the British play Noises Off, the original, and I’m wondering when it was written and if Murdoch knew of it or predated it because these scenes, especially with James and Perry arriving, are very like.

    I wonder if Murdoch is mocking the reader, showing comedy or being unintentionally funny with some of her foreshadowing. She builds up suspense continually throughout with heavy hints and foreshadowing and then sometimes follows through and sometimes not. The bit with Lizzie singing Ding Dong Dell over and over was ridiculous, was it intended that way? Ding Dong Dell, (coyly left for the reader’s imagination the rest: Pussy’s in the Well. Who put her in)?

    You KNEW right then that somebody is going to be in the water. And it’s not long after that, in the very same paragraph, that Charles is “pushed.”

    That’s just a little too coy for me. I don’t know if the reader is being joshed or not.

    Similarly I’m not sure why it’s a minor character, Titus, who first voices the title of the book in exactly the same words of the title, (paperback p. 248) “Oh, the sea, the sea---it’s so wonderful.”

    When the philosophizing (Murdoch’s own? Meant to further the characters and plot?) takes over the former minute descriptions of flora and fauna the reader stops again and wonders what’s going on and what the reader is supposed to get out of it all:

    Keeping in mind the theater IS illusion, the reader begins to shift nervously and uncomprehendingly thru:

  • Rosina: You can’t grasp the stuff of reality (312)
  • James: She is real, as human creatures are, but what reality she has is elsewhere. (349)
  • James: For us, eternity is an illusion
  • Charles: But to me the past is the most real thing of all. (350)

    I don’t know, I have a lot of cousins I have not seen in years and some old boyfriends, too. If they suddenly showed up at my door spouting talk of illusion and reality I would probably call for a psychiatrist, the mind boggles and then this off word from James (the all seeing James) sort of brings it into perspective.

    I’m reading Simon Callow’s biography of Charles Laughton, full of theater terms and talk and in one place he mentions that Clark Gable’s powers of transformation were negligible.

    Apparently that’s a mark of a good actor, and something he can bring forth in others by his own performance. Note James on page 349 which seems to have a good deal of important thought on it, “You were not able to transform her. You must admit you tried and failed.”

    Transformation in the theater is something apparently very important, something about illusion and reality, something about this book is quite illusory to me, I’m sure at the end, as several of you have said, all will be revealed. It would be a great disappointment if it were not? I can’t quite get a handle on the “why” of this plot.

    It’s illusory.

    My two cents.

    ginny
  • roidininki
    April 20, 2002 - 07:47 am
    Lorrie, you asked how we saw Titus[ what a strange name ,sounds like a Roman king maybe Greek on 2nd. thoughts?]I had definite pictures of this character and yes i think he was well used by Charles in an attempt to lure Hartley away. [didn,t he use every trick in the book?]Much of Charles internal thoughts were about how to achieve whatHE wanted?He would most definitely be correct in portraying Hartley as hysterical[ and she has a histrionic personality I think as we find out later]Still Charles will not heed anyone or act upon anything Titus tells him , i think a man totally driven by some conjecture in his own mind not by what is staring him in the face.As you have now remarked Ginny we never know if we are being led and begin to wonder what we are supposed to get from all of this? As i have said previously i did not enjoy the reading , I have finished it now but will say no more yet. Ginny, your yellow rocks are very likely to be sandstone[i rang a geologist last evening who lives in thae area ,could have been Hastings [has yellow/orange rock, but is a seaside town and i think Charles described the area as one where no daytrippers go?]Neither has Hastings a Martello tower. He knows of no such place described in the book, and certainly no knowlege of Minns Cauldren, he agrred with me that this was like Durdle door in Dorset as i told you?Allinn allit seems unlikely that this place exists in reality.

    Lorrie
    April 20, 2002 - 07:53 am
    GINNY:

    That was a very informative post, showing a great deal of thought. I was interested in your mention of "transformation" in acting, and I think I can see where this could be all-important in the theatre. Isn't it a bit like "throwing yourself into the part?"

    Wasn't Dame Murdoch first and foremost a philosopher, then a writer, or was it vice versa? Which I believe would have a definite effect on the way she wrote. I could probably say more on this had I read more of her books, it's hard to judge on just one reading.

    Lorrie

    Joan Pearson
    April 20, 2002 - 10:14 am
    Oh my, the would-be Murdoch fans are falling like flies! Lorrie, perhaps the Dame's knowledge of philosophy is applied to the motivations of the characters, taking for granted that we all understand this. Perhaps there is something else at work here that is escaping us.

    I'm still in the rooting section. Am I the only one enjoying this? I haven't finished...but it seems we are losing people such as Roidininki and Traude who are not happy at the conclusion. I remember Betty saying she was mad when she finished. Give me a few hours, and I might agree with you.

    Right now, I'm enjoying it as I would a theatrical presentation ~ a "play" - above all I have been and continue to be impressed with the writing. The Shakespeare connection to The Tempest is strong. And remember The Tempest is a comedy, a comedy in the Shakespearean sense, in which man's foibles and shortcomings are held up for ...for scorn. Are you reading it as such?

    Ginny, I laughed at your comment about how you'd react if old friends and family members all showed up with concerns about yur mental stability. Yes, a normal person (you) would pay some attention to this, but Charles goes on believing that no one really understands his situation. We can see him becoming more and more isolated, so that finally, the only one he has left is Hadley. Murdoch knows what she's doing with this situation, I think. Is there Shakespearean humor at work here?

    One of the quotes Ginny posted from the cast on Charles' mental state caught my attention.
    Rosina: "You can’t grasp the stuff of reality."
    Does this remind you of the famous line:
    " We are such stuff as dreams are made on."


    Do you know which play this is from? In Act IV, scene i of The Tempest, Prospero, (the magician) says:
    "You do look, my son, in a moved sort,
    As if you were dismayed. Be cheerful sir.
    Our revels now are ended. These are our actors,
    As I foretold you, were all spirits and
    Are melted into air, into thin air;
    And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
    the cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous ,
    The solemn temples, the great globe itself
    Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
    And, like this insubstantial pageant faded
    Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
    As dreams are made on
    , and our little life
    Is rounded with a sleep. Sir, I am vexed.
    Bear with my weakness. My old brain is troubled.
    Be not disturbed with my infirmity.
    If you be pleased, retire into my cell
    And there repose. A turn or two I'll walk
    To still my beating mind."

    betty gregory
    April 20, 2002 - 10:26 am
    I'm getting tickled at all of us who are frustrated over what everything means, so I want to tell of a phone call with my sister. I only meant to give her a short introduction to the book, but soon was into details and unanswered questions and frustration over what things mean! Bonnie, who reads mostly genre fiction, said, "But you said it was a mystery." Later, I thought, this is a mystery (of a campy sort)....we're supposed to be puzzling over what things mean!

    Maybe it's a mix of romance, ghost story, adventure/horror, murder mystery, even science fiction? Murdoch borrowed from many genre groups. Is this the key to my questions about extreme, over-the-top characters?

    Yes, there is a long winding up at the end, surprisingly detailed, in a different voice, almost....but, not everything made perfect sense to me. I'm counting on you, Traude, to explain all!!

    ---------------------------------------

    Joan....me "mad"? no, no, I think I wrote I was (a good) stunned at the end. Glad I made the effort.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    April 20, 2002 - 11:14 am
    Is it just me, or is anyone else laughing when reading posts??? We are all over the board with our reactions, interestingly so, but flung far and wide with such diverse interpretations and perception!! It's beginning to strike me funny....and I've already been laughing about something else.......

    Joan, hahahaha hahahahaha hahaha, I don't know why this feels so funny to me, and you're probably going to throw something at me and refuse to "speak" to me ever again, but you've been writing "Hadley" for "Hartley" the whole discussion. The 2nd or 3rd time you did it, it made me chuckle. Now, I burst out laughing, loudly, every time you do it! I almost told you about it before, but I was reluctant to give up the comic relief. Please forgive me for correcting you....if you weren't so smart and respected/adored for your SN work, I wouldn't dream of calling it to your attention. It's been a nice little gift, seeing how human our Great Books leader is. (I hartley had the guts to do this, I mean, I hadley had the guts to do this, but we've got plenty to keep us laughing after you give that poor woman back her hart.)

    Betty

    betty gregory
    April 20, 2002 - 11:38 am
    Joan, I found our angry person. Traude wrote, "Betty, I think I know how you felt at the end of the book; I too was in shock, benumbed, incredulous. And angry."

    I always meant to go back and ask you, Traude, about the anger. When we start the last section (Monday?), will you explain?

    Betty

    Joan Pearson
    April 20, 2002 - 11:48 am
    hahahahaaaaaaaaaaa...I almost went through all my back posts to edit Hartley/Hadley, but I think it's best to correct these misperceptions once and for all...I am not as smart as I think I am, as model-thin as Ginny says I am, nor as beautiful as Dr. Ruth just told me I am. hahahaha...I can dream! We are such things as dreams...

    I know what has happened, but to say I'm reading of Hemingway's first wife, Hadley Richardson, is no excuse. Also, once things cross in my brain, they stay crossed until publicly brought to my attention. Thanks Betty, you are a hootley!

    Uncrossed evermore,
    Joan

    betty gregory
    April 20, 2002 - 12:00 pm
    I'm trying to use darker colors (for those whose computer systems have a difficult time with the lighter colors).

    If you were formerly having trouble seeing the lighter colors and the 2 colors of my last 2 posts (blue and dark orchid) ARE EASIER TO READ, please let me know. Maybe if we stick to the darkest colors, Ginny, it will be ok. On purpose, I had been using medium colors....such as light sea green, so, let's see if darker colors work better.

    Betty

    Traude
    April 20, 2002 - 01:59 pm
    And what delight to see all these provocative, intriguing questions ! They should all be taken up "in the order in which they were received' ha ha ha- as Ginny says- but I'll just have to be "out of" order.

    Betty,of course you are right, it was I who said that I was -- among other things -- angry when I finished the book, and yes, I will explain. Also, I was just about to post my mea culpa !

    And yes Betty, the vivid colors (keyword vivid) are easier and more pleasurable to read, for me anyway.

    Joan, , I never said I did not like the book !! Not once. As a matter of fact, I feel emboldened to tackle once more the 2 Murdoch books that I could not penetrate 40 years ago - The Unicorn, A Severed Head - perhaps for no reason other than comparisons.

    But what's this about 'rooting' ? What does THAT mean ? We have to root for or against the author and/or the book ??? Well ------ As I have said before, more than once, I for one do not think that LIKING a certain book is an automatic prerequiste to having a deep, enjoyable discussion, though there is no denying that "liking" helps ! And so here comes rooting ! Please explain. But how dull life would be if we all had the same taste and fell into line ! (something like unquestioning, amen-saying literary Stepford Wives perhaps ?)

    Ginny , I don't think the author is mocking the reader in this book. She presents one main protagonist with all his flaws and warts exposed and shows his painful, arduous way to a better understanding of self, a belated recognition of the wrongs he inflicted on people, and his hope of redemption.

    In context, the passage on pg 312 refers to Charles' obstinately holding on to his dream of Hartley as she was and, he fervently hopes, will be again; Charles' including the recently arrived Titus in the equation, and the illusions Charles has tenaciously harbored for decades, i.e. reality vs. illusion, or self-delusion. Rosina, a voice or reason, calls him on that.

    With Lorrie's indulgence, may I ask whether in your opinion Charles comes away the wiser ?



    Just a few facts about IM : 1. Born in 1919, distinguished herself early in (a Fröbel) school , where she caught the attention of the formidable head mistress and discussed with her the "Good" (!). To strive toward "the Good" was a recurrent theme in her novels, her biographer tells us.

    She was at Somerville College, Oxford 1938-42, and from 1944-46 served as administrative officer with UNRRA (United National Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) in England, Belgium and Austria. In 1947 began the study of philosophy.

    So she was a philosopher before ever becoming a novelist. Her first book was a study on the French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre.

    At a lecture in 1978 (the year The Sea The Sea was published), she said :

    " --- And of course I have my own philosophy in a very general sense - a kind of moral psychology one might call it, rather than philosophy."

    hhmmmm 'Moral psychology', gosh, and we haven't even gotten to transformation yet !

    I will explain the Fröbel schools presently.

    Traude
    April 20, 2002 - 02:38 pm
    I was trying to make a few editorial changes and typo corrections but was told there is no access. So please forgive me for awkward syntax and typos.

    Lorrie
    April 20, 2002 - 03:49 pm
    I want to tread very carefully here. I can't help noticing that some of our readers have, so to speak, got hold of certain minute details which they choose to imbue with portentous significance, and are bent on shaking the thing to death, thus embarking on private dialogues with another readers. There's a fine line between thoughtful comments and free-wheeling interpretation, so I gently ask that we focus more on the book itself, especially when we are so close to the end.

    Tomorrow I will put a new set of questions up in the heading, and we will go on to Chapter 6 and the Postscript, which will be open for discussion for the rest of the schedule.

    Betty, I like the darker colors much better.

    Lorrie

    MarjV
    April 20, 2002 - 05:25 pm
    Thank you , Lorrie!!!

    And Betty, yes, the darker. I didn't read the light green. Not enough contrast.

    kiwi lady
    April 20, 2002 - 07:35 pm
    I have finished the book and I enjoyed it! Does a book have to end the way the reader wants it to! I think not!

    Maybe in my lifetime I have met some strange characters but I have met people who fit into all of Iris's characters. I have been often an observer of life being an introvert really and many of the long term relationships I have observed fit Peregrines description of marriage. There is a dominant and a subservient role player in each relationship.

    I don't think Iris had the intention of writing a mystery when she devised this work. I think she was philosophising on human relationships including that of the family ie Charles and James.

    Sometimes when reviewing and/or discussing books we fall in to the trap of trying to find some great meaning in the work. I remember reading a novel where one of the main characters was an author and his one and only published novel was part of the High School English curriculum. He was astonished at the meaning given by the teacher to his work. He had meant nothing of the sort.

    The authors descriptions of the rock pools for instance I believe were inserted only because she herself had found genuine fascination with the minute inhabitants of the pools. I certainly have always enjoyed watching the marine life in the rock pools on our seashore and have introduced my children to this past time when they were small.

    I think Charles represents all of those who have led a less than blameless life and reaching the final chapter of their lives are looking for some sort of cleansing from past sins. Hartley became this obsession with Charles. If he could create a perfect life with Hartley he could use his undying love for her as an excuse for the lack of committment to all those women he had toyed with over the years. It would make him feel better about his past actions.

    I have to say I do not find the book disappointing at all.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    April 20, 2002 - 08:18 pm
    Traude - I have just gone back and read your post. I agree one does not have to love a book for it to make for a good discussion. Murdoch reminds me a little of Daphne Du Maurier in her style. Often I get disappointed with the ending of her novels or short stories but I still enjoy reading them all the same. Off topic but I have a copy of "Hungry Hill" here by Daphne Du Maurier I would love to do a discussion on that book. The book is set in the country. I am enjoying reading everyones comments!

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    April 20, 2002 - 08:34 pm
    I have just read the links above and of course me being me I left them until after I read the book not wanting to be influenced by anything I might read there.

    I have just been struck with the thought after reading the link about her marriage that maybe Charles and Hartley portray a little part of the relationship Iris had with her husband. But its reversed Charles representing Iris (the compartments of her life she kept separate from her marriage and the secret love affairs - the compartment in Charles' life he kept the chaste love he had with Hartley). Her husband seems to be more of like Hartley or maybe even Lizzie. If one looks at this link even though we have other links talking about her books being moralistic she herself did not seem to have these morals in her relationship with her husband. Intriguing isn't it?

    Carolyn

    Lorrie
    April 21, 2002 - 08:23 am
    Carolyn:

    For someone who came into the discussion a bit later than the beginners, I must say you have shown a real grasp of the book. I was interested in your last post where you compared the author Murdoch to the character Charles in that Murdoch also had these little compartments of her life she kept to herself, somewhat like Charles, and yes, even Ben.

    This last chapter is actually stuffed with information, and to tell the truth, I am still assimilating it in my head. I'm afraid James will always be an enigma to me, but for some reason I felt an acute sense of loss at his demise. More about this later.

    Lorrie

    ALF
    April 21, 2002 - 09:41 am
    I loved your thoughts Joan on this story resembling a Shakespearian "farce." It is a theatrical frolic, isn't it? I have said that from the get go and believe that is why I loved this book as much as I did. It is lively and inventive, full of atmospsphere and Charles can turn the world upside down. It amused me. Charles in all of his obsessive, all-consuming fixations held a lot of charm. Like Carolyn mentioned I too have known characters such as Charles. They entertain me with their laughable antics.

    ALF
    April 21, 2002 - 09:47 am
    Where a tragic situation seems absolutely unique, a comic one keeps reminding us of others, referring us back from the individual to the standards and usages of society. Comedy gains its effect through the intellectual detachment of the spectator, tragedy through his emotional involvement."

    Which one did Ms. Murdoch depict? Even Shakespeare's sunniest comedies had some shadow hanging over them.

    kiwi lady
    April 21, 2002 - 10:37 am
    I have to say I honestly do not see the book as being comical. It is comical only to the extent that human nature in all its complexities can be comical.

    I think Murdoch has tried to bring almost every type of intimate human relationship together in one tale and to that end it may seem comic but I really do not think that comedy was the intention of the author.

    What do you think Betty and Lorrie?

    Carolyn

    Lorrie
    April 21, 2002 - 11:19 am
    I understand what Andy is saying, Carolyn, and in some instances, Murdoch shows a sort of black humor, but the overall tone of the book that I got was one of philosophy, a sort of summing-up of the different foibles of the human psyche.

    I've been wondering. Are any of Dame Iris's other books as full of romantic love and sexual obsession? I cannot judge, because this is my first read of this good writer. Ros? Anyone who has read any other of her books?

    ANDY:

    Your very apt description of this novel as a stage play still holds.

    Lorrie

    kiwi lady
    April 21, 2002 - 11:26 am
    I have reserved several of Murdochs books from my library. I too will be interested to see the subject matter.

    Carolyn

    Ginny
    April 21, 2002 - 12:16 pm
    I've now finished the book, and in answer to the questions above, "By the end of the novel, do you feel that Charles has learned anything through his experiences?


    Is he, or any of the other characters, happier or more virtuous at the end of the novel than at the beginning?
    If so, in what way?
    If not, how has he failed?"


    Super questions!

    I was going to answer no to that first specific question. I was going to say not only has Charles failed to "transform" Hartley, he's not done anything with himself, either, at his sojurn by the sea, and he seems to admit it on page 495 when he says, " Can one change oneself? I doubt it."

    But then I did see one small difference in Charles. (I doubt I would have noticed it if it had not been for that question, good focus!!

    He's somewhat sad when James dies, and also saddened by Perry's death. This is in direct contrast to his original opinion that "If I were told today that James was dead my first emotion might be pleasurable." (page 56).

    The presence of actual emotion for the sake of others shows growth to me, so I retract my thoughts that I had when I began this post to say I think he grew somewhat as a person, despite himself.

    As far as the other characters, to me they are stick figures, not fleshed out.

    I think the "Tempest" analogy is a good one and ironic, in that it truly has been a Tempest in a teapot, and kinda reminds me of another Shakespearean quote, "sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Macbeth, Act V, Scene V). Because nothing appears to be the result of all Charles's machinations? Or is the result nothing, super question in the heading.

    "Is he, or any of the other characters, happier or more virtuous at the end of the novel than at the beginning?
    If so, in what way?
    If not, how has he failed?"

    Why would the happiness of the other characters be Charles's faillure? Am not sure of this question. The other characters seem a bit more content and less dependent on Charles for their happiness, I guess.... am not sure what to call Charles's last feelings: he feels that his sudden spate of "wisdom" might portend a physical problem (p.494) and as usual worries every nuance in life half to death. I wonder what I'm missing here.

    I'm also not sure what the catalyst was which caused this "growth" in actually feeling real emotion for the sake of others. He certainly did not feel it for Hartley, even to the point of not referring to her by her real name. I'm not sure how those last tragedies managed to touch him because he was "playing at mourning" when Titus died,("I played my part of simple mourning." (page 388) it must have been fairly recent. Maybe the loss of Hartley finally sank in, not sure. Maybe the loss of his old rival in life, James, I don't know.




    I held off reading Joyce Carol Oates's essay on The Sea until I finished the book, other than the Narrowdean bit, because it looked long and involved and I was busy. Oates herself is another literary lion, who did not feel The Sea, The Sea, held together: Joyce Carol Oates on The Sea, The Sea, Elizabethan and Restoration drama, Murdoch's repetition of plot devices, and other Murdoch writings.

    Here are two thoughts from this article:



    Murdoch believes that the "inner" world is, in a sense, parasitic upon the "outer" world, and that love, far from being the redemptive, all-consuming force that sentimentalists consider it, is in fact the most dangerous of all delusions. It is bound up helplessly with egoism and personal fantasy, the "tissue of self-aggrandizing and consoling wishes and dreams which prevent one from seeing what there is outside one," and it is, fairly normally, too myopic, possessive, and "mechanical" to aid one in a realistic interpretation of the universe. Mankind is not free. There are few choices, few options...



    This seems to be backed up by this quote from the book: We must live by the light of our own self-satisfaction, through that ssecret vital busy inwardness which is even more remarkable than our reason. (page 477)

    And this one: And of course my vanity had killed Titus, just as James's vanity had killed the sherpa. (p. 467).



    Oates continues:

    One is left with silly inconsequential but deeply absorbing plots. Emotions that feel "genuine" and "existential" enough but are, of course, illusions, sheer phantasmagoria.



    I was kind of pleased to see that, because I had felt somewhat same way. Sometimes we are a bit timid about expressing our own opinions, for fear that they may seem different from those of others, or perhaps we fear we may have missed the point?

    That's OK, you can miss the point, and you can have your own opinions, that's what our Books is all about: Reader Reaction and Conversation. You don't have to like the book or the author, you don't have to agree with anybody. Just say what YOU think about what struck you in the book, and let's converse about it, and we'll assemble a body of opinion and knowledge that might....just might...enrich us all.

    R, thank you so much for your tireless efforts to find those "yellow rocks," including going to the trouble of calling a geologist!! there on the coast of England. This has been a very exciting adventure in reading, we have Carolyn from New Zealand and R from England, a true international experience, and true to our Books, they don't agree on the book and isn't it FUN!

    Lorrie has my total admiration for taking on this monumental task with very short notice and doing a splendid, shining job of it. This last week will be super exciting, the questions in the heading are VERY provocative and insightful, and so are our readers here, I'm quite interested to hear what you all will say.

    ginny

    kiwi lady
    April 21, 2002 - 12:55 pm
    Regarding the character of James. He represents the goodness in human nature. Charles I think after James's death realises that in fact James was a constant in his life and when he is no longer there feels bereft and guilty. James is probably the most uncomplicated character in the book.

    Did Charles learn anything. Yes he learnt a lot. His fantasising about Hartley deprived him of ever having a long lasting and satisfying relationship. He realises this and now has to make do with scraps of affection from his friends. He realises he is no longer in command of all the people he has used over his lifetime.

    Lizzie found that a life in latter years with Gilbert although devoid of a sexual relationship was infinitely more satisfying than the life she had previously longed for with Charles who was incapable of providing for her emotional needs. Charles needed Lizzie only to feed his ego.

    Hartley - preferred to stay in her comfort zone no matter how Ben had treated her over the years. This is so often the case in real life. She was a true co-dependant.

    Regarding Titus - Charles as well as using Titus to get to Hartley had incorporated him in his fantasy of a life with Hartley complete with child. I do think that he became fond of Titus however and was truly guilt ridden at his death.

    Clement I believe was the mother figure as well as the lover in Charles' life - she was another constant he needed.

    Rosina was important only in Charles' life as a challenge he wanted to deprive Peregrine of the woman he loved. Once he had won her he lost interest and was a little afraid of her.

    Charles had no regard for the people he had gathered around him during his lifetime rather he played them much as one would play pawns in a chess game. He at the end of his life now realises this. He becomes resigned to his status in the last chapter of the book. A classic example of "as ye sow so shall ye reap."

    Carolyn

    roidininki
    April 22, 2002 - 03:58 am
    Joan Pearson , no your'e not losing me!I am still interested how all of you are reacting to this book.I too noticed that which Betty Gregory brought to your attention but knowing my place as a newcomer and thinking perhaps you had hold of a misprinted copy i held my tongue.Having finished the book i am not going to spoil it for those of you still reading but am still in here hopeing that at least some of you found it taxing! Lorrie [wasit?] asked if Murdoch was a philosopher first, writer second ? Oh yes i think so!Ginny remarks that Joyce Carol Oates did not think the book held together well and i am well in agreement with that!Not able to comment on individual questions due to lack of time ... i use a library p.c. .. but am nodding in agreement and shaking my head.. still that is no use to you? i shall continue reading posts Joan, as this is an enjoyable first experience for me.

    Keene
    April 22, 2002 - 05:41 am
    I have finally had time to get on the computer this morning. A very dear friend died three weeks ago, and as her Power of Attorney I have been extremely busy with her business affairs.

    I am trying to catch up on the posts as well as the reading and hope to join you again soon. It bothers me greatly not to have been able to participate in this discussion until now, but I will hurry to catch up.

    See you soon!

    Keene

    Lorrie
    April 22, 2002 - 08:00 am
    KEENE!

    So good to hear from you---I wondered if you were all right, and i am so sorry about the death of your friend. Please feel free, if you are able, to tell us about your reaction to these final pages. We are getting some very interesting posts here.

    ROIDININKI:

    I always look forward to hearing from you, perhaps because you report in from England, and in this case, somewhat like from the horse's mouth. When I commented about Murdoch's calling as a philosopher, I was remembering how in so many of her biographies she was cited as being a teacher of philosophy and I wondered if she was better known for that. Still, the Booker prize was won for her literary efforts

    CAROLYN:

    I can't tell you how pleased we all are that you have persisted all along in this participation, even as a late-comer. Your new comments on how this book affected you are very interesting, it's amazing how so many people have so many different reactions to Murdoch's characters, with the exception of Charles, I think.

    GINNY:

    That link to the critique by Joyce Carol Oates (post#282) is a wonder! Right at a time when we are all so full of adoring admiration for the author of the Sea, the Sea, Oates presents a marvelous balance to her perception of this book. Thank you so much for that link!

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 22, 2002 - 08:07 am
    In her essay, Joyce Carol Oates says" By his meddling, Charles awakens a demon of some sort, sets into action the "deadly machine" that leads to the drowning of Hartley's son, and brings about his own loss of Hartley; but it is one of the more ingenious elements of the novel that Charles Arrowby is himself unharmed."

    Do you agree with this?

    Lorrie

    Ginny
    April 22, 2002 - 08:46 am
    She's provocative, isn't she, Lorrie? A lot of people don't like/agree with Oates but she's no fool, am interested in what everybody has to say.

    Carolyn, I did like your "reap what you sow" image.

    ginny

    kiwi lady
    April 22, 2002 - 11:33 am
    To a point I agree with Oates. However I felt from early on in the book that Charles never ever had Hartley - only in his imaginings. Titus'death was a catalyst leading to the disempowerment of Charles that much I will agree. As for Charles remaining unscathed- yes he was unscathed physically but certainly not mentally.

    As one of the other participants in this discussion has pointed out Murdoch is firstly a Philosopher and secondly a novelist.

    Carolyn

    MarjV
    April 22, 2002 - 04:14 pm
    I think someone posted this site before. I see it has reviews listed of many of her books including the Oates link. Links to articles about her, etc. It begins with the course overview someone mentioned.

    Iris Murdoch Society

    MarjV
    April 22, 2002 - 04:28 pm
    And this is such fun! Exploring on google.com I came across this course at U of Bristol. The syllabus looks so challenging. (whether it is a current course or not it is most interesting to contemplate)

    Contemporary Women's Fiction: 1950 to the Present Day

    ALF
    April 22, 2002 - 06:19 pm
    By the end of the novel, do you feel that Charles has learned anything through his experiences?

    In my opinion, Chas is never redeemed!  What is that saying --"you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear?"  Charles is Charles and will never change.  He can't learn anything from these misadventures-- heck he already KNOWS IT ALL!  If charles didn't wish it, then he didn't deal with it.  When James returned to chat Chas. thought "he was going to pester me with more questions" and he believed James had lost interest in Hartley after a while.  Now that is not why James was there but he doesn't have the sense to realize that.  How is it that we, the reader, know James never loses interest and Chas. is never aware of this?  I loved this part of the book as James reveals his philosophies and described his exploits to Tibet when his sherpa froze to death.  When I reread that section, I kept thinking back of the Mandela circle that Joan P.  linked us to.  The fire of wisdom, the varja circle, which expressed strength, etc.  We could elaborate forever on that alone after reading poor James'es experience.
    Anyway, Chares could care less about the "trick" and blew it off as James experiencing a hallucination.  That is because it wasn't about him!  He became quite excited  later on when he remembered this "trickery" as James crept down the sheer rock.  All of the sudden nothing was so incredible to Charles as he contemplated James'es powers. Of course by now, it IS about him.


    What did you all think about "It was my vanity that killed him.  The payment for a fault is automatic (what the heck does that mean)  The Wheel is just......"   Just what?????  Of course by this time Charles is fast asleep.
     
     

    ALF
    April 22, 2002 - 06:24 pm
    There is so much to talk about in this last part of the book I can't keep it all straight. I disagree with Joyce Carol Oates, I find that each page is filled--- I mean filled with important data. It's like an independent film, every single thing means something! After James's departure Charles experiences a bout of depression (I think he is severly depressed but hasn't the insight to see that). He attributes it to the "flu" and stays bed bound until he's summoned by Lizzie.

    besprechen
    April 22, 2002 - 07:43 pm
    "Tis the good reader that makes the good book...in every book he finds passages which seem confidences or asides hidden from all else and unmistakably meant for his ear." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

    So many passages in The Sea, The Sea, so many observations to make.

    Did you notice: when James came into the life of each of the characters, their circumstances changed for the better? Rosina and Peregine were together again, declared themselves in a state of happiness, and exited stage left (I loved our readers use of theatre/play vernacular). Lizzie and Gilbert, as a pair, also exited stage left seemingly pleased with life and being together. Even Ben and Hartley, writing from Australia, said they were happy.

    At the death of Titus I felt Charles began to soften, discover a feeling of wanting to truly care for someone, and be a parental figure to the young man.

    When Charles began thinking about Clement I decided his mental anguish for her is physical, emotional, and sexual, therefore, is the seed of all his mental problems: e.g. blacking out in the museum, relationships, searching, monster sightings . He even transferred feelings for a lost Clement to Hartley (he subconsciously wished she could be Clement.) Hartley simply felt guilt for having left him years ago. When he brought all his feelings to the surface, faced each one, and realized what was going on, he began to listen and understand what James meant (page 491 paragraph 2)

    In other words, I liked the ending. It seemed to pull everything together and leave Charles with a better understanding of relationships, a realization that Clement was gone for good, let us get on with life, and I could almost feel the peace in Charles soul. To me it was not a fatalistic novel. Charles changed and life became better. The end of this story reminds me of a statement by Annie Proulx about her novel Shipping News: "a situation (ending) that may not be joyful but is not painful."

    kiwi lady
    April 22, 2002 - 11:21 pm
    I think Charles has learnt quite a lot from his experiences.

    He learnt that his fantasy of his enduring love affair with Hartley was all one sided .

    He learnt that he no longer has power over his friends and one time lovers.

    He learnt that James was a far finer person than he had realised.

    He resigns himself to being grateful to the crumbs of friendship which come his way.

    Carolyn

    Lorrie
    April 23, 2002 - 04:57 am
    Andy:

    I don't know, like besprechen, I feel that Charles was changed for the better toward the end. He seemed to feel Titus' death hard, the emotions Murdoch described on page 397,..."I saw through a black veil of misery and remorse and indecision and fear; and there was a feeling I carried a small leaden coffin in the place of my heart"....

    This is not the Charles we first met.

    MargV:

    Your link is similar to that one the Joan posted for us #230, about a summer course at Oxford where they will be discussing novels of Dame Iris Murdoch, among other subjects. Wouldn't that be a thrill?

    Carolyn:

    I really must say I admire the grasp you have of all these different characters. Your analysis of each is very descriptive, and indicates just how big an interest you took in the book.

    Lorrie
    April 23, 2002 - 05:01 am
    I must admit that I am still confused about James' role in all this. I can't quite figure out what his strange powers are. Does he levitate? Did it have something to do with the sherpa in Nepal, and his interest in Buddhism? I know it sounds stupid, but can anyone explain this to me?

    Lorrie

    Ginny
    April 23, 2002 - 05:12 am
    Somebody, I think Lorrie, asked a lot earlier, was it ever said why Charles left the theater? I thought I saw fleetingly there in one of the characters's talking to Charles (note we never think of him as Charlie or Chuck...don't know why that just struck me) that he had not ever managed to get one of his plays published.

    Did anybody else see that? I wonder if I imagined it.

    Besprechen, I loved your point about when James came into people's lives they all changed for the better, I'm not sure I understand the James/ Lizzie connection or why James felt so guilty there but I read that very fast and apparently heedlessly.

    Andrea, you say you did not agree with some of Oates, do you agree with her on why Charles wrote his journal? If not why do you think he wrote his journal?

    I guess when an author ties up all the ends so neatly at the end of a book we also want our own questions tied up and answered and something to show, perhaps, for having read it. Loved the Prolux quote.

    Charles's laison with a 17 year old virgin is quite a socko ending, am still trying to puzzle out why that particular combination of circumstances in this new character , and her desire to give him the son he's always wanted?!? and looked up the original Titus for clues to that name, since the "son" he wanted to adopt was also named Titus.

    One possible tie is the original Titus, (Titus Flavius Sabinius Vespasinus), Roman Emperor AD 79-81.

    Here's what's interesting about that Titus (among other things, he's the one who sacked Jerusalem and has the Arch of Titus still standing in Rome)...but during his forays into Judaea, he fell in love with Berenice, daughter of the Jewish King Herod Agrippa I, and returned with her to Rome.

    But the Romans disapproved of her and so Titus dismissed her, as Suetonius says, "invitus invitam."



    "Titus reginam Berenicem - - - demisit invitus invitam" (Titus dismissed the queen Bérénice both against her and his own will).



    Racine's tragedy Berenice, is based on this relationship.

    Wonder if this book is a tragedy or a comedy or both?

    In fact if you wanted to push that point, most of the characters in Charles's life seem to be "invitus," (unwilling) from his point of view, anyway, he's always telling them they can't stay and they are to go, leave, and get out, and most of what happens to Charles in this story seems against both his will and that of the women he comes in contact with.

    And I just noticed that at the end everybody seems to get their own will or desire except possibly Charles.

    Interesting, perhaps, an interesting choice of name, Titus, for a character who is a son.

    ginny

    ALF
    April 23, 2002 - 05:24 am
    Off to whine, cry and tremble with fear to the dentist for that bloody (I hope not) extraction this AM. Charles lies to himself, he doesn't change or metamorphasize into anything nor does he become any different . He just goes with the flow of Charles. He may feel a veil of misery but he shrugs it off, "he doesn't like to think aout it." Charles goes full circle, back to a young virgin where his thoughts have always been.
    Will answer the Oates question later, Ginny.

    I feel that James is the catalyst of this novel and that we've barely touched on his importance. I think that is a great observation besrechen, when "James came into the characters lives, something changed." Excellent -- as he searched to reach his goal in his Mandela circle of life. I am really interested in reading more info about that circle.

    What do you think about his dying with a smile on his face? Do you believe he willed himself into eternity?

    Back at noon with a padded mouth. Now that would be the ideal time to be with me, I won't be able to talk or argue my points with you.

    MarjV
    April 23, 2002 - 06:33 am
    I was rereading the section where Peregrine admits to having pushed Charles, trying to kill him. And then , after that scene, that is that. Seems like that was left hanging. Can you just shrug off an episode such as that? As Alf mentions above, Charles lies to himself. So he would therefore, logically, let that terrifing news of Peregine's action go. Peoplehave that capability. So repress.

    James death. Willed? or perhaps he knew it was coming. There was no autopsy. And the doc seemed a bit mysterious. Tho, James,himself was a mystery and a mystic. So I think it all fits.

    ~Marj

    Traude
    April 23, 2002 - 02:46 pm
    The insightful summations have been wonderful. Let me add my 2 cents worth.

    On why Charles left the theatre -- on pg 2 he says

    "Now I shall abjure magic and become a hermit : put myself in a situation where I can honestly say that I have nothing else to do but to learn to be good. The end of life is rightly thought of as a period of meditation. Will I be sorry that I did not begin it sooner ?"
    page 4
    "It is not that I ever came to 'disapprove' of the theatre, as my mother, for instance, never ceased to do. I just knew that if I stayed in it any longer I would begin to wilt spiritually---"
    Charles' intentions to retire were probably sincere, but he had the journey of self-discovery or self-recognition to take first. And he realized that we was not as happy and contented in his solitude as he had envisaged.

    About himself he says on page 36 :

    " As actor, director and playwright I have of course had my full share of disappointments, of lost time and lost ways. My 'successful' career contains many failures, many dead ends. All my plays flopped on Broadway for instance. I failed as an actor, I ceased as a playwright. Only my fame as director has covered up these facts."

    When Charles unexpectedly meets Hartley, his long-lost love, in the flesh, the plot develops, the pace quickens. Titus appears; Hartley is lured to Shruff End and held captive and Charles says

    "I had lost control of my life and of the lives with which I was meddling. I felt dread and a terrible fatalism; and bitter grief, grief such as I had never felt in my life since Hartley had left me so many years ago. I had wakened some sleeping demon, set going some deadly machine; and what would be would be. "

    Then Rosina returns to check on things and learns from Titus and Gilbert that 'lady-love is hidden away upstairs'. Rosina again voices her negative feeling about Shruff End : "this is the nastiest meanest most unpleasant house I've ever entered." And Titus says "It has bad vibes." Pages 307-314 are worth rereading, not least for Rosina's strong comments on men vs. women.

    In leaving Rosina announces that she is going to find Mr. Fitch and "console" him. When Gilbert later goes to Nibletts to deliver Charles' letter, a woman's voice can be heard inside. But the reader is told no more.

    Hartley is unresponsive and still wants to go home. Then comes James. "It's Whit weekend, You invited me.", he says to Charles' question "What are you doing here ?" (I believe the reference is to Whitsuntide Holiday- known here as Pentecost, the seventh Sunday after Easter, widely celebrated in Europe because the weather is finally 'bearable' by that time).

    "You've got a very odd and interesting house", says James, and Charles asks "You don't feel any bad vibrations ?"

    Then Peregrine arrives and thinks Shruff End is a "funny place". When James and Titus meet, their reaction is a strange one. But whether they knew each other before is left in shadow.

    On the other hand, the occasional brief meetings to which Lizzie and James guiltily and belatedly confessed were probably harmless; belatedly - because they both were aware of his insane jealousy and possessiveness, and for good reason !

    Charles clings to Hartley's memory in confusion and utter despair even after the Fitches have left for Australia; he gets into the empty apartment for a trace of something, ANYthing personal but finds only his last letter to Hartley peeking through a floorboard, unopened. In the yard, already looking neglected and covered with dead flowers, he notices "an unusual stone lying half covered by the earth --- It was the mottled pink stone with the white chequering which I had given to Hartley."



    Has Charles learned something, is he a different man, less selfish, now able to listen ? The reader has every indication to think so. He has become mellow, and gained insights of which he would not have been capable before. It is all laid out in the last part of the book. But, oh how much more could be explored and discussed about the book, not only the significance of the stones/rocks, the one he gave to Hartley and reclaimed, and the brown stone with the blue lines he had given to James, the mandala, but about religious viewpoints voiced throughout, about bardo . (Question, was Charles' life bardo perhaps ?)

    And then there are the eternally changing seascapes representing such a radically different reality in contrast to Charles' rigidity and 'fixedness' within the confines of the box he had constructed in his mind ?

    This is a novel of ideas, I think, remarkable for the many thoughts and reactions it evokes and reactions to them; a novel which warrants reading on more than one level; intellectual issues like casuality and transformation, very real issues on the human condition and the relationship between men and women -- and more.

    The wonderful contributions by the participants are greatly appreciated and gratefully acknowledged. They are enriching. Carolyn's presence among us is a gift.

    Thank you.

    kiwi lady
    April 23, 2002 - 04:10 pm




    Firstly in reply to Traude. Traude I have felt very privileged to have participated in this discussion with such very clever people.

    I have immensely enjoyed the different ideas that have been bandied about here.

    I am so thankful that the kind and generous person in this discussion sent me the book so that I could participate. I have just loved reading the book and I have told my youngest daughter about it and she is keen to borrow it during the Varsity holidays. When she was in France she picked up a magazine called "Marie Claire" I think it was called it had an article on Murdoch in it. She is bringing it to me tomorrow and perhaps I can post some of the comments in here before the discussion finishes.

    I hope some of you are going to join in the Grisham novel! I will love it if you do. I am all ready to go with my copy in the book case waiting for us to start!



    Carolyn

    Lorrie
    April 23, 2002 - 04:25 pm
    MARGEV:

    Wouldn't you think that Charles would want to take it further when he heard Peregrine admit that he had tried to kill him? But as you said, that was that.

    I think it was Betty's sister Bonnie who said this book was a mystery, and in many ways,it is. A murder mystery, that is.

    I've been re-reading parts of the ending here and I think I am beginning to understand a little better. Looking back, I do feel Charles has changed, and in a way I even sort of like him. His genuine anguish when Titus drowned touched me.

    TRAUDE:

    Yes, I wondered also if that was Rosina's voice that Charles overheard that night in Ben's house, we never were really told, were we?

    And as you say, there is always the hint that something was going on or had been going on, between James and Titus, but in her own enigmatic way, Murdoch never really tells the reader.

    I really must compliment you on the grasp you apparently got on the wonderful and varied characters in this novel. I sometimes think if Dame Murdoch could read all these insightful posts relating to this book alone that she would be very gratified at our appreciation. A pity that she cannot.

    Lorrie

    Lorrie
    April 23, 2002 - 04:36 pm
    CAROLYN:

    We were apparently posting together! Yes, I agree with Traude that you have been a truly welcome addition, and I will be looking for you in the next Bookclub Online discussion! Do share with us what your daughter gives you to read.

    Note: Carolyn kindly gave me permission to quote a remark her daughter made about this whole SeniorNet site, and have sent it to Marcie, because, as volunteers, we all love to be congratulated!! She says ...."My daughter, who has a degree including Computer studies, looked at this site recently. She said "Who maintains this massive site" I proudly said. "All seniors - All volunteers...."
    She was very impressed. When one thinks about it. The site runs so smoothly there must be such a lot of work and dedication that goes in the running of it. Our volunteers are amazing....
    "

    Thank you, Carolyn!

    Lorrie

    Traude
    April 23, 2002 - 06:36 pm
    After decades of apparent 'normalcy', migraine has returned with a vengeance last week. It may be stress, I was told. The conventional remedies have not been wholly successful. (There was someone in this forum, Paige I think, who has this problem. My thoughts and empathy are with her.)

    Back soon, I h ope.

    Lorrie
    April 23, 2002 - 07:02 pm
    Traude:

    We are genuinely sorry to hear of your painful migraines. I know from watching a loved one how utterly devastating they can be, and we can only hope that you will feel much better soon. Come back whenever you can.

    Lorrie

    kiwi lady
    April 23, 2002 - 08:28 pm
    Traude I get migraine but have only had one devestating one I get what is called cluster headaches now. They are enough to ruin a few days for me. I do hope you will get better soon.

    Carolyn

    Ginny
    April 24, 2002 - 05:26 am
    Carolyn, what an absolutely splendid quote, it ought to be engraved on every page, what a super thing to say and how we all appreciate it!! And part of it is due to all our Books Loyal Readers, too, here in the Books, it's a true collaboration on both sides.

    I want to say that for me the best things in the book were the wonderful descriptions initially of the sea and the minute desciptions of the area. I am somewhat hampered by workers in the barn but hopefully I can get in there tonight, I believe you will be startled if I can find what I want, to see the similarity between Murdoch's descriptions and something I have seen.

    When I saw "Chuffey" for the name of the dog, I thought, perfect!! What a super name for a dog and our next dog will, indeed, be named Chuffey. I've been "chuffed" by this discussion and the insightful remarks and the very fine leading that Lorrie has done. Lorrie took this discussion on with very little preparation time, just to help us out and it's been super, and so has she.

    Did you all ever ideantify what the Sea metaphor stood for throughout the whole book? Here at the end I'm not seeing too much comment on it, did the initial metaphors you thought about it hold up?

    I don't know what it symbolizes.

    Thanks for the explanation of why Charles left the theater, Traude, I did note Rosina, I think, saying he had never been able to get any of his plays published, and I thought he left for that reason--or that that reason contributed to his leaving. I have a feeling Charles leaves when he does not get his way, but it's only a vague impression....and I must say now that a few days have passed in my reading of it, it's taking on more import than it did while I was reading it. Kinda like some of the vacations I've had. hahahaha

    LATER you see more than you did when you had the mal de mer....and no I won't push the mer there.

    Poem. hahahahha

    I join Carolyn in saying please plan to join the large and enthusiastic group assembling for the next in our Reader's Series, John Grisham's new on the best seller list NON mystery Painted House starting May 1 and learn about cotton farming, Sally Field notwithstanding...

    Our Andrea will lead a strange and extremely well talked about book in June as the Fiction Reader's Series continues, Any Small Thing Can Save You: a Bestiary and our Judge Sarah will tackle The Grapes of Wrath in July for the beginning of the Steinbeck series, don't miss ONE!

    What does the title have to do with this book? I wonder. What does The Sea The Sea symbolize? Titus was the first to mention it and he said it was wonderful and it killed him. Is there some signifigance there that I'm missing?

    ginny

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 24, 2002 - 06:53 am
    Ginny, wasn't it James who first said the words "The sea, the sea" om page 176 when he was sitting with the recovering Charles after his fainting spell? It's a beautiful euphonious phrase no matter who first spoke the words. >p> I know you are interested in searching out classical references whenever possible so I won't try to expand on your research about Titus. Personally I didn't give that name a second thought; it just seemed appropriate for a child's name in that socio-economic setting. But why not pursue the use of women's names? ":Hartley," for example, much classier, more "U" than "Mary," and consistent not only with Murdoch's propensity for unusual nomenclature but with the developing trend in the late 50's for female names that derived from male surnames. And Rosina, a dark and rather ugly name though the only match I could think was Beaumarchais's chirpy little heroine in Le Barbier de Seville, the one who sings "Una voce poco fa" in the opera. And Lizzie -- why the infantilizing use of the diminutive instead of Elizabeth, except that she was seen by Charles, and presumably by herself, as a charming child who aged finally into a rather sexless, almost spinsterish adult. Clement? Another haunting and mysterious choice, loaded with significance, from the several meanings suggesting goodness -- such as kind, forgiving, as pleasant as a good climate, to the name of a few popes."Doris" -- distinctly non-U, beans on toast, one who would say "Reely?" trying to sound refined. Rita and Jeanne appear only once or twice in the manuscript and the connotation of the latter would depend on whether she pronounced it in the French manner .

    I don't think "Chuck" was ever a British diminutive, though he might have accepted "Chaz," or even "Charlie," as in "Charlie is my darling."

    Having denounced all speculation on the order of would-she have,could-she have, I find I can't resist it after all. As I reflect on the characterization of Hartley it seems to me that consciously or not, Charles never credited her with a scrap of intellectual fire or keen intelligence. Were we to examine her remarks as Charles recalled them we should find little to suggest that she was unusually bright or that she might have been a suitable companion for Charles in his climb toward recognition in the world of the theater. Hartley, aside from Charles's hagiographic attributions, was quite ordinary. Projecting forward from that early innocence we might speculate that the enchantment would have worn off early, that Charles would soon have become bored, irritable, and impatient, and would inevitably have tooled off in search of more excitement. I think the way Murdoch describes Hartley's behavior suggests that she might have sensed this and decided to quit while she was ahead rather than commit herself to the misery of staying with someone who made her feel inferior and whom she realized she could not love with a mature passion. It was kid stuff and she was wise to end it when she did.

    Ginny
    April 24, 2002 - 07:04 am
    REALLY, Ros? James first? Well done, then, that's still another minor character, but it makes more sense, so what does THE SEA THE SEA symbplize to YOU?

    hahahaha I thought of Rosina as a name to look up, but quite frankly it had no other context for me, neither did Hartley so I did not explore it but TITUS is not exactly the name of the boy next door (neither is Hartley, or Rosina but I know of no predecessors in history with that name) and so naturally since TITUS has an obvious historical precedent (and I did leave out Titus Andronicus), accoutered as I was, I plunged in....and still think it's meaningful.

    You can't look at Hartley for meaning if you don't look at Titus! hahahahaha

    Great point on "Lizzie," as apposed to Charlie. Too darn bad (where do you keep getting that "coulda, shoulda, woulda" stuff? You know as well as I do that God is in the detalis of literary criticism as well as the big overview? What do you mean by coulda shoulda woulda?

    I'm not sure the meaning of the names the author chooses for the characters fall into that category?

    So Roslyn WHAT does THE SEA symbolize? hahahaha

    Great point on the Lizzie diminutive vs the Charlie not. Too bad Rosina is not called Rosie and Hartley is not called...well...Hartley is not her name anyway?

    ginnieeeee

    Ginny
    April 24, 2002 - 07:13 am
    Ros, could Hartley be some sort of symbol for HEART?

    ??

    Talk about stretch? hahahaha

    ginny

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 24, 2002 - 08:07 am
    I've made a point of respecting a work of literature as hard-wired by the author and beyond the power of the reader to change at will or even to read motivation and intention into the text where we can't be sure what the author has in mind. Still, I've spent quite a bit of time with The Sea, the Sea recently and I find that some things nott stated are suggesting themselves strongly to me. Hartley's character was among these. If we read her hesitant words carefully and think about the way her behavior ranged between apathy and hysterical desperation, we can perhaps see that beyond these varying moods she had considerable common sense. She was emerging from a prolonged stage of latent sexuality where she and Charles could go on being good buddies and playing childish games and holding hands but not getting into erotic danger. When she confessed that she "couldn't really love Charles" she could simply have been acknowledging that she wasn't aroused by him, that she couldn't visualize establishing a mature sexual relationship, and his decision to go to London gave her an opportunity to flee. This information is there in the book but we have to hunt for it.

    Perhaps someone remembers being at that threshhold where the satisfaction of having a regular, if dull, date on Saturday gives way to the wish for something more arousing and satisfying, accompanied by revulsion from the mediocre swain who seemed complacently to be taking everything for granted. Hartley had a chance to break matters off. Charles never knew what hit him. He was truly clueless. Everything had seemed fine to him. Surely it was someone else's fault.

    Murdoch chose not to spell out this situation in terms that would have made it sound like The Ladies' Home Journal. Still, her ideas, darting like mysterious fish through the ever-changing waters of the sea in which Charles had sought refuge and peace, left phosphorescent trails that our fascinated eyes pursue and try to identify.

    Traude
    April 24, 2002 - 08:17 am
    A permanent union between Charles and Hartley would not have worked, I believe, and I agree with Ros. Hartley realized that early on.

    On pp 212-213 she makes a few telling comments when pressed by Charles to explain, to remember.

    "You said that I wouldn't be faithful to you. Was it really that ? You can't have thought that, you knew how much I loved you !" And Hartley says "You went to London." Charles presses on and a few details emerge on HOW Hartley met Ben, but she won't say exactly WHEN. She adds, "---I didn't know him when we were together. It wasn't that, it wasn't anything.I didn't want you to be an actor, it wasn't anything, please don't."

    Charles protests she never said so. She counters, "I did. I wanted you to go to the university." And then "It wasn't just anything, oh don't upset me so, we were too much like brother and sister and you were so sort of bossy and I decided I didn't want to." (last paragraph pg 213)



    The cage is a powerful symbol; Charles sees Hartley as "imprisoned in the cage of her marriage" and then he encages her himself ! During the terrible days of her captivity he "felt like a child who rushes to the cage of its new pet fearing to find a lifeless body."



    During his last visit, James refers to a "cage of needs" (top of pg. 439) and, further down, says "Well, what is in her mind ? Perhaps she was simply bound to your memory by a sense of guilt. When you released her from it she was grateful, but then her own resentment was set free, her memory of how tiresome you were perhaps, and after that she could revert to a state of indifference." Later still, "It may even be your destiny to live alone and be everybody's uncle like a celibate priest, there are worse ends. ---"

    This brings me to the ending, specifically concerning Angela Godwin, Peregrine's stepdaughter. She writes him with an 'interesting' offer and sends a picture. He crumples the missive up and thrusts it in the soft ash of the woodfire. (pg.459)

    On pg. 478 we read "I have had another letter from Angie (sic), sending another photo and repeating her kind offer." (a bit of irony there ?) Writing about his daily doings and lunches with various people, he says "Got another letter from Angie." (pg. 487) And on the last page there is this : "Decided to release the telephone bell and instantly Angie was on the line. Arranged to have lunch with her on Friday."

    (She is the eager one !!) There is no more. The reader is left to speculate, if so inclined.

    May I now say, with due respect, that the last phrase of a reviewer cited in our header "and then starts an affair with an equally monstrous 18-year old girl" surprised me.

    First of all, the girl was 17, not 18. Small thing, yes, but still. Secondly, Charles was no longer a monster. A few months earlier, without the benefit of lessons not yet learned, he might have reacted differently, sooner. It was Angie who made all the moves.

    In my humble opinion there is really no concrete basis for the reviewer's assertion of an affair, cited above. And, do we know enough of her to assume she was actually monstrous ?

    I am sorry.

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 24, 2002 - 08:49 am
    Traude, I agree with your observations and your comment about the apparent carelessness of that reviewer.Angela was arguably monstrous earlier in the book when Charles encountered her, dressed like a boy, rude, drinking conspicuously, and generally behaving like the kind of adolescent parents prayed that their children would not become. However, at the end of the book she has clearly grown up and calmed down. Like you, I saw no indication that Charles really intended to begin an affair with her, and she was certainly not "monstrous " then. Given Charles's waning sexuality I'm not sure that even the most nubile teen-ager would succeed in bringing him to bed, or what would be the outcome if she did..

    We are able to infer that he is getting back into the social round he thought he had left behind forever, and which perhaps he had missed more than he expected to. There are more references to Miss kaufman than to Angela, and we find Charles somehow committed to financing her mother's nursing-home stay, a very clever ploy on Miss Kaufman's part as it involves a hefty chunk of change -- as well as a fairly permanent sense of obligation.

    MarjV
    April 24, 2002 - 09:23 am
    That was surprising to me --- the commitment to Ms Kaufman's mother. So that was a hint of Charle's responsbility maturing. And maybe because he didn't hightail it after Angie immediately was another little signal. I had forgotten he encountered Ang earlier in the book.

    Ros states: " Still, her ideas, darting like mysterious fish through the ever-changing waters of the sea in which Charles had sought refuge and peace, left phosphorescent trails that our fascinated eyes pursue and try to identify. " Perfect picture there, Ros. And I liked trying to identify. And then, depending on our own sea, there will be different perceptions. Maybe see different fish and trails.

    ~Marj

    MarjV
    April 24, 2002 - 11:10 am
    To Ginny---- it is difficult to read your pale green posting against the white. I like to read all the posts in a discussion. I like to read what everyone has to say. Thanks.

    Ginny
    April 24, 2002 - 11:27 am
    Sorry Marj, I'll go back and make it bold, different browsers and different computers see things differently, thanks for the head's up, let me know if it helps, appreciate your wanting to read it at all! hahahha

    ginny

    Traude
    April 24, 2002 - 11:46 am
    On rereading the early part I have come upon Charles' description of "a most attractive cimetière marin" in the village of Narrowdean.

    (pg. 13) Could this be an allusion to Paul Valéry's famous poem Le cimetière marin ? (The Graveyard by the Sea) ?

    Charles experiences chest pains and is reminded of his mortality. Someone on a BBC quiz show did not know who he was ! He wonders to whom he should leave his money and starts giving it away. He is a different man all right !

    Traude
    April 24, 2002 - 11:55 am
    Yes, Peregrine's stepdaughter Angela makes a brief, wordless appearance when Peregrine and Charles are drinking together, helps herself to a bottle and walks out, closing the door (pp. 164-165).

    Roslyn Stempel
    April 24, 2002 - 02:42 pm
    Traude, you're undoubtedly correct in your attribution though I doubt if it has any great significance here. I'll choose not to fault Charles for affectation in using this phrase. I'm sure you, as a linguist, have found yourself speaking le mot juste in one of your several languages simply because it has popped into your head at that moment. (Defense de fumer? Defense de stationner? Pas avant les domestiques -- that used to show up in those brittle British novels years ago.) I remember that someone in the book, either Gilbert or Peregrine, kept saying, idiomatically, "Laissez-moi rire," when he could just as easily have said,, "Don't make me laugh." In any case, Charles might have felt the phrase was apt and he couldn't at the moment, think of the perfect translation.

    Traude
    April 24, 2002 - 05:28 pm
    Ros, it may be far-fetched, but I thought that perhaps Valéry's poem might have "figured" (for want of a better word) in Murdoch's choice of the book's title.



    I wasn't going to fault Charles for affectation, or Murdoch-- for putting those French phrases in his mouth (some more than once). That is the way (some) Europeans speak and write, without consciously striving for le mot juste (but there are "show-offs" too of course.) After having lived here for so many years, I am more aware of, and more sensitive to, the casual sprinkling of foreign phrases into a conversation held in a different language when I am in Europe; though at times I have wondered whether that was an absolute necessity.

    kiwi lady
    April 24, 2002 - 09:08 pm
    My daughter Vanessa who was visiting today had a look at our discussion. She was very impressed. She wants to read "The Sea The Sea" after we are done. She is studying for her post grad exams this week and took a study break. I told her she can borrow the book but NOT lose it as its special being sent to me all the way from America.

    Carolyn

    Lorrie
    April 24, 2002 - 10:08 pm
    Yea, Carolyn, be sure to give our best regards to your daughter Vanessa! Hope you have an enjoyable visit!

    I would like to take a few moments here, before we go on with our summing up, to mention how very happy I have been with the way all you posters have plunged into the essence of this novel, and the intelligent way in which you all voiced your perceptions of Murdoch’s characters.

    Some days ago I made a stupid post, an inexcusable error about which I won’t go into now, but for any hurt feelings that were amassed because of that, I am deeply sorry and I apologize to you all. All in all, this has been a wonderful discussion and I really hate to see it end.

    I shall miss you all—----Ginny, who refuses to follow the accepted path just because everybody else does,---Joan P, whose love for anything Shakespearian enhances any comparisons she makes---Betty Gregory, whose distaste for anything male chauvinistic is readily apparent---- Traude, whose agility with the written and spoken word make her posts truly memorable----Carolyn, whose contagious enthusiasm is a joy to behold-----MargeV, who can see beyond the obvious and view these literary characters with an unjaundiced eye----Roslyn, whose ability to fathom more than just the surface meanings of books is a true asset---- and besprechen, who was the first (?)to draw our attention to the comparison with Pluto’s cave---- and Andy who was so quick to see the irony of the book, as in a “comedy of errors” on a stage play.

    You are all wonderful co-participants in this, what I consider one of the best discussions I have been involved in, and I’m hopeful we shall all be seeing each other again.

    I would still like to hear from all or you a final time, can you all sort of sum it up, in four or five sentences or more, your general reaction to this strange book, and its talented author?

    Lorrie

    betty gregory
    April 24, 2002 - 10:19 pm
    In the real world, sometimes our advanced, developed-country lives are interrupted with news stories about the physical and mental atrocities endured by women in less advanced countries. Among other things that shock us, we hear the phrase "held against their will" in stories of Asian (and other) women transported and sold and, at their destination, still "held against their will." Every year or so, an update of these stories will make it onto 60 Minutes or a PBS special. For 30 minutes or so, we are outraged at the thought of anyone being locked away against her will.

    Here at home (developed countries of SN Books & Lit), we are occasionally shocked to hear that right here where we live, someone has held a woman captive, locked away by a husband or boyfriend. Such a report usually ends with a statement from a doctor standing in front of a hospital saying that she is physically ok. We can't believe someone could be so cruel.

    Murdoch didn't write this book as an atrocities-against-women book, however. The focus was more on the pathology of Charles. Her characters, roughly our middle class contemporaries in a developed country, were not horrified at Charles behavior in holding Hartley captive. (Or maybe I'm wrong and their lack of reaction was part of the atrocities.) James and others didn't think her imprisonment was very smart, however, and thought Charles should take her home.....but there was little disruption in their activities downstairs. Life went on. Dinner was prepared; Charles urged Hartley to come down and join them at dinner, though she didn't.

    Titus was uncomfortable around Hartley, so he rarely went up to see her. On pg. 336, Charles writes of his annoyance with Titus, "But he annoyed me by seeming to enjoy himself. He swan, he sang, he sat on rocks with Gilbert." There was no collective or individual outrage. No one considered calling the police.

    There was tacit agreement that Hartley was Charles' problem. Almost an implied ownership of her. Even when she began screaming uncontrollably, no one intervened. (To Charles, her screaming confirmed the hysteria Titus had mentioned, instead of needs that were being ignored.)

    To further the image of Hartley as property, Charles and James and the gang didn't just release her....they delivered her to Ben, the same Ben they had imagined capable of violence. Everyone's anxiety centered around Ben's reaction, while she was being held and when she was delivered back to him, not Hartley's reaction. What Ben thought had greater importance to them than what Hartley thought. Hartley's upset was something to be shushed; Ben's upset was something to be feared.

    Much of these sexual politics, alternately called relationship issues in the discussion, were handled with understatement....as if Murdoch knew them well....and interwoven into a complex plot.

    Complex plot or not, where is our reaction to a woman being held against her will? Was there no reaction because this is fiction? Because the other characters shrugged at it, said little, did nothing? I'm sure the publishers said, "great plot!!" Does the poor treatment of Hartley by Ben and Charles seem like a secondary plot issue...is that why it's easy to ignore? I wonder if the lack of reaction from Charles' friends was realistic. (A woman screaming upstairs??!!) And why didn't Ben call the police? Did Hartley truly have no one?

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Murdock hinted that Charles' new insights were fleeting. Makes me think of a vaccination that doesn't take. The Postscript is subtitled, "Life Goes On." In the first paragraph, Charles is thinking/writing, "....life, unlike art, has an irritating way of bumping and limping along, UNDOING CONVERSIONS, casting doubt on solutions, and generally illustrating the impossibility of living happily and virtuously ever after." (caps are mine)

    In the next 3-4 pages, he second guesses many of his new insights. On pg. 481, he says of his rescue, "That weird vision of James which seemed so important must have been a result of the blow on the head. It was a lucky escape." On pg. 480, "I wonder if James was mad?" He no longer believes James lifted him up out of the whirlpool. And pg. 482, "There are no mysteries after all. James died of a heart attack."

    He has begun drinking. Pg. 483, "I have just had a drunken evening with Toby Ellesmore. Toby said James was a bit 'potty' and that he was a 'sphinx without a secret'. I did not disagree. I even felt some satisfaction in hearing James belittled." New feelings for his cousin didn't last very long.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    April 24, 2002 - 10:29 pm
    Carolyn, you must hold the record in reading and preparing for discussion in such a short time!! Three or four days??? And such wonderful and thoughtful posts! It's been such a pleasure having you here this last half. And, yes, I'll see you in Painted House. Loved your daughter's quote! In response, I hope you shrugged your shoulders and said carelessly, "oh, no big deal."

    The sea, the sea. Such beautiful words and images to contemplate. Even the sound of them is haunting. I so love the concept of "ebb and flow," and considering the subtitle to the Postscript is "Life Goes On," I have to think that The Sea, The Sea is some kind of organic going on, life going on. Say the words aloud. They sound like the sea.

    Betty

    kiwi lady
    April 25, 2002 - 01:55 am
    What can I say?

    I really loved this book. I think I liked it so much because I love to analyse human behaviour.

    Yes it was shocking the way Charles held Hartley captive but it does happen in real life. I know of a man who tied his wife to a chair so that she could not go out. He eventually had Psychiatric Treatment. I think Charles was seized with a temporary madness.

    I did feel that Charles at the close of the book was a better person.

    The other characters had regained their freedom being no longer under Charles's influence.

    The book had a satisfactory ending.

    Most of all I have enjoyed the comments made by every other person who has taken part in this discussion even the ones who took part under sufference! LOL

    I have read the article on Iris Murdoch in Marie Claire it says no more than we already know. It does however linger on her bohemian type lifestyle. A Quote from Iris "My affections come and go with the wind,and enjoy like a butterfly, the blossom nearest to them" and about her desires which she described as "twisted as corkscrews". She certainly had a long suffering husband!

    Thanks everyone again for making this such an enjoyable discussion!



    Carolyn

    betty gregory
    April 25, 2002 - 03:17 am
    It's 3 AM, haven't slept well for a few days and am waiting for my left leg and right forearm to call it a tie in their competition for hurts-the-most. Medicine still does a pretty good job, or it wouldn't be bearable, and it is. I just get cranky and fussy without sleep.

    Is that how you really see me, Lorrie? That's the whole of how I'm seen? Against something? In your list, everyone else was acknowledged for what they do well. And I dislike something?

    I dislike the term "male chauvinism." It's over-used, too slang. Does everyone think I did a doctoral dissertation on male chauvinism? Is this how to spell it? Am I not clear enough that I don't hate men? Am I not clear enough that my concerns about our culture are about those things that affect both men and women?

    My dissertation looked at how male and female psychiatrists and psychologists continue to do damage to both male and female patients by hanging on to stereotypes. Lorrie, you asked earlier about my old-fashioned concern over the word hysteria or hysterical. Ironically, that word is still listed as a symptom of a personality disorder in the DSM IV, the diagnostic manual that must be referenced by psychiatrists and psychologists. Three separate attempts have been made to get those, what did you call them, male chauvinists to delete that misused, ambiguous word "hysterical" from the manual. Nope, it's still there, although there is no concensus about its use, except that it is used primarily to describe women's behavior, not men's, even when the behavior is identical. (Actually, I think 4 of those 9 chauvinists board members are women.) Hahahaha

    Ok, all silliness aside, I work hard at relevance, though I can't do much about the built-in barriers. My concerns stereotype ME!! (.....there she goes again....and the eyes glaze over). Just as education used to be called a "woman's issue," and children used to be called a "woman's issue," most of the things that catch and hold my attention are at the heart of every day family concerns, things that affect everyone.

    I'll be soooo glad when "women's issues" and "gender issues" grow up and become human issues. And safety issues......most men I know want the dark night to be a safer place for women to walk, just like women do. Fathers worry just as mothers do about a daughter walking around the college campus at night.

    I don't really care that you wrote that, Lorrie, girl scouts honor. I knew what you meant and everybody else does, too. Here are some good substitutes. Women's Issues (doesn't cover everything, but I'm still ok with it.) Gender Issues (more accurate, but it's so ambiguous). Social rights of men and women, hey, that's good. Human rights.

    Environmental issues, that's what I really care about.....every living thing on the planet and how we are all connected. How we depend on each other for survival. I can't think of a woman's issue that doesn't affect the world around her, starting with the women and men in her family. Look at how everything that was going on with Hartley and Ben affected Titus......or how James and his parents so influenced Charles' whole life. There was a really moving paragraph of Charles' guilt and grief over Titus that seemed very real, where he saw that it was his vanity that kept him from warning Titus of the ocean's dangers.

    It seems that the death of someone provided temporary sight, or insight, for Charles. I'll bet everyone has experienced that.....when your world is shaken up, you tend to take stock. Then, as the loss fades, it would be easy to slip into old ways of seeing the world. My grandmother died about a year ago and for several months, there were many, many more phone calls and emails among several family members.

    This is a book that won't fade in my thoughts for a long time, Lorrie. Not that it would be practical to do, but I'm almost tempted to say, let's check in 30 or 60 days to see what thoughts about this book still linger, or if we've had any "a-ha" insights. (We could meet in the library. Or, we could hold off until September, if people will be gone.) In my sleep-deprived condition, I can't tell if this is a good idea or not. We've never done a follow-up meeting.

    Hahahah, maybe I'm just not ready to let go. Doorknob patient, I used to call them. Someone who would stand with her hand on the doorknob, still talking, not wanting to leave.

    Betty

    Lorrie
    April 25, 2002 - 09:45 am
    Ah, Betty. A poor choice of words, male chauvinism. Pretty outdated, too. Women's issues, I like that better.

    That one brief description that you mention of Charles' genuine grief over the death of Titus is what changed my opinion of Charles mightily. For the first time, I thought, he actually felt some real emotion, emotion that involved someone other than Hartley. I almost liked Charles at that moment.

    I like your idea. Let's all make that a date. Mark your calendars! On November 1 let us all check back into the Library on this site, and compare notes on whether our feelings about this book have changed aor not. I have a list of your email addresses, so I will send you all a reminder a few days in advance. Okay?

    Lorrie

    kiwi lady
    April 25, 2002 - 12:26 pm


    Lorrie I have a memory like a sieve! Even if I put the date to check in on the calendar I would forget to check the calendar!

    I would need to be reminded!

    One could have said that Charles was hysterical at times LOL! Hysteria I personally do not think is confined to the female gender only!

    Carolyn

    Joan Pearson
    April 25, 2002 - 05:51 pm
    A gem of a discussion! So tempting to hold up the tantalizing details to the light for a closer look. We have each selected that which captured our attention, imagination. What was the sea serpent? Jealousy? Death? Awful reality? Your observations have made this experience so much richer for me. Thank you!

    A wonderful idea, Betty! I'll be there in the library come November, to discuss the after thoughts/after effects. I can tell you right now that I am looking at my "first love" with open eyes for the first time in 50 years. Was it love? (Shall I take off the ring?) Murdoch writes, "Memory is tiny, limited and fallible."

    Charles is over Hartley/Hadley, isn't he? She is dull now..."Did I after all mistake dullness for goodness, because my mother hated Aunt Estelle?" He notes that all women in his life have lied to him. "It was their nature." Aunt Estelle caused him pain...because James came first with her. Layers of memories take him back to the real source of his obsession. Charles does ask an interesting question ~ I have two ideas, but would love to hear your thoughts?
    "Who is one's first love?"





    Charles asks, "Can one change oneself?" I loved the question! He's the magician! He does admit, "I was the dreamer, the magician, reading my own dream text, not looking at reality." At the end he's back to reading Shakespeare, "a place where magic does not shrink reality."

    In the epilogue of The Tempest, Prospero, the magician says:
    "Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
    And what strength I have's mine own,
    Which is most faint, Now 'tis true
    I must be here confined by you."


    "...an ageing powerless ex-magician" What's a magician without his powers? Of course Charles will have to change. He has met up with reality, with his own mortality. How will he do? At first I was concerned that the story would end on a pathetic note, with Charles dying alone and unloved. There now seems to be an element of hope for him, doesn't there - he finds himself, as Prospero, confined in reality with no choice but to go on living out this strange new role.

    Thanks everyone, for a wonderful time!

    Traude
    April 25, 2002 - 05:56 pm
    Lorrie, Betty,

    yes it would be a super idea to "compare notes" in a few months' time. What a great suggestion ! I for one admit to having a difficult time letting go of a book; I don't glide easily from one book to the next.

    And yes, there is so much more to look at here than we have touched upon, for example the magnificent star-scapes that reminded Charles of his days at the Odeon with Hartley; mythology (Daphne is mentioned and Danaë !); the enigma of James; bardo; Charles' words on pg. 3: "Unless one is very talented, there is no resting place between the naive and the ironic; and the nemesis of irony is absurdity." What indeed could be more naive, or more human than a man who is a perpetual adolescent and hankers after an adolescent romance ? What more ironic than the (re-)education Charles has to undergo with elements of the comic (as Andy said). And then there are inescapable little linguistic touches, though of no apparent importance-- not to worry, I have set those aside for now.

    Betty, I thought all day about your message composed in the wee hours of this morning. I had no time to reply earlier - for once again I lost the fight with my nemesis, TIME. I have the deepest admiration for all those of you who are so active in other folders and other fields as well and wish I could emulate you.

    Betty again, I am not sure there are answers to the eternal questions. The persistent inequalities between men and women are still at the heart of many of the problems in this world. Women are still limited, even those who do not wear a veil. We might also talk about the motivations (needs ?) of the women who are part of the sex "industry" --- perhaps in a separate discussion ?



    Getting back to the book, the outrage we felt at Charles was justified, I believe. I was appalled early on when I read (page 11) "I may add here that one of the secrets of my happy life is that I have never made the mistake of learning to drive a car. I have never lacked people, usually women (!!), longing to drive me whithersoever I wanted. Why keep bitches and bark yourself ? " I thought that a most unkind remark, considering that it came from a woman !! This comment and Carolyn's message regarding the article about Murdoch's Bohemian lifestyle gave me the opening I needed.



    As you know, I have been plowing through Peter Conradi's biography of IM, very slowly, skipping back and forth. I looked at the pictures over and over again, in wonder. In Conradi's bio there is a brief but telling reference : Gwenda David, a scout for Viking, receives in her mailbox the manuscript of what became Murdoch's first novel "Under The Net" (it was never clear who had sent it). " Gwenda David came to stay at Iris's smart new top-floor flat in Beaumont Street, Oxford, where the dust was so thick Gwenda wrote her name in it---"

    Obviously the lifestyle was unconventional, "truly liberated" we would call it now. She was loved and admired by men and women; she loved both. All of them were her intellectual equals; all influenced her in the direction of her work (one toward Tolstoy). John Bayley called the men her "demon lovers", and the penultimate of those, Bayley's immediate predecessor, was Elias Canetti, Nobel Prize winner for literature in 1981.

    Bayley described Canetti as "Pluto, god of the Underworld, with a crocodile smile, wanting to whisk Iris off to Hades." Bayley ended up "rescuing" Iris (it was not sudden, it was not instant romance, and it was not a flight from London glitz). Canetti for his part (he was married and had simultaneous affairs with several women) never forgave Iris for breaking free of him; he was jealous of her fame, her artistic and social success. She represented something unforgivable, blasphemous : an independent and successful woman. Imagine that !!! Canetti appears to have been even more monstrous than dear Charles in The Sea, The Sea; Iris refers to him as 'diabolical'.

    Their affair was volcanic, he dominated and she submitted, willingly, gladly. It was what she needed, she said (!) He played mind games with her, he once spied on her when she was with another man, a lover, in a restaurant) - shades of Charles !!

    Lucky for Iris and posterity, John Bayley's rescue of her was timely indeed. After they were married (1956), she came into her own as a novelist. But it was not the end of her attraction to men and to women. Indeed, "Iris did not want a bourgeois or conventional marriage. This arrangement procured her a child-wife in John, who cooked, or assembled, picnic meals - Wind-in-the-Willows food', she called it in The Sea, The Sea." (pg. 402 of Conradi biography). Unlike Charles, Canetti was never 'redeemed' and remained jealous and vengeful. He commented publicly on Iris' lack of dress-sense, bad figure, promiscuity, bisexuality and religiosity, her 'vulgar' success -- (pg. 583 of Conradi's bio) and I'll spare you the rest. Canetti, who had seriously believed he could defy death (!) died at 89 on Aug 19, 1994. Iris was incredulous when told.

    Murdoch was diagnosed with Alzheimers' in 1997 and in December of that year mentioned a friend she had not head from"since I began sailing away into darkness, The pictures show how vacant her gaze has beome ---

    Forgive me for being so long, but I thought this (much compressed) information might help us to better understand "our" book and the role Eros played in it and in Iris' life.

    Lorrie, my apologies for the length of this message. Many many thanks you for guiding us so patiently through the discussion of this strange, demanding book, and hearty, multiple cheers to all who participated in this very special project. On spectacular occasions like this, my Swiss relatives shout "chapeau"! And so do I. With special appreciation and fondness.

    betty gregory
    April 25, 2002 - 08:53 pm
    Traude, you dear goose, stop apologizing. This is incredible stuff about Murdoch!! Sometimes, knowing details about an author is fun and interesting, but irrelevant to understanding published work. I disagree with those who say this is always the case. I wish I'd known earlier some of what you just wrote about Murdoch. It doesn't change the stand-alone book, The Sea, the Sea, but it is personally interesting to me, for instance, to know that the author was a strange bird and that her love life was chaotic......no wonder she can write about a strange person Charles with, as kind as I can put it, a chaotic love life. Not that she couldn't without experiencing those things, but it enhances my interest in her.

    I don't take it to the next step and wonder if her book is autobiographical. We can't know.

    I admire Murdoch's rebellion in clothes and hair; can't understand how she or anyone could work in such a dirty, messy atmosphere; am troubled that she could let herself be so mistreated by Canetti. I forget how human someone is when they do something great.....if I don't watch it, I begin to idealize.

    So, just like Virginia Woolf and Edna St. Vincent Millay, Iris Murdoch finally ended up with someone who recognized her singular gift and who was grounded enough in himself to be more caretaker than care receiver. Hooray for such men! I wonder how Shirley Jackson's life and work (current discussion) would have been different if she, too, had had a John Bayley.

    ---------------------------------------

    Joan, I've lost track, but I've been here at Books and Lit somewhere between 3 1/2 and 4 years, and the first time you mentioned your "first love" was during my first few months. Since then, about once a year, maybe a little more often, you've mentioned him. Any chance you'd tell us more? And this book has changed how you think of him!!!? After all these years?? Ok, I'm hooked. DO tell!

    Betty

    Lorrie
    April 25, 2002 - 09:04 pm
    No apologies necessary, Traude!

    Reading any of these different biographies of this unique woman, I find that apparently Dame Iris' real life was certainly as flamboyant and unorthodox as any of the novels she wrote. I found your telling of Canetti's remarks about Murdoch really interesting, especially when one knows of the personal relationship there. Sounds like a real cad, doesn't he?

    Joan, your comparisons throughout the book with anything Shakespearean have been intriguing, from the first mention that Charles had been raised in Stratford-on-Avon. Bet that caught your eye, didn't it? Thank you for your quotes from "The Tempest," Prosperos's especially seem so apt here, don't you think?

    Never fear, Carolyn. I've marked my calendar, and will remind everyone that tea will be served in the Library on November 1, 3:00 in the afternoon to the alumni of the group discussion of the book by Iris Murdoch, "The Sea, the Sea."

    I believe that we should present a special award to Betty Gregory for having the fortitude to get up sleepless at 3:00 a. m. in order to manage her pain and post in the discussion, no easy feat. And Traude for bearing up under the duress of splitting migraines. And me for the awful mouth-stretching I did when I placed my foot in it.

    Anyway, I feel that we have been like a short-term class in a very enigmatic course, a class filled with readers from all sorts of backgrounds, a class that has left me feeling a sense of comradeship, and a reluctance to see it end.

    What about all you lurkers? I know you've been hovering. Would anyone care to tell us how they liked the book?

    Lorrie

    betty gregory
    April 25, 2002 - 09:37 pm
    hahahahahaha hahahahaha

    hahahahaha mouth stretching hahahaha

    hahahaha hahahaha cough hahahaha

    Betty

    kiwi lady
    April 26, 2002 - 12:12 am
    Now Betty accept the accolade with good grace! Dont go Haarumph!

    Lorrie thanks for leading this discussion and I look forward to meeting again in the library. Will there be a cappuccino and a muffin?

    Carolyn

    Traude
    April 26, 2002 - 07:18 am
    Betty,

    there is reason to believe that Murdoch's work is drawn from her own life and experiences. To one insistent interviewer Iris once replied that all her characters are based on herself (she didn't say whether that included the males too !). Some critics claimed that Murdoch used her books as public therapy. When other people saw themselves portrayed in her books, she adamantly denied putting them there, saying that was their vanity showing (!).

    Joan's phenomenal knowledge of Shakespeare is admirable. There are clear references to The Tempest, Prospero's magic and "little" Lizzie playing Ariel. Did the aging Gilbert play a Caliban-like role as he fetched and cooked and ran errands for Charles, becoming his willing "slave" ? And the relationships were all more or less tempestuous !

    Thank you for the pleasure of your company. Again, many thanks, Lorrie.

    Nellie Vrolyk
    April 26, 2002 - 02:27 pm
    Lorrie, I am lurking and have been all along. But I can say nothing about this book as I don't have it. However I am was impressed enough by how good you all made the book sound, to go to the library to find it. Didn't find The Sea, The Sea but did find one called The Nice and The Good which has a large cast of the most marvelous characters I've ever read; and I like her writing style -lots of detail. In this book there is also a large house within walking distance of the sea. Now I'm curious if all Murdoch's books have the sea in them?

    I have very much enjoyed this discussion.

    Lorrie
    April 26, 2002 - 02:35 pm
    Good question, Nellie! Since this is he first Murdoch novel I have read, but will not be the last, I cannot answer your question, but can refer you to a lady who has made a real study of this writer, and who has been very helpful here all through this discussion. Ros, can you answer Nellie's question?

    Lorrie

    ALF
    April 27, 2002 - 04:53 am
    Upon the sands of time, some people leave only the imprint of a heel!

    So goes Charles. The Sea, The Sea- reflecting life's plethora of briny tears. Perhaps it's indicative of the abundance of ever changing reflection of human nature.

    I loved it Lorrie and i thank you for all of your contributions.

    Ginny
    April 27, 2002 - 10:07 am


    I am unable to find (lucky, lucky you! hahahaha) the hundreds of photos I took of Doyden House which sits on a cliff overlooking the ocean at Cornwall, but in an affectionate post script to this discussion I leave you with three of the photos I can find and quotes from Murdoch which seem to validate my premise that the book is situated there, even down to the coast line village which was abandoned (I do not have that photo but the National Trust has completely bought all the houses and it was quite a spectacular abandoned place).

    But here is what I do have,

    "The coast road, if followed to the right, curves round into the next bay...Here, at a distance of three or four miles, is an establishment called the Raven Hotel." (page 12)

    Port St. Isaac on the coastal path with the hotel newly being renovated.


    (Is that YELLOW rocks I see in those cliffs?!?)


    "...where my yellow rocks turn into handsome and quite sizeable cliffs." (page 13)





    "Yes, I am the owner not only of a house and a lot of rocks, but of a ruined 'martello' tower!" (page 6)


    Doyden "castle" viewed from the lower windows of Doyden House.




    "The little place consists of a few streets of stone-bult cottages, some hillside bungalows and one general shop." (page 13)..."I walked quickly round the little streets." (page 110)


    Main Street, Port St. Isaac






    Just a little valentine to the discussion from me to you. GREAT JOB, Lorrie, and Everybody!

    ginny

    Lorrie
    April 27, 2002 - 02:44 pm
    WOW!! THOSE ARE FABULOUS PHOTOS, GINNY! If Murdoch wasn't writing about this very same location, then there's an extremly strong coincidence. The yellow rocks, the "runined tower", the village description, all seem to fit too neatly with the author's words. I find this very interesting, indeed! Looking at those photos seem to bring the story even that much closer. Thank you so much, Ginny!

    Lorrie

    Keene
    April 28, 2002 - 06:02 am
    I must apologize for my good intentions to be a part of this discussion. In the last month a very dear friend died and as her Power of Attorney I have been busy with her affairs. Then, two weeks ago my eighty-three year old mother tripped on her face, fell on a concrete curb and bruised and battered her face. This week I must take her for a CAT scan, as the doctor fears she broke the bone above her eyebrow. My computer time has been practically non-existent. I truly hope to participate in the May book discussion. And, many thanks to Lorrie for leading the discussion.

    Keene

    betty gregory
    April 28, 2002 - 06:38 am
    Goodness, Keene, looks like your plate has been more than full. I hope your mother gets good treatment and feels better soon. We look forward to your joining in just as soon as you can....even mid-discussion is ok. A list of book discussions coming up is in the heading of our welcome folder.

    Betty

    Ginny
    April 28, 2002 - 06:48 am
    Good heavens, Keene, I second Betty's letter of concern, hope your mother is OK!!! My condolences on the death of your friend. We missed you in this one and in addition to all the new books being offered in the heading of the Welcome Center, I'll echo Kiwi Lady and say the Fiction Reader's Series is above you in this heading and you are welcome in John Grisham's Painted House starting on May Day.

    As you can see in the tiny table in the heading we have fiction scheduled thru August and we hope to have your bright and happy faces in our midst!

    Thank you, Lorrie, and thank you for the splendid job you did here, another First, the Meeing in November! Congratulations!

    Happy reading, Everybody!

    ginny

    Lorrie
    April 28, 2002 - 02:13 pm
    Keene, I am so sorry to hear about your friend's passing and now your mother's travails. I do hope everything will be better for both of you very soon.

    This has been one of the most interesting discussions in which I have participated, and I am deeply grateful to all of you for making it possible. I remind everyone again to mark your calendar, we will meet again in the Library on this site to rehash our feelings on this book. Do you think you may change your mind by then? at any rate, I will remind you all by email just before.

    Thank you all for being such a exhilarating group, I will always be grateful that I have been introduced to the works of this great author. I must read more about Iris Murdoch---her biography is, as far as I can tell, as dramatic as any of her novels.

    I invite you to stay with our Bookclub Online and participate in the Grisham novel, "A Painted House." It will give me great pleasure to see you all there.

    Lorrie

    kiwi lady
    April 28, 2002 - 05:40 pm
    Today I found another Iris Murdoch. Its Bruno's Dream- looks every bit as fascinating as the one we have just finished. It even has comedy in it and of course in depth character studies. This book has a river as a central part of the plot just like the sea was in our recent discussion. I am looking forward to reading it. Only another couple of days to our new discussion!

    Carolyn

    roidininki
    April 29, 2002 - 05:41 am
    Ginny further to my investigations ,hahahahahahah, my jouralist correspondent confirms geologists' explanation of yellow rocks being sandstone She asserts her theory that the author will place known favourite places haphazadrdly not geographically correct into a kind of fairyland with characters? I don't think i shall be going on an expedition into Cornwall to find Doyden House hahahah, much of the southern coastline is like the ones in your pretty pictures, so who knows? However, if i might catch your attention, on the English author who wrote Wuthering Heights, i can vouch for the fact that the landscape is absolutely true.I was brought up around the moors and still live close to them and to the Rectory which housed The Brontes.So .. if you haad asked about purple grass Ginny i could have been spot on hahahahahahah.

    Keene
    April 29, 2002 - 03:41 pm
    Thank you, everyone, for your kind wishes. I am off to Barnes & Noble to buy "A Painted House," and am eager to participate fully in the May discussion.

    Keene

    kiwi lady
    April 29, 2002 - 09:00 pm
    Ah! Sandstone is what we have. Think I mentioned in an early post that the only yellow looking rock I could think of in NZ was Sandstone. I would not really call it yellow however more muddy light brown. Guess from a distance it has a yellowy appearance.

    Carolyn