Skip to main content

Women I'm Not Sure I Would Like

Just before Christmas I purchased on impulse "The Maltese Falcon" mentioned below, and "Cakes and Ale" by W. Somerset Maugham. I love Maugham's style. I think "Of Human Bondage is one of the most amazing pieces of writing. I hadn't read this one so I grabbed it, even though we were moving and we didn't need more books.

Like much of Maugham there is real emotion struggling through the satire. The story is about an older writer who is asked for his recollections on a famous writer who has just died so that a hack writer can write the approved biography--approved by the surviving widow, the second wife. The older writer is Maugham, the hack may or may not be Hugh Walpole. The famous writer may or may not be Thomas Hardy--Maugham denied it. I will say that I guessed it must be Hardy before I read the Wikipedia entry for which I was quite pleased with myself. I had no idea it might be Walpole but that sort of proves the point. Also singled out for mention by name in the book is the real life person of Evelyn Waugh:
"A little while ago I read in the Evening Standard an article by Mr. Evelyn Waugh in the course of which he remarked that to write novels in the first person was a contemptible practice. I wish he had explained why, but he merely threw out the statement ... I read The Craft of Fiction by Mr. Percy Lubbock from which I learned that the only way to write novels was like Henry James; after that I read Aspects of the Novel by Mr. E.M. Forster, from which I learned that the only way to write novels was like Mr. E.M. Forster... As we grow older we become more conscious of the complexity, incoherence, and unreasonableness of human beings; this indeed is the only excuse that offers for the middle-aged or elderly writer, whose thoughts should more properly be turned to graver matters, occupying himself with the trivial concerns of imaginary people. For if the proper study of mankind is man it is evidently more sensible to occupy yourself with the coherent, substantial, and significant creatures of fiction than with the irrational and shadowy figures of real life."
I looked this up. The book came out in 1930. Maugham would have been 55 and Waugh 26. Waugh's satiric novel, "Vile Bodies," would have just come out, and he would have probably been compared to Maugham for it. (Because everything I do or see is connected, "Vile Bodies" was recently filmed as "Bright Young Things," directed by Stephen Fry (see below) and featuring James McAvoy of "Atonement" (see further below)). In 1945, when Waugh was just entering his 40's he wrote "Brideshead Revisited," and had apparently revised his earlier thoughts as it is in the first person! One other bit of trivia I found fascinating was the narrator's observation of a young man's beauty--odd in a novel 0f 1930 even by a man who was avowedly bisexual. It was still illeagal in Britain.

Moving on. The story is primarily about the narrator's experience as a young man with the first wife. She was common and slept with many men, but unlike the women below who seem surprised to find themselves in bed with men, she seems to feel it's merely a natural extension. I make you a good dinner, we have good conversation and then we go to bed, and there are no more consequences tomorrow than from the dinner or conversation--it's what I have to give. This too is alien to me--though there have been times in my life when I wish it were more in my nature. Notes on the novel compare Rosie with Molly Bloom of Joyce's "Ulysses" which I have not yet read. Forces of nature--earth motherish. And yet, I question whether these women can exist--or whether sex will always be a little bit more of a hang-up for most women than for men. That somehow there is a sorrow in the going to bed, a loss, no matter whether it is desired or enjoyed. These women are written by men, and the other kind--the ones who have the low self-esteem afterwards are written by women. But is it only because society teaches girls that an "easy" woman shouldn't be proud that they feel themselves soiled. If McCarthy and Janowitz liked themselves better or were writing novels in which the woman is not being punished, woud they write women more comfortable with their own sexuality? And yet, even Maugham says that these are not women who inspire love, but only great fondness. What good is that, then? I was never big on women's studies in college, but reading these all in a row seems to really open the door to the question. I don't think that I've really ever met a woman that comfortable with sex. Some have said they were, but the scars were visible. Most earth mothers I've met have been quite monogamous.

Undoubtedly, Maugham is a little in love with his earth mother--certainly more than the second wife who makes the house look, "exactly like the house of a writer should look." I believe this is a not so subtle jab at his own society wife, Syrie, whom he had just divorced. There is also a pointed description of a patron of literature who can make or break a writer but if the writer should disappoint is more than vicious in her own sense of personal betrayal (I thought fleetingly of Oprah here).

At any rate it's a brilliant book full of both humorous satire:

"The Americans, who are the most efficent people on the earth, have carried this device to such a height of perfection and have invented so wide a range of pithy and hackneyed phrases that they can carry on an amusing and animated converstion without giving a moement's reflection to what they are saying and so leave thier minds free to consider the more important matters of big business and fornication."

And within the satire a piece of agonizing honesty:

"It must be that there is something naturally absurd in a sincere emotion, though why there should be I cannot imagine, unless it is that man, the ephemeral inhabitant of a an insignificant planet, with all his pain and all his striving is but a jest in an eternal mind."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Driving in Boston

Inching along in a log jam of traffic yesterday on the Mass Pike I watched an Audi a few cars in front of me weave in and out of traffic determined to find the lane that was "moving" and yet for the whole half an hour that we sat there he ended up still only a few cars ahead of me. Sure there were times his lane pulled ahead, but then mine would catch up and he would switch back. The only thing he accomplished was to make the line that much slower. There was a great article that a friend sent me years ago on the physics of traffic and it has been determined that weaving in and out of tight traffic will really gain you nothing and in fact cause the very blockages that you believe you are defying. (Sidenote--an unfortunately side effect of so much of interest on the internet is that it is impossible to store all of the articles that interest you over the years in the vague belief that you will someday want to reference them to others) The article also pointed out that if all d…

The end of Cloud Atlas

Feel I must write this--promised it to myself, can I finish before midnight (when I said I would go to bed at 11)?

Where was I?

Oh, yes, section 5, where it gets interesting--because it's the future, at least 25 years, hopefully more. I say hopefully, because I don't want to be living in this future. The section is called "An Orison of Sonmi-451." An Orison (I had to look it up, proving I don't remember my Shakespeare) is a prayer, but in this future world where language has taken as many turns as in Orwell's 1984, it is more a confession or final statement. Sonmi-451 is a clone (as the name might suggest). The section is not entirely original. It owes much to Brave New World and Phillip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (made into the film Bladerunner). I find it interesting that 40 or so years ago--when Dick wrote his book he believed that future slaves would be Androids, replicants. Now we are much more likely to presume they will be clones,…

Capote

I love his writing. I always have. I found the writing before I knew anything about the strange, tortured man and I'm glad, because the writing has become subsumed to the image. The writing is exquisite and never cliched and full of all the pain that is living. Poor, lonely, needy Tru.

The movie is good, Hoffman's performance is breathtaking. I understand--I don't necessarily forgive--when he sells out the killers, sells out himself, would sell out his best friend to get that laugh at a party, to make life ironic and light when he knew that it wasn't. Grabbing that moment of adulation in a crowd rather than anything lasting--tomorrow may never come, after all. And you know he knows it's a lie too. He sold out Perry Smith, and yes, Perry was a dangerous and disturbed man who had murdered a family almost because they were there, but Truman played him to get that story, and lied and played with another human being's feelings and life to write the book. And what a b…