Reading Proust's In Search of Lost Time in 2014 discussion

Now the narrator is at Balbec he can get down to what he does best: describing and analysing a whole load of new (and old) characters and describing his ailments and phobias.

It kicks off with the furniture in this new, unknown hotel room conspiring against him:

it was crammed with things which did not know me, noting my existence only to the extent of letting me know they resented me for disturbing theirs.

He says it's the perfect place to be assassinated in or as a tourist attraction - but not to go to sleep. Ha! Ha! I really like this form of self-deprecating humour. I wonder if Proust was just as bad as this or whether he really is exaggerating his own foibles. When I finish ISOLT I intend to read a biography to find out just how much the narrator's life coincides with Proust's.

Proust loves showing us characters in certain situations or from a limited viewpoint and then enlarging on them - this very often changes our whole perception of that person. This, I feel, is a very natural description of how we come to learn about people; we see a single aspect of a person and then find out more about them; so we get layer upon layer upon layer until we have a three-dimensional portrait of them; though it's never complete.

A great example is the narrator's grandmother, who has, until now, come across as a rather fierce woman who loves sending the narrator out in all weathers. We now get a more tender portrait of her in her relationship with the narrator. She still believes in long walks, fresh air etc., but she also sympathises with the narrator's ailments and genuinely loves him.

Mind you the relationship between the narrator and his grandmother, as with the relationship with his mother, seems more akin to that of a five year old rather than a sixteen year old but that's another thing.

So now we get a whole new set of characters; the main one at this stage is Mme Villeparisis, but we are also introduced to a few other visiting provincials and their wives as well as the waiter, Aimé (I hope he appears more often as his story would be interesting I feel).

But I'm intrigued by the Frenchman who claims that he's a king of an island in the South Seas. Is he based on anyone in particular? We're only getting glimpses of him and his mistress at the moment so he's coming across as a bit of an eccentric. Of course, the others don't approve of him: 'Well, I never! The things you hear...The people one meets nowadays!'

I love the comparison of the restaurant with an aquarium when lit up at night (p259 Penguin, est. p357 ML): the oiks and even the middle-classes with their noses pressed up against the windows gawping in at their 'betters'. The narrator even questions whether this will last, or whether those outside will break in! Socialism!?

Is Proust the 'fancier of human ichthyology' mentioned?

So Mme Villeparisis becomes prominent in this section. As it's revealed that the narrator's grandmother knows her the narrator is eager to make contact with her as he (as always) wants to know all these people and be seen to know them. As his grandmother doesn't want to get involved with all these people on holiday we get that situation that we're all probably familiar with where we consciously don't recognise someone to avoid them. I loved the quote after they've passed each other by:

As she walked away, I stood there as forlorn as a shipwrecked mariner who has watched the approach of a vessel, which then sails on its way without rescuing him.

Of course, they do meet up and end up being great company for each other.

Mme Villeparisis knows a lot about what the narrator's father's is currently up to - she knows even more than the narrator's mother it seems.

It's fun hearing all the wives of the other hotel guests bitch away about the Princess of Luxembourg. The narrator explains that the nobility often looked like debauchees and reprobates to the moral middle class.

Jonathan wrote: "I really like this form of self-deprecating humour."

I loved the line about his trying to make small talk with the elevator attendant. His sense of sarcasm really comes across: "But he vouchsafed no answer, whether from astonishment at my words, preoccupation with what he was doing, regard for convention, hardness of hearing, respect for holy ground, fear of danger, slowness of understanding, or by the manager's orders."

Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I really like this form of self-deprecating humour."

I loved the line about his trying to make small talk with the elevator attendant. His sense of sarcasm really comes across: ..."

Yeah, I love that quote as well. It was probably for all of those reasons that the lift-boy didn't reply. :-) I guess it was the narrator's first ride in a lift.

There are a few of these little scenarios or sketches in Vol. 2 that just bubble up then disappear. Great stuff!

Jonathan wrote: "Mind you the relationship between the narrator and his grandmother, as with the relationship with his mother, seems more akin to that of a five year old rather than a sixteen year old but that's another thing."

Oh. My. God. I'm reading the part about his knocking on the wall to get his grandmother's attention. I am really having a tough time understanding this relationship. My two oldest boys are now 19 & 22, and I can tell you that neither of them would tolerate 'Granny' helping to undress them, nor would they lovingly caress her grey hair - whether in a feverish stupor or not. It just wouldn't happen. LOL!

Given that it was published not long after WWI and what with the crap that a lot of people had been through, I sometimes wonder what they made of these tales of the narrator weeping over not getting his goodnight kiss from his grandmother.

I was telling my 21-year-old son about how weepy the narrator was, and how I'd never write about such things, and he said: "Why not?" And I started to come to grips with the dishonesty in much of what I write and say, the things I hide, the way I sprinkle in just enough of the embarrassing stuff to make it credible. Humbling moment. Then again (and I'm ahead of this group, about halfway through Sodome et Gomorrh) Proust himself attempts to hide a few important secrets of his life.

Stephen wrote: "I was telling my 21-year-old son about how weepy the narrator was, and how I'd never write about such things, and he said: "Why not?" And I started to come to grips with the dishonesty in much of w..."

Yes, full marks for Proust for writing about such intimate things, especially when the majority of the readers would find it all a bit odd - I assume that Proust knew this would be the case.

Jonathan, funny though that he's so open about stuff that many of us would keep quiet about, and yet goes to great lengths to closet his sexuality. That was certainly the norm for his time, but most of the other closeted writers weren't so open and discursive about everything else. I'm in the fourth volume now, where sexuality is center stage, and even if I didn't know anything about Proust's life, I'd probably be assuming that a writer as focused on that societal taboo was likely drawn to it himself. I read--I think in Edmond White's slim biography of him--that gay writer confronted Proust about his negative treatment of gays in his book. And Proust told him that most of the women the narrator falls for are based on men. So those relationships consumed the love, and all that was left for the gay characters was guilt, puzzlement and amateur pathology.

Wait... Proust was gay? I would never have guessed that. LOL!

Stephen wrote: "I was telling my 21-year-old son about how weepy the narrator was, and how I'd never write about such things, and he said: "Why not?" And I started to come to grips with the dishonesty in much of w..."

Ant that's precisely what makes Proust such a great author: his ability to analyse human emotions (starting with his own) and to write about them in all honesty is such that every reader can recognize his own and feel "that's exactly it! how is it that I could never put it into words?" Truth is what makes the difference between remarkable and lasting literature and mediocre writing.

Andree wrote: "Truth is what makes the difference between remarkable and lasting literature and mediocre writing."

Well said, Andree!

Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "Wait... Proust was gay? I would never have guessed that. LOL!"

Yeah, I know, it's a bit of a shock isn't it? :-)

Stephen wrote: "Jonathan, funny though that he's so open about stuff that many of us would keep quiet about, and yet goes to great lengths to closet his sexuality. That was certainly the norm for his time, but mos..."

Up to now I've more or less avoided reading too much about Proust's life and I've been trying to avoid reading any biographical material as I just wanted to read the novel on its own merits. But I'm starting to wonder whether it might be a good idea to read a bit more about him whilst I'm reading the novel and not leave it till afterwards....possibly.

I suppose he couldn't be open about his homosexuality in his books during the period even if he'd wanted to be. It seems quite obvious to a modern reader that he has homosexual tendencies but I wonder if it would have been clear to contemporary readers.

Jonathan wrote: "It seems quite obvious to a modern reader that he has homosexual tendencies but I wonder if it would have been clear to contemporary readers."

What a great thought! I'm not sure of the answer, and apparently it's an ongoing debate. After taking a quick peek at Wikipedia:

There is much debate as to how great a bearing Proust's sexuality has on understanding these aspects of the novel. Although many of Proust's close family and friends suspected that he was homosexual, Proust never admitted this. It was only after his death that André Gide, in his publication of correspondence with Proust, made public Proust's homosexuality. In response to Gide's criticism that he hid his actual sexuality within his novel, Proust told Gide that "one can say anything so long as one does not say 'I'."

Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "There is much debate as to how great a bearing Proust's sexuality has on understanding these aspects of the novel..."

Even if most of his contemporary readers wouldn't have picked up on any homosexual references, I wonder if other homosexuals would have?

Jonathan wrote: "Sunny in Wonderland wrote: "There is much debate as to how great a bearing Proust's sexuality has on understanding these aspects of the novel..."

Even if most of his contemporary readers wouldn't ..."

By the time one gets to "Sodome et Gomorrhe", no possible doubt can be left in the mind of the reader, whether or not he/she is homosexual.
However, the first time I read it I was very young and had no idea what he could possibly be talking about...

Andree wrote: "By the time one gets to "Sodome et Gomorrhe", no possible doubt can be left in the mind of the reader, whether or not he/she is homosexual...."

I'll look forward to reading Vol 4 then in July...

Jonathan wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Jonathan, funny though that he's so open about stuff that many of us would keep quiet about, and yet goes to great lengths to closet his sexuality. That was certainly the norm for h..."

I too have avoided the big biographies, but Edmond White's is only about 100 pages and didn't distract much. It focused quite a bit on sexual issues. Another book that I've bought to accompany this journey is called Paintings in Proust, by Eric Karpeles. It's a nice side dish.

I've got the 'Paintings in Proust' book as well; I managed to get it out from the library and no-one else has requested it yet so I'm hanging on to it as long as possible.

I've started dipping into the Patrick Alexander book but there are a lot of spoilers - I think he's assuming that the reader has already read ISOLT.

Andree wrote: "By the time one gets to "Sodome et Gomorrhe", no possible doubt can be left in the mind of the reader, whether or not he/she is homosexual."

Well, that ought to be interesting! :) Looking forward to it.

Stephen wrote: "Another book that I've bought to accompany this journey is called Paintings in Proust, by Eric Karpeles. It's a nice side dish."

I've heard a lot of good things about this book. Can you tell me a little more about it? Whenever a piece of artwork or a book is mentioned, I've been googling to help me get a better understanding of what I'm reading about. Does PiP list everything in the same order as they appear in ISoLT?

Jonathan wrote: "I'll look forward to reading Vol 4 then in July..."

There should be a "like" button for comments. :)

re: Paintings in Proust

As the paintings or the artists are mentioned in the text the book provides a reproduction together with the relevant text.

It's particularly useful when Proust doesn't explicitly state a particular painting. I've noticed though if Proust is a bit too vague then there are no suggestions to what he might be referring to.

I have a question about the relationship between Mme Villeparisis and the narrator's grandmother. I thought we read that they grew up together or they were childhood friends. But, while they are out on a drive, we learn that there were similar building structures in Mme V's hometown, so it wasn't unheard of that she knew a lot about that type of architecture. But, why doesn't grandmother have a similar knowledge base if they grew up in the same town? What have I missed here? Did I make a bad assumption somewhere?

They were schoolmates, even though one was noble and the other bourgeois. Maybe the "hometown" Mme V is referring to is the village of Villeparisis, where she lived for a time with her commoner husband.

Thanks, Stephen!

Jonathan wrote: "It's fun hearing all the wives of the other hotel guests bitch away about the Princess of Luxembourg. The narrator explains that the nobility often looked like debauchees and reprobates to the mora..."

HAHAHA! Yes! And the noble men appeared to be drunkards, and in fact, usually were individually. LOL! Proust cracks me up sometimes!