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

Use this topic thread for all Sodom and Gomorrah discussions through page 568 / location 36220.

As it was only twenty pages to the end of Chapter Two I just had to finish it instead of leaving it until next week, and what a great little scenario we get:

Mme Verdurin asked him: "Did you have some of my orangeade?" Whereupon M. de Charlus, with a gracious smile, in a crystalline tone which he rarely adopted, and with endless simperings and wrigglings of the hips, replied: "No, I preferred its neighbour, which is strawberry-juice, I think. It's delicious."

I keep trying to imagine exactly what Charlus looked and sounded like when he says those words, especially as the narrator says that from those words one can conclude that 'he likes the stronger sex".

Mme Verdurin really tries to put the narrator off going to see the Cambremers...it's full of bores...you won't sleep for a week. Then she tries to put him off going to Rivebelle (their pancakes can give you peritonitis, you know!) ...the woman's a bloody tyrant!

Jonathan wrote: "I keep trying to imagine exactly what Charlus looked and sounded like when he says those words, especially as the narrator says that from those words one can conclude that 'he likes the stronger sex". " I'd say he looks and sounds "obvious" which I interpret to mean he is contemptuous of what the Verdurin's and their little clan think of him. This is going to lead to trouble.

Dave wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I keep trying to imagine exactly what Charlus looked and sounded like when he says those words, especially as the narrator says that from those words one can conclude that 'he like..."

Oh I hope we get a clash between Charlus and Mme Verdurin...it's kind of hinted in the text that something happens in Paris...Proust loves giving little details of what's coming up.

The first skirmish between Charlus & Mme Verdurin:

"By the way, Charlus," said Mme Verdurin, who was beginning to grow familiar, "you don't know of any penniless old nobleman in your Faubourg who would come to me as a porter?" "Why yes...why, yes," replied M. de Charlus with a genial smile, "but I don't advise it." "Why not?" "I should be afraid for your sake that the more elegant visitors would go no further than the lodge."

I'm a bit unsure what's going on here. First of all, is Mme Verdurin deliberately trying to wind up Charlus? It seems odd that she would as she's trying to attract the aristocracy to her salon. And I don't really understand Charlus's putdown. Why would they go no further than the lodge? What is he implying? Or is he just saying that they wouldn't turn up?

I'm either missing something or trying to read too much into it.

Chapter 3 starts off well doesn't it? We get to hear about the charming antics of the squinting page's sister:

She never leaves a hotel without relieving herself in a wardrobe or a drawer, just to leave a keepsake with the chambermaid who'll have to clean up.

Please M. Proust, can we have more of the squinting page's family?...please!!

Charlus's letter to Aimé is bizarre but I thought the best bit was Proust's introduction to it where he says it's 'an example of unilateral insanity in an intelligent man addressing a sensible idiot.' Though I think it's a bit mean called Aimé a sensible idiot.

There's a revealing example of the narrator's self-analysis when he's riding in the car on his way to pick up Albertine. He says:

...it was my fate to pursue only phantoms, creatures whose reality existed to great extent in my imagination;

He then compares himself to Swann, that 'connoisseur of phantoms'.

After this week's reading I read a web article on ISOLT that gave away a big spoiler regarding Albertine...Doh! Oh, well...

Proust really likes to tease us with information...which is kind of fun. In this week's reading he says that the chauffeur knew Morel & Charlus and that if he'd known this at the time it would've prevented a lot of problems! I'm intrigued!

Jonathan wrote: "I'm a bit unsure what's going on here. First of all, is Mme Verdurin deliberately trying to wind up Charlus? It seems odd that she would as she's trying to attract the aristocracy to her salon. And I don't really understand Charlus's putdown. Why would they go no further than the lodge? What is he implying? Or is he just saying that they wouldn't turn up?"

I took it that Charlus meant that the nobleman would be so much more interesting than Mme. Verdurin that the more elegant visitors would rather talk to him instead of entering to visit her.

Jonathan wrote: "She never leaves a hotel without relieving herself in a wardrobe or a drawer, just to leave a keepsake with the chambermaid who'll have to clean up."

When I was reading this part in Portuguese, I was sure I was misunderstanding it or the translation was a bit poor, so I moved on with my reading to check on it later. Now that I read it in english, I know I got it right the first time. Oh, Proust!

Jonathan wrote: "Charlus's letter to Aimé is bizarre but I thought the best bit was Proust's introduction to it where he says it's 'an example of unilateral insanity in an intelligent man addressing a sensible idiot.' Though I think it's a bit mean called Aimé a sensible idiot."

His letter reminded me, of course, of that amazing scene we had earlier when the narrator finally pays a visit to Charlus and he makes a big crazy speech calling the narrator ungrateful etc etc for not accepting his 'proposal'. It may seem he's just dealing very poorly with rejection, but I think ultimately this is his way of trying to disguise the nature of his interests to the men he pursues. I wonder though how many of those men fall for that...

Also, while on this subject, apparently there were talks about Charlus and Jupien's relations?

“And even our old Françoise, whose sight was failing and who went past at that moment at the foot of the staircase to dine with the courriers, raised her head, recognised a servant where the hotel guests never suspected one—as the old nurse Euryclea recognises Ulysses long before the suitors seated at the banquet—and seeing, arm in arm with him, M. de Charlus, assumed an appalled expression, as though all of a sudden slanders which she had heard repeated and had not believed had acquired a heartrending probability in her eyes. She never spoke to me, nor to anyone else, of this incident, but it must have caused a considerable commotion in her brain, for afterwards, whenever in Paris she happened to see 'Julien,' to whom until then she had been so greatly attached, she still treated him with politeness, but with a politeness that had cooled and was always tempered with a strong dose of reserve.”

I found the quote below really interesting for the point he makes...

“Like an officer of my regiment who might have seemed to me a creature apart, too kindly and simple to be of a great family, too remote already and mysterious to be simply of a great family, and of whom I was afterwards to learn that he was the brother-in-law, the cousin of people with whom I was dining, so Beaumont, suddenly brought in contact with places from which I supposed it to be so distinct, lost its mystery and took its place in the district, making me think with terror that Madame Bovary and the Sanseverina might perhaps have seemed to me to be like ordinary people, had I met them elsewhere than in the close atmosphere of a novel.”

...and for its first six words. "Like an officer of my regiment" - what? Our narrator has been in the military? Or is this Proust showing up? A glitch in editing, perhaps?

Jonathan wrote: "The first skirmish between Charlus & Mme Verdurin:"By the way, Charlus," said Mme Verdurin, who was beginning to grow familiar, "you don't know of any penniless old nobleman in your Faubourg who wo..."

I had forgotten about this scene and have been puzzling over it as well. I believe I have a solution. I did a word search in my ebook of S&G for "lodge" and found two previous uses. In each case it was used as "porter's lodge" which from its use is like a gatehouse. Mme Verdurin is asking for "ruined noblemen" to be porters and Charlus seems to be implying that elegant visitors would not stoop be admited to the Verdurin's by a nobleman with whom they no longer associated. It may be a slightly different veiled joke at Mme Verdurin's expense. But Mme Verdurin does not seem to "get it" which I think is what Proust wants the reader to understand.

How did you guys interpret the bolded part below?

“Of phantoms pursued, forgotten, sought afresh sometimes for a single meeting and in order to establish contact with an unreal life which at once escaped, these Balbec roads were full. When I thought that their trees, pear trees, apple trees, tamarisks, would outlive me, I seemed to receive from them the warning to set myself to work at last, before the hour should strike of rest everlasting.”

What work? Could it be a reference to ISOLT itself?

“At least, in these awakenings which I have just described, and which I experienced as a rule when I had been dining overnight at la Raspelière, everything occurred as though by this process, and I can testify to it, I the strange human being who, while he waits for death to release him, lives behind closed shutters, knows nothing of the world, sits motionless as an owl, and like that bird begins to see things a little plainly only when darkness falls.”

It's like he's describing himself writing ISOLT...

He's talked about sleeping, dreaming and waking up confused and/or lost before, but in this week's section it had such a bleak tone to it... it felt darker than the other times he's mentioned those themes.

Renato wrote: "I found the quote below really interesting for the point he makes...


“Like an officer of my regiment who might have seemed to me a creature apart, too kindly and simple to be of a great family,..."

I searched the entire Modern Library electronic text of ISOLT for the phrase "my regiment". It only appears twice, as you cited in S&G and in TR in a quote from Saint Loup. I would be hesitant to say it is a typo because time gaps in the narrative are imprecise and time in Service is possible outside the narrated portion. Sometimes significant info is mentioned in passing only once. However, its not a spoiler to say there is no other significance to this "Service" in the book so I would see it is at most only a curiosity.

Renato wrote: "How did you guys interpret the bolded part below?


“Of phantoms pursued, forgotten, sought afresh sometimes for a single meeting and in order to establish contact with an unreal life which at on..."

Throughout the book the narrator aspires to be a writer, I believe the thought of the trees and their longevity give him a "panic attack." Is it a reference to ISOLT? According to the outside reading I have done, no. I thought so too in places like this. But critical assessments repeatedly insist that Proust never interjects himself into the work and the book to be written is not ISOLT. Even when the "author" speaks to the reader directly, that is not Proust "speaking." To go beyond this would involve explaining the ending.

Renato wrote: "
“At least, in these awakenings which I have just described, and which I experienced as a rule when I had been dining overnight at la Raspelière, everything occurred as though by this process, an..."

Nope, see my response above.

Thanks for the info, Dave!

Even though it's not a direct reference to ISOLT, we can see how the narrator (like Proust) wishes to leave something - his book, his work - when he's gone so he won't be just another phantom and part of him will still be there with the pear trees, apple trees...

Dave wrote: "Nope, see my response above."

I understand it's not a direct reference, but it's undeniably similar to the situations Proust was living in when writing his novel.

Renato wrote: "Dave wrote: "Nope, see my response above."

I understand it's not a direct reference, but it's undeniably similar to the situations Proust was living in when writing his novel."

I'm trying to discreetly discourage you from this line of thought Renato without spoiling the book.

Yes, please don't spoil the book. I'd rather interpret it all wrong and be surprised in the end! I think it's part of the process any 'innocent' reader must go through to fully experience ISOLT.

With that said, I was not insisting Proust was referencing directly ISOLT; I took your word for it.

In the first quote I shared, I did think that he was talking about ISOLT; but in the second one I commented "It's like he's describing...", but I didn't take it as a direct reference, I just noticed the similarity - just like Proust himself fought on duels and it so happens the narrator also did, the scenario the narrator painted of living in a dark room, removed from the outside world and only functioning well at night was also similar to Proust's real life in the years he was writing the novel.

I just realized though that it may be difficult to comment and discuss the book having already finished it and seeing it entirely from a different perspective!

Renato wrote: "Yes, please don't spoil the book. I'd rather interpret it all wrong and be surprised in the end! I think it's part of the process any 'innocent' reader must go through to fully experience ISOLT.

W..."

The passages you cite Renato are quite intriguing. If we have the opportunity to come back to them you may see another interpretation. I held the same opinions all the way through the book. In fact, when you get to my comments in subsequent volumes you will see I get increasingly off track in my understanding of several aspects of the book. Your right, speculating about what's going on is part of the fun of reading.

Thanks re the Verdurin v Charlus episode. Charlus's response makes more sense now. But do you think Mme Verdurin was being deliberately confrontational or just didn't realise that she was saying something that Charlus would find offensive? It's just difficult to think that her suggestion that Charlus should find a 'penniless old nobleman' to work as her porter as anything but offensive...but why does she want to offend Charlus? After all, she wants him to attend, as well as Morel, and she'd probably like him to bring along more aristocrats.

I wonder though, is it significant that just after this she discovers that Charlus is the Duc de Guermantes's brother? Maybe she just didn't realise who Charlus is?

Jonathan wrote: "Thanks re the Verdurin v Charlus episode. Charlus's response makes more sense now. But do you think Mme Verdurin was being deliberately confrontational or just didn't realise that she was saying so..."

I think Mme Verdurin is trying to control and dominate Charlus as she does the other members of her clan. Yes, strangely enough she did not know his relationship with the Duc. For his part Charlus is tolerating the Verdurin clan because it gives him a place to go with Morel where he is invisible to his aristocratic friends. The Mme. Verdurin/Charlus/Morel dynamic is a major subplot in the weeks ahead. I found it one of the best parts of the entire book.

In rereading Swan's Way I had forgotten that the Swan in Love section starts off with the Verdurin's and Proust develops their character's first and adds Cottard in developing the clan before he brings in Odette.

Renato wrote: "Also, while on this subject, apparently there were talks about Charlus and Jupien's relations?

“And even our old Françoise, whose sight was failing and who went past at that moment at the foot of the staircase to dine with the courriers, raised her head..."

I must admit this was a little confusing as well. In the bit before this the narrator is discussing Charlus walking through the hotel lobby with a rather foppish footman of a cousin of the Cambremers; to the guests he appears like a gentleman but the servants all recognise a fellow servant. I thought that Françoise's disapproval was over the fact that the footman was parading about as a gentleman rather than him being homosexual. But then the mention of Julien/Jupien threw me. Did you take Françoise's disapproval to be her recognising that they were homosexuals?

Renato wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Charlus's letter to Aimé is bizarre but I thought the best bit was Proust's introduction to it where he says it's 'an example of unilateral insanity in an intelligent man addressin..."

Jonathan wrote: "Also, while on this subject, apparently there were talks about Charlus and Jupien's relations?" I interpreted this section as the servants instinctively recognized other servants (something like "gaydar" that Proust addresses by some other name elsewhere). When Francois sees Charlus in the dining room she senses that the man with him is a servant, not his equal. She has heard of Charlus' reputation but did not realize he "dated" servant's. Then she remember seeing Charlus regularly with Jupien at the house in Paris and puts 2 and 2 together. Often with Proust I find myself having to "connect the dots" in how characters form opinions and jump to conclusions. In the Captive it becomes quite complex keeping track of who knows what about whom and separating the basis of such knowledge: speculation, rumor, hearsay, misinterpretation of sights and sounds etc.

With regard to the story of Charlus having dinner with the servant at the Grand Hotel (which leads to the letter) I found it interesting that this was narrated in the third person and the narrator had no direct knowledge of the facts - the only place in the book other than Swan in Love which third person narration is used.

Also found it interesting that Aime occasionally stayed with women and men at the Grand Hotel to suppliment his family's income.

There's certainly a lot of info in this week's reading. I think I'll continue my method of re-reading the previous week's reading (or part of it) before continuing to the next week's - I usually find more detail emerges when I do that and I can skip any bits where I don't feel the need to re-read.

I really feel that the novel has come alive with this volume; hopefully that continues with the next ones. :-)

Jonathan wrote: "There's certainly a lot of info in this week's reading. I think I'll continue my method of re-reading the previous week's reading (or part of it) before continuing to the next week's - I usually fi..."

Jonathan wrote "I really feel that the novel has come alive with this volume; hopefully that continues with the next ones. :-) " I share your opinion Jonathan. S & G is my favorite volume. I would be less than honest though if I did not say that the next two volumes were the hardest to get through for me. The first third of the Captive I found tedious and about 2/3rds of The Fugitive was grueling. There are only two social scenes remaining - one in the Captive and one in Time Regained. In the Fugitive I was begging for a social scene but Proust was merciless - providing lengthy interior monolgues.

Dave wrote: "The passages you cite Renato are quite intriguing. If we have the opportunity to come back to them you may see another interpretation. I held the same opinions all the way through the book. In fact, when you get to my comments in subsequent volumes you will see I get increasingly off track in my understanding of several aspects of the book. Your right, speculating about what's going on is part of the fun of reading."

I'm strongly considering a re-reading because of your comment that you feel there are two novels in ISOLT, and how after you understood the ending your interpretation changed. I can't wait to finally get there!

Jonathan wrote: "Did you take Françoise's disapproval to be her recognising that they were homosexuals? ."

Yes. I think Dave summed up it perfectly! Francoise ended up putting 2 and 2 together and got it.

Charlus' character is so layered and well developed. It really amazes me when he appears and I find myself constantly reading about him with a smile on my face. Also, he's so difficult to analyze: he's afraid that his 'secret' might get out, but at the same time he pursues men actively - even though there are rumors about him out there. One would think he would try to lay low... I wish some Brazilian friend was also reading Proust so we could discuss Charlus over some beers! :)

Dave wrote: " There are only two social scenes remaining - one in the Captive and one in Time Regained. In the Fugitive I was begging for a social scene but Proust was merciless - providing lengthy interior monolgues."

I don't mind lengthy interior monologues as long as they are about: a) sleeping and dreaming; b) jealousy; c) death.

I remember you said, Dave (or was it Stephen) that there's plenty of jealousy to come, so I'm all for that as I find it to be such a complex and interesting feeling.

Renato wrote: "
“At least, in these awakenings which I have just described, and which I experienced as a rule when I had been dining overnight at la Raspelière, everything occurred as though by this process, an..."

I've just started re-reading the beginning of chapter 3 and this bit (the part you highlighted in bold) jumped out at me this time...it didn't on my first reading. It does feel like Proust rather than the narrator doesn't it.

It does! Although Dave pointed out that it wasn't Proust directly inserting himself on the novel in any way, that it's only the narrator, it feels similar to the situation Proust was in.

Renato wrote: "It does! Although Dave pointed out that it wasn't Proust directly inserting himself on the novel in any way, that it's only the narrator, it feels similar to the situation Proust was in."

As I continue to read outside sources I came across an interesting observation that seems relevant to these moments. In his writing Proust is actively seeking to convey uncertainty - uncertainty in the narrator on things like the true nature of other characters and events, and uncertainty on the part of readers about a great deal; when events occur, what is "true" and "untrue" in dialogue and narration for instance. These are not mysteries to be solved but a philisophical perspective to be understood. In his journals at the beginning of writing ISOLT he couldn't decide whether to write a philisophical treatise or a novel - he ended up writing both. In a letter to someone years later he wrote "the novel form most closely resembles what I have written."

Jonathan, you mentioned at some point you were reading the Penguin translation but switched. Why did you switch? I was looking at the first four volumes of the American Edition of those translations. Each has a very good Introduction which, from a translator's perspectives mention all sorts of small inconsistencies etc. in the text. Unfortunately, the last three volumes don't seem to have been published in the US yet. I looked on Amazon UK site but the Volumes aren't available in electronic form soI can't tell whether the last three have similar Introductions.

Hi Dave. Well I started off reading the MKE version (Vintage inUK but it's the same as the ModLib in US) but then I got curious and started looking at the Penguin version of vol 2. Perversely what made me look at it was that a lot of people dismissed it. Anyway, I thought it read really well and decided to switch to the Penguin version which I continued with vol 3. The big drawback for me is the way they handle dialogue; they follow Proust's 'system' but I think I prefer the way MKE sorts it out to a more standard format. I finally gave up with S&G as I thought the translation was terrible (in places) to MKE and there were typos etc so I switched back to MKE. Penguin has good intros and a lot of notes so I now read a bought MKE on kindle and get the Penguin version from library to compare if needed as sometimes it's nice to compare them. I added some of this on the 'translations' thread if you're interested.

Jonathan wrote: "Hi Dave. Well I started off reading the MKE version (Vintage inUK but it's the same as the ModLib in US) but then I got curious and started looking at the Penguin version of vol 2. Perversely what ..."

Thanks for the detailed reply Jonathan. I've only downloaded the electronic sample of the first four volumes. I do enjoy the introductions. I do wonder at having a different person translate each volume. I already own the MKE in electronic form but I'll probably buy the penguin volumes eventually. In rereading Swann's Way I'm not using the Audiobook much because I reread sections and sentences frequently.