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

Use this topic thread for all The Captive discussions through the end of the book.

Again, I'll place my thoughts and comments on "The Captive" in the "Finish" week of this volumes with the warning of SPOILERS. I have quite a bit to comment on.

Ironically, I liked this volume because it evoked from me strong negative emotions. I was very upset by what happened at the Verduran's social event to Charlus. And I felt very hostile toward the narrator by the end of this volume. Whether or not my responses were typical, I credit Proust for brilliance in writing in a way that drew me in and evoked such powerful emotions. In my opinion the mark of poor writing is an indifferent response from the reader.

I enjoyed discovering the structure of the volume, the one long day in the middle with a single social event in the middle of that day. The previous volumes had two social events (at least the previous two volumes). I need to think about this.

- I was very impressed with the psychological realism of the "argument" between the narrator and Albertine. Specifically, the narrator's rage that Albertine was lying to him when with every thought he is calculating how to lie to her and with almost every line of dialogue he did lie to her. Disliking others because they reflect our own behavior or characteristics is widely recognized psychologically now and is something I have observed many times (in myself and others).

- So who is the Captive? For most of the volume I was convinced it was the narrator, captive of his own obsession. But by the end I had identified some other captives: Charlus- captive to his love of Charlie's, Charlie - captive to his musical ambition, first with Charlus, then with Madame Verduran. MMe. Verduran, captive to her concern for social promonence. M. Verduran, captive to his own meekness? to his wife, the little band - captive to their sense of social identity. These may or may not be valid observations, but note that these observations maintain that persons are not held captive by other persons. Proust's lesson to me is that the chains of our captivity are forged in our mind. The only person I feel certain was never a captive was Albertine, She could leave anytime she wanted as she did in the end. Why she stayed as long as she did is not disclosed in this volume.

I was struck by the contrast between the narrator/Albertine's relationship and Charlus/Charlie's relationship. Since we have a 1st person narrator who shares his own thoughts, we have a lot of information on the narrator's thoughts and feelings (which may or may not be true) which we don't have on the other characters. Basically I believe Charlus fell in "conventional " love with Charlie and the narrator's love of Albertine was really a form of self-love. My observation of Charlus is mainly based on his devastation, both short and long-term, over the break with Charlie. My observation on the narrator's relationship is more complex than I could get into here. In both cases I believe their "love" was unrequited

I was interested in the long discussion between Brichot and Charlus of whether any of the reputed inverts in history or in society during their time had been "falsely accused." I saw a definite link to the Dreyfus case. This link continues the link between society's treatment of Jews and homosexuals which I have followed at least since the beginning of S &G.

I found Albertine's character to be inconsistent from her portrayal as a girl in Balbec I and to a lesser degree Balbec II. I attribute this to the fact that she is portrayed in this volume as the person the narrator wants her to be rather than who she really is - a much stronger person with her own "plan". At the same time I noted that everything the narrator concluded about Albertine's sexuality was based on rumor, hearsay, and speculation. The only thing that points potentially to her sexuality: Her own story of "having to dress like a man" due to some luggage issue (I believe) when she had the chauffeur drop her in some country town so he could take the car for personal business. If memory serves me, the narrator didn't pick up on this.

- Personally I am very decisive in decision-making. So I found the indecision of the narrator in the last section of the volume to be very frustrating. There at the end he was changing his mind multiple times per page - keep her, dump her, keep her, dump her. That finally drove me over the edge. The third or fourth time the narrator assured himself that she couldn't leave without his knowing I knew that was what was going to happen. But I didn't want Albertine to leave without a) kicking the narrator in the groin or b) (my personal preference) to opt for the Lorena Bobbitt option. I kept saying to the book as I read, " The knives are in the kitchen Albertine, the knives are in the kitchen dear." So congratulations M. Proust, you have really pissed me off! Where do we go from here?

Dave wrote: "- Personally I am very decisive in decision-making. So I found the indecision of the narrator in the last section of the volume to be very frustrating.
There at the end he was changing his mind multiple times per page - keep her, dump her, keep her, dump her."

Relished reading every post and your insights would incite vigorous debate in any of my reading groups.

"... keep her, dump her, keep her, dump her."

When you complete the book , watch Rubén Gallo's presentation at Columbia's Proust conference. He addresses Proust's "back and forth" decision-making style. Fascinating. (Probably SPOILERS!)
Rubén Gallo (Princeton): “Reading Proust from Latin America”
@32:24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCGYdw...

Thanks for another great reference Marcelita. It would be a treat to be in a live discussion group. I think I made myself clear, but just to reiterate - I'm really enjoying ISOLT, but sometimes it is the joy of a puppy shaking his favorite chewtoy while growling.

Dave wrote: "- So who is the Captive? For most of the volume I was convinced it was the narrator, captive of his own obsession. But by the end I had identified some other captives: Charlus- captive to his love..

"The only person I feel certain was never a captive was Albertine."

Yes, Dave, you have a crowd in your corner.
Albertine's character is so critical, it's important to understand another facet of her personality.

One of the best articles, given to me by Dr. Hollie Harder (Brandeis University), discusses the power shifts in the Albertine/Narrator relationship just prior to her flight.

"Desire on Ice:
The Menace of Albertine’s Mimicry in La Prisonnière"
By Stephen G. Brown

"In this paper, I develop the subversive elements of Albertine's discourse on the 'ices' while contesting Gray's assertion: if Albertine's discourse evidences the loss of Marcel's mastery over her, it leads to the recuperation of his authorial mastery by virtue of the suffering it inflicts on him." SGB
https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&...

Just to refresh your memory, here are some excepts of Proust's memorable passage:

"'Oh dear, at the Ritz I'm afraid you'll find Vendome Columns of ice, chocolate ice or raspberry, and then you'll need a lot of them so that they may look like votive pillars or pylons erected along an avenue to the glory of Coolness. They make raspberry obelisks too, which will rise up here and there in the burning desert of my thirst, and I shall make their pink granite crumble and melt deep down in my throat which they will refresh better than any oasis' (and here the deep laugh broke out, whether from satisfaction at talking so well, or in self-mockery for using such carefully contrived images, or alas, from physical pleasure at feeling inside herself something so good, so cool, which was tantamount to a sexual pleasure).
[...]
"'I can see quite clearly postillions, travellers, post-chaises over which my tongue sets to work to roll down freezing avalanches that will swallow them up' (the cruel delight with which she said this excited my jealousy); 'just as,' she went on, 'I set my lips to work to work to destroy, pillar by pillar, those Venetian churches of a porphyry that is made with strawberries, and send what’s left over crashing down upon the worshippers. Yes, all those monuments will pass from their stony state into my inside which throbs already with their coolness. But, you know, even without ices, nothing is so exciting or makes one so thirsty as the advertisements for thermal springs. At Montjouvain, at Mlle Vinteuil’s, there was no good confectioner who made ices...'" MP (The Captive)

Reading this for the first time, I was surprised that Albertine would "destroy" the narrator's beloved "Venetian churches," and then taunt him with "Montjouvain and Mlle Vinteuil."
This was a different Albertine.

I didn't pick up on this passage. I read the abstract of the paper you linked. I seem to have missed a "powershift" in the relationship referred to. I'll have to read up on that in the analysis when I've finished. I believe I understand what aspect of Albertine's personality this passage (and your remark) point to. But I'm almost half-way through The Fugitive so perhaps I have more to consider than I would have in this volume. I'll wait and comment in the next volume.

As a first time reader, the basis of my belief that she was never a captive was my observation that she was a lot stronger person than the narrator reported. Ironically he was paranoid about her deceiving him (and I felt she was deceiving him) but he never acted decisively to prove his speculation. Perhaps he really didn't want to know. He had lots of money, why not hire detectives to follow her instead of asking Andree (really bad choice) to accompany her and report back? Often the narrator would remark that he entertained friends and they never knew she was up in her room. Oh, really? If she stayed in her room when other people were in the house I just don't find it believable that she was "just following orders" more likely she had her own reasons (perhaps she was concerned about being recognized and linked to other people and places.) It remains to be read what her motives are (if they are disclosed). But I just never recall reading anything more than her "humoring" the narrator for what I assumed to be her own purposes. They both speak of "love" often. I have my own experiences with love to draw from and it is probably the most popular subject of storytelling in any form (even vampires fall in love these days). I see no semblance of love in this relationship, only self-serving manipulation to control each other.

Marcelita wrote: "Dave wrote: "
When you complete the book , watch Rubén Gallo's presentation at Columbia's Proust conference. He addresses Proust's "back and forth" decision-making style. Fascinating. (Probably SPOILERS!)"

Thank you for sharing that Marcelita. I was interested from several perspectives: Proust's decision-making style, his investment choices (I got my BA in Finance and have always made my own investment decisions), and Professor Gallo's Curriculum Vitae, my wife is from Mexico, we travel there often and I am fairly fluent in Spanish. The presentation was also funny.

I had a hard time understanding Professor McDonald who spoke first. She was talking I believe about a paper or book written by Samuel Beckett about Proust. What is the name of that reference?

Dave wrote: "- So who is the Captive? For most of the volume I was convinced it was the narrator, captive of his own obsession. But by the end I had identified some other captives: Charlus- captive to his love..."

It's interesting that you consider most of the other characters as captives, Dave; I'd never really thought of it like that.

I'm also not convinced that the narrator has the control over Albertine that he thinks he has. I suspect thought that the narrator just enjoys being jealous as a form of masochism; he seems to enjoy dwelling on all the ways that Albertine has deceived him. This then means that he can see himself as a victim and the prize is a rewarding kiss from his mother/Albertine to smooth things over and calm him down until the next time.

Although he's kept on saying something similar in the past few weeks, I think it was summarised in this week's reading with the sentence:

I felt that my life with Albertine was on the hand, when I was not jealous, nothing but boredom, and on the other hand, when I was jealous, nothing but pain.

Only I think he 'enjoys' the pain on some level.

I think that we've glimpsed more from Albertine's POV in this section, where the narrator has returned from the Verdurins, than we have in the rest of the novel. Sometimes I can't help but feel that Albertine is just 'holding out' or 'crashing' at the narrator's place, putting up with his crap like not opening windows, until she can move on to better things, but other times I wonder whether she is just hoping that he'll offer to marry her - either way, lying low seems to be a good move from her view.

Dave wrote: "Ironically he was paranoid about her deceiving him (and I felt she was deceiving him) but he never acted decisively to prove his speculation. Perhaps he really didn't want to know...."

I thought it was significant in the part when he was watching Albertine sleeping and he went to look through her pockets and drew back. I think he likes the 'tension' in their relationship, he likes the games, the doubt and in a way he's probably titillated by the fact that Albertine may enjoy being with other women. And he 'likes' being in this tense state. Then all the flip-flopping about whether to leave Albertine or not is really just a way of maintaining the tension. He states several times that he knows that Albertine will eventually leave him; I just don't think it's a decision that he can make himself.

At the beginning of this section the narrator addresses the reader:

My words, therefore, did not in the least reflect my feelings. If the reader has no more than a faint impression of these, that is because, as narrator, I expose my feelings to him at the same time as I repeat my words. But if I concealed the former and he were acquainted only with the latter, my actions, so little in keeping with them, would so often give him the impression of strange reversals that he would think me more or less mad. A procedure which would not, for that matter, be much more false than the one I adopted, for the images which prompted me to action, so opposed to those which were portrayed in my words, were at that moment extremely obscure; I was but imperfectly aware of the nature which guided my actions; today, I have a clear conception of its subjective truth. As for its objective truth, that is to say whether the intuitions of that nature grasped more exactly than my reason Albertine's true intentions, whether I was right to trust to that nature or whether on the contrary it did not alter Albertine's intentions instead of making them plain—that I find difficult to say.

This would seem to be a significant part of the book, but as always Proust is very slippery.

Dave wrote: "I enjoyed discovering the structure of the volume, the one long day in the middle with a single social event in the middle of that day. The previous volumes had two social events (at least the prev..."

I liked the structure of this one (as well as S&G), in fact one of the things I didn't like about GW was that it seemed to lack any structure.

The headings in the Penguin synopsis are quite helpful, I think:
-Life with Albertine: day one
-Day two
-Day three
-The Verdurins quarrel with M. de Charlus
-Albertine disappears
-Fourth sequence of days
-Last sequence of days

Though it's a bit misleading having the 'Albertine disappears' bit where it is as she leaves at the end of the book.

Jonathan wrote: "At the beginning of this section the narrator addresses the reader:My words, therefore, did not in the least reflect my feelings. If the reader has no more than a faint impression of these, that is..."

I'm not at my best today. Read the passage you quote three times and got lost in the middle. I agree - slippery. Perhaps it will make more sense when I'm more alert.

Dave wrote: "I'm not at my best today. Read the passage you quote three times and got lost in the middle. I agree - slippery. Perhaps it will make more sense when I'm more alert...."

It's not just me then :-) The first half I'm ok with - I was just going to quote that bit originally - but the second half I'm a bit unsure about. I'll have to read the Penguin version as well and see if it's any clearer.

Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "I enjoyed discovering the structure of the volume, the one long day in the middle with a single social event in the middle of that day. The previous volumes had two social events (at l..."

It is curious that they put her disappearance where they do. By my calculation day three lasted 60% of the volume with significant events before and after the Verdurin's. I figured that was in February and she left in April or May (Spring). Anyway, the details don't matter. I have read nothing to indicate the significance of these structure (but I have ordered a hard to find book (used) from Australia "Proust's Narrative Techniques". It may provide a clue.

As for GW, I've mentioned before, I really didn't "settle in" to reading the book until the last scene of GW so didn't start looking at things like structure until S&G. I'm pretty sure the other volumes have a structure and almost certainly the entire book has a megastructure. I just haven't gotten around to thinking about that. I have learned that SW has a fascinating structure that was totally lost on me. But we need to wait until we have all finished the read to discuss that.

Dave wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "I enjoyed discovering the structure of the volume, the one long day in the middle with a single social event in the middle of that day. The previous volumes had two so..."

I was a little confused with the sequence of events at the end of this one but am I correct in saying that when Albertine leaves it isn't the morning after the Verdurin/Charlus battle. I wasn't sure at first whether the 'sequence of days' was referring to events in the past or events succeeding the Verdurin soiree.

No, it was two or three months later. I highlighted indication of changes in time, date and location. There are phrases in the last pages like "one day..." that indicate the passage of time. Among other things they visit Versailles together on a "spring day". I mark the end of day three after the argument when he follows her to her bedroom and kisses her goodnight. Interesting now that I think of it, this is a mirror of the closing long day that traversed the end of GW and the first 25% of S&G. There he waited in bed after midnight for her to come kiss him goodnight. Here he comes to her after midnight of a long day to kiss her goodnight. That marked the middle of the novel, this perhaps marks the 3/4 point. Emotionally, it marks a major shift in their relationship. My memory is that 10 or 11% of the volume occurs after that. Sorry I can't provide page numbers.

Jonathan wrote: "I think that we've glimpsed more from Albertine's POV in this section, where the narrator has returned from the Verdurins, than we have in the rest of the novel. Sometimes I can't help but feel tha..."

Interesting that you make that observation, particularly your observation of the possibility of marriage. The comparison/contrast between their relationship and Swann/Odette is a major key to understanding the story. Although Swann is dead, this comparison continues to be brought to the reader's attention through the end of the novel and beyond. Through the third person narrative of the "Swann in Love" section and the five page continuation of that section in the middle of the Norpois dinner in Volume 2, the reader knows more about Swann and Odette than any other character except the Narrator. Relevant to your comment, we know that Odette schemed for perhaps two years to get Swann to marry her, which he eventually does for reasons that have nothing to do with love.

As I think about the Swann/Odette vs Narrator/Albertine comparison further it strikes me that our relatively complete understanding of Odette and her motives may be the most fruitful way to understand Albertine. The lives of Swann and the Narrator are in many aspects opposites (this will become clearer as you read further) - primarily in ways centering on this main relationship in their lives and how it affects their lives. It seems reasonable to consider Albertine as opposite of Odette in similar ways. Odette is a Courtesan and unabashed social climber. Albertine is vivacious and a "free spirit". She is indifferent to the trappings of wealth and society. She participates to accompany the narrator. This also will be developed in the next volume. Thinking along these lines, I discount the possibility of her scheming to marry the Narrator.

As a historical curiosity, the Narrator dangles an offer to buy Albertine a Rolls Royce or a yacht. I calculated the volume takes place in the Winter/Spring 1909. Rolls Royce was founded in March 1909.

Jonathan wrote: "At the beginning of this section the narrator addresses the reader:My words, therefore, did not in the least reflect my feelings. If the reader has no more than a faint impression of these, that is..."

Oh man! I get it! I get it! Unfortunately explaining would be a major spoiler. There are many passages like this that make no sense until you have finished and have a "second read" perspective, regardless of whether you read the whole book again.

As I've mentioned before, based on my own experience, don't expect to "get" the book when you finish TR. Its more complicated. I flailed around for several weeks trying to get a handle on understanding. I hope to make that process less painful for you folks by suggesting what to look at and consider.

I realize, like the Narrator, I keep offering additional comment in the future. I'm not keeping track of these offers. If there is interest in following up comments I guess we will have to screen the comments week by week since mid-July.

Dave wrote: "Marcelita wrote: "Dave wrote: "
When you complete the book , watch Rubén Gallo's presentation at Columbia's Proust conference. He addresses Proust's "back and forth" decision-making style. Fascinat..."

Wasn't Rubén lively? He was my favorite speaker...not only for the subject matter; you could feel his enthusiasm for Proust.

Not sure of the exact reference, as McDonald mentioned several, but she referred to "Proust" by Samuel Beckett.
Here is the title of her presentation:
Christie McDonald (Harvard): “Choices: Beckett’s Way”
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/french/Eve...

Dave....are you a mild-Renaissance man?

Thank you for the follow up Marcelita, you are such a blessing the the Proust Community.

I did enjoy the Gallo presentation, thank you. As for Beckett, I came across it later and made the connection the it was being referred to.

Several other of those presentations look interesting - The Cemetery and the Book for instance.

I am interested in the Rennaisance, I'm currently watching the lectures in the Great Courses History of Art in Western Civilization. The professor spends quite a few lectures in the rennaissance.

Have you read "Proust's Narrative Techniques" Marcelita? I'm really looking forward to receiving my copy. But it was only shipped from Australia a day or so ago so it will take three weeks or more to get to me.

Wow, you guys posted a lot of interesting things to think about. I think this may be my favorite discussion topic so far!

I'm very busy this week but will try to post my own thoughts and respond to your posts little by litle.

I have to say I am beginning to be excited at the prospect of you folks finishing the book so we can can consider all aspects of the novel without consideration of spoilers. At the same time, it occurs to me that the non- disclosure of spoilers may be more important to me than to you at this point. Based on my own experience, I'm really hoping you will experience the exhilaration that I felt when it all came together for me at some point after I finished reading. And I'm convinced such an experience depends on total surprise when Proust pulls the rabbit out of the hat after finishing.

Yes, it'd be great to discuss everything openly! I'm against spoilers... I don't mind a revelation here and there, of course, and I really like you pointing us to the right direction. But I'd like to be completely surprised as you were when you finished it!

I'm really thankful to both you and Marcelita for helping us with the book and enriching our reading experience.

Speaking of what we read this week, the narrator mentioned that Francoise found some papers were he annotated something about Swann and Odette's relationship. So I guess he wasn't really working on his book, but he made notes here and there in preparation... it also comes together with Jonathan's theory that Un Amour de Swann was a book written by the narrator. I remember you answered that, but I confess I don't remember what exactly, Dave. Sorry about it. Is it or is it not a book written by the narrator?

Also, I really enjoyed the thoughts you guys posted about the captive - or captives. I haven't thought about other characters's relationships, but I guess it really makes sense to consider them captives as well.


Dave wrote: "Proust's lesson to me is that the chains of our captivity are forged in our mind."

This is really good, Dave. And I totally agree with it.


As for Albertine not being a captive, I'm at odds about it. I do agree with Jonathan's observation that it seems the narrator didn't have as much power over her as he'd like to believe. But even so, she still stayed. She still lied. She still went out of her away to please him - even if she was to get something out of it (money? culture?).

Isn't that a form of becoming a captive? The fact that she finally ended up leaving doesn't mean that she was always free. Throughout the whole volume the narrator mentioned how Albertine was evolving as a person. Maybe that's precisely what she needed in order to finally get away from him: to realize that she could, that she no longer needed him. But until that point, I don't know... I think she was a captive, even if of her own reasons that explain why she stayed - which I guess we'll never know.

Last but not least, we're captives ourselves... trying to dissect every aspect of the book, trying to comprehend his words and secret intentions, catching ourselves thinking about it during work and planning to re-read it as we we're finished... we tasted it and we want more...

Dave wrote: "Ironically, I liked this volume because it evoked from me strong negative emotions. I was very upset by what happened at the Verduran's social event to Charlus. And I felt very hostile toward the narrator by the end of this volume. Whether or not my responses were typical, I credit Proust for brilliance in writing in a way that drew me in and evoked such powerful emotions. In my opinion the mark of poor writing is an indifferent response from the reader."

I really really enjoyed this volume. It ranks up there for me. But it can be that since the sensations I experienced while reading the first volumes are now asleep, I ended up thinking the last volume was the best one yet. I shall find out next year...

I was upset as well and I actually felt very bad for Charlus, even knowing he isn't really a better person that the Verdurins. Like I mentioned last well, I think it was for the fact that he didn't react the way I was expecting and also because he seemed to really care for Morel.

And I couldn't agree more about the bolded part from your post, Dave. At times I can't believe how the narrator acts and it really pissed me off, but because he evokes those emotions, I catch myself thinking "Proust you genius"... and because I still can't really separate the narrator from Proust, I find myself liking the narrator once again...

Renato wrote: "Yes, it'd be great to discuss everything openly! I'm against spoilers... I don't mind a revelation here and there, of course, and I really like you pointing us to the right direction. But I'd like ..."

I really don't know about the Swann in Love section Renato. I have seen nothing about this in outside reading. Obviously Proust wrote everything, but he hides behind "layers" as Marcelita calls them. Swann in Love and the short appendices in Volume 2 are written in the third person. The reader knows thoughts and motivations. This could not have been achieved through research or interview. Swann and Odette's story begins years before the Narrator's birth and by the time Swann shows up for dinner at Combray has been ongoing for 15 or more years. Proust seems to have a different solution we can discuss after.

Renato wrote: "As for Albertine not being a captive, I'm at odds about it. I do agree with Jonathan's observation that it seems the narrator didn't have as much power over her as he'd like to believe. But even so, she still stayed. She still lied. She still went out of her away to please him - even if she was to get something out of it (money? culture?)."

Oh I completely agree with both of you. The idea that she was his Prisoner was a complete delusion on his part. She was using him as Morel used Charlus. We never know her motivations, but a straightforward explanation seems enough for me. She was poor, lived in the provinces, liked to "party", may have been a Lesbian. Lets see, in her shoes would I choose to stay out in the sticks or come live with a gullible multimillionaire in Gay Paree? Eventually he becomes clingy and erratic - so I'm out of here.

No one has commented on the "Lorena Bobbitt" option - too shocking, or too obscure a reference to a small news item in the US 15 or so years ago?

Ha, I'm culling my library and I discover I have owned George Painter's bio of Proust since 1978, a small hardback boxed book entitled "On Reading" by Proust (first published as a magazine article in 1905, then expanded as the Preface to his translation of Ruskin's "Sesames and Lilies"), and a book entitled "A Reader's Guide to Marcel Proust" by Milton Hindus. This latter book is the most detailed analysis of the text I have yet seen. I turned to the last portion of commentary on "The Captive" and noted, among other things, the author's assertion that in "The Captive" Proust begins to focus increasingly on art in various ways -particularly in mini-essays on aesthetics and the philosophical implications of art. This has been an ongoing theme but the frequency begins to increase here through the end.

I didn't notice that, but it is an interesting observation.

Dave wrote: "She was poor, lived in the provinces, liked to "party", may have been a Lesbian. Lets see, in her shoes would I choose to stay out in the sticks or come live with a gullible multimillionaire in Gay Paree? Eventually he becomes clingy and erratic - so I'm out of here. "

Yes, I agree Dave. After all, when she leaves she just gets up early, asks Françoise for her stuff and leaves. There was nothing to stop her just as there was nothing to stop her the day before, or the day before that etc.

As the narrator mentions, Albertine decides to go to Paris with the narrator for another reason - that Andrée was going to be in Paris. I just see Albertine as being opportunistic; if it works out then fine; if it doesn't, then move on. The narrator can't understand this because he has to endlessly analyse everything.

Dave wrote: "No one has commented on the "Lorena Bobbitt" option - too shocking, or too obscure a reference to a small news item in the US 15 or so years ago?"

Ha! Ha! Yes, I got the Bobbitt reference...I don't think the narrator's penis is much of a problem though :-)

Does anyone else find the narrator's vague intention to buy Albertine a yacht a bit silly? Or is this just another way of keeping her away from others?

Dave wrote: "Ha, I'm culling my library and I discover I have owned George Painter's bio of Proust since 1978, a small hardback boxed book entitled "On Reading" by Proust (first published as a magazine article ..."

Why so many books about Proust if you hadn't read Proust? Or had you tried to read Proust before?

I would never get that reference, but there was a note in my edition about it!

Jonathan wrote: "There was nothing to stop her just as there was nothing to stop her the day before, or the day before that etc.

As the narrator mentions, Albertine decides to go to Paris with the narrator for another reason - that Andrée was going to be in Paris. I just see Albertine as being opportunistic; if it works out then fine; if it doesn't, then move on. The narrator can't understand this because he has to endlessly analyse everything."

That's a very good point! And I guess I keep trying to analyse everything more than I should as well...

Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "No one has commented on the "Lorena Bobbitt" option - too shocking, or too obscure a reference to a small news item in the US 15 or so years ago?"

Ha! Ha! Yes, I got the Bobbitt refer..."

It made an impression on me how truly wealthy he was. Aunt Leonie had left her money to him and it was a large sum. And it frustrated me that he would consider yachts and Rolls Royces but not the piece of mind of having her followed 24/7 by professional detectives or of having her "escorted" by security guards "for her own safety". But that just reinforced what we discussed above, psychologically he really doesn't want to know.

Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "Ha, I'm culling my library and I discover I have owned George Painter's bio of Proust since 1978, a small hardback boxed book entitled "On Reading" by Proust (first published as a maga..."

I've owned ISOLT since I was in college (did a lot of outside reading) in the early seventies. I've started reading SW a number of times over the years but never got past page 20. I always wrote my name and the date when I bought books. So the other two I mentioned were bought in 1972, undoubtedly when I first bought Proust's book. It seems so hard to imagine intellectual life pre-Internet - having to go to the library and look up info if you wanted to know something. On the other hand its hard to imagine life in the Internet age when the entire hunan experience and sum of knowledge is online and people in general are dumber than ever. I'm a cynic if you had not guessed.

Dave wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Dave wrote: "Ha, I'm culling my library and I discover I have owned George Painter's bio of Proust since 1978, a small hardback boxed book entitled "On Reading" by Proust (first pu..."

Pre-internet, the problem was getting information; post-internet, the problem is being able to get rid of the crap.

I'm occasionally optimistic, but it soon passes...

Renato wrote: "I still can't really separate the narrator from Proust, I find myself liking the narrator once again... "

You are more generous than I Renato, It took me most of the next volume to get back to a detached view of the Narrator. And I was well into the last volume before my feelings turned positive again.

Dave wrote: "Have you read "Proust's Narrative Techniques" ..."

I moved my comment over to ...Introductions / Other Topics > After We've Found Time Again. I digressed into the October 7th Proust auction at Paris-Sotheby's. (Lots #139-156)