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

Use this topic thread for all The Fugitive discussions through page 637 / location 46860.

Sixth volume! Wow!

I-want-her-I-don't-want-her... talk about that later! I want to know about Charlus!

I enjoyed reading Albertine's first letter. At last, a little attitude from her. The second one threw me off a little bit where she said she'd come back if he asked her to, but then I wondered... was she playing him? Did she realize he only wants her when he can't have her, and that by making - or pretending to make - herself available again, he wouldn't ask her to come back...? If so, kudos to her!

I loved when Robert informed him he heard her singing out loud. A free bird, at last! Although, of course, things can still change. I hope they don't though... I need this break-up to be definitive. I hope she gets married or something.

And speaking of St-Loup, what was all that evilness about? It reminded me of Morel the way he was scheming and talking to the footmen. This is yet another instance where we find out more layers about characters as our reading progresses. We never seem to know anyone fully with Proust...

Renato wrote: "Sixth volume! Wow!
I-want-her-I-don't-want-her... talk about that later! I want to know about Charlus! ..."

I know what you mean Renato, but now she's left - he wants her...or does he? he! he!

Through Albertine's letters we actually get to see her thoughts and ideas a bit more. And our illustrious narrator's immediate reaction on reading the first letter is: 'she doesn't mean a word of what she says', that she's being used by her aunt to get her hands on his 'fortune'.

He does calm down a bit, and I was quite amazed that he actually wondered what it was that Albertine wanted - is this the first time that he's done this? i.e. considered her point-of-view.

Faced with Albertine's flight he's even prepared to give up on Venice and 'grant' her some independence - how thoughtful. :-)

Renato wrote: "... I need this break-up to be definitive. I hope she gets married or something..."

I also hope that Albertine does not return...it should shake things up a bit then.

Renato wrote: "And speaking of St-Loup, what was all that evilness about? It reminded me of Morel the way he was scheming and talking to the footmen. This is yet another instance where we find out more layers abo..."

I think Proust just wanted to show a darker side to St-Loup, just as he's done with the other characters; maybe he was thinking that St-Loup was a bit too much of an angelic character up to this point. :-)

I'm interested in St-Loup's reaction to the photo of Albertine as he seems to recognise her. As the narrator notices that his reaction is similar to the narrator's reaction when he recognised Rachel I was surprised that he didn't question St-Loup further. He seems to think that St-Loup is just amazed of Albertine's plainness...but I'm not so sure that's it at all.

Isn't the narrator's plan of getting St-Loup to offer money to Mme Bontemps just creepy...and crazy? Isn't this symptomatic of everything he does though? i.e. over-analysed, overly complicated, morally dubious...and I suppose, an attempt to exert his power - through his money.

And isn't his letter to Albertine both cruel and manipulative? Especially when he claims that he was just on the verge of marrying her with his mother's consent. The funny thing is that I don't think Albertine believes this at all as she can now see through him - I'll probably be proved wrong though!

I thought Albertine's reply to this vindictive letter was amusing, starting with 'My dear friend, thank you for all your kind remarks...'

Hey folks, just wanted to let you know I was enjoying your comments. I can't think of anything to add for now.

Dave wrote: "Hey folks, just wanted to let you know I was enjoying your comments. I can't think of anything to add for now."

That's ok Dave. I hope your post-Proust reading is progressing well?

I'm between waves of reading right now, waiting for some other books I ordered. Just as well, I need to digest what I have read.

Jonathan wrote: "He does calm down a bit, and I was quite amazed that he actually wondered what it was that Albertine wanted - is this the first time that he's done this? i.e. considered her point-of-view."

Yes, between his craziness and denial, it seems that there was some new found maturity on his self-analysis...

Also, I don't know if it was just me, but all his back-and-forth this time was actually very funny. I couldn't believe his moments of denial and nonsensical schemes to try and get her back.

I just wish he would go to Venice to be disappointed again. :-)

Jonathan wrote: "I'm interested in St-Loup's reaction to the photo of Albertine as he seems to recognise her. As the narrator notices that his reaction is similar to the narrator's reaction when he recognised Rachel I was surprised that he didn't question St-Loup further. He seems to think that St-Loup is just amazed of Albertine's plainness...but I'm not so sure that's it at all."

But St Loup did meet her in the train once, didn't he? The narrator was even jealous that Albertine was giving him too much attention or something like that...

I found it funny that he thought that since she gained some weight, Robert wouldn't recognize her. Didn't Swann say this about Odette at some point as well?

Jonathan wrote: "And isn't his letter to Albertine both cruel and manipulative? Especially when he claims that he was just on the verge of marrying her with his mother's consent. The funny thing is that I don't think Albertine believes this at all as she can now see through him - I'll probably be proved wrong though!"

Yes, so cruel! And he talking about the Rolls Royce and the boat? That is so transparent, I'm sure Albertine saw right through him.

Also - and we'll learn more about this with Carter's bio - it seems Proust did send a letter like this to Agostinelli and talked about the plane he had bought and needed his help to undo the deal. This is pure speculation on my part, but might be a spoiler, so read it at your own risk: (view spoiler)[Agostinelli ended up dying before he could receive Proust's letter - the one that's very similar to the one the narrator sent to Albertine.... I wonder if Albertine is on the verge to die as well? :-O (hide spoiler)]

Renato wrote: "But St Loup did meet her in the train once, didn't he? The narrator was even jealous that Albertine was giving him too much attention or something like that..."

Yes, they met on the station at Doncières and chatted for about an hour, which fuelled the narrator's jealousy of course. It doesn't necessarily mean that he connects the photograph with the girl at the station, but his reaction suggested that he knew her from elsewhere...or am I getting drawn in by the narrator's paranoia?

Renato wrote: "Also - and we'll learn more about this with Carter's bio - it seems Proust did send a letter like this to Agostinelli and talked about the plane he had bought and needed his help to undo the deal. ..."

I can't avoid learning about all these parallels with the novel and Proust's life as I'd read about some even before I started reading the novel and they're in the notes as well. I'm not too afraid of spoilers etc., but at this stage I'm just not actively seeking them out...I'm stumbling across quite a few accidentally though.

Jonathan wrote: "It doesn't necessarily mean that he connects the photograph with the girl at the station, but his reaction suggested that he knew her from elsewhere...or am I getting drawn in by the narrator's paranoia? " No Jonathan, I don't believe either of you are getting "drawn in" and neither was I. This incident reminds me of when Albertine reported on her trip to the country with the chauffeur when, due to a luggage mixup, she was "forced" to wear men's clothing for a week. In both cases, the narrator reports a conversation with descriptive facial expressions that convey's particular meaning to the reader ( I'm assuming we are all here typical readers). But the Narrator, preoccupied with his own line of thought, does not see what the reader sees (Now how can the Narrator convey meaning to the reader that he fails to see?)

I didn't read much into Robert's reaction, Jonathan, but there might be something there, I wouldn't doubt it! It seems Proustian to make a parallel like that with the narrator's own reaction for knowing something about Rachel's life that Robert didn't.

I'm glad I used the spoilers tag! I almost didn't! :-)

Dave wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "It doesn't necessarily mean that he connects the photograph with the girl at the station, but his reaction suggested that he knew her from elsewhere...or am I getting drawn in by t..."

Will we ever know? They were all in Balbec (WBG) that summer.

I don't think I'm understanding what's going on when the narrator says he brought a little girl home to sit on his knee, and then he gave her money, and then he was accused by the magistrate of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. (I'm paraphrasing here, but I hope the point came across.)

What does this mean? I'm thinking pedophile, but that doesn't fit the rest of the story.

Sunny, I haven't made up my mind yet as what to think of that. I read it like pedophilia as well, but like you said, it doesn't fit the rest of the story. I thought it was kind of pointless.

I remember Jonathan mentioning he felt it was added on later...

Why doesn't it fit the story Sunny? I thought what you thought. What follows from that incident in the book?

Hmmmm. Now that you ask, I'm not sure. But, I guess up until this point, I'd only focused on the relations between consensual adults, be that hetero- or homosexual. And, the only time young children were brought up was when the girls were in bloom in Balbec. And, since at that time the narrator was the same age as the girls... WAIT! How old WAS the narrator in Balbec?

I only just finished reading this far, so I'm not sure what follows from this incident.

Even more confusing, is that google tells me that the French word pédéraste can mean any homosexual, not only a pedophile. But, I'm not reading this in French, and I don't think anything remotely like the word "pedophile" was lost in translation...

There is further development of this incident in coming pages. I know it is sometimes hard for me, but we need to resist the temptation to overlay our modern cultural values on a story set a century ago in another country. Hope you will follow up on this as you read more.

On the Narrator' age at Balbec the first time, my guess is 15 or 16. The Captive nominally happens in the Winter of 1908-1909. The first part of The Fugitive in the Summer of 1909 so the Narrator is around 30 is my best guess.