Possession – February CC Book Club Selection

Parent Cafe
241

<p>

ignatius, SouthJerseyChessMom’s post #239 is giving you a run for your money. She’s mighty convincing. :)</p>

<p>I am going to settle on a happy compromise: Ellen is rightfully suspicious, but Randolph is innocent. </p>

<p>I think that A.S. Byatt wanted us to have this discussion, to wonder whether or not Ash was the father of Bertha’s baby. First of all, the possibility of a liaison with a woman of another class is raised early in the book when Cropper writes in The Great Ventriloquist about the “releases” available to Victorian men, and wonders if Ash might have indulged before his marriage (at this point, Cropper believes that Ash was completely faithful after marriage):</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Secondly, Byatt hints to the reader that Ellen suspects that her husband is the father. I agree with SJCM that the crossing out of passages, the migraines, etc. point to Ellen’s deep-seated fear about the baby’s paternity.</p>

<p>Who can blame her? Even with a loving husband, a lifelong sexless marriage has got to make Ellen insecure, if not perpetually, at least on such occasions as the mysterious pregnancy of a household servant. That said, I do not think Ash is responsible. I think that by nature he was not a cruel man, and his love for his wife would have been greater than his sexual frustration. </p>

<p>SJCM, I agree that Ellen had “devious intentions” regarding Bertha, but I think she deeply regrets them later: “I have done wrong in her regard. I have behaved less than well” (p. 251). </p>

<p>Re Beatrice’s comment “Dust and Ashes,” I think she was just saying that whatever happened to these people, it is ancient history; they are all dead and gone, every one of them. The full quote from the Book of Common Prayer is “Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection into eternal life.” Perhaps Beatrice’s remark is only “surprising” because it is contrary to the way the scholars have been thinking throughout the novel. To the others, it is as if all the Victorian characters are still living, breathing individuals and there is an urgency to discovering what happened. Beatrice (the only one who doesn’t want the letter read) is more willing to let them rest in peace.</p>

242

<p>Excellent summary Mary-</p>

<p>from Plantmom’s post -“Their autonomy is wrapped up with the idea of maintaining solitude in their self made spaces.”</p>

<p>Do you think Christabel, was like the spiders she wrote about in her initial letters to Ash? Did she weave a web, designed to catch her prey?</p>

<p>Was she perhaps motivated by her admitted "anger"with Blanche for stealing her letters, so she had an affair with a married man, showing little remorse? </p>

<p>Was she really quite a strong character, directing her life’s path the way she wanted it to go? Autonomous. </p>

<p>Like the depiction of Vivien on the front cover of the book, hovering over an impotent looking Merlin, hands cast downward, entangled in the vines and tree.</p>

<p>Why did Byatt, select that picture for the cover? Of all the literary images why Merlin and Vivien?</p>

<p>Was our Christabel in control of her life-
her own chess game, and was she the queen who moved in all directions?</p>

243

<p>Out of one question, so many! </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think Christabel tried, and in the end was autonomous, however, her autonomy did not provide the expected result. Her happiness, a result of sharing her world with others (Blanche and Ash), could only be fulfilled by breaking out of the confines of her solitude. In the end–as a result of her desire for autonomy–she remains alone, self isolated in her sister’s home, but unable to write and unable to interact with her daughter. Autonomy, yes; fulfilled, no. </p>

<p>From her final letter to Ash (p. 543), Christabel writes

</p>

<p>At least she seems to realize, late in life, what she has done.</p>

244

<p>You guys are amazing, remembering so many details and ferreting out all these meanings and implications. </p>

<p>Regarding two points brought up recently, I can only go with my gut feelings…based on how the characters were represented, and taking into account the time period in which they were living.</p>

<p>I don’t think Ash impregnated a servant. He had too much class. I can imagine him at some point spending time at a fancy brothel or something, but not dallying with a woman employed in his own household.</p>

<p>Or maybe I am being too much influenced by The Crimson Petal and the White, a novel with a very detailed and juicily vivid portrait of a Victorian male. :)</p>

<p>I don’t think Christabel would have sought the affair with Ash to get back at Blanche. I’d daresay an affair like hers and Ash’s was almost unheard of for a woman of her type, in that day…a fearsomely bold and risky thing to do. I think she felt an almost overpowering urge toward being with Ash, and Blanche’s act removed a barrier.</p>

<p>About the matter of Bertha, I’m having a blind spot. I never suspected that Ellen thought Ash could be the father of Bertha’s baby. In the first place, I myself did not suspect him! Secondly, it does not seem to me that the one crossed out line in Ellen’s journal (perhaps they were words she thought too coarse), plus migraines happening after Bertha had left, are such strong evidence.</p>

<p>What could Ellen have done about Bertha other than what she did? I don’t see how she was being devious. I hate to seem cold-hearted or dense, but I don’t get it. Even Ellen herself wrote that she had done wrong, and I really don’t understand why she thought so.</p>

245

<p>“did you not flame, and I catch fire? Shall we survive and rise from our ashes?” </p>

<p>I think again of the prayer that Christabel would certainly have known, “Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection…”</p>

<p>“… writing my verses by license of my boorish brother-in-law…”</p>

<p>What does this mean?</p>

246

<p>

</p>

<p>My personal interpretation (for you Jane Eyre afficionados): Maybe Herbert Faulk had a little of Mr. Brocklehurst in him and Magdalen House was like Lowood School, or worse. It’s the same era, after all. If Ellen wanted to pull an Aunt Reed and send Bertha there, it’s no wonder she felt guilty and the girl ran away.</p>

<p>Again, no textual evidence – just musing.</p>

<p>Or maybe Ellen felt guilty for not being as generous as Robert Browning: “Ellen Ash’s dilemma of how to deal with a pregnant maid is also in part biographical borrowing. In contrast to Ellen Ash’s dismissal of her maidservant, the Brownings made financial arrangements for the mother and child.” [Cambridge</a> Authors Byatt: Victorian Poets in Possession](<a href=“http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/cambridgeauthors/byatt-victorian-poets]Cambridge”>Cambridge Authors » Byatt: Victorian Poets in Possession)</p>

247

<p>I agree with NJTM in toto - post #244.</p>

<p>Ellen could feel guilt about dismissing her servant because she feels empathy for the girl’s situation. When I attended high school - many years ago - one long-term couple ended up with a pregnancy right before graduation. The young man walked to get his diploma, the girl received hers without ceremony. I talked recently with the then principal. It remains one of her regrets, even now, and she worked to change the policy so that it didn’t happen again. Ellen does not seem a cruel person and she must have known that the girl has few options. Unfortunately the best option of family seems unavailable. Bertha chooses not to accept the help that Ellen attempts to give.</p>

<p>(The high school couple married, had 12 children, adopting the last. They seem happy and have remained close to the principal - who had limited options herself back in the day.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that her brother-in-law does not appreciate taking in his spinster-sister-in law and supporting both her and a child he passes off as his own. Certainly as her sister does not seem literary-minded, I doubt her husband cares much for Christabel’s poetry.</p>

248

<p>NJTM, (and off the subject of the questions of the day), My copy of Possession is dog-eared and stuck through with paper markers. I wouldn’t normally do this to a book, but there were so many points–many of which we’ll never get to on this thread–that I wanted to go back to and think about. Now, it seems I could have marked or folded every single page–it’s so dense!</p>

<p>I just opened the book to a page I hadn’t marked. Maud and Roland are at a rock pool, in dialogue over Ash and LaMotte, and gloves.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I love this scene, and it seems to me that my thoughts on this book, while flipping through its many pages, can as easily meander. Roland and Maud are discussing the meaning of gloves, interacting with one another, and at the same time–while on the same topic–only partly aware of what they’re saying to each other, so stuck are they on their own thoughts on Ash and LaMotte.</p>

249

<p>

I didn’t read it this way at all. I saw it as a way to show that she was an intelligent woman trapped by Victorian society. The dream where her Queen is not allowed to move echos her position. She’s stuck, not even allowed the fulfillment of having children. Bertha’s pregnancy upsets her because it makes her even more aware of her failing in the role she’s supposed to be playing - wife and mother. The headache is comes on before Blanche meets with her.</p>

<p>I don’t think Bertha’s child is Randolph’s and I don’t think that Ellen thinks it is - at least not consciously.</p>

<p>

Generally authors have little to say about their cover art - I assume it was chosen though because Blanche painted that subject - and given that - obviously the notion of a woman having dominance over an ordinarily powerful man is a legitimate subject of discussion.</p>

<p>I love that scene too. “And all vegetation is pubic hair”. I laughed out loud at that one. And later Roland says, “She’s [Leonora’s] very good. But I don’t want to see through her eyes. It isn’t a matter of her gender and my gender. I just don’t.”</p>

250

<p>Perhaps some explanation here ?</p>

<p>Idylls of the King By Alfred, Lord Tennyson</p>

<p>[Idylls</a> of the King: Summary and Analysis: Merlin and Vivien - CliffsNotes](<a href=“http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/idylls-of-the-king/summary-analysis/merlin-vivien.html]Idylls”>http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/idylls-of-the-king/summary-analysis/merlin-vivien.html)</p>

<p>Mary13, “My personal interpretation (for you Jane Eyre afficionados): Maybe Herbert Faulk had a little of ** Mr. Brocklehurst ** in him and Magdalen House was like Lowood School, or worse.”</p>

<p>Exactly who I thought about, the evil mean man, who took Jane Eyre and mistreated her at the school.</p>

251

<p>

</p>

<p>I just read the CliffsNotes summary of Merlin and Vivien, along with this from Wiki:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It seems to me that while Christabel was seduced by Randolph’s intelligence and perhaps even welcomed his opinions and their dialogue on the “charm” of writing, she did not intend to imprison him, as Vivien did Merlin. Well, in her selfish act of not telling him of his child, Christabel did make him a slave to his imagination of the fate of that child. But with regard to talent, Ash was free to continue to write, and presumably he did. He was still free to love Ellen, and he did. She, on the other hand, became imprisoned by her own actions–when she gave up the child and moved in with the boorish BIL, when she abandoned Ash and was left without a true friend in the world. </p>

<p>But maybe, I muse, as I sit here on this beautiful Saturday afternoon, thinking of this work of fiction and not doing the many other things I could/should be, that the spell has been cast upon me, the susceptible reader, now imprisoned by Byatt’s Possession :-)</p>

252

<p>But maybe, I muse, as I sit here on this beautiful Saturday afternoon, thinking of this work of fiction and not doing the many other things I could/should be, that the spell has been cast upon me, the susceptible reader, now imprisoned by Byatt’s Possession :slight_smile: </p>

<p>So true ! Well said Plantmom</p>

253

<p>

I think it means someone is going to find a treasure trove of poems at Seal Court. :D</p>

254

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think spiritual crises differ much from generation to generation. Roland and Maud ask themselves the same types of questions as Randolph and Christabel – and no doubt these same questions were asked by Randolph and Christabel’s ancestors, and will be asked by Roland and Maud’s descendants. To quote the great Blade Runner – my college roommate’s all-time favorite movie :slight_smile: --“All he’d wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got?”</p>

<p>Byatt writes that, “Roland had learned to see himself, theoretically, as a crossing-place for a number of systems, all loosely connected” and “to see his idea of ‘self’ as an illusion” (p. 459). </p>

<p>This idea of being interconnected, and of the part having significance only as it pertains to the whole, is one that Randolph reflects on as well. In the first chapter, Roland finds a folded piece of paper in the Vico, on which Ash has written: “The individual appears for an instant, joins the community of thought, modifies it and dies, but the species, that dies not, reaps the fruit of his ephemeral existence” (p. 6).</p>

<p>The “self” here is as illusory for Randolph as it is for Roland.</p>

255

<p>One difference between us and the Victorians is that they ended up sort of turning science into a religion. </p>

<p>Ash certainly seems in awe of many of the new discoveries of the day. His statement “the species, that dies not, reaps the fruit of his ephemeral existence” indicates that he takes pleasure (and perhaps a sense of being comforted) from this view of natural history.</p>

<p>Probably most modern people don’t look at science that way anymore. It’s more taken for granted, or regarded as a tool…not so much as a revelation.</p>

<p>Perhaps the only solution for people is to turn back in the direction of spirituality. In the US at least, there has been a remarkable regrowth of Christianity since the “God is Dead” era of the 1960s.</p>

256

<p>The CC site was down for the last nine hours- Book Discussion withdrawal ! </p>

<p>NJTM- I thought of your comment about people turning toward spiritualiy when I read this headline today
**TENS of millions of Hindus have gathered to bathe in India’s sacred river Ganges on the most auspicious day of the world’s largest religious festival. **</p>

<p>Read more: [Millions</a> of Indians bathe in Ganges river | News.com.au](<a href=“http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/millions-of-hindus-bathe-on-indias-ganges/story-e6frfkui-1226574688409#ixzz2KX9ga1cU]Millions”>http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/millions-of-hindus-bathe-on-indias-ganges/story-e6frfkui-1226574688409#ixzz2KX9ga1cU)</p>

<p>Re: Mary’ comment above -

</p>

<p>An opinion about the Graveyard scene.as it relates to the mythic story of Ragnarok </p>

<p>Wasn’t that climatic graveyard scene, in the book, a recreation of Ragnarok story of *The Twilight of the Gods *- in this case the Twilight of the ** Literary gods ** past and present.</p>

<p>Weren’t all the “literary characters” or " gods finally all united- </p>

<p>Maud, Roland, Cropper, Stern, Nest, with Ash, Christabel and Ellen.</p>

<p>The setting was mystical -
winds erupted, the yews and vines ensnarled, </p>

<p>Resulting in the climatic moment - discovery of the bloodline.
maud and Roland represent the new world order- </p>

<p>The hope that humans, male and female can reconcile gender issues - hopefully finding fulfillment and autonomy. (Mary explained this so well in a previous post) </p>

<p>Aren’t Maud and Roland, symbolically " Ask and Embla" -
the first humans created out of trees. </p>

<p>haven’t we gone full circle in the novel- which is the rhythm and cycle of the Natural world. </p>

<p>Out of destruction comes creation------</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://norse-mythology.org/tales/ragnarok/[/url]”>http://norse-mythology.org/tales/ragnarok/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

257

<p>I had a further thought about the question of doubt. I think Christabel was more of a doubter than Ash was. In her letters, she seemed concerned that he might feel unsettled by her views.</p>

<p>Christabel was less a typical representative than Ash was of that particular era. In choosing not to marry, and trying to live life as an independent woman, she had strayed farther from society’s norms. This perhaps gave her more intellectual freedom and, in some ways, made her more like a modern woman than most Victorian females.</p>

<p>SJCM thanks for the link on the Kumbh Mela. In the superb novel A Suitable Boy, Vikram Seth provides a wonderfully evocative description of another Kumbh Mela. It is something that has occurred cyclically for centuries.</p>

258

<p>SouthJerseyChessMom, great observations re Ragnarok. I like the description from the link that you provided, that “what Ragnarok describes is a cyclical end of the world, after which follows a new creation, which will in turn be followed by another Ragnarok, and so on throughout eternity. In other words, creation and destruction are points at opposite ends of a circle, not points at opposite ends of a straight line.”</p>

<p>As you say, “we have gone full circle in the novel- which is the rhythm and cycle of the Natural world.”</p>

<p>Here’s something that jumped out at me from the tale itself:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A Yggdrasil tree is an Ash tree.</p>

<p>The weather in the graveyard scene made me think of *pathetic fallacy<a href=““the%20attribution%20of%20human%20feelings%20and%20responses%20to%20inanimate%20things%20or%20animals,%20esp.%20in%20art%20and%20literature””>/i</a>. It’s as if the extreme emotions that all the characters were feeling were embodied in the storm.</p>

259

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree – and yet it’s kind of funny because it is HIS writings that throw her into such paroxysms of doubt:</p>

<p>*…your great poem Ragnarok was the occasion of quite the worst crisis in the life of my simple religious faith, that I have ever experienced, or hope to experience.”<a href=“p.%20170”>/i</a></p>

<p>Ash responds:</p>

<p>*Ragnarok was written in all honesty in the days when I did not myself question Biblical certainties—or the faith handed down by my fathers and theirs before them…I meant it rather as a reassertion of the Universal Truth of the living presence of Allfather (under whatever Name) and of the hope of Resurrection from whatever whelming disaster in whatever form.<a href=“p.%20179”>/i</a></p>

<p>He does not doubt the Christian faith per se, but neither is he tied to it. He seems to recognize the links between all faiths. He has this same openness toward The Origin of Species, which may have sent many Victorians into a spiritual crisis, but leaves Ash intrigued rather than troubled. He writes to Ellen:</p>

<p>*It is hard indeed, Ellen, not to imagine that some Intelligence did not design and construct these perfectly lovely and marvelously functioning creatures—and yet it is hard also not to believe the weight of evidence for the Development Theory, for the changes wrought in all things, over unimaginable Time, by the gradual action of ordinary causes.<a href=“p.%20233”>/i</a></p>

260

<p>I am having a hard time figuring out what this question is getting at, so pardon the (not atypical :slight_smile: meandering in my thoughts. Are we to contrast the Victorian era human, the budding Darwinian at the cusp of the Modern or purely reasoning man, with the Postmodern, also at a cusp, whose belief is a skepticism of communication and objective knowledge in isolation? </p>

<p>The referenced doubt (in the question) of Ash and LaMotte, clearly is that of faith. Ash writes (p. 180)

</p>

<p>Ash acknowledges a creator, and wonders why we have faith, how we have been endowed by a creator. He argues that our faith is

. He argues that we are endowed by a creator with curiosity. </p>

<p>I contrast Ash and his belief in the divinely guided man, curious in the natural world, with the words of the modern or postmodern Darwinian man in Roland, who doubts the existence of a true emotional connection with Maud (p 458-459)

</p>

<p>The passage above was referencing romance, and human function in mechanical terms. Roland doubts, has no faith in Romance or communication with Maud. Of course, Roland evolves (or devolves?) and his eyes are opened by the quest to solve the mystery of Ash and LaMotte. He becomes a poet, a lover.</p>

<p>So I see elements of Mary’s post about our interconnectedness, as well as SJCM’s about the circular nature of our progress. Still trying to understand the question! NJTM, I also agree that Christabel was more of a doubter than Ash, like Maud is more than Roland.</p>