<p>Great suggestion,mathmom, I’ve enjoyed getting to know the PreRaphealite brotherhood, and much more. </p>
<p>I wonder if we should change format a bit, and rather than bounce around from question to question, if mary13 might lead us through a more organized discussion. It’s possible to drown in all this material.</p>
<p>This was helpful- <a href=“http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/cambridgeauthors/byatt-possession-illustrated[/url]”>http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/cambridgeauthors/byatt-possession-illustrated</a></p>
<p>Still hoping I’ll finish next week, but with Spring semester starting Monday it will be a challenge for sure! Still waiting for the ReadAlong site to get the next installment out…</p>
<p>Finished the book, too. The poetry brought out a feminine side of myself, and I liked the contrast of creative sensuality against sexual talk/analysis. While some were talking, others were feeling.</p>
<p>Great literature resource</p>
<p>[Literary</a> Periods Timeline](<a href=“http://www.online-literature.com/periods/timeline.php]Literary”>Literary Periods Timeline)</p>
<p>^^^ I like the timeline.</p>
<p>I doubt I will finish on time but I am reading away in hopes of joining you on Feb. 1 or 2 or …</p>
<p>I did finish the final 20 pages of the book that I kept putting aside (the cause of my late start of Possession). I found this quote in one of Ash’s letters to Christabel that described the dilemma perfectly:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like Possession.</p>
<p>I took on the audiobook and it is a long process. I believe that if I were reading it, I would not be able to deny the temptation to skim parts of it.</p>
<p>Finished it! Couldn’t believe that I’d completely forgotten one of the major plot reveals! I’ll say no more…</p>
<p>Welcome to February and our discussion of Possession! </p>
<p>Before we begin, shout out to NJTheatreMOM – I hope you’re feeling better! They say poetry is good for the soul, but I’m afraid it might not have the same healing effect on the body. :)</p>
<p>Here are some reading guide questions to get things going (I’ll start with #1 in my next post):</p>
<p>
[quote]
Discussion Questions</p>
<ol>
<li><p>What is the significance of the novel’s title? Do you think it has more than one meaning? What does the concept of “possession” mean to the novel’s various characters, both modern and Victorian? How can possession be seen as the theme of the book? </p></li>
<li><p>Ash is nicknamed “the Great Ventriloquist” but this sobriquet could as easily be applied to Byatt herself. Why does Byatt use poetry to give away so many clues to the story? Are the poems a necessary and integral part of the novel or would it have worked just as well without them? Do you find that the poems in the novel succeed in their own right as poetry? </p></li>
<li><p>All the characters’ names are carefully chosen and layered with meaning. What is the significance behind the following names: Roland Michell, Beatrice Nest, Sir George Bailey, Randolph Ash, Maud Bailey, Christabel LaMotte, Fergus Wolff? (Clues to the last three may be found in the poetry by Tennyson, Yeats, and Coleridge cited below.) Do any other names in the novel seem to you to have special meanings? How do the names help define, or confuse, the relationships between the characters? </p></li>
<li><p>The scholars in the novel see R. H. Ash as a specifically masculine, Christabel LaMotte as a specifically feminine, type of poet, just as Robert Browning and Christina Rossetti, the poets on whose work Ash’s and LaMotte’s are loosely based, were considered to be extreme examples of the masculine and feminine in literature. Do you feel that such a classification is valid? What is there about Ash’s and LaMotte’s diction and subject matter that fulfills our ideas of “masculine” and “feminine”? Do the poets themselves consciously enact masculine and feminine roles? Do you find that Christabel’s poetry is presented as being secondary to Ash’s? Or that the work of the two poets is complementary? </p></li>
<li><p>Ellen Ash wrote her journal as a “defence against, and a bait for, the gathering of ghouls and vultures” [p. 501]. Mortimer Cropper is literally presented as a ghoul, robbing the poet’s grave. Beatrice Nest, on the other hand, wishes to preserve Christabel’s final letter to Randolph unread. What is the fine line, if any, between a ghoulish intrusion upon the privacy of the dead, and the legitimate claims of scholarship and history? As much as the scholars have discovered, one secret is kept from them at the end and revealed only to the reader. What is that secret and what difference does it make to Roland’s future? </p></li>
<li><p>Freedom and autonomy are highly valued both by Christabel and Maud. What does autonomy mean to each of these characters? In Christabel’s day, it was difficult for women to attain such autonomy; is it still difficult, in Maud’s? What does autonomy mean to Roland? Why does mutual solitude and even celibacy assume a special importance in his relationship with Maud? </p></li>
<li><p>The moment of crisis in the poets’ lives, 1859, was a significant year, as it saw the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. The theory of natural selection delivered a terrible blow to the Victorians’ religious faith and created a climate of uncertainty: “Doubt,” says Christabel, “doubt is endemic to our life in this world at this time” [p. 182]. How does Byatt compare this spiritual crisis with that which has befallen Roland and Maud’s generation, who are taught to believe that the “self” is illusory [p. 459]? </p></li>
<li><p>The fluffy Beatrice Nest is scorned by the feminist scholars who crave access to Ellen Ash’s journal. Yet in her way Beatrice is as much a victim of “patriarchy” as any of the Victorian women they study. What is the double standard at work among these politically minded young people? Can Beatrice be seen as a “superfluous woman,” like Blanche and Val? What, if anything, do these three women have in common? </p></li>
<li><p>Ash writes “Swammerdam” with a particular reader, Christabel LaMotte, in mind. Is Christabel’s influence on Ash evident in the poem, and if so, how and where? How, in the poem, does Ash address his society’s preoccupation with science and religion? How does he address his and Christabel’s conflicting religious ideas? How does Christabel herself present these ideas in M</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As SouthJerseyChessMom noted upthread, Possession is a very dense read. Taking each discussion question in order might offer us more cohesiveness and direction, so we can give that a try. But our discussion, as always, will be free-flowing – that is, if one “official” question opens the door to a score of unofficial ones, that’s fine—express whatever is on your mind.</p>
<p>Question number 1 is predictable, but it’s also an appropriate way to begin: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The word “possession” has, of course, many meanings in the novel. The concept of possessing and/or being possessed is threaded throughout both the modern story and the Victorian one. Here are a few examples of different applications of the word – there are many, feel free to add on:</p>
<p>- Roland is the catalyst for the action when he succumbs to his desire to possess the original drafts of Ash’s letter and removes them from the Vico.</p>
<p>He takes possession—as in, “assumes ownership”—of a tangible piece of Randolph Ash’s history. Many other characters in the novel also possess a physical item from the Ash-LaMotte story: Beatrice’s possession of Ellen’s journal, Cropper’s possession of Ash’s watch, Maud’s possession of Christabel’s jet brooch, etc.</p>
<p>At the same time, the characters possess an intangible piece of Ash and LaMotte, that is, knowledge about a specific aspect of the story. The big picture gradually forms as each scholar offers his or her expertise on the one particular area that he or she has studied.</p>
<p>- The novel also focuses on possession as a noun—“things.” The letters are an obvious example. Euan notes that issue of ownership is “complicated.” He is talking about legalities, but it’s an ethical question as well. Just because a possession has a legal home, is that also its “moral” home? Should the love letters letters stay in England rather than be sent to America? Should the buried box that held Ash’s possessions have been disturbed? </p>
<p>- The word “possession” is also used in the sense of “being controlled by a demon or spirit.” Randolph Ash tells Ellen that his love for Christabel “was a sort of madness. A possession, as by daemons” (p. 492). And in trying to explain his single-minded quest to Blackadder, Roland says, “I felt possessed. I had to know” (p. 527). </p>
<p>- There is also a suggestion that some possessions themselves are possessed. That sounds more convoluted than I mean it to – more simply put, cherished belongings carry a certain power. In some karmic way, the universe tries to move things to their rightful home. In her will, Blanche Glover describes “the jet brooch of two hands clasped in Friendship, which was given to me by Miss LaMotte and which I wish her to take back again” (p. 334). Is it coincidence or destiny working itself out that Maud, Christabel’s great-great-great granddaughter, buys that same brooch from the Whitby jeweler?</p>
<p>- The concept of possession comes into play in many of the relationships in the novel. Ash, reflecting on his affair with Christabel, tells himself that “he would teach her that she was not his possession, he would show her she was free, he would see her flash her wings” (p. 304). Maud believes that her beauty comes at a price: “People treat you as a kind of possession if you have a certain sort of good looks” (p. 549).</p>
<p>- In the end, Roland, whose desire for one sort of possession begins the story, draws the novel to a close by experiencing an entirely different sort with Maud: “Roland finally, to use an outdated phrase, entered and took possession of all her white coolness that grew warm against him” (p. 550). </p>
<p>Apologies for the long post. I find that with this book, one thought quickly leads to another and it’s easy to get carried away!</p>
<p>I’m hoping to join you soon! Loving the book, but still in the last 100 or so pages. One term I’d like to define (and I’ve been thinking about from an earlier comment, and I see another sense of the word in question 12, above) is Romance. On page 404 (I have the paperback), “She (LaMotte) says Romance is a land where women can be free to express their true natures, as in the Ile de Sein or Sid, though not in this world…She said, in Romance, women’s two natures can be reconciled. I asked, which two natures, and she said, men saw women as double beings, enchantresses and demons or innocent angels.” So who was actually living in the land of romance? Thoughts?</p>
<p>^Thanks, Mary. I do feel better, but I’m going to hold off on making comments on the book for just a bit. I suspect that most other participants liked Possession far, far better than I did, and you won’t have any shortage of members posting about it. :)</p>
<p>Sorry for the crosspost, Mary. There are so many ideas in this book; we could spend the entire discussion of this book on the theme of possession! Here’s one of the first passages of many I dog-eared in the novel, on possession.</p>
<p>On pg. 110, on Mortimer Cropper," History, writing, infect after a time a man’s sense of himself, and Mortimer Cropper, fluently documenting every last item of the days of RHA, his goings-out and his comings-in, his dinner engagements, his walking-tours…had naturally perhaps felt his own identity at times, at the very best times, as insubstantial, leached into this matter-of-writing, stuff-of-record…He tended his body, the outward man, with a fastidiousness that he would have bestowed on the inner man too, if he had known who he was, if he did not feel the whole thing to be thickly veiled." </p>
<p>Talk about possession. Cropper has taken possession of another man’s life, through documenting his every movement, and even obtaining his personal objects. Why has he done this, (and how could he have ignored the products of Ash’s mind, his poetry)?! I was thinking, while reading about Cropper, of my own genealogical research…the quest to understand who my ancestors were. And how time consuming it is to recreate a life that has passed in another time. There were many days I spent hunched over my computer, or handling possessions of the dead relatives, wanting to understand what their lives had been, and who they were. How easy it is to obsess over another’s life, and to what purpose? And with what accuracy? The obsession with taking possession of identity, or rather, the conscious effort not to, is echoed in so many character’s searches–Maud and Roland’s, cousin Sabine’s, Blackadder…</p>
<p>Mary, awesome post…I am now ready to move onto question #2, LOL! (also sorry for the crosspost PlantMom–appreciate the contribution!)</p>
<p>NJTheatreMOM, maybe you’ll warm a little bit to the book as we discuss it – or maybe not, but either way I’m glad you stuck with it and are here. One of the things that makes our discussions interesting (and keeps the club going, I think) is that we don’t all like the same books – or at least don’t have the same level of commitment to each title. If nothing else, I usually find that discussion gives me a greater appreciation for the books I didn’t care for so much. </p>
<p>I’m disregarding my own advice from my earlier post and am about to go off on a tangent here, but I wanted to say that Possession really brought up The Forgotten Garden from my memory banks (our CC August 2011 choice). I was struck by the many similarities, and am now thinking that Kate Morton must have read Possession–and might even have been giving it a “nod” in the same way that she referenced The Secret Garden. If I recall, Morton was an English Lit doctoral candidate and incorporated more than a few literary references into her novel.</p>
<p>Both The Forgotten Garden and Possession have intertwined stories—one which is 100 years earlier and the other modern day. In both novels, the modern day heroine is trying to uncover the secrets of the past and embarks on a quest which leads to surprising discoveries about her ancestry. In both, the heroine of the earlier story is an unmarried, strong-willed, lesser-known writer of (dark) children’s fairy tales—tales that are inserted into the novel. In both, the older story contains an illicit romance and a pregnancy that must be hidden. In both, the modern story has a romance between two troubled souls who find fulfillment in each other. In both, the climactic point of the story involves finding a clue that is buried with the long-dead writer. </p>
<p>I know that over the years we have all noticed similarities between the books we read – generally because most themes are universal and most human beings share some pretty basic personality traits. Yet the specifics of The Forgotten Garden and Possession were so much alike that I felt compelled to point it out. </p>
<p>Okay, back to our regularly scheduled programming…</p>
<p>Interesting that you bring up Kate Morton. I noted similarities between Possession and The Secret Keeper by Morton. I have not read The Forgotten Garden but it is on my list.</p>
<p>PlantMom, thanks for your observations re Mortimer Cropper. He is by far the least likeable character in the novel, but is that fair? He seems to be the human manifestation of a dark side of Roland and Maud–and of the other scholars, too, for that matter. His obsession with Ash is really one that they all share in the end. Only Cropper is brave/foolish/evil enough to dig up the grave, but it’s what they all want. </p>
<p>When they confront him in the graveyard, it is not to arrest him for a heinous crime or to berate him for immoral desecration. Rather, it’s to share the booty. No one objects too loudly about opening the purloined box. They are all complicit. But for the others, especially Roland and Maud, this dark side is tempered by the ability to love, to connect with other human beings. Cropper seems to lack that.</p>
<p>I haven’t finished reading. I will keep plugging along. I found the letters difficult to get through and can’t say I’m overly fond of all the poetry. I really want to skim (and sometimes have), but I’m afraid I’ll miss something important. I like the story, but not yet sure how much I like the book.</p>
<p>The book I kept thinking of as I read it was John Fowles’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman. I think mostly because of the Victorian setting and some of the knowingness of the author. I hated Fowles’ which did the ultimate post modern thing of breaking the fourth wall and giving you two endings. I loved the movie which like Possession gives you a modern love story to go with the Victorian one. The movie is a movie within a movie where modern characters are filming the story of the French Lieutenant’s Woman and they give the movie within the movie one of the book’s endingsand the story of the actors the other ending. </p>
<p>All throughout *Possession *you are very aware that this is Literature with a capital L. Each word is chosen for the multiplicity of meanings. You can just see academic papers being written about this book, just like the one’s the characters are writing. Poking around, I saw many bothered by the overly overt use of symbolism, but I think that was the point. It’s a spoof on the academic world, while at the same time providing the ultimate romantic story. </p>
<p>Which brings me to the title. In addition to all the forms of possession Mary mentions, I’d add one more. In addition to each character possessing pieces of the truth, ultimately they don’t have some of the biggest most important pieces. The nature of the sexless marriage between Roland and Ellen. They also never learn that Roland does indeed know that he had a daughter. Only we, the reader, possess that truth. </p>
<p>I completely understand the idea of liking the story more than the book. As I went through the poems, I had to remind myself that they were integral parts of the book and are all their for a reason. It makes it a more interesting book, but not necessarily a more likable one. It certainly made me aware all the time that I was reading a book, that the choices were arbitrary. (A few times I was reminded of Thomas Hardy and the critical letter slipping under a mat and other coincidences.) It’s not the sort of book where you can just get lost in the story - and yet, and yet, that story is there. </p>
<p>As for the question, should the buried box that held Ash’s possessions have been disturbed? I think for me the answer is yes. I believe that Ellen was of two minds about it, but that she would not have deliberately put the information about it in her diary if she did not mean for it ultimately to be found. She has withheld so much in the diary, that if she truly wanted the information to be lost forever she would have edited that part out as well.</p>
<p>Speaking of Mortimer, who I thought was overly cartoony, what in the world are “American hips”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed! I felt that Mortimer Cropper and Leonora Stern were caricatures of two types of supposed “bizarre Americans.” He was incredibly acquisitive, and she was lushly, exotically quasi-ethnic and brash. </p>
<p>I was borderline offended by these two characters. I don’t mind criticisms of our culture. Parody is okay. But at some point there is a line between parody and stereotype, and Byatt may have crossed it here.</p>