<p>I think you’re right about the s</p>
<p>** Mary13 ** excellent summary and overview posted in #94! Outstanding! more than anything, I’ll remember this book as an homage to women in literature and myth, and is those views changed with each literary movement and generation. Just as ** NJ TheaterMom **stated " like a “Rorschach test or prism- variety of views”</p>
<p>The seance scene confused me, had to go back to reread. At first, I thought Christabel was hiding, and not seated at the table with Ash.
I did think of Blanche “flowing water and waves”</p>
<p>I agree it was Blanche visiting the s</p>
<p>I don’t think it was Blanche. I think it was the woman running the s</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I mentioned in our December discussion that Cold Mountain is one of my favorite books. So I guess I am a fan of detailed historical fiction. As much as I liked Possession, it did not make it to Cold Mountain status for me. All the characters in CM had such warmth and depth – and the novel did not have the ultra-academic feel or amused detachment of Possession. It’s simply a heartfelt character study set during one of our country’s most tragic and disturbing times. Very dark, very moving. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BUandBC82, I wondered the same thing. It is not only Ash who loves her deeply, it is also Blanche. And there is no doubt that Sabine’s father was very, very fond of her (even though she repaid his kindness harshly). I think Byatt may be suggesting (again) that historical research can only take us so far. Without being able to see and touch and smell and converse with the historical subjects, you can’t truly know them and you can’t experience that “chemistry” we feel (good or bad) when we’re in the physical presence of another person.</p>
<p>
[quote=mathmom]
I don’t think it was Blanche. I think it was the woman running the s</p>
<p>I enjoyed the correspondence between Randolph and Christabel. I could see how the intellectual spark turned into passion and I wasn’t particularly creeped out by the moral implications. Christabel seemed to sense a lack of love within Ash prior to their consummating the affair. I didn’t think it was necessary to turn Ellen into a frigid (hate that term) woman.</p>
<p>I had a harder time understanding the love affair between Roland and Maud. I guess it was too bland (too white) for me. Roland seemed to me an ambiguous and vague character…I was glad Val left him. Roland is consumed with thoughts that he doesn’t fit into icy Maud’s world, and then we are expected to believe he overcame it all? Well good for him but my guess is that he would need a great deal of therapy before having the confidence to make such a move!!!</p>
<p>With regard to Christabel, it may be true that there had to be much more to her character than Byatt chooses to show.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Christabel also had a unique function in the lives of the three people Mary13 mentions:
- Blanche needed companionship and someone to help support her financially, and she valued Christabel’s creativity.
- Ash benefited intellectually from his association with someone who had such a fine mind, combined with presumably different sensibilities from his male cohorts.
- Sabine’s father lived a relatively isolated life and lacked contact with anyone who could be described as a highly educated adult woman.</p>
<p>I agree with mathmom about the s</p>
<p>Blanche’s directive - I charge her not to dispose of these paintings, either by gift or by sale, during her lifetime, and to make such provision for them in after time as I myself would have made. - feels like manipulation to me … an assurance that she remains with Christabel … a form of possession, if you will. I put it in the same category as putting Christabel’s rocks in her pocket to weigh her down. (I’m not a fan of Blanche.)</p>
<p>I agree with mathmom that the woman running the seance manipulated the scene. To quote R.H. Ash in Mummy Possest:
</p>
<p>Mrs. Lees knew Christabel and she knew Blanche and how she died. She prepared.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Christabel writes this poem in her domesticity period, does she not? It does not express happiness to me.</p>
<p>One last thing: I noted earlier that I don’t particularly like Christabel - less so as the story goes on. Maybe I need to cut Christabel some slack … Sabine’s journal influenced me and Sabine is not an impartial narrator. Until that point, I can say I liked Christabel enough. Like psychmom just posted, “I can understand how the intellectual spark turned into passion.” Even if Sabine narrates impartially, Christabel is no longer the Christabel we first meet. She makes decisions that alter her life, alter her as a person. Others make decisions that alter her. I can’t say she’s ever happy again. Too much water under the bridge (gee … how insensitive does that sound … considering Blanche’s death … though true, I guess. I really didn’t plan that remark. Yikes!)</p>
<p>Great comments everyone!</p>
<p>Funny, I didn’t worry about whether the seance was real or not. It was just part of the story. In fiction anything can be real. I recognized the person “speaking” was supposed to be Blanche. I am now leaning towards the manipulation theory.</p>
<p>I liked the affair between Roland and Maud. He did overcome his lack of confidence quickly, but did so only after feeling successful with his job offers. He finally felt worthy. Val’s quick turnaround bothered me more. Her relationship with Euan didn’t seem possible, but I’ll go with Mary’s theory that, in a Romance novel, “love conquers all”.</p>
<p>About Blanche’s paintings - In the book it was suggested by someone (I can’t remember who) that the painting might be somewhere in Seal Court. The story ends before anyone can go back to look. I thing they are there. I didn’t like Christabel, but I don’t think she was cruel enough or strong enough to destroy the paintings.</p>
<p>I understand a bit the need-to-know that drives the biographers. Ash burned two of Christabel’s letters and I find myself wondering what those letters contained.</p>
<p>The second reading at mass this morning was from the 1st letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, a familiar passage with a classic theme that made me think of Possession with its poetry and its search for knowledge that is, in the end, a quest for love:</p>
<p>If I speak in human and angelic tongues,
but do not have love,
I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
And if I have the gift of prophecy,
and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge;
if I have all faith so as to move mountains,
but do not have love, I am nothing.</p>
<p>Of course, I shouldn’t have been thinking about Possession during mass, but you people are addictive --so thanks y’all for contributing to the endangerment of my immortal soul :).</p>
<p>Moving on to question 2:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the most part, we have already answered these questions in prior posts. Giving away clues within the poetry is part of the treasure hunt aspect of the book, as well as its homage to literary analysis, yet at the same time it can be a source of frustration.</p>
<p>My husband and kids are canoeing enthusiasts, so I’ll use that as an analogy. For me, the poetry was like coming to a portage after a refreshing trip down the river. I hoisted the canoe and pushed on until I could put it down again and resume the more enjoyable part of the journey. For NJTheatreMOM, the portage diminished her enjoyment of the trip, slowing progress unnecessarily. For ignatius, the portage was healthy exercise and a welcome challenge. For SouthJerseyChessMom, the portage was an impediment to her desire to reach the final destination; she radioed for an airlift instead. :)</p>
<p>…and for me the portage was a good time to take a nap…</p>
<p>I’ve really already mentioned this, but I think the story could have been told with less poetry and poetic writing in the letters and journals. It was a way for us to get to know the characters, but fewer words could have done it.</p>
<p>For me portgage is a time to look around and notice different things. In the water you tend to be focussed on the water, on land you look at other stuff, even if it’s just where you are putting your feet. I liked having the poetry there, but at the same time - especially the longer bits were disruptive to the flow of the story. I wonder if you could have done almost as much with shorter snippets/epigraphs at the chapter heads and then put the full works in an appendix, so that they were more optional.</p>
<p>For me the portage was a bowl of porridge. At first I was hungrily eager, but then I started to skim the bowl.</p>
<p>And of course, Mary, you should be thinking of us at Mass. You need to save our literary souls.</p>
<p>mary13 made me laugh out loud- great post.
Are you becoming a bit… Wait for it…* Possessed * ?
Is an exorcism needed?</p>
<p>And, this canoeist is paddling upstream now, (I’ve spent countless hours and copious notes reviewing Norse Myths, Victorian poets and artists, Greek Myths, …) trying to grasp Byatt’s deeper currents,
It needs to stop and you, Mary need to right my vessel soon!</p>
<p>I sighed when I hit the “tales” - “The Glass Coffin” and “The Threshold” - even Gode’s tale of the dancing baby. I gave full attention to the poetry but read (yes, I did) the tales with short shrift re insight as to any deeper meaning. I probably did not do them justice.</p>
<p>Mary: Love the canoeing analogy so let’s say that I trod along on automatic pilot during the reading of the tales. </p>
<p>Maybe because I liked the poetic interludes and definitely the letters, I find them integral to the novel. Ash and Christabel define themselves first and foremost as wordsmiths … obviously, they express themselves best through the written word. (Cropper - pedantic, and Leonora - biased/predisposed - employ words in their chosen vocation. Both could take lessons from their subjects. I enjoyed though the dig at literary analyses that the author gives us, though.)</p>
<p>
Interesting but I’m not sure I agree. Having just said I believe the poems integral, I can’t then say “make them optional.” Leave them as is and let the reader make them optional by skipping/skimming and then feel a modicum of guilt - or not. ;)</p>
<p>I agree with mathmom, “I liked having the poetry there, but at the same time - especially the longer bits were disruptive to the flow of the story.”</p>
<p>The poetry, and even the horrible story about the small things interrupted the flow of the main narrative itself, and I found myself looking ahead to see how long the passages would be. I liked the letters, though, and knowing from the movie how the story was going to compress, felt thirsty to know more about the progression of the romance. </p>
<p>But why do we read (aloud or not) poetry, anyway? From my point of view, it certainly is an intellectual challenge to write poetry, to find the precision in the language (yes, I’m also in the roses are red, etc., low ability camp). But when we read lengthy poems, does the length defeat the purpose of using precise, or even just beautiful language? I suppose this is very personal, and for me, at least, the answer is yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On my portages, I kept tripping over roots because of looking ahead to see when I was going to reach the river again.</p>
<p>PlantMom, I agree that in some cases the length of a poem can be off-putting. By the time I reached the end of Swammerdam, I felt like I had undergone a lobotomy by way of poetry. On the other hand, I liked Mummy Possest, so I suppose it’s a matter of subject matter, or of choosing the right poem for your mood.</p>
<p>By the way, psychmom’s delightful and ever-so-slightly mixed portage-porridge metaphor made me think of Goldilocks, which made me think of Fairy Tales, which reminded me to mention that I found another Little Red Riding Hood allusion: Fergus **Wolff<a href=“duh”>/b</a> has a “voracious smile, with bright blue eyes and a long mouth terribly full of strong white teeth” (p. 37). In a sense, he tries to “devour” Maud with his sexual prowess, but as it turns out, she is the one who is more frightening. Roland asks, “What is she like? Will she eat me?” Fergus answers, “She thicks men’s blood with cold” (p. 39). </p>
<p>Fergus is quoting The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Here’s the full stanza—it’s perfect:</p>
<p>Her lips were red, her looks were free,
Her locks were yellow as gold:
Her skin was as white as leprosy,
The Night-Mare LIFE-IN-DEATH was she,
Who thicks man’s blood with cold.</p>
<p>[The</a> Rime of the Ancient Mariner : Part the Third by Samuel Taylor Coleridge @ Classic Reader](<a href=“Classic Reader | Ponly”>Classic Reader | Ponly)</p>