Victorians! discussion

Is that who played Roland?? Crazy. Isn't he a blonde now?

Darcy wrote: "Is that who played Roland?? Crazy. Isn't he a blonde now? "
Yes he is,well for his last few roles anyway!

Just finished the book! First post in the group (hi!), hope you all don't mind if I hop in...

All's I've got to say on the topic of Aaron Eckhart as Roland is just that honestly I just thought he was far, far too hot and unambiguously straight male to be a Victorian poetical scholar in the 21st century and to not have achieved any success yet. I wonder if that's why they made him American, to give the British people he worked with a reason to be biased against him- in terms of that whole argument that went through the novel about British books for British people, or whatever. Or maybe it was just to give an American audience an entry point into a subject matter they might otherwise be intimidated by. I'm not really sure. Also, who cares when I can just concentrate on Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehele making out? :)

But back to the book... I'd like to go back and address some of the previous conversations that you all were having here if you don't mind?

Regarding discussion about Byatt using the term "the feminists" the way she did, I wasn't bothered by it. For the same reason I wasn't bothered by a lot of the ridiculous stuff that went on amongst the academics with their backstabby infighting- I think this book is at least in part a sendup of the pettiness and oblique power struggles of professional academia. If you'll notice, I believe "the feminists" is nearly always uttered by someone that we find ridiculous in at least a few ways- Fergus Wolff (we already know he's a dick), Blackadder, Cropper. All of them say it in a deliberatly dismissive way that is meant for us to see it as dismissive. I don't think that this is Byatt's editorial position. I think she's showing us that feminists sometimes have trouble getting respect, still, within the academic departments, who apparently still often find them ridiculous, or not worthy of funding. Or just the general tunnel-sight a lot of these people have about the importance of their own departments as opposed to the others, and are determined to chop away at the others whenever they have the chance. Isn't Cropper's deal with "the feminists" that he doesn't like them because they staged a protest back in the 70s b/c they wanted the Fairy Melusina taught at the expense of some of Ash's stuff?

I think the case for this not being Byatt's position is pretty clear- and she does this through show, not tell. She shows us that the women who are doing "women's studies" all have very different reasons for being there, and very different ways to approach the women that they study. They're all individual, and she painstakingly lays everything about them that says so. Maud and her barriers, Beatrice and her issues with men, Leonora and her 60s thing she's got going on. So yeah, that didn't really bother me.

As regards the relationship of Val and Roland being like Ellen and Randolph, I think that's the case of is and is not, as Roland would say towards the end of the novel. Nothing is exactly parallel, but some important things are- she takes care of him, but is stripped of all the societal pressure to do so and so a lot of her excuses for it, and I also agree that their relationship isn't as deep at all. It isn't like somethign went wrong and prevented them from matching up due to unavoidable circumstances, they just aren't right for each other. Also- I thought both characters made up a really interesting exploration of the line between the way people are and the excuses that people make for not being more- you know? Both Ellen and Val are examples of this- which one we think had the more valid excuses is of course up to the individual reader.

I honestly matched Val up with Blanche Glover first. They both repeatedly assert their status as "superfluous persons," with difficulty figuring out exactly what it was they were worth to the world and to themselves, and difficulty with self respect when not attached to someone else possessing them (since the word happens to be appropriate here).


... okay that's all for now. More later!

Oh wait, oh wait! I forgot to talk about Maud and Roland and the sex scene at the end. That's what I was forgetting.

Here's my argument why I don't think it's just cheap Gratification Theatre. I think that after a book in which sexual compatability and sexual repression and sexual identity was such an issue, and everyone had such difficulty expressing it, I think that it felt like there had to be some resolution to people just simply stepping forward to get what they want. Leonora is a good start in terms of representing a societal movement- her ability to just grab people's faces and make out with them with no inhibitions, but her affections seem slightly indiscriminate (and no, I'm not judging at /all/ or calling her a ho or whatever), and this book is about the special, fragile relationship of two people connecting on a special plane that very few people ever reach, and don't necessarily hold onto for a very long time, so that wasn't really fitting.

I think that we needed the sex scene to show us that these two people affected each other enough to reach out to that extent, and to expose themselves (like that tale of the women whose veins you could see through their skin) to that extent for the sake of their love. I mean, I wish it hadn't been so beat you over the head, and I agree, using the "possession" word was a groan-out-loud moment (let's blame that on the dumb editors, shall we?), but I liked that they did it. I think it was the last piece in showing that they were well and truly matched without the problems that best either Randolph and Cristabel or Randolph and Ellen.

Honestly, I had more of a problem with the epilogue. I mean, I loved it on a sentimental level, don't get me wrong, but /that/ was Gratification Theatre, in order to spin it all up into a fine fairy tale ending, with a positive spin on the whole "there are more things in heaven and earth thread" that was running through the piece. Come. On.

I LOVED the Epilogue, but hated the sex scene. I guess I'm just a terrible prude! LOL I do agree that maybe it was needed for the reasons you mentioned, Kelly.

Is that the reason you didn't like it, because you thought it was inappropriate? What were your feelings about the earlier descriptions of the sex between Randolph and Cristabel and the brief, painful description of Randolph and Ellen's attempts at a sex life? Did you think those were unnecessary as well?

Reply to Thalia: I was reading down the message list that centered on discussion of feminists - back and forth with interesting comments - but when I read your note regarding the difficulty of simply reading the book, I was relieved that someone finally addressed that aspect. I wondered if everyone was loving the emperor's new clothes. Of course a writer setting a story in a historical period must read and learn a great deal about the period but some of the detail was so pendantic. I don't mind using a dictionary, but I won't start googling while reading a novel. I guess I can be disappointed in myself along with your disappointment in yourself!! Our limitations...? I think Byatt wrote an amazing book. The various topics set in the two centuries make for wonderful discussions but the reading for pleasure aspect was pretty rough at times.

Kelly wrote: "Is that the reason you didn't like it, because you thought it was inappropriate? What were your feelings about the earlier descriptions of the sex between Randolph and Cristabel and the brief, pain..."

I'm not sure, Kelly. I'm not sure I felt it inappropriate. I think it was more that I just didn't buy the love between Roland and Maud. It seemed to pale for me in light of the love affair that had gone before. It could well be just me. ;)

That's fair- I think that Roland and Maud themselves felt like pale imitations of Randolph and Cristabel, didn't they? There's a great quote from Roland analyzing his and Maud's relationship that debates a great aspect of relationships that I think doesn't always get brought up- its something about- how can we be sure that we really feel the feelings that we're feeling and not just simply acting out the roles for the narrative in which we find ourselves because that's what the story looks like? How do they know that they're not just passionte for the story rather than passionate for each each other? I think that's a general truth about people in relationships that we see all the time, and very true to the characters in this story. They don't really know the answer to that question and I like that both of them acknowledged that. And even in doing so, they found somewhat the solution that Randolph and Cristabel did- that they each had to have their own life- Roland wasn't going to abandon his teaching opportunities to stay near Maud, and Maud wasn't going to abandon her work editing the letters or her Women's Resource Center.

I do think this plays into general feelings that people have about working on the past, too- once you get into it, human history repeats and repeats and repeats to the point where nobody really feels special because everyone has had their story at some point, looked at in a certain way. I agree it appears to pale in comparsion, and that's an incredibly sad statement. I don't think that makes what Roland and Maud found less valid, though. You can also see it as an argument that modern day people can have the grand, sweeping romance we attribute to 'days of old', it just won't look like what you thought it would look like.

Kelly,

Your comment was brilliant: "You can also see it as an argument that modern day people can have the grand, sweeping romance we attribute to 'days of old', it just won't look like what you thought it would look like."

I did like the epilogue though. Yes, it was sentimental. But I thought it gave Randolph and May something, some part of the story, that they deserved as such pivotal people in the novel. I mean, did we really want it that Randolph just mourned love lost and silently went away to his grave after a while. After all, we had the search to discover more about Cristabel, Blanche, Sabine's letters, etc. We left Randolph somewhere, so at the end we found him again.

Dickens was at times criticized for his sentimentality in some of his endings. I read a defense once, though, that said after all that he uncovered, all the dirt and the desperation, he could provide something warm at the end without "selling out." I feel the same about Possession.

We left Randolph somewhere, so at the end we found him again.

Dickens was at times criticized for his sentimentality in some of his endings. I read a defense once, though, that said after all that he uncovered, all the dirt and the desperation, he could provide something warm at the end without "selling out." I feel the same about Possession.

I like the sentence about "losing Randolph somewhere" and finding him again. But here's the thing: That's already been taken care of. I think that it is a great strength of the novel that it tries to give a voice to people who never would have gotten one in the convential run of things. But that's the thing- Randolph's story has mostly already been told. He has people obssessed with him, a guy who has tracked every inch of his life. It was Cristabel's turn, and Sabine's turn and his daughter's turn. I agree that Randolph had another story to be told, but there are plenty of other scenes we could have been shown to wrap up Randolph's story and show us the man he became without tugging on the most obvious of heartstrings. I mean, it was done to the point where you're almost forced to have your heart leap out of your chest. Beatrice Nest bursting out in tears and dictating the audience response with her, "He never saw it, he never knew..."

I don't mind sentimentality, I do mind being emotionally manipulated to the point where I can only have one reaction. It was just such an abrupt change from the complexity of the rest of the book, where there was so much to think about and debate. It isn't a bad choice, it just feels like it belongs in a different book, you know?

I just finished this book and I quite enjoyed it. It really offered so much I think. I had mystery, humor, a touch of adventure, and deep layers or metaphor and symbolism.

It was an entertaining and wonderful exploration into the world of scholarly study and the way in which these idols of the past are approached and treated. I believe that Byatt within this story expressed some of her feelings of resentment toward what the refers to as the vulturing into these lives of the dead.

This book brings up a lot of questions of the morality and ethics in how study is approached and what are the true rights and wrongs of invading the privacy and innermost lives of those past icons. Do they not deserve some respect and decency the same as anyone else?

There is a fine line between the importance of study, and not treating these figures as they were once real living people who might not have wanted all of their secrets dragged up into the public eye.

I found it quite interesting, that Ellen seemed to have an awareness that indeed someday Ash's private affairs would be dug up, and the very reason she had burned the letters she dead while he was on his death bed was to prevent them from being read by others. Which seems to suggest that she was writing her diary with some future audience in mind. It also brings up the question of what her true intent with the box was?

Did she predict and mean for it to be discovered someday? And if so with her motive, as with her own letters she was careful to protect Ash's desire for privacy but she could not bring herself to destroy LaMotte's last letter.

Was her preserving it a final act of vindication to Ash for never letting him know of it? Or was it truly an act of revenge against Ash and Lamotte?

I think that the intimacy between Roland and Maud, was intended by Byatt to be something of a modern fairy tale of sorts. The fact that perhaps it did seem to suggest too much of that old "happily ever after" and perhaps was questionable of how genuinely believable it really was. Byatt threaded the theme of fairy tales throughout her work, and within the fairy tales I think there can be seen reflections of both Roland and Maud.

Maud was a sort of Lady Shallot or Princess in the Tower, in a way many of the women in the story were in their own various different ways. And Roland was the prince, he was seen as being completely different than the big bad wolf so to speak. Fergus who had damaged and taken advantage of Maud. So Roland was there to come in here and set her free so to speak. The way in which he told her to let her hair go when they were upon the beach.

Perhaps Roland and Maud represent together what LaMotte and Ash could never truly possess.

I was right! Maud is directly descended from both Ash and Christabel! What a wonderful, moving ending (The Postcript).

Elizabeth wrote: "Definitely SPOILERS!

Has anyone else finished the book? I finished this afternoon and I'm just aching to talk about the ending. Not the very end but the chapter before, where Maud and Ronald final..."

It's inevitable, but yes I did find it a bit awkward. Chiefly because it happened in that inn directly after the climactic revelation. It seems like Byatt was in a hurry to tie up all the loose endings in that last chapter. I know that Maud/Roland is designed to be mirroring Ash/Christabel, but somehow I find the latter couple's romance to be the more convincing and passionate. I also find Ash to be much more sympathetic than Roland, despite him being an unfaithful husband.

That following Postcript is wonderfully written, though.

Sarah wrote: "Did I miss something? Was the mystery of Randolph's death mask ever solved? At the beginning this comes up as we learn that Roland has a photo of it in his flat. And he says no one has learned w..."

I was wondering about this too. I expected it to be resolved in the climax --- but I was wrong. I thought that if Byatt decided to resolve it, it would be quite interesting. Why did Ellen do that to him?

Sandybanks wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Did I miss something? Was the mystery of Randolph's death mask ever solved? At the beginning this comes up as we learn that Roland has a photo of it in his flat. And he says no one..."

Here's a very short article on Victorian death rituals:
http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2...

As to why Ash's beard was shaved after death, the mask would not have come away after it dried, otherwise.

Elizabeth wrote: "I didn't think there was a mystery about the death mask. It's just a piece of victorian culture that Byatt included. Do you think there's a mystery?"

Page 19 :

"Roland possessed three images of Randolph Henry Ash. One, a photograph of the death mask, which was one of the central pieces in the Stant Collection of Harmony City, stood on his desk. There was a puzzle about how this bleak, broad-browed carved head had come into existence, since there also existed a photograph of the poet in his last sleep, still patriarchally bearded. Who had shaved him, when? Roland had wondered, and Mortimer Cropper had asked in his biography, The Great Ventriloquist, without finding an answer."

Roland and Cropper, who both had obsessively studied Ash and presumably know everything there is to know about the Victorians, think that there is a mystery here. If shaving the beard is known to be routine in Victorian death rituals, why do they wonder about it?

Maybe Byatt left us with a little tidbit to wonder about. I didn't read the book back through to find anything about it -- not really sure if there is anything more to it or not. Maybe one reason I love Byatt.

Maybe to show there will always be a little mystery about the famous. Byatt also left a huge void in the life of Christabel. She just lived in that tower for 30 years or more. Nothing more. The story of many of her years is left blank? Not that it needs to be detailed. But as the reader, we can wonder, did she travel, did she have friends? They were still a family of means at that time, there must have been something going on.

Sarah wrote: "Maybe Byatt left us with a little tidbit to wonder about. I didn't read the book back through to find anything about it -- not really sure if there is anything more to it or not. Maybe one reason..."

Perhaps Christabel lives a secluded life in her turret in Seals Court, like Emily Dickinson.

From Wikipedia :

"Around this time, Dickinson's behavior began to change. She did not leave the Homestead unless it was absolutely necessary and as early as 1867, she began to talk to visitors from the other side of a door rather than speaking to them face to face.[75:] She acquired local notoriety; she was rarely seen, and when she was, she was usually clothed in white. Dickinson's one surviving article of clothing is a white cotton dress, possibly sewn circa 1878–1882.[76:] Few of the locals who exchanged messages with Dickinson during her last fifteen years ever saw her in person.[77:] Austin and his family began to protect Emily's privacy, deciding that she was not to be a subject of discussion with outsiders.[78:] Despite her physical seclusion, however, Dickinson was socially active and expressive through what makes up two-thirds of her surviving notes and letters. When visitors came to either the Homestead or the Evergreens, she would often leave or send over small gifts of poems or flowers.[79:] Dickinson also had a good rapport with the children in her life. Mattie Dickinson, the second child of Austin and Sue, later said that "Aunt Emily stood for indulgence."[80:] MacGregor (Mac) Jenkins, the son of family friends who later wrote a short article in 1891 called "A Child's Recollection of Emily Dickinson", thought of her as always offering support to the neighborhood children.[80:]"

I don't know much about Victorian poets, but I thought that Christabel is at least partly based on Dickinson?

About the beard mystery -- I'm a bit disappointed that Byatt doesn't resolve it, since it was set up as some kind of an intriguing mystery so early in the book.

Sandybanks wrote: I don't know much about Victorian poets, but I thought that Christabel is at least partly based on Dickinson?

Yes, she is based a little bit upon Dickinson and a little bit upon Christina Rossetti.

Also her name is taken in part from Coldridge's poem Christable and taken from Friedrich Heinrich Karl de la Motte who wrote a fairy tale Undine with simillar themes as Melusine

Elizabeth wrote: "Maybe the beard story is a misdirection on Byatt's part to show the reader how off Cropper was. It's an early hint that he didn't recognize the things that really mattered and focused on the trivia..."

Hmm...but Roland also thought that the same way, not just Cropper. Maybe Byatt wants to show us how those two are so obsessed with Ash that they're making a big deal over trivialities?

Silver wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: I don't know much about Victorian poets, but I thought that Christabel is at least partly based on Dickinson?

Yes, she is based a little bit upon Dickinson and a little bit upo..."

Interesting. Thanks for the info, Silver. I'll google them.

Is Glover based on a specific pre-Raphaelite painter, or is she also a composite?

But Roland didn't have the obsession like Cropper at all. Roland is not in the same category, he is clearly defined in a different way than Cropper.

Cropper had basically enshrined Ash, buying up every ridiculous stick of Ash's life. He especially revered that heavily sarcastic letter written by Ash to Cropper's great aunt somebody. Cropper was meant to be an absurd character, not Roland.

Sarah wrote: "But Roland didn't have the obsession like Cropper at all. Roland is not in the same category, he is clearly defined in a different way than Cropper.

Cropper had basically enshrined Ash, buying ..."

Cropper's interest in Ash is venal and obsessive, bordering on the morbid. Roland's interest in him is not motivated by mercenary motives, but by a deep sense of personal connection to the poet. But isn't he equally obsessed by Ash? Where does legitimate academic curiosity ends and unhealthy obsession begins? I thought that this is one of the most interesting issue that Byatt raises in this book.

Roland is the hero with a quest in this novel, but that doesn't mean that he can't be obsessive. In fact, I think when everyone agree that they're going to read the letters in the box Cropper dug up from Ash's grave, they are already complicit in his 'unhealthy obsession'. And so are we, the voyeuristic readers.
: )

I read Cropper's interest in Ash's insignificant things (I think my favorite one was Cropper's indignation at the church where Ash was buried, because the pastor wouldn't give up some inkwell he had of Ash's. So great.) as having a whole lot to do with his daddy issues. They make a great point of giving us his backstory and how is father was obsessed with collecting all these things that had touched the lives of famous men at some point, and negelecting the raising of his son due to his obsession with these Things. And Cropper picked up that Things were more important than people or people's feelings- which explains why he doesn't give a shit about anyone's delicate feelings and is willing to become a graverobber. I read it as a way of Cropper living a life that would seem important to his father- making the Cropper family part of history, rather than just awed admirers of history-which explains his obsession with his great-grandmother's letter from Ash. I mean, seriously, the dude wears a signet ring (one of the more hilarious touches Byatt adds about him) and has all the other trappings of a Victorian gentleman- all the other foolish emblems that makes a man think that something of him will last when he is gone, when in fact we find out what is /really/ important and /really/ lasts by the end of the novel- people, feelings, passions, love- the sort of thing that Maud and Roland are searching for.

That all said, I do think Cropper is probably Byatt's best, most lovingly drawn secondary character in the novel (after Ash and Cristabel- and yeah, I think he's better drawn than Maud and arguably Roland, though I'm willing to give you that one).

I read Roland's quest as slightly different. Whereas Cropper is trying very firmly to prove and build up an identity for himself that he already has in his head, Roland doesn't have any idea who he is, or what to build up about it, and living in the story of two people who had the same sort of identity issues pushes him to realize what it is he wants to do and be, and that he has to live for himself rather than other people.

I really liked Roland's discovery of himself as a poet. I thought the lists of words and the scene in the garden were well done.

I liked that, too. It made the end seem more geniune to me, when it could've just seemed like a perfect fairy tale happy ending wrap up. We still have a guy who is just starting his path to figuring stuff out, and maybe that won't allow him to be with Maud in the way that the readers want him to be, or Maud with him. I thought the random words and the garden scene were great at illustrating a guy who has finally learned to value himself rather than just the words of dead people, because we'll all never find anything geniune again since as Blackadder says, "it will turn out to have been discovered twenty times before"! The end of Roland's sort of disagrees with that, or the idea that that matters, and I like that.

Sandybaks wrote: Is Glover based on a specific pre-Raphaelite painter, or is she also a composite?

I am not sure, as we are not really given much about her art, so it is hard to get an idea, though her painting of Vivian and Merlin, sounds like it is taken from "The Beguiling of Merlin" by Sir Edward Burne-Jones.

There is also not that much information known about the lives of a lot of the female painters of ther period.

Sandybanks wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Definitely SPOILERS!

Has anyone else finished the book? I finished this afternoon and I'm just aching to talk about the ending. Not the very end but the chapter before, where Mau..."

I agree with you completely. I found the romance between Ash and Christabel to be so much more convincing and passionate than that between Maud and Roland.

But I did really love the book. One of my all time favorites.

Gabrielle wrote: I agree with you completely. I found the romance between Ash and Christabel to be so much more convincing and passionate than that between Maud and Roland.

I cannot help but to feel that Byatt intentionally did that as a statement about the romanticism of the past compared to modern day views upon sex and relationships. Particularly considering the mess of a relationship which Roland began with Val, and the coldness between them. The fact they were staying together more out of some habit than anything else.

Perhaps it is also the difference in their occupations. Christable and Ash were both poets while Roland and Maud were scholars, and while they were passionate about their work, there is something a bit "colder" in scholarly work than that of an artist.

Artists are full of inspiration and live to create, while scholars pursue facts and make their living off of the creations of others, though there is some need for interpretation in their line of work. It is different.

I agree with that, Silver. Christabel and Ash were very different people than Roland and Maud.

Silver wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: I agree with you completely. I found the romance between Ash and Christabel to be so much more convincing and passionate than that between Maud and Roland.

I cannot help but to ..."

That's an interesting thought, Silver. The divergence between modern and Victorian views on sex and relationship makes everything different for these couples. The stake for Ash/Christabel is much higher than for our modern couple, and this gives their illicit romance added depth and passion.

I think that is but one more of the many elements behind this story, the comparrison between the modern and the past, and how views have changed, how human interaction has changed. The women such as Maud, Nest, (and the American whose name slips my mind) and how they compare to Ellen, Blanche, Christabel.

I've been googling some of the Norse myths used in the novel and found this on Wikipedia :

"Old Norse askr literally means "ash tree" but the etymology of embla is uncertain, and two possibilities of the meaning of embla are generally proposed. The first meaning, "elm tree", is problematic, and is reached by deriving *Elm-la from *Almilōn and subsequently to almr ("elm").[1:] The second suggestion is "vine", which is reached through *Ambilō, which may be related to the Greek term ámpelos, itself meaning "vine, liana".[1:] The latter etymology has resulted in a number of theories.
According to Benjamin Thorpe "Grimm says the word embla, emla, signifies a busy woman, from amr, ambr, aml, ambl, assiduous labour; the same relation as Meshia and Meshiane, the ancient Persian names of the first man and woman, who were also formed from trees."[2:]"

Ask means Ash tree. Embla is either an elm tree, a vine or a busy woman (take your pick). Interesting.

Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_and_...

Silver wrote: "I think that is but one more of the many elements behind this story, the comparrison between the modern and the past, and how views have changed, how human interaction has changed. The women such a..."

What about Leonora Stern? What is she supposed to represent? Sometimes she seems more like a caricature of a militant/lesbian feminist than a proper character. Would her Victorian counterpart be Blanche Glover, or someone else?

Leonora that is the American I was thinking of. I find that most all of the modern characters, except for perhaps Roland, and maybe Maud more so as the story progresses are more caricature's than they are true characters. The men as well if you consider Fergus Wolf, Blackadder and Crooper.

I do think that Stern would be most juxtaposed by Blanche.

Silver wrote: "Leonora that is the American I was thinking of. I find that most all of the modern characters, except for perhaps Roland, and maybe Maud more so as the story progresses are more caricature's than t..."

Yeah, that's what I thought too. Somehow the Victorian characters are more 'alive', with all their complexities than the modern ones. Maud and Roland are credible characters, but only just so.

About Leonora and Blanche; is the relationship between Christabel and Blanche a lesbian one? If I remember correctly, Byatt never makes this clear.

Yes Blanche and Christabel had a lesbian relationship. Though it is never stated quite as frankly as that, there are many strong suggestions to this fact so I feel pretty certain that they were in fact lovers before Ash came along.

I think that making the modern characters more caricature, was part of Byatt's satire about the modern day scholarly community and their approach to prying into the lives of the dead. As well as poking fun about the mode of critical theory such as feminist, deconstructive, etc.

Silver wrote: "Yes Blanche and Christabel had a lesbian relationship. Though it is never stated quite as frankly as that, there are many strong suggestions to this fact so I feel pretty certain that they were in ..."

There is so much going on in this novel. I'm still trying to digest them all.

I'm curious as to Byatt's opinion of feminism, especially as a tool to understand Victorian literature. Leonora and her feminist critique of the Melusina poem are certainly meant to be ridiculous, but Byatt surely wants us to find Christabel and Maud sympathetic. I wish she could have given us an excerpt of a Maud critique of Ash's poetry, which most of the feminists in the book dislike.

I do not think Byatt is against feminism per sea in it of itself, but there are a lot of ridiculous things that do go on in feminist critique, which is a little different than just feminism even if based upon the ideas of feminism. Particularly in the modern world where at least in the U.S. and parts of Europe women don't really have the struggles that a Christabel would have.

Feminist critique does do a lot of just wily nilly male bashing, and trying to find chauvinism in just about any work by a male author, and looking for homosexuality everywhere.

Silver wrote: "I do not think Byatt is against feminism per sea in it of itself, but there are a lot of ridiculous things that do go on in feminist critique, which is a little different than just feminism even if..."

Apparently Maud is one of the few 'balanced' scholars, although she also has feminist credentials. That's why I wish that we could read some of he critique of Ash's poetry. Fergus is a mirror image of Leonora in his flippant dismissal of Christabel's works.

Thanks for sharing your views on Byatt, Silver. : )

Maud starts out seeming to be much like the rest she is the "ice queen" but I think she at least grows as a character as the story progresses.

Even though there were indeed well known female poets, I did wonder about the fact that it kept being hammered in that Christabel was looked at being inconsequential but just about everyone but the women scholars. I wondered what Byatt was indicating with that, if it was a suggestion about the fact that today, in spite of feminist scholars, if women writers are not being taken as seriously as they deserve.

You are quite welcome.

Silver wrote: "Maud starts out seeming to be much like the rest she is the "ice queen" but I think she at least grows as a character as the story progresses.

Even though there were indeed well known female po..."

Is this a true reflection of the real-life situation in academia --- that female poets are still taken less seriously than male ones? How about someone like Emily Dickinson or Rosetti vis-a-vis Tennyson or Coleridge?

It's a romance "about" possession, isn't it? Or rather about non-possession. We can't possess another no matter how much we love him or he loves us. We can't possess another even if we share a child with that person.

I am sure Byatt, who never chooses names without a reason, named Christabel after the subject of Coleridge's poem, "Christabel," but it's a long, difficult, and unfinished poem, and I'm not sure how the poem applies to the character, only that it does. The friendship between women, woman's vulnerability, a need to feel safe would be good starting places, I think.

Tennyson's "The Lady of Shalott" could refer to Christabel as well as to Maud. Each women was "shut up in her own tower," so to speak. And both woman's seclusion was broken by the arrival of a "knight," a "Sir Lancelot." Christabel is more the Lady of Shalott, though as she was fated to "die" in certain ways after her brief affair with Ash. Maud, living in a more open time, was not.

I'm sure Byatt chose the name "Maud" from Tennyson's, "Come Into the Garden, Maud." Christina Rossetti, who served as the primary model for Christabel also wrote a novella called, "Maude." And remember how Roland, at the end of the book goes into the garden. He saw "no reason why he should not go out into the garden." This is after he consummates his love with Maud. Fergus Wolff is named for Yeats' poems, "Who Goes With Fergus?" Or maybe "Fergus and the Druid." Fergus isn't sure he did the right thing. Browning's poem, "Childe Roland in the Dark Tower Came" could provide a clue to the character of Roland. I'm too tired to puzzle it all out now.

I think Christabel saw herself as Melusine when she finally gave in to Ash and made love with him. She was a demon in bed, not at all the "prim and proper Victorian woman" people thought she might be. Doesn't she even say, "I have been Melusine?"

Well, some things to think about. I love this book and think it's gorgeous, but I also think in order to fully understand all Byatt packed into it, one has to study the poems of Coleridge, Tennyson, and Yeats and others. But still, I think the book can simply be enjoyed for the wonderful story it is. Not everyone wants to analyze a book. If I weren't a poetry lover, I wouldn't have made it this far, and it's too complicated and complex for me to understand fully. I'm not ashamed to admit it. LOL

Sandybanks wrote: Is this a true reflection of the real-life situation in academia....

I think in academic study there is less attention given to female writers, there are those that are well known as mentioned, and their works may be taken seriously, and their talent acknowledged. But in most cannons, there is a ridiculously low number of women included.

I can say from the classes I have taken, usually you will have maybe one book or two by a female, and the rest are all male.

I do think that Maud's struggle with her woman studies and needing more funding and attention, is an adequate portrayal of modern academia regarding women.

And for the Dickinson's and Rosetti's there are those which you scarcely even hear about.

Sandybanks wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Maybe Byatt left us with a little tidbit to wonder about. I didn't read the book back through to find anything about it -- not really sure if there is anything more to it or not. Ma..."

Sandybanks, Byatt, herself wrote that she was more influenced by the poetry of Emily Dickinson than Christina Rossetti once she actually started working on the book.

I found it! Here's what Byatt said:

<<>>

A.S. Byatt - On the Writing of Possession

So, I would definitely agree with you.

Sandybanks wrote: "Silver wrote: "I think that is but one more of the many elements behind this story, the comparrison between the modern and the past, and how views have changed, how human interaction has changed. T..."

I think Leonora Stern is Byatt's way of showing us how little we've really probed the mystery of sexual union and how little insight we have. Leonora was a student of French feminism and this caused her to misread Christabel's poetry. I think Byatt was critical of the Victorian prohibition on sex and also the modern world's tendency to see just about everything in sexual terms. I think this ties in with Roland and Maud's sex scene near the end of the book.

Oh, I dearly love this book, but trying to understand it all gives me headaches and I don't get headaches! LOL

"I love this book and think it's gorgeous, but I also think in order to fully understand all Byatt packed into it, one has to study the poems of Coleridge, Tennyson, and Yeats and others. But still, I think the book can simply be enjoyed for the wonderful story it is. Not everyone wants to analyze a book. If I weren't a poetry lover, I wouldn't have made it this far, and it's too complicated and complex for me to understand fully. I'm not ashamed to admit it. LOL "

Ditto.

I know very little about Victorian poetry and only some generalities about modern literary theories, so I'm sure that I'm missing a lot of things. But yes, it still could be enjoyed as a wonderful story, even if we're missing some of the subtexts. I wish there were some website which explains all the literary and academic allusions.

Sandybanks wrote: ""I love this book and think it's gorgeous, but I also think in order to fully understand all Byatt packed into it, one has to study the poems of Coleridge, Tennyson, and Yeats and others. But still..."

I've looked and I can't find one. I wish one existed, too.

Gabrielle wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Maybe Byatt left us with a little tidbit to wonder about. I didn't read the book back through to find anything about it -- not really sure if there is anything mor..."

Interesting. Christabel's seclusion in the turret is definitely patterned after Dickinson's later life, then. Or maybe it is meant as an allusion to the "Lady of Shallot", as Gabrielle said.

Silver wrote: "Yes Blanche and Christabel had a lesbian relationship. Though it is never stated quite as frankly as that, there are many strong suggestions to this fact so I feel pretty certain that they were in ..."

And didn't Christabel and Geraldine, I think it was have a lesbian relationship in Coleridge's poem, "Christabel?" I think they did.