Victorians! discussion

I have only read a couple of things by Isben, though nothing so far as really jumped out at me as reminding me of his works, but I will have to keep it in mind in future reading.

Peregrine wrote: "I'm increasingly becoming interested in reading some of the works of the Victorian, and Norwegian, playwright, Henrik Ibsen. Does anybody recognise any influence of his work in Possession?"

Ibsen's play A Doll's House would fit in here. It deals with feminist desires. And Peer Gint is based on a fairy tale.

So much is opening to me in the reading both of Possession and of Middlemarch. The crisis of Christian faith I had only the vaguest idea of, from reading The Way of All Flesh. I did not know that the study of physiology was so recent as the 19th century. I knew nothing of the geological discoveries, not that I know a whole lot now, but a path has opened. I am loving this stuff! I hope we decide to read some history or some Victorian autobiography together. I read Edmund Gosse's autobiography years ago and wouldn't mind it again, as just one example.

Chris, what did you think of The French Lieutenant's Woman? Seems like it would be perfect for you ;) Might be another good one for a neo-Victorian read.

The French Lieutenant's Woman would make a very good neo-Victorian read. It is an intersting persepctive in the way Fowles examines Victorian soceity.

Darcy wrote: "Chris, what did you think of The French Lieutenant's Woman? Seems like it would be perfect for you ;) Might be another good one for a neo-Victorian read. "

Darcy and Silver, Oh yeah, I'd love to read that again sometime soon. I like John Fowles' writing. The French Lieutenant's Woman and A Maggot were my two favorites of the four or five of his books that I've read.

I have not yet read A Maggot but for me, I find The Magus to be one of the most brillaint and fascinating books I have ever read. I fell in love with that book.

The story of the "The Threshold" brought to my mind The Merchant of Venice in which Portia offered her suitors the choice of three different boxes, the descriptions of which were quite similar to those given of the maidens in "The Threshold" As well I wonder if the "Childe" of the story could in fact be Roland, while the rather dull, dour, maid with veiled hair who offers neither brightness nor some deeper inner understanding could be Maud.

Silver wrote: "The reflections of Roland in the reading of the letters at Seal Court in which he states:

The truth was, Roland though uneasily, these letters, these busy passionate letters, had never been writ..."

Having just finished a volume of Jane Austen's letters (while being aware that the bulk of them had been destroyed by her sister for privacy reason), I can relate to that question. But in the case of the Ash/Lamotte letters --- they were NOT destroyed by any of the writers or their families, and even deliberately preserved by Christabel, most likely with the intention of having them read by posterity later.

So yeah, I do feel like a voyeur, but a somewhat legitimate one (if that makes any sense at all). Byatt is a sly one isn't she?

But in her satirical approach to these modern scholars, and in the very fact that she based her story around fictional poets, opposed to actually using the example of real life figures I think reflects that Byatt did not all together approve of this digging into the private past lives. She likens Crooper to a vulture.

Peregrine wrote: "So much is opening to me in the reading both of Possession and of Middlemarch. The crisis of Christian faith I had only the vaguest idea of, from reading The Way of All Flesh. I did not know that t..."

The tension between faith and science in Ash is fascinating. On the same year that he was traveling and collecting specimens with Christabel, Darwin published his Origin of Species. Christabel seems more like a traditionalist than Ash in this matter, though. I wonder whether she'll change her views later, especially after being exposed to Ash's opinions.

Silver wrote: "But in her satirical approach to these modern scholars, and in the very fact that she based her story around fictional poets, opposed to actually using the example of real life figures I think refl..."

Hi Silver, thanks for responding! I received my book late from Amazon and was not able to join the discussion when everyone else were reading theirs.

Cropper, with his obsessive and self-serving interest in Ash and anything remotely connected with the poet is surely a repellent figure, but Roland and Maud (at least up till now) are not. They seem to act as benevolent guardians of the letters and the poets' legacies. It seems that Byatt is making a moral distinction between those who delve into literary figures' private lives for mercenary (financial or otherwise) motives, and those who do so because of sincere personal convictions. I have only read up to Chap. 14, so I might be wrong on this. Maud and Roland's motives might later turn out to be not as pure as I thought.

Maud's physical characteristics seem to echo both Christabel's and the fairly Melusina's --- I wonder if she is somehow directly related to Christabel (not just through the Baileys).

What is the significance of the Norse and Breton mythologies explored by Ash and Lamotte in their poems? Why specifically those myths instead of others?

Nice to have you join in the discussion.

I agree that Byatt does make a distinction between Roland and Maud compared to the Blackadder's and Cropper's within the book. Roland first takes the letters not to seek gains in his career or for money, but some deeper impulse driven by his love for Ash. And then enlists Maud as his unexpected ally in the adventure of uncovering the mystery.

I too was curious about the significance of Norse mythology within the book and it interested me. Perhaps Ragnork could be a reference to the idea of the reinvention of the world, as the Victorian period was a time when things did begin to change drastically and the world was reshaped around them. Looking back into the past was a way of struggling with the old mysticism and the progress in science which was starting to immerge. They were trying to understand their world.

"I too was curious about the significance of Norse mythology within the book and it interested me. Perhaps Ragnork could be a reference to the idea of the reinvention of the world, as the Victorian period was a time when things did begin to change drastically and the world was reshaped around them. Looking back into the past was a way of struggling with the old mysticism and the progress in science which was starting to immerge. They were trying to understand their world."

It's a creation myth, which I guess Ash used as a vehicle to express his (and the Victorians') unease about the contrary claims of religion and Darwinism about creation. But what is the significance of the Melusina myth? Perhaps it will become clearer as the story progresses.

I'm thinking about the images of gloves in LaMotte's poem and in that scene between her and Ash in the train before they decided to be lovers. Does the fact that Blanche's last name is Glover has any significance in relation to those images?

I find the writing to be very rich and multi-layered. I'm sure that I'm missing a whole bunch of things, but I can't put it down. The mystery is propelling the story along just nicely.

Elizabeth wrote: "Yes! The gloves are important. :-) Gloves are like masks, they hide things. People can behave differently when something is hidden or when something is visible. And then gloves are a very womanly/d..."

Thanks for the explanation, Elizabeth. But what is the connection between that image and the name Glover? Since the names all mean something in this novel, I assume that Blanche's surname must have hidden meaning too.

Elizabeth wrote: "Sandy, I can't remember how far into the book chapter 13 is, so I don't want to comment *too* much. Still, I think Blanche does a couple of things. She represents a domestic sphere for Christabel, ..."

Hmm... so the glove/Glover has domestic associations, and also a symbol of concealment. I haven't got to the part where she hid Christabel from Ash yet, so I haven't come across that side of her yet.

I'm now at Chap. 20 where Christabel hides out in her relative's Brittany home. The Breton folk tale about the dancing little one is eerie and foreboding --- I wonder what happened to the baby. I have a feeling that Maud is connected to it, perhaps a direct descendant?

Elizabeth wrote: "You have seen the hiding Christabel from Ash, Sandy. The concealment is the obstacles she places between them: hiding the letters, jealousy, even the looks that she gave Ash when they were all at b..."

OK. I thought that you were referring to future plot points. I guess I'm just not paying that much attention to her, being too much absorbed by the parrarel Ash/Christabel and Maud/Roland romances, and reading too fast because I want to know what will happen to them.

As I've said before, the story is very rich with multiple layers and will probably take several readings to completely decipher. As this is my first reading, I'll just concentrate on the plot first. Any information on the symbolism or allusion will be very welcome.

Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention.

Paula wrote: "Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention."

Paula, this book IS a challenging read! But I also find it very rewarding. Don't worry too much about all the poetry, symbolism etc., just read it for the compelling plot/mystery first. You can always come back for those later. Good luck! : )

I actually like the poetry. It's the plot that loses my attention so far.

Paula wrote: "Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention."

I don't think you're the only one, Paula. I have temporarily put mine to one side for when I am feeling more in the mood and I know some others have done the same. I am hoping that soon I will want to pick it up again and go with the flow.

I just returned from my two-week photography sojourn and I've finally made time to sit down and run through this thread and see where some of you are with Possession in your reading and discussions. It looks like it kind of runs the gamut. Some of you are enjoying the plot, but not the poetry. Others are liking the poetry, but the plot isn't catchin' afire. While others find it copesetic on all fronts.

I'll tell you that it took me three or four times before the proverbial 'light bulb' went on for me. So, most of you have done much, much better than I did. Also, I hope most of you realize that Byatt is toying with her readers fairly significantly with this novel of hers.

Byatt, is endeavoring to make us work harder than most of us work when we pick up a novel to read. She wants us to go back and look at the Victorian Era poets; and she wants us to appreciate 'em. She wants us to go out and study and read their poetry. She wants us to think about gender inequities and issues in the Victorian period, and then relate that understanding to our current times.

She wants us to understand the relationship between the old Norse (Icelandic) Poetic Edda and later literary traditions. Byatt wants us to be curious about the "Ragnarok," the doom of the Gods, and how it influenced the poets of the Romantic and Victorian periods, writers of Gothic novels, and ultimately proved to be a huge influence on Wagner's Ring Cycle, and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Byatt wants us to become familiar with the Breton myth of the Melusine; and again make that connection between relationships between men and women in the Middle Ages, Victorian and modern times.

Finally, Byatt, as most of you know is a literary critic. She is, throughout the novel, giving us her opinions of current academic research methods, literary interpretation, literary criticism, feminism, and so forth. She has pretty much 'thrown the kitchen sink' at us in this novel. Personally, I think it is pretty damned clever what she has fashioned here; but it took me a number of years before I was able to figure that out.

So, in conclusion, I applaud all of you for hanging tough with this novel. Please keep in mind that reading Possession is kind of like excavating a delicate archaeological ruin. With each sweep of the brush you expose something new; and you may not understand precisely what it means at that moment. Over time, though, with a little pondering and some additional study you'll be left with a much better understanding of this grand saga that she has written. Follow up on the threads that she has exposed, and then come back and revisit the novel in a couple of years. I think Possession is a book that will be read and studied a century, and even two centuries, from now. It is that important. Well, I've rambled enough (probably too much!). Cheers! Chris

Christopher wrote: "I just returned from my two-week photography sojourn and I've finally made time to sit down and run through this thread and see where some of you are with Possession in your reading and discussions..."

Great photography, Chris! You've captured the personality of the book beautifully.

I'm glad you're back Chris, I've missed seeing you around.

With regards to the book, I can totally see what you're saying and I do fully intend to pick it up again soon. It wasn't that I wasn't enjoying it, I just "wasn't in the mood" if that makes sense. I think I will pick it up again when I don't feel rushed and can take my time to really read it at leisure.

Thanks for your great insights as always.

Boof wrote: "Paula wrote: "Oye, I am really struggling with this book... I'm hanging my head in shame (somewhat) as I know others think quite highly of it. It's just not grabbing my attention."

I don't think..."

I feel the same Boof. I am not discouraged by it but not ready for it yet either. I am always encouraged when I read the great posts here. So I definatley will be picking it up at a later time.

Christopher wrote: "I just returned from my two-week photography sojourn and I've finally made time to sit down and run through this thread and see where some of you are with Possession in your reading and discussions..."

Thank you Chris, for this great post; it helps to put things into perspective the way you did. I had set the book down for 24 days and was not happy about it at all, but a friend told me the plot picked up so I returned. I'm now almost done, and I think you are completely right -- this book may be my new Heart of Darkness, which was overwhelming the first time but became more and more of a delight as I reread it and studied it. I haven't yet read the posts in the other discussions yet (post ch 13), but look forward to it and whatever you've written there.

I'm slowly finding the poetry more enjoyable and have only skipped one. This is saying a lot b/c I've never been much of a poetry fan. The stories and myths, though, I find to be just riveting! The interesting thing for me is finding that sometimes the poem IS a story, and not what I usually think of as poetry. This connection helps.

Anna wrote: "I almost feel as though Possession is two historical novels. One set in the 19th century and one set in the 1980s"

I agree -- I can't really imagine research on that level without a computer, the internet, or email. Very different world!

Anna wrote: You've summed up a great deal of the criticism out there on Byatt's work in this post. I would only add that it's important not to get too hung up the idea that Byatt is addressing 'contemporary' concerns in literary criticism and academia. This novel was published 19 yrs ago and much of what she is discussing has fallen out fashion. Freudian literary analysis was popular in the when she was writing Possession, but, like any field, lit crit has moved ahead and left Freud (thankfully) in the dust.

Could so much have changed in eighteen years? If so, I would want to steer clear of literary criticism, knowing that its certainties will be relics a few years on. I'm wondering if perhaps the labels have changed more than the ideas. I'm just speculating; I spend much more of my time with literature than with the critics. If only we could really leave Freud in the dust!

Anna wrote: "I wish we could leave Freud in the dust!! But yes, as a student in a lit crit class in 2002, I learned Freudian theory as a thing of the past. Useful to consider, but no longer in real practice. No..."

May he rest in peace!