Reading 1001 discussion

Review thread.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Brief Bio of the author:
Émile Édouard Charles Antoine Zola was born in April in 1840 and passed away in September of 1902. He was a French novelist, journalist, and playwright and was known as a practitioner of the literary school of naturalism. He was a major figure in the political liberalization of France during and after Napoleon the III. He also was instrumental in the exoneration of the falsely accused and convicted army officer Alfred Dreyfus, which is encapsulated in his renowned newspaper opinion headlined J'Accuse…!  Zola was nominated for the first and second Nobel Prize in Literature in 1901 and 1902.

Although Zola was born in Paris he had to become a naturalized French citizen as his father was of Italian-Greek ancestry.

After his first major novel, Thérèse Raquin (1867), Zola started the series called Les Rougon-Macquart. Both our BOTM books this month are part of this series.

In Paris, Zola maintained his friendship with Paul Cézanne, who painted a number of portraits of him that are worth looking up.

Just in case you would like a brief abstract on what literary "naturalism" meant:


The term naturalism refers to a late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century literary movement whose practitioners used the techniques and theories of science to convey a truthful picture of life. The characteristics of naturalism include a carefully detailed presentation of modern society, often featuring lower-class characters in an urban setting or a panoramic view of a slice of contemporary life; a deterministic philosophy that emphasizes the effects of heredity and environment; characters who act from passion rather than reason and show little insight into their behavior; and plots of decline that show the characters’ descent as the inevitable result of the choices they have made. Naturalistic novels also undermine the myths, plots, idealized situations, and heroic character types of romantic literature. In its frank presentation of violence and sexuality, naturalism broke free from earlier and more genteel conventions of realism and revealed a vision of life previously considered too brutally graphic for middle-class audiences. It tested the limits of what publishers would print and what audiences would read, thus setting a new standard for serious fiction and paving the way for later authors.

Pre-read questions:

Have you read any other of Zola’s work?

Emile Zola’s novel Nana was an instant success, selling out all 55,000 copies on its first day in print in 1880. It was highly praised. In addition, its outraged critics boosted its popularity.
Are you looking forward to reading this?

Jean Renoir made a brilliant adaptation of Nana for the silver screen in 1926 but films since then have not gotten as good reviews. However, they have never stopped trying; the novel went on to inspire French, American, Italian, Swedish, and Mexican film versions, plus a British and a French-Belgian-Swiss TV mini-series.
Have you seen any of these?

And lastly, did you look up to see any of Paul Cézanne's portraits of Zola?

Questions:

1. Nana never enters directly into aristocratic society, yet she has a tremendous influence on this society. How does Nana intrude upon and influence the values of the entire population?

2. How does Nana's heredity influence her inability to be satisfied in her luxurious environment as a courtesan?

3. Do you think that Zola means to have The Blond Venus represent the entire second empire in France? In the beginning Zola appears to favor Nana and delight in her character but as the book goes on he shifts his perspective. Do you think Zola is attempting to condemn the role prostitution played in the second empire or is he being broader than that?

5. How does Nana's relationships with Steiner, Georges Hugon, and Fontan function in connection with the central Muffat-Nana relationship? Do any of them seem "natural" or realistic? What do you think about all the men in this novel? Why do you think that Zola has so few of them seem able to have any self respect, respect for Nana or self control?

6. What do you think about literary naturalism? The titillating nature of the book made the book a best seller but do you think that it could have accomplished more than that by being read widely?

7. Is it fair to place the symbolic weight of the whole culture’s decadence on Nana? (Of course it is fair, Zola is the author, he can do what he wants...). Did you feel it was fair as you were reading Nana, is probably a better question.

8. In the end, does Nana “gets what she deserves”? Is Zola’s condemnation completed when she meets her fate?

9. And lastly what did you think? Did you enjoy it?

I read Nana recently, December 2021. I read Therese Raquin in 2013, Germinal in 2020. Which leaves La Bete Humaine from the 1001 list. I just finished L'Assommoir and Nana appears in the book as the little girl who leaves her family as a young woman and does make better for herself than her mother or father ever were able to do.
1. Because she is a member of the theater she is able to rub shoulders with the aristocratic world.
2. Because of her origin, Nana is insecure and driven to try to make her life more secure. She uses what she has to do so.
3. I think Zola mostly writes about naturalism so not sure that her is using symbols but I could be wrong. I would say, the role of prostitution is a part of society that has a group of people that are so poor they they feel they can't survive without prostitution.
5.
6. I think his writing is engaging and entertaining and I didn't think it was titillating but very sad.
7. I never even thought in terms of fair or unfair. Zola is writing about hereditary contribution to social conditions. I think it is more about the family rather than Nana. Perhaps cause I just read the book about her parents, it has changed how I view Nana. I am sure that is true.
8. It is hard to escape our social conditions.
9. I didn't like the book much but I have a greater appreciation after reading The Drunkard which is a better book.

I read Germinal in 2020 and have just finished L'Assommoir. I looked forward to reading another Zola, particularly as the character of Nana was introduced in L'Assommoir. And I looked at both Cezanne's portraits of Zola and Manet's portrait of Nana.
1. Nana returns to the Theatre des Varieties after her misadventures with Fontan and insists on playing the role of a respectable lady. When her performance is widely canned she vows to take her revenge of aristocratic society and she does so by taking many aristocrats as lovers, demanding more and more money from them until each is ruined both financially and emotionally. She becomes infamous both for her behaviour and her style. Her wardrobe and hairstyle are widely discussed and emulated and Hector de la Faloise announces that he intends to be ruined by Nana because it is the fashionable thing to do.
2. Zola intended to criticise the excesses of the Second Empire by depicting Nana, and the characters of all of his 20 Les Rougon-Macquat novels as being products of their hereditary traits and their social milieu, rather than pawns of divine forces as was popular in Nineteenth Century fiction. Nana's deprived childhood caused her to desire as many trappings of luxury as she could acquire by demanding money from her various lovers. But because she had never been taught how to manage money she was profligate with it and ignored her creditors with remarkable insouciance. She ignored the stealing from her by her servants, had no compunction in demanding money from her lovers regardless of their circumstances and became more and more excessive in her fancies, particularly the grotesque bed she commissioned, while forgetting to pay her aunt for looking after her son. Zola implies that she has never learnt to capitalise on her success because both her education and her inherited traits precluded such developments.
3. Zola does not overtly criticise either the prostitutes nor their clients, but he shows that their immorality affects the Second Empire and leads to its demise. He was not a fan of Napolean III and showed his position in discussions amongst the aristocracy. In L'Assommoir there is mention of how Houssmann's beautification of Paris, at the behest of Napolean III, recklessly destroyed poor neighbourhoods. The end of this novel occurs just as the Franco-Prussian war begins - the war that destroyed the Second Empire - so Nana, the Blonde Venus who dies at this moment, could be interpreted as a personification of the Second Empire.
5. I admit that I found all of the men in this novel quite believable and thought the character of Fontan particularly well described. Zola is showing the rot in a society without morality. Nana's sexuality made idiots of them all.
6. Naturalism shows society as it really is, even exaggerating negative traits at the expense of more inspiring virtues. Because this book was so popular, because of its frank descriptions of sexual activity, it did draw attention to the baser intincts of humanity, so it was successful on two counts.
7. I focussed on Nana, the character, while I listened to an Audible version of this boook and it is only now, in response to these questions that I think of Nana as a symbol of the excesses of the Second Empire.
8. The whole book only covers three years, so Nana is only 21 when she dies. Zola really did have her die a horrible death with the smallpox pustules exuding corruption just like society.
9. I listened to an Audible version narrated by Walter Zimmerman. He had a staccato delivery and many of his pronunciations really disturbed me "Shown" for shone and Gee up with a hard "G" for example, which really detracted from my enjoyment. I much preferred the reading of L'Assommoir by Leighton Pugh.

I have just read the Drunkard and this is my second Zola I do plan to read the whole cycle.

After finishing The Drunkard I was looking forward to this.

No I didn't look up the pictures as I am very lazy LOL

1. Nana uses her influence with various well to do men to give her a better position in society from her roles in the theatre she gains many admirers and it is by playing these men against each other that she manages to live the high life at least for a while. She influences the fashions of the time.

2. As a child she was pretty much free to do as she wished and she likes that lifestyle she doesn't want to be tied down and obey one man.

3. Love Pip's answer to this for me I didn't see a criticism beyond the way Zola criticises all his characters.

5. I believed in all of them I can see them all being real men in love with a woman who refuses to commit making her more desirable.

6. I enjoy Zola's story telling for todays novels this wasn't that titillating. For a writer what more can your book achieve than being a best seller.

7.I thought it was fair and it makes it much more interesting to focus on one character and their rise and fall.

8.I didn't really see it as condemnation more an inevitable outcome. Nana probably gets what she should have expected at the time given her behaviour.

9. Yes I did enjoy the book it interesting to follow Nana from a little girl in the Drunkard up to her demise in this instalment. To a certain extent I found it quite light hearted in comparison with the Drunkard and while Nana might not appeal to everyone it was interesting to spend time with her.

Alrighty, I read this book far earlier last month but It's been a hectic one, so here's my commentary in right before the overflow cutoff:

1. I thought this aspect of the book was interesting. She interacts with many of them through the theatre scene to the extent that getting “ruined” by her becomes fashionable. She is famous and notorious within that elite as an object of interest while being barred from that sphere herself for the very reasons she is fascinating to them.

2. It was great reading (well listening) to this one right after Drunkard for getting that glimpse into her family. I feel like there was some sort of attempt to explore the never enough mentality of addiction. But it also touches on social issues related to her background about how (even today) “new money” people from poorer backgrounds tend to have difficulty managing money, spending it because of warped sense of luxury, and feel ever unfilled by it because it can fix those physical barriers but doesn’t actually undo psychological harm or bring deeper fulfillment.

3. I don’t think he ever judges her for being a prostitute, or prostitutes in general. But I do think he uses the death of the ‘blonde Venus’ to judge the social climate of the second empire – and those that essentially consume her as a product for their decadence.

5. I found them extremely believable, and I can easily believe that their interactions and dialogue with her could fit perfectly with how many powerful and famous men still talk about or to their ‘trophy wives”, ‘side pieces’, and mistresses. There is this one aspect of “yes, she is the one profiteering from them directly”, but in the scheme of things she is ultimately killed and discarded by this society. I could definitely feel the tones of when there was a quirky TLC reality show about the playboy mansion in the early 2000s, but one of those women came out with a book years later about the abuse and what that culture did to her after it spit her out.

7. I feel that the story is fair about doing that because she is at once a swindler deep in exploiting that decadence, but also ultimately seen as an object to be consumed by those truly in it. The question of who really has power, who is at fault for perpetuating it, who is a victim is complex and ambiguous, as it should be. That is a believable way that hustlers and hussys from the lower class would have interacted with this system- being inherently barred from doing so without some deceit or exploitation of the ruling class- who ultimately, still has the power.

8. I wouldn’t say she ‘gets what she deserves’ but she meets really the only fate a story like this have to make its point.

9. I tend to be a fan of Zola and this book wasn’t an exception and I gave it 4 stars. However, like someone else here mentioned it is a bit of a letdown after Drunkard which was just heart wrenching and phenomenal in a way I felt this book just didn’t quite reach.