Brain Pain discussion

Week Two – Jan. 23, 2012

This discussion covers:

2. The Narrator's relationship with the Swanns I
Penguin: 60-125
Vintage: 67-142
First paragraph in Moncrieff translation: "When New Year's Day came, I first of all paid a round of family visits with Mamma who..."

And we're finally back with the Swanns! Exciting times as it seems like a lot of things the first volume left unresolved might finally be resolved/revealed. After several failed attempts, the Narrator finally manages to infiltrate himself in the circle of the Swanns, but after the initial curiosity/enchantment with Gilberte, he seems a bit more interested in her parents than in her. Could this be because we receive the narrative in a distorted form because it's written retrospectively? Or is the Narrator not really in love with Gilberte? We also get our first glimpse of Albertine which seems to be introduced, as, in fact, many other characters were, as a passing, seemingly unimportant reference in a passing, seemingly unimportant discussion. This is all interesting stuff, but, generally, how are you holding up? Towards the end of the first section the narrative got terribly convoluted, confusing and boring. Does anyone else feel like they just want Proust to abandon all the social fresco ramblings and get on with the plot?

When approaching Proust it's important not to expect an intriguing plot, but more of a writer's art-form. His passages are snapshots in time, like paintings. It requires tremendous patience and endurance to fully read the series. Volume 2 is one of my favorite books of all time, not for the love triangles, or the tangents on his pathological jealousy (among other things), but for the delicate way in which he describes the transient moments of his past, particularly in the second half of the book.

really ... wow I am finding it tedious and hoping the rest of the volumes are not quite as descriptive for lack of a better word. To me I am not understanding what his point is here. I guess I need patience.

Sue, I think Chris is right - don't focus on looking for a point. Just go with his words. It's all stream-of-consciousness; there's rarely a definitive point when you're just thinking to yourself in a meandering way. Proust is like that.

I think Marcel has many points to make! That's one reason the series is so long. In addition to the way he beautifully describes his fondest memories, he has an astounding number of powerful and logical insights into human nature, love, art, philosophy, etc. Elaborations and self-indulgence might be faults of his, but it's worth trudging through the mud to get the meadows. If you find something that you resonate with, his meandering elaborations have the power to truly touch your soul.. it's almost a religious experience.

I didn't say he didn't have points to make. It's just not as obvious as most literature.

Ok, but you think his style is stream of consciousness? I'm not entirely sure. I find his paragraphs too methodical to be written on a whim, but that's just me.

I absolutely think his style is stream-of-consciousness. The entire narrative is sparked by memories caused by seeing a madeleine. Looking at the definition of the term, particularly the second defintiion fits Proust to a T.

stream of consciousness
n. pl. streams of consciousness
1. A literary technique that presents the thoughts and feelings of a character as they occur.
2. Psychology The conscious experience of an individual regarded as a continuous, flowing series of images and ideas running through the mind.

Nothing in Proust happens in a clean, linear fashion. It all flows in and out of one thought or another, and rarely does one thought end in a similar place as where it began.

Hmmm, alright. If it really is stream of consciousness then that's a greater testament to his genius. I mean, some of those passages read like essays!

I do think he begins a paragraph with something in mind though. He always seems to end them on a high note... it would be difficult to do that using stream of consciousness.

Chris wrote: "Hmmm, alright. If it really is stream of consciousness then that's a greater testament to his genius. I mean, some of those passages read like essays!"

I think it's the character (or the narrator) w ho is streaming, not the author.

I don't know why, but I thought it was more autobiographical than fiction. After reading your comment I found this from someone who's actually taken a course on Proust: http://machines.pomona.edu/168-2010/0.... Thank you for pointing that out! I think a lot of narration was based on actual events though; if anyone has any information on that I'd be happy to hear it.

One of my impressions is that Proust allows his narrator to comment upon the stream of consciousness he constructs; i.e., these are not a reconstruction of the "first out" thoughts, but of thoughts that have been thought upon. (Yes, I'm going to leave the antecedent of "he" deliberately vague, i.e., is it the narrator or Proust. ;))

Sorry I am so far behind everyone else in coming to comment on ISOLT. I received the second part recordings before the first part and am just now slowly unscrambling what I have been hearing. But, I am convinced order is less important than it would have been in a more plot driven book.