More chocolate musings

Here we are in part II.

Part I is here.

In the last thread, I read and we discussed:

The Mill on the Floss, Eliot
Literary Taste and how to form it by Arnold Bennett
The Edwardians, Vita Sackville-West
also, I began and am still going with Robertson Davies' A Voice from the Attic.

I also participated in two group reads - A World Undone and Digging Deeper.

Doesn't look like much, does it. I also read a quantity of fluff in between; the things I discuss here are the cream of the crop (what a dumb cliche, have I got it right? cream of the crop?).

So in addition to Robertson Davies, what else am I reading? Well, it is something that Murr will approve of particularly, and it isn't Russian. I'll put a pic up soonish to accompany the hint.

mmmm
let me guess. More Elliot? Dickens?

Nope. It's early romantic. German.

(it's easy now)

mmmmm, oh dear, I"m all in a flap. Heine? Herde? Holderlin? Hardenberg? gosh. Herring?

Herring, of course.

Picture from the tomcat's own lectern:



For anyone still confused, it is The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr by the illustrious ETA Hoffmann.

it's me, 'pon my soul!

> You refer, of course, to Herringvolk.

1> I object! I wish to know of the fluff. Difficult to appreciate the cream if you don't see all the crop, hmmm?

Well okay. Lots of Monica Dickens, I've had a bit of a binge of her stuff - The Fancy, Thursday Afternoons, Heart of London, and now Mariana. She isn't fluff really, just not in the same league as the other stuff I've already listed. I'd recommend her to anyone.

I think I already mentioned Major Pettigrew's Last Stand, which I loved.

I also picked up Pride and Prejudice for a comfort read the other day.

Ummm, there's probably other stuff which I've forgotten, but they were the stand-outs.

What kind of crop produces cream? It's silly. Do they maybe mean the crop in a chook's neck? You chop off its head, pull all the grain out of the crop, and then maybe there's some cream in there... eww. Sorry, were you eating?

Oh yes, and audio books. I know Nathan makes use of them - does anyone else around here? I'd really like to know.

I'm of two minds about them - I would never listen to Dostoevsky, Eco or Proust, of course. Nobody so dense you have to read every sentence several times. But on the other hand I find it's a great way to discover good stuff while doing other things.

I've been on an Arnold Bennett journey through audio over the last few months, all from LibriVox. Tales of the Five Towns, Anna of the Five Towns, The Price of Love. All seemed to suit the audio format quite well. Now I'm re-listening to my very first Arnold Bennett, from a few years back, The Old Wives Tale. I own the physical book too, and tried it, but I actually found that it's better in audio - stops me from reading too fast and missing some of that glorious Bennett-ish detail. He's deceptively so easy to read, that it's all too easy to miss things. At least, so I've found.

I'm loving Tomcat Murr. It's so playful and yet so clever. Both Murr and Kreisler are endearing. And the knowledge from Our Murr that it's about the Enlightenment versus the Romantic adds a whole new dimension.

C., have you read Virginia Woolf's essay MR BENNETT AND MRS BROWN? VW wasn't a big fan of the Bennett-ish detail you talk about above. Personally I likes 'Old Shodbutt.' I've got a biography of him on my ever, and frighteningly high pile of books to devour, by Margaret Drabble, the sister A.S. Byatt is less than fond of - at least last I heard. I admire all three of the writers VW about which she had few good things to say: A.B., H.G. Wells, and John Galsworthy - the 'Edwardians' so called. Finished off the EDWARDIANS by VS-W, very entertaining the bric-a-brac and chotchkies notwithstanding.

I read Monika Dickens when I was a kitten. I cannot remember any of the titles, but I went through a MD phase, partly because I knew she was related to Charles. What could I have read, Choco?

I don't like audio books. I don't receive aural information very well (Partially deaf). Friends have been trying to get me on to audio books for years, but I resist. I enjoy listening to the poets read their works: Dylan Thomas, Wystan, but that's coz I know the poems so well....

I'm glad you're enjoying Murr! Can we expect another Renareview? woohooo!

I actually don't make too frequent use of audiobooks, and have only begun listening to them with any regularity in the past couple of years or so. It is important to realize that the audio book is a different medium, even if you are listening to what is, substantially, the same work. I just finished re-"reading" Jane Eyre on audiobook. When I read it again, it will be with a paper copy. I know Meddy (oh, how I miss that gal!) listened to Silas Marner immediately after reading it, just to see it from another perspective. In my opinion, that's one of the main benefits of listening to a work on audiobook.

But yes, I do think some novels work better than others in this medium, due not only to depth but also aesthetics. I mean, Wuthering Heights? No. Just no. The various levels of narration are impossible to recreate. Believe me when I say this.

Here's the thread, Muse, for The Life & Opinions of the Tomcat Murr led by the human being, tomcatMurr, that will undoubtedly enhance your reading experience should you have time to peruse it. Hard to believe that was more than two years ago.

Por, no, I haven't read that essay. But I found the book at my work library, The Captain's death-bed and other essays, and now I really want to read it. But it MUST wait. I've got too many books from the library on impulse and no time to read them - the Barthes reader, more Robertson Davies, EM Forster... Too much to read!

Murr, you might have read any of the titles I mention in >10 ChocolateMuse:, or a whole host of others. For a selection of her different styles at their best, I'd recommend One Pair of Hands (her first novel, humorous and autobiographical), The Fancy (I think she's at her best in this one, observing people wryly and in detail), and then later in her life she got on a soap box a bit and wrote about societal problems, as in Heart of London - these generally aren't so good as the others.

And there will probably be another Renareview! I like that word!

Nathan, yes, that explains it. And Meddy's thing, what a good idea. I miss her too, I guess we aren't complete here after all.

Rique, thank you. I sought that thread out already, and have read most of it. Golden days. What happened to Pekoe The Cat?

Freeque's posts in another thread regarding the use of language in Gravity's Rainbow and Murr's point about listening to poetry, made me realize there may actually be a place for audiobooks. If a book, like The Confidence Man needs reflection as one goes along (this may be a bad example, there are passages where the language simply drips golden crystalline drops that explode into countless aural and cerebral pleasures when vocally expressed, however there are other passages that simply cry out for rereading to be understood. Sometimes Melville's constructions are like stop signs, or speed bumps), I don't think an audio book is the correct format, however, if the book is about the musicality of language, and about it's constructive uses of language and trope, then an audiobook might be a good supplement to the book itself, or at least provide support for some written form of the work.

Others may find audiobooks quite useful as a means of receiving the work. I'm afraid that's one trick this reader simply refuses to learn, but then I'm just now warming up to the telephone.

Complicated isn't it? The reader is important of course even when listening to an audio book. I listened to some guy do all the voices of TALE OF TWO CITIES, he was tremendous. Look at it this way, if I'm reading PICKWICK it's important that I be able to hear Sam Weller or Mr Jingle in their own voice, the type Dickens was sending up, ie. Or take Mr Micawber, once we hear W.C. Fields do the voice it helps us no end. Of course there's a lot more to it but if our inner ear doesn't hear the voices our appreciation is much less than it might be.

Example: V. S-W reading from her poetry. She sounds very much like Phillip Quarles in POINT COUNTERPOINT, to my ear anyway. T.S. Eliot tried to emulate this but sounded just a bit silly. Lucy's mother in THE EDWARDIANS might have spoken with the voice of V S-W. TCM's ear would be better equipped to make these distinctions. As I have had precious little opportunity to take tea with a Dutchess or anyone of that elevated rank. We say comin and goin here in dear dirty Dee-troit. Though we ARE next to Windsor, Ontario, ie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjXvkRhoXXs

The voices in LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL; GOOD AS GOLD; RABBIT RUN; ALL THE LIVE LITTLE THINGS, etc. etc. etc.

As a general rule, no audiobooks for me, but there are exceptions: I listened to The return of the native because it was read by Alan Rickman. I believe I would've retained more if I had read it, but then again, I'm not a fan of Hardy's and likely would never have picked it up anyway. I also have the two Alices read by Christopher Plummer, bought because I'll buy 'most anything Alice, and because I like Plummer.

I also have recordings of Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet--productions that were actually staged, both featuring Kenneth Branagh--and I love them. I once volunteered for a very tedious neurological study, involving hours of lying in the scanner, and I brought it to listen to. I'm afraid the staff would've preferred some rockin' music, but I was the self-sacrificing hamster!

Finally, recordings of poetry. I don't seek them out, but if I like the performers (usually actors), they occasionally get on the shopping list. Like the CD of Shakespeare's sonnets read by various graduates of the RADA--it was a Valentine's day tie-in, but lovely.

Mmm, interesting that most use audiobooks as a genre in their own right. I like that. Por, I agree entirely about getting the voices right. That's when an audiobook really works, I think, when they bring a character's or narrator's voice into perfection. It's like Jonathon Cecil reading P.G.Wodehouse - highly recommended.

Here is more Robertson Davies on humour:

The line between tragedy and comedy is thin... as many a bad performance of a stage tragedy proves... What comedy of great stature lacks a root in tragedy? Othello and The Merry Wives of Windsor have a common theme; Don Quixote, the comedy, draws hotter tears than Faust, the tragedy. The difference between comedy and tragedy is less often one of theme than of the prevailing color of the writer's mind.

Davies is excellent on the voices, and the Inner Ear.

audio'books' are of course superb for drama. I have waiting for Godot which, oddly, became one (actually two) of my 4-yr old son's favourite cds.

For novels wouldn't like it, as I want to set my own reading speed; speech is too slow,my mind would start to wander.

The audio book very much depends on the reader. The Things They Carried is something I'd never have picked up to read, but I heard the author read from it on the radio and that made me go get on audio.

I like the idea of listening to Shakespeare on audio. Reading it is only half of the experience available. I always read the Shakespeare before watching so that I can be sure I understand the language.

With audiobooks I mostly "read" non-fiction. It's like listening to NPR, which is National Public Radio here in the US. It is excellent radio programming: in-depth news coverage and various feature articles, interviews and opinion pieces, plus some humor. If you can get it on the webs down there, you might like it.

(Sorry if that sounded like an NPR ad. It's their begging week here in DC and it must have infiltrated my brain.)

Completely unrelated: is chocolate your muse or are you a muse to chocolate makers?

Methinks both.

citygirl, both, as Nathan says. Also, I am a muse made of chocolate; and chocolate tends to make me muse. And when I muse, chocolate comes out.

ew

I never said it was pretty.

Also, I see you can get NPR online. I'll have to try it out some time.

More Davies:

...not to be acquainted with what is happening in literary France is to feel disgraced, and in the pecking order of literary criticism a Frenchman can humiliate an Englishman just as readily as an Englishman can humiliate an American, and an American a Canadian.

How odd, considering that the majority of Americans are beneath most Canadians.

Do we want to know where Davies placed Australians? :)

Clearly, we are off the map, or somewhere at a level with the birds and the fishes :)

I should add that Davies was disapproving of the whole chain, not subscribing to it.

Rena - been meaning to tell you that thanks to your recommendation (and Por's) I have found a copy of A Voice from the Attic on line. Hoping to receive it soon.

Also, regarding audio books, from childhood I have always enjoyed being read to. My aural concentration is good, and so I have found listening to books to be a pleasurable experience. Back in the day when I was commuting back and forth to work, I devoured them. Recently I listened to All Passion Spent by Vita Sackville-West, read by Wendy Hiller. It was quite evocative and thoroughly enjoyable. I also bit off a huge chunk and listened to Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton – all 37 hours of it. In the past I listened to lots of whodunits, science fiction and even Don Quixote. That was a pure delight.

Some people learn better through reading than listening, and vice-versa. Luckily, both are effective for me. So when the eyes get tired, it's nice to be able to listen.

Ooh, enjoy! I hope you'll like it as much as I do.

I think straightforward narratives work okay for audio - Trollope, Bennett, even Dickens. I'm inclined to think Don Quixote might be too difficult for me in audio, I'd need to go slow with the old language.


Joseph Cornell
Robert Schumann (+German romanticism, verso)

You might be surprised regarding Don Quixote. It is exceedingly funny. The man who read it was David Case, who used to record for Books on Tape back in the day. The company is now defunct, but I think a lot of their recordings are still around. His reading was quite dramatic, and he changed his voice and diction for the various characters. It was delightful. But I'm sure there are other good recordings.

The first two times I "read" Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, I listened to it. That was quite a romp as well. That's one of my favorite books, by the way.

The nice thing about listening is that you can pause, rewind and even slow it down if you have the right equipment.

Suzanne, I can't believe your favourite book is something by Eco. That's some impressive intellect you've got there. I could barely follow The Name of the Rose, though that was a few years ago.

Okay, so I've finally finished A Voice from the Attic and am sorry to leave it. I don't think I'll write a review, because all I'd say is something like: "If you're of the clerisy you'll probably love it". Which wouldn't make much sense to most unless they'd already read it. Any attempt to review it would mean saying far too much or not nearly enough - it's what I always find when I'm trying to review anything other than fiction.

But I'll leave you with a few closing quotes.

I once knew a group of undergraduates whose pleasure it was to assume, each for a day, the character and outlook of some favourite character in Proust, maintaining the pose until some other enthusiast identified them. I could never see that it did them anything but good, sharpening their wits and very often improving their manners.

...

On self-conscious elitism:

If the author cannot find it in his heart to welcome his reader, he should at least refrain from rebuffing, snubbing, and bamboozling the wretch. He must not retreat into complexities of feeling so personal and incommunicable that the reader feels like somebody in the presence of a man having a fit, and who stands powerless to help or comprehend, yet forbidden by decency to go. This is artistic bullying of a kind that literature has never needed before, and which it stands to gain nothing from now.

...

On the Romantic attitude:

Romanticism asserts the supremacy of individual feeling over discipline, learning or thought. Anybody can feel. and if his feelings are powerful, his discipline bad, his learning small, and his thought trivial, who is to blame for him making his feeling the measure of all things?

Well all right. Porius encouraged me to write a review, so I wrote one. Here it is: http://www.librarything.com/work/117654/reviews/73626678

That's the stuff Choc. Old Davies would be pleased as punch. Your accuracy is every bit as fine as your estimable countryman Ken 'Muscles' Rosewall.

Enticing review, Rena. Looking forward to reading it (still waiting for arrival).

#37 Hmm ... interesting thoughts on self conscious elitism

Has anyone seen this? http://www.librarything.com/work/9949632 ?

I think it's a travesty, simply because nowhere, nowhere at all, have I seen the author or anyone else acknowledging Tomcat Murr. Not even in an interview with the author about origins of the book, which I read in the paper. And it's being presented as 'literature' by the media, with words like 'philosophical' being thrown around.

Wow, it sure does look like it uses Tomcat Murr as a starting off point. Weird and upsetting. Upsetting because, it lacks class for the author not to point it out, after all Hoffman's dead, his work must be in the public domain by now, and acknowledging his genius is the right thing to do. I think a Salon project is in order. Letters to the editor maybe?

I am too lazy to give it much thought or effort, but I am certain the animal as narrator is not orginal to E.T.A.H.! If this book had the printing mistake form of narrative, then I might agree with you; but it doesn't look like it does.

I would never suggest that one could simply add the book and help lower it's already mediocre 2.78 LT rating, were one, hypothetically speaking, inclined to do so.

Slick, true. But almost every other device is there, from the 'life and opinions' title, to the allusions to literature apparently scattered throughout, to even the language style, I think - see how it says the first words are "My story really begins at Charleston, a perfect haunt of light and invention that stands in the English countryside." "Perfect haunt of light and invention"? Sounds like a second-rate Murr to me.

Anna, your suggestion interests me. Do you think that would achieve something? I've never done anything like that before.

And Rique, well, hypothetically, maybe. But no one would know why the ratings were down, which would mean Hoffmann still goes unacknowledged.

True, and I'm all for acknowledging Hoffmann, and/or perhaps resurrecting Hoffmania through grassroots efforts. This writer may have contact info, we could contact him directly or through his publisher or agent and log our collective complaints.

Big Mac Daddy, your thoughts are needed here, especially in light of the tomcat Murr's absence.

Gosh;

Lets not give it more attention than it deserves. Remember the Satanic verses effect. Ignoring is the thing to do. The title is clearly a persiflage on Hoffmann. But not only our friend TCM should be worried, what about Mafikat ? the book clearly states that Mafisdog !

ah worrying worrying. ( Mac is wringing his hands )

Well, writers should be more careful and not just fling their persiflage about. Innocent salonistas could get hurt.

It feels like a while since I was really in here. So, what am I reading?

Still on Tomcat Murr, it's a great book but requires a lot of mental effort. Lots of days these days I'm not up to it. I need a long holiday somewhere green with birdsong, but I don't think I'm going to get it.

For my designated lunch time reading, since A Voice from the Attic finished I realised I hadn't had enough Robertson Davies, so I am now reading The Rebel Angels and delighting in it. (Urania, if you're still searching for an amusing yet intelligent read and haven't read this one yet, do try it.) I nearly didn't tell you all that I'm reading it - a) I wanted to be sure I'd like it, and b) don't want to commit to writing a review about it. I might, and I might not.

Also, too much of my precious and finite reading time is about to be taken up with marking. Also I have been distracted with seed catalogues and the like, since it's the time of year for planning all the things I want to do in spring.

And, I don't want to winge all over my musing thread, but I'm tired. Work is endless, the days are short, it's always dark, the clock is relentless and I have the winter blues.

But enough doldrums. I'm reading some excellent books, and can almost play Chopin's waltz in C sharp minor. Always a bright side :)

Congratulations on (almost) playing the Chopin waltz! I've never mastered (or even pupiled) a musical instrument, so really great.

What edition of The Rebel Angels are you reading? I really like the cover of the Penguin edition! Not the collected Cornish Trilogy, but the original edition. I'm planning on reading me some Davies later this year - strangely, I have the Salterton and Deptford trilogies, but not the Cornish - wonder how that happened?

I'm sharing those winter blues at the moment, but at least I don't have to work too much at the moment. Hope you don't lose too much reading time with marking!

Doldrums, tell me about doldrums. Can't finish a book, haven't written a word since a month...

Oh Mac, what are we going to do? :(

Thanks Dm! I'm reading this edition:



which is indeed the Penguin edition. I feel a bit weird reading it with that cover actually, looks a bit heretical.

At least there's another salonista having winter, as Piero said in the Nature thread. A bit less lonely.

Here is Ashkenazy playing said waltz, with style and beauty I can only dream of: http://youtu.be/5mf1EsUqVYw

What a lovely interlude. As I was listening, I thought of a CD I have of Horowitz playing Chopin – not the waltz, or any waltz, but I remember the first time I listened to that recording, for a moment, I forgot it was Horowitz and believed I was listening to Chopin himself. It was a strange but moving spell I was under just briefly – not to be forgotten.

>54 Poquette:, Suz, how lovely. An enviable experience.

Romeo is Hamlet in love - W Hazlitt.

Davies' Rebel Angels - on universities: We put too much value on a certain kind of examination-passing brain and a ready tongue.

Not a new thought, but well-put.

That's true, Muse, even at lower levels of public education here in the States. Kids are taught how to pass tests (and especially how to pass tests that will provide school districts with more government funding but not our children with even a single cent more of an education). There's been little to no challenge in the public school system for the above-average to gifted-child intellects since my parent's generation of the 50s (at least). Public schools have become more of a business enterprise for its aspiring administrators that are constantly in search of raises and bonuses who enjoy patting themselves on the back with "OUR SCHOOL HAS THE BEST ATTENDANCE" (i.e., we make more money from the government by duping parents into believing that "perfect attendance" is actually important when in fact all it means is more money for them because money is more important to them than kids) and spotlight the all the important STAR TEST SCORES rather than properly or thoroughly educating its students and supporting its teaching staff to the end effect that STAR TEST SCORES SOAR!!! (I love their communistic slogans) while students, collectively, increasingly become the most mediocre graduating class after graduating class, who collectively know how to pass a stupid test but not how to think.

End of rant. I'd like to prop up Geneg for helping inspire this rant with his political scuds he often fires off elsewhere. Home sick today, and very moody.

Political scuds - did you coin that term? Its fabulous, but would have been even more fabulous twenty years ago! Still, it is fabulous.

I'd be very surprised if its original. Someone somewhere had to have coined it already. Jim Rome used "scuds" as part of his schtick in the early '90s, referencing instances of "sports smack" that were particularly spectacular as being "scuds".

Muse, The Rebel Angels is the only Davies I've read, and its been awhile. We're reading Powys in '11; seems only natural we should read Davies in '12. Though I'm on the wrong thread for saying so now aren't I? If that dratted Gene doesn't select one of Davies' trilogies in '12, it'll be Rebel Read time, won't it?

I guess that settles it.

An excellent article on Robertson Davies.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1039
Alchemy
http://www.alchemywebsite.com/shane_walters.html

Rique, I so much agree, don't get me started. Australia has this "My School" website, government-initiated. In it, it ranks every school in the country according to test scores, prompting parents to send their kids to the schools with the highest scores. That has so much wrong with it I can hardly begin, but the reason they are REALLY doing it is so they know how to allocate funding. It's like they've created a pointless machine whose only function is to create the fuel that drives it, and they call it "education". Pfft.

I hope you're feeling better now, Riquie.

Por, I will read those articles later, when I can devote more headspace to it. Looking forward to it.

And a Davies read in '12?! Count me in!

You're a doll, Muse. Not really feeling much better, thank you very much for inquiring; but my, does not feeling good lend itself to some good attitudinal posting in the salon! ;-)

Glad you could relate to my rant. I suspected our educational dilemma here in the States was universal (or at least Western) but wasn't sure.

A bit off-topic, but as I'm reading Harry Potter right now (lowbrow reading! horrors!) this discussion naturally makes me think of Dolores Umbridge, that paragon of virtue and good sense.

Now, it is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be more than sufficient to get you through your examination, which, after all, is what school is all about.

D'oh!

We have a 'trashy novels' thread in the salon, Nathan, in which it was established that Harry Potter is not trash :) though I guess it is lowbrow, as you say.

And Umbridge is spot-on. When I read the books again last year, it was dear old dolores that stood out - she's almost a satire of the government type, except that it's actually in many ways simply a faithful portrait.

Sad old messed up world. If I dwell on it too long I'll get depressed. The Australian government is now sending distressed refugee boat people to Malaysia, cos 'we don't want 'em'. And the red tape to "process" them already takes years per person.

BTW Nathan, if you haven't tried Phillip Pullman, I think you'd like him. His Sally Lockhart novels are fantastic.

I think Umbridge is a great character. She's Dickensian. And, she is like people we've actually met. Compared to her, Voldemort is rather boring.

Porius, this one's for you: http://www.librarything.com/work/3133/reviews/74424516 (review of The Rebel Angels).

I'm afraid I didn't have many insights, but I did love the book.

Makes me want to read it again! Excellent alliteration and assonance throughout the piece I might add. Will you be continuing with the next book in The Cornish Trilogy?

No apologies necessary Choc. You are an ideal reader for old R.D. He would recognize you at once as a member of Forster's plucky unit or his own. A fine review. I look forward to your future reviews of Davies' work.

Enticing review, Rena. After A Voice From the Attic I may have to read this. Sounds like my kind of novel. Thanks!

Thanks Rique! I have a habit of writing sentences of lists in my reviews which I have to watch, but at least there is alliteration to make up for it!

Poquette, I'm waiting eagerly for your reaction to A Voice From the Attic - you haven't read it yet and I've missed it, have I?

Porius, I googled "Forster's plucky unit" and it gave me the quote below, which I share here partly because it fits in so well with the Robertson Davies 'type'. Por, your compliments really can be breathtaking.

Here is the quote:

"I believe in aristocracy, though -- if that is the right word, and if a democrat may use it. Not an aristocracy of power, based upon rank and influence, but an aristocracy of the sensitive, the considerate and the plucky. Its members are to be found in all nations and classes, and all through the ages, and there is a secret understanding between them when they meet. They represent the true human tradition, the one permanent victory of our queer race over cruelty and chaos. Thousands of them perish in obscurity, a few are great names. They are sensitive for others as well as themselves, they are considerate without being fussy, their pluck is not swankiness but power to endure, and they can take a joke."
— E.M. Forster Two Cheers for Democracy

Dear Por, of course I don't deserve it, but thanks. ♥

Thanks esybuy, any time I want to slove a problem, I will turn to you. he he to you too.

Nice Forster quote Muse ! Thanks for bringing to our attention. Forster means us, here in the Salon, the kind erudition we find here and which helps us to cope with whatever pulls our spirit down.

another brilliant review, choco. You're quite right to emphasise Davies's humour. I remember reading this book on the tube in London years ago, and almost passing out with stifled laughter.

And I love the Forster quote! as Mac says, doesn't that sum up the Salon? We should put the quote on the Salon homepage, methinks.

Well done CM! I loved the Cornish Trilogy. I need to re-read the Deptford one and also there's another Davies trilogy that Porius recommended to me a while ago - but now that I am reading Porius itself everything else went to the back burner. :)

Rena, I have not yet gotten to A Voice From the Attic. But it's near the top of the stack.

Mac and Tom, you have stated exactly what I was thinking as I read the Forster quote. There's a reason it resonates here.

I read your review to my wife in the car on our way to enjoy an anniversary getaway. The result is that we both want to read it. I fear the Salon will be a friend to my library and nemesis to my piggy-bank.

Tuirgin

Hail thou, o Muse of Chocolate! That was an excellent review.

I concur completely about that Forster quote. It's us. If one of the three other gnostic gatekeepers beholden of the secret keys to Le Salon's inner sanctum do not add it to the front page, I'll make a point of doing so this weekend.

Tuirgin, it makes me incredibly happy that you read my review to your wife in the car. Welcome to my thread, make yourself at home.

Indeed, the Forster quote is us! It looks very nice indeed on the front page. We have a class quote, now don't we need a class yell?

Many thanks for the kind words about the review. It had been a long time since I wrote one, and had a bit of a block, like Mac says he has. Hopefully I've broken through now :)

Reviewstipation is contagious!

Time to confess that I'm having a bit of trouble with Tomcat Murr - Hoffmann's, not the salon's. My trouble is twofold, far as I can see. Firstly that I don't know anything much about the Enlightenment, but still feel the need to keep analysing what Hoffmann is saying about it through Murr. It's confusing. Secondly, am I meant to feel a bit lost about just what's going on in the Kreisler sections? I generally know what the action is, but not the motives behind them. The atmosphere is lovely, all this swirling enchantment, trickery and danger, but I'm pretty much afloat on an empty sea most of the time.

Help? Someone?

it's not an easy book. Choco, send me your email, I'll send you some summaries of all the Kreisler sections so that you can follow a bit easier what's going on. I was going to post them here, but there are 5 pages... Try to bear in mind that the Kreisler sections are structured like a fugue, everything is circular, not linear. Searching for a linear narrative in the Kreisler sections is well nigh impossible, I would say.

as for the Enlightenemnt stuff, don't worry too much about those, just enjoy Murr's wit and egoism, I think. I'm assuming you've read my review already, which goes into the Enlightenment sections in quite some detail.

Thanks Murr. Even to be told that it's not an easy book is a comfort. I really want to love this one - and need to make sure I don't repeat the Moby Dick thing. I read these books because another salonista loves it so much, and then struggle because I try too hard to understand everything the aforesaid salonista has seen in it, which is beyond my present ability.

I'm not even going to attempt Porius yet, even though I'm jealous of all the good things everyone else is getting out of it.

Rena, if I may stick my oar in here. The thing about great literature such as Moby Dick or Porius is that almost no one can "get" them on the first go around — not, at least, without some handholding or some background exegesis, which many people don't want to bother with. "Just let me read the damn book!" is the way most people feel. Porius has been a stretch for most of us because of the Welsh names, the mystical bent and Powys's florid style, and I fully expect to reread this book simply because it is so rich and deep. In fact, I've already read a couple of chapters twice because I just enjoyed them so much.

Bottom line, don't sell yourself short because you think you're not ready. Reading beyond one's perception of one's readiness is how one grows as a reader.

One of the things I love about Porius is that the period covered by the book — a mere week — seems to be pivotal in one way or another for all the important characters. You can almost feel the growth they are experiencing. On balance, it is quite an amazing book. And in that context, all your talk about Tomcat Murr is nudging me ever closer to adding it to my wishlist.

Wise words Poquette, rereading and thinking things over and over again will finally bring you to understanding.

Thanks. So are you really suggesting I should read Proust, or Mann, or DFW now; all of whom I've allocated to read when I'm about 20 years older? Your point, Suz, sounds like a good one, about reading beyond one's perception of what one is ready for etc. It makes a lot of sense that it's the way to extend. But I don't want to scare myself off. The thought now of reading Moby Dick again is so daunting, I'm not sure if the day will ever come when I'll really want to put myself through that again. (sorry, A_Musing!)

Whereas I'm really excited about the day I feel ready to really try Proust, because I haven't been bitten yet.

You could handle Swann's Way, Muse, I'm positive. One novel. Four hundred pages.

And maybe before you attempt Moby-Dick again, why not wade into the water first with Billy Budd, Melville's most famous novella?

With your sense of humour, I guarantee you you'd enjoy DFWs essays, collected in either A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never do Again or Consider the Lobster. Or, This is Water would be a good, inspirational, less intimidating starting point too.

If you can read and understand and enjoy George Eliot, David Mitchell, and Robertson Davies, you're absolutely ready for the suggestions above, imo.

I second EF's suggestions. I might add the Piazza Tales, which include "Bartleby the Scrivener." I think there are seven short stories in all, which you could read at leisure.

Hopefully I'm not sticking my foot in it and making a Salon faux pas, but it isn't necessary to love, like, or even want to appreciate all of the "great books." I seriously doubt I'll dip my feet into the waters with Moby Dick again. It isn't that I didn't understand it. I don't appreciate it. I find it rather uneven and lacking subtlety. Obviously many here really love it, and that's okay by me, so long as my frequent urge to throw the book across the room isn't treated as literary philistinism.

I entirely agree with "reading beyond one's perception of one's readiness," though I do think that if reading becomes such a slog that it's a battle of will to get through it, and is becoming downright demoralizing, that it is a wise thing to shelve it and come back to it some other time if it beckons. There are so many great works of literature that don't piss me off, that I don't feel compelled to ride Melville's back a third time around.

All of which is to say that I don't think anyone should be daunted by a literary work. Attack it fearlessly, and should the great work of art turn out to be a few dirty sheep, then take your balsam, vomit on your squire, and be on your way.

Or something like that.

Tuirgin

Hear! Hear!

Well said. That said, I liked Moby - especially all the mini-essays on whales and whaling. I can't say I remember much about the story...

Also, your statement of opinion can't possibly be a faux pas in a literary salon founded by a Ulysses-hater.

is Moby Dick a man's book?

That reminds me of a quote I swear I read in Nabakov - the lectures on literature, maybe, where he talks about not having selected more female authors for his class - but have been unable to ever locate it - where he says his reading taste is "frankly homosexual" or something to that effect. Which I took to mean he prefers reading books written by men, although that certainly includes the substantial subset of books written by men who love men. I have to say that while I read and enjoy female authors, I tend to agree and I see that many readers show a pronounced prediliction for fiction written by a member of their gender.

When I think "man's book," I think of this.

Moby Dick seems to me a mish-mash of adventure, gnostic allegory, and dated-when-published encyclopedia. Actually, that sounds interesting. The actuality of it, however, didn't work for me. Come to think of it... I can get those three little thrills from any number of the stories of Borges, whom I prefer immeasurably.

Moby Dick is a great book.

I'm sorry I didn't think of this when I was holding forth above. By all means, give yourself permission to dislike something. There's plenty of "great literature" I have started and decided not to finish because I found the subject matter not to my taste. The Brothers Karamazov comes to mind. I just don't care to clutter my mind with such vile lowlifes as populate that novel — at least the early part where I decided to quit. I'll never know whether things improve.

Regarding the sex of one's preferred authors, I believe I am an exception to the conventional wisdom. Very few books that I read are by women. Not sure why, but perhaps men tend more to subject matter that pleases me. A quick check of books I've read this year confirms this. Out of thirty books read, seven are by women. That's actually more than I expected. Last year I didn't read so many books, but six of twenty-four were by women — and five of those were by the same author.

Tuirgin, I like you. :)

Still, I want to give Melville another chance one day. To read him once when one is 26 and give up on him forever is hardly fair. But he was demoralising for me when I did read him.

We had a discussion a while back about male and female authors, remember, when I wrote that review for The Same River Twice? Here's the review, in particular see Paragraph 4: http://www.librarything.com/work/9339325/reviews/63841000 There was a discussion about it on my thread, in which we all generally agreed that gender can make a difference, though certainly not always, or even usually; and probably almost never for the greatest of great books.

On the whole, I don't think about the gender of the author when I select a book. It's not a big issue for me.

I think you are all very wise in your advice, which basically is telling me to keep doing what I'm doing. Excellent.

I just don't care to clutter my mind with such vile lowlifes as populate that novel — at least the early part where I decided to quit.

Gosh, you sound just like Nabokov.

Suz, you stepped on Murr's tail with that one.

I think there are some writers/books which need to be tackled later in life to get the full benefit. But, bear in mind, that each difficult book you tackle makes you a better reader.

do we need a list of books we think it's essential to have read by the time you're 30? (hehehe)

What a great idea! I bet no one can agree. I'll start a thread, shall I?

>103 QuentinTom: Tom, I'm already too old to change my mind. ***thinking I'm probably older than you by quite a bit*** I actually tried Brothers Karamazov last year! thinking it was high time, etc., etc., and was frankly apalled. So sorry to step on your tail. ***stroking Tom's tail soothingly*** But we can't all like everything. ;-)

You could also have books as life companions. I first had a shot at Mann at 28, Twenty years later, I am still going over its wonderful pages. The brothers Karamazov is such a book, I wished I knew about it earlier. Moby Dick is such a book too...

It must be fantastic to have your first bite of these writers when still young, they become part of your life.

Mac, I'm very inclined to try Mann with you leading the read later this year. If anyone can help me to understand it, you will. But I can't help the way I felt about Moby Dick. Truly. I did try very hard.

Here is the What To Read Before I'm 30 thread, for anyone interested: http://www.librarything.com/topic/119719

Then again (in order to be contrary, and since we're all not under thirty, or even thirty-one), it can be informative to read a book one read at a tender age as a glimpse into changing perceptions and perspective.

The question has been asked, on some thread or another, whether to give four or five stars to a book one read back in the day, when that book, encountered now, would get a lesser rating. I say no, don't change the rating. You were what you were back then. Be kind to that younger self.

I don't care for Nabokov. In both of his books I've read, Pale Fire and Bend Sinister, he comes off too cute by half. It's plain that he is writing for a specific audience and I'm just not a member of that audience. Nor do I wish to be.

Had I not read women I would not have read George Eliot (one supposes Nabokov knew she was a she), I would not have read Willa Cather, or Flannery O'Connor. But then I would not have read Looking for Mr. Goodbar, either. I think the problem with women writers is they write specifically for women. I think Danielle Steele and that kind are the women's versions of military adventures or something all testosterony, say from Hemingway. Men and women DO approach the world through different eyes and part of an authors genius, to my way of thinking, is to capture both those worlds in their characters and play them against one another. Henry James is about as good at this sort of thing as it gets. Maybe we should have a thread devoted strictly to women authors of a literary bent. I think one problem I have is for every five or six or ten male authors I can name, I might find one female author.

In terms of what we liked in our youth and how well they fair over the years, someone in the SF group once said, "The Golden Age of Science Fiction is thirteen". I expect that's pretty true for most writing. If one reads something when they are too young or too inexperienced with life, it goes over their head and is boring. If they understand it just fine and enjoy it, then it might be at least partially due to the simplicity of the writing, which, in later life may be nearly impossible to read. An example of this in my life is The Wake of the Red Witch. When I was sixteen I read it and loved it, every bit of it. I tried to re-read it about ten years ago and discovered that this fabulous adventure of my youth, had, somehow, mysteriously, over the years, turned to unreadable dreck. What we read and liked before we were thirty may not stand the test of time. Consider The Catcher in the Rye, same story as The Red Witch. Great as a youth, not so captivating as an adult. I think timeless literature requires a mature reader.

What George Eliot had to say about lady novelists:
http://webscript.princeton.edu/~mnoble/eliot-texts/eliot-sillynovels.html

I like how her critique is in essence a class critique. "It is clear that they write in elegant boudoirs, with violet-coloured ink and a ruby pen; that they must be entirely indifferent to publishers' accounts, and inexperienced in every form of poverty except poverty of brains."

>108 copyedit52: Piero, even I do that at my already tender age. A lot of the rereads I do are because I want to revisit the person I used to be when I read it before.

Nathan, that was fantastic. Gives a little more insight into Eliot herself, too.

109: I agree with your comment on women's romances and those type of book being the female equivalent of military fiction. I have often thought along those lines. I really find the romance genre next to impossible to read just because the writing style is often so horrible. I think they're the modern equivalent of the people that Eliot was skewering. (I recently read a bunch of Wilkie Collins books - they remind me of this type of style - boy they were silly, but at least there was some humor there.)

From Dan's thread over at Club Read (his post is here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/104839#2789488 but be warned it's a picture-heavy and long thread, though worth the wait) I took the What Your Taste in Art Says About You Test. Here are the results:

Your result for What Your Taste in Art Says About You Test...

Simple, Progressive, and Sensual

23 Ukiyo-e, 16 Islamic, 15 Impressionist, -26 Cubist, -29 Abstract and 13 Renaissance!

"pictures of the floating world", is a genre of Japaneseand paintings produced between the 17th and the 20th centuries. it mostly featured landscapes, historic tales, theatre, and pleasure. Ukiyo is a rather impetuous urban culture that has bloomed in popularity. Although the Japanese were more strict and had many prohibitions it did not affect the rising merchant class and therefore became a floating art form that did not bind itself to the normal ideals of society.

People that chose Ukiyo-e art tend to be more simplistic yet elegant. They don't care much about new style but are comfortable in creating their own. They like the idea of living for the moment and enjoy giving and receiving pleasure. They may be more agreeable than other people and do not like to argue. They do not mind following traditions but are not afraid to move forward to experience other ideas in life. They tend to enjoy nature and the outdoors. They do not mind being more adventurous in their sexual experiences. They enjoy being popular and like being noticed. They have their own unique style of dress and of presenting themselves. They may also tend to be more business oriented or at the very least interested in money making adventures. They might make good entrepreneurs. They are progressive and adaptable.

Take What Your Taste in Art Says About You Test at HelloQuizzy

Not all true. As usual with these things, some bits fit, other things don't. The first few things I think are pretty accurate. But it's an interesting quiz, I thought.

I found it one of the more interesting tests simply because I enjoyed looking at all the artwork. It was tough to choose, sometimes.

Balanced, Secure, and Realistic.

15 Impressionist, 10 Islamic, 3 Ukiyo-e, -12 Cubist, -19 Abstract and 3 Renaissance!

People that like Impressionist paintings may not alway be what is deemed socially acceptable. They tend to move on their own path without always worrying that it may be offensive to others. They value friendships but because they also value honesty tend to have a few really good friends. They do not, however, like people that are rude and do not appreciate the ideas of others. They are secure enough in themselves that they can listen to the ideas of other people without it affecting their own final decisions. The world for them is not black and white but more in shades of grey and muted colors. They like things to be aestically pleasing, not stark and sharp. There are many ways to view things, and the impresssionist personality views the world from many different aspects. They enjoy life and try to keep a realistic viewpoint of things, but are not very open to new experiences. If they are content in their live they will be more than likely pleased to keep things just the way they are.

Did anyone get Renaissance? Because I scored the same (and highest) on both that and Impressionist, but it only gave me the Impressionist paragraph! I'd be interested in seeing the Ren. paragraph. Would probably give a more balanced picture of my personality, lol.

There were links in the bottom right to all possible results.

Fun quiz Muse.

Like Tuirgin, I came out Balanced, Secure & Realistic:

16 Impressionist; 4 Islamic; -3 Ukiyo-e, -2 Cubist; -22 Abstract, -7 Renaissance

I'd say the paragraph description is accurate except for the line, they "do not appreciate the ideas of others." Everything else rings true to one degree or another.

I think that "do not appreciate" is describing the rude people and not those preferring impressionism.

But it doesn't matter, because I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.

;)

Rique, I agree with Tuirgin, that it's referring to the people you don't like. It is indeed a bit ambigous.

There were some pages when I loved all three paintings, and some when I didn't like any very much - made it a bit difficult.

Nathan, did you find the Rennaissance link? If not, someone in the other thread got it, I remember. I can find it for you. In fact, I found it - it was our Mr Durick who got it:

People that like Renaissance paintings like things that are more challenging. They tend to have a high emotional stability. They also tend to be more concientious then average. They have a basic understanding of human nature and therefore are not easily surprised by anything that people may do. They enjoy life and enjoy living. They are very aware of their own mortality but do not dwell on the end but what they are doing in the present. They enjoy learning, but may tend to be a bit more closed minded to new ideas as they feel that the viewpoint they have has been well researched and considered. These people are more old fashioned and not quite as progressive. They enjoy the finer things in life like comfort, a good meal, and homelife. They tend to be more spiritual or religious by nature. They are open to new aesthetic experiences.

I took it, and came out more confused than ever before!

LOL

I took it and was drawn mainly to the hard-liners. Though I don't really mind the sfumatists and the chiaoscuro fellows.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Bb00oXBKYLY/S4fglWjQTfI/AAAAAAAAEfs/KWzA2bdf9Gg/s400/c...
http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/images/aria/sk/org/sk-a-4691.org?aria/maxwidth_288

119, 120> I don't appreciate either of your perspectives on the matter; frankly, I don't like your ideas, but thanks anyway! ;-)

Like Tuirgin and EF, I came out Balanced, Secure & Realistic. But as I was taking the test, I felt that the esthetic value of pictures that were juxtaposed against each other were not balanced. For example, I have studied Renaissance art and yet the examples posted seemed unattractive compared with the other choices, so I got a dismally low score on Renaissance, which really surprised me. It wasn't that I don't care for Renaissance art, I merely didn't like the Renaissance pictures shown as well as some other choice. I got a surprisingly high score on Impressionism. Sorry, I didn't save the results.

But maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. ;-(

I agree, Suzanne. I probably would have come out as almost exclusively Renaissance but for some of the examples; they seemed to be darker and colder in the choice of colors than your average Renaissance painting. For the record, here's the result for Renaissance.

People that like Renaissance paintings like things that are more challenging. They tend to have a high emotional stability. They also tend to be more concientious then average. They have a basic understanding of human nature and therefore are not easily surprised by anything that people may do. They enjoy life and enjoy living. They are very aware of their own mortality but do not dwell on the end but what they are doing in the present. They enjoy learning, but may tend to be a bit more closed minded to new ideas as they feel that the viewpoint they have has been well researched and considered. These people are more old fashioned and not quite as progressive. They enjoy the finer things in life like comfort, a good meal, and homelife. They tend to be more spiritual or religious by nature. They are open to new aesthetic experiences.

This is definitely me, with the exception of "high emotional stability." Oh dear!

Suz, I was the same, only for impressionism. Nearly all the Japanese art was gorgeous, but I would have called myself an impressionism girl if I had to pick one style.





I mean, how on earth could one choose? When you really think about it, it's a silly idea. :)

Tough choice indeed, Muse. I'd lean toward the lower painting if somebody put a gun to my head and said "CHOOSE," though.

What do you think, Muse, Poquette, Tuirgin, anybody else in to impressionism, of starting an "Impressionism Thread," or "Museum Thread" devoted to impressionist paintings, featuring our favorites, talking art, artists, aesthetics (or esthetics), maybe hit the neo-impressionists and their pointillism too? I used to have a ton of books on the subject; lost 'em; but recently found one, and I think I have one of those superb Taschen (sp?) art books focused on impressionism around here somewhere. Anybody interested?

What an idea.
http://en.wahooart.com/A55A04/w.nsf/Opra/BRUE-5ZKE2T
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/masterscans/cezanne-peasant-mid.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/portraits/mme/cezanne.mme-cezanne-b...
http://echostains.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/paul_cezanne1.jpg

Rique, that sounds lovely. I'll be pretty scarce this week, sadly, but will join in when I get here.

Por, SO FANTASTIC. Thanks.

I'm in for the ride whenever anyone is talking about art. I'm not very knowledgeable about painting, but I really enjoy viewing art. My enthusiasm hasn't reached the point of knowledge... just childlike pleasure.

Well, there's no rush since chocolate is scarce this week. Let's start something next weekend ... unless Porius absolutely can't wait to display his vast collection, and simply must start the thread sooner ...

Nathan and Rena, Glad I'm not the only one who thought the test was somehow skewed.

>126 ncgraham: Nathan, that Renaissance description is mindblowing. I almost completely relate.

>128 absurdeist: EF, I'd go for an Impressionism thread. Might inspire me to get my art books catalogued. Let's go for it – when everybody is ready.

CM, thanks for this test. I love these things. :)

I loved the modern/abstract stuff. I had no idea until today, always thought of myself as a traditionalist who likes stuff that looks like stuff, but I guess I appreciate abstract art a lot more than I thought I did. Or maybe I just didn't like the non-abstract choices very much...

People that chose abstract art as their preferred artform tend to be visionsaries. They see things in the world around them and in people that others may miss because they look beyond what is visual only with the eye. They rely on their inner thoughts and feelings in dealing with the world around them instead of on what they are told they should think and feel. They feel freed from the tendancy to be bound by traditional thought and experiences. They look more toward their own ideas and experiences than what they are told by their religious upbringing or from scientific evidence. They tend to like to prove theories themselves instead of relying on the insight or ideas of others. They are not bound by common and mundane, but like to travel and have new experiences. They value intelligence, but they also enjoy a challenge. They can be rather argumentative when they are being forced or feel as if they are being forced to conform.

Hm, I don't know how much this is true, but I think I would like it very much if it were. Except for the last sentence, but that part is already true. :)

Yes to the idea of a thread.

Although a surrealist at heart, I am fond of both Impressionsim and (am I allowed to say this?) post impressionsism...

I came out Renaissance. I disagree with a lot of the description. Furthermore, I thought the selection of pictures was poor indeed.

Those descriptions sound like long form fortune cookies. There is an art to writing this personality stuff so you show just enough of what someone thinks of themselves and throw in a few ringers or zingers just to make the person go Uh without pissing them off. These things are like the modern form of casting horrorscopes.

now, off to take the test!

138: That happened to me, and I used the back button, redid the last couple of questions, then managed to bypass the page that asks you for info.

I couldn't figure it out, then thought about those Cosmo quizzes and ducked out without trying too hard. But I am not a skeptic of what they call typology, and I wouldn't mind a thread to discuss that subject. Zeno and I came close once, but no cigar.

I'm sorry, Anna. I deleted my message before you responded to it. What Anna is talking about is the need to make sure the save anyway option is unselected, unless you want to give them a bunch of private information including your e-mail address -- twice.

Okay, so apparently the key is to unselect the save anyway option. I may have selected it. It said it was worth it, but it isn't. Anyway,

"People that like Islamic art tend to be more traditional people that appreciate keeping patterns that they learned and experienced from their past. It is not to say that they are not innovative personalities, they just do not like to let go of their roots. They like to put new ideas into details and make certain that they will work before sharing them with others. Failure is not something they like to think about because they are more interested in being successful and appreciated for their intelligence. These people can also be or like elaborate things in their life as long as they are tasteful. They tend to prefer geometric patterns and vibrant colors."

Sounds like I'm an arrogant, pompous ass, what with wanting to be appreciated for my intelligence. Maybe I am. Somehow, deep down inside I know being appreciated for my intelligence is a loser for me. One can't be appreciated for something one never had.

I like abstract when it is aesthetically pleasing to me... Often in bw photography I prefer abstraction. I enjoy traditional religious art of many traditions. I generally dislike shock art. And certain forms of experimental or performance ay strike me as deeply cynical.

I also tend to steer clear of sentimentalism in all forms. I like suggestions of meaning rather than explicit messages. I like art. I'm an art-liker.

That quiz didn't play fair, but then again we've had people get all of the possible outcomes.

Some of my favorite art:
http://www.metmuseum.org/Imageshare/ma/regular/DT1326.jpg
http://www.historylink101.com/art/Sandro_Botticelli/images/09_Primavera_jpg.jpg
http://www.dailypictures.info/free-pictures/499/free-wallpapers-pictures/inside-...
http://rgh.cc/albums/userpics/10184/Nude_Descending_a_Staircase.jpg

I quite like all of those.

Wyndham Lewis
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4711212874_92bb6d072c_o.jpg
Augustus John
http://greathouselaugharne.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tumblr_kvqv3jrpv41qzn0deo...
Gwen John
http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/women2/images/john2_big.jpg
John Butler Yeats
http://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/Mugs/William_Butler_Yeats.jpg
Walter Sickert
http://www.artunframed.com/images/sickert/ennui.jpg
Vanessa Bell
http://www.jimandellen.org/ellen/Bell.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Fp6TH4Bm6Lw/TaAfsQiVJoI/AAAAAAAABPM/eLRCcs22n6c/s1600/...
http://www.electricgallery.co.uk/uploads/images/bell.jpg

oh yes, I'm in.

CM, I thought you'd be interested in this picture as well... heard about it from an artist friend on Facebook this a.m.

http://celestialkitsune.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/salvator-mundi-a-long-lost-pain...

The picture was fine but the real sleeper was the Tallis singers – positively ethereal.

Anna, that's very interesting. Forgive my ignorance, but why are these things overpainted? Is it for students to learn by following the brush strokes? Or more sinister reasons?

Thanks for all the links, Por and Anna.

Those survey results have been fun, whatever their worth. :)

Muse - It took some time, I've caught up! I second the suggestion of including Robertson Davies in the 2012 Salon reads...although the relevant thread is overwhelming to me, so I won't post it there. Davies sounds like someone to read, certainly your reviews and Porious' praise are inspiring. (I'd also like to give Moby Dick a go...it has to do with the Hawaii connection...hope you forgive me there)

Have thoughts on the differences between male/female authors (based, I think, on ideas in a parenting book I just read), but not brave enough to post on that yet.

Don't be overwhelmed by the 2012 reading thread. That's my job. Just post a Davies book in there at the end and don't even look at the rest of the thread, but if someone does not post Davies, he won't be a finalist for a sanctioned read. You'll have to slip him in under the covers, a rebel read. September draws ever closer, and I want to have the list set by October so we all have a reasonable time to acquire the books.

Welcome back Dan!

c'mon, be brave. We won't call you sexist... though of course you might get called all sorts of other names...

Maybe Porius and I could co-lead a Davies read, though I'd shine at the administrative side more, I think, while Por could do the headwork.

So. After a struggle with Tomcat Murr (the book), I flagged. Then after my cry for help, Murr Himself came to my rescue and helped me out. Then I began to enjoy it properly, before being drowned in a flood of marking. At last, I have overcome all the odds, and can now present you with my review of The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr.

It's taken me a long time to get here. Phew.

ETA: And then I just read Martini's review again, and see that the real reason Hoffmann didn't finish the novel was because his own Murr died... which throws a whole different light on my thoughts on the ending.

Another book added to my wishlist, thank you.

Awesome!!!!!!!! (although I blush at the fulsome praise you lavish on my review, choco, thank you!) I love what you said about reading it aesthetically. Very sensible advice, and absolutely right for Murr.

Fabulous again Choc. You have acquitted yourself excellently well. Pretty soon even the self-depreciating remarks will vanish, as old Hoffmann did in air, thin air.

Tuirgin, thanks.

Murrushka, did you notice I used your suggestion of 'spurious'? I'm glad you approve about the aesthetic thing. It needs that paragraph though about aesthetics not being all there is to it.

Por, such remarks are merely self-defence against all your praise. ♥

Just read your marvelous review, Rena. Wow! I had no idea about that book. Your review will be indispensible when I get to it. Brava!

Thanks Suz!

From literature imitating music, now an interlude in which music imitates literature: Poulenc's three novelettes. http://youtu.be/JuGpuhGuRlc

157> yes, I did! ha! cannot have a review of Murr without the word 'spurious'.

Yes, it's just right for Murr.

And here is Bach's Fuga Canonica. Not contrasting types of themes, but definitely circular and fugueular: http://youtu.be/7-to2Y06r-U

Hello.

Here is Rembrandt's Music Party.



I find it very enigmatic. Why is the guy in a turban? And all those books on the floor, have they been pushed down in a heap out of musical enthusiasm? Is the woman beating time with that hand? It probably has some other symbolic meaning I don't recognise. Is the old woman audience or judge?

The young woman is singing, using the book in her lap, which contains rounds, canons, simple tunes etc. They have been working through all these books, tossing them on the floor as they finish with them. She was playing the lute previously, but she split her finger nail and it bloody hurt so she had to stop that. She is also tapping her foot.

The old woman is listening and enjoying the music, and thinking how she can get her hands on the man's turban, as she is a textile freak.

Rembrandt like his major influence Rubens was 'scholarly', bookish, and not afraid to display it. The turbin, maybe a little joke or visual pun, it would be one of the props laying around waiting for a biblical daub. The turbined fellow looks like something of a wag, it is a party after all.

He did other things with turbans, seems to have been intrigued by the exotic, which at the time included Jews in the Amsterdam ghetto.

apropros 164 & 165 - Rembrandt's Jews by Steven Nadler. I am not sure if that specific piece is discussed.

The Music Party by Caravaggio
http://thiswritelife.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/the-musicians-15951.jpg
by Watteau
http://www.wga.hu/art/w/watteau/antoine/1/11charme.jpg
David Hume (1711-1776)
http://www.davemckay.co.uk/philosophy/hume/hume.jpg

R. was 20 when he painted TMP.

I am being Porius's disciple these days.

I'm nearing the end of What's Bred in the Bone, and it is the most marvellous thing I have read since Middlemarch (though totally different).

What's more, I'm also reading Rembrandt's Eyes. But don't ask me where I'm at or how I'm going with it - I expect to take forever to read it and not have anyone looking over my shoulder while I do. But it's every bit as amazing as Por says.

There, I've confessed what I'm reading. Maybe I shouldn't have. I've noticed, and this annoys me, that as soon as I've told you people what I'm in the middle of reading, I stop wanting to read it. There's some perverse thing in me that doesn't want other people to know what I'm reading, and then when they do it translates to pressure. It's odd. I don't like it. I can't help it.

I'm also rereading The King Must Die, by Mary Renault. I read it for Year 10 English, and remember impressing my teacher with my homework discussion on the book (I can brag to you, right?). I thought I remembered seeing Mary Renault in some salonista's library, but now can't see who it was, if anyone. Any thoughts on Renault?

great historical fiction. I loved all of MR books, but my favourite one was the one about the actor. The Mask of Apollo

Don't fret Choc. You will no doubt read all of RD's fiction, if not his non-fiction before you hang em up. I have read each one many times. I know you will love TEMPEST TOST & A MIXTURE OF FRAILTIES. just enjoy and let the Devil take the hindmost. REMBRANDT'S EYES is indeed amazing. There is no other biography of a painter, or anyone else for that matter, as fine. But it is LONG. And sections, if not the whole kit & caboodle will be read again many times. It is truly an exciting book, isn't it. I can't tell you how much pleasure it gives me that you are enjoying these books. What else is an old fart like me good for?

168: I have read some of MR's novels and loved all of the ones I read, including The King Must Die and The Last of the Wine.

Self portrait in a gorget

choco, if it's not going to put you off reading more of it, can you say a bit more why 'RE' is so good?

Rembrandt is not my favourite artist, to put it mildly. (I find brown a bit boring...)

Dawn begins at midnight with old Rembrandt. It's not really about color, TC. Intensity of statement, saying much with little, is where his genius lay.

He was a Protestant, Murr, in a Calvinist setting. So his historical paintings were, at least at first, the Protestant answer to Rubens' Catholic paintings. Rubens made his Biblical characters after the classical mode, perfectly modelled, richly dressed, active and dramatic. So Rembrandt made his contemplative, somber and plain.

Here's what I was reading last night:

Rubens's Descent from the cross



Dramatic, colourful, active, close-up, almost claustrophobic.

And Rembrandt's painting of the same name:



Interestingly, Schama says Rembrandt would have been responding to Rubens's work from an engraving, so he wouldn't have seen Rubens's colours at all. So he was responding to the arrangement of people, who they were and what they were doing. The image of Christ is less heroic, the people are standing around watching, rather than participating.

I agree btw that all the brown is boring. More in the next post.

Brown may be boring (I do not agree), but light is not. That self-portrait takes my breath away.

The book is so good because it gives so much setting, and detail, and reasons why things were how they were. It's this huge insight into Rembrandt, and Rubens (it's a joint biography really), and Belgium and Holland at the time. The story of Rubens' life is ceaselessly fascinating. And then, as in the post above, we start to discover what Rembrandt was really trying to do.

Rembrandt used earthy models, off the street as it were, even in his religious paintings. After centuries of heroism in historical paintings, and glamorous editing in potraiture, Rembrandt was making a real statement about art's role in depicting people how they were, and also in accessibility to things that happened a long time ago.

Also, for a long time, Rembrandt's art was all about Rubens. He was trying to be Rubens, but at the same time wanted to make his statement about real people and earthiness.

Slick, he painted many many self portraits, of himself in all different guises (or disguises even) throughout his whole life. He often left significant parts of his face in shadow - that too was highly unusual for the time. And he took particular care in painting his faults and vulnerabilities - again so unusal for the time.

Amazing, Por. I'm not up to his older years yet.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1630/
I wish that I could have read the book like RE in my middle 20's. So. so important.
We have a great Netherlander collection at the DIA. I'm going there tomorrow.

the historical stuff is interesting, to be sure. Schama's book The Embarrassment of Riches is excellent, and I quite like the self portrait in 179 (also known as Portrait of an Ear), but R is still not my cup of tea. Never has been. I prefer Caravaggio. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm not mad on 17th century art. I prefer stuff that came earlier, or stuff that came later, but the 17th and 18th centuries leave me rather cold as far as art goes.

but don't let my taste stop you posting more, Choco, it's fascinating reading.

He wouldn't have been my cuppa either, Murr, without having read this book. It's a matter of circumstances often, isn't it, what you grow to love? I've never had anyone or anything explain art to me before, I've just relied on my own eyes and primitive artistic sense to "know what I like", all the while with an uncomfortable feeling that I don't really know anything at all about it. So now, I'm getting this wonderfully fortuitious combination of What's bred in the bone and Rembrandt's Eyes, both of which are all about the discovery of art. A kind of awakening for me. So thus, Rembrandt will probably always have extra meaning for me, even though visually his style isn't anything like what I've ever liked before - just because he's part of my 'awakening'.

A big part of this is the realisation that the greatness of art lies in its historical and cultural context. Even that fundamental fact I hadn't quite grasped before now.

Also, from reading this book, the 17th century suddenly feels so recent, as if I can just step into it. That in itself is awesome enough.

what's bred in the bone, is that the one about the forger? I remember that one was full of amazing detail about art, and was also part of my awakening, as you say.

about the only thing I miss from the UK (apart from me sainted mum) is the national gallery in London. I used to pop in at least three or four times a week (it was free in those days, hope it still is) as I worked just round the corner, and spend 10 mins there looking at one or two paintings only, but really looking. NExt door was the NAtional Portrait Gallery and I spent a lot of time in there as well.

One of my favourites from the NG:
Quentin Matsys

Well there's a forger in it, yes. But it's really about Francis Cornish, artist and art collector, from his pre-conception onwards. A coming of age and a whole life story. The bits about how he discovers art are amazing. I discovered it with him.

ETA: it's quite conceivable that Cornish will become a forger later, I guess. If so, I'm not up to that part yet. He is working with a forger already.

Whoa, Murr. I looked Matsys up on Wikipedia, and see that it says of that painting:

A Grotesque Old Woman (or The Ugly Duchess) is perhaps the best-known of his works. It served as a basis for John Tenniel's depiction of the Duchess in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It is likely a depiction of a real person with Paget's disease, though it is sometimes said to be a metaphorical portrait of the Margaret, Countess of Tyrol, who was known as Maultasch, which, though literally translated "satchel mouth", was used to mean "ugly woman" or "whore" (because of her marital scandals).

yeah it's amazing, it has this jewel like quality to it - it's not very big - luminous, extremely delicate detail and plays with the paradox of ugly beauty/beautiful ugliness. I saw some more Massys in Antwerp with Mac. One of my favourite painters.

I hope I didn't give away an important plot spoiler of What's bred in the bone (it's been like 20 years since I read it, so my memory of it is a bit vague.....)

Murr, I don't know if you have or not, so it doesn't matter :)

Great posts Muse. Enjoying all the comments on the art.

It was an eye opener to see the two Descents from the cross #175. What struck me was how classical in design the Rembrandt was compared to the Rubens. Rembrandt's form is almost a perfect triangle while Rubens's painting is a flowing diagonal. So similar yet so different.

TC, I'm with you. The big advantage of living or working in London was the access to some amazing art; not to mention the concert halls, the theatre, the bookshops.... Oh dear I am getting quite nostalgic.

AD
http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/renaissance/durer.html
R
http://www.rembrandtpainting.net/rmbrndt_1620-35/self_portrait_at_29.htm

QM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Quentin_Massys_-_Ill-Matched_...

PPR
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/detail/Detail_rubens_peter_paul.html?nofram...

I love Durer, always have loved his art. CM, I absolutely adored the Cornish Trilogy and mostly because of What's Bred in the Bone which was one of the most memorable novels I've read. Won't say more here for fear of spoilers but it is a great book.

These bring Rembrandt to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5AamGSuh3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQO7_9jV1_4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4&feature=related
And finally this ditty catches R's spirit as much as anything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdalBvgNAxI&feature=related

I read the section on Amsterdam in five senses last night - really amazing.

As to my little problem with discussing what I'm reading... so far so good! In fact, it's helping!

I love Durer too. Amazing, especially the etchings.

I hope this gets through
http://www.classiccinemaonline.com/cinema/biography/rembrandt.html

wow! Look at that cast! Charles Laughton, Elsa Lanchester AND Gertrude Lawrence! Por, the stuff you find!

So I went to the art gallery yesterday. I wish I hadn't wasted money on the special exhibition on the Pre-Raphaelites. It's all very nice, but it didn't resonate with me. Their search for truth comes out as stylised to me, and they don't seem to be saying anything much.

But I was more excited in the first place with visiting the 17th century European works, since my recent discoveries in Rembrandt's Eyes. This being Australia, very few of the great masterworks are available - no Rembrandt, alas - but I did see this one by Rubens:


Rubens Self Portrait - On loan to Art Gallery of NSW from National Gallery of Australia, Canberra

It was most exciting. I walked into a little room full of paintings, and this one just glowed. Even the snap-happy tourists who walk around reading the labels and glancing at the paintings took a second look.

Which got me wondering, was it just the kind of paint Rubens used? Surely not. But its special quality was more than anything else the way Rubens' face glows like a jewel in a dark setting. None of the other paintings around it had that radiance - is it just the kind of paint? Is that a really dumb question?

Stunning. He's alive in all that darkness. No dumb questions I can see. I don't know the answer, though. And what's going on in that lampshade to the left of his hat? Is that some semblance of an apparition? A face?

I have no idea about paints, but the simple fact of contrast between a blanket of black and near black and the highlight tonalities of collar and forehead are enough to make it glow.

oh common guys, it is just the Flanders light, the Antwerp light which makes this painting shine. We have lots of these in our villages...: )

(impossible to say if this is the consequence of the substance of things, the lighting of the scene, the unguent that coats the painting or the museum illumination)

Roland Barthes on the brightness of Dutch art
Empire of Signs

Oh wow, Murr! Wow! To think... Barthes and I, two minds with but a single thought. :)

205, Nah you are inventing this !

no, I'm not sweetie, p 20 starts first line, Hill & Wang, 1983 edition.

Barthes says lots of good things about Dutch art, scattered throughout his oevre, usually, as here, in parenthesis for another point he making.

:)

I'm looking for a good book on the Baroque period in Europe. Something like The Embarrassment of Riches, but about the whole of Europe... and about the art AND the music AND the culture AND the architecture...

Maybe what I'm looking for is about two hundred books. All excellently written, scholarly without being difficult, detailed but not dense, consistently interesting but not sensational...

Alas. Such things are but a pipe-dream, I suppose.

I've just been fishing around amazon and a cursory search under "Europe, Baroque, history, music, art" doesn't turn up anything of a general nature.

A different approach might be to select a biography of someone who really interests you, and if it is well done there will be a lot about all those subjects in the context of that individual. Concerning a different time and place, I recently read a biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow which was so rich in detail concerning the period of the American founding, that it read like a history as well as a biography. Sorry I couldn't come up with a magic bullet. ;-(

I know Ron Chernow, or knew him when he was a struggling writer. He's huge now. Good for him. Nice guy.

Choco, you should check out the Thames and Hudson series on the history of art. They have lots of illustrations and provide an excellent overview of different periods. should also have a good bibliography of further reading:

check this out:

http://www.thamesandhudson.com/quicksearch.obyx?searchterm=Baroque&x=0&y...

Ron Chernow is a fine writer. I listened to Alexander Hamilton on audio. It absolutely came to life – and so did Hamilton!

My review of What's Bred in the Bone: http://www.librarything.com/work/4872560/reviews/75131438

Top-notch Choc. Old Davies is smiling somewhere. You are of the Clerisy, no doubt about it. Thumbs up.

well done! your review brings back many memories of reading this book.

It is refreshing to have a Salonista as a Hot review number one-er again.
Back to business I say: Read - review - learn and enjoy!

Wohoooooooooo

Excellent review of Bred in the Bone even when I was a bit confused by how much knowledge you seemed to have of Cornwall (English County). All became clear when I read it more carefully.

Rena, Your review makes me want to read this trilogy. When you say Robertson Davies is the discovery of the year for you, that is high praise indeed and says it all as far as I am concerned.

Thanks everyone!

Mac, it's rather nice to be the Salonista at no. 1 Hot Review again :) A couple of non-Salonistas have contacted me on my profile because of it, which is always an excellent thing.

Barry, that's so funny. I read the review again with that in mind, and it was most amusing.

Suzanne, thanks. I'm still waiting for you to read A voice from the attic... :)

Murr you were kind of right with your plot-spoiler above, but not quite, not really, only sort-of. Which means it didn't give anything away at all.

Por, thank you, thank you.

I'm quite attached to this thread, but I probably should start a new one soon, do you think?

A job well done CM.

My new thread, folks, is here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/122525