The Immoralist

Michel travels with his new wife to the desert of Tunisia, though he falls ill with tuberculosis, and must slowly recover before he can travel home to France and continue his life as a scholar. However, during his convalescence, he discovers a new appreciation for life, and decides to restructure his existence to live for the present, not for the past.

Gide's novel caused an outrage when it was published in 1902; now, it is possible to read it without the sense of world-upheaval that the intelligentsia a hundred years ago might have felt, and instead appreciate it for what it is: a marvellously poetic look at the meaning of life for a man confused by his place in the world, who had never before stopped to consider what he wanted from the show more world.

There are clear threads of homosexuality and even what we would now consider paedophilia, but to concentrate on these two aspects would, essentially, to be missing the point. For me, the point of this novel is the examination of change in man, and how, though we are always changing unconsciously, when we try to affect a change in our lives, we meet the severest resistance, both internally and externally. show less

The story of a man who prefers the company of beautiful Arab boys and strapping peasant youth to that of his pious, tubercular wife was probably quite shocking when The Immoralist appeared in 1902. (The title allowed Gide to be provocative and to shield himself from public contempt at the same time). When a character tells the protagonist that most people are afraid to live their own authentic lives, we know he has hit upon one of the poignant truths of modernity. This is the kind of book that makes people think that literature has special powers.

The start of this book is somewhat absurd:
Preface: I wrote this book, and offer it for what it's worth;
Letter: Dear brother, please find attached my account of visiting Michel in Tunisia;
Account of Tunisia: I'm writing to you from Tunisia, where it's sunny. Here's what Michel said;
What Michel said: The actual story.

The absurd thing about this is that all this framing adds nothing. Somehow it was necessary for the author to distance himself not just once, with a narrator, or twice with a narrator writing down someone's story, but three times with a narrator recounting how he previously wrote down someone's story. And then the author sticks a preface in front of it saying that his book tries to prove nothing, just in case you weren't show more distanced enough.

And, this is exactly how I feel about this book - distanced. There are a few passages where the story was allowed to unfold, but mostly Michel just described how tormented he was about how he thought and felt about things - getting sick, managing a farm, Parisian society, having a sick wife. I believe the value of a novel as opposed to a work of philosophy is to allow the reader to experience or observe behaviour and emotions, rather than simply be exposed to ideas. This novel does the latter and suffers for it.

I also found that although I know it was a different time, I found many of the choices made by Michel frustrating. He seems too willing to sacrifice others for his own fulfilment, regardless of whether it might be entirely necessary. Maybe at the time it was necessary to say "I must be free regardless of who I harm in doing so" but today I'm much more interested in the question of "How can I be free and allow others to live and be free as well?" Michel certainly doesn't entertain this question. show less

The Immoralist is regarded as a profound, challenging work that examines the conflict between individual desire and societal expectations, making it a landmark in literature. It is considered "immoral" in the sense that it challenges, subverts, and disregards traditional Christian and bourgeois social morals. The protagonist, Michel, rejects societal constraints to pursue his own hedonistic desires and homosexual urges, which directly leads to his wife's neglect and death. However, the novel is more of an exploration of amoralism—the pursuit of absolute personal freedom—than a celebration of evil. Michel breaks free from puritanical upbringing to follow his instincts, which he views as a return to a truer, authentic self. Michel's show more journey to self-discovery is destructive; his selfishness and indifference contribute to the decline and death of his loyal wife, Marceline. The novel suggests that the "immoral" life is not a simple path to happiness, but rather a burdensome, isolating existence, as shown by Michel's inability to manage his freedom. Gide uses the novel to explore his own experiences and, rather than advocating for immorality, presents a "cold," objective look at the consequences of living outside moral norms. show less

A museum piece. Not one of those that draws the crowds, either; more of a worthy but kind of dull, really, Velazquez.

A companion to Gide's [b:Strait is the Gate|469406|Strait is the Gate (La Porte Etroite)|André Gide|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347378560s/469406.jpg|702632], in which he explores the dangers of over-religiosity, in The Immoralist he explores the dangers of rejecting the conventional moral life and trying to live for immediate aesthetic and sensual pleasures. Well, kind of. The life Michel leads here is still fairly conventional, even edging on moral, despite his lofty rhetoric otherwise. He just doesn't do much to impress the reader that he's in fact living out his stated aims and rejecting convention.

Which gets to show more what this story is perhaps really about: repressed homosexuality. I have to take issue with the book description where it states the book is "a frank defense of homosexuality". It is nothing of the kind. In regards to Michel's homosexuality, it is the opposite of frank. It is subtle enough that it apparently went almost totally unnoticed at the time of its publication. Furthermore it is not a defense; Michel is a mostly unsympathetic character, he treats his devoted (painfully so) wife rather appallingly, and as Gide writes in his preface to a later edition of the work, "If I had intended my hero as an example, it must be granted I did anything but succeed." Indeed, I can't imagine anyone thinking at the end of this story, "Man, that Michel, what a great guy."

It may be said this book is an illustration of the torments and harm that can come about through the individual repressing such an elementary, necessary part of him or herself. A repression that can be blamed on society's restrictive conception of what is proper and moral, to be sure. Even when the individual tries to live in a way more true to himself, it may still prove difficult.

The Immoralist may then be more a condemnation of narrow-minded society that produces tormented men like Michel, than of Michel's transgressive actions, or a defense of such a man produced by such a society.

Which all may make the book sound like an entertaining read, but I assure you, the ideas behind the book are more interesting than the book's execution. show less

The Immoralist begins with a letter, with the writer wondering how to react to the confession he has just heard from his friend Michel. From there, we read the confession of which he speaks. Michel tells the story of his marriage to Marceline, and the process of self-discovery that has compelled him to call his friends together to tell them about it.

I was under the impression before reading it that the immorality referred to in the title was homosexuality, and it is - to a degree. However, that topic is dealt with obliquely (though directly enough that it was controversial when the book was published in 1902). It's really more about how society constrains us from following our natural instincts, and whether that is a positive or a show more negative. Michel discovers a new self who refuses to accept popular morality's limitations on behavior and thought, but this leaves the world wide open, requiring Michel to decide what his boundaries are or should be. Whether the reader sees Michel as a trailblazer brave enough to stand up to the stifling society of his times, or a dissolute whiner enabled by his family's means will probably say more about the reader than about Michel.

The themes are highly philosophical, about the innate nature of humanity, society's role in curbing behavior, whether morality can or should be imposed by forces outside the individual. There is much to think about after reading this book, if you choose to. Which is not to say it was a difficult read, by any means - the writing was descriptive and flowing, and the story moves along well.

Recommended for: hedonists, people having an existential crisis, philosophers, fans of Camus.

Quote: "To know how to free oneself is nothing; the arduous thing is to know what to do with one's freedom." show less

Well, I liked this more than I thought I would, and more than everyone else seems to. Gide's style here is glorious. Like Larbaud, the prose is perfectly clear, a little elegiac, but also as precise as possible. Gide's tale is simple, but thought-provoking: you could read this as a celebration of Nietzschean uber-menschdom, but only if you're more or less an inhuman prick; you could read it as a plea for repression and moralistic priggery, but only if, again, you're an inhuman prick. On the other hand, Gide makes a strong case for both: Michel is miserable as he is (i.e., repressed and oppressed), but also miserable as a completely 'free' immoralist. There's no particularly good answer here, but the novel is extremely well put together. show more

Also, fun form: a letter written by one friend to another friend recounting the story told in person to the writer by a mutual friend. It works surprisingly well. show less