Literary What Maisie Knew by Henry James

[sun surfer]

This is the MR Literary Club selection for April 2016. Whether you've already read it or would like to, feel free to start or join in the conversation at any time, and guests are always welcome!


Goodreads
Mobileread Library Kindle, upload by Patricia Epub Complete Works, upload by pynch
Audible Search Australia UK US


So, what are your thoughts on it?

[Spinnenmonat]

I'll begin to read it in two days. But have you seen this?

[poohbear_nc]

Disclaimer: I am a HUGE fan of Henry James, and have been reading his works since college.

I read this novel last year (as part of my project to read all of Henry James' fiction in chronological order). My reading experience was painful ... previously I had designated The Princess Casamassima as my most excruciating reading experience, but Maisie currently tops the list. It could have been funny - the plot is absurd, and the parental handings off of Maisie to one another are preposterous. James was quite capable of writing with what I call a "Wharton" touch -- arch comedy in high-brow settings -- but this was a moralizing nightmare ... sluggishly paced with insipid dialogue ... ouch!

[I'm currently reading, and enjoying, The Awkward Age - which also deals with how to raise young girls in 'high' society. A vast improvement in content, character, and style.

[Spinnenmonat]

The works of late Henry James are certainly very challenging, especially the three pinnacles, I mean, the dove, the ambassadors and the bowl, all with an obvious tinge of modernism. They could be put in the same category with the works of Woolf and Joyce. I think anybody who wants to try them should not read too fast and dance in the same tempo with Henry James. Maisie is not as late as these three, but I can still predict what will confront us, a quasi late James. We should get prepared for it.

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by Spinnenmonat

The works of late Henry James are certainly very challenging, especially the three pinnacles, I mean, the dove, the ambassadors and the bowl, all with an obvious tinge of modernism. They could be put in the same category with the works of Woolf and Joyce. I think anybody who wants to try them should not read too fast and dance in the same tempo with Henry James. Maisie is not as late as these three, but I can still predict what will confront us, a quasi late James. We should get prepared for it.

Well put ... and the rationale for my reading project -- to prepare for the 'Big 3'.

Rebecca West penned a very short, but extremely lucid, analysis/appreciation/review of Henry James (http://www.amazon.com/Henry-James-Re...N%3DB01CAQ0JQG) - in which she acknowledges the difficulty of following James' later syntactical creations -- and suggests, since these novels were dictated to a secretary, that reading passages aloud in a 'conversational manner' would help readers to follow the thread of a sentence, and help in unraveling the extremely long sentences with multiple clauses.

[fantasyfan]

There is the (in)famous description of a typical Henry James novel by H. G. Wells:

“It [any novel by James] is like a church lit but without a congregation to distract you, with every light and line focused on the high altar. And on the altar, very reverently placed, intensely there, is a dead kitten, an egg-shell, a bit of string. . . .”

Of this passage Kenneth Rexroth wrote:

"It has been quoted by every high-toned critic in three languages. If it doesn’t appear at least once in four numbers in any of our literary quarterlies, I am sure they would penitently refund your subscription. It is supposed to show what an awful boor Wells was, what a dreadful Socialist. It does nothing of the sort. In the context of Wells’s satire Boon, it is pretty good literary criticism."

That article is more about Wells than James and many might dispute that final sentence but if you want to read the entire article it is here:

http://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/es...ames-wells.htm

James. in fact, admired the work of Wells and the two engaged in an interesting exchange of letters.

Personally, I found What Maisie Knew disturbing but intriguing when I last read it some time ago.

[sun surfer]

Great comments so far.

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

Disclaimer: I am a HUGE fan of Henry James, and have been reading his works since college.

I read this novel last year (as part of my project to read all of Henry James' fiction in chronological order). My reading experience was painful ... previously I had designated The Princess Casamassima as my most excruciating reading experience, but Maisie currently tops the list. It could have been funny - the plot is absurd, and the parental handings off of Maisie to one another are preposterous. James was quite capable of writing with what I call a "Wharton" touch -- arch comedy in high-brow settings -- but this was a moralizing nightmare ... sluggishly paced with insipid dialogue ... ouch!

[I'm currently reading, and enjoying, The Awkward Age - which also deals with how to raise young girls in 'high' society. A vast improvement in content, character, and style.

I love Henry James as well. The Portrait of a Lady is among my favourite books. I admire your project. I read slowly enough and have such a wide range of book interests and big to-read list that it would be very difficult for me to decide to concentrate on one author like that, though James would be at or near the top of my list if I ever do.

My opinion of What Maisie Knew isn't as intense as yours but trends in the same direction. It is still James so I still enjoyed the writing, but the story and certain aspects of it weren't nearly as good as other James I've read. Particularly, I didn't think he wrote the character of Maisie very well. I agree about the moralising as well; while in books such as The Portrait of a Lady and The Wings of the Dove decisions are made by characters based on their moral philosophy and left for us to judge, I felt like this book was more so telling us, or at the least strongly implying, what was right and wrong with regard to this couple and their child.

I chose this book somewhat at random a little over a year ago just to read something by James since I hadn't in a long time. I was pressed for time so wanted one of his shorter works but preferred something longer than a short story and settled on this, thinking since a film had recently been made of it perhaps it'd be a solid choice. While I'm happy I read it, I do think it's one of his lesser works.

[Spinnenmonat]

The first impression is quite good, but a little extraordinary, because the topic of divorce and the assignment of the children is not that usual in the classical literature.

What is your first impression, if you are now reading it for the first time?

[Bookpossum]

I am quite well into it, and find it very disturbing. My interpretation is that her stepfather is a paedophile who married her mother to gain access to the child, as in the case of Lolita, and I find that, and the attitude of her parents, for whom she is just a nuisance when she isn't a weapon, quite dreadful.

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but for me it is the only interpretation which makes sense.

[poohbear_nc]

The more traditional interpretations emphasize the adults using Maisie as a weapon against each other ... and otherwise ignoring her. The interest of the much younger stepfather is regarded as a display of brotherly affection, not parental interest, from a man much too young or inexperienced to assume the role of a father figure.

James was concerned with the effect(s) of exposing a young child to adult conversation and situations ... which the child attempts to interpret/understand in terms of their childhood experiences.

[poohbear_nc]

But I completely agree with you that the notion of 'adults', parents no less, playing 'Keep Away' using a small child -- is downright creepy.

[Spinnenmonat]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

I am quite well into it, and find it very disturbing. My interpretation is that her stepfather is a paedophile who married her mother to gain access to the child, as in the case of Lolita, and I find that, and the attitude of her parents, for whom she is just a nuisance when she isn't a weapon, quite dreadful.

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but for me it is the only interpretation which makes sense.

What a shocking coincidence! Nabokov had read the book, so you are not going to say he was inspired by Maisie to creat the world famous Lolita?

I like how Henry James deal with a serious subject with a kind of ironic, but subtle and elegant humour. His metaphors are also charming, especially the metaphor of receptacle for Maisie.

[Bookpossum]

Well, who knows? I think writers are like magpies and collect ideas from many places. And it might not have occurred to me if I had not read Lolita, and also have been hearing in the news about a big enquiry here in Australia into institutional child abuse. It just seemed to me so strange that, for example, Sir Claude came to meet Maisie when she was still at her father's home, as if he just couldn't wait to do so. Also the way he manages to charm all the adults, and endear himself to the child.

It is not something of which I have any personal knowledge thank goodness, but have heard enough about it for me to think of it as the explanation for what is otherwise quite inexplicable behaviour.

I have not yet finished the book, and I don't expect that James would indicate unequivocally that this is what he had in mind. But such a neglected child would surely be very vulnerable to anyone with predatory inclinations. Perhaps that is what occurred to Nabokov, so he used this as a jumping off point.

As I said, I could be completely wrong. But it's hard not to see the possibilities after having thought of it. And as we know from present day cases, people really close to abused children don't realise it is happening until it is too late.

[fantasyfan]

In some ways the novel plays on what Masie doesn't know. Chapter 8, for instance, is filled with ironies which depend on an adult reader being fully aware of the undertones of the conversation between Sir Claude and the second Mrs Beale. Note this little conversation in which the erotic attraction between the two adults is cleverly developed:

'Maisie, in her charmed mood, drank in an imputation on her years which at another moment might have been bitter; but the charm was sensibly interrupted by Mrs. Beale's screwing her round and gazing fondly into her eyes, "You're willing to leave me, you wretch?"

'"The little girl deliberated; even this consecrated tie had become as a cord she must suddenly snap. But she snapped it very gently. "Isn't it my turn for mamma?"

'"You're a horrible little hypocrite! The less, I think, now said about 'turns' the better," Mrs. Beale made answer. "I know whose turn it is. You've not such a passion for your mother!"

'"I say, I say: do look out!" Sir Claude quite amiably protested.

'"There's nothing she hasn't heard. But it doesn't matter—it hasn't spoiled her. If you knew what it costs me to part with you!" she pursued to Maisie.

'Sir Claude watched her as she charmingly clung to the child. "I'm so glad you really care for her. That's so much to the good."

'Mrs. Beale slowly got up, still with her hands on Maisie, but emitting a soft exhalation. "Well, if you're glad, that may help us; for I assure you that I shall never give up any rights in her that I may consider I've acquired by my own sacrifices. I shall hold very fast to my interest in her. What seems to have happened is that she has brought you and me together."

'"She has brought you and me together," said Sir Claude.

'His cheerful echo prolonged the happy truth, and Maisie broke out almost with enthusiasm: "I've brought you and her together!" '

So we have the beginning of the marriage and sexual carousel! Masie, is certainly not fully aware of the sexual interplay of the conversation. However, the fact that Masie likes this pair so much certainly show us how much she does eventually know when she finally makes her choice much later.

I can understand why Bookpossum thinks that Sir Claude is a paedophile. Some of his comments can be read so--but so can those of Mrs Beale:

'Maisie knew them all, and none indeed were to be compared to Sir Claude. He laughed back at Mrs. Beale; he looked at such moments quite as Mrs. Wix, in the long stories she told her pupil, always described the lovers of her distressed beauties—"the perfect gentleman and strikingly handsome." He got up, to the child's regret, as if he were going. "Oh I dare say we should be all right!"

'Mrs. Beale once more gathered in her little charge, holding her close and looking thoughtfully over her head at their visitor. "It's so charming—for a man of your type—to have wanted her so much!"

"a man of your type . . . .wanted her so much!"--does Mrs Beale sense a child-molester?

But I cannot help but feel that this is a case of modern sensibility being applied to a work in a way that the author didn't necessarily have in mind at all. Sir Claude may indeed be a man with no deeply held morality, but that doesn't prevent him from having all the social graces. He has manners. He doesn't have morality; that is a theme developed at length by Jane Austen and James follows in her tradition-- though he is far more pessimistic in his general philosophy. At any rate, Sir Claude is simply a very charming man with a rather loose general morality. I don't think that we need assume that Sir Claude has paedophilia. In fact, in my opinion--and I stress that is all it is--to do so would add a dreadful darkness to the novel that is not normally found in his works.

[Spinnenmonat]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Well, who knows? I think writers are like magpies and collect ideas from many places. And it might not have occurred to me if I had not read Lolita, and also have been hearing in the news about a big enquiry here in Australia into institutional child abuse. It just seemed to me so strange that, for example, Sir Claude came to meet Maisie when she was still at her father's home, as if he just couldn't wait to do so. Also the way he manages to charm all the adults, and endear himself to the child.

It is not something of which I have any personal knowledge thank goodness, but have heard enough about it for me to think of it as the explanation for what is otherwise quite inexplicable behaviour.

I have not yet finished the book, and I don't expect that James would indicate unequivocally that this is what he had in mind. But such a neglected child would surely be very vulnerable to anyone with predatory inclinations. Perhaps that is what occurred to Nabokov, so he used this as a jumping off point.

As I said, I could be completely wrong. But it's hard not to see the possibilities after having thought of it. And as we know from present day cases, people really close to abused children don't realise it is happening until it is too late.

Yes, I see, I've just read it. The meeting between Maisie und Lord Claude is weird and the language of James in this part is so ambiguous that a sensible reader living in the modern world with so many absurdities, perversities and eccentricities would easily fall into the interpretation that disturbs himself/herself und spoils the reading experience which ought to be exhilarating. However, I think every interpretation convincing to you is the truth you need no hesitation of taking.