Strictly 'under the Rose' of course

In this remarkable late nineteenth century novel, James chooses a Southern antihero, as well as a Bostonian antiheroine, to illustrate the microcosm of psychological and sociological relationships that exist between men and women; and between New England and the Deep South. The narrator speaks from the omniscient point of view of the main character's mind. This former slave owner, who is now a defeated Confederate soldier, has lost everything he held dear. Giving up on his lost estate, he moves north, where he meets his Bostonian cousins, one of which is deeply involved in the Women's Suffrage Movement after the Civil War and the success of the abolitionist movement.

The interplay of relationships is like a tennis match, though there is little real action. The interaction is mostly simply conversation. But, Henry James writes with a unique word choice that is immensely enjoyable to read. His characters are individuals who lived and breathed throughout the work. After reading, you feel as if you know these people. I was enchanted by the opposite ideologies of the main characters.

It is part of human nature that things sometimes happen as here described; yet it leaves us puzzled as to the motives of someone who would choose to... well, I will leave the details for you to puzzle over yourself when you read the book. You've read the book blurb on Goodreads, or else you wouldn't be here checking out the reviews. So, I have just a few words about the themes and the effects of James' stark novel. The major theme of the work is identity, and each character makes a variety of statements that bristle with a kind of irony, given the identity of the speaker.

As I read, a few phrases on the theme of light and atmosphere kept reoccurring.
* gaslight and gas-lighted rooms
* living in the gaslight
* interpreting history by a new light
* a name visible in the lamplight
* a smell of kerosene
* the artificial atmosphere of rose-coloured lamps

There was also a major emphasis on publicity in the novel. Throughout, the characters talked of newspapers, posters, newsbills; and they sought public platforms and wrote articles. Of course, the two themes taken together hint at many things, but I was struck with the way the characters wished to present themselves, and in what light they were seen by others.

Other concepts make this story interesting; such as the idea of the "Boston Marriage," and the lack of agency for women. The vocabulary and manner of speaking may carry you away so that you spend many hours lost in the pages. It is one of the best novels I have read because of the psychological relationships, and the historical situation of the characters make it all the more so.

“Well, you are considerate.’ And Miss Birdseye continued to gaze at him. ‘It’s a pity you can’t sympathise.”

Set in mid to late 19th century America, Verena Tarrant is the talk of the town in Boston. Her remarkable gift for public speaking has landed her a front running position in the feminist movement. Olive Chancellor is impressed by the young girl and but worries for the looming influence of her parents who seem to shelter her far too much. Olive is not the only one vying for Verena’s attention. Basil Ransom, Olive’s conservative cousin from the South, has come to Boston per Olive’s invitation and is quite taken by Verena at one of her speaking events. The battle for Verena’s attention is fought passionately between Ransom and Olive, both failing to fully consider what this means for Verena herself.

I picked up this novel for reason slightly more sentimental than usual, as this edition was edited and annotated by possibly my favourite professor who taught me up until a few months ago. Lansdown’s introduction, unsurprisingly, put the story in a whole new light for me and fascinated me. He suggests that these characters aren’t so much individuals but representatives of the influential political movements in America in the 19th century. Ransom is the conservative South, fighting the upcoming feminist movement and the more modern influences of emancipation (embodied in Olive). Verena is young America, coming of age and struggling to deal with these looming influences whilst trying to find her own voice.

The novel is also surprisingly funny. James manages to discuss very complicated subjects and allows the reader to wonder for themselves by adding satirical and sarcastic comments to discussions. I read this novel with a friend and we had a great discussion about it.

I liked this novel a lot more than I thought I would. I was going to pick it up at some point but knowing the editor and how he has helped me find a renewed enjoyment for the study of literature pulled me in sooner. I would highly recommend this to anyone who appreciates a good classic that makes you reconsider modern philosophy as well as consider the political climate of the past. The characters are fascinating too, you are really in for something.

Mi piace Henry James. Mi piace molto. L’ho sempre letto con piacere. Anche questo libro che all’inizio è ostico e verboso poi, dopo le prima metà della storia, prende il via e diventa fluido per arrivare veloce e spedito al finale. Non racconto la trama. La storia è morbosa e se ne deduce che Proust lo deve aver letto attentamente per la sua Recherche. E comunque se siete amanti delle storie ottocentesche, cerebrali e complicate con bei personaggi, ecco, non lasciatevelo scappare.

Λαμπρό δείγμα γραφής του Χένρι Τζέιμς, καταπιάνεται με το... προανάκρουσμα του φεμινισμού (πριν ακόμα αρχίσει αυτός να μετριέται σε κύματα) με αρκετά ρεαλιστικό (ιδίως αν κριθεί με βάση την εποχή του) τρόπο. Ο εμφύλιος πόλεμος των ΗΠΑ έχει τελειώσει και νέες προκλήσεις αναδύονται στη νεόκοπη αμερικανική κοινωνία.
Μακιαβελικά έξυπνος ο τρόπος παρουσίασης της αμφιταλάντευσης μεταξύ ιδεών σαν διελκυστίνδα μεταξύ της φεμινίστριας φίλης της ηρωίδας και του ερωτευμένου (λίγο φαλλοκράτη νότιου, αλλά πάντα τζέντλεμαν) που τη διεκδικεί.
Μπορεί να αργεί λίγο να πάρει μπρος, άλλωστε δεν είναι και μικρό έργο, οπότε μια μακρά (σε σελίδες) περίοδος ωρίμανσης είναι αναμενόμενη, ενώ δεν έχει τα ενοχλητικά κρεσέντα ή τις πλαδαρές κοιλάδες άλλων έργων της εποχής. Σταθερή γραφή σε "ταχύτητα" και ποιότητα, ρηξικέλευθες ιδέες που παρουσιάζονται χωρίς ειρωνεία ή αρνητικά διακείμενο κριτικό πνεύμα, μας θυμίζουν γιατί ο συγγραφέας έγινε κλασικός.

My impression in very few words: Charming Southern asshole falls in love with pretend-feminist who is docile yet innocent (possibly with big tits). He then steals her away from her lesbian spinster best friend in the middle of them fighting for women's suffrage.

Quite entertaining. Consciously sexist though.

This was an interesting novel to read. In all honesty it was serious step down from the masterpiece that precedes it, i.e., The Portrait of a Lady. Having said that though, I think James perhaps intended this book to be lighter fare than Portrait. In fact, The Bostonians is loaded with satire, irony, and a goodly number of comedic moments. The novel's plot revolves around two cousins, Olive Chancellor and Basil Ransom, and the relationship that each desires to have with a young red-headed woman of magnetic personality, Miss Verena Tarrant. Verena and Olive are both deeply involved in the suffragette movement of the 1870s in the United States. Basil Ransom is a Confederate Civil War veteran from Mississippi now trying to eke out a living as a lawyer in New York City. While the two women spend much time in the novel speechifying on their commitment to women's rights, and Basil spends much of his time jocularly refuting their positions, the novel isn't really about feminism, it is all about relationships and feelings.

While Basil's efforts at establishing a romantic romantic relationship with Verena Tarrant were really rather predictable, it was the relationship between Verena and Olive that perhaps intrigued me the most. There's an ambiguity about Olive and her motives that puzzles me still, and while it might be easy to interpret Olive's feelings for Verena as a quasi-homosexual love, I also think that interpretation might mostly miss the mark. It is my understanding that it was this novel that actually gave rise to the term "Boston Marriage" describing the relationship of two unmarried women living together.

Finally, as I sit here and process my thoughts upon completing the novel, I have come to the conclusion that both Olive and Basil use and manipulate Verena for their own purpose. Verena, in my opinion, when she is first encountered by Olive and Basil, is brimming with the "Joy of Life" and is absolutely true to herself and her own feelings. Through the course of the novel she falls prey to the machinations and manipulations of both cousins, and ultimately ends up becoming in many ways much more like each of them. And I'm not sure that this is best for Verena.

Before I settle on my final verdict for James's The Bostonians, I would like to read it again sometime. I really do think there are a lot of undertones lurking about in this tale that can only be ferreted out upon subsequent reads. This is most definitely a historical novel, and some knowledge about the suffragette movement and spiritualism of the 1870s and life in post-Civil War America would surely help the reader put many of the themes and discussion topics in context.

Not quite sure what to make of this. It has a few Jamesian qualities: the enormous significance of details, general tragic view of life etc... But this is surrounded by mind-numbing detail and a set of characters with uninteresting psychologies. James is at his best when he's finding the complexity in the simple. But the main characters here are a caricature of an early feminist; a caricature of a post-war Southern gent; and a girl who's a bit too good to be anything but stupid. When the characters are this one dimensional, the usual James pyrotechnics can't do their thing. It's like watching fireworks during the day.
The whole thing is very uneven. To begin with, we sympathise with the Southern gent. At the end, you want nothing so much as to kick him in the head. Did James change his mind? Is this change intentional? It's certainly infuriating. It was always obvious that Ransom (the Southerner) was a horrible human being, just as it was always obvious that Olive was at least partially good.
The final forty pages are brilliant, but the 400 or so before them are pretty tough going. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, really. You're much better off with the other novels of this period- Portrait of a Lady, Washington Square - and, before them, The Europeans. Still, it's James. So I can't go below three stars.

Also DNF'ing. (Yes several of the books which have been sitting in my 'currently reading' are migrating to this shelf now. Thank you Anna for showing me how to do that!) I like Henry James's style very much, but I preferred 'The Europeans', this is boring. Again, will likely finish at some point.

Бостънци е може би най-голямата, най-епичната и най-заплетена творба на Henry James. Една история на няколко души, повечко еманципация, интриги, борба за любов - повече от самата любов, осмиване на силата, която женската природа може да покаже в един мъжки свят.
Харесва ми как Джеймс оставя читателя да прецени дали любовта е по-силна от всичко или просто женската сила е съвсем немощна. Обичам, когато авторите ни оставят сами да преценим написаното, според възможностите си и според собственото верую. В литературата да не си назидателен и натрапчив, но много интересен, е голям талант.

Много са темите, върху които може да се дискутира, обаче това, което той владее най-добре е този ужасно красив, хитроумен, саркастичен на моменти стил, който то кара да четеш и препрочиташ някои страници и пасажи по няколко пъти. Героите му са много сложни образи и характери, много запомнящи се. Базил Рансъм - коя ли жена няма да го хареса, нищо, че е небогат южняк. И колко хубаво и много тънко се присмива Хенри Джеймс на надценените качества и видимите слабости на хората. Обожавам как някъде казва: "това дори и аз много не мога да ви обясня, трябва да го видите" обаче само какво обяснение е това! Пиша хаотично и емоционално, пленена съм.


Преводът на Надежда Розова е изящен. Бостънци може и да не е най-любимата ми творба на Хенри Джеймс, (въпреки че много я харесвам, аз просто обожавам Уошингтън Скуеър ) прави най-доброто за своя автор - кара ме да искам да чета и още и още.

I could not finish this book. I thought I couldn’t go wrong by reading a classic but was so disappointed I had to put it down as I felt like It was a chore or that I was on some literature course and it was part of some painful assignment.
Imagine an author with exquisite writing skills who decides to write a novel about someone watching paint drying and you will get close to understanding my experience. Beautifully written but utterly tedious. Nothing in this book wants to make you turn the page. I don’t care about the characters and I don’t care what happens next. It feels like it takes pages and pages just for a person to walk into a room and greet someone else . They may speak a sentence ( which is as exciting as it gets) only to be followed by what feels like more pages and pages of explanation as to why they just said what they said.
Who cares?
Not me . No plot. Bored beyond belief.
Complete waste of time.

I loved the descriptions of place--the unfilled Back Bay in Boston, ramshackle tenements in German Manhattan, grass growing in disused shipyards on the Cape. But the main characters are hard to enjoy. Boston feminist Olive is all angry propaganda, her conservative Southern cousin Basil is all sentimental claptrap. My copy bills the book as addressing "the woman question," but social reform is only a backdrop to Olive and Basil's rivalry. I was also struck by the rootlessness of the characters--Olive without close familial ties, Basil a displaced Southerner, and both out of step with the cultural mainstream. I wondered if the author was uninterested in public life (except when it affects private life) and felt unmoored in his historical moment.

The “woman question” is back. Ten years ago you might have been forgiven if you thought it had all been sorted out when our great-grandfathers gave our great-grandmothers the vote, but everything old is disappointingly new again, though the “question” today is cast in terms that would horrify Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. We no longer ask why a woman shouldn’t have the same rights as a man; we ask instead, “What is a woman?” and “Who gets to be one?” According to the most enlightened authorities, the answer to the former question (as Matt Walsh discovered) is “No one really knows,” while the answer to the latter seems to be “Anyone who feels like it.”

The present confusion is disorienting for most of us; a few find it liberating. Whatever your take, it’s a good time to revisit The Bostonians, the 1886 novel that Henry James devoted to the woman question as posed in his own time. This is not the difficult James of the later novels; this is James at his most readable, and in fact The Bostonians proves that, believe it or not, James had a sense of humor. The Bostonians will not cast any special light into the perplexing abyss of transgenderism but James’s characters, and the impulses that drive them, certainly have cognates in our own time. Readers may also be consoled to discover that our generation is not alone in being given to magical thinking and utopian follies.

The “Bostonians” of the title are two young women. The first is spinsterish Olive Chancellor who has consecrated herself a sort of vestal virgin to the cause of women’s emancipation. She is possessed, as James puts it, by “a mania for ‘reform’” and an unquenchable resentment of men. “She was willing to admit,” says James, “that women, too, could be bad; that there were many about the world who were false, immoral, vile. But their errors were as nothing to their sufferings; they had expiated, in advance, an eternity, if need be, of misconduct.” Olive’s trouble is that while she possesses the funds and fervor, she lacks the personal charisma to lead the charge herself. What she needs is a champion to bankroll.

She finds her unlikely Joan of Arc in Verena Tarrant, daughter of a down-at-heels medium turned “mesmeric healer.” Olive discovers Verena at a gathering of like-minded reformers where Verena gives an improvisational speech on women’s emancipation that stuns everyone present. Verena has all the charm Olive herself lacks, a seductive stage presence, and a gift for inspirational public speaking. Olive reflects on Verena’s curious pedigree:

“Such strange lives are led in America, she always knew that; but this was queerer than anything she had dreamed of, and the queerest part was that the girl herself didn’t appear to think it queer. She had been nursed in darkened rooms, and suckled in the midst of manifestations; she had begun to ‘attend lectures,’ as she said, when she was quite an infant, because her mother had no one to leave her with at home. She had sat on the knees of somnambulists, and had been passed from hand to hand by trance-speakers; she was familiar with every kind of ‘cure’, and had grown up among lady-editors of newspapers advocating for new religions, and people who disapproved of the marriage-tie.”

James’s “hero” is Olive’s distant cousin Basil Ransom, a Mississippian and former Confederate officer impoverished by the Civil War, now pursuing a law career in New York City. Over dinner at her home in Boston the two soon discover they are philosophical adversaries. James says of Ransom that “he was by natural disposition a good deal of a stoic” and “in social and political matters, a reactionary…much addicted to judging his age.” When Olive pleads the cause of “the new truths,” Ransom responds that he has never encountered anything but old truths. When she asks if he cares nothing for human progress, he responds, “I don’t know – I never saw any.” Olive is revolted by her cousin’s conservatism but reflects that “unfortunately men didn’t care for the truth, especially the new kinds, in proportion as they were good looking.”

Ransom is also present in Boston for Verena’s inspired speech on women’s emancipation and, though he rejects the message, he too is struck by the messenger. The rest of the novel plays out as a sort of tug-o’-war (a civil war, you might say) between the two cousins for the fate of Verena. For Olive, Verena is an oracle, a female messiah to usher in the new age; for Basil, Verena is simply a woman, remarkable in her own right, made by nature for love, being seduced into a nonsense philosophy she can’t really believe in and which he is sure will never satisfy her.

Olive senses the threat. When Ransom returns to New York she takes charge of Verena’s education, shaping her talents for the great work. The two young women move through a post-Transcendentalist New England of teetotalers, vegetarians, spiritualists, and social reformers who, after the abolition of slavery, have turned to the woman question. If only women had the vote, if only they had the rights of men, if only men would hand over to them the management of society, then all should be well. No more wars, no more want. Sin and suffering would become a thing of the past, a bad dream from which civilization would wake to the dazzling light of a new dawn. That’s the lofty idea.

And yet a shadow passes now and then over Olive. There are energies in the vibrant, open-hearted Verena that will not be corralled, intimations she is not so committed as Olive to their holy calling. “There were so many things that [Verena] hadn’t yet learned to dislike,” Olive reflects. “She had the idea vividly (that was the marvel) of the cruelty of man, of his immemorial injustice; but it remained abstract, platonic; she didn’t detest him in consequence.” One musical evening in the rooms of a wealthy young Harvard student who is in love with Verena, Olive briefly imagines that relations between the sexes need not be “internecine,” but she shakes it off and accuses Verena of lack of zeal: “I’ll tell you what is the matter with you – you don’t dislike men as a class!”

More trouble comes with the reappearance of Ransom. Verena is clearly attracted to him, despite his mockery of all that to which, through Olive’s influence, she has dedicated her life. Walking with her through Central Park, Ransom holds nothing back. “The sort of thing she was able to do, to say,” he explains, “was an article for which there was more and more demand – fluent, pretty, third-rate palaver, conscious or unconscious, perfected humbug; the stupid, gregarious, gullible public, the enlightened democracy of his native land, could swallow unlimited draughts of it.” Anyway, he says, it is not women that need saving, but men. Verena demands to know from what, and Ransom replies:

“From the most damnable feminization! …The whole generation is womanized; the masculine tone is passing out of the world; it’s a feminine, a nervous, hysterical, chattering, canting age, an age of hollow phrases and false delicacy and exaggerated solicitudes and coddled sensibilities, which, if we don’t look out soon, will usher in the reign of mediocrity, of the feeblest and flattest and most pretentious that has ever been.”

James does not make it easy for us to like Ransom. He’s often right but he indulges now and then in what qualifies today as outright misogyny. And yet, he’s not entirely consistent. As much as he desires to possess Verena and fit her to a more traditional woman’s role, he also conceives a sincere admiration for elderly Miss Birdseye, who is as fervent in the cause of women’s emancipation as she had been for the abolition of slavery. And then he develops an unlikely but respectful friendship of equals with Dr. Prance who, though a woman herself, has little patience with the philosophy of her would-be emancipators.

In the end, James seems to suggest, we can only judge the fevers of our age – and our own participation in them – retrospectively. He offers no final judgment on the “woman question” of his era; the final settlement of his characters might be summarized as, “It’s complicated.” Likewise, ten or twenty years from now, who can say how people will judge the sexual politics of our day. They might conclude we all lost our minds. Some (like Louise Perry) are already wondering aloud if maybe the old sexual morality and gender roles weren't so bad after all. And who’s to say how the children who are being sterilized and surgically mutilated today will judge the parents, physicians, and government authorities who “affirmed” them with the very best intentions. As James says:

“These hours of backward clearness come to all men and women, once at least, when they read the past in the light of the present, with the reasons of things, like unobserved finger-posts, protruding where they never saw them before. The journey behind them is mapped out and figured, with its false steps, its wrong observations, all its infatuated, deluded geography.”

4.5 stars