Without a doubt a masterwork in width and depth. James has a very special writing technique: each chapter starts with a consideration from the author's point of view or introspection into one of the characters, usually followed by a dialogue that adds new information. James uses long, highly processed sentences, and sometimes very heavy grammatical constructions; the dialogues are intense, especially because of the things that are not said or are only subtly hinted at. And all that is very captiviting.

But there are also some downsides. In terms of characters: the scenes with Rosier are not quite credible, because they seem constructed to fit the plot; the element of sexuality is totally kept out of the relation between Isabel and Osmond; and the absence of a reference to the psychological impact of the dead son is striking.

In general James follows a chronological line in his story, but after some key events there's a leap in time, without explanation of major changes that have taken place; only very gradually some information is given to clarify things; also towards the end, there are some unlikely passages (the friendship between Osmond and Goodwood, and the final scene with Goodwood). All in all, truly a great novel, that I have enjoyed very much, but with some issues.

The Portrait of a Lady, Henry James

The Portrait of a Lady is a novel by Henry James, first published as a serial in The Atlantic Monthly and Macmillan's Magazine in 1880–81 and then as a book in 1881.

It is one of Henry James's most popular long novels and is regarded by critics as one of his finest.

The Portrait of a Lady is the story of a spirited young American woman Isabel Archer, who, in "confronting her destiny", finds it overwhelming.

She inherits a large amount of money and subsequently becomes the victim of Machiavellian scheming by two American expatriates.

Like many of James's novels, it is set in Europe, mostly England and Italy.

Generally regarded as the masterpiece of James's early period, this novel reflects James's continuing interest in the differences between the New World and the Old, often to the detriment of the former.

It also treats in a profound way the themes of personal freedom, responsibility, and betrayal.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز نوزدهم ماه نوامبر سال1976میلادی

عنوان: تصویر یک زن؛ اثر: هنری جیمز؛ مترجم: مجید مسعودی؛ نشر: تهران، در دو جلد، سال1348، در866ص، جلد دوم در31ص و433ص؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده19م

عنوان: تصویر یک زن؛ اثر: هنری جیمز؛ مترجم: مجید مسعودی؛ ویراستار: عنایت سمیعی؛ نشر: تهران، نیلوفر: شرکت انتشارات علمی فرهنگی، چاپ دوم از ویراست دوم سال1390، در798ص، شابک9789644484964؛

شخصیت اصلی داستان، چنانکه ‌از عنوان کتاب برمی‌آید، یک زن جوان به ‌نام: «ایزابل آرچر» است؛ «ایزابل» دختری «آمریکایی» و معصوم و جذابی‌ است، که ‌بنا به ‌پیشنهاد خاله‌ ی خویش خانم «تاچت»، و زیر پشتیبانی او، از «آمریکا» به ‌«انگلستان» می‌آید؛ «هنری جیمز» داستان را که پنجاه و چهار فصل دارد، و ترجمه ‌ی فارسی آن در866صفحه ‌است؛ در «انگلستان» و در محوطه‌ ی چمن وسیع خانه‌ ی خاله‌ ی «ایزابل» آغاز می‌کنند؛ حاضرین در صحنه، ‌سه ‌نفر هستند، که ‌هر سه ‌نقشی تعیین کننده، ‌در زندگی «ایزابل»، ایفا خواهند کرد؛ این سه تن «شوهر خاله‌ ی ایزابل آقای تاچت»، «پسر خاله ی ‌بیمار و دوست داشتنی او رالف»، و «دوست خانوادگی تاچت‌ ها لرد واربرتنِ سی و پنج ساله‌ ی جذاب، مجرد و بسیار ثروتمند»، هستند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 15/10/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 04/09/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

Up until midnight finishing this exquisite superstar. Ah! The pleasures of lying on the couch with a muglet of alcohol-free wine, a series of nibbles, and a sexy Oxford Classic as evenfall descends and time melts into irrelevance. Is there more to life than this? Not much more. (And that suits me fine).

Remember when Jim Morrison of the Doors berated the Discrete Charms of the Bourgeoisie as a hell "carefully refined and sealed over?" It's funny. I have always vainly aspired to a life just like those winners.

I was like poor Hans Castorp.

When I was 20, I wrote in my diary, "oh, for a more solid gift of ataraxy!" Living my life with any kind of sophisticated aplomb was always out of reach. I was a clumsy oaf.

And yet that's exactly the kind of life Isabel Archer sees in Ralph Touchant and she aspires to it, too!

Reading this in the cold autumn of 1970 - on the hot isle of Barbados, of all places, where the hoar frost of Autumn is nonexistent - I was recovering from my violent coming of age, and craved what I also saw as the immaculate self-possession of the Touchants.

Alas.

That esteemed aplomb was the prevaricating tip of a Monstrous Iceberg!

Yes, I'm serious, folks. Looks like Jim Morrison was right, in the more perfect hindsight that this Plague Year, fifty years later, affords.

It's a grim world, guys.

Only now we KNOW it. We have seen Medusa's face and have been frozen into place by our Fear And Loathing.

The world's not safe anymore.

Bottom line, of course, is Ralph Touchant LIED to Isabel...

And, as she later discovers, Life's not REALLY a Bed of Roses.

Isabel Archer is an enigma. When we first meet her there was something splendid in her charm, her openness, and her candor. Fresh. Yes, that is the word. She wanted to take charge of her life.

Rich men like Lord Warburton and Caspar Goodwood fall head over heals all over her and want to marry her. She is aloof and says no to these offers. She seemed very much in control of her life. She impresses her sickly cousin Ralph Touchett.

When she inherits a large amount of money (thanks to her cousin), it allows her to choose what she wants to do in life. Not bad start. In the fashion of the day, she heads to Italy to travel and then see the world.

Except this is where she meets the expatriate Gilbert Osmond via a mysterious Madame Merle. Osmond is an eccentric who has lofty values, a meek daughter Pansy, who he raises in a convent, but has no real money. What to do? Easy, marry Isabel for her money.

This is the time of class and wealth and marry to climb that social ladder. Is Isabel too much of an idealist? Why does she seem to change when she marries Osmond? Why does she defend Osmond so adamantly to the point of annoying her friends? Why does she take her husband’s view on marrying off his daughter to someone with money? Didn’t she try to avoid this at all costs?

Is this part of the class image that so many fought for? It’s easy from our modern perspective to dismiss these issues but Henry James digs deep. At times Isabel seemed like a lost case. Her friend Henrietta Stackpole and her cousin Ralph, work hard to to get Isabel to see where she is in her marriage. It is a big pit and it takes a lot of work to see the surface.

It is no easy ride. I stuck with the book, but to be honest, Isabel punched the limits of patience with me. Thankfully James explained a lot but one can see, no relationship is ever easy. Why we stay and why we leave are never simple solutions.

The real offence, as she ultimately perceived, was her having a mind of her own at all

Perhaps one of James' most accessible novels, this asks moral questions which still trouble us: what does it mean to live a 'free' life? how can we balance the constrictions and responsibilities of marriage, family and friendships with a sense of an independent self? how to negotiate the ethical character of having/not having money? That James manages this without preaching, without offering up easy or polemical answers, and wraps the whole thing up in elegant, nuanced prose is an art.

The social comedy is both sunny and deeply ironic, and the labyrinthine architecture of the novel which turns back upon itself a number of times is masterful. Reading this for the second time, I was struck by how many feelers this book puts out to previous and future literature: it looks ahead to James' own The Wings of the Dove but surely also back to Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Middlemarch's Dorothea Brooke, as well as forward to Virginia Woolf's heroines who also have a sense of 'affronting [their] destiny'.

James' style is definitely more 'telling' than 'showing' but proves the inadequacy of any easy 'creative writing' hierarchy: in the hands of a craftsman, 'telling' enables polyphony and debate as much as dramatising.

Close attention to words, detail and imagery is absolutely essential to navigate our way through this narrative - the first description of Gilbert Osmond's Florentine villa, for example:

this antique, solid, weather-worn, yet imposing front had a somewhat incommunicative character. It was the mask, not the face of the house. It had heavy lids, but no eyes; the house in reality looked another way

or an early description of Osmond himself: 'he was the elegant complicated medal struck off for a special occasion', which intersects with the systematic imagery of expensive objects throughout the book - paintings, porcelain, bibelots.

So a wonderfully complex, subtle, nuanced story that kept me both gripped and enthralled.

Wyborny mistrz amerykańskiej prozy – Henry James ze swoją najlepszą powieścią, bez dwóch zdań.

Portret damy, portret kobiety drugiej połowy XIX wieku. Majętnej i młodej, zabezpieczonej i niezależnej. Kobiety, która wpada w sidła mężczyzny, który chce zdusić jej wolność. Henry James niczym największy feminista swoich czasów, czujny obserwator ludzkich relacji po obu stronach oceanu, kreuje bohaterkę, która popełnia fatalną decyzję. Inteligentną, oczytaną, pełną życia, która z podmiotu przekształca się w przedmiot, akcesorium swojego wyrafinowanego męża. I świadoma jest konsekwencji swoich wyborów. Ba, ona celowo godzi się na swój los, by wypełnić społeczną rolę. Cała ta powieść zresztą bada paradoks wolności i ograniczeń społecznych. Jakie to jest mocne! I wciąż w jakiś sposób aktualne, a minęło przecież ponad sto lat!

Henry James – taki celny, taki elegancki, nie potrafi oprzeć się, by dorzucić przejmujący komentarz społeczny. Dżentelmen amerykańskiej prozy, który z biegiem lat odrzucił Stany Zjednoczone na rzecz swoich europejskich korzeni. Obserwator natury ludzkiej, który nigdy się nie ożenił, a jego dziećmi stało się ponad sto książek, które napisał. Jego „Portret damy” to dzieło wybitne i nieśmiertelne, jak tylko klasyka potrafi być nieśmiertelna. Kolejna powieść spod jego pióra (przypominam „W kleszczach lęku”), która nadal jest szeroko analizowana i dyskutowana. To jedna z pierwszych powieści psychologicznych, w której czuć już ducha nadchodzącego modernizmu – tego ducha dobrze oddaje zresztą ekranizacja. Powieść, która okazała się też punktem zwrotnym w karierze Jamesa, dzisiaj uznana za najlepszą w obszernej twórczości pisarza. I nie ma w tym żadnej przesady.

I just...I don't know. I have now read The Portrait of a Lady and I'm just feeling a little flat. Like I stubbed my toe on something invisible, and I'm not quite sure what. I'm not sure why this book didn't grab me, I only know it didn't.

Note: The rest of this review has been withdrawn due to the recent changes in Goodreads policy and enforcement. You can read why I came to this decision here.

In the meantime, you can read the entire review at Smorgasbook

Last week while I was waiting for an interview call from an online company that never came through (maybe they got all the English teachers they need?), I picked up a copy of The Portrait of a Lady. Perhaps it is better to say that I picked up a part of the copy. You see, I've read the darn thing so many times it has literally fallen apart. Anyhow, there I was holding a part of my copy, figuring I'll read a few pages while I wait. I ended up reading for an hour and a half (as I said the call never came through). Once again, I was caught in the magic of this book. As I was going through all the underlined parts, I found myself finding new things to underline. I don't typically underline books at all, unless they are study materials, but I suppose I made this copy a study material. What impressed me once again were the dialogues. This time around I even came up with some new interpretations so the rereading proved to be not only enjoyable but interesting. It's always thrilling when you find something new in a classic you love, isn't it?

Curiously though, I wasn't crazy about this book the first time I read it. So I can understand anyone who disliked or was frustrated with this book. If you like Henry James, you'd probably heard about this one. This is his great classic. To be honest, I don't know how I would go about recommending this one. That's probably no wonder, since I found it difficult myself the first time around. If I remember well, when I read The Portrait of a Lady, I was already set on becoming a Henry James fan but still the book was a slow read. As I said, it really grew on me with time but that first read was mighty frustrating. I can certainly see how this book can irritate or even bore someone, it is quite long and there are definitely some slow parts. However, The Portrait of a Lady is a very important novel and a very popular one. As the title says it portrays a lady (Isabel) and a fascinating lady she is. The novel is not just about Isabel, but it portrays an entire society, American and European, with much success I might add. This social portrayal is present in other James' work but here due to the lenght of the novel perhaps, the author really goes about it.

The Portrait of a Lady is really a lovely book, very intelligent, often infused with atmosphere of sophisticated sadness- or at least that was what I’ve sensed more often than not. Isabel's quest for freedom is something we can all identify with. After all, isn't the elusive freedom something we all dream about but perhaps also something that we also don't quite understand.

Even during my first (difficult) reading, I found many things in this novel that I liked, from fantastic psychological portrait of its characters to its social commentary. The story is coherent and even the minor characters are colorful and memorable. There is a lot of attention to detail in this book. Nevertheless, I have to admit that it was nerve-racking to read towards the end. As for the ending, the first time I read it, it just drove me crazy. Simply said, I found Isabel's choices frustrating. When the novel is interesting enough to make you feel really frustrated and even a bit angry, I guess that is a compliment to its writer. With time I learned to appreciate the ending a bit more. It is a tragic story, but a beautiful one. A story so much like life itself- and that is why it must remain a bit unsatisfying. In fact, I think the frustrating ending is the novel's main achievement- it shows us the fragility of life. Who among us hasn't made terrible mistakes?

After having read this “Portrait”, I’ve started to respect Emma Bovary’s life choices much more:-)

Update:
I am currently reading Borges’s essays. The one of them is a prologue to James’s story “The Abasement of the Northmores”. I’ve never heard of this story before and generally I loved James’s shorter fictions. So I am going to read it. However, Borges formulates something that expands and explains what I felt about James’s characters and his way of creating his fiction.

Paradoxically James is not a psychological novelist. The situations in his books do not emerge from his characters; the characters have been fabricated to justify situations.”

That was exactly what I felt reading this novel. It is certainly pertinent to Isabel Archer as a character. It was driven by the situations and James puzzling what to do with them picking up not the most realistic scenario, but the way that interested him even if by sacrificing the depth of his characters. We’ve discussed this in the comments under this box, but I was excited that Borges expressed it that way. I also agree that James’s novels are not necessarily psychological. But he can do a very deep psychology though when he chooses so; especially through subtle details.

آیا درمقابل بخت بیدادگر و تنهایی بی‌سلاحیم؟ آرزو بر جوانان عیب نیست ولی چه تضمینی برای تحقق توقعات یک دختر جسور و باهوش آمریکایی برای پیداکردن خوشبختی و دلخوشی پس از انتخاب شریک زندگی‌اش وجود داره؟ اصلا رومی رو انتخاب کنه یا زنگی؟ انتخابش درسته یا غلط؟ همونطور که کتاب این سوال رو خصوصا مطرح می‌کنه، مسئله رو هم در ذهن مخاطب به صورت عمومی اشاعه می‌ده.

تصویر یک زن در واقع داستان "ایزابل آرچر"ه که از آمریکا به انگلستان سفر می‌کنه و در خانه‌ی خاله‌ی پیر خودش سکنا پیدا می‌کنه. در اونجا یک مثلث رقابتی‌ بین پسر‌خاله‌ی او، یک لرد انگلیسی و یک جوان آمریکایی پُر شر و شور برای به‌دست آوردنش در‌می‌گیره ولی "تقدیر" مار‌های دیگه‌ای تو آستینش داره.
اول از همه جیمز در مقدمه‌ی داستان به این امر اذعان می‌کنه که "داستان تصویر یک زن، داستان بانوی جوانی‌ست که تقدیر خود را خوار می‌کند." و این نتیجه‌ایه که از پرداخت این "بنای معماری"‌ یعنی پلات داستان می‌گیره. بنای عظیمی که در موخره کتاب "گراهام گرین" اون رو به کلیسای جامعی با شبستان‌ها و دخمه‌های تاریکی تشبیه می‌کنه و پایه‌های اون رو "زمان" می‌دونه و بعد با اشاره به بی‌وفایی جیمز به شخصیت اصلی راه چاره رو فراموشی و مرگ یا عهد‌بستن با امید می‌دونه اون هم درست بعد از وقتی که در ۲۰۰ صفحه‌ی پایانی کتاب ایزابل آرچر رازهای افشانشده‌ای رو از دهان "کنتس جمینای" می‌شنوه و پرده‌ی عظیمی که روی این بنا بود برداشته می‌شه و تا چشم انسان بهش می‌افته حقایقی برملا شه که علت سنگینی این ساختمانِ روابط و پیچیدگی‌های‌ تاریکش بر پایه‌های بنا (زمان) رو مشخص می‌کنه.
اون‌طور که گفته‌شده، سرچشمه‌ی شخصیت ایزابل دخترعموی محبوب جیمز در جوانی بوده که در ۲۴ سالگی بر اثر ابتلا به سل می‌میره و فکر سرنوشت تلخ و آرزوهای بربادرفته‌‌شون، ذهن هنری رو تا دم مرگ به‌خودش مشغول نگه‌ داشته.
تصویر یک زن تصویری نیست که خود ایزابل تمام و کمال به‌دستش بده. همونطور که مشخصه سهم بیشتر تکامل تصویر ایزابل بر دوش شخصیت‌های دیگر داستانه. اون هم به طوری‌که جیمز در قالب راوی‌‌ای مدرن بر همه چیزِ درونی سیطره داره و این ویژگی‌هارو در رفتارها و گفتارهای شخصیت‌های دیگر داستان قرار می‌ده تا پازل‌های این تصویر کنار هم بچسبن و اون رو شکل بدن اون هم با نفوذ در جهان‌های ذهنی و لایه‌لایه‌کردن شخصیت‌ها برای پیدا کردن کلید حل معما. ولی آیا جیمز جواب سوالی که پرسیده رو میده؟ باید بین سطور و در شکاف‌های خالی و پُرِ زمان دنبال پاسخش گشت.

پ.ن: علی‌رغم بعضا روده‌درازی‌های جیمز در برخی نقاط داستان به‌خصوص در اواسط کتاب -جایی که داستان در ایتالیا می‌گذره- و همینطور ترجمه‌‌ای که بد بودنش محسوس بود و از اصطلاحات محاوره‌ی سنتی زبان فارسی استفاده کرده بود یا بعضا جملات سلیس و روان نبودند و با منظور نویسنده تا جایی که با متن اصلی مقایسه کردم مطابقت نداشت، چیزی که بسیار برام درمورد این کتاب جالب و قابل‌توجه بود این بود که هنری جیمز یکی از اولین افرادی‌ست که اصطلاح "جریان سیال ذهن" (stream of consciousness) رو به‌کار برده و در جواب مقایسه با اصطلاح "رشته‌ی فکر" اون رو تایید و به رودخانه تشبیه می‌کرد و در کنار جویس و وولف و فاکنر و پروست جایی رو برای خودش در ادبیات مدرن دست‌وپا کرده که روحمم خبردار نبود. ترغیب شدم که بیشتر ازش بخونم.


۴ آبان‌ماه ۱۴۰۳

Henry James would probably get on well with Thomas Hardy The Portrait of a Lady is a tragedy almost of  Tess of the d'Urbervilles proportions.

Character study novels are extraordinary things, the plot is mostly fairly mundane but when you get to really know the characters when they resonate with you, the personal crises they go through become fascinating because they are like people you know. It has that lovely fly on the wall appeal for nosey parkers like myself. However, it takes an immense talent to create vivid and vibrant characters that the readers would care about; this is a gift Henry James seems to have in abundance.

The story, in a nutshell, concerns a young American lady, Isabel Archer (the subject of the titular portrait), comes to England to stay with her aunt, she soon receives a vast amount of inheritance from her uncle, is proposed to by three men, and proceed to choose the absolute worst of the three. From then on her life is a 24/7 misery. If anybody shows me this micro-synopsis and ask me if I would want to read the book I’d probably tell them to eff off (in the nicest possible way of course). However, the simple storyline belies a psychologically complex and endlessly fascinating book.


Nicole Kidman Isabel Archer

At the beginning of the book, Isabel is described as “a young woman of extraordinary profundity”. Certainly, she seems to be an intelligent, lively and charismatic young lady with a strong sense of independence and seemingly indomitable will. She also has an infectious enthusiasm to experience what the world (which is her oyster) has to offer. That several men fall at her feet and practically worship her is not hard to believe. What is harder to believe is how—in spite of her wit and intelligence—she allows herself to be manipulated into marrying a total poseur. The book is an account of how her vibrant sense of independence seeps away during the course of her awful marriage. We follow Isabel’s thought processes, feeling swept along with her enthusiasm for life and crash-land with her when things go south. As Henry James puts it in his intro:

“The idea of the whole thing is that the poor girl, who has dreamed of freedom and nobleness, who has done, as she believes, a generous, natural, clear-sighted thing, finds herself in reality ground in the very mill of the conventional.”

The ending is a little too ambiguous for my taste, James seems to like this kind of WTF ending, his novella  The Turn of the Screw has an even more infuriatingly ambiguous ending which I found so aggravating I wanted to write him for a refund (hampered by the fact that I got the book for free, and James is pushing up the daisies). The ending of The Portrait of a Lady is ambiguous to a lesser degree and leaves an interestingly melancholic aftertaste.

So, yeah, read it, it’s pretty great!

__________________________

Notes
Read mostly in audiobook format, narrated by the extremely wonderful Elizabeth Klett in her melodious and expressive voice (download link). I often wondered why so talented a reader would only read free Librivox books, it turns out that she has also narrated many contemporary books for the decidedly not free Audible.com. Still, that she has read so many books gratis, for the public domain is amazing.

__________________________

The following footnotes are inspired by my dear friend Cecily. I find it very difficult to review a character novel, because I want to talk about the characters and why they are interesting. The trouble is I feel like I would have to introduce each of the character I mention, and that would be a drag for me and— I imagine—the review reader. If you have an opinion on this issue please let me know in the comments section. Anyway, Cecily has suggested several ways to integrate the character bits, which I will do in future reviews but for this one I can’t think of a suitable entry point so I’ll just shove them here in the footnotes, and I won’t introduce any of them!

Thoughts on some of the main characters

Gilbert Osmond: I wonder if he has big, bright teeth like most of the Osmonds I have seen. In the 1996 film he is portrayed by John Malkovich who doesn’t look much like an Osmond. I reckon Gilbert is not deliberately evil, I am not even sure he misrepresented himself to Isabel, she just saw some nobility in him that is not there. Silly cow.

Ralph Touchett: Capital fellow, he is the only one who loves Isabel selflessly. He is very wise, observant and witty. Shame about his health.

Lord Warburton: Nice bloke, a bit of a snob. Looking for a trophy wife I suspect.

Caspar Goodwood: Hate him, stupid stalker bastard. I don’t think leaving Osmond for him would be much of an improvement.

Madame Merle: Awesome kickass villainess who doesn’t even kick any ass and is not really all that bad. It’s not actually her fault that Isabel decides to marry that poseur, she only introduced them, she did not force the girl to marry the cad at gunpoint.

Pansy Osmond: Tragic silly kid, a total doormat.