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

“Her old habit had been to live by enthusiasm, to fall in love with suddenly-perceived possibilities, with the idea of a new attempt.”

Henry James, I do love you! I thought I did, but it had been such a long time, so many books and so many classic authors ago that I read you, I wasn’t sure. This was your test, and you aced it.

The Portrait of a Lady is a very special novel for a number of reasons, foremost for the writing. There are some places you just like to be, and I like to be surrounded by Henry James’ words. His prose is like a big fluffy cloud I just love to float around in. The best specific I can give about his style is this. I read this book over a three month period, stopping for lots of other books in between, sometimes for weeks at a time. Every single time I went back to Portrait, the characters were still fresh in my mind. I knew exactly who they were. James paints them with such care. Yes, he spends a little time at it, but when he’s done, we have, well, a portrait if you will; a picture of a character that does not slip easily from our minds.

And what characters James creates! Isabel is a complex heroine. She is unique; we don’t quite understand her. She has ideas about ideas--particularly the morality of them. She wants very much to make her own decisions, and even more to live by her convictions. She wants this very particular type of independence.

We’re given the intricacies of Isabel’s character in combination and contrast with the other complex characters and these beautifully-drawn settings, and it’s like seeing a picture in many different lights. The result is she feels like a real person that, even though I’ve finished reading, I could continue to get to know better over time.

In contrast to this deep and subtle character analysis, the plot is relatively simple, but very engaging. A woman has opportunities, makes choices, and in the process, steps into something quite dark. She learns, and carries on.

“Instead of leading to the high places of happiness, from which the world would seem to lie below one, so that one could look down with a sense of exaltation and advantage, and judge and choose and pity, it led rather downward and earthward, into realms of restriction and depression, where the sound of other lives, easier and freer, was heard as from above, and served to deepen the feeling of failure.”

One of the most interesting themes explored is the idea of freedom. Isabel craves a specific kind of freedom, and she is surrounded by people who demonstrate freedom in different ways. Her cousin Ralph has the money to do what he wants, and is free to adore her with no expectations, because he is a cousin, but also because he is ill and won’t live long. Her Aunt, Mrs. Touchett, is a model of self-centered freedom: traveling when and where she pleases, unveiling her plans to her husband and son only through cryptic telegrams. Her friend Henrietta is a brash reporter who uses her freedom to always speak her mind, whether her thoughts are welcome or not. These characters show us a largely benevolent freedom, but there are others who give us the dark, malevolent side: freedom deprived, freedom distorted, freedom withheld.

It is in times of difficulty, so it seems, that we learn how strong our convictions are.

I love Isabel, for the ideas that drive her and for her uniqueness. As she goes on living as that almost-real person in my mind, I find myself wishing her well.

“But it seemed to her that she had done something; she had done what she preferred.”

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.

Elegant. Brooding. Curated. These are the three words that spring to mind when I consider how I might best describe this novel to others.

In his preface to The Portrait of a Lady, written decades after original publication, Henry James famously reported his method of first envisioning a forceful, vivid central character and only then supporting that individual with setting and circumstance. Isabel Archer is the maypole around which everyone else prances and weaves throughout this story. Her author was evidently quite taken with her, and places countless male characters in her way to give effusive narrative expression to his own infatuation.

Had I been similarly enchanted by her, I would have liked the novel that much more. The first half of this long work found me smitten, it's true; sadly, my fascination was not sustainable. I did not find that the Mrs. Osmond of the second half was entirely believable based on what James had so clearly shown of Miss Archer prior to marriage. Surely they are both still Isabel? While marriage and commitment certainly bring about changes - some of them massive - I don't see how such an independently-minded, spirited, iconoclastic heroine can so quickly become submissive, fearful, and chronically miserable. Given that she has an intelligent mind, financial means of independence, countless admirers, and is acquainted with several women who did not allow husbands to clip their wings, her choices after saying "I do" were unconvincing.

The writing is excellent, of course. This is said to be one of this writer's most accessible novels, and many readers really like Isabel, so perhaps this will be more to your liking than it was to mine. As it is, there are still several Henry James novels awaiting me in my TBR stack. I hope most of them are this good. I also hope some of them are much better.

Thoughts soon.

.
ایزابل دختری کاملا و مستقل که بسیار مورد ستایش دیگران است. کتاب از ورود شخصیت ایزابل آغاز شده و تا ازدواج او و اتفاقات بعد از ازدواج او پیش می‌رود. مسئله مهمی که اینجا پیش آمده انتخاب درست یا غلط ایزابل، با توجه به شرایط حاکم در آن زمان و با توجه به دامنه‌ی روابط اوست. دختری که به قول پسرخاله‌اش، رالف، اگر مورد بی‌مهری قرار گرفته است، مورد مهر هم بوده. از این کتاب به عنوان یک رمان قوی یاد شده که خود هنری جیمز وصفی از این کتاب دارد که: «تصویر بانوی جوانی که تقدیر خود را خوار می‌کند.»
در این کتاب در گیر و دار دنیای آدم‌ها قبل و بعد از ازدواجشان، افکارشان و عقایدشان و نگرشی که به زندگی دارند؛ هستیم. مفهوم عشق و زندگی برای هریک متفاوت‌تر و پیچیده‌تر از دیگری‌ست.
.

Un'americana in Europa
Isabel, "inquadrata nella cornice (...) della porta, colpì il giovane come un bel ritratto di signora".

Romanzo ambientato negli anni '70 dell'Ottocento fra Inghilterra e Italia, si presenta bellissimo per stile, struttura narrativa e approfondimento psicologico, tutto pervaso da quel sottile senso dell'umorismo, tanto diffuso nella letteratura inglese, ritmato sull'arte della conversazione che spesso caratterizza il romanzo britannico. Un testo per chi ama il piacere della lettura di alta qualità.
Comprendiamo come l'americano H. James apprezzasse talmente la cultura inglese da trasferirsi in Inghilterra e assumerne la nazionalità.

Chi ha letto lo splendido "The Master" di Toibin, documentato romanzo biografico dedicato a Henry James, sa come la figura della protagonista di "Ritratto di signora" sia stata ispirata dalla figura dell'amata cugina dell'autore, tanto desiderosa di viaggiare per l'Europa, sogno irrealizzato per la prematura morte in giovane età.
Lo scrittore pare abbia voluto 'risarcirla' dandole le parvenze del personaggio di Isabel, una ragazza americana che invece in Europa giunge e dove si dispiega interamente il suo futuro.

Isabel, dunque, arriva in Inghilterra accolta dalla facoltosa zia in una magnifica dimora con esteso parco.
La giovane era sempre stata considerata "l'intelletto", ma anche una persona (troppo) originale.
"Ella aveva un desiderio insaziabile di pensare bene di sé", riteneva che "fosse necessario essere fra i migliori" , "aveva una speranza infinita di non dover fare mai nulla di male" e amava molto la propria indipendenza.
Con queste premesse, non c'è da stupirsi che tutti si chiedano che cosa farà della sua vita e a quali vertici sarà capace di giungere, tanto più che H. James la rende pure ricchissima.

La vicenda si sposta poi a Firenze e a Roma, dove Isabel verrà a contatto con l'alta società degli stranieri, fra gran dame e uomini raffinati.
Il paesaggio italiano è descritto meravigliosamente, con pennellate di generosa fascinazione. Non manca però qualche stoccata : un colto straniero, imbevuto di estetismo, sostiene che "l'Italia, comunque, aveva guastato molta gente; lui stesso (...) riteneva che sarebbe stato un uomo migliore se non avesse trascorso lì tanta parte della sua vita. Faceva diventare pigri e dilettanti e mediocri; non offriva nessuna disciplina per il carattere".

L'ultima parte del libro, in particolare, presenta sviluppi di altissima abilità letteraria. 'Tutti i nodi vengono al pettine' in modo , nel contempo, inaspettato eppur convincente : ciò che solamente un grande scrittore riesce a realizzare.

I've been reading a lot of Anthony Trollope's books recently and the stories, characters and writing is so much superior to this that I just can't get into it. "Frothy" is a word that comes to mind, also "was he paid by the word?" like Dickens.

I finished the book, finally. It was a chore. I did not find James' portrayal of a woman's personality convincing. That even though she had the financial power which was the reason why her husband had married her, she would still allow herself to be physically and emotionally abused and humiliated. It seemed to be a very conventional view of a woman, that eventually she would give in to her Lord and Master. A woman with an ounce of independence (she did have an ounce, maybe even two) at the beginning would not be the sad creature she was at the end. Marriages were made in light of money and status in those times, in this book, she had both, he had neither, there had to be some sort of mental shift that that would allow her to pretend that these were her husband's and she was in the lower and grateful position. But James didn't write it, so 'Portrait' really didn't make sense.

None of the characters, evil, good or milk-water gained my sympathy. Pansy, the daughter, nearly did, but I wanted to shake her and say 'how could you have lived all these years and not suspected who your mother is? Your father has palmed you off on the nuns all these years, what's with this unquestioning obedience? Its your step-mother has the money, not him, she's the one who can help you, would help you,not your daddy who just wants you to achieve his own social-climbing ambitions'.

I just don't see James as a man who understood women enough to write about them from any but a man's perspective.

I watched the Nichole Kidman film of the book and although Kidman did her best to flesh out the character she was no more rounded than in the book. And Poppy's submissiveness and ignorance were even more unbelievable. Obviously, to James, the main characteristic he associated with women and interpreted thusly by the director, was submissiveness.

Henry James may have deserved his reputation as a Grand Old Man of (American) letters, but not through this book, it just didn't do it for me.

10 Things I Love About Henry James’s The Portrait Of A Lady

1. Isabel Archer
The “lady” in the title. Beautiful, young, headstrong and spirited, the American woman visits her wealthy relatives in England, rejects marriage proposals by two worthy suitors, inherits a fortune and then is manipulated into marrying one of the most odious creatures on the planet, Gilbert Osmond. She’s utterly fascinating, and if I were back in university, I imagine having long conversations and arguments about her character. What does she want: Freedom? The ability to choose, even if it’s a bad choice? Is she a projection of James’s latent homosexuality? Is she a feminist or not? There are no simple answers.

2. The Prose and Psychological Complexity
Damn, James knew how to write long, luxuriant sentences that dig deep into his characters’ minds. Sometimes the effect can be claustrophobic – get me out of this person’s head! – but more often it’s utterly compelling and convincing. We partly read fiction to learn about other people’s lives, right? Well, James does that. (The exceptions: Isabel’s two wealthy, handsome suitors, Warburton and Goodwood, are less than believable, and remind me of eager (or horny?) dogs, their tails wagging whenever they’re around their love/lust object.)

3. The Story
Okay, not much really happens. But as the book progressed, even though I sort of knew the outcome (it’s hard to avoid spoilers from a 135-year-old classic), I was increasingly curious to see how Isabel would act. In fact, I raced through the final chapters, breathlessly. Who knew: Henry James, page-turner! And have a theory about that ending? Take your turn...

4. The Humour
It’s not a comedy, but there are lots of amusing bits. James’s narrator is genial and funny. Henrietta Stackpole, her gentleman friend, Mr. Bantling, and even Gilbert Osmond’s sister, the Countess Gemini, are all very colourful characters who elicit a chuckle or two. And Isabel’s aunt can be terribly cutting as well. I love Ralph (Isabel's cousin) and the dignified British Lord Warburton’s reactions to the enterprising, no-fuss American “lady journalist” Henrietta.

5. The Settings
Each one is significant: from the stately Gardencourt, home of Isabel’s relatives the Touchetts, to the bustle and anonymity of London, to the ruins of Rome, where Isabel finds herself stuck in a dead, fossilized marriage. James is a master at finding the right place to stage a scene. I could write an essay about interiors and exteriors in the book, but I’ll spare you.

6. The Villains
Madame Merle and Gilbert Osmond: individually they’re sinister, but together they’re positively Machiavellian. In fact, in one scene, it’s revealed that they both like Machiavelli, and Isabel doesn’t get the clue! They totally play her. And yet they’re believable, too. Osmond’s scene in which he professes his love is brilliant in its manipulation; and the final turn of the screw (asking her to do him a favour!) is very clever. Madame Merle’s motivations always keep you guessing. Does she see herself in Isabel? Is she jealous? Does she just want to exert her power over her? The scene in which Isabel sees both in her home, conspiring (evident from their attitudes) is so powerful James refers to it a couple of times. And of course, it’s missing from the Jane Campion film (see below).

7. The Themes
Does money corrupt? What do you really know about someone before you marry? What is the true nature of freedom? What happens when New World (American) "innocence" meets Old World (European) "experience"? All these themes – and many others – come across naturally, and never feel shoe-horned into the story.

8. The Technique
I remember hearing people go on about the architecture of Henry James’s novels, and this one is sturdily, handsomely built. The book begins and ends in the same setting. And there are some ingenious sections in the middle, where time has passed and the reader discovers major information through conversations. Like any great writer, James knows what to leave out. He makes you do work to fill in the pieces, but the novel becomes more memorable because of that. And he bridges the Victorian and Modern eras, in the same way that Beethoven bridges the Classical and Romantic eras.

9. Chapter 42
After a huge blowup with Osmond, Isabel stays up all night, staring into the fireplace, and ponders her life, thinking: "How did I get here?" James considered it one of the best things he’d ever written, and although I haven’t read a lot of his work (which I will soon remedy), I’d have to agree. It’s right up there with Hamlet’s soliloquies.

10. The Fact that the Book Doesn't Lend Itself Well To Adaptation
A couple days after finishing the book, I watched the Campion film starring Nicole Kidman. Besides an evocative score and a brilliant performance by Barbara Hershey as Madame Merle and a suitably slimy one by John Malkovich (basically changing costumes from his Dangerous Liaisons character), it was dreadfully dull. There have been other James adaptations – The Wings Of The Dove, The Golden Bowl, The Bostonians – but none of these films has achieved the critical or popular success of an Age Of Innocence, Howards End or Room With A View. Maybe it's hard to get that psychological complexity onscreen? Read the books.

***
Conclusion: James is The Master. Up til now, I’d only read his shorter works, like the novellas “The Turn Of The Screw,” “Daisy Miller” and “The Beast In The Jungle.” Now I’m eyeing his other major novels; perhaps I’ll even get through the notoriously difficult late period James. Can't wait to try!

I listened to the audiobook version narrated by actor John Wood. This is the 1881 edition, not the later one from 1906, which is known as the "New York Edition". Unfortunately, the later edition, which many claim has a better ending, was not available anywhere as an audiobook.

While reading this I have been discussing it with first Simran (here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) and then Margaret (here: https://www.goodreads.com/user_status...)

Review: I enjoyed this book because of the author’s writing style and his humor. The humor is often sarcastic, but not nasty. The humor is based on knowledge of different cultures, life styles and human behavior. It is this that made my reading of the book enjoyable. And I believe Henry James was laughing with me at the antics of Victorian mannerisms.

So what is the theme of the book? It is set in Europe, predominantly, Italy and England, during the 1870s. The author is comparing Americans and Europeans. Having spent the first 18 years of my life in the US and thereafter having moved to Europe, of course this is the theme that drew me to the book. Henry James has beautifully captured Victorian manners and how they differed, how Americans bent them. Americans are shown to be more independent, freer, less constricted by set norms....but also amusingly naive. The characters are all well-to-do, educated and aspiring. How to succeed, how to be happy, how to get what you are striving for - those are the questions posed. Each character has followed different paths, had different goals and widely varying scruples. For the main character, Isabelle, the prime question is marriage - to marry or not to marry, who to marry and how do you balance independence and against the constraints imposed in those times by propriety. This is a question that we still grapple with today. Every couple will find a different solution; some marriages succeed and other fail and even how you define failure and success is up for grabs.

The writing is elaborate, even wordy, but Henry James has a superb vocabulary. Over and over I was amazed at his ability to grab just the right word. Yeah, this really impressed me. It is for his writing ability and his humor that I will be reading more by the author.

What I didn't like: there isn't one single successful marriage in this book, and by the way Henry James never did marry. Also, the ending is extremely abrupt. I was so shocked by the conclusion that I figured I had missed something and so I listened to the last chapters again. No, I missed nothing. You, the reader, have to stop and figure out what you think will happen. Everyone can draw their own conclusion. I know what I think. For me this is clear, and I do not want things spelled out for me, but the ending is just too abrupt! Remember I read the author's original version, not the revised 1906 version.

I will tell you this. You will get a big surprise near the end, for which, when you think about it, you realize you have been given clues.

The audiobook narration by actor John Wood was good! It is so easy to listen to classics on audiobooks; they don't mix time-lines or jump around as so many contemporary novels do. You just get the story in a straightforward manner. Nice.

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.

Honestly? Isabel Archer isn't extraordinary at all. So I take this book as kind of a comedy about how a bunch of English pranksters messed with a bland American girl, pretending she was amazing to see what would happen, and then felt pretty bad about it when it turned out wrong. Which is actually pretty close to the real plot, too. The "honest simple faithful guy" found here was way too similar to the farmer guy in "Far From The Madding Crowd" to me, and I guess that's just a stock character. I don't really like this time period in literature at all. If you do you'll probably like it.