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.

I really don't understand why this novel has gotten so many positive reviews as I personally found it dull and completely lifeless. The main character, Isabel Archer, is apparently such an amazing woman that three men fall completely in love with her, two of which never stop. She manages to choose the worst one to marry and, although in love at first he grows to hate her because she doesn't adore him and do everything he says without question (great love story right?). As James didn't really touch on Isabel's personality, thoughts, or beliefs too much I failed to see what was so extraordinary about her that made these men fall madly in love?

The only character I did like was Ralph, who was clever and observant, and knew so much more than anyone guessed. He tries to help Isabel at the end by helping her to see that there is a way out of the darkness and into the light, but his words (once again) fall on deaf ears. I have no sympathy for Isabel as she created her own despair and lacked the strength to try and fix it.

The edition I read from was by the Easton Press. A leather (faux)-bound book the size of a phone directory with a cloth bookmark and gilt edging and illustrations inside. I suppose that is nice, but it had this most god-awful smell every time I opened the book. And every time I opened it, I wondered to what chemicals I was exposing myself to. If I drop off the face of the earth on Goodreads it is possibly due to my demise from inhaling noxious fumes from a book!!

I made it 40% of the way through this monstrosity before I had to finally throw in the towel. Apparently no one ever told James "show don't tell" judging by the complete lack of action in this book. In fact nothing ever happens. It just drags on and on in an annoying narrative voice that is too fond of metaphor and long descriptive phrases that frequently cloud more then they illuminate. The characters are complete twits, without a single redeeming quality among them. Judging by the way he writes his female characters, Henry James either was never actually exposed to women, or the ones he met were given lobotomies at age 7. There is no sympathy for the main female character or any of her cohorts, not even amusement at their foibles. In fact if you were stranded in a life raft, you'd be chucking them overboard within minutes, the whole useless pile of them. You would see the rescue ship as a dot on the horizon and pray you could drown them in time.

Save yourself the agony and go read something else.

| |  blog |  tumblr | ko-fi | |

3.25 stars

“A large fortune means freedom, and I’m afraid of that. It’s such a fine thing, and one should make such a good use of it. If one shouldn’t one would be ashamed. And one must keep thinking; it’s a constant effort. I’m not sure it’s not a greater happiness to be powerless.”

The Portrait of a Lady focuses on a young American woman, Isabel Archer, who comes into a large inheritance. Even before Isabel becomes financially independent she was unwilling to fulfil the responsibilities and obligations her gender thrusts on her. To restrict herself to the role of wife would not only be oppressive but it could hinder her journey of self-discovery. It is because Isabel craves to experience the world—free of wifely and motherly constraints and duties—that she declines some rather promising marriage proposals.
Ralph Touchett, Isabel’s newly acquainted not-quite-American cousin, perceives in Isabel a latent potential for greatness. Believing that his cousin is meant to “rise above the ground”, Ralph decides to provide Isabel with the means to do so: a lot of money. It just so happens that Ralph’s father, Mr. Touchett, possess a vast fortune. Ralph convinces his sick father to bestow on Isabel a large part of his estate. During their conversation Mr. Touchett asks his son the following question:
“Tell me this first. Doesn’t it occur to you that a young lady with sixty thousand pounds may fall a victim to the fortune-hunters?”
As with Chekhov's Gun, the fact that ‘fortune-hunters’ are mentioned pretty much insures their appearance. The story that follows sees Isabel predictably falling into the path of two wannabe Machiavellian American expats.
Set against a European backdrop, the narrative contrasts the values and customs of the New World against the ones of the Old. This juxtaposition of New vs. Old, America vs. England, English-speaking countries vs. the rest of Europe, serves as a backdrop to the exploration of themes such as personal freedom, duty, ambition, wealth, art, self-sacrifice, and morality.

“She lost herself in a maze of visions; the fine things to be done by a rich, independent, generous girl who took a large human view of occasions and obligations were sublime in the mass. Her fortune therefore became to her mind a part of her better self; it gave her importance, gave her even, to her own imagination, a certain ideal beauty. What it did for her in the imagination of others is another affair.”

The first ‘volume’ of this novel introduces us to the various players of the story. The narrative, which occasionally slips into a first-person point of view, presents Isabel Archer as its central figure, often affectionately referring to her as “our heroine”. This switch between perspectives and seeming self-awareness, brought to mind Middlemarch. Contrary to popular belief, James’ writing is far from stale. While it would not be wholly inaccurate to describe his prose as being the antithesis of concise, the fact that he seems to lose himself in long-winded observations and digressions does not mean a lack of clarity on his part. In fact, his narrative has a really nice flow to it. His refined use of the English language gives his prose an almost polished quality.
While James' narrative is not as effervescent as the one of Edith Wharton in
The Age of Innocence (which also happens to have an Archer as its protagonist), he is nevertheless able to inject his portrayal of this upper society with a subtly oppressive, and very Whartonesque atmosphere.
Money and class do not necessarily provide his characters with happiness or love...if anything they seem to make them all the more miserable. In spite of her attempts to carve her own path Isabel is still a woman, one whose financial independence does not result in actual personal freedom.
I really enjoyed the character dynamics that were explored in this novel's first volume. The characters were nuanced and compelling and it was interesting to hear their views on America, England, and Europe. Given their contrasting beliefs, they are all eager to influence Isabel one way or another. Isabel’s resolve, admiringly enough, does not waver. Even if she unsure what she is ambitious for, she remains firm in her desire not to marry, opting instead to travel and to gain some life experiences.

The second volume of this novel was tepid at best. Our heroine is pushed to the sidelines, with the narrative focusing instead on Gilbert Osmond, his “attractive yet so virginal” daughter Pansy, and her self-pitying suitor, Edward Rosier. These three characters were annoying and uninteresting. Gilbert was presented as some sort of clever manipulator but he struck me as a half-unfinished caricature of the fastidious and cold husband (Casaubon’s less convincing descendant).
Isabel’s sudden character change was almost jarring, especially if we consider until that point James had taken his sweet time exploring her sense of self and her various ideas. Worst still, Ralph and Isabel suddenly became martyrs of sorts. Isabel in particular spends the remaining narrative doing Mea culpa...which struck me as quite out of character.
Gilbert and Madame Merle are presented as this morally-devious duo, the typical fox and cat who try—and often succeed in—tricking our hapless and helpless protagonist. Which...fair enough. I have been known to enjoy villainous duos (such as Count Fosco and Sir Percival Glyde in
The Woman in White)...Gilbert and Madame Merle however seemed to lack purpose. Their characters do not seem to be as important or as profound as they are made to be. Later on other characters (who have no reason to defend them or forgive Gilbert and Madame Merle) make it seem as if these two have their own valid feelings, of tortured variety, so it would be unfair for us to judge or dislike them or their actions.
I was so irritated by the story’s direction and by Isabel’s character regression that I was unable to enjoy the remainder of this novel.
My interest was sparked only when the characters discussed their cultural differences. As an Italian I always find it vaguely amusing to read of the weirdly incongruent way Italy is portrayed by non-Italians during the 19th century. James’ clearly appreciated Italy’s history and its landscapes, but throughout his narrative a distaste for Italy’s ‘present’ state (Italians are regarded as lazy and somewhat primitive). I also appreciated the way in which James' depiction of masculinity and femininity challenges and questions established norms (such as the qualities that the ‘ideal’ man and woman should posses). However cynic, his depictions of love and marriage could be deeply perceptive.

“The real offence, as she ultimately perceived, was her having a mind of her own at all. Her mind was to be his—attached to his own like a small garden-plot to a deer-park. He would rake the soil gently and water the flowers; he would weed the beds and gather an occasional nosegay. It would be a pretty piece of property for a proprietor already far-reaching.”

Having now read one of James’ novels, I’m not at all surprised that his work has gained him a reputation for wordiness and digression. Yet, his logorrhoea aside, I’m puzzled by the dislike his work seem to entice, especially in other writers (Mark Twain, Jonathan Franzen, Virginia Woolf, Arnold Bennett, Jorge Luis Borges...you can read some of their comments here:
Writers on Henry James).
One of my favourite ‘harsh’ comments was made by Lawrence Durrell: “Would you rather read Henry James or be crushed to death by a great weight?”. Although many of these writers/readers make rather exaggeratedly disparaging observation about James and his writing, some of them hit the nail on the head. Oscar Wilde, for instance, wrote that: “Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty, and wastes upon mean motives and imperceptible ‘points of view’ his neat literary style, his felicitous phrases, his swift and caustic satire.”
I, for one, was not annoyed or deterred by Henry James’ prolixity. However, as noted by Wilde, I do think that James occasionally overworked certain passages and that his story/characters never seem to reach their full potential. And while I am not entirely sure why Vladimir Nabokov called Henry James a “pale porpoise” (alliteration?), I do agree with him when he says that James’ writing has “charm . . . but that's about all”.

Why did I read a book that was authored by someone who has gained such an unappealing reputation? Curiously enough, part of me wanted to ‘read for myself’ whether James’ style was as frustrating as some made it out to be. What finally convinced me however was that his name kept popping up in the introductions to Edith Wharton’s novels. Having now read a novel by James’ I find myself wondering why his name needs to feature in so many reviews and articles discussing Wharton’s works...yes, he could certainly write well, and they do explore similar themes, but his work is far less insightful, engaging, and memorable than Wharton’s.
Sadly the clarity and nuances demonstrated by James' narrative in the first half of The Portrait of a Lady are then obscured by a predictable storyline. With the exception of busybody Henrietta Stackpole (easily my favourite character), the characters become shadows of their former selves (I could not see why Isabel fell for Gilbert) and I no longer felt invested in their stories.
Given that this novel is considered one of James' best, I'm unsure whether to try reading more of his work...perhaps I will give his novella The Turn of the Screw a try.

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.

It certainly is a classic of its time, and also a 5 star masterpiece for James. Probably his best. Every parcel and mind minutia of thought philosophy or self-identity seems captured here for Isabel.

And yet for me this read? Hard, far more than just difficult- it's similar to clicking 100 or 200 lens poses while surrounding an optic capture venture. Doing a 360 degree circle procedure project for the ultimate surround photo. And then after that process- translating all abstracts and reality of that view's pieces into impressionistic art fragments and putting them into double paragraph length sentences pasted and arranged.

None of these people talk or construct English as any person I've heard in this century or the last one either. So there you go- have at it. It's slow nuance too parred down to near still life in spots.

Once at the beginning of Chapter 24 I reread a sentence at least 5 times. It had so many sub-phrasings and adjuncts that I still have no idea what it was about. That's why it is a 4 star for me.

These people had way, way, way too much time to think. It's a class and period and bottom line onus for which I can't connect that well to/for/with from the get-go. But saying that it is, the depth was remarkable.

Plotting and ending- I will say nothing. The story is the Isabel "growth" or self-determination ability factors? In marriage choice is just part of that function. Also for men of the period. But more specifically for the most "lucky" female individual? You decide.

It's the top peak of elitism and also a compare /contrast for functions within the international brands of snobbery / social hierarchy as well. Absolutely would not be for every reader- this book. Not this period or these people either could begin to be their "cup of tea" within this parsing of an English structure that makes Faulkner a runner up for "sentences that would be impossible to diagram". Others have reviewed this better upon the cultural/societal aspects.

Another entry into my classsic Insomnia Series. I was interested in the first half of this looooong book, when the lady in question is young, vibrant and well, interesting. The second half, when she gets married to the wrong man, is a real snoozer. Mission accomplished.

I loved getting into Isabel's conflicted mind, her persuasions and her light switches turning on and off for reason. I can relate to that. I get goosebumps, or the shivers, when I can get that feeling outside. Like a soullish thing rubbing up against my skin. Ever feel like there could be ghosts? The freedom in already having lost feelings. Don't know what to do and need to get out, like Isabelle. I don't know what I think about the ending. Henry James could give judgementaly prickish endings to his stories. That gives me a panic attack. Oh well. I'm in it for the long haul-ass with Isabelle. Henry James is a terrific writer and also bad for my soul sometimes. Wanting something and finding out it is wrong. Turning over the new leaf and there's a big ass roach underneath it. Hatefulness...

This is the story of Isabel, an American who goes to England to meet new people and see more of the world. Isabel is very curious of nature, and when she gradually starts receiving different proposals from various men, she declines them all - that is because she wants to maintain her freedom which is very important to her.
I really liked this story. I felt like it was very easy to read and connect with the main character as well as a lot of the other characters. The first pages of the story were deeply descriptive of the English landscape and the house where Isabel goes to at first, and I instantly felt at ease with reading about this peaceful setting.
I was a bit reluctant when going into this novel because I'd heard that Henry James was rather derogative towards women. While I did see glimpses of that here and there, I also felt like Henry James really came through with the protagonist, Isabel, who is a carefree woman who lusts for adventure. She is the opposite of the women of those days and I loved her for that.
All in all, I really enjoyed my reading of this story, and the ending was surprising but very suitable to the narrative.

I feel like I have read almost 700 pages of emptiness. This book was SO boring. It was quite interesting at the beginning; the first characters we meet at the beginning of the novel were cool, we wanted to know what happens next with them but very quickly, it's always the same story. This novel is a 100% patriarchal story and I just hated it. Despite this, it was simply empty. Only the last 100 pages were interesting, there is a little twist that makes us want to read what's next but the end is just.... I have no words. The end is just so so bad; basically, NOTHING HAPPENS??? there's nothing????? The book ends up just like this with nothing, as if it was just the end of a basic chapter. Anyway, I hated it because of the emptiness of the words, the story itself that is so long and boring, and the bad ending of the story.

best thing for a portrait to be of