Just wanted to throw in that I hope you finish this! I'm only on book 3 now, so it will probably be a month or two before I catch up. It's my favorite book of all time as of now.
Wonderful! We did, indeed, finish. The podcast episodes are done. Slowly updating the past few RUclips videos now. So maybe in the next week or two all of them will be up here. Hope you are loving the continuation of Proust. Spoiler: we absolutely loved the final book!
@@booksosubstance Haha, awesome! I've been alternating between happiness in listening to you three discuss this wonderful book (how come the best book of all time gets no attention from anyone, meanwhile even the crappiest movies have 15 podcasts and 30 youtube essays analyzing them?) and being annoyed when you didn't appreciate certain parts as much as me. For an example on that second part - you guys saying the long salon scene in book 3 is boring and pointless - how dare you!!1! It is probably the most important part in the whole book, and arguable of the whole work so far - this whole time the book has been both directly and indirectly building up 'society' in this vague and wonderful way, through the name, place, person, as being the culmination of the social and cultural good. The salon scene is a deep dive into 1) the highest society, which is the 'best' of social achievement, (2) the guermantes - the 'best' of the highest society, and (3) the "guermantes wit" - the 'best' of the guermantes. The examination and discussion of the guermantes wit is an examination of what constitutes the social apex in society, namely - an essential dichotomous falsity which maintains an outward effacement of status, wealth, and privilege, while at the same time maintaining, in their actions, the enjoyment and revelry of their privilege over others which is the negation of all the things they espouse. This is the reason for the comparison between the Guermantes and that other noble family, who do no possess the 'guermantes wit.' They still enjoy all the material advantages conferred by their status, but they are not so respected as the Guermantes, who only differ from them in that they adopt for their own social purposes any and every idea, including intellectual and progressive ideas, in furtherance of themselves. While that other family only gets some advantage, the Guermantes, by playing false, by the hypocrytical dichotomy of the 'guermantes wit,' get EVERY advantage - they get everything, and lose nothing. The guermantes wit is essentially the co-opting of values opposed to what they really are. This seems to me extremely salient - I see it everywhere now, it's not just some quaint cultural thing from 1900 France. Look at the elites of today - CEOs, wealthy investors, tech founders - extraordinarily wealthy and removed from everyday society by mind boggling gaps of wealth and privilege. And yet, what do you see from those who by very many are considered the tippy top of societal success? They dress in plain clothes. They speak in an easygoing way as if they don't recognize any difference between themselves and normal people. They promote progressive causes, or publicly give money to charities. They give interviews in which they say in a friendly and encouraging way how any average joe can be just as successful as them with good luck and hard work. And then they go home and buy a private yacht for their third home while double checking the union-breaking consultancy contract renewal and gazing with satisfaction at the immense fence placed to make sure no homeless person is able to dirty up his massive and pristine property. It's the modern manifestation of the guermantes wit!!! By outwardly effacing the values they live by, they enjoy every social advantage at no cost to themselves. And here, I think, lies the brilliance of the final scene in the book with the Duke and Duchess. The conversation itself is not too different than those before, but the narrator puts more into it, reads them a little better, revealing a subtly disgusting dimension to their behavior. This dimension is revealed to us not by anything extremely unique about the encounter (though more dramatic, the upcoming death of two friends is not dissimilar to smaller events portrayed previously), but by what we (and the protagonist) learned during the salon scene. What was once merely called good breeding (and which might nowadays be called 'class' or some such) reveals itself to be a passively adopted way of saying what is wanted to be heard, in a way that perfectly covers for a selfish and facile way of living. I believe in doing this, Proust is deconstructing one of the central pillars of what many people consider the highest, most enviable good - social success according to the cultural standards of their society. /essay done, lel
@@goose4878 Amazing, Goose! What a wonderful, thought-out comment (mini-essay). Your thoughts add to the abundant richness of the novel, and help put a new light onto an aspect we had grown weary (ignorant) of. Many, many thanks. And thank you for listening! 😃
A great discourse and I echo so much of your thoughts. Thank you. Your opening quote is my favourite passage in the book. I'm sure I read somewhere that Proust had a writer's spat with a critic who believed that you could know an author from reading their books. Proust was very much against this idea. I would give you details, but I've lost the attribution in my many pages of notes. Morel I think conspired with his mate the driver to get the coachman dismissed so the Verdurin's would buy a car and hire the driver. Morel should really have a moustach and be twirling it. Most of the women are not well drawn in my opinion because they are filtered through a number of lenses and are distorted by them.
Would be very interested in reading/knowing Proust's concerns with that critic, especially on the issue of knowing an author through their work. Please let us know if you find it. Again, thank you for listening.
@@booksosubstance I'll have another look, but I'll have to read through every page! I'm not sure if the information even proffered a reason for his concern.
@@booksosubstance The critic's name was San Beuff and Proust wrote an essay called Contra de San Beuff, which I have not read. San Beuff may have said something like, study the author as much as the text (amongst other things). Proust felt otherwise. But it doesn't of course mean that Proust was adverse to some 'autofiction' just that he thought that you are not limited in your creativity. If you find more on this subject please submit it here.
Just in case you missed it on the thread. Proust's spat was with a chap called San Beuff and he even wrote an essay called Contra San Beuff.
Thanks.
Just wanted to throw in that I hope you finish this! I'm only on book 3 now, so it will probably be a month or two before I catch up. It's my favorite book of all time as of now.
Wonderful! We did, indeed, finish. The podcast episodes are done. Slowly updating the past few RUclips videos now. So maybe in the next week or two all of them will be up here.
Hope you are loving the continuation of Proust. Spoiler: we absolutely loved the final book!
@@booksosubstance Haha, awesome! I've been alternating between happiness in listening to you three discuss this wonderful book (how come the best book of all time gets no attention from anyone, meanwhile even the crappiest movies have 15 podcasts and 30 youtube essays analyzing them?) and being annoyed when you didn't appreciate certain parts as much as me.
For an example on that second part - you guys saying the long salon scene in book 3 is boring and pointless - how dare you!!1! It is probably the most important part in the whole book, and arguable of the whole work so far - this whole time the book has been both directly and indirectly building up 'society' in this vague and wonderful way, through the name, place, person, as being the culmination of the social and cultural good. The salon scene is a deep dive into 1) the highest society, which is the 'best' of social achievement, (2) the guermantes - the 'best' of the highest society, and (3) the "guermantes wit" - the 'best' of the guermantes. The examination and discussion of the guermantes wit is an examination of what constitutes the social apex in society, namely - an essential dichotomous falsity which maintains an outward effacement of status, wealth, and privilege, while at the same time maintaining, in their actions, the enjoyment and revelry of their privilege over others which is the negation of all the things they espouse.
This is the reason for the comparison between the Guermantes and that other noble family, who do no possess the 'guermantes wit.' They still enjoy all the material advantages conferred by their status, but they are not so respected as the Guermantes, who only differ from them in that they adopt for their own social purposes any and every idea, including intellectual and progressive ideas, in furtherance of themselves. While that other family only gets some advantage, the Guermantes, by playing false, by the hypocrytical dichotomy of the 'guermantes wit,' get EVERY advantage - they get everything, and lose nothing. The guermantes wit is essentially the co-opting of values opposed to what they really are.
This seems to me extremely salient - I see it everywhere now, it's not just some quaint cultural thing from 1900 France. Look at the elites of today - CEOs, wealthy investors, tech founders - extraordinarily wealthy and removed from everyday society by mind boggling gaps of wealth and privilege. And yet, what do you see from those who by very many are considered the tippy top of societal success? They dress in plain clothes. They speak in an easygoing way as if they don't recognize any difference between themselves and normal people. They promote progressive causes, or publicly give money to charities. They give interviews in which they say in a friendly and encouraging way how any average joe can be just as successful as them with good luck and hard work. And then they go home and buy a private yacht for their third home while double checking the union-breaking consultancy contract renewal and gazing with satisfaction at the immense fence placed to make sure no homeless person is able to dirty up his massive and pristine property. It's the modern manifestation of the guermantes wit!!! By outwardly effacing the values they live by, they enjoy every social advantage at no cost to themselves.
And here, I think, lies the brilliance of the final scene in the book with the Duke and Duchess. The conversation itself is not too different than those before, but the narrator puts more into it, reads them a little better, revealing a subtly disgusting dimension to their behavior. This dimension is revealed to us not by anything extremely unique about the encounter (though more dramatic, the upcoming death of two friends is not dissimilar to smaller events portrayed previously), but by what we (and the protagonist) learned during the salon scene. What was once merely called good breeding (and which might nowadays be called 'class' or some such) reveals itself to be a passively adopted way of saying what is wanted to be heard, in a way that perfectly covers for a selfish and facile way of living.
I believe in doing this, Proust is deconstructing one of the central pillars of what many people consider the highest, most enviable good - social success according to the cultural standards of their society.
/essay done, lel
@@goose4878 Amazing, Goose! What a wonderful, thought-out comment (mini-essay). Your thoughts add to the abundant richness of the novel, and help put a new light onto an aspect we had grown weary (ignorant) of. Many, many thanks.
And thank you for listening! 😃
A great discourse and I echo so much of your thoughts. Thank you. Your opening quote is my favourite passage in the book. I'm sure I read somewhere that Proust had a writer's spat with a critic who believed that you could know an author from reading their books. Proust was very much against this idea. I would give you details, but I've lost the attribution in my many pages of notes. Morel I think conspired with his mate the driver to get the coachman dismissed so the Verdurin's would buy a car and hire the driver. Morel should really have a moustach and be twirling it. Most of the women are not well drawn in my opinion because they are filtered through a number of lenses and are distorted by them.
Would be very interested in reading/knowing Proust's concerns with that critic, especially on the issue of knowing an author through their work. Please let us know if you find it. Again, thank you for listening.
@@booksosubstance I'll have another look, but I'll have to read through every page! I'm not sure if the information even proffered a reason for his concern.
@@booksosubstance The critic's name was San Beuff and Proust wrote an essay called Contra de San Beuff, which I have not read. San Beuff may have said something like, study the author as much as the text (amongst other things). Proust felt otherwise. But it doesn't of course mean that Proust was adverse to some 'autofiction' just that he thought that you are not limited in your creativity. If you find more on this subject please submit it here.