Brideshead Revisited ~ by Evelyn Waugh: Archived Book Discussion

The Way We Were

Memories,
Light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were
Scattered pictures,
Of the smiles we left behind
Smiles we gave to one another
For the way we were

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time re-written every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we? Could we?
Memories, may be beautiful and yet
What's too painful to remember
We simply choose to forget
So it's the laughter
We will remember
Whenever we remember...
The way we were...
The way we were...

(Why does everybody carry on when people start to sing that song? It's beautiful.) Striesand sings part of Memories

That song is so apropos, isn't it? Misty water colored memories...scattered pictures...of the way we were.....

Welcome to our first day of discussing what seems to me to be an almost impossible task: this slim book called Brideshead Revisited.

I've stayed up half the night, printed out commentary twice as thick as the book and have a billion possibilities to start, but this is not a class in literary criticism, it's a book discussion, so let's use the power OF a book discussion (YOU) to find out to start what struck YOU the most in these first pages? What surprised you the most? What would you most like to talk about in this first section?

The subtitle of the book, as Daytripper has pointed out, is The sacred and profane Memories (note where the capitals appear) of Captain Charles Ryder.

So the book is the memories of one man, told from his point of view, a first person narrator. It's, to me, as if somebody had thrown up a box of old photos, the pictures of the song above, spilling them into the air, and said: catch one, quick! Which one of the hundreds of possibilities would you like to start with?

We are here to find out in our first section, called Et in Arcadia Ego.

And then we've got the Author's Note:

I am not I; thou art not he or she: they are not they.

I'll start the ball rolling, with my own thoughts, and I hope to hear from everybody today what struck YOU, and I hope you will talk with each other about the points brought up, just as you would if we were all sitting together under an elm tree in Oxford. I think of all the dizzying things thrown out in this first section the thing that impressed ME the most is one that probably surprises you: the feeling of not belonging that so many of the characters seem to experience. It seems there are several levels in this thing.

Charles hopes to find "that low door in the wall, which others, I knew, had found before me, which opened on an enchanted and enclosed garden, which was somewhere, not overlooked by any window, in the heart of that grey city." He says later in this section, "I had never known a happy childhood." He longs to belong, to find love.

Sebastian refers to his own home as "it's where my family live, " (which Charles points out to us in case we miss it. There is a lot here I DID miss the first couple of readings, but with this group we'll not miss anything.

Sebastian also says "All my life they've been taking things away from me."

Jasper spends most of his first interview with Charles trying to tell him how TO fit in and belong, surface activities and clothes.

There is a lot here about surface appearance, not the least Sebastian's extraordinary beauty.

Charles' father is withdrawn, remote, inaccessible and perhaps a bit ...what? Detached, uninvolved, choosing (I think choice in this thing might be something I'd like to look at, too) not to belong.

Lord Marchmain, whom we might expect to belong the most, we learn is a "social leper" "He's the last, authentic, historic case of someone being hounded out of society."

Anthony Blanche is outsize and definitely seems not to belong anywhere.

And that's in the first 62 pages. It's a real study in contrasts, no matter where you look. Facades, being outside, while at the same time, seeimg to be "in," the "in crowd," at the "in" university, Oxford, and we haven't even met all the characters yet!! We're only 62 pages into the thing.

And everywhere we turn, it seems there is a dark side or a foreboding in our Arcadia, hints everywhere, or so it seems to me, like Sebastian: "He was entrancing with that epicene beauty which in extreme youth sings aloud for love and withers at the first cold wind." And of course the skull with Et in Arcadia Ego on it.

Even the dome of Brideshead is false, "designed to be seen from below like the cupolas of Chambord."

So things are definitely not what they seem here, that seems to stand out for me, but what do you make of it?

Welcome!

As usual you have kicked off a exemplary start to a great story. My book will be here (our library had to borrow it) on Wednesday and this afternoon I am going to watch the first disc of the 3 CDs. I promise to be careful and stop where Chapter III would end. I have always been taken by Jeremy Irons who plays the sad Charles

I'm picking up hints of cruelty under the lighthearted facade of youth. Sebastian borrowing 'Hardcastle's' car for a trip and then deliberately leaving him behind. Though I laughed, at first, at Sebastian's words, my second thought was sympathy for poor Hardcastle and how he must feel. I wonder if we will ever meet him.

And Anthony Blanche and his viperish tongue, slandering everyone and denigrating everything under that so amusing wit. My take on his remark about the boatmen and Grace Darling was that he looked on all boatmen as persons coming to his rescue, with pointed innuendo, of course.

Babi

AT this point, I am struck with the undercurrent of sexuality in the book. Sebastian and Charles seem to have a complicated give and take that is more male -female, but maybe in this period it was normal. I did feel that the I am not I.. was Evelyn Waugh's disclaimer in that these are not real people ( although I read somewhere years ago, that they were)

This novel is so rich, it's hard to take everything in. I was glad to find the prologue explaining what I didn't understand in the film -- why Charles was unaware he was at Brideshead until he saw the castle. I'm still in the middle of Chpt. 2, so have not read much about Sebastian, yet, but am taken with his visit to Nanny Hawkins. Was this just a spur-of-moment Sebastian impulse or was he really trying to please Nanny with a visit from one of her children.
Throughout my reading I've been plagued with the thought that these are not like any college boys I've known or met in other literature.

Ann (Pedln) ~ Oh, how I agree that they "are not like any college boys I've known" when they go to visit
Nanny Hawkins. I've been anxious to know what others think about these young men.
Is is England? Is it so-called upper-class England? or is it these years?
No one I ever knew, either, would go back to visit a nanny or a nursemaid. How significant is this?
Is the deeper meaning that Sebastian wants to re-visit childhood?

I assumed, probably incorrectly, that in this level of society that the Nanny was closer to the children than their parents ever were, both in emotional ties and physically, too. I thought his visiting Nanny was comparable to any other student away from home being homesick for "Mom" and stopping by to see her. I recall reading that QE and Philip went off for a 6 month tour when Charles and Anne were small. The children were taken to meet them at the plane...and shook hands(!) with their parents. Good grief! I think the Nannies, from what I've read, supplied, hopefully, the love and attention and nurturing that parents I know supply to their children.

As others have said, these fellows seem unlike any 18-19 yr old males I've ever known.

For those who want to listen to music while reading: The Way We Were

jane

When I saw Ginny's post of "Now in the Month of Maying," it brought me right back to my own college years when I sang the song with my madrigal group.

I am enjoying this book immensely, but am finding I have quite strong reactions to various things. I'm startled that officers have "servants" in the army. I wonder who in the British army had them. Just the uppercrust?

And then there are the servants in the college housing. Our narrator at Oxford has his own private live-in servant who helps him throw dinners for his pals. I'm amazed at the lifestyle of these wealthy spoiled young men. My reaction was that they have too much money and too little to do. Ryder, artist, observer, and host, spends very little time at his books, but manages to cram and pass his exams.

When Ryder returns home at year-end, he is forced to live with his father because he has no money left to travel through Europe, poor dear. The thought of working never once enters his mind. His father absolutely cracked me up - the way he tortured his son about this.

Beautiful CHARMING Sebastian so far seems rather retarded and child-like with his teddy bear and talk of "Mummy." But Ryder seems totally in love with him and has difficulty keeping his eyes off of him. Hopefully, Sebastian will become more endearing to me.

I read somewhere that Waugh had two love affairs with men when he was at Oxford. At this point I wonder if this story is based on any of that.

Anthony is a very interesting character. He seemed extremely feminine to me, but lived a fascinating life. The bullying of him at school was very sad. I read Waugh was bullied at school, also.

You needn't feel sorry for Anthony, Marni. He's too clever to be bullyed by those upperclass ruffians. He's usually way ahead of them. They seemed to be drawn to him, and for him they're all Grace Darlings, potential rescuers. By his own admission, being 'manhandled' by them would be a pleasure. Anthony is very clever and sophisticated. We must pay close attention to what he has to say about others.

Ginny - We still say "he came a cropper". Over here it can be used in several ways. "He came a cropper when the company folded".That means he fell from his position of wealth or authority. We can also say if someone tripped over the garden rake and fell. "he came a cropper because someone had left a rake lying on the garden path" The root meaning of the word was probably related to horsemanship but it became much more commonly used and is still used in the English language.

English immigrants say that NZ society is like Britain 40 years ago. We don't have the aristocracy like they have in Britain but we do have a lot of very British habits. Last year we had 26,000 British migrants. That is a lot for a very tiny country. However I can see NZ changing and I wish it would not! I want us to stay the way we are! My DIL says England has changed so much since she left 13 years ago. When she and my son went back five years ago because she was so homesick, it was only two years before she decided the Britain she longed for no longer existed so they packed up and came back.

This book we are reading now portrays a Britain that has gone forever. I am not just referring to the class system because that still is alive and well.

Carolyn

...and so glad it comes just in time for my Classical Greek Class to be over. I'm also sorry I missed it on PBS last night but hoping it will be repeated in the future.

Alliemae

What jolly good fun to find myself in such wonderful company, setting out to read about the several worlds and many loves of Charles Ryder. The heading above is spectacular. All that, as we pass through 'that low door in the wall'. Opulence, luxury, and good taste waiting to be enjoyed, uncritically and without restraint. No wonder the book holds such enduring fascination. What a life. Told with such unreserved admiration and without irony. So unlike Waugh who made satire and irony a characteristic part of his early style. Well, at least he kept up his unrivalled wit in BH. But wait a minute. There is that bit of irony in the prologue: 'Here love had died between me and the army.' The truth of it is that the love was very onesided. EW was poor material in a military uniform. He was shunted around, from one unit to another. Very difficult officer. Some thought he was sadistic when it came to exercising command.

'My Friend Evelyn Waugh' was said by Nancy Mitford, and is a chapter heading in the book, A Talent to Annoy: Essays, Articles and Reviews, edited by Charlotte Mosley. The time was 1966, after EW's death. I can't resist extracting a few quotes:

'I'm in despair...he was such a close friend & (sic) I suppose knew more about me than anybody. I think he was v. miserable in the modern world.... The young English upper-classes lived a life of total frivolity. The young today (1960s) seem to me sobriety itself compared to what to what we were like then. We hardly ever saw the light of day, except at dawn....His genius as a novelist enabled him to see right through people, which could be disconcerting....I think Evelyn's conservative side came from seeing the world from a poetic and romantic point-of-view. The ugliness and mechanization of modern times filled him with terrible sadness....One has the impression that he took refuge against the ugliness of the world in the Catholic church and then, suddenly, was delivered up to his worst enemies. He had slid into a deep depression during these last months; personally, I think he died of a broken heart.'pp177-9

The prologue does show us where Charles is coming from. A drab army camp. Middle-aged, going nowhere. The sorry relic of a failed marriage. But what fine detail observed in the oncome of disillusionment. Perhaps BH is Waugh's cry from the heart.

Day tripper: Anthony may be worldly, sophisticated, and cynical, and able to joke around about being bullied, but I think bullying hurts anyone deep down inside. I wonder if his stuttering is an outward display of his inner feelings.

I read somewhere that Waugh was also a courageous man in the war.

I've been reading these posts with interest. Waugh gives a hint of end-ot-the-world-as-he's-known-it disaster as early as the prologue, which has a description of things torn down to make room for the building of council estates and clusters of shops. It's obvious that the narrator doesn't like these things.

I knew rich boys who went to Yale, Harvard, Darmouth, Williams, Brown and Amherst when I was at Smith 1946-1950, a college for women only when I was there.

Old Boston society is much like English aristocracy. In my "house" (dormitory) -- I was surprised to note that dormitories are called "houses" at Oxford -- we 70 girls had maids to wait on us, cooks to make our food, and a housemother whose main objective was to make ladies out of us and teach us about "gracious living." I was a loose cannon, on scholarship, unused to the gracious life, but I had been raised by an aunt who worked hard in a jewelry store through which she accumulated Spode dinnerware, sterling silver flatware, sterling dishes, bowls, candlelabra and water pitchers and lovely linens to put them on, so I was aware of some of the amenities rich Bostonians from the oldest families take for granted.

The truly Old Boston people I knew didn't care about fashion. The age and cut of clothes didn't matter as long as they were well tailored and of good English tweed or Scotch plaids when they were being casual.

I knew more than one boy like Sebastian. My roommate, from an old Boston family (Saltonstall), and I went to Tanglewood. One afternoon we went into Pittsfield, not far from Lenox, and stopped at a bar for a drink. There we found a Williams boy very much in his cups. My roommate gave him a lift, which probably kept him from an accident or passing out in the bar.

She later told me he came from a very rich, old and distinguished Boston family. My roommate's father, incidentally, was killed in a fall from his horse while riding to hounds.

Oh, dear, oh, dear, what to do? All this money and all this frivolity, and all these rules and expectations of class and society. Will these youngsters ever settle down enough to go into Daddy's bank and stop worrying Mummy? It is very common for people of this class to call their mothers Mummy, by the way.

I have many, many thoughts about Waugh's marvelous work -- thoughts about the themes, of which there are several; thoughts about the characters and the locale, and -- not the least -- thoughts about religion.

Mal

"Is is England? Is it so-called upper-class England? or is it these years?"

Yes, I think all of the above. This is the picture of upper class England that I have gotten in many books. It also seems to me that I hav3e read a zillion English books dealing with issues of the upper class, homosexuality and issues of religion. (Don't ask me which books: I just have that feeling).

Yes, Sebastian seems to be trying to go back to his childhood, with his teddy bear, and visits to his nanny. Family looms larger and larger as the book goes on.

I didn't somehow get the feeling of an idyllic past from the book -- maybe because I read on further, as things get less idyllic. I think the movie (which I haven't seen) must do a wonderful job with the background -- somehow I managed to read through Oxford, Brideshead, and Venice without feeling I had been in any of those places.

Maybe it's me. Somehow, Waugh doesn't manage to make Sebastian an interesting person to me. Other than physical attraction, I cant see why Charles is drawn to him. There doesn't seem much to him in the early chapters. (Later, he seems to get more complex -- by the end, I probably won't feel that way).

I just spent the most luxurious afternoon, reading Brideshead again, the first three chapters, in the baby's room with him asleep after lunch. It's a white room, it's quite a small bedroom, and it's all white or sort of a cr�me color, most impractical, and I must say the sleeping baby and the peaceful book and the very pleasant almost vanilla ambiance everywhere made an almost dreamlike state. I feel as if I had been on a vacation: the WRITING! ...we have to talk about the writing. I loved Joan K saying somehow she does not feel she's been to Brideshead, let's DO, please, examine the writing before we're through, pro or con!

But welcome, All! What a grand start, today and as you can see I'm hard pressed to gather up all the wonderful glittering balls you've thrown into the conversation, what was it Anthony Blanche said?

Conversation should be like juggling; up go the balls and the plates, up and over, in and out, good solid objects that glitter in the footlights and fall with a bang if you miss them."_Anthony Blanche

Yes. I had forgotten how satisfying a good conversation about a book can be. I hope I haven't missed anybody but if I have, please email me, it's not intentional, you've dazzled me into cross eyedness.

Welcome Allie Mae, so glad you'll be joining us. What a beautiful post, Daytripper, and thank you, I guess you'll all find the heading will suddenly be too long but I hope you'll enjoy the delicious balls you've all thrown up there and so linger lovingly over every observation.

Thank you Andrea, I can't wait to hear your thoughts on this one.

Thank you Jane for the lovely link to the song. I finally got the May song PLAYING, the wrong link was there.

Thank you Carolyn, it was the bit in the Companion sort of Dictionary to Brideshead (see links page in heading) that I was questioning: he says it comes from a fall off the "neck or crop of a horse," there is no part of a horse called the crop, I do know that, it's a short whip, so I wonder IF this is slang in some parts of England for neck? (the things you start wondering about in a book discussion, wait till you hear me on the rest:)_

But "up go the balls....."

For Your Consideration:

Topic du Jour: Wednesday May 2:

1. "Somehow, Waugh doesn't manage to make Sebastian an interesting person to me. Other than physical attraction, I cant see why Charles is drawn to him." - Joan K

-----"Beautiful CHARMING Sebastian so far seems rather retarded and child-like with his teddy bear and talk of "Mummy." But Ryder seems totally in love with him and has difficulty keeping his eyes off of him."----Marni

-----"Is the deeper meaning that Sebastian wants to re-visit childhood?"---Mippy

Let's talk about the characters in the story, let's take each one in turn. We already have a wonderful discussion going over Anthony Blanche and his sophistication and stuttering, let's do him next, but let's hone in first on the "charming" Sebastian. What is your own opinion of his character and why do you think so? Who says he's charming? What IS charm? Why do you think Charles is drawn to him? Coming Attractions:

2. "Waugh gives a hint of end-of-the-world-as-he's-known-it disaster as early as the prologue, which has a description of things torn down to make room for the building of council estates and clusters of shops. It's obvious that the narrator doesn't like these things"---Malryn

-----"I was glad to find the prologue explaining what I didn't understand in the film" --Pedln

-----"The prologue does show us where Charles is coming from."---Daytripper

Why is the Prologue here, do you think? What purposes does it serve? Are there other things in the Prologue that the narrator does not like? What does the narrator reveal in the Prologue that makes a lot of the book anticlimactic?

3. "Anthony Blanche and his viperish tongue, slandering everyone and denigrating everything under that so amusing wit. My take on his remark about the boatmen and Grace Darling was that he looked on all boatmen as persons coming to his rescue, with pointed innuendo, of course."--- Babi

We've had two opinions on Grace Darlings, what do you understand Blanche to have meant by the term?

4. "At this point, I am struck with the undercurrent of sexuality in the book". -Stephanie

Let's make a list of the undercurrents we see in the book. Babi has already spoken of cruelty, what else is here? Malryn and Joan K mention religion, what else?

5. "I did feel that the I am not I.. was Evelyn Waugh's disclaimer in that these are not real people ( although I read somewhere years ago, that they were)"

What do you think the Note "I am not I; thou art not he or she: they are not they means?

6. Why is the first chapter titled Et in Arcadia Ego?

7. "Throughout my reading I've been plagued with the thought that these are not like any college boys I've known or met in other literature."--- Pedln

-----"Is it England? Is it so-called upper-class England? or is it these years?"--- Mippy

-----"I assumed, probably incorrectly, that in this level of society that the Nanny was closer to the children than their parents ever were, both in emotional ties and physically, too." ---Jane

-----" I have quite strong reactions to various things. I'm startled that officers have "servants" in the army. I wonder who in the British army had them. Just the uppercrust? "--- Marni

Does class play a part in this book? If it does, did you have any instinctive reaction, pro or con to reading about this particular level of it? Do you resent these young men whose only duty is to study and spend money and have fun? Or do you feel sympathy with them?

8. "This book we are reading now portrays a Britain that has gone forever. I am not just referring to the class system because that still is alive and well."> --Carolyn

Nostalgia for a Britain that may never have been is one of the themes of the book. What is being represented here which seems desirable or dreamlike?

9. "One has the impression that he took refuge against the ugliness of the world in the Catholic church and then, suddenly, was delivered up to his worst enemies. He had slid into a deep depression during these last months; personally, I think he died of a broken heart.'pp177-9"> Mitford quoted by Daytripper

-----"Perhaps BH is Waugh's cry from the heart. "--- Daytripper

Let's find out more about Evelyn Waugh, his conversion to Catholicism and his own youth, and how it differs, if it does, from what he writes about here. A man, as Daytripper notes who is famous for his irony, supposedly missing here but wait.....let's watch for it, and note it where we see it.

Let's start with the character of Sebastian. How do we know anything about him? In reading today I was struck by all the times Anthony Blanche calls him CHARMING. Has anybody counted? Who else finds him CHARMING? Do YOU find him charming? Why? What IS charm?? And more tellingly, who tries to warn Charles against him?

Did you find it interesting that Anthony said "those that have charm don't really need brains." Do you agree? What IS "CHARM?"

Let's talk about all of the characters, let's talk about Sebastian first, then Anthony then Charles' father, I think we may disagree on some of them, how delightful! First up: Sebastian.

"I have been here before," opens the first chapter. This seems to be metaphorical as well as literal -- for both Charles and for the reader. Who has not been out of their depth at some time in their life? Or attracted to someone you can't quite figure out? Or find intriguing but are not even certain if you really like that person? And can any of us remember that period in our life when we were slavishly trying out different identities and even personalities for ourselves? I had a nickname all my life until I went away to college -- and the very first day of college I started telling people my 'real name' (the one on my birth certificate I had never used before) and Ihave never used my nickname again. So I think that Charles is finding his identity now in the new situation as is the execrable Anthony that is so annoying to everyone, as is beautiful Sebastian. And they are all so young and unencumbered as they wildly play off each other, driven to greater exaggerations -- "the eccentricity of his behavior seemed to know no bounds" -- isn't that EXACTLY the wonder (and horror, especially the sense of self-importance) of young men, particularly when they get together in a group? I actually thought this picture of upper and upper middle class British life rang VERY true to life. But what do I know? I'm a 54 year old American woman who lived at home and went to public high school in a Chicago suburb and San Diego!

If Aloysius could talk, he would tell us all about Sebastian. I feel Aloysius is the only one who really knows Sebastian inside and outside. Sebastian needs love. Somehow his family missed the boat in fulfilling that gigantic need. The pain is so deep that Sebastian is unable to speak about his desires. He is like a ventriloquist speaking through Aloysius. I think Charles will end up being able to understand both Aloysius and Sebastian. When we understand Aloysius, we will also understand Sebastian. One can not survive without the other one. Their lives are intertwined. The secret of Sebastian's tra la la way of looking and living life lies with Aloysius.

I see the question. It is about Evelyn Waugh's life. I know nothing about him only what I am learning here. I am anxious to know more about him. I am also deeply interested in Roman Catholicism.

One thing which has stuck with me from the first reading is the contrast between the cool demeanor of the officer, surveying BH, and the fawning young boy who is entrapped by the charismatic (and sexual?) Sebastian. Everywhere in his life he is treated as almost retarded except by the fellows and even they see him as needful. It is obvious that he has passed through his metamorphosis and is recalling the painful transition. Mystery abounds. What was it that he fell into? While the unfolding tale is riveting, still there is an air that it wasn't quite what he (and we) expected.

Sebastian,, At this point, I cannot like him, I have been trying, but he just makes my palms itch.. He needs someone to slap him into living life, not observing.. Charles is falling into a trap. The Venice chapter is amazing. We were in Venice last year. Wish I had found it that romantic, but I simply did not.

I could not wait to get in here to say perhaps I have set too narrow a perameter in trying to talk (but I think it's important) about Sebastian only, so today I am not sure, should we open the study of the characterization to ALL the characters or stick for one day to Sebastian? I am not sure what to do. Let's leave the other questions (I have more) for tomorrow, but let's, if you like, try to look at characterization today, what WE see and what is here, in the character of Sebastian.

Oh GOOD point, Stephanie, on "romantic!" That's another element we really MUST explore, I'll put it in the heading too.

Why don't you "like" him? Why do you want to slap him? Into what?

Hats, welcome! And Mrs. Sherlock! Our two famous reviewers of our first ever Book Reviews, welcome!

Hats the questions are in the yellow box in the heading, and each day's question will be lit up in sort of red. But for today, as always, if talking about Sebastian is not enough, any of the other points for consideration are also game, they're all good!

I really like this, Mrs. Sherlock:

Mystery abounds. What was it that he fell into? While the unfolding tale is riveting, still there is an air that it wasn't quite what he (and we) expected.

Good point on the foreshadowing, we need to watch for more, it's loaded with it all over the place.

Welcome MBolton, how beautifully you write! The minute I came in here and read Jane's quote in the heading I realized I had left something important out: HOW are these young men different from those we know?

The teddy bear? Yet we know from reading Waugh's life that he knew several at Oxford who did the same thing. I well recall in the early '60's teaching the 8th grade, the girls would bring dolls to class. Can you imagine that now? They now are likely to bring their own children. It's a different world, and the famous (you all can set me straight) British system of education, taking young boys off to boarding school away from home, did not contribute to their maturity.

But MBolton has put it beautifully:

"I have been here before," opens the first chapter. This seems to be metaphorical as well as literal -- for both Charles and for the reader. Who has not been out of their depth at some time in their life? Or attracted to someone you can't quite figure out? Or find intriguing but are not even certain if you really like that person? And can any of us remember that period in our life when we were slavishly trying out different identities and even personalities for ourselves?

Yes, that's it exactly, it's a journey for the reader, too, so beautifully put. I must admit on my own part to a bit of ....what to call it, embarrassment in recalling some of my own.....er.....experiences at that age. I must say that theirs look trifling in comparison...it did throw me back.

I also liked your reference to metaphor. It seems that there's a lot here that perhaps is missing at first glance, particularly the little smirking (what is it Waugh says about Edward Ryder? Snuffling?) over the decoration of the rooms and the change to enlightened taste, but all in good time. Let's grab the ball about Sebastian first.

That's just so well said. So let's talk about that today, what IS it that attracts Charles, and, according to him, the rest of the world, to Sebastian. Who is immune to his fatal charm? What IS this charm? I'm hard pressed to see it myself. I wonder why that is?

Waugh does not have any problem with vocabulary, does he? (I must look up epicene, it sounds vaguely naughty ahahaha) but somehow...well...let's LOOK hard at Sebastian today and all the others tomorrow. Remember we're looking through Charles' eyes.

Let's look if you would like at characterization. Starting with Sebastian today. He acts like nothing most of us have seen or experienced. He's not the youngest child but carries a teddy bear. He's charming to most. Why? What IS "charm?" Do you agree it's better than brains and DO you agree there's nothing much else in that brain? Is he as simple as he seems? Then why the "Debrett" reference? Why the pulling up in a lane which is positioned to show the entire huge great house and saying "Well? WELL?"

What's YOUR impression of Sebastian?

Sebastian , to me, does not seem stupid. I think he is sly. Today he would be diagnosed as a very depressed young man and probably would be medicated immediately. Of course at that time the British aristocracy would not ever admit there was a real problem there until something that they thought would harm their reputation happened. I think they would probably try to hide it when it did happen.

Oh yes things have changed , if a young man carried a Teddy bear around with him others would make much fun of him rather than be attracted by him. Of course I am looking at this from an American point of view. Maybe the British aristocray still do not expect their young men to be "macho".

This novel is both very romantic and very satirical. Those are two of the layers I see in it at this point. I have read much further than 3 chapters. So I have to be careful what I write here. I just do not want to put the book down or go back and read what I have read over again. I want to go on to find out what is going to happen next.

Joan Grimes

A quick comment: Charles did not have a 'private' servant. These servants were assigned to five or six sets of rooms, and of course did come to know the 'young gentlemen' quite well. They would have been essential to keeping the buildings clean and livable...the young men certainly weren't doing the housekeeping.

I believe any time you have a large number of young men living together in close circumstances, without women - except on special occasions, these attractions occur. The 'beautiful' young men acquire a following, and almost inevitably, lovers. Sebastian was one of these 'beautiful' young men. Great intelligence was not required of him...another habit with lonesome young men, no?

Sebastian does not like being around his family. His Nanny appears to be the only one who gave him the love a child needs. I think he is very needy, and the love and admiration Charles offers him is like cool water to a thirsting man. I cannot see a happy ending for Sebastian.

Babi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like what HATS said about Sebastian's being a ventriloquist, who talks through his teddy bear, Aloysius. Sebastian wants someone to watch over him as he watches over Aloysius -- not to tell him what to do and punish him when he doesn't, as his domineering matriarch of a mother does with the rules of her class and the rules of her religion to verify and substantiate her.

Sebastian wants someone who will join him in his escapades, even the gentle ones like strawberries and champagne, and clean up after him when he's drunk. Remember that he's introduced early as a drunk. This tells me a lot about this young man and the way he behaves.

Charles, who is very internal, really, is intrigued (charmed ) by Sebastian's freedom of spirit, which covers the fact that he's very dependent, just another Aloysius at heart. He, Charles, has wanted to open a door and find Peter Pan and a childhood he never had. It looks as if he has. Sebastian is a butterfly no one can catch, a free spirit nobody ever will be able to tame.

Mal

P.S.

Having gone to and graduated from an all female college, I can say that what BaBi describes in her post happens with women, too. I can without hesitation say that these close, close friendships did not inevitably bring sexual love affairs. Those who were lesbians found other lesbians, the rest wasted a great deal of non-study time romantically dreaming, mooning over, complaining and crying about the men we wished we had and their behavior when the one we hoped was the right one came along.

Mal

I, too, like Hats description of the relationship between Aloysius and Sebastian. Sebastian seems, at best, to be emotionally very immature. At worse? Hmmm...he may have been drinking long before arriving at Oxford and his escape from any reality he cannot face/experience?

What I found interesting is what Mal mentions above...that women living with other women find other lesbians, if that's their preference, and other women still talk of men and men they'd love to be with, etc. [This was also true in the women's dorms that I lived in as an undergraduate.] In this early part of BR, I found no references to women, except as something to be avoided, interesting. [It sounded like late elementary-early middle school aged boys who want nothing to do "with girls" ...but usually by age 18-19 that has changed.] Therefore, I can only conclude that all the talk of "dearest this and dearest that" and "beautiful" and "attraction/[called charm]" is males seeking other males for attention and love.

I find nothing "charming" about Sebastian and don't see whatever it is that is this "attraction" that the other characters speak of. I see a very immature young man who has no interest in anything except himself.

jane

I think Sebastian is one of those lost souls unable to find his place in the world and so he seeks to escape from the world through drink.

His family was not a source of love or identity for him (or so it seems). Nanny is his only source of unconditional love, and I think the trip to visit her was sincere - he loves her and needs to touch base with her love.

The only things that are his are Nanny's love which noone can take away and Aloysius' love (so to speak) which noone can take away. He is beginning to suspect that he may have Charles' love which is why he does not want to introduce Charles to his family because (he says) they are so "charming" and will take Charles away from him.

With regard to what is charm - I think it is an ability to make other people like you or love you. I don't think it is a natural innate quality but rather to do with superficial aspects of a person - it can be cultivated equally by politicians, con men, and English school boys. Sebastian (and his whole family apparently) has cultivated this ability to draw people to himself, to manipulate them, to get from them what he needs. I think he is desperate, and as the novel goes on he will get more desperate.

I'm trying to put my finger on what is making Sebastian so charming to the men at Oxford. Ginny asked what charming means. Hmmmm.....

I think of charming as being attractive, appealing, sociable, popular, pleasing, delightful, even enchanting, and perhaps even bewitching.

Is Sebastian these things? Well, I had to laugh at the incident when Ryder first "met" Sebastian. S. was drunk, got sick, went over to Ryder's open window on the first floor, and threw up right in his room! Not exactly charming there. However, he apologized by sending a jillion flowers to Ryder the next day. Now, that's charming.

Sebastian's beauty, his physical appearance, had to be part of the charming package. We know Ryder couldn't take his eyes off of Sebastian when they were lying out in the grass alone. Also, the teddy bear. With the right person - which Sebastian apparently was - conversations with the teddy must have been very amusing to his many admirers.

Sebastian also knew he was attractive and used his appeal to get others to do what he wanted. He manipulated people like Ryder. For instance, when he wrote the note with just the few words "Gravely injured. Come at once." Sebastian knew exactly what he was doing - that Ryder would come flying, thinking Sebastian was terribly hurt, when in fact he had broken his ankle.

I don't consider Sebastian a drunk even though he and his pals drink a lot. I do think he is bored. He certainly has an unusual family. Very wealthy, Catholic. (I'm used to thinking of the British as Anglican. I wonder what the percentage of Catholics were there?) His father left his mother to stay in Europe and is living with another woman.

Sebastian and his beautiful sister, who looks just like him, were raised by a nanny. I see it as a special gift when Sebastian brings Ryder to meet Nanny and to briefly see the house. But Sebastian rudely drags Ryder off and does not introduce him to his sister.

Since Ryder is attracted to Sebastian's beauty, and his sister looks just like Sebastian, I am anticipating Ryder to develop an attraction towards the sister, also.

I think of charm as being almost visceral. It grabs you and won't let you go. It is not a quality that can be conveyed by words on a page. It is akin to infatuation, unreasoning, forgiving the object everything, giving the object whatever he asks. Certainly the charmer is manipulative but not calculating, only using tools which are inate. Nany has much to answer for as her unconditional love probably had much to do with the development of Sebastian's social personna. Charles is us, watching and noting, but himself, too, as he is drawn into the maelstrom.

The men of Oxford had spent many years in male only company before they arrived there. How many of us have lived as children and adolescents in such an environment? Children leave for school at eight! For the next 13 years their lives are lived at school with brief holidays at "home". Unless they had tutors which fostered their introspection and stunted their social development.

'A most amusing young gentleman', according to his barber.

'I knew Sebastian by sight long before I met him. That was unavoidable for, from his first week, he was the most conspicuous man of his year by reason of his beauty, which was arresting, and his eccentricities of behaviour which seemed to know no bounds', according to Charles.

And whatever else we can say about Sebastian, he turns out to be Charles passport to Arcadia. So what does Arcadia represent? Charles soon adds Lyonnesse to that, to help us understand what he is searching for. We can probably expect to be treated to a lot of fantasies. Is Sebastian's charm exaggerated? Hardly. His youth and beauty, and offer of friendship, soon has fool's parsley and meadowsweet, leaf and flower all proclaiming the glory of God. (p 21) Now here's a choice bit of irony. Waugh meant BH to be all about being drawn back to God. Sebastian, along with his strawberries and wine, seems like a strange beginning.

And then there is the bear. Aloysius. Sebastian is certainly having a strange affair with him. I believe he is Sebastian's conscience.

Oh my head is reeling. So much to think about. I am going away for the weekend so busy doing some household chores, the plumber is coming and I need to cook for the dogs. ( dogs going with me for the weekend) I shall be in the country ( internet banned at the house as they have it in their offices in the city) I will try to post my thoughts thus far before I leave on Friday at noon. One comment. Sebastian is plainly "as mad as a hatter!"

Carolyn

Holy Smokes, what a start we have here; new friends and old friends again. I_m excited to be discussing this complex novel. My CDs didn_t arrive from the library YET but I watched the prologue and the first disc of the video presentation.

Babi, I love Anthony. He is so Truman Capote (ish); a flamboyant homosexual man seeking love in all the wrong places. He_s a wonderfully wicked character with pizzazz and zest. Like Capote and Waugh he has faked this persona that he invented and no doubt, his arrogance and disdainful attitude will beat him in the end. (No pun intended.)

Pedln and Mippy There is a flip side to Sebastian isn_t there? He shows kindness and deep affection toward Nanny. I think Jane hit the nail on the head as she probably was charged with the responsibility of raising Sebastian. It is too soon in our tale but I wonder what his relationship with his _mama_ had been. I had the feeling that the reason he took Chaz. into Nanny Hawkins room was to show him that sensitive, loving side of himself. Or could he have been showing Chaz. off to Nanny, mutely exclaiming _look, see here Nanny, this is someone who thinks me worthy!_Come on, really, have you never met the rich, decadent boys of the Ivy League schools? They still exist, ask George Bush! That was not meant as a political statement but a statement of fact and reality.

Marni- I think that servants were a normal occurrence for those of the upper middle class. Something akin to "house mothers" today or RAs. I am sure Charles_s father made certain that one was in attendance for Charles, (if not for the prestige of the fact.) Marni, I was so taken with the scenes from Charles vacation at the home of his father. The man brilliantly tortured Charles, particularly with Charles_s friend Jorkins at dinner. I cracked up when he kept alluding to the fact that this guy came overseas from the USA. It was done to goad Charles. _He was a master of delicate one sided parlor games_, thought Charles. For crying out loud, they barely could stand one another and yet the obligations of hospitality must be observed.
When Waugh broke up with his first wife he showed a great deal of irritability with his family and cultivated the character of a snob, as well.

I_ve only gotten through 12 posts. I shall return with more thoughts.

daytripper Thank you for that information by Nancy Mitford. How sad it is to feel a friend_s pain isn_t it? Charles is 39 when we meet him and the indifference poured out of him; both in the way he led his camp and in his personal thought. He was depressed and feared what was coming next. in 1943, he brought in strong, hopefuls._ Now here he sits reminiscing in resignation and despair

Ahha, there_s Mal. Boy couldn_t we have a field day exchanging stories about our dorms and housemothers?

Conversation should be like juggling; up go the balls and the plates, up and over, in and out, good solid objects that glitter in the footlights and fall with a bang if you miss them."_Anthony Blanche Ginny when Anthony said that, while at dinner, with his drunk, rheumy eyes I immediately thought, what a wonderful quote for Senior Net posters.

Waugh has presented two wonderful characters in Sebastian and Charles- they are like two magnetic poles. Envious, middle class, repressed Charles is seduced and attracted to the British aristocracy, dreaming the _impossible dream_ through the decadent, charming, self destructive Sebastian who appears to be running away from that very thing. Like two poles, they attract one another. Sebastian can lure anyone he chooses to. He is rich, which is certainly his drawing power over Chaz., all with the glamour, the hypnotism and the pull needed for seduction. Sebastian knows no other way, I have assumed. His mainstay is his false charm and apparent innocence. He has asked nothing of Charles, speaking from his heart, he is not malicious or injurious to him. He obviously hates himself, switching from mellifluous and sweet words to disparaging thoughts. When speaking of the likeness of him and Julia he states _I wouldn_t love anyone with a character like mine._

When I read about the unusual objects Sebastian had in his college room, I was startled to read he had a harmonium. I had read that the harmonium was a glass musical instrument invented by Benjamin Franklin. I saw and heard one last spring in Philadelphia at the Franklin Court museum located where Franklin's house used to sit. The instrument is a series of connected variously-sized glass bowls that twirl around and you play it by touching it with your hands kind of like making a tone while rubbing a wet finger around the rim of a goblet. They are very rare and they make the most exquisite music.

But then I read there is another type of harmonium - a "free-reed" organ with key-board and pedals. Here's a picture:

http://www.pbase.com/davidandcarol/image/73682989

I suppose Sebastian had the organ type.

Wow. I forgot about all the "interesting" stuff in Sebastian's room! Thank you Marni, so many fascinating things, it really is like a kaleidescope or a box of treasures thrown to the sky. I get hung up on the strangest things.

Tom ringing. Change ringing. You can't hear change ringing just anywhere.

I tell you what, I may have to give this discussion up, I am beginning to look like one of those little bobble dolls. As every single post is posted here my subscriptions bring me here and as every single one of you makes a searing point, I start saying WHOA! I can't wait to see what they say to that one. Or nodding, oh wow isn't THAT great or OO I missed that, or jeepers, that's wonderful or...and I'm nodding. OH yes, that's the time, nod nod, I look like an idiot bobble doll. Hahahaa

You've done a smashing job with Sebastian. Aside from his charm is he as ingenuous as he seems, do you think? Do you see any calculation in him?

Is he lightly drawn do you think, so far? Is he something of a willo the wisp? Is his characterization STRONG? He's beautiful but we don't know how. I couldn't pick him out in a crowd, could you? (Except for the bear of course). Except for the bear, whose name is another religious reference. In what way is he beautiful? He's rich, he's privileged, but Charles is not poor, is he? He's thoughtless, he's immature and I loved the bit about Aloysius speaks for him, Hats. In fact I love everything you all said. I need another heading.

What does Sebastian represent to Charles? I think some of you have covered it very well. What of his existence constitutes a low door in the secret garden wall?

I'm not through with your observations or Sebastian, but I want to start us out on tomorrow's topics first, and tomorrow let's look at the rest of the characters: Edward Ryder, Charles' father, and Anthony Blanche. And if you like, include Charles as well. Is he a reliable narrator, considering he seems to think his father may be trying to run him out of the house?

I can't figure Charles' father out. What do you think of him? He's apparently a Classicist (?_) and they really are all crazy but the excuse that others make for him is that after Charles mother died he withdrew into himself. Yet why does he look with a look of malice at Charles as he looks from him to Jorkins? What is that that Charles feels coming from him? Why DID Charles invite Jorkins in the first place and what was his father's reaction after Jorkins left?

What is your feeling about Edward Ryder? Do you admire his skill as an adversary?

What of Anthony Blanche? He's somewhat of an outrageous character, it would seem that there's not much doubt he's a homosexual but you don't see that in any of the others, do you? Quite the contrast. Do you feel like Daytripper that he can take care of himself or like Marni that it hurts him to be thrown in "Mercury." He actually was not thrown, was he?

Do you remember such episodes from your own college years? I do.

Which character of the three is more strongly drawn, do you think? Edward Ryder, Anthony Blanche, or Sebastian Flyte?

More tomorrow I need to think on the points you've raised first, but just to get us started, let's look at Anthony, Edward, and possibly Charles himself, so far. For instance, why did Charles not clean the mess up? Must have been an awful stink?

Why do you suppose Lyonnesse has been brought up?

Oxford_submerged and obliterated, irrecoverable as Lyonnesse, so quickly have the waters come flooding in--

Interesting symbolism there. Another lost kingdom connected with water. Like Brideshead. Really you could get carried away with this. hahahaha

What of the names? Sebastian? Is it an accident that Anthony Blanche says to him, "I should like to stick you fill of barbed arrows like a p-p-pin-cushion?" All I could think of when I saw that was the Catacombs of St. Sebastian in Rome where the saint is shown full of barbed arrows in one of many famous renditions of his death. I wonder if that name will have any significance.

How about Melchior? Who came a cropper and ended up in Queer Street? Wasn't Melchior one of the Wise Men? Was he the one with the myrrh? A foreshadowing of its own again slightly snuffled at by the author: catch it if you can. Is this another ...what shall we call them? Undercurrent of religion here like the "cloistered hush" on the first page?

Anthony has quite a way with words, why do you suppose he tries to turn Charles away from Sebastian? What did he mean by those particular lines of TS Eliot?

Oh don't get me started. What is an Etonian? The companion says it's a college. But three of Sebastian's guests AT college were "Etonians." I have been to Windsor and I have seen Eton, it's school boys dressed up to the nines all the time. So what is an "Old Etonian."

What is a plover? The Companion says it's almost extinct, it must be, I have no idea WHAT it is. I do know what Anglo-Catholics are tho and Jasper is a hoot there, another snuffle, more Catholic than the Pope but not Catholic. Oh there's a lot here, there really is, such strong undercurrents suddenly of references to religion they might carry us away like "Lyonnesse, so quickly have the waters come flooding in_"

Let's talk about characterization this Thursday, let's include them all: Edward Ryder (Sr), Charles Ryder, Anthony Blanche, Sebastian: what do you think of all of them? Which one if any are you the most drawn to? What do you think of Julia so far? Which one of the men seems most real? Which one is the least strongly drawn?

Why I wonder is Anthony even here in the book? And I wonder why I have NO room in the heading.

What is a plover? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ringed_Plover

Ginny: WHat a gifted teacher you are. All our ramblings and you are making them sound almost pithy. Just being in this august company has raised my IQ by 20 points!

I think that an old Etonian is simply a male who went to Eton first. Eton is called a public school in England, but that really means private to us. It is one of the most famous in England. I sort of admired Edward Ryder. He obviously wants his son to grow up and become an adult. He is very very amused at the spending of the money and I dont say that I would blame him. Charles at this point is being led around by Sebastian. But then I consider Sebastian very very manipulative. I still cannot see the charm that they keep mentioning. Sebastian just seems incredibly selfish and bound to keep everyone at his beck and call. Anthony is interesting. He really seems to want Charles to understand what he is getting into.. Charles does not want to, though.

Thank you Mrs. Sherlock I hope so in the Latin classes, but what you all have said is not only pithy, but to get in the idiom of the piece, it's BRILLIANT (like the commercial about beer? BRILLIANT! Hahahaha)

This is the first time that I know of in the history of our Books where the reader's comments are writing the Reader's Guide, I wouldn't have done one otherwise, but you're all SO good. I'm enjoying this so much, I print out your comments and take them off and just savor, and want to ask you some questions on them later today.

Thank you Ginger, so THAT'S a plover, that looks like a sea bird? That, to me, puts an entirely different complexion on the entire thing.

Why?

The Etonians recognize the eggs for what they are. How many of us (thank you Stephanie for explaining Etonian) know a plover's egg from any other kind of egg?

Do you?

I don't.

But they do. A world of privilege, we're in, thanks to Waugh, we're experiencing it vicariously, but is it what it seems? I think not.

"Mummy sends them from Brideshead. They always lay early for her."

Oh there's a lot there, isn't there? Here WE are the privileged ones. Mummy is so God like the birds change their laying patterns, and yet, as we read Ginger's article we see they are not domestic birds: they lay in rocky places and in other strange wild places. I doubt these birds are in cages or chicken pens, and I doubt "Mummy" is out collecting them on the rocky whatever places they lay so here we have privilege in the extreme, casually thrown out. This sending in from the country estate is also of the time and the class of people.

I think that Waugh here has done something very fine, whether or not we can relate to the young men, he's created a gauze in words.

I think it's deliberate.

Joan K said the movie must do a good job of visually presenting this, it does. But what is Waugh doing?

He's, for me, captured the insouciance, the devil may care, my cares are not of this world attitude of this class of people, the sort of....well he says it...beautiful surface that would explode if looked at very long and won't age well. He foreshadows this in the "epicene" remark about Sebastian's beauty, "he was entrancing, with the epicene" (I still don't k now what that means, if I looked up every word I did not know it would take me a million years to finish, but I think I better in this case?) beauty which in extreme youth sings aloud for love and withers at the first cold wind."

Yes, and here Waugh is doing something quite clever, himself, I think. He's showing, I believe, deliberately WITH his prose the sort of....lighter than air meaningless (or is it) sort of life of not only Sebastian, who, as a younger son, has nothing to do, and nothing whatsoever to work AT, (think of Prince Harry and his own drinking), but to BE an example of his background and to play THAT for what it's worth. Waugh did experience this class of people and I think he's captured it beautifully. There seems nothing there because there wasn't, in real life.

YOU bring money, Charles, in case we see something we want.

And then there IS the drinking, another theme. We need to get up a list of the themes, I'll do that when I come back to your posts yesterday, but last night on the news was an African American artist showing locally with the most extraordinary paintings. At first they look like sort of Jamaican cartoons but the longer you look at them, something else comes out, something quite striking, almost magical. The interviewer pressed him for how he creates these things and he said, "I don't want to talk about the magic, I want to enjoy it."

Waugh is not writing about young pioneers of America, the sort of ethic we admire in 2007, or staunch young men working their way up in the world. Noble coal miners. He assumes the reader has been to Oxford and he won't bore us with a travelogue. He's been accused of elitism in the book. How do you react to his attitude?

He's writing about the result of working your way up, or doing nothing and being born into it: the generations that spend that money in dissipation and whose entrance into the highest bastions of privilege and education are assured: it's Christ Church for Sebastian, (who by anybody's estimate is not a scholar and Eton before that), not one of the lower colleges, and the ethereal air of memory, where Newman walked, and in getting what you think you want, and finding it's rotten inside.

Just the words "where Newman walked" conjure up for me a flood of stuff but I'll come back to it, there's that flood of scattered pictures again.

I believe, as incongruous as it sounds, ( and how I can year you yell as Anthony would say

,) but I believe he's talking about all of us, where we've been, where we are and where we're going, only his characters are just as much an extreme as the one we read about in New Zealand before in the Book Club Online. His characters are the so called "beautiful people." He's writing on a canvas of aquatint in a land and time long gone and a milieu unknown to most of us, but he's talking about things we all know well.

We know about wanting to belong to something which seems better, an ideal place and people, and to find love. We know about being young and having false ideals and we know about finding out that the person you love might have feet of clay. Maybe not, maybe you were one of the lucky ones: your first love is your last. That does not happen to most people, you normally have to kiss a LOT of frogs before you find your prince. Do you remember your own first love?

If it SEEMS shallow, the writing, the descriptions, I think it's deliberate, a wash upon the canvas where he might have taken another chapter and explained, a brush here and a slash there. I think he's mirroring what he writes about in his prose. I could be wrong. It sure looks like it to me.

I spent a week at Oxford, at Christ Church college, living in "digs" across from the college main Tom Gate, in a student's room with his schedules still on the walls, a room with deep windowsills and leaded panes, a living room with a fireplace, an anteroom, a bedroom, pretty darn nice but not as nice as some people had in the college. I sure had no dorm room like that when I went to school, there were 5 of us in one room. Yet if I had to describe any of it, I could not, it's a snatch here, a memory there, and an overall pervading essence of centuries of....It's even now as Streisand sings, misty water colored memories.

Which character so far would you say is likeable? Admirable?

?? How can you read a book about "beautiful people" when there is nothing to like? (Do they tend to BE admirable in real life?) How would we know?

The new issue of People Magazine is on the 100 most Beautiful People. Are we really so far removed from this?

Do you admire Edward Ryder? Anthony Blanche? Sebastian? Charles? Julia? It seems to me that Julia is either extremely young and FLIGHTY or extremely uncaring. It might be the latter, so far she seems most unlikable.

(I don't think the family name of FLYTE is accidental either, their name is Flyte, the Brideshead thing is a title, but they are all FLYING away from something or somebody, as I said initially, I think they are escape artists. And I hope I don't bore anybody counting the ways.

_

These are my own thoughts and perspectives, but let's hear YOUR own thoughts on the characters. Stephanie kind of likes Edward Ryder, what do the rest of you think? Would you like him for a father?

Please do talk to each other about the points raised here, let's have a good old fashioned confab!!

Epicine-lacking characteristics of either sex (from the Merriman Webster Online Dictionary).

No time to write anything much but I will say that I do not "like" any of the characters.

Joan Grimes

I missed getting in here yesterday, while talking about Sebastian. Looks like storms coming here again, so have hurried thru the posts....
But is Sebastian a bit of a leech? Or maybe he just assumes that money is always available ---- somewhere? I got the impression from what Charles said (can't find it now) that he, Charles, paid for a lot of the outings (drinking fests) that he and Sebastian pursued. And that was why Charles went home during vacation without a cent left.

Yes, Charles did spend some of his money on Sebastian, or on the things Sebastian suggested they do. I think you're right, Pedin, that Sebastian just expected people around him to have money and spend it on whatever whims came along.

Charles also changed his tastes as the semester went on, probably due to exposure to Sebastian. Early on his room had been decorated in a cheaper manner. He wanted more refined items after awhile and spent money on new, more tasteful things, for his room.

Sebastian used others' money, and also their things, such as the car he borrowed for their strawberries and wine outing. Charles tells us that later, the two of them kept the car out too late (or something like that) and the car owner got into trouble at school because of it. It seems that Sebastian treats people and their things lightly without thinking much of the consequences of his actions. He uses people.

plover's eggs are smaller than even a pullets egg. http://www.enamels.com/eggnut/images/6817.jpg

I to belive Sebastian is a user.

I do like Edward Ryder, Charles' father. I enjoyed the way he wanted his son to have enough money to enjoy college, but didn't want to overdo it too much, giving him somewhat more than the amount recommended. You can see he loved his son and wanted the best for him.

Edward was so affected by the death of his wife that he became a changed man. We can see he must have loved her deeply and is having trouble living without her. Her death has affected both him and his son. They are both very lonely.

Edward realized his son had blown his money. I like the way he is not making it easy for him. Edward is not about to just hand over more to be blown. I think he wants his son to learn of the consequences of his free-spending habits. He is also giving little digs here and there about how he wants to get Charles out of the house. He wants Charles to know he doesn't just want his son to be a freeloader. But, I think Edward is doing this with love and with a twinkle in his eye.

Aaahhh, life's lessons. I think Charles is lucky to have a father like this. It will help make Charles a man.

Marni, I'm going to have to reread some of the section about Charles and his father. It seemed to me they were "playing games" trying to make each other miserable with their dinner guests. (Not to mention that they, especially the father, were using people.) Edward struck me as almost cruel, as well as some of his comments -- "Did you like her little mustache?" I can understand Charles thinking that his father is trying to get rid of him, much as he did Aunt Phillipa.

Et in Arcadia Ego best describes the first chapter I think because it means

Exploring the humanities: art, writing, music, and culture of the past and present ages The phrase is a memento mori, which is usually interpreted to mean "I am also in Arcadia" or "I am even in Arcadia", as if spoken by personified Death. However, Poussin's biographer, Andre Felibien, interpreted it to mean that "the person buried in this tomb has lived in Arcadia"; in other words, that they too once enjoyed the pleasures of life on earth. The former interpretation is generally considered to be more likely. Either way, the sentiment was meant to set up an ironic contrast by casting the shadow of death over the usual idle merriment that the nymphs and swains of ancient Arcadia were thought to embody.

Ginny Why do you think the first chapter is titled Et in Arcadia Ego?

There was nothing in Edward that I liked. Granted his lessons did help Charles in the long run but I believe it was malice not love that prompted Edward. I've never understood the premise that loving one person deeply means there is little or no love for others. This is opposite to my experience, i.e., the more love one gives the more love one has.

Charles's father is a weird old bird. Funny how some things English became transferred to New England. I was married to a man who thought people shouldn't have anything they didn't work for or deserve. He had me accompany him once on a business trip to Europe. We travelled to five countries in a very brief time. When we got home he told me he was going to deduct the cost of my trip from the money he gave me for food and pharmacy items for the family, which was about $50.00 a week. It was a matter of principle, he said. This was close to the mid 70's.

Edward Ryder didn't give a tinker's dam about anyone except himself. His aim appeared to be to get rid of his son. I don't think he cared one way or the other about him. A decent man would float his kid a loan to get him through the summer, not snuffle as he watched him squirm.

When Charles tells his father of Sebastian's telegram about his injury he says, "Do you hope for a legacy?" and "Well, Orme-Herrick is a great friend of mine, but I should not go tearing off to his deathbed on a warm Sunday afternoon . . . . I shall miss you, dear boy, but do not hurry back on my account."

"I got her ( Aunt Philippa ) out in the end."

Bah humbug I say about Edward Ryder and his spiteful battle games and curious ways.

Mal

Malryn Bah Humbug, indeed!!

my mother was a lot like Edward and some of the way she taught me was hard to take. Her mother and sister were the same way and turned there children against them. It was the way they were raised they said. They were Irish,

Mom did say if I went back to Bendix she would buy me a new car of my choice but must pay it all back but no interest, I took her up on it and am living off a good pension from Bendix.

I am sure Edward had some good points but wasn't going to throw good money after Charles had spent the money unwisely as that would not have taught Charles the value of money and he might have turn out like Sebastian in the way of money.

Hi, everyone; I couldn't resist joining after all, but it took me a few days to get the book (couldn't find my old copy) and catch up.

I see no sign that Edward Ryder has any affection for his son. He presumably had been capable of love, since he was devastated by his wife's death, but it has all dried up now. He makes the expected gestures for his son in the sense of feeding and clothing him, paying tuition to the right schools, etc, but isn't interested in him.

A decent man might or might not bail his son out with cash, depending on the understanding between them (after all, Charles was in no danger of starving) but a decent man would not play games with his son like that. Edward is looking at Charles like a specimen impaled on a pin, watching him wriggle.

The scenes with Edward are hilarious, though.

Wow, I missed the boat on Edward!

Ginny, me too. My neck has a kink in it from the bobbing and shaking of my head over the many fine observations and astute opinions in the posts. It's off to chiropracter in the morning. And it's your posts that are giving me the most trouble. Mostly I'm in agreement with what you say, some things have really been cleared up, things I've puzzled over, but there other things I question. Should we be looking for character among this odd lot inhabitating Charles Ryder's Arcadia. They are all either, as glencora says about Sebastian, lost souls, or as Mal says about Edward R, a weird old bird, or eccentrics, or aesthetes, or, well Anthony would never be described as epicene, or would he? I don't think it's character we should be looking for. It seems more like relationships. Take Charles' statement:

I was in search of love those days.'

He certainly doesn't find it at home with his father. Edward just wants to be left alone. On the other hand, he is quite generous with his allowance for Charles, willing to let him have twice as much as C's tutor reccomends. Does Charles want more than money from his father? Edward does have sound advice for his son, if we listen carefully. In fact Charles gets good advice from several others he chooses to ignore. His cousin Jasper, for example. And Anthony, too, has warnings, while making an attempt to seduce Charles himself. Wouldn't it be strange if Anthony turns out to be the reality check in this strange world?

Sebastian and his bear. His mommy and her plovers! They lay earlier for her than for anyone else. Perhaps Lady Marchmain is the one with true character. She has seen to it that her husband is a social outcast.

A light went on when I read this in Ginny's post #36,

'Is it an accident that Anthony Blanche says to him (Charles), "I should like to stick you fill of barbed arrows like a p-p-pin-cushion?" All I could think of when I saw that was the Catacombs of St. Sebastian in Rome where the saint is shown full of barbed arrows in one of many famous renditions of his death. I wonder if that name will have any significance.'

Whatever did he mean by saying that? Is it a tease? They've both taken a liking to Charles, and a rivalry for his friendship is inevitable. Each wants Charles for himself. Are the arrows a threat? Or is Anthony being used prophetically to indicate Sebastian's martyrdom at the hands of his family. Anthony would have known of the scene in the Catacombs.

And then there is the charm. 'Almost visceral' as one of us has said. And Sebastian has it. Even Charles' scout, cleaning up the mess left by Sebastian, is charmed when Sebastian comes calling. Charles is bowled over. 'A new epoch in my life.' 'My eyes were opened.' Whose eyes wouldn't open to hear Sebastian saying?

'Does anyone feel the same kind of emotion for a butterfly or a flower that he feels for a cathedral or a picture? Yes, I do.'

And then be invited to take a walk in the Botanical Gardens. This is more pleasant than hearing cousin Jasper's remonstrance, or Collins' metaphysics.

Isn't eccentricity sought after among the aristocrats and others in England? Perhaps it's a luxury for those who have it all and have no need to prove anything. Or perhaps it's a need to establish a modicum of personal identity. 'This is where my family lives.' And Charles feels an ominous chill. I was under the impression that Arcadia was meant to be a thrill.

I agree that eccentricity is much prized in that time and in the upper class. I do believe however that Sebastian simply has no concept of money and has always lived off of others. He thinks of it as upper class, but most would regard it as sponging. I have yet to meet anyone in the book that I would cross the street to see, but then Evelyn Waugh was not a nice human being either from all I have read. I like Edward even though he is malicious and cruel in some ways. He is more down to earth than most of the characters. Charles is also not quite grown up enough to see his father as anything but a bore.. constantly talking of snuffling.. I find myself with little patience for the characters.. Hmm. oh well, I remember that the first time I read this years ago, I did not like them either.

Sure there was some good advice. But did anyone care anything about or for Charles? Where was the heart? Perhaps if his relatives hadn't treated him like a child, he wouldn't behave like one. The same applies to Sebastian.

For what it's worth, I think Anthony is the Court Jester. This seems to be a kind of monarchy with Lady Marchmain the queen.

Mal

WHOO 8 new posts since last night! Welcome, Pat H! So glad to see you here!

I shall print out every single thing said to date, as I'm dashing through the lightning bolts here to say that I've had THE most wonderful evening dodging crashes of thunder reading your posts which I printed out and which are wonderful! I love them and I love disagreement, too, which we at this point have very little of, maybe it will pick up?

hahahaa

I will be working on this all day offline and hope to squeak back between crashes today, you're DAZZLING in the balls you've thrown up!

Today is Freaky Friday, Open Friday and I see we're all over the chart about Edward, Charles' father, I'm not through by a long shot, but first I want to get in on these super conversations and throw out some Trivia, to start THAT conversational ball rolling, and I hope to catch up. If I se you pose something we can use as a question, up it's going in the heading! But for today the floor is open for any question in the heading or anything whatsoever in these first three chapters and Prologue which caught your attention. Please, do, talk to each other about the comments made here.

Until Ginger asked the question about Et in Arcadia Ego I did not realize that Waugh himself had defined Arcadia, brought it again into the book, or insofar as I understand WHAT it means.

And it's in the section on the chapel?!? Of all things! He's talking about the chapel which of course we all have stuck on the ends of our houses. Sebastian takes Charles there and observes the obsequies, showing that religion IS a sub theme, but when Waugh says, "redecorated in the arts and crafts style..." When I saw Arts and Crafts I was thinking Prairie Home Companion, apparently not!

From the Companion, I've copied it over to WORD and it's wonderfully helpful in some cases (if accurate):

38 arts-and-crafts style

The Arts and Crafts Movement was an English aesthetic movement of the second half of the 19th century. It was the beginning of a new appreciation of the decorative arts throughout Europe. In 1861 William Morris, disgusted by the artistic banality of modern domestic arts, founded a firm of interior decorators and manufacturers dedicated to recapturing the spirit and quality of medieval craftsmanship. Morris and his companions produced handcrafted metalwork, jewellery, wallpaper, textiles, furniture, and books. This movement influenced Art Nouveau, but is not to be confused with it.

Brideshead chapel is a good example of it, and is a pretty accurate account of the chapel at Madresfield Court. The angels painted on the walls at Madresfield are portraits of EW_s friends as children.

Who knew? But it's here, ironically (there's irony again) that the definition of Arcadia really rests.

But back to Ginger's question. I think here Waugh paints the concept of Arcadia best in the chapel description: kind of a Lake Woebegone where all the..how does it go? All the women are pretty and the children are smart or? Or like Camelot also a mythical place where it never rains until after sundown..."in short there's simply not....a more delightful spot..." That's Arcadia, the classical IDEAL versus the REALITY, that's Brideshead in Memory in Charles' memory and that's what the chapel represents:

... rambler-roses, flower-spangled meadows, frisking lambs...

That's Arcadia, of old legend, a pastoral place of peace. But the artist Poussin (we read in Latin about Aeneas and Evander, the King of Arcadia, in Latin class so I have the picture handy):

the French painter Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665) used this pictorial tradition to paint one of his most famous canvasses, known as "The Arcadian shepherds" or as "ET IN ARCADIA EGO" (1647).

This painting represents four Arcadians, in a meditative and melancholy mood, symmetrically arranged on either side of a tomb. One of the shepherds kneels on the ground and reads the inscription on the tomb: ET IN ARCADIA EGO, which can be translated either as "And I [= death] too (am) in Arcadia" or as "I [= the person in the tomb] also used to live in Arcadia." The second shepherd seems to discuss the inscription with a lovely girl standing near him. The third shepherd stands pensively aside.

From Poussin's painting, Arcadia now takes on the tinges of a melancholic contemplation about death itself, about the fact that our happiness in this world is very transitory and evanescent. Even when we feel that we have discovered a place where peace and gentle joy reign, we must remember that it will end, and that all will vanish. From Arcadia

According to the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature:

The Latin tag familiar from seventeenth-century pastoral paintings et in Arcadia ego, often translated as I, too, (have lived) in Arcadia, may more correctly mean "I (am found) in Arcadia as well", and refer to death.

I don't know what Poussin meant, maybe somebody can follow up on it, Vergil never said it, I looked three days thru Vergil in vain following up pompous statement on the Internet quoting chapter and verse, it's not Vergil. (Segue: I loved Edward Ryder's saying "It is remarkable how some people are able to put their opinions in lapidary form...." Hahaha, what IS that? Irony ? Love it, and SOOO true. THINK what he would have said if he could have seen the Internet and the billion and one "authorities" out there.

I think, Ginger, to finally answer your question

, (it's complicated hahahaa) here in this book it serves as a foreshadowing, in that Charles is saying I myself was in Arcadia, a paradise of youthful longing, but death (he says in the Prologue "Here my last love died. There was nothing remarkable in the manner of its death") is not far behind. There is more than one kind of death, I don't think he's talking about physical death. Sebastian speaks also of the death of his innocence. That's what I got out of it, what do the rest of you think??

See next for my own Freaky Friday thoughts! I can't stand it, there is TOO MUCH I don't know, Companion notwithstanding! See next post for my first (but not last) foray of the day, weather permitting!

Freaky Friday Trivia:

"...where Newman walked..."

This scattered picture, thrown in the air, stopped me cold. John Henry Cardinal Newman, a convert to Catholicism, also at Oxford, like Waugh, is a person I've always wanted to know more about. One time in a church bulletin (I was raisedi in the Episcopal Church, in England called Anglican, tho there is now an Anglican movement in the US), and not at all the same thing as Roman Catholicism tho some Anglo Catholics might like to think so.

I hope we have some Roman Catholics among us who will help us understand the several points of Catholicism raised in this story, especially later in the story, but at any rate a quote from Newman appeared, and I pasted it on the fridge. Years later we moved and the movers destroyed it and thanks to this discussion and the fact I read it every day, and remembered a couple of the lines, I found it again, isn't it striking:

God has created me to do Him some definite service; He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to another. I have my mission--I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next. I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught. I shall do good, I shall do His work; I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place, while not intending it, if I do but keep His commandments and serve Him in my calling. Therefore, I will trust Him. Whatever, wherever I am. I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him; in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him. He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends, He may throw me among strangers, He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me--still He knows what He is about. JHN

So when we say "in Newman's Day," it's not just another reference to another famous person, but one, who, like Waugh, was at Oxford did convert to Catholicism, and there are other similarities. I need to read up on Newman, a remarkably handsome man himself.

Change ringing. I once became obsessed with seeing change ringing, does everybody know what it is? It's very hard to even FIND people doing it. In fact I believe there are change ringing societies but very few places left you can even SEE it now.

Bubbles. Can anybody find a copy of this nauseating picture that reminds Anthony of Sebastian's talking?

"A great parti I can assure you." Anthony Blanche about Lord Marchmain. What does this mean?

Did you notice what Anthony implies? "He used to spend such a time in the confessional., I used to wonder what he had to say, because he never did anything wrong...at least, he never got punished. "

But Anthony was dismissed from school. "It was disconcerting to find out how observant that mild old man proved to be. The things he know about me, which I thought no one_except possibly Sebastian_knew. It was a lesson never to trust mild old men_or charming schoolboys; which?"

Is he saying what I think he's saying? He was removed from school because saintly Sebastian ratted?

All Souls. Until I read Charles say "My father in his youth sat for All Souls" I had no idea what it was:

44 All Souls

All Souls is the only college in Oxford which has no undergraduates. All scholars are therefore first-class graduates. Every year graduates compete for two fellowships of seven years_ duration, which may be extended. In _a year of hot competition_ even very good candidates would fail to get a place. There are also elected fellowships awarded to prominent people virtually for life and visiting fellowships awarded for a short period generally to eminent foreigners. Mr Samgrass, who is inflicted on the boys later, is a scholar of All Souls. (Companion) .

Alexandra Cocktails, did you wonder what they were made of?

47 Alexander cocktails

This should be Alexandra cocktails, which is what is printed in the British editions of the novel. To Charles it is a noxious concoction. An Alexandra cocktail consists of equal parts of Tia Maria, Rum, Cream, and Cream of Coconut. Shake with ice and serve.

That's a start for me, what about YOU? I'll be right back with some thoughts on what you've all said, how rich this is!

Diana, Gum, where are the rest of you?? Gum, we're ready for subfusc!!!!

Those of you who don't think Edward Ryder a particularly good father, are there ANY instances of his caring about his son that you can point to?

<b. Ginny Wow! Finally got to look in and read a few of these amazing posts. So much to talk about but where to start...

I knew you wouldn't forget me and Subfusc which as everyone knows simply means 'dull or dreary' though I know a certain Latin teacher will no doubt have the derivation right at her fingertips. When Jasper visits Charles for the 'Great Remonstrance' (beginning of Ch2) Waugh has Jasper wearing his 'subfusc suit and white tie' suggesting at once that Jasper is not only still embroiled with and subdued by examinations but that his personality is of a dull and sombre nature. Subfuscous,in fact! I think the term is pretty obsolete now and would have been on the way out even in Waugh's day but oddly enough I knew an Englishman who used the term frequently during the 1990s He was of that era and somewhat 'upperclass' which might explain it.

Jasper's Great Remonstrance includes: "But you, my dear Charles, whether you realize it or not, have gone straight, hook, line and sinker, into the very worst set in the University"

Earlier, Charles tells us:

"...but I date my Oxford life from my first meeting with Sebastian, which had happened, by chance, in the middle of the term before. We were in different colleges and came from different schools; I might well have spent my three or four years in the University and never have met him, but for the chance of his getting drunk one evening in my college..."

It seems to me that Waugh is showing us how great a part "chance" plays in our lives, chance meetings can often cause or even oblige us to change direction. Charles is looking for somewhere to belong and this chance meeting with Sebastian is the pivot for his new direction towards a place or position where he thinks he can belong even if it is with the "the very worst set in the University'

I'm not sure what Sebastian is seeking. I think he has been badly hurt during childhood (by Mother? or Father?). Aloysius is his security blanket, his alter ego, his only true friend other than Nanny.

Such a complex wonderful novel. What characters! It's worth the read for Anthony alone!

I see Kiwi Lady has expanded on 'come a cropper' The expression is still heard here on occasion. It can be used metaphorically as in suffering a reversal of fortune and as they say 'riding for a fall'or literally as in physically taking risks that could result in accident - a fall, tumble, crash... odd that the neck of a bird is called the 'crop'

We get plovers here at times along the coast. I believe they are migratory birds and fly here from Northern Hemisphere.

It was interesting to read about the arts and crafts decoration. There's been a big resurgence of interest in arts and crafts design in the last few years. Houses built in the 1920's in the A&C motive are all the rage today. Just look at the main characters' house on the TV program "Numbers." LL Bean sells furniture of A&C Mission design. Mica lampshades are popular today. William Morris wallpaper designs are popular again. Here are several examples:

http://www.victoriana.com/directory/histwal.html

http://morris.artpassions.net/

Arts and Crafts furniture, lamps, etc.: http://www.desertcraftsmen.com/

Wow, Marni--mostly I don't mind being of moderate means, but if money were of no object, I would certainly buy some of those magnificent bookcases.

GINNY: "'Is it an accident that Anthony Blanche says to him (Charles), "I should like to stick you fill of barbed arrows like a p-p-pin-cushion?" The link that you gave in the pre-discussion (the companion with 62 pages of explanation for the first chapter alone) explains that. Stupidly, I didn't bookmark it so have lost it, but I skimmed it for Chapter 1. It explained that that is usually considered a reference to the fact that Saint Sebastian was killed by arrows because he refused to submit to the advances of a soldier.

I didn't realize that this book had grabbed me! I found myself wanting to read more and more -- now I'm almost finished. I'm not sure where the fascination comes from.

I've been off the computer for a couple of days, and am astounded at all the great posts I find when I come back!

What makes something "romantic?" In this context, I believe it is the literary style that is referred to..the lyrical descriptions of a youthful Arcadia. The 'rose-colored glasses' syndrome, so to speak.The book is full of this sort of romanticism.

I always thought the Alexander cocktail included chocolate. (Never bold enough to try one, tho' the chocolate part definitely tempted me.) Perhaps that is what makes the difference between Alexander and Alexandra.

I was looking at Anthony's remarks re. Lady Marchmain and Vienna. "She came to all the parties in a sort of cocoon of gossamer, my dear, as though she were part of some Celtic play or a heroine from Maeterlinck; and she would go to church. Well, as you know, Venice is the one town in Italy where no one ever has gone to church.

I have come to the conclusion that his caustic wit is Anthony's entree to the higher social circles. The young men love listening to what they wouldn't dare say themselves, and he knows it. There is likely a grain of truth to his observations, but one can't swallow them whole. Has anyone ever heard of Venice as so pagan a city that "no one ever has gone to church"? We can laugh at Anthony's barbs, but I wouldn't want to make a decision based on what he says.

Babi

Still battling thunderstorms today but I like Daytrippers suggestion of looking at Relationships and so let's do that today (or of course you can continue with any prior or current thing you'd like to address.) On Monday I particularly want to look at the writing, will you please bring here one quote or perhaps two if you can't choose which you thought particularly fine? They need not be "nice" quotes, just a turn of phrase you thought noteworthy.

One nice thing about books is when the thunder is rattling the windows you can still sit down assuming you have light and read, how good it is to read. I've got tons of notes on new things but first, the BEST things, YOUR comments!

As we look at relationships today I can't get over how astute you are. Andrea: Truman Capote, the very like for Anthony Blanche, always with the smart set, tho Capote was not born to it as Anthony was, a little fey, but always, keeping in mind Day Tripper's points on relationships, on the outside.

I nearly fell over with Malryn's Peter Pan image, tho, and of COURSE!!! Of course!!! Fantasy, Charles says it constantly, then riddle me this:

Why did Charles tear UP the letter from Sebastian which was written in the black bordered paper? (Who had died?)

Yes let's talk of relationships today: Charles and Sebastian, (ARE they like two magnetic poles, as Andrea has said?) Charles and his Father, Julia and Sebastian, Anthony and anybody, Sebastian and his mother, Sebastian and Nanny (what a contrast in her rooms and the downstairs? Her rooms are full of souvenirs of childhood), Jasper and Charles, Edward and his brother,

With Sebastian Anthony has found somebody who won't change their opinion of him no matter what, tho?

And Hats what that stunning thought on Sebastian's bear speaking for him, and I loved Glencora's saying he was desperate. They all seem a little desperate, to me, do they to you?

And here's Babi saying much the same thing about Anthony!

I have come to the conclusion that his caustic wit is Anthony's entree to the higher social circles. The young men love listening to what they wouldn't dare say themselves, and he knows it. There is likely a grain of truth to his observations, but one can't swallow them whole.

Isn't that fascinating, I missed that? Remember how the Etonions gathered round to hear the BEAR? You all are really on to something and I missed every bit of it?!

You've all not said much about Charles, nor has anybody mentioned what I guess is THE quote so far:

I could tell him, too, that to know and love one other human being is the root of all wisdom.

Maybe we don't refer to it because Waugh himself called it a sophistry?

But the bear. IS he a conscience? Then we need to watch what happens to him.

Babi mentions the British upper class's idea of sending the boys off to boarding school at 8!!! Didn't Diana rebel against that? What on earth is that supposed to do? Stiff upper lip time?

Kiwi Lady mentions she thinks Sebastian is mad, I think that's a fascinating thought. In what way? Joan G thinks he's depressed and says "of course at that time the British aristocracy would not ever admit there was a real problem there until something that they should would harm their reputation happened," and that, I think, is right on, too.

We'll add romance and satire to the irony and sexuality (that's relationships again)> what DO you see so far in the relationship of Sebastian and Charles? Do you think it's a bit of....irony...that Sebastian and Charles go through the Gate of the Botanical Garden on one of their first times together? That gate in the low wall, perhaps, and Sebastian takes his arm? In the movie, which I have totally put aside for the book, I think in my case that's best, but in the movie, AFTER they go thru the gate, not at the low walls of Merton college, Sebastian takes Charles' arm, and the two of them walk off. I don't know how Anthony Andrews managed it, but he looks for all the world like a 6 year old child, they both do, seen from behind. Platonic love. Charles keeps saying pure.

Let's talk about their relationship today. What sort of relationship can you have with Peter Pan? What sort did the beautiful people have with Truman Capote?

Pedln mentions something I did not pay enough heed to: Charles is broke, from trying to keep up? From financing their excursions? It's fairly plain that Sebastian, like the Royal family, does not carry money about. Good point!

I liked Pat H's thought that a "decent man would not play games with his son." Edward is somewhat of a mystery, isn't he , in his relationship with his son. I can't get over his son saying he has no money and Edward saying,

"Yes? Said my father without any sound of interest.

In fact I don't quite know how I'm going to get through the next two months.

"Well I'm the worst person to come to for advice. I've never been 'short' as you so painfully call it. And yet what else could you say? Hard up? Penurious? Distressed? Embarrassed? Stony-broke?' (snuffle). 'On the rocks? In Queer Street? Let us say you are in Queer Street and leave it at that. Your grandfather once said to me, 'Live within your means but if you do get into difficulties, come to me'....Such a lot of nonsense."

Charles has not come to his father for advice, he's come for money. Edward recognizes in this section the problem and how important it is by the words he uses above. His own father told Edward if you get into difficulties come to me.

But what help does he offer his son?

I want to say more about Edward Ryder but I am afraid of tiring your eyes, let's plump one way or the other about him and discuss ALL the relationships today!

Marni raised another important issue: "I wonder what the percentage of Catholics were?" I should think extremely small, does anybody have any figures for that era? I was surprised to find them in possession of the family seat, to be honest, but again Lord Marchmain converted for the....blood sucking Maman. It's, I thought, usually Church of England all the way? Correct me if wrong?

Good point on the "private servant," Babi, I did not know that!

Good points Marni and Malryn on how we MEET Sebastian first.

Jane mentioned also the drinking before Oxford, but would we say at this point he has a problem? Don't they say tho that the earlier a person begins drinking the more severe the problem is likely to be in older age? Or is that bosh? More!!.............

Mrs. Sherlock has said we're raising our IQ here, I know I am, thank you Joan G for the definition of episcene, neither male nor female, nothing whatsoever as I imagined, so I looked up internecine and it also was nothing like I imagined, it means mutually destructive

I wonder what else here is internecine?

Gum!!! THERE you are!! Are you serious? We all know? I had never heard of subfusc, thank you and subfusculous is not even in my dictionary! Sounds like a disease! Hahahaha

So naturally I looked up scrofulous which is also a disease, Boy looked scrofulous which is a swelling of the lymph notes of the neck.

Of all the names in the book, tho "Boy" has got to be on the top. I really want to know, is it in the Companion? Perhaps I have not come to it yet or skimmed over it, why he's called BOY? Does this imply his own father couldn't be bothered to learn his name? Is this common?

Marni thank you so much for that link to arts and crafts, Morris is becoming so IN now one wonders how one missed him, I want those bookcases, too!

Oh Joan K, GOOD point!!! Everybody the Companion to Brideshead, which explains a LOT of background stuff is in the heading. If you click on Links in the heading you'll find it and a lot of other great stuff, but GOOD POINT Joan K, on "it explained that that is usually considered a reference to the fact that Saint Sebastian was killed by arrows because he refused to submit to the advances of a soldier. "

The Companion itself is like a book, so everybody please do bring stuff here from it, reading IT is another good discussion, and we will need it for all the Catholic liturgical references. I missed the REASON. Saints are usually martyred for a cause having to do with God not stuff of the flesh. Somewhere on the Internet is the Catholic Encyclopedia, if somebody has time, read up on St. Sebastian? GOOD point, resisting advances, good point.

I loved this, tho I'm not sure where the fascination comes from. hahaa it really DOES grab you doesn't it?

The surprising thing to me is that no matter how many times you read it or see the movie there's something new at every turn, something new to see and marvel at. I bet I have read the first three chapters (but strangely, NOT the Prologue), 6 times, and am still finding stuff, I just found an ELECTRIC thing about the title?!?@?

Let's talk about Relationships:

Saturday: Relationships

Let's look at the relationships of all the characters to each other today (or anything else you'd want to add).

Charles and Sebastian, (ARE they like two magnetic poles, as Andrea has said?) Charles and his Father, Julia and Sebastian, Anthony and anybody, Sebastian and his mother, Sebastian and Nanny (what a contrast in her rooms and the downstairs? Her rooms are full of souvenirs of childhood), Jasper and Charles, Edward and his brother. Some possible jumping off places:

"Such a lot of nonsense."

1. Charles explains to his father over dinner that he's run short of money:

"Yes? Said my father without any sound of interest.

In fact I don't quite know how I'm going to get through the next two months.

"Well I'm the worst person to come to for advice. I've never been 'short' as you so painfully call it. And yet what else could you say? Hard up? Penurious? Distressed? Embarrassed? Stony-broke?" (snuffle). "On the rocks? In Queer Street? Let us say you are in Queer Street and leave it at that. Your grandfather once said to me, 'Live within your means but if you do get into difficulties, come to me'....Such a lot of nonsense."

What is your reaction to this scene? What does Edward Ryder offer his son? Do you approve or disapprove of his style of parenting? What of "if your son ask you for bread will you give him a stone?"

2. Why did Charles tear UP the letter from Sebastian which was written in the black bordered paper? (Who had died?)

3. "Well, darling, I've collected your chum," she said, again with a barely perceptible note of contempt.

4. "She sucks their bood. You can see the tooth marks all over Adrian Porson's shoulders when he is bathing. And he, my dear, was the greatest, the only poet of our time. He's bled dry; there's nothing left of him....They never escape once she's had her teeth into them. It is witchcraft. There's no other explanation."

5. What kind of relationship can anybody have with Peter Pan? What sort of relationship did Truman Capote have with the beautiful people of his day?

There are certain Dukes in England who are and have always been catholic.. I think the Duke of Norfolk is one, but I would have to check that. They stayed catholic way back with Henry VIII.. They maintained a very very low profile and the priests were hidden by them for a long time. Brought out when Mary reigned, but returned to hiding during Elizabeth.So I suspect that this family has always been catholic. Charles sounds just childish enough that his father may have had a point. He would not starve. Would have a place to sleep and eat.. But no money until the next term. I think that if his father had come up with money, that Charles would have spent more and more and more. He seems to need desperately to be liked and is willing to use money to do it.

Stephanie: Your point about Charles needing to be liked and using money made me look at that issue again. Maybe he feared that without money he wouldn't be "there"? Not sure how secure his position was, but money was an entree that had proven itself. And his father's refusal to acknowledge his need was reinforcement of the power of money, his lack reflecting his impotence. His vulnerability, putting himself in the position where his father could sneer at him. He was paying a high price for his addiction.

Stephanie said "I think that if his father had come up with money, that Charles would have spent more and more and more."

I totally agree with this. Edward may have been somewhat in seclusion still mourning for his dead wife, but he saw his son was spending wildly. I don't think he would have done his son a good deed by continuing to give him more money at this point. He made his son face the music. I call this "tough love."

--------------------------------------------

Didn't Anthony (or someone) tell Charles that Sebastian's mother was Catholic? If he pointed out that the mother was Catholic, to me it sounds like the father was not. I think the Catholic Church expects its members to raise their children as Catholics. I know this happened to my sister, who is Protestant, who married a Catholic. She had great pressure on her to raise her children as Catholics and she did without converting herself.

Maybe their differences of religion had something to do with the failing of the relationship between Sebastian's father and mother?

There was an old chapel in Sebastian's house, but that doesn't mean it had been built for a Catholic. Don't Anglicans use chapels, too? I was married in a chapel, a non-denominational chapel.

Well I have not had much to say here. However I have almost finished the book. I just have a few pages to go. I felt much like JoanK in that I would find myself wondering why I was reading this book. I detest the characters and really don't know what it is that keeps me reading but I have kept right on reading.

I will not say anything much now as I don't want to be a spoiler. I will say that I think Charles' father is one the worst examples of a father that I have ever seen. I don't think he cares about anything but himself. That does not mean that I think that he should have doled out money to Charles. I don't think that at all but he just does not seem to care at all about anyone but himself.

Joan Grimes

I have finished the book. I think I am obsessed. I am now ordering the DVD and can hardly wait until it gets here.

Joan Grimes

Relationships: Sebastian and Charles.

As this book progresses it will be hard to continue thinking that Sebastian is not an alcoholic. There is often a pattern to the behavior of alcoholics, and what Waugh describes of the close friendship, even dependency, between Sebastian and Charles could be seen as part of this pattern.

Alcoholics seek out other alcoholics to drink with -- "It takes one to know one." Or they look for people they recognize as "enablers." These enablers do not criticize the drinking of alcoholics or the jams it can get them into, and often provide them with liquor or the means to get it.

In Charles, Sebastian has found someone who fills the bill on both counts. He's not an alcoholic, but he likes to drink. He enables Sebastian's drinking ( and some of his Peter Pan tendencies ) and protects them, in a way.

It's a beautiful "marriage", or will be until someone or something steps in to spoil it, and someone or something usually does.

If I sound as if I know what I'm talking about, I do.

Mal

I approve of Edward's refusal to hand over more money to Charles; I agree it was a wise decision. What I didn't like was the incessant sniping, his 'rubbing it in', his hints that he would be pleased if Charles would go away. Not good.

Why did Charles tear UP the letter from Sebastian which was written in the black bordered paper? (Who had died?)

Nobody had died; Sebastian was just using some paper he found to complain about how bored he was. And there was Charles, tied down at home, longing for an invitation to visit Sebastian, reading the only communication he had received from his great chum. To me, tearing up that letter was a 'to hell with you!' response. Which lasted, of course, only until Sebastian finally asked him to come.

GINNY, someone else brought up the subject of the upper class British sending their sons off to school at an early age. I wasn't me. But whoever it was, they were quite right, and I have always felt it was a major factor in the somewhat cold and aloof facade that seems to typify many of the men of that class. Children should not have to start shielding themselves, away from the comfort and advice of their parents, at so early an age.

Babi

RE: Alcoholics: Some of them have difficulty with intimacy, they are locked behind closed doors, and alcohol allows them to break out. Their drinking companions become bosum buddies, not only because of the shared bond of fellow drinkers but because intimacy, however fleeting, can form. It is sad to realize that the drunk behavior of a loved one is preferable to the sober, the openness can be very appealing. These glimpses can keep one in a relationship long after its shelf-life. Another facet of the enabling half of the dyad.

Thank you Babi, so sorry. (I have a long history of misattributing things to poor Babi, and she says enough great stuff on her own! Hahahaa) It's like a Divining Rod: Blame Babi! Hahahaa

At any rate, that quote printed out on a new page and would you believe it's NOT among my printed pages! So fess up, who was it who said they are sent away at 8 and stay for 13 years?

Going crazy trying to see who it was? Thank you for such a memorable point! hahahaha

NB: I am also finding that my subscriptions have missed HALF of your posts, so please be sure to hit Printer Friendly in the top right of the page to see the last posts and you won't miss out a thing of these great remarks!

But today you've raised some interesting points about the relationships, of all the characters.

Joan G oh if you ever start with the film you'll NEVER come out of Wonderland.

I like your thought about Edward only cares for himself.

Let's study who Charles cares for, too, today; I'm noticing things about him I never saw.

Ginger, what interesting looking eggs, no wonder they recognized them! Have never seen one, thank you.

Marni, yes it's an RC chapel. It has a bowl of holy water at the entrance, it was "papa's wedding present to mama," (and in the movie these are pronounced like the French paPA and maMA, not as we know them). But it's not until the next chapters, that we'll see that when the Bishop wants to close the chapel, one of the reasons is "It's not as if we were old Catholics with everyone on the estate coming to mass." (There aren't enough people to warrant it staying open.) Somewhere they talk in the new section which of course we have not discussed yet about the number of Rosaries said their daily, it's definitely RC. But it's not in our current material!!!

Stephanie, good one on the Duke of Norfolk, but it seems there has not been a Catholic Duke of Norfolk since the mid 1860's and even then it was a scratchy history.

1. This is the last one: Henry Fitzalan (1847_), son. Succeeded in 1860.

You remember then the Duke of Norfolk from the Elizabeth I and Henry VIII reigns? Good one.

I would imagine that Catholics in the House of Lords (there's one bit in the Catholic Encyclopedia where it appears laws had to be changed, and quite late, to allow Catholics to sit in the hosue of Lords if I'm reading that correctly?) were few and far between in the late '20's and '30's.

Also from this same source (which we are going to desperately need in the next chapters), the Catholic Encyclopedia comes this background on St. Sebastian:

St. Sebastian

Roman martyr; little more than the fact of his martyrdom can be proved about St. Sebastian. In the "Depositio martyrum" of the chronologer of 354 it is mentioned that Sebastian was buried on the Via Appia. St. Ambrose ("In Psalmum cxviii"; "Sermo", XX, no. sliv in PL, XV, 1497) states that Sebastian came from Milan and even in the time of St. Ambrose was venerated there. The Acts, probably written at the beginning of the fifth century and formerly ascribed erroneously to Ambrose, relate that he was an officer in the imperial bodyguard and had secretly done many acts of love and charity for his brethren in the Faith. When he was finally discovered to be a Christian, in 286, he was handed over to the Mauretanian archers, who pierced him with arrows; he was healed, however, by the widowed St. Irene. He was finally killed by the blows of a club. These stories are unhistorical and not worthy of belief. The earliest mosaic picture of St. Sebastian, which probably belongs to the year 682, shows a grown, bearded man in court dress but contains no trace of an arrow. It was the art of the Renaissance that first portrayed him as a youth pierced by arrows. In 367 a basilica which was one of the seven chief churches of Rome was built over his grave. The present church was completed in 1611 by Scipio Cardinal Borghese. His relics in part were taken in the year 826 to St. Medard at Soissons. Sebastian is considered a protector against the plague. Celebrated answers to prayer for his protection against the plague are related of Rome in 680, Milan in 1575, and Lisbon in 1599. His feast day is 20 January.

In connection with this I liked Daytripper's:

'Is it an accident that Anthony Blanche says to him (Charles), "I should like to stick you fill of barbed arrows like a p-p-pin-cushion?" All I could think of when I saw that was the Catacombs of St. Sebastian in Rome where the saint is shown full of barbed arrows in one of many famous renditions of his death. I wonder if that name will have any significance.'

Whatever did he mean by saying that? Is it a tease? They've both taken a liking to Charles, and a rivalry for his friendship is inevitable. Each wants Charles for himself. Are the arrows a threat? Or is Anthony being used prophetically to indicate Sebastian's martyrdom at the hands of his family. Anthony would have known of the scene in the Catacombs.

Malryn and Mrs. Sherlock, yes, I agree, in this next section particularly we'll see Sebastian AS an alocholic with an interesting explanation of what HE seeks from Charles. I'm going to, later today, after everybody leaves, the family is coming here for lunch, talk about Charles himself, and his relationship with his father, but will somebody please explain this, it will help me?

Charles about his father:

...

....his thoughts, I knew, were far away, in those distant ages where he moved at ease, where time passed in centuries and all the figures were defaced and the names of his companions were corrupt readings of words of quite other meaning.

What is Charles saying? I think this is the age old conflict between Fathers and Sons as Turgenev would say. I think the "battle" as Charles sees it...well... I agree more with Marni I think here about Charles' father, but I have to wait till later today, I've been thinking on the Puzzle of Edward Ryder for some time, IF he's being faithfully recorded, that is.

What IS CHARLES saying (he's the narrator, we should not forget, it's HIS eyes here) about his father and how has his father disappointed him in other ways?

Why is Charles reading Sebastian's private letters, by the way, which he finds in his room the morning after Charles' dinner with Anthony Blanche?

Ginny - you ask:What is Charles saying about his father?

"...his thoughts, I knew were far away, in those distant ages where he moved at ease, where time passed in centuries and all the figures were defaced and the names of his companions were corrupt readings of words of quite another meaning"

I read this as Charles recognising that his father's mind was on the things which occupied him when alone (most of the time). Isn't Edward a Classicist, immersed in antiquity to the point of collecting pieces.Perhaps he wasn't quite the scholar he purported to be. I think Edward buries himself in his studies so that he needn't face a present in which his late wife has no part.Edward lives in his own world and I think that Charles is aware that he has disturbed his father's equilibrium by his visit. Another character damaged by his past perhaps.

But I'm rather sympathetic to Edward. I think he is secretly pleased to see Charles and have him at home but doesnt know how to show it or how to deal with Charles as a young man except of course, not to give him any more money to fritter away - he's trying to teach him a lesson. He does offer to provide whatever Charles requires while at home and takes the trouble to arrange the dinner party to break the monotony and realises afterwards what a fiasco it had been.

At least Edward does have a sense of humour - I love the bit about the cousin Melchior who was "imprudent with his investments and got into very queer street. He went to Australia" ..."(and) worked his passage to Australia before the mast " Odd he landed in Darwin though. And then there's the bit about whether Charles had been smitten by either Gloria Orme-Herrick (of the moustache and large feet)or Constantia Smethwick. Lovely stuff!

And as you point out, just what was Charles doing reading Sebastian's letters? Such an invasion of privacy from a seemingly well-brought up young man! Is this a character trait in Charles or simply idle boredom as he waits for Sebastian's return.Was it a common practice for these men to pry into their friends affairs like that? Either way I don't like it.

Gumtree I think you are right about Edward as I feel the same way about him.

Charles was reading Sebastian's letters to find out about Sebastian and his other friends I think but he certianly should not have done it. I don't like it either.

The reason Charles was reading Sebastian's letters is suggested by his remark to S. at the end of the chapter, after S. comes back.

"Do you know he (Anthony) spent the whole of yesterday evening trying to turn me against you, and almost succeeded?"

Charles has suddenly been filled with doubts about his friend, and is trying to quiet his uneasiness.

Pat H Your right thanks for letting me know.

In my opinion, this book is about change and loss.

"The Way We Were".

The way things were.

They'll never be the same again, and neither will we.

Who died? Nobody died. The black coroneted and bordered letter from Sebastian signifies a loss of innocence, I believe. It is an announcement of the end of childhood.

Mal

Gum, I agree with you and Ginger about Edward. I particularly liked this of yours: I think Edward buries himself in his studies so that he needn't face a present in which his late wife has no part Or in which HE has no part? See below for how I agree.

I think here are we seeing ER escaping?

Pat, that's in character I think, I think you are right, and it's interesting in how that distrust will be paralled by Sebastian, who, at this point doesn't seem to have many doubts about anything, does he?

But I really want to throw in Maman, here, quickly, even tho we have not seen her in action, because of one tiny thing Anthony Blanche says, " She sucks their blood" (Chapter II).

In the wonderful audio interview in the heading with the Professor of English and the Catholic Writers Series, the fellow says he is hard pressed to find any fault with saintly Ma Marchmain.

But when Charles says why don't you ask your mother for a proper allowance, Sebastian replies "Oh mummy likes everything to be a present. She's so sweet."

When Charles has done a drawing at Sebastian's request, he says why don't you give it to your mother, "Give it to nanny," he said, and Charles did and it went up on top of the mantel with the other things the children had brought her: no mention of Lady Marchmain's mantel, so far anyway.

Still this is as we've had explained here, not particularly odd. Then Anthony says that Adrian Porson, the only poet of our time, is "bled dry. There's nothing left of him."

And this made me stop. Lots of stops. I wonder if you've ever met anybody like this? Sort of a black hole? I don't know how to describe them, really. You can be in the best of moods, and you can talk to them cheerfully, say, on the phone, and you can say nothing but positive things, but it seems the more you talk the more depressed they get, or the more ruin they see in what you said, or something till when you're through you're drained and ready to fall over, yourself. I have a feeling that's what she's like, and that's not particularly saint like.

But back to Charles and his father. An apologia for Edward Ryder, here's MY 2 cents and evidence.

ER was advised by the Warden at the Athenaeum to give "three hundred a year; on no account give him more; that's all most men have."

But his father, realizing how important money will be, has given him almost double: 550. For the year.

Charles, having spent the money on Sebastian, feels now "something not far from remorse for the prodigality of the preceding weeks."

So here's your 19 year old son come home for the summer, and do I understand this is NOT his first summer at home? This is not 2007 where 30 year olds regularly live at home, which apparently to Edward Ryder at least was not done; you can see that in his asking what are your plans? We used to go on "reading parties," and immersed in his latest purchase, has forgotten the time of his son's arrival! He's provided liberally, his son is welcome in his house to stay as long as he wants, but I don't think that he's going to dole out any more money fondly or otherwise. He says ask Hayter for what you'd like to drink and he'll get it for you. He says I'll go with you one night and we'll sit in the crow's nest and enjoy the theater.

When asked what he should do, ER says your cousin went to Australia. In other words, you should think of something creative or get a job, yourself. After this episode Charles delivers himself of this uncharitable remark: "...his thoughts, I knew, were far away, in those distant ages where he moved at ease, where time passed in centuries and all the figures were defaced and the names of his companions were corrupt readings of words of quite other meaning.

I agree, Gum, that ER is a Classicist, but it would appear that his son, at least, does not have much respect for either the field OR his father's scholarship: that's quite damming, to me. How do the rest of you see it?

But either way we can see ER escaping, to the world of the past, where he's comfortable, to his own company, to the library and his own world. IS he batty since his wife died? I don't think so, he's not an emotional man: he's happiest working with the ancients, and you can see that clearly in his discourse on Queer Street? That's SO like, Waugh must have known at least one. I don't think he would have been any different had she lived, he'd have let her fill in. But he's polite. When his son says SURELY you don't want me here all summer~!?! He says "I trust I should not betray such an emotion even if I felt it."

IF Charles had had all the money in the world I doubt he would have sought out his father's company, and I expect his father is aware of it. I see nothing whatsoever of what he can do for his aging father, no interest in sharing his interests, all I see is him wanting more money and resenting that the old man won't cough up.

HE invited company to his father's house!! Then he seems startled when his father lets him know he's not going to win this silly game, it's his house. Charles is the one speaking of battles, weapons, menace, malice, and at the same time saying his father is "mild." And that he "fought for the sheer love of a battle in which indeed he shone."

Why should there BE a battle? Why is Charles not out earning money? They're not upper crust to whom the very idea is anathema, like Sebastian. The fate of Aunt Phillipa has nothing to do with him, imagine ER being beset with an aunt moving IN? Nah, that's not going to happen and why should it?

I think his father tries to give him good advice in his hilarious reasons why he should not be going to see Sebastian in his extremity: he does not think Sebastian is ill, Charles has not taken holy orders, he's had no medical training, why on earth should he be summoned at once? Does he hope for a legacy (that's nasty). I'm not saying ER is not nasty on occasion but it's perfectly clear that Charles would rather be anywhere but with him, and can't wait to go.

It's nothing whatsoever like I would want and certainly nothing anything like what I'd do with my own sons, but this is a different time and generation, and I have known people like ER. It's classic Fathers and Sons of another era. Look at Lord Marchmain and Bridey who won't even go see him. It's like today you need $20,000 for a school term and you're given $40,000 and then you run thru it, move back home, offer nothing whatsoever in the way of help, or offer to get a job, or you even carry your own book to the table to show annoyance and then get angry when the person who is giving you hospitality in the first place, instead of remonstrating with you (and thus losing face), decides to show YOU who is actually boss.

I expect ER loves Charles as much as he possibly can given his own limitations, which do seem severe, but at the same time, I don't see him as an ogre, I think Charles has slanted this JUST a tad to make him seem more strange than he actually is.

Note that the guests "had been carefully chosen for my discomfort." I mean REALLY, who are we saying is self centered here? If it's OK for Charles to invite Jorkins for a reason (what reason?) why should it not be OK for ER to invite his own acquaintences in an effort to provide entertainment so Charles would not be "dull."

In the first bit which I originally thought nasty, where ER says to Charles, I know how important advice can be; I have none for you. I thought "that's mean." But on second read I see him saying, somewhere that HE was advised by his cousin Alfred to always wear a tall hat on Sundays during term. And he DID. He admits he never saw anything different between men who did and men who did not but "I always wore mine."

In other words I did what I was advised and I'm not going to encumber you with such stupid advice: it did nothing but I did do what I was told.

Note that he ignores his older brother's advice when Jasper writes him that Charles is profligate and in with the worst set in the University (tho this might have caused some of what we're seeing), and Charles puts it down to they had not gotten along in 60 years, and partly because as Jasper said he had lived in his own world since Charles' mother died.

No matter what world he lives in, what's he supposed to do with the report that his son is in with the worst set, that he's spending too much, and here he comes back home saying he's broke, with no explanation, no nothing.

I am not seeing Charles helping ER here, in any way come out of that world. I don't think the entire fault is ER's, it may be the age's, I do know people like ER.

You have to wonder what would have happened if Charles' mother were still alive. Oh but she escaped, too, didn't she? I have to feel some compassion for ER.

But that's how I see it, what do I know, what do YOU think? Have you never really known anybody like ER?

Sorry, Malryn, we were posting together.

Change and loss of innocence, yes! And they both apply to most of the book. And RESISTANCE to change?

But now to have black bordered paper, SOMEBODY had to have died. I was wondering if the person who died might come up in the next chapters...Metaphorically innocence definitely is dying, page by page, I agree with that one!! (How did you enjoy your film weekend?)

In part the black bordered paper is an example of Sebastian's personal style. It's a very elaborate, very out of date example of stuffy, outdated conventions, and S. finds it stylistically amusing. It's also a symbol of loss--S. says it represents the death of his innocence, and it probably stands for more to come.

The letter typifies his relationship to Charles. He can probably guess how desperate Charles is for relief, but he only writes when he feels like it and doesn't offer C. his hospitality. Later, when he needs company, he does invite Charles down. (In fairness, I think he really doesn't want to get Charles involved with his family, and only asks him down when he can have Charles to himself.)

There was a hint in the link that Anthony Blanche was a real person, so I googled him. According to Wickopedia, the character was widely assumed to be based on a man named Harold Acton:

HAROLD ACTON: IS THIS ANTHONY BLANCHE?

but Waugh said the character was based on this man, Brian Howard:

BRIAN HOWARD: OR IS THIS??

Sounds like a no-brainer to me!

3) the entrainment of hormone cycles in couples (Persky, et al. 1977), and perhaps in homosexual men (Henderson, 1976) or in homosexual women (Sanders & Reinisch, 1990), may be explained either by mammalian male or by mammalian female pheromone production; [para 12]

Big article on Human Pheromones for those interested.

Black Bordered Paper: Sebastian is so intent on his inner needs that externals are simply not relevant. So, he needs towrite to Charles. First, he grabs whatever is in the drawer. No, that doesnt make sense. He uses the black bordered paper, which every well-stocked house has waiting for when it is needed, and whines to Charles: "I...I...I...". Charles, feeling needy himself, is po'd and tears the letter to pieces. BTW, I mentioned the practice of sending children of 8 off to boatding school. Helps explain the bonds between fellow sufferers and the reverence for the Old Boys who prove that one does survive.

Whew... sick for one day and I staggered through a whole bunch of entrees.. I was struck by the Mummy does not give allowances.. In other words you are at her mercy..And Dad does not give at all or am I missing something about Dad..

"..he is hard pressed to find any fault with saintly Ma Marchmain."

I think 'saintly' is a clue here, GINNY. And 'Ma' likes everything to be a present, so she doesn't give him an allowance. In other words, he has to come to her for everything. Lady Marchmain appears to be of impecaable character, and 'sweet'. But,..have you ever noticed how difficult it can be living with a saint? You either adore them or avoid them.

I was interested in Sebastians remark about sister Julia. "I don't think she cares for anyone much." Then he says he loves her, because she is so much like himself. He then explains further, "In looks I mean and the way she talks. I wouldn't love anyone with a character like mine."

Sebastian does not approve of himself. Low self-esteem, drinks too much. It does not bode well for our Sebastian.

Babi

Last Day of this Section!

Today is the last day of this first week's session, so it's open season, bring anything you'd like to comment on so far AND/ OR an example of writing that struck you!

Oh good points, Babi, and Julia herself seems quite strange, to me, and uncaring, she barely contains her contempt, wonder why? I thought she was quite nasty in saying Charles was the very last choice, she need not have said that, she's quite....not nice, to me, or a flighty upper class twit? hahaha OOPS? hahahaa

Yes the saintly Lady Marchmain whose husband left her. Interesting bunch of characters and situations we have here, isn't it? I agree it does not bode well, maybe for...let's see at the end for whom?

Pat I thought your points on the black paper, "It's also a symbol of loss," and Sebastian's relationship to Charles, "The letter typifies his relationship to Charles. He can probably guess how desperate Charles is for relief, but he only writes when he feels like it and doesn't offer C. his hospitality," are super. I do think there is symbolism in this, I hope to see it with everybody's help.

And Jackie, I agree, too with your explanations and I liked the emphasis on "I."

"I, I, I, " but Charles should not be surprised? The very first time he met Sebastian it was I (I am now throwing up). I send flowers but I write my note on YOUR expensive paper. The first time you do come to lunch, I, Sebastian, make a speech about how there are two plover's eggs over, I feel drugged and in a dream, "Please don't wake me up." No hello. It's quite striking, in the film.

It's I I I all the way. I must say I'm beginning to wonder if Charles is more led by his own fantasies than not. But who is not?

Joan K, that's fascinating, that people would think it was Harold Acton (the Italian connection?) but Waugh says it was Brian Howard. Yes I can see that, too, but in this book where things are seldom what they really seem, you have to wonder if perhaps, (just perhaps) Waugh is pulling our own legs. I do. Thank you for that!

Ginger, thank you for that scientific background, pheromones are really getting a lot of attention, especially (believe it or not) in TREES!

Good point Stephanie, so sorry you have been ill, on Sebastian and all of them in her family are at Mummy's discretion. In that Charles and Sebastian are both the same, aren't they? Lord Marchmain seems a shadowy figure at present, we don't know what he will give except he seems to have given away Brideshead to her.

Oh speaking of that, I want to mention a snide little swipe of Waugh's which I think I see, see below!

I'm glad it seems like a lot of entries, (I expect I am being too wordy, I'm sorry, please be as wordy as you all like) because I've been wondering where everybody IS~! Ollie Ollie Oxen FREEE, come on in, there are no right or wrong answers, there's a companion which may or may not explain a point or two accurately which you can check if you absolutely want to, if not, not, come on down.

Some things that struck me in this section we have not covered:

Brideshead, the name. I guess I've been reading too many books about Afghanistan where the groom is to produce the bloody cloth the morning after the wedding night (sorry, but that's what happens there) and that hit me quite strongly in the title. BRIDESHEAD.

Waugh, however explains that there's a stream called the Bride, which is truly one of several apparently streams in England, so all's well and one wonders where one's mind is and then one sees again in the very same paragraph about the Bride's head, but leading it, as if he can't help it, he tucks this in, "the ground led, still unravished to the neighbourly horizon, and between us flowed a stream--it was named the Bride, ..."

Unravished. I really don't think that's a mistake. It's innocence lost all the way, even to the title of the house, or so I think. Did the Companion take that up?

Roger Fry with a Provencal landscape (the screen deposed of once Charles sees Bridehead, everything in his rooms seems "jejune.")

According to the Companion, Roger Fry and his Vision and Design and McKnight Kauffer were particular disgusts of Waughs, and thus he neatly disposes of them as unlearned and "jejune." Snuffle. Hahaah LOVE it.

I love the Companion to Brideshead simply because it puts us all on the same background level playing field, I love that.

IF you want to read it. If you don't, don't, but we've all got the background there, instantly. I love that aspect of this discussion. I am learning SO much as you see the nuances like Pat did with the black bordered paper, so much clearer than I do.

Thank you Jackie, I am glad to finally learn who it was, that did not print at all!!!!! The last part did but the first did not!?!

A couple of other things struck me. Several references to "till Tom stops ringing," and Tom of course is the huge bell in the belltower in the gate of Christ Church College,

shown here from their brochure in 2003. The photo is taken from the inside of the quadrangle, with your back to "Mercury," the fountain. The classrooms range all around this quadrangle. The bell tolls every night at 9:05, 101 times for the original 101 students when Henry VIII set it up, took it over from Cardinal Wolsey.

They close that huge gate and you canNOT get out. Even if you have come for a concert they close the GATE shown here, and you can go out the monitored entrance by the Cathedral which is about 1/2 mile away, but you can't get OUT of the gate. Some of us oldsters raised the most awful row after a concert in the crypt, and the gate warden, (I've forgotten what they're called, they do have a title) (they dress quite strikingly, it's a suit but it's striking) opened the gate (the small personnel one cut in the mammoth door) but not without dire warnings not to do it again. You are supposed to wear a badge but they get to where they recognize you. I have to admit it was a thrill to ponce on in while groups of people stared, if there is any function at all going on they close it to the public. I must admit that was a vicarious thrill.

Here is the Great Hall where you take your meals, or Harry Potter Dining Room where they filmed the first Harry Potter movie

. (Oh dear I did promise not to talk about this. Hahaha) The paintings on the wall are the former heads of Christ Church and you can't see it but one of them has a white background and really sticks out. They say the new head of the college will move it when his portrait goes up.

What you can't see is to get here you have to climb up no end of marble staircases to even get TO the antechamber and the dining hall.

Another thing you may know, I don't, is the reference to Brideshead's dome: "The dome was false" (like the rest?) "designed to be seen from below like the cupolas of Chambord."

I've been to Chambord and about all I remember of it other than the gigantic castle like place and the spectacular grounds and having ice cream in the pleached alley, was them saying it was SO big it was not habitable. Nobody could live in it. I don't remember why. It could not be heated? Or?

Does anybody know more about this reference to Chambord?

What's la fatigue du Nord?"

I think I've pretty much quoted all the things which struck me as to writing but one, but what struck YOU?

I liked this one, I thought it was very evocative:

We stopped at an inn, which was half farm also, and ate eggs and bacon, picked walnuts and cheese, and drank our beer in a sunless parlour where an old clock ticked in the shadows and a cat slept by the empty grate.

I like that. It immediately called to mind a similar place last spring in Greece, right down to the cat and the grate and the pickles. But it also calls to mind darkened farm houses in England, this is good writing, I thought. The first sandwich I ever had in England was "cheese and pickle," and what do you think the pickle was? It's sort of a ...chutney, it's dark and quite sour and is applied liberally to the piece of cheese on the bread. Branson's makes it and you can get it bottled, sort of like mince meat without the meat or suet, I love it.

I liked this, too:

Your present get-up seems an unhappy compromise between the correct wear for a theatrical party at Maidenhead and a glee-singing competition in a garden suburb.

Hahaha OUCH, there is a little of Anthony Blanche in Waugh I think? Hahahaa

Did you have any writing you particularly were taken with or what thoughts do you have today in our last bit here in Part I?

Ginny, thank you so much for sharing the beautiful photographs. This is wonderful.

Thank you Hats, so good to see you here again!

Finally checking into this lively discussion again ... over 70 posts to read to catch up, or not to catch up ...

I think there may be significance in the way Charles talks about the Julia/Sebastian resemblance: (pg. 75-76)
She so much resembled Sebastian that, sitting beside her, ... I was confused by the double
illusion of familiarity and strangeness.
... dark hair scarcely longer than Sebastians's ... blew back from her forehead as his did ...
I felt her to be especially female as I had felt of no woman before.

Was Charles unable to be aroused by a woman before Julia? Do you think his emotion was due to her reminding him of Sebastian? And is any of this supposed to give us a clue to what is going to happen later?

Such a lot to read! I was away for the weekend. My little grandson was having friends to sleepover on Saturday night and the adults were having a dinner guest so I did not take my book with me. I have spent the morning reading to catch up today.

ER - A sensible man. He is indeed attempting to teach Charles the value of money. He already gave Charles twice the amount of money the average undergraduate received as an allowance. If Charles spent it all, well that is just too bad. Charles will have to learn the hard way that money does not grow on trees and that he should budget his spending money. He does not appreciate how fortunate he is.

When I said Sebastian was mad it was a little bit of an exaggeration. To qualify my statement I should say I think Sebastian is emotionally retarded. I think the lack of parental affection and his fixation with his Nanny may be the root of the matter. His Nanny continues to treat all her ex charges like children. Sebastian has transferred the affection a child would normally have for their mother or grandmother to his Nanny. Prince Charles adored his Nanny. He apparently bought her a retirement home and continued to take tea with her once a week for her lifetime. He also insisted that she sit at the front of the church at his wedding to Lady Diana Spencer. The remoteness of the aristocracy from their children ( until fairly recent times) is the reason so many of this class were attached so firmly to their Nannies.

I see the main characters in this novel as over indulged and under supervised if you know what I mean. They think they are entitled to indulge in any excess regardless of whether it will hurt others or themselves. I have to say in real life I have no time for this type of person.

I am enjoying this book again because it is many years since I read it. I intend to get the DVD when the discussion is over.

Carolyn

Julia and Sebastian must have listened to the same blow-by-blow account that the reader gets earlier in the chapter. Julia has a wonderful response:

'He sounds a perfect poppet,' said Julia.

My dictionary says poppet is a term of endearment. We don't know Julia well enough to assume we know what she means by that. These people are all so clever at expressing themselves. I thought Charles' father was a wonderful character, and he did try to engage his son in matters other than money.

'There) He stood in the hall with his Panama hat still on his head and beamed at me. "You'll never guess how I have spent the day; I have been to the Zoo. It was most agreeable; the animals seem to enjoy the sunshine so much." '

Charles makes no comment on Julia's remark, as he does about other things she says. Twice he observes about something she has said:

'I heard, or thought I heard, a tiny note of contempt in her voice...'

' "Well, darling, (to Sebastian) I've collected your chum," she said, again with a barely perceptible note of contempt.'

Of course, Charles is extemely sensitive in every situation. 'The dinner table was our battlefield.' And everything his father says is listened to with the fear of hearing something 'menacing' or 'a challenge to myself.'

Sure, there is something about Julia that awakens strange feelings in Charles. 'It was the first time in my life...and as I took the cigarette from my lips and put it in hers, I caught a thin bat's squeak of sexuality, inaudible to any but me.' Not exactly purple prose, but it sounds promising.

"the ground led, still unravished to the neighbourly horizon, and between us flowed a stream--it was named the Bride, ..."

I don't think that Charles is thinking erotic thoughts as he contemplates the landscape around Brideshead. It must be a relief to him that the unsightliness of urban sprawl has not reached this pleasant place, which he found so deplorable in the neighborhood of the army camp in the prologue. Charles likes the beautiful:

'We dined in a room they called "the Painted Parlour." It was a spacious octagon, later in design than the rest of the house; its walls were adorned with wreathed medallions, and across its dome prim Pompeian figures stood in pastoral groups. They and the satin-wood and ormolu furniture, the carpet, the hanging bronze candelabrum, the mirrors and sconces, were all a single composition, the design of one illustrious hand.'

And then there was that dinner with Anthony. This book seems to use dinners to move the plot along. With the tabletalk being mostly people saying nasty things about others. And Anthony is no exception. But he tells wonderful things about himself:

'Of course, those that have charm don't really need brains. Stefanie de Vincennes intoxicated me four years ago; but I was besotted with her, crawling with love like lice, My dear, I even used the same coloured varnish for my toenails. I used her words and lit my cigarette in the same way and spoke with her tone on the telephone so that the duke used to carry on long and intimate conversations with me, thinking that I was her.' p53

Charles can't help remarking that 'Anthony had lost his stammer in the deep waters of his old romance....And then Anthony spoke of the proper experiences of an artist...of the hazards he (the artist) should take in the pursuit of emotion....'

There was such unusual tabletalk at that dinner with Anthony, that afterwards Charles retires to the torment and distress of 'that hag-ridden night'.

For art's sake?

Laurence Olivier was very disappointed that John Gielgud, and not he, got to play the part of Charles' father.

I'm still up and it's May 8. I scrambled today to read two chapters of this week's reading and became so absorbed in this book. What a lot has happened! Holy smokes!

We meet two very interesting women - Sebastian's mother and his father's mistress, Cara. I definitely agree with Anthony Blanche's remark to Charles about Sebastian's mother, " She sucks their blood." Yes, she does it in a saintly, smiling way; but, boy, does she ever work hard and plan ahead to get what she wants. She is a manipulator of magnitude. Sebastian was absolutely correct to keep Charles away from Mummy - that she would try to use Charles to control Sebastian. Poor poor Sebastian. Now I am understanding why he doesn't want to be around his family, why he is such a child, why he is now drinking himself into ruin and is so lost.

Cara surprisingly and openly reveals to Charles in Venice the shockingly immense and all-consuming HATRED that Sebastian's father has for his wife Teresa. He cannot stand to even be in the same country she lives in! He can't attend parties because he might bump into people who may have talked with his wife! Now that is hatred! I have not yet read any particulars about what transpired during their marriage except that he, too, was a drunk. But I can imagine how it went. And their marriage lasted quite awhile. They had four children together.

I keep seeing that sad picture of Sebastian driving off with his mother after he had been kicked out of school.....He seems like a prime candidate for committing suicide.

I would say it's impossible to have any sort of healthy relationship with a Peter Pan. Peter Pan refused to face the truth of growing up. To have a relationship with a Peter Pan you have to agree to live in denial with him. You would have to agree to live a lie in order to keep Peter Pan satisfied that all's well with the world. To pull Peter Pan out of a world of fantasy would lead to a slow death.

Marni ~ But I do like Cara. What a gal!
Isn't it a pleasure to think about her: Not married but having all the fun of a wife, without the work ...
no housework, no budget constraints, no kids to bring up ... not a bad job, being Cara.
Also, wasn't she quite nice to the boys, as she called them. Later on, she spoke to Charles as an adult when
they were alone. Cannot explain it, but I like her a lot. A fantasy life?

Re-reading your post, Marni, about how Cara explained the awful dynamics between Sebastian's parents, I
think Cara fills in as one voice of the narrator, explaining that relationship to the reader. Otherwise, we might be wondering why Sebastian's father hates all Englishmen.

Wow, and welcome back Mippy and Carolyn!!

Hats, Marni, Daytripper, Mippy, Carolyn, what wonderful new insights!! I am late to pick up the baby but as Marni says this is the 8th, so I need to get us started (and I hope you can start us, this section just blew me away)..this is like a trip into Wonderland for sure, isn't it? This section is dizzying. It reminds me of a wheel, are we all spinning on the wheel of Catholicism? Are we all spinning on Sebstian's drunkenness? What theme are we spinning on now? Reminds me of that old gospel song: a wheel in a wheel, way in the middle of the air.

For one thing it looks as if I was wrong about ER!! I'm beginning to swing back toward some of the earlier comments you all have made. And what of the others?

Here we meet the whole cast and crew and what a crew they ARE! What do you make of them?

I think this is a fascinating section, there's such a contrast here in the beautiful settings of Venice, a palace, Brideshead, and even Oxford and the characters which inhabit these pages and it seems to me that the writing is changing! I might be wong about that!

I thought about this section all night and into the morning and this is the best I can come up with to start us out: grab a ring, a theme, a character, and let 'er rip!

So much here, three bob for your thoughts!

The bottom photo here is out of focus and I can't fix it but after looking at it a while I like the symbolism, because this entire section, to me, is WAY out of focus (that's an excuse hahahaa) be right back!

For Your Consideration:
Sebastian Contra Mundum: Against the World:

"Sebsatian contra mundum": against the world.

What on earth is happening to Sebastian? Charles repeats contra mundum as a pledge of fidelity, but how does the world seem against Sebastian? You'd have thought he had everything anybody could want? What do you think is causing Sebastian's distress? Why does he suspect Charles of being a "spy" for his mother? What's going ON?'

"I went to the garden-room this morning and was so very sorry."-Teresa Marchmain.

What does this mean? What is she sorry about? His painting? What do you make of Lady Marchmain and her three sainted brothers? Do you agree with her remedies for helping Sebastian? What would you do if, heaven forbid, he was your son? Do you fault her relationship with Charles? What would you do in the same situation?

"Oh dear it's very difficult being a Catholic."

Religion and specifically Catholicism seems to predominate in this section, yet it seems to have a strange impact on most of the characters. It might be interesting to watch the effect on each as we go.

"It was awful for mummy. She couldn't exactly try and stop him, but of course it was the last thing she wanted. Think what people would have said-the eldest son; it's not as if it had been me."

---Why did Lady Marchmain not want Bridey to be a priest?

"It has been my tragedy that I abominate the English countryside. I suppose it is a disgraceful thing to inherit great responsibilities and to be entirely indifferent to them."

What do you make of Lord Marchmain? What do you think he is really fleeing?

"How good it is to sit in the shade and talk of love."

What is this section talking about, do you think? What are some of the themes YOU see emerging?

I liked Cara and Lord Marchmain, but oh my did he hate his wife.. Wow.. Not the same country or the same people.. But I do feel that he should not have abandoned his children the way he did. I note that in this section Sebastian starts to fade.. A drunk by any name is still a drunk and not any fun at all. Charles is having problems with this. But then as we read on we discover that the adult Charles becomes quite different indeed.

When I spoke of "fantasy life," I was speaking about Sebastian as Peter Pan. I haven't had time to think of Cara yet. One of the themes I see is Roman Catholicism. The more I thought about Roman Catholicism, the more questions came to mind. It's an interesting subject, I think.

Just a note here to say in the heading I've posted the rest of the discussion schedule and you will note a change in this week's pages! We now will cover only to the end of Book I.

I kept thinking BOY this is a long section! Entirely too LONG and it was, it was a mistake in the heading so all's fixed now and today we'll only go thru Book One which is much more reasonable. Back in a mo!

WHY, as Stephanie just pointed out, does Lord Marchmain HATE Lady Marchmain SO much? After all he went off to war and left HER?

??

The Marchmains and their Catholicism does seem to be a major theme of these chapters. Sebastian begins to show us why. For one thing, his attitude towards it seems another symptom of what Hats refers to as his 'Peter Pan' attitude.

Sebastian declares he believes in Christmas and the star and the three kings and the animals at the manger; "it's a lovely idea.' Charles protests that he can't believe something simply because it's a lovely idea. Sebastian insists: "But I do. That's how I believe."

Later he explains his 'mixed' family: "Brideshead and Cordelia are both fervent Catholics; he's miserable, she's bird-happy; Julia and I are half-heathen; I am happy, I rather think Julia isn't; mummy is popularly believed to be a saint and papa is excommunicated - and I wouldn't know which of them was happy. Anyway, however you look at it, happiness doesn't seem to have much to do with it, and that's all I want..

That's rather poignant, isn't it. A young man who just wants to be happy.

Babi

Why did Lady Marchmain not want Bridey to be a priest?

Bridey, who is called Lord Brideshead outside the family, is the oldest son, and as such
ought to be satisfied to have the duties of the heir:
supervising the Agriculture show
riding to hounds
marrying and having children to inherit the title
being a quasi-magistrate of the estate (this is from Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey books, not from Waugh)

But what does Bridey want to do? go over the so-called edge of religion and be a priest!
That's a no-no to his dominating mother.

BaBi: Yes, I think you're right... Sebastian just wants to be happy (and rich and not have to ever have to work for anything, of course)...but he expects every/someone else to provide that happiness. Heaven forbid that Sebastian might have to do something to find his own happiness...much easier to just flit about and wait for someone else to "find happiness for Sebastian" and "give it to him." Nanny Hawkins probably did once upon a time, but that's in the past Apparently Mummy, Julia, & Papa have struck out, so it's off to find "friends" who somehow might conger up "happiness for Sebastian." Charles seems to be the delegated "friend" of the moment. [I suspect there were others at Oxford before Charles.] I seriously doubt Sebastian knows anything more about friendship than he does about finding happiness or anything else in life.

I suspect in Lady Marchmain's "ideal world" Bridey becomes the Lord of the Manor with all attendant duties and the next son, Sebastian, becomes the priest, rising all the way up the ranks to Bishop, at least. Perhaps Julia is to become a Lady to some other born to the Manor Lord and Cordelia the nun. Fantasy and pipe dreams abound in this work, don't they...and harsh reality.

jane

Is this recent summer vacation the only happy part of the book? At least I think it's happy. Two friends, with nothing to do but idle away the hours on an estate empty except for those who designated to needs. We see Charles drawn to the artwork and to painting, already pulling a little away from Sebastian --"Was it painted before Indigo Jones?" "Oh, who cares, Charles, as long as it's pretty."

And then there is the evening wine-drinking. One can only be grateful that they are not out driving around. This is excessive, not good, but adds another dimension to the atmosphere of freedom and exploration afforded by this summer. I don't begrudge them it.

Something I was thinking about the other day.

The Bride River. the Bride Valley and Brideshead

I have thought about what GINNY said in reference to the title of this book. Brides-Head. ( Maidenhead ) Innocence and virtue, soon to be "defiled"? I wonder.

Mal

Or has it already been defiled, and everyone in this family/level of "society" just prefers the fantasy that it hasn't???

If I had been Sebastian's mother, I'd have used my position and clout to get him into The Oxford Group, which was a forerunner of Alcoholics Anonymous. Scroll down the page to read about its founder, Frank Buchman and the group's founding in 1908. AA was founded in 1935.

However, knowing what little I do about Lady Marchmain, I think she wouldn't have done this because the Oxford Group is based on non-denominational Christian ideas.

I don't think it's "Roman" Catholics which should concern us; it is English Catholics, discrimination against them, and why it occurred.

*****
Regardless how much people here condone Edward Ryder's behavior, I think he was wrong. It would not have hurt his principles to have loaned Charles money to tide him over the summer with the adult stipulation that he pay it back monthly, with interest, out of the next year's income. A stern talking-to and these conditions would have taught Charles more than the belittlement from the treatment he received.

Lord Marchmain apparently was an alcoholic. I believe he stayed with Cara because she kept him sober and gave him enough sustenance that his hatred of his wife and anything that reminded him of her did not eat him alive.

Also, alcoholics can be terribly obsessive-compulsive, thus the continued hatred on Lord Marchmain's part. Lively, social Cara no doubt distracted him and took his mind off the destructive brooding he must have done.

Mal

I believe that the catholicism in Britain at this time is something that cannot be understood by we colonials. Catholicism, after all, is a remnant of that horrible time of the Tudors. Anyone who clung to the old faith did so at the risk of their very lives. And it could become a continual red flag to the protestants, a denial of the rightness of the world. Especially rich catholics (how did they get their money?). Other pariahs were the Irish and the Jews, barely tolerated but infra dig.

Catholicism, I think, is very different from other religions. Catholicism is the practice of religion, making daily decisions a part of a person's life, a part of a family's life. In some religions all you have to do is go to church, hear the sermon, sing a hymn and go home. I believe there is a reason we have only had one elected Catholic president.

The children of Brideshead went to parochial schools. It seems that Bridey's school, Stone---- (I forget the name of the school), shaped him, influenced him, and that is where he began to want to become a priest. Sebastian's father refused to allow Sebastian to go to the same school. Sebastian went instead to Eton. I suppose his mother will blame that on his dissolution. Perhaps she had dreams of his becoming a priest because he was the 2nd son. And Mummy gets what she wants.

I feel that we are seeing a story unfold of an independent free-spirited dreamer, Sebastian, being stifled by a domineering religious mother. I think Sebastian has nearly given up the fight. Much of their battle took place before we were introduced to the characters. Sebastian has no more will to fight against his mother. She is everywhere, even at his college. She has allies there in Mr. Samgrass and the Monsignor, and even "a houseful of nuns who were in some way under her protection." She really does have "spies." She goes to stay at Oxford for a week (ACK! Can you imagine that happening when you were in college!) to arrange for publication of Ned's book. But she is also spinning her web.

Sebastian is now drinking constantly, not giving a damn for anything anymore. He has nothing to live for, it seems. As he says to Charles, "It's hopeless." (Although, perhaps he realizes drunken behavior is his only remaining means of ammunition.) Mummy wants the wayward Sebastian to live with Monsignor Bell, Dean of Christ Church, his 2nd year at Oxford, rather than in an apartment with Charles. Charles understands that this is probably the worst possible thing that could happen to Sebastian. Mummy will get her way or Sebastian will go home. He goes home. We know from her letter to Charles that Sebastian will only be allowed back if he agrees to live with the Monsignor. When we see Mummy and Sebastian drive off from school together in the car, there is a feeling of victorious mother. But they have both lost.

We can see how manipulative Mummy is when she discusses the Monsignor Bell living situation with Charles. Sebastian has already told Charles that he knew she was planning it even before he went off to school. Mummy tells Charles later the situation just suddenly came up as a solution to Sebastian's dilemma at school. She obviously lied to Charles and he knows it.

I think when Mummy writes to Charles, "I went to the garden-room this morning and was so very sorry" that she is saying your artwork is unfinished, but so is your old relationship with Sebastian. She knows things will never be the same. That phase of life is over. I also get the feeling she is telling Charles she is sorry that he wsn't able to influence Sebastian as she had wanted - and because he didn't, he won't be allowed to finish. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.

It seems so, pedln. It was the lull before the storm. How beautiful it all was. 'It is thus I like to remember Sebastian, as he was that summer, when we wandered alone together through that enchanted palace.

The battle-weary Charles arrives in Arcadia, and is blown away. 'I felt a sense of liberation and peace.' '...perhaps the Beatific Vision itself has some remote kinship with this lowly (!) experience; I, at any rate, believed myself very near heaven, during those languid days at Brideshead.'

Charles soon hears from Sebastian that The House is usually full of ravening beasts, but they do have it all to themselves after Julia leaves. And Charles promptly falls in love with Brideshead. The rooms, the shaded, pillered terrace, the Italian fountain. It's all so captivating. Of course, at the time of telling Charles is looking back. It's the lost youth that he remembers as much as anything. 'The languor off youth.' And doesn't he get lyrical about that lost youth:

'...but languor - the relaxation of yet unwearied sinews, the mind sequestered and self-regarding, the sun standing still in the heavens and the earth throbbing to our own pulse - that belongs to Youth alone and dies with it.'

What we hear about Brideshead from Charles makes it even more puzzling why there would be 'heavy late-Victorian mourning paper, black-coroneted and black-bordered', lieing about, for Sebastian to use.

The rich are lke Boy Scouts, always prepared. The mourning paper sat on the ready Just In Case. That's how I've seen it in at least one modest forty room mansion (plus outbuildings) where I was a guest a few times. On one visit, our hosts put up a good number of my college glee club colleagues and me when we were to perform at a Boston Pops concert. It was in that house I was introduced to a huge safe ( for the silver? ) in the pantry off the large kitchen -- and fingerbowls on the dinnertable. The house is Georgian and very, very English, with a butler yet, on acres and acres of land on a river near Boston. It is how I envisioned Brideshead, not the extravagant castle used in the film.

Mal

Good points, all, how stunning you are~!

That is a beautiful piece of writing, Daytripper, in an ocean of beautiful stuff. I love his way with words and I can't help noticing in our opening pages here how the prose seems to be changing.

I loved what he did with the train ride out to Venice did you all notice that? The way it's written it's almost mocking the rhythm of the rails, the journey. I loved that and if I could type better I'd type that one interminable sentence in here. Loved it.

Marlyn, thank you for those links and "Maidenhead," I missed that one, Waugh is sparing us no innuendo, is he? I see much slyness here.

The photographs of the Bride in your links are really nice:

This is the head of the stream where it bubbles up, and here

The Bride as it enters Burton Bradstock.

Water in England has SUCH a quality, doesn't it? I love to look at it, could not describe it for anything but love to look at that surface.

Carolyn, I did not know that about Prince Charles and his Nanny; that's very to the point, isn't it? This is a good point, " I see the main characters in this novel as over indulged and under supervised if you know what I mean." Yes, I don't particularly see any supervision now that you mention it, and when Lady Marchmain tries to apply some it's too late.

Who said this has been going on a LONG time before we meet them, I think Marni, I think she's right, but the parents don't seem weak either. That's an interesting point.

Daytripper!!!!!! I ate a PEACH, holy smoke@ TS Eliot, the Wasteland, and here we're quoting Tiresias on the destruction of civilization, when I saw your quote it jumped out at me and shouted! Hahahaa. Super thought on how they use dinners to move the plot along!!! I wonder what else this book uses, I wish I could draw back a little!

Mippy I don't know, I can't figure out, that's one thing I can't get around, having seen the movie first, is that Anthony Andrews bears no resemblance whatever to Diana Quick, I guess they are implying Charles feels something faint (the first time for any woman?) for her, as she's an extension (maybe a sober one) of Sebastian. Just as somebody has so rightly said, is beginning to fade away. He is. Deliberately. So he's pulling back from Charles, Charles is losing him. Because of?????

Marni you've opened up a million more doors for me in your explanations, see next post, but do you think when Lady Marchmain writes Charles she was so very sorry upon entering the garden room, do you think she blames HERSELF at all here or him?

Hats, I think you're right about Catholicism influencing a person's life but I have to agree with Charles I don't see a whole lot of evidence of it. I really don't.

So now we have religion, no, specifically Catholicism, enter the picture, and all the characters are somewhat defined by their reaction to it or not. What is Charles, do we know? What religious belief?

The Audio Tape of the Interview contains the somewhat startling opinion that all of the Catholic characters are flawed and would fall short in the tenets of that faith, we might want to compare that wheel too.

I also liked Mippy's thought that Cara fills in as one voice of the narrator...

I thought Hats really put her finger on it, but it may apply to ALL of these characters, is this another wheel?

To have a relationship with a Peter Pan you have to agree to live in denial with him. You would have to agree to live a lie in order to keep Peter Pan satisfied that all's well with the world.

OK, is there any character so far this does not apply to? I love all these themes or wheels. We can paste a character on each spoke and see how it applies to each one.

Jane said earlier maybe they all realize the innocence and virtue Malryn spoke of has already been defiled and "everyone in this family/ level of 'society' just prefers the fantasy that it hasn't?"

I think that's another wheel. Which characters here are NOT fantasizing? The thing I can't understand is Sebastian saying why mummy wouldn't like Bridey being a priest: think what people would say. I can't understand that one at all. I mean what people would say would not matter to the truly devout? Here's a woman who has brought up her oldest son in the Church, he's devout, she's sent him to a Jesuit school and yet is dismayed when he wants to be a priest. What did she expect? They have mass in their own house twice a day!!!

But for some reason is it Sebastian that Lady Marchmain says has to take over her brother Ned's role? Why him? Has Bridey got enough to take on and what do you think about Bridey? And what do you think about Ned? I can't quite get the Ned thing straight.

Lord Marchmain abandons them for the same reason Sebastian who favors him and goes to visit him abandons things in his life which are uncomfortable, even if it drives him to drink. Chip off the old block?

See next post, we've caught either Cara or Anthony Blanche in a lie. Who do you trust?

You're supposed, when you discuss a book, to pull back, also, and see the big picture, but I must confess I am so entranced, maybe mesmerized by the characters I'm having trouble doing that. Well that's not true, to be honest, I can't figure them out.

We all make mistakes but these guys are somewhat relentless about it. Look at Lady Marchmain. Until I read Marni's post, I did not realize, really, what she was doing, but now it is pretty clear.

I did notice this, tho, "She has always thought I brought the children up badly. Now I am beginning to think she must be right." OUCH.

Charles finds that "charming." It may be that to him everything is charming as you've so well said in this short idyllic as Pedln says period.

I don't find it or her charming but perhaps I would if I met her, overawed by house, which, Malryn, was a castle, remember the very stones were moved. I find the stones interesting, everywhere you look are little bits of memory. But the Flytes are not old Catholics, at all. They are not the stuff of the Duke of Norfolk. Still, they would be odd man out in a predominately Church of England society. Notice the little chapel (Anglican) with the Flyte graves in it at the gate. I hope that's in this section, they are converts, because of Teresa (the mother).

Boyish hi-jinks. The Companion says that young British men of the 1920's were considered adolescents from 17-23, so that would explain a lot. Waugh himself apparently was caught driving drunk. Ma Mayfield and her club did exist but with a different number and name.

Jane had an interesting point in that Sebastian seems to passively want happiness to come to him. In that he and Charles are somewhat alike, would you say? Or not? Are they more similar than dissimilar?

Is that actually one of the points of the book?

Waugh said:

Charles's romantic affection for Sebastian is part due to the glitter of the new world Sebastian represents, part to the protective feeling of a strong towards a weak character and part a foreshadowing....

And here I've broken it off as there is a spoiler here. When we get there we'll do the whole quote, but I DO NOT see Charles as strong.

Do you? Who do you see, just out of curiosity, as "strong" here?

And I do appreciate being questioned about "Roman Catholic," Mrs. Sherlock, and Malryn, I think, because I have learned something. How I have been corrected on that all these years!! But it appears that's NOT a good term. The Anglican Church of England in its profession of faith states the belief in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church," and I have been endlessly corrected to make the distinction between that branch if you will, and the "Roman Catholics," who take direction from Rome, (the Vatican and the Pope). However the Catholic Encyclopedia is quite clear on this subject:

Roman Catholic - A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claim of being the One True Church

Wow! Well believe ME that was not what I meant, at all, so I'll say "Catholic" from now on!

I have some new questions that I am not clear on, I am beginning to wonder why I am not clear on these characters. Remember Anthony Blanche saying that Lord Marchmain was a "monster," and the Fogliere Princess did not invite him to the ball, etc., he's shunned but that is NOT what Cara says?

People turn against a handsome, clever, wealthy man like Alex? Never in your life. It is he who has driven them away. Even now they come back again and again to be snubbed and laughed at. And all for Lady Marchmain. He will not touch a hand which may have touched hers.. He is mad."

Ok now it can't be both ways! Some of these characters may live in a fantasy but we don't, who do you trust here? Anthony Blanche or Cara?

I thought that was a fascinating description of the way Lady Marchmain got Charles in her web as Marni said, taking a long time stepping forward verbally then back, seducing him in with words.

OH my goodness and there are wheels!!! Yes, look: "Brideshead came up for a night; the heavy wheels stirred and the small wheels spun."

And Marni said that perhaps Sebastian drinks because it's his only defense. He says he drinks to escape.

In that he's not too far from the tree, right, the apple hasn't fallen too far from the tree?

Now Marni where did you catch her in a lie about Sebastian living with Msgr Bell?

"It seems to me that without your religion Sebastian would have the chance to be a happy and healthy man"

. Do YOU think it's the religion here? Or something else? Babi mentioned in Sebastian's description of the relationships of the family to Catholicism, that he was happy, and that all he wanted was to be happy. But how is "religion" ruining it? . He had the same "religion" then?

WHY do you all suppose Lord Marchmain HATES Lady Marchmain? He lives a continent away. He never liked, or so he says, the English climate. He had no wish to run Brideshead nor to do the interminable duties he should have, he's run away. First by drink and now by distance.

I liked Malryn's idea of obsessive/ compulsive disorder and alcohol, maybe he's got it, too. Blaming her...for?

What? What has she done? What is HER fault in this?

GINNY: Charles says at one point that he is an agnostic.

I'm guessing here, but I think S's mother combines the characteristics of atholocism and the upper class. She is religious, but, as a member of the upper class, you have to do everything in a "proper" way. And the proper way for an upper class family is that the oldest son carries on the line and dutries, while the younger sons follow a "gentlemanly profession, such as the Church.

And of course if Bridey becomes a priest, he will have no heirs. I don't know what happens then, if the title and land goes to the next son, or somewhere else. Even if it goes to the younger son, she may assume that (given S's proclivities) there will be no heirs.

There are all kinds of hints about S and Charles' relationship. I wondered if, when mommy says she went into the drawingroom and was so sorry, she saw something she wasn't meant to.

JoanK: I did not see an actual physical sexual relationship between Sebastian and Charles. I wonder if there was one? Even if not, there was a passionate love relationship there, at least on Charles' part.

Cara noticed something about their relationship in Venice and she had only just met Charles. She said to him, "I know of these romantic friendships of the English and the Germans. They are not Latin. I think they are very good if they do not go on too long......It is a kind of love that comes to children before they know its meaning. In England it comes when you are almost men; I think I like that. It is better to have that kind of love for another boy than for a girl...."

If Cara noticed this relationship, surely Sebastian's mother noticed something.

Ginny: Re Mummy lying to Charles....When Sebastian and Charles were looking for 2nd year Oxford lodgings on Merton Street, they bumped into Mr. Samgrass who said to Charles, "You're sharing digs with Sebastian?" he said. "So he is coming up next term?....I somehow thought perhaps he wasn't. I'm always wrong about things like that......"As I left him he said: "Don't think me interfering, you know, but I shouldn't make any definite arrangement in Merton Street until you're sure."

Charles discussed this conversation with Sebastian: "I told Sebastian of this conversation and he said: "Yes, there's a plot on. Mummy wants me to go and live with Monsignor Bell.".....Charles said, "I still think you might have told me. When did it start?" Sebastian: "Oh, it's been going on. Mummy's very clever you know. She saw she'd failed with you. I expect it was the letter you wrote after reading Uncle Ned's book."

Then later after the drunken driving/arrest business Mummy said to Charles, ""The College are being extraordinarily kind. They say they will not send him down provided he goes to live with Monsignor Bell. It's not a thing I could have suggested myself, but it was the Monsignor's own idea. He specially sent a message to you to say how welcome you would always be. There's not room for you actually in the old Palace, but I daresay you wouldn't want that yourself."

It is that very night that Sebastian and Charles agree to go out and get totally smashed "contra mundum" after which Mummy takes Sebastian home.

Ginny asked: "Which characters here are NOT fantasizing?"

I think Cordelia is not fantasizing. Cordelia seems the most normal person in the book to me so far. She is a wonderful child, full of fun, smart, a prankster, frank, even genuinely pious. Everyone loves her, even Sebastian, and she seems to be the only one who loves everyone in her family.

I wonder if her name, Cordelia, is important? It struck me right away. It is a very unusual name. And it was the name of King Lear's youngest daughter, Lear's favorite daughter. It's been a long time since I read "King Lear" but I remember Cordelia was the good, virtuous, loyal, loving daughter, while her two sisters, Regan and Goneril, were evil. Lear disinherits Cordelia because she will not flatter him.

Marni, your post about Cordelia and King Lear is very interesting. Although, I have never read King Lear. I find it amazing how you made the connection between the characters.

Thank you Mrs. Sherlock and Ginny, I now know not to say "Roman Catholic" also. I will say Catholic. There is so much in this book. I humbly admit to it going completely over my head. I have always heard of "agnostics." I think Charles calls himself an agnostic. What is an agnostic? If you are an agnostic, are you considered to be a part of a religion?

I would also like to apologize for saying many religious people do not practice their religion. I accused the majority of a religious flock as warming a seat in a pew. Now, that's just insulting and inexcusable. I am completely sorry.

I have been struck in this part of the book that Sebastian brings himself down further and further until he seems at rock bottom and happy. He has the german to wait on.. He has a small amount of money and no responsibilities. This is where he was always headed and Charles at least understood the need to have his own life.. I like Charles a good deal more now than I did. I also like Cordelia who really has had too many bad things happen to her that are not her fault or idea. Julia has a suiter who seems to make her happy.. Charles of course keeps track of everyone,, so Sebastian did in fact bring him into the family enough that he needs to know they are doing well or at least doing things.

In the Protestant and Catholic churches I've attended, they all say the Nicene Creed with the phrase "...One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..." (capitalized or not),so I don't think that phrase is exclusive to the Anglican Church. I was taught that the term "catholic" (lower case) meant universal.

I found this:

The term "catholic" is derived from the Greek adjective ????????? (katholikos), which means "general", "universal".[1] Outside of a religious context, the word "catholic" is commonly used to mean no more than all-embracing in interests, sympathies, ideas and the like.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,_Holy,_Catholic,_and_Apostolic_Church

and http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

Why was Sebastian 'drawing away' from Charles? Do you remember when Mr. Samgrass was mentioned, Sebastian described him airily as "someone of Mummy's"? And Rex Mottram was 'someone of Julia's'. I think Charles was 'someone of Sebastian's', and Sebastian felt that Mummy was winning him over as another admirer of hers. Perhaps this is one reason Sebastian is so at odds with his family; he feels they leave him nothing of his own.

Someone asked what an agnostic is..Hats, I believe. My understanding is an agnostic is not an atheist, but someone who takes the position that they reserve opinion in the absence of proof.

I was amused by Cordelias announcement that she will add Charles to her prayer list, with the explanation that her list was very long and she would only be able to assign him a 'decade' a week. Charles replies that he is sure it is more than he deserves. Cordelia candidly replies that she has some much harder cases than he, ie. Lloyd George, the Kaiser, and Olive Banks, who got 'bunked from the convent last term'. This is a young lady with goals! Of course, she also said a novena for her pigs success at the fair, but she is still quite young.

Babi

Jane is correct about the meaning of catholic. It does mean universal and it is used by all churches that say the Nicene Creed. The Methodist church does this. I have not visited or attended all protestant churches but am familar with several of them. I have heard children arguing about who is right and who is wrong about all of this. I will not mention the names of the particular churches that promote this kind of debate because I do not want to offend anyone.

I finished this book still detesting the characters. I think Waugh's writing is wonderful but I have no love for these characters. The book really held my interest as nothing much has in the last two years.

I must be careful what I say because I have finished the book and do not want to spoil it for others.

Joan Grimes

The young Cordelia reminds me of the many characters played by child movie star Margaret O'Brien.(See her eyes widening with concern) So serious about everything in her life, especially her religion. What did Sebastian say -- she and Bridey are the truly strong Catholics of the family -- he's totally miserable and she is happy as a bird. Her prayers and her rosary will make everything right in the world -- Charles, Lord George, and even her pig.

Agnostic -- coined by T.H. Huxley, antithetic to Gnostics, various early Christian sects that claimed direct personal knowledge beyond the Gospel or the Church hierarchy. From the Greek agnostos -- unknowable

Can somebody clarify for me the birth order of the Flyte (and how do you pronounce that as you read??? flight or flit or ???) children...

Brideshead (Bridey) [what a name for a child!], then Julia or Sebastian????, and Cordelia.

Any idea of the age spread? I gather Sebastian is 19 or so when we meet him???

jane

Hats I think you are right on the money so to speak about churches as there are good and bad everywhere some just go to church to make others think they are good people or out of habit.

Jane I have been taught in the Catholic church that Catholic means universal.

Babi that is my understanding of an agnostic also.

Joan in my travels as a younster I was called a catlicker when I went to catholic school and a potlicker when I went to a protestant church. children can be so hurtfull not understanding all are trying to be good (go to heaven) just taking different paths.

Oh good point Joan K on the no heirs!! Of course of course, two sons and nobody to pass the family name (Jane I'm thinking it's like flight, flighty), or the vast estate! It might be interesting to see the protocol there.

Oh my what an interesting thought on what mummy may have seen, I am not sure, do we all think there was or was not a homosexual relationship between Charles and Sebastian?

I don't. I think they are somewhat .......well Charles himself says childish, and having a childhood (which for him is a first) but their toys are cars and alcohol and silk shirts.

Oh and good point Marni on what Cara seems to notice, she's not around Sebastian that much and as you say surely Lady Marchmain had noticed but....is she the type.. she seems quite determined to be obtuse to me.

Thank you for explaining how Charles was lied to.

I thought this which you quoted was nasty, sort of a "blow upon a bruise" you might say to quote Waugh.

"It's not a thing I would have suggested myself, but it was the Monsignor's own idea. He specially sent a message to you to say how welcome you would always be. There's not room for you actually in the Old Palace, but I daresay you wouldn't want that yourself."

But Bridey reveals he stayed with Msgr Bell last term!!!

That's just nasty.

Jane, I think Cordelia is only 9 or 10 years old and a child, full of childish enthusiasms. One reason I am "specially" interested in discussing the movie is the actress who plays her is absolutely convincing as a 9 year old and then as a grown woman, something very few people could do.

Super job, Marni with the Lear connection to Cordelia!!! She was the one who refused to lie and then.... .I need to look that up again, but she is the youngest.

Bridey of course is not named Bridey, or Brideshead, that's what they call him. Has anybody caught what his real name IS? He's 3 years older than Sebastian but he seems much older.

Now where Julia fits in there I am not sure. Bridey has finished Oxford, Julia is a debutante so I figure that she's 2nd?

Not sure!

Stephanie, there was a mistake in the heading, we're not to the German yet, we're only to the end of Book I. Why do you like Charles now?

Babi, I liked this: " Perhaps this is one reason Sebastian is so at odds with his family; he feels they leave him nothing of his own.". I couldn't help myself, just watched Disk 2 of the film and heard Sebastian say, "someone of Mummy's," it really stuck out after you made this point.

Joan G, what do you see that you dislike about Cara? Thank you also for the catholic definition.

Ginger, when I read your post I remembered Sebastian saying, I can't explain it. And I thought if you can't you don't understand, yourself, trying to make a mystery of it as children (and some grown ups) do.

Hats, like the old gospel song says, "everybody talkin' 'bout heaven ain't goin' there.") hahahaa I think personally that Charles is right, but we KNOW what Waugh thought this book would do! I'm not sure at this point it's dong it.

But talk about TENSION! I could not believe this sentence:

It was the custom, I learned later, always to ask Lady Marhamin to read aloud on evenings of family tension.

EEEUUUUU.

I can't get over that. These are grown men and women. There is family tension and yet they all are listening happily as Mummy reads fromn The Wisdom of Father Brown. ACCCKKKK!

No matter what she READS this is awful! Can you IMAGINE?

Am I the only one who thinks so? Just yesterday I saw a librarian recommend the family read: the family all reading to each other every evening, but not like THIS?

What is Father Brown? I've heard of it all my life. Have you ever read one of his stories or?

more...(trying to spare your eyes, this section is SOOO ripe!)

Oh of course, DUH!, The Nicene Creed!! How ignorant can I GET? Thank you Jane and Joan G. Hahahaa I did not realize the other protestant denominations were also using it, oh ignorance is bliss. I went looking for which ones and, apparently, according to Wikipedia, it's all of them.

. Since its original formulation it continues to be used in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite), Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant Churches.

Interesting. I think I'll leave this subject alone,

. But er....I do see the term "Roman Catholic" sticking out like a sore thumb, there, tho. I have a feeling this is a very sticky wicket.

But their practice of their religion does not seem to be doing any of our characters any good. Does it?

Thank you for the definition of agnostic, Pedln, somewhere I was reading that Waugh initially leaned toward being an Anglo-Catholic himself, isn't that interesting? I am not taking ANYTHING for granted now in this book.

What do you all think about any or all of THESE, it's like a Pandora's box!

Did you all notice that Aloysius is gone?

I love the writing in the beginning of Chapter V.

Everywhere, on cobble and gravel and lawn, the leaves were falling and in the college gardens the smoke of the bonfires joined the wet river mist, drifting across the grey walls; the flags were oily underfoot and as, one by one, the lamps were lit in the windows round the quad, the golden lights were diffuse and remote, new figures in new gowns wandered through the twilight under the arches and the familiar bells now spoke of a year's memories. (WORD thinks that could be rewritten. )

And something seems to have died, everything is grey and changed:

All that term and all that year Sebastian and I lived more and more in the shadows and, like a fetish, hidden first from the missionary and at length forgotten, the toy bear, Aloysius, sat unregarded on the chest-of-drawers in Sebastian's bedroom...

There was a change in both of us.

Now this seems quite ominous to me. And what has caused this change, do you think??

Then in this section we have yet another interview of Charles with his father. Charles wants to know if his father wants him to finish Oxford.

On the one hand this seems particularly awful: ER does not seem to even know his age. On the other hand Waugh himself did this and went to art school and there were underlying reasons, so maybe it's not as bad as it looks, and it's only again ER trying to cope. Apparently it was a better choice given what Waugh himself had done.

And then there's the bit about Ned's book and Charles does catch that, just like he caught that she WAS trying to suborn him, and said, "Had she rehearsed all the interview? If things had gone differently would she have put the book back in the drawer?" Ned again, Ned again, Ned again, I don't know if I understand Teresa and Ned? Do you?

And then for some reason I got really interested in that quote in the heading that Anthony Blanche was announcing with the megaphone. "I, Tiresias, have foresuffered all."

It's taken from T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land, which the Companion says had just come out in 1922 and which some people think of as embodying the decline and destruction of civilization or something. I have been somewhat startled in reading it to see some of the parallels to what we're reading, particularly Munich and the epicene nature of Tiresias. I'm still reading it but this jumped out from one of the annotated versions, as well:

Apparently Tiresias had been both man and woman?

From: The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature:

Teiresias, the blind Theban seer. [There are several versions of his life.] In one version he saw snakes coupling and killed one of them with a stick, whereupon he changed into a woman. Later the same thing happened again and he changed back into a man. Since he was now uniquely qualified to answer, Zeus and Hera consulted him as to whether a man or woman derived more pleasure from the act of love. When Teiresias replied that woman received nine times as much pleasure as men, Hera struck him blind but Zeus gave him the gift of unerring prophecy.

I wonder why Anthony Blanche would choose that particular part of The Waste Land to recite? Are we supposed to think of him as a seer?

Then there's this, in this Review of the Annotated Waste Land we find a scenario we're familiar with:

Lawrence Rainey's introduction to this book opens with an anecdote about a starstruck and tongue-tied Donald Hall, the American poet (and, like Eliot, a former editor of the Harvard Advocate), who journeyed to meet his hero in London in 1951. Having babbled his way through the interview, Hall rose to take his leave. Then Eliot appeared to search for the right phrase with which to send me off. He looked me in the eyes, and set off into a slow, meandering sentence. "Let me see," said T. S. Eliot, "forty years ago I went from Harvard to Oxford. Now you are going from Harvard to Oxford. What advice can I give you?" He paused delicately, shrewdly, while I waited with greed for the words which I would repeat for the rest of my life, the advice from elder to younger, setting me off on the road of emulation. When he had ticked off the comedian's exact milliseconds of pause, he said, "Have you any long underwear?"

Then they quote from Brideshead and ER's speech about the top hat as advice. LOOK at that! It's like....I can't articulate it. Waugh refers to TS Eliot, Eliot in 1951 almost parodies Waugh, it's....I am beginning to see something very carefully crafted here with a million references to other things, and sort of hints from Waugh... I think Hats is right, this is way over anybody's head but we can do it!

I'm still reading The Waste Land.

AND THEN... hahahaa but let's hear from you all on anything here or on anything which struck you at all in Book One: Et in Arcadia Ego.

I am awaiting gleefully the advent of the Wild Blue Satellite people who promise me lightning fast Internet speed and I will be off about 4 hours hopefully no longer, so carry on!!

Meanwhile, everybody chime right on in, what struck YOU, what do YOU think, and which wheel or theme interests you the most?

Did we gloss over architecture and Inigo Jones? Here's a link
Inigo Jones

In Chapter 4, Sebastian says that the house was moved, stone by stone, in the time of Jones.
So the castle was moved in the 1600s, not more recently, which makes the house of
Brideshead around 300 years old.

Everything in America is so new in contrast, at least most of the houses that we live in; yes, 300-year-old Jamestown is being celebrated this month, but there's really nothing left of Jamestown. Here in New England, a few wooden building are intact from the late 1600s, but no stone castles that I'm aware of.

Referring back to the siblings, Brideshead, the oldest brother, is the Earl of Brideshead, and Sebastian is called Lord Sebastian; Julia is Lady Julia, of course. Isn't there a hint that she is a year or two younger than Sebastian, as she was coming out in London when Sebastian was 19 or 20. Did girls come out at 17 or 18?

MIPPY, Winnekenni Castle is in my hometown, Haverhill, MA. It's not very old, but I grew up with that overlooking Kenoza Lake near my backyard. I was surprised to find that the article about this castle was written by my father-in-law, Donald C. Freeman.

I worked taking care of a rich old lady in Mt. Kisco, New York in the mid-70's. She lived in the carriage house of her estate, which had been brought stone by stone from England. She had all the trappings, peacocks and guinea hens, a flax field from which her daughter-in-law spun linen.

When my daughter and I went to the Virginia Bash a few years ago, we went through a 500 year old house near Richmond, which also had been brought over from England. Very interesting it was.

Mal

"I did not see Julia that morning, but just as I was leaving Cordelia ran to the door of the car and said: "Will you be seeing Sebastian? Please give him my special love. Will you remember-my special love?"

Cordelia's words stick out for me. When she said "special love," I had to stop. There is love and then, there is a special love. I think a "special love" is real. It's so powerful that it can reach the core of the saddest, sickest, loneliest person in the world. No other person, except Cordelia, in this family knows how to give this type of love. This is the type of love Sebastian found with Aloysius and for awhile with Charles. It's a nonjudgmental love. It's unconditional love.

So, I think one theme is conditional vs. unconditional love.

"Twice destroyed by fire, the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury, is part of the Winston Churchill Memorial. The Church, which dates from the 12th century, was redesigned by Sir Christopher Wren in 1677, after the Great Fire of London. Nearly three centuries later a German incendiary bomb left it in ruin. Slated for demolition, Wren's graceful masterpiece was saved by a bold idea. The structure would be rebuilt on the campus of Westminster College as a permanent reminder of Churchill's visit to the college and his prophetic speech. Stone by stone, architects and craftsmen dismantled the Church and painstakingly reconstructed it again at its present site." This is where Churchill made his "iron curtain" speech, and where Gorbachev also spoke, many years later.

I have keyword searched the online novel to find another name for Bridehead, Bridey, and other than Earl of . . . have found nothing.

This unconditional love isn't just needed for Sebastian but for all these characters. Even Lady Marchmain with all her saints on the mantelpiece, and the predominance of religion "in the house; not only in its practices--the daily mass and rosary, morning and evening in the chapel--but in all its intercourse" is spiritually ill. There is an emptiness in each person. I wonder. This feeling of lost, is it because religion is not seen as "real" but only as a play thing, another toy like Aloysius?

"Animals are always doing the oddest things in the lives of the saints. It's all part of the poetry, the Alice-in-Wonderland side, of religion."

Ginny, I can't say enough about this book. It's so moving, so emotional. Is it because no family or friend is perfect? Did Waugh hone in on the fact that all of us have lost or never discovered a piece of Arcadia? Is our Arcadia like a bubble beautiful one moment and in the next moment splattered beautifully in our hands? Where is the hope in Brideshead Revisited? I haven't finished the book yet. I know Evelyn Waugh will leave us with hope, won't he?

1. Father Brown was a fictional detective, a parish priest, written by G.K. Chesterton. In my youth I read a book of the short stories; can't remember much except that it was boring. Not up to Holmes' standard at all. 2. Debutantes were 17-18, equivalent to high school seniors or college freshmen here. I ranked them thus: Bridey, Sebastian, Julia, Cordelia. The first three seem to be about 3 years apart but Cordelia is almost 10 years younger than Julia(!). THis says something about the parents relationship but I'm not sure what.

Charles said he thought Cordelia was 10 or 11 when he met her during his 1st year at Oxford.

When I think of Cordelia, I am reminded of the quotation

"Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger."-- Psalm 8: 1-2 (KJV)

Ginny, I think, asked why does Lord Marchmain hate Lady Marchmain? Lord Marchmain had been an alcoholic while married to Lady Marchmain. Once an alcoholic recovers is it possible he might despise the person, like a wife, the one closest to him, knowing she had encountered all of his embarrassing and weak moments? Some men might find it impossible to stand tall again and appear strong as husbands and fathers once their foibles have become naked before the ones they have loved.

I have also heard it said "you always hurt the one you love the most." Is all that talk of hate for Lady Marchmain really true? Is Lord Marchmain spouting hatred because he can't get her back again?

Brideshead remembers his mother during those bad years with his father, Lord Marchmain.

"I once saw my father drunk, in this room....You cant stop people if they want to get drunk. My mother couldn't stop my father, you know."

Then, Lady Marchmain tells Charles about the character of an alcoholic.

"One of the most terrible things about them is their deceit. Love of truth is the first thing that goes."

If I listen to Sebastian and his father, it's easy to dislike, really hate, Lady Marchmain. Really, Lady Marchmain deserves some sympathy. What a horrible marriage she lived through. Religion must have been her only comfort. Then, to watch her son going down the same hopeless path as his father. It must feel dreadful as a mother to watch the "midwinter in Sebastian's heart."

Charles thinks closely about Lady Marchmain.

"I wondered as the train carried me farther and farther from Lady Marchmain, whether perhaps there was not on her, too, the same blaze, marking her and hers for destruction by other ways than war. Did she see a sign in the red centre of her cosy grate and hear it in the rattle of creeper on the window-pane, this whisper of doom?"

"One of the most terrible things about them (alcoholics) is their deceit. Love of truth is the first thing that goes."
It might appear this way with active alcoholics, but it isn't true. The need to drink is so strong that it pushes everything else, including reason, out of the way. What's true is that addicts will do anything to get what they need -- and we're talking about addiction here. Alcohol is a drug, so alcoholism comes under the category of drug addiction.

It is a mental compulsion as well as a physical one. I uaed to tell people that my alcoholism was all in my head. I drank to ease physical pain, and later emotional pain. I drank because alcohol temporarily made me feel better.

My former husband and his parents were always popping pills, antihistamines, aspirin, aspirin and more aspirin, as well as prescribed drugs. They took them because they made them feel better. They had never done anything besides that to reduce stress. Is that addiction? I think so. For heaven's sake, I've known people addicted to butter.

Neither had I done anything else to reduce the stress of pain until I stopped leaning on alcohol many years ago. I can't tell you why Sebastian and his father drank because there don't have to be reasons beyond a broken shoe lace. In other words, there don't have to be any reasons at all. I personally think it's a genetic disease, which hits some members of a family and not others, depending on their genetic makeup.

I still have the urge to drink, and it will never go away. I know the way not to, though, and that magic door was opened to me by Doc Bob, Bill Wilson and Alcoholics Anoymous a long, long time ago. I've broken my anonymity here, and it's not the first time I've done it on these boards. Part of an alcoholic's recovery is to help other people, especially other alcoholics. You'll see later in the book that Charles is told how Sebastian has helped many people in his life. He is unable to help himself in this way, but it's because he doesn't want to. The desire to change is foremost in recovery from addiction of any kind. Incidentally, that recovery goes on as long as you live, if you are a recovering addict, as I am.

Because I am what I am, I don't look at Sebastian in the way that other people might. That's the reason for this post.

Mal

Thank you, MALRYN. You are able to give us valuable insights to what is happening that we otherwise might not grasp. And on a personal note, I have always had a greater respect for those who fight such a battle and win, than those who never had a battle to fight.

I was struck by what seems to me Lord Marchmain's very British attitude toward his position. Charles thought his air of normality to be 'studied', and not natural at all. "It was as thought he were conscious of a Byronic aura, which he considered to be in bad taste and was at pains to suppress." He now claims to 'abominate' the English countryside, and states that "our countrymen are much less dignified in expressing their moral disapproval." Is this a case of hating what one has lost, choosing hate over grief?

Babi

Iknow I probably dont quite understand, but it does make me wondor.. We have Sebastian and his father, both alcoholics ( or at least seem to be) when they are around MUM.. and wife.. Now his father seems to not be drinking to that degree around Cara.. Made me wondor if Sebastian needed to be away as far as possible from Mum.. Ginny, sorry I read what was originally supposed to be read and didnot catch the change.. OK>> at the end of the current reading. Cordelia impresses me no end. The only normal member of the family. A very impressive young lady with a lot to say. I also have a good deal of respect for Edward. When Charles wants to go to Paris and train to be an artist. He never flinches.. This sort of decision would be hard on a parent and yet he is encouraging. I still like Cordelia and Edward.. and Cara the most.

Oh interesting point on Teresa Marchmain and Lord Marchmain, and Sebastian's drinking, Stephanie, I must admit that I thought the same thing. Ahahaha But that's not in the Logic of the Thing, as Lady Marchmain would say of alcoholism. Still Lady Marchmain DOES tend to weigh on one somewhat remorselessly, huh? And so far the only one who SEEMS to escape her influence are the two girls, so we'll have to watch them!

Babi, great point "It was as thought he were conscious of a Byronic aura, which he considered to be in bad taste and was at pains to suppress."

Good point here, he's somewhat playing a role, and they may all be, actually. That has to be deliberate on the part of the author, who I keep forgetting, wrote this. Hahaaha

I'm not sure about Cara, she seems almost to be a Sibyl, doesn't she?

"How good it is to sit in the shade and talk of love."

I was thinking this morning coming in how good it was just to contemplate Brideshead as we see it now, as Charles called it in the beginning of Chapter IV, an "enchanted palace," which, in the time honored way of things, will not last: "nothing gold can stay."

As Hats said, with hope . It's like, in a way, entering, whenever we like, a dream, of lost youth and memory, of adolescence. We've all been young and we've all made mistakes. Some of us may have done some very daring and outr� things in our lives while "adolescent," which to Waugh was up to age 23, according to his writings.

Every time I see the black heading it's, for me, like hearing the theme song of the film, taking us back, back to a happier time when there still IS hope. Hats asked, Waugh will end with hope or leave us with hope, won't he?

I think he thinks he does? We may not think so. Early on Sebastian (who with his mother and brother seem very strange advocates for Catholicism, none of them can explain anything, and when they try the result is very poor). Sebastian says Catholics don't think the same things are important as other people do. I am not sure that's correct from what I see, but at any rate we'll find out.

Already we can see the shadows growing, Charles and Sebastian feel old, Aloysius is put away, forgotten, gone. If Aloysius is Sebastian's conscience, then what is being said by his absence? If he speaks for Sebastian then what does his absence mean?

The childhood is going, finally, but what will be left? Mummy is still reading to them all around the fire, There's still hope, Charles has hope, he tries to convince Lady Marchmain, who also has hope that Msgr Bell and Mr. Samgrass can work miracles. There's still hope.

People like to attend high school reunions, such fun. I thought I would, too, till I found out a girl I very much admired had come to a tragic and very unexpectedly unhappy end: our little happy and hopeful high school bubble burst, like they often do. I think that's what's happening here, everything now looks grey. Mummy is taking steps, Charles warns her but it does no good, I thought that section was interesting:

"Lady Marchmain, if you want to make him a drunkard that's the way to do it. Don't you see that any idea of his being watched would be fatal?"

"Oh dear, it's no good trying to explain. Protestants always think Catholic priests are spies."

Both Lady Marchmain and Sebsatian not to mention Bridey are very poor apologists for the Faith at this point. And the result of course is Sebastian leaves Oxford, preferring to leave rather than stay with Msr or whatever the abbreviation is, Bell. What IS a Monsignor? I know they cause a great stir, but what ARE they? They are not Cardinals...are they Bishops?

One wonders how Sebastian stayed this long, there is no hint of doing any work?

Then we have:

"Bless you, Charles. There aren't many evenings left to us."

Malryn since you have personal experience with chemical addiction, what would have been your advice to Lady Marchmain at this point? You make a strong point that Sebastian does not want to change, himself, so what would you advise her?

So we have two major themes here that all of the characters are spinning on and it looks like Malryn and Bridey are actually saying the same thing: that is, it's something nobody outside of the person can help?

Bridey here has some strange and somewhat dispassionate thoughts on drinking:

"I believe God prefers drunkards to a lot of respectable people."

What an extraordinary thing to say. But what is Charles's answer?

Charles's answer is "Why bring God into everything?"

And "It seems to me that without your religion Sebastian would have the chance to be a happy and healthy man."

And Bridey responds, "It's arguable."

Now here neither man is actually talking to the other, or about what the other is saying. Neither asks the other WHY he's said such unusual things. Why God might prefer a drunkard, why Sebastian would be better off without religion. I don't think "religion" has anything to do with Sebastian's unhappiness. I am not sure what does, (what do YOU think is causing Sebastian's unhappiness?) but that this point he's becoming chemically addicted, apparently, and it's like drug abuse. Malryn says you don't need a big reason, even a broken shoelace, was he doomed from the outset then? Gene wise his father was an alcoholic but if he had never started, he'd not have been one, and apparently he started VERY early drinking. In her house.

There's something not right here in this picture.

When I looked at Lady Marchmain's rooms the first thing I saw was nothing of the children in her personal hidey hole, but a lot of bondieuserie Nothing like Nanny's. In her private rooms, surely there could be something of the children?

You know there's more.... hahahaa

Other things: Ned's book:

In talking about Lady Marchmain's three brothers, we learn she was older than the eldest by 9 years, and two sisters in between, that prayers had been said for sons to carry the line forward, that they were men of a hunting/ woods strong forceful type and that with them the entire line of her family had died. Such a huge disappointment.

I believe somehow she wants to make it up, to do the book about them, and to somehow perpetuate her own line. I think Joan K is right about why she did not want Bridey to be a priest and now Sebastian, too, if he only knew the story, would carry on for them. She says so, very clearly. But that's the horse SHE rode in on, Papa does not see it that way. No Stonyhurst for Sebastian, run by the Jesuits. Christ Church for him.

And then Charles says:

The family history was typical of the Catholic squires of England; from Elizabeth's reign till Victoria's they lived sequestered lives, among their tenantry and kinsmen, sending their sons to school abroad, often marrying there, inter-marrying, if not, with a score of families like themselves, debarred form all preferment, and learning, in those lost generations, lessons which could still be read in the lives of the last three men of the house

But here Waugh is accused of elitism:

....men who were, in all the full flood of academic and athletic success, of popularity and the promise of great rewards ahead, seen somehow as set apart from their fellows, garlanded victims, devoted to the sacrifice. These men must die to make a world for Hooper; they were the aborigines, vermin by right of law, to be shot off at leisure so that things might be safe for the traveling salesmen, with his polygonal pince-nez, his fat wet handshake, his grinning dentures.

This is right before the part that Hats quoted about her own flame going down.

That's pretty strong stuff!!! Do YOU think it's Elitist?

There's something not right about Lady Marchmain. I think Hats had a good hold on it: the characters (all of them?) are spiritually ill. Hat said, "there is an emptiness in each person." I'd like to look at how this affects them and religion and alcoholism, and every other theme in the book, including Memory and Conditional and Unconditional Love.

For instance look how she shucks Charles off: "It's no good, Charles," she said. "All you can mean is that you have not as much influence or knowledge of him as I thought. It is no good either of us trying to believe him. I've known drunkards before. One of the most terrible things about them is their deceit. Love of truth is the first thing that goes."

Malryn says she does not think this so. Others have reported it, perhaps reaction to addiction differs with the person addicted. I am not sure what the "truth" is, here, either. I think Charles, even tho he is the narrator, is reliable and I think he may be closer to Sebastian than she thinks.

At any rate, RELIGION, specifically CATHOLICISM and ALCHOLISM are dual ...you might say fighting wheels in this? Which will out, do you think? I'd like to look at how each character's deficiencies (if you think they are) are affected by these two major forces or undercurrents.

I think Bridey has the somewhat shell shocked demeanor of the child and brother of an alcoholic. He would like to escape (Teresa Marchmain and Sebastian, interestingly enough, use the term "running away." But Bridey wanted to escape into the priesthood: he felt a vocation. Poor guy.

There's nothing HE did to cause the alcoholism of either his father or Sebastian, I think he's wise to say so, there's nothing HE did or can do to stop it, and so he's somewhat permanently muted as a result.

I liked Hat's thought here, too:

Did Waugh hone in on the fact that all of us have lost or never discovered a piece of Arcadia?

If we're honest, we'd have to say?------------------???

Mrs. Sherlock, so you see Sebastian as older than Julia (thank you for the Father Brown, these were apparently like Uncle Arthur for adults? Homilies with a lesson?) Good point on the long age difference in Julia and Cordelia!

Marni you are absolutely right, on the roof Charles says 10 or 11 years old!

Thank you all for the interesting backgrounds of moved old places, isn't that interesting, Malryn, and Pedln. You have to wonder why go to the extreme trouble to MOVE something? Why not just built it better?

??

What does it say to MOVE something?

Mippy thank you for the link to Inigo Jones, so many rich references here in the book!

So we have a lot of changes here. Charles is thinking of leaving Oxford. What did you think of the exchange between him and his father? What is ER trying to get across, do you think?

The Companion notes:

EW's [Waugh's] own father was more circumspect when his son proposed to so something similar. He told him to get a degree first. When, however, WE got a third, his father thought it unprofitable for him to spend the required ninth term up at Oxford enjoying himself and doing no work at all, and entered him for an art school.

Has it occurred to anybody that there's another "palace" in this section?

What are YOUR thoughts on any of the spokes of these spinning wheels? Or add another, the floor is open for your thoughts!! I'm putting up some new questions in the heading, but just take them from anywhere, OR pose your own!

I agree with Malryn that alcoholism has a genetic component; in my father's line several sibs were afflicted, my father himself, also my sister plus I married an alcoholic. Hats: I'm so impressed with your insights. All of us are adding mulitple dimensions to the cast of characters. Ginny continues to braid our all over the place observations into a whole that is more than the sum of its parts. I wish I had had the Companion the first time I read this. It is fascinating to read, like an encyclopedia, start here and wake up several pages later! I always remember one of the twin advice columnists said: Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Certainly lots of sinning going on in this book.

I can relate to the parents in Brideshead Revisited. The horrible feelings of guilt and self hatred when one adult child goes astray. There are so many questions no one could answer for me, not even my religion. Should I or should I not have picked his friends? What about the times I worked outside of the home? Should I have been home? Did religion, going to church daily, listening to ministers become the parent instead of me, the parent? When is it time to teach the child that the world is not a perfect place? When is it time to take the fantasy of Santa Claus and teddy bears away and say this is not the real world? There is pain in the real world. Some people will not like you. Some people will envy you, etc. When is it time to admit that I have been an imperfect adult, a parent unaware of all the right ways to parent? When is it time to say I have done my best for this child Adult and stop feeling guilty, losing sleep, crying in my pillow? When is it time to admit defeat but at the same to never stop loving the child adult? When is it time to practice "tough love?"

Not all of these questions are pursued in Waugh's book. At the same time, many of these questions are approached. We are left knowing that parenting is a struggle. Also, we know that our adult children's choices are like our choices because we feel every painful mistake they make.

Hats: Parenting is another strong theme here, as you noted. Was Waugh a parent? The perspective is not kind to parents' roles, makes me wonder if parenting was lacking in his personal life.

Mrs. Sherlock, that's a good question.

GINNY asks what advice I'd give to Lady Marchmain. I'd tell her to take care of herself. If she didn't want to take a chance with the Oxford Group, which Sebastian probably would refuse, I'd tell her to leave him alone.

There is nothing she can do for her son, either to make up for things she had Nanny do instead of doing them herself, including love him no questions asked, or to cure him of his addictions.

After I told her this, and before she kicked me out , I'd show her the Serenity Prayer, or say it aloud to her:

God grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change
To change the things I can
And the wisdom to know the difference.
As a person whose life has been controlled by more than one disease whose effects I've had to overcome, and as a parent of two remaining adult children even today, this little prayer has helped me more than almost anything I know. I'm not sure Lady Marchmain has the humility to practise what it says, though.

Through my work with other alcoholics I have met many who are Catholic, including Catholic priests, who are part of the most expensive club in the world -- AA.

The Catholic religion is not alone in an emphasis on sin. But its teaching about blame and guilt can be very hard for a person who has the disease of alcoholism. Catholics I knew, and the priests as well, told me that the more guilt was preached to them, the more they thought about it and what bad people they were -- and the more they drank or abused other drugs.

Mal

P.S. Whoopee! My darling daughter just called. She is in Allentown and preparing to drive a rented car to Mount Pocono and me! I'm so excited that she's going to be here for a long weekend with me!

That said, I'll tell you that all three of my children would have nothing to do with me for a couple of years after my marriage ended. Their father, who drinks a lot, had completely turned them against me. That combined with my own often unpredictable behavior, was enough to cause this heartbreak for me. Many Serenity Prayers later, they all came back to "Mummy". My elder son died two years ago, and he, along with the other two had forgiven me my "sins" and themselves for their own lack of understanding. Happy ending for sure!

Mal, the Serenity Prayer is perfect advice. It's full of wise words.

Without giving away anything significant, I think at this point we see Charles breaking away from the wild life of university and growing up. We might even expect him to find a successful path in life.

The contrast between Charles and Sebastian ... good vs. bad child ... may turn out to be a theme in the novel.

In contrast to Charles, Sebastian remains an adolescent in rebellion. In our house, we called it playing uproar: whenever family members do something that is not wanted, or is bad behavior, or even is just very bad manners. Alcoholism sure makes the list, and it really is a genetic problem, as studies have shown. However, acting out at the dinner table, and being sent to your room (where you dined on candy bars) was a typical adolescent rebellion by one of my kids.

Doesn't even Bridey play uproar, by wanting to be a priest. And what about Julia ... we shall see, but if she were to marry someone whom her mother didn't like, that would be another way of playing uproar. (My own "good" child, who never rebelled at all during adolescence, married an alcoholic to my distress, then divorced after a few years.) So Lady Marchmain has 3 out of 4 children who may play uproar.
Only the youngest daughter, Cordelia, has so far done nothing to rebel at all. She is the good child!
Disfunctional families: is this another theme?

Good or bad according to whom? My Robby, who died, was an alcoholic and had abused drugs. Though I tried not to expect anything of my kids, I expected less from him, but I loved him no less than I loved the other two. His father did, because according to his stern, unbending principles, our son was bad with a capital B. I don't think Jesus Christ would have felt that way. Isn't it his teachings the Catholic church is founded upon?

Mal

Waugh had six children, Mrs. S, but that really doesn't answer the question. Mummy had four.

I do not love thee, Dr Fell,
The reason why I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not love thee, Dr Fell.

My feelings about Mummy. Perhaps it's because as Marni said, she's manipulative and lied to Charles about Mgr. Bell. (Of course, Sebastian neglected to share that info with Charles also). She comes across as doing the perfect thing, the understanding wife and mother who wants what's best for all, when she really wants things done only her way.

No priesthood for Bridey. Not what Mummy wanted. The readings on evenings of tension -- smother the adults present. Trying to make Charles a spy. But I also wonder what she did to make her husband hate her so much, according to what Cara says about her. Which also seems to have turned him against Catholicism. So much so that he wouldn't even let Cara visit the no. 1 tourist spot in Venice.

"But that is what I have always wished," said Cara, changing her point of attack adroitly. "I have been here more times than I can count and Alex has not once let me inside San Marco even. We will become tourists, yes?"

My husband says he was taught that "Monseignor" is an honorary sort of title given for whatever reason...special service or having been a parish priest for XXX years, etc. In this area lots of the old, old priests are Monseignors.

jane

While we are discussing families, I would like to point out that I doubt there is ever a perfect family. However some have done work to prevent mistakes made in previous generations carrying on ad infinitum. My son came home from an extended family funeral the other day and said to me "Mum I never realised how dysfunctional that family is" I told him it was because we had all worked hard on ourselves and his eyes had been opened now.

There are many dysfunctional families around. This dysfunction we see in Sebastian's family is not the exclusive domain of the British aristocracy. Dysfunction manifests itself according the circumstances of our birth. I have met parents who like their children to be at loggerheads. Its a way of divide and rule. I myself are delighted that my kids all get on so well. I know when I am no longer here they will always have each other. My late MIL liked to divide and rule and I note this habit has been passed down to some of her children. The families are always at loggerheads with each other while Mamma queens it over them all.

I love Cordelia. Her sincerity and affectionate nature reminds me of my eldest grandaughter with whom I have a special bond.

One thing struck me about Sebastian. When Charles paints the picture he suggests giving it to Sebastian's mamma. Sebastian says "No give it to Nanny". This is a very telling reaction to Charles's pondering about who should receive the painting. Nanny is the centre of Sebastian's life although he has long left the nursery.

Carolyn

I HAVE IT!! I have had a brainstorm!! Look below!! See what you think? or not?

But first, how astute you all are! Mrs. Sherlock, I liked this: "When is it time to admit defeat but at the same to never stop loving the child adult? When is it time to practice "tough love?"

Now here you raise an interesting issue: the issue of hope. Or is it "will" in Lady Marchmain's case? I liked the way you raised the issue of questions raised but not answered, just like the family here!

Thank you Malryn for those insights and the serenity prayer. I agree that guilt is a very powerful motivating force and/ or problem. I just don't see guilt here, I really don't. WHO here feels guilt or are we saying Sebastian does? I don't think so, see below!

I know you will so enjoy your daughter's visit!!

Interesting Mippy on "playing uproar." You asked, "Doesn't even Bridey play uproar, by wanting to be a priest." No I would not have thought so, raised as he was, sent to a Jesuit school, I would have thought that would be the logical and even desired vocation for him and apparently he thought so too. Here Mummy really shows what her religion is made of, what would people SAY? Well hopefully her Catholic friends would say he's very devout, congratulations, give the family seat to the next boy.

Dysfunctional families may WELL be another theme, there DO seem to be so many in so many different ways, good idea!

I think this is so important: She is the good child!

And so was Malryn's answer: good or bad according to whom? The nuns did not think so. Bridey did not think so. We might add according to what?

This is just an informal dash in to say, tho, I just had a brainstorm at the Wal Mart (how quickly one slides, I used to have brainstorms walking, alas) but anyway, I think I do know why Lord Marchmain hates Lady Marchmain, why, it's as plain as the nose on our faces!

She won't divorce him!!!! Period.

He wants HIS way, He's not fettered by the Catholic strictures, see below, note how everything he says seems to be about him. What was that strange stuff about how the entire palace was arranged for one person and he is that person. He's Byronic in appearance and studied in manner. Note that he has a room as big, I can't recall, as the great hall they are standing in, for his own use, and bigger and Cara has the only other large room, and that's the way it is when you're the Seigneur. And Jane, Monsignor, doesn't that mean "my lord," too? Interesting, thank you for that. So that's another lord, actually.

One is the Lord of the Manor and the other is a lord of the Church. Both live in palaces, did you all catch that?

Carolyn, that's a good point about the "divide and rule" which happens in families AND is often passed down!

Oh good point PEDLN! On Cara also being turned away from the Church by Lord Marchmain, that fits in perfectly with everything else, including " you know we do not dance."

Here are the reasons behind why I think Lord Marchmain hates Lady Marchmain:

She won't divorce him. She won't let him go. She MIGHT move out but she doesn't and she remains the outward martyr to her religious belief: but there are divorces in the Catholic Church as Rex, as we will see, mentions, perhaps not with full comprehension. I doubt sincerely that the Church would do an annulment with such a long standing marriage and such a saintly wife raising 4 fine children alone, and an adulterous husband living in sin, however, and Lord M knows it. (Actually on second thought they might, looking at this mess but you know why they won't? SHE won't divorce him. Period). And HE won't go near the Catholic Church and has been excommunicated, so they are unlikely to listen to him.

Remember Alex Marchmain is a convert in order to marry. Later we will see he hasn't set foot in a Catholic church in years. It's NOT religion that is stopping HIM, he's living in sin with an adulteress and somebody says he's been excommunicated, so his religion is not stopping HIM, not one minute. At this point. I think this is one of the points of the book.

No, it's HER with her piety, just like Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. Lord Marchmain, who is used to having everything in life he wants ( he's rich, he's powerful, he's titled, he's intelligent, he's used to having his own way about everything), HE is thwarted! Droit du seigneur...that phrase just floated up at me, does it fit?

And it totally infuriates him that he can't have what he wants. He hates her as a result. SHE is in his way. He's no longer drinking, but he's still angry. I have known several alcoholics, and while no two people are alike, the ones I knew were full of anger and rage, which spilled over onto the innocent. I don't think she is innocent. It's a strange arrangement, and HE'S the bad guy. And don't you remember!!!! ANTHONY BLANCHE said so!

She's the saint, piously living on what he apparently provides, but in turn doling it out as a little gift, herself. IN his family house. His family. No holy wonder he hates her. He says he does not like the English countryside. He says he has no concern for his position as head of the family, he SAYS these are my opinions and wishes. But he knows better and he hates her because she has forced this.

Sebastian dislikes her for an excellent reason. He's a lot like his father whom he turns to in a divide and conquer war like Carolyn said. Anything they want Mummy won't provide, the old man will to spite her, talk about Alex Baldwin and Kim Bassinger!

But SHE, Mummy, Who Must be Obeyed (I know that's harsh, but LOOK at her) has decided that this son will take up Ned's burden and life and "finish" it for him, how does she put it? I'm typing so fast I don't have time to look it up. SEBASTIAN will take up his dead uncle's burden whom he probably never met. Now THAT is wrong, there is surely no tenet in any religion which insists that a son take up the burden of an uncle's life and works. (And what is it exactly that he's supposed to do? Be an athlete? Be a scholar? Be an outdoorsman adventurer, covered in medals?) Be another Ned? Why?

WHY?

In some ways that is disrespectful to Ned, thinking he can be so easily replaced, but at any rate, neither Sebastian nor Bridey is up to the task, who would be? There are THREE of Teresa's brothers gone! I'd want to run away too and that's exactly what Sebastian says, he's going to keep on running. I think he's beginning to hate her as well, I really do.

My own advice to her this afternoon would be back off. Get him some help for his chemical addiction and obvious mental problems and back off before you kill him. Charles told her the same thing. She said he's had it his way all this time and it doesn't seem to have helped. But he HASN'T had it his way.

There are worse things she might have done, I suppose? For that matter there are lots of worse things any of these people including Sebastian might have done, all he's doing is hurting himself. That's not how Teresa Marchmain sees it tho, it's particularly cruel of him to whatever.....whatever. Poor Teresa.

But she sure is having an effect on her children and this play acting, this reading Father Brown in a beautiful voice when there is tension is enough to make ME run screaming. How on earth did they stand it.

So who do you feel the most sorry for, it's Mother's Day Sunday, should we feel sorry for or sympathy for or empathy for or anything for her? Better her than her estranged husband? It's all his fault, isn't it?

??

My father is an alcoholic and my mother was allergic to alcohol ( what a combination!) I am also allergic to alcohol and can get alcohol poisoning from two glasses of wine or two cans of beer. Two of my siblings are alcoholics and one is a heavy drinker. One other sibling cannot drink alcohol like my mum and myself. I am so thankful I inherited my mums rotten immune system. I may have an autoimmune disease like her but I have been saved from alcoholism. Alcohol poisoning is a dreadful experience and it has happened to me twice in my life. Once after two glasses of wine and once after two cans of beer. I have forgiven my dad now and we can be at peace with each other as he has a terminal illness. I have had almost two years of not feeling angry with him. Its a good feeling. The addictive genes have been passed on however and we are all addicted to something. I used to be a workoholic as is my sister.

How many of us are children of alcoholics and are addicted to something other than alcohol? I bet there is quite a few with other types of addiction.

Carolyn

Ginny: Thanks for the thought but: "When is it time to admit defeat but at the same to never stop loving the child adult? When is it time to practice "tough love?" belongs to that wise woman, Hats. Wish I could claim it, it is very profound.

When my kids were old enough to earn an adults living wage it was tough love from us. We decided not to subsidise their bad budgeting or overspending. My sisters who carried on paying for their kids are still paying for their kids and also rescuing them out of bad situations of their own making. I think it proves that indulgence is not good for our kids and they will never learn to be responsible adults if we are forever rescuing them. We mature by being forced to face a bad situation like a man or woman, take responsibility for our own actions and find a way to resolve the problem. If one of my children was in trouble and it was not of their own making I would of course offer them a home and assistance to get on their feet.

What would I do if I was Sebastians mother? Because I have done the 12 steps program I would let him go down to a point where he would be forced to take a look at himself. If someone is determined not to be helped one has to step aside and allow the alcoholic to hit rock bottom. It is the only chance for rehabilitation. Nobody can help an addict kick the habit. It has to be a conscious and determined decision by the addict themselves.

It was a criminal prosecution which made one member of my extended family kick the alcohol merry go round. No amount of cajoling pleading and tears did any good until the person was arrested after a non injury traffic accident.

Carolyn

Sure we should, Lady Marchmain has tried, and is trying to make good Catholics of her children, and has done quite well. How well is seen in the end, with everyone, including her husband, back in the fold. I hope that doesn't spoil it for anyone. Her way of going about it may seem to make Catholicism unattractive, and we are told about her attempt to look for beauty with her box of paints, but 'she couldn't draw at all, and however bright the colours were in the tubes, by the time Mummy had mixed them up, they came out a kind of khaki.'

It suits the author's purpose to make this Catholic tract palatable for the reader by showing warts and all, with the outsider, Charles, an avowed agnostic, with a critical approach, who sees piety driving the family apart, and Christian belief as discredited myth. His agnosticism is only skin-deep, as we can see when we hear how easily religious images are aroused in him. Like the mention of the glory of god. And comparing the idyllic Brideshead setting to the Beatific Vision. If I can suggest another theme, I would make it the seduction of the narrator by all earthly pleasures at first, but in the end, well, that would be giving it away.

I came across an early review criticism of BR, published in the Manchester Guardian, in June, 1945:

'Mr Evelyn Waugh is a highly gifted and imaginative writer, but I must confess to a strong personal prejudice against his choice of subjects. In 'Brideshead Revisited' he is concerned with a titled Roman Catholic family of considerable wealth. The elder son is a religiously minded nonentity, the younger a man of great personal charm but a confirmed dipsomaniac, and the daughter who marries a divorced Canadian in face of the opposition of her family, to whom such a marriage would mean 'living in sin,' does not remain faithful to him. In short, Mr Waugh's principal themes are adultery, perversion, and drunkenness, and while I could not fail to admire the brilliance of his writing I greatly disliked his story.' J.D.Beresford

There is just too much sin, sin abounding. Yes, Hats, let's not give up on hope. In fact I feel confident that it all ends with a display of amazing grace. At the same time it's a great cautionary tale. Who would have thought that wine-tasting is the slippery slope to drunkenness? For Sebastian. For Charles, it 'sowed the seed of that rich harvest which was to be my stay in many barren years.'

How wonderfully eloquent the two young men became with their wine-tasting:

'...It is a little, shy wine like a gazelle.'

'Like a leprachaun.'

'Dappled, in a tapestry meadow.'

'Like a flute by still water.'

'...And this is a wise old wine.'

'A prophet in a cave.'

'...And this is a necklace of pearls on a white neck.'

'Like a swan.'

'Like the last unicorn.'

If we have to feel sorry for anyone, I would choose Bridey, who has no tolerance for wine, and knows what he is missing by not being able to share a bottle of wine with a friend.

Ah I know the feeling. My DIL has a wine cave full of delectable wines and all I can have is a couple of tablespoons full to taste the wine the dinner guest chooses for the night, When they have dinner guests, including me, the guest gets to choose the wine to go with the meal. I am learning although I cannot imbibe myself. My favorites are the reds.

Carolyn

Ginny: I am in awe of your brainstorm! My mouth is agape!

That the lord of the manor hates his wife because she won't give him a divorce. That fits! The spoiled brat.

It still leaves me wondering, though, what drove him away from her so that he wanted a divorce in the first place? Or maybe that doesn't matter? Is Cara correct when she tells Charles that Alex simply mistakenly married the person he got a crush on instead of getting over it and moving on to a more mature complete relationship (like she described the relationships of young men like Sebastian and Charles - that they should not last too long)?

And why do we keep hearing people in the book say such terrible things about his wife?

The Mistress thinks Sebastian's mother is a nice person. The only fault she apparently had was that her husband fell out of love with her. I have no idea why such terrible things are said about the mother. Perhaps her family blame her for their father walking out.

Carolyn

Bridey is interesting in that he knows he should marry and produce heirs to the estate, but that seems to be totally out of his reach. He is not brave enough to become a priest since the decision is certainly his and not his mothers. He just does not seem to want to participate in life. Why would she divorce the father. She would lose her home.. It is actually his ancestral estate, but she acts as if it is hers. Not a nice woman, sorry but I really dont like her. My best friend was an alcoholic.. A hidden one for so many many years. She only drank by herself at home and was extremely good at hiding what was happening. Amazingly enough to me, she got up one morning, went to work, quit her job, came home and never ever drank anything again. No AA, no meetings, just her.. She spent 15 sober years and got cancer and died.. But she did it all alone and I always was in awe of that.

I think it was Mrs. Sherlock who said this: I think it proves that indulgence is not good for our kids and they will never learn to be responsible adults if we are forever rescuing them.

It is worth noting that Edward Ryder's handling of Charles overspending was successful. Charles, who is beginning to 'settle down', says:"I had come back glutted and a little chastened; with the resolve to go slow. Never again would I expose myself to my father's humour; his whimsical persecution had convinced me, as no rebuke could have done, of the folly of living beyond my means."

Chalk one up for the parent! ...Babi

PS: HATS, We can only do our best, pray, and focus on the good in each one of our children. Positive thinkin wins out over negativity every time, IMO.

B

Marni asks --And why do we keep hearing people in the book say such terrible things about his wife?

I think it's because the shoe is beginning to fit. She is not a nice person.

Day-tripper, what a good point about Mummy's paints. Is Waugh using the paint as a symbol of what a mess she's made of things -- her life, her children, her marriage? And I agree with you about Bridey. Has he ever had a good friend? Has he ever bonded with anyone? A bit stuffy, yes, but lost in his lonely primness without the vocation he desired.

I think Charles' description of Lady M points up her devious ways.

"Lady Marchmain was not diffuse, but she took hold of her subject in a feminine, flirtatious way, circling, approaching, retreating, feinting; shehovered over it like a butterfly; she played "grandmother's steps" with it, getting nearer the real point imperceptibly while one's back was turned, standing rooted when she was observed. The unhappiness, the running away -- these made up her sorrow, and in her own way she exposed the whole of it, before she was done."

Then, as if in afterthought we find what she was really after -- "I wonder have you seen my brother's book? It has just come out. He was the last to be killed, and when the telegram came, as I knew it would come, I thought: 'Now it's my son's turn to do what Ned can never do now.' I was alone then. He was just going to Eton."

Poor Sebastian.

Good point about ER, Babi. Makes me change my thinking there a bit.

I agree, Pedln, super point about Mummy's devious ways. I totally agree with this: " think it's because the shoe is beginning to fit. She is not a nice person."

Why do YOU say "poor Sebastian?"

Gosh I mixed up another one, misattributed another quote, I'm so sorry.

I PRINT OUT your thoughts and take them off and read them, make notes on them and THEN I come back in and use a split screen and STILL make mistakes, I am so sorry!! Mea culpa.

Today is Friday and all that's in the wind, I'm going to stab gleefully! Hahahah Best not to mention names but I can't help it.

I expected everybody to rush to her defense!! IN her defense I guess you'd say that she's doing the best she can. There's nothing wrong with being pious, but there's a lot wrong with manipulating people and lying and she's doing that. I think SHE has caused a lot which has befallen her, I really do.

BUT she's trying, we'll give her that. PERHAPS someone she trusts, someone in the Church has advised her that a "project" like taking over Dead Ned's life and works is just the thing for Sebastian. It's clear Father Phipps is a tad removed from the situation, maybe he made that suggestion when he saw how she felt about Ned. But what a DISASTER!

Why won't she listen?

Oh well, like her or blame her it's clear Alex Marchmain hates her, and of course that's not really good for him, either, is it?

Marni, I thought it was brilliant, myself? Hahahahaa But it may have holes, we'll see. My mouth is agape too, but this, now:

It still leaves me wondering, though, what drove him away from her so that he wanted a divorce in the first place? Or maybe that doesn't matter?

Well he went off to war and found somebody else, apparently? He really does not seem a very accommodating man.

Is Cara correct when she tells Charles that Alex simply mistakenly married the person he got a crush on instead of getting over it and moving on to a more mature complete relationship

OO I missed that, well there it is. He married young? OR? Was besotted once and there you have it?

And why do we keep hearing people in the book say such terrible things about his wife?

Well I thought we thought Anthony Blanche told it like it was? Don't we sort of think of him as another narrator of truth? I think he saw thru her, if my theory is correct, after all, he's a Catholic, too.

She's a blood sucker.

Daytripper I could not disagree with you more about the ending!!!! Good good, we'll have a high old time of it when we get there.

I'm not sure it's clear to all that many of us have read the book, several times, many have seen the film, several times, let's wait and discuss the end when we get there, but I totally disagree with you!

Love it.

I thought this of yours really fine:

Charles, an avowed agnostic, with a critical approach, who sees piety driving the family apart, and Christian belief as discredited myth. His agnosticism is only skin-deep, as we can see when we hear how easily religious images are aroused in him. Like the mention of the glory of god. And comparing the idyllic Brideshead setting to the Beatific Vision.

Thank you for the quote, there's another good one out there from somebody deeply disappointed in the end of the book, it might be interesting to see when we get there, too, when we make our own thoughts known about the ending.

But what can we expect of Charles? His religious upbringing has been sparse and actually negative.

The wine tasting scenes reminded me of the movie Sideways with Paul Giamatti which I thought was excellent, in which the pretensions of the oenophile are exposed, it's funny too just like that scene. Have any of you seen it?

I think it was Mrs. Sherlock who said way back there (it was somebody anyway) that she wished she had had the Companion when she read this the first time and I agree! It's a FIND!

Here is a GREAT thing in this section in the Companion, I did not know this:

Greats:

This term is used only at the University of Oxford. It is the name for the final examination for a B.C. degree in classical studies( i.e. of ancient Greece and Rome). It was the culmination of a four-year course of study, the student shaving studied ancient Greek and Latin literature for two years and then the history and philosophy of those ancient civilizations (Litterae Humaniores) for two more years.

Isn't that interesting? We might have suspected as much by Charles' description of Jasper's contemplation of the exam he just took and possibly did not do well on.

Little things, in the writing, this:

It was thus that Lady Marchmain found us, when, early in that Michaelmas term, she came for a week to Oxford.

I love that Michaelmas term, and the companion says, "the name for the fall term at Oxford. The Feast of Saint Michael & All Angels is on 29th September."

Doesn't that seem romantic, to you? Forget Fall Term or whatever, Michaelmas term.

Love it.

What in general, this being Friday, would you like to comment on? OH astrakhan in the movie quite unappealing looking collar on a coat, like a black lamb's wool, the Companion says "Then an expensive fur fabric made form the curly black fleece of lambs from Astrakhan, which borders the Caspian Sea in southern Russia. "

Stupid looking effect, tho?

Oh and read footnote 126 in the Companion for Book One Chapter 5 and see if you agree about what's wrong with "Mummy's Little Talks."

And then there's Blackwell's, the bookstore, which of course you have to go to but what a bookstore. A windowed front out of Dickens, and there's now a branch of Blackwell's across the street too, so you think, well, this is nothing....much.... and then you go in. A small space awaits you, which goes off into the distance forever and up up floor after floor. You feel as if you have stepped back in time. The floor boards obligingly squeak and you enter a bibliophile's paradise; up and up and up the stairs up and up, floor after floor, it's arranged with library precision. Whole sections tucked away under the eaves, on the classics, books of Roman armor, Roman Military Clothing, the Roman Army (all periods) Greek and Roman War Machinery (all periods) tons of texts, you want to stay forever. Creak creak go the floorboards.

I nearly bought OUT their entire store of Blackwell's souvenirs, I wonder where any of them are now? hahahaa

Good point Babi on ER tho I am not sure a lot of affection has accompanied Charles' lesson but that may be part of fathers/ sons again.

Me either, Stephanie, I don't particularly like her either, and it's hard to DISLIKE one so pious if you get my meaning, YOU feel guilty and I have a feeling that's something that MAY (I've just seen this, I think Malryn brought it up originally in the case of AA and priests_) be bothering Sebastian too.

Maybe we should stop talking about how can you have a relationship with Peter Pan and ask how you can have one with a saint?

Good point, Carolyn, Cara thinks she is a nice lady! I think I know why they say such awful things, and said so yesterday, I think we were posting together, but many people don't understand what's wrong with Lady Marchmain, actually. If anything is. Good point on hitting the bottom.

So we have here a titled family, the beautiful people (let's try to sum up)... So far we have one, Lord Marchmain living abroad (which was not uncommon, who was it in the aristocracy of England who lived half the year in England and half in America and her husband did the same but they fixed it so that neither was in the same country at the same time? They actually passed like ships in the night, literally?)It happened.

We have the beautiful people, the devoted loving mother with her 4 children reading before the fire....yep.

That's on the surface.

Then on the inside like all life we have the real people and the real situations and they are not particularly pleasant. And it's a real shock from the idyllic Eden like palace of freedom and joy that Charles once thought it was.

"I'd be all right if they'd only leave me alone."

"They won't now," I said.

"I know."

...."Really, " I said, "if you are going to embark on a solitary bout of drinking every time you see a member of your family, it's perfectly hopeless."

"Oh, yes," said Sebastian with great sadness. "I know It's hopeless."

WHY, in YOUR opinion, does Sebastian feel it's hopeless at this point? What is hopeless, exactly?

Pedln's comment that Bridey has never bonded with anybody makes me wonder if Sebastian ever bonded with anybody...with the notable exception of Nanny Hawkins? Has Julia? Cordelia seems to have bonded with several, but I'm not sure they return her "bondiness" (I know there's no such word, but maybe you know what I mean?

Jane ~ Your question about Julia will be answered later in the book. It will be no surprise if such a charming girl finds a husband, right?

But the question I suggested above was: will Julia's husband be acceptable to Mummy? And why not?

Is it just my perception, or are we posting an awful lot on the alcoholism problem? When I first read this book, I
couldn't finish it, finding that such a depressing subject. This spring, I'll stick it out.

Ginny ~ you ask does Sebastian feel it's hopeless at this point?
I never seem to get inside his head. I probably don't want to. Sebastian appears to want
to ruin his life; to me, it is very depressing.

I think that Sebastian is a weak person, a dependent personality. He is dominated by his mother, hasn't had a father figure nearby to help build his character and keep Mummy (and Nanny?) from smothering him, and he wants to escape from his unhappiness. He has been babied and pampered and he is needy. Sebastian knows this about himself and knows he will not be able to pull himself out of this downward spiral and will not be able to get out from under the control of others. He is unable to take care of himself except through using others with his charm and beauty. He probably hates himself for his weakness. So, he thinks it is hopeless. And it is.

Hi, everyone. I've been in Portland, Oregon this week to watch my daughter be sworn in to the Bar, and have had very little time until yesterday, when I spent it doing what I thought was catching up by reading all of Brideshead deserted. Now I could kick myself for missing the chance to be in on so much stimulating discussion. I'll try to catch up by posting some of what I think, but we're going to the coast this afternoon, and I suspect there won't be internet access.

Congratulations to your daughter, Pat H!

I was thinking more about Ginny's brainstorm last night in the shower. I do like Ginny's idea that Alex hates Teresa because she won't give him a divorce. It may be more complicated than that.

This whole church thing that we've been talking about.....I think Alex fell in love with Teresa and, being young and in love and an Anglican, didn't realize all that he was getting into. He didn't understand the power and pull of the Catholic church on someone such as pious Teresa. Spoiled haughty young man that he may have been, he made some important concessions for her in order to marry her. He converted to Catholicism, for one thing. He rebuilt her little chapel where she spent so much time praying. He agreed to raise the children as Catholics in an Anglican country.

Then things went sour. Teresa seems to be an extremely controlling person. She probably tried to control Alex - manipulation cloaked in piety and sweetness. He probably didn't like it any better than Sebastian. He apparently tried to drink himself into oblivion, too. Then he found Europe and Cara and maybe thought he could start a new life. But he couldn't get freed from the strings of his broken marriage.

Yes, he's definitely PO'd about not being able to get a divorce. He was probably used to getting what he wanted. I'm thinking he also hates Teresa for leading him into the permanent unhappiness in the first place. She snagged him but good. How could he really have foreseen being so stuck? He probably hates himself for being so stupid and naive and is channeling this hate of himself onto his wife. He's mad at the church for its rules that he can't change and is channeling his hatred of the church onto his wife.

Does anyone like Charles? I can't seem to like him at all. What an obnoxious snob. He doesn't get any better as he grows older.

In the beginning, I thought I was going to like him. I appreciated Charles' contempt for his new unit commander who was obviously not a born leader of men. I thought Charles was good to his men.

But the more I see of Charles, the more I can't like him at all. Yes, he has friends in school and afterward. I don't know what they see in him. His family's money and position? All this stuff about loving beauty. And he has such contempt for people who don't have his sense of beauty and class. I find him extremely irritating.

I have to say I like ER more and more. The only fault he has, is that he misses his wife to distraction and the only way he can cope with her loss is to live the way he is living. He does really have affection for Charles and he wants him to be happy but also to be a responsible adult.

Carolyn

I don't see any reason so far to dislike Charles. He's a young man, trying to find his way, trying to know which direction to go. He has some talents and inclinations to art, and I thought it prudent of him, that second term at Oxford, to take some art classes in addition to his readings. Now he's at a point where he thinks art is the right direction and he asks his father for some advice. And all ER seems to care about is that the work and study take place far away.

"Abroad?" asked my father hopefully. "There are some excellent schoolsabroad I believe."
It was all happening rather faster than I had intended.
"Abroad or here. I should have to look round first."
"Look round abroad," he said.

Not exactly encouraging.

To me, Lady Marchmain is the crucial figure of the book. Her actions determine the fate of almost all the characters. The characters have wildly different opinions of her, ranging from saint to devil, and with reason. She is a mass of contradictory characteristics.

She is very devout, almost a saint, and also very brave. Through a combination of position and character, she has become an influential person in Church and other circles.

She is also manipulative, iron-willed, and inflexible. She is totally focussed on her own agenda, and doesn't even consider there could be other valid points of view or two sides to anything.

She also totally fails to understand what the people around her are thinking and feeling, especially her family. Her way of trying to withhold drink from Sebastian at Brideshead is an example. I don't know what she should have done, but anyone could see that treating him like a child in a way that was constantly publicly humiliating would only drive him to despair and make things worse. Every time Charles tries to explain to her what Sebastian's real issues are or what he (Charles) has thought or done, she doesn't believe him or reinterprets it to suit her agenda.

Ginny says it's hard to dislike someone so pious and you feel guilty if you do. That's exactly right, and Lady M. knows it. I'm reminded of a line in a humorous book I read once: "Making guilt work".

I really wonder what Waugh thought of her. There are several parts of the book where I feel that what Waugh thinks and wants to make me feel are very different from what I actually think and feel, and this is one of them.

Gee, speak of the devil. I just got off the phone with my next door neighbor who is Catholic. She was telling me about troubles her daughter is having with her "fiancee." I guess her daughter and this man were supposed to get married. The man was also Catholic, but was divorced from his first wife; so he was ex-communicated from the church. My neighbor doesn't know what her daughter is going to do. My neighbor was talking about how archaic the rules of the Catholic church are.

I agree with PEDLIN re. Charles. He is of that amazingly innocent pre-war generation, just beginning to see a bit of the world and come to terms with it. We can scarcely imagine, nowadays, a man of that age so young and naive. I can remember, tho, in my own lifetime, the difference between being young 50-60 years ago and the same age groups today. I wish we could have preserved a bit of that innocence for this generation.

On reading PAT's sketch of Lady Marchmain, it suddenly occurred to me I knew a woman like that. Greatly admired, elegant, seemingly with the Midas touch in all she did. Yet she was so certain of the rightness of her views that she forced them on all her family..for their own good...and ended alienating them all.

Remember when I said I thought Sebastian loved Charles as someone who belonged to him, and felt betrayed when Lady Marchmain seemed to draw Charles into her admiring circle? I found confirmation for this later: "She accepted me as Sebastian's friend and sought to make me hers also and in doing so, unwittingly struck at the roots of our friendship." I believe it was 'unwitting'. Lady Marchmain sincerely wanted to help Sebastian, and was intent upon enlisting Charles aid in accomplishing her goals. But always, they were her goals. It never occurred to her to respect Sebastian's wishes.

Babi

Just noted a remark in the header:
If Aloysius is Sebastian's conscience, then what is being said by his absence?

Why does a teddy bear have to be a conscience? I don't see it that way.
Aloysius could be a way to hang on to childhood, or at least to hold on to the stage of life where
all was carefree and sweet. And Nanny always came to the rescue.

Sebastian doesn't want to grow up, perhaps as a way of rebelling against his mother. Or perhaps he is just somewhat lazy and doesn't want to work at growing up. Being an adult is hard work!

Congratulations for PatH and daughter!!

MARNI: "Does anyone like Charles? I can't seem to like him at all. What an obnoxious snob. He doesn't get any better as he grows older".

Good for you!!

The snobbish remarks are typical of all British upper-class literature. The upper class is afraid the dreary ridiculous middle-class is taking over everything (I can't find the quote -- Something like WWI saved the world for the obstetrician's plastic glasses).

Don't blame Charles -- this is Waugh talking, not Charles. Any of the other characters would have said the same thing if they weren't too self-involved to care about the world. This is the upper-class view of the world between the wars.

Mippy, I agree. I don't think Aloysius is a conscience either. I do think Aloysius is a major part of Sebastian's story and the rest of the family's story. Aloysius is a puppet in the hands of his master, Sebastian. Sebastian keeps Aloysius front and center so he won't go unnoticed. At times, he speaks aloud for Aloysius. Aloysius isn't Sebastian's big secret. Aloysius is Sebastian's big scream to the world; Help me! Listen to me! See me! Love me just the way I am.

When Aloysius disappears, I think it's because the water has gone under the bridge. There is no turning back now. The past will never return. The world may become worse, better or maintain the Status quo but it will never go turn back the same way twice.

Also, when Aloysius disappears, I feel Sebastian has grown up. He no longer needs to speak through a toy. Sebastian has lost his innocence. Sebastian will speak for himself no matter where the chips may fall.

It's amazing the wonder of the world of toys. Psychologists use toys to help children become relaxed and tell about abuses. We slept with our dolls and teddy bears to chase away nightmares.

I think Mr. Rogers understood the wonder of a toy, the fun of a toy and the way a toy is able to help children slip through their growth stages with a friend who never sleeps, never gets annoyed, only knows how to be there for you. Perhaps, our toys are our first introduction to a "God."

Won't You Be My Neighbor?

Sebastian had the perfect neighborhood. He wanted the perfect family one with unconditional love. Looking at the quote in the heading spoken by Charles, was Charles also looking for the perfect neighbor and neighborhood?

"I went to the garden-room this morning and was so very sorry."-Teresa Marchmain.

This final note is a graceful exit line for Book I. Lady Marchmain is saying she realizes the painting that Charles started in the garden room will never be finished, and she regrets that. This marks the end of the first Brideshead 'visit' for Charles, I think.

As Charles himself said, "As my intimacy with his family grew, I became part of the world he sought to escapel. I became one of the bonds which held him."

I suspect Sebastian would have been much better off if he had the strength and capability to fend for himself. If he could simply have walked away from his family and found a way to make a living on his own, he might have eventually grown to be his own man and live on his own terms. But he never learned that self-sufficiency in Lady Marchmain's sweet, well-meaming, controlling web.

Babi

Good morning from happy Mal. I just wanted to tell you that when my daughter was in RDU Airport waiting for her plane she saw a young university student with a teddy bear sticking out of his backpack.

We had lunch out yesterday and went shopping at "The Crossings", a great discount plaza not far from here. I got some nice tops at Jones New York and Ann Taylor and a great pair of yellow ( ! ) and beige everyday shoes at Clark's. The weather is glorious. We've had picnic dinners two nights in a row by the woods in front of this residence. What fun for a change!

Mal

Mal sounds very very happy. Have a wonderful time with your daughter. Grown up children provide a special treat sometimes. Charles,, I find him tentative, but I think that art will be his great salvation. I wish Cordelia were older. She sounds perfect, but is of course far too young.

Hooray! Netflix sent the first disc in the Brideshead series. What a revelation it is to see the minutia as the action takes place. The staging is brilliant IMHO. I almost like Charles but Sebastian is a little sun with his planetary cohorts revolving around him. I can well understand Ginny's fixation on this.

Mal I am so happy for you. Daughters are special I think! (So are some DIL's!)

carolyn

I have been reading along since this discussion started and just today got caught up with the posts.

The copy I have is from 1945 and I have also watched the first two DVD's. Whoever has the third DVD hasn't returned it to the library yet but I'm on the waiting list.

I started Brideshead Revisited years ago and thought it would be interesting to try it again with all of you. I enjoy the writing and wonder where Waugh is going with this.

The combination of alcoholism, Catholicism, guilt, manipulation, different kinds of affection people have for their friends and their family is absolutely fascinating.

Your posts are all illiminating.--- I have to say, I have just about lost patience with Sebastian. He evidently wants his mother's unconditional love, but he is old enough to realize it is never going to happen. He has to grow up, but I don't think he will. Charles is an enabler and hopefully he will recognize this.

I am enjoying the book and this discussion very much.

Evelyn

Evelyn!! Welcome, welcome, we are so glad to have you and you've made a wonderful summary of some of the prime themes in these few pages!!!! I agree with you, I am fascinated, too, and I was interested in your thoughts about you enjoy the writing and you wonder where Waugh is going with this. You're the third person here who has mentioned Waugh's intent or speaking thru the characters and I am fascinated with THAT, too, because when you see the author, it's possible that he's not achieving what he'd like. And of course Waugh had a purpose in this one, but we'll decide if he succeeds.

Now you see Charles as an enabler, and we will want to discuss that aspect of the book, too! Especially in this next section.

Welcome welcome welcome!! I am also enjoying the book and the discussion very much! Don't miss week 5 when we bring popcorn and discuss the movie, it ought to be rip roaring!

We've had a lovely storm, which, although mild, has kept the computer off and what better way to spend some quite time than in rereading Brideshead?

I've started using a different colored ink every time I read through it so I can see what I may have found new and not repeat myself endlessly and the result is that it looks quite festive, I'm currently using a light green.

I believe Stephanie asked way back there why the red coats of a hunting party were called pinks, and I am not sure the Companion may cover this (if it does I did not see it), so I looked it up in the Horseman's Encyclopedia by Margaret Cabell Self, written in 1946, which, if you know anything about horses, is THE be all and end all (or used to be) of horsemanship.

At any rate she says,

Pink Coat or Hunting Pinks

The customary color for coats of the gentlemen members of a hunt is a light scarlet though there are exceptions. These are commonly called "pink" but not because of their color. A famous London tailor named "Pink" or "Pinke" gave his name to the hunting coat and they have been called "pinks" ever since.

Another term I see making an entrance in this section is one, I think, which Daytripper (I hope that's right) mentioned and that's grace. We might need to pay attention to it whenever it seems to come up. It came up in the conversation about the camel and the eye of the needle and the ox and ass and Lady Marchmain's non explanation of the meaning of the meaning of the first one. But how can we fault her , when there are so many things we ourselves don't understand? I am really beginning to wonder if this thing is some sort of "everyman" thing. You may say oh for Pete's sake no, I wonder.

Malryn I am so glad you are enjoying your daughter's visit and truth is stranger than fiction, she saw a male college student carrying a teddy bear!!

We don't know why of course but apparently he made no attempt to conceal it? Love it.

Interesting question, Marni on does anybody like Charles. It's hard to DISLIKE him in this part of the book anyway, if you've seen the movie first, Jeremy Irons plays him with such an innocence it's impossible not to like him. I can't really separate Jeremy Irons from Charles in the book, unfortunately, he's one of the casualties along with Sebastian/ Anthony Andrews, which watching the movie has done for me.

Mrs. Sherlock, isn't the movie sumptuous? We will enjoy talking about it at the end, I think. I'm marking as I go thru the book where the book and the movie differ, which is a lot more places than I realized.

To me, having seen the movie, Charles is jaded in the Prologue, he's really been thru a lot, and the paradisiacal Eden bits of his own innocence are quite startling.

Carolyn, I like ER more and more too, tho I am not sure about the art school abroad stuff, he seems just a TAD selfish there in not wanting naked models and smells of turpentine in the house, tho he does try by saying everybody goes at least 3 years.

Pat H, I wondered where you were!!! So glad to see you and many congratulations to your daughter!! Ask her about habeas corpus which means "you must have the body" in Latin. I thought I understood it but I can't understand Boy's usage of it in the prison?! I must say the first time I read that I happened to hear (and it's probably on their website) an hour long program ON habeas corpus in jurisprudence on NPR one day and I swear either that guy did not understand the concept or I don't. I thought it meant I can't accuse you of murder if there's no body. You must have the body? NO?

I loved your point on Lady Marchmain being the crucial figure in the book and her actions determining the fate of almost all the characters, there's a wheel image again. Let's see who else we may see as the crucial figure in the book. And I do agree she is a "mass of contradictory characteristics."

I like your statement also that "There are several parts of the book where I feel that what Waugh thinks and wants to make me feel are very different from what I actually think and feel, and this is one of them."

I think that's very astute, let's keep it in our minds as the story goes on.

more....

Good point Babi on the pre war generation, and its amazing innocence. Babi, can Lady Marchmain, in your estimation, truly be that "unwitting," and calculating about her own goals at the same time?

Maddening woman, to me, no wonder Alex hates her.

Mippy the remark about the bear possibly being Sebastian's conscience was one of our readers thoughts, I just added it to the heading. It's interesting to contemplate what the bear really meant to Sebastian, lots of great theories.

However, speaking of conscience, Sebastian seems to have taken a turn for the worst when his conscience AND any claim of affection were seen by him as intrusive. I can't remember how Charles put it but it was quite striking.

Joan K, good point that it's Waugh talking thru Charles (could we extend it to Hats's metaphor and call Charles Waugh's ventriloquist?) And good point again on the other characters being too self involved to even note it.

Good point Hats on what the disappearance of Aloysius means.

My young grandson and I watch the gentle Mr. Rogers, who says the most extraordinary things. Just the other day (his old shows are in reruns here) he looked at us and said, it's not what shows on the outside which matters, it's what's on the inside which matters. Children's show. Extraordinary man. He did a trip to a bowling alley and the baby was so entranced we did our first field trip last week to one and it was a success all around, it just HAPPENED to be a Seniors Tournament and he was the hit of the day. But he was much taken with the ball rolling and the pins.

Oh Babi I think that's an excellent point about WHY Sebastian has never learned any self reliance, and again Spider Lady gets the blame!

I hope I haven't missed anyone, if I have it's certainly not intentional.

I agree, Marni, with your assessment of Sebastian. It's sad. And I think you're right on on what happened between Alex and Teresa, particularly the bit about how an Anglican would not understand the issues with somebody like Teresa. I liked your he's mad at the church for its rules that he can't change and is channeling his hatred of the church onto his wife.

Cara said

when people hate with all that energy, it is something in themselves they are hating. Alex is hating all the illusions of boyhood_innocence, God, hope...Sebastian is in love with his own childhood.

Perhaps Alex in his youth was just like Sebastian, and thought he could have his freedom too. She perhaps thought he was more like Ned and his brothers. I think again (I am becoming more sympathetic to her) that she can't be THE most discerning person on earth; she's quite a figure, isn't she?

I thought the parallels between our first meeting with Charles and ER and Charles, Sebastian and Lord Marchmain were pretty delicious, did you notice them? Both fathers said what are your plans. Both announced early on their own activities, one buying an Etruscan bull which surely must be the most rare thing ever seen anywhere and the other playing tennis at the Lido. Both with a tone of boredom as they ask questions of Charles. And both are called "poppets."

Interesting parallel. I don't know particularly what it means but I found it interesting. Also Charles's sort of parroting ER when in talking to Sebastian about religion says, "I suppose they try and make you believe an awful lot of nonsense," which surely is an echo of ER's "such a lot of nonsense."

I'm really enjoying the structure of this thing.

Jane raises an interesting point on the bonding in the story. I was particularly struck by it in watching Disk Two of the movie, the bonding and the lack of bonding going on. I thought the scene with Collins particularly painful after Sebastian goes away, one has a room, the other needs a room but the old bonds... it's interesting. Also I thought of Jane when looking at Sebastian and Charles standing in the bar as they talked about Anthony Blanche's having gone down and the effect that has had on all of his erstwhile friends.

I did not understand this:

Anthony Blanche had taken something with him when he went; he had locked a door and hung the key on his chain; and all his friends, among whom he had always been a stranger, needed him now.

What does that mean?

When you look at the MOVIE in this scene in the bar, Charles leans forward and puts his head against Sebastian's shoulder briefly and Sebastian sort of smiles but there's something there, even then, which reminded me of Jane's having asked if the "bonding" or words to that affect was the same with him.

Pedn was again so right: who has Bridey bonded with? I think it was Daytripper who said if you're going to feel sorry for somebody feel sorry for him. I really do.

Poor thing, the Agricultural Shows are torture to him as he can't "bond" with men. He says so, he tried with alcohol and it did not work. I felt really sorry for the poor guy, he's really a zombie almost, in every way. Bridey is scarred. I don't know by what, but I feel sorry for him.

Mippy that's an interesting question on Julia's husband being acceptable to Mummy. Do you mean that no one ever will be?

Speaking of Aloysius I became curious since so many of the names seem to mean something.... (Has anybody looked up St. Teresa to see in particular if she has any bearing on our own Teresa?). But anyway I was somewhat stunned to see Aloysius the Saint having been a Jesuit student, dying at 23, renouncing his inheritance in favor of his brother and among the sick helping care for the ill and other interesting bits from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Aloysius Gonzaga Born in the castle of Castiglione, 9 March, 1568; died 21 June, 1591. At eight he was placed in the court of Francesco de'Medici in Florence, where he remained for two years, going then to Mantua. At Brescia, when he was twelve, he came under the spiritual guidance of St. Charles Borromeo, and from him received First Communion. In 1581 he went with his father to Spain, and he and his brother were made pages of James, the son of Philip II. While there he formed the resolution of becoming a Jesuit, though he first thought of joining the Discalced Carmelites. He returned to Italy in 1584 after the death of the Infanta, and after much difficulty in securing his father's consent, renounced his heritage in favour of his brother, 2 November, 1585, a proceeding which required the approval of the emperor, as Castiglione was a fief of the empire. He presented himself to Father Claudius Acquaviva, who was then General of the Society, 25 November, 1585. Before the end of his novitiate, he passed a brilliant public act in philosophy, having made his philosophical and also his mathematical studies before his entrance. He had in fact distinguished himself, when in Spain, by a public examination not only in philosophy, but also in theology, at the University of Alcal�. He made his vows 25 November, 1587. Immediately after, he began his theological studies. Among his professors were Fathers Vasquez and Azor. In 1591 when in his fourth year of theology a famine and pestilence broke out in Italy. Though in delicate health, he devoted himself to the care of the sick, but on March 3 he fell ill and died 21 June, 1591. He was beatified by Gregory XV in 1621 and canonized by Benedict XIII in 1726. His remains are in the church of St. Ignazio in Rome in a magnificent urn of lapis lazuli wreathed with festoons of silver. The altar has for its centerpiece a large marble relief of the Saint by Le Gros.

Interesting, huh? I think while in Rome this summer I will try to find that church, just for the heck of it. I'll post any photos in the Book Nook.

Tomorrow and Monday are our last days in this section and there is some beautiful writing here I'd like to look at.

Along with what did you think about Anthony Blanche's leaving, about the bonding going on in the book, about Pat H's thought that the crucial character is Lady Marchmain, and about Pat's thought that she feels that Waugh is trying to get her to think something she does not? Do you agree with JoanK that Waugh is speaking through Charles?

LOADS of great new topics here, we'd love to hear your thoughts on any of them OR introduce a new one. Very rich book and experience! Add your 3 cents; we'll all be richer!

And as today is a special day for mothers and I really liked our Home Page, and for all who nurture others, I think our own book here, while you ponder some of the fabulous points raised, contains some gifts in itself, of writing:

Here under that high and insolent dome, under those coffered ceilings; here, as I passed through those arches and broken pediments to the pillared shade beyond and sat, hour by hour, before the fountain, probing its shadows, tracing its lingering echoes, rejoicing in all its cluttered feats of daring and invention, I felt a whole new system of nerves alive within me, as though the water that spurted and bubbled among its stones, was indeed a life-giving spring.

The writing!!! WORD advises again, "long sentences. Consider revising."

Have we really become such a nation of the short quick text messaging, ADD lately that we can't even read a long sentence? What we're losing or have lost!!!

Every now and then for absolutely NO reason I can discern, WORD will show me the grade level of what I've written. I can't think what it's called, it's not grade level. Will one of you who can make that function work (or even find it) copy that into your function and tell us what grade level it is?

For instance the local newspaper is written on a 5th grade level. What grade level, loosely speaking is that paragraph??

Of course there's the water symbolism again, a fountain of life, the fountain of youth, perhaps?

Poor Bridey:

"he looks normal enough."

Oh but he's not. If you only knew, he's much the craziest of us, only it doesn't come out at all. He's all twisted inside. He wanted to be a priest, you know....

I think he still does. He nearly became a Jesuit , straight from Stonyhurst. It was awful for mummy. She couldn't exactly try and stop him, but of course it was the last thing she wanted...There was a frightful to-do_monks and monsignori running round the house like mice, and Brideshead just sitting glum and talking about the will of God. He was the most upset, you see, when papa went abroad_much more than mummy really. Finally they persuaded him to go to Oxford and think it over for three years. Now he's trying to make up his mind. He talks of going into the Guards and into the House of Commons and of marrying. He doesn't know what he wants.

I think that perhaps just about says it all on this Mother's Day, and I really feel sorry for each of the people involved in this mess. Ned is dead, and we're dealing with young people still under their mother's influence. I can't decide if its good or bad Lord Marchmain has left. Mummy seems not to have minded much. It seems a shame that Teresa can't let her children be what or who they want to be. So it's the end of the Brideshead line, too, if Bridey becomes a priest as Joan K said so long ago, and Sebastian is most unlikely to produce heirs, so there you are.

It interests me also that Bridey went to Magdalene pronounced Maudlin, where CS Lewis taught, because there are other references to CS Lewis later in the book.

"Bridey, don't be so Jesuitical."

What does that mean?

I think we need to know what a Jesuit is, we all use the phrase knowingly but I wonder if we really know? I found it interesting in looking up the church of St. Ignazio last night to find that St. Ignatius founded the Jesuits and his church in Rome, which I have seen, Il Gesu, is described thus:

I Ges�'s fa?ade served as the model for Catholic churches for centuries to come. Giacomo delta Porta's sober tripartite front has classical elements, although its enormous side volutes already anticipate the Baroque.

"This type of fa?ade," Father Lucas explained, "achieves Ignatius' idea of the church as a gateway, through which the Jesuits emerge for their apostolic activities in the city and in the world, and through which the city is drawn into the sacramental life of the church. It stands, carefully oriented to the surrounding streets and piazza, as a great portal inviting the passerby to enter."

Another gate. Another portal. I think we need to remember this, due to the emphasis in this book on GATES and doors (see black heading) and what lies beyond. We'll have some hard questions for all of us at the end.

Here's something I wondered about:

Unexpectedly, I missed my cousin Jasper, who had got his first in Greats and was now cumbrously setting about a life of public mischief in London; I needed him to shock; without that massive presence the college seemed to lack solidity; it no longer provoked and gave point to outrage as it had done in the summer....

What is actually happening here?

We haven't talked about Boy and his excursion to Ma Mayfields? We haven't talked about Mr. Samgrass at all, who had "everything except the Faith." Let's talk about the million and one things left we have not talked about in the next two days!

10 bob each, Dearie, for your thoughts? hahahaa (How much was a "bob" then?

Thanks for the information about 'Pinks', GINNY. I did notice that Brideys outfit was referred to as 'scarlet', tho'.

To clarify, I didn't mean that Lady Marchmain was 'unwitting' about her goals, but that she was unwitting about the very negative effect her efforts were having on Sebastian. Her methods didn't work with her husband, but apparently she doesn't see that as a clue that she should listen to the advice of others. I think she sees herself (perhaps not consciously) as the exemplar of virtue, trying to impart her wisdom with her 'little talks'.

GINNY, the information on St. Aloysius was fascinating. It cannot be a coincidence that Sebastian chose that name for his teddy bear, yet what did it mean to him? Does he think that his life would have been different if Bridey had taken the same path and renounced his inheritance? That would hardly have changed his own character. Puzzling...

Babi

That paragraph, according to WORD, is :

Flesch Reading Ease = 42.5
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level = 12
Passive sentences = 0%

What those Flesch scores mean:

Flesch Reading Ease score Rates text on a 100-point scale; the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. For most standard documents, aim for a score of approximately 60 to 70.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score Rates text on a U.S. grade-school level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. For most standard documents, aim for a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0.

If you have word and want to see that, open Word, go to Tools/Options/Spelling and Grammar tab/ and go down to the lower area of that "page" and put a checkmark/tick in Readability Statistics.

Copy and paste that or whatever paragraph into your Word and then do a check of Spelling and Grammar and it'll show you the statistics. If you want to know the formula, click on HELP and put in readability statistics and do a search and it'll explain the formula used.

A bob was a term used in English currency (before 1971 according to one website) for a shilling . I guess it was sort of "slang" as the term two bits used to be used in US currency...as in, if you're old enough to remember, "shave and a hair cut two bits." My husband, who is older than I am [haha

], says that's $0.25.

He says a bit was part of a larger coin (a silver dollar, I guess) that was cut into smaller "coins"...he saw some a coin dealer brought to their coffee group one morning..and I guess where "two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar comes from"...hmmm...seems a bit was $0.125. Off to google that...

EDIT: and here's the 'rest of the story' --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_(money)

Babi, what edition of the book do you have? Mine says "pink" when Mr. Samgrass is telling Charles about the lawn meet of the Marchmain hounds. I just noticed that, what's a lawn meet? In the movie I thought he said LONG meet.

At any rate he says, "Sebastian, who, you will not be surprised to learn, looked remarkably elegant in his pink coat."

What do the rest of you have? Mrs. Sherlock, what do you have here? I want to ask you about another part too.

Oh good point on Lady Marchmain. I think she's particularly clueless, in some ways, perhaps like ER? But in her case determinedly so and perhaps in his, too? "I think she sees herself (perhaps not consciously) as the exemplar of virtue, trying to impart her wisdom with her 'little talks'. ".

Yes the horse she rode in on is virtue, everybody else is of something else. I wonder if she uses religion as a weapon like each of the rest of the characters uses something else.

Jane, thank you for two bits four bits and the bob!! Bits and bobs this morning, fascinating! The Brits seem fond of the word "bob," as in Bob's your uncle, too.

Your husband is older than you are? hahahaaa When we first started this discussion all I could think of was the old song, "Dearie, do you remebmer when we.... remember...if you remember, then Dearie you're much older than I." hjahahaa

And thank you for the Flesch thing, thank you for telling us how to find it! I want to type in my own purple prose and see what happens! Hahahaa

In my edition, published January, 1946, the same sentence appears ..."Sebastian,... looked remarkably elegant in his pink coat."

Let's recognize the trafic figure that Lady Marchmain really is. She tried so hard. In a sense her husband Alex, and her son Sebastian ran out on her.

So much to comment on in the posts. This struck me:

'Anthony Blanche had taken something with him when he went; he had locked a door and hung the key on his chain; and all his friends, among whom he had always been a stranger, needed him now.'

What does it mean? Nothing seems simple in this strange saga. It seems to say that Anthony was, in a strange way, the life of the party, and that's what it seemed to be for this smart set that Charles sought out at Oxford. A pretty dull lot, actually.

We have strang3e scenes where a character will tell Charles something or some point of view that he couldn't have had for himself. Anthony Blanche does this in his talk with Charles. Cara, later talking about his love for Sebastian and Lady M. Cordelia will do it later in the book. It seems to be Waugh's way of introducing the author's ideas and knowledge that Charles himself couldn't have had. It makes the characters whom he uses for this seem unrealistic and too-knowing. But it is effective.

Blanche is based on a real person, and I think Waugh is talking about that person in the passage quoted. Saying he had a key to a door -- is it Waugh's door to an enchanted garden? He was a stranger -- living in a different (and presumably richer) universe and giving his friends glimpses of it.

Have you ever felt that way about anyone? If you've ever known anyone truly brilliant, they give that impression. The physicist, George Gamow, with whom I used to share an office, was like that. He seemed to live in a world that was richer, more full of possibilities, and endlessly exciting than the world that the rest of us know. Whenever he was around, everyone would drop whatever they were doing and just follow him around.

having said all this, I don't think Waugh conveys that quality in the actual scenes with Blanche.

I can see that Charles feels Lady M's efforts to enlist his help to get Sebastian on the straight and narrow, and that Charles does want the reader to empathize with Sebastian in his hour of need, but I can't help wondering at how confidently Charles talks about the 'roots' of the friendship. It seems to me they are very shallow. They share a taste for wine, but mostly it's Charles getting a taste, with Sebastian's help, of aristocratic life. He soon falls in love with The House, and becomes curious about the Family. Which, unwittingly, makes a snob out of him? The contra mundam business has a 'man the barricades' flair to it but is shallow fraternizing. IMO

'...and we had many little talks together during my visits when she delicately steered the subject into a holy quarter.' p126

Do we get any indication how these little talks affect Charles? I get the impression he enjoyed them. I wish he would have reported more of them. Lady M talks about struggling with her conscience, trying to justify her wealthy circumstances. It's spoken in true jesuitical fashion, I believe, when she says:

'It used to worry me, and I thought it wrong to have so many beautiful things when others had nothing. Now I realize that it is possible for the rich to sin by coveting the privileges of the poor. The poor have always been the favourites of God and His saints, but I believe that it is one of the special achievments of Grace to sanctify the whole of life, riches included. Wealth in pagan Rome was necessarily something cruel; it's not anymore.'

Isn't that wonderful? Out of it came the strong sense of duty and philanthropical zeal common among the rich. When Charles brings up the camel and eye of a needle remonstrance, Lady M turns it to good use, ending her little homily with the delightful:

'It's all part of the poetry, The Alice-in-Wonderland side, of religion.

Lady M has her own Teddy Bear.

'Perhaps our toys are our first introduction to a 'God'. What a thought, Hats. Perhaps we should keep our eye on Aloysius. Perhaps he will lead Sebastian to God, something his mother can't do. Someone said Sebastian needs and wants his mother's love. I thought it was her love that is killing him, and he would like less of it.

Poor Julia, Everything was so perfect and then.. Boom.. Rex was married before and it all fell apart. She had groomed herself as the perfect figure and then had to redo.. And of course Sebastian in this part of the book. Will we see him again. It certainly does not seem so. He has sunk to the level of what he needed. Which seems to be taking care of someone worse than he is..

I hope I didn't get ahead of our schedule. The scene re. hunting was not Samgrass telling Charles about it. I was writing of a time when Charles was visiting and a hunt was proposed. Charles declined; Sebastian went but did not dress in his hunt outfit. Bridey showed up wearing scarlet.

JOAN, I imagine brilliant people come in all sorts, too. I knew one person that I would term truly brilliant, but he had a very sheltered childhood because of hemophilia. It left him very inept socially; he could not hold a job for long as he kept alienating people. He could be immensely charming, but his somewhat condescending attitude invariably revealed itself. Later, he became manic-depressive to the point that he was alarming his family and work associates. It was sad, really.

DAYTRIPPER, to me the 'roots' of Sebastian's friendship with Charles lay in Sebastians' need for Charles to be his friend, on his side in the struggle against his family. Charles 'belonged' to Sebastian. When Mummy made friends with Charles, it did strike at the roots of his friendship with Sebastian. It was, I think, the beginning of Sebastian's withdrawal and decline, physically and emotionally.

Babi

Thank you Evelyn, I think I saw scarlet somewhere but it's pink there, in mine, too.

Babi, it seems to me (it's a dim memory) but the use of the word "scarlet" for the coats also means something, I think, back to the dictionaries! hahaha

Joan K, what an interesting point on (well, several, actually) but on the magic of George Gamow. I don't see that in Anthony Blanche, I agree, I think Waugh takes pains to make him outre and an outsider. But I DO see it in Sebastian (not for me personally, but for his effect upon the other characters). He seems, when we meet him, to move in a larger cloud, charming everybody. People even come to hear what the BEAR says. Or at least I think that's what Waugh wants us to see.

I thought your points about the other characters used to fill in narration were brillaint!!

Daytripper, the contra mundum business being "shallow fraternizing," I wonder if that's because it's all on Charles's side. What do you think? Do you wonder with Jane if perhaps Sebastian does not return Charles' infatuation?

We've not really talked about the nature of their friendship, I assume, and we know what that makes of u n me, that it's platonic.

I really was struck by your "let's recognize the tragic figure that Lady Marchmain really is."

I've been wondering idly if this is a tragedy all around. I think Lord Marchmain said when Charles met him, "It has been my tragedy that I abominate the English countryside...." and that sort of made me wonder...is this story a tragedy, and if so, for whom?

What do you think?

I think I'll put that in the heading, I think you're right, Daytripper, surely Teresa Marchmain is acting out her own tragedy, what what's her tragic flaw? And you need a hero, in the sense of Classical Tragedy, who is the hero in this piece gone wrong?

Tomorrow will be our third section and I have to say I'm changing my mind about Lady Marchmain. I feel positively sorry for her in this next section but am not sure why. She IS trying, as somebody has said before, and it's not always the fault of the parent, but poor thing, I do feel for her in our section we'll take up tomorrow.

And the piousness, I'm coming around to thinking that maybe it's a good thing she has something to lean on and not be so irritated with her at the way she's using it to get her way. She's without a doubt a very interesting character.

I mean really as Anthony Blanche said, what HAS she done? Or maybe what hasn't she done? We'll find out.

Meanwhile today we can talk about anything you'd like, tons of great points made here, warring themes, which one will win, I wonder??!!??

The book fills in a LOT of things the movie does not including a very surprising thing in this next bit not in the movie at all, so it will be a great time had by all.

(Did you catch that it's the custom of the whole family to go into a monastery from Maundy Thursday to Easter? Wow!) This IS a devout family, I can't understand how anybody would be surprised that Bridey wanted to be a Jesuit, he's the perfect product of that upbringing.

Here's a bit of writing that struck me as setting the scene in Venice:

On some days life kept pace with the gondola as we nosed through the side-canals and the boatman uttered his plaintive musical bird-cry of warning; on other days with the speed-boat bouncing over the lagoon in a stream of sun-lit foam; it left a confused memory of fierce sunlight on the sands and cool, marble interiors; of water everywhere, lapping on smooth stone, reflected in a dapple of light on painted ceilings; of a night at the Corombona palace such as Byron might have known, and another Byronic night fishing for scampi in the shallows of Chioggia, the phosphorescent wake of the little ship, the lantern swinging in the prow, and the net coming up full of weed and sand and floundering fishes; of melon and prosciutto on the balcony in the cool of the morning; of hit cheese sandwiches and champagne cocktails at Harry's bar.

He keeps referring to Byronic, what has Lord Byron got to do with anything?

I'm interested in the way the book is structured, as well. In our week today we come to the end of Et In Arcadia Ego: Book 1. We've arrived, apparently, at the end of the dream, the elegiac paean you might say to ...what? What Charles thought it would be like, the dream world of wealth and pleasure, and perhaps what it should be like. I was looking again at Disk 2, when she's reading to the group and I thought really how charming until you LOOK at the ages sitting there. How could it all have gone so wrong?

The outward appearance is still there, she's reading, people are well dressed, it's a gorgeous house, looks like a Christmas Card, and yet...it's almost like a horror movie and I have a feeling it's not over.

Et in Arcadia Ego ends with a letter TO Charles from not Sebastian but Lady Marchmain, that seems odd to me, and Sebastian, Charles's former buddy, has been reduced to "he," spoken of in the third person, a ward of Mr. Samgrass, and an invitation (of sorts) for Christmas holiday, that seems kind of odd, to me. It ends with:

"I went to the garden room this morning and was so very sorry."

I'm beginning to see that as an elegy as one of you has said, for their entire youthful relationship and happy experience and as per (I'm swinging back against her again) her sorrow accompanies it. I think this bit is very strange, have you ever written a letter like it?

Charles is not "somebody of Mummy's," or is he?

I feel as if I should write this in Scarlet. hahahaa I think I will: Ok I found the reference to Bridey, it's in our next section early on, and says "Next morning at breakfast, Brideshead wore scarlet."

Charles is speaking. The first time it was Mr. Samgrass, perhaps he was trying to show he was in the know by using the term " pink coat."

There are lots of sites on this subject:

Scarlet when worn by fox-hunters; a scarlet hunting coat, or the cloth of which it is made ... The coats are called pink because they were invented by tailor Pink..---- Scarlet/ pinks

----- Hunting and the Ban

---- Hunting Fashion:

Fox-hunters usually wore traditional hunting costume. Most recognisable were the scarlet coats worn by huntsmen, masters, whippers-in and other officials. These are called pinks, and there are many theories about the origin of the term.

The coats seem to be referred to as scarlet coats by the retailers, take a look: Gorgeous hunting attire . Perhaps it's an "in" thing and, they are obviously scarlet coats to us if you are "in" and the one riding, you refer to it as pinks?

And just in case you were wondering, having been asked to Brideshead for the weekend, what YOU should wear and why Cordelia was so upset with Sebastian's get up in the next chapter, you'll want the rules: What to Wear.

Hats and I were talking before we started out to Brideshead and neither of us were sure what to wear (and I see that Charles saying he could not go to Venice he had no clothes in the movie is NOT in the book but anyway), now we know, at least if we're riding to hounds. Hahahaa

And of course all this got me reminiscing, myself, and up to the barn I semi trotted (or what passes for it now) to see what remains of my old Stubben Siegfried saddle, which was once considered, and you can see by the price, still is, a very fine saddle.

That thing is impossible to fall off of, it's amazing, short of tying yourself to the horse you can't have a safer ride. It used to be considered an all purpose eventing/ jumping saddle. It is an Extra Far Forward which I don't see offered now but I see Albion has one called the Eventer which is the same cut, a very good design.

So how do you all see the beautiful people at Brideshead? Do you find them dull? Are they what we expected? Tomorrow we'll see another side perhaps of all of them, one very surprising one, too. Can't wait.

Any last thoughts on the first two weeks' worth??

As always in reading this book, I start by looking for a reference, i.e., the scarlet/pink issue, and wake up several pages later, caught up in the tale and having forgotten what I was looking for. For one thing, Ma Marchmain's referemce to the garden room I believe is her sadness that Charles had left the medallion project unfinished. Acknowledgment that Charles was unlikely to return to Brideshead perhaps? Sammy's use of the term "pink" and Charles description of Bridey's appearance in the scarlet coat are indicative of the inante characters of the two: Charles' pragmatism and Sammy's smarminess.

How DO you all see Mr. Samgrass? Notice the MR not Doctor or Professor.

But how do you see him? In the movie I swear the guy who plays him could NOT be smarmier, he's unreal. Is that what you all see here? What DO you see? Of course you really need the next chapter first, let's remember this for tomorrow.

I read that of all the characters Bridey's is the only one that the actor would NOT have done differently. In the commentary one of them says in the new DVD's that they ALL wish they had done something different but not Simon...is it Jones? He's on TV now, he was the quintessential Bridey.

And of course Jeremy Sinden is deceased (Boy). Jeremy Irons seems quite sorry, and says he was "dear." I did not see anybody disliking Boy in the movie, do you see him somewhat disliked in the book?

I still don't know the origin of the term "Boy." Do we know his real name at all? Both he and Bridey go by their titles apparently and nicknames.

Bob and I visited the Louis Comfort Tiffany exhibit at the Met in NYC on Mother's Day. Oh, my mouth just dropped whenever I entered another room. Simply unbelievably breathtaking.

The exhibit was a display of Tiffany's favorite things that he owned or had created that had been salvaged from his estate, Laurelton Hall. Tiffany had the 84-room estate built in 1902-1904 on 650 acres overlooking Oyster Bay on Long Island. Laurelton Hall even included a chapel. Tiffany had 35 gardeners keeping up the property so there was always something blooming. His favorite flower was wysteria. Unfortunately, the house burned down in the 1950's.

I can see the Tiffany items in Brideshead. Oh, the stained-glass windows! The paintings! The vases, lamps, goblets! The museum displayed the entire "daffodil terrace" which included 4 columns topped with capitals made of blown glass yellow daffodil clusters. And all across the room in a row were hanging Tiffany's wysteria stained glass windows that were the windows in his dining room.

Here are some pictures:

http://www.metmuseum.org/special/tiffany_laurelton/images.asp

http://www.morsemuseum.org/collection/laurelton_hall.htm

Lady Marchmain blames everybody in her path for the troubles of her family. Sebastion may want to remain a child. He is not a child. He is an adult. Lady Marchmain treats him as a child. She blames Charles, the whole household, for not keeping up with her son. I am beginning to think Lady Marchmain made many mistakes as a mother. Now, with rosaries and saints, she is calling in family and friends to be watchdogs. She is trying to relive the past, fix the broken people in her life. Never giving it a thought that people are not dolls. Sons and daughters make their own choices, whether good or bad. Surely, in her heart she knows she is fighting an impossible war. I think this is when she explodes in anger. For example, she calls Charles "callously wicked and wantonly cruel."

Ginny and Marni, thank you for all the links.

An aside: When I started watching the DVD Saturday I was struck by the clothing of the lads at Oxford; they were nearly all wearing brightly patterned vest sweaters. This sweater is known as the Prince of Wales sweater, named for a painting of HRH in 1921 by Sir Henry Lander. I found this in Traditional Knitting by Michael Pearson on page 142; here is a website showing the painting: http://www.dandyism.net/?page_id=181 Since I had been reading the book only last week it was a thrill to see it on screen; shows the depth of research for the period extends even to such a small detail.

Mrs. Sherlock, that's a beautiful sweater, so much workmanship. Thank you for the link. The article is interesting too. I am still reading it.

Hats: I've just gotten back to knitting after a long, long hiatus. Cable/fisherman/aran sweaters are my main interest right now so I'm doing lots of research. This book is fascinating, showing pix of men wearing aran-type sweaters in 1850 for instance; also includes pix of their women knitting same.

Wow! I wish you lived next door. I bet you are a very good knitter.

Lady Marchmain is the enabler of all enablers! That is my opinion now. Her attempt at sheltering Sebastian from his own excesses is the very thing that has probably contributed to his self destruction.

Carolyn

Hats: If you go to the knitting discussion, Needles, Hooks and Shuttles, (Joan Grimes, "Needles, Hooks, and Shuttles" #, 8 Feb 2007 11:04 am) you'll see who the really talented knitters are! There is a gallery where some of their projects are displayed. Awesome stuff. I'm just an old beginner.

Carolyn, I too think Lady Marchmain is an enabler. It's like overwatering a plant. Too much love will kill the plant. Families are very complex. I don't think Lady Marchmain's behavior has done as much harm to Julia. Julia is strong. She flies above it all like a "blue-bird."

Isn't Julia the hero or heroine? The lines about Julia are written beautifully. "the heroine of a fairy story turning over in her hands the magic ring;" There are too many lines to quote. I do feel she has inner strengths. I also think she thinks before she acts like a war general. "Thus strategists hesitate over the map, the few pins and lines of coloured chalk, contemplating a change in the pins and lines, a matter of inches, which outside the room...may engulf past, present and futrue in ruin or life." I wonder whether this is why Sebastian is uncomfortable in her presence. Julia's presence, for him, is overwhelming. He tries to escape all of the family. It seems Julie is really his nemesis.

Ginny, I think Lady Marchmain's tragic flaw is striving to control and manipulate her family. Her tragic flaw is the inability to let go, allowing others to make their own mistakes. I think there are few mothers who haven't fought this impossible battle. This is why it was hard for me at first to see Lady Marchmain's flaw. I had been there myself. At times, I am still there.

It's interesting how books, good books, force us to look inside of ourselves. Books are like mirrors helping to shape our characters.

Mrs. Sherlock you don't sound like a beginner. I bet you are being modest. I have visited that site. I like to look at the gallery. I am a lurker. Thank you for reminding me of the site. I have seen some of Bubble's handwork. Her work is flawless.

Ginny, for me, this is an interesting question. "He keeps referring to Byronic, what has Lord Byron got to do with anything?" I would like to know the answer. I have idea of how to deal with the question. I hope someone hasn't answered it. Then, I must have missed a post. I am crawling back through the posts. All the posts are soooooo good!

DayTripper, I never thought about Lady Marchmain having a toy bear. That's really fascinating. "Lady M has her own Teddy Bear." I have to think about that thought. It's fascinating. Somehow I believe it's true too.

Dashing thru the snow here, OR in the metaphor of our story, galloping across the fields, TR RAAAA~~ to say today is open day on Book 2!

Anything and everything in Book 2, which Waugh possibly should have called Bomb 2, is ready for your thoughts. I agree, Hats, super thoughts here and I look forward to talking about them as soon as I return this morning. Just wanted to get us started out, what a couple of chapters!!! Everything and everybody is totally upside down!@

Let's see what you think about Chapters 1 and 2 of Book II and anything and everything up to then!

Ginny, the header in that forest green is beautiful. Wow! I can see the scarlet coat too.

I am now really really confused. I have a Brideshead Revisited..that calls itself the companion to the PBS television series. IN this, my end of part I includes both Sebastians heavy duty fall to the earth and a boyfriend who is German and Theresas death. Part II is about Charles in my book.. You all seem to be behind me all the time and I am still puzzled. Are different versions different indeed. My two chapters are into Charles and his marriage, career and now his affair.. What is going on.

I've had to return my book as it was an ILL. Can someone give me the opening words for Book 2, so I can find it in the Online which has no chapter designations or pagination.

Thank you Hats. Good idea, Jane.

Yes it does seem a bit confusing, I started this morning to outline the plot lines but I think it might be better for us to simply mark our books, just section them off? I have the Everyman Library, and it has for our section this time, Book Two, Brideshead Deserted, Chapters 1 and 2.

The first sentence in Chapter I is "And when we reached the top of the pass," said Mr. Samgrass...."

And the last sentence of Chapter I is:

"It sounded like a 'hole in the corner' affair, but it was not for several years that I heard the full story."

Chapter II begins with "It is time to speak of Julia.... and ends with "Oh pray not. I say, do you think I could have another of those scrumptious meringues?"

So if everybody will seek out these sections in their book, and put markers in them that's the new section we've taken up, and which we want to discuss up to the meringues, or anything before them, We've not come to the German , Kurt, at all yet.

I am sorry there is some confusion, I could see there was but was not sure what to do about it, thank you Stephanie, let's see if everybody can find these sentences. Could everybody see that their Book 2 corresponds to the pages above? I think there are a LOT of editions out there and this way we can be together a bit.

I've added this link Page Parameters to the schedule in the heading, FYI. This is a very dramatic section, everything is shattered.

Ginny, I have found my pages and marked what you gave us. I feel much better. It took awhile. I thought about banging on the computer for help but I am with you without breaking the computer glass or crying.Good link. If I can't read my writing, I can always go to the link and regroup again.

Thanks, Ginny...I found it on the Online...and there are a= chapter designations... this is called Chapter Six on the online for others using that. Those chapter titles don't stand out, so I missed that scrolling through it.

jane

Ginny ~ Thanks for the clues, as I was way ahead in this edition, the
paperback published by Little, Brown (1972). Perhaps others have this edition:
Chapter 6, p. 148 = Ginny's chapter I.
Chapter 7, p. 178 = her chapter II.
I had no idea where we were in the book!

I think for those of us who do not remember or have not seen the film version, the similarity of appearance between Sebastian and Julia absolutely jumps off the page in this section:

... the physical likeness between brother and sister ... as Sebastian in his sharp declined seemed ... to fade and crumble .. the more did Julia stand out clear and firm.
Is this devise called foreshadowing? Is our author giving us a hint of how Julia's story will stand out in the coming chapters?

It seems to me that Theresa Marchmain is a person who sees everything in Black or White. She is apparently blind to the lovely shades of gray in life, and has what appears to be a Black or White faith to back her up. To some she might seem to be perfection. To me, she, and people like her, are tragedy. Instead of a cuddly teddy bear for a mother Sebastian and the others have an unbending ramrod.

Lady Marchmain's self-serving, condescending statement: ". . . . I thought it wrong to have so many beautiful things when others had nothing. Now I realize that it is pssible for the rich to sin by coveting the privileges of the poor" infuriated me.

Mal

Mal, I didn't know what in the world she meant by that statement. I had to read two times. Now, I get it. She's a snob, I think.

Oh I am so glad to see that others have versions that are so different. II have a large print version and have been completely confused as to where you all were discussing in the book. I have now found the right pages in my book. Makes me feel alot better.

Maybe I can keep up with where we are now.

Joan Grimes

Mal: Yes, on the black and white world of Teresa Flyte or Marchmain or whatever her/their last name is! I, too, think that most of "life" is just varying shades of grey. I worked for several years with a "black or white" person and it was not easy. The black and white designations were often her own interpretation/extension of the "rules." I think Theresa Flyte has also determined her own interpretation of the "rules" and drawn her lines.

I've also known people I believe to be truly devout and pious, and they're nothing like Theresa. I've known those, too, who wear their "piety and devoutness" for all to see (and admire, they think) and they're far from what I consider to be truly "religious/devout/pious." Those truly pious live what they believe without fanfare or the need for affirmation/fawning [is that the word I want???

] from others.

jane

Thanks, Joan G, it's really been a nightmare for me, too, I'll see references to Chapter 8 and I don't have Chapter 8, and I am sure I have adjusted the heading a million times (which may also add to the confusion), so this way hopefully we can all literally be on the same page.

I can't wait to hear what you think about this section, to ME they're all revealing something and everything has changed. This has GOT to be pivotal. I keep wondering if this is the climax but of course it's not, it's intended as Everyman's Journey thru the Faith so this can't be the climax if Religion is the theme. I think to be such a small book it's wonderfully complex!

We can talk about ANYHING up to Chapter III if marked as such, Up to but not "I returned to London in the spring of 1926 for the General STrike."

Those of you with the movie will be able to find this instantly and know where we are, anything before that.

Well if one truly wanted to experience poverty one could, right? One did not have to remain as Lady of the Manor and many did not, right? But again I'm not sure we can ....get to the heart of her when she's saying something somewhat positive. My own take on her is she's somewhat simple. I very much disliked her remarks about Rex and his conversion however, and would like to look at that, and I very much disliked her Poor Me attitude about everything being "cruel" to her when in fact she's pretty much caused it all. Without doubt she's an enigma.

I'm going to come to the conclusion that she's the simple one, and she's trying to do what she THINKS she's been taught or told or both, and not thinking for herself.

That's a good point Malryn and Jane and Hats on that statement, I myself am not sure what she meant. What DID she mean?

But there are instances in this section of snobbery and worse, I think?

Thanks for clarifying the pages. I had no idea where you were in the book and thought you were all very fast readers. The section you have earmarked for us is Chapter 6, 7 & 8 of Book 1 in my 1946 Edition.

I absolutely agree with your take on Lady Marchmain. She sees everything in black and white and wants absolute perfection in her children. And as no one is perfect, how can they ever please her? And all that piousness, chapel every night, the rosary every night. When do they ever laugh? --- This book is so sad.

Most of the truly religious people I know are a happy, laughing group. But not Lady Marchmain. She's too busy being a martyr.

I think I have the same edition as Mippy. I was ahead, too. I'm going to go back and skim over this week's reading to review.

I found the videos in the town library yesterday!! I'm going to watch them later this week.

What privileges of the poor?? What is there to covet in a poor person's life?? The poor man always works hard to gain little. Is that what Lady Marchmain calls a privilege?? Lady Marchmain has a right to be rich, making herself feel even more comfortable in the name of the poor is irresponsible. That's not hard to understand. Many of her words have been irresponsible.

In that day and time life must have been even harder for the poor, no gov't agencies, no workmen's compensation, no employee benefits. What about sexual harrassment for a young working woman? Where could she go?

We are in the 1800's somewhere, I think. Are we pass England's Industrial Revolution?

There sure is a lot of melancholy running through this book.With a charm of its own, if we remember the drunken Etonian's advice: 'The wines were too various...it was the mixture. Grasp that and you have the root of the matter. To forgive all is to understand all.' p30

So let's not let Charles with all his existential treacle spoil it for us. Is it any wonder that his father found him difficult to have around the house? Why did Waugh ever pick a character like this to tell his story?

There is a lot of humor in the book. And they do laugh at times. Cordelia, I think, is quick to laugh. Julia must have a lot of fun with her friends that we don't hear about. Sebastian was a charmer. His barber, Charles' servant, even Charles' father, all found Sebastian amusing. Making good, helpful friends at Oxford is the difficult part.

And for the reader there is the fun of Lady M's piety. To feel yourself poor, while being rich - with the Special Grace of God she pulls it off, and wins heaven. The real poor have it all - all that matters - God's loving care and blessing. Not being envious of the poor becomes the cross someone like Lady M needs. Why would that infuriate you, Mal?

Lady M has so much to preserve, as Lady of Brideshead, as the effective Lord of the Manor, as Matriarch of a distinguished Family, as Keeper of the Faith. Without too much help from the kids, let alone that idler resting on his butt in Venice. He hates the English weather, the English country-side, and what not. Likes to strike a Byronic pose without making it obvious. These mannered English gentlemen! Like ER said: don't let your boredom show!

Waugh fiddled with his book as new editions appeared. About 1960, I believe, he made three books out of two.

Just because Lady Marchmain makes a nonsensical statement doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with being rich. It just makes sense for her to realize her servants aren't going home at night and dancing the happy dance because they love poverty. Doesn't she, at least, hear her servants talk about a sick child, a death of a husband, a job lost by the father, etc.? I think Lady Marchmain is not only spiritually ill but spiritually blind as well.

I think rich people can be poor. They can be starved of genuine affection and food for the soul. My daughter Nicky pointed this out to a snobbish relation and gave them something to think about. I myself have met poor people who are rich in their souls if you know what I mean. What good is money if you are constantly heartsick and know your so called friends are not interested in you and only interested in your money and the trappings that go with it. My son Matt has a friend ( who was originally one of his clients) who values the way he and his wife are treated as ordinary human beings by Matt and Raelene. They love joining in simple family activities with Matt and family.

I saw a program on the BBC where the owners of one of Britains largest castles live very simply in a flat on the top floor of the Castle and the kids run around in battered clothing on the farm with their dogs etc. One of the children aged about 13 was the presenter of the program. He was a really nice kid. You do not have to be aristocratic and obnoxious. This kid was not in line for the title and he said "Thank goodness I am not going to be a Lord and have to worry about looking after the Castle" He did say it was fun to live in a Castle but he would not like to live there after he was married.

Lady Marchmain lives in a prison of her own making, like so many of her ilk. Her talk about the poor etc is all posturing. She enjoys her rank.

Carolyn

I agree. The rich can lack happiness, health, etc. Plus, there is nothing wrong with having the finer things of life. The problem is that Lady Marchmain has the audacity to say the poor are as privileged as she. That's not true. They are bringing her demitasses of tea, making sure her bath is hot, making sure guests have enough comforters.

Who wants to hear about blessings and a pure heart if you are hungry, cold and ill? Missionaries have talked about what comes first feeding the soul or feeding the body? I say feed the body, make me warm, then, I can hear the good words about the fulfilled soul.

Hats I agree about feeding the body first. I am all for welfare programs as many of you know. I do think however that what Westerners call poor is nothing compared to being poor in a third world nation. Its all about degrees. What Lady Marchmain thinks is poverty may be as simple as living in a three bed cottage. I don't think she realises what true poverty is. Not many of the aristocracy did in those days particularly the women who never saw the slums.

I'm back on track. Thanks. Ginny and Evelyn. I have the 1946 edition.

Just an addition to my previous post. My great granny who was a Quaker delivered babies in the slums of Glasgow as well as for the well off. She told me a bit about the poverty.

Carolyn

Here's a question I left out and it's a BIG one, there are so many BIG ones in this tiny little bit:

"I don't understand it," she said. "I simply don't understand how anyone can be so callously wicked.....I don't understand how you can have been so nice in so many ways, and then do something so wantonly cruel. I don't understand how we all liked you so much. Did you hate us all the time? I don't understand how we deserved it."

I left out the punch line!

Why did Charles give Sebsatian money?

Not to mention CORDELIA supplying him with stuff too? She's a child. Charles knows what he's doing.

Why did Charles, do you think, give Sebastian the money at the foxhunt?

The photo of the hunt, by the way, in the heading, to give proper credit, is a still shot from the movie which does show how ephemeral the entire movie ambiance is.

More on your wonderful thoughts later tonight.

Nobody has pointed out that most of Waughs books are British satire at its most subtle. The characters are exaggerated although they are based on great truth. Last night Ruth and I watched "Bright young things" based on the book "Vile Bodies" It is NOT sexually explicit although you may assume it is from the Blurb on the cover of the DVD.

I would love us to make a discusson topic on "Books made into films" and review the films. It would be fun. Maybe a two week discussion each time. What do you think Ginny? Just a thought.

Ma Marchmain's envy of the poor, of course she envies them, they have no responsibilities while she is overwhelmed with caring for others' needs. They simply sit back and take, take, take while she has to give, give, give.

Charles gave Sebastian money because he loved him. He did not love Ma Marchmain.

Daytripper, Carolyn and Mrs. Sherlock, I understand what you are saying. Mrs. Sherlock I particularly understand the part about "give, give, give." Most of the time there is a tendency to look at the world from the poor person's side. Rarely, do we want to see the rich as carrying burdens too. Their burdens are not so easily seen. Therefore, it's easier to become angrier with the wealthy. That's not fair either.

Charles gave money to Sebastain because it was the easiest thing to do. I usually just lurk here reading all your posts. I do not like Charles, he is very shallow and self centered. He sees Sebastain's need but does not know how to fill it. It is easier to give him money than invest himself in helping Sebastain. He has become like Teresa Marchmain, a self righteous snob.

I agree with you Margaret. You have described exactly what I think of Charles. He is completely self-centered and very shallow.

I dislike him extremely.

Joan Grimes

I think Charles just enjoyed the fairy tale castle and the people inside of it. Charles didn't realize he was about to look inside Pandora's box. I think all of the the emotional baggage became to heavy for him to continue to carry. Charles does admit to wanting a good time."There seemed time for everything in those days; the world was open to be explored at leisure. I was so full of Oxford that summer; London could wait, I thought." He is talking about not going to Julia's ball. Charles also admits to learning from the experience.I have since learned that there is no such world but then, as the car turned out of sight of the house, I thought it took no finding, but lay all about me at the end of the avenue."

As far as Lady Marchmain's words, "did you hate us so much?" I don't see malice in Charles. The inner walls of their fortress had already begun to crumble bit by bit. Could an outsider have suspended what had already begun to happen? Yes, I guess so. I just don't think Charles had the capability. He didn't know all the insides and outsides of their life story. Cordelia was too young to know all or understand it all. Plus, Sebastian never wanted to make his family a part of this new friendship. So, he never talked much about any of the family.

I have not changed my feelings about Lady Marchmain. I don't care whether she's rich or poor or whatever. Truly, I didn't measure my likes of these people by whether they had money or didn't have money. I just could see the character's inner hearts so well. That became my focus. I think someone in a post above, may be Evelyn said the same thing. Really, it's not what you have, it's the way you act with what you have, small amount or big amount, either way you can act the part of the dunce.

A part of my above statement is untrue. I did, like Charles, become enchanted with Brideshead. I wanted to stick around for the ballroom dancing, the lighted chandeliers, silver coffeepot sets, sterling silver flatware and lots of green lawn and shrubbery being kept neat by two or three gardeners. So, the money did play a part in my liking Waugh's book. Like Charles I was living with a "delusion" in my head. All the time, Evelyn Waugh had the truest motives. He wanted me to see the whole castle, not just the drawing room and not the dungeon. If I came out with my head shaking like a Jack in the Box, I think that's what he wanted, to shake me up. It was my fault that I looked for only the shiny blue and silver balls, white tuxedoes, etc.

I hope to have become richer from the experience like Charles. There aren't any magical worlds slipping and sliding out of our pockets or a rabbit's hat. There are only real worlds. Those worlds I might can chance understanding "with the aid of my five senses." Even the real world is beautiful simply because it remains around. It won't disappear like a mirage.

"The conjuring stuff of these things, "the Young Magician's Compendium," that neat cabinet where the ebony wand had its place beside the delusive billard balls, the penny that folded double and the feather flowers that could be drawn into a hollow candle."

Welcome, Margaret!! We are so glad you're here!

I liked your post on Charles in that giving money to Sebastian was "the easiest thing to do." You and Joan G see Charles as self centered and shallow.

In reading your post I might have said weak. Do you both think he's weak or just too self centered to make the effort?

Somewhere Waugh talks about the attachment of the strong to the weak, in Charles and Sebastian's life. Obviously Sebastian is not strong, so I figured Charles was intended so.

It's interesting to read Wikipedia on the subject of Brideshead.

I'll quote a bit here from them. If you all get a chance, read the entire article, it's quite illuminating. I WENT looking for the quote from Waugh about theology and the theologians would not understand, his idea of what the book is about and I found a lot more. Check this out:

From: Wikipedia/ Brideshead Revisited (I can't believe I'm quoting Wikipedia. Ahahaha)

Evelyn Waugh was a convert to Catholicism and the book is considered to be an attempt to express the Catholic faith in secular literary form. Waugh wrote to his literary agent A. D. Peters, "I hope the last conversation with Cordelia gives the theological clue. The whole thing is steeped in theology, but I begin to agree that the theologians won't recognise it."

Author Biography

The religious issues appearing in Brideshead Revisited concerned Evelyn Waugh from a relatively young age. Born Evelyn Arthur St. John Waugh on October 28, 1903, in the comfortable London suburb of Hampstead, England, Evelyn was the youngest son of Arthur Waugh, a devout member of the Anglican Church. He was educated at Lancing, a preparatory school that specialized in educating the sons of Anglican clergy. Like all students at Lancing, Evelyn was required to attend chapel every morning and evening and three times on Sundays. According to Waugh in his unfinished autobiography, A Little Learning: The Early Years, he does not remember thinking that these requirements were unreasonable....

Waugh's years as an adult were remarkably similar to the experiences of Charles Ryder, the protagonist in Brideshead Revisited. By the time Waugh left Lancing for Oxford, he reported that he was no longer a Christian, thanks in part to an instructor who encouraged him to think skeptically about religion, as well as to his extensive reading of philosophers of the Enlightenment (a movement in the eighteenth century that advocated the use of reason in the reappraisal of accepted ideas and social institutions). While at Oxford, Waugh studied some and drank and socialized a great deal with an artistic and literary crowd. He left Oxford before receiving a degree to attend art school.

The next few years saw Waugh drinking too much. He was unhappy and unsure as to his life's calling. He left art school to become a teacher but was fired from three schools in less than two years. Finally, in 1927, he began to write on a regular basis and a year later published his first novel, Decline and Fall. The book, a humorous and satiric look at a young man's efforts to find his way in a world where evil is rewarded and good is punished, was a controversial success. That same year he married, but the marriage soon broke up because of his wife's infidelity.

In 1930, Waugh became a Roman Catholic, his conversion brought about by his wife's unfaithfulness and by his disenchantment with modern society. In 1936, he received an annulment of his marriage and the next year married Laura Herbert, a member of a prominent Catholic family. They had six children. Just as his character Ryder does, Waugh traveled extensively to exotic places during the 1930s and 1940s, including Africa and Central America. His travels provided fuel for many of his books.

By the time Europe was preparing for the second world war, Waugh was a well-respected author. But his patriotism, along with a sense that his life had become too comfortable, prompted him to pull some strings to receive a post with the Royal Marines in 1939-not an easy accomplishment at the age of thirty-six. According to Paul S. Burdett, Jr., in World War II, Waugh's health was suspect, his eyesight was limited, and "his physique tended toward the pudgy," but he showed himself to be an eager soldier. His wartime experiences informed his later novels, including Brideshead Revisited.

When he died in Somerset, England, in 1966, Waugh had published more than thirty books, fourteen of which were novels. He also published travel books, biographies, short stories, and essays, securing his position as one of the most respected English authors of the twentieth century. His reputation as a man with a bitingly sharp wit gave many people the impression that he was an uncaring person; but those who knew him tell of a man who was exceedingly generous with his money and time, especially to those in financial need and to aspiring writers

In the Preface to my edition Waugh says,

Brideshead today would be open to trippers, its treasures rearranged by expert hands and the fabric better maintained than it was by Lord Marchmain. And the English aristocracy has maintained its identity to a degree that then seemed impossible. The advance of Hooper had been held up at several points. Much of his book therefore is a panegyric preached over an empty coffin. But it would be impossible to bring it up to date without totally destroying it. It is offered to a younger generation of readers as a souvenir of the Second War rather than of the twenties or of the thirties, with which it ostensibly deals.

So this is a period piece, warts and all. And it's a story Waugh knew well, while all agree it's not autobiographical, the parallels are quite striking. Just like Remains of the Day where we find a real rift between a Butler's idea of Service and the Lord of the Manor in sympathy with the Third Reich in WWII, which also happened among some of the more unenlightened aristocracy, here they are, as Waugh really knew them, painted passionately as he says, and forever caught.

It's ABOUT religion. I was thinking yesterday, the woman, Lady Marchmain, is driving me mad, and I liked Margaret's "self righteous." THAT'S the word I have been searching for. So sure, so .....disastrous, but using her religion as a shield FOR ...I mean LOOK at her.

OK

"I don't understand it," she said. "I simply don't understand how anyone can be so callously wicked.....I don't understand how you can have been so nice in so many ways, and then do something so wantonly cruel. I don't understand how we all liked you so much. Did you hate us all the time? I don't understand how we deserved it."

LOOK at that. WE? How WE deserved this? I don't understand how we liked you all so much? Wantonly cruel? Callously wicked? What has he DONE?

Has he tortured Sebastian with knives, thrown him off the parapets? Has the whole world stopped? Has he run back and forth over him in the car? Has he drowned him in the bathtub? Cut him up into sausage? All this hysteria, for WHAT? What has he done? Where is the WE in this?

He gave Sebastian money ONE day, what was it two pounds, and he knew Sebastian would buy something to drink with it. One day. And he knew the Queen Spider was trying to stop him from drinking. But Sebastian's BEEN drinking in Lady Marchmain's house for years! He's BEEN drinking all this time, he's...what...only 19? Where was she then?

How is this WE?

It's WE because SHE wanted it her way and she thought, femme fatale (as Sebastian had called her) that she is, so self centered and self assured as she is, that she had co-opted Charles to her side. Charles' action shows some strength, it does show she had not, little talks notwithstanding.

Her explanations of the faith sound like Brideys, to me as Charles describes them, but boy how she wears it.....she's....what's the WORD?

I agree with Sebastian it's impossible to deal with her or talk about it, (and I feel for her husband who escaped in drink and to another country) because she's IMPOSSIBLE. So righteous, so devout, so pure and so absolutely.....AUGGGGGG

Here, look: she does not like Rex, ok fine. She wouldn't be the only MIL who did not like her son in law. He's studying to become a Catholic which you'd think would be her joy. There are a lot of things that puzzle him, heck, she herself said it's part of the poetry (I've got it memorized) it's part of the Alice in Wonderland side of religion. OK fine.

But when Cordelia tells Rex all this nonsense about feet pointing to the East and monkeys in the Vatican, what's her response?

"Poor Rex. You know I think it makes him rather lovable. You must treat him like an idiot child, Father Mowbray."

OOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo I hated that. THAT is nasty and condescending, ooooooo, bad Girl, Teresa! In a SEA of bad pious Girl, Teresa. YOU, Teresa, just got thru talking about the Alice in Wonderland aspect of religion and here you mock somebody else who questioned more made up bizarre stories of it? I hate that.

And that's the point, I think. Nobody is perfect, even those who go to Mass 8 times a day, and who are so self assured of their religion and piety and worth they can and do anything at all with impunity.

But that's also her own class in this book. I think it's a wonderful complex portrayal of a type of person. I think he's nailed her, I really do.

I was thinking yesterday along the lines of what Hats just said. "I don't care whether she's rich or poor or whatever. Truly, I didn't measure my likes of these people by whether they had money or didn't have money. I just could see the character's inner hearts so well."

I was thinking yesterday suppose we take religion OUT of it? Suppose there were no religion whatsoever in it? How would we feel about her actions then? Clueless? Mean? Spiteful? Self centered (self centeredness really should be another theme, huh? Is there anybody in this book NOT?)

But then I realized you can't take religion out of it, it IS the story of the book, we just don't realize it yet. Religion, specifically Catholicism, is always there, it's a dominant force and theme.

Remember Charles is seeking. As Hats said he was enjoying the fairy tale castle (and in the first chapter of this section we realize how stratospheric their realm really is) but again as Hats said (you're hot today, as per Hats!

_ he did not realize he was going to open a Pandora's Box, and it sure was. And I think it's scarred everybody that has come into its reach.

Hats says the "emotional baggage became too heavy for him to continue to carry." Apparently it's too much for all of them, perhaps, including Teresa Marchmain who does not seem to be doing a super job of it, herself.

Lady Marchmain reminds me of Marie Antoinette for some reason. Her famous "let them eat cake," which had a bitter end for her, apparently was not at all what it sounds like. Told that the peasants had no bread to eat, she supposedly replied, well then can't they eat some cake, ingenuously. She was well removed from the peasants, and truly had no idea.

Neither does Lady Marchmain have any idea, and that's wonderfully portrayed here by Waugh, just wonderfully. No one doubts her faith, but it's what she does with it that kills, but will we think so in the end?

This is a good book!

Let's look today at the revelations in this section (or anything else you'd like) to see how they affect everybody else. In a way it's kind of like I've Got a Secret, they all do. I'm fascinated with the horrors still spilling out of the box, I hope Waugh can manage to get them back in.

What are your thoughts on the secrets revealed in this section or anything else? Two pounds for your thoughts!

more....

Marni, thank you for the links to the Tiffany glass and the 84 room (!?!) Laurelton, it's helpful especially as we see in this chapter how rich they really are. Biltmore House had some gorgeous stained glass panels stuck off in an attic somewhere and when they opened the winery they brought the panels out, just incredible!

I'm looking forward to seeing that exhibit!

Evelyn said something great way back there I need to go back and find it, it did not print out, how I enjoy reading your thoughts with Brideshead at night. I find Brideshead has taken over even my night time reading as every time I reread it I see something else.

Hats your post 208 where you say Lady Marchmain is blaming everybody else for the troubles of her family is brilliant! I loved this, "Now, with rosaries and saints, she is calling in family and friends to be watchdogs. She is trying to relive the past, fix the broken people in her life."

Yes she is trying and she does not lose her faith and at the end we'll have to decide if she succeeded, super post!

Mrs. Sherlock, thank you for those great links and the Prince of Wales in the sweater. I nearly fainted when they talk about Julia as a possible match for one of the princes, the princes being Edward VIII. But I guess it could have been worse? They were really up there in the social scale.

Now Carolyn (thank you Ginger, and I see you have already found it Carolyn) but I think perhaps you have a real idea there, discussing a movie made from a book at two week intervals, I really like that. Let me take it to the Books DL's, I'd like to do something like that!) but you see Lady Marchmain as an enabler. What is she enabling?...now there's a question!

Mippy good point on the similarity of appearance between Sebastian and Julia, they look like female/ male versions of each other.

Malryn, good points on the black and white aspect to Lady Marchmain's outlook on life. "I thought it wrong to have so many beautiful things when others had nothing. Why does this infuriate you?

"Now I realize that it is possible for the rich to sin by coveting the privileges of the poor,"

Jackie, are you kidding? The poor have no responsibilities? I would say they have all the responsibilities (were you being ironic?) that she has and a million more, at least she does not have to worry about putting food on the table and if the children will even eat?

And where is this irony Ma Marchmain is so famous for, by the way? I totally missed that.

Jane, I liked your point on the black and white "rules" people seem to go by. You say in the case of somebody you knew, "The black and white designations were often her own interpretation/ extension of the 'rules.""

I think you have it, and I think that explains what I so dislike about Saint Teresa here. I agree!

"The truly pious live what they believe..." I keep wondering where the deeds, not works comes in here in Teresa Marchmain's life, but she at this point is hysterically pulling out all the stops, just like she did when Bridey thought he'd like to be a priest, monsignori and priests all over the house. Her conception of what's right.

Marni you will be in for a magical trip when you watch the DVD and everybody remember, we'll discuss the movie in the 5th week.

Daytripper, I swear, I was thinking about that line too, I wonder why, "the wines were too various....to forgive all is to understand all." Super point here!

I could not think why I kept thinking of that quote!

I think you ask a super question and in the heading it goes: "Why did Waugh ever pick a character like this to tell his story?"

Why do the rest of you think?

Oh boy: To feel your self poor, while being rich_with the Special Grace of God she pulls it off, and wins heaven. The real poor have it all_all that matters_God's loving care and blessing. Not being envious of the poor becomes the cross someone like Lady M needs."

HOOO boy. I'd say she has enough crosses to bear without adding that false one. Let's put that in the heading too. Does she pull it off? Does she win heaven? Do you mean because she did not give all her goods to the poor she then does not have God's loving care and blessing?

And then there's that word GRACE again.

Carolyn says the rich can be poor. Anybody can be poor in spirit. Do you think Teresa is poor in any way? If so, what?

Tons o new Reader Generated Questions in the heading!!!

This is what got me:
"Now I realize that it is possible for the rich to sin by coveting the privileges of the poor."
Our Lady of Marchmain doesn't know anything about being poor. Has she ever worried about a roof over her head? Has she ever gone even as short a time as two weeks without a cent of money coming in as I did once? ( Good way to lose weight. I lost 17 pounds. ) Has she ever had the electricity and water shut off because she didn't have money to pay the bill? Has she ever been unable to buy the medicine she needs? I don't think so. Guilt about having more than the poor do, and lofty thoughts about the "privileges of the poor" make me laugh.

It is a burden to be rich; I'll grant you that. But I rather think I'd prefer that heavy burden to the groveling and scraping to keep from starving and stay alive that being really poor brings with it.

Mal

Of course I was using irony to state Teresa'a view of rich and poor. As for Charles, I am puzzled by the animosity he has aroused among us; I see him as a moth, drawn from his solitary father to the flame of the volatile Flytes. I remember as a teen-ager thinking I would like to have a mother like my friend's mom; so different from my own, so attentive, really involved in her children's lives. So Charles sees Brideshead through rose-colored glasses. It is painful for him to discover the truths which all families have, that what we see is not what we get. I also believe that we Americans can never fully understand the peculiar status of the catholic elite in Britain; there must be remnants of the uneasiness their faith generated back in Tudor times. Since there are only half a dozen other catholic families like the Flytes, they are somewhat isolated from the mainstream of the upper class society. From the first time I read this I was struck by the foreign-ness of this defensiveness of the catholics. Here, catholic is just one of the 31 flavors. There it seems it is a whole separate ice cream store, everything looking familiar but with unseen twists and turns in the flavors so that plain vanilla is anything but plain. While Charles has his own sins to answer for I can't see him any other way than enchanted by the Flytes, enchanted so that he can't really see reality. Poor Charles.

Charles gave Sebastian the money not only because he loved him but because he was his friend and knew Sebastian was determined to get money somehow and that nothing would stop him. Better to give it to him quietly than have Sebastian steal it from someone else or whatever. I think it comes back to Charles being the enabler. I think too, Charles is in the unenviable position of being somewhat in Sebastian's debt. After all, he has been freeloading off the Flyte's for some time so he can hardly refuse Sebastian's request for a few bob.

Everyone in this book is some sort of enabler where Sebastian is concerned. Lady M wants him out of the way with a minder because appearances mean everything to the aristocracy. Lady M wants to unload Sebastian to others. She unloaded him to Nanny as a child and then as he grew up she unloaded him on his friends. I see the family as the typical example of a household wherein lives an alcoholic. Lady M is the controller, Bridey is the good child. ( there is always one of them in this type of family.) Cordelia, small as she is tries to be the rescuer. Lady M does make reference to her estranged husband as being a heavy drinker so her behaviour is already ingrained before Sebastians problems became obvious.

Carolyn

There are so many terrific posts, I can't begin to answer the questions. So as an aside ... really aside ...

I rented and watched Gosford Park last night, since there was a long waiting list for Brideshead (who isn't returning their DVDs?)
The dinner party, the dozens of servants, the hunting, the drawing rooms, the jewels, and the clothes ... just like in our Brideshead! Your eyes fall out. The life style was beyond anything experienced in the U.S., ever, and of course beyond anything now in England, except perhaps the royal family.

Oh, Hats,! There was a tiny point enjoyed in your post ... this is not a criticism ... is that the Marchmains had 2 or 3 gardeners. Make that 2 or 3 dozen groundskeepers, under a head gardener, a keeper of the dogs, drivers, grooms, etc. etc. A house like that would have a staff of almost a hundred people, at the peak of the pre-war years of inexpensive domestic help. Don't you think?

Wow!!! Mippy, that's amazing!"the Marchmains had 2 or 3 gardeners. Make that 2 or 3 dozen groundskeepers, under a head gardener, a keeper of the dogs, drivers, grooms, etc. etc. A house like that would have a staff of almost a hundred people, at the peak of the pre-war years of inexpensive domestic help." I just can't imagine.

I also had forgotten about Marchmain House. I kept my mind on Brideshead. Look at this passage. You probably remember it.

"Brideshead and Marchmain House both going full blast, pack of foxhounds...and then besides all that there's the old boy settig up a separate establishment--and setting it up on no humble scale either."

No wonder money was becoming skimpy around the edges. Still, the family wouldn't end up in a breadline.

In the photo in the heading on the green page is that Oxford or Brideshead???

Hats ~ good catch! I actually had meant to say that the combined households of Brideshead and Marchmain would have all those servants.
Does anyone have an idea from watching the video if those numbers make any sense? In Gosford, there was a valet and a ladies maid for each and every member of the extended family. And a whole army of cooks and scullery maids. Not to mention the butler who supervised the footmen and the head housekeeper (Helen Mirren) who supervised the cleaning and laundry staff and all the ladies maids.
It was a virtual village inside a mansion or a castle!

I believe it! Their mansions were like Vatican City, I suppose, not meaning to bring catholicism back in the picture.

Great points here, typing in the teeth of a thunderstorm, running in to say Hats, I am glad you asked, the top photo on the green page is Castle Howard, thought to be what Waugh intended as Brideshead. I absolutely love their site, they had a 25th annuiversary set of tours there, but I love their motto: there's no place like this home. ahahaha

They have kept it going for 300 years and that must be no mean task, huzzah to them. The next time I am in England I am going by to see it. AND where Gosford Park was shot (which is near Bath, which of course you'd love to see the Roman Ruins again) AND to see Fishbourne Palace, subject of our Cambridge II courose, which is on the coast. I love to plan trips!!

The bottom photo is a still shot from the movie. Back when the storms stop!

The author is apologetic about the book he has written. It has 'lost me such esteem as I once enjoyed among my contempories.'

'Julia's outburst about mortal sin and Lord Marchmain's dying soliloqy...like the Burgandy and the moolight, they were essentially of the mood of writing.'

What an amazing statement from the author, this preface to the 1960 edition. Thanks, Ginny.

Another thing the author seems to deplore is 'the rhetorical and ornamental language.' Like the following? Which alone are making this trip worthwhile for me.

Julia, 'brought to all whose eyes were open to it a moment of joy, such as strikes deep to the heart on the river's bank when the kingfisher suddenly flames across dappled water.' p180

'Up, down and round the argument circled and swooped like a gull, now out to sea, out of sight, cloud-bound, among irrelevancies, now on the patch where the offal floated.' p196

'At Sebastian's approach these grey figures seemed quietly to fade into the landscape and vanish, like highland sheep in the misty heather.' p28

'These memories, which are my life...were always with me. Like the pigeons of St. Mark's, they were everywhere, under my feet, singly, in pairs, in little honey-voiced congregations, nodding, strutting, winking, rolling the tender feathers of their necks, perching sometimes, if I stood still, on my shoulder, or pecking a broken biscuit from between my lips; until suddenly, the noon gun boomed and in a moment, with a flutter and sweep of wings, the pavement was bare and the whole sky above dark with a tumult of fowl.' p225

What a surge Waugh must have felt writing this book!

Again from the preface. 'Its theme - the operation of divine grace on a group of diverse but closely connected characters.'

Including Charles. It was a charitable act to help a thirsty man to a drink. Lady Marchmain just didn't get it.

Are we still within Ch. I & II of "Brideshead Deserted"? I'm seeing references to events I haven't encountered yet.

I was caught by a description I think every booklover here will recognize. Charles is referring to something Julia told him 'later'..of how in the early days she made a sort of mental note of him. "..as, scanning the shelf for a particular book, one will sometimes have one's attention caught by another, take it down, glance at the title page, and saying, 'I must read that, too, when I've the time'."

How many times have I done that!

These chapters are centering around Julia, and seem to be pointing to a time when Julia will have a much larger role in Charles' life.

Babi

Daytripper: Another thing the author seems to deplore is 'the rhetorical and ornamental language.' Like the following? Which alone are making this trip worthwhile for me.

I think that's because he was surprised at the criticism of it. I think he's backtracking on something he wrote with passion and wants it to be for the greater good. But it's clear he's very careful in what he wrote, as your examples show and this:

From the preface. "Its theme - the operation of divine grace on a group of diverse but closely connected characters." IS, according to Waugh, the THEME of the book.

In one spot here he refers to an underlying thing like a fire that everybody is ignoring, where is that? The old elephant in the living room, but this time, isn't it relgion?

This is beginning to remind me of a Medieval Morality Play. In Bruges every year they have this huge parade, which is like an Oberammergau experience, it has been going on since the Middle Ages. It celebrates the bringing by a Crusader of the Holy Blood, a vial of same to the town.

They process through the streets with it and all the townspeople take part, it runs all afternoon, it's fabulous. Scenes from the Old and New Testaments come by, on floats and on foot, starting with Adam and Eve and ending up with the Resurrection. But along the way comes Mankind, with all its foibles, and fantasies, and foolishness, vanity and pride, and it's fascinating. All the conjurers tricks, Hats spoke of the Conjurer's Cabinet, all the sins of man are paraded by, it's very impressive.

That's what this is beginning to remind me of, it's a seeker thru the land of man, it's almost a sermon. And the fact that Teresa and Bridey, the two most devout people in the book, simply can't explain the Faith or themselves are not very good examples OF it is there for a purpose, perhaps?

The old stones, the old memories, the long tradition of the Catholic Church stands steadfast, like Oxford too, in a way, refusing to bend to Rex's modern demands, and anybody else's, and it seems to stand steadfast in the turmoil around it CAUSED by the imperfections of the people involved.. OR is it causing them? It continues to BE an enchanted palace. Charles is a Seeker. He's fighting it, but I think it's not going to be a surprise what happens to him. WE will need to ask ourselves lots of very hard questions on this book at the end, however.

Babi, it's very confusing, to be sure. Have you checked the parameters in the heading to be sure we're in the same pages. Which edition do you have? What are you seeing not in these pages? I've added a sort of synopsis or summary of the events of these bits in the heading right at the top of the green page, I know it's impossible to tell, we need to mark our pages.

Mippy and Hats, yes I think Gosford Park is another good visual example of the opulence. The DVD last night showed about 10 servants in livery shutting the doors when the men went to their port after the dinner, lots and lots of servants.

Oh interesting point, Carolyn!! Everyone in this book is some sort of enabler where Sebastian is concerned.

Ah and how about Lord Marchmain? Anything Teresa wants he's all for doing the opposite. We must consult PaPA, and he will give all. Good point.

GUM!! There you are! Excellent points about Charles knew he'd find a way and he's his friend, and oh boy YES he's been "sponging" on them for quite a while!?! Sebastian also stays with him, tho, too.

Mrs. Sherlock I think this is a great assessment of Charles:

There it seems it is a whole separate ice cream store, everything looking familiar but with unseen twists and turns in the flavors so that plain vanilla is anything but plain. While Charles has his own sins to answer for I can't see him any other way than enchanted by the Flytes, enchanted so that he can't really see reality. Poor Charles.

I also don't have a big problem with Charles, right now. I think I will later on, but right now he's young, he's got a friend, all the young (and they say the very old) are self centered, he's been in Wonderland, I am not having a big problem with him now. But in the last section I may.

He IS seeking, and that MAY be why he's the narrator, what do you all think? Why HIM?

??

Good point Malryn. Did you like the DVD's when you watched them? Teresa may be trying to understand in her limited way, other than actually becoming poor? Should we give her credit for that, for the effort do you think? Or not? Or do you think her stopping at platitudes is irritating?

And by the way, have you all noticed how MANY times Sebastian is referred to by all and sundry as "lost?" Do you all think THAT could have a double meaning? Things are not what they seem in this book!

More....

I'll tell you what, we've got a BOOK here. I can't read one page it's not covered with notes, it took me forever to reread a couple of pages last night. I keep seeing things I did not notice, it's like a magic book, no wonder we can't seem to get the page parameters straight! They keep shape shifting!

"We have no secrets in this house." ---Lady Marchmain.

REALLY? Could have fooled me!

All I see is secrets. Who does not have one? Charles? Is Charles the only person not hiding anything?

Last night I was struck by several things, and the really fine layers that appear not to be there, AND some irony on the part of the author, or little hints, I have no idea WHAT they are, I'll ask you and I hope that some of you who understand what he's doing and IRONY will explain these to me.

The first thing I noticed in this section was the isolation of the various characters, and a repeat, this time physically, of their sense of not belonging.

In the very beginning of our section when Mr. Samgrass is showing the photos of the trip on that very page, Julia asks "So you never got to wherever-it-was," said Julia. "Weren't you terribly disappointed, Sebastian?"

And he answers:

"Me?" said Sebastian from the shadows beyond the lamp-light, beyond the warmth of the burning loge, beyond the family circle and the photographs spread out on the card-table.

"Me?"

When we first met Sebastian he was outside, too, outside Charles' room. When he takes Charles home he's outside, they look and he says "it's where my family live." He's outside this warm family circle and always feels he has been for what reason I have no idea, but here we can see him moving in darkness, literally, as Frost said, away. He's physically shown as being outside.

Whether or not he wants to BE inside, I have no clue, does he? What does he want to belong to? But he's definitely OUT.

--Charles as we've seen, wants to belong. He longs to be part of the glittering fairy tale, as he has not felt he belonged particularly anywhere. And I must say, having seen the movie, again last night, that when Charles comes down the stairs at Oxford and all the other students, all dark, come down with him, and we see there, standing at the foot of the stairs, reading the newspaper, the fair haired Sebastian, elegantly dressed, otherworldly in manners: when you see all that, you can actually for a second SEE it? You can see his appeal.

--Rex wants to marry into this rich family and belong. He wants a trophy wife with Archbishops and Cardinals at the wedding, the whole nine yards.

--Julia wants to be able to marry in the smart set, but that's closed to her because of her religion, she can't marry the eldest sons, the door is closing for her, too, in the gate to an enchanted land.

---Lord Marchmain is outside, outside of the country, his marriage, his children forbidden to see him, nobody can even speak of him in the house.

--Bridey is outside the priesthood which is what he really wanted to do.

So who is inside? Cordelia? A child. Lady Marchmain? And?

Some quotes which bothered me:

Lady Marchmain says the men I grew up with were not like that. I wonder who she is referring to? Ned and his brothers are 9 years younger than she is, so when she was 18 he was 9 years old and he did not begin to even be a man until she was long gone out of the family home.

Lady Marchmain says "we have no secrets in this house," but they do?

--Lady Marchmain's secret is that she's in poor health and liken to peg off at any minute, 2 years at the most.

--Bridey's secret is that Rex was married before.

--Rex's secret is that he was married before.

--Charles' and Cordelia's secret is that they have been giving Sebsatian either alcohol or the means to get it.

Who else in this tangled tale has a secret?

Author to Reader: hints, foreshadowing, etc.:

The turtle, in making its way across the carpet, causes a h reference to hooks and needles and threads (seen in our final week: the Twitch Upon the Thread.)

One of those needle-hooks of experience which catch the attention when larger matters are at stake.

We have not gotten to the reading of Father Brown and the fisher of men analogy, have we? Yet in the movie Lady Marchmain reads that bit aloud. Perhaps they added that for clarity, we'll need to see how Waugh explains the title of the last book but let's watch for those references seeded into the text. We've had one here.

Irony: "No, " said Lady Marchmain, with that sweet irony of hers. "No, I'm afraid I don't know how Charlie Kilcartney drank."

Julia, hearing her lover mocked, frowned at the tortoise but Rex Mottram was impervious to such delicate mischief. And so on.

What was ironic about that?

Again on the preceding page:

Lady Marchmain, who looked in on me during the morning, mocked herself for it with that delicate irony for which she was famous:

"I've always detested hunting, " she said, "because it seems to produce a particularly gross kind of caddishness." What is ironic about this speech? Because she in fact wanted Sebastian TO go hunting?

Are you seeing any irony here? What IS irony and can you understand how it is displayed here?

MANY famous quotes in this section, bring here some that struck you! Here's one:

"D'you know, Bridey, if I ever felt for a moment like becoming a Catholic, I should only have to talk to you for five minutes to be cured. You manage to reduce what seem quite sensible propositions to stark nonsense."

And here's a little warning from the author to those of us who don't fully understand what Mrs. Sherlock described as the experience of the Catholic in England:

In the discussion early on with Charles about Modern Art:

Oh I'm so glad. I had an argument with one of our nuns and she said we shouldn't try and criticize what we didn't understand.

SOOooooooooooo that made ME feel guilty and sent ME back last night asking self what HAS poor Teresa done? Has SHE operated a theft ring? Chopped people up and left them in the bathtub? Fed her babies dope? No, she's done none of those things. She is a concerned mother raising 4 children alone. Resolved to feel more kindly toward her I started to reread this section again and once again wanted to choke her. I'm afraid Teresa and I are not going to ever see eye to eye.

Meanwhile each of the characters who most want TO belong get farther and farther away, mentally and physically: the door is closing on all of them:

But as I drove away and turned back in the car to take what promised to be my last view of the house, I felt that I was leaving part of myself behind, and that wherever I went afterwards I should feel the lack of it, and search for it hopelessly, as ghosts are said to do, frequenting the spots where they buried material treasures without which they cannot pay their way to the nether world."

This statement echoes Sebastian's in the heading about burying a memory.

How does this statement sum up Charles and what does it mean for his future?

OR what struck YOU this morning as you thought about the book?

Ginny, you sure have given us a lot to think over. Mippy and Ginny, I have seen Gosford Park. I loved the movie especially downstairs in the kitchen areas. So many murderous secrets in that huge mansion too.

I see in the header you have connected the thoughts of Sebastian and Charles about buried treasure, memories. I happened upon another quote in a book that reminded me, maybe wrongly, of how relationships, memories and inanimate objects, "buried treasures" become a part of shaping us as we journey through life. I even thought about Lady Marchmain's rosaries, crosses and saints. Isn't it interesting that there is nothing in our lives, our travels, our homes that hasn't shaped us? I remember my mother's necklace, not costly, it contained a mustard seed. I also remember a toy church given to me that you turn in the back and it played a song. I can't remember the song. I have some of the receiving blankets of my grandbabies, some baby rattles, stuffed toys. I suppose it's impossible for our minds to hold all of our memories, all of our buried treasures. Do we just remember the most important ones?

"They're so much more than objects. They're living things, crafted and used by people like us. They reach out to us and through them we forge a link with the past."(Guendolen Plestcheeff, decorative arts collector(1892-1994).

This quote also reminded me of Marni's link to the Tiffany treasures.

I think another universal theme is "the importance of our environment, what was there and who was there to give us a sense of humanity?"

There is so much fodder here I will have to reread it from the beginning to regain the flow of the story. Breaking it up into bits helps the discussion but I need to ground myself in the totality again. The film adds many dimensions. Watching the first DVD it seems to me that Charles and Sevastian do have a sexual relationship. After all, these are young men who's hormones are running riot and they have come from the public school milieu where this is common. Doesn't mean they are homosexual just that they can't help themselves. At least the BBC saw them that way. Another thing, the discussion about pink/scarlet coats at the hunt. I may have missed it but I've learned from reading Rita May Brown that it is only the Huntmaster who wears what I call the red coat om the Virginia hunt country Brown writes about. The tailor may have been named Pinke but his coats weren't always "pink".

Yes, exactly what has Teresa Marchmain done? GINNY described her perfectly. She reminds me of my former husband, who is a good man, extremely intelligent, successful in business and well-to-do, but whose views of people are ramrod narrow and don't include understanding. Unless . . . their belief and behavior match his own.

Love thy neighbor as yourself? Not he. He was born superior. His maternal grandfather was a tiny town lawyer. My grandfather was a poor potato farmer. Like his mother, down deep he felt that I wasn't good enough for him. These are Teresa attitudes.

Sebastian's family is making a terrible fuss about him. He (and they) would be much better off if they'd focus on something else, for a change. My husband talk-talk-talked about my drinking while he fondled and nursed his after-dinner pony of brandy that followed his preprandial Scotch and the dinner wine he drank. I was "bad"; why couldn't I be "good" and contented in my big house when I washed the floors on my hands and knees and took care of our three kids and broken water pipes in winter when he was in Tokyo for two weeks, coming home to get ready to go away agaain?

The wives of his colleagues didn't complain; that and raising children was their duty, they didn't need anything else besides the soap operas they watched every day. Why was I "different". reading books and writing and painting and complaining that I was so tired and didn't have time for what I wanted to do; fussing that I couldn't be me? Why couldn't I be satisfied like all the other women he knew?

That's like Teresa's wondering why Sebastian isn't God-fearing and obedient like his brother? Why is he so much like his father?. That reminds me of times I was asked why my children had to be so right-brained artistic like me. It's impossible to tell people like Teresa and my ex that kids have two parents, not one, two sets of genes that make them what they are.

Sure, Sebastian was lost. He wanted to get the hell out of that smothering family, free of the restricting bonds of his mother's faith. That's it. He wanted to be free.

It's so funny. Sebastian's family and others near the family seem to think it's okay if he's a "dipsomaniac". It's not okay if he drinks and gets drunk because he wants to. Bridey said, "What I used to fear was that he just got drunk deliberately when he liked and because he liked." Charles comments, "That's exactly what he did -- what we both did. It's what he does with me now. I can keep him to that, if only your mother would trust me. If you worry him with keepers and cures he'll be a physical wreck in a few years."

Charles is right. It's hard to explain, but the more restraints that are put on someone like Sebastian, the more miserable he'll be and the more he'll drink; the more guilt thrust on him and the more fingers pointed at him, the less he can exert the kind of control he had when he was with Charles, who accepts him as the person he is. That control consisted of choosing to drink or choosing not to drink, if anybody would but realize it.

My former husband was raised by a mother who worried herself sick sometimes about "What will people think?" People like Teresa Marchmain, because of their position and heritage, glorified as it is, never forget what people will think. With her, too, there was "What will God think -- Of Me."

Teresa's cross was her guilt about the poor? I don't think so. Teresa's cross was her husband and her son, Sebastian, neither of whom would "mind" her. God's word is hers.

Mal

I thought Lady Marchmain's use of the word "lost" for Sebastian when he disappeared on his trip was very interesting. "He was lost" makes it sound like someone else lost him. To refer to him as being "lost" puts the blame for his behavior on someone else, it seems to me. Of course, we know that's not what happened at all. He found a way to escape and only came back when he ran out of money and couldn't pay his bills.

I guess referring to Sebastian as lost is part of the whole enabling thing that Teresa does. She enables Sebastian in little ways, or encourages him, to rebel and drink. Doesn't there seem to be a lot of liquor in the house? I was surprised when I consider that both Lord Marchmain and his son are alcoholics. Not that Teresa would have to keep it out of the house completely. But, it's all over the place.

I think Teresa encourages her children to remain children and needy - like the readings. Like they're still her little children in a circle around her listening. Sebastian with his teddy bear was the first image we saw of him. Sebastian, the drunk. If her children remained young or needy, they would be dependent on her. That's what she liked - to have people dependent on her so she had control over them.

help help as they said in the movie Zorro the Gay Blade, the Alcalde's got ALL my money! My new WildBlue satellite system went down this afternooon about 2, but there's good news, I love their service techs , they spent from 5 pm till 7:30 with me, and I'm going to be able (joy joy) to use my old computer (joy joy) which supposedly was ruined and "corrupted" by lightning.

But I have to switch both computers and it's going to be a nightmare, you'd not believe what's involved, and it's taken more than 2 hours so far just to get it back up and running and Norton up to date, so this is to say CARRY ON in the best English hunting tradition and HOPEFULLY I can rejoin you (and I won't be off at a bar either with the 2 pounds and great thoughts you've given, I can't wait to connect the printer and print them out: lots to think about) tomorrow. My email has changed as well, lots of changes, but what fun to have my old computer back!

I came in braving who knows what virus wise to say (I mean this computer was only 2 years behind and I'm now getting Norton error messages that the installation failed) I saw a paperback edition of Brideshead at B&N today and if you have a version that has 8 chapters in Book 1, check and see if the end of chapter 6 and the beginning of Book 2 are the same sentences as are in the heading. If so, joy! If not it's the beginning of chapter 6. I wrote it down on a receipt from the grocery in the store since I had no paper but can't find it in all the excitement here.

Such a rich good book and discussion!!!

Wow! I've gotten behind in the posts, and just caught up. What a wealth of material and insight. You all are the greatest!

HATS: I don't remember that anyone answered your question about "Byronic". A "Byronic hero" is a traditional character in literature, called such because Byron wrote of him.

This character is larger than life: brilliant, but dark, brooding, passionate. He is also isolated from the world around him.

Who, or what did Waugh call "Byronic"?

CHARACTERISTICS OF A BYRONIC HERO

Thank you for answering my question. I had no idea of the answer but it was burning inside of me. Now I can't remember the characters in the dialogue. I am sure it's underlined. I will look. I haven't read the link yet. I am sure it will give me lots of added information. What you said is simplified so I can understand it. I only Byron as a poet. That's why my interest awakened. I love the lives of poets like so many of you.

I also think Ginny might have brought up Waugh's mention of Byron in one of her earlier posts, someone did, I think.

Ginny did post about Byron in Post#203--the part about Venice. This is one of those beautiful passages.

JoanK, that article is fascinating. I wanted to highlight almost the whole article on the screen. These lines stood out to me among many other lines.

"A Byronic hero exhibits several characteristic traits, and in many ways he can be considered a rebel. The Byronic hero does not possess "heroic virtue" in the usual sense; instead, he has many dark qualities. With regard to his intellectual capacity, self-respect, and hypersensitivity, the Byronic hero is "larger than life," and "with the loss of his titanic passions, his pride, and his certainty of self-identity, he loses also his status as [a traditional] hero" (Thorslev 187).

In my mind I see Sebastian as the "Byronic hero." To me, he fits the above description along with also being in exile, isolation from his family. Perhaps, this "Byronic" personality trait can displace so much of the blame from Lady Marchmain's shoulder. Mothers do carry so much blame. What if she smothers Sebastian simply because his "larger than life" and "titanic passions" force people to want to control and protect him. In that case, Lady Marchmain, the father, the siblings, the friends, the church is excused from blame. Sebastian is just bigger than life. You can't help yoursef. You just have to see him, feel his presence, want to be his Aloysius, his private saint. You have to orbit around his presence whether or not he destroys you and your sanity in the end or not.

When I first read the article about St. Aloysius printed from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I didn't understand why the bear had been named "Aloysius." Now, I have reread the article. These lines about St. Aloysius stand out to me.

"Though in delicate health, he devoted himself to the care of the sick, but on March 3 he fell ill and died 21 June, 1591."

When Aloysius, our teddy bear, disappears, it's like Waugh allows him a literal death. Like the "real" St. Aloysius, Sebastian's bear gave so much of himself to nurturing the sick, Sebastian, he failed in health. Do the Sebastians of the world take too much from us? Is it impossible to maintain our whole selves through such an experience?

I think Charles became wounded from the whole ordeal. From Ginny's quote from above.

"I felt that I was leaving part of myself behind, and that wherever I went afterwards I should feel the lack of it, and search for it hopelessly, as ghosts are said to do..."

Charles came away from Brideshead a different person.

HATS: " Do the Sebastians of the world take too much from us? Is it impossible to maintain our whole selves through such an experience?"

An excellant point! I think you're right.

I agree with Marni's statement: "I think Teresa encourages her children to remain children and needy." Remember when Charles asked Sebastian why his family didn't give him a better allowance, and Sebastian replied that 'Mummy' like everything to be a 'gift'? She definitely wanted him dependent on her, and probably thought of it as a way of keeping him safe. It is not at all uncommon for parents to ruin their children by not allowing them to grow up and learn responsibility.

GINNY, my confusion arose from a reference to Lord Marchmain's death. I had just read about Lady Marchmain's death, but in my book there is not as yet any mention of Lord Marchmain's death.

HATS, I don't know about Sebastian being Byronic. The 'dark side' of his nature is definitely there, but I don't see the self-esteem at all, and we haven't really been shown anything about his intellectual abilities. If he has a great intellect, it's been buried under the depression and the drinking. I think Byron drank, also, and definitely had a 'dark' side. And of course he was English nobility. Maybe those are the only reasons for the comparison.

Babi

Babi, you bring up a good point about whether Sebastian is a "Byronic hero." Of course, I see him as having the dark qualities in his nature. These dark passions overcome, I think, the good qualities such as intellect and self identity are absorbed by his darkness. Perhaps, the good qualities always remain the shadows while the darkness walks ahead of the shadow blinding us to the "Traditional hero." I see this as being the truth because no one is totally flawed or totally unflawed. What we see is the most predominant nature of the person. In Sebastian's case, darkness, "The Byronic hero."

Maybe I am talking out of the side of the mouth.

Babi ~ Your post was correct, as I recall. Sebastian's father is alive and kicking in the section we are reading. There's no indication, as I recall, that he is falling down drunk in these years; perhaps he is actually a recovered alcoholic. Maybe his life in Italy with Cara turned out to be successful enough that he was able to stay away from alcohol. Does anyone remember a specific page that confirms this?

In contrast, Sebastian is falling down the slippery slope, drunk as a skunk.
Hats ~ to follow up on your post (and that fine link of JoanK):
May I suggest that while he is Byronic, he's not a Byronic hero, but a Byronic lost soul. Has anyone here recently read Byron? I had a college course that included a bit of his poetry, but that was eons ago. I think the British loved Byron's life, and perhaps the poetry was secondary. Il Corsaro, a lesser-known opera by Verdi (which I did see a few years ago) was based on incidents in the life of Byron.
Some thought that his death was a also romantic story; he died in 1824, at the battle of Lepanto.

Lord Byron

Mippy, thank you for the link. Also, thank you for the new group of words "Byronic lost soul."

Hi everyone...great posts

I could well be wrong but I rather thought the Byronic reference was to Sebastian's father, Lord Marchmain and not Seb. I don't have the pages to hand but will try to check that out.

You all have covered a lot of territory -- am finally caught up with reading your very helpful posts -- am still running around NY City, and have very limited computer time.

Gumtree, I think you're right about the Byronic reference referring to Lord Marchmain -- was it Charles' description of him when he went to Venice? As for Charles, I agree with whoever said it earlier, but I'm also surprised by all the animosity towards him. I think Waugh chose him to be narrator because he's there, people tell him things, he's an observer. Remember when he was painting in the garden room? I don't have the exact quote, but Charles said people came there, just like they went to the nursury -- a place to gripe about the others. Charles is like a research paper -- he gets all the notes from so many sources and puts them all togethr. We'll soon be asking ourseles who is the procrastinator?-- I don't think it is Charles.

mARNI, you spoke my thoughts exactly -- all that alcohol around -- all the time.

So what's with Rex? Is he a gold digger. Wants to be sure the marriage is settled before the Flytes go broke?

'And Lord Marchmain,well, a little fleshy perhaps, but very handsome, a magnified, a voluptuary, Byronic, bored, infectiously slothful, not at all the sort of man you would expect to see easily put down.'

The Byronic label comes from Anthony Blanche, when he's telling Charles allabout the family.

One of my daughters workmates at the Library is extremely brilliant and he is tall and handsome with hair that flops over his forehead and to me is Byronic. I call him the Dark Poet. He rarely smiles and when he does it transforms his face. Nicky says he is highly educated and qualified but left the rat race to work near home and see more of his young son. I think many creative and brilliant people do suffer from periodic depression. My daughter said to me one day "It would be easier to be an airhead, you would be happier!" Her husband thinks we are all deep thinkers when we get together as a family. We do have some involved conversations and its just always been the way in our home since the children were little. The narrator of this book whether we like it or not is a deep thinker and that is why we are "seeing so much" as we read. We often do not like what we see.

Carolyn

Pedln: Thanks for clearing up the Byronic reference; I kept thiniing, Anthony, Anthony but it really didn't fit him. I've finished the first DVD. I'm blown away. So much can be discerned through the visuals, body language, facial expressions, etc. that is absent when reading the book yet there is so much in the book that the film lacks. I can't imagine either on without the other for the complete experience. I am reading it again, from the start. I'm so glad we are doing this, it has become an unforgettable experience.

"I felt that I was leaving part of myself behind, and that wherever I went afterwards I should feel the lack of it, and search for it hopelessly, as ghosts are said to do..."

This sounds like romantic nonsense to me. Or a cheap narrative trick to tell the reader that the story's not over yet. Like Waugh says in the preface, Brideshead is open to trippers, and so it is, with the help of Waugh's guidebook, Brideshead Revisited. We're all curious at times to see how the other half lives. Upper Class, aristocratic, immensely wealthy, with country houses and city palaces. Leisured and cultivated. Privileged to enjoy things, without wondering who created them, as Charles did on his first visit to Brideshead, and was called a tourist by Sebastian for doing so. Does Charles now leave Brideshead feeling that he has missed something?

It's difficult to really understand these people, and more difficult to be accepted. Charles dreams of inhabiting this Upper Class world. To be part of it. So does Samgrass, and Rex. Will they succeed? Not likely.

It isn't made any easier if one is expected to understand the whole form, ritual, and theology of the Catholic way of life. The world of saints and sinners. If we have a problem understanding Aloysius, the teddy bear, how about Cordelia's little pig, that goes by the name of Francis Xavier. What should, or could, we make of that?

As for Lord Marchmain being Byronic, Charles soon saw that it was a pose. Anthony B had it right with his little character sketch of Lord M, as posted by pedln:

'And Lord Marchmain,well, a little fleshy perhaps, but very handsome, a magnified, a voluptuary, Byronic, bored, infectiously slothful, not at all the sort of man you would expect to see easily put down.'

I do believe Anthony left it up to Charles to rhyme Byronic with ironic.

I also believe that the rage Cara sees in the Lord is byronic, and little more. Part of the 'rebel, titanic passion and overblown self-identity' syndrome mentioned in Joan's 'Characteristics of a Byronic Hero' link. Byron could pull it off and make it look authentic, could address an ocean as an equal, but after him it's mostly imitators.

Was it 'sweet irony', when Lady Marchmain said: 'No, I'm afraid I don't know how Charlie Kilcartney used to drink'? No, I found it charming of her. I'm surprised at Rex's naivete in thinking that she might know Charlie who. There is a charming innocence about Lady M at times. Samgrass's 'band' was a musical group for her! That slide show was just not appreciated.

To me Rex is the embodiment of the new man that Charles despises. Perhaps a gold digger, but to me more of a gold lover. He's a Canadien (I was surprised Waugh didn't make him an American!) and a stock broker, and very concerned with his own personal investments and their growth - didn't want to put his assets into anything earning a pittance of an interest rate. Rex wanted what he figured was the best that money could buy, including a wealthy noble lady of high social rank (Julia) and a fancy wedding.

Rex's conversion to Catholicism epitomized his character. He couldn't have all of the fancy trappings of a Catholic wedding unless he converted to Catholicism, so he did. His training with the priest was hysterical, especially when Cordelia deliberately confused Rex about church doctrine. Of course, the guy had no clue that his divorce could keep him out of the church, but Julia's family did!

So, Rex did not get the fancy Catholic wedding he so desired. Julia married him anyway, divorce or not, against Mummy's adivce, and Julia became an outcast, exactly what Rex did not want. As Julia told Charles, "Everyone took Mummy's side, as everyone always did." Apparently, the marriage went downhill from there.

I saw several tapes of the film and there was Laurence Olivier playing Lord Marchmain - perhaps a bit old for the part. But, of course, I thought of him playing Heathcliff in "Wuthering Heights" and I thought definitely Byronic!

Rex would never fit in with the artistocracy. He is too brash, too open and the aristocracy would consider him to be vulgar. All is appearance with the aristocracy. Kiwis are still a bit against brashness. We still have some of that English reserve in us. ( at least people my age) I would compare us to what Louise Harrigan calls "the New England reserve" It is funny how that culture has been preserved in so many of the old colonies.

Julia marries Rex I think because of his money. She also was running away from the chaotic and dysfunctional lives of her family members. It is not long before she realises how much of a big mistake she has made in her marriage.

Now that Julia has defied Mummy and the church and has married a divorced man, Cordelia is more than ever the "good girl." I love Cordelia. She is kind and fun-loving and smart.

I think Cordelia's most important characteristic is her genuine piety. She is extremely religious, but she is sincere in her belief and in her love for others. I think Cordelia is an important contrast to Teresa. Teresa says she is pious and spends a lot of time praying in the chapel and talking about religion. But, I think her piety is not genuine. She uses her piety as a tool, as a means to manipulate others.

MARNI: "He's a Canadien (I was surprised Waugh didn't make him an American!)".

I felt the same way. I felt some anti-Americanism here (even more so later). This is common in British literature.

Cordelia is as manipulative as any of the rest of them. Look at what she did to poor Rex. She knew that if she gave liquor to Sebastian, he'd get in trouble with their mother. Did that stop her? No. With all of her piety, did she want her brother to live under a lifetime sentence of 24 hour a day's surveillance-type imprisonment? Which is exactly what would happen with Teresa as his principal judge.

You have to watch this writer. I forgot what HATS so wisely said about Waugh's propensity for satire. The part that got me so riled up is satire at its best. It's actually funny, as I think about it, especially since Waugh knew some people would react exactly as I did.

He's a very clever writer, who, I assume, sat back and laughed at the childish antics of his audience, whom he knew so well.

MARNI is right. it's all about control. That's what my long, personal post was about. It's partially what this book is about.

What's this about these people living in concentric circles like those ivory Chinese puzzle balls? I think I know what he means, but . . . .

Families can get so much in each other's hair that there's no possible way to get out. The leader, as in follow the leader, as in Teresa, thrives on these entanglements and tries to create more. It doesn't take aristocracy; I've seen so many "ordinary" families like this. Thank God mine isn't as extreme as some. Whew!

Mal

I saw in a magazine today that Alexander Waugh has written a biography about the Waugh family called Fathers and Sons. Here's a blurb from the review by Clark Collis:

"English eccentrics abound in this look at the writer-heavy Waugh family. Alexander Waugh begins with his sadistic great-great-grandfather, a doctor referred to by his descendants as 'the Brute,' who was given to firing a shotgun inches away from the ears of son Arthur to fortify the boy's character. Arthur himself had an unhealthily obsessive relationship with his heir, the sex-crazed Alec, while Alec's brother Evelyn - author of Brideshead Revisited - once dismissed his two oldest children as 'a great bore.' It is a description that could not be applied to the hugely entertaining tales of literature and lunacy featured here."

Did I read here a comparison of Rex and Jay Gatsby? I thought the turtle was over the top. And then of course it disappeared.

"Cordelia is as manipulative as any of the rest of them. Look at what she did to poor Rex."

Oh, MALRYN, Cordelia is a kid! "What she did to poor Rex" was a prank, and I thought it funny. And it did reveal just how mentally dense Rex is. I see her helping Sebastian escape his "24-hour surveillance type imprisonment" as the act of a tender heart. She does love her brother dearly. And she is a kid. One can't expect mature judgment or knowledge of alcoholism from her.

Cordelia isn't 'pious' in the sense we often use it,..ie., something intended for public consumption. Cordelia's beliefs are heartfelt and genuine; She is also intelligent, and has a sense of humor. Cordelia is by far my favorite character here.

Babi

I'm BAAACK!!! I have been crawling on the floor under a huge desk over (and if honesty serves, not entirely spotless floor hahahaa) since 8:30 and I THINK I'm back but what a LOT to catch up with, how clever you all are!!!!!

(I have a new email: gvinesc@wildblue.net, by the way?)

I reread in my absence this section again and see all kinds of new stuff but I never understood Byronic till Joan K's reference and funny thing I was thinking of Charles!! Of course we know Lord Marchmain, as Gum said, is intended, this alone captures him:

He is usually isolated from society as a wanderer or is in exile of some kind. It does not matter whether this social separation is imposed upon him by some external force or is self-imposed. Byron's Manfred, a character who wandered desolate mountaintops, was physically isolated from society, whereas Childe Harold chose to "exile" himself and wander throughout Europe. Although Harold remained physically present in society and among people, he was not by any means "social."

Now that HAS to be Lord Marchmain but it's possible it's Sebastian too and MAYBE Charles before we're through? Oh I am seeing SO much in this section.

I think, for instance, that this, (Hats said a long time ago , he is going to end hopefully , isn't he? Or words to that effect) and I think THIS is ironically his Epitaph for the book:

In the Charlie Kilcartney story, I believe Waugh has done a double irony:

Lady Marchmain: "I suppose, really, it's mneant to be an encouraging story."

Bingo. There it is, we'll come back to it at the end when you're saying Ohhhhhhh depressing, there it IS.

Yes, that's how it's meant, can you believe that?

But how marvelous you are, talking about things, bringing up things, Malryn with the light and dark and Daytripper with the saints and Hats with the history bits and the importance to the story they have, and welcome back Pedln!! Interesting on Rex as possible gold digger, I'm not sure I understand the dowry stuff and his own "settled capital, " here and the lawyers, and all. I thought I had marked a passage about this, there was a term I did not understand in connection with this, but can't find it. Mippy interesting point on Byronic lost soul, we may have one of those in a minute! oh golly moses, I've got to take this away and think on it a bit more. Am happily printing as we speak.

Marni why do you think Olivier too old? How old was he, I am so bad with ages but wasn't Claire Bloom magnificent? How old was she then and is she still living? Boy I wish I looked like that, any time.

Marni, good HEAVENS, firing a shotgun inches away from Artthur's head, I imagine Arthur was deaf, then. jeez@

And this is just out? Goodness, how au courant we always are, they sound like a pack of nuts.

I have to say that in the Rex Charles dinner, Charles acts exactly like his father did to him, right down to the we'll talk about HIM over the cognac but me now. Tell me news of myself. Talk about me.

I think, Marni and Joan K, the reason Rex Mottram is Canadian is because he needs to be in Parliament, he's in the House of Commons, he could not do that as an American. I do see some references to blacks and Jews which I don't particularly like, but this was also common in those days in British literature, see the beloved and justifiably so Agatha Christie whose original title for Ten Little Indians was not that. How far we have come!!!

I think we cannot doubt what Waugh has done here. There's a super surface story, a romance and then there are other little threads and hints, together, like Treasure Hunters we can pluck a few, I am not sure we'll ever get them all. Carolyn, I bought Vile Bodies on your recommendation Thursday.

And you've all opened your own Pandora's Boxes with your posts, wonderful!! I want to start with Marni's posts, I would never have seen that and now it all makes sense.

Back in a wee, I have to now connect the old computer, won't be a sec.

Meanwhile, what do you think of these:

You know Father Mowbray hit on the truth about Rex at once, that it took me a year of marriage to see. He simply wasn't all there. He wasn't a complete human being at all. He was a tiny bit of one, unnaturally developed; something in a bottle, an organ kept alive in the laboratory. I thought he was a sort of primitive savage, but he was something absolutely modern and up-to-date that only this ghastly age could produce. A tiny bit of a many pretending he was the whole.

That's Julia, talking about Rex. It would seem that Rex, nouveau riche as he is, will never fit in to this Chinese circle of privilege, but he did try. It would seem that Lady Marchmain is connected to Lady Roscommon, a Lady in Waiting, that's pretty high up for British society, (I wonder thru her own family? Is Fanny her sister or not?) Interesting.

Still, do you agree that Rex half (not even that) a person? And note the theme again of the modern versus the past, note now that Julia now appreciates the past, this is also a turning point for her and an important one.

"I wanted to be made an honest woman. I've been wanting it ever since_come to think of it."---- Julia

What does this mean?

And then there's Lady Marchmain and the Seven Dolours, I keep counting hers up but more on that later on.

Important!

On Rex and Julia first becoming engaged:

" You had better send him to me and I will have a little talk to him about it."--- Lady Marchmain

Aha!! For some reason I found that quite significant. TO him not with him and again in another place she says of a Protestant wedding: "I can stop that, too, " said Lady Marchmain. I guess Julia is underage? Woman wields an awful lot of power, it would seem.

Mrs. S, I wish somebody would compare Gatsby and Rex. I have not read Gatsby I am sure I am the only person on earth who has not, but I haven't. But I'd love to see it. Why did you think the turtle was over the top, too heavy handed?

Let' s talk of Julia, Charles says it's time to talk of Julia, let's do this weekend!

Wonderful discussion here. I hate to keep saying that like a cheerleader, but the truth is the truth.

Back in a mo.

"It is time to speak of Julia."

I love the way Waugh says that and has saved this part of his story til now. We know he has included bits and pieces of her story as he has gone along. But now he will reveal the whole story. We can tell in an instant that Charles has a very special feeling towards Julia, that he loves her, has savored his thoughts of her, has not let them all out of his private memories, and now will reveal the wonderfully special thing that is Julia.

" How good it is to sit in the shade and talk of love." That was ironic but how I am enjoying this book and the writing continues to blow me away.

Marni, yes and when I saw that, just now being mentioned I thought how carefully this book has been written. Why start with WWII? Why then go into the background if you're going to talk of Julia, if she's the most important thing? Why do a flashback? Interesting.

Unfortunately for me, Julia's charms are lost on me as I saw the movie first and personally don't find Diana Quick attractive (she does have scenes where she is gorgeous tho) and the character less so. However one does have to ask oneself if perhaps that's by design, too.

At any rate I was blown away by several of the things you've all said!

(BUT HIST!! If Charles is leaving Julia this long and she's important to him, imagine what he's leaving for the end?)!?!

Jackie, what a perfect analysis of the book/ movie experience!! I loved that, and I am so glad we're doing this too. Those of you who can, please try to see the DVD's before June 1, we'll spend a happy low key week talking about the movie, not film criticism, just as we would walking home from the theater.

Bring popcorn and a Diet Coke!

I know the first question we'll ask, "Who would you say most deserved an Oscar for their acting! If you could only pick ONE!!"

THAT's a question!

At any rate, yes the entire experience is super and the film just puts the cap on the whole thing. I don't think you'll ruin the book, those of you who have held out till the end, by watching the movie now, but I do think you'll add, as Jackie says, an entire new dimension to your experience.

I liked what you said, Carolyn, about Waugh being a "deep thinker." Remember when books were referred to as "deep?" This one is DEEP! Hahahaa Even perhaps if the characters are themselves_.dare I say it_shallow?

Hats, now that I'm once again on my old computer I bet I DO have one of the scenes of the Medieval pageant at Bruges, I'll look!

Good question, Malryn, on "what's this about these people living in concentric circles like those ivory Chinese puzzle balls? I don't know, let's put it in the heading and find out! When I read that, like Teresa, I only saw what I wanted to see another "wheel in a wheel, way in the middle of the air!"

Malyn, that's a super point on Bridey hoping he's "just" a dipsomaniac, I did not understand the difference. Thank you for explaining that.

If Teresa's cross is her husband and son, neither of whom would mind her, then her actual cross is herself, huh?

Oh Marni good point on the "lost" as used by Teresa Marchmain: "he was lost" makes it sound like someone has lost him and that "puts the blame for his behavior on someone else, "

And you're right, that's not what happened. Your point about Mummy encouraging her children to remain children and needy, like the readings is spectacular!!!! Good for you!

And if they remain children and need her then she has a role. I was describing her to somebody with a degree in Theology and that person said, "she sounds insecure, to me." Interesting, huh? She projects the opposite.

Hats, it's interesting you make a connection with Sebastian and sickness as we will see at the end, perhaps another parallel?

Joan K and Hats, well then if the Sebsatians of the world take all the breath out of everybody else, does that make them, too, like Anthony Blanche said of Teresa, a blood sucker?!? I am really beginning to wonder what role Anthony Blanche plays in this book. Is he a Greek Chorus or something?

Maybe Sebastian is more like Mummy than anybody thought.

Mippy yes Cara says he used to drink but he doesn't any more, as she protects him (how?) from Lady Marchmain.

Pedln, good point on why Charles is the narrator!! Should we be asking ourselves is he reliable? It's interesting, when you think about the other candidates who could be narrator, none of them fit his qualifications. He's outside like Anthony Blanche, he's not Catholic and Anthony Blanche is, he's an agnostic.. Rex is outside, but at any rate he is received into the Church. If the book is about Grace and Reconciliation, then Rex does not fit, who does that leave?

Babi, I am not sure I think Rex is all that thick; there's a lot being thrown at him that seems strange. Do you think he's just dumb or he really does not want to deal with it? He's not a seeker philosophically, I think he wants power and to rise. He might be a user, I am trying to think who else might be.

Pedln asks what do we all think of Rex, do we see him as a gold digger? Do you all think he's half a person? If so how? Do YOU think he's thick?

Daytripper, good point on the "whole form, ritual, and theology of the Catholic way of life. The world of saints and sinners."

Last night I was reading The Key to Rome, a new edition, and turned the glossy page and stumbled on the most appalling list of saints of the Church by the reign of the emperor or time they lived in, accompanied (two long pages in tiny print and that wasn't half the ones there are) by their particular awful deaths. It was horrifying, saint after saint, it's awful. It reminds me of a two volume work called The Lives of the Saints which I have. I think I'll go look up St. Teresa and Francis Xavier to see what in particular we can learn from them, but I fear there are many Teresas. But you do make THE point about the weight of history and tradition that the Church embodies. And we can all see who is rejecting the present in favor OF history and tradition.

LOVE this: "I do believe Anthony left it up to Charles to rhyme Byronic with ironic." Hahahaa GOOD ONE! And us, too, I missed it entirely!

Oh and Marni, I think you are dead right about Rex being what Charles despises, like Hooper. I did not begin to see it till the restaurant scene and the huge goblet, I just thought he disliked him but you're RIGHT, Rex IS the embodiment of what Charles hates. More and more we see Charles talking about history and tradition.

Here's an example: at the diinner:

I rejoiced in the Burgundy. It seems a reminder that the world was an older and better place than Rex knew, that mankind in its long passion had learned another wisdom than his.

Charles is definitely finding refuge in tradition here lately.

What's a Napoleonic cipher, said of the wine at the dinner, by the way?

What's a stock jobber, which Rex's affair with Brenda Champion distinguished him from?

THIS just blew me away:

There is proverbially a mystery among most men of new wealth, how they made their first ten thousand; it is the qualities they showed then, before they became bullies, when every man was someone to be placated, when only hope sustained them and they could count on nothing from the world but what could be charmed form it, that make them, if they survive their triumph, successful with women.

I loved that.

Here's another one: Father Mowbray:

The trouble with modem education is you never know how ignorant people are. With anyone over fifty you can be fairly confident what's been taught and what's been left out. But these young people have such an intelligent, knowledgeable surface, and then the crust suddenly breaks and you look down in to the depths of confusion you didn't know existed.

Isn't THAT something? What was your reaction to that? Of course he's speaking of Catholic instruction but it made me wonder particularly IF he might be describing some of the other characters.

Such lovely pieces of writing:

On the discussion of whether Rex's former marriage impeded his plans with Julia and the ability to convince him of that:

Up, down, and round the argument circles and swooped like a gull, now out to sea, out of sight, cloud-bound, among irrelevances and repetitions, now right on the patch where the offal floated.

Simile there, comparisons using the word "like," we haven't seen Waugh use a lot of it, and that alone is amazing, how he manages to write so beautifully with no standard props.

So the plot continues on. Teresa Marchmain and household are overdrawn (is this the late 20's?) by 100, 000 pounds!! What IS the time period of this piece? That's an astronomical sum! Rex hears these things. He hears she's about to die (how on earth did he hear that?). He has not heard how much Lord Marchmain is overdrawn if at all. Julia is married, it was a nightmare, hole in the corner and the "stuffy people stayed away_you know, the Anchorages and Chasms and Vanbrughs," and I just last night read about SOMETHING that Vanbrugh designed (was it Castle Howard?_ Was it the fountain? I believe it was, I'm going to look that up). I thought that was another ironic touch but it may be nothing of the kind! Hahahaah

So Rex got the prize but it was not what he thought, he married an outcast. Irony again?

Since Charles is banished forever from Brideshead, Cordelia takes up the role of narrator in her letter, telling him the fate of Mr. Samgrass, and her own role in enabling Sebastian.

I'm missing notes here, one of you was talking about light and dark, I could have sworn it was Malryn but apparently not. I wanted to say have you all noticed all of the references suddenly to light and dark, being in the light and outside in the dark? They are fascinating. I don't know what they mean but they are occurring with more and more frequency.

And what DOES Julia mean about still wanting to be made an honest woman??!!??

And here's a question, WHO would you say the book is now revolving around? Sebastian?

12. "I wanted to be made an honest woman. I've been wanting it ever since_come to think of it."---- Julia

My own view: Originally, Catholic Julia wanted to be made 'an honest woman' by marriage. That was an old phrase used when a young woman was intimate with a lover out of wedlock, and he would 'make an honest woman' of her by marrying her.

To say, "I've been wanting it ever since - come to think of it" suggest to me that Julia has found her marriage to be a facade with nothing real behind it. She is living a pretense and is naturaly unhappy about it.

The concentric ivory circles is plain enough, I think every socially active and popular woman had her inner 'clique', a more extended circle of family and less intimate friends, then a public position to maintain, etc.. I thought the carved ivory ball of concentric circles a very apt description.

Babi

I think that Julia never really fit into what she thought of as her concentric circles. You dont marry a Rex ( who is obviously not quite quite..)but Julia did and felt that this was the man she needed and wanted. I think that all of the children have been crippled and this shows in their choices in life. Cordelia is the only saveable one..

""I wanted to be made an honest woman. I've been wanting it ever since_come to think of it."---- Julia"

I took this more literally than you, BABI. Since she married a divorced man, her marraige is not a marraige in the eyes of the church. So she is "living in sin".

It may be also in a broader, but still religious sense: she wanted to be honest: living according to the tenets of the Church.

I don't think we really get to know Julia, now. For me, she never emerges as a believable character. Every time we see her, she seems like a different person, and Charles' description of how he sees her does not match anything we see.

"Boy" interests me. No one likes him, and he doesn't do much, but he's always popping up and somehow precipitates things. The drunk driving incident. Now Charles has managed to marry his sister (presumably met through him). Is he a Jonah, bringing bad luck?

I agree: REX is like Hooper: the new (in Rex's case upwardly mobile) middle class who is taking over from the old aristocracy without any of the values or culture of the aristocracy. There's a kind of "lost generation" subtheme to this book (even though written a generation later). The soulless middle class is taking over and destroying culture and beauty. The beauty of Brideshead embodies the beauty of that culture: a beauty (like Julia's inner beauty) which Rex dimly realizes is there, but can't understand.

Joan K's comment about "Boy" No one likes him, and he doesn't do much, applies, for me, to all of them. What do any of them do...besides drinking, fox hunting or listening to Mummy read? I mean, what is their passion, their interest, what do they do on a beautiful Sunday or a rainy, dark, cold Tuesday that interests them? Charles apparently draws/paints, but what does Sebastian do? What were any of them "studying/reading" at Oxford?

Ginny, I believe, commented or asked if they were all "shallow." Shallow hardly begins to describe it for me. Is there something even less deep than shallow? Boring, maybe?

There are abundant references to "charming" Sebastian. I have yet to see it or anything charismatic or, well, even slightly interesting about any of the lot, except perhaps Cordelia. Kinda sad when the only one in the family/circle [excluding Charles and his art and I find nothing "charming" or drawing my interest to him] with anything to attract others to her, in my opinion, is the 10 or 12 year old. She also seems to be the only one who has a passion/an interest outside herself.

jane

Anthony Blanche is the token homosexual. Charles and Sebastian may have sex but they are not homosexuals. This is a rationalization engaged in by many men who have sex with men.

The turtle was over the top to me because it was so gauche. Reptiles are not cute and cuddley yet Rex spends thousands having diamonds applied to its shell, they might as well have spelled out his name advertising his wealth to the cash poor Flytes.

I think you've made some splendid points here and I enjoyed thinking them over all night.

I did find the fountain:

And Vanbrugh apparently designed the house, but would not come to the wedding.

One thing I did not particularly realize until I started reading about it, is that it's an Atlas fountain, and you remember Atlas had to hold the weight of the world on his shoulders, literally. I found that interesting for some reason, possibly in connection with the Tiresias quote. You can see the ball there at the top and the figure just under it with the water cascading down. Holding up the weight of the world on his shoulders.

Oh good points, Babi and Joan K on Julia's "honest woman" remark!!! I could nto figure that out and of course it's Catholicism again in one way or another, literal or figurative, good job!

Julia IS hard to get a hold on, she does seem to shape shift, I agree, super observation, Joan K!

Boy interests me too, he's quite well done in the movie by Jeremy Sinden and I liked him a lot, found him fascinating in fact, perhaps because he's full of enthusiasms and grand passions.

Stephanie I did like your thought that Cordelia is the only savable one! I guess we'll need to come back to it, when we get to the end and we remember Lady Marchmain's "I guess, really, it's meant to be an encouraging story."

Mrs. S, and the turtle disappeared, perhaps buried itself, anther strange episode of crassness from Rex, who, I agree with Joan K, IS another Hooper, albeit one a bit more elevated in stature.

I really liked Joan K's remark, "There's a kind of 'lost generation' subtheme to this book (even though written a generation later). " YES! I think so too.

For some reason I stumbled on_oh it was the Sopranos last night. AJ, the Mafia Don's son, was reading the words of William Butler Yeats' The Second Coming, in his class, which attracted him as he felt alienated from his own culture and the modern world. It was also written about the same time as T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land. It's got several quotes you'll remember, including "What rough beast, its hour come at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

It reads in part:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. The death of innocence. That may be Brideshead in a nutshell.

This type of literature is apparently, from what I'm reading, common to this period of history, the destruction of civilization and innocence, the result of the "Great War" (WWI) how mankind and civilization are spinning out of control in the modern world. What better way to show that then, than by writing about the old established constants: the aristocracy and the Catholic Church and play out the modern play on their stage?

Yeats "The Second Coming" is, like the Waste Land by T. S. Eliot, which Anthony Blanche quotes in the heading, is sort of a cry of despair. I think that what Waugh is attempting here is something of the same thing. He thought the aristocracy was doomed simply because it cost so much to keep that stuff up. Enter the rich American heiresses, which Waugh could not have foreseen, whose money, if you read history carefully, helped save the day.

Death is all over The Waste Land, written in 1922, and The Second Coming, written in 1920, and Brideshead Revisited, written in the midst of WWII, 1944, I think, while acknowledging a debt to Eliot (which it directly quotes), tries to lift it past Yeats' Second Coming into something else, pitting modern man against the old rules, while mourning the milieu AND the aristocracy which he saw as doomed like the huge houses and the paintings on the wall. But one constant, resistant to modern despair, will emerge and does, tomorrow.

I was interested in Jane's thought on the shallowness and boringness of the characters. Last night I watched Lord Marchmain come home again (which we'll do tomorrow) in the movie and how the servants were scurrying about and the huge house, very elegant, very Gosford Park, and the long long death scenes which are not in the book in such length, and this time I paid attention to his speech, to the speech of all of them, gathered about him, and waiting on him, watching for a sign of some sort of wisdom or greatness; and it's not there.

Mrs. S's thought about "the token homosexual" made me think of something else. You have to ask yourself this question: are the characters shallow (boring?) because they are shallowly written? OR is this a true portrait of a type?

Are they caricatures of something, are they fleshed out? Are they symbols? Cordelia the youngest daughter? IS this a tragedy? If they are not fleshed out why not?

Could they be, in fact, examples OF a type of person who did exist, and could they be accurate? What can you say about Paris Hilton? (Not to pick on her).

I have HEARD and of course have no earthly way of knowing, that the aristocracy is, in fact, extremely dull, AND boring. That the house parties and hunting parties ARE in fact, full of dull boring people up to extraordinary hi-jinks with each others spouses, Princess Diana was famous for hating them. I wonder if Waugh here has actually captured them in all their vapidity, if he in fact has nailed them. He did know them, just like Truman Capote knew his targets and wrote about them, the high life, the "beautiful people."

Do we like them? Why should we have to "like" a character? Did we like the characters in Truman Capote's "La C?te Basque," or were we fascinated by the real lives, what really happens to the rich and famous. It's somewhat odd, in fact, to have a book full of characters, living out their own lives and none of them particularly sympathetic. None are noble? There is no Mr. Stevens as there was in Remains of the Day to latch on to.

We might ask ourselves, WHY we find these people so objectionable. They are not like us, they have no_.work ethic, they have no function as Jane said other than to flit about, no jobs, no nothing really. I think they still exist today, don't they? The Paris Hiltons of the world? I think there are more of them than we may know.

I have walked thru Biltmore House, the largest house in America, several times, it's splendid in any stretch of the imagination: a Vanderbilt. I have NEVER once gone thru it, however, without somebody behind me or in front of me, saying something like "I certainly would not want to live here, and other statements to that effect, it's like reverse snobbery.

The truth of course is that I think most of us would be incapable of cleaning the library ourselves and keeping IT up alone, we could not live there in 2007 much less keep up that castle of a place. It represents a way that was, which is, like Castle Howard, apparently long over. I wonder how many of the great houses of England remain in private hands which do NOT admit day trippers to help make ends meet in 2007? Which do NOT have zoos or gardens or mazes or SOMETHING to attract the public and pay for them? Does anybody know?

I can't conceive of what it would take to keep such a place going, but yes, I can visualize living there, (I can dream), with my 1000 servants, before taxes, with my own railroad, my 1500 acres of woods, my own lakes and gardens, my indoor swimming pool, my indoor bowling alley, my own library which is one of the finest I've ever seen, my own fountains, and vistas off the wide stone loggias, yes. Or I would like to pretend.

I think Charles and Rex represent all of us day trippers in 2007, both drawn to the "magic." Surely there IS some magic in these incredible houses, surely the people IN them are magic themselves, full of nobility and honor and what Waugh described as the Nouveau Riche's attitude upon making his first ten thousand, surely they are all kings upon the earth, right?

What if they aren't?

What then provides a constant?

I think our last week will be a stunning one, ollie ollie oxen FREEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeee, ya'll come tomorrow to the feast! Or the pickings, depending.

What else would you like to say about the first three sections? Did you laugh over Julia's dream man? What characteristics did YOUR ideal match have, do you remember ever making a list? I laughed out loud over his having few relatives hahahaa

Any writing you enjoyed? Any point you'd like to mention before we move on to the end tomorrow?

Ginny, the photos are beautiful. Thank you. I am reading about the hard job of converting Rex to (C)catholicism. To me, the last part of the book seems to be about the church. I am not sure what Waugh wanted me to think about catholics or the church. What is the message?

Then, there are two words that scared me to death, "obdurate catechumens."

"So Rex was sent to Farm Street to Father Mowbray, a priest renowned for his triumps with obdurate catechumens."

To comment on one item Ginny mentions above. I think it's the people who are shallow by intent by Waugh. He has written these people as they are. As Peggy Lee would have said, "That's all there is" to their character/personna.

jane

I don't know. I don't think the people are "shallow." Brideshead Revisited showed me how complicated and knotted the human experience can become when dealing with one another in a group such as a family.

I feel it is unfortunate that too often people with money are automatically pegged as shallow. Is it possible to have money and also have a mind too?

Oh, I just love the pictures of the fountain. Thank you, Ginny! So beautiful. There is nothing like a beautiful fountain. So relaxing and magnificent.

Has anyone visited the Bartholdi Fountain next to the national Botanical Gardens in Washington, D.C.? I saw it for the first time when I last visited. Bartholdi, the sculptor, is the same man who sculpted the Statue of Liberty. This fountain is not as large and grand as the one in Brideshead Revisited, but it is quite stunning. Here's are pictures - even some at the bottom of the page:

http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/liberty/libertyweb/BartholdiFountain/Fountain.htm

This discussion reminds me of what happened to the mansions in Newport, R.I. The rich built them for their summer escapes. Some were very grand, although nothing as grand as Brideshead. But after the Great Depression hit and income taxes were instituted, the owners began to be unable to keep them up. Many were sold for peanuts in the 1960's. Now they are used for movies and weddings and people pay to tour them.

Marni, the Bartholdi Fountain is beautiful. Thank you for showing it.

Boy Mulcaster was a very sleazy character even though he was a member of the nobility. I thought Boy was one of the most repugnant people Charles met at Oxford. Boy was always dabbling in the seamy side of life - hunting out drinking and gambling joints and loose women. Wasn't it when they were out carousing with Boy that Sebastian got into the car accident when he was driving drunk? That was a typical with Boy. I didn't find that he had any redeeming qualities. Charles didn't like him at all, but hung around with him at times anyway.

Doesn't Charles seem to get pulled into things? He drifts into relationships and events without exerting much of his own control. Things happen to him. He seems quite powerless over the things that effect his life, even in his world of art, which was one thing he went after.

Ginny: You mentioned Diana Quick in the role of Julia. I just read she has been married to actor Bill Nighy for 25 years. He plays Davy Jones (head of an octopus) in "The Pirates of the Carribean"! The new one comes out this Friday!!!!!!!! Eeeeeek!!!! Can't wait!!!!!!

There are few academics that have arisen from the British aristocracy. None of the younger generation from the Royal family have done particularly well at school. I have often wondered if genetics had anything to do with this. In past generations they were very intermarried for the purpose of keeping their wealth intact. Perhaps most of them indeed are not very deep thinkers. Perhaps they don't care. They have position and in a lot of cases wealth already.

Carolyn

I think perhaps we do not understand the culture of the idle rich as well as we might. For example, isn't the eldest son supposed to manage and oversee the estate or estates, both property and finances? That, I assume, would be a fulltime job.

Isn't one in the family supposed to be responsible for charities to which the family contributes? Many rich people sit on the boards of banks and other institutions like hospitals and universities. I believe the women are expected to involve themselves in volunteer education work or to work with whoever in the family acts as patron of the arts. One scion is expected to go into politics, and, as we see here, one into the Church.

These people don't just sit on their hands when they're not playing lawn tennis, you know. After all, that isn't good form.

Mal

Hats, you seem to be in a minority of one. The rest of us feel that these are just about the most useless bunch of characters we have ever met, and the author must be mad to mourn their passing. How Waugh must have detested everything modern. Nevertheless, I think you're right...it's the drama of it all that holds our interest. Will we ever day trip one of these splendid country houses again without trying to imagine the lives lived amongst all the grandeur, or come away feeling we have also found in ourselves a whole new set of nerves, like Charles, after gazing at the fountain for an afternoon.

I'm still lost in the drama of 'It is time to speak of Julia.' It begins with Charles remembering 'Sebastian's drama.' 'And, as Sebastian in his sharp decline seemed daily to fade and crumble, so much the more did Julia stand out clear and firm.' The poor soul. He never did learn how to hold his liquor. He's become an embarrassment to the family. One more point against Julia, along with the scandal of her father, her 'waywardness and wilfulness', and then 'there was also her religion'. Finding a husband was not an easy thing.

Along comes Rex Mottram, worth more than all of them put together. He's attracted to Julia's charm and her pedigree. No doubt he also saw the bluebird of happiness in her that others saw. And how hard he worked at winning her:

'...he planned his life about hers, going where he could meet her, ingratiating himself with those who could report well of him to her; he sat on a number of charitable committees in order to be near Lady Marchmain; he offered his services to Brideshead in getting him a seat in Parliament...he expressed a keen interest in the Catholic Church... from being agreeable, he became indispensible....And then, without in the least expecting it, she suddenly found herself in love.'

I don't see how much more Rex could have done to prove his sterling qualities. Such a man of the world, but how unlucky in love. Taking Sebastian off her hands should have got him Lady M's gratitude. He get's less than that from Julia. It was she who could not deliver, and with her came the seeds of destruction that wrecked their marriage.

Was the turtle with the diamonds over the top? I don't think so. It was quite imaginative of Rex to think that, in this strange family, Julia too should have a pet animal, like her siblings.

But all we're getting is what Charles chooses to remember. Granted that he despised Rex and his priorities. There must also be a bit of jealousy in here somewhere.

How ungracious of Julia to remember Rex as not a complete human being, as a tiny bit of a man pretending he was the whole.

As for the lover Charles, first it was Sebastian, then The House, now Julia. Perhaps, in the end, he will find happiness in his art.

I'm not sure I admired Rex that much. Maybe it was the picture Charles as narrator painted of him and Charles was oh, such a snob. Yes, Rex worked for what he got. But he did seem kind of crass. I thought he blatantly used people to get what he wanted. Like - oh, what was her name....Blanche? The woman he was seeing before he started going after Julia? Wasn't he seeing her on the side while he was seeing Julia? Didn't it seem that Rex would be a man who would cheat on his wife? Then there was the thing about not telling Julia he had been married? Come on. What else didn't he tell her?

The description of Rex with his political pals made him seem underhanded - like he dealt with the seamy side of whatever makes the world go round. But his worldly experiences made him into someone quite capable. I certainly can't say that about Sebastian or even Charles.

As a long-time socialist, the thing that makes my blood boil is the way the servants and tradespeople are so subservient - and it is true, as I remember from my own experiences in U.K. Sebastian"s behaviour would not have been excused if he was a poor boy in Oxford on a scolarship, but he is rich Lord Flyte so what he did was "most amusing'! I hated the way Charles, Boy and Co. decided to sort out the strikers - who had caused inconvenience to their kind of people, they gave no thought to the terrible unemployment and work conditions of the poor. My favourite revelation is Bridey - he has confessed to "feelings" and for a member of the middle-class. And Lady Julia has been put in her place, thank goodness for match-boxes! At least, we have Cordelia, a girl with a big appetite and an even bigger heart!

"Will we ever day trip one of these splendid country houses again..."

Day Tripper, your posts have been delightful throughout this whole reading experience. I hope, if I ever day trip to Brideshead again, I will, at least, day trip with you in another reading experience here.

I have also learned so much from all of the other posts. Without all of you, I would have lost my way in one of the long foyers in the country homes. Thanks to all for helping me along, helping me to become adjusted to Waugh's rich descriptive writing and a world I have never experienced.

I am running to catch up. I am not as far ahead as the rest of you.

I am trying like Hats to keep up, but the difference in the books has been so confusing, I am never convinced I know where anyone else is. Ginny... I love Biltmore and everytime we go through, I think how very liveable it was. One of the very few.. Newport Mansions are on the other hand, purely for show.. Leeds Castle in England has a small section which has been modernized and liveable. They were sensible and simply made a small section of the castle into a lovely lovely country home.. I had not really remembered until this rereading that catholics play a major role in the book.. Interesting as a subset.

No one as yet has mentioned that atrocious German who has attached himself to Sebastian. Kurd(?) has found himself a soft spot, and intends to keep it! Yet, Charles learns something rather important about Sebastian in regards to the selfish hanger-on.

_It_s rather a pleasant change when all your life you_ve had people looking after you, to have someone to look after yourself._ Sebastian is actually waiting on this character 'hand-and-foot', even tho' he is still weak from his own hospitalization. Both men are ill, and their outlook is poor. I find myself wondering if Sebastian will eventually grow stronger, emotionally, or die of his alcoholism. I am at least glad he found someone else needier than himself.

Babi

The conversation Cordelia has with Charles after her mother's death is very moving, I think. Cordelia is now fifteen, dressed in black, suddenly an orphan. I see Cordelia as a young girl with an observant, compassionate heart. Really, she has lived through so many losses at her age.

When she describes the emptiness of the chapel, I am especially moved.

"Then suddenly, there wasn't any chapel there any more, just an oddly decorated room."

She talks about having gone to Tenebrae. Could any of you tell about Tenebrae and give an interpretation of the Jewish chant. "Quomodo sedet sola civitas..." What language is this?

Babi, I don't see how Sebastian can hold out. He seems too weak, too far gone. If he did recover this time, would he go straight back to the bottle? Sebastian wasted his whole life, didn't he? He never grasped how to struggle with life and survive. I don't think his new friend is good for him.

Yes, I also have had quite a time, I found to my shock last night I too, was behind, the famous story about the Twitch Upon a Thread reference I had not gotten to, so I had to stay up half the night, but what better way to spend time!

Happily TODAY All is Revealed, and we can talk about the end, and no matter where you are or were, you can now talk about the whole book, anything you like, and where YOU see the characters.

There is a LOT in this final section and I have started the ball rolling somewhat in the heading with a suitable black border for death and loss BUT a hopeful color for the body, as Brideshead fades into the sunset, Marchers being sold for flats and Lord Brideshead coming home to die, Lady Marchmain having passed on as well; there appears to be a lot of loss, things have fallen apart. But as Sebastian said much earlier, there's more of importance here, their eyes are turned toward something else.

This last section is something ELSE! So now the gates are open for your thoughts on anything in the heading or anything else.

I've only put a FEW points in the heading, there are tons more, pick one or propose your own! We've got the Epilogue yet, and the theme of reconciliation and if we're talking about WORTH as the characters being WORTH anything, we're going to have to admit Grace to the table.

We've got as people catching up as well, so it's a great time to discuss. Having finished the book, I am now reading the Comprehensive Guide or Companion as if it were a book and I believe I disagree with his idea about Quis but that's a tiny thing, and I want to see what you all think first.

I am not sure Hats is alone in seeing worth in the characters. For some reason, Newman having been introduced into the story by reference early on, I'm kind of stuck on his famous words quoted earlier, but I want to see what you all think! Particularly the bit about wherever I am (or in what state I am) I can never be thrown away. There's a lot being thrown away here in this section by contrast.

Why, for instance, do the lines about, does anybody remember quite early on Sebastian reading one of Charles' text books which asked if anybody felt the same looking at a flower as he did a Cathedral? Does anybody remember that, I can't seem to find it. I don't think that's there by accident. Sort of a "consider the lilies of the field" type of reference. I'm trying to say that under the plot we see of people going about their daily lives on the surface is running another one, or so it seems to me, another orientation, and it seems at the end the entire book is echoing it, especially in references to history and memory and stones and tradition. Let's see what YOU think?

We're got the frame of the Prologue and the Epilogue, some of the most beautiful writing I have ever seen, LOTS and LOTS of classical references, Waugh pulled out ALL the stops in this last section, where do you want to start? Here's an interesting performance of Quomodo sedet sola civitas What is THAT in here for, do you think?

I've also put a black and white photo of Waugh in the heading as a young man which he was when he wrote Brideshead. I put this color photo here because it bears a remarkable resemblance, to one of the actors playing Charles' original friends. If you have seen the movie, do you agree? (This is an aside)

Ginny....

Online text shows it's in chapter 1...

...If you allow Cezanne to represent a third dimension on his two-dimensional canvas, then you must allow Landseer his gleam of loyalty in the spaniel's eye"-- but it was not until Sebastian, idly turning the page of Clive Bell's Art, read: " 'Does anyone feel the same kind of emotion for a butterfly or a flower that he feels for a cathedral or a picture?' Yes. I do," that my eyes were opened.

I knew Sebastian by sight long before I met him. That was unavoidable for, from his first week, he was the most conspicuous man of his year by reason of his beauty, which was arresting, and his eccentricities of behaviour which seemed to know no bounds.

Jane, I'm not Ginny. Thank you. I wanted to find it too.

I love the online text since you can do a quick search for whatever words and the computer does the hunting down.

That's it, Jane, thank you! I am not sure now that I see it, that it fits my theory!! hahaha Well back to the drawing board, I'll try again.

Seeing that about the extraordinary beauty however, makes me remember the emphasis on CHARM again at the end of the book, every other word there for a minute seems to be CHARM but with a different tone. I need to reread THAT again too.

And what's that about Celia, I am unsure what to think. Charles has been gone 8 years? OR? But here he has a baby called Caroline which is the feminine equivalent of Charles (you remember how North and South Carolina were named, she threw out somewhat desperately hoping she's right) well ANWYAY, how can that be his baby?

??

I think I really must reread this section now that I'm finally up with the rest of you!

As we're about to say goodbye to Brideshead, here's William F. Buckley Jr's Evelyn Waugh, R.I.P from the National Review.

Here are Extracts from an Interview with Waugh by the BBC

And here is The Evelyn Waugh Newsletter and Studies

Thought you might find some of this interesting to augment our experience here in the last week.

Apparently Waugh got the title of this section - "A Twitch Upon a Thread" - from the Father Brown story "The Queer Feet":

"Here, in 'The Queer Feet', is where Evelyn Waugh found the title for Part II of "Brideshead Revisited" Father Brown got to his feet, putting his hands behind him. "Odd, isn't it," he said, "that a thief and a vagabond should repent, when so many who are rich and secure remain hard and frivolous, and without fruit for God or man? But there, if you will excuse me, you trespass a little upon my province. If you doubt the penitence as a practical fact, there are your knives and forks. You are The Twelve True Fishers, and there are all your silver fish. But He has made me a fisher of men." "Did you catch this man?" asked the colonel, frowning. Father Brown looked him full in his frowning face. "Yes," he said, "I caught him, with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world, and still to bring him back with a twitch upon the thread.""

http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/innocence_father_brown/

Here's the story "The Queer Feet" from the book The Innocence of Father Brown by G.K. Chesterton:

http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/innocence_father_brown/3/

Buckley also was catholic, rich, and acerbic; he and Waugh had much in common. In the interview with Waugh on the DVD I saw him as slightly sneering, somehwat iconoclastic, not warm at all. I wonder if his appeal is a gender thing, he does not treat women well. SOmetimes I ruminate on movies, books, TV, where the humor seems not funny, there is little good taste, etc., and I wonder if we are being led around by bunches of naughty little boys, grown tall, imposing their low standards on us and we are as sheep, swallowing all they dish out. Does this sound paranoid?

It's the usually cheerful Cordelia who sees the emptiness of Brideshead after her mother's death. Sebastian has gone. So has Julia. Then she remembers the reading of the Father Brown story that terrible night. Cordelia takes comfort in the thought that 'a twitch upon the thread' will bring the wanderers back home, back to the Church. Was Lady M also confident that her wayward son, and her wandering husband as well would, finally, find their way back? How sad that she has to die before it does in fact happen.

With BR, Waugh the satirist, tries desperately to write a serious book about the need for religion in life, and, for him, the true Catholic Church. It seems a stretch to say that he succeeds. Many readers probably feel the way Rex did about accomodating himself to the religious affiliations of his wife, Julia. Isn't she yanked back forcefully from away out there at the end of her thread. I don't think for a minute that Rex was taken in by Cordelia's funny little stories. Asking solemnlly for corroboration from Father Mowbray during his catecumenizing Rex was just playing along with Cordelia's little game.

And yet Rex is described as 'a tiny bit of a man pretending he was the whole.' Something missing in his life.

Thirty pages along (p 229), Charles says the same thing about himself: 'I remained unchanged, still a small part of myself pretending to be whole.'

A refrain such as this makes one wonder if the author had not also felt haunted by this feeling throughout his life. It's a strange book.

Charles' reflective moments can be so suggestive. For some reason I had to think of Shakespeare's 'All the world's a stage' description of our lives, when Charles goes into one of his reveries with:

'...we are seldom single or unique; we keep company in this world with a hoard of abstractions and reflections and counterfeits of ourselves - the sensual man, the economic man, the man of reason, the beast, the machine and the sleep-walker, and heaven knows what besides, all in our own image, indistinguishable from ourselves to the outward eye. We get borne along, out of sight in the press, unresisting, till we get the chance to drop behind unnoticed, or to dodge down a side street, pause, breathe freely and take our bearings, or to push ahead, outdistance our shadows, lead them a dance, so that when at length they catch up with us, they look at one another askance, knowing we have a secret we shall never share.' p227, beginning of last section.

One can almost feel a twitch reading that. Mutatis mutandis, even better than Shakespeare?

I'd like to jump to #4 in the heading, where Julia says that she cannot marry Charles.

After being rather angry with most of the characters in the book (I posted earlier that I tried to read the novel a year ago, and put it down without finishing it ... can't remember what that was about) I finally felt the emotion that makes a novel stick in memory.

I was so sad for Charles that everyone he loved had let him down. We saw it coming ... Sebastian was going to let him down, because Sebastian let everyone down (except that sick German pal). We saw how ... somehow ... Charles' marriage went sour. We don't know what went wrong, but who could like a woman like his wife ... always looking for the main chance and never listening to Charles.

But with Julia, it looks like true love coming his way, at last. There were sentences early in the book saying that Charles thought Sebastian and Julia looked alike. Now Charles falls head over heels in love with the right one,
with Julia, and she says: I can't ever marry you.
Now I'll carry that theme in my head for a long time. Charles was doomed, as he could only love those who would let him down. I admit it, I had real tears. Did you?

At first I thought that this was an anti religious book, anti Catholic, but now see it as a very Religious book. All the characters are drawn back to the faith, even the agnostic Charles finally finds God. Charles is even more emotionally stunted than his father. No interest in his children. The group at Oxford had individual personalities and characters except Charles, he was just along for the ride. He loved Sabastian and later Julia more for their life style than for themselves. But I would like to know how his life unfolded after his conversion in the Chapel. Can any one predict?

Oh great points and questions here, I'm scrambling to catch up with you, have been on a Field Trip with the baby which ended up a bit more exciting than necessary as the car refused to turn the key in the ignition causing it to have to be dragged squealing and protesting on a huge truck, very not the Field Trip we had in mind.

Interesting for the baby, tho, I'm just now back in.

I thought of two great questions, however, while riding in the wrecker, which I don't know the answers to, myself, and now can only remember one, so up it goes, and maybe after I print out your own thoughts and savor them, I'll remmember it, but here's what's bugging ME: what do you think of Lord Marchmain!

I mean, think about it, in order for Brideshead to continue there must be male heirs.

"Lord Marchmain, I felt at though it was I who was leading in the bride." It was said with great indelicacy. I have not yet quite fathomed her meaning. Was she making a play on my son's name , or was she, do you think, referring this undoubted virginity? I fancy the latter_..

I don't think she would be quite in her proper element here, do you? Who shall I leave it to? The entail ended with me, you know.---Lord Marchmain

---What do you think Beryl meant? Do you think Lord Brideshead is being fair to Bridey or Beryl? What does it mean the entail ended with me? Why would he refer to Bridey and Beryl as "why should that uncouth pair sit childless while the place crumbles about their ears?"

Quis (Who?) in fact do you side with in this?

Then I want for us to consider what if any lasting value we see in this book, which has been roundly and equally criticized and praised. We'll be the judge here of our own verdict, pro or con.

But for now let's discuss the developments here, there are MANY!!

Let me print out your posts and come back!

SOmetimes I ruminate on movies, books, TV, where the humor seems not funny, there is little good taste, etc., and I wonder if we are being led around by bunches of naughty little boys, grown tall, imposing their low standards on us and we are as sheep, swallowing all they dish out. Does this sound paranoid?

No, JACKIE, I agree with you. The sad thing is that the younger generation coming up swallows it whole, accepts the 'naughty little boys' view of things as the norm, and feel they are supposed to live that low standard lifestyle. It's a sad thing to see.

I thought Cordelia's comparison conveyed her feelings so well. She went to the Church's Tenebrae service and heard the choir singing about the destroyed and empty city, and it echoed her own sadness over Brideshead. This was one of my favorite passages, the conversation with Cordelia.

I think Waugh does show us what happened to Charles marriage. There is obviously some bad history with Charles and his wife, as he first begins to speak of her. For one thing, he never uses her name; refers to her only as _my wife_. He has no interest in the daughter born after he left,_refers to her, in fact, as _your baby_ in speaking to his wife. It doesn_t take too much thinking to figure this one out.

Then, on the boat going home, he meets Julia again. They agree that each has changed. Charles, says Julia, is harder. Julia, says Charles, is softer. _Yes_, she says,_and very patient now_. "Sadder, too". _Oh yes, much sadder._, she replies. How quickly Waugh has given us a glimpse of Julia_s history for the last decade, _and of a new closeness between Charles and Julia.

Babi

I agree, Babi and I personally thought the writing in the ocean storm scenes was just glorious. The first time I ever went on a cruise we were in the tail end of a hurricane in the Atlantic and it's amazing, just amazing how like it his description was. The strange things you focus on, what you eat, how the people act, the water on the glass, I see he repeats that several times, but that's how it is, I loved his description of the storm at sea.

But everybody's great points and questions have given me lots of ideas for more questions.

Mippy was moved by Charles having been let down by everybody he loved.

Charles himself calls this a tragedy almost at the end and so I'm wondering which character you all feel the worst about, that is, whom you have the greatest sympathy for? And which you felt the least sympathy for? I think I'll put the answers in the heading but I won't add Mippy's as Charles, there might be others she thinks more sad. Still, this is a book full of sadness, yet we recall it's meant, as Teresa Marchmain said about something else, ironically, to be an encouraging story. How can that be?

If we look at EACH of these characters, who has come out unscathed? Cordelia? Hardly. If we look at each one carefully, and the way they ended up, who should we feel most sorry for and who DO we feel most sorry for? And who do we have the least use for? And why? Have they all been let down by somebody?

I think I feel most sorry for Bridey. He's the one who's half a person and what has he done? He's so shy and he's so used to being rejected, he doesn't even notice constraints in conversation. All HE'S done is be Mummy's good boy, he's faithful and he's religious and what has he gotten?

He's actually I believe GOING to get Brideshead when Julia dies. It's GOING to go to him and his "sons." So Beryl will have the last laugh, is that not correct? Julia has no son.

Julia in this last bit makes no sense. I don't swallow that bad girl thing, she's bad but she's not above feathering her own nest. She should have said no, that's Bridey's but she did not. Now she can't marry Charles. Why? Because she is divorced and Charles is divorced, yet the irony here is that she COULD marry Charles in the church, due to Rex's extracurricular activities and his pretended conversion. I think that's why she refers to him as half a person.

But he's not. He's not only a whole person he's turned out very well. But she has not. She's Teresa's girl here, I'm afraid, very much so, so full of piety and "sin," it just does not wash. Because she KNOWS, as she keeps saying she knows the ins and outs of her religion, she KNOWS she could marry Charles IN the Church, but she thinks he can't understand. He's not a Catholic. He tells her, however, he does understand, and he does. He knows what she's about.

I guess Julia is my least favorite character in the lot. And I guess I'll have to say I feel sorriest for Bridey, he's had a heck of a bad deal all around. But I think he's going to win, if it went on a bit longer.

Jane has said Waugh has written these people as they are, and I think that's the point. That's who they are and even if they do as Malryn said they do (and they do, we see Bridey with the various duties and Julia with her ghastly charity balls), it's no use. The center cannot hold. Things fall apart. The modern world is crumbling. Everything they thought was set in stone, the social conventions they could count on, are crumbling. Even the houses, the great stones, the long history is becoming dust. But one thing, which has the most extraordinary description n in this text as almost a beating pulsing THING under the floor, has not.

In a couple of places I thought Waugh pushed it too far, was too obvious, I want to see if you agree.

I love the writing in this last bit, it actually made me gasp and want to talk about IT too tomorrow.

Hats and Marni I am glad you liked the fountain, (Marni no I have never SEEN the Bartholdi Fountain and it's gorgeous!! Thank you! (Yes I am waiting with bated breath for Cap'n Jack's return. Hahahaha) I did NOT know that Diana Quick was married to Bill Nighy!! But I did learn that the actress who played Cordelia is married to Charles Sturridge, the young director of BR.

The fountain seems to play a part in the story but I am not sure what. I AM sure of the light and darkness themes, especially in the dying of the light of Lord Marchmain, the light and darkness in this thing you could write a book on.

Like Tenebrae. Hats, here is from the Companion, we did the Latin quo modo earlier:

220 Tenebrae [Latin: darkness]

---a service for the last three days of Holy Week, actually the combined offices of Matins and Lauds brought forward to the previous evening. The name means darkness or shadows and refers to the fact that the services end in darkness. There were many variations to the service, but essentially, during the service fifteen candles were extinguished one by one after each psalm until only one was left, perhaps to represent Christ, the light in a world of darkness. Then that candle was hidden or extinguished and the service was concluded in tenebris (_in darkness_); having been begun in daylight it ended with dusk. The effect was inexpressibly beautiful, though that beauty was shattered by a loud noise at the end to represent the earth_s shaking upon Christ_s death. Sometimes the single candle was returned to its place as a symbol of Christ_s coming resurrection.

Perhaps unfortunately, the Church reformed the Holy Week services in the mid-1950_s and Tenebrae in the form described here scarcely exists, though many variants of it survive or have been revived in other denominations and in recent years the Vatican itself has encouraged bishops to reinstate the service.

"Obdurate catechumens" would be people, probably students, taking catechism classes perhaps at their parents insistence who were not ready or were stubbornly resisting taking that step.

more....

Daytripper, I echo Hats, how beautifully you write, and I extend that to all of you and your wonderful insights! Do you think Teresa knew that everything would turn out all right? I keep seeing the Seven Dolours connected with her. I kept counting her sorrows. I guess she would have to turn that over to a higher power and maybe she died happy, I don't know. I guess I should feel the most sympathy for her, actually.

This great quote must go in the heading, what do you all think?

With BR, Waugh the satirist , tries desperately to write a serious book about the need for religion in life, and, for him, the true Catholic Church. It seems a stretch to say he succeeds.----Daytripper

Do you agree? Do you see the need for religion in life shown in the book or not?

Good point on "all we're getting is what Charles chooses to remember." And it's HIS perspective, even tho at the end we have Nanny again as narrator.

Oh excellent point DayTripper, about Charles also saying the same thing about himself pretending to be whole!!!!!

Wonderful quote and weren't there so many in this section!!!!

Margaret I think you're dead right. But wait, were ALL the characters drawn back, what of Rex? Oh good point on how all the Oxford characters had individual personalities except Charles.

I kind of miss ER myself, Charles' father. He's gone, too, along with the bright people.

I like your question:

"I would like to know how his life unfolded after his conversion in the chapel. Can any one predict?"---Margaret.

How do you see ALL of these characters in, say, 20 or 30 years?

Carolyn, I think you are right about the limited marriages of the social set, there's those Chinese ivory balls again, good point!

Ellen, great point on class issues in this book. I really was struck several times by wishing that Waugh had enlarged upon the butler and the household staff, done something of an Upstairs/ Downstairs thing. I think he came close. When Plender came and he and Mr. Wilcox did not get on, I think I would have loved to go downstairs and hear what Mr. Wilcox thought of the whole mess. He came close with Nanny, tho, didn't he? She starts the book as an honored person and ends it the same.

I liked the way Mr. Wilcox came to visit Nanny now that he_was no longer there? They no longer needed a butler? I wish that Waugh had done something from their point of view and thank you for the perspective on the STRIKES!

Stephanie, yes, and I think that possibly Catholicism in this book MAY be THE theme, in a sea of themes. Are there any themes which have we not covered? Leeds is so beautiful, isn't it? But Chambord which Waugh mentioned earlier in passing comparing it to the Dome of Brideshead as false, was also, in contrast to your post about living quarters, a giant pile which nobody ever lived in. Yes I love Biltmore too, and I am so glad the children are managing to make a go of it!

Babi, good point on Kurt, a very strange interlude. One has to ask oneself why it's there. I think as you've pointed out Sebastian said that he had to be pretty bad off if he needed Sebastian to take care of him, perhaps Kurt is a foil to show Sebsatian can perform acts of charity? So he is NOT without hope? Because before Kurt Sebastian was a mess, stealing from his friends, etc. There's something more here than I can grasp, does anybody see it?

Marni thank you for the actual text of A Twitch Upon a Thread. I would like to read some of it, I've always heard of that series. Reading that bit I thought of the Screwtape Letters, am I the only one?

Good point Jackie on W. F. Buckley, I did not realize he was Catholic, I found him fascinating, that tongue, and how he'd sort of rear back in his chair in an interview, and his super sharp wit. He's another one larger than life, I wonder if we in 2007 have the same appreciation of this type of person, the same...reverence...as we did say 40 years ago? Maybe Charles was right and we're all Hoopers? (I'm playing Devil's Advocate now, don't everybody kill me)

Well!! What a new Pandora's box you've opened and there's tons more that we have not even touched! What do you think about any of the questions in the heading including the new ones, or what struck YOU?? Or pose your own question. We could talk a month on this last bit! hahahaaa

Re Julia's decision to give up Charles.....I don't think she is giving up Charles because she and Charles are divorced. I think she is giving him up as a form of penance for her sins. Charles is the one thing she really wants. So she's going to give him up. Her guilt from leaving the church has caught up with her at the end. I think she is sincere about her penance and devotion.

A number of people have their religious awakenings at the end. Lord Marchmain seems to accept the Catholic church just before he dies, after 25 years of rejecting its dogma. Sebastian wants to become a monk before he dies. Julia returns to the church and gives up true love. Cordelia, always pious, apparently tries to become a nun (she enters a convent for awhile) and then does good works (nursing? - something with an ambulance) during WWII. (Isn't that what Charles' mother died doing in WWI?) Charles sees the beacon of faith rekindled in the chapel at the end.

Why? Is it all the suffering and death they have seen?

I was just thinking that maybe seeing suffering in the war had something to do with Charles' religious feeling at the end. But now that I look back, he didn't experience combat. His unit was forever being moved around doing nothing except moving, it seemed.

I think Ginny asked this question already. I might have missed the answer, hope not. What is charm? I didn't really give time to the question until I read this quote. I think Anthony is speaking.

"Charm is the great English blight. It does not exist outside these damp islands. It spots and kills anything it touches. It kills love; it kills art; I greatly fear, my dear Charles, it has killed you."

I have missed something about "charm." Why is charm so murderous? Why is it, in Anthony's eyes, unique to the English? Is Anthony just over exaggerating? Are his words full of truth or without truth?

I always thought of charm as the ability to attract people, a winning personality. I have met people who seemed charming to me. I have never really liked those "charming people." At the same time, I envied these charming people. They were the popular ones. I was the shy one, stumbling over my words.

Maybe there is a lack of being real in charm. I'm curious.

"Perhaps unfortunately, the Church reformed the Holy Week services in the mid-1950_s and Tenebrae in the form described here scarcely exists, though many variants of it survive or have been revived in other denominations and in recent years the Vatican itself has encouraged bishops to reinstate the service."(Ginny)

The description of the ceremony with the fifteen candles is very beautiful. It's sad to know it's existence might have become part of the past. From what I can understand Waugh is describing a world, England, that has become nonexistent, gone never to come again.

All the glory lies in the past. This is too sad almost a theme of hopelessness. When we lack appreciation of the past, we make the mistake of trampling all over it, pressing the grass and flowers down with our feet, never remembering that certain beauties are so fragile it's impossible to revive them. The old England will never come again, at least, that's what Waugh seems to think. I don't think any of these people appreciated the beauty that was theirs to own. They lived close to the "fountain," a spring of refreshment and never knew the richness of that water. It's like lying thirsty with pools of water all around.

I think it's interesting Charles goes to paint in South America, Africa. It's as though he is trying to find beauties of the past in worlds undiscovered, still searching, never finding.

"That the snakes and vampires of the jungle have nothing on Mayfair is the opinion of socialite artist Ryder, who has abandoned the houses of the great for the ruins of equatorial Africa...."

An interesting question, HATS. I can't quite agree with Anthony about charm; for one thing, it's not confined to the English. But that ability to attract people, to draw them around and lead them wherever one pleases, can be dangerous and harmful. What of the young people who feel rejected and 'left out' because they are not allowed in the 'popular' circles? What about people like Charles, who are drawn into what seems a paradise, only to find the serpents there?

It would be nice if all such attractive personalities were aware, thoughtful and resonsible toward the moths dancing around their flame. Too many, I fear, are self-centered, and feel adulation is their due. So, yes, I agree charm can be harmful. But isn't it a pleasure to watch?

Babi

Charles' unit, endlessly moving, is a metaphor for the waste in the military, so aptly shown in the DVD; all those men, all that equipment, all that energy for nothing. Julia gives up not only Charles but all marriage forever, a self imposed act of contrition. I feel sorriest for Cordelia, the single ray of sunshine, victim of all the excesses of her seniors. And the one I admire is Nanny with her unconditional love, seeing her charges only through her rose-colored glasses as worthy of that love. I dislike most Waugh himself who is like an evil puppet master, sadistically manipulating his helpless inventions.

Babi, I agree totally.

Hats has asked about two things mentioned in the text which seem to be intertwined and so I've brought them here today. Each one leads to endless reading and enlightenment, and I had rushed so fast over the text in the last two days I missed both, but they make for very instructive and rich enhancement.

""....have you ever seen a picture of Holman Hunt's called "The Awakened Conscience?...I had seen a copy of Pre-Raphaelitism In the library some days before; I found it again and read her Ruskin's description."

Isn't it interesting that the speaker here (who WAS that speaker?) got the title wrong? Who can find this passage I can't seem to spell the title correctly, who said this and under what circumstances and why?

Here is The Awakening Conscience by Holman Hunt:

I've taken this information from several sites, and unfortunately ClipMate, I suddenly notice, has refused to copy the URLS but I'm sure if you just highlight any sentence here you can find the original: I think the first is from the Tate Museum where this painting abides and the second from one of many articles on Holman Hunt (qv):

"For the 1852 summer exhibition Holman Hunt painted the secular version of his religious work, The Awakening Conscience. In this picture a young woman starts up from the lap of her lover, struck by the sudden knowledge of her sin. The entire painting can be read for symbolism: the cat tormenting a bird, the scattered music sheets on the floor, the tangled embroidery threads, and so on."

And

"Holman Hunt got to meet Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Combe. He was in his fifties and Superintendent of the Oxford University Press. He and his wife became very fond of Holman Hunt and in the course of time took on the role of surrogate parents to him as well as important patrons of the Pre-Raphaelites generally. Help also came in the shape of John Ruskin - the very man whose literary criticism had opened Holman Hunt's eyes in the first place to symbolism and early Italian paintings. Ruskin wrote his influential letters to The Times and got to meet the artists themselves. In time he too became great friends with Holman Hunt and did a considerable amount to bolster the often discouraged and despairing Hunt."

So there is a connection between John Ruskin and Holman Hunt and again it centers on Oxford.

Of the Ruskin windows looking out over the Meadow, I can't find that view but I did find this:

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/ruskin/huxley.html

Gothic Revival

A movement originating in the 18th century and culminating in the 19th century, flourishing throughout Europe and the United States, aimed at reviving the spirit and forms of Gothic forms; applied to country cottages, churches, some public buildings, and castlelike structures. Gothic Revival buildings usually are characterized by ashlar masonry, polychromed brickwork, or wood walls, often extending into the gables without interruption; Gothic motifs such as battlements, decorative brackets, finials, foils, foliated ornaments, hood moldings, label moldings, pinnacles, pointed arches, towers, turrets; often, a porch with flattened Gothic or Tudor arches; a symmetrical fa?ade; steeply pitched gables often decorated with ornate gingerbread bargeboards; projecting eaves; decorative slate or shingle patterns on the roof; occasionally, a flat roof with crenelated and castellated parapets; ornamental chimney stacks and chimney pots; a cast-iron decorative strip at the ridge of the roof; windows extending into the gables; often, an elaborately paneled front door set into a lancet arch; the entry door sometimes within a recessed porch or under a door hood_.

Similarly, Gothic architecture survived in an urban setting during the later 17th century, as shown in Oxford and Cambridge, where some additions and repairs to Gothic buildings were apparently considered to be more in keeping with the style of the original structures than contemporary Baroque. Sir Christopher Wren's Tom Tower for Christ Church College, Oxford University.

Here is Sir Christopher Wren's Tom Tower

which is the main gate to Christ Church College, we're looking at it from the inside quad, slap at "Mercury," the fountain.

Didn't you find it a delicious bit of irony that Boy says at the end, Anthony Blanche? I put him in Mercury once, just as Anthony said they would remember him, when in fact he did nothing of the kind. Anthony here has acted as almost a prophet.

I thought however that the business about Boy and johnjohn was not believable. I realize "Boy" and "Girl" are brother and sister but how old IS Johnjohn anyway to be giving advice on marriage? For some reason this bit did not ring true but I admit to being totally confused over the Celia time sequences. I felt sorry for HER, it seemed she really DID try, but I'm glad to have read the book because in the movie I could not understand StonyMan Charles' attitude.

Here is the Gothic fa?ade of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History done by Ruskin

Very romantic looking buildings, I want to say they remind me of the University of Pennsylvania, I wonder if that is Gothic inspired. When our Classics group went there this past June it was amazing, one of the prettiest campuses I have been on, slap downtown in Philadelphia. Looked hundreds of years old and of course is.

And here is a close up OF one of Ruskin's Gothic windows:

What a beauty! Talk about looking at the world thru an ivory tower!

Here we've got all these gorgeous buildings, hundreds of years of history, the very stones reek out stability, the aristocratic families going back, some of them, 600 years, the Church further than that, BUT things, due to WWI and other social factors, are falling apart. The buildings, the Great Houses, Marchers, being torn down for flats. You could read on this subject all day, thank you Hats!!

Ginny, what lovely, lovely research. Thank you!

Thank you for asking, such a rich Pandora's Box and now MORE fabulous questions!!

Two excellent points, Marni and I want to make questions of them in the heading:

Why have all the characters done a conversion? Is it all the suffering and death they have seen?

" I think she is giving him up as a form of penance for her sins. Charles is the one thing she really wants. So she's going to give him up. Her guilt from leaving the church has caught up with her at the end. I think she is sincere about her penance and devotion."

I don't think so, and it makes me worry what's wrong with ME emotionally!

Let's find out what everybody thinks. Do you agree with Marni who does make sense, or not? Good good direction.

And I liked your point about the moving around doing nothing too, which seems, doesn't it, to be paralleling the characters. Haven't we noted they seem to be living lives of nothing? So what, you might reason, does have significance?

Hats, a super question, as I raced thru the ending I stuck on CHARM again this time with a waspish sting:

"'Charm is the great English blight. It does not exist outside these damp islands. It spots and kills anything it touches. It kills love; it kills art; I greatly fear, my dear Charles, it has killed you."'

I have missed something about "charm." Why is charm so murderous? Why is it, in Anthony's eyes, unique to the English? Is Anthony just over exaggerating? Are his words full of truth or without truth?

What do you think? Why Anthony Blanche again?

Super question!

Babi I thought this was really good, " What about people like Charles, who are drawn into what seems a paradise, only to find the serpents there?"

Yes, I wonder if this is what Anthony Blanche meant? Charles has been seeking since we first met him, one of us said he's just floated into this or that, always seeking. Perhaps Anthony meant this too is just a fa?ade and perhaps a dangerous one. Nothing gold can stay except one thing and really at the end Waugh does make such a point of it.

Jackie, great point: " Charles' unit, endlessly moving, is a metaphor for the waste in the military, so aptly shown in the DVD;" and perhaps for the entire bunch of people scurrying about their charming business with absolutely no result? Sort of a stunning indictment on life, you might say?

I'll put your Cordelia and Nanny and Waugh in the heading. You see him as a machinator then!! ?? How do the rest of you think? I'll put that up too as a question, do you all resent Waugh using these characters in that way?

According to Wikipedia (I can't believe I'm quoting Wikipedia) hahahaa

Brideshead Revisited, The Sacred & Profane Memories of Captain Charles Ryder is a novel by the English writer Evelyn Waugh, first published in 1945. Waugh wrote that the novel, "deals with what is theologically termed, 'the operation of Grace', that is to say, the unmerited and unilateral act of love by which God continually calls souls to Himself". This is achieved by an examination of the aristocratic Flyte family, as seen by the narrator, Charles Ryder. The Catholic themes of divine grace and reconciliation are pervasive in the book. Most of the major characters undergo a conversion in some way or another.

Evelyn Waugh was a convert to Catholicism and the book is considered to be an attempt to express the Catholic faith in secular literary form. Waugh wrote to his literary agent A. D. Peters, "I hope the last conversation with Cordelia gives the theological clue. The whole thing is steeped in theology, but I begin to agree that the theologians won't recognise it." Considering his readership, who were generally urbane and cosmopolitan, a sentimental or a didactic approach would not have worked. Sentimentalism would have cheapened the story while didacticism would have repelled a secular audience through excessive sermonising. Instead, the book brings the reader, through the narration of the agnostic Charles Ryder, in contact with the severely flawed but deeply Catholic Marchmain family.

And that echoes most of the prevailing thought and critical analysis in a nutshell ON this book.

But what if the reader is not a Roman Catholic nor even a religious person at all? Would he see this? What hints do we have? What IS that invisible thread? What has the author done to make his point here that all that matters IS the Church and he's not speaking of the Methodist church down the street, but rather of one specific church, the Roman Catholic Church?

Julia is having an Awakening of Conscience. To me she's very badly written, as Pat H said she shape shifts, she's a different person when Charles sees her, and I think that's by design. He's only seeing, like Mummy as Julia said of her, what he wants to see.

And so do we all. I see a Drama Queen, all emotional over her "sins," I don't understand Julia, I'll admit it and quite frankly as I've said, it makes ME feel inadequate.

I am not sure if the reason I don't is because I myself am not a Roman Catholic and thus the mystery is denied me OR if, because she's patently a mess?

I guess she could be so overcome she wants to spend the rest of her life in penance and service, but what a strange service, taking her brother's rightful place, the glorious Brideshead

a not inconsiderable entitlement, and Flyte St. Mary's, being the Lady of the Manor instead of going off to permanently serve the poor. Nah, to me, Julia's just Julia, I think Charles is well out of it. Marni says it's what she wants most, Charles, and this is a good penance, to deny herself him. What do YOU think about Marni's question in the heading?

But if you did not know anything whatsoever about ANY religion or perhaps your own religious beliefs are far removed from Roman Catholicism, would you SEE the thread and would you SEE the pull here and the substance? I guess that's the question. CAN you see it running thru the book like it does whether or not you agree with it?

I think our Reader Generated Questions in the heading are some of the best I've ever seen, and you need not confine yourself to the Focus for Today and Tomrrow, I'm going off to think about where I see them all in 20 years!

I hope you'll take a stab at all of them INCLUDING did Waugh succeed?

The first time I read the book I was puzzled by the unending catholicism; I didn't understand it and felt that my lack was due to my protestant upbringing. It still puzzles me. The thread is there but the connections are skewed, illogical. But then isn't faith illogical? Maybe lacking faith connections are hidden from me.

Bridey has finally found happiness with his wife and if he adopts her children then they will eventually come into Brideshead.I liked him best of all. Maybe because he was the simplest of all the characters. Cordelia will live a satisfying if lonely live giving service to others. Julia will always be a tragic figure, very sad that life has passed her by. Rex will divorce Julia and go on to a successful public life after WW 11. Cordelia very aptly described Sabastian's life and I think he has found peace with himself. That brings me to Charles, who I did not like at all. He is a mystery to me. At the very end he was smiling and seemed happy, does that mean he is ready to put the past and pretension to rest and get on with his own life in the present?

In all of Waugh's books, the characters ARE larger than life. This is because Waugh is essentially a satirist. However there is truth beneath the exaggeration.

My daughter and I were talking just the other day about appearances. She is one person that even as a child was not impressed by appearances. She is teaching her little girls that a person who looks beautiful on the outside is not always beautiful on the inside. She is teaching them to look beyond the outward appearances when they are assessing another person. Often the popular crowd is also the crowd which is the cruelest to their fellow human beings. I think she is succeeding as Brooke (9) is very observant and will befriend a child who is left out in the playground and yes its often because of appearance. One child I can think of is a very tall Chinese child who has limited English but learning rapidly. She is so tall she is clumsy and the kids were avoiding playing with her. Brooke and her friend Lewa have taken this child under their wing and she is according to my daughter a really lovely natured child.

It is a sad fact that our society is such that you have more chance of getting a job if you have outward beauty. I have seen results of research into this trend. This is why so many more of us are resorting to cosmetic surgery. It is a crime today in the Corporate world to look your age.

We may not have the aristocracy as such in the colonies but it is true that the rich marry the rich and parents will often make introductions with the hope that a match will occur.

Waugh was an observer of and a cynic about the human condition. His observations give us much food for thought. This is obvious by the very thoughtful posts in this discussion.

I must say that often as I was reading I would feel like shaking most of the characters. They really irritated me. However if the characters affected me thus Waugh has done a good job.

Which character did I like the most? Cordelia without a doubt. She had not yet lost her faith in the human race or her faith in a higher power.

Carolyn

I am now the proud owner of the Brideshead Revisited 25th annivresary Collector's edition. "Why?" I ask myself. I dislike the characters extremely and I dislike Waugh even more. I must have lost my mind. Why did I buy this expensive DVD of this thing that I detest. I really don't know why. Maybe I am seeking the answer. I really am not sure about anything concerning this book except that I do not like it. However I cannot let it go.

Joan Grimes

A couple of times reading Bridshead I found myself thinking of "The Razor's Edge" by Somerset Maugham. It has been many years since I read that so maybe I am all mixed up

I must confess that this rereading made me understand that I still dislike the book, the characters and mostly Waugh.. Oh well, live and learn.. There is not a single character that I would not go way out of my way to avoid.

One of the things that make 'Brideshead' appealing to me are the small touches, the feelings or discoveries we recognize ourselves. When Charles, during the storm on the voyage home, found that "I had grown used to the storm in my sleep, had made its rhythm mine, had become part of it, so that I arose strongly and confidently..."

I've never been on a sea voyage, but I remember finding that 'rhythm' in childbirth. I did not fight the pain, but rode with it, letting it sweep over me unopposed. Consequently, my time in labor was shortened, and amazingly regular. Every delivery took the same amount of time..4 hours..no more, no less.

THE THREAD: I think Julia gave us a clue to what that 'thread' is that pulled them all back. "You see, I can't get all that sort of thing out of my mind, quite - Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell, Nanny Hawkins and the Catechism. It becomes a part of oneself, if they give it one early enough."

The things we learn very early in life, from those we trust, stay with us no matter what we may learn later. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Remember that?

Babi

Margaret, no I think you're right on the money! I spent a delicious evening last night thinking what next for the characters in the next 20-30 years.

Here are my predictions:

I'll say Julia lives long enough to become a Baroness, see the Companion. I am so glad to have the Companion because the references are SO many it's like needing an encyclopedia. Several of them have commended themselves to me this morning and I want to come back and comment on them.

But I see Julia as a Baroness, and in Parliament, she'd like that. I see Cordelia as helping out in various hospitals, a life of service. She did not have a vocation but she can help.

I see Bridey living on the estate in a small house or in a small house somewhere, blissfully happy. I am not sure I was right that his children MUST inherit, according to the companion the laws have changed. I am not sure if Julia will precede him in death, if she does his/ Beryl's children will inherit. I have a feeling Julia will give it to the National Trust so that what happened to Marchers won't happen to it, and thus avoid Beryl's children inheriting.

The Companion explains that IF Sebastian were alive at the time of either the Italian or German occupation of Africa he'd definitely have ended up in a Prison Camp. I think I would like to see Sebastian having passed on, all bald bearded him, before that happens. He's had enough grief. He sought entrance to be a monk and was denied, but he did try. He's the third of that family to either desire to BE or actually seek to enter the clergy.

Rex continues to rise in Parliament, and marries again, more successfully, another Brenda Champion type. Cara returns to Venice where she takes up with another heir and this time marries him.

Charles? Charles continues his writing/ oops, his ART, sorry this is not autobiographical we must keep reminding ourselves, and even tho Waugh DID manage to marry HIS Julia, by dint of becoming Catholic and having his former marriage annulled, Charles will not marry again. His art will also attempt to lead or at least one painting will inspire others toward Catholicism.

Those are my predictions, now we need to call upon everyone, is it that you're not finished yet? We need to decide on the climax.

The climax_I thought it was a no brainer, the action builds up and up and then Julia says I can't marry you!

OR is the climax when Lord Marchmain is reconciled with the Catholic Church.

OR is the climax when Charles is smiling at the end? And what is he smiling at? He's been in tears, with his infantry there, now he's smiling? What AT?

So the climax is the point to which the entire story has been building, and after which everything changes, what IS it?

??

Be right back!

Oh Joan G, you'll love the movie, and the point is not how loveable the characters are, but I agree with you the characters really get hold of you. I was reading last night a Ngaio Marsh, and it was the White Tie Murders, and again a society ball and I thought well this is fun I'm acquainted with them now and I found myself MISSING the Marchmains, can you believe it? Actually missing them. And being sorry they were gone. They do make an impact, their story.

I think (and this is only my opinion let's hear from the rest of you) but I think it's not much use to write about how a coal miner threw away his great family inheritance to find God, people would say well there you go, he had not much in the way of worldly goods to start with, nothing much lost there, but Sebastian who virtually disappears at the end of the story has thrown away it all, he's the opposite of what he was in the beginning, but by the action of Grace he is reconciled, that's the issue, I think. I could be wrong.

Cordelia refers to him, down, out, dirty and at the very bottom as "holy." Remember that? Remember when Sebastian said early on, something about things being different for Catholics, the things that were important to them not what was important to others or something? Something like that. I think this is what he meant. All the trappings, the wealth, whatever, the position, the charm, nothing in life is as meaningful as the grace of God, I think that's what he meant.

Some wonderful wonderful writing here at the last, but it's only Thursday, I hope to get to the Companion later today and then the writing tomorrow, but what do you THINK?

About anything?

OH by the way did you catch the bit about Anthony's stammer being "STUDIED?" Does that mean put on? I don't know enough about stutters to say but I did notice that it did seem to be selective, I wonder what THAT means?

Here it is one time: "an unforgettable self-taught stammer_" at the gallery and it's repeated somewhere else, is it put on, do you think, as you look at when it occurs?

What do you think the climax is?

Stephanie, I am sorry you disliked the characters again, but I hope you have found something in the book or the discussion which you felt wortwhile. In a way Brideshead is sort of a litmus test for book discussions and book clubs. I have not seen any other free Reader's Guide for it and the ones I have seen do not have questions.

I think when you write a book and all of the characters are not people we can feel a kinship with then we probably need to ask ourselves why the author created such characters first off and then discuss other elements of the book, the writing, the themes, what the author is trying to do, does he succeed, has he in fact created something that will be lasting or not, etc?

I appreciate those of you who have not particularly admired the Marchmains or Charles hanging in here, it really MAKES the difference. If we all came the first day and said I love it, or I hate it, that would be the end, the "book discussion" would have ended on Wednesday May 3, and we've had book discussions of books I hated, really hated. 7 Sisters is one hahahaa The Liar's Club is another.

I hope that we can find something of value in the book and the discussion and perhaps learn something as we know we learn SOMETHING from every book we read (and not "I will never read Waugh again.")

Maybe we should ask if any of you found the characters likeable or memorable?

Margaret, what a great question: Charles is a mystery to me. At the very end he was smiling and seemed happy, does that mean he is ready to put the past and pretension to rest and get on with his own life in the present? I'll put it in the heading.

Also What is the Climax of the story?

I personally loved how Charles compared the last scenes to a stage play, a tragedy, even down to having Lear, Fool and Kent there, I liked that touch.

Carolyn good point on appearances and looking thru them, especially in 2007, certainly a time of BOTOX and all sorts of other plastic surgery enhancements. We may fool ourselves that we don't care about big houses and appearances, but I think the till at the gates of them says otherwise, as well as the sales of magazines about the "beautiful people."

Mrs. Sherlock, I think I can see the thread, too, but then when I go back and try to isolate it, it seems I did not mark the places!! I KNOW there is one spot it's pulsing under the floor like Poe's Tell Tale Heart. I must find that.

I think maybe Babi has it: what you're taught as a child from a person you trust, especially religion, does tend to stay with you. You can see the characters fighting it desperately but at the end, the thread has a jerk and they are all brought back safely. We may not admire that. We may be like the author who wrote Waugh, I did hope the old man would "hold out." But he didn't.

How DId you feel about that scene? Were you rooting for Lord Marchmain to resist to the end?

I also felt this same way, Babi: "One of the things that make 'Brideshead' appealing to me are the small touches, the feelings or discoveries we recognize ourselves."

YES!

And the wonderful writing. I hope to come back later today with my own take on it but for now, what would you say is the climax? What do you think Charles is smiling at at the end and any of the super questions in the heading await YOU!!

You'll all howl at this one but it suddenly occurred to me as a result of this discussion, that maybe this book, with characters that many do not like and a milieu quite removed from most of us tho undoubtedly of privilege (I mean a Great House of England, a family of Peers, Oxford, such lofty romantic dream like pinnacles and the people who inherit and inhabit them shown to be brought so low by human_what?) MIGHT be a metaphor, the entire thing, for life? A Vanity Fair?

Set against What Matters? That would be a heavy handed sermon, indeed. Is that what has happened?

I'm jumping back just a bit, but I was so surprised when I read that Charles had married Celia, Boy's sister. Charles despised Boy. Why on earth would he marry her sister and into Boy's family? OK, so she was supposed to be beautiful. But she reminded me, in a way, of Teresa. Celia was manipulative and was able to get people to do things.

Celia managed Charles' art career. Was that why he married her? Because she took over this aspect of his work, something Charles was not interested in handling? Was this just Charles passively going with the flow again - letting things happen to him? Whatever it was, it was the oddest story.

Charles, of course, hated Celia, his marriage. No surprise there. He finally ran away to paint in the wilds of Central America after finding out Celia had had an affair. Well, no wonder. What a husband!

The thing that really got to me was that Charles couldn't even speak of his TWO children as his own. He called his children HER children. At first I thought maybe they weren't his - that they were another man's. But later Charles did say they were his own. But what a terrible father. Ugh. That's how much he hated Celia and his life with her.

Charles reminded me of Lord Marchmain in his running away and leaving his children and hating his wife.

I think an entail is a type of contract that predetermines the order of succession of an estate. Probably for generations Brideshead had been passed down from oldest son to oldest son. But, as Lord Marchmain says, the entail on Brideshead ended with him. That meant he could leave it to whomever he wanted.

I thought it was an irony when Lord Marchmain left Brideshead to Julia. I think Alex saw in the relationship between Julia and Charles something he wished that he had been able to do - get divorced and remarry one's love? Not to be stuck in a hated relationship because of the Catholic religion?

Also, Alex couldn't stand Bridey's new wife. And he probably thought Bridey was a religious prig. Alex could do what he wanted. Why not leave the estate to whomever he wanted?

So, as we find out, Alex did leave the estate to Julia. And, of course, Julia has her conversion, is pulled back to her religion by the twitch of the thread, and rejects marriage to Charles. What would Alex have done if he had lived a bit longer?

But, then, if Alex had lived longer, had not "converted" himself at the very end of his life, perhaps Julia would have married Charles. In that case, what would have happened? Would she have always had guilt feelings? Would that have ruined her marriage with Charles?

Golly, I want to put my 2 cents in the chart above.
Ginny, once again you and I see literature differently. I must say:

Julia, I feel most sorry for Julia. Can you believe that? Here are my reasons:
Her mother raised her to be a sweet, religious, decorative girl. And an obedient one. Then she married Rex. What a horrible mistake.
I know several women in America with a similar story, even though they were not aristocrats. Didn't you ever hear an American mother say that she wanted her daughter to grow up and marry a wealthy man? I sure did.
To conclude, I don't think it was Julia's fault she had such a messed-up marriage, and I think her walking out on Charles was a search for redemption (did someone else say that?) or else she was punishing herself for not being a good girl, living in sin with Charles.

Second: who do I feel least sorry for?
Cecilia. Was she a little lost lamb, or not? She found a nursing career, we might assume, to compensate for any love in her life. However, she was always yearning to have Sebastian back in her life. That is sad. But she was strong, wasn't she? despite having no parents to guide her, and of course no inherited money, as the estate went to just one child. She is truly memorable.

Suddenly my eyes were opened, reading all these posts they combined into one great revelation: These are not "real" people but Waugh's attempt to flesh out his beliefs. That is why they are so umlikable, they were never meant to be taken as real, only as characters in his, I suppose parable would work here. I approach a novel as a slice of a life, something grounded in real events and places. Not so Waugh. He's twitching our thread, making us leap and dance ro his command, not the Flytes and Ryders.

No, I was not, Ginny. For several reasons. It was not in his nature to resist something he really desired, to find his true home, to return to the fold. We are told several times: 'night or day he could not bear to be alone'. He feared death. He feared the darkness. He chose the Chinese drawing room as his bedroom. Then considered the Painted Parlour, the room the reader has heard of so often with its lively scenes. He seeks solace in visions of the past. So this is the way it ends. Not with a climax, but a whimper, to paraphrase Eliot.

I'm happy, too, for Julia's sake that her father showed his acceptance with the sign of the cross. That clinched it for Julia and showed her the way to go. Charles was wrong for her. Trying to convince her with his talk of 'tomfoolery', 'witchcraft and hypocrisy', and 'mumbo-jumbo', with regard to the last rites, did no good at all.

There is such truly wonderful writing in this last section about religious feeling, and even selfish ambition, that takes one beyond merely liking or disliking the characters. The characterization is too complex for easy judgement.

After hearing about Sebastian's sorry plight, we get these beautiful lines. First from Charles:

'Poor Sebastian! It's too painful. How will it end?'

And then from Cordelia:

'No one is ever holy without suffering.. It's taken that form with him.' And then in condescension to my paganism, she added: 'He's in a very beautiful place, you know, by the sea - white cloisters, a bell tower, rows of green vegetables and a monk watering them when the sun is low.'

A beautiful place! Just what Charles has been looking for all along, and now seems to be within reach, if Julia marries him. He describes it so well, after he hears Julia say: 'Certainly. It's Papa's to leave as he likes. I think you and I could be very happy here.'

Charles:

'It opened a prospect; the prospect one gained at the turn of the avenue, as I had first seen it with Sebastian, of the secluded valley, the lakes falling away one below the other, the old house in the foreground, the rest of the world abandoned and forgotten; a world of its own of peace and love and beauty; a soldier's dream in a foreign bivouac; such a prospect perhaps as a high pinnacle of the temple afforded after the hungry days in the desert and the jackal-haunted nights. Need I reproach myself if sometimes I was rapt in the vision?'

Yes, indeed, Charles. Where's Julia in all this? And what is Charles to her? How long could they have lived happily together, mostly crying on each other's shoulder?

Cordelia, I meant to write, not Cecilia ... ooopps above in post #365.
I think that was some kind of Freudian slip. Never mind who Cecilia was.
Sorry to make extra work for Ginny, who already typed it in the chart.

I don't think Charles wanted to be married to Julia any more than she wanted to be married to him. I cannot conceive of someone, at that stage of their "relationship," suddenly calling the things she believes in "tomfoolery, witchcraft and hypocrisy, and mumbo-jumbo." If he'd loved her, he'd known how important these things were. I still believe Julia and his "love" for her and his intimacy with her was really meant for Sebastian. In my view, you don't belittle/demean as he did something dear to someone you love.

This also gave Julia an excuse to not have to marry Charles. She may indeed, as someone mentioned, regard giving him up as "penance," but I put it about on the level as giving up brussel sprouts for Lent...not a real sacrifice for most of us.

I believe that Cordelia thinks Sebastian is "holy" because she loves her big brother, and he can do no wrong in her eyes, and what problems she can't overlook she can "justify" by calling him "holy."

jane

I have a very strong feeling that Charles did not love Julia or Sebastian. He loved the house. He wanted the house and that is all that he wanted. He was smart enough ( but barely) to see that he could never have it after Julia refused to marry him. He always followed the easy way and it was easier to just accept the he would not ever be the owner of the beloved house.

Joan Grimes

I do think Charles loved Julia. I think that was clear from the scenes on the ship when they traveled from the U.S. to England. They had been having an affair for two years by the time Bridey decided to get married. Bridey was expected to get the house all that time. It was just when Lord Marchmain was dying that he decided to change his will and leave the estate to Julia. It was a total surprise to everyone, including Charles.

I think Charles blurted out the words to Julia in anger. He didn't want Julia to leave him because of religious scruples. I think it's very common, very human, for people to say cruel things to each other in anger even when they love each other.

Jane, Joan G and Marni, a super discussion on Charles, Julia and their relationship. I thought Charles in the book is a lot more human than Charles in the movie whom I could not fathom at all.

Mippy, I have changed Cecelia to Cordelia : I wondered why you were calling Celia Cecelia and started to correct that, I'm glad I didn't.

And as far as disagreeing, I hope we do, all the different perspectives make for a much better discussion.

I personally think Charles was in love with a dream. I think Jeremy Irons plays his innocence so well in the movie but we don't have the movie here. I personally think the reason he seems _.STIFF_. or perhaps uninvolved to US is because he's Waugh. People keep saying that it's NOT autobiographical, but it just about slap on parallels Waugh's own life, to a T, so I think Waugh has lived these things, walked these streets, and aside from "Brideshead," which I do think is fiction, made up of several great houses and people, I think it hits pretty close to home, if you read his biography.

I personally think that's what accounts for passion in one area and a curious lack of it in others. Notice what he made of the lovemaking scene on the boat. Maybe those of you with the 46 edition would put here what he said. . I took his railing tomfoolery, accusations of witchcraft and so forth the symbolic fight against the Church, again sort of Screwtape Letterish, or definitely Father Brownish, but no matter what is said or done in the end Grace and Reconciliation occurs. Waugh's life is a frightening parallel of these events.

Marni I agree, the Celia thing threw me for a loop, both in the movie and here. I could not get the time sequences right tho Mr. Samgrass says she is wonderfully "unlike" Boy.

I think you are right about Charles' personality, he's sort of reactive as they like to say and not particularly proactive in his life. How interesting you see a parallel between Lord Marchmain and Charles and their marriages! It's not clear to me if this ennui of marriage (which Charles describes quite early on if you recall) came BECAUSE of her affair or after it.

I thought Marni's question was a pivotal one and have put it in the heading, what if Lord Marchmain had lived? I believe seeing that and thinking about that_.well..what WOULD have happened?

I believe after thinking over Marni's question that the deathbed conversion of Lord Marchmain MUST be the climax as it seems to have affected everybody? Would you agree, a moment to which all the action builds up and from which things have changed?

Hahhaa, well I know I'm outvoted here but yes I do think Julia would always have had guilt feelings, after all, she's Julia. Whether or not it would have affected her marriage, I'm sure it would, don't you think?

Jackie, I was fascinated by your post! Isn't that what all authors do? Are you saying that you resent him using these characters to tell a morality tale??

I loved this, "I approach a novel as a slice of a life, something grounded in real events and places."

I have a feeling that this novel is as close as Waugh would allow himself to get without writing non fiction. I think he knew all these people well, this WAS his milieu, right down to the rooms on the ground floor at Oxford. I think he wrote what he knew, fictionalizing it as he went. Isn't there something somewhere about who these people really are? Or who people speculate they are? I think these are as real a bunch of people as Truman Capote's were in "La Cote Basque," they just are a bit disguised.

Daytripper, I love your use of quotes. Just reading the glorious words again is a thrill. Good points on Lord Marchmain so you think there were enough hints and foreshadowing that we should have known.

I agree on the truly wonderful writing. I think he did something here at the end which was out of this world and will return shortly to see if I can clumsily show it.

Good point about the beautiful place Charles has always been seeking, as you say so well "the rest of the world abandoned and forgotten; a world of its own of peace and love and beauty;"

Yes. And it's unlikely that any mortal can find that on earth as we've seen, no matter how titled or privileged or beautiful the people, nothing gold can stay. In a way, when you think about it the whole thing is ironic. Here Charles wants the above, he SEES it in the quote you gave, but what again gets in his way? RELIGION! No wonder he rails tho I do agree with Jane, he's insensitive there and she is getting very defensive, note the "it's been going on 2,000 years," etc. If he were a bit more practiced in the ways of the world, he'd see the red flags waving but he's no Rex, he'll not compromise himself and he'll lose because of it.

Somehow I find myself wanting to hear ER on all of this.

hahaha

Where's Julia in this? Good question. Whether or not they really "loved" each other, and it may be that Charles as Joan G says never loved anybody but himself OR that he loved Sebastian as Jane says (because when we think about it he did not tell Sebastian he was rubbish or tom foolery, with Sebastian it's always "contra mundum.")

I can't find my DVD's and must find them before we discuss the movie starting the 30th, but I did find a passage in Disk 2 (I only have Disk 4 and Disk 2) where Sebastian and Charles have one of their last conversations at Oxford and it's "contra mundum" all the way, Charles and Sebastian planning on getting drunk one last time, Charles is sitting next to the skull which has Et in Arcadia Ego on the forehead.

So it's he and Sebsatian against the world, contra mundum, in Arcadia. Later on he finds, as we can see in Daytripper's post, what he thinks is another Arcadia, this time in the person of the Sebastian Substitute, Julia, and the promise of what he seeks. But it's not to be.

I don't care how many times you see that movie, the production values and the absolutely incredible acting transfix the viewer, it truly was a masterpiece.

But is the book?

Are the characters unforgettable?

Where's Sebastian? There's nobody but Charles at the end, because it's ABOUT him, and grace and reconciliation: the entire plot hinges on him. He's happy at last. In the very midst of the opposite of what he sought, still he has found his Arcadia at last: he's happy.

more much more, but let's hear from the rest of you, what do you THINK??

Funny,, I dont see the deathbed of Lord Marchmain as anything but an old man being pestered by others to convert. He was once a happy man with Cara.. shame his children had to decide to force the issue. Deathbed conversions are always sort of fake to me.. Sort of like all convicts finding god..

A few of the things in the Companion as I keep calling it which I found of interest:

chanterey:

In the Middle Ages it was the custom for wealthy men to pay for chantries, the regular saying of Mass for the intentions of the family, often the repose of the souls of deceased members. Masses might be endowed in perpetuity for the soul of the donor himself. Sometimes very rich men built chapels in churches for the express purpose; these chapels were also called chantries.

Thee chantries were dissolved by Henri VIII and his son Edward VI in the 1540's. In 1547 it was specifically declared that praying for souls was a superstitious object , and the money held in trust by guilds and corporations for that purpose was confiscated by the state. The chantry chapels were then generally given parish or civic functions or sold off for redevelopment.

Thought that was interesting, in a sea of interesting references.

I thought this was fascinating, I have always heard of absinthe but did not know what it was: "the green fairy:"

304 absinthe:

a toxic liqueur made from wormwood and alcohol, with aniseed or fennel added to try to disguise the foul taste. It is naturally green but turns cloudy and off-white with water, which was usually added by dripping it through a cube of sugar in a desperate attempt to sweeten the drink. Absinthe became very popular in France in the second half of the nineteenth century and had a certain cachet among decadents and romantics everywhere, partly because it was known to make you drunk very quickly, to give you hallucinations if you were lucky, and to kill you in time. A cult developed in France : the drink was known as la f�e verte (the green fairy) and the cocktail hour became l_heure verte. Its more frightening characteristics led to a scare which resulted in the French government banning the sale of absinthe in 1915. At the present time it is banned in the United States and most of western Europe (though not in Britain, where it has only ever had a small cult following).

Sebastian is in a parlous state if he is reduced to drinking absinthe in quantity.

The setting of a comedy:_

Charles is thinking of the Restoration comedies of Congreve, Vanbrugh or Farquhar, the plays of Beuamarchian or possibly the elegant dramas of Goldoni. His inability to engage seriously with Julia's emotions awakens her ire.

Orphans of the Storm

Julia is making a wry joke about a famous movie. Orphans of the Storm, first shown in 1921, was directed by D.W.Griffith and starred Joseph Schildkraut and the Gish sisters, Lilian and Dorothy. It was originally a French play, Les Deux Orphelines, written by Adolphe Philippe d_Ennery and Eugene Cormon and first performed in 1874.

The Four Last Things:

259 Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell

known collectively in the Catholic world as the Four Last Things. They would have formed the basis for a course of uncomfortable meditations in Julia_s childhood.

Browning_s Renaissance

As the following sentence makes clear, Charles identifies at this point in his life with a Renaissance devoid of religious significance, something which Browning also did in his many poems with Renaissance settings. His religious figures are a weird set of maladjusted ne_er-do-wells. Of course, EW_s point is that the art and achievement of the Renaissance cannot be separated from religion.

Just about every other word is a reference to something. You could literally spend hours looking everything up, I think I'll write the guy who did this and thank him, it's a great thing.

What does "damn-all" mean, by the way?

More, I need to get Sebastian's memories and what Waugh did with the stones here, it's quite striking.

What bits of writing in this passage arrested your own interest?

Stephanie, so you are unconvinced. Do you think he then made the sign of the cross....why?

MARNI, if I am not mistaken, John-John is Charles' son, but Caroline was not his daughter. I could understand his not being interested in the girl, but was shocked at his abandonment of his son. Then I got to remembering Edward Ryder, and his attitude toward Charles. He did his duty, as he saw it, by his son, but never really showed any afftection toward him or any real interest. Where would Charles have learned how to relate to John-John?

I agree with Day-Tripper. Marchmain was afraid of death and darkness. He had scorned the religion that would have bound him to his wife, when he so desperately wanted his freedom. But now he is dying, and there is nothing in front of him but darkness. That gesture of making the sign of the cross gave him some hope, some peace, and allowed him to die with that peace.

JANE, I can understand Charles reaction, and I'm confident Julia did, too. He could see where all this was headed, that his beloved Julia was drawing away from him. He was frightened, and was lashing out in anger against the religions that was pulling her away from him. I agree with MARNI on this.

Later, speaking of Sebastian, Julia says that he has 'gone back to the church', but she cannot..."I've gone too far; there's no turning back now." That statement surprised me. She surely knows that it is never too late to turn back. She herself is striving right up to her father's last moments to enable him to 'turn back'.

A character I find memorable? What about the outrageous, highly perceptive Anthony Blanche. I had to laugh when he came rushing to view Charles South American exhibit, saying "Show me the pictures. I'll explain them to you." Later he says he found Charles pictures a little 'gentlemanly' and suggests they are hampered by his English need to be well-bred. He describes Charles' art as "a dean's daughter in flowered muslin" I'm sure that any artists among us will understand him perfectly.

Babi

I had to think long and hard over whom I liked least and most of all. I have a few pages to go before finishing the novel. I really wanted to pay a tribute to Nanny. I liked her. I think she did what a Nanny is suppose to do, care and nurture the babies, make tea, give her point of view now and then and make her rugs. I most disliked Charles. I didn't understand his lack of concern for his children.

Also, Charles really seemed to get an inside view of a family's troubles acting as a friend to each one. I am not sure he helped the family in anyway. He added to their injuries by having that affair with Julie right underneath his wife's eyes on the liner. I thought both Julie and Charles acted very sneaky and nasty in that incident. I know Celia had an affair too. I don't know if she blatantly carried out her affair under Charles' nose.

Jackie, I see you admired Nanny too.

As time passed, I did end up feeling more sympathetic toward Lady Marchmain. She loved her family. Like most people she did the best that she knew how. I began feeling sorry for her after reading that people tended to blame her for God's mistakes or something like that. That's not fair. Cordelia is explaining how people felt about her mother.

"Well, you see, she was saintly but she wasn't a saint. No one could really hate a saint, could they? They can't really hate God either. When they want to hate Him and His saints they have to find something like themselves and pretend it's God and hate that. ....I've thought about it a lot. It seems to explain poor Mummy."

What are "diamond fenders?"

"There are some hideous diamond fenders, I remember, and a Victorian diamond collar..."

Are fenders still in style?

"The Queen's bed too, was an exhibition piece, a vast velvet tent like the Baldachino at St. Peter's."

Is it possible to tell or show the Baldachino at St. Peter's? Is it a bed too?

Here it is

Link to the Baldachino at St. Peter's.

I have my own photos of it that I could display if I could find them but that would take forever.

You see it is a huge canopy.

Joan Grimes.

Hats aren't you clever. I had missed that reference, my goodness. Joan, what a fabulous photo! It's not easy to find a good one, thank you!

Here's an article on the concept of the Baldacin Baldachin from Wikipedia, the Baldaccino is the High Altar at St. Peter's in Rome, but I missed completely the REFERENCE!!

Here, at possible pain of imprisonment, is the Queen's Bed from Brideshead Revisited, it's so big you can't get it in one photo but here's the top sort of

and then it comes down with the bed curtains to the bottom :

It has kind of a round dome if I remember correctly on the top that the curtains come down from, very ornate.

I don't know about the "fenders!" What great thoughts Babi!!

Ginny and JoanGrimes thank you. JoanGrimes that is a magnificent photo.

Ginny, you're right about the Companion. What a great help in discovering the meaning and/or significance of numerous references in the text. I got curious after reading that Sebastian also had this religious icon in his sickroom. We first hear about when Lady M sees that Julia has 'shut her mind against her religion.' Julia has just reminded her mother:

'You make a great thing about rescuing fallen women. Well, I'm rescuing a fallen man for a change. I'm rescuing Rex from mortal sin.'

Julia is prepared to sin, to keep Rex. And refuses to make confession.

'And Lady Marchmain saw this and added it to her new grief for Sebastian and her old grief for her husband and to the deadly sickness in her body, and took all these sorrows with her daily to church; it seemed her heart was transfixed with the swords of her dolours; a living heart to match the plaster and paint; what comfort she took home with her, God knows.' p189

From the Companion:

'189 the swords of her dolours an oblique reference to the Seven Dolours (or Sorrows) of the Virgin Mary, pictures of whom adorn Lady Marchmain_s rooms. Such a picture would show the Virgin with her heart pierced by seven swords. In Fez Sebastian will have a picture of the Seven Dolours in his hospital room at which he will look when he hears that his mother is dying. The Seven Dolours are :

The prophecy of Simeon (Gospel of St Luke 2, 34-35); The flight into Egypt (Gospel of St Matthew 2, 13-15); The loss of the Child Jesus in the temple (Gospel of St Luke 2, 44-50); Jesus and Mary_s meeting on the Way of the Cross (implied, Gospel of St Luke 23, 27-31); The Crucifixion (all gospels); The taking down of the Body of Jesus from the Cross (all gospels); The burial of Jesus (all gospels).

The point is not that Lady Marchmain is a modern type of the Virgin Mary, a thought she would consider blasphemous; but that she offers up her sorrows to God as a sacrifice in the way that Mary did.'

Then, Charles with Sebastian in Fez:

Then I told him about his mother. He said nothing for some time, but lay gazing at the oleograph of the Seven Dolours.'

I thought at first that this icon must help the adoring to find comfort in sorrow; but it seems that it's a matter of offering up ones sorrows as sacrifice and earning religious merit.

I just can't understand Sebastian's thinking, when he replies to Charles:

'Poor Mummy. She really was a femme fatale, wasn't she. She killed at a touch.'

Poor Sebastian. He's still mad at God. Or he's being misogynistic. Perhaps it's an author's slip of the tongue. It's detestable. Lady M didn't deserve that!

I think Lord Marchmain's deathbed scene is the climax of the book. I felt sorry for Lord Marchmain. No one took time to comfort him, not really. Who held his hand? Who wiped his sweating brow? Everybody was busy arguing whether he should receive the last rites. When Lord Marchmain made the sign of the cross, could it have been a reflex action? Did Lord Marchmain make the sign of the cross just to still the arguing he could hear in the distance? Did Lord Marchmain truly become a catholic in the end? I can't decide. I just feel this was a major part of the book. It didn't matter to me that Julie would not marry Charles. It did gain my focus hearing Charles and Julie exchange heated opinions about Lord Marchmain's final resting place, in heaven or hell, with a priest by his bedside or not by his bedside.

GINNY:"Where's Sebastian? There's nobody but Charles at the end, because it's ABOUT him, and grace and reconciliation:"

I think that is an important point. Sebastian, who at first seemed the subject of the story, just disappears with a summary from Cordelia once Charles is through with him. Julia asks Charles if he doesn't still care about S and Charles says that he was just a forerunner. S. proved not to be what Charles was looking for, so he ceases to exist for Charles. I think this is Waugh talking -- perhaps this is the way he relates to people.

Writing this made me remember. When Charles says that Julia wonders if she, too, is a forerunner. Of course she is. This is the story of Charles' spiritual journey: from love of Sebastian to love of Julia to spiritual love.

Joan K! I had been struggling with that "forerunner" applied to Julia! I understood it applied to Sebastian in that Charles would then get together (I started to say "love") Julia, but I could not figure out what SHE was the forerunner of, was another coming down the road, perhaps? And I think you've nailed it! Thank you!

Hats, I think you must be right about the climax, because after it it seems there is lots of change: Charles is praying but I'm not sure that's so shocking, after all he was brought up in the Anglican church, but after all that railing and ranting, I guess it is surprising, Lord Marchmain perhaps has been reconciled and Julia finds she can't marry Charles. I think that must be it.

In the movie Lord Marchmain is so conforted there is no room for other. They set up a table at the foot of his bed even and dine with him, they read to him, nurses and servants wait on him hand and foot and his children sit up with him. I am not sure that is shown in the book, but he's definitely got the comfort of man. But it's a different comfort that his children think he needs.

And in some ways, perhaps they would reproach themselves, it's possible they are doing this for themselves, too, should he have died alone without it. He's not capable of summoning it, so really you might think it's their duty to do so, or they think it is, anyway. The arguments don't take place in front of him but in the hall. In the MOVIE that is. I'm not sure if that's clear in the book.

In some ways the movie fleshes out the book and in other ways the book explains the movie. I hope you all will join us in discussing the movie, very low key starting May 30.

What an interesting question , Daytripper, Sebastian and the femme fatale!!!! I had noted the passage and passed over it, I think I should have spent more time there. In some ways Brideshead is like being on a cruise ship and trying to decide what to eat/ Waugh himself says in the Preface that

[because of the strictures of WWII and the deprivations] _the book is infused with a kind of gluttony, for food and wine, for the splendours of the recent past, and for rhetorical and ornamental language.

The reader ignores these at his own peril, but it's like a buffet at midnight on a cruise ship, which exotic reference should I pick up first? Which little bit? What on earth is XXX, I must look that up too.

First I had to look up oleograph and the Seven Dolours, then St. Sebastian and then the definition for femme fatale, that's a heck of a lot of looking for one sentence! Hahahaa

(I was also struck by the word CHARM again in the definitions of femme fatale : It's actually hard to find a definition without it. If this were a graduate class in Literature we could write quite a paper on charm and on memory I think.)

A woman of great seductive charm who leads men into compromising or dangerous situations

an attractive woman who leads men into difficult or doomed situations. The phrase means "fatal woman" in French.

Then I went looking for St. Stbastian and found these

which is the way most churches and the catacombs in Rome show St. Sebastian's martyrdom. Arrows.

The Seven Dolours seems to refer as you've said to the Seven Sorrows of Mary, and is apparently sometimes portrayed by a picture with arrows, piercing the heart. Arrows again.

Lots on the Seven Sorrows according to The Catholic Encyclopedia, all Mary sorrowing over her son.

I am not sure what Waugh intended us to understand about Lady Marchmain. I just read an article on how Waugh did not completely abandon satire for this piece and it, tho religion is not its object, does come out in many of the religious vignettes: the inept priest of the family, Rex's clumsiness in learning the faith, and in Lord Marchmain's death where none of the faithful seem to know a good or the right reason for the last rites. I do note a confusion about religion among all the main characters throughout the book and an inability to explain their own beliefs. I thought those incidents were ironic rather than satiric, I may be confused on the two.

But now that you've pointed out Sebastian, having been told his mother is near death, can only say after looking at a picture for a long time of the Seven Dolours, "Poor Mummy. She really was a femme fatale, wasn't she? She killed at a touch."

IS Sebastian here taking Lord Marchmain's side? Is he still the resentful child, saying she killed him, drove him away, AND Sebastian as well? Or is he simply indicting her?

Does she deserve it? I don't know if she deserves it, what a question, let's put that in the heading! I personally think he's pretty close to right and he should know. She is NOT my favorite character in the book!

Here is a fascinating take on Lady Marchmain which is close (or some of it anyway) to my own thoughts.

I found this just yesterday, searching for these subjects, it's again the EVELYN WAUGH NEWSLETTER AND STUDIES
Vol. 37, No. 1
Spring 2006 and it's an article called "Something So Different"
by Kathryn S. Easter

This article contains the following statements:

Lady Marchmain is perhaps the most complicated character in the entire book. A reader once asked Waugh, _Are you or are you not on Lady Marchmain_s side? I couldn_t make out._ He responded, _No, I am not on her side, but God is, who suffers fools gladly_ (Beaty 161). She gives the Church to her family, though she also drives most of them away. Destructive as her behavior may be, it is not sinful. Lady Marchmain is as compulsive as her son, maimed like Sebastian, but less holy. Sebastian is loveable; bound to the stake of his suffering_of his compulsions_he becomes saintly, like the martyr after whom he is named. Lady Marchmain suffers too (in fact, Sebastian even relates her to an oleograph of the Seven Dolours), but she is not a saint, not loveable, not even adequately loving towards anyone other than God.

And on the subject of Waugh's particular take on Christianity, and on tragedy and comedy in the same piece, it says, in part:

Other readers who were willing to accept Waugh_s Christianity_even some who called themselves Catholic_charged that the lonely, depressed, even tragic fates of the Flytes mar the view of Christianity. After publication of Brideshead Revisited in America, a Mr. McClose wrote to Waugh: _Your Brideshead Revisited is a strange way to show that Catholicism is an answer to anything. Seems more like the kiss of Death to me_ (Stannard 260). By the novel_s end, the lovers are forced apart by a sense of sin; the house is deserted; the family is scattered; the only child that is born is dead. Mr. McClose is right, Catholicism is a kiss of Death_one absolutely necessary for salvation; it is death to worldliness, selfishness, carnal baseness. Death in this case is not tragic as the world understands tragedy, but comedic as Christianity understands comedy. This commedia of Dante _enters drama with the miracle-play cycles, where such tragedies as the Fall and the Crucifixion are episodes of a dramatic scheme in which the divine comedy has the last word,_ Frye explains, and that last word is of course Resurrection: _The sense of tragedy as a prelude to comedy is hardly separable from anything explicitly Christian_ (84). Brideshead is not only Christian; it is also explicitly Catholic

I found it interesting that that person who wrote to Waugh saying he was not much of an advocate for Catholicism in Brideshead, actually repeats Charles' accusation to Bridey. This article attempts to explain for those of us who are not Roman Catholic, Lady Marchmain and the book from that point of view.

I think this article would make an interesting addenda to our discussion, and I recommend it. . I was also struck in reading the giant historic explanation of the Seven Sorrows of Mary on the Catholic Encyclopedia site, that the Stabat Mater is sung at this service.

I like that question, Daytripper!! What do you all think? Did she deserve Sebastian to say that? If he had BEEN well, do you think he would have gone to her deathbed? Why or why not?

Excellent question!

Golly, Babi, how beautifully you write.

Then I got to remembering Edward Ryder, and his attitude toward Charles. He did his duty, as he saw it, by his son, but never really showed any affection toward him or any real interest. Where would Charles have learned how to relate to John-John?

Yes, of course. It makes me want to read more about Waugh's own relationship with his own father, I think I'll order that new book. I betcha it's similar. I know some of the scenes were right out of his own life.

But now he is dying, and there is nothing in front of him but darkness. That gesture of making the sign of the cross gave him some hope, some peace, and allowed him to die with that peace.

Oh wonderful point!! Darkness and light again, super point and of course the children knew this too.

Later, speaking of Sebastian, Julia says that he has 'gone back to the church', but she cannot..."I've gone too far; there's no turning back now." That statement surprised me. She surely knows that it is never too late to turn back. She herself is striving right up to her father's last moments to enable him to 'turn back'.

THERE it is! There is the seat of my calling Julia a Drama Queen. You've nailed it! She KNOWS it's never too late, she KNOWS she could in fact marry Charles but she needs another arrow in her own quiver, she's a chip off Mummy's own block.

Now those of you who like her or sympathize with her, scream in horror but to me she's just like Mummy here, enjoying the perks as she goes, martyr like, on her way.

I love the questions in the heading. I want to tackle one, myself:

"Lord Marchmain, I felt at though it was I who was leading in the bride." It was said with great indelicacy. I have not yet quite fathomed her meaning. Was she making a play on my son's name , or was she, do you think, referring this undoubted virginity? I fancy the latter_..

I don't think she would be quite in her proper element here, do you? Who shall I leave it to? The entail ended with me, you know.---Lord Marchmain

Alex is still in the catbird's seat in this scene. Beryl is too coarse, and they will be "childless" as he sees it, (no issue of Bridey's) as she's past childbearing. Julia later finds her OK, but Alex is appalled that she would take his own mother's place as Lady Marchmain. Here class again rears its head. I found it somewhat endearing the old folks remember HIM as "Bridey." But what on earth to do with the entail??? I liked Marni's explanation of that and it must be quite a burden. I would find it so. Bridey found just the Agriculural shows a burden alone.

I've tried to think what she might have meant, but all I can hear is Lawrence Olivier saying "Lord March...MAIN," boy he tore that scene UP! And when I saw what all he had to learn and memorize, one wonders really how he managed it, because much of the script in the movie IS verbatim the book, these scenes particularly.

The truth of the matter is that uncouth Beryl who took a mistaken roguish turn with old Lord Marchmain can have no heirs and the Admiral's children will inherit Brideshead and that Lord M cannot stand. I think that's the issue really. Perhaps. Hahahaaa I think she was referring to Brideshead's "undoubted virginity," thus bringing back the second meaning of "brideshead" at the end of the book. I think Lord M would give it to Plender rather than see this happen. Is it ironic that Sebastian has taken himself out of the running, then?

But Sebastian, Edward, Anthony the Prophet, all are gone. I think I miss ER the most, I'd really like to hear what he thought about all this, but I have a feeling I know" such a lot of nonsense" hahahaa

The Companion is no help on the "hideous diamond fenders" of Chapter III:

283 diamond fender

Julia no doubt finds this tiara a tiresomely massive object, especially as no dictionary I have consulted defines fender as a type of head-dress. One sometimes sees pictures of Victorian ladies in formal dress wearing a tall, heavy tiara of the type suggested by Julia_s words.

The title FENDER seems to suggest something to me other than a tiara, have any of you heard of this?

I just went back and reread again Anthony's final speech. He says Charles' first exhibition was "charming." He says of the one currently showing of South American pictures, "It was charm again, my dear, simple, creamy English charm, playing tigers."

What does "playing tigers" mean? What in fact would you like to talk about in the heading or anywhere else here in our last few days?

To sort of cop a phrase from Lord Marchmain, Quis? (or Quid) in fact: who or what would you like to talk about?)

A quid (sorry, could not resist) for your thoughts!

I've got what I think is something stunning I noticed for tomorrow.

JOAN, thanks for that beautiful photograph. I had to pause and just look at it for a moment.

GINNY, you've convinced me! I had not really seen Julia's strange remark as a 'drama queen' syndrome, but she is awfully good at dramatizing herself, isn't she. Not purposely, I think; it's just part of her personality.

But then, Julia identifies a strong aspect of Charles character, also. Remember the quarrel between Charles and Julia? _Why must you see everything second-hand? Why must this be a play? Why must my conscience be a pre-Raphaelite picture?_

Julia has put her finger right on the aspect of Charles that has bothered us all along. He does not allow himself to be fully involved in his own life. Perhaps is was his experience with Sebastian, or even further back, with his father. Or both. But he always seems to be a cautious step back, viewing his life from outside.

Babi

There is a review of a new book in today's Wall Street Journal, (in section P, if you have the paper):

Fathers and Sons, by Alexander Waugh (2007, Doubleday) who is the grandson of Evelyn Waugh. The family re-used first names in successive generations, so that there are three Auberons, two Alexanders, one Alex, and one Alick in the book ... perhaps only one Evelyn.

Needless to say ... could you guess ...
Evelyn's father Alexander (1840-1906) was a sadist, called "The Brute" by his descendants. An example: one son, Arthur, hated hunting and shooting. One night, the father dragged Arthur out of bed, shoved him into a cupboard, and made him kiss the father's gun-case.

Another quote from the review: "The father of the writer (Alexander) was psychologically maimed, like a number of the earlier Waughs, by a childhood suffused with paternal coldness."

In Brideshead , each of the three parents are unable to express love for their children; do you agree?

Here's the link:

House of Waugh

'What does "playing tigers" mean?'

That's a good question, Ginny. My guess is that one is being stroked and petted and smiled upon, while in reality, the daggers are out. It was always well-known in diplomatic circles that the English got more with their charm than they did with their might. BR is a cautionary tale. Beware of charm. How much irony is to be seen in that word at the end of the book. We came to admire the lives of these beautiful people, and put the book down feeling only pity at their tragic fate.

I like what you are all saying about the puzzling role that Charles plays in all this. Babi's remarks come as close as anything, echoing Julia's frustration with Charles, in pinpointing Charles' part in the story.

We'll remember that Anthony told Charles early on that the only thing that would get him an entree into the Flyte circle would be his status as an artist. And in the end that's what it seems to me to be. The book is Charles' painting of the Marchmains. A family portrait.

JoanK talked about Charles' spiritual journey. I've thought so, too, but I've changed my mind. I now think that all Charles ever sought was inspiration for his art. For a glorious month he found it with Sebastian at Brideshead. He really came alive under the influence of Sebastian and the beautiful 'house'. The wine they enjoyed together, Charles tells us, led to Sebastian's downfall, but brought him, Charles, much comfort later in life. Left on his own, Charles can manage only the 'terrible tripe' that Anthony sees in his 'jungle' stuff. Love with Julia, the real stuff, is laughable and quickly gotten out of the way with one miserable paragraph. He showed no artistry at all. It must have left Julia eager to look for an excuse to get out of this one.

I'm too upset over what has been read into the idea of the Catholic Church being the kiss of death, and Lady Marchmain likewise, to write a coherent reply. Lady M cut the kids a lot of slack. They went their separate, independant ways without too much interference from Mommy. So they prayed together at Brideshead. Their lives apart were their own. However, all on the same thread, it seems.

Good heavens, Mippy, what an horrific family, thank you for bringing that here! Addams Family indeed. Now we can see clearly where Edward Ryder got his, "Well Orme-Herrick is a great friend of mine, but I should not go tearing off to his death-bed on a warm Sunday afternoon." Makes old ER look like St. Nicholas, huh?

Now I have even more sympathy for Evelyn Waugh, believe it or not than I did, and respect, too, that he could make such beautiful things out of the terrifically hideous life he had in that family.

My goodness Lady Marchain and all the Marchmains are positive angels by comparison.

Thank you for that! I am glad to see the Wall Street Journal online. I also can't help but notice that he is "acclaimed by many notable writers as one of the greatest novelists in the English language ('about as good as one can be,' said George Orwell,' while holding untenable opinions.'") and that recently critic Clive James awarded Evelyn "the accolade of 'the supreme writer of English prose in the 20th century.'"

But I had never read anything by him. I tried once and could not get into it. This is the first Waugh I've ever read. I doubt I would have read him at all had it not been for the movie and so I'm so glad I did, the writing in this last section is just wonderful, and how on earth HE managed to get THAT from his childhood is unbelievable. And so now also Babi's point above makes perfect sense about Waugh as well, I think:

Julia has put her finger right on the aspect of Charles that has bothered us all along. He does not allow himself to be fully involved in his own life. Perhaps is was his experience with Sebastian, or even further back, with his father. Or both. But he always seems to be a cautious step back, viewing his life from outside.

So in a way Charles and Waugh are really sort of scarred, and on the outside looking in.

And perhaps this could be extended to Sebastian who also felt out of the circle. And also Bridey who tried to bond with other men but could not. And so perhaps like Anthony Blanche who did not try to bond but who never fit in anyway. Who else? Rex? He also tried to fit in but was considered half a person. Who else?

No wonder Charles (and Waugh) despised the Hoopers of the world, they seemed to fit in and Charles and Waugh did not. I liked the article's saying Waugh

was mocked for his brooding sense that the barbarians were not at the gate but inside the citadel, indulged by the apostles of moral equivalence in the name of a vapid tolerance. His foreboding has been all too cruelly vindicated.

I also liked the mention of using humor to combat his own demons. Somewhere there's a quote from Waugh saying that without Catholicism he would have been a much nastier person indeed. What can you expect with such an upbringing? You have to wonder where he found the good bits in himself, the romantic hopeful Arcadia to write about. Even tho he's shown it not to be true or real. Or has he?

It's amazing how we start to read something here, even something as old as Brideshead and suddenly all around are veritable explosions of new stuff about that very book and author. It really is. We're sort of charmed in that way here, I don't know why, but we've seen it again and again.

What particular bit of writing in this last part struck you OR do you think, if Sebastian were not as ill as he was he'd have come to his mother's death bed? OR do you think Lady Marchmain deserved forSebastian to consider her a femme fatale, after all she was dying?

(Did you wonder why Charles dropped everything to go find Sebastian? I sort of did,) I need to go back and reread that one. OR what might have happened had Alex not died? That alone is fraught for lots of speculation.

OR?

DayTripper, so....I actually gasped at this one:

I now think that all Charles ever sought was inspiration for his art. For a glorious month he found it with Sebastian at Brideshead. He really came alive under the influence of Sebastian and the beautiful 'house'. The wine they enjoyed together, Charles tells us, led to Sebastian's downfall, but brought him, Charles, much comfort later in life. Left on his own, Charles can manage only the 'terrible tripe' that Anthony sees in his 'jungle' stuff. Love with Julia, the real stuff, is laughable and quickly gotten out of the way with one miserable paragraph. He showed no artistry at all

Tripe on his own. Wow, I think you're right. So WHY do you think Charles is smiling at the end, then?

Now that you mention it, Kiss of Death IS a bit strong, isn't it? I hope you are not upset, I expect she hoped to make a strong point or turn of phrase and actually messed herself up.

It's ironic, actually, because I think this quote in the article, "a Mr. McClose wrote to Waugh: 'Your Brideshead Revisited is a strange way to show that Catholicism is an answer to anything. Seems more like the kiss of Death to me' (Stannard 260)," was meant as a criticism of Waugh, and a defense of the Church, to me.

In saying that Waugh failed, he was echoing Charles, ironically, earlier. But I think when Kathryn Easter thought she'd do a play on words and turn Mr. McClose's words around, she fell into trouble.

That was how I saw it.

And to me the burning question is DID Waugh fail? DID he succeed?

Daytripper, you know what suddenly occurred to me, about the Kiss of Death thing? The writer of the article, Kathryn, is it Easter, thought she was professing the faith there with a neat turn of phrase. She seemed to think, undoubtedly, since it's written with some passion, that her story, the part she made up, was really "meant to be an encouraging story, " Did it seem that way to anybody else?

If the reader perceives the thread continuing through everybody, no matter how estranged, or in what condition, and Teresa as the source, that is, the one who provided it to them in the first place, then Lady Marchmain did not deserve Sebastian's "femme fatale," remark at all. She did not hear it however. Although I'm not sure that I am comfortable with the word "deserved."

A lot seems to hinge on how the reader sees Lady Marchmain, who also is gone at the end of this book.

PS I meant to say, Daytripper, I do like your explanation of "playing tigers," very much.

But the issue seems to have been raised: did Waugh succeed? And if he did, in what did he succeed? Apparently he received lots of correspondence pro and con, judging from the letters quoted.

Ginny, I have been drawn again and again to look at the paintings of St. Sebastian. Thank you so much. I have read these latest points. I want to hold all of the good points in my mind. I agree with DayTripper. Babi's assessment about Charles is too true. Babi, I can't paraphrase what you said about Charles walking behind his own life or being a spectator. Your words are perfect. There is too much. Mippy, thank you.

I am going to try and find diamond fenders, just curious. I give up. If all of you can't find it, there is no hope for me.

Mal, do you know what "diamond fenders" are?? I hope you are well.

Hats, "fenders" I guess will forever be a puzzle for all of us, I sure can't find it, haahaha. I do, too, Malryn. I look forward to hearing from all of you in these last 3 days, the 29th will be our last day and on the 30th we'll undertake a fun low key look at the movie, bring popcorn to share! hahahah

For some reason this morning I keep thinking of TS Eliot, quoted in the heading by Anthony Blanche and about Sebastian's quote of burying treasured memories.

We're at the end, of the book and of our discussion, but I'm not sure I want it to end this way:

The Hollow Men
By T. S. Eliot (1925)
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Hahaa. When I looked that up and found it was from the Hollow Men, I couldn't help but notice the opening lines:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

And that made me wonder about The Waste Land which Anthony Blanche quoted. I know there is a reason he quoted those exact lines and I wondered, idly, as is my wont, if there might be more in it of use to us.

Here's what I found, I seem to see a parallel between his poem The Waste Land and Brideshead, but I may just be cross eyed. See what you think??

T.S. Eliot (1888_1965).
The Waste Land. 1922.

Here are some excerpts, certainly not the entire poem, taken in order. Marchers is to be pulled down. We've come through one war, WWI, and all the changes that brought and are in the midst of WWII. The glorious pile which was Brideshead is in disarray in the last pages, except in one instance, and the family is, too, along with its fine dreams and bright hopes. Here are some thoughts which I thought applied, from the Waste Land quoted by Anthony Blanche:

What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,

....

Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust_.

A Handful of Dust is also the title of another Waugh book.

.............. The nymphs are departed.
Sweet Thames, run softly, till I end my song.
The river bears no empty bottles, sandwich papers,
Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends
Or other testimony of summer nights. The nymphs are departed.
And their friends, the loitering heirs of city directors;
Departed, have left no addresses.
By the waters of Leman I sat down and wept...
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song,
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
But at my back in a cold blast I hear
The rattle of the bones, and chuckle spread from ear to ear_..

His vanity requires no response,
And makes a welcome of indifference.
(And I Tiresias have foresuffered all
Enacted on this same divan or bed;
I who have sat by Thebes below the wall
And walked among the lowest of the dead.)
Bestows one final patronising kiss,
And gropes his way, finding the stairs unlit...

She turns and looks a moment in the glass,
Hardly aware of her departed lover;
Her brain allows one half-formed thought to pass:
'Well now that's done: and I'm glad it's over.'
When lovely woman stoops to folly and
Paces about her room again, alone,
She smoothes her hair with automatic hand,
And puts a record on the gramophone
....

To Carthage then I came

(You recall Sebastian, Julia and Cordelia end up in Carthage)

Burning burning burning burning
O Lord Thou pluckest me out
O Lord Thou pluckest

I believe I see a parallel. And I don't think it's a mistake, especially since Waugh is at pains to include Eliot outright. It would seem the Great War (The War to End All Wars- WWI) made a significant difference on the world, in ways which were not foreseen, and many writers echoed the longings of people for something, some purpose or meaning in life.

You can see it in many of the War poets (of both WWI and WWII) and I think Brideshead is the same theme, just not in verse, showing how this sense of needing a purpose managed to even invade what I guess most British took for granted as a given: the very aristocracy and grand houses and lifestyle of the beautiful people, thought so far removed from the battlefield.

I THINK, this is my opinion, this is what Waugh set out to do. What do you think he did? What did you think Brideshead would be? Are you disappointed in it? In your opinion did he succeed? Is it just a fluffy romance, a beautiful piece about the beautiful people? What's the main theme that you see?

Was it wrong of Waugh to include what he felt was the answer, what he felt that Eliot despaired of finding in the rubble: hope? What are your last thoughts in the final days?

Did Waugh succeed?

GINNY & HATS, thank you for your kind words.

MIPPY, your info. about the Waugh family explains a great deal. Thank you for that one.

DAYTRIPPER, I like your point about art being Charles' ceter and focus. One can at last be glad he found what meant most to him. I think it brings up another key to Charles...his love of beauty. Looking at Julia one evening: __watching her as she sat between the firelight and the shaded lamp, unable to look away for love of her beauty._ It was beauty that drew him to Sebastian, to Brideshead, to Julia.

GINNY, too bad you aren't at university taking a degree in Literature. (Or do you already have one?) Your comparison of Waugh's Brideshead and Eliot's 'Wasteland' would make a great dissertation.

Babi

Ginny: G'day...sorry I've not had time to join in the discussion, and such a far reaching discussion too - it fairly takes my breath away. Hope I have better luck next time.

Just for the record: My least favourite character is Julia. I found her utterly self -centred. I could barely find a redeeeming feature in her makeup except at the last when I think she genuinely wanted her father to make his peace with his God. She believed in her religion and did not want Lord Marchmain's soul to suffer in hell. I don't think she loved Charles at all and I think she would continue to have affairs and then renounce her 'love', confess her sins, be forgiven and carry on again as before time and again.

The other least favourite is probably 'Mummy' What a dragon lady. The iron fist in the velvet glove. And just what was it about her brother Ned that made him so special, at least to her mind?

My favourite, far and above all others was Anthony Blanche. Although his mannerisms, stutter, etc may have been studied and not entirely natural nonetheless he was a complete person and knew himself for what he was. I think he was true to himself (thou canst not then be false to any man - yes?). I think Sebastian was his great love and when that love was unrequited he took refuge in using his viperish tongue.

Cordelia runs second to Anthony - though young she too knows herself and others around her. Very perceptive is Cordelia. She is also a survivor. Though she has suffered many great losses for one so young she survives because of her faith. Bridey also has his faith but is far less intelligent than Cordelia - perception is not his strong point.

As for Charles. I guess I don't like him much but I think Waugh has used his character to tell the story because he is outside the family and so can see more of the game - so too was Blanche - but Charles has the advantage that the lives of all the family members somehow impinged upon his own. Charles is also an artist and therefore an observer so Waugh has created the ideal person to relate the story - someone who knows some family members intimately and others fairly well and who is able to take his observations, assess them, discard inessentials and report the essence of events.

I loved Waugh's depiction of Charles as a father totally uninterested in his offspring - talk about 'a chip off the old block' I noticed in a list of Waugh's publications the title 'Charles Ryder's School Days' and plan to look it out from the library ASAP - should be interesting after Brideshead.

Thanks for putting up quotes from 'The Wasteland' I too see parallels but am still pondering exactly what was meant by Anthony Blanche quoting Eliot at that time. Need to think about it some more.

So what did I think the book was about? Well it seems Waugh was at pains to depict a way of life which he saw as being utterly destroyed firstly by 'progress' and then abruptly and rapidly by war. He was wrong there as I believe the British aristocracy is still alive and well though maybe not quite as rich as it once was. (Death duties play havoc with the old estates, dash it all!) He is also championing his acquired religion as the means to salvation for us all so that out of the horror of war we can find peace. I think he only partially succeeded. But at times his writing is nothing short of sublime.

I've watched the first disc of BR and plan to see the rest in the next day or two so will look in on that discussion.

Thanks to all the posters for your hard work in finding references and links, background materials etc. They added to much to the discussion and I appreciated your efforts.

Special thanks to Ginny for gathering all the threads, throwing in curly questions and keeping everyone on their toes. Though pressed for time I really loved it all. Thanks.

Ginny, I can not answer your questions. All I do know is T.S. Eliot's poem is a marvellous ending. Just reading the words I feel like a shadow of myself, as though it is time to put some part of my life in order, to see the universality in this grand plan called life. Since my words might sound like mumbo jumbo, I would like to say to Ginny you took us on a long journey. It began well and it ended even better with the words of T.S. Eliot.

Along with Gumtree, I would like to say thank you so very much to Ginny and all of the posters, new friends and old friends. I truly loved every minute visiting Brideshead.

_I am writing a very beautiful book, to bring tears, about very rich, beautiful, high born people who live in palaces and have no troubles except what they make themselves and those are mainly the demons of sex and drink which after all are easy to bear as troubles go nowadays_ (Letters of Evelyn Waugh)

Ginny, you promised us a good discussion, and it certainly has turned out that way. But why did you save the best link for the end, the link to the Kathryn Easter essay on the Catholic content of BR, and much else on the page? I brought the quote about the 'very beautiful book' from there. So that was the mood in which EW wrote the book. Millions have enjoyed the book and even more millions have been carried away by the movie. It wasn't many years and EW almost seems to have regretted writing it, insisting it was a funeral oration over an empty coffin, since the lovely country houses and their owners hadn't completely disappeared after all. Thanks to the day trippers! Now we have a very bright student telling us, look again, this is an intensely religious book. And she has done her homework. I was upset at first to see what she was making of the kiss of Death idea, but now I see that it was possible for Lady M to find suffering in her great wealth and her envy of the poor.

Another interesting item in the Newsletter link is a book review of Evelyn Toynton's, Reviting Brideshead. Toynton apparently deplores Waugh's 'adolescent vision of love and innocence, even of suffering and redemption.' Many readers would, no doubt agree with that while poring over the book. The reviewer, however, shakes his head, insisting that Toynton 'pretends to be, or is unwilling to trust the tale rather than the teller, or for that matter, to imagine that Waugh might have known what he was doing.

Strange as it may seem, according to one critic, Waugh came a cropper over his own notions about the book. It was first offered to Hollywood, where they saw only the love story in BR. Waugh took the story back to England, where it was filmed as we know it, with its strong religious flavor. And with that Waugh missed his chance at reaping the rewards as the author of what most certainly would have turned out to be an English Gone With The Wind.

And one more quote from another item in the link. It gives the answer to your question why Charles was cheerful afte his prayer in the chapel:

This is going to take another post.

'(I)n the _Prologue,_ _Narrator-Ryder recognizes that the worldly myths have brought actor-Charles to a state of disillusionment,_ but that in the course of the novel, _by consciously reconstructing his past [...] he comes to understand the way in which his worldly talents and earthly loves have brought him to the point at which he can go from the artistically appalling chapel not back into Brideshead, the refuge he had desired for so long, but into the modern, military world with a new spirit and a new hope._ ' Robert Murray Davis, reviewing the Toynton book.

Seems like a psychological novel to me. I'm sure Charles remains an agnostic.

I must confess the ending seemed vague to me, and I'm not sure what to make of it, GINNY. Did Waugh write the 'Prologue', DAYTRIPPER? My copy never identifies the writer. In any case, Mr. Davis' explanation doesn't quite fit for me. I think I will go re-read that closing section, and see if it becomes any clearer to me.

GINNY, you gave us simply fountains of information on every imaginable aspect of this discussion. Thank you for all your hard work and encouragement. This has been a book of surprising insights...and I almost missed it!

Babi

Babi we are posting together, well bless your kind heart, thank YOU and thank you ALL for what you've made of this. I KNOW you almost missed it! And I am so glad you did not. I'm going to reread the end, also.

Daytripper, you think he remained an AGNOSTIC? Whoop!! So you think that Waugh failed (IF that was his plan?) wow! Love the quotes!!!!!

Why did I wait so long? I just saw it hahahaa I was looking up other things and there it was. I also just found (DUH) Bernini's St. Teresa which I have been reading about endless articles on and never connected the Teresas, and I'm not sure they do connect. If they do I don't want to go there: another heart with spear.

But what wonderful thoughts here at the last.

Hahahah Babi, I don't think that would make too much of a dissertation, I don't think the analogy holds, but I appreciate it. It SEEMED a good idea at the time but I'm not sure that it holds water now. Thank you for your great points, too, which seem to have more merit than my crazy flights of speculation! I appreciate them, very much.

I think if I were going to write a paper on Brideshead I'd want to do it on light and dark. I am really struck by the use of those two things in the narrative.

Hats, thank YOU and all of YOU for the wonderful posts you've made. It has been a long journey, I hope we got something out of it, what would you all say you'll take from it?

Gum, I am so sorry to have missed your wonderful posts, but I appreciated that one, very much. I agree at times the writing approaches sublime. I wish I were a better typist, have been putting off this last salvo but need to make it in the next post. I really thought the writing in this last bit was out of this world.

Please let us know about Charles Ryder's School Days! I wonder if he tries to explain more there?!? Wow!

I liked this: "He is also championing his acquired religion as the means to salvation for us all so that out of the horror of war we can find peace. I think he only partially succeeded. But at times his writing is nothing short of sublime"

So you think IF his aim was to show Catholicism as the answer he only partly succeeded. What do the rest of you think? But he may have succeeded otherwise, in other areas? Like so many authors, actually, set out to possibly do one thing and end up with another!

When I changed internet servers, wildblue objected to my Dell computer so had to switch back as I've said to the old HP, which I loved, so that works well. Unfortunately the Ragtime or whatever it was so called "Readers Guide" I had to pay for went with it and I am simply too lazy to crawl under the desk and fight the cables to see if we managed to hit all the themes.

It had no questions, and two essays, one on memory I liked that one, sort of breathtaking, but lost now, so have been flying blind actually for some time. I hope, however, even without it, we have managed, as is usual, to hit most of the high points of the book! We don't usually miss one trick! Did we this time, do you think? If so, what was it? What missing theme have we overlooked?

When we started this I think Mrs. S worried that we could do it in a month. Of course it's kind of like visiting the Louvre on a Sunday afternoon, you do what you can. I hope we've done it justice. What would you say we left out? We've got today and tomorrow.

Do you agree with Daytripper that Charles remains an agnostic? The actor-Charles!!!! Love it. He does refer over and over to them all being in a play.

As today is Memorial Day, and this book is partly, anyway, about the effects of WWI and, in the Prologue and Epilogue, WWII, I thought we might like to hear from one more "War Poet," John McCrae, whose In Flanders Fields seems echoed today in the selling of Poppies for Poppy Day.

You don't hear much about WWI any more.

From In Flanders Fields
by John McCrae, May 1915

This site has the history of this poem, and a beautiful photo of the poppies.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep,
though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Since we're reading about this very period in time I thought it might be nice on Memorial Day to note that.

Plenty of time to have any last minute thoughts, about what we left out or something new you see. Do you think Charles remains an agnostic, actor to the end? Do you think Waugh succeeded in this book in any way? How? or how not? What will you take from the book to keep for your own?

Babi we were posting together and I changed the first lines of my post but just in case you don't see it, THANK YOU, I know you almost missed it!! And I am SO glad you did not!

I also need to reread the end, I have a sinking feeling there's something there I missed.

I definitely agree with Daytripper that Charles remains an Agnostic.

I agree with Ginny that the writing is wonderful.

I did not really like the book but I am glad that I made the effort to read it.

Thanks for all the work that you put into the discussion Ginny.

Joan Grimes

Well, I went back and read the closing pages from the Epilogue, and I can't agree with DAYTRIPPER & JOAN. Consider what was said here:

Charles: "I said a prayer, and ancient, newly learned form of words, and left." Charles has learned to pray. One doesn't do private prayer if one is an agnostic.

Then, reflecting on Brideshead and its history, he is reminded of the phrase...'all is vanity'. "And yet, vanity was not an apt word..."

Finally: "Something quite remote from anything the builders intended has come out of their work, and out of the fierce little human tragedy in which I played...a small red flame. It could not have been lit but for the builders and the tragedians, and then I found it this morning burning anew among the old stones."

The small red altar flame. And thinking on all this, he left cheerful and smiling. No, Charles is no longer an agnostic. There are many, of course, who don't believe such things happen. But that was clearly Waugh's message.

Babi

I can cry anytime after a reading of "In Flanders Field." These lines especially strike me.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Ginny, this poem fits so perfectly with Brideshead Revisited too. I am sure for all the characters we met in Brideshead Revisited life passed too quickly. There idealistic values about the beauty of love, the beauty of a country, the beauty of innocence and a peaceful world quietly slipped away like an ill person slips away in death. I wonder, did Evelyn Waugh wish his readers to grasp hold to the present and value it deeply knowing through experience that the past too quickly dissappears and becomes the future, a future that might not in any resemble the past.

I'm not sure Charles is still an agnostic at the end. I think the words 'ancient, newly learned' are crucial at the end but I am not sure that he is a convert to Catholicism. I have the feeling that as he leaves the chapel to return to his camp he has at last grown up and put the Brideshead chapter/s of his life behind him.

What good points here at the last!

Joan G, thank you, you are so kind, I am glad you were with us.

Babi, I believe you and Gum have put your finger directly on the crux of the book.

I think, (and this is my own opinion, let's hear YOURS) Waugh more or less sums up the entire book in the last two pages.

Quomodo sedet sola civitas. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

Or "When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11 (hahah as an aside, I misspelled child for chile when I googled that to get the exact quote, and got treated to google on Chile. Hahahaa

Jeepers, I must learn to type).

Babi mentioned

the small red flame, the beaten-copper lamp_relit_the flame which the old knights saw from the tombs_which they saw put out; that flame burns again for other soldiers, far from home, farther, in heart than Acre or Jerusalem. It could not have been lit but for the builders and the tragedians, and there I found it this morning, burning anew among the old stones.

Here I believe Waugh has Charles summing up the entire plot. The entire time Charles has been obsessed with historical architecture, drawn to the old: Venice, the old stones, that's all you hear him saying in lyrical prose. Not the new for Charles: history, tradition, a sense of place, and, most important, a sense of belonging are what he desperately seeks.

He's saying that the entire Brideshead episode has been a tragedy. That we are merely players on the stage. And that the one constant is and has been the Church, symbolized, to Charles, along with other things, in that burning copper red flame, which, apparently is lit on the altar and before the Sacrament reserved there, as I understand it. Here is more on the Altar Lamp That's why Cordelia was despondent when the chapel was dismantled.

Charles further says above that had it not BEEN for the tragedians AND the old stones, that flame would not have been lit. At least in him.

Gum says she thinks the "ancient newly-learned form of words" of Charles' prayer mean he has converted, and I don't know what else it could mean unless again Charles is now a Buddhist or Muslim. There seems no other conclusion. He was raised an Anglican, so old prayers are not new to him, but they are not particularly ancient; at any rate the oldest of them, as you've shown, the Nicene Creed, would not be "newly learned." And since we know that Waugh himself converted and was a passionate apologist FOR the Catholic Faith, it would seem odd if the newly learned ancient words of prayer said in a Catholic chapel were Egyptian.

I think, tho, that Waugh makes this point in another way, again with the stones as metaphor, see below.

I don't know what Waugh intended, Hats, but that's a good thing to take away with you about it. I will take many things, also. I am sorry to see it go. Even tho we don't have the trumpet fanfare of the movie ringing in our heads, I am sorry to see the dream like_..aura he painted of his lost youth and the dream of Brideshead fade in the light of day and_as all things must, change as we grow older.

I expect that we all do the same thing, if we'd admit it, in our pleasant reveries, maybe not as lyrically as he did, but we do it none the less.

How dear to my heart are the scenes of my childhood,
When fond recollection presents them to view.
The orchard, the meadow, the sweet smelling wildwood
And every loved spot which my infancy knew.

The old oaken bucket, the iron bound bucket,
The moss covered bucket that hung in the well.

Like all things seen in the light of adulthood, the fabled old oaken bucket had some worms, didn't it, if you've ever seen one? The handle which turned the rope could snap off your arm in the blink of an eye, and the moss covered bucket often held water not so pure, which then had to be carried to the house for washing, etc.

But memory is a tricky thing to fool with.

In this last chapter Charles revisits Brideshead years later when he is in the army. The Prologue and Epilogue are necessary to put the adult grounding, I think, and perspective on the piece. I think that's why they are there.

The once proud Great House and grounds show that nothing man builds, nothing gold can stay. Charles is being given a tour of the once great mansion:

Hullo, someone seems to have been making a beast of himself here; destructive beggars, soldiers are.

They shouldn't have done that to the fireplace though. How did they manage it? Looks solid enough. I wonder if it can be mended.

It's got a lot of painting that can't be moved, done on the walls. As you see, I've covered it up as best I can, but soldiers get through anything_-as the brigadier's done in the corner.

There was another painted room, outside under pillars _modern work but if you ask me the prettiest in the place; [ Charles' paintings] it was the signal office and they made absolute hay of it; rather a shame.

This eyesore e is what they used as the mess; that's why I didn't cover it up; not that it would matter much if it did get damaged; always reminds me of one of the costlier knocking-shops, you know_"Maison Japonaise."

We laid the road through the trees joining it up with the main drive; unsightly but very practical; awful lot of transport comes in and out; cuts the place up, too.

Look where some careless devil went smack through the box hedge and carried away all that balustrade; did it with a three-ton lorry, too_

The fountain is rather a tender spot with our landlady; the young officers used to lark about in it_so I wired it in and turned the water off. Looks a bit untidy now; all the drivers throw their cigarette-ends and the remains of the sandwiches there, and you can't get to it to clean it up, since I put the wire round it.

His driver threw a cigarette into the dry basin of the fountain_and drove away through the new, metalled gap in the lime trees.

But one thing has been respected. One thing has stayed untouched: the chapel.

There was one part of the house I had not yet visited and I went there now. The chapel showed no ill-effects of its long neglect; the art-nouveau pain was as fresh and bright as ever; the art-nouveau lamp burned once more before the altar_.

The builders did not know the uses to which their work would descend; they made a new house with the stones of the old castle; year by year, generation after generation, they enriched and extended it; year by year the great harvest of timber in the park grew to ripeness; until, in sudden frost, came the age of Hooper; the place was desolate, and the world all brought to nothing. Quomodo sedet sola civitas Vanity of vanities all is vanity_.

And yet, I thought,_

Something quite remote from anything the builders intended has come out of their work, and out of the fierce little human tragedy in which I played; something none of us thought about that the time; a small red flame__It could not have been lit but for the builders and the tragedians, and there I found it this morning, burning anew among the old stones.

That's it. He's not quite right that none of them thought about it at the time. Can we credit Teresa with one good thing, after all? I wonder. I wonder?

Thank you, ALL, for your splendid thoughts and helping us unravel Brideshead! If we have. I hope you have enjoyed the experience, and that those of you who have or can rent the movie will join us tomorrow in our discussion of the movie Brideshead Revisited. Watch this spot for a link in the morning and do join us; we'll save you a seat!