Razor's Edge, The ~ Somerset Maugham ~ 4/05 ~ Book Export

"Larry Darrell is a young American in search of the absolute. The progress of his spiritual odyssey involves him with some of Maugham's most brilliant characters - his fiancée Isabel whose choice between love and wealth have lifelong repercussions, and Elliott Templeton, her uncle, a classic expatriate American snob. Maugham himself wanders in and out of the story, to observe his characters struggling with their fates."

Discussion Schedule:

April 1-7: Parts 1 and 2

April 8-14: Parts 3 and 4

April 15-21: Parts 5 and 6

April 22-30: Part 7 and Conclusion

Respect and consideration, a good ear, and tolerance for what others are saying are basic rules in an exchange of ideas between intelligent people, or a discussion becomes futile. When we disagree with ideas expressed, we can always do it agreeably.

Why do you think Larry gave away all his money? Who did he give it to? Does it go with his character to depart with his income or did he do it because he had found meaning in his life? Why does it make him happy to be poor?

If Isabel would stop at nothing to prevent Sophie from marrying Larry, did she think that he would always be around her if he didn’t?

Is Isabel now showing a more cruel, almost vicious side of her personality than before?

What do you think of Maugham giving Isabel the third degree about deliberately setting Sophie up? Do you think that Isabel is guilty of murder as Maughem almost implies?

What do you think of the plot of this story? Is the characterization plausible?

What is your overall assessment of this novel?

Discussion Leaders: ELOISE and HAROLD

B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please contact ginny

Somerset Maugham was born in Paris of British parents. He received his education in England. He wrote in the Preface: ”Another reason that has caused me to embark upon this work with apprehension is that the persons I have chiefly to deal with are American. It is very difficult to know people and I don’t think one can ever really know any but one’s own countrymen.”

The author is writing about a man who did not become famous, that was not his ambition, but about a man who left everything behind after serving in WW1 to seek what he thought America lacked the most, spirituality.

Join us in discussing this book and even if it was written half a century ago it is still relevant today. It is interesting to compare what went on during that period in the 20th century between the two wars and what is going today.

This story is the moderately short, 300 page fictional account of the post WW I experience of an American Air Force Veteran, Larry Darrell Returning to Chicago . traumatized by wartime experience, Larry rejects his family and friends to begin a personal quest to find the meaning of his life. Rejecting offered business career opportunity, and even his bewildered fiancée he sets off on his quest that spanned three continents and two decades.

The story is masterfully told by W. Somerset Maughan who in marked contrast to other stories with deep spiritual/ psychological themes writes in clear easily understood language contrasting Larry with the sharply different outlook of the other characters. I was much attracted to this discussion as a follow-up to last year’s discussion of “Paris 1919” and and “A Moveable Feast” which concerned the same period of history and other people’s reaction to that particular time.

The book is readily available an most every library and an inexpensive paperback publication is available from booksellers. Two movie versions have been made from this novel one in 1946 and again in 1984. At least the 1984 version is still available in VCR and DVD.

Every one is invited, to join Eloise and I in a discussion of this book. The discussion will begin on April 1st and will probably be completed by the end of April. In particular I urge those of you who were a part of last year’s “Paris 1919’ and “A Movable Feast” to join this discussion for another view of the events of our post WW I world.

I have another copy of the "Razor's Edge." Is it all right to use it or do I have to get a copy of the book above. I'd love to be part of this discussion. This has always been one of my favorite books.

By all means, use the one you have, the story is the same. We will learn a few things with this books. I notice that when I read it in the 50's I missed so much of the author's message. Of course I was just a teenager then, now though it becomes a totally different story. The characters have a nationality, something that totally escaped me at the time. It's much more interesting now.

I am looking forward to your posts.

Éloïse

Years ago I read the book, but recently got it from the library and will enjoy discussing it. It's very different reading from what we are used to I think - slow-paced, laced with ideas rather than action. I'll be here.

Good to hear from you Scrawler. I thought of you as a possible participant here. I intend to send a special invitation to those of you who were in the Movable Feast discussion but am having trouble transfering my outlook mailing list to my new sbcyahoo mail box,. This story is about a human situation much like some of the people Hemingway wrote about.

There have been many editions of Razor;s Edge since it was first published in the 1940's. I am sure any of them will do for this discussion.

Ella, I too found Maugham's writing style interesting. In Collage I remember doing a report on "Cake And Ale" one of his early novels. I read this book previously after seeing the 1946 movie and at that time I also read "The Moon and a Sixpence." I really like his style and how he so well develops his characters until I really feel I know them.

I am so happy that you are joining us for The Razor's Edge. You will be a great asset to this discussion.

Hi, Eloise and Harold,

I'm following you from Paris 1919 and A Moveable Feast, both of which I enjoyed immensely. I read Of Human Bondage by Maugham in high school and remember loving it - though I confess after so many years I don't remember any of it! I'm excited, though to revisit Maugham and I suspect will want to read even more of his works. Thanks for leading this discussion!

Wow and "Death had a face" - I do wish though the choice had been either Of Human Bondage or The Moon and Sixpence since both are online -

The memory of Bill Murray as Larry...he just didn't work for me - although he did a pretty good job but like so many pieces of Lit - your vision of the characters are different than the producers of a movie and the two just do not jell.

If I can find a cheap copy at half price books I will join but if not I will probably pass - where I like Maugham this work of his was not my favorite...

Each character is well portrayed in this and I find the author quite observant of human nature. To cast Bill Murray is not a good choice in my opinion as Barbara said because Larry was not the energetic and funny character that Bill Murray is. Larry was a reflective and somber man, at least he became that way after having experienced the war.

Mind you I only saw the 1949 version with Tyrone Power but I will see the 1983 version with Bill Murray soon. Hollywood in the 1950's produced books into movies using dialogue rather than action so that is probably why the new version is less true to the book.

Barbara, I would think that you can get a second hand copy of The Razor's Edge at a very good price. If you liked Moon and Sixpence and Of Human Bondage, you would like this book. Give it a try!!! and join us.

In his preface, Maugham writes "I do not pretend that they (the characters) are American as Americans see themselves; they are American seen through an English eye.". To me this shows honesty. How many authors try to portray characters of another nationality and fail to give them credibility.

Although the plot takes places in France for the most part, a country that Maugham knew so well, as he was born and raised in France, he admits that he sees Americans through English eyes. That is an aspect of the novel that we could examine closely.

Hey barbara the new paperback edition from B&N is only $13.00. Also it is surely available at most libraries.

Regarding "The Moon and A Sixpence" that would be my choice for a follow-up. I have always been fascinated by the life of the French Artist Paul Gauguin who is Maugham's model for the lead character in this book.

Has anyone else read either or both of the books actually authored by Paul Gauguin during his lifetime, "Noa Noa" and "Intimate Journal?" Both are autobiographical.

But perhaps I am a bit premature it thinking of "follow-ups" at this point.

I posted the following elsewhere and I would like to post it here as well:

Eloise, the Maugham book is a good choice. He's a great storyteller. You're right when you say the book is relevant. Doesn't it deal with the troubled soldier coming home from the wars? That's very much in the news these days. The PBS doc the other night dealt with it. WW1 sent home its shell-shocked. WW11, its soldiers suffering battle fatigue. Vietnam and Iraq, sent home soldiers suffering from PTSD. Larry, too, had seen and suffered things that turned his life around. At least that's the way I remember it. You and Harold should have a good discussion.

I'm drawn to the book and the discussion myself, but I expect to be away in April. The suggested follow-ups sound great too. Especially something to do with Paul Gauguin.

I'll be a curious bystander at the very least during this promising discussion.

"Like all weak men he laid an exaggerated stress on not changing one's mind.

He had heard people speak contemptuously of money: he wondered if they had ever tried to do without it.

I dare say one profits more by the mistakes one makes off one's own bat than by doing the right thing on somebody's else advice.

It is cruel to discover one's mediocrity only when it is too late.

Men seek but one thing in life - their pleasure.

Money is like a sixth sense without which you cannot make a complete use of the other five.

The important thing was to love rather than to be loved.

There's always one who loves and one who lets himself be loved."

Éloïse

I will try to take part in this discussion. I read the book many years ago and saw the first movie of it. I thought it was a very good book. I will buy the audio tapes of the book and listen to it since my reading is very limited by my eye problems. I am looking forward to this book being discussed. I think it is an excellent choice.

I will be in France From March 27th until April 3rd. Although I will not be here on April 1 I will come in to the discussion when I get home.

Joan Grimes

No Harold I didn't read those two books, but I read another bio of him, the name of the author escapes me. Paul Gauguin lived a very exciting life and his Tahiti paintings are masterpieces that I had the pleasure of seeing the originals in Paris.

Hay! Jonathan, just a bystander you say? do come in when and if you can, it will be a pleasure to read you.

Joan G. You are most welcome my dear. I am trying to find audio books here in libraries and it's like looking for a needle in a hay stack. I wonder why? I have never listened to an audio book. The Razor's Edge might seem like a light read, but down deep S.M. is revealing a lot if you read between the lines.

I have a copy of the book from my high school days. Also, the author did not begin writing until he was in his later years.

Welcome to The Razor's Edge discussion. We are happy to have your participation. You said: "the author did not begin writing until he was in his later years." I feel that you wanted to add something to that effect but changed your mind. Is there something you want to add? I am interested to know.

Éloïse

Shifrah, thank you for your interest. You are very welcome and we all look forward to a fine discussion.

One Bio Sketch I read of Maugham's career had his initial break into the proffession writing stage plays. One remarked that early in his career he had 4 separate plays going in London at the same time, a feat that would be unlikely on Broadway or London today. Click Here for a brief biographical Sketch.

Reply to post #19

I wanted to mention that the author was 70 years old when The Razor's Edge (1944) was published. He was known as a playwright and had an interlude of not writing novels for a while.

I look forward to a lively discussion on a book that remains relevant to all ages.

Harold, good link. I think it sheds light on the author and his work. Interesting Bio Sketch.

Somerset Maugham pictures

Somerset Maugham on the Theatre
I was never stage struck. I have known dramatists who wandered in every night to the theatre in which their play was being acted. They said they did it in order to see that the cast was not getting slack; I suspect it was because they could never hear their own words spoken enough. Their delight was to sit in a dressing room during the intervals and talk over this scene or the other, wondering why it had fallen flat that night or congratulating themselves on how well it had gone, and watch an actor make up. They never ceased to find the theatrical gossip of the day absorbing. They loved the theatre and everything connected with it. They had grease-paint in their bones.

I have never been like that. I like a theatre best when it is under dust-sheets, the auditorium in darkness, and the unset stage, with the flats stacked against the back wall, is lit only by footlights. I have passed many happy hours at rehearsals; I have liked their easy camaraderie, the hurried lunch at a restaurant around the corner with a member of the cast and the cup of strong bitter tea, with thick bread and butter, brought in by the charwoman at four o'clock. I have never quite lost that little thrill of surprised amusement I felt when in my first play I heard grown men and women repeat the lines that had come so easily to my pen. It has interested me to watch the way in which a part grows in the actor's hands from the first lifeless reading of the typescript to something like the character that I have seen in my mind's eye. I have been diverted by the important discussions about the exact place where a piece of furniture should stand, the self-sufficiency of a director, the tantrums of an actress displeased with her positions, the artfulness of old players determined to get the centre of the stage for their scene, and the desultory talk about any subject that came to hand. But the consummation is the dress rehearsal. There are half a dozen people in the front row of the dress circle. They are the dress makers, subdued as though they were in church, but very business-like; they exchange short, sharp whispers with one another during the performance and make little significant gestures. You know that they are speaking of the length of a skirt, the cut of a sleeve, or the feather in a hat; and the moment the curtain falls, the pins already in their mouths, they hurry through the door on to the stage. The director shouts "curtain up" and when it rises an actress snatches herself away from an agitated colloquy with two grim ladies in black.

In the stalls are the photographers, the management and the man from the box-office, the mothers of the actresses in the cast and the wives of the actors, your own agent, a girl-friend of yours, and three or four old actors who haven't had a part for twenty years. It is the perfect audience. After each act the director reads out the remarks he has jotted down. There is a row with the electrician, who, with nothing to do but attend to his switches, has turned on the wrong ones; and the author is indignant with him for being so careless and at the same time indulgent because he has a notion that the electrician only forgot his work because he was so absorbed in the play. Perhaps a little scene is repeated; then the effective positions are arranged and with sudden blares of flash-light photographs are taken. The curtain is lowered to set the scene for the next act and the cast separate to their dressing rooms to change. The dressmakers vanish and the old actors slink round the corner to have a drink. The management despondently smoke gaspers, the wives and mothers of the cast talk to one another in undertones, and the author's agent reads the racing news in the evening paper. It is all unreal and exciting. At last the dressmakers filter through the fireproof door and resume their seats, the representatives of rival firms at a haughty distance from one another, and the stage-manager puts his head round the curtain.

"All ready, Mr. Thing," he says.
"All right. Fire away. Curtain up."

Thanks Mal, does that mean that you will be participating?

I enjoyed the pictures of the author.

ELOISE, Dorian has the book, so as soon as she brings it in to me I'll say definitely yes.

Mal

In writing a novel the author inspires himself/herself with real people, naturally, but to avoid having characters in the novel be recognized by the public, the author has to try to make them unrecognizable, but sometimes fails in part. Somerset Maugham said in the preface: "to save embarrassment to people still living I have given to the persons who play a part in this story names of my own contriving, and I have in other ways taken pains to make sure that no one should recognize them."

Yet, many critics have found similarities in the personality of the author's contemporaries and assumed that they knew who he was writing about.

That must be very frustrating for an author because although he will use some of the characteristics of a person, he will attribute to them other personality traits to embellish the plot while making the character unrecognizable.

Maugham has had a very eventful life, he lived for a long time in France, England, the United States and India. He was shrewd observant of people's personality and their limitations.

Éloïse

Count me in for the discussion of this book beginning April 1. No joke !

Florry54: You are certainly welcome. We look forward to your input beginning April 1st.

Is there anyone else out there interested???????????????????????

Elliott Templeton who is a major character in this novel is a loveable American hobnobbing among European aristocracy during the roaring 20’s. His whole life centers on knowing the right people in the right circles. Yet, we are drawn to him as we notice his concern about the welfare of his family, making sure that they live up to his high standards even at the cost of substantial financial support.

Elliott was a shrewd businessman aiming to live as wealthy aristocrats do. His business deals were rarely openly discussed, as it was not politically correct at that time to talk about money, but his lifestyle suggested that he was constantly thinking of making business deals.

Class distinction is accurately described as it was in France even in the 1920’s so long after the French Revolution which tried to eliminate it, making every Frenchmen equal, but failing to totally erase it in the minds of conservative thinking French people.

I am anxious to see the reactions to all this when we start discussing The Razor's Edge.

If I haven't said so already, I'm interested in joining the discussion!

Thank you for joining us here. You are definitely on the list. See you April 1st.

Somehow I missed your post #9 on March 3rd. Thank you for joining this new discussion. I too much enjoyed the “Paris 1919” and “A Moveable Feast” discussions. I think this fictional follow-up is going to be a fine experience for us all.

ELOÏSE and HAROLD, I will be with you also, as I've said. We'll se how well the book has stood the test of time. I'm almost through re-reading it. Mine is an "original pocket book edition" and I have quite a few others by him; oft-read, the pages yellowed and brittle, coming apart at the spine.

I addition to the plays (many of them, frankly, commercial), novels and short stories, Maugham also wrote essays, e.g. one about Henry James and one about Arnold Bennett who is, in fact, mentioned in The Razor's Edge . An early fiction work of Maugham's is "Ashenden", which is based on the author's experience as a secret agent in WW One. The autobiographical Summing Up was written in 1938. He lived to the ripe old age of 91 on the French Riviera and was awarded the Order of Merit on his 80th birthday.

I believe we have a special treat ahead of us.

Traude, as I read it again for the second time, it is now so obvious to me, unfortunately, how time has altered my perception of things. I had been virtually house bound by overly protective parents until I started working and that caused me to see the world through rose colored glasses. The Razor's Edge at that time was a totally different story for a teenager like me. Now though the message is not absolutely clear at the onset, but it becomes clearer as the story unfolds beween the characters. The ending takes us by surprise even if we are not looking for something like "They got married and lived happily ever after".

Éloïse

Received my used copy of the book from Amazon. Is a hardback, 1945, very old and yellow. But it apparently was a gift - note on the inside. Have seen the movie with Tyrone Power. Will rent it again.

Welcome Kidsal, I will rent both the 1946 and 1983 version of the movie again later and see the difference in approach. The discussion is very promising with the excellent participants we have. What fun it is going to be. I am looking forward to start on the first of April.

I'm certainly interested and will join in if I can find a copy at my library or bookstore. I read it once as a teenager who wondered what people meant when they referred to the "mystery" of life. I thought I knew all the answers. Now, of course I have more questions than answers, but am still looking!

Gossett, Welcome and yes, we will take a Fresh Look into this novel as we have become mature with more knowledge to examine what the author really meant. I feel that participants will reveal a lot of hidden meanings in its words.

Bought my book tonight - on the 3 for 2 table at Borders - read the first chapter - what an unusual beginning - this is going to be interesting...

ÉLOÏSE, my question how well the book has stood the test of time was rhetorical and I may have raised it prematurely.

But coming straight from the relative minimalism (my coinage) of Alice Munro's Runaway I simply had to ask it.

Maugham showed and was concerned with the same human issues and societal values, love and money, love in wartime, selflessness vs greed, love of country, etc. etc. and he was a master at observation. Accused by some of being a cynic, he cheerfully admitted as much, but his irony is used subtly and sparingly here. (There is hardly a doubt that he too was a snob at heart, like Elliott Templeton.)

His characters are credible and fully fleshed out, their motivations amply explained. Whatever the virtues of an even minor character, or the lack theref, no character is parodied. (I gasped a little on a few occasions but this is not the time to mention them.)

Gosset, thank you for your announced participation. We all look forward to the beginning of the discussion on April 1st.

Barbara, your favorable impression from reading the first chapter of the book reflects Maugham's unique story telling ability. This is no stream of consciousness novel; on the contrary the story unfolds from the author's pen in easy to understand English sentences. I plan now to read the text again, and I must get at least one of the movies before the discussion begins.

Is anyone else out there interested? If so get the book from your library or bookseller and join us April 1st.

I have my dear Aunt Lou's 1944 edition (still with bookcover--what do you call those things?--on it). She lived in a little town in Kansas (Chanute) with no book store and somehow managed to get lots of books from her sister in Oklahoma City. I always spent my entire time reading when we visited her--read Gone With the Wind in two days!

I'll really be interested in discussing it, and this is the first month in a long time that I'll be home the entire time (though overwhelmed with AARP taxes). See you the first!

Welcome Mme W. Imagine still having an original 1944 edition in your bookcase in its dust jacket. You must be a fast reader if you read Gone With the Wind in two days, it is quite a big book if I remember. I tried reading it again, but didn't keep it up. Not so with The Razor's Edge that I read in the 40's. Reading it today has a whole different meaning for me I suppose because of having learned so much over the years.

When I first read "Gone with the Wind" I lived in Europe and had no idea that I would one day move to this country.

The German edition came in two volumes and was called "Vom Winde verweht". Years later when I studied in Italy, I read the Italian translation, one fat tome, called "Via col vento". Much to my surprise, Scarlett was renamed (!) "Rosella" by the translator.
Come to think of it, I never read the book in English.

I ordered and received my book from half.com. The copyright of this hard cover is 1943, printed in the US at the Country Life Press in Garden City, NY. It is as old as I am! I hope I'm not quite as yellow and worn as this book is. I have never read the Razor's Edge and sam anxious to be be starting it tomorrow.
Happy St. Patties to all of you Irishmen and wanna-bes (that is according to my husband.)

I recently found Seniornet on a web search. This will be my first time participating in any on-line discussion. I am really looking forward to it. Have never read this book. Am attempting to get a copy on tape to listen while driving to work. I'm also getting a copy of a movie made in 1985 from the library.

Traude, I am trying to pronounce Vom Winde Verweht without much success, is the 'w' pronounced like in English or like a 'v'? I am sure that Italians would not have been fond of the name "Scarlett" but I am not too fond of Rosella either.

Alf, how nice that you will join us. No, I think you are too young to have read the book as a teenager, I must try to order those used books from B & N or Amazon. I wish you Irish husband a Happy St. Patrick's Day. I have never been to Ireland, only wished I had been when I was so close way back then.

Éloïse

There are several book search sites on the internet besides the used book section of Amazon and B & N. Two of the best are www.bookfinder.com and www.akabook.com. It's nice to have lots of resources when looking for a book,

Pamela

Éloïse,

"Rosella" for Scarlett was totally off-putting. But the Italians want names they can pronounce, and where that is impossible, they are apt to change them altogether, just as they did in GWTW.

In German, the 'v' is pronounced like an 'f' in English UNLESS the word is of foreign origin, for example "Vase", nf. from the French vase , or "Visite" nf. (= formal call) from the French visite , and countless others. BTW all German nouns are capitalized. And it's Herbert von (sounds like fon )Karajan.
The German w, on the other hand, is pronounced exactly like our and the French 'v'.

When I read GWTW in Italian, I also read Louis Bromfield's The Rains Came ; the Italian title was 'La grande pioggia.'

An aside, I also read "Lady Chatterley's Lover" by D.H. Lawrence in Italian, and that at a time when it was famously banned in Boston and elsewhere in this country and in England. I have no memory of the Italian title, but I do remember being disgusted by the language. I was appalled by the obscenity and never had any wish to read it in the original English.

I don't want to spill the beans, but as I am re reading The Razor's Edge I found out something that I always wanted to know about the stock market crash of October 1929 which caused a world wide economic depression that affected billions of people. But it didn't affect Elliott Templeton and by the same token, I guess it didn't affect Somerset Maugham. We will find out why.

Éloïse

Welcome to our wonderful SeniorNet site about Books and Literature. You will become hooked like the rest of us. It is the best on the Internet and we love to have new readers join us. If you have any questions there are plenty of us here to assist you. We talk to one another and not at one another when we discuss a book. We have many disagreements but they are always affable and in accordance to polite rules. We are delighted to welcome you.

Right on, and it's in that mood that I want to disagree vociferously with Traude. I think Rosella is just a wonderful translation/interpretation of Scarlett. A stroke of Italian genius.

Eloise, I'm along for the ride on this one. I just have to see if the occasions in the book that have Traude gasping are the same ones that have me groaning.

JONATHAN, you mentioned Karl May here recently. I daresay few knew who the man was...

"gasping" was perhaps not the right word. I was reading those passages with your, the participants' eyes, this time and wondered... But we'll see soon enough.

At the moment I am leafing through Maugham's "Summing up". I'd like to share some of his personal views here, if that's permissible.

There is further elaboration on the class system in England, the role of the aristocracy in politics, and commentary on writing, his and others'. The "Summing up" antedates the publication of "The Razor's Edge".

My Penguin pocketbook cost the grand sum of twenty-five cents.

What I find unusual and interesting in The Razor's Edge is how a British author can write with such insight about Americans. Throughout the novel we can feel the Britishness of the narrative but if the plot had been set in England the author might not have been able to emphasize class distinction as well as he did set in France where aristocracy is still held in high regard in the population.

Éloïse

I'd love to hear some of his comments from Summing Up. I've been thinking of getting the book.

I started The Razor's Edge a couple of nights ago, and it's hard to put down! It should be a great discussion.

One more topic. There are a few of us who have difficulty reading small print. If you feel kind, you can change your messages to a nice bold and large print for others' viewing pleasure. All you have to do is include the following before the begining of your email - replace the [ with a 'less than' sign (the upper case over a comma) and the ] with a 'greater than' sign (the upper case over a period):

[font face="comic sans ms bold" color="#000000" size="3"]

Traude, what was the publication date of the German edition of Gone With the Wind? Was it before or during WW II or was it after the War?

Alf I think 1943 was the original publication date. Is your book marked first edition by any chance?

Scamper there is also a browser setting for font size. True the largest size may not be considered really big. Since my second cataract operation last week I can now read a printed book page or a computer screen without glasses. My main trouble now is distant vision where I tend to see double images of bright subjects since my two eyes are not functioning to well together. This problem pre-dates the cataracts and will be corrected with glasses but the Doctor wants to wait a month for the eyes to fully heal.

No, Harold it does not say First Edition. I love to try and figure out how & why the author chooses the title. I am anxious to start it today and love the quote that is introduced:

"The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over;
thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard."

Alf you raise a good question, but let us hold our comments on that until the discussion begins on April 1st. Perhaps over the discussion we can arrive at some sort of consensus on the title's meaning. Eloise what do you think of this goal?

For this pre discussion period perhaps some of you committed participants might comment on some of your favorite fiction authors and titles that you have read.

I will begin! In my case my seniorsnet background has been almost exclusively non-fiction having been DL or co-DL of some 8 to 10 non-fiction discussion projects since 1998. I did participate two years ago in Ginny’s discussion of “The Remains of the Day.” So this is the first fiction project in which I have participated as a co-leader.

Yet over my now long life, I have read quite a bit of fiction. Some of my favorites were the 1960’s novels by Jack Kerouac and the “Alexandria Quartet” of Lawrence Durrell. Also I liked the biographical related novels of Gore Vidal such as “Burr” and particularly “Julian,” and as I said before I have read books by our present Author (Maugham) including “The Razor;s Edge,” Moon and a Sixpence” and “Cake and Ale.” I think some of these books including “Moon and a Sixpence,” “Julian,” and a Kerouac title would make excellent future discussions.

I have been waiting on my book to come. It will be here today. I can hardly wait to start rereading it. I don't remember alot about it. I get it confused with other books in my memory of it. I also saw the movie many years ago. I was very young when I read it. I can remember that my mother did not approve of my reading it. I had to sneak and read it. I did not understand why she felt that way at the time. I am looking forward to discovering what her objection to it was.

Joan Grimes

Reading The Razor's Edge makes me want to read or re-read everything Maugham wrote! I am enchanted with this book. Growing up I remember loving Of Human Bondage - that too would be a great folowup book for this one!

I am a great lover of fiction, especially classic fiction, so there are many favorite authors. I just finished an Edith Wharton reading marathon, with my favorite book of hers being The House of Mirth. I like Hemingway, Faulkner, and Fitzgerald, but reading their works can be a downer at times. Other favorite authors are Anthony Trollope, Charles Dickens, Jane Austin, George Eliot, Thomas Hardy, Virginia Woolf, EM Forster, Sinclair Lewis, and Thomas Wolfe. Robert Penn Warren's All the King's Men was riveting and I suspect would interest most of this audience - it is a fictionalized account of the life of Huey Long, and it was masterful. I'd love to see Sinclair Lewis' works on seniornet Main Street, Babbit, Dodsworth.

Harold, you said you went from nonfiction to fiction, and I have done the reverse. I started out a few years ago reading classic fiction and found a growing interest in history. Now about half my reading is history, and I'm surprised as my college history teacher would be, for history was something I simply was not interested in when I was young.

HAROLD,
Margaret Mitchell (1900-1949) wrote GWTW, her only work, during a prolonged stay in the hospital. The book was published in 1936, an instant sensation.

As best I can remember, my closest friend at school and I read GWTW a year before WW II broke out in Eeurope.

The movie, among the first in living color, came out in 1939. I saw it many years later in Wasington, D.C. and several times since on TV.

Regarding favorite fiction - back in a few moments.

You may be bored -- but you asked. I promise to be brief.

Our schooling in literature, as in every other subject (electives unknown), was thorough and methodical, leading us from the Greek and Roman classics
to the (essentially Church writing of the) Middle Ages; to the Moralists,
to the journeymen of the Renaissance;
the actor-playwrights of the Commedia dell'Arte;
to Lope de Vega and Calderón de la Barca of the Spanish theatre;
to Christopher Marlowe and the new drama; Shakespeare, Ben Jonson;
to Corneille and Racine, Molière and his comedies.

I'll spare you the Romantics, the Naturalists and all the names - except for Goethe, Schiller, Lessing, or Kleist.

All this looks like a heavy load to me now, but I enjoyed every single minute and I am the richer for it. The motto of our school (there was no coed then), chiseled into the Sandstone, was

Non scholae sed vitae discimus = It's not for the school that we learn but for life.

I've always been a voracious reader and embraced American literature with glorious abandon when we came here lo these decades ago. But I dn't want to exhaust your patience by listing my favorites: there are too many.

Harold, I am reading the book for the second time to extricate from it everything I missed and to prepare myself for our participants who have so much to offer. Don't forget I am just a facilitator, but sometimes, when the fancy strikes me, I need to say something. I find it fascinating that so many of you have had such a variety of experience from different schools and having lived abroad where the curriculum is so different from here.

Traude, I still have a hard time understanding Shakespeare, sad to say.

I was a library rat' when I was young finding pleasure in just taking a book off the shelf at random and sitting at a long table enjoying it in silence. My reading was only in French then until I discovered American literature. My first novel in English was The Razor's Edge.

It would be interesting to continue discussing Somerset Maugham after The Razor's Edge, but we will see about that later.

Éloïse

My book or rather CD came today and I am listening to it as I write this. I think I am going to need a print copy to be able to participate in a discussion. Although it is lovely to listen Maugham's beautiful language being read to me. It will be so much easier to look back at things that will brought out in the discussion.

I love the older books and their wonderful use of the language. How beautiful the English language is when is used correctly.

Joan Grimes

"How beautiful the English language is when used correctly".

Oh JOAN, how true, how very true. Nowadays people use it carelessly, even abuse it, adding countless unnecessary "you know"s; "like" as a filler word; and "like" in phrases where "as" is correct.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A sad state of affairs IMHO.

Traude,

You are right. I certainly agree with you about that. I am really enjoying hear Maugham's word read aloud so beautifully.

Joan Grimes

Favorite book or author - oh my I do not think I could do it - there are so many - my journey with serious literature started when I was quite young - fifth or sixth grade I was reading some of the greats without realizing it - the books were just more interesting with meat on the bones where as the books supposedly written for kids was fluff.

I must say though there are a few kids books that are still my favorites - I just love Wind in the Willows and what has been pure joy is read all the sequels that William Harwood wrote with permission from Kenneth Grahame's family - I loved Heidi, Mary Poppins and all the Robert Lewis Stevenson and Sir Walter Scott books as well as, the Leather Stocking Tales, oh yes, and Jack London. Never could take to DeFoe, hated Little Women and Lewis Carroll.

Of the more adult authors my very very favorite, not an American, is Dylan Thomas - that man's ability with words is pure magic - a few authors that I dislike whose numbers are countable - do not like to read Jane Austin although, her stories arranged for the movie are a delight to the eye - I also find reading George Eliot to be tedious. Never liked Hemingway nor melodramatic Harriat Beecher Stowe and Gaskell's characters make me very uncomfortable. F. Scott's work leaves me empty and Proust is just deadly - such ado about nothing is reading a book written by Proust.

Read Maugham the summer after 8th grade on into early High School years - Cakes and Ale - The Moon and Sixpence - Mrs. Craddock - Of Human Bondage - The Constant Wife - The Letter - I was reading Conrad at the same time - great stuff - only after reading these authors was I finally able to read and understand Stendhal [Marie Henri Beyle]

Barbara, It is only fairly recently that Marcel Proust is translated, I think. His writing loses so much that you don't recognize him at all in translation. His sentences are so long, they sometimes run for half the page. One of our successful politicians used to read Proust every day to improve his rhetoric. Here is an example from "À la recherche du temps perdu":

"On avait bien inventé, pour me distraire les soirs où on me trouvait l'air trop malheureux, de me donner une lanterne magique dont, en attendant l'heure du dîner, on coiffait ma lampe; et, à l'instar des premiers architectes et maîtres verriers de l'âge gothique, elle subsitituait à l'opacité des murs d'impalpables irisations, de surnaturelles apparitions multicolores, où des légendes étaient dépeintes comme dans un vitrail vacillant et momentané."

Translated this would lose everything. Proust is not for me either, but he is among the most acclaimed French writers.

Joan, I found an English library which has audio books and I can take out 6 at a time. I am so pleased. I will try and get the audio of The Razor's Edge to know what they are.

Harold, I hope your eyes are improving.

ÉLOÏSE - Exactly! I whole-heartedly agree with every word.

Wisely, publishers nowadays pass a newly-translated book from the pen of a foreign author to a literary critic who knows both English AND the author's language , which is an excellent idea even though a little late in coming.

Not all translations are a perfect rendering of the original; some are way too literal, clinging to every word, felicitous or not in translation, which can be tiresome the reader. Unfortunately, that is true for Marcel Proust; he, secluded in his darkened room, nibbling on his Madelaines (special cookies)...

Maaugham draws his title "The Razor's Edge" from the Katha-Upanishad. "Maugham applied to Isherwood, who had written film scripts based on Maugham's work, for an accurate translation of a verse from Katha-Upanishad, beginning "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to cross." Isherwood explained that this was not strictly accurate. The sense of the original, he told him, is that you are bound to suffer when you stand or tread on the infinitesimally narrow path that can be likened to the edge of a razor." Maugham amended his version to:

The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over Thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard...

Isherwood was not much happier about that either. Nonetheless, that is the version used by Maugham on the flyleaf of the novel. ~ Anthony Curtis

Beowulf

Albert Camus: The Stranger

Herman Melville: Moby Dick

Yukio Mishima: Temple of the Golden Pavilion

Kobo Abe: Ruined Map

Naghib Mahfouz: Palace Walk

Shirley Jackson: The Lottery

Nikos Kazantzakis: Zorba the Greek

Mary Renault: Fire From Heaven

Czeslaw Milosc: The Captive Mind

I finally read all seven volumes of Proust's In Search of Lost Time last year. I read it slowly, about 50 pages a week, with a friend. We would each read the week's 'assignment' and then write the other an email summarizing and discussing it. There were parts that felt like Proust was writing a description of my inner life - like the opening sleep scene - and parts that made me want to shake him because of his immaturity. It took me about two volumes to adapt to the cadence of his long sentences, and I probably wouldn't have completed the 3,000+ pages if I had not been reading and discussing with my friend. But Proust brought something to my inner life, and reading him gave me an inner connection to myself that I did not know I had. I am glad I read him, and I could easily turn to the first page and start again.

Oh boy, Scrawler, I am going to be in trouble if this novel is about how difficult it is to walk and tread on the edge. I am there. Thanks for the explanation.

Scrawler, I see, do you think that Maugham simplified this to keep his style simple and easy to understand? Life is a narrow road indeed.

Shifrah, and everybody who suggested a book, do you give us permission to pass this list to First Page Café and to Reading Around the World? These are wonderful suggestions that should be spread around.

Scamper, You are quite a reader if you read all Proust 7 volumes. I only read two or three, but now I lose my concentration with him and I havn't continued.

This afternoon I saw the movie "Being Julia" made from Somerset Maugham's novel "Theatre" and it is the best movie I have seen in years. Annette Bening is superb and Jeremy Irons has a voice like Richard Burton. A wonderful movie full of surprises and the book should be even better. I am glad I saw it before I read the book though.

Éloïse

Whew - 7 volumes of Proust - God love ya --

This is such a pleasant experience reading well constructed sentences that have some depth and are not written on a 6th grade level - I am loving this read and must re-acquaint myself with the authors of this generation - I had forgotten most of the story so it is like reading anew - how they ever picked Bill Murray for the part I will never know...a man who exemplified the best in urbane life and would embark on finding the best for his spiritual life as well...

Sure, you have my permission to post anything I've posted in the cafe.

I finished The Razor's Edge yesterday, and it was an incredible experience. This is probably going to be one of the best discussions ever on seniornet! Larry is a truly spiritual man, a rare experience. I'm hoping our discussion will enable me to understand him in more depth..

I love listening to this book. I have alot of trouble with my concentration at this time. So I have ordered a print copy of this book. I will listen to it again trying to follow along with the print copy of the book. I hope this will help me. This vision problem is really bothering me.

Joan Grimes

PAMELA, you certainly accomplished a feat reading that looooong work, 50 pages at a time! I am glad you had a friend to read along with you.

Reading "Remembrance of Things Past" was almost beyond my endurance.
The narrator is very much like Proust himself, a neurotic, hypersensitive, introspective, asthmatic young man who courts fashionable society and romantic experiences; records them faithfully in great detail; adds his own response to them and finally discovers his vocation in the writing of this novel.

Proust omitted from his narrator's profile his own Jewish background, homosexuality and hypochondria and transposed them to other characters, with meticulous analyses of each. However, the narrator's conclusions about love, snobbery, art, literature etc. are believed to have been Proust's own.

After the death of his father and mother, Proust moved into an apartment on Boulevard Haussmann and in later years hardly stirred from his famous cork-lined bedroom.

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

Back to W. Sommerset Maugham next.

I can appreciate most feelingly the opinions of both Pamela and Traude. And so, I can't come down on either side. Fence sitting? It's even closer than that. It feels so tempting, it would be so easy to come down on either side, to fall off this razor's edge of indecision, whether to pick the book up, or to put it down, to turn the page or to snap the book shut, to love or to hate....

There almost seems to be something reminiscent of Proust in the Maugham book. It's so long since I've read either book. Is there a resemblance between Swann and Elliot Templeton? Perhaps in the way they move about in the upper stratum of society? Is Maugham's cynicism of fashionable society shared by Proust?

I seem to remember that Proust could be the life of high society partying, brilliant and entertaining with his talk. Elliot T made himself useful to the same crowd. But I'm getting ahead of the schedule.

What does it say about the booksellers knowledge of his stock when one finds, as I did, Rememberance of Things Past in his History section. That was in a W H Smith shop, years ago.

My record of books read? It's enormous. But it always seems that only what I've just read is what I remember. All winter long, in fact to help me get through it, I've keep returning to Mrs Whaley and Her Charleston Garden. Aside from that the one I'm hooked on right now is Catherine Gildiner's Seduction, one woman's search for self-understanding in a Freudian world. Larry would have loved it.

JONATHAN, it was not my intention to "come down" on any side. I merely wanted to commend PAMELA for undertaking the huge task of reading "Remembrance of Things Past", something I could no longer do.

My memory of Proust goes back to my "first" life but the overall impression of Proust's self-absorption and claustrophobia is still palpable. He was best at observing himself, I believe.

Maugham, on the other hand, observed others, shrewdly and well, but he was reticent about himself. There are no "relevations", no "confessions" in "The Summing up" and this is how that small book starts:

"This is not an autobiography nor is it a book of recollections. In one way and another I have used in my writings whatever has happened to me in the course of my life. Sometimes an experiene I have had has served as a theme and I have invented a series of incidents to illustrate it; more often I have taken persons with whom I have been slightly or intimately acquainted and used them as the foundation for characters of my invention. Fact and fiction are so intermingled in my work that now, looking back on it, I can hardly distinguish one from the other. ..."

May I mention a small obscure detail: The first of Maugham's plays to reach the stage was the one-act "Marriages Are Made in Heaven" (1902), in Berlin, with the title "Schiffbrüchig" = Shipwrecked, directed by Max Reinhardt.

Traude, I bet SM knew many people who fitted the description of the characters in The Razor's Edge to a T. He was himself part of "high Society" at that time.

Jonathan, at first I was completely turned off by the snobbery in the book, then I said to myself, "Why do I want to discuss that?" But then I am so happy that you all turned out for it. Let's wait for the 1st of April before we plunge into it, otherwise everything will have been said before we begin.

We will have a schedule and questions.

Éloïse

Jonathan,

Thanks for pointing out the similarities between Swann and Elliot - brillant! I can't believe I didn't see them before now. And thanks for everyone's comments on Proust. If anyone wants a touch of Proust but not the whole 3000+ pages, there's an interesting book which has just come out called The Proust Project. Twenty-eight authors give their favorite passages of Proust and comment on why they like them.

Actually, ÉLOÏSE, may I say, with respect, that Maugham was not part of the aristocracy, the landed gentry, or the super rich.

That is brought home quite clearly in the book. As a writer he was sui generis, regarded as belonging to a somehow "lesser" category, for wont of a more appropriate term.

I see from the Tv Now section of our local Sunday newspaper that "Of Human Bondage" is scheduled for showing on the Turner Classic Movie channel (TCM) this coming Friday at 5:00 PM Central time. This is a 1946 movie staring Eleanor Parker: I have no further details. Anyone interested in viewing his film should check their own local TV guides for possible time changes in other time zones.

I am unable to join your charming discussion group full time. But, I would like to pop by now and then. Is that acceptable? Meanwhile, Here is information about the movie version. Note that the viewer reviews are current.

As I expected the Bill Murray 1984 film adaptation of “The Razor’s Edge” seems to generally have been received about as negatively by reviewers as any film is ever likely to be judged Click Here for the B&N Catalog Review. Let’s face it; language such as “one of the best forgotten films” and “Razor’s Edge falls off the edge,” are about as negative as reviewers are likely to come-up with. This of course reflects my own previously mentioned comment that I can’t really see Bill Murray cast in the role of Larry Darrel. As a result I have decided to forgo watching any film presentation of the Maugham story prior to doing the discussion.

In marked contrast the 1946 version staring Tyrone Power, Gene Tierney, and Clifton Webb scheduled for DVD release on May 24th gets good reviews as a “faithful adaptation of the Somerset Maugham novel,” Click Here. This is now available from B&N for pre-release order for $13.48. Though our discussion will be history when the release comes, I am going to wait!

By all means, if the discussion raises questions or provokes your comments, don't be shy.

Thanks tooki. You popped by just when I was setting out to find the information supplied by your link. How could you know that I was searching? Are you like the monk in the Himalayas, who greeted Larry at the door of the lamasery with the words, I've been expecting you.

I watched the 1984 version yesterday. I found it charming. After that I searched for and located the forty's version in the local library system. I should have it in a few days. In the meantime it's fun to read the user views in your link. Thanks.

Traude, I admired the way you replied to Pamela's post, on the one hand stating a personal preference and on the other making it evident that Proust, given his strange make-up, might have a lot to say.

HAROLD, as you have suggested, I checked the TV schedule and saw that TCM is running the 1946 movie here on Friday. It features Gene Tierney, Tyrone Power and Anne Blythe in the leading roles. Anne's performance as Sophie was unforgettable; it won her an Oscar.

Thank you for your kind words.

Many thanks to TOOKI for providing the link to that movie.

(P.S. A moment ago I found mysef typing "Leslie Howard" and quickly changed that, of course. HE starred in "Of Human Bondage" with Bette Davis. Well, I corrected myself in time.)

Jonathan I am pleased the my earlier post was timely in providing information you wanted. I suspect, however that its timely appearance was more the result of coincidence than any extra sensory perception on my part.

Traude, I just checked the TMC on line movie showing schedule for March and April. It does not indicate any showings of either of the Razor's Edge versions through the end of April.

On Friday "Of Human Bondage" with Eleanor Parker, Paul Henreid, and Alexis Smith is scheduled for 5:00 PM Central time. This is the 1946 version. The Leslie Howard- Bette Davis version was earlier, I think 1934. In any case in 1946 Leslie Howard was dead, he having been killed in the war when a RAF aircraft transporting him to the U.S. crashed in the Atlantic.

HAROLD, thank you for setting me straight. I was getting totally discombombulated. Friday's showing here is "Of Human Bondage"

Anne Baxter, who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Sophie in "The Razor's Edge", was the granddaughter of Frank Lloyd Wright, noted American architect. She began acting at the age of 11 with Russian émigré, Maria Ouspenskaya, debuting on Broadway two years later in "Seen But Not Heard."

I can see Bill Murray playing the rôle of Laurence Darrell, the ultimate Hippie in search of the meaning of life. We forget sometimes that these people with a flair for comedy are actors first, and often very good ones.

The choice of Denholm Elliott for the rôle of Elliott Templeton is particularly fine. I think he'd be perfect in the part.

Theresa Russell is a very good actress, but I think very few actresses could match Anne Baster's performance. I very much want to see this film.

Mal

Mal, I remember Ann Baxter as a soft spoken and rather distinguished looking actress and she represented Sophie's early life very well. Did you start reading the book yet?

Larry, who had fought in WW1 came back a changed man and that is what the author wanted to emphasize. We will find out what changed him and why he decided to do what he did to lift the heavy burden that weighed on his heart.

Elliott Templeton as opposed to Larry becomes almost a grotesque character and it is hard for me to understand why he was given a key role in the novel.

Mal, that was an interesting bit of information you provided about Ann Baxter being the Granddaughter of Frank Lloyd Wright. I had not known that though I remember her well from many 1940's movies.

For me Clifton Webb is Elliot Templeton. It was he above all the other actors/actresses that made the 1946 movie memorable. While I would not use the word,"grotesque" to describe him, he is not the type of person I would like. I'll leave further comment on Elliot and the other characters until the end of next week.

Éloïse, oh yes, Clifton Webb as Elliott Templeton would be perfection!

Anne Baxter was a very good actress who bore a (very) slight resemblance to Claudette Colbert. The latter was the original choice for the role which Anne Baxter ended up playing in "All About Eve", where Baxter held her own very well opposite Bette Davis and won an Oscar nomination.

Her first husband was the actor John Hodiak with whom she had a daughter. Then she married Radolph Galt, an American who bought a cattle ranch in the Australian outback. For his sake she put her movie career on hold and had another daughter. All this is vividly and candidly described in her book "Intermission", written more than twenty years ago. In it she describes, among many other things, the difference between the Australian outback and the bush.

I saw her one day on Phil Donahue's TV show promoting the book. The cattle ranch venture was not a success and the marriage failed. By the early eighties Baxter was back in Hollywod and in the TV series "Hotel". I have reread the book twice and enjoyed it just as much as the first time. It is now out of print, I believe.

Harold, I withdraw the work 'grotesque', after checking it out, I notice that we use that word differently here and I should have checked it before I used it. It is not what I meant at all, thank you for pointing it out to me.

I think both movies were good for different reasons. The 1946 movie has more of a romantic feel to it as opposed to the 1984 movie with Bill Murray in it. I personally felt that Bill Murray did make a very good Larry. To me the 1984 movie was closer to the book than the 1946 movie. It dealt more with reasons why Larry had changed after coming back from the war. Although, I thought Walter Piegon was made for Elliott's part in the 1946 movie. I'm afraid I didn't see the Bette Davis movie.

My edition has a long but interesting introduction by Anthony Curtis, in which he tells about Maugham's Hollywood experience. It seems that, since the novel was so popular both in America and Europe, Darryl Zanuck bought the movie rights and approached George Cukor to direct. But Cukor wanted Maugham to write the script and much to everyone's surprise, he agreed to do it for free! The only pay he received was an Impressionist painting of his choice (not identified however). But Hollywood being what it is, Maugham's script was not the one used in the first movie, and Cukor was not the director. As for the Maugham script, no further mention is made of it, and I wonder if anyone knows what has become of it, and why it was not used?

Scrawler, The Bette Davis movie? I loved Walter Pidgeon, but perhaps Clifton Webb was a better Elliott I feel.

Gossett, Perhaps Maugham was a good playwright and novelist but it is so different from screen writing that perhaps they couldn't use it. Funny though that he did it for free, except if the impressionist painting was a Renoir or another famous impressionists, it was compensation enough for him.

"Reviewer: Bruce Kendall "BEK" (Southern Pines, NC) -

This film has achieved "classic" status, yet it looks a bit shop-worn and creaky in some respects, when approached from a modern perspective. This is, overall, a highly stylized treatment of Maugham's novel. Scriptwriter Lamar Troti definitely focuses on the melodramatic elements of Larry Darrel's spiritual odyssey. Maugham was a highly realistic novelist. His subtle wit and sharp observations are buried under here in the moviemaker's wallowing in the bathetic.

The performers, with the exception of Clifton Webb as Uncle Elliot and Herbert Marshall as Somerset Maugham, are decidedly from the "studied" school of drama. Tyrone Power, in particular, is at times painful to watch, especially in the scenes opposite Tierney. Such emoting might work on stage, but before a camera, the overblown gestures, lack of facial expression, and wooden delivery border on the farcical. Tierney is a delight to look at, but her emotive range is severely limited as well. She seems to have two modes: coquettish or angry. Sure, this stylized sort of performance was the order of the day in 40s Hollywood, but it looks really dated these days. And there were exceptions, even then. One can well imagine what actors the caliber of Olivier and Leigh would have done with the roles. Anne Baxter, who received a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance as the unfortunate Sophie, is also guilty of overacting, at least by naturalistic standards. She could have used a dose or two of Ibsen.

Which brings us to the two bright spots, performance wise. Clifton Webb probably would have won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, had he not received one two years earlier for his work in "Laura." His death bed scene, though maudlin as all get out, is nonetheless unforgettable. The man had a knack for line delivery. He made a character with despicable motives and questionable morals, somehow sympathetic, even loveable.....

Even though the lead actors turn in stagey performances and the script may not be true to the tone of Maugham's novel, the movie still "works" on many levels. It's too good a story to completely mess up. If you can accept it as a product of cinematic trends of the era and allow that audiences of the time bought into the concept that over emoting and over gesticulating was something screen stars were supposed to do, you may find, as I did, that this is still a very enjoyable film

Éloïse

Of course by today's standard an impressionist painting by the likes of Renoir would be an immense payment for the mere writing of a screen play.

Do any of you remember the comedy a few years later in which Webb stared as a writer taking a live-in baby sitting job while he completed his great novel? The title was "Sitting Pretty:" I think it included Maureen O’Hara and Robert Young. The Webb character was Mr Belvedere who trained the children to chew their food and the family dog to do---, I don't remember what it was. When the Novel was finished the household bent to the breaking point under the strain of the World acclaim descending on their live-in baby sitter!

I watched Somerset Maugham's "Up at the Villa" on TV tonight. It's a beautifully done film, set in Florence, with a splendid cast that included Sean Penn (one of my favorites) and Anne Bancroft, among others. It's a little slow-moving and subdued for my taste, though there are some suspenseful moments.

Mal

From Jeffrey Meyer's bio of WSM:

'Maugham also sold screen rights of The Razor's Edge for $250,000 against a 20% share of the net profits. George Cukor was supposed to direct the film, based on the screenplay that Maugham had offered to write free of charge. Cukor described how Maugham masterfully manipulated a Hollywood tycoon and finally extracted a very handsome payment.

' "Mr Zanuck, a dynamic little man, began to give his notions of exactly how the story should be treated. Mr Maugham listened for a bit, then said, "Look here - I'll start from the beginning and do my best, If you don't like what I've done you can chuck the whole thing into the waste paper basket." After we'd left Mr Zanuck's office Mr Maugham's only comment was, "He speaks very loud, doesn't he? I don't like people who shout."

' "(Mr Zanuck) asked "Would you please give me a list of your expenses?" Mr Maugham said, "One dollar for a hair cut. I can't think of anything else." The next day Mr Zanuck took me aside and told me that he'd like to give Mr Maugham a present to show his appreciation. "Would he like a beautiful gold cigarette case from Cartier?" I said, "I'm sure he has a great many cigarette cases." "Then some very grand cufflinks?" I didn't think that was such a good idea either. I then suggested that Mr Maugham might like a painting. Zanuck, very taken by the idea, said, "Maybe Mr Maugham would go and select any painting he liked (up to $15,000)." It was then that WSM, clever fellow that he is, acquired a Pissarro.

'Maugham later explained how he managed to get the painting he really wanted: "I bought a snow scene by Matisse. But I could not get the Pissarro out of my mind; I thought I should always regret it if I did not have it, so I exchanged the Matisse for Pissarro's harbor scene in Rouen.

When he completed the script, Maugham told Zanuck that it should be acted like a play onstage: "It was a comedy (!) and should be played lightly. "The actors should pick up one another's cues as smartly as possible, and there's no harm if they cut in on one another as people do in ordinary life.' Maugham was 'against pauses and silences' in favor of 'speed, speed, speed.' In the end Zanuck rejected Maugham's script as too sophisticated and chose one by Lamar Troti. Cukor said it "had what the studio called entertainment, which means dancing and country clubs and all that crap. Nothing to indicate you were supposed to sit down and listen to what was being said."

'Apart from Clifton Webb's brilliant performance, the movie, directed by Edmund Goulding instead of the more talented Cukor, was a complete dud. Pauline Kael called it "almost as irresistably funny and terrible as The Fountainhead." The Himalayan scenes were shot near Denver, and if Larry had looked westward he could have found his mystical answer among the swamis of Hollywood.'

Such as Isherwood, Huxley, et al? English expatriates. While American authors were busy doing their thing in Paris.

No, Harold, I don't remember the movie Sitting Pretty, but novelists have to earn a living until they make a hit just like actors, even baby sitting, that must have been hilarious.

Mal, in Montreal it's hard to see good movies on television and the rentals are mostly translations, which I don't like, but I will watch for "Up at the Villa". Was it the title of one of his novels? I find that movies today have too much action, too little well written scenario and when they do a book adaptation, they often take away the most important parts to substitute what producers think the public will like, as giving Sophie McDonald a larger part in the film than in the novel.

Jonathan, I laughed at how WSM managed to get payment for his script. Didn't he have a good business sense though? A rare quality in artists, but Picasso was also a good businessman. I enjoyed reading Irvin Stone's biographical novel on Pissarro.

We will have a chance to search the net about famous people quoted in this book and the author is not shy about name dropping either.

Éloïse

Éloïse, I believe Maugham had some of the very traits he has bestowed on Elliott Tempelton, e.g. good business sense.

Unfortunately there are only two options for viewing a film in a foreign language: the original sound with subtitles, or dubbed. The Europeans generally use dubbing. Though subtitles distract, I much prefer them. In the wee hours of one recent morning I happened on the tail end of "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg", subtitled, with a very young Catherine Deneuve. A revelation. A sublime treat.

Razor's Edge: From the 1940s movie I remember only Tyrone Power's Larry and Anne Baxter's Sophie in performances that touched me at the time, but nothing and no one else.

In retrospect, and especially after rereading the book, I find it hard to conceptualize Gene Tierney as the strapping earthy Isabel. Now I really must try to get that movie.

GOSSETT and JONATHAN, I never heard the story about Maugham's script and his compensation. Very interesting!

Traude, I saw this movie years ago, now I would look at it with more critical eyes, and perhaps enjoy it less.

If we like Impressionists, we will be well served, I don’t know how many times WSM quotes them, but seeing them mentioned in this book immediately transports me to the museum in Paris where I had the pleasure of seeing many of them. On the second page we read: . Aubusson rungs, displayed their beauty on the parquet floors; and in the drawing room, there was a Louis Quinze suite in “petit point” of such elegance that it might have belonged, as he (Elliott) claimed, to Madame de Pompadour.

Did the author write about his own preference in art, or did he mention them just to give Elliott the polish that he needed to establish the tone of the story? But no matter what the author’s motives were he must have enjoyed writing about them and he knew that his readers would too. We can't question author's motives, of course.

Éloïse

Thanks Jonathan for filling in the rest of the story. I wonder if Maugham knew that his script would ultimately be "tossed in the waste basket" and cleverly, decided to get his satisfaction any way he could. I suppose we can only guess at that but it is a tempting thought!That painting must be worth much more than fifteen thousand on today's market and I'd say he outsmarted Zanuck.

Gossett, do you really think that WSM knew his script would not be used? I am mulling this over in my mind and I have a hard time to imagine a excellent writer not writing something he would be proud of. I always think that writing is something permanent, it is never destroyed and it can be dug up at any time to be used by critics later on. But Maugham was not a screen writer which uses a totally different technique than a play or a novel and if I am not mistaken, a novelist can be a playwright, but can't write for the screen which uses a totally different method.

Éloïse

TRAUDE,I've been looking all over for you.I replied to your email but AOL as usual says you're not recieving mail from me.

SORRY TO INTRUDE IN THIS DISCUSSION, BUT IMPORTANT I LET TRAUDE KNOW, FORGIVE ME PLEASE.

CAROLE

Thank you, CAROLE NZ, thank you. I am at a total loss to understand why this "block" exists. I never put one there. In truth, I would't know how (!). But I am so glad you got my birthday greetings.

Everyone, I trust Carole and I may be forgiven for this personal aside here:
it shows the range and effectiveness, indeed the spirit, of our cherished Seniornet worldwide.
My gratitude to you all.

Carole, no offense, we are all friends here and help each other out.

I tried to send you my greetings and wishes for Easter and my post didn't connect. So I am sending it again.

In a few days we will be starting this discussion in earnest and I am so excited about this you don't know how because of the super participation I am sure we will have. Have you read the book?

HAPPY EASTER TO ALL

Éloïse

After careful consideration I have decided to read the autobiography of Ann Baxter, she of the role of the unfortunate in RE. Traude praised it in an earlier post; indeed, she claims it was so good, she reread it. I just wanted her to know that although I DO NOT ordinarily read movie star stuff, I am going to read this one on her say so. Should it not prove to be a worthy occupier of my time I may have to just speak up.

Now, all I have to do is find a copy.

for TOOKI

Thank you for your post. I don't think you will be disappointed in the book. It is well written, dare I say -surprisingly so. I hope you can find a copy in the local library; I'd offer to send you my copy, but I'd really rather keep it(sorry to be so selfish) and read it once again. It is that good.

The New York Times called it "POWERFUL ... warm, witty and intelligent. Anne Baxter has produced a fine book."

"A frank, warmly personal and unusual memoir." said Publishers Weekly .

I would love to hear what you think of it.

Back to Maugham tomorrow.

You all have my curiosity up, and now I'm going to have to read Anne Baxter's book Intermission. Luckily, my local library has a copy. I did notice if you look the book up on Amazon it is out of print but several used paper back copies are available. Bookfinder.com also lists quite a few paper back copies for about $5 with shipping.

It is impossible not to notice in this novel the high contrast in the personalities of Elliott and Larry. Elliott seems to live solely for the material in the world, while Larry lives only for the sake of the spiritual. Larry appears to be a man who does not have the ambition to look for a job after his discharge from the military after World War One and all he wants to do is think, but no one seems to understand him.

What is it that having a job seemed to be the only honorable way to live?

If Larry had enough to money for the basics in his life and he seemed satisfied with it, why was it not acceptable that he only wanted to think for the time being?

Do we also suspect someone who does not have a job to be up to no good?

Are we obsessed with over activity?

Do we ever take time to just do nothing?

In a few short days we will be asking ourselves questions about The Razor's Edge and its author. Have you thought about it like I have? I hope so and I hope to see everyone coming in on April the first.

Éloïse

Éloïse, yes, I have thought about those questions, and they may indeed go to the very heart of the matter.

It's my opinion that Elliott Templeton and Laurence Darrell were both very selfish men. It's easier to criticize Elliott because we're taught young that the love of money and all it will buy is the root of all evil. In my adult life there have been times when I have been fairly well-to-do, and there have been other times when I haven't had money enough to buy food to eat. I'd rather be rich any old day. There's nothing spiritual or soul-nurturing in real poverty.

Larry went off on his own to find the meaning of life, disregarding people he might disappoint or hurt. Is that being any less selfish than Elliott, who at least shared what he had with his friends?

People who do not work are criticized because too often they become freeloaders and borrowers who never have the means to return even a small part of what they take.

Mal

How Maugham can describe a woman is unique, he wrote "Isabelle was a tall girl with the oval face, straight nose, fine eyes and full mouth.... She was comely though on the fat side, which I ascribed to her age.... She has strong, good hands, though they also were a trifle fat, and her legs...were fat too." and he goes on to describe her more thoroughly until the reader has an exact image of Isabelle from the start.

Is that helpful or essential in establishing the setting? or as other writers will do, leave the features of their characters up to the imagination of the reader? We know exactly how Elliott, Larry and Gray looked like, still Maugham never describes himself, we don't know how he looked, how old he was unless he counted on the fact that we knew what he looked like from photos in the media.

I was 18 when I read the book and Maugham's photo appeared in a newspaper and I thought he looked ancient. Perception of character seems often to be in direct relation to the features of a person.

How do you like this author's generous description of the physical aspects of his characters in this novel?

Éloïse

.

I can see already that this book is going to be very discussable. To me it isn't so much a matter of character analysis. They're all good people. I think what Maugham is trying to say with his book, is that it is a serious mistake for Americans to think that they will find the good life in Paris. Go there after you die, if you must, for the living it's just not what it seems. Beneath the veneer of high society...well, we'll find out.

Jonathan, unless we speak "Parisian French", we don't really live the Parisian life, as you say "it ain't what it seems to be." hahahaha

In this discussion we are fortunate to have participants who are artists and who know about art in depth and I hope they will share their knowledge with us. We will see through links, many of the famous paintings mentioned either by the narrator or by Elliott Templeton..

I like the sound of that name, it rings strong and noble, Elliott Templeton. Does anyone feel that the name of characters have any bearing on the tone of the story? I just found out that the name Isabel is a form of Elizabeth.

To get back to the story, the author starts by describing his characters in detail. Of course we know that they are all good people, but the purpose of this discussion as Jonathan says, is not to dissect their character, but to find out what the basis for the story is and the author’s description of the physical aspect of the characters helps in visualization.

Although we read pages of the life of High Society in Paris in the 1920’s do you have the feeling that that was what Somerset Maugham was writing about?

If not, what was he trying to convey? What strong message do you see in his lines that is not written but rather felt through the words?

The setting in Paris was dilemma to me at first. But as we read along, we notice that to describe Elliott’s life, the leader of the clan, it was necessary that the story be set in Paris as it was the center of high society at that time. He loved aristocracy, the gentry, going to their balls and dinners, to entertain them with his knowledge of who is who in the world, in other words, be prominent in the eyes of his friends and acquaintances, which he could not do in democratic America where everybody is supposed to be equal.

That is not to say that there is no High Society in America, but Aristocracy is not supposed to exist here.

Éloïse

The comparative morality of riches and poverty was a theme in the 1905 Bernard Shaw play, “Major Barbara.” Here we have the riches of Undershaft, the multi-millionaire munitions manufacturer, pitted against his daughter’s Salvation Army’s mission to bring food and dignity to the London skid-row.

Upon visiting the West-end shelter Undershaft is confronted by Shirley an out of work house painter who attributes his poverty to Undershaft’s riches. Shirley voices his pride in his poverty. “What keeps us poor,” he asks; “Keeping you rich,” is his answer; “I wouldn’t have your conscience for all your income.” To this Undershaft does not hesitate to reply , “ I wouldn’t have your income for all your conscience, Mr Shirley.”

Also a part of the Shaw play is Barbara’s boy friend, Cusins a struggling Professor of Greek. Deeply in love with Barbara Cusins is drawn into the plot since Undershaft wants to make him his heir and bring him into the War munitions business, an idea most repugnant to Cusins. The question of the morality of riches and particularly profits from the War Munitions business is debated by Cusins and Undershaft, in which Undershaft emerges quite the socially acceptable victor.

I remember some of the Shaw dialog from this play found its way into one of the JFK speeches, perhaps his Inaugural address. I too once had an occasion in which some of the play’s dialog was adapted in my own experience. It was December 1969 on a cold wet New Orleans night. I was making my way through the French Quarter when I found the sidewalk blocked by a group of student hippies sitting on the curb. As I past one of them stood up causing me to stop. “Give us some bread man, we need bread.” I was in a hurry and definitely not in a charitable mood. I dismissed the plea with an emphatic, “No!” “I wouldn’t have your conscience for all your income” retorted the hippie. I immediately recognized the Shaw dialog, and of course retorted, “I wouldn’t have your income for all your conscience.”

Someday we must do a discussion of a GBS play. Major Barbara would make a good one!

It was exactly Maugham's description of Isabel's physical characteristics (a bit on the plump side) that made me wonder how Gene Tierney was chosen, and how closely the original story was read. Gene Tierney was always elegant (think of LAURA), whereas Isabel was (just) wholesome and became elegant only later - with a determined effort and the money to do it.

I further think that Maugham gives us a psychological portrait of her as well.

What Maugham is trying to show here will emerge gradually and more fully as we get into the book. There is, I think, a deliberate juxtaposition of American and English thinking about money, mores and titles: pragmatic, bold, forward-looking action on the new continent versus centuries of ironclad tradition in the old world.

Maugham portrays Elliott Templeton (and not without irony) as an American typically infatuated with and impressed by titles, tradition, castles, moats and all the rest, who eagerly and quite successfully ingratiates himself with the most influential people on both sides of the ocean.

It pleases me to read texts where the word "gay" is still used in its original meaning. That reminds me of the ditty we learned as children:

Dîtes-moi pourquoi la vie est belle,
Dîtes-moi pourquoi la vie est gaie,
Dîtes-moi pourquoi, chère Mademoiselle,
Est-ce que parce que vous m'aimez?

Harold,

George Bernard Shaw was told once by a beautiful woman, "If we got married, think of the brains our child would have" to which he retorted: "and what if our child had my looks and your brains" Something like that, I will always remember that quip. Witty.

Traude, I still remember Rozanno Brazzi singing that in South Pacific. "Gay" is a word that will have changed its entire meaning in one lifetime.

Look at the beautiful banner we have here folks.

Éloïse

I watched the 1984 version of "The Razor's Edge" tonight. It is a marvelous movie and beautifully done.

I thought Bill Murray gave a fine performance as Larry Darrell. Theresa Russell surprised me with a stunning portrayal of Sophie, which I won't soon forget. Catherine Hicks showed immaturity and jealous cruelty as Isabel. Denholm Elliott was fine as Elliott Templeton. The entire production was extremely well done.

Some of the scenery is gorgeous. I thought of a certain mountain climber I know when I climbed a Himalayan peak with Larry and felt a little of what he felt. This is a movie I very much would recommend.

Mal

Mal, where did you rent the movie? I went to Blockbuster and they don't have it. Neither do our two local libraries. They have it on audio only.

I bought it at Amazon, ANDY.

Mal

I owe more money this month to Amazon than I do my mortgage company. hahaha

Good morning! What a super group of convivial folks gathered here. I hope to be able to participate as time allows. A busy month here in Arlington - BUT grandson will not be with me every day. He's been a joy, but you forget how demanding it is to care for a now six month old every day for nine hours.

I smiled at references here to Shavian wit - since RazOr's Edge won't officially begin until tomorrow, will take this opportunity to tell you about next month's discussion of two of Shaw's plays...

Shaw has been called a futurist, a man ahead of his time, a defender of women's rights. The fact that his Pygmalion and St. Joan continue to delight theater-goers today as they did in the early 1900's attests to the timelessness and enjoyment of his satire.

To reserve your seats, click this link - St. Joan/Pygmalion. (If your name is Eliza or Joan - or any form of these two names, you will get the box seats.)

There are simialities between the two playwrights. I'm wondering whether Shaw and Maugham knew one another...surely they knew of the other's work. I found this ...somewhere:

"His (Maugham's) position as one of the most successful playwrights on the London stage was being consolidated simultaneously. His first play, A Man of Honour (1903), was followed by a procession of successes just before and after the First World War. (At one point only Bernard Shaw had more plays running at the same time in London.)

We know that sometimes you have the little guy on your lap, Joan. when your at the computer. I hope you're not discouraging him when his little fingers try imitating yours at the keyboard.

I can think of one common theme in both Shaw and Maugham. As Harold has mentioned in his anecdote about money and conscience in Shaw's play and on the streets of New Orleans. It's conscience too, in a way, in the case of Larry seeking something, he knows not what.

Mal, I know you have already mentioned that Larry seems very selfish. That's worth following up.

Eloise has Elliott seeming grotesque. Were you thinking of the way that Clifton Webb plays the role? Then I agree with you.

The later movie is far, far better in my opinion. The only thing I miss is Herbert Marshall playing WSM. He seems like a deadringer for Maugham. As for those ridiculous painted mountains. The less said...

Alf, Mal, I must get that movie, I have the hardest time finding it in Montreal and there is only one place where they have both versions, but it's not near here. I saw the old version very long ago though and I don't remember it too well. So I will get both versions.

Joan P. Welcome to our discussion of The Razor's Edge. I hope you find time to post even with your little one on your lap, lucky you. I will certainly join your discussion of Pygmalion and St. Joan after this one. I just saw My Fair Lady a few days ago. So charming,

Prepare yourself for tomorrow folks, it is the big day when The Razor's Edge will officially begin. I want to know what you think, don't hesitate to say what's on your mind, that will spark just the amount of interest we need. Whether we agree with each other or not, it promises to give us all a lot of pleasure discussing it.

Éloïse

PS. Jonathan, I don't know why I used that word, it just came out and I don't know yet if it really fits the man. I am waiting for your reaction impatiently.

How well did Somerset Maugham know America to be able to describe his American characters in the way he does in The Razor's Edge?

Do you really think that the author writes an accurate description of the wealthy people in France, between the two wars?

Are there really people like Elliott Templeton? I ask because I never met one, perhaps because I am not a 'femme du monde' I don't know the translation of it, perhaps there are, you tell me.

Do you have the feeling that the war that just finished and the one that was about to begin did not have any bearing on the story?

Are we dealing with a fairy tale here or with a deep concern that Larry has for knowing how to live the rest of his life?

Will I see you tomorrow?

Éloïse

"It's my opinion that Elliott Templeton and Laurence Darrell were both very selfish men."
That's what I said, JONATHAN, in my Post #119. I'll go farther than that and say every character in this story is selfish --- with the exception of Sophie, who had more natural goodness and spirituality than any of them.

That's how people are: self-interested, self-centered, "selfish." And I don't see anything wrong in it.

This is the kind of selfishness which goes hand in hand with survival. The young woman (or man) who is taught always to give and never think of herself/himself grows up unhappy, bitter and used, having nothing. No one will ever convince me that the person who "follows the path of perfection with selflessness and renunciation" at the expense of others is any better a person than the one who follows a more traditional path.

Ultimately, what Laurence Darrell found by traveling the world and climbing the highest mountains, he could have found right in his own backyard. In the 1984 movie script written by John Byrum and Bill Murray, the scene in the book where the narrator accuses Isabel on Page 302 by saying, " . . . you cut her throat as surely as if you'd drawn the knife across it with your own hands" takes place between Larry and Isabel. Isabel says to him, "And you killed my fiancé."

Larry says to her that he thought if he was "good" he could have Sophie as kind of a reward. Then he says a very telling thing: "There isn't any payoff."

This is what his searching, study and striving for perfection have taught him? "There isn't any payoff?" I think so.

Mal

...The long-awaited discussion of the book begins tomorrow, April 1st.

May I respectfully request that we refrain from drawing premature conclusions and making character evaluations NOW, on the basis of either of the two movies.

Conclusions are drawn and evaluations made, I believe, at the end of a venture, not before it has even begun.

Thank you.

May I respectfully say that I was responding to JONATHAN's Post #132.

My conclusions are my own. They are based on my opinions and evaluations, and should be considered as such.

I will conform to posting rules, restrictions and limits to messages when the Discussion Leaders post about them.

Mal

I don't know yet. I will see towards the end what everybody thinks whether they are or not. Lets carefully examine what Maugham is really saying in his novel first.

I had not expected making rules and restrictions at all. All we want is have a good time quietly discussing The Razor's Edge. Respect, consideration, a good ear and tolerance for what other participants are saying is the only rule that I can think of otherwise the exercise would not be worth our time would it?

Éloïse

Things to think about.

How well did Somerset Maugham know America to be able to describe his American characters in the way he does in The Razor's Edge?

Do you really think that the author writes an accurate description of the wealthy people in France, between the two wars?

Are there really people like Elliott Templeton? I ask because I never met one, perhaps because I am not a 'femme du monde' I don't know the translation of it, perhaps there are, you tell me.

Do you have the feeling that the war that just finished and the one that was about to begin did not have any bearing on the story?

Are we dealing with a fairy tale here or with a deep concern that Larry has for knowing how to live the rest of his life?

Will I see you tomorrow?

Éloïse

Right. The Razor's Edge discussion. And what else? Why, it's one of Maugham's best theater pieces. The Constant Wife. Check this out:

http://www.shawfest.com/

Of course it's the Shaw Festival website. And look what else is being put on this season. Shaw's Major Barbara.

My newspaper today describes Maugham's Constant Wife as 'A deliciously wicked social comedy where wit, intrigue and social graces collide.' Move over GBS. Maugham's play opens the season tomorrow. The Major plays on...well check the calendar.

You should be getting a lot of answers to those questions. Eloise. But just look at Mal, way out there on that limb!

The Festival Theaters are situated in Niagara-on-the-Lake, just a few miles from the falls of the same name.

Jonathan

I will add another question to those asked by Eloise in #139 above. My questions relates to the author, W. Somerset Maugham making himself a character in his fictional story. Do any of you know of other authors who have used this technique in other stories? Do you consider Maugham’s appearance as a key character a success or does he maybe leave you with the impression he was an intolerable busy-body poking his nose is other people’s private affairs? And would the other character’s particularly Isabel and her Mother, but also even Larry had so willing opened their most private personal and family matters so soon after the initial introduction as Elliott’s guest at a family luncheon. I will give Maugham credit for the many original ways he invented to always have him in the scene when key segments of the story unfolded.

I have to note that this fictional American family, their interests and their friends are most unlike any Americans I have know. Yet somehow from occasional media glimpses of our northeastern aristocracy, I somehow cannot doubt they do exist; yes even Eliott.

I should get the 1947 movie version in a few days from the San Antonio Public Library. This is the film that first sparked my interest in the story.

Harold I think our lives have all changed so that people in power or people with money have different values today - but I remember when magazines like Vogue had photos of society at play and they were at times used as models with their dogs. The women seldom worked and the chic thing was to be followed around by a scintillating group of people - almost like a chic, well dressed version of Andy Warhol's entourage .

We have seen several periods in history recreated on PBS as a series with folks living life as in the Country House and the 1900 House. In the Country House series the dinner parties included all sorts of people that were added for the weekend almost like pets. They knew their role and pandered to their hosts. That is the role that I see the character that Maugham creates seemingly fashioned like himself, a writer.

I also think this is a novel and therefore a certain amount of acceptance; putting accuracy aside is appropriate. In order to know the family as intimately as the Maugham character does and as quickly as the story includes that amount of intimacy, is simply asking the reader to suspend their disbelief so they would not be bored if he tried to write scenes that include the family getting to know Maugham, the writer as a close intimate.

The character Maugham reminds me of the role played in Evita by the character Che Guevara, who is a reporter and tells the story stading on the side of the stage. He knows and tells the audiance about Eva Duarte from her earliest childhood days right through to her death. He uses sarcasm and irony to tell the story from the point of view of someone not in a power position and yet, as a reporter he has more access than most. Now to be able to tell Eva Duarte's story from childhood again is asking us to suspend disbelief that Che would have been a close neighbor or friend during those early years and in fact he wouldn't have known her during the years she was climbing the ladder of men in Buenas Aries.

Yup, I'm out on a limb, JONATHAN, and you're too chicken to do anything except stand under it and laugh at me. (Don't worry, folks. Jonathan and I have been good friends for many years.)

Sure, there's an American Aristocracy. The President of the United States is part of it, and I've rubbed elbows with some of it. Still know people in it.

It takes more than money to be part of this aristocracy, and Isabel fills the bill. Her mother, Louisa Bradley, had been married to a man whose family had been part of the original settlers of Virginia. You've heard of the FFV? The First Families of Virginia? The Bradleys were part of those. After the Bradleys moved to the midwest, Louisa's husband saw the potential for even more wealth, and became a lawyer in Chicago with all the trappings of a large estate and everything that goes along with it.

This is the family from which Isabel has sprung. It comes as no surprise when Louisa asks the narrator how Queen Margherita is when he says he went to Paris through the southern route of Rome. The narrator has to say he doesn't know Her Royal Highness. This is the level of Society in which the Bradleys moved.

Larry Darrell, on the other hend, though well born, has little to recommend him. After all, he has only $3000.00 to his name. If she marries him, Isabel will be marrying down. It is taken for granted that Larry will redeem himself by taking a respectable job in the upper echelons of Society, but what if he decides he doesn't want to? There you have the outline of the plot in a nutshell.

I've known people like Elliott Templeton, who have enough ancestral credentials and inherited money to maneuver their way in High Society. Elliott was charming, and the Elliotts I knew shared that characteristic, even with people like me who had nothing to offer but talent.

An excellent picture of American aristocracy can be found in Edith Wharton's House of Mirth. Because of her father's financial misfortune, the heroine, Lily Bart, did not have enough money to fulfill the requirements of American Aristocracy, but she had beauty, background and manners, and moving in artistocratic circles was the only life she knew. When, through a terrible error, Lily is shunned by members of the Society in which she moves, she has to find work to support herself. Doing what? Young women of her ilk were trained only to manage fine households and do whatever it took to keep a rich husband interested. She does not have the will or the skill to survive any other way.

Isabel was lucky. When her husband, Gray, lost his money, Uncle Elliott took them in.

Mal

Good morning my friends on this April first

This is the day when the discussion begins and we will be able to talk to our heart’s content about what happens in the first chapters of The Razor's Edge.

We are told by SWM "I had knows Elliott Templeton for fifteen years. He was at this time in his late fifties... I am tempted to say that the author is also in that age bracket and he was a very good and intimate friends of Elliott. It explains that because of that he would automatically be included within the family bosom. Isabel although described by the author as fat and ungainly nevertheless captured the heart of both her uncle and the author.

Isn't this a unique way to write fiction as Harold says and so soon after introduction to that family, if the author becomes the confident he would have had special communication skills. Barbara, I agree it is permitted in fiction to bend the rules. We do have to know about this family, but an author usually just creates situations outright, this time he leads us to believe that he had actually accomplished this bonding within a very short time period. I wish I knew his secret.

Look at this: ”Some of the American ladies in Paris, who claimed to know all about him, (Elliott) said his family was quite poor and if he was able to live in the way he did it was only because he had been very clever” I don’t know if being poor meant for them that you only had one house and one car. What is the definition of being poor?

Mal, How can we define American Aristocracy? Are they so because their family had had money for a few generations, or is it because of their social circles and their refined manners, or because they became famous political figures?

ELOISE, American Aristocracy is based on ancestral background, heritage and inherited wealth. Most of the Founding Fathers of this country were aristocrats descended from British aristocracy.

The First Families of Virginia were among the first American settlers. Jamestown was settled in 1607 and became the capital of Virginia in 1619. Unlike the settlers in New England, the early settlers of Virginia did not come here poor for religious reasons. They brought wealth and heritage with them. Most could trace their families back to British royalty. Some had ancestry that went back as far as Charlemagne. Later New England settlers were wealthy, too, like some old Boston families I could mention. There is prestige even today, though, in having ancestors who came here on the Mayflower in 1620.

We have to remember that what was originally called "Virginia" extended from Maryland almost to Northern Florida.

Mal

Why does SM begin this story with "I have never begun a novel with more misgiving?" It draws you right in at the onset, doesn't it? Here we have a famous author writing a novel and expressing his own apprehensiveness and reservations about the story. He seems honest, forthright and quite mesmerized by his own narrative, particularly his dealings with Americans. I found myself shaking my head in assent when I read this

"For men and women are not only themselves; they are also the region in which they were born, the city apartment or the farm in which they learnt to walk, the games they played as children, the old wive's tales they overheard"....etc."

Gosh he had me after that sentence. This man can put more thoughts into one sentence than anyone I have ever yet read.

Elliot Templeton- oh how I love this rich blue-blooded character. He reminds me of the Count of Monte Crisco- he will go to any lengths to further his name, reputation and social position. He desires nothing but riches, opulence in life and the company of the finest upper-crust, to further his social status. He tickles me and I'm sure had I ever met a man such as he, he would amuse me. "He was a snob without shame." Can't you just picture this guy who would put up with any affront just to climb the social ladder?

As of now, I haven't read too far into the book but the characters I have met seem very shallow to me. What yardstick do we use to measure the worth of a person? Who is to say what value any of us have to society or to the world?

I was somewhat surprised that all of you, or most of you, think that SM is the narrator; of course, it would seem so as he leads us to believe that in the very beginning, but that could be a decoy to lead the reader on. Personally, I think the narrator is a fictional character.

This sentence on the first page demands to be quoted and is one that will promote my further interest in the book:

"When male and female, after whatever vicissitudes you like, are at last brought together they have fulfilled their biological function and interest passes to the generation that is to come.

Ella, let me be the first to welcome you back. Feeling better?

That is the real Somerset Maugham as narrtor. And he wants the reader to know it. He definitely is a character in his own right, probably less shallow than any of the others. Much of what he says must reflect the experience of a long lifetime. After all he was seventy when he wrote this book.

Misgivings? Sure, I can see a lot of them. First and foremost was his problem with portraying believable Americans. That's crucial. And that makes Harold's observation interesting. Maugham makes an issue out of it, even pointing out that Henry James never got an Englishman just right. But even more than character he wants the reader to get a clear idea of the American way, American ideals, dreams, etc. For that reason he locates the American part of the story in Chicago, taking in both settled America and the Western frontier. The energy and the vitality. Fortunes are being made. Action, action, action.

Keeping in mind the Shavian quip about a life spent doing nothing, it's ironic that of the two main characters, Larry and Elliott, the first is determined to do nothing, to loaf, while the latter is determined to seem to be doing nothing. Both succeed.

There's more to this novel than meets the eye. And doesn't it roll back the years. The book was followed by the beatniks, the darhma bums, the do-gooders. In that sense the book was very influential.

Ella what a pleasant surprise it was to see your post here this morning. We were all so concern to hear of your bout with the flu. I do hope you are now feeling better and will be back with us often.

As Eloise said, it is now April 1st and all of us who have been straining at the bit over the last several days can now be legal. I got tied up this morning on some necessary business but will be back this afternoon with some comment on the excellent points raised in the initial posts.

JONATHAN, I agree with everything you said. There is more here than meets the eye. As the saying goes: Appearances are deceptive.

Also, I think it possible, even likely, that the author acatually KNEW some of the main protagonists and went to great lengths to conceal their true identities. Could that be a reason for his apprehension ?

ÉLOÏSE, Maugham's description of life in England and France after WW I may differ from the impressions we have gleaned from, say, Hemingway and Fitzgerald, but even if so, Maugham's different perspective may nevertheless be a true reflection of how things were.

ELLA, I am so glad you feel better and are here with us.

Hello, Eloise and Harold. I got the book from the library and with your permission I would like to join the discussion.. My posts may be a little far apart because we are having a great run of good weather in my area and there is an abundance of yard work just waiting for me to start on.

The introduction, by Anthony Curtis, initiated a few thoughts of my own when he referred to Chicago as a bastion of American isolationism. I can relate to this thought. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, while not the heartland of America, could be called the forging furnace of America, producing the necessary supplies needed to build our nation.

I grew up in the era of American isolationism and, without consciously knowing it, I accepted it because Pittsburgh also embodied isolationism. This city was settled largely by Irish, German, and Italians. Each ethnic group settling it's own neighborhood. And it really was only after the end of WW2 that marriages around my region commonly started taking place with others not of their own heritage. I suppose this breaking tradition of marriage with one's own nationality was due to the traveling of the American G I and forming friendships with others not of their own ancestry.

"…He becomes wholly possessed by the task of trying to discover, through the received wisdom of mankind, if human life really does have a meaning…"

Well, I too have pondered that thought for most of my seventy-nine years. Speaking for myself, I reached the conclusion that belief in a divine deity and procreation are probably the nearest reasons for human life having meaning. However, for me, belief in a divine deity outweighs procreation. After all, most religions teach that the main reason for begetting is to teach the offspring of that union the belief in a supreme being. So I am back at my first reason. And that is belief in a divinity. While not perfect, it is the only conclusion I reached. Perhaps some of you can enlighten me further.

Having said that I shall now turn my white collar around to the position I normally wear it.

"The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over

Thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard…"

Oh, how true.

Bill H

Hi, folks. I’m just joining in and am excited about it. I got caught up by reading all the messages. You’re a very intellectual bunch. I taught a few years of high school English (eons ago), but I’m in awe!

The Wikipedia free online encyclopedia gives as part of its definition of aristocracy the words below: The Ancient Greek term Aristocracy meant a system of government with "rule by the best." That is the first definition given in most dictionaries. It is often confused with plutocracy ("rule by the wealthy"), oligarchy ("rule by the few"), and monarchy ("rule by a single individual"). The term is often used to refer to the historic system of rule by the nobility, which would more accurately refer to plutocracy….While the pure Aristotelian idea is intellectually appealing to many, selecting who is "best" is problematic. Certainly, those in power usually wish to stay in power and "the best" do not necessarily beget "the best".

Lately, I’ve been reading a lot about early American history, our founding fathers, and the creation of the American constitutional government. Our founding fathers, it seems, were torn between for years between Federalists, represented particularly by Alexander Hamilton, and Republicans (now called “Democratic Republicans), represented by Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists were disparagingly called “aristocrats” and “monarchists” by the Republicans, who claimed if our country implemented the Federalist visions, we would become another monarchy like England with a king and nobility. In turn, the Federalists claimed the Republicans wanted a country run by a mob and a rabble, and that our republic could not last long without a strong central executive branch. When our new constitutional government was trying to figure out what to call President George Washington, Vice President John Adams recommended calling him “His Majesty” or “His Excellency.” (Adams was ridiculed for this and privately was called “His Rotundity.”)

Fear of a nobility, of a monarchy, of an aristocracy was an important feature in the development of our country, fear even on the part of those who might have been considered by some to be the American aristocracy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Thomas Jefferson is a prime example. He was a wealthy Virginian plantation owner, typically in debt, who had a passion for democracy and for the downfall of the aristocracy. You can see in exerpts from his letters that he relished the French Revolution, including the sea of blood during the reign of terror, because the French aristocracy was being wiped out.

On another note, I saw that many in this discussion group listed some of their favorite books. Although I am really into biographies and histories right now, I love action tales. I saw the movie “Master and Commander” and loved it so much that I ended up reading the entire Patrick O’Brien series about Captain Jack Aubrey. I also read the entire Captain Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forrester. They are fabulously exciting, if you want to take a look at the British navy, seafaring, and sea warfare during the Napoleonic era.

The first time I read this book I was a senior in high school and this book was banned from the school library, forbidden by our parents, teachers, and church and it was for this very reason that a dog-eared copy wrapped in brown paper was passed from hand to hand and read behind locked bathroom doors or under bedcovers with a flashlight.

Our group had very little use for the Elliott Templetons of the world and even less use for Isabel or Gray. Even Isabel's little girls reminded us too much of our own childhood. The only two characters we related to were Larry and Sophie.

We worshiped Larry not so much because we understood his quest, but because he seemed to question everything and that's exactly what we were trying to do. We devoured this book from begining to end hanging on every word that Larry said. In dark bowling alleys, as we sipped our rum and cokes, we discussed the possibly of Eastern mysticism as opposed to the religion we had been taught to believe. "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over" became our rallying cry. (Notice that the second part was missing from are anthem.)

As far as Sophie goes, her plight was our own. After all weren't we living in a doomed world?

May I express special thanks for MARNI's and SCRAWLER's posts.

Well spoken!

I think that the reader is drawn to Larry because he seems so unlike Isabel, Gray, and Elliott who are concerned with "things."

One of my glimpses into the lives of the American aristocracy that I referred to in my last evening post was from an early 1940’s essay by Robert Hutchins, then President of the University of Chicago. Hutchins became President of that prestigious institution in the 1930’ at the unheard of early age of under 40. He is remembered for ending varsity football and Big-10 affiliation, and for engaging the school in research projects that lead to the development of the nuclear bomb that ended WW II.

I remember the essay well, because it was my very first college assignment. The essay concerned social class in the big universities of the day. The highest class he called “the Silver spooners.” They were the children (particularly the Sons) of the old American aristocratic rich. So secure were they in their high social position that they might occasionally even stoop to be friendly to the lowest class, those from the poor on scholarships or working their way through school. In contrast the second level group, the children of the newly rich, the upstarts, could never jeopardize their newly won social toehold by showing the least association with ordinary common people.

While reading “Razor’s Edge” I have been trying to classify the characters to their place in the Hutchins’ structure. I think the Bradleys and Maturins,including Isabel and her Mother, as well as Gray and his father, clearly fall in the silver spoon category. I note that Isabel’s two older brothers were U.S. State Department Foreign Service officers. They were clearly in my mind silver spoon graduates of Harvard or Yale, or maybe even the University of Chicago.

Larry Darrell on the other hand would not in my mind make either of the two upper class category. His meager $2,800 a year income while near twice an average working class wage, was simply not enough to put him in either of the upper group. Also classifying Larry with the lower social group supports the correctness of putting Isabel and her family with the silver spooners. Had her family been placed in the 2nd group as Newly rich up starts, she would never have allowed her relationship with commoner Larry to develop as she did.

Finally where does Elliott Templeton fit into the Hutchins defined social scheme. Clearly Elliott would never for a moment associate with the common or ordinary. Nevertheless, I would put Elliott as an American with the silver spooners. But Elliott’s world was Europe, not America. In his European world he was most certainly an up-start making it necessary for him to continue seek new high social contacts and to enhance his own claim through his high Royal and Vatican contacts. In his European World, his position was never so secure that he might allow even a casual association with ordinary friends.

Good post, HAROLD.

* * * *

It's all very well to say there's more than meets the eye in this book, but what good is it to say that without giving a clue to what you think it is?

Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge is his look at the Jazz Age -- the Lost Generation, as Gertrude Stein dubbed it. Characters in this book have participated in this war as ambulance drivers. They have witnessed horrors that people at home in Chicago, or any other place in isolated United States, wouldn't believe.

I was quite surprised to learn that there were numerous literary ambulance drivers in World War I besides Ernest Hemingway. Maugham became one of them when at age 40 he joined a British Red Cross ambulance unit attached to the French Army. One of his co-drivers was Desmond MacCarthy, a writer who became a literary critic for the London Times.

Other literary figures who chose ambulance duty were E.E. Cummings, John Masefield, Malcolm Cowley, Sidney Howard, Robert Service, Louis Bromfield, Harry Crosby, Julian Green, Dashiell Hammett, Sir Hugh Walpole, and there are more. Source

SCRAWLER, you are enough younger than I am that Vietnam was your war. I grew up during the war in Europe and World War II. After it was over, some few veterans went back to Europe to study on the GI Bill. The rest of us found relief in the relatively peaceful and placid Eisenhower years. World War II ended just before I turned 17. I was not reading books covered with brown paper in bowling alleys while drinking rum Cokes, though I might have been had I been ten years younger than I am. "I don't think I shall ever find peace till I make up my mind about things. Wouldn't it be better to follow the beaten track and let what's coming to you come? And then you think of a fellow who an hour before was full of life and fun, and he's lying dead; it's all so cruel and so meaningless. It's hard not to ask yourself what life is all about and whether there's any sense to it or whether it's all a tragic blunder of fate."
After my full-of-life mother, who sang so beautifully, died one terrible Saturday in 1940 without any warning, I spent three quarters of my life trying to figure out what life is all about. I stopped when I realized, for me anyway, life is to be lived.

Mal

How well did Somerset Maugham know America to be able to describe his American characters in the way he does in The Razor's Edge?

In particular did Maugham really know America and Americans well enough to succeed in his effort to create real American characters? Can you from reading the book accept Isabel, her mother, Elliott, Larry, Gray, and Sophie as Americans?

In my case I think that though I see in all these people something a little strange for Americans, I did give Maugham the benefit of any doubt and accepted them as Americans without real reservation. Certainly any reservation in my mind was not enough as to interfere with my enjoyment of the book.

Yet these characters are certainly different from the Hemingway “Moveable Feast” Americans. Even so they sometimes went to the same places in Paris and did the same things as the Hemingway characters. I suspect that Larry and Sophie and maybe even Isabel would have fit in with the Hemingway crowd pretty well but Elliott would certainly never have made it. This leads me to wonder if Hemingway ever read "Razor’s Edge" himself, and if had did, how he would have answered Eloise’s question?

How will you answer the Eloise question?

Besides Maugham's engaging writing style, what immediately drew me to The Razor's Edge was Larry's quest to find meaning in life. How many people do we know who actually give serious thought and effort to such a quest? He had the fortunate situation of having enough money to survive without working, and I loved his response when asked what he wanted to do: "I want to loaf." But Larry doesn't want to engage in frivolous pasttimes, he wants to study and understand the world from many different human viewpoints. How admirable, and how rare! I couldn't wait to see what he would discover. Was he selfish - I don't think so, not at all except for one thing. He selfishly expected Isabel to wait for him and/or to engage in his lifestyle. That would have been a huge commitment for almost anyone. On the other hand, she wanted him to throw over his quest in order to maintain her lifestyle - forgiveable, certainly, but not in the cards for Larry.

Even though Larry was what intrigued me most, it was also interesting to see that most of the characters in the book did live their lives with some passion. Isabel's husband loves her deeply, even Elliot the materialist and social climber loves Isabel and her family. Isabel did the best she could in that she couldn't live Larry's life, but I guess she missed her grand passion. An amazing story!

Pamela

Thanks for the welcome back! No, I'm not well yet; cause and cure still unknown but doctors are trying. This intestinal problem is a good way to lose weight but I wouldn't recommend it.

I'm not very good with fiction as was noted by my previous post but I'm interested. If SM is the narrator did he know these characters and participate in various activities? Is this a novel? A bit confusing to me. I think Traude alluded to this in her post.

ELOISE, your previous questions were excellent and penetrating. Could you put them in the heading so that we may address them one by one.

I'm enjoying your posts very much and want to extend a welcome to MARNIE and thank her for her explanations of governments. We've previously discussed JOHN ADAMS by McCullough and remember all too well Adams wish to elevate George Washington to a title.

BILL, I'm just three years younger than you and have pondered the same questions, as most of us do. I doubt there are any answers; although procreation is one reason man/woman exists as SM stated in the quote of my last post.

Thank you so much for wonderful posts, it is more than I ever dreamed of. Tonight I am tired because I went ice skating this afternoon. I have so many questions that are brewing in my mind and I want to talk about some items that were brought up today, but I can't even think straight right now.

Ella, good to see you are feeling better. I will look into putting some questions in the heading. Thank you for your suggestion.

Don't go away anybody, I will see you first thing in the morning.

Éloïse

hehehe like Ray Romano - Don't touch that dial...

It puzzles me too, Ella. What does SM have in mind with this book?

'I have invented nothing.'

But then he also adds that he has changed a few things, such as names, to save living persons any embarrassment if they should recognize themselves. And he also admits to adding a few imaginative embellishments to make his story more interesting. Other than that it's all true.

The Razor's Edge followed Summing Up by only a year or two. Since he himself plays the major role in RE, after all we see everything through his eyes, he establishes the same intimate rapport with the reader that his characters share with him, who is to say that the book is not in fact more summing up, or even confessional, an attempt to work something out of his system?

I will suggest that he sees himself partly in Elliott, and partly in Larry. Reminiscing, pondering his own past, still trying to resolve things. It's the kind of life he himself lived. Living in France as Elliott did. Travelling endlessly and searching, as Larry did.

What a storyteller. Promising neither death nor marriage in the end. The irony. Marriage gets as much attention as anything in the book. And as we shall see, we are treated to the sorriest, most ludicrous death ever. As well as the most tragic.

Jonathan

I know Maugham wrote the words Jonathan quoted saying he invented nothing, etc, but he wrote these words as a fictional character in a work of fiction. Barns and Noble seems to be affirming this interpretation in their on line catalog when in their “About This Book” comment they say, “Maugham himself is a character in this novel of self-discovery and search for meaning.” They describe this product as a Novel that is a work of fiction. I guess my interpretation has always been that as a character in a Novel, the dialog coming from the character Maugham is as fictional as the dialog of the other characters.

Of course as in any fictional novel the story has its setting in actual time and geography. Obviously the reality of WW I, and its lingering effect on the people who lived through it, are real. As a person living through the war and participating in it, Maugham the Author, must have heard many stories of individual experiences. The composite of these resulted in the fictional creation titled "The Razor's Edge.

What are other thoughts on this question?

Hello, my name is Sheila. I am looking forward to reading this book, and participating in the discussion. I don't remember ever reading a novel, written by SM. I saw the first "Razor's Edge", but I was about ten years old. I remember not understanding the movie.

Harold, thank you for the link to his bio. I just read it, and believe it will prove helpful in understanding this novel. I found it interesting that he impregnated a married woman, while living with his male lover. After her divorce, marrying her, but remainedliving with his male companion. Does anyone know if he ever had a relationship with his child?

Sheila

HAROLD, I agree that this book is fiction, and that the narrator is a fictional character.

Do these characters seem American? They do to me because I've met many people like them, including the son of a rich Boston family who decided to give it all up and go to India to search for --- something. I've forgotten what, maybe enlightenment.

I'll go out on a limb again and say that it's my opinion that Larry's search for the meaning of life is not quite as important as the relationships among people, which are portrayed so well in this book. These people have had to face any number of traumatic things: A terrible war, a grievous loss for Sophie, the market's crash, heartbreak and loss of wealth. In among the Limoges, the Louis XV furniture, the riches and the Dresden figurines, there's a very dark side to this story.

Mal

Alf: "For men and women are not only themselves; they are also the region in which they were born, the city apartment or the farm in which they learnt to walk, the games they played as children, the old wive's tales they overheard"....etc."

How right you are. No matter how much you want to blend in, pretend no one will see that you are a tourist, the minute you open your mouth, that’s it, you are labeled. Although my son has lived in Switzerland for the past 20 years when he comes here, his demeanor and his speech have changed, still you can tell he retains a certain Canadian attitude.

Ella: I know your preference for history, do tell us about your views on the period in Europe, especially England and France between the two wars, if you please.

Jonathan: "For that reason he locates the American part of the story in Chicago, taking in both settled America and the Western frontier. The energy and the vitality. Fortunes are being made. Action, action, action

But in the American part of the story in Chicago we don't see that difference. Don’t you feel that he was trying to “wing it” sort of? (those cute American idioms) But doing nothing for me is doing something, don’t you think. Is there such a thing as doing nothing?

Traude: For a woman who originated from Europe, you must know exactly what Maugham’s perspective was, and how the story, when told from a European vantage point, rang truer even if he was writing about Americans.

Bill: Welcome welcome, Wow: ”Speaking for myself, I reached the conclusion that belief in a divine deity and procreation are probably the nearest reasons for human life having meaning.”

Thank you for sharing this very intimate thought. Do you feel that Maugham's message in this novel was about spirituality?

Marnie: You are welcome. Interesting about Aristocracy. I learn every day. A monarch certainly wishes the highest position in the land to stay in the family, but as you say, the begotten might not be the best one to run 'The Firm’.

More later. I am in awe of the content of these posts.

Éloïse

SM does such a grand job in defining each character that I believe this "fiction" stems from an accurate portral of real-life people and situations.

He is a genius at understanding and giving account of human nature and man's inherent attitudes. He describes and analyzes without contempt or scorn. He merely tells the tale of each character, through his own eyes and his association with each one. He is like a good friend that knows your egregious weaknesses but loves you anyway.

Larry, the idealist and dreamer is pursuing this metaphysical search --- for what?? Will he ever find the Shangri-La that he seeks?
Is he escaping from the horrors of the war or is he just being unrealistic by giving up his love and his life for this quest?
Perhaps Bill hit the nail of the head when he mentioned the search for spirituality. Larry's devotion is to this mysterious quest.
What abstract mystery does he hope to unravel? What journey and mission will be worth the love of his life? What can he hope to deduce from this chase?
Material things are irrelevent and most of his relationships seem built on platonic and pure actions.
This appears, to me, the type of individual who becomes a monk or a priest. This is a man that I could shake and beg for him to tell me: "What is it you are looking for?" I fear, however, there would be no answer as I don't think even Larry knows.

I posted the other day about "payoff". Today I found something the narrator says about Larry to Isabel on Page 93 near the end of Part Two.

"Unfortunately you don't know what experience he had in the war that so profoundly moved him. I think it was some sudden shock for which he was unprepared. I suggest to you that whatever it was that happened to Larry filled him with a sense of the transiency of life, and an anguish to be sure that there was a compensation for the sin and sorrow of the world." (Underlining mine)

Also today I came across an article which compares this novel with a painting and shows how Somerset Maughem reveals the character of Laurence Darrell by examining carefully the "negative space" around him. Negative space in artwork is the sky perhaps, or a group of people in the background, which surrounds the principal figure or figures in the foreground. I think this is a really interesting idea, and can see why Maugham, an art aficionado, would use this technique when writing this book.

I don't think it matters whether Maugham based this story on real people and true things that happened. Most writers create their characters from people they've known or have known. You use a bit of one and a bit of another until your fictional character appears, and you put him or her in whatever situation you want, true or fictional. Having the narrator say essentially, "Dear Reader, I know a secret about these people. I don't quite know how to do it, but I'm going to let you in on it" is an old literary device used often to fool the reader into thinking what he or she is reading is a bit of behind-the-hand gossip and true.

It's my opinion that there are more important things to delve into in this book than that. I feel the same way about deciding whether or not Maugham created a believable Chicago or residents therein. That's not what this book is about.

Mal

I'm not sure that Larry was looking for the meaning of life as much he was looking for HOW to LIVE! Death changes us in ways until we experience it for ourselves we have no way to know how we will cope with it or how it will change us inside and out. Larry served in the World War I - a war that the others in this book had no concept of what it was like.

Sometimes authors can put into words what concepts like death might feel like. Here's just such an excerpt by Ward Moore in "Bring the Jubilee":

"In addition there was the smell of death, not the sweetish effluvium of blood, such as any country boy who has helped butcher a bull calf or hog knows, but the unmistakable stench of corrupt, maggoty flesh."

Was this the image that Larry came home with? Living in Chicago he no doubt would at sometime or the other smelled the slaughtered hogs and cattle, but there was something different about human death.

The reason for this mass human death was only part of what Larry was trying to figure out for himself. He was smart enough to know that that after his experience with death he couldn't go back to the world that he came from without some answers.

I don't see Larry as being without a job or being selfish; he was a man on an important mission and it was a mission of his own choosing. I don't believe he wanted to find out the meaning of life as much as he wanted to find out HOW after this horrible experience that he just had he could LIVE - truly live!

I disagree Mal, I think that is exactly what SM wants us to follow. Who was this? did they really exist? He probably knew many, many secrets and this was his way of telling the "stories."

Is he escaping from the horrors of the war or is he just being unrealistic by giving up his love and his life for this quest?

A very good question. As Scrawler says, though, Larry is on a mission to learn how he wants to live. He's not escaping but moving forward. He would like Isabel to be part of the quest, but if she can't he has no option to abandon this mission which is central to his life. I don't think he gave up anything but her. As far as he was concerned, his quest was his life.

One of my favorite scenes in the book (unfortunately missing from the Bill Murray movie) is Larry reading at the club.(I hope it is in the first two parts - I seem to have misplaced my copy of the book.) Maugham sees him reading and finds out he is reading a book about psychology. He comes back 10 hours later and sees him still reading this book - he's hardly moved and totally absorbed in learning. How wonderful and admirable - you want him to succeed in learning about life and then hope he shares it with you!

I just finished watching the Bill Murray movie version of The Razor's Edge. I'm not a huge movie fan - the book always seems better to me. Of course like all movies it arbitrarily changed around details - for example, Larry was not a pilot but rather an ambulance driver during the war. Perhaps that was less expensive to film, but I thought it took away some of the romance of the story. Also, there was little sense of time - everything was compressed considerably.

Although I thought the movie was credible and Bill Murray did a very good job, it seemed to have trouble communicating what Larry was all about. Larry displated more volitility - which didn't fit his character - when losing Isabel in the movie than in the book. Larry's greatest moment of revelation (which I won't discuss since we aren't to that part yet) was not really noticed in the movie. I would have been very confused without having read the book. Still, if you are a movie fan it's worth a watch. I'm going to watch the 1946 movie soon, and it will be interesting to compare. But I guess I'm just a book person!

Larry seems a decisive fellow in that he knows that he will not be content selling bonds for Gray's father. He tells Isabel that they can be happy with his modest income, as he has perfected the art of "living below one's means." Larry is candid with Isabel; she will be happy meeting so many interesting people with him as long as she is wearing a designer original. Also, Larry states that if he were to return to America, "it would be the death of me," for he feels "nothing." I'd say that he's right on target about being atypical among Isabel's crowd. As one would now say, "get a life" or "what do I want to do with the rest of my life?" Isabel sees Larry as earning a living. Larry sees this role as earning a dying.

Elliott remarks that the "British are a great people, but they have never really learned how to paint." We have the controversy of "what is art?" Only the French do great art? Elliott is a snob and he is a remarkable "fake." He isn't a Paris original. He could be a trompe l'oeil. Who is real among these characters? I'd opt for Sophie whom Isabel dooms.

Scrawler, I do believe too that those who have hands on experience in a war come back home with different values and a different outlook on life as before they went. Larry, to our generation is only a boy, hardly out of high school and the death of his buddy, who saved his life, cut right through the quick. Being the sensitive man he was, it was like a part of him had died and he couldn't continue living like if nothing had happened.

Scamper on page 51 in my book: Larry was telling the author about a conversation he had with Suzanne about his war experience, he said: "The day before we were to go we were sent up to fly over the enemy lines and bring back reports of what we saw. Suddenly we came bang up against some German planes, and before we knew where we were we were in the middle of a dogfight..." It was then that Patsy got hit and died after landing. Where did you see that Larry was an ambulance driver?

Shifrah, "Isabel sees Larry as earning a living. Larry sees this role as earning a dying." Never thought of that, good point.

Mal, Let's get into the important things then.

Thank you everybody for wonderful new ideas that are well worth pondering for a while.

Éloïse

Pamela, I love that expression for what it indicates about involvement in something. And you're really pointing out what Maugham does so well. Creating theater. I happen to like the Bill Murray movie for that reason. I think my favorite scene would be, well, one of many, the one in which Elliott welcomes Louise and Isabel into his 'humble abode', when they arrive in Paris. Isn't that a beautiful place he has? Isabel is entranced. It's a dream come true. What a life Elliott made for himself in Paris.

But you mention the interesting scene that has Larry ensconced in his chair in the club's library for ten hours reading. That's worth noticing. In his 'search' for meaning he begins with the American William James' book on psychology. In other words he begins at home. And psychology. Why not James' Varieties of Religious Experience. He might have saved himself a lot of travelling.

The posts make it very clear that we're having a problem with what motivates this young man. He went off to the war a very normal young man, itching to do some flying. In the movie he's an ambulance driver. He sees death. There isn't too much elaboration. The reader is left to wonder how far the war made him what he was to become. But there is no doubt that he finds no incentive or meaning in the world he comes backt to. Parties and house decorating, fashionable attire. Investment activities that end in migraines. Picnic menus!

Eloise, what is a femme de monde?

Jonathan

Jonathan, When I translate that in English, 'A woman of the world' it loses its meaning. Traude is a linguist and could render the meaning exactly but what I meant is a 'socialite'. Oups, I just found it and when I posted that, it eluded me. I think I just like that expression, it sounded "chic". Am I getting to be a snob? Perhaps I am, Oh! no.

I am upset. If I want the movie The Razor's Edge, I have to join a club and pay $18 for a year. Then, I have to pay $5 for renting it. I asked in about 5 Vedeo stores if they had it, no they don't. I love Montreal, but sometimes, I could scream.

I found both releases of the film at my metropolitan library and requested them. I saw the first one when I was younger than God, but I wonder what my reaction to it will be this time. I do remember my reaction so want to see why I disliked the main character with such childish ferocity. Hmmmmmm!

Scamper, you may be interested in reading what Anthony Curtis wrote about the original screenplay.
"The buzz about the book reached Hollywood even before it was published. Orson Welles started quoting from it at parties on the strength of a typescript that was circulating among leading film producers. Soon Darryl Zanuck had bought it and approached George Cukor, who said he would do the movie provided they could get Maugham to write the screenplay himself. Zanuck replied that even if they could, Maugham would be too expensive. Undaunted Cukor called Maugham, who said he would be delighted to write the screenplay for nothing. Cukor then invited Maugham to stay with him in Hollywood while he worked on it. In lieu of a fee, Maugham was given an Impressionist painting of his own choosing by the studio.
Maugham completed an excellent script, which, to the surprise of no one familiar with the ways of Hollywood, was not the one used by Twentieth Century Fox for the movie they made, nor was the picture even directed by Cukor (Edmund Goulding finally directed, from a script by Lamar Trent). Released in 1946,. Herbert Marshal played Maugham, while Clifton Webb played Elliott, the latter's performance has been described by Pauline Kael as 'a memorable high-camp number' Gene Tierney was Isabel Anne Baxter was Sophie, and Larry was played by Tyrone Power.
The film was pretty much a disaster,….:
So Scamper, as you can see the screenplay probably reflected little of Mangham's novel other than using it for a general outline.
I agree with Twentieth Century Fox's choice of Anne Baxter for the part of Sophie. Baxter always had that woe-begotten-look of one in a state of constant depression. Gene Tierney fit the part of Isabel. She looked like a devious person.

Bill H

Eloise,

Larry was an ambulance driver in the MOVIE (Bill Murray version). I was complaining more or less because I didn't think it had the same image as being a pilot had in the book.

Pamela

You can purchase the VHS movie " The Razor's Edge" from the web page www.amazon.com. The 1984 VHS is $6.30 used and new and the 1946 VHS is $ 8.50 used and new. They are a very well known and reliable online shop and I have used their services for a number of years. Canada is one of their International sites and the shipping and handling charge is nominal.

I was lucky to rent the 1946 VHS of the movie in one major Video shop in the USA. Again, go to www.amazon.com I sent this message to your email address but it was returned : not known!

I do hope this information is helpful.

I see Pamela, I didn't see the movie yet but thank you for your generous offer.

Florry, When I wanted to purchase the movie at some American web ? store , they refused to ship it out of the country. Thank you for the tip, I will remember that for later.

Bill, If they had used WSM script, I bet it would have been a success. I often deplore poor script writing for spectacular movies for scenery, art production and casting but when the scenario is bad, the movie is shot. I guess the Producers don't know how to select better script writers.

What is the novel saying? We have young people in love, a rich uncle who throws his money and his weight around, a very sick mother and to top it all, we have the author/narrator himself who is the recipient of everybody's secret past and he is sharing it with us.

We have the aftermath of a war, the rise of the Roaring Twenties in Europe, the names of the most famous Impressionist painters in history dropped like if they were a dime a dozen and we are in Gay Paris. What more can we expect from a novel?

Éloïse

Hello Sheila; Welcome to the discussion. I too thought Elliott’s remark about the British not knowing how to paint was a bit picky. I might have been more accepting, if he has said they did not know how to cook. Pleas do weigh in with your questions and comments about the book and our interpretations of it.

Mal, while the American characters in this book are all definitely different from the Americans I know and associate with daily, I know Americans exist in all shapes, with a wide range of diverse character traits. No two were formed from the same mold. I am now increasingly sure that Americans of the character of those Maugham was writing about might have existed in the 1920 and might continue to exist today.

Alf and others who have commented on the affect on Larry’s of his war experience; do you think today that we would attribute his behavior to his War experience? I think in the 1920’s they called it shell shock; today it would be called something like Gulf War Syndrome. But I don’t remember Maugham telling us that Larry had trouble being unable to sleep or that he exhibited the other symptoms experienced by veterans returning from our recent wars. Yet the wartime death of his friend and the circumstance of his death were generally taken by his associates as the reason for what they considered his unconventional behavior.

I think Scrawler makes a good point in #170 when she points out that only Larry (I would add Maugham) had actual war experience. I think this is a definite reason for their inability to understand Larry. It would also explain why Maugham apparently did understand Larry.

I liked Scrawler’s last paragraph in #170 describing Larry as “a man on a mission of his own choosing.” This meant as Scamper pointed out in the nest message moving forward with or without Isabel (her option).

Jonathan I suspect that Larry may have read the William James “Varities of Religious Experience” also. But being Larry, the reading alone was not enough. He had to go and see for himself.

And Shiifrah, I suely agree Larry was certainly a decisive fellow.. The evidence goes beyond his knowing what he did not wont to do- sell bonds. He also knew what he wanted, namely answers to specific basic life related question. He did not hesitate to set out to find the answers to his questions. The temper of the several preceeding paragraphs certainly supports this conclusion.

I am going to reserve comment on the movie version until I have seen them. I really remember the 1946 movie, which is what sparked my interest in this discussion. As I said before, for me Clifton Webb was (and is) Elliott Templeton.

I have not seen the 1984 Bill Murray version. Intuitively I just don’t see Bill Murray playing the part of Larry. Also several Web reviews were very negative. I would also consider the casting of Larry as an ambulance driver instead of a pilot as Scamper said in 181 as a further negative. Yet it seems to be getting good reviews from those of you who have seen it so I will wait until I see it to make my judgment.

As I understand it the 1946 version will be released on a DVD in late May of this year. It is not available today. I tried everywhere but Amazon for a VCR copy but it is out of print. I wonder if the Amazon offering mentioned by Florry54 is for a pre-release order for the May DVD, which is the way it appears in the B&N catalog.

1984 Razor's Edge available at Amazon Canada

1946 Razors Edge available in May at Amazon Canada

www.amazon.com has the VCR 1946 version of the Razor's Edge available for $8.50 used and new and " it ships out in 24 hours". It is the DVD that is not available until May 2004. I also find amazon. com cheaper than B&N.

ÉLOïSE, exactly.

As you said, "une femme du monde" is a woman of the world, a woman who has seen the world = hence a sophisticated woman. The German word is "eine Frau von Welt". But sometimes only the French term fully conveys the precise nuance and the intended meaning. That is true in this case.

May I add that the French "femme" (in "femme fatale", for example) is often mispronounced. It does NOT rhyme with "hem". The first "e" sounds like the "a" in "asphalt". End of linguistics lesson.

By the time we come to the end of the story we may be better able to say how well Maugham has succeeded in portraying Americans. Since I have mentioned early on that I "gasped" a few times when rereading the book, I might as well admit right here and now that some of the characterizations sounded almost stereotypical, offensively so. A little hostile, even. THAT was the reason for the gasping.

As you know, I am not a native born American but, as such, acutely more sensitive -- comparable perhaps to a religious convert, who may be "more papal than the Pope", as a saying goes.

I have difficulty picturing Bill Murray as Larry. And to changethe character from a flyer into an ambulance driver, an ambulance driver !, is, to my mind, a distortion of the author's core idea. The 1946 movie may not have been a commercial succes, but I am most anxious to view it again, after all these years.

The kind of horror of war seen in the 1984 film could not have been depicted if Larry had not been turned into an ambulance driver. Some of these scenes are very graphic, in brilliant contrast to the untouched riches seen later. They show every good reason why Larry would be tortuously motivated to find out the meaning of a life where this occurs and the existence of a God that would allow such atrocities to happen.

Mal

Thank you all for your help to get the movie. I saw all those web sites before but they all cost too much with the currency exchange and shipping and for a movie that I saw before it's too much, but a friend will send me the video and DVD. So I'm all set.

Traude, in the first two parts I saw where Maugham easily gives words to Elliott for his own impression on how he perceived Americans:

(Mrs. Bradley to Maugham)"He (Elliott) has been abroad so long, he feels rather out of it here. He doesn't seem able to find anyone he has anything in common with... "I'm like a lost soul in this great city,..but I am counting the days till I can get back to Paris. It's the only place in the world for a civilized man to live. My dear fellow, d'you know how they look upon he here? They look upon me as a freak. Savages." Underlining is mine.

I have a hard time to understand how Elliott who was born in America and lived there the first part of his life would not feel absolutely happy to be back to his roots. When my son comes home for holidays, he is extatic. He says, there is no city in the world more beautiful than Montreal and he has seen many mostly in Europe. "You can take someone out of a country, but you can't take the country out of someone".

Éloïse

For what it's worth: the prices quoted on the Amazon Canada sites I linked are in Canadian dollars.

Larry to Isabel on Page 70. "I want to make up my mnd whether God is or God is not. I want to find out why evil exists. I want to know whether I have an immortal soul or whether when I die it's the end."

Isabel responds, "People have been asking these questions for thousands of years. If they could be answered, surely they'd have been answered by now."

Larry: ". . . I think you've said something shrewd. But on the other hand you might say that if men have been asking them for thousands of years, it proves they can't help asking them. Besides, it's not true that no one has found the answers. There are more answers than questions, and lots of people have found answers that were perfectly satisfactory for themselves. Old Ruysbrock for instance."

Here Larry is referring to John Ruysbroek, a medieval mystic. Ruysbroek said, "To comprehend and to understand God above all similitudes, as he is in himself, is to be God with God, without intermediary. Whoever wishes to understand this must have died to himself, and must live in God, and must run his gaze to the eternal Light in the ground of his spirit, where the hidden truth reveals itself without means." Ruysbroek was accused of being a Pantheist.

I've moved in many different circles in my life, from the very rich to the very poor. In the 70"s I had the opportunity to meet and mingle with people who had gone to India on quests that were similar to Larry Darrell's. Returning to America, they carried with them a kind of mingling of Hindu and Christian beliefs and cultures. One couple went back over and over to try and find answers, but always ended up home in the U.S..

I met, too, and knew quite well, an artist and former mathematician, who had lost his math skills because of a stroke not long before I met him. His artwork changed from a kind of M. C. Escher type to an unusual, almost Oriental primitive style. He had grown up in the shadows of the Himalayan Mountains as the son of Christian missionaries, and was a combination of Eastern and Western cultures. We had many conversations over cups of latte in a Mexican coffee shop in St. Augustine, Florida about quests for enlightenment and the fact that whatever answers came were personal to the seeker and were not monumental truths that could not be found right in one's own backyard.

Mal

"une femme du monde:" I like French phrases such as this one. They make me feel that I am literate in French'

Mal I too highlighted the Page 70 paragraphs you quoted above. In the margin I noted, Lary is saying there is no absolute universal answer. Each individual must find his/her own answer or be content to leave them unanswered. Larry choose to seek his answers.

Thank you all for your comments on the availability of the films. I should have a library copy of the 1946 version this week. I will order the 1984 VCR but i still don't understand the need for changing Larry from a pilot to ambulance driver. Remember the key to larry's problem was that the friend died saving Larry. This situation seems unique to the air dog fight situation. The overall horrors of War was only secondary. Isabel like most of us choose to ignor the questions.

The sacrifice of the friend occurs in the 1984 movie, too --- on the ground. Larry's reaction is unusual and moving.

I'm sure there were changes in the 1946 movie, too. There always are when somebody tries to condense a 300 page book into a 90 minute movie.

Perhaps it is better to think of the book and the two movies as three separate, but similar entities. Maugham wrote three published versions of this story. One is a play. If I can find the title, I'll post it here.

Mal

ELOISE, when you state in the Discussion Schedule PART I and PART II, do you mean chapters?

Larry, in my opinion, is carrying a lot of "baggage" around with him; he had no parents to love him and was brought up by a guardian and then he had the terrible experience of seeing his best friend die to save his own life, plus he was wounded himself. SM always portrays him as "smiling" and quiet which I think is a facade the young man shows to the world but he is churning inside. "The dead look so terribly dead when they're dead." He has vague, incoherent, confused thoughts when flying.

Actually he and Elliott have several things in common. They are both obsessed - Larry with the acquisition of knowledge and Elliott with the acquisition of material things and royal friends. Also, they are loners (SM states this somewhere in the book) and although they have many acquaintances, they have no real friends.

ELOISE, the history of the USA and the world between WWI and WWII would make a fascinating discussion if we could find a book on the subject that is less than 1000 pages; so many errors of judgments, many beginnings - we are still living with the consequences of those years. Anyone know a good book?

Larry was very naive about people in my opinion. How could he think that Isabel would travel the world with him living in a one-room apartment; certainly he knew her better than to believe that!

I've only read through chapter 2 so I have no idea of how the book ends or even if it touches on the catastrophic events of 1929, but I'm wondering how each person in the book would handle such a crisis.

It seems as if a lot of Lost Generation men thought their wives would go with them to the ends of the earth. Ernest Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald are only two.

Mal

'I haven't read my La Rochefoucauld for nothing.' Elliott replies.

The characters in RE all seem to work as foils or contrasts for each other, in keeping with the more general theme of the book in comparing materialism and spiritualism. Therefore America on the one hand and India on the other. With Paris as an exciting half-way house.

So, how illustrative it is to hear that Elliott reads the worldly wisdom of Rochefoucauld's reflections (eg, 'To establish ourselves in the world we do everything to appear as if we were established.') While Larry, as Mal has pointed out, is reading Ruysbroek, to find the inner Divine Light within himself. The ground was well prepared by the time he got to the Himalayas, it seems.

Elliott is willing to get Larry established in Paris. Along the same route, presumably, that Elliott himself followed when he set out as a young man . Follow the well-known French way. A young man advances most quickly with the help, with the guidance of a femme du monde, to teach him the social ropes, the manners and customs of aristocratic Paris, introducing him in the right circles, and on and on. One wonders what was in it for the femme du monde? Well, the answer would probably be a version of, if you have to ask the price you can't afford it.

I can't say that Elliott is a lovable character, but there is something very likable and fascinating about him. He did very nicely for himself. He would be envied by many. I think it is the jealous who see him as a snob, and the threatened who see him as an upstart.

Did Isabel have the makings of a femme du monde?

Jonathan

I am very confused after catching up reading the posts - is the discussion about the movie "The Razor's Edge" or the book?

I don't see a lot of "romance" in the 1984 movie either, but I don't think there was a lot of romance in the book. I think we are motivated to act or speak by our emotions and Maugham demonstrates this concept by portraying his characters in certain "emotional" situations.

If we see something horrible like Larry did in the war we will respond to it. In Larry's case he almost shows a lack of emotion when he says, "The dead look so terribly dead when they're dead." It is as if he is "numb" and can feel nothing. Perhaps this is his mission than - not only to find peace, to learn how to live, but also, I think, he wants to "feel emotion." While Larry is searching for any emotion; the other characters have emotions of their own.

Fear is the most prominent emotion portrayed by the characters of this novel. Elliott Templeton, Isabel, and Gray all fear what "proper society" will think of them if they associate with Sophie or with Larry. Even Maughham has his own fears, but he is welling to at least observe Larry and Sophie. In addition, Isabel fears that she will lose Larry and Gray fears losing Isabel. To what extent are these charters willing to go to overcome their fears? To me only Larry and Sophie are portrayed as going beyond their own fears, but at what price?

Barbara,

We are discussing the book, but many of us decided to watch the two movies that were made from the book - and of course we are discussing them here, too.

On the subject of pilot versus ambulance driver: certainly the horrors of war are effectively shown in the 1984 movie in which Larry is an ambulance driver - Mal has a good point here. What I think might have been lost is the euphoria and romance of being a pilot. It's an exciting, glamor job, and you are high above the destruction you cause. I can see Larry happily soaring in the sky - and then all of a sudden his best friend is dead, dead, dead...

Ella,

I belong to an online bookclub called "The Lost Generation" (on the Oprah site), and we've been reading books about the time between WWI and WWII for about a year. We've read mostly fiction, and I have come away with much more awareness of the apathy felt by many soldiers returning from WWI.

But the best book I've read which explains the situation between the two wars is a book read here on seniornet Paris 1919. I can't remember if you were in that discussion. It's an intimidating looking but surprisingly readable and fascinating book which clearly points out the mistakes that were made that led the world into a second war.

Ella, I wrote "Part" because that is what my book says instead of chapters. The pagination is not the same in every editions. Mal's quote was on her page 70, that same quote is on my page 69. Larry was naive and I think at 21 in the 1920's people were more naive and emotionally immature than they are today at the same age.

The rise of the stock market between the two wars was a precursor of the 1929 rash and we will read about that later in the book.

Barbara, yes lets get back to the novel. You have a good point.

I love all the thoughts written down here. Do you think that Larry really loved Isabel if he could so easily break off his engagement because she refused to leave her lavish life style on account of him?

On my page 78: "They talked of the parties they had been to and the parties they were going to. They gossiped about the latest scandal. They tore their friends to pieces. They bandied great name from one to the other. They seemed to know everybody. They were in on all the secrets. Almost in a breath they touched upon the latest play, the latest dressmaker, the latest portrait painter, and the latest mistress of the latest premier..." said the two American socielites, while "Isabel had still so vividly in her mind the shabby little hotel room, with its iron bed and that hard, comfortless chair in which she had sat, that room that Larry saw nothing wrong in. It was bare, cheerless, and horrid."

Do you think that two youngsters would ever notice this difference in their outlook on life before they fell in love? Is love ever reasonable? Love is blind "L'amour a des raisons que la raison ne connait pas." They just fell in love.

Éloïse

Of course Larry loved Isabel. When she offers to return the ring (in the movie) he says, keep it, put it on another finger and remember that there will always be a man somewhere who loves you. How could she ever forget?

Like Scrawler says, this is not a romance, but it certainly skirts the edges. I think every reader can relate to the boy/girl situations of these young people. Those agonizing decisions about commitments that we all had to consider at one time. Why marriage? The women display a more instinctive role under the circumstances.

Something is lost by taking Larry out of his airplane and putting him into the ambulance. He was independent, difficult to control as a boy. Inclined to go his own way. Taking to flying definitely reveals something of his character. To break the surly bonds of earth, as the saying goes? The book could have been titled Of Human Freedom. And as Harold points out, it is in the air, that his comrade gives his own life in saving Larry. That's important later when Larry makes sacrifices in trying to save some other unfortunate soul.

On the other hand, the later movie's opening scenes are such truly American scenes. The fair/rally/picnic atmosphere. Wonderful. All the main characters are there, making their entrances.

Jonathan

ÉLOÏSE, yes, let's return to the book by all means.

Re the first question in the header, I would answer, a little bit of both. The author was a true "connaisseur" (= French spelling), and the beauty of valuable art further enhanced the opulence of the homes he described.

A job was considered a necessity in the circles in which Larry and Isabel grew up. World War I and World War II were not fought on American soil but on a different continent. Yet industry and the market flourished after both world wars.

If Maugham has not focused on the violence of "the war to end all wars", he had good reason. Why state the obvious? Continental Europe and England were devastated. Perhaps the makers of the 1984 movie felt it necessary to show that particular aspect of violence and futility to American audiences, since the Korean and Vietnam conflicts also were fought elsewhere.

What matters is that Larry changed. We must not forget that he lied about his age and ran off to the war- still a boy. How mature was he when he came back? How insensitive of people, including Isabel, to quiz him about his "adventures" ! And to try to press him into their mold ...

He and Isbael had grown up together. There was an undeniable mutual attraction. But it was, I believe, always more serious for the earthy Isabel than for Larry. (That's why I am so anxious to get my hands on the 1946 movie, again.)

Who can say whether it was really LOVE that grew out of their togetherness? They were inseparable. She adored him and he allowed himself to be adored.

The Somserset Maugham Pocket Book, first printing 1942, antedates RE. It is an anthology of Maugham's work, selected and edited by Jerome Weidman, known best perhaps for "I Can Get it for you Wholesale" and more.

In the Introduction, Weidman says, "... I have made the interesting discovery that neither of us (meaning his younger brother and himself) can read more than five pages of, let us say, Cakes and Ale or The Gentleman in the Parlour without looking around for someone to whom we can quote a choice phrase or sentence or paragraph. We usually find him."
How true!

Here is the beginning of The Summing Up

"This is not an autobiography nor is it a book of recollections. In one way and another I have used in my writigs whatever has happened to me in the course of my life. Sometimes an experience I have had has served as a theme and I have invented a series of incidents to illustrate it; more often I have taken persons with whom I have been slightly or intimately acquainted and used them as the foundation for characters of my invention. Fact and fiction are so intermingled in my work that now, looking back on it, I can hardly distinguish one from the other. It would not interest me to record the facts, even if I remembered them, of which I have already made a better use. They would seem, moreover, very tame. I have had a varied and often an interesting, life, but never an adventurous one. I can never remember a good story till I hear it again and then I forget it before I have had a chance to tell it to somebody else. I have nevr been able to remember my own jokes, so that I have been forced to go on making new ones. This disability, I am aware, has made my company less agreeable than it might otherwise have been.
I have never kept a diary. I wish now that during the year that followed my first success as a dramatist I had done so, for I met then many persons of consequence and it might have proved an interesting document. At that period the confidence of the people in the aristocracy and the landed gentry had been shattered by the muddle they had made of things in South Africa, but the aristocracy and the landed gentry had not realized this and they preserved their old self-confidence. At certain political houses I frequented they still talk as though to run the British Empuire were their private business. ..."

Do you think that Larry really loved Isabel if he could so easily break off his engagement because she refused to leave her lavish life style on account of him?

If you remember, Larry was independent his whole life. His guardian specifically commented that he was never able to get him to do anything he didn't want to do. Perhaps there was a more spiritual side to Larry than anyone realized before he went to war, but he covered that up with being the most fun, the most adventurous, and the best friend to Isabel and to Gray.

I think Larry loved Isabel with all his heart. Not because of anything specific, sometimes love just is. But rejoining the frivolous society he came from in order to have her was just not possible for him. He knew he would die spiritually if not physically in such a society - it was more or less asking him to commit suicide, which would do Isabel no good. He hoped that he could bring over Isabel to his way of life - hoped, but probably knew it was impossible. In the 1984 movie there's an awful scene in his rooms with big bugs and rats - she just can't live like that. I couldn't either, though I'm not sure Maugham would have approved of the bugs and rats as a terror technique in the movie.

It is interesting to think of what one would have done if confronted with a Larry that you loved. He did have some stability of money coming in. $3,000 in the 1920s is perhaps what - maybe $30-35 thousand today? More? To paraphrase Mal and others, I've been rich and I've been poor and rich is better. Would I have been willing to live with no private bathroom, with bugs and rats? No, absolutely not. How about a little tract house in a lower middle class neighborhood, or small but clean hotel rooms? Maybe. I guess everyone has their price!

I could not get this book from our library - there is only one copy which is borrowed forever so I would say its lost. However if you do the Moon and Sixpence later on - the book is online. I would love to do another Somerset Maugham book that I could be sure of being able to obtain the book.

If you put Razors Edge in your search engine there is lots of commentary sites on the story online.

Carolyn

SCAMPER, quite true, a more spiritual side to Larry; that's why I described Isabel as "earthy".

Mamma mia!! Bugs, you say, rats? Really?

I fear the makers of the 1984 movie have taken unwarranted liberties with the book. Larry's room in a modest rooming house is described as containing a singe bed, a nightstand, a table between the two windows with a typewriter on it. Isabel sits on the lone armchair and it is uncomfortable.

There is a lot of conversation between Isabel and Larry but not one word is said of bugs, let alone rats. (pp. 72-83, paperback).

What is most striking is the materialism, the unending preoccupation with money and how much money people make. But are things any different now? We still take note of the size of people's houses, the make, model and number of their cars. Keeping up with the Jonses is still "in".

For my part I will never understand why money is the prevailing, indeed apparently the only gauge by which to measure a person. I firmly believe it is as important what a person IS as what he HAS (i.e. owns).

Sorry, I was intent on correcting my typos in the above post and became involved in a post scriptum so long that the time ran out.

What I wanted to add was a quotation from Anne Baxter's "Intermission: A True Story". It is on pg. 281, chapter 37 of the paperback I just re-read, titled "Little Jack Horner Sat i a Corner, Eating his Christmas Crow".

It is her first Christmas in Australia where Randolph Galt, her American husband, has bought a 36,000 acre cattle station in the Australian bush, named Giro (with a hard "g"). It is a "free-style" structure with many haphazard additions and porches, twenty-three rooms in all. It has a corrugated roof, snakes under the house, frogs in the toilet, a generator that can be turned on only so many hours a day, and a big belching, obstinate stove she calls Bertha. The cook quits ... Her ten-year old daughter Katrina (Hodiak) is off to boarding school in January

"Mother will then be grounded for a good long time. Not only grounded but house-boundaried by a small wonder named Melissa. Maybe we could have another go at finding help. Ran was game. Perhaps after Christmas. Our first Chistmas at Giro was coming up. Damn it, holidays always catch me napping. You turn around and here comes another one. America's terrible that way, all those busy merchants pushing. Buy, buy, buy." emphasis mine.

hmmm does he or does he not - one petal, two petal, one petal more - when they meet in Paris he alreay has to me the characteristics of Tao, which would be similar in any eastern religion - the story of how a monk falling hundreds of feet down the cliff of a mountain reaches for a strawberry on the way not knowing if he plunges to his death or to a twig that will catch his fall.

That is Larry to me when they continue to meet and have dinners in Paris although he has decided his search for meaning is too important to stop and be all that is required to marry Isabel.

I think the idea of Isabel willing to tempt him with sex is stronger than we realize given today's morals and remembering what morals were like before WWII. Oh it is easy to say rich girls were easy but were they or was that just more Hollywood...

Being an ambulance driver during WWI must have been horrendous - there wasn't even penicillin much less the ability to help young men with body wounds. Was there even plasma - and the ambulances themselves would not have the shocks to soften a ride that we can envision today - talk about hell wagons...no wonder he wasn't totally out of it...

I remember as I read RE, going back to the beginning of my marriage and the way everyone looked at my husband as a loafer because he wasn't working. In our country,once we were industrialized, it became extremely unacceptable socially for a woman to be with a man who didn't work. In our country people are supposed to produce something. Passive pursuits such as reading, contemplating,and meditation are really considered loafing by our culture. In the first couple of chapters, I remember wondering why won't Larry just work? I wanted this love relationship to blossom. I love a good love story and he's wrecking it. I think that is what Maugham wanted the reader to do. Then I did a complete turn around, realizing Larry's solitary life working or not was way more exiting than the love relationship thing. Later, I didn't want him to give in, I wanted him to find what he was looking for. I wanted him to be happy. Because if he can do it, so can I. I have to refer to a weakness I have, a belief that I don't fit into society if I am not married. I know my mother felt that way. It's almost unconscious. But it is sooo strong. My desire to fit in so big, I never realized it until my marriage was over. I depended on being married to be a part of the community. I am not proud of this. So Elliot is compelled to go to parties and fawn up to fit in because of perhaps a similar core belief. Isabelle can't give up her need to have nice things and throw nice parties. Do we all have these ways of trying to fit into our niche? Is it despicable or just human?

What do you think?

peetma I also, "depended on being married to be a part of the community." But I do not feel guilty - that was how we were trained - it was also the reality of what we were allowed to do - Nancy Drew may have been adventurous but that was why we read those books - they were fantasy called Novels - not reality...

Well you guys have been busy today while I’ve been away with 16 posts since my post this morning.

Ella the current paperback edition is divided into 7 sections with a total of 314 pages. The schedule for this week was parts 1 (Chapters 1 through 10, pages 1 –51) and Part 2, (Chapters 1 –7, pages 54 –94). For week 2 we will discuss the chapters included in parts 3 & 4. pages 97 -184; For the third week it will be the chapters comprising Parts 5 & 6, pages 187 - 285; and conclude in Week 4 with the chapters in Part 7, pages289 - 314 and our conclusions. Let me know by E-mail if I can provide further detail.

Jonathan, I too found the ET character strangely interesting although he is certainly different from me and he is not the type of person I would relate to as a friend. The ET character is what I remember most from the 1946 movie. Though it has been almost 60 years since I saw it, it is the ET scenes that I remember.

Barbara while I think discussion of the movie versions of the book are useful in our interpretation of the book, you are probly right in pointing out that we are giving them a tad too much attention.

Carolyn, I am sorry to hear you did not get the book, If we do another SM book the Moon and a Sixpence will get my vote too. You are are always welcome here with comment based on your Web reading..

BARBARA, Larry in the BOOK is a pilot. He was changed into an ambulance driver by the people who made the 1984 MOVIE, the second film based on the book. The first movie was made in 1946.

HAROLD, my paperback is ancient. It has chapters rather than Parts, but the text should be identical.

The last sentence of chapter two reads, "I saw her two or three times after that, but only when other people were present and then, having had enough of London for a while, I set off for the Tyrol."

Does that match your text? I would imagine so.

yep it reads different than my mind was working - just musing on some of what was written - sorry...

I don't remember when I first read this book or how I reacted. I know I had a spate of reading everything I could find that Somerset Maugham wrote.

I don't remember when I saw the Gene Tierney-Tyrone Power movie. I remember enjoying looking at that pretty man and woman, and thinking that emotionally they acted on a scale from A to B.

I think it's a good idea not to criticize a movie we haven't seen. I did that with Mel Gibson's "Passion" because I had read some pretty negative things about it. Then I saw the film. I found that parts of it were works of art, technically.

Mal

Perhaps we misunderstand here the meaning of "job". Larry worked all right. What he refused to do was take a position in a brokerage firm or become a doctor or lawyer. take a job that would saddle him to a yoke for the rest of his life.

He didn't want to become the job as he'd seen so many other men do. He wanted the freedom to choose to work or choose not to, so he could pursue other things like study.

If he wanted to mine coal, he did it. It he wanted to hire on as part of the crew on a freighter to go to some far off place, he did it. Larry didn't want to be buttoned uptight in a gray flannel business suit, like his friend, Gray Maturin, for the rest of his life.

This doesn't provide any sort of stability for a wife. There are other "jobs" that don't either. My husband was working as a chemist in Rhode Island when we were first married in 1951 (at $3000.00 a year, by the way). He came home from work one night and said, "I'm quitting my job and going to graduate school."

Three years at graduate school (on much less than $3000 a year); then he took a position as a chemist in a western New York corporation. A year later he came home from work and said, "We're moving. I'm going to Duke University in North Carolina to do post doctoral work in Cryogenic Physics."

Back to New York after that where we bought a small house. Four years later he came home and said, "We're moving. I"ve been transferred to Indianapolis."

That was the pattern of my entire married life. We moved bag and baggage and kids every four or five years. I never dared to feel settled because I knew we'd pack up and move again.

Isabel could not possibly have managed to live the kind of life Larry Darrell offered her. She had been groomed to become a Society matron just like her mother. That takes more than just a steady income.

I'll end this by saying I like Elliott Templeton very much. He was intelligent and knowledgeable, charming and entertaining, and he played the Society Game very, very well.

Mal

No question about it; as I see Isabel, she knew what she wanted in her life and was not about t give it up even at the cost of loosing the man she truly loved. I don’t see this as being selfish on her part. She simply was not made to be a part of the life Larry wanted. Likewise I don't see Larry as being selfish either. Again Isabel's lifestyle was not for him. Simply the couple like countless others had discovered they were not meant for one another and very sensibly broke up.

Isn’t it most unfortunate that in this case circumstance kept throwing them back in contact with each other? Wouldn't they have been better apart physically as they were emotionally?

Good morning!

Late to the table, but finally caught up with the reading of the novel (?) and all of your posts! Thank you so much for clarifying and answering so many of the questions that occurred to me as I was reading - the First Families of Virginia, American aristocracy, the philosopy of John Ruysbroek...

I have a few questions and comments - which hopefully won't interfere with the flow of the lively discussion here today...

First a question - Maugham tells us on the the first pages of the man he is writing about - "the peculiar strength and sweetness of his character may have an everlasting influence over his fellow man...so that long after his death perhaps it may be realized there lived in this age a very remarkable creature." At first I thought he was writing about Elliott...who is in many ways, remarkable, but sweet? I later saw it was Larry.

I'm afraid I don't see Elliott as caring about anyone other than himself. But is there a person alive who cares about no one? Maugham doubts Elliot could have a friend, his only interest in people is social position. His family - Louisa and Isabel, does he care about them? He doesn't want them to embarrass him...wants them to "be a credit" to him. I don't see caring.

I love the ironies and the contradictions - have begun keeping a list. Larry is described as having "a grave face, tanned (but little color)... Can one ever learn to speak as the natives do? He says no, but then there's Elliot speaking flawless French and English as the English do. Elliot complains that Americans give letters of introduction indiscriminately, but that's how he got his own start. He became a "zealous" Catholic, but it was more like joining an "exclusive club". Zealous? Then there's Larry's disinclinatin to "work"...what is Elliott's profession?

Someone here asked about favorite characters...right now I like Louisa. When she said to him, " you're ridiculous, Elliot" - you probably heard me cheering! (I don't believe that she ever let that designer get his hands on her house either.) Eloise, your definition of "une femme du monde" - a woman of the world, a woman who has seen the world = hence a sophisticated woman." Can you stretch it to include our Louisa? She's so shrewd. She keeps her thoughts to herself. To me, that's sophisticated. (There is the little matter of assuming the SM has met the Queen, but I forgive her that.) I like Louisa...and from the little I've seen of Sophie in these two sections, I'm liking her too.

One quick personal note - I think the the Blackstone in Chicago (where Maugham stayed and Larry read William James for 10 hours) is the grand old hotel SeniorNet Bookies were booked to stay when we hit Chicago several years ago, remember that, Ella? When we got there it had just been closed down for building violations. Today it has been converted into condominiums. After we were rebooked into a neighboring hotel, we all went over and looked in at the magnificent lobby that was almost ours.

I don't believe Isabel was so much "in love" with Larry, although I do believe she was very fond of him & may have told herself she was in love. I think she remained interested because he was always somewhat distant and elusive and not ready to do her bidding. He was free of her infuence and that is what kept her intrigued although she is not a person to analyze or second guess her motivations and actions so I doubt if she wrestled with those questions or cared.

She was pursued by many and enjoyed Gray's devotion & admiration after marrying him but Larry was still the romantic & physically exciting figure in her life to the point where she eventually manipulates Sophie, such a mean spirited act, in the initial stages of Sophie trying to overcome her addictions.

I haven't seen the film although I've added it to my netflix queue. From reading the comments here it does sound as if the film and the book are two different stories with different motivations and insights into a different set of characters. Could make for a confusing discussion.

Yes, she was willing to give him up, Harold and yes, it was probably the best decision at the time. Gattomeyoo, I see that you are describing her "love" as romantic physical attraction Isn't that what love is to most 19 year olds? She feels none of this for her other admirers. To me, the real problem was that she didn't believe that Larry loved her - enough. Otherwise it would have been an easy decision to make. She's been coached by Elliott...and her mother to judge his love for her by whether or not he'll come home and sell bonds for her. Clearly she "loves" him or as Barbara says or she'd never have considered tricking him into fathering a child.

This seems to me a love that she will not get over in the future. I think it was the only decision for the two to make. I see Larry as "wooden" in all this...smiling, friendly, but unscrutable as to his feelings.

HAROLD, would you or ÉLOïSE please answer the question I asked last night?

My ancient paperback of this book has chapters rather than parts, and I am anxious to know whether the content is the same (which I would certainly take for granted).

Our assignment for the past week was to read and comment on Parts One and Two , and I'd like to know whether your "part two" ends the same way my "chapter two" does.

Also, is there an assignment for this week?

Some participants have commented here on information apparently gleaned from the 1984 movie on information that has NOT been disclosed in Parts one and two of the book. I find that not only confusing but discouraging for those who (literally) "go by the book".

Just one example: The fact that Larry decided to do manual work in a coal mine emerges in (my) Chapter Three, NOT before. The 1984 movie apparently presented vital information differently, earlier, but how helpful is such premature disclosure to those reading the book ? Isn't the "giving away" of such disclosure too early something we strive so mightily to avoid?

Oh, TRAUDE, can't you please, just once, let something I post slide off your back? I said "If he wanted to mine coal, he did it." I didn't say anything specific or even say that was what happened. In the 1984 movie Larry has a job selling fish. I didn't mention that, did I?

Now, let's take the gloves off and be friends. Life's too short to quibble over every little thing.

Said with sincere fondness,

Mal

I just had a phone call. My elder son, Robert, died this morning in Florida.

Mal

I am just in between two courses so sorry to have to be brief.

Mal, I offer you my deepest sympathy at the loss of your son Robert. It must be a terrible shock to you and we are all friends here who feel each other's pain. I feel sad at that news.

Éloïse

When someone mentions either version of the movie, it is difficult for me to understand what we are talking about because I have not seen them yet. But this is not a class, we are just pleasantly exchanging ideas like if we were in someone's living room. It's even better, because nobody interrupts you when you are talking. I don't know how to react either sometimes, so I would just smile and say nothing.

Traude, Part one finishes in the same place as Chapter one in your book. I don't know how many editions there. On Thursday there will be other questions for Part 3 and 4. Anything you want to post about the first two parts will be welcome. Thank you for your interest your posts are so interesting.

Joan P. Welcome my friend.

I will be back this evening.

Éloïse

MAL, I just read the news.

I am so very, very sorry - and thinking of you.

Mal, I'm so sorry for your loss. Stay close to us.

Class War:

I see this book as a class war between those who had "Old" money and those who had "No" money or merely a little money. This story can also be a clash between the Old and the Modern world. Modern meaning the world of the 1920s.

Society expected "old" money to live up to what was thought the "proper" way to do things and it took a lot of money to do so. They also were expected to give generously to the poor and to have certain "projects". I see Larry only as Isabel's "project." I see very little "love" between them. Even Elliott Templeton considered Larry a "project."

But Larry represented another group all together. A group that put "fear" into the hearts of people with "old money". He had enough money to live on, if not up to Elliott's or Isabel's standards, at least the way he wanted to live. To him the bugs and rats were just part of the world around him and he lived in harmony with them. He also practiced "free will". He wasn't bound to anyone - not even to himself.

Society especially those with "old" money could not pressure the Larrys of the world to work as "drab" little clerks anymore - forgotten in some dingy office. These people were beginning to make their own society - their own rules. They were beginning to move to the beat of a different drum.

Taken from: Mrs Whaley and Her Charleston Garden.

A great start. What does it matter, as Eloise says, where the fun of posting originates, from the book or from either movie. It's something to be taken into consideration when, for example, Harold tells us that Clifton Webb's Elliott Templeton has remained with him for 60 years. I took a disliking to that character. Denholm Elliott's Elliot Templeton is much closer to the mark. In the book he is something else again. We wouldn't want to exclude the moviegoers from this entertaining discussion, would we?

Everybody has advice for Larry (the budding Taoist, via Ruysbroeck, Meister Eckhart, et al mystics) In his Chicago milieu all kinds of helping hands reach out to help him get reintegrated into upper class Chicago's version of the American Dream. Or, if he prefers, into the fringes of aristocratic Europe.

The well-meant intentions of his guardian. A splendid job offer from Mr Maturin. Wise counselling from from sophisticated Elliott Templeton. A chance at splendid matrimony with a lovely, intelligent woman eager to make it a beautiful life for both of them.

And he turns away from it all, until finally Elliott has to exclaim that Larry 'will never amount to very much.' (p28, I am a slow reader)

Larry's case very naturally begins to intrigue the narrator, to the extent that years later he felt compelled to tell Larry's story. Something seems to strike a familiar chord in Mr Maugham. (Actually, the original for Larry was a taxi driver in NYC, with whom SM once spent 20 minutes as a fare). Very quickly the two become confidential with each other. Maugham is a willing listener. And just as willing to offer Larry the benefit of his own hard-won experience. Go back to college he advises Larry, in I:7,p31.

'I never went to Cambridge as my brothers did. I had the chance, but I refused it. I wanted to get out into the world. I've always regretted it. I think it would have saved me a lot of mistakes. You learn more quickly under the guidance of experienced teachers. You wast a lot of time going down blind alleys if you have no one to lead you.'

Doesn't that sound sympathetic and understanding?

And then that telling bit of dialogue:

L: 'You may be right. I don't mind if I make mistakes. It may be that in one of the blind alleys I may find something to my purpose.'

'What is your purpose?'

'That's just it, I don't quite know it yet.'

Barbara, it seems to me, has him falling of a cliff. off the sharp edge. Or is he taking the leap into the unknown? Strawberries and life-saving twigs, huh? On the advice of the guru? Let's make another movie.

Jonathan, very mindful of the tragedy that has overtaken you, Mal.

I'm confused and it isn't the first time. Are we not to read ahead? Whoops. It becomes difficult to discuss characters on the basis of a few chapters after we have read the entire book and have a clearer sense of who they are, or at least who we think they are. I'm sorry if I missed the explanation of the process.

Is this common in seniornet book discussions--that is, read the book in parts and discuss that part before moving on. Just wondering and thank you.

Scrawler, how right you are about "old money" meaning anything that has been in a family for at least 3 generations. So you would consider Elliott and family 'old money'? and Larry, who was born into 'old money' rejected it as too materialistic for him? Is that what you mean?

Johathan, I don't know if you can call "never amounting to very much" someone who is compelled to seek other things than strutting your stuff in the rich and famous circles.

Thank you for saying that we have is a classy heading. It is just right for the classy participants in this discussion.

Dear Mal, I am so very sad when I think of your loss. We are here for you.

I know someone who has no cash, writes books on archaeology and sits on a piece of land worth millions of dollars and yet he refuses to sell it. He is an expat Canadian by the way. He lives his life away on digs and at his PC writing. His obsession is with Archaeology and not money. Money means nothing to him as long as he can eat and pay the land taxes. I find his situation puzzling but do not condemn him for it. He is truly happy.

Carolyn

Malryn, I am very sorry to hear of the death of your son.

Please accept my sympathy in your great loss.

ginny

Oh Mal, I am so sorry. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Mal, I've just come by to offer my sympathy. I'm so sorry to hear about your son. God Bless, prayers for you for what you are going through.

Eloise, I don't believe Larry had much 'old money'. The $3,000 a year was pretty much it. The doctor took him in when his father died because Larry had no other place to go, but I don't think he was considered as part of the doctor's money.

One thing you have to admire about Larry is that whatever he did, he did to the best of his ability. He didn't really loaf, as someone else pointed out. He studied 10-16 hours a day and read all the great philosophers, religious writers, great literature, etc. If he took a menial job, he embraced it and enjoyed it. That always intrigues me, the striving to do the best at whatever you do. I remember a story a famous black man told (I can't remember now who is was, it could have been George Washington Carver) about his mother teaching him to iron his shirts. She taught the skill to him like it was a profession, and she made him practice day in and day out. It took him months to pass her inspections, but for the rest of his life he was able to effortlessly provide himself with perfect linens - and he enjoyed the action of doing a job the best it could be done. I think about that from time to time, and somehow it reminds me of Larry.

Larry: That man you described reminds me of Booker T. Washington. Marni

Mal I am so sorry for the loss of your son Robert. Know that my thoughts are with you.

Dear Mal,

I am very sorry to hear the news about your son. All my regards to you and your family.

Mal we are all so sorry to hear the news of your son’s death.

Eloise and I wish to announce that this discussion board will observe 24 hours of silence in respect for our discussion associate, Mal, following the death of her son. About 5:00 PM Eastern time today the board will be made read only with restoration coming 24 hours later about 5:00 PM on Wednesday.

Today the board is open for posts until the 5:00 PM hour. Please return tomorrow after 5:00 PM to continue our Razor’s Edge discussion.

Good morning. I came in to thank you all for your kindness and support, and to tell you I think we should move along and continue this fascinating discussion.

Now I have read HAROLD's post, and I don't know what to say. If the 24 hours of silence is for me and my family, please don't do it. I'm of the firm belief that life goes on through fire, flood, war and unexpected tragedy. I very much appreciate your respect, but truly it is better for me to know you are all here talking about this remarkable book and popping my head in once in awhile to see what's going on, than it is to knock at the door and find nobody here.

Thank you all.

Mal

Mal I have tears in my eyes at what you just said. But if this is you wish I can only respect it and continue on. Thank you for being a staunch supporter of Books discussions in spite of your sorrow.

Éloïse

Mal we most certainly respect your wish. I somehow had the feeling maybe I was in water a bit over my head, but of course we were all touched by the sad news of yesterday. Mal you have my deepest respect and admiration.

I have my volunteer work this afternoon at the National Historical Park, but will back this evening. Everyone else the board will remain open; please continue the discussion.

Scamper what I really meant is that Larry came from a very respectable family as Elliott was mentioning, but no, he didn't personally have more than a blue collar worker's income which would certainly not suit Isabel who was used to living in luxury.

Carolyn, there are some hermits who just love the complete solitude. If they can eat and have a roof over their head and pursue their dream, they are happy. Larry though was a social person and needed company.

Isn't WSM smart though. He leads us to think that Larry was a loafer, at least when we think of loafing it means being lazy, which Larry was not. But if Maugham had said that he was an intellectual, a thinker, a student, the story would not have taken the same path.

Mrs. Bradley. Elliott and Isabel would/might have thought something other than "Larry will never amount to anything". But no, Maugham lead us on to another tac. He made us believe also that Larry loved to do nothing. At least that is what Larry says all the time to Isabel and we also fall into the trap. We see Larry spend 10 hours in the same armchair reading the same book about what? Philosophy or something.

Is WSM doing it on purpose? is he leading us to believe one thing to just make us continue reading to see what will happen to loafing Larry as he will prove to be anything but.

Éloïse

As Jonathan says in post #229: 'I never went to Cambridge as my brothers did. I had the chance, but I refused it. I wanted out into the world. I've always regretted it. I think it would have saved me a lot of mistakes and learn more quickly under the guidance of experienced teachers. You waste a lot of time going down blind alleys if you have no one to lead you.'

I'd have to go along with Larry on this one. Up to a certain point I think we all need guidence from teachers, and parents but at sometime you have to begin "your journey". I've often said that it is the "journey" that is important not necessarily what you find at the end of your journey. Personally, I don't think anyone would waste their time going down blind alleys and I certainly wouldn't want to learn "quickly." [Note: I notice now that more and more of our schools are teaching their students so that they pass exams rather than teaching them knowledge that will help them to live. I know this is off the discussion, but I would be interested in your comments about this.]

"...I don't mind if I make mistakes. It may be that in one of the blind alleys I may find something to my purpose. 'What is your purpose? 'That's just it, I don't know it yet."

This dialogue is very important. So many of us are taught very early on to be afraid of making mistakes. But, I for one, learn more by my mistakes than from anything else. Of course, there are some of us who you would rather not have make mistakes - like a brain surgeon - for example, but for most of us making mistakes is part of the journey. Sometimes people are so afraid to make mistakes that they tend to make them because of the state of fear that they are in. Once we tell ourselves that "mistakes" not only can be corrected, but we can usually learn from our mistakes we can relax and enjoy life to the fullest. I believe this is what Larry was talking about when he said that: "I don't mind if I make mistakes."

And then Larry goes on to say: "It may be that in one of the blind alleys I may find somethig to my purpose." 'What's is your purpose?' 'That's just it, I don't know it yet.'

Does it really matter what our purpose in life is? Once again I believe the journey toward that purpose is more important than finding our "purpose" in life. Sometimes people put so much emphasis on finding the "purpose" in life that they forget to "live" their life. I always believe that each of us can do one thing well and it doesn't matter what that one thing is as long we are satisfied with it. Some people spend their whole lives trying to find the "purpose" of their lives and in the end discover nothing while others are satisfied in just living their lives to the fullest.

We see Larry on a quest to find out his "purpose" in life, but we also see him "living" his life as he goes down those blind alleys. I think Maughum was giving us an important message here.

Eloise, I believe that Larry, himself, wasn't from old money. I think he just didn't want to become a part of "old money" by marrying Isabel. I believe he was trying to live in harmony with the natural beauty that surrounded him rather than surrounding himself with beautiful "things".

Has anyone yet read a Somerset Maugham book where there is a happy ending to a love affair? The ones I have read so far never have a happy ending. They also tend to put the blame on the woman for the failure of the relationship. Has anyone else noted this?

Carolyn

Mal, I haven't looked in for a day or two because I have been busy attending to other matters. But I do extend my deepest sympathy to you on the death of your son. The death of an offspring is always so tragic and difficult for a parent to bear.

Bill H

Scrawler: You asked for comments re "...our schools are teaching their students so that they pass exams rather than teaching them knowledge that will help them to live."

What ARE our schools teaching students then? I think that's the important question. I do think exams should test one's knowledge of the course's subject matter. Is the course subject matter relevant? Are the exam question appropriate?

I know many believe there shouldn't be any exams. Many schools dropped exams and grades in the 70's. Now we've had somewhat of a backlash. Some want to prove that educators are earning their keep - keep the town budgets down. Our graduates are being compared to those of other countries. Many feel America is being left behind in the area of educating children and producing generations that can compete in the global workplace.

"Knowledge that will help them live"...This can mean a number of things. Living can be earning money, providing for a family, creating something for the good of mankind, enjoying life, helping others....What do you mean my "live"? Marni

I can't help but feel that Elliot's zeal for recognition in societie was the reason he converted Catholicism. This opened doors that were otherwise closed. However, Templeton did show a devotion to the faith and this earned him an appointment as Papal Chamberlain.. This is not to be construed as the personal Chamberlain to the Pope. From what I understand, this man is hand picked from amongst the clergy of the Vatican, and is fully versed in that cities traditions and rituals. I found this doing a web search.
" The Chamberlains were of three classes: the first numbered only four, and in 1898 two were Romans, one was a German, and one a Belgian; the second class included all the others regularly active at the court; members of the third class were honorary appointees including many important and titled men from all over Europe, who often served temporarily while in Rome.
The active Chamberlains wore uniforms of black velvet, with plumed hats or bonnets of the same material; around the neck was worn a white ruff; a staff of office was carried. The Chamberlains were attendants of the Pope; they escorted visitors, and served as ushers at formal ceremonies. They formed part of the pageantry at the Vatican, along with the Noble Guards, the Swiss Guards, and the ecclesiastics who had special duties at the court. "The lay element, was completely separated from the ecclesiastics, who were in the majority, were of superior importance and held themselves aloof behind barriers of etiquette and formal politeness, than which nothing is more effectual."
I presume Elliot Templeton numbered among the third class in this group.

Bill H

I've been thinking of Carolyn's question about men blaming women for failed relationships. I don't see that yet, but haven't read the whole book yet. I keep going back to Elliott - and his role in this story. There are no women in his life, are there? Isn't this odd? Wouldn't you think that he would have married - if only for social status or old money? So many unanswered questions about Elliott - he doesn't seem a real human being to me. Larry does - I've known Larrys. I would have married Larry if he'd asked me. What a life that would have been. My Larry didn't ask me along on his quest though. I thought it strange that this Larry asked Isabel. Do you think he knew her answer would be "no" - or do you think he really expected her to accept the kind of life he was offering her?

But, back to Elliott. What is his role in Maugham's story? Is he a catalyst? But no one seems to take him seriously. Is he the author's connection to Larry, without whom there would be no story?

I think I'm seeing him more in a symbolic role, representing everything shallow and materialistic that Larry is rejecting. Representing the old world, old values that are no longer significant in the changing world.

Larry hopes to find there is more to life than what Elliott considers important. And what of Louisa, Elliott's sister? She sees her brother as "ridiculous". "I am very satisfied with myself as I am," she tells him when he tries to change her. Eloise, more French for you...Louisa tells Elliott:
"Tous les gouts sont dans la nature."
Will you translate this and tell what it meant to you when you read it? Literally, it seems to me to be saying there are all tastes in nature...it takes all kinds? Louisa seems to want to live and let live, unlike her brother. She would have been a good Mother in Law to Larry, I think.

So, what do you think? What's Elliott's role in the story? Is his role necessary to the story?

JOAN, the phrase cannot be translated literally.

It means "to each his own", which is often expressed in French as "chacun à son goût". ÉLOÏSE, may we have your thoughts, please.

It is no secret that Maugham was homosexual. Possibly, so was Elliott. Is that of any consequence in the story, though?

Elliott had talent, ambition, goals - all of which he achieved- splendidly. He was no doubt self-absorbed, but he also took a proprietary interest in his sister's family in minute dfetail. His extraordinary generosity, yet to be revealed, will surprise those who now look at him as merely selfish.

Joan, translation is always an approximation of meaning, but "chacun à son goût" "To each his own" is good where Louisa was politely disagreeing with her brother on that occasion. I like your post about Elliott. Homosexuality came into my mind about him, but they were still in the closet at that time.

Elliott entertained lavishly, it is hard to imagine that he could have been a perfect host without a woman at his side. His sister then was given a female role in the story to appeal to women readers perhaps.

Elliott with his friend the author had a pivotal role in several areas. He stood between the young people and the older generation, and as he was at his peak between the two wars, he was a perfect representative of the Roaring Twenties. He was an example of where money stands between two lovers as he didn't approve of Isabel's love for Larry only because he was not rich enough for his niece as she would have married below her station.

Are we ready for surprises? Have we said everything about the first two parts? If I had only read those two parts, I would have missed a lot of things because tomorrow when we embark on a totally different story we will notice a substantial change in the tone of the book.

Éloïse

The summum of luxury in a 5 Star Hotel

Watch the slide show and walk through to admire the decor, the art, the rooms with a view of downtown London. Wouldn't you feel like Elliott if such was your lifestyle?

Éloïse

Here is a LINK where you can browse around to look at outstanding luxury in home decor.

Elliott's family life was spent in these surroundings and we can easily imagine them having a cup of tea sitting on such a chair and talking about why Isabel should not marry Larry.

I think Elliott's house would have looked more like this Louis XV dining room.

Dining room

LETS PRETEND IT'S OURS and we are commenting on the fine art demonstrated in it. Notice the design entirely made out of different kinds of wood of different colors and inlaid to represent a scene in nature.

Elliott was in the antique business as we would call it here. He bought fine pieces in order to sell them and explained it's disappearance from his house saying something like: "We Americans like change, and I was tired of it"

Éloïse

LA ROCHEFOUCAULD

Scrolling down, I saw two interesting quotes by him: "Our virtues are most frequently but vices in disguise." and another one: "The intellect is always fooled by the heart" I think I should read La Rochefoucault a little. I wonder why Elliott read him, was it because it was the 'in' thing to do? No, I rather expect that he was an extremely intelligent man and he put his brilliant mind to what he desired most to be in life, an aristocrat.

Éloïse

One reads La Rochefoucauld to become worldly wise, as Elliott tells the narrator on p19. He's very proud of his knowledge of human nature, or at least the nature of that high society that he wants to be part of. He is very sophisticated in his knowledge of human behavior, the hidden, selfish motives of his crowd. They all read their Rochefoucaulds.

Just as they read their Who's Who. Or, as in Elliott's case when he arrived in Chicago, the Dictionary of National Biography. To find out who these Maturins are, their background. They're OK in his book:

Maturin: '...a good old Irish name. They've had a bishop in the family, and a dramatist and several distinguished soldiers and scholars.' p31

The narrator doesn't feel it's his business to correct poor Elliott. As Maugham has already heard from Sophie at the dinner table, Gray Maturin's grandfather and grandmother were:

'shanty Irishman and Swedish waitress.

Not half so funny as what Elliott eventually becomes when he creates an exciting past for himself. Joan asks what role Elliott plays in the novel. My answer would be that he simply plays himself. Maugham must have had fun creating him. All the characters play themselves, pattern their lives a la Rochefoucauld. RE is Maugham's little mini human comedy.

Saul Bellow has died. He and Maugham would make a good comparison, imo. In the same league.

Maugham's persistent themes of misery, loneliness, alienation, loss of religious faith, and self-doubt all appear in his novels and this is true also with "The Razor's Edge". I see Elliott Templeton in his own sort of "bondage". He is bound by what his aristocratical society demands of him.

Since the death of his sister's husband, he is the only male who has taken over the duties of caring for his sister's family. Throughout the book, Elliott Templeton is seen as being concerned with what happens not only with his sister's financial situation, but also finding the "proper" husband for Isabel. Isabel's brothers are grown men themselves and don't really concern Templeton.

His focus is in caring for the women of the family. He sees this as a duty that he is almost forced to perform at the expense of missing out on "the season" in Europe. And the women, both Isabel and her mother, ignore Templeton's "good" advice and turn around and do what they want.

As far as Templeton's conversion to Catholicism, I see this as his way of assuring himself a place in heaven, much the same way the aristrocrats used to do in medieval times. By giving large amounts to the Church he assures himself of his proper place. I thought it was ironic that it was the Church that adviced him about the "stocks" before the 1929 crash.

Elliott is an observer of the obvious. He first describes Sophie as a drab girl who probably grew up among adults. Isabel may be chunky if she isn't careful. He notes that Gray Maturin will be worth 25 million when Henry dies. Moreover, Isabel is better off without Larry since he won't amount to much. Elliott fared well during the crash since he listened to his "friends in high places." (He really should be jailed for insider trading.)

I get the impression that women are to be viewed in this novel. Suzanne Rouvier is a model who goes from artist to artist to earn a living. She isn't loafing, for she is supporting a child. Her vagabond life is a parallel to Larry's. Isabel's figure is more attractive after she and Gray plunge into financial insecurity.

I thought that Maugham was clever about the use of a chair for two different scenes. Larry sits in a chair for hours as he reads William James. Gray rests in a chair surrounded by books while he tries to bear one of his migraines (which is no laughing matter). Both could be viewed as sitting around doing nothing.

Although she married Gray, Isabel still longs for Larry. She keeps an ideal of him by convincing herself that he is a virgin. Larry is somewhat of a saint. Yet "saintliness" is what Larry observed when he was in India.

It occurred to me that (with the possible exception of Isabel - I never did figure out if they made love) most of his life Larry only had sex when he must do so not to hurt another person's feelings. Did any of you have that thought? There was the farmer's widow - he didn't resist, but he left the next morning. That seemed to be the situation with Suzanne, too. It was their need he was supporting, not his. Is this part of his saintliness? I think so.

Back to the Bill Murray movie: Isabel and he definitely had sex - they show her waking up in his rat-infested flat, her seeing a big roach on the pillow. Larry also reacted violently to her going home - he went to Elliot's, found her gone, and kicked to pieces a stool. I never saw that much emotion out of Larry in the book. I didn't particularly think these scenes supported the book the way it way written.

All of a sudden, Larry is 'working'. Funny how Maugham changes the tone of the story. From the first page of Part 3 we read: "I (Larry to Maugham) thought I deeded a rest from books then," he said, "I'd been working from eight to ten hours a day for two year. I thought it would do me good to spend a few months in manual labor. I had a notion it would give me an opportunity to sort my thoughts and come to terms with myself. Why did he keep it a secret from Isabel that he had been 'working' and not 'loafing'?

Do you think that Larry's contact with Kosti, a pseudo coal mine worker, can have a substantial influence on Larry? Why?

Éloïse

Bill I surely agree with your comment the other day linking Ellliott’s decision to convert to the Catholic faith to his desire to open doors to new aristocratic social contacts. I think he made a good choice under his circumstances since it certainly opened doors for him even to the extent of providing him his own claim to a prestigious feudal title. It is interesting to see that Elliott was able to make himself known at the very highest level in the Vatican.

In places Elliott’s attitude toward his title is quite comical as when he tells Maugham that his holiness had seen fit to restore his supposed ancient family title. He said he consider it inappropriate for a republican American gentleman to be addressed by the title, Never-the-less he still ordered his underwear, dressing gowns and bed linen embroidered with the Count’s crown. I remember from the 1946 movie how ludicrous the appeared in as scene in his underwear, The crown Cleary visible on his shorts.

I am not surprised at how so many of you are somehow real seem to have formed a favorable impression of Elliott. This of course is my opinion too even though as I have said, I could never be a close friend of Elliott. Do you supposed that our favorable opinion of him stems from the whiff of comic relief his clearances provide?

I am sure that Mal is right in suggesting that Elliott's Paris and his house on the Riviera were appropriately furnished in a grand style. At first reading I was surprised that the price was not greater than the $9,000 total. Considering all the detailed finishing work involved it seems cheap. I noticed that half of the price is in the China Cabinet. Obviously it would cost a good deal more than$9,000 since that covers the listed pieces that does not include the carpet, the flower stands or the table by the window in the background.

HAROLD, the Louis XV furniture on the page I linked is all reproductions. Original pieces like that would cost a fortune.

Mal

The saint is sorely tried at Zwingenberg.

Larry seems like such an innocent. It was this unsuspecting innocence that stopped Isabel in her tracks when she thought of seducing him:

'I looked into his eyes. They were so trusting, so honest, so - so guileless; he so obviously hadn't the smallest idea that I was laying a trap for him; I felt I couldn't play him such a dirty trick. It was like taking candy off a child.' p94

Her pity or her pride would not let Isabel take advantage of him.

The German hausfrau at Zwingenberg had no such moral compunction when she came to Larry at night, and threw herself at him. And Larry submitted. Unlike Joseph, who fled from Pharaoh's daughter under similiar circumstances, Larry passively endured being ravished, until Ellie had assuaged her lust, before, as he puts it:

'I lit a cigarette and thought the position over and the more I thought of it the less I liked it. It seemed to me the best thing I could do was to get out.' p114

And so it turns out, the Razor's Edge is a bildingsroman. The education of Larry Darrell. The seduction shouldn't have come as any surprise. After all, only a few pages before we find him reading Princesse de Cleve, the story of great passions at the French court of Henry II, in the 16th century. Also a manual of courtly behaviour. The author, we will remember was Madame de Lafayette, who carried on a wonderful liason with La Rochefoucauld, for many years. They were a very celebrated pair.

Princesse de Cleve is a great literary landmark for the French. Read this if you want to get a picture of courtly life. Strange that Larry should be reading this, while Elliott is reading that melancholy Rochefoucauld.

One gets the flavor of the book with the first paragraph:

'Grandeur and gallantry never appeared with more lustre in France, than in the last years of Henry the Second's reign. This Prince was amorous and handsome, and though his passion for Diana of Poitiers Duchess of Valentinois was of above twenty years standing, it was not the less violent, nor did he give less distinguishing proofs of it...the Queen (Catherine de Medici) seemed to bear with perfect ease the King's passion for the Duchesss of Valentinois, nor did she express the least jealousy of it; but she was so skilful a dissembler, that it was hard to judge her real sentiments.'

Then follow a page or two of what makes a man attractive at court. This seems like strange reading for someone looking for a deeper meaning in life. Meeting Kosti and being set on the right path seems very fortuitous.

I've learned some things about coal mining from two writers in WREX. Gladys Barry, 87 years old, grew up in England as the daughter of a coal miner. Another WREX writer worked as a coal miner in England. The work is terribly hard, and often the workers are migrants and the job is transitory. The closeness and camaraderie among these coal-mining families surprised me. All I knew about coal mining before had come when my husband and I went to horse races in Lexington, Kentucky with the owner of coal mines. His story was quite different.

Larry Darrell's exposure to Kosti was his first experience with the idea that "evil is as direct a manifestation of the divine as good." This is a kind of Yin Yang idea found in Eastern philosophies, similar to the attraction of opposites in Physics.

Somerset Maugham has a sly wit, which he uses to demonstrate his points. I thought the mistaken identity scene when Larry found himself making love to Ellie and not Mrs. Becker was one of the funniest in the book.

"Things are seldom what they seem,
Skim milk masquerades as cream."

~W. S. Gilbert
H. M. S. Pinafore

One thing that is difficult for us in our conduct to this discussion is keeping our posts confined to the current schedule. I noticed a tendency for subjects on the schedule for later weeks have appeared in our first weeks posts. I suppose it is almost a necessity that reference to developments revealed in the later chapters comes up, but I suppose it would be best to concentrate on the current schedule as much as possible.

As we read this book, the story unfolds to us just as it is unfolded to Maugham, the Narrator. In other words Maugham tells us the story just as he received the story from the principal characters.

As it happens key parts of the story unfolds slowly and we get the information as Maugham received it. This is particularly true regarding Larry. While we get a good picture of his past growing up in Illinois and his participation in WW I, we don’t really get much information about what he is doing in the early part of story. We know of course of the baggage he is carrying from the War, we know of his apparent relation with Isabel, we know he is reading philosophy and psychology in search of an understanding of basic questions relative to the human predicament , we know he is reluctant to give his address, but we don’t get detail of his experiences until Larry is ready to relate them to Maugham after which Maugham relates them to us. As a result during parts 2 & 3 that we are now beginning, when Larry returns from India we don’t really know what he did or what he learned from the experience.

Though Larry is tight lipped he does by his action begin to reveal some of the things he learned from his trip. Principally this was his curing Gray’s migraine using hypnosis. For more details of Larry’s experience in India we have to wait until a later chapter (next week) when larry gets around to telling Maugham and Maugham passes it on to us.

Regarding Larry and sex, I can agree pretty well with the view expressed by Scamper in messaged #263. His saintly character left little room for aggressive sex. In the first instance Larry wasn’t even sure if it was the Farmers wife, Fra Becker or Ellie the young servant girl , a German war widow, As I remember it, it turned out to be Ellie to Larry’s great relief since he feared an angry reaction if Farmer Becker caught him in bed with his wife.

Regarding Sex between Larry and Isabel during these years, the story makes it clear that it simply did not happen. I would judge Scampers information regarding the contrary in the 1984 movie as another negative against this release. I can’t understand the Movie industry’s apparent compulsion to rewrite the stories they make from novels. In this case it seems to me the inclusion of the scene Scamper described made the story of the novel unrecognizable.

I don't think Larry Darrell was "saintly." You don't have to be saintly to look for answers to questions in order to find enlightenment and what might be perceived to be truth.

Mal

I would have to agree that I don't see Larry as being "saintly." He is simply one man on the search for genuine existence amid the conformity and commercialized values of the times.

Therefore, the scene with Larry and the farmer's wife is a part of his search for a genuine existence. As is working on the farm or working in the coal mines. To Larry reading philosophy and other subjects exercised his brain and manual labor exercied his body. To have a genuine existence you would have to not only exercise your body and brain, but also the part of a human being that is spiritual which we will see later on in the novel.

The author: Maugham himself went to India in 1938. He had wanted to write about India for some time, but he felt his fiction would lack the authority of fiction, such as Kipling's. "I have never been able to write anything unless I had a solid and ample store of information for my wits to work upon," he [Maugham] said shortly before his departure to India.

In many ways I see Maugham within the character of Larry, which is interesting considering he himself is part of the novel. Do you suppose that Maugham was searching for a "genuine existence" as well?

My goodness, so much to say.

"Bildungsroman" , Ger. = novel of education, also called "Entwicklungsroman = novel of development", a type of novel that describes the personal development of a single individual, usually from youth. (That would be our Larry.)

The definitive form is found in Goethe's "Wilhelm Meisters Lehr- und Wanderjahre", written in 1795-96.

I believe RE also qualifies as a "Gesellschaftsroman" (Gesellschaft = society; roman = novel), because Maugham shows us the entire era, the historic development and society on both sides of the ocean.

Over a lifetime Elliott has transformed himself so completely that he disdains and looks down on Louise, his own sister, because of her midwestern ways and lack of chic. But she is sensible enough to see through Elliott's veneer.

For that is what it is, veneer. Elliott has carefully climbed the social ladder without one false step, and yes, he has helped some countrymen and women along the way, while keeping a guarded distance. He has successfully impressed everyone around - with the possible exception of Louise and, definitely, the narrator.

His generous donations to the Catholic Church pave the way for his conversion and a position of importance in the bosom of the Church, representing perhaps the ultimate feather in his cap.

Maugham makes it quite clear that Elliott looks at him with a certain "hauteur" and does not consider a mere author as truly belonging in his circle. In my view Elliott is not only an (often slightly pathetic) snob but also an opportunist and ultimate egotist.

The book makes it perfectly clear that there was no sex between Isabel and Larry. When she realized that Larry would not come back with them to Chicago, she broke the engagement. As a last resort she seriously considered seducing him (the oldest trick int he book!) and prepared carefully for it, which she later confesses to our narrator. She had planned to take him upstairs with her and let "the inevitable" happen. But at the last minute she decides otherwise and pushes him out the door.

It is interesting, isn't it, that in her talk with the narrator years later Isabel wonders whether SHE should have been UNSELFISH and followed Larry to Greece and all along his uncharted path. Hmmmm That's SOME admission!

BTW, Larry's night visitor was not the farmer's wife but Ellie, the widow of the farmer's fallen son, a hero, and not really a servant. She was also much better educated than the farmer's wife, an orphan.

I don't think Larry was a saint. And I am not so sure it was God he was seeking. That was the narrator's attempted definition in a conversation with Isabel.

Kosti was, I believe, nothing more than a stepping stone on Larry's path.

About Kosti the pole who Larry met working in the French coal mine and traveled with him in Germany. As I understand the book, the true reason for Kosti's exile was not his revolutionary activities as he clamed but rather his cheating when Gambling that alienated him from his fellow Polish Army Officer associates.

As I said I have not seen the 1946 Razor's Edge film in almost 60 years, but somehow I remember the film had him as a defrocked priest. Some of you who have seen the film recently is this remembrance correct? If it is true it is another example of Hollywood being unable to follow the novel when it films popular fiction stories.

Perhaps I used the wrong word - saintly - for Larry, and I propose we call him a virtuous man. I am looking for a stronger word but haven't quite got it. If you think about it, Larry gave an incredible amount of support to those people in his life. He never lost his spiritual base - self-centered as it was - but he was kind, willing to help those in pain, and focused on people as individuals. He didn't care about material goals but rather wanted experiences to help him understand life more. How many people do we know like Larry? Not many, I would bet. It would have been a privilege to have him as a friend!

On another subject, I hope I have not been guilty of skipping ahead in the story - but I probably have. I much prefer that a reading group read an entire book and then discuss it as a whole. It is difficult (and time-consuming) to try to remember what you can and can't talk about. In fact, the only way I can do that successfully is make myself only read up to the current assignment. However, that does not always fit in with my reading schedule. Most book groups do schedule their reads by sections, so I guess that is how most prefer it. But if I had a vote, I'd vote for the whole book way!

PAMELA, you are absolutely right. The word "virtuous" fits Larry perfectly; "saintly" might have been slightly mocking in tone. Thank you for saying what you did.

As for writing and writing style: I read that Stendhal (Le Rouge et Le Noir = The Red and The Black)(1759) was accustomed to reading a page from Le Code Napoléon = the Napoleonic Code to clarify his style before be started to write. Maugham has confessed that he has used Candide or L'Optimism (1759), Voltaire's most popular philosophhical novel, as a similar touchstone.

The public library has ordered the 1946 movie for me from another branch in the system. I am looking forward to viewing it, especially Gene Tierney in the role of Isabel. I liked the actress but find the Isabel in the book curiously vacuous, with an underlying streak of meanness even.

A marriage with the idealistic Larry would never have worked. Isabel was just fine with Gray Maturin; all he ever wanted was to make a pot of money.

Aw, Traude, you are a little hard on Gray. He was conventional, but he loved Isabel and wanted to make a good life for her. He was also a true friend of Larry - even trying to get Larry a good job, which would have led to Larry's marriage to Isabel, whom Gray loved. I liked Gray and felt for him!

I wonder what there is in some people that makes them think turning away from comfort, sacrificing and a life spent in contemplation are more virtuous than having some money and material possessions and comfort are? Over and over in the Story of Civilization discussion we have found in various religions that purity and self-denial are considered the ideal to aim for, especially when it comes to sex. The less human one is the better, and the closer one comes to God. If the world practiced this, the human race would soon die out.

In spite of his millions, I don't think Gray Maturin is any less virtuous than Laurence Darrell. I also don't think Elliott Templeton is without virtue. As far as I can see, there is not really a "bad" person in the entire book. Kosti might come close, but Kosti is something of an exaggerated, peripheral joke.

No interior designer's dream, ticky-tack box of a house and new car every two years for idealistic Larry, nosiree. No designer jeans ( if there had been any ) and fat wallet for him. Larry would rather go naked carrying his begging bowl while he figured out life than fall into that trap.

This is all well and good, but does it make him a better person than anyone else? I've met people like this who are too good for their own good. I'm not too attracted to them. The sadder but wiser guy for me, thank you.

Now a word about the two movies that were based on this book. People who make movies want to make something that will sell; something that will bring an audience into a theater. If in 1984 they thought a scene with Isabel asleep in bed with Larry would do this, then it was put in. To me that scene and any other deviation from the book that's been mentioned here did not diminish the message of the book. I can't remember the 1946 version, but I'm sure that the people who made that film put in things that would attract an audience. I also feel quite certain that the 1946 version is a good deal more romantic and melodramatic than either the book or the 1984 film version are. Why? Because that's what people wanted to see and liked in those days.

Incidentally, don't kid yourself into thinking that editors and publishers don't urge writers to spice up their books in ways that will help them sell.

Mal

Mal, that's a good way to characterize the '46 movie. I agree wholeheartedly. Watching it is almost a nostalgia thing, and a remembering what we expected in movies.

But I do have to disagree with you, when you think of Kosti as an exaggerated, peripheral joke. He is a terrifying object lesson for Larry:

'...but I got the idea somehow that he'd taken on that hard, brutal labor of the mine to mortify his flesh. I thought he hated that great, uncouth body of his and wanted to torture it, and that his cheating and his bitterness and his cruelty were the revolt of his will - oh, I don't know what you'd call it - AGAINST A DEEP-ROOTED INSTINCT OF HOLINESS, AGAINST A DESIRE FOR GOD THAT TERRIFIED AND YET OBSESSED HIM.'

He is a man on the run, in the throes of spiritual anguish. Fleeing from the divine impulse, just as he fleeing his fellow men as a cheater. He is a lost man. He describes himself, in the '46 movie, if my memory serves me correctly, as an 'unfrocked priest', which is different than a 'defrocked' priest. In other words he is still a priest but hardly showing it.

As Larry describes him: 'cunning as a fox', 'cultivated', 'ill-tempered pig', 'ugly', 'uncouth', with a 'cruel, sarcastic smile. But still a nobleman. A good description of the traditional view of man. And as such a lesson to be learned for Larry. Of course Larry doesn't aim at being a saint, or even a virtuous man. It is the evil in the world that he is trying to understand. And aiming for goodness, which he would like to practice, with which to set an example for the rest of the world.

There are definitely biblical themes being played out in this story. Larry almost seems like a prodigal son in reverse. Kosti is obviously being pursued by the hound of heaven. At this stage of his spiritual development Larry is trying out the Western, judeo/christian way to wholeness, or whatever. Later the Indian version. In both cases a yearning for the mystical.

Yes, that was my reaction to the '46 movie. Very melodramatic. Poor, poor Sophie. She was almost the best of these good people.

Jonathan

JONATHAN, thank you for that thoughtful post.

I am setting out for another doctor's appointment and don't have the time to say more at this time but will try later.

The past several posts bring up some good points about Gray Maturin. We have so far relegated him to a minor character position. I think Scamper described his positions rather well. I do not recall Maugham’s giving us any positive answer to the question, Did Gray know or suspect Isabel’s continuing love for Larry? If Gray suspected it, he did not show much indication that he knew. I don’t really think he would have continued on such a friendly relationship with Larry had he suspected even if he realized Garry did nothing to further Isabel’s interests.

Thank you Jonathan for your analysis of Kosti in the 1946 movie. So what I remembered as his being an de-frocked priest was actually an un-frocked priest. I quite likely did not catch the difference when I saw the movie in 1047. I don’t recall the word, “priest” being used by Maugham at all in connection with Kosti in the book though the implication to him in the an un-frocked capacity, I think, is present.

On the question of describing Larry as saintly, in my view Larry of course was no saint, but as he lived his life, he certainly exhibited may characteristics associated with the way saints supposedly lived. Therefore I see nothing wrong with using “saintly” as a adjective describing him.

I knew I'd get in trouble when I posted what I did about Kosti. Didn't somebody here say he was a stepping stone in the education of Larry Darrell? That's how I was thinking of him.

Sorry, HAROLD. I don't think of human beings as being black or white. They are shades of gray to my eye. "Saint" and "Sinner" are extremes in my book.

Mal

Learning: Larry learns to use and test his physical abilities and endurance in hard labor of the coal mines. There he is able to work as a team mate and develops a friendship with Kosti ( a Polish Political defector).

His first appraisal of Kosti is negative based on the man's unattractive physical appearance and behavior. Later he learns that Kosti is an educated man, speaks French and German, has traveled to Paris, has met some of Elliot's guests at his parties. He also learns that in Poland Kosti was a Nobleman and a Cavalry officer and is also a devout Catholic. Kosti loves to cheat at cards Just for the fun of it.

He finds Kosti to be hauned by thoughts of Mysticism ( the belief that direct knowledge of God--spiritual truth or ultimate realit can be obtained through subjective experiences as insight). Larry is fascinated by this knowledge.

Larry travels to Germany with Kosti and begins to learn the German language from him. He learns to work on the Farm, enjoys the experience of the outdoor life after the coal mine experience.

Larry leaves the Farm, sneaking out at night , fearing retaliation from the owner of the Farm due to the unplanned sexual escapade with his daughter in law .

I believe Larry's introduction to the theory of Mysticism is the foundation for his sojourn to India.

Much has been written about the Razor's Edge and what WSM was attempting to say in his novel. The character Larry Darrel has been analyzed by the writing of many critics of Mangham's novel. WSM attempts to answer these critics in the statement that follows.
"WHO WAS LARRY DARRELL IN REAL LIFE AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM?" ...the Wanderling

"The man I am writing about is not famous. It may be that he never will be. It may be that when his life at last comes to an end he will leave no more trace of his sojourn on earth than a stone thrown into a river leaves on the surface of the water. But it may be that the way of life that he has chosen for himself and the peculiar strength and sweetness of his character may have an ever-growing influence over his fellow men so that, long after his death perhaps, it may be realized that there lived in this age a very remarkable creature." W. Somerset Maugham, THE RAZOR'S EDGE"
The preface in my edition of the novel suggests a man named Guy Hague as possibly being the model for Maugham's main character Larry Darrell. There are times I feel Maugham was seeing a little of himself in Larry Darrel.

Bill H

Mal, your comment about Kosti didn't get you into trouble. Far from it. That's just the sort of thing to get the rest of us to put on our critical thinking caps. Just look at the splendid post we got from Florry. I thought you were challengeing us. Kosti is important in Larry's spiritual journey.

Gray. Just the opposite. It would seem. But he too must represent something in WSM's moral tale.

Harold raises good questions. It does seem strange that Gray shows no jealousy. He must have known that Isabel wanted Larry. Everyone knew that. If only to prevent everyone else from getting him. Like, for example, Sophie. Gray is a very solid guy. Without too many questions about the whys and wherefores. Content to follow in his father's footsteps. To live the good life that his inheritance and his own efforts will provide. And of course he wants to be a good provider for others. Moral questions seem non-existent for him. He's content with head-ache relief.

It's always good to hear from you, Bill. The quote about 'Who was Larry Darrell' can't be repeated too often. I take it too mean that the author wants the reader to know that there is a moral to his tale. That his hero, Larry, should disappear like a stone into water, into the great cosmic oblivion, is probably not what WSM wants at all. Not if Larry really succeeds in his spiritual odyssey, and comes back to tell his countrymen about it. News from a far country, as they say.

But it may be that I am mistaken. Perhaps I'm going too far if I suggest that The Razor's Edge is a critique of America's unique, materialistic civilization.

Jonathan

Larry a saint? Being spiritual is often called being a saint, I don’t know why, perhaps it is because not everybody likes to think about spirituality. People are so different. Maugham could easily depict Isabel as a down-to-earth woman who knew what she wanted in life and just went for it. She was not an intellectual even if she was intelligent where we could think that about Larry from the start, the silent type, blending into the background in society, reading for long hours about Philosophy and Psychology.

Traude, ”His generous donations to the Catholic Church. Isn’t this like political contribution, some sort of a trade-off. I didn’t know that the Vatican had the authority to reinstate old titles.

I like Gray, he continued doing what he had learned on his father’s lap and making money was his job. He didn't seem selfish to me. He loved Isabel and his children, that was a redeeming thing about him.

Pamela, I know it is hard not to move ahead too fast, especially if we have read the book a long time ago and seen the movie, but it was organized that way because not everybody has read the book before and when we talk about what happens later on too fast, it confuses some readers who like to discover new elements as they go along and revealing too much spoils their pleasure in a way.

When I was eighteen, and I first read this book, I thought my life would be more like Larry's. But when it was all said and done it was Gray's life that I lived with a little bit of Sophie's thrown in for good measure. One of the reason's I've always loved Maugham's books is that his characters were always so believable. Gray was just such a character.

Gray was the one character in the book that I thought did his duty without complaints or wanting trappings only for himself. It may be true that he wanted money, but I think he wanted it for his family. He did everything Isabel wanted him to do. It couldn't have been easy for Gray watching Isabel "moon" over Larry. But he was patient. He was a good son, a good husband and a good father. These are things that we can all relate to. But Maugham gave Gray a disability to deal with as well. A disability which Larry was able to help him overcome. This too couldn't have been easy for Gray - aceepting Larry's help.

At the time I first read this book I was suffering from headaches similar to Gray's and it was my eastern studies that helped ease my pain through meditation - focusing on something other than the pain. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So Gray's character was much more believable to me and it was only a short step to relate to him more than I did Larry the older I got.

How many razor edges are there? Is it really proper to talk about "the razor's edge?" Might it not have been better for to Maugham say, one razor's edge among many? That is to say, I feel there is no one straight and narrow path leading to the Truth.

Bill H

Actually, what I said about Kosti in Post #268 was: "Larry Darrell's exposure to Kosti was his first experience with the idea that 'evil is as direct a manifestation of the divine as good.' This is a kind of Yin Yang idea found in Eastern philosophies, similar to the attraction of opposites in Physics."
To me Kosti had a Satyr-like quality. I wasn't sure whether to be frightened of him or to laugh at him.

Yes, JONATHAN, there is some similarity between Saul Bellow and Somerset Maugham. Bellow called himself a "historian of society." His fictional heroes - "whose scathing, unrelenting and darkly comic examination of their struggle for meaning - gave new immediacy to the American novel in the second half of the 20th Century." Maugham was something of a historian of society himself.

There are times when I have to smile, though. The rebellion against materialism in the 60's and 70's in the United States was full of people like Larry Darrell. That period in our history makes Laurence Darrell's quest in The Razor's Edge seem old.

Somerset Maugham got the title from the Katha-Upanishad verse: "The sharp edge of a razor is dfficult to pass over; thus the wise say that path to Salvation is hard." You can read more about how Maugham chose this verse for the title of this book with an explanation of the Katha-Upanishad HERE.

Mal

After Larry had finished telling Maugham of his experience with Kosti, first working in the mine, than on their trip through Germany, and their experience on the Becker farm, Maugham asked Larry if he got anything out of this experience? Larry answered only with a, “yes.” Maugham did not press for details saying only “I knew well enough by then to know that when he felt like telling you something, he did, but if he didn’t he’s turn off questions with a cool pleasantry that made it useless to insist.”

Actually Larry previously had already told Maugham enough to make known that he was much impressed with Kosti as a mentor and teacher. Previously as the two were about to quit the coal mine and go on the road through Germany Larry had already spoke of what he had learned through this association with Kosti:

“It was fantastic to hear that great hulking bum who’d been thrown out of his own world, that sardonic bitter down-and-out speaking of the ultimate reality of things and the blessedness of union with God. It was all new to me and I was confused and excited. I was like someone who had lain awake in a darkened room and suddenly a chink of light shoots through the curtains and he knows he only has to draw them and there the country will spread before him in the glory of the dawn.”

This to me seems almost enough to be called a mystical experience though Maugham doesn’t seem to think so. In any case I think this is enough to establish the importance of Kosti as Larry’s teacher a necessary prerequisite to his later successful experience in India.

Sunday morning I am making a quick trip to Dallas for my brother and sister-in-law's golden Wedding anniversary. Tomorrow I will be here in the morning and hopefully again in the evening. Then, I'll be back sometime Monday afternoon.

SM continues to make Elliot my favorite, most amusing character. He is so swelled with his own "aristocracy" that it just tickles me.

"They (Gray and Isabel) lived in a style that Elliott gladly admitted was eminently suitable; they entertained lavishly and were lavishly entertained; he told me with satisfation that Isabel and Gray hadn't dined by thenselves once in three months."

I love the way SM projects Elliot's fanaticism with money and power; the cure all and end all for him. How about this:

"

The fashionable persons who occupied the stage had no use for the elderly man that Elliot now was. They found him tiresome and ridiculous."

Poorboy! It must be difficult to be so pretentious and snobbish. And yet, he becomes irate with the young Paul Barton- "He's nothing but a dirty little snob, and if there's one thing in the world I detest and despise it's snobbishness. He'd have been nowhere except for me. "

Alf, your view of Elliott and your reasons for understanding him quite accurately reflect my own. I know I should hate the guy, but yet I cannot help liking him.

I particularly enjoyed the reason why Elliott was saved from financial disaster on black Friday, Oct 23, 1929. Would you say his generous financial support to Catholic causes like the rebuilding of a church in Italy, paid off generous dvidends?

His tip came from his Vatican sources, which he immediately acted on with a cable to Henry Maturin to sell everything. Maturin couldn't believe it, and demurred with a return cable asking for explanation. Elliott cabled again with an emphatic Sell everything demand. Elliott got out in time and later bought back at a fraction of his sales price. He was definitely the big winner.

Another one of the principals was unaffected by the crash. This of course was Larry whose meager funds were in US treasury bonds that were unaffected by the crash. And how can any reader not be amazed at Elliott’s comments regarding Paul Barton saying “if there's one thing in the world I detest and despise it's snobbishness?”

Mal, yes I thought so too that today we think of Larry’s search for meaning was something that occupied the flower generation or was that sooner than the 70’s, it’s just that our search for meaning in life changes as we get older.

Harold, The quote which starts: “It was fantastic to hear that great hulking bum…” is quite startling I found also. Personally, I wouldn’t like to be alone with a violent man like Kosti. He seemed more than just afraid of being sent to prison because of a past crime. Doesn’t his behavior remind you of someone with a mental disorder. He was such a contrast with Larry who was so gentle and kind.

Harold, have a good Golden Wedding Anniversary today.

Alf, so you find Elliott funny? I would laugh too if I ever met a man like him and would show him the worst side of me just to see his face.

I heard too that the Vatican has wind of stock market trends before others. Perhaps it is because the Vatican is full of very education men in every field of higher learning, including Economy.

Crisis Investing is a book my economist son had and it mentions that the only thing that never looses its value is gold. We all agree with that, but when the stock market keep going up and up and people get richer and richer by the minute, they hate to sell. Human nature is such that we are never satisfied, so when the stock market crashes, it’s too late to sell as it happens very quickly.

Éloïse

Drawing his title from the Katha-Upanished: "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over; thus the wise say the path to Salvation is hard." It can also be translated into: "The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to cross."

Christopher Isherwood, who had written film scripts based on Maugham's work explained that it was translated as: "you were bound to suffer when you stand or tread on the infinitestimally narrow path that can be likened to the edge of a razor."

So we can see that just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder it would seem that the translation of Katha-Upanishad is left up to the individual. So what, in your opinion, is really the key here? Isherwood says that you will suffer whether you stand or tread. Does this mean that you will suffer whatever you do? Is finding the truth the same as finding salvation?

But why must we suffer at all. Except for the fact he was troubled by how he felt about his friend giving up his own life in order to save Larry, I don't see Larry really suffering.

Larry accepts that he is uncomfortable with the shallow postwar society and goes to India and Paris in an attempt to come to peace with himself and live a life he can respect, but I don't see him as being unhappy during this time. He becomes a wandering scholar which once again doesn't imply that he was unhappy in his quest.

We've taken Elliott Templeton out of context and made him a fool. Elliott was never anybody's fool. He was the epitome of a gentleman and successfully moved in circles where few American expatriates dared to tread. The Clifton Webb character in the 1946 movie is a caricature, and I'm sure was not what Somerset Maugham had in mind.

What Maugham is showing here, I think, is that as time marched on there were changes. There wasn't the room and the space any more for the kind of gentility in which Elliott lived, and which he tried to foster. Paul Barton was a rude, young dolt and in no way a gentleman.. His kind of snobbishness was putting down people like Elliott who were absolutely sincere in what they did. I doubt if Barton would help anyone in the way Elliott Templeton helped him and so many others.

Nobody knows how the Hindu poetry in the Katha-Upanishad would be translated by a Hindu. Nobody here knows enough of the Hindu language to be able to translate the razor's edge phrase.

You start talking to me about Salvation, and I think of Sin. That leads me to Christianity and Original Sin, the religion of Maugham and Isherwood, but not the religion behind the Katha-Upanishad, which is Hinduism.
"The origins of Hinduism can be traced to the Indus Valley civilization sometime between 4000 and 2500 BCE. Though believed by many to be a polytheistic religion, the basis of Hinduism is the belief in the unity of everything. This totality is called Brahman. The purpose of life is to realize that we are part of God and by doing so we can leave this plane of existence and rejoin with God. This enlightenment can only be achieved by going through cycles of birth, life and death known as samsara. One's progress towards enlightenment is measured by his karma. This is the accumulation of all one's good and bad deeds and this determines the person's next reincarnation. Selfless acts and thoughts as well as devotion to God help one to be reborn at a higher level. Bad acts and thoughts will cause one to be born at a lower level, as a person or even an animal.

"Hindus follow a strict caste system which determines the standing of each person. The caste one is born into is the result of the karma from their previous life. Only members of the highest caste, the Brahmins, may perform the Hindu religious rituals and hold positions of authority within the temples."
It doesn't hurt to look at Hinduism right now because that's where Larry Darrell is soon going to look for enlightenment about his own life.

Mal

Mal, it's a good thing that we are not discussing the movie, but the book. WSM didn't intend to portray Elliott as a fool. I think the character he portrayed in the book existed in the 1920's.

My aunt married a French count, his title came with a manor and land in the South of France and at my grandmother insistence my aunt at 17 was strongly urged, if not coerced to marry this old man of 35 against her will, when she died she said: "Why did they make me marry this old man?". Even at the turn of the 20th century, titles were the highest echelon of French high society. Oh! well, my mother married a poor man for love.

No, Scrawler I don't think that Larry suffered from pursuing his own quest. On the contrary, he was free as a bird with just enough money not to have to work for a living, he seemed to never even think about money, Kosti and he were working for their room and board and walking to wherever they wanted to go and only renting a room at a hotel when they couldn't find work. Even sleeping in a barn on a hay stack, he loved this Bohemian life, but he wanted to be with Kosti because Kosti was his teacher.

Yes, I think that everybody suffers, no one is completely free of it, it is part of life. Do we have to suffer is something I never thought about. It is just there.

Éloïse

I'd like to go back to JONATHAN's # 285 and say, again, that the last paragraph in that post is precisely what I have been saying from the outset.

In my perception the book is critical of the singular preoccupation of Americans with money and their materialism.

There is a sheen of thinly-veiled irony right below the surface in the text, and I am absolutely amazed that some of you think Maugham is lauding, complimenting, and approving of Elliott. My goodness ! But he is NOT ! Not even Louisa takes her brother quite seriously, though he is forever trying to impress her too.

It's right there in the book in black and white. I can't cite the page because the pages in our respective editions don't match :

Elliott's carefully structured façade,

the "embroidered" Virginia background; the slow, calculated accumulation of wealth; his shrewd cultivating of anyone wealthy, titled and/or influential; the manufacture of his own alleged noble roots (?) to Bloody Mary herself; the lavish entertainment that continues after so many had been financially wiped out; his presence at the times and in the places where it "mattered" to be seen ...

and all because of an unquenchable, pathological need to impress, to dazzle, to endlessly talk about himself, to know best, always,

when he had in fact bought his way into the Catholic Church and hugely benefited (!!!) from the 1929 crash because of an insider tip from Church officials ... how familiar does that sound these days?

"His one aim in life was to improve his position in an amoral society." (from the back of my paperback)

Possibly we are paying too much attention to Elliott. I think this is because he is the type of persion that is impossible not to notice. I have said I would never seek him as a friend, yet I am somehow attracted to his spirit and the zeal with which he pursued his goals. Obviously he was a terrible snob, except of course when he himself appeared the victim of another's snobbery.

Do you suppose that the urge for social snobbery is an inherited family characteristic? Don't we see a quite a bit of Elliott in his niece Isabel? Possibly we also see it in Elliott's sister, Isabel's mother. Isabel seems to have sought social status in her way almost as much as Elliott; yet we don't seem to be as critical of her as we are of Elliott. Should we be more critical of Isabel for the same reason we are critical of Elliott?

I am off for the quick trip to North Texas. I’ll be back sometime Monday afternoon or evening.

A cinematography aside.

Thanks to PAMELA, I had the opportunity to watch the 1946 film version of The Razor's Edge tonight. My, my, have things changed.

It was wonderful to see Herbert Marshall playing Somerset Maugham, often as a voice-over narrating the story, which interrupted the flow of the film. Others in the cast were disappointing from the vantage point of this time in history.

There were inaccuracies, some of which some people might not notice. I didn't like hearing mid-30's and 40's music Costumes were not of the period, for the most part. The scenery was painted flats. So was a good deal of the acting -- flat, I mean.

I was immediately reminded of other 40's films with their pulsating, vibrating violins, violas and cellos; tympani used as build-up to a climax, and convenient thunder and lightning during dramatic moments.

The viewer is told the story, rather than being shown what it is through dialogue and action and reaction.

Most of the scenes were obviously choreographed. The director's idea of Bohemian life in Paris was regrettable. It was a little hard to tell what was Paris and what was not, and who was supposed to be American, and who was not.

Emphasis was put on Larry's distaste for the American materialism Traude mentioned. Larry's revelations in India didn't come across, and neither did his conversations with Shri Ganesha.

In my opinion, the movie didn't do the book justice.

I won't compare the two film versions, but I will say I prefer the realism of the 1984 film.

Mal

Ah! la Côte d'Azur, how enchanting it really is. When I was young I used to dream about it and I wished I could go and see why painters and artists and high society all flocked to it. It is all what they say it is, the air is pure beyond belief in spite of all the human activity. The breeze coming from the Mediterranean carries away impurities, the heat coming from Africa warms the cold air coming down from the north. In Winter the temperature seldom goes down further than 50 degrees.

So our dear Somerset Maugham bought a house on Cap Ferrat. I tell you it is heaven there and he could fraternize with his neighbors who all belonged to the same social circle. Maugham said on my page 123 ". I had risen so high in his (Elliott) good graces that sometimes he invited me to his very grandest parties. "Come as a favor to me, my dear fellow he would say. Of course I know just as well as you that royalties ruin a party. But other people like to meet them and I think ones owes it to oneself to show the poor things some attention." Underlining mine.

eeeeeeks, that is so funny I have tears in my eyes.

As for me, I wanted to see the Cöte d'Azur with my own eyes, even if I am far from being a socialite. It is beautiful beyond words. The climate, the architecture, the Mediterranean sea, the local folks, the old towns with their markets, the seaside walks.

Happy Sunday to everybody.

Éloïse

Mal,

Thanks for the review of the 1946 movie. I plan to watch it today, so far have just seen the opening scenes. I did notice of course that Maugham is in the movie just like in the book, whereas he was absent in the 1984 version.It's fun to see the movies, but not being a movie fan I will probably as usual prefer the book!

The original definition of "snob" is a boy or cobbler's boy. But through the years it has come to mean: 1) formerly, a person having no wealth or social rank; one of the common people. 2)a person who attaches great importance to wealth, social position, etc., having contempt for those whom he considers his inferiors, and admiring and seeking to associate with those whom he considers his superiors. 3) a person who feels and acts smugly superior about his particular tastes of interests (an intellectual snob).

I guess from these definitions all the characters could be called "snobs" in one way or the other. Certainly Templton, Isabel and her mother, and Gray and his family might be considered snobs because they felt contempt for their inferiors and admired those who they thought were their superior.

But what about Larry? Could we consider him as an intellectual snob? In refusing to partake in the capitalistic way of the 1920s and pursuing his own Bohemian style wouldn't he be considered an intellectional snob?

Even Sophie might be considered a snob in her own right when she feels uncomfortable being around Isabel and Gray, not to mention Templeton.

And finally what about Maugham, himself? Did he feel a certain snobbiness toward those who had more than he had. At least this is the feeling I got from the scenes of Templeton and himself.

Perhaps if we are really trueful with ourselves, there is a little bit of "snobbery" in all of us. I myself consider myself one of the common people so by definition I am a "snob".

I am now in Dallas at my nephews trying to type on his Apple laptop.

Scrawler you make a good point noting that all of the characters each in his/her own way might be considered something of a snob. In fact isn't everybody subject to the charge. A few years ago I even heard other Senniorsnetters refer to us Bookies ans snobs

Thank you Mal for the review of the 1946 Movie. Every thing I know about it is from memory now almost 60 years stale. Perhaps I will be disapointed when I see it again. This willo probably come nest week

The movie did impress me when I saw it in 1947, and I suppose it is a wonder that I remember anything. One thing for sure the explanation of the meaning of the name Razor's Edge on the marque that read "The line between love and hate is no wider than the edge of a razor." I read this waiting in line for tickets. The brain child of some Hollywood writer, it is clearly inapplicable to the story.

I love movies and watch several contemporary ones on TV every week as a break from work I do. The most recent one I saw was "Ray", based on the life of Ray Charles. It has an absolutely astounding acting job by Jamie Foxx.

To me, books and movies can't be categorized together. They are very different, separate art forms. If a movie based on a book leaves me feeling much the same as the book did when I finished reading it, that's enough for me.

Mal

What is the origin of the word 'snob'? As far as I know, at a time the great English colleges were for the sons of nobles only. Later, some other social strata sent their sons as well. In the registers a note was added to their names: s.nob., meaning 'sine nobilitate'.

"Who could say that Elliott, that arch-snob, was also the kindest, most considerate and generous of men?"
This is what the narrator says about Elliott's taking Isabel, Gray and their children into his Paris apartment. Not a moment of want or need would his niece see after her and Gray's fortunes had diminished to next to nothing.

The narrator says on Page 142, "It's obvious that want is easier to bear in a luxurious apartment in a fashionable quarter, with a competent butler and an excellent cook for free and for nothing, and when one can cover one's haggard bones with a dress by Chanel, isn't it?" Maugham and his irony and cynicism here.

The narrator runs into a complete stranger at the Café du Dome. It turns out to be Larry Darrell, back from five years in India, which included two in an ashram. Larry lost none of his money in the crash. Because he never spends any, his money has multiplied, and he has more than he's had in all of his life. Another irony, isn't it?

Larry shaves off his beard, cleans himself up and goes to see Isabel and Gray. There's talk of India and the supernatural powers westerners hear about. Larry says people don't pay attention to them "because they interfere with spiritual progress."

Later Larry helps Gray find relief from a migraine headache through what sounds like a kind of self-hypnosis achieved through suggestion. I'm a firm believer in mind over matter as far as health is concerned, so this seems very possible.

Click the link below to see a 1925 picture of the Café du Dome in Paris.

Café du Dome

It was a difficult weekend - good to get mind on other things. I thought some about the title and navigating a razor's edge. The image of a walking a tightrope on the edge of razor kept coming to mind. One slip in either direction - oouch! I admit I have trouble seeing any of the characters in this story on such a tightrope. Instead, I'm thinking more of a fine sharp line dividing the old and the new - between the ruling nobility and the new world of the Paul Bartons - who come from a "world bent on amusing itself." It's real easy to fall from one side of that line to the other - because it is so thin - razor thin. At one point, Isabel tells SM - "It tickles me that we are living quitel like rich people when really we're absolutely broke." Both classes are living precariously- divided by a razoe fine line.

Alright, I take it back - I now see more of a beating heart in Elliott where his family is concerened. Didn't see it in first two sections, but see his generosity now. Of course, he still has money. It's easy to be generous when you have money, isn't it? Still he is such an extreme s.n.o.b - (thanks Hegeso) - he seems like a caricature of the dying nobility.

Larry continues to escape me. Saintly you ask? Is "saintly" the same as "spiritual? SM speaks to Isabel of his "goodness"...are "saintliness" and "goodness" the same? Suzanne calls him an "angel of sweetness"- and he has spiritual power to cure headaches. (Actually it sounds like hypnotism. I tried in on Bruce the other night, it didn't work. I guess I need to go to India.) Good, spiritual, angelic...I think I'm going to look at Larry as "saintly" for a while longer.

He does have a strange way with women - he'll accomodate any woman who comes to his bed, though he doesn't love them as they would like.

The discussion between Isabel and SM distinguishing between love and passion - and desire and passion was important to me and helpful in understanding past relationships - but I'm not sure it explains Larry's behavior. Do you?

ps Thanks for the photograph of the Dôme, Mal. Feel like I'm there.

Hegeso, you are most welcome and thank you for joining us. You are absolutely right. I looked in Google for the origins of the word snob HERE Not that I didn't believe you, but if I want to remember something in future, that is what I do.

Harold, in any case to be called a snob is always a put down I think.

Joan P. I can visualize myself holding a six month old on my lap. Yet, I wonder if I would have the strength to hold him for very long. They wiggle so much. Still I love the feeling it gives me.

Good point about Larry just 'accomodating' women when they go to him. I guess he needed to nurture a woman and make her happy. In fact, I keep looking for some genuine love between characters in this story, Is there any?

Éloïse

Does Isabel really love Larry? When she was asked “Are you very much in love with Larry?”, she says: I’ve never loved anyone else in all my life.” Then she is asked: “Why did you marry Gray?” “I had to marry somebody. He was mad about me and Mamma wanted me to marry him….I was very fond of Gray; I’m very fond of him still.” Do you think that Isabel could be as happy with Gray as she claims to be while still in love with Larry. I wonder if Maugham really knew women. Isabel can “pretend” she loves her husband and he wouldn’t even have a clue, but usually that doesn’t work.

Does fondness for someone include love? Or are they separate things. You can be fond of your friends and it doesn’t mean that you are ‘in love’ with them. Fondness is rational where love is emotional. Is it just me or is there something here that just doesn’t jive.

Éloïse

Eloise, it seems that a definition for the word "love" is needed. Maybe the answer lies in the discussion about passion, love and desire. After reading that, I came away with the understanding that Isabel did not feel the "passion" for Gray that she would always feel for Larry...and that this passion has nothing to do with sexual desire. Does that jive? We're not talking "fondness" - we're talking real passion now.

I think Isabel was extremely adolescent, and that she thought of love the way a teenager does: very romantic and exciting; "Nobody ever felt this way before. I'll die if I can't have you" -- that sort of thing.

TRAUDE used the word, "vacuous", in reference to Isabel. I think it's a very fitting description of her.

Mal

Another example can be found in Part (Chapter) Three in the description of the house Henry Maturin bought for Isabel and Gray on Astor Street.

"... By a happy chance, in which I suspected the deft complicity of Elliott, Gregory Barbazon (the designer) was in Chicago at the time of the purchase was made and the decoration was entrusted to him. When Elliott returned to Europe and, throwing in his hand so far as the season in Paris was concerned, came straight to London, he brought photographs of the result.
Gregory Barbazon had let himself go. In the drawing-room and dining-room he had gone all George the Second and it was very grand. In the library, which was to be Gray's den, he had been inspired by a room in the Amalienburg Palace at Munich, and except that there was no place in it for books it was perfect." (emphasis mine)

In Elliott's apartment in Paris, occupied by Isabel and family after the crash, there is reference to the library to which Gray retires when he has one of his severe headaches.

"This was a little panelled roomm brown and gold, that Elliott had found in an old château. The books were protected from anyone who wanted to read them by gilt latticework, and locked up, but this was perhaps as well as they consisted for the most part of illustrated pornographic works of the eighteenth century. In their contemporary morocco, however, they made a very pretty effect." (emphasis mine)

The thought expressed in earlier posts that Maugham must have been an art lover is confirmed in the passage in Part/Chapter Four

..."I remember with a pang the shabby restaurant (in the "noisy sordid gaiety of Monmartre") were we used to foregather to dine, painters and illustrators and sculptors, I, but for Arnold Bennet on occasion, the only writer, and sit late discussing excitedly, absurdly, angrily painting and literature."

We have not mentioned the famous European watering holes with their thermal springs, of which Montecatini in Italy is but one. Times have changed, however, and they are no longer the exclusive preserve of the titled and the wealthy, to which I can personally attest.

As for withdrawing from an active life, that still happens and on occasion we hear about it.

Take the designer Gabriella Crespi, born in Milan in 1922, famous in the 1960's and beyond for her Plexiglas obelisks and for the multifunctionality of her furniture and accessory designs (Elizabeth Arden, Princess Grace and the Shah of Iran, among others, were aficionados). In New York she sold through Casa Bella and for a time at Neiman Marcus.

But then, in 1987, she abruptly stopped. She gave up her showrooms, the warehouse, the apartment in the historic Palazzo Cenci in Rome, the house on Sardinia - everything - to become the ardent follower of Shri Muniraji, an Indian guru with whom she studies for months at a stretch high in the Himalayas, seeking Satya (truth), unity and a feeling of infinity.

Traude, "In the library, which was to be Gray's den, he had been inspired by a room in the Amalienburg Palace at Munich"

I couldn't help but search the web for a Bavarian Palace. I have a hard time imagining its occupants going about the business of their daily life,

Joan P. What can you do. I guess I am a romantic. Isabel was cheating on Gray in her heart and Gray didn't mind that if he could have Isabel as a wife. Chacun à son goût. She was a formidable woman and men like that.

As usual with Maugham, at first he always describes his characters under an unfavorable light. Suzanne Rouvier didn't escape that description either, he said: "She was not beautiful, in fact she was rather ugly. She was tall for a Frenchwoman, with a short body, long legs, long arms and she held herself gawkily as though she didn't know how to cope with the length of her limbs." and he goes on to say how unattractive she was, yet she managed to have a long list of lovers in spite of that. What makes a woman attractive? Is it her figure, her personality, her mental capacity, her femininity or this 'je ne sais quoi' that attract men? You will notice that I didn't mention sex.

Éloïse

ÉLOÏSE,

The Amalienburg is known by that name and not actually a "Palast". It was designed by François Cuvilliés, built 1734-39 as a "little hunting lodge" for the Electress Amalia. A masterpiece of European Rococco architecture, it has a unique Hall of Mirrors.

The building is situated within the (vast) Nymphenburg Park.

The following link worked for me and here it is

http://www.schloesser.bayern.de/englisch/schloss/objekte/ny_amal.htm

The Amalienburg is located in the Nymphenburg Park; click the blue ref in the link for the history of Nymphenburg Park and Palace; scroll down to Amalienburg.

Suzanne Rouvier is a product of a poor French family . Beginning in her teens, she becomes an Artist's model, live in mistress. and housekeeper to a succession of stuggling painters over a number of years.

She decides to have a child with one artist she admires physically. She sends the infant to live with her mother in a small rural town and provides money for the child's care.

Later she meets a wealthy business man who admires artists and writers. He is married and offers her an apartment and a monthly income to be his mistress. She accepts and no longer has to pose for painter. She is able to support her daughter who continues to live with her grandmother.

Suzanne begins to paint and begins to gain recognition when one of her paintings is exibited in an Art Gallery.

Maugham met Suzanne when he observed her posing for an artist who is a friend of his. He dates her at "irregular intervals" and later in their friendship develops an intimate relationship with her.

Suzanne tell Maugham that she and Larry are "old friends". Larry met her when she posed for an artist he knew.

She tells SM that after a three month hospitalization for Typhoid, she met Larry on the Boulevard after discharge. She was very weak and thin and was almost destitute.

Larry invited her to take a vacation in a Country Inn with him and bring her child along as well. She accepts the invitation . They spend several weeks there and this is a time for her physical recuperation.

She describes Larry as an "Angel of Sweetness, a strange lover, sweet and affectionate". He does not seek her out sexually. She seeks his bed. She considers becoming his mistress on their return to Paris.

This does not happen. He says goodbye to her after several weeks at the Inn and leaves her money for a financial start in Paris.

Here is a woman that is very sensual in her realtionships with men. She uses sex as a give and take proposition. A stereotype of Parisian love affairs ?

JOAN, please accept my sympathy for the loss of your dear friend. It's hard to lose someone you love.

I find Elliott's collection of pornography and erotica, behind gilt latticework so nobody can touch it, very amusing. He probably wanted it in pristine condition, so he could sell it. Pornographic art and writing are ancient in origin. I've known some of the most unlikely people who had collections similar to Elliott's. One was a minister of a church. My brother-in-law wrote a Ph.D. thesis once on the pornographic and erotic writing of the second Earl of Rochester, John Wilmot. Somewhere in my small collection is a pencil drawing of two men making love, given to me by an artist friend. It is the only piece of erotic art I own.

It seems as if there have been many people who have turned to spiritual enlightenment toward the end of their lives. Elizabeth Kübler-Ross turned to a kind of New Age mysticism before she died. After the work she had done in her life, she was criticized for this, but I can see reasons for it.

Larry Darrell was a healer. Did he use sex as a means of healing someone?

Mal

I known that Isabel said that she "loves" Larry and she is "fond" of Gray, but personally I think the only one she really "cares" about is herself. Everything she does; she does to promote either what she believes in or what she desires.

Isabel though she says she loves Larry has been brought up to take wealth and luxury for granted. She is therefore not prepared to give up material goods and affluence for the sake of his idealism.

Maugham weaves Sophie's and Suzanne's stories as seperate but very much part of the main plot. They serve to bring out the ruthlessness of Isabel. We see her grow from a "fat" but charming girl into a woman with hardening social attitudes. She grows up in the years between the conversations with Elliott and Maugham into a slim, elegantly presented, tough, fashionable, worldly woman.

I doubt she would ever have been happy with Larry and understood his idealism. In the scene in the dingy hotel room in Paris where Larry tries to explain to Isabel how he intends to spend the remainder of his life; she responds by returning her engagement ring to him.

Love is defined as a deep and tender feeling of affection for or attachment or devotion to a person. Does this describe Isabel? I can't say that it does. Perhaps we can say that she couldn't really love - truly love - anyone because she was raised to take wealth and luxury for granted. To Isabel they were just like the air she breathed - necessary for living. Can we say that her environment influenced her choices?

But Larry was also raised to take wealth and luxury for granted. It was only after his experiences in World War I that changed him. Perhaps "the love gene" is inherited rather than influenced by environment. Did Isabel's mother want her to marry Larry? I believe that her mother as well as Elliot felt that Larry wouldn't amount to anything and therefore probably didn't approve of him.

Therefore, we can safely assume that "love" is neither influenced by the enviornment we live in nor from family genes, but rather from deep inside a person. But that deep affection sometimes must be drawn out slowly and like the theatre marquee said: "True love sometimes can be like walking on a razor's edge."

I like Isabel better than some of you here. However, I must say that what you are saying about her is probably true. The clue is her rather detached feelings towards her children. She just never could feel that close to them. Doesn't that say it all?

SCRAWLER, my opinion of Isabel is like yours.

SCAMPER, I agree with your point also and tried to post to that effect earlier, but when I clicked on "send message", I found that AOL had disconnected me.

Isn't it interesting that Isabel admits to Maugham on two separate occasions that she feels "fine" as long as Larry is not right there. And when he is not there, she doesn't pine for him at all.

When she lays eyes on him again after all the years she does not really listen to his answers but looks at him with maternal pride, firmly convinced that he is still hers. Her steely determination and malice have yet to be revealed and evaluated.

I wasn't really "hard" on Gray; I merely repeated what Larry said to Isabel in that simply furnished room:

"... most people are prepared to follow the normal course; what you forget is that I want to learn as passionately as - Gray, for instance, wants to make pots of money." emphasis mine

Gray was a good man, an affectionate father, a little dull perhaps and amused by his own jokes, but he worshipped the ground Isabel walked on. He depended on her with his entire being. She would never have been able to manipulate Larry.

What do we think about the scene in the taxi cab when she is visibly aroused by the sight of Larry's arm, and about Maugham's description of the "naked lust" contorting her face ? But that's what is was, wasn't it?

Was her love in reality just possessiveness?

We may also have to define "passion" because I believe emotional passion is different from sexual passion.

But in any event, by the time they meet again, Isabel has lost him.

I am back arriving home about 1:00 PM this afternoon. I think the best day to fly in the United States is on an ordinary Sunday morning. I was advised to arrive at the Airport 1 ½ hours before the flight time; Airport Parking advised adding another ½ hour for parking and the shuttle ride to the airport. Well I left my near-northside apartment at 6:30 AM. At 7:07, I had driven the 8 miles to the parking lot parked my car, taken the airport shuttle to the gate, obtained my Southwest boarding pass for my flight, cleared the Airport security check (they made me take my shoes off but never touched me), and I was at the gate ready to load for the 9:10 Flight. Today on the return there was a 45-minute delay as the aircraft coming into Dallas from New Orleans had to fly around a storm line in East Texas.

I stopped by the Library and picked up a VCR of the 1946 Razor’s Edge movie, and watched it this afternoon. I agree with those of you who lauded the performance of Herbert Marshal playing W. Somerset Maugham. Also the actress who played the part of Louisa Bradley, Isabel’s mother, looked exactly as I had pictured her as I was reading the book. I take this to mean I had retained a certain subconscious remembrance of her from my 1946 viewing. I though that Gene Tierney played the part of Isabel real well portray the adolescent, headstrong, and yes I’ll even say selfish character of the role. Ann Baxter too deserves high grades for her interpretation of Sophia. The male lead, Tyrone Power and John Pyane were adequate. But again I judge Clifton Webb as Elliott Templeton the real star that made the show. For me Clifton Web remains, Elliott Templeton.

Regarding the screenplay I think it came reasonably close to preserving Maugham’s story although certain minor story changes that did not seem necessary annoyed me. Some of these included the initial 1919 Chicago dinner party during which Maugham in the book first met the principals in Mrs Bradleys home, was at a Country Club in the movie. This is where one of you remarked that they were playing a 1930’s song at the 1919 party. Also I saw no reason for Larry to replace Maugham with Larry as the one who got the Princess’s Secretary to give them an invitation for Elliott. Another annoyance was saving some of Larry’s dialog given in the book when Larry was telling Maugham of his experience with Kosti, for his later experience in India. I liked the idea of actually showing us Larry in India.

In all I thought it was a real good, well told movie My interest never dragged at any point of its rather long 2 hour 30 minute length. It was far better than “Of Human Bondage” filmed the same year that I saw the other week on a TCM showing. I’ll now try to get the 1984 version.

I think Isabel was a silly, selfish, frivolous woman, who could be mean when she didn't get her own way. Part of the attraction Larry had for her was the fact that she couldn't have him. She craved a Lanvin dress, she got it. Larry Darrell was unattainable. She couldn't have him.

How many people had ever refused Isabel besides Larry, I wonder? Gray was easy, too easy. On Page 164 Isabel says, "Once I said it would be fun if we had a yacht and go round the world, and if the crash hadn't come he'd have bought one." Spoiled, spoiled Isabel, who married a man that, with the help of her uncle who treated her like a precious objet d'art, enabled her to remain spoiled the rest of her life.

Women in Isabel's social stratum didn't raise their children the way ordinary middle-class women did and do. How could they, and maintain the social schedule and demands they had? She had nannies and governesses for them and hired nurses to take care of them when they were sick. Perhaps she made their milk toast and took it up to then, but that's about as far as it went. I feel sure she didn't lose any sleep over them. When they were old enough, no doubt she'd ship them off to boarding school. This was how women in her class of Society lived.

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, HAROLD. I don't agree with you about the director's characterization of Louisa Bradley. Louisa was more than a midwestern mother hen. She had been born and raised rich; was educated, had travelled and was a cosmopolitan as well as being at the top of Chicago Society. That takes more grace and finesse than what is given Louisa in the 1946 film.

Clifton Webb as Elliott Templeton didn't ring true, either. Edmund Goulding, the director, made him too petty, too small. Elliott was far too polished and sure of his rôle in Society to be either of those openly. To me it looked as if Goulding used him as comic relief.

I certainly would like to see the Somerset Maugham script.

Mal

"Looking back upon my work in my old age," W. Somerset Maugham once wrote, "I am disposed to regard it very modestly and to admit frankly some of its shortcomings. In my youth I had accepted the challenge of writing and literature to idealize them; in my age I see the maganitude of the attempt and wonder at my audacity."

Maugham once commented, "I've always been interested in people, but I don't like them." In "The Summing Up" he wrote: "I have been called cynical. I have been accused of making men out worse than they are. I do not think I have done this. All I have done is to bring into prominence certain traits that many writers shut their eyes to. I think what has chiefly struck me in human beings is their lack of consistency."

He said, "With me the sense is more than the sound, the substance is more than the form, the moral significance is more than the rhetorical adornment. I am not indifferent to the art and music of words, but I habitually treat them as of secondary importance...The fact remains that the four greatest novelists the world has ever know --Balzac, Dickens, Tolstoi and Dostoyevski - wrote their respective languages very badly. It proves that if you can tell stories, create characters, devise incidents, and have sincerity and passion, it doesn't matter a damn how you write." He added, "I wrote stories because it was a delight to write them."

"In my twenties," he once wrote, "the critics said I ws brutal. In my thirties they said I was flippant, in my forties they said I was cynical, in my fifties they said I was competent, and in my sixties they say I am superficial."

Yet he continued to assert that "literature, or pure imaginative creation, was the highest goal toward which man could strive."

I would have to agree with most of what Maugham said about his writing. He wrote a good story about human kind. We have certainly seen this in the "The Razor's Edge." In some ways you might say that he is "cynical," seeing the glass of milk half-empty instead of half-full. But this didn't detract from his writing. Maugham choose to describe his characters as he saw them - warts and all.

In "Summing Up" he said: "All I have done is to bring into prominence certain traits that many writers shut their eyes to. I think what has chiefly struck me in human beings is their lack of consisency." We have seen this in Isabel's character. As mentioned here, she states that when Larry isn't around her - she's fine, but when he's around her she changes. This character trait is what I think Maugham was talking about.

He's a storyteller and I think this is what made him popular. If we compare his stories to those written - say in the decade before his - you could say that his work is not very subtle nor very powerful nor does he write with flowing "adornment" - but I believe that Maugham was the voice of the people. His characters included everyone - good and bad, and rich and poor and he gave equal time to all.I would have to agree that Balzac, Dickens, Tolstoi and Dostoyski were four of the greatest novelists ever to write, and like Maugham they knew how to create characters and above all tell a story about human kind.

Yes, I can accept what Maugham said about himself: he didn't like people. I only want to add that he was very understanding and forgiving. Is there a contradiction here? I don't think so. If one loves people, one exposes himself to disappointments. Maugham had no disappointment because he didn't have the illusions of love.

The story of Larry and of the people he is surrounded by must have been very important for the author. He also wrote a short story about them, with the same plot, which I suppose predated the novel, but unfortunately I cannot recalll the title right now.

Traude, your link brings us to several beautiful palaces and we can spend time in total admiration. Thank you.

Florry, I don’t know if Paris has different love affairs than any other big city. The way Maugham writes about Suzanne I am wondering if she could even find work as an artist’s model, she seemed to be downright ugly. I am beginning to suspect that the author didn’t like women very much.

Traude, emotional passion vs sexual passion? Which did Isabel have for Larry and which did she have for Gray?

Harold, I am glad you talked about the film that I have yet to see. I can’t wait now, I will write notes. I liked Tyrone Power when I was a teenager but I was not critical then, I just enjoyed the movie like if I belonged in the action and I was sorry when it ended. I miss that innocence. We become so critical as we age, it’s not fun any more.

Mal, I totally agree, but Maugham would not be putting all we should know about his characters on a silver platter like that, first he leads us on a certain path, showing all their faults and quirks, then slowly showing another side of them that we didn’t expect. Who would have thought that Larry was such a spiritual fellow at the beginning, I found him just boring, then we discover him slowly, his inner being, his real personality. As for Isabel, he raves about her beauty, then slowly he shows us another side of her that is not so beautiful.

Scrawler, very informative post about WSM and I am not surprised. But that he doesn’t like people surprises me. If he didn’t like people he wouldn’t be socializing like this. Many great artists didn’t like people, but they stayed home and were creative alone in the house. He sure shows the negative side of people, he has a keen eye for getting to the heart of a situation while they are not even saying anything like this episode about Isabel getting aroused just by looking at Larry’s hand on the back seat of the car, then smoking in a corner in silence. This author puts an emphasis on details about their body language, what they wore, even women’s makeup to put a point across.

Hegeso, It’s true isn’t it? ”I only want to add that he was very understanding and forgiving. Is there a contradiction here? I don't think so. If one loves people, one exposes himself to disappointments.” There is no perfectly happy love.

Lets continue on and wait to see if this author has anything good to say about his characters. If he is always in social contact with them, they must have something that he likes about them.

Éloïse

ÉLOÏSE, wonderful insights from all.

Whatever Maugham was, or wasn't, as a person, he was a good observer and a fine writer.

Take Suzanne. Putting her in this story serves at least two purposes, perhaps more, as I see it

(1) through her the reader sees (a) the artistic life in that society at that time, and the role of a model:
as inspiration - beautiful or not
useful in every way
and subordinate in any case
and (b) her indirect (Maugham) and subsequent (Monsieur Achille) involvement with people other than the respective artist/lover du jour .

(2) Suzanne's appearance is useful in RE because she (not the narrator) describes her first-hand relationship with Larry. She confesses that she had a "close call" before actually falling in love with him.

She was clear-headed and sensitive enough to realize that Larry would never be held by, or totally committed to, any one woman. She shows Larry's essential goodness, compassion, generosity of spirit and, at the same time, his elusiveness.

Some writing, some characterization !

Maugham was born with a clubfoot and profoundly affected by his "abnormality". Of Human Bondage is autobiographical in that respect; he too had a guardian like the character in OHB and like our Larry in RE. He felt rejected, was often dejected and became a loner - we know as much from his Summing Up .
It is my personal belief that he was a cynic.

Mercifully, he does not describe his characters in disdainful, sardonic terms or make a mockery of their foibles or predelections.

He describes exactly what he sees (or what the narrator notices) and leads the careful reader to put two and two together in the gradual discovery of and decision about the characters.

Next time more about passion and about Maugham's use of words.

As I see it, many of the characters in this book are quite shallow. Maugham calls Isabel "fat" in the beginning; changes that tune after she's learned a thing or two about poise and fashion. Larry is an all-American, privileged boy, who through a traumatic war experience is prompted to discover whether life is worth living and why? Gray has been molded into a pattern he'll stay in all the rest of his life, unless, of course, some great catastrophe should happen. Sophie is sensitive and poetic. I see her as vulnerable early on.

I question whether Larry is the spiritual, saintly person some people think he is. He's been called the Proto-Hippie. He's looking for answers, just as many Hippie types (and others) were and are, and did before him. I think he was very, very human, and I think his quest was a selfish one. I still think he'll discover that you don't have to travel thousands of miles to find what's right in your own backyard.

As for Maugham's disability playing a part on his outlook of life. I'm sure it did. Because of his own sensitivity about his embarrassing stammer, he was more aware of people who were not visibly afflicted. Because of this he was able to see in what less obvious way they were.

Cynical? Sure. I don't think there's a single handicapped or disabled person who doesn't at some point feel cynical about what happened to them that singles them out, and who is not cynical about those who are "free" and less burdened. No matter how many people have handled this in a spiritual way, there come moments for all of them when they lose their grip in this manner.

The emphasis on Suzanne is interesting for several reasons. One is the contrast between her and Isabel. I think she's much more real. Another is her attitude, which to me seems very, very French. Another is the way in which she welcomed men. Men can sense whether a woman welcomes what they are and what they say. Some women have a tight wall around them that never lets a man in.

Yes, I think Somerset Maugham liked his characters. What might make people think he doesn't is that he told it the way it is - freckles, blemishes, flaws, faults and all.

Mal

"Yes, I think Somerset Maugham liked his characters. What might make people think he doesn't is that he told it the way it is - freckles, blemishes, flaws, faults and all."

Participants are allowed to think what they want and express it without being chastised for it. An author who makes his readers think that what he writes is what he IS is very astute. SWM, like other excellent writers, provokes his readers to search for hidden meanings in every word and when he has succeeded in leading them on the wrong path, he feels he has reached his goal. It is the sign of a good writer.

Lets welcome different opinions, it is what makes a discussion interesting if it is done in a pleasant way.

"Participants are allowed to think what they want and express it without being chastised for it."
Well, that's a relief. I'd hate to think there are Thought Police on SeniorNet.

Somerset Maugham was an observer and an objective writer who stood outside the society he wrote about, and described it. It didn't matter if he was writing about real people, he maintained the same objectivity. Somerset Maugham was a homosexual. This set him apart from society, since it was unacceptable at that time. I see nothing in The Razor's Edge to suggest that he was a misogynist. Authors who don't like their characters tear them apart in subtle or open ways. Maugham doesn't do this in this book.

I find nothing to tell me that Somerset Maugham had a clubfoot. What I did find was that he turned his stammer and homosexuality into a clubfoot for his character, Philip, in Of Human Bondage.

Mal

I dont think this site has been linked before but I think it offers and interesting interpretation of what Europe meant to several of the leading characters. In particular it emphasizes the importance of Suzanne giving her a status as important to Larry's development as Kosti: As Kosti opened the spiritual world to Larry, Suzanne revealed the world of physical pleasure.

The short article also provieds an interesting view of the importance of Europe to Isabel and Gray and Elliott.

Click Here

No Mal, no tough police, just Discussion Leaders trying to have a pleasant discussion and dealing with opposing views need tough leadership, so please is it possible for you to express yourself not so confrontationally? Otherwise this activity ceases to be pleasant.

We should keep reminding ourselves that this discussion is not about a biography of Somerset Maugham, but about a book, The Razor's Edge of which two versions of the movie were made.

When I will watch a movie made from a book in the future, I will always remember that Producers can make anything they want out of the book, they are not bound by any code of ethics. It is a free for all and we should never try to expect them to stay close to the book, if the author permits it. I will treat the movie as completely separate and another form of art altogether where they have to be more visual than literary.

Éloïse

The death of his father necessitated Maugham's going to live, at the age of ten, with his father's clergyman brother, Henry MacDonald Maugham. No longer able to communicate in French, as he was accustomed, and forced to adapt to new surroundings developed what proved to be a lifelong stammer, perhaps because of his uncertain English and feelings of alienation.

But it was during this period that he discovered a convenient and thrilling escape through books. When he read, he could forget his loneliness and self-doubt at King's School in Canterbury, which he entered in May 1885 and left four misrable years later in July 1889. Maugham than chose to study in Heidelberg, where in went in 1890.

In addition to private tutoring in German, he attended lectures at Heidelberg University, where he came under the powerful inflence of the then current aesthetic thought and, perhaps more important, Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism, a way of thinking that he maintained throughout his long life.

It was also at Heidelberg that Maugham had his first homosexual experience and realized he was not suited for the clergy. In 1892 he decided to sudy medicine at St. Thomas's Hospital in London, but his medical studies were primarily a guise for his real interest writing.

"I wrote from the time I was 15," he later explained. "I became a medical student because I could not announce to my guardian that I wished to become a writer." Instead of perparing him for medical practice, his experiences as a medicial student provided material for future books.

As Mal suggested Maugham was an observer of life which is perhaps the first of many atributes that a person should pocess if he wishes to become a writer. Maugham began reading in order to forget his loneliness. He also notes that he had four miserable years at King's School in Canterbury.

I think in Maugham's case he observed not only the bad in people but also the good. He created characters that were "gray" in nature. He showed for example Isbael being "fat" as a child, but as she grows to become a woman she is seen to "slim" down because of her experiences in life. Here was a child who probably could have had anything she wanted, but it took "experience" to mold her. And we also see how "experience" molded the other characters as well.

Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism is the doctrine or belief that the existing world is the worst possible. It can also mean that the evil in life outweighs the good. While attending Heidelberg University in 1890 Maugham came under the influence of Schophenhauer's philosophical pessimism and I can see it in the character of Sophie.

ELOISE, when you say I express myself confrontationally, I truly don't know what you're talking about because that is never my intention. Maybe if you'd give me an example, I could see. The thought police line was a joke!

Well, I have so much pain in my body and heart right now that I can't take any more, so I'll go away. I had hoped participating in this discussion might help me heal from the terrible wound of my son's recent death somehow, but I can see all it's done is get me in trouble.

Mal

Thought I’d throw in a couple of my thoughts after having just read the book and all comments somewhat belatedly. Sorry!

In this book, Maugham uses the First Person Point of View. The narrator is an important character in the story because we see everything through his eyes based on his interractions with the other characters or on what he learned from them. I found this writing technique difficult to accept. It seemed too artificial. I kept asking myself: Why are they all telling him these things? The narrator says repeatedly that he only met so-and-so a couple of times, or he only had spoken with so-and-so several times. Yet, despite these quite distant relationships (for much of the book), the characters pour out their souls to him. Even Larry who treasures his privacy. It just seems a way for Maugham to tell the story and it doesn’t work too well for me in much of the book.

The narrator himself is a very important character. I’ve read the comments about what snobs some of the other characters are (and I agree!) The narrator is a snob, too. And it seems to me that the author is a snob. It is the author who describes, through the narrator, the décor, the artwork, details about literature, the proper attire, places where high society would be seen. It almost seems to me that Maugham is showing off what he knows about it all. I feel that, occasionally, Maugham will even go off on a tangent to explain something, such as a certain work of literature, that doesn't really add to the story.

Maybe I'm just displaying my peon American background!

Marni

Someone in the group commented that “The Razor's Edge is a critique of America's unique, materialistic civilization.” Another commented that “the book is critical of the singular preoccupation of Americans with money and their materialism.”

I agree that these were important points Maugham was making. Just the setting alone (the 10 or 11 years after the end of World War I) led you to think right away – uh, oh, the 1929 stock market crash is coming! I think Maugham also showed a European preoccupation with status and how Europeans could be bought. I think Maugham was commenting on the meaninglessness, phoniness, shallowness of American and European life.

I was surprised at something missing in the book, but maybe that was on purpose to make his points?? No one at all, except Larry and the narrator, seemed affected at all by World War I. Did I miss something? This was a world war. It wracked Europe in many ways. A good chunk of the book takes place in France. But, the book seems to show that the ’29 stock market crash affected Europe more than the war. Then I thought CABARET. You know, in the beginning, when life went on as if Hitler didn’t exist.

I was somewhat startled by what seemed bigotry – about Jews and blacks, for instance – displayed in some of the dialogue. I also thought some of the various ethnic groups seemed like stereotypes.

Coal mining: I noticed some comments about coal mining and Larry’s mining experience. I was surprised at how little time Larry seemed to actually spend coal mining considering how it seemed he wanted a real hands-on taste one of life’s REAL jobs. But, as soon as he started working the mine with Kosti, someone discovered Larry’s mechanical abilities; and he was shifted to a less horrific job. If anyone wants to read a wonderful description of coal mining life and what it does to the workers and their families, try D.H. Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers. It is the most dangerous difficult work.

Side note – This reminds me of a family story. My dad’s mother came over to America from Wales where a number of our family worked in the coal mines. She was so glad to escape that life. Then, during the Depression, her husband, my grandfather, lost his business. My dad, 15 years old, had to go to work in a Pennsylvania graphite mine. He told me he’d come home at the end of the day completely covered in black graphite and would have to bathe immediately. My grandmother would help him wash, sobbing, tears streaming down her face, devastated that the family was back to the mines.

Marni

Someone mentioned that Maugham had a club foot. In Razor's Edge, the narrator mentions at one point that Byron had a club foot. I had no idea.

Please don't go away, we need you both. Things written in postings don't always come out the way they are intended, of course. Especially when we're tired. I'm enjoying this discussion with both of you. Thanks!

Just one more thing for now, I promise.....I was laid off from work 2 years ago and so I retired. Instead of finding another job, I decided I would take my new-found time and read - so many things I never had time to read before. Yes, I can identify with Larry, sitting in a chair without moving for 10 hours glued to a book.

Yesterday, I started to read the Constitution of the United States. I had never read more than the Preamble before. (Sometimes, I think it may be true that immigrants studying to become American citizens know more about the U.S. than people who have lived there for their entire lives.) Anyway, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says: "....No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Of course, I thought of The Razor's Edge and Elliott and his desire for an aristocratic title. Interesting that our founding fathers felt so strongly against an aristocracy that they actually built it into our Constitution.

Which leads me to....Gouverneur Morris, who was our founding father who created the Constitution's Preamble and actually wrote the words of our Constitution, spent about 10 years in Europe in the 1780's and 1790's. He was the American minister to France, after Jefferson, during the French Revolution. He and Ben Franklin were sort of like our first ex-patriots, I think. Morris and Franklin both immensely enjoyed hobnobbing with the French aristocracy, visiting the noble ladies' salons, gossipping, being witty, bedding married noblewomen. Morris kept a private journal of his daily activities, including his salon visits and his sexual affairs. Some of his journal is available on the internet, and it is quite fascinating. When I read Razor's Edge, I thought "nothing's changed!"

Marni

Marni,

I retired early (not forced, just lucky) four years ago and decided I wanted to read a great deal, too. I started out with literature but soon found interest in history, philosophy, geography, etc., too. A great little book I stumbled on about the constitution is The Words We Live By. It explains every detail including all the amendments in a fascinating matter - I got quite excited about our government reading it and was dismayed it took me so long in life to really look at our constitution. Email me if you would like to discuss this or other reading some more - always glad to have another reader to talk with.

Marni, good to see you with us. Your posts are most interesting and we all agree that snobbery is a major part of this story and as I have not read his other books, I wonder if this is typical of this author. I suspect though that it is not, please correct me if I am wrong anybody who has read Of Human Bondage or instance.

No, you didn’t miss it. The book seldom dwells on the First World War and it had just affected millions in Europe. Do you feel that WSM did this expressly, but was rather focusing on the characters and their personality in the time between the two wars?

That is what we are struggling to find out. There is always a message in a good book, and each and everyone’s post is extremely informative. So Mal, please continue to throw ideas back and forth with us and we will see what comes out in the end.

Marni, working in a coal mine must be the most difficult job there is in the world. I have read about this several times and my heart just breaks at how back-breaking and dehumanizing it must be working so far underground for pitiful wages. As soon as I found out that Larry was willing to do this in his search for meaning in his life, I immediately felt closer to this character.

The narrator didn’t seem to know Larry’s true nature before writing about him. How interesting that he makes us believe that they are real people he met just recently and he recounts what he learns from them even if we all know that the whole novel is a fabrication of his imagination. I admire WSM’s talent.

Scamper, I never shirk my job no matter what and I will be here till the end barring any health or computer problems. Both happened but I must keep on.

Tomorrow, we will start to discuss two other chapters of The Razor’s Edge. I am so looking forward to what you will all say.

Éloïse

Mal, please don't go away. We need you in this discussion.

Of all the characters in this novel, Sophie to me is the most honest in character. She responds naturally to her situation. Having lost a son and a husband myself I can understand a person going to the point that she no longer cares.

Yesterday, I talked about how Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism influenced Maugham's writing. I think that this pessimism is embedded in Sophie's character. She sees the world "as the worst possible place" without her son and husband. She believes that the evil in life outweighs the good. So why bother living at all. I don't remember in the book that she committed suicide. Wasn't she murdered and Maugham had to identify her body along with Larry?

What I thought was interesting was that Larry thought he was saving her by asking her to marry him. I can't help think that Larry did just as much harm to her as Isabel did. Although it was true that Isabel might have tempted her with "drink"; Larry took her out of her comfort zone. Larry reminded me of one of those early reformers who sometimes does more harm than good. Not everyone can be saved.

We are all individuals and each of us has our own paths to walk. To me Sophie was like a fish out of water especially in the scene at the resturant where Isabel makes a big deal about the Polish liquor. Later on in the scene where Maugham meets up with Sophie once again - we see her on her own "turf" so to speak. Although Maugham used Sophie as a catalus for the reader to see Isabel's "other side" so to speak; I believe he really liked Sophie as a character. Perhaps, he saw himself in her character. He himself said that he read in order to forget his loneliness and self-doubt just as Sophie chose to drink to forget her lonelines and self-doubt.

I know I saw myself in her character. And I'm glad I read this book at eighteen because it helped me later on when I lost so many friends to the Vietnam War and Aids and especially my husband and son. Larry's character helped me to deal with the loss of my friends and Sophie's character taught how far one could go if we believed that evil outweighed the good in the world.

Scrawler you are absolutely right. You don't marry someone in order to save him/her. It just doesn't work. Even if Isabel had not been instrumental in getting Sophie to start drinking again, she probably would have eventually because Larry didn't really know her.

Sophie's pain is almost palpable. I lost my husband not quite as young, but it was a tremendous shock.

How do you feel about the last sentence of Part 4 where Suzenne says to the author: "Well, Larry is, I think, the only person I've never met who's completely disinterested. It makes his actions seem peculiar. We're not used to persons who do things simply for the love of God whom they don't believe in."

Do you think Larry is completely disinterested?

Eloise, it's a somewhat puzzling sentence, isn't it? Larry does so much for the love of a God he doesn't believe in. He isn't the only one in this story who is disinterested in the person(s) who love him. Wasn't Suzanne "disinterested" - "I hadn't allowed myself to fall in love with him." But it's different with Larry. He's not trying to withhold love - he just doesn't feel it - he doesn't seem capable of loving anyone - only a God he doesn't believe exists. That's the part that's difficult to understand. Is he following a formula he has learned in his studies? Doesn't it seem that if he could just love ONE of God's creatures, he'd find the answers to what he is looking for?

I'm thinking of what Marni said of the narrator - about finding his role contrived. Maugham, as the narrator, tells Suzanne that he made his reputation "as a humorist by simply telling the truth." People thought he wasn't serious, that he was just being funny. He's trying to tell Suzanne that Larry isn't acting disinterested...if the truth be told, he really isn't capable of being interested. He's emotionally numb, isn't he? He goes through the motions of healing, loving, but he can take or leave the people who love him - even Isabel. She tells SM, the narrator, that he wssn't always this way. Just since the war...

I wondered too why these people spill their secret thoughts to Maugham. I can understand Elliott doing so - he has no friends, SM is his age - and what's more, he's presentable to his snobby acquaintances. I think it makes sense that both Suzanne and Isabel would talk to him because they think he understands Larry, something they both desperately want to do. I don't think it is too contrived. He is filling a role that is necessary for the story, yes, but I can understand why they talk to him as they do. He does seem to spend a lot of time with them. He's actually another loner, isn't he? No real friends or significant other...

I know that most of the folks in this discussion have no use for Isabel. I go easier on her, I guess because I see something of myself in her. I understand how strongly, how passionately she feels about Larry. I understand how the practical side of her decided that Larry was a lost cause and that it would be better to plan a solid future - she "wanted babies" she told Larry. Did she make a mistake marrying Gray? I don't think so. I don't think she regrets it either - she loves him "fondly" - (though she hasn't ever forgotten Larry. To me, that is believable too.

About the little girls - I don't think Isabel a bad mother - it's just that she had a governess when they were little and suddenly found herself without - a role she wasn't really prepared for. The girls, we are told, are demonstrative in their affection for her - that says something, doesn't it? It is SM who observed that Larry brings out her maternal instincts more than do her girls. But what does he know? She hasn't said anything to that effect.

One last sticky note in my book for Chapter Four, before we move on to Sophie in Chapter Five tomorrow. The names of the two little girls -

"Isabel was delivered of a daughter, to whom, following the fashion of the moment, she gave the name of Joan. Following another fashion she called her second daughter, Priscilla."

As we prepare for the upcoming discussion of Shaw's St. Joan, who was cannonized a saint in 1920, I found there were many little girls named Joan at this time. I'm thinking that was the "fashion" after which the first daughter was named. Does anyone know a "Priscilla"?

Sorry so windy tonight, playing catch up this week.

marni0308 one specific aspect of the artificial in the composition of this book was the great number of chance meetings where after an absence of a many years Maugham chances on Larry in a bar just returned form the east. Also he just meets Sophia in Toulon after she had broke up with Larry and fled Paris. There are several other such chance meetings. Taken, as a whole the reader might doubt the likelihood of so many chance meetings. At the very end of the book Maugham's luck seems to have run out; in the years after the story ends Maugham tells us every time he took a Taxi in New York he observed the driver in the hope of another meeting with Larry.

Though these coincidences might seem a bit too much, Maugham seems to have gotten away with it very well.

Another artificial aspect of this melodrama is the ease in which Maugham penetrated the minds and soles if those where initially total strangers or at best a casual friend. Maugham’s role here is essentially the same as that of the Chorus in classical Greek Drama. In the latter case artificiality was never apparent because the divine God nature of the Chorus made him omniscient and privy to all details in the life of the mortal characters.

Hey Mal, we all love you here and appreciate your great contribution to this discussion. We sincerely hope to read many more of your comments.

Look here, I would be mad too if a friend of mine said to me that I only married a rich man for his money: "Come off it Isabel. You gave him (Larry) up for a square-cut diamond and a sable coat" Isabel gave him up first of all because Larry didn't want to marry her and have children. So the author gave Isabel intentions she didn't have. So she threw a plate of bread and butter at his head. WHEEEOUU. I think I would have done the same thing. He deserved it that is not what a civilized man says to a woman even if he could have been right.

Ann, what did Larry have that made those three women pine for him that much? He obviously didn't love any of them and he was courting Isabel as a teenager. After he came back from India, he was only 28 or so, is there hope for a man like him to find genuine love and commitment?

Pamela, I have a parcel waiting for me at the Post Office and I am sure it is the films you sent me. I thank you in advance and I will look at the 1946 version this evening and the other tomorrow. I can't wait.

Back soon as I am watching the funeral ceremonies of Prince Rainier of Monaco. Different from the ceremony of the pope but no less grandiose.

Éloïse

'But now that I was perfectly well I saw no reason to keep him waiting any longer.' p182

Bless her. Suzanne must have felt that Larry, like all those other men, was lusting after her. Not the narrator, of course. I think he liked her, just as the whole bohemian crowd in Paris liked her. She was fun to know. But Maugham obviously liked her story even more. It almost seems to stand out alone in the novel, like something straight out of Guy De Maupassant. It seems strange that Maugham doesn't include G De M among the great writers. Perhaps it's because they were too alike with their reputations as good storytellers.

In a way Suzanne seems like the most real person in the book, with the rest being merely players in a very fancy Soap. She seems to have more genuine personality and character than all of them, including Larry.

Does she share with Larry the disinterested attitude to the everyday things of life? Like, for example, sexual needs.

'Do you want me to come to your room tonight?'

There is no talk of love here, on either side. Each will do what might make the other happy. On this occasion, when it's over, Suzanne is moved to say:

'It was rather funny and rather touching.'

Then, as Joan has pointed out, Suzanne says about Larry, at the end of Part 4:

'Larry is, I think, the only person I've ever met who's completely disinterested. It makes his actions seem peculiar. We're not used to persons who do things simply for the love of God whom they don't believe in.'

Right on. We know that Larry read the writings of Master Eckhart. The disinterested mind was a first priority with this medieval mystic and preacher. For example:

'You may ask: "What is disinterest, that is so noble a matter?" Know, then, that a mind unmoved by any chance affection or sorrow, or honor, or slander, or vice, is really disinterested....Unmovable disinterest brings man into his closest resemblance to God. His purity is derived from it, and then his simplicity and unchangeable character. If man is to be like God...the likeness will come through disinterest....It is an achievement of the grace that allures man away from temporal things and purges him of the transitory. Keep in mind: to be full of things is to be empty of God, while to be empty of things is to be full of God.'

If Larry was reading this sort of thing, he was well on his way to India. Eckhart has been compared with the great Hindu sage Sankhara.

Suzanne had disinterest too. In her own sweet way, with her healthy, wholesome, emotional indifference to the many men who needed her for whatever reason. It wasn't always easy. There were times when love and passion reared their distracting heads in her relationships. Oy vay.

And then there is Elliott. With his head full of the transient and the temporal. Even the Art he loved. It merely passed through his house.

Gosh. My sympathy, my commiseration, and my condolences to all who have lost a near one, or a dear one, in the last while. I feel sorry for you, Mal. But I still have to disagree with you. It is matter, not mind, that has the last say. That and time. That's the crucial thing about The Razor's Edge, the passage of time in our lives. It breaks one's heart.

Except, of course, in Pat's case. May time be healing for you.

Jonathan

Someone asked, "What did Larry have that made those three women pine for him that much? First, he was described as handsome. That's a big one. Then, he was "disinterested." This could be intriguing. Some women might want to try to break down the barrier. Third, Larry had THE SMILE. Every time the narrator describes Larry, he has a smile or a grin. I started to feel like it was a dopey grin after awhile, I have to admit. I got a little tired of it. But I think the author meant it as something attractive and charming about Larry.

I would add the word "innocent" to the adjectives describing Larry. That's what I kept feeling about him, although I didn't see any comments about this. Despite his many experiences and travels, he always seemed innocent.

I would have to disagree with Suzanne's statement. I didn't see Larry as being disinterested in those around him. But I think he saw the bigger picture. I think he was interested in the people around him as individuals and as part of the beauty that surrounded him.

Sometimes people think that a person like Larry has to fawn all over them in order to appear that he is interested in them. Larry was more interested in the philosophical relation of one human being to another. You know he was interested in others from the way he acted around them.

For example if he wasn't interested in others, why did he bother to help Gray or Sophie. He just did it for different reasons than most people are used to. To Larry, all the other characters were part of the world around him. He didn't waste time judging people and when he felt they were going down a wrong path like in the case of Sophie he tried to help them.

But because Maugham created his characters neither black or white, Larry ended up doing more harm than good for Sophie, because he really didn't understand how she felt. We are all individuals and no two persons are the same, this is why what may be good for one person may not be good for the next. We all learn from our experiences and I'm sure Larry learned from being with Suzanne, Sophie, and Isabel, but what he learned was different from each because they were all individuals. They in turn saw Larry from different viewpoints as well.

"The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to pass over/Thus the wise say:___________". I bet if we asked all the characters they would have filled in the blank differently as would we all.

Scrawler: I read your comment and was thinking that, yeah, maybe "disinterested" wasn't the right word. I was trying to think of a better one. Then I looked up the meaning of "disinterested." It doesn't mean "uninterested." Some synonyms for "disinterested" are: fair-minded, impartial, unbiased, neutral, objective, able to see all sides. Maybe "disinterested" is not such a bad word for Larry.

But, then I was thinking of others. I think he's reserved, distant, and aloof at times, sometimes passive, very occasionally passionate (passionate about flying before the war, passionate about gaining knowledge and seeking whatever he's hunting for). I think he's interested in people when they're in trouble or needy.

I hope you were out hiking in the mountains, JONATHAN, and I hope you met up with some friends, both human and a tree or two that you recognized. When I give an opinion in a post in here or on any message board, it is my own, not a reflection or criticism of anyone else, or an urgent request that anyone think as I think.

For myself, then, I must believe in mind over matter. It has been that way all of my life from when I was so seriously sick as a small child, and it is now during these weeks of sickness and physical pain I've had. Of course, matter wins. I had that proven to me harshly within the past two weeks. But if I am to get well right now, I must think I will, and hope my mind has some influence over my sick body.

I'd say Larry was "detached" more than "disinterested." In order to reach his goal of enlightenment, it seems to me he had to be detached from the distractions of the world and the random problems of the people in it. This is why the seeker often goes away by himself/herself to be alone and meditate and contemplate.

It is perhaps possible that Larry didn't understand what Sophie was going through. It is more than likely that he thought, as many people do, that love and caring are the greatest healers of all. True recovery must come from within the self; people must have the courage to change what they have allowed themselves to become. Sophie was closer to that point with Larry than she'd been before, but she wasn't there. When he exposed her to Isabel's jealousy and need for revenge, he opened up a can of worms. Isabel didn't have the courage to change, either. Did Larry? Well, he was working on it. Often it's a lifetime process.

I have to say something here about what happens when writers sell the rights of their book to film-makers. That's exactly what they do -- they give away their rights for an amount of money to have a movie made of their book. It takes a strong, negotiated, agreed-upon contract between the writer and the film-maker to preserve the identity of the book the writer would like to see on the screen, and it takes a team of lawyers to achieve this. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. If a writer doesn't want changes in his work, he doesn't sell his rights, and the book stays a book. There is nothing unethical about this process, by the way.

I may be back. It all depends on how I feel and whether I have to spend the entire day in bed, as I did today.

Mal

Mal: Detached. You hit the nail on the head.

I strongly believe Larry had love and appreciation for all of his friends and for people he met. He did want Isabel and children but not the 'good' life that she wanted. He showed great respect and love for every person he met. I think of him as a bit of a holy man who loves all without making demands on any.

I think he did everything he could for Sophie and that no one could have saved her. If he did anything wrong, it was to expose her to the old life - Isabel, Elliot, etc. It was just too much for her. If he had kept her apart from their old rich friends, maybe, just maybe, she would have made it. BUT it would have been a long shot no matter what - she was pretty far gone into drugs and prostitution when he found her. How does one go back from that? Not many do.

There's more I would like to say about Sophie and Larry, but I'm afraid we are not to that part of the book yet. Has the relationship with Sophie and Larry finished yet? I don't have the book handy, unfortunately.

As for Isabel, I find her more sympathetic than some. I think she truly did love Larry but couldn't face the lifestyle issues. I was trying to figure out how much $3,000 would be in today's dollars and found a table that told me that it is about $35,000. That makes sense - that is enough to live on, but pretty modestly - certainly Larry could not provide Isabel even a good dress every now and then on that amount of money. But it was unforgiveable what Isabel did to Sophie. Perhaps she thought she was protecting Larry, but she just as good as went out and murdered Sophie.

Pamela, I watched The Razor's Edge last night. Thank you for sending it to me. It is a long film. I liked it very much but I don't want to say anything about it till we come to the conclusion and we can all do our own assessment.

Do you feel that Elliott's character is a parody of an extreme snob? There is no one I have ever met or have ever read about quite like him. The others yes, but not Elliott.

Is Larry's apparent detatchment only a front? Is he not passionate about his search for whatever is missing in his life?

Was Elliott sincere in his last wish that the only thing he wanted was to attend a party while he was just about to die?

Can you relate to Larry's dissatisfaction about his search for the Ultimate in his own life?

Tell us what you think.

Éloïse

Do you feel that Elliott's character is a parody of an extreme snob? There is no one I have ever met or have ever read about quite like him. The others yes, but not Elliott.

Perhaps I like Elliot because he is so unabashedly a snob. He is excited about his associations with nobility and shows a great zest for life. No matter what your tastes, there is something quite appealing about a joyous embracing of life!

Is Larry's apparent detatchment only a front? Is he not passionate about his search for whatever is missing in his life?

I am a little uncomfortable with the word detachment. Larry is passionate about his search, and perhaps because he has identified what is important to him he is detached - or calm, perhaps? - about the world around him.

Was Elliott sincere in his last wish that the only thing he wanted was to attend a party while he was just about to die?

Absolutely, and this was the sadest part of Elliot's life. What a thing to live for! Larry's 'securing' him an invitation gives us a great illustration of how much Larry cared for his friends.

Can you relate to Larry's dissatisfaction about his search for the Ultimate in his own life?

I think most thinking people have a touch of Larry in them. We are all searching for the ultimate answers. I was quite amused by Larry's response to the objection that man had been asking these questions for thousands of years: "But doesn't that show that man can't help but ask those questions?"

He was detatched, passionate, and an intellecual snob. These are just three "labels" that we can give Larry, but indvidual "labels" don't make-up the whole character.

In an early post I quoted Maugham as saying: "In my twenties," he once wrote, "the critics said I was brutal. In my thirties they said I was flippant, in my forties they said I was cynical, in my fifties they said I was competent, and in my sixties they say I am superficial." Of course these comments were describing Maugham's writing, but they could just as easily have been "labels" for the man. And since they were describing one man - he was all of these things at some time or the other.

Therefore, we can assume that when Maugham created his gray characters he gave them all various "labels" to make it easier for the reader to identify with them.

Eloise, I'm not sure I understand the question about Larry's search being dissatisfied. To me this is the story of a man, Larry Darrell, who because of his war experience finds it impossible to partake in the capitalistic recovery that seems to be the most convient and comfortable way for a young man in his position to return to the real world. And like Philip Carey in "Of Human Bondage" Larry is uncomfortable with shallow postwar society and goes to Paris and India in an attempt to come to peace with himself and live a life he can respect.

As far as Elliott Templeton goes, I've known a lot of them. They are the ones who are "disinterested" in others. They are sad, sad people who only think of themselves. They surround themselves with wealth and in the end have only acquaintances, but very few real friends.

Scrawler, I'm going to go do the math and find out how old Maugham waa when he wrote Razor's Edge - I'm going to guess his forties - he seems quite cynical to me. Who is portrayed favorably here? Elliott doesn't live and breathe for me - - he is a caricature of snobbery, a parody, yes, I'll agree with that. I'm thinking that Maugham is portraying Elliott as a parody of himself.

Larry is so intent on applying the lessons he has learned that he has forgotten how to love - not only can he not take part in the capitalistic society, he doesn't succeed in personal relationships either. He seems to have learned the answer to his search is to LOVE MANKIND. He just can't get close enough to really know, understand and love one person.

I have to say this again - to me the only one capable of passion, for all her faults, is Isabel. What exactly do you see her doing to Sophie? She left the bottle out, yes - she knew it would be a temptation, yes, but did she foresee the consequences? Didn't she want to prove that Sophie wasn't "saved" from her ways as everyone believed Larry had accomplished? Didn't Isabel prove this? Wasn't it fortunate that they did not marry? We haven't finished the book yet. Isabel still seems capable of change. I'm hoping Larry will find himself before the novel ends too -

Edit - Just did a quick search and find I'm wrong about Maugham's age - but oh, look at this wonderful home at the Riviera where he died. Isn't Maugham Elliott in Razor's Edge? Maugham's villa in St. Jean Cap Ferrat on the French Riviera where he died. Having been in and out of the discussion irregularly I want to say - if anyone has previously supplied this link, I apologize -

So Scrawler, he wrote this novel when in his late his sixties...at a time he was criticized as being "superficial"...

Regarding the comment: "...She left the bottle out, yes - she knew it would be a temptation, yes, but did she foresee the consequences? Didn't she want to prove that Sophie wasn't "saved" from herself as everyone believed?"

I see a cruel streak in Isabel. I think she set up Sophie's destruction deliberately. Anybody could see that Sophie was teetering on the edge even though she had stopped drinking. Isabel knew it would just take a small nudge to push her over the edge. So she left the bottle out. Isabel knew exactly what would happen - at least she certainly hoped it would happen.

The Razor's Edge reminds me of The Great Gatsby...people hobnobbing with society trying to move up, cruel careless people who hurt others, people without a purpose.

Isabel-- the Devil incarnate. She knew exactly what she was doing! If she couldn't have Larry, noone would have him. That is evil! She knew that thae temptation was appealing and she set it up. She set up Her "friend." That is ugly.

Wouldn't it be the most natural thing in the world for Isabel to try to prevent Sophie from marrying Larry? Would anyone give that marriage a chance? Even without her passion for him, Isabel would be right in thinking, as a friend, that it would be anything but a disaster for Larry. Any friend would probably advise him against such a move.

We're all wondering why Larry would be willing to marry Sophie. When he's still at a loss over what to do with his life. Of course he reminds us that it is still the young Sophie that he sees.

Isabel gets into a real panic over the prospect, and wastes no time in calling on Maugham for advice, for help, for moral support. Maugham rushes to her side, hears the news, and soon the two go into an amazing tete-a-tete. Ch5, pt4, pp224-234. What do the rest of you make of this unusual dialogue?

A very excited Isabel declares:

'D'you think I sacrificed myself to let Larry fall into the hands of a raging nymphomaniac?'

Talk of sacrifice is all that Maugham needs to go into an astounding theory that it is self-sacrifice which drives Larry into thinking that in this way he can save Sophie. Not satisfied with this Maugham is soon explaining to himself how a gloating Satan deceived a Christian world regarding the meaning of laying down one's life for one's fellows. And just like that the crumbling of this pillar of Christianity leads to a devil,

'...looking at the cruel wars that Christianity has occasioned, the persecutions, the tortures Christian has inflicted on Christian, the unkindness, the hypocrisy, the intolerance....And when he (the devil) remembers that it (the sacrificial death he leads men to) has laid upon mankind the bitter burden of the sense of sin that has darkened the beauty of the starry night and cast a baleful shadow on the passing pleasures of a world to be enjoyed, he must chuckle as he murmurs: give the devil his due.'

Is Maugham grinding a personal axe with all this strange speculating? Or is he having a problem himself with coming to grips with Larry's seeking? Was Maugham himself, at seventy, on a razor's edge in writing this novel. Well, a novel, for lack of a better word, as he put it in the beginning.

Sometimes it seems to me that Larry and Elliott are two sides of the same coin. Elliott sought the world unabashedly, found it, and enjoyed it thoroughly for forty years. Larry is searching for God knows what. Some spiritual ultimate? An apotheosis? Something which may in the end be no more real than Elliott's world. Perhaps just a metaphysical form of the fireworks that turn Elliott on, and which he does not want to miss. Aren't there a lot of these guys around?

Superficial the story ain't.

Mal, I want to talk more about mind and matter. How about walking on water? Is that mind over matter?

Jonathan

I wrote and just deleted, most reclutantly, a long post because I was unable to edit it. Tried several times, but as I did the letters obliterated themselves...

What an awful, dreadful waste of time! Just this for now:

I am glad we survived the storm and sincerely hope we can stay on an even keel from now on.

Thank you, JONATHAN. I agree with practically every word you said in your analyses.

Before I try again for better luck tomorrow, let me say only that Maugham was 72 years old when he wrote the RE.

72? Well, that moves him beyond the "superficial" ...

At the risk of offending anyone in here, I'd like to say that Sophie was not a "raging nymphomanaic." She had a disease called addiction and was addicted to drugs and sex. (Alcohol is a drug.)

Through working with alcoholics and drug addicts in my life, I met two women who did exactly as Sophie did after devastating tragedy struck them. One didn't make it. The other worked with psychologists and therapists, and eventually won a college degree. The pain of her tragedy never left her, but she didn't resort to the methods of easing it that she had used before. I'll always be immensely proud of her.

I agree with ANDREA's assessment of Isabel. She did a terrible, terrible thing.

Mal

Talking about irony and my anxiety to view the video of the 1946 movie ...

The library copy was defective and returned; a new one has been ordered. More waiting. The torments of Tantalus!

We really need to explore the character of Sophie, as MAL intimated.

I am astounded at how differently we all read the characters of this novel. Is it because we are coming from so many walks of life, have different philosophies of life, etc?

I see Larry as a compassionate, thinking man who lived an exemplary life. He loved Sophie and wanted to help her. Perhaps even he had thoughts that he had finally found a woman who would travel the world with him, who would be happy on his limited income, who would be his companion. I'm pretty sure he knew her recovery was a long shot, but he was hoping for the best.

Isabel wasn't rotten to the core, but I agree with several of you that she was rotten in what she did to Sophie. It's one thing to try to talk Larry out of marrying Sophie (though it was none of her business!), but another thing altogether to deliberately sent Sophie back to her drinking. She might as well have taken a gun and shot her. Sophie was an alcholic. I personally don't think she was that into sex, but it came with the territory. I assumed she was a prostitute - did the rest of you get that impression?

Sophie reminds of the main character in Looking for Mr. Goodbar. The terrible accident that took the lives of her family completely traumatized her. She may have felt guilty for having lived. That happens to many people who live through tragedies when others die. Sometimes when women lose everything, including the will to live, they just fall into unspeakable existences like Sophie did. I think she just tried to block out her life by drinking which led her into bad society which led into promiscuity - everything out of her control. Maybe she felt she deserved a terrible life because she felt guilty for living.

Sophie is very real in this novel because she is the most screwed up in comparison to the others. Her personal tragedy is monumental in comparison to Gray's migraines. Loss of spouse and child is unforgettable. Isabel gives the reader a vivid picture of how Sophie is a miserable failure. Isabel will always land on her feet at the expense of others. Larry becomes a possession to her that nobody else can have. Seemingly decent people like Isabel can do dreadful things to make themselves feel superior and others feel inferior. Isabel is drunk with herself. I don't think Sophie really cares what Isabel thinks about her.

Larry may hold the belief that all life is suffering as did the Buddha. The Buddha before his enlightenment was a privileged young man who had a wife and son. Larry has very few "wants."

Traude:-Now and then I have that situation where "the letters obliterate themselves." If I hit the "ins" key at the right of the keyboard, it corrects the problem. I don't know why the problem occurs in the first place.

Robby

Traude and Robby, I too have had the problem when working in the MS Word, word processor, and as Robby said if, you hit the Ins key the problem will correct. And Robby in my case with MS Word it is the accidental hitting of the Ins key that causes the problem

So the question arises -- what is the purpose of the "ins" key?

Robby

The "ins" or INSERT key is used when you want to insert one word or phrase between another. It is commonly used in word processing.

Mal

This totally unexpected, self-propelled, very rapid, unstoppable obliteration of every letter (from right to left) has happened to me only a very few times, fortunately.

It is good to know a remedy exists (misery loves company!) -- but there is no INS key on my Mac keyboard.

Thank you, ROBBY and HAROLD.

Look for INSERT just above DELETE between the regular keyboard and the number pad, Traude.

Remember how Isabel said she was fine as long as she was away from Larry and couldn't see him? Does this remind you in any way of Sophie? I think Isabel had an addiction, and its name was Larry.

I think Laurence Darrell was an ordinary guy who had been traumatized by the war and the sacrifice his friend made for him. Troubled about the meaning of life and a God that could allow such evil, he found his answers in India and Hinduism.

"Do you believe in reincarnation?" the narrator asks him. Larry says, "My dear friend, if I didn't believe in it, life would have no meaning for me." He goes on to say that he thinks it's not possible for Occidentals to believe in it as Orientals do. "With us it can be only an opinion." Larry's Occidental opinion about reincarnation colors everything he does. The goodness or evil he does in this incarnation goes over into the next. If he wants to chenge evil into good, he does it with the surety that what he does for himself and others will go into his next incarnation. To me this explains quite a lot.

Mal

I think all the characters have some kind of addiction. Most of us can understand Sophie's addiction to alcohol, but some of the addictions of the other characters are not so easy to recognize.

Isabel had an addiction to Larry. She herself stated that she was fine unless she was with Larry. Isn't this similar to Sophie's addiction to alcohol?

Does an addiction or habit have to be a bad thing? I don't think so. Gray, for example, was addicted to taking care of his family which included making money so that Isabel would be happy.

What about Larry? His addiction was life itself. He is searching for a life he can live that he can respect. Intense self-introspection or meditation is very addictive.

Templeton's addiction is surrounding himself with beautiful things.

But the question I think we have to ask ourselves is that can "addictions or habits" to us harm by themselves or is it our relationships that create harmful situations? For example, having a drink before dinner may relax us before dinner, but if we "crave" this habit on a continual basis it can harm us.

Maybe a better question is why we "crave" these addictions? I think we can all relate to Sophie's sorrow. So we might understand why she would loose herself in the bottle. And those of us who have lived with men who had war experiences might understand why they would search for a life they can respect.

As far as Isabel, Gray, and Elliott are concerned, they're addictions are harder to understand. Except for the 1929 crash it doesn't seem to be that Isabel and Gray really suffered at all. At least in the same way that Sophie or Larry felt from their experiences. But does that make their addictions any less? Certainly, to Isabel and Gray it might have seemed so, but thanks to Elliott they were plucked from certain disaster and so their addictions on the surface seem shallow. But love of another human being is the most important addiction of all. Isabel loved Larry to a fault as did Gray love Isabel. Perhaps the hardest addiction to understand was Elliott's habit of surrounding himself with beautiful things. On the surface this may also seem shallow, but he felt it was important to him and that is what makes the difference. And so that is also what makes the difference to all the characters. Their addictions were important to them. If you had taken these addictions away, the results would have been very different characters.

Hello
Just had to stop in between family birthday parties with this. I was tidying the guest room, once my son's room, and noticed on the window sill a tiny prism left behind from his childhood. I'd been thinking about Pamela's observation - "I am astounded at how differently we all read the characters of this novel. Is it because we are coming from so many walks of life, have different philosophies of life, etc?" I agree with this - and more. We also read through the prism of our own experience.
Prism Reading
Perhaps that's why I understand Isabel - having "sacrificed" a love like hers - for similar practical reasons. As Jonathan asks, "Wouldn't it be the most natural thing in the world for Isabel to try to prevent Sophie from marrying Larry?" Through my prism, I would have to answer, "yes". Oh of course she did something very wrong, causing Sophie's relapse - but don't you think that would have happened without Isabel's intervention? How long would Sophie continued as Larry's special project? Do you really think that Isabel could have foreseen the consequences of her action? I don't. I don't think she even thought that Sophie would have a total relapse. But yes, I agree it was cruel, Marni. Thoughtless, but cruel. If I were Isabel, I think I would have realized that - in hindsight. See, there's my prism-reading again.

Shifrah, you see Sophie as real because "she is the most screwed up in comparison to the others" - I think Isabel is pretty close in the screwy column. Eloise, I'm still thinking about your question on whether the girls' upbringing had something to do with the way they react when they are desperate. Isabel strikes out at others, Sophie at herself

Don't you see Larry and Sophie both shellshocked from traumatic events - both trying to deal with their inability to make real human contact? Sophie steeling herself from love, Larry handing himself over to all who seen to need him, without really letting anyone really get close to him...

I'm curious - and I know this is a simplistic question but generally, do you believe that addiction is the result of traumatic experience to a degree? Do you believe that such addictions can be cured? How? Is Larry's research equivalent to working towards a cure? Is there hope for him? What of Sophie? Is her return to her old ways a step in the opposite direction? Mal, I do see the difference - she's not into these relationships with men - she is an addict to drugs and alcohol. What would it take to help her? What of Isabel and her addiction to Larry? Is there hope for her? Or can we expect more of the same from her?

A comment by Suzanne sticks in my mind, something to the effect that when a woman falls in love, she often becomes unlovable. How does this apply to Isobel? I'd like other's to comment on this. By the way, I haven't posted because others seem to have had the same thoughts as I, and saw no need to be redundant. Love this book!

But at least, I can post on Françoise`s computer. Thank you for being patient.

Speaking about addiction, are we all addicted to the computer?, or just pretending we are working still? I feel like if I am working like a child is working when he/she is playing, a learning process that never stops.

Joan P, Scrawler, at 71 when WSM wrote this he had acquired so much wisdom and knowledge, I think and he use his skill to the maximum. If he had portrayed himself as a snob instead of projecting that on Elliott, it would not have been the same. But the Author and Elliott were both in their late fifties in the book, and still quite young by my own standard. Hence the love of posessions that seems to turn to a bit of indifference as we age.

Jonathan, Larry and Sophie were both friends of Isabel since they were very young and to me someone who would deliberately wish to hurt a dear friend the way she did just to prevent her from marrying Larry shows a streak of cruelty, but of course, we could attribute it to All if Fair in Love and War and I see Isabel`s cruelty only in this instance, not all the time except when she talks about Sophie which is not the same as what she did.

I have a lot of sympathy for Sophie, she is a flotsam not even caring if someone is ever going to come and rescue her. She is escaping in her despair with alcoholism and a loose life.

On Page 246, we read: "I found I was able to relieve people not only of pain but of fear. It`s strange how many people suffer from it. I don`t mean fear of closed spaces and fear of heights, but fear of death and what`s worse, fear of life" and he said later: "Whenever I`ve got watterlogged spiritually"

Can you get a spiritually waterlogged? Did it even happen to you your life?

Speaking of God, Larry said during his recount of his experience in India said: "Brahman, the Creator,..Vishnu the Preserver, Sive the Destroyer. The three manifestations of the Ultimate Reality... "I don`t understand said the author. "A God that can be understood is no God, Who can explain the INFINITE in words?"

What do you all think of that?

Éloîse

I'm getting addicted to my on-line bookclubs! I feel a force drawing me to my PC to check out the latest comments. It's the strangest feeling. It's thrilling to find others who share my love of reading and want to share thoughts and ideas about books we've read. I told my husband it's intellectually stimulating, something that's been missing in my life for awhile. But it's still strange to feel almost unable to resist the call of the PC!

JOAN asks if addiction is the result of traumatic experience to a degree? Traumatic experiences can trigger an addictive reaction off, but research is showing more and more that the tendency toward addiction is in the genes.

Can such addictions be cured? No, not yet.

An alcoholic who has been sober for 25 years will never refer to himself or herself as being "cured." If she cares to break her anonymity she says, "I'm So and So, a recovering alcoholic." Recovery is a lifetime process.

There is a stigma against alcoholism and drug abuse. People think the addicted person is spineless and lacks will, completely ignoring the fact that when the addiction takes hold there's little the addict can do without a special kind of help. Thus the need for anonymity when addicts make the decision to recover. They will go to 12 step meetings and therapy, if necessary, the rest of their lives to stay sober and drug-free.

At the time Sophie's addiction took over, there were not 12 Step meetings like AA which came into being in the U.S. in 1935, but there was the Oxford Group in England, a religious evangelical society, which works in ways similar to AA.

Alcoholics Anonymous and its offshoots, like Narcotics Anonymous and others, are not religious programs, they are spiritual ones. With what Larry had learned in India about transcending the hustle and bustle and negative values of the world, and what he knew about spirituality, he was actually equipped to help Sophie. His mistake, as I see it, was putting her back in the old environment too soon.

There is a tendency in many women -- I can't speak of men -- to turn to a man when they are grievously hurt. When my life collapsed in 1976 and my whole family fell apart, I was lucky to turn to a much older man, a friend. He was a father in a way, who was kind to me and would let me drink beer and wine without reproach. He knew I had terrible pain from awful wounds, and he knew I was dulling that pain with alcohol. Two years later I stopped, and the whole course of my life changed. The road to that point wasn't easy, and included many things I used to regret, like a night in jail. I say I "used to regret" because as time has passed, I see that everything that happened was part of my growth and my own spiritual journey.

There are men (pimps) who make money off women like Sophie. They see her alone, leaving a bar with a pickup to use sex as payment for a few drinks. They approach these women and say, "I'll make sure you have a roof over your head and all the 'fixes' you need, if you work for me." It can be hard to refuse, as I discovered in my work with female addicts.

No, there's no hope for Isabel. The first thing an addict must do to begin recovery is admit that he or she is an addict. This is very, very hard to do. Based on what I know from experience, a woman like Isabel never would be able to.

Nobody will ever know if Sophie would have slipped in the way she did, if Isabel had not had the bottle placed within her reach.

Mal

MAL,

there really IS no "ins"/Insert key on my Mac's keyboard.

If you won't take my word for it, I'll have to send you a picture if said keyboard.

MAL. There is no insert key on my Mac keyboard either.

I believe since Sophie had not come to terms with her alcoholism, she would have slipped back into drinking, Isabel or no Isabel.

Cookieruth

How many men love the role of "Me Tarzan you Jane? and Jane loving that role?

I have met so many couples who were in this situation. Sophie became 'sick' only after she lost her beloved husband and baby. Was not Sophie a better match for Larry than Isabel? He wanting someone to sacrifice himself for and she someone who could watch over her like a father.

Was Isabel jealous to the point of wanting Sophie out of the way forever?

Éloïse

"Some Macs are missing keys like 'insert' or 'end' or 'pageup' or 'del'. The Backspace key is labelled 'delete' and represented in menus by an icon, 'enter' is a key on the numeric keypad and the key PC users call 'enter' is labelled 'return'. Some have separate 'help' keys while others have 'help' on the 'insert' key. Some have a 'clear' key. The layout of keys like Insert, Delete, Home, End, etc. may be different from keyboard to keyboard. That's just the US English keyboards: in other words, the fewer assumptions you make, the happier the users will be."

Source:

Keyboards

COOKIERUTH and TRAUDE, a gesture of help is never an insult or a criticism.

Your least favorite participant has decided she's better off somewhere else. It's been an unusual discussion.

Mal

I somehow don’t see any great mystery in Isabel’s alarm when she heard the news that Larry was going to marry Sophia. We all know since Maugham had told us several times that had told him of her continual love for Larry. Yet she was married to Grey and she knew that larry was not the least bit interested in renewing their earlier relationship. Under these conditions she knew she could not have Larry and by golly one thing for certain she was not going to sit idally bye and let another woman have him. Hence she trapped Sophie back into here old habit using the Polish vodka as bait.

I don’t know if you can call this love an addiction but it certainly acted like an addiction ,leaving her unable to resist the opportunity to eliminate this rival Perhaps Isabel did not foresee tragic results that followed, but none-the less those consequences must fall on her.

Throughout this book, particularly during the early and middle sections, we observe the application of an interesting social custom that in the 1920’s appear to have been in its final years. I am referring to the rule of etiquette requiring the host/hostess giving a party to exactly balance the number of male/female guests. Apparently invitations were sent to Married couples implying both the man and wife. Invitations sent to single males or females had to be balanced by an invitation to others of the opposite sex. Frequently a last minute unbalance when the RSVP s were receved sent the hostess on a last minute search for a make-up.

This seems to have been the rule certainly through the 18th and 19th century. Apparently invitations to single guests were for the named person only and single guests were not expected bo provide their own escort. I suspect Elliot profited from this custom that allowed him to remain blissfully independent of entangling personal alliances.

By 1920 I think this custom was was fast dying, at least here in South Texas. This is based on a 1920 invitation I found in my late parents papers. It was a printed invitation inviting my father to a party. Below the printed paragraph the hostess added the handwritten note, Harold, please won’t you bring the charming Miss Nadine Hull with you. Apparently he did just that , or otherwise it is unlikely that that invatation would have been preserved.

This has been a unique experience for me...yesterday I finally had the opportunity to get back to reading the book and today caught up reading 89 posts -

I have not completed the read but enough that I just knew I had to share - what is so unique is - when I was in grades 8 through 10, I was enchanted with and read everything that Maugham wrote - I forgot completely that I had read the Razor's Edge. While reading this time around, not only was the story coming back in great hunks but the most amazing thing - the actual incidents of where I was when I was reading various parts of the book came back like a movie in my head - I was 15 and a Sophomore in High School.

I remember making so many major decisions about people and how to read, while reading this book - most of the book I read on the long bus ride home from school and then, in my room at night when I should have been doing Latin verbs and translating Caesar - instead, I was reading this book.

I cannot tell if the decisions I made then left such a lasting impression or, if they set my values that have not changed that much - astonishing to me, I found I had the same opinion about the characters now as I did then.

At the time I still had not been to Paris or London or the Riviera. I was not sure what all the sex parts were about however, once they said sailors with red pom-poms I got a picture. I was a sophomore in 1948, only two years after the end of the war. A war where we not only saw sailors with red pom-poms but, the talk was, sailors were fast and loose and had a girl in every port, which included some of the girls just a bit older, on the island. At the time we were living up north on a small island where the pilot for the New York Harbor lived and where handmade boat works were making PT boats, and the old sail lofts were making parachutes. So where I was not sure of what was really being described in the club scenes I had an idea and just tossed it off without making a judgment as especially tawdry or scintillating...

Drinking I knew - lots of folks drank and I had two drinking uncles. My father drove trucks of bootleg down from Canada during prohibition and his escapades were often table talk that made him into a myth hero as he alluded the Feds. Again, my understanding of life was not based on a conservative view of good and bad but rather folks did what they had to do in order to survive.

I remember the big decision when I got to the part where the various authors and philosophers were mentioned - normally I would have stopped reading, got out the wooden ladder, climb into the attic and immediately look up who they were in the encyclopedia's left by the people who sold the house to my parents. Or, if I was in school, I would find an excuse to leave a class [of course I was reading the book hidden behind the text we were all supposed to be studying in class] I would get permission to leave the class and duck into the library to quick see if I could find their names in the reference file. Well here I was on the bus - what to do - the story was fascinating - do I stop or continue to read - I had responsibilities for my kid brother and sister when I got home and so no way could I climb into the attic either ...decided to read on and memorized the names so that the next day I could find them in the Library.

This was a time when most of our neighbors either came from Europe or their parents or grandparents came from Europe. The order that ran the school I attended [Carmelites] was based in England and the mother house for the order of nuns [Daughters of Charity] at the school was based in France. Virginia and DC may have been our American center but growing up my cultural center was Europe. And so reading about Europe didn't seem exotic. My stretch was the difference in economics.

This is the first experience when I decided I could get into the shoes of someone who lived differently than I lived. I could feel their feelings regardless they did not have the same resources or lack of resources that I had - I was not aware how much of my own values I projected onto these characters and that is what surprised me, to realize how much I still see these characters in the same way I did those many years ago before I was even 16 years old. [16 was a benchmark age toward maturity in my family]

I was never in Chicago - and although my family was living North since I was very young, we were a German Southern family from Tampa and Atlanta. In the years before WWII we were still speaking in German and so the whole idea of wealth from Chicago was beyond my understanding. However, that did not stop me from putting myself in the shoes of the men and women in this story. For me at age 15, there were other dynamics at stake.

I admired and respected Elliot - I saw him as preserving a very important part of culture that today I still see we aspire. We like to bring royalty down to our level with gossip, we like to decorate our homes as beautifully as we can afford, until very recently couture clothing was sought after by even charwomen from England - remember Mrs. 'Arris Goes to Paris...? that was in 1993!

And what was the whole Playboy thing if not an extension of Elliots smutty books behind the grill. To me he had to be single so as not to be burdened with house and hearth so he could preserve culture through his generation. He was what movie stars later became to us. Golly remember the outrage and fuss when Ingrid Bergman divorced and re-married and then when Jackie Kennedy married Onasis - we hang onto and have strong opinions about those who we decide carry forth our culture. I thought Maugham didn't appreciate his value in the way he had his character talk as if Elliot was frivolous.

let me finish in another post this one is getting too long...

Harold, that bring back memories when I became a widow.

When a man dies, his widow suddenly finds herself looking for different friends. She is not invited as much to the same social functions as before. She has to find female single friends all of a sudden, or else go chasing for a new partner.

But I feel that this a totally different ball game. I don't think that Isabel foresaw the tragic result of Sophie going back on booze, was she not throwing in her wild card just to push Sophie away?

Gray in all this seems an innocent bystander. Doesn't anything his WIFE does disturb him? She drools all over Larry and he still loves her blindly and with such power Isabel would find it hard not to abuse of it.

Social customs are different today, but don't you find that couples feel comfortable socializing with other couples only? Is that why the single man is swampted with female attention?

The author found it hard to put Isabel in her place except when he told her she married Gray for a "square cut diamond and a sable coat" because he liked to look at her.

In the movies he describes Isabel's hands like if they were flowers. Naturally she melts and forgives him for his faux-pas because she needs that attention. She has to be number one, if she doesn't get the adoration she thinks she deserves, she goes to pieces.

Still, Isabel is not a murderer. No, she uses female tricks to get what she wants. I would hate to imagine Isabel losing the battle of fighting old age where her power would be greatly reduced.

My mother used to say: Beauty is only skin deep. She used to teach us everything with sayings like that, just 4 or 5 words and she avoided a sermon. Oh! beautiful memories.

Éloïse

I liked Gray - he was solid and big - I understood big - my father was huge - 6'6" and big like a house - not fat just big - there was comfort in big and a man reduced because he was an honest broker [literally in this case] had all my respect.

I was fascinated with Suzanne - I was fascinated that she could go from man to man and center her life in making a home - her wonderful long legs and arms I had an image of a spider who made a home in the middle of a web she wove around these men. Today she reminds me of a successful women of Business who plays the game and learns along the way while they give themselves away including their sex. Sex is an un-emotional exercise that is used like Evita used it to climb a ladder.

In the story Maugham plays a role that to me he was like an undertaker - he is there to be sure everyone functions and is afraid to enter life - he has no girl but admires Isabel, makes a friend of Suzanne. However when he starts to be so judgemental about Isabel I no longer liked him and thought he had no right to judge others when he wouldn't enter into the game of life, because you see, I felt nothing but pain for Isabel.

The idea that Isabel was not as loving to her daughters even at age 15 I thought was poppycock - what mother who is busy bringing up girls can afford to spend time gushy and doing nothing but being together when she is trying to arrange all the details of their proper education and guidance into womanhood. In my mind an unmarried Aunt or a Grandmother can take time to be gushy but not a mother. Today looking at life as it is lived today yes, mothers can take time for a cuddle and have a relationship on a different level so that girls will do what is right without having a mother who is like a nanny.

But I still feel Isabel is in a box and I feel for her. She knows she must marry WELL, and she must marry. The idea of marrying for love was the stuff of "True Confession" but not the reality for a girl that I knew. Even I knew I had to choose to marry to better my prospects. I do not think we even thought of love and passion but rather if we could love the person with love being a verb rather than a noun, a feeling noun that we could not afford to have while becoming a women during this time in history.

I saw that in Isabel when she talked like a college or high school girl gossips about something that girls knew even in the 40s and early 50s cannot be for them and so it is put down as unacceptable behavior - the passionate love that Sophie had with her husband. That was the stuff of movies or magazines - reading this at 15 I saw the hurried marriages of WWII breaking up fast or, the women were boxed in a role that today we call either trophy wives or the suburban widow. While the men were away I saw these wives all of sudden not having fun and passion looked like fear wrapped up in longing but most of all the women changed into the expression "Paper Dolls."

Than Isabel had to present herself within the confines of what her social class and position expect. She must look the part and play the part and arrange for the best for her girls, She could not be like Virginia Wolf and have a room of her own. With her husband adoring her she had to honor that. Yes, honor that - in that I doubt she passionately loved since she had to fit societies expectation for an upper income women.

A marriage with Larry would have been safe where her childhood dreams could be at least remembered and talked about with him after marriage where as with a Gray that all had to be packed away. And so I did not see her passionately in love with Larry either. He was simply someone she could have had moments of being herself.

As to Maugham's description of her fantasizing sex over Larry's arm even as a 15 year old I thought what a bore - she was not fantasizing sex just with Larry she was fantasizing sex for herself as a women free to be herself. Larry represented that freedom packed away since childhood. And what did Maugham expect, after all they had just been to all these sex clubs with practically naked women and over excited men.

Mrs. Bradley was simply part of the establishment - she I put in my mother's generation and they were responsible that we married up and better. They were also the keeper of the rules that had us leave ourselves behind at the alter.

Kosti intrigued me - the fact that he was a polish officer and very well educated was interesting - the fact that he is left like so much beach flotsome was a disappointment to me then and now...I thought somehow they should have reconnected.

But then that was it - when I was a kid I did not like Larry - I thought what is this poking into everyone's business trying to fix them. It is one thing to have learned all this neat stuff but all he does is, I don't know - give it away and yet, if you have knowledge or a gift that is what you do - I tried to see him as one of the priests in my parish who help other but something just didn't set right - keeping his distance and yet knowing what is best for everyone - like uncle Drosselmeyer in the nutcracker suite who gives and yet expects. And what he gives has life of its own. He just bothered me and I didn't have words to say why he bothered me.

Well now he still bothers me and I see him as emotionally dead - his brain is full, fuller than most but his emotions and ability to connect with others is dead. He seems soul-less with all his knowledge of Eastern religion and living with a Saint.

I remember he marries Sophie which at the time I only saw them as characters and thought poor Sophie who will be taken care of as long as she omms and mediates and lives simply to get over the desolation of her loss.

Now I see it as perfect - Sophie so full of emotion - the depth of loss and since we know she is capable of the height of passion there is that hope. The Janus - Sophie the emotion to Larry the brain.

Which leads us to Sophie who ripped me open with the pain I felt. I remember reading that part down the beach where I wheeled my baby sister so she would fall asleep in the carriage. She was born that year and for all sorts of reasons I became her primary caregiver. So the idea of losing ones child was easy for me to identify with and I remember being so distraught I had to stop reading and look out across the water. Tears were in my chest.

As I continued to read I saw two women who had everything of value taken from them - Isabel her identity and Sophie the product of her passion - they were like two injured animals - one angry that she is trapped in a cage built/determaned for her - angry with claws and the other in deep depression. A women who I saw as admittedly Larry saw her. She was like some of the girls on the island who didn't care if they were hurt. They saw no future and their present was meaningless.

Today I can see that Larry lives in the moment - I think his character is written as someone's poor understanding of Taoism where they think Ying and Yang living without expectation means to live without passion - I guess the someone would have to be Maugham and after all these years a chink in my admiration for the man. Not having expectations as described in Taoism, or within any eastern religion, is simply saying we do not control life and therefore, we are working against our better nature if we attempt to control our lives. Live with passion for what is, rather than trying to hang on, like the sucker of a vine, just because we have passionately cared about someone.

He is trying to say his actions to marry are a cause, a sacrifice which is a cause - that is not eastern religion - where sacrifice has nothing to do with cause because, cause is a form of control - expecting an outcome - Larry is supposed to suffer in order to feel - my god Sophie the sacrificial lamb to Larry's need for sacrifice - brrrrr.

I also think that Sophie's pain runs so deep that capturing an all consuming passionate love for another person could only happen when she can feel love for herself. And with her pain I am not sure she will again ever love herself freely, with pure joy therefore, one day she will wake up and go off to lick/drink away her wounds or, never wake up and die as a sacrifice to Larry.

And where I do not think Isabel loved Larry, I think to her, he was her last chance. Like a drowning girl she wanted to be attached to someone who made her think, she was allowed to remember who she was, rather than be trapped within the cage of who her family and society expected her to be. The more her legs and virginal beauty are spoken about, the more she is confronted with who she had to become in order to satisfy what society expected. I do not mean society here as upper crust but the community of man within the patriarchal society that women drowned in till very recently.

She was so hurt and angry without being able to put into words what she was really hurt about, that all she wanted to do was bring everyone down in flames. All she had left was her rage and she was going to use it. She was expected to bring up her daughters to accept this same death of their identity, so how could she be close and snugly she was a roaring dragon.

Under the topic of social customs.
A couple of weeks ago a young woman who is on the board of the local Community Theatre invited me to join her at a benefit being held. I am a member of this Community Theatre and accepted that we would go as a couple. Each of us is single but I am 84 and she is 52 and has a young man in her life who was away at the time.
I then did what I thought was the gentlemanly thing to do. I bought a beautiful corsage for her which she agreed to wear because I had already obtained it. However, she did mention that people don't do that any more. We are close enough friends that she could say that to me without hurting my feelings.
During the event she looked around and then said to me: "I am the only one here wearing a corsage." And she was right. Mind you, this was a high-toned benefit event. I couldn't believe it. When I got home, I looked up "wearing a corsage" on the Internet and found it to be an obsolete behavior. I had grown old and didn't know it!! Incidentally, I was simultaneously wearing a red rose on my jacket and found that to be outdated as well.

Robby

Robby, but just the same you must have been very happy to relive old times wearing a rose in your lapel. I do miss to see men wearing a suit and tie. It looks better than sweat shirts any day.

How is the author character faring out in RE? Did WSM give himself a major role?

I want to ask, since we are talking Psychology a lot here, is the narrator/author acting his role for the best in this story? Is he a likable man? Would you have poured out your most secret thoughts to him?

Does Larry demonstrate that he knows enough about " the meaning of life" now and needs to come back home to try to teach a thing or two to Isabel and Elliott about what is important other than their social standing.

Do you feel that his search for the Ultimate is something that most people search for in life or just a very few?

Éloïse

Éloïse just a quicky after all my ranting - in my opinion had Larry learned a thing or two he would not be coming back to Teach Isabel and Elliot anything...

That is not his job in life, nor is it anyone's job in life unless they are asked. Anyone with a deep understanding of spirituality would know to live a holy life rather than, pass judgment which Larry would have had to do in order to determine that either Isabel or Elliot needed his sage wisdom. He may ask them to join him living a holy life but not take it upon himself to Teach which is a step in the change process.

To me this is a story all about the relationship of manners - with all the emoting going on the only character in the story who I can see has any true feelings for his fellow man is Gray.

I think we all have addictions or habits. Some are good habits like eating right or exercising, while others can grow into not so good habits. And since we are all individuals we react to our habits in various ways. I also agree with Mal in that the potential for a habit can be found in our genes. It can also be found in our environment, or the way we were raised as children or from our emotions. All of these things contribute to the whole person.

For example I'd give anything for a drink and a smoke right now, but I know that these things will do me harm - even kill me. But the craving for these things is still there. Once I learned that my craving for alcohol and cigarettes was linked to my emotions, I understood how to separate my cravings from my emotions. As Mal said it is a life long process.

Sophie's addiction was triggered by her experience, but I think it was also triggered by her emotion. Larry attempted to give Sophie another emotion to work from which would bring her good results, but Sophie was just not ready to do this. Just like habits, cravings, or addictions - relationships play a major role in how a person reacts to things. What would have happened if Sophie had never met Larry or Isabel after her husband and son were killed? Don't you think that Sophie's fate might have been the same?

Now of course "Fate" brings us to a whole new discussion. Are our addictions related to our fate? If so than we are all slated to have our addictions as part of our destinies. And if we believe that no matter what we do, our fate will be the same. What is the use in even trying. But I believe that there is a little thing called "free will".

Larry certainly had free will when he made his decision to go to Paris and India as did many of the other characters seem to choose their own destiny. But Sophie wasn't allowed to choose her own destiny. Yes, she chose the bottle over life, but was this really her choice?

Someone here said that Elliot and Larry were two sides of the same coin. I think Sophie and Larry were also two sides of the same coin. If Sophie had gone to India and not Larry, would this have made Larry drown himself in alcohol and Sophie learn to live?

Perhaps fate does play some part in our lives, but I think it is the way each of us reacts to the world around us that compels us to act the way we do. There are times when I believe in Schopenhauer's philosophical pessimism and there are other times that I do not.

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to the comment I made about Suzanne and her outlook on women in love. Mal? Traude? Anyone?

MAL said. <<Keyboards COOKIERUTH and TRAUDE, a gesture of help is never an insult or a criticism.>>

Nor was it received as such by me. I use a laptop which has no numeric keypad but my old Mac keyboard has an "enter" key. Is that the same as "insert" key.

MAL. Your input here gives fascinating reading, every bit as much as your written stories.

If there are two ways to interpret a comment, I wish you would consider the more positive one.

I lurk here and this forum is one of the most enjoyable for me. I had ordered the tapes but did not enjoy listening to them. However, I recently saw the 1946 film and am fascinated by the way each of you interpret these characters. I shall continue lurking, and MAL, you shall continue your comments here. OK?

CookieRuth

Is everyone in agreement that the narrator is Maugham himself? A number of people have used "Maugham" in lieu of "the narrator."

The author is writing using the first person point of view. This technique makes it sound as though the narrator were the author. The device is to make the story more real and personal. But, it doesn't necessarily mean that the narrator is really speaking for the author.

I don't know enough about Maugham to know if the description of the narrator is like him or not.

Good point - thanks for the reminder - somehow since the narrator is not named and is a writer it is easy for me to make the assumption...

GOSSETT: Sometimes a woman in love as Isabel was becomes too demanding and clings too much, perhaps because she's afraid she'll lose the man. Suzanne had a much more practical way of dealing with men and sex that I'm sure made her more appealing than not.

BARBARA, I think Isabel liked the box she was in. She would have felt differently if Elliott had not rescued her and Gray and the kids, and she'd had to roll up her sleeves and do some tough Scarlett O'Hara work on that southern plantation instead of going into the gilded Parisian life.

NARRATOR: Any writer who uses the first person singular to write takes the risk of becoming an unreliable narrator because the first person point-of-view is so limited. Maugham tried to counteract this by turning each character who was telling him the story into the narrator through monologue and dialogue. I'm not sure he succeeds. To the reader this is a stretch. His thematic material is interesting enough to keep the flow of the novel going, however.

COOKIE, when somebody says I'm "confrontational", for reasons I have yet to fathom, and another says I essentially called her a liar when all I was doing was trying to help with a keyboard problem, I begin to think it's "Get Mal week," and it's hard to see the positive side you mention.

That's all right. I won't have much time to play in here anyway because of upcoming doctor appointments. It would be nice if they could find something to relieve the painful effects of this miserable illness I've had for too long. Having my son die during its throes has not been a help.

Dorian has an Insert key on her Mac. In the piece I posted it said the Insert key sometimes hides under the Help key on Macs. Maybe hitting that is worth a try.

Mal

It's a wonderful discussion. And it could only get better if everybody felt uninhibited about expressing opinions without fear of being tricked into confrontation.

Thanks to both Eloise and Harold.

So many things to reply to. Yes, I believe the narrator wants to be identified with Maugham. Maugham, for whatever reason wants to be part of the drama. I thought it was wonderful to see an undertaker in the narrator. In a way that is what he becomes for Elliott in the end, isn't it? He looks the part in the 1946 movie. Like hanging around the edges waiting for people to die. I missed him in the later movie. I don't doubt that Herbert Marshall tried very hard to play Maugham himself.

It has been suggested that Gray is the only one in the book who shows true feelings for his fellow man. I've felt that Gray is more like a loose end in the story. And that is surprising because Maugham at seventy leaves very few loose ends in RE. It's amazing how he ties everything together, or suggests motive.

Gray seems a little unreal in showing no concers about Isabel's obvious passion for Larry. And then it struck me. Pehaps this has the makings of a menage a trois. Despite all the philosophy, all the religious allusions, and that it's meant to be a book of ideas, there is an overabundance of sex. And all varieties, if one reads between the lines. The only doubt the narrator has about Isabel is whether she can pick up a lesbian hint. Apparently not.

I'm being called away, just as I was getting cranked up. More later

Eloise, my TV guide has RE on Tuesday night. And on Wednesday La Pucelle! Can you get them?

Jonathan

Marni, on page one the Narrator says," many years ago I wrote a novel called :The Moon and a Sixpence." I think there are other places where the narrator is address by others as Mr Maugham. In any case the quoted reference from page one definitely established the fact that Maugham the Author intended himself to be the Narrator in the book

Barbara, I used the word 'teach' because it seemed to me that Larry expected a lot from people he had left behind in Paris 10 years before. None of them experienced his need of finding meaning in their lives, perhaps they had already found it. Pure speculation.

Scrawler, Emotions. I can only remember when I was in my twenties, as are the young people in the novel, my emotions were certainly higher than they are now when I can analyze them from a distance and act accordingly. But when passion runs the show, no amount of reasoning can change what people will do.

Suzanne, who is so cool about how she wants her life to go. Do we see her having high emotions like the others? Perhaps she is even less emotional than Larry. Sophie's fate would have been the same, unless she attended AAA but I don't know if it was available then.

Gossett, why don't you ask your question again and see what happens. I don't always expect someone to answer the questions in the heading, we can always hope.

Éloïse

Thanks, Harold. I totally forgot about that. Then that makes it even more interesting to me about his inheritance from Elliot. I guess we haven't gotten to that section yet in our discussion. But, when we do shortly, maybe someone can explain that to me.

Jonathan: Menage a trois! I had to chuckle. You mentioned "I've felt that Gray is more like a loose end in the story." I thought Gray was tied up quite nicely at the end - the perfect ending for him. But, I should probably wait til Friday to discuss.

Jonathan, you don't have quite the same programming in the Toronto area as we do in the Montreal area because half of our programming is in French, but I do have the RE movie because Pamela was kind enough to send it to me. We will have La Pucelle (Joan of Arc) thought on Wednesday on TV. It will be great, I will take notes because I plan to participate in that one in May. Thanks.

Éloïse

Suzanne, to me, doesn't seem to lack emotion. What she seems to me is practical. Sort of a c'est la vie attitude. She did what she had to do to live and was comfortable with herself.

Isabel - I liked her for awhile. She was popular and fun-loving, liked a good time and seemed to have a lot of friends. But I think the friends were male. She seems so often to be described as being surrounded by men, and she apparently loved it. As the story went on, I liked her less and less. It didn't bother me when she broke off her engagement to Larry because he wasn't going to provide the type of life she wanted. That was very understandable. But, there were some other things....The narrator's description of her staring at Larry's wrist in the car with raw lust contorting her face - I thought this description made her look ugly. I think the narrator was deliberately making her look ugly as if describing something ugly in her nature....The description of her relationship with her children. I detected a coldness, a lack of maternal love towards her children. Yes, she certainly cared for them and raised them to be proper young ladies. The girls express love towards their father. But, towards their mother - I think there is something missing in Isabel's relationship with the girls, tenderness and warmth perhaps.....And then there is Sophie, of course.

I do not see any showing of The Razor's Edge listed in the Index of movies scheduled this week in yesterday's TV Guide section of The San Antonio Express. This index lists all movies scheduled to be shown during the week on the manny channels of the local Time Warner Cable system.

Regarding Maugham's choosing himself to play the Narrator in his novel "The Razor's Edge," even though clearrly his character name is W. Somerset Maugham, nonetheless in his character capacity he is every bit as fictional as Elliot, Isabel, Sophie, and the rest of the cast.

Eloise, from message #388

I don't think that Isabel foresaw the tragic result of Sophie going back on booze, was she not throwing in her wild card just to push Sophie away?

Eloise you are more lenient than Judges in most American courts who now routinely hold bars and bartenders liable for multi million dollar judgments for having served alcoholic beverages to a customer after which the customer was in an auto accident that injured some 3rd party. Isn’t this what Isabel did when sshe left the Polish Vodka out for recent alcoholic, Sophie

Barbara,

That was a truly inspiring description of your reminenceses of The Razor's Edge then and now. I envy your powers of remembering, and you said so many wise things that my head is swimming. I just finished a reread of Atlas Shrugged, and oh how I wish I could remember more of what I thought of it the first time around like you did with The Razor's Edge. Your writing is a treasure!

Thank you Scamper - it has been quite an experience and shocking to me that so many of my insights than are still the same today.

Eloise Teach was just the perfect word - I underlined it because I thought Larry pretty audacious trying to teach others as if he knows best what is good for them...nope don't like him...sacrifice indeed at Sophie's expense...need to finish reading though I'm on page 215

I don't think I have ever seen the word "liar" in Books and Literature in the 8 years I have been a participant and I don't think I will ever see it either.

Larry's "teaching" seems almost Christ-like, complete with miracles to back up his powers. I think it is about time for him to "heal" Isabel. Maybe even show some understanding and forgiveness. Something we can't seem to find it in our hearts to do. Actually, the thought is not original...I flipped to the end of the Larry/Sophie affair to see if there was any hint as to his state of mind when she vanished - Sophie:

"I couldn't see myself being Mary Magdalen to his Jesus Christ. No sir."

In Part Six, narrator meets up with Larry at a performance of Racine's Bérénice - sad play in which Titus and Béré decide to separate forever. Larry confides that he had been hurt when Isabel left him - had always planned to marry her - but forgives her because she was too young to live the life he offered her...

Oh, oh my gosh! I'm looking over Part Six and realize that I hadn't read it with Five last week. Plus it seems to be the BEST part of the book - perhaps even Larry's realization of his search for whatever he is looking for. It's wonderful. I don't want to rush through it. I'm going to go read it now. Right now!

GOSSETT, sorry not to have replied sooner to your question in # 378, "A Woman in Love", pertaining to Suzanne.

Suzanne was much more practical and realistic in her thinking and actions than either Isabel or Sophie. Suzanne instinctively realized Larry's elusiveness, his "unreachability", i.e. his need to keep people at bay and his whereabouts a secret. She is described by the narrator (and I too think it is Maugham himself) with much greater sympathy than Isabel. He obviously "liked" her better.

The narrator, though eternally an admirer of Isabel's physical beauty and appearance (so cleverly enhanced by everything money could buy), was brutally honest with her, saw through her lies, and made her admit her appalling treachery. Isn't that called "malice aforethought" in crime stories?

It is interesting (to say the least) that (the by now sophisticated) Isabel "had conceived the desire to make a tour of the tough joints" in Paris. The narrator has "some acquaintance with them", we read, and obligingly leads them there. The description is shuddering. In one of these flesh pots they happen on Sophie, a regular, who recognizes all in the group and approaches them, including the narrator whom she remembers from that long-ago meal back in Chicago.

"I heard you were in Paris," said Isabel lamely", which is a surprise to the reader. Is it possible that Isabel HAD known? Had she kept tabs on Sophie? Through her mother perhaps? Was she THAT possessive?

Sophie says, "You might have called me. I'm in the phone book." -- and that is how Larry later tracks her down.

HOW does Isabel know that Sophie "is soused from morning till night. She goes to bed with every tough who asks her." ? Did Isabel know that BEFORE Larry told her he and Sophie were going to marry, or did she find out afterwards?

When she summons Maugham, just back from the Riviera,to the apartment, she makes it very clear to him that she'll do ANYthing to keep Sophie and Larry apart and adds, "If you're going to take her part I'll kill you.", showing her determination to keep them apart at any cost.

The reader and the narrator first meet Sophie In Chicago at a small dinner party given by Isabel's mother, the first "en famille" meal to which Maugham is invited, where the narrator is placed beteen Mrs. Bradley and "a shy drab girl who seemed even younger than the others. ... She was not pretty but she had an amusing face, with a little tilted nose, a wide mouth and greenish blue eyes; her hair, simply done, was of a sandy brown. She was very thin and her chest as almost as flat as a boy's. ... I guessed that she was making an effort (at conversation) to be a good sport. I could not make out if she was a trifle stupid or only painfully timid ..."

When the heavily made-up, drunk and drugged Sophie approaches the table where the small group sits, Gray, Isabel and Larry recognize her at once. It takes Maugham a little longer. Sophie tells them that her "loving in-laws kicked me out of Chicago ... I'm a remittance man."

Isabel is vehement in her condemnation of Sophie, saying "If Sophie's what she is, it's because she was like that always." The reader may be more charitable but, if realistic, will see the magnitude of her problem. With her husband and child Sophie has lost her raison d'être and deliberately sets out on a path of self destruction.

She was financially provided for and always carried more money than the men who visited her. She was not therefore, a prostitute in the classic sense, i.e. selling her body for money. Rather, it was she who paid the men for their services.

Nymphomania is the pathological term for a woman's abnormal, uncontrollable sexual desire. Was Sophie a nymphomaniac? We don't really know.

Later, In Toulon, Sophie readily admits to Maugham that he had longed for a drink; she does NOT mention missing the presence of a man, not even Larry's.

It was SCAMPER, I think, who said Larry had "few needs", and that seems to have been obvious. He ate little, did not drink and sipped a little wine reluctantly, if urged, but he was not an ascetic to the point of denying his body. That much we do know.

GOSSETT, I'm coming back to Suzanne, but I'm not sure whether I've answered your earlier question. If not, please put it to us again, as Éloïse has suggested.

MARNI, true, there is a certain repetitiveness in Maugham's lingering, loving description of the main protagonists' physiognomy, but he did it rather well, don't you think?

For all we know, Maugham himself may have had questions about his earthly existence and the meaning of life, like Larry. Who is to say?

Thanks Traude for noticing my question. Since Suzanne remarked that a woman in love often becomes unloveable, I wondered what, if anything, the other readers made of that statement. HOw did it apply to Isobel and or Sophie. Personally, I think Suzanne with her earthy approach to life is more sensible and in the long run, likeable than any of the others. She takes what life has doled out to her and makes the best of it. She neither pines for a love she can't have, nor mournes for one that is lost to her. She doesn't blame her mother or Fate, and doesn't go looking for the Meaning of Life: she lives it, and lives it to the fullest!

GOSSETT, that is what I meant to say. You said it better. Thank you!

I like what I read here about love. Not just love in general, but the love of a woman for a man and Gosset said it very nicely. I would like to know what kind of love did Larry receive from Isabel, Suzanne and Sophie.

Did Isabel love Larry if she has always been against his desire to do nothing after his discharge from the war until he finds himself? Did Larry only have compassion for Suzanne even if he bedded her? Did Sophie ever love any man except her dead husband? My dictionary mentions in relation to love between men and women; passionate, compassionate, affectionate, sexual, tender, devoted, even adoring.

How many of those do we call love?

Éloïse

In one of the late chapters (Part 6,Chapter3,page 251) that is now in the range of our discussion Larry tells Maugham how he learned to fly while still in his teens. His guardian, Uncle Bob Nelson loved aviation and actually arranged to send him to Canada to learn to fly, ”and the result was that by the time I was seventeen I was flying in France (Page 251).

Throughout the book I had assumed that Larry's military service was with the US Air Corp, but this seems to suggest that it was with the RAF or RCAF. I do not remember any previous mention actually attaching Larry to a US unit; and I am sure I would have remembered an actual statement attaching him to the RAF. His young age on being initiated to air combat doubtlessly was a factor bring about his untypical post war outlook.

There wa also a French squadron piloted by US Airmen that was the subject of the between the wars writing team of Northrop and Hall. I remember doing a highschool book report on this book.

Sophie paid men for sex? I'm wondering how. On Page 197 Larry asks Isabel if Sophie had any money. Isabel says:
"There was Bob's insurance; the people who owned the car that smashed into them were insured and she got something from them. But it didn't last long. She spent it like a drunken sailor and in two years she was broke. Her grandmother wouldn't have her back at Marvin. Then her in-laws said they'd make her an allowance if she'd go and live abroad. I suppose that's where she's living now."
Sophie wasn't just living on that allowance, she was supporting an alcohol and opium addiction with it. Do you have any idea how much that cost in those days, and how much it costs now? If Sophie had enough money to buy her "fixes" for even a couple of days, I'd be very surprised, and I'd be astonished if there was a penny left over for shelter and food, never mind paying men for sex. Please remember that to an addict nothing in the world is as important as satisfying the craving the addiction brings.

I'm not sure Isabel ever really loved Larry. She was obsessed with the idea of him and the need to possess him. In no way does this constitute love.

Suzanne didn't love Larry and Larry didn't love her. There was caring between them. They lived together and parted as friends.

I think Sophie cared for Larry the way she would a trusted friend, or a brother. About Sophie and Bob, her husband, Isabel says on Page 196:
"I never saw two people so crazy about one another. Even after they'd been married two or three years and had a baby they'd go to the pictures and he'd sit with his arm around her waist and she with her head on his shoulder just like lovers. They were quite a joke in Chicago."
It seems to me that Sophie and her husband shared the only real love in this book.

Mal

HAROLD, I confess to not having given serious thought to whether Larry was in the Canadian or US Air Force, perhaps subconsciously assuming that since he went to Canada to learn to fly, courtesy of his uncle, he enlisted right there. Could that have been simpler and faster?

Perhaps I had Esmond Romilly in mind. He was the cousin of Jessica Mitford, who years later wrote "The American Way of Death". He was also rumored to be the illegitimate son of Winston Churchill.

Jessica eloped with Esmond to Franco's Spain and later came to the States with him, severing all ties to her family. They dazzled Washington society but later difficulty making a living. He sold silk stockings door-to-door in Washington in 1939 and she, later, sold dresses in New York. Eventually they managed a bar in Florida.

When Britain declared war on Hitler's Germany,

"Esmond was exultant at being in a position to arrange the details of his own participation in the war. Had he been caught up in the English conscription he would have found himself at the mercy of officialdom, with nothing whatsoever to say about what branch of the services he would join. As thing stood, he was free to steer as clear as possible of the more tradition-bound centers of the armed forces. He decided to leave immediately fo Canada, there to volunteer for the Air Force." emphasis mine.
From Daughters and Rebels, The Autobiography of Jessica Mitford , 1960, pp. 277.

LOVE is defined as a deep and tender feeling of affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons. 2) An expression of one's love or affection. 3)a feeling of brotherhood and good will toward other people 4)sexual passion.

Suzzane's love I believe would fall into the second definition of love. Her love was a natural love for all persons. She did not judge either or mother nor did she follow in Larry's quest. She simply lived her life and loved.

Sophie's love for Bob and her child would come under the first definition. When she looses them she turns to drink and drugs to drown her sorrows and although she did have a small amount of money from Bob's insurance as I remember from my reading she uses her sexual favors to continue her habits.

Isabel's love for Larry might fall under the second definition, but I don't see Isabel really in love. I think she thought of Larry as just another possession. It frustrated her that she couldn't have Larry perhaps like she would have been frustrated in not being able to buy a particular painting or piece of furniture. I think she was blinded by her jealously so that she couldn't truly love anyone not even herself.

In conclusion, only Suzzane's natural love not only for others, but for herself was shown by Maugham as the true love.

Today's four posts (the last time I looked) are a perfect example of how to get over a bump on the book-discussion road. A splendid way to handle differences and to move on. I admire Mal's splendid answer to Eloise's questions. And Traude's helpful reply to Harold's. You all make it look so professionally cool.

As for the love in the relationships among the half dozen or so main characters in the book, including the narrator, it all seems a bit tenuous. Nothing one could get serious about. With the exception of Sophie and husband Bob. Perhaps we could also include the close relationship between Maugham and Elliott. These two cynics needed each other, and seemed to have some kind of intimacy going, sharing a candid estimation of the high society of which they were a part.

Sophie loved the old Larry. The new Larry she finds a bit cloying, as we can see when she refuses to be 'a Mary Magdalene to Larry's Christ.' And that, I think, absolves Isabel of any guilt in Sophie's sad fate. Isabel's action with the bottle of vodka was nothing more than putting temptation in Sophie's way. Sophie, if she were honest, would be grateful, since she was looking for a way out of an unpleasant commitment. Domiciling permantley with Larry.

Sophie's sad fate is also used by the author to illustrate his preoccpation, as he explores the role of religious belief systems. Maugham seems critical, even cynical about the Church. What an irony to see the Church, in the person of the nun, so unhelpful in Sophie's hour of greatest need. (Especially vivid in the '84 movie), when compared to the way Elliott is aided and abetted in his pursuit of the things of this world, and in the gilt-edged passport to the next, offered to him by the highest ministers of the Church.

But Elliott was a fine gentleman. Everything that Maugham wanted to be. Interesting that Maugham gives himself Elliott's collection of 18th century pornography. No doubt he gave Elliott many hints along the way. This is not necessarily as bad as it sounds. By today's standards the pornography would have been very tame stuff sexually, while very good artistically. Such as the Fragonard wallpaper we have all heard about.

Jonathan

Scrawler, I've really enjoyed watching you as you work away at this book, trying different approaches, looking for the big picture. You saw fears operating in the lives of the characters. You considered the book with the view of a consciouness of class. And more recently the seeming addictions directing their lives. With an allownance made for fate. Very good.

I still smile when I remember Sophie's remark about not wanting to play Mary Magdelane to Larry's Jesus Christ. Made me remember a proposal I rejected many years ago. My boyfriend was handsome, desirable, a real catch, so my friends thought and two of them would have been delighted to have him. But he saw himself as my "savior" and I decided I wouldn't be very happy with someone I had to genuflect to every day for the next fifty years! Have instead, spent fifty years married to a man who loves me for myself, warts and all!I'll bet the other guy never realized til the day he died, why I turned him down!

Sophie may say she "refuses to be 'a Mary Magdalene to Larry's Christ.'" But, I sure don't think that this "absolves Isabel of any guilt in Sophie's sad fate."

First of all, I think it was a pretty dumb idea on Larry's part to ask Isabel to marry him. I do like the guy for trying to help, though. Sophie is in dire straits. She needs AA and a shrink, not a husband right now, especially not a saint-in-training.

However, Sophie had stopped drinking with Larry's help. That was a huge step for her. It IS possible to stop drinking and turn one's life around. If Sophie could have forgiven herself (I still think she feels guilty for having lived through the accident that killed her husband and child), and taken it a day at a time, with the right help, she had a chance.

No chance with dear Isabel out to get her.

MARNI, in the second paragraph of your post # 422 you say"... if was a pretty dumb idea on Larry's part to ask Isabel to marry him ...".

Did you mean SOPHIE, instead?

I can't believe all the good stuff here. I feel like I am in a Psychology seminar. Getting older sure has its upside. Thank you everybody for those brilliant posts. I love it.

We find Larry back in Paris after India trying to reconnect with his old friends and making a mess of it. Nothing works for him. He is left alone to talk about his newly acquired wisdom, he talks and acts like if his experience in India had aged him 20 years not physically, but mentally.

Larry says to Maugham on page 264: "Can there be anything more stupendous than the conception that the universe has no beginning and no end, but passes everlastingly from growth to equilibrium, from equilibrium to decline, from decline to dissolution from dissolution to growth, and so on to all eternity?" This feels like the Story of Civilization discussion. Further on next page, Maugham says to him: "Do you believe in reincarnation?" and Larry replies "If I didn't believe in it, life would have no meaning for me"

Larry tried to make his friends see his way, but they were not about to change their lifestyles or their thinking for him. What should have he done instead of going back to America after he failed to save them from their fate?

Éloïse

Yes, I meant Sophie. Sorry. I'm going too fast.

Jonathan, when I looked at the TV guide, the movie The Razor's Edge was not listed because it didn't list all channels, but when I searched the listing on the television with my converter just now, I saw that it is being shown tonight at 8 o'clock on the Vision Channel.

Those who wish to discuss the movie and didn't have a chance to do it before because we were still at the beginning of the book, can do so if they wish as we are reaching the last chapters. I find the 1946 version quite good.

Éloïse

MARNI, I thought you meant Sophie and hope I didn't sound pedantic. Thank you.

The path to salvation is difficult to walk as a razor's edge.

Éloïse, I would so love to discuss the 1946 film. I happened to catch it recently somewhere by accident but darned if I remember where. Mea culpa I didn't tape it. The local library has only the later version.

What is this about searching lists with your "converter?" How does that work? Would love to know.

CookieRuth

Eloise: Thanks for bringing up the quote again. I haven't thought about it for awhile. Probably everyone has written a ton of things about this and I can't even remember. (Oh, no, yet another senior moment.) But, anyway, I have to ponder the quote again.

Salvation: deliverance from the power and effects of sin; liberation from ignorance or illusion; preservation from destruction or failure; deliverance from danger or difficulty

What a vivid picture. Walking on a razor's edge. You can just feel a razor cut - such a horrible pain when you get just a little nick. Imagine walking on the razor's edge - indescribable pain. So that's what it feels like trying to reach salvation.

And who is walking the path? Who needs or seeks salvation in the book? Well, we know Larry's flyer friend died saving Larry. Was he seeking salvation? Was he on the path? Is that what bravery is?

We certainly know Larry is walking the path. He's traveled and traveled actual roads, read and read. He's talked at length with the narrator about his quest and discoveries. Larry is like the embodiment of the search for salvation. Does Larry feel guilty that his friend died for him and he lived? Does he feel he needs to be saved? Yes. Has he suffered on the path? Mentally and physically, I think.

Sophie and Larry both seem to feel guilt following others' deaths. Are they both seeking the same thing in different ways? Sophie is walking on the razor's edge - perhaps seeking salvation by demeaning herself, poisoning her body, offering herself. Hmmm. She was cleansing herself by poisoning herself? Larry was cleansing himself.

I hadn't thought about Gray walking the path. But when I see "salvation: preservation from destruction or failure" I see Gray. His life was destroyed; he was ruined; he nearly had a nervous breakdown. He certainly suffered for the damage he helped to cause as a stockbroker. And he struggled to find himself again.

When I look at the definitions of salvation, it seems that nearly everyone, maybe everyone in the book, in one way or another, is walking the razor's edge seeking salvation.

The quote is taken from the Katha Upanishad, Hindu poetry. We cannot know what the word translated as "salvation" would be if a Hindu translated it. Salvation in the Christian sense, as described in the post above, cannot be related to Larry, since he has adopted Hinduism. Hinduism says that the good and evil deeds one does in this incarnation go through to the next incarnation. By living a good, clean life this time around, you guarantee a better life in the next one.

The journey Larry took was to find reasons why there were terrible evils in life, and to discover what kind of god it would be that would allow them. Through Hinduism he found that the evils of this life were predestined and could not be changed. All that could be changed were the evils of the next life or incarnation. This was done by being good.

I don't think Larry felt guilty about the death of the airman who saved his life; I think he wanted to understand why he had to die for a supremely good act.

I don't think Sophie felt guilty about the death of her husband and child, or that she abused her body because of guilt. I believe that Larry wanted to teach her what he knew about Hinduism so she'd feel better about the lot life had handed her.

We're talking about Predestination here.

Mal

A cinematography aside.

Thanks to PAMELA, I had the opportunity to watch the 1946 film version of The Razor's Edge tonight. My, my, have things changed.

It was wonderful to see Herbert Marshall playing Somerset Maugham, often as a voice-over narrating the story, which interrupted the flow of the film. Others in the cast were disappointing from the vantage point of this time in history.

There were inaccuracies, some of which some people might not notice. I didn't like hearing mid-30's and 40's music Costumes were not of the period, for the most part. The scenery was painted flats. So was a good deal of the acting -- flat, I mean.

I was immediately reminded of other 40's films with their pulsating, vibrating violins, violas and cellos; tympani used as build-up to a climax, and convenient thunder and lightning during dramatic moments.

The viewer is told the story, rather than being shown what it is through dialogue and action and reaction.

Most of the scenes were obviously choreographed. The director's idea of Bohemian life in Paris was regrettable. It was a little hard to tell what was Paris and what was not, and who was supposed to be American, and who was not.

Emphasis was put on Larry's distaste for the American materialism Traude mentioned. Larry's revelations in India didn't come across, and neither did his conversations with Shri Ganesha.

In my opinion, the movie didn't do the book justice.

I won't compare the two film versions, but I will say I prefer the realism of the 1984 film.

Mal

Don't you love it when you click on something and your post disappears? Unfortunately I don't have time to repost it.

I basically said that I saw the two movies and I liked the 1946 one better but I am not a big movie fan any more, on a scale of one to ten, I seldom find a ten.

I was taken by how WSM describes Larry's voice on page 270 and I was thinking that the author was mesmerized by Larry's personality. I seem to remember that he met someone like Larry who impressed him so much that he wanted to write a novel about him.

It's good that we don't all have the same perception in life. It makes life more interesting don't you think?

Has anyone ever been in the high mountains? I have only seen them in Switzerland up close, but the sensation you have being surrounded by high peaks gives such a feeling of complete awe. You can even hear silence if that is possible. If you look down, everything in the valley is tiny. Perhaps that is why Larry felt he had found the peace he was looking for. I don't know if it because, for once, you are above everything else except higher peaks.

I like this: "Nothing in the world is permanent, and we're foolish when we ask anything to last, but surely we're still more foolish not to take delight in it while we have it." and Larry sure enjoyed everything while it lasted didn't he?

Éloïse

Eloise, you ask a super question..."Larry tried to make his friends see his way, but they were not about to change their lifestyles or their thinking for him. What should have he done instead of going back to America after he failed to save them from their fate?"

We need to make our way through the pages of the development of his thinking to be able to understand why he did that. First, I have a question - do you think that there was much interest in philosophical thinking on good and evilin Maugham's time - or was this a subject that Maugham himself had pursued. What effect did Chapter Six have on his readers? Were they surprised, affected, intrigued - was such philosophical discussion new to them - or something with which they were familiar?

Another question on the chronology of events. I can see that Larry lived with Suzanne after his time with the Benedictines in Germany...but not sure if his engagement to Sophia ended before or after India. Can you help?

I think that what Larry learned in the Benedictine monastery explains some of his behavior, heretofore incomprhensible. I'll quote Father Ensheim to get it right -

"...if you will act as if you believed, belief will be granted to you, if you pray with doubt, but pray with sincerity, your doubt will be dispelled; if you will surrender yourself to the beauty of that liturgy the power of which over the human spirit has been proved by the power of the ages, peace will descend upon you."

This reminds me of the theory - if you force a smile on your face when you are feeling low, the same process that provides natural smiles works in reverse and you will find that "happy feeling" as a result. Larry feels that acts of love, loving gestures will result in love. This would explain his living with Suzanne - and even his proposal to Sophie. He must have been shattered when his offer of love was not accepted. Obviously the Benedictines do not answer his most pressing question - why an all good, all-powerful God would create evil in the world. Until he has that answer, he will not find the peace he is seeking. Christianity fails him? He has to go to India for the answer to that question.

Mal sums up Hinduism's answer to his question - "evils are predestined...and can not be changed except in the next life."

Would you say, in answer to Eloise's question - that Larry has gone back to America (to be the best taxi driver, truck driver he can be) to live his own life, to save his own soul, eradicate his own evil - putting aside his earlier attempts to save OTHERS? Marni, would you say that Larry has learned to walk his own razor's edge? Alone? It sounds as if he believes in Reincarnation...at least the reincarnation of the tendency to good and evil in each generation. Perhaps the whole concept of Reincarnation was topical in Maugham's set at this time?

This is going to be an interesting discussion today! Back later...

Cookie Ruth and all: a DVD formatted release of the 1946 movie will come May 24th. B&N and other sellers are now taking pre-release orders for shippment on the release date. The B&N Price is about $15.00. Click Here

Cookie, I forgot to answer your question about the converter. It is the hand held device which you change channels with. But i think there is another name for it.

Joan, I must admit that this author has caught my attention especially when he talks about philosophy. It makes me forgive WSM for being so critical of America when Larry says to him: "You Europeans know nothing about America. Because we amass large fortunes you think we care for nothing but money. We care nothing for it, the moment we have it we spend it, sometimes well, sometimes ill, but we spend it. Money is nothing to us, it's merely the symbol of success. We are the greatest idealists in the world, I happen to think that we've set our ideal on the wrong objects, I happen to think that the greatest ideal man can set before himself is self-perfection."

So, did Larry reject American ideals to adopt Eastern ones in this statement about his search for self-perfection, What do you think?

Éloïse

"...would you say that Larry has learned to walk his own razor's edge?" I think Larry has found a satisfactory answer to his question about why is there evil in the world. He has incorporated a philosophy and lifestyle that helps him to be more at peace.

I do think, though, that walking the razor's edge implies an ongoing ceaseless pain. So, I don't know if one would ever really "learn" to walk it. Maybe learn to bear the pain.

The Katha Upanishad quote suggests walking the path to salvation. It doesn't mention walkng the razor's edge. I think it pays to keep it in mind, though, because with one misstep, you might find it there.

Mal

I can't see it that way, Marni. The pain would come after one has come down on either side.

I see the razor's edge as that fine line dividing the opposites in life. Granted that it makes for a catchy title, it's difficult to see how it applies to the theme of the book. Walking a razor ridge trail in the mountains is almost terrifying at times. But I think in the book, the monk suggests that 'crossing' the razor's edge is difficult. That certainly suggests the likelihood of getting injured. Walking the razor's edge means seeing both sides, seething the fine line dividing good from bad, love from hate, truth from illusion, faith from inability to believe, genius frm madness, saint and satan, except for the one vowel...

Jonathan

I was interpreting it as walking a kind of tightrope between positives and negatives, good and evil.

Mal

JOAN, re Larry's engagement: Larry was never engaged to SOPHIE. And his engagement to Isabel ended, amicably, quietly, before she and her mother returned to the U.S. She tried to return the ruby egagement ring, but Larry did not take it back. Larry remained in Paris.

An aside, if I may: the mother of a young friend of ours was rushed to the hospital yesterday with agonizing stomach pain due to a ruptured aorta. She died in the early hours of the morning, surrounded by family. There are no words at times like these that could lessen the sorrow of those left behind. A grim memento mori .

Right Mal, I think too that we are always walking a tightrope trying to find the right thing to do it is not easy to spot it and we make many mistakes in trial and error.

Traude, I am sorry about the mother of this young woman. When I think about losing a child, it must be saddest thing you can ever go through even if losing a mother can be also very bad.

Sophie became a widow and also lost her baby, it must be the most devastating thing to happen to a woman and Larry said that the only women he would have wanted as a wife was Sophie and he didn't care how much he would have to put with either. If he loved her passionately we don't know, but is passionate love always a criteria for a perfect marriage I wonder?

Thank yu, ÉLOÎSE, you are most kind.

Hmmm Razor's Edge - seems to me there are several aspects to evil in Hinduism - one is not performing the rituals of life properly with the repair being sacrifice.

And then in the Upanishad says it is the Brahman himself who causes the good and evil done by humans, and so he is the one responsible for the origin of karma.

And then there is a Yoga something or other, that says evil is when we are caught up in illusion and therefore, quit suffering and meditate.

Hinduism says that evil is inevitable and since nothing dies in the universe there is no good or evil - it is all like a wheel of affect upon affect and so get on with it...

Therefore, Hinduism is saying, life is not in anyone's control - so we could be going out to sea to fish or into the perfect storm - we do not know - like walking the Razor edge - no guarantees - pray till the cows come home but it won't change what the Brahman has to offer - and so just go ahead and fish - but darn it all, be sure you do it with the proper ritual...

I think this is the theme of this novel: learning to live life to the fullest and being with peace and harmony so that one can enjoy the beauty of the natural world around us. This is lot easier said than done and like Mal said one false step and.........

In the novel Larry is uncomfortable with shallow postwar society and goes to India and then to Paris in an attempt to come to peace with himself and live a life he can respect. After Larry's quest leads him to intense self-introspection, mediation, and a time as a wandering scholar, he decides that the freest life is that of a taxi driver or a worker in a garage -- employment which will pay him enough to live yet allow him to continue his studies of the great questions.

Mal is right Larry is no saint, a saint wouldn't need to question anything. It is only us humble human beings that tend to question not only the world around us, but the world within ourselves.

I believe that we live with the dual concepts of good and evil within us all. Although evil can live without good; good can exist only because of evil. We see this in Sophie's character as well as in Isabel's character. They were both struggling within themselves over the dual existance of good and evil. The character that I don't think really had trouble reacting to this dual existance was Suzanne. And I believe it was because she neither judged or questioned her life; she simply lived it!

We can spend a lifetime like Larry and Maugham questioning life and find we had the answers all along. But the imporantance is not necessarily in discovering what is at the end of the rainbow so to speak, but rather the journey that takes us there that is important.

"Do you believe in reincarnation...and Larry replies, "If I didn't believe in it, life would have no meaning for me."

This was one of several questions that the kids in my group asked when we were eighteen sitting around bowling alleys discussing this book. We lived our lifes as if there was no tomorrow. We were intelligent enough to know that the "duck and cover" of the 50s really wouldn't make a difference to us if some evil "communist" country dropped a bomb on us. We may have only been children in 1945 when the US dropped the bombs on Japan, but we were very much aware of the result. But how does one live with that in the back of your mind?

So reincarnation became important to us and it was discussed with great enthusiasm and we asked many questions of our priests, parents, and teachers and never really got any definitive answers. And now after almost 60 years, when we get together we realize that we really couldn't have gotten the answers from anyone; rather they had to come within ourselves. Once again it was the journey that was important and by me reading this novel at eighteen when my friends and later my family started to die around me it saved me. So I don't believe Larry failed to do anything. He was able to save only himself, which is what we all must do.

Personally I believe in reincarnation - I'm coming back as a cat so I can lay in the sun all day and sit by the fire in the evening and lap up milk. Oh! wait I do that now - (except for the lapping up the milk part).

P.S. Thanks Jonathan for your kind remarks.

So sorry to hear of the unexpected death, Traude. So hard to grasp...

Will be back later to comment...just time to read the great posts. I'm surprised to learn that Larry didn't ask Sophie to marry him though. How did I misread that??? Wasn't Isabel going to gift her with a wedding dress? Huh?

I think the newly illuminated Larry will not take it upon himself to "save" the world in the future...he will concentrate on his own personal struggle to overcome evil. Jonathan, I liked your description of walking that fine line...

I think it is so interesting to see how people interpret the words "the razor's edge." Maybe the picture I saw was based on seeing too many razor ads on TV - they're always talking about the razor's "edge" in terms of sharpness - the "cutting edge" - the "sharpest edge" etc. - So I was thinking in terms of being ON the edge rather than being NEAR the edge or BETWEEN sides of the edge. So, I had been thinking of the idea you suffer to reach salvation.

Such a small thing and yet so significant!

JOAN, I'm sorry that my earlier summation was confusing.

As HAROLD pointed out some time ago, the story is NOT told in straight chronological order, and that can lead to - in fact has led to - confusion.

Years AFTER that long-ago meal at Louise Bradley's house in Chicago when the narrator met a young, tall, "drab", shy Sophie, seated next to him,
AFTER Sophie lost her husband and child in an accident, after the in-laws are scandalized by her behavior and pay her to get out of town; after Isabel and Gray are married, have children and return to Paris broke to stay in Elliott's home,
Isabel, Gray and Larry "visit" some rough joints in Paris, led by the narrator, and find Sophie in one of the sordid spots.

Sophie recognizes and approaches them.

Shortly thereafter the narrator leaves Paris for an unspecified perioid of time. While he is gone, Larry tracks down Sophie, decides to "save" her and asks her to marry him. THEN he tells Isabel. We hear this from Isabel's report to Maugham after M. returns to Paris. (There is no word about an engagement.)

Isabel is determined to stop the wedding, and stop it she does - by ingratiating herself to Sophie, setting her up, offering to buy the wedding dress, inviting Sophie to come to the house, from which they would go to the fitting.

When Sophie arrives at Isabel's house, Isabel is out. Sophie is left alone. The unctuous butler brings coffee. The bottle of Polish vodka is conspicuously left on the table as a bait for Sophie.

By the time Isabel returns, the bottle is almost empty; she guesses what happened. The deed is done. Sophie has disappeared. Larry fails to find her. Isabel feigns concern when all she feels is relief.

You are correct; all this took place after Larry's return from India.

Months (?) later, the narrator spots Sophie in the French harbor city of Toulon. She has reverted to her old life of men, alcohol and drugs.

There is more, but I won't say any more because we are still concerned with chapters 5 and 6.

You may be right, Marni, in your thinking about the razor's edge as a cutting edge, with the implication that it's a difficult and hazardous way to travel on the way to enlightenment. That's in Hindu terms. The Christian is advised to walk the straight and narrow to get into Heaven. Are they the same?

It might be interesting to compare the two belief systems, as Larry must have done. Maugham probably did as much as anyone, with his RE, to introduce Vedanta to American readers. It's not done in great depth, but it's very good as part of a popular novel. That probably made it popular. And wasn't it thought-provoking for many of us when we were young. Such tantalizing ideas. I had several friends who left looking for a guru. I've met them in the wilds. hunched over their little pot of boiling rice, chanting their mantras. Talk about rituals.

It's difficult imagining Larry as being on a razor's edge, on his journey to find himself. His self-examination methods, his studies, and his coming to terms with the world around him are too thorough and broad-based for that. And in the fine American tradition too, pragmatic. Didn't he start his search at home by immersing himself in William James' Psychology? Then he tried the Old World, the European thinkers and mystics. Early on Maugham uses in passing the phrase 'cloud of unknowing', without, however telling his reader that it is the title of a very famous medieval devotional classic. But there it is. What a shelf of books he had in his Paris room. It turned out, with Isabel's question , that Larry was a skim'em reader.

Only after having delved deeply into the Western tradition, and found it wanting, does Larry take off for the East. There in the ancient Hindu tradition he finds the peace he is looking for. And finds himself preferring the Karma of the East, over the Grace in the West. Strange, that both traditions should have rebirth at the center of their beliefs. The one seeking it, and the other seeking the way to bring its inevitability to an end.

The ending is perfect, when Larry declares that he wants to go home.

Jonathan

Did you notice that Larry appears to have made two separate trips to India? The first one immediately after he split with Kosti. This seems to have been a long trip and ends some 10 years after the initial meetings. This would be about 1930 when Larry fortuitously meets Maugham in a Paris bar, and learns Isabel and Gray are broke by the crash and are the guests of Uncle Elliott in Paris.

The second trip to India begins a year or so after Sophia broke her engagement with Larry and disappeared. This is when Larry takes a job on an around-the-world cruse ship that stops in India. Larry Jumps ship in Bombay and begins a new search for the final definitive answers to his question

This time Larry meets Shri Ganesha and under his direction is able to arrive at at least some sort of understanding though to me his answers appear vague and perhaps incomplete. None-the-less Larry seems enough satisfied to decide it is time to end his quest and return to America for unpretentious employment in an auto garage, as a truck driver, or eventually as a NY City cab driver.

But first, Larry appears in no hurry and returns to Paris for another chance meeting with Maugham at a Paris theater. Then during the course of an all night after theater dinner with Maugham, Larry turns talkative and relates the details to Maugnam (Part 6, Chapters four through eight).

The producers of the 1946 movie conveniently omitted any specific details from this period though I suspect they were included in the script authored by Maugham. Could that be why Hollywood did not use the Maugham script? In your opinion did Larry really find significant meaningful answers to his questions?

I just don't quite get a picture that Larry has as a goal the saving of his friends. Larry is Larry, and he exists quite conscious of self. If others are near him, he is their friend and offers support. But he is still separate in his own spiritual world, and he doesn't appear to me to try to teach that world to his friends. He does teach Gray how to get rid of his headaches, he helps Suzanne financially, and he tries to help Sophie come back from disaster. Sophie does affect him - do you remember he said he thought he might be awarded her because he'd tried to live a good life - but no dice! Perhaps he did love her, and I think her Mary Magdalene comment might have been unfair to Larry.

But whether or not Larry's friends embrace Larry's view of life and spirituality doesn't seem to be central to Larry. He goes home because he has learned who he is and how he views the world. There's no reason to travel any more, and he is an American.

Jonathan: Re: "It's difficult imagining Larry as being on a razor's edge, on his journey to find himself."

I do see Larry on a sharp razor's edge. He is on the razor's edge in all of his travels and readings. I mean, why is he spending his life on this quest? He's not just placidly roaming although we see someone who looks calm, smiles, detached. He's tortured, in pain, seeking answers to age-old questions.

I was thinking about some war stories where men have been terribly haunted, tortured by their war experiences. For example, Christopher Walken in The Deer Hunter is compelled after his Vietnam War stint to play Russian Roulette with a 1-bullet filled gun until he finally kills himself. Larry goes on his quest for knowledge and peace. They're both in terrible pain.

Here's an example of Larry on the razor's edge: In chapt. 5, the narrator says what I think are very important words to Isabel, first about Jesus, then about Larry: The narrator is talking about the devil's temptations to Jesus, which Jesus resists until the devil offers Jesus "shame and disgrace, scourging, a crown of thorns and death on the cross"...where Jesus would "...save the human race, for greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Jesus fell...."

Then the narrator continues to Isabel: "I only wanted to suggest to you that self-sacrifice is a passion so overwhelming that beside it even lust and hunger are trifling. It whirls its victim to destruction in the highest affirmation of his personality. The object doesn't matter; it may be worth while or it may be worthless. No wine is so intoxicating, no love so shattering, no vice so compelling. When he sacrifices himself man for a moment is greater than God....How can you suppose that common sense or prudence will have any effect on Larry when he's in the grip of a passion like that? You don't know what he's been seeking all these years. I don't know either, I only suspect. All these years of labour, all these experiences he garnered weigh nothing in the balance now they're set against his desire - oh, it's more than a desire, his urgent, clamorous need to save the soul of a wanton woman whom he'd known as an innocent child. I think you're right, I think he's undertaking a hopeless job; WITH HIS ACUTE SENSIBILITY HE'LL SUFFER THE TORTURES OF THE DAMNED; HIS LIFE'S WORK, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, WILL REMAIN UNDONE..."

Harold, right Larry made two trips to India, but the going back and forth in time is very confusing.

Did Larry find confirmation in India that materialism was not going to be for him as he had suspected, but he preferred to work hard for his living instead of living on his small income. In a way, he might be right, when we don't have to work for a living, we tend to fall into bad habits like eating too much. I am kidding, of course, but really it is like being permanently on welfare. If you are young, you need challenges to stimulation you.

I loved to read about the different meanings of a razor's.edge.

Before we start on Part 7 tomorrow, is there anything else we want to explore in Part 5 and 6?

This discussion is so interesting with many insightful posts, that there seems to be no end in discovering what this author had to say.

I don't see Larry on a razor's edge in his quest for enlightenment. It is the narrator speaking in Christian terms (some made up from his own imagination) in Chapter 5 on Page 210, not Larry. I don't think Larry would ever compare himself to Jesus. His acquired Hindu allegiance and humility wouldn't have allowed him to.

I think to Larry that his quest was an exciting adventure. Maybe that's because the enlightenment of self and the world through study and research and being hit by a bolt out of the blue by an important realization is the greatest adventure I've ever known.

When Larry became saturated or tired by the search for answers, he went off and did something else. Smart of him. It can be tedious, this intellectual pursuit, and often frustrating, but I doubt if Larry ever found it painful. It was, after all, exactly what he wanted to, and he was doing it. How many other people do you know who can say that?

Mal

We perceive differently from what the author writes and if one feels it is torture or pain that Larry goes through is OK with me because it is how it's felt for one. If on the other hand what Larry goes through is another thing altogether, that is OK too because we perceive his quest in a different way.

Larry was searching for meaning. Searching can be a pleasure as much as it can be a pain. Personally I am never quite satisfied of my search for knowledge because the search has been constant but just the fact that I am allowed to search gives me pleasure. For many young students though, it gives them pain, but when they get to be seniors they will find that the pain of never finding answers to their questions becomes pleasure.

Scamper do you think that perhaps Larry would have been more effective in helping Sophia if he had retained the impersonal position of counselor or teacher as he did with Grey rather that proposing marriage? The marriage bit seams to have put her in an awkward position that eventually led to her relapse.

In addition to psychology Larry used several religions to arrive at his final answers including time spent in the German Monastery that seems to have had influence on his final acceptance and reconciliation. The principal philosophical influence though seems to have been the Hindu and Shri Ganesha. Based on my 60 year stale recollection of my Comparative Religious Thought Course from Trinity, Larry’s final state seems to be less than the final absolute peace that comes from the liberation, enlightenment and release from further reincarnations. This is what the Buddhists refer to as “Nirvana.” I think the Hindus use another words for this sought for achievement that the Christians I suppose would call, “the peace that passes all understanding.”

Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism beginning in the 6th century BC. As I remember it largely disappeared from India after Buddha’s death but took root in Tibet, Southeast Asia and Japan. Maugham never mentions Larry in Tibet so we must suppose his Shri Gaanesha was Hindu in India.

I will re examine my notes and try to post more details for my conclusion that Larry’s final peace was something short of the complete answers to the questions of his long quest. For now I will only note that after his vision in which he saw himself in a long successions of previous carnations, he later seemed to accept as a fact that he could tolerate further rebirths. In other words Larry still considered his achievement as short of Nirvana. None the Less Larry was sufficiently reconciled to return to a life in America.

I grew up in a Catholic/Greek Orthodox background. Both religions ground into us that we had to fear God and obey the rules or we'd all go to hell. To me neither religion brought me comfort; so after reading this book I sought comfort from the eastern religions and from Buddhism I learned how to live in peace and harmony. I won't begin to say that I'm even close to achieving those goals, I'm still on my journey. Here is a Metta Prayer that I like:

May all things be happy, content, and fulfilled. May all beings be healed and whole. May all have whatever they want and need. May all be protected from harm, and free from fear. May all beings enjoy inner peace and ease. May all be awakened, liberated, and free. May there be peace in this world, and throughout the universe.

To me those things stated in this prayer are what is important to me and reciting this prayer has given me comfort and a feeling of being at peace and in harmony with the rest of the world.

This is what I have found on my journey, but I can't say what Larry found except to say that he too learned how to live a life that he could accept. I see Larry as being a human being that had a war time experience that started him questioning the world around him. This probably didn't mean that he was unhappy only that perhaps he was not satisfied. He didn't want more out of a future life; rather he wanted a "different" life.

Scamper do you think that perhaps Larry would have been more effective in helping Sophia if he had retained the impersonal position of counselor or teacher as he did with Grey rather that proposing marriage? The marriage bit seams to have put her in an awkward position that eventually led to her relapse.

I think you are right - that Larry would have been more effective if he had remained a counselor, not a lover. But perhaps Larry wanted a relationship for himself. I'm not sure Sophia had the strength no matter what not to relapse. If it had been me, I think the proposed marriage would have made me stronger, but I can see how it might have the opposite effect.

Oh, my, we are all over the board on Larry, aren't we? Some feel he was in great pain, a tormented soul. Others feel that he is approaching - though will perhaps never reach - nirvana. I can't help but think we are applying our own experiences to Larry to decide where to put him. I personally felt that he has found his center and he knows how he wants to live his life. He has a passion for study, and he is passionate about his war friend's death leading him to study. Perhaps he knows now that there is no one right answer, but I feel he has a peace and self-assurance that is quite remarkable.

On the other hand, I can see how some think he might be a tortured soul. He speaks with great passion about his friend's death, he wanders from place to place, and he can't stay near his friends for very long!

I agree with SCAMPER and SCRAWLER that Larry has come close to finding whatever you want to call it -- A Center? Way to live? And some answers to some difficult questions about life.

My evaluation of Larry's quest is not based on my own experiences; it's based on what he says about his.

He has worked toward Hinduism for a long time, especially when he was at the Ashram. He has remembered previous incarnations. He has told the narrator that "if I didn't believe in it ( Reincarnation ) life would have no meaning to me." He has also told the narrator ( Page 206 ) that he didn't think it was possible for Occidentals to believe in Reincarnation in the way Orientals do. It seems to me that Larry has adopted parts of Hinduism like tolerance for all things and the HIndu ideas about the place of man in Nature along with the concept of Reincarnation.

An aside: study of Hinduism was very prevalent in the United States in the 19th century. Both Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was a minister of the religion in which I was raised, and Henry David Thoreau, as well as other Transcendentalists, studied and wrote about the Hindu religion.

Nirvana is hard to explain. It is a state of complete Selflessness, almost Nothingness. Nirvana is part of Buddhism.

In Hinduism there is Moksha. Moksha is the state one must achieve in order to be rid of Samsara, which is the never-ending process of Reincarnation. There's nothing to indicate to me that Larry was able to do this, or even wanted to. He was looking for answers, not complete identification with any philosophy or religion. The Hindu idea of Reincarnation answered one of the biggest, most troublesome questions in his mind -- If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world?

Below is a link to some very good pages about Hinduism written by Hindu scholars. You might be interested in clicking the link titled "Upanisad".

Hinduism

I just managed to get The Razors edge and I am reading it flat out. I probably will leave comments til the summing up stage and do a bit of a review. Thats all I can do in the short space of time left for me. I have a huge book that has four novels in it including Cakes and Ale and The Moon and Sixpence. One thing I did notice is that in all the books of Maughams that I have read he writes in the first person. I have not read that many yet but as a child read a compendium of his short stories that my grandmother had ( she was a Maugham and Du Maurier fan) in her personal library.

Scrawler, I like your Metta prayer. That is a good one for when we never seem to get what we want and it always seems to be beyond our reach?

Scamper, "that Larry would have been more effective if he had remained a counselor, not a lover."

I am really wondering if he would have been a good counselor, perhaps for Sophie if she had loved him, but she was still in love with her husband Bob, but perhaps if he was patient, very patient she would eventually have been cured, who knows. He seemed to have made a strong impression on the Narrator didn't he?

Mal, "If God is good, why is there so much evil in the world?" is a question many people ask. I don't know why. Did I ever meet an evil person I asked myself once? I don't think I ever did. Is it because I have been living in a cocoon?

Carolyn, I am happy that you have joined us even at this stage. You will like this book, I am going to get the others you mentioned, especially Of Human Bondage that everybody was talking about. How interesting that Maugham always wrote in the first person. I am no literary expert, but is that a sign of something? Tell us what you find, it doesn't matter if it is something from the beginning.

I think it was because his writing was very much done from the point of a real life observer. His characters were probably either people he had come in contact with over the years or composites of people he came across. I, is the observer speaking.

Carolyn

The human nature has great capacity for evil. I believe a faith in a Good God does keep a lot of us on the straight and narrow.

I have come across evil, One of my friends husband was systematically drugging her to make her appear insane, and she was not believed. It was after she was committed and the drugs left her system her Psychiatrist believed her story. There was no proof by then in her home. 5 years later he actually killed his second partner and was found guilty of manslaughter. He was using drugs again to gain control of all her property. It should have been murder. He had his little son lie for him. He is a very clever, highly educated and plausible Psychopath. He is the embodiment of evil. The whole story could have been a suspense film plot but it was real life.

CAROLYN, what a pleasure to see you here! Welcome!

SCAMPER, I concur with your post about Larry.

There is no indication in the story that Larry was suffering the torments of Tantalus. He seems to have been quite happy--- and determined. In my opinion there was nothing "wrong" with him simply because he refused to accept a cushioned job with all amenities and the good life built in for the foreseeable future.

I believe that we bring something to every book and every discussion : our selves, our experiences. That's natural, probably inevitable. Furthermore, the fact applies to many other aspects of our lives. That's how we were made and think.

The net has bridged time and space, it has given us unprecedented immediacy, a marvelous gift. But there are inherent dangers in instant exchange: when tempers flare, for example. For my part I prefer rational discussions without acrimony and oneupmanship.

It surprised me also how personally people can take the protagonist of a book, his/her actions, reactions and be reminded of their own lives.

However, when all is said and done, an author's words as set down in black on whie are the only reliable information. The rest, I submit, is conjecture and speculation.

I have discovered as I read I rarely picture the surroundings or the physical attributes of the characters instead I see their character and personality. I don't know if its an aberration of my brain or are there others like me? My daughter reads the same way as myself. You can see then why I prefer books with rich and complex characters.

Carolyn

starts with Sophie's violent death and we find our Larry and the Narrator giving her a decent burial with much sorrow and regret that she had never found peace. The Narrator on his way to England stops in Paris for the sole purpose of seeing Isabel and giving her his piece of mind.

Do you think that the Narrator has a right to make Isabel responsible for Sophie's death?

Was leaving a bottle of alcohol to tempt Sophie enough to accuse Isabel of murder?

Does the Narrator know woman enough if he has never been married himself?

Would he judge a man the same way as he is judging a woman?

Is Isabel responsible for Sophie's death?

Is it me, or does the narrator take on a more aggressive/assertive role in these final chapters? He seems more than a favorite uncle listening post, as he pens little notes, offers unsolicited advice, accuses Isabel of causing Sophie's death, etc...

I was interested in Ronsard's poem - the first line of which he quoted to Sophie so I looked it up. With Ronsard in mind, he seems to be saying that she is burning her candle at both ends - that her end is near.

A ma maistresse

Mignonne, allons voir si la rose
Qui se matin avoit déclose
Sa robe de pourpre au Soleil,
A point perdu ceste vesprée
Les plis de sa robe pourprée,
Et son teint au vostre pareil.

Las ! voyez comme en peu d'espace,
Mignonne, elle a dessus la place
Las las ses beautez laisse cheoir !
O vrayment marastre Nature,
Puis qu'une telle fleure ne dure
Que du matin jusques au soir !

Donc, si vous me croyez mignonne,
Tandis que vostre age fleuronne
En sa plus verte nouveauté,
Cueillez cueillez vostre jeunesse :
Comme à ceste fleure la vieillesse
Fera ternir vostre beauté.

In the last lines he warns her to gather her rosebuds as she may...

I think he is being unnecessarily harsh with Isabel...but he seems to be trying to get her to recognize her part in Sophie's downfall...and to a point, he succeeds. I don't think he really thinks that Isabel is the one responsible for her murder - the accusation was just a device to get a response.

Wasn't it interesting when Larry told him that Sophie was the only girl he could have married. Is this new-found knowledge - or did he know it back then when they were young. Why did he plan to marry Isabel then?

1. Do you think that the Narrator has a right to make Isabel responsible for Sophie's death?

Yes. Though a better wording of the question would be was the Narrator justified in holding Isabel responsible?

It is basic to both tort and criminal law based on Anglo-Saxon common law traditions to hold an actor responsible for the results of his acts even if those results were not intended. This means that the armed robber committing a hold-up will be accountable for murder if the gun accidentally goes off killing the victim. It means the bartender who for monetary profit keeps selling alcohol to a customer, will be held responsible for the financial loss of the victim the drunken customer injured in an auto accident on the way home. It means Isabel who baited her trap with Polish Vodka is at least morally responsible when it snagged a recovering alcoholic leading to her death.

I suspect that most religions also would deem her morally responsible also.

2. Was leaving a bottle of alcohol to tempt Sophie enough to accuse Isabel of murder?

It would not be murder in a legal sense, but in a moral sense it would be so judged.

3. Does the Narrator know woman enough if he has never been married himself?

Apparently yes as he did hold Isabel morally responsible for her act. In this case I think the Narrator called it right.

$. Would he judge a man the same way as he is judging a woman?

Yes, he most certainly should. This is not a man/woman issue

4. Is Isabel responsible for Sophie's death?

She is morally responsible

I am going to be out of pocket untill tomorow evening. I am going to my Guadalupie county property to cut grass in the cool of this evening and tomorrow morning. Will be back late Saturday.

Interesting but I wonder are we looking at these characters as a soup opera or are we considering them as a metaphor to a theme - if they are considered metaphoric and even if we want to make Isabel a murderer wouldn't she simply be representing the death of passionate love - gone amuck or not - Sophie lives a passionate life - so much so she dulls her passions with booze and men...

It's been my opinion that The Razor's Edge is a soap opera since I first read it years ago. BARBARA said "Soup Opera", and I think that's great. What a gallimaufry stew it is!

Look at what's there: - the romance of young love and a terrible war, the snobbery, glitz and glamour and Bohemia of Paris set against the background of rich midwestern living rooms and the slaughterhouses of Chicago, unrequited love, jealousy and revenge, the deaths of a young husband and baby, a woman who goes off the deep end with drugs and sex, a guy who has to climb halfway up a Himilayan mountain and live with Hindu priests in an ashram to find out what life's all about, a nice young girl who writes poetry while she's growing up, and ends up dead in a French river far away from home with her throat cut, opium dens, pimps, impossibly expensive parties, servants, houses and cars.

Soap opera? Sure, it is. Jacqueline Susann should have it so good.

Mal

Perhaps the word we are looking for here is "Companion" for Larry. Had he not asked Sophia to marry him and been her Companion in much the same way that Suzanne was a Companion to the people she was with; would this have made a difference in Sophie's life?

According to the dictionary a companion is a person who associates with or accompanies another or others; associate; comrade. On the surface it seems simple enough, but being someone's companion really is diffcult. First off you have to listen to them; I mean really listen to them. Was Larry willing to listen to Sophie? Was he willing to give up his quest in order spend time with her? I think it was easier for Larry to ask her to marry him. He only assumed that this was really what she wanted. I would bet that he probably didn't even bother to ask her what she wanted and I'm not even sure that Sophie could have told him even if she knew.

Suzanne didn't judge the people she was with, she was their companion for whatever time they were together. On the other hand it seems that all the characters in the book at one time or another seemed to judge Sophie.

I think there is important message here from the author. I think this is part of the over-all theme of the novel. And that is that in order to live our life in peace and harmony one of the things we should stop doing is judging other people.

Isabel's JUDGMENT of Sophie was the catalyst that drove Isabel to be so jealous that she wanted to tempt Sophie. The reason for her motivation really wasn't the issue here, but rather it was the fact that she judged Sophie.

"Do you think that the Narrator has a right to make Isabel responsible for Sophie's death?"
Well, since the narrator is a fictionalized Somerset Maugham, who wrote this book, I'd say he gave plenty of proof that supports his accusation.of Isabel's guilt in her confession on Page 302 First she says about Sophie, "I knew she'd give her soul for a drink." Then she goes on to say how she planned what she was going to do:
"The idea came to me when Uncle Elliott made all that fuss about that damned Polish liqueur. I thought it beastly, but I pretended it was the most wonderful stuff I'd ever tasted. I was certain that if she got a chance she'd never have the strength to resist. That's why I took her to the dress show. That's why I offered to make her a present of her wedding dress.

"That day, when she was going to have the last fitting, I told Antoine I'd have the zubrovka after lunch and then I told him I was expecting a lady and to aske her to wait and offer her some coffee and to leave the liqueuer in case she fancied a glass.

"I did take Joan to the dentist's, but of course we hadn't an appointment and he couldn't see us, so I took her to a newsreel.

"I'd made up my mind that if I found Sophie hadn't touched the stuff I'd make the best of things and try to be friends with her."

The narrator says, "That's more or less what I imagined had happened. you see, I was right; you cut her throat as surely as if you'd drawn the knife across it with your own hands."
Isabel has told how she set Sophie up. She has essentially confessed to being a primary accomplice to murder. There's a high penalty for that crime.

Somerset Maugham was as objective an observer of people as any writer could be. He could see their faults and their virtues and everything in between at the same time. His assessments of men and women were equally circumspect. Therefore, a man would be treated (judged) by him in the same way as a woman, and vice versa.

Mal

The doctor called Dorian just now. It seems that according to the blood tests I had, I'm anemic and have an infection.

I am going to be admitted into the hospital this afternoon.

I'll ask my daughter, Dorian, to post in WREX about how I am.

Mal

Mal: I hope they resolve your medical problems quickly. Good luck.

I hope you will get back home soon. We will be watching out for Dorian's posts on how you are doing.

Scrawler, There are many couples who more or less become companions as they get older together too. Suzanne was a good buddy to her previous lovers wasn't she and she didn't make a fuss when he left her.

If Isabel is more-or-less an accomplice to murder, the narrator could have taken her to court for this crime? Why didn't he do that?

Joan, Thank you for posting this poem by Ronsard: "Allons voir si la rose" it is in old French, but so very poetic.

Mal, may you be quickly restored to good health.

The latest from Pugatory: your post, 473, brought a big smile to Somerset Maugham's face. Very uncharacteristic of him. Very unwitting too. The Razor's Edge will now be one more thing to atone for.

Jonathan

I saw an irony about paintings at the end of the book. Isabel, who inherited Elliot's impressionist paintings by Renoir, Monet etc., disdained them because she preferred more modern paintings. I had the feeling that perhaps she may have eventually purchased one of Suzanne's paintings, described by the narrator as "vaporous and unsubstantial.....even a certain careless elegance."

The narrator was left Elliot's porn art collection. I still don't understand why.

I don't regard the Razors edge as a soap. Maugham lived amongst a lot of colorful people. Artists, the idle rich etc. These type of people often live to all the excesses of their emotions. I think he has just put in one book the extreme situations in the lives of his friends and acquaintances. The characters will be composites of many people. I am fascinated with the characters and so far I can identify with Larry as I am somewhat of an eccentric in the way I view the world!

Carolyn

I will always remember The Razor's Edge after this discussion. I never look at Soaps, so I couldn't tell if it is like a Soap. If only WSM was still alive, he would be thrilled that we are discussing his novel wouldn't he?

Carolyn, You an eccentric? Come on now you're kidding me. I am glad that you enjoy the book. Soaps will be forgotten when the book will still be around years from now.

I think that the narrator/author gave Isabel very little credit for her intelligence if he said that she didn't like the Impressionists unless she would rather have had the money their sale would bring.

Life is a soap, and thus perhaps is The Razor's Edge. But I'd put Maugham above Jacqeline Susann anyday, LOL!

I just love the way he draws his characters. No pot boiler novelist today has anywhere near the same skills. I think he is a great author. I loved Human Bondage. Maugham will live on whereas Jackie Collins or Danielle Steele will not!

By looking at the table of content of Larry’s book do you have a better idea of the nature of his character? On Page 305 we see:

”It was a collection of essays… The choice he made puzzled me. There was one on Sulla, the Roman dictator who, having achieved absolute power, resigned it to return to private life; there was one on Akbar, the Mogul conqueror who won an empire; there was one on Rubens, there was one on Goethe, and there was one on the Lord Chesterfield of the Letters.”

Does that give us a better idea of what kind of man Larry was? These eminent personalities are famous in history, painting, philosophy and literature. Is that surprising for a man like Larry who had led, from what I gather, a very simple life. He had not received a high formal education, yet his reading and his writing didn’t seem to match his choice of career.

Why did he choose to become a mechanic in a garage or a truck driver instead of pursuing his studies if he was talented enough to write a book?

Could we have foreseen this to happen at the beginning? Can a traumatic experience suddenly change a man the way Larry changed after the war?

I liked Lord Chesterfield's quotes.

Sular

Akbar

Rubens

Goethe

Lord Chesterfield

This was what Larry was studying all this time before he went to India to find 'meaning in life'. He didn't play games that other young men his age played at the time. He was immersed in his quest totally and the other people he associated with were a sort of side-line, something to take a break from his studies. Was his only passion Philosophy perhaps? It didn't matter what his career was going to be because he always could study no matter what his occupation was and he could better think driving a truck than selling bonds.

What is your take on this?

This is where I become confused - Larry as a character was probably more serious than most and probably learned tons but whatever he learned could only be interpreted by the author. And like anyone trying to explain another's experience or path towards wisdom and spiritual enlightenment, you cannot really touch what is authentic to the scholar or person doing the soul searching - all we know about Larry is through the eyes and pen of Maugham and he may not have personally done the spiritual search in his life that he is suggesting was the path with his portrayal of Larry.

In "The Summing Up he [Maugham] wrote: "I have been called cynical. I have been accused of making men out worse than they are. I do not think I have done this. All I have done is to bring into prominence certain traits that many writers shut their eyes to. I think what has chiefly struck me in human beings is their lack of consistency."

I think this is what Maugham has done with Isabel. He has pointed out her lack of consistency. According to the introduction of my paperback: "He [Maugham] monitors her [Isabel], envolving character not only in terms of her hardening social attitudes but through her changing shape and appearance. The lively teenage girl, "comely though on the fat side," grows up in the years between her conversations with her real uncle Elliott and her honory uncle Maugham into a slim, elegantly presented, tough, fashonable, worldly woman. The pillars of the plot are her long talks with Maugham, who becomes her confidant and accurately probes her motivation - to her fury, on at least one occasion.

The episode where Isabel leaves the bottle of "that damned Polish liqueur" - zubrovka - lying invitingly in her apartment for Sophie to discover is a moment at which Maugham's stitching together of his major and minor plots shows. It neverthless reveals the merciless woman behind Isabel's well-groomed exterior. Thanks to the zubrovoke, Sophie reverts to alcoholism, and her imminent wedding with Larry does not take place. As Maugham says, Isabel has everything except tenderness."

It has been asked why Maugham didn't turn Isabel over to the police if he suspected her of a crime. Since this novel isn't a crime novel, I don't think it would have been in character for Maugham to have turned Isabel over to the police. He simply has pointed out not only her inconsistencies in her character but her lack of traits such as - tenderness.

Mal may you find peace very soon. Take care of yourself. YOU are the most important person in your life!

I have almost caught up with you guys. I have been reading solidly all weekend!

If Larry were one of my friends I would not criticise him for his choices in life. Today our life revolves around business and we do not have enough philosophers and thinkers. That is why here in NZ our Universities are not turning out people who change things. Its the idealists and the thinkers who help to shape our society. Remove them and we remove our soul as a society.

That is just one of the thoughts I had as I read this book.

Carolyn

Maugham's quasi memoir - really general musings - The Summing Up is no more "linear" than RE.

But there are sporadic and distinct references in this small book (219 pages) that lead me to believe that Larry's spiritual quest was partially Maugham's own. Maugham's quest began when he was 24, he writes, and a student in Heidelberg - my own alma mater. That's when and where he began to question what he had been taught and taken for granted. Not only that, but he mistakenly thought what he believed was universally shared !

Maugham describes (in The Summing Up) his voracious reading, which was as plan-less as Larry's and took him in many different directions over long periods of time. None of the philosophical or religious theories satisfied him. He mentions names, e.g. Kant, Bertrand Russell and many others, read the relativists, the pragmatists; refers to "the egoism of man" (section 75), questions the meaning of life over and over again. The text is dense and extends over entire pages with scant regard to paragraphs (which reminds me of Jose Saramago's"Blindness".)

Here-s short quote that begins on pg. 218 and ends halfway down the last pg., 219.

"When I look back on my life, with its successes and its failures, its endless errors, its deceptions and its fulfilments, its joys and miseries, it seems to me strangely lacking in reality. It is shady and unsubstantial. It may be that my heart, having found rest nowhere, had some deep ancestral craving for God and immortality which my reason would have no truck with. In default of anything better it has seemed to me sometimes that I might pretend to myself that the goodness I have not so seldom after all come across in many of those I have encountered on my way had reality. It may be that in goodness we may see, not a reason for life nor an explanation of it, but an extenuation. In this indifferent universe, with its inevitable evils that surrouund us from he cradle to the grave, it may serve not as a challenge or a reply, but an an affirmation of our own indpendence. It is the retort that humour makes to the tragic absurdity of fate. ..." emphasis mine.

ÉLOÏSE, I should like to think that Larry did find a modicum of happiness, or at least of contentment. I believe Larry meant his book of philosophical essays (I believe they were) to be the distillation of what he had read, expressed in different forms.

The reader is not sure whether, or to what extent, Larry succeeded. But that is not the point.Maugham pronounced himself surprised by the personages in the book, and Isabel (who received her copy before the arrator did) could hardly have cared any less-- which leads Maugham to comment (on my pg. 333) :

"I thought with melancholy how an author spends months writing a book, and maybe puts his heart's blood into it, and then it lies about unread till the reader has nothing else in the world to do. It was a volume of three hundred pages nicely printed and neatly bound."

This paragraph reiterates Maugham's earlier mention of Gray's and Elliott's houses where book were not in evidence (in Gray's den), or locked behind latticework (in Elliott's home) = a disinterest in books which the author/narrator clearly lamented.

Barbara, true that "All we know about is through the eyes and pen of Maugham" yes, but didn't he depict Larry as if it was himself he was writing about perhaps and having the same inner seach, as Traude posted below?

Scrawler, we certainly could not detect an ounce of tenderness in Isabel when she talked about Sophie, but was it only because of Larry?

Traude, His goodness was almost unreal finding happiness in self-sacrifice, although we come across people who devote all their life to a cause or a sick person and that is what makes them happy.

After all, he helped Suzanne when she was sick and without money, he helped Isabel until she expected more than he could give her and of course he tried to help Sophie by marrying her. So was he constantly on the lookout for a poor sould to save?

hmmm are you suggesting that Larry is an extension of Maugham - see this is where I really do get confused because I was under the impression Maugham wrote the narrator as if he were the narrator - oh dear - Maugham is the god so to speak of all the characters - hehehe they really do not have free will but are tools to tell his story. I guess I feel we are not given as much insight or understanding into Larry's search for Nirvana if that is even what Larry is seeking...and so to judge his actions in respect to his studied spiritual understanding is not adding up only because I see his behavior not in line with the spiritual conclusion that I understand his studies would have provided.

That is when I realized if I have an opinion as to what I think Larry "should" have learned than so does Maugham have an understanding of what a character he creates would have learned as a result of the path he set for the character which is really his, the author's understanding of that path and its potential nuggets of wisdom.

And so where I do not see Larry behaving in symphony with his path - does Maugham see him as an icon to his studies or - is he writing Larry as a piece of irony or - does Maugham have a limited understanding of the very studies he has Larry pursue - I am confused...

Barbara, "And so where I do not see Larry behaving in symphony with his path" I don't know because the way I see it is he IS in symphony with his path. Isn't that incredible, what difference we see in writing such as this? To me Larry is following exactly the path that his search for meaning has led him to. You would have to explain in more detail I guess where he is NOT following his path, but keep it simple, or else I won't understand. hahahaha.

I see that Larry or someone like him has impressed Maugham in the past and he decided to write a novel about this character. Whether Larry thinks exactly like Maugham we will never know. Maugham could have been also like Elliott, but not like Gray I find.

Obviously we have a different impression of Maugham's Larry and Larry's quest.. But let me submit to you with respect that

whether Maugham meant to be taken as the narrator of this story (and that is indeed likely, as has been pointed out earlier in this discussion),
whether Larry was drawn after a person Maugham knew and admired, or
instead was drawn after Maugham himself,

the indisputable fact is that Maugham created Larry.

If the protagonist Larry, Maugham's creation, did not find what he was looking for, isn't it possible that Maugham himself did not HAVE the answers?

Sometimes we may feel "let down" by a story, or long for more information, but - as I have said recently, when all is said and done we have only the author's own words in black on white. No more, no less.

To me Maugham was definately the narrator. At one point he says "When I was a medical student" Maugham was himself a medical student. I read a biography on Maugham some time ago.

I believe Larry did get his answer and find his path. My philosophy on life is a lot like Larrys although I have never wished to get involved in any Eastern Religious philosophies. However I do think simplicity in living makes for a happier life. If one does not crave material goods you are a lot happier within yourself. That is not to say sometimes I do not wish for instance I could have a digital camera. The reason for this is because I love to share my family and country with my friends on the net and it would be an immediate way for me to do it without having to go to the photo lab. I am not envious of others homes for instance and I am very happy in my little cottage. So many people spend so much on home decoration and change their style ever three or four years. My outdoor surroundings are more important to me than indoor and even in that I am an eccentric. I like unspoilt natural surroundings. My one concession to conformity is that I get the lawns mown. Everything else is allowed to run wild. The natural world to me is very spiritual. Its an expression of the Great Creator and also to me is an ever evolving artists canvas, and a myriad of sculptures. I liked Larrys character a lot.

Isabel - Disliked her. Thought her shallow, self absorbed and ruthless in her own way.

Sophie - felt very sad for her. Here was a young woman who was quite an introvert and very sensitive. She falls wildly in love with a man who loves her as wildly back and then in one second she loses both the man she adored and her beloved child. How many of us are strong enough to weather that. Even the strongest of us would be dealt a mighty blow.

Sophie did not care whether she lived or died. She felt she had nothing to live for so she lived life on "a razors edge". Her alcoholism was an expression of her pain. She drank to numb that pain. She wanted to die.

Eliot - exactly as Maugham sums him up. A vain man, who looks like a very shallow character at first glance but underneath the facade is a gentle, generous and kindly man.

I will be back later for more thoughts on this book that took me a lot longer than normal to read because I love the way Maugham writes. He writes beautifully. I also love the way he describes the characters in this book so I had to read every word! I am a speed reader normally. This is all very well for study but often spoils my recreational reading. It has to be a very good book for me to be able to stop speed reading. I stopped for "The Razors edge"

Carolyn

For me “Razors Edge” is an example of romantic fiction sometimes termed melodrama. I suppose this does make it a “Soap.”

In 1944 the French playwright, Jean Anouilh then with the French underground wrote a modern version of the classic Sophocles drama “Antigone.” In his version as a part of the dialog Anouilh through the Chorus makes an interesting analysis into the difference between Greek tragedy and modern melodrama, the principal difference being that the tragic endings in the Greek tragedy are inevitable as part of a divine plan. For the Characters to struggle against their preordained fate makes no sense at all; likewise for the audience to cry on the happing of divine will is equally senseless. The tragic ending is to be expected.

In melodrama on the other hand the fate of the characters is in their own hands or in the hands of other human characters as the Author decides. They cannot blame the Gods, only them selves and each other. Anouilh noted that the death of lead character in melodrama is always truly sad. This is because of the many missed human opportunities that would have so easily have created a better ending. Until the very end the author might have change the plot to create a happy ending.

If Maugham had written “Razors Edge” as a Greek tragedy he would not have given himself the Narrator’s role. Instead the Narrator would have been a god and would have told the story without the necessity of having to invent the so many fortuitous chance meetings through which Maugham revealed the plot. No the Chorus would have the omniscience of a God. But in writing “Razor’s Edge” as melodrama the tragic endings, Sophie in particular, are truly sad. How easily it would have been for even a slight change in the reactions of Isabel, Larry and others all through the book” to have changed the tragic outcome.

When I read The Razor's Edge, I couldn't wait to find out what Larry's 'answer' was. But I was never sure of it, of course. My take on the message is that life is to be lived simply, with study, and with a keen awareness of your natural surroundings. That we are all part of the universe. As part of the universe, there is nothing to fear. If we are lucky we will experience our oneness with the universe from time to time - and perhaps in the hereafter. Not a bad message, I think.

I think too that Somerset Maugham did not intend to provide the answers to Larry’s search, Traude because he didn’t himself know what the answer was. How could we know the answers, we can only go on searching throughout our life, I think.

Does anyone feel let down by the ending of the story? Do you feel that WSM could have at least written about one character’s happiness? Do you think that the novel would have gained something by a different approach?

A simple life Carolyn is the only life for me. I never had to struggle to find it. But a high life is harder to give up when you give away all your money, that takes courage.

Harold, how interesting what you said about melodrama. Like Carolyn said, I usually read a book without analyzing it in depth unless I have to, like this one for instance. I get into the story and just let my imagination run wild. Don’t you think that there is a style of writing that belongs to a certain era? In the 1940s when The Razor’s Edge was written it was very common that a play or a novel had a tragic ending, like in the opera Carmen. I remember French novels were almost always tragic in those days.

Happy endings are more common in American literature and movies because Americans are more optimistic than Europeans because of constant warring there. It is not surprising that SWM didn’t mention the war very much if he wanted to set the tone in the roaring 20s.

In the 1946 movie, I liked Tyrone Power’s voice and found him a very credible Larry and Gene Thierny was excellent as Isabel, but I found Ann Baxter too soft for the role of Sophie in Paris, she was fine as a teenager, although a bit old for the part, and Clifton Web just outstanding as Elliott. Of course we are used to better settings, but they tried their best with the small post-war budgets. I am sorry that the part at the mine with Kosti was so short.

"The position Maugham established through more than sixty years of writing was no mean accomplishment. He was a storyteller - one who believed a story should have a beginning, a middle, and and end, carefully delineated characters, a lucid plot and employ clear, concise lauguage. Maugham was, Walter Allen wrote, "the last survivor of a vanished age, an age which had not divorced, as our has largely done, the idea of entertainment from the idea of art." The writer for him, was a purveyor of pleasure, and what he wrote about was more important than how it was presented. He said, "With me the sense is more than the sound, the substance is more than the form, the moral significance is more than the rhetorical adornment. I am not indifferent to the art and music of words, but I habitually treat them as of secondary importance. It proves that if you tell stories, create characters, devise incidents, and have sincerity and passion, it doesn't matter how you write." He added, "I worte stories because it was a delight to write them."

I agree with Maugham's last line. After all is said and done, the most important thing about a novel is A)the writer enjoys writing it and B)the reader enjoys reading it. That's what a good storyteller does and why readers read their books.

"Despite the many assaults on the merits of Maugham's work, he often asserted that he did not care about such criticism, that he was content with his explorations of bondage, of the attainment of individuality, and of the complex relationships people go through in the course of their lives. "I have been highly praised and highly abused. On the whole I think I can truly say I have not been unduly elated by one or unduly depressed by the other," he wrote. "You see, I have always written for my own pleasure."

From Maugham's own words he states: "he was content with his explorations of bondage, of the attainment of individuality, and of the complex relationships people go through in the course of their lives." Whether or not Maugham's motives to go India were the same as Larry's, we may never know, but certainly the knowledge he attained from this experience comes forth in the "Larry" character.

Eloise wrote:

Does anyone feel let down by the ending of the story? Do you feel that WSM could have at least written about one character’s happiness? Do you think that the novel would have gained something by a different approach?

I think Larry did end up happy, so I am satisfied with the ending of the story.

All was well resolved, I think. And human behavior, human traits and emotions, actions and reactions, foibles and idiosyncracies are still the same after all these years, aren't they?

Larry seemed happy and content; Gray and Isabel refashioned their lives; Suzanne attained respectability; Elliott was a generous benefactor.

But since at least Edgar Cayce we no longer speak of the "transmigration of souls" but of reincarnation. I understand that Larry King's topic for Sunday night will be (the possibility of) life after death (I caught the announcement at the last minute of Saturday's program).

Edgar Cayce! That's the first time I've seen his name on SN. Over the years I have read his material and have attended seminars at his Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach.

Robby

Daphne Du Maurier is a very good writer too and she is one of my favorites and the writing of Maugham and Du Maurier to me are in the same style. I am getting much more out of Maugham of course as an adult than I did as a child. I read "Cakes and Ale" when I was about 10. There was no censorship apart from not being allowed to read DH Lawrence in my house.

Carolyn

Scrawler, the best writers write in simple words and I can think of John Irving where his bare bone style is so effective. SWM didn't adorn his characters with superlatives, he depicted them in the raw stage just like if he could read their secret thoughts.

What I find different with SWM is that his own character, the narrator, was never invasive, always in the background observing human nature with all their faults while listening to their problems. As he says "the attainment of individuality, and of the complex relationships people go through in the course of their lives." and those complex relationships we go through are what defines us in the end, I guess.

Traude, How is Larry King going to speak about life after death? Reincarnation?

Robby, and what did Edgar Cayce think about life after death?

Oh my gosh, Eloise, the story of Edgar Cayce is so long and detailed that I won't even try to answer that at the moment. He was able to diagnose the illnesses of people who were hundreds of miles away and later diagnoses by medical doctors confirmed his report. This happened time and time again. His story could make an interesting discussion.

Robby

ÉLOÏSE, first the Larry King show.

I did not turn on the TV until a few minutes before last night's show ended. He had several guests and the common thread seems to have been pain, especially as a result of cancer. Tammy Fay(e) Bakker was one guest. The name of Peter Jennings, his lung cancer and chemotherapy were mentioned also- briefly. That may have been the catalyst, but I don't know.

Then the host said, "Tomorrow we'll see what happens when we die...", or words to that effect. So that's tonight. I would imagine he's going to have guests on again.

ROBBY, years ago, when we still lived in Northern Virginia, I attended a seminar in Washington with Edgar Cayce's son, Hugh Casey. The foundation is still based in Virginia Beach, I believe.

Éloïse, Edgar Cayce, also known as "the sleeping prophet", would go into a trance upon pre-arrangement and correctly diagnose people's illnesses, as ROBBY just said.

ROBBY, remember Jeanne Dixon and her crystal ball, Ruth Montgomery, the famous medium Arthur Ford and also Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, out-of-body experiences ... and especially automtic writing. Been there...

The story of Edgar Cayce alone would make a riveting discussion, I'm sure.

Why do you think Larry gave away all his money? Who did he give it to? Does it go with his character to depart with his income or did he do it because he had found meaning in his life? Why does it make him happy to be poor?

This puzzled me a little, but I'm materialistic enough to be frightened by not having a money source. I felt it was silly for him to give away his income, though I'm sure he gave it to a worthy cause. He appeared he was going to divest himself of it all at once, so my guess is it would go to some sort of charity - perhaps in the Indian arena?

Larry said he wasn't ready before but was ready now to give up his money. Perhaps he sees the spiritual value of working, of having to work, for your daily bread and wanted no incumberances to his spiritual growth.

If Isabel would stop at nothing to prevent Sophie from marrying Larry, did she think that he would always be around her if he didn’t?

I think she did. I imagine it was a huge shock to her that Larry wouldn't always be calling at her door, that he would disappear into America's heartland.

Is Isabel now showing a more cruel, almost vicious side of her personality than before?

Of course. She said awful things about Sophie who after all was her childhood and young adult friend and who had suffered greatly. To say that Sophie always had her slutiness in her was wrong and cruel in particular. I think she just couldn't stand that Larry would marry Sophie, who she considered beneath herself.

What do you think of Maugham giving Isabel the third degree about deliberately setting Sophie up? Do you think that Isabel is guilty of murder as Maughem almost implies?

Was it Maugham or Larry who gave Isabel the 3rd degree - in the 1946 movie it was Larry. I've forgotten how the book went. At any rate, I think the purpose was to let Isabel know that she had been found out and to force her to live with her actions. Isabel is guilty of pushing Sophie out to the street, where she might or might not have been able to dodge the car coming at her!

What do you think of the plot of this story? Is the characterization plausible?

I found the plot and characters quite plausible. I had no trouble at all with the coincidences which caused some of you problems - life is full of coincidences, some of them unbelieveable if you hadn't lived them.

What is your overall assessment of this novel?

I put this book as among the best novels I have read, and I have read a lot. Of course this is my subjective opinion, LOL. I loved the intrigue of Larry's motivation, the background of the war and post war, the sharp characterizations, and most of all Larry's quest. I was hooked when I read where Larry sat in the men's club for 10 hours reading William James' Principles of Psychology. I wanted to know what was going on in this man's mind!

Those of you who enjoyed "The Razors edge" should read more of Maugham. You will not be disappointed. A student of human nature he most certainly is!

I have three more of his novels to read here at the moment. Then I intend to revisit Daphne Du Maurier.

Carolyn

Traude, Robby, where is Edgar Cayce now? is he still alive? Is this a religion?

Pamela, I think so too that Larry giving away his money was like going on a mission to do good around him and for that he had to be like people he saw daily, his co-workers, his customers who had to work for a living. I am happy that you liked the novel and as you say it has more than just an ordinary plot, it is to me like an essay on mores and values of society at the time among wealthy people and Larry who had better things to do than flaunt his wealth in the posh country clubs of the nation.

Did the flashbacks disturb your understanding or appreciation?

Did they affect or enhance the plot?

Why do I feel that Larry seemed to never be doing anything wrong?

Why the three women who loved him could not make him happy?

Is he a man who can never find a perfect mate?

The more I read, the more I disliked Larry -- rude, selfish and self-absorbed. Perhaps he would have found the meaning of life if he had lived it. By the end of the novel, I had no idea what Larry had found out about life.

Kidsal, please could you elaborate on this? I am puzzled. My memory is not that great but I am trying hard to remember where he had been "rude and selfish". OK perhaps men are selfish, sorry gentlemen, but why do you think that he didn't live his life? When he came back from India, he was a little more sure than before that he had found meaning in his life and when the narrator asked him that question and he said "yes". No more.

But what I find unusual is that the narrator thought Larry was the epitome of perfection. Did he approve of everything Larry did? Page two:

"But it may be that the way of life that he (Larry) has chosen for himself and the peculiar strength and sweetness of his character may have an ever growing influence over his fellow men so that, long after his death perhaps, it may be realized that there lived in this age a very remarkable creature". That is a tall order.

This indicates to me that the author had Larry in high esteem and according to him, Larry could do no wrong. Of course, we would not think so and it is interesting to see what each participant has a different view and why is that?

According to Anthony Curtis, "The film was pretty much a disaster, but out of it came something worth recalling. Maugham wrote at the head of his unused script: "Please note that this is, on the whole, a comedy, and should be played lightly by everyone except in the definitely serious passages."

So what do you all think? Was Maugham's "The Razor's Edge" a comedy? Did the characters play lightly in the novel? Or was this a more serious novel? What did you find worth recalling?

Perhaps what Maugham was saying is that we shouldn't take life so seriously except of course during the serious parts. That when we find that we can not abide our lives than we should search for a life that we can respect and live simply.

After Larry's quest was complete and he had gone through his intense self-introspection, meditation, and for a time became a wandering scholar he decided that the freest life for him was being a taxi driver or a worker in a garage. This than would enable him to do what he really wanted to do and that was to continue his studies of the great questions.

Sometimes we tend to put emphasis on our professional jobs. Many people tend to look down on people who do menial labors, but in reality many of these people are doing these jobs in order to follow a more meaningful life in another direction that may not pay enough to support either themselves or their families. For example, I've known a lot of teachers that have to take second and sometimes third jobs in order to continue teaching during the school year because their teaching jobs just don't pay enough.

I myself left a job with the government to fulfill my life long dream of being a writer. [Of course at the time I left I didn't know that's where I was going.] I live on a pension which probably pays me 1/3 of what I used to make with my government job. But I am happy in following my journey. I may or may not someday make some money off my writing, but as Maugham put it: "You see, I have always written for my own pleasure."

If the book was writtenas a comedy, then, as now, all of life should be treated as acomedy. We can be too serious, and caught up in our own importance. Maughm has the talent of allowing us to see different personalities separate and clearly. Do we have a tendency to read too much into every situation ? Asolutely !

At least one of Maugham's plays has comedic overtones, and I am specifically referring to "The Circle".

I go a long way back with Maugham, I have read and re-read the major novels, his travel sketches, his essays, and his short stories.

The best known of these may well be "Rain". Incidentally, that is NOT written in the first person. Rita Hayworth starred in the movie based on that short story.

It has become obvious that we read differently, have different impressions, can on occasion interpret the same things differently, and come to different conclusions, but we do not seek consensus.

With this clear understanding allow me to say that in my humble opinion the RE is not a comedy.

As for the fictional Larry, I have stated and re-stated my personal view of the character here several times and would not presume to repeat my rationale now - practically at the end of our joint venture.

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

ÉLOÏSE, Edgar Cayce (1877-1945) was a psychic healer. A great deal of information is available on the net about him and about A.R.E. = the Association for Research and Enlightenment, founded in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to preserve his papers (in 1932, if memory serves, and I will re-check the year).

Will e-mail you.

A comedy? I admit I smiled quite often - but not sure that makes it a comedy. This surely wasn't slapstick comedy. Satire perhaps? Maugham seems to have been treating serious subjects - drug/alcohol abuse, suicide, treachery, personal dissatisfaction with one's life. How a comedy? Maybe you're right, Walter, Traude. Maybe I read too much of my own personal experience into the plot. And I have been accused, more than once, of taking life far too seriously.

In earlier comments here someone noted the similarity between Maugham and Larry. Earlier Maugham resembled Elliot. And we still question whether Maugham really was the Narrator. I think Maugham slipped in and out of each of his characters - seemed to understand each of them - as extensions of his own personality.

It seemed to me that as Narrator, he played the role of sounding board - his role was to give the characters a chance to vent, to express themselves. There was no other way we could learn what Isabel was thinking or what was motivating Larry. I think Maugham as Narrator kept to his listening post character, UNTIL the end when he lit into Isabel and began to question Larry's plans and interfered with Elliot's invitation. It seems he needed to take a more pro active role to move the story along.

What DID Larry do with his money? It occurred to me that the publication of his book must have cost him - even in the limited number of copies he had printed. What did you think he meant to accomplish with its publication. Strange assortment of subjects, no?

I was satisfied with the ending - though it wasn't really a happy one. I got the feeling that the story is about life and the choices we make. It isn't over til it's over. The story had no ending - it was open ended. Who knows? Maybe Larry was a happy New York cab driver (an oxymoron). Maybe Isabel became a happy, playful grandmother to Joan and Pricilla's children. There was no end, was there? Happy or sad. I suppose Elliot's death was an ending, wasn't it - didn't he die happy to get the invitation to the party?

I enjoyed the book - and particularly enjoyed reading it with you. You forced me to consider these characters in a different light.

Scrawler, Anthony Curtis might not have read the book to say that The Razor's Edge is a comedy, In the 1983 version it is done as a comedy though and Bill Murray tries very hard at being funny. Could you explain it further?

Movies no matter how they try to make one unforgettable like a book is come short of reaching that point. Last night I saw the movie Gone With the Wind again for the umpteenth time and I will always love that movie. It well portrays the history of the Civil War for those of us outside the US who don't know it well and with the romance, relationships intertwined with business deals and family bonds snapping apart, that movie is a timeless masterpiece. Unfortunately The Razor's Edge movie does not fall in that category but to me the book is quite unforgettable.

Clifton Webb reminds me of Hyacinth Bouquet in the British sit-com "Keeping up Appearances" with his royal British accent. Hilarious.

Walterwl, welcome to this discussion. We look like we take things seriously, but we all know that we are discussing a novel, a fabrication by the author for the pleasure of reading. In actual fact, we think it is a lot of fun, we only pretend to be serious. Please tell us more of what you think of The Razor's Edge.

Traude, I am positive that I will read more of Somerset Maugham. He is a master storyteller I think.

I have always been enamored by the title of the book just by itself. I find myself many times on the thin edge of going a different direction with a decision that will affect me for some time in the future. Recalling the total story serves to keep me on a more even keel. In retrospect, the lessons portrayed , the twists that life presents us, cause me to consider the book a sort of reference to compare to how Maugham's character dealt with travesty.

We have already talked about the two movies that were made, based on Maugham's book, one in 1946 and one in 1984.

Ages ago I saw the 1946 version and remember very little
. The video recently ordered from the library didn't work and was returned. A different copy is now waiting there for me. But I still have not been cleared for driving (since my accident in early March) and must recruit someone to pick it up for me.

The makers of the 1984 film may have taken a few more liberties with the book than (only) "change" Larry from a teenage flyer into an ambulance driver, "embellish" Larry's Spartan Parisian apartment with rats and bugs (of which there were definitely none in the book), and "turn" his platonic relationship with Isabel into a sexual one: but that's par for the course nowadays in books and especially on screen, the big one and the little one.
Kitsch flourishes (and is imitated by the impressionable, who are duly impressed).
A latter-day female Dr. Kinsey cheerfully dispenses late-night advice for the prurient and the sexually dysfunctional.

Isn't it a wonderfully Brave New Woorld ? Mercy !!

Scrawler in message #513 writes:

Perhaps what Maugham was saying is that we shouldn't take life so seriously except of course during the serious parts. That when we find that we can not abide our lives than we should search for a life that we can respect and live simply.

To me “The Razor’s Edge in its entirety is serious stuff. I don’t see the characters in this novel as coming across lightly at all. The only slight comic relief might be from Elliott who approaches the comic ridicules in his search for acceptance in high aristocratic society, and particularly his burial in medieval Court dress. But even here Elliot is always serious in pursuing his purpose.

I agree with Traude, “RE is not a comedy.” I seem to have remembered it quithe well from my first seeing of the 1946 movie followed by reading the novel. It is now fresh in my mind where I’m sure it will remain.

A comment on Larry’s giving away his money: I am sure he gave it to a worthy charity, but as income as the 1930’s progressed the annual return probably lessened significantly. If as he said it was invested in US treasury bonds and his 1920’s income was about $3,000 a year,this would indicate a principal of about $50,000. In the 1930;s the decline of income to maybe $1500 would follow by reason of a lowering interest rate during the period. Of course $1,500 a year would still have been a significant addition to a mechanic’s wage, but not as significant as it had been with the higher interest in the 20’s.

And of course Larry’s giving away of this income seems quite natural based on Larry’s non-materialistic character exhibited through out the book.

I have misplaced my copy of the book, and I'd really like to know if it was Larry or Maugham who confronted Isabel with her treachery towards Sophie. In the 1946 movie, it was Larry - unfortunately, since I saw the movie since I read the book, that's what I remember.

Someone here earlier mentioned Anne Baxter, who played Sophie in the 1946 movie, and the book she had written about life in the Australian bush, Intermission. You made the book sound quite interesting, and I just finished reading it. While not a masterpiece, it was a great read of her trying to survive in the 1960s in such primitive conditions. Thanks for mentioning it!

I'm hoping someone here will like Maugham enough to propose another read of his on senior het - maybe Of Human Bondage. I'd certainly be interested in ANY of his works after this read!

I have been lurking on the fringes of this discussion but do appreciate all your comments. But now must say that I do not like Larry. He is so self absorbed and above it all. He does help Suzanne, but then goes off on his own again. Of the three women, Isabel and Suzanne were strong and would survive without him, but Sophie was fragile and he was going to save her at his own expense. He was playing at being God. No one mentioned that he very lightly allowed the narrator to pay Sophie's funeral expenses with no apology. He had no understanding of any of the women, least of all Isabel.

I just realized that both Sophie and Larry were quite alone in the world. Sophie was devoted to her husband and when he died she lost her lifeline to reality. Larry suffered a traumatic experience in the war and they each took different paths to seek salvation. At one point he says that Sophie was the only woman he could marry. Was it because she was so needy that in fact he needed her. The characters are all believable to me and I think it is a very serious book. Also that WSM saw a lot of himself in Larry or at least what he would like to see.

PAMELA, it was I who mentioned Anne Baxter's "Intermission". I found it interesting because of her voluntary "transplantation" to Australia and eager immersion - sight unseen ! - in a life totally different from her coddled existence. True, she demonstrated personal courage, gumption, one might say, but also an incredible naiveté.

One shudders to imagine what she would have done without her own financial resources, some of which she poured into her husband's adventure ...

PAMELA, to the best of my recollection - I'll recheck and will confirm tomorrow - it was Maugham who forced Isabel to admit the truth of what she did, not Larry.

Ah, MARGARET, as I recall - and I'll recheck that too - at the time of Sophie's funeral, Larry had already given away his money, was all set to embark on that cargo ship that would carry him across the ocean, and about to leave his dilapidated car to the fellow who had told him about the ship. That was the last the reader sees of Larry directly.

Even Maugham doesn't know whether Larry did travel the highways and byways of the United State and whether he became a cab driver - there was no exchange of mail.

Of course we take sides, we come to like or dislike a character, and why not?

Larry was less concerned with material possessions and with his future; we may remember that he was a relatively young man, apparently in perfect health and willing to work at even menial tasks. He was more interested (shall we say) in his spiritual "progress", if that is the word, and had found a modicum of contentment in India. He marched to his own drummer, but did that make him selfish?

Was Isabel any less selfish in her demand for all the good things in life without any "higher" aspirations?

Did any of you take note of Larry's eyes as Maugham described them? Hmmm

Self-absorbed -- when Isabel asked if he wanted her to wait for him he said yes. But I don't recall that he told her to get on with her life when he knew he wasn't going to come back to her. Rude -- I have a friend like Larry who will abruptly say goodby and hang up the phone in the middle of a conversation. Usually people gradually lead up to farewells -- have gotten used to it and ignore it, but it is disconcerting. Several times Larry suddenly would leave Maugham at a restaurant. Also would never say where he lived or give a phone number as if he only wanted their friendship when it was convenient for him.

Kidsal, I too found it annoying that Larry wouldn't give his address to his most intimate friends. I found that uncaring, why would he want to keep this a secret, perhaps because he was ashamed of his dwelling and didn't want them to see it. Is that possible?

Walter, so you liked the title. It is different I must say. But I would like to know what you meant about that it was a 'travesty'? Could you explain more?

Joan P. If, in fact, he could have used his own money to have his book published and the only reason for him to do that, as far as I am concerned, would be that he wanted to influence people to see the world from his vantage point. Don't you think that most writers write for this reason? Has it not been writers who have influenced the world the most? Only one of them would be Karl Marx Communist Manifesto.

I was not surprised to read this on the last page of the book:

"He is too modest to set himself up as an example to others, but it may be he thinks that a few uncertain souls, drawn to him like moths to a candle, will be brought in time to share his own glowing belief that ultimate satisfaction can only be found in the life of the spirit, and that by himself following with selflessness and renunciation the path of perfection he will serve as well as if he wrote books or addressed multitudes.

So he tried, without success, to help the women who loved him, but he didn't love them the way they loved him. He loved them as wanting to do good, which Isabel didn't appreciate, which Suzanne appreciated, which Sophie didn't care one way or the other.

It's wonderful to see everybody's point of view in this discussion, you have all been a tremendous group and I am so pleased with what I have learned through your thoughtful posts.

SCAMPER ad KIDSAL, as promised, I checked and can confirm that

in the BOOK, it was in fact Maugham, the narrator, who made Isabel admit that she had deliberately told the butler to leave the bottle of Polish vodka in the room.

Sophie's murder brought Maugham and Larry together for the last time.

"Larry hadn't uttered a word since we left the police station to go to the mortuary except on our return there to declare that he identified the body as that of Sophie MacDonald. i led him down to the quay and we sat at the café a wich I had sat with her. A strong mistral was blowing and the harbor, usually so smoth, was flecked with white foam. The fishing-boats were gently rocking. Th sun shone brighytly and, as always happens with a a mistral, every object in sight had a peculiar sparkling sharpness as though you looked at it through glasses focussed with more than common accuracy. it gave an impression of a nerve-racking, throbbing vitality to what you saw.

I drank a brandy and soda, but Larry never touched the one I had ordered for him. He sat in moody silence and I did not disturb him."

'We'd better go and have something to eat,' I said. 'We've got to be at the mortuary at two.' ... continuing

Larry admits that he is hungry because he didn't have any breakfast.

Maugham takes him to the restaurant which the chief inspector had recommended, orders an omelete and grilled lobster (Larry seldom ate meat) and a vintage wine. Then said to Larry,

"You damn well drink it. It may suggest a topic of conversation to you." Larry obeyed, and then said,

"I'm afraid you'll have to stand the racket of this funeral by yourself.I haven't any money." "I'm quite prepared to do that," I answered. Then the implication of this remark hit me. "You haven't been and gone and done it really?" (emphasis mine)

"Every cent, except what I need to last me till my ship cmes in."

"What ship?"

"The man who has the next cottage to mine at Sanary is the Marseilles agent of a line of freighters that run from the Near East to New York. They've cabled him from Alexandria that they've had to put a couple of men off there from a ship that's coming on to Marseilles and asked him to get two more to take their place. He's a buddy of mine and he's promised to get me on. I'm giving him my old Citroën as a parting present. When I step on board I shall have nothing but the clothes I stand up in and a few things in a grip."

"Well, it's your mney. You're free, white and twenty-one."

"Free is the right word. I've never been happier or felt more independent in my life. When I get to New york I shll have my wages and they'll carry me on till I can get a job."

"What about your book?"

"Oh, it's finished and printed. I made a list of people I wanted it sent to and you ought to get a copy in a day or two. ....."

They have coffee, smoke and talk about Sophie. Later they meet the undertaker in the emetery, Sophie is laid to rest, and the men take leave of each other. For good.

We do not learn how Larry disposed of his money, but I am sure it would have been in a thoughtful manner.

But he would have paid for the printing of his book BEFORE he gave away what as left.

Incidentally, the use of the word "grip" for a small suitcase is now obsolete, I believe.

ÉLOÏSE, Larry's not wanting to disclose where he lived was part of his being detached, aloof, of coming and going where and when he pleased. I don't think that's quite the deliberate secrecy of say, a spy. Any way, that's just how I see it because to me it makes sense.

Disappointed by the ending? Not me. Life is open-ended as long as it lasts.

Eloise in message #528 posted the following quote from the last page of the book:

"He is too modest to set himself up as an example to others, but it may be he thinks that a few uncertain souls, drawn to him like moths to a candle, will be brought in time to share his own glowing belief that ultimate satisfaction can only be found in the life of the spirit, and that by himself following with selflessness and renunciation the path of perfection he will serve as well as if he wrote books or addressed multitudes.

Maugham was correct in writing that in time many others will come to share his simple-living anti-materialistic beliefs. This movement showed signs of life as early as the 60's and flowered in the 70’s. Even after the influence of the anti Viet Nam War movement ended it continued as a true Voluntary Simplicity movement sparked by a well read book by Duane Elgin entitled Voluntary Simplicity, Click Here. This book noted the existence of thousands of Americans attracted to and voluntarily living the simple lifestyle Larry adopted on his return to America.

Harold, do you suppose that Maugham himself was sympathetic to these views on the simple way of life and was speaking through Larry? He writes in such detail of the philosophy, it seems to me that it was more than just research for this story. He seemed genuinely, personally interested, engrossed in the subject.

Traude, that "free, white and twenty-one" quote you cited - I do remember wondering at the source of the expression, when it was first used. Did a quick search and find that it comes from Andrew Jackson's time - and the context is quite relevant to Razor's Edge and the class issue.

"Those who won’t work and are therefore poor, or those who don’t need to work due to family money, are viewed with suspicion. Those who meet the economic and moral tests belong to the broad Middle Class, the folk community of working people that Jacksonians believe to be the heart, soul and spine of the American nation.

The second principle of the code is equality. Among those members of the folk community who do pull their weight, there is an absolute equality of dignity and right. No one has a right to tell the self-reliant Jacksonian what to say, do or think. Any infringement on equality will be met with defiance and resistance. Male or female, the Jacksonian is, and insists on remaining, independent of church, state, social hierarchy, political parties and labor unions. Jacksonians may choose to accept the authority of a leader or movement or faith, but will never yield to an imposed authority. The young are independent of the old: "free, white and twenty-one" is an old Jacksonian expression; the color line has softened, but otherwise the sentiment is as true as it ever was." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/845102/posts

The original definition of "Comedy" is a drama or narrative with a happy ending or non-tragic theme such as Dante's "Divine Comedy." Dante's "Divine Comedy" deals with the author's imaginary journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise.

How do these two books compare? Doesn't "The Razor's Edge" deal with Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise?

You might say that Sophie is in her own kind of hell after the deaths of her husband and son. And even though WE might think of her death as tragic; she might accept death as a way out of her hell. So wouldn't this be a non-tragic ending?

Elliott in the end got his "wish" as well. He, through Maugham's interception, received his invitation and so his death to could be considered non-tragic.

Isabel might be in "Purgatory" if ever she thought of Sophie or Larry, but I think after Sophie's death and Larry's quest was done she probably thought very little of either one of them and went on living her fashionable life.

Larry found his "Paradise" and lived his simple life.

I consider "The Razor's Edge" high-comedy. High-comedy is defined as reflecting the life and problems of the upper social classes. It is often portrayed by a witty, sardonic treatment, but in the hands of W. Somerset Maugham we see it done with style and sophistication.

In the end life is what we make of it - whether we search for paradise, live in purgatory, or feel like we are in a living-hell.

Traude, Anne Baxter certainly had naivete - she kept saying over and over she would decide whether or not to marry Ran BEFORE she visited his station in the bush, that she was marrying the man, not a place to live. I was NEVER that full of naivete, not even in my teens! It turns out she was marrying both, and even though she gave it her best it ultimately wore her down and the marriage didn't survive.

It's all well and good that Larry gave away his money while he is the picture of health. Those of us who are not are keenly aware that there might come a time in life when you cannot do physical labor for your daily bread. I was a career computing professional, which paid well and was time-consuming but not physically demanding. Since I retired (in my 50s), I have dabbled at more physical work our of curiosity. I've sadly come to the conclusion that if I didn't have financial resources and was forced to perform physical labor - even standing in a supermarket, for example - I could not earn my daily bread. Fortunately I don't have to, and I might be able to resume my computing career if I ever got in dire straights (might, because one becomes obsolete quickly in the computing field). But Larry is showing naivete in my opinion. But perhaps I am not as evolved as Larry. It wouldn't encourage my spiritual growth to be thrown out on the streets!

Scrawler, thanks for the definition of comedy. I recognized that comedy is not just something that is funny but couldn't have put it so well as you did. I wonder if Maugham thought of it that way when he wrote it on the script, though. Your comparison with The Divine Comedy is intriguing.

Larry didn't give his address because he didn't want to be bothered by social obligations he didn't intend to commit to. He probably was also aware that the Eliot's of the world would be appalled at his moderate living conditions.

Reading and discussing this book with all of you has been a reading pleasure - may be meet again soon!

Scrawler, Thank you for explaining High Comedy. I had never heard that expression before. At some point I had to laugh out loud when Elliott was speaking, but the rest of the content was dramatic to me.

Kidsal, she soon found a man more to her liking in Gray. She mentions to the narrator that she would like to see Larry in America often and when Maugham told her he intended to drive a cab or be a mechanic, she herself would not want to see him. He knew Isabel better than she knew herself.

As for Suzanne, a French ex-model and artist, I hardly see her married to American Larry. They were worlds apart and Sophie was just adrift and alone waiting for womeone to rescue her.

Traude, and Maugham writes at the end: "Without in the least intending to, I had written nothing more or less than a success story."

After being off line all afternoon I am now caught up with the posts.

May I direct your attention to the post of a cyberfriend, COOKIERUTH, a member in WREX, the Writers Exchange led by MAL Freeman.

Cookieruth has been reading RE here and taken the time - and gone to the trouble -

of typing and posting a list of the cast in the 1946 movie in WREX # 142 of April 25.

I wish I were able to "transfer" her post to this folder, but alas, that exceeds my technical capabilities.

COOKIERUTH pointed out that the character of Suzanne does NOT appear in the 1946 movie.

Again, many thanks, COOKIERUTH.

P.S. A friend who visited this afternoon volunteered to pick up the video of the 1946 film for me at the library and promised to bring it by in the morning. I can hardly wait !

Traude, Cookieruth is right, the character of Suzanne does not appear in the 1946 movie and either does the character of the Spanish girl he lived with while he was in Spain. Producers have to leave something behind to make it a 2 hours long movie as putting everything from the book would be quite impossible.

This discussion has been a true pleasure for me and I hope for all participants also

Harold and I would like to known how many would be interested in discussing Moon and Sixpence by the same author sometime in late Summer. When this discussion is made Read Only at the end of the month, you could post your intentions in the First Page Café and we could get the ball rolling.

Moon and Sixpence is based on the life of Paul Gauguin and as we have so many good artists on Seniornet, perhaps it would be good to discuss it.

I will be there if you discuss this and/or any other Maugham novels!

Cast for 1946 Razor's Edge

I do not find "Suzanne" here

Tyrone Power - Larry Darrell; Demetrius Alexis - Abbe; Gene Tierney - Isabel Bradley; Walter Bonn - Butler; John Payne - Gray Maturin; Eugene Borden - Sea Captain; Anne Baxter - Sophie MacDonald; Clifton Webb - Elliott Templeton; Herbert Marshall - Somerset Maugham; Renee Carson - Sophie's Friend; André Charlot - Bishop; Noel Cravat - Russian Singer; Jean de Briac - Lawyer; Ray DeRavenne - Bartender; Jean del Val - Police Clerk; Cecil Humphreys - Holy Man; Fritz Kortner - Kosti; Isabelle Lamore - Maid; Elsa Lanchester - Miss Keith; Frank Latimore - Bob MacDonald; Henri Letondal - Police Inspector; Frances Morris - Nurse; Forbes Murray - Mr. Maturin; Albert Petit - Albert; Harry Pilcer - Specialty Dancer; Lucile Watson - Mrs. Louise Bradley; John Wengraf - Joseph; Cobina Wright, Sr. - Princess Novemali; George Davis - Concierge; Roger Valmy - Coco; Blanche Taylor; Fred Farrell; Eddie Das - Hindu; Mayo Newhall - Kibitzer; Hassan Khayyam - Hindu; Juan DuvalFrank Arnold; Bud Wolfe - Corsican; Marek Windheim - Waiter; Hermine Sterler - Nurse; Adele St. Maur - Nurse; George Sorel - French Surete Man; Richard Shaw - Intern; Frances Ray - Trollop; Albert Pollet - Man; Peggy O'NeillBess Flowers - Matron; Marcel dela Brosse - Conductor; Mme. Louise Colombet - Concierge's Wife; Mary Brewer; Patti Behrs - Guest; Louis Bacigalupi - Miner; Dorothy Abbott

CookieRuth, I too do not remember the Suzanne character being included in the 1946 movie script. I suppose that is one of the several key sub-roles the script authors elected to leave out. Typically scriptwriters have to cut to make acceptable time conditions.

Yes Joan I agree that at least the fictional W. Somerset Maugham in his capacity a narrator of the story does seem sympathetic to the principals of living volunteer Simplicity. I agree many Americans are more or less practitioners of the philosophy. I myself through the last 30 years have been at least influenced by the concept.

And as Eloise has mentioned, we might try to do a follow up discussion of “The Moon and a Sixpence” in August. Are any of you tentatively interested? If so make a post and stay tuned for further developments.

I'd be very interested in reading/discussing Moon and Sixpence. I noticed that the new Audubon biography The Making of an American is on the drawing board for...July, I think. (It's fabulous.) For me, it will be interesting to compare two very different types of books about 19th century artists of French descent.

Me please for the Moon and Sixpence! If my memory serves me right there is a narrator in this book too,

Carolyn

This morning, accidentally as I was leafing through the book, Sophie's fate was foreshadowed when Maugham said to her: "One of these days you'll get your throat cut" and she replied: "I wouldn't be surprised,...Good riddance to bad rubbish."

She thought of herself as "bad rubbish" and not for a minute did she think that she was badly depressed since her husband and baby died. Her in-laws, if they had had half a heart, could have suspected something like that instead of removing her from their life by sending her abroad. They too were instrumental for her death, not just Isabel.

Sometimes you feel that nobody can understand the pain of losing a husband and you have to go on like if nothing had happened. Losing a spouse is one of the most traumatic experience in life. You literally lose half of yourself and have to rebuild your life without the one you love. Sophie just couldn't do it.

Today, you can go into treatment when a dramatic event throws you into depression, of course if you can afford it.

What are the weakness of The Razor's Edge?

What are the strengths?

You all have been so skillful in your assessments the book that I hate to ask that question, but if I remember well, some of you had misgivings about it and I think that they reflected exactly what you thought at the time. Has that assessment changed after we have discussed back and forth on all aspects of characterization, settings, points of view, movies made from it?

Do you feel that SWM made a good choice in writing his story on a High Society Parisian backdrop, or was it a snobbish of him to do that?

Did it matter where the story was set? Could it have been set in America and still retain its fascination?

Do we need to read about the famous painters that the author kept mentioning throughout the book, about royalty, about fashion designers?

Did he do that to stress the contrast with Larry's modest living?

Does it point out the materialistic world we still live in?

What were the weaknesses and the strengths?

"Mysticism" is defined as the doctrines or beliefs that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation and love without the medium of human reason. Wow! I don't know about you but that's pretty heavy. And yet through Larry's character Maugham attempts to, if not explain it exactly, at least show, what the results would be like if one followed mysticism. Mysticism can also be defined as any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge of spiritual truths through intuition acquired by fixed meditation. This second definition, I think, is what Maugham accomplishes. That you can gain a spiritual connection through meditation. For example, Buddhism teaches that right thinking and self-denial will enable the soul to reach Nirvana, a divine state of release from misdirected desire.

I think Maugham in the "Razor's Edge" gives us a glimpse, through Larry, of what this journey would be like. He also illustrates by the reaction of the other characters that this journey is not for everyone. In reviewing "The Razor's Edge" in the Nation, Diana Trilling wrote: "Mysticism is bound to be inviting to the person who is afraid of the deep emotions; yet it can never fully win him, any more than humanity can fully win him."

I would agree and disagree with Trilling's statement. I don't think "mysticism" can fully win anyone. Rather it is the journey that is important. For example, when we get ready to go on a vacation we feel a tingling of an enthusiasm inside of us. But what happens when we return from this thrilling journey and back to our routine life?

Also in Thrilling's statement she points out that:"Mysticism is bound to be inviting to the person who is AFRAID of the deep emotions..." I can't agree that Larry was afraid of his deep emotions. I just think his feeling was different than say the other characters in the book. Larry wanted to find the answers to big questions and he felt deeply about this.

The only weaknesses I can see in the book is that I would have liked to explore the Suzanne and Sophies' characters a little deeper. Maugham takes a nonjudgmental view of both women, which I thought gave the reader that much more to think about. He weaves their stories into sub-plots from the main one and creates these characters primarily as a foil for Isabel. Maugham's main object was to show Isabel as a ruthless heroine. In fact other than Larry, you might say that Isabel and Maugham's conversations and the ultimate results of these conversations are what motivates the characters and formulates the plot. But I still would have liked to have known more of Suzanne and Sophie and less of Isabel's character.

I’ll start with RE's strengths that I thank greatly out weigh any weaknesses. To me the great strength is the clear flow of the story from the pen of Maugham to the reader. As many you have remarked here before, Maugham really knows how to tell a story.

For me the most obvious weakness is the improbability of the occurrence of the series of fortuitous meetings through which Maugham the narrator gained the detailed knowledge of the events just when they are required for transmittal to the readers.

Maugham has not seen Larry for a decade; he stops at a bar for a drink; a greatly changed bearded unrecognizable Larry recognizes Maugham; and the story's continuation follows. Again Maugham is cruising the Mediterranean coast. While at Toulon he again stops in a bar for a drink; he meets Sophie who had taken the Polish Vodka bait and disappeared months before.

These are just 2 of a series of timely unlikely chance meetings that enabled Maugham to continue relating the story. Yes, I know I am picky, picky, picky in even noting this as a weakness!

ÉLOÏSE,

Maugham had a tremendous literary output; he traveled widely and often, and lived to a ripe old age on the French Riviera in comfort, surrounded by friends and admirers.

When I happened on "Of Human Bondage" many years ago, I was instantly taken with his elegant writing style - always with an undertone of barely perceptible irony - and with the way he presents a given story and the characters in it. Over time I read everything and anything I could find. I learned from his essays and enjoy his fiction as much as I did when I first read it.

With people who live a peripatetic life, as Maugham and Larry did, strange coincidences are not that uncommon, IMHO. In Re they are, I believe, a device used by Maugham deliberately to advance the story.

This is true, I believe, also for the long, practically uninterrupted reminiscences of which Larry delivers himself in some all-night "talk feasts" with the author in dim, smoke-filled cafés. Many a modern writer should get his/her inspiration from Maugham !

Traude - elegant is just the word to describe Maughams writing. I just love his style and I read every word with enjoyment. I am a fan so I will say no more. I loved The Razors Edge and thought the characterisation was wonderful.

Carolyn

I come in fast before my connection is shut down again, and I am so very pleased at how the "summing up" is being done. It is so thorough and interesting to boot.

Scrawler, I can't agree more with you about spirituality and meditation. About Suzanne and Sophie, true that Maugham could have explored them more in depth, but he mostly wanted to put Larry and his quest in the limelight, as the others all took a second place in influencing his "search for meaning".

Suzanne was a typically French woman, so different from American Sophie and if you have switched the roles, each would have kept their own national identity, meaning that the French react differently to situations than Americans do. I observe this in my daily life.

Harold, I agree with this unpredictability of occurrence, it is too easy to do, but SWM didn't care as long as it served his plot I believe. He thought we would be so taken up by the story that we would notice or cared.

If I think of when I read it for the first time, I just enjoyed everything, didn't want to analyze anything as Carolyn said, but here we come to discuss the book and have to do the job and it turns out to be just as interesting in a different way.

Eloise

I think you're on to something that is very important to what WSM was trying to do with his book.

Suzanne really stands out. She is a very interesting character in her own right, without reference or dependence on anyone else. She has made her own life. She must have been an exception even in Parisian Bohemia. But so French. Maugham couldn't resist telling her story. Perhaps he intended to work in an authentically French way of things, to act as a foil to what his Americans were making of France.

We should remember how important it seemed to Maugham that his characters should seem like authentic Americans. In other words he was hoping that his readers would be able to recognize themselves in these characters. I think by and large that he succeeded. I think the later movie captures this intent better than the early one. Especially Bill Murray's Larry. I feel I know this guy. With his urge to go for the frontiers of life. The alluring, unknown West.

He picks up a lot of ideas along the way. He is willing to imitate the natives in his travels, bringing his new-found wisdom with him when he comes. Like the guru's aiming at a disinterested peace, or the non-attachment which comes with the voluntary poverty of St. Francis.

Suzanne is surprised and perplexed to find herself in bed with such a cold/warm spirit. But she seems to have liked it. It's hard to understand. Perhaps for Larry it was paying his debt to nature, rendering unto Caesar that which belonged to Caesar, while looking on the transaction with cool detachment.

If we get lucky, like Maugham, we just may get to flag Larry down some day in NYC, and get into his cab. And when we ask him why, he'll reply, I did it my way.

Jonathan

If I were to sum it up, I think there is one thought I would get from reading this book: "HOPE".

When I first read this book in 1962, I was dissatisfied with the world around me and wanted answers to the big questions like Larry Darrell did. This book showed me a path I could follow and although I never went to India and I feel that I am still on my own journey, this book gave me guidence. It is interesting to note, that my generation had yet to face the trials and tributations that all generations face. We knew what we didn't want, but we were clueless to know what we wanted. Ironically, we thought at the time that we could change the world and found we really couldn't change ourselves. But it was books like the "The Razor's Edge" that started us thinking for ourselves.

Now, in the twilight of my years, I find that "Hope" is still what I take from this book. I lived through the Vietnam War and lived with a man for twenty-eight years who fought in the war and so I think I understand Larry's experience of war a little better. Although I myself can't know for sure, I know the affects war might have on a sensitive individual. Also, like Sophie, I have suffered the loss of a son and husband and know what depths you can plunge into from the sense of this loss.

I still have no use for the Elliott Templetons of the world and would gladly give all that I have away like Larry, but I'm a bit more realistic than I was at eighteen and realize that I need a little money in order to live only because my "old" body ain't what she used to be. But how we live is what is important. I prefer the simple life that Larry and Suzzane achieved.

As for Isabel, Gray, and their children, I'm glad I don't live in that world, I know I wouldn't be comfortable living in that shallow society. I prefer the world where I can "hope" for peace and harmony and enjoy the natural beauty that surrounds me.

I truly loved reading this book and could read it a thousand more times but you all made it especially fun to read.

Oh, Anne, I don't think you are quite in your twilight years yet! I've enjoyed your posts immensely. For those of you who don't know Scrawler, she's written a very good book recently A Century to Remember (Anne M. Ogle). It's available on Amazon. Anne, I'm still reading my copy and enjoying it very much.

Has anyone heard how Mal is doing?

Anne, (Scrawler) How wonderful that you have had a book published. "A Century to Remember". Congratulations. You are so on target "Hope" is all we live for in the long run even as we get much older. Hope for the world, how else would you define it, as we have seen so many 'worlds'. Every generation we have seen through since we were born is a world in itself, different from the preceding and so different from the what the next generation will be. I am pleased that you liked discussing The Razor's Edge.

I am sure that Maugham has met several Suzannes in his life and he knew their personality well. I recognize that character every time I go to France for a visit. Not her Bohemian way of life, just her way of thinking.

The Suzannes in France rarely would go to pieces after losing a husband and baby, she would grieve but would pick herself up and start all over again. We must not forget that the French have gone through many wars and death is not a tragedy that it is in America where the Civil War was their last one on their territory.

I read somewhere that Mal will be operated on tomorrow, her daughter Dorian said and she will be in the hospital to recover for a few days afterwards. I wish her all the best recovery possible.

According to Dorian, Mal will have non-complicated surgery tomorrow and remain in hospital for a week to ten days for the recovery. We wish her well.

This afternoon I viewed the video of the 1946 movie - unfortunately only up to the luncheon of Elliott, Maugham, Isabel and Gray, Sophie and Larry. Afterward the video became stuck. What a colossal disappointment !!!

I aim to find out whether my VCR is at fault (it might be; I bought it in 1991), or whether this second video from the library is defective, only less so than the first one I borrowed, which didn't work at all.

More later about my impressions of the film vis-a-vis our book.

Scrawler - You are so modest. I never guessed you had written a book!

Carolyn

Thank you for those kind words about my book. I'm very glad you are enjoying it. I'm working on an alternate history of the Lincoln assassination. I decided I had enough material for a trilogy. I'm still in the research phase, but can see the light at the end of the tunnel and I hope to start writing in the fall of course fall of what year I didn't say.

The black and white movie is not nearly as descriptive as Maugham's book, in my humble opinion.

The main focus of the script writer(s) seems to have been the triangle Isabel/Larry/Sophie.
The reason for Larry's spiritual quest is poorly explained and too brief to resonate. The mountains in the background look fake; the crescendo, when things get dramatic, is grating.
Early on in the film (in the garden scene at the end of the dinner party) Larry himself (!) tells Isabel about the death of his flyer friend, of his wish to break the engagement and go to Paris.
Obviously, no need for Suzanne.
By contrast, Sophie's role is expanded, fiance Bob appears briefly but doesn't make much of an impression.
Maugham describes a shy and awkward Sophie, but the film shows her giggling and buddy-buddy with Isabel.
Tyrone Power is heartbreakingly handsome and a bit enigmatic as Larry, but he is made to utter a lot of platitudes.
Clifton Webb single-handedly makes the film come to life; he is superb as Elliott. Herbert Marshal as Maugham has some "moments".
Gene Tierney - dressed by Oleg Cassini - is lovely to look at but (to me) not as memorably conniving as the Isabel in the book.
Anne Baxter deserved the Oscar for her performanc as Sophie.

I much prefer the book over this movie.