The introduction (presumably written for the paperback edition) is inordinately long IHMO and, in my impatience to get "moving", I found it distracting--moreover, I don't want to be told beforehand what to think and how to interpret things. I am glad we are officially allowed to skip it, at least for now.

Reading -----

Ros

Perhaps someone recalls Noel Coward's wicked number "Marvelous Party," wickedly rendered by the immortal Beatrice Lillie. It echoed in my memory as I read some of charles Arrowby's "theater talk." -- malicious references to the naughty misdeeds of people one was supposed to know by their first names but might actually never heard of, and casual name-dropping of sexual conquests so numerous that they had to be indexed chronologically as "That was before Miss X and just after Miss Y, when Miss Z was pursuing me by phone and letter...."Does one detect a hollow ring?

Ros

"We were poorish and lonely and awkward together."

A Trilby hat is a soft felt hat of the Homburg type with a narrow brim and indented crown, according to Jeeves. "Trilby" is also the name of the heroine in a novel by George du Maurier (1834-1896), grandfather of Daphne du Maurier (1907-1989) also of literary fame : e.g. Rebecca, My Cousin Rachel, Jamaica Inn, Frenchman's Creek, and more.

I am still struggling with the prehistory. And I too had the impression that the first-person narrator is a woman. Perhaps that isn't altogether surprising; Peter J. Conradi writes in his recent biography, Iris Murdoch : A Life, that she wrote essentially about herself, usually at great length, was impervious to criticism and adamantly opposed to editorial changes. Only her American editor is said to have had moderate success in that respect.

Those windowless inner rooms were interesting, I thought. A toad in the larder ? My my. Oil lamps the handling of which the narrator had learned in America ? When might that have been ? On page 10 he says, There is running water and main drainage, thank God (I have lived without these in America) (!!!) and again one wonders when. Haven't come across a time reference yet.

Also on page 10 the narrator himself speaks of the preceding recitation as a "tirade". I find his relentless self-absorption irritating.

I looked up White and Selborne: Rev. Gilbert White was a famous naturalist and author of The Natural History of Selborne. His house near Alton, Hampshire, with the Oates Museum (devoted to 'Titus' Oates of Antarctic fame and Frank Oates, Victorian explorer) is open to the public.

The references to food and its preparation seem uncharacteristic of a man, especially one whose home was the theater. I'll gladly leave him his boiled onions (mentioned twice so far). And apples stewed in tea ??

On page 15 in the second paragraph we read, ---Fritzie Eitel successful and done for in California. What does "done for in California" mean ?

I am forcing myself to read slowly, methodically and dutifully (so far without much pleasure, I confess) and in small doses.

Just went back to check for typos and saw Lorrie's note about the Trilby hat. Sorry about the duplication.

Lorrie, what makes you fear that something terrible is going to happen? Charles does say something horrible DID happen...but he explains it was that "thing" he saw in the water. An eel?

I just have to say this here, because the coincidence is amazing. Today, in the Beowulf discussion, we are reading about Beowolf's confrontation with a dragon...referred to in one of our participant's translations as a worm, in another as a serpent. The dragon we are discussing is a sea creature, which symbolizes Beowulf's subconscious...well, now that's not right...he (the dragon), is preventing Beowulf from examining his subconsciousness. Beowulf must struggle with him to find the source of his depression.

It seems that Charles is writing this journal to find himself, just as Beowulf struggles with the sea dragon. You should have seen my face as I read Charles'description of the creature he spotted in the sea...

Lorrie, do you think your sense of impending trouble is coming from what that "thing" will do to Charles, or where his inner quest will lead him. Or maybe it's the townies you worry about...

I read until 3 a.m. this morning, no longer just dutifully but eagerly , I am caught up and going on. And I thought of you then : some time ago you posted in the wee hours of the morning with new insights; I think it was in the Human Stain discussion.

There are astonishing developments in this story and weighty issues appear. When Charles describes his (much photographed) appearance on pg 32 of the paperback, he refers to "the fine almost girlish texture of my, of course clean-shaven, face". Even so, that Charles could be gay did not enter my mind, just the thought that the narrator somehow sounded more like a woman than a man -- in the beginning, that is.

And suddenly Charles is distracted from his writing by things that go bump in the night, shaken by the appearance on the scene of not one but several former lovers, and afraid of losing the control he so cherishes.

There can be no question that the atmosphere, indeed the world of the theater IM described is authentic; a playwright herself, she was familiar with it. But sexual tensions between men and women exist not only in the theater. In this book we come upon questions of power, possessiveness, ownership (!), obedience (!!); lies and cruelty - questions even of good vs. evil . We have much to explore ----

IM wrote 26 novels, 6 philosophical works, and 4 plays. Her last novel, Jackson's Dilemma (1995), shows the erosion of her brilliant mind, says her biographer, Peter J. Conradi, and adds that she lived through and among her characters. As her illness progressed, she even spoke to them and abut them as if they were living people.

It is clear now that this is a contemporary story ("telly", "after the war"); I had wondered about the early remarks about there being "thank God running water and main drainage (I have lived without these in America") !!!. (I'll go back and check the part about Fritzie whom we haven't seen yet, just heard about.) The house has no electricity and no heating system, hence the oil lamps.

Lizzie's letter adds to the picture we have formed of Charles on the basis of his reminiscences, though these do already reveal his never-mentioned, ongoing rivalry with his cousin James; the first signs of envy, jealousy, overpowering competitiveness, and --- monumental insecurity. All of this, coupled with the (admitted) huge egoism and his cruel streak don't make Charles a very likable fellow IMHO. (He "summons" lovers !)

Wherever IM is going with this tale, she seems to be addressing the fundamental relationship between men and women, the friction, the tension. In a journal entry of 9 July 1976 she wrote "Like Socrates, perhaps, love is the only subject on which I am really expert ?" In fact she had many loves and an almost ruinous affair with the (married) Nobel Prize winner Elias Canetti. After 4 years she tore herself away; it was then that the adoring John Bayley came to the rescue, they married, and her life gained stability thereafter.

The book can be read on many levels; and every rereading will lead to deeper appreciation and understanding I believe. It explores the human condition from many angles.

To me, cousin James (who became a Buddhist) is a much more sympathetic figure than Charles, and so is Peregrine who, miraculously, remains Charles' friend even though the latter callously lured away P's wife, the fiery Rosina, only to discard her later too. On marriage, P. says (pg. 158) "Every persisting marriage is based on fear." And further on " As for marriage, people simply settle into positions of domination and submission." And James makes an interesting observation (pg 174) "The sea, the sea, yes. Did you know that Plato was descended from Poseidon on his father's side ? Do you have porpoises, seals ? "

It is impossible not to remain glued to the story -- but now I have a luncheon to go to (I am reasonably sure that boiled onions will NOT be on the menu !!!!) and an afternoon lecture.

There is much discourse on the world of the theater, a (" place of hopes and disappointments" where "one lives out in a more vivid way the cyclical patterns of ordinary life" pg. 36, --- "Of course the theatre is sex, sex, sex" pg. 37), on acting, professionalism and more.

And then there are the women. Clement is mentioned early, briefly, but often referred to throughout. From the name (remembering English PM Clement Attlee) I deduced (wrongly) that Clement was a man. Joan, why Hartley ran away from Charles will be revealed later in the book. There are many unexpected developments, breath-taking twists and turns (and that's no exaggeration) until the very last page.

The ever-changing sea is vividly, eloquently, lyrically described. The house, Shruff End, makes a different impression on the visitors. Some refer to it as "funny"; Rosina calls it "this ghastly pointless house" (pg. 181), and worse.

Lorrie, the passionate yearning Charles has for Hartley cannot be explained at this point, it will become more obvious later on -- to the extent possible.

There are many anglicisms in the book, and the word "odd" appears rather frequently.

My posts were based on my impressions and feelings as I concentrated on the characters, their (often baffling) actions and the progress of the story. What it all means, a frequently asked question, cannot be determined with any certainty until the very end, I believe, when we do our own summing up. What we are reading are Murdoch's own observations, concerns, opinions (watch for her 'judgment' of the Irish !), and the characters are her mouthpiece, or so it seems to me. And yes, Joan, I agree with you that the only monster in Charles' life was he himself.

Some in the large cast of characters are only mentioned but never appear in the flesh, yet all are part of the tableau.

Act II---The playcontinues!

No, it's not about love, it is about power, possessiveness, dominance, cruelty, obsession, violence and fear, even good versus evil, as I said earlier.

Betty, I think I know how you felt at the end of the book; I too was in shock, benumbed, incredulous. And angry.

Lorrie, isn't the tirade about the Irish in the drunken voice of Peregrine (pg 162) rather astonishing, given the fact that the author herself was Irish ?

This is not a Bildungsroman of course, but it does show one man's turbulent quest (for wont of a better word) over a few short months' time, and this psychological insight into the human condition is as important in the book as the plot, IMHO, perhaps more so.

What struck me is the obsession, the forceful attempt to "own" another person, demonstrated so clearly in The Sea, The Sea, and in The Collector (later memorably filmed with Terrence Stamp and Samantha Eggar, if memory serves), and especially that other person's desperate attempt to escape from what amounts to a physical and emotional stranglehold. In the French Lieutenant's Woman, the character is trying to escape not so much a person as to get out of a somewhat vulgarized picture of the nineteenth century.

On other British authors : Anita Brookner whom Ros mentioned might be interesting. In book after book from the Booker Prize-winning Hotel du Lac on, Brookner has perfected the image of women living a life of quiet desperation and written exquisitely about loneliness and the illusion of romance. And not the loneliness of women only : in Altered States a male protagonist goes through the same travails. Two years ago I suggested that book for discussion in our evening off-line local brook group. The women in the group enjoyed it a great deal, the (few) men including the male group leader seemed almost embarrassed to admit a male can be lonely too ! Brookner's last book was nonfiction, I hope she is workig on another novel.

And how about Dame Muriel Spark ? Might we try her here some time ? There is also Margot Livesey and her latest book(her 4th), Eva Moves the Furniture . Livesey was born in Scotland but currently lives and teaches in the Boston area. Ah well, so many books, so little time !!!

It is good to have you with us.

As for Charles' appearance - we know he is sixty but his old friends all comment on his youthful appearance; Peregrine says that Charles has to shave only once a month (!) while James does so twice a DAY (!) Perhaps Charles was an eternal Peter Pan, a play he liked to direct.

The reference to King Cophetua and the beggar-maid is revealing: it refers to an old ballad in which a lofty king, loved hopelessly by a poor young woman, reaches down from his great height to elevate her to his side. Thus Charles, the condescending rescuer, planned to shower his graciousness down on the faded remnant of his early love, confident that all would then be well, years, wrinkles, and obstacles vanish,and he could bask in his own magnanimity while she clung to him in humble gratitude. Murdoch was skillfully slicing us a huge pile of baloney .

this book is haunting, I find - but then I am known for having a hard time "letting go" after a dicussion is finished. This one, mercifully, is not; there is so much more to explore and comment on (James for one).

After a deliberately slow, contemplative beginning in 'Prehistory' that introduces the reader to the locus operandi , the narrator and the friends of his past, the 'History' chapters then get to the 'heart of the matter'and the narrative pace quickens.

Re your question :

I think the passionate yearning Charles feels for Hartley is an ideal, a beacon to which he obstinately clings, moreover it is in fact an excuse for his shunning marriage. (And it is also a delusion.) Indeed he is not marriage "material". By his own admission he is not terribly concerned about sex and rarely spends the night with a woman he made love to - "In the morning she looks to me like a whore" he says at one point. (And have you noticed his annoyingly calling the women "little" ? As in 'little Lizzie" e.g. ?) As far as Hartley is concerned, the past is still the present for Charles, and not a day passes when he doesn't think of her and their mid-adolescence innocent love. It never occurs to him to consider the inevitable, if unnoticeable, changes every day brings and the toll time exacts on people and their appearance.

How very good of all of you to share your impressions on what Charles was like. He tells us more than once that he had "help" with his hairline, and I see him as sort of a Peter Pan- a play he loved to direct- forever in flight, agile and ageless. (Oh yes, Charles Dance - a marvelous actor ! And he was so much more real !! Where is he these days, I wonder ?)

Murdoch, born in 1919, had a distinguished career in academia, disrupted by WW II, and after 1945 worked in displaced persons' camps in continental Europe. According to her biographer, Peter J. Conradi, (Iris Murdoch : A Life), it was a period of intense sexual and worldly initiation for her, and at that time she considered herself in training "for inclusion among the harlots of history". Mercifully for her and for posterity she was rescued from the last of her "demon lovers", Elias Canetti, by none other than John Bayley, who was a junior lecturer at Oxford and younger than Iris. They married in 1956, and so began the second incarnation of Iris as a novelist.

Their house in Oxfordshire was leaky, rat-ridden and dust-coated and without heating or water mains (!!!); that was the scene whence she wrote her novels - 26 of them in 40 years, in long hand.

To paraphrase the triumphant exclamation : We have come a long way, baby : we have come a long way MAYBE .

BTW Betty, just read an article in the NYT Sunday Magazine about Carol Shields (author e.g. of The Stone Diaries), under the heading Final Chapter .

About the book Shields said "I wanted to address the inequalities between men and women that I think are central to all our problems in the world. " (emphasis mine) I am mentioning this enternal truism here only because it fits into this present discussion.

with apologies to Joan : checking # 161 I saw that she hadn't really asked THAT question at all. Rather, she said that plenty of women bask in the reflected glory of their mates' achievements. And, obviously referring to the question of dominance and submission, she likened the latter to hypnosis, which presupposes that the subject ALLOWS it to happen.

I am sorry I placed words into Joan's mouth/post that were really my own.

Yes Betty, I see all the answers, all the reasons, all valid. Thank you for taking the time to point out the obvious.

BTW, Conradi, the biographer, said that IM herself fancied some of the goodies (?) described in the book; in fact, I can see her sitting in front of the reported two stacks of paper, one of them blank, writing in long hand hour after hour, weaving together the strands of her complicated stories. The prepration of complete wholesome meals can hardly have been a priority ! Perhaps the loyal John Baylay had a hand in preparing something similar to Charles' tidbits and a bit improbable combinations, like toast with anchovy paste. Mamma mia !!

May I use this opportunity to mention that last Sunday I attended a luncheon, book-signing and reading by Anita Diamant from her second novel Good Harbor . This is one occasion I would not have wanted to miss. She was gracious and immensely personable and generously answered questions also about her first novel, The Red Tent. A pleasure !

James is indeed a catalyst, very well said, besprechen ! And a guiding influence. His arrival on the scene is twice preceded by a sound resembling the hyoshigi , the ominous clatter of the wooden instruments used on the Japanese stage to heighten suspense or to presage something grave. It happens first just before James materializes in the Wallace Collection (= workmen hammering nearby in the building). The second instance will be revealed later in the book. James, his present life and his past are mysterious, but his understanding of the present and his evaluation of Charles' actions and thought processes are lucid.

We also discover that Charles' resentment of James is unjustified and that the perceived rivalry between the two existed only in Charles' imagination. However, it echoed the feeling of silent resentment his mother harbored towards James' family, the Abel Arrowbys who, "in the mysterious pecking-order hierarchy of life --- ranked above the Adam Arrowbys." (pg 56). Are the first names deliberate biblical references ?

Lorrie, it is difficult to answer the multipartite question about the women because of the continuing "peeling away" process; surprises come in shock waves to the end. Just a few thoughts : Lizzie and Rosina have seen Charles in the recent past, Hartley has not laid eyes on him for 40 years. Obviously, the love they feel for Charles is of an intrinsically different nature, and they represent two different worlds. We can't fully evaluate or compare the women until the very end.

Regarding Charles' visit in the Wallace Collection and his contemplation of Titian's painting of Perseus and Andromeda , myth and metaphor are used in this "interlude". The dragon in the painting reminds Charles of his sea monster; he sees himself as Perseus intent on rescuing Hartley from Ben. (Perseus had killed Medusa and kept her head -- all who gazed upon it turned into stone -- and with the aid of Medusa's head Perseus rescued Andromeda.)

But Charles is more like Peter Pan than Perseus, and Hartley is not Andromeda, nor Galatea or Cinderella, both alluded to by Murdoch. The parallelism or comparison of myth and metaphor is not completed, the matter is left there and the psychological study progresses instead.

She is surrounded by affection and support from all sides, her husband of 44 years, her 5 children who take turns visiting from their homes across Canada, her friends - among them fellow Canadian Margaret Atwood; cards and letters arrive from all over the world. She is kept informed of the plans for tributes to her work. She tires easily and has to ration her energy. With all my heart I wish her strength and peace.

and Charles counters,

"I don't despise women. I was in love with all Shakespeare's heroines before I was twelve."

Peregrine : "But they don't exist, dear man, that's the point. They live in the never-never land of art, all tricked out in Shakespeare's wit and wisdom, and mock from there, filling us with false hopes and empty dreams. ---"

That is the case with Charles and his dreams about Hartley -- I believe that Charles is at heart a mysogynist = the cruelty, the insensitivity, the inability (and unwillingness) stop to listen. An aside : to listen, and to listen with the heart, is, of course, an art, one that is dying out ever faster in this day and age ---

Hartley told Charles about Titus, and Charles "encounters" him in the Wallace Gallery in Rembrandt's painting opposite Titian's Perseus and Andromeda (pg 169) -- long before actually meeting him in the flesh. (pg. 263 ff.) Yes, Charles takes to him, he likes the idea of being a father and considers helping Titus to become an actor. But is he altruistic (for once) or merely selfish ?

In recording his memoirs of Iris, John Bayley mentions that his hope of endless serious philosophical exchanges with his wife was not realized, and that their marital relationship was conducted at an almost infantile level of baby talk and nursery games, as if she were casting off the lofty intellectual cloak of her adult life and thought and taking refuge in childhood. In my opinion this is reinforced by John's refusal to place Iris in a nursing facility where compassionate care could have maintained her at a higher level of functioning than that to which he relegated her. He allowed her to regress to helpless babyhood when it wasn't yet necessary. One of the most brilliant minds of the century became a gurgling infant dependent on John for primary care. Finally he lapped up praise and admiration for this misguided action. Alzheimer's does not always mean an inevitable descent into the pit.

SUMMER COURSES: One-week sessions at Christ Church, Oxford University's largest college, are held July through mid-August. Five to 10 classes are offered each week over the six-week period, 61 in all; a student takes one class per week. A sampling of what's available: 

• Week 1, June 30-July 6: Film Art, English Country House, Drawing at Christ Church. 

• Week 2, July 7-13: Art of Lying (a creative writing course), Handel in England, History of British Cooking. 

• Week 3, July 14-20: Elizabethan England, English Pub Through the Centuries, Roman Army in Britain. 

• Week 4, July 21-27: Story of the British Garden, Novels of Iris Murdoch, the Tudor Age. 

• Week 5, July 28-Aug. 3: British Empire in India, Ten Great Paintings, Saints or Sinners? Chaucer's View of Women in the Canterbury Tales, Lewis Carroll at Oxford. 

• Week 6, Aug. 4-10: Stars and Planets, Shakespeare on Film, Oxford and the Poets.

Further surprises will stun readers when they reach the assigned goal for this week, chapters 4 and 5, ending on page 385. Perceptions may change by then.

The intent is clearly spelled out on pg 46 when Charles says "We were now close to each other. He was slightly taller than me. (*) Enormous vistas of thought were unrolling in my mind. (!!!)

By the same token Charles did take a liking to the disheveled youth with the hare lip and got "an impression of intelligence". "I had also noticed his clear almost reflective articulation, although he spoke with the flattened Liverpool-style voice which was now the tribal accent of the young, and which I had found my novice actors so reluctant to abandon." (still pg. 246).

(*) BTW "taller than ME" does not sit well with me. Fussy as I am, I would have preferred "taller than I".

The name "Titus" alone could lead to all sorts of historical and literary associations ---

There had been several references to "cages" (plural and singular) to "boxes", and now we see the upstairs windowless "inner room" in all its horror. Charles is keeping her there under lock and key; yes, he fears she is suicidal, but his gross deception and cruelty are appalling - actually quite beyond words.

As for hysterics, well, what was the poor soul to do ? Is it conceivable that she has had such "attacks" before ? With Ben ? when he had obsessively, relentlessly tortured her with his insane jealousy about the past that wasn't ? I can imagine such scenes. Theirs was a sado-masochistic union, I think. Titus (vaguely) refers to Hartley as a "fantasist" - does that term apply ??

Betty, besprechen, you both finished the book. What do you think ?

To teeter out on my precarious limb here : it seems to me that the stifling inner room where Hartley is held captive is representative of Charles' own closed mind, his very own prison.

With your indulgence, I will refer later to a few facts about Iris herself because that might help us in our interpretation of The Sea, The Sea.

Back soon.

The day after Titus' arrival at Shruff End Charles decides it is time "to speak seriously" (pg 256). "Titus was looking handsomer again today" ---); Charles brings up the subject of Ben and Hartley (pg. 257).

Charles : "--He (Ben) still detests me, I imagine, and God knows what he really believes. Maye he doesn't know himself. But I'm beginning to think he doesn't matter much."

Titus : "Why, pray ? "

Charles : "Because I think your mother is going to leave him."

Titus : "She never would. Never. No way."

Charles : "I think she would under certain circumstances. I think she would if she could only conceive of it as possible. If she saw it as possible she would see it as easy."

Titus : "But where would she go ?"

Charles : "To me."

Titus : "You mean --- you want her ?"

Charles : "Yes."

Titus: "And so you want me to persuade my mother to leave my father ? You've got to be joking ! That's a lot to expect in return for lunch and dinner."

As ever practical and money-conscious, Charles adds "And breakfast and tea" .

"You're a cool one", says Titus.

Young Titus is no fool and has a perfect understanding of the situation; later on pg 257 "I'm to be a lure - a kind of - hostage --.

Though still consumed with his unstoppable planning and the imponderable day-to-day changes, Charles steps away from it all for a brief moment, musing "Was I not perhaps meddling with something dreadful ?"

We aren't done with Titus either; that will have to be brought up later.

"I showed her the bathroom. I waited for her. I led her up and into my bedroom, but it was quite clear that she would not sleep with me. It was in any case better now to leave her alone. A kind of superstitious terror had taken hold of her, which took the force of a frenzied desire for unconsciousnes. 'I want to sleep, I must sleep, only sleep matters, sleep, I will sleep.' I had had the sense to anticipate this situation and had made up a bed on the floor of the little centre room upstairs, with the mattress off my divan. I had also provided a candle, matches, even a chamber pot. I offered her a pair of pyjamas, but she lay down at once in her dress and pulled the blanket up over her head as if she were a corpse covering itself. And she did seem then to go to sleep instantly : the quick flight into oblivion of the chronically unhappy person.

I withdrew and left her. I closed the door and quietly locked it on the outside. I would never now lose that nightmare image of a distraught woman rushing to drown herself in the sea. I went to my room and kicked my shoes off and crawled into bed.----"

The question concerning first-person narrative in a man's voice is dealt with in the biography by Peter Conradi who says "Male first-person narative liberated her. She had hit upon an idiom in which she felt instinctively at home ----- which enabled her to speak confidently through a masculine persona."

In Oxford, Murdoch stood out because of the shaggy haircut (she wore throughout her life), her shapeless clothes and beat-up canvas shoes. Her contemporaries remembered her as dumpy, square-headed with the face of a young lioness. Boyfriends saw her as either a knight in armor or as a fairy princess. Few who met her could resist her. (Decades later she wore black plimsolls to Buckingham Palace when the queen made her a dame.) Some of her relationships were frightfully intense, a few ran parallel to each other (!). This is of importance because she has drawn on those relationships in her books.

I have not read John Bayley's books, nor seen the movie, but the version Peter Conradi gives in his scrupulously detailed, methodical biography deserves some attention for that reason.

Do you remember the night that James' mandala pattern got messed up ...Titus is the one who picked it all up. Charles' border remained undisturbed. What does this MEEEEEAAAN? Anything? Something?

Betty,of course you are right, it was I who said that I was -- among other things -- angry when I finished the book, and yes, I will explain. Also, I was just about to post my mea culpa !

And yes Betty, the vivid colors (keyword vivid) are easier and more pleasurable to read, for me anyway.

Joan, , I never said I did not like the book !! Not once. As a matter of fact, I feel emboldened to tackle once more the 2 Murdoch books that I could not penetrate 40 years ago - The Unicorn, A Severed Head - perhaps for no reason other than comparisons.

But what's this about 'rooting' ? What does THAT mean ? We have to root for or against the author and/or the book ??? Well ------ As I have said before, more than once, I for one do not think that LIKING a certain book is an automatic prerequiste to having a deep, enjoyable discussion, though there is no denying that "liking" helps ! And so here comes rooting ! Please explain. But how dull life would be if we all had the same taste and fell into line ! (something like unquestioning, amen-saying literary Stepford Wives perhaps ?)

Ginny , I don't think the author is mocking the reader in this book. She presents one main protagonist with all his flaws and warts exposed and shows his painful, arduous way to a better understanding of self, a belated recognition of the wrongs he inflicted on people, and his hope of redemption.

In context, the passage on pg 312 refers to Charles' obstinately holding on to his dream of Hartley as she was and, he fervently hopes, will be again; Charles' including the recently arrived Titus in the equation, and the illusions Charles has tenaciously harbored for decades, i.e. reality vs. illusion, or self-delusion. Rosina, a voice or reason, calls him on that.

With Lorrie's indulgence, may I ask whether in your opinion Charles comes away the wiser ?

Just a few facts about IM : 1. Born in 1919, distinguished herself early in (a Fröbel) school , where she caught the attention of the formidable head mistress and discussed with her the "Good" (!). To strive toward "the Good" was a recurrent theme in her novels, her biographer tells us.

She was at Somerville College, Oxford 1938-42, and from 1944-46 served as administrative officer with UNRRA (United National Relief and Rehabilitation Administration) in England, Belgium and Austria. In 1947 began the study of philosophy.

So she was a philosopher before ever becoming a novelist. Her first book was a study on the French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre.

At a lecture in 1978 (the year The Sea The Sea was published), she said :

" --- And of course I have my own philosophy in a very general sense - a kind of moral psychology one might call it, rather than philosophy."

hhmmmm 'Moral psychology', gosh, and we haven't even gotten to transformation yet !

I will explain the Fröbel schools presently.

In my opinion, Chas is never redeemed!  What is that saying --"you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear?"  Charles is Charles and will never change.  He can't learn anything from these misadventures-- heck he already KNOWS IT ALL!  If charles didn't wish it, then he didn't deal with it.  When James returned to chat Chas. thought "he was going to pester me with more questions" and he believed James had lost interest in Hartley after a while.  Now that is not why James was there but he doesn't have the sense to realize that.  How is it that we, the reader, know James never loses interest and Chas. is never aware of this?  I loved this part of the book as James reveals his philosophies and described his exploits to Tibet when his sherpa froze to death.  When I reread that section, I kept thinking back of the Mandela circle that Joan P.  linked us to.  The fire of wisdom, the varja circle, which expressed strength, etc.  We could elaborate forever on that alone after reading poor James'es experience.
Anyway, Chares could care less about the "trick" and blew it off as James experiencing a hallucination.  That is because it wasn't about him!  He became quite excited  later on when he remembered this "trickery" as James crept down the sheer rock.  All of the sudden nothing was so incredible to Charles as he contemplated James'es powers. Of course by now, it IS about him.

What did you all think about "It was my vanity that killed him.  The payment for a fault is automatic (what the heck does that mean)  The Wheel is just......"   Just what?????  Of course by this time Charles is fast asleep.
 
 

On why Charles left the theatre -- on pg 2 he says

"Now I shall abjure magic and become a hermit : put myself in a situation where I can honestly say that I have nothing else to do but to learn to be good. The end of life is rightly thought of as a period of meditation. Will I be sorry that I did not begin it sooner ?"

"It is not that I ever came to 'disapprove' of the theatre, as my mother, for instance, never ceased to do. I just knew that if I stayed in it any longer I would begin to wilt spiritually---"

About himself he says on page 36 :

" As actor, director and playwright I have of course had my full share of disappointments, of lost time and lost ways. My 'successful' career contains many failures, many dead ends. All my plays flopped on Broadway for instance. I failed as an actor, I ceased as a playwright. Only my fame as director has covered up these facts."

When Charles unexpectedly meets Hartley, his long-lost love, in the flesh, the plot develops, the pace quickens. Titus appears; Hartley is lured to Shruff End and held captive and Charles says

"I had lost control of my life and of the lives with which I was meddling. I felt dread and a terrible fatalism; and bitter grief, grief such as I had never felt in my life since Hartley had left me so many years ago. I had wakened some sleeping demon, set going some deadly machine; and what would be would be. "

Then Rosina returns to check on things and learns from Titus and Gilbert that 'lady-love is hidden away upstairs'. Rosina again voices her negative feeling about Shruff End : "this is the nastiest meanest most unpleasant house I've ever entered." And Titus says "It has bad vibes." Pages 307-314 are worth rereading, not least for Rosina's strong comments on men vs. women.

In leaving Rosina announces that she is going to find Mr. Fitch and "console" him. When Gilbert later goes to Nibletts to deliver Charles' letter, a woman's voice can be heard inside. But the reader is told no more.

Hartley is unresponsive and still wants to go home. Then comes James. "It's Whit weekend, You invited me.", he says to Charles' question "What are you doing here ?" (I believe the reference is to Whitsuntide Holiday- known here as Pentecost, the seventh Sunday after Easter, widely celebrated in Europe because the weather is finally 'bearable' by that time).

"You've got a very odd and interesting house", says James, and Charles asks "You don't feel any bad vibrations ?"

Then Peregrine arrives and thinks Shruff End is a "funny place". When James and Titus meet, their reaction is a strange one. But whether they knew each other before is left in shadow.

On the other hand, the occasional brief meetings to which Lizzie and James guiltily and belatedly confessed were probably harmless; belatedly - because they both were aware of his insane jealousy and possessiveness, and for good reason !

Charles clings to Hartley's memory in confusion and utter despair even after the Fitches have left for Australia; he gets into the empty apartment for a trace of something, ANYthing personal but finds only his last letter to Hartley peeking through a floorboard, unopened. In the yard, already looking neglected and covered with dead flowers, he notices "an unusual stone lying half covered by the earth --- It was the mottled pink stone with the white chequering which I had given to Hartley."

Has Charles learned something, is he a different man, less selfish, now able to listen ? The reader has every indication to think so. He has become mellow, and gained insights of which he would not have been capable before. It is all laid out in the last part of the book. But, oh how much more could be explored and discussed about the book, not only the significance of the stones/rocks, the one he gave to Hartley and reclaimed, and the brown stone with the blue lines he had given to James, the mandala, but about religious viewpoints voiced throughout, about bardo . (Question, was Charles' life bardo perhaps ?)

And then there are the eternally changing seascapes representing such a radically different reality in contrast to Charles' rigidity and 'fixedness' within the confines of the box he had constructed in his mind ?

This is a novel of ideas, I think, remarkable for the many thoughts and reactions it evokes and reactions to them; a novel which warrants reading on more than one level; intellectual issues like casuality and transformation, very real issues on the human condition and the relationship between men and women -- and more.

The wonderful contributions by the participants are greatly appreciated and gratefully acknowledged. They are enriching. Carolyn's presence among us is a gift.

Thank you.

Back soon, I h ope.

I don't think "Chuck" was ever a British diminutive, though he might have accepted "Chaz," or even "Charlie," as in "Charlie is my darling."

Having denounced all speculation on the order of would-she have,could-she have, I find I can't resist it after all. As I reflect on the characterization of Hartley it seems to me that consciously or not, Charles never credited her with a scrap of intellectual fire or keen intelligence. Were we to examine her remarks as Charles recalled them we should find little to suggest that she was unusually bright or that she might have been a suitable companion for Charles in his climb toward recognition in the world of the theater. Hartley, aside from Charles's hagiographic attributions, was quite ordinary. Projecting forward from that early innocence we might speculate that the enchantment would have worn off early, that Charles would soon have become bored, irritable, and impatient, and would inevitably have tooled off in search of more excitement. I think the way Murdoch describes Hartley's behavior suggests that she might have sensed this and decided to quit while she was ahead rather than commit herself to the misery of staying with someone who made her feel inferior and whom she realized she could not love with a mature passion. It was kid stuff and she was wise to end it when she did.

On pp 212-213 she makes a few telling comments when pressed by Charles to explain, to remember.

"You said that I wouldn't be faithful to you. Was it really that ? You can't have thought that, you knew how much I loved you !" And Hartley says "You went to London." Charles presses on and a few details emerge on HOW Hartley met Ben, but she won't say exactly WHEN. She adds, "---I didn't know him when we were together. It wasn't that, it wasn't anything.I didn't want you to be an actor, it wasn't anything, please don't."

Charles protests she never said so. She counters, "I did. I wanted you to go to the university." And then "It wasn't just anything, oh don't upset me so, we were too much like brother and sister and you were so sort of bossy and I decided I didn't want to." (last paragraph pg 213)

The cage is a powerful symbol; Charles sees Hartley as "imprisoned in the cage of her marriage" and then he encages her himself ! During the terrible days of her captivity he "felt like a child who rushes to the cage of its new pet fearing to find a lifeless body."

During his last visit, James refers to a "cage of needs" (top of pg. 439) and, further down, says "Well, what is in her mind ? Perhaps she was simply bound to your memory by a sense of guilt. When you released her from it she was grateful, but then her own resentment was set free, her memory of how tiresome you were perhaps, and after that she could revert to a state of indifference." Later still, "It may even be your destiny to live alone and be everybody's uncle like a celibate priest, there are worse ends. ---"

This brings me to the ending, specifically concerning Angela Godwin, Peregrine's stepdaughter. She writes him with an 'interesting' offer and sends a picture. He crumples the missive up and thrusts it in the soft ash of the woodfire. (pg.459)

On pg. 478 we read "I have had another letter from Angie (sic), sending another photo and repeating her kind offer." (a bit of irony there ?) Writing about his daily doings and lunches with various people, he says "Got another letter from Angie." (pg. 487) And on the last page there is this : "Decided to release the telephone bell and instantly Angie was on the line. Arranged to have lunch with her on Friday."

(She is the eager one !!) There is no more. The reader is left to speculate, if so inclined.

May I now say, with due respect, that the last phrase of a reviewer cited in our header "and then starts an affair with an equally monstrous 18-year old girl" surprised me.

First of all, the girl was 17, not 18. Small thing, yes, but still. Secondly, Charles was no longer a monster. A few months earlier, without the benefit of lessons not yet learned, he might have reacted differently, sooner. It was Angie who made all the moves.

In my humble opinion there is really no concrete basis for the reviewer's assertion of an affair, cited above. And, do we know enough of her to assume she was actually monstrous ?

I am sorry.

(pg. 13) Could this be an allusion to Paul Valéry's famous poem Le cimetière marin ? (The Graveyard by the Sea) ?

Charles experiences chest pains and is reminded of his mortality. Someone on a BBC quiz show did not know who he was ! He wonders to whom he should leave his money and starts giving it away. He is a different man all right !

I wasn't going to fault Charles for affectation, or Murdoch-- for putting those French phrases in his mouth (some more than once). That is the way (some) Europeans speak and write, without consciously striving for le mot juste (but there are "show-offs" too of course.) After having lived here for so many years, I am more aware of, and more sensitive to, the casual sprinkling of foreign phrases into a conversation held in a different language when I am in Europe; though at times I have wondered whether that was an absolute necessity.

And yes, there is so much more to look at here than we have touched upon, for example the magnificent star-scapes that reminded Charles of his days at the Odeon with Hartley; mythology (Daphne is mentioned and Danaë !); the enigma of James; bardo; Charles' words on pg. 3: "Unless one is very talented, there is no resting place between the naive and the ironic; and the nemesis of irony is absurdity." What indeed could be more naive, or more human than a man who is a perpetual adolescent and hankers after an adolescent romance ? What more ironic than the (re-)education Charles has to undergo with elements of the comic (as Andy said). And then there are inescapable little linguistic touches, though of no apparent importance-- not to worry, I have set those aside for now.

Betty, I thought all day about your message composed in the wee hours of this morning. I had no time to reply earlier - for once again I lost the fight with my nemesis, TIME. I have the deepest admiration for all those of you who are so active in other folders and other fields as well and wish I could emulate you.

Betty again, I am not sure there are answers to the eternal questions. The persistent inequalities between men and women are still at the heart of many of the problems in this world. Women are still limited, even those who do not wear a veil. We might also talk about the motivations (needs ?) of the women who are part of the sex "industry" --- perhaps in a separate discussion ?

Getting back to the book, the outrage we felt at Charles was justified, I believe. I was appalled early on when I read (page 11) "I may add here that one of the secrets of my happy life is that I have never made the mistake of learning to drive a car. I have never lacked people, usually women (!!), longing to drive me whithersoever I wanted. Why keep bitches and bark yourself ? " I thought that a most unkind remark, considering that it came from a woman !! This comment and Carolyn's message regarding the article about Murdoch's Bohemian lifestyle gave me the opening I needed.

As you know, I have been plowing through Peter Conradi's biography of IM, very slowly, skipping back and forth. I looked at the pictures over and over again, in wonder. In Conradi's bio there is a brief but telling reference : Gwenda David, a scout for Viking, receives in her mailbox the manuscript of what became Murdoch's first novel "Under The Net" (it was never clear who had sent it). " Gwenda David came to stay at Iris's smart new top-floor flat in Beaumont Street, Oxford, where the dust was so thick Gwenda wrote her name in it---"

Obviously the lifestyle was unconventional, "truly liberated" we would call it now. She was loved and admired by men and women; she loved both. All of them were her intellectual equals; all influenced her in the direction of her work (one toward Tolstoy). John Bayley called the men her "demon lovers", and the penultimate of those, Bayley's immediate predecessor, was Elias Canetti, Nobel Prize winner for literature in 1981.

Bayley described Canetti as "Pluto, god of the Underworld, with a crocodile smile, wanting to whisk Iris off to Hades." Bayley ended up "rescuing" Iris (it was not sudden, it was not instant romance, and it was not a flight from London glitz). Canetti for his part (he was married and had simultaneous affairs with several women) never forgave Iris for breaking free of him; he was jealous of her fame, her artistic and social success. She represented something unforgivable, blasphemous : an independent and successful woman. Imagine that !!! Canetti appears to have been even more monstrous than dear Charles in The Sea, The Sea; Iris refers to him as 'diabolical'.

Their affair was volcanic, he dominated and she submitted, willingly, gladly. It was what she needed, she said (!) He played mind games with her, he once spied on her when she was with another man, a lover, in a restaurant) - shades of Charles !!

Lucky for Iris and posterity, John Bayley's rescue of her was timely indeed. After they were married (1956), she came into her own as a novelist. But it was not the end of her attraction to men and to women. Indeed, "Iris did not want a bourgeois or conventional marriage. This arrangement procured her a child-wife in John, who cooked, or assembled, picnic meals - Wind-in-the-Willows food', she called it in The Sea, The Sea." (pg. 402 of Conradi biography). Unlike Charles, Canetti was never 'redeemed' and remained jealous and vengeful. He commented publicly on Iris' lack of dress-sense, bad figure, promiscuity, bisexuality and religiosity, her 'vulgar' success -- (pg. 583 of Conradi's bio) and I'll spare you the rest. Canetti, who had seriously believed he could defy death (!) died at 89 on Aug 19, 1994. Iris was incredulous when told.

Murdoch was diagnosed with Alzheimers' in 1997 and in December of that year mentioned a friend she had not head from"since I began sailing away into darkness, The pictures show how vacant her gaze has beome ---

Forgive me for being so long, but I thought this (much compressed) information might help us to better understand "our" book and the role Eros played in it and in Iris' life.

Lorrie, my apologies for the length of this message. Many many thanks you for guiding us so patiently through the discussion of this strange, demanding book, and hearty, multiple cheers to all who participated in this very special project. On spectacular occasions like this, my Swiss relatives shout "chapeau"! And so do I. With special appreciation and fondness.