The Golden Bowl by Henry James

[Jozanny]

The Golden Bowl is the last novel Henry James would complete and publish in his lifetime, in 1904. Ostensibly, the plot is simple, even somewhat tawdry. The Ververs, a wealthy American father daughter pair, Adam and Maggie, come to England to buy Maggie a title through marriage, to the Prince, an impoverished Italian noble named Amerigo.

Just prior to the wedding, a friend of Maggie's, Charlotte Stant, swoops in on this charming society, and takes the Prince off to find a wedding present for Maggie. No one bothers to tell the Ververs that Charlotte & the Prince had a prior attachment, including one of the most original Jamesian conduit's, Fanny Assingham, the matchmaker for the original marriage.

The Prince and Charlotte quibble over an object they find in a shop, a bowl in gold gilt that has a crack, and don't buy it. This inaction will ultimately lead to their undoing.

With the Ververs still innocent of a past which will hoodwink them, Adam Verver, a widow himself, marries Charlotte at his daughter's suggestion, because she will add a touch of class to the foursome.

And there is your game, and what a game it is. Most of James's contemporary critics disliked this novel, citing "unreality"-- and at times the prose is so vacuous there is a sense of disenbodiment about the characters.

For today, I won't go much farther in what I'd like to say about the book. When I first read it in college I barely understood what I was reading, and I have read it about 3 times since then, both online and in my print world classics addition, and hopefully, before I expire, my thesis about it will be universally accepted.:D

There are several film and television adaptations. The one I watched and have the most affection for is Pullman's 1972 adaptation, with Cyril Cusack rather cleverly cast as Bob Assingham and the narrator of the series. The novel really cannot be filmed, because it has to be parsed down--but the 72 version is the best, and Galye Hunnicutt has been the Charlotte I see in my head ever since.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068075/

I will not ask why The Literature Network doesn't have the complete text, but this site is the best James scholar guide online, and you can find two html GB versions here:

http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~hathaway/

Simply as a labor of love, I will have much more to post, by and by.

[Virgil]

For the most part I really enjoy Henry James. But I just could not get through this one. I don't know why, but it was so tedious for me. All of James's faults seem to stand out for me with little of his merits. It must be me, because this is considered one of his great works. I probably ought to give this another try. I'll look for your posts on this Jozy and perhaps you will inspire me to find the book and give it another try. :)

[Jozanny]

For the most part I really enjoy Henry James. But I just could not get through this one. I don't know why, but it was so tedious for me. All of James's faults seem to stand out for me with little of his merits. It must be me, because this is considered one of his great works. I probably ought to give this another try. I'll look for your posts on this Jozy and perhaps you will inspire me to find the book and give it another try. :)

Virgil, my friend, I don't think its you!;) It took me years to even begin to get a glimmer of insight into the text itself, and there is a legitimate debate to be had, the crux of which is, does difficulty necessarily make good literature? Not always, and more often than not difficult writing fails.

I honestly think the jury is still out with GB, but I persist. This is why: James, like Shakespeare, is at the end of his career with this text. The Victorian Era is in its last stages, Modernism is nearly on the verge of taking over contemporary literature, and James, like Shakespeare does in The Temptest, is making a call to arms with The Golden Bowl.

The controversy is about defining that call. Richard Hathaway, whose dedication maintains the Scholar's Guide, thinks that James *intends* good to triumph over evil, essentially holding that Maggie's victory in the end isn't a hollow one. Me being me, I said "ya but Richard..." about 5 or 6 times in email and he said, "that is what literary criticism is for."

Meaning he wanted to stop arguing with me:p . Virginia Llewellyn Smith, who edits my edition, would be more in sympatico with Richard, so that is 2 to 1, but at least Dr. Smith recognizes variant readings are possible.

I don't know if I will ever have the energy to publish a nice piece of Jamesian criticism before I get too old, but if I ever can it has to be about this novel.

I am not ready to discuss my theory yet, but will, in bits and kibbles!:)

[Virgil]

I think the very year before James wrote The Ambassadors in what is also called his late style and I loved it. Have you read it? The story line seemed so much more clear. I must admit I was confused with The Golden Bowl.

[Jozanny]

I think the very year before James wrote The Ambassadors in what is also called his late style and I loved it. Have you read it? The story line seemed so much more clear. I must admit I was confused with The Golden Bowl.

Yes, but I don't own a copy of The Ambassadors, nor Wings, though I have most everything else but for some early stories and his letters collections.

I think I am going to go get shot down on the list serv and create an uproar by citing Leo Bersanti out of context to prove the point that James was up-chucking the social comedy of manners that made his reputation.:D These folks are all old half-blind conservatives and I am the nutty cripple who never gets any hard work done...:blush:

[Quark]

I can sympathize with everyone about this novel. I, too, couldn't make it all the way through on one reading. The prose is understandable if you read slow, but the sudden changes in tone and pace make it impossible to sink into any sort rythum with James. This was too much for me considering it was supposed to be my "easy" read in between the books I was reading for classes.

Besides the indecipherable writing, though, I thought the book was good. It pours into the characters' minds deeper than in any of James novel, and the easy-going tone can be genuinely comic and witty at times.


Ostensibly, the plot is simple, even somewhat tawdry.

Yeah, I thought that there wasn't enough substance to this story, as well. This is something James is known and praised for, though. He keeps the narrative focused on only a handful of characters who do very little. This is supposed to allow him to examine the characters closer--which sometimes works--but often it can get tedious.


I think the very year before James wrote The Ambassadors in what is also called his late style and I loved it. Have you read it? The story line seemed so much more clear. I must admit I was confused with The Golden Bowl.

That's interesting. I haven't read The Ambassadors. Is it any good? I would think if it were written in the same style, though, it would be just as difficult as The Golden Bowl.

[Virgil]

That's interesting. I haven't read The Ambassadors. Is it any good? I would think if it were written in the same style, though, it would be just as difficult as The Golden Bowl.
Yes I thought it was very good. I didn't have the same problem as with The Golden Bowl, for whatever reason. The Ambassadors is defintely worth a read.

[Jozanny]

Yes I thought it was very good. I didn't have the same problem as with The Golden Bowl, for whatever reason. The Ambassadors is defintely worth a read.

The Ambassadors, however, has an equally contradictory arc as does The Golden Bowl. Strether is sent on a moral mission to rescue Chad from a tenuous attachment, but decides Chad is morally obligated not to abandon Vionnet. Chad, on the other hand, seems to me still straining at the bit when Strether implores him not to leave her, by novel's end.

James is straining to burst the bonds of his form in his last works, and for all its detractions, I believe The Golden Bowl, like The Ambassadors, is at the very least a minor masterpiece within its range.

Like much of James, the key to getting at this work and its pairings is to focus on acquisition. The moral vacuum is right there in front of your nose during the Prince's interplay with Maggie:


M: "I haven't the least idea what you cost."
P: "Wouldn't you find out if it were a question of parting with me?"
M: "Yes, if you mean that I'd pay rather than lose you."

[Quark]

The Ambassadors is defintely worth a read.

I'll think about it. I haven't even read Portrait of a Lady, yet, so maybe that deserves attention more. Everyone is quite gaga over that one. All I hope is that it isn't as boring as The Bostonians which was rather unexceptional. The protagonist wasn't particularly entertaining, the women were insipid, and the strongly anti-feminist message was a bit of a turn-off.


The Ambassadors, however, has an equally contradictory arc as does The Golden Bowl.

I'm not sure what you mean by "contradictory arc." Are you saying that the plot doesn't make sense because it disagrees with itself?


James is straining to burst the bonds of his form in his last works

Yeah, I got that sense, too. Some critics even go so far as to say that The Golden Bowl not only escaped the limits of his other works, but actually solved many of the problems plaguing James in his earlier novels.


So far, I've only had a couple of moments of genuine frustration, but it seems all to have to do with one's mood: after reading for about five consecutive hours (at night with no noise), and shutting out, as much as I can, the 'world' at large, I've become conscious of a sympathy with this novel.

That's quite an accomplishment. I would not be able to stand reading The Golden Bowl for five hours. Yet, that may be the best way of going about it. You're definetely right that concentration is the key.

[Virgil]

I'll think about it. I haven't even read Portrait of a Lady, yet, so maybe that deserves attention more. Everyone is quite gaga over that one. All I hope is that it isn't as boring as The Bostonians which was rather unexceptional. The protagonist wasn't particularly entertaining, the women were insipid, and the strongly anti-feminist message was a bit of a turn-off.

I've never read The Bostonians, so i can't gage. Yes definitely read Portrait of a Lady first, and also The Beast In The Jungle.


I'm not sure what you mean by "contradictory arc." Are you saying that the plot doesn't make sense because it disagrees with itself?
I didn't understand that either and meant to aske Jozy. Hopefully she'll explain.

[Jozanny]

I've never read The Bostonians, so i can't gage. Yes definitely read Portrait of a Lady first, and also The Beast In The Jungle.


I didn't understand that either and meant to ask Jozy. Hopefully she'll explain.

I cannot today, but I will try to come back to it; it is harder for me today to gain access to the works of critics, and when I was still a student I read criticism about Strether's arc before I really understood the novel. I am not sure I ever shall understand the big effusive 3, really. Wings, Am and GB are enough for 20 lifetimes.

But okay, contradictory arc-- socially, adultery is bad, but I think James undercuts this in both Ambassadors and GB. I think he means to say the sourness is elsewhere. Maybe I am wrong.

I read The Bostonians in html, not in book form, and I didn't really care for it. Rather stark, and I am not sure if James was mocking sufferage and social activism, both, or what. The Bostonians doesn't *fail* like I consider the mid-career Princess Casamassima to *fail* (though C has its defenders), I just cannot follow its vision to any satisfactory sense.

[Jozanny]

For my fellow James fans, this is how I torture the scholars on the list-serv. Free if you want to join, but it is an older e-list type of thing. My recent post:


Nihilism and Unreliability

In his introduction to Madame Bovary, Leo Bersani writes “...Henry James indirectly suggests the novelistic revolution accomplished by Flaubert in his puzzled displeasure with the thinness of Emma Bovary’s character.”

And I confess I am puzzled myself. In every 19th century French novelist I’ve explored in recent years, James seems to have a ready barb in hand, and I am wondering if I should write an essay about that, rather than struggle to turn old undergraduate work into something snippy and doable.

On a more perplexed level, I thought James admired Flaubert. The narrator in The Death of The Lion, who alludes to Flaubert, certainly leads one to believe so.

Then I wonder again: Surely James was astute enough as a literary artist to recognize the seminal achievement represented in Madame Bovary? Perhaps James wasn’t flirting with nihilism, or the murder of meaning in language, which are charges laid at Flaubert’s door, but I think James comes pretty close to this in his mature works, with his unreliable narrators in The Sacred Fount, The Turn of The Screw, and even in the unreality and thinness of The Golden Bowl. Both men were pushing the boundaries of language I believe, but it is Flaubert who is rightly accredited with the sea change in fiction.

Perhaps there is a little resentment in that *puzzled displeasure*? I am really in the mood to produce some small piece of criticism before I croak, and guess in the last few weeks I have been looking for an angle.

[Jozanny]

*finishes Volume One* :D



Are you talking about james f-l?

Yeah, but apparently my post did not go through, or no one replied, or I have to change my settings. I am giving it a little while because I know the f-l is an old system, and acts up.:(

[kelby_lake]

I'm very torn. On one hand, I thought the premise and the characters were interesting- the premise is that a woman who is married to an Italian prince, sets up her father with her best friend- basically they arranged each other's marriages. However the friend and the Prince were once lovers... In a way, Maggie benefits from the adultery because she grows in confidence and dignity and she grows out of her rather-too-close relationship with her father. Sure, there's no real plot but the interactions between the characters and the thoughts of Maggie as she tries to cover up her husband's affair and save her marriage are just enough. Another criticism some make is the fact that there isn't really a world outside of the four's personal world but I liked this claustrophobia- it worked well.

But the prose...I liked some of it and I'm not adverse to a more ornate style of writing but far too often the writing became convoluted, even in the dialogue which was for the most part quite dramatic. The novel is far too long for what is simply an interesting idea and observation.

It would make a nice stageplay, I think, but as a novel it has flaws just like the golden bowl in the story.

[andrewparkin]

This is a exceptional story written by Henry James. It is one of the most difficult reads I have ever done, but well worth it. James' story revolves around a rich brother, his daughter, her husband (an French prince from a former royal time in French history) & an elderly mate of the daughter's. The relationships that exist & new ones that create are deep & throughout the novel are problematic.