Ragnar Freund
09-21-2011, 04:41 PM
Note: If you haven’t read Brooksmith yet, then please note that this post contains spoilers.
***
The first Henry James tale I’ve ever read was Brooksmith (http://www.online-literature.com/henry_james/2756/). I picked it simply because it was the shortest tale in the collection I had, and with Henry James, one must take small bites and progress slowly.
Brooksmith remains one of my favorite James tales even after I’ve read many others. Surprisingly, I found only one paper (http://www.jstor.org/pss/20479280) in the entire JSTOR database whose main object is this fascinating tale, and not too many papers that discuss it tangentially. That one paper is a pathetic attempt to apply “queer theory” to Brooksmith and is thus unworthy of further comment. I’d like to give my own account of Brooksmith and to provide questions for discussion.
There seem to be two related reasons for Brooksmith’s alienation, depression, and eventual death (probably by suicide). The first is his separation from his beloved employer and master, Mr. Offord, who was a father figure to Brooksmith. The second is Brooksmith’s desperate need for conversation and for a venue, a salon, in which to practice his art.
Finding that venue is quite difficult. Of his new employers and their guests, Brooksmith says to the narrator:
They required no depth of attention--they were all referable to usual irredeemable inevitable types. It was the world of cheerful commonplace and conscious gentility and prosperous density, a full-fed material insular world, a world of hideous florid plate and ponderous order and thin conversation. There wasn't a word said about Byron, or even about a minor bard then much in view.
Nevertheless, Brooksmith’s plight seems somewhat contrived. Could he not find, in all of nineteenth-century London, even one salon where sophisticated conversation took place, and where he could practice his art and enrich his mind? Was Offord’s the last haven for intelligent conversation?
Perhaps it was, or perhaps his feelings of Offord were so strong that he had lost his zeal for conversation and hospitality upon Offord’s death.
Whatever the reason, Brooksmith’s story is touching, tragic and timely. It is the story of the death of intelligent conversation, and is truer today than in James’s time. It is also the story of an artist whose art is no longer appreciated or desired. Finally, it is the story of a lonely man, a man without a home, friends, or a satisfying career. Suicide is the most fitting way to end such a tragic tale.
I have several questions that merit a discussion:
1. Why has Mr. Offord not done more to provide for Brooksmith’s psychological and social well-being? Why has he left him with eighty pounds and nothing more (e.g. connections to other employers)? Was he simply negligent or were there other reasons?
2. Consider the statement the narrator makes regarding Brooksmith’s education via listening to the conversations in Offord’s salon:
It was indeed an education, but to what was this sensitive young man of thirty-five, of the servile class, being educated?
The narrator seems to think that education is useless for a butler with no opportunities for career advancement. In saying so, he takes a modern, utilitarian view of education, one that equates education with vocational training. What is the significance of this statement, if any? Do you think that it represents James’s view of education?
3. The narrator refers to Mr. Offrod’s salon as Arcadia, and he relishes the time spent there. By his description, it seems that most of Offord’s other guests felt the same. Why is it only Brooksmith who suffers so much from Offord’s death? How do you think have the other habitués managed to fill the void?
***
The first Henry James tale I’ve ever read was Brooksmith (http://www.online-literature.com/henry_james/2756/). I picked it simply because it was the shortest tale in the collection I had, and with Henry James, one must take small bites and progress slowly.
Brooksmith remains one of my favorite James tales even after I’ve read many others. Surprisingly, I found only one paper (http://www.jstor.org/pss/20479280) in the entire JSTOR database whose main object is this fascinating tale, and not too many papers that discuss it tangentially. That one paper is a pathetic attempt to apply “queer theory” to Brooksmith and is thus unworthy of further comment. I’d like to give my own account of Brooksmith and to provide questions for discussion.
There seem to be two related reasons for Brooksmith’s alienation, depression, and eventual death (probably by suicide). The first is his separation from his beloved employer and master, Mr. Offord, who was a father figure to Brooksmith. The second is Brooksmith’s desperate need for conversation and for a venue, a salon, in which to practice his art.
Finding that venue is quite difficult. Of his new employers and their guests, Brooksmith says to the narrator:
They required no depth of attention--they were all referable to usual irredeemable inevitable types. It was the world of cheerful commonplace and conscious gentility and prosperous density, a full-fed material insular world, a world of hideous florid plate and ponderous order and thin conversation. There wasn't a word said about Byron, or even about a minor bard then much in view.
Nevertheless, Brooksmith’s plight seems somewhat contrived. Could he not find, in all of nineteenth-century London, even one salon where sophisticated conversation took place, and where he could practice his art and enrich his mind? Was Offord’s the last haven for intelligent conversation?
Perhaps it was, or perhaps his feelings of Offord were so strong that he had lost his zeal for conversation and hospitality upon Offord’s death.
Whatever the reason, Brooksmith’s story is touching, tragic and timely. It is the story of the death of intelligent conversation, and is truer today than in James’s time. It is also the story of an artist whose art is no longer appreciated or desired. Finally, it is the story of a lonely man, a man without a home, friends, or a satisfying career. Suicide is the most fitting way to end such a tragic tale.
I have several questions that merit a discussion:
1. Why has Mr. Offord not done more to provide for Brooksmith’s psychological and social well-being? Why has he left him with eighty pounds and nothing more (e.g. connections to other employers)? Was he simply negligent or were there other reasons?
2. Consider the statement the narrator makes regarding Brooksmith’s education via listening to the conversations in Offord’s salon:
It was indeed an education, but to what was this sensitive young man of thirty-five, of the servile class, being educated?
The narrator seems to think that education is useless for a butler with no opportunities for career advancement. In saying so, he takes a modern, utilitarian view of education, one that equates education with vocational training. What is the significance of this statement, if any? Do you think that it represents James’s view of education?
3. The narrator refers to Mr. Offrod’s salon as Arcadia, and he relishes the time spent there. By his description, it seems that most of Offord’s other guests felt the same. Why is it only Brooksmith who suffers so much from Offord’s death? How do you think have the other habitués managed to fill the void?