Printable View
I have to admit that I prefer this to the late 20th century American literature produced by middle class white men... Lamenting their misfortunes. .. Yes, they get mid-range jobs never to make it big, they get a divorce because they can't help themselves somewhere along the way and have affairs... They are depressed because the big American dream has turned out to be just that: a dream.
So, in comparison, earlier books do seem more interesting and of consequence to me.
Scher, if you liked My Antonia I suspect you would enjoy Elena Ferrante's Neapolitan series if you haven't read them already. 4 books which explore friendship, poverty, opportunity centred around 2 extraordinary female characters.
Thank you, Fifth... I will check them out.
And it is nice to see you online :)
There is a moment near the end, written in the most sublime language, when the Moon and the Sun stare at each other from opposite horizons and the two young people stare into each other's face. Suddenly you realize you've been reading Wuthering Heights - not Little House on the Prairie. Here the book reaches the highest level of artistic performance. It changed the whole work for me (backwards and forwards) from a story into work of art. You realize what Cather has been doing, what her purpose has been from the start , what her themes and her symbols for expressing them are. As this realisation dawns you cannot help but be in awe of the writers skill, her patience and her trust in you. It's outstanding. It's the reason we search for good stuff to read.
It's quite a read so far.
J
EDIT: Liked the ending.
Didn't get this from that scene, Mick.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
It was a fine novel. Jack of Hearts wouldn't compare it to Wuthering Heights in that way, which is a sad novel of tragedy and bleakness (if memory serves). The romantic aspect between Jim and Ántonia is only approached at the edges, constructed as though it was somewhat unspeakable. We are shown Jim as the engine of this aspect, in a scene just before he leaves for university. He and Tony actually kiss, but Tony redefines the parameters of the relationship on her terms-- more sisterly than anything.
There's also another fact or two, that for this reader, are inescapable. The first is that this is a first person narrative from a male perspective, written by a woman who was almost certainly gay based on experiences she herself had actually had in her own life. Is it too much of a reach to see Jim Burden as a literary representation of the author? For all its worth in examining what is feminine, the book offers almost nothing about masculinity-- and it's narrated by a character who is allegedly male, for pete's sake.
So returning to the scene in question, when Jim and Tony are having a conversation on the prairie and the sun is setting and the moon is rising in opposition, it feels like a slightly mixed metaphor to this reader, not a revelatory scene or something. Or maybe, if the work is interpreted generously in terms of cohesion, it could be related to the statements about destiny. Something else decided the moon and sun's paths across the sky, or that they should be opposition, but like Jim and Tony, it's already been decided, all they ever can or will be.
J
'That' scene was so full of metaphor it's hard to know where to start - sun, moon, horizens, shadows, endings, beginnings - take your choice.
It was the way a landscape can integrate so strongly with a character and become a character itself that reminded me of Wuthering Heights. It took me till I got to that scene at dusk, (second reading ) for me to spot the symbolism of Antonia as the personification of the prairie for us and for Jim - and also of his past and his anchor to the past and place (I'm a bit slow with this kind of thing). Once you find an angle you start finding more and more connections to it, eg; the way he describes how the prairie is yielding up its fertility after years of hard work - then visits her in all her domesticated fecundity. The trouble is you also start finding things that aren't really there.
Cather was gay? Was Jim gay ? I thought she wanted a male narrator to add a bit of sexual frisson to the plot, while grounding the story in fact with that opening. I agree about the lack of maleness, every significant character is female and Jim is certainly in touch with his feminine side, but I don't know if it was intentional or just inevitable. I'm reading something at the moment written by a male with a first person heroine, and she's a bit male.
It would be hard to present the main character Jim as gay, but maybe easier to interpret him as the (perhaps more socially acceptable, at the time?) manifestation of a certain aspect of the female, gay author.
Spot on comments about Tony and the embodiment of the prairie as character in a person.
J
I read My Antonia in my freshman Humane Letters class, and absolutely loved it. However, our class never could agree on the exact nature of Jim and Antonia's relationship. Still makes us argue now.
I haven't read it (or, to be honest, this thread), but I think My Antonia was a sequel to a better known novel called O Pioneers, and that there was another book in the series, too. You may know more about this than I do. I just wanted to call your attention to the other books in case you haven't read them yet.
I read O Pioneers after My Antonia. That is probably why I thought it came after MA, also it seemed the communities she described were a bit more advanced.
Now, both are good books, but being a farmer myself I wanted more description of tillage and harvest - never mind all this relationship palaver. That is why I prefer the Laura Ingalls Wilder books with her perfect eye for detail.