Summer Challenge '08: The Sea by John Banville

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

Virgil, you say...What point would you have it lead to other than what I said in my previous post? Was he supposed to murder someone? Should he be a long lost resident of Max's past? Really if you think about it, it was hinted throughout the book that he and Ms. V would 'get together', obviously a ridiculous thought considering her sexual proclivity.

---

:lol: No Col Blunden should not have murdered Mrs. Grace in the conservatory with the candlestick. :p My point is that an good author does not waste effort and pages on a character that has no function in the story. Now Walter makes a very good point that the Col is a contrast to Max, I think that is on the mark, but it does seem forced to me. The Col has no real function in the central plot. It does not seem as elegantly done as some of the other charcterizations. I admit, I did not pick up on Miss V's sexual proclivity. Banville spends so much time on a minor character like the Col and really just touches on Miss V's character? Where's his sense of proportion? Where's the development of the whole Rosie/Chloe relationship if indeed it leeds to the climax? You don't spring something like that in the last 30 pages. Perhaps I need to re-read this.

Right now I would give this the same vote as Scher, average. I love the prose, I was engaged with the characters, but story line was a mess (flawed if you ask me) and the shock surprises at the end trivialized the whole thing. But I will withhold my vote. I may pick this up again in a couple of months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I don't think the twins cared much for Max himself either; both Rose `and Max seemed to mere "play things" for them; to tease and make fun of at times and discard when fancy took them.

Isn't it interesting that the survivors of the story are Rose and Max, who are the ones without a "class"?

---

I fully agree, the twins were a force unto themselves, not particularly caring for at least Max...I can't put my finger on the relationship with Rose. I know a jealousy comes in and I feel as though I've missed a major hint along the way that would clear that confusion up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

:lol: No Col Blunden should not have murdered Mrs. Grace in the conservatory with the candlestick. :p My point is that an good author does not waste effort and pages on a character that has no function in the story. Now Walter makes a very good point that the Col is a contrast to Max, I think that is on the mark, but it does seem forced to me. The Col has no real function in the central plot. It does not seem as elegantly done as some of the other charcterizations. I admit, I did not pick up on Miss V's sexual proclivity. Banville spends so much time on a minor character like the Col and really just touches on Miss V's character? Where's his sense of proportion? Where's the development of the whole Rosie/Chloe relationship if indeed it leeds to the climax? You don't spring something like that in the last 30 pages. Perhaps I need to re-read this.

Right now I would give this the same vote as Scher, average. I love the prose, I was engaged with the characters, but story line was a mess (flawed if you ask me) and the shock surprises at the end trivialized the whole thing. But I will withhold my vote. I may pick this up again in a couple of months.

---

Virgil, on page 192...

Quote:

---

Miss Vavasour says that she will mess me, but thinks I am doing the right thing. Leaving the Cedars is hardly of my doing, I tell her, I am being forced to it. She smiles as that. "oh Max," she says, "I do not think you are a man to be forced into anything." That gives me pause, not because of the tribute to my strength of will, but the fact, which I register with a faint shock, that this is the first time she has addressed me by my name. Still, I to not think it means that I can call her Rose. A certain formal distance is necessary for the good maintenance of the dainty relation we have forged, re-forged, between us over these past weeks. At this hint of intimacy, however, the old, unasked questions come swarming forward again. I would like to ask her if she blames herself for Chloe's death--I believe, I should say, on no evidence, that it was Chloe who went down first, with Myles following after, to try to save her--and if she is convinced their drowning together like that was entirely an accident, or something else.

---

Bolding mine.
On the next page a very good reason for the Colonel's existence is acknowledged...he saved Max's life. Remember he scooped Max off of the beach...I don't remember all the details, but he did save Max when he was drunk that night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Banville spends so much time on a minor character like the Col and really just touches on Miss V's character? Where's his sense of proportion?

---

Well, you have a good question there about Banville's craftsmanship. I suppose I just don't mind reading detailed description, as of the Colonel, -- in fact I rather enjoy descriptions of 'atmosphere' -- and I don't often think of the author's craftsmanship except where it glaringly bad and I notice it. I mostly read along with what the author has put on the page and, if parts of it seem slow, I don't really mind slow novels. I have read some in my time. Yes, I could have been interested in hearing more about Miss Vavasour, but I think sufficient was provided for someone who was not a major figure. Regarding surprises at the end, there certainly were some, but that is where I expect to find them, as closure is being approached and dramatic tensions or open plot issues are being resolved. Right from the outset this was clearly not a linear narrative, so I suppose I was ready for considerable jaggedness in the narrative and that is part of what led to the zest for me, trying to keep it all in place.

Or, on the other hand, it may just be that I have read quite a bit of Banville by now and have grown acclimatized to his style. Wonderful prose and detailed description are certainly outstanding parts of his writing in general. In addition, a protagonist like Max, who has no readily definable job, except something vaguely (very vaguely) to do with art criticism, and who mopes along the sleazy edge, boozing more or less occasionally, is a recognizable character in several of Banville's novels. So maybe, for me, rereading The Sea was like 'coming home' and curling up with a good book again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

Well, you have a good question there about Banville's craftsmanship. I suppose I just don't mind reading detailed description, as of the Colonel, -- in fact I rather enjoy descriptions of 'atmosphere' -- and I don't often think of the author's craftsmanship except where it glaringly bad and I notice it. I mostly read along with what the author has put on the page and, if parts of it seem slow, I don't really mind slow novels. I have read some in my time. Yes, I could have been interested in hearing more about Miss Vavasour, but I think sufficient was provided for someone who was not a major figure. Regarding surprises at the end, there certainly were some, but that is where I expect to find them, as closure is being approached and dramatic tensions or open plot issues are being resolved. Right from the outset this was clearly not a linear narrative, so I suppose I was ready for considerable jaggedness in the narrative and that is part of what led to the zest for me, trying to keep it all in place.

Or, on the other hand, it may just be that I have read quite a bit of Banville by now and have grown acclimatized to his style. Wonderful prose and detailed description are certainly outstanding parts of his writing in general. In addition, a protagonist like Max, who has no readily definable job, except something vaguely (very vaguely) to do with art criticism, and who mopes along the sleazy edge, boozing more or less occasionally, is a recognizable character in several of Banville's novels. So maybe, for me, rereading The Sea was like 'coming home' and curling up with a good book again.

---

Walter you have made Banville sound wonderful. I really did enjoy this novel until the last 30 pages. I am going to give it another try in a few months. Perhaps I missed something. But you and Jane must admit that quite a few people, good readers all, had their issues with this work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Walter you have made Banville sound wonderful. I really did enjoy this novel until the last 30 pages. I am going to give it another try in a few months. Perhaps I missed something. But you must admit that quite a few people, good readers all, had their issues with this work.

---

SPOILERS GALORE

Virgil, If I have made it sound wonderful then maybe I should take up writing blurbs for the back covers of books. :lol:
But, seriously, my first reaction was the same disappointment as yours, noting the excellent prose style but wondering where the story was, and what all the hullabaloo was about (Booker Prize winner etc).
There is no doubt, it seems to me, that it is a different kind of book -- at least complex, quite possibly difficult, and certainly not easy to read -- and that it requires a certain devotion to make it yield up its secrets. In fact, I think it is more complex and difficult than comparable others I have read from Nabokov, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce and William Faulkner. So I think it is pretty high up on the scale of difficulty/obscurity.
Furthermore, I have the suspicion that Banville set out to make it complicated by deliberately employing more literary techniques than I have yet seen in any single other work. And I'll ennumerate.

1. It is certainly stream-of-consciousness, very extremely so I would say, with largely random transitions from one remembered episode to another and nothing near a linear evolution of the story.
2. We are at twice-remove from the basic plot, as we try to see the basic plot through the eyes of a bewildered first-person narrator who is himself trying to see the basic plot of his life.
3. If we distinguish time-line from narrative, then the beginning and end of the time-line are both to be found in the middle of the narrative in the book.
4. And, likewise, the beginning and end of the narrative are both from the middle of the time-line. So it is difficult to grab onto either end of the narrative or the plot.
5. The plot is about Max's frame of mind, a rather more elusive and ephemeral thing than the conclusion to an event- or character-driven story.
6. If one surmises that it is Max's quest for the meaning of his life -- because that is essentially the question he asks at one point -- then one might expect some sort of epiphany or insightful wisdom to be extracted by Max from a review of his life. One does get the review of episodes of his life, but one looks in vain for that sort of epiphany.
7. Instead, as near as I can tell, Max's epiphany is simply an accurate view of what his life has been like, with no lessons or wisdom distilled from it. So one can spend the entire book looking for the wrong sort of ah-ha moment, as I did for the longest time.

And that is all clearly the author's deliberate doing, as if he wished to put together a tour-de-force of total literary misdirection using all the techniques at his disposal. If there is a simpler way to see the book, I would be overjoyed to hear it, because these items only reflect in essence the obstacles that I found in trying to finally come to some sort of sensible understanding of The Sea. Others might certainly see it differently, and more clearly, and have an easier time of it.

So finally, yes I can easily agree that one can have a difficult time reading it. I too am one of those who did. :bawling:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

There is no doubt, it seems to me, that it is a different kind of book -- at least complex, quite possibly difficult, and certainly not easy to read -- and that it requires a certain devotion to make it yield up its secrets. In fact, I think it is more complex and difficult than comparable others I have read from Nabokov, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce and William Faulkner. So I think it is pretty high up on the scale of difficulty/obscurity.

---

I agree it is a different sort of book, but otoh, it's complexity is really simple once the time lines are sorted out, the thing I found is that one cannot zone out, skim or anything along those lines for even an instant. Banville keeps his readers right up on their tippy toes every second of every page. I know I've missed vital details even after a second reading. I know the explanations to these vital details were very casually mentioned and I missed it.

Quote:

---

....Max's epiphany is simply an accurate view of what his life has been like, with no lessons or wisdom distilled from it. So one can spend the entire book looking for the wrong sort of ah-ha moment, as I did for the longest time.

---

It doesn't seem to be Banville's style to have a true ah-ha moment, instead to me aside from the character assessment that Max accurately comes to, I thought his acceptance of that assessment was the closest thing to an ah-ha moment. To accept what one has been and what one is and the direction one is headed in is most satisfactory.
That's the crux of the book to me I think. [at least at this moment] ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

It doesn't seem to be Banville's style to have a true ah-ha moment, instead to me aside from the character assessment that Max accurately comes to, I thought his acceptance of that assessment was the closest thing to an ah-ha moment. To accept what one has been and what one is and the direction one is headed in is most satisfactory.
That's the crux of the book to me I think. [at least at this moment] ;)

---

I'm with you there completely. He fulfilled the admonition "Know thyself."

I also agree completely with "at the moment." :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

There is no doubt, it seems to me, that it is a different kind of book -- at least complex, quite possibly difficult, and certainly not easy to read -- and that it requires a certain devotion to make it yield up its secrets. In fact, I think it is more complex and difficult than comparable others I have read from Nabokov, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce and William Faulkner. So I think it is pretty high up on the scale of difficulty/obscurity.
Furthermore, I have the suspicion that Banville set out to make it complicated by deliberately employing more literary techniques than I have yet seen in any single other work. And I'll ennumerate.

...

And that is all clearly the author's deliberate doing, as if he wished to put together a tour-de-force of total literary misdirection using all the techniques at his disposal. If there is a simpler way to see the book, I would be overjoyed to hear it, because these items only reflect in essence the obstacles that I found in trying to finally come to some sort of sensible understanding of The Sea. Others might certainly see it differently, and more clearly, and have an easier time of it.

So finally, yes I can easily agree that one can have a difficult time reading it. I too am one of those who did. :bawling:

---

To be honest I didn't find it difficult. Maybe because I'm used to time shifts and stream of consciousness, though I don't think this is purely stream of consciouness. Max is apparently writing this down as a diary/essay or something. Of course it took me a couple of starts to get my bearings. This is definitely worth another read.

What a pity that I was offline for such a long time, tonight I saw what an interesting discussion I missed on this thread. As it seems that I was the one to give the book the worst mark in the poll, perhaps I'd better explain a few things although most of what I want to remark has been said by Virgil already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

my first reaction was the same disappointment as yours, noting the excellent prose style but wondering where the story was, and what all the hullabaloo was about (Booker Prize winner etc).

---

My own disappointment was such that I didn't even notice the 'excellent prose'. And I wasn't put off by the difficulties at the beginning because once you got used to the timeline you could work it out nicely. It was rather the flaws and inconsistencies Virgil described that made me disappointed - just as you, I had high expectations. That always makes to seem disappointment worse.

I read the novel last summer, but thanks to your frequent quoting in the thread and especially your synopsis, Walter, I could refresh my memory a bit so I don't have to reread the book - which I won't, whatever you may say.

Walter, you say it is a novel not driven by event or character but by insight. I agree. And I simply couldn't get interested in the insights of this old man; his ruminations didn't appeal to me. So maybe it's a very personal thing whether you like this book or not. I have a problem with Hermann Hesse's books, too, and once a colleague of mine told me it would be completely out of (my) character if I did like Hesse because my thinking was too scientifically-minded and too rational for that author and that I wanted more straightforwardness (is there such a word?) in a book. Maybe he was right, I'm not sure. And maybe that is why you, Virgil, as an engineer, were not quite happy with the book, either. But then again, you, plainjane and Walter may claim to be rational people, too. I don't know.

Virgil, I'll be eager to hear your reactions after another read. This is certainly the kind of book that rewards re-reading, by having forward allusions whose significance one could not yet be aware of on first reading. The whole opening paragraph would be an excellent example, if you wanted to try just one paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbara0207

What a pity that I was offline for such a long time, tonight I saw what an interesting discussion I missed on this thread. As it seems that I was the one to give the book the worst mark in the poll, perhaps I'd better explain a few things although most of what I want to remark has been said by Virgil already.



My own disappointment was such that I didn't even notice the 'excellent prose'. And I wasn't put off by the difficulties at the beginning because once you got used to the timeline you could work it out nicely. It was rather the flaws and inconsistencies Virgil described that made me disappointed - just as you, I had high expectations. That always makes to seem disappointment worse.

I read the novel last summer, but thanks to your frequent quoting in the thread and especially your synopsis, Walter, I could refresh my memory a bit so I don't have to reread the book - which I won't, whatever you may say.

Walter, you say it is a novel not driven by event or character but by insight. I agree. And I simply couldn't get interested in the insights of this old man; his ruminations didn't appeal to me. So maybe it's a very personal thing whether you like this book or not. I have a problem with Hermann Hesse's books, too, and once a colleague of mine told me it would be completely out of (my) character if I did like Hesse because my thinking was too scientifically-minded and too rational for that author and that I wanted more straightforwardness (is there such a word?) in a book. Maybe he was right, I'm not sure. And maybe that is why you, Virgil, as an engineer, were not quite happy with the book, either. But then again, you, plainjane and Walter may claim to be rational people, too. I don't know.

---

Barabara, as always you insight is worth millions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

Virgil, I'll be eager to hear your reactions after another read. This is certainly the kind of book that rewards re-reading, by having forward allusions whose significance one could not yet be aware of on first reading. The whole opening paragraph would be an excellent example, if you wanted to try just one paragraph.

---

I will give this another try Walter. I will use your notes and Jane's comments to guide me. I probably won't be able to get to it until the autumn sometime. I will defintely come back to the thread and if I'll try to send you and Jane a PM that I've returned to the novel. Thanks to you both. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbara0207

I read the novel last summer, but thanks to your frequent quoting in the thread and especially your synopsis, Walter, I could refresh my memory a bit so I don't have to reread the book - which I won't, whatever you may say.

---

Barbara! I'm very very sorry not to have responded sooner; the page turned before I realized your post was there. But really, neither you nor Virgil have to feel that I am twisting your arms to reread the book; that is the furthest thing from my mind. I enjoy rereading and it is entirely your preference what you do to enjoy a book. I'm contributing to a discussion here, not twisting arms.

I'm not sure where I stand on a rationality scale, but I too am an engineer. Perhaps the difference is in our approaches to reading. Someplace relatively recently, in some lit crit book or other, I came across the advice to read the book the author wrote, not the book I might wish the author had written. And I have started trying to do that. So, if this book was about a rather uninteresting old man, I would call it a good book about an uninteresting old man, rather than an uninteresting book about an old man. Banville tends to write about unappealing main characters, but I would say that, though they may be unappealing, I still find their stories irresistible. But again that's me, and you are under no obligation whatever to share the view.

Sincerely,
Walter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbara0207

But then again, you, plainjane and Walter may claim to be rational people, too. I don't know.

---

Actually, for the record, I do claim to be a rational person. You need doubt no longer.

Well hello Barbara,
To my eyes, the so-called inconsistencies can be explained by careful and through reading. Many are explained by a casual passage with no fanfare attached.
I do think that Banville, like Nabokov attract a type of reader that is not linear in thinking, and perhaps require a certain faith that human nature will act irrationally whenever possible.

But perhaps that is not rational. :)

Besides one can claim to be a rational person till the cows come home, and it doesn't make it so.

Not you Walter, I know you are rational. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Barabara, as always you insight is worth millions.

---

Thank you. :blush: (I take it you weren't being ironic. :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

neither you nor Virgil have to feel that I am twisting your arms to reread the book;

---

Please forgive me if I gave you the impression I felt harrassed by you. I didn't intend that.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure where I stand on a rationality scale, but I too am an engineer.

---

That's another theory gone west... :)

Quote:

---

Perhaps the difference is in our approaches to reading. Someplace relatively recently, in some lit crit book or other, I came across the advice to read the book the author wrote, not the book I might wish the author had written. And I have started trying to do that. So, if this book was about a rather uninteresting old man, I would call it a good book about an uninteresting old man, rather than an uninteresting book about an old man. Banville tends to write about unappealing main characters, but I would say that, though they may be unappealing, I still find their stories irresistible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

I do think that Banville, like Nabokov attract a type of reader that is not linear in thinking, and perhaps require a certain faith that human nature will act irrationally whenever possible.

---

I think you are both right. Reading novels is a very personal thing, and 'rational', the word my colleague used, seems to be out of place here. Probably it's a matter of my personality that I got so impatient with the book - or rather the character with his ruminations. I like books with insight plus a good story. The main characters may be as irrational or even 'uninteresting' as they please. It's very hard to explain, but to give a few examples I love Austen, Dickens, George Eliot, David Guterson, Paul Auster, Goethe, Thomas Mann, Günter Grass, to name just a few.

Slip of the tongue, then.