Printable View
This has long been my favorite amoung Victorian literature and I just realized that he wrote two more trilogies about the Forsytes. I've read the second series of books but have been reluctant to start the last series, I just don't know if it can be the same without Soames. Has anyone read the complete saga?
Hi, there!
Don't know if you'll see this reply, since it comes so long after your original question. Let me just say that I've read all 3 trilogies. Like you, I was greatly saddened by Soames' death at the end of SWAN SONG, and it took me some time to approach END OF THE CHAPTER. But once I did, I was glad I had. No, it's not as powerful as the two earlier trilogies, but it has merit. The main character is Dinny Charwell (pronounced CHERRELL), who's Michael Mont's first cousin. Dinny turns out to be, arguably, the most likable female character in all these chronicles. She's lively and humorous (unlike Irene) and innately unselfish (unlike Fleur). The trilogy picks up in 1928, two years after Soames' death, and runs into the 1930's. You'll see a lot of Sir Lawrence Mont and his marvelously eccentric wife, Lady Emily. You'll see more of the Reverend Hilary Cherrell, Michael's clergyman uncle from SWAN SONG. You'll see Michael himself and a wiser, more mature Fleur. You'll see Christopher Mont----Soames' grandson!---who's an interesting kid. And Marjorie's wonderful grandfather, the Marquess of
Shropshire, as much fun as ever. And Wilfrid Desert, the cynical poet from THE WHITE MONKEY, who's in love with Dinny but who comes back from the East with a major skeleton in his cupboard. My advice is, give END OF THE CHAPTER a shot. There are lyrical descriptions of nature, especially in connection with Dinny's ancestral home; there's the Dinny-Wilfrid love story; and there's even a plot involving Dinny's sister, married to a sado-masochistic aristocrat! Never a dull moment. Not as good as the Forsyte chronicles, but still it's a page turner.
a more matuyre Fleur,
I don't think I'm done mourning Soames yet, I may gather the strength to move on with that story without him but I think the loss is still a little too raw. And I'm kind of joking when I say that but seriously, I don't think I'm ready.
Do we see much of Jon or Irene in the last trilogy?
No, unfortunately Jon and Irene don't appear in the last trilogy at all. The implication is that Fleur has 'moved on.' She now has a daughter Catherine, along with her son Christopher ('Kit'), and she seems to have settled down into domesticity. Certainly she has become a much better wife. Notwithstanding, there are real hints of unhappiness in the aftermath of her affair. It's stated that Michael no longer feels so tied to her but is now 'a free agent in his own home." Implying that while he forgives Fleur for what she did, things will never be the same. And in one passage, Dinny's sister remarks 'Fleur always strikes me as knowing so exactly what she wants,' to which Dinny counters, 'She gets it as a rule, but there've been exceptions. I doubt if she ever really wanted Michael.' So while Jon doesn't actually make an appearance, his presence still is felt.
This sounds like a soap opera, doesn't it? But a very well-written one!
I know how you feel about Soames. Wasn't he a wonderful character? So maigned and misunderstood. Even now, I can't reread his death scene without getting all choked up!
I didn't have anything against Jon but I never did care for Irene so I don't consider it unfortunate that she isn't mentioned in this one. :lol: I suppose Irene loses a lot of her relevance without Soames, which is as it should be. I never saw why men seemed to be so taken with her, I thought she was flat, cold and hard. I guess you could make the arguement that that's what she was from Soames point of view but even with young Joylon, she never appeared to really care for him all that much, there never was much passion with her. Now, Soames...there was passion, even though it was misguided and blind and out of control at times but at least he expressed emotion from time to time which is more than you could say for Irene.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary Sue
He was an amazing character, so complex and real and powerful and as edgy a character as you ever see in Victorian literature. I knew his death was coming, it's hard to miss it when the chapter is called "Swan Song" ;) and the closer I got, the slower I read to the point where I actually stopped reading for awhile because I knew the next few pages would describe his death but I finally gathered the strength to read it and I cried like a baby. And what added insult to injury was the loss of his beloved art collection, that was almost as hard to take as his death.Quote:
I know how you feel about Soames. Wasn't he a wonderful character? So maigned and misunderstood. Even now, I can't reread his death scene without getting all choked up!
I can't recommend the thrid trilogy; Galsworthy's style becomes oversimplified, and many themes are repeated that were handled better elsewhere. I've never thought of these as anything more than po-boilers. Definitely not really part of the Forsythe Saga, except for the sake of advertising blurbs on the cover.
I thought even the second series was a step down from the original but I did eventually get into it. I never took to Fleur, I was very bitter about the way she treated Soames, I so wanted him to have that person that loved him unconditionally, he had that with his parents and sister but I wanted his daughter to adore him and instead she just seemed to tolerate and manipulate him. And Michael never had much of a personality so it was hard for me to get involved in a story with those two as the main characters. I was worried for a moment that Soames was going to be merely a sideline character but once he was more prominently featured, I was able to settle down and enjoy it.
I agree with you about Irene. Never cared for her. As to her "suffering," I can't really empathize. Because yes, she was at a disadvantage, being coerced so young into a loveless marriage. Notwithstanding, I find her subsequent actions hard to take. Any sensible person in her position would have tried at least to LIKE Soames. That she found him downright repulsive----and made her aversion painfully clear---is inexcusable. They may have been mismatched but hey, the poor fella adored her! He was faithful, he was devoted, he forgave her whatever wrong she did him. And make no mistake about it, Irene FREQUENTLY did him wrong. She took a bad situation---their marriage---- and only made it worse. She remained under Soames' roof, all the while hating him but accepting the material benefits of being a 'Forsyte.' She had her pretty dresses and her jewels. Parasitically she lived off him for years, yet gave back nothing in return. Rather, she tormented the man. She refused him sex, she humiliated him before family and friends. And then when she had the chance, she took a lover, flaunting her affair in Soames' face!
Sorry, Mr. Galsworthy, but I can't warm up to your "embodiment of Beauty." To me, Irene is absolutely TOXIC! Her mistreatment of Soames led, of course, to the infamous rape, which in turn led to her lover's death. And Bosinney wasn't her only victim, either. Consider what, in later years, this woman went on to do.
Long after her divorce from Soames, she continued to hate him. She was relentlessly unforgiving. And her opposition to the Jon-Fleur union? A selfish response. Irene simply couldn't stomach the painful memories that would resurface, should HER son marry Soames's daughter. A truly loving mother would have put Jon's happiness first....but not Irene. Not weak, hypocritical, self-serving Irene. I maintain that ultimately, she killed BOTH her husbands. First Jolyon, who keeled over after doing Irene's dirty work in terminating their son's engagement. And secondly Soames, who died 6 years later as the culmination of events caused by that same undying enmity. Not to mention the other characters whose happiness, in one way or another, this woman blighted. Count the victims here, why don't we? June---Jon---Fleur----Michael----even the American wife,Anne. The list goes on and on.
That's why I agree with you about Irene. Don't like the ***** at all. Heart and soul I am, and always have been, pro-Soames. Because whatever his faults, the man was so damned decent, really. He had trouble expressing himself and, as Galsworthy put it, "there was no magnet in his make-up." But he loved deeply and he stuck by his convictions. An honest man. And look at how much he cared for his daughter! Some readers maintain that Fleur humanized Soames....but in my opinion, she brought out a dormant greatness in her father that had always been there.
You said it sister! :thumbs_up I could not have said it better myself! You hit Irene right on the head. I often wondered if Galsworthy wanted us to like her, he made her so cold and unsympathetic. I had read somewhere that he never spoke through her, everything that goes on in her head, everything that happens to her is seen through the eyes of other people and that was intentional on his part. I'd never noticed that until it was pointed out to me and perhaps that's why she seems to cold, we never know what goes on in that cold, vapid, selfish head of hers. She seems to inspire such devotion in those that meet her can't for the life of me see why.
The marital rape thing is such a touchy subject. It was a bad thing, Soames did a bad, bad thing and I hate saying the word 'but' here...but...anything I say is going to sound like I excuse that action and I honestly don't but the times were different then, Soames had people telling him he should assert his marital rights, he made a very poor choice, it was the one chink in his armour but you do see what brought him to that point and you do see that deep down, he realized he overstepped his boundries and regretted it. He kept telling himself that he was well within his rights as a husband, that the law couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it but you could also tell he felt a great deal of remorse.
I agree with you about the rape. Yes, of course it was a terribly wrong act. It was the worst thing that Soames ever did. However it was also a crime of passion, the sort of thing that the law recognizes as "extenuating circumstance." Because what Irene did to her husband, prior to and leading up to it, was sheer psychological abuse. She rejected him, humiliated him on a daily basis. And for someone like Soames, normally so self-restrained, sooner or later something had to give. Why did the horrible woman continue to live under his roof? She could and should have left with Bosinney, long before! Had she done that there would have been no rape, and Bosinney might not have died...
It IS surprising how much men love Irene, isn't it? Go figure.
And she never seemed to give him a chance, she didn't love him when they married and I know she felt pressured, but marrying for love was more of an exception than a rule at the time, she certainly wasn't alone in marrying a man she didn't love but I think most women made an honest attempt to settle into some kind of life with their husbands and took their duties as a wife very seriously and I'm not just talking about sexual duties here, I'm talking about respect and honesty and joining their lives and hopes and dreams with another person but I don't believe there was ever a time when she made any effort to do that with Soames or had any intention to try. She hated and resented him from day one, Soames had absolutely no chance to win her love.
It is shocking how men fell under her spell so quickly and completely, I certainly can't figure out why. :rolleyes:
Did you ever see the miniseries they did fairly recently, with Damian Lewis as Soames and some woman with horse teeth and dark hair as Irene?
Yes, I saw the recent miniseries. I didn't like it much. The script writers seemed to feel the need to REWRITE major chunks of the Saga, and that annoyed me. What Galsworthy wrote, back in the day, was such great stuff. It certainly didn't need any revision! And in my opinion they miscast Irene. That actress you mention, the one with the buck teeth and the squint, didn't look right for the part. She was too old, too plain and (inappropriately) dark-haired, as opposed to Galsworthy's description of a golden-haired beauty. And while I enjoyed Damian Lewis' portrayal of Soames, I thought that he too had been miscast. Great actor, but way too charismatic! Soames, after all, is supposed to be a repressed individual, neat and self-contained but NOT a hunk. ("There was no magnet in his make up...") Whereas Damian Lewis oozed raw sex appeal, a fact that made Irene's rejection of him all the more unbelievable.
However, I loved the old black & white miniseries, made back in the 60's. Did you ever see that? If not, you really ought to. It's out now on DVD. It's a much more faithful adaptation, with memorable actors in all the roles. Eric Porter really brought Soames to life. He had just the right air of reserve; he was dry and taciturn as the character is meant to be. And Nyree Dawn Porter, who played Irene, likewise did a wonderful job. Not an easy character to portray, but she (the actress) pulled it off. She managed to convey that passive, elusive, maddening quality that is Irene's trade mark. And physically, Nyree Dawn Porter---a gorgeous blonde----looked exactly right for the role.
The original show was a big hit, not just in the UK but worldwide. Deservedly so. Even the minor characters---fuss budget James, the various Forsyte aunts and uncles, even the maid Smither---were incredibly well acted. And Susan Hampshire was perfect as the spoiled brat Fleur!
He does, doesn't he? That was actually one of the things I enjoyed most about the series. ;) I admit that I hadn't imagined Soames as oozing raw sex appeal but you know, it worked for me, added a whole other level of appreciation for the character for me. :lol: And we've already established Irene was an ungrateful witch so her rejection of this smoldering, brooding Soames just made sense. And then you compare him with what she ended up with, Rupert Graves' Jolyon, and I felt justice had been done. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mary Sue
I didn't like Irene at all, the actress I mean, she was a truly horrible choice even if only for the fact that she had dark hair and light eyes...how many times does the book mention her golden hair and dark eyes? :rolleyes: The one thing she did do well though was portray Irene's coldness, she certainly was that. I have the dvd and I was watching some of the extras and the actress who plays her was saying something about how sad it was that she was tied to this man that she couldn't stand, no matter how hard she tried to love him and that comment made me wonder if she'd ever actually read the book.
It wasn't the greatest adaptation of the book but I was so relieved they didn't make Soames out to be some horrible beast that I think I forgave a few sins...not all of them, but a few. ;)
No, I haven't. I would like to though because I've heard a lot of good things about it. I'll have to nose around on the net and see if I can find a copy of it.Quote:
However, I loved the old black & white miniseries, made back in the 60's. Did you ever see that?
If you want the black and white series, try Borders. That's where I got mine!
We don't have a borders here but I'm sure they have a website I can check out.
Did you ever see the second part of the newer mini series? I know it focuses on Jon and Fleur but I have no idea how far it goes, does it just finish the first trilogy or does it go into the second one? That one looks even worse than the first so I have no desire to watch it but I am curious to know what it all covers.
The second part of the newer series covers To Let and nothing else. There's some "creativity" on the part of the script writers, who invent a first meeting between 9-year-old Jon and 9-year-old Fleur at Aunt Hester's birthday party. Interesting, but not what Galsworthy wrote! It's implied, too, that Winifred has a big crush on Prosper Profond and is therefore hurt when he takes up with Annette....another invented storyline. As I recall, in the book Profond was strictly a friend, NOT potential lover, of the middle-aged Winifred... Oh yes, and Monty Dartie's still alive in 1920, so that we can see how he dies. The script writers kill him off in a car crash, NOT (as in the book) by falling down a staircase after a card game.
Why did they rewrite Galsworthy???
The Jon-Fleur romance, too, is presented quite differently than in the book. And not nearly as well. Both young actors do the best they can with the material, but events don't proceed according to Galsworthy. Fleur is introduced, initially and correctly, as a spoiled brat. But by the end she has matured greatly, through losing the love of her life, and she becomes a noble martyr. (NOBLE MARTYR? Does that sound anything like Galsworthy's Fleur?) There's a scene in which Jon, learning of her impending marriage to Michael, is so jealous that he comes to her and tries to patch things up; but Fleur won't have him now because he wants her only as a LOST POSSESSION....the way Soames used to want Irene. Huh? Can you picture Galsworthy's Jon and Galsworthy's Fleur EVER playing out a scene like that? No, me neither. It's total character assassination. Basically the script writers came up with their own alternative plotline, which had nothing to do with the original story. Fleur ISN'T noble, in the book, and Jon ISN'T greedy. In fact, in the book it's just the other way around, don't you think? And to top it all off, the character of Michael Mont is shown as strong and SERIOUS-MINDED, unlike the cheery, garulous Michael that we know from the trilogies.
If you want to see a good, faithful adaptation of To Let---again, see the old black & white series. There they got it right!
No, not even remotely, Fleur is never anything but a spoiled brat. I suppose they felt they couldn't have their main heroine reamin such an unlikable person, who never learns, who continues to behave selfishly no matter who she hurts, that simply wouldn't do. :rolleyes: It's so much easier for scriptwriters to rewrite characters than to make the extra effort to make the characters, as written, work. I don't think Galsworthy at any point wanted Fleur to be thought of as a heroine. She was the product of her father's indulgence, once she was born, he put all the passion and intensity he once lavished on Irene and the process of winning her back, into Fleur and it shows. To turn her into a noble martyr is ridiculous as is the thought she would reject Jon if he came knocking at her door. And come to think of it, the idea that Jon would come knocking at her door in the first place is also ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary Sue
I always thought of Michael as being so colorless, a sort of little puppy who has no real will of his own and just goes through life trying to please others. There was some growth in the character eventually and I liked how his relationship with Soames grew. He came to treat Soames with such respect, it had echos of Soames' relationship with his parents and sister. He was always the first person they thought of when in trouble or when they needed advice and I think he became that person for Michael as well.Quote:
And to top it all off, the character of Michael Mont is shown as strong and SERIOUS-MINDED, unlike the cheery, garulous Michael that we know from the trilogies.
I wasn't all that keen on the second series and now I know I won't bother to watch it because I really don't think I could take a noble Fleur. :rolleyes:
Actually, when I read A Modern Comedy I found Michael a more interesting character than Jon. I agree with you about him acting like 'a lovesick puppy' though...and certainly Fleur treats him as one. In the early chapters of The White Monkey, she reduces him pretty much to the same level as her Chinese dog. She condescends to him. She gives him an occasional pat on the head or a stray caress....when she thinks of it. Poor old Michael! But later on he gains, as you say, more strength of character. He has ideals----unlike Fleur---and he really wants to help people. I like him as a member of Parliament, too, even when he's espousing a lost cause. He always sees the good in others. Too bad he's so easily manipulated and hoodwinked by his own wife! Michael's the sort who will get his reward in heaven but NOT HERE, I'm afraid.
I too enjoyed his relationship with Soames. They're two such different men
---different in temperament, attitudes, and background----and they come from different generations. Yet despite all this, they develop almost a father-son closeness over time. They truly care for and respect each other. Remember the scene when Fleur's in labor? And there are Soames and Michael downstairs, keeping vigil together and CLUTCHING EACH OTHER'S HANDS! What a priceless moment.
As for Fleur herself, I like her, the little witch. Not a bad girl really. But spoiled rotten. Soames is very much to blame for how she turns out. In addition to overindulging her, he also passes on to Fleur the heredity Forsyte determination and possessiveness. Her love for Jon is really just a case of wanting her own way. She values this young man because she can't have him. And because it's thwarted, her infatuation turns to obsession. Yet in the final analysis, she and Michael are more compatible than she and Jon ever would have been. Can you picture Fleur as a FARMER'S WIFE? Fleur hoeing turnips or feeding the pigs? I don't think so! Life with Jon would have bored her silly, once the initial passion was over. The two of them have nothing in common. Whereas Michael introduces her into high society, to brilliant and sophisticated people. Michael's more her sort of person. And when 'Bart' dies, as Michael's wife she'll be the next Lady Mont--- a titled artistocrat! Not bad going for the granddaughter of 'Superior Dosset Forsyte'. As Soames would say, this girl knows which side her bread is buttered on.
So why do I like Fleur so much? Hard to say. Maybe I'm just amused by her antics. She's so darned human, and I can relate. And as naughty as she is, she never WANTS to hurt Michael. Even while she's scheming to seduce Jon, she's also thinking 'Poor old Michael! Well, I'll be just as good to him as ever, afterwards. No old-fashioned squeamishness!' In other words, Fleur has a heart. And she really loves Soames too, 'beneath all the fret and self-importance of her life.' I prefer her INFINITELY to Irene! And in End of the Chapter, you really do see a change for the better in Fleur, who in the wake of her father's death has become all about family.
It was and I think that was where I started to see something more to Michael. And it reminded me of Fleur's birth which was such a powerful moment.Quote:
Remember the scene when Fleur's in labor? And there are Soames and Michael downstairs, keeping vigil together and CLUTCHING EACH OTHER'S HANDS! What a priceless moment.
Uh...no. Not even remotely. I always felt her need for Jon was simply her need to posess something she couldn't have. They were so ill-suited for each other regardless of their parents' issues. She was certainly better placed with Michael and really, who else could Fleur marry but a little puppy dog? She needs to be the star of the show, the main and only attraction and Michael certainly let her be that and eventually he was able to find a little light under her shadow and that was good.Quote:
Can you picture Fleur as a FARMER'S WIFE?
I will never take to Fleur because she was the instrument of Soames' death in a sort of way. Sure, he was in his 70's and lived a full life but still...if it weren't for her, he might have lived a couple more years. ;) Maybe if I ever do get the courage to read the last trilogy, my views towards her will soften a bit.
In End of the Chapter, Dinny is a much nicer character. She has a sense of humor, she doesn't take herself too seriously. She's unselfish and always puts others first. Dinny is the person I would like to be; Fleur is the person I'm sometimes afraid that I am!
hey everybody so amazing that I have found this site , I need the info about all the characters of the Forsyte saga, if anybody please have the scheme maybe or anything to define who is who there in the novel that would greatly help me in my University home reading class
thank you so much in advance
Hi Thumbelinochka!
In answer to your question about The Forsyte Saga:
It's a trilogy about an upper middle-class English family, the Forsytes, spanning the years from 1886 to 1920. The Forsytes are successful in business, very practical and ambitious, but in a sense they're also very 'nouveau rich' ("new money"). They judge each other and everyone else by how many POSSESSIONS they can accumulate. And for them, loved ones are simply more things to be owned...
In Book I, THE MAN OF PROPERTY, Soames Forsyte is a young solicitor who lives in a very fine London house with his beautiful wife, Irene. But appearances are deceiving, since this well-to-do couple don't get on well at all. Irene was coerced into marrying Soames---her stepmother pressured her into it---and now, after 4 years of a loveless marriage, she actually HATES him. Certainly they are mismatched. Irene is artistic and freedom-loving, whereas Soames epitomizes the "man of property," being practical, materialistic and acquisitive. Problem is, he's also sexually obsessed with this wife of his who's all wrong for him. And he sees her as a possession, a beautiful OBJECT that he has collected.
Knowing how restless Irene is, he tries to save the marriage by hiring an architect, Philip Bosinney, to build them a house in the country. At a place called Robin Hill. This plan only backfires. Irene and the architect fall in love and begin a secret affair...but all of Soames' old aunts and uncles, in fact everyone in the Forsyte family, sees what's happening and gossips about it, increasing his humiliation. Soames is so infuriated that he institutes a lawsuit against Bosinney for overspending on the design of the house. He wins the case---but loses his wife.
With Irene locking her door against him every night, Soames is further maddened. He decides to "reassert his marital rights," irrespective of how she feels. And so he finally rapes her, setting in motion a series of tragic events. Bosinney goes off on a berserk quest to find Soames; is then run over and killed in the London fog. A dazed Irene returns briefly to the house but then abandons Soames forever with only the clothes on her back.
She becomes a music teacher, managing to survive for the next 12 years on very little money...
A sub-plot involves 'Young' Jolyon Forsyte, Soames' outcast cousin. Jolyon, an artist, once created a family scandal by abandoning his first wife for an Austrian woman, whom he later legally wed. His father is Old Jolyon, a sweet but stubborn old man who reconciles with Young Jolyon after a rift of many years. When the architect is killed, his abandoned fiancee June Forsyte---Young Jolyon's grown daughter----persuades Old Jolyon to buy the house at Robin Hill. So Old Jolyon and Young Jolyon, ironically, end up living in the house that was SUPPOSED to have been Soames's. And in his last years, Old Jolyon forms a romantic friendship with Irene, whose beauty he admires. It's all very innocent and sweet: the old man dies peacefully one summer day, while watching Irene approach him across the sunlit lawn. (Presumably, his heart just gives out at sight of her!)
In Book II, IN CHANCERY, the story starts at the turn of the century. Soames, now middle-aged, wants children and resolves to divorce Irene, whom he hasn't seen in 12 years. But when he goes to interview her about this, all his old passion resurfaces. He begins to pursue her again, urging her to return to him "on any terms whatsoever." Irene refuses. And in her desperation she seeks help from the younger Jolyon, her trustee for a small legacy left her by Old Jolyon. Jolyon is now a widower and---you guessed it!---he and Irene fall in love. This infuriates Soames, who charges them with adultery before they have even done the deed. However, the divorce goes through, uncontested. Soames then marries Annette Lamotte, a pretty but rather cynical French girl half his age, whom he selects for breeding purposes. (He is never in love with Annette, nor she with him.) Irene marries Jolyon and
---shockingly!---gives birth, just a few months later, to a son. So there is Jolyon living at Robin Hill, in the house originally designed FOR SOAMES, married to the only woman that Soames ever loved...and with the son by Irene that Soames had so hoped to have...Poor Soames!
Another sub-plot involves Jolyon's two grown children from his earlier marriage: Jolly and Holly. Holly, a very nice girl, falls in love with Soames' nephew Val Dartie, of whom brother Jolly disapproves. Jolly dares Val to enlist in the Imperial Yeomanry to fight the Boers, thinking that Val will chicken out. But Val accepts the dare, after which Jolly must save face by joining the army too. Both young men go to South Africa, followed by Holly as a Red Cross nurse. Jolly dies of enteric; Holly marries a wounded Val. All these young people demonstrate the Forsyte determination and POSSESSIVENESS, which seems to be family traits.
In the final chapters of IN CHANCERY, Annette goes into labor and nearly dies. Against the doctor's advice, Soames refuses to allow an operation which would save his young wife but likely kill the baby. Luckily for him, both mother and baby survive. Soames names his daughter "Fleur." And all his frustrated affection, the affection that Irene rejected, is now to be lavished on this child. ("By God! This---this thing was HIS!")
In Book III, TO LET, many years have passed. It's now 1920, and Soames is an elderly man. His much-younger wife Annette "gads about," and is having a discreet affair with a cynical Belgian, Prosper Profond. Not that Soames even cares. All his love is for daughter Fleur, 18 years old and (because of him) spoiled rotten. But Fleur is also very attractive and clever, a determined young woman who wants to enjoy life to the full. By chance she and Soames visit a London gallery one afternoon and while there, encounter Irene. Irene---still beautiful but aging---is accompanied by her 19-year-old son, Jon Forsyte. One glance is enough. Jon and Fleur---a modern-day Romeo and Juliet---fall in love at first sight. Even sadder, the two kids know nothing about family history, so have no conception of how "impossible" any union between them would be...
Jon is studying farming at the country home of his married sister, Holly Dartie. Fleur goes there to visit, and the forbidden romance develops further. Ultimately, Fleur finds out "the awful truth" about her father and Irene, from an insensitive remark made by her mother's lover. But not wanting to lose Jon, she schemes to get married to him secretly and quickly, BEFORE HE IS TOLD. At the first opportunity she begs Jon to elope with her to Scotland. Jon, however, refuses to do that. The boy is too sensitive, too devoted to Irene to take such a drastic step. Because an elopement would "hurt Mother awfully," as he puts it, he opts for a frank disclosure instead. He goes back to Robin Hill to tell both parents of his engagement to Fleur.
This, of course, causes great turmoil. Jolyon then gives the boy a letter outlining Irene's sordid past, including the rape of so many years ago. The letter points out that "Fleur's father once owned Jon's mother as a slave-owner might have owned a slave..." Reading this, poor Jon is shocked and horrified. And minutes later, all this stress takes its toll and Jolyon drops dead of a heart attack. That tragedy pretty much clinches things. Jon can never marry Fleur now, for that would be "hitting his widowed mother in the face."
But Fleur will not give up on love. She urges her father to go to Jon's mother and "make it right." Assure Irene that there need never be any socializing or interaction between the in-laws. Soames, who dotes on his daughter, can refuse her nothing. He sinks his pride and goes to Robin Hill for a conference. Irene, seeing him, is as relentlessly cold and unforgiving as ever. And then Jon appears with the sad announcement that he can never marry Fleur. Ironically, it is now SOAMES who would be willing to relinquish ownership of Fleur to promote Fleur's happiness, while Irene----formerly the champion of freedom---selfishly and possessively clings to her son.
Jon leaves England for British Columbia. Fleur, on the rebound, marries a young aristocrat named Michael Mont. The book ends with Soames burying his last remaining Forsyte uncle----Timothy, who has lived to be a hundred years old out of sheer tenacity. Soames, reflecting on his own life, thinks of all his various losses and defeats. "He might wish and wish and never get it---the beauty and the loving in the world!"
Dear Mary Sue thank you very much
you helped me so so much thank you
tomorrow having my credit about the Saga .
once again thanks a lot
what I can say I did enjoy reading the book the style is unique and plus for me who is learning english language it was completely stunning to find out a lot of new useful words and expressions,but Galsworthy to my mind a little bit overadored Irene, who was not innocent woman at all, I also did not like her from the start , of course he describes her to be very beautiful and so natural , but she seemed to have no heart and soul and could hardly speak a word to people, In modern language I can call her scammer , the woman who married a guy only for money and position , which is never good , it is mean and horrible deed.
I would love to know if it was Galsworthy's intention for us to like Irene because she is written in such an unsympathetic way. I did read somewhere that he never let Irene "speak", her words and thoughts and motivations were always seen or spoken through other characters and that, in and of itself, makes her a very remote character so that aloofness of hers that is so off putting was deliberate. I think just because he talks about her beauty doesn't necessarily mean he wants us to like her, beauty is a physical description it doesn't have to mean the character is to be admired. When you think of all that Irene goes through, how much Soames hounds her and hurts her and yet not one person I know who has read the book has any sympathy for her, I don't think that can be a coincidence. I, too, the first time I read it thought our affinity should be with Irene because Soames did some truly awful things to her but my affinity was always with Soames and after reading it a few more times, I really have begun to believe that's where Galsworthy wanted our sympathies to go, not with Irene. It's an incredibly complex book, much more so than your average Victorian Lit, he does not write in a 'black and white' sort of way so while Irene sometimes seems like the obvious victim and Soames the obvious villian, I don't think those were the roles Galsworthy intended for them.
Certainly I myself have never liked Irene, as you can gather from my previous comments about her. She's in her own little world, self-absorbed almost to the point of autism. In her youth all she cares about are two things: her music and her lover Bosinney. Nothing else matters, and hey, the rest of the world can go to hell as far as Irene's concerned. If she ruins June's life in the process, if she breaks Soames' heart, so what? She's totally self-serving and when it suits her purpose, she's quite heartless.
Her emotional abuse of Soames----a man who truly loves her---is worse, far worse, than any of his retaliatory crimes against her. She makes no attempt to understand him, nor does she ever appreciate the depth of his devotion to her. The more he loves her, in fact, the more she apparently detests him. She humiliates him publicly at Uncle Roger's party, where she carries on with her lover in full sight of all the in-laws. She taunts Soames on a daily basis. She denies him sex, then flaunts her affair in his face while still residing under his roof. She is...well, a HORRIBLE wife.
Not to mention the fact that ultimately, she goes on to KILL all the other men who are so unfortunate as to love her: Bosinney, Old Jolyon and even Young Jolyon in the end. And being also a possessive mother, she nearly sucks the life out of her son Jon, not wanting to lose him to another woman...Oh, don't get me started on Irene! In my opinion, Irene Forsyte is a rag, a bone and a hank of hair!
My only consolation is the conviction that sooner or later, all that Bad Karma must have caught up with her. I picture her in old age as a toothless crone, so ugly that little children in the street call her "Witch!" as she passes. I also
like to imagine an Irene with arthritis of the hands, spending hours of frustration staring at the keyboard that she can no longer play...LOL!
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary Sue
I feel very much the same way. Of course there was the marital rape thing and that was bad and I would never in any circumstances make excuses for that but I will say, you can see how things built up to that. I think it's more of a statement about what few rights women had in marriage because I think for that time, that sort of thing probably wasn't all that uncommon and a lot of people would've thought he did what was within his rights. She had no recourse...but that doesn't mean I like her any more. :p
That image makes me feel so much better. ;) :lol:Quote:
I picture her in old age as a toothless crone, so ugly that little children in the street call her "Witch!" as she passes. I also like to imagine an Irene with arthritis of the hands, spending hours of frustration staring at the keyboard that she can no longer play...LOL!
I know it is necroposting, but I finished reading The Forsyte Saga yesterday.
As for the characters, although at the beginning, I did not like Irene due to her romance with June’s fiancé, I sympathized with June, the more I read, the more I liked her and the less I liked Soames. Soames, with his inability to get out of his navel-gazing and his treatment of her as if she were a piece of property, which is highlighted by the fact that he eventually rapes her, irritated me. It never seemed to cross his mind that she is a human being with emotions, needs, etc. He doesn’t realize that she might be hurt.
Living with someone like Soames must have been a real pain in the ***. He ignores facts that are inconvenient for him, e.g.: his promise that he would return Irene’s freedom if their marriage did not work out. Who would like to be with someone like that? I don’t see why she is blamed for treating him coldly. He treated her like a trophy, not like a human being, and ignored her when she reminded him of his promise. What was she supposed to do, jump for joy? By the time the story begins, she had probably already been sick and tired by his self-centeredness.
Comically enough, this was Joseph Stalin's favorite book, along (for some reason) with The Last of the Mohicans. I guess I can understand The Forsythe Saga, Capitalists behaving badly and all, but Hawkeye?
Anyway, I read A Man of Property in Middle School (in the early '70s) and just hated it. It bothered me--sensitive lad that I was--that people would treat each with such cruelty. I was especially bothered by the rape scene, and just slugged the rest of it out after that. I didn't bother with the sequels. Years later, I saw the BBC version of the whole "saga" and enjoyed it, although Soames' eventual rehabilitation as a character definitely didn't do it for me. I sometimes wonder if I should give the books another shot as a grown up. Maybe it's just the result of a bad first impression, but there just seem to be so many other more appealing candidates. In the end, maybe Soames Forsythe is a character only Stalin could love.
Yes, I felt the same about this couple. But when I read 'A Modern Comedy' (which is the second part of 'The Forsyte Saga') I felt sorry for Soames. He is depicted, now, as a loving father with very warm colours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylinn
The difference, so they say, is that Galsworthy had made his fortune by the time he wrote A Modern Comedy, and suddenly Soames didn't seem so bad. I don't know if that's true, though.
:) Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Or, maybe, he wanted to point out the difference between young and old Soames. You know, when sexual instincts calm down, and things.
Ah yes, I've heard something of the sort. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by free
Well maybe, but I don't really see the rape in A Man of Property as being libido based. It was more like: "My wife is my property and I will use her as such!" Creepy, but then as I said, I'm not a big Soames fan. It is interesting to see Galsworthy softening up to the character as the series moves along, though.
If we compare Soames and Irene in the first part with them in the second part, I think, they both are changed. In the first part she is a physically attractive woman who is completely unaware of it. Inside, she is more spiritual kind of person. While Soames is too physical and selfish in the first part. But in the second part he becomes more open-minded than her, as far as the relationship between his daughter and Irene's son is concerned.
I don’t think he was more open-minded. I remember him having thoughts like „If they marry, their children and my grandchildren will have the house I have built, in a way I will recover it.” „If they marry, the grandchildren will be mine and Irene’s, what a poetic justice!” And I remember him realizing that Jon will inherit a substantial fortune, so even though Soames changed a bit, his attitude put me off. Besides, Irene gave Jon a free hand in that matter.
I read it long time ago. I don't remember all the details. I just remember that Jon and Fleur had beautiful love for each other and that Soames supported it (for this reason or that, it doesn't matter), but Irene couldn't forget the dark side of her previous marriage and it affected her son's choice to leave Fleur. From my point of view, it was selfish of her. Her influence was not based on her son's feelings, but on her own.
While Irene’s hatred for Soames influenced Jon, I think that circumstances played even great role. Before Soames came to the house, Jon was in two minds about the whole affair. He only gave up on Fleur when he saw his mother’s face during the meeting and that she did not give Soames her hand, which she had right not to give. Soames should have known that it would have been better not to come. He even realizes it afterwards that if he had not come, the outcome might have been different.
Besides, I think that it is for the better that their relationship did not work out. I do not think that Fleur would be happy as a farmer’s wife.
Maybe you are right. But, I am always on the side of the lovers at first sight. That was between Fleur and Jon. Unfortunatelly, it was cut not by their own will. Circumstances, beyond their power of control, were against it that this kind of love gets developed, going through all its phases, whatever the consequences. Because, I think, that love at first sight is a 'god's gift', if I may say so.