Summer Challenge '08: The Sea by John Banville

[Walter]

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.
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.

[plainjane]

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.

....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]

[Walter]

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."

[Virgil]

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.

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.

[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 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.

[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.

[Virgil]

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.

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.

[Walter]

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

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.

[plainjane]

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.

[barbara0207]

Barabara, as always you insight is worth millions.

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

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.

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

That's another theory gone west...

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.

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.

[Walter]

Slip of the tongue, then.

[plainjane]

Reading novels is a very personal thing, and 'rational', the word my colleague used, seems to be out of place here.

I would have to agree with that.

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.

I found The Sea most insightful into human nature and our manner of dealing with our lot in life, and found Max a fascinating study. But I do like to take characters apart and see what makes them tick.
All of which proves nothing about any of us, except what we already know, readers have a huge range of tastes, so it's a good job we have so much variety from which to choose.

[Virgil]

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

Of course not.

[barbara0207]

readers have a huge range of tastes, so it's a good job we have so much variety from which to choose.

Yes, and discussions are so much more interesting when we disagree!

[elita]

did you guys finish with your discussion on the sea? i finished reading the book for the university and i agree with most of your points although i feel you miss some points of the book