Of Human Bondage by Somerset Maugham

Warning! This is a long review as we all had a lot to say about the book!

Much to all our surprise, this book met with almost universal acclaim, even love, despite its length and age. Those who missed the discussion or who had not finished the book are even suggesting a further conversation on it at a future meeting. Unheard of in the Club! Mark T: “It was one of the best books I have read for a long time and I was picking it up to snatch a page or two every spare moment.” Chris W: “I really enjoyed reading this book which is one of the best I feel that the club has read in the last few years”. Richard: “unlike the last perfectly nice, very readable, book we read, this WAS a book which addressed (very strongly) matters which are central to the human condition; and which had a number of well-drawn characters, with many of them drawn in some depth. I enjoyed the book a lot. Very occasionally, some passages did not hold my attention, but overall, the book held my full attention throughout – it was strong on both plot and character, and of course huge amount of historical detail; plus major discussions about philosophy, art, and ‘the human condition’.” Rob, however “found the book profoundly irritating in many ways and it was vastly too long a book for any substantive content that it did possess.”

This is a largely autobiographical book that finishes when Philip, the main character in the book reaches the same age (about 30) as the writer was (thanks, Mark W for this and many other biographical nuggets).

We get to know Philip as a character, warts and all. He is very ready to be open about his weaknesses and prejudices whilst avoiding any tendency to make us feel sorry for him facing really difficult experiences in his life, as an orphan, a disabled schoolchild, an anxious adolescent and a not very good artist and scholar. We all felt engaged and interested in his life journey even if we did not necessarily “like” the character.

The book takes us from the death of his mother, though living with his childless uncle and aunt, school, including the thinly disguised Kings School Canterbury, through various career moves as a clerk, an artist in Paris, a medical student and a down and out. At Kings, Somerset Maugham is celebrated as a famous old boy, even though he hated his time there (as implied in the novel). Mark W and Steve loved the ending [spoiler alert]: he lowers his ambitions for a spell in Spain when he decides it is time to marry his friends and settle down, despite not being in love.

And the bondage? A lot of the book describes his close relationships with women, the older woman, the “unsuitable” but captivating (to Philip at least) waitress, the stalwart friend and the sensible young daughter of his friend. He is for much of the novel, enslaved to his desire and obsession with Mildred, the waitress. But the bondage is also reflected in his frequent musings on life’s purpose and meaning (or lack of it). We all live our lives with energy and emotion, fully bound to the business of living: to what end?

Another take on this from Chris W: the recurrent theme throughout the whole book and presumably the principal "bondage" that Maugham was talking about is wealth or lack of it. What are the different "bondages" that Maugham was referring to at the beginning of the book? I thought he was referring simply to his physical disability but it was clear by the end that the whole social system at the time in Britain was intended. Philip and his friends are constantly considering how they can survive for the next few years, months, days and there are numerous references in the book demonstrating how difficult it was in those times to change career or to finds new employment at all and how there was a hierarchy for everything. Predicting the longevity of one's parents and any possible inheritance seemed to be a frequent consideration. The most terrible example of this is depicted in the downfall of Mildred who ultimately ends up in prostitution.

The mixture of the development of a life and lives of an individual, personal relationships, character development, story telling, creation of place and time with the many musings on life and morals is what makes this book so engaging. As Richard says, “I do not think I have bookmarked or highlighted so many quotes in any other book”.

Chris W: I understand that this was partially an autobiography so it was very evident how Maugham's early childhood being brought up by his uncle and aunt in a very austere and unloving relationship had affected him (and Philip) severely throughout the story and it was this lack of love Philip explains that gives him the ability to see things in a different way. His experiences of being sent away to a boarding school and then bullied because of his leg are very sad. (I have to say that my experience of being sent away to a prep school at age 8 I had several similar experiences as the new boy had to be bullied as of norm and it was the right of the older boys to do so).

Richard: in so many ways, Maugham nailed this character so well – how as a naïve youth he gets taken in:

“"Of course the man's a pedant. He has no real feeling for beauty. Accuracy is the virtue of clerks. It's the spirit of the Greeks that we aim at. Weeks is like that fellow who went to hear Rubenstein and complained that he played false notes. False notes! What did they matter when he played divinely?" Philip, not knowing how many incompetent people have found solace in these false notes, was much impressed.”

How embarrassed he is, so easily:

“He pictured himself looking out for Miss Wilkinson, the embarrassment of going up to her and asking if it were she (and he might so easily address the wrong person and be snubbed), and then the difficulty of knowing whether in the train he ought to talk to her or whether he could ignore her and read his book.”

How difficult it is to go through with potentially embarrassing things:

“He would willingly have bolted, but he was afraid of the remorse which he knew would seize him. It was like getting on the highest diving-board in a swimming-bath; it looked nothing from below, but when you got up there and stared down at the water your heart sank; and the only thing that forced you to dive was the shame of coming down meekly by the steps you had climbed up.”

Rob found the character of Philip irritating: “he needed a really good slap around the face. He was the most pathetic and insipid character I can ever recall reading about as the central person in a novel. For me, no historical 'of its time' explanation can forgive his self indulgent destruction of his own life - and no, having a club foot or being an orphan doesn't excuse or explain it either. (Or to put it another way, if those things were the explanation, then the author should have tried communicating that in a more than simplistic way).”

Chris W: I enjoyed the contrast of Phillips liberating experiences in Paris and all the different people he met and the result being that he no longer believe in Christianity and could look upon life in a different unprejudiced way. There is a really good bit where Philip comments that the masses follow the rules and regulations of the state being rewarded with medals pensions and honours if they comply whilst the individual is able to travel freely observing things for themselves avoiding already in existence package holidays arranged by (Thomas) Cooks!

Mark said: I really enjoyed the Paris section and it reminded me of my younger days in Bath when I used to go to art classes in Sydney place - it was great with the smell of oils and all these young artists discussing art. I was rubbish of course but like the book there was a girl like fanny who took an interest in me and helped me with my strokes. Unlike Fanny she was very beautiful and was called Becky. I got to know her quite well. Anyway the interesting bit was that 30 years later I find that she is a near neighbour of mine living the other side of my road!

The book is easy to read but never loses interest (though sometimes you could kick Philip for being caught yet again by his attraction to Mildred). It manages to mix description, reflection and dialogue in a thoroughly enjoyable mix. Neil felt it slowed down rather when Philip comes back to London from Paris and some of the expressions Maugham uses now seem curious and stilted. Some things that happen appear nonsensical. There were extremes of relationships with some people being walked all over and others not.

Mark T: the poverty bit was very gripping and interesting and I really felt for him.

Chris W: Philip's coming of age story and his progressive disillusionment, pain and disappointment in life over the next 10 years show how much has now changed. It is amazing that in the 100 years since the book was written society has changed to what it is now with the freedoms and flexibilities and welfare support that are available to our adults and children. I think therefore this is an excellent book that should be read by every teenager when considering life's options (Particularly if considering taking up a career in accountancy).

Some of the themes that resonated with members the club were the full immersion in religious belief (including the belief that faith can heal his club foot) and the subsequent rejection of it, class relationships (for example, when Philip is a gentleman amongst the clerks), how you can fall in love and then suddenly fall out of it (e.g. when Philip sees how old Mrs Wilkinson looks), how you can become infatuated and repeat your mistakes. It certainly showed how the class system increased or decreased your access to professional roles (doctor, accountant). Is this still the case if to a lesser degree?

Rob was dissatisfied with the book’s portrayal of society: the book had the potential to be an important social commentary - but failed to be that. It dipped its toe into important issues around class division, the place of work, healthcare and housing - but gave little more in response beyond platitudes that were driven by the author's own middle class perspectives. It could have provided interesting debate on any of these topics but instead left us with little more than homilies about the stoicism of the working class, a side swipe at the thuggery of early trade unions and an assertion that honest work solves all problems of poverty (George Osborne rules, OK?). 

Chris W: interestingly throughout the book there are many many instances where individuals do not succeed with their aims for one reason or another. It seems that the common view was that anyone not achieving their initially stated career e.g. becoming an artist in Paris, an accountant in London would likely fall into abject failure, alcoholism and ultimately death. Keeping one's life on a career path was therefore much more precarious and alcoholism was always just round the corner if one failed.

Richard: so many observations are so acute:

“She looked at him quickly and flushed. When she reddened her pasty skin acquired a curiously mottled look, like strawberries and cream that had gone bad.”

“It was very curious. Away from her he thought her beautiful, remembering only her magnificent eyes and the creamy pallor of her face; but when he was with her he saw only that she was flat-chested and that her teeth were slightly decayed; he could not forget the corns on her toes. He could not understand himself. Would he always love only in absence and be prevented from enjoying anything when he had the chance by that deformity of vision which seemed to exaggerate the revolting?”

“Sometimes great philosophers seemed to have nothing to say to him, but at others he recognised a mind with which he felt himself at home. He was like the explorer in Central Africa who comes suddenly upon wide uplands, with great trees in them and stretches of meadow, so that he might fancy himself in an English park. He delighted in the robust common sense of Thomas Hobbes; Spinoza filled him with awe, he had never before come in contact with a mind so noble, so unapproachable and austere; it reminded him of that statue by Rodin, L'Age d'Airain, which he passionately admired; and then there was Hume: the scepticism of that charming … the thought of each philosopher was inseparably connected with the man he was. When you knew that you could guess to a great extent the philosophy he wrote. It looked as though you did not act in a certain way because you thought in a certain way, but rather that you thought in a certain way because you were made in a certain way. Truth had nothing to do with it. There was no such thing as truth.”

“The thing then was to discover what one was and one's system of philosophy would devise itself. It seemed to Philip that there were three things to find out: man's relation to the world he lives in, man's relation with the men among whom he lives, and finally man's relation to himself. He made an elaborate plan of study.”

“The advantage of living abroad is that, coming in contact with the manners and customs of the people among whom you live, you observe them from the outside and see that they have not the necessity which those who practise them believe. You cannot fail to discover that the beliefs which to you are self-evident to the foreigner are absurd.”

The health service in those days was really interesting: “"If you can afford to wear jewellery you can afford a doctor. A hospital is a charitable institution," said Dr Tyrell. …. "I don't care a hang about your letter; you get out. You've got no business to come and steal the time which is wanted by the really poor."

His account of addiction: “Why don't you give up drinking?" "Because I don't choose. It doesn't matter what a man does if he's ready to take the consequences. Well, I'm ready to take the consequences. You talk glibly of giving up drinking, but it's the only thing I've got left now. What do you think life would be to me without it? Can you understand the happiness I get out of my absinthe? I yearn for it; and when I drink it I savour every drop, and afterwards I feel my soul swimming in ineffable happiness.”

“Philip thought of the countless millions to whom life is no more than unending labour, neither beautiful nor ugly, but just to be accepted in the same spirit as one accepts the changes of the seasons. Fury seized him because it all seemed useless. He could not reconcile himself to the belief that life had no meaning and yet everything he saw, all his thoughts, added to the force of his conviction.”

There were some poignant moments too e.g. being alone on Christmas day

We discussed Maugham’s attitude and description of women. Mark W pointed out his physical and psychological portraits of even the women he is smitten by is not at all flattering, quite the reverse. They are not rounded characters (Neil). Whereas he describes many of the male characters much more positively. Does this reflect the challenge he faced in being homosexual (who was married for 12 years)? Is this misogyny a reflection of the times Maugham lived in?

Rob felt all the main characters were lacking: I felt every substantive (certainly male) character was highly self-centred. Their definition of the meaning of life and fulfilment was all about themselves. Whether that is about blatant self-interest or slightly more subtle narcissistic behaviour, the men in this book were only interested in themselves and their own self-gratification. If this book was trying to explore what drives human behaviour, then looking buying self-interest might have been a factor to consider. The concept of deriving meaning in life through contributing to the wellbeing of others rarely got a glimpse in any character development. There were one or two (female) exceptions to this such as Norah and Sally, but the female characterisation was so (of its time?) simpering - other than the somewhat psychopathological (is there such a word?) Mildred - that this compounded the sin of not making people more rounded characters. 

Rob, in trying to find positives, quite liked a couple of characters (Cronshaw and Athelney), the descriptions of the early health system were interesting and every now and then a social vignette (e.g. the hop picking) worked well. Beyond that, whilst I started out thinking that there were some perceptive commentaries on the human condition, I ended up feeling they were so driven by the authors own need to self-justify a belief that the only satisfactory outcome in life is to reject creative passion, as it leads to squalor and degradation, and instead accept that the only true course in life is mediocrity and 2.2 kids (or 7.2 in late Victorian times) that I found myself increasingly rejecting those potential pearls of wisdom.

Mark T again: The Mildred section was very sad and gripping in that someone who does not want you seems very desirable. But when she finally almost wanted him he does not want her. Nearly caused the ruin of him. Of course the other woman who wanted him - Nora, he did not want. Very interesting. The friendship with Sally was interesting and the way it slowly matured. A woman whom he likes but not passionately might be more secure for him which might be true. I did not notice that he had [had sex with] Sally - must have been in the hop fields. I thought the bit at he end where he thinks she is pregnant and therefore has to give up his travels and then when she is not, he is sad he does not have an excuse - classic I thought. A lovely ending.

Chris W: I'm afraid I didn't quite understand the relationship with Mildred. As the story progresses I was irritated when she keeps reappearing and Philip is unable to avoid getting involved with her again. I didn't quite understand this "love" that brought him to continually seek to remain in a masochistic relationship with her. I didn't also understand Philip's lack of sexual interest in anyone he ever met even though they might be unattainable. One would've thought that with his time in Paris he would've become more liberated sexually but instead he continues in London to have a most complicated and repressed relationship with a woman who he admits later no longer attracts him. Clearly he is very sensitive about his leg however as the book goes on he seems to be freed from concern about this and yet even when working in the department store he seems completely disinterested in anyone he works with. I was beginning to assume that the book was leading towards Phillip's discovery of homosexuality but it is only at the very end that he finds love with Sally which is then not described but left for one's imagination. (Did anyone else think of Darling buds of May and Catherine Zeta Jones)?

Rob had a similar issue with the romance: I know interaction between the sexes was different 70 years before we were starting to do it, but this concept that people fell hopelessly in love with someone within two hours of meeting them, to the extent that they then compromise their entire future life by behaving in unhinged ways, just isn't real. Speaking personally, when I've fallen in love it's because a woman has given a good and positive reason for me to react that way - even if in hindsight I exaggerated or misunderstood it. No plausible reason was ever given for Mildred causing Philip's reaction - to say nothing of other occasions when one person declared profound love of another at the drop of a hat. If that's how the Victorians behaved then they deserved every negative thing that ever happened to them in their personal lives.  

Intriguing questions include whether Philip consummated his love with Mrs W (making love did not necessarily mean what it does today). We had a interesting discussion on this: everyone apart from Mark T thought that Philip had had sex with her when he locked the door - Mark thought they only kissed and caressed each other. Mark came across a section later on in the Paris section when he was drawing a naked women - he was embarrassed as this was the first time he had seen a naked women. Maybe Mark was right or maybe you do not need to be naked to consummate a relationship?

Richard: I could go on, but I won’t!!  A really good, interesting, valuable and generally gripping book. I can’t say that I liked, Philip, but somehow that didn’t matter here – I certainly felt sorry for him, and I’d have been happy if the book had been twice as long, as I’d like to follow his life on for the next 30 years.

Chris W: in conclusion this was an amazingly clear representation of English life at the turn of the 19th century and the complex customs, class, morals and prejudices that prevailed in an environment where without social support of any sort everybody was so much more aware of their financial position and the inevitable "drunkenness” or "prostitution” that would result if their money dried up. A very interesting book well worth finishing as it was so abnormally thought provoking.

Scores

Mark T 8.6

Richard 8.5

Mark W 8

Neil 8.3

Steve 8.5

Chris B 8.5

Chris W 9

Rob 5.8

Something to Tell You by Hanif Kureishi

December 2011

Six of us present to discuss Hanif Kureishi's 'Something to Tell You' (eventually, after Mark negotiated his pass-out from a family event and Chris B cycled over the hills to Wellow). Absent were Richard, Mark Th., and Neil.

With the exception of Mark T. who rather enjoyed the book, 'Something to Tell You' didn't really work for anyone - though a number of people (Steve, Chris B., Rob and Richard via email from India) acknowledged that they quite enjoyed reading it but, as Richard noted, the whole was less than the sum of the parts. It was a good evening for eloquent summaries of how we felt. Steve probably won the prize for the two best ones by describing the book as being like an evening in the pub with an irritating friend - interesting and rewarding in patches but ultimately not what it could be. (His second will-turned phrase concludes this write-up so you'll have to wait for that). 

There was general agreement (in the pub, as Neil's email somewhat begged to differ) that Kureshi was a clever and good writer. The words flowed well (though opinion varied as to whether that was in a cogent or somewhat anarchic manner), and most agreed that the book was well-laced with nice sentences or vignettes that really captured both the period it was written in and the lifestyle that most (but not all) of us recalled from that time - if not quite with the sexual and drug fuelled excesses of the characters in this novel. There were also some passages that drew particular praise - from Mark T. about the feelings of first love and from Ras about the description of discovering cancer. For balance, this note should also record Neil's horror at what he saw as dreadful writing about sex "When I did eventually come - it was hard work: I felt as if I'd shoved a heavy train through a long tunnel" (I think that was Neil quoting from the book rather than describing what he was doing whilst reading it).

Where there was a consensus was that the characters themselves failed to hold together or well described. Chris' description of them as self-satisfied smug people struck a chord, Wolf and Valentin were felt to be just unbelievable and the central character was somewhat irritating in his failure to ever get a grip on either himself or life in ways that could have helped the plot hang together (what plot?) and he certainly wasn't believable in his role as a psychoanalyst, (note to Mark Th., one reason he wasn't a believable psychiatrist is because he wasn't one. There's no greater way to offend a psychologist or psychoanalyst than by calling them a psychiatrist!).

Ah, the plot - well you see there really wasn't one - which was a major reason for Ras disliking the book so much. His enjoyment of the book increased marginally when Wolf re-appeared because the blackmail line gave him a plot-line to follow - but Chris B explained that the absence of a plot didn't matter because Something to Tell You was really just like a Jane Austen novel. General bafflement at this was dispelled when he said Austen novels are really all about how people behave and interact with one another - which is what this book was also about. Good spot.

So, the final word is given to Steve's second well-turned phrase. He said 'Something to Tell You' was like a writing version of abstract painting - "it gives a pleasing overall impression but when you look closely at the detail, it's a mess".

Scores were pretty low, averaging 4.78. Considering that five people actually said words to the effect of 'I quite liked it', it is somewhat surprising to see it languishing below such turkeys as Queen Loana and Wanted Man. Neil's dislike of sex writing has result in him losing the 2011 Mr. Easy to Please T Shirt at the last minute, which Richard narrowly beating Mark to the title (Chris B. would have won it only he was only there for the last four books thus missing out on the chance to have his score plummet by having read 'Flying Pigs'). Scores and schedule attached. There was, of course, little competition to Ras at the other end.  

We then had a brief discussion about the optional second book - What I Loved' by Siri Hustvedt, whilst avoiding a detailed discussion as only Mark and Rob had finished it. Both of them rated it very highly, whilst the three who had made a start (Chris B., Steve and Ras) were holding back judgment - with a general view of it being 'better than the Kureshi'. Chris W had yet to make a start. The only substantive discussion was about the descriptions of the art installations - which generated a Ras tirade (with support from Steve). HIs point was that they were impossible to achieve as described, whilst the others argued that this was irrelevant, as the descriptions were written as part of the creation of the character of Bill with the detail not being that important.  

The general view as that it would be good to discuss the book so, provided absent others agree, it will form a second discussion at the January meeting. (I suspect that people will either find Innocent Traitor a quick read or else give up on it if history is not their forte).

Richard's more detailed notes from India:

This was a book which was less than the sum of its parts.

There were in fact lots of positive things about it – throughout the book, there were a host of extremely interesting lines and thoughts and observations. And some of them were quite funny. I must have turned down between 30 and 50 pages where there were interesting or funny lines.   Just a few of them were:

·      “I have lived on the same page of the A-to-Z all of my adult life.”

·      (re a part of West London) “That wasn’t the ghetto; the ghetto was Belgravia, Knightsbridge and parts of Notting Hill” (and I was born and brought up near that part of west London).

·      “Isn’t it true that a person incapable of love and sex is incapable of life?”

·      “I don’t think I have ever stopped seeing London like a small boy”.

·      “Being at University in those days was a mixture of extended holiday and finishing school … I read more than I’d ever read before, and with passion that was new and surprising to me”.

·      “I was amazed by the bitterness, viciousness and cruelty of small-time politics”.

·      “These were the days before the working class were considered to be consumerist trash in cheap clothes with writing on them, when they still retained the dignity of doing essential but unpleasant work”.

·      “I like London being one of the great Muslim cities”.

And I liked a lot of his observations about psychoanalysis and psychotherapy:

·      “Like a car mechanic on his back, I work with the underneath or the understory.”

·      “People speak because there are things they don’t want to hear; they listen because there are things that they don’t want to say”.

His observations on ‘normality’ (p 82) were really interesting, as was Jamal’s interpretation of how Ajita was replicating her own mother in her behaviour to her husband and children (p 453).

But on the other hand, there were also a load of negatives.  Some of these were:

·      I did not get to know any of the characters. All of them were quite surface, and at the end of the book I did not really know them any better that when they were introduced.

·      Jamal’s reaction and then lack of development once Ajita returned to the scene seemed false to me.

·      Lots of the characters talked about thinking about deep things, but I saw no evidence of it.

·      I found all the casual-ness of the sex and the drugs and the drinking quite a turn-off – is London so decadent?  I do not think so, even in the exalted circles that these people moved in.

·      Also, I didn’t understand the 4-part structure at all!

  

So, lots of good bits but overall, not as good as it should have been.