Post by marigold on Jul 10, 2022 20:57:05 GMT -5
“The nineties was in reality a period of very great vigour, thought and passion were breaking free from tradition.” - W.B. Yeats on the “decadent” period of literature.
Welcome to the initial gathering of the Hyacinth Society. Our first book was “the Green Carnation” by Robert Smythe Hitchens. Much like how our beloved Snicket books are, among other things, a “mock gothic”, this book is a parody of the type of fashionable literature produced by Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas, written by someone who knew them personally. But, as with the Snicket books, you don’t need to know the material being pastiched beforehand to appreciate it. It is well written and stimulating in its own right; a neglected gem.
Fun bit of trivia for this board in particular: this novel is briefly mentioned in the “69 Love Songs” book from the 33 1/3 series by L.D. Beghtol which frequently mentions and quotes Daniel Handler, including a few nods to the Snicket books. That book (about the great Magnetic Fields album) can be fairly tiresome, especially when it tries to be funny, but is surprisingly erudite and a really good source ultimately if you love the album it is annotating (and you should, really).
Now on to some preliminary comments about the novel that was designated for this previous week’s reading:
I notice in the first couple of sentences that the book starts around 7 p.m. just like this meeting. Though that was not intentional, maybe it was sitting in the attic of my mind when I decided on the time.
Very early on the protagonist is described in angelic terms. A weary, earthen angel rather than a lofty theological one. Be on the lookout for this trope again throughout the literature we will be exploring.
Look at this sparkling quote, how deft the scalpel of satire is wielded here:
“Reggie was very frank. When he could not be witty, he often told the naked truth; and truth, without any clothes on, frequently passes for epigram. It is daring, and so it seems clever. Reggie was considered very clever by his friends, but more clever by himself. He knew that he was great, and he said so often in Society. And Society smiled and murmured that it was a pose. Everything is a pose nowadays, especially genius.”
You can feel our author internally glowing as he wrote this. It passes from funny and sharp characterization, to societal criticism and ends with a sentence that serves as a glittering Wilde-esque epigram of its own. Did you digitally highlight this in your copy? Or how about:
“He was too modern to be very reticent, and he liked to be wicked in the eye of the crowd.” This is a nice little quote and an instructive for imbibing the atmosphere of the era. This childish desire for scandal, and the instinct to play up light personal scandal as high societal controversy, permeates the late 19th century and even into the early 20th century. It makes me think of the recollection by the poet Donald Hall about his experiences with the venerable fraud Ezra Pound. Hall delivers an anecdote about Pound singing a blasphemous comedic song in the company of Hall’s wife. The strained smile of said wife is her attempt to be polite while not knowing what is going on. Pound seizes on this pained expression of hers gleefully, asking “Baptist?”, assuming her sensibilities as a Christian were scandalized by his mirth. Hall goes on to say this is thoroughly consistent with Pound’s behavior. That he was like a boy of 1910 America (which is around the time when Pound left America) in this way, eager to scandalize and to flirt with girls by being “loud”. Hall stressed this as a “1910 America” way of being, giving us a window into how the childlike delight in the lightly diabolic persisted into the 20th century.
Enough of these preliminary annotations, though. What did my fellow society members make of the book? Tell me your thoughts if you read it. Are you familiar with the types being satirically portrayed? If so, how does that color your perception of the book? If not, does this make you more or less inclined to pursue the writings of the figures depicted? How did you enjoy it and why or why not? I will tell some of my thoughts on the book later but want to first see if anyone else read it.
Welcome to the initial gathering of the Hyacinth Society. Our first book was “the Green Carnation” by Robert Smythe Hitchens. Much like how our beloved Snicket books are, among other things, a “mock gothic”, this book is a parody of the type of fashionable literature produced by Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas, written by someone who knew them personally. But, as with the Snicket books, you don’t need to know the material being pastiched beforehand to appreciate it. It is well written and stimulating in its own right; a neglected gem.
Fun bit of trivia for this board in particular: this novel is briefly mentioned in the “69 Love Songs” book from the 33 1/3 series by L.D. Beghtol which frequently mentions and quotes Daniel Handler, including a few nods to the Snicket books. That book (about the great Magnetic Fields album) can be fairly tiresome, especially when it tries to be funny, but is surprisingly erudite and a really good source ultimately if you love the album it is annotating (and you should, really).
Now on to some preliminary comments about the novel that was designated for this previous week’s reading:
I notice in the first couple of sentences that the book starts around 7 p.m. just like this meeting. Though that was not intentional, maybe it was sitting in the attic of my mind when I decided on the time.
Very early on the protagonist is described in angelic terms. A weary, earthen angel rather than a lofty theological one. Be on the lookout for this trope again throughout the literature we will be exploring.
Look at this sparkling quote, how deft the scalpel of satire is wielded here:
“Reggie was very frank. When he could not be witty, he often told the naked truth; and truth, without any clothes on, frequently passes for epigram. It is daring, and so it seems clever. Reggie was considered very clever by his friends, but more clever by himself. He knew that he was great, and he said so often in Society. And Society smiled and murmured that it was a pose. Everything is a pose nowadays, especially genius.”
You can feel our author internally glowing as he wrote this. It passes from funny and sharp characterization, to societal criticism and ends with a sentence that serves as a glittering Wilde-esque epigram of its own. Did you digitally highlight this in your copy? Or how about:
“He was too modern to be very reticent, and he liked to be wicked in the eye of the crowd.” This is a nice little quote and an instructive for imbibing the atmosphere of the era. This childish desire for scandal, and the instinct to play up light personal scandal as high societal controversy, permeates the late 19th century and even into the early 20th century. It makes me think of the recollection by the poet Donald Hall about his experiences with the venerable fraud Ezra Pound. Hall delivers an anecdote about Pound singing a blasphemous comedic song in the company of Hall’s wife. The strained smile of said wife is her attempt to be polite while not knowing what is going on. Pound seizes on this pained expression of hers gleefully, asking “Baptist?”, assuming her sensibilities as a Christian were scandalized by his mirth. Hall goes on to say this is thoroughly consistent with Pound’s behavior. That he was like a boy of 1910 America (which is around the time when Pound left America) in this way, eager to scandalize and to flirt with girls by being “loud”. Hall stressed this as a “1910 America” way of being, giving us a window into how the childlike delight in the lightly diabolic persisted into the 20th century.
Enough of these preliminary annotations, though. What did my fellow society members make of the book? Tell me your thoughts if you read it. Are you familiar with the types being satirically portrayed? If so, how does that color your perception of the book? If not, does this make you more or less inclined to pursue the writings of the figures depicted? How did you enjoy it and why or why not? I will tell some of my thoughts on the book later but want to first see if anyone else read it.