The Charterhouse of Parma   by Stendhal

Dec 2005     A gift, at Easter, from the Münch family.

Hmmm... So, that's a French classic. Interesting. The style... the style... I suppose that those who are well versed in literature would be used to calling it the old style of literature. But for me, it still has enough novelty to strike me as unique. (More or less unique: I recall Les Miserables being written in a similar way.) I'll attempt to explain a little better: Many of the books I read are of a more modern period: At least within the last hundred years. As much as half of the books were written in the last fifty years. And then, the style of them is very often... something special. Vonnegut, for example. He has a strong style. Both he and Stendhal wrote from different points of view, but Vonnegut... somehow had these points of view especially seamless. He wouldn't only use a different point of view to tell a part of the story that happened to someone other than the lead character; He would... use the changing of views as a literary device. (Hmm... there's a nice term, which doesn't actually tell Anything!) I mean that... (Though I don't know if he ever DID do this, I could imagine it happening;) that he would Entirely Invent a new character, who he'd put into the story, to tell part of it through his viewpoint, which would then better show the way one event happens. Or perhaps show how one event means something to some people. Does that make any sense?

Anyhow, the point is that Stendhal's writing differs stylistically from the writing of other authors I like. Another point, which I meant to make before now, was that I've discovered that Stendhal is also one of the authors that I like. This book didn't have the deep cultural criticism, or social analysis that I love in some other books, (Meaning specificaly, any of the books I deem "good" Science fiction.) I wasn't every chapter struck by a new way to look at something in the world. But... The book was still of interest. It had my attention. (And had me going to sleep rather later than was good for me more than once.) So... I could say that the writing was, though not illuminating, certainly engaging. And I started to have a personal interest in the characters.

For the first eighty or hundred pages though, I wasn't that wrapped up with what was happening. Perhaps because I had only just met the people. Perhaps that meant that I didn't have any insight into who they were, and what they'd been through. Hmm... one hundred pages is an exaggeration though; By that time, I had already become interested in the main character; How would things work out for him: now that he'd become outlawed in his own country, and region? I'd say that part of my interest was in his Potential: because his life had the possibility of going in so many different directions.

What else is there to say? I don't think I've made it clear yet, that although Stendhal didn't reveal ideas to me about social aspects, and behavioral trends, he did a decent job of showing the personal psychology of a number of his characters.And perhaps, if I had lived two hundred years ago, it would have been illuminating for me, to take note of what he said about courts, and the intrigues there, and the dynamics of small capitol cities. However, that world is too far removed from mine,and I couldn't look at his portrayal of how certain rumours started in a court, and thought to myself, "That's SO true! It happens JUST like that, doesn't it?"

So, it was a good book, which had my full interest. And I was just a bit disappointed, that there wasn't a rash, impulsive, happy ending to it. (Which I was quite looking forward to getting to.) Truly, the only proper "Happy end," where true love is found, would have to be the result of highly rash deeds. And there were, indeed, impulsive actions at the very, very end, but they didn't lead to a happy ending!! Oh goodness! (Forgive me if I'm revealing too little, or too much of the end of this book. But you ought to read it too, and then you'll understand Exactly what I mean.) Oh, and my one question now, after reading the whole thing, would have to be, "What IS a Charterhouse?".

I have only now, (September 2007,) found a few notes I made about this book, which I should have included in my review! I list them here:

#1. "The lover, losing all, speaks hardly like a lover!" This is so very true. Particularly when "Lover" refers to one who is courting, but not yet a pair with the object of affection. He (or she,) is the one of praises, kind words, witty repartee and a permanently pleasant countenance. -Unless all hope of love be suddenly lost. Then oh, how bitter can be his (her) words!

#2. "They say that love has wings, and all they say is true, For all thy love has flown;" Such a lovely, mournful image. It surely reminded me of my own prior experiences. I am so passionate about playing with perspective: To have it look so delighted, "Love has wings", then to twist the point of view about to show the speaker's true meaning, "thy love has flown." I kept expecting it to say "MY love has flown," but he's not feeling indifference, instead it's loss and rejection.

#3. "Yes, insult is the child of injury." Very nice way of putting the truth; When injured, we react first with a wish to insult. (I wonder if this was in the same chapter as my point #1... Or if this is another case of speaking harshly to one who has caused hurt.)

Those are the three notes. (And I STILL don't know what a Charterhouse is.)