Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.39 AVERAGE
3.39 AVERAGE
Gide's The Immoralist is the story of modern man stuck between his social obligations and his desires, between a life of the mind and life of the body (with a life of the spirit being unattainable in either case), between the paralysis of the present and the impossibility of the future. The epiphany of the protagonist, Michel, is his understanding of this dual existence and his subsequent dramatic shift from the stifling morality of a socially-acceptable, structured way of life to the liberation of living a life that embraces the will to power as a means to transcend traditional precepts of morality.
Unfortunately, it is an epiphany that can offer no lasting happiness, as Michel can only trade the sickness of one mode of existence for the loneliness and isolation of another (a different type of sickness, to be sure). In both cases, Michel experiences what Kierkegaard terms "the sickness unto death": despair. Michel's former life leads to the despair of a world which restricts the body to the point of physical breakdown, whereas his latter life leads to the despair of a world which offers no place for a free spirit to roam, ending only in mental breakdown (not in the sense of madness -- although that possibility does exist for some, just not for Michel -- but in the sense of endless alienation). "I have freed myself," Michel concludes in the final section, "But what does it signify? This objectless liberty is a burden to me."
And so Gide's work is the necessary modernist link between Nietzsche and the existentialists. It is a fictional exploration of the impossibility of individuation, despite the intense desire to achieve it, and the burden of freeing oneself from the bonds of morality, only to question if such a move offers any liberation at all.
Unfortunately, it is an epiphany that can offer no lasting happiness, as Michel can only trade the sickness of one mode of existence for the loneliness and isolation of another (a different type of sickness, to be sure). In both cases, Michel experiences what Kierkegaard terms "the sickness unto death": despair. Michel's former life leads to the despair of a world which restricts the body to the point of physical breakdown, whereas his latter life leads to the despair of a world which offers no place for a free spirit to roam, ending only in mental breakdown (not in the sense of madness -- although that possibility does exist for some, just not for Michel -- but in the sense of endless alienation). "I have freed myself," Michel concludes in the final section, "But what does it signify? This objectless liberty is a burden to me."
And so Gide's work is the necessary modernist link between Nietzsche and the existentialists. It is a fictional exploration of the impossibility of individuation, despite the intense desire to achieve it, and the burden of freeing oneself from the bonds of morality, only to question if such a move offers any liberation at all.
around like a quarter through, I lost interest after learning that Gide self-identified as a pederast. my expectations going in was that it was a novel where the protagonist falls down the path of the perverse and that it would be a compelling and dark character study. i love unreliable narrators and moral ambiguity in novels, but i have to admit it's hard reading a book after realizing the author explicitly not ONLY identifies with the rationalizations the protagonist makes of his own actions, but embraces it as a wholly good thing. what absolute trash.
from his own journal: "That such loves can spring up, that such relationships can be formed, it is not enough for me to say that this is natural; I maintain that it is good; each of the two finds exaltation, protection, a challenge in them; and I wonder whether it is for the youth or the elder man that they are more profitable."
and a different entry (i'm sorry): "But what name then am I to give the rapture I felt as I clasped in my naked arms that perfect little body, so wild, so ardent, so sombrely lascivious? For a long time after Mohammed had left me, I remained in a state of passionate jubilation, and though I had already achieved pleasure five times with him I renewed my ecstasy again and again, and when I got back to my room in the hotel, I prolonged its echoes until morning."
from wikipedia: Gide's novel Corydon, which he considered his most important work, erects a defense of pederasty.
in general i like to think that even if i despise the author, i can still derive something of value from their work, but i don't care. i do not care to read any of his shit. and mind you, i'm not saying that the act of reading this book is bad, this is just my personal limit.
from his own journal: "That such loves can spring up, that such relationships can be formed, it is not enough for me to say that this is natural; I maintain that it is good; each of the two finds exaltation, protection, a challenge in them; and I wonder whether it is for the youth or the elder man that they are more profitable."
and a different entry (i'm sorry): "But what name then am I to give the rapture I felt as I clasped in my naked arms that perfect little body, so wild, so ardent, so sombrely lascivious? For a long time after Mohammed had left me, I remained in a state of passionate jubilation, and though I had already achieved pleasure five times with him I renewed my ecstasy again and again, and when I got back to my room in the hotel, I prolonged its echoes until morning."
from wikipedia: Gide's novel Corydon, which he considered his most important work, erects a defense of pederasty.
in general i like to think that even if i despise the author, i can still derive something of value from their work, but i don't care. i do not care to read any of his shit. and mind you, i'm not saying that the act of reading this book is bad, this is just my personal limit.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Pedophilia
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
fell a bit flat for me, if only because the banality of apathy is one that's getting so increasingly common in our modern society. the wickedness espoused in here has gotten so commonplace that one can barely even begin to feel truly scandalised. then again, 1902 literary society might have been: certainly, the book's hints towards the immorality of our dear friend michel is nothing short of obvious, though written in such spare and hauntingly beautiful prose that one is almost tempted to forgive our dear friend who narrates his descent into such a lifestyle.
perhaps it's to the book's strength that such immorality is now almost nothing. gide was perhaps an augur, and this is his book of prophecies. to this point, i very well concede my admiration: a psychological work about pederasty (though, let us be honest with what it's really called: abuse of minors) presented in such a beautiful manner is nothing short of a revelation—though whether this revelation is good or bad, the author refuses to say, even taking out a couple of pages to declare his neutrality on the case of michel.
the novel ends, and there is no resolution. instead, we are left with michel having finished his confession. do his friends accept him? it's of a singular case of a singular man. (only, of course it isn't singular. this perceived singularity is only because of how michel has been humanised in the course of the narrative.) he finishes his tale with a recounting of how he's being "kept" by the young boy that he has in his employ. "kept" almost against his will, for he complains about his loneliness and his yearning for re-integration into society; yet he stays. instead of going to his friends, he makes them go to him, and he makes his case in the comforting place he's put up around himself. does he show sign of remorse? it's almost startlingly easy to make the case that he doesn't, but still he languishes in some sort of purgatory: kept by the immorality that he's pursued and yet yearning for some sort of... connection? understanding?
who knows what michel wants? it's not forgiveness he's looking for, he makes this clear at the very beginning when he recounts his tale. instead, all he's looking for is someone to listen to him, painting to us the depths of his loneliness, that he cannot even confess his sins to anyone but friends he hasn't seen for three years.
there is nothing gained. there is no forgiveness for there is no repentance. there is only a tale of the immoralist, alone, in need of someone to listen, kept in stasis by the immoral acts he keeps on doing.
perhaps it's to the book's strength that such immorality is now almost nothing. gide was perhaps an augur, and this is his book of prophecies. to this point, i very well concede my admiration: a psychological work about pederasty (though, let us be honest with what it's really called: abuse of minors) presented in such a beautiful manner is nothing short of a revelation—though whether this revelation is good or bad, the author refuses to say, even taking out a couple of pages to declare his neutrality on the case of michel.
the novel ends, and there is no resolution. instead, we are left with michel having finished his confession. do his friends accept him? it's of a singular case of a singular man. (only, of course it isn't singular. this perceived singularity is only because of how michel has been humanised in the course of the narrative.) he finishes his tale with a recounting of how he's being "kept" by the young boy that he has in his employ. "kept" almost against his will, for he complains about his loneliness and his yearning for re-integration into society; yet he stays. instead of going to his friends, he makes them go to him, and he makes his case in the comforting place he's put up around himself. does he show sign of remorse? it's almost startlingly easy to make the case that he doesn't, but still he languishes in some sort of purgatory: kept by the immorality that he's pursued and yet yearning for some sort of... connection? understanding?
who knows what michel wants? it's not forgiveness he's looking for, he makes this clear at the very beginning when he recounts his tale. instead, all he's looking for is someone to listen to him, painting to us the depths of his loneliness, that he cannot even confess his sins to anyone but friends he hasn't seen for three years.
there is nothing gained. there is no forgiveness for there is no repentance. there is only a tale of the immoralist, alone, in need of someone to listen, kept in stasis by the immoral acts he keeps on doing.
feel like this is the kind of book which is better to study than to read. It was written in 1902 in the first person. Michel summons his friends and tells them of the recent happenings in his life. His marriage to Marceline, a woman he didn't really know, much less love; his bout with tuberculosis, and the tremendous feeling of gratitude and affection he acquired for Marceline as she tirelessly nursed him back to health. Throughout this time, Michel also comes to terms with the truths of who he is and what he wants out of life, he struggles with past acquaintances and new desires. He clearly has homosexual tendencies which he keeps at bay, and which given his state of married man living in 1902, he cannot out and out confront. Michel also deals with sickness and human kindness, as his wife Marceline becomes very ill and must be nursed. So there are quite a few themes running rampant through this novel, and they must all be analized in the context of the time period in which it was written.
While I think it would be fascinating to analyze the book as part of a class, to do so on my own is just not fun. While I was able to comprehend the major themes, Michel himself, and his narrative failed to fully engage me.
While I think it would be fascinating to analyze the book as part of a class, to do so on my own is just not fun. While I was able to comprehend the major themes, Michel himself, and his narrative failed to fully engage me.
I can't say that I can relate to this novel, certainly not to Michel, except that I think I need to reconsider my own philosophies within a Nietzschean context. Anyway, this does a great job of summing up the book: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/aug/01/immoralist-andre-gide-digested-classic
It has a moral context, which is not very modern, so not too useful for me, though I did not go in to this book for usefulness.
dark
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
জিদের এই উপন্যাসটা স্ট্রেইট ইজ দি গেইটের মত ইন্টেন্স না, তবে আরো গভীর। কনভেনশনাল মোরালিটিকে সম্পূর্ণ জাস্টিফিকেশনের সাথেই ডিনাই করলে তার ফলাফল কী হতে পারে তার বেশ ভালো এক্সপোজিশন এটি।