Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.86 AVERAGE
3.86 AVERAGE
medium-paced
The unique strength of this novel is Isherwood’s composition of an especially observant narrator who can be intimate, so close, to the central subjects of these character studies, and yet these characters still withdraw from him into the complicated mystery of themselves, their capacity to change, and their capacity to do authentically surprise. As though there are believable and inscrutable depths to these characters that Isherwood the writer knows is there and can trace, but doesn’t comprehend himself.
“I’m so near to this thing which is so far from me.”
“I’m so near to this thing which is so far from me.”
As my first Isherwood novel I wasn't entirely sure what to expect, and coming out of a reading slump I fully intended to struggle through this novel, and perhaps even stop midway and continue another.
Yet I found it to be engaging and insightful, particularly the structure with the 4 different fragments and settings, the transformations interlinking these fragments, such as Waldemar connecting Christopher from Mr Lancaster to Berlin to Greece, in turn created a web linking the narrators wanderings which ensured the reader knew it was the same narrator, despite the change in writing style. Also particularly striking is how the atmosphere of each location and each character is felt palpably, the reader too feels the anxiety over the Sudetenland crisis and the isolation on the Greek islands, and how although the 4 characters Isherwood creates are in themselves entirely forgettable (i.e. Ambrose in his isolation and Mr Lancaster's death), their character is felt assuredly through the page as a great part of the narrator's life.
Likewise, Christopher, the narrator, as a wanderer also has a significant effect, at the beginning of the novel, I personally expected for his settling somewhere, and perhaps a moralistic message at the novel's conclusion, and thus the unexpected continuation of his wanderings left me too asking and reflecting on the reason for life, an idea that came up a few times in the novel (as Paul remarks 'you really are a tourist, to your bones', a poignant note for the novel to finish on, as my suspicion behind the title was confirmed, which left me further reflecting).
The themes of homosexuality, spirituality, and pacifism were also strong (and from my research seem to be common themes of Isherwood's writing), and there were moments of unexpected comedy, where I found myself laughing, along with the occurrence of key events, i.e. the War and the rise of the Nazis, which are not often explicitly referred to (excluding the narrator's anxiety over the Sudetenland crisis and emergence of war) though they impact the atmosphere of a situation which was an interesting point
Overall, a brilliant novel, though I still feel like I am missing a key idea from the novel so hence the 4 stars
Yet I found it to be engaging and insightful, particularly the structure with the 4 different fragments and settings, the transformations interlinking these fragments, such as Waldemar connecting Christopher from Mr Lancaster to Berlin to Greece, in turn created a web linking the narrators wanderings which ensured the reader knew it was the same narrator, despite the change in writing style. Also particularly striking is how the atmosphere of each location and each character is felt palpably, the reader too feels the anxiety over the Sudetenland crisis and the isolation on the Greek islands, and how although the 4 characters Isherwood creates are in themselves entirely forgettable (i.e. Ambrose in his isolation and Mr Lancaster's death), their character is felt assuredly through the page as a great part of the narrator's life.
Likewise, Christopher, the narrator, as a wanderer also has a significant effect, at the beginning of the novel, I personally expected for his settling somewhere, and perhaps a moralistic message at the novel's conclusion, and thus the unexpected continuation of his wanderings left me too asking and reflecting on the reason for life, an idea that came up a few times in the novel (as Paul remarks 'you really are a tourist, to your bones', a poignant note for the novel to finish on, as my suspicion behind the title was confirmed, which left me further reflecting).
The themes of homosexuality, spirituality, and pacifism were also strong (and from my research seem to be common themes of Isherwood's writing), and there were moments of unexpected comedy, where I found myself laughing, along with the occurrence of key events, i.e. the War and the rise of the Nazis, which are not often explicitly referred to (excluding the narrator's anxiety over the Sudetenland crisis and emergence of war) though they impact the atmosphere of a situation which was an interesting point
Overall, a brilliant novel, though I still feel like I am missing a key idea from the novel so hence the 4 stars
dark
funny
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
In the first volume of his diaries, Isherwood repeatedly mentions the difficulties he was having writing what became Down There On A Visit. The book had many different forms before he realized what he needed to do. Namely, he had to write about his own experiences in a slightly altered way.
As the character "Christopher Isherwood" says of himself in the beginning of this book, "To reassure himself, he converts [his life] into epic myth as fast as it happens. He is forever play acting." This is something the real Isherwood did. In fact, the Isherwood of this book is a very thinly-disguised version of the real one, and all of the characters and events are fictionalized versions of real people and events in his life. Some of this fictionalization is so slight that it is obvious who is who e.g. which characters are Isherwood's real life friends W.H. Auden or Gerald Heard. Some of it is more heavily disguised, because though in the 1950s Isherwood was pretty openly living as a gay man in California (he lived with his various boyfriends and toured the emerging gay scene), he didn't seem ready to write about it for public consumption, even in a fictionalized form. But queerness is a major subtext throughout this book.
A lot of the characters here are awful people who do awful things. Sometimes Isherwood is strangely passive about this, as though he recognizes the wrongness of some of it but likes the drama of it all and wants to see what happens next. He wants experience and seems drawn to people who can offer it, even if the costs are high.
The book covers four stages of his life starting in 1928 and ending in 1953 and each section focuses on one or two significant male friendships that shaped him in some way. He starts off as a cocky young man rebelling against his privileged background, coming from a wealthy, landed family and having a Cambridge education. He ends the book as a man in his forties pulled in two directions, seeking a deeper, spiritual meaning to his life while also craving the pleasures of the world.
Having read his diaries, much of this was familiar to me, but it was fascinating to see what details Isherwood chose to alter and to compare a real person, as he wrote about them in his diaries, with his fictional version of them. At times this book felt like Isherwood trying to understand why certain people were so important to him at various times in his life.
Isherwood is very funny, often in a cutting, critical way. But he points his critical lens at himself as much as at others. He is just a really good storyteller, a great scene-setter. His observations about people and their motivations are sharp. I found much of this book funny. Some of this book is, not quite infuriating, but there were situations and dialog that are disturbing on various levels. You don't have to have read his diaries or be familiar with much of his life to enjoy this book.
As the character "Christopher Isherwood" says of himself in the beginning of this book, "To reassure himself, he converts [his life] into epic myth as fast as it happens. He is forever play acting." This is something the real Isherwood did. In fact, the Isherwood of this book is a very thinly-disguised version of the real one, and all of the characters and events are fictionalized versions of real people and events in his life. Some of this fictionalization is so slight that it is obvious who is who e.g. which characters are Isherwood's real life friends W.H. Auden or Gerald Heard. Some of it is more heavily disguised, because though in the 1950s Isherwood was pretty openly living as a gay man in California (he lived with his various boyfriends and toured the emerging gay scene), he didn't seem ready to write about it for public consumption, even in a fictionalized form. But queerness is a major subtext throughout this book.
A lot of the characters here are awful people who do awful things. Sometimes Isherwood is strangely passive about this, as though he recognizes the wrongness of some of it but likes the drama of it all and wants to see what happens next. He wants experience and seems drawn to people who can offer it, even if the costs are high.
The book covers four stages of his life starting in 1928 and ending in 1953 and each section focuses on one or two significant male friendships that shaped him in some way. He starts off as a cocky young man rebelling against his privileged background, coming from a wealthy, landed family and having a Cambridge education. He ends the book as a man in his forties pulled in two directions, seeking a deeper, spiritual meaning to his life while also craving the pleasures of the world.
Having read his diaries, much of this was familiar to me, but it was fascinating to see what details Isherwood chose to alter and to compare a real person, as he wrote about them in his diaries, with his fictional version of them. At times this book felt like Isherwood trying to understand why certain people were so important to him at various times in his life.
Isherwood is very funny, often in a cutting, critical way. But he points his critical lens at himself as much as at others. He is just a really good storyteller, a great scene-setter. His observations about people and their motivations are sharp. I found much of this book funny. Some of this book is, not quite infuriating, but there were situations and dialog that are disturbing on various levels. You don't have to have read his diaries or be familiar with much of his life to enjoy this book.
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
emotional
relaxing
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
11/12/16:
I was already rereading this for a paper when it gained unfortunate relevance. Still too good.
3/31/13:
It's a rare memoir that grows with its author. The minutely shifting styles across "Mr. Lancaster," "Ambrose," "Waldemar," and "Paul" mirror Isherwood--or Christopher's--own development. Early on, Isherwood looks back on young Christopher, setting out for Germany (and not even Berlin) for the first time:
How lucky we are that he couldn't see into his future. Down There on a Visit tells incredibly specific stories that are nonetheless widely (and wildly) relevant. There's Geoffrey, the straight, white, British guy who goes to an island where he is the minority and still finds a world catered to him. There's Waldemar, who hates what's happening to his country, and yet can't help but be drawn back, because it's his home. And there's Christopher:
First, he was almost synonymous with Berlin. Then he had to leave, and wandered to Greece and the above transformation. In London, he got caught up in the prewar anxiety, and the inside knowledge he had only made it worse. He finds pacifism because his friend Waldemar is somewhere in Germany and, given the chance to end the war by blowing the entire country sky-high, he knows he wouldn't do it. In America, even farther removed from the war, he goes on camping trips, situating his readers in time with literally parenthetical asides like this: "(It was the day the Nazis invaded Crete.)"
Is it that he doesn't belong anywhere, or that he belongs in too many places? The latter, I would say. There's the place he wants to be, the place he should be, and the place he ought to be. Sometimes, these places intersect, but other times he's torn between them and nothing feels right. Toward the end of the book, he claims he doesn't want a family. He doesn't want to be anyone's uncle. It strikes me that what he's been describing throughout the entire book is a kind of family (the kind Mona and Michael glorify in Tales of the City). Perhaps he's selling himself short, remaining purposefully aloof from these people. Perhaps not. Perhaps it's just self-preservation.
I've said before that Isherwood presents his own life remarkably insightfully. Perhaps it's the light fictionalization and the distance he imposes between himself and "Christopher." Visiting Berlin again, this time after the war, he wanders through the wreckage. "In the morning light it was all as raw and frank as the voice of history which tells you not to fool yourself; this can happen to any city; to anyone; to you."
Is his conclusion that it's better not to belong anywhere, or to anyone? That certainly seems to be his take on himself, and Paul sums the view up pretty damningly. (He's talking about smoking opium, but it's easy to make the leap.)
Christopher gives these words to Paul, but he doesn't bother offering a rebuttal. Between this and "I am a camera with its shutter open, quite passive, recording, not thinking," from Berlin Stories I am starting to think he protests too much. After all, why else write about these people and places with such love and such detail? Isherwood knows that Christopher is full of hot air. Thank goodness.
I was already rereading this for a paper when it gained unfortunate relevance. Still too good.
3/31/13:
It's a rare memoir that grows with its author. The minutely shifting styles across "Mr. Lancaster," "Ambrose," "Waldemar," and "Paul" mirror Isherwood--or Christopher's--own development. Early on, Isherwood looks back on young Christopher, setting out for Germany (and not even Berlin) for the first time:
I think about him and I marvel, but I must beware of romanticizing him. I must remember that much of what looks like courage is nothing but brute ignorance. I keep forgetting that he is as blind to his own future as the dullest of the animals. As blind as I am to mine. His is an extraordinary future in many ways--far happier, luckier, and more interesting than most. And yet, if I were he and could see it ahead of me, I'm sure I should exclaim in dismay that it was more than I could possibly cope with.
How lucky we are that he couldn't see into his future. Down There on a Visit tells incredibly specific stories that are nonetheless widely (and wildly) relevant. There's Geoffrey, the straight, white, British guy who goes to an island where he is the minority and still finds a world catered to him. There's Waldemar, who hates what's happening to his country, and yet can't help but be drawn back, because it's his home. And there's Christopher:
When I got a good look at myself in the mirror at the hotel in Chalkis, I was quite startled to see what these last few months had done to me. My hair was long and matted, my beard had started to grow, I was sunburned nearly black, my face was puffy with drinking and my eyes were red. All that, of course, could soon be tidied up. But there was also a look in my eyes which hadn't been there before. By the time I got back to England, no one could have had any difficulty in recognizing me as my familiar self. Only I caught glimpses of that look now and then while shaving.
And every so often, at a loud party or while listening to bad news on the wireless or on waking up to find myself in bed with someone I scarcely knew, I would think of Ambrose out there alone. He was right, I would say to myself; I didn't belong on his island.
But now I knew that I didn't belong here, either.
Or anywhere.
First, he was almost synonymous with Berlin. Then he had to leave, and wandered to Greece and the above transformation. In London, he got caught up in the prewar anxiety, and the inside knowledge he had only made it worse. He finds pacifism because his friend Waldemar is somewhere in Germany and, given the chance to end the war by blowing the entire country sky-high, he knows he wouldn't do it. In America, even farther removed from the war, he goes on camping trips, situating his readers in time with literally parenthetical asides like this: "(It was the day the Nazis invaded Crete.)"
Is it that he doesn't belong anywhere, or that he belongs in too many places? The latter, I would say. There's the place he wants to be, the place he should be, and the place he ought to be. Sometimes, these places intersect, but other times he's torn between them and nothing feels right. Toward the end of the book, he claims he doesn't want a family. He doesn't want to be anyone's uncle. It strikes me that what he's been describing throughout the entire book is a kind of family (the kind Mona and Michael glorify in Tales of the City). Perhaps he's selling himself short, remaining purposefully aloof from these people. Perhaps not. Perhaps it's just self-preservation.
I've said before that Isherwood presents his own life remarkably insightfully. Perhaps it's the light fictionalization and the distance he imposes between himself and "Christopher." Visiting Berlin again, this time after the war, he wanders through the wreckage. "In the morning light it was all as raw and frank as the voice of history which tells you not to fool yourself; this can happen to any city; to anyone; to you."
Is his conclusion that it's better not to belong anywhere, or to anyone? That certainly seems to be his take on himself, and Paul sums the view up pretty damningly. (He's talking about smoking opium, but it's easy to make the leap.)
"You're exactly like a tourist who thinks he can take in the whole of Rome in one day. You know, you really are a tourist, to your bones. I bet you're always sending post cards with 'Down here on a visit' on them. That's the story of your life...I'll tell you what'd happen if you smoked one pipe: nothing! Nothing would happen! It's absolutely no use fooling around with this, unless you really want to know what's inside of it, what it's all about. And to do that, you have to let yourself get hooked. Deliberately. Not fighting it. Not getting scared. Not setting any time limits."
Christopher gives these words to Paul, but he doesn't bother offering a rebuttal. Between this and "I am a camera with its shutter open, quite passive, recording, not thinking," from Berlin Stories I am starting to think he protests too much. After all, why else write about these people and places with such love and such detail? Isherwood knows that Christopher is full of hot air. Thank goodness.
So, I picked up this book a year or two ago and absolutely loved its first story. Then, for some reason unknown to me, I set it aside and only got back to it a month ago as I was heading to Berlin because, what else would one read there, right?
Right. I re-read the beginning and was even more enthralled by Isherwood's amazing ability to say complex things in a very simple yet elegant manner, he reminded me of reading Hemingway's Moveable Feast in some ways (a book I also regard as one of my all-time favorites). The style was certainly lacking in no way, and I found myself re-reading some passages over and over, discussing them with friends and being generally stunned by his command of the English language. As far as the plot goes, the different stories had somewhat different effects as they are, for the most part, not as related to one another except for some of the recurring characters. I did wish by the end to have learned more about say, Ambrose or the Greek gang and there were some parts I found more intriguing than others (loved Mr. Lancaster's story, Paul as well, the Augustus part of it not so much), but in the end it all worked as a whole and gave me, as the reader, an insight into Christopher's evolution which seemed natural, so I didn't find the book disjointed.
All in all, I think this is a book I'll probably return to at some point as I always do to Hemingway - a book that has a lot to offer a person at any stage in life they might find themselves in. Can't wait to read more from Isherwood is all I have to say.
Right. I re-read the beginning and was even more enthralled by Isherwood's amazing ability to say complex things in a very simple yet elegant manner, he reminded me of reading Hemingway's Moveable Feast in some ways (a book I also regard as one of my all-time favorites). The style was certainly lacking in no way, and I found myself re-reading some passages over and over, discussing them with friends and being generally stunned by his command of the English language. As far as the plot goes, the different stories had somewhat different effects as they are, for the most part, not as related to one another except for some of the recurring characters. I did wish by the end to have learned more about say, Ambrose or the Greek gang and there were some parts I found more intriguing than others (loved Mr. Lancaster's story, Paul as well, the Augustus part of it not so much), but in the end it all worked as a whole and gave me, as the reader, an insight into Christopher's evolution which seemed natural, so I didn't find the book disjointed.
All in all, I think this is a book I'll probably return to at some point as I always do to Hemingway - a book that has a lot to offer a person at any stage in life they might find themselves in. Can't wait to read more from Isherwood is all I have to say.
I normally love Mr. Isherwood's writing, but I had a hard time finishing this one because it did not capture me as much as the other works I've read.
funny
reflective
relaxing
sad
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
Narrator: not interesting.
Paul: very interesting.
Author: gay (! yay! for representation in fiction!)
Author: misogynistic (...just kidding.)
Overall: liked the writing when he wasn't going on rants about how women should just be delegated to breeding farms and men should have the entire world in which to be gay and frivolous, but disappointed in general about his existence. Go ahead if you can separate the artist from the art, but when the artist's rather barbaric ideas about women pervade every inch of the fiction, I find myself unable to do that. Euegh.
Paul: very interesting.
Author: gay (! yay! for representation in fiction!)
Author: misogynistic (...just kidding.)
Overall: liked the writing when he wasn't going on rants about how women should just be delegated to breeding farms and men should have the entire world in which to be gay and frivolous, but disappointed in general about his existence. Go ahead if you can separate the artist from the art, but when the artist's rather barbaric ideas about women pervade every inch of the fiction, I find myself unable to do that. Euegh.