Hooray - I am able to post again.
So, here are some consolidated updates on de Beauvoir's classic:
The chapter on Montherlant was fairly rage-inducing. Next up: an analysis of D.H. Lawrence's work, which I predict will also make me want to reach for the sick bucket. Let's see how Lawrence fares in de Beauvoir's estimation.
Yep, yep. De Beauvoir's analysis supports the conclusions I have drawn from reading Lawrence. They are not showing Lawrence in a favourable light.
"Stendhal never describes his heroines as a function of his heroes: he provides them with their own destinies. He undertook something rarer and that no other novelist, I think, has ever done: he projected himself into a female character. He does not examine Lamiel as Marivaux does Marianne, or Richardson does Clarissa Harlowe: he shares her destiny as he had shared that of Julien."
Need to add Stendhal to the TBR.
Right, I thought Book 1 of the book was fabulous.
Having just finished Part 1 of Book 2, I have issues with the theories, explanations, and research that is presented here.
For one, whether it is mentioned or not, the entire first Part is deeply Freudian. Adler is mentioned, but overall Freudian ideas prevail. This may have still been relevant in 1949, but now feels VERY dated.
Also, I really can't stand Freud.