Honoré de Balzac

[bookworm fellow]

This guy was one of the most famous French writers. But for the ones who don't know him, I'll make summary of his books. During the 19th century he wrote a collection named "The Human Comedy" composed of more than 80 books (or volumes). But this is not an usual book collection for two reasons: a) the books are not a sequence of each one; and b) although it, the tales of each book happens in the same world and in the same period of time than the others, involving the same characters. So you don’t have to know the 10 first books to understand the 11th. But if you read one, two or five books of this collection you may view (read) scenes in which characters of other volumes take part. A character that is the protagonist of the tale in one volume may be like a coadjutant character in other. So I like to compare this collection a reality show, with the only difference that it’s not based in real facts (wait, you’ll still understand why I compared it with a real life show!!) and you are able to watch each one of the participants (the characters) as your wish by any time, like you were watching it in a pay per view TV channel. But instead of changing the cameras with your remote control, you change the books (the volumes of the collection). Each volume (that I compare with cameras) reveals the actions of each characters (that I compare with participants of the show), and each character lives it’s own chronicle. And concerning all this chronicles are performed at the same time and mostly in the same place (the 19th century Paris), it’s not surprising that a character of another volume will in any scene cross somehow with the protagonist character of the volume you’re reading.

And what makes this huge Balzac’s fictitious world even more interesting is that as many volumes of the collection you read, more characters you will know and – also – more familiar with his/her actions you’ll get. So, supposing you’re now reading a volume in which a character you already know from other volumes you previously read takes part, you’ll may have an idea of what he’ll do in the situation built in this very volume you’re reading…

Do you mates get it?

In the entire collection you’ll find characters of many kinds and personalities Some of them are rich, others are poor. Some are honest, others are not. Some are painters, others are fine escorts. Some are looking for love, others are looking for sex only. Some are judges, others are mail functionaries, playboys, workaholics or whatever else. Etc, etc and etcs. In all this collection – I mean, in all this fictitious world named "The Human Comedy" - they struggle for money, sex, luxury, peace or/and survival.

And maybe you're thinking I’ve read a lot of volumes so far. But actually, I’ve only read one. Yes, a single one!! Lol. And I did love it very much, what makes me be sure that I’ll read as many volumes as I have the opportunity to read in my life. Some volumes are small, others are huge. It’s hard to find these books outside France, and even more hard if you’re looking for translated versions. But I know a press that published 10 or 20 volumes of this “Human Comedy” in my language and I may find them in any bookstore in my city.

By the way, the volume I have read is "The Girl With the Golden Eyes". It's about a lesbian relationship, a very polemic theme in the publishing year/époque. By the way Balzac is know as one of the guys who best understood the female being doe to volumes like this one and mostly due to another one entitled "A woman of thirty", which one I did not read yet because I did not find it. As the title reveals, it's a tale about events in a third years old woman and I don't know anything else about it... yet. But soon I'll read it and discover why this has become one of the greatest books of the French literature, as I was told.

Balzac rules, folks!

So I was wondering if anyone could help me by telling me what would be another good volume to be reading next or even how can I purchase it...

Thanks a lot for the help (and also for reading the post and sharing this Balzac enjoyment with me lol )

 

[Zolipara]

The only one i have read so far is "Splendeurs et miseres des courtisanes". I'm not sure what the title is in english but i liked it a lot. I also have "Eugenie Grandet" somewhere in my tbr pile, and that is often referred to as one of the best of the human comedy series. I think they are published in english as a part of the penguin classics series, so they should be easily available.

 

[bookworm fellow]

The only one i have read so far is "Splendeurs et miseres des courtisanes". I'm not sure what the title is in english but i liked it a lot. I also have "Eugenie Grandet" somewhere in my tbr pile, and that is often referred to as one of the best of the human comedy series. I think they are published in english as a part of the penguin classics series, so they should be easily available.

Yeah, as far as I know this “Splendeurs et miseres des courtisanes” was translated in English as “The harlot high and low” or something alike. It’s my next reading, for sure. And I already know where to buy it: basically in any bookstore. It’s very easy to find now, but in pocket format, which may not be as convenient as the bigger ones, but it's cheaper - and also my only option since I can’t find other versions of this title in here…

 

[The waveguide]

This guy was one of the most famous French writers. But for the ones who don't know him, I'll make summary of his books. During the 19th century he wrote a collection named "The Human Comedy" composed of more than 80 books (or volumes). But this is not an usual book collection for two reasons: a) the books are not a sequence of each one; and b) although it, the tales of each book happens in the same world and in the same period of time than the others, involving the same characters. So you don’t have to know the 10 first books to understand the 11th. But if you read one, two or five books of this collection you may view (read) scenes in which characters of other volumes take part. A character that is the protagonist of the tale in one volume may be like a coadjutant character in other.

I did not know that!

By the way, the volume I have read is "The Girl With the Golden Eyes". It's about a lesbian relationship,

Wow, that's really ahead of his time!

I read only one book, called "Father Goriot" - I remember being OK with it, it was a smooth reading, although as always - the way that people thought and acted in the preceding centuries sometimes drives me mad. I personally prefer modern writers writing about preceding centuries from the point of view of TODAY. So I like more the authors as for example Jose Saramago.

But I am intrigued with that lesbian book. I will give it a try and see whether he was really ahead of his time?!

 

[tzina]

the old maid is a good read. i loved it and it's a small book compared to his other works.

 

[bookworm fellow]

I personally prefer modern writers writing about preceding centuries from the point of view of TODAY.

In fact we’ll see much difference between reading a work from an ancient author and an nowadays’ author writing about the ancient times. But differently from you, I can’t tell what I’d like the most. Ancient authors writing about their own time, like Balzac and Maugham may seem kind off interesting or even funny sometimes.

After reading a little from Balzac and by being here in this very moment, two hours past midnight after reading some chapters of “Of human bondage” by Maugham (well, this Sunday I have the morning free anyway ), there is something that I’m starting to realize it’s usual in the XIX or early XX centuries literature: the non-differentiation between love and sexual attraction. These are two completely different things as many authors from our time have realized as well. But not at the time of Balzac and Maugham – the XIX and early XX centuries. These both authors, taken as examples, narrate the first encounter between two people that feels sexual attraction one to other as they “felt in love” by the first encounter. There is a considerable period of time past after I read my lesbian Balzac book so I can’t tell exactly the very scene it happens. But as I’m reading “Of human bondage” by Maugham, as I said before, so my memory is fresher for this one.

The protagonist of the story - Carrey, who suffers with a deformation in one of his foot and struggled all his life with this problem and the others’ discrimination - meets a girl in a tea house, a very annoying waitress. And I say annoying because she is always rude, tries to demonstrate indifference to everything Carrey says to her. She ignore him all time and that makes him start to always go back at that very tea house just to see if she will finally say anything that was really offending to him so he could report the establishment owner causing the waitress dismissal. He was angry and humiliated due to the way she treats him. And after going several days at the tea house, he made no progress. And she also became kinder with him, one day. So he suddenly forgets all that angry and ask her to go out. She agrees, but with the well known indifference: “Ok”, she says. And that’s how she will treat him all the night. She keeps the humiliating procedure and Carry becomes angrier. And when she goes home, he starts to feel sad, thinking about her skinny body and cute face. He sees her so skinny that he attributes her a sick appearance. But the fact is that he liked her physical look. She was really hot for his eyes. Pure sexual attraction, nothing more. And Maugham, the narrator of the tale, transcribes this passage as “The fact is that he [Carrey] hated himself for loving her”. No, he did not love her! He wanted to sleep with her, have sex or even just kiss her, but I see no love in this. That’s a funny thing about the classic literature, and also something that makes me like this sort of literary works. This subtle way to talk about human relationships. Well, Carry hated the waitress personality and the only thing of hers that attracted him was her look. Nothing, but her physical look! This is no love. Anyone from that time would say it’s love, but I don’t. The fact that Carrey had that malformation in his foot, what forced him to keep trying to conquest her only to prove himself he was not as freak as she gave the idea of; plus the fact that he wanted to have sexual contact with this girl, this protagonist starts one of the worst periods of his unhappy life, fighting against his will. In one hand, he hated her personality and wanted her to die (the narrator doesn’t says, but I think Carry did), but in the other hand he wanted to have sex with the skinny petty-faced girl and prove her he was better than her… or something like that.

This is a masterpiece, man. There are few books that deal with such human conflicts. And this is kind of an invisible conflict. It takes place inside a characters mind only. Maugham did not need entire armies, flying brooms - as we see in nowadays books - or even great battles and heroes - as we see in the in the ancient classical Greek literature. An enormous conflict, with proportions we could not imagine in such works can feet easily a man’s mind, exactly what happens to Carrey. He suffers a lot. And this makes me wonder how many people we see walking in the streets, driving cars, going to work, going home, doing normal things, etc, could have similar issues in their emotional domains and we don’t have a clue. Maugham is surely inserted in the same good-quality and intellectual storytellers or authors category than Balzac. This is basically the classic literature sort.

I am intrigued with that lesbian book. I will give it a try and see whether he was really ahead of his time?!

In the lesbian relationship book by Balzac I read, we face something similar. I’ll not give you spoilers in case you’re interested in reading this book. It’s as great as the Maugham works. Anyway, if there is something that we could say Balzac was ahead of his time was his spirit that enabled him to publish a book about such theme, as of course lesbianism existed since the “earliest ancient” times and no author has the courage to publish anything concerning this theme, as far as I know. Hum… maybe Sade did, but I don’t know for sure. I don’t know his works. But I’d love too. Just curiosity lol

 

[The waveguide]

In fact we’ll see much difference between reading a work from an ancient author and an nowadays’ author writing about the ancient times. But differently from you, I can’t tell what I’d like the most. Ancient authors writing about their own time, like Balzac and Maugham may seem kind off interesting or even funny sometimes.

Well, I never read anything really "ancient". The most ancient for me was the greek legends and the Odyssey, but I do not have any problem with that sort of ancient literature. Those are sometimes more modern in their views on life than some contemporary works. (for example, Nabokov).

I have a problem with writers between 17th-19th centuries. Those have sometimes pervert points of view (for example, women not working outside their housekeeping, flirting around with nobelty) - for this reason I cant stand Jane Austin or "Little Women" by Alcott.

The only book that I read by Balzac was not that annoying, although even some aspects of his seem "funny" today.

There is a considerable period of time past after I read my lesbian Balzac book so I can’t tell exactly the very scene it happens. But as I’m reading “Of human bondage” by Maugham, as I said before, so my memory is fresher for this one.

Never heard of Maugham, but I will check that out.

Trully, I am presently more into SF. I am tired of human relationships and of bla-bla- who loves whom and whose hart is broken. If it is already bla-bla, than spaceships flying on hydrogen fuel sounds far more attractive, and speculations about humanity as a WHOLE and not at an INDIVIDUAL level sounds somehow more appealing.

But I guess it is just sort of a mood that comes and goes. I am still intrigued with Balzac's view of same-sex relationships (although I am sure he would not be as tolerable if it would be about MEN. I would not be surprised if it was his wettest dream ever - to be between two lesbians ) Straight men are all pervert.

 

[Zolipara]

I have a problem with writers between 17th-19th centuries. Those have sometimes pervert points of view (for example, women not working outside their housekeeping, flirting around with nobelty) - for this reason I cant stand Jane Austin or "Little Women" by Alcott.

I wonder how you would expect the women from that period of time to be portrayed?

 

[bookworm fellow]

The only one i have read so far is "Splendeurs et miseres des courtisanes".

Hey, I just bough it today. I'll start this reading as soon as I finish my underway reading.

 

[The waveguide]

I wonder how you would expect the women from that period of time to be portrayed?

Here are several example of non-pathetic, strong women (17-19 centuries!) portrayed by the contemporary writers (just a random sampling coming to my mind... I am sure that there are more!)

1. Jane Eyre (an 1847 novel by Charlotte Brontë) - an independent women, taking care of herself, working independently for her living.

2. Lady Macbeth (a character in Shakespeare's play Macbeth - around 1600) - a strong, independent woman. Very cruel, but she is good at what she is doing. Very charismatc one! Also the witches in the same play - very interesting, non-pathetic bunch of females. Very inspiring, I might add.

3. Milady from The Three Musketeers (Les Trois Mousquetaires) - a novel by Alexandre Dumas, père (around 1840). Very charismatic woman, very charming, strong, influential, wise, independent. The OPPOSITE of those pathetic women in Alcott or Jane Austin romans

I am sure that there are more. Those are just several examples jumping immediately to my mind.

And clearly if we dive deeper in time (some centuries earlier) and look into the greek mythology we see very modern-like female characters. All strong, all independent. I bet those greek ancient women would laugh cruelly on pitiful female figures presented in Alcott or Jane Austin romans (or others similar ones from the spoken time,)

Pity I do not remember well the female characters from Balzac. I have to re-read the book I read... I believe that I did not have so much trouble with women there. I remember the Inn-keeper - who if I am not mistaken was quite a character (in Father Guriot). But I need to refresh my memory on this one,

 

[silverseason]

And clearly if we dive deeper in time (some centuries earlier) and look into the greek mythology we see very modern-like female characters. All strong, all independent. I bet those greek ancient women would laugh cruelly on pitiful female figures presented in Alcott or Jane Austin romans (or others similar ones from the spoken time,)

About Alcott. The reason I and many others loved Little Women was the example of Jo March - intelligent, rebellious, able to resist marriage (for a while, at least), and an aspiring professional writer. There are four sisters in the book and Jo is clearly meant to be a contrast to the other, more conventional sisters.

 

[Zolipara]

Here are several example of non-pathetic, strong women (17-19 centuries!) portrayed by the contemporary writers (just a random sampling coming to my mind... I am sure that there are more!)

That was not really the question i was asking, but maybe i said it wrong. What do you think it was like for women in that period of time? Why does the women have to be strong and "modern"? There are tons of book filled with pathetic weak men, but I've never disliked a book for that reason.

 

[silverseason]

This thread is badly entangled. Someone doesn't like Austen, etc., because he/she believes the women are too passive and weak. I guess he/she prefers modern and strong. There are two come-backs for this:

1. This is an accurate portrayal of the situation of women at that time and if you don't like it, don't blame the author.

2. It is not always so. Authors then, as now, portrayed a variety of types of women including some who were strong and resourceful.

For me, reading is all about variety and entering into other worlds, past and present.

 

[bookworm fellow]

I don’t think it’s possible to enunciate kinds of women by epoch. I agree each century had it’s own conception of what a woman should be or how she should behave. This happens nowadays as well. The only observation that may matter is that whatever the epoch we take as example, there will be always women that are brave enough to act differently from the ordinary and traditional modes if this is the only way they found to be happy. And happiness is – or should be – the only thing that matters in life.

Balzac was not only a novelist. He did more. His tales are so real, I mean, he described so well and with so meticulous reality the Paris society of the XIX century that Friedrich Engels once wrote in a letter to Karl Max “I’ve learned more from Balzac about the French society of the first half of the century, including it’s economic details (for example, the royal and private land distribution after the Revolution) then in all historians, economists and statisticians’ books from that époque, all them together”. This information I took from a Balzac biography. So as you can see, it’s safe to build ideas of that time by the “Human Comedy” volumes. By reading Balzac I could realize that in the XIX century a woman was supposed not to work but to be polite and innocent, I mean, not public depraved. And this model of woman was also responsible for the “conjugal duties”, what consisted in the obligation to satisfy their husband’s sexual needs by any time. Well this was what that era’s women were supposed to be. But – and it’s still according to Balzac’s tales – many baronesses and also bourgeois women of that time betrayed and hiddenly picked other guys but not their husbands to perform orgies that a “lady was not supposed to do”. Men could do such things, privately, because… well, they were men. But not ladies! Those “perverted” wives represented a radical social and cultural change, I would say. Not that nowadays all girls do such thing, but what I’m trying to say is that that was a step to the equality between men and women: if men can do any particular thing, women can do the same. And if it’s a wrong/bad thing, the responsibility should be the same for both. Right? And the funny thing is that otherwise we would still think the same way as the XIX century people: we would still agree with the unacceptability that women did anything men could and did do.

In the 60’s we had those women who broke the 20th century’s ongoing tradition conception that women were supposed to stay in home taking care of children, cooking and cleaning the house wile their husbands went out to work and maybe date any other girl they found in a bar for example…; those housewives decided to go for their own money and consequently independence. So in the epoch after, mostly in the 80’s I’d say, women were supposed to make their own money. By that time the sexy woman was that rich and self confident one, who did not need men for (almost ) nothing. I don’t know much about this past XX century anyway, since Balzac was dead many decades before… But that is the summary of the time.

Nowadays we had a considerably larger number of women that are again changing the standard woman socially acceptable behavior – well, at least they are doing it in my city. I see many teen girls or balzaquianas (this is how independent/mature women are informally called by Balzac readers as a homenaje to this great author theme of this topic) giving up in hiding their sexuality and dating their girlfriends in public. Two years ago such scene would attract everyone’s attention, but that doesn’t happens anymore (the other’s staring )

 

[saliotthomas]

bonjours
Being french Balzac is often regarded as school material,and a great way to never read it again.I did eventualy and loved it ,my Favorite would be "le lys dans la vallée" a master piece of cynisme and country life.
But the most surprising in all is books is the modernity of his writing,by actualizing few details you could very well place his novels in our times;up to the economical and speculation situation;Maupassant and Stendahl are also very go

 

[bookworm fellow]

Hum... here is another one who likes Balzac . My main particular reason to enjoy balzacian literature is the the same as yours, saliotthomas.

But the most surprising in all is books is the modernity of his writing,by actualizing few details you could very well place his novels in our times;up to the economical and speculation situation;Maupassant and Stendahl are also very go

Yes, if Balzac did the achievement of daguerreotyping the Paris--and even a great part of the France--of his époque I can also recognise many characteristics of the nowadays societies whose are very similar with Balzac's. And there are many of such characteristics. But one that I think is the most immutable is the juridical issue.

Balzac says it's impossible to conquest what we call success simultaneously trough the professional competence and the political or social alliances. In other words, Balzac says the fastest way to get rich is by maintaining social alliances with the rich. Oh, by social I mean friendly or even sex-based relationships. That is a conclusion I reached not by reading Balzac biographies, but by my own experiences when reading two great works of him, whose are "The harlot high and low" and the "Father Goriot". I'm almost finishing this second one, so of course my memory is fresher to this "Father Goriot" quotes. There is a part of this book in which a personage named Mr. Rastignac, young law student who left his family in the countryside to go study in Paris, thinks of making a lot of money with his expected career, and after realising the study and the work would not be enough for his goal, asks a rich young woman to "teach" him how to get rich. By this time, Rastignac is no more hopeful concerning his studies, but now he is focused in those "friendly or even sex-based relationships" I talked above. So the young rich woman, aware that Rastignac could marry another rich woman (her sister, by the way) and inherit her fortune or something alike, answers him: "Well, then, M. de Rastignac, deal with the world as it deserves. You are determined to succeed? I will help you. You shall sound the depths of corruption in woman; you shall measure the extent of man's pitiful vanity. Deeply as I am versed in such learning, there were pages in the book of life that I had not read. Now I know all. The more cold-blooded your calculations, the further you will go. Strike ruthlessly; you will be feared. Men and women for you must be nothing more than post-horses; take a fresh relay, and leave the last to drop by the roadside; in this way you will reach the goal of your ambition. You will be nothing here, you see, unless a woman interests herself in you; and she must be young and wealthy, and a woman of the world. Yet, if you have a heart, lock it carefully away like a treasure; do not let any one suspect it, or you will be lost; you would cease to be the executioner, you would take the victim's place. And if ever you should love, never let your secret escape you! Trust no one until you are very sure of the heart to which you open your heart. Learn to mistrust every one; take every precaution for the sake of the love which does not exist as yet"

We cannot deny that something alike could easily happen in any nowadays society. Well, it happens in mine . Here is the reason Balzac was an almost unknown writer in his time, even thought he was brilliant: the public of that époque did not like such explicit realism. I think that people felt offended by this balzacian literature once it detailed what they knew about themselves but did not feel comfortable to talk about. That hypocrisy of love, I mean, to say "I love (someone)" wile they were actually thinking about other sort of self satisfaction. The "gold" Balzac cited so many times in his works... So this is what makes me like Balzac. I don't know any other writer of the present times that would dare to write like Balzac did. Actually, I'd say such writer probably exist and he or she might be writing any masterpiece in this very moment; but unfortunately he or she may not become famous due to the nature of his/her works and the intentions of the great presses, just like what happened to Balzac, who became really famous only after his death. He was brave, this Honoré guy. He wanted so much to get rich, and he thought he could do it by selling his books. And he though he would sell a lot of copies because... well... because they were brilliant literary pieces, and aren't they brilliant even today? But ironically this high quality made the "Human Comedy" fail as a way of providing money for Balzac; but was successful in an artistic and literary purpose.

Oh, and I said above that the main reason that makes me like so much Balzac books is the law issue. In deed, the law issue comes in this very line. In other page, still in this "Father Goriot" book, Balzac wrote "Rastignac determined to open two parallel trenches so as to insure success; he would be a learned doctor of law and a man of fashion. Clearly he was still a child! Those two lines are asymptotes, and will never meet."; and now we reach what Balzac thinks about the juridical system as a whole, when Valtrin (another balzacian personage) says to Rastignac: "In the first place, we have the Code to browse upon; it is not amusing, and we are none the wiser for it, but that cannot be helped. So far so good. We mean to make an advocate of ourselves with a prospect of one day being made President of a Court of Assize, when we shall send poor devils, our betters, to the galleys with a T.F. on their shoulders, so that the rich may be convinced that they can sleep in peace. There is no fun in that(...). This is the ghastliest form of torture known in this inferno of God's making, and you will give in to it. Or suppose that you are a good boy, drink nothing stronger than milk, and bemoan your hard lot; you, with your generous nature, will endure hardships that would drive a dog mad, and make a start, after long waiting, as deputy to some rascal or other in a hole of a place where the Government will fling you a thousand francs a year like the scraps that a e thrown to the butcher's dog. Bark at thieves, plead the cause of the rich, send men of heart to the guillotine, that is your work! Many thanks!"

Kafka was another one who said something similar in "The Trial", also a great book that I read a lot time ago. I loved it.

I'd like to make an observation: what I enjoy in this sort of literature is the realism line in which the actual world is described. I don't see it as a complete critique to the juridical system or even to the society as a whole, oh no! For me the relevance of such cultural literary works is to point the failures in our system, because it enables us to fix it. So it's not about cursing at our law or at our institutions, but a lot more than this: this literature consists in reporting problems so they can be solved. Now, if we want or will solve such problems, well... this is another matter.

 

[Promethean]

bonjours
my Favorite would be "le lys dans la vallée" a master piece of cynisme and country life.

You know I read that one and did not like it at all. My favorite one of his is Old Goriot. I read that one a few years ago. The last one of his I've read was The Rise and Fall of César Birotteau. It was okay, but not as good as Goriot.

 

[bookworm fellow]

"Father Goriot" or "Old Goriot" is great. I finished this reading yesterday.