tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post3920376231434695140..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: The Age of InnocenceD. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-66178066315616538422010-05-25T20:04:01.617-04:002010-05-25T20:04:01.617-04:00Very smart, as usual. I like the implied equivalen...Very smart, as usual. I like the implied equivalency of James and Wharton as creative artists, but the implied demotion of James the thinker to a position slightly inferior gives me pause: the novels themselves have for me another dynamic. Henrietta Stackpole might speak the philosophy a knowledgeable reader could tie to James the man, but doesn't that philosophy live in serious tension with the impact of the end of the novel James the artist imagines, a choice of self-immolation that speaks against its own motive (and the "Jamesian" philosophy)?<br />Similarly, the choice Newland Archer makes at the end--to preserve the "vision" of Ellen Olenska by refusing to meet the woman herself--might be in line with Wharton the woman's repugnance with animal passions, but one shouldn't forget that she also imagines Archer's attempt in New York to lure Ellen to a hotel room and an adulterous relationship that would link them in an exile defined by social mores equally repugnant. Every time Newland attempts to act to resolve the triangle, both before and after the marriage, May anticipates him, in this last case by a lie. Don't the novels themselves derive most of their energy in the space between the thinker and the artist?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00272814561925666159noreply@blogger.com