Halfway through The Painted Veil

A blog that is never updated - isn’t that a silly idea? Who ever would think of such a thing? Though I am hesitant to say it for fear that it will curse me, I am going to try to update more often (but who’s reading this anyway, right? Am I right?). Many updates will likely concern books I am reading or have read, and wouldn’t you know it!, I am about to be concerned about a book.

I’m part way through W. Somerset Maugham’s The Painted Veil. Now a digression: from what I understand, Of Human Bondage is his “big one” (or at least it’s the one that appears on book lists and the one they always have ten copies of at the used book store when all I’m looking for is The Painted Veil). Generally when trying out a new author, I like to read their “big one” because more than likely it truly is their best book - I’m about to read Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy and I think this will be true here, based on the opinions of others. If I find I like the book, then I see what else the author has to offer. Judging from my reading history, it’s very rare that, by choice, I will set my sights on an author’s lesser, or at least lesser known, works. I was interested in reading The Painted Veil solely because of the 2006 movie version I saw before I knew it was a book.

I’d like to talk about the book mainly, but a short word about the movie is in order: great. Only five letters long, fairly short I would say. Now that my comedian act is over… I really enjoyed the movie. The Painted Veil, for me, was one of those films wherein all aspects add up to a single, beautiful sum. It stars Naomi Watts as the female lead, with Edward Norton opposite and Liev Schreiber supporting. Watts has to be in my top five for actresses, and Norton is certainly up there among living actors, and both deliver captivating performances. Visually, the film is stunning - it is a well done period piece, the costumes and the setting are perfect. Alexandre Desplat composed a beautiful score and the “River Waltz” is one of my favourite pieces of modern movie music. If my brief, vague recap of the movie’s better qualities failed to convince you, perhaps the fact that I hunted this book down for a year because the film was so good will.

A brief summary of what I’ve read thus far, about half the book - SPOILER ALERT!

Kitty is a shallow Englishwoman who, due to vanity, missed her chance to marry in her prime, and in order to stay ahead of her younger, more beautiful sister, marries Walter Fane. This marriage is one of convenience - she will be supported by a doting and loving, if somewhat shy and reserved, bacteriologist husband for whom she cares little. They move to China where Walter is on assignment, and Kitty promptly begins an affair with the colonial hotshot Charlie Townsend, an equally shallow yet popular and successful government agent. Walter finds out about the affair and issues an ultimatum - he will divorce Kitty and leave her be… provided that she can persuade Charlie to leave his wife for her and marry her within a week. If not, Kitty must move to the interior of the country afflicted with a cholera epidemic where Walter plans to provide aid. Confident that her love is really love, she accepts, only to find out that to Charlie, she was merely recreation. Devastated, she follows Walter into cholera territory, certain she will die…

I’m only part way through the book right now, so there is only so much I can say. First impressions, however, are favourable. The first sixty pages or so read very much like a cheap pulp novel full of scandal and adulterous intrigue rather than a great work of literature, but I make this point not in derision but in praise - the book is fun! Full of “I know you’re having an affair, I have all the proof I need” and “Well I NEVER LOVED YOU ANYWAY”. In fact, I once found a cheap pulp copy of the novel, though I never bought it because of its extremely poor condition. Luckily, I was able to fine a scan of the cover. All good fun! Cheap and pulpy and delicious, like discount Tropicana.

She started up in terror. Someone had tried the door.

Hilarious. 

Please - judge a book by its cover. The book reads exactly how you would think, for the first bit at least.

The structuring of the novel really struck me because this scandalous mode isn’t merely entertaining, it is integral to the plot. The novel opens with the scene of Kitty’s adultery, and so the focus of the reader is on this very betrayal. The story’s development is then paused while Maugham takes the reader briefly into Kitty’s past and explains the context of her affair. Here, the author reveals Kitty’s shallow nature and removes any sympathy the reader might have for her. Then, in a perfect Dantean contrepasso, Kitty must suffer her ironically suiting punishment for her crime (fitting, as Maugham claims an episode from Dante’s Purgatorio as his inspiration for the book). Escaping her loveless marriage in vain adultery and refusing to acknowledge the man her husband is, she is now removed to the Chinese countryside where her freedom is limited. Rather than liberally engaging in an extramarital affair, Kitty is forced to acknowledge her husband and her marital commitment to him, forced to recognize Walter’s true quality.

More irony aids in Kitty’s development from shallow housewife. Once out in the country, Kitty meets Waddington, the overseer of the territory. Waddington is a long time acquaintance of Kitty’s ex-lover Charlie Townsend, and though he is quick to list off Charlie’s positive attributes, they are few and unredeeming in light of his oafish, shallow nature. Kitty, listening to her new friend in Waddington, recognizes that Charlie is a lout, and that she is similarly loutish for having fallen for him. Waddington, unaware of Kitty’s connection to Charlie, is also unaware of how much his words affect young Kitty; however, though she recognizes the error of her ways, she still dreams of Charlie. She is still very much the shallow English housewife she was at the beginning of the novel, but she has begun to move in a new direction in her life. Her revelation is not an immediate drawing back of the curtain of her vanity, but a process consisting of many steps.

Well, that’s about all I’ve got to say for now - I’m excited to finish the book! Stay tuned…

Art with a Social Agenda - Boyz N the Hood

Anytime the purpose or point of art is discussed, it is inevitable that there will be mention of a possible social or didactic purpose of art. Sadly, it also seems inevitable that these claims are ridiculed and cast off in favor of a more ambiguous aim or a more intellectually satisfying view that art should exist solely for art's sake. I've never been one to come down firmly on one side of any issue and I'm rarely satisfied with any single answer when the question is challenging and unquantifiable; this issue is no exception for me. I've always loved art, but I cannot give myself over to an answer that states art exists solely for pleasure, nor can I believe that art is the sole purpose of art. What's more, I will not believe that art can be reduced to a mere educational tool or an agent of social change. Truly, art is multifarious in its abilities, purposes, and aims (of course, if it can be said to have any).  While the idea of art as an agent of social change might seemingly be inapplicable in some cases...

a nude by Francois Boucher

This nude challenges existing social paradigms

and presents our culture from a new perspective.

(No, that is not correct.)

... in others it's not so ridiculous an idea.

a policeman by renowned graffiti artist Banksy

This policeman challenges existing social paradigms

and presents our culture from a new perspective.

(Not so funny here, huh?)

I'm writing all of this because 20 minutes ago I saw, for the first time, director John Singleton's Boyz N the Hood. You might expect any movie that opens with statistics about violence and murder rates to be unbearably affected, overly moralizing, lacking subtlety, and generally like what might be any other work of art with an obvious social agenda. Absolutely not the case here. The film was engaging, entertaining, and enlightening. The moral of the movie was visibly present throughout, but at no point did it ever seem like there was a giant billboard preaching "BLACK ON BLACK VIOLENCE IS BAD; LOOK AT THIS SITUATION - IT HAS TO BE CHANGED", even in the scene with the Laurence Fishburne's lecture in front of the billboard. It is a real testament to the artistry of the writer and director, Mr. Singleton, and to the craft of the actors that the moral is conveyed so effectively. It is also a testament to the ability of art to have a social agenda. I think that the key point here is that moralizing art, art with a social purpose, must be done artfully. I know exactly how ambiguous that sounds and how useless it is to say, but unfortunately, that is often symptomatic of any discussion of art. I suppose what I'm trying to say that if moralizing art isn't done artfully, than it isn't art - it is tedious and banal and any hope of edification goes out the window. Boyz N the Hood was powerful as a film and I bawled my eyes out at the critical moment. The films point was made clearly, and  Singleton was able to produce an effective work of art that is perfect evidence for the argument for art having, at least in some respects, a socially beneficial purpose.