O Pioneers! -- Dec. 10 --Part III and Part IV--Re: O Pioneers! -- Empathy [ Edited ]

[foxycat]

You can read one of many books on Cather, or do some research online. But Cather is also not given to verbosity, as you can see by the length of all her novels. You have to fill in some things yourself. There's also a very faithful TV movie version on DVD, with Jessica Lange, which I cited in another thread. It follows every word of the book.

---

kiakar wrote:
Thanks, Foxycat, now I understand why Cather does not put more emphesis on Alex's feelings for her family. Probably because of the SWedish traditions.

---

Message Edited by foxycat on 12-13-2007 09:33 PM

[foxycat]

PBS did an "American Masters" special on Cather which you can rent on DVD if you have a really good library. PBS also sells its DVD's online at:

http://www.shopthirteen.org/page/index
and
http://www.shoppbs.org/home/index.jsp

Here's part or maybe all of the script.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/cather_w.html

Here's an interview between the producer-director of that show, Joel Geyer, and literary scholar Richard Giannone, author of "Music of Willa Cather's Fiction."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/09/06/DI2005090601320.html

Message Edited by foxycat on 12-13-2007 09:50 PM

[kiakar]

---

foxycat wrote:
PBS did an "American Masters" special on Cather which you can rent on DVD if you have a really good library. PBS also sells its DVD's online at:

http://www.shopthirteen.org/page/index
and
http://www.shoppbs.org/home/index.jsp

Here's part or maybe all of the script.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/cather_w.html

Here's an interview between the producer-director of that show, Joel Geyer, and literary scholar Richard Giannone, author of "Music of Willa Cather's Fiction."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/09/06/DI2005090601320.html

Message Edited by foxycat on 12-13-2007 09:50 PM

---

Thanks for all the great information on Cather. Love it!

[Peppermill]

Lathan, Rochelle -- thanks for this conversation! To me, these passages are an example of Cather's ability to say so much with so few words! I've highlighted a couple of passages that seem to touch on the mixture of spirituality and physical toughness (imagination and reality?) that sustain.

---

Foxycat wrote: He's like a corn god. And he does excite her passion, judging by her need to pour cold water over herself. But she doesn't have those fantasies about Carl. It sounds like she's identifying with the earth, but she also may be longing for someone to lift her burdens off her shoulders, or to share them with someone.

---

Lathan wrote: On the subject of stoic Alexandra, I thought the close of Part III particularly revealing (and great writing):

"There was one fancy indeed, which persisted through her girlhood. It most often came to her on Sunday mornings, the one day in the week when she lay late abed listening to the familiar morning sounds; the windmill singing in the brisk breeze, Emil whistling as he blacked his boots down by the kitchen door. Sometimes, as she lay thus luxuriously idle, her eyes closed, she used to have an illusion of being lifted up bodily and carried lightly by some one very strong. It was a man, certainly, who carried her, but he was like no man she knew; he was much larger and stronger and swifter, and he carried her as easily as if she were a sheaf of wheat. She never saw him, but, with eyes closed, she could feel that he was yellow like the sunlight, and there was the smell of ripe corn-fields about him. She could feel him approach, bend over her and lift her, and then she could feel herself being carried swiftly off across the fields. After such a reverie she would rise hastily, angry with herself, and go down to the bath-house that was partitioned off the kitchen shed. There she would stand in a tin tub and prosecute her bath with vigor, finishing it by pouring buckets of cold well-water over her gleaming white body which no man on the Divide could have carried very far.

"As she grew older, this fancy more often came to her when she was tired than when she was fresh and strong. Sometimes, after she had been in the open all day, overseeing the branding of the cattle or the loading of the pigs, she would come in chilled, take a concoction of spices and warm home-made wine, and go to bed with her body actually aching with fatigue. Then, just before she went to sleep, she had the old sensation of being lifted and carried by a strong being who took from her all her bodily weariness."

---

[foxycat]

Was the last word of this, after "sustain," meant to be "her"?

---

Peppermill wrote:
Lathan, Rochelle -- thanks for this conversation! To me, these passages are an example of Cather's ability to say so much with so few words! I've highlighted a couple of passages that seem to touch on the mixture of spirituality and physical toughness (imagination and reality?) that sustain.

[Everyman]

I've been known to needle on rare occasions, but not here. I really do find Alex largely unaware of and unconcerned with the real needs and desires of the people around her. She is so committed to her own beliefs and moving forward with them that she has, for me, blinders on whenit comes to seeing other people.

---

foxycat wrote:
Pepper--I agree. Everyman--I think you're needling us. Or maybe you and the rest of us are not reading the same book. Someone here has a signature that states: "No two people ever read the same book."

She's not physically demonstrative, but I think that's part of Swedishness and having hard a difficult time for many years. By lack of empathy I mean she's not always aware of other people's emotions at a given moment, or her own. I think the murder really opens her up, as we see in the last part.

---

[Everyman]

Nice find. I find it particularly telling that she is angry with herself for having such thoughts and tries to wash them out of herself.

---

Lathan wrote:
On the subject of stoic Alexandra, I thought the close of Part III particularly revealing (and great writing):

"There was one fancy indeed, which persisted
through her girlhood. It most often came to
her on Sunday mornings, the one day in the
week when she lay late abed listening to the
familiar morning sounds; the windmill singing
in the brisk breeze, Emil whistling as he blacked
his boots down by the kitchen door. Some-
times, as she lay thus luxuriously idle, her eyes
closed, she used to have an illusion of being
lifted up bodily and carried lightly by some one
very strong. It was a man, certainly, who car-
ried her, but he was like no man she knew; he
was much larger and stronger and swifter, and
he carried her as easily as if she were a sheaf
of wheat. She never saw him, but, with eyes
closed, she could feel that he was yellow like the
sunlight, and there was the smell of ripe corn-
fields about him. She could feel him approach,
bend over her and lift her, and then she could
feel herself being carried swiftly off across the
fields. After such a reverie she would rise has-
tily, angry with herself, and go down to the
bath-house that was partitioned off the kitchen
shed. There she would stand in a tin tub and
prosecute her bath with vigor, finishing it by
pouring buckets of cold well-water over her
gleaming white body which no man on the
Divide could have carried very far.

As she grew older, this fancy more often
came to her when she was tired than when she
was fresh and strong. Sometimes, after she had
been in the open all day, overseeing the brand-
ing of the cattle or the loading of the pigs, she
would come in chilled, take a concoction of
spices and warm home-made wine, and go to bed
with her body actually aching with fatigue.
Then, just before she went to sleep, she had
the old sensation of being lifted and carried by
a strong being who took from her all her bodily
weariness."

---

[Peppermill]

Rochelle -- nice catch! I considered adding "Alex" to the end of that sentence and then, didn't. It seems to me that Cather's message here is more general than just for Alex -- "humans" might be as appropriate, but that seemed pompous -- so I ended without the object of the verb -- if that is the correct way of describing my grammatical shortcoming here!

---

foxycat wrote:
Was the last word of this, after "sustain," meant to be "her"?

---

Peppermill wrote:
Lathan, Rochelle -- thanks for this conversation! To me, these passages are an example of Cather's ability to say so much with so few words! I've highlighted a couple of passages that seem to touch on the mixture of spirituality and physical toughness (imagination and reality?) that sustain.

---

---

[foxycat]

"us"
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Pepper wrote--
Rochelle -- nice catch! I considered adding "Alex" to the end of that sentence and then, didn't. It seems to me that Cather's message here is more general than just for Alex -- "humans" might be as appropriate, but that seemed pompous -- so I ended without the object of the verb -- if that is the correct way of describing my grammatical shortcoming here!

Message Edited by foxycat on 12-14-2007 08:53 PM

[foxycat]

I agree with Everyman about the cold baths. Biographical research suggests that OP reveals a great deal about Cather's feelings on marriage. Despite Cather's ability to sympathize with Emil and Marie, like Dante and her own Ivar, she believed that adulterers can't go to heaven. Possibly as a result, she sees passionate love as dangerous. Cather's other writings support the idea that Alexandra represented her own opinions about happy marriage. Thus Alex is not only cooling down after her erotic fantasies, but feels it was a dangerous thought.


IF YOU HAVEN'T READ PART V, skip this:







Alex is happy to settle for a less-than-passionate marriage at the end.

[Peppermill]

---

foxycat wrote: Pepper, you said it might have been averted. At what point?

---

Rochelle -- I've been thinking about, not ignoring this question, believe it or not. As soon as you asked it, I realized I responded as much from an old case study that long has influenced my thinking on who/what causes what. In the case study, a large freight shipment went awry. There was an obvious culprit. But, the study went on to show all the other people and places where the problem could have been spotted and righted.

What ifs are always futile for the case before us, and Cather certainly does develop a sense of fate, destiny, inevitability in telling the tale of the White Mulberry Tree. Yet, do we really believe that shootings like Columbine or Virginia Tech or the mall in Nebraska are inevitable and not preventable? Admittedly, they may not be preventable in general, i.e., such tragedies do and will occur, and to think otherwise is naive. But, who is to know what similar tragedies have been prevented by what people have said and done or by the bonds and support of mores, laws, culture, friendship, family, community? And, it seems to me a question that an author like Cather poses is what is changeable, what is not?

So, where might the tragedy have been averted in the story? Perhaps the one that struck me first was Carl's failure to tell Alex of seeing Marie and Emil together hunting ducks so early one morning. But, Marie could have dared tell her concerns to Alex (who felt it was wiser not to encourage Marie to talk of her marriage -- but who almost most certainly would have listened if Marie had talked of Emil -- although Alex ignored the clues in Emil's letters, she still might have been alerted by Marie p. 115), or her priest (laugh if you like) or even Mrs. Lee or Mrs. Hiller or Angelique or Signa or Annie. Perhaps the lights might have come back on sooner at the fortune telling and a scandalized community would have reacted. Frank might have confronted Emil in some way, at some point; drunken, or at a church supper, or... Frank himself acknowledged that he needed to give up his grudge (p. 128). Carl or Oscar or Lou or Amedee could have confronted Emil. Annie or Signa or Ivar could have brought rumors to Alex. Emil might have encountered another gal to turn his head in school, in Mexico, among the French girls. Or, Emil might have had experiences that would have alerted him to the dangers that Marie and he risked. And I understand a response to any of these scenarios could be that it would have been "out of character" in some way or another. Or that any or all might not have been enough to change what happened.

All of which brings me back to ask whether Cather wanted us to see what humans cannot change, or what we can -- or to ponder which is which.

I do think Cather also conveys a certain nostalgia for the unchanging.

Message Edited by Peppermill on 12-16-2007 03:19 PM

[foxycat]

Pepper--

Interesting. I didn't realize there were so many people who could have brought Alex the news.
And no, it wouldn't have been out of character for any of them. You always read in more depth than I. You would be a good Reader-Mod.

[Peppermill]

Thx, Rochelle. You have a skill at cutting to the chase, so I have been finding it fun to "play" back and forth on reading/books with you! I also enjoy you background in English, even though I know you downplay its significance.

[Peppermill]

Random thoughts:

A pair of episodes that I noticed today in browsing OP were the duck scenes in Neighboring Fields, Chapter 5 -- Emil and Marie and Winter Memories, Chapter II -- Emil and Alex. To be simplistic, they seemed a compare and contrast of the two relationship pairs. (Also mentioned in The White Mulberry Tree, III, p139; V, p145)

The experiences of women(?):

"Old Mrs. Hiller told me once at the church supper that she could make seven kinds of fancy bread, but Marie could make a dozen." (p. 113)

"Marie and Alexandra went upstairs to look for some crochet patterns the old lady wanted to borrow." (p. 113)

"Mrs. Lee held up one of the apricot rolls..." (p. 113)

Mrs. Lee putting on her apron, also stopping to show the intricate cross-stitch to Mrs. Hiller. (pp. 110-111)

"While she and Alexandra patched and pieced and quilted, she talked incessantly.." -- communicating and keeping alive family lore. (p. 110)

"...you put rosemary leaves in your chest, like I told you." (p. 79)

"But the moment he began to bully her and to be unjust, she began to draw away; at first in tearful amazement, then in quiet, unspoken disgust." (p. 128)

Marie caring for her house plants -- and Frank noticing when they don't bloom. (pp. 111 -- isn't there a second passage I can't find again, where Marie walks up to the window and notices her plants?)

The contrast of Alexandra's dining room with the rest of her house (p. 58) (Neighboring Fields III), p. 49 (NF I).

Page numbers are from the Mariner Books edition, with foreword by Doris Grumbach.

[foxycat]

And your point is what? That Marie and Alex don't have the domestic skills of Mrs Lee and Mrs Heller? That's true, because Alex has been running a "business" and Marie never was very domestic, and knows it. Alex never gets deeply into the common experience of other women. Now that she's wealthy, she'd rather have someone cook and sew for her. I like that! She's really very modern. But she also has that emotional detachment from Marie that we spoke of before.

Message Edited by foxycat on 12-16-2007 07:50 PM

[foxycat]

Obviously we're reading thwe same book, but I miss the significance of many things. I did catch A's and M's lack of domesticity, but missed other things. Never mind the English Major; I graduated in 1967. And BN is the first place I've discussed books seriously in many years, possibly 30-40.

I'm using a cheap Dover edition (I can hear BN screaming "A cheap text!! Not our edition!!) but I'm searching text on a downloaded etext ("What? she's also using a FREE text?" Off with her head!) Is this what you mean about the dining room:

Alexandra had put herself into the hands of the Hanover furniture dealer, and he had conscientiously done his best to make her dining-room look like his display window. She said frankly that she knew nothing about such things, and she was willing to be governed by the general conviction that the more useless and utterly unusable objects were, the greater their virtue as ornament. That seemed reasonable enough. Since she liked plain things herself, it was all the more necessary to have jars and punchbowls and candlesticks in the company rooms for people who did appreciate them. Her guests liked to see about them these reassuring emblems of prosperity.

I love it!! It's so true! But it's also funny that she thought it was "reasonable enough." Did you also notice that 2 paragraphs down, Cather switches to the present tense, then back to the past tense. Hmm?

[foxycat]

I hope Lathan, Leftbrainer and AJ are still with us.

[Peppermill]

---

foxycat wrote:
And your point is what? That Marie and Alex don't have the domestic skills of Mrs Lee and Mrs Heller? That's true, because Alex has been running a "business" and Marie never was very domestic, and knows it. Alex never gets deeply into the common experience of other women. Now that she's wealthy, she'd rather have someone cook and sew for her. I like that! She's really very modern. But she also has that emotional detachment from Marie that we spoke of before.

---

On of the things that surprised me was to realize how domestic Alex and Marie are -- besides managing, Alex herself is frequently noted as doing sewing, patching, and needlework of various sorts. But, my sense is that, too, is "modern" for many women -- to combine traditional and new responsibilities.

My overall "point" -- if I had any -- derived from one made on another board: the importance of capturing "women's" experiences.

Also, it seemed to me as if, as spare as Cather's writing is, she deftly picks up little details and links(?) them -- like the apricot -- the kids at the circus using the little money they have to buy them, the pits grow in the orchard where the kids dropped them, the very domestic rolls, the unusualness of such a tree in a Nebraska orchard (at least I think so, without researching where apricots are grown). Almost a cycle of life in an obscure fruit -- and now I may be stretching.

(Side question: what novel captures well the attitudes of male laborers towards their male bosses and vice versa -- either 19th century or later?)

Message Edited by Peppermill on 12-16-2007 09:03 PM

[kiakar]

---

Peppermill wrote:
Random thoughts:

A pair of episodes that I noticed today in browsing OP were the duck scenes in Neighboring Fields, Chapter 5 -- Emil and Marie and Winter Memories, Chapter II -- Emil and Alex. To be simplistic, they seemed a compare and contrast of the two relationship pairs. (Also mentioned in The White Mulberry Tree, III, p139; V, p145)

The experiences of women(?):

"Old Mrs. Hiller told me once at the church supper that she could make seven kinds of fancy bread, but Marie could make a dozen." (p. 113)

"Marie and Alexandra went upstairs to look for some crochet patterns the old lady wanted to borrow." (p. 113)

"Mrs. Lee held up one of the apricot rolls..." (p. 113)

Mrs. Lee putting on her apron, also stopping to show the intricate cross-stitch to Mrs. Hiller. (pp. 110-111)

"While she and Alexandra patched and pieced and quilted, she talked incessantly.." -- communicating and keeping alive family lore. (p. 110)

"...you put rosemary leaves in your chest, like I told you." (p. 79)

"But the moment he began to bully her and to be unjust, she began to draw away; at first in tearful amazement, then in quiet, unspoken disgust." (p. 128)

Marie caring for her house plants -- and Frank noticing when they don't bloom. (pp. 111 -- isn't there a second passage I can't find again, where Marie walks up to the window and notices her plants?)

The contrast of Alexandra's dining room with the rest of her house (p. 58) (Neighboring Fields III), p. 49 (NF I).

Page numbers are from the Mariner Books edition, with foreword by Doris Grumbach.

---

I like your random thoughts, of Emil and Marie. And Emil and Alex. Life will never really change. So many people knew about Emil and Marie spending too much time together but I would think they figured it would come off as meddling in someone else's affairs. But I think Alex would have been able to comprehend what was going on with she had been made aware of it. But then, didn't she ever see something that was alittle off course for friends. Too much friendship can lead to dangerous waters which so happened. And with the Va. Tech shooting, didn't anyone see it coming. Even if they saw the guy acting strange or doing something strange, can anyone imagine that happening! I think that is why life never really changes. We are all the same from generation or another. We question ourselves after a disaster but does it really mean we could have stopped it.

[Everyman]

WARNING -- SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T READ BOOK V

Thanks for highlighting that passage. I think it does say something very important about Alex -- or perhaps several things. The obvious, that she wasn't domestic (I wonder how good a wife she will really make Carl.) And that she cares intensely enough about the opinions of others that she will spend money on frivolous things (which can't be easy for her given her upbringing) not for her own pleasure but so that other people will think better of her. And what does this say about, in our modern parlance, her self-esteem? Through the middle of the book she seems to be well endowed with self-esteem; she seems to know what she wants and she isn't hesitant about going and getting it. But perhaps she is just able to conceal a lack of self-esteem. This lack seems to show up in several places. The passage you cited is one. Another is her unwillingness to be upfront with Carl, to tell him that she wants to marry him and doesn't care whether the neighbors think he's just a gold-digger.

As the book progresses, she seems to me to reveal an increasing level of emotional insecurity.

---

foxycat wrote:
Obviously we're reading thwe same book, but I miss the significance of many things. I did catch A's and M's lack of domesticity, but missed other things. Never mind the English Major; I graduated in 1967. And BN is the first place I've discussed books seriously in many years, possibly 30-40.

I'm using a cheap Dover edition (I can hear BN screaming "A cheap text!! Not our edition!!) but I'm searching text on a downloaded etext ("What? she's also using a FREE text?" Off with her head!) Is this what you mean about the dining room:

Alexandra had put herself into the hands of the Hanover furniture dealer, and he had conscientiously done his best to make her dining-room look like his display window. She said frankly that she knew nothing about such things, and she was willing to be governed by the general conviction that the more useless and utterly unusable objects were, the greater their virtue as ornament. That seemed reasonable enough. Since she liked plain things herself, it was all the more necessary to have jars and punchbowls and candlesticks in the company rooms for people who did appreciate them. Her guests liked to see about them these reassuring emblems of prosperity.

I love it!! It's so true! But it's also funny that she thought it was "reasonable enough." Did you also notice that 2 paragraphs down, Cather switches to the present tense, then back to the past tense. Hmm?

---