MobileRead Book Club December 2017 Discussion: Sylvie and Bruno by Lewis Carroll (spoilers)

[WT Sharpe]

These two books appear to be part genius, part muddleheaded meandering, and part cranky old man complaining about all that's wrong with the world. And what's up with his unsuccessful attempt to convince English writers to add an extra apostrophe to contractions such as "can't"? My mind sees "ca'n't" and wants to divide it into two syllables. What really is the point of shortening a word if you don't really shorten it but simply replace each and every missing letter by a symbol?

[gmw]

Ah-ha! The "cranky old man" thing even explains his problem with clergymen having the occasional giggle: having rejected becoming a priest himself, but coming so close to it, I can just imagine he might - in his later years - have turned all the more judgemental of those that did.

And yes, "ca'n't" makes me see two syllables too.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by gmw

I definitely agree with the "last minute" feel to the resolution of the Outland story. I was getting the feeling even in the first half that Carroll was leaving the Outland farce behind because he couldn't meld that properly into the serious side that was developing. The tacked on conclusion seems to confirm that.

And Uggug. He struck me as the least culpable of the "villains", so why pick him to get the short end of the stick? It makes no sense - to my morality, nor to Carroll's I would have thought (especially given one of the lectures Arthur gave) - to forgive those that should have known better, but to reject the one that never really had a chance.

The second book was a tremendous letdown. Even with its flaws, I thought the first book had so much potential, teasing storylines left often, throw-away concepts, that I was looking forward to how Carroll would resolve them. Instead, it seemed as if he abandoned all the promising, inventive, ground-breaking aspects to focus on the dreary and done-that.

I suspected things were going to go badly when I read the introduction to the second book, where not only did Carroll explain the dream mechanism for moving between worlds, he identified in exhaustive detail each time it happened. This was unnecessary, insulting to the reader, and showed a lack of faith in his own story-telling ability. One of the fun parts of the first book was figuring it out and seeing how it worked.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Uggug reminds me of Dudley Dursley.

I had that thought, too. And as with Carroll's making Uggug the butt, it wasn't very nice of Rowling (who prides herself on her sensitivity) to fat-shame a character, especially a child. I'm quite sure this point has been made. A pig-tail, really? That's lovely. Were there any fat kids at Hogwarts other than Crabbe? Were there any good fat kids?

Rowling is someone else who feels compelled to explain what she really meant, too.

[gmw]

The more I think about it, the more I think that the real villain of the (Outlander) piece was the Warden (soon to be king of Elfland, and Sylvie and Bruno's father). He demonstrated early that he knew what was going on, but he knowingly left the people he was responsible for, and even his own children, in the hands of the Vice Warden and his wife. Why? Because he got a better job offer! I wonder if the Elfanders know what they're getting for a king.

[JSWolf]

I think the real villain of the book is Lewis Carroll and we (the readers) are the victims.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by gmw

The more I think about it, the more I think that the real villain of the (Outlander) piece was the Warden (soon to be king of Elfland, and Sylvie and Bruno's father). He demonstrated early that he knew what was going on, but he knowingly left the people he was responsible for, and even his own children, in the hands of the Vice Warden and his wife. Why? Because he got a better job offer! I wonder if the Elfanders know what they're getting for a king.

That's my assessment, also. When the vice warden's wife planned the picnic for Sylvie and Bruno to get them out of the way, it evoked to me the plans for Hansel and Gretel and for Snow White, when they were taken off the woods and weren't expected to return. I was surprised that nothing more nefarious was part of the plot, but it would have been harder to give the Warden a free pass had something in fact been planned.

[Bookpossum]

I love this! I think we are getting more fun out of a bad book than we would have done with a good one.

And I do like Tom's "cranky old man" theory too. Mind you, he was 57 when Part 1 was published and 61 when the conclusion was published, but died at 65 in 1898, so he was certainly getting to the end of his life.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

My mind sees "ca'n't" and wants to divide it into two syllables. What really is the point of shortening a word if you don't really shorten it but simply replace each and every missing letter by a symbol?

Most unfortunately, the narrator of the version I started to listen to did pronounce the contractions with an extra syllable. I couldn't stand it and had to abandon it. What was he thinking?

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

I love this! I think we are getting more fun out of a bad book than we would have done with a good one.

This reminds me, obviously tangentially, of Hollywood's penchant for remaking classic films. It has been suggested it would be much more productive if they picked interesting failures and tried to address what went wrong. Sylvie and Bruno has that quality of being an interesting failure. The discussion has certainly more than redeemed the occasional tedium of reading the book for me.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

I love this! I think we are getting more fun out of a bad book than we would have done with a good one.[...]

I often find I have more to say about problem books. When the author leaves me with too much time on my hands I start to get picky and notice things that I might have overlooked in a better book.

Originally Posted by issybird

Most unfortunately, the narrator of the version I started to listen to did pronounce the contractions with an extra syllable. I couldn't stand it and had to abandon it. What was he thinking?[...]

Did he narrate the preface? If not, maybe he skipped reading it too. If you never read the explanation it would be easy to think that a distorted pronunciation was the intention. (A little bit of Bruno in all of them ... shudder.)

[fantasyfan]

I share many of the reservations others have expressed about this novel. I particularly dislike the “little boy language” Carroll seems to find necessary for Bruno.

It is worth pointing out that there is an opinion that Sylvie and Bruno is an astonishing masterpiece far ahead of its time. While clearly one doesn’t have to accept this position it is worth reading an apologia for the book. Here is one such:

http://popculturephilosopher.com/sylvie-and-bruno/

[JSWolf]

This reads like it's written by someone heavily on mind altering drugs.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by fantasyfan

I share many of the reservations others have expressed about this novel. I particularly dislike the “little boy language” Carroll seems to find necessary for Bruno.

Everyone seems to detest Bruno's twee language; somewhere Carroll commented on how charming he finds Bruno, but I wasn't able to track it down. That makes one.

It is worth pointing out that there is an opinion that Sylvie and Bruno is an astonishing masterpiece far ahead of its time. While clearly one doesn’t have to accept this position it is worth reading an apologia for the book. Here is one such:

http://popculturephilosopher.com/sylvie-and-bruno/

Thanks for the link, fantasyfan! This is what's so frustrating to me about this book; certainly there are the elements of greatness in it, but the execution is abominable.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by fantasyfan

[..] It is worth pointing out that there is an opinion that Sylvie and Bruno is an astonishing masterpiece far ahead of its time. While clearly one doesn’t have to accept this position it is worth reading an apologia for the book. Here is one such:

http://popculturephilosopher.com/sylvie-and-bruno/

Thanks for the link, fantasyfan. It is interesting to see comments from someone that reacted favourably to the book.

I am wary of a phrase like "ahead of its time", but there are elements of Sylvie and Bruno that do seem that way to me - though I don't think the author of that article means the same thing I do. My examples would include things like the disapproval of hunting sports, which would - I expect - have been unusual for the time but would find much wider support now.

The article also brings out the overused phrase "obeys its own logic and rules". For this to be true it is necessary to demonstrate that there is a logic or set of rules, and then to demonstrate that the book obeys them. That article, just like me, fails to find any examples. (The proposed examples in the article are all examples of inconsistency, which demonstrates neither rules nor their compliance.)

The article suggests there are poems in Sylvie and Bruno to rival the more famous examples from the Alice books. I don't see that. I think this is one area where Carroll failed in his stated objective to be different to Alice, and that similarity in an unfamiliar context (a context that, for me, doesn't suit the style as well) makes them yet another aspect of Sylvie and Bruno that is disappointing.

[JSWolf]

If this is "ahead of its time", its time has not yet come.

[fantasyfan]

Originally Posted by gmw

Thanks for the link, fantasyfan. It is interesting to see comments from someone that reacted favourably to the book.

I am wary of a phrase like "ahead of its time", but there are elements of Sylvie and Bruno that do seem that way to me - though I don't think the author of that article means the same thing I do. My examples would include things like the disapproval of hunting sports, which would - I expect - have been unusual for the time but would find much wider support now.

The article also brings out the overused phrase "obeys its own logic and rules". For this to be true it is necessary to demonstrate that there is a logic or set of rules, and then to demonstrate that the book obeys them. That article, just like me, fails to find any examples. (The proposed examples in the article are all examples of inconsistency, which demonstrates neither rules nor their compliance.)

The article suggests there are poems in Sylvie and Bruno to rival the more famous examples from the Alice books. I don't see that. I think this is one area where Carroll failed in his stated objective to be different to Alice, and that similarity in an unfamiliar context (a context that, for me, doesn't suit the style as well) makes them yet another aspect of Sylvie and Bruno that is disappointing.

You make some excellent points. However, I think that the one character who is on a level with the creations in the “Alice”books is the Gardiner who has a mad frenzy reminiscent of the Mad tea party. His “song” ihas that same quality of unexpected nonsense thar we encounter in the verses in the earlier books. The Gardiner scenes are among the few moments where Carroll supplants Dodgson.