A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood

[Nikki]

Question:  The rest of the book so far as been from the point of view of George or "it."  This little section seems to be from Mrs. Strunk's POV.  Do other readers here agree that those are really Mrs. Strunk's thoughts, or do you feel that this is just what George, from his own POV, imagines Mrs. Strunk to be thinking of him?

Frankily, I thought of Strunk's thoughts as those of the omniscient narrator like the section beginning with "The Change began..." The new families of WWII vets moving in, etc..  These are things that George wouldn't have known about that's why I believe in the ON.  I can see why your question is relevant, though, and it will be interestihg to see what others think.

[CellarDweller115]

1.)  The opening of this book is quite unusual and breathtaking - the description of a person coming to consciousness, moving from 'it' to 'he', reflecting on mortality and finally identifying itself as 'George.'  What is your opinion of the opening of the novel?  Is it unique or does it remind you of other books or authors?  How did the passage affect you - does it draw you in or put you off?  Please share your thoughts on this interesting passage.

The opening is stunning and, for me, necessitated a couple of re-readings before I was able to internalize my own feelings about George.   George is dehumanized by the "cold reminder" that Jim is dead and he fines himself defined by his grief into an "it."  The "harassed stare" he sees in his mirror along with the changes in his physical state practically paralyze George.  Only after he takes care of his bodily functions and prepares for the day is he able to face the reality of the man who is George.

I felt drawn in by how George was distraught by grief to the point of losing his  human identity-- his "Georgeness" if you will -- and, to me, this opening was a powerful insight into George's feelings for his dead lover. The opening was unique in the sense that it was one of the most powerful depictions of grief that I've read in a long time.

I had a similar experience.  There are so many different ways (tv shows, movies, music) that we're told "love is everything" and I've often heard that the only difference between us and animals or (and for sci-fi enthusiasts)  between humans and artificial intelligence is the ability to have and express emotion.  By referring to George as "it" rather than by his name, George loses his capacity for emotions.  He has lost his lover, and with it, his ability to express love, which makes him "less than" human.  This causes him to not experience life, but rather go through the motions of living life.

[dejavu]

I'm new here, so I don't know the etiquette. To quote the questions or not? Anyway I'd like to say something about the first 4 questions, because to tackle all of them together is too much for me.

Hi, Antonella!  Welcome!

Yes, I think it's best to quote the questions, either individually or in groups, so that we can refer to them when reading your answers.  I enjoyed hearing your thoughts, and hope to hear more from you throughout the week.

[CellarDweller115]

2.)  From the second paragraph of the book with the certainty 'it will come' to the notion of fear of being rushed to the awareness of Jim's death we are immersed in questions of mortality from the very outset of this book.  What do you think of Isherwood's addressing this topic so early in the book?  Is it heavy handed or morose - or do you feel that he is skillful enough as an author to make even fears that we would normally approach fiction to escape interesting?  Did the early introduction of issues of mortality put you off or did you find it compelling (or did it have another effect on you entirely)?

I wasn't put off by the introduction of mortality so soon.  The title of the story is "A Single Man", so one can assume that it regarding a man who is now living alone.  This can be by choice, and a happy thing, or by circumstance, and unhappy.  If it is the second option (as is the case with this book) it is a very heavy subject to deal with, and it will affect the entire storyline in some way.  Because of that, this subject would have to be dealt with very quickly.

If it hadn't been introduced so quickly, I think readers would've spent time wondering why George was acting in such a way, what had happened to him to cause this reaction.  With the way it's been done here, it allows the readers to know the blow that life has dealt George, and read and watch what it is that he must do to deal with this.

[dejavu]

Frankily, I thought of Strunk's thoughts as those of the omniscient narrator like the section beginning with "The Change began..." The new families of WWII vets moving in, etc..  These are things that George wouldn't have known about that's why I believe in the ON.  I can see why your question is relevant, though, and it will be interestihg to see what others think.

I went back and reread the section beginning with "The Change began..." (midway down page 18).  It's true that George didn't witness these events, but as he sits there on the toilet, looking out the window, he is reflecting on the neighborhood.  It's possible he may have learned the history of his neighborhood just by living there, so I originally thought he might be relating that history from his POV.  (Just as I might talk about changes in my parents' neighborhood, before I was born.)  But I see your point.  I think the "Change" passage could be interpreted either way.

However, although George might have learned the history of his new neighborhood by living there for years, I don't see how he would be able to know Mrs. Strunk's thoughts at that particular except by guessing.  Maybe he guesses based on previous conversations with her, and these are his thoughts about how she perceives him.  Or it could be an omniscient narrator.  But I was struck by the sudden insertion of "she hopes" and "she thinks" into this book which is mostly about George's thoughts.  They seemed a bit out of place. 

[CellarDweller115]

3.)  George and Jim fell in love with the house George now lives in the first time they saw it.  They loved it because you could only get to it by the bridge across the creek.  George refers to it as 'our own little island.'  Do you think that George and Jim were attempting to isolate themselves here?  If so who or what are they trying to isolate themselves from?  Does this relate to their being a different couple in the neighborhood?  Do you think the house still fits George or has it become something different without Jim - perhaps a prison?

I think that perhaps the house was George and Jim's own private "Eden" in a manner of speaking.  I got from the story that they enjoyed their privacy, and in that time, two men living together would've been fodder for gossip.  I'm sure the fact that they were isolated was something they intended on happening.

After Jim's death, the house did become a prison.  People imprison themselves in their houses now, held there by internet, TV, Wii, and other posessions.  George became a prisoner to his memories, and the ghost of Jim.  Just the fact that he would think of Jim at the stairs or in different locations of the house was an indication of how chained he was.  In a way, life with Jim was still a daily fixture, even though Jim is not there.

It actually reminded me of a music video (cornball alert!  Apologies) of "It's All Coming Back To Me Now" by Celine Dion.  At the very begining, Celine's boyfriend/husband is killed in an accident, and she spends the rest of the video being haunted by him and her memories of him.  I'm not trying to link the brilliant writing of Isherwood to the over-dramatics of Celine Dion, but the way George was seeing memories of Jim about the house reminded me of the video.

If you are interested, here is a link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDxoj-tDDIU

[dejavu]

I wasn't put off by the introduction of mortality so soon.  The title of the story is "A Single Man", so one can assume that it regarding a man who is now living alone.  This can be by choice, and a happy thing, or by circumstance, and unhappy.  If it is the second option (as is the case with this book) it is a very heavy subject to deal with, and it will affect the entire storyline in some way.  Because of that, this subject would have to be dealt with very quickly.

If it hadn't been introduced so quickly, I think readers would've spent time wondering why George was acting in such a way, what had happened to him to cause this reaction.  With the way it's been done here, it allows the readers to know the blow that life has dealt George, and read and watch what it is that he must do to deal with this.

Very well put, Chuck.

[Nikki]

5.)  The book refers to several gender related attitudes in this first section: 'Mrs. Strunk's hour and the power of motherhood'; 'the masculine hour of ball playing'; 'the doctor's pretty sissy son'; 'The Girls--as Mrs. Strunk and the rest will continue to call themselves' - do these descriptions act to further isolate and alienate George from his neighbors?  Do you think that these gender descriptions are meant to allow us to identify with George and take his part against the neighbors? How do the attitudes concerning homosexuality relate to these gender notions?

Some of these gender related attitudes: Mrs. Strunk's hour and power of motherhood, the masculine hour of ball playing, the men's hour are more of a depiction of domestic family life post WWII where the roles of mothers, fathers and children were fairly well defined rather like "Father Knows Best" and "Ozzie and Harriet." The division between the "girls" and their husbands during the weekend gatherings define male and female roles, and which George and Jim were apparently never part of. Now it would have  been too late for George to fit in which further isolates and alienates him from his neighbors. I don't think we're expected to identify with George, but it does give the reader a sense of the pervading social atmosphere that existed after  the war when families settled into suburbia and formed their own little tribes.

There is a hint of homophobia in the description of "the doctor's pretty sissy son," and George's thoughts about Mr. Strunk trying to nail George down with the word "queer."   Although Mrs. Strunk may be part of the new tolerance, George has never confided about Jim's death and obviously doesn't trust any of his neighbors with this confidence.

[Nikki]

 By referring to George as "it" rather than by his name, George loses his capacity for emotions.  He has lost his lover, and with it, his ability to express love, which makes him "less than" human.  This causes him to not experience life, but rather go through the motions of living life.

Right, Chuck.  George is, in effect, crippled by his loss and incapacitated by his grief.

[Nikki]

I went back and reread the section beginning with "The Change began..." (midway down page 18).  It's true that George didn't witness these events, but as he sits there on the toilet, looking out the window, he is reflecting on the neighborhood.  It's possible he may have learned the history of his neighborhood just by living there, so I originally thought he might be relating that history from his POV.  (Just as I might talk about changes in my parents' neighborhood, before I was born.)  But I see your point.  I think the "Change" passage could be interpreted either way.

However, although George might have learned the history of his new neighborhood by living there for years, I don't see how he would be able to know Mrs. Strunk's thoughts at that particular except by guessing.  Maybe he guesses based on previous conversations with her, and these are his thoughts about how she perceives him.  Or it could be an omniscient narrator.  But I was struck by the sudden insertion of "she hopes" and "she thinks" into this book which is mostly about George's thoughts.  They seemed a bit out of place. 

As the king said in "Anna and the King of Siam," it's a puzzlement!

[CellarDweller115]

4.)  What do you make of George's relationship with the children in the neighborhood?  Do you think he seriously dislikes or is irritated by the children?  Is his reaction to the children due to his being alone now?  Do you think that his reactions to the children have further isolated him in the neighborhood - set him apart from his neighbors with children?

I'm not so sure that George seriously dislikes the children.  I think there are times they irritate him, but isn't that normal? 

To quote the story:

"No doubt the neighborhood children see the house very much as George and Jim saw it that first afternoon.  Shaggy with ivy and dark and secret-looking, it is just the liar you'd choose for a mean old storybook monster.  This is the role George has found himself playing, with increasing violence, since he started to live alone."

Perhaps it's a role that George is playing intentionally.  Yes, it may get him from privacy.  However, he no longer has his primary role, which was Jim's partner in life.  The things he used to do for that role, he now only does for himself.  He may have felt that a new role was needed in his life, and the role of "neighborhood curmudgeon" is something he was easy to adapt to.

[michaelflanagansf]

I'm new here, so I don't know the etiquette. To quote the questions or not? Anyway I'd like to say something about the first 4 questions, because to tackle all of them together is too much for me.

It's find to do it just the way you did it - and please, feel free to take your time.  We've got a week on this section!

[Hi Chuck!]

[dejavu]

5.)  The book refers to several gender related attitudes in this first section: 'Mrs. Strunk's hour and the power of motherhood'; 'the masculine hour of ball playing'; 'the doctor's pretty sissy son'; 'The Girls--as Mrs. Strunk and the rest will continue to call themselves' - do these descriptions act to further isolate and alienate George from his neighbors?  Do you think that these gender descriptions are meant to allow us to identify with George and take his part against the neighbors? How do the attitudes concerning homosexuality relate to these gender notions?

These paragraphs portray the stereotypes we have about gender roles.  The stereotypes were very often true in the suburban developments of the early 1960s that I can remember, so they were probably even more true in the 1950s.  As Nikki mentioned, the "sissy son" not conforming to the masculine teen gender role (he plays with the girls instead of playing ball) may hint of homophobia within the community (or it may just be George's way of expressing a characteristic which he recognizes in this young man, who may or may not in truth be gay). 

The gender attitudes do isolate George from his neighbors at this early hour of the day, because he is still at home long after the fathers (the regular men, if you will) have left for work.  When we later learn of his occupation as a teacher, however, this makes sense.  It seems that a heterosexual male teacher might similarly be isolated by having an unusual schedule and not coming home at the usual time at the end of “the masculine hour” of teen ball playing.  But George doesn’t just have an unusual schedule; he lived in the house with Jim, and the neighbors had plenty of opportunity to discern his homosexuality.  The fact that he doesn’t fit into the gender role of going to a 9-to-5 job just reinforces his difference or alienation from the rest of the neighborhood.

As for whether the gender descriptions are meant to allow us to take George’s part against his neighbors, I would say that they do depersonalize the neighbors and bring George’s distinct humanity to the forefront. 

I interpret everything about how Mr. Strunk pins George down as a “queer” as George’s interpretation of Mr. Strunk’s thoughts, especially with the phrase about Mr. Strunk being “a living doll” in college.  I think it is George who has made that assessment of Mr. Strunk’s attractiveness in his youth.  Similarly, I think it is George who supposes that Mrs. Strunk is more enlightened because she has read psychology.  But it’s the psychology of the 1950’s; George is to be “pitied, not blamed.”  There is no concept of homosexuality being a truly acceptable or positive thing.

As an aside, even the differing opinions about George held by Mr. and Mrs. Strunk (or the differences in the way George thinks they see him) reflects the gender stereotype that men are more afraid of homosexuality, whereas women try to be more understanding. 

[Nikki]

6)  George has not told his neighbors about Jim's death.  Why do you think he hasn't told them what happened?  Does this decision tell you anything about how George feels toward Jim's death (e.g., is it his own personal pain and domain and does this make him unwilling to share it)?  Do you think this is making him more or less able to deal with his loss?  The discussion in which he says 'Jim wasn't a substitute for anything' is occurring entirely in his own mind.  Is Jim's death yet another isolation that George has imposed upon himself - should he be having this conversation with someone else?

The loss of Jim is so profound and personal that George keeps it close to his heart in ways that make him unable to deal with it much less to share it with anyone, especially the neighbors to whom George has never been close and who probably view the two men's relationship as suspect.  George seems to have been reticent about many things, and this is especially true concerning his relationship with Jim.  The very nature of George's silence about Jim's death becomes a self-imposed isolation which wraps George in a cocoon of sadness.  Maybe a session with a psychologist could help him deal with his loss, yet I don't think George is the type to seek counseling.

[janjo]

1.)  The opening of this book is quite unusual and breathtaking - the description of a person coming to consciousness, moving from 'it' to 'he', reflecting on mortality and finally identifying itself as 'George.'  What is your opinion of the opening of the novel?  Is it unique or does it remind you of other books or authors?  How did the passage affect you - does it draw you in or put you off?  Please share your thoughts on this interesting passage. 

Apologies for being late to the party, I have been involved in family matters today, as one so often is over public holidays. However, to make a start, I think the opening of the book is wonderful, and if it is wonderful now, how much more remarkable would it have been at the time it was written in the early sixties.
That sense of first awakening, sleepy and warm and having not yet taken on the persona for the day, the coming to, and then the realisation that everything is not warm and fuzzy, that "Jim is dead," but life still has to be lived.
I would imagine we have all experienced such moments in our lives.
George is 58, I am 59. Our own mortality, and that of those we love, preoccupies us, as we see friends die, and partners left on their own to grieve.
It is heavy with the symbolism of mortality, but so is most of the book.
The tone is set.