F&N Daily, December 19

One entry today.

Spoilers contemplate the nature of love

James writes to Susan in one of the most important sections of the whole book to me; my booklog is in a very sad way at the moment, but as I said there, I really did read parts of this on our wedding day.

I'm interested, though, that the new form of love I've added to my life since then—the love of parent for children—I would not classify as giving me freedom. It is expansive, giving me new things to discover about myself and to grow into; but the amount and kind of responsibility precludes freedom. But I do believe that love (of whatever variety) between peers should be freeing. I'm not quite willing to declare that if it isn't, it's not actually love, but that's more because I think the resulting definitional disputes would distract from the substance of the point.

(I want my love for my children to be freeing, for me to have successfully demonstrated it by giving them the foundation and tools to be their own best selves. Time will tell.)

Anyway! Not quite where I expected to end up when I sat down with my laptop, but there it is.

Back in 1849, I was surprised again at James saying that he doesn't know if Susan loves him. (I'd noticed this before, when he wrote to Richard, I just didn't comment on it.) I suppose it's true that she never actually said it, and her answer to "Will you have breakfast with me for the rest of my life?" was "Probably"; but it really had the emotional impact of a confession of love to me, and shortly after that, he said, "I've been given everything I most want. My brother's forgiveness. Your love. And it only makes me afraid of what will be taken away, to pay for them." (This is all from December 8; emphasis added.) I think this is a combination of his supersition and wanting to ensure her maximum freedom, since that's the theme and all (of his relationship to her and of the book).

The encounter with Andrew at the fencing club: I wish for something half as vivid and telling about Alan Tournier as

This man reminded me of nothing so much as an eagle in captivity, ragged, angry, hunching on his perch hoarding his strength for the strike of beak and talons that will free him.

Also: as I used to say about Denethor, that is bad parenting!

Finally, a tiny Marx cameo. I wonder why Engels and not Marx? The wifi on this boat is bad enough that I'm not going to try and figure it out.

FULL-BOOK SPOILERS

I see the interlude of peace in playing with the children as a promise now of his happiness as a father in the future. Also I can't tell if the wrongness of hunting a man/stag with a sword is self-evident or just because I know what's going to happen.

There's an entry dated the 20th in the middle of the next letter, dated the 21st, if you, like me, are committed to chronological order.

Poll #28047

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 6

View Respondents

+1 (thumbs-up, I see you, etc.)?

View Answers

+1
6 (100.0%)