I was intrigued by Onno's comparison of Henry James to scotch in class, and I have to confess that upon first reading of Daisy Miller I do not like the taste (for now)! As Onno said, it seems to represent "everything I hate": portentousness and richness and overabundant luxury, it seemed to me to lack any real substance. I found myself asking, why is this meaningful? What makes this Literature with a capital L?
I kept asking these questions all the way up to the end and I'm still asking them. For me, the ending is the most interesting part. What has been up to this point a story seemingly to be only about a man chasing around "an American flirt" suddenly has become very meaningful. One would think that a shallow romance novel would end with a marriage, or some kind of drama where Daisy rejects Giovanelli and announces her love for Winterbourne, but it doesn't. Instead it ends with Daisy dying and life going "back to normal" for Winterbourne - which is at once bewildering and interesting.
Clues throughout the novel hint that James may be trying to get at something deeper. In an early description of Daisy, James says almost sarcastically "She had ever so many intimate friends that had been there ever so many times. And then she had ever so many dresses and things from Paris. Whenever she put on a Paris dress she felt as if she were in Europe" (11, Kindle Edition). She is also clearly enamored with "society" and gentleman giving her dinners. "Last winter I had seventeen dinners given me; and three of them were by gentleman" (12).
In a typical romance novel, one would think that this would simply be the climate. Gentleman giving dinners and the woman having to decide on the most gentlemanly gentleman who can win her heart (this is perhaps a stereotype, and reveals my apathy towards romance novels). But by having Daisy so obviously enamored by dinners and gentleman and society James is trying to critique that kind of "society". Ultimately it is Daisy's love of society that kills her, as she frolics in it deeper and deeper with Giovanelli, and it is revealed that her relationship with him was very shallow. Could this be evidence of Jame's critique?
Hi Hunter,
ReplyDeleteI think you point to something very interesting in your blog. I, too, am fascinated by the unexpected fate of Daisy and what James is trying to say in assigning Daisy such an end. To me, it seems to have a dual function- to point out the flaws in both Winterbourne and Daisy's characters that keep them from obtaining a relationship with one another (Daisy's pride and neglect of Winterbourne's attention, and Winterbourne's passivity), and to point out the consequences of Daisy's ignorance and naivete with regard to her decision-making, mindset, and conduct while in Europe. While James' intentions and message can be interpreted in various valid ways, these seem to me to be the two points James is trying to make with the death of Daisy at the end of the novel.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me!
Ali