The Real Thing by Henry James
Books: 1
Movies: 1
Short stories: 1
Episodes: 0
Total: 3
Just a journal entry (not an essay really nor a review).
An ongoing theme throughout this short story is the comparison and contrast between the rich (formerly), and upper-class couple who happened to be down on luck and seeking work and the poorer models such as Miss Churm and the Italian Oronte. The narrator at first quite naturally (after getting over the initial shock) thought that the Monarchs would be the perfect models or types to pose for pictures of the upper class. However, he soon discovered that the Monarchs truly were not the right models for this ype because they lacked the imagination that was required of them to be "the ideal thing". The model Miss Churm is described as "only a freckled cockney, but she could represent everything, from a fire lady to a sheperdess." She is the kind of person that the Monarchs turned up their noses at. The Monarchs might have felt threatened by Miss Churm as a competitor for work but they felt reassured in knowing that they were in fact "the real thing", true people of a higher class. This story makes a point to demonstrate the proper and refined countenences and cultivation of the Monarchs and the simple, crass, dirty ways of the poor models (Miss Churm enjoyed beer, could not spell, and had not "an ounce of respect").
It is said of Mrs. Monarch that "[h]er figure had no variety of expression--she herself had no sense of variety." The narrator tried putting her in many positions, but in the end she could only be herself ("she was the real thing but always the same thing"). The Monarchs thought that their being the real thing would be a blessing to an artist but in reality, the narrator struggled to find a type that would fit them or come close to who they really were.
It is interesting that the narrator draws in black and white when the craft of artistry is everything but black and white. Imagination, variety, and even spontaneity are required for the models to have a successful sitting; it is mentioned that the aforementioned qualities come naturally and instinctively to a few of the low-class models but mentioned that the Monarchs can only be the real thing, themselves and nothing more. Although the Monarchs are the real thing, this is not essentially what an artist needs for his paintings because although something may be "real" that does not mean it equates beauty. In fact, I believe it is quite the opposite because reality ("the real thing") is a mixture of the beautiful but is also full of negativity, hardship, and qualities that would be deemed undesirable far a painter portray. Many people may look to art as an escape from "the real thing" or to view an ideal idea of life and there is no way that could be portrayed when using the Monarchs as models. Perhaps people would be looking for a more glorified picture of royalty or the upper class than what would be presented to them in "the real thing".
The question comes back again from Lolita in "what is the purpose of art?" In this story, the artist/narrator sees art's purpose just as a way for him to make money. It is the same reason that the Monarchs are resorting to being models--money. Nabokov said in the afterward of Lolita "For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstacy) is the norm." These characteristics of art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstacy) is the "aesthetic bliss" that artists hope to portray in their art, much unlike the real thing.
The question of whether art imitates life or if life imitates art also comes to mind. or perhaps art imitates life that imitates art, so it is a vicious cycle. In this story, it seems that the painter wants to paint beauty of life in art and not necessarily "the real thing". The art created of the Monarchs would only be of their limited and exact social stature and class, nothing more. Mrs. Monarch misinterpreted her own character being very v isible in the picture/painting how "they look exactly like us" to be a good thing, a complement to she and her husband in a way. What the Monarchs saw as triumph, the artist saw the very same as their defect; the narator could not "get away from them--get into the character [he] wanted to represent." The narrator did not actually want the true nature of the models to be present or discoverable in the art but Mrs. Monarch took the fact that Miss Churm identity had been hidden to have been done because she was "vulgar". The narrator truly believed that Miss Churm had undergone a transformation into something much better than "the real thing" or any person could ever be James's story describes it as "if she was lost it was only of the dead who go to heaven are lost in the gain of an angel the more." The narrator considered the art created and inspired by the model to be superior in beauty and truth, just as an angel is. People like the Monarchs hinder the creation process for the artist because they are so absolute in being "the real thing" that they leave nothing for the imagination or mere suggestion for the artist to go off on. A motif that I have noticed throughout the short story is eyes and seeing. Eyes are great windows of expression that seem to be utilized in this story (not unlike this same recurring images of eyes in Reading Lolita in Tehran, The Great Gatsby, and Araby). [Many instances throughout short story of eyes motif]. There is no time to specifically explain each quotation from the story, but the general gist of most of them are expressions without using words, such as the various looks and glances exchanged between the Monarchs. These quotes related to "seeing" also leads me to another theme throughout the story of appearance versus reality and the presence of verisimilitude (like discussed in Lolita). And yet another connection between this story and Lolita is that they both discuss parts of Dante's Inferno, specifically Dante and Beatrice (...standing there with the rapt, pure gaze of young Dante spellbound by the young Beatrice"; this also includes "gaze" referring to the eyes-related motif). Humbert used his knowledge of Dante and his young love in order to justify his own enamorment with the young nymphets, whereas the narrator in the story uses it as a kind of smile to compare the Monarchs with Dante and Beatrice.
I then went on to go for about one and a half pages about comparing the butterfly and metamorphisis to Nabokov's Lolita, which I am pretty sure was mere coincidence. So, I left it out.
Movies: 1
Short stories: 1
Episodes: 0
Total: 3
Just a journal entry (not an essay really nor a review).
An ongoing theme throughout this short story is the comparison and contrast between the rich (formerly), and upper-class couple who happened to be down on luck and seeking work and the poorer models such as Miss Churm and the Italian Oronte. The narrator at first quite naturally (after getting over the initial shock) thought that the Monarchs would be the perfect models or types to pose for pictures of the upper class. However, he soon discovered that the Monarchs truly were not the right models for this ype because they lacked the imagination that was required of them to be "the ideal thing". The model Miss Churm is described as "only a freckled cockney, but she could represent everything, from a fire lady to a sheperdess." She is the kind of person that the Monarchs turned up their noses at. The Monarchs might have felt threatened by Miss Churm as a competitor for work but they felt reassured in knowing that they were in fact "the real thing", true people of a higher class. This story makes a point to demonstrate the proper and refined countenences and cultivation of the Monarchs and the simple, crass, dirty ways of the poor models (Miss Churm enjoyed beer, could not spell, and had not "an ounce of respect").
It is said of Mrs. Monarch that "[h]er figure had no variety of expression--she herself had no sense of variety." The narrator tried putting her in many positions, but in the end she could only be herself ("she was the real thing but always the same thing"). The Monarchs thought that their being the real thing would be a blessing to an artist but in reality, the narrator struggled to find a type that would fit them or come close to who they really were.
It is interesting that the narrator draws in black and white when the craft of artistry is everything but black and white. Imagination, variety, and even spontaneity are required for the models to have a successful sitting; it is mentioned that the aforementioned qualities come naturally and instinctively to a few of the low-class models but mentioned that the Monarchs can only be the real thing, themselves and nothing more. Although the Monarchs are the real thing, this is not essentially what an artist needs for his paintings because although something may be "real" that does not mean it equates beauty. In fact, I believe it is quite the opposite because reality ("the real thing") is a mixture of the beautiful but is also full of negativity, hardship, and qualities that would be deemed undesirable far a painter portray. Many people may look to art as an escape from "the real thing" or to view an ideal idea of life and there is no way that could be portrayed when using the Monarchs as models. Perhaps people would be looking for a more glorified picture of royalty or the upper class than what would be presented to them in "the real thing".
The question comes back again from Lolita in "what is the purpose of art?" In this story, the artist/narrator sees art's purpose just as a way for him to make money. It is the same reason that the Monarchs are resorting to being models--money. Nabokov said in the afterward of Lolita "For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstacy) is the norm." These characteristics of art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstacy) is the "aesthetic bliss" that artists hope to portray in their art, much unlike the real thing.
The question of whether art imitates life or if life imitates art also comes to mind. or perhaps art imitates life that imitates art, so it is a vicious cycle. In this story, it seems that the painter wants to paint beauty of life in art and not necessarily "the real thing". The art created of the Monarchs would only be of their limited and exact social stature and class, nothing more. Mrs. Monarch misinterpreted her own character being very v isible in the picture/painting how "they look exactly like us" to be a good thing, a complement to she and her husband in a way. What the Monarchs saw as triumph, the artist saw the very same as their defect; the narator could not "get away from them--get into the character [he] wanted to represent." The narrator did not actually want the true nature of the models to be present or discoverable in the art but Mrs. Monarch took the fact that Miss Churm identity had been hidden to have been done because she was "vulgar". The narrator truly believed that Miss Churm had undergone a transformation into something much better than "the real thing" or any person could ever be James's story describes it as "if she was lost it was only of the dead who go to heaven are lost in the gain of an angel the more." The narrator considered the art created and inspired by the model to be superior in beauty and truth, just as an angel is. People like the Monarchs hinder the creation process for the artist because they are so absolute in being "the real thing" that they leave nothing for the imagination or mere suggestion for the artist to go off on. A motif that I have noticed throughout the short story is eyes and seeing. Eyes are great windows of expression that seem to be utilized in this story (not unlike this same recurring images of eyes in Reading Lolita in Tehran, The Great Gatsby, and Araby). [Many instances throughout short story of eyes motif]. There is no time to specifically explain each quotation from the story, but the general gist of most of them are expressions without using words, such as the various looks and glances exchanged between the Monarchs. These quotes related to "seeing" also leads me to another theme throughout the story of appearance versus reality and the presence of verisimilitude (like discussed in Lolita). And yet another connection between this story and Lolita is that they both discuss parts of Dante's Inferno, specifically Dante and Beatrice (...standing there with the rapt, pure gaze of young Dante spellbound by the young Beatrice"; this also includes "gaze" referring to the eyes-related motif). Humbert used his knowledge of Dante and his young love in order to justify his own enamorment with the young nymphets, whereas the narrator in the story uses it as a kind of smile to compare the Monarchs with Dante and Beatrice.
I then went on to go for about one and a half pages about comparing the butterfly and metamorphisis to Nabokov's Lolita, which I am pretty sure was mere coincidence. So, I left it out.