The Golden Bowl is another fascinating novel by Henry James. It must be said, though, that this novel is very difficult to read. Despite the fact that there are very few characters, basically only five, the long sentences, unusual turns of phrase, natural conversation and the use of pronouns call for very careful reading. The other thing is that there is not much of a plot, and very little action. Most chapters describe endless conversations, observations and contemplations

The symbolism of the golden bowl is difficult to understand. It seems the author has had an ideosyncratic idea of its symbolism, or the author's focus would be more on the binding through gilding while most readers focus on the (supposed) hidden flaw. This is borne out by the end of the story as the pairs choose to stay together, while the doubt remains till the very end.

This ending is also different from other novels by Henry James, where the conclusion is often a miserable state for the women. The Golden Bowl seems to be a novel that tests the expectations of the reader as much as of the characters, and perfection is found when least expected. ( )

The work of a genius. James suffered from writer's cramp, so we can imaging his dictating this to a dutiful and careful copier. Fantastically subtle language that, one feels, James has worked hard to perfect, produces a psychological awareness that is a new innovation in novel development.
And it is at root an American novel, where monied wealth wins out. Father and daughter win. Power out wits Love.

I began reading the Modern Library List of the 100 Best Novels shortly after the list was published, and thought I had finished it some time around 2004 or 2005. Recently I discovered that instead of having read Henry James' The Golden Bowl, I read The Turn of the Screw. So I corrected my mistake and have, by reading this novel, truly finished the Modern Library list.*

The Golden Bowl is a love quadrangle, and an unconvincing one at that. Maggie Verver marries Prince Amerigo of Italy. Her father, Adam, marries Charlotte Stant several years later. Unbeknownst to either Maggie or her father, Amerigo and Charlotte knew each other prior to meeting their spouses, were very much in love, but were unfortunately too poor to marry. That fact is believable as far as the Prince's reason for marrying into wealth, as he was first to the trough. It fails to withstand scrutiny when considering Charlotte's subsequent marriage to Adam, particularly when coupled with the fact that Maggie and Charlotte have been friends since childhood. Having Charlotte conceal her former intimacy with the Prince casts her as a conniving gold-digger, far from the light James portrays her in throughout the novel. Further complicating the plot, Maggie and her father have an especially close (odd, unrealistic) bond and spend an inordinate amount of time together after their marriages, leaving Amerigo and Charlotte to entertain each other. And to begin the adulterous affair they were forced into by the neglect of their spouses (as James appears to contend).

My major argument with the novel is the way in which the affair is discovered. The eponymous bowl appears twice in the story. First, Charlotte offers to buy it as a gift for the Prince on the day before his wedding, when they are purportedly shopping for a gift from her to Maggie. The Prince refuses, noting a defective crack in the bowl. Four years later, Maggie purchases the bowl as a birthday gift for her father when she just happens - in all of London - to chance upon the same shop while wandering home from a visit to the museum. Maggie discovers the infidelity when the shopkeeper, out of guilt for having overcharged her, tracks her down to refund a portion of the purchase price. While at her house, he sees pictures of the Prince and Charlotte and magically remembers not only their having looked at the bowl four years earlier but also their conversation about Maggie. Even James realizes the ridiculousness of this plot device and enlists the Prince to tell Maggie that such coincidences only occur in novels and plays. This attempt at irony fails to absolve James for having included it in the novel.

James seems incapable of writing a direct sentence. While his writing is not overly difficult to comprehend, you quickly tire of the multiple diversions seemingly every sentence takes. You also tire of page after page of dense prose containing a minimum of paragraphs. One sentence can last most of a page. One paragraph can go on for three or four pages. Maybe at this point in his career James was considered too "great" for an editor to suggest revisions to his text, but just eliminating all the "for that matter" and "in any case" and similar pointless clauses which litter most of his prose would reduce the novel by dozens of pages without altering the reader's understanding. His characters speak - when they speak, for this novel suffers from a dearth of dialogue and action - in horrific dialogue both stilted and affected. The conversations between Maggie and her father are so lacking in specifics, which James maddeningly refuses to supply in his endless analysis of them, that they often end without any clear indication of what they were discussing.

I could go on for several hundred words criticizing The Golden Bowl for its contrived, pretentious nature. I haven't even mentioned Fanny Assingham, who introduces Maggie to the Prince despite knowing he was in love with Charlotte. The same Fanny who also knows of the affair, does not disclose it to Maggie and yet remains her friend and confidant, even after Maggie learns of Fanny's deception. I have not questioned what is so great about Adam Verver - James (through Maggie) portrays him as such but refuses to provide any details to justify the attribution. I haven't nitpicked how the titular bowl can be, as James describes it, "shattered" into three pieces when it is ultimately broken.

Obviously I found this book unbelievable and unworthy of inclusion on major reading lists (e.g. 1001 Books). My wish is that it was actually as good as the introduction in my copy made it sound. I doubt the majority of non-academic readers would list it among their favorites or recommend it to a friend.

* - with the exception of Finnegans Wake, which I refuse to finish reading on the grounds of good taste and its abject failure to make any sense at all. ( )

Henry James is always a hard read. Favorite quote from the Golden Bowl...
"My idea is this, that when you only love a little you’re naturally not jealous-or are only jealous also a little, so that it doesn’t matter. But when you love in a deeper and intenser way, then you’re in the very same proportion jealous; your jealousy has intensity and, no doubt, ferocity. When however you love in the most abysmal and unutterable way of all – whey then you’re beyond everything, and nothing can pull you down." ( )

a triangle with a difference