-------- Original Message --------
John and Sybil "sent her, though, to a chateau
> in France" (line 336).
M. Roth: a bit harsh, no?
L Hochard: Yes it does! And there are other short unnoticed
passages in the poem that do sound harsh toward Hazel,
J. Friedman: Maybe just concise?
S K-Bootle: It’s quite tricky judging the harshness of “we sent her”
viewed
in cold print. I can “hear” different nuances if the phrase cropped up
in
everyday family banter
LH: Given the mood of the passage, I don't think it can be good-
humoured family banter. To me, it sounds like a rather blunt decision
in
which Hazel (who is no longer a child at the time; she must be 16 or
17)
has no part (WE sent...), as if to put a stop to the spiral of blames
(less
starch, more fruit!) and ferocious criticism; also, "though" shows that
the
parents still nurse "a small mad hope".
The phrase "a château in France" doesn't suggest a place where
teenagers can make friends, practice sports, visit historical places...
and
have fun together; it rather evokes a place where teenage girls are
taught
such essential skills as learning how to be a refined hostess, choosing
the
right dress for a party... in a word how to become a glamorous
socialite, a
place where Hazel didn't have a chance and was bound to feel miserable.
She wants to look a mess
J. Friedman: Or consolation for herself and John--Hazel
is happy looking the way she is. (Sure.) But now that
you mention it, I agree that it can be read as blaming
Hazel.
LH: It sounds at least as if Sybil was exasperated by Hazel's ways. If
it was meant as consolation, she wouldn't have used the words "look a
mess"
which are cruel. She would say something more or less along the
lines "she's indifferent to her looks". This particular sentence
contrasts
with the rest of Sybil's speech, as if it had slipped out. VN often
uses
these abrupt changes in tone to signal another level of reading (as for
instance lines 902-903 "Now I shall speak...")
Sybil had had the animal
> destroyed soon after its mistress's hospitalization,
> incurring the wrath of
> Hazel who was beside herself with distress." The least
> we can say is that
> it was inconsiderate of her; she seems, at times, to be
> quite impervious
> to her child's distress. I would compare her attitude
> to Ada's toward Lucette.
J. Friedman: I find that point and comparison to /Ada/
interesting, though as you remark below, we have only
Kinbote's account.
LH: Although we only have Kinbote's account, I think it would be
going too far to say that he made up this incident. If he had, it would
have been with the self-serving purpose of emphazising Sybil's cruelty,
but
he doesn't do that: he gives a neutral account of the incident. This is
why
I think we can trust him here.
Unlike Sybil, he notices Hazel's distress because, although he is too
self-
centered to really take an emotional part in her sufferings, he is
nevertheless able to understand them and identify with her (note to
line
347-8: Hazel Shade resembled me in certain respects).
Moreover, Sybil's attitude toward Hazel is in keeping with her attitude
toward Kinbote which is very different from John's: Of course, she
shieds
him from Kinbote's "fondness" but, whereas John is careful not to hurt
him
and not to join in the "lynching", Sybil on the contrary doesn't spare
him!
btw: "Skye terrier" is "weeping willow dog" in Zemblan
"weeping willow" is "if" in Zemblan
"if" is the French for "yew" the "lifeless tree", which links the
dog Hazel loved so much with death.
Laurence hochard