Novel by Andre Gide, published in French in as Les Faux-Monnayeurs. Constructed with a greater range and scope than his previous short fiction, The. Editorial Reviews. Review. Novel by Andre Gide, published in French in as Les Faux-Monnayeurs. Constructed with a greater range and scope than his. The Counterfeiters, novel by André Gide, published in French in as Les Faux-Monnayeurs. Constructed with a greater range and scope than his previous .
|Published (Last):||12 June 2005|
|PDF File Size:||17.49 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.78 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Gide’s break with Calvinism was spectacular and consequential, the obvious turning point of his life, and yet, in a sense, it was incomplete. His new freedom did not derive from the surgical removal of a swollen superego but from gaining a measure of control over it and, above all, displacing the powerful sense of responsibility onto a different set of moral imperatives.
For example, if, as Kant says, the moral test ander the rightness of an action is one’s willingness to make it public, then Gide acted morally in publishing a book about his scandalous behavior in Algeria and showed as much bravery as irony in titling his confession The Immoralist.
The Counterfeiters is a highly moral book, even in the most old-fashioned sense: As a moralist counterfeitefs a particular concern for the young, Gide is careful to show how his youths go right or wrong and one way of going wrong is to ignore one’s own desires. This apparently hedonistic dictum is only superficially scandalous; the license given by “happiness” is withdrawn in advance by “God. It’s a good thing to follow one’s inclination, counterfeifers it leads up hill” The proviso at the end about going “up hill” is equivalent to the earlier one about God.
Gide is the most moral of immoralists. Bernard does go up hill in the book, literally so in the Alps. He also becomes ever more conservative after running away from home; that is, after a bout of adolescent anarchism.
Xndre is a Protestant rigor as well as a natural vigor in Bernard’s summer in the Alps, a reminder that Geneva was the home of both Calvin and Rousseau. Gide clearly approves of Bernard’s physical exertion and self-discipline, and contrasts them to Olivier’s lassitude on the beaches of Catholic Corsica.
Still, it was Gide’s arrival in Algeria and departure from his religion that made him a modernist. Dumping Calvinism in favor of radical freedom was fraught with aesthetic implications for a writer of novels, and it is these implications I believe he worked out in The Counterfeiters. The traditional novelist, a James or Meredith, is a “predestinator,” rather like Calvin’s God. Perhaps the reason why the man who had already written The Immoralist, Strait Is the Gate, and The Vatican Cellars called The Counterfeiters his “first novel” is that only here did he deliberately take up the narrative implications of his moral principles.
No doubt, like his alter-ego Edouard, he was also discontent with his career, craved a seat at the post-War modernist banquet, and wished to reconnect with the young; perhaps too there was some jealousy of Proust, against the publication of whose work he xounterfeiters foolishly recommended.
There are many intentions mixed into The Counterfeiters. Technically, though, Gide was less radical than he appears. He aimed at eschewing omniscience altogether. Gide wanted to write a post-Nietzschean novel in which god-like omniscience was dead because he had killed it.
So, just as he had freed himself from the tyranny of Calvin’s God in North Africa, Gide seeks in The Counterfeiters to liberate his characters from authorial predestination.
The Counterfeiters (novel) – Wikipedia
On page one Bernard is detached from the determination of both home and genetics, fulfilling those twin fantasies of the restless bourgeois child: Gide weaves his theme of liberation into the form and content of his novel as well as his brand of moral relativism by making the work “Cubist” in portraying multiple points of view. The Counterfeiters is a pluralistic novel, offering many distinct voices. Through the manner of his storytelling he is able to convey his moral convictions directly: There is another sort of tyranny Gide sought abolish, that of the authors of the last generation over their readers.
How deliberately he went about this we can see from his journal:. It is appropriate, in opposition to the manner of Meredith and James, to let the reader get the advantage over me-to go about it in such a way as to allow him to think he is more intelligent, more moral, more perspicacious than the author, and that he is discovering many things in the characters, and many truths in the course of the narrative, in spite of the author and, so to speak, behind the author’s back.
N ot only does Gide liberate his characters to behave as they wish that is, by making the strings by which he manipulates them invisiblehe also frees the reader. So far is the putative author of The Counterfeiters from omniscience that he is actually self-effacing.
In contrast to the Victorian clutter of drapes, knickknacks, pouffes, and sofas of Late Victorian sensibility and psychologizing, Gide’s novel feels airy and light, a book of springtime and summer. While the novel bites off quite a lot, it is the reader who gets to do the chewing. As the author is not omniscient, so he cannot founterfeiters omnipresent.
One of causes of the openness achieved by the novel is the sense that the characters are pursuing their lives outside our ken. If we are to follow Edouard down a Parisian boulevard, then we cannot also keep our eye on Georges disappearing around a corner. Gide intended The Counterfeiters to take place, as much as possible, in the present tense, like a film.
The author may also be compared to a camera with a bland personality. The novel unfolds like music; in order to come to life, a symphony must also thr performed in the counterfeitets. What makes all this possible is the role of Edouard, the novelist who is counterfeiterrs in the pinwheel.
At thirty-eight, Edouard is younger than the parental generation, the settled Profitendieus, Moliniers, and Vedels, about a decade older than the young adults, Vincent, Laura, and Douviers, yet still very much in contact with the eighteen-year-olds, Olivier and Bernard.
Edouard sits at the center of a web of generations and characters.
Unfixed himself, Edouard moves easily among both the settled and the counterveiters. But Edouard serves another purpose for Gide; it is on Edouard that Gide palms off the traditional apparatus he wished to avoid. Gide wanted to avoid first-person narration, yet this is precisely the point of view of Edouard’s journal. The journal is equally essential for another of Gide’s experiments, setting the novel in the present; for it is Edouard’s journal that enables Gide to present his background material in the present tense.
It is over Bernard’s shoulder that we read the chapter from Edouard’s journal called “Laura’s Wedding. The Counterfeiters remains one of the most exhilarating of modernist novels. Nevertheless, the closer one looks at what it says about freedom-“such freedom as is possible today,” as Kafka put it-the more melancholy one feels. Les Faux-Monnayeurs had appeared barely two years earlier; Dorothy Bussy’s translation would not be published by Knopf until the Fall.
Forster offered some remarks on the book in his lecture on “People” then returned to it, speaking at considerable length, in the following week’s address, “Plot. British empiricism has seldom been on better than flirting terms with French rationalism, and Forster shows a Briton’s mistrust of Gide’s theoretical experimentalism: The novelist who betrays too much interest in his own method can never be more than interesting Les Faux Monnayeurs is among the more interesting of recent works: Even though he first mentions the book in his lecture on character, what really fascinates Forster about the novel is its method of narration, which he finds as “illogical” as that of Bleak House but worse, because it is intentional:.
Sometimes the author is omniscient: There is the same absence of viewpoint, but whereas in Dickens it was instinctive, in Gide it is sophisticated; he expatiates too much about the jolts. Though here, as always, Forster expresses himself in a tone of elegant common sense, it seems to me that, whether or not the charge sticks to Dickens and Gide, his own comments may be logically inadequate.
The two are not identical. If it is Gide Forster is calling “the author,” then as the indisputable writer of every word of The Counterfeitersthe author is indeed omniscient, not intermittently so.
If, however, Forster means the putative author inside the novel, the author of Chapter VII, then it seems the author enjoys no sort of omniscience whatever. Yes, he does indeed judge his characters and sharply, especially Edouard and Bernard; but he is far from being omniscient.
In fact, he is virtually as ignorant as the reader of what is going to happen in Part Three. He speculates that no good will come to Boris from Edouard’s plans; he worries that Passavant will ruin Olivier and supposes that Vincent will soon discover Lady Griffith’s soullessness–but any attentive reader could do the same.
Evidently, they are free to surprise him, are at the disposal of life and may develop as they like. Even for its putative author, The Counterfeiters is a journey on an open road, not a map enclosed by frontiers, as we can see in this passage:. Edouard has irritated me more than once when he speaks of Douviers, for instance -enraged me even; I hope I haven’t shown it too much; but now I may be allowed to say so. His behavior to Laura-at times so generous–has at times seemed to me revolting It was not I who sought them out; while following Bernard and Olivier I found them in my path.
So much the worse for me; henceforth it is my duty to attend them. No more logical, in the strict sense, is Forster’s statement that “at other times [the author’s] omniscience is partial. Hardly better is Forster’s complaint that the book suffers from an “absence of viewpoint”-unless he means that he is irritated by a superfluity of viewpoints, which it certainly has.
But an excess is not an absence any more than omniscience can be partial. I would like to think that it is because Forster himself felt dissatisfied with what he had said about Gide’s book in this third lecture that he took it up again at the end of his fourth.
After a lecture devoted to illustrating his definition of plot as “a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality” 86Forster is still thinking of Gide’s new book and wonders whether a novel has to be premeditated. He then identifies The Counterfeiters as just such a book, “a violent onslaught on the plot as [I] have defined it: Instead of telling us at once what this something is, or how a violent onslaught can be constructive, Forster, who must have loathed Chinese boxes and Russian dolls, chides Gide for publishing his diary along with his novel:.
It is as if Forster were looking askance at Gallic deconstructive earnestness avant le faityet the book clearly fascinated him and, however grudgingly, he still wants to give Gide his due:.
Forster’s more settled view of Gide’s “onslaught” on the conventions of plot turns out not to be so violent; in fact, what Gide has done doesn’t appear to be all tthe aggressive. After all, the novel can be intelligibly seen as an elaborate exploration of the causes of the death of little Boris, and so Gide has hardly ignored the principle of causality by which Forster distinguishes plot from mere story. He notes that The Counterfeiters actually strings together a series counterfeiteers entirely conventional plot-fragments, the stories of the Molinier brothers, Bernard, Laura, etc.
These bits of plot are “logical objective,” Forster admits, “but by no means the centre of the book” Counterceiters includes his own translation of an extended extract of this conversation and stresses what Edouard calls his subject: As for plot-to pot with plot, break it up, boil it down.
Let there be those “formidable erosions of contour” of which Nietzsche speaks. All that is prearranged is false. The odd things here are that Forster should take a fictional, albeit professional, colleague at his word and that he should confuse Gide’s Counterfeiters, which does get written, with Edouard’s, which does not.
Though he may be at great pains to conceal the fact, Gide’s novel is painstakingly prearranged and, as Forster notes, is constituted of familiar kinds of plots. These fragments are scrupulously thought out and artfully related: The book does worse than lay an egg; it lays a “parabaloid. This praise is elegantly stated but seems to me nonetheless unjust. Gide has dispensed with neither plot nor character-nor, for that matter, with causality, logic, or premeditation.
His novel is self-conscious rather than subconscious. However, I agree with Forster in one respect: He is indeed a little more solemn than an author should be about the whole caboodle, but regarded as a caboodle it is excessively interesting, and repays careful study by critics.