The Warning in The Beast in the Jungle
"In the case of Henry James there should not be much dispute about the
exactness and completeness of the representation; no man ever strove more
studiously or on the whole more successfully to reproduce the shape and
color and movement of his æsthetic experience." These are the remarks
of Stuart P. Sherman from his article entitled "The Aesthetic Idealism of
Henry James," from The Nation, p. 397, April 5, 1917. Now, some seventy-two
years later critical readers are still coming to terms with James'
aesthetic vision. As we have discussed in class, James aestheticizes
everything. Sexual intercourse, carnal knowledge, painful self-discovery,
human mortality, etc., are often figuratively and metaphorically veiled so
as not to disturb or repulse the reader. Taking a closer look at this, one
might say that James did this so that he himself would not be repulsed.
Perhaps James wasn't thinking so much of the reader as he was thinking of
himself.
In "The Beast in the Jungle" James has aesthetically hidden the
reality of Marcher's destiny by treating it as a symbolic crouching beast
waiting to spring. The reader will ask why James has done this? Wouldn't it
be more effective to speak plainly of Marcher's and Bartram's relationship?
The author could tell us exactly why John Marcher does not marry May
Bartram. The narrator tells us that Marcher's situation "was not a
condition he could invite a woman to share" and "that a man of feeling
didn't cause himself to be accompanied by a lady on a tiger hunt" (p. 417).
This is nonsense. Marcher won't marry May because he doesn't want to
inconvenience her with his condition or endanger her life on a tiger hunt?
First of all, he inconveniences her right up to the day of her death with
his condition, and as for the metaphorical tiger hunt, what exactly does
that refer to? What is it here that James will not speak of in plain
language? Simply what is the meaning of this; what is the author's intent?
One might speculate that this story is somewhat autobiographical in
that James himself never married and often carried on close personal
relationships with a very select few. The various biographers of his life
have brought to light a number of respectable ladies and men with whom
James was personally and privately acquainted. There is also the belief
that everything an author produces is autobiographical to a certain extent.
And supposing "The Beast in the Jungle" is largely autobiographical, once
again I ask what was James' intention? Is the story so autobiographical
that James felt it necessary to create an elaborate smoke-screen to elude
the critics of its true meaning in view of his personal life? Was the
aesthetic curtain drawn to protect his privacy? I believe this to be the
case, yet it seems to me that "The Beast in the Jungle" might also be read
as a warning to people who behave much like Marcher. Perhaps James is
saying one should not be foolish with the precious time of one's life. I
believe Krishna Vaid would agree with me; Vaid states:"The wider thematic
context of 'The Beast' is perhaps too obvious to merit more than a bare
mention: it is a 'fantastic' embodiment of the central Jamesian theme of
the unlived life"(Vaid p. 224). Readings and interpretations on James'
intent vary widely.
For this brief examination I have acquired around ten different
sources. There was also an exchange of ideas in our February 28th class on
other critical works which I will attempt to deal with. In some ways the
criticism I have found is rather uniform, but on some points it differs
considerably. I shall start with the common parts of the criticism. Because
"The Beast in the Jungle" is a rather short work, the majority of these
critics tend to summarize the entire story instead of concentrating on one
or two significant aspects. I have found they are in general agreement that
May Bartram is the figurative "Beast." Allen Tate says "As May Bartram
stands before [Marcher], 'all soft,' it is marcher's Beast which has leaped
at him from his jungle" (Tate p. 77). Walter Wright comments "[Marcher]
sees the beast in not one but two symbolic images. Thinking again of the
last parting, he sees the beast as having then sprung:'it had sprung in
that cold April when...she had risen from her chair' "(italics mine)
(Wright p. 199). Donna Przybylowicz explains that "The pursuit of
[Marcher's] beast reveals a void... for, although he first sees in it, and
in May as well, a reflection of his own desires and hopes, later it mirrors
not only her demise but his inevitable death as well," and also "Marcher
feels that May's dying...was what he had figured as the beast in the
jungle" (Przybylowicz pp. 96 & 97). I admit that I have loosely construed
the notion of May as the beast in the latter two critics, but if the
springing of the beast is equated with any movement on the part of May, I
ultimately feel compelled to note the two springing motions as the acts of
one body.
A number of the critics I have read mention Marcher's waiting, his
anticipating of his big moment, the realization of the Beast of his destiny.
Charles Hoffman explains "John Marcher is singularly dedicated to waiting
for the worst of all imaginable things to happen to him" (Hoffman p. 99).
Edward Stone dwells on this same point but with more emphasis on the
story's structure and symbolism; he refers " to the obvious key [of] the
hero's monotonously methodical progress toward his unwitting doom as it
immediately appears to us in his name, Marcher " (Stone p. 122). As what I
see in direct antithesis to Stone, Przybylowicz states that "Marcher lives
passively in expectation of an ... unknown destiny and expresses neither a
desire to direct his own life nor any interest in any genuine futural
possibilities" and also "He allows experience to act upon him and sits
passively, awaiting the spring of the formidable beast" (Przybylowicz pp.
93 & 109). How is it that Stone sees the hero as a progressing methodical
march-er towards destiny, when to march implies that the marcher has a
sense of the location of his march? Whereas Przybylowicz explains John
Marcher as passive and having no "desire to direct his own life." And in
opposition to Przybylowicz, Edward Wagenknecht calls Marcher blind in
regard to his wait and maintains "Life offers its best to him, and he
passes it by, not because he does not value or desire it but simply because
he does not recognize it" (Wagenknecht p. 148). Somehow Wagenknecht finds
that Marcher does indeed value things while Przybylowicz says he does not.
How can I, now a student of criticism, resolve these opposing stances? I
find that these opposing positions represent an immense problem in the
study of Marcher's character. By believing that Marcher does or does not
desire life's best the critical reader can come away from the story with
one of two entirely different interpretations. If I believe that Marcher
involves himself in life, I will feel sympathetic towards him at the end of
the story. If I believe Marcher is in fact passive, then I can say he gets
everything he deserves at the conclusion. To further complicate this issue,
Wright says "[Marcher] has already become so immersed in his pursuit of his
special fate that he no longer believes he is seeking it" (Wright p. 194).
I believe Wright would side with Wagenknecht against Przybylowicz on this
point. I have to side with Przybylowicz bcause if Marcher had actually
pursued life he would have found his destiny. Instead Marcher's fate is
only revealed to him at the conclusion of the story. It all kind of gets
back to the proverb " seek and ye shall find." I think Marcher neither
values his life or seeks his destiny.
Practically all ten or so of my critics deal with the image of the
springing beast. Yet as not to bore my reader with the tediousness of
exploring all of the critics' rather redundant passages, I will dwell on
just a few of what I find the more interesting explanations. Immediately I
find that Richard Hocks views the beast unlike the rest of my critics in
that he says "the beast that springs in the tale is not so much any
particular point in the story as it is a kind of slow motion springing
that begins with the first line and completes itself with the last" (Hocks
p. 184). Wright, with May in mind, claims that "Unlike Marcher, who can see
his fate only as a beast which will sometime jump, [May] sees it as
something always at work" (Wright p. 196). This point is very much in line
with Hocks statement. With these two views in mind, we can envision the
beast in the action of a slow motion springing, constant throughout the
story. Yet Wright also goes on to say that when Marcher "senses ... that
[May] is dying, he feels that his own life will end, indeed that her death
represents, after all, the leap of the beast" (Wright p. 198). Wright
presents two entirely different views of the beast, which is surprisingly
something that our class has not hit on yet. Marcher and May each have
their own view of the beast. I ask, whose view do we follow? Can we accept
both characters' views? I think we can. May is Marcher's beast in that she
possesses the knowledge of his fate, and Marcher, I think, can be deemed
May's beast, after all, he pounces or springs upon her as she rests in her
grave at the end of the story. To embellish my perception, Wagenknecht
states "The Beast had sprung at last, and we leave Marcher, in his awakened
anguish, flung face downward, upon May's grave. Knowledge has come at last"
(Wagenknecht pp. 149-150). Although Wagenknecht evades giving us his
interpretation of what the beast is, he at least implies that May having
passed on, has also passed on to Marcher the knowledge he believed her to
possess.
In all of this criticism I did not find any mention of Marcher
experiencing homosexual panic. There is some talk about Marcher finding his
identity through May and how his egotism is the center of his private
universe, but I do not find the majority of these works to be on the
cutting edge of criticism. I have not found any inferences of homosexuality
or discussions considering the springing beast as the aggressivity of the
erecting phallus. Donna Przybylowicz is the only who stands apart from all
the critics I've read in that she makes mention of May's subjugation:"the
woman's needs are completely subordinated to those of the self-centered
male. As his alter ego, May does not live her own life but exists
vicariously through Marcher's limited experience of the world" (pp. 94-5).
While I am not sure of Krishna Vaid's gender, Donna Przybylowicz would
appear to be the only woman in the group of critics that I have assembled,
and it would appear a feminist as well.
Now I shall try to tie this all together in a DeManian knot. First of
all, it is my understanding that critics attain their insight by being
blind to certain things. This blindness to aspects of the work causes the
critic to unconsciously discover the form and unity of the text in their
interpretations. There is also the idea that the natural form of the work
can not be found by exploring the rhetorical form of the text, because
everything that the words figuratively represent actually mean something
else. Mine is a very basic and loose understanding of course. What I want
to know is how do we decide if something stated by a critic is valid? For
example, Przybylowicz is blind to some things, but she has insight to the
notion that May's "needs are completely subordinated." And likewise Vaid
must be blind to some things as well, but makes a point of stating that
James' theme in "The Beast in the Jungle" is that of "the unlived life." I
could go on with this redundancy but that would be quite pointless. What
I'm trying to get at is this, are the critics' individual blindnesses the
insights of others and versa vice? I have a lot of trouble understanding
the concept of the correct misreading. It seems to me that according to de
Man's thoughts there is absolutely no way of truly correctly reading the
text. I am completely stumped and mystified. F.W. Dupee says "The Beast of
Marcher's fate is a figurative beast; Marcher's search for his past is a
figurative search" (Dupee p. 158). Again, my understanding is cloudy at
best: the critic is allowed to interpret the figurative usage of the author
in a way that only he is individually capable of? Perhaps the way to judge
the overall interpretation of a text is by seeing how many critics come up
with the same reading? Or, with this question, have I unwittingly fallen
into the trap of majority rule?
I would now like to offer my view of the story as I close my
examination. I find my view of the story grounded largely in what I
consider biographical evidence. I believe that James' intent is one of
warning the readers not to waste their lives as Marcher has. James never
married, had a relationship with Ms. Woolson, (which I can't help but think
of as the source for his Bartram-Marcher relationship) and wrote this story
some twenty-odd years after his brother William married. Richard Hall
explains that it wasn't until the early 1900s that Henry was able to deal
with the inferiority complex that he felt in regard to his older brother
(Hall, part II, p. 26). Henry James must have sensed himself on a Marcher-
like path and caught himself just in time, otherwise he would not have been
able to write the story; he would have died before having the proper
knowledge. Actually, I could spend ten pages defending my view that this
story is autobiographical. But in so many words that is my understanding of
this material. Unfortunately, I feel that at the present time I can not
fully exhibit everything I've learned. I see my experience of this course
emerging more with the passing of time as I apply it to future coursework.Partner sites: Spanish school Costa Rica, Skin Cancer, and Free Essays and Term Papers