A museum piece. Not one of those that draws the crowds, either; more of a worthy but kind of dull, really, Velazquez.

A companion to Gide's [b:Strait is the Gate|469406|Strait is the Gate (La Porte Etroite)|André Gide|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1347378560s/469406.jpg|702632], in which he explores the dangers of over-religiosity, in The Immoralist he explores the dangers of rejecting the conventional moral life and trying to live for immediate aesthetic and sensual pleasures. Well, kind of. The life Michel leads here is still fairly conventional, even edging on moral, despite his lofty rhetoric otherwise. He just doesn't do much to impress the reader that he's in fact living out his stated aims and rejecting convention.

Which gets to what this story is perhaps really about: repressed homosexuality. I have to take issue with the book description where it states the book is "a frank defense of homosexuality". It is nothing of the kind. In regards to Michel's homosexuality, it is the opposite of frank. It is subtle enough that it apparently went almost totally unnoticed at the time of its publication. Furthermore it is not a defense; Michel is a mostly unsympathetic character, he treats his devoted (painfully so) wife rather appallingly, and as Gide writes in his preface to a later edition of the work, "If I had intended my hero as an example, it must be granted I did anything but succeed." Indeed, I can't imagine anyone thinking at the end of this story, "Man, that Michel, what a great guy."

It may be said this book is an illustration of the torments and harm that can come about through the individual repressing such an elementary, necessary part of him or herself. A repression that can be blamed on society's restrictive conception of what is proper and moral, to be sure. Even when the individual tries to live in a way more true to himself, it may still prove difficult.

The Immoralist may then be more a condemnation of narrow-minded society that produces tormented men like Michel, than of Michel's transgressive actions, or a defense of such a man produced by such a society.

Which all may make the book sound like an entertaining read, but I assure you, the ideas behind the book are more interesting than the book's execution. ( )

3.5 ( )

The start of this book is somewhat absurd:
Preface: I wrote this book, and offer it for what it's worth;
Letter: Dear brother, please find attached my account of visiting Michel in Tunisia;
Account of Tunisia: I'm writing to you from Tunisia, where it's sunny. Here's what Michel said;
What Michel said: The actual story.

The absurd thing about this is that all this framing adds nothing. Somehow it was necessary for the author to distance himself not just once, with a narrator, or twice with a narrator writing down someone's story, but three times with a narrator recounting how he previously wrote down someone's story. And then the author sticks a preface in front of it saying that his book tries to prove nothing, just in case you weren't distanced enough.

And, this is exactly how I feel about this book - distanced. There are a few passages where the story was allowed to unfold, but mostly Michel just described how tormented he was about how he thought and felt about things - getting sick, managing a farm, Parisian society, having a sick wife. I believe the value of a novel as opposed to a work of philosophy is to allow the reader to experience or observe behaviour and emotions, rather than simply be exposed to ideas. This novel does the latter and suffers for it.

I also found that although I know it was a different time, I found many of the choices made by Michel frustrating. He seems too willing to sacrifice others for his own fulfilment, regardless of whether it might be entirely necessary. Maybe at the time it was necessary to say "I must be free regardless of who I harm in doing so" but today I'm much more interested in the question of "How can I be free and allow others to live and be free as well?" Michel certainly doesn't entertain this question. ( )

While I was initially excited by the premise of the book, it was very slow paced. It ended up being more just slow ramblings of an old man and not important life lessons he learned or the friendships he made along the way. ( )

Reason Read: Reading 1001, randomizer pick for June 2023.
Written in 1902. French author, translated by David Watson, 2000
1947 Nobel Prize in Literature.

This is a short work about a man named Michel who systematically ruins his life. A self absorbed person who is never content with life and has to find a way to move on. I am grateful that this is a short book. It is not my favorite. Rated it a C

I agree that the debauchery is handled tastefully which I appreciated. We the reader get the point. And it is about more than homosexuality it also includes pederasty. "As a self-professed pederast, he used his writing to explore his struggle to be fully oneself, including owning one's sexual nature, without betraying one's values." I don't fully agree that the author kept himself out of the book, but in this book he did explore what happens when one betrays his values. ( )