Whoops, I meant vol 5 p 298, not vol 6. I just finished vol 5 now.

When Nabokov has abusive narrators like in Pale Fire he can't help but let their ridiculousnes and wrongness become (however subtly) lampshaded. But the problem with this part of Proust's novel is that he never does that. As sublime and rich as the Remembrance is, he rarely breaks kayfabe and when he does it only serves to even further reinforce what an obliviously cruel abuser the eponymous narrator is towards his prisoner. In other words, we never get the sense that the author realize the depths of the evil of the narrator'cts actions. It's like Bill Cosby joking about the spanish fly. But I'm holding on because maybe this will change in the last two volumes. Maybe there's a slow train of comeuppance rolling in.

Thisis a book that ebbs and flows. The vicious snarky satire that suddenly appeared a few volumes in has now once more been tempered by a softer appreciation for humanity but this parallel wave of manipulation and psychological abuse has been rising to a nauseating crescendo making this particular perfume blend be tarnished by gasoline fumes. It's tearing me apart; the good parts are so good but the maleficience and ruthlessness runs so deep and so entitedly and self-servingly.

But I'm not saynig "this book would be great if it weren't for the...". Instead, I'm saying that this book might still stick the landing in a way that demonstrates insight about all the messed up and selfish acts prior. I'm looking forward to volume six.

I started reading vol 6 right away.

Also don't get me wrong: the way the eponymous "Marcel" trips himself up ironically is clear throughout the series again and again; it's clear his possessiveness and grass-greener-beyond-the-fence mindset makes him (and his avatars like Swann, Bloch, Charlus, and Saint-Loup) self-sabotage and stumble through life like stepping on a rake at the gates of hell. That part has been made clear as a cool drink of water. But what has not been lampshaded yet is how his jealousy coupled with his lack of fidelity is hypocritical, unfair, and sollipsistic. As if his lovers' lives don't matter beyond figuring as props in his. Arguably as that attitude permeates the entire work not just in romantic love but also in familial connection or aesthetic appreciation, it doesn't need a lampshade any less than the great red sun Rao needs a lamapshade, but, that unapologeticness of his abusive behavior is the difficultest part of this famously difficult book.

Hmm, maybe there is one subtle hint that Marcel ≠ Marcel: when they talk about whether Dostoyevsky was a criminal (and some other authors come up as well). Don't worry, y'all, I know art is art and not an investigation (or a recherche). It's just that sometimes seeing the world so thoroughly conveyed flom an evil perspective becomes hard to take and I start looking for the proverbial edge of the movie screen as a coping mechanism.

Done with vol 6 now. Volume 7 (and I have an eight volume with summaries and cross references) is in deep storage. Hopefully I can go get it today.