Pierre and Jean

One of those sad, sad stories about families and their inability to be good for and to each other!<br /><br />Maupassant excels at neat studies of dysfunctional family situations. Beautiful French, just as in <a href="https://goodreads.com/book/show/641851.Une_vie" title="Une vie by Guy de Maupassant" rel="noopener">Une vie</a>. <br /><br />I found myself constantly wanting to tell Pierre's and Jean's parents that they cause all problems themselves by neglecting the less fortunate son in favour of the easy-going, happy-go-lucky younger son Jean. <br /><br />For all his bad mood and disturbing thoughts, Pierre is the person I related to, mostly because of the injustice of the situation. His younger brother inherits a large fortune and is about to marry a beautiful woman, while Pierre's future is all but settled. His jealousy leads him to discover that Jean is the illegitimate son of the man who favoured him in his will. But again, it is Pierre who has to carry the burden and leave the family to restore his mother's peace of mind.<br /><br />I sincerely despised the mother. I could understand how she was driven to infidelity and even sympathise with her, having just read the sad story of Jeanne, described in <a href="https://goodreads.com/book/show/641851.Une_vie" title="Une vie by Guy de Maupassant" rel="noopener">Une vie</a>, which showed the emptiness and loneliness of a woman's life in the bourgeois 19th century society. <br /><br />But as for how she treated her children, that was inexcusable! <br /><br />It made me reflect on how our values have changed since then. Adultery is not as shocking today as it was back then, and divorce would be an acceptable solution to an unhappy marriage, so we are more liberal now in that respect, generally speaking. When it comes to education and to raising children, we care a lot more, and we consider many things outrageous that people carelessly did to children in the 19th century- because they could. As parents, we take our role more seriously, on the whole, focusing on fair and equal treatment to a much higher degree, and on the social and emotional development of our offspring.<br /><br />I must give Maupassant credit for showing the family in such a way that you have these strong feelings towards fictitious characters! All in all, a worthwhile read and an interesting social study!

Mr. Roland, a former Parisian jeweler passionate about sailing, retired to Le Havre with his wife and two sons: Pierre, the eldest, a medical graduate, and Jean, his youngest five-year-old, who has just finished his law degree. During a family fishing trip with a young widow, Mrs. Rosemilly, the two brothers, to please the young woman, engage in a fierce rowing competition that reveals, under the appearance of union and affection, the rivalry that opposes them. The same evening, they learned that Marshal, an old family friend, had just died in Paris and bequeathed all his fortune to Jean. Pierre then feels an irrepressible jealousy, to which a terrible suspicion is soon superimposed. Would Jean be Marshal's son? Awakened by the insinuations of the pharmacist Marowsko, to whom he just learned the notice ("it will not do any good"), and a brewery maid ("it's no wonder he looks so little like you "). From that moment, doubt will enter the young doctor's mind until it becomes an "intolerable certainty." In his investigation, in which the recovery of buried memories and the interpretation of signs gradually confirm his assumptions, Pierre begins to harass his mother while leaving more unrestricted and more accessible to his jealousy towards his brother, which has become, in a way, legitimate in his eyes. Because Jean seems to have to get everything he wants: fortune, a woman (he will marry Mrs. Rosemilly), apartment. Pierre reveals to him the secret of his birth: "I say what everybody whispers, what all the world stinks, that you are the son of the man who left you his fortune. A clean boy does not accept the money that dishonours his mother." When questioned, she confesses the truth to John, who forgives him. Both decide to dismiss Pierre, the legitimate son. He commits himself as a naval doctor and embarks on Lorraine. <br />As is often the case with Maupassant, the narrative obeys, as we can see, the strict linearity of a tragic and implacable sequence. Implacable also for the reader, who can believe to the end or almost to the jealous delirium of Pierre, and that comes to surprise and despair, in a sense, the absence of rebounding: like the paranoid finally still a victim of the persecution, he fantasy, the young doctor (who does not fail to study as a clinician the evolution of his pathology, alternating, in his case, between clairvoyance and blindness), moved by his unhealthy jealousy, comes to imagine a betrayal. That will prove to have occurred well. Nothing thus escapes Maupassant's radical pessimism: because the madness of the investigator does not exclude the reality of the crime, and vice versa. For "history's morality" is accomplished by evoking a legitimate son of the bastard, the ultimate demystification of the bourgeois family. <br />The treason and adultery. Illegitimate son, the transmission of good, rivalry between brothers, obsession with the double, quest for identity. Although rooted in the social reality of his time, Pierre and Jean address archetypal themes that refer to the myths and to ancient or biblical tragedies (one thinks, among other things, of the investigation of the soul, the revenge of Oreste, the rivalry of Abel and Cain.) And it does so on the dual mode of a narrative at once subjective. The point of view adopted is, almost from one end to the other of the novel, that of Pierre, whose thoughts and objectives we follow. Classical psychology leaving room for an almost scientific self-analysis of frightening clarity.<br />If, as in many founding stories, the revelation of the "family secret" is indeed the object of this morbid and masochistic quest, the truth can never really be circumscribed. She remains indistinguishable from fantasy, enveloping and elusive as a "mist" - The last word of the book. <br />Added at the request of the publisher, who considered the volume a little too thin, the text entitled "The Roman" that precedes Peter and John is part of the movement of critics of naturalism undertaken by Flaubert in reaction to the radical theories of Zola. Maupassant calls for a realistic "visionary" or "illusionist" ("Realists should call rather Illusionists"). "The realist, if he is an artist, will not try to show us the banal photograph of life, but to give us a more complete, striking, more convincing vision than reality itself." As for the advocacy for a reconciliation of the novel of analysis and the objective fiction, it finds its realization in the following narrative, where Maupassant, as we have seen, combines the two approaches.

<i>[Fresh from his triumphs in</i> Bel-Ami, ROBERT PATTINSON will shortly be appearing in Pierre et Jean<i>, directed by A FAMOUS FRENCH DIRECTOR. The following outtake has turned up on YouTube]</i><br /><br />FRENCH DIRECTOR: Vous vous souvenez peut-être, j'ai dit que tout le monde doive lire le roman. Monsieur Pattinson, nous comprenons bien que vous êtes la grande star américaine, mais avez-vous le lu, oui ou merde?<br /><br />INTERPRETER: He asks if you have read the book.<br /><br />PATTINSON: Well, I've had a lot of shit going on, you know, interviews about my breakup with Kristen, and I've had to change my publicist and my personal trainer in the same week, then there's been some tax shit, so, like, give me a break dude, I'll get to it real soon, I promise, you know?<br /><br />INTERPRETER: Il n'a pas lu.<br /><br />FRENCH DIRECTOR: Alors, je vais vous lire un petit bout:<blockquote>Une heure plus tard il était étendu dans son petit lit marin, étroit et long comme un cercueil. Il y resta longtemps, les yeux ouverts, songeant à tout ce qui s'était passé depuis deux mois dans sa vie, et surtout dans son âme. À force d'avoir souffert et fait souffrir les autres, sa douleur agressive et vengeresse s'était fatiguée, comme une lame émoussée. Il n'avait presque plus le courage d'en vouloir à quelqu'un et de quoi que ce fût, et il laissait aller sa révolte à vau-l'eau à la façon de son existence. Il se sentait tellement las de lutter, las de frapper, las de détester, las de tout, qu'il n'en pouvait plus et tâchait d'engourdir son coeur dans l'oubli, comme on tombe dans le sommeil. Il entendait vaguement autour de lui les bruits nouveaux du navire, bruits légers, à peine perceptibles en cette nuit calme du port; et de sa blessure jusque-là si cruelle il ne sentait plus aussi que les tiraillements douloureux des plaies qui se cicatrisent.</blockquote>INTERPRETER: You're lying down. You don't feel too good about what's happened. You're really tired.<br /><br /><i>[PATTINSON lies down and stares at the ceiling]</i><br /><br />FRENCH DIRECTOR: J'en ai marre marre marre de ce comédien de merde, dites-lui encore une fois que c'est Maupassant, pas cette merde de Twilight. Est-ce vraiment impossible de comprendre?<br /><br />INTERPRETER: He asks if you can try to remember you're not Edward.<br /><br /><i>[With apologies to "Lost in Translation"]</i>

Mi primer acercamiento a la obra de Maupassant y debo reconocer que ha sido un gran acierto, desde la historia misma hasta la prosa del autor.<br /><br /><i>Pierre y Jean</i> nos presenta a dos hermanos (cuyos nombres son los del título del libro) quienes tienden a ser muy diferentes entre ellos. Médico uno, y abogado el otro, parece ser que una cuantiosa herencia de un antiguo amigo de su padre les cayó como anillo al dedo: ¿el problema? Que solo se la ha dejado al hijo menor de la familia, Jean. <br /><br />A partir de aquí todo se verá alterado, dando como resultado una serie de acontecimientos entre los dos hermanos, así como las duras reflexiones que se plantea Pierre con respecto a la suerte de Jean y a la situación que se está viviendo. <br /><br />He de decir que de entrada no esperaba mucho de esta novela, quizá porque no es de las obras más conocidas de Maupassant y porque había creído que sería una historia muy simple. En parte lo es, no es una novela en la que pasen muchas cosas pero si hablamos de lo que sucede en la mente de nuestro protagonista Pierre y lo que se desarrolla a raíz de esto, tenemos una historia que vale mucho la pena.<br /><br />Me gustó la construcción y la distinción que tenemos entre los dos hermanos, el curso que sigue la historia de principio a fin; si bien el final no llega a impactar al lector sí que es posible quedar satisfecho al terminar la lectura. <br /><br />Por último, quisiera recomendar esta obra por una razón más, y es el hecho de que contiene una sección inicial llamada <i>La Novela</i> donde Maupassant hace una serie de reflexiones acerca de la novela francesa realista y cómo ha impactado en los lectores y en la crítica de su época. Y cita a Gustave Flaubert en una de las partes que más disfruté leer:<br /><br /><i> <b>“No sé si va usted a tener talento. Lo que me ha traído demuestra cierta inteligencia; pero que no se le olvide esto, joven, que el talento —como dijo Chateaubriand— no es sino una prolongada paciencia. ¡Trabaje!<br />[...] Quien posea una originalidad —decía— tiene ante todo que ponerla a la vista; quien no la tenga, tiene que conseguirla."</b> </i>

Pierre and Jean is a novel about brotherhood and how they are driven apart when one of them becomes the heir of a great fortune, left him by a close friend of the family from long ago. From then off the family gets focused upon Jean, the heir. Pierre feels neglected and decides to become a doctor on one of the large steamships to New York. <br /><br />It isn't a cold and unpassionate story which you get in some french novels. You feel Jean's triump and luck. Meanwhile you feel the desperation of Pierre, who is poor and has no vision to get out of this situation. The parents seem like fools, driven by the luck of only one son. The other is neglected. <br />It's a story about brotherhood, jealousy, rivalry, despair and betrayal. And above all, it's a good story.

you know how something being at the tip of your tongue is like the most aggravating feeling in the world?<br /><br />i know for a fact that my high school french class had a RAGING and hilarious inside joke about this book, and i cannot for the life of me remember what it is.<br /><br />so every time i see it, i am cursed with the awareness that a good laugh is just out of reach for all time.<br /><br />huis clos level turmoil.<br /><br /><i>part of a series i'm doing in which i review books i read a long time ago</i>

3,5*<br /><br />Entrei nesta obra de Guy de Maupassant cheia de inocência, a julgar que “Pierre e Jean” relataria uma rivalidade entre dois irmãos, mas o autor preferiu apimentar as coisas. Pierre sente ciúmes de Jean desde que o benjamim nasceu e quando este recebe uma avultada herança de um velho amigo da família, pensei que o antagonismo iria agudizar-se com as mais terríveis consequências, mas, afinal, o eixo desta história é uma mulher e a sua hipotética infidelidade. Muito policiavam os escritores franceses do século XIX a vida sexual e moral das mulheres...<br /><br /><i>Todas aquelas mulheres ornamentadas queriam agradar, seduzir, e tentar um qualquer. Haviam-se posto belas para os homens, para todos os homens, excepto para o esposo, a quem já não tinham necessidade de conquistar. Haviam-se posto belas para o amante de hoje e o amante de amanhã, para o desconhecido encontrado, assinalado, esperado talvez.</i><br /><br />...sempre com dois pesos e duas medidas, obviamente.<br /><br /><i>Não se casaria, pois n��o queria estorvar a sua existência com uma única e incómoda mulher, mas teria amantes entre as suas mais bonitas clientes.</i><br /><br />Sem adiantar muito sobre o enredo deste estudo psicológico, como o classificou o próprio autor, porque acho que o leitor deve viver a dúvida juntamente com Pierre, diria que esta obra não é a mais cativante de Guy de Maupassant, mas não deixa de ter momentos que me lembram que consegue ter graça sem malícia. <br /><br /><i>Calaram-se. E ele admirava-se que, pelo contrário, ela estivesse tão pouco baralhada, tão razoável. Esperava gentilezas galantes, recusas que dizem sim, toda uma comédia de amor coquete, misturada com a pesca, chapinhando na água! Vinte palavras apenas e estava tudo concluído; sentia-se ligado, casado. Nada mais tinham a dizer visto que estavam de acordo, e permaneciam agora um pouco embaraçados, por tudo o que se passara, tão depressa, entre os dois.</i>

«Ci è capitata, stasera, una cosa molto strana. Un amico di mio padre, morendo, ha lasciato tutto il suo patrimonio a mio fratello.»<br />Il farmacista sembrò non capire subito; ma dopo aver riflettuto un momento, si augurò che il dottore ereditasse per metà. Quando Pierre gli spiegò come stavano le cose, parve sorpreso e turbato ed espresse il proprio disappunto nel vedere sacrificato il suo giovane amico.<br />«Non farà una buona impressione,» ripeté più volte.<br /><br />Quando sono arrivato a questa considerazione, mi sono chiesto perché ciò avrebbe fatto una cattiva impressione. In Maupassant, come in Balzac, il tema dell’eredità è dibattuto spesso. L’eredità è l’evento romanzesco per eccellenza, consente di venire in possesso di denaro e rendite da un giorno all’altro, l’ideale per iniziare una vita al di sopra delle proprie possibilità. Cosa c’è di così strano se un amico di famiglia nomina erede solo uno di due fratelli? Pare che Maupassant fu colpito da questa notizia di cronaca al punto da usarla come il marmo sul quale scolpire il suo romanzo a venire. Essa andò a rinverdire una delle sue paure infantili e lo guidò alla realizzazione di un’opera stilisticamente perfetta. Maupassant, ancora più di Balzac, dà l’idea di essere nato per scrivere, lo fa con la naturalezza con la quale altri artisti del suo calibro scolpiscono o dipingono. Ma che lavoro deve esserci dietro un libro come questo? Quante riscritture, quanti aggiustamenti deve aver fatto affinché la sua prosa ottocentesca arrivasse a noi come se fosse stata scritta ieri e meglio di come sarebbe scritta oggi?<br />Nella prefazione ho scoperto che Maupassant fu discepolo e amico di Flaubert, tanto da scrivere undici anni dopo la morte di quest’ultimo: «Penso sempre al mio povero Flaubert, e vorrei essere morto, se fossi sicuro che qualcuno pensa a me, come io penso a lui». <br />Forse per l’ambientazione sulla costa normanna, forse per le ripetute analisi psicologiche, mi ripetevo che non stavo leggendo uno dei migliori romanzi di Georges Simenon (uno di quelli senza morti ammazzati). Sarebbe interessante togliere la copertina e i dati biografici al libro e darlo in lettura a qualcuno che ha già letto almeno una decina di “durs”. <br />Duecento pagine circa, fatevi un regalo, leggetelo.<br /><br />

حكاية عن الغيرة، الخيانة، التشتت، المشاعر المخفية التي تتخلل علاقة الإخوة، وعن الأهل حين لا يكونون كفؤاً لحمل هذه المسؤولية المقدسة .. تراجيديا مؤلمة نجح الكاتب في رسمها، وأبدع في تناوله لصراع الإنسان مع مشاعره؛ كيف تنغرس بذرة الشك الخبيثة في نفسه وتجعل جانباه الطيب والقاسي يتنازعانه بلا هوادة، ليتركاه بعدها هيكلاً ضعيفاً يتهاوى.<br /><br />وأخيراً، هناك من يحالفه الحظ، وهناك من يلاحقه الشقاء.. لكن الشيء الثابت - غالباً - أن عائلة الإنسان هي من ستحدد كونه تعيساً أو سعيداً بغض النظر عما سيلاقيه في حياته.<br /><br /><b>" كان متعباً كشفرة مثلّمة لفرط ما تألم هو وآلم الآخرين. "</b>

The obvious reading of this novel is that of the fragility of familial life, how the intertwined relations of multiple persons over a lifetime can be rent asunder by a chance of fate that was neither sought nor expected. <br /><br />Yet I can't help think there is a deeper meaning to this novel than this surface level analysis. Maupassant seems to hint that the whole of civilised life runs on a complicit falsehood operating at a societal level. <br /><br />Anyone who tries to upset this falsehood, through probing, deduction, logical thinking, the seeking of truth, is bound to not only be psychologically destroyed by their own discovery - that happy life and relationships come only from the mindless thrall of a delusion - but also that the truth seeker, by seeking truth, becomes an enemy of this false society; an enemy who must be mercilessly crushed, destroyed, excluded and disposed of.