I wonder if Sandy’s book took it’s cue from Miss Brodie? I mean, Brodie transfigured everything common and uncommon into something more, nothing was ever mundane with her.

Sorry to be turning up late for the discussion.  You all have such interesting things to say about this book! Whatever ambivalence we may have about its content, I think it is a mark of its quality that it provokes such a great discussion. I want to pick up on two threads that intertwine for me: how we are to feel about Miss Brodie, and the nature of the relationship between Miss Brodie and Sandy. Certainly I don’t think we’re supposed to identify with or root for Miss Brodie.  But I agree that she is a complex character who has many laudable qualities mixed in with some appalling ones.  I too eventually felt that Miss Brodie had to be stopped, but not for the reasons that the Headmistress or Sandy felt that she had to be stopped, and this is part of what keeps the reader a bit off balance.  I didn’t stand with Miss Brodie, but I stood with her against the the Headmistress.  Ultimately, Miss Brodie’s politics were just an excuse for the Headmistress and Sandy to take her down.  For me, they were perhaps the prime reason that she needed to be stopped, not an excuse at all.  Like Danielle, I was particularly disturbed by the fate of Joyce Emily and with Miss Brodies role in it. The reasons why the Headmistress wanted Miss Brodie stopped on the other hand were, to my mind, Miss Brodie’s best qualities.  As for Sandy, I’m not entirely sure why she did betray Miss Brodie.  There is that bit about Miss Brodie acting as god and I think that had something to do with it.  But I think that for Sandy it was much more personal than that.  It seems to me that Sandy’s obsession with Miss Brodie is very similar to Miss Brodie’s obsession with Teddy Lloyd.  Just as Miss Brodie wants to connect with Teddy Lloyd through Rose, Sandy wants to connect with Miss Brodie through Teddy Lloyd.  I think it’s Lloyd that Sandy want to be, as he is regarded by Miss Brodie. I know that we don’t get much of a glimpse inside the heads of the other girls, but it seemed to me that part of Miss Brodie’s appeal for them was the exalted role of being part of her set.  Whereas Sandy was frequently uncomfortable with the group mentality, and it seemed to me that she wished for individual attention from Miss Brodie in a way that the other girls didn’t. For example, she expresses jealousy at some of the things that Miss Brodie says about the other girls. I think that she is quite bitter at the fact that Miss Brodie doesn’t regard her as an appropriate love object instead grooming Rose for the role, and part of Sandy’s motivation is to show her otherwise.  Sandy’s motivations are complex of course.  Her determination that Miss Brodie should be dismissed as ridiculous seems to me to be less because she actually thinks that of her, and more because if she were, that would lessen Miss Brodie’s power over her. Miss Brodie never has parallel feelings about Teddy Lloyd because she doesn’t want to be released from her obsession in the way that Sandy wants to be released from hers.  Let me close by saying that although I see a parallel here, I don’t think these twin obsessions have the same moral valence.  I’m not worried about Teddy Lloyd being used in this way by Sandy, whereas I’m horrified at the way Miss Brodie seeks to use Rose.  Also, Sandy’s feelings for Miss Brodie (if I’m correct and she does have them) form in the midst of a very different sort of power relationship than do Miss Brodie’s for Teddy Lloyd. My thoughts are forming as I’m writing here, so I fear this is a bit disjointed, but I thought I’d throw it out here.

Does the Transfiguration of the Commonplace connect with Brodie thinking she is, and acting like, god?

Do you think Brodie understood her character’s motivations clearly, even though she doesn’t state them to the reader explicitly? Could a writer ever create a story and character without knowing, or purposely give a character behaviors that are contrary to their obvious motivation, just to open up the book to the interpretation of the reader? So: 1. Spark knew exactly what she was doing. 2. Spark wrote without clearly knowing her characters motivations. 3. Spark wrote contrary to her characters’ motivations to generate our thoughts and discussions. Which is it?

Whew, so much to think about here!  I like the idea that Sandy’s book was inspired by Brodie—that Sandy learned from her in the process of rejecting her.  And the book might be a way of “rewriting” Brodie—Sandy is interested in the transfiguration of the commonplace, but probably in quite a different way than Brodie was.  Hopefully, in a better, healthier way, which seems to be the case, since the book was popular and seemed to help people.  So if Brodie was capable of transfiguring the commonplace (like god), Sandy continues to be interested in this transformation—of herself, and of whatever it was she wrote about.

Kate, I agree fully that Brodie’s politics were the reason she needed to be stopped—and the book shows the dangers of her fascistic thinking in all kinds of ways, so that seems to be the conclusion Spark is leading us towards.  And I like the love or obsession or whatever triangles you sketch out—to think of Sandy as vying for Brodie’s attention and acting out against Brodie’s conclusion that she isn’t the appropriate love interest helps explain a lot.  Do you think Sandy continues to be bitter toward Brodie, or does she come to an understanding of Brodie and herself by the end?  My feeling was that Sandy learned at least a little bit to appreciate Brodie’s unconventionality.  I think by the end (when Sandy is at her oldest in the novel), she comes to understand Brodie’s taking on a god-like position and claiming her own state of grace in a more positive light.

Quillhill—I suspect Spark knew a lot of what she was doing in creating character, but since “what she was doing” varies from reader to reader, it’s really hard to say.  I don’t think authors know fully how readers will interpret character, but she surely purposely created much of the ambiguity of the book.  But I’m not a fiction writer, so I’m just guessing (and we all are just guessing, really).

Of Quillhill’s three options above, I can’t imagine it being #3. I don’t think that Spark is playing with the reader in that fashion. Nevertheless, some of the actions of the characters did strike me as running counter to who I thought they were.  Miss Brodie is a very odd character to be sure.  But most of her oddities seemed to me consistent with who I ultimately thought she was.  One exception was her feeding of Mr. Lowther. I still can’t figure out what that was all about.  Any speculation on that point?

I think Spark knew exactly what she was doing, she just chose not to tell the reader everything.

I read the food thing as a way for Miss Brodie to take firmer control of Mr. Lowther and any rumors that might get out and to sideline the sisters from being too involved and learning more than they should and then taking it back to the school.

Was she also playing out some weird charade of domesticity?  She wasn’t going to marry Lowther, but by feeding him like she did, she was fulfilling some kind of domestic role, maybe making up in one area what she lacked in another—love for Lowther.  She can’t give him what he really wants (her love), but she’ll do her best to give him something else (food) as a replacement.

Isn’t it typical for some women to equate food with love. It is probably a genetic trait left over from the days when a caveman clobbered a woman over the head and dragged her home, then fed her and took care of her and kept her safe, and that was love. Isn’t that why dinner is such a courtship ritual? Brodie was probably signaling her power, giving food, caring for him, probably keeping him on a string as a back-up just in case she ever had no where else to turn.

This is Amanda from the Blog Jar.  I hope I’m posting this correctly.

I’m sorry it has taken me so long to get over here.  I don’t have computer access at home and have to get to the library. 

I feel like I’m missing something with “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.” It was a good book, but forgettable.  It was definately far better than my extra-credit book “The Girls of Slender Means.” I feel like I should like this book more than I do.

The Modern Library has this book as #76 one their 100 best novels list.

Huh?

“The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie” beat out Elizabeth Bowen’s The Death of the Heart (#84), E.M. Forster’s A Room with a View (#79), and Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited (#80)? 

Pardon my french, but WTF?

Spark felt like wannabe Waugh. 

What do you all think? 

Here is the link to the Modern Library Site:  http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

By the way—H.G. Wells sounds fantastic!

“A weird charade of domesticity” I like that Dorothy. Mr. Lowther provides her the opportunity to play at being domestic without making any kind of commitment.

Quillhill, I don’t think you can turn something like equating food with love into a genetic trait of women. However, it is a valid point that Miss Brodie feeding Mr. Lowther is an assertion of power.

I got the impression that Brodie was “playing house,” going through the motions of what she thought a wife was, without any real feeling. Perhaps, unconsciously, she overfed him to compensate for starving him emotionally.

I agree that Miss Brodie taking charge of Mr. Lowther’s food, ordering about the Kerr sisters, and elbowing them out at the weekends is entirely within her character.  What I don’t get is the ludicrous over-feeding--for example, the generous tea of lobster salad, liver paste sandwiches, and cake, followed up by a bowl of porridge and cream.  I’m very fond of porridge, but the idea of this makes me queasy! I don’t see it as a replacement for the love she can’t give him because I don’t see her as being empathetic enough to feel badly about the love that she’s not giving him. I imagine her thinking of him as quite lucky to get as much of her as he does. Certainly some women equate food with love (some men too!) but I don’t see Miss Brodie as that sort of woman. Compelling him to eat as a demonstration of her power over him makes more sense to me.  Power over, and shows of that power, seem to me to be central to Miss Brodie’s character.

Amanda, whatever it was, I missed it too.

I agree, Kate (although I may be contradicting myself), that Brodie doesn’t have enough empathy for Lowther to feel bad about not loving him, and the point about asserting power makes a lot of sense.  It’s my sense, though, that Brodie has a peculiar form of logic, and somehow I can see her wanting to play a role—not necessarily FEELING anything in that role—and since she won’t love him, she’ll compensate in other ways to play the role “properly,” hence the overfeeding.

Dorothy, I see what you mean.  If she was doing it out of genuine feeling, she would have a sense of what he wanted and needed, what his appetites actually were.  But because she’s merely playing a role, she gets the proportions all wrong. Your phrase “a wierd charade of domesticity” captures it nicely.