I chose The Red and the Black for the category of “Classic
in Translation” for the Back to the Classics Challenge 2017 hosted by Karen at
the blog Books and Chocolate .
First published in 1830, The Red and the Black
reminded me of Crime and Punishment in its psychological excavation of
the human mind and the conflicting emotions present in one person. But I appreciated Dostoyevsky’s novel much
more, although I can’t exactly pinpoint why.
My feelings about The Red and the Black may be akin to how some readers
really hate Wuthering Heights and its tortured, unpleasant lead characters. In the introduction written by translator
Roget Gard in the Penguin edition that I read, he suggests that like Jane
Austen’s Emma, Julien Sorel, the hero of The Red and the Black,
is a creation that perhaps only the author can truly love and appreciate.
First, let me say that I enjoyed Emma and Wuthering
Heights. And I am glad to have read
The Red and the Black. I do understand that no one in this novel is actually
supposed to be particularly sympathetic to the reader, but I didn’t find any of
main protagonists particularly interesting either. Another stumbling block for
me was the (now) historical setting. While the Penguin edition that I read pictured
above did have excellent notes by Roger Gard, Stendhal clearly expected his
readers to be familiar with 1829 French politics and the then recent
restoration of constitutional monarchy after the upheavals of the French
Revolution and the First Empire. Had I a better understanding of the historical
nuances, I think I would have understood more of the book’s satirical aspects.
The story is about Julian Sorel, the son of a carpenter in a village
at the foot of the Jura Mountains. His father and his brothers abuse him for
wanting more than the life of a mill worker.
Julian is physically very attractive and actually crazy smart (has an eidetic
memory) but he is not well educated academically nor is he socially adept,
which is a big drawback for an ambitious man in hyper-class conscious 19th
century France. He first believes his only
way up and out of the peasant class is through the Catholic Church but he
resents the fact that under Napoleon I, had he been born a mere 30 years
earlier, he could have distinguished himself militarily despite his plebian
background. Julian has almost a literal Napoleon
complex, although his “shortcoming” is not his height but his shame about his
origins.
As the book progresses, the reader sees how
Julian achieves and fails to achieve his ambitions. I think what made him
maddening to me as a character is that he is basically a prick. He does stuff,
like seduce the wife of his employer, not because he loves her but because HE
CAN. Who doesn’t know people like that
today? So I think my real “complaint” is
that the book is too well written really. This is a realist novel which feels
very modern; fashion and politics have changed some in the almost 200 years
since the book was written, human nature has not.