Pip: Welcome to osoparavos.com, where the reading list runs from sixteenth-century French towers to a Paris hotel room with a grudge against its own wallpaper.
Mara: Today’s episode covers three writers and the forces that shaped them — Adam Donaldson Powell traces Proust’s philosophical inheritance, Colette’s radical fidelity to the senses, and the price Oscar Wilde paid for refusing to stop being brilliant.
Pip: Let’s start with Proust, and the two thinkers who handed him his tools.
Proust’s Philosophical Inheritance
Mara: The essay on Montaigne, Nietzsche, and Proust opens with a clean thesis: these two philosophers represent opposite but complementary movements that converge inside In Search of Lost Time — one teaching observation, the other transformation.
Pip: And the post puts it in a single line that does a lot of work: “From Montaigne, Proust learned how to see; from Nietzsche, Proust learned what to do with what is seen.”
Mara: Montaigne’s contribution is a method — what the essay calls radical self-observation, the discipline of watching the self shift rather than pretending it stays fixed. His own words capture it: “I do not portray being; I portray passing.”
Pip: Which is a bracing thing to say in an era that preferred its identities nailed down.
Mara: Nietzsche adds the imperative to act on what observation reveals. The essay connects his concept of amor fati directly to Proust’s climax in Time Regained — the recognition that lost years and grief are not waste but raw material for art.
Pip: So Proust’s cork-lined bedroom turns out to be less a retreat and more a workshop. That reframe lands somewhere between the two thinkers and points straight toward Colette.
Colette’s Anatomy of Embodied Life
Mara: The essay on Colette and the inhumanity of being human argues that she is consistently misread as a celebrant of sensuality, when sensation was actually her instrument of investigation.
Pip: The distinction the post draws is precise: “The senses tell the truth of the moment. We decide what we can bear to hear.”
Mara: What this means in practice is that Colette’s perceptual honesty was both her greatest literary asset and a genuine social liability — she noticed too much, and she rarely distrusted what she noticed.
Pip: The post places her alongside Proust as a complementary anatomist — he excavated consciousness through memory, she excavated presence through sensation. Neither approach cancels the other.
Mara: Her mother Sido is credited with laying the foundation: gardens as laboratories, observation before interpretation. That order of operations — look first, theorize later — defines Colette’s entire method. The accompanying poem, Threshold, makes the same point lyrically: only the observer remembers, and remembrance carries a quiet price.
Pip: The post also notes that her exploitation by Willy became, ironically, an apprenticeship — he could appropriate the signature but not the gaze. That’s a sharp distinction.
Mara: And the author’s closing note extends it: even when Colette’s body contracted to a divan by a window, her perception never capitulated. The gaze outlasted almost everything else. That kind of endurance connects naturally to a writer who faced a more public and violent form of pressure.
Oscar Wilde and the Price of Brilliance
Mara: The essay on Oscar Wilde frames his story not simply as persecution by an unjust society — though it was that — but as the tragedy of a man whose greatest gift became inseparable from his destruction.
Pip: The post is careful to hold both truths at once: Wilde was wronged, and he was also, as it puts it, “an architect of his own dramatic destiny.”
Mara: The argument turns on what wit actually was for Wilde. Not ornament — philosophy. His preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray makes the position explicit: “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written.” That was not a defense of artistic freedom alone; it was an attack on the assumption that literature exists to serve social morality.
Pip: Which society found delightful, right up until it didn’t.
Mara: The essay’s account of the trials is where the argument sharpens. Carson’s cross-examination was methodical and strategic; Wilde’s responses were spontaneous and brilliant. The post identifies the fatal gap: Carson was asking what a statement could prove, while Wilde was answering how beautifully he could respond.
Mara: The moment that crystallizes it is Wilde’s remark about Walter Grainger — dismissing the possibility of attraction on aesthetic grounds rather than moral ones. The post reads it clearly: “He had answered like an artist. Carson needed an answer from a defendant.”
Pip: A single sentence, and the room changed.
Mara: What follows is De Profundis, where the wit doesn’t disappear but transforms. Wilde writes, “I must say to myself that I ruined myself, and that nobody great or small can be ruined except by his own hand.” The post reads this as neither self-pity nor denial — he acknowledges his own vanity without absolving the system that destroyed him.
Pip: The post ends on something close to a paradox: the state could imprison his body but could not make him intellectually ordinary. That was, simultaneously, his tragedy and his preservation.
Mara: Three writers, three different relationships between perception and consequence — Proust transforms what he sees, Colette trusts what she senses, Wilde performs what he knows.
Pip: And all three pay for the honesty in one way or another. Next time, we’ll see what else is on the reading table.
Leave a Reply