Skip to main content

The Moon and Sixpence



For most people life is quite a simple affair: acquire some education, find a job, marry, bring up children, grow old and die. There are the usual entertainments and challenges in the process: the society, colleagues, petty jealousies, workplace rivalry, children’s caprices, social networks, weekly religion, etc. Very few people are beset by a haunting passion that drives them toward the hazy moon beyond the usual horizon. Somerset Maugham’s novel, The Moon and Sixpence, tells the story of a man who gave up his career and family at the age of 40 for the sake of pursuing his moon.

Charles Strickland gives up his stockbroker job in London at the age of 40 and leaves for Paris to pursue painting. He doesn’t even care to inform his wife
why he is leaving. Nor has he left her any money. When the narrator meets him in a shoddy hotel in Paris on his wife’s request, Strickland says tersely, “I’ve got to paint.” He is not concerned about his family at all. He has looked after them for 17 years, he says, and now they should look after themselves. As simple as that.

But why is he pursuing painting now when he has crossed half of his life? If not now, when? That’s Strickland’s counter-question. He may not be a good painter. But he cannot resist his heart’s demand. He compares himself to a man falling into the water. “When a man falls into the water it doesn’t matter how he swims, well or badly: he’s got to get out or else he’ll drown.” He has to paint; there’s no other choice.

When the narrator points out that his act is very irresponsible and reminds him that the world couldn’t go on if everyone acted like him, his answer is: “That’s a damned silly thing to say. Everyone doesn’t want to act like me. The great majority are perfectly content to do the ordinary thing.”

Yes, Strickland is extraordinary. He is like a man who has been enchanted by a pied piper. He has no choice but paint. And he paints. The eminent artists in Paris mock his painting but that doesn’t deter him a bit. Dirk Stroeve is the only painter who perceives the worth of Strickland’s paintings. He knows that Strickland’s genius will be recognised eventually.

When Strickland falls seriously ill, Stroeve takes him to his own home heedless of his wife’s warning against it. When Strickland recovers he assaults Mrs Stroeve sexually. She seems to like that too. Dirk is too sentimental to be macho and Strickland is the personification of masculine power. Blanche Stroeve not only becomes a nude model for Strickland but also leaves her husband. Eventually Blanche realises that Strickland doesn’t love her and that he is incapable of love and she kills herself. Even Blanche’s death doesn’t move Strickland.

Strickland is incapable of love, reflects the narrator. Love “is an emotion in which tenderness is an essential part, but Strickland had no tenderness either for himself or for others; there is in love a sense of weakness, a desire to protect, an eagerness to do good and to give pleasure… it has in it a certain diffidence. These were not traits which I could imagine in Strickland.” He was “at once too great and too small for love.”

But Strickland leaves Paris after Blanche’s death. Dirk also leaves. Dirk returns to his hometown while Strickland finds his abode in Tahiti where a young Tahitian woman, Ata, will subjugate herself to his whims and fancies and bear his children though he is not concerned about any of them. He continues to paint until leprosy grips him and slowly kills him.

When his family members in London come to know about his ignominious death, they moralise it: “The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.” The narrator is not quire sure of that. Who are we to judge people? Some people like Strickland are born out of place and they have to go searching for their appropriate place even if the quest is a reaching-out for the moon.  

Strickland became very famous after his death. His paintings sold for enormous sums of money. He was indeed a genius. The rules of the normal people don’t apply to geniuses. Strickland had no heart in the normal human understanding. The man had dismissed love bluntly as a “weakness” and “a disease”. Yet the narrator tells us that Strickland had his own greatness.

Strickland was single-minded about his passion. He was not affected by normal human vices like greed and jealousy. He had no desire for fame or even simple appreciation. He made no compromises with anyone. He never wanted anything from fellow human beings except to be left alone. He could sacrifice not only himself but also others for reaching his ends. He had a vision and he pursued it with his entire being.

Strickland was modelled on Paul Gauguin who abandoned his career and family to pursue painting.
 
Somerset Maugham
PS. This is part of a series being written for the #BlogchatterA2Z Challenge. The previous parts are:

Tomorrow: No Exit




Comments

  1. Strickland definitely is quirky like the most of the extra-ordinarily talented people. Their ways of thinking, their set of values are strikingly different from the rest of the world, the ordinary people. Though Strickland might have been genius artist he had all the darker shades of lust laced to his characteristics. I had a strong emotion of hatred felt towards Strickland though the narrator has tried to justify Strickland's deeds and praised his genius.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is almost impossible to like Strickland. He was subhuman mostly, superhuman aesthetically. Art without heart is not likely to find fans.

      Delete
  2. Long time back I had picked up this book but due to various reasons could not read beyond a few pages. Maybe I had to return this book to the library to take clearance for my transfer. I am happy that I got an overall idea about the book and will read it. I think painter Vincent van Gogh met with a similar fate as that of Paul Ganguin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Van Gogh and Gauguin were contemporaries and suffered similar fates:both were recognized after death. But Van Gogh was a saint at heart.

      Delete
  3. Geniuses have a world of their own that the ordinary may not connect with. Reaching out for the moon doesn't seem practical in real life. And yet there's the example of Paul Gauguin. It's a mystery how their minds work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mystery indeed because these artists underwent tremendous suffering in order to pursue their moons whereas they did have much easier options.

      Delete
  4. Reminds me of Van Gogh. Geniuses are often driven by quirkiness. They aren't easy people even to deal with. Thanks for the summary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Van Gogh and Gauguin were contemporaries and suffered similar fates:both were recognized after death. But Van Gogh was a saint at heart.

      Delete
  5. Thanks for the summary! Another one in my list now 😊

    ReplyDelete
  6. What an interesting book! Adding it to my TBR list.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very interesting book and review, I am definitely going to read, thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome. I wouldn't call these reviews, I'm trying to present some good books in my own way.

      Delete
  8. Another intriguing story, and intriguing book.
    The bit about most people okay with the mundane is quite true, as is the fact that anyone like Strickland would always be considered weird and an outlier. That doesn't justify his lack of emotions though.


    Thanks for this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lack of emotions is what makes Strickland repulsive but intriguing. Difficult to like him.

      Delete
  9. Have read The Ant and the Grasshopper from Maugham years ago. This looks interesting. Will check it out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maugham was one of the most popular writers of his time. Have a nice time with him.

      Delete
  10. Well written summary and review. Good to know about the book and the artist.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country where humour died

Humour died a thousand deaths in India after May 2014. The reason – let me put it as someone put it on X.  The stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra called a politician some names like ‘traitor’ which made his audience laugh because they misunderstood it as a joke. Kunal Kamra has to explain the joke now in a court of justice. I hope his judge won’t be caught with crores of rupees of black money in his store room . India itself is the biggest joke now. Our courts of justice are huge jokes. Our universities are. Our temples, our textbooks, even our markets. Let alone our Parliament. I’m studying the Ramayana these days in detail because I’ve joined an A-to-Z blog challenge and my theme is Ramayana, as I wrote already in an earlier post . In order to understand the culture behind Ramayana, I even took the trouble to brush up my little knowledge of Sanskrit by attending a brief course. For proof, here’s part of a lesson in my handwriting.  The last day taught me some subhashit...

Lucifer and some reflections

Let me start with a disclaimer: this is not a review of the Malayalam movie, Lucifer . These are some thoughts that came to my mind as I watched the movie today. However, just to give an idea about the movie: it’s a good entertainer with an engaging plot, Bollywood style settings, superman type violence in which the hero decimates the villains with pomp and show, and a spicy dance that is neatly tucked into the terribly orgasmic climax of the plot. The theme is highly relevant and that is what engaged me more. The role of certain mafia gangs in political governance is a theme that deserves to be examined in a good movie. In the movie, the mafia-politician nexus is busted and, like in our great myths, virtue triumphs over vice. Such a triumph is an artistic requirement. Real life, however, follows the principle of entropy: chaos flourishes with vengeance. Lucifer is the real winner in real life. The title of the movie as well as a final dialogue from the eponymous hero sugg...

Abdullah’s Religion

O Abdulla Renowned Malayalam movie actor Mohanlal recently offered special prayers for Mammootty, another equally renowned actor of Kerala. The ritual was performed at Sabarimala temple, one of the supreme Hindu pilgrimage centres in Kerala. No one in Kerala found anything wrong in Mohanlal, a Hindu, praying for Mammootty, a Muslim, to a Hindu deity. Malayalis were concerned about Mammootty’s wellbeing and were relieved to know that the actor wasn’t suffering from anything as serious as it appeared. Except O Abdulla. Who is this Abdulla? I had never heard of him until he created an unsavoury controversy about a Hindu praying for a Muslim. This man’s Facebook profile describes him as: “Former Professor Islahiaya, Media Critic, Ex-Interpreter of Indian Ambassador, Founder Member MADHYAMAM.” He has 108K followers on FB. As I was reading Malayalam weekly this morning, I came to know that this Abdulla is a former member of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Kerala , a fundamentalist organisation. ...

Violence and Leaders

The latest issue of India Today magazine studies what it calls India’s Gross Domestic Behaviour (GDB). India is all poised to be an economic superpower. But what about its civic sense? Very poor, that’s what the study has found. Can GDP numbers and infrastructure projects alone determine a country’s development? Obviously, no. Will India be a really ‘developed’ country by 2030 although it may be $7-trillion economy by then? Again, no is the answer. India’s civic behaviour leaves a lot, lot to be desired. Ironically, the brand ambassador state of the country, Uttar Pradesh, is the worst on most parameters: civic behaviour, public safety, gender attitudes, and discrimination of various types. And UP is governed by a monk!  India Today Is there any correlation between the behaviour of a people and the values and principles displayed by their leaders? This is the question that arose in my mind as I read the India Today story. I put the question to ChatGPT. “Yes,” pat came the ...

The Ramayana Chronicles: 26 Stories, Endless Wisdom

I’m participating in the A2Z challenge of Blogchatter this year too. I have been regular with this every April for the last few years. It’s been sheer fun for me as well as a tremendous learning experience. I wrote mostly on books and literature in the past. This year, I wish to dwell on India’s great epic Ramayana for various reasons the prominent of which is the new palatial residence in Ayodhya that our Prime Minister has benignly constructed for a supposedly homeless god. “Our Ram Lalla will no longer reside in a tent,” intoned Modi with his characteristic histrionics. This new residence for Lord Rama has become the largest pilgrimage centre in India, drawing about 100,000 devotees every day. Not even the Taj Mahal, a world wonder, gets so many footfalls. Ayodhya is not what it ever was. Earlier it was a humble temple town that belonged to all. Several temples belonging to different castes made all devotees feel at home. There was a sense of belonging, and a sense of simplici...