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

Ivan the unusual friend

When you are down and out, you will find that people are of two types. One is the kind that will walk away from you because now you are no good. They will pretend that you don’t exist. They don’t see you even if you happen to land right in front of them. The other is the sort that will have much fun at your expense. They will crack jokes about you even to you or preach at you or pray over you. This latter people are usually pretty happy that you are broke. You make them feel more comfortable with themselves even to the point of self-righteousness. Ivan was an exception. When I slipped on the path of life and started a free fall that would last many years before I hit the bottom without a thud but with enormous anguish, Ivan stood by me for some reason of his own. He didn’t display any affection which probably he didn’t have. He didn’t display any dislike either. There was no question of preaching or praying. No jokes either. Ivan was my colleague for a brief period at St Joseph’s

Joe the tenacious friend

AI-generated illustration You outgrow certain friendships because life changes you in ways that nobody, including you, had expected. Joe is one such friend of mine who was very dear to me once. That friendship cannot be sustained anymore because I am no more the person whom Joe knew and loved to amble along with. And Joe seems incapable of understanding the fact that people can change substantially. Joe and I were supposed to meet one of these days after a gap of more than two decades. I scuttled the meeting rather heartlessly. Just because Joe’s last messages carried words that smacked of intimacy. My life has gone through so much devastating fire that the delicate warmth of intimacy has become repulsive. Joe was a good friend of mine while we were in Shillong. He was a post-graduate student and a part-time schoolteacher when I met him first. I was a fulltime schoolteacher teaching math and science to ninth and tenth graders. My dream was to postgraduate in English literature an

Kailasnath the Paradox

AI-generated illustration It wasn’t easy to discern whether he was a friend or merely an amused onlooker. He was my colleague at the college, though from another department. When my life had entered a slippery slope because of certain unresolved psychological problems, he didn’t choose to shun me as most others did. However, when he did condescend to join me in the college canteen sipping tea and smoking a cigarette, I wasn’t ever sure whether he was befriending me or mocking me. Kailasnath was a bundle of paradoxes. He appeared to be an alpha male, so self-assured and lord of all that he surveyed. Yet if you cared to observe deeply, you would find too many chinks in his armour. Beneath all those domineering words and gestures lay ample signs of frailty. The tall, elegantly slim and precisely erect stature would draw anyone’s attention quickly. Kailasnath was always attractively dressed though never unduly stylish. Everything about him exuded an air of chic confidence. But the wa

Machiavelli the Reverend

Let us go today , you and I, through certain miasmic streets. Nothing will be quite clear along our way because this journey is through some delusions and illusions. You will meet people wearing holy robes and talking about morality and virtues. Some of them will claim to be god’s men and some will make taller claims. Some of them are just amorphous. Invisible. But omnipotent. You can feel their power around you. On you. Oppressing you. Stifling you. Reverend Machiavelli is one such oppressive power. You will meet Franz Kafka somewhere along the way. Joseph K’s ghost will pass by. Remember Joseph K who was arrested one fine morning for a crime that nobody knew anything about? Neither Joseph nor the men who arrest him know why Joseph K is arrested. The power that keeps Joseph K under arrest is invisible. He cannot get answers to his valid questions from the visible agents of that power. He cannot explain himself to that power. Finally, he is taken to a quarry outside the town wher

Levin the good shepherd

AI-generated image The lost sheep and its redeemer form a pet motif in Christianity. Jesus portrayed himself as a good shepherd many times. He said that the good shepherd will leave his 99 sheep in order to bring the lost sheep back to the fold. When he finds the lost sheep, the shepherd is happier about that one sheep than about the 99, Jesus claimed. He was speaking metaphorically. The lost sheep is the sinner in Jesus’ parable. Sin is a departure from the ‘right’ way. Angels raise a toast in heaven whenever a sinner returns to the ‘right’ path [Luke 15:10]. A lot of Catholic priests I know carry some sort of a Redeemer complex in their souls. They love the sinner so much that they cannot rest until they make the angels of God run for their cups of joy. I have also been fortunate to have one such priest-friend whom I shall call Levin in this post. He has befriended me right from the year 1976 when I was a blundering adolescent and he was just one year older than me. He possesse