“The Real Thing” by Henry James is told from the point of view of an artist who is approached by a couple longing for any type of work they could get. The artist was sure that these new, fashionable, upper class models would have the perfect look for his work, so he hired them. One of the main themes in this story is the contrasts between the different social classes- the upper class, formerly rich Monarch couple and the other poor models like Mrs. Churm and Orante.
The artist is attracted to the Monarchs right away when he sees them. He says they appear as if they had “come straight out of a portrait” (400). “At first I was extremely pleased with her ladylike air, and it was a satisfaction, on coming to follow her lines, to see how good they were and how far they could lead the pencil.” (408) However, Mrs. Monarch was said to “have no variety of expression-she herself had no sense of variety” (408). Mr. and Mrs. Monarch could only be themselves in pictures. They thought that this ability to be the real thing was something of a treasure; however, the artist soon realized that their type was never what the narrator was trying to portray. They lacked the expression and personality required to be “the ideal thing”.
Mrs. Churm is described as “only a freckled cockney, but she could represent everything, from a fire lady to a shepardess. She couldn’t spell and she loved beer, but she had two or three “points”, and practice, and a knack, and mother-wit, and a whimsical sensibility, and a love of the theatre, and seven sisters, and not an ounce of respect, especially for the “h”.” She had the imagination, creativity, and personality that were required to be a successful model. Art is not always about portraying “the real thing”. Beauty is not about perfection. People look at art to see character and personality and something interesting or unique. This is the lesson of the story and the artist eventually figures it out and learns from his poor judgment.
I agree with your analysis that the main point of the story is contrasting the social classes in the story. I also think that is interesting that the artist says "It was odd how quickly I was sure of everything that concerned them," (404). He was so quick to judge them because they had supposedly once been wealthy and were now having to search for any work that they can get.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your analysis of the story. Throughout the story there is evidence of the contrast between the social classes. One example I noticed was at the beginning when the artist is describing the couple. He describes the man as, "very high and very straight.. and a dark grey walking-coat admirably fitted." The way he describes them seem as though of a higher class with nice clothes on and very dignified as compared to him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis as well. I think the social classes merged at one point of the story. When Mrs. Monarch and Mrs. Churm seem to put their differences aside when Mrs. Monarch fixes Mrs. Churm's hair. I found it interesting that the two women could not stand each other in the beginning, but their role in the drawings brought them together. The artist saw this act as beautiful, showing how the classes came together.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your analysis. I think the comparisons are really important. While the Monarchs are introduced to the readers in a sterile appearance of “spotless perfection,” and gentility, Miss Churm (a “freckled cockney” who “couldn’t spell and loved beer”....like you said in your analysis) unceremoniously intrudes into the studio. And Oronte’s introduction leads the artist to conclude that “the fellow’s a bankrupt orange-monger …” – a telling comparison from the artist’s first impression of the Monarchs, when he believed them to be sitters. But the success of Miss Churm and Oronte as models of nobility, compared to the analogous failure of the Monarchs, attributes to the most ironic point of the characterizations.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your analysis and find that this is a story relevant in todays world with the themes of "being the real thing", beauty, perfection, and desperation. The Monarchs began as a very wealthy couple who have been driven to doing anything. Mr. Monarch even says, "It's very awkward, but we absolutely must do something." (402) Even though they are an old wealthy societies view of perfection they aren't right for the narrators publications, which means they aren't ideal in the publics eye. Perfection isn't alway beauty. Most of the times beauty is found in people such as Mrs. Chum and the characters she can play such as "a fine lady to a shepherdess; she had the faculty as she might have had a fine voice or long hair." (406) In the end the Monarchs come to understand that their view of perfection isn't necessarily the correct view and that perfection and just posing for pictures won't make them the money they need but helping the narrator and handwork will.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis that there is a division between the classes, as well as overall the division between what is real and what is not. It was ironic that the Monarchs were like the real thing, but were in a sense not real, according to the artist. Like you quoted, they lacked expressions and personality. I also second Mia's discussion on its relevancy in modern day world views.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis and your points. The artist really does come to terms with the fact that "the real thing" is rarely ever authentic.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the artist was never able to draw the Monarchs to scale seems to be a representation of their inauthenticity. The narrator says in the last paragraph on page 408 that after he would draw Mrs. Monarch it "looked like a photograph or a copy of a photograph". She was unable to convey "realness".
On the other hand, Miss Churm and Orante create a camouflage that enables them to embody any character they wish, which proves to be more valuable to the artist than the Monarchs' static expressions.
I agree with your points as well, Kaley. The thing I found most interesting is the fact that an artist can only draw appearances; he cannot draw motivation or essence and although the monarchs have the appearances, he realizes that there needs to be so much more in order for him to be inspired and be allowed to draw/paint. Very interesting!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with trapper's comment, the artist seems to finally realize the authenticity of the "real thing" is an illusion. I also agree that there is a division of classes that is still seen today everyday. The world doesn't seem as thought it would be "right" without it.
ReplyDelete