A book I re-read recently.
This is Somerset Maugham’s little-known novels, not as famous–or in the league of–as the Razor’s Edge but contains his characteristic stamp. He builds the plot with a rare precision and etches characters with just the right tinges: some amount of predictability and a healthy deal of suspense. The combination is deadly: you never know what to expect. Although this is not a classic, it is well worth reading (or re-reading) if only to discover how human emotions and frailities play out.
The title of the novel is I believe borrowed from Shelley’s famous sonnet that begins with the lines Lift not the painted veil those that live call life. And he couldn’t have chosen a more apt title. The plot simple as it is, personifies the title.
We have as the central characters a husband and wife: Walter Fane, an intelligent but unambitious bacteriologist and his wife, Kitty Fane, a beautiful but shallow and vain woman. Her father is a little more than a doormat always ready to be trod under his wife’s foot. The wife typifies the English (1920s) middle class lady: ambitious, and manipulative with pleasure and luxury as the only worthy goals. Brought up under such education, Kitty Fane relents to marry Walter only because her younger–and much less attractive–sister starts to get “good” proposals. Walter Fane is hardly her kind. She sees in Walter a mirror image of her father: ready to be used. Yet she agrees because he is perceived as a man of intelligence–and hence worthy of respect in society–and also because he allows himself to be humiliated.
(Walter) loved her so passionately that he was prepared to accept any humiliation if sometimes she would let him love her.
Walter and Kitty sail off to distant, cholera-infested Hong Kong where he is interested to pursue his research. And there Kitty begins an affair with a wily British official named Charles Townsend. Walter discovers this but doesn’t confront her. In fact, he never broaches the subject with Kitty but suddenly announces that he has volunteered to serve at Mei-tan-fu, one of the regions severely hit by a Cholera outbreak. Kitty reluctantly accompanies him. This singluar act reveals Maugham’s mastery over the plot and characterization.
His decision, Walter knows is suicidal. Yet it is deliberate and well-planned. It exposes Charles Townsend as the opportunist and a professional womanizer. Kitty’s entreaties to Townsend go in vain; it’s when she realizes her foolishness. It also exposes the strength of Walter’s character. Anything I say beyond this will ruin the suspense; you need to read it. But I guess this is the part the feminists really love–various feminist reviews describe this as her “spiritual awakening.”
However, it is too late.
But what still sticks in my mind is the part where a dying Walter keeps endlessly whispering, The dog it was that died. Kitty never understands what he means by that. And Maugham masterfully, reveals in the end that Walter’s refrain is the last line of Goldsmith’s An Elegy on the Death of a Mad Dog.
And now for Shelley’s complete sonnet because it is supremely relevant:
Lift not the painted veil which those who live
Call Life: though unreal shapes be pictured there,
And it but mimic all we would believe
With colours idly spread,–behind, lurk Fear
And Hope, twin Destinies; who ever weave
Their shadows, o’er the chasm, sightless and drear.
I knew one who had lifted it–he sought,
For his lost heart was tender, things to love,
But found them not, alas! nor was there aught
The world contains, the which he could approve.
Through the unheeding many he did move,
A splendour among shadows, a bright blot
Upon this gloomy scene, a Spirit that strove
For truth, and like the Preacher found it not.
And believe me when I say that The Painted Veil is the novel-form of this wonderful sonnet.
On 11.08.06 Hugh Ketelaar says:
I must admit after reading the novel I don’t know whether to dismiss Walter as a fool - incapable of real love and sacrificing himself on some idiotic idea that he would show them what an honourable man is capable of. Or to think of him as some enigmatic hero who had the sensitive nature that led to his unfortunate suicide from a broken heart. Tell me what you think if anybody actually reads this stuff?
On 12.03.06 Books, Reading, Ideas says:
some links to the classic novel by Maugham written in the 1920s and to the film(s) and trailer: Rotten Tomatoes makes reference to the classic film (1934) starring Greta Garbo. The British Library has a bio and links to the author Somerset Maugham. Seriously sandeep has detailed info on the novel she re-read recently. The Evening Class talks about the 2006 film and has lots of wonderful pictures from the current film. You can buy the book at Amazon, Barnes & Noble
On 12.04.06 maryt says:
Referenced your blog in my blog yesterday.
On 12.05.06 maryt says:
Sorry sandeep I don’t know why I thought you a “she” Glad you’re a “he.”
On 02.24.07 perris says:
Walter dies realizing he was the dog not the man. He who believed in his heart of hearts he was above but in fact was the ungrateful perpetrator. He lifted the veil, and while he finally shone brightly and won aplaud, in fact, he never found the Truth that the fearless and hopeful Kitty came to realize.
On 04.05.07 Lynn says:
I just finished reading “A Painted Veil”, which was excellent, I thought. The line “The dog it was that died” has been haunting me for the past few days since finishing the novel. I think it is very ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Did Walter, the dog, view Kitty, the “good man”, as being less wrong then himself, and while he dragged her into a cholera infected area hoping she might fall ill and die (which he later admits to her), he ironically is the one to die due to his mean intentions?
Or, is the dog indeed the poet/philosopher some interpret from the Elegy, and the superficial society of Hong Kong the “good man” and his neighbors, who are really evil in a banal way, and thus the good dog Walter dies?
And finally, if the dog is truly the good party and not “mad”, does Walter feel that Kitty and society have triumphed over him despite his sincerity and pureness, and he is the dog who dies from his bite?
I think all of these could work, and I wonder what others think.
On 04.12.07 Ann Walker says:
Loved the book but really am not clear as to who was the dog. In my group this book is really catching on and all are finding the current fiction nothing to compare with The Painted Veil.I just received Of Human Bondage from a friend and can’t wait to get started.
SO CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHO WAS THE DOG.
On 04.12.07 Sandeep says:
Ann,
Read Lynn’s comment above. Actually, you can interpret “who is the dog” in several ways. However, you can safely say Walter, the protagonist was the dog.
On 06.26.07 Pat Elliott says:
Has anyone seen the movie version with Edward Norton? I liked it very much. However, now I want to read the book to see if the movie compares favorably.
On 06.30.07 Mink says:
The movie with Edward Norton and Naomi Watts is fantastic. The casting director certainly did his homework. I’m not overly found of Edward Norton as an actor, but he nails this role supremely. And, it’s Naomi Watts best performance ever. No, the movie does not follow the book in a major way - but is true to the story. It allowed me to discover the work of Somerset Maugham.
Good moives always make one want to read the novel. Sorry, to admit, I had never read any of his work. I finished the Painted Veil last week and just bought The Razor’s Edge. Loved the discussion on who is the dog.
On 07.11.07 Sonata says:
1. Who lifted the veil? Both. Walter lifted first, then he guided Kitty lifting the veil although it was not Kitty’s will to lift it at the beginning.
2. The storyline (please do not read the following before you finish the book and my understanding/interpretation could be wrong. Afterall, English is not my first language and I could be wrong): Walter suffered from a broken heart after he discovered his wife’s adultery, then he planned his revenge. He made Kitty reveal and see the true side of her lover, Charlie. With two broken hearts, Walter brought Kitty to Mei-tan-fu and plan to end their lives there. The “green salad” hints that Walter will suicide after Kitty dies.
3. Out of Walter’s calculation, Kitty begins to “grow up” while she opened her social circle in Mei-tan-fu. She met Waddington, the wiser, who inspired her how to observe and understand people in depth. From Waddington, she started to observe and appreciate Walter, and evaluates and disillusions her lover Charlie. By meeting the nuns, she understands love can be received and can be given. By giving out love to others at no expectation of return, she gained some happiness by helping in the convent. By meeting the Manchu woman, Waddington’s lover, she realized women can love a man for his virtue although she mocked at the idea and still putting her own feeling on the first place—she cannot love the one not of her style.
4. Another unexpected issue, Kitty’s pregnant, which catalysis Walter’s suicide. From this issue, it emphasis Kitty, with her conscience, she refuse to tell lies or try to gain benefit from grey area. That could be the main reason why Walter didn’t despise her but himself.
5. The death of Walter helped she step out to concern others. Seeing Walter is dying, she tried to put Walter on the first place and put herself at the second. When I re-read that part and found she didn’t really lies but no longer covered her true feeling. She admitted her faults, really regretted and hoped for Walter’s forgiveness. The call of “Darling”, I think really touched Walter’s shattered heart (in the story, Walter seems like that kind of person with extreme self-control and never drop a tear), he was shedding tears probably he was longing to hear the word from her for long.
6. Walter’s last message to Kitty was: “The dog it is that died”. This left a hint for Kitty to confirm that Walter’s suicide. Walter decided himself with no future and planed to end his life in Mei-tan-fu. He only want to drive Kitty away from Mei-tan-fu, and by giving out himself, she will recover and be free. Of course, this message was guided by the wiser Waddington. Again, it proved Kitty is not wise enough to understand Walter.
7. It was irritating when I read the part regarding Kitty back to Hong Kong and met Charlie. I feel disappointed on Kitty’s weakness. But when I re-read this part, I found, this session seems try to explain Walter’s inner being. Kitty despises herself as a slut after she acquired the desires with Charlie, it explained why Walter despises himself. I consider it was Walter’s desire to love Kitty. He used to enjoy the process of loving her. In addition, it stated that Kitty can no longer see Charlie’s face which just reflecting Walter never look at Kitty’s face since he found her adultery.
8. Given the condition that she may having Charlie’s child and Charlie want to continue the relationship with her, this time is Kitty’s decision to lift the veil. She despises on herself on what she did and decided to leave him.
9. The death of her mother indicating that she is no longer living under the shadow of her mother and she got a new life. Furthermore, she moved another step by trying to be a giver. Although she cannot love Walter, she put the remedy on her father who was a representative of Walter.
I will try to re-read this book later to see if I misunderstand the meaning. Lost in translation could really spoil such a good book.
On 08.08.07 Marie says:
I have seen Edward Norton’s films previously but never noticed that he is such a handsome, talented actor until I saw his acting in The Painted Veil. I cried when I saw Dr. Fane died at the end. This movie is the best movie I have never seen in my life. I am like the others on this site. I read the book and didn’t understand what Dr. Fane meant by “The dog it was that died”. But I know that Dr. Fane thinks that he is the dog and Kitty is the man. Now the dog died, the man can be free. Kitty can do whatever she wishes to do even to go to live with her lover Charlie. Did Dr. Fane kill himself by using Cholera disease after he learned that he is not the father of Kitty’s unborn?
Anyhow, I hope to meet Edward Norton in person someday.
On 09.17.07 Jessie says:
I had this funny feeling when I read Goldsmith’s poem that the human did die from the bite, but it was revealed that he was the dog (if you count the title ‘dog’ as an insult meaning lowly, or dirty), and the dog was revealed as noble due to the “wonder” that “came to light.” So, Walter has discovered the lowliness of his intentions and tries, with his last words, to communicate to Kitty that her growth meant she was the man (or noble one) all along.
The story of Kitty’s growth was touching to me. Though I have to say, I kind of resent her for never being able to love such an admirable man. But that’s not fair I suppose. Also, I was confused about the line Walter says when she first sees him on his death bed; “This is a pretty kettle of fish.” I wondered what it meant in relation to his suicide.
I loved the movie though, best movie I’ve seen in a LONG time. Norton was perfect, and somehow, they managed to show as best they could in movie form the feelings of the book with how they altered the story. I cried when I saw the movie, and I was so surprised when it somehow turned out to be so much less tragic then the book. (at least for Walters character, whom I must confess I love!)
But it does have that endearing quality that all tragedies must have to be stood. Mostly it was the changes that came over Kitty. I loved how she was to go with her father, and I love Sonata’s point that it was like reconciling with what she did to Walter. I admire how she wants to raise her child. I wish the book had gone as far as to tell whether or not the child seemed to be Walters or Charles’ when it was born.
By the way, sonata, I’m impressed with your skill in English, I’m trying to learn German right now, and I don’t think I’ll ever reach such fluency. Well done! I love you assessments!
On 02.02.08 Ross says:
Could it be that all the main characters by lifting the veil have recognized the dog and the man in themselves, some for better, some for worse? Walter is interesting because of the irony. He sees himself as the dog while others see him as the man.
On 03.22.08 Aaron says:
In reply to Jessie’s comment, I also found that line “This is a pretty kettle of fish” strange. However I found out it’s an idiom that merely means, something that it’s a different situation - so I don’t think it really has anything to do with his suicide, but just a remark he made.
On 03.22.08 Aaron says:
sorry, difficult situation* was what i meant to say :]
On 04.03.08 Coleen says:
I read the book after seeing the movie and the dialogue is quite true to the book, but message of the movie is very different. Better, if you ask me.
I love that in the movie, Kitty learns to love Walter if not for his virtue then perhaps for his passion. She finds a deeper love than the infatuation she had with Charlie Townsend, and invites physical intimacy with Walter after seeing what Waddington and his Manchu woman shared. (Very sexy scene)
Unlike the book, in the movie Kitty learns the lesson about love. Unlike in the book, she never yields to Charlie again. The insight she gains is emphasized by her naming her son Walter and teaching him that Charlie Townsend is “no one who matters”.
In the book, the death scene with Walter leaves you guessing whether or not Kitty is forgiven. In the movie, did I mention that it was better, Walter does more than forgive her, he asks her to forgive him.
The words “The dog it was who died” which Walter say on his deathbed in the book is ambiguous, perhaps it is meant to be…
I speculate that Maughm did not set out to give us a love story. I think he set out to address the injustice done to another woman.
In the Preface to the book published by Random House, Maughm tells us that the Painted Veil was inspired by the story of Pia, a gentlewoman of Siena whose husband, suspecting her of adultery, and afraid on account of her family to put her to death, took her down to his castle in the Maremma, the noxious vapors of which he was confident would do the trick. She took so long to die, he grew impatient and had her thrown from a window.
In the story by Dante, Pia calls out, “Pray when you are returned to the world, and rested from the long journey … Remember me, who am Pia, Siena made me, Maremma unmade me: this he knows who afer betrothal espoused me with his ring.”
On 04.08.08 ange says:
One has to read Shelley to truly gather the message in its various repetitive forms throughout the novel, particularly the “cholera” landscape, the philosophies of the nuns, of Waddington’s concept of Tao. But many readers mistake Walter’s quote “It was the dog that died.” During Walter’s strange and awkward courtship of Kitty, Kitty notices a beseeching look in Walter’s eyes, “like a dog that has been whipped.” The Goldsmith Elegy is meant to be ironical, of course–but for Walter, at the moment of his death, he realizes that Kitty is a good woman, a giving woman. He was the dog of the poem who went mad in a pique of anger and spitefully bit the “good” man. All expected the man to die of the bite, but it was the dog that died. And Walter, after feeling Kitty’s genuine affection and remorse and her desperation for him to live, realizes what might have been. At his death bed, Kitty calls Walter “Darling” for the first time. Two tears run down his sunken face. He had been the mad dog that had bitten Kitty in a fit of anger by forcing her on this suicidal enterprise. But it was Walter who died.
On 05.07.08 Deanna says:
I have been thinking about the who was the dog question. I think that Maugham probably intended for Walter to be the dog and Kitty to be the good man, but just for the sake of discussion, do you think that Walter could be both the good man and the dog? I think that the moment Walter married Kitty he became the mad dog.
I find the character of Walter to be very confusing, and I think that he is very confusing to Kitty. He appears to be very rational, but Kitty senses that his self possessed facade hides a strongly emotional character. He seems the good man, but he is capable of being very cold and vindictive. Maybe Walter in his own way is as superficial and immature as Kitty.
He knows that Kitty doesn’t love him, and they have absolutely nothing in common, yet he must have her. It seems to me that Walter wants Kitty in a childish way - like the kid who has to have the yummy lollipop even though she knows it’s not good for her. The relationship that he has with Kitty allows Walter to remain aloof. Kitty would be bored by his work, she would be bored by his intellectual side, so he doesn’t even have to bother to share any of those things with her. He is satisfied to have a very superficial relationship with Kitty. Walter does everything he can to please her, but he resists really connecting with Kitty:
“He was very reserved. All she knew about his antecedents, his birth, his education, and his life before he met her, she had elicited by direct questioning. It was very odd, the only thing that seemed to annoy him was a question; and when, in her natural curiosity, she fired a string of them at him, his answers became at every one more abrupt.”
Walter treats Kitty, “not as Kitty had seen most men treat their wives, but as though she were a fellow-guest in a county house.”
Walter is much too self conscious to reveal himself to Kitty, and connect with her in any significant way. I’m not sure that Walter was ever really in love with Kitty at all. Kitty is unfaithful because she is looking for love and for a human connection.
When Walter learns of Kitty’s infidelity, he doesn’t act “as a gentleman would”, and let a woman who he knows is not in love with him have her freedom. Walter reacts childishly, emotionally, and vindictively. It may have ultimately been an act of kindness to expose Kitty to Townsend’s true character, but it definitely was not the act of a good man to bring Kitty into the eye of a cholera epidemic, and Walter doesn’t go to Mei-tan-fu for altruistic reasons. He goes to punish Kitty.
I think that Walter and Kitty both travel the same arc. They both become better people and more humane in going to Mei-tan-fu. Before Mei-tan-fu, people respected Walter, but they didn’t much like him. The nuns and Colonel Yu come to respect and care for Walter. He gains back some of his humanity in caring for the people of Mei-tan-fu, and he comes to recognize Kitty’s potential to be more than just a silly party girl. I think that Walter gains respect for Kitty and does forgive her, and when he does, the dog dies, and Walter becomes a good man.
On 05.11.08 Lyn2 says:
Regarding Walter’s death-bed comments, the above thoughts are so insightful and thought-provoking; they have really extended the “allure” of this movie for me. (I have the book on order). Does anyone have any thoughts on how, if at all, Maugham’s two literary allusions (i.e. the title from the Shelley poem, and the “mad dog” reference from the Goldsmith poem)might be tied in together to a main theme? Maybe that’s a reach, but after reading others’ insights, I think there are many different levels and meanings that can be derived from this story –the mark of an excellent tale. To Deanna, Ange, Lyn and all who spoke on the “dog,”: what if the dog and the man are the “yin and yang” of human nature –in both Kitty AND Walter, and all of us –as well as being the good and bad nature of everything, including their marriage. In the poem…”This dog and man at first were friends; But when a pique began,…” Given that neither Kitty nor Walter entererd into the marriage for the “right” reasons (i.e. fully knowing and loving each other for who each really was), they nonetheless had a “respectable” (for lack of a better word) marriage in the eyes of society (the “town) — a marriage they both seemed game to “try” at and make work on some level (albeit superficial). “But when a pique began,…(when the painted veil of the marriage is lifted) and each reacts in their own “mad” way to this piercing pain of not getting what they wanted, the “mad dog” takes over the marriage, and they both abandon all pretense of even civility in the marriage –the union is on a freigt train bound for total destruction…(in the poem: “To every Christian eye…they swore the man would die.”) BUT, (last verse):”…soon a wonder came to light…the man recovered of the bite,the dog it was that died!” The “baser” (unenlightened, therefore “dog” or beast) element in their relationship died and the highest ideals of love/relationship/marriage lived…They finally achieved together the “kind and gentle heart” which Goldsmith in the poem describes the man as having. This is what their marriage had (what lived) at the end…The dog it was that died. (To me that’s what makes the story so tragic and so human). BTW, on another note: “the fine kettle of fish” comment, in addition to pointing up how limiting poplular idioms of the day can be “down through the ages,” using such “idioms” also limits the author’s chances of being universally understood. Even native English speakers might not know that particular “popular culture” saying (so out-dated,and perhaps “regional” it is). In my experience (having heard the term used by “older people” in my childhood), it was always used in a slightly “sardonic” or “ironic” tone –as a comical or “light” touch to (as a commenter noted above) an unexpected, inconvenient, maybe slightly distressing or annoying situation! That Walter would use it as a comment upon his impending death is such an understatement that it had to be his attempt at either “easing” the situation for Kitty, or else it shows his typically Walter, “typically British,” instinct to “play down” any emotion–even at the expense of being understated to the point of the absurd. But I tend to see it as his effort to ease the tension/sadness/horror and shock for Kitty when she first sees what the Cholera has done to him. Thank you all who have commented; I never would have thought this deeply about this work without you, and the comments have been so awesome!
On 09.12.08 Socrates: “I drank WHAT???!!!” says:
[...] December 29, 2006 at 11:56 am · Filed under books, poetry Have been reading The Painted Veil by Somerset Maugham. It horrifies me rather in a way that I cannot describe, and there is this infinite sadness one gets from the human relationships portrayed. Yet it is a beautiful book. Read more about it here. [...]
On 12.24.08 Nadia says:
Personally, I see Walter as the protagonist and Kitty as the villian. I definitely take Walter’s side; I can relate to him. I see him as the good dog who bites the bad man (i.e., Kitty in this case) and who dies. I am not sure if he forgives her or not in the book…I’ve never really reached a conclusion on that.
I was first struck by how the situation with Kitty’s parents mirrors how she treats Walter. I found myself writing over and over again in the margins of my copy: “Kitty is just like her mother”.
Honestly, I despised Kitty. I really do not feel that she changed at all–not really or permanently–and I feel that her actions with Charlie and her callous attitude are evidence of this. I see her as nothing but shallow, frivolous, and trampy. She brags to Waddington about all of the men who “wanted to console her” and the book talks about how “many men” kissed her and how “it diverted her to play one off of the other”. It also irritated me that on many occasions she fails to take responsibility for her actions: she keeps blaming the situation on Walter. For example, she says that “it’s not her fault he was such an ass” and also the comment about going to the fair and not asking for a sable coat but rather for a tin puppet and toy balloon. I don’t really feel that she’s capable of any depth or intensity. She has no beauty of spirit.
Walter’s life, to me, is one of the worst tragedies/worst ways a life can go. He is intelligent, kind-hearted, loving, reserved, polite, sensitive, and passionate (I consider these all to be good qualities)….and even has, according to the book, “good features”. Yet no matter how much love he pours out on others, he is, for whatever reason, not capable of being loved. He dies a painful and horrible death…and doesn’t even have the comfort of having loved ones. Basically, he lived, suffered, and died…and will probably be forgotten eventually. Not to mention the fact that Kitty’s child probably isn’t his…which is all the more sad given how kind he was to children. I found it also deeply tragic that Colonel Yu, who barely knew Walter and who was a less personal acquaintance, was more affected at Walter’s death than was Kitty. (Though I think that this also ties into another theme of the novel: the idea that the West is completely backwards).
I was also really, really upset that the movie RUINED the poetry of the book by making Kitty fall in love with Walter. While I admit that was what I was hoping for initially when I read the book, that is NOT what happened in the book and it is the complete OPPOSITE of the author’s intention and vision. Also, the book seems to imply that Kitty’s child is Charlie’s (at least, I think it does) and that it will be a girl…the movie makes it a boy and Walter’s child. I hate it when the movie ruins the book…especially one of my *favorite* books.
On 01.02.09 CX says:
My interpretation of Walter’s last words: “It was the do that died.”
Based on my reading of the poem and my interpretation of the book, I think Walter was the dog, and love (or his version of it) was the man.
The poem indicated that the dog was a loyal follower of the man until it went mad and bit the man. In the book Walter followed his heart/love (however foolishly) by marrying Kitty. But upon his discovery of Kitty’s adultery, he went mad and tried to kill his love [bite the man]. Walter was mad in the sense that he tried to kill the love in his heart or mad in the sense that he tried to essentially commit suicide by going to a cholera infected area. Or mad=angry. In any case, it was Walter that died. And in my interpretation, Walter died after he forgave Kitty and loved her once more. [so metaphorically, the man lived and the dog died]
This interpretation is interesting because it suggests that Walter saw himself as just a dog all along, obediently following his master (love/his heart). This interpretation is also consistent with the tone of Shelley’s poem, in the sense that both convey an attitude that at the core, human lives are driven by basic forces outside of rational control. In Shelly’s poem, it is Fear and Hope. In this interpretation, Walter saw himself as an animal, not a human.