Comments on: The Painted Veil http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:15:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: CX http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-282036 CX Fri, 02 Jan 2009 05:28:52 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-282036 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. 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.

]]> By: Nadia http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-280090 Nadia Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:22:00 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-280090 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. 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.

]]> By: Socrates: “I drank WHAT???!!!” http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-261463 Socrates: “I drank WHAT???!!!” Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:25:13 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-261463 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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. [...]

]]> By: Lyn2 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-238441 Lyn2 Sun, 11 May 2008 00:21:09 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-238441 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! 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!

]]> By: Deanna http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-238030 Deanna Wed, 07 May 2008 02:21:30 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-238030 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. 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.

]]> By: ange http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-233279 ange Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:07:35 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-233279 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. 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.

]]> By: Coleen http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-232341 Coleen Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:31:48 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-232341 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." 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.”

]]> By: Aaron http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-231171 Aaron Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:33:28 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-231171 sorry, difficult situation* was what i meant to say :] sorry, difficult situation* was what i meant to say :]

]]> By: Aaron http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-231170 Aaron Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:32:43 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-231170 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. 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.

]]> By: Ross http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-223199 Ross Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:08:29 +0000 http://www.sandeepweb.com/2005/04/15/the-painted-veil/#comment-223199 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. 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.

]]>