Comments on: The Painted Veil

By: Mary

Mary — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:34:34 +0000

I thought that Walter was essentially a typical guy; he just wanted to be loved in return, although he was content to, shall we say, subsist on the breadcrumbs of her affections. Kitty’s infidelity would certainly have dashed his hopes of a real marriage with a mutual love. Being human, his thoughts would have sprung to revenge, so he packed her up and took her away.
However, I thought it was very prudent of Walter to tell Kitty to go to Charlie and ask him to leave his wife for her. For one thing, it drove home to Kitty that Charlie didn’t care about her, a fact which she might have otherwise have shrouded with her own little illusions. In a way, it seemed appropriate; Kitty shattered Walter’s illusions, so he in return shattered hers.

Even after reading the whole thing (have not seen the movie yet), my sympathies remained with Walter. I’m female, yes (having ovaries doesn’t make me like Kitty’s character one bit, I must say)–but honestly, she treated a good man like dirt and I find that a despicable quality in any woman, fictional or otherwise. Kitty’s personal growth was well-shown (I was pleased with it, even if she did spend too much time feeling sorry for herself like a spoiled little brat), and I certainly believe that it was a wonderful story and I look forward to seeing the movie; however if I had written the story, Kitty would have been kicked to the curb and Walter would have found a wonderful new wife that actually appreciated him.

That being said, I still think that it’s a wonderful story. Not quite to my taste (alright, so I believe in a little Old Testament justice here and there in my literature *g*), but still an incredible, marvelously written story. I’m definitely going to read it again. Most books don’t make me cry, but this one certainly did.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:04:36 +0000

i LOVED this book. i think maybe when walter says it was the dog that died he means the bad in both of them. both are human and not perfect and i think in going to Mei-tan-fu they both have come to see the bad in themselves.
i agree with everything deanna said above.
i was so upset when kitty got back with charles but later realised that it was just her being human and it was an important lesson in how we must fight and struggle through times of temptation. it doesn’t come easy to be good and do the right thing. even after we have experienced ‘enlightenment’.
at the end when kitty pours her heart out to her father. i think she saw herself in him (because of his lack of sorrow at the loss of his wife) and also walter. i don’t think it was all about her making amends to walter. i don’t think she saw him as perfect or that she owed him anymore. i think it was just a further awakening in her and the ability to see beyond herself and the frivilous things she found before so important. i think it was about a relationship with her father and the desire to go to a new land where she felt she’d be less likey to be swept up in the vain life she had before.

By: ThomasF

ThomasF — Sun, 31 May 2009 10:53:18 +0000

Perris you got it right,I think.
Fane turned around and bit someone who had allowed him to love her.So it was the dog that died.

By: ThomasF

ThomasF — Sun, 31 May 2009 10:36:18 +0000

I read the book twice.To me this is one of SM’s finest output.
Maybe “The dog it was that died” takes away the spotlight from the more meaningful incidents.
The scene of them playing Russian roulette by eating salads,initiated by Kitty,shows her willingness to take the game started by Fane to the next level.It shows a certain strength to her character.
Kitty is also quite deep ,when she tells Fane that he took an even greater risk.That he would not have been able to live peaceably with having her death on his sensitive conscience.
The game is between the intelligent idealist and the practical one, who takes life as it happens.
Somerset Maugham gives the opportunity of continuing with life to the pink corner.

By: tina

tina — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:18:36 +0000

that Kitty is such a damn fool. I find the movie more optimistic because the two mend their relationship with each other and grow fond of each other, but the novel left me a little heartbroken because even after what they have been through, Kitty still does not love Walter and Walter still does not express kindness for her, although for the orphans and such.
Although i do not like Kitty’s character, I think the novel was beautiful written and so vividly written in details. Although there were some parts that left me ambiguous, i finally saw how these two people, who seemed superficial and foolish, evolved into more humane and soft human beings. Like how Walter is portrayed as a gentle and kind person while Kitty is portrayed as any other being who wants to love and be loved.
i guess they have come to subtle terms to accept each other and their destinies even after they have lifted their painted veils.
My favorite part in the movie was when Walter and Kitty talked about this “veil.” Kitty expressed that she was just ordinary and never tried to be anyone else. walter comes to terms to accept that it was foolish of both of them to look in qualities of each other that they have never posessed. For me, it was the beginning to acceptance and norming.
The novel was actually a disappointment because it ended on a really sad note. i was hoping for a love story and what i found was a story of “self actualization.” such a shame that kitty could never bring herself to love Walter, but then Walter was cold and insensitive to her.

By: CX

CX — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 05:28:52 +0000

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

Nadia — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:22:00 +0000

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???!!!”

Socrates: “I drank WHAT???!!!” — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:25:13 +0000

[...] 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

Lyn2 — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:21:09 +0000

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

Deanna — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:21:30 +0000

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.