Review of Paul Bowles' "The Sheltering Sky"

[@lizclegg7556]

"Bleak, alluring and incomprehensible" sums up the book for me. When I read it 25 years ago I thought it was one of the best things I had ever read but couldn't put my finger on why. I find Bowles' writing incredibly hypnotic and mesmerising, and I find that with those of his short stories which I've read as well. I think he was a composer so I suspect that he uses rhythm in the language create this hypnotic effect. I thought that Port was named after a place in Papua New Guinea was because this was a distant, remote and unknown place (certainly to the average 1950s English speaker) just as the character is essentially distant, remote and unknown. It suggested to me that Port was disconnected from this own identity. Your name identifies you. Port is named after a place to which (so far as we know) he has no connection. The book states explicitly that Kit loves Port (I don't remember it stating that Port loves Kit, although there was something about him realising as he died that he loved her (maybe)). Kit leaves Port when he dies because he is the only connection with life and the world, and now he is dead she has lost that connection and has lost all sense of who she is or what place she has in the world. She is also exhausted and dead inside. For a woman terrified of everything the whole process of caring for and nursing him in a totally alien place where she never wanted to be, and then his death, leaves her traumatised (or further traumatised) and spent. I thought that the distinction between traveller and tourist was important. The tourist glimpses his depression, alienation and despair for a bit then goes back to job, family, entertainment and getting on with things. Kit and Port as travellers enter their depression, alienation and despair, don't or can't let it go, and travel into that experience. I thought the film was interesting. At the beginning Paul Bowles narrates that for Kit and Port one year is very like another and they just wait for everything to happen. At the end of the film he talks about how, because we do not know when we will die, we think of life as an inexhaustible well. But actually, there are not that many more times that we will do certain things (eg read a novel) before we die. Our time is finite. Thank you for your review. I don't think you've understood the book but you've give me some things to think about, and I think its time I re-read it.

[@NicholasOfAutrecourt]

lol

[@mikehuffman5929]

The name Port Moresby is intended to capture the reader's attention. It is one of many tricks that Bowles uses to lead us to the novel's meaning, and it is key to the story.

[@EricRyder2012]

Hello John, my name is Eric Ryder and you did an excellent review on "The Sheltering Sky." Did you ever get to watch the 1990 adaptation of Paul Bowles' novel? If not that's all right. I rented the movie because I enjoyed the book and I was equally flabbergasted that it was directed by Bernardo Betrolucci and it stars Debra Winger and John Malkovich. Sadly, I was let down by the movie felt that the characters of Kit and Port Moresby's characters were contrary compared to the book. I did like the scenery and the visuals were very impressive. But the casting choices were not well matched . Maybe I was expecting too much, but it could've been a lot better if given to better performers who fit the character traits from the book. Come to my channel. I have a review on the "The Sheltering Sky". Please let me know what you think. Okay? Thank

[@NicholasOfAutrecourt]

Eric Ryder No, I've never seen the movie. And I'm not interested in watching movie reviews. Thank you.

[@lizclegg7556]

I thought the film, including the actors, was good, and faithful to the characters and the book. I particularly liked that Paul Bowles was present in the film and speaks to emphasise certain points. It gave me some direction in my reading of what I still find an enigmatic book.

[@chopin65]

You don't understand literature.

[@chopin65]

John David LOL. Is that an offer? Look, I understand that your opinion is valid, but so is mine. This book is listed frequently as one of the great novels of the 20th century. And it is. It is true that it challenges the reader. But Bowles is only reflecting on the alienation of human existence. It's true, his characters seem strange, but that is because he wants them to be aliens in the world. This novel sets the mood and hostility of a Postcolonial North Africa. It commences at the close of WWII, a time when most of Europe was a wasteland. I understand the characters seem unrealistic, but Bowles does this for good reasons. He wants you to be disconnected from the characters, that is to say the European and American ones. If you persist you will be rewarded with the sort of sweetness that comes out of a bitter irony. We end up feeling a strange longing for his central characters which reflects their own alienation. It is a comic discovery. Also, if you read the text for the minor characters, the natives, you will find them drawn with great tenderness and compassion. Incidentally, Bowles lived in North Africa for most of his life. He came to love it's people and their customs. By way of bridging our disagreement, I can give you examples of literature and authors that I struggled with. Henry James, for example, and Thomas Mann both provided occasions when I thought people insane for swearing by them. I finished them, because reading should transform the reader. So, I must admit that your response is genuine. I would encourage you to read more of his fiction. His short stories are wonderful, and require much less of an investment in time. I really don't think it is necessary to be so vulgar, however. But there it is. I do suppose that Bowles is not for everyone. And the reason I can say this is because I despise Jane Austen, and lots of folks adore her novels. Sorry, if I offended you. I feel bad now. I should have explained my position and not have insulted you. Sorry. : ( I apologize, and retract my comment.