Don't be fooled; despite the title, “Reveries Of The Solitary Walker” does not have very much walking in it. Then again, this is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's work. Anyone who expects anything consistent from him is kidding himself from the start.
The “Reveries” also, unfortunately, display another of Rousseau's typical characteristics. He tends to stick to a heavily academic style, frequently leaving out any specific details of his subjects and writing in the most abstract ideas. This is typical of philosophy, but not in narrative like we find in fiction or in biography. Like much of Rousseau's later work, the “Reveries” is autobiographical, so the abstract style isn't a bit unexpected. Which might make reading this piece tough to do if it weren't so short.
At the start of the “Reveries”, the narrator tells us that he's spent a good many years suffering from the inveterate hatred of most of the rest of humanity, an attitude that he believes has come from his growing fame as an author of truths that people don't want to hear. And what are those truths? He doesn't go into much detail, but he does let us know that he has come to some peace of mind despite the world's hatred by practicing utter acceptance of his fate. Makes sense; accepting the enmity of the world at least gives this man little or nothing to feel bad about. It also gives him a good strategy when it comes to writing the “Reveries”. He advises us right from the start that this work is entirely for his own sake and not meant to instruct or attract any readers at all. More on that later. For now, suffice to say that this explanation does make the “Reveries” a little more comprehensible than they otherwise would be, though not necessarily any easier to read (which in all fairness might have as much to do with the necessity of reading this work in translation from the original French as it does with the book's contents).
Instead of chapters, the “Reveries” consist of ten “walks”, each on a slightly different subject – things like childhood, education, nature, and so on. In other words, Rousseau in the “Reveries” covers several topics that he covered in his earlier books. And despite what I said earlier, there is indeed a certain amount of walking mentioned in each “walk”, at least at the start of each one. After a few paragraphs, the narration leaves the physical details largely aside and goes into a kind of idealized approach. At one point, the narrator begins by showing his examination of plants, and quickly goes into what makes the study of the vegetable kingdom superior to the study of the mineral or animal world. Which is interesting enough, but if you ask me, the look at the plant world would have been more interesting (not to mention easier to read) with more attention to details of the plants themselves throughout. Oh well.
Another part of my difficulty with the “Reveries”, I might as well admit, is Rousseau's character as it emerges from his narrative. Al though he never says so, one gets the impression that he considers himself superior to the rest of humanity in various ways. This isn't entirely surprising coming from a man who evidently believes that the whole world hates him, but it's not very pleasant to read through.
There's also the fact that he insists at various times that he bears no one any ill will whatsoever despite the fact that he frequently talks about humanity in general as evil, corrupt, stupid, self-deluded, and on and on. Again, he never uses those words specifically, but his attitude is not at all hard to pick up.
And lastly, although as I said he claims that this work is for himself alone, that's kind of hard to believe given that he went ahead and published it. Whether or not he intended to write only for his own sake, he clearly wanted people to read this piece. Talk about self-deluded.
We learn from Rousseau's biography that he completed the first seven “walks”. The eighth and ninth were left as first drafts, and the tenth was never finished; Rousseau died before he could complete his work. It's too bad that we'll never know what other “walks” he might have given us. Unpleasant he might have been, but the man sure could write. As a matter of fact, according to his biography, he had an enormous amount of trouble all during his life dealing with people, even and especially those who wanted to help him; he lived for a while with the Scottish philosopher David Hume, famously one of the most accommodating people in Europe at the time, who eventually had so much trouble with Rousseau that he eventually threw him out of his house. It seems that if, indeed, the whole world hated Rousseau, the whole world might have had reasons of its own for that attitude.
Well, maybe so, but if he was really that infuriating, he nevertheless had good enough ideas and a good enough writing style to attract an audience, including a number of America's founding fathers. Tough as the “Reveries” sometimes are, they and the rest of his work are worth paying attention to for that reason alone.
Benshlomo says, Let's not forget that bad people sometimes write good books.
Comments