How we cite our quotes: (Part.Section.Paragraph)
Quote #1
I have, I hope and I believe, kept my gift pure. This means, among other things, that I have never been a successful writer. I have never tried to please at the expense of truth. I have known, for long periods, the torture of a life without self-expression. This most potent and sacred command which can be laid upon any artist is the command: wait. Art has its martyrs, not least those who have preserved their silence. (Bradley Pearson's Foreword: par. 2)
We readers are told early on in The Black Prince that Bradley Pearson has never been a particularly successful writer. What do you make of this, Shmoopers? Is Bradley trying to disguise his latent jealousy by offering idealistic excuses for his lack of success, or is he just telling it like it is?
Quote #2
It has been suggested, especially in the light of more recent events, that I envied Arnold's success as a writer. I would like at once and categorically to deny this. I sometimes envied his freedom to write at a time when I was tied to my desk. But I did not in general feel envy of Arnold Baffin for one very simple reason: it seemed to me that he achieved success at the expense of merit. (1.2.2)
Bradley Pearson isn't the first literary character to make an argument like this one—Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre says something very similar when she insists that she was never jealous of the woman who did her best to woo Edward Rochester, the glowering love of Jane's life. Do you buy what Bradley is saying here, or is this another instance of his unreliable narration?
Quote #3
I will not go so far as to say that Arnold and I were obsessed with each other. But we were certainly of abiding mutual interest. I felt that the Baffins needed me. I felt, in relation to them, like a tutelary deity. Arnold was always grateful, even devoted, though there is no doubt that he feared my criticisms. He had perhaps, as he increasingly embraced literary mediocrity, a very similar critic inside his own breast. (1.2.3)
At some point as you read The Black Prince—and Shmoop is willing to bet that you reach this point pretty early on—you've got to wonder if all of Bradley Pearson's critical comments about Arnold Baffin are actually the products of Bradley's keen artistic insight (as he no doubt believes they are), or if they are really just "the forgeries of jealousy" (to quote Act 2: Scene 1 of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream).
Quote #4
I repacked the suitcases and transferred to my pocket, for rereading in the train, the third version of my review of Arnold's latest novel. As a one-book-a-year man Arnold Baffin, the prolific popular novelist, is never long out of the public eye. I have had differences of opinion with Arnold about his writing. Sometimes in a close friendship, where important matters are concerned, people agree to differ and, in that area, fall silent. So, for a time, it had been with us. Artists are touchy folk. (1.1.5)
Let's recap some of the reasons why Bradley Pearson might be jealous of Arnold Baffin: Arnold publishes regularly, producing a book a year, has published literally dozens of books over the course of his prolific career, and his books have also met with popular success; by contrast, Bradley has only ever published three books (two novels and a little volume of essays), and those books are so little known that even his close friends tend not to think of him as a writer.
Quote #5
I had, however, after a superficial glance at his latest book, found things in it which I liked, and I had agreed to review it for a Sunday paper. I rarely wrote reviews, being in fact rarely asked to. I felt that this tribute would be some amends to Arnold for former criticisms which he had perhaps resented. Then on reading the novel with more care I decided regretfully that I detested it just as much as I detested its numerous confrères, and I found myself writing a review which was in effect a general attack upon Arnold's whole oeuvre. (1.1.5)
Here's a weird point in Bradley Pearson's narrative. Why would he have been asked to review Arnold Baffin's latest novel if he rarely writes reviews and is rarely asked to write them? Bradley himself hasn't published a book in a long time, and in any case, his books have never catapulted him into the public eye. Why this review, and why now? Was he asked to review the book, as his words imply, or does it seem more likely that he himself requested the opportunity to review it?
Quote #6
I felt a sizzling warmth in my coat pocket wherein I had thrust the folded manuscript of my review of Arnold's novel. Arnold Baffin's work was a congeries of amusing anecdotes loosely garbled into 'racy stories' with the help of half-baked unmeditated symbolism. The dark powers of imagination were conspicuous by their absence. Arnold Baffin wrote too much, too fast. Arnold Baffin was really just a talented journalist. (1.3.238)
Can it really be a coincidence that Bradley Pearson feels his review "sizzling" in his coat pocket after Arnold makes a series of critical comments about Bradley's ways of speaking and writing? Even if we believe Bradley's insistent claims that he wasn't jealous of Arnold, there are certainly some strong feelings at work here.
Quote #7
You understand nothing. You are a destroyer, a black spiteful destroyer. You are the sort of person who goes around in a dream smashing things. No wonder you can't write. You aren't really here at all. Julian looked at you and made you real for a moment. I made you real for a moment because I was sorry for you. Now that's all over and all that's left of you is a sort of crazy spiteful vampire, a vindictive ghost. […] You are a dangerous and awful person. You are one of those wretchedly unhappy people who want to destroy happiness wherever they see it. (3.13.149)
Rachel Baffin certainly doesn't spare her words when she lashes out at Bradley Pearson near the end of the novel, and on the whole, her account of Bradley's "true" personality offers the most evidence for Bradley's vindictive, murderous jealousy. But can we readers trust Rachel's account? Isn't it equally plausible that raging jealousy is motivating her words and actions, too?
Quote #8
BP was of course a person painfully conscious of inferiority. He was an unhappy, disappointed man, ashamed of his social origin and his illiteracy, and stupidly ashamed of his job which he imagined made him a figure of fun. In fact he was, though not for that reason, a figure of fun to all of us. […] He must have realized this. I suppose it is possible, and it is a shocking thought, that a man might commit a serious crime just in order to stop people from laughing at him. That BP was a man who hated being laughed at is pretty clear throughout the story. (Postscript by Rachel: par. 7)
In Rachel Baffin's view, Bradley Pearson's jealousy toward Arnold Baffin was more complex than simply envy of Arnold's authorial success. What's your take on this, Shmoopers? To what extent does personal shame seem to influence Bradley throughout his narrative, and throughout the novel on the whole?
Quote #9
BP cannot even in his dream-story conceal that he was very envious of my husband's success. I think this envy was an absolute obsession with him, he was eaten up by it. (Postscript by Rachel: par. 8)
Bradley Pearson himself hints that he and Arnold Baffin were pretty close to being obsessed with each other, so are Rachel Baffin's accusations entirely off the mark? Where do you come down on this one, Shmoopers? Are you willing to accept that Bradley wasn't deadly jealous of Arnold, or do you share Rachel's point of view?
Quote #10
For the crime of publication I blame the self-styled Mr Loxias (or 'Luxius' as I believe he sometimes calls himself). As several newspapers have hinted, this is a nom de guerre of a fellow-prisoner upon whom the unfortunate BP seems to have become distressingly fixated. The name conceals the identity of a notorious rapist and murderer, a well-known musical virtuoso, whose murder, by a peculiarly horrible method, of a successful fellow-musician made the headlines some considerable time ago. Possibly the similarity of their crime drew these two unhappy men together. Artists are notoriously an envious race. (Postscript by Rachel: par. 12)