[ilds] Durrell's verbal style -- more questions

Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
Wed Jun 13 11:19:47 PDT 2007

Bill, I don't think any "ear is quite that good."  Why?  Writers are crafty bastards and are very good at changing disguises.  You teach Pynchon.  In The Crying of Lot 49, I think his imitation of Renaissance revenge tragedy very good.  Can you distinguish Pynchon from "Richard Wharfinger?"  I couldn't.


-----Original Message-----
>From: william godshalk <godshawl at email.uc.edu>
>Sent: Jun 13, 2007 10:40 AM
>To: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>, ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>Subject: Re: [ilds] Durrell's verbal style -- more questions
>Bruce, thanks for taking my test! You get an A. 
>When I started using "appropriated," I was trying to move awayfrom the word "stole" or "stolen." Brian Vickers'sAppropriating Shakespeare is about using Shakespeare's text forone's own ends and designs. Thus we have the historical Shakespeare, thefeminist Shakespeare, the presentist Shakespeare, and so on and on . . ..  So I was trying to see Durrell as using other people's writingfor his own purposes. Not an outright theft exactly. 
>What I was getting at is: if any reader were given a passage from Durrell-- a passage that Durrell has at least partially appropriated -- wouldthe reader be able to separate the Durrellian style from, say, theXenophonian/Warnerian style? We have said that the Durrellian style isunique. If this is so, we should be able to tell when Warner'stranslation ends and Durrell begins in his own style. 
>Or is no ear quite that good? 

More information about the ILDS mailing list