[ilds] reality not semantic

[James Gifford]

Hello Lois,

I can only say I think you got the answer you were fishing for with your 
previous question... On lists, those who make inflammatory statements 
for the sake of a response are typically called "trolls." It's not a 
moniker I'm fond of.

However, to answer your question, this is a topic much discussed in the 
critical literature and much discussed here in the past -- in fact, I'd 
be tempted to call it a perennial topic over the past decade or so.

To the point, I think you're find as many agreeing and disagreeing with 
your statement. On a purely literary or even Cultural Studies level, my 
propensity is to ask you to what purpose you use the texts in this 
manner? What can the form of elitist, colonialism, and Eurocentrism you 
read tell us about these texts to make them more interesting than they 
were before, or what can those readings tell us about a network of texts 
and their cultural position?

I do, however, rankle at the definiteness of your statement "it is false 
to read his narratives in these areas as metonymics of subalternity." 
Then again, I also rankle at those who excuse as definitely as well. I 
don't like notions that collect a whole oeuvre and give it a single and 
predetermined interpretation that is not open to discussion. You'll find 
that Terry Eagleton has read the colonial tone in line with your 
approach, Herbrechter as read the alterity in an entirely contrary 
fashion, subalternity has not been adequately discussed, and Joseph 
Boone has deeply challenged homophobic readings of Durrell. Much of that 
debate began with Mahmoud Manzalaoui in the 1960s, and it has continued 
ever since, waxing & waning on specific topics.

Should you wish to see any of those pieces, please do let me know, and 
I'll ensure you can access them. I can offer a few of the perennial 
problems though:

1) if we read Durrell without irony (a difficult problem), how do we 
reconcile the scene in which his largely autobiographical protagonist in 
_Pied Piper of Lovers_ is torn between Indian and England (rejected by 
both) when arriving in Britain, about mid-way through the novel?

2) how do we read the scene between Mountolive and Leila in the 
_Alexandria Quartet_ (near the beginning of _Mountolive_) without irony, 
especially once we recognize that the defamiliarized image of England 
that Leila quotes to her lover is actually Ruskin (nicely pointed out by 
Anne Zahlan). I don't think any position other than irony is available 
to us.

3) how do we re-read the Coptic plot in the _Quartet_ and its dismissal 
by critics as "ridiculous" once we recognize the ties to the Menasce 
family and the birth of Israel, as pointed out by Michael Haag?

4) for homophobia, how do we read Darley's scene watching the god-like 
nude body of Keats showering, the trio of lovers in _Monsieur_, or the 
autobiographical references to homosexual experimentation (and the 
explicit acceptance of it as normal) in Durrell's very first novel? If 
we set up a series of these descriptions, it seems far more plausible 
that Durrell's discussions of sexuality are heavily laced with irony and 
subversiveness. Yet, I'm also not comfortably with his discussion of 
lesbians -- Anne Zahlan has done more work on that last point than 
anyone else. Several authors have taken up the topic of Durrell and Gay 
& Lesbian studies, but Queer Theory has yet to be touched in published 
work. As Michael pointed out on the list a while ago, the Quartet had 
been intended to carry the subtitle "An investigation of bisexual love," 
and the discussion of bisexuality is cut from the Freudian epigram to 
_Justine_, but it's still very much there allusively. I can't think of 
any allusive presence stronger than Cavafy either...

5) for gender I think there's much more room for debate, especially if 
we are willing to set aside the death of the author and start 
questioning his intentions. I must admit my trepidations at that, since 
I still like P.B. Shelley but deplore how he treated Mary (etc... It's a 
long list), and Durrell's sense of gender roles are very much of his 
time, yet I do think there's a combination of outright sexism blurred 
with moments of irony and at least conceptual disruption of those norms. 
I'm not sure where to split the difference.

6) perhaps most importantly, I'd invite you to ask more about your own 
statement, perhaps explaining it more fully, and perhaps even 
questioning its articulation: "In Durrell's Alexandria his disguised 
subjectivity is a decidedly male imperial one. Women and Egyptians are 
dehumanized." I have only a few things to ask about it (in genuine 
curiosity -- I think this could be a very productive discussion). First, 
what is the "disguised subjectivity"? There Quartet is made up of so 
many narrative voices, so many disagreeing and ridiculing each other's 
biases, I have trouble positing a single one to rule them all, though 
Darley might vie for that spot among some of us. I personally think 
Durrell's point in much of his writing was to challenge such a notion, 
especially when it comes to the author, the range of available 
interpretations and uses, and even the individual's identity. So, why is 
this subjectivity disguised, what is under the mask, and why is it in 
this carnival? Do we wear masks to hide an essential lack or 
instability? Moreover, do we arrive at a male subjectivity (hoping 
against hope the author can engage in the dubious endeavour of genuinely 
ventriloqusing another subjectivity) only by censoring the female 
voices, and which voices do we read as ironic and which as sincere? The 
imperial point I could take more easily since most voices of the 
colonized in Durrell are minimal and are mocked, but I'm never sure if 
we're supposed side with the voice of empire either (think of Maskelyne, 
whom we are certainly not meant to side with, as well as the mocked 
colonial voices of Antrobus that we discussed recently.

So, all that said, your assertion "Posing as the celebrant of personal 
liberation, Durrell is really an elitist colonialist whose 
cosmopolitanism is a cloak for his Eurocentric bias" presents a specific 
reading with specific uses. I'd like to discuss those uses and the ease 
of those readings versus others that consider irony. I suspect, however, 
that we won't find much "ease" in any reading, and I think that may be 
the point. I also wonder if you can clarify the word "important" in your 
statements -- that may be a particularly important point, since I think 
it would articulate much of the use to which those readings are being 
put. It would also likely broaden this into a larger network for discussion.

I look forward to your comments, and I hope the produce a productive 
exchange. Thank-you for sharing them so frankly with the list -- I'm 
sure you'll find them both accepted and rejected, but we're a cheery lot 
either way.

Best,
James


Lois Rees wrote:
> I was wondering if you ever discuss Lawrence Durrell's attitude 
> towards gender and colonialism. In his Quartet, Alexandria’s space 
> attests to gendered Orientalist constructions, anti feminist, anti 
> homosexual and also racist. It is false to read his narratives in 
> these areas as metonymics of subalternity. In Durrell's Alexandria his 
> disguised subjectivity is a decidedly male imperial one. Women and 
> Egyptians are dehumanized. Posing as the celebrant of personal 
> liberation, Durrell is really an elitist colonialist whose 
> cosmopolitanism is a cloak for his Eurocentric bias. It would be 
> interesting if you would discuss something important like this.
>
> Lois Rees