[ilds] A Chronology of the Life and Times of Lawrence Durrell

Sat May 24 19:00:55 PDT 2008

Hi Bruce,

Perhaps I can express myself more clearly, and I certainly to do not 
advocate for any kind of limited group or coterie.  I do, however, love 
the ellipsis...  It provides the reader a point of entry for his or her 
own needs.

My query is based on your movement between multiple and distinct issues, 
eliding them in your argumentative series.  So, yes, Old D drank a very 
great deal in 1974, but I frankly see no relationship between that and 
his political views in the 1930s or 40s.  It's a non sequitur that 
carries emotive value, and it stops us from getting at what is likely a 
very fine point in your initial argument.  I want to get back to those 
points rather than rolling down a litany of character assassinations or 
shots at sainthood, neither of which make me feel much different at the 
end of the day.  I don't read a book wondering if I'd like the author -- 
I don't like most authors...

As for avoiding Durrell's poorer points as a human being, I again don't 
advocate for any such thing, but if you're content to list the many 
reasons why you don't like the man, it seems unfulfilling to dedicate 
such energy to a project that I don't think will lead to anything 
productive.  Where, for instance, do you see the drink interfering with 
the writing -- I agree that it does in the later works, though there are 
also many things I like about the 70s through 80s writing that might be 
a product of his problems.  In either case, simply stating he drank too 
much doesn't lead us anywhere, especially since it really is quite 
generally known...  I wouldn't expect everyone to know he published in 
anarchist rags, but saying he drank and his last marriage was pretty bad 
on both sides -- well, that's like saying Shelley didn't like the water. 
  I wouldn't want to discourage anyone who hadn't already known that, 
but I take it for granted that the large majority do.

By way of contrast, Lois Rees has made several postings to the listserv 
but has so far avoided answering any questions or responding to anything 
that might be productive, even though she might have something grand to 
contribute.  It's something like, "I don't like this person so no one 
should read him," which degenerates rapidly and does not foster an 
ongoing discussion, or "I'm giving silly references and calling people 
names to provoke them," which again leads no where.  Most listservs call 
such such things a "troll."  The troll looks for a chance to provoke 
people to behave badly, but the troll contributes little.  *Your* 
propositions are far, far more interesting, and I certainly do not need 
to like them to find them engaging.  The debate over Horace, for 
instance, I liked very much and found useful, even though we only grew 
more distant in our readings.  I disagree with your reading, but I find 
it highly productive.

So, again, I say your suggestion that I insist on the "new" is a non 
sequitur.  When I said you'd provided a false lead, you immediate 
switched tracks and said "well, he was an alcoholic!" which is again 
quite far from discussing pacificism in the 1930s and 40s.  It's a new 
topic in your discussion, but certainly isn't new for the list or for 
the critical and biographical materials.  Not everything needs to be 
new, but it's still a non sequitur, and I would very much like to get 
back to your initial contention.  How do we read Durrell politically in 
the 30s and 40s?  That might be a very productive thing over which we 
can disagree!

But, that said, /Monsieur/ is probably my favourite Durrell work, so if 
that's on the table, I know where my vote goes...  Is 1974 your year of 
choice?

Best,
Jamie

Bruce Redwine wrote:
> James,
> 
> I refer to your postscript and your innuendo that I distorted Chamberlin's "intentions."  Since you don't express yourself clearly and often prefer to rely on ellipses, it's hard to figure out what you intend.  I don't have a "rhetorical strategy."  I'd simply like to know or get at the relationship between a writer's personal life and the books he wrote.  Not everyone on this list has read, as you apparently have, all the letters and biographical materials available on Durrell, and it's patronizing to suggest that thorough knowledge of that background is prerequisite to any discussion of Lawrence Durrell, man and writer.  If only "new" information on LD is sought, then the ILDS should restrict itself to a coterie of scholars with the appropriate credentials.  I find Durrell's abusive behavior disturbing, which is not "new," but I also sense that it is a topic considered off-bounds by the moderators of this list.
> 
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: James Gifford <odos.fanourios at gmail.com>
>> Sent: May 24, 2008 7:54 AM
>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>> Subject: Re: [ilds] A Chronology of the Life and Times of Lawrence Durrell
>>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Yes, but when did I say otherwise?  Your comments on alcoholism are new 
>> (though not new news!), so they're a rather paltry rhetorical strategy, 
>> and everything Brewster lists that you comment on has been around for 
>> more than a decade in the biographies and 20 years now in the letters. 
>> It simply isn't anything we all didn't already know, though it's kind to 
>> give Brewster the tip of the hat (he's done fine work, and it would be 
>> nice to see his book circulating more widely).
>>
>> But, the real query is, are you trying to say that you would prefer to 
>> pretend Durrell's publishing record with regard to political issues is 
>> best ignored by readers because he later drank a great deal?  You and I 
>> both know that's false logic.  There are a great many reasons you could 
>> disagree with my take on Durrell's politics, and I'd be greatly pleased 
>> to hear them, especially since they might be right, but the fact that he 
>> drank too much in 1974 really has nothing to do with it...  It's also 
>> well-established that his working strategy at that period was to write 
>>from the very early morning and then drink away the rest of the day -- 
>> the alcoholism doesn't impact the prose and writing the way it does 
>> with, say, a Malcolm Lowry or James Joyce, though it's an obvious factor.
>>
>> But, apart from all that, glasses with a terribly kind mavrodaphne were 
>> raised this evening in Kalami.  I hope California heard the echo of the 
>> glasses.
>>
>> Best,
>> James
>>
>> Bruce Redwine wrote:
>>> James,
>>>
>>> I have not misrepresented what Brewster Chamberlin writes for the year 1974 in Durrell's life.  I don't know what Chamberlin's intentions are, but he records excessive drinking, physical and verbal abuse of a woman, and problems with Miller stemming from the latter.  I would call someone who drinks more than a bottle of wine a day an alcoholic, and I believe medical doctors would too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: James Gifford <odos.fanourios at gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: May 23, 2008 8:02 PM
>>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] Violence and Disintegration
>>>> ps: I've consulted the author with regard to your thoughts on the 
>>>> Chronology and its suggestions around 1974, and he believes you're 
>>>> reading contrary to his intentions...  Are you now a strong reader 
>>>> Bruce?  I hope so -- that might lead to some very exciting things.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ILDS mailing list
>>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
> 