From sumantranag at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 11:14:05 2009 From: sumantranag at gmail.com (Sumantra Nag) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:44:05 +0530 Subject: [ilds] Herbert Marcuse and Aesthetics_Implications for the Alexandria Quartet Message-ID: <000e01ca3bb0$7b5ebe50$0301a8c0@abc> Does a Marxist view of literary criticism necessarily oppose aestheticism? The philosopher of the 'New Left' Herbert Marcuse sees art as a negation of reality, the reality that can control both a consumerist society through the power of consumer goods in a democratic capitalist society and also any population under any kind of totalitarian control, whether fascist or communist. At least that was my understanding of Herbert Marcuse's philosophy as expressed by him in 'The One-Dimensional Man' and in 'The Aesthetic Dimension'. Re-reading extracts from 'The Aesthetic Dimension' of Herbert Marcuse (as reproduced in 'Literary Aesthetics: A Reader' Edited by Alan Singer and Allen Dunn, Blackwell, U.K./USA, 2000) one notes the following expostion by Marcuse: "The critical function of art, its contribution to the struggle for liberation, resides in the aesthetic form. A work of art is authentic or true not by virtue of its content (i.e., the "correct" representation of social conditions), nor by its "pure" form, but by the content having become form. True, the aesthetic form removes art from the actuality of the class struggle - from actuality pure and simple. The aesthetic form constitutes the autonomy of art vis-a-vis "the given." However, this dissociation does not produce "false consciousness" or mere illusion but rather a counter-cosciousness: negation of the realistic -conformist mind." It seems to me that by this view of art Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet stands out as a work which as Marcuse's "aesthetic form" has "..the autonomy of art vis-a-vis the given." Such an assessment also answers many of the latter day critiques of the Alexandria Quartet based on the absence of the reality of Egypt or Alexandria in Lawrence Durrell's novels set in Alexandria. Perhaps it also counters Terry Eagleton's negative views about the aestheticism criticism of Lawrence Durrell: "Part of the fag-end of cosmopolitan modernism, he shacked up in Corfu, Athens, Egypt, Rhodes, Buenos Aires, Cyprus and France, changing wives almost as often as he changed countries.Some of this placeshifting was an attempt to keep one step ahead of the second world war, which he did his aestheticist best to ignore. While Hitler was on the rampage, Durrell was in search of a spot more sunshine. He despised politics, thought Marxists "synonymous with pigs and fools", and set his thoughts instead on the eternal." (From: "Supreme Trickster", a review by Terry Eagleton of LAWRENCE DURRELL: A BIOGRAPHY by Ian MacNiven.) And Terry Eagleton is also a Marxist critic. Sumantra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090922/d856adbb/attachment.html From sumantranag at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 11:20:51 2009 From: sumantranag at gmail.com (Sumantra Nag) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:50:51 +0530 Subject: [ilds] Fw: Herbert Marcuse and Aesthetics_Implications for the Alexandria Quartet Message-ID: <001e01ca3bb1$6d40e4a0$0301a8c0@abc> There was a slight mistake I have corrected in the text of the email below, and I would be grateful if this version (below) is please taken as a substitute for my earlier email just sent. Regards Sumantra ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumantra Nag To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:44 PM Subject: Herbert Marcuse and Aesthetics_Implications for the Alexandria Quartet Does a Marxist view of literary criticism necessarily oppose aestheticism? The philosopher of the 'New Left' Herbert Marcuse sees art as a negation of reality, the reality that can control both a consumerist society through the power of consumer goods in a democratic capitalist society and also any population under any kind of totalitarian control, whether fascist or communist. At least that was my understanding of Herbert Marcuse's philosophy as expressed by him in 'The One-Dimensional Man' and in 'The Aesthetic Dimension'. Re-reading extracts from 'The Aesthetic Dimension' of Herbert Marcuse (as reproduced in 'Literary Aesthetics: A Reader' Edited by Alan Singer and Allen Dunn, Blackwell, U.K./USA, 2000) one notes the following expostion by Marcuse: "The critical function of art, its contribution to the struggle for liberation, resides in the aesthetic form. A work of art is authentic or true not by virtue of its content (i.e., the "correct" representation of social conditions), nor by its "pure" form, but by the content having become form. True, the aesthetic form removes art from the actuality of the class struggle - from actuality pure and simple. The aesthetic form constitutes the autonomy of art vis-a-vis "the given." However, this dissociation does not produce "false consciousness" or mere illusion but rather a counter-cosciousness: negation of the realistic -conformist mind." It seems to me that by this view of art Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet stands out as a work which as Marcuse's "aesthetic form" has "..the autonomy of art vis-a-vis "the given." Such an assessment also answers many of the latter day critiques of the Alexandria Quartet based on the absence of the reality of Egypt or Alexandria in Lawrence Durrell's novels set in Alexandria. Perhaps it also counters Terry Eagleton's negative views about the aestheticism of Lawrence Durrell: "Part of the fag-end of cosmopolitan modernism, he shacked up in Corfu, Athens, Egypt, Rhodes, Buenos Aires, Cyprus and France, changing wives almost as often as he changed countries.Some of this placeshifting was an attempt to keep one step ahead of the second world war, which he did his aestheticist best to ignore. While Hitler was on the rampage, Durrell was in search of a spot more sunshine. He despised politics, thought Marxists "synonymous with pigs and fools", and set his thoughts instead on the eternal." (From: "Supreme Trickster", a review by Terry Eagleton of LAWRENCE DURRELL: A BIOGRAPHY by Ian MacNiven.) And Terry Eagleton is also a Marxist critic. Sumantra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090922/f94f87e2/attachment.html From jtriley at unca.edu Tue Sep 22 12:54:10 2009 From: jtriley at unca.edu (Jacob Riley) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:54:10 -0400 Subject: [ilds] A reading of the Avignon Quintet Message-ID: This is my thesis proposal and partial reading of two of the novels in the Avignon Quintet. As I indicate toward the end, I hope to add insights from Constance. I'm skeptical about my reading and conclusions. My undergraduate thesis advisor has read Durrell but not the Quintet, so I would like some input from people who have read the Quintet. Thesis proposal: In *Problems of Dostoevsky?s Poetics, *M.M. Bakhtin writes that within a Menippean Satire ?the issue is precisely the testing of an *idea*, of a * truth*? (114). But an idea is not tested based on argument or logical structure. According to Bakhtin, all ?extensive modes of argumentation also f[a]ll away, and there remain[s] essentially only naked ?ultimate questions? with an ethical and practical bias? (115). Menippean Satire tests ideas by looking at the results of its use in a particular context. We use and abuse the high theory of philosophers and religions to justify our acts in the world. Frequently we use ideas in conjunction with one another. In *A Key to Modern British Poetry*, Durrell compares ideas to cells: ?So it is with ideas, and with the words we use to express them. Existing singly, they also have the power to modify, and form greater wholes in other contexts? (Durrell 3). Durrell?s metaphor illustrates that ideas are not stable entities, but can take on different meanings in different contexts and when combined with other ideas. Many characters populate Lawrence Durrell?s *Avignon Quintet. *However, their discussions center around a few central ideas, making it essential to distinguish the characters by actions and not personality characteristics. Each character deals with the central ideas in different ways, complicating the total effect of the idea. To emphasize that how we use the idea--not the idea itself--that validates its use, the text indicates several points where supposedly polar opposite ideas resemble each other. For example, the main binary positions, a sect of Gnosticism and Freudian psychoanalysis, respectively reflect spirit and matter. However, there is evidence in the text to suggest that they resemble each other more than differ. Furthermore, once these ideas are taken in the context of WWII, they take on new meaning. For example, the esoteric Gnosticism contains echoes of Nazi metaphysics and eugenics. By looking at how key characters interact with the main ideas in the text--Freudian psychoanalysis and a spiritual sexual Gnosticism?and by showing the tensions in the binary oppositions, I hope to show that for Durrell, ideas are fluid, unstable entities that change as they are put to use in different historical, cultural, and individual situations. The corollary to this interpretation is that because ideas are fluid and may easily turn into their opposites, dogmatic adherence to one idea can limit one?s interpretation of the world. Partial Reading: The first novel of the quintet, *Monsieur, *begins with the death of Piers, a friend of the narrator, Bruce. In an attempt to explain the death, Bruce narrates a shared vacation with his friends Piers, Sylvie, and Toby. Before arriving there, they move through Alexandria. Bruce describes the historical condition: ?But we were latecomers to the place, modern scavengers of history upon a scene which had, it seems, long since exhausted all its historical potentialities? (97). Tacitly agreeing with him, Piers comments on the weight of history on the scene: ??Can?t you see how marvelous history is? The presence of other people whose actions and thoughts still hang about in the air??? (99). The travelers move quickly through Alexandria, realizing that they could scarcely have a lasting historical effect after the rich historical imprint left on the land. Thus, they move on towards the fictional oasis known as Macabru. By alluding to traditional signs of moving from one world to the next, Bruce suggests that Macabru is innocently outside the trappings of history. The travelers must cross a river and patiently wait for a ?ferryman? to take them from this ?Stygian? situation (101). These elements allude to Charon?s ferry crossing the river Styx into the underworld. They question their quest as they move into ?the desert and the darkness.? ?Somewhat reassured? by knowing that they were not ?guided in circles,? they are still disoriented (102). As they approach the city, ?all one could say is that it was not part of the desert? (103). Macabru slowly comes into focus: ?All was mingled and muddled by the darkness?distances, volumes, angles, objects. But as we came to it it looked not unlike another large Arab city, but this time all lit up against the darkness? (103). Macabru shines out against the dark background, a glowing mirage in the midst of the dark desert. While in Macabru, they spend time with the leader of a sect of Gnosticism. Akkad?s Gnostic theories expounded to Bruce and Piers are much like the appearance of the city itself, an ideal metaphysics overshadowing the surrounding darkness. The ?darkness? of the world comes from the belief that God has been usurped by the Prince of Darkness, the lord of the material. But Akkad withholds a rational exposition of his beliefs until they have participated in Gnostic ritual. Akkad argues, ?Reason is powerless?for this kind of understanding can only be soundless, wordless, breathless? (122). Bruce qualifies Akkad?s statement: ?I had the impression that something was being conveyed to me as a sense impression, and not being made rationally explicit in order not to indulge my natural faculty of ratiocination? (123). During the ritual, he repeats that the experience was ?a deep symbolic significance of something which by-passed causality? (128). Though Bruce says he and his friends ?dreamed of a perfect conviction of the truth of being which would be independent of arguable proof,? they still listen to Akkad?s explanations. Bruce writes of the theories coherence, ?It was an exposition at once allusively poetical and factual, but knitted together with persuasive coherence, and formally, intellectually, quite watertight? (140). Akkad labels all Judeo-Christian religions as slaves to matter: ?The presiding demon is the spirit of matter, and he springs fully armed from the head of classical Judaism of which all European religions are tributaries. The prince is usury, the spirit of gain, the enigmatic power of capital value embodies in the poetry of gold? (144-45). Allied with world religions he includes Jewish thinkers like Freud and Marx: ??The gold bar is the apotheosis of the human turd. You will from this how radically we poets of gnosticism part company from these Judaic thinkers?? (146). In contrast with Freud?s excremental fixation, Akkad says, ? ?But we have substituted another term, we have let sperm stand in the place of excrement, for our world is a world not of repression and original sin but of creation and relaxation, of love and not doubt?? (146). Yet Akkad?s actions and appearance put into question the simple binary between Gnostic/Jew. For all of his discourse on the spirit, he is weighed down by a world of matter. Akkad is first described as a ?merchant-banker,? who was ?equally at home in four capitals and four languages? (107). Sometimes he looks like ?a fattish sluggish pasha, wallowing in riches like a Turk,? other times ?[b]eautifully dressed by London with a buttonhole and a silk handkerchief? (107). Thus, Akkad is not an acetic hermit, but a successful businessman who accepts and is at home in a world he claims is evil. Reactions to Akkad?s theories vary. Piers sister Sylvie is skeptical and worries about its power over Piers. She says, ?Akkad, don?t encourage Piers to take all this too seriously?He is far too quixotic, far too extreme. It would be very dangerous for somebody with his type of temperament? (150). Piers dismisses her, claiming that Akkad describes his ?interior mind, my own character and temperament? and says he ?would go to the stake for this,? illustrating Sylvie?s fears. He is angry at Sylvie for suggesting it is an ?intellectual novelty? (150). Sylvie?s interpretation is convincing; the actions and habits of Akkad betray that he too may value it as merely an intellectual novelty. Furthermore, like Akkad, Bruce describes their leisurely, care-free existence that not only makes theoretical speculation possible, but also is in opposition to the Gnostic?s supposed denial of the world of matter. After intensely studying in the library, Piers obtains a boat and the three of them go on a pleasure cruise. Bruce is shocked by the abundance of Piers supplies: ?you would have thought we were mounting an expedition to Polynesia to judge by the quantity of the stores which he ordered? (154). Despite his actions, he still thinks that he has found truth in the Gnostic studies. However, an article Piers finds about the Gnostic rituals further questions the truth of Akkad?s theories. The article explains that the ritual ceremony ?had been mounted by criminals wishing to take advantage of gullible tourists? (167). After admitting to Piers that the article was planted to test his belief, he tries to get Piers that in many ways ?the fake article is true? (174). Akkad claims that, in the Gnostic worldview, there is a ?narrow path between reality and illusion? (172-174). He argues we must live this paradox because our assumptions about reality are based the evil world?s terms, terms openly defied by the Gnostics. Like Sylvie, there are other skeptics who criticize the cult?s principles and rituals. Toby, a friend of Bruce?s, while researching the downfall of the Templar knights discovers a connection between them and the Gnostic cults. Against the current interpretation that the Templars were punished by the Church for the sin of usury, Toby claims that they were ?contaminated with secret Gnostic beliefs which colored their notions of good and evil? (* Monsieur* 252). Toby does not seem to be against this original form of Gnosticism that ?had been shattered and dispersed by the persecution of the orthodox? (254). Agreeing with his friend Rob Sutcliffe, he says that Akkad?s cult is ?nothing but a grubby little suicide academy?a sort of ungraduated colourless [sic] hopelessness about the very fabric and structure of our thought, our universe? (255). The Gnostics? bleak vision of the world leads to desperate symbolic actions. They escape the world in a peculiar type of suicide. At some point in their lives, the group sends a message to one of their own telling of how long they have to prepare for their death, but not how it will happen. Then, a member kills them at the appointed time. Removing oneself from the world is the culmination of a primary alienation: ?Once you see the truth the way we see it you simply cannot refuse to accept. You are surrounded, cut off, severed forever from the world as you have been living in it, lost, sunk, foundered?? (116). Bruce elaborates upon this truth Gnostic vision: ?acquiring that penetrating vision which could turn us all to masks and caricatures of reality with names, mere labels; each one of us nevertheless with an ?eidolon? or signature, a disposition, a proclivity visible to the naked eye of the intuition? (122). Bruce?s explanation resembles the act of turning life into art through writing. Akkad also uses poetic precedents to show that Gnostic suicide is ?the only poetic act? (144). Ironically, the novel we have been reading is a novel within a novel by a fictional author. This meta-fictional turn in the narrative undermines the seriousness of Akkad?s ideas. In the innocent atmosphere of art and the oasis of Macabru, one can afford to refuse the world (or pretend to)?there are no risks involved. The context of Akkad?s thought is the novel, but the ?real? ideas consist outside art. Aubrey Blanford, the creator of the novel *Monsieur* lives in the time leading up to World War II. But what is the meaning of the Gnostic refusal in a context where Evil is a reality? Can we afford to renounce responsibility for ethical action in such a world? What good can come from this ?poetic act?? As Blanford points out in *Livia, *?How chimerical the consolations of art against the central horror of death? (5). In *Livia, *the plot turns toward the activities of Blanford?s ?real life? acquaintances, Lord Galen, Felix Chatto, Quatrefages, Livia, and Constance (Tu). Whereas Akkad acknowledged yet refused the spirit of matter, Lord Galen refuses to acknowledge the realities of the changing world and naively follows the spirit of matter. When Galen sees an investment opportunity in Germany, he, a Jew, naively invests money in the Nazi party. Galen does not see the cruel meaning behind his business partner?s promise of an independent Jewish state: ?You see Lord Galen, in some ways we are more Zionist than the Zionists? (126). Galen also tries to get investors to finance his search for the Templar treasure. In contrast to Toby?s Gnostic explanation, Lord Galen thinks that the heresy of the Templars involved a case of hidden treasure. With the help of Quatrefages and Felix Chatto, Galen hopes to locate it. However, Quatrefages criticizes Galen?s Jewish fixation on treasure from a Gnostic point of view, buying into Toby?s explication: ?They have reduced they have reduced the whole thing to a vulgar matter of *fric*, of booty?To defy the reign of matter as they [Templars] did, to outface the ruling devil?that was what intrigued me? (161). Blanford dismisses his interpretation as an influence of the times: ?He was?in the presence of a harmless young maniac who had allowed his head to be turned by the bogus speculations of the popular mysticism which was at the moment all too fashionable? (162). In the background of Galen?s quest, is Europe?s changing intellectual and political atmosphere: Europe was fast reaching the end of its genitor-urinary phase in its literature?and he recognized the approaching impotence it signaled. Soon sex as a subject would be ventilated completely. An audio-judeo-visual age is being born?where the pre-eminence of Jewish thought is everywhere apparent, which explains the jealousy of the Germans (174) Perhaps sex can no longer be a primary metaphor for a productive and creative culture after Freud?s insights and in light of Nazi metaphysical claims on race and birth. Freud?s theories simultaneously de-mystified and re-mystified sex. Impotent sexual acts meant just as much as the act of reproduction, re-signifying sex acts. In the context of WWII, Freud comes to symbolize Jewish thought. While hospitalized for an attempted suicide, Blanford?s dream shows the struggle to keep Freud?s thought alive. While walking among a book burning demonstration, Blanford, Sutcliffee and Pia see Freud?s sofa hanging out of a window, about to be engulfed in the flames. Blanford does not see the meaning of the sofa, but Pia, who has gone through the process of psychoanalysis, says ??We must save it?? (201). But they do not know what to do with it once they have saved it from the flames. Ironically, they must transport ?the holy relic? in a hearse, indicating that the attempt to save Freud was merely a symbolic gesture precluding his funeral (202). Blanford?s dream is also a symbolic harbinger of Germany?s assault on Jewish thought. The complex relationship between Nazi metaphysics, Akkad?s Gnosticism, and Jewish psychoanalysis is explored in the thoughts and actions of Constance in the next novel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090922/5aac15ae/attachment.html From jtriley at unca.edu Tue Sep 22 13:04:38 2009 From: jtriley at unca.edu (Jacob Riley) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:04:38 -0400 Subject: [ilds] appendix to last post Message-ID: Also, if anyone would like to direct me toward specific sources that may help my ideas, it would be very very appreciated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090922/b7221b93/attachment.html From sumantranag at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 01:57:57 2009 From: sumantranag at gmail.com (Sumantra Nag) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:27:57 +0530 Subject: [ilds] Aesthetics and Durrell_ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 4_ Message-ID: <001401ca3c2b$f4d6f970$0301a8c0@abc> I am taking advantage of the current ebb in the postings on the ILDS forum to expand on my earlier post. Durrell's ruminations on the activities associated with artistic creation are expressed through the narrator at the beginning of 'Justine' : "I have been looking through my papers tonight. Some have been converted to kitchen uses, some the child has destroyed. This form of censorship pleases me for it has the indifference of the natural world to the constructions of art...After all, what is the good of a fine metaphor for Melissa when she lies buried deep as any mummy in the shallow tepid sand of the black estuary?..." "...I spoke of the uselessness of art but added nothing truthful about its consolations. The solace of such work as I do with brain and heart lies in this - that only there, in the silences of the painter or the writer can reality be reordered, reworked and made to show its significant side. Our common actions in reality are simply the sackcloth covering which hides the cloth-of-gold - the meaning of the pattern. For us artists there waits the joyous compromise through art with all that wounded or defeated us in daily life; in this way, not to evade destiny, as the ordinary people try to do, but to fulfil it in its true potential - the imagination." This reflection of Durrell's on artistic purpose, expressed thriugh his narrator at once admits the "uselessness" of art as far as the real world is concerned, but displays its potential for reordering or reworking reality in a way which displays a different significance. reflection appears to illustrate the view of Herbert Marcuse about "aesthetic transformation." Marcuse says: "Art is committed to that perception of the world which alienates individuals from their functional existence and performance in society - it is committed to an emancipation of sensibility, imagination, and reason in all spheres of subjectivity and objectivity. The aesthetic transformation becomes a vehicle of recognition and indictment...The world of art is that of anaother Reality Principle, of estrangement - and only as estrangement does art fulfill a cognitive function: it communicates truths not communicable in any other language; it contradicts." Furthermore, Marcuse expresses an opinion which might contradict the definitive requirement of social or cultural traditions in the content of works which F.R. Leavis and a school of British critics might consider necessary while judging the quality of literary art. Marcuse is of the view that, "The fact that a work truly represents the interests or outlook of the proletariat or of the bourgeoisie does not yet make it an authentic work of art." I might end this post with extracts from two assessments of Post-WWII British critics and readers which includes a comment on their apathy or at least suspicion of Modernist writing. The Web links will provide the rest of the available text. 1. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n20/wood02_.html (Puffed Wheat James Wood The Power of Delight: A Lifetime in Literature: Essays 1962-2002 by John Bayley, selected by Leo Carey) "In their very different ways, the three most prominent Oxford professors of English since the war have all been populist pretenders. John Carey, scourge of Modernist 'intellectuals' and reliable dribbler of cold water on all forms of overheated aestheticism, comes across as the last defender of sensible English decency. Terry Eagleton, ... increasingly presents himself as the sensible Marxist alternative to toothless and ornate theory in America and continental Europe. And John Bayley ...attempts to defend the sensible common reader against academic criticism tout court - what he has variously called 'the higher criticism', 'smart academic critics', 'the literary lads', 'the clever men at Yale and elsewhere', and 'the high-tech men'. In their puritanism (Carey), suspicion of overprivileged aestheticism (Carey and Eagleton), and belief that literature is at its most powerful when disclosing life (Bayley, and to some extent Carey), all three critics are far more marked by F.R. Leavis than they would probably like to admit; they would all agree, for instance, along with Leavis, to a marked suspicion of Virginia Woolf, for interestingly similar reasons..." 2. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_modern_literature/v026/26.3levitt01.pdf Levitt, Morton. A.N. Wilson and Marcel Proust: Surprising Bedfellows, Journal of Modern Literature - Volume 26, Number 3/4, Summer 2003, pp. 62-72 Indiana University Press "We will never, I fear, fully comprehend the mystery of the English hostility to the Modernist novel after the Second World War, a rejection so profound that it seems to the outsider to be positively perverse....the extreme, reactionary chauvinism that motivated English critics and novelists alike from 1945 until well into the 1980s. Nor can the fact that many of the major Modernists of England -- Yeats, Pound, Eliot, Joyce, and Beckett, among others -- were not even English. Nor the claim that Modernism was an elitist activity, while it was graduates of the red brick universities -- sons and daughters of the working class, that is -- who dominated the literary scene post-1945 (an argument advanced to account, in particular, for the continuing hostility to Virginia Woolf, presumably a social as well as an intellectual snob)." It would be interesting to receive some responses to the foregoing material. Regards Sumantra ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:30 AM Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 4 > Today's Topics: > > 2. Herbert Marcuse and Aesthetics_Implications for the > Alexandria Quartet (Sumantra Nag) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:50:51 +0530 > From: "Sumantra Nag" > Subject: [ilds] Fw: Herbert Marcuse and Aesthetics_Implications for > the Alexandria Quartet > To: > Message-ID: <001e01ca3bb1$6d40e4a0$0301a8c0 at abc> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> Does a Marxist view of literary criticism necessarily oppose aestheticism? The philosopher of the 'New Left' Herbert Marcuse sees art as a negation of reality, the reality that can control both a consumerist society through the power of consumer goods in a democratic capitalist society and also any population under any kind of totalitarian control, whether fascist or communist. At least that was my understanding of Herbert Marcuse's philosophy as expressed by him in 'The One-Dimensional Man' and in 'The Aesthetic Dimension'. Re-reading extracts from 'The Aesthetic Dimension' of Herbert Marcuse (as reproduced in 'Literary Aesthetics: A Reader' Edited by Alan Singer and Allen Dunn, Blackwell, U.K./USA, 2000) one notes the following expostion by Marcuse: > "The critical function of art, its contribution to the struggle for liberation, resides in the aesthetic form. A work of art is authentic or true not by virtue of its content (i.e., the "correct" representation of social conditions), nor by its "pure" form, but by the content having become form. > > True, the aesthetic form removes art from the actuality of the class struggle - from actuality pure and simple. The aesthetic form constitutes the autonomy of art vis-a-vis "the given." However, this dissociation does not produce "false consciousness" or mere illusion but rather a counter-cosciousness: negation of the realistic -conformist mind." > > It seems to me that by this view of art Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet stands out as a work which as Marcuse's "aesthetic form" has "..the autonomy of art vis-a-vis "the given." Such an assessment also answers many of the latter day critiques of the Alexandria Quartet based on the absence of the reality of Egypt or Alexandria in Lawrence Durrell's novels set in Alexandria. Perhaps it also counters Terry Eagleton's negative views about the aestheticism of Lawrence Durrell: > > "Part of the fag-end of cosmopolitan modernism, he shacked up in Corfu, Athens, Egypt, Rhodes, Buenos Aires, Cyprus and France, changing wives almost as often as he changed countries.Some of this placeshifting was an attempt to keep one step ahead of the second world war, which he did his aestheticist best to ignore. While Hitler was on the rampage, Durrell was in search of a spot more sunshine. He despised politics, thought Marxists "synonymous with pigs and fools", and set his thoughts instead on the eternal." > (From: "Supreme Trickster", a review by Terry Eagleton of LAWRENCE DURRELL: A BIOGRAPHY by Ian MacNiven.) > > And Terry Eagleton is also a Marxist critic. > > Sumantra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090923/0c4ed0b6/attachment.html From Charles-Sligh at utc.edu Thu Sep 24 05:07:09 2009 From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:07:09 -0400 Subject: [ilds] Aesthetics and Durrell Message-ID: <1253794029.6b3669fcCharles-Sligh@utc.edu> Thanks for reviving, Sumantra. I destroyed my MacBook, so I have no steady email access and cannot read or post at length. But for the following passages from _Justine_, I would notice -who- writes these Great Literary Thoughts and -when- he speaks them. I think this recognition impacts your reading and your claims below that these passages represent the novelist's own voice. I think this recognition might even help you make the point, but I do not have time to chase the implications. The passages copied below come from the early unnamed Darley, writing early in the process of his development--or at least early in his "process." AS I continue to read the _Quartet_,I am increasingly uncertain what if anything Darley learns over the course of the novels. However, I am confident that Durrell as a writer learns much over the course of composing and publishing his novels. One of his uncanny discoveries comes with the narrative structure, the storytelling form of the _Quartet_. As I make my way through the novels, I become increasingly aware that GREAT LITERARY THOUGHTS offered by Darley or Arnauti or Pursewarden &c. may or may not give insight, may or may not be romantic balderdash, effected poses, &c. The arrival of Pursewarden and his ironies makes me more attentive of the limits of Darley &c. That is all actually quite wonderful, I think. Durrell giveth. Durrell taketh away. Few other books have that degree of surprise in them. CLS *** THE PASSAGES IN QUESTION Durrell's ruminations on the activities associated with artistic creation are expressed through the narrator at the beginning of 'Justine' : "I have been looking through my papers tonight. Some have been converted to kitchen uses, some the child has destroyed. This form of censorship pleases me for it has the indifference of the natural world to the constructions of art...After all, what is the good of a fine metaphor for Melissa when she lies buried deep as any mummy in the shallow tepid sand of the black estuary?..." "...I spoke of the uselessness of art but added nothing truthful about its consolations. The solace of such work as I do with brain and heart lies in this - that only there, in the silences of the painter or the writer can reality be reordered, reworked and made to show its significant side. Our common actions in reality are simply the sackcloth covering which hides the cloth-of-gold - the meaning of the pattern. For us artists there waits the joyous compromise through art with all that wounded or defeated us in daily life; in this way, not to evade destiny, as the ordinary people try to do, but to fulfil it in its true potential - the imagination." *************************************** Charles L. Sligh Department of English University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Charles-Sligh at utc.edu *************************************** From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Sep 24 09:47:03 2009 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:47:03 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Aesthetics and Durrell In-Reply-To: <1253794029.6b3669fcCharles-Sligh@utc.edu> References: <1253794029.6b3669fcCharles-Sligh@utc.edu> Message-ID: Sumantra ponders, Charles suffers Mac-loss, and I'm struggling to set up a new one. Re Durrell and aestheticism, while Charles certainly offers the appropriate words of caution, I'm with Sumantra, if I understand him correctly, and am quite willing to take Darley/Durrell at his word, as quoted below, namely, "For us artists there waits the joyous compromise through art with all that wounded or defeated us in daily life; in this way, not to evade destiny, as the ordinary people try to do, but to fulfil it in its true potential - the imagination." This kind of statement occurs too frequently throughout Durrell's oeuvre, fiction and nonfiction, early and late, to be taken as either a stage in the writer's development or as some kind of trial balloon ? both doomed to revision or destruction by Pursewarden's ironies. In short, I take it as serious statement of belief, and I do believe M. Durrell has a core identity and aesthetic that is very close to the words of the young, callow, impressionable, highly Romantic LGD, whom Ludwig P. snickers at and refers to as "Lineaments of Gratified Desire" in Balthazar. The phrase, I believe, comes from Billy Blake, usually taken as the first of the great English Romantics. So, Pursewarden mocks using the words of one of his own heroes (cf. Mountolive, where the poet and his blind sister celebrate Blake's birthday, "the old b[astard's]," by waltzing around Trafalgar Square ? surely one of the most beautiful scenes in the Quartet). By the way, I thank Sumantra for quoting from Terry Eagleton's review of Ian MacNiven's biography. This has appeared before on the List, but it's always good to be reminded how vicious and wrong-headed a reviewer can be, such being the nature of academic wars. Bruce On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Charles Sligh wrote: > Thanks for reviving, Sumantra. > > I destroyed my MacBook, so I have no steady email access and cannot > read or post at length. > > But for the following passages from _Justine_, I would notice -who- > writes these Great Literary Thoughts and -when- he speaks them. I > think this recognition impacts your reading and your claims below > that these passages represent the novelist's own voice. I think > this recognition might even help you make the point, but I do not > have time to chase the implications. > > The passages copied below come from the early unnamed Darley, > writing early in the process of his development--or at least early > in his "process." AS I continue to read the _Quartet_,I am > increasingly uncertain what if anything Darley learns over the > course of the novels. > > However, I am confident that Durrell as a writer learns much over > the course of composing and publishing his novels. > > One of his uncanny discoveries comes with the narrative structure, > the storytelling form of the _Quartet_. As I make my way through > the novels, I become increasingly aware that GREAT LITERARY THOUGHTS > offered by Darley or Arnauti or Pursewarden &c. may or may not give > insight, may or may not be romantic balderdash, effected poses, &c. > The arrival of Pursewarden and his ironies makes me more attentive > of the limits of Darley &c. > > That is all actually quite wonderful, I think. Durrell giveth. > Durrell taketh away. Few other books have that degree of surprise > in them. > > CLS > > *** > > THE PASSAGES IN QUESTION > > Durrell's ruminations on the activities associated with artistic > creation are expressed through the narrator at the beginning of > 'Justine' : > > "I have been looking through my papers tonight. Some have been > converted to kitchen uses, some the child has destroyed. This form > of censorship pleases me for it has the indifference of the natural > world to the constructions of art...After all, what is the good of a > fine metaphor for Melissa when she lies buried deep as any mummy in > the shallow tepid sand of the black estuary?..." > > "...I spoke of the uselessness of art but added nothing truthful > about its consolations. The solace of such work as I do with brain > and heart lies in this - that only there, in the silences of the > painter or the writer can reality be reordered, reworked and made to > show its significant side. Our common actions in reality are simply > the sackcloth covering which hides the cloth-of-gold - the meaning > of the pattern. For us artists there waits the joyous compromise > through art with all that wounded or defeated us in daily life; in > this way, not to evade destiny, as the ordinary people try to do, > but to fulfil it in its true potential - the imagination." > *************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090924/5f07dab2/attachment.html From Charles-Sligh at utc.edu Fri Sep 25 07:18:48 2009 From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:18:48 -0400 Subject: [ilds] Aesthetics and Durrell Message-ID: <1253888328.6c1f839cCharles-Sligh@utc.edu> Agreed! CLS FROM BRUCE: "So, Pursewarden mocks using the words of one of his own heroes (cf. Mountolive, where the poet and his blind sister celebrate Blake's birthday, "the old b[astard's]," by waltzing around Trafalgar Square ? surely one of the most beautiful scenes in the Quartet)." *************************************** Charles L. Sligh Department of English University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Charles-Sligh at utc.edu *************************************** From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Sep 25 17:09:56 2009 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:09:56 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Aesthetics and Durrell In-Reply-To: <1253888328.6c1f839cCharles-Sligh@utc.edu> References: <1253888328.6c1f839cCharles-Sligh@utc.edu> Message-ID: <11345AD7-6477-4D14-A5CA-0C26F95461BB@earthlink.net> Charles, Then do you also agree that Pursewarden's ironies are self-negating, self-canceling, and not really ironies at all ? that he's really only another version of young Darley and not the boogeyman he pretends to be? That would follow. Bruce On Sep 25, 2009, at 7:18 AM, Charles Sligh wrote: > Agreed! > > CLS > > FROM BRUCE: > > "So, > Pursewarden mocks using the words of one of his own heroes (cf. > Mountolive, where the poet and his blind sister celebrate Blake's > birthday, "the old b[astard's]," by waltzing around Trafalgar Square ? > surely one of the most beautiful scenes in the Quartet)." > > *************************************** > Charles L. Sligh > Department of English > University of Tennessee at Chattanooga > Charles-Sligh at utc.edu > *************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From dtart at bigpond.net.au Fri Sep 25 15:56:06 2009 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:56:06 +1000 Subject: [ilds] overprivileged aestheticism Message-ID: <7B3FE25962B64827A4BF92002FA9E722@MumandDad> Terry Eagleton comes across as an old style intellectual commo of a type I was very familiar with at University in the early 80's. You can tell by the text Sumatra posted that he has that hate mongering leftist tone such one used to find in the Guardian newspaper. I can easily imagine that Durrell's Raj background and literary aspiration without a university degree would have annoyed the puritanical Eagleton enormously - in the same way that Albert Finney did not get on with Gerald when the two were working on a film version of My Family and Other Animals. Here is Douglas Botting: Gerald and Finney were unable to form much personal rapport, for Finnet regarded Gerald as an overprivileged product of the Raj - or so it seemed to Gerald - while Gerald grew weary of Finney's exegesis of his own underprivileged working class childhood (pp 344 - 345 Harper Collins paperback) I reckon Larry wrote quite consciously against the style of which reb brick university Eagleton would have approved. His work is deliberate rejection of post war marxism - just look at the cast of characters and the settings in the quartet and the quintet - as for the languid,philosphic idle of Prosperos Cell, the likes of Eaglton must have choked on this when they read it! This is probably why I like it so much. The Count D is my hero. I would like to propose a toast in the finest wine known to humanity to overprivileged aetheticism, long may it continue to grace the world as a civilised and restraining influence on Wildean model or the model of Norman Douglas. As for being working class, as a former premier of New South Wales said; "the best thing about being working class is the chance to get out of it!" as I am sure Finney and possibly Eagleton have. And as for trying to put Larry down for avoiding World War Two - sure, why not. War is a capitalist Imperialist plot anyway. Eagleton should have approved. David Green 16 William Street Marrickville NSW 2204 +61 2 9564 6165 0412 707 625 dtart at bigpond.net.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090926/297f422f/attachment.html From sumantranag at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 23:43:52 2009 From: sumantranag at gmail.com (Sumantra Nag) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:13:52 +0530 Subject: [ilds] Aesthetics and Durrell References: <1253794029.6b3669fcCharles-Sligh@utc.edu> Message-ID: <001801ca3e74$b8e5d940$0301a8c0@abc> "For us artists there waits the joyous compromise through art with all that wounded or defeated us in daily life; in this way, not to evade destiny, as the ordinary people try to do, but to fulfil it in its true potential - the imagination." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles: "The passages copied below come from the early unnamed Darley, writing early in the process of his development--or at least early in his "process." AS I continue to read the _Quartet_,I am increasingly uncertain what if anything Darley learns over the course of the novels." Bruce: "In short, I take it as serious statement of belief, and I do believe M. Durrell has a core identity and aesthetic that is very close to the words of the young, callow, impressionable, highly Romantic LGD,..." -------------------------------------------------------- I think Charles sees the narrator Darley progressing in his beliefs beyond the first rumination about the "compromise through art" as he writes the novels. Bruce sees a core statement of belief about the artist's fufillment through his creation. 'Justine' was Lawrence Durrell's first major success as an artist, although his 'The Black Book' seems to have received considerable attention from major writers such as T.S. Eliot - but less perhaps from Henry Miller whose influence is seen prominently in the work through echoes of Tropic of Cancer (?). While beginning Justine, Durrell was probably at a stage where he is still finding his place as an artist. The book's success and its continued presence in the other 'siblings' of the Alexandria Quartet does not perhaps take away this belief about the artist's "joyous compromise through art with all that wounded or defeated us in daily life". I had referred to Herbert Marcuse and his view of aesthetics and art. Marcuse also uses the well worn term "catharsis". Durrell speaks of the imagination as the crucial place where the potential of art is fulfilled: "...but to fulfil it in its true potential - the imagination." The imagination is where experience gets transformed - transformation being a major aesthetic charteristic of art. Sumantra ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Redwine To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu ; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine ; Sumantra Nag Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [ilds] Aesthetics and Durrell Sumantra ponders, Charles suffers Mac-loss, and I'm struggling to set up a new one. Re Durrell and aestheticism, while Charles certainly offers the appropriate words of caution, I'm with Sumantra, if I understand him correctly, and am quite willing to take Darley/Durrell at his word, as quoted below, namely, "For us artists there waits the joyous compromise through art with all that wounded or defeated us in daily life; in this way, not to evade destiny, as the ordinary people try to do, but to fulfil it in its true potential - the imagination." This kind of statement occurs too frequently throughout Durrell's oeuvre, fiction and nonfiction, early and late, to be taken as either a stage in the writer's development or as some kind of trial balloon ? both doomed to revision or destruction by Pursewarden's ironies. In short, I take it as serious statement of belief, and I do believe M. Durrell has a core identity and aesthetic that is very close to the words of the young, callow, impressionable, highly Romantic LGD, whom Ludwig P. snickers at and refers to as "Lineaments of Gratified Desire" in Balthazar. The phrase, I believe, comes from Billy Blake, usually taken as the first of the great English Romantics. So, Pursewarden mocks using the words of one of his own heroes (cf. Mountolive, where the poet and his blind sister celebrate Blake's birthday, "the old b[astard's]," by waltzing around Trafalgar Square ? surely one of the most beautiful scenes in the Quartet). By the way, I thank Sumantra for quoting from Terry Eagleton's review of Ian MacNiven's biography. This has appeared before on the List, but it's always good to be reminded how vicious and wrong-headed a reviewer can be, such being the nature of academic wars. Bruce On Sep 24, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Charles Sligh wrote: Thanks for reviving, Sumantra. I destroyed my MacBook, so I have no steady email access and cannot read or post at length. But for the following passages from _Justine_, I would notice -who- writes these Great Literary Thoughts and -when- he speaks them. I think this recognition impacts your reading and your claims below that these passages represent the novelist's own voice. I think this recognition might even help you make the point, but I do not have time to chase the implications. The passages copied below come from the early unnamed Darley, writing early in the process of his development--or at least early in his "process." AS I continue to read the _Quartet_,I am increasingly uncertain what if anything Darley learns over the course of the novels. However, I am confident that Durrell as a writer learns much over the course of composing and publishing his novels. One of his uncanny discoveries comes with the narrative structure, the storytelling form of the _Quartet_. As I make my way through the novels, I become increasingly aware that GREAT LITERARY THOUGHTS offered by Darley or Arnauti or Pursewarden &c. may or may not give insight, may or may not be romantic balderdash, effected poses, &c. The arrival of Pursewarden and his ironies makes me more attentive of the limits of Darley &c. That is all actually quite wonderful, I think. Durrell giveth. Durrell taketh away. Few other books have that degree of surprise in them. CLS *** THE PASSAGES IN QUESTION Durrell's ruminations on the activities associated with artistic creation are expressed through the narrator at the beginning of 'Justine' : "I have been looking through my papers tonight. Some have been converted to kitchen uses, some the child has destroyed. This form of censorship pleases me for it has the indifference of the natural world to the constructions of art...After all, what is the good of a fine metaphor for Melissa when she lies buried deep as any mummy in the shallow tepid sand of the black estuary?..." "...I spoke of the uselessness of art but added nothing truthful about its consolations. The solace of such work as I do with brain and heart lies in this - that only there, in the silences of the painter or the writer can reality be reordered, reworked and made to show its significant side. Our common actions in reality are simply the sackcloth covering which hides the cloth-of-gold - the meaning of the pattern. For us artists there waits the joyous compromise through art with all that wounded or defeated us in daily life; in this way, not to evade destiny, as the ordinary people try to do, but to fulfil it in its true potential - the imagination." *************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090926/9bf40dfc/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Sat Sep 26 14:21:23 2009 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:21:23 -0700 Subject: [ilds] overprivileged aestheticism In-Reply-To: <7B3FE25962B64827A4BF92002FA9E722@MumandDad> References: <7B3FE25962B64827A4BF92002FA9E722@MumandDad> Message-ID: David, I'll drink a toast to you and Count D., who is really Durrell himself in aristocratic disguise. Bruce On Sep 25, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > Terry Eagleton comes across as an old style intellectual commo of a > type I was very familiar with at University in the early 80's. You > can tell by the text Sumatra posted that he has that hate mongering > leftist tone such one used to find in the Guardian newspaper. I can > easily imagine that Durrell's Raj background and literary aspiration > without a university degree would have annoyed the puritanical > Eagleton enormously - in the same way that Albert Finney did not get > on with Gerald when the two were working on a film version of My > Family and Other Animals. Here is Douglas Botting: > > Gerald and Finney were unable to form much personal rapport, for > Finnet regarded Gerald as an overprivileged product of the Raj - or > so it seemed to Gerald - while Gerald grew weary of Finney's > exegesis of his own underprivileged working class childhood (pp 344 > - 345 Harper Collins paperback) > > I reckon Larry wrote quite consciously against the style of which > reb brick university Eagleton would have approved. His work is > deliberate rejection of post war marxism - just look at the cast of > characters and the settings in the quartet and the quintet - as for > the languid,philosphic idle of Prosperos Cell, the likes of Eaglton > must have choked on this when they read it! This is probably why I > like it so much. The Count D is my hero. > > I would like to propose a toast in the finest wine known to humanity > to overprivileged aetheticism, long may it continue to grace the > world as a civilised and restraining influence on Wildean model or > the model of Norman Douglas. > > As for being working class, as a former premier of New South Wales > said; "the best thing about being working class is the chance to get > out of it!" as I am sure Finney and possibly Eagleton have. And as > for trying to put Larry down for avoiding World War Two - sure, why > not. War is a capitalist Imperialist plot anyway. Eagleton should > have approved. > > > David Green > 16 William Street > Marrickville NSW 2204 > +61 2 9564 6165 > 0412 707 625 > dtart at bigpond.net.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090926/a0ddc58e/attachment.html From dtart at bigpond.net.au Sat Sep 26 19:48:06 2009 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:48:06 +1000 Subject: [ilds] Brilliant disguise References: <7B3FE25962B64827A4BF92002FA9E722@MumandDad> Message-ID: David, I'll drink a toast to you and Count D., who is really Durrell himself in aristocratic disguise. Bruce Durrell Claims in the preface to Prospero's Cell that the Count D was a real character only not a count according to Gordon Bowker. Perhaps Larry invested much of himself into this person, whoever he may be. Writers are often frustrated actors. They have multiple facets to their characters and create personas and dramas through which to enact a version of their lives in the same way as Lord Henry Wooton in the Picture of Dorian Grey has been said to Oscar Wilde as he wished himself to be. Re reading Justine I am struck again by how what was actually going on Larry's life moves seemlessly in and out his fiction; reality and creation being almost impossible to determine. Even when LD says 'only the city is real' he is being disengenuous. We imagine Larry and Sapho on Cyprus. Larry aone in his gloomy peasant home seeking to make sense of the Alexandria years and two failed marriages. The real Durrell drifts in and out - or does he? This is Durrell's craft. Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow. With Larry the shadows are deep indeed, almost dark. "so tell me who I see, when I look in eyes? is that you baby, or just a brilliant disguise" - Bruce Springsteen DG 16 William Street Marrickville NSW 2204 +61 2 9564 6165 0412 707 625 dtart at bigpond.net.au www.denisetart.com.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090927/1749d095/attachment.html From sumantranag at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 03:35:33 2009 From: sumantranag at gmail.com (Sumantra Nag) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:05:33 +0530 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 8_ overprivileged aestheticism (Denise Tart & David Green) References: Message-ID: <007701ca3f5e$40bb4190$0301a8c0@abc> Re: Message: 2 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:56:06 +1000 From: "Denise Tart & David Green" David wrote: "I reckon Larry wrote quite consciously against the style of which reb brick university Eagleton would have approved.." David, I wonder if the label of "Redbrick" is of significance any more. Terry Eagleton read English at Cambridge where he was also research fellow and then spent many years at Oxford where he became Thomas Warton Professor of English Literature before moving on to Manchester and Lancaster. And F.R. Leavis at Cambridge was of course a major influence in literary criticism during and after his time. I don't know whether you noticed my recent post on ILDS where the tastes and prejudices of readers and Oxford critics alike are examined. (ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 5, Sept. 24.) There is a marked antipathy towards "aestheticism" in literature. Am just giving the reference with a few pointers: ---------------------------------------------- 1. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n20/wood02_.html "...the three most prominent Oxford professors of English since the war...John Carey, scourge of Modernist 'intellectuals' and reliable dribbler of cold water on all forms of overheated aestheticism, comes across as the last defender of sensible English decency. Terry Eagleton, ... increasingly presents himself as the sensible Marxist alternative to toothless and ornate theory in America and continental Europe. And John Bayley ...attempts to defend the sensible common reader against academic criticism tout court. In their puritanism (Carey), suspicion of overprivileged aestheticism (Carey and Eagleton), ...all three critics are far more marked by F.R. Leavis than they would probably like to admit; they would all agree, for instance, along with Leavis, to a marked suspicion of Virginia Woolf, for interestingly similar reasons..." 2. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_modern_literature/v026/26.3levitt01.pdf "We will never, I fear, fully comprehend the mystery of the English hostility to the Modernist novel after the Second World War, a rejection so profound that it seems to the outsider to be positively perverse....the extreme, reactionary chauvinism that motivated English critics and novelists alike from 1945 until well into the 1980s..." -------------------------------- David closes his post with the following brave unequivocal toast to aestheticism: "I would like to propose a toast in the finest wine known to humanity to overprivileged aetheticism, long may it continue to grace the world as a civilised and restraining influence on Wildean model or the model of Norman Douglas." What about a revival of literary aestheticism? But where are the novelists or writers in prose? I can't comment adequately about poetry at present. Best wishes Sumantra ----- Original Message ----- > 2. overprivileged aestheticism (Denise Tart & David Green) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:56:06 +1000 > From: "Denise Tart & David Green" > Subject: [ilds] overprivileged aestheticism > To: "Durrel" > Message-ID: <7B3FE25962B64827A4BF92002FA9E722 at MumandDad> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Terry Eagleton comes across as an old style intellectual commo of a type I was very familiar with at University in the early 80's. You can tell by the text Sumatra posted that he has that hate mongering leftist tone such one used to find in the Guardian newspaper. I can easily imagine that Durrell's Raj background and literary aspiration without a university degree would have annoyed the puritanical Eagleton enormously - in the same way that Albert Finney did not get on with Gerald when the two were working on a film version of My Family and Other Animals. Here is Douglas Botting: > > Gerald and Finney were unable to form much personal rapport, for Finnet regarded Gerald as an overprivileged product of the Raj - or so it seemed to Gerald - while Gerald grew weary of Finney's exegesis of his own underprivileged working class childhood (pp 344 - 345 Harper Collins paperback) > > I reckon Larry wrote quite consciously against the style of which reb brick university Eagleton would have approved. His work is deliberate rejection of post war marxism - just look at the cast of characters and the settings in the quartet and the quintet - as for the languid,philosphic idle of Prosperos Cell, the likes of Eaglton must have choked on this when they read it! This is probably why I like it so much. The Count D is my hero. > I would like to propose a toast in the finest wine known to humanity to overprivileged aetheticism, long may it continue to grace the world as a civilised and restraining influence on Wildean model or the model of Norman Douglas. > > As for being working class, as a former premier of New South Wales said; "the best thing about being working class is the chance to get out of it!" as I am sure Finney and possibly Eagleton have. And as for trying to put Larry down for avoiding World War Two - sure, why not. War is a capitalist Imperialist plot anyway. Eagleton should have approved. > > > David Green > 16 William Street > Marrickville NSW 2204 > +61 2 9564 6165 > 0412 707 625 > dtart at bigpond.net.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090927/da553ce1/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Sun Sep 27 08:25:47 2009 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:25:47 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Brilliant disguise In-Reply-To: References: <7B3FE25962B64827A4BF92002FA9E722@MumandDad> Message-ID: <2C23FE53-8398-40B5-B323-ECFEDCBC5632@earthlink.net> David, Yes. Anyone who writes knows that a big part of that pleasure lies in creating a world and living in it. Hence the obsession to write and sustain the experience, as long as you can. Durrell was often successful at the latter. He was indeed Prospero, the happy magician, or so he started off as a young man, in the bloom of youth, but toward the end, in the gloom, if you will, he seems to have turned in that disguise for Monsieur, the Demiurge. Michael Haag has said that Durrell lies all the time, when talking about his writing. I think this is true. He has a great need for playful obfuscation. Why is his poetry often so difficult? As Charles Bryant says in his video, "what did it really mean?" I believe the solution to that puzzle may have something to do with lying or invention as lying. Liars don't want to be caught. Writers want to share their work ? but only to a point. They also want to keep it private and will lie to do so. It's a game that can lead to problems, if you stay in the real world. Better to go to Tibet or to jump into nothingness, like Campion. Bruce On Sep 26, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > David, I'll drink a toast to you and Count D., who is really Durrell > himself in aristocratic disguise. > > > Bruce > > Durrell Claims in the preface to Prospero's Cell that the Count D > was a real character only not a count according to Gordon Bowker. > Perhaps Larry invested much of himself into this person, whoever he > may be. > > Writers are often frustrated actors. They have multiple facets to > their characters and create personas and dramas through which to > enact a version of their lives in the same way as Lord Henry Wooton > in the Picture of Dorian Grey has been said to Oscar Wilde as he > wished himself to be. > > Re reading Justine I am struck again by how what was actually going > on Larry's life moves seemlessly in and out his fiction; reality and > creation being almost impossible to determine. Even when LD says > 'only the city is real' he is being disengenuous. > > We imagine Larry and Sapho on Cyprus. Larry aone in his gloomy > peasant home seeking to make sense of the Alexandria years and two > failed marriages. The real Durrell drifts in and out - or does he? > > This is Durrell's craft. > > Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow. With Larry the > shadows are deep indeed, almost dark. > > "so tell me who I see, when I look in eyes? is that you baby, or > just a brilliant disguise" - Bruce Springsteen > > DG > > > > 16 William Street > Marrickville NSW 2204 > +61 2 9564 6165 > 0412 707 625 > dtart at bigpond.net.au > www.denisetart.com.au > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090927/87c70671/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Sun Sep 27 12:10:20 2009 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:10:20 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Redbricks In-Reply-To: <007701ca3f5e$40bb4190$0301a8c0@abc> References: <007701ca3f5e$40bb4190$0301a8c0@abc> Message-ID: <8818BEC3-B53A-4B5A-A2FA-ED743473DC72@earthlink.net> Sumantra, I guess David means "redbrick" in a proletariate sense (no snobbism intended, I think) and applies the term to Eagleton accordingly, although Eagleton did attend Cambridge and teach at Oxford, which are obviously no "redbricks." As you point out, the direct forebear of this attitude is none other than the redoubtable F. R. Leavis, who spawned "Leavites." I can't see Leavis or any Leavite approving of LGD, for the reasons you give, the anti-aestheticism movement. Was Martin Green a Leavite? His "Lawrence Durrell: A Minority Report" would suggest he was. A question which has always puzzled me ? was L. G. Durrell's hostility to mother England, assuming it was more or less genuine (but not genuine enough for him to shun service in His/Her Majesty's Government), in part caused by the fact he didn't make it into Cambridge? The Establishment rejects the young writer, so the young writer rejects the Establishment and then strikes (unjustified) a Byronic pose? Is this rejection the real source of Durrell's "English Death" ? a bogeyman which I don't take seriously as social criticism, as propagated in The Black Book, a terrible book, in terms of form and substance. I don't find T. S. Eliot's praise of the novel accurate or honest. Bruce On Sep 27, 2009, at 3:35 AM, Sumantra Nag wrote: > Re: Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:56:06 +1000 > From: "Denise Tart & David Green" > David wrote: "I reckon Larry wrote quite consciously against the > style of which reb brick university Eagleton would have approved.." > > David, I wonder if the label of "Redbrick" is of significance any > more. Terry Eagleton read English at Cambridge where he was also > research fellow and then spent many years at Oxford where he became > Thomas Warton Professor of English Literature before moving on to > Manchester and Lancaster. And F.R. Leavis at Cambridge was of course > a major influence in literary criticism during and after his time. > > I don't know whether you noticed my recent post on ILDS where the > tastes and prejudices of readers and Oxford critics alike are > examined. (ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 5, Sept. 24.) There is a > marked antipathy towards "aestheticism" in literature. Am just > giving the reference with a few pointers: > ---------------------------------------------- > 1. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n20/wood02_.html > "...the three most prominent Oxford professors of English since the > war...John Carey, scourge of Modernist 'intellectuals' and reliable > dribbler of cold water on all forms of overheated aestheticism, > comes across as the last defender of sensible English decency. Terry > Eagleton, ... increasingly presents himself as the sensible Marxist > alternative to toothless and ornate theory in America and > continental Europe. And John Bayley ...attempts to defend the > sensible common reader against academic criticism tout court. In > their puritanism (Carey), suspicion of overprivileged aestheticism > (Carey and Eagleton), ...all three critics are far more marked by > F.R. Leavis than they would probably like to admit; they would all > agree, for instance, along with Leavis, to a marked suspicion of > Virginia Woolf, for interestingly similar reasons..." > > 2. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_modern_literature/v026/26.3levitt01.pdf > > "We will never, I fear, fully comprehend the mystery of the English > hostility to the Modernist novel after the Second World War, a > rejection so profound that it seems to the outsider to be positively > perverse....the extreme, reactionary chauvinism that motivated > English critics and novelists alike from 1945 until well into the > 1980s..." > -------------------------------- > David closes his post with the following brave unequivocal toast to > aestheticism: > > "I would like to propose a toast in the finest wine known to > humanity to overprivileged aetheticism, long may it continue to > grace the world as a civilised and restraining influence on Wildean > model or the model of Norman Douglas." > What about a revival of literary aestheticism? But where are the > novelists or writers in prose? I can't comment adequately about > poetry at present. > > Best wishes > > Sumantra > > ----- Original Message ----- > > 2. overprivileged aestheticism (Denise Tart & David Green) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:56:06 +1000 > > From: "Denise Tart & David Green" > > Subject: [ilds] overprivileged aestheticism > > To: "Durrel" > > Message-ID: <7B3FE25962B64827A4BF92002FA9E722 at MumandDad> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Terry Eagleton comes across as an old style intellectual commo of > a type I was very familiar with at University in the early 80's. You > can tell by the text Sumatra posted that he has that hate mongering > leftist tone such one used to find in the Guardian newspaper. I can > easily imagine that Durrell's Raj background and literary aspiration > without a university degree would have annoyed the puritanical > Eagleton enormously - in the same way that Albert Finney did not get > on with Gerald when the two were working on a film version of My > Family and Other Animals. Here is Douglas Botting: > > > > Gerald and Finney were unable to form much personal rapport, for > Finnet regarded Gerald as an overprivileged product of the Raj - or > so it seemed to Gerald - while Gerald grew weary of Finney's > exegesis of his own underprivileged working class childhood (pp 344 > - 345 Harper Collins paperback) > > > > I reckon Larry wrote quite consciously against the style of which > reb brick university Eagleton would have approved. His work is > deliberate rejection of post war marxism - just look at the cast of > characters and the settings in the quartet and the quintet - as for > the languid,philosphic idle of Prosperos Cell, the likes of Eaglton > must have choked on this when they read it! This is probably why I > like it so much. The Count D is my hero. > > > I would like to propose a toast in the finest wine known to humanity > to overprivileged aetheticism, long may it continue to grace the > world as a civilised and restraining influence on Wildean model or > the model of Norman Douglas. > > > > As for being working class, as a former premier of New South Wales > said; "the best thing about being working class is the chance to get > out of it!" as I am sure Finney and possibly Eagleton have. And as > for trying to put Larry down for avoiding World War Two - sure, why > not. War is a capitalist Imperialist plot anyway. Eagleton should > have approved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090927/1def5eac/attachment.html From dtart at bigpond.net.au Sun Sep 27 14:04:00 2009 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:04:00 +1000 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 8_ overprivileged aestheticism (Denise Tart & David Green) References: <007701ca3f5e$40bb4190$0301a8c0@abc> Message-ID: <548EB6D4BB074E52935274DE5C005E43@MumandDad> Sumantra wrote: David, I wonder if the label of "Redbrick" is of significance any more. Terry Eagleton read English at Cambridge where he was also research fellow and then spent many years at Oxford where he became Thomas Warton Professor of English Literature before moving on to Manchester and Lancaster. And F.R. Leavis at Cambridge was of course a major influence in literary criticism during and after his time. Thanks Sumantra. I guess even Oxford and Cambridge dons can have deep Marxist tendencies - one thinks of Burgess, Philby and McClean who, although not dons, certainly attended those august institutions and became in effect class traitors. Being Marxist and aspiring to redbrickness was very fashionable in the post war period say 1945 - 1989 when the destruction of a certain piece of masonry somewhat changed people's views. I had seen and enjoyed your postings, as shown below, before and enjoyed them. The aesthetic style (if there is one) appears very much out of favour still. I can think of two Australian writers who have managed an aesthetic style in fairly recent times: Patrick White and, currently, Robert Dessaix whose Night Letters is well worth a read. We are more in love with the likes of Tim Winton whose titles like Dirt Music and Breath suggest an earthy contact with urban and rural realities, as the author sees them OR In the words of the Poet from the film Reuben Reuben "whose novels depict such contemporary Phenomena as slum clearance!" or the suburban parochialism of Cloudstreet. Not that I have anything against Tim Winton. His books are highly evocative but they are not in the same genre as the Avignon Quintet David Green 16 William Street Marrickville NSW 2204 +61 2 9564 6165 0412 707 625 dtart at bigpond.net.au www.denisetart.com.au ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumantra Nag To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 30,Issue 8_ overprivileged aestheticism (Denise Tart & David Green) Re: Message: 2 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:56:06 +1000 From: "Denise Tart & David Green" David wrote: "I reckon Larry wrote quite consciously against the style of which reb brick university Eagleton would have approved.." I don't know whether you noticed my recent post on ILDS where the tastes and prejudices of readers and Oxford critics alike are examined. (ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 5, Sept. 24.) There is a marked antipathy towards "aestheticism" in literature. Am just giving the reference with a few pointers: ---------------------------------------------- 1. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n20/wood02_.html "...the three most prominent Oxford professors of English since the war...John Carey, scourge of Modernist 'intellectuals' and reliable dribbler of cold water on all forms of overheated aestheticism, comes across as the last defender of sensible English decency. Terry Eagleton, ... increasingly presents himself as the sensible Marxist alternative to toothless and ornate theory in America and continental Europe. And John Bayley ...attempts to defend the sensible common reader against academic criticism tout court. In their puritanism (Carey), suspicion of overprivileged aestheticism (Carey and Eagleton), ...all three critics are far more marked by F.R. Leavis than they would probably like to admit; they would all agree, for instance, along with Leavis, to a marked suspicion of Virginia Woolf, for interestingly similar reasons..." 2. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_modern_literature/v026/26.3levitt01.pdf "We will never, I fear, fully comprehend the mystery of the English hostility to the Modernist novel after the Second World War, a rejection so profound that it seems to the outsider to be positively perverse....the extreme, reactionary chauvinism that motivated English critics and novelists alike from 1945 until well into the 1980s..." -------------------------------- David closes his post with the following brave unequivocal toast to aestheticism: "I would like to propose a toast in the finest wine known to humanity to overprivileged aetheticism, long may it continue to grace the world as a civilised and restraining influence on Wildean model or the model of Norman Douglas." What about a revival of literary aestheticism? But where are the novelists or writers in prose? I can't comment adequately about poetry at present. Best wishes Sumantra ----- Original Message ----- > 2. overprivileged aestheticism (Denise Tart & David Green) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:56:06 +1000 > From: "Denise Tart & David Green" > Subject: [ilds] overprivileged aestheticism > To: "Durrel" > Message-ID: <7B3FE25962B64827A4BF92002FA9E722 at MumandDad> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Terry Eagleton comes across as an old style intellectual commo of a type I was very familiar with at University in the early 80's. You can tell by the text Sumatra posted that he has that hate mongering leftist tone such one used to find in the Guardian newspaper. I can easily imagine that Durrell's Raj background and literary aspiration without a university degree would have annoyed the puritanical Eagleton enormously - in the same way that Albert Finney did not get on with Gerald when the two were working on a film version of My Family and Other Animals. Here is Douglas Botting: > > Gerald and Finney were unable to form much personal rapport, for Finnet regarded Gerald as an overprivileged product of the Raj - or so it seemed to Gerald - while Gerald grew weary of Finney's exegesis of his own underprivileged working class childhood (pp 344 - 345 Harper Collins paperback) > > I reckon Larry wrote quite consciously against the style of which reb brick university Eagleton would have approved. His work is deliberate rejection of post war marxism - just look at the cast of characters and the settings in the quartet and the quintet - as for the languid,philosphic idle of Prosperos Cell, the likes of Eaglton must have choked on this when they read it! This is probably why I like it so much. The Count D is my hero. > I would like to propose a toast in the finest wine known to humanity to overprivileged aetheticism, long may it continue to grace the world as a civilised and restraining influence on Wildean model or the model of Norman Douglas. > > As for being working class, as a former premier of New South Wales said; "the best thing about being working class is the chance to get out of it!" as I am sure Finney and possibly Eagleton have. And as for trying to put Larry down for avoiding World War Two - sure, why not. War is a capitalist Imperialist plot anyway. Eagleton should have approved. > > > David Green > 16 William Street > Marrickville NSW 2204 > +61 2 9564 6165 > 0412 707 625 > dtart at bigpond.net.au ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090928/01f29b23/attachment.html