[ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 10
Sumantra Nag
sumantranag at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 11:45:05 PDT 2009
Bruce: "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?"
Bruce, I'm in no position to comment on this because one would need to understand Lawrence Durrell's life in some detail, something which you and other scholars working on LG may be doing. But from what I have read from disparate sources it seems that Durrell (I'm speaking only of Lawrence) resented going to England from India and no ambition seems to have thereafter arisen for him to really try to make the most of the opportunities he received. If I'm not wrong, he made more than one attempt at gaining entrance to Cambridge. (Incidentally why not Oxford as well? It may have been equally difficult.) But could he not have succeeded in his entrance exams for Cambridge if he had really wanted to? It was his father who wanted him to become a civil servant (in India?) and Cambridge seems to have been the projected foundation for this objective. Was Lawrence Durrell himself excited by the intellectual attractions of Cambridge? I remember reading about an interview with LD very long ago in a British paper, where he describes himself as a "literary blimp", from which I understand that he saw himself as an English colonial. I don't get the impression that Durrell was deeply affected by his failure to get into Cambridge. But I don't know enough to say so with any authority.
I remember reading somewhere that Henry Miller regarded Lawrence Durrell's failure at entering Cambridge as a boon, because he wondered what the effect of Leavisite teaching of English at Cambridge would have had on Durrell's writing!
Writers of the pre-WWII generation were often academically unsuccessful at Oxford or Cambridge even when they went there. Christopher Isherwood, for instance who was at Cambridge but only for two years. He seems to have won a history scholarship to Cambridge, and then failed his exams by answering the questions in limericks. His bohemian existence in Berlin and "Goodbye to Berlin" seem to be in a vein which echoes Durrell's writing in The Black Book and the novels of the AQ. Perhaps a common quality of impressionism, although Durrell's work is much larger, complex and uniquely lyrical.
Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Powell both got Third Class degrees at Oxford, from what I can recall having read. I know that Dom Moraes, the Indian poet writing in English in the late 1950s and the 1960s, who got the Hawthornden Prize for literature in Britain at the age of about 19 for his poetry, barely managed to get a degree at Oxford. He wrote somewhere about the lightness with which he may have treated his tutorials. (But he did pass his entrance exam for Oxford and got into the university.) The link between literary success and academic success at Oxbridge was quite tenuous at one time, but was probably not the case in later years.
Going back further, the historian Gibbon regarded the two years of his truncated stay at Oxford as a waste of time!
Sumantra
----- Original Message -----
From: <ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca>
To: <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 12:30 AM
Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 10
> Send ILDS mailing list submissions to
> ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Redbricks (Bruce Redwine)
> 2. Re: ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 8_ overprivileged aestheticism
> (Denise Tart & David Green) (Denise Tart & David Green)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:10:20 -0700
> From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [ilds] Redbricks
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Cc: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
> Message-ID: <8818BEC3-B53A-4B5A-A2FA-ED743473DC72 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> 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" <dtart at bigpond.net.au>
>> 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" <dtart at bigpond.net.au>
>> > Subject: [ilds] overprivileged aestheticism
>> > To: "Durrel" <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
>> > 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-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:04:00 +1000
> From: "Denise Tart & David Green" <dtart at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 8_ overprivileged
> aestheticism (Denise Tart & David Green)
> To: <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
> Message-ID: <548EB6D4BB074E52935274DE5C005E43 at MumandDad>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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" <dtart at bigpond.net.au>
>
> 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" <dtart at bigpond.net.au>
> > Subject: [ilds] overprivileged aestheticism
> > To: "Durrel" <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
> > 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-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>
>
> End of ILDS Digest, Vol 30, Issue 10
> ************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20090930/6a9fc814/attachment.html
More information about the ILDS
mailing list