From sumantranag at gmail.com  Mon Jun 21 04:00:49 2010
From: sumantranag at gmail.com (Sumantra Nag)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:30:49 +0530
Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 39, Issue 11_Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani
Message-ID: <AC230F0264044A12A6DF1B16F810F6B4@abc>

Sorry, just sending this post again after rearranging the content and 
correcting a few typographical errors. Sumantra
-----------------------------
 Bruce,

> Actually Hindustani is a term used to describe the speech of modern India 
> which is influenced by both Hindi and Urdu.

> Hindi is a language belonging to the Hindu heartland of India and is 
> linked with the ancient Indian language Sanskrit, while Urdu has come from 
> the Muslim countries. India was ruled by Mughal emperors settled in India 
> during the medieval period before the British first came during  the 
> seventeenth century to trade during the Mughal rule. Whereas the British 
> later ruled from England, the Mughal emperors had settled in India.
>  Sumantra
> ------------------------------------
> "MacNiven also notes Durrell's claims about speaking Urdu and does not see 
> a contradiction, the two languages being dialects of Hindustani (p. 693, 
> n. 35)."
>
> Message: 4
>> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:50:55 -0700
>> From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Our most exalted alumni was Lawrence Durrell"
> 


From Charles-Sligh at utc.edu  Mon Jun 21 06:24:29 2010
From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:24:29 -0400
Subject: [ilds] faking it
In-Reply-To: <DADB1AC2-EC4A-4C89-B1C3-A0CADF0DF20F@earthlink.net>
References: <700678.89860.qm@web65810.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>,
	<AB9F943B-9924-4CF1-95F5-67EFFB5BDF62@earthlink.net>	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F0@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
	<DADB1AC2-EC4A-4C89-B1C3-A0CADF0DF20F@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4C1F680D.9090905@utc.edu>


> I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.
>
>
>
>   

I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.

A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell. 
This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).

In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the 
distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday 
life."

Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a 
certain measure, irrefutable.

        ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
        "faking it" the whole time.


For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a 
second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of 
"faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.

C&c.

-- 
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu
********************************************


From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 21 06:41:04 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:41:04 -0700
Subject: [ilds] faking it
In-Reply-To: <4C1F680D.9090905@utc.edu>
References: <700678.89860.qm@web65810.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>,
	<AB9F943B-9924-4CF1-95F5-67EFFB5BDF62@earthlink.net>	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F0@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
	<DADB1AC2-EC4A-4C89-B1C3-A0CADF0DF20F@earthlink.net>
	<4C1F680D.9090905@utc.edu>
Message-ID: <09FCBE42-D04E-45DB-992E-A75B359F4018@earthlink.net>

Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:

> 
>> I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.
> 
> A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell. 
> This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).
> 
> In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the 
> distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday 
> life."
> 
> Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a 
> certain measure, irrefutable.
> 
>        ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
>        "faking it" the whole time.
> 
> 
> For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a 
> second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of 
> "faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.
> 
> C&c.
> 
> -- 
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> 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 bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 21 06:51:55 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:51:55 -0700
Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 39, Issue 11_Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani
In-Reply-To: <AC230F0264044A12A6DF1B16F810F6B4@abc>
References: <AC230F0264044A12A6DF1B16F810F6B4@abc>
Message-ID: <031A9E19-CE04-49AD-A717-CF7497275599@earthlink.net>

Sumantra,

Thanks.  Any thoughts about Durrell's claim that his first language was Hindi, although his nanny at the time was Burmese, who presumably spoke Burmese and not Hindi.  I guess it is possible that there are Hindi speaking Burmese.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 4:00 AM, Sumantra Nag wrote:

> Sorry, just sending this post again after rearranging the content and correcting a few typographical errors. Sumantra
> -----------------------------
> Bruce,
> 
>> Actually Hindustani is a term used to describe the speech of modern India which is influenced by both Hindi and Urdu.
> 
>> Hindi is a language belonging to the Hindu heartland of India and is linked with the ancient Indian language Sanskrit, while Urdu has come from the Muslim countries. India was ruled by Mughal emperors settled in India during the medieval period before the British first came during  the seventeenth century to trade during the Mughal rule. Whereas the British later ruled from England, the Mughal emperors had settled in India.
>> Sumantra
>> ------------------------------------
>> "MacNiven also notes Durrell's claims about speaking Urdu and does not see a contradiction, the two languages being dialects of Hindustani (p. 693, n. 35)."
>> 
>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:50:55 -0700
>>> From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Our most exalted alumni was Lawrence Durrell"
> 



From odos.fanourios at gmail.com  Mon Jun 21 09:07:40 2010
From: odos.fanourios at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:07:40 -0700
Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 39, Issue 11_Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani
In-Reply-To: <031A9E19-CE04-49AD-A717-CF7497275599@earthlink.net>
References: <AC230F0264044A12A6DF1B16F810F6B4@abc>
	<031A9E19-CE04-49AD-A717-CF7497275599@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikUHb2T9ZhbbtLCCiJyNei6_PTCRxgTAurBXJAL@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bruce & Sumantra,

I'd doubt that a nanny was his only point of contact with local
languages, and his family seemed likely to have at least a modest
knowledge of the local languages.  After all, they'd been there for
some time...  And why wouldn't a Burmese ayah speak Hindi or Urdu?
Wouldn't there have been many other household staff who'd have spoken
either?  In /Pied Piper/, he reports many contacts with locals, and
that contact is reported using Hindi and Urdu.  I don't have MacNiven
in front of me, but also be careful about locations, since what's in
/Pied Piper of Lovers/ doesn't exactly match what really happened (and
Bowker often falls into the problem of conflating the novel with
Durrell's life for the Indian period).

Durrell's mother tongue was undoubtably English, but his first novel
shows that he had at least a modest knowledge of Hindi and Urdu, and
some others have complained that his limited Arabic contained too much
Urdu (I can't comment on that very well, but it seems plausible).  I'd
speculate his Hindi was probably phrases and vocabulary rather than a
grammatical knowledge, but his adeptness with languages is well
established, so this would be hard to determine, especially since he
was a child, and shifting languages in childhood isn't unusual.

I'd be inclined to read that statement as an expansion of the truth in
order to emphasize his discomfited position between India and England.
 After all, as he says in /Bitter Lemons/ (in a passage randomly
falling open on my desk today): "The truth is that both the British
and the Cypriot world offered one a gallery of humours which could
only be fully enjoyed by one who, like myself, had a stake in neither"
(25).

Perhaps Sumantra could comment on the spoken distinctions between Urdu
and Hindi for someone who wouldn't be likely to read in either
language (Devanagari vs. Persian would immediately demarcate the
scripts, right)?  I once spent a couple of weeks dallying with a book
on Hindi script (I don't recall much...), and I live in a very Indian
part of Vancouver where the different scripts seem to mark out
different parts of the Indo-Canadian community.  My outsider's hunch
is that they share a reasonable degree of inter-intelligibility and
cognates for common words, though Hindi derives largely from Sanskrit
and Urdu from Persian and Arabic.  Is that roughly right?

Cheers,
James

On 21 June 2010 06:51, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Sumantra,
>
> Thanks. ?Any thoughts about Durrell's claim that his first language was Hindi, although his nanny at the time was Burmese, who presumably spoke Burmese and not Hindi. ?I guess it is possible that there are Hindi speaking Burmese.
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 4:00 AM, Sumantra Nag wrote:
>
>> Sorry, just sending this post again after rearranging the content and correcting a few typographical errors. Sumantra
>> -----------------------------
>> Bruce,
>>
>>> Actually Hindustani is a term used to describe the speech of modern India which is influenced by both Hindi and Urdu.
>>
>>> Hindi is a language belonging to the Hindu heartland of India and is linked with the ancient Indian language Sanskrit, while Urdu has come from the Muslim countries. India was ruled by Mughal emperors settled in India during the medieval period before the British first came during ?the seventeenth century to trade during the Mughal rule. Whereas the British later ruled from England, the Mughal emperors had settled in India.
>>> Sumantra
>>> ------------------------------------
>>> "MacNiven also notes Durrell's claims about speaking Urdu and does not see a contradiction, the two languages being dialects of Hindustani (p. 693, n. 35)."
>>>
>>> Message: 4
>>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:50:55 -0700
>>>> From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Our most exalted alumni was Lawrence Durrell"
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>



-- 
---------------------------------------
James Gifford, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English and University Core Director
School of English, Philosophy and Humanities
University College: Arts, Sciences, Professional Studies
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Vancouver Campus
Voice: 604-648-4476
Fax: 604-648-4489
E-mail: gifford at fdu.edu
http://alpha.fdu.edu/~jgifford

842 Cambie Street
Vancouver, BC
V6B 2P6 Canada


From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu  Mon Jun 21 11:05:10 2010
From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl))
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:05:10 -0400
Subject: [ilds] faking it
In-Reply-To: <09FCBE42-D04E-45DB-992E-A75B359F4018@earthlink.net>
References: <700678.89860.qm@web65810.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>,
	<AB9F943B-9924-4CF1-95F5-67EFFB5BDF62@earthlink.net>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F0@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
	<DADB1AC2-EC4A-4C89-B1C3-A0CADF0DF20F@earthlink.net>
	<4C1F680D.9090905@utc.edu>,
	<09FCBE42-D04E-45DB-992E-A75B359F4018@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F4@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>

You could buy his book, which is about ten years old. If you should find my review (below), I offer a summary there.

Cambridge UP does provide a brief summary as well. 

Antipodes
Forging literary consciousness.(Faking Literature)(Book Review)
    Antipodes; Sunday, December 01, 2002; Godshalk, W.L.; 700+ words ...respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature...plagiaristic, and allusive. But Ruthven also realizes that the...Joyce of duplicity. In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary.


Bill 

W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:41 AM
To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Cc: Bruce Redwine
Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it

Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:

>
>> I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.
>
> A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell.
> This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).
>
> In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the
> distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday
> life."
>
> Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a
> certain measure, irrefutable.
>
>        ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
>        "faking it" the whole time.
>
>
> For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a
> second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of
> "faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.
>
> C&c.
>
> --
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> 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


_______________________________________________
ILDS mailing list
ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds


From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu  Mon Jun 21 11:45:46 2010
From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl))
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:45:46 -0400
Subject: [ilds] buying it faking it reviewing it
Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>

Just checked ABE. You can get a copy of Faking Literature for lest than 5 bucks plus potsage on ABEbooks.

And I attach my review:

K.K. Ruthven, Faking Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. PB A$49.95
	In his Prologue, Ruthven preemptively claims that literary forgeries "constitute a powerful indictment of such cultural practices as literary reviewing" (4), that is, of the review you are now reading. In his first chapter, "Sampling the spurious," Ruthven briefly reviews selected literary deceivers from the eighteenth century to the 1990s, with major attention to James Macpherson, whose Ossianic material Ruthven calls "Macphossian." "Macphossian," writes Ruthven, "remains the key text for analysts of literary forgery because it generated two quite different phenomena: an 'Ossianic controversy' about the authenticity of the Gaelic materials mediated by Macpherson's 'translation,' and an enormous cult readership which felt free to ignore that controversy because it knew what it liked" (13). In the next chapter, "Framing literary forgery," Ruthven discusses the "overlapping descriptors that constitute our understanding" of literary spuriosity (34). He believes that we tend to see literary deceptions as "forgeries," "fakes," "hoaxes," and so on, words which predispose us to see these deceptions in certain ways: "an analogy designed to illuminate something may have opprobrious consequences" (41). He also points out that much depends on "whether the organising term for such enquiries [into literary deception] is 'similarity' or 'difference'" (60), uniformity or discontinuity.  
        Chapter 3, "Cultivating spuriosity," deals with post-structuralist critical theory's challenges to traditional assumptions about "authority, originality, authenticity and value," and with Lyontard's concept of the postmodern condition which "enables us to see literary forgeries as in some ways normalised by the spuriosities of everyday life" (63).  Given this matrix of ideas, Ruthven argues that "literary forgery can be shown to have many components in common with literature" (73). 
	In Chapter 4, "Faultlines of authorship," Ruthven asserts that the concept of authorship "cannot be used as the unproblematic base from which to critique the authorial duplicities of literary forgers" (91), but it is "the Romantic ideology of authorship, whose operative terms are solitary geniuses and unique texts, the authoring of which authorises them" (91), that he uses as a straw man. Ruthven surveys "dispersed" authorial practices, such as: collaborating with other writers; writing anonymously or pseudonymously; using a persona; pretending that your own writing is the writing of someone else; writing for someone else (i.e., speech writing and ghostwriting), and franchising literary characters (e.g. James Bond) to other writers (e.g. Kingsley Amis). He feels that these practices undercut the Romantic concept of authorship against which, he seems to believe, we measure literary duplicity. How these commonplace practices call into question more realistic concepts of authorship and literary fraud is not readily apparent. This chapter ends, rather anomalously, with a discussion of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
	Ruthven begins his fifth chapter, "Fantasies of originality," with the claim: "the category of 'original genius' was invented and displayed in the titles of a couple of books published in 1767" (121). The rest of the chapter argues against the possibility of such an invention: "Since nothing human is created ex nihilo, everything is made of something else, and is in that respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature is not original; it is imitative, derivative, intertextual, plagiaristic, and allusive. But  Ruthven also realizes that the "practice of imitatio is situated precariously between sameness and difference" (124). Literary imitation is not plagiarism. We would not mistake James Joyce's Ulysses for Homer's Odyssey, nor would we accuse Joyce of duplicity. 
	In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary deceptions reveal the fragility of "literature" as a cultural category. If critics could easily identify a literary work by its authority, originality, and authenticity, they would not be -- as they often are -- taken in by literary deceptions. In his Epilogue, Ruthven proposes "a moratorium on the demonising of literary forgeries and a systematic investigation of what they tell us about the so-called genuine article" (199). He concludes that "literary forgery is a sort of spurious literature, and so is literature" (200).
Ruthven identifies the following types of literary deceiver: (1) writers who choose pseudonyms that belie their sex and/or ethnicity (e.g. Toby Forward writing as Rahila Khan or Helen Darville writing as Helen Demidenko); (2) writers who pretend to be translating other writers, but are in fact not (e.g., James Macpherson writing as Ossian); (3) writers who pass off fiction as autobiography (e.g., Lorenzo Carcaterra in Sleepers); (4) forgers of manuscript diaries (e.g., Konrad Kujau writing as Hitler); (5) forgers of first editions (e.g., Thomas J. Wise and H. Buxton Forman printing  a fraudulent first edition of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portugese); (6) forgers of manuscript marginalia (e.g., John Payne Collier or Frederic Madden annotating the Perkins Folio in psuedo-Renaissance handwriting); (7) impostors who write fraudulent accounts of their lives and countries of origin (e.g., George Psalmanazar writing Historical and Geographical Description of Formosa pretending to be a Formosan); (8) writers who create fictitious authors and write works for them (e.g., James McAuley and Harold Stewart writing as Ern Malley); (9) writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation if Plutarch's Lives); (10) writers of ficto-history (e.g., Simon Schama in Dead Certainties).  I could go on (and Ruthven does), but my point is that this heterogeneous group of literary deceivers can only with difficulty be included under a single rubric, though all the above fit, even if imperfectly, Ruthven's definition of fake literature: "any text whose actual provenance differs from what it is made out to be" (39). As Ruthven himself understands, there is a problem of agency here: who is responsible for determining the actual provenance and if it differs from "what it is made out to be"? Ruthven thinks that "agency should be ascribed to a spurious text rather than to its author" (39), though how a text can read and explain itself he does not -- obviously -- make clear. In reading a text, the reader is the active agent who does the interpreting -- even though constrained by culture and ignorance. 
	But Ruthven does not emphasize difference -- psychological, cultural, or historical: "this book . . . puts a case for considering its [i.e. literary forgery's] conjunctive aspects" (70). His approach is synchronic rather than diachronic. For him, time is not an arrow, but a rhizome. He wants to collapse distinctions between the authentic and the fraudulent, between the original and the copy.
	The weakest part of Ruthven's discussion of authorship is his (apparent) belief that William Shakespeare acted as a front for Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who really wrote Shakespeare's play, but who, unfortunately, died in 1604, nine years before Shakespeare's last play was written. An interesting case of ghostwriting/ghost writing? Ruthven asserts: "Professional Stratfordians do not share Michael D. Bristol's view that 'the real Shakespeare doesn't actually exist at all, except as the imaginary projection of an important tradition in social desire.' They therefore tend either to ignore all those 'fat, bad, sad books' by anti-Stratfordians or to treat them as amusing interludes in the serious business of establishing the texts of Shakespeare's plays" and other scholarly activities (117-18). First, Ruthven misquotes Bristol by cutting out the parenthetical comment, "-- like the real Santa Claus--," that should follow "the real Shakespeare," and thus subtly changing the meaning of Bristol's sentence. Second, Bristol is himself what Ruthven calls a "professional Stratfordian." In the article cited by Ruthven, Bristol writes: "William Shakespeare . . . was a real person, a man born in in the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564. He grew up in Stratford, he went to school, he married a woman named Ann Hathaway, he fathered three children. As a young man he moved to London where he became an actor, wrote poetry, and participated in various business ventures. When he died, in 1616, he was just 53 years old. This William Shakespeare really existed; he is the man who wrote the poems and plays that have made his name so famous. " It seems that Ruthven is faking when he claims Bristol as a supporter of the Oxfordian heresy. 
	Ruthven asserts that "the question . . .arises of why so little is known about the man who, according to his contemporary, Ben Jonson, was the greatest writer of 'all time'" (120). Jonson wrote that Shakespeare "was not of an age, but for all time." Nothing here about being the greatest writer of all time, merely an assertion (or fond hope) that his plays will survive. Since Ruthven has read the work of S. Schoenbaum, he should be aware that a great deal is known about Shakespeare's life, and if we accept the sonnets as autobiographical, we know more about Shakespeare's love life than we know about the love life of any other early modern English playwright.  How much biographical detail does Ruthven feel is required to authenticate Shakespeare's claim to have written his own plays? See page 149, for Ruthven's comment on "authentication by density."
	Ruthven points out that literary deceivers often plant "clues" that point to the deceptions in their works (175-76). On page 187, he refers to the "evolutionary theories of . . . Thomas Ernest Huxley." Perhaps "Thomas Henry" was indeed known as "Thomas Ernest" in the country, but I suspect a clue. Ruthven is being less than earnest. Ruthven directs our search by telling us that literary clues "are often embedded in paratexual materials concerning provenance" (176). I believe that Ruthven's Index of names (a Genettean paratext) contains such clues. Or perhaps I should say does not contain the clues. The following names are included in the text, but excluded from the index: Michael Bristol, Dympna Callaghan, Edward De Vere, Hitler, "Thomas Ernest Huxley," John Keats, Charles Ogburn, Thomas Pynchon, K. K. Ruthven, Lee Siegel, Edgar Wind, and William Wordsworth. I leave it to the diligent reader to figure out what these clues may mean. 



W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:05 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it

You could buy his book, which is about ten years old. If you should find my review (below), I offer a summary there.

Cambridge UP does provide a brief summary as well.

Antipodes
Forging literary consciousness.(Faking Literature)(Book Review)
    Antipodes; Sunday, December 01, 2002; Godshalk, W.L.; 700+ words ...respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature...plagiaristic, and allusive. But Ruthven also realizes that the...Joyce of duplicity. In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary.


Bill

W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:41 AM
To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Cc: Bruce Redwine
Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it

Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:

>
>> I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.
>
> A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell.
> This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).
>
> In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the
> distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday
> life."
>
> Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a
> certain measure, irrefutable.
>
>        ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
>        "faking it" the whole time.
>
>
> For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a
> second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of
> "faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.
>
> C&c.
>
> --
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> 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


_______________________________________________
ILDS mailing list
ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds

_______________________________________________
ILDS mailing list
ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds


From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 21 12:37:22 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:37:22 -0700
Subject: [ilds] rope tricks & "the completeness of falsehood"
In-Reply-To: <4C1D290F.6090408@utc.edu>
References: <4C1C4241.7070702@utc.edu>
	<D38A3985-2002-44E7-AD40-0A9B10E9C537@earthlink.net>
	<4C1D290F.6090408@utc.edu>
Message-ID: <CB91D248-38DF-400E-BAC1-0686C40D9264@earthlink.net>

Charles,

Good discussion about a topic that interests me a great deal:  the difference between storytelling and lying.  I'm limiting my comments to the first paragraph of Durrell's "From the Elephant's Back."  A little close analysis.

1.  The context of the original talk at the Centre Pompidou, Paris.  I haven't read the full opening remarks, which are apparently in French, my knowledge of which is meager.  I find it hard to imagine, however, that a French audience would take Durrell's prefatory comment about "the theory and practice of fiction in relation to myself" to mean that the purpose of his talk was to entertain his listeners with a bunch of "tall tales."  The French are indeed subtle and capable of making "fine distinctions," but should they, or any audience for that matter, be expected to know when an author is lying, fabricating, inventing, improvising, or not?  Would any literary audience enjoy being hoodwinked, like attendees at a magic show?  Not I.  I guess I'm naive, but when I hear an author talk about his life, I expect the straight skinny and not a pack of untruths.  And apparently Bowker and MacNiven do too, for they appear to take "From the Elephant's Back" at face value, although making allowances for some inaccuracies, the latter's "innocent example of fiction revising reality."

2.  Making allowances for Durrell's assertions seems to be a frequent headache for both Bowker and MacNiven.  Note how often the word claim, noun or verb, appears in their biographies, statements like, "Durrell's claim of x" or "Durrell claimed x" (Bowker:  pp. 1, 3, 17, 23, passim; MacNiven:  pp. 13, 40, 52, 67, passim).  They're guarded about his "claims," but I've yet to see either of them deal with the problem head-on, although Bowker mentions "Irish blarney" (p. 25).

3.  Kipling.  Good point.  We agree on the influence of Kipling, but we disagree on its function.  I see it as a distortion of fact, not as "self-mythologizing inheritance."  Doesn't Kipling's pervasive influence make you suspicious that Durrell's self-portrait is too Kiplingesque?  Don't you think that it's too fetching, that what we're being treated to in this essay is not an accurate memoir, as it pretends to be, rather a fabrication, a glossy, Kiplingesque postcard from India?  So, we get another Jungle Book, one with a Hindi-speaking child of Anglo-Indian parentage, replete with pith helmet, monkeys, cobra, mongoose, and elephant.  And if that weren't enough, old LD throws in the "Indian Rope Trick," which never existed, and a view of Mount Everest, which doesn't exist in Darjeeling?  I'd say this "soup-mix recipe" of colonial India owes too much to Kipling and is a pastiche of his work, as you've also noted.  LD has out-Kipling Kipling.  Fakes do that kind of thing.  That's one way we know they're fakes ? they're too idealized, too much what we expect.

4.  "The point is not that lying occurs, but rather that one carries the thing out with gusto and sprezzatura."  Sprezzatura?  I couldn't disagree more.  For me, the point is that lying occurs in a context where I expect honest answers.

5.  The Indian Rope Trick.  Durrell's claim that he saw it in India is almost certainly false, as false as the claim he saw Mount Everest in Darjeeling, assuming MacNiven is correct.  Maybe Sumantra can verify this geographic fact.  I have no immediate plans to travel to India.

6.  Durrell as "consummate fabricator."  Yes, we agree on that point.  We don't agree on the ethical relationship between fabricating and lying, when it comes to art and life.  I see a distinction between the two, and so did Durrell, when he claims, "I find art easy.  I find life difficult."  I wonder if, in part, he found art "easy" because there fabricating was both necessary and permissible, but in life lying made things "difficult."  The skills of one are not easily transferable to the other.


Bruce
 


On Jun 19, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Charles Sligh wrote:

> 
>> In the same essay, LD also writes about his early experiences in 
>> India, "I have seen the Rope Trick when I was ten . . . My first 
>> language was Hindi" (p. 59).  The "Indian Rope Trick" is one of the 
>> great hoaxes of recent times, as Peter Lamont exposes in /The Rise of 
>> the Indian Rope Trick:  How a Spectacular Hoax Became History/ (2004). 
>> The "rope trick" never existed, but Durrell claims he saw it. 
> 
> 
> I think that this approach carries out a literal, agonistic, and 
> somewhat selective reading of Durrell's highly-nuanced storytelling.
> 
> As with most documents, consideration of context aids in interpretation. 
> 
> First of all, "From the Elephant's Back" was a spoken-word performance, 
> with the later texts "amended and slightly expanded" from "a lecture 
> first given in French at the Centre Pompidou, Paris, April 1, 1981 
> (/Poetry London/ 1). 
> 
> In his opening remarks, Durrell tells his audience that his purpose was 
> to "discuss the theory and the practice of fiction in relation to 
> myself."  He also acknowledged his audience's Gallic subtlety, 
> explaining how he thought that French-speakers would be better suited 
> "to make fine distinctions" about his speech (/Poetry London/ 1). 
> 
> Sympathetic Anglophonic reader that I am, I am assuming that one 
> important "fine distinction" would be to observe that the man invited to 
> speak was "Lawrence Durrell," a writer who respected his reader's 
> intelligence sufficiently never to claim that he was not an entertainer, 
> an often contradictory dissembler, a teller of tall tales.
> 
> Then the important paragraph:
> 
>>        I would prefer to present my case in terms of biography, for
>>        my thinking is coloured by
>>        the fact that I am a colonial, an Anglo-Indian, born into that
>>        strange world of which the only
>>        great poem is the novel /Kim/ by Kipling. I was brought up in
>>        its shadow, and like its author I
>>        was sent to England to be educated. The juxtaposition of the
>>        two types of consciousness was
>>        extraordinary and created, I think, an ambivalence of vision
>>        which was to both help and hinder
>>        me as a writer. At times I felt more Asiatic than European, at
>>        times the opposite; at times I
>>        felt like a white negro thinking in pidgin! (/Poetry London /1)
> 
> The "colouring shadow"of /Kim/ is key.  I may not be French, but I 
> certainly know my Rudyard Kipling in the way that Durrell and others of 
> his generation used to know their Rudyard Kipling.  (RK really does give 
> us a language and culture of our own, O best beloved.)  Masterful 
> disguises and dissimulation and "ambivalence of vision" are central to 
> the education of Kim's character and to Kipling's storytelling.  "Lies" 
> and "spies" and survival and success go hand-in-glove in /Kim/ as much 
> as in its precursor tales/, The Odyssey/ and /Huckleberry Finn/, so I 
> think that Durrell is aligning himself with a very special story-telling 
> and self-mythologizing inheritance.    He claims to be like Kim--or like 
> Mowgli on the run from the Bandar-log:
> 
>>        I have been followed from tree-top to tree-top by sportive
>>        monkeys which pelted me with nuts and stones (Poetry London 1)
> 
> 
> or like the boy in "Baa Baa Black Sheep," torn from Mother India by his 
> English parents, so he tells his own life story borrowing from those 
> fictions, expecting the attentive listeners to pick up on the "colour." 
> 
>>        I have seen the Rope Trick when I was ten, and distinctly felt
>>        the hypnotic
>>        power of the conjuror over us as we sat round him in a circle.
>>        I have been followed from
>>        tree-top to tree-top by sportive monkeys which pelted me with
>>        nuts and stones. Their anger
>>        made them very accurate and I was glad I wore the stout pith
>>        helmet of my father, made of
>>        cork about two inches thick--better than a modern
>>        crash-helmet! I have seen a cobra fight a
>>        mongoose. I have seen the peak of Everest from the foot of
>>        l11.y bed in a gaunt dormitory in
>>        Darjeeling! My first language was Hindi. And so on!  (Poetry
>>        London 1)
> 
> Observe here how with a cobra and a mongoose Durrell even manages to 
> transform himself into little Teddy from Kipling's "Rikki Tikk Tavi."  
> "And so on!" is the key nudge.  And so on and on and on and on--Durrell 
> plays out his "rope trick."   How high he climbs.  Who would believe 
> it!  Yet there it is!! 
> 
> 
> The point is not that "lying" occurs, but rather that one carries off 
> the thing out with gusto and /sprezzatura/.  Of course, the impression 
> of the Raj's brilliant Neverland is as true as anything one could 
> claim--and also a parody?
> 
> The "Rope Trick" is another blatant nod to which we should attend.  The 
> trick most certainly did exist as an entertainer's routine first brought 
> to England by the Brothers Davenport (American entrepreneurs from the 
> 1860s, infamous for their Spiritualist ruses) and by Ramo Samee (a 
> stagey name if ever), "the Hindoo Juggler."  These Rope Tricks were 
> illusions and hoaxes, very well documented and enjoyed because of the 
> wonder of the performance.  The audience knew it was top-shelf 
> charlatanism, "but how does he do it?"  Thus for Durrell's hoaxes and 
> the wonder of his audience--"But /how/ does he do it?  He makes it all 
> so vivid, so charming, so real."
> 
> So the I ask:
> 
> Why would I read Lawrence Durrell if he was not, like Odysseus and Oscar 
> Wilde, a consummate fabricator?
> 
> What would it say about the quickness of my judgment if after all of 
> these years I declared suddenly--"O! my surprise!--Lawrence Durrell told 
> tall tales?"
> 
> When in life or in works did Lawrence Durrell pretend otherwise?
> 
> I think that we best give up reading Durrell if we come to him for 
> truth, accuracy, hygiene, sanitation, temperance, salvation, social 
> justice, child-rearing advice, political empowerment, accurate spelling, 
> marital counseling, or uplifting message.  
> 
> Beauty, wit, infinite jest, perhaps.  But these others--no.
> 
> Durrell's writings and autobiography have all "the completeness of 
> falsehood." 
> 
> C&c.
> 
> -- 
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> Department of English
> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> charles-sligh at utc.edu
> ********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20100621/d8e34b5b/attachment.html 

From Charles-Sligh at utc.edu  Mon Jun 21 13:55:47 2010
From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:55:47 -0400
Subject: [ilds] "the vernacular idiom that one thought and dreamed in"
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikUHb2T9ZhbbtLCCiJyNei6_PTCRxgTAurBXJAL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AC230F0264044A12A6DF1B16F810F6B4@abc>	<031A9E19-CE04-49AD-A717-CF7497275599@earthlink.net>
	<AANLkTikUHb2T9ZhbbtLCCiJyNei6_PTCRxgTAurBXJAL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C1FD1D3.9030402@utc.edu>

James Gifford wrote:

>         Durrell's mother tongue was undoubtably English, but his first novel
>         shows that he had at least a modest knowledge of Hindi and Urdu, and
>         some others have complained that his limited Arabic contained too much
>         Urdu (I can't comment on that very well, but it seems plausible).  

Again, Durrell certainly could have known nursery-talk Hindi and/or Urdu.

There is no reason to think that Durrell means to say he was a "scholar" 
of the languages. Rather, I understand him as meaning that those tongues 
were his truest mother's milk--a profound nourishment for his 
imagination's growth and sustenance--"the vernacular idiom that one 
thought and dreamed in," to use Kipling's phrase.

Durrell's backward glances make rich use of the commonplaces of 
Anglo-India. Above all, Durrell's /impression/ of what India seemed like 
is more crucial than locating what he discusses on ordinance maps or 
geological surveys.

If you are "fluent" in Kipling, O Best Beloved, none of this will bother 
in the least. But if you have no native Kipling left lingering from your 
nursery days, then it may bemuse or rankle.

Here below are the relevant pre-Durrellian texts, all of which seem 
echoed in Durrell's reminisces.

C&c.

***

Kipling, /Something of Myself/, "Chapter 1 -- A Very Young Person"

>         My first impression is of daybreak, light and colour and
>         golden and purple fruits at the level of my shoulder. This
>         would be the memory of early morning walks to the Bombay fruit
>         market with my /ayah/ and later with my sister in her
>         perambulator, and of our returns with our purchases piled high
>         on the bows of it. Our /ayah/ was a Portuguese Roman Catholic
>         who would pray?I beside her?at a wayside Cross. Meeta, my
>         Hindu bearer, would sometimes go into little Hindu temples
>         where, being below the age of caste, I held his hand and
>         looked at the dimly-seen, friendly Gods[. . . .]
>         In the afternoon heats before we took our sleep, she or Meeta
>         would tell us stories and Indian nursery songs all
>         unforgotten, and we were sent into the dining-room after we
>         had been dressed, with the caution ?Speak English now to Papa
>         and Mamma.? So one spoke ?English,? haltingly translated out
>         of the vernacular idiom that one thought and dreamed in.

Kipling, "Baa Baa, Black Sheep"

>         The Swedish boatswain consoled him, and he modified his
>         opinions as the voyage went on. There was so much to see and
>         to handle and ask questions about that Punch nearly forgot the
>         /ayah/ and Meeta and the /hamal/, and with difficulty
>         remembered a few words of the Hindustani once his second-speech.

Kipling, "The Potted Princess"

>         NOW this is the true tale that was told to Punch and Judy, his
>         sister, by their nurse, in the city of Bombay, ten thousand
>         miles from here. They were playing in the veranda, waiting for
>         their mother to come back from her evening drive. The big pink
>         crane, who generally lived by himself at the bottom of the
>         garden because he hated horses and carriages, was with them
>         too, and the nurse, who was called the ayah, was making him
>         dance by throwing pieces of mud at him. Pink cranes dance very
>         prettily until they grow angry. Then they peck.
>
>         This pink crane lost his temper, opened his wings, and
>         clattered his beak, and the ayah had to sing a song which
>         never fails to quiet all the cranes in Bombay. It is a very
>         old song, and it says:
>
>         Buggle baita nuddee kinara,
>         Toom-toom niushia kaye,
>         Nuddee kinara kanta lugga
>         Tullaka-tullaka ju jaye.
>
>         That means: A crane sat by the river-bank, eating fish
>         /toom-toom/, and a thorn in the riverbank pricked him, and his
>         life went away /tullakatullaka/?drop by drop. The /ayah/ and
>         Punch and Judy always talked Hindustani because they
>         understood it better than English.






-- 
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu
********************************************


From sumantranag at gmail.com  Tue Jun 22 01:48:03 2010
From: sumantranag at gmail.com (Sumantra Nag)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:18:03 +0530
Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 39, Issue 11_Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani
References: <AC230F0264044A12A6DF1B16F810F6B4@abc>
	<031A9E19-CE04-49AD-A717-CF7497275599@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <420F649F2EEC4FE0AEDE1AB50954B333@abc>

Bruce,

Indians were settled in Burma before WWII, working there as professionals.

In India ,Hindi (and Hindustani) are very widely used across country and in 
some form, Hindustani would have been in use in Darjeeling where Durrell 
went to school. Politically Darjeeling is actually a part of Bengal, an 
eastern state of India, but being located in the northern hilly region, the 
town falls within a region where the indigenous hill tribes are located. 
They would have their own languages and dialects.

I should add that Hindi and Hindustani have their source in the northern 
part of India. The eastern, southern and western states have their own 
distinct languages - not dialects of Hindi. But Hindi or more commonly 
Hindustani can form a common language for basic communication between people 
belonging to different parts of the country.

Sumantra

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Redwine" <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
To: "Sumantra Nag" <sumantranag at gmail.com>; "Durrell list" 
<ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Cc: "Bruce Redwine" <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: ILDS Digest, Vol 39, Issue 11_Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani


Sumantra,

Thanks.  Any thoughts about Durrell's claim that his first language was 
Hindi, although his nanny at the time was Burmese, who presumably spoke 
Burmese and not Hindi.  I guess it is possible that there are Hindi speaking 
Burmese.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 4:00 AM, Sumantra Nag wrote:

> Sorry, just sending this post again after rearranging the content and 
> correcting a few typographical errors. Sumantra
> -----------------------------
> Bruce,
>
>> Actually Hindustani is a term used to describe the speech of modern India 
>> which is influenced by both Hindi and Urdu.
>
>> Hindi is a language belonging to the Hindu heartland of India and is 
>> linked with the ancient Indian language Sanskrit, while Urdu has come 
>> from the Muslim countries. India was ruled by Mughal emperors settled in 
>> India during the medieval period before the British first came during 
>> the seventeenth century to trade during the Mughal rule. Whereas the 
>> British later ruled from England, the Mughal emperors had settled in 
>> India.
>> Sumantra
>> ------------------------------------
>> "MacNiven also notes Durrell's claims about speaking Urdu and does not 
>> see a contradiction, the two languages being dialects of Hindustani (p. 
>> 693, n. 35)."
>>
>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:50:55 -0700
>>> From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [ilds] "Our most exalted alumni was Lawrence Durrell"
>


From rpinecorfu at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 22 06:19:11 2010
From: rpinecorfu at yahoo.com (Richard Pine)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ilds] Fw: [HELLAS-GREECE:7259] Pope Joan
Message-ID: <397097.74546.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Charles, you might like to circulate the following, if you haven't already done so!
Best
RP



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: June Samaras <june.samaras at gmail.com>
To: hellas-greece <HELLAS-GREECE at googlegroups.com>
Cc: biblio <Biblio at bibliophilegroup.com>
Sent: Tue, June 22, 2010 8:06:59 AM
Subject: [HELLAS-GREECE:7259] Pope Joan

NOTE :
Royidis,Emmanuel (Trans. Lawrence Durrell)
Pope Joan
Rollicking story of the only female Pope.
First published in 1886, and banned by the Greek Orthodox Church

Cross, Donna Woolfolk Pope Joan
New York Ballantine 1996 0-345-41626-0 / 9780345416261 Reprint Soft
Cover Very Good
" For a thousand years men have denied her existence--Pope Joan, the
woman who disguised
herself as a man and rose to rule Christianity for two years. Now this
compelling novel animates
the legend with a portrait of an unforgettable woman who struggles
against restrictions her soul
cannot accept."

Available from Kalamos Books

=======================================

Pope Joan film sparks Roman Catholic Church row

A new film based on the legend of Pope Joan ? an Englishwoman who
purportedly disguised herself as a man and rose to become the only
female pontiff in history ? has sparked debate in the Roman Catholic
Church.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7841690/Pope-Joan-film-sparks-Roman-Catholic-Church-row.html

Nick Squires, in Rome
Published: 10:00PM BST 20 Jun 2010

A new film based on the legend of Pope Joan ? an Englishwoman who
purportedly disguised herself as a man and rose to become the only
female pontiff in history ? has sparked debate in the Roman Catholic
Church.
Johanna Wokalek stars as Johanna von Ingelheim in Pope Joan Photo: SUMMIT

The film has fuelled disagreements over whether Pope Joan really
existed or, as the Church has always maintained, she was a mythical
figure used by the early Protestant Church to discredit and embarrass
Rome.

For a Church that even in the 21st century remains staunchly opposed
to the idea of female priests, a female Pope was anathema.

To make matters worse, the deception is said to only have been found
out when Joan gave birth during a procession through the streets of
Rome.

The medieval epic stars a German actress, Johanna Wokalek, as the
female Pope, the American actor John Goodman as Pope Sergius and David
Wenham, an Australian last seen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as
her lover, a knight named Gerold.

It is based on a highly contentious story ? that in the ninth century,
a baby girl was born in Germany to English parents, who had moved to
the Continent as Christian missionaries.

According to the legend, she grew up to be an unusually intelligent
young girl and, frustrated by a lack of opportunity for women,
disguised herself as a boy in order to enter a Benedictine monastery,
calling herself Brother John Anglicus.

She studied for a while in Greece before arriving in Rome, where she
so impressed the Vatican with her abilities that she became a cardinal
and was eventually elected pontiff in 853, after the death of Pope Leo
IV.

She supposedly ruled as head of the Church for nearly three years,
before her deception was found out.

One improbable account insists that she was riding a horse near the
Colosseum when she suddenly went into labour.

The crowd, shocked and angered to find that the Holy Father was in
fact a holy mother, either stoned her to death or tied her to the
horse and had her dragged through the streets of Rome.

The Catholic Church has long argued that Pope Joan is not mentioned in
any contemporary records and that the whole tale is a fantasy, cooked
up by scheming Protestants.

L'Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian Bishops' Conference, last
week dismissed the movie as "a hoax" and a film of "extremely limited
vision".

But proponents of the story point out that papal records are almost
non-existent in the 10th and 11th centuries and that even male popes
are barely documented.

They point to one particularly extraordinary artefact as evidence that
she existed ? a wooden chair with a hole in the seat which, it is
claimed, was used for 600 years to establish the gender of would-be
popes in the wake of the Pope Joan scandal.

Papal candidates were supposedly made to sit on the 'sella
stercoraria', which is today owned by the Vatican Museums, while a
deacon prodded their genitalia from underneath to make sure of their
manhood.

"Joan's absence from contemporary church records is only to be
expected. The Roman clergymen of the day, appalled by the great
deception visited upon them, would have gone to great lengths to bury
all written reports of the embarrassing episode," argues the American
writer Donna Woolfolk Cross, on whose novel, 'Pope Joan', the film is
based.

"The Dark Ages really were the dark ages," said Peter Stanford, a
former editor of the Catholic Herald and the author of 'The She-Pope:
a quest for the truth behind the mystery of Pope Joan'.

"There is absolutely no certainty about who the popes of the ninth
century were. We have to rely instead on medieval chronicles, written
hundreds of years later.

"It's perfectly feasible that Joan existed. A monk's cowl is baggy and
well suited to covering up a woman's body. We know that some women
bound their breasts and cut their hair to pass themselves off as men."
He dismisses the Catholic line that the story of Pope Joan was the
product of Protestant black propaganda.

"That is categorically not true. There are plenty of pre-Reformation
Catholic texts which mention Pope Joan. They were written by bishops,
archbishops ? even a secretary to a pope. "They all accept that she
existed. The Catholic Church was embarrassed by the story and just
erased it from the records, sometimes very crudely." Official
histories of the popes make no mention of Pope Joan and many
historians dismiss the story as a fable.

The truth about her may never be known, but the story continues to
fascinate modern audiences.

The film reached the top 10 of most popular movies in Italian cinemas
last week, just behind Hollywood blockbusters such as Robin Hood and
Sex and the City 2.

-- 
June Samaras
2020 Old Station Rd
Streetsville,Ontario
Canada L5M 2V1
Tel : 905-542-1877
E-mail : june.samaras at gmail.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HELLAS/GREECE" group.
To post to this group, send email to hellas-greece at googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hellas-greece+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hellas-greece?hl=en.


      


From Charles-Sligh at utc.edu  Wed Jun 23 10:00:29 2010
From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:00:29 -0400
Subject: [ilds] =?windows-1252?q?=93my_mentor=2C=94_playwright_and_novelis?=
 =?windows-1252?q?t_Lawrence_Durrell?=
Message-ID: <4C223DAD.1010003@utc.edu>



> The Villager
> Volume 80, Number 4 | June 23 - 29, 2010
> http://www.thevillager.com/villager_374/pausetopraise.html
> Pause to praise a playwright named (Wendy) Beckett
> Theatrical snapshot of photographer reveals ?what makes a revolutionary?
>
> BY JERRY TALLMER
>
> Wendy Beckett lays it on the line.  ?I like writing about bad girls,? 
> she says. Women artist-rebels, that is ? daring pattern-breakers like 
> poet Anais Nin and, now, photographer Tina Modotti.
>
> Photographer and much more. Early convert to Communism. Lover of many 
> men, most of them organized or disorganized Communists themselves. 
> Close friend and possible lover of famed Mexican muralist Diego 
> Rivera. A runaway in her teens ? from her birthplace in Italy?s Undine 
> region ? Modotti at 28, in 1924, then ran away from Hollywood (where 
> she?d had roles in ?The Tiger?s Coat? and a couple of other silent 
> films) to politically seething, exciting Mexico.
>
> By then she?d already been taught the rudiments of photography by 
> another of her lovers, the no less-famed Edward Weston ? whose 
> photographic portrait of the naked Tina is still today a classic on a 
> par with Weston?s sexually implicit black-and-whiter still-life 
> studies of ordinary everyday green or red Mexican peppers.
>
> To Weston, art is art. To Tina, it goes beyond that.
>
> ?Art is combative now, Edward,? she tells him (in words by Wendy 
> Beckett). ?Art makes a difference in people?s lives here, yes, but 
> politics expresses their needs. Art and politics are not mutually 
> exclusive. In photography we have the most direct means for fixing, 
> for registering the present epoch. We have to do what we can, when we 
> can.?
>
> Modotti?s own work with the camera started with babies and flowers, 
> but soon went on to more revolutionary subjects ? like a workers? May 
> Day parade viewed as a river of wide-brimmed Mexican hats. She also 
> was sort of the official photographer of the murals of Rivera and Jose 
> Clemente Orozco.
>
> In 1936, with several of her lovers dead, Modotti left Mexico for 
> Spain ? where she served as a nurse on the Loyalist side throughout 
> the Spanish Civil War.
>
> In 1942, back in Mexico, she died of a heart attack, or maybe not a 
> heart attack (the cause of death has never been resolved).
>
> It was, in any event, a colorful life ? and tall, skinny, red-headed 
> Australian-born Wendy Beckett has poured a goodly share of it into her 
> ?Modotti,? directed by the playwright in its world premiere.
>
> This is the second play by Wendy Beckett to be staged in New York. The 
> first, four years ago, at the (Samuel) Beckett Theatre ? ?Isn?t that 
> strange?? ? on the same block, was ?Anais Nin: One of Her Lives,? 
> about a creative woman of more delicate if no less revolutionary stamp.
>
> ?I?m writing a series of plays about interesting artistic women,? says 
> Wendy Beckett, who classifies herself as ?quite a feminist.? And, yes, 
> she not only is distantly related to Samuel Beckett, she says, but met 
> him and talked with him on the phone and in person one summer in the 
> South of France. But except for a batch of plays with Beckettian 
> one-word titles (?Charity,? ?Yankaway,? ?Gross,? ?Regression?), she 
> does not write like him.
>
> Then again, who does?
>
> This Beckett is interested in ?artistic women ? not just vacuous 
> creatures but full-fledged intellectuals and artists. I want to 
> discover what makes a revolutionary ? and also what makes someone like 
> Tina take on the issues of a country other than their own, and be 
> prepared to die for it?because she was.?
>
> If Samuel Beckett was Irish through and through, Wendy Beckett ? whose 
> biological mother was a German Jew ? grew up in Adelaide, Australia, 
> as the adopted daughter of Roman Catholics from Ireland.
>
> Her first published short story was in the Reader?s Digest in 1976, 
> and she?s been working the room, so to speak, ever since. Early 
> accomplishments include writing seven radio plays for WABC and 
> starting her own theater company, Colours Inc., in Adelaide at 22.
>
> A helping hand along the way came from ?my mentor,? playwright and 
> novelist Lawrence Durrell (1912-1990), who knew Sam Beckett and Henry 
> Miller and Anais Nin and practically everybody else. There was also a 
> helping hand from ?one of my boyfriends,? William Shawcross ? the 
> biographer of Rupert Murdoch, Queen Elizabeth, and practically 
> everybody else.
>
> Wendy Beckett has an old shoebox in which the saves clippings and 
> other ?scraps of paper? about people she may want to write about, ?so 
> I already knew about Tina Modotti for ten years.?
>
> Ms. Beckett now divides her residency between Australia and New York. 
> ?I love New York!? She has a husband ? but often not in the same city 
> or country? ? educational publisher Matthew Sandblom. And, from 
> Thailand, adopted daughter Connie, now 7.
>
> Early in the play, Tina Modotti exclaims: ?I would like a wife!? to do 
> the cooking, cleaning, sewing, tending, etc. ?Yes, I think I should 
> advertise for a wife so that I can get on with my art without all 
> these ?life? interruptions.?
>
> Neither Tina Modotti nor Wendy Beckett is the first woman, artist or 
> not, who ever ached for just that. 



-- 
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu
********************************************


From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 22 10:49:27 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:49:27 -0700
Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
Message-ID: <74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>

Bill,

Thanks for your review of Ruthven's Faking Literature.  I suppose Ruthven would put L. Durrell under your heading (9):  "writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation of Plutarch's Lives)."  That would surely please old LD; he likes to be in the company of Shakespeare, as seen in the poem, "The Critics."

Another book on this topic is William Ian Miller's Faking It (Cambridge 2003).  Have you read it?  I haven't, but it looks promising.  Miller holds a Ph.D. in English (sadly), a J.D., and a professorship at the U. of Michigan School of Law.  I've heard him speak.  He's good.

I'm not sure where we've arrived in this discussion, but here's one final comment on lying, faking it, self-mythologizing, plagiarizing, etc.  Back on 12 February 2010, The New York Times had a story about a young German author, Helene Hegemann, who wrote a bestseller, Axolotl Roadkill.  A German blogger later discovered that sections of her book had been lifted verbatim from another author's work (an entire page, in one instance, with few changes), without a hint of accreditation.  Was Ms. Hegemann bothered by the charge of plagiarism?  No.  She advocates  it.  The Times calls the literary technique "mixing" and reports, "she has also defended herself as the representative of a different generation, one that freely mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media, to create something new."  Ms. Hegemann is wrong.  Her methodology is not as new as she thinks.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:

> Just checked ABE. You can get a copy of Faking Literature for lest than 5 bucks plus potsage on ABEbooks.
> 
> And I attach my review:
> 
> K.K. Ruthven, Faking Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. PB A$49.95
> 	In his Prologue, Ruthven preemptively claims that literary forgeries "constitute a powerful indictment of such cultural practices as literary reviewing" (4), that is, of the review you are now reading. In his first chapter, "Sampling the spurious," Ruthven briefly reviews selected literary deceivers from the eighteenth century to the 1990s, with major attention to James Macpherson, whose Ossianic material Ruthven calls "Macphossian." "Macphossian," writes Ruthven, "remains the key text for analysts of literary forgery because it generated two quite different phenomena: an 'Ossianic controversy' about the authenticity of the Gaelic materials mediated by Macpherson's 'translation,' and an enormous cult readership which felt free to ignore that controversy because it knew what it liked" (13). In the next chapter, "Framing literary forgery," Ruthven discusses the "overlapping descriptors that constitute our understanding" of literary spuriosity (34). He believes that we tend to!
>  see literary deceptions as "forgeries," "fakes," "hoaxes," and so on, words which predispose us to see these deceptions in certain ways: "an analogy designed to illuminate something may have opprobrious consequences" (41). He also points out that much depends on "whether the organising term for such enquiries [into literary deception] is 'similarity' or 'difference'" (60), uniformity or discontinuity.  
>        Chapter 3, "Cultivating spuriosity," deals with post-structuralist critical theory's challenges to traditional assumptions about "authority, originality, authenticity and value," and with Lyontard's concept of the postmodern condition which "enables us to see literary forgeries as in some ways normalised by the spuriosities of everyday life" (63).  Given this matrix of ideas, Ruthven argues that "literary forgery can be shown to have many components in common with literature" (73). 
> 	In Chapter 4, "Faultlines of authorship," Ruthven asserts that the concept of authorship "cannot be used as the unproblematic base from which to critique the authorial duplicities of literary forgers" (91), but it is "the Romantic ideology of authorship, whose operative terms are solitary geniuses and unique texts, the authoring of which authorises them" (91), that he uses as a straw man. Ruthven surveys "dispersed" authorial practices, such as: collaborating with other writers; writing anonymously or pseudonymously; using a persona; pretending that your own writing is the writing of someone else; writing for someone else (i.e., speech writing and ghostwriting), and franchising literary characters (e.g. James Bond) to other writers (e.g. Kingsley Amis). He feels that these practices undercut the Romantic concept of authorship against which, he seems to believe, we measure literary duplicity. How these commonplace practices call into question more realistic concepts of autho!
> rship and literary fraud is not readily apparent. This chapter ends, rather anomalously, with a discussion of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
> 	Ruthven begins his fifth chapter, "Fantasies of originality," with the claim: "the category of 'original genius' was invented and displayed in the titles of a couple of books published in 1767" (121). The rest of the chapter argues against the possibility of such an invention: "Since nothing human is created ex nihilo, everything is made of something else, and is in that respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature is not original; it is imitative, derivative, intertextual, plagiaristic, and allusive. But  Ruthven also realizes that the "practice of imitatio is situated precariously between sameness and difference" (124). Literary imitation is not plagiarism. We would not mistake James Joyce's Ulysses for Homer's Odyssey, nor would we accuse Joyce of duplicity. 
> 	In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary deceptions reveal the fragility of "literature" as a cultural category. If critics could easily identify a literary work by its authority, originality, and authenticity, they would not be -- as they often are -- taken in by literary deceptions. In his Epilogue, Ruthven proposes "a moratorium on the demonising of literary forgeries and a systematic investigation of what they tell us about the so-called genuine article" (199). He concludes that "literary forgery is a sort of spurious literature, and so is literature" (200).
> Ruthven identifies the following types of literary deceiver: (1) writers who choose pseudonyms that belie their sex and/or ethnicity (e.g. Toby Forward writing as Rahila Khan or Helen Darville writing as Helen Demidenko); (2) writers who pretend to be translating other writers, but are in fact not (e.g., James Macpherson writing as Ossian); (3) writers who pass off fiction as autobiography (e.g., Lorenzo Carcaterra in Sleepers); (4) forgers of manuscript diaries (e.g., Konrad Kujau writing as Hitler); (5) forgers of first editions (e.g., Thomas J. Wise and H. Buxton Forman printing  a fraudulent first edition of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portugese); (6) forgers of manuscript marginalia (e.g., John Payne Collier or Frederic Madden annotating the Perkins Folio in psuedo-Renaissance handwriting); (7) impostors who write fraudulent accounts of their lives and countries of origin (e.g., George Psalmanazar writing Historical and Geographical Description of Form!
> osa pretending to be a Formosan); (8) writers who create fictitious authors and write works for them (e.g., James McAuley and Harold Stewart writing as Ern Malley); (9) writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation if Plutarch's Lives); (10) writers of ficto-history (e.g., Simon Schama in Dead Certainties).  I could go on (and Ruthven does), but my point is that this heterogeneous group of literary deceivers can only with difficulty be included under a single rubric, though all the above fit, even if imperfectly, Ruthven's definition of fake literature: "any text whose actual provenance differs from what it is made out to be" (39). As Ruthven himself understands, there is a problem of agency here: who is responsible for determining the actual provenance and if it differs from "what it is made out to be"? Ruthven thinks that "agency should be ascribed to a spurious text rather than to its author" (39), thou!
> gh how a text can read and explain itself he does not -- obviously -- 
> make clear. In reading a text, the reader is the active agent who does the interpreting -- even though constrained by culture and ignorance. 
> 	But Ruthven does not emphasize difference -- psychological, cultural, or historical: "this book . . . puts a case for considering its [i.e. literary forgery's] conjunctive aspects" (70). His approach is synchronic rather than diachronic. For him, time is not an arrow, but a rhizome. He wants to collapse distinctions between the authentic and the fraudulent, between the original and the copy.
> 	The weakest part of Ruthven's discussion of authorship is his (apparent) belief that William Shakespeare acted as a front for Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who really wrote Shakespeare's play, but who, unfortunately, died in 1604, nine years before Shakespeare's last play was written. An interesting case of ghostwriting/ghost writing? Ruthven asserts: "Professional Stratfordians do not share Michael D. Bristol's view that 'the real Shakespeare doesn't actually exist at all, except as the imaginary projection of an important tradition in social desire.' They therefore tend either to ignore all those 'fat, bad, sad books' by anti-Stratfordians or to treat them as amusing interludes in the serious business of establishing the texts of Shakespeare's plays" and other scholarly activities (117-18). First, Ruthven misquotes Bristol by cutting out the parenthetical comment, "-- like the real Santa Claus--," that should follow "the real Shakespeare," and thus subtl!
> y changing the meaning of Bristol's sentence. Second, Bristol is himself what Ruthven calls a "professional Stratfordian." In the article cited by Ruthven, Bristol writes: "William Shakespeare . . . was a real person, a man born in in the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564. He grew up in Stratford, he went to school, he married a woman named Ann Hathaway, he fathered three children. As a young man he moved to London where he became an actor, wrote poetry, and participated in various business ventures. When he died, in 1616, he was just 53 years old. This William Shakespeare really existed; he is the man who wrote the poems and plays that have made his name so famous. " It seems that Ruthven is faking when he claims Bristol as a supporter of the Oxfordian heresy. 
> 	Ruthven asserts that "the question . . .arises of why so little is known about the man who, according to his contemporary, Ben Jonson, was the greatest writer of 'all time'" (120). Jonson wrote that Shakespeare "was not of an age, but for all time." Nothing here about being the greatest writer of all time, merely an assertion (or fond hope) that his plays will survive. Since Ruthven has read the work of S. Schoenbaum, he should be aware that a great deal is known about Shakespeare's life, and if we accept the sonnets as autobiographical, we know more about Shakespeare's love life than we know about the love life of any other early modern English playwright.  How much biographical detail does Ruthven feel is required to authenticate Shakespeare's claim to have written his own plays? See page 149, for Ruthven's comment on "authentication by density."
> 	Ruthven points out that literary deceivers often plant "clues" that point to the deceptions in their works (175-76). On page 187, he refers to the "evolutionary theories of . . . Thomas Ernest Huxley." Perhaps "Thomas Henry" was indeed known as "Thomas Ernest" in the country, but I suspect a clue. Ruthven is being less than earnest. Ruthven directs our search by telling us that literary clues "are often embedded in paratexual materials concerning provenance" (176). I believe that Ruthven's Index of names (a Genettean paratext) contains such clues. Or perhaps I should say does not contain the clues. The following names are included in the text, but excluded from the index: Michael Bristol, Dympna Callaghan, Edward De Vere, Hitler, "Thomas Ernest Huxley," John Keats, Charles Ogburn, Thomas Pynchon, K. K. Ruthven, Lee Siegel, Edgar Wind, and William Wordsworth. I leave it to the diligent reader to figure out what these clues may mean. 
> 
> 
> 
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:05 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it
> 
> You could buy his book, which is about ten years old. If you should find my review (below), I offer a summary there.
> 
> Cambridge UP does provide a brief summary as well.
> 
> Antipodes
> Forging literary consciousness.(Faking Literature)(Book Review)
>    Antipodes; Sunday, December 01, 2002; Godshalk, W.L.; 700+ words ...respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature...plagiaristic, and allusive. But Ruthven also realizes that the...Joyce of duplicity. In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary.
> 
> 
> Bill
> 
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:41 AM
> To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Cc: Bruce Redwine
> Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it
> 
> Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.
> 
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.
>> 
>> A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell.
>> This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).
>> 
>> In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the
>> distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday
>> life."
>> 
>> Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a
>> certain measure, irrefutable.
>> 
>>       ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
>>       "faking it" the whole time.
>> 
>> 
>> For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a
>> second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of
>> "faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.
>> 
>> C&c.
>> 
>> --
>> ********************************************
>> Charles L. Sligh
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of English
>> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>> charles-sligh at utc.edu
>> ********************************************
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20100622/f3318a05/attachment.html 

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 22 11:50:11 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:50:11 -0700
Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 39, Issue 11_Urdu, Hindi and Hindustani
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikUHb2T9ZhbbtLCCiJyNei6_PTCRxgTAurBXJAL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AC230F0264044A12A6DF1B16F810F6B4@abc>
	<031A9E19-CE04-49AD-A717-CF7497275599@earthlink.net>
	<AANLkTikUHb2T9ZhbbtLCCiJyNei6_PTCRxgTAurBXJAL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E48DAECF-7C74-4EF3-89F0-9F614C034737@earthlink.net>

James,

1.  MacNiven assumes Durrell's first "ayah" spoke Burmese.  So, he says, probably with tongue in cheek, "The Burmese tongue vanished from his [young Durrell's] memory without a trace" (p. 19).  That assumption seems reasonable.

2.  In "From the Elephant's Back," Durrell bluntly writes, "My first language was Hindi."  I take this to mean his "mother tongue," which you and I agree was most probably English.  So here we have either a lie, a distortion, or an "expansion," as you call it.  I go for the first option.


Bruce


On Jun 21, 2010, at 9:07 AM, James Gifford wrote:

> Hi Bruce & Sumantra,
> 
> I'd doubt that a nanny was his only point of contact with local
> languages, and his family seemed likely to have at least a modest
> knowledge of the local languages.  After all, they'd been there for
> some time...  And why wouldn't a Burmese ayah speak Hindi or Urdu?
> Wouldn't there have been many other household staff who'd have spoken
> either?  In /Pied Piper/, he reports many contacts with locals, and
> that contact is reported using Hindi and Urdu.  I don't have MacNiven
> in front of me, but also be careful about locations, since what's in
> /Pied Piper of Lovers/ doesn't exactly match what really happened (and
> Bowker often falls into the problem of conflating the novel with
> Durrell's life for the Indian period).
> 
> Durrell's mother tongue was undoubtably English, but his first novel
> shows that he had at least a modest knowledge of Hindi and Urdu, and
> some others have complained that his limited Arabic contained too much
> Urdu (I can't comment on that very well, but it seems plausible).  I'd
> speculate his Hindi was probably phrases and vocabulary rather than a
> grammatical knowledge, but his adeptness with languages is well
> established, so this would be hard to determine, especially since he
> was a child, and shifting languages in childhood isn't unusual.
> 
> I'd be inclined to read that statement as an expansion of the truth in
> order to emphasize his discomfited position between India and England.
> After all, as he says in /Bitter Lemons/ (in a passage randomly
> falling open on my desk today): "The truth is that both the British
> and the Cypriot world offered one a gallery of humours which could
> only be fully enjoyed by one who, like myself, had a stake in neither"
> (25).
> 
> Perhaps Sumantra could comment on the spoken distinctions between Urdu
> and Hindi for someone who wouldn't be likely to read in either
> language (Devanagari vs. Persian would immediately demarcate the
> scripts, right)?  I once spent a couple of weeks dallying with a book
> on Hindi script (I don't recall much...), and I live in a very Indian
> part of Vancouver where the different scripts seem to mark out
> different parts of the Indo-Canadian community.  My outsider's hunch
> is that they share a reasonable degree of inter-intelligibility and
> cognates for common words, though Hindi derives largely from Sanskrit
> and Urdu from Persian and Arabic.  Is that roughly right?
> 
> Cheers,
> James
> 
> On 21 June 2010 06:51, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Sumantra,
>> 
>> Thanks.  Any thoughts about Durrell's claim that his first language was Hindi, although his nanny at the time was Burmese, who presumably spoke Burmese and not Hindi.  I guess it is possible that there are Hindi speaking Burmese.
>> 
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 4:00 AM, Sumantra Nag wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry, just sending this post again after rearranging the content and correcting a few typographical errors. Sumantra
>>> -----------------------------
>>> Bruce,
>>> 
>>>> Actually Hindustani is a term used to describe the speech of modern India which is influenced by both Hindi and Urdu.
>>> 
>>>> Hindi is a language belonging to the Hindu heartland of India and is linked with the ancient Indian language Sanskrit, while Urdu has come from the Muslim countries. India was ruled by Mughal emperors settled in India during the medieval period before the British first came during  the seventeenth century to trade during the Mughal rule. Whereas the British later ruled from England, the Mughal emperors had settled in India.
>>>> Sumantra
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>> "MacNiven also notes Durrell's claims about speaking Urdu and does not see a contradiction, the two languages being dialects of Hindustani (p. 693, n. 35)."
>>>> 



From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu  Wed Jun 23 10:11:10 2010
From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl))
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:11:10 -0400
Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
In-Reply-To: <74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>

Yes, I m a mixer. No doubt about it. But I do try to identify the artists I'm mixing. I did see Hegemann's picture.

But during the mixing process, I am a bit amazed at the amount of mixing done in the scholarly world -- that's not footnoted.

And the computer has made mixing more available.

OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.




W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 1:49 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Cc: Bruce Redwine
Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell

Bill,

Thanks for your review of Ruthven's Faking Literature.  I suppose Ruthven would put L. Durrell under your heading (9):  "writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation of Plutarch's Lives)."  That would surely please old LD; he likes to be in the company of Shakespeare, as seen in the poem, "The Critics."

Another book on this topic is William Ian Miller's Faking It (Cambridge 2003).  Have you read it?  I haven't, but it looks promising.  Miller holds a Ph.D. in English (sadly), a J.D., and a professorship at the U. of Michigan School of Law.  I've heard him speak.  He's good.

I'm not sure where we've arrived in this discussion, but here's one final comment on lying, faking it, self-mythologizing, plagiarizing, etc.  Back on 12 February 2010, The New York Times had a story about a young German author, Helene Hegemann, who wrote a bestseller, Axolotl Roadkill.  A German blogger later discovered that sections of her book had been lifted verbatim from another author's work (an entire page, in one instance, with few changes), without a hint of accreditation.  Was Ms. Hegemann bothered by the charge of plagiarism?  No.  She advocates  it.  The Times calls the literary technique "mixing" and reports, "she has also defended herself as the representative of a different generation, one that freely mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media, to create something new."  Ms. Hegemann is wrong.  Her methodology is not as new as she thinks.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:

Just checked ABE. You can get a copy of Faking Literature for lest than 5 bucks plus potsage on ABEbooks.

And I attach my review:

K.K. Ruthven, Faking Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. PB A$49.95
In his Prologue, Ruthven preemptively claims that literary forgeries "constitute a powerful indictment of such cultural practices as literary reviewing" (4), that is, of the review you are now reading. In his first chapter, "Sampling the spurious," Ruthven briefly reviews selected literary deceivers from the eighteenth century to the 1990s, with major attention to James Macpherson, whose Ossianic material Ruthven calls "Macphossian." "Macphossian," writes Ruthven, "remains the key text for analysts of literary forgery because it generated two quite different phenomena: an 'Ossianic controversy' about the authenticity of the Gaelic materials mediated by Macpherson's 'translation,' and an enormous cult readership which felt free to ignore that controversy because it knew what it liked" (13). In the next chapter, "Framing literary forgery," Ruthven discusses the "overlapping descriptors that constitute our understanding" of literary spuriosity (34). He believes that we tend to!
 see literary deceptions as "forgeries," "fakes," "hoaxes," and so on, words which predispose us to see these deceptions in certain ways: "an analogy designed to illuminate something may have opprobrious consequences" (41). He also points out that much depends on "whether the organising term for such enquiries [into literary deception] is 'similarity' or 'difference'" (60), uniformity or discontinuity.
       Chapter 3, "Cultivating spuriosity," deals with post-structuralist critical theory's challenges to traditional assumptions about "authority, originality, authenticity and value," and with Lyontard's concept of the postmodern condition which "enables us to see literary forgeries as in some ways normalised by the spuriosities of everyday life" (63).  Given this matrix of ideas, Ruthven argues that "literary forgery can be shown to have many components in common with literature" (73).
In Chapter 4, "Faultlines of authorship," Ruthven asserts that the concept of authorship "cannot be used as the unproblematic base from which to critique the authorial duplicities of literary forgers" (91), but it is "the Romantic ideology of authorship, whose operative terms are solitary geniuses and unique texts, the authoring of which authorises them" (91), that he uses as a straw man. Ruthven surveys "dispersed" authorial practices, such as: collaborating with other writers; writing anonymously or pseudonymously; using a persona; pretending that your own writing is the writing of someone else; writing for someone else (i.e., speech writing and ghostwriting), and franchising literary characters (e.g. James Bond) to other writers (e.g. Kingsley Amis). He feels that these practices undercut the Romantic concept of authorship against which, he seems to believe, we measure literary duplicity. How these commonplace practices call into question more realistic concepts of autho!
rship and literary fraud is not readily apparent. This chapter ends, rather anomalously, with a discussion of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
Ruthven begins his fifth chapter, "Fantasies of originality," with the claim: "the category of 'original genius' was invented and displayed in the titles of a couple of books published in 1767" (121). The rest of the chapter argues against the possibility of such an invention: "Since nothing human is created ex nihilo, everything is made of something else, and is in that respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature is not original; it is imitative, derivative, intertextual, plagiaristic, and allusive. But  Ruthven also realizes that the "practice of imitatio is situated precariously between sameness and difference" (124). Literary imitation is not plagiarism. We would not mistake James Joyce's Ulysses for Homer's Odyssey, nor would we accuse Joyce of duplicity.
In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary deceptions reveal the fragility of "literature" as a cultural category. If critics could easily identify a literary work by its authority, originality, and authenticity, they would not be -- as they often are -- taken in by literary deceptions. In his Epilogue, Ruthven proposes "a moratorium on the demonising of literary forgeries and a systematic investigation of what they tell us about the so-called genuine article" (199). He concludes that "literary forgery is a sort of spurious literature, and so is literature" (200).
Ruthven identifies the following types of literary deceiver: (1) writers who choose pseudonyms that belie their sex and/or ethnicity (e.g. Toby Forward writing as Rahila Khan or Helen Darville writing as Helen Demidenko); (2) writers who pretend to be translating other writers, but are in fact not (e.g., James Macpherson writing as Ossian); (3) writers who pass off fiction as autobiography (e.g., Lorenzo Carcaterra in Sleepers); (4) forgers of manuscript diaries (e.g., Konrad Kujau writing as Hitler); (5) forgers of first editions (e.g., Thomas J. Wise and H. Buxton Forman printing  a fraudulent first edition of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portugese); (6) forgers of manuscript marginalia (e.g., John Payne Collier or Frederic Madden annotating the Perkins Folio in psuedo-Renaissance handwriting); (7) impostors who write fraudulent accounts of their lives and countries of origin (e.g., George Psalmanazar writing Historical and Geographical Description of Form!
osa pretending to be a Formosan); (8) writers who create fictitious authors and write works for them (e.g., James McAuley and Harold Stewart writing as Ern Malley); (9) writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation if Plutarch's Lives); (10) writers of ficto-history (e.g., Simon Schama in Dead Certainties).  I could go on (and Ruthven does), but my point is that this heterogeneous group of literary deceivers can only with difficulty be included under a single rubric, though all the above fit, even if imperfectly, Ruthven's definition of fake literature: "any text whose actual provenance differs from what it is made out to be" (39). As Ruthven himself understands, there is a problem of agency here: who is responsible for determining the actual provenance and if it differs from "what it is made out to be"? Ruthven thinks that "agency should be ascribed to a spurious text rather than to its author" (39), thou!
gh how a text can read and explain itself he does not -- obviously --
make clear. In reading a text, the reader is the active agent who does the interpreting -- even though constrained by culture and ignorance.
But Ruthven does not emphasize difference -- psychological, cultural, or historical: "this book . . . puts a case for considering its [i.e. literary forgery's] conjunctive aspects" (70). His approach is synchronic rather than diachronic. For him, time is not an arrow, but a rhizome. He wants to collapse distinctions between the authentic and the fraudulent, between the original and the copy.
The weakest part of Ruthven's discussion of authorship is his (apparent) belief that William Shakespeare acted as a front for Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who really wrote Shakespeare's play, but who, unfortunately, died in 1604, nine years before Shakespeare's last play was written. An interesting case of ghostwriting/ghost writing? Ruthven asserts: "Professional Stratfordians do not share Michael D. Bristol's view that 'the real Shakespeare doesn't actually exist at all, except as the imaginary projection of an important tradition in social desire.' They therefore tend either to ignore all those 'fat, bad, sad books' by anti-Stratfordians or to treat them as amusing interludes in the serious business of establishing the texts of Shakespeare's plays" and other scholarly activities (117-18). First, Ruthven misquotes Bristol by cutting out the parenthetical comment, "-- like the real Santa Claus--," that should follow "the real Shakespeare," and thus subtl!
y changing the meaning of Bristol's sentence. Second, Bristol is himself what Ruthven calls a "professional Stratfordian." In the article cited by Ruthven, Bristol writes: "William Shakespeare . . . was a real person, a man born in in the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564. He grew up in Stratford, he went to school, he married a woman named Ann Hathaway, he fathered three children. As a young man he moved to London where he became an actor, wrote poetry, and participated in various business ventures. When he died, in 1616, he was just 53 years old. This William Shakespeare really existed; he is the man who wrote the poems and plays that have made his name so famous. " It seems that Ruthven is faking when he claims Bristol as a supporter of the Oxfordian heresy.
Ruthven asserts that "the question . . .arises of why so little is known about the man who, according to his contemporary, Ben Jonson, was the greatest writer of 'all time'" (120). Jonson wrote that Shakespeare "was not of an age, but for all time." Nothing here about being the greatest writer of all time, merely an assertion (or fond hope) that his plays will survive. Since Ruthven has read the work of S. Schoenbaum, he should be aware that a great deal is known about Shakespeare's life, and if we accept the sonnets as autobiographical, we know more about Shakespeare's love life than we know about the love life of any other early modern English playwright.  How much biographical detail does Ruthven feel is required to authenticate Shakespeare's claim to have written his own plays? See page 149, for Ruthven's comment on "authentication by density."
Ruthven points out that literary deceivers often plant "clues" that point to the deceptions in their works (175-76). On page 187, he refers to the "evolutionary theories of . . . Thomas Ernest Huxley." Perhaps "Thomas Henry" was indeed known as "Thomas Ernest" in the country, but I suspect a clue. Ruthven is being less than earnest. Ruthven directs our search by telling us that literary clues "are often embedded in paratexual materials concerning provenance" (176). I believe that Ruthven's Index of names (a Genettean paratext) contains such clues. Or perhaps I should say does not contain the clues. The following names are included in the text, but excluded from the index: Michael Bristol, Dympna Callaghan, Edward De Vere, Hitler, "Thomas Ernest Huxley," John Keats, Charles Ogburn, Thomas Pynchon, K. K. Ruthven, Lee Siegel, Edgar Wind, and William Wordsworth. I leave it to the diligent reader to figure out what these clues may mean.



W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:05 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it

You could buy his book, which is about ten years old. If you should find my review (below), I offer a summary there.

Cambridge UP does provide a brief summary as well.

Antipodes
Forging literary consciousness.(Faking Literature)(Book Review)
   Antipodes; Sunday, December 01, 2002; Godshalk, W.L.; 700+ words ...respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature...plagiaristic, and allusive. But Ruthven also realizes that the...Joyce of duplicity. In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary.


Bill

W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:41 AM
To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu<mailto:Charles-Sligh at utc.edu>; ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Cc: Bruce Redwine
Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it

Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:


I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.





I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.

A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell.
This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).

In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the
distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday
life."

Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a
certain measure, irrefutable.

      ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
      "faking it" the whole time.


For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a
second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of
"faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.

C&c.

--
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu<mailto:charles-sligh at utc.edu>
********************************************




From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu  Wed Jun 23 10:17:38 2010
From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl))
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:17:38 -0400
Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>,
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD909@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>

O, I forgot the book wheel -- a very old way of mixing. But obviously usable. There are pictures online. Someone mixed one in.


W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:11 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Subject: Re: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell

Yes, I m a mixer. No doubt about it. But I do try to identify the artists I'm mixing. I did see Hegemann's picture.

But during the mixing process, I am a bit amazed at the amount of mixing done in the scholarly world -- that's not footnoted.

And the computer has made mixing more available.

OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.




W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 1:49 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Cc: Bruce Redwine
Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell

Bill,

Thanks for your review of Ruthven's Faking Literature.  I suppose Ruthven would put L. Durrell under your heading (9):  "writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation of Plutarch's Lives)."  That would surely please old LD; he likes to be in the company of Shakespeare, as seen in the poem, "The Critics."

Another book on this topic is William Ian Miller's Faking It (Cambridge 2003).  Have you read it?  I haven't, but it looks promising.  Miller holds a Ph.D. in English (sadly), a J.D., and a professorship at the U. of Michigan School of Law.  I've heard him speak.  He's good.

I'm not sure where we've arrived in this discussion, but here's one final comment on lying, faking it, self-mythologizing, plagiarizing, etc.  Back on 12 February 2010, The New York Times had a story about a young German author, Helene Hegemann, who wrote a bestseller, Axolotl Roadkill.  A German blogger later discovered that sections of her book had been lifted verbatim from another author's work (an entire page, in one instance, with few changes), without a hint of accreditation.  Was Ms. Hegemann bothered by the charge of plagiarism?  No.  She advocates  it.  The Times calls the literary technique "mixing" and reports, "she has also defended herself as the representative of a different generation, one that freely mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media, to create something new."  Ms. Hegemann is wrong.  Her methodology is not as new as she thinks.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:

Just checked ABE. You can get a copy of Faking Literature for lest than 5 bucks plus potsage on ABEbooks.

And I attach my review:

K.K. Ruthven, Faking Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. PB A$49.95
In his Prologue, Ruthven preemptively claims that literary forgeries "constitute a powerful indictment of such cultural practices as literary reviewing" (4), that is, of the review you are now reading. In his first chapter, "Sampling the spurious," Ruthven briefly reviews selected literary deceivers from the eighteenth century to the 1990s, with major attention to James Macpherson, whose Ossianic material Ruthven calls "Macphossian." "Macphossian," writes Ruthven, "remains the key text for analysts of literary forgery because it generated two quite different phenomena: an 'Ossianic controversy' about the authenticity of the Gaelic materials mediated by Macpherson's 'translation,' and an enormous cult readership which felt free to ignore that controversy because it knew what it liked" (13). In the next chapter, "Framing literary forgery," Ruthven discusses the "overlapping descriptors that constitute our understanding" of literary spuriosity (34). He believes that we tend to!
 see literary deceptions as "forgeries," "fakes," "hoaxes," and so on, words which predispose us to see these deceptions in certain ways: "an analogy designed to illuminate something may have opprobrious consequences" (41). He also points out that much depends on "whether the organising term for such enquiries [into literary deception] is 'similarity' or 'difference'" (60), uniformity or discontinuity.
       Chapter 3, "Cultivating spuriosity," deals with post-structuralist critical theory's challenges to traditional assumptions about "authority, originality, authenticity and value," and with Lyontard's concept of the postmodern condition which "enables us to see literary forgeries as in some ways normalised by the spuriosities of everyday life" (63).  Given this matrix of ideas, Ruthven argues that "literary forgery can be shown to have many components in common with literature" (73).
In Chapter 4, "Faultlines of authorship," Ruthven asserts that the concept of authorship "cannot be used as the unproblematic base from which to critique the authorial duplicities of literary forgers" (91), but it is "the Romantic ideology of authorship, whose operative terms are solitary geniuses and unique texts, the authoring of which authorises them" (91), that he uses as a straw man. Ruthven surveys "dispersed" authorial practices, such as: collaborating with other writers; writing anonymously or pseudonymously; using a persona; pretending that your own writing is the writing of someone else; writing for someone else (i.e., speech writing and ghostwriting), and franchising literary characters (e.g. James Bond) to other writers (e.g. Kingsley Amis). He feels that these practices undercut the Romantic concept of authorship against which, he seems to believe, we measure literary duplicity. How these commonplace practices call into question more realistic concepts of autho!
rship and literary fraud is not readily apparent. This chapter ends, rather anomalously, with a discussion of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
Ruthven begins his fifth chapter, "Fantasies of originality," with the claim: "the category of 'original genius' was invented and displayed in the titles of a couple of books published in 1767" (121). The rest of the chapter argues against the possibility of such an invention: "Since nothing human is created ex nihilo, everything is made of something else, and is in that respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature is not original; it is imitative, derivative, intertextual, plagiaristic, and allusive. But  Ruthven also realizes that the "practice of imitatio is situated precariously between sameness and difference" (124). Literary imitation is not plagiarism. We would not mistake James Joyce's Ulysses for Homer's Odyssey, nor would we accuse Joyce of duplicity.
In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary deceptions reveal the fragility of "literature" as a cultural category. If critics could easily identify a literary work by its authority, originality, and authenticity, they would not be -- as they often are -- taken in by literary deceptions. In his Epilogue, Ruthven proposes "a moratorium on the demonising of literary forgeries and a systematic investigation of what they tell us about the so-called genuine article" (199). He concludes that "literary forgery is a sort of spurious literature, and so is literature" (200).
Ruthven identifies the following types of literary deceiver: (1) writers who choose pseudonyms that belie their sex and/or ethnicity (e.g. Toby Forward writing as Rahila Khan or Helen Darville writing as Helen Demidenko); (2) writers who pretend to be translating other writers, but are in fact not (e.g., James Macpherson writing as Ossian); (3) writers who pass off fiction as autobiography (e.g., Lorenzo Carcaterra in Sleepers); (4) forgers of manuscript diaries (e.g., Konrad Kujau writing as Hitler); (5) forgers of first editions (e.g., Thomas J. Wise and H. Buxton Forman printing  a fraudulent first edition of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portugese); (6) forgers of manuscript marginalia (e.g., John Payne Collier or Frederic Madden annotating the Perkins Folio in psuedo-Renaissance handwriting); (7) impostors who write fraudulent accounts of their lives and countries of origin (e.g., George Psalmanazar writing Historical and Geographical Description of Form!
osa pretending to be a Formosan); (8) writers who create fictitious authors and write works for them (e.g., James McAuley and Harold Stewart writing as Ern Malley); (9) writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation if Plutarch's Lives); (10) writers of ficto-history (e.g., Simon Schama in Dead Certainties).  I could go on (and Ruthven does), but my point is that this heterogeneous group of literary deceivers can only with difficulty be included under a single rubric, though all the above fit, even if imperfectly, Ruthven's definition of fake literature: "any text whose actual provenance differs from what it is made out to be" (39). As Ruthven himself understands, there is a problem of agency here: who is responsible for determining the actual provenance and if it differs from "what it is made out to be"? Ruthven thinks that "agency should be ascribed to a spurious text rather than to its author" (39), thou!
gh how a text can read and explain itself he does not -- obviously --
make clear. In reading a text, the reader is the active agent who does the interpreting -- even though constrained by culture and ignorance.
But Ruthven does not emphasize difference -- psychological, cultural, or historical: "this book . . . puts a case for considering its [i.e. literary forgery's] conjunctive aspects" (70). His approach is synchronic rather than diachronic. For him, time is not an arrow, but a rhizome. He wants to collapse distinctions between the authentic and the fraudulent, between the original and the copy.
The weakest part of Ruthven's discussion of authorship is his (apparent) belief that William Shakespeare acted as a front for Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who really wrote Shakespeare's play, but who, unfortunately, died in 1604, nine years before Shakespeare's last play was written. An interesting case of ghostwriting/ghost writing? Ruthven asserts: "Professional Stratfordians do not share Michael D. Bristol's view that 'the real Shakespeare doesn't actually exist at all, except as the imaginary projection of an important tradition in social desire.' They therefore tend either to ignore all those 'fat, bad, sad books' by anti-Stratfordians or to treat them as amusing interludes in the serious business of establishing the texts of Shakespeare's plays" and other scholarly activities (117-18). First, Ruthven misquotes Bristol by cutting out the parenthetical comment, "-- like the real Santa Claus--," that should follow "the real Shakespeare," and thus subtl!
y changing the meaning of Bristol's sentence. Second, Bristol is himself what Ruthven calls a "professional Stratfordian." In the article cited by Ruthven, Bristol writes: "William Shakespeare . . . was a real person, a man born in in the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564. He grew up in Stratford, he went to school, he married a woman named Ann Hathaway, he fathered three children. As a young man he moved to London where he became an actor, wrote poetry, and participated in various business ventures. When he died, in 1616, he was just 53 years old. This William Shakespeare really existed; he is the man who wrote the poems and plays that have made his name so famous. " It seems that Ruthven is faking when he claims Bristol as a supporter of the Oxfordian heresy.
Ruthven asserts that "the question . . .arises of why so little is known about the man who, according to his contemporary, Ben Jonson, was the greatest writer of 'all time'" (120). Jonson wrote that Shakespeare "was not of an age, but for all time." Nothing here about being the greatest writer of all time, merely an assertion (or fond hope) that his plays will survive. Since Ruthven has read the work of S. Schoenbaum, he should be aware that a great deal is known about Shakespeare's life, and if we accept the sonnets as autobiographical, we know more about Shakespeare's love life than we know about the love life of any other early modern English playwright.  How much biographical detail does Ruthven feel is required to authenticate Shakespeare's claim to have written his own plays? See page 149, for Ruthven's comment on "authentication by density."
Ruthven points out that literary deceivers often plant "clues" that point to the deceptions in their works (175-76). On page 187, he refers to the "evolutionary theories of . . . Thomas Ernest Huxley." Perhaps "Thomas Henry" was indeed known as "Thomas Ernest" in the country, but I suspect a clue. Ruthven is being less than earnest. Ruthven directs our search by telling us that literary clues "are often embedded in paratexual materials concerning provenance" (176). I believe that Ruthven's Index of names (a Genettean paratext) contains such clues. Or perhaps I should say does not contain the clues. The following names are included in the text, but excluded from the index: Michael Bristol, Dympna Callaghan, Edward De Vere, Hitler, "Thomas Ernest Huxley," John Keats, Charles Ogburn, Thomas Pynchon, K. K. Ruthven, Lee Siegel, Edgar Wind, and William Wordsworth. I leave it to the diligent reader to figure out what these clues may mean.



W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:05 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it

You could buy his book, which is about ten years old. If you should find my review (below), I offer a summary there.

Cambridge UP does provide a brief summary as well.

Antipodes
Forging literary consciousness.(Faking Literature)(Book Review)
   Antipodes; Sunday, December 01, 2002; Godshalk, W.L.; 700+ words ...respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature...plagiaristic, and allusive. But Ruthven also realizes that the...Joyce of duplicity. In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary.


Bill

W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:41 AM
To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu<mailto:Charles-Sligh at utc.edu>; ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Cc: Bruce Redwine
Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it

Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.


Bruce



On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:


I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.





I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.

A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell.
This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).

In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the
distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday
life."

Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a
certain measure, irrefutable.

      ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
      "faking it" the whole time.


For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a
second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of
"faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.

C&c.

--
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu<mailto:charles-sligh at utc.edu>
********************************************



_______________________________________________
ILDS mailing list
ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds


From Charles-Sligh at utc.edu  Wed Jun 23 10:39:42 2010
From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:39:42 -0400
Subject: [ilds] Mr Laurence Durrell has led the way
In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
Message-ID: <4C2246DE.4080607@utc.edu>

Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
>
> OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.
>
>
>   

****
> Burroughs? Statements at the 1962 International Writers? Conference
> Published by RealityStudio on 21 February 2008. The digitization 
> retains the idiosyncratic spellings, typos, and ?errors? of the 
> /Transatlantic Review/ publication.
> The Future of the Novel
>
> In my writing i am acting as a map maker, an explorer of psychic 
> areas, to use the phrase of Mr Alexander Trocchi, as a cosmonaut of 
> inter space, and i see no point in exploring areas that have already 
> been thoroughly surveyed ? A Russian scientist has said: ?We will 
> travel not only in space but in time as well ? ?That is to travel in 
> space is to travel in time ? If writers are to travel in space time 
> and explore areas opened by the space age, i think they must develop 
> techniques quite as new and definite as the techniques of physical 
> space travel ? Certainly if writing is to have a future it must at 
> least catch up with the past and learn to use techniques that have 
> been used for some time past in painting, music and film ? Mr Laurence 
> Durrell has led the way in developing a new form of writing with time 
> and space shifts as we see events from different viewpoints and 
> realize that so seen they are literally not the same events, and that 
> the old concepts of time and reality are no longer valid ? Brion 
> Gysin, an American painter living in Paris, has used what he calls 
> ?the cut up method? to place at the disposal of writers the collage 
> used in painting for fifty years ? Pages of text are cut and 
> rearranged to form new combinations of word and image ? In writing my 
> last two novels, Nova Express and The Ticket That Exploded, i have 
> used an extension of the cut up method i call ?the fold in method? ? A 
> page of text ? my own or some one elses ? is folded down the middle 
> and placed on another page ? The composite text is then read across 
> half one text and half the other ? The fold in method extends to 
> writing the flash back used in films, enabling the writer to move 
> backwards and forewards on his time track ? For example i take page 
> one and fold it into page one hundred ? I insert the resulting 
> composite as page ten ? When the reader reads page ten he is flashing 
> forwards in time to page one hundred and back in time to page one ? 
> The deja vue phenomena can so be produced to order ? (This method is 
> of course used in music where we are continually moved backwards and 
> foreward on the time track by repetition and rearrangements of musical 
> themes ?
>
> In using the fold in method i edit delete and rearrange as in any 
> other method of composition ? I have frequently had the experience of 
> writing some pages of straight narrative text which were then folded 
> in with other pages and found that the fold ins were clearer and more 
> comprehensible than the original texts ? Perfectly clear narrative 
> prose can be produced using the fold in method ? Best results are 
> usually obtained by placing pages dealing with similar subjects in 
> juxtaposition ?,
>
> What does any writer do but choose, edit and rearrange material at his 
> disposal? ? The fold in method gives the writer literally infinite 
> extension of choice ? Take for example a page of Rimbaud folded into a 
> page of St John Perse ? (two poets who have much in common) ? From two 
> pages an infinite number of combinations and images are possible ? The 
> method could also lead to a collaboration between writers on an 
> unprecedented scale to produce works that were the composite effort of 
> any number of writers living and dead ? This happens in fact as soon 
> as any writer starts using the fold in method ? I have made and used 
> fold ins from Shakespeare, Rimbaud, from newspapers, magazines, 
> conversations and letters so that the novels i have written using this 
> method are in fact composites of many writers ?
>
> I would like to emphasize that this is a technique and like any 
> technique will, of course, be useful to some writers and not to others 
> ? In any case a matter for experimentation not argument ? The 
> confering writers have been accused by the press of not paying 
> sufficient attention to the question of human survival ? In Nova 
> Express ? (reference is to an exploding planet) and my latest novel 
> The Ticket That Exploded i am primarily concerned with the question of 
> survival ?, with nova conspiracies, nova criminals, and nova police ? 
> A new mythology is possible in the space age where we will again have 
> heroes and villains with respect to intentions toward this planet ?
> Notes on these pages
>
> To show ?the fold in method? in operation i have taken the two texts i 
> read at The Writer?s Conference and folded them into newspaper 
> articles on The Conference, The Conference Folder, typed out 
> selections from various writers, some of whom were present and some of 
> whom were not, to form a composite of many writers living and dead: 
> Shakespeare, Samuel Beckett, T.S. Eliot, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William 
> Golding, Alexander Trocchi, Norman Mailer, Colin MacInnes, Hugh 
> Macdiarmid.
>
> Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, in my mythology, is a God that failed, a God of 
> Conflict in two parts so created to keep a tired old show on the road, 
> The God of Arbitrary Power and Restraint, Of Prison and Pressure, who 
> needs subordinates, who needs what he calls ?his human dogs? while 
> treating them with the contempt a con man feels for his victims ? But 
> remember the con man needs the mark ? The Mark does not need the con 
> man ? Mr Bradley-Mr Martin needs his ?dogs? his ?errand boys? his 
> ?human animals? He needs them because he is literally blind. They do 
> not need him. In my mythological system he is overthrown in a 
> revolution of his ?dogs? ? ?Dogs that were his eyes shut off Mr 
> Bradly-Mr Martin.?
>
> My conception of Mr Bradly-Mr Martin is similar to the conception 
> developed by William Golding in ?Pincer Martin? and i have made a fold 
> in from the last pages of his book where Martin is destroyed ?erased 
> like an error?, with my own version of Bradly-Martin?s end ? The end 
> of Mr Bradly-Mr Martin is the theme of these pages ? as regards The 
> Writers Conference i shared with Mary Macarthy a feeling that 
> something incredible was going on beyond the fact of people paying to 
> listen ? -I could not but feel that it was indeed The Last Writer?s 
> Conference.
> Nova Police besieged McEwan Hall
>
> The last Writer?s Conference ? Heroin and homosexuality war melted 
> into air ? the conferents are free to come and go visiting the 
> obscurity behind word and image ? Mr Martin was movie of which 
> intellectual and literary elite asked the question: What is sex? ?
>
> ?Hear Mr Burroughs or his answer??: Flesh identity still resisted the 
> question and that book in this memory erased the answer.
>
> On reflection we can discover cross references scrawled by some boy 
> with scars ? The last invisible shadow caught and the future fumbles 
> for transitory progress in the arts ? Flutes of Ali in the door of 
> panic leaves not a wrack of that God of whom i was a part ? The future 
> fumbles in dogs of unfamiliar dust ? Hurry up ? Page summons composite 
> mutterings flashing foreward in your moments I could describe ? The 
> deja vue boatman smiles with such memory orders ? Shifted with the 
> method of composition, i have frequently left no address ? Some pages 
> of straight narrative beside you ? Moments i could describe left other 
> pages more comprehensible than the original texts that were his eyes ? 
> Inherit these by placing page deals: ?Hurry up please ? Heavy summons, 
> Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, with texts moved or conveyor belts retained and 
> copied my blood whom i created.?
>
> You are writer since the departed choose the juxtaposition beside you 
> ? The image of the hanged man shut off, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, to 
> fashion heavy summons ? Too much comment and the great boatman smiles 
> ? Growing suspicion departed have left no address ? Falling history 
> beside you ? Dogs that were his eyes inherit this ? Let them stray 
> please, its time ? And they are free to come and go ? Fading this 
> green doll out of an old sack and some rope ? The great streaks of 
> paint melted into air ? Out of the circle of light you are yourself 
> bringing panic or chaos ? Heavy hand broken, erased like an error, 
> fading here the claws in The Towers ? The great claws, Martin, caught 
> melted into air ? Their whole strength with such memories still 
> resisted ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin was movie played the vaudeville voices 
> ? These our actors visible going away erased themselves into air ? 
> Adios in the final ape of Martin ? Just as silver film took it you are 
> yourself The Visiting Center and The Claws ? They were our Towers ? A 
> Street boy?s courage resisted erogenous summons muttering flesh 
> identity ? For i last center falling through ruined September beside 
> you erased like and error ?
>
> A Russian scientist has said: ?Martin disaster far now? ? Shifted with 
> travel in space ? Writers were his eyes, inherit this travel in space 
> and time ? Areas opened by the heavy summons, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin ? I 
> think they must close your account ? New and definite my blood whom i 
> created leaves not the third who walks with the past and your dust now 
> ended ? These techniques that have been war melted into air ? Hurry up 
> in human survival ? My last summons Nova Express ? Reference is to the 
> ticket that exploded your moments ? Nova Police ? Heavy summons, Mr 
> Bradly-Mr Martin ?
>
> Cross references scrawled by some governmental agency decide what the 
> citizen is permitted to see in Scotland since thought consists largely 
> of the arts ? Zero time to the sick areas of politics protecting 
> unfamiliar dust ? In English speaking countries, hurry up ? Page 
> summons sexual word and image ? Consumer?s orders shifted ? Any form 
> of censorship left no address ? Thought material of method proffers 
> precisely the texts that were his eyes ? De Sade, Henry Miller are 
> free to come and go ? Censorship is the necessity of chaos for stupid 
> individuals advertising to thin air the story of one absent ? Like an 
> error fading here the claws we know from Pavlov ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin 
> was movie of which sex is the overt expression ? Voices asked the 
> question: What is sex? ? and erased themselves into the answer ? Flesh 
> identity, of which censorship is the overt expression, still resisted 
> the question What is sex? and some boy?s memory erased the answers ? 
> he had come muttering things i used to say over and over as Mr Martin 
> Weary my blood whom i pent ? Then i raised my eyes and saw words 
> scrawled by some boy ? Hurry up ? Page summons composites ? Get it 
> over with ? I have never known you moments, but the rages were the 
> worst such memory orders ? Shifted with me frequently left no address 
> ? Hurry up please ? Heavy summons ? Voice all day long muttering moved 
> on conveyor belts very low and harsh no wonder shut off ? But let me 
> get on with this day and they are free to come and go without sore 
> throat of an old sack and some rope ? These flashes out of things i 
> used to say over and over as yourself bringing panic or chaos ? Never 
> loved anyone i think fading here in The Towers ? Same old things i 
> dont listen to ? These our actors going away on the final ape of 
> Martin ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin all day long muttering sick lies ? Closed 
> your account ? Not even mine it was at the end ?
>
> This brings me respectable price of my university ? The Kid just found 
> what was left of the window ? Pages deal what you might call a journey 
> ? Its faily easy thrash in old New Orleans smudged looking answer ? 
> Sick and tired of Martin ? Invisible shadow tottering to doom fast ? 
> Dream and dreamer that were his eyes inherit this stage ? Its time ? 
> Heavy summons, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin timeless and without mercy ? You 
> are destroyed erased like my name ? The text of that God melted into 
> air ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin walks toward September weary good bye 
> playing over and over ? Out of the circle of light you are words 
> scrawled by some boy with chaos, for a transitory ape of Martin 
> understood Visiting Center and Claws ? He had come muttering flesh 
> identity ? His dream must have seemed so close there, whole strength 
> to grap it ? He did not know that it was still resisted, falling back 
> in that vast obscurity behind memory as the boatman began to melt away 
> ? Enchanted texts that were his eyes inherit this continent ? Mr 
> Bradly-Mr Martin was movie played to thin air ? Vaudeville voices 
> leave the story of one absent ? Silence to the stage ? These our 
> actors erased themselves into good night far from such as you, Mr 
> Bradly-Mr Martin ? Good bye of history ? Your whole strength left no 
> address ? On this green land the pipes are calling, timeless and 
> without mercy ? Page summons the deja vue boatman in setting forth ? 
> All are wracked and answer texts that were his eyes ? No home in 
> departed river of Gothenberg ? Shadows are free to come and go ? What 
> have i my friend to give?: An old sack and some rope ? The great globe 
> is paint in air ?
http://realitystudio.org/texts/burroughs-statements-at-the-1962-international-writers-conference/



-- 
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu
********************************************


From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 23 10:15:19 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:15:19 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Just Being, Unsullied
In-Reply-To: <FD03B0A59055440B83A13FF10BB1B851@MumandDad>
References: <FD03B0A59055440B83A13FF10BB1B851@MumandDad>
Message-ID: <B8C88CDF-1272-4C17-BDED-6DF3C24A44C7@earthlink.net>

Thanks, David, I needed that.  This is a breath of pure desert air or Mediterranean sea breeze.


Bruce



On Jun 19, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote:

> Greetings from the antipodes.,
>  
> Came across the following in Robert Dessaix's Arabesques:
>  
> "And, if I am honest with myself, I dont even much like North Africa, I always leave disillusioned: one oasis begins to look much like another after a while, one stretch of sand dunes is indistinguishable from the last, the cities, even Tunis, are for the most part chaotic, grubby and dangerous, the religion is too all pervasive for my taste, the unrelieved maleness of every encounter tiring, the disdain for almost every value I hold dear numbing after a while.....yet I go back. To disentangle myself from the educated clutter of my everyday life. To be naked again. To relive that moment when for the first time what had been kept invisible began to show through. For many Europeans with a veiled second self North Africa is still the perfect vantage point to let this happen. For some it might be an ashram in India or some remote village in Borneo, even a Greek Island might fill the bill for others, but for me it is North Africa. " (Dessaix, Arabesques, Picador, p 237)
>  
> When I read these words I could not helping thinking Lawrence Durrell and his island narratives; places of escape after trauma, clutter & failed relationships: Corfu after Pudding Island and the English Death, Rhodes after World War Two and the 'apes in nightgowns' of Egypt, Cyprus after the relationship with Eve Cohen went pear shaped. On the islands Larry could just be, unsullied, absorbing the sea and sun and tangerine tones, the wine and timeless culture as he saw it, another self showing through and to me the real LD despite the fictionalisation of these places and characters. The island book are so enchanting because they are the veiled self speaking, the other Larry pouring through, not the tortured Larry of the Quartet and Quintet, a purer one - the one wrote This Unimportant Morning and one who would appreciate the lines:
>  
> "How can men be so stupid as to clamber about galleries
>  when one can just stand above Klima in Milos
>  and feel the centuries where the shepherd is the artist
>  and the goats make the music with the wind?"
>  
> Cheers
>  
> David
>  
>  
> 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/20100623/a31dd010/attachment.html 

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 23 10:29:36 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:29:36 -0700
Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD909@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>,
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD909@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
Message-ID: <3E608901-1A08-4F06-88A6-A948D2AF4938@earthlink.net>

Bill, I think we should collaborate on that article your proposed.  I suggest the following title:  "Durrell the Mixer:  Adventures in a Crazy Imagination."


Bruce



On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:

> O, I forgot the book wheel -- a very old way of mixing. But obviously usable. There are pictures online. Someone mixed one in.
> 
> 
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:11 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Subject: Re: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
> 
> Yes, I m a mixer. No doubt about it. But I do try to identify the artists I'm mixing. I did see Hegemann's picture.
> 
> But during the mixing process, I am a bit amazed at the amount of mixing done in the scholarly world -- that's not footnoted.
> 
> And the computer has made mixing more available.
> 
> OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 1:49 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Cc: Bruce Redwine
> Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Thanks for your review of Ruthven's Faking Literature.  I suppose Ruthven would put L. Durrell under your heading (9):  "writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation of Plutarch's Lives)."  That would surely please old LD; he likes to be in the company of Shakespeare, as seen in the poem, "The Critics."
> 
> Another book on this topic is William Ian Miller's Faking It (Cambridge 2003).  Have you read it?  I haven't, but it looks promising.  Miller holds a Ph.D. in English (sadly), a J.D., and a professorship at the U. of Michigan School of Law.  I've heard him speak.  He's good.
> 
> I'm not sure where we've arrived in this discussion, but here's one final comment on lying, faking it, self-mythologizing, plagiarizing, etc.  Back on 12 February 2010, The New York Times had a story about a young German author, Helene Hegemann, who wrote a bestseller, Axolotl Roadkill.  A German blogger later discovered that sections of her book had been lifted verbatim from another author's work (an entire page, in one instance, with few changes), without a hint of accreditation.  Was Ms. Hegemann bothered by the charge of plagiarism?  No.  She advocates  it.  The Times calls the literary technique "mixing" and reports, "she has also defended herself as the representative of a different generation, one that freely mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media, to create something new."  Ms. Hegemann is wrong.  Her methodology is not as new as she thinks.
> 
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
> 
> Just checked ABE. You can get a copy of Faking Literature for lest than 5 bucks plus potsage on ABEbooks.
> 
> And I attach my review:
> 
> K.K. Ruthven, Faking Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. PB A$49.95
> In his Prologue, Ruthven preemptively claims that literary forgeries "constitute a powerful indictment of such cultural practices as literary reviewing" (4), that is, of the review you are now reading. In his first chapter, "Sampling the spurious," Ruthven briefly reviews selected literary deceivers from the eighteenth century to the 1990s, with major attention to James Macpherson, whose Ossianic material Ruthven calls "Macphossian." "Macphossian," writes Ruthven, "remains the key text for analysts of literary forgery because it generated two quite different phenomena: an 'Ossianic controversy' about the authenticity of the Gaelic materials mediated by Macpherson's 'translation,' and an enormous cult readership which felt free to ignore that controversy because it knew what it liked" (13). In the next chapter, "Framing literary forgery," Ruthven discusses the "overlapping descriptors that constitute our understanding" of literary spuriosity (34). He believes that we tend to!
> see literary deceptions as "forgeries," "fakes," "hoaxes," and so on, words which predispose us to see these deceptions in certain ways: "an analogy designed to illuminate something may have opprobrious consequences" (41). He also points out that much depends on "whether the organising term for such enquiries [into literary deception] is 'similarity' or 'difference'" (60), uniformity or discontinuity.
>       Chapter 3, "Cultivating spuriosity," deals with post-structuralist critical theory's challenges to traditional assumptions about "authority, originality, authenticity and value," and with Lyontard's concept of the postmodern condition which "enables us to see literary forgeries as in some ways normalised by the spuriosities of everyday life" (63).  Given this matrix of ideas, Ruthven argues that "literary forgery can be shown to have many components in common with literature" (73).
> In Chapter 4, "Faultlines of authorship," Ruthven asserts that the concept of authorship "cannot be used as the unproblematic base from which to critique the authorial duplicities of literary forgers" (91), but it is "the Romantic ideology of authorship, whose operative terms are solitary geniuses and unique texts, the authoring of which authorises them" (91), that he uses as a straw man. Ruthven surveys "dispersed" authorial practices, such as: collaborating with other writers; writing anonymously or pseudonymously; using a persona; pretending that your own writing is the writing of someone else; writing for someone else (i.e., speech writing and ghostwriting), and franchising literary characters (e.g. James Bond) to other writers (e.g. Kingsley Amis). He feels that these practices undercut the Romantic concept of authorship against which, he seems to believe, we measure literary duplicity. How these commonplace practices call into question more realistic concepts of autho!
> rship and literary fraud is not readily apparent. This chapter ends, rather anomalously, with a discussion of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
> Ruthven begins his fifth chapter, "Fantasies of originality," with the claim: "the category of 'original genius' was invented and displayed in the titles of a couple of books published in 1767" (121). The rest of the chapter argues against the possibility of such an invention: "Since nothing human is created ex nihilo, everything is made of something else, and is in that respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature is not original; it is imitative, derivative, intertextual, plagiaristic, and allusive. But  Ruthven also realizes that the "practice of imitatio is situated precariously between sameness and difference" (124). Literary imitation is not plagiarism. We would not mistake James Joyce's Ulysses for Homer's Odyssey, nor would we accuse Joyce of duplicity.
> In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary deceptions reveal the fragility of "literature" as a cultural category. If critics could easily identify a literary work by its authority, originality, and authenticity, they would not be -- as they often are -- taken in by literary deceptions. In his Epilogue, Ruthven proposes "a moratorium on the demonising of literary forgeries and a systematic investigation of what they tell us about the so-called genuine article" (199). He concludes that "literary forgery is a sort of spurious literature, and so is literature" (200).
> Ruthven identifies the following types of literary deceiver: (1) writers who choose pseudonyms that belie their sex and/or ethnicity (e.g. Toby Forward writing as Rahila Khan or Helen Darville writing as Helen Demidenko); (2) writers who pretend to be translating other writers, but are in fact not (e.g., James Macpherson writing as Ossian); (3) writers who pass off fiction as autobiography (e.g., Lorenzo Carcaterra in Sleepers); (4) forgers of manuscript diaries (e.g., Konrad Kujau writing as Hitler); (5) forgers of first editions (e.g., Thomas J. Wise and H. Buxton Forman printing  a fraudulent first edition of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portugese); (6) forgers of manuscript marginalia (e.g., John Payne Collier or Frederic Madden annotating the Perkins Folio in psuedo-Renaissance handwriting); (7) impostors who write fraudulent accounts of their lives and countries of origin (e.g., George Psalmanazar writing Historical and Geographical Description of Form!
> osa pretending to be a Formosan); (8) writers who create fictitious authors and write works for them (e.g., James McAuley and Harold Stewart writing as Ern Malley); (9) writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation if Plutarch's Lives); (10) writers of ficto-history (e.g., Simon Schama in Dead Certainties).  I could go on (and Ruthven does), but my point is that this heterogeneous group of literary deceivers can only with difficulty be included under a single rubric, though all the above fit, even if imperfectly, Ruthven's definition of fake literature: "any text whose actual provenance differs from what it is made out to be" (39). As Ruthven himself understands, there is a problem of agency here: who is responsible for determining the actual provenance and if it differs from "what it is made out to be"? Ruthven thinks that "agency should be ascribed to a spurious text rather than to its author" (39), thou!
> gh how a text can read and explain itself he does not -- obviously --
> make clear. In reading a text, the reader is the active agent who does the interpreting -- even though constrained by culture and ignorance.
> But Ruthven does not emphasize difference -- psychological, cultural, or historical: "this book . . . puts a case for considering its [i.e. literary forgery's] conjunctive aspects" (70). His approach is synchronic rather than diachronic. For him, time is not an arrow, but a rhizome. He wants to collapse distinctions between the authentic and the fraudulent, between the original and the copy.
> The weakest part of Ruthven's discussion of authorship is his (apparent) belief that William Shakespeare acted as a front for Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who really wrote Shakespeare's play, but who, unfortunately, died in 1604, nine years before Shakespeare's last play was written. An interesting case of ghostwriting/ghost writing? Ruthven asserts: "Professional Stratfordians do not share Michael D. Bristol's view that 'the real Shakespeare doesn't actually exist at all, except as the imaginary projection of an important tradition in social desire.' They therefore tend either to ignore all those 'fat, bad, sad books' by anti-Stratfordians or to treat them as amusing interludes in the serious business of establishing the texts of Shakespeare's plays" and other scholarly activities (117-18). First, Ruthven misquotes Bristol by cutting out the parenthetical comment, "-- like the real Santa Claus--," that should follow "the real Shakespeare," and thus subtl!
> y changing the meaning of Bristol's sentence. Second, Bristol is himself what Ruthven calls a "professional Stratfordian." In the article cited by Ruthven, Bristol writes: "William Shakespeare . . . was a real person, a man born in in the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564. He grew up in Stratford, he went to school, he married a woman named Ann Hathaway, he fathered three children. As a young man he moved to London where he became an actor, wrote poetry, and participated in various business ventures. When he died, in 1616, he was just 53 years old. This William Shakespeare really existed; he is the man who wrote the poems and plays that have made his name so famous. " It seems that Ruthven is faking when he claims Bristol as a supporter of the Oxfordian heresy.
> Ruthven asserts that "the question . . .arises of why so little is known about the man who, according to his contemporary, Ben Jonson, was the greatest writer of 'all time'" (120). Jonson wrote that Shakespeare "was not of an age, but for all time." Nothing here about being the greatest writer of all time, merely an assertion (or fond hope) that his plays will survive. Since Ruthven has read the work of S. Schoenbaum, he should be aware that a great deal is known about Shakespeare's life, and if we accept the sonnets as autobiographical, we know more about Shakespeare's love life than we know about the love life of any other early modern English playwright.  How much biographical detail does Ruthven feel is required to authenticate Shakespeare's claim to have written his own plays? See page 149, for Ruthven's comment on "authentication by density."
> Ruthven points out that literary deceivers often plant "clues" that point to the deceptions in their works (175-76). On page 187, he refers to the "evolutionary theories of . . . Thomas Ernest Huxley." Perhaps "Thomas Henry" was indeed known as "Thomas Ernest" in the country, but I suspect a clue. Ruthven is being less than earnest. Ruthven directs our search by telling us that literary clues "are often embedded in paratexual materials concerning provenance" (176). I believe that Ruthven's Index of names (a Genettean paratext) contains such clues. Or perhaps I should say does not contain the clues. The following names are included in the text, but excluded from the index: Michael Bristol, Dympna Callaghan, Edward De Vere, Hitler, "Thomas Ernest Huxley," John Keats, Charles Ogburn, Thomas Pynchon, K. K. Ruthven, Lee Siegel, Edgar Wind, and William Wordsworth. I leave it to the diligent reader to figure out what these clues may mean.
> 
> 
> 
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:05 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
> Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it
> 
> You could buy his book, which is about ten years old. If you should find my review (below), I offer a summary there.
> 
> Cambridge UP does provide a brief summary as well.
> 
> Antipodes
> Forging literary consciousness.(Faking Literature)(Book Review)
>   Antipodes; Sunday, December 01, 2002; Godshalk, W.L.; 700+ words ...respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature...plagiaristic, and allusive. But Ruthven also realizes that the...Joyce of duplicity. In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary.
> 
> 
> Bill
> 
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:41 AM
> To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu<mailto:Charles-Sligh at utc.edu>; ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
> Cc: Bruce Redwine
> Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it
> 
> Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.
> 
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.
> 
> A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell.
> This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).
> 
> In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the
> distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday
> life."
> 
> Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a
> certain measure, irrefutable.
> 
>      ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
>      "faking it" the whole time.
> 
> 
> For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a
> second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of
> "faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.
> 
> C&c.
> 
> --
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> Department of English
> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> charles-sligh at utc.edu<mailto:charles-sligh at utc.edu>
> ********************************************
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds



From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu  Wed Jun 23 11:32:35 2010
From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl))
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:32:35 -0400
Subject: [ilds] Mr Laurence Durrell has led the way
In-Reply-To: <4C2246DE.4080607@utc.edu>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<4C2246DE.4080607@utc.edu>
Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD90A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>

OK 

A folder-in-er

Should we quote Barth's essay on the literature of exhaustion? 



W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Charles Sligh [Charles-Sligh at utc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:39 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Subject: [ilds] Mr Laurence Durrell has led the way

Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
>
> OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.
>
>
>

****
> Burroughs? Statements at the 1962 International Writers? Conference
> Published by RealityStudio on 21 February 2008. The digitization
> retains the idiosyncratic spellings, typos, and ?errors? of the
> /Transatlantic Review/ publication.
> The Future of the Novel
>
> In my writing i am acting as a map maker, an explorer of psychic
> areas, to use the phrase of Mr Alexander Trocchi, as a cosmonaut of
> inter space, and i see no point in exploring areas that have already
> been thoroughly surveyed ? A Russian scientist has said: ?We will
> travel not only in space but in time as well ? ?That is to travel in
> space is to travel in time ? If writers are to travel in space time
> and explore areas opened by the space age, i think they must develop
> techniques quite as new and definite as the techniques of physical
> space travel ? Certainly if writing is to have a future it must at
> least catch up with the past and learn to use techniques that have
> been used for some time past in painting, music and film ? Mr Laurence
> Durrell has led the way in developing a new form of writing with time
> and space shifts as we see events from different viewpoints and
> realize that so seen they are literally not the same events, and that
> the old concepts of time and reality are no longer valid ? Brion
> Gysin, an American painter living in Paris, has used what he calls
> ?the cut up method? to place at the disposal of writers the collage
> used in painting for fifty years ? Pages of text are cut and
> rearranged to form new combinations of word and image ? In writing my
> last two novels, Nova Express and The Ticket That Exploded, i have
> used an extension of the cut up method i call ?the fold in method? ? A
> page of text ? my own or some one elses ? is folded down the middle
> and placed on another page ? The composite text is then read across
> half one text and half the other ? The fold in method extends to
> writing the flash back used in films, enabling the writer to move
> backwards and forewards on his time track ? For example i take page
> one and fold it into page one hundred ? I insert the resulting
> composite as page ten ? When the reader reads page ten he is flashing
> forwards in time to page one hundred and back in time to page one ?
> The deja vue phenomena can so be produced to order ? (This method is
> of course used in music where we are continually moved backwards and
> foreward on the time track by repetition and rearrangements of musical
> themes ?
>
> In using the fold in method i edit delete and rearrange as in any
> other method of composition ? I have frequently had the experience of
> writing some pages of straight narrative text which were then folded
> in with other pages and found that the fold ins were clearer and more
> comprehensible than the original texts ? Perfectly clear narrative
> prose can be produced using the fold in method ? Best results are
> usually obtained by placing pages dealing with similar subjects in
> juxtaposition ?,
>
> What does any writer do but choose, edit and rearrange material at his
> disposal? ? The fold in method gives the writer literally infinite
> extension of choice ? Take for example a page of Rimbaud folded into a
> page of St John Perse ? (two poets who have much in common) ? From two
> pages an infinite number of combinations and images are possible ? The
> method could also lead to a collaboration between writers on an
> unprecedented scale to produce works that were the composite effort of
> any number of writers living and dead ? This happens in fact as soon
> as any writer starts using the fold in method ? I have made and used
> fold ins from Shakespeare, Rimbaud, from newspapers, magazines,
> conversations and letters so that the novels i have written using this
> method are in fact composites of many writers ?
>
> I would like to emphasize that this is a technique and like any
> technique will, of course, be useful to some writers and not to others
> ? In any case a matter for experimentation not argument ? The
> confering writers have been accused by the press of not paying
> sufficient attention to the question of human survival ? In Nova
> Express ? (reference is to an exploding planet) and my latest novel
> The Ticket That Exploded i am primarily concerned with the question of
> survival ?, with nova conspiracies, nova criminals, and nova police ?
> A new mythology is possible in the space age where we will again have
> heroes and villains with respect to intentions toward this planet ?
> Notes on these pages
>
> To show ?the fold in method? in operation i have taken the two texts i
> read at The Writer?s Conference and folded them into newspaper
> articles on The Conference, The Conference Folder, typed out
> selections from various writers, some of whom were present and some of
> whom were not, to form a composite of many writers living and dead:
> Shakespeare, Samuel Beckett, T.S. Eliot, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William
> Golding, Alexander Trocchi, Norman Mailer, Colin MacInnes, Hugh
> Macdiarmid.
>
> Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, in my mythology, is a God that failed, a God of
> Conflict in two parts so created to keep a tired old show on the road,
> The God of Arbitrary Power and Restraint, Of Prison and Pressure, who
> needs subordinates, who needs what he calls ?his human dogs? while
> treating them with the contempt a con man feels for his victims ? But
> remember the con man needs the mark ? The Mark does not need the con
> man ? Mr Bradley-Mr Martin needs his ?dogs? his ?errand boys? his
> ?human animals? He needs them because he is literally blind. They do
> not need him. In my mythological system he is overthrown in a
> revolution of his ?dogs? ? ?Dogs that were his eyes shut off Mr
> Bradly-Mr Martin.?
>
> My conception of Mr Bradly-Mr Martin is similar to the conception
> developed by William Golding in ?Pincer Martin? and i have made a fold
> in from the last pages of his book where Martin is destroyed ?erased
> like an error?, with my own version of Bradly-Martin?s end ? The end
> of Mr Bradly-Mr Martin is the theme of these pages ? as regards The
> Writers Conference i shared with Mary Macarthy a feeling that
> something incredible was going on beyond the fact of people paying to
> listen ? -I could not but feel that it was indeed The Last Writer?s
> Conference.
> Nova Police besieged McEwan Hall
>
> The last Writer?s Conference ? Heroin and homosexuality war melted
> into air ? the conferents are free to come and go visiting the
> obscurity behind word and image ? Mr Martin was movie of which
> intellectual and literary elite asked the question: What is sex? ?
>
> ?Hear Mr Burroughs or his answer??: Flesh identity still resisted the
> question and that book in this memory erased the answer.
>
> On reflection we can discover cross references scrawled by some boy
> with scars ? The last invisible shadow caught and the future fumbles
> for transitory progress in the arts ? Flutes of Ali in the door of
> panic leaves not a wrack of that God of whom i was a part ? The future
> fumbles in dogs of unfamiliar dust ? Hurry up ? Page summons composite
> mutterings flashing foreward in your moments I could describe ? The
> deja vue boatman smiles with such memory orders ? Shifted with the
> method of composition, i have frequently left no address ? Some pages
> of straight narrative beside you ? Moments i could describe left other
> pages more comprehensible than the original texts that were his eyes ?
> Inherit these by placing page deals: ?Hurry up please ? Heavy summons,
> Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, with texts moved or conveyor belts retained and
> copied my blood whom i created.?
>
> You are writer since the departed choose the juxtaposition beside you
> ? The image of the hanged man shut off, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, to
> fashion heavy summons ? Too much comment and the great boatman smiles
> ? Growing suspicion departed have left no address ? Falling history
> beside you ? Dogs that were his eyes inherit this ? Let them stray
> please, its time ? And they are free to come and go ? Fading this
> green doll out of an old sack and some rope ? The great streaks of
> paint melted into air ? Out of the circle of light you are yourself
> bringing panic or chaos ? Heavy hand broken, erased like an error,
> fading here the claws in The Towers ? The great claws, Martin, caught
> melted into air ? Their whole strength with such memories still
> resisted ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin was movie played the vaudeville voices
> ? These our actors visible going away erased themselves into air ?
> Adios in the final ape of Martin ? Just as silver film took it you are
> yourself The Visiting Center and The Claws ? They were our Towers ? A
> Street boy?s courage resisted erogenous summons muttering flesh
> identity ? For i last center falling through ruined September beside
> you erased like and error ?
>
> A Russian scientist has said: ?Martin disaster far now? ? Shifted with
> travel in space ? Writers were his eyes, inherit this travel in space
> and time ? Areas opened by the heavy summons, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin ? I
> think they must close your account ? New and definite my blood whom i
> created leaves not the third who walks with the past and your dust now
> ended ? These techniques that have been war melted into air ? Hurry up
> in human survival ? My last summons Nova Express ? Reference is to the
> ticket that exploded your moments ? Nova Police ? Heavy summons, Mr
> Bradly-Mr Martin ?
>
> Cross references scrawled by some governmental agency decide what the
> citizen is permitted to see in Scotland since thought consists largely
> of the arts ? Zero time to the sick areas of politics protecting
> unfamiliar dust ? In English speaking countries, hurry up ? Page
> summons sexual word and image ? Consumer?s orders shifted ? Any form
> of censorship left no address ? Thought material of method proffers
> precisely the texts that were his eyes ? De Sade, Henry Miller are
> free to come and go ? Censorship is the necessity of chaos for stupid
> individuals advertising to thin air the story of one absent ? Like an
> error fading here the claws we know from Pavlov ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin
> was movie of which sex is the overt expression ? Voices asked the
> question: What is sex? ? and erased themselves into the answer ? Flesh
> identity, of which censorship is the overt expression, still resisted
> the question What is sex? and some boy?s memory erased the answers ?
> he had come muttering things i used to say over and over as Mr Martin
> Weary my blood whom i pent ? Then i raised my eyes and saw words
> scrawled by some boy ? Hurry up ? Page summons composites ? Get it
> over with ? I have never known you moments, but the rages were the
> worst such memory orders ? Shifted with me frequently left no address
> ? Hurry up please ? Heavy summons ? Voice all day long muttering moved
> on conveyor belts very low and harsh no wonder shut off ? But let me
> get on with this day and they are free to come and go without sore
> throat of an old sack and some rope ? These flashes out of things i
> used to say over and over as yourself bringing panic or chaos ? Never
> loved anyone i think fading here in The Towers ? Same old things i
> dont listen to ? These our actors going away on the final ape of
> Martin ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin all day long muttering sick lies ? Closed
> your account ? Not even mine it was at the end ?
>
> This brings me respectable price of my university ? The Kid just found
> what was left of the window ? Pages deal what you might call a journey
> ? Its faily easy thrash in old New Orleans smudged looking answer ?
> Sick and tired of Martin ? Invisible shadow tottering to doom fast ?
> Dream and dreamer that were his eyes inherit this stage ? Its time ?
> Heavy summons, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin timeless and without mercy ? You
> are destroyed erased like my name ? The text of that God melted into
> air ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin walks toward September weary good bye
> playing over and over ? Out of the circle of light you are words
> scrawled by some boy with chaos, for a transitory ape of Martin
> understood Visiting Center and Claws ? He had come muttering flesh
> identity ? His dream must have seemed so close there, whole strength
> to grap it ? He did not know that it was still resisted, falling back
> in that vast obscurity behind memory as the boatman began to melt away
> ? Enchanted texts that were his eyes inherit this continent ? Mr
> Bradly-Mr Martin was movie played to thin air ? Vaudeville voices
> leave the story of one absent ? Silence to the stage ? These our
> actors erased themselves into good night far from such as you, Mr
> Bradly-Mr Martin ? Good bye of history ? Your whole strength left no
> address ? On this green land the pipes are calling, timeless and
> without mercy ? Page summons the deja vue boatman in setting forth ?
> All are wracked and answer texts that were his eyes ? No home in
> departed river of Gothenberg ? Shadows are free to come and go ? What
> have i my friend to give?: An old sack and some rope ? The great globe
> is paint in air ?
http://realitystudio.org/texts/burroughs-statements-at-the-1962-international-writers-conference/



--
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
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 godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu  Wed Jun 23 11:34:34 2010
From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl))
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:34:34 -0400
Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
In-Reply-To: <3E608901-1A08-4F06-88A6-A948D2AF4938@earthlink.net>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>,
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD909@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<3E608901-1A08-4F06-88A6-A948D2AF4938@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD90B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>

Or should we write "crazed?"



W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:29 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Cc: Bruce Redwine
Subject: Re: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell

Bill, I think we should collaborate on that article your proposed.  I suggest the following title:  "Durrell the Mixer:  Adventures in a Crazy Imagination."


Bruce



On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:

> O, I forgot the book wheel -- a very old way of mixing. But obviously usable. There are pictures online. Someone mixed one in.
>
>
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:11 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Subject: Re: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
>
> Yes, I m a mixer. No doubt about it. But I do try to identify the artists I'm mixing. I did see Hegemann's picture.
>
> But during the mixing process, I am a bit amazed at the amount of mixing done in the scholarly world -- that's not footnoted.
>
> And the computer has made mixing more available.
>
> OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.
>
>
>
>
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 1:49 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Cc: Bruce Redwine
> Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
>
> Bill,
>
> Thanks for your review of Ruthven's Faking Literature.  I suppose Ruthven would put L. Durrell under your heading (9):  "writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation of Plutarch's Lives)."  That would surely please old LD; he likes to be in the company of Shakespeare, as seen in the poem, "The Critics."
>
> Another book on this topic is William Ian Miller's Faking It (Cambridge 2003).  Have you read it?  I haven't, but it looks promising.  Miller holds a Ph.D. in English (sadly), a J.D., and a professorship at the U. of Michigan School of Law.  I've heard him speak.  He's good.
>
> I'm not sure where we've arrived in this discussion, but here's one final comment on lying, faking it, self-mythologizing, plagiarizing, etc.  Back on 12 February 2010, The New York Times had a story about a young German author, Helene Hegemann, who wrote a bestseller, Axolotl Roadkill.  A German blogger later discovered that sections of her book had been lifted verbatim from another author's work (an entire page, in one instance, with few changes), without a hint of accreditation.  Was Ms. Hegemann bothered by the charge of plagiarism?  No.  She advocates  it.  The Times calls the literary technique "mixing" and reports, "she has also defended herself as the representative of a different generation, one that freely mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media, to create something new."  Ms. Hegemann is wrong.  Her methodology is not as new as she thinks.
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
>
> Just checked ABE. You can get a copy of Faking Literature for lest than 5 bucks plus potsage on ABEbooks.
>
> And I attach my review:
>
> K.K. Ruthven, Faking Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. PB A$49.95
> In his Prologue, Ruthven preemptively claims that literary forgeries "constitute a powerful indictment of such cultural practices as literary reviewing" (4), that is, of the review you are now reading. In his first chapter, "Sampling the spurious," Ruthven briefly reviews selected literary deceivers from the eighteenth century to the 1990s, with major attention to James Macpherson, whose Ossianic material Ruthven calls "Macphossian." "Macphossian," writes Ruthven, "remains the key text for analysts of literary forgery because it generated two quite different phenomena: an 'Ossianic controversy' about the authenticity of the Gaelic materials mediated by Macpherson's 'translation,' and an enormous cult readership which felt free to ignore that controversy because it knew what it liked" (13). In the next chapter, "Framing literary forgery," Ruthven discusses the "overlapping descriptors that constitute our understanding" of literary spuriosity (34). He believes that we tend t!
 o!
> see literary deceptions as "forgeries," "fakes," "hoaxes," and so on, words which predispose us to see these deceptions in certain ways: "an analogy designed to illuminate something may have opprobrious consequences" (41). He also points out that much depends on "whether the organising term for such enquiries [into literary deception] is 'similarity' or 'difference'" (60), uniformity or discontinuity.
>       Chapter 3, "Cultivating spuriosity," deals with post-structuralist critical theory's challenges to traditional assumptions about "authority, originality, authenticity and value," and with Lyontard's concept of the postmodern condition which "enables us to see literary forgeries as in some ways normalised by the spuriosities of everyday life" (63).  Given this matrix of ideas, Ruthven argues that "literary forgery can be shown to have many components in common with literature" (73).
> In Chapter 4, "Faultlines of authorship," Ruthven asserts that the concept of authorship "cannot be used as the unproblematic base from which to critique the authorial duplicities of literary forgers" (91), but it is "the Romantic ideology of authorship, whose operative terms are solitary geniuses and unique texts, the authoring of which authorises them" (91), that he uses as a straw man. Ruthven surveys "dispersed" authorial practices, such as: collaborating with other writers; writing anonymously or pseudonymously; using a persona; pretending that your own writing is the writing of someone else; writing for someone else (i.e., speech writing and ghostwriting), and franchising literary characters (e.g. James Bond) to other writers (e.g. Kingsley Amis). He feels that these practices undercut the Romantic concept of authorship against which, he seems to believe, we measure literary duplicity. How these commonplace practices call into question more realistic concepts of auth!
 o!
> rship and literary fraud is not readily apparent. This chapter ends, rather anomalously, with a discussion of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
> Ruthven begins his fifth chapter, "Fantasies of originality," with the claim: "the category of 'original genius' was invented and displayed in the titles of a couple of books published in 1767" (121). The rest of the chapter argues against the possibility of such an invention: "Since nothing human is created ex nihilo, everything is made of something else, and is in that respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature is not original; it is imitative, derivative, intertextual, plagiaristic, and allusive. But  Ruthven also realizes that the "practice of imitatio is situated precariously between sameness and difference" (124). Literary imitation is not plagiarism. We would not mistake James Joyce's Ulysses for Homer's Odyssey, nor would we accuse Joyce of duplicity.
> In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary deceptions reveal the fragility of "literature" as a cultural category. If critics could easily identify a literary work by its authority, originality, and authenticity, they would not be -- as they often are -- taken in by literary deceptions. In his Epilogue, Ruthven proposes "a moratorium on the demonising of literary forgeries and a systematic investigation of what they tell us about the so-called genuine article" (199). He concludes that "literary forgery is a sort of spurious literature, and so is literature" (200).
> Ruthven identifies the following types of literary deceiver: (1) writers who choose pseudonyms that belie their sex and/or ethnicity (e.g. Toby Forward writing as Rahila Khan or Helen Darville writing as Helen Demidenko); (2) writers who pretend to be translating other writers, but are in fact not (e.g., James Macpherson writing as Ossian); (3) writers who pass off fiction as autobiography (e.g., Lorenzo Carcaterra in Sleepers); (4) forgers of manuscript diaries (e.g., Konrad Kujau writing as Hitler); (5) forgers of first editions (e.g., Thomas J. Wise and H. Buxton Forman printing  a fraudulent first edition of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portugese); (6) forgers of manuscript marginalia (e.g., John Payne Collier or Frederic Madden annotating the Perkins Folio in psuedo-Renaissance handwriting); (7) impostors who write fraudulent accounts of their lives and countries of origin (e.g., George Psalmanazar writing Historical and Geographical Description of Fo!
 rm!
> osa pretending to be a Formosan); (8) writers who create fictitious authors and write works for them (e.g., James McAuley and Harold Stewart writing as Ern Malley); (9) writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation if Plutarch's Lives); (10) writers of ficto-history (e.g., Simon Schama in Dead Certainties).  I could go on (and Ruthven does), but my point is that this heterogeneous group of literary deceivers can only with difficulty be included under a single rubric, though all the above fit, even if imperfectly, Ruthven's definition of fake literature: "any text whose actual provenance differs from what it is made out to be" (39). As Ruthven himself understands, there is a problem of agency here: who is responsible for determining the actual provenance and if it differs from "what it is made out to be"? Ruthven thinks that "agency should be ascribed to a spurious text rather than to its author" (39), tho!
 u!
> gh how a text can read and explain itself he does not -- obviously --
> make clear. In reading a text, the reader is the active agent who does the interpreting -- even though constrained by culture and ignorance.
> But Ruthven does not emphasize difference -- psychological, cultural, or historical: "this book . . . puts a case for considering its [i.e. literary forgery's] conjunctive aspects" (70). His approach is synchronic rather than diachronic. For him, time is not an arrow, but a rhizome. He wants to collapse distinctions between the authentic and the fraudulent, between the original and the copy.
> The weakest part of Ruthven's discussion of authorship is his (apparent) belief that William Shakespeare acted as a front for Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who really wrote Shakespeare's play, but who, unfortunately, died in 1604, nine years before Shakespeare's last play was written. An interesting case of ghostwriting/ghost writing? Ruthven asserts: "Professional Stratfordians do not share Michael D. Bristol's view that 'the real Shakespeare doesn't actually exist at all, except as the imaginary projection of an important tradition in social desire.' They therefore tend either to ignore all those 'fat, bad, sad books' by anti-Stratfordians or to treat them as amusing interludes in the serious business of establishing the texts of Shakespeare's plays" and other scholarly activities (117-18). First, Ruthven misquotes Bristol by cutting out the parenthetical comment, "-- like the real Santa Claus--," that should follow "the real Shakespeare," and thus subt!
 l!
> y changing the meaning of Bristol's sentence. Second, Bristol is himself what Ruthven calls a "professional Stratfordian." In the article cited by Ruthven, Bristol writes: "William Shakespeare . . . was a real person, a man born in in the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564. He grew up in Stratford, he went to school, he married a woman named Ann Hathaway, he fathered three children. As a young man he moved to London where he became an actor, wrote poetry, and participated in various business ventures. When he died, in 1616, he was just 53 years old. This William Shakespeare really existed; he is the man who wrote the poems and plays that have made his name so famous. " It seems that Ruthven is faking when he claims Bristol as a supporter of the Oxfordian heresy.
> Ruthven asserts that "the question . . .arises of why so little is known about the man who, according to his contemporary, Ben Jonson, was the greatest writer of 'all time'" (120). Jonson wrote that Shakespeare "was not of an age, but for all time." Nothing here about being the greatest writer of all time, merely an assertion (or fond hope) that his plays will survive. Since Ruthven has read the work of S. Schoenbaum, he should be aware that a great deal is known about Shakespeare's life, and if we accept the sonnets as autobiographical, we know more about Shakespeare's love life than we know about the love life of any other early modern English playwright.  How much biographical detail does Ruthven feel is required to authenticate Shakespeare's claim to have written his own plays? See page 149, for Ruthven's comment on "authentication by density."
> Ruthven points out that literary deceivers often plant "clues" that point to the deceptions in their works (175-76). On page 187, he refers to the "evolutionary theories of . . . Thomas Ernest Huxley." Perhaps "Thomas Henry" was indeed known as "Thomas Ernest" in the country, but I suspect a clue. Ruthven is being less than earnest. Ruthven directs our search by telling us that literary clues "are often embedded in paratexual materials concerning provenance" (176). I believe that Ruthven's Index of names (a Genettean paratext) contains such clues. Or perhaps I should say does not contain the clues. The following names are included in the text, but excluded from the index: Michael Bristol, Dympna Callaghan, Edward De Vere, Hitler, "Thomas Ernest Huxley," John Keats, Charles Ogburn, Thomas Pynchon, K. K. Ruthven, Lee Siegel, Edgar Wind, and William Wordsworth. I leave it to the diligent reader to figure out what these clues may mean.
>
>
>
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:05 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
> Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it
>
> You could buy his book, which is about ten years old. If you should find my review (below), I offer a summary there.
>
> Cambridge UP does provide a brief summary as well.
>
> Antipodes
> Forging literary consciousness.(Faking Literature)(Book Review)
>   Antipodes; Sunday, December 01, 2002; Godshalk, W.L.; 700+ words ...respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature...plagiaristic, and allusive. But Ruthven also realizes that the...Joyce of duplicity. In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary.
>
>
> Bill
>
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:41 AM
> To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu<mailto:Charles-Sligh at utc.edu>; ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
> Cc: Bruce Redwine
> Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it
>
> Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:
>
>
> I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.
>
> A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell.
> This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).
>
> In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the
> distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday
> life."
>
> Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a
> certain measure, irrefutable.
>
>      ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
>      "faking it" the whole time.
>
>
> For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a
> second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of
> "faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.
>
> C&c.
>
> --
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> Department of English
> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> charles-sligh at utc.edu<mailto:charles-sligh at utc.edu>
> ********************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds


_______________________________________________
ILDS mailing list
ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds


From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Wed Jun 23 11:49:19 2010
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:49:19 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Mr Laurence Durrell has led the way
In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD90A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<4C2246DE.4080607@utc.edu>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD90A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
Message-ID: <4C22572F.60707@gmail.com>

Didn't he get it from Eliot in the first place -- he's probably the best 
(and most shameless) thief of the lot, not that his thefts weren't from 
other thieves...

-J

On 23/06/10 11:32 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
> OK
>
> A folder-in-er
>
> Should we quote Barth's essay on the literature of exhaustion?
>
>
>
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Charles Sligh [Charles-Sligh at utc.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:39 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Subject: [ilds] Mr Laurence Durrell has led the way
>
> Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
>>
>> OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ****
>> Burroughs? Statements at the 1962 International Writers? Conference
>> Published by RealityStudio on 21 February 2008. The digitization
>> retains the idiosyncratic spellings, typos, and ?errors? of the
>> /Transatlantic Review/ publication.
>> The Future of the Novel
>>
>> In my writing i am acting as a map maker, an explorer of psychic
>> areas, to use the phrase of Mr Alexander Trocchi, as a cosmonaut of
>> inter space, and i see no point in exploring areas that have already
>> been thoroughly surveyed ? A Russian scientist has said: ?We will
>> travel not only in space but in time as well ? ?That is to travel in
>> space is to travel in time ? If writers are to travel in space time
>> and explore areas opened by the space age, i think they must develop
>> techniques quite as new and definite as the techniques of physical
>> space travel ? Certainly if writing is to have a future it must at
>> least catch up with the past and learn to use techniques that have
>> been used for some time past in painting, music and film ? Mr Laurence
>> Durrell has led the way in developing a new form of writing with time
>> and space shifts as we see events from different viewpoints and
>> realize that so seen they are literally not the same events, and that
>> the old concepts of time and reality are no longer valid ? Brion
>> Gysin, an American painter living in Paris, has used what he calls
>> ?the cut up method? to place at the disposal of writers the collage
>> used in painting for fifty years ? Pages of text are cut and
>> rearranged to form new combinations of word and image ? In writing my
>> last two novels, Nova Express and The Ticket That Exploded, i have
>> used an extension of the cut up method i call ?the fold in method? ? A
>> page of text ? my own or some one elses ? is folded down the middle
>> and placed on another page ? The composite text is then read across
>> half one text and half the other ? The fold in method extends to
>> writing the flash back used in films, enabling the writer to move
>> backwards and forewards on his time track ? For example i take page
>> one and fold it into page one hundred ? I insert the resulting
>> composite as page ten ? When the reader reads page ten he is flashing
>> forwards in time to page one hundred and back in time to page one ?
>> The deja vue phenomena can so be produced to order ? (This method is
>> of course used in music where we are continually moved backwards and
>> foreward on the time track by repetition and rearrangements of musical
>> themes ?
>>
>> In using the fold in method i edit delete and rearrange as in any
>> other method of composition ? I have frequently had the experience of
>> writing some pages of straight narrative text which were then folded
>> in with other pages and found that the fold ins were clearer and more
>> comprehensible than the original texts ? Perfectly clear narrative
>> prose can be produced using the fold in method ? Best results are
>> usually obtained by placing pages dealing with similar subjects in
>> juxtaposition ?,
>>
>> What does any writer do but choose, edit and rearrange material at his
>> disposal? ? The fold in method gives the writer literally infinite
>> extension of choice ? Take for example a page of Rimbaud folded into a
>> page of St John Perse ? (two poets who have much in common) ? From two
>> pages an infinite number of combinations and images are possible ? The
>> method could also lead to a collaboration between writers on an
>> unprecedented scale to produce works that were the composite effort of
>> any number of writers living and dead ? This happens in fact as soon
>> as any writer starts using the fold in method ? I have made and used
>> fold ins from Shakespeare, Rimbaud, from newspapers, magazines,
>> conversations and letters so that the novels i have written using this
>> method are in fact composites of many writers ?
>>
>> I would like to emphasize that this is a technique and like any
>> technique will, of course, be useful to some writers and not to others
>> ? In any case a matter for experimentation not argument ? The
>> confering writers have been accused by the press of not paying
>> sufficient attention to the question of human survival ? In Nova
>> Express ? (reference is to an exploding planet) and my latest novel
>> The Ticket That Exploded i am primarily concerned with the question of
>> survival ?, with nova conspiracies, nova criminals, and nova police ?
>> A new mythology is possible in the space age where we will again have
>> heroes and villains with respect to intentions toward this planet ?
>> Notes on these pages
>>
>> To show ?the fold in method? in operation i have taken the two texts i
>> read at The Writer?s Conference and folded them into newspaper
>> articles on The Conference, The Conference Folder, typed out
>> selections from various writers, some of whom were present and some of
>> whom were not, to form a composite of many writers living and dead:
>> Shakespeare, Samuel Beckett, T.S. Eliot, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William
>> Golding, Alexander Trocchi, Norman Mailer, Colin MacInnes, Hugh
>> Macdiarmid.
>>
>> Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, in my mythology, is a God that failed, a God of
>> Conflict in two parts so created to keep a tired old show on the road,
>> The God of Arbitrary Power and Restraint, Of Prison and Pressure, who
>> needs subordinates, who needs what he calls ?his human dogs? while
>> treating them with the contempt a con man feels for his victims ? But
>> remember the con man needs the mark ? The Mark does not need the con
>> man ? Mr Bradley-Mr Martin needs his ?dogs? his ?errand boys? his
>> ?human animals? He needs them because he is literally blind. They do
>> not need him. In my mythological system he is overthrown in a
>> revolution of his ?dogs? ? ?Dogs that were his eyes shut off Mr
>> Bradly-Mr Martin.?
>>
>> My conception of Mr Bradly-Mr Martin is similar to the conception
>> developed by William Golding in ?Pincer Martin? and i have made a fold
>> in from the last pages of his book where Martin is destroyed ?erased
>> like an error?, with my own version of Bradly-Martin?s end ? The end
>> of Mr Bradly-Mr Martin is the theme of these pages ? as regards The
>> Writers Conference i shared with Mary Macarthy a feeling that
>> something incredible was going on beyond the fact of people paying to
>> listen ? -I could not but feel that it was indeed The Last Writer?s
>> Conference.
>> Nova Police besieged McEwan Hall
>>
>> The last Writer?s Conference ? Heroin and homosexuality war melted
>> into air ? the conferents are free to come and go visiting the
>> obscurity behind word and image ? Mr Martin was movie of which
>> intellectual and literary elite asked the question: What is sex? ?
>>
>> ?Hear Mr Burroughs or his answer??: Flesh identity still resisted the
>> question and that book in this memory erased the answer.
>>
>> On reflection we can discover cross references scrawled by some boy
>> with scars ? The last invisible shadow caught and the future fumbles
>> for transitory progress in the arts ? Flutes of Ali in the door of
>> panic leaves not a wrack of that God of whom i was a part ? The future
>> fumbles in dogs of unfamiliar dust ? Hurry up ? Page summons composite
>> mutterings flashing foreward in your moments I could describe ? The
>> deja vue boatman smiles with such memory orders ? Shifted with the
>> method of composition, i have frequently left no address ? Some pages
>> of straight narrative beside you ? Moments i could describe left other
>> pages more comprehensible than the original texts that were his eyes ?
>> Inherit these by placing page deals: ?Hurry up please ? Heavy summons,
>> Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, with texts moved or conveyor belts retained and
>> copied my blood whom i created.?
>>
>> You are writer since the departed choose the juxtaposition beside you
>> ? The image of the hanged man shut off, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, to
>> fashion heavy summons ? Too much comment and the great boatman smiles
>> ? Growing suspicion departed have left no address ? Falling history
>> beside you ? Dogs that were his eyes inherit this ? Let them stray
>> please, its time ? And they are free to come and go ? Fading this
>> green doll out of an old sack and some rope ? The great streaks of
>> paint melted into air ? Out of the circle of light you are yourself
>> bringing panic or chaos ? Heavy hand broken, erased like an error,
>> fading here the claws in The Towers ? The great claws, Martin, caught
>> melted into air ? Their whole strength with such memories still
>> resisted ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin was movie played the vaudeville voices
>> ? These our actors visible going away erased themselves into air ?
>> Adios in the final ape of Martin ? Just as silver film took it you are
>> yourself The Visiting Center and The Claws ? They were our Towers ? A
>> Street boy?s courage resisted erogenous summons muttering flesh
>> identity ? For i last center falling through ruined September beside
>> you erased like and error ?
>>
>> A Russian scientist has said: ?Martin disaster far now? ? Shifted with
>> travel in space ? Writers were his eyes, inherit this travel in space
>> and time ? Areas opened by the heavy summons, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin ? I
>> think they must close your account ? New and definite my blood whom i
>> created leaves not the third who walks with the past and your dust now
>> ended ? These techniques that have been war melted into air ? Hurry up
>> in human survival ? My last summons Nova Express ? Reference is to the
>> ticket that exploded your moments ? Nova Police ? Heavy summons, Mr
>> Bradly-Mr Martin ?
>>
>> Cross references scrawled by some governmental agency decide what the
>> citizen is permitted to see in Scotland since thought consists largely
>> of the arts ? Zero time to the sick areas of politics protecting
>> unfamiliar dust ? In English speaking countries, hurry up ? Page
>> summons sexual word and image ? Consumer?s orders shifted ? Any form
>> of censorship left no address ? Thought material of method proffers
>> precisely the texts that were his eyes ? De Sade, Henry Miller are
>> free to come and go ? Censorship is the necessity of chaos for stupid
>> individuals advertising to thin air the story of one absent ? Like an
>> error fading here the claws we know from Pavlov ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin
>> was movie of which sex is the overt expression ? Voices asked the
>> question: What is sex? ? and erased themselves into the answer ? Flesh
>> identity, of which censorship is the overt expression, still resisted
>> the question What is sex? and some boy?s memory erased the answers ?
>> he had come muttering things i used to say over and over as Mr Martin
>> Weary my blood whom i pent ? Then i raised my eyes and saw words
>> scrawled by some boy ? Hurry up ? Page summons composites ? Get it
>> over with ? I have never known you moments, but the rages were the
>> worst such memory orders ? Shifted with me frequently left no address
>> ? Hurry up please ? Heavy summons ? Voice all day long muttering moved
>> on conveyor belts very low and harsh no wonder shut off ? But let me
>> get on with this day and they are free to come and go without sore
>> throat of an old sack and some rope ? These flashes out of things i
>> used to say over and over as yourself bringing panic or chaos ? Never
>> loved anyone i think fading here in The Towers ? Same old things i
>> dont listen to ? These our actors going away on the final ape of
>> Martin ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin all day long muttering sick lies ? Closed
>> your account ? Not even mine it was at the end ?
>>
>> This brings me respectable price of my university ? The Kid just found
>> what was left of the window ? Pages deal what you might call a journey
>> ? Its faily easy thrash in old New Orleans smudged looking answer ?
>> Sick and tired of Martin ? Invisible shadow tottering to doom fast ?
>> Dream and dreamer that were his eyes inherit this stage ? Its time ?
>> Heavy summons, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin timeless and without mercy ? You
>> are destroyed erased like my name ? The text of that God melted into
>> air ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin walks toward September weary good bye
>> playing over and over ? Out of the circle of light you are words
>> scrawled by some boy with chaos, for a transitory ape of Martin
>> understood Visiting Center and Claws ? He had come muttering flesh
>> identity ? His dream must have seemed so close there, whole strength
>> to grap it ? He did not know that it was still resisted, falling back
>> in that vast obscurity behind memory as the boatman began to melt away
>> ? Enchanted texts that were his eyes inherit this continent ? Mr
>> Bradly-Mr Martin was movie played to thin air ? Vaudeville voices
>> leave the story of one absent ? Silence to the stage ? These our
>> actors erased themselves into good night far from such as you, Mr
>> Bradly-Mr Martin ? Good bye of history ? Your whole strength left no
>> address ? On this green land the pipes are calling, timeless and
>> without mercy ? Page summons the deja vue boatman in setting forth ?
>> All are wracked and answer texts that were his eyes ? No home in
>> departed river of Gothenberg ? Shadows are free to come and go ? What
>> have i my friend to give?: An old sack and some rope ? The great globe
>> is paint in air ?
> http://realitystudio.org/texts/burroughs-statements-at-the-1962-international-writers-conference/
>
>
>
> --
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds

From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu  Wed Jun 23 11:54:36 2010
From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl))
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:54:36 -0400
Subject: [ilds] Mr Laurence Durrell has led the way
In-Reply-To: <4C22572F.60707@gmail.com>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<4C2246DE.4080607@utc.edu>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD90A@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<4C22572F.60707@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD90E@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>

Don't we have some evidence that Homer was the first big time plagiarist?  He took stories and left no footnotes.



W. L. Godshalk *
Department of English    *           *
University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
OH 45221-0069 *  *
________________________________________
From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of James Gifford [james.d.gifford at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:49 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Subject: Re: [ilds] Mr Laurence Durrell has led the way

Didn't he get it from Eliot in the first place -- he's probably the best
(and most shameless) thief of the lot, not that his thefts weren't from
other thieves...

-J

On 23/06/10 11:32 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
> OK
>
> A folder-in-er
>
> Should we quote Barth's essay on the literature of exhaustion?
>
>
>
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Charles Sligh [Charles-Sligh at utc.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:39 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Subject: [ilds] Mr Laurence Durrell has led the way
>
> Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
>>
>> OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.
>>
>>
>>
>
> ****
>> Burroughs? Statements at the 1962 International Writers? Conference
>> Published by RealityStudio on 21 February 2008. The digitization
>> retains the idiosyncratic spellings, typos, and ?errors? of the
>> /Transatlantic Review/ publication.
>> The Future of the Novel
>>
>> In my writing i am acting as a map maker, an explorer of psychic
>> areas, to use the phrase of Mr Alexander Trocchi, as a cosmonaut of
>> inter space, and i see no point in exploring areas that have already
>> been thoroughly surveyed ? A Russian scientist has said: ?We will
>> travel not only in space but in time as well ? ?That is to travel in
>> space is to travel in time ? If writers are to travel in space time
>> and explore areas opened by the space age, i think they must develop
>> techniques quite as new and definite as the techniques of physical
>> space travel ? Certainly if writing is to have a future it must at
>> least catch up with the past and learn to use techniques that have
>> been used for some time past in painting, music and film ? Mr Laurence
>> Durrell has led the way in developing a new form of writing with time
>> and space shifts as we see events from different viewpoints and
>> realize that so seen they are literally not the same events, and that
>> the old concepts of time and reality are no longer valid ? Brion
>> Gysin, an American painter living in Paris, has used what he calls
>> ?the cut up method? to place at the disposal of writers the collage
>> used in painting for fifty years ? Pages of text are cut and
>> rearranged to form new combinations of word and image ? In writing my
>> last two novels, Nova Express and The Ticket That Exploded, i have
>> used an extension of the cut up method i call ?the fold in method? ? A
>> page of text ? my own or some one elses ? is folded down the middle
>> and placed on another page ? The composite text is then read across
>> half one text and half the other ? The fold in method extends to
>> writing the flash back used in films, enabling the writer to move
>> backwards and forewards on his time track ? For example i take page
>> one and fold it into page one hundred ? I insert the resulting
>> composite as page ten ? When the reader reads page ten he is flashing
>> forwards in time to page one hundred and back in time to page one ?
>> The deja vue phenomena can so be produced to order ? (This method is
>> of course used in music where we are continually moved backwards and
>> foreward on the time track by repetition and rearrangements of musical
>> themes ?
>>
>> In using the fold in method i edit delete and rearrange as in any
>> other method of composition ? I have frequently had the experience of
>> writing some pages of straight narrative text which were then folded
>> in with other pages and found that the fold ins were clearer and more
>> comprehensible than the original texts ? Perfectly clear narrative
>> prose can be produced using the fold in method ? Best results are
>> usually obtained by placing pages dealing with similar subjects in
>> juxtaposition ?,
>>
>> What does any writer do but choose, edit and rearrange material at his
>> disposal? ? The fold in method gives the writer literally infinite
>> extension of choice ? Take for example a page of Rimbaud folded into a
>> page of St John Perse ? (two poets who have much in common) ? From two
>> pages an infinite number of combinations and images are possible ? The
>> method could also lead to a collaboration between writers on an
>> unprecedented scale to produce works that were the composite effort of
>> any number of writers living and dead ? This happens in fact as soon
>> as any writer starts using the fold in method ? I have made and used
>> fold ins from Shakespeare, Rimbaud, from newspapers, magazines,
>> conversations and letters so that the novels i have written using this
>> method are in fact composites of many writers ?
>>
>> I would like to emphasize that this is a technique and like any
>> technique will, of course, be useful to some writers and not to others
>> ? In any case a matter for experimentation not argument ? The
>> confering writers have been accused by the press of not paying
>> sufficient attention to the question of human survival ? In Nova
>> Express ? (reference is to an exploding planet) and my latest novel
>> The Ticket That Exploded i am primarily concerned with the question of
>> survival ?, with nova conspiracies, nova criminals, and nova police ?
>> A new mythology is possible in the space age where we will again have
>> heroes and villains with respect to intentions toward this planet ?
>> Notes on these pages
>>
>> To show ?the fold in method? in operation i have taken the two texts i
>> read at The Writer?s Conference and folded them into newspaper
>> articles on The Conference, The Conference Folder, typed out
>> selections from various writers, some of whom were present and some of
>> whom were not, to form a composite of many writers living and dead:
>> Shakespeare, Samuel Beckett, T.S. Eliot, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William
>> Golding, Alexander Trocchi, Norman Mailer, Colin MacInnes, Hugh
>> Macdiarmid.
>>
>> Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, in my mythology, is a God that failed, a God of
>> Conflict in two parts so created to keep a tired old show on the road,
>> The God of Arbitrary Power and Restraint, Of Prison and Pressure, who
>> needs subordinates, who needs what he calls ?his human dogs? while
>> treating them with the contempt a con man feels for his victims ? But
>> remember the con man needs the mark ? The Mark does not need the con
>> man ? Mr Bradley-Mr Martin needs his ?dogs? his ?errand boys? his
>> ?human animals? He needs them because he is literally blind. They do
>> not need him. In my mythological system he is overthrown in a
>> revolution of his ?dogs? ? ?Dogs that were his eyes shut off Mr
>> Bradly-Mr Martin.?
>>
>> My conception of Mr Bradly-Mr Martin is similar to the conception
>> developed by William Golding in ?Pincer Martin? and i have made a fold
>> in from the last pages of his book where Martin is destroyed ?erased
>> like an error?, with my own version of Bradly-Martin?s end ? The end
>> of Mr Bradly-Mr Martin is the theme of these pages ? as regards The
>> Writers Conference i shared with Mary Macarthy a feeling that
>> something incredible was going on beyond the fact of people paying to
>> listen ? -I could not but feel that it was indeed The Last Writer?s
>> Conference.
>> Nova Police besieged McEwan Hall
>>
>> The last Writer?s Conference ? Heroin and homosexuality war melted
>> into air ? the conferents are free to come and go visiting the
>> obscurity behind word and image ? Mr Martin was movie of which
>> intellectual and literary elite asked the question: What is sex? ?
>>
>> ?Hear Mr Burroughs or his answer??: Flesh identity still resisted the
>> question and that book in this memory erased the answer.
>>
>> On reflection we can discover cross references scrawled by some boy
>> with scars ? The last invisible shadow caught and the future fumbles
>> for transitory progress in the arts ? Flutes of Ali in the door of
>> panic leaves not a wrack of that God of whom i was a part ? The future
>> fumbles in dogs of unfamiliar dust ? Hurry up ? Page summons composite
>> mutterings flashing foreward in your moments I could describe ? The
>> deja vue boatman smiles with such memory orders ? Shifted with the
>> method of composition, i have frequently left no address ? Some pages
>> of straight narrative beside you ? Moments i could describe left other
>> pages more comprehensible than the original texts that were his eyes ?
>> Inherit these by placing page deals: ?Hurry up please ? Heavy summons,
>> Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, with texts moved or conveyor belts retained and
>> copied my blood whom i created.?
>>
>> You are writer since the departed choose the juxtaposition beside you
>> ? The image of the hanged man shut off, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin, to
>> fashion heavy summons ? Too much comment and the great boatman smiles
>> ? Growing suspicion departed have left no address ? Falling history
>> beside you ? Dogs that were his eyes inherit this ? Let them stray
>> please, its time ? And they are free to come and go ? Fading this
>> green doll out of an old sack and some rope ? The great streaks of
>> paint melted into air ? Out of the circle of light you are yourself
>> bringing panic or chaos ? Heavy hand broken, erased like an error,
>> fading here the claws in The Towers ? The great claws, Martin, caught
>> melted into air ? Their whole strength with such memories still
>> resisted ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin was movie played the vaudeville voices
>> ? These our actors visible going away erased themselves into air ?
>> Adios in the final ape of Martin ? Just as silver film took it you are
>> yourself The Visiting Center and The Claws ? They were our Towers ? A
>> Street boy?s courage resisted erogenous summons muttering flesh
>> identity ? For i last center falling through ruined September beside
>> you erased like and error ?
>>
>> A Russian scientist has said: ?Martin disaster far now? ? Shifted with
>> travel in space ? Writers were his eyes, inherit this travel in space
>> and time ? Areas opened by the heavy summons, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin ? I
>> think they must close your account ? New and definite my blood whom i
>> created leaves not the third who walks with the past and your dust now
>> ended ? These techniques that have been war melted into air ? Hurry up
>> in human survival ? My last summons Nova Express ? Reference is to the
>> ticket that exploded your moments ? Nova Police ? Heavy summons, Mr
>> Bradly-Mr Martin ?
>>
>> Cross references scrawled by some governmental agency decide what the
>> citizen is permitted to see in Scotland since thought consists largely
>> of the arts ? Zero time to the sick areas of politics protecting
>> unfamiliar dust ? In English speaking countries, hurry up ? Page
>> summons sexual word and image ? Consumer?s orders shifted ? Any form
>> of censorship left no address ? Thought material of method proffers
>> precisely the texts that were his eyes ? De Sade, Henry Miller are
>> free to come and go ? Censorship is the necessity of chaos for stupid
>> individuals advertising to thin air the story of one absent ? Like an
>> error fading here the claws we know from Pavlov ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin
>> was movie of which sex is the overt expression ? Voices asked the
>> question: What is sex? ? and erased themselves into the answer ? Flesh
>> identity, of which censorship is the overt expression, still resisted
>> the question What is sex? and some boy?s memory erased the answers ?
>> he had come muttering things i used to say over and over as Mr Martin
>> Weary my blood whom i pent ? Then i raised my eyes and saw words
>> scrawled by some boy ? Hurry up ? Page summons composites ? Get it
>> over with ? I have never known you moments, but the rages were the
>> worst such memory orders ? Shifted with me frequently left no address
>> ? Hurry up please ? Heavy summons ? Voice all day long muttering moved
>> on conveyor belts very low and harsh no wonder shut off ? But let me
>> get on with this day and they are free to come and go without sore
>> throat of an old sack and some rope ? These flashes out of things i
>> used to say over and over as yourself bringing panic or chaos ? Never
>> loved anyone i think fading here in The Towers ? Same old things i
>> dont listen to ? These our actors going away on the final ape of
>> Martin ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin all day long muttering sick lies ? Closed
>> your account ? Not even mine it was at the end ?
>>
>> This brings me respectable price of my university ? The Kid just found
>> what was left of the window ? Pages deal what you might call a journey
>> ? Its faily easy thrash in old New Orleans smudged looking answer ?
>> Sick and tired of Martin ? Invisible shadow tottering to doom fast ?
>> Dream and dreamer that were his eyes inherit this stage ? Its time ?
>> Heavy summons, Mr Bradly-Mr Martin timeless and without mercy ? You
>> are destroyed erased like my name ? The text of that God melted into
>> air ? Mr Bradly-Mr Martin walks toward September weary good bye
>> playing over and over ? Out of the circle of light you are words
>> scrawled by some boy with chaos, for a transitory ape of Martin
>> understood Visiting Center and Claws ? He had come muttering flesh
>> identity ? His dream must have seemed so close there, whole strength
>> to grap it ? He did not know that it was still resisted, falling back
>> in that vast obscurity behind memory as the boatman began to melt away
>> ? Enchanted texts that were his eyes inherit this continent ? Mr
>> Bradly-Mr Martin was movie played to thin air ? Vaudeville voices
>> leave the story of one absent ? Silence to the stage ? These our
>> actors erased themselves into good night far from such as you, Mr
>> Bradly-Mr Martin ? Good bye of history ? Your whole strength left no
>> address ? On this green land the pipes are calling, timeless and
>> without mercy ? Page summons the deja vue boatman in setting forth ?
>> All are wracked and answer texts that were his eyes ? No home in
>> departed river of Gothenberg ? Shadows are free to come and go ? What
>> have i my friend to give?: An old sack and some rope ? The great globe
>> is paint in air ?
> http://realitystudio.org/texts/burroughs-statements-at-the-1962-international-writers-conference/
>
>
>
> --
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
_______________________________________________
ILDS mailing list
ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds


From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 23 12:57:47 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:57:47 -0700
Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD90B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
References: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD8F6@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<74F7C534-F7ED-4C61-B795-DE9D07302FC1@earthlink.net>,
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD906@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD909@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>,
	<3E608901-1A08-4F06-88A6-A948D2AF4938@earthlink.net>
	<94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201C61A8AD90B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>
Message-ID: <9D83E52B-583E-4347-B4F9-49A9CF3945C5@earthlink.net>

Yes, "crazed" is better.


Bruce



On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:

> Or should we write "crazed?"
> 
> 
> 
> W. L. Godshalk *
> Department of English    *           *
> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
> OH 45221-0069 *  *
> ________________________________________
> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:29 PM
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Cc: Bruce Redwine
> Subject: Re: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
> 
> Bill, I think we should collaborate on that article your proposed.  I suggest the following title:  "Durrell the Mixer:  Adventures in a Crazy Imagination."
> 
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
> 
>> O, I forgot the book wheel -- a very old way of mixing. But obviously usable. There are pictures online. Someone mixed one in.
>> 
>> 
>> W. L. Godshalk *
>> Department of English    *           *
>> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
>> OH 45221-0069 *  *
>> ________________________________________
>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:11 PM
>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>> Subject: Re: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
>> 
>> Yes, I m a mixer. No doubt about it. But I do try to identify the artists I'm mixing. I did see Hegemann's picture.
>> 
>> But during the mixing process, I am a bit amazed at the amount of mixing done in the scholarly world -- that's not footnoted.
>> 
>> And the computer has made mixing more available.
>> 
>> OK Durrell as mixer. Sounds like an article to me.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> W. L. Godshalk *
>> Department of English    *           *
>> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
>> OH 45221-0069 *  *
>> ________________________________________
>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 1:49 PM
>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>> Cc: Bruce Redwine
>> Subject: [ilds] K. K. Ruthven and L. G. Durrell
>> 
>> Bill,
>> 
>> Thanks for your review of Ruthven's Faking Literature.  I suppose Ruthven would put L. Durrell under your heading (9):  "writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation of Plutarch's Lives)."  That would surely please old LD; he likes to be in the company of Shakespeare, as seen in the poem, "The Critics."
>> 
>> Another book on this topic is William Ian Miller's Faking It (Cambridge 2003).  Have you read it?  I haven't, but it looks promising.  Miller holds a Ph.D. in English (sadly), a J.D., and a professorship at the U. of Michigan School of Law.  I've heard him speak.  He's good.
>> 
>> I'm not sure where we've arrived in this discussion, but here's one final comment on lying, faking it, self-mythologizing, plagiarizing, etc.  Back on 12 February 2010, The New York Times had a story about a young German author, Helene Hegemann, who wrote a bestseller, Axolotl Roadkill.  A German blogger later discovered that sections of her book had been lifted verbatim from another author's work (an entire page, in one instance, with few changes), without a hint of accreditation.  Was Ms. Hegemann bothered by the charge of plagiarism?  No.  She advocates  it.  The Times calls the literary technique "mixing" and reports, "she has also defended herself as the representative of a different generation, one that freely mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media, to create something new."  Ms. Hegemann is wrong.  Her methodology is not as new as she thinks.
>> 
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote:
>> 
>> Just checked ABE. You can get a copy of Faking Literature for lest than 5 bucks plus potsage on ABEbooks.
>> 
>> And I attach my review:
>> 
>> K.K. Ruthven, Faking Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. PB A$49.95
>> In his Prologue, Ruthven preemptively claims that literary forgeries "constitute a powerful indictment of such cultural practices as literary reviewing" (4), that is, of the review you are now reading. In his first chapter, "Sampling the spurious," Ruthven briefly reviews selected literary deceivers from the eighteenth century to the 1990s, with major attention to James Macpherson, whose Ossianic material Ruthven calls "Macphossian." "Macphossian," writes Ruthven, "remains the key text for analysts of literary forgery because it generated two quite different phenomena: an 'Ossianic controversy' about the authenticity of the Gaelic materials mediated by Macpherson's 'translation,' and an enormous cult readership which felt free to ignore that controversy because it knew what it liked" (13). In the next chapter, "Framing literary forgery," Ruthven discusses the "overlapping descriptors that constitute our understanding" of literary spuriosity (34). He believes that we tend t!
> o!
>> see literary deceptions as "forgeries," "fakes," "hoaxes," and so on, words which predispose us to see these deceptions in certain ways: "an analogy designed to illuminate something may have opprobrious consequences" (41). He also points out that much depends on "whether the organising term for such enquiries [into literary deception] is 'similarity' or 'difference'" (60), uniformity or discontinuity.
>>      Chapter 3, "Cultivating spuriosity," deals with post-structuralist critical theory's challenges to traditional assumptions about "authority, originality, authenticity and value," and with Lyontard's concept of the postmodern condition which "enables us to see literary forgeries as in some ways normalised by the spuriosities of everyday life" (63).  Given this matrix of ideas, Ruthven argues that "literary forgery can be shown to have many components in common with literature" (73).
>> In Chapter 4, "Faultlines of authorship," Ruthven asserts that the concept of authorship "cannot be used as the unproblematic base from which to critique the authorial duplicities of literary forgers" (91), but it is "the Romantic ideology of authorship, whose operative terms are solitary geniuses and unique texts, the authoring of which authorises them" (91), that he uses as a straw man. Ruthven surveys "dispersed" authorial practices, such as: collaborating with other writers; writing anonymously or pseudonymously; using a persona; pretending that your own writing is the writing of someone else; writing for someone else (i.e., speech writing and ghostwriting), and franchising literary characters (e.g. James Bond) to other writers (e.g. Kingsley Amis). He feels that these practices undercut the Romantic concept of authorship against which, he seems to believe, we measure literary duplicity. How these commonplace practices call into question more realistic concepts of auth!
> o!
>> rship and literary fraud is not readily apparent. This chapter ends, rather anomalously, with a discussion of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
>> Ruthven begins his fifth chapter, "Fantasies of originality," with the claim: "the category of 'original genius' was invented and displayed in the titles of a couple of books published in 1767" (121). The rest of the chapter argues against the possibility of such an invention: "Since nothing human is created ex nihilo, everything is made of something else, and is in that respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature is not original; it is imitative, derivative, intertextual, plagiaristic, and allusive. But  Ruthven also realizes that the "practice of imitatio is situated precariously between sameness and difference" (124). Literary imitation is not plagiarism. We would not mistake James Joyce's Ulysses for Homer's Odyssey, nor would we accuse Joyce of duplicity.
>> In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary deceptions reveal the fragility of "literature" as a cultural category. If critics could easily identify a literary work by its authority, originality, and authenticity, they would not be -- as they often are -- taken in by literary deceptions. In his Epilogue, Ruthven proposes "a moratorium on the demonising of literary forgeries and a systematic investigation of what they tell us about the so-called genuine article" (199). He concludes that "literary forgery is a sort of spurious literature, and so is literature" (200).
>> Ruthven identifies the following types of literary deceiver: (1) writers who choose pseudonyms that belie their sex and/or ethnicity (e.g. Toby Forward writing as Rahila Khan or Helen Darville writing as Helen Demidenko); (2) writers who pretend to be translating other writers, but are in fact not (e.g., James Macpherson writing as Ossian); (3) writers who pass off fiction as autobiography (e.g., Lorenzo Carcaterra in Sleepers); (4) forgers of manuscript diaries (e.g., Konrad Kujau writing as Hitler); (5) forgers of first editions (e.g., Thomas J. Wise and H. Buxton Forman printing  a fraudulent first edition of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portugese); (6) forgers of manuscript marginalia (e.g., John Payne Collier or Frederic Madden annotating the Perkins Folio in psuedo-Renaissance handwriting); (7) impostors who write fraudulent accounts of their lives and countries of origin (e.g., George Psalmanazar writing Historical and Geographical Description of Fo!
> rm!
>> osa pretending to be a Formosan); (8) writers who create fictitious authors and write works for them (e.g., James McAuley and Harold Stewart writing as Ern Malley); (9) writers who plagiarize (e.g., Shakespeare incorporating into Antony and Cleopatra phrases from North's translation if Plutarch's Lives); (10) writers of ficto-history (e.g., Simon Schama in Dead Certainties).  I could go on (and Ruthven does), but my point is that this heterogeneous group of literary deceivers can only with difficulty be included under a single rubric, though all the above fit, even if imperfectly, Ruthven's definition of fake literature: "any text whose actual provenance differs from what it is made out to be" (39). As Ruthven himself understands, there is a problem of agency here: who is responsible for determining the actual provenance and if it differs from "what it is made out to be"? Ruthven thinks that "agency should be ascribed to a spurious text rather than to its author" (39), tho!
> u!
>> gh how a text can read and explain itself he does not -- obviously --
>> make clear. In reading a text, the reader is the active agent who does the interpreting -- even though constrained by culture and ignorance.
>> But Ruthven does not emphasize difference -- psychological, cultural, or historical: "this book . . . puts a case for considering its [i.e. literary forgery's] conjunctive aspects" (70). His approach is synchronic rather than diachronic. For him, time is not an arrow, but a rhizome. He wants to collapse distinctions between the authentic and the fraudulent, between the original and the copy.
>> The weakest part of Ruthven's discussion of authorship is his (apparent) belief that William Shakespeare acted as a front for Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who really wrote Shakespeare's play, but who, unfortunately, died in 1604, nine years before Shakespeare's last play was written. An interesting case of ghostwriting/ghost writing? Ruthven asserts: "Professional Stratfordians do not share Michael D. Bristol's view that 'the real Shakespeare doesn't actually exist at all, except as the imaginary projection of an important tradition in social desire.' They therefore tend either to ignore all those 'fat, bad, sad books' by anti-Stratfordians or to treat them as amusing interludes in the serious business of establishing the texts of Shakespeare's plays" and other scholarly activities (117-18). First, Ruthven misquotes Bristol by cutting out the parenthetical comment, "-- like the real Santa Claus--," that should follow "the real Shakespeare," and thus subt!
> l!
>> y changing the meaning of Bristol's sentence. Second, Bristol is himself what Ruthven calls a "professional Stratfordian." In the article cited by Ruthven, Bristol writes: "William Shakespeare . . . was a real person, a man born in in the small market town of Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564. He grew up in Stratford, he went to school, he married a woman named Ann Hathaway, he fathered three children. As a young man he moved to London where he became an actor, wrote poetry, and participated in various business ventures. When he died, in 1616, he was just 53 years old. This William Shakespeare really existed; he is the man who wrote the poems and plays that have made his name so famous. " It seems that Ruthven is faking when he claims Bristol as a supporter of the Oxfordian heresy.
>> Ruthven asserts that "the question . . .arises of why so little is known about the man who, according to his contemporary, Ben Jonson, was the greatest writer of 'all time'" (120). Jonson wrote that Shakespeare "was not of an age, but for all time." Nothing here about being the greatest writer of all time, merely an assertion (or fond hope) that his plays will survive. Since Ruthven has read the work of S. Schoenbaum, he should be aware that a great deal is known about Shakespeare's life, and if we accept the sonnets as autobiographical, we know more about Shakespeare's love life than we know about the love life of any other early modern English playwright.  How much biographical detail does Ruthven feel is required to authenticate Shakespeare's claim to have written his own plays? See page 149, for Ruthven's comment on "authentication by density."
>> Ruthven points out that literary deceivers often plant "clues" that point to the deceptions in their works (175-76). On page 187, he refers to the "evolutionary theories of . . . Thomas Ernest Huxley." Perhaps "Thomas Henry" was indeed known as "Thomas Ernest" in the country, but I suspect a clue. Ruthven is being less than earnest. Ruthven directs our search by telling us that literary clues "are often embedded in paratexual materials concerning provenance" (176). I believe that Ruthven's Index of names (a Genettean paratext) contains such clues. Or perhaps I should say does not contain the clues. The following names are included in the text, but excluded from the index: Michael Bristol, Dympna Callaghan, Edward De Vere, Hitler, "Thomas Ernest Huxley," John Keats, Charles Ogburn, Thomas Pynchon, K. K. Ruthven, Lee Siegel, Edgar Wind, and William Wordsworth. I leave it to the diligent reader to figure out what these clues may mean.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> W. L. Godshalk *
>> Department of English    *           *
>> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
>> OH 45221-0069 *  *
>> ________________________________________
>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Godshalk, William (godshawl) [godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:05 PM
>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
>> Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it
>> 
>> You could buy his book, which is about ten years old. If you should find my review (below), I offer a summary there.
>> 
>> Cambridge UP does provide a brief summary as well.
>> 
>> Antipodes
>> Forging literary consciousness.(Faking Literature)(Book Review)
>>  Antipodes; Sunday, December 01, 2002; Godshalk, W.L.; 700+ words ...respect a bircolage "(127). Ruthven emphasizes that literature...plagiaristic, and allusive. But Ruthven also realizes that the...Joyce of duplicity. In "Fake literature as critique," the final chapter, Ruthven points out that literary.
>> 
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> W. L. Godshalk *
>> Department of English    *           *
>> University of Cincinnati*   * Stellar Disorder  *
>> OH 45221-0069 *  *
>> ________________________________________
>> From: ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> [ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine [bredwine1968 at earthlink.net]
>> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:41 AM
>> To: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu<mailto:Charles-Sligh at utc.edu>; ilds at lists.uvic.ca<mailto:ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
>> Cc: Bruce Redwine
>> Subject: Re: [ilds] faking it
>> 
>> Sorry for being so dense, but I still don't understand.  I think we need something out of the frame of literature to discuss this topic, and Ruthven might have the answer, so please summarize his arguments, as requested below.
>> 
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:24 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I'm particularly interested in how Ruthven distinguishes between faking it in literature and faking it in everyday life.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am afraid that there is no need to go so far afield.
>> 
>> A definitive treatment of this topic was written by Lawrence Durrell.
>> This book is called /The Alexandria Quartet /(1957-1960).
>> 
>> In that study, Durrell dramatically and convincingly collapses the
>> distinctions between "faking it in literature and faking it in everyday
>> life."
>> 
>> Durrell's conclusions are provocative, somewhat controversial, and, by a
>> certain measure, irrefutable.
>> 
>>     ABSTRACT: Darley seems to learn that Justine seems to have been
>>     "faking it" the whole time.
>> 
>> 
>> For those readers interested in checking Durrell's findings against a
>> second authority, I recommend an earlier study in this same field of
>> "faking it," Shakespeare's /Hamlet/.
>> 
>> C&c.
>> 
>> --
>> ********************************************
>> Charles L. Sligh
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of English
>> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>> charles-sligh at utc.edu<mailto:charles-sligh at utc.edu>
>> ********************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds



From leena_raghu at hotmail.com  Wed Jun 23 21:50:48 2010
From: leena_raghu at hotmail.com (leena raghu)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:50:48 +0000
Subject: [ilds] Just Being, Unsullied
In-Reply-To: <B8C88CDF-1272-4C17-BDED-6DF3C24A44C7@earthlink.net>
References: <FD03B0A59055440B83A13FF10BB1B851@MumandDad>,
	<B8C88CDF-1272-4C17-BDED-6DF3C24A44C7@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <SNT115-W40BDEFDCF1BBB8159C1B219AC60@phx.gbl>


Indeed a breath of fresh air



From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:15:19 -0700
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
CC: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [ilds] Just Being, Unsullied



Thanks, David, I needed that.  This is a breath of pure desert air or Mediterranean sea breeze.

Bruce


On Jun 19, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote:Greetings from the antipodes., Came across the following in Robert Dessaix's Arabesques: "And, if I am honest with myself, I dont even much like North Africa, I always leave disillusioned: one oasis begins to look much like another after a while, one stretch of sand dunes is indistinguishable from the last, the cities, even Tunis, are for the most part chaotic, grubby and dangerous, the religion is too all pervasive for my taste, the unrelieved maleness of every encounter tiring, the disdain for almost every value I hold dear numbing after a while.....yet I go back. To disentangle myself from the educated clutter of my everyday life. To be naked again. To relive that moment when for the first time what had been kept invisible began to show through. For many Europeans with a veiled second self North Africa is still the perfect vantage point to let this happen. For some it might be an ashram in India or some remote village in Borneo, even a Greek Island might fill the bill for others, but for me it is North Africa. " (Dessaix, Arabesques, Picador, p 237) When I read these words I could not helping thinking Lawrence Durrell and his island narratives; places of escape after trauma, clutter & failed relationships: Corfu after Pudding Island and the English Death, Rhodes after World War Two and the 'apes in nightgowns' of Egypt, Cyprus after the relationship with Eve Cohen went pear shaped. On the islands Larry could just be, unsullied, absorbing the sea and sun and tangerine tones, the wine and timeless culture as he saw it, another self showing through and to me the real LD despite the fictionalisation of these places and characters. The island book are so enchanting because they are the veiled self speaking, the other Larry pouring through, not the tortured Larry of the Quartet and Quintet, a purer one - the one wrote This Unimportant Morning and one who would appreciate the lines: "How can men be so stupid as to clamber about galleries when one can just stand above Klima in Milos and feel the centuries where the shepherd is the artist and the goats make the music with the wind?" Cheers David  16 William Street
Marrickville NSW  2204
+61 2 9564 6165
0412 707 625
dtart at bigpond.net.au
www.denisetart.com.au
 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
See the news as it happens on MSN videos
http://video.in.msn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20100624/0c2686d9/attachment.html 

From rpinecorfu at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 27 05:17:55 2010
From: rpinecorfu at yahoo.com (Richard Pine)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ilds] Hindustani
Message-ID: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

Regarding Durrell's childhood familiarity with Hindi, cf Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy pp. 65-6 re Kipling: 'He was not merely born in India, he was brought up in India by Indian servants in an Indian environment. He thought, felt and dreamed in Hindustani'.
RP


      

From Charles-Sligh at utc.edu  Sun Jun 27 06:00:57 2010
From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:00:57 -0400
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>

Richard Pine wrote:

>         Regarding Durrell's childhood familiarity with Hindi, cf Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy pp. 65-6 re Kipling: 'He was not merely born in India, he was brought up in India by Indian servants in an Indian environment. He thought, felt and dreamed in Hindustani'.     
>               

In order to make a bold point, we might even say that, later in life, 
Durrell recalled /two/ languages from his childhood: Hindustani and Kipling.

I think it is obvious that Durrell retained a lifelong fluency in 
Kipling. Cf. the following remark by Durrell in 1971.

>         Goulianos: So you think it would be better if the British were
>         still in India?
>         Durrell: I don't care fundamentally. The British have
>         obviously lost their drive, and these things go in rhythms.
>         I'm not pining for the Raj at all. I'm just saying that my
>         childhood was influenced there. And for an account of that
>         sort of life, Kipling.
>
>         "The Fasting of the Heart," Lawrence Durrell" Conversations
>         (123-124)


I will re-post below Kipling's major autobiographical and fictional 
statements on his Anglo-Indian childhood and "the vernacular idiom that 
one thought and dreamed in."

Meanwhile, everyone should read more Kipling.

C&c.

            Kipling, /Something of Myself/, "Chapter 1 -- A Very Young
            Person"

>             My first impression is of daybreak, light and colour and
>             golden and purple fruits at the level of my shoulder. This
>             would be the memory of early morning walks to the Bombay
>             fruit
>             market with my /ayah/ and later with my sister in her
>             perambulator, and of our returns with our purchases piled
>             high
>             on the bows of it. Our /ayah/ was a Portuguese Roman Catholic
>             who would pray?I beside her?at a wayside Cross. Meeta, my
>             Hindu bearer, would sometimes go into little Hindu temples
>             where, being below the age of caste, I held his hand and
>             looked at the dimly-seen, friendly Gods[. . . .]
>             In the afternoon heats before we took our sleep, she or Meeta
>             would tell us stories and Indian nursery songs all
>             unforgotten, and we were sent into the dining-room after we
>             had been dressed, with the caution ?Speak English now to Papa
>             and Mamma.? So one spoke ?English,? haltingly translated out
>             of the vernacular idiom that one thought and dreamed in.

            Kipling, "Baa Baa, Black Sheep"

>             The Swedish boatswain consoled him, and he modified his
>             opinions as the voyage went on. There was so much to see and
>             to handle and ask questions about that Punch nearly forgot
>             the
>             /ayah/ and Meeta and the /hamal/, and with difficulty
>             remembered a few words of the Hindustani once his
>             second-speech.

            Kipling, "The Potted Princess"

>             NOW this is the true tale that was told to Punch and Judy,
>             his
>             sister, by their nurse, in the city of Bombay, ten thousand
>             miles from here. They were playing in the veranda, waiting
>             for
>             their mother to come back from her evening drive. The big
>             pink
>             crane, who generally lived by himself at the bottom of the
>             garden because he hated horses and carriages, was with them
>             too, and the nurse, who was called the ayah, was making him
>             dance by throwing pieces of mud at him. Pink cranes dance
>             very
>             prettily until they grow angry. Then they peck.
>
>             This pink crane lost his temper, opened his wings, and
>             clattered his beak, and the ayah had to sing a song which
>             never fails to quiet all the cranes in Bombay. It is a very
>             old song, and it says:
>
>             Buggle baita nuddee kinara,
>             Toom-toom niushia kaye,
>             Nuddee kinara kanta lugga
>             Tullaka-tullaka ju jaye.
>
>             That means: A crane sat by the river-bank, eating fish
>             /toom-toom/, and a thorn in the riverbank pricked him, and
>             his
>             life went away /tullakatullaka/?drop by drop. The /ayah/ and
>             Punch and Judy always talked Hindustani because they
>             understood it better than English.

>
>


-- 
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu
********************************************


From rpinecorfu at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 27 06:36:19 2010
From: rpinecorfu at yahoo.com (Richard Pine)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 06:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ilds] Fw: Hindustani
Message-ID: <557641.49281.qm@web65816.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

I should have added, that, in conversation with myself, recalling his childhood, LD said 'We all spoke Urdu'. Does this complicate matters further?
RP



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Richard Pine <rpinecorfu at yahoo.com>
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 3:17:55 PM
Subject: Hindustani

Regarding Durrell's childhood familiarity with Hindi, cf Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy pp. 65-6 re Kipling: 'He was not merely born in India, he was brought up in India by Indian servants in an Indian environment. He thought, felt and dreamed in Hindustani'.
RP


      

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Sun Jun 27 09:33:03 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:33:03 -0700
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>
Message-ID: <65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>

Pine also says, "I should have added, that, in conversation with myself, recalling his childhood, LD said 'We all spoke Urdu'. Does this complicate matters further?"

Young Durrell a speaker of Urdu and Hindi?  Possible but likely?  What's the evidence for this in Durrell's later work and "stories" of his past?  A few scattered words of Urdu or Hindi is not evidence for speaking either language.  I know a few words and phrases of Spanish, learned in part from my mother who was a native speaker of Spanish, but I never spoke the language.  I never learned Spanish.

This is nitpicking?  I don't think so.  LGD's greatest gift was his use of metaphor.  Read "From the Elephant's Back" ? it's packed with metaphors which Durrell uses to describe his method and vision/philosophy.  He hauls in Einstein's Relativity again and now adds Quantum Mechanics.  Does he know the physics and mathematics behinds these terms?  Absolutely not.  These are just metaphors he likes to play with.  Now, his childhood in India became a metaphor for something lost, unattainable, and, if you will, "devoutely to be wished":  the dream of Tibet.  That idea is very close to the "blue flower" of German Romanticism, Novalis's "die blaue Blume."  I'm suggesting that Durrell's dream of India was just that, largely a dream.  It had some basis in fact, but he later used it as a metaphor which he embellished, elaborated, and turned into a dream.  And that's the way I take his statements about speaking Hindi and Urdu.  They're not statements of fact ? they're metaphors.


Bruce



On Jun 27, 2010, at 6:00 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:

> Richard Pine wrote:
> 
>>        Regarding Durrell's childhood familiarity with Hindi, cf Ashis Nandy, The Intimate Enemy pp. 65-6 re Kipling: 'He was not merely born in India, he was brought up in India by Indian servants in an Indian environment. He thought, felt and dreamed in Hindustani'.     
>> 
> 
> In order to make a bold point, we might even say that, later in life, 
> Durrell recalled /two/ languages from his childhood: Hindustani and Kipling.
> 
> I think it is obvious that Durrell retained a lifelong fluency in 
> Kipling. Cf. the following remark by Durrell in 1971.
> 
>>        Goulianos: So you think it would be better if the British were
>>        still in India?
>>        Durrell: I don't care fundamentally. The British have
>>        obviously lost their drive, and these things go in rhythms.
>>        I'm not pining for the Raj at all. I'm just saying that my
>>        childhood was influenced there. And for an account of that
>>        sort of life, Kipling.
>> 
>>        "The Fasting of the Heart," Lawrence Durrell" Conversations
>>        (123-124)
> 
> 
> I will re-post below Kipling's major autobiographical and fictional 
> statements on his Anglo-Indian childhood and "the vernacular idiom that 
> one thought and dreamed in."
> 
> Meanwhile, everyone should read more Kipling.
> 
> C&c.
> 
>            Kipling, /Something of Myself/, "Chapter 1 -- A Very Young
>            Person"
> 
>>            My first impression is of daybreak, light and colour and
>>            golden and purple fruits at the level of my shoulder. This
>>            would be the memory of early morning walks to the Bombay
>>            fruit
>>            market with my /ayah/ and later with my sister in her
>>            perambulator, and of our returns with our purchases piled
>>            high
>>            on the bows of it. Our /ayah/ was a Portuguese Roman Catholic
>>            who would pray?I beside her?at a wayside Cross. Meeta, my
>>            Hindu bearer, would sometimes go into little Hindu temples
>>            where, being below the age of caste, I held his hand and
>>            looked at the dimly-seen, friendly Gods[. . . .]
>>            In the afternoon heats before we took our sleep, she or Meeta
>>            would tell us stories and Indian nursery songs all
>>            unforgotten, and we were sent into the dining-room after we
>>            had been dressed, with the caution ?Speak English now to Papa
>>            and Mamma.? So one spoke ?English,? haltingly translated out
>>            of the vernacular idiom that one thought and dreamed in.
> 
>            Kipling, "Baa Baa, Black Sheep"
> 
>>            The Swedish boatswain consoled him, and he modified his
>>            opinions as the voyage went on. There was so much to see and
>>            to handle and ask questions about that Punch nearly forgot
>>            the
>>            /ayah/ and Meeta and the /hamal/, and with difficulty
>>            remembered a few words of the Hindustani once his
>>            second-speech.
> 
>            Kipling, "The Potted Princess"
> 
>>            NOW this is the true tale that was told to Punch and Judy,
>>            his
>>            sister, by their nurse, in the city of Bombay, ten thousand
>>            miles from here. They were playing in the veranda, waiting
>>            for
>>            their mother to come back from her evening drive. The big
>>            pink
>>            crane, who generally lived by himself at the bottom of the
>>            garden because he hated horses and carriages, was with them
>>            too, and the nurse, who was called the ayah, was making him
>>            dance by throwing pieces of mud at him. Pink cranes dance
>>            very
>>            prettily until they grow angry. Then they peck.
>> 
>>            This pink crane lost his temper, opened his wings, and
>>            clattered his beak, and the ayah had to sing a song which
>>            never fails to quiet all the cranes in Bombay. It is a very
>>            old song, and it says:
>> 
>>            Buggle baita nuddee kinara,
>>            Toom-toom niushia kaye,
>>            Nuddee kinara kanta lugga
>>            Tullaka-tullaka ju jaye.
>> 
>>            That means: A crane sat by the river-bank, eating fish
>>            /toom-toom/, and a thorn in the riverbank pricked him, and
>>            his
>>            life went away /tullakatullaka/?drop by drop. The /ayah/ and
>>            Punch and Judy always talked Hindustani because they
>>            understood it better than English.
> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20100627/81b8e425/attachment.html 

From Charles-Sligh at utc.edu  Sun Jun 27 09:37:25 2010
From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:37:25 -0400
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>
	<65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4C277E45.2030608@utc.edu>

Bruce Redwine wrote:
>
> And that's the way I take his statements about speaking Hindi and 
> Urdu.  They're not statements of fact ? they're metaphors.
>
>
Yes, /now/ you are getting a sense of the thing.

C&c.

-- 
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu
********************************************


From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Sun Jun 27 10:02:35 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 10:02:35 -0700
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <4C277E45.2030608@utc.edu>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>
	<65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>
	<4C277E45.2030608@utc.edu>
Message-ID: <1A94C8CF-D316-49C4-B918-387C9DF60A56@earthlink.net>

Charles,

The real question is, to what extent did Durrell know what he was doing?  My opinion:  sometimes he lied knowingly, but he did that so often that lies became Truth, for him anyway.


Bruce



On Jun 27, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:

> Bruce Redwine wrote:
>> 
>> And that's the way I take his statements about speaking Hindi and 
>> Urdu.  They're not statements of fact ? they're metaphors.
>> 
>> 
> Yes, /now/ you are getting a sense of the thing.
> 
> C&c.
> 
> -- 
> ********************************************
> Charles L. Sligh
> Assistant Professor
> 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 Charles-Sligh at utc.edu  Sun Jun 27 10:27:30 2010
From: Charles-Sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:27:30 -0400
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <1A94C8CF-D316-49C4-B918-387C9DF60A56@earthlink.net>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>	<65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>	<4C277E45.2030608@utc.edu>
	<1A94C8CF-D316-49C4-B918-387C9DF60A56@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4C278A02.9040102@utc.edu>

I will give you the gift of a text.

>         But one can see the astute attendant Brahmans from here,
>         skilled in directing the heavenly intuitions of both men and
>         beasts to their own profit. The praises of kings as rehearsed
>         on these documents are monuments of hyperbole[. . . .]  All is
>         done, however, with such an air of conviction and pious
>         purpose that we must use Dr. Johnson's kindly discrimination
>         and say they are not inexcusable, but consecrated liars.

                                Lockwood Kipling, /Beast and man in
                                India: a popular sketch of Indian
                                animals in their relations with the
                                people/ (1904)

-- 
********************************************
Charles L. Sligh
Assistant Professor
Department of English
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
charles-sligh at utc.edu
********************************************


From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Sun Jun 27 12:19:12 2010
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:19:12 -0700
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <1A94C8CF-D316-49C4-B918-387C9DF60A56@earthlink.net>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>	<65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>	<4C277E45.2030608@utc.edu>
	<1A94C8CF-D316-49C4-B918-387C9DF60A56@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4C27A430.5030400@gmail.com>

Bruce,

I thought you were talking about metaphors (and in some respects, I 
should think a metonym) -- if all metaphors are lies, haven't I just 
lied in stating this?  What, after all, do you think of Durrell as a 
highly metafictional author in an age of realism?  That's quite a stand 
to have taken at the time, contra the Auden Generation and contra the 
Angry Young Men -- rather than a realism that teaches us what to be 
rather than what we really are (ideology), Durrell refuses the investment.

I don't expect fiction authors to tell me the literal truth, especially 
when they've made a point of emphasizing the fact that fiction is 
fiction, yet the literal truth (realism, which I see as ideology) is 
what Durrell's contemporaries had on sale.  I'm more than happy to 
condemn how their texts function, how their texts are put to a use, and 
what they've done in their lives, but at some point the work has to 
stand as fiction -- if not, we can never listen to Wagner, read Shelley, 
nor enjoy much art at all...  In part, I think that's why the realism of 
the 30s has fallen to the "unreal"ism of the 20s in much literary criticism.

Tell me more about how you think of Durrell's metaphors?  Form, 
function, and trends?  Whether or not he believed them (and he seems to 
have snapped back and forth quite easily depending on the audience and 
forum) strikes me as a matter for those how lived with him, and that's 
none of us...  Did Eliot really believe he was a catalyst?  Who cares? 
But it does interesting things for his works.

Cheers,
James

On 27/06/10 10:02 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
> Charles,
>
> The real question is, to what extent did Durrell know what he was doing?  My opinion:  sometimes he lied knowingly, but he did that so often that lies became Truth, for him anyway.
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:
>
>> Bruce Redwine wrote:
>>>
>>> And that's the way I take his statements about speaking Hindi and
>>> Urdu.  They're not statements of fact ? they're metaphors.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, /now/ you are getting a sense of the thing.
>>
>> C&c.
>>
>> --
>> ********************************************
>> Charles L. Sligh
>> Assistant Professor
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Sun Jun 27 14:06:16 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:06:16 -0700
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <4C27A430.5030400@gmail.com>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>	<65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>	<4C277E45.2030608@utc.edu>
	<1A94C8CF-D316-49C4-B918-387C9DF60A56@earthlink.net>
	<4C27A430.5030400@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ADCB5D4A-243D-4C39-9904-1F14167FCD09@earthlink.net>

James,

I don't see a problem here.  I'm not arguing about the literary history of the 20th century.  I'm focusing on a man and his use of language in a non-literary context.  Fiction, by definition, is language that is untrue.  Metaphors are not literally true.  To say someone has "eagle eyes" is literally false.  Now, in conversation, statements can be factually true or false.  That's why we have the word lie, and we all know what that means.  That's why the law requires an oath to be taken prior to testimony.  I'm saying Durrell's supposed statements of fact ? "My first language was Hindi" ("From the Elephant's Back") and "We all spoke Urdu" (according to R. Pine) ? were most probably lies ? lies that Durrell turned into his own private myth about India and Tibet.  Did he believe these lies?  Probably not at first, but later yes, or so I think.  Throughout Durrell's oeuvre there're many, many claims about the illusionary nature of Reality, where a character says, as in The Black Book, "Everything is plausible now because nothing is real."  Similar examples can be found in Prospero's Cell, the Quartet, Sicilian Carousel, etc.  I think Durrell truly believed this.  So, if someone lives in a world where everything is possible, where Truth is just another illusion, where metaphors reign supreme and can be constructed according to one's fancy, then lying in everyday conversation is probably the least of one's worries.


Bruce



On Jun 27, 2010, at 12:19 PM, James Gifford wrote:

> Bruce,
> 
> I thought you were talking about metaphors (and in some respects, I 
> should think a metonym) -- if all metaphors are lies, haven't I just 
> lied in stating this?  What, after all, do you think of Durrell as a 
> highly metafictional author in an age of realism?  That's quite a stand 
> to have taken at the time, contra the Auden Generation and contra the 
> Angry Young Men -- rather than a realism that teaches us what to be 
> rather than what we really are (ideology), Durrell refuses the investment.
> 
> I don't expect fiction authors to tell me the literal truth, especially 
> when they've made a point of emphasizing the fact that fiction is 
> fiction, yet the literal truth (realism, which I see as ideology) is 
> what Durrell's contemporaries had on sale.  I'm more than happy to 
> condemn how their texts function, how their texts are put to a use, and 
> what they've done in their lives, but at some point the work has to 
> stand as fiction -- if not, we can never listen to Wagner, read Shelley, 
> nor enjoy much art at all...  In part, I think that's why the realism of 
> the 30s has fallen to the "unreal"ism of the 20s in much literary criticism.
> 
> Tell me more about how you think of Durrell's metaphors?  Form, 
> function, and trends?  Whether or not he believed them (and he seems to 
> have snapped back and forth quite easily depending on the audience and 
> forum) strikes me as a matter for those how lived with him, and that's 
> none of us...  Did Eliot really believe he was a catalyst?  Who cares? 
> But it does interesting things for his works.
> 
> Cheers,
> James
> 
> On 27/06/10 10:02 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
>> Charles,
>> 
>> The real question is, to what extent did Durrell know what he was doing?  My opinion:  sometimes he lied knowingly, but he did that so often that lies became Truth, for him anyway.
>> 
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 27, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Charles Sligh wrote:
>> 
>>> Bruce Redwine wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> And that's the way I take his statements about speaking Hindi and
>>>> Urdu.  They're not statements of fact ? they're metaphors.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Yes, /now/ you are getting a sense of the thing.
>>> 
>>> C&c.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ********************************************
>>> Charles L. Sligh
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20100627/8d7053fe/attachment.html 

From marcpiel at interdesign.fr  Sun Jun 27 16:03:35 2010
From: marcpiel at interdesign.fr (Marc Piel)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:03:35 +0200
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <ADCB5D4A-243D-4C39-9904-1F14167FCD09@earthlink.net>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>	<65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>	<4C277E45.2030608@utc.edu>	<1A94C8CF-D316-49C4-B918-387C9DF60A56@earthlink.net>	<4C27A430.5030400@gmail.com>
	<ADCB5D4A-243D-4C39-9904-1F14167FCD09@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4C27D8C7.1070502@interdesign.fr>

Brice,
Sorry my friend but your phrase "were most 
probably lies" kills your whole argument!
It is a vicious circle that eradicated itself and 
allows any or all suppositions.
@+
Marc

Le 27/06/10 23:06, Bruce Redwine a ?crit :
> were most probably lies

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Sun Jun 27 18:38:07 2010
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:38:07 -0700
Subject: [ilds] "for an account of that sort of life, Kipling."
In-Reply-To: <4C27D8C7.1070502@interdesign.fr>
References: <365030.81624.qm@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<4C274B89.20406@utc.edu>	<65B19039-4638-496A-9351-90EEF4D29E4B@earthlink.net>	<4C277E45.2030608@utc.edu>	<1A94C8CF-D316-49C4-B918-387C9DF60A56@earthlink.net>	<4C27A430.5030400@gmail.com>
	<ADCB5D4A-243D-4C39-9904-1F14167FCD09@earthlink.net>
	<4C27D8C7.1070502@interdesign.fr>
Message-ID: <3DB3FD1A-38C9-4BF9-9701-707F3E91542B@earthlink.net>

Marc, I'm not certain what you're driving at, but I guess you're demanding absolute certitude where none exists.  An accumulation of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in the American judicial system ? and that is based on probabilities.


Bruce


On Jun 27, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Marc Piel wrote:

> Brice,
> Sorry my friend but your phrase "were most 
> probably lies" kills your whole argument!
> It is a vicious circle that eradicated itself and 
> allows any or all suppositions.
> @+
> Marc
> 
> Le 27/06/10 23:06, Bruce Redwine a ?crit :
>> were most probably lies