[ilds] White Eagles Over Serbia

Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 11 11:18:52 PST 2011


Thanks for the long explanation.  When it comes to making blunt statements, however, I defer to your expertise in the area.   In this regard, you should qualify your usage of"Durrellians" — it's misleading and equally "astonishingly blunt."  That aside, I wouldn't rely on what Durrell said about his "potboilers," because authors aren't always the best commentators on their own works, not everything they do is within their conscious control.  This is not my idea.  As I said before, the late Frank Kermode makes this point quite effectively in "Secrets and Narrative Sequence" (Critical Inquiry 7, no. 1 [1980]).  So, LD disparages Sicilian Carousel (1976) as a "makeweight," but I think it is one of his most interesting and informative works — from the standpoint of recurrent themes, characterizations, humor, inventiveness, and above all his delightful prose.  The following is a provisional statement, but it may be that he's at his best when he feels least obligated to be at his best.  I also think it a mistake to take a "two-level" approach to Durrell's writings and poetry.  They should be treated as a whole, just as I consider the man a whole, so I would discuss Sicilian Carousel with the same seriousness as discussing the heavyweights.  I'm not making an evaluative statement about the pecking order of Durrell's oeuvre.  I'm talking about how individual works relate to the man and his concerns.


BR



On Feb 11, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Richard Pine wrote:

> It was an astonishingly blunt statement. If you don't like that book, say so but don't label all other 'Durellians' with a dislike they don't share. My personal least-liked of LD is 'Sicilian Carousel', which he admitted to me was 'a makeweight while I'm waiting for the cistern to fill up with the successor to Monsieur', but I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand, not least because some have spoken highly of it in this column.
> The reason why 'White Eagles' or, for that matter, 'Dark Labyrinth', 'Pope Joan', 'Antrobus', 'Judith' (altho the latter hasn't yet been published, but is discussed in my 'Mindscape') etc etc, don't come up for serious discussion is, I think, due a reluctance on the part of 'Durrellians' to acknowledge that there was a LD and a 'Charles Norden', the latter of whom H Miller shamed LD into discarding as a nom-de-plume for his 'minor mythologies' - the second-string potboilers, 'makeweights', etc. that came in between the major works.
> I've tried to make the case for this two-level activity in what I've written about LD, and am preparing to do so again. One wouldn't necessarily discuss these works with the same 'seriousness' that one applies to the Quartet, Tunc/Nunquam or the Quintet, but one discusses them nonetheless. 
> RP
> 
> From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Cc: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 3:48:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ilds] White Eagles Over Serbia
> 
> I made the absurd statement and am glad to know I was wrong with respect to at least one "Durrellian."  As to the rest of the group, I ask why White Eaglesrarely, if ever, comes up for serious discussion on this list.  I think it should.
> 
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Richard Pine wrote:
> 
>> I've accidentally deleted a message (I can't recall from whom) which (I think) 
>> suggests that 'White Eagles over Serbia' does not appeal to Durrellians. This, 
>> in my opinion, is an absurd statement. I greatly enjoy reading and re-reading 
>> White Eagles, and I think I can claim to be a Durrellian!
>> Richard Pine
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110211/832f4c88/attachment.html 


More information about the ILDS mailing list