From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Mon Jul 18 11:20:12 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:20:12 -0700 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <4E23422F.7060608@gmail.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <6F526F7E-14BE-411A-96D9-52236FF67B76@earthlink.net> <4E23422F.7060608@gmail.com> Message-ID: James, You probably have a different take on this, but I'm thinking of Durrell's famous letter to Miller (ca August 1936). Namely, Durrell's statement: "Art nowadays is going to be real art, as before the flood. IT IS GOING TO BE PROPHECY, in the biblical sense. What I propose to do, with all deadly solemnity, is to create my HERALDIC UNIVERSE quite alone." Durrell sounds as though he thinks he's doing something new. I don't think so, certainly not in the context of his immediate predecessors, the High Moderns. Yeats, Pound, Eliot, Joyce ? weren't they all vatic poets and writers? Didn't they all claim to be creating new mythologies and taking on the role of prophets of some new religion of art? So, I don't see Durrell's claim as radical as he seems to think. Unless, and here's the catch, unless he thinks his own personal contribution is unique ? and here is where I'd argue his "Heraldic Universe" is some variant on Taoism. All this I've presented before. So what's your take? Bruce On Jul 17, 2011, at 1:12 PM, James Gifford wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > I'm interested in this bit: > > On 17/07/11 9:52 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> But "herald in" supports Durrell's own statements >> about prophecy. > > Where does that lead you? I'm curious. Prophecy pops up a lot at this > time (late 30s, early 40s), so I wonder how you'd grow the notion. > > -James > From robin.w.collins at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 13:24:11 2011 From: robin.w.collins at gmail.com (Robin Collins) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:24:11 -0400 Subject: [ilds] on Durrell's anarchism Message-ID: A useful excerpt on this subject can be found in George Woodcock's "Anarchism, A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" (Penguin, 1986 edition, page 382): "Shortly afterwards, in 1941, George Woodcock, who was already editing Now as a pacifist literary journal, joined the Freedom Group, and Now, in a new series and an enlarged format, because an anarchist-oriented review of the arts. Continuing until 1947, it published writings by poets and fiction writers from a wide range of the non-communist Left, and Julian Symons, who was one of the contributors, remembered it thirty years later as 'much the best periodical of a radical kind in England during those years...For anybody wanting to know what non-communist radicals thought and hoped during those years Now must be an indispensable document, as Horizon, for example, is not.' Among the writers who contributed to Now were not only avowed anarchists like Woodcock, Read, and Comfort, like Denise Lovertov, Kenneth Rexroth, and Paul Goodman, but also left-wing writers who at most could be regarded as libertarians, like George Orwell, Henry Miller, George Barker, Roy Fuller, Lawrence Durrell, Andre Breton, EE Cummings, Victor Serge, and William Everson." Robin Collins Ottawa From odos.fanourios at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 15:22:31 2011 From: odos.fanourios at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:22:31 -0700 Subject: [ilds] on Durrell's anarchism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nicely noted, Robin. Woodcock was a professor here in Vancouver at UBC, though I never knew him (and his papers ended up closer to you in Kingston, Ontario -- grrr). His autobiography is also quite useful, though he kept his distance from the California/Berkeley group (Rexroth, Duncan, Leite, Miller, etc...). He started /NOW/ in 1940 and ran it through Freedom Press -- the second series began in 1943. Also, beginning in 1945, there was the Freedom Defense Committee organized by Herbert Read after Freedom Press was raided due to its pacifist journal /War Commentary/ (the committee included Read, Orwell, Comfort, Woodcock, and several others, and good portion of their correspondence on the matter is also in Canada, in Victoria). In the 2nd series, /NOW/ was published by the Freedom Press, though it had been a de facto Freedom publication from the very start. To publish in /NOW/ after December 1944 was hardly neutral or just a convenient place to pitch a poem -- Durrell did publish in it in 1947 with "Elegy on the Closing of the French Brothels." What I find remarkable is how much this literary group vanished from the critical perspective despite engaging in so much mutually supportive publication. Best, James On 18 July 2011 13:24, Robin Collins wrote: > A useful excerpt on this subject can be found in George Woodcock's > "Anarchism, A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" (Penguin, > 1986 edition, page 382): > > "Shortly afterwards, in 1941, George Woodcock, who was already editing > Now as a pacifist literary journal, joined the Freedom Group, and Now, > in a new series and an enlarged format, because an anarchist-oriented > review of the arts. Continuing until 1947, it published writings by > poets and fiction writers from a wide range of the non-communist Left, > and Julian Symons, who was one of the contributors, remembered it > thirty years later as 'much the best periodical of a radical kind in > England during those years...For anybody wanting to know what > non-communist radicals thought and hoped during those years Now must > be an indispensable document, as Horizon, for example, is not.' Among > the writers who contributed to Now were not only avowed anarchists > like Woodcock, Read, and Comfort, like Denise Lovertov, Kenneth > Rexroth, and Paul Goodman, but also left-wing writers who at most > could be regarded as libertarians, like George Orwell, Henry Miller, > George Barker, Roy Fuller, Lawrence Durrell, Andre Breton, EE > Cummings, Victor Serge, and William Everson." > > Robin Collins > Ottawa > _______________________________________________ > 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 dtart at bigpond.net.au Mon Jul 18 23:12:03 2011 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:12:03 +1000 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC><6F526F7E-14BE-411A-96D9-52236FF67B76@earthlink.net><4E23422F.7060608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4DA9B7C7789B46F2AA4B843AAD19E7EE@DenisePC> Bruce, this correspondence from Durrell to Miller does support the idea of Heraldic as to Herald in, a prophecy - if so then has LGD's prophecy/Heraldic universe come to be? Can we find keys to our world in his writings? Durrell witnessed and I think enjoyed the cultural boom and freedoms of the 60s, 70s and even the 80s of the last century, but he died before the rise of the new Puritanism, Political Correctness and the surging power of the nanny state, not to mention the growth of terrorism..............what would Larry say today? where is his universe today? If he was in Australia he might like the fact that you can get 6 litres of decent wine for 30 dollars, but would hate the fact that you cant smoke anywhere. He might also like the fact that checked flannel shirts are popular.... spiritually though...........mmmmm David -------------------------------------------------- From: "Bruce Redwine" Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:20 AM To: ; Cc: "Bruce Redwine" Subject: Re: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES > James, > > You probably have a different take on this, but I'm thinking of Durrell's > famous letter to Miller (ca August 1936). Namely, Durrell's statement: > "Art nowadays is going to be real art, as before the flood. IT IS GOING > TO BE PROPHECY, in the biblical sense. What I propose to do, with all > deadly solemnity, is to create my HERALDIC UNIVERSE quite alone." > > Durrell sounds as though he thinks he's doing something new. I don't > think so, certainly not in the context of his immediate predecessors, the > High Moderns. Yeats, Pound, Eliot, Joyce ? weren't they all vatic poets > and writers? Didn't they all claim to be creating new mythologies and > taking on the role of prophets of some new religion of art? So, I don't > see Durrell's claim as radical as he seems to think. Unless, and here's > the catch, unless he thinks his own personal contribution is unique ? and > here is where I'd argue his "Heraldic Universe" is some variant on Taoism. > All this I've presented before. > > So what's your take? > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 17, 2011, at 1:12 PM, James Gifford wrote: > >> Hi Bruce, >> >> I'm interested in this bit: >> >> On 17/07/11 9:52 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >>> But "herald in" supports Durrell's own statements >>> about prophecy. >> >> Where does that lead you? I'm curious. Prophecy pops up a lot at this >> time (late 30s, early 40s), so I wonder how you'd grow the notion. >> >> -James >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From robin.w.collins at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 12:36:05 2011 From: robin.w.collins at gmail.com (Robin.W.Collins) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:36:05 -0400 Subject: [ilds] Typo correction in Lawrence and anarchism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10A23C83-9996-4347-872F-3F60CD726862@gmail.com> Note typo in my previous, should be: "and Now, in a new series and an enlarged format, [became] an anarchist-oriented review of the arts." > A useful excerpt on this subject can be found in George Woodcock's > "Anarchism, A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" (Penguin, > 1986 edition, page 382): > > "Shortly afterwards, in 1941, George Woodcock, who was already editing > Now as a pacifist literary journal, joined the Freedom Group, and Now, > in a new series and an enlarged format, because an anarchist-oriented > review of the arts. Continuing until 1947, it published writings by > poets and fiction writers from a wide range of the non-communist Left, > and Julian Symons, who was one of the contributors, remembered it > thirty years later as 'much the best periodical of a radical kind in > England during those years...For anybody wanting to know what > non-communist radicals thought and hoped during those years Now must > be an indispensable document, as Horizon, for example, is not.' Among > the writers who contributed to Now were not only avowed anarchists > like Woodcock, Read, and Comfort, like Denise Lovertov, Kenneth > Rexroth, and Paul Goodman, but also left-wing writers who at most > could be regarded as libertarians, like George Orwell, Henry Miller, > George Barker, Roy Fuller, Lawrence Durrell, Andre Breton, EE > Cummings, Victor Serge, and William Everson." > > Robin Collins > Ottawa > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110719/85d7f892/attachment.html From rpinecorfu at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 04:25:56 2011 From: rpinecorfu at yahoo.com (Richard Pine) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 04:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Everyone has a milieu, but as the Duke of Wellington is supposed to have said (of his Dublin origins) to be born in a stable doesn't make one a horse. In my opinion, to stress milieu and associations does not, by any stretch of the imagination, lead to affiliation. LD was a noted non-joiner. Apart from his enthusiastic support for the Buddhist monastery in France, he is hardly known at all for any political expression. A letter to the London Times protesting about the open-cast bauxite mining at Les Baux is about as far as he was prepared to go, publicly. Altho James Gifford says that he does not call LD an anarchist, he has done as much as he can to tar him with the anarchist brush by insisting on the associations LD had within the milieu. LD was NOT an 'anarchist', but, in the strict literal sense, a 'monarchist' - someone whose space is directed by a sole ruler - ?i.e. this is the essence of the Heraldic Universe, for which we do have ample evidence - 'I am an autist.... I am God'. He calls himself not a surrealist but a 'Durrealist'.?Within the circle of the HU, he is 'OC Universe' (Labyrinth). As Rank says (Art and Artist), liberated from god, he becomes god. This is expressed as: 'It is in the nature of thought to strike a locus around itself... Pure thought, in thinking of itself, can remain thought', and 'To the east there is no personal "I"; only the void of which "I" is a reflection'. Like simultaneous equations, these statements indicate that the HU was, in his imagination, an intensely small and personal and, probably, short-lived space achieved occasionally.? There was no place within this universe for any other entity, therefore you cannot slap a label on its front door saying 'anarchist within'. Within, there was merely one man's thought, indentured to no tradition or movement. It is in my opinion absolutely ludicrous to say that LD's 'antiauthoritarian'-ism is 'a significant oversight in the criticism'. That, by extension, suggests that if a critic doesn't slaver over this 'antiauthoritarian'-ism he has somehow taken the wrong route. Baloney. Criticism has to be based on facts - the facts of the work and the facts of the biography, and inferences can only be made in relation to those facts, when the evidence is pertinently presented. That is not happening in the present exchange, which is based on a web of insinuations only tenuously related to facts. LD was an artist who, for financial reasons, had to take paying work in the British public service to which he had been introduced in Athens in 1939-40. The 'cusp' of WW2, which I think has been evident to most of us as the most significant 'milieu' or hinterland of his life, dictated first Greece, then Egypt, then the Dodecanese (not yet Greek), then Yugoslavia, then Cyprus.The culmination in Cyprus, painfully expressed in Bitter Lemons, showed how LD was torn between the heart (philhellenism) and the head (need to earn a living as a British public servant). As an artist and? a philhellene he was of course a rebel, but, as Miller said of him, he was 'English despite himself'. The loss of friendship with Seferis is probably the most poignant effect of this head-and-heart bifurcation. I say 'probably' because altho there is much evidence on the subject (Maurice Cardiff and Seferis himself) it would be foolish to press the point definitively. The companion to WW2 in terms of an agon was the landscape of pre- and post-war literature, brilliantly summed up, in a highly personal manner by LD in 'Key to Modern British Poetry' , salvaged from his miserable time in Argentina, in which he writes: 'the trouble with the common reader is that the twentieth century is a battlefield, but he does not know what the battle is about'. Yes, the politics of WW2 and its aftermath were 'complex', but don't insist that we are missing the point if we don't concur with speculative quasi-scholarship. RP From: James Gifford To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES Hi David, I like "herald in"!? Very nice.? I particularly like the rest of that paragraph as well, in particular the "cusp" or turning point of WWII. What, however, does it mean to make such an inward and intensely personal statement (like the Heraldic Universe) while in the midst of that turn?? Does it have a politics, and is it liberal? But in other matters, perhaps you mistake me -- I didn't say Durrell took to the streets in 1968, nor did I say *he* was an anarchist.? I pointed out the importance of Miller & Read's discussion of surrealism and anarchism to Durrell's first articulation of his notion of the Heraldic Universe (an articulation that I would argue changes substantially over time).? In tandem with that, it's remarkable the extent to which anarchist poetry networks and English surrealist groups were involved in Durrell's early publications.? I would, however, strongly argue that a good deal of the antiauthoritarian sentiment and aesthetic of Durrell's peers rubbed off on him, especially up to the late 1940s, and that it's a significant oversight in the criticism. For example (and there are dozens of these, so this is just one sitting on my kitchen table at the moment), Albert Cossery was a signatory of the Egyptian surrealist manifesto in the closing days of 1938 (a politically active group with clear anarcho-communist sympathies), and he relocated permanently to Paris in 1945 when others of the movement were expelled from Egypt.? At the same time, his /Men God Forgot/ was sent to the Berkeley anarchist press Circle (run by George Leite with Kenneth Rexroth and with involvement by Robert Duncan).? It was translated by Durrell's friend in Egypt, Harold Edwards. Henry Miller wrote the introduction, but it's only in one of his unrelated book reviews that he mentions that Durrell had sent the book for Circle to publish.? Circle brought out Durrell's /Zero and Asylum in the Snow/ at the same time and was attempting to publish /The Black Book/, both of which Duncan had already tried to publish in New York through his /Experimental Review/ press set up on a commune in Woodstock with James Cooney (and in whose publications Miller's "group" is identified as anarchist and anti-communist, not that everyone in the group would say that themselves).? Duncan, Rexroth, and Leite were all self-identifying anarchists.? Only slightly earlier, Durrell was co-editing /Personal Landscape/ with Robin Fedden, an outspoken pacifist, and was trumpeting the worth of Elie Papadimitriou, an outspoken Greek Marxist.? All at the same time, Durrell was publishing in George Woodcock's /NOW/ (from Freedom Press no less) and became very friendly with G.S. Fraser during the war, who had been closely involved with the anarchist New Apocalypse in London (though Fraser was also, like Durrell, deeply tied to service to Britain).? Fraser, naturally, had published the first bit of the Cossery translation in /Orientations/ as well as Durrell's draft of /Prospero's Cell/ that still included Nancy. For the 30s and 40s, Durrell was in that mix of folks and ideas, and by setting the works of these groups side by side, a kinship emerges. Durrell's stylistic "cousins" are those in this antiauthoritarian stream, not the High Modernists nor the Auden group, although in this complicated time they all held complicated individual positions.? For that reason, I think that saying Durrell "was essentially a western liberal" is too much a simplification. It has been popular in much of the critical work to misquote Durrell on communism and conservatism thereby easily pegging him as a Tory, but going back to the original texts invariably shows something more complex in which he denounces the cruelties of capitalism while voicing an even stronger fear of totalitarian states and authoritarian regimes.? As for rejecting society, that's not quite the same thing. Roger Bowen nicely discusses Durrell's "In Europe" in this broader context, and I think that political repositioning is worthwhile.? He does the same on "defeatism" vs. "pacifism," the former of which is a much used term by 40s poets, in several instances to describe Durrell (Kathleen Raine does this in a very intriguing manner).? Orwell got the ball rolling with the blending of the two terms in 1942 when he applied it to Alex Comfort, D.S. Savage, and George Woodcock (again, all three published Durrell's poetry in the 40s and all three were self-identifying anarchists). Again, my point isn't to affix a particular term to anyone or Durrell in particular but rather to assert that this was his milieu of the period, and it has a far more complex politics than is generally considered. Also, Tolkien might be a good counter-example: a devout Christian in love with his own pagan-cum-Christian allegory...? Even back to Herbert Read, who became one of the most famous British anarchists of his generation, we shouldn't forget he was also knighted -- messy complexities indeed!? One of the reasons why Durrell's fun is his messiness.? I enjoy the difficulties in pinning him down. But I wonder in particular about your closing comment, David: > Durrell?s universe is now, a post modernist > montage of history, myth, memory and invention > in which true meaning is an individual quest Is this individual in the Heraldic Universe a liberal, or is s/he using the contemporary context in order to return to individual pursuits? More importantly, I think you're looking at the reader, and for that I'd want to ask if Durrell calls out to your own liberal sensibilities?? Or, does the work dangle delicious ambiguities that tempt you to your own "invention in which true meaning is an individual quest"?? In other words, do you sense in Durrell's works a desire to convert you to something in particular that *he* envisioned, or instead is there an inwardness (or ambiguous complexity in metaphor, I'd say) that might inspire *your* own conversion on your own terms? Sorry not responding to those who sent me messages on this a few weeks back, but other commitments pressed.? Hard.? But I'm enjoying the discussion! Best, James On 16/07/11 8:52 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > I while back there was some discussion about the above. I have had a few > thoughts since then which I now post. > > To my mind Durrell was essentially a western liberal with a keen > interest in a range of philosophies and ways of being; a strong > individual yes, but no anarchist. Yes, I think he abhorred the tyrannies > of communism and fascism and indeed Islam (as well as its moral > Puritanism and lack of alcohol), but Durrell was too conscious of the > benefits of British style public order (which he worked to restore on > Rhodes and was part of in Cyprus) to reject government of some form. > Renata Vassilou, who has contributed to this list and who worked for > Larry at the Mazet, has commented on Durrell's obsession with money. > Like Bukowski, and numerous other writers fond of basic comforts, he > worked and wrote until his writing became well enough known for him to > make a living from it, albeit somewhat precariously at times; although > again Renata says he had much more money than he let on. > > Ultimately Durrell was too bourgeois to reject society in the way that > Miller did - but Miller was lucky, in his early years, to be a bum in > the world's most affluent country and to have the nature to bum off > other people as well (as Dylan Thomas sometimes did). Durrell was too > establishment for this. Indeed i think he wanted the respect of people > like Paddy Leigh and was, I think proud of his work in the diplomatic > corps and for the war effort. He believed fascism and communism to be > great evils - the road into the dark valley - and identified western > (British and American) victory as essential to the kind of world he > wished to inhabit: one with sufficient law and order for him to live > safely, one with sufficient prosperity for him to live comfortably > enough and one with sufficient liberty for him to live largely as he > wished and think as he wished - isn't this what we like about out > world?? If indeed we do like it. If Durrell was political, then it > related to the above. > > As to the Heraldic Universe I am no expert on this but wish to point out > that quite a number of discussions on this emerge if you type this into > Google. A number of writers consciously create heraldic universes, Prof. > Tolkien being an obvious example. I have my own to an extent and get the > idea of it - probably why I was drawn to LD all those years ago; he > created a world/universe that I wanted to live in. The idea that > geography has as much to do with cultural manifestations and > spirituality is something my mother, the lord be good her, felt very > strongly about and interestingly she had a number of Durrell books which > I now have. I do think though that for Durrell the Heraldic universe was > more than a mental state of being, it was, IS, a physical world too - > Durrell says this himself; the idea that a heraldic universe of the mind > can be projected onto the physical plane in a real and meaningful sense, > so much so that Larry actually lived it and wrote it which is why his > books enchant ? and possibly why Nancy thought they were all lies; she > did not perceive the world as he did. > > Another take on the Heraldic Universe is - was LGD in fact talking about > a new kind of universe - as in to ?herald in? and seeing himself as part > of that process with due references to Freud and Einstein, the cubists > and surrealists, not to mention those who survived WW2 and saw a > different world emerging from the one that went into that great > conflict. It is easy to forget today what a great cusp WW2 was. Can you > imagine LGD wearing blue jeans before 1939 or dressing in other > manifestations of 'peasant fashion'. My mum reckoned that the Victorian > era did not really end until after WW2 and I can see her point. Perhaps > Durrell?s universe is now, a post modernist montage of history, myth, > memory and invention in which true meaning is an individual quest, if > sort at all with the ancient verities of church and state cast into a > less significant mould? > > David, musing with a glass of Italian Soave > > 16 William Street > Marrickville NSW 2204 > + 61 2 9564 6165 > 0412 707 625 > www.denisetart.com.au > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110721/cb99b7ba/attachment.html From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 11:55:32 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:55:32 -0700 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <6F526F7E-14BE-411A-96D9-52236FF67B76@earthlink.net> <4E23422F.7060608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E287624.3050804@gmail.com> Hi Bruce, My inclination is to look to the opening 3 paragraphs of Miller's /Tropic of Cancer/ -- "alone," "prophet," "Time," and "Timelessness" all take the stage. (Time regarding the "DESTROYING TIME" bit) I would also look back to the High Modernists, but I don't think LD is in the same vein for "prophecy." I'd recall though that the Auden group was in its ascendancy at this time, and the widespread "prophetic" movement that erupted through the New Apocalypse and various other groups was a real break from social realism, and in that sense was a return to the High Moderns. It think LD confronts that in the final paragraph of his final PPPS to that famous letter, "THIS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE," but perhaps that can be read differently. Ray Morrison has said a good deal in his U Toronto P book on Durrell about Taoism and the Heraldic Universe. I don't quite agree, but I wonder if you've had time to look at it? I think you'd like it. Best, James On 18/07/11 11:20 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > James, > > You probably have a different take on this, but I'm thinking of > Durrell's famous letter to Miller (ca August 1936). Namely, > Durrell's statement: "Art nowadays is going to be real art, as > before the flood. IT IS GOING TO BE PROPHECY, in the biblical sense. > What I propose to do, with all deadly solemnity, is to create my > HERALDIC UNIVERSE quite alone." > > Durrell sounds as though he thinks he's doing something new. I don't > think so, certainly not in the context of his immediate predecessors, > the High Moderns. Yeats, Pound, Eliot, Joyce ? weren't they all > vatic poets and writers? Didn't they all claim to be creating new > mythologies and taking on the role of prophets of some new religion > of art? So, I don't see Durrell's claim as radical as he seems to > think. Unless, and here's the catch, unless he thinks his own > personal contribution is unique ? and here is where I'd argue his > "Heraldic Universe" is some variant on Taoism. All this I've > presented before. > > So what's your take? > > > Bruce From marc at marcpiel.fr Thu Jul 21 11:56:00 2011 From: marc at marcpiel.fr (Marc Piel) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:56:00 +0200 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E287640.4020002@marcpiel.fr> I have just revisited "Key to Modern British Poetry" and it shows to me, very clearly that LD was neither "anarchist" n'or "antiauthoritarian". Ity seems obvious that he had a firm and well thought out opinion of british literature. B.R. Marc Le 21/07/11 13:25, Richard Pine a ?crit : > Key to Modern British Poetry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110721/691aeecc/attachment.html From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 12:18:54 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:18:54 -0700 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E287B9E.1030002@gmail.com> On 21/07/11 4:25 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > Yes, the politics of WW2 and its aftermath were > 'complex', but don't insist that we are missing > the point if we don't concur with speculative > quasi-scholarship I like the "quasi" -- it's a stirring flourish, but I don't know how to distinguish it from your dislike of "a web of insinuations only tenuously related to facts." In any case, we disagree but choose different ways of expressing it. > It is in my opinion absolutely ludicrous to say > that LD's 'antiauthoritarian'-ism is 'a significant > oversight in the criticism'. That, by extension, > suggests that if a critic doesn't slaver over this > 'antiauthoritarian'-ism he has somehow taken the > wrong route. Baloney. That's quite an "extension" to make, but slaver over the luncheon meat if you like it. However, since you also raise the specter of facts, let's not forget mis-quotation as a form of falsification -- your "LD's 'antiauthoritarianism'-ism is a 'significant oversight in the criticism'" is a mis-quotation employing your own possessive form appended to my words, which is "tenuously related" to the actual statement. I apologize for not writing something easier to disagree with... What I actually wrote was more clear: >> I would, however, strongly argue that >> a good deal of the antiauthoritarian sentiment >> and aesthetic of Durrell's peers rubbed off on him, >> especially up to the late 1940s, and that it's a >> significant oversight in the criticism. I know that statement's a bit more complex, but surely we can manage it's obvious meaning even if you disagree with it. I have quite a folder now of such slips in quotation and particularly omission... However, this slip might itself answer the question of milieu. As is noted, > Everyone has a milieu, but as the Duke of > Wellington is supposed to have said (of his > Dublin origins) to be born in a stable doesn't > make one a horse. I've nothing against horses nor the Irish. I was born without the privileges of class and wealth and was raised in a rural community, which certainly shaped my milieu. I live in a city where the two best bookstores are run by anarchists and Woodcock's influence shaped a good deal of the literary scene, especially in academia -- the word doesn't worry me. Richard, on the other hand, lives near a town where the anarchist running for mayor (?! I must be wrong about this!) caused a good deal of worry, and while it's unkind to speculate about RP's birth, it's certainly different from mine (we wonder if his closing nosism helps). Surely those differing milieus shape our perspectives in this discussion (I admit it shapes mine) -- surely Durrell's milieu shaped his views as well. The insinuation (via juxtaposition in RP's message) that such a milieu was purely financial in motivation is also unfounded. Woodcock didn't pay, nor did Duncan, Rexroth, Comfort, Cooney, and so forth. Durrell donated work to that milieu... Only Leite paid, and even then "paid" is a very loose term. In fact (a dangerous phrase), the context of Durrell's first articulation of the Heraldic Universe is entirely avoided in this disagreement, which I think is telling... In that first articulation (Aug 1936 in MacNiven, but more likely early 0ctober), Durrell was demonstrably responding to the Read-Miller correspondence about Surrealism, and the letter was itself an explicit interjection into that correspondence at a point where Read and Miller were debating Anarchism and Communism in relation to Read's pro-Communist lecture printed in /The Surrealist Bulletin/. Is it really such wild speculation to describe the absence of that "fact" from scholarship as a "significant oversight." After all, people have dedicated whole books to the topic of the Heraldic Universe without once mentioning it... Even in your comment "He calls himself not a surrealist but a 'Durrealist'," is it not telling that the term of self-description is itself derived from "Surrealist"? A Bloomian attempt by the ephebe at misprision while becoming the strong poet? I don't think I'd ignore it... > LD was NOT an 'anarchist', but, in the strict > literal sense, a 'monarchist' - someone whose > space is directed by a sole ruler I thought you wanted to avoid "slap[ping] a label on [Durrell's] front door", right? This one seems a stretch since the singular ruler is typically surrounded by a vast sea of the ruled, which Durrell clearly did not envision... Or as the man put it himself in a polite disagreement with a monarchist, "I respect the King in you and I respect the king in all men -- that is what I mean, I think; and this undercuts all dogma, which is after all only a manmade roughage." Pray tell, how does your vision of submitting to the rule of one rather than the the rule of none contradict anti-authoritarian views? Would "the king in all men" be closer to the self-rule described by anarchists or the rule of one over all others described by monarchists? In either case, the label isn't of great utility... You needn't agree with me, but let's be more accurate about what we disagree over. I've no desire to misrepresent your position, which wouldn't engender progress. > Altho James Gifford says that he does not call LD > an anarchist, he has done as much as he can to tar > him with the anarchist brush by insisting on the > associations LD had within the milieu. Wouldn't the tar brush metaphor imply ownership or more colloquially a mutual degeneracy? This strikes me as quite the opposite of what I say, though it would be terribly convenient for disagreement if I had said it. Alas. I can only offer my actual statement: >> a good deal of the antiauthoritarian sentiment >> and aesthetic of Durrell's peers rubbed off on him While you can dedicate energy to distinguishing between "association" "milieu" and "affiliation," the distinctions aren't actually a part of the statement with which you disagree. Do you mean to say that Durrell's friendships, correspondences, discussion of key ideas as responses to the positions held by these correspondents, and his publication venues imply no influence on him by this anti-authoritarian and often anarchist milieu? If so, I disagree, but I suspect you mean something more nuanced than that simplification... And then a red herring... > The loss of friendship with Seferis is probably > the most poignant effect of this head-and-heart > bifurcation. I say 'probably' because altho there > is much evidence on the subject (Maurice Cardiff > and Seferis himself) it would be foolish to press > the point definitively. I wouldn't press the point much at all, especially if you wish to exclude everything but facts -- there was obvious tension and some sniping in letters to 3rd parties, but their correspondence continued to be quite friendly despite disagreeing. As for head-and-heart, aren't you leaving out the hands? Thea von Harbou might be an undesirable source, I'll admit. For my part, I don't think the term "Heraldic Universe" had a stable definition for Durrell -- I see it as changing over time, and the contexts of the developing rearticulations is, in my opinion, crucial. For instance, "self" becomes "art" becomes "no self" -- clearly these didn't mean the same thing but reflect changing ideas and emphases that relate to a kindred concept. Cheers, James On 21/07/11 4:25 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > Everyone has a milieu, but as the Duke of Wellington is supposed to have > said (of his Dublin origins) to be born in a stable doesn't make one a > horse. In my opinion, to stress milieu and associations does not, by any > stretch of the imagination, lead to affiliation. LD was a noted > non-joiner. Apart from his enthusiastic support for the Buddhist > monastery in France, he is hardly known at all for any political > expression. A letter to the London Times protesting about the open-cast > bauxite mining at Les Baux is about as far as he was prepared to go, > publicly. Altho James Gifford says that he does not call LD an > anarchist, he has done as much as he can to tar him with the anarchist > brush by insisting on the associations LD had within the milieu. > LD was NOT an 'anarchist', but, in the strict literal sense, a > 'monarchist' - someone whose space is directed by a sole ruler - i.e. > this is the essence of the Heraldic Universe, for which we do have ample > evidence - 'I am an autist.... I am God'. He calls himself not a > surrealist but a 'Durrealist'. Within the circle of the HU, he is 'OC > Universe' (Labyrinth). As Rank says (Art and Artist), liberated from > god, he becomes god. This is expressed as: 'It is in the nature of > thought to strike a locus around itself... Pure thought, in thinking of > itself, can remain thought', and 'To the east there is no personal "I"; > only the void of which "I" is a reflection'. Like simultaneous > equations, these statements indicate that the HU was, in his > imagination, an intensely small and personal and, probably, short-lived > space achieved occasionally. There was no place within this universe for > any other entity, therefore you cannot slap a label on its front door > saying 'anarchist within'. Within, there was merely one man's thought, > indentured to no tradition or movement. > It is in my opinion absolutely ludicrous to say that LD's > 'antiauthoritarian'-ism is 'a significant oversight in the criticism'. > That, by extension, suggests that if a critic doesn't slaver over this > 'antiauthoritarian'-ism he has somehow taken the wrong route. Baloney. > Criticism has to be based on facts - the facts of the work and the facts > of the biography, and inferences can only be made in relation to those > facts, when the evidence is pertinently presented. That is not happening > in the present exchange, which is based on a web of insinuations only > tenuously related to facts. > LD was an artist who, for financial reasons, had to take paying work in > the British public service to which he had been introduced in Athens in > 1939-40. The 'cusp' of WW2, which I think has been evident to most of us > as the most significant 'milieu' or hinterland of his life, dictated > first Greece, then Egypt, then the Dodecanese (not yet Greek), then > Yugoslavia, then Cyprus.The culmination in Cyprus, painfully expressed > in Bitter Lemons, showed how LD was torn between the heart > (philhellenism) and the head (need to earn a living as a British public > servant). As an artist and a philhellene he was of course a rebel, but, > as Miller said of him, he was 'English despite himself'. The loss of > friendship with Seferis is probably the most poignant effect of this > head-and-heart bifurcation. I say 'probably' because altho there is much > evidence on the subject (Maurice Cardiff and Seferis himself) it would > be foolish to press the point definitively. > The companion to WW2 in terms of an agon was the landscape of pre- and > post-war literature, brilliantly summed up, in a highly personal manner > by LD in 'Key to Modern British Poetry' , salvaged from his miserable > time in Argentina, in which he writes: 'the trouble with the common > reader is that the twentieth century is a battlefield, but he does not > know what the battle is about'. > Yes, the politics of WW2 and its aftermath were 'complex', but don't > insist that we are missing the point if we don't concur with speculative > quasi-scholarship. > RP > > *From:* James Gifford > *To:* ilds at lists.uvic.ca > *Sent:* Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:11 PM > *Subject:* Re: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES > > Hi David, > > I like "herald in"! Very nice. I particularly like the rest of that > paragraph as well, in particular the "cusp" or turning point of WWII. > What, however, does it mean to make such an inward and intensely > personal statement (like the Heraldic Universe) while in the midst of > that turn? Does it have a politics, and is it liberal? > > But in other matters, perhaps you mistake me -- I didn't say Durrell > took to the streets in 1968, nor did I say *he* was an anarchist. I > pointed out the importance of Miller & Read's discussion of surrealism > and anarchism to Durrell's first articulation of his notion of the > Heraldic Universe (an articulation that I would argue changes > substantially over time). In tandem with that, it's remarkable the > extent to which anarchist poetry networks and English surrealist groups > were involved in Durrell's early publications. I would, however, > strongly argue that a good deal of the antiauthoritarian sentiment and > aesthetic of Durrell's peers rubbed off on him, especially up to the > late 1940s, and that it's a significant oversight in the criticism. > > For example (and there are dozens of these, so this is just one sitting > on my kitchen table at the moment), Albert Cossery was a signatory of > the Egyptian surrealist manifesto in the closing days of 1938 (a > politically active group with clear anarcho-communist sympathies), and > he relocated permanently to Paris in 1945 when others of the movement > were expelled from Egypt. At the same time, his /Men God Forgot/ was > sent to the Berkeley anarchist press Circle (run by George Leite with > Kenneth Rexroth and with involvement by Robert Duncan). It was > translated by Durrell's friend in Egypt, Harold Edwards. Henry Miller > wrote the introduction, but it's only in one of his unrelated book > reviews that he mentions that Durrell had sent the book for Circle to > publish. Circle brought out Durrell's /Zero and Asylum in the Snow/ at > the same time and was attempting to publish /The Black Book/, both of > which Duncan had already tried to publish in New York through his > /Experimental Review/ press set up on a commune in Woodstock with James > Cooney (and in whose publications Miller's "group" is identified as > anarchist and anti-communist, not that everyone in the group would say > that themselves). Duncan, Rexroth, and Leite were all self-identifying > anarchists. Only slightly earlier, Durrell was co-editing /Personal > Landscape/ with Robin Fedden, an outspoken pacifist, and was trumpeting > the worth of Elie Papadimitriou, an outspoken Greek Marxist. All at the > same time, Durrell was publishing in George Woodcock's /NOW/ (from > Freedom Press no less) and became very friendly with G.S. Fraser during > the war, who had been closely involved with the anarchist New Apocalypse > in London (though Fraser was also, like Durrell, deeply tied to service > to Britain). Fraser, naturally, had published the first bit of the > Cossery translation in /Orientations/ as well as Durrell's draft of > /Prospero's Cell/ that still included Nancy. > > For the 30s and 40s, Durrell was in that mix of folks and ideas, and by > setting the works of these groups side by side, a kinship emerges. > Durrell's stylistic "cousins" are those in this antiauthoritarian > stream, not the High Modernists nor the Auden group, although in this > complicated time they all held complicated individual positions. For > that reason, I think that saying Durrell "was essentially a western > liberal" is too much a simplification. > > It has been popular in much of the critical work to misquote Durrell on > communism and conservatism thereby easily pegging him as a Tory, but > going back to the original texts invariably shows something more complex > in which he denounces the cruelties of capitalism while voicing an even > stronger fear of totalitarian states and authoritarian regimes. As for > rejecting society, that's not quite the same thing. > > Roger Bowen nicely discusses Durrell's "In Europe" in this broader > context, and I think that political repositioning is worthwhile. He > does the same on "defeatism" vs. "pacifism," the former of which is a > much used term by 40s poets, in several instances to describe Durrell > (Kathleen Raine does this in a very intriguing manner). Orwell got the > ball rolling with the blending of the two terms in 1942 when he applied > it to Alex Comfort, D.S. Savage, and George Woodcock (again, all three > published Durrell's poetry in the 40s and all three were > self-identifying anarchists). > > Again, my point isn't to affix a particular term to anyone or Durrell in > particular but rather to assert that this was his milieu of the period, > and it has a far more complex politics than is generally considered. > > Also, Tolkien might be a good counter-example: a devout Christian in > love with his own pagan-cum-Christian allegory... Even back to Herbert > Read, who became one of the most famous British anarchists of his > generation, we shouldn't forget he was also knighted -- messy > complexities indeed! One of the reasons why Durrell's fun is his > messiness. I enjoy the difficulties in pinning him down. > > But I wonder in particular about your closing comment, David: > > > Durrell?s universe is now, a post modernist > > montage of history, myth, memory and invention > > in which true meaning is an individual quest > > Is this individual in the Heraldic Universe a liberal, or is s/he using > the contemporary context in order to return to individual pursuits? > More importantly, I think you're looking at the reader, and for that I'd > want to ask if Durrell calls out to your own liberal sensibilities? Or, > does the work dangle delicious ambiguities that tempt you to your own > "invention in which true meaning is an individual quest"? In other > words, do you sense in Durrell's works a desire to convert you to > something in particular that *he* envisioned, or instead is there an > inwardness (or ambiguous complexity in metaphor, I'd say) that might > inspire *your* own conversion on your own terms? > > Sorry not responding to those who sent me messages on this a few weeks > back, but other commitments pressed. Hard. But I'm enjoying the > discussion! > > Best, > James From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 21 13:23:23 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:23:23 -0700 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> An often informative comment. I agree with Pine's take on Durrell's lack of "anarchist" tendencies but disagree with his criticism of Gifford's position. If James wants to argue that literary critics have overlooked Durrell's anarchism, then let him do so with impunity and without ridicule. I don't see the "anarchist" issue as crucial or relevant to an understanding of L. Durrell, but how am I to make any final pronouncements? I also question the meaning of "quasi-scholarship," presumably based on a "web of insinuations only tenuously related to facts." Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky things and change over time. Particularly when dealing with M. Durrell, whose writings downplayed their importance. Bruce On Jul 21, 2011, at 4:25 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > Everyone has a milieu, but as the Duke of Wellington is supposed to have said (of his Dublin origins) to be born in a stable doesn't make one a horse. In my opinion, to stress milieu and associations does not, by any stretch of the imagination, lead to affiliation. LD was a noted non-joiner. Apart from his enthusiastic support for the Buddhist monastery in France, he is hardly known at all for any political expression. A letter to the London Times protesting about the open-cast bauxite mining at Les Baux is about as far as he was prepared to go, publicly. Altho James Gifford says that he does not call LD an anarchist, he has done as much as he can to tar him with the anarchist brush by insisting on the associations LD had within the milieu. > LD was NOT an 'anarchist', but, in the strict literal sense, a 'monarchist' - someone whose space is directed by a sole ruler - i.e. this is the essence of the Heraldic Universe, for which we do have ample evidence - 'I am an autist.... I am God'. He calls himself not a surrealist but a 'Durrealist'. Within the circle of the HU, he is 'OC Universe' (Labyrinth). As Rank says (Art and Artist), liberated from god, he becomes god. This is expressed as: 'It is in the nature of thought to strike a locus around itself... Pure thought, in thinking of itself, can remain thought', and 'To the east there is no personal "I"; only the void of which "I" is a reflection'. Like simultaneous equations, these statements indicate that the HU was, in his imagination, an intensely small and personal and, probably, short-lived space achieved occasionally. There was no place within this universe for any other entity, therefore you cannot slap a label on its front door saying 'anarchist within'. Within, there was merely one man's thought, indentured to no tradition or movement. > It is in my opinion absolutely ludicrous to say that LD's 'antiauthoritarian'-ism is 'a significant oversight in the criticism'. That, by extension, suggests that if a critic doesn't slaver over this 'antiauthoritarian'-ism he has somehow taken the wrong route. Baloney. Criticism has to be based on facts - the facts of the work and the facts of the biography, and inferences can only be made in relation to those facts, when the evidence is pertinently presented. That is not happening in the present exchange, which is based on a web of insinuations only tenuously related to facts. > LD was an artist who, for financial reasons, had to take paying work in the British public service to which he had been introduced in Athens in 1939-40. The 'cusp' of WW2, which I think has been evident to most of us as the most significant 'milieu' or hinterland of his life, dictated first Greece, then Egypt, then the Dodecanese (not yet Greek), then Yugoslavia, then Cyprus.The culmination in Cyprus, painfully expressed in Bitter Lemons, showed how LD was torn between the heart (philhellenism) and the head (need to earn a living as a British public servant). As an artist and a philhellene he was of course a rebel, but, as Miller said of him, he was 'English despite himself'. The loss of friendship with Seferis is probably the most poignant effect of this head-and-heart bifurcation. I say 'probably' because altho there is much evidence on the subject (Maurice Cardiff and Seferis himself) it would be foolish to press the point definitively. > The companion to WW2 in terms of an agon was the landscape of pre- and post-war literature, brilliantly summed up, in a highly personal manner by LD in 'Key to Modern British Poetry' , salvaged from his miserable time in Argentina, in which he writes: 'the trouble with the common reader is that the twentieth century is a battlefield, but he does not know what the battle is about'. > Yes, the politics of WW2 and its aftermath were 'complex', but don't insist that we are missing the point if we don't concur with speculative quasi-scholarship. > RP > > From: James Gifford > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:11 PM > Subject: Re: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES > > Hi David, > > I like "herald in"! Very nice. I particularly like the rest of that > paragraph as well, in particular the "cusp" or turning point of WWII. > What, however, does it mean to make such an inward and intensely > personal statement (like the Heraldic Universe) while in the midst of > that turn? Does it have a politics, and is it liberal? > > But in other matters, perhaps you mistake me -- I didn't say Durrell > took to the streets in 1968, nor did I say *he* was an anarchist. I > pointed out the importance of Miller & Read's discussion of surrealism > and anarchism to Durrell's first articulation of his notion of the > Heraldic Universe (an articulation that I would argue changes > substantially over time). In tandem with that, it's remarkable the > extent to which anarchist poetry networks and English surrealist groups > were involved in Durrell's early publications. I would, however, > strongly argue that a good deal of the antiauthoritarian sentiment and > aesthetic of Durrell's peers rubbed off on him, especially up to the > late 1940s, and that it's a significant oversight in the criticism. > > For example (and there are dozens of these, so this is just one sitting > on my kitchen table at the moment), Albert Cossery was a signatory of > the Egyptian surrealist manifesto in the closing days of 1938 (a > politically active group with clear anarcho-communist sympathies), and > he relocated permanently to Paris in 1945 when others of the movement > were expelled from Egypt. At the same time, his /Men God Forgot/ was > sent to the Berkeley anarchist press Circle (run by George Leite with > Kenneth Rexroth and with involvement by Robert Duncan). It was > translated by Durrell's friend in Egypt, Harold Edwards. Henry Miller > wrote the introduction, but it's only in one of his unrelated book > reviews that he mentions that Durrell had sent the book for Circle to > publish. Circle brought out Durrell's /Zero and Asylum in the Snow/ at > the same time and was attempting to publish /The Black Book/, both of > which Duncan had already tried to publish in New York through his > /Experimental Review/ press set up on a commune in Woodstock with James > Cooney (and in whose publications Miller's "group" is identified as > anarchist and anti-communist, not that everyone in the group would say > that themselves). Duncan, Rexroth, and Leite were all self-identifying > anarchists. Only slightly earlier, Durrell was co-editing /Personal > Landscape/ with Robin Fedden, an outspoken pacifist, and was trumpeting > the worth of Elie Papadimitriou, an outspoken Greek Marxist. All at the > same time, Durrell was publishing in George Woodcock's /NOW/ (from > Freedom Press no less) and became very friendly with G.S. Fraser during > the war, who had been closely involved with the anarchist New Apocalypse > in London (though Fraser was also, like Durrell, deeply tied to service > to Britain). Fraser, naturally, had published the first bit of the > Cossery translation in /Orientations/ as well as Durrell's draft of > /Prospero's Cell/ that still included Nancy. > > For the 30s and 40s, Durrell was in that mix of folks and ideas, and by > setting the works of these groups side by side, a kinship emerges. > Durrell's stylistic "cousins" are those in this antiauthoritarian > stream, not the High Modernists nor the Auden group, although in this > complicated time they all held complicated individual positions. For > that reason, I think that saying Durrell "was essentially a western > liberal" is too much a simplification. > > It has been popular in much of the critical work to misquote Durrell on > communism and conservatism thereby easily pegging him as a Tory, but > going back to the original texts invariably shows something more complex > in which he denounces the cruelties of capitalism while voicing an even > stronger fear of totalitarian states and authoritarian regimes. As for > rejecting society, that's not quite the same thing. > > Roger Bowen nicely discusses Durrell's "In Europe" in this broader > context, and I think that political repositioning is worthwhile. He > does the same on "defeatism" vs. "pacifism," the former of which is a > much used term by 40s poets, in several instances to describe Durrell > (Kathleen Raine does this in a very intriguing manner). Orwell got the > ball rolling with the blending of the two terms in 1942 when he applied > it to Alex Comfort, D.S. Savage, and George Woodcock (again, all three > published Durrell's poetry in the 40s and all three were > self-identifying anarchists). > > Again, my point isn't to affix a particular term to anyone or Durrell in > particular but rather to assert that this was his milieu of the period, > and it has a far more complex politics than is generally considered. > > Also, Tolkien might be a good counter-example: a devout Christian in > love with his own pagan-cum-Christian allegory... Even back to Herbert > Read, who became one of the most famous British anarchists of his > generation, we shouldn't forget he was also knighted -- messy > complexities indeed! One of the reasons why Durrell's fun is his > messiness. I enjoy the difficulties in pinning him down. > > But I wonder in particular about your closing comment, David: > > > Durrell?s universe is now, a post modernist > > montage of history, myth, memory and invention > > in which true meaning is an individual quest > > Is this individual in the Heraldic Universe a liberal, or is s/he using > the contemporary context in order to return to individual pursuits? > More importantly, I think you're looking at the reader, and for that I'd > want to ask if Durrell calls out to your own liberal sensibilities? Or, > does the work dangle delicious ambiguities that tempt you to your own > "invention in which true meaning is an individual quest"? In other > words, do you sense in Durrell's works a desire to convert you to > something in particular that *he* envisioned, or instead is there an > inwardness (or ambiguous complexity in metaphor, I'd say) that might > inspire *your* own conversion on your own terms? > > Sorry not responding to those who sent me messages on this a few weeks > back, but other commitments pressed. Hard. But I'm enjoying the > discussion! > > Best, > James > > On 16/07/11 8:52 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > > I while back there was some discussion about the above. I have had a few > > thoughts since then which I now post. > > > > To my mind Durrell was essentially a western liberal with a keen > > interest in a range of philosophies and ways of being; a strong > > individual yes, but no anarchist. Yes, I think he abhorred the tyrannies > > of communism and fascism and indeed Islam (as well as its moral > > Puritanism and lack of alcohol), but Durrell was too conscious of the > > benefits of British style public order (which he worked to restore on > > Rhodes and was part of in Cyprus) to reject government of some form. > > Renata Vassilou, who has contributed to this list and who worked for > > Larry at the Mazet, has commented on Durrell's obsession with money. > > Like Bukowski, and numerous other writers fond of basic comforts, he > > worked and wrote until his writing became well enough known for him to > > make a living from it, albeit somewhat precariously at times; although > > again Renata says he had much more money than he let on. > > > > Ultimately Durrell was too bourgeois to reject society in the way that > > Miller did - but Miller was lucky, in his early years, to be a bum in > > the world's most affluent country and to have the nature to bum off > > other people as well (as Dylan Thomas sometimes did). Durrell was too > > establishment for this. Indeed i think he wanted the respect of people > > like Paddy Leigh and was, I think proud of his work in the diplomatic > > corps and for the war effort. He believed fascism and communism to be > > great evils - the road into the dark valley - and identified western > > (British and American) victory as essential to the kind of world he > > wished to inhabit: one with sufficient law and order for him to live > > safely, one with sufficient prosperity for him to live comfortably > > enough and one with sufficient liberty for him to live largely as he > > wished and think as he wished - isn't this what we like about out > > world?? If indeed we do like it. If Durrell was political, then it > > related to the above. > > > > As to the Heraldic Universe I am no expert on this but wish to point out > > that quite a number of discussions on this emerge if you type this into > > Google. A number of writers consciously create heraldic universes, Prof. > > Tolkien being an obvious example. I have my own to an extent and get the > > idea of it - probably why I was drawn to LD all those years ago; he > > created a world/universe that I wanted to live in. The idea that > > geography has as much to do with cultural manifestations and > > spirituality is something my mother, the lord be good her, felt very > > strongly about and interestingly she had a number of Durrell books which > > I now have. I do think though that for Durrell the Heraldic universe was > > more than a mental state of being, it was, IS, a physical world too - > > Durrell says this himself; the idea that a heraldic universe of the mind > > can be projected onto the physical plane in a real and meaningful sense, > > so much so that Larry actually lived it and wrote it which is why his > > books enchant ? and possibly why Nancy thought they were all lies; she > > did not perceive the world as he did. > > > > Another take on the Heraldic Universe is - was LGD in fact talking about > > a new kind of universe - as in to ?herald in? and seeing himself as part > > of that process with due references to Freud and Einstein, the cubists > > and surrealists, not to mention those who survived WW2 and saw a > > different world emerging from the one that went into that great > > conflict. It is easy to forget today what a great cusp WW2 was. Can you > > imagine LGD wearing blue jeans before 1939 or dressing in other > > manifestations of 'peasant fashion'. My mum reckoned that the Victorian > > era did not really end until after WW2 and I can see her point. Perhaps > > Durrell?s universe is now, a post modernist montage of history, myth, > > memory and invention in which true meaning is an individual quest, if > > sort at all with the ancient verities of church and state cast into a > > less significant mould? > > > > David, musing with a glass of Italian Soave > > > > 16 William Street > > Marrickville NSW 2204 > > + 61 2 9564 6165 > > 0412 707 625 > > www.denisetart.com.au > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20110721/55ad86f8/attachment.html From marc at marcpiel.fr Thu Jul 21 14:16:51 2011 From: marc at marcpiel.fr (Marc Piel) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:16:51 +0200 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> "Facts", by definition do not change, or they are not facts! Le 21/07/11 22:23, Bruce Redwine a ?crit : > Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky > things and change over time -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110721/dfc5f309/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Jul 21 18:20:15 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:20:15 -0700 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> Message-ID: <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> Depends on what you call a "fact." On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Marc Piel wrote: > "Facts", by definition do not change, or they are not facts! > > Le 21/07/11 22:23, Bruce Redwine a ?crit : >> >> Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky things and change over time -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110721/476a88cd/attachment.html From rpinecorfu at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 23:45:26 2011 From: rpinecorfu at yahoo.com (Richard Pine) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <4E287B9E.1030002@gmail.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <4E287B9E.1030002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1311317126.41989.YahooMailNeo@web65810.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> I'll put my objections to your speculations rather more succinctly: stop posturing. RP From: James Gifford To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES On 21/07/11 4:25 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > Yes, the politics of WW2 and its aftermath were > 'complex', but don't insist that we are missing > the point if we don't concur with speculative > quasi-scholarship I like the "quasi" -- it's a stirring flourish, but I don't know how to distinguish it from your dislike of "a web of insinuations only tenuously related to facts."? In any case, we disagree but choose different ways of expressing it. > It is in my opinion absolutely ludicrous to say > that LD's 'antiauthoritarian'-ism is 'a significant > oversight in the criticism'. That, by extension, > suggests that if a critic doesn't slaver over this > 'antiauthoritarian'-ism he has somehow taken the > wrong route. Baloney. That's quite an "extension" to make, but slaver over the luncheon meat if you like it.? However, since you also raise the specter of facts, let's not forget mis-quotation as a form of falsification -- your "LD's 'antiauthoritarianism'-ism is a 'significant oversight in the criticism'" is a mis-quotation employing your own possessive form appended to my words, which is "tenuously related" to the actual statement.? I apologize for not writing something easier to disagree with...? What I actually wrote was more clear: >> I would, however, strongly argue that >> a good deal of the antiauthoritarian sentiment >> and aesthetic of Durrell's peers rubbed off on him, >> especially up to the late 1940s, and that it's a >> significant oversight in the criticism. I know that statement's a bit more complex, but surely we can manage it's obvious meaning even if you disagree with it.? I have quite a folder now of such slips in quotation and particularly omission... However, this slip might itself answer the question of milieu.? As is noted, > Everyone has a milieu, but as the Duke of > Wellington is supposed to have said (of his > Dublin origins) to be born in a stable doesn't > make one a horse. I've nothing against horses nor the Irish.? I was born without the privileges of class and wealth and was raised in a rural community, which certainly shaped my milieu.? I live in a city where the two best bookstores are run by anarchists and Woodcock's influence shaped a good deal of the literary scene, especially in academia -- the word doesn't worry me.? Richard, on the other hand, lives near a town where the anarchist running for mayor (?! I must be wrong about this!) caused a good deal of worry, and while it's unkind to speculate about RP's birth, it's certainly different from mine (we wonder if his closing nosism helps). Surely those differing milieus shape our perspectives in this discussion (I admit it shapes mine) -- surely Durrell's milieu shaped his views as well.? The insinuation (via juxtaposition in RP's message) that such a milieu was purely financial in motivation is also unfounded.? Woodcock didn't pay, nor did Duncan, Rexroth, Comfort, Cooney, and so forth. Durrell donated work to that milieu...? Only Leite paid, and even then "paid" is a very loose term. In fact (a dangerous phrase), the context of Durrell's first articulation of the Heraldic Universe is entirely avoided in this disagreement, which I think is telling... In that first articulation (Aug 1936 in MacNiven, but more likely early 0ctober), Durrell was demonstrably responding to the Read-Miller correspondence about Surrealism, and the letter was itself an explicit interjection into that correspondence at a point where Read and Miller were debating Anarchism and Communism in relation to Read's pro-Communist lecture printed in /The Surrealist Bulletin/.? Is it really such wild speculation to describe the absence of that "fact" from scholarship as a "significant oversight."? After all, people have dedicated whole books to the topic of the Heraldic Universe without once mentioning it... Even in your comment "He calls himself not a surrealist but a 'Durrealist'," is it not telling that the term of self-description is itself derived from "Surrealist"?? A Bloomian attempt by the ephebe at misprision while becoming the strong poet?? I don't think I'd ignore it... > LD was NOT an 'anarchist', but, in the strict > literal sense, a 'monarchist' - someone whose > space is directed by a sole ruler I thought you wanted to avoid "slap[ping] a label on [Durrell's] front door", right?? This one seems a stretch since the singular ruler is typically surrounded by a vast sea of the ruled, which Durrell clearly did not envision...? Or as the man put it himself in a polite disagreement with a monarchist, "I respect the King in you and I respect the king in all men -- that is what I mean, I think; and this undercuts all dogma, which is after all only a manmade roughage."? Pray tell, how does your vision of submitting to the rule of one rather than the the rule of none contradict anti-authoritarian views?? Would "the king in all men" be closer to the self-rule described by anarchists or the rule of one over all others described by monarchists?? In either case, the label isn't of great utility... You needn't agree with me, but let's be more accurate about what we disagree over.? I've no desire to misrepresent your position, which wouldn't engender progress. > Altho James Gifford says that he does not call LD > an anarchist, he has done as much as he can to tar > him with the anarchist brush by insisting on the > associations LD had within the milieu. Wouldn't the tar brush metaphor imply ownership or more colloquially a mutual degeneracy?? This strikes me as quite the opposite of what I say, though it would be terribly convenient for disagreement if I had said it.? Alas.? I can only offer my actual statement: >> a good deal of the antiauthoritarian sentiment >> and aesthetic of Durrell's peers rubbed off on him While you can dedicate energy to distinguishing between "association" "milieu" and "affiliation," the distinctions aren't actually a part of the statement with which you disagree.? Do you mean to say that Durrell's friendships, correspondences, discussion of key ideas as responses to the positions held by these correspondents, and his publication venues imply no influence on him by this anti-authoritarian and often anarchist milieu?? If so, I disagree, but I suspect you mean something more nuanced than that simplification... And then a red herring... > The loss of friendship with Seferis is probably > the most poignant effect of this head-and-heart > bifurcation. I say 'probably' because altho there > is much evidence on the subject (Maurice Cardiff > and Seferis himself) it would be foolish to press > the point definitively. I wouldn't press the point much at all, especially if you wish to exclude everything but facts -- there was obvious tension and some sniping in letters to 3rd parties, but their correspondence continued to be quite friendly despite disagreeing.? As for head-and-heart, aren't you leaving out the hands?? Thea von Harbou might be an undesirable source, I'll admit. For my part, I don't think the term "Heraldic Universe" had a stable definition for Durrell -- I see it as changing over time, and the contexts of the developing rearticulations is, in my opinion, crucial. For instance, "self" becomes "art" becomes "no self" -- clearly these didn't mean the same thing but reflect changing ideas and emphases that relate to a kindred concept. Cheers, James On 21/07/11 4:25 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > Everyone has a milieu, but as the Duke of Wellington is supposed to have > said (of his Dublin origins) to be born in a stable doesn't make one a > horse. In my opinion, to stress milieu and associations does not, by any > stretch of the imagination, lead to affiliation. LD was a noted > non-joiner. Apart from his enthusiastic support for the Buddhist > monastery in France, he is hardly known at all for any political > expression. A letter to the London Times protesting about the open-cast > bauxite mining at Les Baux is about as far as he was prepared to go, > publicly. Altho James Gifford says that he does not call LD an > anarchist, he has done as much as he can to tar him with the anarchist > brush by insisting on the associations LD had within the milieu. > LD was NOT an 'anarchist', but, in the strict literal sense, a > 'monarchist' - someone whose space is directed by a sole ruler - i.e. > this is the essence of the Heraldic Universe, for which we do have ample > evidence - 'I am an autist.... I am God'. He calls himself not a > surrealist but a 'Durrealist'. Within the circle of the HU, he is 'OC > Universe' (Labyrinth). As Rank says (Art and Artist), liberated from > god, he becomes god. This is expressed as: 'It is in the nature of > thought to strike a locus around itself... Pure thought, in thinking of > itself, can remain thought', and 'To the east there is no personal "I"; > only the void of which "I" is a reflection'. Like simultaneous > equations, these statements indicate that the HU was, in his > imagination, an intensely small and personal and, probably, short-lived > space achieved occasionally. There was no place within this universe for > any other entity, therefore you cannot slap a label on its front door > saying 'anarchist within'. Within, there was merely one man's thought, > indentured to no tradition or movement. > It is in my opinion absolutely ludicrous to say that LD's > 'antiauthoritarian'-ism is 'a significant oversight in the criticism'. > That, by extension, suggests that if a critic doesn't slaver over this > 'antiauthoritarian'-ism he has somehow taken the wrong route. Baloney. > Criticism has to be based on facts - the facts of the work and the facts > of the biography, and inferences can only be made in relation to those > facts, when the evidence is pertinently presented. That is not happening > in the present exchange, which is based on a web of insinuations only > tenuously related to facts. > LD was an artist who, for financial reasons, had to take paying work in > the British public service to which he had been introduced in Athens in > 1939-40. The 'cusp' of WW2, which I think has been evident to most of us > as the most significant 'milieu' or hinterland of his life, dictated > first Greece, then Egypt, then the Dodecanese (not yet Greek), then > Yugoslavia, then Cyprus.The culmination in Cyprus, painfully expressed > in Bitter Lemons, showed how LD was torn between the heart > (philhellenism) and the head (need to earn a living as a British public > servant). As an artist and a philhellene he was of course a rebel, but, > as Miller said of him, he was 'English despite himself'. The loss of > friendship with Seferis is probably the most poignant effect of this > head-and-heart bifurcation. I say 'probably' because altho there is much > evidence on the subject (Maurice Cardiff and Seferis himself) it would > be foolish to press the point definitively. > The companion to WW2 in terms of an agon was the landscape of pre- and > post-war literature, brilliantly summed up, in a highly personal manner > by LD in 'Key to Modern British Poetry' , salvaged from his miserable > time in Argentina, in which he writes: 'the trouble with the common > reader is that the twentieth century is a battlefield, but he does not > know what the battle is about'. > Yes, the politics of WW2 and its aftermath were 'complex', but don't > insist that we are missing the point if we don't concur with speculative > quasi-scholarship. > RP > > *From:* James Gifford > *To:* ilds at lists.uvic.ca > *Sent:* Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:11 PM > *Subject:* Re: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES > > Hi David, > > I like "herald in"! Very nice. I particularly like the rest of that > paragraph as well, in particular the "cusp" or turning point of WWII. > What, however, does it mean to make such an inward and intensely > personal statement (like the Heraldic Universe) while in the midst of > that turn? Does it have a politics, and is it liberal? > > But in other matters, perhaps you mistake me -- I didn't say Durrell > took to the streets in 1968, nor did I say *he* was an anarchist. I > pointed out the importance of Miller & Read's discussion of surrealism > and anarchism to Durrell's first articulation of his notion of the > Heraldic Universe (an articulation that I would argue changes > substantially over time). In tandem with that, it's remarkable the > extent to which anarchist poetry networks and English surrealist groups > were involved in Durrell's early publications. I would, however, > strongly argue that a good deal of the antiauthoritarian sentiment and > aesthetic of Durrell's peers rubbed off on him, especially up to the > late 1940s, and that it's a significant oversight in the criticism. > > For example (and there are dozens of these, so this is just one sitting > on my kitchen table at the moment), Albert Cossery was a signatory of > the Egyptian surrealist manifesto in the closing days of 1938 (a > politically active group with clear anarcho-communist sympathies), and > he relocated permanently to Paris in 1945 when others of the movement > were expelled from Egypt. At the same time, his /Men God Forgot/ was > sent to the Berkeley anarchist press Circle (run by George Leite with > Kenneth Rexroth and with involvement by Robert Duncan). It was > translated by Durrell's friend in Egypt, Harold Edwards. Henry Miller > wrote the introduction, but it's only in one of his unrelated book > reviews that he mentions that Durrell had sent the book for Circle to > publish. Circle brought out Durrell's /Zero and Asylum in the Snow/ at > the same time and was attempting to publish /The Black Book/, both of > which Duncan had already tried to publish in New York through his > /Experimental Review/ press set up on a commune in Woodstock with James > Cooney (and in whose publications Miller's "group" is identified as > anarchist and anti-communist, not that everyone in the group would say > that themselves). Duncan, Rexroth, and Leite were all self-identifying > anarchists. Only slightly earlier, Durrell was co-editing /Personal > Landscape/ with Robin Fedden, an outspoken pacifist, and was trumpeting > the worth of Elie Papadimitriou, an outspoken Greek Marxist. All at the > same time, Durrell was publishing in George Woodcock's /NOW/ (from > Freedom Press no less) and became very friendly with G.S. Fraser during > the war, who had been closely involved with the anarchist New Apocalypse > in London (though Fraser was also, like Durrell, deeply tied to service > to Britain). Fraser, naturally, had published the first bit of the > Cossery translation in /Orientations/ as well as Durrell's draft of > /Prospero's Cell/ that still included Nancy. > > For the 30s and 40s, Durrell was in that mix of folks and ideas, and by > setting the works of these groups side by side, a kinship emerges. > Durrell's stylistic "cousins" are those in this antiauthoritarian > stream, not the High Modernists nor the Auden group, although in this > complicated time they all held complicated individual positions. For > that reason, I think that saying Durrell "was essentially a western > liberal" is too much a simplification. > > It has been popular in much of the critical work to misquote Durrell on > communism and conservatism thereby easily pegging him as a Tory, but > going back to the original texts invariably shows something more complex > in which he denounces the cruelties of capitalism while voicing an even > stronger fear of totalitarian states and authoritarian regimes. As for > rejecting society, that's not quite the same thing. > > Roger Bowen nicely discusses Durrell's "In Europe" in this broader > context, and I think that political repositioning is worthwhile. He > does the same on "defeatism" vs. "pacifism," the former of which is a > much used term by 40s poets, in several instances to describe Durrell > (Kathleen Raine does this in a very intriguing manner). Orwell got the > ball rolling with the blending of the two terms in 1942 when he applied > it to Alex Comfort, D.S. Savage, and George Woodcock (again, all three > published Durrell's poetry in the 40s and all three were > self-identifying anarchists). > > Again, my point isn't to affix a particular term to anyone or Durrell in > particular but rather to assert that this was his milieu of the period, > and it has a far more complex politics than is generally considered. > > Also, Tolkien might be a good counter-example: a devout Christian in > love with his own pagan-cum-Christian allegory... Even back to Herbert > Read, who became one of the most famous British anarchists of his > generation, we shouldn't forget he was also knighted -- messy > complexities indeed! One of the reasons why Durrell's fun is his > messiness. I enjoy the difficulties in pinning him down. > > But I wonder in particular about your closing comment, David: > >? > Durrell?s universe is now, a post modernist >? > montage of history, myth, memory and invention >? > in which true meaning is an individual quest > > Is this individual in the Heraldic Universe a liberal, or is s/he using > the contemporary context in order to return to individual pursuits? > More importantly, I think you're looking at the reader, and for that I'd > want to ask if Durrell calls out to your own liberal sensibilities? Or, > does the work dangle delicious ambiguities that tempt you to your own > "invention in which true meaning is an individual quest"? In other > words, do you sense in Durrell's works a desire to convert you to > something in particular that *he* envisioned, or instead is there an > inwardness (or ambiguous complexity in metaphor, I'd say) that might > inspire *your* own conversion on your own terms? > > Sorry not responding to those who sent me messages on this a few weeks > back, but other commitments pressed. Hard. But I'm enjoying the > discussion! > > Best, > James _______________________________________________ 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/20110721/3ef32d3b/attachment.html From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 00:33:59 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 00:33:59 -0700 Subject: [ilds] DURRELL, MILLER, ANARCHISM AND HERALDIC UNIVERSES In-Reply-To: <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> Can you both be right? "Facts" may be indisputable but equally useless -- interpretations are shaky yet essential. Of course, for "facts" we're mainly dealing with words on paper, whether it's a legal document or a book, and both have been known to lie or at least be subject to revision a good deal of the time, and that's before we even consider our various interpretive practices. Isn't there a series of novels that uses this problem as a central theme? The Durrellian "facts" have changed a good deal over time, and I've been resiting the urge all day to quote 1933's "Bromo Bombastes": "It's facts that attract us Facts that attract us Facts, facts, facts. Let?s have no subterfuge, Let?s have a deluge, A cataract of facts." Surely LD took facts seriously enough to give them a chorus with such gravitas, one followed by the East Wind swishing across the stage, disguised in a beard... Do you interpret this statement with irony? Is irony a "fact" or an interpretation? Some on the list may recall with pleasure the performance of this short play in 2000 on Corfu with Jim Nichols offering his glorious "Gawd!" in a lead role as the Reporter. Cheers, James On 21/07/11 6:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > Depends on what you call a "fact." > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Marc Piel wrote: > >> "Facts", by definition do not change, or they are not facts! >> >> Le 21/07/11 22:23, Bruce Redwine a ?crit : >>> Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky things and change over time > From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 22 08:14:50 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:14:50 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir Prospero's Cell in 1945. 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:33 AM, James Gifford wrote: > Can you both be right? "Facts" may be indisputable but equally useless > -- interpretations are shaky yet essential. Of course, for "facts" > we're mainly dealing with words on paper, whether it's a legal document > or a book, and both have been known to lie or at least be subject to > revision a good deal of the time, and that's before we even consider our > various interpretive practices. > > Isn't there a series of novels that uses this problem as a central theme? > > The Durrellian "facts" have changed a good deal over time, and I've been > resiting the urge all day to quote 1933's "Bromo Bombastes": > > "It's facts that attract us > Facts that attract us > Facts, facts, facts. > Let?s have no subterfuge, > Let?s have a deluge, > A cataract of facts." > > Surely LD took facts seriously enough to give them a chorus with such > gravitas, one followed by the East Wind swishing across the stage, > disguised in a beard... Do you interpret this statement with irony? Is > irony a "fact" or an interpretation? > > Some on the list may recall with pleasure the performance of this short > play in 2000 on Corfu with Jim Nichols offering his glorious "Gawd!" in > a lead role as the Reporter. > > Cheers, > James > > On 21/07/11 6:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> Depends on what you call a "fact." >> >> >> On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Marc Piel wrote: >> >>> "Facts", by definition do not change, or they are not facts! >>> >>> Le 21/07/11 22:23, Bruce Redwine a ?crit : >>>> Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky things and change over time >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110722/849072d1/attachment.html From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 09:35:19 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:35:19 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com> Have you compared the book to the sketch published while he was in Egypt? The latter includes Nancy... The transformation from one to the other is still overlooked in the scholarship even though the fragment is quite brief and published twice. There's an intriguing introduction to the /Middle East Anthology/ by Waller and de Mauny as well commenting on the rush to set down memoirs before the moment faded -- Durrell wasn't alone at that moment in his creations. Best, James On 22/07/11 8:14 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir /Prospero's Cell/ in 1945. > > 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. > > I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully > reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." > > > Bruce From rpinecorfu at yahoo.com Fri Jul 22 09:33:59 2011 From: rpinecorfu at yahoo.com (Richard Pine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1311352439.25822.YahooMailNeo@web65806.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> I'm not sure why it's said that Nancy called P's Cell 'all lies'. That certainly is not the impression to be gained from her biography by her daughter Joanna. RP From: Bruce Redwine To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:14 PM Subject: [ilds] "Facts" 1. ?Fact: ?Lawrence Durrell published the memoir Prospero's Cell in 1945. 2. ?Fiction posing as fact: ?Much of the content of that book. I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully reported people and events. ?I was wrong. ?Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:33 AM, James Gifford wrote: Can you both be right? ?"Facts" may be indisputable but equally useless >-- interpretations are shaky yet essential. ?Of course, for "facts" >we're mainly dealing with words on paper, whether it's a legal document >or a book, and both have been known to lie or at least be subject to >revision a good deal of the time, and that's before we even consider our >various interpretive practices. > >Isn't there a series of novels that uses this problem as a central theme? > >The Durrellian "facts" have changed a good deal over time, and I've been >resiting the urge all day to quote 1933's "Bromo Bombastes": > >"It's facts that attract us >???Facts that attract us >???????Facts, facts, facts. >Let?s have no subterfuge, >Let?s have a deluge, >A cataract of facts." > >Surely LD took facts seriously enough to give them a chorus with such >gravitas, one followed by the East Wind swishing across the stage, >disguised in a beard... ?Do you interpret this statement with irony? ?Is >irony a "fact" or an interpretation? > >Some on the list may recall with pleasure the performance of this short >play in 2000 on Corfu with Jim Nichols offering his glorious "Gawd!" in >a lead role as the Reporter. > >Cheers, >James > >On 21/07/11 6:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > >Depends on what you call a "fact." >> > >> > >> >On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Marc Piel wrote: >> > >> >"Facts", by definition do not change, or they are not facts! >>> > >>> >Le 21/07/11 22:23, Bruce Redwine a ?crit : >>> >Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky things and change over time >>>> > >> >_______________________________________________ >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/20110722/5f024520/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 22 10:03:35 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:03:35 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <1311352439.25822.YahooMailNeo@web65806.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <1311352439.25822.YahooMailNeo@web65806.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I heard Penelope Durrell Hope make that statement about her mother at the Durrell Celebration, Alexandria, Egypt, 2007. She made it to an audience of several hundred people and added that her mother was so angry that she refused to read anymore of her ex-husband's books. I have reported this event in an article. The link is below. Bruce www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/03/Melting-Mirage-Redwine.pdf On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > I'm not sure why it's said that Nancy called P's Cell 'all lies'. That certainly is not the impression to be gained from her biography by her daughter Joanna. > RP > > From: Bruce Redwine > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:14 PM > Subject: [ilds] "Facts" > > 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir Prospero's Cell in 1945. > > 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. > > I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." > > > Bruce > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:33 AM, James Gifford wrote: > >> Can you both be right? "Facts" may be indisputable but equally useless >> -- interpretations are shaky yet essential. Of course, for "facts" >> we're mainly dealing with words on paper, whether it's a legal document >> or a book, and both have been known to lie or at least be subject to >> revision a good deal of the time, and that's before we even consider our >> various interpretive practices. >> >> Isn't there a series of novels that uses this problem as a central theme? >> >> The Durrellian "facts" have changed a good deal over time, and I've been >> resiting the urge all day to quote 1933's "Bromo Bombastes": >> >> "It's facts that attract us >> Facts that attract us >> Facts, facts, facts. >> Let?s have no subterfuge, >> Let?s have a deluge, >> A cataract of facts." >> >> Surely LD took facts seriously enough to give them a chorus with such >> gravitas, one followed by the East Wind swishing across the stage, >> disguised in a beard... Do you interpret this statement with irony? Is >> irony a "fact" or an interpretation? >> >> Some on the list may recall with pleasure the performance of this short >> play in 2000 on Corfu with Jim Nichols offering his glorious "Gawd!" in >> a lead role as the Reporter. >> >> Cheers, >> James >> >> On 21/07/11 6:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >>> Depends on what you call a "fact." >>> >>> >>> On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Marc Piel wrote: >>> >>>> "Facts", by definition do not change, or they are not facts! >>>> >>>> Le 21/07/11 22:23, Bruce Redwine a ?crit : >>>>> Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky things and change over time >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20110722/cf248b10/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 22 10:12:26 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:12:26 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net> I'll have to read the sketch. I was unaware of it. This has been discussed before, but I think Durrell's "inventions" or fabrications in Prospero's Cell are too elaborate to be the result of a faulty memory or a rush to capture fading moments. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, James Gifford wrote: > Have you compared the book to the sketch published while he was in > Egypt? The latter includes Nancy... The transformation from one to the > other is still overlooked in the scholarship even though the fragment is > quite brief and published twice. > > There's an intriguing introduction to the /Middle East Anthology/ by > Waller and de Mauny as well commenting on the rush to set down memoirs > before the moment faded -- Durrell wasn't alone at that moment in his > creations. > > Best, > James > > On 22/07/11 8:14 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir /Prospero's Cell/ in 1945. >> >> 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. >> >> I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully >> reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." >> >> >> Bruce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110722/a44159c9/attachment.html From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 10:39:38 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:39:38 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com> <1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> What I'd meant was that the sketch he published in 1942 includes "my wife" while the book in 1945 has only the mysterious "N." of uncertain relation -- it's a deliberate revision, so hardly accidental nor due to a casual oversight. He wrote her out of the draft after having already mentioned her in print. I doubt it was based on an intention to "lie" in the traditional sense of the term. Cheers, James On 22/07/11 10:12 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > I'll have to read the sketch. I was unaware of it. This has been > discussed before, but I think Durrell's "inventions" or fabrications in > /Prospero's Cell/ are too elaborate to be the result of a faulty memory > or a rush to capture fading moments. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, James Gifford wrote: > >> Have you compared the book to the sketch published while he was in >> Egypt? The latter includes Nancy... The transformation from one to the >> other is still overlooked in the scholarship even though the fragment is >> quite brief and published twice. >> >> There's an intriguing introduction to the /Middle East Anthology/ by >> Waller and de Mauny as well commenting on the rush to set down memoirs >> before the moment faded -- Durrell wasn't alone at that moment in his >> creations. >> >> Best, >> James >> >> On 22/07/11 8:14 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >>> 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir /Prospero's Cell/ in 1945. >>> >>> 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. >>> >>> I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully >>> reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All >>> lies." >>> >>> >>> Bruce > > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From rpinecorfu at yahoo.com Fri Jul 22 10:46:22 2011 From: rpinecorfu at yahoo.com (Richard Pine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <1311352439.25822.YahooMailNeo@web65806.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1311356782.2321.YahooMailNeo@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Thanks for the link - but Penelope was mistaken. It's a common myth that Nancy did not read the Quartet - but she did. RP From: Bruce Redwine To: Richard Pine ; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" I heard Penelope?Durrell?Hope make that statement about her mother at the Durrell Celebration, Alexandria, Egypt, 2007. ?She made it to an audience of several hundred people and added that her mother was so angry that she refused to read anymore of her ex-husband's books. ?I have reported this event in an article. ?The link is below. Bruce www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/03/Melting-Mirage-Redwine.pdf On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Richard Pine wrote: I'm not sure why it's said that Nancy called P's Cell 'all lies'. That certainly is not the impression to be gained from her biography by her daughter Joanna. >RP > > >From: Bruce Redwine >To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >Cc: Bruce Redwine >Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:14 PM >Subject: [ilds] "Facts" > > >1. ?Fact: ?Lawrence Durrell published the memoir Prospero's Cell in 1945. > > >2. ?Fiction posing as fact: ?Much of the content of that book. > > >I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully reported people and events. ?I was wrong. ?Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." > > > > >Bruce > > > > >On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:33 AM, James Gifford wrote: > >Can you both be right? ?"Facts" may be indisputable but equally useless >>-- interpretations are shaky yet essential. ?Of course, for "facts" >>we're mainly dealing with words on paper, whether it's a legal document >>or a book, and both have been known to lie or at least be subject to >>revision a good deal of the time, and that's before we even consider our >>various interpretive practices. >> >>Isn't there a series of novels that uses this problem as a central theme? >> >>The Durrellian "facts" have changed a good deal over time, and I've been >>resiting the urge all day to quote 1933's "Bromo Bombastes": >> >>"It's facts that attract us >>???Facts that attract us >>???????Facts, facts, facts. >>Let?s have no subterfuge, >>Let?s have a deluge, >>A cataract of facts." >> >>Surely LD took facts seriously enough to give them a chorus with such >>gravitas, one followed by the East Wind swishing across the stage, >>disguised in a beard... ?Do you interpret this statement with irony? ?Is >>irony a "fact" or an interpretation? >> >>Some on the list may recall with pleasure the performance of this short >>play in 2000 on Corfu with Jim Nichols offering his glorious "Gawd!" in >>a lead role as the Reporter. >> >>Cheers, >>James >> >>On 21/07/11 6:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> >>Depends on what you call a "fact." >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Marc Piel wrote: >>> >> >>> >>"Facts", by definition do not change, or they are not facts! >>>> >> >>>> >>Le 21/07/11 22:23, Bruce Redwine a ?crit : >>>> >>Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky things and change over time >>>>> >> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110722/2b152226/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 22 11:57:40 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:57:40 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <1311356782.2321.YahooMailNeo@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <1311352439.25822.YahooMailNeo@web65806.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1311356782.2321.YahooMailNeo@web65813.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nancy strikes me as rather bitter, with justification, so I wonder if she liked the Quartet. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > Thanks for the link - but Penelope was mistaken. It's a common myth that Nancy did not read the Quartet - but she did. > RP > > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Richard Pine ; ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:03 PM > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > I heard Penelope Durrell Hope make that statement about her mother at the Durrell Celebration, Alexandria, Egypt, 2007. She made it to an audience of several hundred people and added that her mother was so angry that she refused to read anymore of her ex-husband's books. I have reported this event in an article. The link is below. > > > Bruce > > > > www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/03/Melting-Mirage-Redwine.pdf > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > >> I'm not sure why it's said that Nancy called P's Cell 'all lies'. That certainly is not the impression to be gained from her biography by her daughter Joanna. >> RP >> >> From: Bruce Redwine >> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Cc: Bruce Redwine >> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:14 PM >> Subject: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir Prospero's Cell in 1945. >> >> 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. >> >> I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:33 AM, James Gifford wrote: >> >>> Can you both be right? "Facts" may be indisputable but equally useless >>> -- interpretations are shaky yet essential. Of course, for "facts" >>> we're mainly dealing with words on paper, whether it's a legal document >>> or a book, and both have been known to lie or at least be subject to >>> revision a good deal of the time, and that's before we even consider our >>> various interpretive practices. >>> >>> Isn't there a series of novels that uses this problem as a central theme? >>> >>> The Durrellian "facts" have changed a good deal over time, and I've been >>> resiting the urge all day to quote 1933's "Bromo Bombastes": >>> >>> "It's facts that attract us >>> Facts that attract us >>> Facts, facts, facts. >>> Let?s have no subterfuge, >>> Let?s have a deluge, >>> A cataract of facts." >>> >>> Surely LD took facts seriously enough to give them a chorus with such >>> gravitas, one followed by the East Wind swishing across the stage, >>> disguised in a beard... Do you interpret this statement with irony? Is >>> irony a "fact" or an interpretation? >>> >>> Some on the list may recall with pleasure the performance of this short >>> play in 2000 on Corfu with Jim Nichols offering his glorious "Gawd!" in >>> a lead role as the Reporter. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> James >>> >>> On 21/07/11 6:20 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >>>> Depends on what you call a "fact." >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Marc Piel wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Facts", by definition do not change, or they are not facts! >>>>> >>>>> Le 21/07/11 22:23, Bruce Redwine a ?crit : >>>>>> Facts, biographical and otherwise, are tricky things and change over time > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110722/08f1eede/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 22 11:12:11 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:12:11 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com> <1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net> <4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:39 AM, James Gifford wrote: > What I'd meant was that the sketch he published in 1942 includes "my > wife" while the book in 1945 has only the mysterious "N." of uncertain > relation -- it's a deliberate revision, so hardly accidental nor due to > a casual oversight. > > He wrote her out of the draft after having already mentioned her in > print. I doubt it was based on an intention to "lie" in the traditional > sense of the term. > > Cheers, > James > > On 22/07/11 10:12 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> I'll have to read the sketch. I was unaware of it. This has been >> discussed before, but I think Durrell's "inventions" or fabrications in >> /Prospero's Cell/ are too elaborate to be the result of a faulty memory >> or a rush to capture fading moments. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, James Gifford wrote: >> >>> Have you compared the book to the sketch published while he was in >>> Egypt? The latter includes Nancy... The transformation from one to the >>> other is still overlooked in the scholarship even though the fragment is >>> quite brief and published twice. >>> >>> There's an intriguing introduction to the /Middle East Anthology/ by >>> Waller and de Mauny as well commenting on the rush to set down memoirs >>> before the moment faded -- Durrell wasn't alone at that moment in his >>> creations. >>> >>> Best, >>> James >>> >>> On 22/07/11 8:14 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >>>> 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir /Prospero's Cell/ in 1945. >>>> >>>> 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. >>>> >>>> I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully >>>> reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All >>>> lies." >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruce >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20110722/2c65a2a7/attachment.html From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Fri Jul 22 12:36:43 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:36:43 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com>, <1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5044@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> I doubt that Durrell was in a rush to capture fading moments. Durrell kept elaborate notebooks, and as he copied from notebook to fabulation, he crossed out the note. There are many examples of this process in the archive. 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: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:12 PM To: gifford at fdu.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" I'll have to read the sketch. I was unaware of it. This has been discussed before, but I think Durrell's "inventions" or fabrications in Prospero's Cell are too elaborate to be the result of a faulty memory or a rush to capture fading moments. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, James Gifford wrote: Have you compared the book to the sketch published while he was in Egypt? The latter includes Nancy... The transformation from one to the other is still overlooked in the scholarship even though the fragment is quite brief and published twice. There's an intriguing introduction to the /Middle East Anthology/ by Waller and de Mauny as well commenting on the rush to set down memoirs before the moment faded -- Durrell wasn't alone at that moment in his creations. Best, James On 22/07/11 8:14 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir /Prospero's Cell/ in 1945. 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." Bruce From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 22 13:01:41 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:01:41 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5044@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com>, <1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5044@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: Exactly ? the palimpsest approach to reality and Truth. "It seemed to me then to be somehow symbolic of the very reality we had shared ? a palimpsest upon which each of us had left his or her individual traces, layer by layer" (Balthazar, pp. 21-22). Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > I doubt that Durrell was in a rush to capture fading moments. Durrell kept elaborate notebooks, and as he copied from notebook to fabulation, he crossed out the note. There are many examples of this process in the archive. > > 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: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:12 PM > To: gifford at fdu.edu; ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > I'll have to read the sketch. I was unaware of it. This has been discussed before, but I think Durrell's "inventions" or fabrications in Prospero's Cell are too elaborate to be the result of a faulty memory or a rush to capture fading moments. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, James Gifford wrote: > > Have you compared the book to the sketch published while he was in > Egypt? The latter includes Nancy... The transformation from one to the > other is still overlooked in the scholarship even though the fragment is > quite brief and published twice. > > There's an intriguing introduction to the /Middle East Anthology/ by > Waller and de Mauny as well commenting on the rush to set down memoirs > before the moment faded -- Durrell wasn't alone at that moment in his > creations. > > Best, > James > > On 22/07/11 8:14 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > 1. Fact: Lawrence Durrell published the memoir /Prospero's Cell/ in 1945. > > 2. Fiction posing as fact: Much of the content of that book. > > I once took no. 2 as fact, naively believing that Durrell truthfully > reported people and events. I was wrong. Nancy Myers called it, "All lies." > > > Bruce > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110722/29416c45/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 22 13:09:29 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:09:29 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Cairo Museum Message-ID: My second go at this question. Any evidence (letters or anecdotal) that Durrell visited the Egyptian Antiquities Museum, Cairo, during his wartime years in Egypt? Bruce From charles-sligh at utc.edu Fri Jul 22 15:00:58 2011 From: charles-sligh at utc.edu (Charles Sligh) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:00:58 +0100 Subject: [ilds] Does this biog of Nancy have a title? Message-ID: <4E29F31A.5090105@utc.edu> Joanna Hodgkin, AMATEURS IN EDEN (Virago, February 2012). "They Did Glimpse Something Magical in Those Years": A Conversation with Joanna Hodgkin. Ms. Hodgkin has graciously agreed to give a talk on her mother and the new biography at Goodenough College during Durrell 2012: The Lawrence Durrell Centenary in June 2012. -- ******************************************** 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/20110722/2412a51a/attachment.html From dtart at bigpond.net.au Fri Jul 22 14:38:50 2011 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 07:38:50 +1000 Subject: [ilds] Attention Renata Vassiliou Message-ID: <5D9B46AC5BD5402C903C89D52A8848A6@DenisePC> Chere Renata, Merci enormement de renouer le contact apr?s si longtemps. J'ai beaucoup apprecie vos commentaries au sujet des habitudes de consommation de vin de Lawrence Durrell et des parties et des mazets que vous m'aviez envoye il y a a peu pres 1 an. J'aimerai definitivement en savoir plus sur ces histoires. Par example, quel genre de nourriture il aime? Quels etaient ses habitudes de travail? J'ai note que vous etiez avec lui au Mazet? Qelles annees etaient-elles? Est-ce-que Claude etait il encore en vie? Je n'avais jamais su que Larry pouvait jouer du piano mais je l'avais vu en photos avec une guitare. Je trouve tres interessant votre perspicacite au sujet de la personne qu'est Larry, car la plupart des eleves de Durrell ne veulent que parler de ses livres. Je suis l'un de ceux qui aiment en savoir plus sur les ecrivains jusqu'a meme aller aux details comme par example savoir la marque de cigarette qu'ils fument ou quelle genre de voitures ils aiment conduire. Sur ce, a tres bientot de vos nouvelles. Cordialement, David Green 16 William Street Marrickville NSW 2204 + 61 2 9564 6165 0412 707 625 www.denisetart.com.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110723/7a17a3d8/attachment.html From dtart at bigpond.net.au Fri Jul 22 14:48:25 2011 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 07:48:25 +1000 Subject: [ilds] Biography of Nancy Message-ID: RP, Does this biog of Nancy have a title? Would like to read it somehow. David, enjoying the recent postings... 16 William Street Marrickville NSW 2204 Australia 02 9564 6165 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110723/410b9560/attachment.html From dtart at bigpond.net.au Fri Jul 22 15:07:31 2011 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:07:31 +1000 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. Bruce My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my 1945 hardback Zarian says:- "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? David Whitewine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110723/71cd91ad/attachment.html From dtart at bigpond.net.au Fri Jul 22 15:18:58 2011 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:18:58 +1000 Subject: [ilds] Diving for cherries Message-ID: <5B3119FD998744DBB179628E09F59DDA@DenisePC> Durrell 2012: If you can imagine reading Prospero's Cell with your mother's eye and ear, what do you think she would have to say about it? Joanna Hodgkin: This is quite hard to answer, in fact I'm not sure that I can. She must have talked about it, but I have no memory, except she was always fairly skeptical about the diving for cherries part. She was an intensely honest person, and would have wanted the whole picture to be recorded, whereas Larry was interested in a different kind of truth. Kind of supports what some of us have been saying for a while. And now I will definately have to make it London in 2012. Charles where is that Cunard liner????you know the steel duck with four big funnels?? David 16 William Street Marrickville NSW 2204 + 61 2 9564 6165 0412 707 625 www.denisetart.com.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110723/b73c1cf0/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jul 22 16:11:06 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:11:06 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC> Message-ID: <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> David, Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have something to say about that. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. > > Bruce > > My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my 1945 hardback Zarian says:- > > "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm > > The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? > > David Whitewine > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110722/4686a73b/attachment.html From marc at marcpiel.fr Sat Jul 23 05:33:24 2011 From: marc at marcpiel.fr (Marc Piel) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:33:24 +0200 Subject: [ilds] Does this biog of Nancy have a title? In-Reply-To: <4E29F31A.5090105@utc.edu> References: <4E29F31A.5090105@utc.edu> Message-ID: <4E2ABF94.8080508@marcpiel.fr> I have never doubted that Nancy was a far more complex individual than is made out. Otherwise how would she have attracted LD in the first place. And when she chose to go to Palestine (this seems to be a known and undisputed "fact") .... Only a very complex person would do that. B. R. Marc Le 23/07/11 00:00, Charles Sligh a ?crit : > Joanna Hodgkin, AMATEURS IN EDEN (Virago, > February 2012). > > > "They Did Glimpse Something Magical in Those > Years": A Conversation with Joanna Hodgkin. > > > Ms. Hodgkin has graciously agreed to give a talk > on her mother and the new biography at > Goodenough College during Durrell 2012: The > Lawrence Durrell Centenary > > in June 2012. > -- > ******************************************** > 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/20110723/f5b88566/attachment.html From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Sat Jul 23 19:24:13 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 22:24:13 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC>, <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this writing. I asked him to do that. Verbal clues do not a real person make. Bill (this name is NOT 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: Friday, July 22, 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart & David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" David, Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have something to say about that. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. Bruce My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my 1945 hardback Zarian says:- "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? David Whitewine From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Sat Jul 23 21:22:42 2011 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 21:22:42 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC>, <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <4E2B9E12.7020200@gmail.com> I was waiting for Bill! I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my signature before any other part of me... > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see the little black letters." I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > Verbal clues do not a real person make. Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. Best, James On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words > on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. > > I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this > writing. I asked him to do that. > > Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Bill (this name is NOT 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: Friday, July 22, > 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: > Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > David, > > Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to > do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? > Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a > professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne > plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not > Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I > can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make > himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped > by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he > appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, > as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have > something to say about that. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: > > No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have > "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have > in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a > granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count > D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's > the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in > Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. > > Bruce > > My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's > Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, > and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a > projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own > universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the > author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of > wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and > Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who > appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book > twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my > 1945 hardback Zarian says:- > > "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and > if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me > about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm > > The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it > is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? > > David Whitewine > > > > _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Sun Jul 24 08:15:36 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 08:15:36 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC>, <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Message-ID: <5C4F6E31-F0F7-48CD-8124-9251884D625A@earthlink.net> Whatever the philosophical merits of saying words and images aren't real, the fact is that we live and act in a world of convention. It won't get you very far in a court of law to plead your innocence if a video accurately records you committing a crime. The court won't listen to your claim that the video recording is not "real." So, if Lawrence Durrell plays a literary game in Prospero's Cell and disguises himself as Count D. and if readers uncover and expose that ruse, then I'll say that the Count is actually the real L. G. Durrell. Bruce On Jul 23, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. > > I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this writing. I asked him to do that. > > Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Bill (this name is NOT 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: Friday, July 22, 2011 7:11 PM > To: Denise Tart & David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > David, > > Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have something to say about that. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > > No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. > > Bruce > > My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my 1945 hardback Zarian says:- > > "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm > > The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? > > David Whitewine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110724/ef377385/attachment.html From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Sun Jul 24 08:46:52 2011 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 08:46:52 -0700 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <4E2B9E12.7020200@gmail.com> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC>, <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> <4E2B9E12.7020200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C832648-57DD-4DF8-826C-FEE2AA9CD23C@earthlink.net> I think that the Alfred Hitchcock sitting next to Cary Grant in that bus in To Catch a Thief is the real Alfred Hitchcock "putting himself in his work." Who else would he be? Another example: Vel?squez in Las Meninas, which is very complicated and controversial. It's the subject of John Searle's article, "Las Manias and the Paradoxes of Pictorial Representation," Critical Inquiry 6, no. 3 (1980). Foucault also discusses it in the beginning to Les Mots et les choses. I'm not saying Searle and Foucault support what I'm saying, rather that they deal with the topic. Bruce On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:22 PM, James Gifford wrote: > I was waiting for Bill! > > I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I > would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for > my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved > out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my > signature before any other part of me... > >> Bill (this name is NOT ME.) > > I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you > are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... > It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see > the little black letters." > > I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. > > Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in > his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work > (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put > him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock > than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even > recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > >> Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or > as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? > Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. > "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. > > Best, > James > > On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: >> As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words >> on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. >> >> I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this >> writing. I asked him to do that. >> >> Verbal clues do not a real person make. >> >> Bill (this name is NOT 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: Friday, July 22, >> 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: >> Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" >> >> David, >> >> Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to >> do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? >> Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a >> professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne >> plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not >> Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I >> can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make >> himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped >> by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he >> appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, >> as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have >> something to say about that. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: >> >> No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have >> "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have >> in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a >> granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count >> D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's >> the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in >> Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. >> >> Bruce >> >> My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's >> Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, >> and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a >> projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own >> universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the >> author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of >> wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and >> Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who >> appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book >> twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my >> 1945 hardback Zarian says:- >> >> "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and >> if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me >> about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm >> >> The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it >> is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? >> >> David Whitewine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20110724/17922251/attachment.html From godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu Sun Jul 24 13:15:49 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:15:49 -0400 Subject: [ilds] sparagmos Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5048@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> Sparagmos -- poor James. Language is metaphoric. And sometimes the metaphors we use are confusing. Even salacious -- like I put my all into this email. In EM English "all" can mean penis. Nothing means tunc. Well. I'd better hit the road. Will in double plus. 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: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:22 AM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" I was waiting for Bill! I've been told recently to "put myself first," but I wasn't sure where I would put myself and just what part of me would qualify -- I opted for my signature, but somehow I didn't seem to be there as they sheet moved out of sight, and I must admit that I'd be gladly parted from my signature before any other part of me... > Bill (this name is NOT ME.) I'm thinking of LD's "Asylum in the Snow": "What is in a name? When you are afraid of something, or you want to hate it, you give it a name.... It is covered in a name, and you do not see it properly, you only see the little black letters." I can only hope that I've somehow got to know "YOU" over the years. Of course, Hitchcock had something else in mind when he "appeared" in his work, which ain't quite the same as "putting" himself in his work (and now I think back to my restaurant days...). Hitchcock could put him image in his films, but I'm quite sure it's a different Hitchcock than the work-a-day man at home with his wife, and she might even recognize his performance of self rather than self. Self to Not-Self? > Verbal clues do not a real person make. Now, this is open to a good debate... Am "I" more than verbal clues, or as other may have it, a linguistic posture? A real person pre-verbal? Hmmm. I'm torn between the reactionary and the radical on that one. "I" really am "torn," whatever that means. Best, James On 23/07/11 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: > As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words > on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. > > I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this > writing. I asked him to do that. > > Verbal clues do not a real person make. > > Bill (this name is NOT 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: Friday, July 22, > 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart& David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: > Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" > > David, > > Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to > do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? > Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a > professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne > plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not > Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I > can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make > himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped > by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he > appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, > as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have > something to say about that. > > > Bruce > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart& David Green wrote: > > No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have > "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have > in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a > granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count > D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's > the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in > Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. > > Bruce > > My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's > Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, > and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a > projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own > universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the > author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of > wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and > Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who > appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book > twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my > 1945 hardback Zarian says:- > > "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and > if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me > about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm > > The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it > is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? > > David Whitewine > > > > _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Jul 24 20:05:54 2011 From: godshawl at ucmail.uc.edu (Godshalk, William (godshawl)) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:05:54 -0400 Subject: [ilds] "Facts" In-Reply-To: <5C4F6E31-F0F7-48CD-8124-9251884D625A@earthlink.net> References: <5F071EE31BAB41BCB1EACA56FC4BA2C8@DenisePC> <4E2341FA.8030302@gmail.com> <1311247556.25841.YahooMailNeo@web65803.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <64EDA7E7-9135-48A3-BE32-73B72A4AFA8F@earthlink.net> <4E289743.9030300@marcpiel.fr> <76F271A3-9551-48AB-A4D2-5DD2B25B5B2A@earthlink.net> <4E2927E7.6040007@gmail.com> <8242FDC9-8E86-4C6A-BBEA-1C2FB55B6046@earthlink.net> <4E29A6C7.3050104@gmail.com><1E0BA3FB-A967-4AB3-93D6-ABDD07B724DB@earthlink.net><4E29B5DA.5050103@gmail.com> <3CBAF10A-323B-408E-8D31-5AB50C795661@earthlink.net> <3BFA8F70DAE64F3C89B5B61673A77382@DenisePC>, <527F73DA-9329-413C-A299-360A69E2907D@earthlink.net> <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F5047@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu>, <5C4F6E31-F0F7-48CD-8124-9251884D625A@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <94B18F18BF859846A11A82A6166B6C4201F3E60F504B@UCMAILBE2.ad.uc.edu> A photo may be of a person while not being that person. Some where out there is a picture of two people -- one with a hangover and the other laughing at his shaking hands. These two people are not Lawrence Durrell and Bill Godshalk. But there is such a photo. Guess who's being drinking. 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: Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:15 AM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" Whatever the philosophical merits of saying words and images aren't real, the fact is that we live and act in a world of convention. It won't get you very far in a court of law to plead your innocence if a video accurately records you committing a crime. The court won't listen to your claim that the video recording is not "real." So, if Lawrence Durrell plays a literary game in Prospero's Cell and disguises himself as Count D. and if readers uncover and expose that ruse, then I'll say that the Count is actually the real L. G. Durrell. Bruce On Jul 23, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Godshalk, William (godshawl) wrote: As I've said before -- and heard on the radio this evening -- words on a page aren't real people. A photo is not a read person. I once had a student who said that he could put himself into this writing. I asked him to do that. Verbal clues do not a real person make. Bill (this name is NOT 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: Friday, July 22, 2011 7:11 PM To: Denise Tart & David Green; ilds at lists.uvic.ca Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] "Facts" David, Yes. Artists appear in their own works. Painters have been known to do this ? and I'm not referring to self-portraits. Caravaggio? Alfred Hitchcock walks through his own films. I once had a professor, Ralph Rader, argue convincingly that Laurence Sterne plants clues that he himself is the father of Tristram Shandy and not Walter Shandy, the fictional father. Etc., etc. Offhand, however, I can't think of anyone going to the extent Durrell does to make himself a character in his own book. A lot of people have been duped by Count D., but he's fictional in the sense he's not the person he appears to be. This gets complicated, however, because he is real, as real as LD himself. But was LD real? Psychiatrists should have something to say about that. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: No, I don't think "N." instead of "Nancy" is a lie. We also have "E." (Eve) in Reflections on a Marine Venus. The inventions I have in mind are ones such as the scene at Saint Arsenius, which a granddaughter questions as true (see Charles newspaper), and Count D., who is most probably old LD himself in disguise. Then there's the whole issue of the plagiarism of Sophie Atkinson's An Artist in Corfu. I would call such plagiarism a form of lying. Bruce My Dear Redwine, I have been reading over some passages of Prospero's Cell, arguable the finest book ever written in the English language, and find myself coming to your view that Count D is indeed a projection of /creation of the author - the artist as god of his own universe. Counts D's philosophical speculations are those of the author, the recluse in valley is what Larry became later, the love of wine and peasants, the knowledge of Shakespeare. Zarian, Theodore and Max appear in the book with their consent..but why then count 'D' who appears with his own consent? the author appears in his own book twice with the old count cradling the young author. on page 77 of my 1945 hardback Zarian says:- "if only he would write a book...it would be a work of genius...and if he can live without the thought of suicide.." something struck me about this - the literary ambition and Durrell dark side..mmm The character of the Count has always inspired me. perhaps because it is like meeting the author in his chosen landscape??? David Whitewine