[ilds] Mention of the Alexandria Quartet in an Interesting and Controversial New Book

James Gifford james.d.gifford at gmail.com
Mon Jun 2 13:38:20 PDT 2014


Hello Sumantra,

I'm in the midst of travels, but I suggest you check how you're using 
your email program -- I don't control how you set up gmail...  If you 
can't see the messages you send, it doesn't have anything to do with the 
listserv.  It's how you've set up gmail on your tablet.

Perhaps write to me off list to see if I can help you.

Cheers,
James

On 2014-06-02, 10:28 AM, Sumantra Nag wrote:
> How does one get access to a full discussion thread if a post is not
> visible to the sender? There is no answer to this question.
>
> Sumantra Nag
> ---------------------
>
> Sent from my Samsung Tablet
> On 1 Jun 2014 05:11, "James Gifford" <james.d.gifford at gmail.com
> <mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hello all
>  >
>  >
>  > On 2014-05-31, 3:36 PM, William Apt wrote:
>  >>
>  >> I don't recall there being a great number of homosexuals in LD's
>  >> inner circle. In fact most were quite straight and anything but asexual.
>  >
>  >
>  > Rather than his personal network, what about his characters?  The
> percentage jumps...  He was close with George Barker, Elizabeth Smart,
> and a number of other non-writers of the 30s and 40s who had bisexual lives.
>  >
>  >
>  >> Contrast this with the highly closeted Jack Kerouac, almost all of whose
>  >> inner circle were gay, despite his life long cultivation of a solid
>  >> heterosexual public image.
>  >
>  >
>  > But was Kerouac a repressed homosexual?  I'm suspicious of elements
> of the notion itself.  He seemed to be sexual, period, and not strictly
> limited.  Then again, I'm not a Kerouac scholar and may be quite wrong
> on this -- Kerouac was certainly in an "out" milieu.
>  >
>  >
>  >> Finally, LD got involved with some beautiful, sexy women, and had as
>  >> friends others. If he was gay, he certainly had a great heterosexual
>  >> picker!
>  >
>  >
>  > I don't want to sound glib, but many gay men were married, even to
> very attractive women.  It's too easy to speculate.
>  >
>  > Bruce adds
>  >
>  >
>  >> the big objection is what literary critics are fond of making —
>  >> namely, don't confuse the author with his or her writings!  There's
>  >> some validity to this, but I don't always buy the objection and
>  >> attribute it to the prejudices of New Criticism, whose ideas still
>  >> linger and influence.
>  >
>  >
>  > The racial issues with the New Critics, who wanted to set aside
> social context, is certainly open to critique.  But I also don't think
> we can conflate the text and the author.
>  >
>  > I would, however, very much in this vein point to the importance of
> sexuality for content in Durrell's books as well as their formal traits
> and textuality.
>  >
>  > And now to run!
>  >
>  > Best,
>  > James
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > ILDS mailing list
>  > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca>
>  > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>


More information about the ILDS mailing list