[ilds] Modern Bisexual Love and Beyond

Lee Sternthal lalexsternthal at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 20:36:02 PDT 2014

Very long post.  Lost you about half way through the first paragraph.  I know, I'm an amateur, or maybe I just like some laughs with my theory.  But one thing I know: you're hanging literature with a rope of out of date identity politics, far as I can tell.  Think that twine broke in the late 90s. 

Basically, find one line from Durrell's personal correspondence or journals in regards to the topic of his sexual proclivities and desires, or go home.  Seriously.  You're running in circles because you have no proof.  A writer writes his truest desires.  He/she cannot help himself.  

Me and a lot of other people are more than willing to be changed by evidence.  I do, however, wonder about you.

> On Jun 5, 2014, at 7:36 PM, Odos <odos.fanourios at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Lee Sternthal <lalexsternthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think a reading that puts 18 in a closet is boring in comparison...
>> And what if someone thinks that Shakespeare being the sole author is boring in comparison to other theories?  Does that make it true, much less have anything at all to do with the actual work, it's purpose, it's effect, it's meaning?  
> Well, we can continue to toss out red herrings, but it smells fishy...  Sonnet 20 and 18 are in the actual work, and perhaps more importantly, Durrell discusses precisely this reading of the Sonnets (and enthusiastically backs it). What does that then tell us about his allusions to Shakespeare in this novels?  What does it encourage a reader to do when something "queer" appears in the text?  What does it do to our understanding of the juxtaposed 3-part relationships in /Monsieur/?
> And for what it's worth, the "master-mistress" of desire in Sonnet 18 is very much "it's [sic] purpose, it's [sic] effect, it's [sic] meaning."  Purpose, of course, is right back to the author function and intentional fallacy, so perhaps you'd take that part back.  As for "effect" and "meaning," I suppose the question is if meaning and effect are text-imminent traits or reader-imminent.  There's always a combination of the two, but I would think that the reader's understanding of meaning and effect is often tied to the "author function," that is, the construction of an author in our minds that goes on while reading.  We can become immersed in the text, but we usually realize it has a cover, and that cover bears a name...
> We might even dare to speak that name, but for Durrell the symptomatic text doesn't always need the mouth to move for the IT to speak.  Durrell presents texts with symptoms, and that invites a different kind of reading again.
> All best,
> James
> Sent from my iPad
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds

More information about the ILDS mailing list