[ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 2

Wed Jun 3 00:39:43 PDT 2015

I don'y think it's accurate to say that Wilde and Beardsley "collaborated" on the play Salome - B was certainly involved, as a potential translator from W's French original, but he didn't actually collaborate. The illustrations for the book edition are, of course, another matter.
RP 
-----Original Message-----
From: ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 03:01 PM
To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 2

Send ILDS mailing list submissions to	ilds at lists.uvic.caTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit	https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ildsor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to	ilds-request at lists.uvic.caYou can reach the person managing the list at	ilds-owner at lists.uvic.caWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..."Today's Topics: 1. Re: Note re: the name ?Aubrey? (Bruce Redwine) 2. Re: ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 1 (mail at durrelllibrarycorfu.org) 3. Odious masterpieces (Bruce Redwine) 4. Odious masterpieces (Bruce Redwine) 5. Re: Odious masterpieces (William Apt) 6. Re: Odious masterpieces (Bruce Redwine)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:56:12 -0700From: Bruce Redwine To: ilds at lists.uvic.caCc: Ken Gammage ,	James Gifford	,	Bruce Redwine	Subject: Re: [ilds] Note re: the name ?Aubrey?Message-ID: <37966146-3516-4F5E-B945-05E7E1EEF587 at earthlink.net>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"Ken, now Robin Sutcliffe as Buck Mulligan is indeed a fascinating idea. Of course, that makes Aubrey Blanford a Stephen Dedalus, which, as you point out, doesn?t really work. James notes the correspondences between Joyce?s Portrait and Durrell?s Quartet, so LD surely felt the pull of the Joycean hero. I go back, however, to your idea of effeminacy, with a link to homosexuality, which has a way of creeping into Durrell?s work in unexpected places. Aubrey Blanford and Aubrey Beardsley (1872-1898) have similar names, initials, artistic interests, and dubious sexuality. Why do characters such as Melissa and Blanford have to be ?wounded in their sex?? Wilde and Beardsley collaborated on the play Salome, produced a book (1894), with Beardsley?s illustrations. Those drawings are full of nude androgynous figures; the cover shows a stylized Salome admiring the Baptist?s (?Iokanaan?s?) severed head. It recalls Freud?s castration complex and what happens to Piers and his missin! g head in the Quintet. Beardsley would have made a fine illustrator for the Quintet.Bruce> On May 31, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Kennedy Gammage  wrote:> > Thank you James and Bruce. I guess my take-away is, if Durrell was consciously saddling his character with a name known to be a byword for effeminacy, it serves to further weaken the Alpha Male primacy of Blanford the Novelist: would-be alter ego/ delusional creator of other characters etc. It may help us make allowances for his egotism, for this is an at-times deeply insecure person who has truly been ?wounded in his sex.? Aubrey is no Stephen Dedalus - he will in no sense grow up to write the Avignon Quintet, though that would have saved Durrell quite a bit of work. Blanford?s friend and foil Sutcliffe has a bit of Buck Mulligan in him.> > Cheers - Ken > > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:53 PM, James Gifford > wrote:> Hi Bruce & Ken,> > Since I technically am a "Don Gifford," I feel like I need to respond to this one (I devilishly enjoy pointing out that my father is Don Gifford when I'm at the Modernist Studies Association conferences, just not /that/ Don).> > Might I suggest the MVP Ulysses?> > http://web.uvic.ca/~mvp1922/portfolio/ulysses-shakespeare-co-1922-1st-edn/ > > Apart from the text, we have a whole series of videos including ILDS members James Clawson, Alan Warren Friedman, and Michael Stevens.> > Charles could indeed elaborate, but perhaps we'll get Clawson to chime in as well -- he was in the NEH Ulysses seminar in Dublin just after the centenary conference in London.> > Durrell could very well be thinking of Joyce, and his CalTech lectures included a detailed consideration of Ulysses (a *very* Durrellian version of Joyce, albeit). As for Joyce thinking of Wilde, he did have Dorian Gray in his library in Trieste and the Italian translation.> > On 2015-05-31 3:47 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote:> 1. How is Aubrey Blanford effeminate in the Joycean sense of an Aubrey> Beardsley and/or Oscar Wilde?> > I don't suspect he is, and I doubt Durrell would have been reading Don Gifford, though who knows. It wasn't in his library for Carbondale nor Paris X.> > 2. Why does Blanford refer to /Ulysses/ as ?Joyce?s masterpiece?> /(Sebastian/ 126) and later as ?that odious book? (131)? Simply irony?> > "Odious" might be an allusion, but the word has been applied to Ulysses so many times, especially around the trials, we'd probably need to consult the Joyce scholars to sort out what voice came first and if it would be pertinent here.> > 3. Is Durrell rewriting or taking-on the Joycean novel (a worthy> opponent in literary prizefighting), and, if so, is there a close> connection between the author and his alter ego, Aubrey Blanford? (?So> D. begat Blanford.?)> > To use a Joycean word, "Yes." There is, of course, a close connection between Joyce and Stephen, and I think Durrell (like Miller) saw Joyce as one of the Bloomian strong poets to be redefined through a stronger misprision. I don't usually go for Bloom, but in this situation I think he applies remarkably well.> > I'm reminded that the Quartet ends with (or almost ends with) the same words that open /A Portrait of the Artist/, much as Justine (revised) ends with the same final words as Pound's Canto I. Durrell was keenly aware of this modernist forebears and their influence, to be carried or corrupted. More often than not, I think he was conducting that corrupting misprision.> > All best,> James> > _______________________________________________> 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: ------------------------------Message: 2Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 05:48:03 +0000From: mail at durrelllibrarycorfu.orgTo: ilds at lists.uvic.caSubject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 1Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"Why cannot a book be both a "masterpiece" (whatever that is) and "odious" (whatever that is)? Try "Last Exit to Brroklyn"? Sade? "Women, Beware Women" (and a red herring thence to Livia)?Richard PineDurrell Library of Corfu -----Original Message-----From: ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca]Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 03:00 PMTo: ilds at lists.uvic.caSubject: ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 1Send ILDS mailing list submissions to	ilds at lists.uvic.caTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit	https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ildsor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to	ilds-request at lists.uvic.caYou can reach the person managing the list at	ilds-owner at lists.uvic.caWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..."Today's Topics: 1. Re: Note re: the name ?Aubrey? (Bruce Redwine) 2. Re: Note re: the name ?Aubrey? (James Gifford) 3. Re: Note re: the name ?Aubrey? (Kennedy Gammage)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 15:47:07 -0700From: Bruce Redwine To: Durrell list Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] Note re: the name ?Aubrey?Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"A further note on Ken?s astute observation. Seems to me this raises a few questions re Lawrence Durrell, James Joyce, and Aubrey Blan! ford. Here?s the quote from Ulysses: ?Young shouts of moneyed voices in Clive Kempthrope?s rooms. Palefaces: they hold their ribs with laughter, one clasping another, O, I shall expire! Break the news to her gently, Aubrey!? (Telemachus; Modern Library, 1992, p. 7). This is presumably Stephen Dedalus?s stream of consciousness dealing with England (?Palefaces?). I also hear allusions to British aestheticism of the late 19th century, namely, Oscar Wilde (?O, I shall expire! Break the news to her gently, Aubrey!?), a homosexual, and Aubrey Beardsley, of unknown sexuality. Charles Sligh can probably elaborate. So, the questions:1. How is Aubrey Blanford effeminate in the Joycean sense of an Aubrey Beardsley and/or Oscar Wilde?2. Why does Blanford refer to Ulysses as ?Joyce?s masterpiece? (Sebastian 126) and later as ?that odious book? (131)? Simply irony?3. Is Durrell rewriting or taking-on the Joycean novel (a worthy opponent in literary prizefighting), and, if so, is there a ! close connection between the author and his alter ego, Aubrey Blanford? (?So D. begat Blanford.?)Bruce> On May 31, 2015, at 3:45 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:> > In the Quintet, there are a couple of references to Aubrey Blanford in a Joycean context, when talking about Ulysses. Durrell knew the great novel. So your observation has merit.> > Bruce> > > > Sent from my iPhone> >> On May 30, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Kennedy Gammage wrote:>> >> This has zero applicability to Jack Aubrey, the hero of Patrick O?Brian?s sea stories ? but it may apply to Aubrey Blanford:>> >> From Don Gifford?s Ulysses Annotated, p. 17:>> >> ?1.167 (7:24). Aubrey ? A name regarded as effeminate and frequently used to express the sort of scorn the context applies.? >> >> Of course, these particular notes are circa 1904 Ireland ? and Blanford?s earliest incarnation in the AQ2 is 1930s England?>> >> ?But would it be fair to say that Durrell may have had this in mind?>> >> Cheers - Ken>> >> _______________________________________________-------------- next part --------------An HTM! L attachment was scrubbed...URL: ------------------------------Message: 2Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 20:53:55 -0700From: James Gifford To: ilds at lists.uvic.caSubject: Re: [ilds] Note re: the name ?Aubrey?Message-ID: <556BD753.1050308 at gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowedHi Bruce & Ken,Since I technically am a "Don Gifford," I feel like I need to respond to this one (I devilishly enjoy pointing out that my father is Don Gifford when I'm at the Modernist Studies Association conferences, just not /that/ Don).Might I suggest the MVP Ulysses?http://web.uvic.ca/~mvp1922/portfolio/ulysses-shakespeare-co-1922-1st-edn/Apart from the text, we have a whole series of videos including ILDS members James Clawson, Alan Warren Friedman, and Michael Stevens.Charles could indeed elaborate, but perhaps we'll get Clawson to chime in as well -- he was in the NEH Ulysses seminar in Dublin just after the centenary conference in London.Durrell could very well be thinkin! g of Joyce, and his CalTech lectures included a detailed consideration of Ulysses (a *very* Durrellian version of Joyce, albeit). As for Joyce thinking of Wilde, he did have Dorian Gray in his library in Trieste and the Italian translation.On 2015-05-31 3:47 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote:> 1. How is Aubrey Blanford effeminate in the Joycean sense of an Aubrey> Beardsley and/or Oscar Wilde?I don't suspect he is, and I doubt Durrell would have been reading Don Gifford, though who knows. It wasn't in his library for Carbondale nor Paris X.> 2. Why does Blanford refer to /Ulysses/ as ?Joyce?s masterpiece?> /(Sebastian/ 126) and later as ?that odious book? (131)? Simply irony?"Odious" might be an allusion, but the word has been applied to Ulysses so many times, especially around the trials, we'd probably need to consult the Joyce scholars to sort out what voice came first and if it would be pertinent here.> 3. Is Durrell rewriting or taking-on the Joycean novel (a worthy> opponent in literary prizefighting), and, if so, is there a close> connection betwe! en the author and his alter ego, Aubrey Blanford? (?So> D. begat Blanford.?)To use a Joycean word, "Yes." There is, of course, a close connection between Joyce and Stephen, and I think Durrell (like Miller) saw Joyce as one of the Bloomian strong poets to be redefined through a stronger misprision. I don't usually go for Bloom, but in this situation I think he applies remarkably well.I'm reminded that the Quartet ends with (or almost ends with) the same words that open /A Portrait of the Artist/, much as Justine (revised) ends with the same final words as Pound's Canto I. Durrell was keenly aware of this modernist forebears and their influence, to be carried or corrupted. More often than not, I think he was conducting that corrupting misprision.All best,James------------------------------Message: 3Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 22:24:30 -0700From: Kennedy Gammage To: James Gifford , ilds at lists.uvic.caSubject: Re: [ilds] Note re: the name ?Aubrey?Message-ID:	Content-Type: text/plain! ; charset="utf-8"Thank you James and Bruce. I guess my take-away is, if Durrell wasconsciously saddling his character with a name known to be a byword foreffeminacy, it serves to further weaken the Alpha Male primacy of Blanfordthe Novelist: would-be alter ego/ delusional creator of other charactersetc. It may help us make allowances for his egotism, for this is anat-times deeply insecure person who has truly been ?wounded in his sex.?Aubrey is no Stephen Dedalus - he will in no sense grow up to write theAvignon Quintet, though that would have saved Durrell quite a bit of work.Blanford?s friend and foil Sutcliffe has a bit of Buck Mulligan in him.Cheers - KenOn Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:53 PM, James Gifford wrote:> Hi Bruce & Ken,>> Since I technically am a "Don Gifford," I feel like I need to respond to> this one (I devilishly enjoy pointing out that my father is Don Gifford> when I'm at the Modernist Studies Association conferences, just not /that/> Don).>> Might I suggest the MVP Ulysses?>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mvp1922/portfolio/ulysses-shakesp! eare-co-1922-1st-edn/>> Apart from the text, we have a whole series of videos including ILDS> members James Clawson, Alan Warren Friedman, and Michael Stevens.>> Charles could indeed elaborate, but perhaps we'll get Clawson to chime in> as well -- he was in the NEH Ulysses seminar in Dublin just after the> centenary conference in London.>> Durrell could very well be thinking of Joyce, and his CalTech lectures> included a detailed consideration of Ulysses (a *very* Durrellian version> of Joyce, albeit). As for Joyce thinking of Wilde, he did have Dorian Gray> in his library in Trieste and the Italian translation.>> On 2015-05-31 3:47 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote:>>> 1. How is Aubrey Blanford effeminate in the Joycean sense of an Aubrey>> Beardsley and/or Oscar Wilde?>>>> I don't suspect he is, and I doubt Durrell would have been reading Don> Gifford, though who knows. It wasn't in his library for Carbondale nor> Paris X.>> 2. Why does Blanford refer to /Ulysses/ as ?Joyce?s maste! rpiece?>> /(Sebastian/ 126) and later as ?that odious book? (131)? Simply irony?>>>> "Odious" might be an allusion, but the word has been applied to Ulysses so> many times, especially around the trials, we'd probably need to consult the> Joyce scholars to sort out what voice came first and if it would be> pertinent here.>> 3. Is Durrell rewriting or taking-on the Joycean novel (a worthy>> opponent in literary prizefighting), and, if so, is there a close>> connection between the author and his alter ego, Aubrey Blanford? (?So>> D. begat Blanford.?)>>>> To use a Joycean word, "Yes." There is, of course, a close connection> between Joyce and Stephen, and I think Durrell (like Miller) saw Joyce as> one of the Bloomian strong poets to be redefined through a stronger> misprision. I don't usually go for Bloom, but in this situation I think he> applies remarkably well.>> I'm reminded that the Quartet ends with (or almost ends with) the same> words that open /A Portrait of the Artist/, much as Justine (revised) ends> with the same final words as Pound'! s Canto I. Durrell was keenly aware of> this modernist forebears and their influence, to be carried or corrupted.> More often than not, I think he was conducting that corrupting misprision.>> All 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: ------------------------------Subject: Digest Footer_______________________________________________ILDS mailing listILDS at lists.uvic.cahttps://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds------------------------------End of ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 1***********************************-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: ------------------------------Message: 3Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:29:12 -0700From: Bruce Redwine To: ilds at lists.uvic.caCc: Bruce Redwine Subject: [ilds] Odious masterpiecesMessage-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"I guess this is all a matter of tastes, but my ?masterpieces? (?great works? of art) are not ?odious? (repulsive). The latter I would reserve for de Sade. A paradox. On the other hand, perhaps all this goes back to the idea of the ?Sublime? as propagated by Edmund Burke and the Romantics. The Sublime contains terror. Maybe that is what Blanford refers to. There?s a good deal of terror in the Quintet.Bruce> On Jun 1, 2015, at 10:48 PM, mail at durrelllibrarycorfu.org wrote:> > Why cannot a book be both a "masterpiece" (whatever that is) and "odious" (whatever that is)? Try "Last Exit to Brroklyn"? Sade? "Women, Beware Women" (and a red herring thence to Livia)?> Richard Pine> Durrell Library of Corfu > -----Original Message-----> From: ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca]> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 03:00 PM> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca> Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 1> -------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: ------------------------------Message: 4Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:31:13 -0700From: Bruce Redwine To: ilds at lists.uvic.caCc: Bruce Redwine Subject: [ilds] Odious masterpiecesMessage-ID: <3E307859-440F-4DA8-B692-BD74ED57A2BB at gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"I guess this is all a matter of tastes, but my ?masterpieces? (?great works? of art) are not ?odious? (repulsive). The latter I would reserve for de Sade. A paradox. On the other hand, perhaps all this goes back to the idea of the ?Sublime? as propagated by Edmund Burke and the Romantics. The Sublime contains terror. Maybe that is what Blanford refers to. There?s a good deal of terror in the Quintet.Bruce> On Jun 1, 2015, at 10:48 PM, mail at durrelllibrarycorfu.org  wrote:> > Why cannot a book be both a "masterpiece" (whatever that is) and "odious" (whatever that is)? Try "Last Exit to Brroklyn"? Sade? "Women, Beware Women" (and a red herring thence to Livia)?> Richard Pine> Durrell Library of Corfu > -----Original Message-----> From: ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca  [mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca ]> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 03:00 PM> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 1> -------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: ------------------------------Message: 5Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:16:31 -0500From: William Apt To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca" Subject: Re: [ilds] Odious masterpiecesMessage-ID:	Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"Bruce:I've always been of the opinion that great works of art are "spooky".Perhaps the same concept as the Sublime containing terror? Sometimesliterature, paintings, and musical compositions are so remarkable (thinkJoyce's *The Dead; *Van Gogh's portrait of his and Gauguin's chairs;Dylan's *Like A Rolling Stone*) they fill one with a sense of dislocationand remove akin to a sense of terror or fright.BillyOn Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:> I guess this is all a matter of tastes, but my ?masterpieces? (?great> works? of art) are not ?odious? (repulsive). The latter I would reserve> for de Sade. A paradox. On the other hand, perhaps all this goes back to> the idea of the ?Sublime? as propagated by Edmund Burke and the Romantics.> The Sublime contains terror. Maybe that is what Blanford refers to.> There?s a good deal of terror in the *Quintet.*>>> Bruce>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 10:48 PM, mail at durrelllibrarycorfu.org wrote:>> Why cannot a book be both a "masterpiece" (whatever that is) and "odious"> (whatever that is)? Try "Last Exit to Brroklyn"? Sade? "Women, Beware> Women" (and a red herring thence to Livia)?> Richard Pine> Durrell Library of Corfu>> -----Original Message-----> *From:* ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca [mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca> ]> *Sent:* Monday, June 1, 2015 03:00 PM> *To:* ilds at lists.uvic.ca> *Subject:* ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 1>>>> _______________________________________________> ILDS mailing list> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds>>-- WILLIAM APTAttorney at Law812 San Antonio St, Ste 401Austin TX 78701512/708-8300512/708-8011 FAX-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: ------------------------------Message: 6Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:01:16 -0700From: Bruce Redwine To: ilds at lists.uvic.caCc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] Odious masterpiecesMessage-ID: <9E6FD275-B85B-4BF5-B956-80AEF511356F at earthlink.net>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"Billy, well said. I agree ? and so would Joyce in Portrait. As Stephen says, ?Terror is the feeling which arrests the mind in the presence of whatsoever is grave and constant in human suffering and unites it with the secret cause.? In Durrell?s work, it?s that ?secret cause? that puzzles me. It?s ?spooky,? as you say.Bruce> On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:16 AM, William Apt  wrote:> > Bruce:> > I've always been of the opinion that great works of art are "spooky". Perhaps the same concept as the Sublime containing terror? Sometimes literature, paintings, and musical compositions are so remarkable (think Joyce's The Dead; Van Gogh's portrait of his and Gauguin's chairs; Dylan's Like A Rolling Stone) they fill one with a sense of dislocation and remove akin to a sense of terror or fright. > > Billy > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Bruce Redwine > wrote:> I guess this is all a matter of tastes, but my ?masterpieces? (?great works? of art) are not ?odious? (repulsive). The latter I would reserve for de Sade. A paradox. On the other hand, perhaps all this goes back to the idea of the ?Sublime? as propagated by Edmund Burke and the Romantics. The Sublime contains terror. Maybe that is what Blanford refers to. There?s a good deal of terror in the Quintet.> > > Bruce> > > > >> On Jun 1, 2015, at 10:48 PM, mail at durrelllibrarycorfu.org  wrote:>> >> Why cannot a book be both a "masterpiece" (whatever that is) and "odious" (whatever that is)? Try "Last Exit to Brroklyn"? Sade? "Women, Beware Women" (and a red herring thence to Livia)?>> Richard Pine>> Durrell Library of Corfu >> -----Original Message----->> From: ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca  [mailto:ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca ]>> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 03:00 PM>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca >> Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 1>> > -------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: ------------------------------Subject: Digest Footer_______________________________________________ILDS mailing listILDS at lists.uvic.cahttps://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds------------------------------End of ILDS Digest, Vol 98, Issue 2***********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20150603/3fb80293/attachment.html>