[ilds] Mr. Esposito

Denise Tart & David Green dtart at bigpond.net.au
Fri Mar 25 14:22:47 PDT 2016


Ah yes, but in the study of history and literature it often what is not said or left out that is the most interesting. Pinter's pauses are more powerful than his prose. Stalin's history of the the revolution omits completely at times or limits the role of Trotsky. And now, along with academics, we have a go at critics. Quality criticism is a very necessary thing, an art as Oscar Wilde observed in his wonderful piece, The Critic as Artist. As for the grocers language, I can hear this at my local pub. Anyway, as Wilde also observed ' the man who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one.'
Durrell's prose is hardly that of a shopkeeper.

David

Sent from my iPad

> On 26 Mar 2016, at 7:52 AM, Panaiotis Gerontopoulos <pan.gero at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Salute to Giacomo Esposito for saying "to focus primarily on what the texts say,not what they don't say, or what a critic may think they say". I would add what critics say in an often uncomprehending  "post-modernist" lingo to fool themselves and the gullibles. The literary azzecagarbugli,  I think would be the Italian expression. Confessing my total inability to make out  sense of such stuff,  I prefer by large the "grocer's language". Forza Giacomo.
> 
> Panayotis Gerontopoulos
> 
> From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:19:49 -0700
> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
> Subject: Re: [ilds] Mr. Esposito
> 
> I don't think your method will result in much enlightenment.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:08 AM, james Esposito <giacomoesposito72 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I am very sorry indeed to learn that you disagree with the following statement:
> "Education surely exists to enlighten young minds (and older!) and to give them a better understanding of themselves and the world."
> James Esposito
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> This whole approach seems to me a grossly oversimplified approach to the appreciation and teaching of literature, which after all is not some exercise in logical positivism.  Words are tricky and not reducible to pat meanings, and how writers use words is even far more complex.  So I disagree with all your statements.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 1:58 AM, james Esposito <giacomoesposito72 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> By 'teaching their students how to enjoy texts' I meant that I see the principal purpose of teaching as the widening of students' appreciation of their chosen subject, be it literature, science or any other discipline. Education surely exists to enlighten young minds (and older!) and to give them a better understanding of themselves and the world. That may seem very old-fashioned but I think such purposes are diminished by what Keats called (paraphrase) unnecessary reaching out for reason - that is, the searching for explanations of what, ultimately, cannot be explained - credo quia absurdum. We owe it to ourselves and others (we, being teachers, writers and readers) to focus primarily on what the texts say, not what they don't say, or what a critic may think they say.
> James Esposito
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I wonder what it means “to enjoy texts?”  Isn’t that what we’re doing?  I think James Gifford is on target.  And I, a non-academic, thank him for his insights, which increase my enjoyment.  Keep it up, James!
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Mar 24, 2016, at 3:32 PM, james Esposito <giacomoesposito72 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I perhaps did not make myself clear on the subject of Durrell's relationship to the modernists. Of course he was well aware of the Eliots, Huxleys, etc, but what I meant was that we should not necessarily assume 'the anxiety of influence' - the fact that there are echoes of Eliot etc in Durrell's work does not allow us to infer that he deliberately set out to imitate them or to make obvious references to them - merely that, as a (still) apprentice writer in the first 2 novels he was setting out his own stall, not theirs.
> > And as for Keats, if I remember correctly, he got killed.
> > As for the mud bricks, I think it's completely far-fetched to read political persuasions into the fact that Durrell referred to a basic building material. They were just mud-bricks, not political slogans.
> > I think there is far too much time and effort spent on trying to analyse what Durrell may or may not have ingested into his writer's subconscious. It may be an amusing pastime for academics, but they should be teaching their students how to enjoy texts and not how to tear them apart. It isn't 'hunting of the snark' territory.
> > James Esposito
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
> 
> 	This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160326/a5ecec89/attachment.html>


More information about the ILDS mailing list