[ilds] And Then, next?

Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
Sun Apr 17 22:14:39 PDT 2016


A pun by definition is a play on words,  a homophone, and Charlock plays on Sherlock quite easily, obviously so.  Shylock, Shakespeare's I take it, is interesting but seems irrelevant to the opening and the variations on irrationality ("Reality is what is most conspicuous by its absence.")  Yes, the Heraldic Universe rejects rationality or causation.  No doubt most or all of these characters' names have special significance, as throughout the oeuvre.

What's the difference between Dostoevsky on irrationality (the rejection of 2 + 2 = 4) and logic not "providing a resolution?"  I don't see any.

More should be made of the dedication to Claude Vincendon, who died on 1 January 1967, and the symbol above her name, the lunette with a dot.  It must have some special significance for Durrell.  As long as we're playing with the title's anagram, the lunette reminds me of the significance of "rosebud" in Well's Citizen Kane.  Great writers (and directors) do this kind of thing, as Joyce did with the dot in Ulysses.

Bruce



Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 17, 2016, at 8:18 PM, PETER BALDWIN <delospeter at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I cannot support the idea of Charlock the 'detective' qua Sherlock, although I agree that Charlock (an 'inventor' not a 'detective') stands to reject the rational for the sake of the more dangerous intuitive, but is that not what the Heraldic Universe called upon us to do?
> 
> Troubled by the use in this exchange of the term 'pun', my Oxford Dict of Lit Terms guides me to the better term, I suggest, - polysemy - the capacity to carry several meanings. Here, for those better equipped to deal with the semotic aspects of this novel might discuss the metaphorical reading of the (deliberate) confusion in these names ( Charlock etc ) . A Ricoeur reading?
> 
> My own take on the Dost quote is the proposal by D that logic (2x2) cannot provide a resolution. For that you must look elsewhere and this D tries to make us do 
> 
> Alongside these thoughts, I am dipping into Pine's excellent 'The Mindscape' with its helpful guide to the genesis of Tunc (chap 19 passim)
> 
> Peter 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 17 Apr 2016, at 21:58, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Some comments to Baldwin’s commentary.  Good start.
>> 
>> BR
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 17, 2016, at 12:04 AM, PETER BALDWIN <delospeter at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tunc? - here goes. 
>>> 
>>> Charlock is the ‘thinking weed' (p11 in the single Revolt ed) but I would be interested in the possibility of the homophonic resonance with Shylock.
>> 
>> Another possibility:  a  pun on the obvious Sherlock, as in Sherlock Holmes, the ultimate rationalist, followed by E. A. Poe, another investigator, and textual references to the latter’s famous “raven”:  “ravens of ill omen in an oak tree” (14).  Why?  The narrator is a “thinking weed” (13), a detective of sorts.  Sherlock Holmes represents the ratiocinative spirit, which “Felix Charlock,” Happy or Lucky Charlock, may embody or satirize.  In the first page and epigraph, we already have references to “speech” (the logos?) as some kind of particle physics and possible quantum mechanics.  Both of which overthrown the rationality of Newtonian mechanics.  The Dostoevsky epigraph is from, I believe, the French translation of Notes from Underground; the quotation is also anti-rationality.  Why not the English translation?  Durrell loves obscurity and probably counts on his English speaking audience knowing little French.
>>> 
>>> But the puzzles start on the cover - the title - an anagram - which came first, Petronius or D looking for a respectable source for the anagram?
>> 
>> Probably the latter.
>>> 
>>> Then the symbol on p(7) :) is the nearest approximation I can type here.
>> 
>> I hadn’t noticed this.  Thanks.  It looks to me like an Egyptian glyph, possibly the crescent moon with a dot beneath.  I don’t read ancient Egyptian, so I’ve no idea of the significance.  Maybe Merrianne Timko knows.  I guess it has something to do with Claude.  I wouldn’t be surprised were it obscene.
>>> 
>>> Then the heady quote from Dost?
>> 
>> Yes.  See above.
>>> 
>>> At this novel I started my love of D - endlessly enthralling
>>> 
>>> It worked for me because, at that first reading (c 1975), I became my own participant in the fabulation of the novel (' I brought introspection to a fine art' p 12)
>>> 
>>> Peter
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160417/ed35db2d/attachment.html>


More information about the ILDS mailing list