From bredwine1968 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 09:00:03 2016
From: bredwine1968 at gmail.com (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 09:00:03 -0700
Subject: [ilds] subscription management
In-Reply-To: <23ba369d-26e2-e74e-2a9e-074672581acd@gmail.com>
References: <23ba369d-26e2-e74e-2a9e-074672581acd@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02AA4258-546F-4B92-A901-0532F50EF7CA@gmail.com>

Thanks, James.

Any comments on the topic at hand?Durrell?s Tunc?

Bruce




> On May 8, 2016, at 1:34 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> To keep the listserv inclusive, cordial, and /on topic/, I'll post instructions for subscriptions a final time, after which I think it's probably in everyone's best interest if subscription requests mistakenly sent to the membership rather than administrators just be returned to the original author.
> 
> If anyone objects to that, do let me or Charles Sligh know, but this is standard practice to prevent moderated listservs from becoming cluttered.
> 
> If the online form proves problematic or personally objectionable for whatever reasons (http://www.lawrencedurrell.org & "Join the listserve"), the following commands can be sent directly to <ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca> from your email address -- place the command in the subject line (leave the body of the message blank, and be sure to use your intended email and not an alias):
> 
> subscribe
> unsubscribe
> help
> info
> 
> I hope that calms all worries and answers all questions, at least for a time.
> 
> All best,
> James

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160509/91646b49/attachment.html>

From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Tue May 10 15:00:14 2016
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:00:14 -0700
Subject: [ilds] M.G. Vassanji
Message-ID: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>

Hello all,

A quick note before I get to the promised comment on Tunc for Bruce...

Those who were at On Miracle Ground XII in 2002 (!!) may remember M.G. 
Vassanji's excellent keynote "The Boy in the Street: A View from 
Across."  He's evidently just published a revised version of it fourteen 
years later as "Looking at Them: The View Across the Street" in 
/Transition/ 119 (2016), pp. 22?36:

   http://muse.jhu.edu/article/614084

I've read through it here on a sunny patio, and it's as witty as the 
original (the ts. for which is held at the University of Victoria).  He 
recounts first watching the Cukor film "Justine" and then moving on the 
novels of the Quartet and their various attachments to his own novels, 
like /No New Land/, and how "For many years my City lay in my 
imagination like an open wound, raw and throbbing, until I was able to 
reinvent it and thus heal the wound."

This may be of interest to many here.

All best,
James

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Thu May 12 12:00:45 2016
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:00:45 -0700
Subject: [ilds] M.G. Vassanji
In-Reply-To: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>

James,

Thanks for tantalizing references to Vassanji (2015) and the other references to articles by Kaczvinsky (2007), Kersnowski (2010), and Morrison (2013)?all writing on Durrell.  The database ?Project Muse,? however, seems only accessible to academics, and I am not one.  This is the problem with scholarship that is confined to specialists with special privileges, although I believe Kersnowski?s article was uploaded on the listserv years ago.  Kaczvinsky?s essay looks interesting and topical:  ?Memlik?s House and Mountolive?s Uniform:  Orientalism, Ornamentalism, and The Alexandria Quartet.?  We?ve discussed Said?s Orientalism before.

Bruce




> On May 10, 2016, at 3:00 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> A quick note before I get to the promised comment on Tunc for Bruce...
> 
> Those who were at On Miracle Ground XII in 2002 (!!) may remember M.G. Vassanji's excellent keynote "The Boy in the Street: A View from Across."  He's evidently just published a revised version of it fourteen years later as "Looking at Them: The View Across the Street" in /Transition/ 119 (2016), pp. 22?36:
> 
>  http://muse.jhu.edu/article/614084
> 
> I've read through it here on a sunny patio, and it's as witty as the original (the ts. for which is held at the University of Victoria).  He recounts first watching the Cukor film "Justine" and then moving on the novels of the Quartet and their various attachments to his own novels, like /No New Land/, and how "For many years my City lay in my imagination like an open wound, raw and throbbing, until I was able to reinvent it and thus heal the wound."
> 
> This may be of interest to many here.
> 
> 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: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160512/2f70021a/attachment.html>

From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Thu May 12 16:12:06 2016
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:12:06 -0700
Subject: [ilds] M.G. Vassanji
In-Reply-To: <92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>

Hi Bruce,

Yes, the "pay wall" is an issue...  The open access movement is growing, 
but it has not really blossomed yet (for instance, I see /Transition/ 
gives one article from each issue as Open Access, but alas not this one 
-- many other journals, especially those using the OJS Open Journal 
Systems, will release their materials on an open access basis a year 
after publication).  For what it's worth, many academics discuss this 
with strong opinions, but the pressures of tenure and advancement point 
to particular venues more than others, and that often means readers 
either need to buy a book or get a subscription.  I know you're a 
defender of copyright, and alas, this is a part of it.  I can say that 
once I'm promoted to full professor, I have no intention of publishing 
behind a paywall.

For what it's worth, it's quite possible your alumni association has 
access for you.  For instance, FDU doesn't subscribe to Project Muse 
(though it does several others), so I access it as an alumnus through 
UAlberta.  Ditto for Palgrave's "Connect" platform, which I get through 
SFU (albeit I have to be on campus to download those books).

Another related resource that just went online (and that has some 
Durrellian content) is the Routledge Encyclopedia of Modernism:

  https://www.rem.routledge.com/

You can search and see a preview for free, and perhaps your alumni 
association will recommend it to your local library.  However, the 
accompanying Linked Modernisms resource (based on the REM metadata) is 
entirely Open Access:

  http://linkedmods.uvic.ca/

Those are both still in their first release, and the REM has limited 
itself to its first 1,000 entries, but they're worth a perusal.

All best,
James

On 2016-05-12 12:00 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
> James,
>
> Thanks for tantalizing references to Vassanji (2015) and the other
> references to articles by Kaczvinsky (2007), Kersnowski (2010), and
> Morrison (2013)?all writing on Durrell.  The database ?Project Muse,?
> however, seems only accessible to academics, and I am not one.  This is
> the problem with scholarship that is confined to specialists with
> special privileges, although I believe Kersnowski?s article was uploaded
> on the listserv years ago.  Kaczvinsky?s essay looks interesting and
> topical:  ?Memlik?s House and Mountolive?s Uniform:  Orientalism,
> Ornamentalism, and /The Alexandria Quartet.?  /We?ve discussed Said?s
> Orientalism before.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>> On May 10, 2016, at 3:00 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com
>> <mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> A quick note before I get to the promised comment on Tunc for Bruce...
>>
>> Those who were at On Miracle Ground XII in 2002 (!!) may remember M.G.
>> Vassanji's excellent keynote "The Boy in the Street: A View from
>> Across."  He's evidently just published a revised version of it
>> fourteen years later as "Looking at Them: The View Across the Street"
>> in /Transition/ 119 (2016), pp. 22?36:
>>
>>  http://muse.jhu.edu/article/614084
>>
>> I've read through it here on a sunny patio, and it's as witty as the
>> original (the ts. for which is held at the University of Victoria).
>>  He recounts first watching the Cukor film "Justine" and then moving
>> on the novels of the Quartet and their various attachments to his own
>> novels, like /No New Land/, and how "For many years my City lay in my
>> imagination like an open wound, raw and throbbing, until I was able to
>> reinvent it and thus heal the wound."
>>
>> This may be of interest to many here.
>>
>> All best,
>> James
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca>
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Fri May 13 06:53:57 2016
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:53:57 -0700
Subject: [ilds] M.G. Vassanji
In-Reply-To: <d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>

James,

Thanks for the links.  That?s helpful.  The ?open access? (OA) movement is indeed growing, particularly in areas like Classics but not so much in English literature.  I?ll mention one other source:  Academia.edu, which is not restricted to ?academics? but includes anyone who wants to sign into the database and provide a ?profile? or entry.  It?s free.  That platform enables one to upload his/her publications or whatever and make them freely available to all and sundry.  I?ll note that Donald Kaczvinsky has an entry (search under his name) and has made his article, ?Memlik?s House and Mountolive?s Uniform:  Orientalism, Ornamentalism, and The Alexandria Quartet,? available for downloading.  Vassanji does not have any papers available.

Bruce





> On May 12, 2016, at 4:12 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> Yes, the "pay wall" is an issue...  The open access movement is growing, but it has not really blossomed yet (for instance, I see /Transition/ gives one article from each issue as Open Access, but alas not this one -- many other journals, especially those using the OJS Open Journal Systems, will release their materials on an open access basis a year after publication).  For what it's worth, many academics discuss this with strong opinions, but the pressures of tenure and advancement point to particular venues more than others, and that often means readers either need to buy a book or get a subscription.  I know you're a defender of copyright, and alas, this is a part of it.  I can say that once I'm promoted to full professor, I have no intention of publishing behind a paywall.
> 
> For what it's worth, it's quite possible your alumni association has access for you.  For instance, FDU doesn't subscribe to Project Muse (though it does several others), so I access it as an alumnus through UAlberta.  Ditto for Palgrave's "Connect" platform, which I get through SFU (albeit I have to be on campus to download those books).
> 
> Another related resource that just went online (and that has some Durrellian content) is the Routledge Encyclopedia of Modernism:
> 
> https://www.rem.routledge.com/ <https://www.rem.routledge.com/>
> 
> You can search and see a preview for free, and perhaps your alumni association will recommend it to your local library.  However, the accompanying Linked Modernisms resource (based on the REM metadata) is entirely Open Access:
> 
> http://linkedmods.uvic.ca/ <http://linkedmods.uvic.ca/>
> 
> Those are both still in their first release, and the REM has limited itself to its first 1,000 entries, but they're worth a perusal.
> 
> All best,
> James
> 
> On 2016-05-12 12:00 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
>> James,
>> 
>> Thanks for tantalizing references to Vassanji (2015) and the other
>> references to articles by Kaczvinsky (2007), Kersnowski (2010), and
>> Morrison (2013)?all writing on Durrell.  The database ?Project Muse,?
>> however, seems only accessible to academics, and I am not one.  This is
>> the problem with scholarship that is confined to specialists with
>> special privileges, although I believe Kersnowski?s article was uploaded
>> on the listserv years ago.  Kaczvinsky?s essay looks interesting and
>> topical:  ?Memlik?s House and Mountolive?s Uniform:  Orientalism,
>> Ornamentalism, and /The Alexandria Quartet.?  /We?ve discussed Said?s
>> Orientalism before.
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 10, 2016, at 3:00 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com <mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> A quick note before I get to the promised comment on Tunc for Bruce...
>>> 
>>> Those who were at On Miracle Ground XII in 2002 (!!) may remember M.G.
>>> Vassanji's excellent keynote "The Boy in the Street: A View from
>>> Across."  He's evidently just published a revised version of it
>>> fourteen years later as "Looking at Them: The View Across the Street"
>>> in /Transition/ 119 (2016), pp. 22?36:
>>> 
>>> http://muse.jhu.edu/article/614084
>>> 
>>> I've read through it here on a sunny patio, and it's as witty as the
>>> original (the ts. for which is held at the University of Victoria).
>>> He recounts first watching the Cukor film "Justine" and then moving
>>> on the novels of the Quartet and their various attachments to his own
>>> novels, like /No New Land/, and how "For many years my City lay in my
>>> imagination like an open wound, raw and throbbing, until I was able to
>>> reinvent it and thus heal the wound."
>>> 
>>> This may be of interest to many here.
>>> 
>>> All best,
>>> James
>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160513/7d8bf087/attachment.html>

From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Fri May 13 08:17:14 2016
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 08:17:14 -0700
Subject: [ilds] M.G. Vassanji into Tunc
In-Reply-To: <4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>

Hi Bruce,

Since we're moving into /Tunc/ and the Firm, I think it's worth dwelling 
on this just a bit...

Academia.edu is useful, but it also comes with two limitations: 
copyright and revenue.  It's a for profit organization beholden to its 
investors to develop a revenue stream through advertising and data 
mining, meaning it tracks you, just like Google or Facebook.  Notice 
that you need to create a profile in order to download anything that 
others have uploaded and given away for "free."

That might not seem like much, but like email or Facebook, whenever one 
logs in, it records your IP address (just like you have in your email 
header).  The IP is a unique identifier for your device and how it's 
accessing the internet -- one might login to Gmail to check 
correspondence and then logout, but the IP has been recorded.  From that 
point forward, anywhere that IP address goes that accesses resources 
through Google (search terms, websites that rely on Google Adwords, 
etc.), Google creates a record for that IP address.  For instance, if 
you look to my email header (by default, it's not displayed by your 
email application, but that doesn't mean it isn't there), it will tell 
you I'm writing this email in Thunderbird use Shaw as my internet 
service provider, and have an IP address on Old Yale Road in Surrey, 
British Columbia.  It will even tell you the city block I'm on. 
Thereby, we generate an excellent record of our tastes and interests 
that can be valuable for marketing purposes.  Ditto for Facebook.  When 
the product is "free," the product is really you.

Academia.edu is part of that process, and it's also not immune to 
copyright -- the contract for academic publications very often transfers 
copyright to the publisher rather than the author, in many cases 
specifically to prohibit distribution outside of the paywall.  It's an 
oddity that academics often work in non-profit or public environments 
and compete for public funding to produce work intended for public 
consumption and the public good yet for purposes of tenure or promotion 
are compelled to publish their work in a way to assigns all rights to 
for-profit private enterprise.  One can now even "buy" Open Access for 
one's own publications, which really means paying the anticipated 
revenues: evidently an articles is worth a couple thousand dollars these 
days...  The requirement for Open Access for publicly-funded research in 
the UK is diverting a larger share of public research funding into 
paying those fees rather than driving academics to publish through Open 
Access resources.

One of the reasons the Routledge Encyclopedia of Modernism is 
interesting is that the metadata has been specifically held for an Open 
Access project in Linked Modernisms.

The Firm could have thought of no better model.  The content is 
user-generated but owned by the Firm, the user is the product up for 
sale or rented out for metadata, and people will even pay to get it!

All best,
James

On 2016-05-13 6:53 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
> James,
>
> Thanks for the links.  That?s helpful.  The ?open access? (OA) movement
> is indeed growing, particularly in areas like Classics but not so much
> in English literature.  I?ll mention one other source:  Academia.edu
> <http://academia.edu>, which is not restricted to ?academics? but
> includes anyone who wants to sign into the database and provide a
> ?profile? or entry.  It?s free.  That platform enables one to upload
> his/her publications or whatever and make them freely available to all
> and sundry.  I?ll note that Donald Kaczvinsky has an entry (search under
> his name) and has made his article, ?Memlik?s House and Mountolive?s
> Uniform:  Orientalism, Ornamentalism, and /The Alexandria Quartet,?/
> available for downloading.  Vassanji does not have any papers available.
>
> Bruce

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Fri May 13 09:59:38 2016
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:59:38 -0700
Subject: [ilds] M.G. Vassanji into Tunc
In-Reply-To: <5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>

James,

Re ?mining? of personal data for purposes of advertising, this doesn?t bother at all.  It does my wife, however, who?s a lawyer and who zealously guards her privacy.  We argue about this (lawyers like to argue!).  The materials on Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> are uploaded by the authors, who presumably hold their own copyright, so those papers are subject to ?fair use.?  Some journals (e.g., Mosaic) keep the copyright of its articles, and those would not appear for downloading.  I was unaware that an article was worth ?a couple of thousand dollars.?  I?ll take your word for it, but this seems to me unlikely.  Basically I?m all for Open Access and realize that few things are free, so I?m quite willing to pay something reasonable for the privilege of access.

Your analogy between Internet strategies to make money and the policies of ?the firm? in Tunc is provocative.  That is certainly one way to look at the novel.  I look at it in terms of Durrell?s long-term concerns/obsessions (Charlock/Sherlock ?Holmes? the investigator into the nature of things) and the biographical fact that Claude-Marie Vincendon (to whom the novel is dedicated) dies on 1 January 1967, one year after Tunc is published.  Her presence pervades the book, in my opinion.

One thing about Tunc bothers me.  Durrell is the writer of ?the spirit of place.?  He is most famous for the landscapes he knew first hand.  So, why do we spend time in Istanbul or ?the Polis? or ?Stamboul,? a place he never visited (if I?m correct)?  Does this account for the novel as ?science fiction??  Imagined realities?  The descriptions of the Golden Horn are quite ravishing, much as we expect from Durrell, but these are purely invented.  That bothers me.

Bruce





> On May 13, 2016, at 8:17 AM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> Since we're moving into /Tunc/ and the Firm, I think it's worth dwelling on this just a bit...
> 
> Academia.edu is useful, but it also comes with two limitations: copyright and revenue.  It's a for profit organization beholden to its investors to develop a revenue stream through advertising and data mining, meaning it tracks you, just like Google or Facebook.  Notice that you need to create a profile in order to download anything that others have uploaded and given away for "free."
> 
> That might not seem like much, but like email or Facebook, whenever one logs in, it records your IP address (just like you have in your email header).  The IP is a unique identifier for your device and how it's accessing the internet -- one might login to Gmail to check correspondence and then logout, but the IP has been recorded.  From that point forward, anywhere that IP address goes that accesses resources through Google (search terms, websites that rely on Google Adwords, etc.), Google creates a record for that IP address.  For instance, if you look to my email header (by default, it's not displayed by your email application, but that doesn't mean it isn't there), it will tell you I'm writing this email in Thunderbird use Shaw as my internet service provider, and have an IP address on Old Yale Road in Surrey, British Columbia.  It will even tell you the city block I'm on. Thereby, we generate an excellent record of our tastes and interests that can be valuable for marketing purposes.  Ditto for Facebook.  When the product is "free," the product is really you.
> 
> Academia.edu is part of that process, and it's also not immune to copyright -- the contract for academic publications very often transfers copyright to the publisher rather than the author, in many cases specifically to prohibit distribution outside of the paywall.  It's an oddity that academics often work in non-profit or public environments and compete for public funding to produce work intended for public consumption and the public good yet for purposes of tenure or promotion are compelled to publish their work in a way to assigns all rights to for-profit private enterprise.  One can now even "buy" Open Access for one's own publications, which really means paying the anticipated revenues: evidently an articles is worth a couple thousand dollars these days...  The requirement for Open Access for publicly-funded research in the UK is diverting a larger share of public research funding into paying those fees rather than driving academics to publish through Open Access resources.
> 
> One of the reasons the Routledge Encyclopedia of Modernism is interesting is that the metadata has been specifically held for an Open Access project in Linked Modernisms.
> 
> The Firm could have thought of no better model.  The content is user-generated but owned by the Firm, the user is the product up for sale or rented out for metadata, and people will even pay to get it!
> 
> All best,
> James
> 
> On 2016-05-13 6:53 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
>> James,
>> 
>> Thanks for the links.  That?s helpful.  The ?open access? (OA) movement
>> is indeed growing, particularly in areas like Classics but not so much
>> in English literature.  I?ll mention one other source:  Academia.edu
>> <http://academia.edu>, which is not restricted to ?academics? but
>> includes anyone who wants to sign into the database and provide a
>> ?profile? or entry.  It?s free.  That platform enables one to upload
>> his/her publications or whatever and make them freely available to all
>> and sundry.  I?ll note that Donald Kaczvinsky has an entry (search under
>> his name) and has made his article, ?Memlik?s House and Mountolive?s
>> Uniform:  Orientalism, Ornamentalism, and /The Alexandria Quartet,?/
>> available for downloading.  Vassanji does not have any papers available.
>> 
>> Bruce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160513/19d2ffad/attachment.html>

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Fri May 13 10:06:01 2016
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:06:01 -0700
Subject: [ilds] M.G. Vassanji into Tunc
In-Reply-To: <D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <2713BD6A-2E5A-4206-857D-66551D0B1B06@earthlink.net>

That?s ?one year before Tunc is published!?

Bruce



> On May 13, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> Re ?mining? of personal data for purposes of advertising, this doesn?t bother at all.  It does my wife, however, who?s a lawyer and who zealously guards her privacy.  We argue about this (lawyers like to argue!).  The materials on Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> are uploaded by the authors, who presumably hold their own copyright, so those papers are subject to ?fair use.?  Some journals (e.g., Mosaic) keep the copyright of its articles, and those would not appear for downloading.  I was unaware that an article was worth ?a couple of thousand dollars.?  I?ll take your word for it, but this seems to me unlikely.  Basically I?m all for Open Access and realize that few things are free, so I?m quite willing to pay something reasonable for the privilege of access.
> 
> Your analogy between Internet strategies to make money and the policies of ?the firm? in Tunc is provocative.  That is certainly one way to look at the novel.  I look at it in terms of Durrell?s long-term concerns/obsessions (Charlock/Sherlock ?Holmes? the investigator into the nature of things) and the biographical fact that Claude-Marie Vincendon (to whom the novel is dedicated) dies on 1 January 1967, one year after Tunc is published.  Her presence pervades the book, in my opinion.
> 
> One thing about Tunc bothers me.  Durrell is the writer of ?the spirit of place.?  He is most famous for the landscapes he knew first hand.  So, why do we spend time in Istanbul or ?the Polis? or ?Stamboul,? a place he never visited (if I?m correct)?  Does this account for the novel as ?science fiction??  Imagined realities?  The descriptions of the Golden Horn are quite ravishing, much as we expect from Durrell, but these are purely invented.  That bothers me.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 13, 2016, at 8:17 AM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com <mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Bruce,
>> 
>> Since we're moving into /Tunc/ and the Firm, I think it's worth dwelling on this just a bit...
>> 
>> Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> is useful, but it also comes with two limitations: copyright and revenue.  It's a for profit organization beholden to its investors to develop a revenue stream through advertising and data mining, meaning it tracks you, just like Google or Facebook.  Notice that you need to create a profile in order to download anything that others have uploaded and given away for "free."
>> 
>> That might not seem like much, but like email or Facebook, whenever one logs in, it records your IP address (just like you have in your email header).  The IP is a unique identifier for your device and how it's accessing the internet -- one might login to Gmail to check correspondence and then logout, but the IP has been recorded.  From that point forward, anywhere that IP address goes that accesses resources through Google (search terms, websites that rely on Google Adwords, etc.), Google creates a record for that IP address.  For instance, if you look to my email header (by default, it's not displayed by your email application, but that doesn't mean it isn't there), it will tell you I'm writing this email in Thunderbird use Shaw as my internet service provider, and have an IP address on Old Yale Road in Surrey, British Columbia.  It will even tell you the city block I'm on. Thereby, we generate an excellent record of our tastes and interests that can be valuable for marketing purposes.  Ditto for Facebook.  When the product is "free," the product is really you.
>> 
>> Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> is part of that process, and it's also not immune to copyright -- the contract for academic publications very often transfers copyright to the publisher rather than the author, in many cases specifically to prohibit distribution outside of the paywall.  It's an oddity that academics often work in non-profit or public environments and compete for public funding to produce work intended for public consumption and the public good yet for purposes of tenure or promotion are compelled to publish their work in a way to assigns all rights to for-profit private enterprise.  One can now even "buy" Open Access for one's own publications, which really means paying the anticipated revenues: evidently an articles is worth a couple thousand dollars these days...  The requirement for Open Access for publicly-funded research in the UK is diverting a larger share of public research funding into paying those fees rather than driving academics to publish through Open Access resources.
>> 
>> One of the reasons the Routledge Encyclopedia of Modernism is interesting is that the metadata has been specifically held for an Open Access project in Linked Modernisms.
>> 
>> The Firm could have thought of no better model.  The content is user-generated but owned by the Firm, the user is the product up for sale or rented out for metadata, and people will even pay to get it!
>> 
>> All best,
>> James
>> 
>> On 2016-05-13 6:53 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
>>> James,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the links.  That?s helpful.  The ?open access? (OA) movement
>>> is indeed growing, particularly in areas like Classics but not so much
>>> in English literature.  I?ll mention one other source:  Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>
>>> <http://academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>>, which is not restricted to ?academics? but
>>> includes anyone who wants to sign into the database and provide a
>>> ?profile? or entry.  It?s free.  That platform enables one to upload
>>> his/her publications or whatever and make them freely available to all
>>> and sundry.  I?ll note that Donald Kaczvinsky has an entry (search under
>>> his name) and has made his article, ?Memlik?s House and Mountolive?s
>>> Uniform:  Orientalism, Ornamentalism, and /The Alexandria Quartet,?/
>>> available for downloading.  Vassanji does not have any papers available.
>>> 
>>> Bruce
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160513/d5778ee8/attachment.html>

From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Fri May 13 11:47:47 2016
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:47:47 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
In-Reply-To: <D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>

Hi Bruce,

On 2016-05-13 9:59 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
> I was unaware that an article was worth ?a couple of
> thousand dollars.?  I?ll take your word for it,
> but this seems to me unlikely.

I'll remove my tongue from my cheek -- they're not worth it.  It just 
makes "Open Access" another revenue stream by getting funds directly 
from authors...  That then opens the trouble of pay-to-print in a peer 
reviewed environment.

> Your analogy between Internet strategies to make
> money and the policies of ?the firm? in /Tunc/ is
> provocative.

It's one avenue into /Tunc/, among many I think, but just like there's 
no outside to the Firm (or ideology), I don't think there's an outside 
to the scenario.  We can't run like Nash to the South Seas to be a free 
individual outside of the social even while we cannot accept determinism 
and an omnipotent ruler behind the curtain.

> One thing about /Tunc/ bothers me.  Durrell is
> the writer of ?the spirit of place.?  He is most
> famous for the landscapes he knew first hand.

The invented scenery around the Golden Horn is also a gesture back to 
Conrad, but as you note, if he's choosing a place specifically and not 
based on residence, then why Istanbul?  The joint between East and West 
would make sense.  But we open in Poggio's, although even in that we 
really open with Dostoevsky, and in French rather than Russian (and I 
think in Boris de Schl?zer's existentialist translation).

The Dostoevsky quotation signals a kinship between the narrator of 
/Notes from the Underground/ and our humble Charlock.  In other words, 
he's not to be trusted, and we're marking out an anti-utopian topic of 
discussion wherein free will, the individual, rationality, and society 
are set in potential conflict against each other.  It could also be that 
Durrell used French to avoid making an obvious parallel to George 
Orwell's /Nineteen Eight-Four/, which he read and admired (and wrote 
Orwell to congratulate him on).

In any case, we open the book with an invocation that argues against the 
perfections of a utopia because of free will and irrationality contra 
self-interest. Yet, we are immediately introduced to a theoretical 
science of determinism, and I think that's not far off from where we 
actually end the books too: choice and whether or not it's meaningful. 
Of course, Durrell doesn't answer that -- we have to wait to see what 
occurs beyond the ending.

Given the politics of the 1968 moment, I doubt we're meant to take it 
lightly.  And if we were inclined toward the Enlightenment, we open the 
novel with a "stone drunk" (troubling...) narrator and everything 
"seeming" and fake (indeed, he knows only seems): "nominal chestnuts" 
and "fake barrels" leading us to "the illusion of a proximate intuition" 
(as if Abel is also us under the illusion of rationality) and thence to 
"a buggerish astrology" that predicts the future but is also faked on 
the next few pages.

Abel, of course, is parallel to Charlock's later child, the son who will 
kill Cain just as religious phrasings and Providence are repeatedly 
subverted in the opening pages...

As Vibart tells Charlock, "in psychology an explanation does not 
constitute a cure," which also gives us a limitation on the novel's 
ambitions and how we should read it.  We're going to get an analysis of 
our contemporary woes without the Crystal Palace -- this will be a 
dystopia not a utopia, or perhaps if we like via Fredric Jameson, an 
anti-anti-utopia.  In short, we're not going to get any solutions.  I'm 
very much inclined to look back 8 years to Durrell's "No Clue to Living" 
as an accompaniment -- the book aims to avoid "opinionation" or the 
taking of public positions as a direction on how to live.  It critiques 
without offering solutions and a false utopia, a direction in which to 
point and make everyone move.

At least, that's how the epigram and first page grab me, much like how 
we read the epigrams for Justine at Bill Godshalk's provocation some 9 
years ago now:

https://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20070407/46fa6629/attachment.html

I think he's as right as every, still guiding our conversations.

Best,
James

From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Fri May 13 11:54:31 2016
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:54:31 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
In-Reply-To: <bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>

And perhaps for clarity, I'll propose that since people will have 
different editions, as we did with the Quartet, we enumerate.

/Tunc/ is in 7 sections (books?) with internal divisions into unnumbered 
chapters, within which we also have sectional divisions marked

* * * * *

We could use a book.chapter.unit system to keep it all clear in the 
various editions (US, UK, etc.).  We'd have 1.1.1 opening "Of the three 
men..." and 1.1.2 "I was brought up..."

So say we all?

-JDG

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Fri May 13 13:42:49 2016
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:42:49 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
In-Reply-To: <75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>

James, okay.  I?m using the 1968 Dutton edition.  When quoting text, I?ll cite to those pages, but I?ll also include a reference to sections and subsections.

I assume we?re going to bounce around in the text and not stick to the usual fixed sequence, from beginning to end.

Re front matter, on 4/16/16, Peter Baldwin has already pointed out the symbol above Claude-Marie Vincendon?s name in the dedication.  I?ll refer to it as a lunette with a dot.  I think it?s Durrell?s symbol for Claude.  I also think it?s obscene, so use your imagination.  Durrell was fond on doodling in his books; he was also fond of obscene jokes.  Of course, I could be wrong.

Re the epigraph, I don?t know what the French translation of Fyodor Dostoevsky?s Notes from Underground actually states, but I believe Durrell has truncated FD?s prose to suit his purposes (he also alters Wordsworth?s letter in the epigraph to Quinx).  In the English translation of Notes, it?s clear that the ?the wall? refers to the logic of mathematics as being irrefutable (so a character argues).  In Durrell, the meaning is ambiguous, i.e., it either refers to logical irrefutability or it refers to a barrier to be transcended.  If the latter, then we follow up with all those many references in text to multiple interpretations of an event (e.g., ?There seem to be a hundred reasons to account for every act? [p. 264; 5.3]).  Which is another variation on Durrell?s obsessive, ?Truth is what most contradicts itself in time? (Balthazar).

?Charlock? = Sherlock Holmes (p. 13; 1.1).  There are many similarities between the two, re habits and disposition.  Kaczvinsky agrees in his note on The Dark Labyrinth.  There?s even a reference to ?Charlock Holmes? (p. 240; 5.1).  I take the equation seriously and not as Durrell?s sense of playful misdirection, that is, creating an ?unreliable narrator.?  So, Charlock functions as a narrator/detective trying to figure out a puzzle; the plot is a mystery.  You and others might find this too simplistic.  Maybe.

Bruce




> On May 13, 2016, at 11:54 AM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> And perhaps for clarity, I'll propose that since people will have different editions, as we did with the Quartet, we enumerate.
> 
> /Tunc/ is in 7 sections (books?) with internal divisions into unnumbered chapters, within which we also have sectional divisions marked
> 
> * * * * *
> 
> We could use a book.chapter.unit system to keep it all clear in the various editions (US, UK, etc.).  We'd have 1.1.1 opening "Of the three men..." and 1.1.2 "I was brought up..."
> 
> So say we all?
> 
> -JDG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160513/64393f05/attachment.html>

From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Fri May 13 21:57:31 2016
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:57:31 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
In-Reply-To: <4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
	<4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>

Hi Bruce,

> I assume we?re going to bounce around in the text and not stick to the
> usual fixed sequence, from beginning to end.

I think we can read any way we like...  There wasn't an instruction 
manual with my copy, so with Bill Godshalk very much in my mind, I 
intend to treat the book as passive and the reader as active.

> Re front matter, on 4/16/16, Peter Baldwin has already pointed out the
> symbol above Claude-Marie Vincendon?s name in the dedication.  I?ll
> refer to it as a lunette with a dot.  I think it?s Durrell?s symbol for
> Claude.  I also think it?s obscene, so use your imagination.  Durrell
> was fond on doodling in his books; he was also fond of obscene jokes.

I could be wrong too, but I've always read it as a fermata (the musical 
notation to sustain or hold), which seems entirely appropriate over 
Claude's name.  In effect, this book is for her and also as a way of 
holding onto or sustaining her.

> I believe
> Durrell has truncated FD?s prose to suit his
> purposes (he also alters Wordsworth?s letter in
> the epigraph to /Quinx/).

I think the Wordsworth was a genuine mistake -- he misquotes the same 
letter elsewhere, as do literally hundreds of other people, perhaps 
because it sounds better than the original...

> In the English
> translation of /Notes/, it?s clear that the
> ?the wall? refers to the logic of mathematics
> as being irrefutable (so a character argues).

I think of Orwell's freedom to believe 2 + 2 = 4, or in other words, the 
freedom to be rational.  In this, we're stuck for freedom and 
intentionality with the Enlightenment subject (insofar as I am rational 
and have the capacity through reason to make self-determining choices, I 
can be free -- when I'm irrational or, perhaps like the drunken Charlock 
unable to exercise reason, I can't be said to make free choices).  This 
is, of course, very different from the subject described by Freud, 
riddled with irrationality or unconscious motivations.

Rather than transcending the wall as a way of breaking with determinism, 
there's also the fear that such a transcendence would be a way for 
external powers to rewrite reality.  Dostoevsky looks to freedom, but 
it's qualified and hesitant as well.

> In Durrell, the meaning is ambiguous, i.e., it
> either refers to logical irrefutability or it
> refers to a barrier to be transcended.  If the
> latter, then we follow up with all those many
> references in text to multiple interpretations
> of an event (e.g., ?There seem to be a hundred
> reasons to account for every act? [p. 264; 5.3]).

I'd go a long way with that.

> ?Charlock? = Sherlock Holmes (p. 13; 1.1) ...
> Charlock functions as a narrator/detective
> trying to figure out a puzzle; the plot is a
> mystery.  You and others might find this too
> simplistic.  Maybe.

I don't think that's simplistic at all, although I don't know if having 
a mystery leads us to a solution, which might be where Durrell parts 
ways with Doyle.  He writes about Doyle in his essay on Eliot, noting 
that they'd both read him closely and keenly.  Charlock is certainly 
expressing the turn to rationalism, but like the "flora" of the 
characters in the Quartet (the opening of /Justine/ casts them as flora 
rather than fauna and as lived *by* the city rather than controlling 
their own lives and decisions themselves), Charlock is the "thinking 
weed."  I'd take this as suggesting his rationalism is suspect, just as 
we know our first person narrator is unreliable when he lies to his 
colleagues in the opening of the book while drunk (if we weren't already 
suspicious based on Dostoevsky's deeply unreliable narrator in /Notes/).

But should we emphasize "Charlock" over "Felix"?  He is, of course, 
anything but...

All best,
James

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Sat May 14 08:52:08 2016
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 08:52:08 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
In-Reply-To: <e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
	<4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
	<e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>

James,

A couple of comments and add-ons to your very helpful analysis.

1.  More should be done with Durrell and the influence of musical composition.  Re the fermata, a musical notation, I think you?re right?this is the ?correct? interpretation of the symbol over Claude?s name in the dedication.  But it also seems to me that ?multiple? interpretations is a fundamental rule of Durrell?s art, one which he actively promotes, as in ?There seems to be a hundred reasons to account for every act,? cited below.  So, from the very beginning, we have Tunc, the title, turned into an obscene anagram.  So, early on, we have Athenian ?honey cakes in the shape of female pudenda? (p. 35; 2.1).  The flip side to the sacred is the profane, especially for Durrell.

2.  Re Charlock as ?thinking weed,? your analysis seems right.  Nevertheless, I don?t know how attuned Durrell was to American English.  At the end of the 1960s and its hallucinogenic culture, weed was the ubiquitous term for marijuana.  (Dunno if this common usage crossed the Atlantic.)  So, with a stretch, we might have the act of thinking in the novel as a hallucinogenic exercise, which it certainly becomes.

3.  Re ruins and architecture: the importance of the Parthenon (p. 35; 2.1) and Stonehenge (p. 250; 5.2).  Caradoc writes a history of architecture (p. 240; 5.1).  Maybe this is just part of Durrell?s Romantic Classicism (cf. Rose Macaulay?s Pleasure of Ruins [1953]?the two were friends), but he spends a lot of time on ruins, reminiscent of Cavafy?s ?black ruins of my life? in the translation of ?The City? at the end of Justine.

4.  According to Brewster Chamberlin, on 7 July 1968, ?Diana Menuhin writes a highly critical letter to LD about Tunc.?  What did she say?  Where is this letter?

Bruce




> On May 13, 2016, at 9:57 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
>> I assume we?re going to bounce around in the text and not stick to the
>> usual fixed sequence, from beginning to end.
> 
> I think we can read any way we like...  There wasn't an instruction manual with my copy, so with Bill Godshalk very much in my mind, I intend to treat the book as passive and the reader as active.
> 
>> Re front matter, on 4/16/16, Peter Baldwin has already pointed out the
>> symbol above Claude-Marie Vincendon?s name in the dedication.  I?ll
>> refer to it as a lunette with a dot.  I think it?s Durrell?s symbol for
>> Claude.  I also think it?s obscene, so use your imagination.  Durrell
>> was fond on doodling in his books; he was also fond of obscene jokes.
> 
> I could be wrong too, but I've always read it as a fermata (the musical notation to sustain or hold), which seems entirely appropriate over Claude's name.  In effect, this book is for her and also as a way of holding onto or sustaining her.
> 
>> I believe
>> Durrell has truncated FD?s prose to suit his
>> purposes (he also alters Wordsworth?s letter in
>> the epigraph to /Quinx/).
> 
> I think the Wordsworth was a genuine mistake -- he misquotes the same letter elsewhere, as do literally hundreds of other people, perhaps because it sounds better than the original...
> 
>> In the English
>> translation of /Notes/, it?s clear that the
>> ?the wall? refers to the logic of mathematics
>> as being irrefutable (so a character argues).
> 
> I think of Orwell's freedom to believe 2 + 2 = 4, or in other words, the freedom to be rational.  In this, we're stuck for freedom and intentionality with the Enlightenment subject (insofar as I am rational and have the capacity through reason to make self-determining choices, I can be free -- when I'm irrational or, perhaps like the drunken Charlock unable to exercise reason, I can't be said to make free choices).  This is, of course, very different from the subject described by Freud, riddled with irrationality or unconscious motivations.
> 
> Rather than transcending the wall as a way of breaking with determinism, there's also the fear that such a transcendence would be a way for external powers to rewrite reality.  Dostoevsky looks to freedom, but it's qualified and hesitant as well.
> 
>> In Durrell, the meaning is ambiguous, i.e., it
>> either refers to logical irrefutability or it
>> refers to a barrier to be transcended.  If the
>> latter, then we follow up with all those many
>> references in text to multiple interpretations
>> of an event (e.g., ?There seem to be a hundred
>> reasons to account for every act? [p. 264; 5.3]).
> 
> I'd go a long way with that.
> 
>> ?Charlock? = Sherlock Holmes (p. 13; 1.1) ...
>> Charlock functions as a narrator/detective
>> trying to figure out a puzzle; the plot is a
>> mystery.  You and others might find this too
>> simplistic.  Maybe.
> 
> I don't think that's simplistic at all, although I don't know if having a mystery leads us to a solution, which might be where Durrell parts ways with Doyle.  He writes about Doyle in his essay on Eliot, noting that they'd both read him closely and keenly.  Charlock is certainly expressing the turn to rationalism, but like the "flora" of the characters in the Quartet (the opening of /Justine/ casts them as flora rather than fauna and as lived *by* the city rather than controlling their own lives and decisions themselves), Charlock is the "thinking weed."  I'd take this as suggesting his rationalism is suspect, just as we know our first person narrator is unreliable when he lies to his colleagues in the opening of the book while drunk (if we weren't already suspicious based on Dostoevsky's deeply unreliable narrator in /Notes/).
> 
> But should we emphasize "Charlock" over "Felix"?  He is, of course, anything but...
> 
> All best,
> James

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160514/0a1baae4/attachment.html>

From pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com  Sun May 15 08:55:26 2016
From: pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com (Richard Pine)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 18:55:26 +0300
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
In-Reply-To: <2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
	<4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
	<e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>
	<2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAEVum0Lb0wKPE+-1nWmsDiabJfjHZP1_MhP60qGZoKmQ+sSo2Q@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the answer to Bruce's query no.4 - This info is from the revised
Chronology by B Chamberlin which will very soon be available on the DLC
website.
RP

The letter is in the Durrell Collection at Southern Illinois University, in
which she told him he was essentially running in neutral and that the
characters in no way matched the depths and breadths of the Alexandrians.
He needed to refresh his well of creativity and reinvigorate his soul.


On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> James,
>
> A couple of comments and add-ons to your very helpful analysis.
>
> 1.  More should be done with Durrell and the influence of musical
> composition.  Re the fermata, a musical notation, I think you?re right?this
> is the ?correct? interpretation of the symbol over Claude?s name in the
> dedication.  But it also seems to me that ?multiple? interpretations is a
> fundamental rule of Durrell?s art, one which he actively promotes, as in
> ?There seems to be a hundred reasons to account for every act,? cited
> below.  So, from the very beginning, we have *Tunc*, the title, turned
> into an obscene anagram.  So, early on, we have Athenian ?honey cakes in
> the shape of female pudenda? (p. 35; 2.1).  The flip side to the sacred is
> the profane, especially for Durrell.
>
> 2.  Re Charlock as ?thinking weed,? your analysis seems right.
> Nevertheless, I don?t know how attuned Durrell was to American English.  At
> the end of the 1960s and its hallucinogenic culture, *weed* was the
> ubiquitous term for marijuana.  (Dunno if this common usage crossed the
> Atlantic.)  So, with a stretch, we might have the act of thinking in the
> novel as a hallucinogenic exercise, which it certainly becomes.
>
> 3.  Re ruins and architecture: the importance of the Parthenon (p. 35;
> 2.1) and Stonehenge (p. 250; 5.2).  Caradoc writes a history of
> architecture (p. 240; 5.1).  Maybe this is just part of Durrell?s Romantic
> Classicism (cf. Rose Macaulay?s *Pleasure of Ruins* [1953]?the two were
> friends), but he spends a lot of time on ruins, reminiscent of Cavafy?s
> ?black ruins of my life? in the translation of ?The City? at the end of
> *Justine.*
>
> 4.  According to Brewster Chamberlin, on 7 July 1968, ?Diana Menuhin
> writes a highly critical letter to LD about *Tunc*.?  What did she say?
> Where is this letter?
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> On May 13, 2016, at 9:57 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I assume we?re going to bounce around in the text and not stick to the
> usual fixed sequence, from beginning to end.
>
>
> I think we can read any way we like...  There wasn't an instruction manual
> with my copy, so with Bill Godshalk very much in my mind, I intend to treat
> the book as passive and the reader as active.
>
> Re front matter, on 4/16/16, Peter Baldwin has already pointed out the
> symbol above Claude-Marie Vincendon?s name in the dedication.  I?ll
> refer to it as a lunette with a dot.  I think it?s Durrell?s symbol for
> Claude.  I also think it?s obscene, so use your imagination.  Durrell
> was fond on doodling in his books; he was also fond of obscene jokes.
>
>
> I could be wrong too, but I've always read it as a fermata (the musical
> notation to sustain or hold), which seems entirely appropriate over
> Claude's name.  In effect, this book is for her and also as a way of
> holding onto or sustaining her.
>
> I believe
> Durrell has truncated FD?s prose to suit his
> purposes (he also alters Wordsworth?s letter in
> the epigraph to /Quinx/).
>
>
> I think the Wordsworth was a genuine mistake -- he misquotes the same
> letter elsewhere, as do literally hundreds of other people, perhaps because
> it sounds better than the original...
>
> In the English
> translation of /Notes/, it?s clear that the
> ?the wall? refers to the logic of mathematics
> as being irrefutable (so a character argues).
>
>
> I think of Orwell's freedom to believe 2 + 2 = 4, or in other words, the
> freedom to be rational.  In this, we're stuck for freedom and
> intentionality with the Enlightenment subject (insofar as I am rational and
> have the capacity through reason to make self-determining choices, I can be
> free -- when I'm irrational or, perhaps like the drunken Charlock unable to
> exercise reason, I can't be said to make free choices).  This is, of
> course, very different from the subject described by Freud, riddled with
> irrationality or unconscious motivations.
>
> Rather than transcending the wall as a way of breaking with determinism,
> there's also the fear that such a transcendence would be a way for external
> powers to rewrite reality.  Dostoevsky looks to freedom, but it's qualified
> and hesitant as well.
>
> In Durrell, the meaning is ambiguous, i.e., it
> either refers to logical irrefutability or it
> refers to a barrier to be transcended.  If the
> latter, then we follow up with all those many
> references in text to multiple interpretations
> of an event (e.g., ?There seem to be a hundred
> reasons to account for every act? [p. 264; 5.3]).
>
>
> I'd go a long way with that.
>
> ?Charlock? = Sherlock Holmes (p. 13; 1.1) ...
> Charlock functions as a narrator/detective
> trying to figure out a puzzle; the plot is a
> mystery.  You and others might find this too
> simplistic.  Maybe.
>
>
> I don't think that's simplistic at all, although I don't know if having a
> mystery leads us to a solution, which might be where Durrell parts ways
> with Doyle.  He writes about Doyle in his essay on Eliot, noting that
> they'd both read him closely and keenly.  Charlock is certainly expressing
> the turn to rationalism, but like the "flora" of the characters in the
> Quartet (the opening of /Justine/ casts them as flora rather than fauna and
> as lived *by* the city rather than controlling their own lives and
> decisions themselves), Charlock is the "thinking weed."  I'd take this as
> suggesting his rationalism is suspect, just as we know our first person
> narrator is unreliable when he lies to his colleagues in the opening of the
> book while drunk (if we weren't already suspicious based on Dostoevsky's
> deeply unreliable narrator in /Notes/).
>
> But should we emphasize "Charlock" over "Felix"?  He is, of course,
> anything but...
>
> 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: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160515/c49f62c6/attachment.html>

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Sun May 15 09:45:23 2016
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:45:23 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Diana Menuhin
In-Reply-To: <CAEVum0Lb0wKPE+-1nWmsDiabJfjHZP1_MhP60qGZoKmQ+sSo2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
	<4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
	<e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>
	<2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
	<CAEVum0Lb0wKPE+-1nWmsDiabJfjHZP1_MhP60qGZoKmQ+sSo2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5459D983-C516-4C85-8E79-1ED8C3E088C6@earthlink.net>

Thanks, Richard.  Diana Menuhin (n?e Gould) was Durrell?s friend.  He met the ballerina in Egypt, fell in love with her, proposed, was rejected, and got his face scratched for the flirtation (by Eve), if I recall Haag?s City of Memory correctly.  She later married the great violinist Yehudi Menuhin.  Durrell dedicated Sicilian Carousel (1976) to the couple, those ?fixed stars.?  Diana?s assessment of Tunc is pretty much the common reception.  I think it largely wrong, however.  It?s very interesting in terms of Durrell?s own development, although the novel is dense, difficult, and, yes, discursive.  But then, so is Ulysses.

Bruce





> On May 15, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Pine <pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Here is the answer to Bruce's query no.4 - This info is from the revised Chronology by B Chamberlin which will very soon be available on the DLC website.
> RP
> The letter is in the Durrell Collection at Southern Illinois University, in which she told him he was essentially running in neutral and that the characters in no way matched the depths and breadths of the Alexandrians. He needed to refresh his well of creativity and reinvigorate his soul.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net <mailto:bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>> wrote:
> James,
> 
> A couple of comments and add-ons to your very helpful analysis.
> 
> 1.  More should be done with Durrell and the influence of musical composition.  Re the fermata, a musical notation, I think you?re right?this is the ?correct? interpretation of the symbol over Claude?s name in the dedication.  But it also seems to me that ?multiple? interpretations is a fundamental rule of Durrell?s art, one which he actively promotes, as in ?There seems to be a hundred reasons to account for every act,? cited below.  So, from the very beginning, we have Tunc, the title, turned into an obscene anagram.  So, early on, we have Athenian ?honey cakes in the shape of female pudenda? (p. 35; 2.1).  The flip side to the sacred is the profane, especially for Durrell.
> 
> 2.  Re Charlock as ?thinking weed,? your analysis seems right.  Nevertheless, I don?t know how attuned Durrell was to American English.  At the end of the 1960s and its hallucinogenic culture, weed was the ubiquitous term for marijuana.  (Dunno if this common usage crossed the Atlantic.)  So, with a stretch, we might have the act of thinking in the novel as a hallucinogenic exercise, which it certainly becomes.
> 
> 3.  Re ruins and architecture: the importance of the Parthenon (p. 35; 2.1) and Stonehenge (p. 250; 5.2).  Caradoc writes a history of architecture (p. 240; 5.1).  Maybe this is just part of Durrell?s Romantic Classicism (cf. Rose Macaulay?s Pleasure of Ruins [1953]?the two were friends), but he spends a lot of time on ruins, reminiscent of Cavafy?s ?black ruins of my life? in the translation of ?The City? at the end of Justine.
> 
> 4.  According to Brewster Chamberlin, on 7 July 1968, ?Diana Menuhin writes a highly critical letter to LD about Tunc.?  What did she say?  Where is this letter?
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 13, 2016, at 9:57 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com <mailto:james.d.gifford at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Bruce,
>> 
>>> I assume we?re going to bounce around in the text and not stick to the
>>> usual fixed sequence, from beginning to end.
>> 
>> I think we can read any way we like...  There wasn't an instruction manual with my copy, so with Bill Godshalk very much in my mind, I intend to treat the book as passive and the reader as active.
>> 
>>> Re front matter, on 4/16/16, Peter Baldwin has already pointed out the
>>> symbol above Claude-Marie Vincendon?s name in the dedication.  I?ll
>>> refer to it as a lunette with a dot.  I think it?s Durrell?s symbol for
>>> Claude.  I also think it?s obscene, so use your imagination.  Durrell
>>> was fond on doodling in his books; he was also fond of obscene jokes.
>> 
>> I could be wrong too, but I've always read it as a fermata (the musical notation to sustain or hold), which seems entirely appropriate over Claude's name.  In effect, this book is for her and also as a way of holding onto or sustaining her.
>> 
>>> I believe
>>> Durrell has truncated FD?s prose to suit his
>>> purposes (he also alters Wordsworth?s letter in
>>> the epigraph to /Quinx/).
>> 
>> I think the Wordsworth was a genuine mistake -- he misquotes the same letter elsewhere, as do literally hundreds of other people, perhaps because it sounds better than the original...
>> 
>>> In the English
>>> translation of /Notes/, it?s clear that the
>>> ?the wall? refers to the logic of mathematics
>>> as being irrefutable (so a character argues).
>> 
>> I think of Orwell's freedom to believe 2 + 2 = 4, or in other words, the freedom to be rational.  In this, we're stuck for freedom and intentionality with the Enlightenment subject (insofar as I am rational and have the capacity through reason to make self-determining choices, I can be free -- when I'm irrational or, perhaps like the drunken Charlock unable to exercise reason, I can't be said to make free choices).  This is, of course, very different from the subject described by Freud, riddled with irrationality or unconscious motivations.
>> 
>> Rather than transcending the wall as a way of breaking with determinism, there's also the fear that such a transcendence would be a way for external powers to rewrite reality.  Dostoevsky looks to freedom, but it's qualified and hesitant as well.
>> 
>>> In Durrell, the meaning is ambiguous, i.e., it
>>> either refers to logical irrefutability or it
>>> refers to a barrier to be transcended.  If the
>>> latter, then we follow up with all those many
>>> references in text to multiple interpretations
>>> of an event (e.g., ?There seem to be a hundred
>>> reasons to account for every act? [p. 264; 5.3]).
>> 
>> I'd go a long way with that.
>> 
>>> ?Charlock? = Sherlock Holmes (p. 13; 1.1) ...
>>> Charlock functions as a narrator/detective
>>> trying to figure out a puzzle; the plot is a
>>> mystery.  You and others might find this too
>>> simplistic.  Maybe.
>> 
>> I don't think that's simplistic at all, although I don't know if having a mystery leads us to a solution, which might be where Durrell parts ways with Doyle.  He writes about Doyle in his essay on Eliot, noting that they'd both read him closely and keenly.  Charlock is certainly expressing the turn to rationalism, but like the "flora" of the characters in the Quartet (the opening of /Justine/ casts them as flora rather than fauna and as lived *by* the city rather than controlling their own lives and decisions themselves), Charlock is the "thinking weed."  I'd take this as suggesting his rationalism is suspect, just as we know our first person narrator is unreliable when he lies to his colleagues in the opening of the book while drunk (if we weren't already suspicious based on Dostoevsky's deeply unreliable narrator in /Notes/).
>> 
>> But should we emphasize "Charlock" over "Felix"?  He is, of course, anything but...
>> 
>> All best,
>> James
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca <mailto:ILDS at lists.uvic.ca>
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds <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/20160515/c3b7dcb0/attachment.html>

From pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com  Sun May 15 10:19:16 2016
From: pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com (Richard Pine)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 20:19:16 +0300
Subject: [ilds] Diana Menuhin
In-Reply-To: <5459D983-C516-4C85-8E79-1ED8C3E088C6@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
	<4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
	<e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>
	<2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
	<CAEVum0Lb0wKPE+-1nWmsDiabJfjHZP1_MhP60qGZoKmQ+sSo2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5459D983-C516-4C85-8E79-1ED8C3E088C6@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAEVum0+N0otcj8h=gAing9T2OP+SBLKqqAnTZ=_Uyz0nGvdXaw@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, and Yehudi and LD got along famously at a later stage. RP

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Thanks, Richard.  Diana Menuhin (n?e Gould) was Durrell?s friend.  He met
> the ballerina in Egypt, fell in love with her, proposed, was rejected, and
> got his face scratched for the flirtation (by Eve), if I recall Haag?s *City
> of Memory* correctly.  She later married the great violinist Yehudi
> Menuhin.  Durrell dedicated *Sicilian Carousel* (1976) to the couple,
> those ?fixed stars.?  Diana?s assessment of *Tunc* is pretty much the
> common reception.  I think it largely wrong, however.  It?s very
> interesting in terms of Durrell?s own development, although the novel is
> dense, difficult, and, yes, discursive.  But then, so is *Ulysses*.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 15, 2016, at 8:55 AM, Richard Pine <pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Here is the answer to Bruce's query no.4 - This info is from the revised
> Chronology by B Chamberlin which will very soon be available on the DLC
> website.
> RP
>
> The letter is in the Durrell Collection at Southern Illinois University,
> in which she told him he was essentially running in neutral and that the
> characters in no way matched the depths and breadths of the Alexandrians.
> He needed to refresh his well of creativity and reinvigorate his soul.
>
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
> > wrote:
>
>> James,
>>
>> A couple of comments and add-ons to your very helpful analysis.
>>
>> 1.  More should be done with Durrell and the influence of musical
>> composition.  Re the fermata, a musical notation, I think you?re right?this
>> is the ?correct? interpretation of the symbol over Claude?s name in the
>> dedication.  But it also seems to me that ?multiple? interpretations is a
>> fundamental rule of Durrell?s art, one which he actively promotes, as in
>> ?There seems to be a hundred reasons to account for every act,? cited
>> below.  So, from the very beginning, we have *Tunc*, the title, turned
>> into an obscene anagram.  So, early on, we have Athenian ?honey cakes in
>> the shape of female pudenda? (p. 35; 2.1).  The flip side to the sacred is
>> the profane, especially for Durrell.
>>
>> 2.  Re Charlock as ?thinking weed,? your analysis seems right.
>> Nevertheless, I don?t know how attuned Durrell was to American English.  At
>> the end of the 1960s and its hallucinogenic culture, *weed* was the
>> ubiquitous term for marijuana.  (Dunno if this common usage crossed the
>> Atlantic.)  So, with a stretch, we might have the act of thinking in the
>> novel as a hallucinogenic exercise, which it certainly becomes.
>>
>> 3.  Re ruins and architecture: the importance of the Parthenon (p. 35;
>> 2.1) and Stonehenge (p. 250; 5.2).  Caradoc writes a history of
>> architecture (p. 240; 5.1).  Maybe this is just part of Durrell?s Romantic
>> Classicism (cf. Rose Macaulay?s *Pleasure of Ruins* [1953]?the two were
>> friends), but he spends a lot of time on ruins, reminiscent of Cavafy?s
>> ?black ruins of my life? in the translation of ?The City? at the end of
>> *Justine.*
>>
>> 4.  According to Brewster Chamberlin, on 7 July 1968, ?Diana Menuhin
>> writes a highly critical letter to LD about *Tunc*.?  What did she say?
>> Where is this letter?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 13, 2016, at 9:57 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> I assume we?re going to bounce around in the text and not stick to the
>> usual fixed sequence, from beginning to end.
>>
>>
>> I think we can read any way we like...  There wasn't an instruction
>> manual with my copy, so with Bill Godshalk very much in my mind, I intend
>> to treat the book as passive and the reader as active.
>>
>> Re front matter, on 4/16/16, Peter Baldwin has already pointed out the
>> symbol above Claude-Marie Vincendon?s name in the dedication.  I?ll
>> refer to it as a lunette with a dot.  I think it?s Durrell?s symbol for
>> Claude.  I also think it?s obscene, so use your imagination.  Durrell
>> was fond on doodling in his books; he was also fond of obscene jokes.
>>
>>
>> I could be wrong too, but I've always read it as a fermata (the musical
>> notation to sustain or hold), which seems entirely appropriate over
>> Claude's name.  In effect, this book is for her and also as a way of
>> holding onto or sustaining her.
>>
>> I believe
>> Durrell has truncated FD?s prose to suit his
>> purposes (he also alters Wordsworth?s letter in
>> the epigraph to /Quinx/).
>>
>>
>> I think the Wordsworth was a genuine mistake -- he misquotes the same
>> letter elsewhere, as do literally hundreds of other people, perhaps because
>> it sounds better than the original...
>>
>> In the English
>> translation of /Notes/, it?s clear that the
>> ?the wall? refers to the logic of mathematics
>> as being irrefutable (so a character argues).
>>
>>
>> I think of Orwell's freedom to believe 2 + 2 = 4, or in other words, the
>> freedom to be rational.  In this, we're stuck for freedom and
>> intentionality with the Enlightenment subject (insofar as I am rational and
>> have the capacity through reason to make self-determining choices, I can be
>> free -- when I'm irrational or, perhaps like the drunken Charlock unable to
>> exercise reason, I can't be said to make free choices).  This is, of
>> course, very different from the subject described by Freud, riddled with
>> irrationality or unconscious motivations.
>>
>> Rather than transcending the wall as a way of breaking with determinism,
>> there's also the fear that such a transcendence would be a way for external
>> powers to rewrite reality.  Dostoevsky looks to freedom, but it's qualified
>> and hesitant as well.
>>
>> In Durrell, the meaning is ambiguous, i.e., it
>> either refers to logical irrefutability or it
>> refers to a barrier to be transcended.  If the
>> latter, then we follow up with all those many
>> references in text to multiple interpretations
>> of an event (e.g., ?There seem to be a hundred
>> reasons to account for every act? [p. 264; 5.3]).
>>
>>
>> I'd go a long way with that.
>>
>> ?Charlock? = Sherlock Holmes (p. 13; 1.1) ...
>> Charlock functions as a narrator/detective
>> trying to figure out a puzzle; the plot is a
>> mystery.  You and others might find this too
>> simplistic.  Maybe.
>>
>>
>> I don't think that's simplistic at all, although I don't know if having a
>> mystery leads us to a solution, which might be where Durrell parts ways
>> with Doyle.  He writes about Doyle in his essay on Eliot, noting that
>> they'd both read him closely and keenly.  Charlock is certainly expressing
>> the turn to rationalism, but like the "flora" of the characters in the
>> Quartet (the opening of /Justine/ casts them as flora rather than fauna and
>> as lived *by* the city rather than controlling their own lives and
>> decisions themselves), Charlock is the "thinking weed."  I'd take this as
>> suggesting his rationalism is suspect, just as we know our first person
>> narrator is unreliable when he lies to his colleagues in the opening of the
>> book while drunk (if we weren't already suspicious based on Dostoevsky's
>> deeply unreliable narrator in /Notes/).
>>
>> But should we emphasize "Charlock" over "Felix"?  He is, of course,
>> anything but...
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160515/5205f651/attachment.html>

From Ric.Wilson at msn.com  Sun May 15 13:11:55 2016
From: Ric.Wilson at msn.com (Ric Wilson)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 20:11:55 +0000
Subject: [ilds] OER
In-Reply-To: <mailman.19.1463166103.31781.ilds@lists.uvic.ca>
References: <mailman.19.1463166103.31781.ilds@lists.uvic.ca>
Message-ID: <BY2PR16MB021346E9BE615CD302DB588393740@BY2PR16MB0213.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>

This may be as good as it gets said Mr. Nicholson once ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicholson ). The paywall has a long and elaborate history, a double-edged sword, ad infinitem. On one hand, there are those who'd look toward learning as an unlimited resource yielding ROI that clearly outweighs a phenomenon like "regulated capture." But this favors the precariat learner, an intoxicatingly seductive slant once upon a time. Darley's fiction was deemed genuine somewhere in that meandering track going backwards, so his point of view was immediately adopted. Snap.

On the other hand, estates are formed and designed through the fictions society creates for securing an elite "controlling" class of producers--writers included. It may not be appropriate to re-read one's AQ if in fact in the secrecy of his panic chamber he's supplementing his viewing of an appropriately acquired hard-copy with an unrestricted digitally thieved one--an unauthorized version on his 24+" from .ru--tapping into an uncontrolled server to assist waning eyesight. And hey, friends, there's undeniable residual angst at LD for leading me on through what, upon careful review in this community's chatter, may have been a cop-out's story. Am I the junky, then? Mutinously, one may insist privately that deconstructing LD's text(s)--googling out its fabric upon a virtual loom without the benefit of rulers, deciphering every single deliberately placed loose end (foreign phrases, place references, uncanny or unheard of schools of thought)--may reverse a precariate's cravings (see also http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/a-controversial-response-to-heroin-epidemic-supervised-injections to feel me), right? With so many digital fixes to choose from,readers may conceivably take back that power of intrigue given up during their prior reads, right? I could Wiki-out his place-referents almost instantly cutting out his stickers as if a chef filleting it up into a rendering than even many much wiser than me could ever hope for or want to be.... (http://www.wordswithoutborders.org/article/the-city-the-spirit-and-the-letter-on-translating-cavafy). Taking back what was once given up, LD retrospects, "in the same streets you'll wander endlessly"

Noam Chomsky (https://web.sbs.arizona.edu/privacy) made some fairly inflammatory remarks about governance and privileged access to resources as wedges driven deliberately between classes to uphold our social constructs. (I just viewed his Requiem for the American Dream documentary, his vision of what keeps us together or alternatively pulls us apart) What I'm leading to, pardon my scrawl, is that we're lucky to find ourselves engaged as a small group (?) of individuals  who tinker with these significant concepts in literature. Behold, I sense in our threaded dialogue these forces both shaping and identifying us within our larger frameworks. Each thread connects , it seems. So my shout out to the identification of a paywall. This is good company.

Ric Wilson

________________________________________


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:47:47 -0700
From: James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com>
To: ILDS Listserv <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
Message-ID: <bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Hi Bruce,

On 2016-05-13 9:59 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
> I was unaware that an article was worth ?a couple of
> thousand dollars.?  I?ll take your word for it,
> but this seems to me unlikely.

I'll remove my tongue from my cheek -- they're not worth it.  It just
makes "Open Access" another revenue stream by getting funds directly
from authors...  That then opens the trouble of pay-to-print in a peer
reviewed environment.

> Your analogy between Internet strategies to make
> money and the policies of ?the firm? in /Tunc/ is
> provocative.

It's one avenue into /Tunc/, among many I think, but just like there's
no outside to the Firm (or ideology), I don't think there's an outside
to the scenario.  We can't run like Nash to the South Seas to be a free
individual outside of the social even while we cannot accept determinism
and an omnipotent ruler behind the curtain.

> One thing about /Tunc/ bothers me.  Durrell is
> the writer of ?the spirit of place.?  He is most
> famous for the landscapes he knew first hand.

The invented scenery around the Golden Horn is also a gesture back to
Conrad, but as you note, if he's choosing a place specifically and not
based on residence, then why Istanbul?  The joint between East and West
would make sense.  But we open in Poggio's, although even in that we
really open with Dostoevsky, and in French rather than Russian (and I
think in Boris de Schl?zer's existentialist translation).

The Dostoevsky quotation signals a kinship between the narrator of
/Notes from the Underground/ and our humble Charlock.  In other words,
he's not to be trusted, and we're marking out an anti-utopian topic of
discussion wherein free will, the individual, rationality, and society
are set in potential conflict against each other.  It could also be that
Durrell used French to avoid making an obvious parallel to George
Orwell's /Nineteen Eight-Four/, which he read and admired (and wrote
Orwell to congratulate him on).

In any case, we open the book with an invocation that argues against the
perfections of a utopia because of free will and irrationality contra
self-interest. Yet, we are immediately introduced to a theoretical
science of determinism, and I think that's not far off from where we
actually end the books too: choice and whether or not it's meaningful.
Of course, Durrell doesn't answer that -- we have to wait to see what
occurs beyond the ending.

Given the politics of the 1968 moment, I doubt we're meant to take it
lightly.  And if we were inclined toward the Enlightenment, we open the
novel with a "stone drunk" (troubling...) narrator and everything
"seeming" and fake (indeed, he knows only seems): "nominal chestnuts"
and "fake barrels" leading us to "the illusion of a proximate intuition"
(as if Abel is also us under the illusion of rationality) and thence to
"a buggerish astrology" that predicts the future but is also faked on
the next few pages.

Abel, of course, is parallel to Charlock's later child, the son who will
kill Cain just as religious phrasings and Providence are repeatedly
subverted in the opening pages...

As Vibart tells Charlock, "in psychology an explanation does not
constitute a cure," which also gives us a limitation on the novel's
ambitions and how we should read it.  We're going to get an analysis of
our contemporary woes without the Crystal Palace -- this will be a
dystopia not a utopia, or perhaps if we like via Fredric Jameson, an
anti-anti-utopia.  In short, we're not going to get any solutions.  I'm
very much inclined to look back 8 years to Durrell's "No Clue to Living"
as an accompaniment -- the book aims to avoid "opinionation" or the
taking of public positions as a direction on how to live.  It critiques
without offering solutions and a false utopia, a direction in which to
point and make everyone move.

At least, that's how the epigram and first page grab me, much like how
we read the epigrams for Justine at Bill Godshalk's provocation some 9
years ago now:

https://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20070407/46fa6629/attachment.html

I think he's as right as every, still guiding our conversations.

Best,
James


------------------------------




From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Sun May 15 14:34:58 2016
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:34:58 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1 - the "thinking weed"
In-Reply-To: <2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
	<4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
	<e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>
	<2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <ab1304aa-6504-0e5e-4574-bab0c5b09aa6@gmail.com>

Hi Bruce

On 2016-05-14 8:52 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote:
 > 2.  Re Charlock as ?thinking weed,?

I'm not sure if "weed" carried the same meaning in the UK at the time 
(others??  Peter...).  Isabelle Keller-Privat has described the phrase 
as "stand[ing] for the rhizomatic impulse," but I think it's actually a 
quotation from Blaise Pascal (I've always associated it with Hans Jonas 
who paraphrased it in some of his comments on the Gnostics):

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a 
thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him. A 
vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But, if the universe were 
to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, 
because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has 
over him, the universe knows nothing of this." (Pascal, Pens?e X)

The follow up from Jonas is that this burdens humanity with being 
conscious and even self-conscious in an unconscious, unthinking 
universe...  I invariably think to Otto Rank, Ernest Becker, and the 
modern Terror Management Theory paradigm in that stream.

I'm away from my desk though, I so I can't check if Pascal's word is 
"roseau" in the original or something else for "reed" vs. "weed." 
Anyone?  I do have the Jonas handy:

"As a thinking reed [man] is no part of the [universal] sum, not 
belonging to it, but radically different, incommensurable, for the res 
extensa does not think, and nature is nothing but res extensa -- body, 
matter, external magnitude. If she crushes him, she does so 
unthinkingly, while he, being crushed, is aware of being crushed. He 
alone thinks, not because of but in spite of his begin a part of 
nature.... Thus that which makes man superior to all nature, his unique 
distinction, mind, no longer results in a higher integration of his 
being into the totality of being, but on the contrary marks the 
unbridgeable gulf between himself and the rest of existence." (Jonas 117)

I think of Charlock as the "thinking weed" in precisely this sense, and 
anticipating /Monsieur/ as well as looking back across the deep anxiety 
over mortality across Durrell's works ever since the ankle bone in /Pied 
Piper of Lovers/ (the protagonist Walsh's first recognition that he'll 
one day die too).

In other words, like with the Dostoevsky epigram that points to an 
anti-utopian theme in the novel paired with an unreliable narrator, we 
have the problems of rationality, reason, consciousness, 
self-consciousness, and alienation -- that's not bad for an epigram and 
the first paragraph, really...

 > 3.  Re ruins and architecture: the importance of
 > the Parthenon (p. 35; 2.1) and Stonehenge (p. 250;
 > 5.2).  Caradoc writes a history of architecture
 > (p. 240; 5.1).  Maybe this is just part of Durrell?s
 > Romantic Classicism (cf. Rose Macaulay?s /Pleasure
 > of Ruins/ [1953]?the two were friends), but he
 > spends a lot of time on ruins, reminiscent of
 > Cavafy?s ?black ruins of my life? in the translation
 > of ?The City? at the end of /Justine./

I think this might need a serious discussion on its own.  And I'd need 
to have the book in front of me to make any real comment!

All best,
James

From james.d.gifford at gmail.com  Sun May 15 14:35:27 2016
From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:35:27 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
In-Reply-To: <2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
	<4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
	<e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>
	<2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <69ed6145-624b-f699-f0c5-455bc4c97dbf@gmail.com>

Hi Bruce,

> 1.  More should be done with Durrell and the
> influence of musical composition.

There have been a few scholarly pieces.  I think Zivley's is the most 
recent though:

Zivley, Sherry Lutz. ?A Quartet That Is a Quartet: Lawrence Durrell?s 
Alexandria Quartet.? /Literature and Music/. Ed. Michael J. Meyer. 
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002. 135?44.

A trouble with overlapping music & literature, especially in relation to 
form, is the often allegorical and metaphorical nature of the 
comparisons.  As anyone with the British Library's delightful Durrell CD 
knows, he had a good ear and his songs were charming, and musical 
references run across the oeuvre from Walsh's songs in /Pied Piper/, the 
chapter on music in /Panic Spring/, and so on.  Yet I can't bring myself 
to discuss literature as "fugal" or "contrapuntal" as others have...

I suppose I don't know where we'd move beyond a metaphorical use of 
musical references or gestures.  The fermata over Claude, for instance, 
contains multiple sounds, so it's a symbol of her continuation but not 
an actual fermata (which would sustain just one vowel).  That said, what 
it leads you to strikes me as quite genuine:

> it also seems to me that ?multiple?
> interpretations is a fundamental rule of Durrell?s
> art, one which he actively promotes, as in ?There
> seems to be a hundred reasons to account for every
> act,? cited below.  So, from the very beginning, we
> have /Tunc/, the title, turned into an obscene
> anagram.  So, early on, we have Athenian ?honey
> cakes in the shape of female pudenda? (p. 35; 2.1).
>  The flip side to the sacred is the profane

I think that's exactly right, especially the sacred and profane (but 
also very much the profane and the sacred...).  However, as with musical 
"meaning," a multiplicity of potential interpretations isn't the same 
thing as a meaning.  It's an opening for the reader but not a "meaning" 
in the text.  When Durrell's after an effect, I think we get this -- 
rather than a specific interpretation or even a deliberately Keatsian 
negative capability (so very apt for this particular novel series!), we 
have a tension between possibilities, and that tension is the meaning 
itself.

For instance, when Durrell talks about mixing his words hot & cold 
("mathematical strawberry" or "lax unmanning Eastbourne" or "ribonuclear 
cid"), are we to derive specific meanings?  Metaphorical fusion leaves 
inevitable ambiguity and reader-imminent development of meanings.

All best,
James

From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net  Sun May 15 15:47:28 2016
From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:47:28 -0700
Subject: [ilds] Tunc 1.1
In-Reply-To: <69ed6145-624b-f699-f0c5-455bc4c97dbf@gmail.com>
References: <78d44db2-b6d4-aca6-3302-7ca6005e885e@gmail.com>
	<92668D93-AF7D-4B21-9AA4-3A4021E5F529@earthlink.net>
	<d5cea18a-3cc8-37a9-6f0d-e5cd44d5ad8c@gmail.com>
	<4FE3CFDF-DDC6-473A-B3A1-FF6828213BCC@earthlink.net>
	<5905f453-b662-f915-046d-849663067d5b@gmail.com>
	<D2CA05BD-3E5A-457D-B8BB-2DD09C571AF0@earthlink.net>
	<bb1f9448-a27d-88d9-d8ec-3d056005ef1c@gmail.com>
	<75790af4-afbb-60ff-b145-fd98d0676155@gmail.com>
	<4CC872B4-64A4-4440-9121-A6BDBE9C86A1@earthlink.net>
	<e37b3e7a-89d8-c34f-6ab5-8730e23f4881@gmail.com>
	<2547FAD4-AC22-4942-BFBF-56E1D443CFF1@earthlink.net>
	<69ed6145-624b-f699-f0c5-455bc4c97dbf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4677F4A9-2808-4BCA-ADF5-F96FA178D3E5@earthlink.net>

James, right.  ?Meaning? is not the same as ?interpretation,? and Durrell?s diction sometimes doesn?t make much sense, as you cite below.  I think Durrell hates being fixed and tied down to the very idea of ?meaning.?  So, he?s prone to carelessness and too taken with his own gift for metaphor.  Too much free association.  He needs a filter at times.  Nevertheless, the overriding metaphor in Tunc is Felix?s ?little dactyl? (pp.17, 19; 1.2), the recording machine whose nickname plays on a metrical foot (one long stressed syllable, followed by two short unstressed) and the literal Greek meaning of a ?finger??the linguistic paradox obviously appealing to Durrell and the theme of unknowingness.  So we have that long section of Felix trying to unravel the voices on a tape.  He ends up confused:  ?I don?t know, I shall never know? (p. 291; 5.3).  The novel is quite dense with unknowingness.  Hence, the allusion to the unknown medieval poet known as ?The Cloud of Unknowing,? whom Durrell alludes to as ?a cloud of unknowing? (p. 155; 3.2).  I doubt that Durrell ever read the ?Cloud Poet? (although he could have in his studies), rather he probably picked him or her up in some book on mysticism, maybe Evelyn Underhill?s, which is a classic.

Bruce





> On May 15, 2016, at 2:35 PM, James Gifford <james.d.gifford at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
>> 1.  More should be done with Durrell and the
>> influence of musical composition.
> 
> There have been a few scholarly pieces.  I think Zivley's is the most recent though:
> 
> Zivley, Sherry Lutz. ?A Quartet That Is a Quartet: Lawrence Durrell?s Alexandria Quartet.? /Literature and Music/. Ed. Michael J. Meyer. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002. 135?44.
> 
> A trouble with overlapping music & literature, especially in relation to form, is the often allegorical and metaphorical nature of the comparisons.  As anyone with the British Library's delightful Durrell CD knows, he had a good ear and his songs were charming, and musical references run across the oeuvre from Walsh's songs in /Pied Piper/, the chapter on music in /Panic Spring/, and so on.  Yet I can't bring myself to discuss literature as "fugal" or "contrapuntal" as others have...
> 
> I suppose I don't know where we'd move beyond a metaphorical use of musical references or gestures.  The fermata over Claude, for instance, contains multiple sounds, so it's a symbol of her continuation but not an actual fermata (which would sustain just one vowel).  That said, what it leads you to strikes me as quite genuine:
> 
>> it also seems to me that ?multiple?
>> interpretations is a fundamental rule of Durrell?s
>> art, one which he actively promotes, as in ?There
>> seems to be a hundred reasons to account for every
>> act,? cited below.  So, from the very beginning, we
>> have /Tunc/, the title, turned into an obscene
>> anagram.  So, early on, we have Athenian ?honey
>> cakes in the shape of female pudenda? (p. 35; 2.1).
>> The flip side to the sacred is the profane
> 
> I think that's exactly right, especially the sacred and profane (but also very much the profane and the sacred...).  However, as with musical "meaning," a multiplicity of potential interpretations isn't the same thing as a meaning.  It's an opening for the reader but not a "meaning" in the text.  When Durrell's after an effect, I think we get this -- rather than a specific interpretation or even a deliberately Keatsian negative capability (so very apt for this particular novel series!), we have a tension between possibilities, and that tension is the meaning itself.
> 
> For instance, when Durrell talks about mixing his words hot & cold ("mathematical strawberry" or "lax unmanning Eastbourne" or "ribonuclear cid"), are we to derive specific meanings?  Metaphorical fusion leaves inevitable ambiguity and reader-imminent development of meanings.
> 
> All best,
> James
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160515/048fcd85/attachment.html>