From billyapt at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 02:53:11 2016 From: billyapt at gmail.com (William Apt) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:53:11 +0300 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: While I understand Miller's stand that politics is bunk and that no political system takes priority over placing one's life at risk, and while I completely agree that many people preoccupied with politics to the point of allowing it to take center stage are often avoiding issues in their own lives, that does not quite resolve the issue. Miller felt no duty to give anything back to the only country that allowed him to thrive, to be himself without a sense of shame, to achieve success, to gain respect, and which he professed to love: France. Unlike the deeply grateful Josephine Baker, Miller did nothing for France. He could have helped in some small way, even back in the States, but declined to do so. No sense of obligation to that from which he took and profited. How different is that from the very wealthy in the US who generate tremendous profits from the society in which they live yet feel no obligation to contribute to its maintenance, beyond the grudging payment of and then complaining about taxes? They pay only because they are required to. Miller was required to do nothing and that is what he did. I think too that many artists will tolerate almost any political system as long as they are left alone by that system so they can create (e.g., Borges, Dostoevsky). Miller, I believe, was that way: he even tolerated the detested US because it was a safe haven. Ultimately, I think Miller was less a conscientious anarchist-pacifist than a guy whose personal freedom took priority over everything and everyone else. Now, that said, I still like Miller very much and he was hugely influential on me during my college years. One overlooked quality of his is that he was a great teacher: he had a superb eye for other writers and artists and didn't hesitate to name-drop. Without fail, every author or artist for whom he expresses enthusiasm is worthwhile. I learned a lot... WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX > On Jun 5, 2016, at 10:45 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don't think so... > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he's also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste." > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn't faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look how unfashionable he is." > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, "why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses... > > All best, > James > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From billyapt at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 05:13:00 2016 From: billyapt at gmail.com (William Apt) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:13:00 +0300 Subject: [ilds] Qualification Message-ID: <09F9F0DB-38B0-4D76-8697-15B183838EFC@gmail.com> Let me correct a misstatement in my last email. I said that "without fail" every writer Miller was enthusiastic about was worthwhile. I forgot: he did like his share of cranks and oddities. But in general he did have pretty darn good taste! WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Mon Jun 6 11:22:19 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:22:19 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> James, Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. Bruce > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don?t think so? I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejecting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political acts. > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that nurture them. > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too self-absorbed. > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex sells. > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. Yes. > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how unfashionable he is." Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive discussion of his poetry. > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of satire? > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may be another kind of suicide. > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses? Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > All best, > James > _ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 11:50:56 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:50:56 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Thank you for keeping this discussion going. As you say, you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, should he have been trying to run toward or away from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in quotes. Please recall, the American government and probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war until Pearl Harbor two years later. Miller is way past caring what you say about him - but I do. - Ken P.S. Picasso painted Guernica and that's all he needed to do. We are still talking about it, and know it for capturing Hitler's brutality BEFORE THE WAR. Back then many people hated it - and some may still. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > James, > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and > his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below > to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s > actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of > anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I > think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s > defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and > egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this > topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. > > Bruce > > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave > during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons > (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their > ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was > an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him > a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I > don?t think so? > > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist > pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to > seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not > racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of > the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until > recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he > had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a > pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era > of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was > legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was > required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the > ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? > status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already > an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his > declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience > argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which > he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejecting the law with impunity or > amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam > War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David Harris > among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political acts. > > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" > but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to > Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take > the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the > /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard > politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through > politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the > same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, > 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me > as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only > because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which > protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m > not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have > painted *Guernica* (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are > not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that > nurture them. > > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it > comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and > Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, > an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... > It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession > or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they > have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references to > the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always > involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before > and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I > want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? > > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and > eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and > such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and > freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s > not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of > down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the > French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it > comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large > part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably > didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict > thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in > carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often > from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. > Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I > can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an > ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s > forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On > the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his *Big > Sur, *the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight > face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too > self-absorbed. > > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t > faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but > sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't > pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and > worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of > MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to > appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a > bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of > used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of *Justine*. Raw > sex sells. > > > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > > Yes. > > > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how > unfashionable he is." > > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive > discussion of his poetry. > > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. > But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in > Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the > Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s > full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a > kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of > satire? > > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show > us his utopian leap into the future? > > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither > believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is > essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may > be another kind of suicide. > > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > ellipses? > > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with > his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > > > 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: From Ric.Wilson at msn.com Mon Jun 6 14:46:58 2016 From: Ric.Wilson at msn.com (Ric Wilson) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 21:46:58 +0000 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: re: Message One In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses... I, for one, lean toward a Jamesian view. Not because it's "careful" but rather cohesive, open-ended and not permeated with a judgmental underpinnings. In determining merit, one must ask what the writer was attempting to accomplish with his audience. So the response aimed at raising awareness in a rainforest rather than scything down alleged weeds, I found most provocative--inspiring even. (I confess my Tunc only just arrived, so I'm really winging it here.) I note with keen interest his closing opens on the interconnection between works and a gentle reminder of what even a layman such as myself can remember from AQ--ellipses. I don't see an underlying impulse to backhand some ghost's reputation as much as a presence identifying with--understand and return to--DL's technique, effective or not. I don't propose to really know in this case. Ric Wilson ________________________________ From: ILDS on behalf of ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 12:00:49 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 Send ILDS mailing list submissions to ilds at lists.uvic.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca You can reach the person managing the list at ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) 2. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (William Apt) 3. Qualification (William Apt) 4. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:45:59 -0700 From: James Gifford To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don't think so... What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he's also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste." As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn't faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look how unfashionable he is." In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, "why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses... All best, James ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:53:11 +0300 From: William Apt To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 While I understand Miller's stand that politics is bunk and that no political system takes priority over placing one's life at risk, and while I completely agree that many people preoccupied with politics to the point of allowing it to take center stage are often avoiding issues in their own lives, that does not quite resolve the issue. Miller felt no duty to give anything back to the only country that allowed him to thrive, to be himself without a sense of shame, to achieve success, to gain respect, and which he professed to love: France. Unlike the deeply grateful Josephine Baker, Miller did nothing for France. He could have helped in some small way, even back in the States, but declined to do so. No sense of obligation to that from which he took and profited. How different is that from the very wealthy in the US who generate tremendous profits from the society in which they live yet feel no obligation to contribute to its maintenance, beyond the grudging payment of and th! en complaining about taxes? They pay only because they are required to. Miller was required to do nothing and that is what he did. I think too that many artists will tolerate almost any political system as long as they are left alone by that system so they can create (e.g., Borges, Dostoevsky). Miller, I believe, was that way: he even tolerated the detested US because it was a safe haven. Ultimately, I think Miller was less a conscientious anarchist-pacifist than a guy whose personal freedom took priority over everything and everyone else. Now, that said, I still like Miller very much and he was hugely influential on me during my college years. One overlooked quality of his is that he was a great teacher: he had a superb eye for other writers and artists and didn't hesitate to name-drop. Without fail, every author or artist for whom he expresses enthusiasm is worthwhile. I learned a lot... WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX > On Jun 5, 2016, at 10:45 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don't think so... > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he's also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" follo! wed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste." > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn't faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look how unfashionable he is." > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, "why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses... > > All best, > James > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:13:00 +0300 From: William Apt To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: [ilds] Qualification Message-ID: <09F9F0DB-38B0-4D76-8697-15B183838EFC at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Let me correct a misstatement in my last email. I said that "without fail" every writer Miller was enthusiastic about was worthwhile. I forgot: he did like his share of cranks and oddities. But in general he did have pretty darn good taste! WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:22:19 -0700 From: Bruce Redwine To: Sumantra Nag Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5 at earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" James, Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. Bruce > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don?t think so? I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejec! ting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political acts. > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that nurture them. > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" follo! wed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too self-absorbed. > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex sells. > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. Yes. > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how unfashionable he is." Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive discussion of his poetry. > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of satire? > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may be another kind of suicide. > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses? Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > All best, > James > _ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds ------------------------------ End of ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 ************************************ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 09:58:05 2016 From: bredwine1968 at gmail.com (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:58:05 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Ken, I have read some of Miller?s major works and some biographical material, but I am no authority on the man, to say the very least. So, for what it?s worth, here?s my take on his political positions. In his late thirties, Miller rejected American society and culture and left for France, where he found a haven more compatible with his beliefs about anarchism and pacifism. There he lived as an exile for almost ten years and found his voice as a writer. French culture nurtured him. Then the Second World War broke out. Once the situation became too dangerous, he abandoned France and returned to America, which he continued to berate and debunk. As Billy Apt has noted, Miller never did anything to repay his debt to France (unless the Conrad Moricand episode in Big Sur is interpreted as Miller?s guilt and penance). I would call Miller an opportunist and without any sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal contacts. Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. Bruce > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > > Thank you for keeping this discussion going. As you say, you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, should he have been trying to run toward or away from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in quotes. Please recall, the American government and probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war until Pearl Harbor two years later. Miller is way past caring what you say about him - but I do. > > - Ken > > P.S. Picasso painted Guernica and that's all he needed to do. We are still talking about it, and know it for capturing Hitler's brutality BEFORE THE WAR. Back then many people hated it - and some may still. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Bruce Redwine > wrote: > James, > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. > > Bruce > > >> On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: >> >> Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, >> >> In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). >> >> For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don?t think so? > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejecting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political acts. > >> >> What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that nurture them. > >> >> The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > >> >> As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/ ). >> >> In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too self-absorbed. > >> >> For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex sells. > > >> >> Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > Yes. > > >> >> For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how unfashionable he is." > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive discussion of his poetry. > >> >> In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > >> >> I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of satire? > >> >> In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may be another kind of suicide. > >> >> I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses? > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > >> >> All best, >> James >> _ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 02:15:48 2016 From: pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com (Richard Pine) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:15:48 +0300 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> Message-ID: My own feelings about superficial, ill-considered, pretentious, precocious criticisms of writers like Durrell and Miller are summed up in this letter from LD to HM, dated 2 August 1981. What LD has to say about shallowness and petty back-biting could well apply to many so-called academics and other applicants at the base of the intellectual greasy pole. The way LD expresses his contempt (something which he also felt about F-J Temple) is characteristic of his 'Ship of Fools' approach to life which is ever-present in his 'MiniSatyrikon' and the (unfortunately unpublished) 'Asides of Demonax'. It means, in effect, "I don't give a fuck because none of them is worth a fuck." "Dear Henry: a quick wish for 77, and may it bring you everything you feel you want -- it is difficult to imagine what except perhaps a French meal. May it not bring you any more critics like Mailer with his advise and consent style and all these windy garage swallowing excuses for not thinking. I hope he is sharing his royalties with you at least, having gutted three of your books to make a Roman holiday. What luck you do have with these windy Jewish pickpockets. By contrast your poet Frenchman has written the best book on you yet, if you write to him will you tell him I have lost his address and that I vastly admire everything about his book, even the style which is fine and lucid and full of glows of insight. What a treat if he is doing Anais like this too. I have had a lousy sort of year, living here more or less alone except from visits from a cheetah of a girl about whom more one day. My film has been a great success. I am only half through Livia, and editing a compilation of Greek islands before finishing it." Durrell adds in green ink: "As for Batrillat - what a little empty shit and what an impertinence" RP On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 PM, James Gifford wrote: > Hello all, > > This piece by James Campbell on Henry Miller from the /TLS/ might be of > interest -- Durrell comes up several times, and part of the critique likely > parallel some of the critical challenges Durrell's works face: > > http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/millers-fail/ > > The part that strikes me the most is that the piece opens with an > invocation of Durrell recognizing that Miller's books aren't actually the > same as the author, then the article's author proceeds as if we're not > supposed to see any of it as ironical. That strikes me as a superficial > reading. Certainly several good points, but at the same time missing the > point... > > 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: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 10:21:22 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:21:22 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Hi Bruce & Ken, > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > contacts. I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under Miller's sway did serve. On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, so it can be quite productive. My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). All best, James From pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 10:32:19 2016 From: pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com (Richard Pine) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:32:19 +0300 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly doesn't understand gnosticism. RP On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford wrote: > Hi Bruce & Ken, > > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any >> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal >> contacts. >> > > I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd > also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but > certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the > quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more > in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in > his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & > George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same > sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under > Miller's sway did serve. > > On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > >> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in >> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, >> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. >> > > I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with > Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending > that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that > means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, > so it can be quite productive. > > My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort in > the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point > rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong > or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from > noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. > > As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play > in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though > more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For > instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to > Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant > across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), > and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. > As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere > nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism > surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur > originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). > > 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: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 10:45:52 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:45:52 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4060cf87-62e9-5172-c456-ae6fe8fd62af@gmail.com> Hi Ken, > you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he > was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no > draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, > should he have been trying to run toward or away > from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I > don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in > quotes. Please recall, the American government and > probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war > until Pearl Harbor two years later. Well put. One of Miller's rebuttals to those who said he should fight against those who would censor him (for instance, saying Hitler or Mussolini wouldn't let him publish his books) was that indeed they wouldn't and nor would the USA or Britain... This was, of course, before anyone knew about the Holocaust and what would really come in WWII, so hindsight could certainly change things. Patrick von Richthofen's work on the Booster & Delta stresses how the Munich Crisis shaped that project from the Villa Seurat as well -- Herbert Read would, in part thanks to Miller's influence, describe it as "The Politics of the Unpolitical." What's worth emphasizing, I think, is that Miller was explicitly a pacifist well before WWII and told those who would go to Spain, like Orwell, that their revolution would just lead back to the status quo. It did. Does that mean they shouldn't have gone to Spain? I don't think I can say, but despite being anti-capitalist he was also no friend to the Fascists or Communists. There's be a good deal of work considering Miller's influence on Durrell, especially in the 30s and 40s, but it seems to be mainly around sex and style -- Durrell was copied on Miller's more radical correspondence with Herbert Read and others, and I tend to think that as Wilde would say, we overlook that at our peril just as overlooking its importance to Miller circumscribes our readings For what it's worth, I admire Leighton's work on Picasso. All best, James From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 10:45:16 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:45:16 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: This morning?s horoscope by Holiday Mathis in the LA Times advised me: ?You could face and overcome your opposition, but it would take an awful lot of energy. It?s probable that this battle is not important in the scheme of things.? And yet ? there is so much to disagree with! Writers write, painters paint and soldiers fight. That?s their job. Miller was a writer, not a soldier. France ?nurtured? Henry Miller for 10 years from the late ?20s through the ?30s. Well, if nurturing means earning no money but having glorious fun at intervals drinking red wine and peeing in bathtubs with prostitutes, then yes. Plus writing the book that made him famous even though he would earn virtually no money from it for the next 25 years. So he was nurtured. Somehow that obligated him to put on a uniform at age 48? France fell in 6 weeks in mid 1940. Could Miller have prevented that? I reject this argument that Miller had a ?debt? to fight for France ? especially with the benefit now of 75 years of hindsight! Do you think it would have made a difference? Funny talking about politics and criticizing Henry Miller. Today is election day in California. Holiday Mathis was right ? this whole discussion is absurd. Cheers - Ken On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken > seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly > doesn't understand gnosticism. > RP > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > >> Hi Bruce & Ken, >> >> I would call Miller an opportunist and without any >>> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal >>> contacts. >>> >> >> I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd >> also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but >> certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the >> quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more >> in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in >> his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & >> George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same >> sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under >> Miller's sway did serve. >> >> On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> >>> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in >>> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, >>> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. >>> >> >> I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with >> Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending >> that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that >> means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, >> so it can be quite productive. >> >> My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort >> in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point >> rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong >> or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from >> noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. >> >> As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play >> in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though >> more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For >> instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to >> Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant >> across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), >> and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. >> As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere >> nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism >> surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur >> originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). >> >> All best, >> James >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Tue Jun 7 11:49:35 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:49:35 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00EE3A8E-F2CF-46D5-977E-049E6FB92E89@earthlink.net> Ken, > On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > > This morning?s horoscope by Holiday Mathis in the LA Times advised me: ?You could face and overcome your opposition, but it would take an awful lot of energy. It?s probable that this battle is not important in the scheme of things.? And yet ? there is so much to disagree with! > > Writers write, painters paint and soldiers fight. That?s their job. Miller was a writer, not a soldier. Tell that to a few of Henry Miller?s contemporaries?Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell, Evelyn Waugh, and Patrick Leigh Fermor. All had military service, and all responded to the call. I believe they all volunteered. > > France ?nurtured? Henry Miller for 10 years from the late ?20s through the ?30s. Well, if nurturing means earning no money but having glorious fun at intervals drinking red wine and peeing in bathtubs with prostitutes, then yes. Plus writing the book that made him famous even though he would earn virtually no money from it for the next 25 years. So he was nurtured. Somehow that obligated him to put on a uniform at age 48? France fell in 6 weeks in mid 1940. Could Miller have prevented that? I reject this argument that Miller had a ?debt? to fight for France ? especially with the benefit now of 75 years of hindsight! Do you think it would have made a difference? Miller could have done all those things in America. But he found France more conducive to his interests and philosophy. He owed France a debt, if for no other reason than it provided the matrix for his development as a writer. Durrell had a similar debt to Greece. Also, some rise to the occasion, and some run away. Joseph Heller has his hero Capt. Yossarian desert his unit at the end of Catch-22. Is that his moral for living in the real world? No. Because Heller served honorably as an officer in the U.S. Army Air Corps during WWII. He did not desert. I think you?re confusing fiction with real life. Many things can be justified in fiction, desertion among them, but far fewer in real life, which entails real obligations. > Funny talking about politics and criticizing Henry Miller. Today is election day in California. Holiday Mathis was right ? this whole discussion is absurd. I take this discussion very seriously. Bruce > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Tue Jun 7 12:35:06 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:35:06 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: I tend to agree with Richard. I think Durrell took quite Gnosticism seriously, studied its materials in some depth, and apparently spent a lot of time thinking about it. He wrote the foreword to Jacques Lacarri?re?s Gnostics (1973). But did he actually believe in it? That?s another matter. He probably found the philosophy attractive and took from it whatever was useful for his own work. Yes, it served as a model for some aspects of the Quintet, as stated in the foreword: ?[The Gnostics] refused to countenance a world which was less than perfect, and they affronted the great lie of Lucifer-Mammon with the hopeless magnificence of the Spartan three hundred.? So, a restatement of suicide as a legitimate alternative. Bruce > On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly doesn't understand gnosticism. > RP > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > Hi Bruce & Ken, > > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > contacts. > > I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under Miller's sway did serve. > > On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. > > I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, so it can be quite productive. > > My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. > > As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). > > All best, > James > > _ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin.w.collins at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 12:37:24 2016 From: robin.w.collins at gmail.com (Robin Collins) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:37:24 -0400 Subject: [ilds] Miller and America's views on WW2 Message-ID: Ken, James I wouldn't make too many analogies to link Miller's (presumably) anarchist views and those of the American government and population pre Pearl Harbor. One can certainly debate whether anarchist pacifism is the right (or best) position in face of fascism or nazism (I'm with those who think it's time to shed some blood, but I get it that you can actually be opposed to all forms of violence except literary violence.) However, I don't think American reluctance to enter the war was not primarily based on anarchism or pacifism, it was mostly isolationism, and non-interventionism springing from that. In one sense that is a refreshing corollary to the imperial and neo-colonial tendencies we all recognize in US history. But there was also a strong pro-fascist current in the US as we know. The Lindbergh phenomenon comes to mind (and America First). On the other hand Miller being over-age is a pretty good excuse for not putting on the gun belt, perhaps. Of course he could have joined the Red Cross units like a few other well known writers. Then there were those who pressed their government to enter the war, before Pearl Harbor, and those who joined the International Brigades (Lincoln Brigade in the case of Americans), as James mentioned. I don't know if standing aloof as a way to argue that Stalin was as bad as Hitler was what Miller really was thinking at the time, and I'd like to read more on this if someone can point me in that direction. I've heard that argument used by others who chose to collaborate with Hitler, saying Stalin was the worse choice (some Baltic citizens, for instance), but that always seemed a pretty icky argument. I mean, this was the good war, right? Robin > > Hi Ken, > > > you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he > > was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no > > draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, > > should he have been trying to run toward or away > > from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I > > don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in > > quotes. Please recall, the American government and > > probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war > > until Pearl Harbor two years later. > > Well put. > > One of Miller's rebuttals to those who said he should fight against > those who would censor him (for instance, saying Hitler or Mussolini > wouldn't let him publish his books) was that indeed they wouldn't and > nor would the USA or Britain... This was, of course, before anyone knew > about the Holocaust and what would really come in WWII, so hindsight > could certainly change things. Patrick von Richthofen's work on the > Booster & Delta stresses how the Munich Crisis shaped that project from > the Villa Seurat as well -- Herbert Read would, in part thanks to > Miller's influence, describe it as "The Politics of the Unpolitical." > > What's worth emphasizing, I think, is that Miller was explicitly a > pacifist well before WWII and told those who would go to Spain, like > Orwell, that their revolution would just lead back to the status quo. > It did. Does that mean they shouldn't have gone to Spain? I don't > think I can say, but despite being anti-capitalist he was also no friend > to the Fascists or Communists. > > There's be a good deal of work considering Miller's influence on > Durrell, especially in the 30s and 40s, but it seems to be mainly around > sex and style -- Durrell was copied on Miller's more radical > correspondence with Herbert Read and others, and I tend to think that as > Wilde would say, we overlook that at our peril just as overlooking its > importance to Miller circumscribes our readings > > For what it's worth, I admire Leighton's work on Picasso. > > All best, > James > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin.w.collins at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 12:49:46 2016 From: robin.w.collins at gmail.com (Robin Collins) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:49:46 -0400 Subject: [ilds] Miller and America's views on WW2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: sorry a double negative typo in mine, should be "However, I don't think American reluctance to enter the war was primarily based on anarchism or pacifism..." On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Robin Collins wrote: > Ken, James > > I wouldn't make too many analogies to link Miller's (presumably) anarchist > views and those of the American government and population pre Pearl Harbor. > One can certainly debate whether anarchist pacifism is the right (or best) > position in face of fascism or nazism (I'm with those who think it's time > to shed some blood, but I get it that you can actually be opposed to all > forms of violence except literary violence.) > > However, I don't think American reluctance to enter the war was not > primarily based on anarchism or pacifism, it was mostly isolationism, and > non-interventionism springing from that. In one sense that is a refreshing > corollary to the imperial and neo-colonial tendencies we all recognize in > US history. > > But there was also a strong pro-fascist current in the US as we know. The > Lindbergh phenomenon comes to mind (and America First). On the other hand > Miller being over-age is a pretty good excuse for not putting on the gun > belt, perhaps. Of course he could have joined the Red Cross units like a > few other well known writers. Then there were those who pressed their > government to enter the war, before Pearl Harbor, and those who joined the > International Brigades (Lincoln Brigade in the case of Americans), as James > mentioned. > > I don't know if standing aloof as a way to argue that Stalin was as bad as > Hitler was what Miller really was thinking at the time, and I'd like to > read more on this if someone can point me in that direction. I've heard > that argument used by others who chose to collaborate with Hitler, saying > Stalin was the worse choice (some Baltic citizens, for instance), but that > always seemed a pretty icky argument. I mean, this was the good war, right? > > Robin > > > >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> > you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he >> > was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no >> > draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, >> > should he have been trying to run toward or away >> > from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I >> > don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in >> > quotes. Please recall, the American government and >> > probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war >> > until Pearl Harbor two years later. >> >> Well put. >> >> One of Miller's rebuttals to those who said he should fight against >> those who would censor him (for instance, saying Hitler or Mussolini >> wouldn't let him publish his books) was that indeed they wouldn't and >> nor would the USA or Britain... This was, of course, before anyone knew >> about the Holocaust and what would really come in WWII, so hindsight >> could certainly change things. Patrick von Richthofen's work on the >> Booster & Delta stresses how the Munich Crisis shaped that project from >> the Villa Seurat as well -- Herbert Read would, in part thanks to >> Miller's influence, describe it as "The Politics of the Unpolitical." >> >> What's worth emphasizing, I think, is that Miller was explicitly a >> pacifist well before WWII and told those who would go to Spain, like >> Orwell, that their revolution would just lead back to the status quo. >> It did. Does that mean they shouldn't have gone to Spain? I don't >> think I can say, but despite being anti-capitalist he was also no friend >> to the Fascists or Communists. >> >> There's be a good deal of work considering Miller's influence on >> Durrell, especially in the 30s and 40s, but it seems to be mainly around >> sex and style -- Durrell was copied on Miller's more radical >> correspondence with Herbert Read and others, and I tend to think that as >> Wilde would say, we overlook that at our peril just as overlooking its >> importance to Miller circumscribes our readings >> >> For what it's worth, I admire Leighton's work on Picasso. >> >> All best, >> James >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From timlot at comcast.net Tue Jun 7 13:25:56 2016 From: timlot at comcast.net (Merrianne Timko) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:25:56 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: <007301d1c0fa$cc6f53a0$654dfae0$@comcast.net> Anyone ever delve into the source for Durrell?s ?Macabru?? Have been looking at a few things about Mistral and the proven?al poets in relation to the Avignon Quintet and Caesar?s Vast Ghost. There?s a word in Occitan (old proven?al) along the lines of macaru and macaire that has been translated by some as ?devil.? Merrianne From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Redwine Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 2:35 PM To: Sumantra Nag Cc: James Gifford ; Bruce Redwine Subject: [ilds] Gnostics I tend to agree with Richard. I think Durrell took quite Gnosticism seriously, studied its materials in some depth, and apparently spent a lot of time thinking about it. He wrote the foreword to Jacques Lacarri?re?s Gnostics (1973). But did he actually believe in it? That?s another matter. He probably found the philosophy attractive and took from it whatever was useful for his own work. Yes, it served as a model for some aspects of the Quintet, as stated in the foreword: ?[The Gnostics] refused to countenance a world which was less than perfect, and they affronted the great lie of Lucifer-Mammon with the hopeless magnificence of the Spartan three hundred.? So, a restatement of suicide as a legitimate alternative. Bruce On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine > wrote: Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly doesn't understand gnosticism. RP On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > wrote: Hi Bruce & Ken, I would call Miller an opportunist and without any sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal contacts. I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under Miller's sway did serve. On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, so it can be quite productive. My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). All best, James _ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 13:30:18 2016 From: pinedurrellcorfu at gmail.com (Richard Pine) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:30:18 +0300 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: And it permeates *Tunc/Nunquam*. The DLC website will be up-and-running shortly - we hope to include a brief video of LD and Lacarriere from French tv discussing gnosticism. RP On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > I tend to agree with Richard. I think Durrell took quite Gnosticism > seriously, studied its materials in some depth, and apparently spent a lot > of time thinking about it. He wrote the foreword to Jacques Lacarri?re?s > *Gnostics* (1973). But did he actually believe in it? That?s another > matter. He probably found the philosophy attractive and took from it > whatever was useful for his own work. Yes, it served as a model for some > aspects of the *Quintet, *as stated in the foreword: ?[The Gnostics] > refused to countenance a world which was less than perfect, and they > affronted the great lie of Lucifer-Mammon with the hopeless magnificence of > the Spartan three hundred.? So, a restatement of suicide as a legitimate > alternative. > > Bruce > > > > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine > wrote: > > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken > seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly > doesn't understand gnosticism. > RP > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > >> Hi Bruce & Ken, >> >> I would call Miller an opportunist and without any >>> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal >>> contacts. >>> >> >> I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd >> also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but >> certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the >> quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more >> in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in >> his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & >> George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same >> sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under >> Miller's sway did serve. >> >> On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> >>> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in >>> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, >>> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. >>> >> >> I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with >> Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending >> that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that >> means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, >> so it can be quite productive. >> >> My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort >> in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point >> rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong >> or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from >> noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. >> >> As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play >> in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though >> more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For >> instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to >> Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant >> across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), >> and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. >> As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere >> nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism >> surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur >> originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). >> >> 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: From giacomoesposito72 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 13:35:29 2016 From: giacomoesposito72 at gmail.com (james Esposito) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:35:29 +0300 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: Does one have to believe in something in order to write about it? Oh my god... Credo ut intelligam. But yes, LD did 'believe' in 'it'. RP On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > I tend to agree with Richard. I think Durrell took quite Gnosticism > seriously, studied its materials in some depth, and apparently spent a lot > of time thinking about it. He wrote the foreword to Jacques Lacarri?re?s > *Gnostics* (1973). But did he actually believe in it? That?s another > matter. He probably found the philosophy attractive and took from it > whatever was useful for his own work. Yes, it served as a model for some > aspects of the *Quintet, *as stated in the foreword: ?[The Gnostics] > refused to countenance a world which was less than perfect, and they > affronted the great lie of Lucifer-Mammon with the hopeless magnificence of > the Spartan three hundred.? So, a restatement of suicide as a legitimate > alternative. > > Bruce > > > > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine > wrote: > > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken > seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly > doesn't understand gnosticism. > RP > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > >> Hi Bruce & Ken, >> >> I would call Miller an opportunist and without any >>> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal >>> contacts. >>> >> >> I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd >> also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but >> certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the >> quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more >> in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in >> his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & >> George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same >> sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under >> Miller's sway did serve. >> >> On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> >>> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in >>> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, >>> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. >>> >> >> I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with >> Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending >> that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that >> means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, >> so it can be quite productive. >> >> My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort >> in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point >> rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong >> or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from >> noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. >> >> As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play >> in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though >> more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For >> instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to >> Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant >> across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), >> and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. >> As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere >> nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism >> surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur >> originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). >> >> 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: From skybluepress at skybluepress.com Tue Jun 7 13:58:50 2016 From: skybluepress at skybluepress.com (Sky Blue Press) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:58:50 -0500 Subject: [ilds] Henry Miller interview Message-ID: <00bc01d1c0ff$64df14f0$2e9d3ed0$@skybluepress.com> Hello all, Since Henry Miller seems to be a hot topic at the moment, perhaps you'd be interested in the interview Barbara Kraft did with him in 1979 (presented today to commemorate the 36th anniversary of his death). It's about an hour long, and he discusses Emma Goldman and Blaise Cendrars, who influenced him, and he talks about writing, living freely, the rage that inspired his Tropics books, literary anarchy, his marriages, his friends, women, religion, and much more. It was the last long interview of his life and was broadcast on his 88th birthday by KCRW, the NPR station in the LA area. It can be accessed here: http://anaisninblog.skybluepress.com/2016/06/podcast-17-barbara-kraft-interv iews-henry-miller/ Paul Herron -----Original Message----- From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 2:01 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7 Send ILDS mailing list submissions to ilds at lists.uvic.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca You can reach the person managing the list at ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Kennedy Gammage) 2. Re: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 (Ric Wilson) 3. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) 4. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Richard Pine) 5. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) 6. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Richard Pine) 7. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) 8. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Kennedy Gammage) 9. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:50:56 -0700 From: Kennedy Gammage To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Thank you for keeping this discussion going. As you say, you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, should he have been trying to run toward or away from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in quotes. Please recall, the American government and probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war until Pearl Harbor two years later. Miller is way past caring what you say about him - but I do. - Ken P.S. Picasso painted Guernica and that's all he needed to do. We are still talking about it, and know it for capturing Hitler's brutality BEFORE THE WAR. Back then many people hated it - and some may still. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > James, > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and > his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below > to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s > actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of > anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I > think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s > defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and > egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this > topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. > > Bruce > > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave > during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons > (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their > ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was > an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him > a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I > don?t think so? > > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist > pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to > seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not > racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of > the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until > recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he > had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a > pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era > of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was > legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was > required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the > ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? > status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already > an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his > declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience > argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which > he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejecting the law with impunity or > amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam > War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David Harris > among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political acts. > > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" > but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to > Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take > the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the > /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard > politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through > politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the > same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, > 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me > as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only > because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which > protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m > not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have > painted *Guernica* (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are > not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that > nurture them. > > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it > comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and > Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, > an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... > It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession > or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they > have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references to > the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always > involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before > and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I > want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? > > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and > eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and > such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and > freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s > not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of > down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the > French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it > comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large > part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably > didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict > thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in > carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often > from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. > Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I > can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an > ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s > forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On > the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his *Big > Sur, *the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight > face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too > self-absorbed. > > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t > faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but > sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't > pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and > worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of > MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to > appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a > bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of > used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of *Justine*. Raw > sex sells. > > > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > > Yes. > > > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how > unfashionable he is." > > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive > discussion of his poetry. > > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. > But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in > Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the > Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s > full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a > kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of > satire? > > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show > us his utopian leap into the future? > > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither > believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is > essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may > be another kind of suicide. > > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > ellipses? > > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with > his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > > > 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: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 21:46:58 +0000 From: Ric Wilson To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca" Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" re: Message One In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses... I, for one, lean toward a Jamesian view. Not because it's "careful" but rather cohesive, open-ended and not permeated with a judgmental underpinnings. In determining merit, one must ask what the writer was attempting to accomplish with his audience. So the response aimed at raising awareness in a rainforest rather than scything down alleged weeds, I found most provocative--inspiring even. (I confess my Tunc only just arrived, so I'm really winging it here.) I note with keen interest his closing opens on the interconnection between works and a gentle reminder of what even a layman such as myself can remember from AQ--ellipses. I don't see an underlying impulse to backhand some ghost's reputation as much as a presence identifying with--understand and return to--DL's technique, effective or not. I don't propose to really know in this case. Ric Wilson ________________________________ From: ILDS on behalf of ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 12:00:49 PM To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 Send ILDS mailing list submissions to ilds at lists.uvic.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca You can reach the person managing the list at ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) 2. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (William Apt) 3. Qualification (William Apt) 4. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:45:59 -0700 From: James Gifford To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don't think so... What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he's also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste." As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn't faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look how unfashionable he is." In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, "why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses... All best, James ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:53:11 +0300 From: William Apt To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 While I understand Miller's stand that politics is bunk and that no political system takes priority over placing one's life at risk, and while I completely agree that many people preoccupied with politics to the point of allowing it to take center stage are often avoiding issues in their own lives, that does not quite resolve the issue. Miller felt no duty to give anything back to the only country that allowed him to thrive, to be himself without a sense of shame, to achieve success, to gain respect, and which he professed to love: France. Unlike the deeply grateful Josephine Baker, Miller did nothing for France. He could have helped in some small way, even back in the States, but declined to do so. No sense of obligation to that from which he took and profited. How different is that from the very wealthy in the US who generate tremendous profits from the society in which they live yet feel no obligation to contribute to its maintenance, beyond the grudging payment of and th! en complaining about taxes? They pay only because they are required to. Miller was required to do nothing and that is what he did. I think too that many artists will tolerate almost any political system as long as they are left alone by that system so they can create (e.g., Borges, Dostoevsky). Miller, I believe, was that way: he even tolerated the detested US because it was a safe haven. Ultimately, I think Miller was less a conscientious anarchist-pacifist than a guy whose personal freedom took priority over everything and everyone else. Now, that said, I still like Miller very much and he was hugely influential on me during my college years. One overlooked quality of his is that he was a great teacher: he had a superb eye for other writers and artists and didn't hesitate to name-drop. Without fail, every author or artist for whom he expresses enthusiasm is worthwhile. I learned a lot... WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX > On Jun 5, 2016, at 10:45 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don't think so... > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he's also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" follo! wed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste." > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn't faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look how unfashionable he is." > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, "why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses... > > All best, > James > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:13:00 +0300 From: William Apt To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: [ilds] Qualification Message-ID: <09F9F0DB-38B0-4D76-8697-15B183838EFC at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Let me correct a misstatement in my last email. I said that "without fail" every writer Miller was enthusiastic about was worthwhile. I forgot: he did like his share of cranks and oddities. But in general he did have pretty darn good taste! WILLIAM APT Attorney at Law 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 Austin TX 78701 512/708-8300 512/708-8011 FAX ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:22:19 -0700 From: Bruce Redwine To: Sumantra Nag Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5 at earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" James, Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. Bruce > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don?t think so? I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejec! ting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political acts. > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that nurture them. > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" follo! wed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too self-absorbed. > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex sells. > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. Yes. > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how unfashionable he is." Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive discussion of his poetry. > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of satire? > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may be another kind of suicide. > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses? Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > All best, > James > _ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds ------------------------------ End of ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 ************************************ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:58:05 -0700 From: Bruce Redwine To: Sumantra Nag Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Ken, I have read some of Miller?s major works and some biographical material, but I am no authority on the man, to say the very least. So, for what it?s worth, here?s my take on his political positions. In his late thirties, Miller rejected American society and culture and left for France, where he found a haven more compatible with his beliefs about anarchism and pacifism. There he lived as an exile for almost ten years and found his voice as a writer. French culture nurtured him. Then the Second World War broke out. Once the situation became too dangerous, he abandoned France and returned to America, which he continued to berate and debunk. As Billy Apt has noted, Miller never did anything to repay his debt to France (unless the Conrad Moricand episode in Big Sur is interpreted as Miller?s guilt and penance). I would call Miller an opportunist and without any sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal contacts. Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in! a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. Bruce > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > > Thank you for keeping this discussion going. As you say, you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, should he have been trying to run toward or away from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in quotes. Please recall, the American government and probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war until Pearl Harbor two years later. Miller is way past caring what you say about him - but I do. > > - Ken > > P.S. Picasso painted Guernica and that's all he needed to do. We are still talking about it, and know it for capturing Hitler's brutality BEFORE THE WAR. Back then many people hated it - and some may still. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Bruce Redwine > wrote: > James, > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. > > Bruce > > >> On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: >> >> Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, >> >> In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). >> >> For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I don?t think so? > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which he did in fact.) He did not argue for rej! ecting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political acts. > >> >> What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that nurture them. > >> >> The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" foll! owed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > >> >> As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/ ). >> >> In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too self-absorbed. > >> >> For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex sells. > > >> >> Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > Yes. > > >> >> For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how unfashionable he is." > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive discussion of his poetry. > >> >> In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > >> >> I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of satire? > >> >> In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may be another kind of suicide. > >> >> I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of ellipses? > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > >> >> All best, >> James >> _ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:15:48 +0300 From: Richard Pine To: James Gifford , ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" My own feelings about superficial, ill-considered, pretentious, precocious criticisms of writers like Durrell and Miller are summed up in this letter from LD to HM, dated 2 August 1981. What LD has to say about shallowness and petty back-biting could well apply to many so-called academics and other applicants at the base of the intellectual greasy pole. The way LD expresses his contempt (something which he also felt about F-J Temple) is characteristic of his 'Ship of Fools' approach to life which is ever-present in his 'MiniSatyrikon' and the (unfortunately unpublished) 'Asides of Demonax'. It means, in effect, "I don't give a fuck because none of them is worth a fuck." "Dear Henry: a quick wish for 77, and may it bring you everything you feel you want -- it is difficult to imagine what except perhaps a French meal. May it not bring you any more critics like Mailer with his advise and consent style and all these windy garage swallowing excuses for not thinking. I hope he is sharing his royalties with you at least, having gutted three of your books to make a Roman holiday. What luck you do have with these windy Jewish pickpockets. By contrast your poet Frenchman has written the best book on you yet, if you write to him will you tell him I have lost his address and that I vastly admire everything about his book, even the style which is fine and lucid and full of glows of insight. What a treat if he is doing Anais like this too. I have had a lousy sort of year, living here more or less alone except from visits from a cheetah of a girl about whom more one day. My film has been a great success. I am only half through Livia, and editing a compilation of Greek islands before finishing it." Durrell adds in green ink: "As for Batrillat - what a little empty shit and what an impertinence" RP On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 PM, James Gifford wrote: > Hello all, > > This piece by James Campbell on Henry Miller from the /TLS/ might be of > interest -- Durrell comes up several times, and part of the critique likely > parallel some of the critical challenges Durrell's works face: > > http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/millers-fail/ > > The part that strikes me the most is that the piece opens with an > invocation of Durrell recognizing that Miller's books aren't actually the > same as the author, then the article's author proceeds as if we're not > supposed to see any of it as ironical. That strikes me as a superficial > reading. Certainly several good points, but at the same time missing the > point... > > 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: ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:21:22 -0700 From: James Gifford To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Hi Bruce & Ken, > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > contacts. I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under Miller's sway did serve. On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, so it can be quite productive. My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). All best, James ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:32:19 +0300 From: Richard Pine To: James Gifford , ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly doesn't understand gnosticism. RP On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford wrote: > Hi Bruce & Ken, > > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any >> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal >> contacts. >> > > I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd > also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but > certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the > quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more > in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in > his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & > George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same > sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under > Miller's sway did serve. > > On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > >> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in >> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, >> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. >> > > I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with > Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending > that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that > means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, > so it can be quite productive. > > My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort in > the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point > rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong > or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from > noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. > > As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play > in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though > more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For > instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to > Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant > across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), > and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. > As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere > nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism > surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur > originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). > > 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: ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:45:52 -0700 From: James Gifford To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: <4060cf87-62e9-5172-c456-ae6fe8fd62af at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Hi Ken, > you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he > was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no > draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, > should he have been trying to run toward or away > from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I > don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in > quotes. Please recall, the American government and > probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war > until Pearl Harbor two years later. Well put. One of Miller's rebuttals to those who said he should fight against those who would censor him (for instance, saying Hitler or Mussolini wouldn't let him publish his books) was that indeed they wouldn't and nor would the USA or Britain... This was, of course, before anyone knew about the Holocaust and what would really come in WWII, so hindsight could certainly change things. Patrick von Richthofen's work on the Booster & Delta stresses how the Munich Crisis shaped that project from the Villa Seurat as well -- Herbert Read would, in part thanks to Miller's influence, describe it as "The Politics of the Unpolitical." What's worth emphasizing, I think, is that Miller was explicitly a pacifist well before WWII and told those who would go to Spain, like Orwell, that their revolution would just lead back to the status quo. It did. Does that mean they shouldn't have gone to Spain? I don't think I can say, but despite being anti-capitalist he was also no friend to the Fascists or Communists. There's be a good deal of work considering Miller's influence on Durrell, especially in the 30s and 40s, but it seems to be mainly around sex and style -- Durrell was copied on Miller's more radical correspondence with Herbert Read and others, and I tend to think that as Wilde would say, we overlook that at our peril just as overlooking its importance to Miller circumscribes our readings For what it's worth, I admire Leighton's work on Picasso. All best, James ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:45:16 -0700 From: Kennedy Gammage To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" This morning?s horoscope by Holiday Mathis in the LA Times advised me: ?You could face and overcome your opposition, but it would take an awful lot of energy. It?s probable that this battle is not important in the scheme of things.? And yet ? there is so much to disagree with! Writers write, painters paint and soldiers fight. That?s their job. Miller was a writer, not a soldier. France ?nurtured? Henry Miller for 10 years from the late ?20s through the ?30s. Well, if nurturing means earning no money but having glorious fun at intervals drinking red wine and peeing in bathtubs with prostitutes, then yes. Plus writing the book that made him famous even though he would earn virtually no money from it for the next 25 years. So he was nurtured. Somehow that obligated him to put on a uniform at age 48? France fell in 6 weeks in mid 1940. Could Miller have prevented that? I reject this argument that Miller had a ?debt? to fight for France ? especially with the benefit now of 75 years of hindsight! Do you think it would have made a difference? Funny talking about politics and criticizing Henry Miller. Today is election day in California. Holiday Mathis was right ? this whole discussion is absurd. Cheers - Ken On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken > seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly > doesn't understand gnosticism. > RP > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > >> Hi Bruce & Ken, >> >> I would call Miller an opportunist and without any >>> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal >>> contacts. >>> >> >> I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd >> also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but >> certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the >> quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more >> in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in >> his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & >> George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same >> sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under >> Miller's sway did serve. >> >> On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> >>> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in >>> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, >>> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. >>> >> >> I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with >> Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending >> that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that >> means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, >> so it can be quite productive. >> >> My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort >> in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point >> rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong >> or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from >> noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. >> >> As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play >> in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though >> more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For >> instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to >> Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant >> across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), >> and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. >> As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere >> nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism >> surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur >> originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). >> >> All best, >> James >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:49:35 -0700 From: Bruce Redwine To: Sumantra Nag Cc: Bruce Redwine Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller Message-ID: <00EE3A8E-F2CF-46D5-977E-049E6FB92E89 at earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Ken, > On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > > This morning?s horoscope by Holiday Mathis in the LA Times advised me: ?You could face and overcome your opposition, but it would take an awful lot of energy. It?s probable that this battle is not important in the scheme of things.? And yet ? there is so much to disagree with! > > Writers write, painters paint and soldiers fight. That?s their job. Miller was a writer, not a soldier. Tell that to a few of Henry Miller?s contemporaries?Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell, Evelyn Waugh, and Patrick Leigh Fermor. All had military service, and all responded to the call. I believe they all volunteered. > > France ?nurtured? Henry Miller for 10 years from the late ?20s through the ?30s. Well, if nurturing means earning no money but having glorious fun at intervals drinking red wine and peeing in bathtubs with prostitutes, then yes. Plus writing the book that made him famous even though he would earn virtually no money from it for the next 25 years. So he was nurtured. Somehow that obligated him to put on a uniform at age 48? France fell in 6 weeks in mid 1940. Could Miller have prevented that? I reject this argument that Miller had a ?debt? to fight for France ? especially with the benefit now of 75 years of hindsight! Do you think it would have made a difference? Miller could have done all those things in America. But he found France more conducive to his interests and philosophy. He owed France a debt, if for no other reason than it provided the matrix for his development as a writer. Durrell had a similar debt to Greece. Also, some rise to the occasion, and some run away. Joseph Heller has his hero Capt. Yossarian desert his unit at the end of Catch-22. Is that his moral for living in the real world? No. Because Heller served honorably as an officer in the U.S. Army Air Corps during WWII. He did not desert. I think you?re confusing fiction with real life. Many things can be justified in fiction, desertion among them, but far fewer in real life, which entails real obligations. > Funny talking about politics and criticizing Henry Miller. Today is election day in California. Holiday Mathis was right ? this whole discussion is absurd. I take this discussion very seriously. Bruce > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds ------------------------------ End of ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7 ************************************ From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 14:24:16 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:24:16 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8a3fb11d-45ab-f128-a8f2-33170ad72c36@gmail.com> On 2016-06-07 1:35 PM, james Esposito wrote: > But yes, LD did 'believe' in 'it'. > RP Envoi So Old Gin begat Soft Wood (who begat Marie the Idiot) who begat the Albanian waif who begat James Exposed who begat... Boo hoo. Intellego ut credam, but without much credibility... From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 14:26:00 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:26:00 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8c47ed3f-15f6-10b0-98da-ab9c2d4a5f5f@gmail.com> Hi Bruce, I think the words "a model" are fairly important... As I said, Durrell created the plot as a mash-up of Serge Hutin and news clippings about Ljubljana. I wrote about it in a piece with a former student some time ago: http://www.academia.edu/10914775/Gnosticism_in_Lawrence_Durrell_s_Monsieur_New_Textual_Evidence_for_Source_Materials or http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/300/agora/2004/v3n01/215.htm The suicide theme is tucked in from entirely unrelated news materials in 1968. Anyone who wants to take it as a model certainly can, but I don't think it has any veracity -- it just made a good plot device in Durrell's free-wheeling with sources, like Semira's nose lifted from Groddeck's works and blended up for new grist. Very best, James From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 14:31:03 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:31:03 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: <007301d1c0fa$cc6f53a0$654dfae0$@comcast.net> References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> <007301d1c0fa$cc6f53a0$654dfae0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 2016-06-07 1:25 PM, Merrianne Timko wrote: > Anyone ever delve into the source for Durrell?s > ?Macabru?? > > Have been looking at a few things about Mistral > and the proven?al poets in relation to the Avignon > Quintet and Caesar?s Vast Ghost. There?s a word in > Occitan (old proven?al) along the lines of macaru > and macaire that has been translated by some as > ?devil.? It's been noted by a few people but without any really full development. I think Veldeman did so most directly: Veldeman, Marie-Christine. "A Reading of Lawrence Durrell's Avignon Quintet." S B Academic Review: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies and Research 5.1 (1996): 19-26. Durrell appears to have grabbed it from Hutin's /Les Gnostiques/: "'Il lie partie avec le diable ? s'?crie Marcabru ? celui qui couve Faux Amour'" (68) and "Le Prince des T?n?bres" (21). All best, James From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 14:41:56 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:41:56 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Henry Miller interview In-Reply-To: <00bc01d1c0ff$64df14f0$2e9d3ed0$@skybluepress.com> References: <00bc01d1c0ff$64df14f0$2e9d3ed0$@skybluepress.com> Message-ID: For anyone who gets an incomplete link due to the line break, here's a shortened URL: http://tinyurl.com/jkcum9j Thanks, Paul! On 2016-06-07 1:58 PM, Sky Blue Press wrote: > Hello all, > > Since Henry Miller seems to be a hot topic at the moment, perhaps you'd be > interested in the interview Barbara Kraft did with him in 1979 (presented > today to commemorate the 36th anniversary of his death). It's about an hour > long, and he discusses Emma Goldman and Blaise Cendrars, who influenced him, > and he talks about writing, living freely, the rage that inspired his > Tropics books, literary anarchy, his marriages, his friends, women, > religion, and much more. It was the last long interview of his life and was > broadcast on his 88th birthday by KCRW, the NPR station in the LA area. > > It can be accessed here: > http://anaisninblog.skybluepress.com/2016/06/podcast-17-barbara-kraft-interv > iews-henry-miller/ > > Paul Herron From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 15:28:44 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:28:44 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Henry Miller interview In-Reply-To: <00bc01d1c0ff$64df14f0$2e9d3ed0$@skybluepress.com> References: <00bc01d1c0ff$64df14f0$2e9d3ed0$@skybluepress.com> Message-ID: That was lovely ? thank you Paul To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, anyone who doesn?t appreciate Henry Miller is tired of life! Barbara Kraft is lovely and smart, and Miller is verbal and charming. These were the four great times in his life: Boyhood (5-10) Paris (almost 40?growing younger) Greece and Big Sur. He repeatedly says ?Don?t you know?? just like my grandfather. When he is praised on any subject he says ?I know?I know.? Hilarious comments about the Dalai Lama which are still literally true many years later! So many funny remarks: the Nobel committee telling Larry ?I?m afraid Mr. Durrell that we?re waiting for Mr. Miller to become respectable.? Good luck with that! - Ken On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Sky Blue Press < skybluepress at skybluepress.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > Since Henry Miller seems to be a hot topic at the moment, perhaps you'd be > interested in the interview Barbara Kraft did with him in 1979 (presented > today to commemorate the 36th anniversary of his death). It's about an hour > long, and he discusses Emma Goldman and Blaise Cendrars, who influenced > him, > and he talks about writing, living freely, the rage that inspired his > Tropics books, literary anarchy, his marriages, his friends, women, > religion, and much more. It was the last long interview of his life and was > broadcast on his 88th birthday by KCRW, the NPR station in the LA area. > > It can be accessed here: > > http://anaisninblog.skybluepress.com/2016/06/podcast-17-barbara-kraft-interv > iews-henry-miller/ > > Paul Herron > > -----Original Message----- > From: ILDS [mailto:ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca] On Behalf Of > ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 2:01 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7 > > Send ILDS mailing list submissions to > ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Kennedy Gammage) > 2. Re: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 (Ric Wilson) > 3. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) > 4. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Richard Pine) > 5. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) > 6. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Richard Pine) > 7. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) > 8. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Kennedy Gammage) > 9. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:50:56 -0700 > From: Kennedy Gammage > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > < > CANDhJnT5vFia1ag7sVN2uL-WofBTUcLOP895egAwXQ01g6AYHw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you for keeping this discussion going. As you say, you cannot call > Miller a 'draft dodger' because he was around 48 years old in 1939 and > there was no draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, should he > have been trying to run toward or away from the coming war. To me that's a > no brainer - I don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in quotes. > Please recall, the American government and probably U.S. popular opinion > was AGAINST the war until Pearl Harbor two years later. Miller is way past > caring what you say about him - but I do. > > - Ken > > P.S. Picasso painted Guernica and that's all he needed to do. We are still > talking about it, and know it for capturing Hitler's brutality BEFORE THE > WAR. Back then many people hated it - and some may still. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Bruce Redwine > > wrote: > > > James, > > > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and > > his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below > > to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s > > actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of > > anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I > > think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. > Miller?s > > defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and > > egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on > this > > topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. > > > > Bruce > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > > wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many > of > > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave > > during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > > Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons > > (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and > their > > ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he > was > > an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call > him > > a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? > I > > don?t think so? > > > > > > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist > > pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to > > seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not > > racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of > > the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until > > recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If > he > > had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a > > pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the > era > > of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was > > legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was > > required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the > > ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? > > status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already > > an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for > his > > declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil > disobedience > > argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. > (Which > > he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejecting the law with impunity or > > amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam > > War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David > Harris > > among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political > acts. > > > > > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to > politics" > > but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more > to > > Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t > take > > the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with > the > > /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard > > politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through > > politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly > the > > same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, > > 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > > > > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes > me > > as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only > > because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which > > protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m > > not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have > > painted *Guernica* (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are > > not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that > > nurture them. > > > > > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and > it > > comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler > and > > Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a > belief, > > an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own > lives.... > > It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession > > or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that > they > > have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references > to > > the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they > always > > involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both > before > > and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. > I > > want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? > > > > > > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and > > eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and > > such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty > and > > freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s > > not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of > > down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the > > French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > > > > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it > > comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large > > part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably > > didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict > > thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different > in > > carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often > > from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. > > Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I > > can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. > irony. > > > > > > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an > > ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s > > forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On > > the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his *Big > > Sur, *the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight > > face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too > > self-absorbed. > > > > > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, > I > > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's > work > > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t > > faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but > > sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply > needn't > > pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > > > > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him > and > > worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of > > MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to > > appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a > > bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf > of > > used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of *Justine*. Raw > > sex sells. > > > > > > > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question > might > > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look > how > > unfashionable he is." > > > > > > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see > substantive > > discussion of his poetry. > > > > > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > > visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race > but > > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > > > > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. > > But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in > > Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the > > Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s > > full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > > > > > > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > > ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to > a > > kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > > > > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of > > satire? > > > > > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > > (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show > > us his utopian leap into the future? > > > > > > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither > > believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is > > essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which > may > > be another kind of suicide. > > > > > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > > be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > > ellipses? > > > > > > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with > > his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > > > > > > > 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/20160606/60e553aa/attachmen > t-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 21:46:58 +0000 > From: Ric Wilson > To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca" > Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 > Message-ID: > > > com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > re: Message One > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after > London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell > just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can > only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond > of ellipses... > > > I, for one, lean toward a Jamesian view. Not because it's "careful" but > rather cohesive, open-ended and not permeated with a judgmental > underpinnings. In determining merit, one must ask what the writer was > attempting to accomplish with his audience. > > > So the response aimed at raising awareness in a rainforest rather than > scything down alleged weeds, I found most provocative--inspiring even. (I > confess my Tunc only just arrived, so I'm really winging it here.) > > > I note with keen interest his closing opens on the interconnection between > works and a gentle reminder of what even a layman such as myself can > remember from AQ--ellipses. I don't see an underlying impulse to backhand > some ghost's reputation as much as a presence identifying with--understand > and return to--DL's technique, effective or not. > > > I don't propose to really know in this case. > > > Ric Wilson > ________________________________ > From: ILDS on behalf of > ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 12:00:49 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 > > Send ILDS mailing list submissions to > ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) > 2. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (William Apt) > 3. Qualification (William Apt) > 4. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:45:59 -0700 > From: James Gifford > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's > project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by > cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly > didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing > (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the > wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like > Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other > reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, > and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight > because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- > while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW > earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. > Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than > encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of > fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- > was that cowardly at the time? I don't think so... > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to > politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted > more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, > writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when > discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests > were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten > world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat > Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the > Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he's also often > pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and > it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler > and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a > belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their > own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice > is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a > struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" followed by the > telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against > revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am > against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want > to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that > suits my taste." > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out > it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and > probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same > conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very > different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed > quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for > Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading > Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. > Sincerity vs. irony. > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, > I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments > on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has > published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like > Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. > Durrell hasn't faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I > can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that > we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that > won't be spoken of." > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question > might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look > how unfashionable he is." > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race > but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > "why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to > a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a > gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after > London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell > just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can > only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond > of ellipses... > > All best, > James > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:53:11 +0300 > From: William Apt > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > While I understand Miller's stand that politics is bunk and that no > political system takes priority over placing one's life at risk, and while > I > completely agree that many people preoccupied with politics to the point of > allowing it to take center stage are often avoiding issues in their own > lives, that does not quite resolve the issue. Miller felt no duty to give > anything back to the only country that allowed him to thrive, to be himself > without a sense of shame, to achieve success, to gain respect, and which he > professed to love: France. Unlike the deeply grateful Josephine Baker, > Miller did nothing for France. He could have helped in some small way, even > back in the States, but declined to do so. No sense of obligation to that > from which he took and profited. How different is that from the very > wealthy > in the US who generate tremendous profits from the society in which they > live yet feel no obligation to contribute to its maintenance, beyond the > grudging payment of and th! > en complaining about taxes? They pay only because they are required to. > Miller was required to do nothing and that is what he did. > > I think too that many artists will tolerate almost any political system as > long as they are left alone by that system so they can create (e.g., > Borges, > Dostoevsky). Miller, I believe, was that way: he even tolerated the > detested > US because it was a safe haven. Ultimately, I think Miller was less a > conscientious anarchist-pacifist than a guy whose personal freedom took > priority over everything and everyone else. > > Now, that said, I still like Miller very much and he was hugely influential > on me during my college years. One overlooked quality of his is that he was > a great teacher: he had a superb eye for other writers and artists and > didn't hesitate to name-drop. Without fail, every author or artist for whom > he expresses enthusiasm is worthwhile. I learned a lot... > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 10:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave > during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > Hassan > have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they > conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties > to > the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an > anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a > coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I > don't think so... > > > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. > David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief > weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed > his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. > Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least > interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris > Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics > as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It > debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context > (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he's > also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal > more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes > as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International > Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the > Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence > about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get > people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini > than > it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very > bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always > easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me > that > this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the > part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live > their own lives" follo! > wed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am > against > revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am > against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to > wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my > taste." > > > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it > comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large > part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably > didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict > thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in > carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often > from > his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, > the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but > ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn't > faced > a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a > widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any > heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look how > unfashionable he is." > > > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race but > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > > I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > "why > when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind > of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > (as > the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show us > his > utopian leap into the future? > > > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > be > represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > ellipses... > > > > All best, > > James > > _______________________________________________ > > ILDS mailing list > > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:13:00 +0300 > From: William Apt > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: [ilds] Qualification > Message-ID: <09F9F0DB-38B0-4D76-8697-15B183838EFC at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Let me correct a misstatement in my last email. I said that "without fail" > every writer Miller was enthusiastic about was worthwhile. I forgot: he did > like his share of cranks and oddities. But in general he did have pretty > darn good taste! > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:22:19 -0700 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > James, > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and his > behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below to > some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s actions > hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of anarchism > and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I think not. I > side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s defense of > running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and egotism, as > Billy > Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this topic are exactly > on point. I fully agree with him. > > Bruce > > > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave > during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > Hassan > have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons (they > conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their ties > to > the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was an > anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him a > coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I > don?t think so? > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist pacifism? > obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to seeing a > relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not racism and > anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of > the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until recently). > Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he had a > political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a > pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era > of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was > legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was > required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the > ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? > status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already > an > outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his > declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience > argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which > he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejec! > ting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the > U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for > refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I > respect > those kind of political acts. > > > > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. > David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief > weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed > his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. > Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least > interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris > Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics > as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It > debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context > (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he?s > also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me > as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only > because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which > protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m > not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have > painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not > living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that > nurture them. > > > > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal > more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes > as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International > Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the > Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence > about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get > people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini > than > it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very > bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always > easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me > that > this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the > part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live > their own lives" follo! > wed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am > against > revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am > against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want to > wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits my > taste.? > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and > eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and > such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and > freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s > not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of > down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the > French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > > > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it > comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large > part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably > didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict > thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in > carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often > from > his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, > the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but > ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an > ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s forte. > He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On the other > hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, the > Conrad > Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. Still, I don?t > think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too self-absorbed. > > > > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t > faced > a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a > widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any > heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and > worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of > MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to > appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a > bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of > used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex > sells. > > > > > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > Yes. > > > > > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how > unfashionable he is." > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive > discussion of his poetry. > > > > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. > But > I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in > Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the > Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s > full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > > > > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > ?why > when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind > of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of > satire? > > > > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > (as > the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show us > his > utopian leap into the future? > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither > believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is > essentially > suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may be another > kind of suicide. > > > > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > be > represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > ellipses? > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with > his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > > > > > All best, > > James > > _ > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160606/95439fb8/attachmen > t-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 > ************************************ > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160606/248b1add/attachmen > t-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:58:05 -0700 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Ken, > > I have read some of Miller?s major works and some biographical material, > but > I am no authority on the man, to say the very least. So, for what it?s > worth, here?s my take on his political positions. In his late thirties, > Miller rejected American society and culture and left for France, where he > found a haven more compatible with his beliefs about anarchism and > pacifism. > There he lived as an exile for almost ten years and found his voice as a > writer. French culture nurtured him. Then the Second World War broke out. > Once the situation became too dangerous, he abandoned France and returned > to > America, which he continued to berate and debunk. As Billy Apt has noted, > Miller never did anything to repay his debt to France (unless the Conrad > Moricand episode in Big Sur is interpreted as Miller?s guilt and penance). > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any sense of moral > responsibility beyond his personal contacts. Politics, for me anyway, > means > active engagement in! > a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, hypocritical, and > based on gross egotism. > > Bruce > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Kennedy Gammage > wrote: > > > > Thank you for keeping this discussion going. As you say, you cannot call > Miller a 'draft dodger' because he was around 48 years old in 1939 and > there > was no draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, should he have > been trying to run toward or away from the coming war. To me that's a no > brainer - I don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in quotes. Please > recall, the American government and probably U.S. popular opinion was > AGAINST the war until Pearl Harbor two years later. Miller is way past > caring what you say about him - but I do. > > > > - Ken > > > > P.S. Picasso painted Guernica and that's all he needed to do. We are > still > talking about it, and know it for capturing Hitler's brutality BEFORE THE > WAR. Back then many people hated it - and some may still. > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Bruce Redwine < > bredwine1968 at earthlink.net > > wrote: > > James, > > > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and > his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below > to > some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s actions > hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of anarchism > and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I think not. I > side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s defense of > running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and egotism, as > Billy > Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this topic are exactly > on point. I fully agree with him. > > > > Bruce > > > > > >> On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > >> > >> In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > >> > >> For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons > (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their > ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was > an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him > a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I > don?t think so? > > > > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist > pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to > seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not > racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of > the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until recently). > Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he had a > political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a > pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era > of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was > legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was > required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the > ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? > status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already > an > outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his > declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience > argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which > he did in fact.) He did not argue for rej! > ecting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in > the U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for > refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I > respect > those kind of political acts. > > > >> > >> What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. > David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying "Miller?s chief > weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" but then changed > his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to Miller's views. > Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take the least > interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the /Paris > Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard politics > as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through politics. It > debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context > (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he?s > also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes > me > as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only > because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which > protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m > not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have > painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not > living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that > nurture them. > > > >> > >> The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal > more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it comes > as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London International > Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first comments on the > Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's correspondence > about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's easier to get > people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and Mussolini > than > it is to convince them to live their own lives for themselves, or very > bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, an idea, is always > easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... It seems to me > that > this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession or admission on the > part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they have failed to live > their own lives" foll! > owed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am > against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. > I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want > to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits > my > taste.? > > > > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and > eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and > such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and > freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s > not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of > down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the > French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > > >> > >> As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out > it > comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/ > ). > >> > >> In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and > probably > didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict > thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different in > carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often > from > his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. Likewise, > the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I can't help but > ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. irony. > > > > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an > ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s forte. > He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On the other > hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, the > Conrad > Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. Still, I don?t > think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too self-absorbed. > > > >> > >> For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t > faced > a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but sense a > widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't pay any > heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him > and > worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of > MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to > appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a > bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of > used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex > sells. > > > > > >> > >> Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > >> > >> For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how > unfashionable he is." > > > > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see > substantive > discussion of his poetry. > > > >> > >> In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. > But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in > Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the > Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s > full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > > > > >> > >> I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > ?why > when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a kind > of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of > satire? > > > >> > >> In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > (as > the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show us > his > utopian leap into the future? > > > > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither > believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is > essentially > suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may be another > kind of suicide. > > > >> > >> I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > be > represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > ellipses? > > > > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with > his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > > > > >> > >> All best, > >> James > >> _ > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160607/aa3d67dd/attachmen > t-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:15:48 +0300 > From: Richard Pine > To: James Gifford , ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > n-X3-fTuo5B8pCPnybLZNMxSECdg at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > My own feelings about superficial, ill-considered, pretentious, precocious > criticisms of writers like Durrell and Miller are summed up in this letter > from LD to HM, dated 2 August 1981. What LD has to say about shallowness > and petty back-biting could well apply to many so-called academics and > other applicants at the base of the intellectual greasy pole. > The way LD expresses his contempt (something which he also felt about F-J > Temple) is characteristic of his 'Ship of Fools' approach to life which is > ever-present in his 'MiniSatyrikon' and the (unfortunately unpublished) > 'Asides of Demonax'. It means, in effect, "I don't give a fuck because none > of them is worth a fuck." > > "Dear Henry: a quick wish for 77, and may it bring you everything you feel > you want -- it is difficult to imagine what except perhaps a French meal. > May it not bring you any more critics like Mailer with his advise and > consent style and all these windy garage swallowing excuses for not > thinking. I hope he is sharing his royalties with you at least, having > gutted three of your books to make a Roman holiday. What luck you do have > with these windy Jewish pickpockets. By contrast your poet Frenchman has > written the best book on you yet, if you write to him will you tell him I > have lost his address and that I vastly admire everything about his book, > even the style which is fine and lucid and full of glows of insight. What a > treat if he is doing Anais like this too. I have had a lousy sort of year, > living here more or less alone except from visits from a cheetah of a girl > about whom more one day. My film has been a great success. I am only half > through Livia, and editing a compilation of Greek islands before finishing > it." Durrell adds in green ink: "As for Batrillat - what a little empty > shit and what an impertinence" > > RP > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > This piece by James Campbell on Henry Miller from the /TLS/ might be of > > interest -- Durrell comes up several times, and part of the critique > likely > > parallel some of the critical challenges Durrell's works face: > > > > http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/millers-fail/ > > > > The part that strikes me the most is that the piece opens with an > > invocation of Durrell recognizing that Miller's books aren't actually the > > same as the author, then the article's author proceeds as if we're not > > supposed to see any of it as ironical. That strikes me as a superficial > > reading. Certainly several good points, but at the same time missing the > > point... > > > > 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/20160607/33eb86df/attachmen > t-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:21:22 -0700 > From: James Gifford > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi Bruce & Ken, > > > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > > sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > > contacts. > > I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though > I'd also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to > people but certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's > worth, the quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" > was written more in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He > also wasn't alone in his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around > to it, and Alex Comfort & George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser > echoes many of the same sentiments as well, although several of the New > Apocalypse poets under Miller's sway did serve. > > On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > > Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > > a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > > hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. > > I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with > Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than > pretending that he didn't have any stance or position from which he > wrote. While that means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean > overlooking what it was about, so it can be quite productive. > > My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort > in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a > point rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point > was wrong or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't > prevent us from noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it > had on other writers. > > As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play > in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though > more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For > instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think > to Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs > rampant across the book (very often where money or imagery of the > machine appears), and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing > about Van Norden. As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I > should see as sincere nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just > as Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a > model (the cult in Monsieur originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news > clippings about Yugoslavia). > > All best, > James > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:32:19 +0300 > From: Richard Pine > To: James Gifford , ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > DufgqTr7RBCo8e3-6qGtB0BkSA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken > seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly > doesn't understand gnosticism. > RP > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > > Hi Bruce & Ken, > > > > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > >> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > >> contacts. > >> > > > > I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd > > also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people > but > > certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the > > quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written > more > > in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone > in > > his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort > & > > George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same > > sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under > > Miller's sway did serve. > > > > On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > > > >> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > >> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > >> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. > >> > > > > I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with > > Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than > pretending > > that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While > that > > means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, > > so it can be quite productive. > > > > My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort > in > > the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point > > rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong > > or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us > from > > noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other > writers. > > > > As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play > > in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though > > more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For > > instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think > to > > Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs > rampant > > across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine > appears), > > and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. > > As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere > > nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism > > surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur > > originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). > > > > 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/20160607/ff25881f/attachmen > t-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:45:52 -0700 > From: James Gifford > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: <4060cf87-62e9-5172-c456-ae6fe8fd62af at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi Ken, > > > you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he > > was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no > > draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, > > should he have been trying to run toward or away > > from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I > > don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in > > quotes. Please recall, the American government and > > probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war > > until Pearl Harbor two years later. > > Well put. > > One of Miller's rebuttals to those who said he should fight against > those who would censor him (for instance, saying Hitler or Mussolini > wouldn't let him publish his books) was that indeed they wouldn't and > nor would the USA or Britain... This was, of course, before anyone knew > about the Holocaust and what would really come in WWII, so hindsight > could certainly change things. Patrick von Richthofen's work on the > Booster & Delta stresses how the Munich Crisis shaped that project from > the Villa Seurat as well -- Herbert Read would, in part thanks to > Miller's influence, describe it as "The Politics of the Unpolitical." > > What's worth emphasizing, I think, is that Miller was explicitly a > pacifist well before WWII and told those who would go to Spain, like > Orwell, that their revolution would just lead back to the status quo. > It did. Does that mean they shouldn't have gone to Spain? I don't > think I can say, but despite being anti-capitalist he was also no friend > to the Fascists or Communists. > > There's be a good deal of work considering Miller's influence on > Durrell, especially in the 30s and 40s, but it seems to be mainly around > sex and style -- Durrell was copied on Miller's more radical > correspondence with Herbert Read and others, and I tend to think that as > Wilde would say, we overlook that at our peril just as overlooking its > importance to Miller circumscribes our readings > > For what it's worth, I admire Leighton's work on Picasso. > > All best, > James > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:45:16 -0700 > From: Kennedy Gammage > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > iPDNyhbCNKO9TCTLuokWkDB6yS2U80uA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > This morning?s horoscope by Holiday Mathis in the LA Times advised me: ?You > could face and overcome your opposition, but it would take an awful lot of > energy. It?s probable that this battle is not important in the scheme of > things.? And yet ? there is so much to disagree with! > > Writers write, painters paint and soldiers fight. That?s their job. Miller > was a writer, not a soldier. > > France ?nurtured? Henry Miller for 10 years from the late ?20s through the > ?30s. Well, if nurturing means earning no money but having glorious fun at > intervals drinking red wine and peeing in bathtubs with prostitutes, then > yes. Plus writing the book that made him famous even though he would earn > virtually no money from it for the next 25 years. So he was nurtured. > Somehow that obligated him to put on a uniform at age 48? France fell in 6 > weeks in mid 1940. Could Miller have prevented that? I reject this argument > that Miller had a ?debt? to fight for France ? especially with the benefit > now of 75 years of hindsight! Do you think it would have made a difference? > > Funny talking about politics and criticizing Henry Miller. Today is > election day in California. Holiday Mathis was right ? this whole > discussion is absurd. > > Cheers - Ken > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine > wrote: > > > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken > > seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly > > doesn't understand gnosticism. > > RP > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Bruce & Ken, > >> > >> I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > >>> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > >>> contacts. > >>> > >> > >> I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though > I'd > >> also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people > but > >> certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the > >> quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written > more > >> in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone > in > >> his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex > Comfort > & > >> George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same > >> sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under > >> Miller's sway did serve. > >> > >> On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > >> > >>> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > >>> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > >>> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. > >>> > >> > >> I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with > >> Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than > pretending > >> that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While > that > >> means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was > about, > >> so it can be quite productive. > >> > >> My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort > >> in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a > point > >> rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was > wrong > >> or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us > from > >> noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other > writers. > >> > >> As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play > >> in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though > >> more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For > >> instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think > to > >> Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs > rampant > >> across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine > appears), > >> and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. > >> As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere > >> nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism > >> surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in > Monsieur > >> originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). > >> > >> All best, > >> James > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ILDS mailing list > >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ILDS mailing list > > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160607/378b8940/attachmen > t-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:49:35 -0700 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: <00EE3A8E-F2CF-46D5-977E-049E6FB92E89 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Ken, > > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Kennedy Gammage > wrote: > > > > This morning?s horoscope by Holiday Mathis in the LA Times advised me: > ?You could face and overcome your opposition, but it would take an awful > lot > of energy. It?s probable that this battle is not important in the scheme of > things.? And yet ? there is so much to disagree with! > > > > Writers write, painters paint and soldiers fight. That?s their job. > Miller > was a writer, not a soldier. > > > Tell that to a few of Henry Miller?s contemporaries?Ernest Hemingway, > George > Orwell, Evelyn Waugh, and Patrick Leigh Fermor. All had military service, > and all responded to the call. I believe they all volunteered. > > > > > France ?nurtured? Henry Miller for 10 years from the late ?20s through > the > ?30s. Well, if nurturing means earning no money but having glorious fun at > intervals drinking red wine and peeing in bathtubs with prostitutes, then > yes. Plus writing the book that made him famous even though he would earn > virtually no money from it for the next 25 years. So he was nurtured. > Somehow that obligated him to put on a uniform at age 48? France fell in 6 > weeks in mid 1940. Could Miller have prevented that? I reject this argument > that Miller had a ?debt? to fight for France ? especially with the benefit > now of 75 years of hindsight! Do you think it would have made a difference? > > > Miller could have done all those things in America. But he found France > more conducive to his interests and philosophy. He owed France a debt, if > for no other reason than it provided the matrix for his development as a > writer. Durrell had a similar debt to Greece. > > Also, some rise to the occasion, and some run away. Joseph Heller has his > hero Capt. Yossarian desert his unit at the end of Catch-22. Is that his > moral for living in the real world? No. Because Heller served honorably > as > an officer in the U.S. Army Air Corps during WWII. He did not desert. I > think you?re confusing fiction with real life. Many things can be > justified > in fiction, desertion among them, but far fewer in real life, which entails > real obligations. > > > > Funny talking about politics and criticizing Henry Miller. Today is > election day in California. Holiday Mathis was right ? this whole > discussion > is absurd. > > > I take this discussion very seriously. > > > Bruce > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160607/0ead47c8/attachmen > t-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7 > ************************************ > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giacomoesposito72 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 15:23:26 2016 From: giacomoesposito72 at gmail.com (james Esposito) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:23:26 +0300 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: <8a3fb11d-45ab-f128-a8f2-33170ad72c36@gmail.com> References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> <8a3fb11d-45ab-f128-a8f2-33170ad72c36@gmail.com> Message-ID: Lawrence Durrell once shouted at me "So you've twigged it!" when I made some gauche remark which I thought explained an aspect of his writing. He might have meant "So you've caught me out" but he really meant "How has it taken you so long to spot the obvious?". He meant it kindly, but he meant it. Yes, Dr Gifford shows himself to be dangerously close to being human. Close but.... totally lacking not only a sense of humour but any even remote sense of 'jeux' - the relationships between fact, fiction, imagination, veracity, memory and forgetting will always elude the dull, slow-witted, over-educated, boring academic mind that lacks all capacity to think for itself. So I make no apologies for using James Esposito's email - I am visiting him to discuss a LD publishing project which is almost ready for announcement - one which, incidentally, Dr Gifford did his not-quite-good-enough best to scupper - nor for attempting to develop a greater elasticity (Greek) in affairs Durrellian, nor for hopelessly trying to introduce into these discussions ideas about why writers write. The greatest sin against humankind is not to have a sense of humour. As for what might be a complimentary spoof of LD - begat...begat...begat... (but isn;t) it's just a pity that Dr Gifford has not, in fact, twigged it. Just made a molehill out of a mountain. RP signed in the presence of JE On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:24 AM, James Gifford wrote: > On 2016-06-07 1:35 PM, james Esposito wrote: > >> But yes, LD did 'believe' in 'it'. >> RP >> > > Envoi > > So Old Gin > begat Soft Wood > (who begat Marie the Idiot) > who begat the Albanian waif > who begat James Exposed > who begat... > > Boo hoo. Intellego ut credam, but without much credibility... > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cnncravi at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 17:31:25 2016 From: cnncravi at gmail.com (Ravi Nambiar) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:01:25 +0530 Subject: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, I have been enjoying the ILDS discussion going on about Henry Miller. I should not join the discussion because I have only a limited knowledge of Miller. Even if I were an authority on Miller, I would not like to condemn him by using avoidable epithets like "egotistical coward". To the best of my knowledge, Miller was a Zen first, then anything else: "Zen is my idea of life absolutely.... I am a Zen addict through and through" (1938 letter to Durrell). He was also a close follower of J. Krishnamurti, whom he praised in his book: "?He is the one man of our time who may be said to be a master of reality?. What he liked in J K was the emphasis on the self, the freedom of the self, the liberation of the self from group thinking. War is the product of group thinking, and the world war is the product of the worst form of group thinking (what Durrell exhibits in his *Quintet*). Miller wanted to run away from France to Tibet: "If I could get to that Tibetan frontier, either side, if I could live somewhere in the Himalayas, I haven't the slightest doubt that I would be content for the rest of my life", wrote Miller in 1938 to Durrell. And after reaching Big Sur, he again repeated this desire to Durrell: "I think we should get in touch with Mulk Raj Anand and ask him to give names of friends so that we could move off slowly toward Tibet". Anand told me in my interview with him why Miller could not go to Tibet (1993): "But, under the conditions of time, it was impossible. He would not have been allowed there as quite a few Europeans who wanted to go to Tibet were not allowed". The point is that a Zen can never be a Don Quixote, to fight against war, which is the result of utter madness. Withdrawing into the inner self is the result of insight and wisdom, which is what Durrell shows in his *Quintet*. The irony is that a Zen has no ego, and only those who have tremendous courage can be egoless. Regards Ravi Nambiar On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:30 AM, wrote: > Send ILDS mailing list submissions to > ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Kennedy Gammage) > 2. Re: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 (Ric Wilson) > 3. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) > 4. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Richard Pine) > 5. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) > 6. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Richard Pine) > 7. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) > 8. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Kennedy Gammage) > 9. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:50:56 -0700 > From: Kennedy Gammage > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > < > CANDhJnT5vFia1ag7sVN2uL-WofBTUcLOP895egAwXQ01g6AYHw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you for keeping this discussion going. As you say, you cannot call > Miller a 'draft dodger' because he was around 48 years old in 1939 and > there was no draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, should he > have been trying to run toward or away from the coming war. To me that's a > no brainer - I don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in quotes. > Please recall, the American government and probably U.S. popular opinion > was AGAINST the war until Pearl Harbor two years later. Miller is way past > caring what you say about him - but I do. > > - Ken > > P.S. Picasso painted Guernica and that's all he needed to do. We are still > talking about it, and know it for capturing Hitler's brutality BEFORE THE > WAR. Back then many people hated it - and some may still. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Bruce Redwine > > wrote: > > > James, > > > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and > > his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below > > to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s > > actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of > > anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I > > think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. > Miller?s > > defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and > > egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on > this > > topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. > > > > Bruce > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > > wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many > of > > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave > > during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > > Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons > > (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and > their > > ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he > was > > an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call > him > > a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the > time? I > > don?t think so? > > > > > > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist > > pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to > > seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not > > racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of > > the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until > > recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If > he > > had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a > > pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the > era > > of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was > > legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was > > required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the > > ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? > > status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already > > an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for > his > > declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil > disobedience > > argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. > (Which > > he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejecting the law with impunity or > > amnesty (as became the popular outcry in the U.S.). During the Vietnam > > War, many draft resisters went to jail for refusing to serve, David > Harris > > among them, husband of Joan Baez. I respect those kind of political > acts. > > > > > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to > politics" > > but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more > to > > Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t > take > > the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with > the > > /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard > > politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through > > politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly > the > > same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, > > 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > > > > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes > me > > as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only > > because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which > > protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m > > not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have > > painted *Guernica* (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are > > not living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that > > nurture them. > > > > > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and > it > > comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler > and > > Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a > belief, > > an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own > lives.... > > It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession > > or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that > they > > have failed to live their own lives" followed by the telling references > to > > the communists and fascists, "I am against revolutions because they > always > > involve a return to the status quo. I am against the status quo both > before > > and after revolutions. I don?t want to wear a black shirt or a red > shirt. I > > want to wear the shirt that suits my taste.? > > > > > > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and > > eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and > > such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty > and > > freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s > > not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of > > down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the > > French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > > > > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out it > > comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large > > part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and probably > > didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same conflict > > thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very different > in > > carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed quite often > > from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for Durrell. > > Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, but I > > can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. > irony. > > > > > > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an > > ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s > > forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On > > the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his *Big > > Sur, *the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight > > face. Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too > > self-absorbed. > > > > > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, > I > > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's > work > > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t > > faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but > > sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply > needn't > > pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > > > > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him > and > > worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of > > MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to > > appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a > > bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf > of > > used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of *Justine*. Raw > > sex sells. > > > > > > > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question > might > > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look > how > > unfashionable he is." > > > > > > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see > substantive > > discussion of his poetry. > > > > > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > > visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race > but > > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > > > > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. > > But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in > > Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the > > Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s > > full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > > > > > > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > > ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to > a > > kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > > > > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of > > satire? > > > > > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > > (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show > > us his utopian leap into the future? > > > > > > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither > > believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is > > essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which > may > > be another kind of suicide. > > > > > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > > be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > > ellipses? > > > > > > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with > > his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > > > > > > > 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/20160606/60e553aa/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 21:46:58 +0000 > From: Ric Wilson > To: "ilds at lists.uvic.ca" > Subject: Re: [ilds] ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 > Message-ID: > < > BL2PR16MB09646B7E1C908E3435522320935C0 at BL2PR16MB0964.namprd16.prod.outlook.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > re: Message One > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after > London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell > just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can > only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond > of ellipses... > > > I, for one, lean toward a Jamesian view. Not because it's "careful" but > rather cohesive, open-ended and not permeated with a judgmental > underpinnings. In determining merit, one must ask what the writer was > attempting to accomplish with his audience. > > > So the response aimed at raising awareness in a rainforest rather than > scything down alleged weeds, I found most provocative--inspiring even. (I > confess my Tunc only just arrived, so I'm really winging it here.) > > > I note with keen interest his closing opens on the interconnection between > works and a gentle reminder of what even a layman such as myself can > remember from AQ--ellipses. I don't see an underlying impulse to backhand > some ghost's reputation as much as a presence identifying with--understand > and return to--DL's technique, effective or not. > > > I don't propose to really know in this case. > > > Ric Wilson > ________________________________ > From: ILDS on behalf of > ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 12:00:49 PM > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 > > Send ILDS mailing list submissions to > ilds at lists.uvic.ca > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ilds-request at lists.uvic.ca > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ilds-owner at lists.uvic.ca > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ILDS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (James Gifford) > 2. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (William Apt) > 3. Qualification (William Apt) > 4. Re: TLS article on Henry Miller (Bruce Redwine) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:45:59 -0700 > From: James Gifford > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's > project, I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by > cherry-picking and deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly > didn't help that many of Miller's "boosters" did the same thing > (basically with both "sides" often holding viable views for all the > wrong reasons). > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like > Ihab Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other > reasons (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, > and their ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight > because he was an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- > while one can call him a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW > earlier in his life when there was a definite personal risk to doing so. > Simply setting him as cowardly prevents close reading rather than > encourages it. Another anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of > fighting in WWII after being drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- > was that cowardly at the time? I don't think so... > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to > politics" but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted > more and more to Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, > writing "I don?t take the least interests in politics myself" and when > discussing Orwell with the /Paris Review/ said his political interests > were "None whatever. I regard politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten > world. We get nowhere through politics. It debases everything." Pat > Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the same context (/Re-Ordering the > Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, 1897-1914/), yet he's also often > pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and > it comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler > and Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a > belief, an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their > own lives.... It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice > is a confession or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a > struggle that they have failed to live their own lives" followed by the > telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am against > revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. I am > against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want > to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that > suits my taste." > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out > it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and > probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same > conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very > different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed > quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for > Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading > Miller, but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. > Sincerity vs. irony. > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, > I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments > on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has > published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like > Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. > Durrell hasn't faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I > can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that > we simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that > won't be spoken of." > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question > might be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look > how unfashionable he is." > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race > but rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > "why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to > a kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a > gloriously ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after > London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell > just show us his utopian leap into the future? > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can > only be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond > of ellipses... > > All best, > James > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:53:11 +0300 > From: William Apt > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > While I understand Miller's stand that politics is bunk and that no > political system takes priority over placing one's life at risk, and while > I completely agree that many people preoccupied with politics to the point > of allowing it to take center stage are often avoiding issues in their own > lives, that does not quite resolve the issue. Miller felt no duty to give > anything back to the only country that allowed him to thrive, to be himself > without a sense of shame, to achieve success, to gain respect, and which he > professed to love: France. Unlike the deeply grateful Josephine Baker, > Miller did nothing for France. He could have helped in some small way, even > back in the States, but declined to do so. No sense of obligation to that > from which he took and profited. How different is that from the very > wealthy in the US who generate tremendous profits from the society in which > they live yet feel no obligation to contribute to its maintenance, beyond > the grudging payment of and th! > en complaining about taxes? They pay only because they are required to. > Miller was required to do nothing and that is what he did. > > I think too that many artists will tolerate almost any political system as > long as they are left alone by that system so they can create (e.g., > Borges, Dostoevsky). Miller, I believe, was that way: he even tolerated the > detested US because it was a safe haven. Ultimately, I think Miller was > less a conscientious anarchist-pacifist than a guy whose personal freedom > took priority over everything and everyone else. > > Now, that said, I still like Miller very much and he was hugely > influential on me during my college years. One overlooked quality of his is > that he was a great teacher: he had a superb eye for other writers and > artists and didn't hesitate to name-drop. Without fail, every author or > artist for whom he expresses enthusiasm is worthwhile. I learned a lot... > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 10:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons > (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their > ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was > an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him > a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I > don't think so... > > > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" > but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to > Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take > the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the > /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard > politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through > politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the > same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, > 1897-1914/), yet he's also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it > comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and > Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, > an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... > It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession > or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they > have failed to live their own lives" follo! > wed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am > against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. > I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want > to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits > my taste." > > > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out > it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and > probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same > conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very > different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed > quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for > Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, > but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. > irony. > > > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn't > faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but > sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't > pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply "look how > unfashionable he is." > > > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that's not to sidestep the problems of race but > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > > I'd add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > "why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a > kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn't Durrell just show > us his utopian leap into the future? > > > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > ellipses... > > > > All best, > > James > > _______________________________________________ > > ILDS mailing list > > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:13:00 +0300 > From: William Apt > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: [ilds] Qualification > Message-ID: <09F9F0DB-38B0-4D76-8697-15B183838EFC at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Let me correct a misstatement in my last email. I said that "without fail" > every writer Miller was enthusiastic about was worthwhile. I forgot: he did > like his share of cranks and oddities. But in general he did have pretty > darn good taste! > > WILLIAM APT > Attorney at Law > 812 San Antonio St, Ste 401 > Austin TX 78701 > 512/708-8300 > 512/708-8011 FAX > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:22:19 -0700 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > James, > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and > his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below > to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s > actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of > anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I > think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s > defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and > egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this > topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. > > Bruce > > > > On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > > > Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > > > > In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > > > > For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons > (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their > ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was > an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him > a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I > don?t think so? > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist > pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to > seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not > racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out of > the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until > recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he > had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a > pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era > of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was > legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was > required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the > ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? > status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already > an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his > declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience > argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which > he did in fact.) He did not argue for rejec! > ting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in > the U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for > refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I > respect those kind of political acts. > > > > > What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" > but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to > Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take > the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the > /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard > politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through > politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the > same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, > 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes me > as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only > because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which > protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m > not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have > painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not > living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that > nurture them. > > > > > The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it > comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and > Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, > an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... > It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession > or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they > have failed to live their own lives" follo! > wed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am > against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. > I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want > to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits > my taste.? > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake and > eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such and > such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty and > freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. It?s > not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years of > down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the > French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > > > > As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out > it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/). > > > > In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and > probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same > conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very > different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed > quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for > Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, > but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. > irony. > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an > ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s > forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On > the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, > the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. > Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too > self-absorbed. > > > > > For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the critiques > to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. Durrell's > reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the literary and > cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As Bruce knows, I > like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few comments on > Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has published > some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like Eagleton's work > very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. Durrell hasn?t > faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I can't help but > sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we simply needn't > pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be spoken of." > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him and > worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of > MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to > appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a > bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of > used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex > sells. > > > > > > Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw man > of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > Yes. > > > > > > For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too much > purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how > unfashionable he is." > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see substantive > discussion of his poetry. > > > > > In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. > But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in > Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the > Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s > full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > > > > > I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a > kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of > satire? > > > > > In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? Why > she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain married? > Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after London > (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just show > us his utopian leap into the future? > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither > believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is > essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may > be another kind of suicide. > > > > > I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > ellipses? > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? with > his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > > > > > All best, > > James > > _ > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160606/95439fb8/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 6 > ************************************ > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160606/248b1add/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:58:05 -0700 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Ken, > > I have read some of Miller?s major works and some biographical material, > but I am no authority on the man, to say the very least. So, for what it?s > worth, here?s my take on his political positions. In his late thirties, > Miller rejected American society and culture and left for France, where he > found a haven more compatible with his beliefs about anarchism and > pacifism. There he lived as an exile for almost ten years and found his > voice as a writer. French culture nurtured him. Then the Second World War > broke out. Once the situation became too dangerous, he abandoned France > and returned to America, which he continued to berate and debunk. As Billy > Apt has noted, Miller never did anything to repay his debt to France > (unless the Conrad Moricand episode in Big Sur is interpreted as Miller?s > guilt and penance). I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal contacts. Politics, for > me anyway, means active engagement in! > a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, hypocritical, and > based on gross egotism. > > Bruce > > > > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Kennedy Gammage > wrote: > > > > Thank you for keeping this discussion going. As you say, you cannot call > Miller a 'draft dodger' because he was around 48 years old in 1939 and > there was no draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, should he > have been trying to run toward or away from the coming war. To me that's a > no brainer - I don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in quotes. > Please recall, the American government and probably U.S. popular opinion > was AGAINST the war until Pearl Harbor two years later. Miller is way past > caring what you say about him - but I do. > > > > - Ken > > > > P.S. Picasso painted Guernica and that's all he needed to do. We are > still talking about it, and know it for capturing Hitler's brutality BEFORE > THE WAR. Back then many people hated it - and some may still. > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Bruce Redwine < > bredwine1968 at earthlink.net > wrote: > > James, > > > > Thanks for the careful responses to our discussions on Henry Miller and > his behavior. It?s a good review of the main issues. I?ll respond below > to some of your points. Basically, however, the question of Miller?s > actions hinges on how much credence we want to give to his ?ideology? of > anarchism and pacifism. Was it legitimate response to World War II? I > think not. I side with those who fought, contributed, and died. Miller?s > defense of running away from France in 1939 strikes me as bombast and > egotism, as Billy Apt describes. By the way, Billy?s recent emails on this > topic are exactly on point. I fully agree with him. > > > > Bruce > > > > > >> On Jun 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Bruce, Billy, David, & all, > >> > >> In a sense, this it the kind of crux on which readings of Miller pivot, > and I think it's distinct but akin to what happens with Durrell. I > contributed a piece to James Decker and Indrek Manniste's book on Miller > contrasting him against Kate Millett (with some digressions to Ursula Le > Guin and Samuel Delany) -- while I like and agree with Millett's project, > I'd also argue she pretty clearly mis-reads Miller by cherry-picking and > deliberately eliding his anarchism. It certainly didn't help that many of > Miller's "boosters" did the same thing (basically with both "sides" often > holding viable views for all the wrong reasons). > >> > >> For example, Miller did leave France rather than fight (and tried to > leave during the Munich Crisis), unlike Beckett, although critics like Ihab > Hassan have seen fit to put Miller & Beckett together for other reasons > (they conflict sharply though on politics, their views on Joyce, and their > ties to the Surrealists). However, Miller refused to fight because he was > an anarchist pacifist, which is a clear rationale -- while one can call him > a coward for it, he also was involved in the IWW earlier in his life when > there was a definite personal risk to doing so. Simply setting him as > cowardly prevents close reading rather than encourages it. Another > anarchist, Robert Duncan, also got out of fighting in WWII after being > drafted by admitting his homosexuality -- was that cowardly at the time? I > don?t think so? > > > > > > I?m not sure what you mean that criticizing Miller for ?anarchist > pacifism? obstructs a close reading of his work. I assume you object to > seeing a relationship between anarchism and the charge of sexism, if not > racism and anti-Semitism. Indeed I do see such a relationship. > > > > About Robert Duncan. Homosexuality was a valid reason for getting out > of the draft, but it also stigmatized severely (and still did until > recently). Was it cowardice to declare himself as such? Probably. If he > had a political statement to make, then he should have declared himself a > pacifist, refused the draft, and suffered the consequences. During the era > of the American draft, classification as a ?conscientious objector? was > legitimate, although very difficult to get (substantial evidence was > required to prove one?s case, and the Draft Boards, made up of the > ?upstanding? members of various communities, didn?t want to grant ?C.O.? > status). I think Duncan took the easy way out, and, since he was already > an outsider and in the vanguard of the ?Beats,? he suffered little for his > declaration. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on civil disobedience > argued for defying the law and going to jail for one?s principles. (Which > he did in fact.) He did not argue for rej! > ecting the law with impunity or amnesty (as became the popular outcry in > the U.S.). During the Vietnam War, many draft resisters went to jail for > refusing to serve, David Harris among them, husband of Joan Baez. I > respect those kind of political acts. > > > >> > >> What Billy phrases as "no sense of obligation except to themselves" for > Miller and Picasso is, I would argue, a quite specific political > commitment. David Gascoyne, for instance, critiques Miller saying > "Miller?s chief weakness is perhaps his complete indifference to politics" > but then changed his mind after being in Spain and drifted more and more to > Miller's views. Miller was explicit with Orwell too, writing "I don?t take > the least interests in politics myself" and when discussing Orwell with the > /Paris Review/ said his political interests were "None whatever. I regard > politics as a thoroughly foul, rotten world. We get nowhere through > politics. It debases everything." Pat Leighton puts Picasso in exactly the > same context (/Re-Ordering the Universe: Picasso and Anarchism, > 1897-1914/), yet he?s also often pointed to as a coward and selfish. > > > > > > Miller?s position on the categorical perniciousness of politics strikes > me as utterly and dangerously idealistic. He could espouse anarchism only > because he lived in a country which permitted such a philosophy and which > protected him from totalitarianism. That seems to me irresponsible. I?m > not familiar with Picasso?s politics, but I don?t see how he could have > painted Guernica (1937) and then advocated pacifism. These artists are not > living in the real world and have no obligation to the countries that > nurture them. > > > >> > >> The turning point of that obligation to the self is fairly explicit for > Miller in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere," which has a great > deal more to do with Spain and Communism than is typically thought, and it > comes as a response to Herbert Read's lecture for the 1936 London > International Surrealist Exhibition that also provoked Durrell's first > comments on the Heraldic Universe (as an interoluctor to Miller & Read's > correspondence about anarchism and Surrealism). As Miller puts it, it's > easier to get people to follow movie stars or megalomaniacs like Hitler and > Mussolini than it is to convince them to live their own lives for > themselves, or very bluntly, "To get men to rally round a cause, a belief, > an idea, is always easier than to persuade them to lead their own lives.... > It seems to me that this struggle for liberty and justice is a confession > or admission on the part of all those engaging in such a struggle that they > have failed to live their own lives" foll! > owed by the telling references to the communists and fascists, "I am > against revolutions because they always involve a return to the status quo. > I am against the status quo both before and after revolutions. I don?t want > to wear a black shirt or a red shirt. I want to wear the shirt that suits > my taste.? > > > > > > I call Miller?s rhetoric highfalutin bunk. He wants to have his cake > and eat it too. At some point, one has to take a stand and say that such > and such is wrong. Miller wants to proclaim from his mountaintop, ?liberty > and freedom for all,? without any willingness to defend his principles. > It?s not easy to take risks and put one?s life on the line. Miller?s years > of down and out in Paris are not the same as Beckett?s participation in the > French Resistance. I doubt that Miller ever made the distinction. > > > >> > >> As for the TLS review that sets out Miller's homophobia, I'd point out > it comes from the first inaccurate biography rather than Miller's works > themselves, and it avoids the overt homoerotic and explicitly homosexual > content of Miller's books (in effect, we have to "straighten" Miller in > order to queer him: https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/ < > https://commons.mla.org/deposits/item/mla:359/>). > >> > >> In other words, it's easy to see Miller as an egotistical coward, in > large part because he uses euphemisms for some deep commitments and > probably didn't care if people interpreted him that way. In that same > conflict thought, I'd suggest that Durrell and Miller were not so very > different in carefully editing themselves -- Miller, after all, differed > quite often from his character "Henry Miller." I see much the same for > Durrell. Likewise, the sexism makes me uncomfortable when reading Miller, > but I can't help but ask if I'm supposed to be uncomfortable. Sincerity vs. > irony. > > > > > > Sincerity v. irony? Maybe. But Miller is not what I think of as an > ironist. Durrell certainly is?not Miller. Subtlety is not Miller?s > forte. He comes at his reader straight on like a Mack V dump truck. On > the other hand, you really have to wonder if the third part of his Big Sur, > the Conrad Moribund section, is at-all delivered with a straight face. > Still, I don?t think Miller is aware of the self-irony. He?s too > self-absorbed. > > > >> > >> For that construction of a public reputation, however, and the > critiques to which it falls, Durrell and Miller have a lot in common. > Durrell's reputation has, like Miller's, fallen foul of many of the > literary and cultural movements the majority of us probably support. As > Bruce knows, I like Edward Said's work very much, but I also think his few > comments on Durrell simply don't hold water. Likewise, Terry Eagleton has > published some very sharp condemnations of Durrell, and while I like > Eagleton's work very much, I also don't think he's really read Durrell. > Durrell hasn?t faced a critique like Millett's, but at the same time I > can't help but sense a widespread sense among the British literati that we > simply needn't pay any heed to Durrell "for obvious reasons that won't be > spoken of." > > > > > > Yes. As you point out, critics reject Durrell without having read him > and worse?feel no need to. I don?t understand this. Eagleton?s review of > MacNiven?s biography is a prime example. Miller, however, continues to > appeal to the reading public. Durrell doesn?t. I recently went into a > bookstore in San Francisco (not City Lights) and found a whole bookshelf of > used books devoted to Miller. Durrell had one copy of Justine. Raw sex > sells. > > > > > >> > >> Like Miller the homophobic, cowardly, sexist racist, I think a straw > man of Durrell has been set up that sidelines meaningful reading. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > >> > >> For example, Durrell is set up as a baroque stylist with wayyyy too > much purple prose -- was this because he couldn't write any other way? The > sparseness of the poetry suggests otherwise, so the telling question might > be "why does he deliberately differ *so much* from the predominant > stylistics and poetics of his contemporaries?" rather than simply ?look how > unfashionable he is." > > > > > > Yes. Durrell is vastly underrated as a poet. I?d like to see > substantive discussion of his poetry. > > > >> > >> In another context, Durrell the Islamophobe conflicts with his > cosmopolitanism. A better question might be "why does he 'reside' while > other more progressive (aka: acceptable) contemporaries were content to > visit and briefly depict?" (that?s not to sidestep the problems of race but > rather, like Conrad, to expand them). > > > > > > Durrell?s ?residence? in Egypt was not a matter of choice, as you know. > But I see your point. I think Edward W. Said would probably lump in > Durrell?disparagingly, of course?with Flaubert in Egypt. Said, the > Palestinian exile, is the flip side to Western colonialism/racism. He?s > full of too much hatred for the West to see straight. > > > > > >> > >> I?d add to it, when a good many critics loosely gesture to Durrell as > depicting the last last gasp of a crumbling empire as if to glorify it, > ?why when his contemporaries retreated inward on a 'shrinking island' to a > kind of angry young kitchen sink realism did he depict such a gloriously > ridiculous, 'unreal' vision of empire as it sank?" > > > > > > That last quotation is ridiculous. Whose is it? Or is that your bit of > satire? > > > >> > >> In a sense, it's like asking why Bendicta is in /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/? > Why she gets to live while Iolanthe dies? Why she and Felix remain > married? Why we don't get to know what happens after Rome burns even after > London (as the revived Rome) has already fallen. Why wouldn?t Durrell just > show us his utopian leap into the future? > > > > > > Here we have a convergence of Miller?s and Durrell?s visions. Neither > believe Utopia is possible. Durrell?s ?leap,? I would argue, is > essentially suicidal. Miller?s becomes a self-absorbed fantasy, which may > be another kind of suicide. > > > >> > >> I suspect it's for the same reason we have the "leap" in /Panic Spring/ > and /Cefalu/. That moment of a radical break into the truly new can only > be represented by the caesura... The same reason he was over-fond of > ellipses? > > > > > > Durrell?s ?leap? occurs throughout the oeuvre. Equating his ?leaps? > with his use of ?ellipses? is provocative. I like that. > > > > > >> > >> All best, > >> James > >> _ > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160607/aa3d67dd/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:15:48 +0300 > From: Richard Pine > To: James Gifford , ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > n-X3-fTuo5B8pCPnybLZNMxSECdg at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > My own feelings about superficial, ill-considered, pretentious, precocious > criticisms of writers like Durrell and Miller are summed up in this letter > from LD to HM, dated 2 August 1981. What LD has to say about shallowness > and petty back-biting could well apply to many so-called academics and > other applicants at the base of the intellectual greasy pole. > The way LD expresses his contempt (something which he also felt about F-J > Temple) is characteristic of his 'Ship of Fools' approach to life which is > ever-present in his 'MiniSatyrikon' and the (unfortunately unpublished) > 'Asides of Demonax'. It means, in effect, "I don't give a fuck because none > of them is worth a fuck." > > "Dear Henry: a quick wish for 77, and may it bring you everything you feel > you want -- it is difficult to imagine what except perhaps a French meal. > May it not bring you any more critics like Mailer with his advise and > consent style and all these windy garage swallowing excuses for not > thinking. I hope he is sharing his royalties with you at least, having > gutted three of your books to make a Roman holiday. What luck you do have > with these windy Jewish pickpockets. By contrast your poet Frenchman has > written the best book on you yet, if you write to him will you tell him I > have lost his address and that I vastly admire everything about his book, > even the style which is fine and lucid and full of glows of insight. What a > treat if he is doing Anais like this too. I have had a lousy sort of year, > living here more or less alone except from visits from a cheetah of a girl > about whom more one day. My film has been a great success. I am only half > through Livia, and editing a compilation of Greek islands before finishing > it." Durrell adds in green ink: "As for Batrillat - what a little empty > shit and what an impertinence" > > RP > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:51 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > This piece by James Campbell on Henry Miller from the /TLS/ might be of > > interest -- Durrell comes up several times, and part of the critique > likely > > parallel some of the critical challenges Durrell's works face: > > > > http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/millers-fail/ > > > > The part that strikes me the most is that the piece opens with an > > invocation of Durrell recognizing that Miller's books aren't actually the > > same as the author, then the article's author proceeds as if we're not > > supposed to see any of it as ironical. That strikes me as a superficial > > reading. Certainly several good points, but at the same time missing the > > point... > > > > 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/20160607/33eb86df/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:21:22 -0700 > From: James Gifford > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi Bruce & Ken, > > > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > > sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > > contacts. > > I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though > I'd also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to > people but certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's > worth, the quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" > was written more in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He > also wasn't alone in his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around > to it, and Alex Comfort & George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser > echoes many of the same sentiments as well, although several of the New > Apocalypse poets under Miller's sway did serve. > > On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > > Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > > a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > > hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. > > I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with > Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than > pretending that he didn't have any stance or position from which he > wrote. While that means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean > overlooking what it was about, so it can be quite productive. > > My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort > in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a > point rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point > was wrong or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't > prevent us from noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it > had on other writers. > > As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play > in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though > more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For > instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think > to Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs > rampant across the book (very often where money or imagery of the > machine appears), and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing > about Van Norden. As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I > should see as sincere nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just > as Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a > model (the cult in Monsieur originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news > clippings about Yugoslavia). > > All best, > James > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:32:19 +0300 > From: Richard Pine > To: James Gifford , ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > DufgqTr7RBCo8e3-6qGtB0BkSA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken > seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly > doesn't understand gnosticism. > RP > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > > Hi Bruce & Ken, > > > > I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > >> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > >> contacts. > >> > > > > I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd > > also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people > but > > certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the > > quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written > more > > in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone > in > > his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex > Comfort & > > George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same > > sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under > > Miller's sway did serve. > > > > On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > > > >> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > >> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > >> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. > >> > > > > I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with > > Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than > pretending > > that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While > that > > means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, > > so it can be quite productive. > > > > My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort > in > > the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point > > rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong > > or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us > from > > noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other > writers. > > > > As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play > > in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though > > more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For > > instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think > to > > Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs > rampant > > across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine > appears), > > and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. > > As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere > > nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism > > surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur > > originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). > > > > 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/20160607/ff25881f/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:45:52 -0700 > From: James Gifford > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: <4060cf87-62e9-5172-c456-ae6fe8fd62af at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi Ken, > > > you cannot call Miller a 'draft dodger' because he > > was around 48 years old in 1939 and there was no > > draft! So he was a free agent, and the question is, > > should he have been trying to run toward or away > > from the coming war. To me that's a no brainer - I > > don't even like to see the word 'coward' used in > > quotes. Please recall, the American government and > > probably U.S. popular opinion was AGAINST the war > > until Pearl Harbor two years later. > > Well put. > > One of Miller's rebuttals to those who said he should fight against > those who would censor him (for instance, saying Hitler or Mussolini > wouldn't let him publish his books) was that indeed they wouldn't and > nor would the USA or Britain... This was, of course, before anyone knew > about the Holocaust and what would really come in WWII, so hindsight > could certainly change things. Patrick von Richthofen's work on the > Booster & Delta stresses how the Munich Crisis shaped that project from > the Villa Seurat as well -- Herbert Read would, in part thanks to > Miller's influence, describe it as "The Politics of the Unpolitical." > > What's worth emphasizing, I think, is that Miller was explicitly a > pacifist well before WWII and told those who would go to Spain, like > Orwell, that their revolution would just lead back to the status quo. > It did. Does that mean they shouldn't have gone to Spain? I don't > think I can say, but despite being anti-capitalist he was also no friend > to the Fascists or Communists. > > There's be a good deal of work considering Miller's influence on > Durrell, especially in the 30s and 40s, but it seems to be mainly around > sex and style -- Durrell was copied on Miller's more radical > correspondence with Herbert Read and others, and I tend to think that as > Wilde would say, we overlook that at our peril just as overlooking its > importance to Miller circumscribes our readings > > For what it's worth, I admire Leighton's work on Picasso. > > All best, > James > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:45:16 -0700 > From: Kennedy Gammage > To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: > iPDNyhbCNKO9TCTLuokWkDB6yS2U80uA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > This morning?s horoscope by Holiday Mathis in the LA Times advised me: ?You > could face and overcome your opposition, but it would take an awful lot of > energy. It?s probable that this battle is not important in the scheme of > things.? And yet ? there is so much to disagree with! > > Writers write, painters paint and soldiers fight. That?s their job. Miller > was a writer, not a soldier. > > France ?nurtured? Henry Miller for 10 years from the late ?20s through the > ?30s. Well, if nurturing means earning no money but having glorious fun at > intervals drinking red wine and peeing in bathtubs with prostitutes, then > yes. Plus writing the book that made him famous even though he would earn > virtually no money from it for the next 25 years. So he was nurtured. > Somehow that obligated him to put on a uniform at age 48? France fell in 6 > weeks in mid 1940. Could Miller have prevented that? I reject this argument > that Miller had a ?debt? to fight for France ? especially with the benefit > now of 75 years of hindsight! Do you think it would have made a difference? > > Funny talking about politics and criticizing Henry Miller. Today is > election day in California. Holiday Mathis was right ? this whole > discussion is absurd. > > Cheers - Ken > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine > wrote: > > > Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken > > seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly > > doesn't understand gnosticism. > > RP > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Bruce & Ken, > >> > >> I would call Miller an opportunist and without any > >>> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal > >>> contacts. > >>> > >> > >> I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though > I'd > >> also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people > but > >> certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the > >> quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written > more > >> in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't > alone in > >> his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex > Comfort & > >> George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same > >> sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under > >> Miller's sway did serve. > >> > >> On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > >> > >>> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in > >>> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, > >>> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. > >>> > >> > >> I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with > >> Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than > pretending > >> that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While > that > >> means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was > about, > >> so it can be quite productive. > >> > >> My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort > >> in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a > point > >> rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was > wrong > >> or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us > from > >> noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other > writers. > >> > >> As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play > >> in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though > >> more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For > >> instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me > think to > >> Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs > rampant > >> across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine > appears), > >> and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. > >> As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere > >> nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism > >> surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in > Monsieur > >> originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). > >> > >> All best, > >> James > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ILDS mailing list > >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ILDS mailing list > > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160607/378b8940/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:49:35 -0700 > From: Bruce Redwine > To: Sumantra Nag > Cc: Bruce Redwine > Subject: Re: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller > Message-ID: <00EE3A8E-F2CF-46D5-977E-049E6FB92E89 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Ken, > > > On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Kennedy Gammage > wrote: > > > > This morning?s horoscope by Holiday Mathis in the LA Times advised me: > ?You could face and overcome your opposition, but it would take an awful > lot of energy. It?s probable that this battle is not important in the > scheme of things.? And yet ? there is so much to disagree with! > > > > Writers write, painters paint and soldiers fight. That?s their job. > Miller was a writer, not a soldier. > > > Tell that to a few of Henry Miller?s contemporaries?Ernest Hemingway, > George Orwell, Evelyn Waugh, and Patrick Leigh Fermor. All had military > service, and all responded to the call. I believe they all volunteered. > > > > > France ?nurtured? Henry Miller for 10 years from the late ?20s through > the ?30s. Well, if nurturing means earning no money but having glorious fun > at intervals drinking red wine and peeing in bathtubs with prostitutes, > then yes. Plus writing the book that made him famous even though he would > earn virtually no money from it for the next 25 years. So he was nurtured. > Somehow that obligated him to put on a uniform at age 48? France fell in 6 > weeks in mid 1940. Could Miller have prevented that? I reject this argument > that Miller had a ?debt? to fight for France ? especially with the benefit > now of 75 years of hindsight! Do you think it would have made a difference? > > > Miller could have done all those things in America. But he found France > more conducive to his interests and philosophy. He owed France a debt, if > for no other reason than it provided the matrix for his development as a > writer. Durrell had a similar debt to Greece. > > Also, some rise to the occasion, and some run away. Joseph Heller has his > hero Capt. Yossarian desert his unit at the end of Catch-22. Is that his > moral for living in the real world? No. Because Heller served honorably > as an officer in the U.S. Army Air Corps during WWII. He did not desert. > I think you?re confusing fiction with real life. Many things can be > justified in fiction, desertion among them, but far fewer in real life, > which entails real obligations. > > > > Funny talking about politics and criticizing Henry Miller. Today is > election day in California. Holiday Mathis was right ? this whole > discussion is absurd. > > > I take this discussion very seriously. > > > Bruce > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20160607/0ead47c8/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > > ------------------------------ > > End of ILDS Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7 > ************************************ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dtart at bigpond.net.au Tue Jun 7 20:10:22 2016 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:10:22 +1000 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> Message-ID: <36F186B8-2EEF-4014-B21D-5C644FEBB5F5@bigpond.net.au> Richard, And it permeates Tunc and Nunquam.. Yes, I was coming to that conclusion myself as my reading continues. These novels are interesting in that to me they mark a stylistic and thematic shift from his preceding work which came to a culmination in Bitter Lemons and the Alexandria Quartet. A darker more introspective voice emerges, Tunc and Nunquam nod forward toward the enigmatic gothic form of the Avignon Quintet, darkness in the sunlight and I think also a very gnostic sequence. David Whitewine. Sent from my iPad > On 8 Jun 2016, at 6:30 AM, Richard Pine wrote: > > And it permeates Tunc/Nunquam. > The DLC website will be up-and-running shortly - we hope to include a brief video of LD and Lacarriere from French tv discussing gnosticism. > RP > >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >> I tend to agree with Richard. I think Durrell took quite Gnosticism seriously, studied its materials in some depth, and apparently spent a lot of time thinking about it. He wrote the foreword to Jacques Lacarri?re?s Gnostics (1973). But did he actually believe in it? That?s another matter. He probably found the philosophy attractive and took from it whatever was useful for his own work. Yes, it served as a model for some aspects of the Quintet, as stated in the foreword: ?[The Gnostics] refused to countenance a world which was less than perfect, and they affronted the great lie of Lucifer-Mammon with the hopeless magnificence of the Spartan three hundred.? So, a restatement of suicide as a legitimate alternative. >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Richard Pine wrote: >>> >>> Anyone who can say "Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model" has not read or thought about Durrell and certainly doesn't understand gnosticism. >>> RP >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM, James Gifford wrote: >>>> Hi Bruce & Ken, >>>> >>>>> I would call Miller an opportunist and without any >>>>> sense of moral responsibility beyond his personal >>>>> contacts. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure of the former but the latter seems exactly right, though I'd also suggest that was very much his point. Miller was loyal to people but certainly not the state, and deliberately so. For what it's worth, the quotations from "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" was written more in relation to Spain than in anticipation of WWII. He also wasn't alone in his views at the time: David Gascoyne came around to it, and Alex Comfort & George Woodcock felt the same. G.S. Fraser echoes many of the same sentiments as well, although several of the New Apocalypse poets under Miller's sway did serve. >>>> >>>>> On 2016-06-07 9:58 AM, Bruce Redwine wrote: >>>>> Politics, for me anyway, means active engagement in >>>>> a society. I see Miller?s politics as self-centered, >>>>> hypocritical, and based on gross egotism. >>>> >>>> I suppose what I was trying to stress is that this is disagreeing with Miller's position (which, of course, anyone can do) rather than pretending that he didn't have any stance or position from which he wrote. While that means critiquing his work, it doesn't mean overlooking what it was about, so it can be quite productive. >>>> >>>> My sense is that a great deal of work on Miller, especially of the sort in the TLS article, prefers not to notice that Miller actually had a point rather than disagree with it. We can certainly think his point was wrong or misguided, or perhaps just ineffective, but that doesn't prevent us from noticing what it was as readers nor the influences it had on other writers. >>>> >>>> As for irony, I do think there's an ironical form of masculinity at play in Miller (in a sense, I'd lean in that direction in Durrell too, though more troubled: Darley, Blanford, Felix, Death Gregory, etc...). For instance, the opening of /Tropic of Cancer/ with the lice makes me think to Donne's "The Flea" (which casts Boris as the lover), impotence runs rampant across the book (very often where money or imagery of the machine appears), and Miller's narrator spends a lot of time fantasizing about Van Norden. As a reader, I simply don't take it as something I should see as sincere nor as a model I'm being called to emulate, just as Durrell's gnosticism surely isn't meant to be taken seriously as a model (the cult in Monsieur originates in a mash-up of Hutin and news clippings about Yugoslavia). >>>> >>>> All best, >>>> James >>>> >>>> _ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ILDS mailing list >> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca >> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From samkirshaw at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 02:26:35 2016 From: samkirshaw at gmail.com (Sam Kirshaw) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:26:35 +0100 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> <8a3fb11d-45ab-f128-a8f2-33170ad72c36@gmail.com> Message-ID: To the character assassin RP I dislike intensely this form of character assassination which landed in my inbox yesterday. The issue is not James Gifford?s sense of humour which has been abundant and pleasurable in my interactions with him, but the lame axe that this person obviously has to grind regarding a forthcoming publication about old Lineaments. Desist and for god?s sake in the 21st century use your own email address and a portable device to send from. Pathetic, really, aren?t we? Man up! Sam Kirshaw > On 7 Jun 2016, at 23:23, james Esposito wrote: > > Lawrence Durrell once shouted at me "So you've twigged it!" when I made some gauche remark which I thought explained an aspect of his writing. He might have meant "So you've caught me out" but he really meant "How has it taken you so long to spot the obvious?". He meant it kindly, but he meant it. > Yes, Dr Gifford shows himself to be dangerously close to being human. Close but.... totally lacking not only a sense of humour but any even remote sense of 'jeux' - the relationships between fact, fiction, imagination, veracity, memory and forgetting will always elude the dull, slow-witted, over-educated, boring academic mind that lacks all capacity to think for itself. > So I make no apologies for using James Esposito's email - I am visiting him to discuss a LD publishing project which is almost ready for announcement - one which, incidentally, Dr Gifford did his not-quite-good-enough best to scupper - nor for attempting to develop a greater elasticity (Greek) in affairs Durrellian, nor for hopelessly trying to introduce into these discussions ideas about why writers write. > The greatest sin against humankind is not to have a sense of humour. > As for what might be a complimentary spoof of LD - begat...begat...begat... (but isn;t) it's just a pity that Dr Gifford has not, in fact, twigged it. Just made a molehill out of a mountain. > RP signed in the presence of JE > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:24 AM, James Gifford > wrote: > On 2016-06-07 1:35 PM, james Esposito wrote: > But yes, LD did 'believe' in 'it'. > RP > > Envoi > > So Old Gin > begat Soft Wood > (who begat Marie the Idiot) > who begat the Albanian waif > who begat James Exposed > who begat... > > Boo hoo. Intellego ut credam, but without much credibility... > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jun 8 04:16:49 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 04:16:49 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Tibet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03028834-06F3-44F3-8B46-21530C3B39D9@earthlink.net> How seriously should Miller?s and Durrell?s talk about Tibet be taken? I think it was largely a bit of whimsy. Miller also claimed he wanted to go to China and live the life of a monk or sage. Seriously? The pals had vivid imaginations. They played off one another like school boys on the playground. So all this talk about Buddhism seems suspect. Tibet is dreamland. Bruce > On Jun 7, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Ravi Nambiar wrote: > > Dear All, > I have been enjoying the ILDS discussion going on about Henry Miller. I should not join the discussion because I have only a limited knowledge of Miller. Even if I were an authority on Miller, I would not like to condemn him by using avoidable epithets like "egotistical coward". To the best of my knowledge, Miller was a Zen first, then anything else: "Zen is my idea of life absolutely.... I am a Zen addict through and through" (1938 letter to Durrell). He was also a close follower of J. Krishnamurti, whom he praised in his book: "?He is the one man of our time who may be said to be a master of reality?. What he liked in J K was the emphasis on the self, the freedom of the self, the liberation of the self from group thinking. War is the product of group thinking, and the world war is the product of the worst form of group thinking (what Durrell exhibits in his Quintet). Miller wanted to run away from France to Tibet: "If I could get to that Tibetan frontier, either side, if I could live somewhere in the Himalayas, I haven't the slightest doubt that I would be content for the rest of my life", wrote Miller in 1938 to Durrell. And after reaching Big Sur, he again repeated this desire to Durrell: "I think we should get in touch with Mulk Raj Anand and ask him to give names of friends so that we could move off slowly toward Tibet". Anand told me in my interview with him why Miller could not go to Tibet (1993): "But, under the conditions of time, it was impossible. He would not have been allowed there as quite a few Europeans who wanted to go to Tibet were not allowed". The point is that a Zen can never be a Don Quixote, to fight against war, which is the result of utter madness. Withdrawing into the inner self is the result of insight and wisdom, which is what Durrell shows in his Quintet. The irony is that a Zen has no ego, and only those who have tremendous courage can be egoless. > Regards > Ravi Nambiar > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jun 8 08:45:01 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:45:01 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Decorum In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> <8a3fb11d-45ab-f128-a8f2-33170ad72c36@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sam Kirshaw makes an important point. Let?s stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks. Bruce > On Jun 8, 2016, at 2:26 AM, Sam Kirshaw wrote: > > To the character assassin RP > > I dislike intensely this form of character assassination which landed in my inbox yesterday. > > The issue is not James Gifford?s sense of humour which has been abundant and pleasurable in my interactions with him, but the lame axe that this person obviously has to grind regarding a forthcoming publication about old Lineaments. > > Desist and for god?s sake in the 21st century use your own email address and a portable device to send from. Pathetic, really, aren?t we? Man up! > > Sam Kirshaw > >> On 7 Jun 2016, at 23:23, james Esposito > wrote: >> >> Lawrence Durrell once shouted at me "So you've twigged it!" when I made some gauche remark which I thought explained an aspect of his writing. He might have meant "So you've caught me out" but he really meant "How has it taken you so long to spot the obvious?". He meant it kindly, but he meant it. >> Yes, Dr Gifford shows himself to be dangerously close to being human. Close but.... totally lacking not only a sense of humour but any even remote sense of 'jeux' - the relationships between fact, fiction, imagination, veracity, memory and forgetting will always elude the dull, slow-witted, over-educated, boring academic mind that lacks all capacity to think for itself. >> So I make no apologies for using James Esposito's email - I am visiting him to discuss a LD publishing project which is almost ready for announcement - one which, incidentally, Dr Gifford did his not-quite-good-enough best to scupper - nor for attempting to develop a greater elasticity (Greek) in affairs Durrellian, nor for hopelessly trying to introduce into these discussions ideas about why writers write. >> The greatest sin against humankind is not to have a sense of humour. >> As for what might be a complimentary spoof of LD - begat...begat...begat... (but isn;t) it's just a pity that Dr Gifford has not, in fact, twigged it. Just made a molehill out of a mountain. >> RP signed in the presence of JE >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:24 AM, James Gifford > wrote: >> On 2016-06-07 1:35 PM, james Esposito wrote: >> But yes, LD did 'believe' in 'it'. >> RP >> >> Envoi >> >> So Old Gin >> begat Soft Wood >> (who begat Marie the Idiot) >> who begat the Albanian waif >> who begat James Exposed >> who begat... >> >> Boo hoo. Intellego ut credam, but without much credibility... >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ric.Wilson at msn.com Wed Jun 8 11:20:40 2016 From: Ric.Wilson at msn.com (Ric Wilson) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:20:40 +0000 Subject: [ilds] Gnostics In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7CAFBA90-4870-49BE-8702-DA1F9FD4D952@gmail.com> <2909213D-BE91-469D-AE84-437019ED4D61@earthlink.net> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> <8a3fb11d-45ab-f128-a8f2-33170ad72c36@gmail.com> , Message-ID: Was this meant for me? It didn't have my name on it directly, but it sounded like someone got upset.... Ric Wilson ________________________________ From: Sam Kirshaw Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 2:26:35 AM To: james Esposito Cc: James Gifford; ilds at lists.uvic.ca; Bruce Redwine; Lynn-Marie & Brewster; timlot at comcast.net; billyapt at gmail.com; robin.w.collins at gmail.com; gammage.kennedy at gmail.com; marc at marcpiel.fr; dtart at bigpond.net.au; grtaneja47 at hotmail.com; Ric.Wilson at msn.com Subject: Re: [ilds] Gnostics To the character assassin RP I dislike intensely this form of character assassination which landed in my inbox yesterday. The issue is not James Gifford's sense of humour which has been abundant and pleasurable in my interactions with him, but the lame axe that this person obviously has to grind regarding a forthcoming publication about old Lineaments. Desist and for god's sake in the 21st century use your own email address and a portable device to send from. Pathetic, really, aren't we? Man up! Sam Kirshaw On 7 Jun 2016, at 23:23, james Esposito > wrote: Lawrence Durrell once shouted at me "So you've twigged it!" when I made some gauche remark which I thought explained an aspect of his writing. He might have meant "So you've caught me out" but he really meant "How has it taken you so long to spot the obvious?". He meant it kindly, but he meant it. Yes, Dr Gifford shows himself to be dangerously close to being human. Close but.... totally lacking not only a sense of humour but any even remote sense of 'jeux' - the relationships between fact, fiction, imagination, veracity, memory and forgetting will always elude the dull, slow-witted, over-educated, boring academic mind that lacks all capacity to think for itself. So I make no apologies for using James Esposito's email - I am visiting him to discuss a LD publishing project which is almost ready for announcement - one which, incidentally, Dr Gifford did his not-quite-good-enough best to scupper - nor for attempting to develop a greater elasticity (Greek) in affairs Durrellian, nor for hopelessly trying to introduce into these discussions ideas about why writers write. The greatest sin against humankind is not to have a sense of humour. As for what might be a complimentary spoof of LD - begat...begat...begat... (but isn;t) it's just a pity that Dr Gifford has not, in fact, twigged it. Just made a molehill out of a mountain. RP signed in the presence of JE On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:24 AM, James Gifford > wrote: On 2016-06-07 1:35 PM, james Esposito wrote: But yes, LD did 'believe' in 'it'. RP Envoi So Old Gin begat Soft Wood (who begat Marie the Idiot) who begat the Albanian waif who begat James Exposed who begat... Boo hoo. Intellego ut credam, but without much credibility... _______________________________________________ ILDS mailing list ILDS at lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 13:41:00 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:41:00 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Decorum In-Reply-To: References: <1569716d-6986-6589-5900-97791d9e74c5@gmail.com> <7A7D3BFC-0D9F-42C4-A119-63B5FEBEEBE0@gmail.com> <77F89249-0B49-49BF-B11B-3CFF3F652CE6@earthlink.net> <66C4605F-90EB-4771-9D79-E011D0FA67EE@gmail.com> <9DF5EBF8-E631-4E36-9896-7198804E0EA5@earthlink.net> <17afc23e-bcd2-6758-c5b3-06c399436163@gmail.com> <8a3fb11d-45ab-f128-a8f2-33170ad72c36@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I am always reluctant to flex moderator muscle, and as a few have pointed out offlist, I'm more hesitant to do so when I'm the target unhappy exhortations -- I'll simply ask for cordiality in our interactions and admit that my own quip (funny or not) to remark on what has already been obvious for some time was likely not the best way to keep the quiet. We've had a very productive discussion of /Tunc/ & /Nunquam/ that would be good to keep going. So, great thanks to Sam for playing Lancelot in shining armor, though I must admit that I'm much more interested in expanding her ideas on Benedicta than sheltering in her shield... We can move through /Revolt/ however we like, or to other texts, but I wonder how we have the final bit of narrative in /Tunc/. From whom do we have this "report"? How do we look to Benedicta's "admiration and pity" for Julian and his "impenetrable sadness" with the echo in the background and our unknown recorder? How is her "sweet burning intensity" not so much her own feeling as Julian's tool or instrumentalization of her devotion to other (commercial) purposes? Is the coercive law of capital's expansion (? la Luxemburg) in that final scene just a way for Durrell to reset it as a sublimation of illicit desire or substitutive gratification? Is the shooting itself another one of those substitutions? In other words, her "burning" love or hate (which we might call obversions) are passionate desires to connect -- distinct from those is pity, a more cruel emotion I'd suggest, reserved for those who just don't matter that much to us. Julian pities. How does this scene distinguish them? And if Julian's pity lets him use Benedicta to advance the Firm, which motivation is winning out: concupiscence or capital? Freud or Marx? All best, James From dtart at bigpond.net.au Wed Jun 8 13:11:26 2016 From: dtart at bigpond.net.au (Denise Tart & David Green) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 06:11:26 +1000 Subject: [ilds] Tibet In-Reply-To: <03028834-06F3-44F3-8B46-21530C3B39D9@earthlink.net> References: <03028834-06F3-44F3-8B46-21530C3B39D9@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Gordon Bowker calls it a Tibet of the mind, an idealised state such as Durrell expresses in Roof of the World chapter of Dark Labyrinth and maybe something he And Claude experienced at Mazet Michel amongst the hard stones, wild broom and olive groves on the outskirts of Nimes in the early 1960s. Perhaps Miller found his version, albeit a Californian version at Big Sur? David Whitewine. Sent from my iPad > On 8 Jun 2016, at 9:16 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > > How seriously should Miller?s and Durrell?s talk about Tibet be taken? I think it was largely a bit of whimsy. Miller also claimed he wanted to go to China and live the life of a monk or sage. Seriously? The pals had vivid imaginations. They played off one another like school boys on the playground. So all this talk about Buddhism seems suspect. Tibet is dreamland. > > Bruce > > > > > >> On Jun 7, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Ravi Nambiar wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> I have been enjoying the ILDS discussion going on about Henry Miller. I should not join the discussion because I have only a limited knowledge of Miller. Even if I were an authority on Miller, I would not like to condemn him by using avoidable epithets like "egotistical coward". To the best of my knowledge, Miller was a Zen first, then anything else: "Zen is my idea of life absolutely.... I am a Zen addict through and through" (1938 letter to Durrell). He was also a close follower of J. Krishnamurti, whom he praised in his book: "?He is the one man of our time who may be said to be a master of reality?. What he liked in J K was the emphasis on the self, the freedom of the self, the liberation of the self from group thinking. War is the product of group thinking, and the world war is the product of the worst form of group thinking (what Durrell exhibits in his Quintet). Miller wanted to run away from France to Tibet: "If I could get to that Tibetan frontier, either side, if I could live somewhere in the Himalayas, I haven't the slightest doubt that I would be content for the rest of my life", wrote Miller in 1938 to Durrell. And after reaching Big Sur, he again repeated this desire to Durrell: "I think we should get in touch with Mulk Raj Anand and ask him to give names of friends so that we could move off slowly toward Tibet". Anand told me in my interview with him why Miller could not go to Tibet (1993): "But, under the conditions of time, it was impossible. He would not have been allowed there as quite a few Europeans who wanted to go to Tibet were not allowed". The point is that a Zen can never be a Don Quixote, to fight against war, which is the result of utter madness. Withdrawing into the inner self is the result of insight and wisdom, which is what Durrell shows in his Quintet. The irony is that a Zen has no ego, and only those who have tremendous courage can be egoless. >> Regards >> Ravi Nambiar >> > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Wed Jun 8 14:06:27 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:06:27 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Tibet In-Reply-To: References: <03028834-06F3-44F3-8B46-21530C3B39D9@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1250A43A-B670-4F09-A570-B7FA8D8A8E1E@earthlink.net> David, your paraphrase of Bowker seems right?Tibet as ?a Tibet of the mind.? I?m reminded of the conclusion to the Passover Seder, ?Next year in Jerusalem.? Which is not far from William Blake?s idea of building a ?New Jerusalem? in England. Granted all that, I still wonder how seriously Miller was in all his religious dabblings. Buddhism, in particular Zen Buddhism, is a very serious religion. Was Miller ever serious enough to practice it? I doubt it. I think he was mostly talk, mostly fluff. Durrell, on the other hand, did practice yogic meditation. I?m inclined to think that during his absences or disappearances he may have found himself in a Zen monastery. So, he?s closer to what Ravi Nambiar describes below. Bruce > On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Denise Tart & David Green wrote: > > Gordon Bowker calls it a Tibet of the mind, an idealised state such as Durrell expresses in Roof of the World chapter of Dark Labyrinth and maybe something he And Claude experienced at Mazet Michel amongst the hard stones, wild broom and olive groves on the outskirts of Nimes in the early 1960s. Perhaps Miller found his version, albeit a Californian version at Big Sur? > > David Whitewine. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 8 Jun 2016, at 9:16 PM, Bruce Redwine > wrote: > >> How seriously should Miller?s and Durrell?s talk about Tibet be taken? I think it was largely a bit of whimsy. Miller also claimed he wanted to go to China and live the life of a monk or sage. Seriously? The pals had vivid imaginations. They played off one another like school boys on the playground. So all this talk about Buddhism seems suspect. Tibet is dreamland. >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Ravi Nambiar > wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> I have been enjoying the ILDS discussion going on about Henry Miller. I should not join the discussion because I have only a limited knowledge of Miller. Even if I were an authority on Miller, I would not like to condemn him by using avoidable epithets like "egotistical coward". To the best of my knowledge, Miller was a Zen first, then anything else: "Zen is my idea of life absolutely.... I am a Zen addict through and through" (1938 letter to Durrell). He was also a close follower of J. Krishnamurti, whom he praised in his book: "?He is the one man of our time who may be said to be a master of reality?. What he liked in J K was the emphasis on the self, the freedom of the self, the liberation of the self from group thinking. War is the product of group thinking, and the world war is the product of the worst form of group thinking (what Durrell exhibits in his Quintet). Miller wanted to run away from France to Tibet: "If I could get to that Tibetan frontier, either side, if I could live somewhere in the Himalayas, I haven't the slightest doubt that I would be content for the rest of my life", wrote Miller in 1938 to Durrell. And after reaching Big Sur, he again repeated this desire to Durrell: "I think we should get in touch with Mulk Raj Anand and ask him to give names of friends so that we could move off slowly toward Tibet". Anand told me in my interview with him why Miller could not go to Tibet (1993): "But, under the conditions of time, it was impossible. He would not have been allowed there as quite a few Europeans who wanted to go to Tibet were not allowed". The point is that a Zen can never be a Don Quixote, to fight against war, which is the result of utter madness. Withdrawing into the inner self is the result of insight and wisdom, which is what Durrell shows in his Quintet. The irony is that a Zen has no ego, and only those who have tremendous courage can be egoless. >>> Regards >>> Ravi Nambiar >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 11:39:09 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:39:09 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Yes here it is Message-ID: Still early on in Nunquam (p. 51 of the Dutton hardback) Rackstraw scratches an ear. "Pthotquyck" he says suddenly, brightly. "I beg your pardon?" "Pthotquyck. It's the Finnish for mushroom." So it's likely that Durrell DID intend Avain as Finnish for key/code/clef instead of 'Avian.' Did anyone doubt it? Hakkaa p??lle! - Ken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 13:37:46 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:37:46 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1008b607-30d3-ed90-8c07-47dd4e8aeb28@gmail.com> Hello all, To follow up on Robin, Ken, and Bruce's comments about Miller and pacifism, I thought it worth passing on Herbert Read's response to reading Miller's /Murder the Murderer/ (the pacifist response Miller gave to the war): "I took an oath at the end of the last war that I would never fight again, and though my age has secured me against the compulsion to fight this time, it is my hatred of war which has kept me out of it." It comes immediately before his descriptions of the Freedom Defense Committee that supported the arrested members of Freedom Press who had advocated pacifism (the reason for their arrest). Read adds a description of Paul ?luard that is close to Miller's comments in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" and then tucks in his anarchist pamphlet "The Education of Free Men." Since Read in part came to his position based on his correspondence with Miller, it seems worth adding. If nothing else, it shows how some of the close readers during the war years understood Miller's actions. It was in this correspondence that Durrell first articulated his concept of the Heraldic Universe as well, responding point by point to Read's speech from the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition. All best, James From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Jun 9 17:35:41 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 17:35:41 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: <1008b607-30d3-ed90-8c07-47dd4e8aeb28@gmail.com> References: <1008b607-30d3-ed90-8c07-47dd4e8aeb28@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2B8BC873-DAAE-400D-9415-6624FE2B6F1C@earthlink.net> James, thanks for providing some context for Miller?s pacifism. Let me add this, which should make Ken happy. Joyce was once asked what he did during the war (WWI). He answered, ?I wrote Ulysses.? I believe that famous quotation is in Ellmann?s biography. I guess the response is legitimate. But I think Beckett?s response to a similar question about WWII might have been better, something like, ?I fooled around in the French Resistance.? You?ll recall that Beckett was Joyce?s secretary. They were quite different. Bruce > On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:37 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hello all, > > To follow up on Robin, Ken, and Bruce's comments about Miller and pacifism, I thought it worth passing on Herbert Read's response to reading Miller's /Murder the Murderer/ (the pacifist response Miller gave to the war): > > "I took an oath at the end of the last war that I would never fight again, and though my age has secured me against the compulsion to fight this time, it is my hatred of war which has kept me out of it." > > It comes immediately before his descriptions of the Freedom Defense Committee that supported the arrested members of Freedom Press who had advocated pacifism (the reason for their arrest). Read adds a description of Paul ?luard that is close to Miller's comments in "An Open Letter to Surrealists Everywhere" and then tucks in his anarchist pamphlet "The Education of Free Men." > > Since Read in part came to his position based on his correspondence with Miller, it seems worth adding. If nothing else, it shows how some of the close readers during the war years understood Miller's actions. > > It was in this correspondence that Durrell first articulated his concept of the Heraldic Universe as well, responding point by point to Read's speech from the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition. > > All best, > James > _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 18:45:10 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 18:45:10 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: <2B8BC873-DAAE-400D-9415-6624FE2B6F1C@earthlink.net> References: <1008b607-30d3-ed90-8c07-47dd4e8aeb28@gmail.com> <2B8BC873-DAAE-400D-9415-6624FE2B6F1C@earthlink.net> Message-ID: I received this from some hater anonymously on Reddit ? ?Ken, did you graduate from high school? I wrote my dissertation on Durrell?s use of Finnish words starting with ? and ?. Your understanding [sic] of _The Revolt_ is an insult to all pedestrians and sophomores! And that vulgar expression you used: ?Hakkaa p??lle? ? are you a roller derby fan by any chance? For God?s sake man this is the ILDS - step up your game!? Maybe it was just Whitewine pulling my leg again. Cheers - Ken On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > James, thanks for providing some context for Miller?s pacifism. Let me > add this, which should make Ken happy. Joyce was once asked what he did > during the war (WWI). He answered, ?I wrote *Ulysses*.? I believe that > famous quotation is in Ellmann?s biography. I guess the response is > legitimate. But I think Beckett?s response to a similar question about > WWII might have been better, something like, ?I fooled around in the French > Resistance.? You?ll recall that Beckett was Joyce?s secretary. They were > quite different. > > Bruce > > > > > > On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:37 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > Hello all, > > To follow up on Robin, Ken, and Bruce's comments about Miller and > pacifism, I thought it worth passing on Herbert Read's response to reading > Miller's /Murder the Murderer/ (the pacifist response Miller gave to the > war): > > "I took an oath at the end of the last war that I would never fight again, > and though my age has secured me against the compulsion to fight this time, > it is my hatred of war which has kept me out of it." > > It comes immediately before his descriptions of the Freedom Defense > Committee that supported the arrested members of Freedom Press who had > advocated pacifism (the reason for their arrest). Read adds a description > of Paul ?luard that is close to Miller's comments in "An Open Letter to > Surrealists Everywhere" and then tucks in his anarchist pamphlet "The > Education of Free Men." > > Since Read in part came to his position based on his correspondence with > Miller, it seems worth adding. If nothing else, it shows how some of the > close readers during the war years understood Miller's actions. > > It was in this correspondence that Durrell first articulated his concept > of the Heraldic Universe as well, responding point by point to Read's > speech from the 1936 London International Surrealist Exhibition. > > 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: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 19:01:38 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:01:38 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1008b607-30d3-ed90-8c07-47dd4e8aeb28@gmail.com> <2B8BC873-DAAE-400D-9415-6624FE2B6F1C@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hi Ken, For Reddit, I'm going to have to guess you've just got a random troll... The insults don't even quite make sense, which is the usual marker, followed by paraphrasings from a Trumped up tweet: "sad" being the most common. Don't feed the trolls. They come back for seconds. All best, James On 2016-06-09 6:45 PM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > I received this from some hater anonymously on Reddit ? > > ?Ken, did you graduate from high school? I wrote my dissertation on > Durrell?s use of Finnish words starting with ? and ?. Your understanding > [sic] of _The Revolt_ is an insult to all pedestrians and sophomores! > And that vulgar expression you used: ?Hakkaa p??lle? ? are you a roller > derby fan by any chance? For God?s sake man this is the ILDS - step up > your game!? > > Maybe it was just Whitewine pulling my leg again. > > Cheers - Ken From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Thu Jun 9 19:24:25 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:24:25 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1008b607-30d3-ed90-8c07-47dd4e8aeb28@gmail.com> <2B8BC873-DAAE-400D-9415-6624FE2B6F1C@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <79B8AF8B-9617-4216-9939-3361DC6AC7D5@earthlink.net> As long as we?re on this topic and since Joyce has come up, maybe Ken would like draw comparisons between The Revolt and Finnegans Wake. Bruce > On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:01 PM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > For Reddit, I'm going to have to guess you've just got a random troll... The insults don't even quite make sense, which is the usual marker, followed by paraphrasings from a Trumped up tweet: "sad" being the most common. > > Don't feed the trolls. They come back for seconds. > > All best, > James > > On 2016-06-09 6:45 PM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: >> I received this from some hater anonymously on Reddit ? >> >> ?Ken, did you graduate from high school? I wrote my dissertation on >> Durrell?s use of Finnish words starting with ? and ?. Your understanding >> [sic] of _The Revolt_ is an insult to all pedestrians and sophomores! >> And that vulgar expression you used: ?Hakkaa p??lle? ? are you a roller >> derby fan by any chance? For God?s sake man this is the ILDS - step up >> your game!? >> >> Maybe it was just Whitewine pulling my leg again. >> >> Cheers - Ken > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gammage.kennedy at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 19:55:27 2016 From: gammage.kennedy at gmail.com (Kennedy Gammage) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:55:27 -0700 Subject: [ilds] TLS article on Henry Miller In-Reply-To: <79B8AF8B-9617-4216-9939-3361DC6AC7D5@earthlink.net> References: <1008b607-30d3-ed90-8c07-47dd4e8aeb28@gmail.com> <2B8BC873-DAAE-400D-9415-6624FE2B6F1C@earthlink.net> <79B8AF8B-9617-4216-9939-3361DC6AC7D5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: I can do that right off the top of my head: apples and oranges. I am a huge fan of Ulysses and often dip into it for pleasure - but the Wake is quite a challenge. I read the whole thing in 1984, and had my favorite passages. This is one: "In the name of Annah the Allmaziful, the Everliving, the Bringer of Plurabilities, haloed be her eve, her singtime sung, her rill be run, unhemmed as it is uneven!" However, it is not a 'novel' in the sense that Tunc and Nunquam are. Agree? - Ken On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Bruce Redwine wrote: > As long as we?re on this topic and since Joyce has come up, maybe Ken > would like draw comparisons between *The Revolt* and *Finnegans Wake.* > > Bruce > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:01 PM, James Gifford > wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > For Reddit, I'm going to have to guess you've just got a random troll... > The insults don't even quite make sense, which is the usual marker, > followed by paraphrasings from a Trumped up tweet: "sad" being the most > common. > > Don't feed the trolls. They come back for seconds. > > All best, > James > > On 2016-06-09 6:45 PM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > > I received this from some hater anonymously on Reddit ? > > ?Ken, did you graduate from high school? I wrote my dissertation on > Durrell?s use of Finnish words starting with ? and ?. Your understanding > [sic] of _The Revolt_ is an insult to all pedestrians and sophomores! > And that vulgar expression you used: ?Hakkaa p??lle? ? are you a roller > derby fan by any chance? For God?s sake man this is the ILDS - step up > your game!? > > Maybe it was just Whitewine pulling my leg again. > > Cheers - Ken > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From james.d.gifford at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 02:43:39 2016 From: james.d.gifford at gmail.com (James Gifford) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 02:43:39 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Fwd: New Website for Durrell Library of Corfu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71a3c0b4-8035-da99-c982-f4689a10f829@gmail.com> Hello all, The long-promised announcement about the Durrell Library of Corfu follows below. All best, James -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Website for Durrell Library of Corfu Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:23:16 +0300 From: Richard Pine To: Richard Pine We are pleaseded to announce the availability of the website of the Durrell Library of Corfu: *www.durrelllibrarycorfu.org * This websites, like the work of our predecessor, the Durrell School of Corfu, is dedicate to the lives and works of Lawrence Durrell and Gerald Durrell The website is structured in the following way: - Notes Queries and Comments - this will be of special interest and use for anyone wishing to send a query, publicise event or a publication, or comment on any aspect of Durrellian studies. We welcome exchange of views. For example, if you have an opinion on the tv series "The Durrells" (recently shown on ITV - UK and soon to be screen on Greek tv) let us know! - Essays and Theses - this page gives the texts of essays and abstracts of many university theses. Contributions are welcome. - Biographies - a continuing project, at present carrying biographies of Lawrence Durrell and Theodore Stephanides - Corfu - a page dedicated to aspect of Corfu and the Ionian islands relevant to the Durrells - Adaptations - details of screen versions of works by Gerald Durrell and Lawrence Durrell - the current widespread publicity to the UK tv series "The Durrells" is particularly lively, especially as a second series is planned and is to be accompanied by a tie-in book "The Durrells of Corfu" by Michael Haag.. . - Publication for sale: we have copies of several books published by the Durrell School of Corfu which are available for cash sale. - Bibliography - a comprehensive 125page bibliography of approximate ly 3000 works by and about Lawrence Dur rell (a similar facility for Gerald Durrell is in preparation) - Textbooks - the entire text s of R Pine's /Lawrence Durrell: the Mindscape /(2nd edn) and Brewster Chamberlin's /Lawrence Durrell Chronology /(revised 2016) - Library catalogue - the holding s of books from the Durrell School of Corfu. A similar catalogue of articles, manuscripts, facsimiles etcetera is in preparation. - Archive - a work-in-progress documenting the history of the Durrell School of Corfu 2001-2014 We will be adding photo, video and audio clips at a later stage. Any contribution to the website should be addressed in the first instance to: durrelllibrarycorfu at gmail.com Apologies if you receive more than one copy of this message - we have trawled our mailing lists for duplicates but some inevitably slip through. If you know of anyone interested in any Durrell-related topic, please notify them of this new website. We hope to hear your comments. Sincerely Durrell Library of Corfu From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jun 10 05:27:16 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:27:16 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Fwd: New Website for Durrell Library of Corfu In-Reply-To: <71a3c0b4-8035-da99-c982-f4689a10f829@gmail.com> References: <71a3c0b4-8035-da99-c982-f4689a10f829@gmail.com> Message-ID: <411411BA-5016-429E-A0FB-BF712D1D0DD4@earthlink.net> Congratulations to Richard Pine and his team on a major accomplishment! Bruce > On Jun 10, 2016, at 2:43 AM, James Gifford wrote: > > Hello all, > > The long-promised announcement about the Durrell Library of Corfu follows below. > > All best, > James > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: New Website for Durrell Library of Corfu > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:23:16 +0300 > From: Richard Pine > To: Richard Pine > > > > We are pleaseded to announce the availability of the website of the Durrell Library of Corfu: > > *www.durrelllibrarycorfu.org * > > This websites, like the work of our predecessor, the Durrell School of Corfu, is dedicate to the lives and works of Lawrence Durrell and Gerald Durrell > > The website is structured in the following way: > > - Notes Queries and Comments - this will be of special interest and use for anyone wishing to send a query, publicise event or a publication, or comment on any aspect of Durrellian studies. We welcome exchange of views. For example, if you have an opinion on the tv series "The Durrells" (recently shown on ITV - UK and soon to be screen on Greek tv) let us know! > > - Essays and Theses - this page gives the texts of essays and abstracts of many university theses. Contributions are welcome. > > - Biographies - a continuing project, at present carrying biographies of Lawrence Durrell and Theodore Stephanides > > - Corfu - a page dedicated to aspect of Corfu and the Ionian islands relevant to the Durrells > > - Adaptations - details of screen versions of works by Gerald Durrell and Lawrence Durrell - the current widespread publicity to the UK tv series "The Durrells" is particularly lively, especially as a second series is planned and is to be accompanied by a tie-in book "The Durrells of Corfu" by Michael Haag.. . > > - Publication for sale: we have copies of several books published by the Durrell School of Corfu which are available for cash sale. > > - Bibliography - a comprehensive 125page bibliography of approximate ly 3000 works by and about Lawrence Dur rell (a similar facility for Gerald Durrell is in preparation) > > - Textbooks - the entire text s of R Pine's /Lawrence Durrell: the Mindscape /(2nd edn) and Brewster Chamberlin's /Lawrence Durrell Chronology /(revised 2016) > > - Library catalogue - the holding s of books from the Durrell School of Corfu. A similar catalogue of articles, manuscripts, facsimiles etcetera is in preparation. > > - Archive - a work-in-progress documenting the history of the Durrell School of Corfu 2001-2014 > > We will be adding photo, video and audio clips at a later stage. > > > Any contribution to the website should be addressed in the first instance to: durrelllibrarycorfu at gmail.com > > Apologies if you receive more than one copy of this message - we have trawled our mailing lists for duplicates but some inevitably slip through. > > If you know of anyone interested in any Durrell-related topic, please notify them of this new website. > > We hope to hear your comments. > Sincerely > Durrell Library of Corfu > > _______________________________________________ > ILDS mailing list > ILDS at lists.uvic.ca > https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds From bredwine1968 at earthlink.net Fri Jun 10 05:31:28 2016 From: bredwine1968 at earthlink.net (Bruce Redwine) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:31:28 -0700 Subject: [ilds] Durrell and Joyce In-Reply-To: References: <1008b607-30d3-ed90-8c07-47dd4e8aeb28@gmail.com> <2B8BC873-DAAE-400D-9415-6624FE2B6F1C@earthlink.net> <79B8AF8B-9617-4216-9939-3361DC6AC7D5@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Agreed. Both embarking a long the riverrun. Bruce > On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: > > I can do that right off the top of my head: apples and oranges. I am a huge fan of Ulysses and often dip into it for pleasure - but the Wake is quite a challenge. I read the whole thing in 1984, and had my favorite passages. This is one: > > "In the name of Annah the Allmaziful, the Everliving, the Bringer of > Plurabilities, haloed be her eve, her singtime sung, her rill be > run, unhemmed as it is uneven!" > > However, it is not a 'novel' in the sense that Tunc and Nunquam are. > > Agree? > > - Ken > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Bruce Redwine > wrote: > As long as we?re on this topic and since Joyce has come up, maybe Ken would like draw comparisons between The Revolt and Finnegans Wake. > > Bruce > > > > > > >> On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:01 PM, James Gifford > wrote: >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> For Reddit, I'm going to have to guess you've just got a random troll... The insults don't even quite make sense, which is the usual marker, followed by paraphrasings from a Trumped up tweet: "sad" being the most common. >> >> Don't feed the trolls. They come back for seconds. >> >> All best, >> James >> >> On 2016-06-09 6:45 PM, Kennedy Gammage wrote: >>> I received this from some hater anonymously on Reddit ? >>> >>> ?Ken, did you graduate from high school? I wrote my dissertation on >>> Durrell?s use of Finnish words starting with ? and ?. Your understanding >>> [sic] of _The Revolt_ is an insult to all pedestrians and sophomores! >>> And that vulgar expression you used: ?Hakkaa p??lle? ? are you a roller >>> derby fan by any chance? For God?s sake man this is the ILDS - step up >>> your game!? >>> >>> Maybe it was just Whitewine pulling my leg again. >>> >>> Cheers - Ken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: