LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  March 2001

TSE March 2001

Subject:

Re: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography

From:

"Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 9 Mar 2001 09:15:26 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (125 lines)

I think we agree about the status of "facts."  I think we disagree on what 
one then does with that understanding of facts.  I should have been more 
clear about what I "saw."  In 1979, at least, to get to Whalsay, one took the 
train from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, took a boat overnight 400 miles on the 
north sea to Lerwick, got a bus north, got off at a place of about 5 or 6 
houses, hired a car to the ferry to Whalsay and then took the ferry.  Since 
the bus only ran every 3 days, I got myself landed on a tiny island with a 
few houses and no store or bar or school or any public building except the 
post office and no way back.  Also no hotel, motel, or b&b.  A non-native 
on the island was still so rare and strange that people peered at me from 
behind curtains.  I had the name of one family and walked up to their door.  
Valda Grieve had told me, "just go there and they'll take care of you."  And 
they did.  My point is that the north sea looked pretty much as it had in 
1932.  Whalsay was still windswept and empty and like something out of a 
film of the beginnings of the earth.  The same people lived there doing the 
same things as when Christopher went.

It was not like seeing a play.  And my point applied only to the physical 
world. But of course my eyes were not Christopher's.  That was my initial 
point.

There is a blackmail of the nonemotional; on this Orwell was brilliant in 
"Politics and the English Language."  The idea that there is some truth that 
is purely objective [and therefore more true] and that emotions are an 
intrusion is a view with which I totally disagree.  As did Orwell.  I think a 
poet who spent years working out a theory about the fusion of intellect and 
emotion probably thought so as well in some part of his mind.

I don't see Carson as even remotely analogous.  Eliot was not a landscape 
or a bird, to be observed and described.  But then, feminist theories of 
science have pretty much exploded the idea of an objective science too.  
Read Evelyn Fox Keller on Barbara McClintock, for example.

So what you are apparently talking about, as far as I can tell, is your own 
preference, to which you are entitled.  But it is not any more likely to get at 
whatever truths we can find.  The idea that "science" is either detached 
from emotion or more true than what we know through emotion as well as 
cognition is not, in my view, even a serious one anymore.
Nancy


Date sent:      	Fri, 9 Mar 2001 02:00:59 EST
Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
From:           	[log in to unmask]
To:             	[log in to unmask]
Subject:        	Re: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography

In a message dated 3/8/01 10:21:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:


> So I 
> wrote what I saw--because it is what he saw; it had not changed. 

1) I'd be a bit more conservative in stating this proposition. In reading a 
landscape, as in reading a book, no two people prioritize in exactly the 
same way, or notice/remember exactly the same things. This is because, 
as I believe  you've noted yourself, none of us is perfectly objective, if there 
is such a thing as perfect objectivity.  

I think it makes sense that you'd want to look at what he saw. After
watching a performance of Tristan und Isolde, I thought (rightly or
wrongly) that it improved my understanding of what Eliot had written about
the opera. But I certainly didn't "see what he saw," except in an
excruciatingly limited or approximate sense. Even though Wagner's libretto
"had not changed," it wasn't the same time or place or opera house or
performers or performance. Also, I have no reason to believe that my
knowledge of opera, degree of interest in opera, or reason for attending
the performance matched up with Eliot's in any way. It's never given to
any of us to see through another person's eyes or think with another
person's mind. A certain degree of overlap occurs, and it's this overlap
that makes communication possible. 

2) I understand your point that it's by no means clear what a fact is, and
indeed there's a literature about exactly that. But Arwin might be using
the word in an everyday sense which is also legitimate. 

My personal feeling about expository writing ("the facts") is that it's most 
persuasive when the material is presented in a balanced, measured way 
without extraneous emotionalism. One of the most powerful examples I 
know of is Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. She marshalled her facts so well 
that there was no doubt where she stood--she wanted people to know the 
damage that pesticides were doing to the environment. It's a very pure book 
in the sense that she never once resorts to histrionics. We don't have to 
twiddle our thumbs listening to how sad she feels about dead birds, or how 
angry she is at pesticide manufacturers. She didn't need that kind of 
gratuitous fluff, which is almost always a deficit in expository writing. And it 
wasn't that she had any better set of facts than would have been available 
to anyone else. It's that this woman has a powerful mind and knew how to 
put her facts together so they added up to a picture that made sense. A 
good model for anyone who wants to improve his or her writing.  

I don't think Gordon is as extreme in her emotionalism as Julius, who could 
have written a better book had he been able to keep his anger under 
control. But Gordon began with a similar setup of who she thought were the 
victims and who she thought was the oppressor. And for my taste she 
made it a bit too obvious about where her sympathies lay. As an authorial 
strategy, this amounts to  jumping the gun. I like to see the data laid out in 
whatever order makes sense to the commentator, and in a reasoned 
manner. Then I like to be allowed to make up my own mind about whether 
or not I agree--about where I think the commentator is persuasive and 
where I think he or she isn't. I don't take well to emotional blackmail, which 
is how I perceive extraneous emotionalism when it intrudes into expositiory 
writing. I don't want these broad hints from the commentator that I ought to 
be angry at whatever angers him, or that I ought to pity whomever she 
pities. It's intrusive, and makes me feel as if the commentator wants to 
make me over far too closely into his or her own image. I'd rather be 
allowed to do my own slow thinking, in my own slow manner and in my 
own slow time.  

I agree with you that Gordon had a lot of interesting and valuable
material, and I often refer to her book. And I hope in trying to
articulate my reservations I haven't inadvertently overstated them. Also,
it's not always clear where to place biographers. On the one hand, I wish
Gordon had had an editor who could have persuaded her to cool it a  bit,
to be less obvious about which "side" she was on (or that she thought the
world had "sides")--in short, to take the book in the more reasoned
direction that I find so exemplary in Carson. On the other hand, the
publisher may have wanted the book to appeal to a wide public audience
rather than to a niche or  academic audience. And many publishers seem to
think, rightly or wrongly, that when a biography is meant for the general
public, it "shouldn't sound too academic." 

pat

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager