Print

Print


That's probably sticking too - "on" appears to be one of those horrible
Dutchisms that I'm so afraid of when writing English ... ;-)

A.

> Before you know it I'll be wearing thick rimmed
> glasses and have a four letter label sticking on my forehead. ;-)
>
> That must have been great to do, by the way, writing that first chapter on
> CMD.
>
> Arwin
>
> > Nancy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Date sent:      	Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:58:04 +0100
> > Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
> > From:           	"Arwin van Arum" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To:             	<[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject:        	RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography
> >
> > My point, and probably Ken's too, is that I'd rather have a biography
> > that's a quarter the size, which sticks to the facts and leaves out the
> > interpretation. I know that some people are specifically interested in
> > interpretation of lives, but I am not, and certainly not by
> people with a
> > decent grounding in cognitive and other forms of modern
> psychology (which
> > is to say of the last 20 years). I'd much rather have the facts
> speak for
> > themselves so that I can use them as I please whilst interpreting a poem
> > or a poet.
> >
> > Notice that I did say that Gordon had more facts than Akroyd. I
> just wish
> > that they'd have been more accessible. A CD-ROM would have been a great
> > help here - she could have listed all the facts, and attach
> > interpretations for those who are interested. That would leave
> the reader
> > with the choice to read around them. Now, when you (or, in this case, I)
> > really disagree with the interpretations, or just plainly don't
> like them,
> > they tend to get disproportionally annoying. For the Eliot site I
> > extracted facts about Eliot up to 1922 that I thought were interesting
> > from both biographies and to get the interesting morsels from
> Gordon took
> > a lot of sifting.
> >
> > Interpretations are for me fiction by default. It's perhaps hard to say
> > what interpretations really are, but since I won't call them
> fact, I tend
> > to rather harshly call them fiction. That's perhaps not really fair -
> > there is probably a smooth line between fact and fiction, and each
> > individual interpretation is somewhere along that line, sometimes closer
> > to fact, sometimes closer to fiction. I only read the most
> recent version
> > of the biography, and a lot of the interpretation part of that massive
> > work I simply don't buy - although then again I bought the book
> anyway ...
> > ;-)
> >
> > Arwin
> >
> >
> > > Dear Ken,
> > >
> > > As I don't know Gordon but am greatly impressed by her scrupulous
> > > pursuit of every shred of available information, and as I am
> more prone
> > > to think her unduly deferential to TSE's self-created legacy (in the
> > > first two books especially), I am very interested in what
> > > --specifically--you disagree with and what you know about her as a
> > > source that I don't.  Is there some reason to see her as not
> scrupulous
> > > or as prejudiced?  Why is she a less reliable source than,
> say, Ackroyd?
> > >
> > > Nancy
> > >
> > > Date sent:      	Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:00:56 -0500
> > > Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
> > > From:           	Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To:             	[log in to unmask]
> > > Subject:        	RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography
> > >
> > > Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > Priority: NORMAL
> > > X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55)
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > Dear Nancy,
> > >
> > >  Interesting, makes me think of my old favorite Katherine Anne Porter
> > >  who,
> > > like many others, described fiction as creating lies to tell
> the truth.
> > > I do see your point, but if I disagree with Gordon's
> interpretation, it
> > > is because I think it is not true, and if I think it is not true, I
> > > guess I'm stuck if someone says I'm calling it a fiction--how can I
> > > disagree--though that kind of fiction may not (is all but
> cerainly not)
> > > her conscious intention.
> > >
> > >  In the end, I think her work is seriously flawed. It seems to me not
> > >  more
> > > nuanced in its "Imperfect Life" manifestation, but more
> polarized in its
> > > own proclivities (it was polarized more than enough in its previous
> > > manifestations). To anyone who would conclude something about
> TSE based
> > > on her work, I would have to say "Consider the source." That doesn't
> > > dismiss it; it puts in (I would say) a better (truer) perspective.
> > >
> > >  Ken
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:00:08 -0500 Nancy Gish
> > > <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Ken,
> > > >
> > > > Interpretation is not fiction.
> > > > Calling her work "fiction" is dismissive. What fascinates me is that
> > > > her first two books were so cautious and admiring, and she
> only moved
> > > > to a more nuanced and mixed mode in the third.  But even if one does
> > > > not agree with her interpretation, it is valid interpretation, not
> > > > fiction. Nancy
> > > >
> > > > Date sent:      	Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:55:47 -0500
> > > > Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
> > > > From:           	Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > To:             	[log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject:        	RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography
> > > >
> > > > Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]
> > > > >
> > > > Priority: NORMAL
> > > > X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55)
> > > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:04:49 -0500 Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I do not understand on what possible basis you can judge Gordon's
> > > > > meticulously researched material "fiction."  It is consistently
> > > > > based on cited material, and--more signicantly--Gordon
> has now done
> > > > > three biographies that have gone over and over parallel
> ground with
> > > > > exacting care.  It is simply not possible to dismiss
> > > >  Nancy,
> > > >
> > > >   But no one is dismissing Gordon; just pointing out that her
> > > > interpretation of Eliot's life is still that, an
> interpretation. There
> > > > are citations, and then there are the selection and presentation of
> > > > citations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Arwin says explicitly that she excels in facts. It is what she has
> > > > done with them that raises eyebrows. She has cut Eliot's life to fit
> > > > her prejudices. That, too, should not be dismissed.
> > > >
> > > >  Ken
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ken Armstrong
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>