Thursday, April 01, 2004
The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective)
welcomes questions about literary mysteries and scandals, which should be sent to: woodyswoody@hotmail.com. The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective) is published on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, by Jonathanames.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Polymorphous Fascinations and Limitless Aesthetic Satisfactions
Question: Dear Literary Dick (as in Private Detective),
What's up with the title "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry Janes? What does the title have to do with the novel? - William & Roxanne H.
Answer: I haven’t read ‘The Turn of The Screw’; to answer this question I looked over so much criticism on Henry James’s ghost story that it gave me a headache. I scanned the crit looking for words like ‘screw’, ‘turn’, ‘sex’, and ‘phallic’. What did I learn? According to Henry Sussman:
“In James’s vocabulary as in Hegel’s, turning is the basic metaphor for repetition. James’s screw may penetrate deeper (or tighten); its threads may move. But the activity of revolution characterizes the story’s compulsive recurrences. […] The turns of the screw are upheaveals, unmaskings, and debunkings of the presuppositions that the text offers as givens. The turns of the screw effect a series of fictive negations that are all the more bewildering because the assumptions undermined are not abstract philosophical terms but items derived from a language of consciousness and life.” (Sussman, Henry. “James: Twists of the Governess”. The Turn of the Screw by Henry James. Edited by Deborah Esch and Jonathan Warren. A Norton Critical Edition. W.W. Norton and Company. 2nd Edition. New York, London: 1996. 228-237 (p.235-236)
In similarly accessible and not-confusing language, T.J. Lustig writes:
“The screw can therefore turn in two quite different ways. Its centripetal revolution relates to economic mastery and to the descending, contracting nature of the Jamesian ‘real’, with its limitations and deferrals of gratification. Its centrifugal relation is related to the explosive principle and to the ascending, expanding spiral of the ‘romantic’, with its polymorphous fascinations and limitless aesthetic satisfactions. Rotation is involution, a means to overcome the text’s circumvallations and get through to the inner essence of things, the core, the origin. For James, on the other hand, the screw must necessarily be turned in both ways, since the screen of the text can only be woven form the double movements, its lines only drawn by the interaction of two quite separate dynamics.” (Lustig, T.J.. Henry James and the ghostly. Cambridge University Press: 1994. p. 180)
The above Lustig quotation comes from his book Henry James and the ghostly, which is excerpted in the Norton Critical Edition of The Turn of the Screw, where I also found the Sussman essay. Also to be found in the Norton Critical Edition is Shoshana Felman’s essay, ‘Henry James: Madness and the Risks of Practice (Turning the Screw of Interpretation)’. That essay begins:
“What does the act of turning a screw have to do with literature? What does the act of turning a screw have to do with psychoanalysis? Are these two questions related? If so, might their relationship help to define the status of literature? It is these rather odd questions that the present study intends to articulate, so as to give them a further turn, to investigate and interrogate them on the basis of Henry James’s famous short novel, The Turn of the Screw.” (Felman, Shoshana. “Henry James: Madness and the Risks of Practice (Turning the Screw of Interpretation)”. Norton Critical Edition. 196-228. p.196-197)
Most of what I read in Felman’s article focuses on an analysis of Edmund ‘Bunny’ Wilson’s famous essay on the story. (If you want to learn why Wilson was called Bunny, see The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective)’s Archives.) Apparently, Wilson thought the ‘The Turn of the Screw’ was not a real ghost story, because the "ghosts" are all imagined by the sexually frustrated governess. Quoting Wilson, and then commenting on him, and then quoting him again, Felman writes:
“‘The theory is, then that the governess who is made to tell the story is a neurotic case of sex repression, and that the ghosts are not real ghosts but hallucinations of the governess.’
In order to reinforce this theory, Wilson underlines the implicitly erotic nature of the metaphors and points out the numerous phallic symbols:
‘Observe, also, from the Freudian point of view, the significance of the governess’s interest in the little girls’ pieces of wood and of the fact that the male apparition first takes shape on a tower and the female apparition on a lake.’ (Wilson, p. 104)” (Ibid, 203-204)
I read somewhere (I think in Felman’s essay) that Wilson toned down his theory, after it was not universally embraced.
Anyway, I’d now like to share more of T.J. Lustig’s excellent work on the subject:
“”’The Turn of the Screw’ is a matter of circles as well as blanks. Whereas the word ‘ghost’ is virtually excluded from the text, the word ‘turn’ is repeatedly and markedly present. ‘Ghost’ gives way to a play of alternative words; ‘turn’, on the other hand, remains verbally intact but instead seems to open a proliferation of alternative senses. Characters are said simply to turn (see pp. 71, 78, 83) but they also turn their backs (see pp. 32, 55, 95, 105), turn away (see pp. 46, 76, 136), turn around (see pp. 46, 59, 125, 128, 130), turn off (see p. 104), turn in (see p. 41), turn into (see p.23) and turn out of (see p. 85). They turn faces on each other (see p. 137) and expressions at each other (see p.114). They turn pale (see pp. 43, 58), turn things over in their minds (see pp. 38, 39, 83, 92, 104, 124, 137), take ‘noiseless turns’ (p. 74), have ‘quick turns’ (p. 29) and ‘dreadful’ turns (p. 115). They are turned out, both in the sense of being clothed up (see p. 90) and of being expelled (see p. 136). Staircases have turns (see p. 70) and paths also have turns which one might approach whilst taking ‘a turn into the grounds’ (p. 35). ‘Matters’ are liable to turn (see p. 86) and events occur ‘in turn’ (p. 113). Corners and pages are turned (see pp. 42, 70), summers turn (see p. 86) and Peter Quint dies on a ‘turn mistaken at night’ (p. 52).” (Lustig. p. 126-127)
And later, Lustig writes:
“Douglas’s tale contains two children, and if one child gives the effect of a single ‘turn of the screw’ (the first of two uses of this expression in the text), then two children will apparently produce ‘two turns’ (p. 15). […] The expression ‘turn of the screw’ seems to describe the results brought about by literary artifices, which in his case make use of the vulnerable figure of a child in order to solicit the reader’s involvement and to intensify feelings of suspense, uncertainty and so on. Towards the end of the tale, the governess feels her situation requires her to make ‘another turn of the screw of ordinary human virtue’ (p. 127). The repetition of the expression is accompanied by a turn in its sense, since the governess is not talking about the artifices of narrative but about her attempts ‘to supply. . . nature’ (p. 127). The governess’s (oddly mechanistic) metaphor details an active moral manifestation rather than a passive aesthetic response. In spite of these differences, however, both Douglas’s and the governess’s turns of the screw are essentially centripetal. The turn of the screw connotes various forms of restriction, intensification, enclosure, enforcement, or constraint. […] The financial implications associated with turning the screw suggest some form of connection to another centripetal dynamic in James: that of economic mastery. James found it entirely acceptable and even necessary to turn the screw in the interests of economic mastery and in order to secure the intensity suggested in Douglas’s use of the phrase. In the notes on “The K.B. Case’ which James made in 1909 or 1910, he was happy to subject his ideas to ‘the pressure and the screw’ (N, p.259). He admitted with some pride in the Prefaces that ‘The Tree of Knowledge’ had required an even greater number of ‘full revolutions of the merciless screw’ than ‘The Middle Years’ (LC,II,1240).” (Ibid., 177-179)
So it is the opinion of the Literary Dick that turning and screwing are both important to the story, and that’s why Henry James called it what he did.
welcomes questions about literary mysteries and scandals, which should be sent to: woodyswoody@hotmail.com. The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective) is published on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, by Jonathanames.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Polymorphous Fascinations and Limitless Aesthetic Satisfactions
Question: Dear Literary Dick (as in Private Detective),
What's up with the title "The Turn of the Screw" by Henry Janes? What does the title have to do with the novel? - William & Roxanne H.
Answer: I haven’t read ‘The Turn of The Screw’; to answer this question I looked over so much criticism on Henry James’s ghost story that it gave me a headache. I scanned the crit looking for words like ‘screw’, ‘turn’, ‘sex’, and ‘phallic’. What did I learn? According to Henry Sussman:
“In James’s vocabulary as in Hegel’s, turning is the basic metaphor for repetition. James’s screw may penetrate deeper (or tighten); its threads may move. But the activity of revolution characterizes the story’s compulsive recurrences. […] The turns of the screw are upheaveals, unmaskings, and debunkings of the presuppositions that the text offers as givens. The turns of the screw effect a series of fictive negations that are all the more bewildering because the assumptions undermined are not abstract philosophical terms but items derived from a language of consciousness and life.” (Sussman, Henry. “James: Twists of the Governess”. The Turn of the Screw by Henry James. Edited by Deborah Esch and Jonathan Warren. A Norton Critical Edition. W.W. Norton and Company. 2nd Edition. New York, London: 1996. 228-237 (p.235-236)
In similarly accessible and not-confusing language, T.J. Lustig writes:
“The screw can therefore turn in two quite different ways. Its centripetal revolution relates to economic mastery and to the descending, contracting nature of the Jamesian ‘real’, with its limitations and deferrals of gratification. Its centrifugal relation is related to the explosive principle and to the ascending, expanding spiral of the ‘romantic’, with its polymorphous fascinations and limitless aesthetic satisfactions. Rotation is involution, a means to overcome the text’s circumvallations and get through to the inner essence of things, the core, the origin. For James, on the other hand, the screw must necessarily be turned in both ways, since the screen of the text can only be woven form the double movements, its lines only drawn by the interaction of two quite separate dynamics.” (Lustig, T.J.. Henry James and the ghostly. Cambridge University Press: 1994. p. 180)
The above Lustig quotation comes from his book Henry James and the ghostly, which is excerpted in the Norton Critical Edition of The Turn of the Screw, where I also found the Sussman essay. Also to be found in the Norton Critical Edition is Shoshana Felman’s essay, ‘Henry James: Madness and the Risks of Practice (Turning the Screw of Interpretation)’. That essay begins:
“What does the act of turning a screw have to do with literature? What does the act of turning a screw have to do with psychoanalysis? Are these two questions related? If so, might their relationship help to define the status of literature? It is these rather odd questions that the present study intends to articulate, so as to give them a further turn, to investigate and interrogate them on the basis of Henry James’s famous short novel, The Turn of the Screw.” (Felman, Shoshana. “Henry James: Madness and the Risks of Practice (Turning the Screw of Interpretation)”. Norton Critical Edition. 196-228. p.196-197)
Most of what I read in Felman’s article focuses on an analysis of Edmund ‘Bunny’ Wilson’s famous essay on the story. (If you want to learn why Wilson was called Bunny, see The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective)’s Archives.) Apparently, Wilson thought the ‘The Turn of the Screw’ was not a real ghost story, because the "ghosts" are all imagined by the sexually frustrated governess. Quoting Wilson, and then commenting on him, and then quoting him again, Felman writes:
“‘The theory is, then that the governess who is made to tell the story is a neurotic case of sex repression, and that the ghosts are not real ghosts but hallucinations of the governess.’
In order to reinforce this theory, Wilson underlines the implicitly erotic nature of the metaphors and points out the numerous phallic symbols:
‘Observe, also, from the Freudian point of view, the significance of the governess’s interest in the little girls’ pieces of wood and of the fact that the male apparition first takes shape on a tower and the female apparition on a lake.’ (Wilson, p. 104)” (Ibid, 203-204)
I read somewhere (I think in Felman’s essay) that Wilson toned down his theory, after it was not universally embraced.
Anyway, I’d now like to share more of T.J. Lustig’s excellent work on the subject:
“”’The Turn of the Screw’ is a matter of circles as well as blanks. Whereas the word ‘ghost’ is virtually excluded from the text, the word ‘turn’ is repeatedly and markedly present. ‘Ghost’ gives way to a play of alternative words; ‘turn’, on the other hand, remains verbally intact but instead seems to open a proliferation of alternative senses. Characters are said simply to turn (see pp. 71, 78, 83) but they also turn their backs (see pp. 32, 55, 95, 105), turn away (see pp. 46, 76, 136), turn around (see pp. 46, 59, 125, 128, 130), turn off (see p. 104), turn in (see p. 41), turn into (see p.23) and turn out of (see p. 85). They turn faces on each other (see p. 137) and expressions at each other (see p.114). They turn pale (see pp. 43, 58), turn things over in their minds (see pp. 38, 39, 83, 92, 104, 124, 137), take ‘noiseless turns’ (p. 74), have ‘quick turns’ (p. 29) and ‘dreadful’ turns (p. 115). They are turned out, both in the sense of being clothed up (see p. 90) and of being expelled (see p. 136). Staircases have turns (see p. 70) and paths also have turns which one might approach whilst taking ‘a turn into the grounds’ (p. 35). ‘Matters’ are liable to turn (see p. 86) and events occur ‘in turn’ (p. 113). Corners and pages are turned (see pp. 42, 70), summers turn (see p. 86) and Peter Quint dies on a ‘turn mistaken at night’ (p. 52).” (Lustig. p. 126-127)
And later, Lustig writes:
“Douglas’s tale contains two children, and if one child gives the effect of a single ‘turn of the screw’ (the first of two uses of this expression in the text), then two children will apparently produce ‘two turns’ (p. 15). […] The expression ‘turn of the screw’ seems to describe the results brought about by literary artifices, which in his case make use of the vulnerable figure of a child in order to solicit the reader’s involvement and to intensify feelings of suspense, uncertainty and so on. Towards the end of the tale, the governess feels her situation requires her to make ‘another turn of the screw of ordinary human virtue’ (p. 127). The repetition of the expression is accompanied by a turn in its sense, since the governess is not talking about the artifices of narrative but about her attempts ‘to supply. . . nature’ (p. 127). The governess’s (oddly mechanistic) metaphor details an active moral manifestation rather than a passive aesthetic response. In spite of these differences, however, both Douglas’s and the governess’s turns of the screw are essentially centripetal. The turn of the screw connotes various forms of restriction, intensification, enclosure, enforcement, or constraint. […] The financial implications associated with turning the screw suggest some form of connection to another centripetal dynamic in James: that of economic mastery. James found it entirely acceptable and even necessary to turn the screw in the interests of economic mastery and in order to secure the intensity suggested in Douglas’s use of the phrase. In the notes on “The K.B. Case’ which James made in 1909 or 1910, he was happy to subject his ideas to ‘the pressure and the screw’ (N, p.259). He admitted with some pride in the Prefaces that ‘The Tree of Knowledge’ had required an even greater number of ‘full revolutions of the merciless screw’ than ‘The Middle Years’ (LC,II,1240).” (Ibid., 177-179)
So it is the opinion of the Literary Dick that turning and screwing are both important to the story, and that’s why Henry James called it what he did.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective)
welcomes questions about literary mysteries and scandals, which should be sent to: woodyswoody@hotmail.com. The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective) is published on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, by Jonathanames.com
_______________________________________________________________
Scurrilous Innuendoes
Question:Dear Literary Dick (as in Private Detective),
The sexual shenanigans that I can think of that I would most like investigating is the allegation that after Dickens married his wife (Miss Hogarth) he embarked on a long and unhealthy fascination with her younger, prettier sister. Last time I looked into it critics were divided on whether he ever sealed the deal or remained a dirty lecherous brother in law type. Any thoughts on this one?
-Jimmy G., Yorkshire, England
Answer: As of this writing I have found no conclusive evidence that Dickens “sealed the deal” with his younger sister-in-law. When I started my investigation I knew next to nothing about Dickens; now I know next to next to nothing. Dickens’ life has been exhaustively documented, and I will now relate some of the information pertinent to this case.
In 1836, Dickens married Catherine Hogarth. One of Catherine’s younger sisters was named Mary; apparently, Dickens thought highly of her. In Dickens and Women, Michael Slater writes:
“Besides what he called ‘abilities far beyond her years’ Dickens also credited Mary with ‘every attraction of youth and beauty’. ‘Conscious as she have been of everybody’s admiration,’ he wrote, ‘she had not a single fault, and was in life almost as far above the foibles and vanity of her sex and age as she is now in Heaven.’ Unfortunately, the only image we have of her today is an engraving of a painting done for Dickens after her death by his illustrator H.K. Browne (‘Phiz’). This shows an insipid young creature with rather a bulging forehead, rather a large nose, a little rosebud mouth and a rounded receding chin – in other words, a standardized beauty of the day.” (Slater, Michael. Dickens and Women. London, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.: 1983.p.81)
But it is not, I think, Dickens’s relationship with Mary, that Jimmy G. was questioning. Mary died young; according to Slater this affected strongly Dickens and his art:
“Part of the legend that has grown up around Mary is that she was really, both physically and mentally, an unremarkable girl, who was posthumously transformed into a shinning Ideal of Maidenhood by Dickens’s fervent imagination.” (Ibid., 80)
But while Dickens had a close relationship with Mary, he seems to have had an even closer relationship with Georgina Hogarth, another of Catherine’s younger sisters. In 1858 Dickens and Catherine separated, but before they did, there was much talk that he and Georgina (who would subsequently continue to live with Dickens (she had moved in when he and Catherine were still together)) were having an affair.
Nothing of what I’ve read says that Dickens and Georgina ever did it, a charge Dickens took great pains to deny. Slater writes:
“The evil rumours certainly spread far afield. In October 1858 Dickens received, as we have seen, a letter telling him that Colin Rae Brown, the editor of one of Glasgow’s newspapers, was going about asserting that ‘Mr Dickens’s’ sister in law had three children by him’. Dickens had ignored the scurrilous innuendoes of the cheap London press but felt he could not overlook this incident and prepared to prosecute Brown (it was perhaps in connection with this that a doctor’s certificate of virginity may have been obtained for Georgina) and desisted only when he received from Brown a vigorous and circumstantial denial that he had said what had been attributed to him.” (Ibid., 172)
Obviously the most exciting bit of gossip in the above is that Georgina might have had to have a virginity test. Peter Ackroyd mentions this rumor along with information about the Hogarth family’s involvement in the scandal, in his biography of Dickens:
“Events were slipping further out of Dicken’s control, and it was at some point in the crucial days that Mrs Hogarth [Dickens’s mother-in-law] seems to have threatened Dickens with action in the Divorce Court – a very serious step indeed since the Divorce Act of the previous year had decreed that wives could divorce their husbands only on the grounds of incest, bigamy or cruelty. The clear implication here was that Dickens had committed “incest” with Georgina, which was the legal term for sexual relations with a sister-in-law. At Dickens’ instigation Forster wrote an urgent letter to Dickens’ solicitor, asking for clarification of the new Act; and at the same time, too, Georgina was examined by a doctor and found to be virgo intacta. At this point, it seems, the Hogarths implicitly dropped the threat of court action.” (Ackroyd, Peter. Dickens. Harper Collins Publishers:1990. p. 813)
So if Dickens had vagina intercourse with Georgina, it would have had to have been after this test (assuming that it was bona fide).
Anyway, Slater for one is firm in his conviction that there was nothing untoward going on between Dickens and Georgina; “there is not” he writes, “the slightest evidence that his feelings towards her were anything but fatherly or brotherly”. (Slater, 167)
So I don’t know. A helluva lot has been written about Dickens, and it’s not impossible that I missed some good, incriminating evidence. (There’s also a bunch of stuff (like Dickens’s relationship with the actress Ellen Ternan) that I came across, but don’t think is relevant to this discussion.) Anyway, for the moment it is the opinion of the Literary Dick that nothing sexual happened between Dickens and Georgina, though I don’t think it’s impossible that something could have happened. What I’d like to find out is whether or not that sordid virginity-test story is true or not.
welcomes questions about literary mysteries and scandals, which should be sent to: woodyswoody@hotmail.com. The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective) is published on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, by Jonathanames.com
_______________________________________________________________
Scurrilous Innuendoes
Question:Dear Literary Dick (as in Private Detective),
The sexual shenanigans that I can think of that I would most like investigating is the allegation that after Dickens married his wife (Miss Hogarth) he embarked on a long and unhealthy fascination with her younger, prettier sister. Last time I looked into it critics were divided on whether he ever sealed the deal or remained a dirty lecherous brother in law type. Any thoughts on this one?
-Jimmy G., Yorkshire, England
Answer: As of this writing I have found no conclusive evidence that Dickens “sealed the deal” with his younger sister-in-law. When I started my investigation I knew next to nothing about Dickens; now I know next to next to nothing. Dickens’ life has been exhaustively documented, and I will now relate some of the information pertinent to this case.
In 1836, Dickens married Catherine Hogarth. One of Catherine’s younger sisters was named Mary; apparently, Dickens thought highly of her. In Dickens and Women, Michael Slater writes:
“Besides what he called ‘abilities far beyond her years’ Dickens also credited Mary with ‘every attraction of youth and beauty’. ‘Conscious as she have been of everybody’s admiration,’ he wrote, ‘she had not a single fault, and was in life almost as far above the foibles and vanity of her sex and age as she is now in Heaven.’ Unfortunately, the only image we have of her today is an engraving of a painting done for Dickens after her death by his illustrator H.K. Browne (‘Phiz’). This shows an insipid young creature with rather a bulging forehead, rather a large nose, a little rosebud mouth and a rounded receding chin – in other words, a standardized beauty of the day.” (Slater, Michael. Dickens and Women. London, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.: 1983.p.81)
But it is not, I think, Dickens’s relationship with Mary, that Jimmy G. was questioning. Mary died young; according to Slater this affected strongly Dickens and his art:
“Part of the legend that has grown up around Mary is that she was really, both physically and mentally, an unremarkable girl, who was posthumously transformed into a shinning Ideal of Maidenhood by Dickens’s fervent imagination.” (Ibid., 80)
But while Dickens had a close relationship with Mary, he seems to have had an even closer relationship with Georgina Hogarth, another of Catherine’s younger sisters. In 1858 Dickens and Catherine separated, but before they did, there was much talk that he and Georgina (who would subsequently continue to live with Dickens (she had moved in when he and Catherine were still together)) were having an affair.
Nothing of what I’ve read says that Dickens and Georgina ever did it, a charge Dickens took great pains to deny. Slater writes:
“The evil rumours certainly spread far afield. In October 1858 Dickens received, as we have seen, a letter telling him that Colin Rae Brown, the editor of one of Glasgow’s newspapers, was going about asserting that ‘Mr Dickens’s’ sister in law had three children by him’. Dickens had ignored the scurrilous innuendoes of the cheap London press but felt he could not overlook this incident and prepared to prosecute Brown (it was perhaps in connection with this that a doctor’s certificate of virginity may have been obtained for Georgina) and desisted only when he received from Brown a vigorous and circumstantial denial that he had said what had been attributed to him.” (Ibid., 172)
Obviously the most exciting bit of gossip in the above is that Georgina might have had to have a virginity test. Peter Ackroyd mentions this rumor along with information about the Hogarth family’s involvement in the scandal, in his biography of Dickens:
“Events were slipping further out of Dicken’s control, and it was at some point in the crucial days that Mrs Hogarth [Dickens’s mother-in-law] seems to have threatened Dickens with action in the Divorce Court – a very serious step indeed since the Divorce Act of the previous year had decreed that wives could divorce their husbands only on the grounds of incest, bigamy or cruelty. The clear implication here was that Dickens had committed “incest” with Georgina, which was the legal term for sexual relations with a sister-in-law. At Dickens’ instigation Forster wrote an urgent letter to Dickens’ solicitor, asking for clarification of the new Act; and at the same time, too, Georgina was examined by a doctor and found to be virgo intacta. At this point, it seems, the Hogarths implicitly dropped the threat of court action.” (Ackroyd, Peter. Dickens. Harper Collins Publishers:1990. p. 813)
So if Dickens had vagina intercourse with Georgina, it would have had to have been after this test (assuming that it was bona fide).
Anyway, Slater for one is firm in his conviction that there was nothing untoward going on between Dickens and Georgina; “there is not” he writes, “the slightest evidence that his feelings towards her were anything but fatherly or brotherly”. (Slater, 167)
So I don’t know. A helluva lot has been written about Dickens, and it’s not impossible that I missed some good, incriminating evidence. (There’s also a bunch of stuff (like Dickens’s relationship with the actress Ellen Ternan) that I came across, but don’t think is relevant to this discussion.) Anyway, for the moment it is the opinion of the Literary Dick that nothing sexual happened between Dickens and Georgina, though I don’t think it’s impossible that something could have happened. What I’d like to find out is whether or not that sordid virginity-test story is true or not.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective)
welcomes questions about literary mysteries and scandals, which should be sent to: woodyswoody@hotmail.com. The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective) is published on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, by Jonathanames.com
_______________________________________________________________
Before we get to Maynard Writes, I would like to share two recent emails:
Dear Literary Dick (as in Private Detective),
I've been reading some Rushdie and Coetzee lately. I don't suppose you're aware of any scandalous news concerning either one? Coetzee in particular keeps lusting over young girls in his books and I can't help but suspect that there's a crossover into his real life. Quite clearly, I need a literary dick.
Take care,
Arthur L.
Dear Literary Lightfoot,
I'm probably just questioning the cinematic license of Joel and Ethan Coen, but
I always pondered just to what extent BARTON FINK's W.P. Mayhew, the dissolute esteemed Southern novelist cum Hollywood hack obviously based on Faulkner (the physical resemblance between John Mahoney and Faulkner is startling) is fiction. Namely, the relationship with a comely "personal secretary" who, beyond providing empathy and love whilst he fought the demons of booze and visions of his "disturbed wife", essentially ghost-wrote later works. I regrettably know little about Faulkner despite having read several novels...can you please clear this up for me?
Many thanks,
J. Fiske
Maynard Writes
(Note: The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective) will accept and occasionally publish interesting literary commentary, though it should be noted that the opinions expressed in such commentary are not (and should not be seen to reflect) those of Jonathanames.com.)
(Another Note: In the below, Maynard responds to the recent column, (inspired by his question), about whether or not the founding fathers almost picked Hebrew as the U.S.’s official language.)
“ok i have to tell you that i suspect, with absolutely
no evidence i might add, that it was at least
considered. but was shocked and suspicious that i
couldnt find any concrete evidence to even suggest it.
what you have found is hopeful.
i need to tell you why i have this question. i was
told by a kabbalistic rabbi that this was the truth.
now i am not jewish at all, but i found it interesting
considering our current world events. also, while i
do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, i do think it
is important for all of us to look a little deeper
when it comes to interpreting the actions of the
american govt and govts abroad (since sometimes
evidence can be so elusive.)
since i have in recent years read more and more about
secret organizations and men in power, it has made me
really want to get to the heart of all this recent
world history. i am seeking some sort of historical
perspective with regards to WWI, WWII, the founding
fathers, 911, israel, nazi germany, masons etc.
from a mystical perspective, according to many jewish
and non jewish scholars, there are ancient beliefs
that hebrew was never a language. it was never
intended to be used as a means of common
communication. rather, it was to be used only with
spiritual and metaphysical things such as contacting
god directly. you can see why the contitution in
hebrew could be viewed as particularly useful to the
preservation of an emerging america. also there are
beliefs in the occult and in judaism, hinduism,
buddism, masonry and other world philosophies that
just "scanning" the letters themselves can induce
power of a metaphysical sense, both in the individual
soul and in the physical world. oh and also
scientology has its roots in this too. some of those
who believe all this think that hebrew can be used for
either evil or good depending on the conciousness of
the user. but some think that the utilization of
hebrew letters can result in ONLY GOOD, and that
conciousness of individuals is irrelevant. (remember
raiders of the lost ark?)
well that is a lot, and i dont myself believe all of
those things. but since war and religion seem almost a
congenital condition of man, even if all of the
religions etc were not true, i wanted to at least try
to infer some of the possible motivations of the
founding fathers and their legacies.
i also suspect that since the language is considered
to be holy by some, that may even be in fact why it
was voted down, if such a proposal was ever made.
also that may be why there is little or no evidence
about it. the masons are a secret organization and
the motivation to supress the beliefs of the hebrew
language may be more for self preservation of the
organgization rather than political--even though some
masons have sought and held, and continue to hold,
political office. also if some believe that the
hebrew letters hold power, then all the more reason to
keep them secret from the general public. after all
men and their actions are only a sum of their
beliefs--even if they believe in things like the
devil, heaven and hell, christ, messiah or any other
things which may seem by others to be archaic and
illogical.
seems crazy, but i hope you can see why i am so
curious.
again thanks for your time.
maynard”
welcomes questions about literary mysteries and scandals, which should be sent to: woodyswoody@hotmail.com. The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective) is published on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, by Jonathanames.com
_______________________________________________________________
Before we get to Maynard Writes, I would like to share two recent emails:
Dear Literary Dick (as in Private Detective),
I've been reading some Rushdie and Coetzee lately. I don't suppose you're aware of any scandalous news concerning either one? Coetzee in particular keeps lusting over young girls in his books and I can't help but suspect that there's a crossover into his real life. Quite clearly, I need a literary dick.
Take care,
Arthur L.
Dear Literary Lightfoot,
I'm probably just questioning the cinematic license of Joel and Ethan Coen, but
I always pondered just to what extent BARTON FINK's W.P. Mayhew, the dissolute esteemed Southern novelist cum Hollywood hack obviously based on Faulkner (the physical resemblance between John Mahoney and Faulkner is startling) is fiction. Namely, the relationship with a comely "personal secretary" who, beyond providing empathy and love whilst he fought the demons of booze and visions of his "disturbed wife", essentially ghost-wrote later works. I regrettably know little about Faulkner despite having read several novels...can you please clear this up for me?
Many thanks,
J. Fiske
Maynard Writes
(Note: The Literary Dick (as in Private Detective) will accept and occasionally publish interesting literary commentary, though it should be noted that the opinions expressed in such commentary are not (and should not be seen to reflect) those of Jonathanames.com.)
(Another Note: In the below, Maynard responds to the recent column, (inspired by his question), about whether or not the founding fathers almost picked Hebrew as the U.S.’s official language.)
“ok i have to tell you that i suspect, with absolutely
no evidence i might add, that it was at least
considered. but was shocked and suspicious that i
couldnt find any concrete evidence to even suggest it.
what you have found is hopeful.
i need to tell you why i have this question. i was
told by a kabbalistic rabbi that this was the truth.
now i am not jewish at all, but i found it interesting
considering our current world events. also, while i
do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, i do think it
is important for all of us to look a little deeper
when it comes to interpreting the actions of the
american govt and govts abroad (since sometimes
evidence can be so elusive.)
since i have in recent years read more and more about
secret organizations and men in power, it has made me
really want to get to the heart of all this recent
world history. i am seeking some sort of historical
perspective with regards to WWI, WWII, the founding
fathers, 911, israel, nazi germany, masons etc.
from a mystical perspective, according to many jewish
and non jewish scholars, there are ancient beliefs
that hebrew was never a language. it was never
intended to be used as a means of common
communication. rather, it was to be used only with
spiritual and metaphysical things such as contacting
god directly. you can see why the contitution in
hebrew could be viewed as particularly useful to the
preservation of an emerging america. also there are
beliefs in the occult and in judaism, hinduism,
buddism, masonry and other world philosophies that
just "scanning" the letters themselves can induce
power of a metaphysical sense, both in the individual
soul and in the physical world. oh and also
scientology has its roots in this too. some of those
who believe all this think that hebrew can be used for
either evil or good depending on the conciousness of
the user. but some think that the utilization of
hebrew letters can result in ONLY GOOD, and that
conciousness of individuals is irrelevant. (remember
raiders of the lost ark?)
well that is a lot, and i dont myself believe all of
those things. but since war and religion seem almost a
congenital condition of man, even if all of the
religions etc were not true, i wanted to at least try
to infer some of the possible motivations of the
founding fathers and their legacies.
i also suspect that since the language is considered
to be holy by some, that may even be in fact why it
was voted down, if such a proposal was ever made.
also that may be why there is little or no evidence
about it. the masons are a secret organization and
the motivation to supress the beliefs of the hebrew
language may be more for self preservation of the
organgization rather than political--even though some
masons have sought and held, and continue to hold,
political office. also if some believe that the
hebrew letters hold power, then all the more reason to
keep them secret from the general public. after all
men and their actions are only a sum of their
beliefs--even if they believe in things like the
devil, heaven and hell, christ, messiah or any other
things which may seem by others to be archaic and
illogical.
seems crazy, but i hope you can see why i am so
curious.
again thanks for your time.
maynard”
