Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17920Re: [mythsoc] Re: which biography?

Expand Messages
  • WendellWag@aol.com
    Apr 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 4/4/2007 1:46:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      dbratman@... writes:

      Factual sloppiness is not limited to fast
      workers. And whether Wilson worked quickly or slowly, it doesn't prove
      that he was wrong on the bigger points.

      I disagree somewhat about this. There are specific types of errors in
      conclusions that someone who, like Wilson, isn't very well read in his subject and
      has to acquire a lot of information in a short amount of time is more likely
      to make. They tend to read strange meanings into innocent events or
      writings because they don't stop to reread or reconsider how out of character such
      misreadings are. For instance, the two boneheaded errors that were so bad
      that Wilson (or more likely Wilson's publisher) dropped without comment from the
      second edition of the book - the misinterpretation of the "Nazi, homosexual
      pleasures" letter and the misunderstanding of when Douglas Gresham saw his
      mother and Lewis in bed - are typical of fast-reading errors.

      People who are very familiar with the work or life of their subject also
      make errors, but they are different sorts of errors. It's not just that they
      tend to treat the work and life of their subject too kindly, although that
      often happens. It's also that they are so familiar with the contours of the
      subjects work and life that they fail to notice the internal contradictions in
      them. I think that they also have more trouble placing their subject in the
      larger context of his time.

      Wilson also makes errors because he wants to fit Lewis into the slots that
      he already had established in his mind before he began his research. This
      partly accounts for the weird Freudian readings of Lewis that Wilson does. I'm
      not just complaining that his readings made Lewis look bad. A careful
      psychological reading of Lewis, with some actual consulting of psychological texts,
      might or might not look more favorablely on Lewis, but it certainly wouldn't
      find it necessary to fit him in some narrow psychological category.

      Wendell Wagner

      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic