Glyerian Re: [mythsoc] New Screwtape
- Thank you. I must have missed the name, but I would like to read about the
gestalt theory (so to speak). I did not come up with a lot on amazon. I
am finding other hits but suspect I could get lost pretty fast, as I am not
at all familiar with her. Can you give me the citation again please?
Elizabeth Apgar Triano
amor vincit omnia
> In the manner of Diana Pavlac Glyer, the scholar whom both Wendell and I
> cited earlier as discussing mutual influence among the Inklings in a sense
> broader than that of "tending towards similarity."
> David Bratman
- Diana Glyer's main work to date is her thesis, which is not published, nor
exactly easy for the average person not connected with a university to
borrow. Nor is it her easiest work to read.
If you have Mythlore 80, the Tolkien Centenary Conference Proceedings (the
only issue of Mythlore out of print, as it happens), she has a very good
and very readable article in that.
If you want to read a readable, non-stuffy book on the kinds of literary
influence that she's talking about, she would recommend _Collaborative
Circles_ by Michael P. Farrell, which actually discusses the Inklings,
though it won't tell you anything Humphrey Carpenter doesn't. But it does
put them in an interesting context of other literary groups.
At 05:08 PM 3/25/2005 -0500, Lizzie wrote:
>Thank you. I must have missed the name, but I would like to read about the
>gestalt theory (so to speak). I did not come up with a lot on amazon. I
>am finding other hits but suspect I could get lost pretty fast, as I am not
>at all familiar with her. Can you give me the citation again please?
- You should realize that I created the word "Glyerian" myself. I first used
it several years ago when I asked Diana a question after one of her talks at
Mythcon. She doesn't even claim to have created the idea of looking for
influence in larger ways than mere similarity. She named somebody else who had
done similar work before her, but I've forgotten the name she mentioned. I'm
not sure whether calling this a "gestalt" theory is very useful. In any
case, I was half-joking in using the word, not claiming that there's a big
critical movement out there.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- At 02:03 PM 3/27/2005 -0500, Wendell Wagner wrote:
>She doesn't even claim to have created the idea of looking forThat's correct.
>influence in larger ways than mere similarity.
>She named somebody else who hadThere are about four scholars who've done major work in this area that
>done similar work before her, but I've forgotten the name she mentioned.
she's cited a lot. Of these, Michael Farrell (the one I cited in my post
to Lizzie) is by far the most easily accessible to a lay reader.
>I'm not sure whether calling this a "gestalt" theory is very useful.I agree, since this is about the individual scholars' work in community,
not about whether the community has a larger existence beyond the people
who make it up. The latter question has been addressed by some other
scholars, though, including, of all people, Alfred Kroeber (Ursula K. Le