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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: which biography?

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... This may be true (but I m not entirely sure; see below). What s odd, though, is that of all the many critiques of Wilson s errors I ve read, none but
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 4 7:45 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      At 03:13 AM 4/4/2007 -0400, WendellWag@... wrote:

      >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.

      This may be true (but I'm not entirely sure; see below). What's odd,
      though, is that of all the many critiques of Wilson's errors I've read,
      none but yours just now has made this argument. Most of the critics, as
      you've already noted, fall into the "death by a thousand cuts" approach.


      >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.

      It is curious, then, that WIlson introduces the first of those errors
      (first edition, p. 162) by writing, "It is twenty-two years since I read
      that letter, first published in Warnie's selection of his brother's
      correspondence, and on and off I have been thinking it over. At no time
      have I been able to see ..."

      Perhaps Wilson is lying about his experience reading this letter, but it
      seems an odd thing to lie about. Still, I know what Lindskoog would say.
      She'd say that WIlson is just wacko and there's no explanation for anything
      he does. (Why else does she - I think it was she who did this - cite his
      experience in a rock band as evidence of his mendacity?)


      >People who are very familiar with the work or life of their subject also
      >make errors, but they are different sorts of errors. ...
      >I think that they also have more trouble placing their subject in the
      >larger context of his time.

      Again, maybe. But I find it curious that Carpenter's "The Inklings", a
      book written in extreme haste (though based on a couple of years of
      extensive research for his Tolkien biography: still, if a couple of years
      isn't Wilsonian haste, it's not exactly a lifetime of detailed study
      either) is most flawed in exactly that area: understanding the Inklings in
      the context of their times, and in the context of their beliefs.


      >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.

      If that's evidence of the quickness of Wilson's reading, then David
      Holbrook must have gone through Lewis's work in a nanosecond.

      David Bratman
    • WendellWag@aol.com
      ... In a message dated 4/4/2007 10:51:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dbratman@earthlink.net writes: If that s evidence of the quickness of Wilson s reading,
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 4 8:04 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        In reply to my comment:

        > 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.

        In a message dated 4/4/2007 10:51:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        dbratman@... writes:

        If that's evidence of the quickness of Wilson's reading, then David
        Holbrook must have gone through Lewis's work in a nanosecond.



        I expressed myself badly in my last post about this. I was saying that this
        is one additional sort of error that Wilson makes, not that it was
        necessarily typical of the sort of errors that biographers who work quickly tend to
        make.

        Wendell Wagner



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


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • WendellWag@aol.com
        In a message dated 4/4/2007 10:51:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dbratman@earthlink.net writes: This may be true (but I m not entirely sure; see below).
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 4 8:34 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 4/4/2007 10:51:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
          dbratman@... writes:

          This may be true (but I'm not entirely sure; see below). What's odd,
          though, is that of all the many critiques of Wilson's errors I've read,
          none but yours just now has made this argument. Most of the critics, as
          you've already noted, fall into the "death by a thousand cuts" approach.



          Also, a lot of the reaction to Wilson's book among long-time readers of
          Lewis was in reply to the way that mainstream literary outlets seemed to be
          giving a pass to Wilson. It was as though the mainstream reviewers had been
          saying, "Wilson writes very polished prose, has a major literary reputation, makes
          some snide comments that I find funny, and has a lot of glib opinions which
          fit my worldview already." The mainstream literary world seemed to be
          accepting Wilson and dismissing other opinion about Lewis because Wilson was one of
          their own. In reaction, long-time readers of Lewis dismissed Wilson because
          he wasn't one of their own.

          Wendell Wagner



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


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.