[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: WARNING: This discussion could be deadly!
Birgitte Jorgensen wrote
Would anyone (Anne M, Anne S, Bob M, David P, Kate, Valeria, and any
others I've not heard from but would like to) care to read and comment
on this article vis-a-vis GG?
http://www.salon.com/health/books/2000/07/05/lonely/index.html
Titled "Can Talking Kill You?" it's a provocative piece that suggests
lonely people, or people who isolate themselves and have problems
communicating, are a medical menace to themselves whenever they engage
in discussion with others, especially psychiatrists, about matters of
self import. The theory is that the elevated blood pressure which
accompanies even casual self-revelation results in accumulative and
insidious damage to arteries and cardiac tissue. The contention is that
talk-therapy may actually be detrimental for such people.
Well, I dont really agree with this article. I think that we have become far
too eager to brand people as 'normal' or 'abnormal', and that our modern
society is too quick to discount the importance of diversity in the human
race. Some people benefit enormously from communicating with others. Some
prefer not to do this. And unless you have been medically diagnosed as
hypertensive, how many of us are aware of our blood=pressure levels? Or even
care what they are? Yup, some of us might devote time to checking our own BP
throughout the day (!) but personally, I've never met anyone who did this.
The benefits (and pleasures!) of communicating with others can, in any case,
far outwieigh the potential risks. Maybe our notion of what 'normal' blood
pressure (or 'normal anything!) should be is just too limited to be useful.
Lets hear it for the loners/outsiders/eccentrics, or whatever we want to
call them in our blinkered way. I think life would be sad without them.
Not that I think of GG as being particularly eccentric, may I say!
Kate wrote:
>I agree that there was
>something "wrong"....but not in the sense that he was in any way at
fault, or that his aloneness was a conscious choice on his part. I think
that>any "wrongness" in his nature was totally outside his control.>
I would hesitate to ever use the word "wrong" to describe his behavior
or that of anyone else who displayed such a mastery of craft and such
profound interpretative skills.
Birgitte, I didnt mean the word "wrong" in any moral or even critical way.
Maybe I should choose my words with more consideration! I meant something
more along the lines of "different from the majority", in a way that perhaps
Gould himself might privately regret. But as I said above, diferentness
really can be something to celebrate, not reject.
But when considering Gould's private life and emotions, I'm guessing, I
suppose. Its not really a very fruitful line of thought, anyway. (I'm sorry,
everybody, I am having a bit of difficulty here in expressing exactly what I
mean!)
>Personally, I don?t think he ever experienced true joy,(I am not
talking about his art here)
Kate, this statement steamrolls me! Unless ecstasy doesn?t translate
into at least transitory happiness, I think his life was touched with as
much if not more joy, and not a little sorrow, than most of us
experience. Happiness is a notoriously individualistic pursuit, and one>far
too prejudiced and elusive to amend or accede itself to impartial
criteria. Why should we insist so stridently that Gould was unhappy and
protest when he inexpediently refused to submit to this "fact" of his
life?
Whoa, a minute here! I didnt mean that he was unhappy. As I stated, I am not
talking about his work or his music here. In a previous thread I discussed
the quality of ecstasy that is so apparent in his music-making, and I think
I said how inportant this experience of joy and "otherness" is for any human
to experience.I think the joy he experienced through his creativity was
wonderful, and I am humbled by the manner in which he could pass it on to
us, his listeners. But I am not sure that in his personal life was so
joyful and positive. He seems to have spent a lot of time and energy
worrying, possibly unnecessarily, and really quite fearful of what life
might bring (sorry, Glenn, but it does look a bit that way to me) And he
didnt really have anyone close to share all this with.
But in general, even given that he was prone to over-worrying, I dont think
he saw himself as lonely or unhappy.
So, then? you agree he was happy? .....
I do find it>most curious that you can resort to the assumption that he
forfeited>happiness by the act of not realizing he was unhappy!!
I dont think he "forfeited' happiness. I think that others, comparing his
life with that of the general throng of humanity, might conclude his way of
life was not happy. I dont suppose however that he would of been aware of
this. Ergo, he was happy!
I think at this point I also had better bow out (at least for the time
being, knowing me) from this discussion of Glenn Goulds inner life, before
someone accuses me of talking through my hat. (Its a bad nabit of mine!)
Did he enrich the lives of others? Yes, beautifully and immeasurably.
Speaking personally, he has enriched mine in this way. Yes. And as it has
been pointed out in this discussion, we perhaps cant really say that a dead
pianist is our friend; but sometimes, you know, it feels that way!
Thank you for tolerating these ramblings
Kate.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com