Re: Canadian-spotting: 3 essential facts

[Jim Morrison <jim_morrison@sprynet.com>]

Hi Fminor

Just a quick reply to another one of Brigitte's great emails.  Please
forgive the off-topicness.
I'm in a rush to get to work today.  (Which I do at the audio-visual
department of a library with a decent classical music selection.  As my
work, get this, I recommended 32 short films and the 55 Goldbergs and the
Mozart sonatas, along with Richter's pictures, Horowitz's scriabin.  So
that's a good thing about LA there, although I'm having sadly limited
success with impressing people with them.  The patron who's currently
getting the most from the classical selection loves Chopin and Liszt.  Need
I say more?  I also work with great people, something rare from what I've
seen of the world.)

> They
> > never wear a coat, like the natives do, when the temperature freezes
> between
> > 70 and 60 degrees?
>
> Hmmm... certainly one famous Canadian would have been undetectable under
> such circumstances.

damn, I walked into another Brigitte trap.  I've got to be more careful
around you.
>
>a rather facile target.

indeed, it's too easy sometimes.

> Fortunately, you have a well-buffed sense of
> humour.

well-buffed, another good one.  You are full of wit this morning, aren't
you?
Can you beleive the good luck we had in Bradley passing on the note about
the Gavrilov buffing of the piano.
If you have a chance listen to his rendition of Handel's first suite.

>
Out of curiosity, may I ask what you do like about LA, since you
> obviously don't submit to any of the region's defining characteristics?


Sunshine and cool temps are nice.  I live near the ocean and there's always
a cool breeze
blowing the smog away from here.  Great neighbors that actully had a real
life close off the street block party on the fourth of july.  A few good
museums.  The Getty is a great structure.
More on the good side of La later.  But let's get this straight, I'm
definitely just passing
through.

>Although he guarded his private life
> with uncommon fervor, he actually took us very deep into the core of his
> humanity.

But who were is friends?  Who did he spend time with?  Who did he have what
most of us would call intimate relationships with?   Whose humanity did HE
delve deeply into?  Who did he commit to?  What we're his reciprical
relationships?  Who could depend upon him?  I know I'm in no real position
to judge, Gould was dead before I even heard of him, (did he die early
because he didn't get the help he needed?) but I haven't seen much evidence
of his having what I would call "healthy" relationships with people.  I've
never known a person as sequestered as Gould to not need some help.


>we are compelled nevertheless to accept the fact that his
> decision, since it was entirely his own choice, was the right one.

and here is our fundamental difference, and one, I suspect, which we perhaps
can only acknowledge and then move onto another topic because the gulf is so
wide.  I think people often make bad decisions, decisions that hurt
themselves and the people they are connected to and responsible for, and
that if those people had a better understanding of their condition, their
past present and future, then they wouldn't choose make those harmful
decisions.  I also don't believe in the "people have total free will
position."  I think drugs, chemicals in the brain, the very structure of the
brain, our history with other people, our beliefs and the beliefs of the
people that raised us along with our peer groups limit and determine what we
"choose" to do, and sometimes those determining factors lead us to make bad
decisions.  I look at GG's life and think he made a lot of them.  I'm also a
firm believer in community and supportive groups and I don't see Gould as
having beloned to them.

Haven't said all that, I'm reluctant to get into much of a discussion about
Gould's life because frankly I don't know all that much about it.  You,
Brigitte, are clearly more knowledge about him than me, and so perhaps
there's someone out there sympathetic to my general views but is more aware
of the particulars in Gould's life who would be a better debating partner
than I.  Any takers?  Or do we want to start a discussion on how Gould would
have played the claviorgan had he had access to such an instrument?  :)


>I look forward to your "numinous" impressions.

thanks Brigitte, good to be talking with you.  You're a great presence on
the list.
>
>
(obviously, I am excluding the minds explored in Brief
> Interviews With Hideous Men).

I thought it courious that those men had such cliched thoughts.

 Oh one other good thing about LA, they have a nice book radio show hosted
my Michael Silverblatt (excellent mind and interviewer) and he spoke with
Wallace who said his favorite interview was the last one (mine as well)

>Not coincidentally, DFW is one of my
> favorite authors,

great news.  Did you know there's a mailing list devoted to him?  I use to
me a member of it, but those guys really went after each other and I grew
tired of all the bitter arguments and unsubscribed.

> and in my opinion his searing intelligence is
> unequalled among English-speaking  writers for sheer synaptic speed. I
> think he even makes a whiz-scribe like Martin Amis eat literary dust.

Absolutely.  I haven't read much Amis, but I don't understand his high
position in the literary world.

Searing and sheer synaptic speed are good ways to talk about DFW.  You
clearly have a way with words yourself.

I just finished the essay "A supposedly fun thing I'll never do again" and I
think the first, oh, two-thirds of that piece contains some of his best
writing.

Can we bring this back to gould in any way?

Yes.  The way DFW works over a few thoughts with such energy and
thoroughness  is reminiscent to the musical way Gould works over Bach's
motives.  Another writer who does this is William Gass.  But that's another
story.


Bye,

Jim