Re: WARNING: This discussion could be deadly!

["Anne M. Marble" <amarble@sff.net>]

Stephen Rieck wrote:
(Note to Stephen: Your e-mail appears to be bouncing! Hope you get this.)

Anne Marble wrote:

> But then again, with his disposition, going to crowded
> social events would have been even worse for his health.

What I mean here is that if he had live his life according
to the model that the doctor in the article seems to imply
we should all use, then he would have been miserable. But
then, I didn't think much of that doctor.

> Surely he lived his life the way he wanted because to do
> otherwise would have been too painful.

>Do you mean to suggest that GG needed to explain or
>justify his isolation? Why might that be?Hell isn't other
>people, it's being misunderstood by those who don't
>respect the rights of others,to live as they wish in a free
>society.

I don't think he had to justify himself, anymore than I have
to justify the way I live my life. That doesn't mean that
he didn't sometimes feel he had to explain himself. He often
provided explanations for some of his behaviors, especially
when he first started performing. You can see this in some
of the early interviews. As he got older, perhaps he came
to realize that he didn't owe anyone an explanation.

I certainly have no quarrel with the way he chose to live
his life.

Here's an interesting quote from Buddhism...
Dakini Teachings
I'm not sure how good the translation I hold in my hands is. (That's one of
the problems of reading a book called "What Would Buddha Do?" -- but I
wanted to start slowly.) Anyway, there is a Buddhist teaching that says,
"Do not examine the limitations of others. Examine how you can change your
own." Hmm. I feel like e-mailing that to the doctor who wrote the book
mentioned in the Salon article. (This could take us into a whole new topic,
Glenn Gould and his philosophical interests -- he was interested in both
western and eastern philosophies, after all...)

>If GG had dropped out of sharing his work (as well as
>doing concerts)until after he died (perfectly
>acceptable?), would he have enjoyed his isolation with the
>same respect as he did in freely choosing to share (surely
>an optional or conditional obligation).

Did my post imply that I thought he shouldn't have given up
concerts? I said I was going to ramble, but I don't think
I implied that. Or perhaps this was meant to apply to
some of the other responses? (OK, I admit it, I'm
confused. <g>)

>> Yes, there's a huge difference between the loner who
>> kills people and the loner who _creates_ things.

>Are there the *only* 2 kinds of "loners"?  Which one am
>I? Perhaps you might flip a coin, or invade my personal
>privacy to find out?

I didn't mean to imply that there are only two kinds of
loners. What I was doing here was criticizing the article
for trying to make a connection between an alienated teen
who kills people and people who might just happen to be
"introverted" (or whatever term you prefer). Picture this.
Emily Dickinson with a submachine gun. The Bronte
sisters with pipe bombs. It doesn't work,  does it?

Sometimes people use mental problems as excuses.
In Maryland, we recently had a hostage situation
involving a violent gunman with a criminal past -- and
a history of mental problems. Did he kill people
because he was manic-depressive? No way. I think he
would have become violent anyway.

>I get so tired of silly stereotypical thought regarding GG
>(and the larger world), The lack of comprehension of a
>great man who lived life in a free Dominion as he wished,
>suggests cause to wonder about the intelligence and
>sensitivity of the "Normal Majority".

I truly have no problem with the way Glenn Gould chose to
live his life. What about the part where I said, "If Glenn
Gould met people on the phone, what was wrong with
that? That was obviously what made him the most comfortable."

Or what about when I asked, "Is the problem with the
children or with the society not accepting that some people
aree different?"

My complaint in my post wasn't with Glenn Gould. It was with
that article, and with what looked like bogus science mixed
with the personal opinion of the author. (The author of the
book being reviewed is supposed to be a big figure in
holistic medicine -- certainly a controversial field.
Especially if you keep up with Dr. Dean Edell's opinions.)

As Bob pointed out, blood pressure fluctuates, period.
I know my blood pressure goes up when my dentist says,
"Open your mouth wider." :-/ The author of the book in
question is using a known phenomen to make his theory
sound stronger.

>How many times did he decline to respond to personal
>questions? If we on this List wish to penetrate into
>issues that GG held to be private, why don't we pool our
>resources, hire a private detective agency, and insist on
>interviewing (with monetary incentives) those living who
>have yet to disclose all about him? Let's find out and be
>done with it.

Did my post imply that I wanted to rush out and find out
these things? Or maybe you're referring to other posts.
Anyway, I don't think anyone here is trying to bug GG's
apartment or telephone.

There's a difference between discussing a fascinating
personality, and rifling through GG's glove
compartment. (With the first option, you don't get
Arrowroot cookie crumbs on your fingers).
Anyway, there are no easy answers.

I respect the people who refuse to speak about those personal things that
they know Glenn Gould would not want known. For example, that woman who
refused to answer Friederich when he asked for (ahem) more detail about
their dates. Imagine if someone came up to you and asked for details on one
of your dates. Ugh!

>Jim Morrison made the naive suggestion that putting a
>number of great men together with kids, animals,
>*one* woman ('his') and himself would be "heavenly".  I
>doubt it, but - assuming this gathering lasts beyond five
>minutes (which I also doubt) - I'm sure the possible
>disasterous outcomes far outnumber the "heavenly" ones.

There certainly have been a number of famous creative types who married
with disastrous consequences. (Candidates range from Debussy to Philip
Roth.) I wonder if their fans speculate how much better balanced their
lives would have been if they had never married. :->

------
Anne M. Marble
amarble@sff.net
I report spam (thwack!)