Re: Gould as Christian Existentialist

["Lawrence T. McDonnell" <trixie@ksts.seed.net.tw>]

Locating Gould within his geography seems essential to understanding one so
obsessed with structure at all levels.  To that end, figuring and configuring
Gould as a Torontonian is a step in the right direction, I think.  The city that
only half-mockingly called itself Toronto the Good was the natural home for
Gould, and your remark about his "revulsion" for Yonge (not Young) Street seems
correct--but limited.  After all, where's the counterpoint in this structure?
Even at it's wildest in the mid-seventies, the sex scene on Yonge Street was
almost all tease--everyone from my grandfather's day down has known that the real
action was on Jarvis Street, two blocks east, a rougher, more ethnic stretch
respectable women avoided in the '50's and '60's.

Yonge Street is Toronto's commercial district--not its "porno district" (there
really wasn't any such animal during Gould's lifetime, I thin).  It starts at the
waterfront and runs north the length of the city to turn into Highway 11.  As a
boy, I'm sure Gould's family took that road to their Lake Simcoe cottage
regularly.

By the 1950's there were two cultural landmarks on the street in the downtown
area (south of Bloor):  Eaton's College Street store--where Gould spent so much
time at the piano, and Sam the Record Man down on Gerard.  The building of the
Eaton Centre in the mid-1970's changed everything, but I think for Gould it would
have been impossible to miss the different ambiance of those two anchors.
Eaton's was always safe and sterile and comforting and non-tactile--the
archetypal Canadian shopping experience.  Sam's was crass and loud and crowded
and pushy, and full of all sorts of strange treasures.  I'm sure Gould must have
spent time there, but I have no evidence for that claim.  Between music as art
and commerce, Gould's stance was always clearly stated, but the landscape of his
own life showed that those were poles never entirely separable, not alternate
life choices.  This goes far, I think, toward understanding the "revulsion" and
what was undeniably an existentialist response to it.

I would also add that what may look like weirdly Puritan or Kierkegaardian
behavior to outsiders is (or, was) pretty run-of-the-mill for middle-class WASP
Torontonians.  Take a look at the men Margaret Atwood skewers in early novels
like _Surfacing_, _Edible Woman_, or _Life Before Man_.  Or just turn a few pages
of Northrop Frye, preferably on the Bible--same flavor to be sure.

These thoughts are off the cuff, and perhaps the wall, too, but for what they're
worth....  Remember, Gould's the guy who claimed musical inspiration from his
mother's vacuum cleaner!

WKCaine@AOL.COM wrote:

>     I'd like to invite reactions to a thought.
>     I have the definite impression that Glenn Gould was a Christian
> existentialist in the Soren Kierkegaardian mold. First, Gould's affinity with
> Bach and rejection of Mozart (an Enlightenment figure) suggest a religious
> orientation.  Second, Gould lived like Kierkegaard did, and I suspect
> suffered in much the same way.  Both men put their lives into play, refusing
> to be "distracted from distraction by distraction," and each faced existence
> alone with brutal honesty in radical isolation.  Third, Gould was a puritan
> of sorts and apparently rejected much of modern life.  Gould's poignant essay
> "Toronto" seems to support this last observation.  The essay ends with an
> expression of revulsion of Toronto's Young Street (the city's porno district)
> and memories of Sunday evenings in church and the benediction, "Lord, give us
> the peace that the earth cannot give." The last image is reminiscent of TS
> Eliot's poem, "The Waste Land," where the poet reached a similar conclusion
> as he turned his back on what he had described.  In a different sort of way,
> Gould's commencement address on "negation" ("Advice to a Graduation") fits
> the same basic mold, particularly in a Kierkegaardian sense.
>     Finally, this interpretation of Gould might also explain, in a roundabout
> way, something else we're witnessing nowadays.  The blunt truth is that many
> people almost love to hate Glenn Gould and go out of their way to put him
> down.  This on the surface is out of proportion.  Why should a mere deceased
> pianist generate so much reaction and emotion unless he causes profound
> discomfort at the philosophical level?  The current Zeitgeist is intensely
> irreligious; maybe Gould is a painful reminder of what some people wish to
> forget.
>     Now, I quickly and cheerfully admit that the above is highly speculative
> and subjective, and readers might justifiably think it's "off the wall."  On
> the other hand, my interpretation of Gould is immeasurably more interesting
> than the psychological drivel that flows from the pens of some of his
> detractors.  The undeniable fact is that Gould marched to different drum
> beat, and my interpretation is consistent with that.  Also, putting Gould in
> the company of Kierkegaard and Eliot is as high of praise as I can imagine!
>   W.K. Caine