Re: Tragedy and Ecstasy...

[Kristen Immoor <kimmoor@mindspring.com>]

At 11:40 AM -0500 7/25/97, James Rhem wrote:
>Yes, I have read the Ostwald biography. I learned it was coming last may in
>Ostwald's obituary in the NYTimes and have been eagerly awaiting it ever
>since.
>I'm sorry to say I find it a disappointment.  (It is sloppily proofread at
>places besides.) Ostwald presents no really new information about Gould
>that is not covered in the Otto Friederich biography. That's doesnt bother
>me really. I was hoping for insight. Ostwald was a shrink and knew Gould;
>they played chamber music together at times (Ostwald, violin). But Ostwald
>does not undertake the kind of interpertative mission I wanted to see

Hello all,
     Like Veronica Xavier, I too had a pleasant reaction to
Ecstasy/Tragedy. As it compares to the Friedrich bio, I thought Ostwald's
writing was much warmer and more sentimental, and I think he did a more
tactful job of presenting his collected interviews with GG's friends and
professional contacts. Ostwald put a human face on a lot of the pure
journalism Friedrich wrote in Life & Variations, and I like his style. One
thing that did bother me about the material PO used was that he seldom
distinguished within the body text whether a person's opinion was obtained
through first-person interview and in direct response to a question, or
whether it was gleaned from a book or video previously published (and
possibly misinterpreted or even inaccurate.) Though I recognized most of
the regurgitated interviews, it was annoying to flip to the footnotes to
find out whether Friedrich actually got his information first-hand.
     As to the value of PO's interpretations, I can't complain. To the
charges that Ostwald's book did not live up to its advance press of
'providing a psychobiography of Gould' I will completely agree. But, I will
also say that I am relieved it didn't take this route. Realistically,
Ostwald wasn't all *that* close to GG. Closer than the majority of the
world, true, but at best he saw Gould several times a year and at worst not
for several years at a time. His visits were social ones, and it didn't
seem to me that GG ever "poured his heart out" to Ostwald about anything in
particular. PO served a purpose for Gould, as did most of the people Gould
kept around; PO was a competent musician, educated in medicine and
well-connected with other doctors and musicians. I don't think the
friendship went much deeper than that, and I would be very surprised if PO
knew anything more about Gould during Gould's lifetime than did ol' Andy
Kazdin. If you think about it, he probably knew less. So as far as PO
interpreting Gould's actions and conversations from the perspective of a
psychiatrist, I think it would have been borderline irresponsible for him
to do so within the genre of biography, and could only have been
speculative. Gould was never PO's patient, and judging from his successful
manipulation of his own image in the media, he could have been carefully
presenting a personality he wanted PO to believe was real.
     Everyone draws their own conclusions about Gould's behaviour and his
state of mind anyway, and though I might actually want to know the opinion
of someone like Ostwald, I would prefer not to see it presented as a
diagnosis. There's something intrinsically authoritative about a book -
biographies especially - and I am uncomfortable with the idea that
subjective opinion could be interpreted as fact, especially when Gould
can't defend himself against the charges. I think PO's book should have
been promoted as a remembrance of GG from a person whose own life and
training gave him a particular sympathy for Gould's "artistic temperament."
Without the framework of a factual biography, which in Gould's case has
been done quite exhaustively already, Ostwald may have been more inclined
to venture into purely speculative interpretations.
     Incidentally, James, I really liked your theory that GG's attachment
for the chair was an indication of the deep affection he felt for his
father. Me personally, I am inclined to think that Gould was just a very
superstitious person by nature and may have actually thought that without
his special chair he would lose his ability to play. I'm sure the chair did
remind him of his parents and his "idyllic" childhood, but there were just
so *many* arbitrary restrictions and rituals he subjected himself to, I
feel like the chair could have been just one more on the list.

Glad to see some new "faces" around here!
Regards,
Kristen

______________________________________________________________________________

"I'm very much the anti-hero in real life, you see, but I compensate madly
in my dreams."

                                  -- Glenn Gould, "Toronto"