'Women in Love' by D.H. Lawrence

I decided to re-read 'Women in Love' by D.H.Lawrence. The book (and film) had a tremendous effect on me in my late teens. I thought it was all incredible.

How would I feel about it so many more years down the line, I wondered?

I was also intrigued by the Nietzschian influence/effect. What sense would I make of all that? Now, I know so much more about Nietzsche. When I was in my late teens I knew very little about him, other than the fact that his Philosophy influenced Fascism. At the time, it was something that I decided that I should keep well clear of.

Well, I very much enjoyed re-reading ‘Women in Love’. I could understand why it had the powerful effect that it had on me on my late teens. But I also had some reservations about it, which I did not see at all then. On one level, I was quite surprised about this.

Death and suicide, for example, plays quite an important part in it all, and the Nietzschian undertones are clearly apparent. Here is Ursula talking to herself about death and suicide.

"It was not a question of taking one's life - she would never kill herself, that was repulsive and violent. It was a question of knowing the next step. And the next step let into the space of death. Did it? - or was there - ?

Her thoughts drifted into unconsciousness, she sat as if asleep beside the fire. And then the thought came back. The space of death! Could she give herself to it? Ah yes - it was a sleep. She had had enough. So long she had held out and resisted. Now was the time to relinquish, not resist any more.

In a kind of spiritual trance, she yielded, she gave way, and all was dark. She could feel, within the darkness, the terrible assertion of her body, the unutterable anguish of dissolution, the only anguish that is too much, the far-off, awful nausea of dissolution set in within the body." (p. 200)

Her thoughts continued:

"Monday, the beginning of another school-week! Another shameful school-week, more routine and mechanical activity. Was not the adventure of death infinitely preferable? Was not death infinitely more lovely and novel than such a life? A life of barren routine, without inner meaning, without any real significance...One might come to fruit in death. She had had enough. For where was life to be found?" (p. 201)

This is all pretty heavy stuff, is it not? D. H. Lawrence did not like school teaching, of course, but even so – the death wish?, suicide?

Moving on to the romance in the novel in general; that is not at all simple either; it is beautiful but also very heavy and intense for quite a lot of the time. And this was something that I could well relate to in my late teens. I can remember very clearly just how much I identified with it on one level; how moved I was by it, but could not quite remember why. But that also, of course, reflects the intensity of my own upbringing.

Then, there is the topic of relationships, responsibility and freedom. We have Birkin who wanted to be with Ursula but also wanted to be free with her.

"...he wanted to be with Ursula as free as with himself, single and clear and cool, yet balanced, polarised with her. The merging, the clutching, the mingling of love was become madly abhorrent to him. But it seemed to him, woman was always so horrible and clutching, she had such a lust for possession, a greed of self-importance in love. She wanted to have, to own, to control, to be dominant...It was intolerable, this possession at the hands of woman." (p. 209)

This is all very Nietzschian, is it not? After all, Nietzsche had quite some attitude to women, he said many disparaging things about them and found it difficult to get over the all-female household that he was brought up in. Whilst at the same time, D. H. Lawrence also used his writing to help him get over/come to terms with various aspects of his upbringing, of course. He also had a rather domineering and possessive mother, who had high, middle-class ambitions for her son. And this gave Lawrence some difficulties when trying to form relationships with girls, which he wrote so eloquently about in ‘Sons and Lovers’. But of course, that was his view of the world and of women. But then novelists are almost bound to write that way.

Then, we have the whole thing about the working class struggle, with Gerald’s father owning the mine and Gerald’s thoughts about all of this.

“Gerald was satisfied. He knew the colliers said that they hated him. But he had long ceased to hate them. When they streamed past him at evening, their heavy boots slurring on the pavement wearily, their shoulders slightly distorted, they took no notice of him, they gave him no greetings whatsoever, they passed in a grey-black stream of unemotional acceptance. They were not important to him, save as instruments, nor he to them, save as a supreme instrument of control. As miners they had their being, he had his being as director. He admired their qualities. But as men, personalities, they were just accidents, sporadic little unimportant phenomena. And tacitly, the men agreed to this. For Gerald agreed to it himself.” (p. 242-3)

And Lawrence’s father was a miner; his work was heavy and demanding. We see the class struggle, and again, this was brought out just so eloquently in ‘Sons and Lovers’ with the father being a miner and the mother being middle-class. And I myself had a mother that came from a much more middle-class background than my father. Indeed, I was brought up with an acute awareness of the social class struggle.

Then, there is the beauty pervading so much of ‘Women in Love’. Lawrence’s writing can be just so powerful, beautiful, eloquent and enticing. He writes in such a unique and stylish way.

Gudrun thinking about Gerald:

“He looked aside, and did not answer. Save for the extreme beauty and mystic attractiveness of this distinct, strange face, she would have sent him away. But his face was too wonderful and undiscovered to her. It fascinated her with the fascination of pure beauty, cast a spell on her, like nostalgia, an ache.” (p. 362)

Then, the lovers, Gudrun and Gerald –

“She looked up, and in the darkness saw his face above her, his shapely, male face. There seemed a faint, white light emitted from him, a white aura, as if he were visible from the unseen. She reached up, like Eve reaching to the apples on the tree of knowledge, and she kissed him, though her passion was a transcendent fear of the thing he was, touching his face with her infinitely delicate, encroaching wondering fingers. Her fingers went over the mould of his face, over his features. How perfect and foreign he was – ah, how dangerous! Her soul thrilled with complete knowledge.” (p. 350)

Meanwhile, there is the fight between Birkin and Gerald:

“So they wrestled swiftly, rapturously, intent and mindless at last, two essential white figures working into a tighter closer oneness of struggle, with a strange, octopus-like, knotting and flashing of limbs in the subdued light of the room; a tense, white knot of flesh gripped in silence between the walls of old brown books. Now and again came a sharp gasp of breath, or a sound like a sigh, then the rapid thudding of movement on the thickly-carpeted floor, then the strange sound of flesh escaping under flesh.” (pp. 283-4)

And again, mixing up passion, sex and beauty with death. Gerald:

“…had come for vindication. She [Gudrun] let him hold her in his arms, clasp her close against him. He found in her an infinite relief. Into her he poured all his pent-up darkness and corrosive death, and he was whole again. It was wonderful, marvellous, it was a miracle. This was the ever-recurrent miracle of his life, at the knowledge of which he was lost in an ecstasy of relief and wonder. And she, subject, received him as a vessel filled with his bitter potion of death. She had no power at this crisis to resist. The terrible frictional violence of death filled her, and she received it in an ecstasy of subjection, in throes of acute, violent sensation.” (p. 363)

Then, the lovers Ursula and Birkin:

“In Ursula the sense of the unrealised world ahead triumphed over everything. In the mist of this profound darkness, there seemed to glow on her heart the effulgence of a paradise unknown and unrealised. Her heart was full of the most wonderful light, golden like honey of darkness, sweet like the warmth of day, a light which was not shed on the world, only on the unknown paradise towards which she was going, a sweetness of habitation, a delight of living quite unknown, but hers infallibly. In her transport she lifted her face suddenly to him, and he touched it with his lips. So cold, so fresh, so sea-clear her face was, it was like kissing a flower that grows hear the surf.” (p. 410)

Then, Gudrun:

“…was driven by a strange desire. She wanted to plunge on and on, till she came to the end of the valley of snow. Then she wanted to climb the wall of white finality, climb over, into the peaks that sprang up like sharp petals in the heart of the frozen, mysterious navel of the world. She felt that there, over the strange blind, terrible wall of rocky snow, there in the navel of the mystic world, among the final cluster of peaks, there, in the infolded navel of it all, was her consummation.” (p.432)

Returning to Gudrun and Gerald:

“Her heart beat fast, she flew away on wings of elation, imagining a future. He would be a Napoleon of peace, or a Bismarck – and she the woman behind him…But even as she lay in fictitious transport, bathed in the strange, false sunshine of hope in life, something seemed to snap in her, and a terrible cynicism began to gain upon her, blowing in like a wind.” (p. 440)

Lawrence says so much and he does it so well; he writes so eloquently; he encapsulates so much. On one level, there is little need for me to say much more. One can just get swept along with the tide; with the pure magic of it all; with the pure beauty of it all.

However, I think there is the point that the novelist does/should have some sense of responsibility sometimes. I went to university, for example, thinking I could have a world something like this Lawrencian-type world: a world full of interesting, alternative, intense, intellectual, original, passionate and beautiful people. A world that was rich; a world that was alive; a cultural world! I thought, for example, that perhaps it was possible to have relationships with and without responsibility all at the same time. I was of course, disappointed; I was disillusioned; I was young. I had to find a way through it all. And that, I think is also the danger of Nietzsche himself. Whilst I have not been enticed by Nietzsche’s work directly, I was certainly enticed and very influenced by him indirectly, through the work of D. H. Lawrence. And of course, Nietzsche has influenced just so many different people (writers, artists, musicians, politicians etc) in this and other ways. We need to be wary; we need to try to think more about what we are dealing with. Geoff Waite goes into all of this in great depth in ‘Nietzsche’s Corpse’ - a tremendous book. Leading on from all of this, Glenn wrote a long piece, trying to make sense of it all, and inserted this on our website – see http://www.flowideas.co.uk/print.php?page=160&slink=yes.

Perhaps, at some point, I will write something more myself – but will have to see. If I did, I would also want to marry it up with Freud and Marx.

One other point here that I want to note though, is the responsibility that teachers have, particularly when teaching A’ Levels to 16-18 year olds, I think. Victor and I were both swept along on the crest of a wave in this regard, whilst studying for our A’ Levels at 16-18 years of age; Victor by Nietzsche directly and me by D. H. Lawrence, and thus, indirectly by Nietzsche. Reading this text led us to think that the world was different to how it actually was; it gave us romantic illusions. We also thought that we could control and change our lives in ways that really we could not. Thank goodness I studied Sociology which was the opposite, and helped to ground me. Romance, beauty and wonder are also vitally important of course, but it can be dangerous if one is lead to believe that a certain way of living and being is possible when it is not – or at least it isn’t in capitalism. This is the great illusion and is one of the things that can make Nietzsche dangerous.

Marx and Nietzsche both offer ways in which ordinary people can try to take more control of their own lives, but Marx’s way is a much clearer and better one, it does not give people false illusions about capitalism and is something that everyone can strive towards, not just the ‘Uberman’.

At which point, I will stop and perhaps revisit this on another occasion. Or like Lawrence himself, I might just encapsulate it in novel-form instead!

'Anna Karenina' by Leo Tolstoy

For some reason, which I don't quite understand myself, I suddenly felt compelled to watch again, the BBC Classic Drama Series of 'Anna Karenina', starring Nicola Paget, Eric Porter and Stuart Wilson; Produced and Dramatised by Donald Wilson. This series was first made in 1978 - goodness – wherever has the time gone? I can remember very clearly sitting watching it when it first came out, and being totally enthralled and mesmerised by it. So much so, that I decided to buy the series on DVD some 4 years ago. Upon purchase, Glenn and I sat and watched it spellbound; we couldn't get out of our seats, not even to make a cup of tea! It is absolutely brilliant; full of drama, passion, depth, meaning and breath-takingly good acting. And Eric Porter plays the part of the upright but boring man just so perfectly - he was Soames in the Forsyte Saga as well of course. That was another series that I was totally mesmerised and enchanted by. And Nicola Paget – well, what can I say? She is just sensational as Anna Karenina.

Anyway, a few years after watching the BBC Series of 'Anna Karenina' I decided to read the book. That was at a time when I was absorbed in just so many of the classics; pouring my way through them and just getting so much out of them. This included books by the Brontes, George Eliot, Jane Austen, Leo Tolstoy, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy etc. etc. etc. Yes, I also read 'War and Peace' around this time (and watched the BBC Series with Anthony Hopkins prior to this). I loved 'War and Peace', although was not quite so keen on the War parts. But for me, personally, I actually preferred 'Anna Karenina'. And interestingly, in the Introduction to this Wordsworth Classic Edition which I have just read (published in 1995) it says that:

"Tolstoy's letters, diaries and revisions show that he was supremely concerned with the novel form, and considered Anna Karenina to be his first attempt at this."

Gregory, our youngest son, saw me watching ‘Anna Karenina’, took an interest, and ended up watching it with me. He was surprised by the drama and depth in it all; I had to bite my tongue, to make sure that I did not give away the ending! Especially, when he suggested that Anna might be a selfish person! But the ending made him speechless, as it does everyone when first reading or watching it, of course.

Anyway, whilst watching it, I suddenly also felt compelled to re-read the book (the Wordsworth Classic version). So, I poured myself into it. I put myself through a very intense, deep, heavy and emotional period, and this very much dominated my life for a couple of weeks. I was living and breathing it all. I was not thinking about anything else much, or at least, not in any depth. This was what was consuming me. It was incredible!

Now, I have finished both, so I can now write this blog, reflect and move on. It has been quite some journey.

“I thought you wanted to do lighter, fluffier and more cheerful things?”, Gregory said to me (see also my previous short blog about Jane Austen’s works!). A good point; so what was I doing? I was intoxicated; I was driven; I was entranced. How complex we all are.

When one reads and re-reads the classics, and watches good productions of them, one nearly always gets something new out of the whole experience, I find. This time, what hit me was just how powerfully, effectively and brilliantly Tolstoy portrays the inequality of the sexes when it comes to adultery: 'One rule for men and another for women'. So, it is OK for Steva (Anna’s brother) to have an affair, but not for Anna. And even more, Anna helps Steva through this difficult period, and as a result his marriage remains firm, but the same sympathy, kindness and understanding is not shown to Anna.

Karenin:

“…lived and worked all his days in official spheres, which deal with reflections of life, and every time he had knocked up against life itself he had stepped out of its way. He now experienced a sensation such as a man might feel who, while quietly crossing a bridge over an abyss, suddenly sees that the bridge is being taken to pieces and that he is facing the abyss. The abyss was real life; the bridge was the artificial life Karenin had been living. It was the first time that the possibility of his wife’s falling in love with anybody had occurred to him, and he was horrified.” (p. 140)

Karenin goes to visit Dolly, and this is what she says to him:

“No, wait a bit! You should not ruin her. Wait a bit. I will tell you about myself. I married, and my husband deceived me; in my anger and jealousy I wished to abandon everything. I myself wished…But I was brought to my senses, and by whom? Anna saved me. And here I am living; my children growing; my husband returns to the family and feels his error, grows purer and better, and I live…I have forgiven, and you must forgive.” (p. 389)

Karenin replies:

“I cannot forgive; I don’t wish to and don’t think it would be right. I have done everything for that woman and she has trampled everything in the mud which is natural to her. I am not a cruel man, I have never hated anyone, but I hate her with the whole strength of my soul and I cannot even forgive her, because I hate her so much for all the wrong she has done me!” (p. 389)

But Karenin’s personality is stifling Anna; he found it so difficult to relate to people on meaningful levels.

“His attachment to Anna excluded from his soul any need he had felt for affectionate relations with other people; and now, among all his acquaintances, he had no intimate friends. He was connected with many people, but had friendly relations with none. He knew many persons whom he could invite to dinner, could ask to take part in anything he was interested in or to use their influence for some petitioner, and with whom he could frankly discuss the actions of other men and of the Government; but his relations with these persons were confined to a sphere strictly limited by custom and habit from which it was impossible to escape.” (p. 502)

As it says in the Introduction:

“The double standards that society maintains towards men and women are made clear at an early stage…”

Yes, indeed, and that:

“Anna transgresses, yet it is perhaps the novel’s most triumphant paradox that Anna represents the qualities of honesty and compassion and integrity that are notably absent in her circle. The image at the heart of the novel of life as an obstacle race, is powerfully illustrated by the race scene which culminates in the death of Vronsky’s mare. Anna fails to overcome the obstacles of her own conscience, and of the pressures of a society that is tacitly condemned by Tolstoy, but from which she is unable to bear alienation.”

So, the inequalities between the sexes are not just around pay, jobs, power and status etc. No, it also gets to the very heart of our relationships and how we interact with each other. And women can be quickly labelled as ‘tarts’ and loose and no good – they have to be just so careful. But men being cads – well, they don’t get labelled so quickly and even if they do, it is generally seen to be OK. What a society, eh!

As Tolstoy says through Pestsov:

“The inequality between husband and wife, in his [Pestsov’s] opinion, lay in the fact that the infidelity of wife and that of a husband were unequally punished both by law and by public opinion.” (p. 386)

And then Anna:

“…wept because the hopes of clearing up and defining her position were destroyed for ever. She knew beforehand that everything would remain as it was and would be even far worse than before. She felt that, insignificant as it has appeared in the morning, the position she held in Society was dear to her, and that she would not have the strength to change it for the degraded position of a woman who had forsaken her husband and child and formed a union with her lover; that, however much she tried, she could not become stronger than herself. She would never be able to feel the freedom of love, but would always be a guilty woman continually threatened with exposure, deceiving her husband for the sake of a shameful union with a man who was a stranger and independent of her, and with whom she could not live a united life. She knew that it would be so, and yet it was so terrible that she could not even imagine how it would end. And she cried, without restraint, like a punished child.” (p. 289)

When Anna embarks on her affair we feel the passion; we feel her pain:

“She felt so guilty, so much to blame, that it only remained for her to humble herself and ask to be forgiven; but she had no one in the world now except him, so that even her prayer for forgiveness was addressed to him. Looking at him, she felt her degradation physically, but could say nothing more. He felt what a murderer must feel when looking at the body he has deprived of life. The body he had deprived of life was their love, the first period of their love. There was something frightful and revolting in the recollection of what has been paid for with this terrible price of shame. The shame she felt at her spiritual nakedness communicated itself to him. But in spite of the murderer’s horror of the body of his victim, that body must be cut in pieces and hidden away, and he must make use of what he has obtained by his murder.” (p. 146)

It does not state in the Introduction to the Wordsworth Classic edition, who it is by, which is very unfortunate, to say the least, particularly as I think the introduction is very good. It certainly shed some more light on the novel for me.

As it says in the Introduction, both War and Peace and Anna Karenina came:

“…to be regarded as the standard by which other European novels are measured.”

In addition, that:

“Despite Henry James’ much cited opinion that Tolstoy’s novels are ‘loose baggy monsters’, Anna Karenina seems remarkable for the clarity and symmetry of its structure.”

Indeed!

Also, that through the character Levin, Tolstoy was able:

“…to voice through this autobiographical character, all his own obsessions concerning Russian society, politics, agriculture, philosophy and culture.”

I had not realised this before; that Levin is actually based on Tolstoy himself, and apparently Tolstoy’s early married life was something like Levin’s. So, that was something else that I discovered this time round. And leading on from this, I also found out quite a lot more about Tolstoy’s actual life. Tolstoy’s marriage must have been very romantic, but then it went very wrong. Indeed, Tolstoy’s marriage has been described by A. N. Wilson as one of the unhappiest in literary history. Perhaps, he would have preferred a more passionate person, like Anna.

Levin, of course, has a real social conscience and ponders the inequalities in society.

And as Tolstoy’s life progressed, he increasingly questioned the meaning of life, became very critical of his aristocratic background and concerned about poverty and destitution. He moved towards anarchism, pacifism, Christianity and vegetarianism. Someone at the dance also pointed out to me that Tolstoy heavily influenced Gandhi. And in regard to religion, we see for example that Levin:

“…had been mistaken in imagining from his recollections of his youthful university circle, that religion had outlived its day and no longer existed.” (p. 773)

After decades of agonising, at the age of 83 years, Tolstoy renounced his rank and privileges, gave his estate to his family, wore peasant clothes, walked out into the open, caught a chill and died.

And pondering various social issues we witness Levin saying this to Sviyazhsky on one occasion:

“How will schools help the peasants to improve their material conditions? You say that schools and education will give them new wants. So much the worse, for they won’t be able to satisfy them. And in what way knowing how to add and subtract and to say the catechism will help them to improve their material conditions, I never could understand!” (p. 332)

Then, much later, Levin:

“…having convinced himself that he could get no answer from the materialists, he read and re-read Plato, Spinoza, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, those philosophers who explained life otherwise than materialistically.” (p.774)

As it says in the Introduction:
“Levin is able to enjoy the pleasures of his class, yet is responsible and profoundly concerned with issues of far wider relevance. In close contact with agriculture and nature, Levin embodies Tolstoy’s struggle towards an ideal way of life, whereas the relative frivolity and irresponsibility of Stiva and Vronsky, and Karenin’s preoccupation with appearances rather than truth, reflect the degeneration of the upper classes. Every element in the book impinges in some way on the intensely-felt lives of Anna or Levin, and the reader gains an extraordinary sense of intimacy with these two main characters, and even with the minor individuals thus portrayed.”

The Introduction then sums up the whole novel just so well, saying that:

“The richness and density of Anna Karenina are unparalleled. The novel addresses serious issues, such as the very nature of society at all levels, of destiny, death, human relationships and the irreconcilable contradictions of existence, with discerning insight. It ends tragically and there is much in it that evokes despair, yet set beside this is a genuine delight in many of life’s ephemeral pleasures, reflected in countless episodes and warm descriptions, and abundant comic relief. Ultimately, it is Anna’s overwhelming charisma that dominates the entire novel…No one can fail to forgive her, and she is surely one of the most loved and memorable heroines of fiction.”

Like Anna, I also feel things very deeply and passionately and have a strong mind of my own; indeed, I can very much identify with Anna on various levels (although she is in a completely different social class to me, of course). I find myself very drawn to her character.

Let Other Pens Dwell on Guilt and Misery

Alexander Rikowski, our eldest son, has just bought the complete set of the BBC Productions of Jane Austen's novels. How wonderful!

This is someone that does not read much fiction and has not studied English Literature, but is starting to love and appreciate the classics more and more. He has noted, in particular, the increasing popularity of Jane Austen, which in one sense is quite bizarre (given how different are the times that we live in today). But in another sense, it makes perfect sense. Life today, in many ways, is too fast, surface and consumerist. To counteract this, to bring meaning back into our lives, to relate to each other with some depth and feeling, to have a sense of well-being and calm, the classics becoming ever more important. A good alternative to a religious road which can give one false hopes!

Anyway, I was prompted to write this blog, because of the great quote by Jane Austen that is on the back of this wonderful DVD set.

"Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery. I quit such odious subjects as soon as I can, impatient to restore everybody, not greatly in fault themselves, to tolerable comfort and to have done with all the rest."

What more can I say? This says so much about what it is about Jane Austen's work that is just so perfect!

Walk and Rally for Greenwich Public Libraries

WALK TO SAVE GREENWICH LIBRARY SERVICE FROM PRIVATISATION

5th MAY 2012



ASSEMBLE 11.30 am AT ELTHAM LIBRARY – 2 ARCHERY ROAD, ELTHAM, SE9


MOVE OFF 12 NOON


WALK ENDS WITH A RALLY IN GENERAL GORDON SQUARE – WOOLWICH


RUTH RIKOWSKI WILL BE SPEAKING AT THE RALLY


SUPPORT GREENWICH LIBRARY SERVICE AND GREENWICH LIBRARY WORKERS


STOP THE ROT NOW, WHILST WE STILL HAVE THE CHANCE -

OTHERWISE WE ARE ON A VERY SLIPPERY ROAD, TOWARDS SUBSCRIPTIONS,
MORE CHARGING, DEEPENING COMMERCIALISATION AND PRIVATISATION AND  A VERY MINIMALIST PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE UK

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from UNITE

" Greenwich UNITE,  Old Town Hall, Polytechnic Street, Woolwich, SE18 6PN

WHY ARE UNITE TAKING INDUSTRIAL ACTION?

GREENWICH COUNCIL IS ‘TRANSFERRING” ITS LIBRARY SERVICE
TO A PRIVATE COMPANY, GLL

GREENWICH REFUSED TO CONSULT THE PUBLIC
WHO ARE TOTALLY AGAINST THE TRANSFER


GREENWICH WILL PAY £3.3 MILLION A YEAR OF YOUR MONEY TO
GLL TO RUN THE LIBRARIES


THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF GLL PAYS HIMSELF £175,000 A YEAR.


AT THE SAME TIME LIBRARY WORKERS WILL FACE CUTS IN PAY AND CONDITIONS.



GLL EMPLOYS MOSTLY LOW-WAGE AND SESSIONAL WORKERS WITH FEW RIGHTS



GLL HAS A RECORD OF INTRODUCING CHARGES FOR SERVICES



ONCE THE LIBRARIES ARE PRIVATISED YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEM BACK



GLL WANT TO PRIVATISE AS MANY COUNCIL SERVICES AS POSSIBLE



THE STRIKE IS ABOUT OBJECTING TO OUR PAY & CONDITIONS BEING CUT. BUT YOU TOO WILL BE HIT BY THE TRANSFER. WE KNOW THAT GLL WILL CLOSE LIBRARIES. THEY WILL GET RID OF THE MOBILE LIBRARY AND THE SMALLER LIBRARIES WILL BE NEXT



THIS IS WHAT GLL SAY ON THEIR WEBSITE :

“We may not be the cheapest in raw price terms, but if accountants were able to properly quantify the ‘social added value’ of our work we are confident we would always offer best value. Social Enterprise can provide more sustainable solutions in a stormy financial climate for Libraries, Parks, Play and a whole host of services. There are real opportunities for enhanced services at reduced costs.” – M Sesnan GLL Managing Director

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR CAMPAIGN BY DOING THE FOLLOWING:-

Write to the Chief Executive – Mary Ney, Royal Borough of Greenwich, Town Hall, Wellington Street, Woolwich, SE18 6HQ

Write to the Leader of the Council – Cllr Chris Roberts, Royal Borough of Greenwich, Town Hall, Wellington Street, Woolwich, SE18 6HQ

Send a Message of support to the strikers – C/o Greenwich UNITE, Old Town Hall, Polytechnic Street, Woolwich, SE18 6PN

Make a donation to the campaign – Cheques payable to Greenwich Unite, Old Town Hall, Polytechnic Street, Woolwich, SE18 6PN

Join The Walk To Save Your Library Service "

Jane Austen and Douglas Kennedy

Strange?

Putting Jane Austen (1775 - 1817) and Douglas Kennedy (1955 - ) together on one blog. Whatever is going on? How can this make any sense - putting an 18th century classical novelist alongside a contemporary best-selling novelist (even if he does aim to be serious as well as popular)?

That would be most peoples reaction, I feel sure.

So, what is all this about?

Well, this demonstrates something about my thought processes at the moment. My thought processes as I write my novel; which has turned out to be much more of an epic than I ever originally intended it to be! My levels of absorption deepen and widen. We continue.

Now, I have always rather literally believed this blurb that they put on fiction books:

"All of the characters in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

I somehow thought that many fiction writers simply thought up stories out of thin air, as it were. Not that I thought that all novelists operated that way; D. H. Lawrence, for example, clearly did not. No, I was not that naïve. But I certainly thought that quite a lot did. But now I am questioning that a bit.

Rather, novels are often based on peoples’ real life experiences of course; this is what authors so often draw upon. But more than that – novels can be so closely interwoven with the novelists own lives; with their own experiences; and the stories are then made up out of this; building on from this and it can be an ongoing process. That is the main development in my thinking.

So, the whole body of work of some novelists can be seen in this light. This has become transparently clear to me through the works of Jane Austen and Douglas Kennedy. Really? How comes, you might well ask?

Why do I say all of this with such conviction? Well, I have read most of the works of these 2 novelists, so I think I know what I am talking about here! I have learnt and discovered a thing or two, as they say.

I have read all 6 of Jane Austen's books (although not her unpublished works, such as 'Lady Susan', it has to be said). I have also watched films and BBC and ITV Series based on the novels many times. And I particularly love the BBC dramatisation of 'Pride and Prejudice' starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle - but I am definitely not alone there of course! I also love the BBC series of ‘Emma’, starring Doran Goodwin and John Carson. Rather interestingly, and in passing, I went to Ham House in Richmond with one of my sons (organised by CILIP in London) a couple of years ago and discovered that 'Sense and Sensibility' had been filmed there. I have also visited the Jane Austen Centre in Bath.

My favourite Jane Austen novel is 'Pride and Prejudice', followed by 'Emma' and 'Sense and Sensibility' (joint second), followed by 'Northanger Abbey', 'Mansfield Park' and 'Persuasion' (about joint third). I have copies of all of Jane Austen’s novels (and for some have more than one copy) - they all sit nicely on my shelf.

I have also watched (and have the DVDs of) 'Becoming Jane' (about Jane Austen's early life) and 'Miss Austen Regrets' (about Jane Austen's later life) - both very well acted. In addition, I have read 2 biographies about her: 'Jane Austen: a life' by Claire Tomalin (Penguin 2000) and 'Brief Lives: Jane Austen' by Fiona Stafford (Hesperus Press, 2008) and have read some other material about her on the internet. How sad it is that Jane Austen died at just 41 years old and how many more great novels could have been produced if she had lived longer. Still, we must appreciate what we have!

I find the atmosphere that Jane Austen creates in her novels just so wonderful; so powerful; so compelling. It is all something that I can easily relax into and enjoy. They represent a world that a part of me would like to be drawn into; that I would love to be a part of. I love the poise, the good manners, the elegance, the charm, the good breeding, the dancing, the music, the clothes, the characterisations, the stories, the plots, the countryside, the simplicity coupled with the multi-layers, the intrigues, the emotions, the overall atmosphere etc. etc. I also love the language/the style of language - it is almost poetic, in parts. How much more satisfying and artistically pleasing to say "I am seriously displeased", than to say something like "I am really fed-up with you", or some other, crude, less elegant turn of phrase. Her characters are very real; they have real depth and are very genuine and believable (unlike characters in Soaps, at the other extreme). I also like the pace of the novels; they build up slowly and have important messages to convey, such as the power of persuasion and the power of novel reading. What more can I say? They put one into another dimension; into another time frame.

Jane Austen looks at so many of our deepest emotions and really draws us in. She also writes artistically and beautifully, and has this amazing ability to be able to create something beautiful and wonderful out of much of which is quite ordinary in every day life; creating wonderment out of many mundane happenings. I admire her ability, for example, to be able to make tiresome, silly and annoying people (e.g. Mrs Bennett, Miss Bates, Harriet Smith) seem quite amusing, even lovable in some way and certainly artistically pleasing. How much better that, than to have such people drive one round the bend! But she also wrote beautifully about lovely things of course – especially love and romance. She wrote in a way that recrafts life and turns it into something somehow seamless; something that despite the imperfections of the characters and their happenings and the society that they live in, yet somehow seems perfect in some way. A form of pure magic; a form of perfection!

I also have 2 entries on Jane Austen on my ‘Serendipitous Moments’ blog. These are:

‘Pride and Prejudice’
http://ruthrikowskiim.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/pride-and-prejudice-by-jane-austen.html

‘Northanger Abbey’
http://ruthrikowskiim.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/northanger-abbey-by-jane-austen.html


Douglas Kennedy in contrast? Well, I have read all 10 of his best-selling novels, apart from one. The other one, his first, 'The Dead Heart' I tried but couldn't get on with too well. 'The Job' (about a salesman) his 2nd, I read but didn't really enjoy all that much, but the other 8 I loved. Initially, I was particularly drawn to the 4 where he writes as a woman in the first person. As I have said before on this blog, Douglas Kennedy has this amazing ability to be able to get into the minds of educated, intelligent, stylish but troubled women.

The 4 novels where Kennedy writes as a woman in the first person are: 'A Special Relationship' (Arrow 2004), ‘The Pursuit of Happiness' (Arrow, 2002), ‘State of the Union' (Arrow Books, 2006)’ and 'Leaving the World' (Apr 2010)'. The other 4 are: 'The Big Picture' (Abacus 2003)', 'Temptation' (Arrow 2010)', 'The Woman in the Fifth' (Arrow 2008)' and 'The Moment' (Hutchinson 2011)'. I have purchased copies of all of these books, and they also all sit very nicely on my shelf and I have read and re-read most of them many times. Having said this, about these 8 novels, I only got to really enjoy 'The Woman in the Fifth' once I had watched the film version of it (but more about that shortly). I have also recently read one of Kennedy’s non-fiction books, ‘Chasing Mammon’ (Abacus, 1979)

In general, though, Douglas Kennedy’s novels are real page-turners; they keep one gripped; they keep you sitting up half the night (which is what he wanted them to do). They deal with many different issues that so many of us face today – e.g. romance, identity, chance, the moment, success and failure, emotional turmoils, political dilemmas, mental stability issues, separation, post-natal depression, escapism etc. etc. The plots are both complex and intriguing.

In addition, I have watched videos with Douglas Kennedy being interviewed on YouTube - those that are in English (there are also many in French). I have also read some other interviews with him on the internet and was pleased to connect up with a couple of his fans recently through this blog (one of which kindly told me about the YouTube videos). The same fan was privileged and fortunate enough to interview him herself - and this interview (in words) is on her blog – see http://www.girl-who-reads.com/.  Interestingly, I discovered from this, that Douglas Kennedy learnt French at evening class, whilst he was starting out as a writer and that he was very determined to learn French so that he could speak it in every day conversation. In 2006 he was also awarded the French decoration of Chevalier de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. We also see him embroiled in a big book signing session in France in one interview, with him speaking French on YouTube.

Furthermore, I recently bought and watched the DVD of 'The Big Picture'. Yes, the book was made into a film in French (with English sub-titles) in 2010. I enjoyed the film, although the ending was changed, which I thought was unfortunate, but I guess the thinking was that 2 changes of identity would be too much for the viewer to take!

Finally, I have written several blogs about Douglas Kennedy and his novels, on this ‘Serendipitous Moments’ blog. These are:


Douglas Kennedy: a best-selling novelist
http://ruthrikowskiim.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/douglas-kennedy.html

‘The Big Picture’
http://ruthrikowskiim.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=the+big+picture

‘The Woman in the Fifth'
http://ruthrikowskiim.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=the+woman+in+the+fifth

‘The Moment’
http://ruthrikowskiim.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/i-went-into-waterstones-bookshop-few.html#comment-form


And here are the links to the YouTube interviews with Kennedy, in English:

"Douglas Kennedy Talks about The Moment"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cMNirOqfpk

"Douglas Kennedy talks about themes in 'The Moment' "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GuifQXV5Mw

'Douglas Kennedy talks about Berlin in 'The Moment' "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFzSEor2Zbs

"Douglas Kennedy talks about his writing"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDSj267GcSw


Now, one of the things that I have pieced together from all of this is that I think that Douglas Kennedy gave himself a clear goal when he started out as a writer - and this was to make money. 'Chasing Mammon' is all about Kennedy's travels around the world, talking to various people in the financial markets, 'the wheelers and the dealers in the international marketplace' and how they went about making money. The topic clearly fascinated him. At the end of the book he says:

"If my time amongst the dealers had taught me anything, it was this: the pursuit of money is a traumatizing experience. Yet, that trauma isn't really bound up in the trauma of the marketplace. Rather, it stems from the way money has become the way we validate our time on the planet, and try to live up to the expectations of our own society....

'Is that all you learned after 12 months in all those markets?' Stephen White asked me.
'No, I learned one other thing.'
'What was that?'
'Everybody has an 18.50 to catch.'
'Quite right', he said, and headed out to make his train." (p. 207)

Now, this is intriguing, and coupled with Kennedy's passion for learning French and his fairly recent divorce, says something, I think - that whilst Kennedy realised that money dominates our society in so many ways and is a traumatising experience, in order to function and succeed one has to make money – i.e. one has to catch the train! And so I think that he decided he was going to be a success in this money-making world. He would make money for himself and do this through writing novels that would sell. And of course, that was what he achieved. So, he wrote novels that he thought would appeal to many different people; whilst also writing material that was close to his own heart in some way or other; topics that he thought were important. He comes across as being on the soft-left politically, for example. He did not write purely just to make money; instead, he found a winning combination. And that, I think, is why his novels are so powerful for so many. Jane Austen, in contrast, could not have money as her main goal of course – indeed, it was considered quite unladylike for a woman to be earning money at all in her day.

Douglas Kennedy had a very privileged education, going to Bowdoin College, USA (a highly selective school, educating leaders) and Trinity College, Dublin. But rather than going into a conventional money-making career he decided to be more creative and to make it work for him in a different way. Going to Trinity College, Dublin, probably helped here. I was not so privileged and so fortunate, and so I still find myself struggling (and I am about the same age as Kennedy). It is impossible for me to have a simple winning best-selling formula uppermost in my mind – I have too much stuff to get off my chest! But on the other hand, this certainly makes my work unique. I sure am determined to break through in my own way. Indeed, I have made tremendous breakthroughs, since I started getting my writing published 12 years ago. But that was in non-fiction; now, the fiction world beckons. Jane Austen was also fortunate in that her family, particularly her father and brother rated her work and were very supportive when it came to her novel writing. They sent her manuscripts off to publishers, on her behalf. So all this obviously helped her to become a successful novelist.

In addition, I suspect that Kennedy worked out that breaking into the French market would be a smart thing to do; that the French would probably be more interested in his writing than other nationalities were likely to be. That was why he learnt French, I think, so that he could more easily become a best-seller there and make money. And I can see why - his work has a critical edge, but within limits. The critical edge (especially the political critical edge) would probably not appeal to the USA market so much, which is so pro-capitalist on the whole (even though on one level would seem to be his 'natural' market as he is American). The English are, perhaps, also a bit too conformist and don’t immediately relate to artists so well (all the main characters in his novels are some kind of artist). So the French market, with its cultural background, would seem to be about right. Kennedy engages with many different people on many different levels (particularly in France) – the ‘ordinary’ (whatever that is) person, the academics, the writers, the artists etc – this came out in the interview with him on ‘The Girl Who Reads’ blog. Altogether, Kennedy’s work has been translated into 16 different languages.

Now, in regard to both Jane Austen and Douglas Kennedy, I realise the extent to which they put their personalities and their backgrounds and experiences into their novels. I mean, for example, how many times is Bath mentioned in Jane Austen's novels? The place clearly had a big effect on her, even though she did not like it and could not write whilst living there. And Douglas Kennedy novels are set in cities, such as Maine, Berlin, Paris, London - all places that he has lived in. These are very small examples of the personal input.

But more importantly I got to know these authors personalities so well through their novels. And their writing, no doubt, helped to clarify things for them as well, and helped them to get to know themselves better. So, in one sense, we are actually living the life of these novelists, through their novels. This was not something that I had ever really thought about very much before. And I am only thinking about it now, whilst I am engaged in novel-writing. Yes, another mistake I made was to see novels by one particular novelist as separate entities. Now, I realise that they might well be following the life experiences of the actual author. So, Kennedy’s 2nd novel is about a salesman out to try to make money, and this I suspect is because, at the time, how to make money was probably very much on Kennedy’s mind. Then, he writes books where he is writing as a female in the first person, which I think is probably related to his own experiences and his marriage etc. And being so determined to become successful must have taken its toll on his marriage. Then, ‘Temptation’ is about a script writer who thinks he is being given a lucky break, but it is all a con – this probably reflects some of the traumas that Kennedy went through on his road to success etc.

Whilst ‘Northanger Abbey’, for example, conveys something about the attitudes at the time to novel-reading, with some thinking that it was harmful. Jane Austen articulates some of these concerns very eloquently (which she must also have felt keenly herself). Through the heroine Catherine Morland's vivid imagination (which came from all her reading of Gothic novels), she mistakenly thought that a murder had taken place. This nearly caused her to lose out romantically, but all came good in the end. Similarly, Jane Austen must have sometimes asked herself whether her novel-reading was harming her in any way, but then concluded that basically, it wasn't. Likewise, when I was a child, I frequently had my head in a book, and people would sometimes say things to discourage me, such as 'too much reading is bad for your eyes'. Now, I wore glasses and had weak eyes, so that was quite a mean thing to say really. But so be it. Then, in ‘Mansfield Park’ the heroine, Fanny Price, is sent away from her family as a child, to stay with her aunt and uncle at Mansfield Park. And as a child Jane Austen (and her siblings) were sent away when they were very young and were not raised by their parents in these formative years. This was quite a common practise at the time, apparently, and her father was a clergyman, so must have had many demands on his time. And romance and marriage plays a big part in Jane Austen’s novels of course; and this, along with the associated dilemmas (particularly the importance of finding a man with money) obviously played a big part in Jane Austen’s own life. All 6 of her novels involve heroines that marry, and marry for love, rather than just for money, which obviously would have been something that Jane Austen would have wanted. If she couldn’t marry for love, then she wouldn’t marry at all – and of course, she didn’t. But for most women at that time, that would have been a disastrous decision, as then, women were just so financially dependent on men. So, Jane Austen was fortunate in that way, in that her family were able to financially support her in some fashion; they let her write, and did not insist that she married for money. Of course, she should have been able to make a lot of money from her novels, but that was not the way of the world at that time. On her gravestone, it does not even state that she was an authoress! Dear oh dear!

In addition, 'The Woman in the Fifth' by Kennedy, I found to be particularly striking because after having watched the film recently in the cinema (yes, it is good to see that a couple of his books have been made into films), I started to understand the book more and more about Kennedy’s personality (see my blog entry about this) and upon re-reading the book I realised that I had got this right. The end of the film/book looked at the topic of schizophrenia (thanks to the film critics for pointing this out), but I did not understand that at first. This part of the plot seemed non-sensical to me. But this was Kennedy trying to deal with various difficult issues leading on from his divorce, I now feel sure; issues which lead to him feeling that he was perhaps going crazy at times (i.e. schizophrenic).

Yes, Kennedy’s novels very much reflect his personality, in many ways and what is particularly important is that all the main characters in his novels are some kind of artist, going through many and varied different experiences – e.g. writers, editors, photographers, painters. He clearly has a real affinity with such people. He is also intrigued about the life of the academic and how it can nurture false hopes – this comes out clearly in ‘Leaving the World’. Take this quote, for example:

“Anytime you ever think about taking a teaching post, always remember that most time-honored of clichés: the reason everyone is so bitchy in academia is because the stakes are so low.” (p. 56)

How funny and true is that!

And then, much later on in the book, this:

“But here’s the thing, Professor. I may concur with you, but I am, at heart, a manager, not an academic. I was brought in here to manage a third-tier university that is trying to become second-tier and simultaneously to up its national profile and its endowment base. So far, I’ve increased our overall profile and its endowment by twenty-seven million dollars in just under nineteen months.” (p. 144)


Also, Kennedy writes in a fast-pace way, as any American probably would. He writes intelligently and with suave and sophistication. They are modern novels and includes references to stuff such as emails etc. On one level, they can appear to be quite surface (because of the fast pace) but on another level they really have such depth. They really draw the reader in.


Returning to Jane Austen, it is a well-known fact that some of her heroines represent different sides of her personality: 'Lizzy' in 'Pride and Prejudice', 'Emma' in 'Emma' and Marianne and Elinor Dashwood in 'Sense and Sensibility'. Jane Austen was an intelligent but also a romantic woman. How did she marry all that up? It could not have been easy. Lizzy using her brains to look at life in a certain way, to be polite and sophisticated, whilst at the same time wanting a certain type of man and wanting romance (and not just marrying for money); Emma using her brains, again, to make her life interesting, but being rather forceful and indeed, cheeky, in the process sometimes, with her match-making, but also having an element of romance about her. And the 2 sisters, Elinor and Marianne partially representing 2 sides of Jane Austen's character: the rational versus the emotional. This can also be tied up with the topic of spontaneity versus rationality (a dilemma which has plagued me since my late teens). Douglas Kennedy in 'The Moment' also addresses this topic - is it good to live in 'the moment' or can it get us into trouble? And are we ever really free of 'the moment'. As he says:

“The moment that can change everything. The moment that can change nothing. The moment that lies to us. Or the moment that tells us who we are, what we search for, what we so want to unearth...and possibly never will.” (p. 488)

Also, the two sisters in ‘Sense and Sensibility’ are very close; likewise, Jane Austen was very close to her sister Cassandra. Fiona Stafford says that:

"...Cassandra, Jane's only sister, remained a constant, vital source of stability throughout her life. The sisters shared a bedroom, a sense of humour, and a mutual understanding that sustained them throughout their lives. Though rarely apart even as adults, on occasions when they were staying in different places each wrote frequent letters to the other, as if to deny any thought of separation. From their earliest days, Cassandra was Jane's guide and confidante. As all the family recognised, the girls were everything to each other." (p. 21-22)

Similarly, Lizzy and Jane in 'Pride and Prejudice' are also very close.

But for Jane Austen, a highly intelligent woman, who has been born into this rather limited and confining world, she has to try to find a way to make it all more tolerable and interesting. So, she read and she wrote. There were many books in her home, and she read ferociously from a young child. And she would want to do the types of things that Lizzie and Emma did. We know, for example, that she advised her niece about marriage (in ‘Miss Austen Regrets’), and in a way that Emma might well have done. Also, the heroines in Jane Austen’s novels have clear minds of their own. And incidentally, like me, she also loved to dance. Fiona Stafford points out (p.37) that Jane Austen wrote on Christmas Eve, 1798, that:

'I fancy I could just as well dance for a week together as for half an hour.'

I know what she means - I seem to have endless energy when it comes to dancing, but not necessarily so for various other activities!

It was actually Fiona Stafford in 'Brief Lives: Jane Austen’ (Hesperus Press, 2008) that helped me to realise that Mariana and Elinor represented 2 sides of Jane Austen's character in this way, focusing on the issue of the rational versus the idealistic and the emotional. Here is what Stafford says:

"For a creative writer, the thought that the idealistic or imaginative must inevitably be crushed by the rational and known, was not necessarily something to celebrate. Even less welcome was the possibility that the bright gleam of originality invariably faded into the light of common day." (p. 66)

Yes, the danger of stifling creativity. That is a topic that has plagued me.

Again:

"As her writing developed, Jane Austen recognised that there were different ways of creating original works of art, and that the skills acquired from experience and experimentation were ultimately as important as the initial sparks of inspiration behind the story. In Sense and Sensibility, however, the different elements that fuse with such powerful results in her mature fiction are seen as conflicting tendencies. Was imagination invariably at odds with reason? Impulsiveness with restraint? Sense with sensibility?" (p.66)

Yes, indeed, these are serious dilemmas. And:

"The creation of an all-knowing narrator meant...that Jane Austen's own personality could wear a number of different masks in her fiction, and though both the Dashwood sisters may be self-portraits, they also work as independent creations and convincingly individual characters. The obvious contrast between them may derive from Jane Austen's own complicated internal divisions, but it also serves as a means to explore ideas from different angles, and to reveal underlying unities in the face of more serious opposition." (p.68)

Yes, that is the power of the novel; its ability to explore various issues and ideas from different angles, without facing accusations about poor thinking/poor writing, as one would be liable to get in the non-fiction writing and publishing world.

And finally:

"Despite the humorous surface, there is an underlying current of anger running through the scenes in which the open feelings of a healthy seventeen-year-old girl are condemned as rude or unacceptable. Jane Austen's frustration over the suffering of young women at the hands of their friends and relations is nowhere more apparent than in Sense and Sensibility, even though the novel carries an overt warning against unguarded emotional confessions. Elionr's inclination to conceal the truth may prove to be wise counsel, but only because the Dashwood sisters are surrounded by self-seeking or insensitive characters who abuse their trust." (p. 69)

Yes, one has to guard against too many free-flowing emotions in order to protect oneself, apart from anything else.

When to be rash and when to be rational: it is all very difficult. And these are issues that also fascinate Douglas Kennedy. In particular, he thinks that chance plays a big part in our lives, and that our lives can be turned upside down, and turned around in a moment. A chance happening can change everything. And romance also plays a very big part in both the Kennedy and the Austen novels, of course.


And so anyway let's try to summarise this and piece it all together.

What I am really simply saying is that, having followed these 2 authors so closely - both in terms of reading their novels and finding out much about their lives, their personalities and how they live/lived I now realise that their novels basically represent in many ways various aspects of their own lives, their own personalities and their own thoughts and feelings. They took this basic formula, this basic ingredient and wove complex and intriguing plots and stories out of it all. This must have been fascinating, therapeutic and liberating for them, and indeed, must have made their lives very rich indeed. Although it would also have been quite difficult and challenging, of course. But in this process, they have also helped to make other peoples lives rich - which, I feel sure, is why they have been so successful. So many others can engage with them and the worlds that they create; with the emotions they deal with and with many of the various trials and tribulations, as well as joy and delights that we all go through.

So, the different novels that one novelist writes do not have to be disjointed, and many probably aren’t. Instead, they can be pieces that all make up the jigsaw – the jigsaw of the novelists life.

Yes, both Jane Austen and Douglas Kennedy highlight and explore many of the problems, issues, dilemmas, thoughts, passions and experiences that just so many of us go through. These include topics such as spontaneity versus rationality, love and romance (of course), hate and betrayal, politics, gay issues, art, motherhood, the power of the emotions (e.g. persuasion), ambition, novel reading and writing, loss and bereavement, the mundane life versus the exciting life, identity, chance, mental stability issues, wealth, success and failure (although not so much with poverty - but then again these 2 authors both came from comfortable backgrounds so this would not be something that they could so easily relate to), annoying and boring people, religion (although this is not so powerful - the clergy in Jane Austen's novels tend to be rather ridiculed, when all is said and done - take Mr Collins in 'Pride and Prejudice' for example) and escapism (e.g. ‘Northanger Abbey’ and ‘Leaving the World’). They also reflect the times they are/were living in; with the Jane Austen world going at quite a slow pace, whilst the Douglas Kennedy world speeds along.

In sum, the more I think about it, the more I celebrate the power and the brilliance of the novel. It really is very much a part of our lives; a part of the very fabric of society and is not just pure escapism (as opposed to something like the TV Soaps). At its best, it helps us to deal with and make sense of, much of what life throws at us; and much of which is so very contradictory. The novel can easily deal with contradictions; it can deal with them in a way that is completely impossible in non-fiction. And in this way it can help us to deal with our own, and with lifes, contradictions. It can tap into our emotions; it can help us to deal effectively with our emotions; it can help us to live both in the here and now and in the beyond; it can help us to think about the depth of the human soul; it can help us to celebrate the wonderful essence of what it is to be human. Long live the novel!!


N.B. Douglas Kennedy’s next novel is entitled ‘Five Days’ and is due to be published in June 2012.

Final Note: What I have identified here is something that specifically applies to these, what are for me, 2 very special authors. But it certainly does not, of course, apply to all authors. However, I have not considered the whole works of a particular author and related it to their personal lives, so closely before. It has been a fascinating journey for me.

In contrast, Dorothy L. Sayers (whose work I have also followed quite, although not as closely, as Kennedy and Austen), wrote many novels, for example, and there was something of her personality in them, but she did not do it in the all-encompassing way that these 2 novelists do. She was too caught up with the money-making mentality (the Lord Peter Wimsey novels made her a lot of money), had too many hang-ups herself, I think, and was not prepared to take the necessary risks. She had a secret illegitimate child, for example, and that very much remained a secret, and was not material for her novel-writing.

Further consideration about different types of novels and novelists, what motivates them to write, and whether and what experiences they draw on, will perhaps be something that I will consider more in the future. Terry Pratchett clearly, for example, does not fall into any of the categories outlined in this piece. We will have to wait and see.

However, if I continue to write novels, I would want to go down a similar path to Jane Austen and Douglas Kennedy, I think, making the material from life work for me and for others, to deepen our understanding, to help us to cope with our emotions and the contradictions of life, and to hopefully help to benefit us, as well as to make our life interesting and artistic, in a lasting way.

Yes, viva the novel!

1st May 2012

STRIKE: 'Greeenwich Libraries Staff to Strike over GLL Takeover'

"Unite union staff working at Greenwich Council's libraries are to strike for five days in protest at the council's decision to hand over the running of its libraries to GLL (Greenwich Leisure Ltd).

The switch to GLL management is due to take place from Monday 30 April but union representatives fear cuts to workers' pay and conditions, and are also angry about the lack of consultation over the move.

Strikes will take place on Friday 27th April, Saturday 28th April, Mondy 30th April, Tuesday 1st May, and Friday 11th May."

This leads on from my previous blog on this topic - see
http://ruthrikowskiim.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/diana-edmonds-head-of-libraries.html

The predictions I outlined in my Globalistion book, 'Globalisation, Information and Librares' (Chandos Publishing: Oxford, 2005) are coming to pass - libraries gradually being taken out of state control, firstly being run by trusts, charities and voluntary organisations, which paves the way for eventual and total privatisation.

How long will it take before the 'penny finally drops'? And how much will we have lost in the process and how much poorer will we be, before the 'penny finally drops'?

For more information and comments about it all see -
http://853blog.com/2012/04/25/greenwich-libraries-takeover-gll-boss-speaks-out/#comments

The Creative University and Paulo Freire

THE CREATIVE UNIVERSITY – FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS

Faculty of Education, Office of Teaching and Learning, Waikato University

School of Creative Arts, James Cook University

THE CREATIVE UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE

Hosted by

Universityof Waikato, Te Whare Wananga O Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

15-16 August, 2012

First Call for Papers

Deadline for submission:

Abstracts due: May 1st 2012

Full papers due: July 1st 2012


Education and research have been transformed in the development of knowledge economies. The knowledge, learning and creative economies manifest the changing significance of intellectual capital and the thickening connections between on one hand economic growth, on the other hand knowledge, creativity (especially imagined new knowledge, discovery), the communication of knowledge, and the formation and spreading of creative skills in education. Increasingly economic and social activity is comprised by the ‘symbolic’ or ‘weightless’ economy with its iconic, immaterial and digital goods. This immaterial economy includes new international labour markets that demand analytic skills, global competencies and an understanding of markets in tradeable knowledges. Developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) not only define globalisation they are changing the format, density and nature of the exchange and flows of knowledge, research and scholarship. Delivery modes in education are being reshaped. Global cultures are spreading in the form of knowledge and research networks. Openness and networking, cross-border people movement, flows of capital, portal cities and littoral zones, and new and audacious systems with worldwide reach; all are changing the conditions of imagining and producing and the sharing of creative work in different spheres. The economic aspect of creativity refers to the production of new ideas, aesthetic forms, scholarship, original works of art and cultural products, as well as scientific inventions and technological innovations. It embraces open source communication as well as commercial intellectual property.

All of this positions education at the centre of the economy/ creativity nexus. But are education systems, institutions, assumptions and habits positioned and able so as to seize the opportunities and meet the challenges?

This conference investigates all the aspects of education in (and as) the creative economy.The conference objective is to extend the dialogue about the relationship between contemporary higher education and the changing face of contemporary economies. A number of terms describe the nature of the contemporary capitalism of advanced economies: ‘cognitive capitalism’, ‘metaphysical capitalism’, ‘intellectual capitalism’, ‘designer capitalism’. The conference will explore the relationship between the arts and sciences and this new form of capitalism. It will look at the global reach and international imperatives of aesthetic and scientific modes of production, the conditions and character of acts of the imagination in the range of fields of knowledge and arts in this period, and the role of the research university in the formation of the creative knowledge that has a decisive function in contemporary advanced economies.

Please send title and abstract as an expression of interest to Professor Michael A. Peters: mpeters@waikato.ac.nz

Details at: http://tcreativeu.blogspot.co.uk/p/first-call-for-papers.html

The Creative University: http://tcreativeu.blogspot.co.uk


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAULO FREIRE: THE GLOBAL LEGACY


A Celebration of Freire’s 91st Birthday

A major international conference, Hamilton, New Zealand, November 26-28, 2012

A major international conference hosted by the University of Waikato, Te Whare Wananga o Waikato, New Zealand, November 26-28, 2012, will be held at the Novotel Hamilton Tainui Hotel on the banks of the Waikato River, in central Hamilton.

“Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.” — Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

The University of Waikato, Te Whare Wananga oWaikatois delighted to be hosting a major international conference, “Paulo Freire: The Global Legacy” as a retrospective celebration of his work and its legacy and influence across the globe.

The University of Waikato, with a student population of about 13,000 and 2000 academic and support staff, is committed to delivering a world-class education and research portfolio, providing a full and dynamic university experience, distinctive in character, and pursuing strong international links to advance knowledge.

The University works closely with Maori tribes (iwi), particularly Tainui, to make the University accessible to Maori students and to foster an environment of success. http://www.waikato.ac.nz/maori/
& http://www.waikato.ac.nz/about/ & http://www.waikato.ac.nz/

Paulo Freire, one of the greatest educators of all time, was born in Recife, Brazil, on September 19, 1921 and died of heart failure in Sao Paulo, Brazil on May 2, 1997. Freire taught Portuguese in secondary schools from 1941-1947 before becoming active in adult education and workers’ training. He was the first Director of the Department of Cultural Extension of the University of Recife(1961-1964). Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) is an argument for a system of education that emphasizes learning as an act of culture and freedom. His works became justly famous as he gained an international reputation for his program of literacy education especially for the rural and dispossessed in Northeastern Brazil. He was jailed by the new government after 1964 and was forced into a political exile that lasted fifteen-years, eventually returning to Brazil in 1979. As a living testimony, his many works have been translated into many languages, and have inspired the tradition of critical pedagogy.

The conference is aimed at experienced and new researchers, policy-makers and practitioners from all around the world who engage with Freire’s work in any of the following broad themes that the conference will be organized around:
· Globalization
· De-colonisation
· Indigenous cultures
· Cultural studies
A Stream in Portuguese is planned for Portuguese speaking delegates to present and discuss their research in Portuguese. Abstracts will be available in both English and Portuguese. Dr Ana Ratto, from Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil, who is Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Education at University of Waikato, in 2012 is coordinating this stream which will take place on Tuesday 27 November 2012.

For further information, contact ratto.ana@gmail.com