Podcasts about Northrop Frye

Melvyn Bragg and guests explore typology, a method of biblical interpretation that aims to meaningfully link people, places, and events in the Hebrew Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament, with the coming of Christ in the New Testament. Old Testament figures like Moses, Jonah, and King David were regarded by Christians as being ‘types' or symbols of Jesus. This way of thinking became hugely popular in medieval Europe, Renaissance England and Victorian Britain, as Christians sought to make sense of their Jewish inheritance - sometimes rejecting that inheritance with antisemitic fervour. It was a way of seeing human history as part of a divine plan, with ancient events prefiguring more modern ones, and it influenced debates about the relationship between metaphor and reality in the bible, in literature, and in art. It also influenced attitudes towards reality, time and history. WithMiri Rubin, Professor of Medieval and Early Modern History at Queen Mary, University of LondonHarry Spillane, Munby Fellow in Bibliography at Cambridge and Research Fellow at Darwin CollegeAnd Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe, Associate Professor in Patristics at Cambridge. Producer: Eliane GlaserReading list:A. C. Charity, Events and their Afterlife: The Dialectics of Christian Typology in the Bible and Dante (first published 1966; Cambridge University Press, 2010)Margaret Christian, Spenserian Allegory and Elizabethan Biblical Exegesis: The Context for 'The Faerie Queene' (Manchester University Press, 2016)Dagmar Eichberger and Shelley Perlove (eds.), Visual Typology in Early Modern Europe: Continuity and Expansion (Brepols, 2018)Tibor Fabiny, The Lion and the Lamb: Figuralism and Fulfilment in the Bible, Art and Literature (Palgrave Macmillan, 1992)Tibor Fabiny, ‘Typology: Pros and Cons in Biblical Hermeneutics and Literary Criticism' (Academia, 2018)Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (first published 1982; Mariner Books, 2002)Leonhard Goppelt (trans. Donald H. Madvig), Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (William B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1982)Paul J. Korshin, Typologies in England, 1650-1820 (first published in 1983; Princeton University Press, 2014)Judith Lieu, Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century (T & T Clark International, 1999)Sara Lipton, Images of Intolerance: The Representation of Jews and Judaism in the Bible Moralisee (University of California Press, 1999)Montague Rhodes James and Kenneth Harrison, A Guide to the Windows of King's College Chapel (first published in 1899; Cambridge University Press, 2010)J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (Oxford University Press, 2008)In Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio production

From an early age, John Truby knew that stories are not just something that happens on a page. Story is all around us. It structures how we interpret events, and even how we decide how to live.  For John, story forms explain the way the world works.John is a screenwriter and the founder and director of Truby's Writers Studio in Los Angeles, where he teaches novelists, screenwriters and TV writers the deep secrets of what makes a great story. His students have generated more than fifteen billion dollars at the box office, and studios like Sony Pictures, Disney, Fox, HBO and AMC routinely consult John on how to improve the stories they tell.In this replay episode, Dart and John discuss:- The 14 genres that categorize everyday life- Which genres produce the most fulfilling work- Sales as an action story- Business Analysis as detective story- Corporate culture as western - Career as coming of age and memoir- How the horror genre lurks in the shadows around every layoff- And more…John Truby is a screenwriter, director, screenwriting teacher, author, and Hollywood consultant for studios such as Disney, Sony Pictures, Fox, HBO, and AMC. He is the founder and director of Truby's Writers Studio and has worked on over 1,000 film scripts over the last 30 years.John created his 22-step outline for storytelling in his first book, The Anatomy of Story, teaching his techniques through global masterclasses to over 50,000 students worldwide since the start of his career. His latest book, The Anatomy of Genres, was released in 2022.Resources Mentioned:The Anatomy of Genres, by Jon Truby: https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Genres-Story-Forms-Explain/dp/0374539227The Anatomy of Criticism, by Northrop Frye https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Criticism-Essays-Princeton-Classics/dp/0691202567Winning on Purpose, by Fred Reichheld: https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Purpose-Unbeatable-Strategy-Customers/dp/B09PC69XV3The Complete Aubrey/Maturin Novels, by Patrick O'Brian: https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Aubrey-Maturin-Novels-volumes/dp/039306011XCinema Paradiso (film), 1988Master and Commander (film), 2003Shane (film), 1953Glengarry Glen Ross (play), by David MametWorld Experience Organization: https://worldxo.org/Connect with John:Website: www.truby.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/johntrubyWork with Dart:Dart is the CEO and co-founder of the work design firm 11fold. Build work that makes employees feel alive, connected to their work, and focused on what's most important to the business. Book a call at 11fold.com.

Who else in literature today could be more interesting to interview than Brandon Taylor, the author of Real Life, Filthy Animals, and The Late Americans, as well as the author of popular reviews and the sweater weather Substack? We talked about so much, including: Chopin and who plays him best; why there isn't more tennis in fiction; writing fiction on a lab bench; being a scientific critic; what he has learned working as a publisher; negative reviews; boring novels; Jane Austen. You'll also get Brandon's quick takes on Iris Murdoch, Jonathan Franzen, Lionel Trilling, György Lukács, and a few others; the modern critics he likes reading; and the dead critics he likes reading.Brandon also talked about how his new novel is going to be different from his previous novels. He told me:I no longer really want to be starting my books, quote unquote, in media res. I want my books to feel like books. I don't want my books to feel like movies. And I don't want them to feel like treatments for film. And so I want to sort of bring back all of what a novel can do in terms of its structure and in terms of its form and stuff like that. And so it means starting books, you know, with this sort of Dickensian voice of God speaking from on high, sort of summing up an era. And I think also sort of allowing the narrators in my work to dare to sum up, allowing characters in my work to have ideologies and to argue about those ideologies. I feel like that is a thing that was sort of denuded from the American novel for a lot of millennials and just sort of like trying to put back some of that old fashioned machinery that was like stripped out of the novel. And seeing what of it can still function, seeing, trying to figure out if there's any juice left in these modes of representation.I have enjoyed Brandon's fiction (several people I recommend him to have loved Real Life) and I think he's one of the best critics working today. I was delighted to interview him.Oh, and he's a Dickens fan!Transcript (AI produced, lightly formatted by me)Henry: Today I am talking to Brandon Taylor, the author of Real Life, Filthy Animals, and The Late Americans. Brandon is also a notable book reviewer and of course he writes a sub stack called Sweater Weather. Brandon, welcome.Brandon: Yeah, thanks for having me.Henry: What did you think of the newly discovered Chopin waltz?Brandon: Um, I thought, I mean, I remember very vividly waking up that day and there being a new waltz, but it was played by Lang Lang, which I did not. I don't know that, like, he's my go-to Chopin interpreter. But I don't know, I was, I was excited by it. Um, I don't know, it was in a world sort of dominated by this ethos of like nothing new under the sun. It felt wonderfully novel. I don't know that it's like one of Chopin's like major, I don't know that it's like major. Um, it's sort of definitively like middle of the road, middle tier Chopin, I think. But I enjoyed it. I played it like 20 times in a row.Henry: I like those moments because I like, I like it when people get surprised into realizing that like, it's not fixed what we know about the world and you can even actually get new Chopin, right?Brandon: I mean, it felt a little bit like when Beyonce did her first big surprise drop. It was like new Chopin just dropped. Oh my God. All my sort of classical music nerd group texts were buzzing. It felt like a real moment, actually.Henry: And I think it gives people a sense of what art was like in the past. You can go, oh my God, new Chopin. Like, yes, those feelings are not just about modern culture, right? That used to happen with like, oh my God, a new Jane Austen book is here.Brandon: Oh, I know. Well, I mean, I was like reading a lot of Emile Zola up until I guess late last year. And at some point I discovered that he was like an avid amateur photographer. And in like the French Ministry of Culture is like digitized a lot of his glass plate negatives. And one of them is like a picture that Zola has taken of Manet's portrait of him. And it's just like on a floor somewhere. Like he's like sort of taken this like very rickety early camera machinery to this place where this portrait is and like taken a picture of it. It's like, wow. Like you can imagine that like Manet's like, here's this painting I did of you. And Zola's like, ah, yes, I'm going to take a picture to commemorate it. And so I sort of love that.Henry: What other of his photos do you like?Brandon: Well, there's one of him on a bike riding toward the camera. That's really delightful to me because it like that impulse is so recognizable to me. There are all these photos that he took of his mistress that were also just like, you can like, there are also photographs of his children and of his family. And again, those feel so like recognizable to me. He's not even like a very good photographer. It's just that he was taking pictures of his like daily life, except for his kind of stunt photos where he's riding the bike. And it's like, ah, yes, Zola, he would have been great with an iPhone camera.Henry: Which pianists do you like for Chopin?Brandon: Which pianists do I love for Chopin? I like Pollini a lot. Pollini is amazing. Pollini the elder, not Pollini the younger. The younger is not my favorite. And he died recently, Maurizio Pollini. He died very recently. Maybe he's my favorite. I love, I love Horowitz. Horowitz is wonderful at Chopin. But it's obviously it's like not his, you know, you don't sort of go to Horowitz for Chopin, I guess. But I love his Chopin. And sometimes Trifonov. Trifonov has a couple Chopin recordings that I really, really like. I tend not to love Trifonov as much.Henry: Really?Brandon: I know it's controversial. It's very controversial. I know. Tell me why. I, I don't know. He's just a bit of a banger to me. Like, like he's sort of, I don't know, his playing is so flashy. And he feels a bit like a, like a, like a keyboard basher to me sometimes.Henry: But like, do you like his Bach?Brandon: You know, I haven't done a deep dive. Maybe I should do a sort of more rigorous engagement with Trifonov. But yeah, I don't, he's just not, he doesn't make my heart sing. I think he's very good at Bach.Henry: What about a Martha Argerich?Brandon: Oh, I mean, she's incredible. She's incredible. I bought that sort of big orange box out of like all of her, her sort of like masterwork recordings. And she's incredible. She has such feel for Chopin. But she doesn't, I think sometimes people can make Chopin feel a little like, like treacly, like, like a little too sweet. And she has this perfect understanding of his like rhythm and his like inner nuances and like the crispness in his compositions. Like she really pulls all of that out. And I love her. She has such, obviously great dexterity, but like a real sort of exquisite sensitivity to the rhythmic structures of Chopin.Henry: You listen on CD?Brandon: No, I listen on vinyl and I listen on streaming, but mostly vinyl. Mostly vinyl? Yeah, mostly vinyl. I know it's very annoying. No, no, no, no, no.Henry: Which, what are the good speakers?Brandon: I forget where I bought these speakers from, but I sort of did some Googling during the pandemic of like best speakers to use. I have a U-Turn Audio, U-Turn Orbital record player. And so I was just looking for good speakers that were compatible and like wouldn't take up a ton of space in my apartment because I was moving to New York and had a very tiny, tiny apartment. So they're just from sort of standard, I forget the brand, but they've served me well these past few years.Henry: And do you like Ólafsson? He's done some Chopin.Brandon: Who?Henry: Víkingur Ólafsson. He did the Goldbergs this year, but he's done some Chopin before. I think he's quite good.Brandon: Oh, that Icelandic guy?Henry: Yeah, yeah, yeah. With the glasses? That's right. And the very neat hair.Brandon: Yes. Oh, he's so chic. He's so chic. I don't know his Chopin. I know his, there's another series that he did somewhat recently that I'm more familiar with. But he is really good. He has good Beethoven, Víkingur.Henry: Yeah.Brandon: And normally I don't love Beethoven, but like—Henry: Really? Why? Why? What's wrong with Beethoven? All these controversial opinions about music.Brandon: I'm not trying to have controversial opinions. I think I'm, well, I'm such a, I'm such, I mean, I'm just like a dumb person. And so like, I don't, I don't have a really, I feel like I don't have the robust understanding to like fully appreciate Beethoven and all of his sort of like majesty. And so maybe I've just not heard good Beethoven and I need to sort of go back and sort of get a real understanding of it. But I just tend not to like it. It feels like, I don't know, like grandma's living room music to me sometimes.Henry: What other composers do you enjoy?Brandon: Oh, of course.Henry: Or other music generally, right?Brandon: Rachmaninoff is so amazing to me. There was, of course, Bach. Brahms. Oh, I love Brahms, but like specifically the intermezzi. I love the intermezzi. I recently fell in love with, oh, his name is escaping me now, but he, I went to a concert and they sort of did a Brahms intermezzi. And they also played this, I think he was an Austrian composer. And his music was like, it wasn't experimental, but it was like quite, I had a lot of dissonance in it. And I found it like really interesting and like really moving actually. And so I did a sort of listening to that constantly. Oh, I forget his name. But Brahms, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, love Rachmaninoff. I have a friend who says that Rachmaninoff writes Negro spirituals. And I love that theory that Rachmaninoff's music is like the music of the slaves. It just, I don't know. I really, that really resonates with me spiritually. Which pieces, which Rachmaninoff symphonies, concertos? Yeah, the concertos. But like specifically, like I have a friend who said that Rach II sounded to her like the sort of spiritual cry of like the slaves. And we were at like a hangout with like mostly Black people. And she like stopped playing like Juvenile, like the rapper. And she put on Rach II. And we just like sat there and listened. And it did feel like something powerful had entered the room. Yeah, but he's my guy. I secretly really, really love him. I like Liszt, but like it really depends on the day and the time for him. He makes good folk music, Liszt. I love his folky, his folk era.Henry: What is it that you enjoy about tennis?Brandon: What do I enjoy about tennis? I love the, I love not thinking. I love being able to hit the ball for hours on end and like not think. And like, it's the one part of my life. It's the one time in my life where my experience is like totally unstructured. And so like this morning, I went to a 7am drill and play class where you do drills for an hour. Then you play doubles for an hour. And during that first hour of drills, I was just like hitting the ball. I was at the mercy of the guy feeding us the ball. And I didn't have a single thought about books or literature or like the status of my soul or like the nature of American democracy. It was just like, did I hit that ball? Well, did I hit it kind of off center? Were there tingles in my wrist? Yes or no. Like it was just very, very grounding in the moment. And I think that is what I love about it. Do you like to watch tennis? Oh, yeah, constantly. Sometimes when I'm in a work meeting, the Zoom is here and the tennis is like playing in the background. Love tennis, love to watch, love to play, love to think about, to ponder. Who are the best players for you? Oh, well, the best players, my favorite players are Roger Federer, Serena Williams, Stanislas Wawrinka, love Wawrinka. And I was a really big Davydenko head back in the day. Nikolai Davydenko was this Russian player who had, he was like a metronome. He just like would not miss. Yeah, those are my favorites. Right now, the guy I'm sort of rooting for who's still active is Kasper Rud, who's this Norwegian guy. And I love him because he just looks like some guy. Like he just looks like he should be in a seminary somewhere. I love it. I love, I love his normalness. He just looks like an NPC. And I'm drawn to that in a tennis player.Henry: It's hard to think of tennis in novels. Why is that?Brandon: Well, I think a lot of people don't, well, I think part of it is a lot of novelists. Part of it is a lot of novelists don't play sports. I think that they, at least Americans, I can't speak for other parts of the world, but in America, a lot of novelists are not doing sports. So that's one. And I think two, like, you know, like with anything, I think that tennis has not been subjected to the same schemes of narrativization that like other things are. And so like it's, a lot of novelists just like don't see a sort of readily dramatizable thing in tennis. Even though if you like watch tennis and like listen to tennis commentary, they are always erecting narratives. They're like, oh yeah, she's been on a 19 match losing streak. Is this where she turns it around? And to me, tennis is like a very literary sport because tennis is one of those sports where it's all about the matchup. It's like your forehand to my backhand, like no matter how well I play against everyone else, like it's you and me locked in the struggle. And like that to me feels incredibly literary. And it is so tied to your individual psychology as well. Like, I don't know, I endlessly am fascinated by it. And indeed, I got an idea for a tennis novel the other day that I'm hopefully going to write in three to five years. We'll see.Henry: Very good. How did working in a lab influence your writing?Brandon: Well, somewhat directly and materially in the case of my first book, because I wrote it while I was working in the lab and it gave me weirdly like time and structure to do that work where I would be pipetting. And then while I was waiting for an assay or a experiment to run or finish, I would have 30 minutes to sit down and write.Henry: So you were writing like at the lab bench?Brandon: Oh, yeah, absolutely. One thousand percent. I would like put on Philip Glass's score for the hours and then just like type while my while the centrifuge was running or whatever. And and so like there's that impression sort of baked into the first couple books. And then I think more, I guess, like spiritually or broadly, it influenced my work because it taught me how to think and how to organize time and how to organize thoughts and how to sort of pursue long term, open ended projects whose results may or may not, you know, fail because of something that you did or maybe you didn't do. And that's just the nature of things. Who knows? But yeah, I think also just like discipline, the discipline to sort of clock in every day. And to sort of go to the coalface and do the work. And that's not a thing that is, you know. That you just get by working in a lab, but it's certainly something that I acquired working in a lab.Henry: Do you think it's affected your interest in criticism? Because there's there are certain types of critic who seem to come from a scientific background like Helen Vendler. And there's something something about the sort of the precision and, you know, that certain critics will refuse to use critical waffle, like the human condition. And they won't make these big, vague gestures to like how this can change the way we view society. They're like, give me real details. Give me real like empirical criticism. Do you think this is — are you one of these people?Brandon: Yeah, yeah, I think I'm, you know, I'm all about what's on the page. I'm all about the I'm not gonna go rooting in your biography for not gonna go. I'm not I'm not doing that. It's like what you brought to me on the page is what you've brought to me. And that is what I will be sort of coming over. I mean, I think so. I mean, very often when critics write about my work, or when people respond to my work, they sort of describe it as being put under a microscope. And I do think like, that is how I approach literature. It's how I approach life. If there's ever a problem or a question put to me, I just sort of dissect it and try to get down to its core bits and its core parts. And and so yeah, I mean, if that is a scientific way of doing things, that's certainly how I but also I don't know any other way to think like that's sort of that's sort of how I was trained to think about stuff. You've been to London. I have. What did you think of it? The first time I didn't love it. The second and third times I had a good time, but I felt like London didn't love me back. London is the only place on earth I've ever been where people have had a hard time understanding me like I like it's the only place where I've like attempted to order food or a drink or something in a store or a cafe or a restaurant. And the waiters like turned to my like British hosts and asked them to translate. And that is an entirely foreign experience for me. And so London and I have like a very contentious relationship, I would say.Henry: Now, you've just published four classic novels.Brandon: Yes.Henry: George Gissing, Edith Wharton, Victor Hugo and Sarah Orne Jewett. Why did you choose those four writers, those four titles?Brandon: Oh, well, once we decided that we were going to do a classics imprint, you know, then it's like, well, what are we going to do? And I'm a big Edith Wharton fan. And there are all of these Edith Wharton novels that Americans don't really know about. They know Edith Wharton for The Age of Innocence. And if they are an English major, they maybe know her for The House of Mirth. Or like maybe they know her for The Custom of the Country if they're like really into reading. But then they sort of think of her as a novelist of the 19th century. And she's writing all of these books set in the 1920s and about the 1920s. And so it felt important to show people like, oh, this is a writer who died a lot later than you think that she did. And whose creative output was, you know, pretty, who was like a contemporary of F. Scott Fitzgerald in a lot of ways. Like, these books are being published around the same time as The Great Gatsby. And to sort of, you know, bring attention to a part of her over that, like, people don't know about. And like, that's really exciting to me. And Sarah Orne Jewett, I mean, I just really love The Country of the Pointed Furs. I love that book. And I found it in like in a 10 cents bin at a flea market one time. And it's a book that people have tried to bring back. And there have been editions of it. But it just felt like if we could get two people who are really cool to talk about why they love that book, we could sort of have like a real moment. And Sarah Orne Jewett was like a pretty big American writer. Like she was a pretty significant writer. And she was like really plugged in and she's not really read or thought about now. And so that felt like a cool opportunity as well to sort of create a very handsome edition of this book and to sort of talk about a bit why she matters. And the guessing of it all is we were going to do New Grub Street. And then my co-editor thought, well, The Odd Women, I think, is perhaps more relevant to our current moment than New Grub Street necessarily. And it would sort of differentiate us from the people, from the presses that are doing reissues of New Grub Street, because there's just been a new edition of that book. And nobody in America really knows The Odd Women. And it's a really wonderful novel. It's both funny and also like really biting in its satire and commentary. So we thought, oh, it'll be fun to bring this writer to Americans who they've never heard of in a way that will speak to them in a lot of ways. And the Victor Hugo, I mean, you know, there are Hugos that people know all about. And then there are Hugos that no one knows about. And Toilers of the Sea was a passion project for my co-editor. She'd read it in Guernsey. That's where she first discovered that book. And it really meant a lot to her. And I read it and really loved it. I mean, it was like Hugo at his most Hugo. Like, it's a very, it's a very, like, it's a very abundant book. And it's so wild and strange and changeful. And so I was like, oh, that seems cool. Let's do it. Let's put out Toilers of the Sea. So that's a bit of why we picked each one.Henry: And what have you learned from being on the other side of things now that you're the publisher?Brandon: So much. I've learned so much. And indeed, I just, I was just asked by my editor to do the author questionnaire for the novel that I have coming out next. And I thought, yes, I will do this. And I will do it immediately. Because now I know, I know how important these are. And I know how early and how far in advance these things need to be locked in to make everyone's life easier. I think I've learned a bit about the sometimes panicked scramble that happens to get a book published. I've learned about how hard it is to wrangle blurbs. And so I think I'm a little more forgiving of my publishers. But they've always been really great to me. But now I'm like, oh, my gosh, what can I do for you? How can I help you make this publication more of a success?Henry: Do you think that among literary people generally, there's a lack of appreciation of what business really involves in some of the senses you're talking about? I feel like I see a lot of either indifferent or hostile attitudes towards business or commerce or capitalism, late stage capitalism or whatever. And I sometimes look at it and I'm like, I don't think you guys really know what it takes to just like get stuff done. You know what I mean? Like, it's a lot of grind. I don't think it's a big nasty thing. It's just a lot of hard work, right?Brandon: Yeah, I mean, 1000%. Or if it's not a sort of misunderstanding, but a sort of like disinterest in like, right, like a sort of high minded, like, oh, that's just the sort of petty grimy commerce of it all. I care about the beauty and the art. And it's just like, friend, we need booksellers to like, sell this. I mean, to me, the part of it that is most to me, like the most illustrative example of this in my own life is that when I first heard how my editor was going to be describing my book, I was like, that's disgusting. That's horrible. Why are you talking about my race? Why are you talking about like my sexuality? Like, this is horrible. Why can't you just like talk about the plot of the book? Like, what is the matter with you? And then I had, you know, I acquired and edited this book called Henry Henry, which is a queer contemporary retelling of the Henry ad. And it's a wonderful novel. It's so delightful. And I had to go into our sales conference where we are talking to the people whose job it is to sell that book into bookstores to get bookstores to take that book up. And I had to write this incredibly craven description of this novel. And as I was writing it, I was like, I hope Alan, the author, I hope Alan never sees this. He never needs to hear how I'm talking about this book. And as I was doing it, I was like, I will never hold it against my editor again for writing this like, cheesy, cringy copy. Because it's like you, like, you so believe in the art of that book, so much that you want it to give it every fighting chance in the marketplace. And you need to arm your sales team with every weapon of commerce they need to get that book to succeed so that when readers pick it up, they can appreciate all of the beautiful and glorious art of it. And I do think that people, you know, like, people don't really kind of, people don't really understand that. And I do think that part of that is publishing's fault, because they are, they've been rather quick to elide the distinctions between art and commerce. And so like publishing has done a not great job of sort of giving people a lot of faith in its understanding that there's a difference between art and commerce. But yeah, I think, I think there's a lot of misapprehension out there about like, what goes into getting bookstores to acquire that book.Henry: What are the virtues of negative book reviews?Brandon: I was just on a panel about this. I mean, I mean, hopefully a negative book review, like a positive review, or like any review, will allow a reader or the audience to understand the book in a new way, or to create a desire in the reader to pick up the book and see if they agree or disagree or that they, that they have something to argue with or push against as they're reading. You know, when I'm writing a negative review, when I'm writing a review that I feel is trending toward negative, I should say, I always try to like, I don't know, I try to always remember that like, this is just me presenting my experience of the book and my take of the book. And hopefully that will be productive or useful for whoever reads the review. And hopefully that my review won't be the only thing that they read and that they will in fact, go pick up the book and see if they agree or disagree. It's hopefully it creates interesting and potentially divergent dialogues or discourses around the text. And fundamentally, I think not every critic feels this way. Not every piece of criticism is like this. But the criticism I write, I'm trying to create the conditions that will refer the reader always back to the text, be it through quotation, be it through, they're so incensed by my argument that they're going to go read the book themselves and then like, yell at me. Like, I think that that's wonderful, but like, always keeping the book at the center. But I think a negative review can, you know, it can start a conversation. It can get people talking about books, which in this culture, this phase of history feels like a win. And hopefully it can sort of be a corrective sometimes to less genuine or perceived less genuine discourses that are existing around the book.Henry: I think even whether or not it's a question of genuine, it's for me, it's just a question of if you tell people this book is good and they give up their time and money and they discover that it's trash, you've done a really bad thing to that person. And like, there might be dozens of them compared to this one author who you've been impolite to or whatever. And it's just a question of don't lie in book, right?Brandon: Well, yeah. I mean, hopefully people are honest, but I do feel sometimes that there is, there's like a lack of honesty. And look, I think that being like, well, I mean, maybe you'll love this. I don't love it, you know, but at least present your opinion in that way. At least be like, you know, there are many interpretations of this thing. Here's my interpretation. Maybe you'll feel differently or something like that. But I do think that people feel that there have been a great number of dishonest book reviews. Maybe there have been, maybe there have not been. I certainly have read some reviews I felt were dishonest about books that I have read. And I think that the negative book review does feel a bit like a corrective in a lot of ways, both, you know, justified or unjustified. People are like, finally, someone's being honest about this thing. But yeah, I think it's interesting. I think it's all really, I think it's all fascinating. I do think that there are some reviews though, that are negative and that are trying to be about the book, but are really about the author. There are some reviews that I have read that have been ostensibly about reviewing a text, but which have really been about, you don't like that person and you have decided to sort of like take an axe to them. And that to me feels not super productive. I wouldn't do it, but other people find it useful.Henry: As in, you can tell that from the review or you know that from background information?Brandon: I mean, this is all projection, of course, but like there have been some reviews where I've read, like, for example, some of the Lauren Oyler reviews, I think some of the Lauren Oyler reviews were negative and were exclusively about the text. And they sort of took the text apart and sort of dissected it and came to conclusions, some of which I agreed with, some of which I didn't agree with, but they were fundamentally about the text. And like all the criticisms referred back to the text. And then there were some that were like projecting attitudes onto the author that were more about creating this sort of vaporous shape of Lauren Oyler and then sort of poking holes in her literary celebrity or her stature as a critic or what have you. And that to me felt less productive as like a book review.Henry: Yes. Who are your favorite reviewers?Brandon: Ooh, my favorite reviewers. I really love Christian Lawrence. And he does my, of the critics who try to do the sort of like mini historiography of like a thing. He's my favorite because he teaches me a lot. He sort of is so good at summing up an era or summing up a phase of literary production without being like so cringe or so socialist about it. I really love, I love it when he sort of distills and dissects an era. I really like Hermione Hobie. I think she's really interesting. And she writes about books with a lot of feeling and a lot of energy. And I really love her mind. And of course, like Patricia Lockwood, of course, everyone, perhaps not everyone, but I enjoy Patricia Lockwood's criticism. You don't?Henry: Not really.Brandon: Oh, is it because it's too chatty? Is it too, is it too selfie?Henry: A little bit. I think, I think that kind of criticism can work really well. But I think, I think it's too much. I think basically she's very, she's a very stylized writer and a lot of her judgments get, it gets to the point where it's like, this is the logical conclusion of what you're trying to do stylistically. And there are some zingers in here and some great lines and whatever, but we're no longer, this is no longer really a book review.Brandon: Yeah.Henry: Like by the, by the end of the paragraph, this, like, we didn't want to let the style go. We didn't want to lose the opportunity to cap that off. And it leads her into, I think, glibness a lot of the time.Brandon: Yeah. I could see that. I mean, I mean, I enjoy reading her pieces, but do I understand like what's important to her at a sort of literary level? I don't know. I don't, and in that sense, like, are they, is it criticism or is it closer to like personal essay, humorous essay? I don't know. Maybe that's true. I enjoy reading them, but I get why people are like, this is a very, very strong flavor for sure.Henry: Now you've been reading a lot of literary criticism.Brandon: Oh yeah.Henry: Not of the LRB variety, but of the, the old books in libraries variety. Yes. How did that start? How did, how did you come to this?Brandon: Somewhat like ham-fistedly. I, in 2021, I had a really bad case of writer's block and I thought maybe part of the reason I had writer's block was that I didn't know anything about writing or I didn't know anything about like literature or like writing. I'd been writing, I'd published a novel. I was working on another novel. I'd published a book of stories, but like, I just like truly didn't know anything about literature really. And I thought I need some big boy ideas. I need, I need to find out what adults think about literature. And so I went to my buddy, Christian Lorenzen, and I was like, you write criticism. What is it? And what should I read? And he gave me a sort of starter list of criticism. And it was like the liberal imagination by Lionel Trilling and Guy Davenport and Alfred Kazin who wrote On Native Grounds, which is this great book on the American literary tradition and Leslie Fiedler's Love and Death in the American Novel. And I, and then Edmund Wilson's Axel's Castle. And I read all of those. And then as each one would sort of refer to a different text or person, I sort of like followed the footnotes down into this rabbit hole of like literary criticism. And now it's been a sort of ongoing project of the last few years of like reading. I always try to have a book of criticism on the go. And then earlier this year, I read Jameson's The Antimonies of Realism. And he kept talking about this Georg Lukács guy. And I was like, I guess I should go read Lukács. And so then I started reading Lukács so that I could get back to Jameson. And I've been reading Lukács ever since. I am like deep down the Lukács rabbit hole. But I'm not reading any of the socialism stuff. I told myself that I wouldn't read any of the socialism stuff and I would only read the literary criticism stuff, which makes me very different from a lot of the socialist literary critics I really enjoy because they're like Lukács, don't read in that literary criticism stuff, just read his socialism stuff. So I'm reading all the wrong stuff from Lukács, but I really, I really love it. But yeah, it sort of started because I thought I needed grown up ideas about literature. And it's been, I don't know, I've really enjoyed it. I really, really enjoy it. It's given me perhaps terrible ideas about what novels should be or do. But, you know, that's one of the side effects to reading.Henry: Has it made, like, what specific ways has it changed how you've written since you've acquired a set of critical principles or ideas?Brandon: Yeah, I mean, I think part of it is, part of it has to do with Lukács' idea of the totality. And, you know, I think that the sort of most direct way that it shows up in a sort of really practical way in my novel writing is that I no longer really want to be starting my books, quote unquote, in media res. Like, I don't want, I want my books to feel like books. I don't want my books to feel like movies. And I don't want them to feel like treatments for film. And so I want to sort of bring back all of what a novel can do in terms of its structure and in terms of its form and stuff like that. And so it means starting books, you know, with this sort of Dickensian voice of God speaking from on high, sort of summing up an era. And I think also sort of allowing the narrators in my work to dare to sum up, allowing characters in my work to have ideologies and to argue about those ideologies. I feel like that is a thing that was sort of denuded from the American novel for a lot of millennials and just sort of like trying to put back some of that old fashioned machinery that was like stripped out of the novel. And seeing what of it can still function, seeing, trying to figure out if there's any juice left in these modes of representation and stuff like that. And so like that, that's sort of, that's sort of abstract, but like in a concrete way, like what I'm kind of trying to resolve in my novel writing these days.Henry: You mentioned Dickens.Brandon: Oh, yes.Henry: Which Dickens novels do you like?Brandon: Now I'm afraid I'm going to say something else controversial. We love controversial. Which Dickens? I love Bleak House. I love Bleak House. I love Tale of Two Cities. It is one of the best openings ever, ever, ever, ever in the sweep of that book at once personal and universal anyway. Bleak House, Tale of Two Cities. And I also, I read Great Expectations as like a high school student and didn't like it, hated it. It was so boring. But now coming back to it, I think it, honestly, it might be the novel of our time. I think it might accidentally be a novel. I mean, it's a novel of scammers, a novel of like, interpersonal beef taken to the level of like, spiritual conflict, like it's about thieves and class, like it just feels like like that novel could have been written today about people today, like that book just feels so alive to today's concerns, which perhaps, I don't know, says something really evil about this cultural stagnation under capitalism, perhaps, but I don't know, love, love Great Expectations now.Henry: Why are so many modern novels boring?Brandon: Well, depends on what you mean by boring, Henry, what do you mean? Why?Henry: I mean, you said this.Brandon: Oh.Henry: I mean, I happen to agree, but this is, I'm quoting you.Brandon: Oh, yes. I remember that. I remember that review.Henry: I mean, I can tell you why I think they're boring.Brandon: Oh, yes, please.Henry: So I think, I think what you said before is true. They all read like movies. And I think I very often I go in, I pick up six or seven books on the new book table. And I'm like, these openings are all just the same. You're all thinking you can all see Netflix in your head. This is not really a novel. And so the dialogue is really boring, because you kind of you can hear some actor or actress saying it. But I can't hear that because I'm the idiot stuck in the bookshop reading your Netflix script. Whereas, you know, I think you're right that a lot of those traditional forms of storytelling, they like pull you in to the to the novel. And they and they like by the end of the first few pages, you sort of feel like I'm in this funny place now. And to do in media res, like, someone needs to get shot, or something, something weird needs to be said, like, you can't just do another, another standard opening. So I think that's a big, that's a big point.Brandon: Well, as Lukasz tells us, bourgeois realism has a, an unholy fondness for the, the average, the merely average, as opposed to the typical. And I think, yeah, a lot of it, a lot of why I think it's boring echoes you, I think that for me, what I find boring, and a lot of them is that it feels like novelists have abandoned any desire to, to have their characters or the novels themselves integrate the sort of disparate experiences within the novel into any kind of meaningful hole. And so there isn't this like sense of like things advancing toward a grander understanding. And I think a lot of it is because they've, they are writing under the assumption that like the question of why can never be answered. There can never be like a why, there can never be a sort of significance to anything. And so everything is sort of like evacuated of significance or meaning. And so you have what I've taken to calling like reality TV fiction, where the characters are just like going places and doing things, and there are no thoughts, there are no thoughts about their lives, or no thoughts about the things that they are doing, there are no thoughts about their experiences. And it's just a lot of like, like lowercase e events in their lives, but like no attempt to organize those events into any sort of meaningful hole. And I think also just like, what leads to a lot of dead writing is writers who are deeply aware that they're writing about themes, they're writing about themes instead of people. And they're working from generalities instead of particularities and specificities. And they have no understanding of the relationship between the universal and the particular. And so like, everything is just like, like beans in a can that they're shaking around. And I think that that's really boring. I think it's really tedious. Like, like, sure, we can we can find something really profound in the mundane, but like, you have to be really smart to do that. So like the average novelist is like better off like, starting with a gunshot or something like do something big.Henry: If you're not Virginia Woolf, it is in fact just mundane.Brandon: Indeed. Yeah.Henry: Is there too much emphasis on craft? In the way, in the way, in like what's valued among writers, in the way writers are taught, I feel like everything I see is about craft. And I'm like, craft is good, but that can just be like how you make a table rather than like how you make a house. Craft is not the guarantor of anything. And I see a lot of books where I think this person knows some craft. But as you say, they don't really have an application for it. And they don't. No one actually said to them, all style has a moral purpose, whether you're aware of it or not. And so they default to this like pointless use of the craft. And someone should say to them, like, you need to know history. You need to know tennis. You need to know business. You need to know like whatever, you know. And I feel like the novels I don't like are reflections of the discourse bubble that the novelist lives in. And I feel like it's often the continuation of Twitter by other means. So in the Rachel Kong novel that I think it came out this year, there's a character, a billionaire character who comes in near the end. And everything that he says or that is said about him is literally just meme. It's online billionaire meme because billionaires are bad because of all the things we all know from being on Twitter. And I was like, so you just we literally have him a character as meme. And this is the most representative thing to me, because that's maybe there's craft in that. Right. But what you've chosen to craft is like 28 tweets. That's pointless.Brandon: 28 tweets be a great title for a book, though, you have to admit, I would buy that book off the new book table. 28 tweets. I would. I would buy that. Yeah, I do think. Well, I think it goes both ways. I think it goes both ways. I somewhat famously said this about Sally Rooney that like she her books have no craft. The craft is bad. And I do think like there are writers who only have craft, who are able to sort of create these wonderfully structured books and to sort of deploy these beautiful techniques. And those books are absolutely dead. There's just like nothing in them because they have nothing to say. There's just like nothing to be said about any of that. And on the other hand, you have these books that are full of feelings that like would be better had someone taught that person about structure or form or had they sort of had like a rigorous thing. And I would say that like both of those are probably bad, like depending on who you are, you find one more like, like easier to deal with than the other. I do think that like part of why there's such an emphasis on craft is because not to sort of bring capitalism back in but you can monetize craft, you know what I mean? Like, craft is one of those things that is like readily monetizable. Like, if I'm a writer, and I would like to make money, and I can't sell a novel, I can tell people like, oh, how to craft a perfect opening, how to create a novel opening that will make agents pick it up and that will make editors say yes, but like what the sort of promise of craft is that you can finish a thing, but not that it is good, as you say, there's no guarantor. Whereas you know, like it's harder to monetize someone's soul, or like, it's harder to monetize like the sort of random happenstance of just like a writer's voice sort of emerging from from whatever, like you can't turn that into profit. But you can turn into profit, let me help you craft your voice. So it's very grind set, I think craft has a tendency to sort of skew toward the grind set and toward people trying to make money from, from writing when they can't sell a book, you know. Henry: Let's play a game. Brandon: Oh dear.Henry: I say the name of a writer. You give us like the 30 second Brandon Taylor opinion of that writer.Brandon: Okay. Yeah.Henry: Jonathan Franzen.Brandon: Thomas Mann, but like, slightly more boring, I think.Henry: Iris Murdoch.Brandon: A friend of mine calls her a modern calls her the sort of pre Sally Rooney, Sally Rooney. And I agree with that.Henry: When I'm at parties, I try and sell her to people where I say she's post-war Sally Rooney.Brandon: Yes, yes. And like, and like all that that entails, and so many delightful, I read all these like incredible sort of mid century reviews of her novels, and like the men, the male critics, like the Bernard Breganzis of the world being like, why is there so much sex in this book? It's amazing. Please go look up those like mid-century reviews of Iris Murdoch. They were losing their minds. Henry: Chekhov.Brandon: Perfect, iconic, baby girl, angel, legend. Can't get enough. 10 out of 10.Henry: Evelyn Waugh.Brandon: So Catholic, real Catholic vibes. But like, scabrously funny. And like, perhaps the last writer to write about life as though it had meaning. Hot take, but I'll, I stand by it.Henry: Yeah, well, him and Murdoch. But yeah, no, I think I think there's a lot in that. C.V. Wedgwood.Brandon: Oh, my gosh. The best, a titan, a master of history. Like, oh, my God. I would not be the same without Wedgwood.Henry: Tell us which one we should read.Brandon: Oh, the 30 Years War. What are you talking about?Henry: Well, I think her books on the English Civil War… I'm a parochial Brit.Brandon: Oh, see, I don't, not that I don't, I will go read those. But her book on the 30 Years War is so incredible. It's, it's amazing. It's second to like, Froissart's Chronicles for like, sort of history, history books for me.Henry: Northrop Frye.Brandon: My father. I, Northrop Frye taught me so much about how to see and how to think. Just amazing, a true thinker in a mind. Henry: Which book? Brandon: Oh, Anatomy of Criticism is fantastic. But Fearful Symmetry is just, it will blow your head off. Just amazing. But if you're looking for like, to have your, your mind gently remapped, then Anatomy of Criticism.Henry: Emma Cline.Brandon: A throwback. I think she's, I think she's Anne Beattie meets John Cheever for a new era. And I think she's amazing. She's perfect. Don't love her first novel. I think her stories are better. She's a short story writer. And she should stay that way.Henry: Okay, now I want you to rank Jane Austen's novels.Brandon: Wait, okay. So like, by my preference, or by like, what I think is the best?Henry: You can do both.Brandon: Okay. So in terms, my favorite, Persuasion. Then Mansfield Park. Sense and Sensibility. Pride and Prejudice. And then Emma, then Northanger Abbey. Okay.Henry: Now, how about for which ones are the best?Brandon: Persuasion. Pride and Prejudice. Mansfield Park. Emma,.Sense and Sensibility. Northanger Abbey.Henry: Why do people not like Fanny Price? And what is wrong with them?Brandon: Fanny Price is perfect. Fanny Price, I was just talking to someone about this last night at dinner. Fanny Price, she's perfect. First of all, she is, I don't know why people don't like her. She's like a chronically ill girl who's hot for her cousin and like, has deep thoughts. It seems like she would be the icon of literary Twitter for like a certain kind of person, you know? And I don't know why they don't like her. I think I'm, I am becoming the loudest Mansfield Park apologist on the internet. I think that people don't like Fanny because she's less vivacious than Mary Crawford. And I think that people are afraid to see themselves in Fanny because she seems like she's unfun or whatever. But what they don't realize is that like Fanny Price, Fanny Price has like a moral intelligence and like a moral consciousness. And like Fanny Price is one of the few Austen characters who actually argues directly and literally about the way the world is. Like with multiple people, like the whole, the whole novel is her sort of arguing about, well, cities are this and the country is this. And like, we need Parsons as much as we need party boys. Like, like she's arguing not just about, not just about these things like through the lens of like marriage or like the sort of marriage economy, but like in literal terms, I mean, she is so, she's like a moral philosopher. I love Fanny Price and she's so smart and so sensitive and so, and I guess like maybe it's just that people don't like a character who's kind of at the mercy of others and they view her as passive. When in fact, like a young woman arguing about the way the world should be, like Mary Crawford's, Mary Crawford's like kind of doing the above, not really, not like Fanny. But yeah, I love her. She's amazing. I love Fanny Price. And I also think that people love Margaret Hale from North and South. And I think that when people are saying they hate Fanny Price, what they're picturing is actually how Margaret Hale is. Margaret Hale is one of the worst heroines of a novel. She's so insufferable. She's so rude. She's so condescending. And like, she does get her comeuppance and like Gaskell does sort of bring about a transformation where she's actually able to sort of like see poor people as people first and not like subjects of sympathy. But Margaret is what people imagine Fanny is, I think. And we should, we should start a Fanny Price, like booster club. Henry, should we? Let's do it. It begins here. I just feel so strongly about her. I feel, I love, I love Fanny.Henry: She's my favorite of Austen's characters. And I think she is the most representative Austen character. She's the most Austen of all of them, right?Brandon: Yeah, I mean, that makes great deal of sense to me. She's just so wonderful. Like she's so funny and so observant. And she's like this quiet little girl who's like kind of sickly and people don't really like her. And she's kind of maybe I'm just like, maybe I just like see myself in her. And I don't mind being a sort of annoying little person who's going around the world.Henry: What are some good principles for naming literary characters?Brandon: Ooh, I have a lot of strong feelings about this. I think that names should be memorable. They should have like, like an aura of sort of literariness about them. I don't mean, I mean, taken to like hilarious extremes. It's like Henry James. Catherine Goodwood, Isabelle Archer, Ralph Touchett, like, you know, Henry had a stack pole. So like, not like that. But I mean, that could be fun in a modern way. But I think there's like an aura of like, it's a name that you might hear in real life, but it sort of add or remove, it's sort of charged and elevated, sort of like with dialogue. And that it's like a memorable thing that sort of like, you know, it's like, you know, memorable thing that sort of sticks in the reader's mind. It is both a name, a literary, a good literary name is both a part of this world and not of this world, I think. And, yeah, and I love that. I think like, don't give your character a name like you hear all the time. Like, Tyler is a terrible literary name. Like, no novel has ever, no good novel has ever had a really important character named Tyler in it. It just hasn't. Ryan? What makes a good sentence? Well, my sort of like, live and let live answer is that a good sentence is a sentence that is perfectly suited to the purpose it has. But I don't know, I like a clear sentence, regardless of length or lyric intensity, but just like a clear sentence that articulates something. I like a sentence with motion, a sense of rhythm, a sense of feel without any bad words in it. And I don't mean like curse words, I mean like words that shouldn't be in literature. Like, there's some words that just like don't belong in novels.Henry: Like what?Brandon: Squelch. Like, I don't think the word squelch should be in a novel. That's a gross word and it doesn't sound literary to me. I don't want to see it.Henry: I wouldn't be surprised if it was in Ulysses.Brandon: Well, yes.Henry: I have no idea, but I'm sure, I'm sure.Brandon: But so few of us are James Joyce. And that novel is like a thousand bodily functions per page. But don't love it. Don't love it.Henry: You don't love Ulysses?Brandon: No, I don't… Listen, I don't have a strong opinion, but you're not going to get me cancelled about Ulysses. I'm not Virginia Woolf.Henry: We're happy to have opinions of that nature here. That's fine.Brandon: You know, I don't have a strong feeling about it, actually. Some parts of it that I've read are really wonderful. And some parts of it that I have read are really dense and confusing to me. I haven't sort of given it the time it needs or deserves. What did you learn from reading Toni Morris? What did I learn? I think I learned a lot about the moral force of melodrama. I think that she shows us a lot about the uses of melodrama and how it isn't just like a lesion of realism, that it isn't just a sort of malfunctioning realism, but that there are certain experiences and certain lives and certain things that require and necessitate melodrama. And when deployed, it's not tacky or distasteful that it actually is like deeply necessary. And also just like the joy of access and language, like the sort of... Her language is so towering. I don't know, whenever I'm being really shy about a sentence being too vivid or too much, I'm like, well, Toni Morrison would just go for it. And I am not Toni Morrison, but she has given me the courage to try.Henry: What did you like about the Annette Benning film of The Seagull?Brandon: The moment when Annette Benning sings Dark Eyes is so good. It's so good. I think about it all the time. And indeed, I stole that moment for a short story that I wrote. And I liked that part of it. I liked the set design. I think also Saoirse Ronan, when she gives that speech as Nina, where she's like, you know, where the guy's like, what do you want from, you know, what do you want? Why do you want to be an actress? And she's like, I want fame. You know, like, I want to be totally adored. And I'm just like, yeah, that's so real. That's so, that is so real. Like Chekhov has understood something so deep, so deep about the nature of commerce and art there. And I think Saoirse is really wonderful in that movie. It's a not, it's not a good movie. It's maybe not even a good adaptation of The Seagull. But I really enjoyed it. I saw it like five times in a theater in Iowa City.Henry: I don't know if it's a bad adaptation of The Seagull, because it's one of the, it's one of the Chekhov's I've seen that actually understands that, like, the tragic and the and the comic are not meant to be easily distinguishable in his work. And it does have all this lightheartedness. And it is quite funny. And I was like, well, at least someone's doing that because I'm so sick of, like, gloomy Chekhov. You know what I mean? Like, oh, the clouds and the misery. Like, no, he wants you, he wants you to laugh and then be like, I shouldn't laugh because it's kind of tragic, but it's also just funny.Brandon: Yeah. Yes, I mean, all the moments were like, like Annette Bening's characters, like endless stories, like she's just like constantly unfurling a story and a story and a story and a story. Every scene kind of was like, she's in the middle of telling another interminable anecdote. And of course, the sort of big tragic turn at the end is like, where like, Kostya kills himself. And she's like, in the middle of like, another really long anecdote while they're in the other room playing cards. Like, it's so, it's so good. So I love that. I enjoy watching that movie. I still think it's maybe not. It's a little wooden, like as a movie, like it's a little, it's a little rickety.Henry: Oh, sure, sure, sure, sure. But for someone looking to like, get a handle on Chekhov, it's actually a good place to go. What is the best make of Fountain Pen?Brandon: That's a really good, that's a really, really, really good question. Like, what's your Desert Island Fountain Pen? My Desert Island Fountain Pen. Right now, it's an Esterbrook Estee with a needlepoint nib. It's like, so, I can use that pen for hours and hours and hours and hours. I think my favorite Fountain Pen, though, is probably the Pilot Custom 743. It's a really good pen, not too big, not too small. It can hold a ton of ink, really wonderful. I use, I think, like a Soft Fine nib, incredible nib, so smooth. Like, I, you could cap it and then uncap it a month later, and it just like starts immediately. It's amazing. And it's not too expensive.Henry: Brandon Taylor, thank you very much.Brandon: Thanks for having me. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

On this episode of the pod, my guest is David Cayley, a Toronto-based Canadian writer and broadcaster. For more than thirty years (1981-2012) he made radio documentaries for CBC Radio One's program Ideas, which premiered in 1965 under the title The Best Ideas You'll Hear Tonight. In 1966, at the age of twenty, Cayley joined the Canadian University Service Overseas (CUSO), one of the many volunteer organizations that sprang up in the 1960's to promote international development. Two years later, back in Canada, he began to associate with a group of returned volunteers whose experiences had made them, like himself, increasingly quizzical about the idea of development. In 1968 in Chicago, he heard a lecture given by Ivan Illich and in 1970 he and others brought Illich to Toronto for a teach-in called “Crisis in Development.” This was the beginning of their long relationship: eighteen years later Cayley invited Illich to do a series of interviews for CBC Radio's Ideas. Cayley is the author of Ivan Illich: An Intellectual Journey (2022), Ideas on the Nature of Science (2009), The Rivers North of the Future: The Testament of Ivan Illich (2004), Puppet Uprising (2003),The Expanding Prison: The Crisis in Crime and Punishment and the Search for Alternatives (1998), George Grant in Conversation (1995), Northrop Frye in Conversation (1992), Ivan Illich in Conversation (1992), and The Age of Ecology (1990).Show Notes:The Early Years with Ivan IllichThe Good Samaritan StoryFalling out of a HomeworldThe Corruption of the Best is the Worst (Corruptio Optimi Pessima)How Hospitality Becomes HostilityHow to Live in ContradictionRediscovering the FutureThe Pilgrimage of SurpriseFriendship with the OtherHomework:Ivan Illich: An Intellectual Journey (Penn State Press) - Paperback Now Available!David Cayley's WebsiteThe Rivers North of the Future (House of Anansi Press)Ivan Illich | The Corruption of Christianity: Corruptio Optimi Pessima (2000)Charles Taylor: A Secular AgeTranscript:Chris: [00:00:00] Welcome, David, to the End of Tourism Podcast. It's a pleasure to finally meet you. David: Likewise. Thank you. Chris: I'm very grateful to have you joining me today. And I'm curious if you could offer our listeners a little glimpse into where you find yourself today and what the world looks like for you through the lenses of David Cayley.David: Gray and wet. In Toronto, we've had a mild winter so far, although we did just have some real winter for a couple of weeks. So, I'm at my desk in my house in downtown Toronto. Hmm. Chris: Hmm. Thank you so much for joining us, David. You know, I came to your work quite long ago.First through the book, The Rivers North of the Future, The Testament of Ivan Illich. And then through your long standing tenure as the host of CBC Ideas in Canada. I've also just finished reading your newest book, Ivan Illich, An Intellectual Journey. For me, which has been a clear and comprehensive homage [00:01:00] to that man's work.And so, from what I understand from the reading, you were a friend of Illich's as well as the late Gustavo Esteva, a mutual friend of ours, who I interviewed for the podcast shortly before his death in 2021. Now, since friendship is one of the themes I'd like to approach with you today, I'm wondering if you could tell us about how you met these men and what led you to writing a biography of the former, of Ivan.David: Well, let me answer about Ivan first. I met him as a very young man. I had spent two years living in northern Borneo, eastern Malaysia, the Malaysian state of Sarawak. As part of an organization called the Canadian University Service Overseas, which many people recognize only when it's identified with the Peace Corps. It was a similar initiative or the VSO, very much of the time.And When I returned to [00:02:00] Toronto in 1968, one of the first things I saw was an essay of Ivan's. It usually circulates under the name he never gave it, which is, "To Hell With Good Intentions." A talk he had given in Chicago to some young volunteers in a Catholic organization bound for Mexico.And it made sense to me in a radical and surprising way. So, I would say it began there. I went to CDOC the following year. The year after that we brought Ivan to Toronto for a teach in, in the fashion of the time, and he was then an immense celebrity, so we turned people away from a 600 seat theater that night when he lectured in Toronto.I kept in touch subsequently through reading mainly and we didn't meet again until the later 1980s when he came to Toronto.[00:03:00] He was then working on, in the history of literacy, had just published a book called ABC: the Alphabetization of the Western Mind. And that's where we became more closely connected. I went later that year to State College, Pennsylvania, where he was teaching at Penn State, and recorded a long interview, radically long.And made a five-hour Ideas series, but by a happy chance, I had not thought of this, his friend Lee Hoinacki asked for the raw tapes, transcribed them, and eventually that became a published book. And marked an epoch in Ivan's reception, as well as in my life because a lot of people responded to the spoken or transcribed Illich in a way that they didn't seem to be able to respond to his writing, which was scholastically condensed, let's [00:04:00] say.I always found it extremely congenial and I would even say witty in the deep sense of wit. But I think a lot of people, you know, found it hard and so the spoken Illich... people came to him, even old friends and said, you know, "we understand you better now." So, the following year he came to Toronto and stayed with us and, you know, a friendship blossomed and also a funny relationship where I kept trying to get him to express himself more on the theme of the book you mentioned, The Rivers North of the Future, which is his feeling that modernity, in the big sense of modernity can be best understood as perversionism. A word that he used, because he liked strong words, but it can be a frightening word."Corruption" also has its difficulties, [00:05:00] but sometimes he said "a turning inside out," which I like very much, or "a turning upside down" of the gospel. So, when the world has its way with the life, death and resurrection and teaching of Jesus Christ which inevitably becomes an institution when the world has its way with that.The way leads to where we are. That was his radical thought. And a novel thought, according to the philosopher Charles Taylor, a Canadian philosopher, who was kind enough to write a preface to that book when it was published, and I think very much aided its reception, because people knew who Charles Taylor was, and by then, they had kind of forgotten who Ivan Illich was.To give an example of that, when he died, the New York [00:06:00] Times obituary was headlined "Priest turned philosopher appealed to baby boomers in the 60s." This is yesterday's man, in other words, right? This is somebody who used to be important. So, I just kept at him about it, and eventually it became clear he was never going to write that book for a whole variety of reasons, which I won't go into now.But he did allow me to come to Cuernavaca, where he was living, and to do another very long set of interviews, which produced that book, The Rivers North of the Future. So that's the history in brief. The very last part of that story is that The Rivers North of the Future and the radio series that it was based on identifies themes that I find to be quite explosive. And so, in a certain way, the book you mentioned, Ivan Illich: An Intellectual Journey, [00:07:00] was destined from the moment that I recorded those conversations. Chris: Hmm, yeah, thank you, David. So much of what you said right there ends up being the basis for most of my questions today, especially around the corruption or the perversion what perhaps iatrogenesis also termed as iatrogenesis But much of what I've also come to ask today, stems and revolves around Illich's reading of the Good Samaritan story, so I'd like to start there, if that's alright.And you know, for our listeners who aren't familiar either with the story or Illich's take on it, I've gathered some small excerpts from An Intellectual Journey so that they might be on the same page, so to speak. So, from Ivan Illich, An Intellectual Journey:"jesus tells the story after he has been asked how to, quote, 'inherit eternal life,' end quote, and has replied that one must love God and one's neighbor, [00:08:00] quote, 'as oneself,' but, quote, who is my neighbor? His interlocutor wants to know. Jesus answers with his tale of a man on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho, who is beset by robbers, beaten, and left, quote, 'half dead' by the side of the road.Two men happen along, but, quote, 'pass by on the other side.' One is a priest and the other a Levite, a group that assisted the priests at the Great Temple, which, at that time, dominated the landscape of Jerusalem from the Temple Mount. Then, a Samaritan comes along. The Samaritans belonged to the estranged northern kingdom of Israel, and did not worship at the Temple.Tension between the Samaritans and the Judeans in the Second Temple period gives the name a significance somewhere between 'foreigner' and 'enemy.' [00:09:00] In contemporary terms, he was, as Illich liked to say, 'a Palestinian.' The Samaritan has, quote, 'compassion' on the wounded one. He stops, binds his wounds, takes him to an inn where he can convalesce and promises the innkeeper that he will return to pay the bill.'And so Jesus concludes by asking, 'Which of the three passers by was the neighbor?'Illich claimed that this parable had been persistently misunderstood as a story about how one ought to act. He had surveyed sermons from the 3rd through 19th centuries, he said, 'and found a broad consensus that what was being proposed was a, quote, rule of conduct.' But this interpretation was, in fact, quote, 'the opposite of what Jesus wanted to point out.'He had not been asked how to act toward a neighbor, but rather, 'who is my neighbor?' And he had replied, [00:10:00] scandalously, that it could be anyone at all. The choice of the Samaritan as the hero of the tale said, 'in effect, it is impossible to categorize who your neighbor might be.' The sense of being called to help the other is experienced intermittently and not as an unvarying obligation.A quote, 'new kind of ought has been established,' Illich says, which is not related to a norm. It has a telos, it aims at somebody, some body, but not according to a rule. And finally, The Master told them that who your neighbor is is not determined by your birth, by your condition, by the language which you speak, but by you.You can recognize the other man who is out of bounds culturally, who is foreign linguistically, who, you can [00:11:00] say by providence or pure chance, is the one who lies somewhere along your road in the grass and create the supreme form of relatedness, which is not given by creation, but created by you. Any attempt to explain this 'ought,' as correspond, as, as corresponding to a norm, takes out the mysterious greatness from this free act.And so, I think there are at least, at the very least, a few major points to take away from this little summary I've extracted. One, that the ability to choose one's neighbor, breaks the boundaries of ethnicity at the time, which were the bases for understanding one's identity and people and place in the world.And two, that it creates a new foundation for hospitality and interculturality. And so I'm [00:12:00] curious, David, if you'd be willing to elaborate on these points as you understand them.David: Well if you went a little farther on in that part of the book, you'd find an exposition of a German teacher and writer and professor, Claus Held, that I found very helpful in understanding what Ivan was saying. Held is a phenomenologist and a follower of Husserl, but he uses Husserl's term of the home world, right, that each of us has a home world. Mm-Hmm. Which is our ethnos within which our ethics apply.It's a world in which we can be at home and in which we can somehow manage, right? There are a manageable number of people to whom we are obliged. We're not universally obliged. So, what was interesting about Held's analysis is then the condition in which the wounded [00:13:00] man lies is, he's fallen outside of any reference or any home world, right?Nobody has to care for him. The priest and the Levite evidently don't care for him. They have more important things to do. The story doesn't tell you why. Is he ritually impure as one apparently dead is? What? You don't know. But they're on their way. They have other things to do. So the Samaritan is radically out of line, right?He dares to enter this no man's land, this exceptional state in which the wounded man lies, and he does it on the strength of a feeling, right? A stirring inside him. A call. It's definitely a bodily experience. In Ivan's language of norms, it's not a norm. It's not a duty.It's [00:14:00] not an obligation. It's not a thought. He's stirred. He is moved to do what he does and he cares for him and takes him to the inn and so on. So, the important thing in it for me is to understand the complementarity that's involved. Held says that if you try and develop a set of norms and ethics, however you want to say it, out of the Samaritan's Act, it ends up being radically corrosive, it ends up being radically corrosive damaging, destructive, disintegrating of the home world, right? If everybody's caring for everybody all the time universally, you're pretty soon in the maddening world, not pretty soon, but in a couple of millennia, in the maddening world we live in, right? Where people Can tell you with a straight face that their actions are intended to [00:15:00] save the planet and not experience a sense of grandiosity in saying that, right?Not experiencing seemingly a madness, a sense of things on a scale that is not proper to any human being, and is bound, I think, to be destructive of their capacity to be related to what is at hand. So, I think what Ivan is saying in saying this is a new kind of ought, right, it's the whole thing of the corruption of the best is the worst in a nutshell because as soon as you think you can operationalize that, you can turn everyone into a Samaritan and You, you begin to destroy the home world, right?You begin to destroy ethics. You begin to, or you transform ethics into something which is a contradiction of ethics. [00:16:00] So, there isn't an answer in it, in what he says. There's a complementarity, right? Hmm. There's the freedom to go outside, but if the freedom to go outside destroys any inside, then, what have you done?Right? Hmm. You've created an unlivable world. A world of such unending, such unimaginable obligation, as one now lives in Toronto, you know, where I pass homeless people all the time. I can't care for all of them. So, I think it's also a way of understanding for those who contemplate it that you really have to pay attention.What are you called to, right? What can you do? What is within your amplitude? What is urgent for you? Do that thing, right? Do not make yourself mad with [00:17:00] impossible charity. A charity you don't feel, you can't feel, you couldn't feel. Right? Take care of what's at hand, what you can take care of. What calls you.Chris: I think this comes up quite a bit these days. Especially, in light of international conflicts, conflicts that arise far from people's homes and yet the demand of that 'ought' perhaps of having to be aware and having to have or having to feel some kind of responsibility for these things that are happening in other places that maybe, It's not that they don't have anything to do with us but that our ability to have any kind of recourse for what happens in those places is perhaps flippant, fleeting, and even that we're stretched to the point that we can't even tend and attend to what's happening in front of us in our neighborhoods.And so, I'm curious as to how this came to be. You mentioned "the corruption" [00:18:00] and maybe we could just define that, if possible for our listeners this notion of "the corruption of the best is the worst." Would you be willing to do that? Do you think that that's an easy thing to do? David: I've been trying for 30 years.I can keep on trying. I really, I mean, that was the seed of everything. At the end of the interview we did in 1988, Ivan dropped that little bomb on me. And I was a diligent man, and I had prepared very carefully. I'd read everything he'd written and then at the very end of the interview, he says the whole history of the West can be summed up in the phrase, Corruptio Optimi Pessima.He was quite fluent in Latin. The corruption of the best is the worst. And I thought, wait a minute, the whole history of the West? This is staggering. So, yes, I've been reflecting on it for a long time, but I think there are many ways to speak [00:19:00] about the incarnation, the idea that God is present and visible in the form of a human being, that God indeed is a human being in the person of Jesus Christ.One way is to think of it as a kind of nuclear explosion of religion. Religion had always been the placation of a god. Right? A sacrifice of some kind made to placate a god. Now the god is present. It could be you. Jesus is explicit about it, and I think that is the most important thing for Iman in reading the gospel, is that God appears to us as one another.Hmm. If you can put it, one another in the most general sense of that formula. So, that's explosive, right? I mean, religion, in a certain way, up to that moment, is society. It's the [00:20:00] integument of every society. It's the nature of the beast to be religious in the sense of having an understanding of how you're situated and in what order and with what foundation that order exists. It's not an intellectual thing. It's just what people do. Karl Barth says religion is a yoke. So, it has in a certain way exploded or been exploded at that moment but it will of course be re instituted as a religion. What else could happen? And so Ivan says, and this probably slim New Testament warrant for this, but this was his story, that in the very earliest apostolic church. They were aware of this danger, right? That Christ must be shadowed by "Antichrist," a term that Ivan was brave enough to use. The word just has a [00:21:00] terrible, terrible history. I mean, the Protestants abused the Catholics with the name of Antichrist. Luther rages against the Pope as antichrist.Hmm. And the word persists now as a kind of either as a sign of evangelical dogmatism, or maybe as a joke, right. When I was researching it, I came across a book called "How to Tell If Your Boyfriend Is The Antichrist." Mm-Hmm. It's kind of a jokey thing in a way, in so far as people know, but he dared to use it as to say the antichrist is simply the instituted Christ.Right. It's not anything exotic. It's not anything theological. It's the inevitable worldly shadow of there being a Christ at all. And so that's, that's the beginning of the story. He, he claims that the church loses sight of this understanding, loses sight of the basic [00:22:00] complementarity or contradiction that's involved in the incarnation in the first place.That this is something that can never be owned, something that can never be instituted, something that can only happen again and again and again within each one. So, but heaven can never finally come to earth except perhaps in a story about the end, right? The new heaven and the new earth, the new Jerusalem come down from heaven.Fine. That's at the end, not now. So that's the gist of what he, what he said. He has a detailed analysis of the stages of that journey, right? So, within your theme of hospitality the beginnings of the church becoming a social worker in the decaying Roman Empire. And beginning to develop institutions of hospitality, [00:23:00] places for all the flotsam and jetsam of the decaying empire.And then in a major way from the 11th through the 13th century, when the church institutes itself as a mini or proto state, right? With a new conception of law. Every element of our modernity prefigured in the medieval church and what it undertook, according to Ivan. This was all news to me when he first said it to me.So yeah, the story goes on into our own time when I think one of the primary paradoxes or confusions that we face is that most of the people one meets and deals with believe themselves to be living after Christianity and indeed to great opponents of Christianity. I mean, nothing is more important in Canada now than to denounce residential schools, let's say, right? Which were [00:24:00] the schools for indigenous children, boarding schools, which were mainly staffed by the church, right?So, the gothic figure of the nun, the sort of vulpine, sinister. That's the image of the church, right? So you have so many reasons to believe that you're after that. You've woken up, you're woke. And, and you see that now, right? So you don't In any way, see yourself as involved in this inversion of the gospel which has actually created your world and which is still, in so many ways, you.So, leftists today, if I'm using the term leftists very, very broadly, "progressives," people sometimes say, "woke," people say. These are all in a certain way super Christians or hyper Christians, but absolutely unaware of themselves as Christians and any day you can read an analysis [00:25:00] which traces everything back to the Enlightenment.Right? We need to re institute the Enlightenment. We've forgotten the Enlightenment. We have to get back to the, right? There's nothing before the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is the over, that's an earlier overcoming of Christianity, right? So modernity is constantly overcoming Christianity. And constantly forgetting that it's Christian.That these are the ways in which the Incarnation is working itself out. And one daren't say that it's bound to work itself out that way. Ivan will go as far as to say it's seemingly the will of God that it should work itself out that way. Right? Wow. So, that the Gospel will be preached to all nations as predicted at the end of the Gospels." Go therefore and preach to all nations," but it will not be preached in its explicit form. It will enter, as it were, through the [00:26:00] back door. So that's a very big thought. But it's a saving thought in certain ways, because it does suggest a way of unwinding, or winding up, this string of finding out how this happened.What is the nature of the misunderstanding that is being played out here? So. Chris: Wow. Yeah, I mean, I, I feel like what you just said was a kind of nuclear bomb unto its own. I remember reading, for example, James Hillman in The Terrible Love of War, and at the very end he essentially listed all, not all, but many of the major characteristics of modern people and said if you act this way, you are Christian.If you act this way, you are Christian. Essentially revealing that so much of modernity has these Christian roots. And, you know, you said in terms of this message and [00:27:00] corruption of the message going in through the back door. And I think that's what happens in terms of at least when we see institutions in the modern time, schools, hospitals, roads essentially modern institutions and lifestyles making their way into non modern places.And I'm very fascinated in this in terms of hospitality. You said that the church, and I think you're quoting Illich there, but " the church is a social worker." But also how this hospitality shows up in the early church and maybe even how they feared about what could happen as a result to this question of the incarnation.In your book it was just fascinating to read this that you said, or that you wrote, that "in the early years of Christianity it was customary in a Christian household to have an extra mattress, a bit of candle, and some dry bread in case the Lord Jesus should knock at the door in the form of a stranger without a roof, a form of behavior that was utterly [00:28:00] foreign to the cultures of the Roman Empire."In which many Christians lived. And you write, "you took in your own, but not someone lost on the street." And then later "When the emperor Constantine recognized the church, Christian bishops gained the power to establish social corporations." And this is, I think, the idea of the social worker. The church is a social worker.And you write that the first corporations they started were Samaritan corporations, which designated certain categories of people as preferred neighbors. For example, the bishops created special houses financed by the community that were charged with taking care of people without a home. Such care was no longer the free choice of the householder, it was the task of an institution.The appearance of these xenodocheia? Literally, quote, 'houses for foreigners' signified the beginning of a change in the nature of the church." And then of course you write and you mentioned this but "a gratuitous and truly [00:29:00] free choice of assisting the stranger has become an ideology and an idealism." Right. And so, this seems to be how the corruption of the Samaritan story, the corruption of breaking that threshold, or at least being able to cross it, comes to produce this incredible 'ought,' as you just kind of elaborated for us.And then this notion of, that we can't see it anymore. That it becomes this thing in the past, as you said. In other words, history. Right? And so my next question is a question that comes to some degree from our late mutual friend Gustavo, Gustavo Esteva. And I'd just like to preface it by a small sentence from An Intellectual Journey where he wrote that, "I think that limit, in Illich, is always linked to nemesis, or to what Jung calls [00:30:00] enantiodromia, his Greek word for the way in which any tendency, when pushed too far, can turn into its opposite. And so, a long time ago, Illich once asked Gustavo if he could identify a word that could describe the era after development, or perhaps after development's death.And Gustavo said, "hospitality." And so, much later, in a private conversation with Gustavo, in the context of tourism and gentrification, the kind that was beginning to sweep across Oaxaca at the time, some years ago, he told me that he considered "the sale of one's people's radical or local hospitality as a kind of invitation to hostility in the place and within the ethnos that one lives in."Another way of saying it might be that the subversion and absence of hospitality in a place breeds or can breed hostility.[00:31:00] I'm curious what you make of his comment in the light of limits, enantiodromia and the corruption that Illich talks about.David: Well I'd like to say one thing which is the thought I was having while you, while you were speaking because at the very beginning I mentioned a reservation a discomfort with words like perversion and corruption. And the thought is that it's easy to understand Illich as doing critique, right? And it's easy then to moralize that critique, right? And I think it's important that he's showing something that happens, right? And that I daren't say bound to happen, but is likely to happen because of who and what we are, that we will institutionalize, that we will make rules, that we will, right?So, I think it's important to rescue Ivan from being read [00:32:00] moralistically, or that you're reading a scold here, right? Hmm. Right. I mean, and many social critics are or are read as scolds, right? And contemporary people are so used to being scolded that they, and scold themselves very regularly. So, I just wanted to say that to rescue Ivan from a certain kind of reading. You're quoting Gustavo on the way in which the opening up of a culture touristically can lead to hostility, right? Right. And I think also commenting on the roots of the words are the same, right? "hostile," "hospice." They're drawing on the same, right?That's right. It's how one treats the enemy, I think. Hmm. It's the hinge. Hmm. In all those words. What's the difference between hospitality and hostility?[00:33:00] So, I think that thought is profound and profoundly fruitful. So, I think Gustavo had many resources in expressing it.I couldn't possibly express it any better. And I never answered you at the beginning how I met Gustavo, but on that occasion in 1988 when I was interviewing Illich, they were all gathered, a bunch of friends to write what was called The Development Dictionary, a series of essays trying to write an epilogue to the era of development.So, Gustavo, as you know, was a charming man who spoke a peculiarly beautiful English in which he was fluent, but somehow, you could hear the cadence of Spanish through it without it even being strongly accented. So I rejoiced always in interviewing Gustavo, which I did several times because he was such a pleasure to listen to.But anyway, I've digressed. Maybe I'm ducking your question. Do you want to re ask it or? Chris: Sure. [00:34:00] Yeah, I suppose. You know although there were a number of essays that Gustavo wrote about hospitality that I don't believe have been published they focused quite a bit on this notion of individual people, but especially communities putting limits on their hospitality.And of course, much of this hospitality today comes in the form of, or at least in the context of tourism, of international visitors. And that's kind of the infrastructure that's placed around it. And yet he was arguing essentially for limits on hospitality. And I think what he was seeing, although it hadn't quite come to fruition yet in Oaxaca, was that the commodification, the commercialization of one's local indigenous hospitality, once it's sold, or once it's only existing for the value or money of the foreigner, in a kind of customer service worldview, that it invites this deep [00:35:00] hostility. And so do these limits show up as well in Illich's work in terms of the stranger?Right? Because so much of the Christian tradition is based in a universal fraternity, universal brotherhood. David: I said that Ivan made sense to me in my youth, as a 22 year old man. So I've lived under his influence. I took him as a master, let's say and as a young person. And I would say that probably it's true that I've never gone anywhere that I haven't been invited to go.So I, I could experience that, that I was called to be there. And he was quite the jet setter, so I was often called by him to come to Mexico or to go to Germany or whatever it was. But we live in a world that is so far away from the world that might have been, let's say, the world that [00:36:00] might be.So John Milbank, a British theologian who's Inspiring to me and a friend and somebody who I found surprisingly parallel to Illich in a lot of ways after Ivan died and died I think feeling that he was pretty much alone in some of his understandings. But John Milbank speaks of the, of recovering the future that we've lost, which is obviously have to be based on some sort of historical reconstruction. You have to find the place to go back to, where the wrong turning was, in a certain way. But meanwhile, we live in this world, right? Where even where you are, many people are dependent on tourism. Right? And to that extent they live from it and couldn't instantly do without. To do without it would be, would be catastrophic. Right? So [00:37:00] it's it's not easy to live in both worlds. Right? To live with the understanding that this is, as Gustavo says, it's bound to be a source of hostility, right?Because we can't sell what is ours as an experience for others without changing its character, right, without commodifying it. It's impossible to do. So it must be true and yet, at a certain moment, people feel that it has to be done, right? And so you have to live in in both realities.And in a certain way, the skill of living in both realities is what's there at the beginning, right? That, if you take the formula of the incarnation as a nuclear explosion, well you're still going to have religion, right? So, that's inevitable. The [00:38:00] world has changed and it hasn't changed at the same time.And that's true at every moment. And so you learn to walk, right? You learn to distinguish the gospel from its surroundings. And a story about Ivan that made a big impression on me was that when he was sent to Puerto Rico when he was still active as a priest in 1956 and became vice rector of the Catholic University at Ponce and a member of the school board.A position that he regarded as entirely political. So he said, "I will not in any way operate as a priest while I'm performing a political function because I don't want these two things to get mixed up." And he made a little exception and he bought a little shack in a remote fishing village.Just for the happiness of it, he would go there and say mass for the fishermen who didn't know anything about this other world. So, but that was[00:39:00] a radical conviction and put him at odds with many of the tendencies of his time, as for example, what came to be called liberation theology, right?That there could be a politicized theology. His view was different. His view was that the church as "She," as he said, rather than "it," had to be always distinguished, right? So it was the capacity to distinguish that was so crucial for him. And I would think even in situations where tourism exists and has the effect Gustavo supposed, the beginning of resistance to that and the beginning of a way out of it, is always to distinguish, right?To know the difference, which is a slim read, but, but faith is always a slim read and Ivan's first book, his first collection of published essays was [00:40:00] called Celebration of Awareness which is a way of saying that, what I call know the difference. Chris: So I'm going to, if I can offer you this, this next question, which comes from James, a friend in Guelph, Canada. And James is curious about the missionary mandate of Christianity emphasizing a fellowship in Christ over ethnicity and whether or not this can be reconciled with Illich's perhaps emphatic defense of local or vernacular culture.David: Well, yeah. He illustrates it. I mean, he was a worldwide guy. He was very far from his roots, which were arguably caught. He didn't deracinate himself. Hmm. He was with his mother and brothers exiled from Split in Dalmatia as a boy in the crazy atmosphere of the Thirties.But he was a tumbleweed after [00:41:00] that. Mm-Hmm. . And so, so I think we all live in that world now and this is confuses people about him. So, a historian called Todd Hart wrote a book still really the only book published in English on the history of CIDOC and Cuernavaca, in which he says Illich is anti-missionary. And he rebukes him for that and I would say that Ivan, on his assumptions cannot possibly be anti missionary. He says clearly in his early work that a Christian is a missionary or is not a Christian at all, in the sense that if one has heard the good news, one is going to share it, or one hasn't heard it. Now, what kind of sharing is that? It isn't necessarily, "you have to join my religion," "you have to subscribe to the following ten..." it isn't necessarily a catechism, it may be [00:42:00] an action. It may be a it may be an act of friendship. It may be an act of renunciation. It can be any number of things, but it has to be an outgoing expression of what one has been given, and I think he was, in that sense, always a missionary, and in many places, seeded communities that are seeds of the new church.Right? He spent well, from the time he arrived in the United States in 51, 52, till the time that he withdrew from church service in 68, he was constantly preaching and talking about a new church. And a new church, for him, involved a new relation between innovation and tradition. New, but not new.Since, when he looked back, he saw the gospel was constantly undergoing translation into new milieu, into new places, into new languages, into new forms.[00:43:00] But he encountered it in the United States as pretty much in one of its more hardened or congealed phases, right? And it was the export of that particular brand of cultural and imperialistic, because American, and America happened to be the hegemon of the moment. That's what he opposed.The translation of that into Latin America and people like to write each other into consistent positions, right? So, he must then be anti missionary across the board, right? But so I think you can be local and universal. I mean, one doesn't even want to recall that slogan of, you know, "act locally, think globally," because it got pretty hackneyed, right?And it was abused. But, it's true in a certain way that that's the only way one can be a Christian. The neighbor, you said it, I wrote it, Ivan said it, " the neighbor [00:44:00] can be anyone." Right?But here I am here now, right? So both have to apply. Both have to be true. It's again a complementary relation. And it's a banal thought in a certain way, but it seems to be the thought that I think most often, right, is that what creates a great deal of the trouble in the world is inability to think in a complementary fashion.To think within, to take contradiction as constituting the world. The world is constituted of contradiction and couldn't be constituted in any other way as far as we know. Right? You can't walk without two legs. You can't manipulate without two arms, two hands. We know the structure of our brains. Are also bilateral and everything about our language is constructed on opposition.Everything is oppositional and yet [00:45:00] when we enter the world of politics, it seems we're going to have it all one way. The church is going to be really Christian, and it's going to make everybody really Christian, or communist, what have you, right? The contradiction is set aside. Philosophy defines truth as the absence of contradiction.Hmm. Basically. Hmm. So, be in both worlds. Know the difference. Walk on two feet. That's Ivan. Chris: I love that. And I'm, I'm curious about you know, one of the themes of the podcast is exile. And of course that can mean a lot of things. In the introduction to An Intellectual Journey, you wrote that that Illich, "once he had left Split in the 30s, that he began an experience of exile that would characterize his entire life."You wrote that he had lost "not just the home, but the very possibility [00:46:00] of home." And so it's a theme that characterizes as well the podcast and a lot of these conversations around travel, migration, tourism, what does it mean to be at home and so, this, This notion of exile also shows up quite a bit in the Christian faith.And maybe this is me trying to escape the complementarity of the reality of things. But I tend to see exile as inherently I'll say damaging or consequential in a kind of negative light. And so I've been wondering about this, this exilic condition, right? It's like in the Abrahamic faith, as you write "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all begin in exile.And eventually this pattern culminates. Jesus is executed outside the gates of the city, nailed to a cross that excludes him even from his native earth." And you write that "exile is in many ways the [00:47:00] Christian condition." And so, you know, I've read that in the past, Christian monks often consider themselves to be homeless, removed from the sort of daily life of the local community in the monasteries and abbeys and yet still of a universal brotherhood. And so I'd like to ask you if you feel this exilic condition, which seems to be also a hallmark of modernity, this kind of constant uprooting this kind of as I would call it, cultural and spiritual homelessness of our time, if you think that is part of the corruption that Illich based his work around?David: Well, one can barely imagine the world in which Abram, who became Abraham said to God, no, I'm staying in Ur. Not going, I'm not going. Right? I mean, if you go back to Genesis and you re read that passage, when God shows [00:48:00] Abraham the land that he will inherit, it says already there, "there were people at that time living in the land," right?Inconvenient people, as it turns out. Palestinians. So, there's a profound contradiction here, I think. And the only way I think you can escape it is to understand the Gospel the way Ivan understood it, which is as something super added to existing local cultures, right? A leaven, right?Hmm. Not everything about a local culture or a local tradition is necessarily good. Mm hmm. And so it can be changed, right? And I would say that Illich insists that Christians are and must be missionaries. They've received something that they it's inherent in what they've [00:49:00] received that they pass it on.So the world will change, right? But Ivan says, this is in Rivers North of the Future, that it's his conviction that the Gospel could have been preached without destroying local proportions, the sense of proportion, and he put a great weight on the idea of proportionality as not just, a pleasing building or a pleasing face, but the very essence of, of how a culture holds together, right, that things are proportioned within it to one another that the gospel could have been preached without the destruction of proportions, but evidently it wasn't, because the Christians felt they had the truth and they were going to share it. They were going to indeed impose it for the good of the other.So, I think a sense of exile and a sense of home are as [00:50:00] necessary to one another as in Ivan's vision of a new church, innovation, and tradition, or almost any other constitutive couplet you can think of, right? You can't expunge exile from the tradition. But you also can't allow it to overcome the possibility of home.I mean, Ivan spoke of his own fate as a peculiar fate, right? He really anticipated the destruction of the Western culture or civilization. I mean, in the sense that now this is a lament on the political right, mainly, right? The destruction of Western civilization is something one constantly hears about.But, he, in a way, in the chaos and catastrophe of the 30s, already felt the death of old Europe. And even as a boy, I think, semi consciously at least, took the roots inside himself, took them with him [00:51:00] and for many people like me, he opened that tradition. He opened it to me. He allowed me to re inhabit it in a certain way, right?So to find intimations of home because he wasn't the only one who lost his home. Even as a man of 78, the world in which I grew up here is gone, forgotten, and to some extent scorned by younger people who are just not interested in it. And so it's through Ivan that I, in a way, recovered the tradition, right?And if the tradition is related to the sense of home, of belonging to something for good or ill, then that has to be carried into the future as best we can, right? I think Ivan was searching for a new church. He didn't think. He had found it. He didn't think he knew what it was.I don't think he [00:52:00] described certain attributes of it. Right. But above all, he wanted to show that the church had taken many forms in the past. Right. And it's worldly existence did not have to be conceived on the model of a monarchy or a parish, right, another form that he described in some early essays, right.We have to find the new form, right? It may be radically non theological if I can put it like that. It may not necessarily involve the buildings that we call churches but he believed deeply in the celebrating community. As the center, the root the essence of social existence, right? The creation of home in the absence of home, or the constant recreation of home, right? Since I mean, we will likely never again live in pure [00:53:00] communities, right? Yeah. I don't know if pure is a dangerous word, but you know what I mean?Consistent, right? Closed. We're all of one kind, right? Right. I mean, this is now a reactionary position, right? Hmm. You're a German and you think, well, Germany should be for the Germans. I mean, it can't be for the Germans, seemingly. We can't put the world back together again, right?We can't go back and that's a huge misreading of Illich, right? That he's a man who wants to go back, right? No. He was radically a man who wanted to rediscover the future. And rescue it. Also a man who once said to hell with the future because he wanted to denounce the future that's a computer model, right? All futures that are projections from the present, he wanted to denounce in order to rediscover the future. But it has to be ahead of us. It's not. And it has to recover the deposit that is behind us. So [00:54:00] both, the whole relation between past and future and indeed the whole understanding of time is out of whack.I think modern consciousness is so entirely spatialized that the dimension of time is nearly absent from it, right? The dimension of time as duration as the integument by which past, present and future are connected. I don't mean that people can't look at their watch and say, you know, "I gotta go now, I've got a twelve o'clock." you know.So, I don't know if that's an answer to James.Chris: I don't know, but it's food for thought and certainly a feast, if I may say so. David, I have two final questions for you, if that's all right, if you have time. Okay, wonderful. So, speaking of this notion of home and and exile and the complementarity of the two and you know you wrote and [00:55:00] spoke to this notion of Illich wanting to rediscover the future and he says that "we've opened a horizon on which new paradigms for thought can appear," which I think speaks to what you were saying and At some point Illich compares the opening of horizons to leaving home on a pilgrimage, as you write in your book."And not the pilgrimage of the West, which leads over a traveled road to a famed sanctuary, but rather the pilgrimage of the Christian East, which does not know where the road might lead and the journey end." And so my question is, What do you make of that distinction between these types of pilgrimages and what kind of pilgrimage do you imagine might be needed in our time?David: Well, I, I mean, I think Ivan honored the old style of pilgrimage whether it was to [00:56:00] Canterbury or Santiago or wherever it was to. But I think ivan's way of expressing the messianic was in the word surprise, right? One of the things that I think he did and which was imposed on him by his situation and by his times was to learn to speak to people in a way that did not draw on any theological resource, so he spoke of his love of surprises, right? Well, a surprise by definition is what you don't suspect, what you don't expect. Or it couldn't be a surprise.So, the The cathedral in Santiago de Compostela is very beautiful, I think. I've only ever seen pictures of it, but you must expect to see it at the end of your road. You must hope to see it at the end of your road. Well the surprise is going to be something else. Something that isn't known.[00:57:00] And it was one of his Great gifts to me that within the structure of habit and local existence, since I'm pretty rooted where I am. And my great grandfather was born within walking distance of where I am right now. He helped me to look for surprises and to accept them also, right?That you're going to show up or someone else is going to show up, right? But there's going to be someone coming and you want to look out for the one who's coming and not, but not be at all sure that you know who or what it is or which direction it's coming from. So, that was a way of life in a certain way that I think he helped others within their limitations, within their abilities, within their local situations, to see the world that way, right. That was part of what he did. Chris: Yeah, it's really beautiful and I can [00:58:00] see how in our time, in a time of increasing division and despondency and neglect, fear even, resentment of the other, that how that kind of surprise and the lack of expectation, the undermining, the subversion of expectation can find a place into perhaps the mission of our times.And so my final question comes back to friendship. and interculturality. And I have one final quote here from An Intellectual Journey, which I highly recommend everyone pick up, because it's just fascinating and blows open so many doors. David: We need to sell a few more books, because I want that book in paperback. Because I want it to be able to live on in a cheaper edition. So, yes. Chris: Of course. Thank you. Yeah. Please, please pick it up. It's worth every penny. So in An Intellectual Journey, it is written[00:59:00] by Illich that "when I submit my heart, my mind, my body, I come to be below the other. When I listen unconditionally, respectfully, courageously, with the readiness to take in the other as a radical surprise, I do something else. I bow, bend over toward the total otherness of someone. But I renounce searching for bridges between the other and me, recognizing that a gulf separates us.Leaning into this chasm makes me aware of the depth of my loneliness, and able to bear it in the light of the substantial likeness between the Other and myself. All that reaches me is the Other in His Word, which I accept on faith."And so, David at another point in the biography you quote Illich describing faith as foolish. Now assuming that faith elicits a degree of danger or [01:00:00] betrayal or that it could elicit that through a kind of total trust, is that nonetheless necessary to accept the stranger or other as they are? Or at least meet the stranger or other as they are? David: I would think so, yeah. I mean the passage you've quoted, I think to understand it, it's one of the most profound of his sayings to me and one I constantly revert to, but to accept the other in his word, or on his word, or her word, is, I think you need to know that he takes the image of the word as the name of the Lord, very, very seriously, and its primary way of referring to the Christ, is "as the Word."Sometimes explicitly, sometimes not explicitly, you have to interpret. So, when he says that he renounces looking for bridges, I think he's mainly referring [01:01:00] to ideological intermediations, right, ways in which I, in understanding you exceed my capacity. I try to change my name for you, or my category for you, changes you, right?It doesn't allow your word. And, I mean, he wasn't a man who suffered fools gladly. He had a high regard for himself and used his time in a fairly disciplined way, right? He wasn't waiting around for others in their world. So by word, what does he mean?What is the other's word? Right? It's something more fundamental than the chatter of a person. So, I think what that means is that we can be linked to one another by Christ. So that's [01:02:00] the third, right? That yes, we're alone. Right? We haven't the capacity to reach each other, except via Christ.And that's made explicit for him in the opening of Aylred of Riveau's Treatise on Friendship, which was peculiarly important to him. Aylred was an abbot at a Cistercian monastery in present day Yorkshire, which is a ruin now. But he wrote a treatise on friendship in the 12th century and he begins by addressing his brother monk, Ivo, and says, you know, " here we are, you and I, and I hope a third Christ."So, Christ is always the third, right? So, in that image of the gulf, the distance, experiencing myself and my loneliness and yet renouncing any bridge, there is still a word, the word, [01:03:00] capital W, in which a word, your word, my word, participates, or might participate. So, we are building, according to him, the body of Christ but we have to renounce our designs on one another, let's say, in order to do that. So I mean, that's a very radical saying, the, the other in his word and in another place in The Rivers North of the Future, he says how hard that is after a century of Marxism or Freudianism, he mentions. But, either way he's speaking about my pretension to know you better than you know yourself, which almost any agency in our world that identifies needs, implicitly does. I know what's best for you. So Yeah, his waiting, his ability to wait for the other one is, is absolutely [01:04:00] foundational and it's how a new world comes into existence. And it comes into existence at every moment, not at some unimaginable future when we all wait at the same time, right? My friend used to say that peace would come when everybody got a good night's sleep on the same night. It's not very likely, is it? Right, right, right. So, anyway, there we are. Chris: Wow. Well, I'm definitely looking forward to listening to this interview again, because I feel like just like An Intellectual Journey, just like your most recent book my mind has been, perhaps exploded, another nuclear bomb dropped.David: Chris, nice to meet you. Chris: Yeah, I'll make sure that that book and, of course, links to yours are available on the end of the website. David: Alright, thank you. Chris: Yeah, deep bow, David. Thank you for your time today. David: All the best. And thank you for those questions. Yeah. That was that was very interesting. You know, I spent my life as an interviewer. A good part of my [01:05:00] life. And interviewing is very hard work. It's much harder than talking. Listening is harder than talking. And rarer. So, it's quite a pleasure for me, late in life, to be able to just let her rip, and let somebody else worry about is this going in the right direction? So, thank you. Get full access to ⌘ Chris Christou ⌘ at chrischristou.substack.com/subscribe

Sobre a gênese da teoria literária com Aristóteles e Platão. Algo sobre Northrop Frye e Mikhail Bakhtin. Música de desfecho: The Caretaker - Misplaced in Time (2016).

I discuss why we need myth, narrative, and story telling... We build ourselves and our society through these practices. We are born of the soil, nurtured by nature and nurturing the soil and the plants in synergy... We are an Us.

Tema: Educação da Imaginação - Northrop Frye Quer Ajudar o canal? Veja como: *Amazon: https://amzn.to/3OhZ49b *Livro: Imaginação Educada: https://amzn.to/48NnoYM *Fundamentos da Arte: https://go.hotmart.com/T90092973M *Apoie o Canal: https://apoia.se/canaldosocran *Áudios Venda: -CONCEITO DE HISTÓRIA NA FILSOFIA EM ARENDT: https://go.hotmart.com/I73309280Y?dp=1 -O QUE É FASCISMO: https://go.hotmart.com/Y72077629D?dp=1 *Pix oferta: https://widget.livepix.gg/embed/e47d6...

David had the honour of interviewing one of his favourite podcasters, Angelina Stanford from "The Literary Life Podcast", about Lewis' literary theory and one of his students, Northrop Frye. [Show Notes]

You could think of her as someone who tries to preserve a fading world -- or to chronicle a changing one. Rakhshanda Jalil joins Amit Varma in episode 365 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about literature, language and loss. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Rakhshanda Jalil on Twitter, Wikipedia, The Wire, Scroll and Amazon. 2. But You Don't Look Like a Muslim -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 3. Invisible City: The Hidden Monuments of Delhi -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 4. Urdu: The Best Stories of Our Times -- Edited & translated by Rakhshanda Jalil. 5. Liking Progress, Loving Change -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 6. Preeto and Other Stories: The Male Gaze in Urdu -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 7. A Rebel and Her Cause: The Life and Work of Rashid Jahan -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 8. Shahryar: A Life in Poetry -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 9. Release and Other Stories -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 10. The Temple and The Mosque -- Premchand (translated by Rakhshanda Jalil). 11. Fear, Depression in Indian Muslims Is Palpable Even Among Those Who Are ‘Privileged' -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 12. In New India, a Muslim Rose Smells Different From a Hindu Rose -- Rakhshanda Jalil. 13. Aaliya Waziri's essay about her mother Rakhshanda Jalil. 14. Being Muslim in India — Episode 216 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ghazala Wahab). 15. Hussain Haidry, Hindustani Musalmaan — Episode 275 of The Seen and the Unseen. 16. The Many Cities of Delhi — Episode 172 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Rana Safvi). 17. The Age of Average -- Alex Murrell. 18. Order Without Design -- Alain Bertaud. 19. Asar–us–Sanadid -- Syed Ahmed Khan. 20. Basu Da's Bombay. 21. Pushpesh Pant Feasts on the Buffet of Life — Episode 326 of The Seen and the Unseen. 22. The Refreshing Audacity of Vinay Singhal — Episode 291 of The Seen and the Unseen. 23. Stage.in. 24. Yogendra Yadav on why he was named Salim. 25. The Elephant in the Room -- Kay Ryan. 26. Who Broke Our Republic? — Episode 163 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Kapil Komireddi). 27. Malevolent Republic -- Kapil Komireddi. 28. The Incredible Curiosities of Mukulika Banerjee — Episode 276 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Mukulika Banerjee). 29. The Pathan Unarmed — Mukulika Banerjee. 30. Khwaab Baaki Hai -- Ale Ahmad Suroor. 31. Uneasy Lies the Head -- Mayank Austen Soofi. 32. The Gita Press and Hindu Nationalism — Episode 139 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Akshaya Mukul). 33. Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India — Akshaya Mukul. 34. Chhodo Kal Ki Baatein -- Song from Hum Hindustani. 35. Tu Hindu Banega Na Musalman Banega -- Song from Dhool Ka Phool, with lyrics by Sahir Ludhainvi. 36. The Importance of the 1991 Reforms — Episode 237 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Ajay Shah). 37. The Forgotten Greatness of PV Narasimha Rao — Episode 283 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vinay Sitapati). 38. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia — Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 39. Why Freedom Matters -- Episode 10 of Everything is Everything. 40. Who gains from the new Maternity Benefit Act Amendment? — Devika Kher. 41. Here's What's Wrong With the Maternity Benefits Act — Suman Joshi. 42. The Right to Property — Episode 26 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan). 43. Fixing Indian Education — Episode 185 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 44. Women at Work — Episode 132 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Namita Bhandare). 45. The Loneliness of the Indian Woman — Episode 259 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shrayana Bhattacharya). 46. Ibn-e Safi on Amazon. 47. Suyash Rai Embraces India's Complexity — Episode 307 of The Seen and the Unseen. 48. Personal Libraries -- Rakhshanda Jalil's book collection. 49. Charles Dickens, Mills and Boon, Georgette Heyer, Barbara Cartland, Jean-Paul Sartre, James Hadley Chase, Northrop Frye and TS Eliot. 50. Exile and the Kingdom -- Albert Camus. 51. Waiting for Godot -- Samuel Beckett. 52. The Art of Translation — Episode 168 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Arunava Sinha). 53. The Life and Times of Jerry Pinto — Episode 314 of The Seen and the Unseen. 54. Danish Husain and the Multiverse of Culture — Episode 359 of The Seen and the Unseen. 55. Ranjit Hoskote is Dancing in Chains -- Episode 363 of The Seen and the Unseen. 56. Sara Rai Inhales Literature — Episode 255 of The Seen and the Unseen. 57. Raw Umber : A Memoir -- Sara Rai. 58. The Death of Sheherzad -- Initizar Husain (translated by Rakhshanda Jalil). 59. Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. 60. Drown -- Junot Diaz. 61. Mehroom -- Raman Negi. 62. Hindi Nationalism -- Alok Rai. 63. Saare Jahaan Se Achha -- Rakesh Sharma speaks to Indira Gandhi. 64. Premchand on Amazon and Wikipedia. 65. The Nature and Purpose of Literature -- Premchand's presidential address at the First All India Progressive Writers' Conference, 1936. 66. The Progressive Writer's Movement. 67. Kashi Ka Assi — Kashinath Singh. 68. Patrice Lumumba. 69. Testaments Betrayed -- Milan Kundera. 70. Hum Jo Tarik Rahon Mein Mare Gae -- Faiz Ahmad Faiz. 71. The Tragedy of Our Farm Bills — Episode 211 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ajay Shah). 72. Aag Ka Dariya (River of Fire) -- Qurratulain Hyder. 73. Rahman Abbas on Amazon, Wikipedia and Twitter. 74. Tambih -- Shahryar. 75. Bol -- Faiz Ahmad Faiz. 76. Hum Dekhenge -- Faiz Ahmad Faiz. 77. Hum Dekhenge -- Faiz. 78. Krishan Chander, Qurratulain Hyder and Ismat Chugtai. 79. Rekhta. 80. The Paradise of Food -- Khalid Jawed (translated by Baran Farooqi). 81. Sturgeon's Law. 82. Imposter Syndrome. 83. 'How We Spend Our Days Is How We Spend Our Lives' -- Amit Varma. 84. Pride and Prejudice -- Jane Austen. 85. Mirza Ghalib on Rekhta. 86. Faiz Ahmad Faiz on Rekhta. 87. Mujhse Pahli Si Mohabbat Meri Mahbub Na Maang -- Faiz Ahmad Faiz. 88. Hindostan Hamara -- Edited by Jan Nisar Akhtar. Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new video podcast. Check out Everything is Everything on YouTube. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘Change' by Simahina.

On The Literary Life Podcast today, Angelina Stanford, Cindy Rollins, and Thomas Banks continue discussing Dorothy L. Sayers' The Mind of the Maker. In today's conversation, they cover the ideas in chapters 3-5, including the following: the creative process in relation to the members of the Trinity, the relationship of the writer to his own creation, the misconception of art as self-expression, the problem with poetic justice, and much more! If you missed the live webinar Can Dante's Inferno Save the World? with Dr. Jason Baxter, you can still purchase the recording. Also, coming up from House of Humane Letters on November 16, 2023, Jennifer Rogers' webinar on Tolkien and The Old English Tradition. You can sign up now and save your spot! Commonplace Quotes: He remained altogether inimitable, yet never seemed conscious of his greatness. It was native in him to rejoice in the successes of other men at least as much as in his own triumphs. Arthur Quiller-Couch, from “The Death of Robert Louis Stevenson” Only one hour of the normal day is more pleasurable than the hour spent in bed with a book before going to sleep and that is the hour spent in bed with a book after being called in the morning. Rose Macaulay, as quoted by Christian McEwan in World Enough and Time The unity of a work of art, the basis of structural analysis, has not only been produced solely by the unconditioned will of the artist, for the artist is only its efficient cause: it has form, and consequently a formal cause. The fact that revision is possible, that the poet makes changes not because he likes them better but because they are better, means that poems, like poets, are born and not made. Northrop Frye, from Fables of Identity Nondum by Gerard Manley Hopkins " Verily Thou art a God that hidest Thyself." ISAIAH xlv. 15. God, though to Thee our psalm we raise-- No answering voice comes from the skies; To Thee the trembling sinner prays But no forgiving voice replies; Our prayer seems lost in desert ways, Our hymn in the vast silence dies. We see the glories of the earth But not the hand that wrought them all: Night to a myriad worlds gives birth, Yet like a lighted empty hall Where stands no host at door or hearth Vacant creation's lamps appall. We guess; we clothe Thee, unseen King, With attributes we deem are meet; Each in his own imagining Sets up a shadow in Thy seat; Yet know not how our gifts to bring, Where seek Thee with unsandalled feet. Books Mentioned: The Towers of Trebizond by Rose Macaulay David Copperfield by Charles Dickens Vanity Fair by William Thackeray Support The Literary Life: Become a patron of The Literary Life podcast as part of the “Friends and Fellows Community” on Patreon, and get some amazing bonus content! Thanks for your support! Connect with Us: You can find Angelina and Thomas at HouseofHumaneLetters.com, on Instagram @angelinastanford, and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ANGStanford/ Find Cindy at morningtimeformoms.com, on Instagram @cindyordoamoris and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/CindyRollinsWriter. Check out Cindy's own Patreon page also! Follow The Literary Life on Instagram, and jump into our private Facebook group, The Literary Life Discussion Group, and let's get the book talk going! http://bit.ly/literarylifeFB

This conversation is in advance of Bonnitta Roy's THE CONVIVIAL LIFE - CONVERSATIONS WITH IVAN ILLICH & FRIENDS, which begins on Sunday, September 10th and runs every Sunday until October 1. It will include prerecorded lectures, live Zoom sessions and campfire community sessions. For more information and to join us in the learning and conviviality, please check out the links below: https://parallax-media.eu/courses/the-convivial-life-conversations-with-ivan-illich-friends Bonnitta Roy is a visioneer, insight guide and horse whisperer. Her work is deeply embodied and grounded, and over the last several years, she's shown us how to trust the intelligence of life again. She is founder of Alderlore Insight Center and curates wickedly provocative and seriously surprising conversations at The Pop-UP School.David Cayley is a Toronto-based Canadian writer and broadcaster who is known for documenting the philosophy of prominent thinkers of the 20th century - Ivan Illich, Northrop Frye, George Grant, and Rene Girard. His work has been broadcast on CBC Radio One's programme Ideas. He is the author of man books, including the recent biography Ivan Illich: An Intellectual Journey. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/podcast-c709ee4/message

On the Literary Life podcast this week Angelina, Cindy and Thomas continue their series on G. K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday. Before diving into the plot of these chapters, our hosts discuss the similarities and differences between Chesterton and Kafka's works of fiction. Thomas gives some historical context on anarchy as well as assassinations in the time period of this book. Angelina points out the Dante-esque language in this section, as well as the continuing themes of chivalry. Cindy highlights the character of Sunday and how he looms large, quite literally, over everyone's imaginations in the story. Some other thoughts our hosts discuss include modernity's mindset as it relates to the atmosphere of this story, the idea of the underdog fighting against all odds, and the humorous moments that break some of the tension. Be sure to come back next week when we wrap up our series on The Man Who Was Thursday. If you missed our 2023 Back to School Conference when it was live, you can still go back and view the recordings when you purchase access to the conference at MorningTimeforMom.com. Angelina is teaching a class on How to Read Beowulf at the end of August 2023. Get in on this mini-class at House of Humane Letters. Thomas is also teaching a webinar along with Michael Williams on the modern poets W. H. Auden and T. S. Eliot on September 28th. You can now register at House of Humane Letters. Commonplace Quotes: It's important, too, that everything that has a story, such as a myth, should be read or listened to purely as a story. Many people grow up without really understanding the difference between imaginative and discursive writing. On the rare occasions when they encounter poems or even pictures, they treat them exactly as though they were intended to be pieces of more or less disguised information. Their questions are all based on this assumption: “What is he trying to get across?” “What am I supposed to get out of it?” “Why doesn't someone explain it to me?” “Why couldn't he have written it in a different way so that I could understand him?” The art of listening to story is a basic training for the imagination. Northrop Frye, The Educated Imagination The biographer is there to explain rather than to judge. To get a clear view of a man we do not need to be told if his actions were good…but how and why he came to do them. Lord David Cecil, “Modern Biography” Or read again The Man Who Was Thursday. Compare it with another good writer, Kafka. Is the difference simply that the one is ‘dated' and the other contemporary? Or is it rather that while both give a powerful picture of the loneliness and bewilderment which each one of us encounters in his (apparently) single-handed struggle with the universe, Chesterton, attributing to the universe a more complicated disguise, and admitting the exhilaration as well as the terror of the struggle, has got in rather more, is more balanced: in that sense, more classical, more permanent? C. S. Lewis, “Period Criticism” Selection from Paradise Lost, Book 1 by John Milton Innumerable force of Spirits arm'd That durst dislike his reign, and me preferring, His utmost power with adverse power oppos'd In dubious Battel on the Plains of Heav'n, And shook his throne.   What though the field be lost? All is not lost; the unconquerable Will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield: And what is else not to be overcome? Books Mentioned: The Oxford Book of Christian Verse ed. by Lord David Cecil On Stories by C. S. Lewis The Trial by Franz Kafka The Castle by Franz Kafka Day of the Assassins by Michael Burleigh The Defendant by G. K. Chesterton The Song of Roland trans. by Dorothy L. Sayers Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy King Lear by William Shakespeare The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster Support The Literary Life: Become a patron of The Literary Life podcast as part of the “Friends and Fellows Community” on Patreon, and get some amazing bonus content! Thanks for your support! Connect with Us: You can find Angelina and Thomas at HouseofHumaneLetters.com, on Instagram @angelinastanford, and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/ANGStanford/ Find Cindy at morningtimeformoms.com, on Instagram @cindyordoamoris and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/cindyrollins.net/. Check out Cindy's own Patreon page also! Follow The Literary Life on Instagram, and jump into our private Facebook group, The Literary Life Discussion Group, and let's get the book talk going! http://bit.ly/literarylifeFB

David Caley and Medical Nemesis join Donald to talk about Ivan Illich.Medical Nemesis wonders why Ivan Illich's book Medical Nemesis has not taken hold in any part of our culture and how to make practical use of this knowledge. @‌Medical_Nemesis / https://medicalnemesis.substack.comDavid Cayley is a Toronto-based Canadian writer and broadcaster, who is known for documenting the philosophy of prominent thinkers of the 20th century - Ivan Illich, Northrop Frye, George Grant, and Rene Girard. His biography of Ivan Illich is available from Penn State University Press: https://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-08812-9.html

“Look how close they play the game” [3GAB]    Ken Ludwig, BSI ("Jack Stapleton") has seen his plays, Sherlockian and otherwise, grace the stage and win awards since the 1980s. And Ashley Polasek, BSI ("Singlestick") took on the role of Executive Director of the Ken Ludwig Company in 2022. Together, the two join us to talk about Ken's latest Sherlockian play, Moriarty, which premiered at the Cleveland Playhouse in April and May of 2023. But the discussion goes well beyond that to include Ken's other works, how Covid affected the play, how the creative process works, how Ashley's unique background and expertise are perfectly suited to her role, and more. Learn how this dynamic duo play off of each other's strengths to help make everything Ken Ludwig does even more successful. Whether you're a fan of the theater, the creative process, just interested in how a Sherlock Holmes piece comes to life, this is a discussion you won't want to miss. And make sure you listen in for Ken's next Sherlock Holmes play, which he mentions here. The Canonical Couplet is here for a chance to win! We can't offer tickets to Ken's play, but we can give you a piece of theatrical Sherlockiana from the IHOSE Vaults. Send your answer to comment @ ihearofsherlock .com by June 14, 2023 at 11:59 a.m. EST. All listeners are eligible to play.   If you become a , not only will you help to ensure we can keep doing what we do, covering file hosting costs, production, and transcription services, but we have thank-you gifts at certain tiers and ad-free versions of the episodes for all patrons.     Sponsors  is the premier publisher of books about Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle.  brings the best in new Sherlock Holmes novels, biographies, graphic novels and short story collections every month. With over 400 books it's the largest catalogue of new Sherlock Holmes books in the world.   Would you care to advertise with us? You can find . Let's chat!   Links This episode:  at the Cleveland Playhouse by Ken Ludwig by Northrop Frye  Previous Episodes mentioned:     Many more links, articles, and images are available in our Flipboard magazine at   as well as through our accounts on , , , and .     And would you consider leaving us a rating and review? It would help other Sherlockians to find us.   Your thoughts on the show? Leave a comment below, send us an email (comment AT ihearofsherlock DOT com), call us at 5-1895-221B-5. That's (518) 952-2125.          

Raconteuses et raconteurs, bienvenue dans La Machine à écrire, le podcast de celles et ceux qui créent des histoires !  Dans cet épisode, nous allons parler des genres, comme l'horreur, l'action, la comédie, le western, la SF, le polar, la romance et beaucoup d'autres. Pour en discuter avec nous, nous recevons le script-doctor américain et spécialiste de la structure : John Truby ! John Truby est l'auteur de ce que beaucoup considèrent comme la bible de l'écriture : L'Anatomie du scénario, et d'un nouvel ouvrage tout aussi incontournable : L'Anatomie des genres, déjà paru en anglais et dont la sortie française ne saurait tarder.  En près de 30 ans, à travers ses master class, John Truby a formé plus de 50 000 scénaristes, producteurs et réalisateurs à travers le monde et a collaboré à plus de 1800 scénarios de films, sitcoms et séries télé pour de grands studios comme Disney, Sony Pictures, HBO, la BBC et Canal Plus.   Avec lui, nous parcourons les différents genres narratifs, en étudions les thèmes profonds et les différentes techniques qui permettent à vos histoires de s'élever au-dessus de la mêlée. 

This week on The Literary Life Podcast our hosts, Angelina Stanford, Cindy Rollins, and Thomas Banks, continue discussing P. G. Wodehouse's Code of the Woosters together, covering chapters 5-9 today. They share some similarities in Wodehouse's work to Shakespearean and Roman comic characters. Some of these stock characters are the couple, the helpful servant, the unhelpful servant, the irritable old man, and more. Angelina shares her take on Wodehouse's ability to complicate the comedic form. Cindy makes a comparison between the ease created by habits in life and form in stories. Delighting in Wodehouse's skill to turn a phrase, our hosts share many humorous passages throughout this episode, so be sure to stay tuned to the end to catch it all. Find annotations for the slang, quotes, etc., for The Code of the Woosters here. To find out more about Thomas' summer class on G. K. Chesterton and sign up for that, go to houseofhumaneletters.com. To register for Cindy's summer discipleship session, visit morningtimeformoms.com. Commonplace Quotes: The gentleness and candour of Shakespeare's mind has impressed all his readers. But is impresses us still more the more we study the general tone of sixteenth-century literature. He is gloriously anomalous. C. S. Lewis He wrote to Sheran: What do you find to read these days? I simply can't cope with the American novel. The most ghastly things are published and sell a million copies, but good old Wodehouse will have none of them and sticks to English mystery stories. It absolutely beats me how people can read the stuff that is published now. I am reduced to English mystery stories and my own stuff. I was reading Blandings Castle again yesterday and was lost in admiration for the brilliance of the author. P. G. Wodehouse, as quoted by Frances Donaldson You notice that popular literature, the kind of stories that are read for relaxation, is always very highly conventionalized…Wodehouse is a popular writer, and the fact that he is a popular writer has a lot to do with his use of stock plots. Of course he doesn't take his own plots seriously; he makes fun of them by the way he uses them; but so did Plautus and Terence. Northrop Frye …when you go to his residence, the first thing you see is an enormous fireplace, and round it are carved in huge letters the words: TWO LOVERS BUILT THIS HOUSE. Her idea, I imagine. I can't believe Wells would have thought of that himself. P. G. Wodehouse, in a letter to William Townend Fashion's Phases by P. G. Wodehouse When first I whispered words of love,  When first you turned aside to hear,  The winged griffin flew above,  The mammoth gaily gamboll'd near;  I wore the latest thing in skins  Your dock-leaf dress had just been mended  And fastened-up with fishes fins –  The whole effect was really splendid.  Again – we wondered by the Nile,  In Egypt's far, forgotten land,  And we watched the festive crocodile  Devour papyrus from your hand.  Far off across the plain we saw  The trader urge his flying camel;  Bright shone the scarab belt he wore,  Clasped with a sphinx of rare enamel.  Again — on Trojan plains I knelt;  Alas! In vain I strove to speak  And tell you all the love I felt  In more or less Homeric Greek; Perhaps my helmet-strap was tight  And checked the thoughts I fain would utter,  Or else your robe of dreamy white  Bewildered me and made me stutter.  Once more we change the mise-en-scene;  The road curves across the hill;  Excitement makes you rather plain,  But on the whole I love you still,  As wreathed in veils and goggles blue,  And clad in mackintosh and leather,  Snug in our motor built for two  We skim the Brighton road together.  Books Mentioned: English Literature in the Sixteenth Century by C. S. Lewis P. G. Wodehouse, A Biography by Frances Donaldson The Educated Imagination by Northrop Frye Arabian Nights trans. by Burton Richard The Renaissance Studies in Art and Poetry by Walter Pater Unnatural Death by Dorothy Sayers Support The Literary Life: Become a patron of The Literary Life podcast as part of the “Friends and Fellows Community” on Patreon, and get some amazing bonus content! Thanks for your support! Connect with Us: You can find Angelina and Thomas at HouseofHumaneLetters.com, on Instagram @angelinastanford, and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/ANGStanford/ Find Cindy at morningtimeformoms.com, on Instagram @cindyordoamoris and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/cindyrollins.net/. Check out Cindy's own Patreon page also! Follow The Literary Life on Instagram, and jump into our private Facebook group, The Literary Life Discussion Group, and let's get the book talk going! http://bit.ly/literarylifeFB

From an early age, John Truby knew that stories are not just something that happens on a page. Story is all around us. It structures how we interpret events, and even how we decide how to live. For John, story forms explain the way the world works.John is a screenwriter and the founder and director of Truby's Writers Studio in Los Angeles, where he teaches novelists, screenwriters, and TV writers the deep secrets of what makes a great story. His students have generated more than fifteen billion dollars at the box office, and studios like Sony Pictures, Disney, Fox, HBO, and AMC routinely consult John on how to improve the stories they tell. In this episode, Dart and Jon discuss:- The 14 story genres that categorize everyday life- Which genre produces fulfilling work- Reflecting on your work by creating a memoir- Business analysis as a detective story- The horror narrative of layoffs- Sales as an action genre- What the romance genre has to do with work- And other topics...Jon Truby is a screenwriter, director, screenwriting teacher, author, and Hollywood consultant for studios such as Disney, Sony Pictures, Fox, HBO, and AMC. He is the founder and director of Truby's Writers Studio and has worked on over 1,000 film scripts over the last 30 years. Jon created his 22-step outline for storytelling in his first book, The Anatomy of Story, teaching his techniques through global masterclasses to over 50,000 students worldwide since the start of his career. His latest book, The Anatomy of Genres, was released in 2022.Resources Mentioned:The Anatomy of Genres, by Jon Truby: https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Genres-Story-Forms-Explain/dp/0374539227 The Anatomy of Criticism, by Northrop Frye https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Criticism-Essays-Princeton-Classics/dp/0691202567 Winning on Purpose, by Fred Reichheld: https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Purpose-Unbeatable-Strategy-Customers/dp/B09PC69XV3 The Complete Aubrey/Maturin Novels, by Patrick O'Brian: https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Aubrey-Maturin-Novels-volumes/dp/039306011X Cinema Paradiso (film), 1988Master and Commander (film), 2003Shane (film), 1953Glengarry Glen Ross (play), by David MametWorld Experience Organization: https://worldxo.org/ Connect with Jon:www.truby.com www.anatomyofgenres.com 

Angelina, Cindy, and Thomas are back on The Literary Life Podcast today with another discussion in our series on Aristotle's Poetics. Sharing their commonplace quotes leads into the conversation about why reading this work still matters to our understanding of how to read literature. Thomas and Angelina talk about the problem of literary critics who claim Shakespeare violates Aristotle's “rules” for plays. Cindy's question as to why we read the ancients is another topic of this conversation. Join us next time when we will have another Literary Life of... guest interview. Then we will be back the next week with a discussion of Plato's Ion.   Thomas will be teaching a webinar on Jean Jacques Rousseau on February 24th. You can learn more and register at houseofhumaneletters.com. Register now for our 5th Annual Literary Life Online Conference coming up in mid-April, Shakespeare: The Bard for All and for All Time. Get all the details and sign up today at houseofhumaneletters.com. Episodes Mentioned Today: Antigone Series Introduction The Trojan Women Series Introduction Why Read Pagan Myths Why Read Fairy Tales Commonplace Quotes: The best way to get to know the world is to live in it. The next best is to break your leg and read Boswell's “Life of Johnson” in bed. Christopher Hollis, from Dr. Johnson Sensible parents are often distressed at this want of conscience in children; but they are not greatly at fault; the mature conscience demands to be backed up by the mature intellect, and the children have neither the one nor the other. Discussions of the kind should be put down; the children should not be encouraged to give their opinions on questions of right and wrong, and little books should not be put into their hands which pronounce authoritatively upon conduct. Charlotte Mason, from Home Education The Classical emphasis, established in Aristotle is esthetic (“hieratic”) in the sense that it is focused on the thing made, and assumes an emotional balance or detachment which we see in such aspects of it as catharsis. The fundamental conception of this approach is that of “imitation,” which is concerned with the relation of the poem to its context in nature. The other emphasis…is psychological rather than esthetic, and is based on participation rather than on detachment. It thinks of a poem as an “expression,”…rather than as Aristotle's techne or artifact, and its fundamental conception, corresponding to “imitation,” is “creation,” a metaphor which relates the poet to his context in nature. Northrop Frye, from The Well-Tempered Critic Sonnet 23 by William Shakespeare As an unperfect actor on the stage Who with his fear is put beside his part, Or some fierce thing replete with too much rage, Whose strength's abundance weakens his own heart, So I, for fear of trust, forget to say The perfect ceremony of love's rite, And in mine own love's strength seem to decay, O'ercharg'd with burthen of mine own love's might. O, let my books be then the eloquence And dumb presagers of my speaking breast, Who plead for love and look for recompense More than that tongue that more hath more express'd. ⁠O, learn to read what silent love hath writ; ⁠To hear with eyes belongs to love's fine wit. Support The Literary Life: Become a patron of The Literary Life podcast as part of the “Friends and Fellows Community” on Patreon, and get some amazing bonus content! Thanks for your support! Connect with Us: You can find Angelina and Thomas at HouseofHumaneLetters.com, on Instagram @angelinastanford, and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/ANGStanford/ Find Cindy at morningtimeformoms.com, on Instagram @cindyordoamoris and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/cindyrollins.net/. Check out Cindy's own Patreon page also! Follow The Literary Life on Instagram, and jump into our private Facebook group, The Literary Life Discussion Group, and let's get the book talk going! http://bit.ly/literarylifeFB

Roberto De Gaetano"Critica del visuale"Orthotes Editricehttps://orthotes.comLo sviluppo di un pensiero critico è la condizione per contrastare il pericolo del consenso generalizzato e totalizzante. Il rischio maggiore nelle democrazie attuali. La critica è la pratica che articola il campo della discussione pubblica in posizioni distinte, evitando uniformità e conformismi. L'eclissi oggi del pensiero critico è stata anticipata dalla crisi della critica in ambito artistico e cinematografico. Il presente volume, attraversando i momenti più alti della riflessione novecentesca sulla critica, sia in prospettiva filosofica (Walter Benjamin) che letteraria (Northrop Frye), giunge a pensare, attraverso due grandi critici cinematografici come André Bazin e Serge Daney, da un lato il rilievo e dall'altro l'attuale crisi della critica cinematografica, ritrovandone una delle ragioni maggiori nell'uso imperante e totalizzante di una nozione-mondo come quella di “visuale”. Che uniforma singolarità, empiricità, esteticità delle opere, trasformandole in meri indicatori di dinamiche sociali e culturali. L'eclissi della critica nel dominio del visuale non è un destino, ma è lo stato in cui è approdata una certa prospettiva ideologico-teorica. Il presente volume indica i segni e gli atti per una possibile inversione di tendenza, e per ricollocare il pensiero e la pratica della critica al centro della riflessione teorica, della discussione pubblica e dell'operato culturale.Roberto De Gaetano insegna Discipline Cinematografiche a "La Sapienza" - Università di Roma. Tra le sue più recenti pubblicazioni: La potenza delle immagini (2012), Lessico del cinema italiano. Forme di rappresentazione e forme di vita (3 volumi, 2014-2016), Il cinema e i film. Le vie della teoria in Italia (2017), Cinema italiano: forme, identità, stili di vita (2018, Premio Limina), Le immagini dell'amore (2022). Ha fondato nel 2006 il quadrimestrale «Fata Morgana» e nel 2017 la rivista di critica «Fata Morgana Web».IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEAscoltare fa Pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it

In Technic and Magic: The Reconstruction of Reality, the philosopher Frederico Campagna argues that we moderns have exhausted the reality system we devised at the dawn of our age, a system he calls Technic. Technic has one goal: to reduce all things to language by naming, tagging, measuring, and quantifying them, by turning every parcel of the physical and psychic universe into a "unit" defined by its position in the system. The result has been an erasure of the mere "suchness" of things, the singularity of things simply existing as they are. To replace a worldview that is now revealing its endemic nihilism, Campagna proposes Magic, a way of seeing that reestablishes a balance between the measurable and the ineffable. JF and Phil discuss Campagna's magisterial performance in this episode. Listen to volume 1 (https://pierre-yvesmartel.bandcamp.com/album/weird-studies-music-from-the-podcast-vol-1) and volume 2 (https://pierre-yvesmartel.bandcamp.com/album/weird-studies-music-from-the-podcast-vol-2) of the Weird Studies soundtrack by Pierre-Yves Martel (https://www.pymartel.com) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/weirdstudies) Find us on Discord (https://discord.com/invite/Jw22CHfGwp) Get the new T-shirt design from Cotton Bureau (https://cottonbureau.com/products/can-o-content#/13435958/tee-men-standard-tee-vintage-black-tri-blend-s)! Get your Weird Studies merchandise (https://www.redbubble.com/people/Weird-Studies/shop?asc=u) (t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.) Visit the Weird Studies Bookshop (https://bookshop.org/shop/weirdstudies) SHOW NOTES Federico Campagna, Technic and Magic (https://bookshop.org/p/books/technic-and-magic-the-reconstruction-of-reality-federico-campagna/11119682?ean=9781350044029) Bill Hicks, “Bit on Marketing” Fredric Jameson, The Seeds of Time (https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-seeds-of-time-revised-fredric-jameson/12858510?ean=9780231080590) Plotinus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus), Neoplatonist philosopher Francis Bacon (https://www.francis-bacon.com/art), Irish artist Samuel Beckett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Beckett), Irish author William S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch (https://bookshop.org/p/books/naked-lunch-the-restored-text-william-s-burroughs-jr/12459684?ean=9780802122070) Weird Stuides, Episode 87 on Arthur Machen (https://www.weirdstudies.com/87) Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (https://bookshop.org/p/books/anatomy-of-criticism-four-essays-northrop-frye/10424454?ean=9780691202563)

Topics: Mark Golding, 49, Flow, Jung, Blake, Tom Bombadil, King James, Authorized Version, Committee, New Revised Standardized Version, Blavatsky, Satan, Serpent, Gnostic, Initiation, completion, Righteous, Justified, Northrop Frye, The Great Code, History, ...

In this episode, we begin Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows! We cannot believe we're already at the start of Book 7, but honestly, we're so excited to finally get into it! We decided to go back to the start and revisit 'Chosen One narratives' which we discussed in Season 1, Episode 1 of the reboot. We pull on Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism and Joseph Campbell's work about "monomyth." But, you know us, we hate letting boring old white guys go unchecked, so we also review works by Alise M. Wisniewski and Na'amen Gobert Tilahun who unpack the function of “chosen one” narratives in popular culture. Tune in for a conversation about Harry's journey as a "chosen one" and the ways the book adheres to and subverts our expectations of this western literary tradition. Start this season off right and join our Patreon! You can become a Patreon Supporter at any tier for more perks and bonus content include episodes, interviews, bloopers, comics, merch and more. If becoming a paying subscriber isn't in the cards right now, no stress! Please leave us a review instead — it truly helps sustain the show. Of course, you can always follow us on Instagram or Twitter @ohwitchplease to stay connected. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we begin Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows! We cannot believe we're already at the start of Book 7, but honestly, we're so excited to finally get into it! We decided to go back to the start and revisit 'Chosen One narratives' which we discussed in Season 1, Episode 1 of the reboot. We pull on Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism and Joseph Campbell's work about "monomyth." But, you know us, we hate letting boring old white guys go unchecked, so we also review works by Alise M. Wisniewski and Na'amen Gobert Tilahun who unpack the function of “chosen one” narratives in popular culture. Tune in for a conversation about Harry's journey as a "chosen one" and the ways the book adheres to and subverts our expectations of this western literary tradition. Start this season off right and join our Patreon! You can become a Patreon Supporter at any tier for more perks and bonus content include episodes, interviews, bloopers, comics, merch and more. If becoming a paying subscriber isn't in the cards right now, no stress! Please leave us a review instead — it truly helps sustain the show. Of course, you can always follow us on Instagram or Twitter @ohwitchplease to stay connected. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

William Blake (28 November 1757 – 12 August 1827) was an English poet, painter, and printmaker. Largely unrecognised during his life, Blake is now considered a seminal figure in the history of the poetry and visual art of the Romantic Age. What he called his "prophetic works" were said by 20th-century critic Northrop Frye to form "what is in proportion to its merits the least read body of poetry in the English language".[2] His visual artistry led 21st-century critic Jonathan Jones to proclaim him "far and away the greatest artist Britain has ever produced".[3] In 2002, Blake was placed at number 38 in the BBC's poll of the 100 Greatest Britons.[4]Bio via Wikipedia See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The rewards of reading Milton with or without a religious commitment. The magnificence of verse informed by a sophisticated knowledge of music. Milton's sense of a total vision in which the Bible, Classical mythology and literature, and other writers, from Plato to Shakespeare, form an interconnected whole, what Northrop Frye calls the order of words. You can get a whole humanistic education from studying Milton. Milton's revolutionary values in religion, politics, and the domestic realm. God as an Inner Light or inward presence, a main source of the later Romantic theory of the imagination. Milton's part in the English Civil War in the cause of liberty, a forerunner of the democratic revolutions of the Romantic era. Milton's attempt to liberalize as far as the Bible permitted the relationship between men and women, including his argument for the freedom of divorce. Milton's great prose work Areopagitica, an argument in favor of freedom of thought and expression. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/michael-dolzani/support

Marshall Button co-wrote one of the plays and performs in them, along with Blair Lawrence.

On this, the 29th episode of Doomer Optimism, first time hosts Tara Thieke (@TaraAnnThieke) and Donald Antenen (@riversofeurope) dive into the work and themes of Ivan Illich, the preeminent Roman Catholic priest, theologian, philosopher, and social critic. They're joined for the discussion by writer and broadcaster, David Cayley. About David Cayley David Cayley is a Toronto-based Canadian writer and broadcaster, who is known for documenting philosophy of prominent thinkers of the 20th century - Ivan Illich, Northrop Frye, George Grant, and Rene Girard. About Tara Thieke Tara Thieke is a homemaker and writer. Her writing can be found at Mere Orthodoxy, Front Porch Republic, The American Mind and many more. About Donald Antenen Donald Antenen lives with his wife and daughters in the Pacific Northwest. He is translating Genesis: https://bibletranslation.substack.com/

We discuss the dramatic significance of zombie comedies using Zombieland as an example. Dr. Kyle William Bishop in his article "Vacationing in Zombieland : the classical functions of the modern zombie comedy" applies Northrop Frye's frameworks for criticism to demonstrate how the zombie comedy is more than just gratuitous violence and should be taken seriously by academic and critics alike. We use specific examples from Bishop, Frye, and the film itself to show why Zombieland, for example, is a traditional dramatic romantic comedy.

Wayne talks about the care that an editor must take when working with the particular writing style of a client. All are different. Hear a little about the Beatles and J. D. Salinger, and Northrop Frye and Neil Young. Something for everyone ...

John Vervaeke and Paul VanderKlay come together for a dialogue on neoplatonism, evolution, and Christianity. This is my third dialogue with John Vervaeke and the first appearance of Paul on my channel. We mention Adam Friended, David Sloan Wilson, Bret Weinstein, Thomas Aquinas, the Apostle Paul, Jacob Faturechi, Origen of Alexandria, Plotinus, Philo of Alexandria, John Scotus Eriugena, Proclus, Maximus the Confessor, Porphyry, Noam Chomsky, Northrop Frye, CS Lewis, Iamblichus, Gregory Shaw, Pseudo-Dionysius, Jonathan Pageau, Numenius, Alvin Platinga, Daniel Dennett, Donald Hoffman, Joscha Bach, Paul Anleitner (aka Deep Talks ), Sevilla King (aka A Quality Existence ), Cornelius Platinga, David Bentley Hart, sigmund freud, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Hagel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, DC Schlinder, Von Balthasar, and more.

William Blake (28 November 1757 – 12 August 1827) was an English poet, painter, and printmaker. Largely unrecognised during his life, Blake is now considered a seminal figure in the history of the poetry and visual art of the Romantic Age. What he called his prophetic works were said by 20th-century critic Northrop Frye to form "what is in proportion to its merits the least read body of poetry in the English language".[2] His visual artistry led 21st-century critic Jonathan Jones to proclaim him "far and away the greatest artist Britain has ever produced".[3] In 2002, Blake was placed at number 38 in the BBC's poll of the 100 Greatest Britons.[4] While he lived in London his entire life, except for three years spent in Felpham,[5] he produced a diverse and symbolically rich collection of works, which embraced the imagination as "the body of God"[6] or "human existence itself".[7]Bio via Wikipedia See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We are not Shakespeare scholars. We have neither the education, resources, or frankly the intelligence to engage with Shakespeare's work the way anyone who's actually published a paper about Shakespeare does. We are amateurs. But none of the names we're talking about today are amateurs. All of them have left some sort of important imprint on the study of Shakespeare. And we've rounded up the highlights and put our own Bicks-ified spin on it for your listening pleasure. We hope you'll enjoy! Links: A decent history summary (via Encyclopedia Britannica)  Another quick summary of big names Francis Meres: https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/palladis-tamia-one-earliest-printed-assessments-shakespeares-works-and-first John Weever: https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/epigrams-oldest-cut-critical-responses-and-allusions-shakespeare-and-three-his Ben Jonson: https://literatureessaysamples.com/a-biting-elegy-ben-jonson-on-shakespeare/ John Dryden: https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/973_dryden.html Alexander Pope: http://jacklynch.net/Texts/pope-shakespeare.html Samuel Johnson: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24776308 Samuel Taylor Coleridge: http://theshakespeareblog.com/2015/10/samuel-taylor-coleridge-and-shakespeare/ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: https://frenchquest.com/2020/12/01/goethe-on-shakespeare-a-tribute-1771/ New Criticism: https://whatapieceofwork.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/the-new-criticism/ Northrop Frye: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/9781442689886 Stephen Greenblat: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/books/review/will-in-the-world-reinventing-shakespeare.html Feminist Criticism: https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Shakespeare/Feminist-criticism-and-gender-studies Deconstructionist: http://ejournals.org.uk/bjll/%5Bpp3-pp12%5D_ARTICLE_1.pdf Shakespeare in Africa: https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/Shakespeare_in_Africa Shakespeare in Asia: https://asiatimes.com/2016/12/asian-scholarship-william-shakespeare-second-none/ Shakespeare in Central/South America: https://www.wordtrade.com/literature/shakespeareR.htm Shakespeare in Indigenous Contexts: https://fellowsblog.ted.com/why-shakespeare-deserves-a-native-american-perspective-fd5ab5ba556e https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2019-10-15/native-american/umaine-lecture-why-native-theater-is-embracing-shakespeare/a68040-1 Ancient Bickerings Which academic school (if any) would you describe the other one belonging to?

David Cayley is a broadcaster and author and perhaps the ‘godfather of podcasting'. He is best know known for documenting the philosophy of great thinkers of the 20th century, including Ivan Illich, Northrop Frye, George Grant, and Rene Girard. He has recently written a fantastic biography of Ivan Illich (Ivan Illich: An Intellectual Journey), which also documents his own adventure with ideas. We had a wonderful and deep conversation, about Ilich and his radical ideas. Will they become audible to us in the 21st Century? David Cayley's new book and all his works can be found on his blog: https://www.davidcayley.com/blog DONATE ON PAYPAL Patreon Parallax Facebook Medium Intro music: Beautiful Machines, by Andrew Sweeny --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/podcast-c709ee4/message

This episode is also available as a blog post: http://quiteaquote.in/2021/07/14/northrop-frye-literature/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/quiteaquote/message

Have you ever wondered when Shelf Love would finally cover the unholy marriage of Colonialism, Imperialism, Capitalism, and White Supremacy? Dr. Margo Hendricks drops in to explain why you can't talk about just one because they're inextricably linked. Yes, this is still a romance novel podcast!-Show Notes:Shelf Love:Sign up for the email newsletter list | Website | Twitter | Instagram | Goodreads | Email: Andrea@shelflovepodcast.comCheck out Shelf Love’s updated website including the transcript for this episodeShelf Love episodes with transcriptsGuest: Dr. Margo HendricksWebsite | TwitterArticle we talk about: Archives and Histories of Racial Capitalism: An Afterward by Jennifer L. Morgan Episodes Mentioned:073 & 074 about The Secular Scripture by Northrop Frye with Dr. Angela Toscano077 & 078 with Dame Jodie Slaughter about Twilight and Bridgerton (noodling on some ideas that eventually became my current research project)To Be Alone With You by Jodie Slaughter: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08Y92DR54/A very short starter reading list sent by Dr. Hendricks:Richard Hakluyt, Voyages and Discoveries: Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, & Discoveries of the EnglishImtiaz Habib, Black Lives in the English Archives, 1500-1677Gretchen Holbrook Gerzina, Black London Before EmancipationPaul Gilroy, The Black AtlanticAnnette Gordon-Reed, Racism in AmericaThe Vision of China in the English Literature of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century. Edited by Adrian Hsia, Chinese U P, 1998Connexions: Histories of Race and Sex in North America, eds.,  Jennifer Brier, Jim Downs, Jennifer L. MorganStephanie Camp, "Early European Views of African Bodies: Beauty," Sexuality and Slavery, ed. Daina Ramey Berry and Leslie M. HarrisJerng, Mark C. Racial Worldmaking: The Power of Popular Fiction (2018)Baez, Jillian, "Navigating and Negotiating Latina Beauty" (In Search of Belonging: Latinas, Media, and Citizenship) (2018)Akhimie, Patricia, Shakespeare and the Cultivation of Difference: Race and conduct in the Early Modern WorldReaders: Critical Race Theory, Critical White Studies, Critical Indigenous StudiesElizabeth Kingston, "Romanticizing White Supremacy" (2018)Chess, Simone, Male-to-Female Crossdressing in Early Modern English Literature: Gender, Performance, and Queer RelationsAsexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives. Ed. Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Forty years of friendship around meditation, the Dharma, and a common interest in the workings of the 'psyche' - the human 'soul' - mark out this first pilot episode for a new series of live podcasts. Join Paramananada in conversation with a set of friends to explore and share together their 'Sources of Inspiration'.Our first guest is Atula (Richard Hudson), psychosynthesist and good friend to many in the Triratna Buddhist Community. Atula has made it his life's work to consider the place of darkness, descent, depth as  experienced aspects of spiritual life, rather than an obstacle to it. What follows is itself a soulful, insightful conversation about Atula's approach in therapy and in dream work (individual and collective); particularly looking at the inspiration he draws from James Hillman in considering the deep workings of human behaviour and of the mind itself.There's an urgent relevance here for anyone exploring ideas of integration and the felt tensions between "matter" and "spirit". William Blake meets Mickey Spillane, Sangharakshita and Northrop Frye as the conversation catches, sparks and flows in the space between the twin myths of 'authority' and 'freedom': two old friends, holding the two in balance as a creative force.You're invited to the rest of these conversations! Sign up for our newsletter and get notified when tickets become available.Read 'What the Thrush Said' by John Keats***Check out our Dharma Toolkit space for details of all we have on offer to help you make it through the pandemic and stay inspired.Come meditate with us six days a week!***Theme music by Ackport! Used with kind permission.#coronavirus #Covid19 #crisis #pandemic #Buddhism #Buddhist #Buddha #Dharma #Triratna #community #sangha #meditation #mindfulness #psyche #soul #therapy #psychotherapy #psychosynthesis #Hillman #JamesHillman

"De que adianta estudar literatura? Ela ajuda-nos a pensar com mais clareza, a sentir com mais sensibilidade ou a viver uma vida melhor do que poderíamos sem ela?" O podcast solo de hoje fala sobre uma conhecida obra de Northrup Frye. Escrita no estilo descontraído e frequentemente bem-humorado de suas palestras públicas, A Imaginação Educada continua sendo, talvez, a introdução mais fácil às suas teorias da literatura e da educação literária. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/ocaminho/support

Dr. Angela Toscano returns to continue our discussion of The Secular Scripture by Northrop Frye and how it's an urtext for understanding the romance genre. You'll definitely want to go listen to part 1, which is episode 73, before listening to this oneIn part 2, we'll be discussing how identity must evolve in romance, the possibility inherent to the romance, and how we can have more critical conversations about problematic things in romance without demanding its eradication - because let's be honest, everything is problematic.Show Notes:Listen to part 1: 073. Structuring Romance: The Secular Scripture pt 1 with Dr. Angela ToscanoShelf Love:Sign up for the email newsletter list | Website | Twitter | Instagram | Goodreads | Email: Andrea@shelflovepodcast.com15 Romance Novel Audiobooks that Combine Swoony Words with Great PerformancesCheck out Shelf Love’s updated website including the transcript for this episodeShelf Love episodes with transcriptsRomancelandia Holiday Fairies Gift Drive (2020)Guest: Dr. Angela ToscanoTwitter | Website | JPRS Notes & Queries | Patreon - Romance Lessons from Dr. ToscanoBooks Discussed:The Secular Scripture by Northrop FryeWhat to read next if you like Frye:On Fairy Stories by JRR TolkeinA Natural History of the Romance by Pamela RegisAnatomy of Criticism by Northrop FryeMeditations on Don Quixote by Ortega y GassetTrue Story of the Novel by Margaret DoodyPoetic Diction by Owen BarfieldThe diagram I drew when reading about identity in The Secular ScriptureRomancelandia Holiday Fairies Gift Drive (2020)

Dr. Angela Toscano, a romance scholar, writer, and researcher joins Shelf Love to discuss literary critic Northrop Frye's 1976 book The Secular Scripture: A study of the structure of romance. Although it's 44 years old and isn't only about romance novels, it has a lot to say that's relevant to the popular romance genre in the year 2020 - and Angela and I call on many examples from more recent books you may be familiar with as well as other examples from pop culture.For example, how is the structure of romance fundamentally different from that of literary, epic works? Why is "mere entertainment" so derided by the academy and what's wrong with the phony infinite? What's the difference between a maze with no plan and a maze, not without a plan? How does romance focus on the polarity between the idyllic world we want and the subterranean world we don't want, but not the life we have? And how does the dog always know?This is part 1 of our conversation. Part 2: out 12/26/20.-Show Notes:Shelf Love:Sign up for the email newsletter list | Website | Twitter | Instagram | Goodreads | Email: Andrea@shelflovepodcast.com15 Romance Novel Audiobooks that Combine Swoony Words with Great PerformancesCheck out Shelf Love’s updated website including the transcript for this episodeShelf Love episodes with transcriptsRomancelandia Holiday Fairies Gift Drive (2020)Guest: Dr. Angela ToscanoTwitter | Website | JPRS Notes & QueriesBooks Discussed:The Secular Scripture by Northrop FryeThe Hathaways by Lisa KleypasRomancelandia Holiday Fairies Gift Drive (2020)

The panel reviews the second half of Spenser's book of courtesy, with attention given to the scholarly view of C. S. Lewis, Northrop Frye, and others, that Courtesy represents the central portion of the poem and that it is the essential Spenserian virtue., and that courtesy represents the essential virtue.

The panel reviews the second half of Spenser's book of courtesy, with attention given to the scholarly view of C. S. Lewis, Northrop Frye, and others, that Courtesy represents the central portion of the poem and that it is the essential Spenserian virtue.,

Northrop Frye viewed literature as a vast structure of the human imagination. He taught that imagination can broaden our beliefs and encourage tolerance. As readers, we are meant to ‘disappear’ into literature as a whole. But what happens to our bodies, our histories, and us as real individuals?

The Misfits and the Mavericks A lot of writers use archetypes in their stories. Sometimes we don't even realize that we're doing it, actually. There’s something really compelling about the heroes that don’t quite fit in especially the mavericks. The Huck Finns and Han Solos of the world and/or universe. For whatever reason, the mavericks have turned away from civilization. Maybe it’s to find out what happened to their missing mom. Maybe it’s because their own elite family oppressed them and their quirks. Maybe it’s because they are doing a Thoreau and they wanted to see what it was like to be Spartan and nonconformist in a society that stresses conformity above all else. Literary critic, Northrop Frye wrote about mavericks as heroes in novels in the U.S. and said, Northrop Frye“Placed outside the structure of civilization and therefore represents the force of physical nature, amoral or ruthless, yet with a sense of power, and often leadership, that society has impoverished itself by rejecting.” To conform or to not conform has often been the question. Apologies to Shakespeare. And it’s been a question both in American society and in its books, right? How the main character fits into mainstream society is often the subject of some really good and compelling books like Gone With the Wind or To Kill a Mockingbird. They reject conforming. They strike out on their own. The maverick is a character archtype. Here’s the definition of an archetype from studiobinder.com studiobinder.com“An archetype is a consistent and typical version of a particular thing. It can be human, an object, or a particular set of behaviors, but the point is that it fits into a time-tested mold that embodies a pure form.” Anyways, though that site is about scriptwriting, I think it has a lot of great information about writing characters. It asks: studiobinder.com again.“Why do character archetypes exist? “Human beings tend to find their place within a group dynamic based around their strongest personality traits. “You may have a group of friends with similar interests... “But often one will be the “social butterfly” while another will be the "homebody." “Your friends will begin to identify each other by these consistent traits. “You’ve now defined yourself by a character archetype.” The maverick archetype is obviously one of many, but what of their key motivations is the act of self-preservation. They break the rules to get their goals. Brave. Competent. Sometimes a bit snippy. Their temper is a bit fiery. That pull between convention and autonomy has the possibility of making a story truly stick out as something extraordinarily special. Don’t be afraid to lean into it. Are you a maverick? Do you write them? What's your archetype? We'll be looking at different ones the next few months. It's fun. Writing Tip of the Pod: Don’t make all your characters mavericks, but don’t avoid them either. Have you mixed up the archetypes in your story? Dog Tip For Life: It’s okay to cultivate your own inner maverick. SHOUT OUT The music we’ve clipped and shortened in this podcast is awesome and is made available through the Creative Commons License. Here’s a link to that and the artist’s website. Who is this artist and what is this song? It’s “Night Owl” by Broke For Free. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/carriejonesbooks/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/carriejonesbooks/support

What good is the study of literature? Northrop Frye’s 1962 CBC Massey Lectures were his attempt to answer that age-old question. Frye scholar and friend Deanne Bogdan revisits the lectures and helps us map Northrop Frye’s expansive vision of literature, life, and human nature.

William Blake (28 November 1757 – 12 August 1827) was an English poet, painter, and print maker. Largely unrecognized during his lifetime, Blake is now considered a seminal figure in the history of the poetry and visual arts of the Romantic Age. What he called his prophetic works were said by 20th-century critic Northrop Frye to form "what is in proportion to its merits the least read body of poetry in the English language" His visual artistry led 21st-century critic Jonathan Jones to proclaim him "far and away the greatest artist Britain has ever produced" In 2002, Blake was placed at number 38 in the BBC's poll of the 100 Greatest Britons.[4] While he lived in London his entire life, except for three years spent in Felpham, he produced a diverse and symbolically rich œuvre, which embraced the imagination as "the body of God"[6] or "human existence itself". Although Blake was considered mad by contemporaries for his idiosyncratic views, he is held in high regard by later critics for his expressiveness and creativity, and for the philosophical and mystical undercurrents within his work. His paintings and poetry have been characterized as part of the Romantic movement and as "Pre-Romantic". A committed Christian who was hostile to the Church of England (indeed, to almost all forms of organised religion), Blake was influenced by the ideals and ambitions of the French and American Revolutions. Though later he rejected many of these political beliefs, he maintained an amiable relationship with the political activist Thomas Paine; he was also influenced by thinkers such as Emanuel Swedenborg. Despite these known influences, the singularity of Blake's work makes him difficult to classify. The 19th-century scholar William Michael Rossetti characterised him as a "glorious luminary", and "a man not forestalled by predecessors, nor to be classed with contemporaries, nor to be replaced by known or readily surmisable successors".  If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.  The marriage between heaven and hell has really lingered with me since I recorded this. It talks of angels, polarity, the void, giant cosmic spiders of light and dark and holds deeply symbolic meanings.  I would love to know what you think.  It is a classic.  The doors based there name on a sentence from this poem. I recorded this due to my interest in Neville Goddard and with his suggestion that I read his works based on a previous episode called Blake on Religion. The music is mindblowing. Music By Mettaverse  Mental and Spiritual Reboot ✧ 111Hz, 222Hz, 444Hz, 888Hz ✧ Deep Healing Meditation MusicLove: The Universal Constant ✧ 111Hz ✧ 444Hz (C=528Hz) Tuning ✧ Healing Ambient Meditation Music"Into the Omniverse" ✧ 963Hz Pineal Activation MeditationSea of Samsara ✧ Karmic Clearing ✧ 174Hz Solfeggio Frequency  ➤ Listen on Soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2KjGlLI➤ Follow them on Instagram: http://bit.ly/2JW8BU2➤ Join them on Facebook: http://bit.ly/2G1j7G6➤ Subscribe to their channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyvjffON2NoUvX5q_TgvVkw Alan Watts Playlist  - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKv1KCSKwOo_n1g-X4hVtAai5G84Qz4x- All My Neville Goddard Videos In One Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKv1KCSKwOo8kBZsJpp3xvkRwhbXuhg0M For coaching – https://www.advancedsuccessinstitute.com For all episodes of the Reality Revolution – https://www.therealityrevolution.com Like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/RealityRevolutionPodcast/ Join our facebook group The Reality Revolution  https://www.facebook.com/groups/403122083826082/ Subscribe to my Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOgXHr5S3oF0qetPfqxJfSw Contact us at media@advancedsuccessinsitute.com#lawofattraction #nevillegoddard #totalhumanoptimization #williamblake #arthistory

Neville Goddard Blake On Religion 03-26-1963  William Blake (28 November 1757 – 12 August 1827) was an English poet, painter, and print maker. Largely unrecognized during his lifetime, Blake is now considered a seminal figure in the history of the poetry and visual arts of the Romantic Age. What he called his prophetic works were said by 20th-century critic Northrop Frye to form "what is in proportion to its merits the least read body of poetry in the English language". His visual artistry led 21st-century critic Jonathan Jones to proclaim him "far and away the greatest artist Britain has ever produced". In 2002, Blake was placed at number 38 in the BBC's poll of the 100 Greatest Britons. While he lived in London his entire life, except for three years spent in Felpham, he produced a diverse and symbolically rich œuvre, which embraced the imagination as "the body of God" or "human existence itself".Although Blake was considered mad by contemporaries for his idiosyncratic views, he is held in high regard by later critics for his expressiveness and creativity, and for the philosophical and mystical undercurrents within his work. His paintings and poetry have been characterised as part of the Romantic movement and as "Pre-Romantic". A committed Christian who was hostile to the Church of England (indeed, to almost all forms of organized religion), Blake was influenced by the ideals and ambitions of the French and American Revolutions. Though later he rejected many of these political beliefs, he maintained an amiable relationship with the political activist Thomas Paine; he was also influenced by thinkers such as Emanuel Swedenborg.Despite these known influences, the singularity of Blake's work makes him difficult to classify. The 19th-century scholar William Michael Rossetti characterized him as a "glorious luminary", and "a man not forestalled by predecessors, nor to be classed with contemporaries, nor to be replaced by known or readily surmisable successors".  Nevile says: When you are discussing Blake you are discussing one of the greatest spiritual giants of all time. You might just as well discuss St. Paul, for they had the identical visions, the vision of reality. Tonight we can cover onlya portion of his gift to the world. In his “Auguries of Innocence” he says: “To see a World in a Grain of SandAnd a Heaven in a Wild Flower,Hold Infinity in the palm of your handAnd Eternity in an hour.” I did this one by request. The video has over 40 different pieces of art by William Blake as Well. The thumbnail art is by Roger Oneycheck out his collection at www.rogeroney.comMusic By Mettaverse "Into the Omniverse" ✧ 963Hz Pineal Activation Meditation➤ Listen on Soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2KjGlLI➤ Follow them on Instagram: http://bit.ly/2JW8BU2➤ Join them on Facebook: http://bit.ly/2G1j7G6➤ Subscribe to their channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyvjffON2NoUvX5q_TgvVkwAlan Watts Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKv1KCSKwOo_n1g-X4hVtAai5G84Qz4x-All My Neville Goddard Videos In One Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKv1KCSKwOo8kBZsJpp3xvkRwhbXuhg0MFor coaching – https://www.advancedsuccessinstitute.comFor all episodes of the Reality Revolution – https://www.therealityrevolution.comLike us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/RealityRevolutionPodcast/Join our facebook group The Reality Revolution https://www.facebook.com/groups/403122083826082/ Subscribe to my Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOgXHr5S3oF0qetPfqxJfSw Contact us at media@advancedsuccessinsitute.com#williamblake #nevillegoddard #totalhumanoptimization

B. W. Powe is a Canadian poet, novelist, essayist and professor at York University, in Toronto. His work, though it covers an immense range of topics from politics and poetics to magic and technology, proceeds from a mystical apprehension of the universe as the locus of magical operations, the site of experiments in cosmic becoming. In his various books and essays, Powe continues a uniquely Canadian form of the visionary tradition whose luminaries include his former teachers Marshall McLuhan and Northrop Frye. In this episode, he joins JF and Phil for an exploration of the meaning, potency, and danger of the visionary in art and literature. Header image: Detail of "Green Color" by Gausanchennai (Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Green_color.jpg)). REFERENCES B. W. Powe's website (https://bwpowe.net) B. W. Powe, [The Charge in the Global Membrane](https://www.amazon.com/Charge-Global-Membrane-B-Powe/dp/0997502185/ref=cmcrarpdproducttop?ie=UTF8)_ B. W. Powe, [Marshall McLuhan and Northrop Frye: Apocalypse and Alchemy](https://www.amazon.com/Marshall-McLuhan-Northrop-Frye-Apocalypse/dp/1442616164/ref=tmmpapswatch0?encoding=UTF8&qid=1580849056&sr=1-1) Frank Lentricchia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lentricchia), "Last Will and Testament of an Ex-Literary Critic" Lorca's concept of duende Hildegard of Bingen's concept of viriditas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viriditas) Gilles Deleuze, [Cinema II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema2:TheTime-Image)_ Ernest Hemingway, [The Old Man and the Sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheOldManandtheSea)_ Marshall McLuhan, [Understanding Media](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnderstandingMedia)_ Marshall McLuhan, [The Gutenberg Galaxy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheGutenbergGalaxy) Marshall McLuhan, "Notes on William Burroughs" Phil Ford, Dig: Sound and Music in Hip Culture (https://www.amazon.com/Dig-Sound-Music-Hip-Culture-ebook/dp/B00DPJ6RE6) John Clellon Holmes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clellon_Holmes), beatnik Northrop Frye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Frye), Canadian literary critic Hildegard von Bingen, Ordo Virtutum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUMlhtoGTzY) Joni Mitchell, "Woodstock" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRjQCvfcXn0) Genesis 32, Jacob and the Angel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_wrestling_with_the_angel) R. D. Laing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing), Scottish psychologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, [The Phenomenon of Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThePhenomenonofMan)_ William James, [The Varieties of Religious Experience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheVarietiesofReligiousExperience) Sylvia Plath, "Lady Lazarus" (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49000/lady-lazarus) Sylvia Plath, "Daddy" (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48999/daddy-56d22aafa45b2) Jack Kerouac (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kerouac), American writer Allen Ginsberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Ginsberg), American poet Lionel Snell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Snell), British philosopher and magician Special Guest: B. W. Powe.

Black Canada - Dr. Nele Sawallisch and Rahab Njeri are talking American Studies: about the long history of Black people in the 'great white north,' about slavery in Canada, about what happens once people reached the final destination of the underground railroad, and about oversights and erasure in archives and academia. http://www.irtg-diversity.com/index.php?page=people&person=rahab_njeri&id=201http://www.obama-institute.com/sawallisch-2/"There is a well-rehearsed, confident American master narrative; there is that series of regional and national novella accounts that, with appropriate diffidence, diffusion, and non-assertion, make up a great Canadian narrative, on that often seems to attain its most solid credentials as a counter narrative to the American one." (Healy 6)"Northrop Frye once noted that all societies, in the process of developing an identity, draw a magic circle of mythological language around themselves, giving them an account of who they want to be - distinctive, particular, often touched by divine approbation" (Healy 6)Clarke, George Elliott. Africadian History: An Exhibition Catalogue. Gaspereau, 2001.Cooper, Afua. Breaking Chains. Weelahs, 1984.Davis, Angela Y. Angela Davis: An Autobiography. International Publishers, 2008.Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden. Ananasi, 1971.Healy, J.J. "From Adam to Multi-Ethnic Cowboy: The New History, Politics, and Geography of North America in a Canadian - American Context" Context North America. Canadian/U.S. Literary Relations. ed. Camillie R. la Bossiére. U of Ottowa P, 1994. 5-22.Hill, Lawrence. The Book of Negroes. Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority, Library, 2017.Morrison, Toni. The Bluest Eye. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.Nelson, Charmaine A. Towards an African Canadian Art History: Art, Memory, and Resistance. Captus, 2018.Rhodes, Jane. Mary Ann Shadd Cary: the Black Press and Protest in the Nineteenth Century. Indiana UP, 1999.Sawallisch, Nele. Fugitive Borders: Black Canadian Cross-Border Literature at Mid-Nineteenth Century. Transcript, 2019.Siemerling, Winfried. The Black Atlantic Reconsidered: Black Canadian Writing, Cultural History, and the Presence of the Past. McGill-Queens UP, 2015.Smallwood, Thomas. A Narrative of Thomas Smallwood, (Coloured Man:) Giving an Account of His Birth--The Period He Was Held in Slavery--His Release--and Removal to Canada, etc. Together With an Account of the Underground Railroad. Written by Himself. Toronto: James Stephens, 1851. Documenting the American South. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Library, 2001. Online.Trudel, Marcel, et al. Canadas Forgotten Slaves: Two Hundred Years of Bondage. Véhicule, 2013.Walcott, Rinaldo. Black like Who?: Writing Black Canada. Insomniac, 2018.Winks, Robin W. The Blacks in Canada: A History. McGill-Queens UP, 2008.Music Intro/OutroTitle: pine voc - coconut macaroon; Author: Stevia Sphere; Source: https://soundcloud.com/hissoperator/pine-voc-coconut-macaroon License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Royalty Free Open Music from https://starfrosch.com

This is the first episode of my stream of consciousness podcast. I discuss David Mamet, Northrop Frye, stories, and art.

The Gaming Hut delves into a design issue at the behest of Patreon backer Mikey Hamm, who wants to know how to balance player options against the archetypal experience of a game. We keep mentioning him, and now backer Sam Harris demands an entire Book Hut segment on Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye. Get ready […]

Robert Weaver (1928–2008) was an influential, well-loved Canadian editor and broadcaster. He was born in Niagara Falls and educated at the University of Toronto, and worked at the CBC where he created a series of radio shows that featured then unknown Canadian writers such as Alice Munro, Mordecai Richler, Timothy Findley, Margaret Atwood, and Leonard Cohen.   In 1956 Weaver founded The Tamarack Review, a long-standing Canadian literary magazine.  Over the course of his career, Weaver edited more than a dozen anthologies. In 1979 he launched the annual CBC Literary Prize.   Elaine Kalman Naves is an award-winning Quebec writer, journalist, editor and lecturer. She's the author of Robert Weaver, Godfather of Canadian Literature. In discussing it we talk about, among other things, Niagara Falls, Toronto, spinster aunts, the love of books and reading, bank jobs, the University of Toronto, Northrop Frye, abortion, CBC Radio, 'Canadian Short Stories,' editing Alice Munro, understatement, anthologies, The Tamarack Review, the popularity of the Anthology radio program, Margaret Atwood, pipe rituals, drinking, Robert Fulford, listening, editorial and critical standards, honesty, the CBC Literary Prize and William Notman. 

In Between Two Ages, the first long series I did for Ideas in early 1981, I began to explore the unique character of our historical moment, and to advance the idea that only a radical change of mind could respond to its demands. Three years later, I got a chance to follow up that initial effort with the present series. Its organizing image or paradigm is the idea of a new age – the way in which I then spoke about my dawning recognition that received social and political forms are quite unable to grasp humanity’s new situation. The intervening thirty-four years have made me more tentative, but, if you take away a certain brash, post-1960's confidence that a reconciliation between men and women, modernity and tradition, humanity and nature was on the horizon, there is much in that way of looking at things that I would still affirm today. Certainly the sparkling cast I managed to assemble makes this series worth revisiting. Among its luminaries are Northrop Frye, Raimundo Panikkar, Robert J. Lifton, Father Thomas Berry and many others, whose names I have listed below.One of the characteristic features of the documentary form, as I’ve observed when re-introducing other old series as well, is that many different points of view are made to align and march, more or less, in the same direction. A few years later, I would have treated the many thinkers represented here separately, and tried to understand what was distinctive in each one’s approach. I don’t mean I have papered over their differences here, or that there was anything promiscuous about the way I assembled these particular people. Each one was, in some way, a teacher to me, and each one’s work bore on the themes that I wanted to develop. I mean only that, once one has interviewed so many people, the challenge of integrating them all into a more or less coherent structure, leaves little room for the contextualization of each speaker, or for consideration of all the ways in which they differ from one another, and from the consenus, however rough, that I was imposing on them by smushing them all together in one program. That said, I still find that these shows make interesting listening. The dramatis personae is as follows: Part One: Dhyane Ywahoo, Northrop Frye, Joseph Brown, Raimundo Panikkar, Derrick de Kerckhove, Thomas Berry, Ewart CousinsPart Two: Dhyani Ywahoo, Joseph Brown, Richard Lee, Ashley Montagu, Stanley Diamond, Joseph CampbellPart Three: Walter Odajnyk, Robert J. Lifton, Ira Progroff, Jean Houston, Richard MossPart Four: David Spangler, Northrop Frye, Raimundo Panikkar, Ewart Cousins, Thomas Berry, Matthew Fox

Heraclitus of Ephesus was one of the great pre-Socratic thinkers. Called the Obscure and the Weeping Philosopher, he left behind a collection of fragments so mysterious and pregnant with meaning that they continue to puzzle scholars to this day. In this episode, Phil and JF use a random number generator to select a number of fragments and speculate about their content. By the end, they will also have disclosed the bizarre contents of JF's tenth-grade "hippie bag," outed Oscar Wilde as a Zen Buddhist, and taken a walking tour of a city that exists only in Phil's dreams. REFERENCES Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy? (https://www.amazon.com/What-Ancient-Philosophy-Pierre-Hadot/dp/0674013735) Northrop Frye, The Great Code (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Code-Bible-Literature/dp/0156027801) Northrop Frye, Words with Power (https://www.amazon.com/Words-Power-Literature-Collected-Northrop/dp/0802092934) I Ching: The Book of Changes (http://www.akirarabelais.com/i/i.html) Oxford World Classics, The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists (https://www.amazon.ca/First-Philosophers-Presocratics-Sophists/dp/019953909X) Wikisource page for Heraclitus (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus) James Hillman, The Dream and the Underworld (https://www.amazon.com/Dream-Underworld-James-Hillman/dp/0060906820) Dogen Zenji, [Genjokoan](http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/DogenTeachings/GenjoKoan8.htm)_ Mark Johnson, The Meaning of the Body (http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo5417890.html) Gilles Deleuze on Spinoza (http://deleuzelectures.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-spinoza.html) Benedict de Spinoza, Ethics (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm) Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Grey (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/174/174-h/174-h.htm) Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html) Neil Gaiman, [Seasons of Mist](http://sandman.wikia.com/wiki/SeasonofMists) (the fourth arc of the Sandman series) Deleuze on Dreams (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klhi6S6G-OY)

The following is adapted from the preface to my book, Northrop Frye in Conversation:I first met Northrop Frye in 1984 when I interviewed him for a programme called "History and the New Age" which I was then preparing for Ideas. My CBC colleague Peter Gzowski once described Frye as an interviewer's nightmare: a man who actually answered the questions he was asked rather than the ones he would have liked to have been asked. His answers were usually pithy, sometimes cryptic, occasionally gruff, and they often ended in conversation-stopping aphorisms. On this first occasion I chattered nervously while I set up my tape recorder. Frye's seraphic smile and patient, unyielding demeanour did little to put me at ease. I then stammered my way through an hour-long interview in which Frye gave brief pointed answers to my long and sometimes pointless questions. I returned twice in the succeeding years — Frye was always gracious about receiving interviewers, despite his evident lack of relish for the procedure — once to talk about Canadian culture and once to take about the English poet William Blake. In both cases the rhythm of the conversation remained fairly jerky. This made me reluctant to undertake the worthy, and even overdue project my Ideas colleagues kept urging on me: a series devoted to the ideas of Frye himself. However, in 1989, through the good offices of Frye's secretary Jane Widdicombe and Sara Wolch, my Ideas colleague and a friend of Frye's, it was all finally arranged. For a week in December, Frye and I spent each morning in recorded conversation. Sara and I and our recording engineer, Brian Hill, turned up at Frye's Massey College office every morning at nine and, by midweek, had begun to feel quite at home there. Sara's presence helped to create a relaxed atmosphere, and the fact that I had spend the previous months steeping myself in Frye's work helped me to dig beneath the surface of the epigrammatic answers Frye sometimes gave to questions he had been asked once too often. Whatever the reason the interview possessed a fullness and flow that I had not previously experienced with Frye, and we ended our conversation on Friday in peaceful silence, gazing out through gently falling snow into the quiet courtyard of the college. Just over a year later Northrop Frye died.I supplemented my interviews with Frye with conversations with friends, colleagues, and interpreters, and the resulting three-part Ideas series was broadcast early in 1990. Two years later a transcript of our entire conversation, made by Frye scholar Robert Denham, was published as Northrop Frye in Conversation. I don't think my interviews with Frye really added anything to what he had already written, as my interviews with more reticent and less fully articulate thinkers like George Grant and Ivan Illich sometimes did. Frye wrote from a clear, stable and consistent vision, and in more than twenty books he spelled out this vision with great thoroughness, as well as never-failing wit. All I can claim, I think, is to have brought the remarkable range of his criticism together in one place and offered an introduction to it. I have the impression that Frye, like many thinkers neither current, nor classic, is no longer read as much as he deserves to be. I hope someone may discover him anew here...

Michial Farmer interviews Claude le Fustec about her new book "Northrop Frye and American Fiction."

Michial Farmer interviews Claude le Fustec about her new book "Northrop Frye and American Fiction."

Michial Farmer interviews Claude le Fustec about her new book "Northrop Frye and American Fiction."

Renowned literary theorist, Northrop Frye, examines the pattern of U-shaped narratives in the bible that deal with loss, return, and deliverance.

Professor Frye explains the origins of his course on The Bible and Literature and his approach to the Bible, namely exploring its narrative and imagery.

Renowned literary theorist Northrop Frye presents the first lecture in his course on The Bible and Literature. The lecture is entitled "An Approach to the Bible".

Renowned literary theorist, Northrop Frye, delivers the second lecture in his famous course on The Bible and Literature. The lecture is entitled "The Shape of the Bible".

Prof. David Staines is a Canadian literary critic, university professor (English at the University of Ottawa), writer, and editor.  He specializes in three literatures: medieval, Victorian and Canadian. He is editor of the scholarly Journal of Canadian Poetry (since 1986) and general editor of McClelland and Stewart's New Canadian Library series (since 1988). His essay collections, include The Canadian Imagination (1977), a book that introduced Canadian literature and literary criticism to an American audience, plus studies on Morley Callaghan and Stephen Leacock. But it's not for any of this (save a defense of Callaghan in the face of John Metcalf's condemnations) that I sought  Prof. Staines' company. Rather it's because he co-edited Northrop Frye on Canada (University of Toronto, 2001). Frye, Canada's most celebrated literary theorist, a man many hold responsible for the dearth of evaluative analysis in Canadian criticism; a man whose thoughts and person Staines knows (and knew) very well; is the reason we met. Please listen to a conversation that reveals the author of Fearful Symmetry and The Anatomy of Criticism as a surprisingly self contradictory critic; speaks to the remarkable talent of Alice Munro and Canada's current stock of strong fiction writers; outlines criteria for acceptance into the New Canadian Library; and identifies some of the best Canadian novels.

Dawn Arnold is Chair of the Frye Festival in Moncton, New Brunswick. Jane Urquhart, Wayne Johnston, Neil Smith, Alexandre Jardin and Miriam Toews are among the many authors who will participate in this year's ten day event. Dawn and I talk here about the history of the Festival, Northrop Frye's thoughts on imagination and new worlds, the benefits to children of learning more than one language, how writing affects understanding, Moncton strip clubs, Acadie, French language childrens' authors, Richard Ford, classroom visits, and inspired students. For more information on this year's Frye Festival please click here.