>Here and there (as
>when in Maximus he rearguards himself against the likely accusation that
>he's reaching back in nostalgia for some other Golden Age) he does pause
>to justify himself, and so may tentatively have admitted a counterargument
>in prospect at least; but these moments are rare and tend rather toward
>dismissive bravura than to experiments in disagreement (qualifiers, not
>hypothetical disqualifiers). The upshot just -has- to be mythic.
I thought one of the defining elements of myth was in fact a dialectic of
contradiction (light/dark &c) which appears as a counterargument.
Perhaps Olson is simply psychologic.
And yes, where would literature be without fruitful misunderstandings?
The Hermetics, say? (And I read recently that Newton's notebooks were
full of cabalistic and alchemical symbols.) Are you introducing an
unnecessary moralism here?
Best
Alison
Alison Croggon
Editor
Masthead Literary Arts Magazine
PO Box 186
NEWPORT VIC 3015
Masthead online: http://www.masthead.com.au
Home page: http:www.fortunecity.com/victorian/bronte/338
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|