> From: Heather Law [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>
> Seems I remember from when I waded through TWG (voluntarily, no less!?)
> that Graves in his own intro to it said his work for that book
> (especially the ogham "tree calendar" thing that he "solved" from an old
> poem) was done using something like "poetic 'memory'" (he had some Big
> Word for it) - meaning he "went back and 'remembered'" information from
> before his time, using his imagination. He clearly says somewhere in
> there that he *isn't* using the scholarly technique he used in his other
> work. Also in that intro, he literally apologizes for writing the
> book! (This may be a later printing after the academic response to it)
>
Graves rather contradicts himself on this point. On the one hand, as
you note, he says that the work is more a product of poetic inspiration than
scholarship, but, on the other, he was vocally and bitterly disappointed
that scholars of Celtic studies did not take the work "seriously" enough to
subject it to systematic critique. It seems to me that Graves wanted it both
ways--he didn't want to do the research and study necessary to substantiate
his hunches, but he wanted his work of inspiration to be given the same
reception as a work of historical study. In other words, he wanted the
impossible.
Francine Nicholson
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|