OK Jim. I would have written almost the same to you - so we can let
this slide.
Gus
On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 04:31 PM, James A Tantillo wrote:
> ou guys really need to get out more. In labeling Brower a "druid"
> McPhee
> does not necessarily have to be implying a) that Brower necessarily
> believes in reincarnation (Gus), b) that McPhee himself is an expert on
> Neopagan or pre-Christian British religion (Gus), or c) that McPhee
> intentionally borrows an incorrect idea specifically in order to show
> that
> Brower's brand of environmentalism is literally a form of religion
> (Steve).
>
> On the other hand, I would still argue that there really is
> *significance*
> beyond simply the clever title by labeling Brower the "archdruid." And
> that meaning is partly ironic; in fact the entire book is a long
> meditation on irony, and the multiple ironies that McPhee encounters
> and
> observes in his interactions with the three subjects and the Archdruid
> himself.
>
> The label of "archdruid" is not LITERALLY true, you positivist weenies.
> :-) (and again, I mean that in absolutely the kindest and gentlest
> way!)
> But that doesn't mean that the label of "archdruid" does not convey
> truth
> or truths of a different, non-literal, more ironical sort. And some of
> that "truth" has to do with the irony of the very real *religious*
> dimensions of Brower's worldview.
>
> In the words of Ben Hale . . . "jeez." :-)
>
> jt
>
|