Posts Tagged ‘trust’

As I’ve mentioned, I am a very trusting person. I will believe everything a person says to me, especially if I’ve had a glass or two of wine, and then only later do I start thinking critically to see if what was said is realistic or true. But, when you’ve been breaking promises to me for the last year, I start to distrust more quickly, so when we have the sort of phone conversation we had this week, I pick up on things that I wouldn’t have a year ago. As anyone skilled in the art of detecting deception can tell you, there are certain ‘tells,’ or signs whereby I can tell, that you’re lying, and I thought it might be instructive to point out what those are.

  1. Fast exculpation. I explain that I’m feeling sick because I’ve been walking outside in the cold rain without my customary protection – we both know that I left my coat and hats at your house in the Midwest, and that you promised to mail them to me. In the past, you’ve always encouraged me to consult with a medical doctor, because even though I don’t trust Western medicine and the American habit of prescribing antibiotics for everything, you do. But instead of making sure I’m being taken care of properly, you immediately start talking about how none of this is your fault because you’ve already mailed my warm clothes to me.
  2. Unrealistic details. I’ve lived in several parts of the United States while my family has remained more or less stationary, which means that I’m pretty familiar with the U. S. Postal Service and how long it takes mail to be delivered. So when you say that the package is supposed to be delivered in the middle of next week, and you mailed it last week, I know that it is unrealistic to say that it takes two weeks for a package to travel from the Midwest to the South. It buys you time, since now I can’t ask you about it for another week, but it doesn’t help me trust you.
  3. Lack of follow-through. I asked you to text me the address I gave you so that I could make sure it is correct, and you didn’t. If you had sent the package, you would have been more anxious to make sure it went to the right place.
  4. You hadn’t called me for a few days before, and this could mean that you’re just getting used to your life without me and that you’re moving on, but when coupled with the other tells, it looks suspicious. You also made up an excuse to get off the phone and said that we’d talk again later that evening, and I stayed up late waiting for your call, but you didn’t call back. Now, you did try to cover it by introducing another topic before running away, but even hurrying to tell me about your dog’s incontinence and new grain-free diet looks like you’re avoiding talking about what is going on with me.
  5. We went through all these same things face-to-face when you told me you had deposited money to my bank account but it never actually appeared. Another thing to keep in mind here is that while I may have let the matter drop, relinquishing the subject does not mean that I believe you or that I have forgotten it. It simply means that I don’t want to talk about it any more, and that often means that the fact that I think you’re lying to me makes me sad, and I don’t want to keep reinforcing the sense of sadness. Sometimes the only way I can make you stop lying to me is by ending the conversation. That sadness may not be in the forefront of my feelings, but it doesn’t go away; it just sits in the back of my mind, waiting for you to feed it some more. Every time I think you’re lying the sadness gets stronger, until eventually I realize that the fact that I care about you doesn’t make me happy, and when thinking about you makes me sad, it’s time for things to change.

As you can see, the summary of all these points is that when you’re being honest, you act like you care about me, and when you’re lying to me, you act like you don’t.

As I was preparing to leave, you thought it strange that I donated some books to the library, knowing as you do how much I care about my books, and I didn’t think of this analogy then, but I thought of it later and it really makes sense to me. Do you marry every man you sleep with? Buying a book is like meeting a guy at a bar. He only has to look good enough to take home for a night, but that’s not a lifetime commitment. Most of the books I buy are cheaper than a cocktail and last longer than a one-night stand, but the same principle holds true.

All of which brings me around to this book of sixteenth-century poetry. I remember Marvell primarily for “To His Coy Mistress,” a delightful pastoral love poem about taking advantage of youth, along the lines of this:

Grass withers; and the flowers too fade.
Seize the short joys then, ere they vade,

But most of Marvell’s poetry is not at all similar. As I was reading, there seemed to be three main phases in his career, and they overlapped a bit. The first is the one that I was most interested in, when he was young and writing pastoral love poems. I’m not opposed to the dialogue, and Daphnis and Clorinda are the appropriately Arcadian stock characters used in such poems. But Marvell only wrote about pastoral love and the advantages of youth when he himself was young; when he’s old, he skips over all that. This first stage of his writing is also the time when he talks about abstract emotion – he gets grouped with the Metaphysical Poets, and it’s only in his twenties that this makes sense.

Yet happy they whom grief doth bless,
That weep the morshae, and see the less:
And, to preserve their sight more true,
Bathe still their eyes in their own dew.

Around the time he was thirty years old, Marvell was hired as a teacher for the daughter of General Fairfax, the recently retired general of the Parliamentary Army. If you’ll remember your seventeenth-century British history with me, Charles I was an awful king who mismanaged resources and demanded too much from the people, so he spent a good part of his reign opposed to the Parliament, which was influenced by a strict religious sect known as the Puritans. They weren’t very popular in a lot of circles; in Twelfth Night, Malvolio is accused of being one, and Sir Andrew immediately threatens to beat him within an inch of his life. As you know, many of the Puritans left England for Amsterdam, a place of religious tolerance, but Amsterdam was too tolerant for them, so they traveled on to Massachusetts Bay, where they built a colony where their virtues could shine brightly, unmixed with the baser matter of anyone who disagreed with them. At the same time, the Puritans who stayed in England grew strong, especially in the military, so they had a big voice in the Parliamentary Army. In this second phase of his career, Marvell drops the pastoral love and the risqué allusions in favor of virtue and Puritan justice and conservative values. It’s like he suddenly remembered he was a clergyman’s son, ten years after his father died.

When the sword glitters o’er the judge’s head,
And fear has coward churchmen silenced,
Then is the poet’s time, ‘tis then he draws,
And single fights forsaken virtue’s cause.

In time, Marvell worked more directly with Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of the Puritan government after King Charles was beheaded. Throughout the Interregnum, Marvell’s poems are in praise of military leaders (like Fairfax and Cromwell) and he really says some nasty things about their opponents, the Dutch. I’ll admit that this bothered me because of my Dutch ancestry, even though by the time of the Protectorate, we had already crossed the ocean to New Amsterdam. I know that when we read poetry of the past, we tend to value those poets who share our values, so modern readers have a hard time with Milton’s anti-Irish comments in the same way that I balked at Marvell’s anti-Dutch comments, because racism is bad. But these men are products of their time (the same time), and in service to an intolerant government, so some people say that Marvell didn’t really hate the Dutch, he was just an opportunist with a talent for self-preservation, and he was just giving his patrons what they wanted. Apparently what they wanted was to hear how great they were, how successful in battle, and how terrible their opponents were. They wanted to hear about the glories of battle without hearing about the horrors of war. This passage is atypical in its acknowledgment that war can be a terrible thing:

Thousands of ways thousands of men there die,
Some ships are sunk, some blown up in the sky.
Nature ne’er made cedars so high aspire,
As oaks did then, urged by the active fire,
Which by quick powder’s force, so high was sent,
That it returned to its own element.
Torn limbs some leagues into the island fly,
Whilst others lower in the sea do lie.
Scarce souls from bodies severed are so far
By death, as bodies there were by the war.
The all-seeing sun, ne’er gazed on such a sight,
Two dreadful navies there at anchor fight.
And neither have or power or will to fly,
There one must conquer, or there both must die.
Far different motives yet engaged them thus,
Necessity did them, but Choice did us.

But in general, the poems of the middle period are very much Marvell acting as Cromwell’s cheerleader.

Things end. Cromwell died and the monarchy was restored. Charles II’s government wanted to execute John Milton for being all up in the Puritans, but Marvell dissuaded them. He himself was elected to the House of Commons, at around the age of forty or so, so in the third phase of his career he’s done with being a secretary or an assistant and has now become a politician in his own right. Unfortunately for the apologists of his middle period, Marvell’s poetry doesn’t suddenly become a celebration of liberal values; when that conservatism is opposed, Marvell digs his heels in and refuses to change with the times. This is what makes me think he was a true convert to the conservatives rather than an opportunist: when the government changes and fashion goes to the other side, he doesn’t go with it. In fact, he writes a very long poem with some very harsh satire against specific members of society and Parliament. Most of it is against the Restoration government and its mismanagement of the military, but he also throws some disparagement at Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, whom you will remember from Woolf’s Common Reader as being an important example of women’s power and liberation, and one of the first people to write speculative fiction in English. In this time, Marvell was usually much busier being an MP than being a Major Poet, so his work is a little thin here at the end. In fact, after his death his constituency put up a huge monument with a lengthy inscription, which describes his political career and ignores the poetry. It seems sad to me that someone who loved youth and nature should end up a bitter old man, but that’s the story the poetry tells.

Nation is all but name – a shibboleth –
Where a mistaken accent causes death.

Dear Friends, I advise you, if you like “To His Coy Mistress,” don’t read Marvell’s complete poems. After he gets political, it’s sort of a downward slope. I wonder, if his life had run differently, if he hadn’t worked so closely with government and military officials, whether his writing would have gotten so frustrating. I suppose someone who writes a lot of verse in Greek and Latin is not necessarily headed to twenty-first century popularity, but no matter whether his politics were merely expedient or truly embraced, they stink.

I haven’t read Marvell’s prose, but apparently it’s even more extreme in its conservatism, attacking Catholics, Dutch, and anyone different to himself. I don’t remember now how Marvell was presented to me at school; it’s possible that we ignored the heavy later poems, but it’s also possible that I forgot about them. I’m good at self-deception; I like to see the best in people, including long-dead poets, but it’s not always accurate. Hopefully I’m learning to be wiser about whom I trust, but I think it’s a slow process.


I’m always fond of book recommendations. I like to see what the people I love love to read; it’s a way for me to approach them more nearly, since books are easier for me than people. This rec comes from Virginia Woolf, who mentions it several times in The Common Reader even though it doesn’t get its own chapter. I also saw several references to it back in grad school when I was reading a lot of ecocriticism, because there are not that many Victorians who worked with nature as extensively as he does.

After making a hasty meal at the house, I started, full of pleasing anticipations, for the wood; for how pleasant a place it was to be in! What a wild beauty and fragrance and melodiousness it possessed above all forests, because of that mystery that drew me to it! And it was mine, truly and absolutely – as much mine as any portion of earth’s surface could belong to any man – mine with all its products; the precious woods and fruits and fragrant gums that would never be trafficked away; its wild animals that man would never persecute; nor would any jealous savage dispute my ownership or pretend that it was part of his hunting-ground. As I crossed the savannah I played with this fancy; but when I reached the ridgy eminence, to look down once more on my new domain, the fancy changed to a feeling so keen that it pierced to my heart, and was like pain in its intensity, causing tears to rush to my eyes. And caring not in that solitude to disguise my feelings from myself, and from the wide heaven that looked down and saw me – for this is the sweetest thing that solitude has for us, that we are free in it, and no convention holds us – I dropped on my knees and kissed the stony ground, then casting up my eyes, thanked the Author of my being for the gift of that wild forest, those green mansions where I had found so great a happiness!

Hooray for Victorians! Hudson was born in Argentina to English-speaking parents, so when he finally came to Victorian London he spoke a weird mixture of English and Spanish, but in his writing most of the Spanglish is gone, and he sounds halfway between Stevenson and Dickens. The Argentine literary tradition claims him also, as Guillermo Enrique Hudson, even though he wrote in English.

You may think that growing up in South America would give him a sympathetic view of people of different races, but some people travel all over the world only to find that their culture really is the best and most enlightened. You can’t always heal ethnocentrism with cross-cultural contact. Our protagonist is from Caracas, and while Spanish speakers are always referred to as white and therefore normal (different from modern United States usage, where Hispanic White is a separate category), he has nothing kind to say about the natives. They’re dirty lying superstitious murderous savages, even when they take him in and feed him for several months. This racial tension is the context that drives the main action in the story. The other important context is the white tendency to possessiveness that we see in the passage above. He sees something he likes, he wants to own it completely.

Enter the bird-woman. Hudson was an ornithologist and wrote a few nonfiction works on birds, so naturally the love interest in his romance is extremely bird-like. Protagonist starts spending time in those woods he likes so much, and he hears something that sounds like a bird but isn’t quite one. It turns out that no one hunts there because they believe the wood is protected by a spirit, daughter of the river-god or some such. Protagonist is not very interested in native religions, so he doesn’t explore the mythology. So he spends time in the woods, and learns to recognize the emotional content of the bird-speech, and eventually he meets her. In fairness to the natives, she does get seriously angry if any animals are harmed. She’s a total vegan, and makes a shimmery dress for herself from spider webs.

Like a good sensation novel, we get her background information about two-thirds of the way through the book. Once upon a time, there was a Spanish guy who fell in with a bad crowd. They were running from the law through the woods once, and run across this cave. There’s a young woman inside, and in trying to catch her, the bad guys fall to their deaths. The single good guy takes her out of the cave and they go to live in civilization. (Sound suspicious? This guy tells his own story, and I tend not to trust narrators. Salient facts: seven or eight guys go into a cave, but only one comes out, and he brings a woman with him. What happened in the cave and why the girl is pregnant are a matter of conjecture.) He passes the girl off as his daughter, albeit a weird daughter who only speaks in this bird language that no one else knows. She learns Spanish and gives birth, which kind of makes Rima look like an immaculate conception from nature itself. Rima learns her mother’s language as well as Spanish. When the mother dies, her supposed grandfather takes her far away from the people who think she’s a witch. They live in the greatest seclusion somewhere in the jungle probably on the southern part of the border between Venezuela and Colombia. She spends most of her time alone in the woods, chirping like a bird and hanging out with the animals. Grandpa takes his dogs and goes to a hunting shack, far away from where she lives, so that he can eat some meat. Not all people take to veganism.

The love affair between Abel and Rima is as weirdly Victorian as it gets. Two beautiful people meet each other, and he is the first man of her ethnicity that she’s seen since before puberty (Grandfather doesn’t count). She thinks he listens to her and treats her as more than just a ghost, even though he never really understands her. He sees that she is beautiful, so he wants to force her into his model of a conventionally beautiful woman. He doesn’t bring her a literal corset, but continually asking her to explain things in Spanish instead of her preferred language is like a mental corset. Language is a very important part of a person’s identity – when I first got back from Brazil, it was still hard for me to talk about emotional subjects in English, but I could open up more easily in Portuguese. There are some concepts that make more sense in other languages – every word was once a poem, and other languages blend meanings differently than we do in English. Even though we translate, the flavor of the meaning changes. Abel refuses to learn Rima’s language; he just keeps insisting she speak Spanish. He tries to control her in other ways too, like wanting her to walk next to him instead of running all over the place like a bird circling around him. She wants to be understood, but he can only understand through dissection.

Victorian modesty strikes a false note here. This girl has wrapped herself in spider webs, but how does she perform essential bodily functions? I’m particularly concerned about menstruation, which apparently never happens. Abel talks in vague terms about the loveliness of her form, but for her to be wrapped in spider webs and still climb trees and do the other things she does, that dress has to be sheer and tight up top and either split like trousers around the legs or considerably looser in the skirt. These details we ignore; he talks about the opalescent shifting colors, but not the shape. And then, nature girl meets the guy she wants to keep for life, and they never have sex. Her distance from society should make her less bound by sexual mores, but no. She’s as chaste as a Dickens heroine, and more chaste than some of them. I suppose you could read it that she’s so far removed from conventions that she doesn’t even have conventional desires, but it seems unnatural in a character so tightly bound to nature.

In some ways, Rima could be read as surprisingly feminist because she resists so much. The modesty and affinity with nature are classical indications of femininity, but the conflict between her and Abel is because she refuses to adopt the passive role with him. She won’t speak only in Spanish because she wants him to learn her bird language. She can travel faster and farther than he can with less food, so she goes off on a journey and leaves him to follow at his own pace. She also recognizes the landscape after having only seen it once, so even after traveling across all of Venezuela, parts of Brazil, and into Guyana, she can get home in half the time it takes him. And she is independent enough to do it. Unfortunately, the solitude that results from this leads to her death, but this relationship wasn’t going to end happily anyway. In the time and place that the novel was written, leading female characters had three options, to be wed, mad, or dead, so death was probably the best choice because it means she doesn’t have to compromise who she is in order to please some man. Rima is hunted down and killed for being different, and there is no man to save her because no man is her physical and spiritual equal. She seems like an entirely other species, one better adapted to the environment but poorly adapted to human society.

Abel reacts to her death the way you would expect: he goes to a neighboring tribe and starts a war that kills the entire tribe that killed her. Everyone who knew her and consented to her death dies. Such a white man thing to do. So much the opposite of anything she would have wanted. Then he goes off and lives like a crazy hermit in the woods, nearly starving to death before finally settling in Georgetown.

This issue of solitude is important to me. As Abel mentions in the quote above, when we’re alone we are free from social conventions and expectations. When you grow up in a difficult family situation, of the type that I did, figuring out what people want and giving it to them quickly is an essential survival pattern. It gets deeply ingrained at a very early age, so now people are hard for me because as I age I become less interested in conforming to what is expected of me. There’s often a dissonance between what I do/say and what I want to do/say, like watching his daughter’s shows with the family instead of reading by myself, because he thinks something is wrong if we aren’t all together in the evening. And he is similar enough to my dad in size and personality that I’m kind of afraid of making him angry, which is probably why I haven’t yet told him that I’m moving out in four weeks. That conversation needs to happen soon, though.

I need to find someone who makes me feel so accepted that I don’t have to be afraid of disagreeing with him. Or in other words, someone I can trust. I have friends like that, so I know such people exist, I just need to locate one who’s interested in me romantically.


This week I had a student preparing to enter a course of study that I felt was completely wrong for her, so we took the Myers-Briggs personality test, and that helped steer her in a better direction. It reminded me of a lot of truths about myself that I don’t often think about, or that I think of as pathological when they’re really not, like my aversion to conflict. It made explicit the fact that an aversion to conflict and a strong desire to help people can make me popular to others, but that it’s very hard for me to trust them. The doors of my heart are made of heavy steel, and once shut they do not open easily. It’s unfortunately sort of easy to shut them – don’t do something you say that you will, lie to me, don’t try hard at your job or schoolwork, don’t finish things that you start, treat my relationship with my children as if it were unimportant simply because I don’t see them very often, take delight in the conflicts of others, tell me not to trust someone close to me, use the phrase ‘the gay lifestyle,’ that sort of thing. The high standards I have for friendship sometimes makes it seem miraculous that I have any friends at all, and truthfully I don’t keep many people close to me. Those people I do don’t always realize how close they are to me, or how few people are as close to me as they are. I was interested at the way added a fifth element, so now I’m INFJ-T, the T meaning Turbulent. This refers to my habit of second-guessing all my decisions and actions, which has a strong effect on the way my Counselor/Advocate personality expresses itself.

Rereading this book, I was a little surprised to see how strongly my life and especially my bloglife are influenced by it. Unlike some of my colleagues, I see the value in people like this:

The common reader, as Dr Johnson implies, differs from the critic and the scholar. He is worse educated, and nature has not gifted him so generously. He reads for his own pleasure rather than to impart knowledge or correct the opinions of others. Above all, he is guided by an instinct to create for himself, out of whatever odds and ends he can come by, some kind of whole – a portrait of a man, a sketch of an age, a theory of the art of writing. He never ceases, as he reads, to run up some rickety and ramshackle fabric which shall give him the temporary satisfaction of looking sufficiently like the real object to allow of affection, laughter, and argument. Hasty, inaccurate, and superficial, snatching now this poem, now that scrap of old furniture, without caring where he finds it or of what nature it may be so long as it serves his purpose and rounds his structure, his deficiencies as a critic are too obvious to be pointed out; but if he has, as Dr Johnson maintained, some say in the final distribution of poetical honours, then, perhaps, it may be worth while to write down a few of the ideas and opinions which, insignificant in themselves, yet contribute to so mighty a result.

Notice the reflection of my reading habits here. Yes, I get into these high-culture moods sometimes, but I mix Thomas Hardy with Christopher Moore, and French Enlightenment thinkers with mid-twentieth century sociologists, and it’s all a big mishmash of words. I may impart some knowledge, but I’m more interested in receiving it; I have little interest in correcting the opinions of others if those opinions are thoughtfully considered. That both gives me some value as a teacher and keeps me from realizing my full potential in the field – I refuse to become an authority figure (an INFJ trait).

This book came about because Woolf was writing reviews for the Times Literary Supplement and other periodicals, which means that to some extent she and I are engaged in the same pursuit. However, she would probably not have approved of how very personal I get.

Once again we have an essayist capable of using the essayist’s most proper but most dangerous and delicate tool. He has brought personality into literature, not unconsciously and impurely, but so consciously and purely that we do not know whether there is any relation between Max the essayist and Mr Beerbohm the man. We only know that the spirit of personality permeates every word that he writes. The triumph is the triumph of style. For it is only by knowing how to write that you can make use in literature of your self; that self which, while it is essential to literature, is also its most dangerous antagonist. Never to be yourself and yet always – that is the problem.

Woolf was still looking for essays that say something universal about the human condition. While there is some possibility of that in the way that I write, if people want universality from me they usually have to be able to extrapolate the message from my relation of my experience. I understand that my experience is unique to me, composed of the intersections of all my different identities, and while some experiences are common to certain groups of people, there’s no guarantee that I will have anything in common with another former academic/gay man/ex-Mormon/addictive personality/emotionally abused person.

Though Woolf keeps her experience away from her reviews, there are some qualities and preferences that become clear. A somewhat academic adherence to factual accuracy, as seen in her scathing review of a biography of Mary Russell Mitford, where she refers to the author as Mendacity (with a capital M). She also derides the author’s lack of passion for her subject:

What considerations, then, had weight with Miss Hill when she decided to write Mary Russell Mitford and her Surroundings? Three emerge from the rest, and may be held of paramount importance. In the first place, Miss Mitford was a lady; in the second, she was born in the year 1787; and in the third, the stock of female characters who lend themselves to biographic treatment by their own sex is, for one reason or another, running short. For instance, little is known of Sappho, and that little is not wholly to her credit. Lady Jane Grey has merit, but is undeniably obscure. Of George Sand, the more we know the less we approve. George Eliot was led into evil ways which not all her philosophy can excuse. The Brontës, however highly we rate their genius, lacked that indefinable something which marks the lady; Harriet Martineau was an atheist; Mrs Browning was a married woman; Jane Austen, Fanny Burney, and Maria Edgeworth have been done already; so that, what with one thing and another, Mary Russell Mitford is the only woman left.

I believe that the homophobia and slut-shaming and elitism in the above quotation are qualities that Woolf ascribes to Miss Hill, not attitudes that she herself embraced.

Woolf also had a good value for solitude, as when she describes Elizabethan drama:

But gradually it comes over us, what then are we being denied? What is it that we are coming to want so persistently, that unless we get it instantly we must seek elsewhere? It is solitude. There is no privacy here. Always the door opens and some one comes in. All is shared, made visible, audible, dramatic. Meanwhile, as if tired with company, the mind steals off to muse in solitude; to think, not to act; to comment, not to share; to explore its own darkness, not the bright-lit-up surfaces of others. It turns to Donne, to Montaigne, to Sir Thomas Browne, to the keepers of the keys of solitude.

Sir Thomas Browne, though unknown to me, is one of her heroes, like Max Beerbohm of the above quotation. This volume is arranged roughly chronologically, but there’s some fracturing and avoidance toward the end. We go from Chaucer to the Elizabethans and through the eighteenth century to Jane Austen, but then there’s an essay on modern fiction (compared unfavorably to the novels of the past) before she goes on to the Brontës, George Eliot, and the famous Russians (Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, of course, but there are others), but then she jumps back to the Romantic-Era Miss Mitford and a few other earlier writers before she gets on to talking about writing itself for a bit, and only ends with an evaluation of the writing current at the time. Of her contemporaries, Beerbohm gets some special attention:

But if we ask for masterpieces, where are we to look? A little poetry, we may feel sure, will survive; a few poems by Mr Yeats, by Mr Davies, by Mr de la Mare. Mr Lawrence, of course, has moments of greatness, but hours of something very different. Mr Beerbohm, in his way, is perfect, but it is not a big way. Passages in Far Away and Long Ago will undoubtedly go to posterity entire. Ulysses was a memorable catastrophe – immense in daring, terrific in disaster. And so, picking and choosing, we select now this, now that, hold it up for display, hear it defended or derided, and finally have to meet the objection that even so we are only agreeing with the critics that it is an age incapable of sustained effort, littered with fragments, and not seriously to be compared with the age that went before.

When it comes to the past, scholars are seldom entitled to publish their own opinions. No one wants to be the Victorianist who says that Dickens was nothing special. The monoliths of the past are monolithic in that we can’t disagree with them. Shakespeare was the greatest dramatist in the English language, but that’s because people decided he was a couple of hundred years ago, and few playwrights have even tried to compete. We don’t have different opinions on that now. When it comes to the present, the experts in the past can disagree and be extreme in their devotion or antipathy and it’s all right. The thing is, though, that even scholarly fads change. Walter Scott was once considered one of the most important early nineteenth-century poets who wrote some very influential historical novels, but now he’s largely ignored. Or at least he was when I was getting my degrees ten or fifteen years ago. The trend for the last forty years or so is to look away from the white men and recover works by women and minorities; after all, Byron felt seriously threatened by Mrs Hemans’s popularity, and the first American bestseller was a classic fallen-woman narrative written by a woman. Conrad is held at a distance because of his subhuman portrayal of Africans and Asians, even though in Woolf’s time he was beloved both by the masses and by the critics. And those writers considered obscure or nonacademic in Woolf’s time (evidenced by the fact that they’re included in this book), many are now canonical, like Austen, Brontë, and Eliot. This book focuses on biographies and volumes of letters, so those who only published letters or journals are not as easily embraced by academia. We like poetry and fiction, so this passage about journal-writing is itself a little dated:

Should you wish to make sure that your birthday will be celebrated three hundred years hence, your best course is undoubtedly to keep a diary. Only first be certain that you have the courage to lock your genius in a private book and the humour to gloat over a fame that will be yours only in the grave. For the good diarist writes either for himself alone or for a posterity so distant that it can safely hear every secret and justly weigh every motive. For such an audience there is need neither of affectation nor of restraint. Sincerity is what they ask, detail, and volume; skill with the pen comes in conveniently, but brilliance is not necessary; genius is a hindrance even; and should you know your business and do it manfully, posterity will let you off mixing with great men, reporting famous affairs, or having lain with the first ladies in the land.

Woolf seems most interested in those who refrain from these last three. She assumes her readers to have read the canonical works, and she introduces us to the less frequently taught.

Gently, beautifully, like the clouds of a balmy evening, obscurity once more traverses the sky, an obscurity which is not empty but thick with the star dust of innumerable lives.

Circling back, it’s not just that she’s writing for a general audience, showing them less-known literature, she’s also writing about the general audience. The essays in this volume tend to champion the lives of the not-so-great, the ordinary people who get passed by and whom few consider great. [Perspective: I once read a book that conducted a detailed scientific analysis of nineteenth-century prose styles, counting the ratio of words of dialogue to words of narration, the number of words per sentence, average number of adjectives per noun, that sort of thing. The author, Karl Kroeber, actually felt like he had to apologize for using Austen, C Brontë, and Eliot, because they were clearly inferior to Dickens, Thackeray, and Hardy. The analysis was interesting, he found that Mansfield Park is empirically the most boring Austen novel because it uses dramatically less dialogue and more narration than the others, but the patronizing misogyny was upsetting.] The message seems to be, obscurity does not imply triviality. It’s hard to find anything about me through a Google search, but my friends and family love me, and there are many ways in which my life matters, and has mattered to many different people.

And of course, my favorite essay about writing is here, “The Patron and the Crocus,” with my favorite quotation about writing,

To know whom to write for is to know how to write.

Here on this blog I have several dozen followers, but I don’t deceive myself about their actually reading what I write. There’s a small group of four or five people who read and comment occasionally, and those are the people I write this blog for. If other people read and enjoy it, great. Little bit of trivia: most people who find my blog through an internet search are trying to find out whether Hesse’s Demian is about a gay relationship or not.

It seems a bit odd to acknowledge to myself that even though my favorite book is Ragnarok and I went through four-year obsessions with As I Lay Dying and Mansfield Park, that this is the book that seems to have shaped me the most, the book whose philosophy vibrates in tune with my own heart, one of the most important books to me, even though I haven’t read most of the material she’s reviewing. I love Woolf’s novels, but I love her nonfiction even more – the way that her voice reaches out to me and holds me gently, the way she affirms much that I had already believed, the polite manner in which she sometimes disagrees with me, the way that I feel her to be speaking in my own mind, across the abyss of years, gender, and mental illness. When I read Woolf’s novels, I love her writing and her characters; when I read Woolf’s nonfiction, I love her.