HARDY FORUM ARCHIVE H0075 9/12/00 "TURNER BIOG CRITIQUES" ================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:47:55 -0300 From: Richard Nemesvari Organization: St. Francis Xavier University Subject: Turner bio. (long) Bob Schweik asked for comments on some recent Hardy material, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in on the pieces named in my topic line. I'll start in reverse order, and say that I found Paul Turner's *The Life of Thomas Hardy: A Critical Biography* as disappointing as Peter Widdowson in his review for *NCL*. In the quotation Bob provides, Widdowson describes this volume as "unilluminating," and I'd have to agree with that completely. In far too many cases the extremely short chapters on Hardy's work amount to not much more than allusion hunting and speculation about sources, often followed by unsubstantiated blanket statements. Thus in describing the (in)famous "bedroom scene" between Cytherea and Miss Aldclyffe in *Desperate Remedies* we get the assertion that "At one point Miss Aldclyffe makes what nowadays look like Lesbian advances to Cytherea. Nothing could have been further from the author's or his publisher's mind" (24). I've taken exception to this comment in an article of my own, but it still rankles. How on earth Turner can know what was or wasn't in Hardy's mind, let alone his publisher's, is never explained, and barring channeling or some other supernatural manifestation he obviously can't. Turner provides no textual evidence or analysis, since he apparently believes his assertions are self-evidently true. This "method" is used throughout the entire book, and is singularly unconvincing. And the thing was outrageously expensive to boot. I'm not saying there are *no* valid insights, only that they are few and far between, and that the game isn't worth the candle. Richard Nemesvari Department of English St. Francis Xavier University ========== From: James Gibson Subject: Re: Paul Turner's book Dear James: Thank you for this illumination - I'm going to obtain Turner's book because of it. These classical "roots" in Hardy are those of C.G.Jung as well, and for me, emerge out of many of the novels like secret lore lost in the recesses of our "modern" minds. Regards to all, Joan Sheski ========== Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:08:35 -0300 From: Richard Nemesvari Organization: St. Francis Xavier University Subject: Re: Paul Turner's book When I responded to Bob Schweik's posting about Paul Turner's Hardy biography I described it as my two cents worth, largely because Peter Widdowson's review in *Nineteenth-Century Literature* said pretty much everything I felt about the book. Those of you who are interested in what I think is a fair and telling criticism should have a look at *NCL* 54.1 (June 1999), pp. 116-119. Bob quoted Widdowson's last couple of sentences, but for those of you who don't have access to the journal I thought I might summarize the heads of it. And let me say that I read Turner's volume long before I read Widdowson's review, and given what I paid for it I really wanted to be informed and enlightened. The fact that I wasn't doesn't mean I didn't approach it with an open mind. Widdowson begins by stating *The Life of Thomas Hardy: A Critical Biography* "seems to have found its way into the 'Blackwell Critical Biographies' series by mistake, since it is neither much of a biography nor recognizably a 'critical' work." I have to say that when I read this sentence I had one of those eerie moments where your very thoughts appear in someone else's words. When I finished Turner's book what I thought to myself was, "well, that was neither critical nor a biography." I think Jim Gibson is absolutely right, below, when he notes that the title is unfortunate. The problem is that what is presented is essentially a long source list of Hardy's potential influences, with very little critical engagement with the *way* Hardy uses those sources, and with the biography inserted or tacked on almost as an afterthought. Widdowson is right (although harsh) to call the structure of each chapter "ponderously formulaic," and for me it quickly grew wearisome. More importantly, Widdowson declares "But the book's 'critical ' dimension is its most serious failing in the context of contemporary Hardy criticism....Turner's critical reflections...are often no more than asides delivered on the hoof." Again, the tone is perhaps questionable, but the sentiment is accurate. As I said in my original posting, Turner makes no effort to defend or elaborate on his "readings" (using the word loosely). He simply declares positions which, in the nature of his presentation, are indefensible, and leaves us to ponder the mysterious authority he apparently possesses. This is simply not helpful. Finally, I agree with Jim that Turner's knowledge of the classics is wide-ranging, and that he brings it to bear on Hardy. Even Widdowson acknowledges this (although grudgingly) when he says "sections of the literary references in Hardy's work are patchily original and illuminating--especially those on his use of the classics." Thus I would have to say that this aspect did not escape the attention of previous reviewers. However, Widdowson is also right when he states that the classical materials are "presented formulaically in a dense continuous prose format that makes them almost unreadable....Turner's knowledge is impressive, but it is presented in such a way as to defeat its possible usefulness as source information." It was not my (relative) lack of knowledge of the classics that made the book a failure, but rather Turner's all but complete refusal (or inability) to create a coherent, interesting argument using his classical knowledge (even within individual chapters). If what he wanted to achieve was a source/reference book concentrating on Hardy's use of Latin and Greek literature, this was not the format with which to achieve it. I will admit that Turner's equally adamant refusal to recognize anything like the last thirty years of Hardy criticism (or contemporary literary criticism in general) also alienated me, but I could have dealt with that if the other problems I've outlined hadn't overwhelmed me. So I come back to my original position; for me the book isn't successful even in the terms it sets up for itself, its title is a complete misnomer, and it is seriously overpriced. Get hold of Jim Gibson's own *Thomas Hardy: A Literary Life* and you will be considerably better served. Richard Nemesvari Department of English St. Francis Xavier University ==========