|
November-December 2007
|
< previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 A WRITER’S PERFORMANCEI read with some astonishment the majestically self-congratulatory piece by Stephen Greenblatt purporting to be about writing (“Writing as Performance,” September-October, page 40). It is, I suppose, endearing that so demanding and distinguished a critic and scholar could find in his own practices useful instruction for others. But as we discover how much he hated to give up working even for a day on his current project, the loss and recovery of Lucretius’s “great” philosophical poem; as we learn why (he thought) he didn’t get into Harvard College; as we are led through the opening paragraphs of various of his articles to see how effective they can be; as we find that he was asked to give the Adorno lectures in Germany after the “important” philosopher; and as we share in his delight at the jolly bantering he enjoyed with President Clinton regarding Macbeth, it is difficult to avoid the impression that this piece is less about the craft of scholarly writing than an advertisement for the life, works, and achievements of Professor Greenblatt. Writing as performance to be sure, but must all performance be so depressingly narcissistic? Michael Rosenthal ’58 Greenblatt’s recollection of his father’s advice about the proper subject for a Harvard interview—“You have to talk about sports”—reminded me of an interview situation of my own. In 1983, I was being interviewed by Justice Byron White for a Supreme Court clerkship. I was far more clueless than Greenblatt about sports, but even I knew that Justice White’s earliest claim to fame was as football star “Whizzer” White. I’m pretty sure I hadn’t planned to talk about sports—how could I?—but when I saw an opening in the conversation I mentioned that I’d recently read A River Runs Through It, the first line of which famously reads, “In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing.” I knew nothing more about fly fishing than what I’d read in the book—nor, at the time, did I know that Justice White was an avid fly fisherman—but I sensed a definite heightening of interest on his part. Of course, I can’t be sure of the factors that went into the justice’s decision, but I did get the job. Fortunately, I was never called on to discuss sports with him again. Natalie Wexler ’76, G ’79 I am writing to call attention to the inappropriateness of the conventional translation of the title of Lucretius’s poem De Rerum Natura as On the Nature of Things (not Professor Greenblatt’s fault). Joshua Whatmough, the late professor of comparative philology, translated De Rerum Natura as “On the Generation of Nature,” which is more meaningful and reflects the tradition of the genre. Several pre-Socratic poets were natural philosophers and titled their poems in Greek Peri Physeos or “On Nature.” It is to this tradition that the poem of Lucretius belongs. The conventional translation of its title is almost fatuous. Lloyd B. Urdahl ’45, A.M. ’49 PROFESSOR’S POLITICS PANNEDI write in response to the Harvard Portrait of Professor Howard Gardner (September-October, page 61). I would think the magazine would want to highlight people who actually make the University look good. Gardner certainly does not. The article states that Gardner has argued “for upper limits on the amount of income an American should be allowed to keep and the amount of wealth that can be passed on to beneficiaries ($4 million a year and $200 million, respectively).” Gardner continues, “The right wing isn’t just taking over the country, it’s shanghaiing all our values. If there’s a Republican administration after the next election, I would join in efforts for some sort of secession.” Both his policy proposals and his words on secession are completely outrageous. It is no one’s place to tell others how much income they may keep. I am shocked by his audacity. Threats to secede because you are upset with a political party’s role in the country’s affairs are immature, not to mention unpatriotic. Be a part of the process. Don’t just get upset and stomp off. Is this the type of position the magazine approves of and feels good condoning? If so, you need to take a long, hard look at yourselves and reevaluate what it means to be a responsible member of this great nation. Drew Thornley, J.D. ’05 Even though Professor Gardner may have multiple intelligences, his sum total is still not enough to let him understand that his “upper income limits” idea is just the old jealousy tax again. Tenured professors like Gardner are just extremely jealous of the harder-working citizen (who isn’t a “bright” Harvard professor) who either makes a lot of money per year, or amasses a nice fortune to leave to the children. Park Weaver Jr., M.B.A. ’60 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | continued >  
 
 
|
