Just heard that one of my blog posts will be included in an anthology of blog posts to be published by Karen Andrews at Miscellaneous Press. The anthology will be called Miscellaneous Voices: Australian Blog Writing #1 and will be released in April.
Ironically, the post chosen for the anthology is about the persistence of a great anecdote. It’s the post from last October concerning Bill Clinton and the literature professor, Stephen Greenblatt titled ”The curious half-life of an ethically inadequate object.”
Seems there’s still some half-life to go; this time in an Australian book.
To read the post, click here: http://solidgoldcreativity.com/2009/10/11/the-curious-half-life-of-an-ethically-inadequate-object/
Congratulations!
That’s great news and well deserved.
Still think you’re cannibalizing your other writing? Who knows what this sort of thing leads to.
Thanks :)
Congratulations and thanks for the anecdote–wonderful.
Thanks, Thomas. SGx
I have to confess. After the initial wave of admiration I felt for Bill Clinton on reading about the exchange with Greenblatt, I started to wonder about the phrase “… ambition had an ethically inadequate object.” (I haven’t read anything else on the subject so I may be showing my ignorance).
Either (1) I’m fairly dense (most likely), (2) it doesn’t makes sense, or (3) it has alarming implications.
I won’t elaborate on (1), but with respect to (2), Macbeth did have boundless ambition and the object of his ambition was to be king of Scotland, which was the apex of his world. His ambition was not to kill everybody at first and that is what makes the play so great. Good guy goes bad Greek style. He went about achieving the ambition in an ethically challenged way, but there is nothing wrong about about aspiring to be king. So I don’t see why the object of his ambition should necessarily be characterised as ‘ethically inadequate.’
As far as (3), if my observations on (2) are wrong, then I guess that ‘object’ is meant to refer to the activity that the boundless ambition generated, and if that’s the case, calling mass murder an “ethically inadequate” response makes BC a master of understatement at best. (Maybe that explains his interpretation of what went on between him and Monica?)
I’m sure that there is some subtle linguistic point that I’m missing–after all, I couldn’t make any sense out of Greenblatt when I read him in a Rhetoric class–but I’d love to hear other peoples’ thoughts.
Oh huh, Thomas, I see you’ve caught the virus too. First Greenblatt, then me, now you ;) There is something deeply ambiguous and strange about the phrase which must be one of the reasons it’s so tantalising. And the fact Clinton uttered it in response to Greenblatt’s question about “a man doing things he knows are politically and morally disastrous,” and uttered it when the Monica Lewinsky thing was about to blow up, makes it doubly so to me. Like, is Clinton also making a wry comment on that situation? Could he be that cool? That removed?
The article makes it clear that Greenblatt reads both Shakespeare and Clinton, reading Shakespeare, as believing “no character with a strong desire to rule over others has an ethically adequate object,” and that Julius Caesar, Hamlet — even Henry V — demonstrate an “overarching skepticism about the ethics of wielding authority.” So he/they would disagree with your point (2).
I actually emailed Greenblatt when I wrote this post and invited him to comment. I was a bit shocked when he replied, though he declined to comment saying something along the lines that any further comment would only weaken it further. I think he thought I was laughing at him. SGx
Thanks! Your second paragraph clarifies what to me was the mystery. I didn’t see that before.
I’d like to think that BC was that cool.
In any event there are so many interesting ideas here, especially about this issue of the ethics of wielding authority. You could have some good debates on how sympathetic Shakespeare is to his flawed authority figures.
As I say, though, I never could figure out what Greenblatt was going on about.
Yeh, I’d like to think BC was that cool :) The ethics of wielding authority seems pretty juicy, doesn’t it? I’ve got a bit of pre-history with GB too; we studied him in Critical Theory and I had a friend from Japan who gave a paper on him. She had the charming habit of many Japanese speakers of pronouncing her “Rs” like “Ls” and she seemed to use extra relish over his name. So now I always smile and think of her when I see his name. Sgx
Gleenbratt!! I love it.
:)
Wow so the writing is a ‘proper ‘ work
I love reading your blogs
Have been absent lately too much rumbling around inside to find an outlet
I let myself be inspired by you and your rich language and amazing vatriety of topics
Neri
Hi Neri. So glad you could drop in. Yes, how’s that? A book of blog posts! Coming full circle, what? Looking forward to whenever the rumblings pour forth. SGx