table of contents

11/04/2015

Marilynne Robinson and the Perception of the Ordinary

Marilynne Robinson and the Perception of the Ordinary Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson is considered one of the defining writers of our time, a treasure in contemporary American literature, in both her fiction and her non-fiction. Her novels explore mid-20th century Midwestern life and faith; her essays roam the boundaries between faith and science. She […]

download transcript [vtt]
00:00:00.000
This is KZSU Stanford.
00:00:05.000
[MUSIC]
00:00:08.000
Welcome to entitled opinions.
00:00:10.000
My name is Robert Harrison.
00:00:12.000
We're coming to you from the Stanford campus.
00:00:15.000
[MUSIC]
00:00:25.000
[MUSIC]
00:00:30.000
I have a guest with me here in the catacombs of KZSU who knows what it means to practice a persecuted religion.
00:00:39.000
I mean the religion of deep thinking which takes many different covert forms.
00:00:45.000
One of the forms it takes for my guest is the perception of ordinary reality,
00:00:50.000
which is anything but ordinary when perception becomes truly attentive and thoughtful.
00:00:56.000
Let me quote her.
00:00:58.000
Ordinary things have always seemed newness to me.
00:01:02.000
One Calvinist notion deeply implanted in me is that there are two sides to your encounter with the world.
00:01:08.000
You don't simply perceive something that is statically present.
00:01:12.000
It means something because it is addressed to you.
00:01:16.000
You can draw from perception the same way a mystic would draw from a vision.
00:01:21.000
Now that's a thought from the catacombs.
00:01:25.000
My guest today is the novelist and essayist Marilyn Robinson.
00:01:29.000
One of the treasures of contemporary American literature much beloved by many of you entitled opinioners.
00:01:36.000
Marilyn Robinson has come to Stanford from Iowa to deliver a presidential lecture titled the American Scholar now.
00:01:43.000
And as graciously accepted an invitation to join me here on entitled opinions, I thank her for that.
00:01:49.000
The American Scholar is a famous essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson and I will be talking with my guest about Emerson shortly.
00:01:56.000
I hope as well as some other American writers.
00:01:59.000
But first let me welcome her to the program.
00:02:02.000
Marilyn thanks for joining us today.
00:02:04.000
What's a pleasure I'm glad to be here.
00:02:06.000
Now you once stated in an interview, I quote you, I don't think that living writers should be treated with all.
00:02:12.000
Or the all that is sometimes reserved for dead writer.
00:02:16.000
So let me put aside my all here and engage you as I would a long time friend of the show.
00:02:22.000
This despite the fact that we only met just half an hour ago.
00:02:26.000
And there are at least 10 different questions that I could start with.
00:02:31.000
But since I aired a show last week on Albert Einstein and the astonishing developments that have taken place in cosmology and quantum physics in the 20th century, let me start there.
00:02:41.000
You have a new book of essays which has just been published.
00:02:45.000
I think the official publication date was October 27th.
00:02:49.000
It's called the givenness of things.
00:02:52.000
And in your opening piece titled humanism, you write about the dismaying reductionism that many practitioners of neuroscience engage in when it comes to the human brain and the human psyche.
00:03:06.000
But the reason I bring up that essay is because you make some illuminating comments there about cosmology.
00:03:13.000
Referring to quantum physics, you write quote the fundamental character of time and space is being called into question.
00:03:21.000
Mathematics, ontology and metaphysics have become one thing.
00:03:26.000
If Galileo shocked the world by removing the sun from its place, so to speak, then this polyglot army of mathematicians and cosmologists.
00:03:35.000
Who offer new grounds for new conceptions of absolute reality should dazzle us all.
00:03:42.000
Freeing us at last from the circle of old, your eyes and compass.
00:03:46.000
But we are not free.
00:03:48.000
End quote.
00:03:50.000
My first question then has to do with these new conceptions of the universe.
00:03:55.000
I'm assuming that you believe they hold a great deal of promise for a new humanism.
00:04:01.000
Do I understand you correctly there?
00:04:03.000
I certainly think that they do.
00:04:06.000
One thing that humanism seems to me has to invoke and be based on is human brilliance.
00:04:13.000
And the fact that physics and cosmology have revealed what they have made such brilliant hypotheses as they have made,
00:04:25.000
created the possibility of a preconception of reality.
00:04:30.000
I just think that that's a huge tribute to what human beings are.
00:04:35.000
I think that it's a pity people are not more aware of it and more disposed to enjoy it.
00:04:41.000
It's astonishing how much we've been able to understand about phenomena that are so alien to what would be, you would almost imagine endemic to our human psyche,
00:04:52.000
which is a certain imperative or need for stability and waking up in a world where we orient ourselves quite naturally.
00:05:03.000
But it seems that all this human brilliance of ours has uncovered truths about the cosmos that we live in that are utterly bewildering to our basic humanity.
00:05:16.000
Well, our habits of order making and interpretation and so on obviously have come to their limits as far as this deeper reality is concerned.
00:05:26.000
But I think that antiquity, mysticism, all the old cultures of abstract thought sensed that there was something more and something other about reality.
00:05:44.000
And you find it already in Heraclitus.
00:05:47.000
I think that science passed through a phase which was a passage it had to make of sort of reductionism, isolation of causal aspects of existence and so on.
00:06:00.000
But that model, that moment became so authoritative for us that it precluded our having a humane understanding of all the ways in which reality had been looked at before.
00:06:13.000
The questions about time and so on that were raised in the Middle Ages and are perfectly appropriate now.
00:06:20.000
But went through a period of being suppressed or dismissed because they were associated with an earlier period of time.
00:06:27.000
Well, certainly on the one hand we find ourselves on the far flung provinces of a galaxy which is so immeasurably large until you take into account that it's one of 100 billion galaxies of the same size.
00:06:41.000
And that the visible world then that we're talking about something beyond any possible comprehension constitutes only 5% of the universe.
00:06:51.000
The other 20% or 25% is dark matter.
00:06:55.000
The other is presumably dark.
00:06:56.000
And therefore it looks like you could not squeeze us out of the picture anymore than we've been squeezed out by contemporary cosmology.
00:07:04.000
But then on the other hand it also seems that we are also at the very center of the whole thing because you subtract us out of there and there is no center.
00:07:15.000
Exactly. I mean I think it's just spectacular. I mean this planet is disappearingly small by any model of the galaxy or anything beyond it.
00:07:25.000
And yet at the same time it's knowledge, it's capacity for knowing passes through billions and billions of light years of void.
00:07:34.000
There might be other consciousnesses in the universe that given account of it probably not I would say.
00:07:41.000
But the fact that we do I think is really beautiful.
00:07:45.000
It would be trivial to be a large planet in the middle of a small universe. It's absolutely brilliant to be a small planet in the middle of an endless universe.
00:07:55.000
You wrote a piece on Ed Graal and Poe I think in this past year.
00:08:00.000
Yes.
00:08:01.000
And which I found very interesting because I'm fascinated by Poe from many points of view.
00:08:07.000
And I have to say that Eureka, which you discussed there is a prose poem that he wrote in the last year of his life that you take very seriously in so far as it has almost this kind of intuitive foreknowledge of discoveries in physics that would not take place until the 20th century or even the late 20th century.
00:08:31.000
Again, you know, I mean, he did call it a poem and he said that it was his thinking was all aesthetic.
00:08:39.000
His reasoning was aesthetic which is perfectly respectable scientifically so far as I can tell.
00:08:44.000
It raises the great mystery of what is meant by aesthetics, you know, why it should be so efficacious as it clearly can be.
00:08:53.000
But I'm just in awe of that. I think that's an amazingly brilliant thing, an unbelievable artifact of early 19th century thought.
00:09:01.000
Yeah. Well, for our listeners who don't know Eureka at all, he posits things that really come out of the post-Einstein kind of physics.
00:09:11.000
First thing that the whole universe originates from one part tiny particle.
00:09:15.000
Yes, exactly.
00:09:16.000
And that's a matter in one kind of explosion and then depending on size and distribution and forces of gravity that the galaxies form and he even seems to suggest that there's a counterforce to gravity and that some stars will not emit light, for example.
00:09:35.000
Just amazing.
00:09:36.000
That there are some universe that our universe can be one universe among many have completely different laws that apply. And when you say that he conceived of this universe, how can one come to a vision like that through the aesthetic?
00:09:50.000
I think that's a great mystery except that, you know, I mean, a word that's used often as a synonym is elegance.
00:09:58.000
And I think that there's a sort of disciplining of, you know, how one can think, what one can imagine, that again conforms to elegance, which I think might generally be called a kind of reduction to the maximum appropriate degree of simplicity.
00:10:21.000
Although Eureka is hardly simple, as certainly as a literary work, it seems very complex.
00:10:29.000
Well, yes, certainly. Well, he's making an argument, you know, and he read that as a one-l lecture.
00:10:37.000
And apparently had a thunderous reaction from his audience in Virginia.
00:10:42.000
Negative? Positive. Positive.
00:10:44.000
Positive.
00:10:45.000
Well, I thought it was everyone jumped all over him for that.
00:10:47.000
Well, he had trouble getting a published and so on. People thought he was crazy when he asked them to publish it.
00:10:55.000
But the second reading of the lecture, I guess, was, you know, reigned out.
00:11:02.000
But the first was, I think, highly successful.
00:11:05.000
There's a lot I would like to ask you about, Poe, but I'm curious now to talk a little bit about Emerson.
00:11:12.000
You're giving a lecture tomorrow here at Stanford called the American Scholar now.
00:11:17.000
And that is an essay that, you know, beautiful essay, I think, is still very relevant in which Emerson famously tries to conceive of how you could have a declaration of independence
00:11:29.000
for American intellectual life or American letters or some other way of being a scholar or a person of knowledge.
00:11:38.000
Then models that come to us from Europe or elsewhere.
00:11:43.000
And I don't want you to give away your lecture necessarily, but the American Scholar now, are we nowhere near Emerson's concept of the American Scholar?
00:11:55.000
150 years later.
00:11:58.000
I think that we have perhaps lost his vision to a certain extent.
00:12:03.000
What he assumes in that lecture is that people are brilliant.
00:12:08.000
That they are brilliant in various ways.
00:12:11.000
That every new perceiver is a new source of revelation.
00:12:16.000
And that, you know, using the knownness of the country, the idea that you can indeed see in your own right, think with your own mind.
00:12:27.000
And a rival, you know, an insight that, or a vision that has the quality of revelation of very high poetry, which I think he would say is a matter of consciousness.
00:12:44.000
And not, I mean, in other words, the object of the art is the creation of that consciousness much more than it is the writing of poetry or anything like that.
00:12:54.000
He recommended to the American Scholar to take his first lessons from the world of nature.
00:13:00.000
And immerse yourself in the natural world somehow.
00:13:05.000
And through, I guess, an openness to it, sensory, perceptive, and intimate knowledge of nature in its ways of giving itself to us.
00:13:19.000
The givenness of things, if you like, and perception. And of course, your novels are, I think, of a very powerful ways in which that world of nature comes into the inner lives of people.
00:13:33.000
The second recommendation, though, is learning through history and learning lessons from the past that would then put the American Scholar in a position to break through into modes of originality.
00:13:47.000
But not with, it's not a repudiation or ignoring of the past, it's actually some kind of reappropriation of legacies to a certain extent so that one can do something new, either with them or independently of them.
00:14:02.000
Yes, I think that we've sort of given up on the past, I think. I mean, it happens that human lives fall out in a certain sequence.
00:14:13.000
But brilliant people are brilliant people, and I think that we should be capable of seeing what is characteristic of a certain period and understanding the kernel of a thought without being disturbed by what surrounds it in terms of the language of the period in which it was
00:14:31.980
written. I mean, you know, that's sort of early modern English or something like that.
00:14:37.980
That's something that bothers me very much because a lot of good people have tried to do valuable things historically, and that they should be lost, I think, is something that's been disorienting for us.
00:14:50.980
Now, are you speaking more about creative writers or scholars in the sense of academic literary historians or cultural historians?
00:15:01.980
Anyone who did anything interesting seriously, anything valuable, you know, I read fairly broadly in, you know, Renaissance texts and so on, and the things that you come across are just stunning, and they can be kind of isolated in a text.
00:15:19.980
It's otherwise perhaps not so interesting, but they're much too valuable to lose, and, and, above all of their things, human history is what we know about who we are.
00:15:34.980
And I think that lots of times there's a sort of attempted false innocence that, you know, we imagine the past as primitive and ourselves as having escape from its errors.
00:15:48.980
And I think we can safely, as soon as we have an escape from either its errors or our own.
00:15:56.980
Well, what I find frustrating sometimes in the academic disciplines to which we belong is a kind of excess of historicism, where people feel that their job is done once they've historicized a phenomenon, whether it's a particular text or an event in history or some other kind of
00:16:16.980
document or founding of a nation. And we actually are in a kind of overdrive when it comes to historicization, but we don't have that Emersonian leap of faith into a self, what he calls the self-reliance of the American scholar.
00:16:42.980
And I, I'm wondering whether the past can be genuinely retrieved and reanimated without that second move that Emerson calls for, which is what he calls self-trust or self-reliance.
00:16:59.980
I think that actually that's very necessary to reading the past appropriately. I think that frankly, I don't find much history written about periods that I know from reading primary texts that are persuasive to me as history.
00:17:15.980
I think, you know, one of the things it's kind of fun to do is to go to the library and look through the journal of some professional discipline and see how, you know, it's like looking through an old catalog and seeing why
00:17:28.980
neck ties turn into narrow neck ties turn into flared pants, you know, and there is so
00:17:35.660
much deference to the people that are in any given moment considered to be the leading scholars
00:17:43.540
that there is not nearly enough sort of, you know, research done for people for their own
00:17:50.520
sake, I mean, to find what they find with their own intelligence, their own perceptions.
00:17:57.900
Do you consider yourself Emersonian?
00:18:01.340
I would like to be, you know, I don't know what he'd say about me, but I tend to think
00:18:05.780
of myself as certainly influenced by him.
00:18:09.180
And would that apply also to the transcendentalism of Emerson and the idea that God is inside
00:18:17.220
of us and that, you know, the self can be, if it comes to know itself truly is exalted
00:18:23.340
in that respect?
00:18:26.340
You know, this is, I'm going to say something very predictable, but that is Calvinism.
00:18:31.940
God to hear you say that because I thought that the Calvinist doctrine was really, that if
00:18:37.420
it had an animosity towards anything, it was this kind of enthusiasm, what the Puritans
00:18:41.620
called enthusiasm or antagonism where locating the God within the self, I remember Roger
00:18:48.620
Williams, the early Puritan Separatists who denouncing George Fox of the Quakers, saying
00:18:56.060
you think that God is in yourself, but there's nothing in the self but a rotten corrupt
00:18:59.820
sinner and that you God is certainly not there, it's somewhere else.
00:19:04.020
So can you clarify why you think that's Calvinist?
00:19:07.820
Well, Roger Williams who know was an anabaptist and they were, that was a tradition that
00:19:12.940
was distinct from Calvinism, I mean, and at odds with it.
00:19:17.100
But if you read like the first couple chapters of Calvin's institutes, he says, if you
00:19:23.140
want to discover God, descend into yourself.
00:19:26.660
And then he lists all the, you know, the brilliance of people, they're, you know, the
00:19:30.660
incredible resourcefulness, their imagination, capacity for learning.
00:19:35.260
And then he says these things are undeniable proofs of the divine in man, you know.
00:19:41.260
This is, it's amazing how he uses this.
00:19:47.020
And when one is confronted by another person, including somebody that really wishes you
00:19:52.780
harm, you know, you have to understand that that person is presented to you by God.
00:19:58.380
And the question is what does God want out of this situation.
00:20:01.980
And he, he lies that the presented other with God himself because it's an image of God,
00:20:08.900
you know.
00:20:09.900
And so there is a very strong sort of mysticism of the image of God that's pervasive.
00:20:16.460
You understand yourself as being that image, you understand everyone you encounter as being
00:20:20.580
that image.
00:20:21.900
And then the question is, are you appropriately reverent in effect toward the image presented
00:20:27.660
you or the image that you are?
00:20:30.260
Where then in Calvin's vision does the legacy of original sin reside?
00:20:36.020
Well, you know, the idea of original sin is something that runs through the whole Christian
00:20:42.300
tradition.
00:20:43.300
There are certain doctrines, if you want to call them, that are simply accepted by every
00:20:49.580
tradition and interpreted differently in every tradition.
00:20:53.380
And in Calvinism, yeah, he talks about depravity and what depravity means is being warped.
00:21:00.940
And he uses perception, the model of the perception is a mirror or a lens, which is warped.
00:21:07.540
So that you see things that are true, but you do not see them with reliable truth.
00:21:12.580
You know, you don't see them in themselves.
00:21:15.700
And so the whole contest, basically, of the Calvinist, you know, who has internalized
00:21:23.860
the effort to see the world as it is, is to overcome this inevitable impairment of understanding
00:21:32.580
that is the consequence of the fall.
00:21:35.460
It's not, you know, for some traditions, it's associated with some sort of seething black
00:21:41.620
sin, you know, but for Calvin, it's kind of an impairment that makes perception a continuous
00:21:48.860
contest between what can be known and the limitation of any one's ability to know it.
00:21:55.540
I think, frankly, that the scientific method goes back to Calvin, because there's always
00:22:00.820
the assumption that, yes, you are discovering things and know you don't know everything that
00:22:06.340
there is to know about them.
00:22:07.860
In fact, what you think you know could be profoundly wrong.
00:22:11.620
Right.
00:22:12.620
And in one of your new essays, you also wish or lament the fact that you don't hear the
00:22:18.260
words sin used in any of our current discourses, but that someone like Lincoln, when he
00:22:25.900
would address the American people, he was speaking in a Calvinist language that almost everyone
00:22:31.980
would have understood as a sort of shared common faith of the nation.
00:22:39.060
And that, in that respect, a president could remind a people that God loves your enemy
00:22:46.340
as much as he loves you, and that humility is the and suffering or lessons that come from
00:22:56.940
the same sort of source.
00:22:59.460
And the absence of the possibility of even saying certain things in our public discourse
00:23:08.340
seems to have made us much more vulnerable to the effects of that depravity if I want
00:23:13.940
to if you want to use that word.
00:23:15.420
That's one of those words that's drifted into another set of meanings.
00:23:19.500
But you know, I was talking there about the second inaugural address, I think.
00:23:23.620
And that's very much in a tradition of sermons that were preached during the Civil War,
00:23:30.140
especially when the North had suffered a defeat.
00:23:34.500
They had days of fasting and humiliation.
00:23:38.540
And that everybody, it was declared, you know, nationally, Abraham Lincoln declared these
00:23:44.180
days, but they, everyone was supposed to go to his or her own church or whatever.
00:23:51.420
And then they would be preached to about the fact that if things have gone badly for
00:23:57.340
them, they probably deserved it.
00:23:59.820
And so, I mean, and the thing that's wonderful about that is that it deflects hatred from
00:24:06.580
the enemy, even the injurious enemy, which is very Calvinist, you know.
00:24:11.220
The situation is presented to you by God to learn from.
00:24:14.420
And what Lincoln did with that tradition was say, "Do not think that you are more virtuous
00:24:22.900
than the South."
00:24:24.260
You know, if you suffered, it's because your sins relative to slavery were also very great,
00:24:29.500
which is simply true.
00:24:31.260
But the fact that he could say that, you know, victorious in a war telling to people,
00:24:39.380
you have no grounds for resentment of the aggression that was carried out against you
00:24:43.860
and so on.
00:24:44.860
You have no way to avenge what you have lost justly.
00:24:49.260
I think that's just amazing.
00:24:52.460
And you don't find in someone like Emerson or in Walt Whitman an absence of acknowledgement
00:25:02.340
that deep within the self-lies the possibility of this kind of distortion of the divine
00:25:06.980
and that it's not all that easy to straighten it out.
00:25:12.380
And that maybe there's nothing one can do through self-help to redress it.
00:25:18.380
Yes, well, I mean, I don't think that in so far as they were Calvinist, you don't get over
00:25:26.660
original sin.
00:25:27.660
It's something that is a continuous factor.
00:25:30.620
And frankly, Miss Apprehension of a kind that leads to insensitiveity or cruelty is as
00:25:38.460
great a sin as any of the listed sins, you know, which leads to a point of view like
00:25:44.500
Whitman's, which is rather Christlike where he can look at the prostitute with her
00:25:51.220
wobbly neck and all these people with the same loving eye that he looks at anything or
00:25:56.980
anybody because Calvin's understanding of original sin means no one is immune from it,
00:26:05.420
you know, and it forbids the sort of casuous tree of saying lesser greater sins, you know.
00:26:14.220
I think Whitman is very much in the tradition from that point of view.
00:26:17.660
He does acknowledge, he acknowledges slavery, a terrible thing, you know, but it is within
00:26:26.700
a vision that allows everything.
00:26:30.540
It doesn't, God knows he was not in favor of slavery, but his vision of the world was
00:26:38.140
not one that assumed that he or people like him were immune from the abuses that they
00:26:44.420
saw around them.
00:26:47.340
Talking about Emily Dickinson now, we're talking about the poets.
00:26:50.260
Emily Dickinson also raised, I suppose, she was also Calvinist or came from the same
00:26:56.660
thing, but she also had a moment where she says, what poem is that where she vows that she's
00:27:09.220
maybe not going to have the second baptism, she doesn't belong into that or that there's
00:27:13.140
something there that has a moment of distancingation.
00:27:18.660
Is that because she was so strictly Calvinist in regard to herself that she would come to
00:27:24.580
this judgment?
00:27:27.700
I think she is always testing consciousness, you know, which is a very Calvinist project,
00:27:35.220
and taking it to the brink of its own sort of rebuttal or destruction.
00:27:42.140
I mean reading her poems, it's just, you know, your hair stands on the end, but to be
00:27:48.300
able to make tests like that demonstrates a robust conviction in the reality of God and
00:27:57.780
the meaningfulness of the incredible exercises that the mind can undertake.
00:28:05.100
And do you find her a hero of perception in the way that you speak about it in the quote
00:28:11.260
I began with in my introduction?
00:28:13.740
The perception of the ordinary, or the ordinary reality which becomes extraordinary?
00:28:20.020
She's the ultimate master of that perception without question.
00:28:25.220
And does one learn from a poet like that to educate, you know, that kind of perception
00:28:31.980
because it doesn't come necessarily naturally.
00:28:34.780
It's something that one has to develop a great deal of sensitivity through a learning
00:28:39.940
process.
00:28:40.940
It's the fall of man that's responsible for that.
00:28:44.940
It's all right.
00:28:45.940
So the pre-fallen state would be this kind of surplus of the ecstatic splendor of the world
00:28:56.940
that we perceive only dimly.
00:28:59.340
Is that how you see?
00:29:00.940
He's still on a blade, presumably.
00:29:02.860
Although one of the things that's true for Calvinist, for many other theologians, is that
00:29:07.660
he assumes that the fall was intended by God and that the contest of being that follows
00:29:15.260
from it is the will of God, a splendid thing, you know.
00:29:22.260
It's like Milton.
00:29:23.260
He really has no, well, Milton is like him, I should say.
00:29:27.340
No conception of the unfallen mind as being any ideal of the mind.
00:29:33.340
So Marilak, I can't let Melville escape our conversation because he's one of my favorite
00:29:38.940
authors and Moby Dick for he is of a completely different order than anything.
00:29:45.420
Stondale, the French novelist who lived in Padma for several years.
00:29:52.500
He said, "Elia, le frómage, eluparmezon," that there's Parmesan and then there's Jesus.
00:29:57.580
And for me, Melville is in a certain sense the Parmesan of American letters.
00:30:02.100
At least that one book.
00:30:04.900
Is that an author you love?
00:30:06.220
Oh, yes.
00:30:07.220
I've taught Moby Dick many times, many times.
00:30:11.700
And it's so interesting.
00:30:12.700
Sometimes I teach it beside white jacket, which is some, you know what I mean, the setting
00:30:18.020
is the same, but the human circumstance is entirely different.
00:30:22.620
And Moby Dick of course came after white jacket.
00:30:25.540
And the fact that he creates this little world of every sort of a human being, you know,
00:30:30.740
with a sort of, they're all beautiful, they're all, you know, physically, virtually all
00:30:36.020
of them are, they deal with each other with a great courtesy, basically, you know, over
00:30:42.860
against white jackets, certainly where there's vlogging and all this other horrible stuff.
00:30:49.060
And where, I mean, in that book he talks about how degraded sailors are assumed to be,
00:30:57.420
how badly they're dealt with and, you know, how they're abducted and all the rest of it.
00:31:02.820
And then he reimagens it again, you know, these ideal sailors in this world of loving
00:31:09.940
collaboration really.
00:31:13.380
You know, so there's a sort of a beautiful ideal, beautiful vision planted in the middle
00:31:20.500
of this raging question about, you know, the ultimate nature of things.
00:31:25.740
But very, very amazing.
00:31:28.500
But as a novelist yourself, when you read Moby Dick, do you find that here is a novelist
00:31:34.460
who was not able to control the artifact and that it just gets away from him and it takes
00:31:42.500
different genres, essayistic and anatomical and so forth.
00:31:49.260
And that maybe he could have used some oversight?
00:31:56.420
No.
00:31:57.420
No.
00:31:58.420
No.
00:31:59.420
I tell my writers a hundred times don't try to control the artifact.
00:32:03.580
You know, I mean, when something, I mean, there is being out of control and then there
00:32:08.060
is creating something that takes life in a way that gives it energy so you can't control.
00:32:14.260
And then when that happens, when that kind of energy emerges, thank God for it and see where
00:32:19.860
it goes, you know, I would, you know, I mean that the brilliance, the genius that flows
00:32:28.460
into these different passages in Melfield, it pull him after them, you know, they're just
00:32:36.860
wonderful.
00:32:37.860
They're the height of the art.
00:32:40.340
Well, I agree.
00:32:41.340
I mean, it's the generic strangeness of that novel which is part of its fascination for
00:32:48.220
me and there's hardly a sentence in there that doesn't actually have the power of transport.
00:32:55.700
Absolutely.
00:32:56.700
Beautiful, beautiful.
00:32:58.780
Oceanic cadences and a kind of vocabulary that's Shakespearean but never in a way that
00:33:06.180
seems, without those kind of false notes that you would expect from someone who doesn't
00:33:15.020
hesitate to borrow as much as he borrows from a kind of Shakespearean diction.
00:33:19.820
Would you think the Quaker presence is important to understanding the kind of search for
00:33:26.940
the knowledge of reality in the novel or is it just part of the background story?
00:33:34.180
I think it's important that they have in Starbucks or both Quakers and it's important to
00:33:40.780
the dishmail is not, you know, but I do think that, you know, the Quakers, they were very
00:33:49.560
conscious about rejecting assumptions about God that were traditional and I think that
00:33:56.900
this is very often true with that sort of early American writing.
00:34:01.100
If you reject what is traditional then where do you find what you can truly, you know,
00:34:08.140
believe adopt, regard and this comes with a lot of pushing aside of barriers and boundaries?
00:34:16.780
Would the same apply to your career as a novelist merely if you don't mind my asking?
00:34:23.460
I think in a sense, yes, I think it does.
00:34:25.860
I'm not a Quaker, but I'm not so far from them.
00:34:32.620
But I do proceed on the assumption that if I find myself moving toward something that seems
00:34:41.900
to me to locate a question or an assumption that I'm no longer convinced would stand,
00:34:51.980
and I feel, you know, certainly permission and also application to see where that goes.
00:34:59.180
And so you follow it.
00:35:00.180
I follow it.
00:35:02.820
And do you have, do you, any direct predecessor or I can use the plural processors that
00:35:10.820
you would point to as matrix out of which your own fiction arises?
00:35:20.540
Calvin, leaving him aside, talking about other novels?
00:35:24.100
Well, I came to him late.
00:35:26.180
When I was in college, I studied American literature and I had a great class, a great year
00:35:32.180
of American literature.
00:35:34.260
And it was treated as a sort of phenomenological or epistemological literature, which
00:35:41.540
I think is exactly right.
00:35:44.140
And the hypotheses that are created to attempt an approach to what is true and real are
00:35:52.060
metaphors typically.
00:35:53.580
You know, you get that in Melville all the time, Emily Dickens and all the time.
00:35:58.540
And so you put, you know, the metaphor conveys as much as it can convey and then collapses
00:36:05.780
typically, you know.
00:36:07.740
And then beyond that, there is another metaphor that is as if adequate to the questions
00:36:13.860
of the failed metaphor, the ones that did not satisfy.
00:36:20.020
And then that is as vulnerable as the first one really.
00:36:22.980
But in this, it again, it reminds me sort of of scientific method in the sense that you,
00:36:28.740
you create a hypothesis that is as promising as you can create and then test it against
00:36:34.060
what it's meant to describe.
00:36:36.380
And you see how it fails, you know, that this seemed to me to be because partly because
00:36:44.420
it made such beautiful demands on language, disciplined it and expanded it at the same time.
00:36:53.420
So when I started writing housekeeping, you know, with my slew of metaphors, precisely
00:36:58.660
what I was doing was seeing whether I could also use that method, which seemed to me in
00:37:03.740
a way to self-standing, to free-standing, to be something that could simply pass away like
00:37:10.820
a period style.
00:37:13.100
And I still feel that way.
00:37:14.540
I think it's, it sheds light in all directions, unlike, I mean, on reality and experience
00:37:23.340
on language and, you know, consciousness.
00:37:25.820
Well, yeah, for sure, especially in housekeeping and others, other of your books.
00:37:31.660
And you find this method at work in the writers we've been talking about, for example.
00:37:35.420
Yes, absolutely.
00:37:37.060
And that helps me understand also Emerson because it seems like Emerson, every sentence
00:37:41.860
is a metaphor that you wonder how can he go on multiplying and finding new figures for
00:37:49.940
saying essentially the same thing and he keeps doing it.
00:37:53.340
But you're right, it seems as at the end it collapses in on itself or it's the famous
00:37:58.980
image of the circles that keep expanding.
00:38:02.900
But I think you hold more to the collapsing at the end of it, that it has to end in, it's
00:38:10.820
like a musical notes that they end in silence and which is a kind of death and therefore
00:38:18.100
it had to be coming to being again from there.
00:38:21.860
Do I understand you correctly that there's a certain element of failure in each attempt?
00:38:27.660
Yeah, but the essence of it is that it is a tentative, it is an attempt.
00:38:34.300
I think about, you know, when they, not so long ago, were trying to determine whether the
00:38:41.300
universe was stable or was contracting.
00:38:44.860
And they found out that it was not only expanding but it was expanding and accelerating
00:38:51.060
rate and the rate of acceleration was accelerating, you know.
00:38:54.780
And all theories went right out the window, you know, which was not a failure of those
00:38:59.020
theories.
00:39:00.020
They were, you know, these things, these cub webs, you know, or ropes of sand as they
00:39:05.700
used to say, that people used to pull themselves toward an insight that might be an
00:39:11.940
insight of the, in our tequila bowl, the utterly mysterious.
00:39:18.580
But by the potency of these things, the validity of them is that they bring you to that
00:39:23.940
place rather than letting you be content with error, you know.
00:39:29.620
And that place has also something to do with grief.
00:39:35.740
If I can make that thematic connection and grief, not just in the most concrete sense of
00:39:46.220
the loss of a loved one, but also loss as part of the living out of the human condition
00:39:56.340
as it were and perhaps without some underlying grief, there would not be the need to
00:40:04.180
keep attempting the new metaphor and searching out.
00:40:09.220
Yes.
00:40:10.220
Because there's something slipping away, something is being, we're losing something.
00:40:14.340
The world we think we know is what we're losing, you know.
00:40:18.940
I mean, my characters experience grief because they love the world, you know.
00:40:28.100
What do you make, given how important grief is in your aesthetic as well as the thematics
00:40:34.700
and even the your theology, I'm stipulating.
00:40:39.860
What do you make then of Emerson, who in his essay experience says, "I grieve that grief cannot
00:40:45.940
teach me anything?"
00:40:48.420
And that he underwent an experience of grief with the loss of his son Waldo and he found
00:40:55.540
that basically it was something kadushus, it fell away from me because it wasn't really integral
00:41:02.060
to me.
00:41:03.060
And there seems to be a very daring, rather shocking repudiation of what we've been talking
00:41:10.820
about, which is the losing of the world the way we thought it would be or it should be or
00:41:21.300
even another human being.
00:41:23.300
Yes.
00:41:24.300
Well, I think that the absolute discovery we make is that in a certain sense we are radically
00:41:32.420
solitary and from, again, from Calvin's point of view or Calvin's point of view, it's as
00:41:39.860
if one were face-to-face with God that there is this relationship that is essential, indestructible,
00:41:51.340
primary, and that all the others are things that you learn are not essential to you.
00:41:59.140
But if there is this face-to-face relation with God, wouldn't that be the bulwark against
00:42:04.180
any genuine grief?
00:42:06.260
And so far it's the answer to it or it transcends it or it's the...
00:42:13.220
I don't think so because clearly it was not.
00:42:19.020
A lot of you can read a lot of grieving Puritans.
00:42:22.060
It's not hard to find them.
00:42:25.740
But I think that you learn the value of things in losing them.
00:42:33.140
You would never know it in the same way.
00:42:36.220
And it's an odd way to live life.
00:42:41.180
I mean, it is.
00:42:42.860
Sir, almost backward, you have your treasures around you and then you lose them because
00:42:47.100
it seems as if it got to go the other way, maybe it does.
00:42:52.940
But again, it's, you know, from the point of view of the assumption that you are face-to-face
00:43:00.380
with God, you know, for most of them, properly-framed in person too, the idea that this would
00:43:09.220
be restored is the answer.
00:43:13.380
Am I correct to assume that novel writing is the medium in which this sort of truth is
00:43:26.540
much more effectively communicated than, for example, essay writing because you've done a lot
00:43:31.620
of essay writing and its...
00:43:34.980
Your essays are a way of thinking the way I think your novels are also a way of thinking
00:43:39.100
about the same sort of fundamental issues, but that the communication and its metaphor
00:43:45.420
might have a lot to do with it, but it's the other way of getting inside the lived experience
00:43:52.860
of certain issues that might be purely in the mind and not only in sentiment.
00:44:00.460
Do you find that you communicate a truth in your novels that doesn't come across the
00:44:06.060
same way in your essays?
00:44:08.340
It's true.
00:44:09.340
I mean, the thing that's fascinating about writing novels is that you have the illusion
00:44:16.180
of dimensionality, you know, you can have three or four things going on and impacting
00:44:21.020
people at the same time.
00:44:22.780
You can, you know, have something seem to be asserted and then have it radically qualified
00:44:30.980
on the next paragraph, you know, and that makes it a much richer way of dealing with the
00:44:37.420
complexity of things.
00:44:40.300
And you do the same thing between novel and novel, not only paragraph by paragraph, but
00:44:46.420
you put novels which are taking place in time which, you know, chronologically speaking
00:44:51.900
is simultaneous, but it's a different story or it's a different declension of the same
00:44:57.340
story, you know?
00:44:59.020
Absolutely.
00:45:00.020
And it's that freedom, you know, that, well, dimensionality, as I said before, which
00:45:05.180
is reality, you know, I mean, that's how people move around themselves among themselves
00:45:13.340
emotionally as well as physically.
00:45:17.140
And will you add to the number of ways that that story has been told so far in the trilogy
00:45:25.820
or I probably might well, but I get myself so busy with other things.
00:45:35.140
Sometimes they don't have quite solitude that I need to, but, you know, I have things in
00:45:42.780
my mind.
00:45:43.780
Sure.
00:45:45.740
And do you enjoy also the kind of coming to Stanford giving a lecture working out a
00:45:52.100
problem in this other sort of medium and then publishing it in its collection of essays,
00:45:58.940
the new book that has just come out, the given us of things?
00:46:01.420
I think many of the pieces in there were originally lectures in my all of the more lectures
00:46:07.980
now.
00:46:10.660
Does that have the same satisfaction for you?
00:46:12.580
Well, you know, there are things that I feel strongly about or ideas that I want to try
00:46:17.700
out.
00:46:18.700
Like, you know, we can see being how Shakespeare should be approached or something like
00:46:22.100
that.
00:46:23.100
I have the luxury of talking about that.
00:46:25.620
And to the extent that any of these things could overlap with my fiction, I am very
00:46:33.740
happy to have another place to put them because I don't want to write in the interest
00:46:37.700
or essayistic fiction.
00:46:40.780
I want my characters to create the fiction.
00:46:45.780
But there are moments in your fiction where a certain kind of meditation is taking place.
00:46:51.300
A certain kind of thinking and it's actually reflective thinking often.
00:46:57.980
It's not essayistic in that regard.
00:46:59.820
But some other kind of narrow conceptions of what's appropriate for fiction and not appropriate
00:47:06.340
was that as Aristotle said, leave thought as little of it as possible in the story because
00:47:14.700
it has to move according to action and so forth.
00:47:19.700
But thought is so central to the world that you enter into in your novels now.
00:47:29.420
Yes.
00:47:30.420
Well, I think it's central.
00:47:31.420
I mean, people spend more time with thinking than doing any other thing, you know?
00:47:38.540
And some people I think think beautifully, you know, and there are wonderful things to
00:47:44.140
think about.
00:47:45.140
They maybe needn't yield anything beyond the thought itself.
00:47:49.820
You know, seeing particularly preoccupied with a very typical American issue in not only
00:47:57.980
fiction but maybe even reality, which is this kind of terrible aphasia that so many of
00:48:04.380
our fellows' citizens have when it comes to the expression of whatever that inner world
00:48:10.820
of thought is and the inability actually to phrase or to communicate and make that thinking
00:48:20.860
something more than just a solitary form of self-entrapment.
00:48:27.580
Well, I would, I rarely think of it as an entrapment, I suppose, however solitary it is.
00:48:34.260
But I think one of the things actually that's sort of intervened is that people are given
00:48:41.260
models of experience, you know, that, you know, the ideas like trauma, for example, so that
00:48:49.460
they find a place in their biography that they can identify as being the landmark on their
00:48:54.620
interior landscape and so on.
00:48:57.620
Or, you know, sort of diagnoses that float around in the culture as being descriptive of
00:49:02.300
everybody or most people or whatever.
00:49:05.620
And there's sort of a fable of consciousness which certainly comes from Freud and from
00:49:12.580
many other people.
00:49:14.100
I think people, they sort of rethink themselves in order to answer to it, you know.
00:49:22.660
I don't, we have untrained people because inwardness, people like Emerson would certainly
00:49:31.620
think of it this way.
00:49:34.340
It is what individualizes us inwardness.
00:49:38.740
And there is an impulse away from that kind of individualization in these tendencies that
00:49:44.980
we have to type ourselves or diagnose ourselves or, you know, which is, I think, absolutely
00:49:51.140
ridiculous on its face because Americans aren't like anybody else particularly and
00:49:56.980
be. There are 330 million of us last time I checked coming from every part of the world and
00:50:03.660
it's absurd to think that these, you know, patterns, these diagnostic patterns can fit
00:50:09.620
on us all in the way that they seem to attempt to do.
00:50:13.180
I just, it's a robbery.
00:50:15.540
People ought to just go back to themselves, you know.
00:50:18.660
No, I hear you there, but I'm just thinking of a certain kind of Americanism where
00:50:26.740
the failure of language to actually bring out the inner life of the mind that certain
00:50:36.620
characters have in fiction.
00:50:39.260
It seems recurrent enough that one could maybe talk about it as something that would separate
00:50:45.220
a certain strain of American fiction from, let's say, British fiction or French fiction.
00:50:51.700
You mentioned Freud, Marilyn, I'm curious about your relationship for it because you write
00:50:57.020
about him also quite often and he clearly has a theory of the psyche that you find fruitful
00:51:07.260
for some points of view, but at the same time you can't buy into it, holy.
00:51:15.380
I certainly can.
00:51:20.820
The essay that I wrote in, well, I think it's when I was a child.
00:51:25.100
No, no, it's in the one on the Terry Lectures when absence of mind.
00:51:32.020
What I did was look at what Freud was writing in a certain period and then look what books
00:51:37.420
were strongly present in the culture around him so that I was reading him as if he
00:51:44.460
were answering back two tendencies in the culture.
00:51:50.060
For example, over against the idea that Jews or that alien people of whatever stigmatized
00:51:58.340
sort in that period were the source of corruption and human experience.
00:52:03.340
He creates this narrative about birth and infancy and all these things by themselves being
00:52:09.380
this source of corruption.
00:52:12.500
He takes something that is an anxiety of the culture and he recasts it into another
00:52:17.220
kind of anthropology and effect that if he were taken seriously would take the aspirational
00:52:23.980
way from the checks or the gypsies or the Jews or whoever was being pilloried at the time
00:52:31.460
in public opinion.
00:52:35.060
I think that that was a heroic thing that he was putting his prestige to the best
00:52:41.220
work I think he could find for it but I don't think he was describing the human psyche.
00:52:46.860
You don't find that there's some thinking about original sin or there's some way in which
00:52:51.500
there's a Freudian version of original sin that has its own dynamic but there's a deep
00:53:00.580
sense of the fallenness of our condition and that the most we can do is arrive at a certain
00:53:06.620
level of discontent where we can get through the day.
00:53:11.780
That's very heroic.
00:53:13.780
No, I respect Freud.
00:53:16.180
I just don't agree with anything you said.
00:53:20.340
Since we're jumping around from one to another Shakespeare it's been usually important
00:53:24.580
and when you read and re-reach Shakespeare what is it that maybe gives you a sense that
00:53:35.140
this person comes from another planet even though he's so deeply human.
00:53:40.180
I mean he's so brilliant.
00:53:43.180
I read him, I watched DVDs and all this sort of thing and then I'll be going about other
00:53:49.900
business and some praise will come to my mind and I think that's brilliant.
00:53:57.460
He had of course, he was working with a brand new language for all purposes.
00:54:03.980
He had of course pre-crisis and all that sort of thing but the sense of what you could do
00:54:08.380
with English at that point was obviously so wonderful and the way he moves back and forth
00:54:14.900
it's so fluently between learned language and vernacular and so on and it's beautiful.
00:54:22.020
I have the same feeling sometimes when I read Wallace Stevens that this is his beautiful
00:54:26.220
as language can be.
00:54:27.940
Is that right with Wallace Stevens?
00:54:29.380
Yes.
00:54:30.540
I get it sometimes with Poe and his pen.
00:54:33.460
Yes, exactly and that sort of that disciplining elegance that he achieves from time to time
00:54:39.860
in his language.
00:54:41.900
Well I know that English is like two and a half times larger than the second largest language
00:54:49.580
in the world and I don't know if it's Chinese or some other and that the ordinary English
00:54:56.340
speaker speaks with 5% of the language and maybe writes with 10.
00:55:00.940
If you're very learned academics like us you might use 15 maybe you as a novelist you
00:55:07.700
get 17% and Shakespeare who use the resources of English more than any other person according
00:55:17.020
to the OED use maybe 28 to 30% max which means that there's 70% of our language which
00:55:24.380
is lying dormant or in a state of potentiality remained to be activated and he did a lot
00:55:31.180
to expand and to render the romance languages part of the right into the English genome
00:55:45.100
as it were and render romance languages part of the fabric of our English language.
00:55:53.460
So he's done just for English and enormous amount but also in terms of our self understanding
00:56:01.820
ourselves and yet he himself the author remains totally opaque.
00:56:07.460
Yes, totally opaque.
00:56:09.260
If he'd explain himself I'm sure we wouldn't have understood so that's right.
00:56:14.700
But you know one of the things that's such a pleasure about writing is that you find out
00:56:20.460
that that dormant vocabulary is actually there waiting and you come to a place where
00:56:26.140
that you know there's a word that you absolutely need you know take a walk around the
00:56:30.340
block a pops up.
00:56:32.540
But does it pop up for you in your mind or do you actually go and look through the OED
00:56:37.540
I've tried to look through the OED and see all these words that I've never heard of before
00:56:42.580
and somehow they don't pop up in my mind.
00:56:46.140
Words pop up in my mind from time to time and I'm very gratified to realize that they're
00:56:50.340
there.
00:56:51.340
Right.
00:56:53.340
And do you feel completely immersed as a native English writer or a writer of English?
00:57:01.220
I do.
00:57:02.220
I do.
00:57:03.220
There's no competing.
00:57:04.220
I read French to a certain extent and so on but it's certainly nothing that I have
00:57:10.020
in my fingertips.
00:57:11.620
Right.
00:57:13.660
Well of course French is very different because it has a much more restricted vocabulary
00:57:19.940
and lexicon and it's also extremely a language of great clarity and the resources for French
00:57:28.940
writer are much more limited of what can be said and I have French friends who claim
00:57:34.380
that that is a positive rather than a negative because English is so wide open and that
00:57:39.700
there's a wilderness there of options and choices and possibilities that it leads to
00:57:45.700
of course from the point of view of French classicism forms of anarchic literature like
00:57:51.220
Shakespeare.
00:57:52.220
But you know I'm told that a lot of young French writers want to write in English.
00:57:56.420
Yeah.
00:57:57.420
I can understand that.
00:57:58.420
Yes.
00:57:59.420
I can understand.
00:58:01.460
Well Marilyn I know that a lot of the listeners of this show are looking forward to reading
00:58:07.060
not only the givenness of things which is your new book that has just come out but
00:58:10.580
also to a new novel of yours so whatever it takes to gather that solitude around you and
00:58:20.980
get into that frame of mind that will enable you to give life to characters as well as
00:58:28.740
to this kind of mental life that takes place inside the characters and to keep those metaphors
00:58:34.140
coming forth that that that end up collapsing on themselves.
00:58:37.380
You know a lot of people that will be grateful for that.
00:58:40.500
Well thank you very much.
00:58:41.900
I'll try to accommodate.
00:58:44.900
Remind us that we've been speaking with the writer and essayist Marilyn Robinson.
00:58:48.780
I'm Robert Harrison for entitled opinions.
00:58:51.060
Thanks for tuning in.
00:58:52.060
We'll be with you next week.
00:58:53.300
[Music]
00:59:03.300
[Music]
00:59:23.300
[Music]
00:59:33.300
[Music]
00:59:43.300
[Music]
00:59:53.300
[Music]
01:00:03.300
[Music]
01:00:13.300
[Music]
01:00:23.300
[Music]
01:00:33.300
[Music]
01:00:43.300
[Music]
01:00:53.300
[Music]
01:01:13.300
[Music]
01:01:33.300
[Music]
01:01:43.300
[Music]
01:01:53.300
[Music]
01:02:03.300
[Music]
01:02:13.300
[Music]
01:02:23.300
[Music]
01:02:33.300
[Music]
01:02:43.300
[Music]
01:02:53.300
[Music]
01:03:03.300
[Music]
01:03:13.300
[Music]
01:03:23.300
[Music]
01:03:33.300
[Music]
01:03:43.300
[Music]
01:03:53.300
[Music]
01:04:03.300
[Music]
01:04:13.300
[Music]
01:04:23.300
[Music]
01:04:33.300
[Music]
01:04:43.300
[Music]
01:04:53.300
[Music]
01:05:03.300
[Music]
01:05:05.300
[Music]