Well!
Diane was kind enough (??) to identify me as the critical parent on this thread, but if I were, I certainly weren’t a very watchful one, and while my back was turned, the kids were running wild. The fact is that for some reason the system had failed to alert me that there was any activity going on here for the past week, and I was too distracted by other obligations to check the Forum. So, kids, it’s not like I’m not
caring…
Diane,
I appreciate your input regarding depression very much, especially:
It also addresses the issue of nine out of ten people, who have heard of Leonard Cohen, believing that he "is depressing". I imagine Wilberg would say that he invites you to enter the depressive process, that that is the sense in which he is depressing, and that is a positive thing!
However, I’m not sure we need Wilberg for this. For many years, the more depressed I was, the more I needed LC by my side (metaphorically speaking, of course). What to some people seemed depressing, to me seemed uplifting (perhaps to most people it seemed depressing in the past, but what shall we say now, when hundreds of thousands are rushing to his concerts all around the world? Not an easy question either; perhaps another time). So, based on my personal experience, in what way can LC be called “depressing”? Wilberg seems to be trying to square the circle, although intuitively I’d say he may have something there. But I can’t say anything meaningful before I read him more closely, and that would not happen soon, unfortunately.
In another matter you wrote:
This reminds me of the wonderful Irish writer John O'Donohue (RIP), who said that our longing is for something within, as much as without. He said, "For too long, we have believed that the divine is outside us. This belief has strained our longing disastrously. This is so lonely since it is human longing that makes us holy."
I must say I find this difficult too, and I’m not sure I get it. Does he mean that (a) there is nothing divine outside us, (b) there is something divine inside us, (c) or both inside and outside us? Or perhaps (d) there is nothing divine either inside or outside us, but our longing makes us “holy” (meaning what?). Each one of these possibilities is worth reflecting upon, but I’d like to understand first what he wishes to say (I apologize if I’m missing the obvious; could be linguistic limitations).
As for the question of capitalizing – not only you/You, but also name/Name, and more - I believe we’ve been through it before but reached no positive conclusions. Perhaps he was trying to leave several interpretations possible (see below), but I wouldn’t ascribe too much meaning to it. Now, does this make me an heretic?
As for the identity of “you” (also discussed before, for example #13), I agree the answer may be complex, and that “psychology” may be involved. He may be addressing himself sometimes, from a different angle (as in “Famous Blue Raincoat”). But I also think that each case should be studied critically. In the case of #41 it is tempting to interpret “you” as addressing himself (“I look far, I forget you and I’m lost”; “I kneel toward my heart” etc.), but that would also be too self-aggrandizing, even for a self-absorbed artist. I can’t see the speaker here losing the “you” as the
other, whether divine or human. The natural inclination is to read this piece in a religious key, but it is also possible to read it as a love poem, if one insists.
Now as for Greg vs. Cate, Greg vs. Mat, etc., I’m too scared to stick my head between such huge mountains, so please excuse me if I add nothing more and get back to watching from the stands.
(or Leonard)