In yesterday's Times Magazine profile of Lewis Hyde, author of The Gift, the interviewer Daniel B. Smith notes:
Hyde’s fans ... routinely use words like “transformative” and “life-altering” to describe his books, which they’ve been known to pass hand to hand like spiritual texts or samizdat manifestoes.
I can vouch for the truth of this statement. When I first met Jamie Byng, head of Canongate and my UK publisher, he enthusiastically thrust a copy of The Gift into my hands, describing it as essential, transformative and profound. He turned out to be right on all counts. I'm often asked why I persist here at TEV for no financial rewards. The best answer I can offer is to stick a copy of The Gift into your hands, albeit virtually.
Perhaps the Times profile will bring Hyde the widespread attention he deserves. If you want to know more, you can hear him intereviewed here on Bookworm.
Well, Mr. TEV, I'm about to purchase this book because you say so. Of course, my summer has been the best literary once I've had since I was in school with the books you mentioned you were using for the first novel thing you did in Australia. So, thank you...
Posted by: JW | November 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM
JW, you won't be sorry. The Gift is a gift. I was just recommending it to a fellow writer friend last week. And Trickster Makes This World is fantastic, too. Lewis Hyde should be better known for sure--a poetic scholar, a scholastic poet, the most organic of intellectuals.
Posted by: Antoine Wilson | November 17, 2008 at 12:14 PM
You should read Hyde's essay, "Alcohol and Poetry: John Berryman and the Booze Talking"--it's fantastic. It's the first Hyde piece I read (and I discovered it from a citation in a DFW essay).
Posted by: Tim Jacobs | November 17, 2008 at 06:25 PM
I thought the Times article was quite illuminating as to this Lewis Hyde fellow, and I'm planning to look for The Gift.
One passage in the article has me a bit confused though, "In 1998, he published an essay in which he took the same approach to Thoreau as he does to Franklin, showing that for all his vaunted individualism, Thoreau could not have produced his work without the rich community and communal institutions surrounding him in Concord. It was the first expression of the thesis that would grow into the heart of Hyde’s new project, and it was the first piece of the project that I read."
Aren't we all products of our environment to a very large extent? Thoreau would not have been the same man he was if he had grown up in 20th century Los Angeles, for example. The "breakthrough" works of art that our culture has produced are always defined by the culture in which they came to be. How and why is this idea considered a new "thesis"? I'm sure reading the 1998 essay referenced would shed light on this question too.
I'd love to hear others thoughts on this subject.
Posted by: Brian | November 20, 2008 at 07:05 PM