Descripción de aspectos formales y musicales

In lieu of a formal conclusion, in this fifth and final chapter I undertake something of a survey of terrain covered in the previous four chapters by coming at old matter in a new way. The focus of the chapter is

McLuhan’s “religious” commitments and his dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Where chapter four goes a long way towards

establishing McLuhan’s “debts” and identity with the tradition of Ciceronian humanism and the Men of 1914, here we emphasise

McLuhan’s “credits” and his role as a “stranger” to both. McLuhan, the “agent of Rome,”99 _{was just as much the “enemy” of the Church as of the}

secular world.100

98 _{One of the key omissions of this chapter is the issue of McLuhan’s health. The matter} is treated extensively in the respective biographies by Philip Marchand and W. Terrence Gordon.

99 _{“In England and in Austria and Germany I was openly and explicitly called (in}

Corinne’s presence) an undercover agent of Rome. This is the Jonathan Millar charge in his McLuhan,” (McLuhan to Sheila Watson, 4 September 1971). In the letter McLuhan also documents his encounter with the hostility of John Wain. Wain apparently made a similar charge to that of Miller, to which McLuhan replied, “…but I never mention

Having, then, recast much of the preceding material in a new light, chapter five moves to contend with a new phase in McLuhan’s career — his path back from an indirect to a more direct mode of operation and, eventually, his reoccupation of the role of scientist. The chapter concludes rather abruptly by laying the foundation for a consideration of two of McLuhan’s major works that were only completed after his death.

At this juncture, before beginning this work proper, only one further matter remains. My readers have suggested that the following departs from what is “traditionally” expected of a doctoral dissertation (particularly in the wake of the ascendancy of dialectics in the

humanities). Consequently, it has been advised that certain readers may benefit from some explicit guidance as to how to engage with and read this dissertation. With a view to providing such guidance I ask that the reader be aware of four issues. Firstly, the reader is advised to expect an experimental work — one that is, perhaps, not completely successful beyond opening up completely new ground. Secondly, the reader is discouraged from a search for closure, at least at the level of explicit statement. This work is an exploration and the co-presence of multiple simultaneous points of view militates against closure — a feature of McLuhan’s procedure he was at pains to highlight in his correspondence with Griessman:

The entire series is innovative insofar as there have been no treatments of any major figures in these terms. That fact alone suggests the folly of finality as a goal. If the series succeeds in opening

religion.” He also recounts how Wain responded, asserting “that is the proof,” (Ibid). “The left wing,” McLuhan adds, “have me classified as enemy, and that’s a lot of public.” 100 _{I use the term “enemy” to denote the posture and role of the artist as formulated by} Wyndham Lewis. This matter is explored at some length in the following chapter.

up completely new ground over and over, I think it may serve uses that go far beyond the quest for prestige and respectability.101

Thirdly, the reader should not be surprised to encounter McLuhan, at times, as a figure not unlike Ruskin,102 _{and always like Cicero’s ideal}

orator.103 _{Apparently “contradictory” statements made by McLuhan are}

frequent throughout this work, often side-by-side or in close proximity. I have made no effort to lessen or resolve these tension(s) or absolve McLuhan of his contradictions and/or ambivalence on the grounds that they are an integral feature of his praxis and his theory of

communication.104 _{Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the reader also}

ought to be prepared to encounter several rhetorical tactics not dissimilar to, or at least sympathetic with, McLuhan’s own rhetorical praxis. As I have indicated earlier in this section, this work is intended to be an echo. This is, perhaps, most evident in this work’s use of footnotes, which are legion. The notes to this text often operate as a subplot, moving in

parallel with the “primary” text, providing digressions, additional views, enriching and enlivening rather than directly contributing to and

fortifying a linear and connected argument. In sum, and in view of these

101 _{McLuhan to Judith Greissman, 14 July 1971}

102 _{McLuhan has appeared to several of his critics in a fashion not dissimilar to his own} description of Ruskin. Ruskin’s mind, McLuhan notes, appears to be a “catchall for any situation” and he could “concoct a theory to fit any situation.” Further, McLuhan notes of Ruskin that he had an eye that couldn’t help see when something did not fit with one of his “quack” theories and never failed to change his theory in view of the absence of fit. McLuhan, review of Ruskin and the Landscape of Feeling: A Critical Analysis of his Thought During the Crucial Years of his Life, 1846–56, by Francis G. Townsend, MS., 1. 103 _{C.f. Jerrold E. Seigel, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism: The} Union of Eloquence and Wisdom, Petrach to Valla (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1968), 29. Cited earlier in this section.

104 _{McLuhan’s “ambivalence” is elegantly captured by Sorel Etrog’s use of hinges in} place of eyes and mouth in his portrait of McLuhan. See Figure xxi in Chapter Five.

issues, the reader is advised that this dissertation can be fruitfully read as a fellow explorer, in the same spirit as McLuhan himself “read” the

traditions — classical, humanist, modernist — which informed his life and work, and by adopting an analogous posture to McLuhan’s own in the face of these texts.

Let us go then, you and I, When the evening is spread out against the sky Like a patient etherized upon a table.105

105 _{T. S. Eliot, “The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock,” in The Wasteland and Other} Poems [sound recording] read by Ted Hughes (London: Faber Audio Books, 1996).

1