I meant to read Nothing Dies (1940) during the 1940 Club earlier this year – somehow, even though it is only 98 pages, I didn’t get around to finishing it. And now I have!
J.W. Dunne is one of those names that you might be familiar with from reading about the 1920s and ’30s, even if you haven’t read him directly. As the cover above says, he was known for An Experiment With Time – one of those books which was influential far beyond the reach of people who actually read it. It crops up in all sorts of places, including a mention in Miss Hargreaves, and was something of a byword for theories about time – much like Einstein or Freud are mentioned by people who never read their original works.
But, unlike Einstein and Freud, I don’t think J.W. Dunne is a household name now. I certainly haven’t read An Experiment With Time (1927) in the many years I’ve owned it, and probably should have read it for my DPhil. And, let me tell you, if Nothing Dies is a ‘brief and simple outline of the author’s famous Time theory’ (as the cover alleges) then I’m never going near An Experiment With Time. I didn’t really have a clue what was going on.
After a chapter about ‘sense data’ that is clearly intended to ease us in, Dunne starts in on his idea or time that relies on various questions of perspectives. This is one of the diagrams to elucidate matters:
In short, Dunne rejects the idea of time as something linear and one-way. We can perceive all of time from a second vantage that shows it is all available at once, and… well, I don’t really think I understood any of Dunne’s conclusions.
I haven’t quoted anything from Nothing Dies, and perhaps it will make sense to others. Certainly there was an audience in 1940 who could grasp this version – or at least enough presumed demand that this book was published. I can’t say I understood what Dunne was trying to say, let alone being convinced by it, and I have no idea how he is considered as a time theorist nowadays.
It’s always intriguing to go to the text behind the cultural phenomenon, though usually (to me) it is less interesting than the discussion of those cultural figures that filtered down to the middlebrow. I’ve always found reading about Freud more interesting than reading Freud’s writing, and I definitely get more from seeing Dunne pop up in contemporary conversations than I got from reading Nothing Dies itself.