Greatest author of the 20th cent?
Mr. Blonde
"greatest" (define as you will) author of the last 100 years?
Personally, I'd have to say Kafka. He developed themes that have become
staples of subsequent literature. Did a wonderful job of illustrating
the dehumanizing tendency of modernization and industrialization, an
issue that we're still trying to deal with.
Any other nominees?
Lorinta Zonia
Odds Botkin
>
> James Joyce. For taking the novel over the rainbow.
But how can there be an answer to anything like this? Surely, at the
least, it would be a national/cultural thing (leaving aside personal
preferences), in which case I would vote for Scott Fitzgerald -- not
as an "author," but as a *writer.* Joyce's greatness I have no
trouble perceiving, but nothing he ever wrote has touched me to the
quick (and I don't mean that in a "sentimental" sense). I am, I
suppose, the last champion of the middle brow -- I can't escape the
assumption that a writer without readers is no writer at all, and that
the reality of reading (and writing) pays no attention to theories or
quibbles.
May I add parenthetically () that of all the newsgroups I've ever
ventured into on the so-called Net, r.a.b. leads fastest, and with
least purpose, to a bed of quicksand. I say this cheerfully, as-
suming that we are all the sum of our own opinions.
OB
Gwen A Orel
Not my personal favorite, but definitely the most influential,
IMHO.
Gwen
Odds Botkin (obo...@together.net) wrote:
: OB
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Meanwhile
I'd like to sneak Mark Twain in on the technicality that
he was still alive and writing in this century :)
But if I can't have Mark, then I'd have to say
John Steinbeck.
It was wonderful when I was living in Monterey- people
walking around reading Steinbeck.
donnah
Mark Taranto
"Mr Blonde" (je...@acpub.duke.edu) wonders:
As the end of the century approaches, any ideas on
who was the "greatest" (define as you will) author
of the last 100 years? Personally, I'd have to say
Kafka.
The 20th century will probably be remembered for its movies
rather than its books. Perhaps that makes Orson Welles the
greatest author of the century.
As for novelists, if I limit myself to those who write in
English, I'd have to say E. M. Forster, James Joyce, Kazuo
Ishiguro, and Evelyn Waugh (in that order).
For Poetry, I'll say W. B. Yeats, W. H. Auden and T. S. Eliot.
For playwrights there is only one: Tom Stoppard.
Mark
Meanwhile
: : For playwrights there is only one: Tom Stoppard.
Tennessee would give him a run for the money.
Short Stories: Somerset Maugham.
This topic just makes me want to go read.
I'm outta here.
d.
Richard Poutt
: As the end of the century approaches, any ideas on who was the
: the dehumanizing tendency of modernization and industrialization, an
: issue that we're still trying to deal with.
: Any other nominees?
Chick Young.
Tom9981
certainly, but we've had a lot of great books & plays.
Kafka, Borges, Nabokov, Joyce, Proust, Stienbeck, Eliot, Singer, and
a lot of other. Pynchon is a fave for me. Along with Stoppard you get
O'Niell, Williams, Orton, and Albee.
What about painting, printmaking, sculpture, architecture?
It's been a busy century...
Lars Carlzon
rpo...@opus.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Richard Poutt) wrote:
> Mr. Blonde (je...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
> : As the end of the century approaches, any ideas on who was the
> : "greatest" (define as you will) author of the last 100 years?
(snip)
> : Any other nominees?
> Chick Young.
I would like to NOMINATE Romain Rolland, if that might mean that someone
out there will "discover" Jean-Christophe.
Nobody seems to read R.R. in Sweden nowadays - how is the situation out
there?
Any thoughts about his visions for Europe?
L.C.
Gwen A Orel
: You only get one? The 20th Century will be remembered for films,
: certainly, but we've had a lot of great books & plays.
: Kafka, Borges, Nabokov, Joyce, Proust, Stienbeck, Eliot, Singer, and
: a lot of other. Pynchon is a fave for me. Along with Stoppard you get
: O'Niell, Williams, Orton, and Albee.
Albee and Stoppard would not be writing if not for Beckett. _Waiting
for Godot_ changed the shape of theatre forever. He is far and away
the most significant playwright of the last hundred years.
: What about painting, printmaking, sculpture, architecture?
: It's been a busy century...
Gwen
paul ilechko
#>Samuel Beckett.
#>Not my personal favorite, but definitely the most influential,
#>IMHO.
#>Gwen
If you are looking for writers who have radically enhanced the
possibilities for the various forms of literature, I would say that
Beckett is not a bad choice, except that there would have been no
Beckett without Joyce - then again maybe there would have been no
Joyce without Faulkner ...
Much as i admire Pynchon and Gaddis, their output is too small to be
considered.
Graham Greene is a possible candidate, but maybe not serious enough -
ditto Flann O'Brien.
For writers in other languages, Brecht, Sartre, Camus, Garcia Marquez,
Cortazar.
Greatest American I would say is Faulkner, not least because of
followers like Flannery O'Connor and Carson McCullers.
I think for sheer consistency and inventiveness I might have to go
with Nabokov.
Paul.
This story is fiction, not a report. It describes a reality
which is not necessarily that of the reader's own experience...
Mark Taranto
Gwen Orel writes:
Albee and Stoppard would not be writing if not for Beckett.
_Waiting for Godot_ changed the shape of theatre forever.
He is far and away the most significant playwright of the
last hundred years.
The question asks for the greatest, not the most significant authors --
so I stand by Stoppard. His body of work is greater -- on the whole, and
individually.
I suggest that he would, indeed, have been writing had not Beckett come
along.
I suggest, further, that Beckett might never written about Existential
Angst had not Sartre paved the way for him. Does that make Sartre more
influential?
Mark
anthony kim
>Albee and Stoppard would not be writing if not for Beckett. _Waiting
>for Godot_ changed the shape of theatre forever. He is far and away
>the most significant playwright of the last hundred years.
>Gwen
>--
>"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
>I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Yes but we forget Ionesco although not as widely & wildly acclaimed as
Beckett. Also does Shaw have a foot on this moutain of greatness?
Or, in terms of general popular appeal, Neil Simon?
(okay okay I take that back--sheesh)
anthony
Gwen A Orel
: For playwrights there is only one: Tom Stoppard.
He's my personal favorite, but his works would not be the
way they are if not for playwright Sam Beckett!
Lars Carlzon
"Mr. Blonde" <je...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> As the end of the century approaches, any ideas on who was the
> "greatest" (define as you will) author of the last 100 years?
> Personally, I'd have to say Kafka. He developed themes that have become
> staples of subsequent literature. Did a wonderful job of illustrating
> the dehumanizing tendency of modernization and industrialization, an
> issue that we're still trying to deal with.
> Any other nominees?
Marcel Proust - he built a cathedral in the 20th century.
The acoustics inside are most suitable for a monument from the 19th
century; architect: Richard Wagner.
Gwen A Orel
I admire Stoppard too, but _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead-
in outlook and situation is very much a reworking of _Godot_.
Mark Taranto (m...@mail.duke.edu) wrote:
: The question asks for the greatest, not the most significant authors --
: so I stand by Stoppard. His body of work is greater -- on the whole, and
: individually.
: I suggest that he would, indeed, have been writing had not Beckett come
: along.
He would be writing more Noel Cowardly and stuff like _Enter a Free Man_.
Sartre is existential but his form is Realism.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but why do you think
Stoppard's works are individually and as a body greater?
They are more entertaining no doubt and very rich, but greatest
of the 20th century is a title I reserve for those whose work
was inconceivable beforehand, and who made work afterwords
inconceivable without.
BTW, Pinter as well as Stoppard has expressed this sentiment about
Beckett.
Francis Muir
While Beckett may be influenced by Joyce, his creation of a genre
labelled by Martin Esslin "absurd" is a radical departure from
Joyce, whose situations are not absurd. It is impossible to
evaluate any post-Beckettian playwright without taking Beckett
into consideration.
While WAITING FOR GODOT (1952) has absurd elements, you have to go back two
years to 1950 to see where those elements came from: Ionesco's LA CANTATRICE
CHAUVE. Beckett may be a more substantial writer than Ionesco, but I would
question his influence. For me his substance is seen particularly in his
translations of Mexican poetry for Octavio Paz, and for some others it might
be his biography of Proust - there was a lot of writing before GODOT. When I
read Alan Bennett I am not conscious of Beckett, but perhaps Ms Orel doesn't
think of Bennett as her kind of playwright. But going back to the 50's, must
Jean Anouilh and Christopher Fry be evaluated in terms of Beckett? I don't
think so.
Fino
Gwen A Orel
: While WAITING FOR GODOT (1952) has absurd elements, you have to go back two
: years to 1950 to see where those elements came from: Ionesco's LA CANTATRICE
: CHAUVE. Beckett may be a more substantial writer than Ionesco, but I would
P.s.
Beckett's _Godot_ owes nothing to The Bald Soprano and everything to
his own written fiction.
Identities do not shift in Godot, for example, Lucky is Lucky,
Gogo is Gogo. Time does pass-- the tree is bare-- but nothing
happens. Bald Soprano is circular and in fact a big joke.
Godot uses vaudeville humor but is not a joke but a tragedy.
Ionesco's work became increasingly allegorical and limited; Beckett's
increasingly abstract and broad.
Gwen A Orel
And while Ionesco is also absurdist, he is not also existentialist,
in fact his plays are decidedly leftist.
Francis Muir (fra...@pangea.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: While WAITING FOR GODOT (1952) has absurd elements, you have to go back two
: years to 1950 to see where those elements came from: Ionesco's LA CANTATRICE
: CHAUVE. Beckett may be a more substantial writer than Ionesco, but I would
You may, but those in theatre don't. Not Stoppard, Pinter or any of
the others. Anouilh and Fry may have ignored Beckett, but they are not
considered the greatest playwrights of this century.
It's a bit like saying that LeCorbusier did not change architecture
because people were still building Art Nouveau while he was writing
_Vers Une Architecture_.
There are still people who write like Shaw. The point is that the
state of theatre will never be the same.
: read Alan Bennett I am not conscious of Beckett, but perhaps Ms Orel doesn't
: think of Bennett as her kind of playwright. But going back to the 50's, must
: Jean Anouilh and Christopher Fry be evaluated in terms of Beckett? I don't
: think so.
Once again, it really has nothing to do with personal taste. Beckett
is not my favorite writer. I don't much care for Alan Bennett either.
That's neither here nor there. The point is that Beckett did for theatre
what perhaps Joyce did for fiction; he changed the way people think about
it.
Forever.
Gwen
anthony t. kim
|Beckett precedes Ionesco.
|anthony kim (anth...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
|: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
|: >Albee and Stoppard would not be writing if not for Beckett. _Waiting
|: >for Godot_ changed the shape of theatre forever. He is far and away
|: >the most significant playwright of the last hundred years.
Well, it's true Beckett precedes Ionesco (oh these nits are hard to
pick) but The Bald Soprano precedes Waiting for Godot by a couple of
years.
Vive l'absurd.
anthony
Carroll Bishop
>
> James Joyce. For taking the novel over the rainbow.
>
D. H. Lawrence. For putting the Rainbow into a novel.
Andrew Felton
wrote:
> As the end of the century approaches, any ideas on who was the
>"greatest" (define as you will) author of the last 100 years?
>Personally, I'd have to say Kafka. He developed themes that have become
>staples of subsequent literature. Did a wonderful job of illustrating
>the dehumanizing tendency of modernization and industrialization, an
>issue that we're still trying to deal with.
> Any other nominees?
>
By far, Isaac Asimov. The most prolific, he completely defined an
entire genre of literature and his stories are pretty damn good, too
:-)
Andy Felton http://www.webcom.com/~afelton
--------------------------------------------------
Why have an ordinary band name like "Vengeance" when
you can call yourselves "Primer Grey Erection?"
-Jello Biafra
---------------------------------------------------
savvy10
>wrote:
>
>> As the end of the century approaches, any ideas on who was the
>>"greatest" (define as you will) author of the last 100 years?
>>Personally, I'd have to say Kafka. He developed themes that have
become
>>staples of subsequent literature. Did a wonderful job of
illustrating
>>the dehumanizing tendency of modernization and industrialization, an
>>issue that we're still trying to deal with.
>> Any other nominees?
Hi,
Steinbeck, definitely Steinbeck.
--
Clever policy consists in making nations believe they are free.
-Napoleon Bonaparte
Francis Muir
Francis Muir writes:
But going back to the 50's, must Jean Anouilh and Christopher
Fry be evaluated in terms of Beckett? I don't think so.
Once again, it really has nothing to do with personal taste.
Beckett is not my favorite writer. I don't much care for Alan
Bennett either. That's neither here nor there. The point is
that Beckett did for theatre what perhaps Joyce did for fiction;
he changed the way people think about it.
I am neither so young nor so foolish that I could advance such absolute
positions with so little argument, nor so stupid as I would see any point
in contradicting them. There is only one universally acknowledged truth
and it does not concern the admirable Sam Beckett's place in the theatre.
Forever.
Is this like the stamp of tiny feet?
Fino
Gwen A Orel
I'm not writing anything that literally hundreds of professors
haven't said before me, including Stanford's own Martin Esslin.
Your assertions that Beckett is known for his translations are
laughable. Do you know anything about theatre history, what
playwrights and directors say about their work and their influences,
or are you just speaking off the top of your hat? Argument for
its own sake?
If you'd suggested Artaud, for example, we might have a discussion,
but you come back with Anouilh? Fry? Bennett? Perhaps I am too
heavily influenced by Modernism, but I find significance in the
number of people who claim that Beckett (and Artuad, for example)
have changed theatre, have changed their own approaches, have
made _great_ contributions.
And again, I was not even speaking of my own personal preferences.
I don't particularly prefer the Stanislavski approach, for example,
but he's far and away the most significant acting personage of this
century.
But look, I know you find me unreliable, so please, ask someone at
your local theatre department, or read a good book of theatre histry.
If it's just about your own opinion and you don't want to be
tainted with others (like historians or theorists) then this really
is just argument for its own sake. Warn me next time, I'll refrain
from replying.
Francis Muir
Beckett's GODOT owes nothing to THE BALD SOPRANO and everything to
his own written fiction. Identities do not shift in Godot, for
example, Lucky is Lucky, Gogo is Gogo. Time does pass-- the tree
is bare-- but nothing happens. Bald Soprano is circular and in fact
a big joke. Godot uses vaudeville humor but is not a joke but a
tragedy. Ionesco's work became increasingly allegorical and limited;
Beckett's increasingly abstract and broad.
I have no particular quarrel with this analysis except that we were debating
one element in both these playwrights works, namely the absurd, and, in
particular, its source. It is a major element in Ionesco and a minor one in
Beckett, and to the play-going Parisian there was never any doubt that
absurdity was quintessential to LA CANTATRICE CHAUVE which preceded EN
ATTENDANT GODOT by two years. Again, we are discussing influence, not
substance.
Persons interested in studying Beckett might wish to consult Kenner who
couples Beckett with Flaubert and Joyce as stoic comedians.
Fino
Ted Samsel
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net *1996* Year of the Accordion~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Home of the brave, land of the free,
I don't want to be mistreated by no bourgoisie."
Huddie Ledbetter
Philip Nikolayev
Francis Muir writes:
There is only one universally acknowledged truth and it does
not concern the admirable Sam Beckett's place in the theatre.
No? Silly me, why did I think it did!
Philip
Jeff Inman
: Once again, it really has nothing to do with personal taste. Beckett
: is not my favorite writer. I don't much care for Alan Bennett either.
: That's neither here nor there. The point is that Beckett did for theatre
: what perhaps Joyce did for fiction; he changed the way people think about
: it.
I thought Beckett did some pretty good things for fiction. Too.
Maybe it's just a taste thing.
--
Jeff Inman j...@santafe.edu
"I, _____JEFF_INMAN______, do hereby validate this document by attaching
the seals at left. Notify me at once if I am a millionaire."
Daniel Jonathan Kleinfeld
> Gwen Orel writes:
>
> Francis Muir writes:
>
> But going back to the 50's, must Jean Anouilh and Christopher
> Fry be evaluated in terms of Beckett? I don't think so.
>
> Once again, it really has nothing to do with personal taste.
> Beckett is not my favorite writer. I don't much care for Alan
> Bennett either. That's neither here nor there. The point is
> that Beckett did for theatre what perhaps Joyce did for fiction;
> he changed the way people think about it.
Nothing against Bennett, Anouilh, or Fry, but there's no
comparison. They may all be fine writers in their particular form (I'm
not crazy about any of them, but that's neither here nor there), but
Beckett reinvented the form. So did Ionesco, but for various reasons,
Beckett's influence proved stronger and his carreer broader (not only
plays, but also novels, poetry, etc.)
>
> I am neither so young nor so foolish that I could advance such absolute
> positions with so little argument, nor so stupid as I would see any point
> in contradicting them. There is only one universally acknowledged truth
> and it does not concern the admirable Sam Beckett's place in the theatre.
What is the one universally acknowledged truth, if I may ask?
I've been wondering for years...
In terms of supporting the notion that Beckett is influential
(which is kinda like trying to prove that water is wet, but that's
neither here nor there):
1)He's the only playwright Sam Shepard would admit to reading
before he started writing.
2)Albee, who didn't even care for "Waiting for Godot", cited
Beckett as his central influence, and has directed a number of his works
(in fact, Beckett is the only playwright besides himself that Albee has
directed, as far as I know)
3) Damn near every major director from the 60s has acknowledged
him as the greatest playwright of the century---I'm talking about JOAnne
Akalitis, Joseph Chaiken, etc. Robert Wilson never showed much interest
in him, oddly enough... There's a book called "Directing Beckett" on this.
4)He's become sufficiently influental that actors get referred to
as "Beckett actors", directors as "Beckett directors". Like Shakespeare,
he's got a whole style of performance named after him.
This isn't intended as an anti-Ionesco statement---The Bald
Soprano is one of my favorite plays, though I actually think The Chairs
is a little better. I'm jsut saying that if we're going to define
importance in terms of influence, Beckett is a force to be reckoned with
in a way the above-mentioned playwrights just aren't. Now if we're
talking authors in general, I'd actually put Joyce above Beckett for
vastness of influence. Granted, more people probably know Beckett, but
if we're gonna do this on the basis of popularity, we may as well hand
the title over to Stephen King...
Daniel
Gwen A Orel
: If you are looking for writers who have radically enhanced the
: possibilities for the various forms of literature, I would say that
: Beckett is not a bad choice, except that there would have been no
: Beckett without Joyce - then again maybe there would have been no
: Joyce without Faulkner ...
Perhaps, but Joyce didn't change the face of _theatre_; Beckett did.
While Beckett may be influenced by Joyce, his creation of a genre
labelled by Martin Esslin "absurd" is a radical departure from
Joyce, whose situations are not absurd. It is impossible to
evaluate any post-Beckettian playwright without taking Beckett
into consideration.
Gwen A Orel
anthony kim (anth...@wolfenet.com) wrote:
: gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
: >Albee and Stoppard would not be writing if not for Beckett. _Waiting
: >for Godot_ changed the shape of theatre forever. He is far and away
: >the most significant playwright of the last hundred years.
: >Gwen
: >--
: >"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
: >I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
: Yes but we forget Ionesco although not as widely & wildly acclaimed as
: Beckett. Also does Shaw have a foot on this moutain of greatness?
: Or, in terms of general popular appeal, Neil Simon?
: (okay okay I take that back--sheesh)
: anthony
--
davemarc
>: You only get one? The 20th Century will be remembered for films,
>: certainly, but we've had a lot of great books & plays.
>
>: Kafka, Borges, Nabokov, Joyce, Proust, Stienbeck, Eliot, Singer, and
>: a lot of other. Pynchon is a fave for me. Along with Stoppard you get
>: O'Niell, Williams, Orton, and Albee.
>
>
>for Godot_ changed the shape of theatre forever. He is far and away
>the most significant playwright of the last hundred years.
>
I'm not sure if his connection to Beckett is really that strong.
And perhaps Jarry as well as Artaud can be added to the list of Beckett
precursors.
davemarc
Carroll Bishop
>
>
> Francis Muir writes:
>
> There is only one universally acknowledged truth and it does
> not concern the admirable Sam Beckett's place in the theatre.
Francis Muir probably refers to the opening lines of PRIDE AND
PREJUDICE:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single
man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want
of a wife.
Carroll Bishop (cbi...@interlog.com )
Daniel Jonathan Kleinfeld
> Hey thanks!
> I had to double check this to make sure I hadn't written it.
> Glad to see someone else knows a bit about theatre history here;
> it was turning into another "Gwen is so stubborn" thread.
> Someone posted that "for playwrights, there's only one:
> Tom Stoppard." Now I personally prefer him to Beckett, but
> greater than? Come on. Even he would deny it, and he'd be right!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gwen
No sweat.
The interesting question, though, which I'm suprised more people
haven't been raising, is what do we mean by greatest author? Do we mean
influence, which could give us Beckett, Joyce, or others?
Parenthetical statement: By the way,
do we mean they have to be writing int he 20th century *and* a major
influence on the 20th Century? If not, Chekhov and/or Dostoyevsky, who
laid the foundations for most of the 20th century; if so, we've pretty much
eliminated anyone writing after the early 1960s, since it's too early to
say who'll be influential. Hell, it's a little early to really talk
about 20th Century influences at all---who knows, maybe the 22nd century,
should there be literature in the 22nd century, will be built on
developing the work of the great literary theorist Stan Lee...)?
*END OF PARENTHETICAL STATEMENT*
Or do we mean in
terms of objective artistic critereon? I'm not opposed to setting up
such critereon, but I somehow suspect this newsgroup could get real ugly
real fast if anyone tried it... (the Jolly Roger cat would feel right at
home, though, as the level of discourse degenerated, so I guess that's
some consolation.
>
> : What is the one universally acknowledged truth, if I may ask?
> : I've been wondering for years...
Hey, I still wanna know this!
Daniel
Bob Wood
Hamsun, certainly in terms of influence.
Bob Wood
Heriot-Watt,
Edinburgh
Tim Truxell
Thomas Pynchon for bringing the rainbow to the earth.
Pom Fritt
wrote:
> For playwrights there is only one: Tom Stoppard.
>
O'Neill? Miller? Williams? Beckett? Shaw? The mind reels...
paul ilechko
#>nik...@scws40.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) wrote:
#>>
#>>
#>> Francis Muir writes:
#>>
#>> There is only one universally acknowledged truth and it does
#>> not concern the admirable Sam Beckett's place in the theatre.
#>Francis Muir probably refers to the opening lines of PRIDE AND
#>PREJUDICE:
#> It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single
#> man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want
#> of a wife.
and I thought he was talking about the opening lines of Tolstoy's Anna
K.
Paul.
This story is fiction, not a report. It describes a reality
which is not necessarily that of the reader's own experience...
Daniel Jonathan Kleinfeld
> Don't you think that Albee really does owe much more to Eugene O'Neill?
> I'm not sure if his connection to Beckett is really that strong.
Albee certainly thinks of himself as more influenced by Beckett,
though. That's much clearer if you look at his earlier work ("The
American Dream", "The Sandbox", "Tiny Alice"), but he's said as much in a
number of interviews.
Daniel
Gary Lee Stonum
Avinoam Mann
(Francis Muir) writes...
[main message skipped]
>I am neither so young nor so foolish that I could advance such absolute
>positions with so little argument...
> There is only one universally acknowledged truth
> Fino
HUH??
Gwen A Orel
davemarc (dave...@panix.com) wrote:
: Don't you think that Albee really does owe much more to Eugene O'Neill?
Oh, I don't know. His early plays are definitely working in
an existential absurdist mode, and he himself cites Beckett as
an influence.
: I'm not sure if his connection to Beckett is really that strong.
: And perhaps Jarry as well as Artaud can be added to the list of Beckett
: precursors.
Gwen
Avinoam Mann
<cbi...@interlog.com> writes...>> There is only one universally acknowledged truth and it does
>> not concern the admirable Sam Beckett's place in the theatre.
>
> It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single
Darn, how could I have forgotten that! And Fido/Fino/Vino is such a lover of
Austen, too.
Gwen A Orel
: THE REAL THING is my favorite. Believe me -- I don't mean to
: belittle Beckett -- I rather admire him. But WAITING FOR GODOT
: strikes me, rather, as a Commedia dell'arte version of Sartre's NO
: EXIT. It didn't seem innovative to me at all -- certainly not when
: compared to someone like, say, Pirandello.
I adore _The Real Thing_; it's a profound work of faith and love
and philosophy.
Pirandello is a great playwright too, though not one of my favorites,
but his work and Beckett's are leagues apart. Pirandello was
a Surrealist and Expressionist. His plays do have dramatic structure
and work within recognizable theatrical forms.
Beckett uses vaudeville, and addresses the theme of existence, but his work
is really non-dramatic in structure. And it is in his repetitive structures
that Beckett's impact is made. You keep waiting for something to
happen, something recognizable as a climax, something to shed meaning
but it never does. This happens not only in _Godot_ but in _Rocakaby_,
_Endgame_, _Happy days_.
The plays are full of incidents, and events happen, but Events do not.
: work -- as is evidenced by some of the things that have appeared on
: Broadway in the last ten years.
What would you say has happened on Broadway that was inconceivable
beforehand???
I'm talking about *dramatically* new, not inconceivable in temrs
of large audiences or long runs. I'm curious because I can't think
of a thing. _Angels in America I & II_ were surprising but not
in themselves departures; they use Brecht's epic structure and
Marquez' Magical Realism.
Mark Taranto
Gwen Orel writes:
Well, this is not what Stoppard would say, _has said_ in
fact.
I admire Stoppard too, but _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are
Dead-in outlook and situation is very much a reworking of
_Godot_.
Perhaps this is true -- but R&G is my least favorite play by
Stoppard.
THE REAL THING is my favorite. Believe me -- I don't mean to
belittle Beckett -- I rather admire him. But WAITING FOR GODOT
strikes me, rather, as a Commedia dell'arte version of Sartre's NO
EXIT. It didn't seem innovative to me at all -- certainly not when
compared to someone like, say, Pirandello.
They are more entertaining no doubt and very rich, but
greatest of the 20th century is a title I reserve for
those whose work was inconceivable beforehand, and who
made work afterwords inconceivable without.
But "more entertaining and very rich" is quite an endorsement, for
me. "Inconceivable beforehand" can be applied to some very mundane
work -- as is evidenced by some of the things that have appeared on
Broadway in the last ten years.
Mark
Beth Cunningham
A. Young
What a question! At least I have the assurance of knowing that, what
ever I may say in reply, the flames will keep me toasty warm in our
-15 nights!
It would be hard to know what criterion to use. I think that _The Lord
of the Rings_ is arguably the best novel to ccome out of the British
experience of the Great War, the defining event of the 20th century
for the West (IM(N-S)HO), but I don't think that makes Tolkien the
best 20th century novelist, even in English. What about Thomas Hardy?
Andre Gide? Joyce Cary? (She said wickedly...)
A.
--
Dr Abigail Ann Young, Records of Early English Drama| young@epas.|
Victoria College, University of Toronto | utoronto.ca|
http://www.epas.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html || Home pages for REED & REED-L
http://www.epas.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed-l.html|| Try 'em, you'll like 'em
Joseph M Green
Ah, who gives a damn about the twentieth century?
Todd Pinarchick
I'm not going to jump in on this Beckett debate--I haven't read much
of his stuff, but I would agree with everyone who puts him down as
one of the most influential playwrights of the 20th century--I do know
that he is often cited as such, but that's as far as my knowledge of
Beckett goes (and he is lionized in Ireland nowadays).
My choices for "greatest of 20th century":
--Anton Chekhov (I know he sorta straddles the line between the 19th
and 20th centuries, but his influence [on stage, in Russian literature--
Gorki and Nabokov, two "biggies who were as close to being polar
opposites as two
authors could be, were just two who cited him as an influence] was
most strongly felt in the 20th century)
--Franz Kafka (of course...)
--Jorge Luis Borges (sadly enough, a name I haven't seen much on r.a.b.,
which is a real shame inasmuch as he practically invented "magic
realism," paving the way for...)
--Gabriel Garcia Marquez (another wonderful, influential writer whose
name doesn't pop up much but should)
--William Faulkner
--Vladimir Nabokov (of course...)
--Marcel Proust
--James Joyce (a no-brainer)
Cheers
Todd
Gully Foyle
"Mr. Blonde" <je...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> As the end of the century approaches, any ideas on who was the
>"greatest" (define as you will) author of the last 100 years?
>Personally, I'd have to say Kafka. He developed themes that have become
>staples of subsequent literature. Did a wonderful job of illustrating
>the dehumanizing tendency of modernization and industrialization, an
>issue that we're still trying to deal with.
> Any other nominees?
>
Living or dead? And maybe the question should be greatest authors of the 20th
century, say a short list of 10. Kafka would have to be on it.
HLVB
Scott Inglett
|> Carroll Bishop <cbi...@interlog.com> wrote:
|>
|> #>nik...@scws40.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) wrote:
|> #>>
|> #>>
|> #>> Francis Muir writes:
|> #>>
|> #>> not concern the admirable Sam Beckett's place in the theatre.
|>
|> #>Francis Muir probably refers to the opening lines of PRIDE AND
|> #>PREJUDICE:
|> #> It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single
|> #> man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want
|> #> of a wife.
|>
|> and I thought he was talking about the opening lines of Tolstoy's Anna
|> K.
|>
'why did the chicken cross the road?'
Because it is a truth universally acknowledged that a
single chicken, being possessed of a good fortune and
presented with a good road, must be desirous of crossing.
--
-Scott
Gary Lee Stonum
Sirin
> Much as i admire Pynchon and Gaddis, their output is too small to be
> considered.
> For writers in other languages, Brecht, Sartre, Camus, Garcia Marquez,
> Cortazar.
>
> I think for sheer consistency and inventiveness I might have to go
> with Nabokov.
I would ask that you reconsider your judgment of Gaddis & Pynchon. If
not, I would be obliged to ask you the somewhat tedious question: how
many pages are required? which is something that I would really prefer not
to do. They are both master stylists with entirely unique imaginative
powers. Incidentally, I am not sure that same can be said of Sartre and
Camus, who I consider to be on the level of journalists.
Finally, I applaud your nomination of Nabokov, who combined the
meticulousness and wordlove of a poet with the fancy of a novelist.
GRACE LIN
for D.H. Lawrence, as opposed to say, Joyce (who(m) I find rather
inaccessible to a lot of people.) I think Lawrence can appeal to many
different levels of readers, and I think most great writers in the past
were read by a large number of contemporaries ( or in Shakespeare's case,
seen). But I guess the real reason is that Lawrence is my favorite
modern writer. :)
--
*****************************************************************************
I don't do construction of any type--I'm an English major, not an engineer.
How can I subvert authority when *they're* trying to subvert authority??//
I thought I left subjects and objects back in grammar school...what are
they doing in college!?!// So...what's after postmodern, post-postmodern?
*****************************************************************************
Ted Samsel
:
: Ah, who gives a damn about the twentieth century?
:
Indeed. It's pert near ouvre.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net *1996* Year of the Accordion~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Home of the brave, land of the free,
I don't want to be mistreated by no bourgoisie."
Huddie Ledbetter
Gary Lee Stonum
Dear RABble:
Sorry about those empty posts recently emanating from yours truly.
My Netscape newsreader has taken to editing my words pretty
severely, and although I cannot challenge its standards I'm
pretty sore about the lack of courtesy. Darn sneaky software
keeps showing a full message on my screen and then dispatching
only the top line or so, especially if I'm quoting/responding
to some earlier message.
In the hopes that this will all not be vanishingly self-reflexive
and that this message may skip over the memory hole.
Gary
BTW. None, count 'em, none of the empty posts are worth
reconstructing, so say second thoughts.
--
Gary Lee Stonum, English Department, Case Western Reserve University
email gx...@po.cwru.edu; phone 216-368-3342; fax 216-368-2216
"I discover myself on the verge of a usual mistake."
Gary Grismore
Jack Kerouac. No other author has had a greater impact on 20th century
culture in general or pop culture specifically. The influence of
spontaneous prose is everywhere. Anyone seen MTV lately?
Jason Mulligan
> On Sat, 16 Dec 1995 01:35:40 -0500, "Mr. Blonde" <je...@acpub.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > As the end of the century approaches, any ideas on who was the
> >"greatest" (define as you will) author of the last 100 years?
> >
> By far, Isaac Asimov. The most prolific, he completely defined an
> entire genre of literature and his stories are pretty damn good, too
JRR Tolkien too changed a whole genre forever...
davemarc
Surrealists advocated "automatic writing," which is essentially the same
thing as Kerouac's spontaneous bop prosody.
As for influence on 20th century culture/pop culture, Kerouac's primacy
is highly debatable. Cases could be made for writers ranging from Dr.
Seuss to Garcia Marquez to Henry Miller to Ernest Hemingway to James
Joyce to James Jones to infinity.
davemarc
Gary Grismore
davemarc (dave...@panix.com) wrote:
: He's an outstanding writer, but I take issue with your assertions. The
: thing as Kerouac's spontaneous bop prosody.
I think you're probably right. Hell, I wasn't thinking - just typing.
See what I mean! :)
paul ilechko
#>Shielding my eyes from the impending flame:
#>Jack Kerouac. No other author has had a greater impact on 20th century
#>culture in general or pop culture specifically. The influence of
#>spontaneous prose is everywhere. Anyone seen MTV lately?
I dont recall the originator of this thread asking for the writer with
the greatest impact on adolescents .....
(which would probably be Ayn Rand, anyway)
paul ilechko
#>Well, I don't claim to have any fortune telling abilities, but I'd root
#>for D.H. Lawrence, as opposed to say, Joyce (who(m) I find rather
#>inaccessible to a lot of people.) I think Lawrence can appeal to many
#>different levels of readers, and I think most great writers in the past
#>were read by a large number of contemporaries ( or in Shakespeare's case,
#>seen). But I guess the real reason is that Lawrence is my favorite
#>modern writer. :)
why not go all the way, and pick Barbara Cartland ?
Francis Muir
Gary Grismore wrote:
Jack Kerouac. No other author has had a greater impact on
20th century culture in general or pop culture specifically.
The influence of spontaneous prose is everywhere. Anyone
seen MTV lately?
I dont recall the originator of this thread asking for the writer
with the greatest impact on adolescents which would probably be
Ayn Rand, anyway)
I think you are both confusing the genus "adolescent" with a particular
sub-species: white, mittelklas, college-bound. For every kid that read
Kerouac or Rand, there were a thousand who read the Charles Atlas advertising
copy in Popular Mechanics and understood the sub-text.
Fido, still 97lb.
Ken MacIver
In a weak moment, late at night in a bookstore, I recently purchased
Conversations: The Autobiography of Surrealism by Andre Breton
(translated by Mark Polizzotti), a 1993 translation of Entretiens, the
1952 Breton piece that, using a series of radio interviews for the
cornerstone of the book, relates the history and development of
surrealism. In it, Breton speaks of his "discovery" of automatic
writing. I've only had time to skim the book & won't get to it for
several weeks but it seems like an interesting historical monument to
surrealism. The question is if anyone will have heard of surrealism in
another 25-30 years?
Ken MacIver
davemarc
>
>In a weak moment, late at night in a bookstore, I recently purchased
>Conversations: The Autobiography of Surrealism by Andre Breton
>(translated by Mark Polizzotti), a 1993 translation of Entretiens, the
>1952 Breton piece that, using a series of radio interviews for the
>cornerstone of the book, relates the history and development of
>surrealism. In it, Breton speaks of his "discovery" of automatic
>writing. I've only had time to skim the book & won't get to it for
>several weeks but it seems like an interesting historical monument to
>surrealism. The question is if anyone will have heard of surrealism in
>another 25-30 years?
>
> Ken MacIver
And the answer is...yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!! Surrealism is one of the
richest intellectual movements of the century. It'll surely be
remembered (and practiced) in the next millenium.
davemarc (who especially admires Surrealist Luis Bunuel--author of *My
Last Sigh* and co-writer of numerous screenplays)
Philip Nikolayev
>another 25-30 years?
>
> Ken MacIver
I sure as hell hope that I will have heard of it in the next 25-30
years. Many happy new years!
Philip
Bill Palmer
>...The question is will anyone have heard of Surrealism in another
>25-30 years?
It is very hard to imagine that they wouldn't. Surrealism has
captured the imagination of lots of people all over the world
almost since its beginnings. I can't see why this would change.
It is true that it has played second fiddle to abstract art for
a long time. That is, the "heavies" in the art world (big
curators, dealers, and critics) threw more of their weight
behind the giants of abstractionism, and the surrealists sort
of played second fiddle for a few decades, which is not to suggest
they didn't get their shows, too... But things may be changing:
perhaps a lot of the abstract stuff may prove to be inflated in
value,and the surrealists may actually have their ascendancy
(over the abstractionists)...
Just speculation, but I can see absolutely no reason why Kline
Rothko and DeKooning would be around (meaning exhibited and
selling strongly) longer than say DeChirico, Ernst, and
Magritte...
Now as to the subject of BOOKS (which is why we're here)
one of the best on Surrealism is THE HISTORY OF SURREALIST
PAINTING by Marcel Jean [last name "Jean"] I've perused a
number of tomes on the subject, and I've found that Jean's
text is by far one of the most thorough, interesting, and
comprehensive. The drawback is that while it has many well-
chosen illustrations, too many of them are in black and
white. (I'm fussy about that--I believe that if the
original is in color, so should be the book's reproduc-
tions.) Even so, this volume does have some very nice color
pictures, and--most importantly--Jean's text is far superior
to to the texts I've found in somewhat stronger books with
respect to color illustrations.
(My book is a Grove Press translation of Jean's text by
Simon Watson Taylor. Jean's book was published in 1959
by Editions du Seuil, Paris.)
f...@mmistrik.csc.com
MMM Jack Kerouac.... From the Oxford Companion to Modern Literature: "Maudlin
French-Canadian/American inebriate who spent much time playing with his
friends, regarding which he generated reams of enthusiastic metaphysical
speculation. Spent much time during his final days swilling whiskey and
grumbling about communists. Died of messy liver explosion while watching tv at
his mother's place, where he had maintained headquarters throughout his life.
davemarc
>
>
>MMM Jack Kerouac.... From the Oxford Companion to Modern Literature: "Maudlin >French-Canadian/American inebriate who spent much ti=
me playing with his >friends, regarding which he generated reams of enthusiastic metaphysical >speculation. Spent much time during h=
is final days swilling whiskey and >grumbling about communists. Died of messy liver explosion while watching tv at >his mother's pla=
ce, where he had maintained headquarters throughout his life.
HMM...I'd like to see the other entries in that book. Like the ones for
Ernest Hemingway, Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath, Sinclair Lewis, John
Osborne, Eugene O'Neill, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
davemarc
Francis Muir
f...@mmistrik.csc.com wrote:
MMM Jack Kerouac.... From the Oxford Companion to Modern
Literature: "Maudlin French-Canadian/American inebriate
who spent much time playing with his friends, regarding
which he generated reams of enthusiastic metaphysical
speculation. Spent much time during his final days swilling
whiskey and grumbling about communists. Died of messy liver
explosion while watching tv at his mother's place, where he
had maintained headquarters throughout his life.
HMM...I'd like to see the other entries in that book. Like the ones
for Ernest Hemingway, Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath, Sinclair Lewis,
John Osborne, Eugene O'Neill, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
The OCML is extravagently funny when it comes to suicides. Speaking of death,
is not seven "et cetera"s overkill? Surely having "and the rest"ed once
there's not much more to say?
Fido
Andy Grosso
Francis Muir <fra...@pangea.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> f...@mmistrik.csc.com wrote:
>
> MMM Jack Kerouac.... From the Oxford Companion to Modern
> Literature: "Maudlin French-Canadian/American inebriate
> who spent much time playing with his friends, regarding
> which he generated reams of enthusiastic metaphysical
> speculation. Spent much time during his final days swilling
> whiskey and grumbling about communists. Died of messy liver
> explosion while watching tv at his mother's place, where he
> had maintained headquarters throughout his life.
>
I particularly like the phrasing "Died of messy liver explosion."
Submitted for your consideration: All liver explosions are equally
messy (i.e. don't be doing that in my kitchen).
Cheers,
Andy
paul ilechko
#>Ken MacIver <xk...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
#> The question is if anyone will have heard of surrealism in
#>>another 25-30 years?
#>>
#>> Ken MacIver
#>And the answer is...yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!! Surrealism is one of the
#>richest intellectual movements of the century. It'll surely be
#>remembered (and practiced) in the next millenium.
#>davemarc (who especially admires Surrealist Luis Bunuel--author of *My
#>Last Sigh* and co-writer of numerous screenplays)
I'm dubious - the visual arts produced by true surrealists have not
aged well, with the possible exception of duchamp, and as for books -
will anyone read "Paris Peasant" in 25 years - I doubt it.
Bill Duke
: davemarc <dave...@panix.com> wrote:
:
: #>Ken MacIver <xk...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
:
:
: #> The question is if anyone will have heard of surrealism in
: #>>another 25-30 years?
: #>>
: #>> Ken MacIver
:
: #>And the answer is...yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!! Surrealism is one of the
: #>richest intellectual movements of the century. It'll surely be
: #>remembered (and practiced) in the next millenium.
:
: #>davemarc (who especially admires Surrealist Luis Bunuel--author of *My
: #>Last Sigh* and co-writer of numerous screenplays)
:
: I'm dubious - the visual arts produced by true surrealists have not
: aged well, with the possible exception of duchamp, and as for books -
: will anyone read "Paris Peasant" in 25 years - I doubt it.
The problem, it seems to me, is who to include among the "true"
surrealists. In the visual arts, I think Ernst, Miro, De Chirico, and
Arshile Gorky hold up very well, whether or not they count as authentic
surrealists.
Hard to say what will be read in 25 years' time (if anything), but I bet
Artaud, Paul Eluard and "Magnetic Fields" will still be around.
On an unrelated note: does anyone know where to find Jacques Vache's
"Lettres a Guerre"? I've seen endless references to this item, but I've
never actually seen a copy anywhere. Any ideas?
-- Bill
f...@mmistrik.csc.com
Now, now, there's really nothing funny about suicide. There is, however, much
that is curious about your second and concluding sentences.
Ed P.
davemarc
>davemarc writes:
>
> f...@mmistrik.csc.com wrote:
>
> MMM Jack Kerouac.... From the Oxford Companion to Modern
> Literature: "Maudlin French-Canadian/American inebriate
> who spent much time playing with his friends, regarding
> which he generated reams of enthusiastic metaphysical
> speculation. Spent much time during his final days swilling
> whiskey and grumbling about communists. Died of messy liver
> explosion while watching tv at his mother's place, where he
> had maintained headquarters throughout his life.
>
> for Ernest Hemingway, Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath, Sinclair Lewis,
> John Osborne, Eugene O'Neill, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
>The OCML is extravagently funny when it comes to suicides. Speaking of death,
>is not seven "et cetera"s overkill? Surely having "and the rest"ed once
>there's not much more to say?
>
> Fido
Yes, I say. Yes. Yes. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow I can expect
Fido to nip at my words, words, words--even when using 21 to state that
eight "et ceteras" is seven too many. In the spirit of reciprocity, I
suggest that the sentence "Surely having 'and the rest'ed once there's
not much more to say?" is redundant. It is, therefore, most appropriate
in rab.
davemarc (who notes that *The King and I* is returning to Broadway)
davemarc
>pa...@superlink.net (paul ilechko) writes:
>
>: davemarc <dave...@panix.com> wrote:
>:
>: #>Ken MacIver <xk...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
>:
>:
>: #> The question is if anyone will have heard of surrealism in
>: #>>another 25-30 years?
>: #>>
>: #>> Ken MacIver
>:
>: #>And the answer is...yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!! Surrealism is one of the
>: #>richest intellectual movements of the century. It'll surely be
>: #>remembered (and practiced) in the next millenium.
>:
>: #>davemarc (who especially admires Surrealist Luis Bunuel--author of *My
>: #>Last Sigh* and co-writer of numerous screenplays)
>:
>: I'm dubious - the visual arts produced by true surrealists have not
>: aged well, with the possible exception of duchamp, and as for books -
>: will anyone read "Paris Peasant" in 25 years - I doubt it.
>
>The problem, it seems to me, is who to include among the "true"
>surrealists. In the visual arts, I think Ernst, Miro, De Chirico, and
>Arshile Gorky hold up very well, whether or not they count as authentic
>surrealists.
>
>Hard to say what will be read in 25 years' time (if anything), but I bet
>Artaud, Paul Eluard and "Magnetic Fields" will still be around.
>
Ernst and perhaps Tanguy seem pretty secure. Among the literati, Aragon,
Paul Eluard, and Tristan Tzara (as well as Breton, who wrote but didn't
sign) are also fine--though perhaps not in English. Considering that
there were twenty signatories, that's not bad. Compare them with the
Futurists, for example.
Other Surrealists and affiliated folks who are holding up? Arp, Bellmer,
De Chirico, Delvaux, Duchamp, Giacometti, Klee, Miro, Magritte, Moore,
Picabia, Picasso, and Ray.
So I think they're doing just fine.
davemarc
Tom9981
biographical sketches...
FAULKNER, William -- Wordy Southern inebriate who insisted local gossip
was novel material. Obsessed with filthy lingerie and honor. Never moved
out of home town. Died of some ugly disease. Oh...won Nobel prize.
f...@mmistrik.csc.com
It could be legitimately argued that Faulkner's works have literary merit, and
that their influence continues to manifest itself in the efforts of writers of
equal and emerging status, and that, for them, he is a predecessor to be
reckoned with.
Kerouac is the sorcery of pathos. Try Robert Musil ( he had a finalizing
stee-roke while pumping iron). He is capable of dealing with fine emotions,
astonishing detail and all the comment on human being you can handle, without
yielding to mawkish sentimentality. He does, however, require a bit more from
the reader than the Duluoz -- which is probably why his prose has yet to be
conscripted into a flashy automobile commercial.
Barbara Taylor
: [Someone else:]
:> Much as i admire Pynchon and Gaddis, their output is too small to be
:> considered.
:
:> For writers in other languages, Brecht, Sartre, Camus, Garcia Marquez,
:> Cortazar.
[...]
:
:I would ask that you reconsider your judgment of Gaddis & Pynchon. If
:not, I would be obliged to ask you the somewhat tedious question: how
:many pages are required? which is something that I would really prefer not
:to do. They are both master stylists with entirely unique imaginative
:powers. Incidentally, I am not sure that same can be said of Sartre and
:Camus, who I consider to be on the level of journalists.
[...]
Camus, "on the level of journalists"?
I know nothing of the two authors you mention, but
I suggest to you that you read the following:
_The Plague_, _The Stranger_, _A Happy Death_ by Camus.
His essays, especially "Return to Tipasa."
Camus created a new type of language, which even a non-native
French speaker like me can tell. It is poetic, pristine, earthy
at times, explosive,
It influenced countless authors, screenwriters, filmmakers,
artists, politicians, musicians, yes, and probably not a few
journalists.
Existentialism -- of which Camus was one of the moving forces --
engendered a cultural revolution.
And yes, I think he is a candidate for one of the greatest writers
of the 20th century.
--
+ Barbara Taylor + Maybe Harlem doesn't sound colonial in our ears
+ btay...@cas.org + Like Capetown and Johannesburg still do
+ No speaka for + Stuyvesant and Chelsea sound American and freer...
+ my company... + O Soweto, cries across the sea. --Hugh Blumenfeld
Ken MacIver
surrealism & received hearty yesses that most often pertained to art. I
was responding to the original discussion over Jack Kerouac etc & the
invention of "automatic writing" by surrealists. I think that few
surrelist writers will be read in 25 years by even fewer people who
intend its survival as an art form. On the other hand, I think
surrealist art will become a permanent part of the art scence, sort of a
period piece that ranks a bit below, say, the Barbizon group. Good, but
not the tops. Anyone around beantown these next few days can see "The
Body Politic: Surrealism on Both Sides of the Atlantic 1924-1947" at the
Harvard Busch-Reisinger Museum.
davemarc
>I asked the question whether in 25 years or so anyone would remember
>surrealism & received hearty yesses that most often pertained to art. I
>was responding to the original discussion over Jack Kerouac etc & the
>invention of "automatic writing" by surrealists. I think that few
>surrelist writers will be read in 25 years by even fewer people who
Surrealist writings will be remembered, though perhaps more in France
than elsewhere. The poetry and Surrealist Manifestos will prove durable,
as will some other works (perhaps Breton's *Nadja*).
davemarc
Philip Nikolayev
davemarc <dave...@panix.com> writes:
Surrealist writings will be remembered, though perhaps more in France
than elsewhere. The poetry and Surrealist Manifestos will prove durable,
as will some other works (perhaps Breton's *Nadja*).
Of course. I'm not so sure about their poetry (never been crazy about
it myself; albeit I hear that Andrei Codrescu today fancies himself
come sort of surrealist and publishes a magazine called Exquisite
Corpse, whose title no doubt comes from the famous language game
invented by the surrealists). Nadja and the manifestos will no doubt
live. Vivat "Cadavre"! And I daresay the films will never die
either. This reminds me, incidentally, that I've been reminding myself
to that it would be cool to watch "Dreams Money Can Bye" again some
time soon. It seems somewhat little known (at least amongst my
friends), but I highly recommend it to anyone interested in surrealist
cinema.
ObBooks: I remember liking Leonora Carrington's writings: Little
Francis, Down Below, et al. Is she popular? What about Benjamin Peret?
Philip Nikolayev