Discussion
Montag
After another session of cramping my finger tapping the 'delete' button
so many times, I've decided to introduce a thread of perhaps some interest:
The question is not that 'is literature dead', but is poetry dead? Are
plays dying?
The novel format of literature seems to be raging on, if by virtue of its
young age compared to the other two formats of literature stated above.
Also: someone brought up the point (the professor, in coversation, of a
friend of mine) that the newest form of literature will be a
creative-type account of non-fictional happenings, i.e. _The
Executioner's Song_, _In Cold Blood_, and that these may have the
audacity to push out the novel-as-fiction as the sort of king of the hill.
Thoughts?
Montag
---------------------------------
e-mail: elw...@tam2000.tamu.edu I
I "Some people will stay
"See, Willem, he admits that he I pedestrians no matter what they ride,
doesn't know the law, and yet he I horse, car, or airplane."
claims he's innocent." -Kafka I -Atilla Jozsef
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gwen A Orel
: The question is not that 'is literature dead', but is poetry dead? Are
: plays dying?
That's two questions! :)
Depnds how you define it. It's getting harder to find poetry and drama
sections in bookstores-- they're often together, which may be why you put them together here-- but that only speaks to the publishing and commerical consumption of them.
Plays aren't dead. Theatre Communications Group has a list of the
not-for-profit theatres in this country; it's quite extensive. Don't
know where you're writing from but a visit to DramaBooks in N.Y. would
show you what I mean. Theatre is alive and well and so are plays.
Poetry readings seem to be healthy too. Don't know about publishing
though. Being published doesn't have the same meaning for theatre as it
does for poetry; plays are events more than they are literature. American
Theatre magazine publishes a play every month but it is not submitted
by the playwright; it is a published version of a play that has been or
will be in production at a TCG theatre. The numer of plays produced vastly
exceeds the number of plays published.
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Gwen A Orel
: I don't think poetry is much deader now than any time in the past 100
: years or so; it has always been something of an elitist enthusiasm.
: Drama is in trouble, though, mostly because it's so expensive, and
: because you've got to go somewhere -- and be there right on time -- to
: see it. I saw Miss Saigon and Phantom of the Opera and a couple of
: others in London over the past few years, and I don't think movies
: really have the power of well-done theater...but except in rare
: cases, I don't see how theater can support itself. Eventually, the
: funding problem will eat away at its support...
Not true. You speak of only one kind of theatre, that is, commercial.
Most of the theatre in this country is at residential regional theatre
whcich works primarily by subscription. I work at one-- I know. Of
course we have a deficit, of course we're worried about the NEA etc.
But we've already met our subscription goal, and we're growing.
Theatre is alive and well in this country.
John McCarthy
I don't think poetry is much deader now than any time in the
past 100 years or so; it has always been something of an
elitist enthusiasm.
My father's education ended with fourth grade, and he knew and recited
lots of poetry. Almost all poetry produced since 1940 is suitable
only for an elitist enthusiasm.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Montag
> John is right only if we accept his definition of poetry which is essentially
> a re-definition. If Kipling and Service, why not Lennon and McCartney?
This is a truly fascinating question, and one that's been bugging me,
slightly, lately. Are we going to differentiate between the pop cultures
and the more established culture (don't really know what to call it) of
poetry, novel, play?
It seems to me that most of our problems in literature specifically, and
art in general, is that this question is unresolved. Some wanna, some
doan wanna.
Also, in your above statement, I think there's a difference in medium
which must be taken into account. I, personally, never thought that a
poetry reading is true poetry, but rather performing art. A poet's
reading and inflection to me is a performance, whereas the bare-bones,
silently waiting on the page poetry is cleaner and more difficult. Etc.
Anyway...
>
> Fido
Montag
> Big budget Broadway drama does indeed have this problem, but small scale
> drama is alive and well. In San Francisco it is thriving. There are a lot
> of "amateur" coffee house poetry reading and small theatre productions.
> Plus, at the moment there is an excellent theatre series under way of
> monologuists (the Solo Mio festival). I could cite Anna Devere Smith's
> performances (Fires in the Mirror or Twilight Los Angeles), etc. The
> bloated "Phantoms" of the world are not indicative of the state of modern
> theatre. They are the Tom Clancys/John Grishams of the dramatic world.
> Blockbuster big sellers with mass appeal but not a lot of integrity.
Okay. Question for you and Gwen (and others who expressly mentioned
drama). Is there much attention paid to the 'greats' of the past in play
selection, or are shown plays mostly recent? I know there's Shakespeare
in the park or what not, but what about the others?
I live somewhat near Houston, and reading the playlists, I see some
Ibsen, Beckett, and Thornton Wilder. And, using my excellent logic
skills, I make the assumption Houston isn't a phenomenal artsy town, so
can I make the assumption then that other cities are even better (no need
to answer for New York)?
Thankyou.
>
> *****************************************************************************
> Diane Carlson
>
> "passion can create drama out of inert stone" - Le Corbusier
> *****************************************************************************
>
>
Montag---------------------------------
Gwen A Orel
: Okay. Question for you and Gwen (and others who expressly mentioned
: selection, or are shown plays mostly recent? I know there's Shakespeare
: in the park or what not, but what about the others?
It all depends on the theatre, of course. The most common configuration
for a residential regional theatre, such as Berkeley Repertory Theatre,
is to do one or two "classics"-- a Marivaux, a Moliere, a Shaw-- and
a selection including a premiere, a second production, maybe a foreign
company etc. But this is not always true. City Theatre, where I work
is devoted to "contemporary" plays. But that's a relative term. Two
years ago we did Pinter's _The Caretaker_, last year we did Joe Orton's
_Loot_. Chelsea Stage Complany in New York only does "greats."
: I live somewhat near Houston, and reading the playlists, I see some
: Ibsen, Beckett, and Thornton Wilder. And, using my excellent logic
: skills, I make the assumption Houston isn't a phenomenal artsy town, so
: can I make the assumption then that other cities are even better (no need
: to answer for New York)?
The Alley Theatre, in Houston, is a *fine* theatre. They fit my first
description-- some "greats," some second or third productions etc.
I suggest you visit them and assuming you like what you see, take
out a subscription.
Best wishes,
Diane Carlson
: Montag says:
: Is poetry dead? Are
: >plays dying?
: I don't think poetry is much deader now than any time in the past 100
: years or so; it has always been something of an elitist enthusiasm.
: Drama is in trouble, though, mostly because it's so expensive, and
: because you've got to go somewhere -- and be there right on time -- to
: see it. I saw Miss Saigon and Phantom of the Opera and a couple of
: others in London over the past few years, and I don't think movies
: really have the power of well-done theater...but except in rare
: cases, I don't see how theater can support itself. Eventually, the
: funding problem will eat away at its support...
Big budget Broadway drama does indeed have this problem, but small scale
drama is alive and well. In San Francisco it is thriving. There are a lot
of "amateur" coffee house poetry reading and small theatre productions.
Plus, at the moment there is an excellent theatre series under way of
monologuists (the Solo Mio festival). I could cite Anna Devere Smith's
performances (Fires in the Mirror or Twilight Los Angeles), etc. The
bloated "Phantoms" of the world are not indicative of the state of modern
theatre. They are the Tom Clancys/John Grishams of the dramatic world.
Blockbuster big sellers with mass appeal but not a lot of integrity.
*****************************************************************************
Kurt Wm. Hemr
Orel) wrote:
> Montag (elw...@tam2000.tamu.edu) wrote:
>
> : The question is not that 'is literature dead', but is poetry dead? Are
> : plays dying?
>
> That's two questions! :)
> Depnds how you define it. [*big* snip]
Agreed. My first thought on reading the original query (or queries) was
that no one would ask the question "Is poetry dead?" unless that person
refused to consider popular lyric to be poetry. (Similarly, no one would
ask "Is [drama] dying?" unless that person refused to consider drama on
film and TV to be drama.) Anyone who defines these terms more broadly
would have to admit that we are up to our collective ears in poetry and
drama.
--
mailto: kwh...@inch.com
http://www.inch.com/~kwhemr/
John Camp
>
John Camp Said:
>: Drama is in trouble, though, mostly because it's so expensive, and
>: because you've got to go somewhere -- and be there right on time -- to
>: see it. I saw Miss Saigon and Phantom of the Opera and a couple of
>: others in London over the past few years, and I don't think movies
>: really have the power of well-done theater...but except in rare
>: cases, I don't see how theater can support itself. Eventually, the
>: funding problem will eat away at its support...
>
>Not true. You speak of only one kind of theatre, that is, commercial.
>Most of the theatre in this country is at residential regional theatre
>which works primarily by subscription. I work at one-- I know. Of
>course we have a deficit, of course we're worried about the NEA etc.
>But we've already met our subscription goal, and we're growing.
>
>Theatre is alive and well in this country.
>
>Gwen
>
Don't mistake me -- I am an contributor/subscriber/goer to a French-
American theater here in the Twin Cities -- and this area is known
as a strong theater area. Still, you say, it's a matter of struggling
with deficits -- and with accepting amateurish (or too-quickly done)
effects and staging, and so on. At the same time, these places face
growing competition from TV and movies, with their highly professional
work, for the entertainment dollar. And there's growing competition for
the arts dollar too, especially with the growth of independent film and
video.
As much as I enjoy theater, I think it's tending in the direction of
dance and opera (outside the megalopolises, anyway) -- the audiences
are made up primarily of enthusiasts (as opposed to people simply looking
for entertainment), the numbers dwindle, the political support for
grants begins to fade in the face of other demands...and suddenly
the deficits rule. I think there will always be some residual theater,
but it'll mostly be done by enthusiastic amateurs, or by professional
companies in touring road shows.
JC
JC
John Camp
>
>John McCarthy writes:
>
> John Camp writes:
>
> I don't think poetry is much deader now than any time
> in the past 100 years or so; it has always been something
> of an elitist enthusiasm.
>
> recited lots of poetry. Almost all poetry produced since 1940
> is suitable only for an elitist enthusiasm.
>
>is early prose examples of words that are hard to find. Prose was elitist
>and mostly Latin. Verse was the popular form. From those times down to the
>present there has been hugely poular verse. Now this might not be what
>the Whiff of Bath calls poetry, or even John Camp, but it is poetry just
>the same. In the States the modern example is Rap.
>
>John is right only if we accept his definition of poetry which is essentially
>a re-definition. If Kipling and Service, why not Lennon and McCartney?
>
I interpreted the original question as meaning poetry in the -- God
forgive me for using the word -- "canonic" sense. In the wider sense
of "anything that rhymes," then you're correct, of course. A college
friend once told me that Bob Dylan's songs must be poetry because it
certainly couldn't be considered music. Rap is a special and interesting
case that deserves more serious attention than it has gotten.
Early prose examples may be hard to find, but just because poetic
samples are more common doesn't mean that they are not of the elite; in
those early times, I suspect "literate" and "elite" might be fairly
interchangeable terms. And there's a question of whether "poetry" and
"rhyme" are quite the same things -- "rhyme" might be closer to what
the masses felt an enthusiasm for, rather than "poetry." To bring it
to more modern times, Kipling and Service used the rhyme to tell a story,
rather than to examine a philosophical point...
As for McCarthy's father, I certainly don't think you have to have a
college education to have elite literary tastes. In fact, I suspect that
McCarthy's conflation (a word I've been waiting to use) of "college"
and "elite" is an artifact of his generation, and something that younger
people would not now automatically grant.
(I retract the word "elitist" in my original post it has come to have
connotations that I didn't intend.)
JC
John Camp
>
>
>The london theatre since WWII has been quite unparalleled in its level of
>activity. There have been a succession of brilliant playwrights and a core
>of superbly trained actors that continues to make for a major reason for
>traveling to London. It is the one area of art where critics and suburbia
>agree.
>
> Fido
Absolutely. One of the things you notice in London theater is how
marvellous even the most minor players are. They *work* at their roles.
You have a sense of an enthusiasm for craft, unlike NY, where there
is often the sense of "I oughta be the lead, instead of carrying this
pike."
Somebody else in this thread compared the big theater productions like
Phantom to Tom Clancy. I read Clancy, and I don't think so -- Clancy
provides you with an interval of entertainment, but he doesn't reach
you like Phantom can. And Miss Saigon is just a horseshit modernized
Butterfly, but I was still freaking out during the evacuation, and felt
this terrible sense of impending doom toward the end...
It's great stuff.
And so are the theaters.
Melynda Huskey
<some remarks about the two Johns' (who are not the johnnies at the
OED) remarks about the morbid state of poetry (which has nothing
to do with the morbid curiosity of Yankees)>
> In the States the modern example is Rap.
>
>John is right only if we accept his definition of poetry which is essentially
>a re-definition. If Kipling and Service, why not Lennon and McCartney?
>
> Fido
Exactly my point before I was beguiled into Joe's mooseshit. Why not the
work of Queen Latifah, which has almost certainly left more people feeling
that the tops of their heads have been taken off than the "fainting robin"
foolishness of Emily Dickinson? In fact, the various art forms sometimes
(recklessly) called popular might prove the assertion someone else (I can't
find the thread) made in the negative, or at least the neutral: is it possible to
have no response to something and then learn to appreciate it as a work of
art? Take country music--until I put in long hours learning the limits and
special requirements of the genre, I was in no position to appreciate the
work of Dwight Yoakum, say. Now I've graduated to the higher ground
of Hank Williams, Sr.--but not without work quite as arduous to me as the
work of acquiring some understanding of Meredithian style was to my
undergraduates. And the reason for the work in the first place is surely
to extend one's range, to know more of what there is in the world, to
pluck remarkable things of all kinds (whether given the imprimatur of
canonical status or not)?
Melynda (who actually shares Bloom's fondness for the work of John
Crowley)
Francis Muir
Francis Muir writes:
The London theatre since WWII has been quite unparalleled
in its level of activity. There have been a succession of
brilliant playwrights and a core of superbly trained actors
that continues to make for a major reason for traveling to
London. It is the one area of art where critics and suburbia
agree.
London theatre is extremely vibrant and worth checking out if you
are visiting the UK. However, contrary to Fido's dogmatic concluding
remarks, suburbia mostly disagrees with the critics by selecting
extremely unvibrant Lloyd Webber musicals when they go up to town for
a `show'.
You cannot have a vibrant theatre and not have the suburbs involved, or does
Dinn have this vision of a giant intellectual non-suburban place, a Mega
Hampstead, who keep all the non-musicals alive? This is codswallop. Of course
suburbia goes to Lloyd Webber, as do all the smarties too.
Fido
Heather Henderson
>fra...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Francis Muir) wrote:
>
><some remarks about the two Johns' (who are not the johnnies at the
> OED) remarks about the morbid state of poetry (which has nothing
> to do with the morbid curiosity of Yankees)>
>
>> In the States the modern example is Rap.
>>
>>John is right only if we accept his definition of poetry which is essentially
>>a re-definition. If Kipling and Service, why not Lennon and McCartney?
>>
>> Fido
>
>Exactly my point before I was beguiled into Joe's mooseshit. Why not
>the work of Queen Latifah, which has almost certainly left more people
>feeling that the tops of their heads have been taken off than the
>"fainting robin" foolishness of Emily Dickinson?
You should read Paglia's essay on Dickinson in =Sexual Personae=.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heather Henderson hea...@hq.media.mit.edu
my home page: http://www.media.mit.edu/people/heather/Welcome.html
my fiction: http://www.media.mit.edu/people/heather/fiction.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Dinn
: Montag writes:
: The question is not that 'is literature dead', but is poetry dead?
: Are plays dying?
: The london theatre since WWII has been quite unparalleled in its level of
: activity. There have been a succession of brilliant playwrights and a core
: of superbly trained actors that continues to make for a major reason for
: traveling to London. It is the one area of art where critics and suburbia
: agree.
London theatre is extremely vibrant and worth checking out if you are
visiting the UK. However, contrary to Fido's dogmatic concluding
remarks, suburbia mostly disagrees with the critics by selecting
extremely unvibrant Lloyd Webber musicals when they go up to town for
a `show'.
Andrew Dinn
-----------
Geopolitical truth is like a hedgehog. It doesn't know much, but it
knows one big thing. And here is the power of geopolitics properly
applied. It is robust in perspective, admittedly partial, always
incomplete, schematic even, and at times fanatic. In the end it
unifies and clarifies, and imposes on complex reality its imperatives,
to plan and to act. -- General Golbery do Couto e Silva, 1957
Andrew Dinn
: You cannot have a vibrant theatre and not have the suburbs involved,
: or does Dinn have this vision of a giant intellectual non-suburban
: place, a Mega Hampstead, who keep all the non-musicals alive? This
: is codswallop. Of course suburbia goes to Lloyd Webber, as do all
: the smarties too.
Much of the theatre can be (and is) vibrant as theatre even if it is
less than vibrant as a commercial proposition. It's not Hampstead but
Arts Council grants which keep the bulk of non-musicals alive.
Although I have attended several exceptional theatre clubs which
perform in back rooms of pubs and subsist on minimal box office
takings without an Arts Council safety net. Your appreciation of Lloyd
Webber and suggestion that it is nourishing intellectual fare merits
less than a raised eyebrow.
Francis Muir
Francis Muir writes:
You cannot have a vibrant theatre and not have the suburbs
involved, or does Dinn have this vision of a giant
intellectual non-suburban place, a Mega Hampstead, who keep
all the non-musicals alive? This is codswallop. Of course
suburbia goes to Lloyd Webber, as do all the smarties too.
Much of the theatre can be (and is) vibrant as theatre even if it is
less than vibrant as a commercial proposition. It's not Hampstead but
Arts Council grants which keep the bulk of non-musicals alive.
And what is the Arts Council but a Quango kept in funds by the grace and
favor of a Parliament which is itself kept in place by the Voice of the
People? Or is the idea of a representative democracy too tough to take?
Although I have attended several exceptional theatre clubs which
perform in back rooms of pubs and subsist on minimal box office
takings without an Arts Council safety net.
Not to mention the university dramatic societies and the schools of drama
which are the feeds for the repertory theaters and regional radio and
television studios which are, in turn, the feeds for the commercial theater.
This is the way that actors and playrights learn their craft and livelihood,
not in the marginal pub back room.
Your appreciation of Lloyd Webber and suggestion that it is nourishing
intellectual fare merits less than a raised eyebrow.
And your intellectual snobbery is truly pathetic.
Fiso
Noel Smith
>fra...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Francis Muir) wrote:
[deletions]
>>John is right only if we accept his definition of poetry which is essentially
>>a re-definition. If Kipling and Service, why not Lennon and McCartney?
>>
>> Fido
>Exactly my point before I was beguiled into Joe's mooseshit.
[deletion]
>is it possible to
>have no response to something and then learn to appreciate it as a work of
>art? Take country music--until I put in long hours learning the limits and
>special requirements of the genre, I was in no position to appreciate the
>work of Dwight Yoakum, say. Now I've graduated to the higher ground
>of Hank Williams, Sr.--but not without work quite as arduous to me as the
>work of acquiring some understanding of Meredithian style was to my
>undergraduates. And the reason for the work in the first place is surely
>to extend one's range, to know more of what there is in the world, to
>pluck remarkable things of all kinds (whether given the imprimatur of
>canonical status or not)?
This brings to mind an Aesthetics instructor, who remarked that by
learning to appreciate as many kinds of art as possible, we would add
to the number of things we could enjoy throughout life.
But could the principle could be applied to, for example, Harlequin
romances? In the first place, could one learn to like them? And if one
could, would that mean that they constituted art of any recognizable
quality? For example, I on occasion enjoy country music, exclusive of
the dreck a local station calls "new country," while having no desire
to call it art; the difference possibly being that a continuous
regimen of country would prove obnoxious in the way that similar
exposure to classical music would not. Appreciation is not equivalent
to quality; if it were, junk lit (SF, westerns, mysteries, romances,
etc.) would have a larger place in curricula.
- Noel
When you hear a new violinist, you do not compare him to
the kid next door; you compare him to Stern and Heifetz.
If he falls short, you will not blame him for it, but you
will know what he falls short of... In art, "good enough"
is not good enough.
--Ursula Le Guin
<*gbQ\BJ{R`Vyr:zQXS0Oz&h2O,=;=V"MZ*.G}a1V`
these lines emanate: "October gave a party. The leaves by hundreds (or
thousands) came."
Would appreciate anyone's input. Sounds a little like Sandburg but not
quite.
Thanks.
pi...@cyberGate.com
K. Harper
called "October's Party"; the entire quote is:
October gave a party;
The leaves by hundreds came:
The ashes, oaks, and maples,
And those of every name.
(I hadn't read this one before. What a lovely picture!)
Kathy Harper