Good News? Not for Arthur Miller
don freeman
that it is inconceivable that he wouldn't go to heaven. Surely G-d would
overlook his minor blasphemies like all the times Arthur took the name
of the lord in vain, or Arthur's refusal to accept Jesus into his Jewish
heart. However, now that Arthur Miller is safely in heaven, what's going
to happen to all his earthly dreams? Will he be reunited with the love
of his life, Marilyn Monroe? Not with Joe DiMaggio also in heaven.
And what of poor Marilyn? Her biggest dream was to have a child. Surely
in heaven, this wish would have been granted and she would have been
able to get pregnant and give birth to a dead baby.
But with so many of Marilyn's suitors and husbands in heaven at the same
time, things must be getting pretty ugly up there.
jackm...@yahoo.co.uk
and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's
brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that
his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying
left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any
seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed:
last of all the woman died also.
In the resurrection therefore,
when they shall rise,
whose wife shall she be of them?
for the seven had her to wife.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye
know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
For when they shall rise from the dead,
they neither marry, nor are given in marriage;
but are as the angels which are in heaven.
hey don. are you not listening to your angels and heaven compilations?
don freeman
> they neither marry, nor are given in marriage;
> but are as the angels which are in heaven.
What? No sex in heaven? While I live on earth, I can't imagine a day
going by without having some nice sexual thought. Sex is probably the
greatest human pleasure of all. My angels and heaven songs are mostly
sexual. You mean we have to give that all up when we die? Death really
is the end of all that?
Do you have to give up the pleasures of fine dining as well?
J Buck
Joe DiMaggio also in heaven>
Don't know what Miller was like, but most accounts I've heard of Joe D.
say he wasn't the nicest guy. Perhaps he's not there after all, but in
Hell. (Pinch-hitting every 5th game for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays?)
kfw...@yahoo.com
The Moral of Arthur Miller
The real lessons of America's most famous playwright.
by Stephen Schwartz
02/28/2005, Volume 010, Issue 22
IF ARTHUR MILLER TEACHES US anything, it is this: Personal failure is
not always a product of social injustice, and resentment is never a
noble form of protest. Of course, his writings--from the 1949 Death of
a Salesman to last year's Finishing the Picture--always insisted on the
opposite. Miller's plays were filled with resentment, invariably
finding society itself to blame for any flaw in the human condition.
But the way he actually lived, that's the real drama. Arthur Miller's
life is the great American morality play of the twentieth century.
Certainly all of America's newspapers thought so, even if they tended
to get the moral wrong. When Miller died on February 10 at age
eighty-nine, the media raced to tell the playwright's life as a story
in which American hypocrisy and evil were overcome by the force of one
man's talent and unyielding honesty. The Washington Post, while
relating Miller's confrontations with the House Un-American Activities
Committee, insisted he had been "blacklisted," a complete invention
that not even Miller could have claimed for himself with a straight
face.
Across the nation, Miller was eulogized as a brave victim who had
withstood the Babbitts and the McCarthys and the Mrs. Grundys to show
America as it is. The New York Times hailed his "work that exposed the
flaws in the fabric of the American dream," while the Washington Post
divided the metaphor in two: the "Playwright of Broken Dreams" who
"Showed Flawed Characters."
The American intellectual left has always differed from its European
counterparts by
holding out disillusion, rather than hope, as the basis of its message.
Even the harshest plays of, say, Henrik Ibsen and Sean O'Casey were
based on ideals of self-sacrifice and heroism, while Willy Loman, the
hero of Miller's Death of a Salesman, represents a world in which
heroism is absent.
But Arthur Miller was nothing if not a product of the leftist
disaffection with American existence, and it is doubtless on this score
that the New York Times could declare him the "most American" of our
great playwrights. That's a curious conclusion, for Death of a Salesman
hasn't aged particularly well. In the post-Reagan era of triumphant
entrepreneurship, a drama proclaiming the uselessness of hard work and
devotion to a job lacks the force it once seemed to have.
Still, in its use of language and skillful timing, Death of a Salesman
has its points. It was with his 1953 play The Crucible that Miller fell
entirely into the self-dramatizing of his own politics. The play has
been read by millions of high-school students as a metaphor equating
American anticommunism with the Salem witch trials.
Here the essential mendacity of Miller's politics came to the fore. The
Crucible effectively dramatizes the terror of false accusation and
persecution. And yet, as Peter Mullen wrote in the London Times, "There
were no witches in Salem, Mr. Miller. But there were plenty of
communist enemies of the state in America." Indeed, the Moscow purge
trials of the 1930s, in which people lost their lives, are a more
significant parallel to the Salem tragedy than are the American
congressional hearings of the 1950s, which caused a few to lose their
jobs.
AND YET, the effectiveness of Death of a Salesman and The
Crucible--Miller's best work, by a large measure--suggest the man was
something more than a propagandist turned into a literary icon, an
author of minimal talent whose reputation was grossly inflated by the
recusant left. Rather, he falls into the category of writers of some
real talent whose careers were blighted by their allegiance to leftist
ideology. Bertolt Brecht was such a figure. So was the Spanish poet
Rafael Alberti, who began as a brilliant member of that country's
literary generation of 1927 and ended as a Stalinist hack. So were the
French surrealists Louis Aragon and Paul luard, who dedicated
themselves to strident praise of the Russian secret police and its
purge operations. The American left provided another, and worse,
example in Henry Roth, author of the classic novel Call It Sleep
(1934), who was convinced by the Communist cadres to turn his back on
literature for years to work as a factory hand.
Miller never abandoned literature for proletarian employment, although
he made a point of reminding people that he had worked in the Brooklyn
Navy Yard, during World War II, as a shipfitter's helper.
His once popular A View from the Bridge (1955) mythologized the lives
of longshoremen and other working-class characters. And yet, even in
this later attempt to find some ordinary Americans whom he could treat
as objects of empathy, he could not escape the overwhelming tone of
dissatisfaction with America--or the self-dramatization of presenting
"informers" as the
nation's great evil.
Of course, many Americans remember Miller for something far from the
lives of waterfront workers: his marriage to Marilyn Monroe from 1956
to 1961. The relationship was as political and social, in the Marxist
sense, as it was psychological and sexual. Each was drawn to the other
by a particular discontent. Monroe was inhabited by a desperate need to
be taken seriously as an actress and as a person. Miller's capture of
the most desirable female in the world was seen by his leftist admirers
as their ultimate revenge after the humiliations they had suffered at
the hands of anti-Communist union leaders, social democratic and other
anti-Stalinist intellectuals, and congressional investigative
committees. If the Communists could not seduce America, the
"Lincolnesque" Miller had, at least, seduced The Goddess.
Sexual politics has a unique allure. The liaison of Trotsky and the
Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, played on the screen by the steaming Salma
Hayek in a recent film, keeps the old Bolshevik's name current among
many for whom Trotsky's confrontations with Stalin mean little. Leftist
acrimony was a deeply established element in Miller's personality. In
his plays and interviews, he expressed his barely concealed rage at the
society around him, which had disappointed him by its indifference to
the simple verities of the 1930s left, both politically and in its
aesthetic tastes. He never forgave American theater-goers for the turn
in their affections from political pantomime to absurdist and other
styles.
AND SIMILARLY, he never absolved Marilyn Monroe for ending their
marriage, soon after completion of The Misfits--a film about an
uprooted cowboy, his friends, and a divorcée--written by Miller and
released in 1961. One year and six months after its premiere, Monroe
was dead from a fatal dose of barbiturates. Hollywood insiders have
argued that Miller was cruel to her: Not only did he fail to provide
her the reputation for artistic seriousness she craved, he and his
circle held her in visible contempt for failing to share their
political orientation. The Misfits was filmed in the Nevada desert in
the height of summer, and the assignment proved extremely taxing for
its male lead, Clark Gable, no less than for Monroe. Gable died of a
heart attack shortly after the production wrapped up. Miller, who saw
Monroe slipping away from him, and hated to let her go, had adopted the
devastating habit of overanalyzing her every change in mood, which
drove her deeper into depression.
The Misfits was directed by John Huston, who kept his camera trained on
the outstanding features of Monroe's body, but the real theme was the
same as that of Death of a Salesman. Gable, as the cowboy Gaylord
Langland, and Eli Wallach, playing his sidekick Guido, have been
shortchanged by American enterprise. They refuse to "work for wages,"
and instead hunt stray horses for sale as pet food. Miller's America
was always a bleak, unrewarding place; but his social consciousness
masked a personal heartlessness. His sense of America as a land of
despair reinforced his permanent anger at the insufficiency of the
adulation he received from critics as well as the public.
BUT FEW IMAGINED how deep his rancor went until 1964, when his play
After the Fall was produced on Broadway. Aside from exhuming old Miller
obsessions with governmental investigations of communism, After the
Fall exposes a tortured intimacy between a lawyer, Quentin, and his
second wife, the beautiful and highly sexual but dumb, corrupt, and
drugged-out Maggie, a television star. Maggie is portrayed as the
ultimate harridan, demanding that Quentin fulfill demeaning orders,
enraged and jealous, and even accusing him of homosexuality. In a
terrible scene, the couple fight over a bottle of pills and Quentin is
tempted to kill Maggie.
Miller claimed, disingenuously, not to have imagined that the public
would perceive this portrait as a vicious caricature of Marilyn Monroe.
But they did, and little but condemnation would come to Miller for
After the Fall. Robert Brustein, in a much-quoted review in the New
Republic, called the play "a three and one half hour breach of taste, a
confessional autobiography of embarrassing explicitness . . . there is
a misogynistic strain in the play which the author does not seem to
recognize. . . . He has created a shameless piece of tabloid gossip, an
act of exhibitionism which makes us all voyeurs, . . . a wretched piece
of dramatic writing." Those who understand the milieu from which Miller
sprang will recognize something else in After the Fall: a classic
Stalinist hatchet job, turned against a most unlikely target.
Miller was never capable of the self-examination and insight found in
truly great artists. His 1987 autobiography Timebends was more notable
for what it did not say than what it said, and much of the latter was
provably dishonest, such as the specious claim that Elia Kazan, his
on-again, off-again friend and collaborator, stole the substance of the
Oscar-winning 1954 movie On the Waterfront from him.
To be fair, Miller inevitably recognized that it was incumbent upon him
to denounce tyranny, especially against writers, in some Communist
states (except, notably, Castro's Cuba), in addition to railing against
the disappointments of capitalism. But his basic grudges, including his
spite about his failure with Marilyn Monroe, never died. His last work,
Finishing the Picture, was based on the making of The Misfits, and,
once again, portrayed Monroe, under the name Kitty, as a mentally
unstable pill-head. Deborah Solomon, writing in the New York Times,
employed a feminist cliché with devastating accuracy: "Like any number
of male intellectuals, Arthur Miller is not always wise when the
subject turns to women."
What a life. All those plays, each straining to be the iconic
declaration of the failure and pointlessness of American life in the
twentieth century, when, really, it was Arthur Miller himself who best
demonstrated the point.
Stephen Schwartz is a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard.
Tum...@aol.com
don freeman wrote:
> Do you have to give up the pleasures of fine dining as well?
Many of us gave that up in life to the public school lunchroom ladies.
Pilgrim
Really, McCarthyism wasn't so bad, it just cost a few evil Leftists some
jobs...
Like 10,000? Not to mention their loss of civil liberties.
..and a post-Reagan era of triumphant entrepreneurialism?
What country is he talking about? ROFL!
I'm thinking we can add to the title today, maybe "Death of a Salesman who
was Out-Sourced", or "Downsized" or even "who lost his retirement money to
the CEO"... or "who lost his soul in the Corporate 'culture'", assuming
our salesman had one or believed he had one.
He does make a good point about Miller being a sexist, albeit couched in
condescending language about feminists. One point for the Neo-Con.
Tum...@aol.com
the height of summer, and the assignment proved extremely taxing for
its male lead, Clark Gable, no less than for Monroe. Gable died of a
heart attack shortly after the production wrapped up. Miller, who saw
Monroe slipping away from him, and hated to let her go, had adopted the
devastating habit of overanalyzing her every change in mood, which
drove her deeper into depression. >>
The above is a a lot of shouty rubbish-(thank you Mad Dan)
John Huston wrote all about how Monroe and her hangerson of oddballs
mistreatied every one on the set, but mostly Miller.
T.
Tum...@aol.com
What country is he talking about? ROFL!
LLAA!
spjohnny
propagandistic article. Just to give one example --
> [The play] hasn't aged particularly well. In the post-Reagan era of
> triumphant entrepreneurship, a drama proclaiming the uselessness of
> hard work and devotion to a job lacks the force it once seemed to
> have.
One of the play's most sympathetic characters, Bernard, begs for his friend
Biff to work harder in school.
Biff's father, Willy, laughs at Bernard and says that the boy is "liked but
not well-liked," and for that reason will never be too successful.
Bernard keeps working hard and becomes a lawyer who argues before the
Supreme Court. He also remains kind and humble, even when dealing with the
once disdainful Willy.
Although the play is very complex, it's obviously *Willy's* belief that's
being criticized here -- the belief that gladhanding, big talk, and various
other shortcuts can substitute for hard work.
Miller may well be attacking various forms of salesmanship, like the pretty
ads that cause the Loman family to buy a shoddy refrigerator. But he is
also celebrating *honest* hard work and entrepreneurship -- Biff, who maybe
never really was college material, nevertheless thinks he might be able to
start his own ranch out West. And he heads back there as the play ends.
Without exaggeration, this and the Hunter Thompson piece may be the worst
criticism I've ever read. And I don't even particularly like Thompson's
work (although I did get a lot out of The Great Shark Hunt many years ago).
Ken Wilson
> Death of a Salesman isn't anywhere near as simple-minded as this laughably
> propagandistic article. Just to give one example --
Good example, obviously.
> Without exaggeration, this and the Hunter Thompson piece may be the worst
> criticism I've ever read.
So what's more egregious in your opinion, Schwartz's late hits or the
hagiography of the Washington Post and NY Times? It was a cinch that
liberals would bow down and conservatives would throw stones. Where's the
truth? We have to piece it together for ourselves.
Ken
spjohnny
> hagiography of the Washington Post and NY Times? It was a cinch that
> liberals would bow down and conservatives would throw stones. Where's
> the truth? We have to piece it together for ourselves.
-------
Baseless attacks are probably even worse than baseless support. But my main
point would be that both Arthur Miller and Hunter Thompson can be subjected
to meaningful praise and criticism by people who find thinking worthwhile.
There's little evidence that Schwartz is interested in anything other than
propagandizing.
Incidentally, I don't feel that the NY Times bowed down to Miller. If I
remember correctly, they noted that he hadn't had a big hit in years. They
gave him deserved credit for plugging away right up to the end, but they
didn't say, "In fact, those later plays of his are really good."
Their last review of Miller (that I read) was middling at best.
Ken Wilson
> Baseless attacks are probably even worse than baseless support.
Yes, but neither the praise or the criticism of these two men is baseless,
although I'd say the praise is largely baseless in Thompson's case.
> But my main
> point would be that both Arthur Miller and Hunter Thompson can be
> subjected
> to meaningful praise and criticism by people who find thinking worthwhile.
> There's little evidence that Schwartz is interested in anything other than
> propagandizing.
I agree, but my point is that neither are the Times and the Post and other
fans who'll be memorializing him. So the Standard provides balance.
> Incidentally, I don't feel that the NY Times bowed down to Miller. If I
> remember correctly, they noted that he hadn't had a big hit in years. They
> gave him deserved credit for plugging away right up to the end, but they
> didn't say, "In fact, those later plays of his are really good."
>
> Their last review of Miller (that I read) was middling at best.
But neither did they criticize his stale left-wing political vision.
Here's the paragraph from the Standard piece that really caught my eyes: "
Here the essential mendacity of Miller's politics came to the fore. The
Crucible effectively dramatizes the terror of false accusation and
persecution. And yet, as Peter Mullen wrote in the London Times, "There were
no witches in Salem, Mr. Miller. But there were plenty of communist enemies
of the state in America." Indeed, the Moscow purge trials of the 1930s, in
which people lost their lives, are a more significant parallel to the Salem
tragedy than are the American congressional hearings of the 1950s, which
caused a few to lose their jobs."
Ken
Terry
Wilson) wrote:
> spjohnny wrote:
> > There's little evidence that Schwartz is interested in anything other
> > than propagandizing.
>
> I agree, but my point is that neither are the Times and the Post and
> other fans who'll be memorializing him. So the Standard provides
> balance.
So two wrongs _do_ make a right. And nailing Jesus to the cross was the
Roman way of providing balance.
Live and learn.
Pilgrim
Here's the paragraph from the Standard piece that really caught my eyes:
"Here the essential mendacity of Miller's politics came to the fore. The
Crucible effectively dramatizes the terror of false accusation and
persecution. And yet, as Peter Mullen wrote in the London Times, "There
were no witches in Salem, Mr. Miller. But there were plenty of communist
enemies of the state in America." Indeed, the Moscow purge trials of the
1930s, inwhich people lost their lives, are a more significant parallel to
the Salem
tragedy than are the American congressional hearings of the 1950s, which
caused a few to lose their jobs."
This caught my eye, too and is very telling about the level of propaganda
that it represents. The Bush administration is often accused of bringing
McCarthyism back to the United States. It is in the interest of the
Neo-Con's to downplay the McCarthy era and make it look acceptable. To
say that 'a few' people lost their jobs is really dishonest. It was close
to 10,000 people and many others suffered from simply having been
associated with being 'on the left' and having to defend their integrity.
Some of the people black-listed were the likes of Leonard Bernstein and
Pete Seeger. Enemies of the state???? Please. It was a paranoid farce
and it damaged many lives. It's very similar to the paranoia of the Witch
scare that swept through Europe and the early settlements in the US.
Saying that this brings some kind of balance to the argument is kind of
like using the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a way to bring
"balance" to a pro-Jewish viewpoint. It's not balance, it's just plain
dishonesty. This is regardless of the brutality of the Soviet Union under
Stalin because we are talking about a supposedly free country where the
free expression of political belief is fundamental. Our constitution
gives us this right. The Communist Party in the US had very little power,
and it was entirely legal. The real spies had already been taken out of
the country by Stalin (I believe it was approximately 500 people). All
that McCarthy did was falsely accuse leftists (like Seeger) of being
'anti-American' and do damage to many, many people, removing their
livelihoods, and/or ruining their reputation, and spreading paranoia.
Wanting to change our country so that there are rights for laborors and
less poverty is not against the United States, it doesn't make a person an
'enemy of the State'.
kfw...@yahoo.com
have to hear the perspectives of people you disagree with or don't
entirely agree with.
Ken
Terry
kfw...@yahoo.com () wrote:
So thinking for oneself entails absorbing a balanced diet of propaganda
and that's why you publicise neocon propaganda. Thanks for putting me
straight. Looks like I've wasted a lifetime forming my own opinions.
Pilgrim
"What you should learn is to think for yourself, and to do that well you
have to hear the perspectives of people you disagree with or don't
entirely agree with."
Gee Ken, thanks. I'll try to learn a total lack of discernment, so I can
'hear' even the most ridiculous arguments, and call them 'valid', just for
the sake of balance! I've always just gone with the crowd.
kfw...@yahoo.com
Ken
kfw...@yahoo.com
and generalities and putting into words exactly where that "propaganda"
is wrong.
Ken
kfw...@yahoo.com
neo-cons took power, and no one excuses McCarthy's excesses or denies
that some people were wronged. What they do say is that Communism was
still perceived as a threat, and that many on the Left -- Paul Robeson
is a good example, although in other ways I admire him -- who had every
reason to know better had not renounced Stalin, and had Communist ties.
Pilgrim
"Thinking for oneself means sometimes abandoning secondhand catchphrases
and generalities and putting into words exactly where that "propaganda"
is wrong."
I did. I'm beginning to think you are an idiot. NO WAIT!!!! I got that
a while ago.
End of discussion.
I'll go back to not responding to you.
Terry
kfw...@yahoo.com () wrote:
> Thinking for oneself means sometimes abandoning secondhand catchphrases
> and generalities
Like 'Leftist' you mean?
> and putting into words exactly where that "propaganda" is wrong.
Actually, propaganda is best ignored. Folks who use propaganda aren't
interested in reality and don't respond to logic.
kfw...@yahoo.com
leftist political stances? You don't know and couldn't guess most of my
political views.
Ken
Terry
kfw...@yahoo.com () wrote:
> Leftist is descriptive.
I see. Other people's "secondhand catchphrases and generalities" become
'descriptive' when wielded by you. So that's what you mean by "thinking
for yourself".
> Do you deny that some people take predictably leftist political stances?
People take all kinds of predictable stances. Once you stop thinking for
yourself you may begin to notice that 'leftists' are not alone in this.
> You don't know and couldn't guess most of my political views.
I wouldn't bother to try. I only like debating ideas. When it becomes
personal useful debate ends 'coz then there's a little picture, of a
'leftist' for example, and the boilerplate starts to flow.
judge_...@hotmail.com
The Post's comments were laudatory but hardly hagiographic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17515-2005Feb11.html
The same can said about the coverage in the Times.
You should not make things up simply to defend your position in an
argument. It is nearly, to use a phrase with which I believe you are
familiar, bearing false witness against those with whom you disagree.
That Schwartz has made himself prominent by doing so is hardly
justification; one might otherwise justify the emulation of John Gotti,
Jenna Jameson, or Kenneth Lay.
JM
judge_...@hotmail.com
The Post's comments were laudatory but hardly hagiographic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17515-2005Feb11.html
The same can said about the coverage in the Times.
You should not make things up simply to defend your position in an
argument. It is nearly, to use a phrase with which I believe you are
familiar, bearing false witness against those with whom you disagree.
That Schwartz has made himself prominent by doing so is hardly
justification; one might otherwise justify the emulation of John Gotti,
Jenna Jameson, or Kenneth Lay.
JM
kfw...@yahoo.com
> In article <1109209831.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> kfw...@yahoo.com () wrote:
>
> > Leftist is descriptive.
>
> I see. Other people's "secondhand catchphrases and generalities"
become
> 'descriptive' when wielded by you. So that's what you mean by
"thinking
> for yourself".
Let's take a couple of actual examples. You didn't like my use of the
word "leftist," so I pointed out that it's merely descriptive, and by
way of proving the point asked "Do you deny that some people take
predictably leftist political stances?" Now far be it from me to
discern a motive here because I don't want to upset frinjdwelr, but you
only deflected the question that would have made my point and chose to
merely repeat the charge (above), and point out the obvious and wildly
suggest that I didn't know it (below) despite the fact that I agreed to
it just yesterday.
On the other hand, you described the Schwartz article as neocon
propaganda, a subjective term even at best. (One man's propaganda here
is another's mere expression of his views, in this case a corrective to
other, arguably [i.e. this too is in part a subjective call]
romanticized views). And you made that charge without even trying to
rebut a single thing Schwartz said.
The last time we tangled you took to directing back at me in copycat
fashion the criticisms I made of you, and with no basis in anything I
said essentially accused me of racism, a charge which you proudly
refused to apologize for even when I pointed out how spurious it was.
So while I know you have views, I've not sure I've ever seen you
actually defend one, which suggests that a) you buy them discounted off
the rack and b) that you, like many leftwingers, do so in part because
they allow you to ooze contempt for conservatives. I'm a moderate
social conservative who votes Democratic but often has sympathy for
Republican views, regularly reads both liberals and conservatives, and
whose views on a certain social issue have grown less conservative in
conversation with liberals.
> > Do you deny that some people take predictably leftist political
stances?
>
> People take all kinds of predictable stances. Once you stop thinking
for
> yourself you may begin to notice that 'leftists' are not alone in
this.
No kidding. As I said in reply to spjohnny, "It was a cinch that
liberals would bow down and conservatives would throw stones."
Ken
Terry
kfw...@yahoo.com () wrote:
> Let's take a couple of actual examples. You didn't like my use of the
> word "leftist,"
I didn't say that. For the record, I don't mind your use of the word
'leftist'. It's a useful reminder that what follows is unlikely to be of
much value.
> so I pointed out that it's merely descriptive, and by
> way of proving the point asked "Do you deny that some people take
> predictably leftist political stances?" Now far be it from me to
> discern a motive here because I don't want to upset frinjdwelr, but you
> only deflected the question that would have made my point and chose to
> merely repeat the charge (above), and point out the obvious and wildly
> suggest that I didn't know it (below) despite the fact that I agreed to
> it just yesterday.
You appear confused. How could I possibly deny that people sometimes take
predictable stances? And is it not obvious that taking a predictable
stance is not peculiar to any shade of political opinion?
If you're still confused you may want to repharase your question without
secondhand catchphrases or generalities like 'leftist'.
> On the other hand, you described the Schwartz article as neocon
> propaganda, a subjective term even at best.
Actually, it is objective. William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly
Standard; his mom calls him a neoconservative. Propaganda is 'an organised
programme to propagate a doctrine'; the Weekly Standard does exactly that.
> And you made that charge without even trying to
> rebut a single thing Schwartz said.
That's a falsehood.
> The last time we tangled you took to directing back at me in copycat
> fashion the criticisms I made of you, and with no basis in anything I
> said essentially accused me of racism
That's a lie.
> a charge which you proudly
> refused to apologize for even when I pointed out how spurious it was.
That's another lie.
I know exactly what I wrote and you need to go and read very carefully to
refresh your memory before you post any more lies. You're very quick to
accuse others of mischaracterisation and to demand apologies for supposed
insults. Maybe you should consider what Jesus said about throwing stones.
kfw...@yahoo.com
> The Post's comments were laudatory but hardly hagiographic.
"Miller, the greatest social dramatist this nation has produced -- in
fact, the country's greatest living playwright until Thursday night --"
But yeah, rereading them I see that "worshipful" was too strong a word.
My point stands, though. You could find other examples. To the Left
he's a hero, to the Right he's not. Both sides have a right and
responsibility to express their opinion.
Ken
Pilgrim
and responsibility to express their opinion."
This has nothing to do with artistic quality. If we take Dylans work as
another example, for non-Christians, his gospel albums would then
'legitimately' lose all artistic value, because the judgment is based
purely on personal belief. What you are saying is that non-Christians
have the responsibility to express their oppinion that an album like 'Slow
Train' is worthless, soley on the basis of it's Christian content,
regardless of the musical quality of the album. Some people do this, but
they are not basing their judgment on the artistic merit of the actual
albums. It think this works when we are dealing with someones personal
opinion, but others certainly have the right to say that that approach
lacks substance on critical grounds.
I don't think anyone is saying that the Weekly Standard shouldn't exist.
They are saying that it's Neo-Con. propaganda. What is so wrong with
that? That IS what it is! Miller is not being looked at as a literary
figure, he's been reduced to a characature figure in the form of a
"leftist" and derided accordingly.
WDGo...@gmail.com
Bill
WDGo...@gmail.com
plays were to a considerable extent propaganda rather than art. In
other words, the Weekly Standard may be neo-con propaganda, but it may
not be only or entirely that. I seem to remember that the writer
critiqued Miller in a way that could be rebutted or repudiated if
anyone here actually knew anything much about Miller's plays and wanted
to do so. Instead of which you're all shouting about whether or not the
Standard is propaganda!
Can anyone refute the writer's criticisms of Miller, from Miller's
plays? i.e. show he was a writer of real artistic gifts as Pilgrim
asserts (to assert is not to prove, Pilgrim), that his work was not
vacuous, that he did not have a tin ear as the Weekly Standard writer
claims. Come on, you're Dylan fans! You're supposed to have sensitive
ears for language and words. Did Miller have real compassion for people
or was he just a propagandist?
These things need to be shown, not just asserted.
Bill
kfw...@yahoo.com
Ken
Delia
They have a responsibility to express public opinions that are neither
hero worship nor character assassination. As you can see, the the WaPo
and the NYT obits meet that standard. They acknowledge the complexity
of Miller's character and his literary work. But they're reasoned
pieces. Schwartz's article simply plays into the culture wars.
--
Delia
kfw...@yahoo.com
Not until I posted it here I didn't. ;-)
Unreasoned? Schwartz corrects the Post factually about Miller's
supposed blacklisting, and he allows that "Death of a Salesman" has its
points. He then goes on to point out that The Crucible is based on a
false analogy, the imagined existence of witches with the actual
existence of Communists at a time when Communism was perceived as a
threat and prominent .American communists gave aid and comfort to
Stalin's murderous regime. He goes on to note other things left unsaid
in either nerwspaper.
Ken
spjohnny
>
> Here's the paragraph from the Standard piece that really caught my
> eyes:
" Here the essential mendacity of Miller's politics came to the
> fore. The Crucible effectively dramatizes the terror of false
> accusation and persecution. And yet, as Peter Mullen wrote in the
> London Times, "There were no witches in Salem, Mr. Miller. But there
> were plenty of communist enemies of the state in America." Indeed, the
> Moscow purge trials of the 1930s, in which people lost their lives,
> are a more significant parallel to the Salem tragedy than are the
> American congressional hearings of the 1950s, which caused a few to
> lose their jobs."
--------------
Miller himself not only addressed the criticisms mentioned above, he
actually agreed with one of the main assertions. Therefore, it is highly
propagandistic (in my view) to take the denunciatory tone that Schwartz
uses -- as if Miller were not only mendacious but a hypocritical leftie
conveniently blind to the evils of Stalin.
The following is a quote from Miller from a much longer essay in The New
Yorker --
"Inevitably, it was no sooner known that my new play was about Salem
than I had to confront the charge that such an analogy was specious -
that there never were any witches but there certainly are Communists.
In the seventeenth century, however, the existence of witches was never
questioned by the loftiest minds in Europe and America; and even lawyers
of the highest eminence, like Sir Edward Coke, a veritable hero of
liberty for defending the common law against the king's arbitrary power,
believed that witches had to be prosecuted mercilessly....
I am not sure what "The Crucible" is telling people now, but I know that
its paranoid center is still pumping out the same darkly attractive
warning that it did in the fifties. For some, the play seems to be about
the dilemma of relying on the testimony of small children accusing
adults of sexual abuse, something I'd not have dreamed of forty years
ago.
For others, it may simply be a fascination with the outbreak of paranoia
that suffuses the play-the blind panic that, in our age, often seems to
sit at the dim edges of consciousness.
Certainly its political implications are the central issue for many
people; the Salem interrogations turn out to be eerily exact models of
those yet to come in Stalin's Russia, Pinochet's Chile, Mao's China, and
other regimes.
(Nien Cheng, the author of "Life and Death in Shanghai," has told me
that she could hardly believe that a non-Chinese-someone who had not
experienced the Cultural Revolution-had written the play.)
Full Article:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020422fr_archive02
Pilgrim
blacklisting, and he allows that "Death of a Salesman" has its
points. He then goes on to point out that The Crucible is based on a false
analogy,"
Actually, I'm finding a number of sites that list Miller as being on the
list. He never showed up for the HUAC hearing. This 'list', from what
I'm gathering in reading a number of sources, was a compiling of names of
people known to have associated themselves with the Communist party (a
legal political party), or had other Left Wing associations. It had
numerous affects, including preventing the getting of work, though this
was not always the case. Some people were able to work through
commissions, some went to Europe or Mexico, etc..
I've been looking for the actual list, but haven't been able to find it.
I've seen both the "300" and "320" as the number of people on it.
This site lists Miller, and shows what appears to be the information on
the actual list:
http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1950s/red_channels/redchannels.html
Pilgrim
blacklisted and forbidden to work in the film industry. Among the more
notable names -- Charlie Chaplain, Leonard Bernstein, Lee Grant, Judy
Holliday, Dashiell Hammett, Arthur Miller, Lillian Helman, Zero Mostel and
Orson Welles.
http://www.onstageboston.com/Articles/2005/02/February/reviewtrumbo.html
What strikes me, regardless of how much the absence of "heroism" distracts
from art (art reflects many issues, often bringing into consciousness the
unconscious, repressed portions of the culture it represents) is the
attack on artists. As an artist myself, and one who had been involved in
a Trotskyist group (I left because of the anti-religious orientation of
the group, not for other political reasons), this is alarming. Most of
the people I've seen listed were no threat to the US. I mean, Pete
Seeger, man! Pete Seeger! I wish he'd been my grandfather!
Artists, and I know many quite personally, almost always tend to towards
the Left, if they have any political orientation at all. The role they
play is to spark controversy, bring up difficult subjects, push the
culture forward, ask questions, make people think. Conservatives will
always find this difficult to stomach, and throughout history, they always
have.
kfw...@yahoo.com
right by the point. The Salem villagers did believe in witches, but we
today don't view the trials throught the prism of their belief, we see
those people instead as benighted, paranoid and mean. But while
McCarthy was mean and worse, anti-communist concern was rooted in
legitimate concern, not the hysteria the Left portrays it as. Miller
himself still characterizes that concern as "paraonia." And
contemporary parallels don't change the fact that wrote the play using
a false analogy.
Hypocrisy is a strong charge I think ought be used very carefully. I
don't doubt Miller's good intentions, but they don't excuse what,
ironically, can be viewed as a smear job.
Pilgrim
names, so, since "Red Channels" is an actual document from the time
period, I'm assuming that this is the original, or at least one of the
original lists that HUAC used, and since this isn't my field of study, I'm
only trying to piece together was appears to be a very confusing topic.
Miller refused to name names, whereas Ives did (I've found a mention of
him testifying against Seeger), so Ives was able to remove himself from
the consequences of having been on this list.
I guess people should make up there own minds about it, but to say that
claiming that Miller not on the "Blacklist" and that people who say he was
are "lying" or " wrong" is not quite correct. It's arguing over straws,
in my opinion. He may have escaped some of the consequences, he may not
have. I haven't looked up the effects he went through, but he certainly
didn't name names or cooperate.
This argument is getting really old.
judge_...@hotmail.com
of undeniable factual errors in this piece and the Thompson piece, I
hardly think it rational to accept it uncritically. As for the claim
of a "false analogy," that is entirely wrong and wrongheaded. There
were witches in Salem, of course, hedge witches, practioners of
superstitious rituals descended from old religions, old women playing
with the traditions of their youth that had fallen into disrepute under
more contemporary orthodoxies. As ineffectual as the CPUSA had become,
thoroughly infiltrated (and financed) by the FBI, and essentially
discredited in the public. As the Venona intercepts and other
documents declassified by the NSA and other agencies show conclusively,
the McCarthyite/HUAC claims proved to be no better than grossly
exaggerated and mostly baseless, and their falsity was well known to
many (like Hoover) who continued to fan the flames for more than a
decade. That Stalin had a few well-placed agents in the US government
cannot be denied, any more than the existence of well-placed American
and British agents in the USSR government, but their existence no more
proves the existence of a meancing communist underground in the US than
the US/British agents provide a rational basis for the Stalinist
purges.
MAGNEY, J.
kfw...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Unreasoned? Schwartz corrects the Post factually about Miller's
> supposed blacklisting, and he allows that "Death of a Salesman" has
its
> points. He then goes on to point out that The Crucible is based on a
> false analogy, the imagined existence of witches with the actual
> existence of Communists at a time when Communism was perceived as a
> threat and prominent.
>
> Ken
Peter Leighton
<kfw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109351962.6...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> That's an interesting interview excerpt, but I think Millers skates
> right by the point. The Salem villagers did believe in witches, but we
> today don't view the trials throught the prism of their belief, we see
> those people instead as benighted, paranoid and mean. But while
> McCarthy was mean and worse, anti-communist concern was rooted in
> legitimate concern,
Joe McCarthy and company ruined lives, and there is NO evidence that
the pursuit of people who believed in communism, but who did not
do anything to harm our national security, had ANY beneficial effect.
Pursuing spies is legitimate. Witch hunts against those with unpopular
political opinions is not.
Peter
khematite
> Actually, I'm finding a number of sites that list Miller as being on
the
> list. He never showed up for the HUAC hearing. This 'list', from
what
> I'm gathering in reading a number of sources, was a compiling of
names of
> people known to have associated themselves with the Communist party
(a
> legal political party), or had other Left Wing associations. It had
> numerous affects, including preventing the getting of work, though
this
> was not always the case. Some people were able to work through
> commissions, some went to Europe or Mexico, etc..
>
> I've been looking for the actual list, but haven't been able to find
it.
> I've seen both the "300" and "320" as the number of people on it.
>
> This site lists Miller, and shows what appears to be the information
on
> the actual list:
>
>
http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1950s/red_channels/redchannels.html
Thanks for finding this. It's hard not to have both a hearty chuckle
and complete
contempt for the illustrious dunderheads who were going to save America
from
domestic Communism by alerting the sleeping public to such subversive
menaces as:
Gypsy Rose Lee
Stripteaser
Reported as speaker at 1941 meeting of Hollywood Anti-Nazi League
(Red Channels, p. 98)
Maybe someday Steven Sondheim will use that nugget in a sequel to
"Gypsy."
kfw...@yahoo.com
> Joe McCarthy and company ruined lives, and there is NO evidence that
> the pursuit of people who believed in communism, but who did not
> do anything to harm our national security, had ANY beneficial effect.
Hindsight is 20-20. Communism was a worldwide threat.
> Pursuing spies is legitimate. Witch hunts against those with
unpopular
> political opinions is not.
That's easy to say when you don't have the responsibility of figuring
out who's who. Again, conservatives don't defend McCarthy's excesses.
But the Left, typically, clings to its romanticized, black and white
view of history in which it plays the victim. McCarthy's character
corrupted the hearings, but that doesn't mean the hearings were without
legitimate basis.
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrecker-blacklist.html
"Even at the height of the McCarthyist furor in the early 1950s, the
anti-Communist crusade was relatively mild. Many prosecutions faltered
on appeal and only a few foreign-born radicals were actually deported.
Only Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death; and of the roughly
150 people who went to prison, most were released within a year or
two."
The much more common punishment was job loss. And here I'd be
interested in counting hands. How many people who decry the Right for
punishing men dedicated to overthrowing the American system would hire
screenwriters and other entertainment professionals who were secretly
or openly dedicated to establishing a theocracy here?
Ken
kfw...@yahoo.com
such lists and others use it to refer to the effective use of that
list. That one of the country's major newspaper says Miller was
blacklisted and the other does not suggests there may be some sort of
confusion like this. But Schwartz writes Miller himself didn't claim
to have been blackisted. If Schwartz is wrong it should be easy to find
a quote from Miller.
Ken
kfw...@yahoo.com
direction they feel it should go, but it's also fine for other people
to try to limit their effectiveness -- to push back. Artists have no
special claim to wisdom. And I'd like to hear from someone who'd like
to live under Communism.
kfw...@yahoo.com
Charles or Burl?
> I guess people should make up there own minds about it, but to say
that
claiming that Miller not on the "Blacklist" and that people who say he
was
are "lying" or " wrong" is not quite correct.
I agree that the charge of lying is unreasonable.
Ken
judge_...@hotmail.com
him off various projects he was working on, shutting at least one down.
He was the subject of a 3-page spread in "Red Channels," one of the
focal blacklist documents.
http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1950s/red_channels/redch110.jpg
http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1950s/red_channels/redch111.jpg
http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1950s/red_channels/redch112.jpg
Blacklisting was most effective in the motion picture and television
industries, far less effective in live theater; even a cursory review
of Miller's movie/TV credits will show a dramatic increase in his work
in those areas after the blacklist was broken down in the early 1960s.
Schwartz is wrong. Schwartz is a malicious liar. How many
demonstrations of his mendacity will it require before you cease
denying such an obvious point?
JM
Peter Leighton
<kfw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109434633.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Leighton wrote:
>> Joe McCarthy and company ruined lives, and there is NO evidence that
>> the pursuit of people who believed in communism, but who did not
>> do anything to harm our national security, had ANY beneficial effect.
>
> Hindsight is 20-20. Communism was a worldwide threat.
>
>> Pursuing spies is legitimate. Witch hunts against those with
> unpopular
>> political opinions is not.
>
> That's easy to say when you don't have the responsibility of figuring
> out who's who. Again, conservatives don't defend McCarthy's excesses.
> But the Left, typically, clings to its romanticized, black and white
> view of history in which it plays the victim. McCarthy's character
> corrupted the hearings, but that doesn't mean the hearings were without
> legitimate basis.
>
> http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrecker-blacklist.html
> "Even at the height of the McCarthyist furor in the early 1950s, the
> anti-Communist crusade was relatively mild. Many prosecutions faltered
> on appeal and only a few foreign-born radicals were actually deported.
> Only Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death; and of the roughly
> 150 people who went to prison, most were released within a year or
> two."
Why, I guess that makes it all right then.
>
> The much more common punishment was job loss.
Which is very serious.
Ostracism as well. My father's family (staunch Republicans) were so scared
of even being linked to anyone with a hint of "tendencies" that they felt
obliged to cut off some friendly acquaintances of theirs. This behavior
was quite common. People were terrified.
>And here I'd be
> interested in counting hands. How many people who decry the Right for
> punishing men dedicated to overthrowing the American system
The targets included many who didn't believe in violent overthrow.
Many Communist Party members didn't believe in this, just as
many Christians don't believe that every word of the Bible is
literally true.
Democratic socialists were considered to be fellow travelers.
Liberals were called pinkos.
The so-called "slime" you accuse one of America's greatest playrights
of perpetrating is nothing compared to McCarthyism.
>would hire
> screenwriters and other entertainment professionals who were secretly
> or openly dedicated to establishing a theocracy here?
Since you are counting hands, I would.
Peter
>
> Ken
>
kfw...@yahoo.com
> > http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrecker-blacklist.html
> > "Even at the height of the McCarthyist furor in the early 1950s,
the
> > anti-Communist crusade was relatively mild. Many prosecutions
faltered
> > on appeal and only a few foreign-born radicals were actually
deported.
> > Only Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death; and of the
roughly
> > 150 people who went to prison, most were released within a year or
> > two."
>
> Why, I guess that makes it all right then.
It doesn't make it all right anymore than it was all wrong. Do we have
to render simple, black and white judgments?
> Ostracism as well. My father's family (staunch Republicans) were so
scared
> of even being linked to anyone with a hint of "tendencies" that they
felt
> obliged to cut off some friendly acquaintances of theirs. This
behavior
> was quite common. People were terrified.
That's very sad. But there is "terrified" of losing one's job and
terrified of losing one's life. Anti-communism meant to prevent the
latter.
> >And here I'd be
> > interested in counting hands. How many people who decry the Right
for
> > punishing men dedicated to overthrowing the American system
>
> The targets included many who didn't believe in violent overthrow.
> Many Communist Party members didn't believe in this, just as
> many Christians don't believe that every word of the Bible is
> literally true.
> Democratic socialists were considered to be fellow travelers.
> Liberals were called pinkos.
Again, this is easy hindsight and fails to grapple with the difficulty
and the danger. The hearing were intended to find out who was who.
> The so-called "slime" you accuse one of America's greatest playrights
> of perpetrating is nothing compared to McCarthyism.
Excuse me, did I use the word "slime"?
> >would hire
> > screenwriters and other entertainment professionals who were
secretly
> > or openly dedicated to establishing a theocracy here?
>
> Since you are counting hands, I would.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but neither do I believe that if it came
right down to it you or any other decent person would aid people you
believed to be dangerous. We're talking about people who had great
power to shape political views.
Ken
judge_...@hotmail.com
Ken Wilson wrote:
> But there is "terrified" of losing one's job and terrified of losing
one's
> life. Anti-communism meant to prevent the latter.
There is a wall in Washington bearing a long list of names that
demonstrates how inane a simplification, how great a distortion this
is.
Perhaps you might provide us with some contemporaneous evidence that
the McCarthyite activists of the late 1940s and early 1950s feared that
Stalin might lead a godless jihad against the West, putting believers
to the sword. But I doubt you shall.
JM
Pilgrim
Are you trying to misunderstand?
Different types of people ARE necessary. We are talking about the
supression of a group of people for political reasons and pure paranoia
(oddly reminiscent of certain trends in the current political situation in
the US). My alarm goes off when specific types with specific roles
necessary for a balance, such as 'artists', are singled out for
persecution or oppression by another group who views them as 'subversives'
simply because they disagree with them politically.
Whether or not artists are 'wise', is, in my mind, a very misleading
direction to try to take this in. Do you think I am somehow proposing
that artists should control the entire country? How absured. Of course
there should be checks and balances. That's why McCarthyism and similar
ideologies or patterns of control, are frighteningly alarming.
How do we judge who is wise? Don't we need a variety of types to make a
'people'? It seems to me that 'wise people' are relatively rare in any
group or 'type', if what we are talking about is really 'wisdom'. Let's
leave that for history to sort out. The 'dynamics' of a 'culture' happen
BECAUSE of the push and pull of the variety of types within it. For a
healthy 'democracy' to occur, we need to allow the individual types to
exist without supression. Being an artist, and being left-wing is not a
form of criminality that needs to be suppressed. I can go on about the
lack of support for the arts in the US and the horrendous condition of art
education, but I've been editing this post for some time now, and I'm
getting really tired, wasting enough time as it is and, damn, it's long
already.
What's this "living under Communism" statement? You mean Stalinism? Or
Maoism? Or some other totalitarian extreme? This reminds me of
McCarthism! Do you think me and my socialist friends were plotting the
overthrow of the country? Wacky. How about creating a healthy balance?
I would prefer to bring more socialism to the US. I would like to find a
way to lesson the class divisions and ethnic divisions (not to rid
ourselves of ethnicity, but biases against ethnicity) so that kids in the
inner cities and other neglected areas have more opportunities, and poor
people, in general, have more access to a good educational foundation,
healthy food, adequate shelter and ways to improve their lives. I do not
feel that Corporate power should go unchecked, and I am very much
concerned with environmental issues caused by greed and disregard for
sustainability. Unless we can find a way to move to outer space, we
really need to retain a livable, non-poisonous environment which includes
safe places for non-humans and ways to grow food that is not stripped of
it's nutritional value, poisonous with pesticides, or, in the case of meat
and dairy, abusive to animals or creating other health problems. I would
like to see universal and more holistic health coverage in the US and less
expensive higher education. Our country was founded on the idea that
education was a fundamental right. Access to computers and text books is
difficult and sometimes hopeless in poor communities (not to mention
enough good food to actually think on). I believe that those with more
money SHOULD be contributing more in taxes and that the current
administration is hell bent on ensuring that those with the money pay even
less and that the burden is laid more and more on the middle class and the
poorest people.
Philosophers have long distinguished between "Marxism" as Marx worked it
out, and how it was changed by the leaders of so called 'Communist'
countries. This is not the forum to discuss this and as I said early,
damn this post is long, and I keep deleting large portions to retain some
sort of brevity. I only like boring people so much, then it gets old,
even for me. One thing though that most people don't seem to know. Marx
was not positive about Russia becoming Communist, and did not believe it
would work. He was right. The rights of people need to develop
gradually, through several small 'revolutions', not the sudden overthrow
of a state. Marxism is a theory of social evolution that occurs over
time, and the ideas that shape it also need to develop over time. This is
why I'm using the word 'socialism' with a small 's'. I feel that many of
the countries that became 'Communist' and fascist have simply made a trade
of one form of nasty regime for another, and did very little evolving,
though I have friends who have been to Cuba who tell me otherwise.
Fascist type leaders seem to be able to show up anywhere, including
democracies, as they're the ones with the will to power strong enough to
actually grab the power in whatever way they can devise, be it force or
deception.
I personally have serious issues with the negativity towards religion that
Marx had. I think most people will want to believe in something and that
that is a very good thing. I don't think it's healthy to insist everyone
believes in some sort of spirituality or religion, or in no religion at
all, or in one universal religion. That out of the way... There are
examples of Religious Socialism, particularly from South America (and
other religious left-wing/liberal thinkers in the US and elsewhere), that
have shaped socialist thought and made for more balanced philosophies to
add to the mix.
The idea of "socialism" can be balanced with other political philosophies
within a democracy to create a more harmonious system where there is more
fairness and opportunity for everyone. European, the Israeli Kibbutz
system or South American approaches may not work for the US, or some of
these elements may incorporable, we would have to be free to actually
debate and work out details, include existing philophies, retaining the
integrity of our Constitution (which is now being threatened by the Right
Wing), etc. The game of life is to grow and change and hopefully make
things better. We can let ourselves be controlled by the people with the
most power, as often happens, or people can attempt to create a more
balanced system that benefits more people. Nothing will turn out to be
perfect, but demonizing socialism because of the Russian fiasco, or other
totalitarian regimes, is what is often called "throwing out the baby with
the bath water". It's time to move past it. Balance is the key.
Peter Leighton
<kfw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109474167.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Leighton wrote:
>> Ostracism as well. My father's family (staunch Republicans) were so
> scared
>> of even being linked to anyone with a hint of "tendencies" that they
> felt
>> obliged to cut off some friendly acquaintances of theirs. This
> behavior
>> was quite common. People were terrified.
>
> That's very sad. But there is "terrified" of losing one's job and
> terrified of losing one's life. Anti-communism meant to prevent the
> latter.
1) You mix up two related, but separate things.
Anti-communism was a foreign policy. Its tools included the pursuit of
spies.
McCarthyism was domestic. Its practitioners whipped up hysteria
against peaceful leftists, most of whom didn't believe in violent overthrow.
The Salem analogy was dead on. There WERE witches - Wicca is an
ancient religion. Most of them were totally harmless. A few of them
were evil, but there's no evidence that witches were more likely
to be evil than non-witches. Most of the Salem residents who were
caught up in the hysteria were good people. The same is true of the
millions of supporters of McCarthyism. That doesn't change the fact
that both groups were caught up in mass hysteria against innocent
members of an unpopular group.
2) If a movie was produced which caused large numbers of people to vote
for leftist candidates (and I'm not sure that it ever actually happened),
this
would NOT have been ANY threat to democacy in this country.
Can you explain why "subversive" movies would have been a threat
to democracy? Can you give one example of a movie which was such
a threat?
>> >And here I'd be
>> > interested in counting hands. How many people who decry the Right
> for
>> > punishing men dedicated to overthrowing the American system
>> >would hire
>> > screenwriters and other entertainment professionals who were
> secretly
>> > or openly dedicated to establishing a theocracy here?
>>
>> Since you are counting hands, I would.
>
> I don't doubt your sincerity, but neither do I believe that if it came
> right down to it you or any other decent person would aid people you
> believed to be dangerous. We're talking about people who had great
> power to shape political views.
Ken, this is a fundamental difference between the two of us.
I don't believe that people "dedicated to establishing a theocracy
here" (of any religion), or dedicated to Communism, etc., are a threat
to us if they are allowed to write or produce a movie. They are only
dangerous if they are planning to blow up a building, or selling
secrets to our enemies.
You are scared of ideas. I am not.
Peter
>
> Ken
>
kfw...@yahoo.com
I think you somewhat misunderstood me. I enjoy your posts but most of
what you wrote is obvious and undeniable.
> My alarm goes off when specific types with specific roles
necessary for a balance, such as 'artists', are singled out for
persecution or oppression by another group who views them as
'subversives'
simply because they disagree with them politically.
Artists as a whole were not singled out for questioning, and as you
noted, not all artists lean to the Left today or had Marxist sympathies
back then. But I wrote "artists" because you wrote "artists." What I
was saying is that they have no special immunity and no special
visionary or entirely unique role and status in the socio-political
process. They can be insightful and they can be foolish.
> Do you think I am somehow proposing
that artists should control the entire country? How absured.
It was rather absurd for you think I thought that. :-) You wrote:"The
role [artists] play is to spark controversy, bring up difficult
subjects, push the culture forward, ask questions, make people think.
Conservatives will always find this difficult to stomach, and
throughout history, they always have."
I find several problems with this paragraph, and you'll have to pardon
me if I in turn read into it more than you intended. Some highly
seminal artists (T.S. Eliot, George Balanchine) are/have been
conservatives of one sort or another, or apolitical. Artists are not
the only people trying to push the country forward, and while that's an
important role, we need balance, as you say, and that includes people
who are concerned to preserve the good we already have, people who
resist certain changes and force us to examine them more closely.
Liberals, we might say, will always find this difficult to stomach, and
throughout history, they always have. as you say, In fact it's
interesting that in this country today even some on the liberal/left
side of the fence admit that their side needs intellectual renewal and
that it's the conservatives who are doing all those things you listed
and coming out with the radical proposals for change. (Not that I
personally like Bush messing around with Social Security).
Ken
Pilgrim
"In fact it's interesting that in this country today even some on the
liberal/left side of the fence admit that their side needs intellectual
renewal and that it's the conservatives who are doing all those things you
listed and coming out with the radical proposals for change. (Not that I
personally like Bush messing around with Social Security)."
In my view, the 'liberals' are simply being honest, and the conservatives
are very much NOT doing the things I mentioned and are deluding themselves
and trying to delude the rest of us. If you honestly believe that the
environment is improving, Corporations are becoming less powerful and more
responsible, the leaders of this country are not greatly profiting from a
war and poverty is actually being reduced by this administration, you are
even more of a dreamer than I am. I'm tired of arguing, though. Deep
down I think we actually agree on basic stuff, and as someone else has
aptly said, in relation to more on topic to this forum subject matter, the
devil is in the details. I'm a big idea girl, and I leave the details to
others. I have a life I need to go focus on now... something about going
back to school, OH YEAH! I remember...
This is interesting, but... I've discovered that some arguments are
futile, and I need to make sure I get through school while it's still only
highly unaffordable as opposed to prohibitively unaffordable and only for
the extremely rich.
WDGo...@gmail.com
towards
>the Left, if they have any political orientation at all.
Not quite correct, Pilgrim, much as I might like it to be true. Not
even true of satirists, of whom you might expect it would be. Swift - a
Tory. Evelyn Waugh - a Tory (sorry - in England Tory means
Conservative). Balzac, the great exposer of French bourgeois society -
a Conservative. Dosteoievsky wanted Russia to be ruled by the Tsar and
the Russian Orthodox Church, I believe.
They could be called "Left" only if you extend the meaning of left to
cover anyone who exposes and/or satirises their contemporary society,
and someone like Waugh contributes to the undermining of the
ruling-class to which he belongs, simply by his perceptive exposes of
its absurdities. "Left" perhaps in some very broad long-term sense. But
not leftwing politically in his opinions.
Bill
Peter Leighton
<WDGo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109559920.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
And Shakespeare believed in the divine right of kings - or at least
pretended to in order to keep his bread buttered.
Peter
Terry
trea...@aol.com (SilkUpholsteredChair) wrote:
>
> WDGo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >Artists, and I know many quite personally, almost always tend to
> > towards
> > >the Left, if they have any political orientation at all.
> >
> > Not quite correct, Pilgrim, much as I might like it to be true. Not
> > even true of satirists, of whom you might expect it would be. Swift -
> a
> > Tory. Evelyn Waugh - a Tory (sorry - in England Tory means
> > Conservative). Balzac, the great exposer of French bourgeois society
> -
> > a Conservative. Dosteoievsky wanted Russia to be ruled by the Tsar
> and
> > the Russian Orthodox Church, I believe.
> > They could be called "Left" only if you extend the meaning of left to
> > cover anyone who exposes and/or satirises their contemporary society,
> > and someone like Waugh contributes to the undermining of the
> > ruling-class to which he belongs, simply by his perceptive exposes of
> > its absurdities. "Left" perhaps in some very broad long-term sense.
> But
> > not leftwing politically in his opinions.
> >
> > Bill
>
> "Art" degenerates when it becomes "political." It's not art anymore,
> just agitprop to one degree or another. It makes no difference whether
> Pound supported Mussolini, Dostoevsky the Czar, Picasso the
> Republicans, Whitman the Free Silver Party, Berlioz the anabaptists.
> It's what their work does. When art gets reduced to politics you end
> writing songs that say:
> "We live in a political world,
> Love don't have any place," but at least "we all know for sure that
> it's real." Wonderful! As somebody said, "If this is paradise/I wish I
> had a lawnmower."
>
>
Everything is political. Politics arises from the Greek word for citizen
but the political world has been demeaned by the modern fashion for giving
everything a label - left, right, whatever - for easy comprehension. If
artists aren't supposed to be political they'll have to return to still
lifes or memorializing great men.
Mr. Rick
>But it's worth asking whether this is the kind of art that we, as a
culture, want to elevate. Personally I have my doubts.
Aside for the (doubtful) Jesus elevation, there isn't any hero-worship with
Bob Dylan. It's a world of misfits, chronicled by a misfit. If you're
looking for heros, try an Italian deli.
Pilgrim
"Everything is political. Politics arises from the Greek word for citizen
but the political world has been demeaned by the modern fashion for giving
everything a label - left, right, whatever - for easy comprehension. If
artists aren't supposed to be political they'll have to return to still
lifes or memorializing great men."
Exactly, though memorializing great men is often a political statement.
Even the Impressionists images of people in cafes, night clubs and parks
can be understood as political statements.
Obviously artists shake up each form of society in ways that don't always
reflect the comtemporary cliches of left-wing/right-wing. I also did not
say "all". The role, appears to remain the same, however. Though I'm sure
there are people who did 'art' who brought up nothing controversial for
anyone to think about and provided merely pleasant experiences with no
sort of catharsis at all and it may still be recognized somewhere as
having 'said something important', but this, I think, is quite rare.
Renoir comes to mind, but in his time, the populist painting being
produced by the Impressionists were 'contra' the art of the aristocratic
academy and therefore 'political'. His work reflects that. Non
challenging work may fall into genre or craft, however these blur with
what we call art. Generally, though, art represents a force that pushes
it's intended audience to question and think, or feel something new, open
up to experiencing differently personal or collective emotion(s), resolve
otherwise unconscious or hidden/neglected issues, issues that are
'prickly' in some way, produce some sort of catharsis - whether it's what
we now call 'personal' or what we now call 'political', on a psychological
level. Sometimes the personal and the political are the same thing.
In other words, it would be impossible to sum it up in a few paragraphs,
and the actual form would obviously reflect the milieu that artist is
responding to. Each situation is different. The poem from Tarantula that
A.J. brought up comes to mind. Dylan was having a reaction to what he
felt was a pressure to conform to political action. He rebelled with
what, in his social-political situation, was a controversial position and
he turned the civil rights movement topsy turvy in order to express his
intense internal reactions. The poem appears to have provided a personal
catharsis in dealing with that pressure to conform and follow what in HIS
personal experience was a 'herd' mentality.
As far as art degenerating when it becomes 'political', it depends on how
it's approached, entirely. In my opinion, art degenerates when it gets
stuck in a 'genre' and becomes formulaic. Some 'genre' forms can be
elevated to 'art', however, so even that can't be 'summed' up in a few
sentences.
kfw...@yahoo.com
> In my view, the 'liberals' are simply being honest, and the
conservatives
> are very much NOT doing the things I mentioned and are deluding
themselves
> and trying to delude the rest of us. If you honestly believe that
the
> environment is improving, Corporations are becoming less powerful and
more
> responsible, the leaders of this country are not greatly profiting
from a
> war and poverty is actually being reduced by this administration, you
are
> even more of a dreamer than I am. I'm tired of arguing, though.
Well you did say "if," but still . . . I'm a little tired of arguing
with people ascribe to me or suggest that I may hold views I've given
no indication I hold. It's ironic that people who claim to be thinking
for themselves can't recognize when someone is actually thinking for
himself. Once more: I'm sympathetic to many conservative views and I
hold some moderately conservative views, but I vote Democratic. Your
first sentence there, in which the liberals are the good guys and the
conservatives are the bad guys betrays a naive, simplistic view of
reality which I hope won't harden into willful naivete and
self-righteous closemindedness. But why wouldn't it? It's hard to give
up easy comforts.
Ken
Pilgrim
Sigh...
I guess what is simplistic and naive to one person can be perceptive and
on target to another.
As far as your 'thinking for yourself' goes. Bravo. Let's call it a day.
Mr. Rick
>"Art" degenerates when it becomes "political." It's not art anymore, just
agitprop to one degree or another.
I guess you don't dig the peace sign.
Terry
<bb8a9306aaab533c...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com>,
mcis...@umich.edu (Pilgrim) wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>
> "Everything is political. Politics arises from the Greek word for
> citizen but the political world has been demeaned by the modern fashion
> for giving everything a label - left, right, whatever - for easy
> comprehension. If artists aren't supposed to be political they'll have
> to return to still lifes or memorializing great men."
>
> Exactly, though memorializing great men is often a political statement.
True. Art can question authority. At times it is the only way.
> there are people who did 'art' who brought up nothing controversial for
> anyone to think about and provided merely pleasant experiences
Tretchikoff...
kfw...@yahoo.com
> Everything is political. Politics arises from the Greek word for
citizen
but the political world has been demeaned by the modern fashion for
giving
everything a label - left, right, whatever - for easy comprehension. If
artists aren't supposed to be political they'll have to return to
still
lifes or memorializing great men. <
If everything is political than the phrase has little meaning. Not
everything a citizen does has implications for the polis, and not all
art comments upon or overtly reflects the political issues of the day
and social conditions of the day.
As for "labels for easy comprehension," we might as well call a spade a
spade. The problem is not with calling political positions by their
names, it's with adopting political positions in kneejerk fashion
without having truly considered the opposing positions.
Ken
kfw...@yahoo.com
kfw...@yahoo.com
there are people who did 'art' who brought up nothing controversial for
anyone to think about and provided merely pleasant experiences with no
sort of catharsis at all and it may still be recognized somewhere as
having 'said something important', but this, I think, is quite rare.
Renoir comes to mind, but in his time, the populist painting being
produced by the Impressionists were 'contra' the art of the
aristocratic
academy and therefore 'political'. His work reflects that.
Haven't you refuted your own assertion? Renoir's work is only
political in that narrow sense, and Renoir didn't set out to flout
the academy's norms but to paint what he saw and felt. If the work
had had no aesthetic merit it would never have caught on with the
public and forced its way into the academy. It would never have changed
art history. In other words, it would have had no political affect. Its
political power as such derived from its aesthetic power and was a side
effect, not part and parcel of the work's power. The work would hang
in museums today if it had never had political ramifications.
And surely you don't really see political effects or ramifications as
the only form of catharsis? People return to Renoir again and again,
not because of the political history and not because his work merely
provides a pleasant experience, but because the beauty and the deep
feeling in the work stirs the soul.
Ken
judge_...@hotmail.com
Ken Wilson wrote:
As for "labels for easy comprehension," we might as well call a spade a
spade. The problem is not with calling political positions by their
names, it's with adopting political positions in kneejerk fashion
without having truly considered the opposing positions.
And the distinction between the pieces you posted recently, whose
author invariably, it seems, insists that writers who do not share his
politics must be artistic failures and wretched craftsmen, and the
behavior you profess to condemn, would be?
JM
Pilgrim
so I'm sending it again. My apologies if it shows up twice.
Ken continues and continues,
"Haven't you refuted your own assertion? Renoir's work is only political
in that narrow sense, and Renoir didn't set out to flout the academy's
norms but to paint what he saw and felt."
Yes, and no. He was part of a historical context that reflected a movement
towards a populist democratic era, and because he associated himself with
this group, there are political 'tinges' to him, though in Renoirs case,
it was extremely minimal. He made choices and these included painting in
the Impressionist style, and not in the style of the Academy. That was my
point. Why he made the choices he made may only be known by Monsieur
Renoir himself. My studies led me more towards other painters. Renoir is
too sacharin for my tastes, and I don't know what his motivation was,
other than that he was clearly into sweet and happy to the point of being
slightly gross (my opinion, here, Ken, my opinion only!). I usually skip
him when I visit a museum, and gravitate towards the more troubled or at
least interesting worlds of Medieval religious angst, the
Post-Impressionists and the 20th century. I'm often in the African and
Indian sections, as well. Monet is fun to hang out with, too, especially
in a room that focuses on one of his series. Far superior to Renoir, in my
opinion.
"If the work had had no aesthetic merit it would never have caught on with
the public and forced its way into the academy. It would never have
changed art history. In other words, it would have had no political
affect. Its political power as such derived from its aesthetic power and
was a side effect, not part and parcel of the work's power. The work would
hang in museums today if it had never had political ramifications."
Yeah, ok, that's one way of looking at. My point was certainly not to
claim that Renoir was 'political', but that Impressionism can be viewed as
an artistic movement that reflected the changing political views coming in
with the Industrial Revolution and populist movements and a reaction away
from the Aristocratic orientation of 'High Culture' that preceded it. It
can also be seen in light of a pure aesthetic development, but to my mind,
that is a limited view. In other words, I think the two are connected, and
I tend to view the world through a lense of socio-political (and
socio-religious, when appropriate) development, but it's also completely
valid to view the world from any number of 'lenses' and sometimes several.
It's just different perspectives.
"And surely you don't really see political effects or ramifications as the
only form of catharsis?"
Of course not. If you look at what I wrote, I included emotions. I'm not
sure why you are arguing, but I'll refrain from posting the personality
theory I've developed about you to explain it.
"People return to Renoir again and again, not because of the political
history and not because his work merely provides a pleasant experience,
but because the beauty and the deep feeling in the work stirs the soul."
Sure, but my point was that he lived and worked within a particular time
and framework, within a specific social and working 'group', the
Impressionists, who reflected a specific historical shift which had
political undertones. Several of the Impressionists and
Post-Impressionists were consciously political and aesthetic progressives.
Of course not ALL of them were as progressive or politically conscious as
others were, and I'm not saying that that is why we appreciate them,
though it does figure in to a certain extent. The 'conservatives' of their
day were the Academic painters, who dismissed the work of the
Impressionists as being 'low culture' and not 'art' at all. Far fewer of
them are even remembered and their work is viewed as being a cultural
dead-end for that time period. I think you are making a mountain out of a
mole-hill and maybe you have a compulsive need to argue. Once again, I
will not post my personality theory about you, I will not do it, I will
not!
There are many ways to experience art, and many ways to interpret it. I
tend to view most things in a historical context, and that tends to bring
in political ideas and movements, but it's certainly true that there are
other ways to approach art and aesthetic experiences.
Carlos Serra
agreement with Pilgrim here re: Renoir and Monet. I find Renoir completely
superficial and devoid of interest; he leaves me completely unmoved, whereas
the greatness of Monet's work is beyond my ability to express properly,
particularly the Rouen series, which I think is an artistic statement for
the ages and which, more importantly to me, moves me deeply. The London
series is also great; the Waterlilies I find a bit less interesting, but his
sense of colour is very strong in everything he made. I forget the name, but
the last series he painted, almost blind with cataracts and almost abstract
in nature, are very disturbing, perhaps not in a bad way if you set aside
the man's contition at the time.
Tolouse-Lautrec wa also inmense; I think my favourite painting of his is a
portrait of Vincent Van Gogh, whose work I also love, particularly the
self-portraits... I have difficulty meeting his gaze.
Oh, just to maintain the political tone of this thread: I think Monet had a
fairly conservative outlook, from what I've read of the man. :-)
Regards to all,
C.
"Pilgrim" <mcis...@umich.edu> escribió en el mensaje
news:948834762746a78a...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
kfw...@yahoo.com
style, and not in the style of the Academy
And that was made for aesthetic, not a political reasons.
> Renoir is
too sacharin for my tastes, and I don't know what his motivation was,
other than that he was clearly into sweet and happy to the point of
being
slightly gross (my opinion, here, Ken, my opinion only!).
It's an opinion many share, of course, and so did I after seeing 183 of
them at the Barnes Foundation. But actually I've warmed up to him
somewhat again after years of sharing your feelings.
> that Impressionism can be viewed as
an artistic movement that reflected the changing political views coming
in
with the Industrial Revolution and populist movements and a reaction
away
from the Aristocratic orientation of 'High Culture' that preceded it.
I don't think anyone disputes that.
> In other words, I think the two are connected
They're connected only in that they occurred at the same time, not in
the sense of cause and effect.
> And surely you don't really see political effects or ramifications as
the
only form of catharsis
?"
Of course not. If you look at what I wrote, I included emotions. I'm
not
sure why you are arguing, but I'll refrain from posting the personality
theory I've developed about you to explain it.
Perhaps when you're older you won't be such a smart aleck. You spoke of
"people who did 'art' who brought up nothing controversial for
anyone to think about and provided merely pleasant experiences with no
sort of catharsis at all." My point, which I expect you agree with, is
that work need not be political or controversial to provide catharsis.
That "merely" pleasant" experience is usually the contemplation of the
beautiful, and that alone can do it, and will do it where the political
alone won't.
"I
tend to view most things in a historical context, and that tends to
bring
in political ideas and movements, but it's certainly true that there
are
other ways to approach art and aesthetic experiences."
You're the only one who ever does this. :-) But seriously, here's where
I agree with an earlier poster. If it's art, it may be political and/or
have a place in political history, but the aesthetic is primary.
Ken
Pilgrim
outweighs the aesthetic. I think the choices people make are often based
on very complex situations that combine several things, all working
together, and in varying degrees. One of the situations that shape us,
and how we view 'aesthetics' and 'beauty' is the social political
situations we experience in our time and place. I don't think we can
escape that. I also think we are working with different interpretations
of what is 'political'. I extend that word to mean more than you do,
apparently. You insist that Renoir made his decision for purely aesthetic
reasons, and I insist that he was influenced by many forces surrounding
him, and some of those were the political developments happening in his
time period and in his social group. I agree that the aesthetic elements
are primary in art, but I disagree that the aesthetic is the only concern,
and that all movements in the arts are reflections of the greater world
around them. The idea of art for arts sake, and pure aesthetics implies
that art exists in a vacuum, and I think that is a false paradigm.
"Perhaps when you're older you won't be such a smart aleck."
Doubt it. I plan on becoming a better smart aleck.
Terry
<64dea877c3caed07...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com>,
mcis...@umich.edu (Pilgrim) wrote:
>
> "Perhaps when you're older you won't be such a smart aleck."
>
> Doubt it. I plan on becoming a better smart aleck.
Maturity is not necessarily related to age. Anyone who has listened to the
early Bob Dylan albums should know this, and anyone who descends to
age-based ad hominem demonstrates it.
kfw...@yahoo.com
to the
early Bob Dylan albums should know this, and anyone who descends to
age-based ad hominem demonstrates it.
Well first of all, that's an ad hominem post there Terry, pure and
simple. It sure has nothing to do art or Thompson. And I didn't say
that age always brings maturity, but we all know that it often does. I
can't imagine why you'd object to my hoping someone will grow out of
being a smart aleck.
Ken
kfw...@yahoo.com
and how we view 'aesthetics' and 'beauty' is the social political
situations we experience in our time and place. I don't think we can
escape that.
I agree.
> I also think we are working with different interpretations
of what is 'political'. I extend that word to mean more than you do,
apparently. You insist that Renoir made his decision for purely
aesthetic
reasons, and I insist that he was influenced by many forces surrounding
him, and some of those were the political developments happening in his
time period and in his social group.
I agree here too, no question about it. I just believe, as I said, that
this doesn't make the work political except in a very narrow sense.
> I agree that the aesthetic elements
are primary in art, but I disagree that the aesthetic is the only
concern,
and that all movements in the arts are reflections of the greater world
around them. The idea of art for arts sake, and pure aesthetics
implies
that art exists in a vacuum, and I think that is a false paradigm.
Yes it is. I'm not arguing art for art's sake alone. I just disagree
with very specific things you said and seemed to imply, for example
your implication that work which is not controversial is merely
pleasant .
And Judge, I see your posts coming right after mine on the Yahoo tree
and I'm honored that you've chosen to remain on RMD for the sole
purpose of telling me how dishonest and all that I am. But as I said a
couple of days ago, I've wasted enough time with you and now you're
wasting your own because I'm not reading.
Ken
Pilgrim
often does. I can't imagine why you'd object to my hoping someone will
grow out of being a smart aleck."
You're still making it age based. Not that I mind too much, but this is a
personality issue.
My "smart aleck" qualities are a part of my personality, which is
volatile, emotional, passionate, and fiery, and fits the pattern of
'artist' to a tee. In High School, I used to throw desks at teachers,
among other somewhat alarming antics, when I became frustrated with them.
It worked out well for me, because I was then able to skip classes and
hang out in this room called "the box", spending large portions of the day
drawing and writing in my journals.
Now that I'm more "mature", though I would call it more "settled and
content", I haven't broken anything in years due to an angry outburst
(with the exception of one night about a week before I moved away from my
x, 3 years ago), and quite content about being mistaken for someone much
younger than I really am. I take that as a complement, (it's happens in
real life, as well, as I look about 20 years younger than I am) and hope
that when I'm 120, people will assume I'm 60, and still a smark aleck.
That's asking for 60 years, but, hell, I'm ambitious.
I figure everyone has a personality, so I'm ok with it, but, dear Ken, I'm
calling off our wedding. We are incompatable due to striking personality
differences, that not so incidentally, make us who we are.
kfw...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.dylan
From: "Pilgrim" <mcisr...@umich.edu> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:31:29 -0500
Local: Thurs, Mar 3 2005 7:31 am
Subject: Re: Good News? Not for Arthur Miller (No Dylan)
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"
And I didn't say that age always brings maturity, but we all know that
it
often does. I can't imagine why you'd object to my hoping someone will
grow out of being a smart aleck
."
You're still making it age based. Not that I mind too much, but this
is a
personality issue.
My "smart aleck" qualities are a part of my personality, which is
volatile, emotional, passionate, and fiery, and fits the pattern of
'artist' to a tee. In High School, I used to throw desks at teachers,
among other somewhat alarming antics, when I became frustrated with
them.
It worked out well for me, because I was then able to skip classes and
hang out in this room called "the box", spending large portions of the
day
drawing and writing in my journals.
Now that I'm more "mature", <
So let me get this straight. You have "matured" but you don't regret
rude behavior, which could harmed a teacher and which disrupted class
for everyone else, because they got you what you wanted?
Ken
Pilgrim
behavior, which could harmed a teacher and which disrupted class
for everyone else, because they got you what you wanted?"
And here I thought you'd be happy with how good I've become and show me
some support!
What's rude, Ken? Being an unruly teenager from a troubled home or judging
someone about circumstances you know precious little about?
From my perspective you sound a bit hollow, and oddly stuffy for being so
hollow. How do you manage that????
You could see my smart ass comments as my way of dispersing negativity and
perhaps react with a little humor. The original comments, which I'm
afraid have 'wounded' you so, were actually meant as just a little jab at
your continuous arguing. Is it really all that serious?
Don't worry, the teacher wasn't hurt, but I might have given a few people
some nausea when I stuck all the dissected frogs in with the cafeteria
food...
kfw...@yahoo.com
> What's rude, Ken? Being an unruly teenager from a troubled home or
judging
> someone about circumstances you know precious little about?
Isn't that the two wrongs make a right defense? And everything I know
about the circumstances is what you told me in the post. You brought it
up, not me. But hey, my own unruly teenage behavior looks a lot
different in the perspective of what I had to deal with at home too.
That isn't what made struck me. What struck was that you're apparently
glad you did it. So it served you well. That makes it right?
> You could see my smart ass comments as my way of dispersing
negativity and
> perhaps react with a little humor.
These two penguins walked into a bar, . . .
But seriously, I appreciate the effort. This isn't some heavy negative
deal, this is just back and forth.
> The original comments, which I'm
> afraid have 'wounded' you so, were actually meant as just a little
jab at
> your continuous arguing.
Ah, the dismissive smart aleck tone I know and love. ;-) All in the
service of dismissing negativity, I guess.
> Don't worry, the teacher wasn't hurt, but I might have given a few
people
> some nausea when I stuck all the dissected frogs in with the
cafeteria
> food...
I'm calling PETA right now.
Ken
Pilgrim
glad you did it. So it served you well. That makes it right?"
Wellllll, I liked being in the box. I didn't say anything about 'right'
or 'wrong', just that it landed me in the box, where I could draw and
write all day. I think you're the one that brought up the 'right' or
'wrong' issue. I'm neither here nor there with it.
This does, however, illustrate an issue I have with punishing people while
not taking into consideration the circumstances that led up to their
taking to 'crime'. I was listening to NPR the other day. They had a guy
talking about gangs. One of the things he said that I thought was very
interesting was that the leaders of the gangs are usually extremely
intelligent, and under other circumstances, they would probably be
productive community leaders, but they're living in a situation that
doesn't give them those kinds of opportunities.
kfw...@yahoo.com
'wrong' issue. I'm neither here nor there with it.
That's what I was noticing. ;-)
> This does, however, illustrate an issue I have with punishing people
while
not taking into consideration the circumstances that led up to their
taking to 'crime'. I was listening to NPR the other day. They had a
guy
talking about gangs. One of the things he said that I thought was very
interesting was that the leaders of the gangs are usually extremely
intelligent, and under other circumstances, they would probably be
productive community leaders, but they're living in a situation that
doesn't give them those kinds of opportunities. >
Sure they're intelligent. And people intelligent and forceful enough to
organize and command other people, especially when those things are
dangerous, always have opportunities. They arrested the leader of a
gang here just last week. He runs his own recording studio.
I'm all for empathy and for remembering that there but for the grace of
God go I and for judges enforcing laws accordingly. But I don't think
too many criminals are only victims.
Ken
Pilgrim
"But I don't think too many criminals are only victims."
No one is, but they're also humans who were shaped by a mixture of
circumstances, and a mixture of available thought tools, i.e. philosophies
(or if you prefer, ways of interpreting) that may limit their
understanding of the consequences of their actions and, ultimately, how
what they do affects themselves. "Criminals" exist in all social strata
and all places. Sometimes just one understanding person at the right time
can add an element of emotional balance, or a mental tool, that can change
a persons whole approach to living. Sometimes a cruel response, a cold
response, a hollow understanding, can sink a person into a maladjusted and
wounded pattern of response and then nothing can pull them out of it.
"Sure they're intelligent. And people intelligent and forceful enough to
organize and command other people, especially when those things are
dangerous, always have opportunities. They arrested the leader of a gang
here just last week. He runs his own recording studio."
Of course, he was born a 'criminal', and whatever his experiences were,
they were not important to providing him a response pattern to dealing
with his talents, right?
kfw...@yahoo.com
> Ken wrote:
>
> "But I don't think too many criminals are only victims."
>
> No one is, but they're also humans who were shaped by a mixture of
> circumstances, and a mixture of available thought tools, i.e.
philosophies
> (or if you prefer, ways of interpreting) that may limit their
> understanding of the consequences of their actions and, ultimately,
how
> what they do affects themselves. "Criminals" exist in all social
strata
> and all places. Sometimes just one understanding person at the right
time
> can add an element of emotional balance, or a mental tool, that can
change
> a persons whole approach to living. Sometimes a cruel response, a
cold
> response, a hollow understanding, can sink a person into a
maladjusted and
> wounded pattern of response and then nothing can pull them out of it.
Sure, sure.
> "Sure they're intelligent. And people intelligent and forceful enough
to
> organize and command other people, especially when those things are
> dangerous, always have opportunities. They arrested the leader of a
gang
> here just last week. He runs his own recording studio."
>
> Of course, he was born a 'criminal', and whatever his experiences
were,
> they were not important to providing him a response pattern to
dealing
> with his talents, right?
Nothing I've written should at all give you the impression that I think
this. He has certainly been shaped by his experiences but he retains
moral choice, and in fact like the rest of us he is also shaped by his
moral choices. We all develop moral habits.
Here's a guy with great opportunities and he commits murder. Don't you
believe in free will? We are not prisoners of our circumstances. It's
one thing to sympathize with someone whose background gives them
temptations we don't face. It's another to say that they lacked other
choices/opportunities.
Pilgrim
are taught how to actually use it. This is where humanity needs to really
work on developing. Dividing the world into 'right' and 'wrong' is far
too simplistic.
I think you missed the very thing that began my answer to you. I don't
think any of us are 'purely victims'.
What may be important in the young mans life you are referring to is what
is available to him now that may teach him better skills in handling his
emotions and new life situation. Had he a better grasp of this earlier,
this may not have happened.
Pilgrim
temptations we don't face."
It's not sympathy, it's a pragmatic approach, or an attempt, at least, to
trying to understand why humans fail to respond in ways that are healthy
or at least not self-destructive.
I'm not so sure that the term "morality" even approaches what I'm trying
to say. There are systems of "morality" that are very unhealthy and teach
responses that cause more damage than good.
kfw...@yahoo.com
too simplistic.
Definitely. I think it was Solzhenitsyn who said that the dividing line
between right and wrong runs through the human heart. Every human
heart, that is, and that's a Biblical insight.
> What may be important in the young mans life you are referring to is
what
is available to him now that may teach him better skills in handling
his
emotions and new life situation. Had he a better grasp of this
earlier,
this may not have happened.
OK, gotcha. Good point.
Ken
Pilgrim
temptations we don't face."
Also, I'm not actually talking about 'background' in the sense you appear
to be using it. Somehow my one example of 'gangs' brought up the one
example of 'murderer' and we ended up in a jag. My brother (who went to
jail) and I (who went to art school and has the desire to become a
psychologist) grew up in the upper middle class. Somehow we ended up
responding completely differently. There are people who grow up in
extremely poor and brutal environments who are provided with the internal
tools to respond in healthy ways and transcend great obstacles, and people
who are born in very comfortable and well provided situations who become
'criminals' and wreak havoc on the world around them, and ultimately,
themselves.
kfw...@yahoo.com
idea. I don't think we can factor out moral choice. Once we do, or once
we minimize it, we end up looking for purely "pragmatic" solutions
which are only partial solutions because they miss that important part
of the puzzle.
It's tragic that some people are tempted to do things that ruin their
lives, and others aren't, at least to the same degree. But there it is.
In the Christian system, we know that this life is dwarfed by eternity,
and that God is omniscient and loving and when all is said and done,
just, and doesn't play favorites. So we sorrow for the criminal, we
empathize and we try to help, but we don't make excuses.
I think that in the West today we see that once people lose the idea of
a universe and a moral order that places demands on the individual,
they either despair or quickly devolve into a New Agey focus on
personal health. Inevitably, that way of thinking tends toward
narcissism.
Ken
Pilgrim
that, as well. There is a healthy way to approach religion (and God) and
an unhealthy way, and anyway, my decision to focus on psychological health
stems from both my own experience, and from a study of Chasidus.
It's clear that we mostly talk past each other and I'm finding it
strenuous to even get a simple idea across to you that you won't slam some
comment like "a New Agey focus on personal health. Inevitably, that way of
thinking tends toward narcissism.", which is very much NOT what I've been
trying to say, and is, in my opinion extremely condescending and
simplistic.
I know from my family that devout Christianity is not necessarily the key
to goodness (and neither is devout Judaism or devout Islam or devout
anything). Something else needs to be brought in.
I'm finding much of what you hold to be 'worthwhile' (and here I'm
oversimplifying out of exhaustion) to be against 'modernism' and an
acceptance of a 'neo-traditionalism' that is more reactionary than seems
wise to me. This is clear in what you have brought into RMD, from comments
you have made, the obituaries you've brought in and the art criticism
you've recommended.
I make use of many traditional thought systems, but I also don't think it
is correct to react against modernism.
Your dismissal of what I've been saying simply because it appears
'secular' is very telling.
kfw...@yahoo.com
> You're misunderstanding what I mean by 'health'. In include religion
in
> that, as well. There is a healthy way to approach religion (and God)
and
> an unhealthy way, and anyway, my decision to focus on psychological
health
> stems from both my own experience, and from a study of Chasidus.
I didn't say you shouldn't consider on your psychoogical health. As for
what the healthy way to approach religion is, I think that should be up
to God.
> It's clear that we mostly talk past each other and I'm finding it
> strenuous to even get a simple idea across to you that you won't slam
some
> comment like "a New Agey focus on personal health. Inevitably, that
way of
> thinking tends toward narcissism.", which is very much NOT what I've
been
> trying to say, and is, in my opinion extremely condescending and
> simplistic.
It's critical of the New Age movement. For it to be condescending, I'd
have to be looking down on someone. For it to be simplistic, I would
have to have made a more comprehensive, not general, statement. I'm not
slamming New Agers, but compare the Biblical injunction to put God and
other people first, and the New Age belief that we have to put
ourselves first. It's certainly true that we have to be healthy in
order to best serve others, and of course you could find a million New
Agers who do what a million Christians only say they (the Christians)
are doing. My point is that in New Age thought the self comes first and
in Christian thought the other person does, and of course beliefs have
consequences, and I think we hear that difference all the time in how
New Agers talk about themselves and their life decisions. When the
going gets tough, the two systems of thought lead in opposing
directions. New Age thought is all about self-fulfillment. Christianity
emphasizes obedience and God's higher authority. Compare that to the
New Age emphasis on seeking, on exploring a smorgasboard spiritualities
and finding one that fits, that matches one's lifestyle. Choice!, the
great cry of the day. As others have noted, this emphasis essentially
makes the self god. Compare that to Judeo-Christian thinking, where
what's right and wrong is given, and the problem is getting ourselves
to act accordingly.
> I know from my family that devout Christianity is not necessarily the
key
> to goodness (and neither is devout Judaism or devout Islam or devout
> anything). Something else needs to be brought in.
That's kind of a small sample, isn't it? I like G.K. Chesterton's
saying that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it's
been found difficult and left untried. But pity the person who would
try to live by Biblical wisdom alone. Grade school needs to be brought
in, for starters. God gave us our minds, and thank gooodness for
intellectual disciplines that aren't religious per se. But if all good
things are from God and, as I believe, Christianity, is true, nothing
incompatible with Christianity is even true, much less useful. The
Christian intellectual tradition begins from Scripture but encompasses
countless other sources, Christian and non-Christian alike.
> I'm finding much of what you hold to be 'worthwhile' (and here I'm
> oversimplifying out of exhaustion) to be against 'modernism' and an
> acceptance of a 'neo-traditionalism' that is more reactionary than
seems
> wise to me. This is clear in what you have brought into RMD, from
comments
> you have made, the obituaries you've brought in and the art criticism
> you've recommended.
The New Criterion champions modern art and many individual contemporary
artists too, but it does soundly reject a lot of what's going on.
> I make use of many traditional thought systems, but I also don't
think it
> is correct to react against modernism.
What's modernity? It's not one simple thing -- you don't really mean
you swallow it whole?
> Your dismissal of what I've been saying simply because it appears
> 'secular' is very telling.
What may be telling is your misremebering that I said any such thing.
:-) See above. And far from dismissing what you're saying, I've
been doing a lot of agreeing and I even wrote "good point" earlier
today. I say what I think but look for common ground in conversation.
Ken
Peter Leighton
<kfw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109985346.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> It's clear that we mostly talk past each other and I'm finding it
>> strenuous to even get a simple idea across to you that you won't slam
> some
>> comment like "a New Agey focus on personal health. Inevitably, that
> way of
>> thinking tends toward narcissism.", which is very much NOT what I've
> been
>> trying to say, and is, in my opinion extremely condescending and
>> simplistic.
>
> It's critical of the New Age movement. For it to be condescending, I'd
> have to be looking down on someone. For it to be simplistic, I would
> have to have made a more comprehensive, not general, statement. I'm not
> slamming New Agers, but compare the Biblical injunction to put God and
> other people first, and the New Age belief that we have to put
> ourselves first.
This is a very simplistic version of New Age belief. There is in fact no
single "New Age" belief system. There are plenty of New Age churches,
and they mostly preach community service.
I think you are confusing New Age with est, a truly terrible "religion of
self", a cult-for-profit. This is every bit as invalid as confusing
Christianity
with David Koresh.
Peter (neither New Age nor Christian)
judge_...@hotmail.com
self-centeredness are not "New Agers" at all, but the "conservative"
(and paleoconservative) followers of Ayn Rand. Ironically (at least in
these arguments) their influence can often be seen in the sources Mr.
Wilson draws on.
JM
Peter Leighton
<judge_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109991844....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The most influential proponents of the virtue of selfishness and
> self-centeredness are not "New Agers" at all, but the "conservative"
> (and paleoconservative) followers of Ayn Rand. Ironically (at least in
> these arguments) their influence can often be seen in the sources Mr.
> Wilson draws on.
>
> JM
You are right, except that I believe that most of "Rand" folks are
libertarian (legalize drugs and prostitution, eliminate public
schools and Social Security) rather than traditionally conservative.
Traditional conservatives buy the economic side of this, when
they indulge in free-market worshipping. It puts them in a bit
of a bind, however, when the market rewards behavior they
don't like.
Peter
SilkUpholsteredChair
> My point is that in New Age thought the self comes first and
> in Christian thought the other person does, and of course beliefs
have
> consequences, and I think we hear that difference all the time in how
> New Agers talk about themselves and their life decisions. When the
> going gets tough, the two systems of thought lead in opposing
> directions. New Age thought is all about self-fulfillment.
Christianity
> emphasizes obedience and God's higher authority. Compare that to the
> New Age emphasis on seeking, on exploring a smorgasboard
spiritualities
> and finding one that fits, that matches one's lifestyle. Choice!, the
> great cry of the day. As others have noted, this emphasis essentially
> makes the self god. Compare that to Judeo-Christian thinking, where
> what's right and wrong is given, and the problem is getting ourselves
> to act accordingly.
>
Well put. Accurate. The question is, how to bridge the different
ways? We'd never want modernity and traditionalism to be at each
others' throats. Modernity is here to stay--and will become more so.
Its impulses are good and fresh. Traditionalism (to use a broad term)
has its ancient verities. But self-actualization that devolves into
narcissism (and moral relativism) is a dead end street. Personal
freedom turns into conformity and all that's left is power as the final
arbiter. And traditionalism becomes brittle, doctrinaire, absolutist.
The "traditional" becomes its final arbiter. The traditional for its
own sake does battle with modernity for its own sake and on it goes--an
endless power struggle. Intellectually, each side becomes emptier
because they are each reducing themselves to bumpersticker slogans.
Yet a bridge there must be or the culture splinters. We've come too
far for that to happen. But no great figure is about to suddenly
appear to lead us out of the wildnerness. Dialogue. Common ground. I
disagree with your position, but I'd like to hear more about it. I'll
meet you half-way. I'm ready to find out whether or not God is dead.
The national hangover is finally over.