The Sex Life of Parsifal
Steppenwolf
It seems that the whole point of his spiritual enlightenment is to
overcome and finally renounce (in an asthetic, Schopenhaurian manner)
sexuality, symbolised by the seductress Kundry. The wound from which
Amfortas suffers is his own lust, a sin which ties him to the world.
Parsifal overcomes sexual desire and enters into a brotherhood of
chaste male virgins. Is this a correct interpretation?
If so, how does Lohengrin, Parsifal's son, come to be born? Surely not
by miraculous conception? Evidently at some point the innocent fool
comes to have carnal knowledge of a woman. Does he break his vowel of
chastity? And if he sucumbs to sexual desire, does this mean that he
to suffers from a wound, which must be healed by yet another innocent
fool enlightened through compassion?
Very confusing!
Mike Scott Rohan
from bodhi_dh...@hotmail.com (Steppenwolf) contains these words:
> Very confusing!
Forgive me, but -- a "vowel" of chastity? What's that, the "o" in NO?
More serious reply to an eminently sensible question when my imagination
stops boggling.
Cheers,
Mike
Laon
* Parsifal himself, who marries and has a son, Lohengrin;
* Titurel, who married and had a son, Amfortas;
* Amfortas himself, who was depicted as too ill to mary (though his
susceptibility to Kundry's seduction suggests that he was not averse
to a pretty face);
* Gawain was mentioned as one of the Grail servants, admittedly only
in passing, but he was not a celibate - in Wolfram's _Parzifal_ he
married Orgeluse;
* Gurnemantz, who appears to be a widower, though Wagner doesn't
mention anything of his marital history: but in _Parzifal_ he had
fathered three children.
And we could also count Lohengrin himself, poor sod, who was clearly
inclined and permitted to marry, though he didn't get much of a
wedding night. But his marriage was not the reason for his recall; it
was that he had to reveal his identity.
So it seems there was no prohibition on marriage for Grail servants.
Amfortas' sin was not sexual desire per se; it was that he set out in
pride on a holy mission he was not ready for, and then he
self-indulgently abandoned that mission, as a consequence allowing the
Spear to fall into evil hands.
Parsfial's rejection of Kundry, in the circumstances of Act II, was
not a rejection of sex per se. With his enlightenment came the
realisation that Amfortas was in pain, the Grail community was in
pain, and the Grail itself was in pain, and that it was his duty to
provide healing as soon as he could. Once he had reached awareness,
then it would have been uncompassionate to spend time dallying
amorously, as they used to say, instead of starting out immediately to
alleviate that pain.
Also, with Parsifal's enlightenment it seems that he became aware of
the terms of Kundry's curse. The terms of Kundry's enchantment by
Klingsor were that the only way she could be released from his spell,
which was what she wanted, was for someone to resist her. So he did,
for her sake as well as for Amfortas and the Grail community; and it
was not easy for him.
When Parsifal has returned and healed Amfortas, and implicitly the
Grail community and the Grail itself, you hear women's voices singing
as well as men's. When the community is whole, men and women are not
seperate but united.
So Lohengrin's conception is neither immaculate nor surprising nor a
contradiction. Wolfram's _Parzifal_ gives the name of Parzifal's wife,
Lohengrin's mother, as Conwiramurs.
Cheers!
Laon
JimBodge
What's confusing? The Founder of the Knights, Titurel, has a son -
Amfortas - who succeeds him. Chaste male virgins are clearly
permitted to reproduce at least in order to preserve the heirarchy.
The sexuality Parsifal is learning to renounce is of two natures: the
more obvious being promiscuous desire for sexual gratification for its
own end. He is also seriously concerned about his allegiance to his
mother, and in her seducdtion Kundry conjures images of Herzeleide,
that if acted on, amount to psychic incest. As in SIEGFRIED, part of
PARSIFAL is concerned with the healthy growth of the young male, who
must learn to overcome Oedipal urges if he is to become a healthy
adult.
I don't necessarily posit the notion that at the end of PARSIFAL all
is sweetness and light. The order could continue to atrophy if it
remains insular and sealed off from new views, and even from the
integration of male and female members.
Pete Barrett
(Steppenwolf) wrote:
In addition to what everyone else has said, the traditional view of
the Catholic church might be relevant here (Wagner would have known
it, even though he wasn't a Catholic himself). Basically, that seems
to be that sex is OK, as long as you don't enjoy it! <g> Perhaps
Parsifal sired Lohengrin only from a sense of duty?
Pete Barrett
mp72
> In addition to what everyone else has said, the traditional view of
> the Catholic church might be relevant here (Wagner would have known
> it, even though he wasn't a Catholic himself). Basically, that seems
> to be that sex is OK, as long as you don't enjoy it! <g>
...kind of sounds like the argument for having to eat vegetables. :-)
michael
Charles Zigmund
Sorry to take your comment seriously, even though suffixed by a
smiley. I've been eating only vegetables for a long time, enjoying
them quite a lot, and also glad that I don't inflict suffering on
fellow creatures in order to eat. This is far more true today than
even fifty years ago, because factory farming today inflicts much
suffering on its billions of subjects a year at almost every step of
their lives and deaths in many cases. Enjoying vegetables is feasible
if one prepares them right. Particularly if one takes advantage of
soy, which comes in many forms, and mimics meat, milk and cheese
pretty well, if one desires -- and without suffering. A thread on
Parsifal is perhaps an apt place to talk about compassion toward
sentient beings.
Steppenwolf
> not a rejection of sex per se. With his enlightenment came the
> realisation that Amfortas was in pain, the Grail community was in
> pain, and the Grail itself was in pain, and that it was his duty to
> provide healing as soon as he could. Once he had reached awareness,
> then it would have been uncompassionate to spend time dallying
> amorously, as they used to say, instead of starting out immediately to
> alleviate that pain.
This more complex interpretation seems to lack the punch of the
interpretation I offered. My interpretation is essentially
Schopenhaurian, and is influenced by Brian Magee's book 'Wagner and
Philosophy', which argues that Schopenhauer was Wagner's primary
inspiration in his later operas. For Schopenhauer, spiritual
enlightenment can only be achieved by turning ones back on the
material world, and renouncing the Will to live. And the purest
manifestation of the Will to live is sexual desire - so the path to
enlightment involves renouncing ALL sexuality, even if directed
towards reproduction (one might even say, ESPECIALLY if directed
towards reproduction!). Such is the depth of Schopenhaurian pessimism,
gloom and hatred of life and existence itself. And as bizarre and even
abhorent as this thinking may appear to us, we cannot ignore the fact
that Wagner was spellbound by Schopenhaurian philosophy, and described
himself as a convert to it. It undoubtedly excercised an enormous
influence on his late works - from Tristan and Isolde's mutual
death-wish to Wotan's desire for personal anihilation. Incidently, it
was primarily the element of Schopenhaurian nihilism in Wagner's
operas that Nietzsche, who took a very positive and affirmative view
of life, existence and sexuality, ended up condemning, with his most
scathing condemnation reserved for Parsifal.
Viewed through the lense of Schopenhaurian philosophy, the wound of
Amfortas makes perfect sense. The Will to live, most vividly embodied
in sexual desire, ties us to the world, prevents us from attaining
extinction/nirvana (as in Tristan, symbolised by death). It keeps us
tied to the material world, what the buddhists call samsara, it burns
unquenchable, and it keeps us in the bondage of misery and suffering.
There is a sense that the Amfortas' wound is not, as in Laon's
interpretation, a combination of miscelaneous sinful deeds, none
particularly bad in itself, but rather the symbol for one thing in
particular, something dreadful and horrible. It is this one thing that
Parsifal must overcome to reach enlightenment - and if it is not
sexual desire then I do not know what it could be.
But of course, with my interpretation there remains this
contradiction. Parsifal goes on to sire Lohengrin, who himself goes
a-wooing when he comes of age. And the other knights of the Grail
evidently marry and produce off-spring. I suspect that there is no
real solution to the contradiction - it remains a paradox. It is
another instance, I am inclined to think, of Wagner failing properly
to digest Schopenhaurian philosophy (Tristan is similar), half
understanding it and half misunderstanding it and throwing it together
with some old legends - we end up, with the Ring, with huge
philosophical muddle of confusion and contradiction and ambiguity,
because he didn't think it all out properly.
Steppenwolf
> PARSIFAL is concerned with the healthy growth of the young male, who
> must learn to overcome Oedipal urges if he is to become a healthy
> adult.
>
And I suppose Parsifal going after the holy speer (an obvious phallic
symbol) is evidence that he has not properly overcome his infantile
penile-oral complex? (Tongue in cheek)
With respect, I find that of all the interpretation of Wagner's operas
the Freudian interpretations are the most abominable and horrid. I
even find the ones about racial hygiene and eugenics more palatable.
Deryck Cook argues this point brilliantly in his book 'I Saw the World
End'.
Although there seems to be some unconcious recognition of the so-call
Oepidos complex in Parsifal, I cannot accept that Wagner consciously
intended that as a theme of the work. If we acknowledge the existence
of an Oepidal theme at all, then it cannot be anything more than an
incidental (and unconscious) one.
Mike Scott Rohan
from bodhi_dh...@hotmail.com (Steppenwolf) contains these words:
> I have a question regarding the character of Parsifal.
> Very confusing!
Now that I have a moment, everyone else has more or less answered your
question, probably better than I could. So I'll just sketch in a couple
of aspects I thought about. A lot of your problem stems from what people
read into Parsifal, rather than what Wagner put there. They tend to
interpret it in keeping with their preconceptions, and they expect the
knights to be an all-male monastic community -- with, if you follow the
likes of Charles Osborne, tremendous homosexual implications. I don't
believe that for a moment. Once again, one has to start with sources,
and as I remember them Montsalvat, where it's described at all, is a
typical warrior castle-community of early medieval romance, like
Camelot. In fact, in one of the German Lohengrin romances which Wagner
used, its ruler is King Arthur! As such it's presided over by a lord and
lady -- in Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival, which was Wagner's main
source, she has the magnificent name of Repanse de Schoye. It's the home
of the Grail, but it doesn't have a monastic atmosphere at all, with
fine clothes and festivities and all the other things the medieval
listeners would have liked hearing about. Much later on we're told that
the Grail knights must forswear the love of women -- but, on the other
hand, that the King and Grail knights sent on service abroad (like
Lohengrin, whose story is told at the end) are free to marry.* Nowhere
are they required to be virgins, which is something different -- and
just another of these things people read into Parsifal.
So Wagner's source cultivated a certain sense of sexual restraint about
the Grail, but not absolute; and while he did make Monsalvat a rather
austere and what we'd call "green" community, he still seems to have
accepted this with the rest of the background. So although Parsifal
agonizes about sex, broadly speaking, it's not sex in general, a la Mr.
Osborne, but specifically unchaste, hedonistic sex, sex for the sake of
sex -- Sex in the City stuff. This is what lures the knights into
Klingsor's power, in the thrall of providers of sexual pleasure who
aren't even human, just images of male fantasy -- living centrefolds,
Bunny girls, Stepford wives. Kundry you could call the sophisticated
model, the Mk.II, brought in to captivate those who can resist the
flowermaidens; her seduction is superior in that she really is human, a
living woman with individual charms -- but still every bit as
artificial, in that they're directed by Klingsor. They're the flashy
tarts, she's the sophisticated courtesan, the "grande horizontale".
Amfortas' sin is not sexuality per se, but succumbing to it in this
form. Parsifal very nearly does, and his "revelation" is not the
overcoming of desire, but the understanding of how that desire is being
perverted, and how it makes him vulnerable. His later marriage would
therefore be a perfectly logical follow-up.
How Wagner regarded Parsifal psychologically is perhaps evidenced by his
intention, at one time, to bring him into Tristan Act III, in his
Wanderjahre in search of the Grail, contrasted with the wounded Tristan,
consumed by a different kind of longing -- which Parsifal has already
overcome.
Cheers,
Mike
*(I could be wrong, but in one source, which may well be Wolfram --
haven't had a chance to check -- both men and women could be recruited
to the Grail's service -- highly unusual idea for the period, and
perhaps reflected the feminization of medieval society, away from the
the dour masculinity of early days. Also gives precedent for Kundry.)
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
> A lot of your problem stems from what people
> read into Parsifal, rather than what Wagner put there. They tend to
> interpret it in keeping with their preconceptions, and they expect the
> knights to be an all-male monastic community -- with, if you follow the
> likes of Charles Osborne, tremendous homosexual implications. I don't
> believe that for a moment. Once again, one has to start with [Wagner's
> original literary] sources....
It seems to me, Mike, that your suggestion that "one has to start with [Wagner's
original literary] sources...." can be (and more often than not, is) fully as
misleading as "what people read into Parsifal, rather than what Wagner put
there. They tend to interpret it in keeping with their preconceptions."
I suggest that whatever W's original literary sources may have to say bearing on
any matter of interpretation is of no consequence whatsoever. Nada, zero, zip,
bupkiss. What matters -- the *only* thing that matters -- is what W's score --
music, text, and stage directions -- has to say, and any interpretation of that
score that takes into consideration original source materials, or any other
extra-score materials, is, to greater or lesser extent, flawed from the outset.
W didn't expect his audience to know anything of those original source
materials, and therefore -- as every genuine work of art is totally
self-contained in respect of containing all that's necessary for its full
understanding -- consulting those original source materials for interpretive
guidance is in every way imaginable the wrong way to go about the thing.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200408251...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
> It seems to me, Mike, that your suggestion that "one has to start with
> [Wagner's
> original literary] sources...." can be (and more often than not, is) fully as
> misleading as "what people read into Parsifal, rather than what Wagner put
> there. They tend to interpret it in keeping with their preconceptions."
Fractured syntax in the above. That more clearly (and more correctly) should
have read: "It seems to me, Mike, that your suggestion that 'one has to start
with [Wagner's original literary] sources....' is promoting an approach that can
prove to be (and more often than not, is) fully as misleading as 'what people
read into Parsifal, rather than what Wagner put there. They tend to interpret it
in keeping with their preconceptions.'"
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:...
> [prior posts snipped]
Derrick Everett
It might help to reduce the confusion if we distinguish between three
different, although related, representations of the Grail community.
These appear respectively in Wolfram von Eschenbach's 'Parzival' (an
epic poem completed around 1205), in Wagner's romantic opera
'Lohengrin' and in his last drama 'Parsifal'.
Wolfram's 'Parzival' is carefully and cleverly structured. The poet
tells us about the adventures of two very different knights: Gawain
and Parzival. Gawain is a conventional, worldly knight, who has
various amorous adventures but who eventually gets involved with the
'haughty lady' Orgeluse, whom he first frees from her obligations to
the magician Clinschor, and then marries. The character of Parzival
is contrasted with that of Gawain. Parzival begins as a foolish young
man who does not seem to be made of the right stuff for knighthood.
Unlike Gawain, he develops from a fool into a knight who is able to
achieve what other knights have not achieved.
There is a long passage in the poem (if I remember right in Book 9) in
which Parzival is told about the Grail community by a hermit called
Trevrizent, who turns out to be Parzival's maternal uncle. (This
relationship appears to be an important one in Arthurian literature:
Parzival's other maternal uncle is the king Anfortas, while Tristran's
maternal uncle is king Marke, and Arthur himself is challenged and
killed by Mordred, the son of the king's half-sister). In the course
of the long narration by Trevrizent (a forerunner of Gurnemanz),
Parzival is told that the knights of the Grail are normally celibate
but can marry in certain circumstances. In an epilogue to Wolfram's
poem he provides an example in the story of Loherangrin, son of
Parzival and Condwiramurs, who goes to the assistance of Elsa of
Brabant. This was Wagner's first acquaintance with the story of the
swan knight, which he read together with the rest of the book during
his vacation at Marienbad (Mariensky Lasky) in 1845.
The description of the Grail community given in Wolfram's poem
provided the basic material for the community of Montsalvat as
depicted in 'Lohengrin' and in particular in the so-called Grail
narration of act 3. The details about the chastity of the knights and
their being allowed to marry under certain conditions Wagner included
in some verses of that Grail narration that he later cut, before the
first performance. He did however leave in the lines about Lohengrin
being the son of Parzival, who bears a crown in Montsalvat.
A decade later Wagner returned to Wolfram's poem for details of
another drama, in which Parzival (later called Parsifal) was to be the
central character. All of the major women characters in 'Parzival'
were collapsed into Kundry, Gawain was almost entirely omitted,
Gurnemanz and Trevrizent were compressed into one character, and
Clinschor was developed into Klingsor. More or less. The Grail
community at Monsalvat is, however, a little different from the one
briefly described in 'Lohengrin'. Wagner was not concerned with
maintaining consistency with his earlier work. Since writing
'Lohengrin' he had come under the influence of Schopenhauer, including
(reluctantly) the philosopher's teaching that sex was a trick played
upon us by the terrible Will.
I am inclined to accept a suggestion made by the Sanskrit scholar Carl
Suneson that the Grail community as depicted by Wagner in 'Parsifal'
was inspired by the forest-dwelling religious communities (ashrams) of
the Indian epic 'Ramayana'. Wagner had been reading 'Ramayana' with
great enthusiasm (recorded in the Brown Book) only a few days before
he wrote the first prose draft of 'Parsifal' (also recorded in the
Brown Book). Commentators on 'Parsifal' have paid too little
attention to the description of the community both in the prose draft
and in the stage directions and libretto of 'Parsifal'. It is in many
respects unlike a community of medieval knights. Wagner describes a
religious community, deep in the forest, who live a contemplative
life, believe in reincarnation and regard animals and birds as sacred
(Rama is forbidden to hunt in the forest, Parsifal is condemned for
hunting, just as Valmiki, author of 'Ramayana', condemned the hunter
who killed one of a pair of birds flying over the forest).
One attribute that this Grail community share with the one described
in 'Lohengrin' is their celibacy. Yet even here there must have been
exceptions, since Amfortas is the son of Titurel. While it is most
likely true that Amfortas broke a vow of chastity when he allowed
himself to be seduced by Kundry, this was not the sin which caused
Amfortas' downfall. Amfortas' sin was to carry the holy Spear, a
sacred relic and religious talisman of equal importance with the
Grail, as a weapon. When Parsifal has recovered the spear and returns
with it, after many adventures, to Monsalvat, he makes a point of
telling Gurnemanz and Kundry that he has never borne the relic as a
weapon and that he has carried it unscathed through many conflicts and
dangers.
As in Wolfram's "Parzival", Wagner's title character becomes slowly
wise. The whole point of his spiritual enlightenment is not, however,
the rejection of sexuality. He does not, in fact, make a conscious
rejection of sexuality. The effect of Kundry's kiss is revelatory; it
brings him "Welthellsicht", in which he sees the world as it really
is. Here Wagner was drawing on the Buddhist idea of what the Japanese
Buddhists call "kensho", a brief experience of enlightenment. Yet the
effect of Kundry's kiss is a Schopenhauerian revelation; it is a
dramatic device to allow a character to see where we cannot see,
beneath the veil of Maya that hides the world as Will. While on first
acquaintance with "Parsifal" the operagoer might get the impression
that Parsifal is simply rejecting sexual advances, an examination of
the libretto will reveal to him that there is more to this central
episode than that. Firstly Parsifal experiences a revelation of the
world behind the world as representation; then he relives what had
happened to Amfortas in the same place but in a different time (since
time and space are, according to Schopenhauer and to Wagner, no more
than our way of experiencing the world) and, through an emotional
identification with Amfortas, understands what he had experienced in
the Grail temple. According to Wagner, in the enlightenment provided
by Kundry's kiss Parsifal understands what none of the Grail community
had understood: that Amfortas has a wound not only in his side, the
physical wound, but also in his heart, a spiritual wound. So
understanding had been achieved not through intellectual effort but
through an identification with the suffering (apparent) individual, by
seeing through the illusion of the "principium individuationis", with
the simultaneous realisation that the one who looks into the sanctuary
is the one who suffers in the sanctuary: "tat twam asi", as it is
described in the Upanishads.
If we want to establish consistency between 'Parsifal' and
'Lohengrin', then we can assume that Parsifal fathered Lohengrin in an
amorous adventure during the years between his encounter with Kundry
and his arrival, perfected in wisdom, at the Good Friday meadow. Only
the misunderstanding that sees the effect of Kundry's kiss primarily
as a rejection of sexuality (which to some extent, of course, it is)
prevents one from allowing the possibility that Parsifal had a
sex-life, at least in the period before his achievement of full,
complete, unexcelled enlightenment -- which I believe he achieves
during the three B minor cadences in the Good Friday music. In the
final analysis, however, I do not believe that it is necessary to make
"Lohengrin" consistent with "Parsifal", since this was not an issue
that concerned Wagner.
--
Derrick Everett
Steppenwolf
> Sorry to take your comment seriously, even though suffixed by a
> smiley. I've been eating only vegetables for a long time, enjoying
> them quite a lot, and also glad that I don't inflict suffering on
> fellow creatures in order to eat. This is far more true today than
> even fifty years ago, because factory farming today inflicts much
> suffering on its billions of subjects a year at almost every step of
> their lives and deaths in many cases. Enjoying vegetables is feasible
> if one prepares them right. Particularly if one takes advantage of
> soy, which comes in many forms, and mimics meat, milk and cheese
> pretty well, if one desires -- and without suffering. A thread on
> Parsifal is perhaps an apt place to talk about compassion toward
> sentient beings.
Although not a strict vegetarian, I eat meat rarely, and when I do I
make sure it is free-range. Factory farming is abominable. I look with
seething resentment at greedy fat people walking through the streets
munching on Fried Chicken and think of all the misery inflicted on
sentient beings just to produce a cheap snack.
There is, Chassz, a great food in the UK supermarkets with the brand
name 'Quorn'. A range of products made from mushroom protein, which
resemble meat products - mincemeat, sausages, burgers, etc. It tastes
very authentic - the sausages taste so much like pork that in a
taste-test it would be very difficult to tell the difference between a
real pork sausage. Is there anything like that in the US?
By the way, I don't think this is off-topic at all, since it is very
in keeping with Schopenhauer and Parsifal. After all, meat is
forbidden in Monsalvat and the Knights of the Grail are vegetarians.
Pete Barrett
(Steppenwolf) wrote:
>There is, Chassz, a great food in the UK supermarkets with the brand
>name 'Quorn'. A range of products made from mushroom protein, which
>resemble meat products - mincemeat, sausages, burgers, etc. It tastes
>very authentic - the sausages taste so much like pork that in a
>taste-test it would be very difficult to tell the difference between a
>real pork sausage. Is there anything like that in the US?
>
Actually, Quorn isn't (or wasn't a couple of years ago - it may have
changed since) approved by the Vegetarian Society because it contains
albumin from battery eggs. I used to eat it once - you live and learn
<s>.
Pete Barrett
Richard Loeb
ensnare Parsifal - certainly to feed a sense of guilt as causing her death
but also the idea of Kundry, in a sense, replacing her. Richard
"Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200408251...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
Derrick Everett
Yes, it is in Wolfram: where both young men and young women are called
to the service of the Grail, their names appearing in strange writing
that appears on the Grail itself. In Wolfram, of course, the Grail
was a stone; Wagner perceptively identified the stone with the one in
the Kabbah at Mecca.
Otherwise, an excellent summary of important points about sexuality in
'Parsifal'!
--
Derrick Everett
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Richard Loeb" <loe...@comcast.net> contains these words:
> Mike - doesn't Kundry also use the "mother" idea as well in her attempt to
> ensnare Parsifal - certainly to feed a sense of guilt as causing her death
> but also the idea of Kundry, in a sense, replacing her. Richard
Oh, certainly -- she sees she has an adolescent to deal with, one whose
responses are confused. So -- inspired by Klingsor -- she chooses that
particular way in. If I'm to believe a great deal I've read, it is in
fact a not uncommon device used by older seductresses on younger men --
but I can't really comment on that. It remains an essentially
calculating approach, playing on his insecurities. With Amfortas she
might, for example, have played on his arrogance, sought his protection,
made him feel invulnerable and dominant; just speculation, of course,
but it would provide the element of hubris in his fall. In both cases
it's more insidious than the straightforward -- and characterless --
seductiveness of the Flower-maidens. And though Klingsor directs it, the
approach must come from Kundry's own darker side, her particular
slanting or distortion of sex towards a sinful end. The sex itself is
not the sin; its end, domination or lovelessness, is.
Cheers,
Mike
Derrick Everett
Up to a point I agree, at least with the first of the claims you make
above.
While Wagner's use of his sources is, to many of us, an interesting
subject in its own right -- especially when considered in the wider
context of his unique creative process (which is how Wagner described
it himself) -- there can be no doubt that their sources do not help us
in the interpretation of Wagner's dramas. As Mike wrote, it is often
the case that people approach those dramas with preconceptions, often
based on some idea about Wagner "setting" a story told in one or more
sources. Unfortunately such preconceptions are often reinforced by
what the operagoer reads in the program book or in Kobbé or similar.
Thus the operagoer expects to see, and might even force what they see
into the frame defined by, their preconceived notion of Wagner's
drama.
In the case of 'Parsifal' this problem is particularly acute, since
many of the reference works which the conscientous operagoer might
consult insist on describing this work as an operatic version of
Wolfram von Eschenbach's poem. This is no more true that it would be
to claim that 'Tristan und Isolde' is an operatic version of Gottfried
von Strassburg; and it is remarkable when even the most superficial
comparison between the Wolfram's and Wagner's respective works shows
that they take place in different worlds and that they are concerned
with different subjects. Indeed, the only major point they have in
common is that both deal with the spiritual and moral development of
their respective title character. As Carl Suneson put it, the
medieval world with its hurly-burly of battles and tournaments is
conspicuous by its absence from Wagner's 'Parsifal'. Much as we
might decry many recent productions, I believe that it is good to see
that the traditional approach to staging 'Parsifal', in which what
Robert Wilson referred to as "clunky knights" march around inside a
cathedral, is being abandoned for productions which, if no closer to
Wagner's original staging, might be closer in spirit to what he had in
mind. Here I am thinking, for example, of the recent Seattle
production.
I disagree with you, as you know, on the value of secondary material
in telling us what Wagner did have in mind. In the case of 'Parsifal'
that secondary material consists mainly of letters to Mathilde
Wesendonck -- some of which I believe are indispensable to those who
wish to understand, for example, how Wagner developed the character of
Kundry, how she is related to Venus, how Amfortas is related to
Tristan, what exactly Wagner meant by "Parsifal's purity" and other
key questions -- and the two prose drafts, respectively written in
1865 and 1877. Unfortunately most recent commentary has chosen to
ignore those materials and to concentrate on the so-called
regeneration essays of 1881-1882, which actually tell us very little
about 'Parsifal' and its central ideas. *Of course* secondary
material is far less important than what is in the score and *of
course* it can be misleading, especially when that material itself is
misunderstood or misrepresented, as the "regeneration essays" have
been (to an extreme degree). Careful examination of secondary
material is, in my view, helpful in understanding Wagner's intentions
and in following the development of his ideas -- which was both
considerable and lengthy in the case of 'Parsifal', conceived in 1857
and completed, as a poem, in April 1877 -- in a way that source
material never can be.
On the third point, it could be argued that Wagner expected his
audience to have at least a vague knowledge of his source material, to
the extent of knowing that Gottfried had written a love story about T
and I, or that Wolfram had written the first "Bildungsroman". He
could even expect his more educated operagoers to be familiar with
these definitive works of medieval German literature. Those who were
so, might have realised that Wagner was following neither Gottfried or
Wolfram.
--
Derrick Everett
Derrick Everett
> ensnare Parsifal - certainly to feed a sense of guilt as causing her death
> but also the idea of Kundry, in a sense, replacing her. Richard
It might be interesting to consider Kundry as "mother and lover" in
relation to Siegfried's first reactions to Brünnhilde. The situation
is slightly different in that Siegfried has never met a woman before
(and presumably has no memory of his mother, who died when he was very
young), while Parsifal's previous knowledge of women, other than his
over-protective mother, is not mentioned by Wagner. There is,
however, a hint of a psychological insight on Wagner's part, about the
lover being perceived as a substitute for the mother.
--
Derrick Everett
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
> Careful examination of secondary
> material is, in my view, helpful in understanding Wagner's intentions
> and in following the development of his ideas -- which was both
> considerable and lengthy in the case of 'Parsifal', conceived in 1857
> and completed, as a poem, in April 1877 -- in a way that source
> material never can be.
I quite agree. But, as you acknowledge, secondary material, too, can be
misleading. The only really "pure" authority (i.e., free of error of the type
we're talking about) is the score itself, as I've already noted, as that is, in
the most direct way possible, the product of the promptings of W's creative
unconscious -- the source of his genius, self-confessed -- captured in the white
heat of its operation, parts of that product later often being a surprise even
to W himself.
As to what W expected in prior knowledge from his audience, I can't agree with
your contention that "Wagner expected his audience to have at least a vague
knowledge of his source material, to the extent of knowing that Gottfried had
written a love story about T and I, or that Wolfram had written the first
'Bildungsroman'." While he might have expected a highly literate minority of
his audience to have known of such things and even in detail, he most assuredly
didn't count on that sort of knowledge being in the possession of the vast
majority of his audience. W was a man of the theater first and foremost, and no
man of the theater would expect such at bottom esoteric knowledge from a
majority of a theater-going audience no matter how generally educated that
audience would have been expected to be.
In any case, a genuine artwork has no need of such prior knowledge on the part
of its receivers, also as I've previously noted, as it's totally self-contained
in respect of its harboring within itself all that's necessary for its
understanding.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"Derrick Everett" <mimir...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec71da1e.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<f40Xc.514787$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > [snipped. Full original post is below]
> > > A lot of your problem stems from what people
> > > read into Parsifal, rather than what Wagner put there. They tend to
> > > interpret it in keeping with their preconceptions, and they expect the
> > > knights to be an all-male monastic community -- with, if you follow the
> > > likes of Charles Osborne, tremendous homosexual implications. I don't
> > > believe that for a moment. Once again, one has to start with [Wagner's
> > > original literary] sources....
> >
> > It seems to me, Mike, that your suggestion that "one has to start with
> > [Wagner's original literary] sources...." is [promoting an approach that can
> > prove to be] (and more often than not,
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> contains these words:
We've disagreed about this before, and I would go this far with you,
that taking the source material as a literal guide is bound to be
misleading. Wagner was always making a highly personal synthesis of that
material, and not merely adapting von Eschenbach or Snorri Sturlason
(as, for example, both Grieg and Elgar did) or whoever. What is
essential, on the other hand -- and for exactly that reason -- is
keeping sight of the source material to see what Wagner made of it, what
he discarded, what he retained and above all what he implicitly carried
over. Because he always did; his worlds, whether they're Siegfried's or
Parsifal's, are rife with background taken straight from the older
sources. So it's only by knowing them, for example, that we can
understand the significance of references to Hella in the Ring, to
Gamuret and "Gawan" in Parsifal, and also less tangible things such as
the blood-oath custom in Gotterdammerung and, yes, the sexual mores of
Montsalvat. People who don't, as we've just seen, end up making a lot of
unjustified assumptions. And that is yet another reason why these worlds
should always be reflected in any stage production, and not
over-intellectualized out of existence, or modernized as a campy
embarrassment.
As Derrick (I think) just said, the galumphing romance world of
chivalric battles and tourneys is far from the stage world of Parsifal
-- and yet it does exist, offstage, and conditions the character of the
action. That the knights are a military brotherhood, for example,
serving some purpose in the outer world, and not closed-in and monastic,
depictable by elderly choristers waddling about in funny costumes.
Parsifal has not just been a wanderer, he has had to fight his way
through a hostile world, safeguarding the awesome weapon he dare not use
and desecrate. These factors do stem from Wolfram's world, and they do
add meaning to Wagner's action -- in the meaning and necessity of
healing, for example. He knew them, and intended others should as well.
If I were producing Parsifal I'd emphasise -- among many other things!
-- the element of war and service, and how it shapes the characters; I
did something of the sort in a novel about fifteen years ago.
Cheers,
Mike
REP
>
> In any case, a genuine artwork has no need of such prior knowledge on the
part
> of its receivers, also as I've previously noted, as it's totally
self-contained
> in respect of its harboring within itself all that's necessary for its
> understanding.
>
> --
> ACD
> http://soundsandfury.com/
I tend to agree, but how does "The Question" fit into this aesthetic? Wagner
only half-incorporates it in Parsifal, to the point where one would have to
go to the source to understand its meaning because it isn't, as far as I can
recall, supported within the libretto.
It's my opinion that one has to judge Wagner opera-by-opera. What you said
applies to The Ring, Lohengrin, Tannhauser, Die Meistersinger, Tristan und
Isolde, etc., but Parsifal is unique in this case.
REP
Derrick Everett
going audience. In the case of 'Parsifal' (and initially at least also
in the case of the 'Ring'), Wagner was writing for a Festival audience.
I agree with your suggestions that "a genuine artwork has no need of
such prior knowledge" and that an artwork should be self-contained, in
the sense that it is complete in itself. I'd point out, however, that
Wagner was well aware that the reception of an artwork was conditioned
by the culture of the audience. In the theoretical works preceding the
'Ring' he specifically refers to the reception of Athenian tragedy by
an audience that had prior knowledge of the myths (of for example
Prometheus) on which that tragedy was based. Wagner aimed to hit
resonances within the audience's frame of reference; therefore in
'Parsifal' he made use of religious symbols and language that he could
expect to be familiar to a Bayreuth audience.
And while a "genuine artwork" should be self-contained, it can also
contain within itself references and allusions to entities outside
itself: in the case of 'Parsifal', variously to liturgy, to medieval
romances, to religious literature of various traditions, to
contemporary poems and to at least two of Wagner's earlier stage-works
('Lohengrin' and 'Tannhäuser'). I suggest that an awareness of those
references and allusions can enhance the total effect of an already
powerful artwork.
--
Derrick Everett
Derrick Everett
> I tend to agree, but how does "The Question" fit into this aesthetic?
Wagner
> only half-incorporates it in Parsifal, to the point where one would
have to
> go to the source to understand its meaning because it isn't, as far
as I can
> recall, supported within the libretto.
>
Wagner said that he had dispensed with the Question, a key element of
the Grail romances, where it is only by asking a specific question that
the "quester" could heal the wounded king. "What is important is not
the question, but the recovery of the spear" (Cosima's Diary, 30
January 1877). This is one major difference between Wagner's story
and the story that he had found in the romances (at this stage,
specifically, in various editions of Wolfram's 'Parzival', the
anonymous 'Peredur' in a French translation, and the 'Perlesvaus' in
Ch. Potvin's edition of 1876).
See - http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/question.htm
Already in his first prose draft, Wagner had introduced the spear as
the means by which Parsifal healed Amfortas (or is it just an outward
and visible sign?). He then decided, in September 1865 and shortly
after completing that prose draft, to make "the recovery of the spear"
into a connecting element of his story, one for which he drew first
upon both Greek myth (the spear of Achilles, which wounded and healed
the hero Telephus) and later upon Buddhist myth (the weapon of Mára
that stops in the air above the head of the future Buddha).
See - http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/spear.htm
--
Derrick Everett
REP
> Wagner said that he had dispensed with the Question
I seem to remember it being mentioned at some point in the opera, but I
appear to be wrong. In any case, I've introduced a few different people to
Parsifal, some of whom have expressed confusion over (a) Gurnemanz's
apparent anger with Parsifal at the end of Act I and (b) Parsifal's apparent
guilt in Act III. The Question, even if it isn't explicitly named, still
casts a relevant shadow over the opera that's best explained through
Wagner's sources, rather than looking for answers in the libretto.
REP
P.S. What's up with your newsreader? :-) It's posting replies to the first
post in the thread.
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
I find your argument (one used by others as well) for the interpretive value of
the original source materials flawed and unconvincing. For the purpose of an
interpretive understanding of the operas (as opposed to understanding W's
procedures as a matter of historical and biographical interest), knowing what
Wagner retained, discarded, or transformed from those original sources is not
only of no use, but can be positively misleading, as I've previously pointed
out; especially and most particularly the "keeping [in] sight of...what he
implicitly carried over" from those original sources.
The understanding of the essential dramatic, philosophic, and poetic
significance, for instance, and to use your examples, "of references to Hella in
the Ring, to Gamuret and 'Gawan' in Parsifal, and also less tangible things such
as the blood-oath custom in Gotterdammerung and...the sexual mores of
Montsalvat" can all be gotten whole from W's texts and music alone with no
recourse whatsoever to any of the original source materials, and with the
singular advantage of knowing that whatever understanding of the operas one
secures in that way has been shaped by W's creative imagination alone (i.e., by
the artwork itself), the depth of that understanding limited only by one's own
intelligence and insightfulness.
That's of course not to gainsay the principle that the wider one's knowledge of
all things the richer the experience of any genuine work of art. It's just that
in the matter of W's operas the application of the specialized knowledge gained
from W's original sources carries with it seductive dangers that can be
crucially damaging to real dramatic, philosophic, and poetic understanding;
dangers that are difficult to guard against or ward off because so seductive.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200408261...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
> And while a "genuine artwork" should be self-contained, it can also
> contain within itself references and allusions to entities outside
> itself: in the case of 'Parsifal', variously to liturgy, to medieval
> romances, to religious literature of various traditions, to
> contemporary poems and to at least two of Wagner's earlier stage-works
> ('Lohengrin' and 'Tannhäuser'). I suggest that an awareness of those
> references and allusions can enhance the total effect of an already
> powerful artwork.
Oh, no question -- and no disagreement -- about that. See the last graf of my
last to Mike Rohan.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"Derrick Everett" <mimir...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgl4te$2...@odak26.prod.google.com...
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
> It's my opinion that one has to judge Wagner opera-by-opera. What you said
> applies to The Ring, Lohengrin, Tannhauser, Die Meistersinger, Tristan und
> Isolde, etc., but Parsifal is unique in this case.
No sir. There are no exceptions to the principle that a genuine work of art
contains within itself all that's necessary for its understanding. That's one
of the defining characteristics of a genuine work of art.
As to the matter of "The Question" in _Parsifal_, your question about "The
Question" is a *perfect* example of how knowledge of the original source
materials can mislead -- fatally mislead -- one attempting to understand a
Wagner opera.
There is NO "The Question" in *Wagner's* _Parsifal_. That there was a "The
Question" in other medieval grail tales (sorry; couldn't resist) has NO bearing
on the only thing of interest here; i.e., Wagner's _Parsifal_.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> wrote in message
news:gzoXc.6095$9P.5832@trnddc04...
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
> There is NO "The Question" in *Wagner's* _Parsifal_. That there was a "The
> Question" in other medieval grail tales (sorry; couldn't resist) has NO
> bearing on the only thing of interest here; i.e., Wagner's _Parsifal_.
Missing words in the above. That should have read: "There is NO 'The
Question' in *Wagner's* _Parsifal_. That there was a 'The Question' in other
medieval grail tales (sorry; couldn't resist) consulted by Wagner has NO bearing
on the only thing of interest here; i.e., Wagner's _Parsifal_."
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HjtXc.254093$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Tauser
> Question" in other medieval grail tales (sorry; couldn't resist) has NO
bearing
> on the only thing of interest here; i.e., Wagner's _Parsifal_. >
Not to flog an old issue well covered here before (I think), the "Question" in
Wolfram was to ask: "What is wrong with the King" and show some compassion.
In Wagner, he doesn't respond to what he has seen and barely comprehended its
meaning.....and doesn't either 'ask the question' or show compassion. That will
come in Act III
Tauser
REP
> "REP" <loIr...@Iolrqapq.com> wrote:
>
> > [snipped. Full original post is below]
> > It's my opinion that one has to judge Wagner opera-by-opera. What you
said
> > applies to The Ring, Lohengrin, Tannhauser, Die Meistersinger, Tristan
und
> > Isolde, etc., but Parsifal is unique in this case.
>
> No sir. There are no exceptions to the principle that a genuine work of
art
> contains within itself all that's necessary for its understanding. That's
one
> of the defining characteristics of a genuine work of art.
What about derivative works, or ones that purposely are not meant to be
'understood?' Does that disqualify them from being a genuine work of art?
And _Faust_ parts one and two are works of art, too, but they don't contain
all that's necessary for understanding them, because I don't know how to
read German, and Goethe didn't think to include language lessons. In short,
I find your definition inacceptable. For anything to "contain within itself
all that's necessary for its understanding," you'd have to present it as
though you were presenting it to an alien, because virtually everything we
know is digested through implied and applied knowledge that's often taken
for granted. Everything relating to the context of when and how Parsifal was
conceived becomes increasingly pertinent as we move historically further and
further away from when it was written. Everything from the contemporary
knowledge of language, to the fraternal structure of the Grail community, to
the relations between men and women, to the construction of bows and arrows,
to the concept of Christianity, will one day be forgotten and will have to
be explained externally. Just because _Parsifal_ is still 'fresh' to a point
where it can be understood with relative ease in this day and age, it
doesn't mean that you can take for granted what is actually required for
understanding it, even if such knowledge is currently 'common;' it's still
applied through lessons learned externally.
REP
Charles Zigmund
> >
We have 'Quorn' brand in the US, but only several kinds of imitation
chicken, not other 'meats'. It tastes good, but I don't know if it is
animal free, I haven't bought it in awhile.
You may want to be careful with 'free-range' labels. In several cases
in the US, they have been shown to be false or misleading. In one
instance, several hundred thousand chickens were crowded as usual into
a shed, with virtually no space to move. A small 'cat-door' was left
open at one end, so they could go out into a yard if they wished.
Naturally the overhwlming majority did not know about the door.
Derrick Everett
> "Derrick Everett" <mimir...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cgl6ca$8...@odah37.prod.google.com...
> > Wagner said that he had dispensed with the Question
>
> I seem to remember it being mentioned at some point in the opera, but I
> appear to be wrong. In any case, I've introduced a few different people to
> Parsifal, some of whom have expressed confusion over (a) Gurnemanz's
> apparent anger with Parsifal at the end of Act I and (b) Parsifal's apparent
> guilt in Act III. The Question, even if it isn't explicitly named, still
> casts a relevant shadow over the opera that's best explained through
> Wagner's sources, rather than looking for answers in the libretto.
>
Gurnemanz is angry with Parsifal at the end of Act I because the boy
appears not to have understood what he saw in the temple. I can see
that anyone who knows the Grail romances might get the idea, at this
point, that Gurnemanz had expected Parsifal to ask the redeeming
question ... but Wagner does not refer to the question at all, nor is
it implied. Gurnemanz is expecting a fool who will be made wise by
pity: he sees that the boy is a fool but does not see anything to
indicate that he is becoming wise.
Nothing in 'Parsifal' is *explained* by Wagner's sources, and it is
only with the greatest caution that one should try to fill in missing
details in Wagner's libretto by referring back to the sources. For
one thing, because Wagner omitted what he did not have any use for;
and for another, because the sources of 'Parsifal' are many and
varied, and there are important sources that have been ignored by most
commentators on the drama; the details taken from one source might not
be the details that might be chosen from another source.
Some of the misconceptions about Wagner's dramas have arisen from the
inaccuracy of translations, especially those that are singable rather
than literal. Thus "der reine Tor" has been translated variously as
"the spotless fool", "the blameless fool", "the guileless fool", or
even "the sinless fool". It actually means "the pure fool". There
is no implication that Parsifal is sinless; indeed, he describes
himself as a sinner (Frevler).
In the first act Parsifal shows remorse when rebuked for having killed
the swan, although his guilt could be mitigated by his ignorance not
only of local ordinances but also of death itself (this is the point);
in the second act he is encouraged by Kundry to blame himself for the
death of his mother (prompting us to think, perhaps, of Tristan); and
in the third act he feels responsibility for the death of Titurel, who
died while Parsifal was still trying to find the way back to
Monsalvat. At this point the "Frevler" speaks of a guilt that he has
borne "from all eternity"; perhaps *this* is his last burden, one that
Gurnemanz prays should be lifted from his head.
>
> P.S. What's up with your newsreader? :-) It's posting replies to the first
> post in the thread.
I was trying out the Google Groups Beta 2. It is still quite buggy
:-)
--
Derrick Everett
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> contains these words:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > [snipped. Full original post is below]
> I find your argument (one used by others as well) for the interpretive
> value of
> the original source materials flawed and unconvincing. For the
> purpose of an
> interpretive understanding of the operas (as opposed to understanding W's
> procedures as a matter of historical and biographical interest),
> knowing what
> Wagner retained, discarded, or transformed from those original sources
> is not
> only of no use, but can be positively misleading, as I've previously pointed
> out; especially and most particularly the "keeping [in] sight of...what he
> implicitly carried over" from those original sources.
You've previously pointed it out, but not convincingly! Such knowledge
can't possibly be misleading, if it's accurate.
> The understanding of the essential dramatic, philosophic, and poetic
> significance, for instance, and to use your examples, "of references
> to Hella in
> the Ring, to Gamuret and 'Gawan' in Parsifal, and also less tangible
> things such
> as the blood-oath custom in Gotterdammerung and...the sexual mores of
> Montsalvat" can all be gotten whole from W's texts and music alone with no
> recourse whatsoever to any of the original source materials,
That's nonsense, I'm afraid. Hella is several times mentioned, never
explained. Those who don't know the mythical background are always going
to identify the name with Hell, which creates a completely wrong
impression of a) what Wotan intends for Hunding b) where Siegmund is
ready to go, rather than Valhalla c] what the alternatives is for the
Valkyries' heroes d) what armies Alberich intends to use to storm
Valhalla, and many other questions. They are liable to assume that the
giants should be monsters, instead of just the same size as the gods.
There are more of such problems than I can list, especially now when I'm
in a hurry. They matter, and you won't find the answers anywhere in
Wagner's works. With many others you will understand Wagner only when
you see how he changed them. If you're right, everyone ought to have
understood what his plots were about at first glance. Read early
commentaries and you'll see only too clearly that they didn't. The same
applies to Parsifal; the most obvious example of many is the nature of
the Grail itself. The principle, therefore, is untrue.
What's more, it's by definition bound to be untrue, because no work of
art except (perhaps) the most wholly abstract can possibly exist in a
self-contained cocoon. Take a portrait by Gainsborough or Raeburn,
something that's supreme art in itself. You can appreciate it as such,
and never know of whom it's a portrait; but if you don't know Raeburn is
portraying David Hume, then you will miss an entire layer of
understanding, both of the artist, the rendition and the subject, plus
of course the milieu against which it was painted. Or Shakespeare plays;
unless you put some work into understanding language and background you
will never appreciate half of what Shakespeare was trying to achieve,
nor the reason for the play being shaped the way it was -- the use of
the gallery, rear curtains etc., the historical reasons for the choice
and treatment of a subject, enigmatic expressions ("the still-vexed
Bermoothes") and a hundred other things. Many things are not explained
within the play because in Shakespeare's day they didn't need to be. So
I'm afraid that no matter how hard you insist, either the point won't
hold or Shakespeare isn't art.
and with the
> singular advantage of knowing that whatever understanding of the operas one
> secures in that way has been shaped by W's creative imagination alone
> (i.e., by
> the artwork itself), the depth of that understanding limited only by
> one's own
> intelligence and insightfulness.
> That's of course not to gainsay the principle that the wider one's
> knowledge of
> all things the richer the experience of any genuine work of art. It's
> just that
> in the matter of W's operas the application of the specialized
> knowledge gained
> from W's original sources carries with it seductive dangers that can be
> crucially damaging to real dramatic, philosophic, and poetic understanding;
> dangers that are difficult to guard against or ward off because so
> seductive.
But your point *does* necessarily and grossly gainsay this principle, as
I'm sure you realise, which is why you want to set Wagner apart. But he
is not some utterly unique, inhuman case. He wrote in and for his time,
he took a particular view of his sources just as Shakespeare did, and
one learns just as much from knowing about them. Wagner is not some sort
of secret code that only the privileged can disentangle by spiritual
resonance or telepathy or whatever. Nobody *ever* gets the whole picture
of a Wagner work by just sitting down with the CD and the libretto. That
many people have thought this enough is why so many stupid things get
written about his works. Anyhow, sorry I can't take this further now.
Cheers,
Mike
A.C. Douglas
> That's nonsense, I'm afraid. Hella is several times mentioned, never
> explained. Those who don't know the mythical background are always going
> to identify the name with Hell, which creates a completely wrong
> impression of a) what Wotan intends for Hunding b) where Siegmund is
> ready to go, rather than Valhalla c] what the alternatives is for the
> Valkyries' heroes d) what armies Alberich intends to use to storm
> Valhalla, and many other questions. They are liable to assume that the
> giants should be monsters, instead of just the same size as the gods.
> There are more of such problems than I can list, especially now when I'm
> in a hurry. They matter, and you won't find the answers anywhere in
> Wagner's works.
You're quite wrong in that, sir; all of it. Your above objections make clear
you're confusing two different levels of understanding: one essential, the
other but supplemental if enriching.
What's essential in the matter of Hella, for instance, is that it's understood
dramatically, philosophically, and poetically by an audience to be something
that in every way is the polar opposite of Valhalla, and that is made perfectly
and completely clear and understandable within the context of Wagner's music and
text without any recourse whatsoever to original source materials. That one
in addition knows that Hella is the goddess of the Norse underworld and
Loki's (Loge's) daughter, and her abode the place to which the unheroic dead
killed in battle are consigned, is knowledge supplemental and enriching, but in
no way essential for the understanding of the work dramatically,
philosophically, and poetically.
In the matter of the Giants, there's nothing in W's music and text that would
cause anyone to assume "that the giants should be monsters." There is in fact
much there to point to the exact contrary, clods though it's made plain they
are, which is precisely the essential point, dramatically, philosophically, and
poetically.
> With many others (i.e., other cases) you will understand Wagner only when
> you see how he changed them. If you're right, everyone ought to have
> understood what his plots were about at first glance. Read early
> commentaries and you'll see only too clearly that they didn't. The same
> applies to Parsifal; the most obvious example of many is the nature of
> the Grail itself. The principle [that all can be gotten whole from Wagner's
> texts and music alone without recourse whatsoever to any of the original
> source materials], therefore, is untrue.
Non sequitur -- all of it. My saying that, like all genuine works of art, W's
music-dramas contain within themselves all that's necessary for understanding
without recourse to anything outside themselves, is NO guarantee, implied or
express, that "everyone [will understand] what his plots [are] about at first
glance." If everyone "understood what [W's] plots were about at first glance"
the works would, almost by definition, be non-art. All genuine works of art
contain essential (as opposed to supplemental) secrets, and give them up only
slowly, and only after intelligence, insight, and much reflective thought is
brought to bear upon an artwork. But the keys to those essential secrets -- all
of them -- are contained within the artwork itself, and require no recourse to
anything outside itself to be accessed.
> What's more, it's by definition bound to be untrue [my contention
> that all genuine works of art contain within themselves all that's
> needed for their understanding] , because no work of
> art except (perhaps) the most wholly abstract can possibly exist in a
> self-contained cocoon. Take a portrait by Gainsborough or Raeburn,
> something that's supreme art in itself. You can appreciate it as such,
> and never know of whom it's a portrait; but if you don't know Raeburn is
> portraying David Hume, then you will miss an entire layer of
> understanding, both of the artist, the rendition and the subject, plus
> of course the milieu against which it was painted. Or Shakespeare plays;
> unless you put some work into understanding language and background you
> will never appreciate half of what Shakespeare was trying to achieve,
> nor the reason for the play being shaped the way it was -- the use of
> the gallery, rear curtains etc., the historical reasons for the choice
> and treatment of a subject, enigmatic expressions ("the still-vexed
> Bermoothes") and a hundred other things. Many things are not explained
> within the play because in Shakespeare's day they didn't need to be. So
> I'm afraid that no matter how hard you insist, either the point won't
> hold or Shakespeare isn't art.
Yet once again you're confusing two levels of understanding, the one essential,
the other supplemental if enriching. Not knowing that Raeburn was portraying
Hume in no way blunts the aesthetic appreciation or understanding of the
portrait as a work of art (the essential understanding), notwithstanding that
knowing that it's Hume he was portraying is an enriching additional bit of
knowledge (the supplemental understanding).
Ditto, _mutatis mutandis_, the Shakespeare example.
> But your point *does* necessarily and grossly gainsay this principle
> [that the wider one's knowledge of all things the richer the experience
> of any genuine work of art], as I'm sure you realise, which is why you
> want to set Wagner apart. But he is not some utterly unique, inhuman
> case.
I realize no such thing. And the Wagner apart thing, a pure red herring of your
own devising. I never so much as implied that W is a case apart. That's your
invention, not mine.
> [Wagner] wrote in and for his time,
> he took a particular view of his sources just as Shakespeare did, and
> one learns just as much from knowing about them. Wagner is not some sort
> of secret code that only the privileged can disentangle by spiritual
> resonance or telepathy or whatever. Nobody *ever* gets the whole picture
> of a Wagner work by just sitting down with the CD and the libretto. That
> many people have thought this enough is why so many stupid things get
> written about his works.
More red herrings, and in any case, entirely mooted by all I've above written.
Richard Partridge
following:
[snip]
> No sir. There are no exceptions to the principle that a genuine work of art
> contains within itself all that's necessary for its understanding. That's one
> of the defining characteristics of a genuine work of art.
[snip]
That statement won't bear analysis. Just for example, Derrick Everett and
others have shown how knowledge of Norse and Icelandic myths and legends,
not to mention the Nibelungenlied, can greatly enrich our understanding of
the "Ring" operas.
Do you consider Joyce's "Ulysses" a "genuine work of art?" Do you think
familiarity with the "Odyssey," for example, enhances understanding of it?
Dick Partridge
Richard Loeb
"Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200408281...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> contains these words:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > That's nonsense, I'm afraid. Hella is several times mentioned, never
> > explained. Those who don't know the mythical background are always going
> > to identify the name with Hell, which creates a completely wrong
> > impression of a) what Wotan intends for Hunding b) where Siegmund is
> > ready to go, rather than Valhalla c] what the alternatives is for the
> > Valkyries' heroes d) what armies Alberich intends to use to storm
> > Valhalla, and many other questions. They are liable to assume that the
> > giants should be monsters, instead of just the same size as the gods.
> > There are more of such problems than I can list, especially now when I'm
> > in a hurry. They matter, and you won't find the answers anywhere in
> > Wagner's works.
> You're quite wrong in that, sir; all of it. Your above objections
> make clear
> you're confusing two different levels of understanding: one essential, the
> other but supplemental if enriching.
Not confusing -- simply not drawing an artificial demarcation line
between them. The idea that the "wow!" response and the intellectual one
are entirely separate is deeply flawed, and least of all justified by
Wagner. In fact each is a facet of the other, and is incomplete without
it. Even if one could separate them, in their extremest forms perhaps,
they would still be cross-fertilizing. The intellectual response can
trigger off the "wow!" one once again, or refresh the immediacy. The
"wow!" response is therefore at best a very partial response which needs
sustaining through the other.
> What's essential in the matter of Hella, for instance, is that it's
> understood
> dramatically, philosophically, and poetically by an audience to be something
> that in every way is the polar opposite of Valhalla, and that is made
> perfectly
> and completely clear and understandable within the context of Wagner's
> music and
> text without any recourse whatsoever to original source materials. That one
> in addition knows that Hella is the goddess of the Norse underworld and
> Loki's (Loge's) daughter, and her abode the place to which the unheroic dead
> killed in battle are consigned, is knowledge supplemental and
> enriching, but in
> no way essential for the understanding of the work dramatically,
> philosophically, and poetically.
Yet if you get the impression Hella represents the "polar opposite of
Valhalla", you're wrong, because that's not what Wagner intended. What
he intended is what Norse myth says -- that Hella is the ruler of a
kingdom of shades, remarkably like the classical Hades, and just as
neutral. Her realm is not just for unheroic rejects, but is the natural
destination of the dead, with no overtones of evil or punishment. That's
why it helps to know the mythology.
{It could save producers, for example, having the Valkyries towing
around bloody corpses when what they carry on their saddles is the
immortal shade of the hero concerned.}
> In the matter of the Giants, there's nothing in W's music and text
> that would
> cause anyone to assume "that the giants should be monsters." There is
> in fact
> much there to point to the exact contrary, clods though it's made plain they
> are, which is precisely the essential point, dramatically,
> philosophically, and
> poetically.
Music is by its nature ambiguous, and the text is not specific; it
requires only "men of gigantic stature" and the sillier breed of
producer fasten on this to produce vast and distracting idiocies, like
Kupfer's men on fork-lifts or the stage-filling puppets used in the last
San Francisco performances. You are undoubtedly right about what Wagner
intended, but to be sure of this one has to know what he knew about the
mythology. QED.
No. If you approach Wagner's music dramas, or any other great work of
art, without at least some frame of reference, you will get only the
most partial experience of it. In fact, it isn't really possible to
approach anything in such a "clean" manner, since the only way we can
interpret anything is in the light of experience, and every perception,
artistic or otherwise, therefore comes with a vast load of baggage. But
that is only ever the start, and you need more. I have, occasionally,
encountered people who've sat through operas without a clue what was
going on. In the cases I remember -- Don Giovanni and Pelleas, for two
-- they could understand the words clearly enough (sung in English) but
lost whole dimensions of relationships etc. They completely missed the
point of Dona Elvira, and were not sure whether Pelleas was Golaud's son
(they'd heard Pelleas' father mentioned, and been steered off on the
wrong track). Clearly the work was not sufficient for them. Given that
Parsifal is considerably less clear, I hate to think what somebody would
make of it without background information -- even some of the aspects
that *don't* appear, the Arthurian for example, if only to dismiss them.
You say the keys to essential secrets are contained within the works.
Very true; but unless you know enough, you will not even recognise them
as keys.
> Yet once again you're confusing two levels of understanding, the one
> essential,
> the other supplemental if enriching. Not knowing that Raeburn was
> portraying
> Hume in no way blunts the aesthetic appreciation or understanding of the
> portrait as a work of art (the essential understanding),
> notwithstanding that
> knowing that it's Hume he was portraying is an enriching additional bit of
> knowledge (the supplemental understanding).
No. Without knowledge you are seeing a portrait of a man; with it, you
are seeing the portrait of a philosopher, freethinker and personal
friend. I had this in mind because I saw the picture myself before I
recognised the subject. The first impression was intriguing, but
partial, creating questions without answering them; but when I knew it
was Hume, I understood the artist's intention much more fully -- in
solid details, the books around the subject, the pose, the lighting
even, and less physical ones, the emotional language. It was like a
light coming on; at every level the appreciation was deeper. You had an
idea of some of this, because Raeburn is a great portraitist; but only
when you knew it was Hume were you sure you were right. That
confirmation, like much else, couldn't be included within the work of
art itself. To demonstrate this further, there are any number of
pictures of subjects obviously important and portentous to the painter,
but the exterior record of which has not survived -- the Mona Lisa,
even. We appreciate those paintings very much the more poorly for not
knowing -- the intention, the identity, the background detail.
> > But your point *does* necessarily and grossly gainsay this principle
> > [that the wider one's knowledge of all things the richer the experience
> > of any genuine work of art], as I'm sure you realise, which is why you
> > want to set Wagner apart. But he is not some utterly unique, inhuman
> > case.
> I realize no such thing. And the Wagner apart thing, a pure red
> herring of your
> own devising. I never so much as implied that W is a case apart.
> That's your
> invention, not mine.
You said: "That's of course not to gainsay the principle that the wider
one's knowledge of
all things the richer the experience of any genuine work of art. It's
just that
in the matter of W's operas the application of the specialized knowledge
gained
from W's original sources carries with it seductive dangers etc."
Saying, therefore, that in the case of Wagner the knowledge which is
elsewhere enriching is somehow dangerous. I simply accept your first
principle, and include Wagner in it.
> > [Wagner] wrote in and for his time,
> > he took a particular view of his sources just as Shakespeare did, and
> > one learns just as much from knowing about them. Wagner is not some sort
> > of secret code that only the privileged can disentangle by spiritual
> > resonance or telepathy or whatever. Nobody *ever* gets the whole picture
> > of a Wagner work by just sitting down with the CD and the libretto. That
> > many people have thought this enough is why so many stupid things get
> > written about his works.
> More red herrings, and in any case, entirely mooted by all I've above
> written.
Not red herrings in the least. You are saying all anyone requires to
appreciate a Wagner music-drama is the words and music. I say this
results in a partial understanding at best, and at worst a mass of
misapprehension. There is no special knowledge granted to the elect;
everyone is the better for a bit of background knowledge, and in fact I
would contradict you entirely, and say that no work of art can ever be
fully appreciated without some grasp of the background. You evidently
have considered it necessary to acquire this yourself, after all.
Anyhow, this has to be my last word on the subject for a while, anyway;
so since there's much else we agree on, we should probably agree to
differ on this. "Wandel und Wechsel liebt', wer lebt -- das Spiel d'rum
kann Ich nicht sparen!"
Cheers,
A.C. Douglas
> Not confusing -- simply not drawing an artificial demarcation line
> between them. The idea that the "wow!" response and the intellectual one
> are entirely separate is deeply flawed, and least of all justified by
> Wagner. In fact each is a facet of the other, and is incomplete without
> it. Even if one could separate them, in their extremest forms perhaps,
> they would still be cross-fertilizing. The intellectual response can
> trigger off the "wow!" one once again, or refresh the immediacy. The
> "wow!" response is therefore at best a very partial response which needs
> sustaining through the other.
More red herrings; this time cum smoke and mirrors with the invidious
characterization of what I've called the dramatic, philosophical, and poetic
understanding as the "wow! response," and your preferred academic understanding,
the "intellectual response."
That's patent rubbish, of course. Your preferred approach is in no way more
intellectual than mine. If I were inclined to treat your preferred approach
kindly, I would characterize it as scholarly; if not kindly, then academic or
pedantic. Intellectual has nothing to do with the distinction between my
approach and yours. What distinguishes our approaches is that my approach deals
with what is essential for understanding; yours merely with what is
supplemental, no matter how enriching. Both are equally intellectual in nature,
and are separate only to the extent that the former is contained wholly within
the artwork itself; the latter not.
> Yet if you get the impression Hella represents the "polar opposite of
> Valhalla", you're wrong, because that's not what Wagner intended. What
> he intended is what Norse myth says -- that Hella is the ruler of a
> kingdom of shades, remarkably like the classical Hades, and just as
> neutral. Her realm is not just for unheroic rejects, but is the natural
> destination of the dead, with no overtones of evil or punishment. That's
> why it helps to know the mythology.
Oh, spare me the academic gibberish. In its use in the _Walküre_ the essential
sense of Hella is precisely what I said it to be: the polar opposite of
Valhalla; i.e., a place where those the opposite of the heroic Siegmund are
consigned when they die, and a place where joy isn't, and where Wälse, Wotan,
Wishmaidens, and other heroes aren't. That's the essential understanding
needed, and all that's needed for that understanding is contained within the
text and music of the music-drama itself. That Hella is from Norse myth, and
"that Hella is the ruler of a kingdom of shades, remarkably like the classical
Hades, and just as neutral," and that "[Hella's] realm is not just for unheroic
rejects, but is the natural destination of the dead, with no overtones of evil
or punishment" is supplemental information, enriching to, but not necessary for,
understanding.
> Music is by its nature ambiguous, and the text is not specific; it
> requires only "men of gigantic stature" and the sillier breed of
> producer fasten on this to produce vast and distracting idiocies, like
> Kupfer's men on fork-lifts or the stage-filling puppets used in the last
> San Francisco performances. You are undoubtedly right about what Wagner
> intended, but to be sure of this one has to know what he knew about the
> mythology. QED.
More rubbish cum smoke and mirrors, and your QEDing it makes it no less so. One
can be absolutely sure of what Wagner intended the giants to be from the text
and music alone, as I've already pointed out. Even a dolt would with certainty
understand the giants in the way Wagner intended them to be understood, and from
text and music alone, sans even the knowledge that outside sources existed.
> No. If you approach Wagner's music dramas, or any other great work of
> art, without at least some frame of reference, you will get only the
> most partial experience of it. In fact, it isn't really possible to
> approach anything in such a "clean" manner, since the only way we can
> interpret anything is in the light of experience, and every perception,
> artistic or otherwise, therefore comes with a vast load of baggage. But
> that is only ever the start, and you need more. I have, occasionally,
> encountered people who've sat through operas without a clue what was
> going on. In the cases I remember -- Don Giovanni and Pelleas, for two
> -- they could understand the words clearly enough (sung in English) but
> lost whole dimensions of relationships etc. They completely missed the
> point of Dona Elvira, and were not sure whether Pelleas was Golaud's son
> (they'd heard Pelleas' father mentioned, and been steered off on the
> wrong track). Clearly the work was not sufficient for them. Given that
> Parsifal is considerably less clear, I hate to think what somebody would
> make of it without background information -- even some of the aspects
> that *don't* appear, the Arthurian for example, if only to dismiss them.
All you say in the immediately above would be true were the audience for these
music-dramas composed of your typical air-headed proles. None of it is true of
the relatively cultured and intelligent audiences who attend performances of, or
listen to, Wagner's music-dramas or Mozart's _Don Giovanni_. And if they
didn't get it all right away (which they almost surely would not), they'd get it
all with repeated attendances and hearings; that is, get all the dramatic,
philosophical, and poetic understanding necessary (i.e., the essential
understanding) from the works themselves sans the study of any outside
materials, no matter how supplementally enriching they might prove to be.
> No. Without knowledge you are seeing a portrait of a man; with it, you
> are seeing the portrait of a philosopher, freethinker and personal
> friend. I had this in mind because I saw the picture myself before I
> recognised the subject. The first impression was intriguing, but
> partial, creating questions without answering them; but when I knew it
> was Hume, I understood the artist's intention much more fully -- in
> solid details, the books around the subject, the pose, the lighting
> even, and less physical ones, the emotional language. It was like a
> light coming on; at every level the appreciation was deeper. You had an
> idea of some of this, because Raeburn is a great portraitist; but only
> when you knew it was Hume were you sure you were right. That
> confirmation, like much else, couldn't be included within the work of
> art itself.
That confirmation is totally unnecessary, as is all the rest of your immediately
above not necessary to understand the work aesthetically, all of what's required
for that essential understanding contained within the artwork itself. The rest
is supplemental, no matter how enriching of the experience it may be.
> Not red herrings in the least. You are saying all anyone requires to
> appreciate a Wagner music-drama is the words and music.
I said no such thing. What I said was that all that's necessary to *understand*
a Wagner music-drama dramatically, philosophically, and poetically (i.e., the
essential understanding) is contained within the music-drama itself in the form
of the music and text.
> ...in fact I would contradict you entirely, and say that no work of art
> can ever be fully appreciated without some grasp of the background.
You wouldn't be contradicting me in the least by so saying. I fully agree with
you on that point.
> Anyhow, this has to be my last word on the subject for a while, anyway;
> so since there's much else we agree on, we should probably agree to
> differ on this. "Wandel und Wechsel liebt', wer lebt -- das Spiel d'rum
> kann Ich nicht sparen!"
Sounds like a reasonable resolution to me concerning this matter -- until, that
is, the next time you insist on telling someone he simply *must* consult W's
original sources before he can understand dramatically, philosophically, and
poetically this or that Wagner music-drama.
Pax.
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
> Do you consider Joyce's "Ulysses" a "genuine work of art?" Do you think
> familiarity with the "Odyssey," for example, enhances understanding of it?
Yes indeed, the operative word here being, of course, "enhances." In no way is
familiarity with Homer's work *necessary* for an essential understanding of
Joyce's work, all that's necessary for that understanding being contained within
the artwork itself.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"Richard Partridge" <r.par...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BD54FD55.6713%r.par...@verizon.net...
Pete Barrett
<acdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yes indeed, the operative word here being, of course, "enhances." In no way is
>familiarity with Homer's work *necessary* for an essential understanding of
>Joyce's work, all that's necessary for that understanding being contained within
>the artwork itself.
Do you know anyone who has read and understood 'Ulysses' without first
being familiar with the Ulysses myth in some form or other (not
necessarily from Homer)? I wouldn't have though there could be many.
Pete Barrett
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
Actually, I don't know of such a case personally, but I can easily imagine one.
As I've repeatedly stated here (and elsewhere), every genuine work of art, which
Joyce's _Ulysses_ most decidedly is, contains within itself all that's necessary
for its understanding. Which is not to say, as I've also repeatedly stated
here, that knowledge extrinsic to the artwork wouldn't make the experience of
that artwork richer and more rewarding. This is especially true of Joyce's
highly allusive texts.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"Pete Barrett" <peteb...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:63p3j0pqh7qio9do4...@4ax.com...
Barney
Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>"Pete Barrett" <peteb...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> [snipped. Full original post is below]
>
>Actually, I don't know of such a case personally, but I can easily imagine
>one.
>
>As I've repeatedly stated here (and elsewhere), every genuine work of art,
>which
>Joyce's _Ulysses_ most decidedly is, contains within itself all that's
>necessary
>for its understanding. Which is not to say, as I've also repeatedly stated
>here, that knowledge extrinsic to the artwork wouldn't make the experience of
>that artwork richer and more rewarding. This is especially true of Joyce's
>highly allusive texts.
>
Far too allusive for my taste. Agree with you that all great art works are
self-contained, and for that reason "Ulysses" is *not* a great work. You don't
need to recognize the meaningless Homeric parallels to understand the novel,
but unless you know a great deal about the Dublin of Joyce's day, English
literature, Aristotle, Wagner, and many other things, "Ulysses" is
unintelligible. Like so many modernist classics, it's basically an in-joke.
By contrast, you don't need to know anything about music to passionately
respond to Wagner's stuff, as poor Ludwig and many other fervent Wagnerites
have demonstrated. In fact, Wagner's appeal to the unmusical was and is often
used against him.
Your pal,
Barney
Medical research has shown that people who use marijuana are nearly *eight
times* as likely as non-users to consume raw cookie dough. And the figures are
even more frightening for pepperoni.
--- Dave Barry
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
> You don't
> need to recognize the meaningless Homeric parallels to understand the novel,
> but unless you know a great deal about the Dublin of Joyce's day, English
> literature, Aristotle, Wagner, and many other things, "Ulysses" is
> unintelligible.
Not unintelligible. Merely not as rich.
As for the need to "know a great deal about the Dublin of Joyce's day," you've
hit on the one thing in your list about which one need know nothing. _Ulysses_
is so detailed in its picture of Dublin, both physically and culturally, that
with a little effort one could actually recreate that Dublin never before having
so much as even heard of it.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"Barney" <schlitz...@aol.comekingdom> wrote in message
news:20040830093750...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Pete Barrett
<acdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Actually, I don't know of such a case personally, but I can easily imagine one.
Yes, that's rather the answer I was expecting! I know how difficult I
find it to understand 'Ulysses' <g>.
>
>As I've repeatedly stated here (and elsewhere), every genuine work of art, which
>Joyce's _Ulysses_ most decidedly is, contains within itself all that's necessary
>for its understanding. Which is not to say, as I've also repeatedly stated
>here, that knowledge extrinsic to the artwork wouldn't make the experience of
>that artwork richer and more rewarding. This is especially true of Joyce's
>highly allusive texts.
Well, that's your opinion of what art is, and as you say, you've
repeated it more than once. But I'm afraid that unless you can point
to several instances of someone going virgin to a work of art and
understanding it, and no counter instances of someone going virgin to
a work of art and *not* understanding it, than that's all it is - your
opinion.
Pete Barrett
A.C. Douglas
> [snipped. Full original post is below]
If you're attempting to lay the blame for your inability to understand Joyce's
_Ulysses_ at the doorstep of your ignorance of Homer's _Odyssey _, then you're
deluding yourself. Joyce used Homer's work primarily as a skeleton structure
for the layout of his chapters, that and other Homeric correspondences
"readable" from Joyce's text alone sans any knowledge of Homer's original. So
one ignorant of Homer would get the essential ideas and their sense even though
not realizing they're Homeric correspondences, the skeleton structure included.
Your suggestion that
> ...unless you can point
> to several instances of someone going virgin to a work of art and
> understanding it, and no counter instances of someone going virgin to
> a work of art and *not* understanding it, than that's all it is - your
> opinion.
is absurd on its face. I've many times gone virgin to a genuine work of art,
and understood it after a suitable amount of study. Your "no counter instances"
is what makes your suggestion absurd on its face, for that would include anyone
who due his own denseness or lack of sensitivity simply can't manage to "read"
an artwork for whatever reason, not to mention include every half-wit prole who
ever encountered a genuine work of art, and said, "Duh??"
You're of course free to believe that my contention that every genuine work of
art contains within itself all that's needed for its essential understanding is
merely my opinion rather than a statement of a demonstrable, without-exception
fact. But that's entirely your concern, and none of mine.
--
ACD
http://soundsandfury.com/
---------- original post ----------
"Pete Barrett" <peteb...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:ivp6j059fp5dlu1fd...@4ax.com...
Pete Barrett
<acdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Pete Barrett" <peteb...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> [snipped. Full original post is below]
>
>If you're attempting to lay the blame for your inability to understand Joyce's
>_Ulysses_ at the doorstep of your ignorance of Homer's _Odyssey _, then you're
>deluding yourself. Joyce used Homer's work primarily as a skeleton structure
>for the layout of his chapters, that and other Homeric correspondences
>"readable" from Joyce's text alone sans any knowledge of Homer's original. So
>one ignorant of Homer would get the essential ideas and their sense even though
>not realizing they're Homeric correspondences, the skeleton structure included.
>
Oh, I'm not ignorant of Homer's Odyssey. And my difficulty in
understanding Joyce's Ulysses boils down to it being a difficult book
to understand. I had thought of putting that in a 'despite' clause,
but decided not to on the grounds that it would be saying the obvious.
>Your suggestion that
>
>> ...unless you can point
>> to several instances of someone going virgin to a work of art and
>> understanding it, and no counter instances of someone going virgin to
>> a work of art and *not* understanding it, than that's all it is - your
>> opinion.
>
>is absurd on its face. I've many times gone virgin to a genuine work of art,
>and understood it after a suitable amount of study. Your "no counter instances"
>is what makes your suggestion absurd on its face, for that would include anyone
>who due his own denseness or lack of sensitivity simply can't manage to "read"
>an artwork for whatever reason, not to mention include every half-wit prole who
>ever encountered a genuine work of art, and said, "Duh??"
>
>You're of course free to believe that my contention that every genuine work of
>art contains within itself all that's needed for its essential understanding is
>merely my opinion rather than a statement of a demonstrable, without-exception
>fact. But that's entirely your concern, and none of mine.
OK. What do *you* think proves your assertion that any work of art can
be understood without reference to anything outside itself? It can't
be self-evident, even if you dismiss my disagreement as being due to
my own denseness, because a lot of others have disagreed with that as
well. You say it's a demonstrable, without-exception fact. Demonstrate
it.
Pete Barrett
Mike Scott Rohan
from "A.C. Douglas" <acdo...@worldnet.att.net> contains these words:
> "Mike Scott Rohan" <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote: