Literary Criticism -- why has it gotten weird and is it getting more normal?
a_m...@hotmail.com
areas in the arts have become more inaccessible of late -- this is just
my personal theory and I'd welcome comments that anyone has. This
post is a bit long, so don't bother reading it if you think it'll bore
you.
I went to a college that is a bit schizophrenic about its approach to
literature. On the one hand, they have many Professors who are very
conservative in their approach to criticism, you know, the old aesthetic
/ New critical approach, traditional approach to language, form, style,
content, etc. On the other hand, they also had a lot of professors who
were more avant garde in their thinking. Deconstructionism has fallen
out of fashion, of course, but there was definitely a multiplicity of
approaches.
The good thing about this was I got exposed to a lot of different ideas,
some of which I agreed with and others I didn't. But it did set me
thinking, because I am also deeply involved in music (classical), and it
occurred to me that the study of literature really is a bit more 'weird'
than the study of music, at least in an academic setting. And here's my
theory on why.
The arts were originally created to entertain, but I think as certain
areas within the arts, like literature for example, became more the
realm of academics than everyday people, the need to entertain became
less and other needs came to predominate. Yes people still read, but
what you study in a college lit class certainly isn't what you're going
to see people reading on the subway. Anyway, I think that since
literature no longer needed to delight, or be emotionally powerful, it
became more of an intellectual exercise. Academics who felt the need to
justify their existence to others and prove that they were as smart as
any physicist felt that the more obscure their approach to the study of
criticism, the more valuable their work and indeed the art iteself would
become.
I don't think any of this was done deliberately, but an innate human
drive is the need to have what one does valued -- and I think especially
lately our society has not had particularly strong support for the arts.
On the other side of things, there's music, and while classical music
remains the domain of a relatively small section of our society, it
remains a PERFORMING art, and as such accesses a much broader set of
people. And since the need to entertain, delight, and have emotional
weight are still of primary importance, peoples' perceptions of music
and their approach to it are much more 'normal.'
Anyway, that's just my two cents. Obviously, I have a strong
conservative bias, but I'd really like to get the perspective others who
disagree with me. Thanks!
-Adam Munch
a_m...@hotmail.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David E. Latane
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 a_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
> less and other needs came to predominate. Yes people still read, but
> what you study in a college lit class certainly isn't what you're going
> to see people reading on the subway. Anyway, I think that since
And yet, what one studies in a college lit class is readily available in
every major bookstore (by and large) --generally in multiple editions (the
Penguin, Oxford, New American Library, Everyman, Modern Library, Dover
etc. etc.) So people do still read Dickens or Hardy of Austen or
Shakespeare or Faulkner or Yeats for the pleasure.
So there.
D. latane
Francis Muir
Not to mention the Sisters Brundy and by "not to mention" I mean just that.
Sofonisba
decades since I was anywhere even close to Academia -- is that, like anyone
else, the Faculty needs new material. They can't just go on teaching the same
old stuff. What new papers can be written about Shakespeare, or even Congreve
or Wordsworth, without resorting to weird deconstructionist-type theories? Take
pity: they need jobs, too.
As for "classical" music, surely you must agree that it's had some pretty weird
phases, too, in modern times. John Cage. Stockhausen. Berio. Etc. The broader
set of people you speak of who are entertained and delighted by musical
performances mostly still prefer the old favorites from pre-1900.
sofonisba
<a href="http://www.popula.com">www.popula.com</a>
Whose members are known around the world for their wit, charm and bonhomie
Kevin McGee
> And yet, what one studies in a college lit class is readily available in
> every major bookstore (by and large) --generally in multiple editions (the
> Penguin, Oxford, New American Library, Everyman, Modern Library, Dover
> etc. etc.) So people do still read Dickens or Hardy of Austen or
> Shakespeare or Faulkner or Yeats for the pleasure.
It's an obvious point, but I wonder what percentage of those are
bought by students.
-KM
william r smith
... it became more of an intellectual exercise. Academics who
felt the need to justify their existence to others and prove
that they were as smart as any physicist felt that the more
obscure their approach to the study of criticism, the more
valuable their work and indeed the art iteself would become.
Jacques Barzun has several things to say about this subject in one
or more of the essays in THE CULTURE WE DESERVE. In part, I
remember him saying academics had to keep inventing new analysis
tools so there would be topics for the graduate students to write
their dissertations about.
William Sburgfort Smith
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Smith will...@mhpcc.edu
Maui High Performance Computing Center WWW: http://www.mhpcc.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
Larisa Migachyov
> On the other side of things, there's music, and while classical music
> remains the domain of a relatively small section of our society, it
> remains a PERFORMING art, and as such accesses a much broader set of
> people. And since the need to entertain, delight, and have emotional
> weight are still of primary importance, peoples' perceptions of music
> and their approach to it are much more 'normal.'
I take it you have never listened to aleatoric music. Or, for that
matter, 12-tone music. No delight or emotional weight there.
--
Larisa Migachyov
Quaternion Press Publishing House
Have a math question? Ask the Quaternion at
http://www.quaternionpress.com/mathhelp.html
Joe Weaver
Following
the Equator...
David E. Latane
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Paul Ilechko wrote:
All of them? But the students formally matriculated buy these books at
the college textbook store--not Borders.
>
> Students buy the cheapest paperback version, preferably abridged. They
> don't buy Everymans Library versions.
They'll buy whatever I damn well tell them to buy. (Moggin bait.)
D. latane
Jean Clarke
Paul Ilechko
>"David E. Latane" wrote:
>
>> And yet, what one studies in a college lit class is readily available in
>> every major bookstore (by and large) --generally in multiple editions (the
>> Penguin, Oxford, New American Library, Everyman, Modern Library, Dover
>> etc. etc.) So people do still read Dickens or Hardy of Austen or
>> Shakespeare or Faulkner or Yeats for the pleasure.
>
>It's an obvious point, but I wonder what percentage of those are
>bought by students.
Students buy the cheapest paperback version, preferably abridged. They
SirWilliam OfKent
about whether the "common" person read those types of books. When I was
in fifth grade, I asked for a copy of War and Peace. My teacher laughed
at me and told me that I would not be able to understand it. This set
my mind working. How could anyone stand before me and tell me that I
would not be able to understand something. At that moment I knew what I
wanted to do with my life, study english. I am now finishing my BA in
english and I am working towards my Masters. What does this say about
the critics?
There have been times when I was reading a book and there was
something I didn't understand, or perhaps needed another voice to help
with an argument. I searched out the critics for help.
Am I supporting them? No, but I am not shutting them down. In the
world of lit. there is one fundamental element that is most important,
not what the others say, but what the text says to you. How you feel
about the book. Did the book move you? It is like a movie. How many
of us watch a film and never comment on it? How many never tell a
friend to watch that same film? Is that not a form of critic? How then
can you say that the critics need to stay away when you are doing the
same thing?
As with the study of music, it is a form of art. The fact is in our
postmodern world, we can no longer write or say anything that has not
already been written or said before. It is up to the critic, reader,
and writer to find a new voice and present the material in a new way.
That is why we still have essays on Shakespeare.
Bill Duke
fixgal...@webtv.net (Joe Weaver) notes:
: Criticism itself has become a form of art.
True. It has been, at least since Coleridge.
: Whether film or literature, the act of dissection and analysis has
: in its own way replaced the actual entertainment.
Well,...no.
Unless you mean that no one partakes of movies or books anymore. ("The
hell with John Grisham; hand me that copy of 'Transgressive Hermeneutics
in the Gendering of Barbie/Horkheimer'.")
: We have become so enamored of our critics we have
: forgotten our own tastes...
Oh, c'mon now. Critics are easiest target to pillory. Everyone does it.
(I do, too.) Those who read criticism -- a tiny fraction of the public,
I'm guessing -- might be enamored of one critic or another, but only
because they're already in sympathy with their critical judgments.
: We live in a society where we have discarded our own personal
: tastes in favor of those of a few select "experts".
We do?
Have you? Discarded your personal tastes, I mean? Or do you mean those
less astute than you have fallen prey to this invidious elitism?
I read Roger Ebert, or Stanley Kaufmann, or the New York Review, or
Harold Rosenberg not to supplant my judgment; I read them to augment
what I know, to get a perspective other than my own, and because I don't
have the time to read 70 books a month, or watch 20 films a week, or go
to a dozen galleries at once.
Mathew Arnold said the critic's job was to purvey the best that has been
done and said. These days, you'd have to sift through an enormous amount
of "cultural production" to get at that. I'm glad there's at least
someone pointing toward one horizon or another, to let me better decide
which one's I should head for. I don't have to agree with them; but even
disagreeing sheds some light on the matter at hand.
Bill
a_m...@my-deja.com
contrary, I think it's essential to the continued well-being of
literature to have a healthy discourse. I also studied English in
college because I love it and I remember very fondly sitting in my
advisor's study talking about Coleridge and Romanticism and Truth and
Beauty and all that kind of stuff.
You say on some level 'it's like a movie,' and I agree with you that
good stuff needs to have that level of gut reaction. What I'm reacting
against is a substantial body of critics and academics who want to
remove literature as a medium that delights, entertains, and moves,
transforming it into an intellectual exercise.
I forgot to write about the latter half of my subject line, which is I
think there is a move away from that type of over-intellectualization in
current critical thought, what with New Historicism being the
predominant thinking right now . . . but it still makes me mad when
people talk about deconstructing Keats.
In article <4648-388...@storefull-293.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
a_m...@my-deja.com
of literature is weird, but literature itself is fairly normal (I mean,
who has written in a truly experimental style since Joyce and
Faulkner?). Music is reversed -- criticism of music is fairly normal,
but there's a lot of weird modern music (although probably a more fair
statement is that there is no central TYPE of modern music, just a lot
of people writing a lot of different things).
In article <20000126123616...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
a_m...@hotmail.com
wrs...@unm.edu (william r smith) wrote:
> Jacques Barzun has several things to say about this subject in one
> or more of the essays in THE CULTURE WE DESERVE. In part, I
> remember him saying academics had to keep inventing new analysis
> tools so there would be topics for the graduate students to write
> their dissertations about.
The sad part is that they really don't need to. I think one of the joys
of the great writers, Shakespeare in particular, is that they allow for
a constant process of rediscovery -- you NEVER fully understand them,
and there is always something new to be learned from re-reading them.
That, I think, is the difference between art that is great and that
which is simply good. there's plenty of stuff out there that is very
enjoyable to read, and can in itself be very good and moving, but after
you read it, you derive no more value from it. Great art always has
something more to give.
-Adam Munch
a_m...@hotmail.com
a_m...@hotmail.com
> And yet, what one studies in a college lit class is readily available
in
> every major bookstore (by and large) --generally in multiple editions
(the
> Penguin, Oxford, New American Library, Everyman, Modern Library, Dover
> etc. etc.) So people do still read Dickens or Hardy of Austen or
> Shakespeare or Faulkner or Yeats for the pleasure.
Yeah, that's true . . . but I don't know that anyone actually goes and
_buys_ those books. I think it's sort of why Tower records have large
classical sections even though classical CD sales account for less than
5% of overall CD sales -- you're not a real, respectable CD store unless
you have 'em. Same with bookstores, I think.
Don't get me wrong -- I love literature and I love classical music and
the thought of their being on the decline saddens me immensely. And
people are reading some very worthwhile things these days, I just don't
think they're reading the classics in great numbers, although if anyone
can prove me wrong I would be overjoyed.
David E. Latane
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 a_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Yeah, i guess what's weird about literature vs. music is that criticism
> of literature is weird, but literature itself is fairly normal (I mean,
> who has written in a truly experimental style since Joyce and
> Faulkner?).
woof woof woof
D. Latane
Lewis Mammel
>
> They'll buy whatever I damn well tell them to buy. (Moggin bait.)
Reminds me of my favorite Dr. Katz joke:
"You know the saying, 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't
make him drink'? "
"Yeah?"
"Well now they can make him drink."
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Maureen Scobie
>What I'm reacting against is a substantial body of critics >and
academics who want to remove literature as a medium
>that delights, entertains, and moves, transforming it into >an intellectual exercise.
I rather like the bodies of critics who find intellectual exercises to
be delightful, entertaining, and oh so moving.
Take your pick.
Maureen
David E. Latane
In my experience most critic's bodies aren't that sensitive.
D. Latane
Sofonisba
>be delightful, entertaining, and oh so moving.
>
>Take your pick.
Not to get the Stoppard thread going again, but his critics' intellectual
exercises are rather delightful (pace that chap who thinks Stoppard is all
flash and no substance). I loved that academic in Arcadia -- was it Peacock or
was it Nightingale?
Also, does anyone remember his TV drama, Foul Play? About an English academic
who specializes in Semantics or some such discipline, and who goes to
Czechoslovakia ostensibly to attend an academic conference but actually because
there's an important soccer game being played there.
I think A Munch would find himself very much in sympathy -- try Tom Stoppard.
David E. Latane
On 30 Jan 2000, Sofonisba wrote:
> >I rather like the bodies of critics who find intellectual exercises to
> >be delightful, entertaining, and oh so moving.
> >
> >Take your pick.
>
> Not to get the Stoppard thread going again, but his critics' intellectual
> exercises are rather delightful (pace that chap who thinks Stoppard is all
> flash and no substance). I loved that academic in Arcadia -- was it Peacock or
> was it Nightingale?
>
> Also, does anyone remember his TV drama, Foul Play? About an English academic
> who specializes in Semantics or some such discipline, and who goes to
> Czechoslovakia ostensibly to attend an academic conference but actually because
> there's an important soccer game being played there.
>
Wasn't that "Professional Foul"?
I only read it--tres amusing.
D. Latane
Sofonisba
>
>I only read it--tres amusing.
>
>D. Latane
>
Barkwith (sp?) as the scintillating prof.
Meg Worley
Francis writes:
>Not to mention the Sisters Brundy and by "not to mention" I mean just that.
Are you trolling Jeff and Zeleny with praeteritio again?
Shame on you.
ObBook: *The Quatrefoil of Love*
Rage away,
meg
--
m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
Meg Worley
Sof'a writes:
>There is much in what you say. My view -- a totally uninformed one since it's
>decades since I was anywhere even close to Academia -- is that, like anyone
>else, the Faculty needs new material. They can't just go on teaching the same
>old stuff. What new papers can be written about Shakespeare, or even Congreve
>or Wordsworth, without resorting to weird deconstructionist-type theories? Take
>pity: they need jobs, too.
Pish, tosh. If you really believe that, you have a shocking
lack of understanding of the intellectual history of the last
106 years. Meg != Mog, but even I don't think Foucault got
his black-leather knickers in a twist over power merely
because the 19C Germans ate up all the good philology.
Meg Worley
>>> every major bookstore (by and large) --generally in multiple editions (the
>>> Penguin, Oxford, New American Library, Everyman, Modern Library, Dover
>>> etc. etc.) So people do still read Dickens or Hardy of Austen or
>>> Shakespeare or Faulkner or Yeats for the pleasure.
The McGee wrote:
>>It's an obvious point, but I wonder what percentage of those are
>>bought by students.
Paul adds:
>Students buy the cheapest paperback version, preferably abridged. They
>don't buy Everymans Library versions.
What's with the slagging of students, all of a sudden? Some
bitch about Jean Auel not getting a Nobel and others upbraid
Finnegan's possesiveness, just like ordinary people. If
anything, let's epater the ordinary people; they at least
aren't even pretending to learn anything.
ObAuthor: Judith Krantz, isn't it?
ObMovieLineThatShouldBeA.sig: "Ordinary fucking people, I
hate 'em." *Repo Man*, of course.
Richard Harter
wrote:
>Herr Doktor Latane had written:
>>>> And yet, what one studies in a college lit class is readily available in
>>>> every major bookstore (by and large) --generally in multiple editions (the
>>>> Penguin, Oxford, New American Library, Everyman, Modern Library, Dover
>>>> etc. etc.) So people do still read Dickens or Hardy of Austen or
>>>> Shakespeare or Faulkner or Yeats for the pleasure.
>
>The McGee wrote:
>>>It's an obvious point, but I wonder what percentage of those are
>>>bought by students.
>
>Paul adds:
>>Students buy the cheapest paperback version, preferably abridged. They
>>don't buy Everymans Library versions.
>
>What's with the slagging of students, all of a sudden? Some
>bitch about Jean Auel not getting a Nobel and others upbraid
>Finnegan's possesiveness, just like ordinary people. If
>anything, let's epater the ordinary people; they at least
>aren't even pretending to learn anything.
I rather like the idea of Jean Auel getting a Nobel. It's rather
like (I rather like the sound of "rather like") Senator Hruska's
observation about the charge that one Nixon's less distinguished
candidates for the Supreme Court was mediocre: He opined that mediocre
people needed to be represented too. Let her have her Nobel. It
would be a public confession of the bankruptcy of the institution and,
as a special dividend, induce entertaining and particularly
spectacular back biting by the literati.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Tick tock, Tick tock, the hours run on
Like little mice under the feet of elephants.
Richard Harter
wrote:
>
Foucault invented the Foucault pendulum which provides a direct
experimental proof of the rotation of the Earth. He may have worn
black-leather knickers for all I know but I seriously doubt that he
gave a damn about 19C Germans eating philogy.
Ted Samsel
: Herr Doktor Latane had written:
: >>> And yet, what one studies in a college lit class is readily available in
: >>> every major bookstore (by and large) --generally in multiple editions (the
: >>> Penguin, Oxford, New American Library, Everyman, Modern Library, Dover
: >>> etc. etc.) So people do still read Dickens or Hardy of Austen or
: >>> Shakespeare or Faulkner or Yeats for the pleasure.
: The McGee wrote:
: >>It's an obvious point, but I wonder what percentage of those are
: >>bought by students.
: Paul adds:
: >Students buy the cheapest paperback version, preferably abridged. They
: >don't buy Everymans Library versions.
: What's with the slagging of students, all of a sudden? Some
: bitch about Jean Auel not getting a Nobel and others upbraid
: Finnegan's possesiveness, just like ordinary people. If
: anything, let's epater the ordinary people; they at least
: aren't even pretending to learn anything.
: ObAuthor: Judith Krantz, isn't it?
You must be waiting with baited breath for the lit-flick (humorous)
about Jacquelyn Susann writing THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS.
And here's another lit-flick:
Michael Tucci playing Joseph Mitchell in the big screen version
of JOE GOULD'S STORY. This might be good.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net (or tbsa...@richmond.infi.net)
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1914-1999)
David E. Latane
On 1 Feb 2000, Meg Worley wrote:
> Herr Doktor Latane had written:
> >>> And yet, what one studies in a college lit class is readily available in
> >>> every major bookstore (by and large) --generally in multiple editions (the
> >>> Penguin, Oxford, New American Library, Everyman, Modern Library, Dover
> >>> etc. etc.) So people do still read Dickens or Hardy of Austen or
> >>> Shakespeare or Faulkner or Yeats for the pleasure.
>
> The McGee wrote:
> >>It's an obvious point, but I wonder what percentage of those are
> >>bought by students.
>
> Paul adds:
> >Students buy the cheapest paperback version, preferably abridged. They
> >don't buy Everymans Library versions.
>
> What's with the slagging of students, all of a sudden? Some
> bitch about Jean Auel not getting a Nobel and others upbraid
> Finnegan's possesiveness, just like ordinary people. If
> anything, let's epater the ordinary people; they at least
> aren't even pretending to learn anything.
>
> ObAuthor: Judith Krantz, isn't it?
>
> ObMovieLineThatShouldBeA.sig: "Ordinary fucking people, I
> hate 'em." *Repo Man*, of course.
>
I was thinking of this thread out at Borders the other day, looking at
some non-academic type standing in line with a stack of classics -- the
Brundys, etc. Not a student, certainly not a professor, who would just
ask for "examination" copies of such, and spend the cash on booze.
Somebody looking for something good to read. It would be interesting to
get a composite sales figure (for all editions) of Jane Eyre from Borders,
then run it over a ten year period against the average "best-seller."
D. Latane
dla...@vcu.edu
Francis Muir
Richard Harter:
> Let her have her Nobel. It would be a public confession
> of the bankruptcy of the institution . . .
Bankrupcy doesn't spring to my mind when I think "Nobel".
Michael Kagalenko
]
]
]Richard Harter:
]> Let her have her Nobel. It would be a public confession
]> of the bankruptcy of the institution . . .
]
]Bankrupcy doesn't spring to my mind when I think "Nobel".
Dynamite observation, Prof.Muir.
Puss in Boots
>Yeah, i guess what's weird about literature vs. music is that criticism
>of literature is weird, but literature itself is fairly normal (I mean,
>who has written in a truly experimental style since Joyce and
>Faulkner?).
Only weirdos, as you'd expect, like that crew-cut Irishman
who insisted on writing in French. I mean, how weird is
_that_? Sure, they gave him a Nobel, but they gave one to that
Chicago hack, too -- it's politics, is all it is.
> I think there is a move away from that type of over-intellectualization in
> current critical thought, what with New Historicism being the
> predominant thinking right now . . . but it still makes me mad when
> people talk about deconstructing Keats.
Yes, but do you reach for your revolver?
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
>> Students buy the cheapest paperback version, preferably abridged. They
>> don't buy Everymans Library versions.
> They'll buy whatever I damn well tell them to buy. (Moggin bait.)
I'm willing to be baited, but I can't disagree when you're
telling the Lord's own truth.
-- Moggin
tejas
He should reach for his Glock.
--
TBSa...@richmond.infi.net (also te...@infi.net)
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow (1914-1999)
THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
David E. Latane
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Puss in Boots wrote:
> a_m...@my-deja.com:
>
> >Yeah, i guess what's weird about literature vs. music is that criticism
> >of literature is weird, but literature itself is fairly normal (I mean,
> >who has written in a truly experimental style since Joyce and
> >Faulkner?).
>
> Only weirdos, as you'd expect, like that crew-cut Irishman
> who insisted on writing in French. I mean, how weird is
> _that_? Sure, they gave him a Nobel, but they gave one to that
> Chicago hack, too -- it's politics, is all it is.
>
> > I think there is a move away from that type of over-intellectualization in
> > current critical thought, what with New Historicism being the
> > predominant thinking right now . . . but it still makes me mad when
> > people talk about deconstructing Keats.
>
> Yes, but do you reach for your revolver?
>
Happiness is a warm gun. . . . oops, that's the White Album.
D. latane
David E. Latane
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Puss in Boots wrote:
dixit dominus.
D. latane
Paul Ilechko
Boots) wrote:
> Yes, but do you reach for your revolver?
no, for my rubber soul.
Perhaps in the Next Life
a_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On the other side of things, there's music, and while classical music
> remains the domain of a relatively small section of our society, it
> remains a PERFORMING art, and as such accesses a much broader set of
> people. And since the need to entertain, delight, and have emotional
> weight are still of primary importance, peoples' perceptions of music
> and their approach to it are much more 'normal.'
you is wrong, boy. it's music that's gotten much weirder and the
criticism too.
literature, no matter how weird, has to make sense because language
follows strict rules. for instance, you can't write "vmomen0vj03qjov0
[fdmvprmv0ejvopqrnmv[oajvo3qmnovuaso[ginqovhjqo3rjtgoavje" and call it
writing. sure, some avantgarde writers will try to push the envelope
but they are still bound to the rules of language and to a particular
language. i mean you can't make words with both alphabet and kanji at
the same time.
but music can be "mvo0jqwer0vj03q4mn 0j34op[ijf0ajvo[i34hgf" and it
often is in modern music. because it doesnt' have to mean anything, it
can be far more abstract and out there than language.
and even look at pop music. it began with chuck berry, elvis, and
beatles were plenty fun too. but then greil marcus and his elves began
to justify the boring idiocies of punk music and patti smith. and
why? because they are too intellectual.
--
http://www.xs4all.nl/~igarashi/bgc/bgc.html
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100best/
http://www.nationalreview.com/movies/movies.html
http://thenewrepublic.com/
http://www.chireader.com/movies/
MichalakBJ
Meg Worley
Teodito had written:
>>You must be waiting with baited breath for the lit-flick (humorous)
>>about Jacquelyn Susann writing THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS.
Michalak primly writes:
>Bated breath, I should think, as in abate, or held breath. Just a guess.
You don't know Ted very well, do you? Keep your distance if
you ever visit RVA. Just a suggestion.
ObBook: Izaak Walton, of course of course.
tejas
>
> Teodito had written:
> >>You must be waiting with baited breath for the lit-flick (humorous)
> >>about Jacquelyn Susann writing THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS.
>
> Michalak primly writes:
> >Bated breath, I should think, as in abate, or held breath. Just a guess.
>
> You don't know Ted very well, do you? Keep your distance if
> you ever visit RVA. Just a suggestion.
>
> ObBook: Izaak Walton, of course of course.
Susan Young and I have discussed "Catfish Charlie's Stink Baits" at
some length. Too bad she's devolved back into a graduate student and
no longer frequents our foetid little pond much. Is Barry Switzer going
to write a paen to Tom Landry?
ObPoliticalBio: SHRUB by Molly Ivins and some guy.
(should be good stuff since it's about George W.)
jde...@my-deja.com
Larisa Migachyov <l...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> a_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On the other side of things, there's music, and while classical
music
> > remains the domain of a relatively small section of our society, it
> > remains a PERFORMING art, and as such accesses a much broader set
of
> > people. And since the need to entertain, delight, and have
emotional
> > weight are still of primary importance, peoples' perceptions of
music
> > and their approach to it are much more 'normal.'
>
> matter, 12-tone music. No delight or emotional weight there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some twelve toners maybe, but Schoenberg is one of the
most intensely emotional composers ever. There's
nothing cold or theoretical about his work.
It may be unusual and difficult, but emotionally barren-never!
J. Del Col
jde...@my-deja.com
I forgot to mention Shostakovich's last piece, the Sonata
for Viola and Piano.(Op. 147?) He uses a tweleve tone row
in a way that can break your heart--a very powerful piece.
OTOH, I agree with you about the aleatorics.
Bill Duke
<l...@Stanford.EDU> notes:
: jde...@my-deja.com wrote:
:
: > Some twelve toners maybe, but Schoenberg is one of the
: > most intensely emotional composers ever. There's
: > nothing cold or theoretical about his work.
: > It may be unusual and difficult, but emotionally barren-never!
:
: Perhaps. Though his emotional language is so different from the
: "standard" that it is very difficult to understand just what emotion it is
: that he's expressing. When I listen to his music, I have the feeling that
: I'm listening to someone make an impassioned speech to me, gesturing
: wildly, appealing for something, in a language I can't understand.
I know what you mean -- I get that from Mariah Carey.
Still, if you can adapt to his harmonic vernacular (okay, his harmonic
disjunction), I bet you'll find some of it quite emotionally charged.
If nothing else, head for the late, "Jewish", compositions from the '40s
("Moses und Aaron", etc.), the one's his most ardent twelve-tone
adherents thought of as an abandonment of the purity of his original
system. Seriously passionate.
Bill
Chris Krolczyk
>jde...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Some twelve toners maybe, but Schoenberg is one of the
>> most intensely emotional composers ever. There's
>> nothing cold or theoretical about his work.
>> It may be unusual and difficult, but emotionally barren-never!
>Perhaps. Though his emotional language is so different from the
>"standard" that it is very difficult to understand just what emotion it is
>that he's expressing. When I listen to his music, I have the feeling that
>I'm listening to someone make an impassioned speech to me, gesturing
>wildly, appealing for something, in a language I can't understand.
ObOpus: _Five Pieces for Orchestra_, especially "Yesteryears" (or whatever
the second fragment is called in German; I don't have my CD of it in front
of me right now); you can't get much more subtle.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCE: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
jde...@my-deja.com
Bill Duke <bd...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On or about 18 Feb 2000 17:56:08 GMT, Larisa Migachyov
> <l...@Stanford.EDU> notes:
>
> :
> : > Some twelve toners maybe, but Schoenberg is one of the
> : > most intensely emotional composers ever. There's
> : > nothing cold or theoretical about his work.
> : > It may be unusual and difficult, but emotionally barren-never!
> :
> : Perhaps. Though his emotional language is so different from the
> : "standard" that it is very difficult to understand just what emotion
it is
> : that he's expressing. When I listen to his music, I have the
feeling that
> : I'm listening to someone make an impassioned speech to me, gesturing
> : wildly, appealing for something, in a language I can't understand.
>
>
> Still, if you can adapt to his harmonic vernacular (okay, his harmonic
> disjunction), I bet you'll find some of it quite emotionally charged.
>
> If nothing else, head for the late, "Jewish", compositions from the
'40s
> ("Moses und Aaron", etc.), the one's his most ardent twelve-tone
> adherents thought of as an abandonment of the purity of his original
> system. Seriously passionate.
Indeed.
Ob book: Charles Rosen's --Arnold Schoenberg--.
jde...@my-deja.com
Bill Duke <bd...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On or about 18 Feb 2000 17:56:08 GMT, Larisa Migachyov
> <l...@Stanford.EDU> notes:
>
> : jde...@my-deja.com wrote:
> :
> : > Some twelve toners maybe, but Schoenberg is one of the
> : > most intensely emotional composers ever. There's
> : > nothing cold or theoretical about his work.
> : > It may be unusual and difficult, but emotionally barren-never!
> :
> : Perhaps. Though his emotional language is so different from the
> : "standard" that it is very difficult to understand just what emotion
it is
> : that he's expressing. When I listen to his music, I have the
feeling that
> : I'm listening to someone make an impassioned speech to me, gesturing
> : wildly, appealing for something, in a language I can't understand.
>
> I know what you mean -- I get that from Mariah Carey.
>
> Still, if you can adapt to his harmonic vernacular (okay, his harmonic
> disjunction), I bet you'll find some of it quite emotionally charged.
>
> If nothing else, head for the late, "Jewish", compositions from the
'40s
> ("Moses und Aaron", etc.),
--Moses und Aron-- was in its present unfinished form in 1932.
Schoenberg tried to get a Guggenheim grant to finish it and
--Jakobsleiter-- in 1945 but was turned down.
J. Del Col