Empty-Headed Dragon River
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>
> : On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
> : > On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 17:57:22 GMT, dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus)
> : > wrote:
> : > >
> : > >By the way, Robert, I saw "Shakespeare in Love" on Saturday. Enjoyed it
> : > >tremendously.
> : >
> : > Me too. It was excellent.
> : >
> : > >And I dare anyone to see the movie and continue to contend that Stoppard
> : > >hates Shakespeare.
> : >
> : > Exactly.
>
>
> : I'm only taking your and David's (suspect) word for it that
> : Shakespeare in Love is "wonderful", but again, must remind you that
> : others were involved. I think Stoppard's screen credit may even take
> : second place to the primary screenwiters.
>
>
> Screenwriter, singular.
>
> I saw only one other person credited with the screenplay. And anyone
> reasonably familiar with Stoppard's work would recognize his handiwork in
> the finished product. My wife certainly did.
I posited the influence of other screenwriters on the off-chance that
it is indeed "wonderful". It looks exactly as bad as much of "R&G",
at least from the trailers, full of empty, but hyperactive overacting
and reacting, to keep everyone from noticing the emptiness.
> A critic from the local newspaper interviewed Geoffrey What's-His-Name,
> the Australian actor who won an Oscar for his performance in "Shine." He
> said he was apprehensive about appearing in two different Elizabethan-era
> films in one year, but by the time he got to the third page of the script
> for "Shakespeare in Love," he "had" to do it. It was like the script was
> saying "Eat me," he said.
Oh, sure. Announce "Shakespeare" and you have instant "credibility"
for your actor's resume. As far as I can see, this film is identical
to the disconnected "cleverness" of R&G, still vampirically drawing
credibility by it's "erudite" referencing.
You know, on the Stephen King newsgroup they get a great deal oof
mileage out of the numerous cameo mentions of characters and
events in preveious King novels...those educated enough to
understand the "references" are going to be delighted with Mr.
Stoppard for playing to their ability to get these references.
I suspect, though, that Stoppard is still inimical to Shakespeare
as an artist...and his contribution in this film is to flatter
his audience by telling them "Shakespeare was as crude and stupid
as most of you."
Paul Ilechko
<rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>You know, on the Stephen King newsgroup they get a great deal oof
>mileage out of the numerous cameo mentions of characters and
>events in preveious King novels...
Stephen King again, hmm - it's good to know that you have such a good
grounding in contemporary literature.
> those educated enough to
>understand the "references" are going to be delighted with Mr.
>Stoppard for playing to their ability to get these references.
Most people who will see the movie won't get the references, but they
will enjoy it anyway. There is one joke in the movie that requires you
should know who John Webster is. At the NJ multiplex where I saw the
movie, no-one laughed - but there seemed to be general consensus as
people were leaving that they had enjoyed it.
>I suspect, though, that Stoppard is still inimical to Shakespeare
>as an artist...and his contribution in this film is to flatter
>his audience by telling them "Shakespeare was as crude and stupid
>as most of you."
Obviously you haven't seen the movie.
***************
Paul Ilechko
http://www.transarc.com/~pilechko/homepage.htm
David J. Loftus
: Most people who will see the movie won't get the references, but they
: will enjoy it anyway. There is one joke in the movie that requires you
: should know who John Webster is. At the NJ multiplex where I saw the
: movie, no-one laughed - but there seemed to be general consensus as
: people were leaving that they had enjoyed it.
Oh, Paul, now we're REALLY "suspect"; we both got the same relatively
obscure joke.
: >I suspect, though, that Stoppard is still inimical to Shakespeare
: >as an artist...and his contribution in this film is to flatter
: >his audience by telling them "Shakespeare was as crude and stupid
: >as most of you."
: Obviously you haven't seen the movie.
And obviously he will have to conclude that all the people who speak so
highly of it -- especially the ones without college educations -- didn't
"really" enjoy it.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: I posited the influence of other screenwriters on the off-chance that
: it is indeed "wonderful".
Doesn't really matter whether it's wonderful or not, your "positing" to
the moon won't make whatever you claim so. I've seen you drop arguments
and positions all over the place throughout this thread (both "drop" as
in present to the general audience, and "drop" as in fail to defend
afterward) with little or no evidence to back them up. Meg and I are
still waiting for your evidence that Stoppard intended to -- what was it?
-- present Shakespeare's true meaning or something like that, in R&GAD.
David Loftus
JPachino
see the movie first.
Even Charleton Heston remembered that lesson this week.
Robert Whelan
Reserving my final judgement.
However, David should note... The screenplay is given to two
people Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard.
Also, I picked this tidbit up from rec.arts.movies reviews....
Skander Halim (ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Alex Fung (aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Best Screenplay
>> Warren Beatty and Jeremy Pisker, Bulworth (Fox)
>> Runner-up: Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, Shakespeare In Love
>> (Miramax)
Gee, I'm still pretty impressed that you were able to cite the eventual
runner-up; this must be one hell of a screenplay. I was reading that
Edward Zwick got Stoppard's screenplay rewritten by Susan Shilliday, which
prompted Gwyneth Paltrow to comment, "Not that there's anything wrong with
the lady that wrote LEGENDS OF THE FALL, but it's sort of hilarious that
anyone could deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
Alex Fung (aw...@freenet.carleton.ca) | http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aw220/
So however wonderful this play is, it's extensively modified by other
people than Stoppard. If the play has overall integrity (and I depend
upon you who have seen it to say yay or nay to this quality) it is,
by my guess, due to the efforts of these revisers.
Robert Whelan
Robert Whelan
exactly was meant by the script being "revised". I'm afraid that
the worst has been confirmed. I
Hi Robert,
In article <7520lp$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, you wrote:
>
>> I was reading that Edward Zwick got Stoppard's screenplay
>> rewritten by Susan Shilliday, which prompted Gwyneth Paltrow to
>> comment, "Not that there's anything wrong with the lady that wrote
>> LEGENDS OF THE FALL, but it's sort of hilarious that anyone could
>> deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
>
> Is that definite?
Well, technically yes -- Zwick did have the script rewritten back
around 1993, but that was one of the early drafts, and since Zwick
finally handed over directing reigns to John Madden, I suspect that
they returned back to one of the Stoppard drafts.
Toronto Sun article about SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE -- here's an excerpt:
It was taken from an idea by freelance writer Marc Norman, who, as
the scripter of the legendary bomb Cutthroat Island, presumably knows
a thing or two about gratuitous pirate plots. The Stoppard script
landed in the hands of director Edward Zwick (The Siege, Legends Of
The Fall), who in true Hollywood style decided Stoppard's dialogue
needed improving by Zwick's good friend Susan Shilliday, who co-wrote
Legends Of The Fall.
"That was the first version I read," says Paltrow with an
embarrassed, guilty laugh. "Not that there's anything wrong with the
lady that wrote Legends Of The Fall, but it's sort of hilarious that
anyone could deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
Zwick ran into production problems when he tried to film the script
in 1993. He stayed on as producer, handing the reins to Madden, a
Brit who turned the project into a fun piece for anyone of note who
had ever delivered a soliloquy, including all the aforementioned
actors plus Dame Judi Dench here playing Queen Elizabeth I.
--
Alex Fung (aw...@freenet.carleton.ca) | http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aw220/
**********************************************************************
What I find ominous about this information is the idea of the
project being a "fun piece for anyone of note who had ever delivered
a soliloquy".
The ads for this film seem to promise this. Tons of pretty faces
overacting in "shakespearean" manner.
I remember a production of "The Lion in Winter" that I helped out on.
Everyone overdramatised their lines, and went for laughs with the
audience. However, they were all called back for one final show
WITHOUT an audience, in order to get a complete videotape of the
show (there had been a techical mishap in recording the final show).
That last, audience free performance, was the most moving and honest
performance of the PLAY. It came alive in a way that was astonishing.
And the actors themselves were grumpy, annoyed that they had had to
come out of their way, and were not grandstanding to garnish applause.
Part of the serendipity was that unhappiness was exactly what the
play needed to bring it to life.
Oh well. I suppose if one goes with no expectation of anything but a
bunch of (perhaps talented) hams, having fun hamming things up, one
will have a good time. I'm not sure I could stand it, however.
A pile of needy actors, all screaming "look at me".
Somone else on the movie newsgroup commented "It's witty and romantic,
just the kind of film I love." Let me stick a finger down my throat.
Robert Whelan
Ted Samsel
: I followed up on the information to see if I could find out what
: exactly was meant by the script being "revised". I'm afraid that
: the worst has been confirmed. I
: Hi Robert,
: In article <7520lp$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, you wrote:
: >
: >> I was reading that Edward Zwick got Stoppard's screenplay
: >> rewritten by Susan Shilliday, which prompted Gwyneth Paltrow to
: >> comment, "Not that there's anything wrong with the lady that wrote
: >> LEGENDS OF THE FALL, but it's sort of hilarious that anyone could
: >> deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
: >
: > Is that definite?
: Well, technically yes -- Zwick did have the script rewritten back
: around 1993, but that was one of the early drafts, and since Zwick
: finally handed over directing reigns to John Madden,
The former football coach?
I suspect that
: they returned back to one of the Stoppard drafts.
: Toronto Sun article about SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE -- here's an excerpt:
: It was taken from an idea by freelance writer Marc Norman, who, as
: the scripter of the legendary bomb Cutthroat Island, presumably knows
: a thing or two about gratuitous pirate plots. The Stoppard script
: landed in the hands of director Edward Zwick (The Siege, Legends Of
: The Fall), who in true Hollywood style decided Stoppard's dialogue
: needed improving by Zwick's good friend Susan Shilliday, who co-wrote
: Legends Of The Fall.
I'll bet Jim Harrison had a few comments to make on the re-write.
Hopefully, he got some moolah for his original authorship. He eats
alot, y'know.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net (or tbsa...@richmond.infi.net)
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
Robert Whelan
>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:15:51 -0500, Robert Whelan
><rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>>You know, on the Stephen King newsgroup they get a great deal oof
>>mileage out of the numerous cameo mentions of characters and
>>events in preveious King novels...
>
>Stephen King again, hmm - it's good to know that you have such a good
>grounding in contemporary literature.
I was referring (incompletely) to the fact that King's recent literary
abortions are still praised by "fans" because they are packed with
useless and distracting references and "tie ins" to previous works,
which the fans love to count and share with one another. I find it
ridiculous, and I find praising a more "literary" author for
extensive "referencing" to be just as ludicrous, though following
the references to Shakespeare is, I'll admit, more likely to be
rewarding than following King links.
>> those educated enough to
>>understand the "references" are going to be delighted with Mr.
>>Stoppard for playing to their ability to get these references.
>
>Most people who will see the movie won't get the references, but they
>will enjoy it anyway. There is one joke in the movie that requires you
>should know who John Webster is. At the NJ multiplex where I saw the
>movie, no-one laughed - but there seemed to be general consensus as
>people were leaving that they had enjoyed it.
I'll take your word for it.
>>I suspect, though, that Stoppard is still inimical to Shakespeare
>>as an artist...and his contribution in this film is to flatter
>>his audience by telling them "Shakespeare was as crude and stupid
>>as most of you."
>
>Obviously you haven't seen the movie.
How about "Shakespeare was really Tom Stoppard."?
Robert Whelan
I don't think I have any direct evidence. I think I may have mentioned
evidence, but I was thinking of the quote which denies any "deep"
meaning in R&G. Loosely, though, that quote, combined with the effect
of focusing overmuch on two bit characters from HAMLET, one of the
most famous of Shakespeare plays, brings excessive attention to
the characters AS fictions, with the imaginary attendant problems
of being underwritten paper characters... by extension, the
Shakespeare play, HAMLET is made into a larger, gaudy, oppressive
threat, that, despite it's oppressive nature is still an extension
of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's ephemeral and pointless nature.
R & G don't matter...and by extension, neither does Hamlet, the
play, in which they are trapped.
It is the only consistent effect that the Stoppard Play produces...
I can't say ABSOLUTELY that it is what Stoppard intended, but at
this brief moment in time, I feel it is the most probable intention,
if any can be. I'll just as happily settle for fraudulent meaninglessness
alone. I see enmity towards Shakespeare, or at the very least, enmity
against a certain academic culture that lionizes Shakespeare. Certainly no
one can say that R&GAD produces any really positive sense of the
play HAMLET, objectified, as it is, as the demonic persecutor of
the hapless courtiers.
Robert W.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
rwh...@dorsai.org (Robert Whelan) wrote:
> In article <dloftF4...@netcom.com>, David J. Loftus wrote:
> >Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
Robert
Every second spent speculating on a writer's intentions is a second wasted.
There is only one intention: not to bore the audience.
Remember: plays and movies are collaborative events. A script is not
literature; it's not even a play - it is a blueprint for a play. Were delving
into intentions meant anything - which it does not - it would be most
appropriate to consider the intentions of the R&G's director in mounting it or
of the theature company in producing it.
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
rwh...@dorsai.org (Robert Whelan) wrote:
> In article <dloftF4...@netcom.com>, David J. Loftus wrote:
> >Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
Robert
Every second spent speculating on a writer's intentions is a second wasted.
There is only one intention: not to bore the audience.
Remember: plays and movies are collaborative events. A script is not
literature; it's not even a play - it is a blueprint for a play. Were delving
into intentions meant anything - which it does not - it would be most
appropriate to consider the intentions of the R&G's director in mounting it or
of the theature company in producing it.
If you believe that scripts are literature, then you must be young and fresh
out of college. It is precisely the nonsense that English professors love to
foist on the groundlings.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
Robert
You seems to use the word "play" and "screenplay" as though they were
interchangable. They are not. The differences between the two are so
profound as to require too much bandwidth to explain. But they are truly
difference creatures, with diferent purposes and needs. So please, if you
want to talk about playwriting, OK. If you want to talk about screenplays,
there is a newsgroup for that. And if you're only interested in
pseudo-literary sophistry, there is a place for that, too, I am sure.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Ted Samsel <te...@sl001.infi.net> wrote:
> : >> I was reading that Edward Zwick got Stoppard's screenplay
> : >> rewritten by Susan Shilliday, which prompted Gwyneth Paltrow to
> : >> comment, "Not that there's anything wrong with the lady that wrote
> : >> LEGENDS OF THE FALL, but it's sort of hilarious that anyone could
> : >> deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
> : >
And I think it's sort of hilarious that anyone would deign to give a damn
about Gwyneth Paltrow's opinions on *anything*.
David J. Loftus
: Reserving my final judgement.
But lacking the class or intellectual honesty to refrain from making
snide attacks.
: However, David should note... The screenplay is given to two
: people Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard.
Screen credit, not screenplay. A screenplay may go through many hands
not credited in the titles or credits.
: Also, I picked this tidbit up from rec.arts.movies reviews....
: Skander Halim (ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
: > Alex Fung (aw...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
: >
: >> Best Screenplay
: >> Warren Beatty and Jeremy Pisker, Bulworth (Fox)
: >> Runner-up: Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, Shakespeare In Love
: >> (Miramax)
: Gee, I'm still pretty impressed that you were able to cite the eventual
: runner-up; this must be one hell of a screenplay. I was reading that
: Edward Zwick got Stoppard's screenplay rewritten by Susan Shilliday, which
: prompted Gwyneth Paltrow to comment, "Not that there's anything wrong with
: the lady that wrote LEGENDS OF THE FALL, but it's sort of hilarious that
: anyone could deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
: So however wonderful this play is, it's extensively modified by other
: people than Stoppard.
Robert, you're trampling all over the categories and mistaking one for
another.
It was never a PLAY, it is an original film script.
Nowhere in the above snippet from rec.arts.movies is there evidence for
your contention that Stoppard's work was "extensively modified." That
Shilliday got a crack at the screenplay could mean anything from copy
editing, to changing one scene, to changing a character's name, to
rewriting the whole damn thing.
You notice she didn't receive screen credit.
: If the play has overall integrity (and I depend
: upon you who have seen it to say yay or nay to this quality) it is,
: by my guess, due to the efforts of these revisers.
In other words, my mind is made up about Stoppard -- based, I remind you,
on my reading of a single early work of his more than three decades old
-- and I am NOT "Reserving my final judgment" about that.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: I followed up on the information to see if I could find out what
: exactly was meant by the script being "revised". I'm afraid that
: the worst has been confirmed.
: Well, technically yes -- Zwick did have the script rewritten back
: around 1993, but that was one of the early drafts, and since Zwick
: finally handed over directing reigns to John Madden, I suspect that
: they returned back to one of the Stoppard drafts.
Stoppard 1, Whelan 0.
: Toronto Sun article about SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE -- here's an excerpt:
: It was taken from an idea by freelance writer Marc Norman, who, as
: the scripter of the legendary bomb Cutthroat Island, presumably knows
: a thing or two about gratuitous pirate plots. The Stoppard script
: landed in the hands of director Edward Zwick (The Siege, Legends Of
: The Fall), who in true Hollywood style decided Stoppard's dialogue
: needed improving by Zwick's good friend Susan Shilliday, who co-wrote
: Legends Of The Fall.
: "That was the first version I read," says Paltrow with an
: embarrassed, guilty laugh. "Not that there's anything wrong with the
: lady that wrote Legends Of The Fall, but it's sort of hilarious that
: anyone could deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
"First version" meaning that's not the one that was filmed. No score.
: Zwick ran into production problems when he tried to film the script
: in 1993.
Namely, the Shilliday version. Are you following this?
: He stayed on as producer, handing the reins to Madden, a
: Brit who turned the project into a fun piece for anyone of note who
: had ever delivered a soliloquy, including all the aforementioned
: actors plus Dame Judi Dench here playing Queen Elizabeth I.
No conclusive description of WHICH script was filmed, and whose hands are
most evident upon it. Score remains Stoppard 1, Whelan 0.
: What I find ominous about this information is the idea of the
: project being a "fun piece for anyone of note who had ever delivered
: a soliloquy".
Methinks you read too much into a media puff piece. This is not serious
litcrit, Robert.
: The ads for this film seem to promise this. Tons of pretty faces
: overacting in "shakespearean" manner.
Again, the initial goal is to get warm bodies into theater seats. What
is "promised" is not necessarily what -- or not all -- you get.
: I remember a production of "The Lion in Winter" that I helped out on.
: Everyone overdramatised their lines, and went for laughs with the
: audience. However, they were all called back for one final show
: WITHOUT an audience, in order to get a complete videotape of the
: show (there had been a techical mishap in recording the final show).
: That last, audience free performance, was the most moving and honest
: performance of the PLAY. It came alive in a way that was astonishing.
: And the actors themselves were grumpy, annoyed that they had had to
: come out of their way, and were not grandstanding to garnish applause.
: Part of the serendipity was that unhappiness was exactly what the
: play needed to bring it to life.
And this is supposed to illuminate either the quality of Stoppard's
WRITING or the worth of a film you have not seen? Tell me how.
: Oh well. I suppose if one goes with no expectation of anything but a
: bunch of (perhaps talented) hams, having fun hamming things up, one
: will have a good time. I'm not sure I could stand it, however.
: A pile of needy actors, all screaming "look at me".
Ah. Now we are going to extend our vitriol beyond the immediate target,
Stoppard, and throw out Gwyneth Paltrow (successful in all senses of the
term for a youthful career that already includes a fair production of
"Pride and Prejudice" as well as appearances in such crowd pleasers as
"Seven"), Ben Affleck (noted for his work on and in "Good Will Hunting"),
Oscar winner Geoffrey ? who starred in "Shine," and one of my personal
favorites, Tom Wilkinson, who has done tremendous work in a string of BBC
productions as well as a few recent films such as "Oscar and Lucinda."
Robert, stop parading your ignorance around; you're just getting in
deeper and deeper.
: Somone else on the movie newsgroup commented "It's witty and romantic,
: just the kind of film I love." Let me stick a finger down my throat.
: Robert Whelan
Anybody notice that Mr. Whelan is now arguing with his own position at
this point? He started these threads attacking Tom Stoppard for playing
to the intellectual elite and stroking their egos with arcane references
which lack any substantial underpinning but puzzle the masses. Now he's
attacking Stoppard for stroking the masses. If you're going to get in a
lather, sir, I suggest you make up your mind. I say Stoppard is doing
both and I say hurrah.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: In article <dloftF4...@netcom.com>, David J. Loftus wrote:
: >
: >Doesn't really matter whether it's wonderful or not, your "positing" to
: >the moon won't make whatever you claim so. I've seen you drop arguments
: >and positions all over the place throughout this thread (both "drop" as
: >in present to the general audience, and "drop" as in fail to defend
: >afterward) with little or no evidence to back them up. Meg and I are
: >still waiting for your evidence that Stoppard intended to -- what was it?
: >-- present Shakespeare's true meaning or something like that, in R&GAD.
: I don't think I have any direct evidence.
No kidding?
: I think I may have mentioned evidence,
But that would be lying!
: but I was thinking of the quote which denies any "deep"
: meaning in R&G.
From a casual chat with a television interviewer, as I recall?
Perhaps Stoppard thought public modesty becoming.
: Loosely, though, that quote, combined with the effect
: of focusing overmuch on two bit characters from HAMLET, one of the
: most famous of Shakespeare plays, brings excessive attention to
: the characters AS fictions,
Maybe to YOU. Doesn't mean other people view them that way ... or that
Stoppard intended them that way. Does the phrase "suspension of
disbelief" mean anything to you? Are you aware that the actors who play
villains in soap operas occasionally get attacked in public? Do you
recall Harlan Ellison's story of being denounced by a tearful young man
who was outraged that Ellison would dare SUGGEST that he ACTUALLY wrote
the WORDS that came out of Mr. Spock's mouth?
You have to argue the case more convincingly than that.
In fact, your whole argument strikes me as an attempt to create a Chinese
puzzle box of elitism. By denouncing the intellectual elitists, you
posit yourself as even more elite ... which is problematic if you also
denounce Stephen King and people who go to a Stoppard authored film and
enjoy it for being "witty and romantic."
: with the imaginary attendant problems of being underwritten paper
: characters...
I notice you never directly asked me what I thought of them or the
play. Scared?
: by extension, the
: Shakespeare play, HAMLET is made into a larger, gaudy, oppressive
: threat, that, despite it's oppressive nature is still an extension
: of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's ephemeral and pointless nature.
Interesting. But I don't buy it.
One could just as well say that Homer is diminished by _Ulysses_, or T.S.
Eliot is trivialized by "Cats." As Coolidge remarked, gazing up at the
countenance of Washington on Mt. Rushmore, "He's still there."
: R & G don't matter...and by extension, neither does Hamlet, the
: play, in which they are trapped.
Again, it's a lovely theory but you seem to be having trouble convincing
other folks here (whom you may conveniently dismiss as being pretentious,
intellectually elitist types).
: It is the only consistent effect that the Stoppard Play produces...
For YOU.
Obviously, other folks have had a different experience, so you need
to show how your experience of the play is somehow more essential, more
closely tied to the work as it is executed, more reflective of its
"intent" as a work of art or fiction.
: I can't say ABSOLUTELY that it is what Stoppard intended, but at
: this brief moment in time, I feel it is the most probable intention,
: if any can be. I'll just as happily settle for fraudulent
: meaninglessness alone. I see enmity towards Shakespeare, or at the
: very least, enmity against a certain academic culture that lionizes
: Shakespeare.
Wow. I don't see that at all. I'm afraid you're letting that casual
remark about throwing away his classics and Shakespeare texts when he was
an exhausted scholar color your reading of the play.
Certainly, the treatment of "Romeo and Juliet" as a text and dramatic
play in "Shakespeare in Love" is nothing if not reverent.
: Certainly no one can say that R&GAD produces any really positive sense
: of the play HAMLET,
Should that, in fact, be its purpose? Do you think the blood, sex, and
farcical elements in Joyce's _Ulysses_ signify disrespect toward Homer
and a desire to denigrate The Odyssey?
: objectified, as it is, as the demonic persecutor of the hapless
: courtiers.
I don't know where you get this odd reading.
David Loftus
Richard Harter
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.981229012858.14404A-100000@amanda>,
> Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>Robert
>
>You seems to use the word "play" and "screenplay" as though they were
>interchangable. They are not. The differences between the two are so
>profound as to require too much bandwidth to explain. But they are truly
>difference creatures, with diferent purposes and needs. So please, if you
>want to talk about playwriting, OK. If you want to talk about screenplays,
>there is a newsgroup for that. And if you're only interested in
>pseudo-literary sophistry, there is a place for that, too, I am sure.
Indeed there is. That's why it is cross posted to rec.arts.books.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
I don't want justice and I don't want mercy;
I will settle for nothing less than unearned privilege.
Eli Bishop
>
>Remember: plays and movies are collaborative events. A script is not
>literature; it's not even a play - it is a blueprint for a play. Were delving
>into intentions meant anything - which it does not - it would be most
>appropriate to consider the intentions of the R&G's director in mounting it or
>of the theature company in producing it.
Making pronouncements about what is "not literature" is really asking for
trouble. What "trouble" means in the context of r.a.b. I hate to imagine,
but trouble you will surely get and deserve.
As applied to play scripts and screenplays, I think you're making a
meaningless statement. Some plays work well on the page, others don't.
It depends on how they're written, doesn't it? Before Shakespeare it was
certainly taken for granted that they were "not literature" since they
were rarely published; after that, playwrights began to have an audience
of readers as well as viewers, and knew it. Shall I recommend some
reading?
Also, although "Were delving into intentions meant anything" is surely a
mistake, it's a really lovely mistake. I wonder what Chomsky would make
of it.
--
Eli Bishop / www.concentric.net/~Elib
"I been tryin' to put a chicken in the window,
to chase away the wolf from the door" - John Prine
maureen scobie
> Oh well. I suppose if one goes with no expectation of anything but a
> bunch of (perhaps talented) hams, having fun hamming things up, one
> will have a good time. I'm not sure I could stand it, however.
> A pile of needy actors, all screaming "look at me".
>
> just the kind of film I love." Let me stick a finger down my throat.
>
> Robert Whelan
Is there going to be room for the finger? How will you get it past the
two heavy-booted feet?
Concerned,
Maureen.
Eli Bishop
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Remember: plays and movies are collaborative events. A script is not
> literature; it's not even a play - it is a blueprint for a play.
[snip]
> If you believe that scripts are literature, then you must be young and
> fresh out of college.
This is even funnier when you notice that it's crossposted to
rec.arts.books and rec.arts.theatre.plays.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.981229012858.14404A-100000@amanda>,
> > Robert Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
> >
> >Robert
> >
> >You seems to use the word "play" and "screenplay" as though they were
> >interchangable. They are not. The differences between the two are so
> >profound as to require too much bandwidth to explain. But they are truly
> >difference creatures, with diferent purposes and needs. So please, if you
> >want to talk about playwriting, OK. If you want to talk about screenplays,
> >there is a newsgroup for that. And if you're only interested in
> >pseudo-literary sophistry, there is a place for that, too, I am sure.
>
> Indeed there is. That's why it is cross posted to rec.arts.books.
>
never forgive me for letting this demi-troll twit pollute the bandwidth.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
ebi...@tempest.com (Eli Bishop) wrote:
> Making pronouncements about what is "not literature" is really asking for
> trouble.
In general, agreed, except that in this case it is no so much a pronouncement
as a bit of common sense.
You will note that I didn't say that plays aren't *art*. But they are, after
all, PLAYS. Playwrights write plays to be produced, not to be read. In
fact, I would be willing to go so far to say that the other playwrights in
this NG would agree to the notion that a script *has* to be produced before
it exists. I say that with a number of unproduced scripts (and a few
produced ones). They never made the grade; they will never be produced, and
in a very real social sense, they don't exist.
Production is to a play what publication is to literature.
What "trouble" means in the context of r.a.b. I hate to imagine,
> but trouble you will surely get and deserve.
>
> As applied to play scripts and screenplays, I think you're making a
> meaningless statement.
In the current context of Roberts sophistry, meaningless is relevant.
>Some plays work well on the page, others don't.
Who gives a damn about how well plays work, "on the page"? Now, you're
talking like a literary type who indulges in play reading and not a theatre
person, for no theatre person would read a play for how well it works "on the
page", only how well it could work "on the STAGE".
> It depends on how they're written, doesn't it? Before Shakespeare it was
> certainly taken for granted that they were "not literature" since they
> were rarely published; after that, playwrights began to have an audience
> of readers as well as viewers, and knew it. Shall I recommend some
> reading?
Closer to the truth is that some printers began assembling scripts to print
out, without the playwrights knowledge or consent. This was a convenience
for printers, who wanted to make money. Playwrights *continue* to write for
the stage and not the page.
>
> Also, although "Were delving into intentions meant anything" is surely a
> mistake, it's a really lovely mistake. I wonder what Chomsky would make
> of it.
It depends on what your intentions were when you asked him.
>
> --
> Eli Bishop / www.concentric.net/~Elib
> "I been tryin' to put a chicken in the window,
> to chase away the wolf from the door" - John Prine
>
Robert Teeter
: What I find ominous about this information is the idea of the
: project being a "fun piece for anyone of note who had ever delivered
: a soliloquy".
<snip>
: Somone else on the movie newsgroup commented "It's witty and romantic,
: just the kind of film I love." Let me stick a finger down my throat.
So you think the life and works of Shakespeare should have
nothing to do with "fun," "witty and romantic"? I think we know whose
judgment is suspect.
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/
"Like all those possessing a library, Aurelian was aware that he
was guilty of not knowing his in its entirety."
-- Borges, "The Theologians"
Eli Bishop
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <ebishop-2912...@ts014d31.hil-ny.concentric.net>,
> ebi...@tempest.com (Eli Bishop) wrote:
>
> > Making pronouncements about what is "not literature" is really
> > asking for trouble.
>
> In general, agreed, except that in this case it is no so much a
> pronouncement as a bit of common sense.
>
> You will note that I didn't say that plays aren't *art*. But they
> are, after all, PLAYS. Playwrights write plays to be produced, not to
> be read. In fact, I would be willing to go so far to say that the
> other playwrights in this NG would agree to the notion that a script
> *has* to be produced before it exists.
Of course it exists. It exists as an unproduced script. What kind of
"common sense" are you using here?
> I say that with a number of unproduced scripts (and a few produced
> ones). They never made the grade; they will never be produced, and
> in a very real social sense, they don't exist.
I prefer the actual sense of "exist" to the "social sense." You're free
to call your own unproduced scripts whatever you like, of course.
> >Some plays work well on the page, others don't.
>
> Who gives a damn about how well plays work, "on the page"? Now,
> you're talking like a literary type who indulges in play reading and
> not a theatre person, for no theatre person would read a play for how
> well it works "on the page", only how well it could work "on the
> STAGE".
What's a "literary type"? What's a "theatre person"?
I don't know what it is about Usenet that makes people so confident they
can speak for large numbers of other people. I know a lot of
self-described "theatre people" (by which I mean playwrights, actors,
and directors) who "indulge in play reading" and form opinions of the
play (or "script" if you insist) without having to mount an actual or
imagined production. Speak for yourself, please.
> > It depends on how they're written, doesn't it? Before Shakespeare
> > it was certainly taken for granted that they were "not literature"
> > since they were rarely published; after that, playwrights began to
> > have an audience of readers as well as viewers, and knew it. Shall
> > I recommend some reading?
>
> Closer to the truth is that some printers began assembling scripts to
> print out, without the playwrights knowledge or consent. This was a
> convenience for printers, who wanted to make money. Playwrights
> *continue* to write for the stage and not the page.
Printers were able to do this when people became interested in reading
plays. Scripts are now published with the knowledge and consent of the
playwrights, who of course are writing for the stage, but are also not
unaware of the idea that plays are often read. Many of them read plays
themselves.
Saying "playscripts aren't literature, because they weren't published
throughout much of history" is like saying poetry isn't literature
because Homer came from an oral tradition. To support this kind of
argument you need to have a definition of "literature" that's so
restrictive as to be useless.
tejas
>
> In article <76af8o$v9c$1...@nw001t.infi.net>,
> Ted Samsel <te...@sl001.infi.net> wrote:
>
> > : >> rewritten by Susan Shilliday, which prompted Gwyneth Paltrow to
> > : >> LEGENDS OF THE FALL, but it's sort of hilarious that anyone could
> > : >> deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
>
> And I think it's sort of hilarious that anyone would deign to give a damn
> about Gwyneth Paltrow's opinions on *anything*.
Check the attributions, bucko. I'm not responsible...<snarf>
--
TBSa...@richmond.infi.net (also te...@infi.net)
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan (rwh...@dorsai.org) wrote:
>
> : I followed up on the information to see if I could find out what
> : exactly was meant by the script being "revised". I'm afraid that
> : the worst has been confirmed.
> : Well, technically yes -- Zwick did have the script rewritten back
> : around 1993, but that was one of the early drafts, and since Zwick
> : finally handed over directing reigns to John Madden, I suspect that
> : they returned back to one of the Stoppard drafts.
>
> Stoppard 1, Whelan 0.
Yes, David. I posted it as a followup to the previous post, which this
post contradicts.
> : Toronto Sun article about SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE -- here's an excerpt:
>
> : It was taken from an idea by freelance writer Marc Norman, who, as
> : the scripter of the legendary bomb Cutthroat Island, presumably knows
> : a thing or two about gratuitous pirate plots. The Stoppard script
> : landed in the hands of director Edward Zwick (The Siege, Legends Of
> : The Fall), who in true Hollywood style decided Stoppard's dialogue
> : needed improving by Zwick's good friend Susan Shilliday, who co-wrote
> : Legends Of The Fall.
>
> : "That was the first version I read," says Paltrow with an
> : embarrassed, guilty laugh. "Not that there's anything wrong with the
> : lady that wrote Legends Of The Fall, but it's sort of hilarious that
> : anyone could deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
>
> "First version" meaning that's not the one that was filmed. No score.
If I were trying to "score" I wouldn't have posted this followup.
> : Zwick ran into production problems when he tried to film the script
> : in 1993.
>
> Namely, the Shilliday version. Are you following this?
Yes, David. IT'S WHY I POSTED IT.
> : He stayed on as producer, handing the reins to Madden, a
> : Brit who turned the project into a fun piece for anyone of note who
> : had ever delivered a soliloquy, including all the aforementioned
> : actors plus Dame Judi Dench here playing Queen Elizabeth I.
>
> No conclusive description of WHICH script was filmed, and whose hands are
> most evident upon it. Score remains Stoppard 1, Whelan 0.
How witty of you to reference "R&G"s verbal tennis.
> : What I find ominous about this information is the idea of the
> : project being a "fun piece for anyone of note who had ever delivered
> : a soliloquy".
>
> Methinks you read too much into a media puff piece. This is not serious
> litcrit, Robert.
Err, is that one of the requirements of this newsgroup? Serious attempts
as "litcrit" only? Did the fact that I used the words "this seems
ominous" give you any clue that I was not, in fact, attempting any
litcrit, but was commenting on the passing unease I felt from hearing
the movie described in this way?
> : The ads for this film seem to promise this. Tons of pretty faces
> : overacting in "shakespearean" manner.
>
> Again, the initial goal is to get warm bodies into theater seats. What
> is "promised" is not necessarily what -- or not all -- you get.
Right. Once the movie house is packed with boobs hoping to see
Paltrow's breasts, we can flatter the intellectuals. I trust your ego
was properly stroked.
<snip>
> : Oh well. I suppose if one goes with no expectation of anything but a
> : bunch of (perhaps talented) hams, having fun hamming things up, one
> : will have a good time. I'm not sure I could stand it, however.
> : A pile of needy actors, all screaming "look at me".
>
> Ah. Now we are going to extend our vitriol beyond the immediate target,
> Stoppard, and throw out Gwyneth Paltrow (successful in all senses of the
> term for a youthful career that already includes a fair production of
> "Pride and Prejudice" as well as appearances in such crowd pleasers as
> "Seven"), Ben Affleck (noted for his work on and in "Good Will Hunting"),
> Oscar winner Geoffrey ? who starred in "Shine," and one of my personal
> favorites, Tom Wilkinson, who has done tremendous work in a string of BBC
> productions as well as a few recent films such as "Oscar and Lucinda."
> Robert, stop parading your ignorance around; you're just getting in
> deeper and deeper.
I conceded that many, if not all, of the participants were likely very
talented. Your fanboy rant in favor of their talents is unnecessary.
> : Somone else on the movie newsgroup commented "It's witty and romantic,
> : just the kind of film I love." Let me stick a finger down my throat.
>
> : Robert Whelan
>
> Anybody notice that Mr. Whelan is now arguing with his own position at
> this point? He started these threads attacking Tom Stoppard for playing
> to the intellectual elite and stroking their egos with arcane references
> which lack any substantial underpinning but puzzle the masses. Now he's
> attacking Stoppard for stroking the masses. If you're going to get in a
> lather, sir, I suggest you make up your mind. I say Stoppard is doing
> both and I say hurrah.
Actually, I don't think the "masses" are particularly bothered by being
"puzzled" as long as there is flash and dazzle to entertain them.
I think I have been fairly consistent in attacking the intellectual
elite for lionizing Stoppard for the shallow reason that he provides
them with arcane references. My beef with Stoppard would not be
due to "arcane references" but the trivial purposes to which he
puts them.
Joan Marie Shields
>Oh, sure. Announce "Shakespeare" and you have instant "credibility"
>for your actor's resume. As far as I can see, this film is identical
>to the disconnected "cleverness" of R&G, still vampirically drawing
>credibility by it's "erudite" referencing.
Oh, so you've seen the film already?
Robert - for your own sake please read more of Stoppard or else simply
stick to R&DaD. You're trying to play a symphony with a one-note horn
- stamping your feet because everyone else can't tell you're playing
Mozart.
You didn't like R&GaD, big deal. I enjoyed the play, I even posted a
paragraph about why I liked it. Geez, Robert, even people who aren't
real big fans of Stoppard think you ought to read more of his stuff
before claiming he's a hack.
yours in wet fishes and geez louise,
joan
--
Joan Shields jshi...@uci.edu http://www.ags.uci.edu/~jshields
University of California - Irvine School of Social Ecology
Department of Environmental Analysis and Design
I do not purchase services or products from unsolicited e-mail advertisements.
Robert Whelan
> In article <76af8o$v9c$1...@nw001t.infi.net>,
> Ted Samsel <te...@sl001.infi.net> wrote:
>
> > : >> I was reading that Edward Zwick got Stoppard's screenplay
> > : >> rewritten by Susan Shilliday, which prompted Gwyneth Paltrow to
> > : >> comment, "Not that there's anything wrong with the lady that wrote
> > : >> LEGENDS OF THE FALL, but it's sort of hilarious that anyone could
> > : >> deign to rewrite Tom Stoppard."
> > : >
>
> And I think it's sort of hilarious that anyone would deign to give a damn
> about Gwyneth Paltrow's opinions on *anything*.
Heh!
Robert W.
Robert Whelan
> In article <slrn78hgom....@amanda.dorsai.org>,
> rwh...@dorsai.org (Robert Whelan) wrote:
> > In article <dloftF4...@netcom.com>, David J. Loftus wrote:
> > >Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>
> Robert
>
> Every second spent speculating on a writer's intentions is a second wasted.
>
> There is only one intention: not to bore the audience.
If you "intend" your audience to pay attention to your messages, if they
exist, boring them is a flaw. "not boring the audience" isn't the
"intention" but the medium by which intention is accomplished.
> Remember: plays and movies are collaborative events. A script is not
> literature; it's not even a play - it is a blueprint for a play. Were delving
> into intentions meant anything - which it does not - it would be most
> appropriate to consider the intentions of the R&G's director in mounting it or
> of the theature company in producing it.
Yes?
> If you believe that scripts are literature, then you must be young and fresh
> out of college. It is precisely the nonsense that English professors love to
> foist on the groundlings.
Of course scripts are literature. No matter how badly mutilated,
rewritten, clumsy, or inane they are. They may be bad literature, but
still literature.
Robert Whelan
Sorry, I am replying to this again.
Regarding this Quote:
>>>"I mean, to me Rosencrantz and GUildenstern is a play about two
>>>Elizabethan Courtiers in a castle, wondering what's going on. That's what
>>>it's about. That situation reverberates in different ways to people who
>>>see it, obviously, and can suggest various analogies for itself, and the
>>>author of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this and I know perfectly
>>>well that the situation, the predicament which Rosencrantz and
>>>Guildenstern find themselves in is an interesting one in the sense that it
>>>can be used or thought of as being a metaphor for other situations.
>>>That's a very different matter from deciding to write about a particular
>>>kind of predicament, a specific predicament of modern man and look around
>>>for some symbolic form in which to convey it, and decide to do it in
>>>terms of two characters in HAMLET. That's, of course, nonsense. The
>>>attraction of the play for the writer is on the surface level."
Moggin wrote:
> Paul's got a point that you haven't tried very hard to refute: an
>author isn't the first or final authority on her own work -- she may
>not even be reliable in reporting her own intentions. So it's false to
>claim that the Stoppard quote "completely negates any guesses as the
>play's depth," no matter what it contains.
If not the author, then who? If you are to look to anyone as an
"authority" why not the author himself? Now, as to the plays
depth, beyond what Stoppard claims, I'll admit that I believe
Stoppard was indeed aware of the way his play could be seen, in
spots, as being "deep" and exploited it in spots, but his own
denial of any "deep" intention makes it clear that he isn't
willing to claim that these were anything more than passing stabs
at the appearance of depth...since no attempt is made to really integrate
any of those "deep" themes. And it is NOT false to claim that
STOPPARD completely negates guesses as to the plays depth. I
do not accept "the text is seperate from the author" . That is
tantamout to saying "this play is rorschach splatter. See what
you will in it." Any work of art that is "valuable" because of
"depth" unintended by the author, is just garbage over which
art critics are masturbating to show how deep they themselves
are.
> But that said, let's take a closer look at the thing. It's pretty
>interesting. According to you, S's "proud of the fact that he has
>nothing to say." Not so -- there's much more going on. His main point
>is that he didn't write the play to illustrate a thesis about "a
>specific predicament of modern man."
Well, on second thought, my statement that he was "proud" of it was
inaccurate. He seems to be, in fact, embarassed by it, and tries to
cover it by pretending that all playwrights are as depthless and
merely interested in the "surface level" as he is.
> I'll translate that for you: he's saying that _R&G_ isn't a
>Classic Comics version of existentialism. If you accept the story he's
>telling here, he didn't start with an idea -- e.g., "Man plays a bit
>part in a meaningless universe" -- and decide R&G would make a good way
>to symbolize it.
Exactly. But he never does say what indeed he found interesting about
R&G's "situation" that impelled him to write about it. Apparently it
wasn't because it resembled "Man playing a bit part in a meaningless
Universe". However, I rather suspect that the resemblance to
Beckett's play had something to do with his interest in that
particular "situation." The "surface level" then, being plagiaristic,
without any personal insight beyond "hey, it intrigued Beckett's
audiences, maybe it will intrigue mine!"
> "That's nonsense," he says -- instead he got interested in writing
>"a play about two Elizabethan Courtiers in a castle wondering what's
>going on." That is, he didn't write with the goal of 'saying something
>deep' -- he was attracted by a concrete situation. That's where he
>began: with a particular scenario.
But he never tells us what he found so interesting about it, if it wasn't
something deep, such as the "Man in a meaningless Universe" angle.
> Of course it's a highly suggestive one, as he well knows -- people
>can easily make it into a metaphor. It provokes analogies and sets
>off reverberations. But Stoppard's saying he didn't craft a play about
>the metaphors, the analogies, or the vibes -- he wrote it about two
>courtiers in a certain spot, wondering.
>
> Notice he doesn't say that he has nothing to say. Doesn't so much
>as suggest it. He also doesn't say that the people are wrong to find
>various meanings in his play. He's explaining he wrote the thing about
>a situation that interested him, rather than as a way to shine the
>limelight on this or that idea.
What is the difference between "writing about a situation that interests
you" and "a way to shine the limelight on this or that idea."?
It sounds like you are saying the exact same thing with different words.
If you "write about a situation that interests you" what are you
doing but highlighting that situation as being important? Translating
the "situation" into words, also translates the "situation" into
"ideas" right? "Ideas" are what are conveyed, by words, from one
mind to another, informing one person, from another, of particular
"situations." If Stoppard wrote about a "situation that interested him"
he automatically highlighted the "ideas" that conveyed this
situation to his audience. By admitting that his "ideas" were trivial
compared to more complex and deeper "ideas" that people might imagine
he was going for, he damns himself as a fraud. Willing to allow
people to believe in an intent that he did not invest any effort in
seriously examining.
>Robert:
>
>> But WHY did the situation interest him? If you are INTERESTED in
>> something, one has IDEAS about it, surely! Once he WRITES he is
>> highlighting IDEAS, right?
>
> He doesn't say why it attracted him, at least not in the quote you
>offered. (I'd like to know where it's from, if you have the info.)
>Yes, ideas may have cropped up once he started writing; I don't see him
>denying it.
No, he doesn't say why it attracted him. He avoids the issue by switching
to talk about how it's "nonsense" that "the writer" should have any
intentions deeper than "the surface level" (something that gives me
the willies about this "Shakespeare in Love" movie. Is it portraying
Shakespeare as a Stoppard like flibbertigibbet who constructed his
plays in the manner Stoppard claims to?)
> Get it? "The attraction of the play for the writer is on the
>surface level" means "Writers don't sit down and ask 'What deep thought
>should I dramatize on stage?'" Instead they're drawn in by the
>particulars of a given situation. Anyway that's what Stoppard says. I
>don't insist you believe him.
You are doing it again...stating two sentences, which mean essentially the
same thing, as if they were different. Is there really a difference
between having deep thoughts, which cause one to be attracted to the
"particulars of a given situation" which illustrate it, and actually
thinking consciously "What particular situation can I find
to illustrate my deep thought?" If Stoppard is saying that
the former way is a more natural way of describing the process
than the latter, he's just stating a triviality, and avoiding
answering the question of what "ideas" attracted HIM to the
"situation" of R&G. Being "attracted to situations" is
exactly the same as "picking situations to illustrate ideas".
Stoppard would rather avoid discussing "ideas", however, because, as
he admits, he didn't really have any..just a feel for
"situations" that, notably in Beckett's "Waiting for Godot"
tend to "reverberate" for people. That Beckett probably intended
such reverberations is something he doesn't address. He doesn't
make this claim for himself.
Notice how he does seem to be embarassed by his lack of anything to
say about the play. He starts off talking about himself
"I mean, to me, R&G is a play about two Elizabethan Courtiers
in a castle, wondering what's going on....that's what it's about",
and then quickly starts talking in the third person...
"*the author* of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this.."
(referring to the audience reading meaning into the play), and
finally "The attraction for *the writer* is at the surface level."
He has switched away from talking about himself, and has
distanced himself personally by referring to "the author"
and "the writer", so that he won't damn his intentions as
mindless and trivial, and in his effort to avoid scrutiny,
implying that all writers are equally vapid.
Robert Whelan
David J. Loftus
: I think I have been fairly consistent in attacking the intellectual
: elite for lionizing Stoppard for the shallow reason that he provides
: them with arcane references.
You think smart people aren't moved by wit and romance, too?
: My beef with Stoppard would not be
: due to "arcane references" but the trivial purposes to which he
: puts them.
And my beef with your critique is that you have made an inadequate case
on behalf of your claims for "trivial purposes."
David Loftus
JPachino
<<In other words, my mind is made up about Stoppard -- based, I remind you, on
my reading of a single early work of his more than three decades old -- and I
am NOT "Reserving my final judgment" about that.>>
So you're mad about his elitism from a play that's 30 years
old and you haven't gotten over it?
Just curious -- have you read Arcadia? or any of the other plays
in his canon?
David J. Loftus
: Moggin wrote:
: > Paul's got a point that you haven't tried very hard to refute: an
: >author isn't the first or final authority on her own work -- she may
: >not even be reliable in reporting her own intentions. So it's false to
: >claim that the Stoppard quote "completely negates any guesses as the
: >play's depth," no matter what it contains.
: If not the author, then who?
You're mistaken to ask the question at all, Robert.
: If you are to look to anyone as an "authority" why not the author
: himself?
The "authority," in the end, is not the author, nor a reader, nor any
particular collection of readers, but a society as a whole. What they
see in the work, why they value it, whether they choose to preserve it.
If we love the music of Bach or the paintings of Giotto for "the wrong
reasons" (say, we are not interested in the greater glorification of
God), then does that downgrade the artists' achievement or cause their
work to cease to be art? Is Bach a fool or a fraud for believing -- and
telling us -- that his compositions were inspired by God?
That, in essence, is the position I believe you are taking, Robert.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: I do not accept "the text is seperate from the author" . That is
: tantamout to saying "this play is rorschach splatter. See what
: you will in it."
Wrong.
It is no different from saying, "I have been separate from my mother
ever since I left her womb" is not the same thing as "I have absolutely
nothing to do with her, genetically, emotionally, spiritually, etc."
"Separate from" does not mean "never had anything to do with."
David Loftus
paschal
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Richard Harter wrote:
> Tsk, tsk. Paschal will feel put upon that you have quite deserted her
> for Robert.
Ooooooh, Don't throw me in *that* briar patch.
-P.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Were delving into intentions meant anything, there would still be no point in
delving into Eli's - trolling and flaming.
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Eli Bishop <ebi...@tempest.com> wrote:
>
[snippage]
>
> Of course it exists. It exists as an unproduced script. What kind of
> "common sense" are you using here?
>
Yes, and an apple that isn't eaten also exists, but it's not food.
The sense that I am using is the sense that a play has to be experienced
socially, otherwise it *isn't* play, but of course you either knew that and
were being cute *or* you are big on education and short on life.
You are allowed one more contemptuous post.
I regret falling sucker to a troll.
Richard Harter
>Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Tsk, tsk. Paschal will feel put upon that you have quite deserted her
for Robert.
Paul Ilechko
>Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>
>: I do not accept "the text is seperate from the author" .
And this is the exact point on which everyone else has parted company
with you.
Paul.
***************
Paul Ilechko
http://www.transarc.com/~pilechko/homepage.htm
Eli Bishop
andyw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Yes, and an apple that isn't eaten also exists, but it's not food.
>
> The sense that I am using is the sense that a play has to be
> experienced socially, otherwise it *isn't* play, but of course you
> either knew that and were being cute *or* you are big on education
> and short on life.
I'm either "being cute" or I'm "short on life"? How about a third
option: we're talking about two different things. You're using "play"
as a synonym for "performance," I think. I'm using "play" in a broader
sense which, I believe, is generally understood by most people whether
they are "big on education" or not. It can mean either the performance,
or the words which a playwright has written with the intent that they be
performed, or at least in a form that seems to convey that intent.
Your definition makes sense in a way, especially given the derivation of
the word "play," but it really is not the single, unique, self-evident
meaning of the word. I've been around playwrights, actors, and
directors my whole life and I've never known any of them to define it so
narrowly. Where you insist on saying "script," most people say "play,"
and it's been that way for a very long time, like it or not.
>
> You are allowed one more contemptuous post.
>
> I regret falling sucker to a troll.
One of two things could be true:
a) You might be a troll, and one who uses the clever psychological
technique known to schoolchildren as "no, _you_ farted!"
Evidence in favor of this theory: you posted a comment that could be
expected to get lots of argumentative responses ("scripts aren't
literature, scripts aren't plays"), and then proceeded to insult people
who responded.
b) You might be a little hot-headed. You've heard of the word
"troll" and you think it means "someone who disagrees with me, and is
not more polite than I am." You honestly think that your point of view
is "common sense" and therefore no one could disagree without being an
idiot.
Evidence: well, stranger things have happened. Also, I see you do
carry on normal conversations in other newsgroups, but not in
rec.arts.books (where I'm reading this thread) so you might honestly
have thought that I came out of nowhere just to argue with you.
Useful reference: http://kb.indiana.edu/data/afhc.html
In case you actually want to talk about plays, please do. Otherwise,
I'm really, really not interested.
David J. Loftus
: Exactly. But he never does say what indeed he found interesting about
: R&G's "situation" that impelled him to write about it.
Why should he? The fate of civilization hardly hangs in the balance.
And what would be the harm if the rest of us found R&G's situation
interesting for different reasons? A work of art does not exist merely
to please and instruct its creator, but the rest of the world.
Since you seem to be so enamored of speculation, let me suppose that
Stoppard knows the proximate reason for his initial interest in R&G was
pretty mundane, so it would be a waste of time to discuss it. That
pursuing his interest offered opportunities to touch on more interesting
and challenging matters (for Stoppard and for the viewer) is much more
interesting, but perhaps he would rather leave the identification and
exploration of those to each of us, hm? Maybe he's a nice guy and an
indulgent "instructor" rather than a fraud?
: What is the difference between "writing about a situation that
: interests you" and "a way to shine the limelight on this or that
: idea."?
People write about situations that interest them, in their diaries, all
the time, without shining limelights on ideas, either for their own sake
or for others'.
The two may coincide, but Moggin is right to make a distinction between
them, and you are wrong to pretend they are the same.
: It sounds like you are saying the exact same thing with different words.
: If you "write about a situation that interests you" what are you
: doing but highlighting that situation as being important?
So which "important" situation was A.A. Milne highlighting when he wrote
some stories down for his son Christopher?
: Translating
: the "situation" into words, also translates the "situation" into
: "ideas" right? "Ideas" are what are conveyed, by words, from one
: mind to another, informing one person, from another, of particular
: "situations." If Stoppard wrote about a "situation that interested him"
: he automatically highlighted the "ideas" that conveyed this
: situation to his audience. By admitting that his "ideas" were trivial
: compared to more complex and deeper "ideas" that people might imagine
: he was going for, he damns himself as a fraud.
No, he doesn't. You are mistaking the apparent triviality of the initial
motivating notion with the potentially interesting and complex content of
the work as it was hammered out. Thousands of fine works of art, from
"Equus" to _The French Lieutenant's Woman_ started from nothing more than
an image, a snatch of cocktail chatter. That does not make the results
trivial and meaningless.
: No, he doesn't say why it attracted him. He avoids the issue by switching
: to talk about how it's "nonsense" that "the writer" should have any
: intentions deeper than "the surface level" (something that gives me
: the willies about this "Shakespeare in Love" movie. Is it portraying
: Shakespeare as a Stoppard like flibbertigibbet who constructed his
: plays in the manner Stoppard claims to?)
Again you confuse different motivations and different stages of the
process, Robert. If Stoppard says it's "nonsense" for him to discuss
intentions -- after all, Dickens, Balzac and Dostoevsky often wrote
specifically for money; that doesn't mean they wrote unmitigated crap --
then perhaps what he is saying is that HIS intentions are not as
important as whatever the finished product "intends" or achieves or
intimates or says to someone else DESPITE Stoppard's avowed intent.
David Loftus
JPachino
: he automatically highlighted the "ideas" that conveyed this
: situation to his audience. By admitting that his "ideas" were trivial
: compared to more complex and deeper "ideas" that people might imagine
: he was going for, he damns himself as a fraud.>>
On the other hand, perhaps he was being humble in an
interview situation.
David J. Loftus
: Moggin wrote:
: > Get it? "The attraction of the play for the writer is on the
: >surface level" means "Writers don't sit down and ask 'What deep
: >thought should I dramatize on stage?'" Instead they're drawn in
: >by the particulars of a given situation. Anyway that's what
: >Stoppard says. I don't insist you believe him.
: You are doing it again...stating two sentences, which mean
: essentially the same thing, as if they were different. Is there really
: a difference between having deep thoughts, which cause one to be
: attracted to the "particulars of a given situation" which illustrate
: it, and actually thinking consciously "What particular situation can I
: find to illustrate my deep thought?"
I am sorry, Robert, but they are different. The one says, in effect, "I
have something important to say -- how to dramatize it?" at the start.
The other says, "hmm, this looks interesting [or puzzling, or amusing] --
I wonder what would come of it if I explored it a while?" The deep
ideas, if there are any, arise "organically" out of the process of
exploring something that had some other, more surface appeal to begin
with.
As for the difference as you characterize it, "deep thoughts" may or may
not attract my attention to an image, a notion, a plot -- but even if
they do, I may not be aware of which deep thoughts impel me to take an
interest in that image, notion, or plot. I explore the latter without
the explicit intent of expressing these supposed deep thoughts, and may
indeed arrive at a finished work of artifice that "feels right," that
works for me, without EVER being aware of the supposed "deep thought"
underpinning. Or I may think one deep thought is primarily expressed
when viewers and readers are moved by a different one of which I am
unaware. So why should I tell them, "No, you dingbats, I was trying to
show you THIS deep thought"?
Again, I ask you, if we appreciate the works of Handel or Fra Lippo
Lippi (or Merton or Buber) for a different reason than they intended,
does that make them frauds?
: Notice how he does seem to be embarassed by his lack of anything to
: say about the play. He starts off talking about himself
: "I mean, to me, R&G is a play about two Elizabethan Courtiers
: in a castle, wondering what's going on....that's what it's about",
And your problem with that is...?
: and then quickly starts talking in the third person...
: "*the author* of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this.."
: (referring to the audience reading meaning into the play), and
: finally "The attraction for *the writer* is at the surface level."
And your problem with this is...?
: He has switched away from talking about himself, and has
: distanced himself personally by referring to "the author"
: and "the writer", so that he won't damn his intentions as
: mindless and trivial, and in his effort to avoid scrutiny,
: implying that all writers are equally vapid.
If one is going to impute superficial or unkind motivations to Stoppard,
I hardly think his strategy is going to let him off the hook.
However, I suggest that it is no less plausible to suggest this was his
polite way of saying "I think that is a stupid, or not very fruitful,
line of inquiry."
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) wrote:
: >Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
: Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
: Tsk, tsk. Paschal will feel put upon that you have quite
: deserted her for Robert.
She already does. You can tell by the way she keeps inserting my name
into posts to threads I have not participated in for days.
But that hasn't kept her from flirting outrageously with Mr. Bebbington.
I am very hurt.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: >Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
: >
: >: I do not accept "the text is seperate from the author" .
: And this is the exact point on which everyone else has parted
: company with you.
Despite Robert's theory, I refuse to equate the illogic and meanness of
his posts with the author.
David Loftus
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
> : to talk about how it's "nonsense" that "the writer" should have any
> : intentions deeper than "the surface level" (something that gives me
> : the willies about this "Shakespeare in Love" movie. Is it portraying
> : Shakespeare as a Stoppard like flibbertigibbet who constructed his
> : plays in the manner Stoppard claims to?)
>
> Again you confuse different motivations and different stages of the
> process, Robert. If Stoppard says it's "nonsense" for him to discuss
> intentions -- after all, Dickens, Balzac and Dostoevsky often wrote
> specifically for money; that doesn't mean they wrote unmitigated crap --
> then perhaps what he is saying is that HIS intentions are not as
> important as whatever the finished product "intends" or achieves or
> intimates or says to someone else DESPITE Stoppard's avowed intent.
>
> David Loftus
>
in art criticism.
An artist's "intention" is generally to make a living or at least a life.
Her work has no "intention"; it has a design. Perhaps it would be most
appropriate to consider the audience's "intention" in exposing themselves to
a given work.
For example, what is Robert's "intention"? To dis Stoppard? Hey, Stoppard is
crying - all the way to the bank!
Eli Bishop
"David J. Loftus" wrote:
> Robert Whelan wrote:
> : He has switched away from talking about himself, and has
> : distanced himself personally by referring to "the author"
> : and "the writer", so that he won't damn his intentions as
> : mindless and trivial, and in his effort to avoid scrutiny,
> : implying that all writers are equally vapid.
>
> If one is going to impute superficial or unkind motivations to
> Stoppard, I hardly think his strategy is going to let him off the
> hook.
>
> However, I suggest that it is no less plausible to suggest this was
> his polite way of saying "I think that is a stupid, or not very
> fruitful, line of inquiry."
This was on the Charlie Rose show, right? Rose seems to have this
effect on a lot of people. He has this kind of earnest shallowness,
this slightly desperate and lovable way of asking a meaningless question
- sort of the paternal version of Barbara Walters. It often causes
guests to flounder around looking for something to say other than "Isn't
that obvious?", "What the hell are you talking about?", or "Why would
anyone be interested in that?" He also has a habit of leading into
questions by telling the guest what he thinks their answer will be for
about five minutes. Very strange. I can't seem to stop watching him,
though.
Dene Bebbington
>Richard Harter (c...@tiac.net) wrote:
>
>: Tsk, tsk. Paschal will feel put upon that you have quite
>: deserted her for Robert.
>
>
>She already does. You can tell by the way she keeps inserting my name
>into posts to threads I have not participated in for days.
>
>But that hasn't kept her from flirting outrageously with Mr. Bebbington.
Darn, bad luck strikes at me again, when I do get a woman flirting with
me it's one who quotes the Bible and is taken in by right wing
politicians. Life's so unfair!
>I am very hurt.
Don't worry, she's not forgotten you.
--
Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
"Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the lilies
stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A wind
just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
Paul Ilechko
wrote:
>Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
>
>: >Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>: >
>: >: I do not accept "the text is seperate from the author" .
>
>: And this is the exact point on which everyone else has parted
>: company with you.
>
>
>Despite Robert's theory, I refuse to equate the illogic and meanness of
>his posts with the author.
My comments were directed at Robert, not you, in case there was any
confusion
Paul
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>
>
> : Exactly. But he never does say what indeed he found interesting about
> : R&G's "situation" that impelled him to write about it.
>
> Why should he? The fate of civilization hardly hangs in the balance.
> And what would be the harm if the rest of us found R&G's situation
> interesting for different reasons? A work of art does not exist merely
> to please and instruct its creator, but the rest of the world.
>
> Since you seem to be so enamored of speculation, let me suppose that
> Stoppard knows the proximate reason for his initial interest in R&G was
> pretty mundane, so it would be a waste of time to discuss it. That
> pursuing his interest offered opportunities to touch on more interesting
> and challenging matters (for Stoppard and for the viewer) is much more
> interesting, but perhaps he would rather leave the identification and
> exploration of those to each of us, hm? Maybe he's a nice guy and an
> indulgent "instructor" rather than a fraud?
If his proximate reason for his initial interest in R&G was so mundane,
WHY IS HE DISCUSSING IT AT ALL? Why emphasize the "mundane" apect? IT
is the mundane aspect that Stoppard emphasizes and insists is his real
intention. He discusses it more than the "deep" meanings which he
dismisses as being merely "suggested" by the "interesting" but
shallow "situation" of two confused courtiers in a castle.
Stoppard dis NOT say "I was playing about with this fun idea of two
goofy courtiers in a castle, and then realized that the situation
resonated deeply, for me, and I began to construct the play to emphasize
this. It began as frivolity, but ended up being about the meaning
of life." Again, he is NOT saying this, but emphasizing the trivial
mundanity as being more important, despite it's incidental
"reverberations."
As for your "nice guy/indulgent instructor" analogy, I'm sure that
many such exist, out of necessity, because they have been assigned
classes about which they know nothing, and pretend that their students
will benefit from "finding out for themselves".
> : What is the difference between "writing about a situation that
> : interests you" and "a way to shine the limelight on this or that
> : idea."?
>
> People write about situations that interest them, in their diaries, all
> the time, without shining limelights on ideas, either for their own sake
> or for others'.
Once you write about a situation, you are "shining the limelight on it".
You have to form ideas about the situation in order to write. I find
it incredible that you can claim there is a distinction. The diary
entry "I bought myself a nice sweater today" may not be composed of
particularly deep ideas (is your definition of "ideas" limited to
some arbitrary high standard of scholarship?) but it contains ideas,
and the "limelight" no matter how trivial, has been shone upon them.
> The two may coincide, but Moggin is right to make a distinction between
> them, and you are wrong to pretend they are the same.
It's incredible that you so happily jump in to perpetuate Moggin's
mistake.
> : It sounds like you are saying the exact same thing with different words.
> : If you "write about a situation that interests you" what are you
> : doing but highlighting that situation as being important?
>
> So which "important" situation was A.A. Milne highlighting when he wrote
> some stories down for his son Christopher?
If A.A. Milne did not find the situation "important" he would not have
bothered writing it down. If I did not find the idea of eating a
pastrami on rye "important" I would not bother asking the deli guy
to make one for me.
I suspect your confusion is due to a habitual "elitism" that pretends to
seperate "high ideas" from "low ideas". They are all ideas, varying
only in complexity.
> : Translating
> : the "situation" into words, also translates the "situation" into
> : "ideas" right? "Ideas" are what are conveyed, by words, from one
> : mind to another, informing one person, from another, of particular
> : "situations." If Stoppard wrote about a "situation that interested him"
> : he automatically highlighted the "ideas" that conveyed this
> : situation to his audience. By admitting that his "ideas" were trivial
> : compared to more complex and deeper "ideas" that people might imagine
> : he was going for, he damns himself as a fraud.
>
> No, he doesn't. You are mistaking the apparent triviality of the initial
> motivating notion with the potentially interesting and complex content of
> the work as it was hammered out. Thousands of fine works of art, from
> "Equus" to _The French Lieutenant's Woman_ started from nothing more than
> an image, a snatch of cocktail chatter. That does not make the results
> trivial and meaningless.
But you are assuming, in the case of "Rosencrants and Guildenstern are
Dead" that the trivial motivating notions WAS in fact "hammered out".
I agree with you that thousands of fine works of art started from an
initial simple seed that was elaborated on, the end results being
very meaningful. But what if it was NOT hammered out? What if it
just flirts with the potential, but never takes the effort to really
delve into it? Is this excused because it MIGHT encourage others to
ACTUALLY hammer out the ideas inspired by the seed? While the artist
himself failed to do so?
> : No, he doesn't say why it attracted him. He avoids the issue by switching
> : to talk about how it's "nonsense" that "the writer" should have any
> : intentions deeper than "the surface level" (something that gives me
> : the willies about this "Shakespeare in Love" movie. Is it portraying
> : Shakespeare as a Stoppard like flibbertigibbet who constructed his
> : plays in the manner Stoppard claims to?)
>
> Again you confuse different motivations and different stages of the
> process, Robert. If Stoppard says it's "nonsense" for him to discuss
> intentions -- after all, Dickens, Balzac and Dostoevsky often wrote
> specifically for money; that doesn't mean they wrote unmitigated crap --
> then perhaps what he is saying is that HIS intentions are not as
> important as whatever the finished product "intends" or achieves or
> intimates or says to someone else DESPITE Stoppard's avowed intent.
The only people who claim that their "intentions" are not as important as
"what the finished product intends" are frauds. People who failed to
direct their audience in any coherent direction, but are happy to bask
in the accidental "possibilities" that people may "think" the work is
actually attempting to accomplish. It's a lie. Just as a drunken churl,
who loses his temper and beats his kids will say "I beat you to teach
you an important lesson about life...the unexpected can occur at any
minute" these "artists" are liars, who present unfinished, unthought
out garbage to their audience, and let the more thoughtful members,
giving the work the benefit of the doubt, suggest what it MIGHT be
about.
Dickens and Balzac and Dostoevsky may have written for money, but if
asked what their works were about, I suspect they would not claim
"whatever people want them to be about." What a pile of hooey.
Robert W.
Robert Whelan
> <<If Stoppard wrote about a "situation that interested him"
> : he automatically highlighted the "ideas" that conveyed this
> : situation to his audience. By admitting that his "ideas" were trivial
> : compared to more complex and deeper "ideas" that people might imagine
> : he was going for, he damns himself as a fraud.>>
>
> On the other hand, perhaps he was being humble in an
> interview situation.
It didn't come off that way. He seemed unusually at a loss for words...
if his upcoming project, (which Rose was asking about) was only in the
formative, brainstorming stage, why couldn't he just say so? And why
couldn't he say what ideas he was playing with, even if they were just
trivial, and formative? As I remember, instead of some simple honest
answer like this he went off into some abstract generalization about how
art is made and avoided the question. He wasn't being humble.
It's playing tonight (Wednesday) on PBS, probably around 11:00, 11:30 -
12:00, 12:30.
Robert W.
Robert Whelan
> Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
>
> : >Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
> : >
> : >: I do not accept "the text is seperate from the author" .
>
> : And this is the exact point on which everyone else has parted
> : company with you.
>
>
> Despite Robert's theory, I refuse to equate the illogic and meanness of
> his posts with the author.
If you truly think my posts are illogical and mean, I don't see why you
would have any reason to believe otherwise about me, the originator of
those posts.
Shall I refuse to equate the fact that you claim to have read "The Magus"
with the fact that you actually might have read it?
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>
> : Moggin wrote:
>
> : > Get it? "The attraction of the play for the writer is on the
> : >surface level" means "Writers don't sit down and ask 'What deep
> : >thought should I dramatize on stage?'" Instead they're drawn in
> : >by the particulars of a given situation. Anyway that's what
> : >Stoppard says. I don't insist you believe him.
>
> : You are doing it again...stating two sentences, which mean
> : essentially the same thing, as if they were different. Is there really
> : a difference between having deep thoughts, which cause one to be
> : attracted to the "particulars of a given situation" which illustrate
> : it, and actually thinking consciously "What particular situation can I
> : find to illustrate my deep thought?"
>
> I am sorry, Robert, but they are different. The one says, in effect, "I
> have something important to say -- how to dramatize it?" at the start.
> The other says, "hmm, this looks interesting [or puzzling, or amusing] --
> I wonder what would come of it if I explored it a while?" The deep
> ideas, if there are any, arise "organically" out of the process of
> exploring something that had some other, more surface appeal to begin
> with.
But the reason something looks "interesting or puzzling" to anyone, and
worth of exploration, is likely because of pre-existing "big ideas" that
they end up realizing can be illustrated, or illuminated by the originally
trivial situation. So the distinction is artificial. As I said before,
if Stoppard is saying "That's not how artists get to their big ideas"
it's a simple thing. However, if he's suggesting that artists never
actually arrive at the big ideas, but stay farting around with the
"surface", he's generalizing in a way this is unfair to better artists
than himself.
Here's what Stoppard does in that quote. He starts talking about what
his intentions are in the play (which are trivial) starts to talk about
what the audience can imagine is in the play (which is deeper) gets
embarrassed at how shallow the contrast makes him look, starts
pretending that "the author" and "the writer" (generalizing to all
writers) are only interested in "the surface", which helps bolster his
original stated intention, and then creates a kind of straw man artist
who has a big idea, and looks for a way of presenting it symbolically,
calls it nonsense (and simultaneously calling the audience who
imagines depth in his plays stupid), and returning himself, by
contrast with stupid audience member who imagined, falsely, that
Stoppard had any real interest in the big ideas.
Here it is again. Don't tell me you can't see it.
"I mean, to me Rosencrantz and GUildenstern is a play about two
Elizabethan Courtiers in a castle, wondering what's going on. That's what
it's about. That situation reverberates in different ways to people who
see it, obviously, and can suggest various analogies for itself, and the
author of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this and I know perfectly
well that the situation, the predicament which Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern find themselves in is an interesting one in the sense that it
can be used or thought of as being a metaphor for other situations.
That's a very different matter from deciding to write about a particular
kind of predicament, a specific predicament of modern man and look around
for some symbolic form in which to convey it, and decide to do it in
terms of two characters in HAMLET. That's, of course, nonsense. The
attraction of the play for the writer is on the surface level."
> As for the difference as you characterize it, "deep thoughts" may or may
> not attract my attention to an image, a notion, a plot -- but even if
> they do, I may not be aware of which deep thoughts impel me to take an
> interest in that image, notion, or plot. I explore the latter without
> the explicit intent of expressing these supposed deep thoughts, and may
> indeed arrive at a finished work of artifice that "feels right," that
> works for me, without EVER being aware of the supposed "deep thought"
> underpinning. Or I may think one deep thought is primarily expressed
> when viewers and readers are moved by a different one of which I am
> unaware. So why should I tell them, "No, you dingbats, I was trying to
> show you THIS deep thought"?
If you WERE trying to show them a particular deep thought, Yes. I'm not
saying one should blame the audience...you may be at fault. Admittedly
ALL communication is flawed, and errors in the conveyance of meaning
occur all the time, but why emphasize the errors? Usually the human
mind recognizes "errors" not as meaning, but as a confusing and unclear
ATTEMPT at meaning, with only indefinite POSSIBLE guesses as to what
was truly meant. When Lewsis Carroll says "The Snark was a Boojum" he
is correct to complain if people get a "meaning" out of it, instead
of asking "What the hell are "snarks" and "boojums"?
> Again, I ask you, if we appreciate the works of Handel or Fra Lippo
> Lippi (or Merton or Buber) for a different reason than they intended,
> does that make them frauds?
No, it makes *us* frauds, IF we do NOT recognize their primary intention.
A person who appreciates "Mein Kampf" as other than what Hitler intended
it to be, and insists that Hitler's intention wasn't important is an
imbecile, and a fraud. If, incidentally, you comment that you enjoyed
Hitler's expression of love for poodles, and that this is in fact
why Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf", and that your "different take" on the work
is just as valid as the take of someone who paid attentio to Hitler's
larger objectives is dishonest.
(the example is fanciful. I don't know if Hitler mentions poodles in "Mein
Kampf).
> : Notice how he does seem to be embarassed by his lack of anything to
> : say about the play. He starts off talking about himself
> : "I mean, to me, R&G is a play about two Elizabethan Courtiers
> : in a castle, wondering what's going on....that's what it's about",
>
> And your problem with that is...?
I don't have a problem with this....
> : and then quickly starts talking in the third person...
> : "*the author* of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this.."
> : (referring to the audience reading meaning into the play), and
> : finally "The attraction for *the writer* is at the surface level."
>
> And your problem with this is...?
I don't have a problem with this... but Stoppard seems to.
> : He has switched away from talking about himself, and has
> : distanced himself personally by referring to "the author"
> : and "the writer", so that he won't damn his intentions as
> : mindless and trivial, and in his effort to avoid scrutiny,
> : implying that all writers are equally vapid.
>
> If one is going to impute superficial or unkind motivations to Stoppard,
> I hardly think his strategy is going to let him off the hook.
No. It doesn't.
> However, I suggest that it is no less plausible to suggest this was his
> polite way of saying "I think that is a stupid, or not very fruitful,
> line of inquiry."
And I bet that Stoppard's conversations are full of this sort of
B.S., which suggests that the "line of inquiry is stupid", implying
that Stoppard is intelligent, but without any show of intelligence
from Stoppard.
On this newsgroup Mr. Ilechko seems to have mastered this technique.
Robert W.
Puss in Boots
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
>> Paul's got a point that you haven't tried very hard to refute: an
>> author isn't the first or final authority on her own work -- she may
>> not even be reliable in reporting her own intentions. So it's false to
>> claim that the Stoppard quote "completely negates any guesses as the
>> play's depth," no matter what it contains.
rwh...@dorsai.org (Robert Whelan):
> I agree that I went too far to say "completely" but I was thinking
> specifically of particular meanings being touted by this newsgroup,
> which are specifically denied by him.
No, they're not -- as I already pointed out, he doesn't reject any
of the meanings that people find in the play. Even if he did, that
wouldn't negate them, in whole or part, for the reasons I just gave you.
Moggin:
>> But that said, let's take a closer look at the thing. It's pretty
>> interesting. According to you, S's "proud of the fact that he has
>> nothing to say." Not so -- there's much more going on. His main point
>> is that he didn't write the play to illustrate a thesis about "a
>> specific predicament of modern man."
>> I'll translate that for you: he's saying that _R&G_ isn't a
>> Classic Comics version of existentialism. If you accept the story he's
>> telling here, he didn't start with an idea -- e.g., "Man plays a bit
>> part in a meaningless universe" -- and decide R&G would make a good way
>> to symbolize it.
>> "That's nonsense," he says -- instead he got interested in writing
>> "a play about two Elizabethan Courtiers in a castle wondering what's
>> going on." That is, he didn't write with the goal of 'saying something
>> deep' -- he was attracted by a concrete situation. That's where he
>> began: with a particular scenario.
>> Of course it's a highly suggestive one, as he well knows -- people
>> can easily make it into a metaphor. It provokes analogies and sets
>> off reverberations. But Stoppard's saying he didn't craft a play about
>> the metaphors, the analogies, or the vibes -- he wrote it about two
>> courtiers in a certain spot, wondering.
>> Notice he doesn't say that he has nothing to say. Doesn't so much
>> as suggest it. He also doesn't say that the people are wrong to find
>> various meanings in his play. He's explaining he wrote the thing about
>> a situation that interested him, rather than as a way to shine the
>> limelight on this or that idea.
Robert:
> But WHY did the situation interest him? If you are INTERESTED in
> something, one has IDEAS about it, surely! Once he WRITES he is
> highlighting IDEAS, right?
He doesn't say why it attracted him, at least not in the quote you
offered. (I'd like to know where it's from, if you have the info.)
Yes, ideas may have cropped up once he started writing; I don't see him
denying it.
Moggin:
>> Get it? "The attraction of the play for the writer is on the
>> surface level" means "Writers don't sit down and ask 'What deep thought
>> should I dramatize on stage?'" Instead they're drawn in by the
>> particulars of a given situation. Anyway that's what Stoppard says. I
>> don't insist you believe him.
Robert:
> Stoppard is generalizing for all writers, when he started out talking
> about himself.
It's not clear he is -- he's using the definite article, so he may
be talking about himself. Or maybe he's generalizing; that's what I
thought at first, too. In any case, you don't have to believe him -- I
just want you to notice what he says.
> STOPPARD does not sit down and ask "what deep thought
> can I dramatize on stage", according to Stoppard.
Exactly. And it's Stoppard we're talking about, so that shouldn't
be a problem.
> I'm sure even
> writers who have this intention often start out being drawn to
> particular "situations" without consciously knowing why, at first,
> but the reason they are drawn to such situations is because they
> illustrate IDEAS that such writers are interested in.
Now you're "generalizing for all writers." You're also completely
missing Stoppard's point. He doesn't deny for a moment that the
situation he wrote about is highly suggestive: a person watching _R&G_
can find all sorts of things in it. You say he calls them wrong -- and
there's your mistake. He's simply drawing a distinction. "That's a
very different matter," he says, from deciding to write about some idea
and then casting about for a way to dramatize it.
The latter he calls nonsense. The former he doesn't. That's what
you missed.
> If Stoppard
> is speaking for All Writers (which he seems to start to do to avoid
> damning his own purposes as being trivial compared to that of other
> play wrights) he's doing other playwrights a disservice.
Not at all, since he never says that he has trivial purposes -- he
simply explains he was drawn to write about a concrete situtation
rather than to illustrate some supposed profundity. So if he is making
a generalization, it's a generous one.
> He seems
> to suggest that all plays exist ONLY at the surface, and that ANY
> intentional deeper meaning is "nonsense".
No, he doesn't suggest that. But I can see where you got confused.
You're mixed up about what he's calling "nonsense." Go back and look
at the quote. Notice he describes two, separate things. He starts out
talking about the reverberations that _R&B_ sets off in people who
watch the play. Then he switches the subject. You can tell because he
says, "That's a very different matter from..."
From there on he's talking about something else, namely the notion
that he decided to write a play addressing "the predicament of modern
man," then went looking around for some convenient symbolism. _That's_
what he calls nonsense. Two different things. You overlooked the
distinction and concluded he was labelling the both of them nonsensical.
> If he's only referring to
> it being "nonsensical" to refer to STOPPARD's plays as having any
> depth, I happily agree that his self assessment is accurate.
That's not his assessment. He doesn't say _R&G_ is a shallow play,
and he doesn't say it's nonsense to credit it with depth. What's
nonsensical, he claims, is to think that he wrote it as an illustration
of some ostensibly deep idea.
-- Moggin
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>
> : On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
>
> : > Since you seem to be so enamored of speculation, let me suppose that
> : > Stoppard knows the proximate reason for his initial interest in R&G was
> : > pretty mundane, so it would be a waste of time to discuss it. That
> : > pursuing his interest offered opportunities to touch on more interesting
> : > and challenging matters (for Stoppard and for the viewer) is much more
> : > interesting, but perhaps he would rather leave the identification and
> : > exploration of those to each of us, hm? Maybe he's a nice guy and an
> : > indulgent "instructor" rather than a fraud?
>
> : If his proximate reason for his initial interest in R&G was so mundane,
> : WHY IS HE DISCUSSING IT AT ALL?
>
> Because somebody asked him?
Yes, but it appears they were asking him "What is the play about." or
"Does the play have a deep meaning.", NOT "What trivial seed did you
build your play upon." But it is that question he switched to
answering.
> : Why emphasize the "mundane" apect?
>
> In the hope that the interviewer would move onto some other subject?
> Think about how it would feel to have someone ask you -- for example --
> about a term paper you did in high school? Especially when nearly EVERY
> person who interviews you asks about it.
1967 is the copyright on my copy of the play (just on loan). The quote
is from 1979. Is 10 years really that long?
> : IT is the mundane aspect that Stoppard emphasizes and insists is his
> : real intention. He discusses it more than the "deep" meanings
> : which he dismisses as being merely "suggested" by the "interesting" but
> : shallow "situation" of two confused courtiers in a castle.
>
> I think maybe you're taking a casual conversation WAY too seriously, kind
> of the way anti-drug crusaders and anti-porn crusaders take the objects
> of their contempt far too seriously by assuming they are WAY much more
> attractive than they are for many folks.
>
>
> : Stoppard did NOT say "I was playing about with this fun idea of two
> : goofy courtiers in a castle, and then realized that the situation
> : resonated deeply, for me, and I began to construct the play to emphasize
> : this. It began as frivolity, but ended up being about the meaning
> : of life." Again, he is NOT saying this, but emphasizing the trivial
> : mundanity as being more important, despite it's incidental
> : "reverberations."
>
> Did he say it was "more important"? I don't think he did.
He implied that thinking he intended depth was "nonsense". He does this
by inventing the straw man artist, who begins with the deep idea and
tries to find means of expressing it.
> : As for your "nice guy/indulgent instructor" analogy, I'm sure that
> : many such exist, out of necessity, because they have been assigned
> : classes about which they know nothing, and pretend that their
> : students will benefit from "finding out for themselves".
>
> And do you not think being asked about something you did 30 years ago is
> not a little like being assigned a class you know nothing about?
12 years previously.
> And, to pursue a little tangent, do you think instructors who encourage
> students to find things out for themselves are, by definition, out of
> their depth and/or lazy?
They are lazy if they have knowledge that can make the learning process
easier, and refuse to make the effort to guide students to the answers.
Just firing off a pile of possible theories, none of which the
instructor has any idea are more or less valuable than eachother, and
saying "Go to it, kids" is lazy. A teacher may be WRONG but he or she
ought to know enough to have some sort of idea which way he/she
thinks a student ought to go, even if he lets them get there on
their own.
> : > : What is the difference between "writing about a situation that
> : > : interests you" and "a way to shine the limelight on this or that
> : > : idea."?
> : >
> : > People write about situations that interest them, in their diaries, all
> : > the time, without shining limelights on ideas, either for their own sake
> : > or for others'.
>
> : Once you write about a situation, you are "shining the limelight on it".
> : You have to form ideas about the situation in order to write.
>
> No you don't. Not at all. You can follow the activities of your
> creations for a good while without knowing where they're going or what
> "deep thoughts" they might illustrate. "Shining a light on ideas"
> may be the goal and strategy for inductive essay writing, but it doesn't
> necessarily govern the creation of art.
Not necessarily? Are you willing to admit that it might, though? I
say it probably does.
> : I find
> : it incredible that you can claim there is a distinction. The diary
> : entry "I bought myself a nice sweater today" may not be composed of
> : particularly deep ideas (is your definition of "ideas" limited to
> : some arbitrary high standard of scholarship?) but it contains ideas,
> : and the "limelight" no matter how trivial, has been shone upon them.
>
> And what, pray tell, are the ideas? I can accept, if other people find
> the content diverting and instructive, that it might contain ideas, but
> that is a far cry from saying the author intended precisely those ideas
> which the audience grooves on, or that the ideas either drove the
> creation of the material or justify its existence afterwards.
If the audience grooves on the idea of "buying a sweater", and the
author intended to express the idea of "buying a sweater.", there
has been an exchange of ideas. If the audience decides to groove on the
word "myself" alone, and claim that they got a deep sense of personal
fulfilmet from the use of the word, I can't deny theym their reaction, but
I consider their opinion inferior from the opinion of someone who reacts
to the meaning of the entire sentence. "I liked this sentence because
I, too, like buying sweaters" is an intelligent opinion, and germane
to the content of the sentence. A rant about the importance of the
use of the word "myself" is not.
> : > The two may coincide, but Moggin is right to make a distinction
> : > between them, and you are wrong to pretend they are the same.
>
> : It's incredible that you so happily jump in to perpetuate Moggin's
> : mistake.
>
> You can "it's incredible" all you like, but a better response would be to
> discuss the content of the argument.
Which I am doing.
> : > : It sounds like you are saying the exact same thing with different words.
> : > : If you "write about a situation that interests you" what are you
> : > : doing but highlighting that situation as being important?
> : >
> : > So which "important" situation was A.A. Milne highlighting when he wrote
> : > some stories down for his son Christopher?
>
> : If A.A. Milne did not find the situation "important" he would not have
> : bothered writing it down.
>
> If what was important was entertaining his son, then that is an entirely
> different thing from saying "the ideas contained in the Winnie-the-Pooh
> stories are what led to their creation in the first place." You have
> conflated the two, and Moggin called you on it. Too bad you're still
> resisting the distinction.
I have NOT conflated the two. If Moggin said I did, he was wrong. Somehoow
you (and Moggin?) have brought into the argument "external motivations"
to create, where I thought we were only talking about the ideas produced,
highlighted, expanded upon WHILE creating.
And, by the way, the simple demand "tell me a story about my teddy bear"
contains ideas. The ideas being that the bear is alive and has
adventures. That general *idea* exists before any details are fleshed out,
It may be a trivial idea, and may be supplanted in the process of
creating the stories, which may illustrate ideas about how (as in
one of the stories) spelling properly is important.
And, hey, the "idea" "I sure would like to write a bestseller, I
wonder what would sell." is still an idea, no matter what the
external pressure that produced it.
> : If I did not find the idea of eating a pastrami on rye "important" I
> : would not bother asking the deli guy to make one for me.
>
> And just how does this illustrate your point about Stoppard and his
> play?
(sigh) my point is that people do things for reasons. Just because they
may deny it, or refuse to reveal it, or pretend that they are doing
it for other reasons is no reason for us to go along with the charade.
"You murdered that man for no reason? Oh, sure. Happens all the time.
You must be an artist."
> : I suspect your confusion is due to a habitual "elitism" that pretends to
> : seperate "high ideas" from "low ideas". They are all ideas, varying
> : only in complexity.
>
> I do not separate high ideas from low ones. They're all the same, and I
> even doubt they differ in complexity. It is mainly in their presentation
> that we see differences. And I invite you to explain just how my
> comments illustrate an elitist prejudice that separates high ideas from
> low ideas, when you haven't even defended or explained your own
> positions.
>
> But this is typical. Your posts never manage to stay on the substance of
> the debate; they always turn to discussions of personality, whether
> Stoppard's or mine. This gets you nowhere.
Odd that you should be offended that my remarks discuss "personality" as
if "ideas" can ever be extricated from the minds, and personalities, of
those that produce them. Ideas don't exist without personalities.
Artists that don't want themselves revealed, should never reveal their
art to others.
Robert W.
Eli Bishop
Whelan wrote:
>
>Yes, but it appears they were asking him "What is the play about." or
>"Does the play have a deep meaning.", NOT "What trivial seed did you
>build your play upon." But it is that question he switched to
>answering.
If there's any justice in the universe, Robert, you will soon become
famous and end up on TV trying to explain your work. Good luck
summarizing yourself in a few improvised remarks, so that everyone will
understand you and no one will say something like "he damned himself as a
fraud" (gee, bad move there, for Stoppard to damn himself as a fraud -- I
bet he'll think twice next time!). I notice that in several thousand
lines of writing you haven't been able to convince anyone of what you
think is a simple premise, so you should probably work on your technique
before your first interview.
--
Eli Bishop / www.concentric.net/~Elib
"I been tryin' to put a chicken in the window,
to chase away the wolf from the door" - John Prine
Robert Whelan
> [repost]
>
> mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
>
> >> Paul's got a point that you haven't tried very hard to refute: an
> >> author isn't the first or final authority on her own work -- she may
> >> not even be reliable in reporting her own intentions. So it's false to
> >> claim that the Stoppard quote "completely negates any guesses as the
> >> play's depth," no matter what it contains.
>
> rwh...@dorsai.org (Robert Whelan):
>
> > I agree that I went too far to say "completely" but I was thinking
> > specifically of particular meanings being touted by this newsgroup,
> > which are specifically denied by him.
>
> No, they're not -- as I already pointed out, he doesn't reject any
> of the meanings that people find in the play. Even if he did, that
> wouldn't negate them, in whole or part, for the reasons I just gave you.
But he does reject the idea that those meanings can be attributed to
himself, as being intended. Even though it's a reasonable assumption,
given that Stoppard presented the play, and the ideas and
"reverberations", as if he actually had a purpose.
Here it is again:
"I mean, to me Rosencrantz and GUildenstern is a play about two
Elizabethan Courtiers in a castle, wondering what's going on. That's what
it's about. That situation reverberates in different ways to people who
see it, obviously, and can suggest various analogies for itself, and the
author of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this and I know perfectly
well that the situation, the predicament which Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern find themselves in is an interesting one in the sense that it
can be used or thought of as being a metaphor for other situations.
That's a very different matter from deciding to write about a particular
kind of predicament, a specific predicament of modern man and look around
for some symbolic form in which to convey it, and decide to do it in
terms of two characters in HAMLET. That's, of course, nonsense. The
attraction of the play for the writer is on the surface level."
First of all, notice that the first part of the paragraph talks about
what the play means to Stoppard. He then contrasts it with the way
people may see it. Then he goes "That's a very different matter..."
Does "that",refer to what the play is about, or the fact that the
audience sees it as a metaphor? What "matter" is he saying is
different from "looking around for some sort of symbolic form"
which he claims is nonsense? He never described his own creative
process, even though by saying "That's a different matter" he
is implying he did. "That's a different matter" is thus a wierd
non-sequitur. It doesn't follow from anything he said previously.
And again, notice that he slips into "the author" and "the writer"
instead of sayin "I" and "me".
Had he said "That's, of course, nonsense. The attraction of the
play for me is on the surface level." I wouldn't look at this with
suspicion.
The interview was from a 1979 magazine interview. I don't know the exact
source anymore, because all I have is an arhival printout of my paper,
without the footnotes. but If I can find it. I'll let you know.
Notice that he doesn't say WHAT ideas cropped up for him. He just says
that "looking around for a symbolic form" and then finding it, is
"nonsense" without saying exactly what his creative process was, or
admitting that, at any point in the process, no matter how it was
done, deeper ideas were deliberately made part of his work.
It's a remarkably unfocused statement, in any case. You may blame this
on lack of context, which finding the original interview might ease.
But doesn't this sloppy and clumsy relating of ideas remind one of
R&G, the play?
He then refers to "deciding to write about some idea and casting about
to dramatize it" as "nonsense". What is it he is contrasting it to,
by his use of "That?"? I guess he's going back to "to me, R&G is
about two courtiers...that's what it's about." which isn't really
a description of his own way of writing, even though the
construction of his sentence implies that he has, in fact, described
it, and is contrasting it with the other, which he says is
nonsense. I guess "that" is referring to his last line "the attraction...
is on the surface level." Which still tells us nothing.
> > If Stoppard
> > is speaking for All Writers (which he seems to start to do to avoid
> > damning his own purposes as being trivial compared to that of other
> > play wrights) he's doing other playwrights a disservice.
>
> Not at all, since he never says that he has trivial purposes -- he
> simply explains he was drawn to write about a concrete situtation
> rather than to illustrate some supposed profundity. So if he is making
> a generalization, it's a generous one.
He never says he has any purposes at all. He says "the writer" (which
I guess is a general set in which he lets himself be included) is
interested in "the surface level". Which is meaningless. WHY
interested in the surface level? What about the surface level is
interesting? If he's attracted for no profound reason, then by
elimination, he attracted for trivial reasons. What is left?
What, he wanted his audience to have profound thoughts, but without
having any himself? He had no idea which profound thoughts were
likely, and had no interest in emphasizing or increasing the
power of any of these impressions?
> > He seems
> > to suggest that all plays exist ONLY at the surface, and that ANY
> > intentional deeper meaning is "nonsense".
>
> No, he doesn't suggest that. But I can see where you got confused.
> You're mixed up about what he's calling "nonsense." Go back and look
> at the quote. Notice he describes two, separate things. He starts out
> talking about the reverberations that _R&B_ sets off in people who
> watch the play. Then he switches the subject. You can tell because he
> says, "That's a very different matter from..."
Yes. But it's hard to know, from the context, what exactly he is referring
to.
> From there on he's talking about something else, namely the notion
> that he decided to write a play addressing "the predicament of modern
> man," then went looking around for some convenient symbolism. _That's_
> what he calls nonsense. Two different things. You overlooked the
> distinction and concluded he was labelling the both of them nonsensical.
But he doesn't talk about it as if he were referring to HIM and HIS
intentions. He talks about "the author" and "the writer" as if he
were speaking of a larger community, to which his statement applies.
It implies that "looking around for some convenient symbolism" is
something that isn't done, or is "nonsense" if it is. But I'm sure
that some artists DO go "looking around" for convenient symbolism.
Is Stoppard claiming to be superior to such "nonsensical" artists?
Or implying that such artists don't exist?
>
> > If he's only referring to
> > it being "nonsensical" to refer to STOPPARD's plays as having any
> > depth, I happily agree that his self assessment is accurate.
>
> That's not his assessment. He doesn't say _R&G_ is a shallow play,
> and he doesn't say it's nonsense to credit it with depth. What's
> nonsensical, he claims, is to think that he wrote it as an illustration
> of some ostensibly deep idea.
He says that "That" (which I assume refers to the way he writes plays,
but doesn't make clear, since he never described his method) is
"different from" the described method of "searching for some convenient
symbolism". When he says "That's, of course, nonsense", he seems
to be referring to the method itself, which was only brought up to
contrast with his own, undescribed method, which, at the end, seems
to only be an "interest in the surface level", and nothing else.
If anything, this conversation serves to illustrate that Stoppard's
conversation is as disconnected and improvisational, and free of
meaningful ideas as his plays. (oh, all right, David...Play.)
It reminds me again of that fun Dada performance I saw. Unconnected
nonsense phrases were strung together and given, by the injection
of emotion and emphasis, the impression of actually being about
something.
I may end up, ironically, claiming for myself the distinction of being
one of the rare people who "understands" Stoppard as a humorous
nonsense maker, like Lewis Carroll, or the dadaists.
But I think he would like to be taken seriously.
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>
> : On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
>
> : > You are mistaking the apparent triviality of the initial
> : > motivating notion with the potentially interesting and complex content of
> : > the work as it was hammered out. Thousands of fine works of art, from
> : > "Equus" to _The French Lieutenant's Woman_ started from nothing more than
> : > an image, a snatch of cocktail chatter. That does not make the results
> : > trivial and meaningless.
>
> : But you are assuming, in the case of "Rosencrants and Guildenstern are
> : Dead" that the trivial motivating notion WAS in fact "hammered out".
>
> I didn't "assume"; I judged the final product.
Oh. And what ideas did Stoppard "hammer out", as far as you could tell?
> : I agree with you that thousands of fine works of art started from an
> : initial simple seed that was elaborated on, the end results being
> : very meaningful. But what if it was NOT hammered out? What if it
> : just flirts with the potential, but never takes the effort to really
> : delve into it? Is this excused because it MIGHT encourage others to
> : ACTUALLY hammer out the ideas inspired by the seed? While the artist
> : himself failed to do so?
>
> I have no interest in answering your questions because they are based on
> a premise I do not accept.
Which premise? That Stoppard didn't hammer out ideas in R&G? But he
said, himself, that he's only interested in "the surface level", and
that, though it can be seen as being more, it's more *only* in the minds
of his audience, in the form of "reverberations." He denies that
those reverberations match anything that he is interested in.
> : > Again you confuse different motivations and different stages of the
> : > process, Robert. If Stoppard says it's "nonsense" for him to discuss
> : > intentions -- after all, Dickens, Balzac and Dostoevsky often wrote
> : > specifically for money; that doesn't mean they wrote unmitigated crap --
> : > then perhaps what he is saying is that HIS intentions are not as
> : > important as whatever the finished product "intends" or achieves or
> : > intimates or says to someone else DESPITE Stoppard's avowed intent.
>
> : The only people who claim that their "intentions" are not as important as
> : "what the finished product intends" are frauds.
>
> Oh really? You don't think people ever create works that are greater
> than they could have intended or imagined? Was it Rubinstein or
> Toscanini who said "A masterpiece is something that is written better
> than it can be played"? Neither, I'm afraid, but you get the point. I
> am not saying Stoppard has written any masterpieces, necessarily, but I
> am suggesting artists often find themselves producing a finished work
> that accomplishes more than, and sometimes something very different
> from, what they initially intended.
No, I don't think people ever create works that are greater than they
could have "intended or imagined". Are you posting an artistic
"snowball" effect? If I make a snowball, throw it, and it rolls
down hill, triggering an avalanche which engulfs a town, which
was the sole supplier of Bill Clinton's favorite candy, which causes
him, in a rage, to start World War III, is World War III part of
my "art."? No, all I produced was a measly snowball.
Is Stoppard to be given credit because someone who views R&GAD might
actually go out and write a real work of art, due to some little
interesting element of Stoppard's play?
What "masterpiece" was produced in *your* mind by this play?
(I guess, however, that someone who says "watch me start World War
III, and does so by flinging a snowball WOULD be an artist, in my view!)
> : People who failed to direct their audience in any coherent direction,
> : but are happy to bask in the accidental "possibilities" that people
> : may "think" the work is actually attempting to accomplish. It's a lie.
> : Just as a drunken churl, who loses his temper and beats his kids will
> : say "I beat you to teach you an important lesson about life...the
> : unexpected can occur at any minute" these "artists" are liars, who
> : present unfinished, unthought out garbage to their audience, and let
> : the more thoughtful members, giving the work the benefit of the doubt,
> : suggest what it MIGHT be about.
>
> Unfortunately, you have failed to establish your initial premise in all
> this, Robert -- that Stoppard "failed to direct his audience in any
> coherent direction" [as opposed to just you, Mr. Whelan], and so your
> analogies are wasted. You cannot compare the beaten kids to folks who
> attend productions of Stoppard's works, because many of the latter do not
> declare that they suffered through the administration of the "lesson."
> And until you can prove that people are lying when they say they enjoy
> Stoppard, you have no case.
People can enjoy watching clouds. I would not dare to prove they were
lying. They can claim to see visions in those clouds. Again, I
applaud their creativity. But when a "Cloud director"
stands up and waves a stick at the clouds, and gets credit for
doing so, I call him a fraud.
> : Dickens and Balzac and Dostoevsky may have written for money, but if
> : asked what their works were about, I suspect they would not claim
> : "whatever people want them to be about." What a pile of hooey.
>
> But are you not saying that it doesn't matter what Dickens, Balzac,
> Dostoevsky OR Stoppard have to say, since the work is obviously empty of
> significant content anyway?
I am at a total loss to understand how you got that out of anything
I was saying. Just because ONE motivation is money doesn't mean that
other motivations don't exist. When asked "what is your work about"
do artist you admire answer "making money?"
Robert Whelan.
David J. Loftus
: On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Since you seem to be so enamored of speculation, let me suppose that
: > Stoppard knows the proximate reason for his initial interest in R&G was
: > pretty mundane, so it would be a waste of time to discuss it. That
: > pursuing his interest offered opportunities to touch on more interesting
: > and challenging matters (for Stoppard and for the viewer) is much more
: > interesting, but perhaps he would rather leave the identification and
: > exploration of those to each of us, hm? Maybe he's a nice guy and an
: > indulgent "instructor" rather than a fraud?
: If his proximate reason for his initial interest in R&G was so mundane,
: WHY IS HE DISCUSSING IT AT ALL?
Because somebody asked him?
: Why emphasize the "mundane" apect?
In the hope that the interviewer would move onto some other subject?
Think about how it would feel to have someone ask you -- for example --
about a term paper you did in high school? Especially when nearly EVERY
person who interviews you asks about it.
: IT is the mundane aspect that Stoppard emphasizes and insists is his
: real intention. He discusses it more than the "deep" meanings
: which he dismisses as being merely "suggested" by the "interesting" but
: shallow "situation" of two confused courtiers in a castle.
I think maybe you're taking a casual conversation WAY too seriously, kind
of the way anti-drug crusaders and anti-porn crusaders take the objects
of their contempt far too seriously by assuming they are WAY much more
attractive than they are for many folks.
: Stoppard dis NOT say "I was playing about with this fun idea of two
: goofy courtiers in a castle, and then realized that the situation
: resonated deeply, for me, and I began to construct the play to emphasize
: this. It began as frivolity, but ended up being about the meaning
: of life." Again, he is NOT saying this, but emphasizing the trivial
: mundanity as being more important, despite it's incidental
: "reverberations."
Did he say it was "more important"? I don't think he did.
: As for your "nice guy/indulgent instructor" analogy, I'm sure that
: many such exist, out of necessity, because they have been assigned
: classes about which they know nothing, and pretend that their
: students will benefit from "finding out for themselves".
And do you not think being asked about something you did 30 years ago is
not a little like being assigned a class you know nothing about?
And, to pursue a little tangent, do you think instructors who encourage
students to find things out for themselves are, by definition, out of
their depth and/or lazy?
: > : What is the difference between "writing about a situation that
: > : interests you" and "a way to shine the limelight on this or that
: > : idea."?
: >
: > People write about situations that interest them, in their diaries, all
: > the time, without shining limelights on ideas, either for their own sake
: > or for others'.
: Once you write about a situation, you are "shining the limelight on it".
: You have to form ideas about the situation in order to write.
No you don't. Not at all. You can follow the activities of your
creations for a good while without knowing where they're going or what
"deep thoughts" they might illustrate. "Shining a light on ideas"
may be the goal and strategy for inductive essay writing, but it doesn't
necessarily govern the creation of art.
: I find
: it incredible that you can claim there is a distinction. The diary
: entry "I bought myself a nice sweater today" may not be composed of
: particularly deep ideas (is your definition of "ideas" limited to
: some arbitrary high standard of scholarship?) but it contains ideas,
: and the "limelight" no matter how trivial, has been shone upon them.
And what, pray tell, are the ideas? I can accept, if other people find
the content diverting and instructive, that it might contain ideas, but
that is a far cry from saying the author intended precisely those ideas
which the audience grooves on, or that the ideas either drove the
creation of the material or justify its existence afterwards.
: > The two may coincide, but Moggin is right to make a distinction
: > between them, and you are wrong to pretend they are the same.
: It's incredible that you so happily jump in to perpetuate Moggin's
: mistake.
You can "it's incredible" all you like, but a better response would be to
discuss the content of the argument.
: > : It sounds like you are saying the exact same thing with different words.
: > : If you "write about a situation that interests you" what are you
: > : doing but highlighting that situation as being important?
: >
: > So which "important" situation was A.A. Milne highlighting when he wrote
: > some stories down for his son Christopher?
: If A.A. Milne did not find the situation "important" he would not have
: bothered writing it down.
If what was important was entertaining his son, then that is an entirely
different thing from saying "the ideas contained in the Winnie-the-Pooh
stories are what led to their creation in the first place." You have
conflated the two, and Moggin called you on it. Too bad you're still
resisting the distinction.
: If I did not find the idea of eating a pastrami on rye "important" I
: would not bother asking the deli guy to make one for me.
And just how does this illustrate your point about Stoppard and his
play?
: I suspect your confusion is due to a habitual "elitism" that pretends to
: seperate "high ideas" from "low ideas". They are all ideas, varying
: only in complexity.
I do not separate high ideas from low ones. They're all the same, and I
even doubt they differ in complexity. It is mainly in their presentation
that we see differences. And I invite you to explain just how my
comments illustrate an elitist prejudice that separates high ideas from
low ideas, when you haven't even defended or explained your own
positions.
But this is typical. Your posts never manage to stay on the substance of
the debate; they always turn to discussions of personality, whether
Stoppard's or mine. This gets you nowhere.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > You are mistaking the apparent triviality of the initial
: > motivating notion with the potentially interesting and complex content of
: > the work as it was hammered out. Thousands of fine works of art, from
: > "Equus" to _The French Lieutenant's Woman_ started from nothing more than
: > an image, a snatch of cocktail chatter. That does not make the results
: > trivial and meaningless.
: But you are assuming, in the case of "Rosencrants and Guildenstern are
: Dead" that the trivial motivating notions WAS in fact "hammered out".
I didn't "assume"; I judged the final product.
: I agree with you that thousands of fine works of art started from an
: initial simple seed that was elaborated on, the end results being
: very meaningful. But what if it was NOT hammered out? What if it
: just flirts with the potential, but never takes the effort to really
: delve into it? Is this excused because it MIGHT encourage others to
: ACTUALLY hammer out the ideas inspired by the seed? While the artist
: himself failed to do so?
I have no interest in answering your questions because they are based on
a premise I do not accept.
: > Again you confuse different motivations and different stages of the
: > process, Robert. If Stoppard says it's "nonsense" for him to discuss
: > intentions -- after all, Dickens, Balzac and Dostoevsky often wrote
: > specifically for money; that doesn't mean they wrote unmitigated crap --
: > then perhaps what he is saying is that HIS intentions are not as
: > important as whatever the finished product "intends" or achieves or
: > intimates or says to someone else DESPITE Stoppard's avowed intent.
: The only people who claim that their "intentions" are not as important as
: "what the finished product intends" are frauds.
Oh really? You don't think people ever create works that are greater
than they could have intended or imagined? Was it Rubinstein or
Toscanini who said "A masterpiece is something that is written better
than it can be played"? Neither, I'm afraid, but you get the point. I
am not saying Stoppard has written any masterpieces, necessarily, but I
am suggesting artists often find themselves producing a finished work
that accomplishes more than, and sometimes something very different
from, what they initially intended.
: People who failed to direct their audience in any coherent direction,
: but are happy to bask in the accidental "possibilities" that people
: may "think" the work is actually attempting to accomplish. It's a lie.
: Just as a drunken churl, who loses his temper and beats his kids will
: say "I beat you to teach you an important lesson about life...the
: unexpected can occur at any minute" these "artists" are liars, who
: present unfinished, unthought out garbage to their audience, and let
: the more thoughtful members, giving the work the benefit of the doubt,
: suggest what it MIGHT be about.
Unfortunately, you have failed to establish your initial premise in all
this, Robert -- that Stoppard "failed to direct his audience in any
coherent direction" [as opposed to just you, Mr. Whelan], and so your
analogies are wasted. You cannot compare the beaten kids to folks who
attend productions of Stoppard's works, because many of the latter do not
declare that they suffered through the administration of the "lesson."
And until you can prove that people are lying when they say they enjoy
Stoppard, you have no case.
: Dickens and Balzac and Dostoevsky may have written for money, but if
: asked what their works were about, I suspect they would not claim
: "whatever people want them to be about." What a pile of hooey.
But are you not saying that it doesn't matter what Dickens, Balzac,
Dostoevsky OR Stoppard have to say, since the work is obviously empty of
significant content anyway?
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Paul Ilechko (pile...@NOSPAM.transarc.com) wrote:
: >
: > : >Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
: > : >
: > : >: I do not accept "the text is seperate from the author" .
: >
: > : And this is the exact point on which everyone else has parted
: > : company with you.
: >
: > Despite Robert's theory, I refuse to equate the illogic and meanness of
: > his posts with the author.
: If you truly think my posts are illogical and mean, I don't see
: why you would have any reason to believe otherwise about me, the
: originator of those posts.
I could accept an alternative theory, such as that the posts are full of
clumsy wording, or poor thought. After all, I am arguing that casual
comments made on a television interview show ought not to be given the
same weight as lines in a polished work of artifice; thus, hastily typed
remarks on Usenet ought not to be considered as indicative of a person's
thought processes -- let alone her personality -- as those in a term
paper or personal letter.
So I do not have to pass judgment on you as a person at all.
Besides, it's the polite thing to do. Whatever I might believe, I do not
have to say.
: Shall I refuse to equate the fact that you claim to have read "The
: Magus" with the fact that you actually might have read it?
As I said, this could be an example of poor thought. Doesn't make you a
bad person, or even a bad thinker, for it is only a passing incident.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > I am sorry, Robert, but they are different. The one says, in effect, "I
: > have something important to say -- how to dramatize it?" at the start.
: > The other says, "hmm, this looks interesting [or puzzling, or amusing] --
: > I wonder what would come of it if I explored it a while?" The deep
: > ideas, if there are any, arise "organically" out of the process of
: > exploring something that had some other, more surface appeal to begin
: > with.
: But the reason something looks "interesting or puzzling" to
: anyone, and worth of exploration, is likely because of pre-existing
: "big ideas" that they end up realizing can be illustrated, or
: illuminated by the originally trivial situation.
Not necessarily. A person may be interested in something for one reason,
and in playing with that notion or image a while, find other reasons or
ideas come to play.
: So the distinction is artificial.
I'm afraid it is not, Robert. It is entirely possible for a person to
write a story about bunny rabbits or Victorian maidens because he or she
LIKES bunny rabbits or Victorian maidens, and only much later realize
that the plot situations these bunnies or maidens are getting into might
well illustrate principles of evolution or marxism or existentialism.
: As I said before, if Stoppard is saying "That's not how artists get to
: their big ideas" it's a simple thing. However, if he's suggesting that
: artists never actually arrive at the big ideas, but stay farting
: around with the "surface", he's generalizing in a way this is unfair
: to better artists than himself.
I don't recall that he said anything about artists in general. It
appears to be YOU who is trying to make a federal case out of a chance
remark. I notice that Stoppard speaks in ungrammatical sentences in the
passage as well; that must mean he doesn't have a very good sense of the
English language.
: Here's what Stoppard does in that quote. He starts talking about what
: his intentions are in the play (which are trivial) starts to talk about
: what the audience can imagine is in the play (which is deeper) gets
: embarrassed at how shallow the contrast makes him look,
There's your first mis-step. Show me where you see this.
: starts pretending that "the author" and "the writer" (generalizing
: to all writers) are only interested in "the surface",
Again, I do not see where he necessarily speaks on behalf of all other
writers.
: which helps bolster his original stated intention, and then creates a
: kind of straw man artist who has a big idea, and looks for a way of
: presenting it symbolically, calls it nonsense
And can you offer me examples of other writers or artists who contradict
him, and say they start with a big idea before going to work?
: (and simultaneously calling the audience who imagines depth in his
: plays stupid),
I don't see where he does this at all. He says the play's situation is
"interesting" and can be thought of as a metaphor for many different
things. I don't see him pass any judgment on that process.
: and returning himself, by
: contrast with stupid audience member who imagined, falsely, that
: Stoppard had any real interest in the big ideas.
Wrong. Simply and purely wrong, Robert. The only thing Stoppard calls
"nonsense" is the notion that he had some big idea or ideas to start
with, before he chose to write about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and
that he chose them for the purpose of purveying or illustrating that big
idea or collection of ideas. He was initially attracted by the
immediate, superficial situation; that the play as it came out is fodder
for big ideas is understandable, and it appears to me, quite acceptable
to him.
: Here it is again. Don't tell me you can't see it.
Sorry, I already did. And I referred to your re-posting of it to confirm
my notions about it.
: "I mean, to me Rosencrantz and GUildenstern is a play about two
: Elizabethan Courtiers in a castle, wondering what's going on. That's what
: it's about. That situation reverberates in different ways to people who
: see it, obviously, and can suggest various analogies for itself, and the
: author of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this and I know perfectly
: well that the situation, the predicament which Rosencrantz and
: Guildenstern find themselves in is an interesting one in the sense that it
: can be used or thought of as being a metaphor for other situations.
: That's a very different matter from deciding to write about a particular
: kind of predicament, a specific predicament of modern man and look around
: for some symbolic form in which to convey it, and decide to do it in
: terms of two characters in HAMLET. That's, of course, nonsense. The
: attraction of the play for the writer is on the surface level."
David Loftus
P.S. Somebody help me. Who was the writer who said, "If people wish to
find deep meanings in my work, they are welcome to, and they can take
their own aspirin for it"?
David J. Loftus
: Here it is again. Don't tell me you can't see it.
And Stoppard said he was not, certainly to begin with.
Case closed.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: Admittedly
: ALL communication is flawed, and errors in the conveyance of meaning
: occur all the time, but why emphasize the errors?
Who was? Certainly not Stoppard. And not I, either. I swear, Robert, it
sounds sometimes as if you are talking with absolutely no one but
yourself.
: Usually the human
: mind recognizes "errors" not as meaning, but as a confusing and unclear
: ATTEMPT at meaning, with only indefinite POSSIBLE guesses as to what
: was truly meant.
And what is wrong with that? Again, I don't see where either Stoppard or
myself decried such a process, so I don't know who you think you're
talking to.
: > Again, I ask you, if we appreciate the works of Handel or Fra Lippo
: > Lippi (or Merton or Buber) for a different reason than they intended,
: > does that make them frauds?
: No, it makes *us* frauds, IF we do NOT recognize their primary
: intention.
: A person who appreciates "Mein Kampf" as other than what Hitler intended
: it to be, and insists that Hitler's intention wasn't important is an
: imbecile, and a fraud. If, incidentally, you comment that you enjoyed
: Hitler's expression of love for poodles, and that this is in fact
: why Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf", and that your "different take" on the work
: is just as valid as the take of someone who paid attentio to Hitler's
: larger objectives is dishonest.
: (the example is fanciful.
As is much else in your latest posts, Robert. You seem to have given up
any interest in discussing Stoppard, art, Hitler, or anything of
substance. It's getting near time to stuff you in a hamper with
Paschal.
: I don't know if Hitler mentions poodles in "Mein Kampf).
No kidding.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
: > : and then quickly starts talking in the third person...
: > : "*the author* of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this.."
: > : (referring to the audience reading meaning into the play), and
: > : finally "The attraction for *the writer* is at the surface level."
: >
: > And your problem with this is...?
: I don't have a problem with this... but Stoppard seems to.
Where? I see no discomfort with the notion that people in the audience
might be turned on by other aspects of the work than the author is.
: > : He has switched away from talking about himself, and has
: > : distanced himself personally by referring to "the author"
: > : and "the writer", so that he won't damn his intentions as
: > : mindless and trivial, and in his effort to avoid scrutiny,
: > : implying that all writers are equally vapid.
: >
: > If one is going to impute superficial or unkind motivations to Stoppard,
: > I hardly think his strategy is going to let him off the hook.
: No. It doesn't.
Therefore, maybe he isn't trying to evade or pass a negative judgment on
anything here.
: > However, I suggest that it is no less plausible to suggest this was his
: > polite way of saying "I think that is a stupid, or not very fruitful,
: > line of inquiry."
: And I bet that Stoppard's conversations are full of this sort of
: B.S., which suggests that the "line of inquiry is stupid", implying
: that Stoppard is intelligent, but without any show of intelligence
: from Stoppard.
You can bet all you like. But you haven't seen Stoppard anywhere else --
talking to friends or scholars, for example -- and you haven't read
anything he's written in the last 30 years. I will let the "stupid"
audience draw its own conclusions.
David Loftus
JPachino
formative, brainstorming stage, why couldn't he just say so? And why
couldn't he say what ideas he was playing with, even if they were just
trivial, and formative? As I remember, instead of some simple honest
answer like this he went off into some abstract generalization about how
art is made and avoided the question. He wasn't being humble.>>
Of course, I haven't seen it yet, so I don't presume to judge.
But, have you ever been asked about something you were in
process with by on national television in a country you don't
live in?
Perhaps he's witty and articulate on paper. Not life.
So many artists often are.
<<It's playing tonight (Wednesday) on PBS, probably around 11:00, 11:30 -
12:00, 12:30. >>
I can't wait.
David J. Loftus
: On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
: >
: > : If his proximate reason for his initial interest in R&G was so mundane,
: > : WHY IS HE DISCUSSING IT AT ALL?
: >
: > Because somebody asked him?
: Yes, but it appears they were asking him "What is the play about." or
: "Does the play have a deep meaning.", NOT "What trivial seed did you
: build your play upon." But it is that question he switched to
: answering.
Perfectly within his rights. Are you trying to bring him up on charges?
: > : Why emphasize the "mundane" apect?
: >
: > In the hope that the interviewer would move onto some other subject?
: > Think about how it would feel to have someone ask you -- for example --
: > about a term paper you did in high school? Especially when nearly EVERY
: > person who interviews you asks about it.
: 1967 is the copyright on my copy of the play (just on loan). The quote
: is from 1979. Is 10 years really that long?
It is for me. And for most people. (When I think of the differences
between me at 19 and 29, or 29 and 39...!) But I thought we were
discussing a quote on a recent Charlie Rose television interview.
Anyway, is 1967 really when the play debuted, or when that particular
script was published? Even if it first hit the boards in 1967, he might
have written it several years before.
Which is all rather beside the point, since you seem to want to convict
him on the basis of side chatter rather than the finished product alone.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
: > : Stoppard did NOT say "I was playing about with this fun idea of two
: > : goofy courtiers in a castle, and then realized that the situation
: > : resonated deeply, for me, and I began to construct the play to emphasize
: > : this. It began as frivolity, but ended up being about the meaning
: > : of life." Again, he is NOT saying this, but emphasizing the trivial
: > : mundanity as being more important, despite it's incidental
: > : "reverberations."
: >
: > Did he say it was "more important"? I don't think he did.
: He implied that thinking he intended depth was "nonsense".
No. He SAID that to assume he BEGAN with the notion of highlighting some
BIG IDEA from the start was nonsense.
: > And, to pursue a little tangent, do you think instructors who encourage
: > students to find things out for themselves are, by definition, out of
: > their depth and/or lazy?
: They are lazy if they have knowledge that can make the learning process
: easier, and refuse to make the effort to guide students to the answers.
ObBook: _If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!_ by Sheldon Kopp.
: Just firing off a pile of possible theories, none of which the
: instructor has any idea are more or less valuable than each other,
Ah, but Stoppard did not say that, did he?
: and saying "Go to it, kids" is lazy.
It could just as well express respect for the kids and their
ratiocinative powers, or encouragement to develop them.
: A teacher may be WRONG but he or she
: ought to know enough to have some sort of idea which way he/she
: thinks a student ought to go, even if he lets them get there on
: their own.
And there is no evidence in Stoppard's quote that he doesn't entertain
such opinions. He might simply think it a shame to share them. (Notice
how I suppose, Robert, rather than dictate Stoppard's motivations, as
your posts so easily do. Try it.)
: > : > People write about situations that interest them, in their diaries, all
: > : > the time, without shining limelights on ideas, either for their own sake
: > : > or for others'.
: >
: > : Once you write about a situation, you are "shining the limelight on it".
: > : You have to form ideas about the situation in order to write.
: >
: > No you don't. Not at all. You can follow the activities of your
: > creations for a good while without knowing where they're going or what
: > "deep thoughts" they might illustrate. "Shining a light on ideas"
: > may be the goal and strategy for inductive essay writing, but it doesn't
: > necessarily govern the creation of art.
: Not necessarily? Are you willing to admit that it might, though?
It might. Kahlil Gibran's _The Prophet_ might be a popular example.
Some might call it bad art, however.
: I say it probably does.
But let's look a second time at your notion that "You have to form ideas
about the situation in order to write." Doesn't it make more sense to
you that your horse should go BEFORE the cart: that you have to write in
order to generate the ideas? I believe it was E.M. Forster who said he
wrote in order to learn what he believed.
: > And what, pray tell, are the ideas? I can accept, if other people find
: > the content diverting and instructive, that it might contain ideas, but
: > that is a far cry from saying the author intended precisely those ideas
: > which the audience grooves on, or that the ideas either drove the
: > creation of the material or justify its existence afterwards.
: If the audience grooves on the idea of "buying a sweater", and the
: author intended to express the idea of "buying a sweater.", there
: has been an exchange of ideas. If the audience decides to groove on the
: word "myself" alone, and claim that they got a deep sense of personal
: fulfilmet from the use of the word, I can't deny theym their reaction, but
: I consider their opinion inferior from the opinion of someone who reacts
: to the meaning of the entire sentence. "I liked this sentence because
: I, too, like buying sweaters" is an intelligent opinion, and germane
: to the content of the sentence. A rant about the importance of the
: use of the word "myself" is not.
And do you care to claim that R&GAD is as simple a linguistic
construction as your proffered example?
: > : If A.A. Milne did not find the situation "important" he would not have
: > : bothered writing it down.
: >
: > If what was important was entertaining his son, then that is an entirely
: > different thing from saying "the ideas contained in the Winnie-the-Pooh
: > stories are what led to their creation in the first place." You have
: > conflated the two, and Moggin called you on it. Too bad you're still
: > resisting the distinction.
: I have NOT conflated the two. If Moggin said I did, he was wrong. Somehow
: you (and Moggin?) have brought into the argument "external motivations"
: to create, where I thought we were only talking about the ideas produced,
: highlighted, expanded upon WHILE creating.
That's not what you've said. You have said Stoppard was lying because
ideas ALWAYS (in your estimation) precede and influence the choice of
subject. We disagree.
: And, by the way, the simple demand "tell me a story about my teddy bear"
: contains ideas. The ideas being that the bear is alive and has
: adventures.
And that idea is no more complex or meaningful than "Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are alive and kicking around the palace," which you appeared
to deem insufficient as a motivation for writing about them.
: That general *idea* exists before any details are fleshed out,
: It may be a trivial idea, and may be supplanted in the process of
: creating the stories, which may illustrate ideas about how (as in
: one of the stories) spelling properly is important.
And THAT -- i.e., ideas and metaphorical meanings may develop as the
artist is pursuing her quotidian interest (medieval courtiers, bears or
what have you) -- is what Stoppard allowed does happen, and what you
mistakenly thought he denied.
: And, hey, the "idea" "I sure would like to write a bestseller, I
: wonder what would sell." is still an idea, no matter what the
: external pressure that produced it.
But that is an idea you plucked out of thin air in order to attribute to
Stoppard. Is not contained in the text.
: > : If I did not find the idea of eating a pastrami on rye "important" I
: > : would not bother asking the deli guy to make one for me.
: >
: > And just how does this illustrate your point about Stoppard and his
: > play?
: (sigh) my point is that people do things for reasons. Just because they
: may deny it, or refuse to reveal it, or pretend that they are doing
: it for other reasons is no reason for us to go along with the charade.
: "You murdered that man for no reason? Oh, sure. Happens all the time.
: You must be an artist."
Your illustrations do not help in one's understanding of Stoppard, his
motivations, and his work, however. You have turned into some sort of
streetcorner Derrida, insisting on telling Stoppard, "oh no, you may
THINK this is what you meant, but _I_ know what's really going on in your
head." A quixotic mission, to be sure.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > I do not separate high ideas from low ones. They're all the same, and I
: > even doubt they differ in complexity. It is mainly in their presentation
: > that we see differences. And I invite you to explain just how my
: > comments illustrate an elitist prejudice that separates high ideas from
: > low ideas, when you haven't even defended or explained your own
: > positions.
: >
: > But this is typical. Your posts never manage to stay on the substance of
: > the debate; they always turn to discussions of personality, whether
: > Stoppard's or mine. This gets you nowhere.
: Odd that you should be offended that my remarks discuss "personality" as
: if "ideas" can ever be extricated from the minds, and personalities, of
: those that produce them. Ideas don't exist without personalities.
Here again you make your usual mistake of thinking works of art, or
ideas, are somehow absolutely equatable with the person who raises them.
It's a simple concept to suggest the page and the word and the idea is
not the man or woman, and yet you heartily resist it.
: Artists that don't want themselves revealed, should never reveal their
: art to others.
And I suppose you are going to argue that James Joyce was a cuckold,
Dostoevsky a pederast, and Agatha Christie a murderer, because they wrote
about them?
David Loftus
Gwen A Orel
criticism/analysis are separate?
We don't require painters or sculptors to explain their work, why require
it of writers? Pinter is on record as saying that The Caretaker
was inspired by an image of a person in a room, and then another. In other words, he had
no idea why he was writing it or where it would go.
And that does not make the play nonsense, anymore than dreams are
nonsense, it merely means it came from soem subconscious aspects of his
psyche. Anyone know the French phrase, "L'amour a ses raisons,
dont raison n'avais plus" (well something like that.) Anyway it means, love has
its reasons, which reason knows not of.
Writers don't begin with THEMES. anyone who thinks they do, simply hasn't
known many writers.
Whether or not you like Stoppard or his public poses should be irrelevant
to what meaning or worth you find in his art.
And I definitely find this a completely separate matter than "Mein Kampf" which
is NOT fiction and not intended to be art, but simple communication.
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
If one tells the truth one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.
--Oscar Wilde
David J. Loftus
: "I mean, to me Rosencrantz and GUildenstern is a play about two
: Elizabethan Courtiers in a castle, wondering what's going on. That's what
: it's about. That situation reverberates in different ways to people who
: see it, obviously, and can suggest various analogies for itself, and the
: author of the play is not, obviously, unaware of this and I know perfectly
: well that the situation, the predicament which Rosencrantz and
: Guildenstern find themselves in is an interesting one in the sense that it
: can be used or thought of as being a metaphor for other situations.
: That's a very different matter from deciding to write about a particular
: kind of predicament, a specific predicament of modern man and look around
: for some symbolic form in which to convey it, and decide to do it in
: terms of two characters in HAMLET. That's, of course, nonsense. The
: attraction of the play for the writer is on the surface level."
: First of all, notice that the first part of the paragraph talks about
: what the play means to Stoppard.
Not exactly, Robert. He describes what it's ABOUT, not what it MEANS to
him. If I say Winnie the Pooh is "about" some stuffed animals, that says
almost nothing about what it means to me.
: He then contrasts it with the way people may see it.
No, he does't, actually. He merely says this is another aspect of the
experience of the play: what people may make of it (the deep ideas) as
opposed to what it's about.
: Then he goes "That's a very different matter..." Does "that",
: refer to what the play is about, or the fact that the audience sees
: it as a metaphor?
Neither, Robert. "That" refers to the direct antecedent: the fact that
Stoppard can readily see and admit that people might find deeper meanings
in the plot.
: What "matter" is he saying is different from "looking around for some
: sort of symbolic form" which he claims is nonsense?
Robert, you get EVERY SINGLE PIECE of this business wrong. He NEVER says
looking around for some sort of symbolic form" is nonsense (which action,
if you were reading carefully, you would know Stoppard is attributing to
himself, not the readers, possibly through the eyes of readers; in other
words, readers think the author had the big idea for which he fished
around for some characters and a plot).
The "matter" he says is different from the "looking around" that you have
erroneously described, is being able to see larger or deeper issues in a
plot that began with an interest in "Elizabethan" (which in itself is an
anachronism, since "Hamlet" itself is supposed to take place in medieval
Denmark) courtiers, versus assuming the larger or deeper issues preceded
the interest in the courtiers in the first place. (Sartre in
_Existentialism and Human Emotions_: Existence precedes essence.)
: He never described his own creative process,
And as several people have pointed out, he didn't have to. He may not
have been able to. He may have thought it was a stupid question -- since
other artists have done so. You are familiar with Harlan Ellison's
standard answer to the question "Where do you get your ideas?" ... he
says he has a service in Schenectady that he sends off to for them.
: even though by saying "That's a different matter" he is implying he
: did. "That's a different matter" is thus a wierd non-sequitur. It
: doesn't follow from anything he said previously.
It follows just fine. YOU don't follow it.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
[snip]
: And again, notice that he slips into "the author" and "the writer"
: instead of sayin "I" and "me".
[snip]
: But doesn't this sloppy and clumsy relating of ideas remind one of
: R&G, the play? ^^^
No commment.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: Notice that he doesn't say WHAT ideas cropped up for him. He just
: says that "looking around for a symbolic form" and then finding
: it, is "nonsense"
No he doesn't. He says to assume that's how writers operate is
nonsense. Some writers may; he probably doesn't know of any.
: without saying exactly what his creative process was,
Why should he? He may not know.
: or admitting that, at any point in the process, no matter how it was
: done, deeper ideas were deliberately made part of his work.
They may well have. I don't see that he ever denies it.
: He never says he has any purposes at all. He says "the writer" (which
: I guess is a general set in which he lets himself be included) is
: interested in "the surface level". Which is meaningless.
It is not meaningless. It says this is what interests him, initially.
: WHY interested in the surface level? What about the surface level is
: interesting?
Who cares? What would knowing gain you?
: If he's attracted for no profound reason, then by elimination, he is
: attracted for trivial reasons.
I'm not sure that's true, either. Stoppard says this is the reason that
attracts him, OF WHICH HE IS AWARE (and maybe all he cares to know), but
that does not mean there cannot BE other, more profound reasons. He's
just not interested in trying to figure out what those might be, and
suggests it isn't worth anyone else's while to inquire. If that is the
case, I think I agree.
: What, he wanted his audience to have profound thoughts,
Yet another thing he did not say in this passage.
: but without having any him self? He had no idea which profound thoughts
: were likely, and had no interest in emphasizing or increasing the
: power of any of these impressions?
And this is yet another thing he did not say. Are you in the process of
creating your own work of artifice? Is that what you're doing, Robert?
: I may end up, ironically, claiming for myself the distinction of
: being one of the rare people who "understands" Stoppard as a
: humorous nonsense maker, like Lewis Carroll, or the dadaists.
You MAY do anything you like. You gain credibility, however, only when
you can convince others of the plausibility of your theses.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
: >
: > : But you are assuming, in the case of "Rosencrants and
: > : Guildenstern are Dead" that the trivial motivating notion WAS in
: > : fact "hammered out".
: >
: > I didn't "assume"; I judged the final product.
: Oh. And what ideas did Stoppard "hammer out", as far as you could
: tell?
First, let me note that you continue to ignore the distinction that
Stoppard made in the 1979 interview, the one that Moggin and I have been
trying to get you to see -- between starting with an abstract idea and
looking for a plot and characters to illustrate it, versus starting
with an image or characters or concrete situation that appeal to one for
an undefined and probably not-worth-exploring reason and playing with
it/them for a while until larger, abstract issues begin to present
themselves as possible angles for moving the plot forward or giving it
multiple levels of interest.
Second, let me thank you for actually asking me a genuine question
instead of your usual flurry of rhetorical ones.
It has been perhaps two decades since I read "Rosencrantz &
Guildenstern..." and something like a half-decade since I saw the film,
whenever it first came out. My overriding impression of the plot,
however, is of two minor characters in life's larger drama, at the
periphery of the significant action, who mistakenly think they are in
control of events, or at least contributors to the progress of them, when
they clearly are not. They misread the larger picture, they overestimate
their own value and importance, and they fail to foresee the doom that
awaits them.
And in this, I think R&GAD presents us with a tidy picture of ourselves,
of most human beings in the twentieth century (and probably any era,
although we are more used to SAYING we understand and believe all this
than folks of other eras who appeared to believe firmly that their fates
were cozily in the hands of God).
The play wittily entertains us while showing us a mordant portrait of
ourselves, to which, because we are entertained, we can choose to feel
superior.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
: > : I agree with you that thousands of fine works of art started from an
: > : initial simple seed that was elaborated on, the end results being
: > : very meaningful. But what if it was NOT hammered out? What if it
: > : just flirts with the potential, but never takes the effort to really
: > : delve into it? Is this excused because it MIGHT encourage others to
: > : ACTUALLY hammer out the ideas inspired by the seed? While the artist
: > : himself failed to do so?
: >
: > I have no interest in answering your questions because they are based on
: > a premise I do not accept.
: Which premise? That Stoppard didn't hammer out ideas in R&G?
No. The premise that his job WAS to hammer out ideas. He may well have
done so, but that was not what inspired him in the first place. You keep
trying to insist, despite Stoppard's insistence on his own behalf (and the
testimony of many other artists), that he had a mission or an agenda up
front.
: But he said, himself, that he's only interested in "the surface
: level",
Yet another thing he never said.
: and that, though it can be seen as being more, it's more *only* in
: the minds of his audience, in the form of "reverberations."
No. He wouldn't be aware of the potential for those reverberations if he
couldn't see them himself.
: He denies that those reverberations match anything that he is
: interested in.
No he doesn't. He merely asserts that those are not what interested him
in the project in the first place.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Oh really? You don't think people ever create works that are
: > greater than they could have intended or imagined?
: > I am suggesting artists often find themselves producing a finished
: > work that accomplishes more than, and sometimes something very
: > different from, what they initially intended.
: No, I don't think people ever create works that are greater than
: they could have "intended or imagined".
Pay attention to what artists and writers have to say about their work,
Robert. I've often seen such comments from creative types. They are
often surprised by the results, they are surprised and pleased (and even
annoyed) by the effusive reactions of readers and viewers, and they
readily acknowledge they could never have imagined the work turning out
as it did. (By the same token, artists and writers often complain that
the finished product hasn't turned out anything as good or right as they
imagined it would be; both possibilities occur.)
I am not a terribly creative person, but even I have had the experience
of starting to write something not knowing where it would lead, knowing
only that I had a sense that exploring the subject with words would be
pleasurable and/or fruitful, and being pleasantly surprised by the result.
I'm rather amazed that you could assume artists know what they are
doing, Robert.
: Is Stoppard to be given credit because someone who views R&GAD
: might actually go out and write a real work of art, due to some
: little interesting element of Stoppard's play?
: What "masterpiece" was produced in *your* mind by this play?
I don't know where you generated these questions, Robert. They certainly
have nothing to do with responding to my argument above. I said, in
effect, that Coleridge did a great thing by turning an opium dream into a
poem entitled "Kubla Kahn"; you "rebut" by pretending I said Coleridge
should be regarded as great because his poem partly inspired Mankiewicz and
Welles to create "Citizen Kane."
That is neither logical nor fair.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, David J. Loftus wrote:
: > Unfortunately, you have failed to establish your initial premise in all
: > this, Robert -- that Stoppard "failed to direct his audience in any
: > coherent direction" [as opposed to just you, Mr. Whelan], and so your
: > analogies are wasted. You cannot compare the beaten kids to folks who
: > attend productions of Stoppard's works, because many of the latter do not
: > declare that they suffered through the administration of the "lesson."
: > And until you can prove that people are lying when they say they enjoy
: > Stoppard, you have no case.
: People can enjoy watching clouds. I would not dare to prove they were
: lying. They can claim to see visions in those clouds. Again, I
: applaud their creativity. But when a "Cloud director"
: stands up and waves a stick at the clouds, and gets credit for
: doing so, I call him a fraud.
Please explain how your "conductor and the clouds" image relates, in any
way, let alone directly, to the example of Stoppard, his play, and/or the
public who say they liked it.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the faculty of creation and of
: criticism/analysis are separate?
It is not difficult at all for "people" to accept this, not here on
rec.arts.books.
Robert Whelan is the only person on this thread who appears to be having
difficulty with this concept.
David Loftus
Robert Teeter
: They [literature teachers]
: are lazy if they have knowledge that can make the learning process
: easier, and refuse to make the effort to guide students to the answers.
: Just firing off a pile of possible theories, none of which the
: instructor has any idea are more or less valuable than eachother, and
: saying "Go to it, kids" is lazy. A teacher may be WRONG but he or she
: ought to know enough to have some sort of idea which way he/she
: thinks a student ought to go, even if he lets them get there on
: their own.
You just don't get it, do you? Good teachers of great literature
don't give their students all the (supposed) answers, because that's not
how great literature generally works.
Let's take an example, OK? Shakespeare wrote a play about a
melancholy Dane named Hamlet. Since we don't have any transcripts
of Shakespeare's interviews with Charlie Rose, we don't know exactly what
he had in mind when he started to write it. But we do know that he got
a lot of the material from a history book by an author named Saxo
Grammaticus. We also know that similar revenge plays, such as Kyd's
_Spanish Tragedy_, were popular just before _Hamlet_ was written.
My conclusion, based on this evidence, is that Shakespeare thought
Saxo's story would make a good revenge play that would do boffo box
office. (He was a shareholder in the theatre company, after all.) I
sincerely doubt that Shakespeare thought, "Here's my chance to express
some Big Ideas about the HUMAN CONDITION." If he had, it probably would
have turned into some kind of philosophic/didactic literature, which is
usually bad (see, for example, Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_). (Didactic
literature is not always bad -- I happen to like Lucretius -- but it's
much less likely that it will be good. Great literature is rarely
didactic literature.)
What Shakespeare did was imagine the situation as fully as
he could -- what each of the characters would do and say and think.
When a great writer imagines something that fully, profound ideas
naturally come forth ("organically," as David Loftus said).
Now jump forward 350-400 years. We've had the benefit of
the words of a melancholy Austrian Jew named Freud and a melancholy
Frenchman named Sartre. Many readers see their ideas in _Hamlet_.
It's impossible that Shakespeare could have intended that, but these
20th century readers are not wrong, because there is much in the text
to support their view.
That effect, in itself, is a good indication of great literature.
If a writer can express so much that will be meaningful to readers
far different from himself, that writer has written something great.
So even if Stoppard thought he was just fooling around with
those two characters with the funny names, it doesn't matter, as long
as the readers and spectators can find something resonant/profound/
moving in what he's written -- not something they make up, mind you,
but something that's there in the text.
That's why a good teacher will not say, "_Hamlet_ means
X." A good teacher will ask questions. "Why did Hamlet do that?"
"What do you think this soliloquy means?" Great literature is not a
puzzle with one right answer. Great literature prompts many questions
and many answers.
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/
"Like all those possessing a library, Aurelian was aware that he
was guilty of not knowing his in its entirety."
-- Borges, "The Theologians"
Opus (:>
> Handel or Fra Lippo
> : > Lippi (or Merton or Buber) for a different reason
> than they intended,
> : > does that make them frauds?
>
> : No, it makes *us* frauds, IF we do NOT recognize
> their primary
> : intention.
>
obviously do not understand, and spend more time reacquainting yourself
with your dictionary. According to the American Heritage Dictionary,
the word fraud means:
1. A deliberate deception for unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A swindle; trick.
3. One who practices deception; impostor.
I find it incredulous that you chose to use such a term that obviously
does not apply. How does not being able to discern the artist's primary
intent make us deliberately deceptive, swindlers or practitioners of
deception?????
What I find even more unreasonable from you, is that you choose to think
that not being able to recognize the artist's original intent in someway
nullifies our entire experience with the art to begin with. WHO taught
you how to reason, think or appreciate anything? You expect me to
believe, pure and simply, that you, not being able to actually converse
with Handel due to his obvious state, still know what his original
intentions were when he wrote the Messiah for instance? You're trying
to get us to buy the argument that if we don't know (and in this case we
will never get to question the composer) what the original intent of a
work is, that we will never be able to appreciate it? That suddenly we
become fraudulent? Who are you to judge whether appreciation can be
achieved whether we know the original thesis behind it or not? Who made
you judge and jury? I certainly would like to think that even if we do
not know why Handel originally wrote the piece, what his intentions were
behind it, or how he felt about it, that I would still be intelligent
enough of a human being to be able to listen to the work, suddenly be
enraptured of it, carried away to a place that I identified with in my
mind, and thus appreciated it in a magnamonous way.
I'll tell you something right now, and I will continue to use Handel
since he was brought into this; most of the composers, such as Handel,
were working the "gigs" of the time, trying to make a buck and gain
notoriety in their careers. You wanna know his primary intention with
most of his works? TO GAIN A PAYCHECK. Yep. Most of the works were
commissioned by the King, or whoever hired him, set him up in their
castle and expected him to play in the salon night after night. In most
cases, they had to crank out about 3-4 new sonatas, cantatas and little
ditties each week. Just like the staff writers of today. Not much of
it was actually what we think of as epic. There was not a whole lot of
spiritual intent connected with it because they were exhausted between
playing night after night at the castle for the royalty's personal
friends, teaching students during the day, continuing to write in their
spare time, directing the local choirs and playing the organ on Sundays,
and continuing with their own studies, as was the case with Beethoven
and Handel. Beethoven was a student of Handel for a time until he
decided that he wanted no further lessons and rebelled. But I digress.
The Messiah was originally written because the King was so tired of all
the previous works being performed, some dignitaries were coming into
town, and he wanted something really special for them. Handel used that
opportunity to actually "try" out some new musical ideas. Not very
glamorous or mysterious now, is it?
Do you see the pattern here? If we, in listening to these works, were
expected to delve into the primary intent of the work and glean it, then
we would be sorely disappointed at the outcome. Art in every form is
subjective. One person's trash is another man's treasure. What you are
proposing is that if we don't all view art in the same manner or glean
the same things from it, that we have no business even trying, and that
is just WRONG. It is limiting and it is unfair to those who may not
have the insight needed to appreciate it on the same level as everyone
else. And that is another point; art has many layers, it is complex, as
is the artist. I don't think an artist even begins to sit down at his
pallette, blank page or piano to create without knowing that a LOT of
his complex layers are going to come out in the work, and that whoever
has the chance to appreciate the work, will also be effected on many
layers; not just in keeping with his primary intent.
Did you know that Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique was written for a woman
he loved who was killed in a car crash? I had no idea of this until
after I had listened, appreciated and literally fallen in love with that
piece. Did that interrupt or mar my complete spiritual experience the
first time I heard it? God forbid. Sometimes a rose is just a rose.
But not always. Nothing could have altered that first pure untainted
time in hearing those luscious chords and the way they evoked emotions
in my own life. As a parallel, one reason that Meisner always said that
emotional memory was not a reliable tool for the actor, is because what
made you evoke one memory will not always evoke the same memory later;
the heart causes things to change, to shift, to view and feel things
differently. THAT is what art is all about. Music, as the written
word, is a very powerful, anointed presence that lives in the emotions.
What you are proposing is that we teach everyone to feel the same things
about it, and that just cannot be done, nor should it. I suspect
perhaps that this is an issue with you, simply because you have chosen
to approach art from a purely intellectual standpoint, and have simply
deprived yourself the sheer joy of "bopping along to a song" or crying
your eyes out over the Brahm's Requiem. Whatever the reason, do not
allow yourself to become jaded and interfere with your artistic
appreciation.
--
Opus (:>
http://www.telalink.net/~fizzy/carla.html
http://www.telalink.net/~fizzy/rubberroom.html
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity."
Opus (:>
> all senses of the
> term for a youthful career that already includes a
> fair production of
> "Pride and Prejudice"
>
Sorry David, correction: She was the title role in Jane Austen's
"Emma", not P&P.
Francis Muir
>
> David:
> >
> > and throw out Gwyneth Paltrow (successful in
> > all senses of the term for a youthful career that
> > already includes a fair production of "Pride and
> > Prejudice"
> >
> Sorry David, correction: She was the title role in Jane
> Austen's "Emma", not P&P.
And what an excruciatingly boring film it was. The *Emma* to get is the
A&E version with Kate Beckinsale in the title role. I own all the
Austenitic TV and film vids available except for the Paltry one, whose
only interesting production bit is the archery scene. Isn't GP's daddy a
Hollywood mogul?
Francis
JPachino
<<Did you know that Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique was
written for a woman he loved who was killed in a car crash? >>
Beethoven: 1770-1827.
...CAR crash?
Opus (:>
was killed in a horse and buggy accident. Actually, and not many people
know this, she died on Space Mountain...
Opus (:>
Robert Whelan
> > : > Again, I ask you, if we appreciate the works of
> > Handel or Fra Lippo
> > : > Lippi (or Merton or Buber) for a different reason
> > than they intended,
> > : > does that make them frauds?
> >
> > : No, it makes *us* frauds, IF we do NOT recognize
> > their primary
> > : intention.
> >
> Perhaps, Robert, you should not spend so much time arguing something you
> obviously do not understand, and spend more time reacquainting yourself
> with your dictionary. According to the American Heritage Dictionary,
> the word fraud means:
>
> 1. A deliberate deception for unfair or unlawful gain.
> 2. A swindle; trick.
> 3. One who practices deception; impostor.
That's right.
> I find it incredulous that you chose to use such a term that obviously
> does not apply. How does not being able to discern the artist's primary
> intent make us deliberately deceptive, swindlers or practitioners of
> deception?????
"not being able" is not deception. "Not being able" and pretending to,
is.
> What I find even more unreasonable from you, is that you choose to think
> that not being able to recognize the artist's original intent in someway
> nullifies our entire experience with the art to begin with.
Not knowing what Lewis Carroll's "Snark" is does not prevent us from
appreciting the story as a story, even though certain information is
missing.
WHO taught
> you how to reason, think or appreciate anything? You expect me to
> believe, pure and simply, that you, not being able to actually converse
> with Handel due to his obvious state, still know what his original
> intentions were when he wrote the Messiah for instance?
Yes. The music itself tells us what his intentions were. The music IS
his intention.
You're trying
> to get us to buy the argument that if we don't know (and in this case we
> will never get to question the composer) what the original intent of a
> work is, that we will never be able to appreciate it?
If I work in a deli, does it matter if my customer's "original intent"
was a bagel with cream cheese, if, what he tells me is he wants
a pastrami on rye? What he conveyed to me was his final intent, whatever
his "original" intent was.
And no, comparing music to deli orders is not as ludicrous as you might
think.
That suddenly we
> become fraudulent? Who are you to judge whether appreciation can be
> achieved whether we know the original thesis behind it or not? Who made
> you judge and jury?
The inborn language capacities of the human animal make me judge and jury.
And yes, music is a language, and all art is language related. If man
could not speak (in terms of his mind) he could not create.
I certainly would like to think that even if we do
> not know why Handel originally wrote the piece, what his intentions were
> behind it, or how he felt about it, that I would still be intelligent
> enough of a human being to be able to listen to the work, suddenly be
> enraptured of it, carried away to a place that I identified with in my
> mind, and thus appreciated it in a magnamonous way.
And you would claim that it was possible that Handel wrote the piece
to make you sad? Or enraptured? Which is your guess as to his intention?
> I'll tell you something right now, and I will continue to use Handel
> since he was brought into this; most of the composers, such as Handel,
> were working the "gigs" of the time, trying to make a buck and gain
> notoriety in their careers. You wanna know his primary intention with
> most of his works? TO GAIN A PAYCHECK. Yep. Most of the works were
> commissioned by the King, or whoever hired him, set him up in their
> castle and expected him to play in the salon night after night. In most
> cases, they had to crank out about 3-4 new sonatas, cantatas and little
> ditties each week. Just like the staff writers of today. Not much of
> it was actually what we think of as epic. There was not a whole lot of
> spiritual intent connected with it because they were exhausted between
> playing night after night at the castle for the royalty's personal
> friends, teaching students during the day, continuing to write in their
> spare time, directing the local choirs and playing the organ on Sundays,
> and continuing with their own studies, as was the case with Beethoven
> and Handel. Beethoven was a student of Handel for a time until he
> decided that he wanted no further lessons and rebelled. But I digress.
> The Messiah was originally written because the King was so tired of all
> the previous works being performed, some dignitaries were coming into
> town, and he wanted something really special for them. Handel used that
> opportunity to actually "try" out some new musical ideas. Not very
> glamorous or mysterious now, is it?
I don't see your point.
> Do you see the pattern here? If we, in listening to these works, were
> expected to delve into the primary intent of the work and glean it, then
> we would be sorely disappointed at the outcome.
But "the primary intent" in the WORK is the effect it has on the audience.
That you are affected is, in fact, an appreciation of the primary intent.
I never think of the "Intention" as being the paycheck that causes the
artist to start creating, but what he intends for the creation as he
creates it.
Art in every form is
> subjective. One person's trash is another man's treasure.
But the object that is "trash" or "treasure" remains the same object.
Handels' "Messiah" may be trash to one who is an atheist, and loathes
it's pious emotion pulling. And another who is religious appreciates
it for the same. Both recognize its intent. Even if neither knows
the words, or the history, the emotional language of the piece is
a set one that both can react to. Reject or Embrace, neither will
say "what depressing, sad, music."
What you are
> proposing is that if we don't all view art in the same manner or glean
> the same things from it, that we have no business even trying, and that
> is just WRONG. It is limiting and it is unfair to those who may not
> have the insight needed to appreciate it on the same level as everyone
> else. And that is another point; art has many layers, it is complex, as
> is the artist. I don't think an artist even begins to sit down at his
> pallette, blank page or piano to create without knowing that a LOT of
> his complex layers are going to come out in the work, and that whoever
> has the chance to appreciate the work, will also be effected on many
> layers; not just in keeping with his primary intent.
What I am suggesting about fraudulent artists is that they understand the
complexity of great art, the multi-layered quality, and, despite NOT
having developed such layers in their work, created an ersatz busy
surface, that suggests layers of complexity that are, in fact, not
present IN THE WORK ITSELF, complexity that actually WOULD appear
in truly complex and multi-layered works of art, the art that they
in fact are imitating.
> Did you know that Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique was written for a woman
> he loved who was killed in a car crash? I had no idea of this until
> after I had listened, appreciated and literally fallen in love with that
> piece. Did that interrupt or mar my complete spiritual experience the
> first time I heard it? God forbid. Sometimes a rose is just a rose.
> But not always. Nothing could have altered that first pure untainted
> time in hearing those luscious chords and the way they evoked emotions
> in my own life.
But did the piece make you want to dance a jig of joy? Could it be
because Beethoven didn't intend it to?
As a parallel, one reason that Meisner always said that
> emotional memory was not a reliable tool for the actor, is because what
> made you evoke one memory will not always evoke the same memory later;
> the heart causes things to change, to shift, to view and feel things
> differently. THAT is what art is all about. Music, as the written
> word, is a very powerful, anointed presence that lives in the emotions.
AND music is communicated by the emotions, and by emotional language.
You could say Music IS emotional language.
> What you are proposing is that we teach everyone to feel the same things
> about it, and that just cannot be done, nor should it. I suspect
> perhaps that this is an issue with you, simply because you have chosen
> to approach art from a purely intellectual standpoint, and have simply
> deprived yourself the sheer joy of "bopping along to a song" or crying
> your eyes out over the Brahm's Requiem. Whatever the reason, do not
> allow yourself to become jaded and interfere with your artistic
> appreciation.
No, that's not true. I know, however, that no matter how "emotionally"
I appreciate a work, that it does not divorce the work from "reason",
particularly that there is a cause and effect process at work when
a sad piece makes me cry, and I can reasonably deduce the intent
of the author from that fact.
Robert W.
Opus (:>
> the artist's primary
> > intent make us deliberately deceptive, swindlers or
> practitioners of
> > deception?????
>
> "not being able" is not deception. "Not being able"
> and pretending to,
> is.
>
and why would they do that? I am sure there are some who feel elitist
in this respect and do what you are suggesting, but when you said "we"
do this, that was a whole, encompassing statement that grouped us all in
one category, and that is just erroneous. I don't think even you are
dumb enough to judge the intent of the entire human race where their
appreciation of art is concerned.
> > What I find even more unreasonable from you, is
> that you choose to think
> > that not being able to recognize the artist's
> original intent in someway
> > nullifies our entire experience with the art to
> begin with.
>
> Not knowing what Lewis Carroll's "Snark" is does not
> prevent us from
> appreciting the story as a story, even though certain
> information is
> missing.
>
I fail to see how this answers my question. His snark certainly had
nothing to do with his original, primary intent of the work and its
creation, so you've completely proven my point. You are talking about
the appreciation as a whole concerning art, by giving me a cut and paste
example from the story?????? Stick to the topic at hand please and the
subject posed.
> You expect me to
> > believe, pure and simply, that you, not being able
> to actually converse
> > with Handel due to his obvious state, still know
> what his original
> > intentions were when he wrote the Messiah for
> instance?
>
> Yes. The music itself tells us what his intentions
> were. The music IS
> his intention.
>
No, wrong again. The music was an expression of his primary intent, not
the intention itself. To become this literal as you have here, to state
his intent behind the art, would be for him to write out a thesis of
what the music meant, what it made him feel, and how he came to the
choices he made in creating the work. He didn't do that. The music
itself was the expression of that intent, and nothing more. You once
again, are getting off topic by throwing in tangents, and Mr. Whelan, it
makes it hard to intelligently discuss much with you.
> You're trying
> > to get us to buy the argument that if we don't know
> (and in this case we
> > will never get to question the composer) what the
> original intent of a
> > work is, that we will never be able to appreciate
> it?
>
> If I work in a deli, does it matter if my customer's
> "original intent"
> was a bagel with cream cheese, if, what he tells me
> is he wants
> a pastrami on rye? What he conveyed to me was his
> final intent, whatever
> his "original" intent was.
>
> And no, comparing music to deli orders is not as
> ludicrous as you might
> think.
>
>
Ah, you're off the point again, and erroneous in your own explanation.
If we use the deli example, and okay, I'm dumb enough to, let's draw an
intelligent parallel. The customer's only intent was to get a bagel and
stop the hunger pangs. The customer in this case, would be the audience
viewing the work. The deli owner making the bagel would represent the
composer in this case, the one creating the work. He was creating the
bagel. You're trying to tell us, and unsuccessfully so, that we as
customers cannot enjoy the satisfaction of the taste or gain any sort of
pleasure from that one solitary bagel unless we know what the original,
primary intent of the baker was behind its creation. Who cares? Who
really cares what his vision behind it was? Don't you see that by
trying to get inside that person's head, and realize the original
intent, we are putting that in the way of the beauty of the work
itself. The only important thing here is that we appreciate any part of
it at all. For a work to go unappreciated is a crime. And believe it
or not Mr. Whelan, whether you choose to believe this or not, I am SMART
enough, LEARNED enough, and intelligent enough to appreciate any piece
of work set before me, whether I know the artist's orginal intent behind
it or not. You sir, are just taking up too much time with this line of
thinking, and should really be in the philosophy newsgroup. If one
doesn't exist, that would be a perfect thing for you to do. I am a fan
of Kieerkegard, so I am not down on philosophy. My point is, that a man
can say nothing with too many words, and you remind me of that sort of
man. I think perhaps you have enjoyed baiting a lot of us. But take it
where someone likes that. We are here to discuss theatre, books,
literature. I just don't see what you hope to accomplish with this line
of thinking.
> The inborn language capacities of the human animal
> make me judge and jury.
>
I'm sorry, but in case you hadn't heard, my Bible, AND the law of Karma
or the universe (for those who are not Bible-fans) says that whatever
you judge with will come back to judge you. Do you really think that's
wise?
> If man
> could not speak (in terms of his mind) he could not
> create.
>
And this relates to my question how?
> And you would claim that it was possible that Handel
> wrote the piece
> to make you sad? Or enraptured? Which is your guess
> as to his intention?
>
>
Once again, what do you think it matters? What is going to change of
your appreciation of any piece if you actually know why it was written?
I told you why it was written, for a paycheck. You are completely off
track where this thinking is concerned.
> > The Messiah was originally written because the King
> was so tired of all
> > the previous works being performed, some
> dignitaries were coming into
> > town, and he wanted something really special for
> them. Handel used that
> > opportunity to actually "try" out some new musical
> ideas. Not very
> > glamorous or mysterious now, is it?
>
> I don't see your point.
>
No, I didn't expect that you would. MY POINT, was that the Messiah, was
not written with the express intent of making us happy, sad, joyous,
gleeful, what-have-you. It was written as a commission. Yet, it
somehow invokes all of things in a person who opens themselves up to it
when it is heard. MY POINT, is that while you have spent all of this
time harping on having to know the original intent of a work before
being able to appreciate it, has been completely disproven due if
nothing else, to my above argument. According to your "theory" (and I
use the term loosely), how do you propose that we gain any more
appreciation than what we've already experienced, by simply knowing that
the work's original intention was to draw a paycheck for Handel????????
So I will ask you again, who cares what the original intent of the work
was? It is our job as artists to pay attention to how we perceive the
work; how we appreciate it, whether in every fibre of our being or in
our head.
> I never think of the "Intention" as being the
> paycheck that causes the
> artist to start creating,
>
Ah-ha, now we're getting somewhere. But, the plain truth is, that the
original intent of the Messiah, WAS THE PAYCHECK. All this time,
throughout this entire tireless thread, you've been harping on HAVING to
know the artist's original intent of the work before being able to
intelligently appreciate its value. What you have clearly said in your
own quote, is that "I choose, CHOOSE to view what I can consider to be a
primary intent or not, no matter what I know to be historically true."
Mr. Whelan, you have just blown your credibility with me; sorry.
> Art in every form is
> > subjective. One person's trash is another man's
> treasure.
>
> But the object that is "trash" or "treasure" remains
> the same object.
>
>
I don't see your point.
> Handels' "Messiah" may be trash to one who is an
> atheist, and loathes
> it's pious emotion pulling. And another who is
> religious appreciates
> it for the same.
>
Yes, I completely agree.
> Both recognize its intent.
>
> > : > Again, I ask you, if we appreciate the works of
> > Handel or Fra Lippo
> > : > Lippi (or Merton or Buber) for a different
> reason
> > than they intended,
> > : > does that make them frauds?
> >
> > : No, it makes *us* frauds, IF we do NOT recognize
> > their primary
> > : intention.
>
Really? How? According to what you said earlier, there is no way we
can know what the original intent was without being fraudulent. NOW
you're saying that because people are effected emotionally that this
means that they've connected and discovered the original intent of the
piece. But how can that be???? How can you agree with me suddenly,
while ignoring the fact that Handel's original intent for that piece was
the P-A-Y-C-H-E-C-K?????????? Why are you suddenly chasing your tail?
> Even if
> neither knows
> the words, or the history, the emotional language of
> the piece is
> a set one that both can react to.
>
> What I am suggesting about fraudulent artists
>
WHOA, check please. When did we begin discussing fraudulent artists
now??? Your whole argument up to this point has been that WE, the
listener are fraudulent because we cannot discern the artist's true
intent. Would you PLEASE keep up? I'm becoming bored with you...
> But did the piece make you want to dance a jig of
> joy? Could it be
> because Beethoven didn't intend it to?
>
>
Your point being....?
> No, that's not true. I know, however, that no matter
> how "emotionally"
> I appreciate a work, that it does not divorce the
> work from "reason",
> particularly that there is a cause and effect process
> at work when
> a sad piece makes me cry, and I can reasonably deduce
> the intent
> of the author from that fact.
>
Hmmm. You don't say. I have no idea what this has to do with your
original argument.
Robert Whelan
> > How does not being able to discern
> > the artist's primary
> > > intent make us deliberately deceptive, swindlers or
> > practitioners of
> > > deception?????
> >
> > "not being able" is not deception. "Not being able"
> > and pretending to,
> > is.
> >
> Who is it that pretends to know the primary intent of an artist's work,
> and why would they do that? I am sure there are some who feel elitist
> in this respect and do what you are suggesting, but when you said "we"
> do this, that was a whole, encompassing statement that grouped us all in
> one category, and that is just erroneous. I don't think even you are
> dumb enough to judge the intent of the entire human race where their
> appreciation of art is concerned.
We were talking about Stoppard. I was talking about people who discern
depth in his work where he did not intend it, and didn't take any
trouble to place in his work. It's okay to say "I thought Stoppard
MIGHT have been going for such and such a meaning, but he didn't
seem to support it, as far as I can tell." Now, though Stoppard
admits to not placing any depth in the work, as he says, he
"wasn't unaware of it", but did nothing, apparently, to make it
clear that his intent was shallow, and not to expect anything to
come of the "possibility" of depth that the play allows people to
suspect. In a sense, he's having his cake and eating it too. Too
lazy to construct a dram of depth and complexity, too pretentious
to make an obviously silly farce, with the honest purpose of making
people laugh, he goes for both, and allows the critical lauds from
those who pretend to "see" the depth, and letting what wit in the
plays amuse.
> > > What I find even more unreasonable from you, is
> > that you choose to think
> > > that not being able to recognize the artist's
> > original intent in someway
> > > nullifies our entire experience with the art to
> > begin with.
> >
> > Not knowing what Lewis Carroll's "Snark" is does not
> > prevent us from
> > appreciting the story as a story, even though certain
> > information is
> > missing.
> >
> I fail to see how this answers my question. His snark certainly had
> nothing to do with his original, primary intent of the work and its
> creation, so you've completely proven my point. You are talking about
> the appreciation as a whole concerning art, by giving me a cut and paste
> example from the story?????? Stick to the topic at hand please and the
> subject posed.
I recognize that no one is going to recognize an artist TOTAL intent.
But no one recognizes ANYONE'S total intent in ANY communication. But
enough is recognized to matter! MORE is understood than NOT. We may
not know WHY Handel "originally" set out to write the Messiah..that
PART of his intent is unknown to us unless he INTENDS us to know it.
(Perhaps by including a "I wrote this for money" verse). But what
is IN the music was still intended by him.
It's quite possible that we don't disagree, Opus, and that you are
arguing with a false version of my views as created by David and Ilechko.
Their comments are often pithy, and purport to "summarize" my position,
often inaccurately.
> > You expect me to
> > > believe, pure and simply, that you, not being able
> > to actually converse
> > > with Handel due to his obvious state, still know
> > what his original
> > > intentions were when he wrote the Messiah for
> > instance?
> >
> > Yes. The music itself tells us what his intentions
> > were. The music IS
> > his intention.
> >
> No, wrong again. The music was an expression of his primary intent, not
> the intention itself. To become this literal as you have here, to state
> his intent behind the art, would be for him to write out a thesis of
> what the music meant, what it made him feel, and how he came to the
> choices he made in creating the work. He didn't do that. The music
> itself was the expression of that intent, and nothing more. You once
> again, are getting off topic by throwing in tangents, and Mr. Whelan, it
> makes it hard to intelligently discuss much with you.
Just because someone doesn't write out the entire thought process that
led them to ask for a pastrami sandwich does not demean the "mere"
communication of a request for a sandwich, does it? You seem to
think I'm claiming to be ABLE to tell the entire process of Handel's
thoughts, including his paycheck, from the music itself. I'm not
saying this!
You missed my point because you transposed who *I* considered the
artist and the audience in this case. In my version the deli guy
is the *audience". The customer is the artist. Thus the customor's
request for a "pastrami on rye" is the work of art, and his
primary intent is meaningless to the audience. BUT THE REQUEST
IS STILL INTENDED, AND CAN BE SAID, TRULY, TO BE UNDERSTANDABLE.
It is silly to claim that the "primary intent" of "I want a
pastrami sandwich" is anything else than...wanting a pastrami
sandwich!
To extend the metaphor further, the customer may say "I want
a pastrami sandwich, no..maybe a ham...no..." at which point
the deli guy, though entertained by the ideas of many possible
types of sandwiches, has no idea what the bozo wants. This is
the kind of art that Stoppard produces. Just as the deli guy
can say "He stood there for an hour, and never made up his mind,
so I never knew what kind of sandwich he wanted.." so can we
say of Stoppard "He never actually said anything, though he
threw around a lot of ideas about which something interesting
COULD have been said." In the case of the deli guy, I believe
it is unreasonable for him to make 10 sandwiches for the
customer, on the off chance that he will decide which one he
wants. Likewise, it is an unreasonable burden on an audience
to have to ponder a billion ideas that Stoppard has raised,
without any sign that Stoppard has given any thought to them
himself, and that they are worth taking the time to pursue.
Don't you see that by
> trying to get inside that person's head, and realize the original
> intent, we are putting that in the way of the beauty of the work
> itself. The only important thing here is that we appreciate any part of
> it at all. For a work to go unappreciated is a crime. And believe it
> or not Mr. Whelan, whether you choose to believe this or not, I am SMART
> enough, LEARNED enough, and intelligent enough to appreciate any piece
> of work set before me, whether I know the artist's orginal intent behind
> it or not. You sir, are just taking up too much time with this line of
> thinking, and should really be in the philosophy newsgroup. If one
> doesn't exist, that would be a perfect thing for you to do. I am a fan
> of Kieerkegard, so I am not down on philosophy. My point is, that a man
> can say nothing with too many words, and you remind me of that sort of
> man. I think perhaps you have enjoyed baiting a lot of us. But take it
> where someone likes that. We are here to discuss theatre, books,
> literature. I just don't see what you hope to accomplish with this line
> of thinking.
You are ascribing to me attitudes that I do not possess. Or perhaps just
attitudes that have been ascribed to me by others?
> > The inborn language capacities of the human animal
> > make me judge and jury.
> >
> I'm sorry, but in case you hadn't heard, my Bible, AND the law of Karma
> or the universe (for those who are not Bible-fans) says that whatever
> you judge with will come back to judge you. Do you really think that's
> wise?
Well, if you are religious, who do you think made the laws that govern
language, and music, that allow people to communicate ideas and
emotions? Maybe He is judge and jury. No harm in being one of His
messengers!
> > If man
> > could not speak (in terms of his mind) he could not
> > create.
> >
> And this relates to my question how?
Your question had nothing to do with me or my real attitude. So I
just went off into a rant that would, hopefully, clarify what it
really was!
> > And you would claim that it was possible that Handel
> > wrote the piece
> > to make you sad? Or enraptured? Which is your guess
> > as to his intention?
> >
> >
> Once again, what do you think it matters? What is going to change of
> your appreciation of any piece if you actually know why it was written?
> I told you why it was written, for a paycheck. You are completely off
> track where this thinking is concerned.
You are avoiding my point, which is that certain intent IS knowable
in music, and in art. Why do you insist that I am talking about
the "unknowable", the "unstated" as being important? I am simply
stating a truism. "I want a deli sandich" means something.
The emotions in a piece of music mean something. Both are missing
TOTAL information about the "intent" but both contain partial
information about intent. It is the partial information that
we focus on. We don't cry about the same thing that made
Beethoven sad, but we cry. As Beethoven intended. Some people
may miss even this information, but this is failure to get
ANY information, not a "different" interpretation that is
"just as good".
It was written as a commission. A commission to do what? To write a
happy, joyous, gleeful piece, maybe? Wasn't that PART of the
commission? Part of the "intent?" We may not see the money clinking
in Handels hands, but the "happy, joyful, gleeful" part we did!
Michaelangelo was paid to glorify God on the roof of the Cistine
Chapel. We don't see M. getting paid, but we see the part he was
paid to create! We don't see EVERY intention, but we see part.
And we can understand it!
> > I never think of the "Intention" as being the
> > paycheck that causes the
> > artist to start creating,
> >
> Ah-ha, now we're getting somewhere. But, the plain truth is, that the
> original intent of the Messiah, WAS THE PAYCHECK. All this time,
> throughout this entire tireless thread, you've been harping on HAVING to
> know the artist's original intent of the work before being able to
> intelligently appreciate its value. What you have clearly said in your
> own quote, is that "I choose, CHOOSE to view what I can consider to be a
> primary intent or not, no matter what I know to be historically true."
> Mr. Whelan, you have just blown your credibility with me; sorry.
No, you can't state that the "Original intent was the paycheck" because
the paycheck was only part of the intent, and one we can't know
THROUGH THE MUSIC, but THROUGH THE MUSIC we CAN know the PART of
the intent as expressed by the music.
I never said one HAS to know the original intent of the artist BEFORE
appreciating the art, but that intent can be known throug the art.
Just as one can know that one has been asked for a "salami sandwich"
even though the "original intent" was a bagel with cream cheese.
We don't know EVERYTHING, but we do know about the salami sandwich.
I did not agree that Handel's "original intent" was his paycheck. I
just agree that it was PART of his intent, and it was NOT a part of
his intend that he INTENDED to convey through his music. (otherwise
there would be an "I did this for money" verse in THE MESSIAH). That
part of his intent was to convey joy, triumph, and other emotions is
conveyed through the music, and this is why people feel these emotions
while listening. Now, they may not feel the exact same emotions
as Handel, just as the deli guy's idea of a pastrami sandwich may
differ a bit from the customers, but it is still communication,
and people who listen to HAndels' Messiah and claim "what a slow,
sad, depressing piece" are just not believable. They may SAY they
got that from the piece, but would you believe them? I would think
they were pulling my leg, or that their sadness came from something
other than attention to the music itself..
> > Even if
> > neither knows
> > the words, or the history, the emotional language of
> > the piece is
> > a set one that both can react to.
> >
> > What I am suggesting about fraudulent artists
> >
> WHOA, check please. When did we begin discussing fraudulent artists
> now??? Your whole argument up to this point has been that WE, the
> listener are fraudulent because we cannot discern the artist's true
> intent. Would you PLEASE keep up? I'm becoming bored with you...
This thread, if you have been paying attention, started out being
about fraudulent artists. This is a digression from that main
discussion. I reserve the right to return to it, since it is
why I started it.
What I suggested, in particular, was that those who claimed to discen
Stoppard's true intent to be (fill in the blank) in ROSENCRANTZ AND
GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD might be frauds if his intent, as revealed
by the plays failure to actually communicates such an idea,
contradicts their claim. If an Handel did not include a verse
in THE MESSIAH that says "I wrote this piece for money" then one
cannot say that his intent to make money is conveyed by the
music and word themselves, and those who insisted would be liars.
As opposed to those who claimed it was about glorying God, whic
is conveyed, clearly.
> > But did the piece make you want to dance a jig of
> > joy? Could it be
> > because Beethoven didn't intend it to?
> >
> >
> Your point being....?
That Beethoven's intent connected somehow with your understanding,
and that your failure to dance a jig of joy is NOT "just my
different interpretation, as good as any other" but superior,
and more correct than that of the idiot cavorting around and
shouting "Hey!". Or would you look at this cavorting fool and
say "If that's what he got out of it, that's good. Music affects
everyone differently." No, you'd kick him in the pants for making
fun of the seriousness of the piece, and ask him to stop kidding
around.
> > No, that's not true. I know, however, that no matter
> > how "emotionally"
> > I appreciate a work, that it does not divorce the
> > work from "reason",
> > particularly that there is a cause and effect process
> > at work when
> > a sad piece makes me cry, and I can reasonably deduce
> > the intent
> > of the author from that fact.
> >
> Hmmm. You don't say. I have no idea what this has to do with your
> original argument.
Which argument was that, anyway?
Robert Whelan
Robert Whelan
> On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Opus (:> wrote:
> > Ah, you're off the point again, and erroneous in your own explanation.
> > If we use the deli example, and okay, I'm dumb enough to, let's draw an
> > intelligent parallel. The customer's only intent was to get a bagel and
> > stop the hunger pangs. The customer in this case, would be the audience
> > viewing the work. The deli owner making the bagel would represent the
> > composer in this case, the one creating the work. He was creating the
> > bagel. You're trying to tell us, and unsuccessfully so, that we as
> > customers cannot enjoy the satisfaction of the taste or gain any sort of
> > pleasure from that one solitary bagel unless we know what the original,
> > primary intent of the baker was behind its creation. Who cares? Who
> > really cares what his vision behind it was?
and then I wrote:
The trouble with my above example, I'm afraid, is that confuses
by making the "artist" equal "the customer" and the "deli guy"
equal the "audience." because normally "artists" don't pay
"the audience". The "payment" that I imagined the artist/customer
recieving was, in fact, the desired salami sandwich that his
art/request attempted to elicit from the deli guy.
Robert W.
JPachino
and Stoppards play uses the exact same words ...
every single time --
and the only difference is that WE change?
As many people as there are, that is how many ways it is possible for a piece
of art to affect us.
Look at the constant, and then explore the variables.
Then draw your conclusions.
Gwen A Orel
energetic refutations of his idiocy; do you think he will actually
learn?
Gwen
David J. Loftus (dl...@netcom.com) wrote:
: David Loftus
--
Robert Whelan
> David J. Loftus (dl...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : Gwen A Orel (gao...@pitt.edu) wrote:
>
> : : Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the faculty of creation and of
> : : criticism/analysis are separate?
>
> : It is not difficult at all for "people" to accept this, not here on
> : rec.arts.books.
>
> : Robert Whelan is the only person on this thread who appears to be having
> : difficulty with this concept.
>
>
> : David Loftus
> You're right, thank you for that clarification. I am awed by your
> energetic refutations of his idiocy; do you think he will actually
> learn?
>
> Gwen
I'm not sure what I could learn from David, especially if he says
things like "the faculty of creation and criticism/analysis are seperate."
I don't believe that this can be condidered "energetic" since he would
not have posted it had he reflected a little.
David, are you telling us that the process of creation itself is
devoid of criticism and analysis? I had always thought it was an
integral part. Geniuses may do it at such a rapid level so as to seem
as if they are throwing it off of the top of their heads, but
obviously it is a part of "creation". The simplest example is in
the process of doing second drafts of original texts.
If an artist can "create" using criticism and analysis, I don't see how
one can attack using the same process to understand the work.
Robert W.
Francis Muir
>
> Gwynth Paltrow - the sire of TV director Bruce Paltrow and TV actress Blyth
> Danner (or maybe another actress from the early 70s).
I don't think you meant what you said . . .
FM
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Danner (or maybe another actress from the early 70s).
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
jpac...@aol.com (JPachino) wrote:
> Opus wrote:
> <<Did you know that Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique was
> written for a woman he loved who was killed in a car crash? >>
>
> ...CAR crash?
>
"Forget it, he's rolling."
Boone, to Otter, in ANIMAL HOUSE
;-)
Richard Harter
>Andrew Wells of Nashville, TN:
>>
>> Gwynth Paltrow - the sire of TV director Bruce Paltrow and TV actress Blyth
>> Danner (or maybe another actress from the early 70s).
>
>I don't think you meant what you said . . .
It happened in a former life ...
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
I don't want justice and I don't want mercy;
I will settle for nothing less than unearned privilege.
Gwen A Orel
: I'm not sure what I could learn from David, especially if he says
: things like "the faculty of creation and criticism/analysis are seperate."
: I don't believe that this can be condidered "energetic" since he would
: not have posted it had he reflected a little.
Perhaps you could learn to understand attributions, since it was I
who made that statement. David merely supported it. Perhaps you could learn
not to be "sure" of what another person will post and not assume that
under reflection he/she will agree with you. Perhaps you could
understand "energetic" to be a owrd of quantity, meaning that only
David finds you sufficiently interesting to respond to each of your
unsupported, illogical and ignorant posts.
Then, perhaps you could meet a few artists and read about their processes,
or even ask psychiatrists about the workings of the brain. Then you could learn
not to post about matters which. you understand nothing
Oh, and as I am bothering to respond to you, may I also ask that you not copy
your posts to my mailbox again. I am not interested in corresponding with you
privately and I dislike unsolicited mail.
Gwen
Robert Whelan
> Robert Whelan (rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org) wrote:
>
> : I'm not sure what I could learn from David, especially if he says
> : things like "the faculty of creation and criticism/analysis are seperate."
> : I don't believe that this can be condidered "energetic" since he would
> : not have posted it had he reflected a little.
>
> Perhaps you could learn to understand attributions, since it was I
> who made that statement. David merely supported it. Perhaps you could learn
> not to be "sure" of what another person will post and not assume that
> under reflection he/she will agree with you. Perhaps you could
> understand "energetic" to be a owrd of quantity, meaning that only
> David finds you sufficiently interesting to respond to each of your
> unsupported, illogical and ignorant posts.
Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't give you credit for the witless idea that
"criticism/analysis has nothing to do with creation". Now that you
have claimed the original idea, what do you have to say to defend it?
> Then, perhaps you could meet a few artists and read about their processes,
> or even ask psychiatrists about the workings of the brain. Then you could learn
> not to post about matters which. you understand nothing
> Oh, and as I am bothering to respond to you, may I also ask that you not copy
> your posts to my mailbox again. I am not interested in corresponding with you
> privately and I dislike unsolicited mail.
Wow. You went to all this trouble to berate me for asking David, when it was
you I should have asked, but you completely ignore the question.
How is "criticism/analysis seperate from creation."? As I said, it seems
to me to be an integral PART of the creative process.
Since you were the one who said it, why can't I ask you, instead of
"meeting artists" (aren't you one?) and asking psychiatrists? Stop
whining and tell us all. How IS "criticism/analysis seperate from
creation?"
Robert
Opus (:>
has viewed and listened to your innane reasoning thus far, let's not
deprive them of the rest. Only post to the newsgroup from now on
please. This is not only between you and I, nor do I wish to make it
so.
Robert Whelan
--
Opus (:>
http://www.telalink.net/~fizzy/dlan.html