Just a quick bit, R'Owl, bcuz still watching the election returns, esp my
now home state of VA, numbers not in yet.
Question: Where are you now? R U back in Cambridge?
joodles
2008/11/4 Roger Day <[log in to unmask]>
> As a general rule, I stop using the intarweb after 2 beers. My hands
> run away with me, causing whole sorts of mayhem. In this case, I'll
> make an exception.
>
> In way, Judy, you are right. I danced around and managed to obfuscate
> my real point. So to answer your question in simple sentences: you're
> an American and you have no idea what I'm talking about. You think you
> do, but you don't. You never will. And, mutatis mutandi, this goes for
> Alison. I could go on to Christmas, and you'd still be patronizing me.
>
> I think you'll find those were short sentences.
>
> Actually when I wrote this set of Shakespeare screeds, I was heavily
> into displacement activity. I was quite angry but not so much about
> Shakespeare [1], or your patronizing, or whatever the hell Hamilton[1]
> was on about 3 posts later. I was really pissed about the "anthology".
> I'm still puzzling over why Padraig only got only a single poem in the
> "anthology", which seems to consist mostly of people who've not
> actually contributed that much to the list . As a rule of thumb, it
> seems to me that the more you contributed to the list, the fewer poems
> you were likely to get in. Which is a rum state of affairs. If you ask
> me. Incidentally, quite how dear Roger can live with himself is beyond
> me. Happily, I suppose. Oh hum.
>
> I like the phrase "ignorant bullshit": yes, I like that. I'll wear it
> as a badge. At least I admit to knowing nothing whilst, well, let us
> take a look at page 14 of the Anthologies introduction:
>
> "finally Roger Collett archived a number at http://www.poetryetc.org/. "
>
> I think you'll find that's me. Roger Day. I'm also paying for the
> domain name. Jeez, the fucking irony.
>
> Happy Election Day.
>
> Roger
>
> [1] At least Robin didn't start re-cycling his Glasgow war-stories.
> Again. That would have been priceless. Also, me as a master of the
> universe? Shit, I can't even master my own dick.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Judy Prince
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I am trying to understand your basic points here, R'Owl, but cannot.
> You'll
> > need to get your opinions to the point of a simple listing of simple
> short
> > sentences, perhaps, before you yourself see them plainly and clearly.
> > If it weren't so important, apparently, to you, I wouldnae bother
> bothering
> > you.
> >
> > Try again.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > 2008/10/23 Roger Day <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >> I'm not saying it's Government-sponsored; the Royal Family haven't
> >> been the govt for a long time now. I'm talking about a systemic,
> >> probably a specifically English, cultural problem which still lingers,
> >> and spreads it's chill hand.
> >>
> >> I think quality in shakespeare is an untestable attribute. As Robin
> >> says, he's everywhere (and nowhere), we're fish in water. You can go
> >> around saying S is genius, fantastic, lovely, yeah, and you'll always
> >> find layers of books and people to support your view. The english in
> >> particular are taught, no, indoctrinated from birth that S is our
> >> genius. Rarely can you find a disinterested claim to the contrary. You
> >> can say that he's lasted the test of time; well, the censorship issue
> >> almost defeats that argument, certainly it puts a pall over it. I'm
> >> not saying he isn't good, it's the pervasiveness that, amongst other
> >> things, I don't like.
> >>
> >> I used to have objections to Patronage from any source; less so now,
> >> particularly when I'll be the one doing the begging pretty soon. So I
> >> don't have objections to govt sponsorship per se; just the unthinking,
> >> interwoven, systemic variety that still lingers over s. It's not as
> >> bad as it was, but there's still some there.
> >>
> >> I have come to the conclusion that Theatre in these isles will survive
> >> and, now that the dead-hand of the censor has been lifted, we are
> >> seeing the start of a better day. Possibly. It's almost as if the
> >> centre has been cut from the heart of the Shakespeare industry and
> >> only the outliers remain. From this I take heart.
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
> >> On 10/23/08, Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> > R'Owl and Alison: In this round, anyway, you each make unarguable
> >> points.
> >> > Both of you know that Alison's correct in asserting that no 'bells
> and
> >> > whistles' makes a play positively memorable----unless, of course, it
> is
> >> the
> >> > bells and whistles that you happen to prefer to positively memorable
> >> > writing. Bells and whistles can be profoundly exciting and
> distracting.
> >> > Ten years ago in the UStates it was playing around with a body of
> water
> >> > onstage; that continues permutatedly up to today---an audience
> regarding
> >> the
> >> > new element [wow, water onstage; what will the actors DO with it/in
> it?
> >> fun
> >> > to see how they manage it]
> >> > Other things than physical staging and actors' movements in response
> >> will
> >> > 'bell and whistle' audiences. Au courant is Michael
> Billington's----and
> >> > most theatre companies and playwrights worldwide----exuberance and
> >> relief
> >> > that 'at last' plays reflect the news of the day; ie, docudrama.
> These
> >> > plays include the awesomely successful recent play of that ilk:
> _Black
> >> > Watch_, National Theatre of Scotland. It was THEATRE, believe me.
> No
> >> body
> >> > of water onstage, but a muscled, energetic, thoroly musical and
> visual
> >> > visceral event. The writing? As docudrama as was possibleth: the
> play
> >> > form imitating the playwright's experience, in all respects, as he
> >> engaged
> >> > with the returning-from-Iraq Scottish regiment soldiers whom he had
> >> > interviewed. Much of the credit for the success of the play goes to
> the
> >> > directors, especially those who directed movement and music. Twin
> >> elements
> >> > [bells and whistles, and docudrama newsy] made this play the success
> it
> >> was,
> >> > and one of those elements will, of itself, cause the play to fade
> into
> >> > wallpaper relatively soon and permanently. It is what has and will
> >> cause
> >> > plays to fade, and poems to fade, relatively soon and permanently:
> the
> >> > writing's not memorable.
> >> >
> >> > Hence, Bells and whistles? Important, not essential. The second
> >> element,
> >> > newsworthy docudrama, sometimes fascinating, but not essential.
> >> >
> >> > Memorable writing? Essential. Period. R'Owl, you get no points for
> >> your
> >> > monkey metaphor, and you know it as well as Alison.
> >> > However, your fallback position has some logical warrants, R'Owl.
> But
> >> it is
> >> > a peripheral issue. It has nothing to do with Shaksper or
> playwriting
> >> or
> >> > even literature of any kind. You object to state-sanctioned events.
> >> You
> >> > reflect a highly 'class-conscious' culture which is somewhat foreign
> to
> >> > USAmericans. As I've said before, USAmericans bow to MONEY and those
> >> who
> >> > have it, nominally, but we don't have the cultural apparatus to
> respond
> >> to
> >> > 'class' with the same depthy love/hate that you do'. We do racism as
> >> well
> >> > as UK folk, or Chinese or Japanese, for that matter. And we do
> >> genderism
> >> > slightly more enlightenedly than other cultures. But that pervasive
> >> 'class'
> >> > thing, we don't have in the same way you do. A brief test to show
> you
> >> that
> >> > you have a socio-political bee in your bonnet, not a literary one:
> >> would
> >> > you object strenuously to government-sanctioned fine art [e.g.,
> >> sanctioning
> >> > some art galleries, not others, funding some artists' works and not
> >> others',
> >> > providing funds for some art schools and not others]. If your answer
> is
> >> a
> >> > resounding yes, then it's your socio-political stance which drives
> your
> >> > steam, not your take on Shaksper's writing or political views. Of
> >> course,
> >> > your government DOES sanction fine arts in all those parenthetical
> >> examples
> >> > above. Does that drive you wild? Apparently not yet, because you've
> >> given
> >> > no sign of it that I know of. It would be well for you to do so!
> It's
> >> > those kids you'll be shepherding soon that stand to gain from your
> >> positive,
> >> > creative attention to the shortsightedness of
> governmentally-propelled
> >> > policies. And it's WEALTH and its influence that drives these. You
> are
> >> > right to expose them and to urge continuous reviews of them----and to
> >> offer
> >> > substitutes for their inadequate, inaccurate assessments and
> fundings.
> >> >
> >> > When you finally come to judge a play, and Shaksper, you will find
> that,
> >> as
> >> > with most successful-in-any-terms playwrights, Shaksper capably
> presents
> >> all
> >> > the psychological sides of an issue. It MUST BE done if a playwright
> is
> >> a
> >> > playwright because convincingly portraying many characters
> constitutes
> >> the
> >> > major element of successful playwrighting. You can do cardboard
> >> characters
> >> > as did Ben Jonson----but his damn well tap a deep psychology of
> >> individual
> >> > personalities, or they wouldnae worked so thoroly and lasted so long
> in
> >> > popular public view.
> >> >
> >> > Hence, Shaksper did as all playwrights do, and which you have noted:
> >> she
> >> > bowed to the censors, or her plays would not have been publicly
> >> performed.
> >> > They were continuously privately performed, of course, because she
> had
> >> the
> >> > financial wherewithal to have them done. In fact, the first play
> >> performed
> >> > in England for James I and 6 was at her home, and it was her play.
> >> >
> >> > BTW, my congratulations to Alison---a noteworthy play critic. You
> take
> >> the
> >> > high road, Alison, refusing to echo the popular view if it doesn't
> feel
> >> a
> >> > 'fit' to you. And you effectively warrant your claims. Not easy,
> and
> >> > always demanding of time, energy, dedication.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> >
> >> > Judy
> >> >
> >> > 2008/10/23 Roger Day <[log in to unmask]>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Ah yes, "liberation" and "oppression". Fine flag words, there. And
> I'm
> >> > > a book-burner to boot, hey? Make you feel good to think you're
> >> > > rebelling against ... something?
> >> > >
> >> > > Shakespeares long reign over English culture has been assisted by
> >> > > censorship, in my opinion. All those long years in this country
> when
> >> > > our theatre definitely wasn't free, although it may have been
> >> > > exciting. (Bread and circuses and all that and you're right in that
> >> > > helps if the circus is of quality stuff. ) The Lord Chancellor - an
> >> > > office of the Royal Court let's not forget - and his blue pen,
> >> > > snipping this, stopping that. After S's death, the theatre in this
> >> > > country was closed by Royal diktat. S was the first to be raised
> from
> >> > > the dust. Why? I think because he was safe; theatre companies could
> >> > > put on S without fear of being closed down; he was the safe option;
> >> > > people were pre-censoring themselves because that's how censorship
> >> > > works. And so it continued until the 60s, when the blue pen was
> >> > > abolished. So, yes, oppression and fear. And of course, this
> safeness
> >> > > got bound into English culture, where S sits tightly bound to this
> >> > > day, feeding, amongst other things, the myth of continuity, the
> >> > > "river" of invented traditions that keep this sad sack of a country
> a
> >> > > monarchy, and playing safe culturally speaking.
> >> > >
> >> > > The one thing that did interest me recently about S's works was his
> >> > > humanism. I was watching Clark's civilisation and he makes a
> forcible
> >> > > point that S is probably the English equivalent of Montaigne. But
> hey,
> >> > > S's canon is big enough you can probably read anything into it ...
> >> > >
> >> > > I take heart though that the amount of S put on in this country is
> >> > > declining. Certainly no West End Theatre - to take an index - has a
> >> > > showing of an S play. I think as England splits apart, people may
> >> > > triumph s more but I think the planks on which he stood are coming
> >> > > apart. There is an awful lot of new stuff being put on in,
> exciting,
> >> > > vibrant stuff, and I do take heart in this lest anyone think I'm
> Mr
> >> > > Killjoy here, stopping their enjoyment.
> >> > >
> >> > > I realise that this isn't a issue that crosses boundaries of
> nation.
> >> > > But it saddens me greatly, heaves my poor heart so, to see others
> >> > > follow down this route. S almost *invented* patriotism. It's up to
> you
> >> > > but to take this poisoned chalice to your heart? It saddens me but
> >> > > maybe this gladdens you. Hey ho.
> >> > >
> >> > > Roger
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Alison Croggon <
> [log in to unmask]>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > Sorry Roger, but it's ignorant bullshit that you can "make the
> >> > > > telephone directory" exciting in theatre. If you're going to have
> a
> >> > > > text, it has to be dynamic and vital, and no amount of bells or
> >> > > > whistles will cover the lack if it isn't. I've seen enough
> theatre -
> >> > > > and suffered through enough bad texts - to assert this as
> absolute
> >> > > > bedrock fact.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If Shakespeare's work has a stultifying effect on English
> culture,
> >> I'd
> >> > > > suggest it's not his fault, but that of those who make his work
> that
> >> > > > way. And I don't see why it should be a cause for resentment If
> >> others
> >> > > > find excitement where you only see staleness. Certainly I'm not
> >> > > > participating in your oppression by enjoying that work. In fact,
> you
> >> > > > could turn things around and see a certain liberating possibility
> in
> >> > > > that language. But I'm not insisting.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > A
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> I couldnt give a fuck if you or anyone else thinks shakespeare
> is
> >> > > >> "exciting" - you can make the telephone directory in theatre
> >> > > >> "exciting". My beef is with the stultifying effect of S on
> English
> >> > > >> culture. If other poor deluded fools want to put on s, that's up
> to
> >> > > >> them.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Roger
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Alison Croggon <
> >> [log in to unmask]>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >>> Heh heh. Coincidentally I saw Romeo and Juliet in Lithuanian
> last
> >> > > >>> night. Set in a bakery. It was a total pisstake on masculine
> >> machismo
> >> > > >>> and male violence and especially on the culture of vendetta.
> The
> >> > > >>> second half was basically a danse macabre, the first
> grotesquely
> >> > > >>> funny. Extraordinary theatre. You'll never convince me it's
> dull!
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --
> >> > > >> My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> >> > > >> "I began to warm and chill
> >> > > >> to objects and their fields"
> >> > > >> Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
> >> > > > Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> >> > > > Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> >> > > "I began to warm and chill
> >> > > to objects and their fields"
> >> > > Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> >> "I began to warm and chill
> >> to objects and their fields"
> >> Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> "I began to warm and chill
> to objects and their fields"
> Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
>
|