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
|