Hmmn, Gabe, this is a vexed problem I think. I wouldn't privilege Comedy
over Tragedy in terms of how well they last, or continue to work over time.
That comedy can I agree. There's a production of Lysistrata coming here
this summer, for example.
>I think Rebecca and Douglas's thoughts about the dating of satire are
>interesting. I've often heard another fallacy (of late on Ron's blog) that
>comedy (and satire has comic elements to be sure) dates faster than other
>modes. I can't help but think this is just totally wrong; in my experience,
>as a reader, this isn't true, but I've heard it said so many times (like
>I've heard that Iraq has WMD too), but in fact it dates no faster than
>anything else. In fact, most of the most popular and traditionally
>"canonical" works, I'd bet, are comedies or contain strong comic elements
>that "work" and one could, I think, easily make an argument that it
>survives LONGER than "tragedy" -- or at least MORE comic works and COMIC
>WRITERS seem to survive than other kinds of writers.
>
>But as to its lack of "translatability" across time, I think that idea's
>just bunk. (Sorry I can't muster anything but that by way of "argument" at
>the moment). g
BUT: one of the problems I see here has to do with the kind of audience.
Heck even recent writing, let alone 'ancient,' is hard for many young
people, those many who read very little anyway, & so have little sense of
the ruling conventions, etc. Perhaps plays, turned into newer forms of
performance, will continue to catch audiences. But poetry, or even longer
forms of prose satire or comedy? Well, they should work for the audience
that does exist. We who read, we have slowly learned to do so. Yes?
Doug
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
We deserve overtime
for dealing daily with these mistreated burdens.
Clark Coolidge
