Eeeeek, gobbo butt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me monstrous that anyone should believe that the jazz rhythm expresses America. Jazz rhythm expresses the primitive savage.
Out of curiousity, when's that quote from?
For some reason, classist (and racist) shiznit about jazz was pretty rampant in the first half of the 20th century. Off the top of my head, I can think of a dis in Steppenwolf and a dis of "St. James's Infirmary" in The Plague (although whether they were listening to a blues or a jazz version, I couldn't say).
Even after jazz morphed into bebop, with virtuosity and complexity out the wazoo, the Beats praised it for all the wrong reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That puts us back to what my elementary school teacher always said, "Classics are works that have survived the test of time," as if this was an objective measure of quality. As a kid, I always sort of thought it was more a measure of lasting popularity instead, and never really agreed -- if "being really poular" doesn't make something great art, I was never clear on how "being popular for a longer period of time" would.
That applies to literature, too, not just music, of course. I've heard it said that Shakespeare was popular in his day because of the sex and violence, not the art, and that the plays remained popular because they contained so much of those things. I read Othello and get a lot more out of it than that, but I'm hard-pressed to objectively say why Othello is a greater work than, say, The Big Sleep.
Assumably because those primitive screw-heads could only appreciate sex and violence, as art was beyond their ken, right? I find that sort of thing ludicrous; I've been blathering about The Hollow Crown on the books thread, and let me tell you: I enjoy Shakespeare for the sex and violence and the art; if that's not beyond me, I don't see why it should have been for an audience of his contemporaries.
I'm an unashamed fan of sex and violence.
In art, of course...
I think the sex scenes are pretty tame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assumably because those primitive screw-heads could only appreciate sex and violence, as art was beyond their ken, right? I find that sort of thing ludicrous.
Totally agree. But then that makes me wonder, because we're often quick to say "these screw-head kids today can only appreciate trendy crap, as art is beyond their ken, right?" And I sometimes wonder if that's not equally absurd.
I think the sex scenes are pretty tame.
"Get thee to a nunnery?" I think there's a lot more implied than is immediately obvious now, because of gradual changes in idiom, and I suspect there's a lot more that no one gets anymore but was probably seriously racy, back when they were written.
Assumably because those primitive screw-heads could only appreciate sex and violence, as art was beyond their ken, right? I find that sort of thing ludicrous.Totally agree. But then that makes me wonder, because we're often quick to say "these screw-head kids today can only appreciate trendy crap, as art is beyond their ken, right?" And I sometimes wonder if that's not equally absurd.
Sure it is. I was into trendy crap as a young fella. Sometimes I still am :)
As I said, we don't always NOTICE the complexity. Why should we recognize it in the music youths today listen to? I am sure some of us can, but most couldn't. Still, it's a painfully simple fact that Sturgeon's Law holds as true in this as in everything else: 90% of everything is s~**. Most of contemporary music is doomed to obscurity pretty soon, as was such music when we were younger.
Hang on, if we are now talking about music why are you guys talking about jazz? ;)
I think the sex scenes are pretty tame.
That's just 'cause you've never seen Naked Shakespeare in the Park. :P
(But seriously, the level of tameness depends on the production, imo.)
Out of curiousity, when's that quote from?
Not sure of the exact date, but she was a big-time dancer from like 1898-1921 or so (when she went full Commie and moved to the Soviet Union, as a point of interest to any Bolshevic goblins).
It is sad to see how easy a thread that was dancing on the edge of something truly sublime and meaningful can be dragged by the hair back into the mud and muck.
The question of the "objectivity" of art is a very old philosophical issue. Two of my favorite writers/philosophers on the subject are Robert Pirsig and Henri Poincare. Anyone who is truly interested in the investigation of the objectivity of "quality" should read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." A truly sublime book.
The answer to how to know when you can "interact" with a piece of art is really that you may not be able to tell until you actually begin the interaction. If the artist has put things in it that respond to the interaction, then if they are done well, the investigation will bear fruit. If not, it won't.
That's not to say that sometimes people somehow find ways to interact with works of art that have no multiple layers... people can fool themselves about the sophistication of what they see too.
But in general, especially when the artist has given interviews and/or written about their deeper intent (as Tolkien did at length) then it's a pretty good bet that what you find was put there intentionally.
Still, it's a painfully simple fact that Sturgeon's Law holds as true in this as in everything else: 90% of everything is s$&~.
Again, I agree, but I'm interested in whether there are truly objective criteria to discern that 10%, or if it all boils down to hand-waving. I'd like to think that there are such criteria, but that we haven't identified them yet.
It is sad to see how easy a thread that was dancing on the edge of something truly sublime and meaningful can be dragged by the hair back into the mud and muck.
It's all yours then, O perfect one. Too bad -- I was looking forward to talking with littlehewy some more, but since our inane chatter offends you, we'll have to do that elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree with ZatAoMm being "sublime" AD. At least for me. I've read it at least 1 1/2 times. I did enjoy the part on gumption traps, but the rest was a hodgepodge of circumlocutionary meanderings and half-baked musings on the nature of the human condition. And being confused about whether or not the reader is confused about whether or not the protagonist/autobiographer is the protagonist or autobiographer. ;p
Oh to be entitled to an opinion, whether Malformed or not. Let's keep a healthy sense of perspective and try not to despise. It is so... despicable. Best avatar I ever saw in Guild Wars: Bash the Hateful. That one was for you Aubrey!
in thee 1930's, when Tolkien was writing, he had very little to compare against. A lot of tales were long and plodding - written for an audience of his day, not ours (the fast food generations). His story did not start out a trilogy - it was broken into one. With that in mind, we need to remember that he constructed his book with a building horror of what was to come. He used all of the tools in the author's toolbox to do it too. It plateaued for a bit at the council of Elrond chapter (which upon reading the first time I thought was boring...but upon subsequent readings found it to be an absolute gem for the layered story). From there it rose and fell until it hit it's heights outside of Helms Deep, Minas Tirith and Mordor. He then wound the story down with a long ending which has a literary term I couldn't hope to spell (de-new-maw).
Very little in his experience would have been like it. He couldn't refer to many authors and say - "I'm too slow paced here" or "That's been done before" He wrote a story his sons would enjoy and we are left with the blueprint for future fantasy. Is it easy to spot copiers...yes... but in the end, if you like this blue print, you don't mind that he is copied to a point.
I don't find it difficult to believe that people don't like his stories...I find it hard to believe he is so criticized for how he wrote them. 80 years later and we are still discussing them. Movies are made from the stories. Novels are written that are influenced by him. Babies are named after his characters. Surely he did something right?
What is worse, however, is that when you go into a bookstore, or go on amazon and you look up Fantasy Fiction - you get all this pseudo romantic vampire / werewolf stuff. Hey, They are starting to rightly call it Urban fiction or Urban fantasy, but it's not the high fantasy that Tolkien wrote about.
I'm in the middle of reading a new book called A Balance Broken by JT Hautre. It has Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Magic, Dragons, Orcs and Wizards...but is nothing like Tolkien. These books are out there...Keep looking
It is sad to see how easy a thread that was dancing on the edge of something truly sublime and meaningful can be dragged by the hair back into the mud and muck.
Not sure who you're intending to disparage with that comment, but targets aside, you certainly are excellent at disparagement!
The question of the "objectivity" of art is a very old philosophical issue. Two of my favorite writers/philosophers on the subject are Robert Pirsig and Henri Poincare. Anyone who is truly interested in the investigation of the objectivity of "quality" should read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." A truly sublime book.
Sublime is the word. I was lucky enough to run into that book completely by accident when I was 19 or so - it flicked a switch in my mind that I didn't even know was there. Probably doomed me to an existence as a penniless saxophonist.
The answer to how to know when you can "interact" with a piece of art is really that you may not be able to tell until you actually begin the interaction. If the artist has put things in it that respond to the interaction, then if they are done well, the investigation will bear fruit. If not, it won't.
That's not to say that sometimes people somehow find ways to interact with works of art that have no multiple layers... people can fool themselves about the sophistication of what they see too.
But in general, especially when the artist has given interviews and/or written about their deeper intent (as Tolkien did at length) then it's a pretty good bet that what you find was put there intentionally.
I agree with much of what you say here, but I also disagree with the implication that only the layers, or themes, or end results, that the artist intended to include or imply are important. Part of the sublime nature of art is that, in creating it, one is not aware of all that is being created. Like I said before, good art asks open-ended questions, and leaves space for the audience to fill with their own experience, their own internal "art". The opening movement of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring has a surface narrative, but it also inspires the imagination of each listener, in many ways that Stravinsky could not foresee or imagine himself. That is certainly part of the greatness of good art, for me at least.
It's a bit like being a parent. You create your child - it springs from you (and the other parent of course), you rear it, guide it... But in the end, it has a life of its own, and probably one you could never have imagined.
Assumably because those primitive screw-heads could only appreciate sex and violence, as art was beyond their ken, right? I find that sort of thing ludicrous.Totally agree. But then that makes me wonder, because we're often quick to say "these screw-head kids today can only appreciate trendy crap, as art is beyond their ken, right?" And I sometimes wonder if that's not equally absurd.
I've been trying to phrase my response to this for a while now, and all I can say is, I don't recognize the trendy crap/art differentiation; I think trendy crap is a subset of art. But then, I'm also one of those annoying people who defines the difference between art and craft as, "Art's a noun and craft is a verb," so there you are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Time to get some musical interludes up in this biznitch!
Isadora Duncan (well, as played by Vanessa Redgrave)
Iron Maiden doing S.T. Coleridge which is all kindsa high-brow
Some British prog (trying to impress Limey)
Culture. It's not just for snobs.
EDIT: Oops I forgot the Mozart.
Time to get some musical interludes up in this biznitch!
Isadora Duncan (well, as played by Vanessa Redgrave)
Iron Maiden doing S.T. Coleridge which is all kindsa high-brow
Some British prog (trying to impress Limey)
Culture. It's not just for snobs.
You are definitely my favourite goblin.
[blushes]
Heh, I don't deny that I can be pretty antagonistic myself, and I've dragged enough threads into the mud, blood and beer myself.
But I was liking this one!
I also was not suggesting that the only interactive aspect of a work of art were the layers involved, it is just easier, I think, to illustrate that interactivity in a work of fiction because layers might be a little easier to understand than things like figuring out allegories or working out narrative techniques such as switching points of view in the middle of the narrative.
As far as ZatAoMM is concerned, the book certainly has its detractors and no doubt some of the criticisms are reasonable. Still, there are plenty of people who are critical of Huckleberry Finn for one reason or another. I am firmly in the camp that the book is sublime and is particularly good at exposing the tendency of people to confuse reality because they allow their expectations to dominate their judgment. It is also a fascinating deconstruction of the process of literary characterization itself.
Anyway disagreeing about whether ZatAoMM is a book worthy of praise or not is what I mean by a "sublime" thread, as opposed to personally attacking each other. So hopefully we've got some momentum back on that path...
AD, if multiple "layers" of meaning is an (notice I don't say "the") objective measure of quality of a work, and if said artist's admission of including these layers is confirmation -- what about something like Alanis Morisette's inane (in my opinion) song "Ironic"? I have read claims that the song is "like, really deep, because it's all a song about irony, but none of the examples are actually ironic, which is like, the ultimate irony! That's so deep!" And Ms. Morisette is perfectly happy to agree that she meant it that way. Legitimate complexity, or post hoc rationalization? I'll admit I favor the latter, but I'm going by my gut feeling, not by any objective criteria. And that continues to be the problem with most of the examples we've discussed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, that is exactly why there is an ongoing debate about the objectivity of the quality of art.
This is one of my favorite things to contemplate. Is there any way to define an objective measure for the quality of artwork? I honestly don't know. I'm afraid that I tend to fall into the "I know it when I see it" category, which I admit actually advances the notion of all art being subjective.
I am also completely convinced that a large number of artists have become wealthy not due to their actual artistic talent, but due to their marketing talent.
Now, having said that, I do view writing a novel as something that you can compare to crafting a table. There are techniques that are objectively present or lacking, things like use of foreshadowing, analogy, character development, etc. The problem is that there are some brilliant works of writing that lack all of those things, so while their presence does indicate the work of a craftsman, their lack does not indicate the absence of artistry.
In the lack of specific objective measures I am usually willing to weigh the opinions of acknowledged experts very heavily. And on top of that, unlike many critics, I also take the opinion of the average, casual reader as well, at least for works that were intended to reach that audience. That's why I acknowledge that Harry Potter is a great work of fiction, even though I find the actual craftwork displayed in the book to be derivative, slapdash and in some cases outright lame.
That's why I acknowledge that Harry Potter is a great work of fiction, even though I find the actual craftwork displayed in the book to be derivative, slapdash and in some cases outright lame.
Well, if nothing else, we agree on that point! Although, to be honest, I couldn't force myself to read past the 1st book -- her tradecraft (for lack of a better term) might improve later on.
Out of curiosity, are you familiar with Trevanian? There's a lot about him that's germane to the discussion, I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiousity, when's that quote from?It seems to me monstrous that anyone should believe that the jazz rhythm expresses America. Jazz rhythm expresses the primitive savage.
I didn't see an answer, so I looked her up and found out she died in '27 in a freak automobile and headscarf accident. I had also forgotten that she was a commie.
Viva Isadora!
Out of curiousity, when's that quote from?Not sure of the exact date, but she was a big-time dancer from like 1898-1921 or so (when she went full Commie and moved to the Soviet Union, as a point of interest to any Bolshevic goblins).
Ulp, I should read harder. Or stop being impatient. One of the two, maybe both. Thanks, Kirth!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure if I'd mentioned the bizarre headscarf death first ("No capes!"), you'd have seen it right away.
That was hyperbole. Not particularly far from the truth, I'm afraid, but hyperbole all the same.
I'm not sure if 'hyperbole' is a viable alternate term for 'not actually true'.
In the opening pages of PRINCE OF THORNS a band of mercenaries takes over a village and alludes to the fact that female prisoners are going to be 'mistreated'. Our main character (who starts off as a psychotic PTSD ex-child soldier) doesn't really give a toss what they do with them, before he begins what charitable readers might call a road to redemption, and others a PR-induced swing to social acceptability (i.e. he wants to be king, so his troops lay off the mass slaughter and despoiling). In the 400 pages of the first book, less than two pages even mention the situation.
Several other reviews have also suggested this is a problem in the book and it isn't, at all. The author even posted the complete excerpt on his website of the sequences alluded to and they occupied 61 words out of 90,000.
I think the book had the misfortune to come out at a time when a few online reviewers wanted to kick off a bit of a backlash against so-called 'grimdark' fiction and exaggerated a tiny issue mentioned in a couple of paragraphs past the point of anything that might be called reasonable. However, it backfired because it just got the book a lot more attention.
Why people can't just say, "I just didn't like this book," rather than having to make up "mountains of dead, raped prostitutes", I'm not entirely sure.
The issue is complexity and intention. I'm not very familiar with Ms Cyrus' oevre but in general most pop music is reduced in complexity compared to, say Herbie Hancock, and intended primarily as a commercial enterprise. That's not to say there isn't art and craft in a great deal of pop music but the multiple levels of that compared to, say, Dolphin Dance, will be less. That makes it easier to "get it" and so easier to sell - relatively simple melodies and harmonies so the listener doesn't have to concentrate too hard to extract something meaningful. And the pop music "industry" is just that - a primarily commercial enterprise whereas no one talks about a jazz industry, because you don't go into it for the cash and girls but because that's where you muse is leading you. I think that if you can appreciate the complexity and intent then I think you can appreciate that the artistry is there. Also, in order to appreciate art as art, you need to have a deeper understanding, even an education, as to what is going on. You might think Beethoven's Fifth is a great tune, but you'll get a much better appreciation of just how great the composition is with a bit of knowledge more generally about classical music. That, I think, is reasonably objective.
But that doesn't take away the role of taste, as such. I like some jazz more than others, for example. I think the whole thing about LotR and your comments wasn't so much that you didn't like it - read what you like, frankly. I think the problem was your "It's all just whining hobbits" when there is so much more going on. That isn't a question of taste, that's just wrong. I won't rehash AD's comments above as he put it very well.
Funny; I can't find it on the internet, but on my Getz/Gilberto Bossa Nova jacket, it explained that this was the last real music to win grammy for album of the year before accountants ruined pop music with Elvis Presley and the usual four beats to the measure tripe variously called "rock/pop/country/whatever."
Not that I hate rock; I also like cheetos but cheetos is not good food.
Other than Good Vibrations by the Beach Boys, it's generally tripe.
Again, I think you are being too black and white. To suggest that one is entirely different from the other is probably false. Sturlsson would have been making a religious point about the supremacy of the Christian god, and probably also a political point too about the supemacy of the Church in matters of faith. He might even have been defending himself from charges of heresy or paganism. What he wasn't saying is that these tales are "fiction" - particularly as most of them actually aren't, they involve real people....he would much more likely have instead put it down to the influence of God and demons and devils.Which is an entirely different cosmology and set of supernatural beings -- i.e., Sturlusson was, in his mind, writing about fictional beings in a fictional cosmology. QED.
He came up with euhemerism.
I think he was focusing the truth behind the stories, as evidenced by this observation. Among other things.They did find Egil's bones; I read somewhere.
and finally,....Epic Pooh,.....
by the guy who should be blamed for inventing Emo (Which is short for Elric of Melnibone).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought Goethe and The Sorrows of Young Werther was to blame for Emo.
I think there may be a generational issue at play with how you feel about LoTR. For some of us who are over 40 we went right from kid books to The Lord of The Rings. The shelves were not flooded with fantasy books yet. I think some younger people have already read a lot of fantasy by the time they are old enough to read LoTR. Books written today do have a diff pace and language use. They then read the LoTR and it is different. I have heard people say it is more like an epic poem than a modern fantasy story. For some this is a negative (it's not like Harry Potter or Twilight) for others they still love it. For many like me it was our first epic fantasy and thus the measuring stick by which other fantasy is judged.
yes. yes there is.
It's more than that now. Those sales are five years old. As of the last update, earlier this year, Paolini's four books had sold 38 million copies.
|
I think there may be a generational issue at play with how you feel about LoTR. For some of us who are over 40 we went right from kid books to The Lord of The Rings. The shelves were not flooded with fantasy books yet. I think some younger people have already read a lot of fantasy by the time they are old enough to read LoTR. Books written today do have a diff pace and language use. They then read the LoTR and it is different. I have heard people say it is more like an epic poem than a modern fantasy story. For some this is a negative (it's not like Harry Potter or Twilight) for others they still love it. For many like me it was our first epic fantasy and thus the measuring stick by which other fantasy is judged.
Well Said Mike!
Ah, yes, the argument that "but only [this rounded-down percentage] of pages actually contain rape, there's really nothing to be concerned about". The use of mathematics to exonerate authors seems to be the greatest appeal of authority most of can think of in this genre- most CthulhuTech apologists are wont to do the same.
You said that the book featured staggering quantities ('mountains') of sexual abuse, when it did not. So the quantity on the page is actually relevant to your original comment. I agree that 61 words can be 61 words too much if irrelevant to the book, the theme of the book or the intent of the author (for example, similar scenes in Terry Goodkind's work fall squarely into the 'juvenile grittiness' camp - thrown in to generate cheap drama and possibly disturbing titilation - which I think you are trying to criticise). In this case, it is not. It is there to establish that these characters are not nice people, and throw their later, apparently more positive actions into context. How successful that is in the long term, I do not know (I have not yet read Books 2-3), but it was fairly successful IMO in the first novel.
Now, if your position is that sexual abuse is not a fit subject to be treated in any novel, anywhere, by anyone, that is a different matter. But that is not the argument you originally made.
My friend, I'm afraid you don't quite understand. My opinion was evident from my post. Whether I say it in the most literal method possible or provide a (figuratively) true exaggeration- I did not like the book.
And that is fair enough. Saying you don't like the book is a perfectly fine opinion. Using ludicrous exaggeration to achieve that is unnecessary, however.
And I love how you place the term mistreated in apostrophes.
In this case, 'mistreated' actually meant 'to be raped' (I've actually been trying to avoid using that word because of trigger associations for people). I wasn't making excuses for that, that was going to happen in the book. It certainly does not mean, 'being abused is okay', and I don't think that implication is fair. However, on re-reading the original posting lacked clear context, so I'll accept that there is scope for misunderstanding.
I think there may be a generational issue at play with how you feel about LoTR. For some of us who are over 40 we went right from kid books to The Lord of The Rings.
Disclaimer: I'm over 40. As noted, I don't like Harry Potter. I'd rather put my eyes out than read vampire romance. And regarding things that read like epic poems, I'm the big Moby-Dick fan, remember? (Not to mention the Niebelungenlied, and the Táin Bó Cúailnge, and the Icelandic sagas.)
That said (and I mentioned this before), I loved LOTR when I was 10. Subsequent re-readings have drastically lessened its appeal to me, is all -- whereas every time I read something like Moby-Dick, I get more out of it.
That seems to pretty much echo some of the things Michael Moorcock has said in his criticism of Tolkien's work.
The title of the essay would imply that, but reading it, I get the feeling that Moorcock's beef with Tolkien was political, not over age-appropriateness. I don't really care about Tolkien's politics (or Moorcock's, for that matter). I just don't find reading LotR as rewarding now as I did when I was a kid.
by the guy who should be blamed for inventing Emo (Which is short for Elric of Melnibone).
I love that essay, and I love Moorcock, but I wonder if he really counts as a literary snob. Maybe, I could be argued either way, I guess.
But I don't think I've ever seen Edmund Wilson linked on here before, and he definitely was a snob.