| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
A creation myth seems to exist strongly in the teaching of the development of classical music since, roughly, 1900. Debussy and Schoenberg are singled out as the prime architects. All other composers contemporary with them (and their music) are conveniently ignored for the purposes of the myth. This continued for the next 75 years and is ongoing.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I agree with your overall sentiment (of disapprobation), Martinu, but I think your analysis sucks. The Creation Myth is surely "Modernism". Basically, twentieth century 'artists' decided that harmony in music (and representation in art, rhyme in poetry, narrative in the novel etc etc) had come to an end and 'higher' forms were called for. Actually what had happened -- as I see it anyway -- was that the coming of mass culture meant there was no longer an easy way of distinguishing the high-brow from the middle- and low-brow so these "difficult" new forms were introduced and the high-brows could continue to consort with one another as they had done for centuries.
Meanwhile the rest of us were ogling posters, watching films, bopping and stuff like that. But the Modernists are increasingly colonising these new forms as well. So personally I just watch the telly nowadays. Of course I remain an expert on all branches of the arts but only for sociological reasons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| martinu wrote: | | A creation myth seems to exist strongly in the teaching of the development of classical music since, roughly, 1900. Debussy and Schoenberg are singled out as the prime architects. All other composers contemporary with them (and their music) are conveniently ignored for the purposes of the myth. This continued for the next 75 years and is ongoing. |
This does remind me however of the situation in physics with regard to Einstein. Certain individuals seem always to be elevated as iconic standard bearers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Meanwhile the rest of us were ogling posters, watching films, bopping and stuff like that. But the Modernists are increasingly colonising these new forms as well. So personally I just watch the telly nowadays. Of course I remain an expert on all branches of the arts but only for sociological reasons. |
So, is Harry Potter any good? I haven't read it myself.
Here is what some people think of HP:
A.S. Byatt (never read anything by her):
http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-byatt110703.htm
| Ms. Rowling's magic world has no place for the numinous. It is written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip. |
Harold Bloom (read a little bit by him) on HP:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200307u/int2003-07-16
| I went round to the Yale bookstore and purchased an inexpensive paperback copy of the first volume. I could not believe what was in front of me. What I particularly could not bear was that it was just one cliché after another. In fact, I kept a little checklist on an envelope next to me, and every time any individuals were going, as you or I might say, to take a walk, they were going to "stretch their legs." At the fiftieth or sixtieth stretching of the legs, that was too much for me. |
http://wrt-brooke.syr.edu/courses/205.03/bloom.html
| I read new children's literature, when I can find some of any value, but had not tried Rowling until now. I have just concluded the 300 pages of the first book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," purportedly the best of the lot. Though the book is not well written, that is not in itself a crucial liability. It is much better to see the movie, "The Wizard of Oz," than to read the book upon which it was based, but even the book possessed an authentic imaginative vision. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" does not, so that one needs to look elsewhere for the book's (and its sequels') remarkable success. Such speculation should follow an account of how and why Harry Potter asks to be read. |
Ursula le Guin (full disclosure: big fan of her) on HP:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/
0,6000,1144428,00.html
Q: Nicholas Lezard has written 'Rowling can type, but Le Guin can write.' What do you make of this comment in the light of the phenomenal success of the Potter books? I'd like to hear your opinion of JK Rowling's writing style
UKL: I have no great opinion of it. When so many adult critics were carrying on about the "incredible originality" of the first Harry Potter book, I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kid's fantasy crossed with a "school novel", good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
My personal position re Harry Potter is the same as Le Guin's. However Applied Epistemology does try to take things beyond these personal (and rather sniffy) critiques to point out that "the public" have an ability to recognise 'genius' that critics do not. This is because by definition the public en masse cannot be wrong.
In other words, if you sell well you must be either a genius or at any rate have a rare talent. This allows one to give full measure to, for instance, Jeffrey Archer and suchlike. The principle can be extended to populist dictators. While denouncing academic 'geniuses' at one end -- such as run-of-the-mill Nobel Prizewinners -- AE is concerned to extend the principle at the other end to embrace people we all otherwise love to hate. The fact that we "all" do means these people can do what few are capable of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| "the public" have an ability to recognise 'genius' that critics do not. This is because by definition the public en masse cannot be wrong. |
The public is often wrong. Being a bestseller doesn't mean a book is necessarily bad but its sales are dictated by all sorts of considerations other than literary merit, in which the critics themselves play no small part. (A Brief History Of Time was a bestseller but I've only met a couple of people who've read it). When in doubt over what to read word of mouth recommendations are often reliable but, failing that, if a book has been included in a prize-list or had a glowing review it's probably worth trying.
HP is for kids and shouldn't be sneered at by Antonia Byatt and her crowd; her style is unquestionably literary so what on earth is she doing reviewing a children's writer who's succeeded in attracting a huge readership, that includes boys, when as far as I know she's never attempted the genre herself. (I'm personally grateful to JK, only got halfway through reading the second book aloud to Junior whereupon he grabbed it and became completely immersed).
| In other words, if you sell well you must be either a genius or at any rate have a rare talent. This allows one to give full measure to, for instance, Jeffrey Archer and suchlike. |
That's not always the case; the public is buying a product, or a package, with which it's comfortably familiar. Even a genius wouldn't sell well without knowing what the public expects (Shakespeare is an obvious example). Maybe we love to hate Archer because we hate to admit being attracted to trash. If you want to make money out of writing, try your hand at Mills & Boon, more male authors than female ones I gather.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The point is that writing a Mills and Boon book requires talent. However it is a talent that is quite widely held. Being a Jeffrey Archer requires a much rarer talent. And I don't know any way of distinguishing 'rare talent' from genius.
AE is always looking for ways of defeating our baser judgements and immense popularity is one way. A Brief History of Time is in a different category (you have touched a nerve since I regard Hawking as a complete phoney). Clearly it is not a work of genius in the sense of being particularly groundbreaking as astrophysics, nor is its popularity anything more than mere flash-in-the-pan luck. How do we know? Because, as you say, nobody has read it. If Hawking was a true genius he would have made it readable. He would have changed the world rather than merely impressing it.
Whadyamean I'm jealous? You can fuck right off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| I regard Hawking as a complete phoney |
Wot, more wicked than wrong?
| How do we know? Because, as you say, nobody has read it. |
Everybody bought it, though. I lent mine out and don't expect to get it back, but I don't expect it's being read in its new home. What does that mean?
I read it, but couldn't tell you anything it says, particularly*; except that he was told the rule of thumb is that every equation halves the readership, but he couldn't bring himself to leave out "E=mc2". I bought but haven't read its rebuttal, A Brief History of Eternity. What does that mean?
* I expect people know the content better than they think, because it's all High Street and telly stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| DPCrisp wrote: | | Everybody bought it, though. |
I didn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tatjana
In: exiled in Germany
|
|
|
|
I bought it. And I read it as well.
So there.
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
After consciously avoiding the J word, it inevitably comes up; the assertion that someone has talent is debatable but whether they deserve fame and riches is something we do feel justified in questioning. If Hawking wasn't such an emblem of courage overcoming adversity (which he undoubtably is) would his Brief History have had a brief history of success?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tatjana
In: exiled in Germany
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: |
After deliberately avoiding the J word, it inevitably comes up; the question of whether someone has talent is debatable but whether they deserve fame and riches is something we do feel justified in criticising. If Hawking wasn't such an emblem of courage overcoming adversity (which he undoubtably is) would his Brief History have had a brief history of success? |
That's an interesting question, Hatty.
I for one can only say I didn't know about his illness when I bought the book. It was recommended to me by my Physics teacher, when he noticed I had a great interest in all matters concerning time (I was still at school back then). So I bought it, I read it and I found it really good and fascinating. He wrote about physics in a way I could understand - I had always very bad grades in physics as well as maths. And I even re-read it recently and still found it good.
And now Mick can crucify me and poke me with red-hot irons. I like the book! It's a good book!
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Everybody bought it, though. I lent mine out and don't expect to get it back, but I don't expect it's being read in its new home. What does that mean? |
It means that you, like everyone else, are susceptible to marketing, whether it be in the form of Top Ten Best Selling Paperbacks or a reputable critic's commendation. That doesn't mean that you like or even read the book, you can still form your own opinion about its worth. Out of professional curiosity, or merely curiosity, you want to know what 'all the fuss is about', not unlike the obsession with celebrity culture on another level.
| I like the book! It's a good book! |
Oh dear, fanning the flames of jealousy isn't wise. But it might just galvanise The Author into action.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tatjana
In: exiled in Germany
|
|
|
|
I like the book! It's a good book!
| Oh dear, fanning the flames of jealousy isn't wise. But it might just galvanise The Author into action. | |
Well, he has no reason to be jealous. I once wrote and published a review about THOBR. I never did any such thing for Hawking.
_________________
-Gory at thasp, keener fortha karabd-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tatjana wrote: | | I bought it. And I read it as well.So there. |
Me too, back in high school.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
