The Max Approach strikes me as self-indulgent, arrogant, lazy. How much easier to dismiss Shakespeare as an enemy of the cherished concept du jour than to truly encounter his work -- maybe even deeply enough to be surprised and moved or changed by it?
The presumption of the Maxes (who, presumably, have no need of transformation or evolution in their being, representing already what is most enlightened) inoculates the mind against the possibility of communing with real presence, real humanity, in art. It’s like the university administrator once said, “why do we need a history department? We know what happened.” Why do we need to listen to Bach? We, the enlightened, already know he was XYZ.
Medieval drama, 20 years ago! And yet I remember you and the class. I had 16 years of Catholic education and ended up knowing nothing about the Bible, which had no place in Catholic liturgy at the time, say nothing of the classroom. You knew a lot about it. It was only when I got to graduate school that I realized that the Bible was a sounding board for literature, and not only medieval literature. I loved working with medieval drama when I taught. A few years ago I gave away dozens of editions of Old and Middle English texts to former PhD students who are now teaching, but I kept all the drama editions, even Bevington's anthology--all those Middle English dialects, all that invention of scriptural episodes, a wonderful collision of tradition and popular culture. Thank you for writing and for bringing all this back!
I think this is exactly right. Only the present speaks to people like Max. Anything else is remote or irrelevant. Your mention of Shakespeare reminded me that, ages ago, the department I used to teach in replaced the historical distribution requirement for the PhD with a multi-cultural requirement (all of it modern or contemporary). I tried to explain that historical distribution was itself multi-cultural, but this was a useless effort. How could Shakespeare, still a dominating force in theater and literature, be considered remote or irrelevant? His culture was hardly the same as ours; his English can be very difficult. And how multi-cultural was it, really, to narrow the curriculum to writers whose politics were like your own? That administrator you mention did not have the faintest idea about "what happened," that is for sure. Thanks for your comment.
A disagreeable movie, I think, but I tried to look more at what it was saying about music and those who make it happen and less at the personalities. I came away with respect for Tar's service to music and what it required of her. Max seemed to be interested in what he required of music.
Thanks for this review, Allen. I like the way you navigate the minefield of the woke. I especially like the robot critique... as it speaks to my subject.
Today's WS Journal (7/12/24) has a useful article on ways in which robots are being paired with people in the restaurant business. Robotic always seems disparaging, but there is something to be said (in some businesses) for consistency.
The concepts of "consistency" and "reliability" are themselves outgrowths of industrialism that pertain to things like McDonald's burgers and the automotive industry. I have trouble getting on board with the notion that such robotics contribute to living right. Call me a Luddite, but considering the impacts on our culture, I think I'd prefer a world with more inconsistency. Despite obvious industries like, say, washing machines and cars, I guess I feel it's worth the argument. Maybe it's because of how much damage has been done by "the machine."
Yes, I see your point. And I see you've got a new post on this topic, so I'll be reading that today. Just as a note, washing machines are worse than they have been in 20 years, slower, using more water, and in the spin cycle not getting the clothes wrung out. My mother did better with her old wringer Maytag in the 1960s. But the new ones sure have a lot of buttons and heat and eco-settings and so on.
Aye. I noticed the coincidence! I was literally steeped in the subject when answering your response and it helped me grope at a conclusion for this week's article. Of course, I agree re the decline in quality of appliances. I wrote a previous piece on Ketman where I ranted about the uselessness of dishwashers these days, suggesting they be called dishwashing aids.
The Max Approach strikes me as self-indulgent, arrogant, lazy. How much easier to dismiss Shakespeare as an enemy of the cherished concept du jour than to truly encounter his work -- maybe even deeply enough to be surprised and moved or changed by it?
The presumption of the Maxes (who, presumably, have no need of transformation or evolution in their being, representing already what is most enlightened) inoculates the mind against the possibility of communing with real presence, real humanity, in art. It’s like the university administrator once said, “why do we need a history department? We know what happened.” Why do we need to listen to Bach? We, the enlightened, already know he was XYZ.
What a (truly?) damned shame.
Medieval drama, 20 years ago! And yet I remember you and the class. I had 16 years of Catholic education and ended up knowing nothing about the Bible, which had no place in Catholic liturgy at the time, say nothing of the classroom. You knew a lot about it. It was only when I got to graduate school that I realized that the Bible was a sounding board for literature, and not only medieval literature. I loved working with medieval drama when I taught. A few years ago I gave away dozens of editions of Old and Middle English texts to former PhD students who are now teaching, but I kept all the drama editions, even Bevington's anthology--all those Middle English dialects, all that invention of scriptural episodes, a wonderful collision of tradition and popular culture. Thank you for writing and for bringing all this back!
I think this is exactly right. Only the present speaks to people like Max. Anything else is remote or irrelevant. Your mention of Shakespeare reminded me that, ages ago, the department I used to teach in replaced the historical distribution requirement for the PhD with a multi-cultural requirement (all of it modern or contemporary). I tried to explain that historical distribution was itself multi-cultural, but this was a useless effort. How could Shakespeare, still a dominating force in theater and literature, be considered remote or irrelevant? His culture was hardly the same as ours; his English can be very difficult. And how multi-cultural was it, really, to narrow the curriculum to writers whose politics were like your own? That administrator you mention did not have the faintest idea about "what happened," that is for sure. Thanks for your comment.
Although I found little to like in the movie, I see now that it provides much food for thought.
A disagreeable movie, I think, but I tried to look more at what it was saying about music and those who make it happen and less at the personalities. I came away with respect for Tar's service to music and what it required of her. Max seemed to be interested in what he required of music.
Thanks for this review, Allen. I like the way you navigate the minefield of the woke. I especially like the robot critique... as it speaks to my subject.
Today's WS Journal (7/12/24) has a useful article on ways in which robots are being paired with people in the restaurant business. Robotic always seems disparaging, but there is something to be said (in some businesses) for consistency.
The concepts of "consistency" and "reliability" are themselves outgrowths of industrialism that pertain to things like McDonald's burgers and the automotive industry. I have trouble getting on board with the notion that such robotics contribute to living right. Call me a Luddite, but considering the impacts on our culture, I think I'd prefer a world with more inconsistency. Despite obvious industries like, say, washing machines and cars, I guess I feel it's worth the argument. Maybe it's because of how much damage has been done by "the machine."
Yes, I see your point. And I see you've got a new post on this topic, so I'll be reading that today. Just as a note, washing machines are worse than they have been in 20 years, slower, using more water, and in the spin cycle not getting the clothes wrung out. My mother did better with her old wringer Maytag in the 1960s. But the new ones sure have a lot of buttons and heat and eco-settings and so on.
Aye. I noticed the coincidence! I was literally steeped in the subject when answering your response and it helped me grope at a conclusion for this week's article. Of course, I agree re the decline in quality of appliances. I wrote a previous piece on Ketman where I ranted about the uselessness of dishwashers these days, suggesting they be called dishwashing aids.