Always a treat when Farthing is delivered.
The knock-out story was of course, 'After the Reformation: Interviews with the Grammarians' by Helen Keeble.
This is a story about what it is like to be a word in a book. Exactly the sort of idea that I get excited about. I enjoyed the definitions of terminology. What was clever is the the way the human situation emerged and became explained as the story progressed. Personally, I think I might have preferred it if it hadn't been explained. But I know I'm minority taste with these things.
This is her first published work. I can't wait to see what follows.
Excellent Drabble (#19) from Michael Stone too.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Mrs Warren's Profession. Lyceum. Edinburgh. 25-Feb-2007
A read a good GBS story once in an academic tome. GBS was taking a curtain call to huge cheering. In the silence before he came to speak, one man booed. Shaw replied: ‘I agree, sir, but who are we two against so many.’ The implication taken by the academic was that GBS knew that his popularity – his wit – was stopping him producing work of greater depth. Bollocks obviously – but then again you know what he means. Occasionally the twists and paradoxes seem to be there for their own sake rather than to illuminate theme or character.
This complaint does not apply however, to Mrs Warren’s Profession, staged in a blindingly good production at the Lyceum..
This play was written for love not money. (It was Shaw’s third play and he always knew the subject matter was so extreme no one would ever be able to stage the play.)
And there is never one hint of false paradox. The daughter’s reaction when she learns he mother used to be a prostitute is not acceptance and admiration to make a point. It is the genuine reaction of a clear-eyed, intelligent, cant-dismissing emotionally mature woman.
How sad that 114 years later there are so few women’s roles with this level of clear-eyed challenge. Instead we get these wanky middle-aged fantasies (many of which we are supposed to accept as products of ‘serious’ writers).
And yet, when we look at the relationship between the young lovers Frank and Vivie, it is childish, playground, sexless. Was this GBS setting the stage that their eventual separation is not a tragedy? Is it a challenge to our ‘romantic’ thinking about marriage? Does it say something about Shaw’s relationship to women? As to these questions I suppose I should read Ellman, but within the context of the play itself, compare the scenes with Viv with the sexy scene between Frank and Mrs W. A). Frank is definitely not playing the child here, B) Frank seems to be serious about pursuing some unconstrained activities here.
A lucky escape for Vivie.
I very much enjoyed Vivie’s speeches, with their inarguable critique of the WAG and vacuous celebrity world - just as a sideline. And the reality, thank God, is that BB celebrity porn is recognised as fantasy. Young women know this is fantasy. (But how much might they be tempted to think it true?)
Excellent cast. The Rector, Gardner (Richard Addison) might have been a bit weak but I suspect it was the part. Compare Sir George Crofts (Douglas Lee) which also seemed weak until Shaw gave him a meaty scene to play to.
Frank was played with brilliance (Anthony Eden). I don’t see how you could have got more from that part.
Mrs Warren (Paola Dionisotti) was spot on. The way she played the registers between her accents was fantastic. You could do that in a modern play but it would just show ‘working-class’ roots - whatever that means now. On the date the play was written it would have represented something more like the distance from a Morlock to an Eloi.
I thought Vivie (Emma Stansfield) was hampered by stupid costumes. The bustles and mutton-shop sleeves simply made her look like a fat man. In the play, men are throwing themselves at Vivie, partly because of her character and brain - but not only. She should have been shown to be her Mother’s daughter a bit more.
This complaint does not apply however, to Mrs Warren’s Profession, staged in a blindingly good production at the Lyceum..
This play was written for love not money. (It was Shaw’s third play and he always knew the subject matter was so extreme no one would ever be able to stage the play.)
And there is never one hint of false paradox. The daughter’s reaction when she learns he mother used to be a prostitute is not acceptance and admiration to make a point. It is the genuine reaction of a clear-eyed, intelligent, cant-dismissing emotionally mature woman.
How sad that 114 years later there are so few women’s roles with this level of clear-eyed challenge. Instead we get these wanky middle-aged fantasies (many of which we are supposed to accept as products of ‘serious’ writers).
And yet, when we look at the relationship between the young lovers Frank and Vivie, it is childish, playground, sexless. Was this GBS setting the stage that their eventual separation is not a tragedy? Is it a challenge to our ‘romantic’ thinking about marriage? Does it say something about Shaw’s relationship to women? As to these questions I suppose I should read Ellman, but within the context of the play itself, compare the scenes with Viv with the sexy scene between Frank and Mrs W. A). Frank is definitely not playing the child here, B) Frank seems to be serious about pursuing some unconstrained activities here.
A lucky escape for Vivie.
I very much enjoyed Vivie’s speeches, with their inarguable critique of the WAG and vacuous celebrity world - just as a sideline. And the reality, thank God, is that BB celebrity porn is recognised as fantasy. Young women know this is fantasy. (But how much might they be tempted to think it true?)
Excellent cast. The Rector, Gardner (Richard Addison) might have been a bit weak but I suspect it was the part. Compare Sir George Crofts (Douglas Lee) which also seemed weak until Shaw gave him a meaty scene to play to.
Frank was played with brilliance (Anthony Eden). I don’t see how you could have got more from that part.
Mrs Warren (Paola Dionisotti) was spot on. The way she played the registers between her accents was fantastic. You could do that in a modern play but it would just show ‘working-class’ roots - whatever that means now. On the date the play was written it would have represented something more like the distance from a Morlock to an Eloi.
I thought Vivie (Emma Stansfield) was hampered by stupid costumes. The bustles and mutton-shop sleeves simply made her look like a fat man. In the play, men are throwing themselves at Vivie, partly because of her character and brain - but not only. She should have been shown to be her Mother’s daughter a bit more.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Zahir. issue 12. Spring 2007. 18-Feb-2007
A beautifully produced magazine. B5-ish. Perfect bound. Lovely cover design and good quality paper.
Interesting stats. (To sound like a cricket commentator)
9 contributors.
1*MFA
1*PHD in sciences
1*ex-Clarion
1*planning to go on an MFA programme
1*PHD in Classics
1*teaches fiction
1*ex-military
High number of - what I considered - stand out stories.
3. Julia Perceiving in Binary: A futuristic romance. Nicole Grieco.
2. The Rocket Seamstress. Gray Rinehart.
1. My Piece of Sky. Debra Goldberg (teaches fiction)
1. My Piece of Sky. Debra Goldberg
My puritanism makes me ambiguous towards fantasy. I have a tendency to think fantasy has to justify itself: tell you something. Nothing more fantastic than a piece of sky deciding to come down to earth. No clever parallels, no conceits for something else. Did I care? Not a jot! Brio wins! Like a teetotaler taking a drink.
2. The Rocket Seamstress. Gray Rinehart.
I liked this story because of the unusual setting (Russian space race) and because of the way it mixes tech and spells, and industry and the human, and generation gaps.
Interestingly, as a European (I think the Brits are 'European' in this regard) I found the strong Russian patriotism a bit wierd. If I had written the story I would not have thought to make the patriotism real as opposed to 'lip-service' or ironic.
The story was written by an ex- US Air Force Officer.
Was he being extremely fair-minded in showing Russian patriotism/ achievements? Does he know Russia and is simply being truthful? Or - and now I start hiking of into possible bollocks - does it take one patriotic superpower to understand another? Or is the patriotism a reflection of his own. (Maybe a false reflection?) Be interesting to know.
Interesting stats. (To sound like a cricket commentator)
9 contributors.
1*MFA
1*PHD in sciences
1*ex-Clarion
1*planning to go on an MFA programme
1*PHD in Classics
1*teaches fiction
1*ex-military
High number of - what I considered - stand out stories.
3. Julia Perceiving in Binary: A futuristic romance. Nicole Grieco.
2. The Rocket Seamstress. Gray Rinehart.
1. My Piece of Sky. Debra Goldberg (teaches fiction)
1. My Piece of Sky. Debra Goldberg
My puritanism makes me ambiguous towards fantasy. I have a tendency to think fantasy has to justify itself: tell you something. Nothing more fantastic than a piece of sky deciding to come down to earth. No clever parallels, no conceits for something else. Did I care? Not a jot! Brio wins! Like a teetotaler taking a drink.
2. The Rocket Seamstress. Gray Rinehart.
I liked this story because of the unusual setting (Russian space race) and because of the way it mixes tech and spells, and industry and the human, and generation gaps.
Interestingly, as a European (I think the Brits are 'European' in this regard) I found the strong Russian patriotism a bit wierd. If I had written the story I would not have thought to make the patriotism real as opposed to 'lip-service' or ironic.
The story was written by an ex- US Air Force Officer.
Was he being extremely fair-minded in showing Russian patriotism/ achievements? Does he know Russia and is simply being truthful? Or - and now I start hiking of into possible bollocks - does it take one patriotic superpower to understand another? Or is the patriotism a reflection of his own. (Maybe a false reflection?) Be interesting to know.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Goya: Monsters And Matadors. National Gallery Of Scotland 3-Feb-07
What excuse do I have for my ignorance of the Goya prints?
Well, mainly the bullshit the press puts out, that reduces the whole output to a simple message: 'life is shit' and 'Goya is a gloomy bloke.'
Hardly seems worth going out of your way for.
No surprise that the reality is different.
Series: The Tauromaquia
I had seen a print in the newspaper. Plate 21 'The dreadful events' which gives the impression the whole series is just about people or various animals being gored. But the series is much more interesting than that. It is actually about the history and techniques of bullfighting, from the early days of gangs of blokes just ganging up on a bull, the Moors bringing in the use of horses (and much of the techniques that were later incorporated) to the more modern bullring and bullfight which incorporates a range of the older and newer spectacles.
What do the prints show:
The glamour
The daring
The carnival crazy publicity stunt atmosphere of Daren Brown, Evel Knievel, David Blaine with one of his less boring stunts.
The danger and pain
The sense of history
Plate 14 is called 'The very skillful student of Falces.'
(Falces is where the bullfighter Don Bernando Alcade y Merino had studied for the priesthood.)
It shows a figure shrouded in a cape and huge hat, exactly like a modern comic book hero (Alam Moore tradition) BUT it was a real person.
There is 'Martincho' going to leap over a bull while he wears anckle chains.
Another swings across the bull on a pole.
Reminiscent, rightly I think, of the bull dancers of ancient Crete.
Great bullfighter 'Pepe' was seriously wounded 13 times in his career before his death in the ring. (The death shown in Goya's print.)
Series: The Disasters of War
Interesting how big a part women played in the war. Eg, the print 'What courage!' - with Augustina climbing over the dead soldiers to fire the canon. And the fact that -at least to a certain extent - Spanish women fought beside the men.
Many of the more grusome prints very famous of course. I was always a little unsure if the things drawn would actually look like that. But after the documentory feel of the bullfighters series you know war images are accurate.
Goya isn't on a one message track through. He is a documentor of everything. Even the glamour.
Series: The Proverbios
Not much to say about these. Partly because they were all familiar to me. Only you could imagine a Goya fantasy comic book.
It was good that the exhibition was on the bottom floor. It made me go down and see the Scottish Collection again. This visit struck by the Traquair. Quiller Orchardson's breathtaking 'Master baby' (a Pinter play image if there ever was one.) Joseph Noel Paton's Midsummer Night's Dream paintings.
What a pleasure to have these on my doorstep!
Well, mainly the bullshit the press puts out, that reduces the whole output to a simple message: 'life is shit' and 'Goya is a gloomy bloke.'
Hardly seems worth going out of your way for.
No surprise that the reality is different.
Series: The Tauromaquia
I had seen a print in the newspaper. Plate 21 'The dreadful events' which gives the impression the whole series is just about people or various animals being gored. But the series is much more interesting than that. It is actually about the history and techniques of bullfighting, from the early days of gangs of blokes just ganging up on a bull, the Moors bringing in the use of horses (and much of the techniques that were later incorporated) to the more modern bullring and bullfight which incorporates a range of the older and newer spectacles.
What do the prints show:
The glamour
The daring
The carnival crazy publicity stunt atmosphere of Daren Brown, Evel Knievel, David Blaine with one of his less boring stunts.
The danger and pain
The sense of history
Plate 14 is called 'The very skillful student of Falces.'
(Falces is where the bullfighter Don Bernando Alcade y Merino had studied for the priesthood.)
It shows a figure shrouded in a cape and huge hat, exactly like a modern comic book hero (Alam Moore tradition) BUT it was a real person.
There is 'Martincho' going to leap over a bull while he wears anckle chains.
Another swings across the bull on a pole.
Reminiscent, rightly I think, of the bull dancers of ancient Crete.
Great bullfighter 'Pepe' was seriously wounded 13 times in his career before his death in the ring. (The death shown in Goya's print.)
Series: The Disasters of War
Interesting how big a part women played in the war. Eg, the print 'What courage!' - with Augustina climbing over the dead soldiers to fire the canon. And the fact that -at least to a certain extent - Spanish women fought beside the men.
Many of the more grusome prints very famous of course. I was always a little unsure if the things drawn would actually look like that. But after the documentory feel of the bullfighters series you know war images are accurate.
Goya isn't on a one message track through. He is a documentor of everything. Even the glamour.
Series: The Proverbios
Not much to say about these. Partly because they were all familiar to me. Only you could imagine a Goya fantasy comic book.
It was good that the exhibition was on the bottom floor. It made me go down and see the Scottish Collection again. This visit struck by the Traquair. Quiller Orchardson's breathtaking 'Master baby' (a Pinter play image if there ever was one.) Joseph Noel Paton's Midsummer Night's Dream paintings.
What a pleasure to have these on my doorstep!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)