Tragedy and Pleasure?
I am reading, 'Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure? by A. D. Nuttall (1996), which I picked on a library shelf because I saw it as an interesting question. The author looks at Aristotle's ideas, especially catharsis, Freud's thinking about 'the pleasure principle', as well as Nietzsche's understanding of the dark side of human nature.
Nuttall looks at Aristotle's idea of catharsis, as expressed in tragic poetry, as a process in which 'emotion is not whipped up, but is discharged'. Aristotle sees the expression of viewing trajedy as more than gloating over another's pain. He suggests that 'purgative pleasure is essential to normal enjoyment of and, in another (the Nicomachean Ethics), that such purgative pleasures are accidental..' He does view purgation as involving humoured but Nuttall argues that 'the theory of catharsis involved in the ''Poetics'' is unlikely to be a full instance of physicalism'.
In looking at Freud, Nuttall suggests that Freud depended on 'that great mass of repressed matter, the Unconscious'. He also looks at Freud's understanding of the Pleasure Principle, including the expression of sexuality and how Freud showed how sexual gratification 'was curbed by the deadening restrictions of civilisation,' with 'Freud's State of Nature' being ' like the fierce "war of every man in Hobbes's 'Leviathan'." '
Nietzsche's ideas, including his 'Birth of Trajedy' are considered by Nuttall including the way in which 'tragedy is a point of culture for Nietzsche. Nuttall sees both the Freudian and Nietzschean understanding of trajedy as more rooted in human nature than in the perspective of Aristotle. Also, the author raises the question: 'Does the admission of the dark side of the mind_ an unconscious_ have a bearing on the problem of the pleasure of trajedy? '
I would also question is the 'pleasure of trajedy' a problem? Is it not the aesthetic element of quality art and literature? I am aware that I have only sketched out a bare outline of Nuttall's book and the writers considered within it. I am opening the thread for fuller discussion of such ideas, including the idea of catharsis of Aristotle. Also, I am raising the question in the author's title''Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure?'
Nuttall looks at Aristotle's idea of catharsis, as expressed in tragic poetry, as a process in which 'emotion is not whipped up, but is discharged'. Aristotle sees the expression of viewing trajedy as more than gloating over another's pain. He suggests that 'purgative pleasure is essential to normal enjoyment of and, in another (the Nicomachean Ethics), that such purgative pleasures are accidental..' He does view purgation as involving humoured but Nuttall argues that 'the theory of catharsis involved in the ''Poetics'' is unlikely to be a full instance of physicalism'.
In looking at Freud, Nuttall suggests that Freud depended on 'that great mass of repressed matter, the Unconscious'. He also looks at Freud's understanding of the Pleasure Principle, including the expression of sexuality and how Freud showed how sexual gratification 'was curbed by the deadening restrictions of civilisation,' with 'Freud's State of Nature' being ' like the fierce "war of every man in Hobbes's 'Leviathan'." '
Nietzsche's ideas, including his 'Birth of Trajedy' are considered by Nuttall including the way in which 'tragedy is a point of culture for Nietzsche. Nuttall sees both the Freudian and Nietzschean understanding of trajedy as more rooted in human nature than in the perspective of Aristotle. Also, the author raises the question: 'Does the admission of the dark side of the mind_ an unconscious_ have a bearing on the problem of the pleasure of trajedy? '
I would also question is the 'pleasure of trajedy' a problem? Is it not the aesthetic element of quality art and literature? I am aware that I have only sketched out a bare outline of Nuttall's book and the writers considered within it. I am opening the thread for fuller discussion of such ideas, including the idea of catharsis of Aristotle. Also, I am raising the question in the author's title''Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure?'
Comments (112)
This seems important to me, with the tragic aspects of art being connected to the development of wisdom for living. However, I am sure that there are many levels of understanding the tragic in art, and that the ideas of Aristotle and so many philosophers contribute to this. Any thoughts on Nuttall's comparison between dreams and tragedy, or on the wider issue of tragedy, pleasure in art in connection with human suffering.
A novelist, playwright, librettist/composer, or poet may offer an enactment of the very bad event which enacts tragedy in a particularly complete and satisfying manner. A successful piece of art acknowledges the unfairness of life and places us in that context.
Why do we derive satisfaction from the tragic art work? Because we must reconcile ourselves to the unfairness of life, again and again -- whether we use art to help us or not.
The pleasure part derives from us having the problem of an unfair cosmos depicted once again, and having our selves positioned as spectators of tragedy, rather than the subjects of tragedy. We'll be the subject of our own tragedies soon enough; we might be helped by remembering that we are also spectators of tragedy.
I prefer to think of the universe as an indifferent cause of suffering, rather than being focused on making my life as miserable as possible, with customized misfortune abounding. One of our tragedies is that our brother/sister sentient beings take care of focussed, customized misfortune.
Interesting topic. (But why do you refer to "Fuller"? What does s/he have to do with Nuttall's book?)
Anyway, fwiw, 'studies of tragedy' I've found most insightful (among the ones already mentioned and others) are Antigones by George Steiner and Joyful Cruelty by Clément Rosset. As an artform, 'tragedy' allows the audience/readers to play 'the game of death' slip the mask of daily denial of mortality and perhaps live on moved/wounded ... like Jacob wrestling his Angel.
The "problem", I think, is that the "pleasure" of tragedy is much harder to come by, or fully experience, in our time than in premodern times because, by comparison especially in today's hyperconsumerist West, we are mostly urbanized de-nature-ized and thereby overstimulated (i.e. benumbed, anaestheticized) by hypersensationalized trivia continuously. Every misshap is now called "tragic"; ubiquitous vidiocy trivializes 'the game of death' (i.e. the real).
Pardon my superficial gloss, Jack, @BC has said it much better. :fire:
'Tis sweet, when, down the mighty main, the winds
Roll up its waste of waters, from the land
To watch another's labouring anguish far,
Not that we joyously delight that man
Should thus be smitten, but because 'tis sweet
To mark what evils we ourselves be spared;
[/quote]
Link
Which gets along a bit with Aristotle's notion -- that the distance between the audience and the subject is what allows a certain kind of pleasure in the unfortunate to arise.
But I also want to quote Artaud, whose theory of theatre gives a different picture to the pleasure of tragedy:
[quote=Antonin Artaud, The Theatre and its Double, VII. The Theater and Cruelty]
The theater will never find itself again--i.e., constitute a means
of true illusion--except by furnishing the spectator with the
truthful precipitates of dreams, in which his taste for crime, his
erotic obsessions, his savagery, his chimeras, his utopian sense of
life and matter, even his cannibalism, pour out, on a level not
counterfeit and illusory, but interior.
[/quote]
Artaud is a more poetic writer and so subject to interpretation, but what I've always taken him to mean is that the function of tragedy is to fulfill our anti-social desires through the magic of theatre: the savage desire to kill your enemy can be not just seen from a distince, but felt in the interior -- so it gives an opposite reason for the pleasure of tragedy. Rather than because we are distant from it we come to experience a part of ourselves that we normally couldn't.
I don't quite understand this. Is it saying that because catharsis, which is/gives purgative pleasure, is accidental, it looks (but is unlikely to be) a full instance of physicalism? What sense of 'accidental' is being used here, common or Aristotelian?
I have just seen your post and others, which I will look at properly tomorrow. However, what I do wish to say immediately is that the reference to Fuller, as opposed to Nuttall, on many occasions is a bad typo error. So, I apologise and will correct it in my outpost tomorrow morning. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
One problem, these guys are way out of date. There was once tragic theater and poetry to purge the baser emotions of the highly refined audience. The plebes went to public executions and bull-baiting.
Now, entertainments of the most cathartic nature are available without stint for the price of one's server fee. More cheaply still, we can watch the evening news broadcast or borrow any amount of horror from the library.
If we, as a culture, were actually cleansed and purified by these spectacles, we'd all be saints by now.
It almost sounds like schadenfreude is trying to muscle in here? Is that the real hidden question? I think Cartharsis is quite a different beast to Schadenfreude. Maybe discussing the distinction could prove fruitful.
What I find really useful about your post is that it looks not simply at the audience experience of art and trajedy but the process of art making and suffering. Artists and writers may be able to work with the raw material of suffering to create a profound vision. Audiences may be able to partake and participate in the masterpieces of this.
It is likely that the art of Van Gogh appeals to so many because he created a profound visual worldview amidst suffering. Of course, the life of a writer and artist may contribute to an enigma.
I studied art therapy and it does seem that the creative arts can be a way of living with suffering and the injustices of life. Both the making and appreciation of art forms may be a way of processing life experiences.
The books which you speak of sound interesting. It does seem that it is harder to get a glimpse of the nature of trajedy in the commercialised West. So much of drama and cinema is about sensation. I actually prefer going to see drama rather than watch films because it feels like a participation in the problem dealing with suffering, death and difficult emotions rather than superficial glamour. It is likely that the mythic depths are still present amidst the glamour, but some may get lost. That may be why fiction may still have an important role to play in dealing with existential experiences, because story remains the essential aspect.
Your understanding, based on Artaud, of drama as involving the some expression of savage aspects of life is consistent with Freud. It goes back to the ritualistic aspect of life, including religious rites. Drama performance, with the live element, is like a ritualistic celebration. It may involve some kind of channelling of taboo aspects of human nature in a socially acceptable form. It may also be an expression of anger at life's injustices as opposed to the celebration of the joyful aspects of life.
My understanding of the argument that Aristotle's picture of catharsis as being different from physicalism is that he came from a different worldview. Even though he brought the idealism down to the world of causes he was still basing his ideas on the ancient worldview primarily. The idea of catharsis and purgation of humours is so different to the understanding of physiology. It would involve balance through bloodletting. Such practice would not make sense today apart from for people who suffer from the blood disorder of polycythemia, who are often advised to donate blood.
Thank you for sharing this book and the questions arising. It's refreshing to read this thread with its wonderful contributions and your careful responses.
In trying to understand Aristotle's 'catharsis' and Nietzsche's take on 'tragedy', I looked to simple versions. Now, not so able to find or read books I turn to other means. Like YouTube. Cue :roll:
The focus, here, is on Tragedy in Art rather than as personal or 'ordinary' experiences. We don't have to look far to find tragic events in current wars or even, for some, everyday battles against poverty. I doubt that this gives 'pleasure' to many. Most people are not 'performing', nor do they necessarily have the luxury or privilege of 'spectating'. This is basic survival.
Of course, films, books, art etc. reflect individual lives in times, countries - at a distance. They are not 'real' but remote, so can perhaps be 'enjoyed' as exciting. As you say:
Quoting Jack Cummins
And that can lead to 'catharsis': 'The process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions'.
Quoting Britannica
Having just read some Plato and pondering the tragic-comedic aspects of his Dialogues. I found Nietzsche's view fascinating and different to what I had expected:
Why Greek Tragedy is the Greatest Art Form | Nietzsche on Ancient Greek Tragedy (13.26)
Some of my notes:
The intertwining of Tragedy and comedy (5.14) - Tragedy from the perspective of the comical and the experience of the absurd. As a basis for understanding art.
Art as a function for life. Also laughter as a way of coping. Zarathustra - Learn to laugh. Properly. Laugher symbolises The act of self-overcoming (11.04)
Comedy and laughter - an ethic that says yes to life, (12.34) Amor fati - love of fate - don't take ourselves too seriously.
So, you quite rightly point out the connections between the Tragedy of Art and the development of wisdom for living. But looking at examples of how people are surviving at ground-level in Ukraine and Gaza - isn't it the case that the wisdom there is of the practical and stoic kind. Just get on with it. No need for theories...
Of course, times have changed and what art satisfies is so variable. So much has changed with postmodern values and aesthetics. Also, there is so much choice with people to choose from the whole of history and global perspectives. It can be daunting or it can be an exciting adventure. It makes the search for what works to appeal to the depths of one's own life dramas and quest a personal quest. In previous times, what was considered as important in art, drama, literature and writing may have been more of a group quest whereas it is becoming interconnected with the pursuit of the inner life.
The Dionysian aspects of catharsis show how tragedy and ecstasy may be interconnected. I see this as being about the process of transmuting the darkness or finding the sublime within it. In some ways, this is similar to the quest of the shaman, who journeyed to underworld and upperworld regions. This involved the process of healing and art for the people by the shamans who may have been 'medicine men' or performers.
Thanks for your detailed response. The most striking aspect of what your post raises is how do the tragic in art and the art of living interact. What may be worrying is that in spite of the potential within art for catharsis and wisdom through artistic expression it may be not going in the right direction. That is because the tragic dramas are being externalised in life in so much conflict, especially so many devastating war situations. It is possible that news in the media is becoming the new tragic drama, rather than individuals' inner journeys taking them to the place of 'better', or ethical living. People may be becoming spectators of the tragic aspects of life through the cultural consumption of manufactured media news.
What I was trying to highlight in that quote from Nietzsche is how we partake in the performance and reveal something harsh about the reality of human existence. The essence of such brutal experiences (secondhand or imagined) taps into the essence of being human. We cherish such stark encounters with brute reality.
The 'pleasure' may be interpreted as more or less a recognition of reality as a means of value even though there is suffering - or rather because there is suffering.
Anyway, this is a topic that hits some familiar ground for me as I ended up reading 'Beyond Good and Evil' and then realised I needed to read 'On the Genealogy of Morals' first and then realised I needed to read 'The Birth of Tragedy' prior to that ... and then eventually I started with Aristotle's Poetics and worked my way back to 'Beyond Good and Evil'. I recommend doing this, it is fun watching different threads of ideas weaving together and interesting questions surfacing.
I appreciate your taking the time to read and comment positively :smile:
Quoting Jack Cummins
One concern of mine is how 'news in the media' can overwhelm minds to the point where their own creativity is affected. Their imagination is taken up by the never-ending drama of 'What if Trump...?'
It may well be 'manufactured' but the consequences are real. There is real fear; people feel unsafe and the need to flee but can't...there seems to be anger and violence everywhere. But good to hear the other side - where communities came together after the tragedy of the Southport stabbings and the riots that followed. For those not following UK news:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Southport_stabbing
There is an addiction to the highs and lows of what comes next, who says what and is it all real?
Many seem to have found a higher mood and hope; revitalised with the new energy of Kamala Harris. In the UK, the character of Keir Starmer. But who knows...
Just more characters in the page, in the chapter, in the book...of life as we 'know' it.
How have you found your story-telling affected? Your inner journey expressed here is valuable to read and consider...
I wasn't talking about satisfaction, but specifically about the cathartic effect of melodrama and tragedy. Our entertainments don't just come in the form of written literature, pictorial rendering and theater, but also, and overwhelmingly, in graphic, immersive cinema and interactive virtual presentations. There is so much of it all around us, all the time, that there is no time for reflection, for questioning the quality or value of art - though we may question whether many of the productions qualify as art, they are certainly experienced by the audience. There is no time to accumulate any backlog of guilt, sorrow, resentment, aggression: it's purged instantly, maybe before we can even feel it.
The trick is to escape from all that catharsis, into restful, contemplative, replenishing art.
Quoting Amity
I shall rudely borrow this question for a moment, because it bears directly on my response above.
I write positive stories for the most part. I've been accused of not having enough conflict or tension or action. It's true. I prefer to present a less frantic, more thoughtful alternative.
(The odd little foray into the sardonic notwithstanding. I guess the short, mean stories are my personal catharsis.)
Not rude at all. I hope other story-tellers jump in! :smile:
I do enjoy your mix; the music and dance of the slow and sardonic. Restful and replenishing.
An alert, awareness of the real...and coping...the voice of experience and joy of creativity.
(I can't remember any short, mean stories?)
They're forgettable enough. I've also ventured into tragic/pathetic territory, but I don't find it hospitable. I much prefer optimistic fare.
And then there's my failing memory and my reading of 'mean'. Perhaps I saw any of your alleged meanies as funny...
So, your levels of creativity remain high no matter what the hell is going on?
Pleasure in producing. Dancing in the rain.
Related to personality traits, life circumstances, perspective or philosophy?
I think I'm in danger of taking the thread off-track. Sorry @Jack Cummins !!
What were you saying about dreams? It reminded me of how many TPF short stories were reflections on recurring or disturbing dreams...many concerning houses, from basement to attic. Curious :chin:
Quoting Amity
Grist for the miill. 'Stories' which reflect on or puzzle over questions raised by "news in the media" intrigue me most and inspire me to re/tell them. As far as 'the tragic' goes, my creative stance is much more attuned to 'absurdity' the distorted lenses through which I watch the world turn my stomach while I laugh to stop from crying. It's almost impossible to create at any level out of ashes or raw sewage of the daily bilge of wanton cruelty and duplicitous stupidity. And yet "You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on" a master clown says more about 'making art', I imagine, than merely living. Nonetheless, I try to ground my story-telling in mere life (e.g. "Try again. Fail again. Fail better") without self-referentially cleverly ironizing about 'making art'. Maybe it's the social uselessness (ergo "sovereignty" someone said) of 'making art' that's 'tragic' today, and yet feeling the absurd compels some of us to try again and again and ... just in order to breathe freely. 'Well, there ain't no clowns in foxholes' yeah but why effin' not (since that's probably where clowns are most needed)?! :fire: :monkey:
like boxing glove to the solar plexus
Sophocles' Oedipus the King is worthy of notice in this regard. Oedipus unwittingly accelerates his demise by uncovering the attempts of his parents to avoid their prophesied fates.
He goes from the arrogance of the king to the blindness of the seer who brought him down.
I can see the pleasure in being able to view a process that one cannot perform upon oneself. But I cannot imagine witnesses of that play going home afterwards thinking they had purified something.
This shows the determination and spirit required to rise above it all. And to not lose your voice but to strengthen it in sharing. Not a 'ramble' to be pardoned but going the distance with well-placed stepping stones. Lighting the way with a kiss of words. Breathing life and bringing love to heart, soul and mind.
Quoting 180 Proof
Crossing rivers with no falling into streams of self-importance. Simply, personal. A beautiful breath. :flower:
Thank you @180 Proof :heart:
Strangely enough, the story of Oedipus and the 'catharsis' of Aristotle is related in a YouTube TED lesson I caught yesterday but didn't post (with transcript). An easy 4:25 mins:
Why tragedies are alluring - David E. Rivas
The idea of partaking in performance is important and that may be the appeal of so many shows, including live music. A lot of this may be becoming lost as people become immersed in digital media, in isolation as opposed to community participation.
With this in relation to trajedy, what may occur is that people participate in the experience of trajedy as if they are living and growing through it. In that way, one becomes the hero of trajedy. That is not to dismiss the individual who is alone reading, listening or looking at art, but some of the underlying process of transformation may be a little different than when it is done with the connectiveness in performance participation.
The dramas of news affect us as spectators but also impact on us so much. It as if the news tells us 'what is next' in many respects. In the time of the pandemic it was a case of watching news to see what was permitted with the changing guidelines. It was also the unveiling of tragedies of deaths throughout the world, with everyone being at risk potentially and responsible for action in not spreading the virus.
Even now, it is possible that there is a moral panic about contamination, even in conjunction with bedbugs rising. The bugs may be arising due to poor housing conditions and overcrowding, with many buying secondhand furniture. Nevertheless, there is still a certain amount of stigma attached to the problem and moral panic, with people being urged to have chemical sprays which are more probably more harmful than the bugs themselves. Sorry for going off in a rant about bed bugs and it is because a new infestation of them has occurred in the last few day in the shared house where I am living. They are unpleasant but the group of us have already had many chemical sprays and it is as if landlords can impose all kinds of regimes in accommodation to protect their property. Only 2 weeks ago I was rather shocked to find that CCTV cameras had been installed in the communal kitchen and I am not sure why. It feels rather Orwellian.
Being based in Britain it does feel like a question of what happens next with the change of government. There is so much poverty, concerns about the benefit system, healthcare and housing and uncertainty. The uncertainty of daily life and the future is throughout the world, especially with climate change. Also, with all the images of suffering in the news there is a danger of people becoming desensitised to it as if suffering is the new 'normal'.
The experience of personal dramas occurs within the context of this wider narrative. The outer dramas also interact with the inner life. Personally, I find that too much drama in real life gets in the way of creative activities, like creative writing and stories It can be as if the outer dramas consume too much inner energy. Of course, the challenge may be to be creative in channelling the difficulties of life into forms of art, but it not an easy task at all.
Saying that, a certain amount of humour may help in balancing the unpleasant aspects of life. In many respects, life may be a tragicomedy.
That has always been the function of public entertainment. When we discuss Greek tragedy or epic poetry, we sometimes forget that it was big business in its day, made to attract the same crowds that flocked to wrestling matches and chariot races. Maybe a lot of Greek theater was schlock, just like modern movies - but the schlock falls out of memory; only the cream survives.
We need the more elevated forms of art once in a while, when we take the time to walk through an art gallery or read a poem or attend a classical concert.
But most people, most of the time, don't want to reflect and contemplate; we just need distractions. Mass entertainment provides a good laugh or cry or rant to blow off emotional steam.
The problem today is that there is simply too much of it. You don't have to seek out the distraction most suited to your mood; distractions pursue and harass you everywhere; jarring graphic images and bad music are inescapable.
It is very likely true that people don't want 'deep' entertainment all of the time. Generally, I want depth in general. For example, I do care what lyrics in music I listen to but I have moments when I listen to lighter 'pop' and alternative music. Generally, I am more needy of 'deep entertainment' when low in mood or having a lot of difficulty in life. It is a little like the House of Love's song 'The Beatles and The Stones', which says, 'The Beatles and the Stones put the V in Vietnam, made it good to be alone..'
The creative arts and entertainment have so many different purposes. It is true that we are oversaturated by them, which may lead to them being not as significant as they could be for many. They blur into the background of the stimuli of life experiences.
A larger problem for young people is that life experience blurs into, is confused with and sometimes subsumed by virtual, electronic life. It's not a problem for old people like me: I don't have a cell-phone or any device with earbuds, don't carry a tablet. My computer is here, stays here; I can stand up and leave it. The tv, with its dedicated computer, is over there, with a blank screen until I choose something to watch. There is never music in this house, unless we tune in to a concert or put a cd in the player. Ws live and work in this house; don't have to go anywhere except appointments and grocery shopping. But wherever I do go, there is unchosen, unwanted, poor quality background noise, and I see people immersed in their tiny electronic worlds.
My experience ( in Scotland) of the daily updates from political and medical 'expertise', was overall good. The information was valuable and presented calmly. As someone 'vulnerable', I felt protected and served well. I didn't follow all guide-lines slavishly - but kept to the common-sense ones. The shocking aspect was when mask-wearing was politicised and people vilified and called traitor. Especially in America. The hatred coming over the screen was palpable.
The concept of 'moral panic' - I've never really appreciated. I learned it in terms of sociology and how young deviants upset the status quo. Media had a field day with 'Mods and rockers'.
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
I'm not sure where the 'moral' aspects comes into any fear of contamination or bedbugs...certainly, there are no signs of wide-spread panic around here...I agree there can be stigma with associations of 'dirt'.
Your experience in London - a shocker and sounds like a wild story altogether! I don't know how you are still alive, given that chemicals don't just poison bedbugs.
CCTV cameras - Wow! You have the basis of a brilliant Short Story. Especially, if you have nightmares!
How very pleasing...
I think the tragedy of humans is when we exaggerate the feelings of anxiety>>Fear of the other fuelled. As in Southport - Without knowing full facts, hard right mobs used the killings of 3 children as an excuse for violence and riots when what was needed was peace and calm, respect for those affected. But no...
There is no sense. But apparently, some rare elements are open to discussion with Muslim leaders.
We will see...
Quoting Jack Cummins
Thanks for the honesty. Clearly, some find it easier than others. Some have a persistent inner drive. Writing is like thinking/breathing. Something done daily. A sense of the absurd and humour can help with perspective.
Life is tragi-comedy. A mix of tough and funny. We get on with it.
Don't let the bed-buggers get you down :wink: Use your superpowers as a writer, yay :strong:
:death: :flower:
Quoting Vera Mont
:100: :zip:
Quoting Vera Mont
:up: :up:
@Jack Cummins Besides George Steiner's Antigones I recommended in my first post, his earlier book The Death of Tragedy (1961) analyzes how modernity itself and 'mass culture' the root of today's ubiquitious p0m0 vidiocracy (vidiocy) that Vera reflects on marginalizes or 'deadens' the cathartic function of tragedy as a communal artform that has been mostly 'repackaged' as a consumer product for increasingly atomized individuals. IMHO "the pleasure of tragedy" is, for most folks today, just one more distraction among countless many others, and only a "problem" of growing irrelevance in a self-anaestheticizing (numbing, blurring, manic multitasking) marketplace.
Rivas makes good points. Hubris is an important part of the action. There is the relief of not experiencing the bad luck as pointed out by Moliere quoting Lucretius upthread.
But there are elements that are meant to leave the audience with some discomfort. The theme of blindness and fear of the future started when baby Oedipus is left to die on a hillside. Prophecy is supposed to pierce the invisibility of fate but becomes an instrument of fate in some points of crisis.
Macbeth demonstrates that quality in a direct way. Oedipus, however, is entangled in decisions of his parents. The terrain becomes murkier. I leave the play less certain of where I live. Maybe I am the one who is blind.
No, imo, it's more of an absurdist historical drama (if that's not too oxmoronic). Instead I consider the first season of True Detective to be "a modern tragedy".
Yes. I seem to have skimmed over @Moliere's post and others. I'll return.
Quoting Paine
Yes, I think any 'tragedy' will bring home elements of natural fears. Of abandonment. Death. Loss of vision. Losing control. Being vulnerable to those in positions of power.
Quoting Paine
Foresight can be a curse. The self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quoting Self-fulfilling prophecy - wiki
Interesting to consider the role and potential power of the human mind to make things happen simply by believing. Think of how the effects of labelling someone (black, Indian, white or orange) or even insulting political opponents as 'weird' might turn the tide from tragedy to pleasure or v.v. The persuasive, hypnotic power of a 'God'...to be revered, then toppled. So, the cycle goes...
Quoting Paine
Exploring, seeking and fumblin' in the dark...that's fine. When vision is lost, other senses come into play.
Listening, touching, licking...tasting all the losses and gains. All in the story bag...
Thanks for the introduction to Artaud and his thoughts. This experiencing of the dark side of our nature and the desire to kill - we don't sometimes care to admit. Of course, some revel in it. If we even become aware of it, then guilt can arise and perhaps worse.
I'm thinking of how people can easily become addicted to watching e.g. porn. A natural curiosity and desire leading to internet searches - the dark web - caught up in it even as the person hits Delete! Delete! Desensitisation creeping in so that the tragedy [s]begins.[/s] continues. The tragedy of child victims procured and tortured, viewed and shared. The tragedy of the families concerned who...I'll stop there.
What value in any pleasure?
I found Artaud again. Listed in Modern Tragedy in Literature - Theory, Theorists, Works and Arguments: https://english-studies.net/modern-tragedy-in-literature/
Curious as to the question and response. Tom, what made you ask? 180, what is the difference between a modern tragedy and an absurdist historical drama, whatever the hell that is ?
What makes True Detective, S1 a 'modern tragedy'?
I interpret True Detective (s1) as a "modern tragedy" because the story, while very atmospheric could take place anywhere , is mostly about 'professional' (rather than royal / noble) protagonists who are inescapably driven by death (re: fear, guilt / ghosts, violence, despair) to 'the edge of status quo destroying' madness (i.e. an analogue for or symbol of the supernatural / demonic / revelation).
On the other hand, Deadwood I interpret as an "absurdist historical drama" because the story is, it seems to me, about the 'anarchic growth' (not planned development) of a specific place (the town "Deadwood in the "Dakota territories") at a specific historic moment (ca 1870s, gold rush era) inhabited or visited by many different types of protagonists who in different ways are desperately seeking to make their lives meaningful (again?) by putting down roots (i.e. finding their 'fortunes') there or elsewhere and violently leaving behind their rootless meaningless pasts.
Two of my all-time favorite television shows. I need to watch both again soon.
I was wondering what tragedy looked like outside of the classical canon. Despite receiving a somewhat classical education (Shakespeare/Marlowe/Sophocles/Euripedes) I have no great love of the tradition.
OK. So, why did Deadwood, in particular, come to mind as a possibility? I haven't watched it. So haven't a clue! If popular, I doubt most of its audience would reflect on it as a tragedy related to catharsis? It would be a simple, distracting pleasure...both, more?
Thanks for sharing your interpretations. Interesting descriptions of both...but I don't know if I fully understand...or even need to...dig deep down for that matter. The time for that has passed...
Quoting 180 Proof Why? Do you have a thesis to write? :wink:
Quoting Tom Storm
Perhaps the educators didn't inspire - or just not to your taste. The high ancients and language difficult to relate to. At least you were given a taste or base-line of narrative/history/literature from which to compare and contrast. To follow your preferred medium or entertainment...
"Chacun à son goût" - as some like to say.
Those dramas were mass entertainment in their time. The audience had a great deal more to fear in terms of personal misfortune than we do today. They had a greater need to externalize and distance themselves from the actual threat of death, maiming, imprisonment and madness. So these characters on the stage would bear the ill fortune and violence that the audience feared and, once every fortnight or so, carry them off into the night like the scapegoat.
Our violent melodramas are impersonal. We don't really expect a serial killer to abduct us or a mad terrorist to hijack the bus we're on - these are remote possibilities. But they take our minds off the petty, far more plausible anxieties that haunt us all the time. We are distracted from little, niggling real fears and guilts by big imaginary evil deeds and life-and-death struggles. But an evening once or twice a month is insufficient distraction; it has to be repeated frequently, in constantly increasing intensity, to hold our attention. Even so, it doesn't; we're easily distracted from our distractions.
This is true of everything pleasurable. The taste of sweets is pleasant; so we have sugar in everything, develop a higher tolerance and need salt to enhance it, then more sugar. It's no longer a craving; it's an addiction, which can never be satisfied.
The moral aspect of bed bugs is connected to assumptions about dirt. In a similar way, I understand moral panic as being involved in the example of Aids being about assumptions about gay sexuality. The moral aspect may involve moral judgements and generalised assumptions.
The advice about Covid-19 was helpful at times, although some of the contradictions and lack of clarity seemed to show that the leaders were so uncertain themselves.
As as writing about difficult experiences is concerned, there is philosophy of understanding it, therapeutic writing about it, as well as fiction and other creative writing about is as an art form. These are separate angles but may be blended effectively. There is fiction which explores philosophy ideas as well as creative fiction. The division between therapeutic and creative writing is a different approach but it is possible to do both.
Personally, I would love to write more fiction. Previous to finding this forum in lockdown, I used to go to writing groups and I have started doing so again. Often, I end up writing real life experiences and people often seem surprised, asking, 'Did that really happen?' I know that a lot of real authors blend personal experiences and fictive elements together. Such fiction probably is also a way of reframing difficult and tragic life events in a meaningful way.
I have discovered that Nuttall does draw refer to George Steiner's ideas, saying that Steiner suggested that the 'starkest suffering was 'hallowed" in trajedy'. Nuttall also quotes CS Lewis:
'Can we wholly avoid the suspicion that trajedy as Mr Steiner conceives it is our final attempt to see the world as it is not.'
In addition, Nuttall argues that tragedy may involve 'subliminal pain through the low magic of a formal usurpation, glorifying the inglorious.'
Trajedy may involve building pictures of good and evil. One interesting aspect of this which Nuttall points to is the question as to whether a tragedy is the whole picture or about happy or unhappy endings to stories.
Nuttall does discuss Shakespeare, mainly focusing on 'King Lear', which was the Shakespeare play which I studied in most depth in English literature. Nuttall says,
'In 'King Lear' the game of death is played very hard_ even to the point of making us aware that all the stately signals of formality are frail, that the rules of language and hypothesis, which make it, still, a game and not death itself, are only temporary defenses...I have stressed the word "nothing" and the destruction of authoritative sequences. I do not believe that the play is morally nihilist. The words "good" and "evil" mean not less but more to one who has just watched King Lear'.
Certainly, I can remember that studying King Lear' at school opened up my philosophical imagination so much, especially in thinking about suffering and the nature of good and evil. Shakespeare's trajedies(and comedies) have probably had such a cultural influence in thinking, making him(or Francis Bacon or whoever wrote the plays) a significant philosopher as well as playwright.
Don't forget psychologist. As were the Greek playwrights.
I am sure that Shakespeare( or whoever he was) was a great psychologist, as were the Greek playwrights. Of course, this was before philosophy and psychology became so divergent fields during the twentieth century. It is likely that they still unite in fiction and drama in spite of the academic division.
Because with great subtlety and majestic darkness it explores fate, human suffering, moral dilemmas, loss and characters with fatal flaws.
Quoting Amity
Personal taste, I'd say. I've had decades years of attending the theatre and reading which hasn't changed my perspective.
Certainly they do. But the playwrights were there first, before psychiatry was invented and before the father confessor became a spiritual advisor or pastor. I think the early Greek playwrights leaned heavily on their contemporary philosophers, who were still deeply involved with human nature, social relations and ethics. They gave psychology its vocabulary, its reference-points and a good deal of its dream imagery.
Then philosopher kind of wandered into theological territory. That was okay for the Greeks to do, since their gods were characters in everyday life, but the Renaissance to Industrial Revolution Europeans could not, because their one big God had been moved far up and out of machina range. I think the 20th+ century ones are coming back into human range... it's the physicists that have gone off to Neverland. You can only trust poets and fiction writers to stay close to the beating heart.
King Lear is not a voice for moral nihilism because it is recognized that through her death, Cordelia was the faithful one through her refusal to approve Lear's proposal. That is certainly the groundwork of many a tale. All of Jane Austen can be viewed through this telescope.
I enter your discussion as a curmudgeon who resists the generality of Aristotle's accounts. The differences between King Lear and Macbeth involve different kinds of ignorance. They follow a similar pattern of revelation but do not concern just one problem.
Also a different kind of arrogance and a different kind of divine retribution.
There is a long tradition in European literature of fathers demanding to know which daughter (never sons) loved them best. Salt figures in most of them. So does a version of Cinderella. That's almost certainly the germ of S's idea. However, Lear's older daughters are exceptionally treacherous, which is missing from the folk takes, and the father's belated realization is usually at a happy resolution, not a mass death scene. Shakespeare went overboard on that one: you don't get a clear message, since everyone seems to be insane.
Macbeth is far more straightforward and plausible. He was due for a royal honour and would have settled for a slow rise at court, but his wife's ambition outstripped his. Pricked in the ego, he goes ahead and commits the assassination. He spends the rest of the play regretting it and trying to cover it up. The spooky bits - ghosts and witches and ambiguous prophecy - are added for crowd appeal (a popular, entertaining way to introduce the moral - I bet they ate up the blasted heath! my classmates did, at 18, which was probably the median age of Shakespeare's audience ).
Intrigued by what is considered 'modern tragedy' and shared descriptions of Deadwood, such as:
Quoting Tom Storm
I couldn't help but dig more into Deadwood and realise that this TV drama has fascinated many 'deep thinkers' from a variety of fields, including literature and philosophy.
Here's the latest article I've skimmed over:
Chapter 3 of The Invisible Hand in Popular Culture. 25 minute read.
https://paulcantor.io/paul-cantor-works/order-out-of-the-mud
A philosophical analysis of Deadwood with a focus on the concept of the 'state of nature'. The central question: is it possible to have order without law. The abstract dilemma of freedom v law as depicted in Westerns. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau important figures in American political thinking. It relates their theories, including the background to the creator's (Milch) attraction to and life in Deadwood, its characters...
Some snippets from literary articles:
https://lithub.com/deadwood-tvs-most-literary-show-gets-its-rightful-foul-mouthed-send-off/
Comparisons to Shakespeare:
Quoting Literary Hub - Deadwood
Finally, this I enjoyed for its focus on Milch's writing techniques and language:
https://www.hpten.com/all-content/2021/9/30/theme-character-and-language-in-deadwood
Quoting Theme, Character and Language in Deadwood - Half Past Ten
Freud must be feeling seriously left out of our discussion. How frustrating!
The expression or suppression of sexuality related to civilisation. Law and order, rising from the muddy swamp. How far have we come?
What is the Pleasure Principle? The driving force of the id seeking instant gratification of all needs, wants and primitive urges including sex.
How is this related to the art of tragedy/drama, its writers and audience?
According to Aristotle, the purpose of tragedy is to arouse terror and pity and thereby effect the catharsis of these emotions. So, there is a release of what we might be feeling but unwilling or scared to uncover or show. A way of coping?
A view of what humans are like deep down in the darkest recesses of the mind.
Cue Deadwood!
I wondered whether this drama appealed more to men than women. The grab for gold and power; the manipulations and realisations of women in a man's world.
Sex and its use/abuse in the unfolding process of becoming civilised...
If You Want to Know Why Deadwood Is a Classic, Look to Its Women
(8min read):
https://time.com/5597321/deadwood-movie-hbo-women/
I have never been tempted to watch The Handmaid's Tale, but I am increasingly drawn to the depths of Deadwood. Whether it's a 'modern tragedy' or an 'absurdist historical drama' or a combination of both doesn't really matter.
It serves as an appreciation of humans - how we rise and fall in tragi-comedy.
As for Freud...is that a gun in his pocket?
:smirk:
I know, I know. I couldn't resist it. I was imagining him as a Deadwood character!
Yes, poor Freud has been ignored here a bit. I see his thought as vital, especially as the art therapy course I did was based so much on his psychodynamic theory. A lot of people are put off his thinking, based on the emphasis he places on sexuality and the idea of the Oedipus complex. I see the Oedipus complex as rather restrictive and his viewpoint can be seen as sexist.
However, the emphasis he placed on sexuality had a profound influence on culture and dealing with the repression of sexual aspects of life. It may be central to pleasure itself and it would be hard to imagine trajedy without a sexual aspect. The nature of trajedy itself may be about the way in which sexuality causes conflict and potential destruction. His philosophy, which drew upon mythology, emphasised the tension between Eros and Thanatos, the life and death drives/instincts.
Also, the whole idea of catharsis was central to his perspective on therapy. The idea was that the ventilation of emotional expression is the road to 'cure'. This was based on his work with patients. The problem which I see is that it does not always follow that ventilation of emotions and traumatic experiences will lead to a cure and the CBT therapists see him psychodynamic therapy as placing too much emphasis on the past.
The other important idea in his work is that of sublimation, especially in expression of the arts. This is particularly relevant for thinking about the pleasure of trajedy. It is possible to channel the nature of the sexual into creativity. This also was suggested in Tantric philosophy. With suffering, in general, sublimation may enable transformation on a mythic and aesthetic level, and from what I have observed in the arts therapies, this is an area for reframing human experiences.
Parfois, une pipe n'est qu'une pipe.... Only someone accustomed to television imagery would think that of Freud.
Now you got me all worked up about it, turns out I can't watch Deadwood. It's available on Prime, to which I subscribe, but behind yet another of their extra-pay options. No, wait, You Tube has an introductory offer I may be able to use. Quality is usually inferior, but I can live with that. Anyway, if I can pry the OG away from wet Olympic events.
Update: I did get some commentary on the making of the series and some excerpts.
I've concluded that I will not be making a heroic effort to see it. Whatever its literary and dramatic merits - and I gather they are prodigious - it's not my idea of entertainment.
Yes, I know that preferring entertainment over heavy philosophical content is frivolous, but I'm okay with that. At 78, whatever I still need to learn about the human condition will probably come unbidden, in humiliating, inelegant forms. I don't need to watch other people pretend to get there first.
I was surprised that you were even considering it! It's bound to be brutal and nasty. I haven't even looked at excerpts and since I can't watch for free... there's no boldly going forth to face up to any horrors...
Quoting Vera Mont
It's being so cheerful that keeps you going! Wise Old Gal :wink:
Nevertheless, intriguing. Strong echoes of Orson Welles. It also stirred memories of Gunsmoke and The Rifleman. Of course, the TV frontier towns of my youth were very clean and the good guys were all fastidiously shaved, scrubbed and laundered. But there was a plausible austerity about the sets, matched by the characters' single-mindedness.
I didn't much like the grubby - supposedly realistic - westerns that came later. (My cat loved Rawhide! When the theme music started to play, she'd rush to the tv, crouch on top of the cabinet and fish for cattle.)
Yes. I think those two elements are intertwined.
The witches in Macbeth do play an important part of why he thought he was invincible. In the midst of complaining about how boring he found his success; he suddenly learns he misunderstood the original message.
Lear's arrogance is believing he knows what true love looks like when he does not. In one sense, his realization of the truth is more brutal than the one Macbeth experienced.
I think Deadwood works well as entertainment and at a deeper level. But it is violent and pessimistic. In that way, it is not much different to other long form, scrupulously written, television shows. The performances and the script are astonishing.
Here is a father with three adult daughters, whom he claims to love and whose love he demands, and he has no frickin' idea who they are! So he falls for flattery instead of accepting honesty. Asking for it!
Quoting Tom Storm
So was King Lear. I can deal with some level of each, and still be entertained, but not wall-to-wall both.
TheFringe series had some of those same elements, including magic and humour, after a fashion. We watched it all the way through once, then it sat on the shelf for a long time. Last week, I gave it to the thrift shop.
Yes, pissing into the wind is not an effective strategy.
I recently completed Elizabeth Gaskell's Wives and Daughters. It works through many of the social devices presented by Jane Austen but shows how different versions of ego mania produce different outcomes. Gaskell's account reveals there is no significant difference between genders and class in the experience of self-interest. We pursue what is best for us. The difference of outcomes come about from slight gains or losses of self-awareness in each person. And nobody gets to check the scorecard since it involves life beyond one's view.
We pursue what we believe to be best for us - and sometimes what we know to be bad for us, yet want anyway.
'Brutal and nasty' as depicted traditionally and contemporary (personal, social relationships and economic/political dynamics) will intrigue the curious and those willing to compare and contrast perspectives. Human behaviour. Aren't we all psychologists?
Here, we can share memories of past TV programmes; Western sets/characters ridiculed. How could we ever have been be scared by the Daleks in Dr.Who? Clunky, metal boxes on wheels, vocally challenged and probing with a sink plunger. The iconic "Exterminate"! Perhaps a single, menacing word can trigger deep, basic fears or past trauma...some things never change.
There are always foes to be fought but friends sought too, sometimes. Drama needs a balance for it to work well. To release emotions and make us think. Hence the OP...'Tragedy and Pleasure?'.
As the world moves on, so must we take into account new concerns. New elements related to the environment and AI. Our brains are bombarded with conflicting accounts, or even washed by the wicked.
There is a need to switch off, sit back and be entertained. Even intellectuals need simple. Balance.
Disengagement before re-engaging.
Quoting Tom Storm
Like most art forms, then? We can enjoy the simple pleasures, possibly 'catharsis' without being too analytical even as strong ideas/messages might be slipped in surreptitiously for consumption. A bit like kids not being force-fed green vegetables and fruit but enjoying as burgers or milk shakes.
Quoting Tom Storm
From the little I've read, it doesn't sound like 'wall-to-wall' violence and pessimism. It includes humour and hope as most tragedies must.
Quoting Paine
Yes, no matter the differences between humans, mostly it comes down to ego ( back to Freud?).
The outcomes of our pursuits, including watching drama, will partly depend on our willingness or personal freedom to become open to others. To learn. Not to avoid that which is uncomfortable or not to our taste. To grow and develop.
But, hey, we all have our comfort zones. Even philosophers... having found their niche or income.
Quoting Vera Mont
Oh yeah, gimme that bar of chocolate...Now!
And of course, we don't always 'know' what might be best for us at any given time or the consequences of following certain choices. Therein lies the fun of it...and our stories...the tragi-comedy.
'All's well that ends well'? Somebody might have said...or questioned...
Yes it is! :up:
No fuckin' doubt, Tom, we be a couple of dusty ol' cocksuckers drinkin' from the same crack'd bottle ... like all them other hoopleheads down on their fuckin' luck, laughin' and pissin' it all away in that limey cocksucker Swearengen's saloon. :smirk:
(Btw, I really liked Rome and enjoyed the slow burn of Six Feet Under and, years later, Westworld & The Expanse. And, of course, True Detective.)
Quoting 180 Proof
Fuck yeah!
- Al Swearingen
"Ah, Wild Bill ..." :cool:
[quote=Al Swearengen]Rouse him to spend on pussy, or rob the son of a bitch!
also
You can't slit the throat of everyone whose character it would improve.[/quote]
And some more fuckin' words to live by:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792330 :death: :flower:
A fascinating insight.
"Id rather try touching the moon than take on a whores thinking."
Words to live... or die by. I suppose the whores referred to are the female prostitutes? No males, no homosexuality? It's a big white man's world...whoring, being hard and fucking each other.
What would 'trying to touch the moon' mean for Al?
Did he really know the thinking of his whores? How did he view them, other than means to money?
'Taking on' some thoughts is what he apparently managed. He empathised with being a victim, being brought to his knees. He didn't like it up him either.
Quoting Time - Deadwood was the rare show about men that did women justice
Quoting Amity
To wake the Muse ... :smirk:
No,no! That's not what I found intriguing. I was intrigued, in spite of that, by the cinematic and structural care that went into making the series. The artistry, not the subject matter.
Quoting Amity
I'm interested in Americans' (and other nation's) self image and how its depiction changes over time. Tv westerns were family fare - not intended as history lessons, but social and moral instruction. And entertainment, of course.
Got to run. Catch up with yous later.
'To wake the Muse'. Is there only one?
Could you cope with a committee of the of the pesky things?
Ooh err, missus! Who said anything about a 'committee'? The very word makes me shudder. *shudders*
I thought it a case of praying to any muses that might float your fancy. Like Melpomene, Thalia or Erato.
A bit like how Catholics call up St Anthony - that kinda thing.
Or I can see them as spirits of the bar; shaking a cock or mock tail your way...I could cope with that!
A Mock Tale, yay :cool:
When do they start becoming 'pesky' or go AWOL? Hmmm.
Ah, a muse for every purpose. I suppose... Me, I prefer one familiar spirit, even not a particularly powerful one. (My top favourite Terry Pratchett book is Small Gods.)
Quoting Amity
When it nags me to work on this, work on that, say "Stop mooching around the forums and matching stupid patterns and get your ass in gear. There's only so much time left!", throws a perfect first line out of the blue, then takes a vacation. (They're entitled - volunteers, not conscripts; we can ask, cajole, tease, petition, but never command.)
As I understand the literature, the role of the muses is different from 'familiar spirits'. The daimon who encourages Socrates to compose music is not the same powers who make that possible.
When reading Hesiod, it does seem that different muses have access to different expressions of divinity. It is not a denial of personal creativity but a request for more than that. The outward turning that escapes echoes.
In that case, I don't suppose our alarm clocks or prayers would have much effect on them.
I won't bother them; I'm not in that league.
They are means of access and sing when asked politely.
Interesting to read your thoughts on Freud. I have sympathy with the idea of 'ventilation' - or talk therapy being available as a treatment not a 'cure'. Are they the same thing? I think letting all emotions out can open a can of worms, making matters worse. A bit like the punch-bag theory of anger management. It is only a temporary release or relief. But again, it depends on the aims and abilities of both therapist and client...
Quoting Jack Cummins
Sex/uality and the tragedy/pleasure/comic aspects of life/death survival instincts...
I can't help coming back to Deadwood. The discussion has been informative but there is something still nagging at me. Troubling even, as I also consider the possibility of 'catharsis' in viewers. What is it that mostly gives 'pleasure'? Male and female camaraderie?
This morning, I read something by @Wayfarer - I hope he doesn't mind me transferring his thoughts here?:
Quoting Wayfarer
When people watch or read anything concerning sexual violence to any person, gender or age, does it only become a problem when there is addiction? If compulsively following a drama series of violent, degrading behaviour, what kind of 'catharsis' is being felt or even recognised?
I haven't watched any of the series mentioned. Perhaps I just don't care to, for whatever reason.
What is it about the stories or characters that you don't care about? And what makes Al someone you are attracted to?
Be careful @180 Proof being a cocksucker and drinking from a cracked bottle holds all kinds of terrors -germs...bacteria and viruses. But hey, seize the day, eh? Even if only in your imagination...
Thanks for your reply because I have almost abandoned my thread in the last few days. That is because I am so stressed out as I found out this week that the place where I am living is probably going to be repossessed this week. I know that it is horrible (bed bugs) but I went through a repossession eviction a year and a half ago which was so stressful...
One of the ways which is see trajedy and pleasure is that pleasure may be an antidote to suffering. The quote you gave from@Wayfarer regarding hedonism is interesting. The issue of perfectionism in religion has often led to repressed pleasure.
Going back to Freud's ideas, catharsis involves sexuality but trauma too. It also involves the whole spectrum of love and hatred, with aggression sometimes being a source of cathartic pleasure.
I am wondering about this in relation to the outbreak of the current outbreak of riots in the UK. In some ways it is the opposite to the Brixton riots which were based on opposition to racism. Rioting may be the expression of deep anger and hatred, like the expression of primordial anger of the tribe in the form of cathartic aggression in real life as opposed to in the form of the arts.
Quoting Amity
I'm neither intrigued with nor inspired by long-form or episodic stories about contemporary (i.e. clichéd) gangsters, drug dealers and plutocrats, respectively. Those 'worlds' are too prosaic and banal for me to imagine myself 'being there'.
Poetry. I'm "attracted to" all the very human, Deadwood characters, major and minor, because each one is an oracle of syntaxes and silences, profanities and humor peculiar to that imaginary-historical place. I'm even more "attracted to" the female and beta-male (i.e. quasi-Beckettian) characters than I am to Al Swearengen (even though he tends to be more quotable and one of the two main protagonists, the other being Seth Bullock).
A quick response. Sorry to hear of your increased stress levels and continuing insecurity concerning a safe and affordable place to live in London. Pleasure may well be 'an antidote to suffering' - how would that work in your case? Coming here and 'ventilating'? But it doesn't solve any underlying problems or the causes of suffering. Any type at any level.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes. And how quickly we go from one extreme of the spectrum to the other. Too many absolute statements being made and positions taken. The either/or scenario plain to witness in American politics and beyond. High stakes in being seen as a white 'saviour'.
Now, Harris is viewed as the smiling figure of Hope (Love) contrasted to Trump's growling aggression stirring Fear (Hate). It's never as simple as that, away from the cameras, is it? The performance of actors...those behind the scenes pulling strings. They must be having a laugh as they enjoy the results of their manipulations.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Today's riots in England are stoked by the fascist hard right. Good to read of the counter protesting forces, here:
Quoting Guardian - Protest - United against hate
I don't believe for one minute that this will be the end of it. As yet, in Scotland we have been spared. Why? Some theories:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/holyrood/24500512.scotland-far-escaped-riots/
Quoting 180 Proof
It seems I might have to pack my bags and travel to Deadwood...
I can tell you how pleasure as an antidote to suffering works for me. It was during and after a period in which 3 friends of mine committed suicide that led me to the path of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. It was part of the quest for understanding, but it was also part of my attempt to indulge in pleasure as the only way which I could see to cope with the misery of the tragedies of the deaths of my friends.
Your quote and inclusion of the Scottish perspective on the riots is interesting. My own one is that they express a lot that is going on in the political unconscious in the UK. It comes at a time of mixed fear and optimism with a change of government. The right may fear that so much may change while others are hoping for change, especially from poverty and 'the cost of living' crisis.
Of course, there is the end to the plans to deport illegal immigrants which the Conservative government had begun. Also, there may be issues around religion as opposed to skin colour, especially Islam. So much has changed since the time of Muslims being seen as potential terrorists but there may be remnants of this, just as the Antisemitism is being expressed. It involves scapegoating and at the core of catharsis. But, of course there is the dynamic of the counterprotests, which is the more left wing ventilation protest about so much misery and suffering.
I won't indulge in more political analysis/speculation because I am not sufficiently informed and don't wish to side-track further. But I feel the need to address this:
Quoting Jack Cummins
I agree that there are complex issues underlying the riots/protests that need to be addressed. However, there seems to be a significant difference in the current make-up of the vicious attacks of the hard right rioters (young, white English males) and the more peaceful anti-hate, anti-fascist protestors (a mix of all genders, age and colour coming together as a 'community').
Anything to the left of the rioters includes the centre and right of centre, not just left-wing activists.
Quoting Politico - The night Britain fought back against riots
I'll end here.There's bound to be more trouble in the pipe-line but...
I definitely don't wish to derail my own thread by discussion of rioting. But, yes I fear what will follow. This is another 'What happens next...?' in real life dramas.
As far as catharsis and pleasure as an antidote, it is about the cathartic emotions on a symbolic as opposed to literal one. For example, I sometimes listen to'dark' music, such as metal, emo and goth which I find pleasure in as a form of release of angst. Some people take the view that the 'dark' aspects of the arts, like porn, is likely to generate 'dark' behaviour, such as violence. It may be that it would have some negative effects to one's mental health to indulge in dark entertainment always. However, it may be about balance, such as the need for both tragedy and comedy in drama. The symbolic expression of sex and violence in the arts is so different from its translation into such expression in human behaviour.
Thanks. I found the audio re-recording and it's now 'On hold' in my Libby app. From Penguin:
Quoting Penguin - Discworld in Audio
I might have to say "Au Revoir!" for a spell. Looking at travel options for Deadwood...
Take care. Stay safe. :sparkle:
Thank you!
Not in your present form!!! Assume a disguise that appears a lot less vulnerable.
Well, whatever makes you think I look vulnerable?!
Dae ye no' ken I'm a hard-nosed, Glaswegian bitch from hell...with the fuckin' filthiest mouth ye widnae touch wi' a barge-pole. Ma Hielan' grannie is worser than dried heather stuck up yer arse.
But kidding aside (ah'm no' frae Glesga) you're right. I never thought of that. Playing a character. What about a mix of Katherine Hepburn and Clarice Starling as shape-shifting spaced out Time Traveller...
See, I have NO imagination! All outta masks and melodrama :sad:
They'd shoot you dead, just for being incomprehensible. Red-blooded, gun-totin' 'Merickans hate it when they don't understand something.
As for Pratchett on audio, I'm holding out for Paul McGann. He did a bunch of Doctor Who stories and a GK Chesterton that I wouldn't mind hearing.
That's just not gonna happen, trust me! One of my greatest talents is speech shifting to fit in with whoever's around...I'm good. And when I bring my sample bottles of malt whisky...and host tasting sessions...they'll turn soft as smashed neeps and tatties. We have our ways...yup indeedy.
Y'll take care now!
:cool: :up: That's the fuckin' spirit, miss!
'Cept for unaccompanied progress among the many randy hoopleheads in the thoroughfare day and night and bushwhackin' dirt-worshippin' heathens on the roads to and fro, I counsel you, ma'am, to freely seek your fortune or demise among us, the swollen ranks of prospectin' and thievin' cocksuckers, here in Deadwood. :flower:
Especially if you make us wait a long time for the fucking elevator.
Hilariously tragic. El-ev-en! :rofl:
It reminds me of when my car wouldn't start. I phoned breakdown and suffered my way through the menu choice. Then I had to spell out the registration number to a friendly, female computer.
''S''.
"Sorry, that number is not recognised. Please repeat."
*sighs*
I articulated a clear and careful, ''Ess!"
"Is that 'F' for Foxtrot?"
:rage: "No, it's S for..."
Hold the line...
Catharsis achieved? :wink: