tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post627960268240873258..comments2023-10-04T09:50:08.070-05:00Comments on Logismoi: 'Gentles, Do Not Reprehend'—William ShakespeareAaron Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-84625168238306930392010-05-03T12:54:18.077-05:002010-05-03T12:54:18.077-05:00Owen,
Understood. Apologies if I came across angr...Owen,<br /><br />Understood. Apologies if I came across angrily. I have never understood the exercise of intellectuals myself; so consider it the ravings of a rustic. <br /><br />I'm aware of the limits of Chesterton, as well as Lewis, and so on. I cannot help but wonder if the wholesale dismissal of drama, though, and its assistance in the development of the souls of some at some times is somewhat of a stretch. I have explored the rubric myself and I continually find it wanting, in that it renders many works I have read that have been considered great utterly limbless. <br /><br />I can say that I think drama is overread, as in for instance within the Gospels, but I think it can be underread (as for instance rendering a Godman who is not angry when he drives out the moneychangers from the Temple.) <br /><br />That being the case it may be helpful to underread Drama for awhile, but in its entire absence things make no sense to me. <br /><br />On the Shakespeare, it might be said that most greats are accidents of history; I recall reading some Aristotle, and while he is supposed to be great, sometimes he is just obtuse. I assumed it was my own limitation (a useful assumption) but that may not be altogether correct. <br /><br />Moreover, sometimes we judge excellence by a particular standard which in no way applies; If I say it's only poetry, I mean that in it there is no particular theological or overarching vision of plan, which is simply to say (in my opinion) it is very concrete and particular and is in that way the best of one sort of poetry. That is, it is much like journalism or photography. It is not marked by what we typically call genius (a tremendous universal mind) but rather by a kind of stupid, wandering luck. But one other great poet, Basho, at least gives the pretense that this is the case for him. And if asked he would probably have admitted that it was no more than a historical accident that his work became so valued.<br /><br />Now, from what I gather what you have argued is that Shakespeare is greatly overvalued, but it also may be a difference in questions of 'value': For many it may add up to no more than their experience of Shakespeare is always excellent (which may have as much to do with people thinking he is great and thus making a great effort to make performances and presentations of his works great.) <br /><br />At any rate, is there in your view anything such as 'great journalism'? And do you think perhaps STC and his contemporaries shared a different metaphysics than you or I, so thus in that realm of ideas Shakespeare is much greater? And lastly, is it possible that since much of Shakespeare's talent may be in the construction of dramas, the dismissal of drama as trivial renders his work no longer so exceptional?<br /><br />As I am uneducated in all such things, this all may be taken with a grain of salt. <br /><br />Then again, I may read you wrong.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-52448339246980043542010-04-26T13:09:23.463-05:002010-04-26T13:09:23.463-05:00Aaron,
It is then less applicable. As I state so...Aaron,<br /><br />It is then less applicable. As I state somewhere in my long series on catharsis and drama, Shakespeare is better read as epic (and obviously some plays and some portions of plays tend toward this) and best read as lyric (and as was noted by the commenter on my blog, there is some brilliant lyric within certain plays, and certain plays have a more lyrical quality to them than others). The further Shakespeare lends itself to a reading away from drama, and toward epic and lyric, the better the Shakespeare we are dealing with. And there is good in Shakespeare, and occasional brilliance in Shakespeare. But there is good and occasional brilliance in a Legion of writers. Shakespeare's top place in the canon is an accident of history, in my opinion, and not based on literary merit. Something like the Ecumenical Patriarch being first among equals in the Orthodox Church.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-2927990963997663412010-04-26T12:26:10.972-05:002010-04-26T12:26:10.972-05:00Owen,
But does your argument about theatre still ...Owen,<br /><br />But does your argument about theatre still apply to Shakespeare's dramas if we consider them solely as written texts to be read rather than performed or watched? This is sort of like what Mark Van Doren was doing.Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-65116569882859685652010-04-26T12:21:30.264-05:002010-04-26T12:21:30.264-05:00River,
If you bother to peruse the archives of my...River,<br /><br />If you bother to peruse the archives of my site, you will find a plenty of criticisms of Berry, and plenty concerning the limitations of any application of Berry's vision for most of us. I have also expressed plenty of friendliness toward ChesterBelloc on my blog, but I have at the same time noted their pollyanna and sometimes rabidly naïve approach to history, literature, and economics. <br /><br />I have written "positive," friendly critiques of a number of works.<br /><br />Though I could, I have not here argued that Shakespeare has here been appreciated in bourgeois manner, or that an appreciation of Shakespeare is intrinsically bourgeois. That tactic is a straw man.<br /><br />Dickens is not simply superficial (and he usually is) he is journalistic. He has been read that way by not a few, including critics writing prior to the 20th century, and the Trollope/Dickens tension I mention has been noted by many. Their writings play off of each other, as they both looked at similar human phenomenon from a decidedly different posture. In my opinion, and this is not an original opinion, neither the Dickensonian nor Trollopian posture is a complete one, which is why it is best to read them together. <br /><br />Chesterton agreed with Belloc's curt dismissal of Hardy. One should usually not take their more sentimental quotables literally. A good critic need not always have affection for a work being criticized, though it obviously helps. Chesterton spends pages here and there describing his impressions of Eastern Orthodoxy. They are based, essentially, upon his own religious principles. The fact is, if Chesterton’s religion is the right one, then I think that Chesterton’s take on Orthodoxy is accurate (and not simply because it must be right because a Roman Catholic critic is making it, but because the observations ring true, and if the theological and aesthetic basis behind them are true, I would hold them to be true – as it is, I do not hold Chesterton’s theology or theological aesthetic to be true). But it is clear that Chesterton is not a friend to Orthodoxy, he has no real affection for it (that which is expressed in the book on Jerusalem is obviously sarcastic). I consider my views on Shakespeare in the same light. If my argument regarding theatre is true, then my arguments regarding the artistic weight of Shakespeare’s dramas may be true, regardless of the fact that I have little affection for the plays themselves.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-64201763124258694262010-04-26T10:36:27.165-05:002010-04-26T10:36:27.165-05:00It's just poetry folks. Maybe Shakespeare'...It's just poetry folks. Maybe Shakespeare's genius simply was that he realized if he just told stories people would read all kinds of stuff into them... my impression from Dickens is the same. I don't like his sonnets, simply because for at least the first mass of them I don't share the disposition to understand the images. <br /><br />All of this reading Christendom or Pansexualism into this or that business is distraction. Shakespeare can become distraction, too - the more bawdy parts could inspire a man in the wrong direction certainly - but doesn't the lack of 'explicit' religion reflect more, as Tolstoy noted, the common lack of genuine piety? But the plays are really good, and I admire most that he wrote things that were both popular and contained genuine substance. That is difficult; most producers of 'substance' cannot be bothered to make any of it - small or great - comprehensible to the poor fool with a soul that's thin along the middle.<br /><br />And if Dickens is superficial - which some of it is no doubt - I think that it is because many of us live extremely superficial lives. But I think we judge 'superficial' and 'deep' by the insane utopian moral passions of the 20th century; that is, something is only 'deep' if it is a mind blowing indictment of 'the world' or 'the establishment'. (Christian/Secular)<br /><br />In any case can't it be agreed that there is no 'art' which can be taken 'uncritically', by which I mean, without paying attention to one's own soul and the effect the work has on it, and a contemplation of the larger themes going on in the work (if any?) <br /><br />I have heard from the tiresome Berry and even from Chesterton that to be a good critic means to be a good friend, but as it seems Owen does not much like the bourgeois how can he be a critic? We already know, man, that you disdain all that is bourgeois (or is similar to it) - what more needs be said? All that remains is more complex explanations of <em>why</em> something is bourgeois or why <em>bourgeois</em> things are soul-corrupting. <br /><br />And the explanations get complicated. <br /><br />But can we get critiques on something you <em>like</em>, Owen, or is it all about ideological polemic? How about telling us what's wrong with Berry? Or is each word a shot and each essay a battle in a war that the right side must win? <br /><br />I write this because a good solid critique of the <em>Porcher</em> and <em>localist</em> worldviews would be most helpful. <br /><br />Misreadings of fathers on acting aside, surely. (What would they say of 'exotic dancing' in the mid to late 20th or 'modeling' now?)<br /><br />Sorry if this post appears to be in spite - I am mostly tired of <em>bridge burning Orthodoxy</em> - in which ideally the bridge leads to a monastery which the man only leaves due to invasion or for more desolate places.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-76120727536934262572010-04-25T17:11:36.169-05:002010-04-25T17:11:36.169-05:00Taylor,
Yes, I had never thought to question the ...Taylor,<br /><br />Yes, I had never thought to question the reasons for the condemnations of theatre which I refer to. Nor had I ever wondered whether or not those condemnations were meant to be taken as universal condemnations. I have only read the copyright page of Adler's <i>How to Read a Book</i> and have never studied rhetoric or the trivium as a whole. I only collect Eva Brann books for their pretty covers, I never read them.<br /><br /><i>the likelihood of a modern American young man becoming enamored with Hans Holbien instead of Snoop Dogg is so small that I'm not sure it's something we ought to be worried about.</i><br /><br />But I did not worry about it, nor did I infer such a worry. I simply stated that an attempt to trade Snoop Dogg for certain instances of 'high art' would be a waste of time with regard the stated project at hand. The likelihood of success was not a part of the discussion. I have no care for such utilities. Shakespeare will be as unpopular as Holbien to the general Snoop Dogg lover, I suspect, unless dumbed down into some popular form.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-72539546504836676532010-04-25T15:32:31.133-05:002010-04-25T15:32:31.133-05:00Ochlophobist,
Regarding the argument from Christ...Ochlophobist, <br /><br />Regarding the argument from Christian history, I would say that we would have to investigate the reasons why theater was condemned in certain periods and places, and whether that condemnation was meant to be universal. We could also mention the fact that fiction has not always been looked upon favorably by Christians throughout the history of the church. In both cases, even if both art forms have been condemned in the past, the question is whether, in facing the pervasive and debased popular culture which surrounds us, viewing a Shakespeare play at a theater or reading a novel is really so bad when compared to what most people are filling their minds with from junk culture. Should we equate Shakespeare with 'the hippodrome, the theater and the races' which are condemned by the fathers? I would rather equate modern junk culture with those ancient spectacles and leave the best of 'high' culture free from such a condemnation. <br /><br />I would agree that arguments pro and con Shakespeare have been mere assertion - however, I think that I can claim the weight of authority for the pro-Shakespeare camp. <br /><br />As for the criticism of the Christian great books movement, you are certainly correct in arguing that one should not take in high culture without discernment. However, the likelihood of a modern American young man becoming enamored with Hans Holbien instead of Snoop Dogg is so small that I'm not sure it's something we ought to be worried about. The return to classical education and the great books is largely a praiseworthy endeavor, and I think it's motivated by the same concerns about the pervasive popular culture which prompted Fr. Seraphim to give his novices lessons in poetics and Shakespeare. Towards your concern about indiscriminate love for 'high culture', however, I think that's why it's important to combine such studies with socratic-style discussion. Having been at St. John's College, I can vouch that it certainly does not result in uncritical appreciation of the 'high art' canon! I know that Bryan Smith uses the same approach at St. Peter's Classical Academy, an Orthodox secondary school in Dallas. <br /><br />Despite our disagreement, I have enjoyed our all-to-brief exchange, though I must end my part of it here. I think the larger question at hand, of Orthodoxy and culture (or perhaps 'secular studies'), is of great interest and importance. Maybe Aaron can host a web-symposium on this at some point on <i>Logismoi</i>!Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10409029017940484576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-9301617130559705272010-04-24T12:31:42.833-05:002010-04-24T12:31:42.833-05:00Taylor,
My arguments concerning the nature of dra...Taylor,<br /><br />My arguments concerning the nature of drama have been drawn out in a series of posts on my blog and I will not go further into the matter here, except to say that one need not accept or reject such arguments to recognize that the position is found (not uniformly) throughout the history of the Church and thus it is fair play, as it were, for a Christian to suggest that drama is a lower or debased form of art. <br /><br />I don't believe I ever said Shakespeare is a bad writer. I have argued two things with regard to his writing: that it is not the best art to be found, and that among works of art it is not the best for the formation of the Christian soul, middle soul or some other portion of the soul. Most of this, yes, has been based on mere assertion, but the detraction on this thread has also been mere assertion. We shall have to agree to disagree.<br /><br />My problem with an appeal to 'high culture' is that many Christians doing this today are following a Roger Scruton sort of paradigm. Much 'high art' is complex in a way that coming to an understanding of it may make one more intelligent but it may yet be not good for the formation of the soul. Further, much 'high art' is beautiful in a sensual way that really won't do much good for the soul. Thus above when it comes to music I ask the questions I ask. There is a pollyanna assumption about in many great books Christian circles today that having a young man view a given piece of art from, say, 1540, is always better than listening to hip hop music. It may be better at educating a person in the older senses of education, but it may not be better for the soul. Remember in Dostoevsky's <i> The Idiot</i> the role of the Hans Holbein painting, which Dostoevsky thought to be antichrist. Let us assume Dostoevsky is correct. It may be no better for the soul to love that 'high art' painting than it is to love the music of Snoop Dogg. It is not Bl Seraphim's fundamental project I question here, only that I wonder what high art he turned to, and I would not have chosen Shakespeare as an art to replace pop art, when there are better options available for his stated task.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-77953490562667691742010-04-24T11:35:32.796-05:002010-04-24T11:35:32.796-05:00Ochlophobist,
You seem to be making two separate...Ochlophobist, <br /><br />You seem to be making two separate points: 1) Shakespeare is simply a bad writer; 2) The theater is intrinsically corrupt - a) based on the authority of Christian history and the fathers; b) based on the idea that late modernity is intrinsically 'pansexualist' (not sure what you mean by this term) and theater is <i>the</i> art of late modernity. <br /><br />As to point 1, I think we are at an impasse. One cannot argue in matters of taste; however, I think that when one finds oneself struggling to appreciate a writer who is generally considered great by many people over a long period of time, one should begin by questioning one's distaste, assuming that the problem is in one's judgements and not in the writer himself. Shakespeare deserves at least this much consideration. <br /><br />As to point 2.a., I think that we ought to consider whether the fathers rejected the theater because it was inextricably connected with pagan worship in classical times and late antiquity. If this is why the fathers rejected the theater, then we don't have to assume that the rejection applies to all theater at all times. <br /><br />As to 2.b, I am not sure how to respond to this charge, as it seems to rely on a history of culture that I'm not familiar with. However, I would ask whether Shakespeare has to be included in the general condemnation of late modernity. Is Shakespeare pansexualist? Is a production of Shakespeare intrinsically corrupt because it takes place in a theater? It seems like you're hastily conflating Shakespeare with particular problems in late modernity. <br /><br />To address the question of Fr. Seraphim's endorsement of Shakespeare and the value of high culture for the human soul - I think you're missing the larger intuition that Fr. Seraphim had and which I also hold (and which I think Aaron has endorsed here as well, if I can bring him into this argument), that a) modern popular culture is so pervasive that it cannot be counteracted without conscious work to replace it with something else; b) popular culture is so bad for the soul and so barbaric that, in order to counteract its bad effects, Orthodox Christians have to seek out a high culture that is not specifically Orthodox and perhaps not even specifically Christian in order to form that middle part of the soul. (I think one could draw the same conclusion from <i>Abolition of Man</i>). Without striving to attain the simply human sensibilities, affections and virtues, which high culture helps us to do, how can we expect to make any progress in the spiritual life? In an increasingly anti-human culture, in which human nature is an arcane concept, we have to take the 'spoils of Egypt' where we find culture which still has value for the soul - even if it means going to the theater.Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10409029017940484576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-62095820455751466662010-04-24T11:02:21.862-05:002010-04-24T11:02:21.862-05:00I know this is disappointing since I am the reside...I know this is disappointing since I am the resident blogger around here and since I am seen as a 'leveheaded-as-usual' kind of guy, but I actually have little to contribute to this exchange. Although I am by temperament very much inclined to enjoy Shakespeare, on the stage or the page, and while my thoughts on the subject are very rudimentary, I am sympathetic to Owen's call, rightly noted as being in the <i>spirit</i> of Fr Seraphim, to reject 'certain late modern conventions', and knee-jerk reactions to that call only intensify my sympathy. I am reminded of the response I got to a post on St Gregory the Theologian's use of a metaphor of God at 'play', as well as conversations I've had on other subjects. My veneration for Fr Seraphim is great, and I'm always inclined to believe he knew what he was doing, but I also think there is something to Owen's perspective here. It may well be my romanticism and not merely my veneration for Fr Seraphim that inclines me in Shakespeare's favour (not for his Christianity, but for his artistic ability). Perhaps also it's undetected bobo influence! ;-)Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-44936576375994881042010-04-23T22:58:58.717-05:002010-04-23T22:58:58.717-05:00The reasoning being presented here is that I could...The reasoning being presented here is that I could find in every other issue of Touchstone. Thanks fellas.<br /><br />All of this assumes that the middle soul work is done well by Shakespeare and Dickens. Thus far everyone in this thread who takes this position has done so by mere assertion. I deny as much by mere assertion (Dickens is better than Shakespeare for such a work, but certainly not among the first writers I would turn to).<br /><br />The assertion that theatre is intrinsically decadent and not really ever a high or fine art is one that has longstanding traction in Christian traditions, Orthodox, Catholic, and Prot (there is my play at a 'mere Christianity' - just kidding). There is no need in a thread forum for me to give a history of such, any person with any education regarding Christianity and the arts knows as much. The idea that virtually all 'camps' of Christianity came to accept theatre as an art and a good which might be used toward Christian ends (or pre-Christian middle soul ends) at the same time of the triumph of an aestheticism that is closely associated with pansexualism is an idea which certainly does not originate with me. Late modernity has a pansexualist culture. It is my convinction that when one has, without reservation, the intuition that theatre as theatre is a good which can be used to well form the soul (with a Christian teleology of soul in mind), then one has been influenced by late modern aesthetics, and thus by pansexualist aesthetics, as the two are inseparable. Anyone who took part in homosexual culture in CA from the 50s on is going to have been formed more intensely in such aesthetic intuitions than others might have. Hence my first thought.<br /><br />Dismiss my views as you will. Socrates rejected the written word. St. Augustine believed that musical instruments were intrinsically evil. A host of Fathers and Christians of all sorts have condemned theatre and dramatic 'arts.' My assertion that the triumph of the theatre (now <b>the</b> 'art' of late modernity) is associated with pansexualism has been articulated by writers as far ranging as E. Michael Jones to Michel Foucault (though Foucault, of course, used different language to describe this phenomenon). Bl Seraphim Rose was a man who had no problems rejecting certain late modern conventions which he felt must be rejected by Christians. He certainly could have rejected theatre, qouting this or that father, without anyone thinking him outside of the bounds of his normal approach to late modernity. He clearly did not. Given that this thread is about Shakespeare, an academic area which is full of nothing but speculation with regard to the man's formation, intellectual and spiritual allegiances, intent, etc., I thought it perfectly appropriate to speculate that it is at least possible that at the time Rose took young men to see Shakespeare his intuition regarding the goodness of theatre may have been formed by an aesthetic paradigm he acquired elsewhere. Given that theatre is worshipped as a god in one of his former cultural environs I will suggest that my "first thought" was neither brilliant nor cocaine induced, but rather mundane and obvious.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-85785103439407538972010-04-23T21:29:00.382-05:002010-04-23T21:29:00.382-05:00It seems that, from the evidence given in the biog...It seems that, from the evidence given in the biography by Fr. Damascene (which I have no reason to distrust), that Fr. Seraphim recognized a tendency in the novices who showed up at his monastery which made him realize their need for some kind of formation in the 'middle part of the soul'. As I understand it, this aspect of the soul has to do with emotional, natural maturity and wholeness - the affections and what Lewis called the 'stock responses'. It is not the highest, spiritual part of the soul, yet without having some kind of formation in this middle part of the soul, spiritual growth is often stunted or abandoned, unable to grow to any depth. <br /><br />Fr. Seraphim concluded that a major reason why these young men were so emotionally stunted is because they had grown up without any 'soul formation' on that middle level. The best way to remedy that, he thought, was to teach them how to appreciate the best of 'high culture' - not because this is an end in itself, but because this builds up in the soul a sensitivity which is necessary in beginning the spiritual life. Dickens, Shakespeare (and yes, even the theatrical performance of Shakespeare), Jane Austen, Sir Phillip Sidney, etc., are excellent nourishment for this part of the soul, which I think is something Fr. Seraphim rightly recognized. <br /><br />One can always find 'subconscious' reasons for someone else's actions - which are hard to question because subconscious motivations are by definition hidden from the person performing the action. However, Fr. Seraphim's given reasons for having his novices and students partake of Shakespeare and Dickens seem sound to me, and I think we ought to grapple with his reasoning before dismissing the particular acts so quickly.Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10409029017940484576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-9000044526689868612010-04-23T21:05:49.957-05:002010-04-23T21:05:49.957-05:00My comment does not ignore your clarification (whi...My comment does not ignore your clarification (which ends with a split infinitive, BTW). Basically, my problem is with this: "my first thought is that Bl Seraphim did struggle with homosexuality." Why just cavalierly (in the newer usage of that word) blurt out one's <i>first thought</i>? especially when it is so shallow? I understand that your "problem is not with homosexuals" but with their aesthetic, which you say Fr. Seraphim absorbed. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, I don't know. What I do know is that to pass off as sophisticated critique the theory that Fr. Seraphim's apparent appreciation for Shakespeare must necessarily have come from his pre-conversion engagement with the antichrist decadence of 1950s gay San Francisco, is ridiculous. It sounds like something I would say, and think I was really brilliant for saying, after staying up all night snorting cocaine.<br /><br />To everything after "That Rose, even if he is a saint..." you'll have no argument from me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-1773946584804641392010-04-23T19:43:44.315-05:002010-04-23T19:43:44.315-05:00Anon,
With regard to Bl. Seraphim, your comment i...Anon,<br /><br />With regard to Bl. Seraphim, your comment ignores my own clarification. The issue has nothing to do with his being homosexual, in and of homosexuality itself. It has to do with the homosexual cultural aestheticism he engaged with prior to Orthodoxy.<br /><br />When one reads Seraphim Rose, one is either ignorant or in pious delusion if one thinks that his criticisms and observations and the manner in which he frames his arguments are such that he 'learned' or adopted them solely from his Orthodox experience. There is a great deal in the tone, intellectual posture, and rhetorical style of Rose's work which is very much in keeping with the writings of others who came out the sorts of countercultural movements Rose was familiar with. Those countercultural movements formed him intellectually, and that formation is at least quite evident in the works of his I have read, and I suspect never left him. There is nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. But with regard to the question of the formation of young men, one might well ask what in a person's background might motivate him to think that taking them to a Shakespeare play would be good for their formation in some sense. The fact that Rose came out of the sort of (among others) subculture that so embraces theatrical aestheticism is, it seems to me, a rather obvious observation. That Rose, even if he is a saint, did a given act, does not mean the act must be held as sanctified by all Orthodox. He may have been well on the way to theosis, and meant nothing but good things, and been inclined towards theatre for the wrong reasons. Reasons there being related to reason, and not intention. One might not be in a state of regeneracy but still, from time to time, on rare occasion even, not have reason fully conformed to reality.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-25720290650328284702010-04-23T19:20:57.582-05:002010-04-23T19:20:57.582-05:00bobo-bashing, but transitioning from "really ...bobo-bashing, but transitioning from "really liked" to something other because of being made "a bit uncomfortable." Is Anon Rod Dreher?<br /><br />I have written many thousands of words with regard to the cathartic elements in theatre as theatre which in my estimation make it a deformed art. I link to the principles of these posts on the sidebar of my blog. Contemptuous, yes. Cavalier, well, perhaps in the older usage of that word. Setting aside the problems of theatre and considering poetry, as Aaron suggests here and we could have a further conversation concerning, the notion that Shakespeare is not a top tier poet (and thus is overrated, generally speaking) is certainly not novel.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-73528146920207769222010-04-23T18:25:38.439-05:002010-04-23T18:25:38.439-05:00I honestly really liked reading "The Ochlopho...I honestly really liked reading "The Ochlophobist" blog <i>until today</i>. I'm a stuck-up, bobo-bashing, elitist myself, but reading Och's contemptuous and cavalier condemnations of Shakespeare made me a bit uncomfortable. (BTW, this criticism is not meant to apply to today's levelheaded-as-usual post on this blog.) Now, this just takes the cake: Fr. Seraphim took young men to see Shakespeare because he was really a not-quite-regenerate poofter. Thanks for the analysis Och.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-41305545412258790372010-04-23T16:49:18.200-05:002010-04-23T16:49:18.200-05:00Oh, and before anyone chides me, it is not homosex...Oh, and before anyone chides me, it is not homosexuality qua homosexuality that I express a problem with here. My problem is not with homosexuals. Theirs is a sin like any other. It is the particular place of what is deemed and sold as homosexual aesthetics and forms within bobo lifestylization embraced by bobos that I have a problem with, as it is a most antichrist of decadences. Any given homosexual might hate that aesthetic as much as I do (indeed, I know several who do). Just as heterosexual marriages have been narrowly packaged and aestheticized in mass media, so have homosexeual motifs, and we now have what we have. The issue with Bl Seraphim is not that he had homosexual inclinations, but that he engaged in a certain culture, and cultural lenses are very difficult to entirely remove.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-36005531231636523232010-04-23T16:33:10.851-05:002010-04-23T16:33:10.851-05:00Orr,
The Fr. Seraphim Rose took some of his young...Orr,<br /><br />The <i>Fr. Seraphim Rose took some of his young novices and charges to see Shakespeare for the same reason he played them classical music and had them read Dickens</i> story gets a lot of traction in Orthoblogdom.<br /><br />I am not an expert on Bl Seraphim by any means, having only read a few of his books and perhaps 75 pages of the big bio. Is there a list of the plays, music, and literature he had these young men engage?<br /><br />Dickens is a mixed bag. I think Trollope the perfect counterpart. One should not read one without reading the other. So much of Dickens is journalistic sentiment and in the end Dickens abandoned his own wife and two children, leaving them with nothing, which is astounding given some of Dickens' novelistic agendas. His work stands on its own of course, but in a way I think Dickens' life (at least the end of it) flows out of his work, there is a superficiality to most of it, But the man did go after bankers and lawyers and must be lauded for that.<br /><br />Classical music begs so many questions. I would love to know what music. Simple basics like Vivaldi's Four Seasons, sure; the further you get into baroque, the more complicated the matter becomes. And did he miss the real spiritual geniuses, such as Heinrich Biber? Of course once you get to classical music as it is normally defined, meaning Beethoven and beyond, one often would be better off to have them listen to folk music.<br /><br />As for taking his young men to Shakespeare plays, my first thought is that Bl Seraphim did struggle with homosexuality and the culture of homosexuality found in CA during his earlier days. The theatre is perhaps the icon and the principle medium (from plays to radio to tv to omnipresent narrative media) of the transition of early modern virtue-moralistic bourgeois living to late modern style-moralistic bohemian bourgeois lifestylizations. Bl Seraphim saw as well as anyone the problems of modernity, but everybody has their blind spots. The theatre and homosexuality represent the pinnacle of the new late modern bourgeois (bobo) aesthetic. I think that one of the easiest ways we can dissent from bobo culture is to openly disdain theatre, excepting, of course, that theatre which disdains itself, which the blessed French were kind enough to give us. Bl Seraphim would have been better off sending them to see Waiting for Godot or The Bald Soprano.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-44529424550776859312010-04-23T16:28:45.402-05:002010-04-23T16:28:45.402-05:00Ah, thanks. The Seven Storey Mountain, Augustine&...Ah, thanks. <i>The Seven Storey Mountain</i>, Augustine's <i>Confessions</i> and <i>The Way of a Pilgrim</i> were my first real introductions to a Christianity other than Protestantism or a Protestant understanding of the Christian 'others' (i.e., papism or various sects). All three were read in 1994, oddly enough, which is the same year I first performed Chekhov. I date the start of my conversion in September 1994 at my reading of <i>The Way of a Pilgrim</i>; I was baptized in January 2001.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-87606695120471199002010-04-23T16:04:14.505-05:002010-04-23T16:04:14.505-05:00The story you're thinking of, Orr, is Merton&#...The story you're thinking of, Orr, is Merton's. It's in <i>The Seven Storey Mountain</i>.Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-70184377752348470602010-04-23T14:01:00.271-05:002010-04-23T14:01:00.271-05:00Fr. Seraphim Rose took some of his young novices a...Fr. Seraphim Rose took some of his young novices and charges to see Shakespeare for the same reason he played them classical music and had them read Dickens. They may not be spiritual reading, but they help develop a certain sensitivity that can be lacking in modern men. It's put much better in his biography, but I don't have it at hand having lent it out.<br /><br />I would agree that Shakespeare is does not have "a particular capacity to help form virtue in the soul". At best he is neutral on such matters, at worst he stokes the bawdiness so loved by Englishmen, as well as their other vices and virtues - but that is not the same thing as being 'Christian'.<br /><br />(I'm reminded of a story by C.S. Lewis, perhaps?, regarding a teacher or headmaster who read the Gospel in chapel and inserted all sorts of references to being a 'gentleman'. Perhaps old timey Episcopalians, Anglicans and anglophiles see Shakespeare as being 'Christian' in the way they equate being a 'good Englishman' - whatever that is - with being Christian. (I think we can see that same temptation in certain ethnic Orthodox circles, as well, so perhaps this is a failing of 'pious' humanity, generally.)123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-34487717533060434992010-04-23T13:53:28.510-05:002010-04-23T13:53:28.510-05:00My personal gripe with the Shake has nothing to do...My personal gripe with the Shake has nothing to do with how explicit his Christianity happens to have been, or how nominal I suspect him to be, or any of that (my comments along those lines have only to do with the irony I find in Touchstonista great books types putting forth the bard as lit with a particular capacity to help form virtue in the soul). I love Chaucer. Hell, I love Thomas Hardy, and would rather have my children read Hardy than Shakespeare.Ochlophobist https://www.blogger.com/profile/13751003558600087713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-76734523037100792182010-04-23T13:23:42.175-05:002010-04-23T13:23:42.175-05:00Pish, moralizers all! :)
Of course, one would not...Pish, moralizers all! :)<br /><br />Of course, one would not expect to find too many Shakespeare haters in a classical training program, so I guess it makes sense I've only ever heard him lauded.<br /><br />I would say he is more to the 'way things are' than the 'way things should be' side of things, and beautifully, earthily so. <br /><br />To be fair, I've also never heard Shakespeare lauded in any sort of christianizing way, either. I can't say I see it in there, except in the way any writer or poet might use religious imagery common in a given culture. Nominally, culturally, accidentally, absent-mindedly and unimportantly Christian, sure, but he was far from a "Christian Writer" - but neither were Tolstoy or Chekhov and I like reading them, too.123https://www.blogger.com/profile/14514075641944568806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-69301906569571670102010-04-23T12:59:13.026-05:002010-04-23T12:59:13.026-05:00By the way, Orr, if you've never seen anyone d...By the way, Orr, if you've never seen anyone dismiss Shakespeare, you should read Tolstoy on him: 'The fundamental inner cause of Shakespeare's fame was and is this--that his dramas...corresponded to the irreligious and immoral frame of mind of the upper classes of his time and ours.' Tolkien on the other hand claims to have 'cordially disliked' him.Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714437334790446678.post-7342438314009503532010-04-23T12:53:25.084-05:002010-04-23T12:53:25.084-05:00Well, I for one certainly don't find Shakespea...Well, I for one certainly don't find Shakespeare tedious or unprofound, though not as profound as many people seem to think. But as I suggested, on the surface the plays seem very worldly and irreligious. In this I find myself pretty much on the side of Tolstoy, Santayana, Lewis, & Bloom. What makes me half-way willing to give the 'Christianising' reading a chance is that I'm intrigued that the Christianising critics don't see it my way. I find myself thinking they must have seen something I've missed or they must know something I don't, and I want to be let in on it! Maybe we should call it the 'gnostic' heresy in literary criticism, but there it is!Aaron Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17775589009145031773noreply@blogger.com