Remember, Chris, I'm coming at the question of the nature of alleged a.e.'s after I've confessed I took the notion of a.e. for granted all my life, and only lately have I seen how unclear my thinking about them has been.
I'm as surprised as you are to discover that the feeling of one kind of a.e. -- the kind we derive from "drama" -- can arise in me when I'm contemplating events not created by an "artist". I want to "understand" this to the extent I can. It seems to me this entails trying to uncover the "core" of the drama-a.e. -- if there is one. I admit that deeply gripping "drama" is rare in sporting events -- and, indeed in everyday life. (I feel it's almost equally rare in theater!) But it occasionaly does happen. Why? What's going on? And why, though the drama-a.e. seems palpably different from what we get from a Bach cantata etc, are we inclined to call them both "a.e.'s"? Interesting philosophy -- and new understanding in the "arts" -- will come only from minds flexible enough to question what we have always taken for granted as a "given". That kind of flexibility is a hell of lot rarer than sheer "smarts". In a message dated 5/4/08 10:21:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > My issue is not whether an a.e. can come from a sporting event -- it's > whether > it's worth talking about. (except while sitting on a bar stool) > > What can such discussion reveal that's worth knowing about either the event > or > the person experiencing it? > > So -- yes, I've experienced a sense of memorable drama from a ball game -- > even if it was only on a car radio listening to Ryne Sandberg hit his > second > home run of the game in the ninth inning against St. Louis back in > September > of the 1984 season. > > But who cares ? > > Except for those who play it -- there's nothing about baseball that's worth > knowing -- it's just a pastime -- a pleasant diversion from the steam of > events that define our lives. > > But dramatic poetry can be and should be different - - right? > > At least Aristotle thought so (and if he ever wrote an "Athletics" -- it's > been lost -- just like his book on comedy) > > > **************************************************** > > > > > As I've been confessing, I'm mulling a still-woefully-fuzzy way the nature > of > those things we think we are are "referring to" when we say "a.e.". If we > can > momentrily talk about "kinds" of a.e., we get several kinds from a good > Shakespeare play, and I don't pretend a football game can supply all those > kinds. > > But there's a particular kind, the sort Aristotle chiefly emphasized, that > comes from the unfolding of a "drama" with such things as an inevitability, > triumph and failure, Nemesis, and more. I claim I've felt that in several > sporting > contests. > > However, a given Shakespeare play teems with a.e.'s (recall my earlier claim > that works like plays and novels are not a single WoA -- they are a > collection > of many of them). Meantime, it is the very rare sporting contest that > reaches > a powerful level of drama, so I certainly wouldn't tell anyone they can just > go to the ballpark and they're likely to have the same share of a.e.'s > they'd > get from a Shakespeare play. > > Tell me honestly -- have you never been a spectator to a "non-fiction" event > -- on tv or in an arena -- whern you realized you were being seized by a > sense > of memorable drama? > _____________________________________________________________ > ************** Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
