I wrote: > >I FELT 'Red' as a play was bad, a narrative failure. > Michael responded:
"How does one go about determining whether the work IS defective." The all-caps stressing of the most "telling" words is mine. I asserted what I felt. I went on to give the reasons why I felt that way. As I often do, I failed to summon up the optimal locutions for what was on my mind. I let that malignant word 'to be' slip into the statement. Only carelessness would allow me to say on a philosophy forum that a work IS defective. I think, however, I was accurate enough in citing the factors that made me feel the way I did. (I neglected to report that I often felt repelled by the haranguing posturing on the stage -- but I can't deny some others might like that sort of thing. It bothered me that I felt numerous sequences were non-credible, but I admit some others might not be so bothered. But it's not true that my "complaint is that the play does not present things as [I] expected to find them," or that it does not "follow the academic rules of depicting scenes". I like surprises in narratives. If, say, I read a whodunit and the author does not tell us whodunit, my disappointment and my criticism would not be generated by his going "outside the . . . paradigm". Hell, O'Neill did that, so did Ionesco, so did Pinter. My complaint would be that the author left me frustrated and feeling slightly like a fool for having spent time on the whodunit. I cited general things about R ED that give me -- and, I claim, a great of other play-goers -- a feeling of being unsatisfied, even irked -- and I don't go to theater to feel that way. Again, I didn't intend to assert RED is in an absolute ontic category, "Defective Plays". But I did mean to assert I disliked it, and here are the reasons why... "I found this to be a telling remark, Cheerskep. Your complaint is that the play does not present things as you expected to find them. How does one go about determining whether the work is defective > "I FELT 'Red' as a play was bad, a narrative failure. It lacked almost > all > > the essential elements of storytelling. It was only ninety minutes, but > it seemed twenty minutes too long: an argument followed by a lecture > followed by an argument followed by lecture and so-not-so-forth. The > characters were characters were vivid but not nearly three dimensional, > there > was no conflict, no hurdle to be gotten over. Perhaps if one came to it > with a passion for Rothko his > angry rants about the "dissonance" between the Appollonian and Dionysian > impulse would compel, but to me they felt like near-opaque hell-fire sermons > by a nasty guy on a pulpit. It was not what I go to theater for." > > I found this to be a telling remark, Cheerskep. Your complaint is that the > play does not present things as you expected to find them. How does one go > about determining whether the work is defective or that it is so outside > the > expected parameters that the paradigm one uses to frame and interpret the > work > fails or leads to a judgment like yours, that it is a failure? Is this a > new > kind of dramatic presentation, a new paradigm? or just a tendentious > sermonizing by declaimers on stage? > > This reminds me of the criticism of early modern painting styles, which > didn't > follow the academic rules of depicting scenes. The artists replied to > their > critics: "Well, that's right. Our pictures do not depend on those > criteria." > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady
