THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHAKESPEARE’S IMAGERY

Wolfgang Clemens

It does not take long to consider and review this criticism. What is meant by imagery? Settings, characters’ expressions, characters’ psychology, story, etc. Imagery means an analysis of all the plays and the capabilities and capacities that the playwright inserted by use of the words. 

The next question is what would Bill Shakespeare think? Shakespeare would read and wonder:

“I did that? Huh?”  “The analysis on this point sounds pretty good, but I don’t remember writing it that way.” “I like what he says about Hamlet. I must be the smartest guy in the world.” “Too bad about Love Labor’s Lost. It sounds so prosaic, although I inserted many good one-liners about love. That chapter says more about the author than it does about the play or my abilities.” 

Advertisements

THE MAKING OF THE MIDDLE AGES

R.W. SOUTHERN

I will reread this text to have it in mind completely. Briefly, the author in the Bibliography describes what the book is about and what it does: “The greatest collection of printed material for understanding the life and thought of the period…[970-1204] is Migne’s Patrologia Latina.”

So how did minds shift for the 240 years to make Western man open to education, learning and art, apart from religion, leading to the Renaissance beginning in 1300 and going onto more recent advances? Understanding this text, from its well-expressed points of view, is an excellent starting point. Southern may not be totally correct in his analyses, but he advances a cogent argument. 

What does this text have to do with events today? One can learn minds can shift from set or established rules and philosophies. And today that is needed. It seems regularly human beings are stumbling over the same mistakes that were made in the Tenth Century.

THE COUNTRY UNDER MY SKIN

Gioconda Belli

In a store the cover says this book costs $16.00. Imagine my delight when I found a copy in new condition at a library sale for a quarter. Having read a bit, I want my two-bits back. I’ll explain.

The book’s cover states, “A Memoir of Love and War.” It is a memoir, not an autobiography, a more serious effort to convey one’s life and put it into context. A memoir might include overly described incidences. Either autobiography or memoir, there is a beginning, a middle and an end, all advanced chronologically so the reader can easily understand the progress of the tale and the life. 

There are no memoirs with flashbacks or advances in time of twenty years. That sort of book comes from from science fantasy, or are by alcoholics and other drug users.

Chapter One announces, Cuba, 1979 – arriving at a shooting range, although the author is 30 years old and the describes the trip like a elementary school outing to see animals at the zoo. 

NEXT PAGE: 

“I see you liked the .50, didn’t you?” Fidel mused with a malicious grin when I saw him a few days later. He had come to visit the Sandinista delegation and we had been summoned to the Presidential Suite. I said nothing. I smiled at him. He turned back and continued talking to Tito and the other companros who had been invited to Havana for the Cuban Revolution’s twentieth-anniversary.

I sat back and watched them. It was inevitable that the sight of Fidel would stir a collage of memories in my mind. Fidel was the first revolutionary I had ever heard of….

Reader to author: You are writing a memoir. You are not telling of the memories of your mind. Tell what happened. The author is to put those thoughts and related actions into a cogent form, not as a distracting interruption to the text.

And what about extra words, which undoubtedly clutter the author’s mind and her text? It is, “ I watched,” not “I sat back and watched them,” like you are a princess where her view of the open room allows her to spy on everyone – Revolutionary Number Uno meets Revolutionary Number Quinto. Plus if an author is sitting back, watching, she is describing the scene and the people, not recalling Fidel from her earlier memories. Finally, does the author have an impression of Fidel in the room other than her prosaic memories? Is Fidel there truly because he likes the clapping of the 50?” “Does he ask anyone for a match to light his cigar?” “Is he there trolling for babes?”

Not once does the author mention Fidel is Fidel Castro. She should do a little name dropping, after all she married someone named Castro but afterward dumped that hubby for another. 

The description of Fidel reminds me of Fidel Gonzales from Paraguay. I always suspected that Fidel had Leftist tendencies, so being in Cuba in 1979 would not be out-of-sorts. Fidel Gonzales is a good guy. The blackmarket is his business – electronics, leather goods (South American are the best; don’t buy Chinese) and garments. Fidel is thinking about opening his own fashion house. I don’t believe all the trademarks and labels are legit, but if a gown survives a season, then falls apart and the price is right, who cares? Fidel makes a lot of money on fake clothes.

About 1000 words later at the beginning of Chapter Two the author flips to Santa Monica, California, 1998. So much for chronology; so much for Fidel; so much for love and war. There is much to be said about muddleness. The subtitle of Chapter Two is, Where I tell of certain bizarre connections between California, interoceanic canals, and my life. 

Can anyone tell me how I can get my twenty-five cents returned?

PORN MOVIE

Late night on cable TV and I had just awakened. I wanted to sleep another three hours and give myself a solid eight hours.

I surfed, trying to find a movie giving a story like I was being read to. I came across a movie by Stormy Daniels – producing, directing and acting – and thought this might be newsworthy.

At best it was soft-core. Someone tried writing a script of poor dialogue and crummy action: “Hi, how are you?” “What are you doing?” (like the camera can’t show that) “You look great [tired] [harried] [used] today.(like the camera can’t show that).”  The title of the movie was Sexquarian, an attempt to tell about horse competitions, persons, corruptions and jumping two-feet fences while trotting a pony around a lawn. Of course the horses aren’t the heroes, and no one ever kisses her horse. No animal cruelty allowed.

No use wondering about sex. Men were in long conversations together. They looked like they had stepped from a jungle after 20 years, or they had just been released from prison. There were big muscles but no finesse. The talks came to nothing. Women also talked about horses, men and issues of the day. Nothing simpatico came from those conversations either: The story had indiscernible twists, turns and nothing noteworthy. 

Toward the end a competitor tried drugging Stormy’s horse. The perpetrator, a cowhand for a rich guy, got tossed on the ground, the extent of the fight. Next came the denouement, a woman, purportedly Stormy on the competition course (no close-ups) and her entourage was applauding each jump. Later in the Tack room there were ribbons, blue, red and silver (one each), harnesses but no saddles, and nothing else. 

The big moment, Stormy’s close up: A male player came in for congradulations, and Stormy lost some clothes. There were close shots. Everything looked manufactured. She has a 42 inch waist, larger wheel-wells and the fabrication on top. I now know why Don Trump stopped seeing her. Were they fake, or did they say Made In China? But something is completely wrong. He made a bad deal. He paid $130,000.00!

THE GREAT PIANISTS

Harold G. Schonberg

This is a thoroughly enjoyable volume which is well-worth reading.

What does it lack? Interesting text that would make it longer.

The author describes keyboard playing by most of the great pianists. The text changes in the last half of the twentieth century, losing some description and comment: A vocabulary arises in the eighteenth century which extends into the Twentieth. But this text becomes more concert criticism than analytical when the author has heard the pianists.

There is no accurate representation of the first-class composers set forth – Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy and sometimes, Liszt and Schumann, and others less capable, original composers for the piano like Mendelssohn. How did composition change their playing. The author treats these persons as pianists, yet some of Mendelssohn’s music isn’t fit to be played at a dog fight: The rhythms are uninteresting; they are straightforward rhythmic (if any) and thematic development, and the general presentation of imagination is incomplete. Indeed, many of he pianists whom the author describe played their own, insufficient compositions. That music is lost today, or might be taken from cold basement rooms of libraries and castles. None is as good as the piece discovered in Czechoslovakia in 1960, a second Haydn Cello Concerto.  

The audience is not fully explained. Did they only want acrobatics, displays at the keyboard of music that should not be played. Although opera was popular in the nineteenth century, the rush to arrange portions of operas for piano concerts was everywhere and a waste of time. Those arrangements are not played today. Yet these pieces, technically difficult and harmonically improved, took as much as half of each concert. Pianists into the Twentieth Century performed them  and other favorites – waltzes by Johann Strauss and others. Why these arrangements fell out of favor or have been ignored by pianists since 1970 remains open.   

The relationship of pianists to one another is not fully set forth. Individual meetings are noted, followings are chronicled and schools and methods are mentioned. But what of the true effect of Liszt who would sight read and play anything up to speed, or faster with control. Saint Saens had the same sight reading ability. Where were the force and effect of their compositions, definitive works? After 1855 the reader has no idea of the effect of Liszt’s E-Flat Concerto, a remarkable work that develops one theme. And the Saint-Saens Second Concerto in C minor was popular into the cartoon age, but Pianists were graded on their performance of it. Obviously Rachmaninoff’s Third Concerto, D Minor (l909) (the most difficult piano concerto) set a high bar for technical performance, endurance and interpretation. Schonberg does not describe much of this.

Indeed, Saint-Saens and other composers were not composing for piano alone. Why? Change of audience, or something else? Music for the piano played in 1900 was mostly composed before 1850, unless a gross adaptation of an operatic piece. The author does not explain or mention why music composed for the piano fell off. Not everyone was willing or capable of composing for orchestra. Much orchestral music of the Nineteenth Century, as well as the Eighteenth did not survive their centuries.   

What The Great Pianists also lacks is one pianist looking and hearing another and saying, “I never have to perform that piece of music again,” Sergei Rachmaninoff’s reaction after hearing Josef Hoffman playing Chopin’s Funeral March Sonata in recital. Indeed, Hoffman plays it well and distinctly.

There is little sense that pianists listened to one another much. Beginning in the first half of the Twentieth Century when recordings were made, pianists had more opportunity to listen and be informed.  More recording has made it an issue. It becomes a different issue because about 1950 the world lost two young pianists who were masters. Schonberg devotes a paragraph to each of them, and acknowledges had each lived he would have had a great career (and influence?). Indeed, Dinu Lipatti (died 1950) and William Kapell (died 1952) may have lifted pianistic performances during the last half of the Twentieth Century. The sense that any pianist during his or her life time actually influenced or lifted piano playing is not described well.

OPIOIDS FOR ALL

Stalin reportedly said, “One death is a tragedy. Ten million is a statistic.”

Doctor Sackler, a founder of Purdue Pharma, is quoted (from a deposition) in today’s Wall Street Journal about Oxycontin: “I was trained not to chase what could be random events…my recollection is vague.”

Meanwhile an op-ed piece from Steve Miller of Purdue Pharma, in today’s Wall Street Journal is entitled: “Litigation Won’t Solve Opioid Crisis” and a sentence within claims, “Patients suffering rom the effects of abuse need real help not scapegoats.”

Remember Ford Motor stopped making Pinto cars after explosions, deaths and many litigation successes.

NEW TV SHOW – BLOOD AND TREASURE

This CBS show is sort of billed as The Antiques Roadshow with guns. There are many bad guys, not just crooks, in the world of antiques and antiquities. One might call it The Antiques Roadshow with Indiana Jones. Harrison Ford is not in the cast.

I’m of Huckleberry Finn’s persuasion about the long past: The widow “let out that Moses had been dead a considerable long time; so then I didn’t care no more about him; because I don’t take stock in dead people.” (Chapter 1)

All I want on TV today is a police investigation of a good, solid murder in the middle of Manhattan, rather than see a bunch of people shot dead in a crypt where the inhabitants are dead already. 

FACT AND TRUTH, OR FAKE, AND FANTASY

In this media-driven world reporting every assertion, claim and utterance, truth seems impossible to determine or accept. This circumstance has existed a while, since the the Iraq War, or I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman (If it wasn’t sex, what was it?), or before. This circumstance has accelerated and intensified under Don Trump.

Having run across the good description of results of this circumstance in Harold Schonberg, The Great Pianists, provides a time to amplify. Vladimir Ashkenazy, the Soviet pianist, left the Soviet Union and lived in London. He said, “I would call Russia a country of lies….By the time you are a grown-up person you’re so utterly brainwashed that you don’t know anymore what you like and what you don’t like.” (page 472)

Note the sort of brainwashing being described. It is not a planned program, enforced by laws and threats. It is a passive, random presentation of dissimulations fed to the public all the time to destroy individuality, thought, criticism and judgment. It creates confusion and misunderstanding. In the end no one knows what is actually fact and truth, including the persons promulgating the lies. 

The means to overcome a passive presentation of distortion is not in social or broadcast media – one side or another edge, the third fringe, the fourth abyss, the fifth dimension, or the sixth amoeba. It is incumbent for individuals to educate themselves, reason and evaluate on their own, hear and listen, and to continue to educate themselves. Determination by the individual what is fact and truth and what is fake or fantasy can lead to a sense of control, involvement and self. Repeat the process. Instead many people seem satisfied to withdraw sometimes into drugs, or other physical distractions, and hear the media. The individual efforts are better than the results of fake fantasies, coming from brainwashing, being presented to Americans every day  

It is necessary and fitting for Americans to read everything. An example from history: Vietnam. How many Americans could have found that country on a map in 1955? How many Americans could find Vietnam on a map in 1973, after 58,000 Americans had been killed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, depletion of military will and assets, and a reckless abandonment to a policy to contain communism? Obviously, the Vietnamese were not into expanding communism. For them it a nationalistic war: After the Americans left Indochina the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and got rid of the evil that had killed millions of Cambodians. The Vietnamese left Cambodia to itself. It did not take over parts of Laos which had been part of the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Yet, a silhouette of Vietnam in 2005 evoked no recognition from an educated American. Every American should not never remember. No American should forget to forego learning and education.

FREE SPEECH

Free Speech is not an issue in the United States. Anyone can say anything about anyone at any time, and not be arrested.

The problem is talking so other Americans can or must listen. There are forums where people go and listen: religious services, sporting and entertainment events, institutions of government (Remember the “You lie.” interruption of an Obama State of the Union Address), and lectures with limited or specific subjects in science, educations, art and culture. This last group usually allows interruptions, politely, by raising hands and allowing questions and comments.

Free speech in open, general forums does not mean that people are compelled to listen. Free Speech does not mean that people cannot interrupt, shout objections or make comments. Indeed, free speech by a speaker invites other Americans who want to add or exercise their free speech rights in the same forum, at the same time. Those added speakers may seem rude, but that is the world Americans live in. Actually, it has always been the world Americans have lived in.

Consider Abraham Lincoln. It was said he would hook an audience and everyone would listen. Indeed, with one speech, given in New York City at Cooper Union speech, the westerner came to the notice of easterners. Lincoln became the Republican nominee for president in 1860. The Cooper Union speech not only had a profound effect on its audience, but also the words, the writing and the substantive captures readers today. Therein one may say Lincoln was eloquent.

Eloquence is the hallmark, the end game, what is required. Imagine how an abolitionist speaker gave speeches before the Civil War to hostile, interrupting, slave-tolerating audiences? The best of those speakers was Wendell Phillips of Boston. Besides being anti-slavery he had other causes: woman’s rights, labor rights, a progressive tax system. There was much for the Establishment and its audiences to hate or dislike.

How eloquent was Wendell Phillips? Ralph Waldo Emerson described his speech: The whole air was full of splendors. This type is speaker either presents such compelling content (like Lincoln) so the audience listens, or the flowing words are so elevated and unique that people want to hear how the language can be used to its best effect. It appears that Phillips had both abilities. He was a Knight Errant of Unfriended Truth. A Southern newspaper called Phillip’s speaking, an infernal machine set to music. And there was this report:  At the end of a Phillips speech, a member of the audience stood and applauded while yelling, “You God-damned-son-of-a-bitch!”  

And how did Phillips interact with his audience: “There was absolutely nothing of bull-dog combativeness; but a careless buoyant, almost patrician air, as if nothing in the way of mob-violence were with considering, and all the threats of opponents were simply beneath contempt. He seemed like some English Jacobite nobleman on the scaffold, carelessly taking snuff, and kissing his hand to the crowd, before laying his head upon the block.”

Today, speakers want respect, like Rodney Dangerfield. But every human being must earn respect. Speakers are dilettantes who want every person to hear every word uttered in monotone voices: Give the same speech at Texas A & M that will be given at the University of California at Berkeley later? Is there any eloquence? Some of those speakers have Ivy-League educations, like Abraham Lincoln, right? That’s how they graduated – having little education, faking knowledge and brain activity by repeating errant and sundry thoughts previously published on TV – they’ve gone through four years of higher learning where many survived by grade inflation: No one at this Ivy League deserves a C. (Are some people truly worried about students paying into get into college?) These speakers do no know excellence in communication. Having rudimentary logic, they can organize texts and insert cliches popular for limited audiences with no development but scattered among wine-and-cheese-party analyses: That’s real sophistication. None are original, and few, if any, know how to write. Many are authors of ordinary, mundane volumes with no joie de vive. In the end none can offer more than warmed-over phrases, bathroom sponsored suggestions and off-the-cuff offerings to solve any issue. Finally, in the world of writing, they are persons of adjectives and adverbs.

On the lecture and specking circuits these speakers are easy targets who become flustered with the first interruption and off-comment. (That isn’t in my speech, but it logically follows.) Their reactions reveal a complete misunderstanding of a speaker’s status – part entertainer. They lack confidence, have poor speaking ability (unlike Wendell Phillips), are completely unable to defend points of view so the speaker advances his argument while answering comments, generally lack ego and at heart are general misanthropes unable to communicate with the entire human race. 

A final analysis proves these speakers are not Rodney Dangerfield. They are not ready for prime time.

[Quotes and some facts above were taken from a sketch of Wendell Phillips by Norman Thomas,

GREAT DISSENTERS, New York, Norton, 1961.]

BILLY WILDER IN HOLLYWOOD

Maurice Zolotow

Like its subject this biography is told indirectly including juxtapositions and metaphors. Inferences must be made. Discussions about the films are well put, engaging and informative. I recommend the book.

Frequently, the outrageous slings and arrows of existence which are funny best define a biographical subject. Wilder knew the value of pets, especially little dogs, in film: “There’s ain’t a dog alive that can’t act the pants off Lillian Harvey…” (Chapter 3) At home and among friends Wilder disliked pets, including little dogs.

Wilder lived with his wife and daughter between Santa Monica Boulevard and Sunset in Beverly Hills during World War Two. Someone have his daughter a little dog and a pig. The pig was always getting loose and liked to run into the shopping area of Beverly Hills – you know, Rodeo Drive. Wilder was at the studio working on Double Indemnity and The Lost Weekend, and he get calls from the Beverly Hills cops, “Come get your pig.” Wilder hoofed across town more than once.

This was a sore memory for Wilder. It is odd that in none of his Jack Lemmon/Walter Matthau movies was there ever a call to a character, interrupting a crisis or a turning point: Come get your pig.