# Ring Interpretation



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Well, I'm off Wagner permanently, at least for now.

I went to the library last Thursday and checked out a libretto of Tristan und Isolde, zipped up to the third floor and asked the attendant to put on the Furtwangler edition. She looked at me over her glasses. "All six disks?" Evidently she knew the work; or perhaps she saw something in me that led her to doubt my commitment. Hah! I said start at the beginning and we'll see how it goes.

Two hours in - the lovers had just declared undying love for one another, I believe several times - and it suddenly occurred to me that if I owned a television set, I could be watching Wheel of Fortune, and having MORE FUN. I promptly arose and left.

So that's it for now. NO MORE!!! BLEAH!!!!

But I was wondering ... well, except for the occasional Parsifal, of course, can't do without THAT ... what's your interpretation of the Ring? What was Wagner trying to say? Or is it pure entertainment?

I was sitting with a professor from Oregon at a cinema last fall, waiting for Elisir to begin, and we were chatting about this and that, and at some point I blithely remarked that of course Wagner was talking about US, of course, I got that; his non-response rang a little bell but I didn't think about it much more. I do think of Wagner (limited as my input is; I don't believe I've read the entire, or even half, the libretto of the Ring) as kind of the king of domestic drama. Lohengrin isn't really about knights and their ladies love and the battle with that lying b*tch Ortrud; it's about the power, and lack of it, that men and women have over each other in relationships. 

And the Ring has always seemed to me to be about (again) power, and the lack of it, that men find in their growth to manhood. It's kind of a spiritual bildungsroman. Guys look forward to adulthood and marriage thinking they'll be the king of the world, and they find out that every move is constrained, whether by honor, morality, courtesy, or the simple vulgar reckless need to accommodate.

But as I say, I was wondering what you think.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't think you gave _Tristan_ a fair chance under those conditions. Get a DVD (I recommend Barenboim/Meier/Jerusalem, Bayreuth 1995), and a bottle of Riesling.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Well, there's a lot going on in the _Ring_. It would be hard to say that it's 'about' any one thing.

First off: Wagner's trying to say something with the concept. It's probably the closest he wrote to a _Gesamtkunstwerk_. He probably chose a tragic plot as kind of an homage to ancient Greek theatre, and it seems from his preferred method of staging the thing that he was a bit nostalgic for the real or imagined past when people would stop everything for a few days to appreciate art. So it's part of his ongoing project to get his audience to feel what he felt was a properly reverential attitude towards opera, rather than treating it as light entertainment.

There's also a theme of corruption caused by greed going on. Your mileage may vary as to whether that's corporate/capitalist greed (as the hardly disinterested George Bernard Shaw thought), or plain old personal avarice which causes the corruption here. Considering that this particular form of greed requires one to reject romantic love (that's not my English major past coming back to haunt me, it's right there in the libretto), I'm more inclined to think it's the latter. GBS thought Niebelheim was meant to be a Victorian sweatshop, though, and it's hard not to see the parallels.

It's less explicit, but greed for the Ring seems to also cause one to become alienated from nature (it was stolen from the anthropomorphic personifications of a river, after all). That's one of those things that causes people to draw comparisons with _The Lord of the Rings_, which leaned a bit harder on the 'greed makes you reject nature' theme. Interestingly, though, the greed which causes rejection of nature in _LOTR_ has nothing to do with corruption by the Ring, and everything to do with corruption of the more ordinary sort. Sauroman never touched it, as you'll recall. But I digress.

I've always thought that there's a bit of a deconstruction of the 'hero' concept as well. Siegfried is a pretty traditional mythic hero: he's extremely adept at violence, he literally has no idea what fear is until he meets Brünhilde, he kills dragons, and he get the girl. Yet, he entirely fails to save the day because he is no darn good at the kind of high-level political chess that Alberich and Wotan are going at.

Sorry to keep bringing _LOTR_ into this: but Tolkein does the same deconstruction from a different angle. Frodo has none of the traditional heroic qualities: he's no good at fighting, and he spends most of the novel being miserable and terrified. He _does_ save the day, but it leaves him basically incapacitated by PTSD and he is entirely unable to enjoy the peace he's won for his country and is forced to leave it.

Back to the _Ring_: there are, of course, people who insist on trying to see a sort of proto-Freudian/Jungian myth in it, but frankly whenever I hear phrases like "proto-Freudian/Jungian myth" I have the irresistible urge to swat the speaker with a rolled-up newspaper. One interesting thing I've noticed in Wagner in general though is that, _contra_ Freud, parent/child relations are typically quite good. Hagen and Alberich don't get on, but Wotan and Brünhilde clearly love one another, despite the fact the Wotan, in typical fashion, manages to tie himself in knots and has to give her the Magic Fire treatment. Of course, one could argue that Wotan and Brünny's interactions are clearly concealing some kind of repressed Oedipal *swat swat swat swat swat*

So, yeah, lots going in in the libretto. [/ramble]


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Couchie said:


> I don't think you gave _Tristan_ a fair chance under those conditions. Get a DVD (I recommend Barenboim/Meier/Jerusalem, Bayreuth 1995), and a bottle of Riesling.


You know, I would - I'm kind of like a crack addict, with Wagner, I can't stay away no matter how much it hurts - but I don't think they'll let me drink Riesling in the library. And I'm not going to buy the darn thing if I don't first enjoy it. See, I'm not as stupid as that. (Whew.)

I suppose I could sneak the Riesling in. That, after all, could be the key component, in enjoying Wagner.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Wagner's trying to say something with the concept. ... It's part of his ongoing project to get his audience to feel what he felt was a properly reverential attitude towards opera, rather than treating it as light entertainment.


From what I've read he does seem to have been a bit of a taskmistress with his audience, wanting a large ruler to slap their hands with when their attention wanders ... but you'd think he'd have written more engaging music then ...



> There's also a theme of corruption caused by greed going on.


Is that something HE thought, you think, or was the corruption by greed thing just a handy bicycle to ride the plot on? I mean, maybe it's not possible to tell - but it's just hard for me to imagine anyone taking that sort of thesis seriously. Maybe I'm just too degraded by my own environment of greed, eh?



> It's less explicit, but greed for the Ring seems to also cause one to become alienated from nature (it was stolen from the anthropomorphic personifications of a river, after all).


Yes, that's a good one. But really, I would have thought it was one that clearly distinguished it from LOTR - Gollum is not alienated from nature, he's just the opposite, the original homeless guy. But he did give up love to get it, didn't he! And it wasn't greed for what the ring represented or offered that got to him, he just wanted IT.



> Sauroman never touched it, as you'll recall.


Sauron? Saruman? Saruman. He's the one that rejected nature. Gotcha.



> I've always thought that there's a bit of a deconstruction of the 'hero' concept as well. Siegfried is a pretty traditional mythic hero: he's extremely adept at violence, he literally has no idea what fear is until he meets Brünhilde, he kills dragons, and he get the girl. Yet, he entirely fails to save the day because he is no darn good at the kind of high-level political chess that Alberich and Wotan are going at.


Another good one - matches what we see in Parsifal as well, doesn't it. Extremely adept at violence, no idea what fear is, but doesn't really make progress until he figures out what compassion is (and somehow blunders through to success with Kundry).



> Sorry to keep bringing _LOTR_ into this: but Tolkein does the same deconstruction from a different angle. Frodo has none of the traditional heroic qualities: he's no good at fighting, and he spends most of the novel being miserable and terrified. He _does_ save the day, but it leaves him basically incapacitated by PTSD and he is entirely unable to enjoy the peace he's won for his country and is forced to leave it.


Yes, I've been kind of churning over LOTR in my mind recently, since a previous poster said they were the same. I've been wondering what was meant and how far that worked. My idea was that the difference between the British fantasy and the German one was the hobbit, the explicitly decent character or archetype. I don't think there's any parallel with the hobbit in the Ring. And yet Frodo's corruption by the struggle is pretty explicit in LOTR too, as you say.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> Is that something HE thought, you think, or was the corruption by greed thing just a handy bicycle to ride the plot on? I mean, maybe it's not possible to tell - but it's just hard for me to imagine anyone taking that sort of thesis seriously.


I think that thesis was kicked around by the Romantics pretty commonly.



guythegreg said:


> Yes, that's a good one. But really, I would have thought it was one that clearly distinguished it from LOTR - Gollum is not alienated from nature, he's just the opposite, the original homeless guy. But he did give up love to get it, didn't he! And it wasn't greed for what the ring represented or offered that got to him, he just wanted IT.


Gollum didn't have to give up _romantic_ love for the Ring, but he did have to give up love of his fellow creatures. Wagner's Ring makes you anti-romance, Tolkein's ring makes you anti-social.



guythegreg said:


> Sauron? Saruman? Saruman. He's the one that rejected nature. Gotcha.


Yikes, sorry for the atrocious spelling. Yes, Saruman. Both of them, actually: in the backstory Sauron was corrupting elves and cutting down trees and suchlike long before he made the Ring. Alienation from nature and corruption caused by the Ring are different things in the _LOTR_ universe.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

guythegreg said:


> You know, I would - I'm kind of like a crack addict, with Wagner, I can't stay away no matter how much it hurts - but I don't think they'll let me drink Riesling in the library. And I'm not going to buy the darn thing if I don't first enjoy it. See, I'm not as stupid as that. (Whew.)
> 
> I suppose I could sneak the Riesling in. That, after all, could be the key component, in enjoying Wagner.


Surely the library allows you to check items out?

Wagner spent 6 years writing it and its universally regarded as one of the greatest operas ever written and only Beethoven's Eroica is in its vicinity in terms of influence to the development western art music but you fear it may not be worth $20?


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

guythegreg said:


> You know, I would - I'm kind of like a crack addict, with Wagner, I can't stay away no matter how much it hurts - but I don't think they'll let me drink Riesling in the library. And I'm not going to buy the darn thing if I don't first enjoy it. See, I'm not as stupid as that. (Whew.)
> 
> I suppose I could sneak the Riesling in. That, after all, could be the key component, in enjoying Wagner.


Here's a little sample from YouTube of the Bayreuth production with Jerusalem and Meier -- and I'm sure there are probably more of them out there. It may help you decide whether or not you'd want to go ahead and purchase the complete video.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Haha, well as much as it might get under ahammel's skin, I think Wagner's intuitive appoach to myth clearly anticpates Jung's theories on the collective unconscious. The Ring insightfully deals with archetypes and universal truths. Also, the relationship between sexuality and anxiety is is perceptivlely dealt with, and it can be be noted how many of Wagner's heros, like Siegfried, face a crisis revolving around absent or abandoning parents.

That being said, although authors like Robert Donington offer very entertaining interpretations of the whole cycle as an inward journey and the psyche's quest for maturity, the whole proto-Jungian/Freudian slant is not what personally strikes me the most. I'm not sure the entire cycle can satisfactorily be interpreted on one level anyways, seeing how Wagner worked on it for decades and it brings together so many strands and trains of thought from different stages in his life.

Among the themes that I find most compelling:

A depiction of a corrupt society and the need for a new innocennce.

The values of the human heart and honest, spontaneous feeling being opposed by the values of society and social institutions like property and marriage. Those who live by the heart are always crushed by society.

The ring itself as an object symbolizing what almost everyone seeks in the form of monetary riches, material items, status and power, but which will ultimately give them no satisfaction. It is a focal point in the cycle for extensive plotting, intrigue and deceit, a demonstration perhaps that most people spend their lives pointlessly pursuing goals they will either never obtain or regret if they do.

Many say it's main concern is the relationship between love and power, and how power can only be achieved when love and compassion are expelled from one's being. The idea that the pursuit or exercise of power are incompatible with a capacity to love. I would hesitate to frame it is "love vs. power" as many do, because it is hardly a battle. Power wins out almost every time. Also, love does not prove to be the decisive solution. In the cycle even the most noble love of Siegfried and Brunnhildee is vulnerable to intrigue and trickery, and in the end love leads to heartache, pain and disappointment over and over again. However, if that pain is understood properly it can be utilized to make great insights.

How necessary it is to aknowledge change and the eternal newness of life and reality. Fear, anxiety, and insecurity arise in characters who can not accept that.

The Ring as an allegory for the human condition, our endless chain of suffering and a hope for redemption, possibly to be obtained through a renunciation of the material world altogether as an illusion, and the ultimate dissolution into a state of non-being.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

Along with the opposition between love and power, I think another important theme is the opposition between power and justice. 

I have begun to think about this theme in relation to current events. Since 9/11, the US government has been engaged in radical actions intended to suppress the threat of terrorism. There's a similarity here to the way that Wotan acts for the purpose of maintaining the reign of the gods. The gods are ostensibly dedicated to the rule of justice. However, the Ring (or at least much of it) is a study in how the necessity of maintaining power inevitably tends to conflict with ethical principles. Once Wotan and the gods are established in Valhalla, Fafner and Alberich become the terrorist threat the gods need to stifle. 

Wotan eventually realizes the truth that power is in natural conflict with justice. But then he starts to despair, because this power is also what has allowed the gods to maintain societal values like contracts, aesthetic beauty, marriage, etc. If, in a totally clear-eyed evaluation, it is wrong to act unjustly - then how are we to fight against our enemies? Wotan realizes that he cannot both be a god of justice, and work to win the ring back. This eventually leads to the actions in Gotterdammerung, where he disappears from the picture, and the malevolent Hagen is free to disrupt everything. Wotan's main realization in 'The Ring' is that he is powerless to act in a way that he can completely justify to himself. 

Having said that, I do also think that we should not interpret the Ring completely as an allegory. Rather, it is a version of myth. Myth does not provide an all-encompassing system of truths; rather, it depicts actions that are intended to move the reader. Myth is very close to our dream-life. We know our dreams bear some relationship to our everyday thoughts and personality, but there is also much in them that seems to be pure imaginative fantasy. I think it is fine to experience the Ring as a dramatic fantasy without necessarily tying all of the societal baggage to it that George Bernard Shaw did.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Interesting topic, and I don't claim to have studied Wagner or the Ring enough to have a reasoned opinion of this, only peripheral (myself not being a big Wagner fan). But I'll offer this commentary...

I'm speaking as someone who's a fairly in-depth student of imperial Rome and how its history has been "tweaked" by various historians. And also, I've studied some particular literature considerably, such as Shakespeare, particularly Hamlet, and James Joyce (mostly Ulysses). And I'm a writer myself -- very modest circumstances, two mystery novels extant, a 3rd on the way, short stories and articles too... anyway...

We often become lazy interpreting a certain work of literature (and I'd count The Ring as a part of "literature") and then twist this around our own fingers, depending on whom we are and the era we live in, the political and social circumstances around us, and so on.

For example, interpretations of imperial Rome have varied over the centuries, from very positive to very negative. These have mirrored the current situation (mostly British then US historians). During times of British empire expansion, the Romans were regarded as benevolent rulers. During Empire decline (say, late 19th early 20th C) we get the opposite: Rome cruel and vicious.

Only recently (within the last 30 years or so) have we seen "new scholarship" bring us a very deliberate neutral picture of Rome. The good mixed with the bad, presented fairly.

Same for Hamlet. After Lawrence Olivier's "soaking in angst" Hamlet film of '48 we've wallowed in the presumption of Oedipal Hamlet and thousands of schoolkids have learned to think of Hamlet as this squishy, slightly effeminate, and very obsessive-about-mother washout.

Thousands of historic and literary interpretations of every possible literary or historic figure have likewise been tainted by either local political trends or the excess of now-debunked Freudianism.

Same, I think, for The Ring. It is what it is: An intense, dedicated attempt to bring the Teutonic myths (mostly Nordic in basis) into a reality of operatic interpretation. And in doing so, Wagner worked hard to imbue his characters with humanity so as to make them more relevant to his audience. So yes, he has many layers of personality to deal with, and yes, much of it is a bit soppy these days, as might any 19th century romance appear to our more hard-boiled minds.

You can't blame Wagner for being a product of his times, just as you can't blame the Romans for having slaves. Everyone had slaves then. And in Wagner's era, most writers were highly "romantic" and felt genuine about this. Now when I say "romantic" I don't necessarily mean boy-girl smooching romantic. I mean the entire romantic tradition of literature that was incumbent upon all educated Westerners those days, "romance" in the heroic concept, sweeping epics, stalwart strong people, grand designs and high emotions that transcend "common everyday" emotions of mmm, "the rabble."

When we see this begin to fail is with the impact of WW-I upon world culture, the disillusionment for "grand schemes" and a turn toward personality and individual. The post-WWI writers like Hemingway, Faulkner, Joyce, laid the groundwork of the "loss of grandeur" that so affected culture that we still feel the resonance with counter-culture society.

I'm not too comfortable with assuming "subconscious" motives onto Wagner or Mozart or Shakespeare or, for that matter, the woman you buy a pair of jeans from at the store. Psychologists these days aren't too sure whether there actually is a subconscious that makes us do things and they're absolutely certain that Freudian things like Oedipal fixation are nonexistent.

This doesn't mean that our "background" mind isn't active and churning along all the time. As a very modestly happy novelist, I can say that my "inner writer" works constantly. I set myself on my trusty HP laptop to write a chapter of the new book (or an essay or article or short story) and it comes seeming from nowhere. All I'm doing it taking dictation, ha ha. It's not coming from the deeply hidden subconscious, however. It's coming from my conscious but the "background processor" part of the conscious brain.

Anyway, re. Wagner and The Ring and of course any other top composer or author, no matter how brilliant, the author operates under normal "rules" of mental behavior, some influenced by prevalent cultural surroundings, some by personal ups and down, and some of course by more coarse motives, like making a buck.

I think we need to evaluate Wagner or any other creative mind in light of modern scientific and psychological knowledge. That the genius of Wager was that he did create a series of cultural icons that changed the entire musical world and in some degree, changed the other parts of the world as well. And yes, he put layers of meaning into his librettos and music, such that we see, in many cases, elemental (okay, Jungian archetypes for those who still believe, ha ha) forces of "love", "power", "revenge" into the story. For that matter, so did Verdi in Rigoletto and Mozart in Nozze.

And to be fair, I don't totally discredit Jung, nor has he been debunked as has Freud. It's more of a "directional" thing -- his archetypes aren't necessarily a force that makes us do things, but probably the reverse -- that we do things that can be handily interpreted and sectioned off into archetypal behavior patterns. Just as long as we see them as interpretational in mode, not influential.

Whew! I need a cold drink of water after that rant!


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Surely the library allows you to check items out?
> 
> Wagner spent 6 years writing it and its universally regarded as one of the greatest operas ever written and only Beethoven's Eroica is in its vicinity in terms of influence to the development western art music but you fear it may not be worth $20?


Well, if I check one out I'd have to buy a DVD player too, so there's that. Of course I really ought to HAVE one, but due to one thing and another the budget is just a bit constrained right now.

And as far as value goes: different things have different values to different people. If I don't ever watch it it sure isn't worth $20 to me. There have been times when I've been willing to take a $20 flutter on this or that but in this case, when I've already tried it more than once and not been seriously engaged, the potential of success with me seems low at this point.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

MAuer said:


> Here's a little sample from YouTube of the Bayreuth production with Jerusalem and Meier -- and I'm sure there are probably more of them out there. It may help you decide whether or not you'd want to go ahead and purchase the complete video.


I appreciate the thought - but I've got to get through the first two hours and feel good about it THEN. I can't look at a sample from two hours in and think wow, this is great ... and then find out that the first two hours are no good!

I made that mistake with Don Quixote (the ballet). I saw this incredible Olympic-caliber pas on Youtube, with Paloma Herrera and Angel Corella and said WOW! I bought the darn thing and it's the only good dance in the whole ballet. Dropped it off with the librarian and said add it to the collection, please.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

guythegreg said:


> I made that mistake with Don Quixote (the ballet). I saw this incredible Olympic-caliber pas on Youtube, with Paloma Herrera and Angel Corella and said WOW! I bought the darn thing and it's the only good dance in the whole ballet.


Thank God for fast forward! Sadly, during FF you can't hear the audio. Too bad because it would make the singers sound like Munchkins.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Haha, well as much as it might get under ahammel's skin, I think Wagner's intuitive appoach to myth clearly anticpates Jung's theories on the collective unconscious.


WHAP! WHAP! WHAP!



> I'm not sure the entire cycle can satisfactorily be interpreted on one level anyways, seeing how Wagner worked on it for decades and it brings together so many strands and trains of thought from different stages in his life.


Well said.



> A depiction of a corrupt society and the need for a new innocennce.


The society of the gods seems like one which is basically corrupt? I got the impression they were all pretty much doing their best, with a few troublemakers having too much fun. No? Or maybe you meant the society of men is portrayed as corrupt? Here my ignorance of the libretto gets in the way, probably.



> The values of the human heart and honest, spontaneous feeling being opposed by the values of society and social institutions like property and marriage. Those who live by the heart are always crushed by society.


Sounds Schopenhauerian to me ...



> The ring itself as ... a demonstration perhaps that most people spend their lives pointlessly pursuing goals they will either never obtain or regret if they do.


You know, you hear that a lot but the people around me seem pretty happy with their lives. They work, then they go home and have a barbecue. They have grandkids, and seem to find the process enjoyable. It seems possible to me that people who enjoy this opera maybe enjoy thinking THEY'VE got it wired while everyone ELSE is miserable. Geez, I hope that doesn't work out to an insult. Sorry if it does.



> Many say it's main concern is the relationship between love and power, and how power can only be achieved when love and compassion are expelled from one's being. The idea that the pursuit or exercise of power are incompatible with a capacity to love. I would hesitate to frame it is "love vs. power" as many do, because it is hardly a battle. Power wins out almost every time. Also, love does not prove to be the decisive solution. In the cycle even the most noble love of Siegfried and Brunnhilde is vulnerable to intrigue and trickery, and in the end love leads to heartache, pain and disappointment over and over again. However, if that pain is understood properly it can be utilized to make great insights.


Here I think we disagree most distinctly. To me, Wotan and his struggles to make right his theft of the ring are the center of the opera cycle. If he didn't love his family and his people, if he didn't care how they felt about him, why would he make the effort? It's because he's part of a caring society that the opera works at all. And it certainly wasn't his search for power that won. The Siegfried/Brunnhilde thing is kind of a sideshow, meant (as far as I can tell) to add as much operatic oomph as possible to Wotan's failure. You can say love failed - it sure didn't win - but how did power win? Alberich renouncing love in return for power was the first failure - he didn't get his power, did he? I could be wrong, of course - as I've said, I really don't know the libretto very well - but love vs. power looks like very much of a side issue to me.



> The Ring as an allegory for the human condition, our endless chain of suffering and a hope for redemption, possibly to be obtained through a renunciation of the material world altogether as an illusion, and the ultimate dissolution into a state of non-being.


Well hopefully not really endless! I myself wake up without pain, although I hope for no redemption; and things are better for me than they used to be. As I hope they are for you too.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Glissando said:


> Along with the opposition between love and power, I think another important theme is the opposition between power and justice.
> 
> I have begun to think about this theme in relation to current events. Since 9/11, the US government has been engaged in radical actions intended to suppress the threat of terrorism. There's a similarity here to the way that Wotan acts for the purpose of maintaining the reign of the gods. The gods are ostensibly dedicated to the rule of justice. However, the Ring (or at least much of it) is a study in how the necessity of maintaining power inevitably tends to conflict with ethical principles. Once Wotan and the gods are established in Valhalla, Fafner and Alberich become the terrorist threat the gods need to stifle.


Well said - mostly. It's that word "inevitably" that bothers me. Well, I've spent far too much time and energy worrying about current events myself - opera is at least partly so we can AVOID current events, no?  But to my mind, it's entirely possible to fight enemies without being unjust. If someone is shooting at you, well, it may be unchristian to shoot back, but I don't think it's unjust. Setting up torture cells, making war on people who did nothing to you - this is not fighting enemies. Rant, rave, etc. No, I don't feel any better now. But the weather is nice here, and I live near a park.



> Wotan eventually realizes the truth that power is in natural conflict with justice. But then he starts to despair, because this power is also what has allowed the gods to maintain societal values like contracts, aesthetic beauty, marriage, etc. If, in a totally clear-eyed evaluation, it is wrong to act unjustly - then how are we to fight against our enemies? Wotan realizes that he cannot both be a god of justice, and work to win the ring back. This eventually leads to the actions in Gotterdammerung, where he disappears from the picture, and the malevolent Hagen is free to disrupt everything. Wotan's main realization in 'The Ring' is that he is powerless to act in a way that he can completely justify to himself.


This sounds a lot like the spiritual growth I was talking about. You've framed it well, though, as a battle between power and justice. I like that.



> Having said that, I do also think that we should not interpret the Ring completely as an allegory. Rather, it is a version of myth. Myth does not provide an all-encompassing system of truths; rather, it depicts actions that are intended to move the reader. Myth is very close to our dream-life. We know our dreams bear some relationship to our everyday thoughts and personality, but there is also much in them that seems to be pure imaginative fantasy. I think it is fine to experience the Ring as a dramatic fantasy without necessarily tying all of the societal baggage to it that George Bernard Shaw did.


Well - or Richard Wagner was abducted by aliens and actually experienced these events on the planet Xszystx. We have Vin Diesel as R. Wagner, Rene Pape as Ms Wiesendonck, and the rest of the cast has not yet been selected ...


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

katdad said:


> It is what it is: An intense, dedicated attempt to bring the Teutonic myths (mostly Nordic in basis) into a reality of operatic interpretation. And in doing so, Wagner worked hard to imbue his characters with humanity so as to make them more relevant to his audience. So yes, he has many layers of personality to deal with, and yes, much of it is a bit soppy these days, as might any 19th century romance appear to our more hard-boiled minds.


Very interesting. So you really kind of come down on the "pure entertainment" side of the ledger - didn't think we were going to get one of those!



> ... with the impact of WW-I upon world culture, the disillusionment for "grand schemes" and a turn toward personality and individual. The post-WWI writers like Hemingway, Faulkner, Joyce, laid the groundwork of the "loss of grandeur" that so affected culture that we still feel the resonance with counter-culture society.


Wow - so you see the basic difference between LOTR and the Ring as a cultural change that wasn't geographic but time-based - the hobbit characters that make such a difference between the two as a product of the public reversion away from grand thinking. Assuming you agree with me that the hobbit is the basic difference, I guess!



> I'm not too comfortable with assuming "subconscious" motives onto Wagner or Mozart or Shakespeare or, for that matter, the woman you buy a pair of jeans from at the store. Psychologists these days aren't too sure whether there actually is a subconscious that makes us do things and they're absolutely certain that Freudian things like Oedipal fixation are nonexistent.


Well, I didn't mean that I thought its interpretation was the product of Wagner's subconscious. I just meant that if he had a grand statement that he was trying to make what was it.



> And to be fair, I don't totally discredit Jung, nor has he been debunked as has Freud.


I was totally unaware that Freud had been "debunked." Surely you don't mean everything he did, right? Some part of it?

But anyway - thank you so much! A very interesting rant!


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

guythegreg said:


> Well said - mostly. It's that word "inevitably" that bothers me. Well, I've spent far too much time and energy worrying about current events myself - opera is at least partly so we can AVOID current events, no?


Well I don't spend a lot of time keeping up with current events either, but Wagner was someone who was involved in social events. He wrote 'The Ring' after having been exiled for participating in a political rebellion. We have every reason to conclude that his political and social views were integral elements of his work.



guythegreg said:


> But to my mind, it's entirely possible to fight enemies without being unjust. If someone is shooting at you, well, it may be unchristian to shoot back, but I don't think it's unjust. Setting up torture cells, making war on people who did nothing to you - this is not fighting enemies.


Warfare may be just in certain circumstances, but conceptualize it on the reduced scale of 'The Ring.' The reason why it was unjust for the gods to work to get the ring back is because it was stolen property, and stealing it back went against their ethical code. (Additionally, it was originally the giants' rightful property because they bartered Freia for it). An analogy: A criminal stole money from someone. The police chief needs money for his force, but it is against the law for one of his officers to barge into the criminal's house and take the money from him. Following the law means getting a warrant, trying the criminal in a court of law, etc. And when the trial's over, maybe the police chief still doesn't get the money - maybe it gets reimbursed to its original owner.

Let's say a terrorist knows where a nuclear bomb is placed but won't tell us. If we tortured him for the answer, we could potentially save millions of lives; yet we would be breaking our ethical standard. This is analogous to the position that the gods are in.

Just warfare, in a scenario like where the Allies fought the Nazis, is not the question. 'The Ring' does not pose such a scenario. Rather, Wotan's situation is as though FDR had the option to send assassins in to wipe out the Nazis before they could amass enough power to attack other countries. International law dictates that this sort of thing is out of bounds. Here, 'fighting your enemies' means, for the gods, 'breaking your own moral code to prevent a threat of imminent danger to your way of life.'

Committing incest and adultery is criminal under the gods' moral code, because they value the lasting societal benefits of marriage and procreation. Under that view, mere sensual fulfillment is a threat to the societal plan. If a society doesn't value marriage, then how will families be raised and values get instilled to future generations? This is the conservative view. Wotan's argument in favor of Siegmund and Sieglinde's union is that people should have more leeway to be individualistic. But, as with the issue of who possesses the ring, you can see the merit of the opposing view: Marriage should be respected because it is a foundation of society, just like the rule 'don't steal' is. But what if that marriage is an abusive one, as Sieglinde and Hunding's is? What if 'don't steal' means 'don't do the one thing that would neutralize your opponents' potential to harm you'?

The gods are bound to a realization that their society is based on a foundation of just principles, yet is permeated by unjust behavior. This doesn't mean they are especially 'corrupt,' any more so than contemporary Western society is corrupt because we tolerate a certain degree of injustice. Yet even with all of our modern advancements, if you compare modern society to a Native American tribe, we are much less just than they were - in large part because we are more enamored of power. For the gods to relinquish their unjust behavior would mean for them to stop defending the strength of their position. And that is what Wotan eventually decides to do.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Well, gregthe...

Yeah, pretty much everything Freud said was true is not. He made up lots of his observations from whole cloth, and only included the interviews and dreams of those patients whose stories fit his premise. Exactly the opposite way that the scientific method works. He was pretty disparaging to women, too, and essentially considered them second class humans. You gotta read Freud to realize this patronizing attitude -- although it was benevolent mostly, it was wrong all the way through.

His concept of infant sexuality: wrong. Oedipal fixation: wrong. The Id: wrong. How humans evolved psychologically: wrong.

Jung fares much better these days. He was a lot more scientific and far less dogmatic than Freud, which caused their eventual split.

Okay, on to the theatrical and whether Wagner wrote principally to entertain. If I gave that impression I'm sorry. No, I think he had higher goals, such as creating examples of rightful behavior and heroism and sacrifice, how he wanted people to strive for higher goals and such. But he still had the objective goal of making his operas presentable and entertaining. 

And as an aside, this is where I part company with Wagner. I find much of his operas ponderous and far too slow, too pretentious, too preachy. And yes I fully understand the objective of taking time to develop a theme and musically present a situation, and we're not trying to obtain a "Readers' Digest" version of artistic works. After all, I'm a dedicated Joycean who's read Ulysses at least a dozen times and consider it the greatest novel ever. But there are passages in that novel that I often slide over, being too dense or thick or lacking direction, no matter whether I still appreciate the skillful effort used to create this work. But that's another issue, why I don't care a lot for Wagner and there's another thread laden with that discussion...

And as far as LOTR is concerned, I'm not a big fantasy fan and never was able to get through those books. I think they're kind of charming but very dated, and just aren't my cuppa tea. I hated the Hobbits for being wusses and pushovers and I know it's "symbolic" but I just got bored with it. And again, yes, I understand the motive for creating such a "world" in that each "race" in Middle Earth represents various aspects of humanity and so on. I've just seen it done better is mainstream SF (science fiction) rather than fantasy.

And sure, my opinions about Wagner and LOTR are my own, and I realize that there are plenty of other folks who would disagree. I'm okay with that. And regardless, I consider Wagner's Ring a major step beyond the complexity of LOTR. Wagner is definitely for adults, but I've found that LOTR's fascination is mostly felt by young adults and prescient juveniles. Although I disagree with the lengthy tempo of Wagner (the operas and scenes are simply too long and take too long for concepts or themes to develop and simply can become boring just because of the length), I nevertheless realize that Wagner's themes and concepts are mature and sophisticated and I wish dearly that he'd done some judicious editing. Whereas I find LOTR far behind in complexity and maturity. Sorry to disappoint but that's how it goes.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Glissando, your most recent reply is very interesting. I think you've got a great interpretation of the gods' motives and ethical code here, and it's fascinating how you describe it. Thanks.

greg says that opera is supposed to make us forget daily problems and it usually does, but we also must concede that most operas, like any work of literature (of which legitimate opera is part) has commentary on society and its mores. Look at Marriage of Figaro, Masked Ball, Aida, Carmen, and so on. Those story lines are absolutely pertinent to social standards, ethics, morality.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

How about Anne Russel's interpretation? I laugh out loud everytime i hear it.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

dionisio said:


> How about Anna Russel's interpretation? I laugh out loud everytime i hear it.


I am devoted to this woman


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> Here I think we disagree most distinctly. To me, Wotan and his struggles to make right his theft of the ring are the center of the opera cycle. If he didn't love his family and his people, if he didn't care how they felt about him, why would he make the effort? It's because he's part of a caring society that the opera works at all. And it certainly wasn't his search for power that won. The Siegfried/Brunnhilde thing is kind of a sideshow, meant (as far as I can tell) to add as much operatic oomph as possible to Wotan's failure. You can say love failed - it sure didn't win - but how did power win? Alberich renouncing love in return for power was the first failure - he didn't get his power, did he? I could be wrong, of course - as I've said, I really don't know the libretto very well - but love vs. power looks like very much of a side issue to me.


Yes I agree, Wotan's struggles are at the center of the opera. But I think the emphasis is to illustrate his growth in character from a power hungry figure who is trying to control every situation and have every being fall under his rule to a character who realizes the futility of such a goal, who through the agency of others learns compassion and above all acceptance that life is a process of continuous renewal, that his reign will inevitably come to an end and that it will eventually be inherited by others who will replace him. The change on his part initially has nothing to do with his capacity for love at all. On the contrary, he continouslly demonstrates that he is ignorant of what the true true meaning of the word is. He attempts to get the ring back not out of the love for his family but because he is fearful of the results of it being in someone else's (i.e. Alberich's) hands. Since his rule is based on laws and contracts he can't openly swipe the ring from Fafner, so he attempts to create an agent who will do the job for him. Siegmund is essentially a puppet figure for Wotan. The love that blossoms between Siegmund and Sieglinde is a surprise to him, but he condones it only until Fricka points out how their relationship ultimately poses a threat to the god's reign built on contracts. At that point he decides to sacrifice Siegmund, showing how shallow his love for his son really is. Siegmund's dialogue with Brunnhilde that teaches her compassion demonstrates how much more advanced, how much deeper and richer is his concept of love than Wotan's. And we get a glimpse of just how cold and cruel the society based on Wotan's rule is in act one of Die Walkure. I could go on and on, but this is the jist of it I think.

You're underestimating how integral the love and power struggle is to the cycle. I could probably argue it in some way effects almost every major relationship in the entire work. Not only is it the impetus for the opening scene with Alberich, on the whole Rheingold in a way is about demonstrating the struggle within Wotan, with Freia (the goddess of love) symbolizing the capacity or lack thereof Wotan has to love and how close he comes to bartering her away and ejecting love from his being altogether. Siegfried and Brunnhilde can be seen as exemplifying a love that overcomes/defies power in the form of Fafner, Mime, Wotan -- representives of the old, power hungry regime. It's also alluded to in a relationship like that between Hunding and Sieglinde, who he treats as a piece of property. So on and so forth. And I never said that power wins, which is precisely why I said I hesitate to frame the struggle in terms of "vs." because that implies a winner. In fact neither proves to be the ultimate solution in the search for peace, wholeness and transcendence.

In my initial post I simply gave general outlines of some of the major themes for this very reason. The depth at which they are explored in the drama is extensive, and often very nuanced. Not to mention Wagner's propensity for creating complex characters with intricate webs of motivations, with subtelty. Hardly any character is simply good or evil. They all have shortcomings, we feel sympathy for characters even when we disagree with their methods, etc.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MAuer said:


> Here's a little sample from YouTube of the Bayreuth production with Jerusalem and Meier -- and I'm sure there are probably more of them out there. It may help you decide whether or not you'd want to go ahead and purchase the complete video.


I would not purchase this personally. Two somewhat elderly singers in what appears to be an oratorio. Better just to listen in my view. My, what a strain RW puts on the singers!


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

dionisio said:


> How about Anne Russel's interpretation? I laugh out loud everytime i hear it.


She's brilliantly funny of course, but I would hesitate to call that an interpretation. A comical narrative perhaps? It's funny because it purposely takes everything literally and at face value.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidA said:


> I would not purchase this personally.


Then purchase it impersonally.



DavidA said:


> Two somewhat elderly singers


Elderly singers? Meier was 39 in this. Few singers will even attempt the major Wagner roles before their late 30's to 40's.



DavidA said:


> in what appears to be an oratorio.


They're standing. What should they be doing, riding bicycles?



DavidA said:


> Better just to listen in my view.


The subtitles are nice.



DavidA said:


> My, what a strain RW puts on the singers!


_Schadenfreude _my friend, it's half the fun.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Couchie said:


> _Schadenfreude _my friend, it's half the fun.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

katdad said:


> Well, gregthe...
> 
> Yeah, pretty much everything Freud said was true is not. He made up lots of his observations from whole cloth, and only included the interviews and dreams of those patients whose stories fit his premise. Exactly the opposite way that the scientific method works. He was pretty disparaging to women, too, and essentially considered them second class humans. You gotta read Freud to realize this patronizing attitude -- although it was benevolent mostly, it was wrong all the way through.
> 
> ...


Very interesting! I had no idea. Freud was one of those guys that I always meant to read some time but never got around to it, so I guess I didn't miss much, eh?



> Okay, on to the theatrical and whether Wagner wrote principally to entertain. If I gave that impression I'm sorry. No, I think he had higher goals, such as creating examples of rightful behavior and heroism and sacrifice, how he wanted people to strive for higher goals and such. But he still had the objective goal of making his operas presentable and entertaining.


Not sure why you'd apologize for that ... entertainment is not as easy as it sometimes looks! And you didn't say it, of course, I just took that implication from your words. So I apologize for that!



> After all, I'm a dedicated Joycean who's read Ulysses at least a dozen times and consider it the greatest novel ever. But there are passages in that novel that I often slide over, being too dense or thick or lacking direction, no matter whether I still appreciate the skillful effort used to create this work.


As with Freud and Wagner, Joyce is another one that I've never managed to enjoy. I'm sure there's something there that I've missed, but I've tried Ulysses often enough to know by now that I just don't have the patience.



> ... as far as LOTR is concerned, I'm not a big fantasy fan and never was able to get through those books. I think they're kind of charming but very dated, and just aren't my cuppa tea. I hated the Hobbits for being wusses and pushovers and I know it's "symbolic" but I just got bored with it. And again, yes, I understand the motive for creating such a "world" in that each "race" in Middle Earth represents various aspects of humanity and so on. I've just seen it done better is mainstream SF (science fiction) rather than fantasy.
> 
> And sure, my opinions about Wagner and LOTR are my own, and I realize that there are plenty of other folks who would disagree. I'm okay with that. And regardless, I consider Wagner's Ring a major step beyond the complexity of LOTR. Wagner is definitely for adults, but I've found that LOTR's fascination is mostly felt by young adults and prescient juveniles.


Well, I'm 54 myself and still a happy fan of Tolkien's world, so I guess you can predict that I would disagree with your conclusions there! To me Tolkien is much more grown-up that Wagner, although I couldn't easily say why. I guess to me Wagner seems to have internalized that myth of the "real man" that he's chasing, the "ideal grown-up" that his characters want to be, while Tolkien seems to me to have got beyond that. But I'm sure that's a personal thing, nothing to do with reality at all.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Glissando said:


> Let's say a terrorist knows where a nuclear bomb is placed but won't tell us. If we tortured him for the answer, we could potentially save millions of lives; yet we would be breaking our ethical standard.


To me the problem with this scenario - and for some reason it seems to be everywhere - is that its only real use is as a poison, a weedkiller, used to wipe out potential morality.

The scenario is a Hollywood movie fantasy; real terrorists who had one wouldn't place a nuclear device with a timer, they'd set it off. (And I'd also say that people who produce nuclear weapons, or any weapons capable of killing millions, share some responsibility for the whole scenario anyway).

Of course, the Americans have lent their good name, personnel and resources to tormenting people who had no such information. So I think the moral justification the scenario provides has been used to cover far less threatening possibilities. People imagine this scenario and then once they have the permission to torture that it purports to grant, use it to torment people of whom it is far less certain they pose or have knowledge of a risk.

And the problem no one seems to notice - or perhaps they don't want to talk about it - is that then once the terrorist has been stopped and the nuclear device disabled, hopefully by Denzel Washington after an awesome car chase, who have you saved? Why, the children of torturers. I sometimes think every pirate's flag carries the subliminal text "Think of the Children!" - right below the skull and crossbones.

I think we can expect the children of torturers to be raised as their parents were raised, in general. What value such lives could have, I can't imagine. I'm pretty sure their value isn't high enough to justify torture to save them.

And I know, you didn't expect such a reaction over one little sentence taken out of context in an article full of other statements. I react because, as I say, this scenario seems to be everywhere these days and it's just wrong. I hope you will give these ideas some thought.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Yes I agree, Wotan's struggles are at the center of the opera. But I think the emphasis is to illustrate his growth in character from a power hungry figure who is trying to control every situation and have every being fall under his rule to a character who realizes the futility of such a goal, who through the agency of others learns compassion and above all acceptance that life is a process of continuous renewal, that his reign will inevitably come to an end and that it will eventually be inherited by others who will replace him. The change on his part initially has nothing to do with his capacity for love at all. On the contrary, he continouslly demonstrates that he is ignorant of what the true true meaning of the word is. He attempts to get the ring back not out of the love for his family but because he is fearful of the results of it being in someone else's (i.e. Alberich's) hands. Since his rule is based on laws and contracts he can't openly swipe the ring from Fafner, so he attempts to create an agent who will do the job for him. Siegmund is essentially a puppet figure for Wotan. The love that blossoms between Siegmund and Sieglinde is a surprise to him, but he condones it only until Fricka points out how their relationship ultimately poses a threat to the god's reign built on contracts. At that point he decides to sacrifice Siegmund, showing how shallow his love for his son really is. Siegmund's dialogue with Brunnhilde that teaches her compassion demonstrates how much more advanced, how much deeper and richer is his concept of love than Wotan's. And we get a glimpse of just how cold and cruel the society based on Wotan's rule is in act one of Die Walkure. I could go on and on, but this is the jist of it I think.
> 
> You're underestimating how integral the love and power struggle is to the cycle. I could probably argue it in some way effects almost every major relationship in the entire work. Not only is it the impetus for the opening scene with Alberich, on the whole Rheingold in a way is about demonstrating the struggle within Wotan, with Freia (the goddess of love) symbolizing the capacity or lack thereof Wotan has to love and how close he comes to bartering her away and ejecting love from his being altogether. Siegfried and Brunnhilde can be seen as exemplifying a love that overcomes/defies power in the form of Fafner, Mime, Wotan -- representives of the old, power hungry regime. It's also alluded to in a relationship like that between Hunding and Sieglinde, who he treats as a piece of property. So on and so forth. And I never said that power wins, which is precisely why I said I hesitate to frame the struggle in terms of "vs." because that implies a winner. In fact neither proves to be the ultimate solution in the search for peace, wholeness and transcendence.
> 
> In my initial post I simply gave general outlines of some of the major themes for this very reason. The depth at which they are explored in the drama is extensive, and often very nuanced. Not to mention Wagner's propensity for creating complex characters with intricate webs of motivations, with subtelty. Hardly any character is simply good or evil. They all have shortcomings, we feel sympathy for characters even when we disagree with their methods, etc.


Huh - well argued! Now I'll just have to take a closer look at it, won't I?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> Very interesting! I had no idea. Freud was one of those guys that I always meant to read some time but never got around to it, so I guess I didn't miss much, eh?


No. As someone has said: 'theories based on the observation of Viennese neurotics'


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> Freud was one of those guys that I always meant to read some time but never got around to it, so I guess I didn't miss much, eh?


you've waited too long. He's been out of style for over 70 years. But wait a little longer and someone might rediscover him


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

deggial said:


> you've waited too long. He's been out of style for over 70 years. But wait a little longer and someone might rediscover him


Never visit a psychiatrist who describes him or herself as 'retro'.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

deggial said:


> you've waited too long. He's been out of style for over 70 years. But wait a little longer and someone might rediscover him


gosh ... did he at least write well? :lol: I shall mourn his passing ... from cultural relevance ... with Riesling!


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

guythegreg said:


> Very interesting! I had no idea. Freud was one of those guys that I always meant to read some time but never got around to it, so I guess I didn't miss much, eh?


Freud's still okay to read, but if you do it, you're likely to start laughing, given light of what's scientifically known today.

Joyce? Well, Ulysses isn't an easy read, and a couple of "guidebooks" help, such as the venerable "James Joyce's Ulysses" by Gilbert Stuart. I'd recommend instead that you pick up a copy of (or download) "Dubliners", his short stories. Amazing.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> with Riesling!


is that left over from your aborted attempt at Tristan? I'm sure Freud has something to say about _that_ and it's_ not pretty_!


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

guythegreg said:


> The scenario is a Hollywood movie fantasy; real terrorists who had one wouldn't place a nuclear device with a timer, they'd set it off.


A magic ring that gives its wearer the ability to gain control of the world is also a fantasy. The fact that both of these scenarios are either highly implausible (in the case of the nuclear weapon), or impossible (in the case of the ring) does not invalidate their usefulness as symbols for a time of ethical conflict.

In other words, you can say that these scenarios don't prove Wagner's notion that power tends to conflict with ethics. But they aren't intended to prove; they are intended to highlight exagerrated instances, to dramatically portray the working out of that notion. Much less exaggerated instances could be mentioned - for example, the fact that the pursuit of money brings one into more and more potential ethical conflicts with a capitalist society; or that injustices have been perpetrated during times of war, even by those who feel they are fighting on the side of right.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> Well, I'm off Wagner permanently, at least for now.
> 
> I went to the library last Thursday and checked out a libretto of Tristan und Isolde, zipped up to the third floor and asked the attendant to put on the Furtwangler edition. She looked at me over her glasses. "All six disks?" Evidently she knew the work; or perhaps she saw something in me that led her to doubt my commitment. Hah! I said start at the beginning and we'll see how it goes.
> 
> ...


Enjoyable post, and I think you're absolutely correct; these mythological characters in Wagner are archetypes, as Jung called it. They represent universal aspects of human psychology, and the desire to "manifest" our identity and being.

Se the book _"The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories."_


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Glissando said:


> The fact that both of these scenarios are either highly implausible (in the case of the nuclear weapon), or impossible (in the case of the ring) does not invalidate their usefulness as symbols for a time of ethical conflict.


Oh no - my point wasn't that the terrorist scenario wasn't USEFUL, it's that it IS useful, but only to poison morality. Very useful, for that, but unfortunately not for much else. I mean, if that's what you want to DO, I sure can't stop you, but that's all the scenario does, is give people permission to commit torture that they then use in far less well-defined circumstances on people of whom we are far less certain of their roles.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Back to the James Joyce thing for a bit of further thread drift and then I'll be happy...

When we were kids we'd enjoy silly board (or computer, depending on our age) games and then outgrew them, as Paul said, "I became a man and put away childish things", and benevolently, we just knew more and the kiddie puzzles were just too easy. One reason why I play chess, one of the few games that you can never outgrow. But anyway...

Joyce laughed about "Ulysses" saying that he'd given scholars enough to puzzle over for a century. And he was right. Ulysses is a giant, genius-level word puzzle, and it's kept me fascinated for many years. I keep returning to the book for enlightenment and for sheer pleasure, over and over.

We do the same here with opera. Yes it's complex and yes it's difficult. But we are willing to invest in the joy of that art form because we're willing to take the time to learn enough about this highly sophisticated form of entertainment and then, to really, really enjoy the new production of The Ring or Falstaff or Rigoletto or Nozze or whatever.

Likewise, Ulysses. So... A few small suggestions... there are 2 really fine film versions of the novel: "Ulysses" (1967) and "Bloom" (2003). They are available on DVD and are entertaining in themselves, and also a fine intro to the great novel.

Then 2 terrific books among the many: The iconic "James Joyce's Ulysses" by Stuart Gilbert, and "Mythic Worlds, Modern Worlds" by the great psychologist Joseph Campbell. Both are paens and guidebooks to Joyce and are readable in their own light.

And yeah, I'm a bit of a Joycean "freak", owning about 40 books on Joyce and "Ulysses", and several editions of the novel, including a (ta-daa!) First Edition (yea!) that I bought for will you believe 20 bucks at an estate sale, heh heh.

"Ulysses" isn't a quick read, but nor is appreciation for The Ring or Tosca, either. It's a deliberate venture into an intelligent journey that has rewards. (rant concluded)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Then purchase it impersonally.
> 
> Elderly singers? Meier was 39 in this. Few singers will even attempt the major Wagner roles before their late 30's to 40's.
> 
> ...


She looks better than him. But 39 is still cracking on a bit to be courting. And he looks old enough to be a granddad. Why opera on DVD is sometimes not a good idea. You see the wrinkles!

It is supposed to be a love duet, isn't it? They could at least face each other or look interested in each other! It's something called acting.

Well, if you think it's fun wondering whether they are going to make it.....


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

katdad said:


> Back to the James Joyce thing for a bit of further thread drift and then I'll be happy...
> 
> When we were kids we'd enjoy silly board (or computer, depending on our age) games and then outgrew them, as Paul said, "I became a man and put away childish things", and benevolently, we just knew more and the kiddie puzzles were just too easy. One reason why I play chess, one of the few games that you can never outgrow. But anyway...
> 
> ...


I appreciate someone who is eloquent in his passions! Who knows, I may try Ulysses again some time.

I notice that my tastes change over time even as an adult. When I was ten years younger than I am now, I read Virginia Woolf's Between the Acts and thought it pretty pointless. I read it again a few weeks ago and was astonished at its power. What changed? Who knows. I think we can be pretty sure it wasn't the book itself!


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

guythegreg said:


> I appreciate someone who is eloquent in his passions! Who knows, I may try Ulysses again some time.
> 
> I notice that my tastes change over time even as an adult. When I was ten years younger than I am now, I read Virginia Woolf's Between the Acts and thought it pretty pointless. I read it again a few weeks ago and was astonished at its power. What changed? Who knows. I think we can be pretty sure it wasn't the book itself!


Same here. As a young, easily-impressed youth, I fell in love with Wolfe's "Look Homeward Angel" and went totally gaga. Some years later I picked up a copy and could scarcely get through the first few chapters, considering it overblown, maudlin, a 3-hanky book with no moral compass, etc.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

DavidA said:


> But 39 is still cracking on a bit to be courting.


Hey! I resemble that remark! Some of my best courting was done in my 40s and 50s. Hell, I'll soon be 72 and last year I solidified a long relationship with a 56-yr old gal, who's now my wonderful live-in life companion.

Just wait till there's some grey hair on the head and then you'll see, whippersnapper. Why, I oughta take my carbon fiber cane and whup ya... (ha ha)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

katdad said:


> Yeah, pretty much everything Freud said was true is not. He made up lots of his observations from whole cloth, and only included the interviews and dreams of those patients whose stories fit his premise. Exactly the opposite way that the scientific method works.


Well, psychology as Freud and Jung espoused it was not science. Today, B.F. Skinner's "Behaviorism" is considered scientific, since it deals with objective data, excluding all subjective experience (which is inherently unprovable except by inference, called "empathy" or "compassion" by non-scientific types). This makes Freud and Jung closer to being "secular religion," in this sense. Plus, State entities and corporations just LOVE data.

There are many valid aspects to Freud: derived from Nietzsche, he further defined the idea of the "unconscious" in humans; repressed sexuality as an unconscious motivation; and "drive" theory in general (sex drive, power drive).

Plus, his book "Civilization and its Discontents" is a great read, a real classic.



katdad said:


> He was pretty disparaging to women, too, and essentially considered them second class humans. You gotta read Freud to realize this patronizing attitude -- although it was benevolent mostly, it was wrong all the way through.


Freud needs to be seen in historical context, not from a "de-geniusing" feminist viewpoint, an agenda which seeks to undermine all patriarchal history and accomplishments. Favorite targets have been Thoreau, Picasso, Einstein, The Pope, and others.



katdad said:


> His concept of infant sexuality: wrong.


I certainly hope this has nothing to do with being "born gay."



katdad said:


> Oedipal fixation: wrong. The Id: wrong. How humans evolved psychologically: wrong.


Why? Because you say so? If you are going to make such sweeping pronouncements, then I look forward to further elaboration.



katdad said:


> Jung fares much better these days. He was a lot more scientific and far less dogmatic than Freud, which caused their eventual split.


Well, Jung is accused of making anti-semitic statements. More scientific? Not according to Behaviorists, and not evidenced by his _Seven Sermons to the Dead._


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Well, there are plenty of careful investigations into Freud and Jung and much of both their premises is unscientific. Jung was just more scientific, although wrong in many aspects anyway.

The Id and other things, infant sexuality for example, are regarded by scientific studies to be nonexistent. And no, infant sexuality has nothing to do with homosexuality, regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic or acquired.

As for "debunking" certain figures from the past, their accomplishments don't excuse or render their wrong concepts acceptable. Einstein for example was a major womanizer, a character flaw but that makes him human. You fail to specify which Pope. Are we speaking about Pius who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust? Or various Popes who, faithful to their church's tenets, consider women as second class citizens, blocked from joining the clergy or voting on church matters or exercising equal control over church affairs with men.

None of this has anything to do with Freud anyway. And yes, I know that Freud was a product of his era and that's some excuse for his theories. But regardless, the theories are simply wrong -- or to be charitable, flawed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

katdad said:


> Well, there are plenty of careful investigations into Freud and Jung and much of both their premises is unscientific. Jung was just more scientific, although wrong in many aspects anyway.


He was? Not as evidenced by "The Red Book."



katdad said:


> The Id and other things, infant sexuality for example, are regarded by scientific studies to be nonexistent.


It's not possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of the id, or any aspect of identity, regardless of how scientific studies "regard" them. These are metaphysical ideas. Aspects of "being" and "identity" can only be inferred, not proven. Only demonstrable behavior is acceptable as scientific data, and this has nothing to do with identity.



katdad said:


> And no, infant sexuality has nothing to do with homosexuality, regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic or acquired.


Are you referring to identity or to innate propensities?



katdad said:


> As for "debunking" certain figures from the past, their accomplishments don't excuse or render their wrong concepts acceptable.


Maybe so, but to take Freud out of historical context to attack his ideas is unfair and biased, so I called you on it.



katdad said:


> Einstein for example was a major womanizer, a character flaw but that makes him human.


Einstein's womanizing is not at issue; relativity was purported to be the idea of his first wife, so the issue is intellectual theft.



katdad said:


> You fail to specify which Pope.


There is no need to specify a Pope, since all popes represent patriarchy.



katdad said:


> Are we speaking about Pius who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust? Or various Popes who, faithful to their church's tenets, consider women as second class citizens, blocked from joining the clergy or voting on church matters or exercising equal control over church affairs with men.


No, I'm talking about that "screaming Pope" in the Francis Bacon painting.



katdad said:


> None of this has anything to do with Freud anyway.


I know. It has to do with your unconscious hatred of males. Let's go back to your childhood, childhood, childhood...



katdad said:


> And yes, I know that Freud was a product of his era and that's some excuse for his theories.


...and I suppose you think that justifies your preference for Ford trucks.



katdad said:


> But regardless, the theories are simply wrong -- or to be charitable, flawed.


How can metaphysical models be "right" or "wrong?" I think this has more to do with the modern perception of certain factions of people.


----------

