# New to the Ring cycle. What is up with Wotan?



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

So, I've recently gotten into the Ring cycle, and have familiarized myself with Das Rheingold so far. I'll be moving onto Die Walkure soon. I'm confused about Wotan's character though. I don't get what he's supposed to be. He seems like a spoiled, dishonest, immature five year old to me, and nothing more. Let's look in summary at what he does throughout the opera:

1. First, he makes a deal with the giants to have a big shiny castle built for himself, Knowing that he's not going to give them what he promised in exchange for the work. He comes across to his wife as though he has it all under control and not to worry.

2. When the giants show up, he refuses to give what he promised, but has no better ideas himself.

3. It turns out he's completely helpless to do anything, and needs to enlist the help of his friend Loge. When the giants ask for the gold, Wotan refuses and says "how can I give you something that isn't mine!?" Well, how could you make a promise you never intended to keep Wotan!? I get really mad at his ridiculous and childish behavior!

4. Loge takes him down to Alberich, and Wotan again, does absolutely nothing but fret and fear over Alberich's boasting, and Loge swoops in and does ALL of the work to capture Alberich and bring him to the surface.

5. Upon arriving back from the caves, Wotan says "You are in my power! With cunning, I have captured you." or something to that effect. No, he didn't do anything! He stood off to the side while Loge captured Alberich.

6. Wotan takes all the gold from Alberich.

7. The giants return with Freia. Now that Wotan, thanks to the help of his friend, has gotten himself out of the mess, and all he has to do is turn over all the gold to the giants, he Refuses, and throws a tantrum about wanting to keep the ring!!! :lol:

Throughout the opera, Wotan behaves as though a troublesome situation has fallen on him from somewhere, and that he's this wise powerful god that needs to figure out how to deal with it. But nothing "fell" on him from anywhere. He caused it all! And he Never does Anything that helps correct the situation. It's the most baffling, irritating and immature character I've ever seen in an opera. Was this intentional?

By the way, I just watched the whole opera again this afternoon (1990, Met), and I know there were definitely more moments of blatant childish immaturity than what I just listed here, I just can't remember them all off the top of my head right now.

I would love to understand more about this.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Yep, the boss god is flawed.
Remember, the cycle ends with the twilight of the gods.
It's the old order going away. It's an allegory - do humans really need gods?
Wotan does get to be a deeper, more tragic figure in Die Walküre, though.
And besides, the music is sublime.
Welcome to the forum.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

Yes, the music is definitely sublime. The first time I saw the scene where Alberich steals the gold, and the ensuing surge of rising scales in the strings, culminating in the flutes carrying us up to the V79 chord, I was so overwhelmed with the power and drama of it I literally almost blacked out. There isn't a moment of music in the entire opera that isn't completely brilliant.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

macgeek2005 said:


> . . . He seems like a spoiled, dishonest, immature five year old to me, and nothing more.


Well, yeah! He's a god. That's how they behave, isn't it?

I actually think Wotan is cool with his eye patch and all. I have more trouble with the main character Siegfried that comes a little later. Kind of a dope if you ask me.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Yes, it's very powerful music, and you're in for a treat, since it gets even better in the second opera, and then, after a little down in Siegfried acts I and II, it reaches new peaks in Act III and in Götterdämmerung. The first encounter with the Ring for most people is an experience that won't ever be forgotten.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Weston said:


> Well, yeah! He's a god. That's how they behave, isn't it?
> 
> I actually think Wotan is cool with his eye patch and all. I have more trouble with the main character Siegfried that comes a little later. Kind of a dope if you ask me.


I was about to say the same. Siegfried's behavior is even worse than Wotan's. On the other hand, he does have the excuse of having acted under the spell of a magic potion.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

From my (work) experience, what you have described about Wotan is exactly what is to be expected from people who have been in power for a long time (even if it's just middle management ).


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

I just remembered another moment that irked me incredibly. When the giants are stacking the gold in front of Freia, and Wotan is like "Do what you will... this behavior repulses me" or something to that effect. The hypocriticism.. the double standards... it was too much for me to take. I wanted to strangle him. After everything he did, and after Other people got him out of it For him, he's admonishing their behavior and being the "moral," "noble," guy who can't bear to watch Freia being treated as an object? Seriously!? How can he make it out to look as though it's Their choice to be doing this, when He's the one who caused it? It's because of him that they're getting all that gold, and he's Lucky that they're willing to take it instead of Freia. Seriously, something is wrong with him.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Wotan is almost human-like as portrayed by Wagner, contradicting the meaning of "god" who is often associated with perfection etc. These "gods" as portrayed by Wagner showed a much more human touch to these "divine" beings compared with other operas that involve God of the Bible. It's one aspect I like about _The Ring_ series.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> I just remembered another moment that irked me incredibly. When the giants are stacking the gold in front of Freia, and Wotan is like "Do what you will... this behavior repulses me" or something to that effect. The hypocriticism.. the double standards... it was too much for me to take. I wanted to strangle him. After everything he did, and after Other people got him out of it For him, he's admonishing their behavior and being the "moral," "noble," guy who can't bear to watch Freia being treated as an object? Seriously!? How can he make it out to look as though it's Their choice to be doing this, when He's the one who caused it? It's because of him that they're getting all that gold, and he's Lucky that they're willing to take it instead of Freia. Seriously, something is wrong with him.


Exactly, I agree with what HC said, and I'd add that the simple fact that the libretto caused you to have such a visceral reaction is further attestation of its high quality. It deals with the human condition, even if gods are depicted as the ones having these feelings. If you look at Greek mythology you'll see that the gods there are also quite flawed, jealous, power-hungry, back-stabbing, selfish, etc. These Norse gods in the Ring are no different. One of the reasons why the works of the ancient Greek and Romans survived for centuries is how they depict human nature so accurately, even though they project those flaws and desires onto gods.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> One of the reasons why the works of the ancient Greek and Romans survived for centuries is how they depict human nature so accurately, even though they project those flaws and desires onto gods.


Took the words right out of my mouth. I've always responded very strongly to the idea of myth as described by CS Lewis as a way of 'tasting reality'; not as something to be rationalised, but as something to plunge into, so that once _inside_ the myth it becomes possible to say: 'Yes, I see, so _this_ is what it's like'. And because myths deal in archetypes, these experiences have a universal quality that a mere 'story' doesn't possess.

So one consequence of this is that we're not required to _like_ either the characters themselves, or what the characters do. We go with the flow - we join in the unfolding of events, and let the myth do its work on us. That's not to say that it's not worth reading the various books that purport to 'explain' the _Ring_ (Donington, Holman, Lee, et al) - it most certainly is. (They don't all agree with each other, and the multiplicity of expositions that are possible is part of what makes the reading worthwhile.) But when all the reading is done, what counts is the direct experience of the myth itself, as presented through the music, the libretto, the poetry, etc..

For a specific example of the fundamental nature of what's encountered, we might look at the way Wotan deceives himself into siring a hero (Siegmund) who will retrieve the Ring for him (thereby accomplishing something that he can't do himself because of his own laws), and the subsequent argument he has with Fricka about the validity of what he's undertaken (in _Walkure_). To us, as observers, it seems so transparent a piece of self-deception that we see the whole charade as blatantly absurd and wicked. Well, it _is_ absurd and wicked, and yet this is an insight into real human self-deception, in the way we often bend the rules to suit ourselves, again and again, to clear our consciences. This kind of thing is operating throughout the _Ring_, not only in the detailed dynamics of plot as conveyed by the libretto, but also in the commentary that the music continually makes as the events unfold.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> One of the reasons why the works of the ancient Greek and Romans survived for centuries is how they depict human nature so accurately, even though they project those flaws and desires onto gods.


Are there still enough people around, who are familiar with Greek mythology? I think that this is not the case anymore. It used to be 'normal' in the past to know one's classics. The difference between the Greek/Roman gods and Wagner's imaginations is profound: in Greek mythology women hardly have a voice; in Wagner's operas they are the key-figures, the women are the ones who tip the balance of fate and the men are reduced to the role of being merely spectators. Wotan cannot do a thing because of being married & hand-cuffed in holy matrimony to Fricka. This aspect of women gaining power is quite ungreek & quite modern.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

TxllxT said:


> Are there still enough people around, who are familiar with Greek mythology? I think that this is not the case anymore. It used to be 'normal' in the past to know one's classics. The difference between the Greek/Roman gods and Wagner's imaginations is profound: in Greek mythology women hardly have a voice; in Wagner's operas they are the key-figures, the women are the ones who tip the balance of fate and the men are reduced to the role of being merely spectators. Wotan cannot do a thing because of being married & hand-cuffed in holy matrimony to Fricka. This aspect of women gaining power is quite ungreek & quite modern.


I think that yes, educated people around the world are still familiar with Greek mythology.
You are right about the women in Norse mythology being more prominent than in Greek mythology. I'm not sure if this is some sort of modernity attributable to Wagner himself, though, because he did base his Ring on ancient Norse mythology that already had these characteristics before he based his operas upon them.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

TxllxT said:


> Are there still enough people around, who are familiar with Greek mythology? I think that this is not the case anymore. It used to be 'normal' in the past to know one's classics. The difference between the Greek/Roman gods and Wagner's imaginations is profound: *in Greek mythology women hardly have a voice*; in Wagner's operas they are the key-figures, the women are the ones who tip the balance of fate and the men are reduced to the role of being merely spectators. Wotan cannot do a thing because of being married & hand-cuffed in holy matrimony to Fricka. This aspect of women gaining power is quite ungreek & quite modern.


I'm not sure I agree. Look at the role that Hera and Pallas Athene have in the whole Paris/Helen/Troy story, and the way Pallas Athene consistently and successfully intervenes and protects Odyssseus on his travels home.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Nat, now that I think of it, you are right about it. And you forgot to mention Aphrodite, protecting Paris from harm. 
But on the other hand, other than these goddesses, other Greek myths and epic poetry depict women as either evil sorceresses or mermaids, tragic figures that get killed, or those who stay at home while their hero husbands engage in all sorts of exciting adventures.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> And you forgot to mention Aphrodite, protecting Paris from harm.


That's probably because I think Paris is a bit of a twit. But I deeply love the wily and resourceful Odysseus.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

In order for me to make progress with the Original Poster, I think it would be better to engage in a little dialetic rather than simply making declamatory statements.

Questions for consideration:

_How_ did it come to pass that Wotan achieved the highest level of power among the gods?

What's the 'back-story' of Loge as it relates to Wotan's quest for power?

How would you describe Fricka's position concerning the construction of Valhalla?

(extra credit)- In what significant manner does Wagner's Froh/Donner encounter with the Giants differ from the encounter as described in the _Prose Edda_ Norse source material?

Oh, I could bring up a few others- but those will get us started... at least through the end of _Rheingold_.


----------



## AmericanGesamtkunstwerk (May 9, 2011)

TxllxT said:


> The difference between the Greek/Roman gods and Wagner's imaginations is profound: in Greek mythology women hardly have a voice;


Remember, Wagner was tremendously influenced by these stories, Aeschylus was a MAJOR inspiration and influence for him! The Women roles in say the Oresteia are plenty weighty, and even complex characters (they certainly have a voice). I feel the Wagner Women are a little Aeschylus and a little Shakespeare. The next progressive step in the development of great poetic drama. (and yes i do believe Wagner strictly as a playwrite is on the level of Aeschylus and Shakespeare, he carried their torch)

Back to the OP, I would suggest continuing on to the rest of the cycle and returning. Also keep in mind varying interpretations, varying singers, varying productions. (I recommend Bryn Terfel, i'm still not over it from 2 weeks ago!). many movies and some operas would have you take away a full experience and understanding right outta the theatre (Der Ring is not like that at all), and keep in mind that being a Wagner Fan is an unending process that stretches over very many years.

I feel none of us are directly offering anything resolute to this though. I'll try and get a bottom line from me to you- his character arc is incredibly complex, weighty, and possibly a little foreign. It very well may come off as childish, but all in all not disagreeable to the tone and "suspension of disbelief" in Rheingold.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> In order for me to make progress with the Original Poster, I think it would be better to engage in a little dialetic rather than simply making declamatory statements.
> 
> Questions for consideration:
> 
> ...


Very interesting questions... I definitely don't have answers to any of them. Where would I find answers? What is the Prose Edda Norse source material?

By the way, is one supposed to be able to sit through Die Walküre, Siegfried or Götterdämmerung in one sitting? I watched the first two acts of Die Walküre today.. and it's just So long. I decided to put off the third act to Tuesday (I'm busy all day tomorrow).


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> That's probably because I think Paris is a bit of a twit. But I deeply love the wily and resourceful Odysseus.


How do you feel about sitting twenty years at home, tearing out your embroidery at night, having 100 lovers stalking you and when your husband is dressed up like a beggar you don't believe him (until he describes what patchwork you made in the bedroom). I hold Greek mythology responsible for the centuries lasting repression of women: back to the kitchen sink and wait in the bedroom. With Paris and the 3 goddesses the story is keen to point out how utterly vain these beauties are: again pinning women down on this. 
As concerned to Wotan and his nordic bunch: the women are not at all sexy but powerbrokers (Freia has etenal life power, Fricka has matrimonial power etc.) Alberich and Loge from the 'Untermensch'-world do not have this one-dimensionality as the gods of the 'Übermensch'-world are putting on display.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

TxllxT said:


> How do you feel about sitting twenty years at home, tearing out your embroidery at night, having 100 lovers stalking you and when your husband is dressed up like a beggar you don't believe him (until he describes what patchwork you made in the bedroom). I hold Greek mythology responsible for the centuries lasting repression of women: back to the kitchen sink and wait in the bedroom. With Paris and the 3 goddesses the story is keen to point out how utterly vain these beauties are: again pinning women down on this.


The Penelope story is not responsible for repression of women but simply a reflection of the existing social system. Within that system Penelope was pretty wily, keeping those suitors kicking their heels for 20 years. That's determination for you. And things are different in Olympus - Pallas Athene is able to help Odysseus all by herself.

Meanwhile in the Ring, Fricka can only influence events through Wotan (really by nagging him until he cracks), while Freia can be bargained away like a slave, and Brünnhilde is expected to toe the line by obeying her father to the letter, and her punishment for failing to do so is to be the "wife" of the first man who comes across her, an object of scorn and pity to all. Not really flagbearers for the feminist revolution then.

I'm all for being a Greek Goddess. Warmer, too.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

I think the conclusion is that both in Greek and Norse mythologies women weren't the lucky ones, which like Nat said, reflects their social role at the time. We've extensively described how in opera in general womens' fate is terrible - they get raped, stabbed, poisoned, diseased, prostitued, seduced and abandoned, given in marriage to a man they don't love, etc, with *very few* exceptions (such as La Fanciulla del West, La Fille du Régiment, Don Pasquale, a few others). Certainly it took a loooooong time for women to climb to their current social position in modern Western societies, while they're still oppressed in places like Muslim non-secular nations. Art, as usual, reflects what goes on in society; it can influence it to a certain degree but it is usually the other way around.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> Very interesting questions... I definitely don't have answers to any of them. Where would I find answers? What is the Prose Edda Norse source material?
> 
> By the way, is one supposed to be able to sit through Die Walküre, Siegfried or Götterdämmerung in one sitting? I watched the first two acts of Die Walküre today.. and it's just So long. I decided to put off the third act to Tuesday (I'm busy all day tomorrow).


The Norse sagas and ancient Nordic poetry including the Edda (in addition to a separate source, the German Niebelungenlied) are the source materials for the Ring. The Norse sagas are better known to Westerns as the mythology associated with the Vikings. Wotan is another name for Odin. Here you can find extensive material about the Norse sagas:

http://www.heimskringla.no/wiki/Main_Page

Your other question: the Ring with its 16 hours of music is better enjoyed when broken down in several evenings, to prevent fatigue.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

TxllxT said:


> Are there still enough people around, who are familiar with Greek mythology? I think that this is not the case anymore. It used to be 'normal' in the past to know one's classics. The difference between the Greek/Roman gods and Wagner's imaginations is profound: in Greek mythology women hardly have a voice; in Wagner's operas they are the key-figures, the women are the ones who tip the balance of fate and the men are reduced to the role of being merely spectators. Wotan cannot do a thing because of being married & hand-cuffed in holy matrimony to Fricka. This aspect of women gaining power is quite ungreek & quite modern.


I've never been quite happy with what Wagner did to the character of Gudrun (Gutrune). He makes her into such a passive wimp -- and this character, whether in the Norse myths or as Kriemhilde in the Nibelungenlied, was anything but. She was actually responsible for the deaths of both Hagen and Günther in retaliation for Siegfried's death. But I suppose Wagner had to reduce Gudrun to a fairly insignificant individual in order to give greater prominence to Brünnhilde.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> The Norse sagas and ancient Nordic poetry including the Edda and the Niebelungenlied are the source material for the Ring. They are better known to Westerns as the _mythology associated with the Vikings_. Wotan is another name for Odin. Here you can find extensive material about the Norse sagas:
> 
> http://www.heimskringla.no/wiki/Main_Page
> 
> Your other question: the Ring with its 16 hours of music is better enjoyed when broken down in several evenings, to prevent fatigue.


No. The Nibelungenlied is German.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> _How_ did it come to pass that Wotan achieved the highest level of power among the gods?


Was du bist, bist dur nur durch Verträge;
bedungen ist, wohl bedacht deine Macht.

What you are, you are only through treaties;
your power is based on carefully considered pacts.
_Fasolt_ (to Wotan), "Das Rheingold" Scene II.

This reminder lets us know that Wotan's power (in its ascendency) is NOT unconditional, capricious, or subject to whim. It also serves to put us on notice that the more he seeks to subvert the conditions of his power, the more his power will, _of necessitating pre-ordination_ wane.

The incipient Wotan questing for more and greater power can be unpleasant to watch- but we have Alberich on the scene to remind us that exercises of power can get A LOT more tyrranical than those shown by Wotan(!)

(As for the answers to the other questions [except for the 'extra-credit' one], you can find some answers RIGHT THERE in the story, just like the answer to the first one.)


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> (extra credit)- In what significant manner does Wagner's Froh/Donner encounter with the Giants differ from the encounter as described in the _Prose Edda_ Norse source material?


For one, the giants are dwarfs in the Edda, and there were three of them, Fafner (Fåvne from now on), Regin and Ótr (Oter from now on). Oter, in the form of an otter, was killed by Loge whilst he, Odin and Høne were out walking, and when they came to the home of the Dwarf King, Reidmar, they showed the skin of Oter to Reidmar and his sons, Regin and Fåvne. Because of this, the remaining giants got to fill the body of Oter with gold, the cursed gold of Andvari (remember Alberich?). Among this gold, was a magic ring (who'da thunk it, right?) that Fåvne took. Fåvne and Regin killed Reidmar over the gold and Fåvne went into the woods and turned himself into a giant serpent. Later, he was killed by Sigurd, son of Sigmund and Hjørdis, who later was known as Sigurd Fåvnesbane. Inhale.

EDIT: I didn't even answer the question. I am so smrt. But I couldn't find anything about any encounters between Fåvne/Regin and Frøy/Tor. Are they even relevant in Volsungesaga?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Aksel said:


> No. The Nibelungenlied is German.


I know, that's why I said *and* because the Ring is not just based on the Norse sagas, but I guess my phrase construction was ackward. I was replying to a question about the Norse sagas and didn't want to say they are *the* source material, so I added *and the Nibelungenlied* which as its name indicates is obviously German. I should have done it between parenthesis, I'll edit the post.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Was du bist, bist dur nur durch Verträge;
> bedungen ist, wohl bedacht deine Macht.
> 
> What you are, you are only through treaties;
> ...




Just want to add, hence the significance of Wotan's spear, which is a symbol of the contracts on which his power is based, and which are written on the spear.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Wotan is hungry for power ,the same as so many other movers and shakers in world history. He will do anything to get and keep it.If he has to manipulate others and rely on help from questionable sources like Loge, so be it.
He relies on his assumption that the giants are too stupid to see through him, and there he is dead wrong. They ARE rather slow-witted, but ARE smart enought o see through him. Wotan digs himself deeper and deeper into a hole of his own making throughout the Ring. The same as countless people in real life.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Just want to add, hence the significance of Wotan's spear, which is a symbol of the contracts on which his power is based, and which are written on the spear.


The spear, rheingold, tarnkappe, all these attributes I consider to be rather weak. Wotan without spear is lost, so is Alberich without tarnkappe and the Rhine maidens without their gold. Makes me think of nowadays youth without their Ipods....


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

superhorn said:


> If [Wotan] has to manipulate others and rely on help from *questionable sources like Loge* [emphasis mine], so be it.


I think we're onto something here.There's plenty of modern interpretive fashion that treats Loge as an affable, rakish agent-of-chaos and even secret protagonist in _Rheingold_. I think *superhorn*'s point leads to increased accuracy in assessment of Loge- but that could well be a topic suitable for another thread, as it takes us a little afield of the header topic of Wotan.


superhorn said:


> Wotan is hungry for power, the same as so many other movers and shakers in world history. He will do anything to get and keep it.


I think this observation might be another matter, though. Is there agreement with this position? Does anyone here see things a little differently?!


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

TxllxT said:


> The spear, rheingold, tarnkappe, all these attributes I consider to be rather weak. Wotan without spear is lost, so is Alberich without tarnkappe and the Rhine maidens without their gold. Makes me think of nowadays youth without their Ipods....


Natalie's point isn't about the spear, as a _spear_, but about the symbolic significance of the spear - that is, of the laws and contracts that it represents, which are crucial to any understanding of Wotan's plight. Hence the enormous significance of its final breaking. Wouldn't _any_ symbol seem weak and uninteresting if we were to remove its symbolic context and see it just as a stage prop? (Or do you mean something different to what I think you mean?)


----------



## Anselm (Feb 24, 2011)

When people talk about the plot of the _Ring_, the music usually winds up retreating backstage. That seems to me topsy-turvy, because the _Ring_ is firstly a work of music, not of literature or drama. The music tells us what no words can. That's the logic of music. It's like summing up a poem, reading the plot summary of a novel or describing a painting - it's no substitute for the real thing. The meaning is in the expression. From this angle, I think it's more important to discuss the relationship between the music and the action when trying to ascribe meaning to what's going on on stage.

In Wagner's case, of course, the infamous "leitmotifs" tell us loads. When considering Wotan, the first thing we know about him, we _hear_. During the transition from the first to the second scene of _Rheingold_, the sinuous musical theme we've come to associate with the Ring itself becomes gradually transformed into a stately melody played on the brass. What we see in conjunction with this is Valhalla, and Wotan sleeping in the foreground. Straight away, the music imprints on our minds the indelible association between what we've experienced of the Ring so far (which is that it comes from nature and that it is capable of endowing whoever has it with limitless power, but only at the cost of forswearing love) on the one hand and Valhalla and Wotan on the other. Wotan is tainted in our imaginations before ever he opens his mouth, partly because we remember the origin of his apparently serene, predictable, stately theme in one that's incomplete and that therefore leaves us hanging. That's an intuition that can't be explained, but must be _felt_.

So yes, we can discuss Wotan's motivations, but all the time we should be going back to the music to truly understand it. Wotan doesn't exist as a real person, or even as a literary figure, but only as a _musico_dramatic one.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Anselm said:


> When people talk about the plot of the _Ring_, the music usually winds up retreating backstage. That seems to me topsy-turvy, because the _Ring_ is firstly a work of music, not of literature or drama. The music tells us what no words can. That's the logic of music. It's like summing up a poem, reading the plot summary of a novel or describing a painting - it's no substitute for the real thing. The meaning is in the expression. From this angle, I think it's more important to discuss the relationship between the music and the action when trying to ascribe meaning to what's going on on stage.
> 
> In Wagner's case, of course, the infamous "leitmotifs" tell us loads. When considering Wotan, the first thing we know about him, we _hear_. During the transition from the first to the second scene of _Rheingold_, the sinuous musical theme we've come to associate with the Ring itself becomes gradually transformed into a stately melody played on the brass. What we see in conjunction with this is Valhalla, and Wotan sleeping in the foreground. Straight away, the music imprints on our minds the indelible association between what we've experienced of the Ring so far (which is that it comes from nature and that it is capable of endowing whoever has it with limitless power, but only at the cost of forswearing love) on the one hand and Valhalla and Wotan on the other. Wotan is tainted in our imaginations before ever he opens his mouth, partly because we remember the origin of his apparently serene, predictable, stately theme in one that's incomplete and that therefore leaves us hanging. That's an intuition that can't be explained, but must be _felt_.
> 
> So yes, we can discuss Wotan's motivations, but all the time we should be going back to the music to truly understand it. Wotan doesn't exist as a real person, or even as a literary figure, but only as a _musico_dramatic one.


Excellent point. I believe we are all aware that particularly in the Ring more than in any other opera, the music tells the story, but it is nice to reminded in such eloquent and insightful terms, thanks for your post.:tiphat:


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

That's why I love Wotan. 

But isn't Don Giovanni a spoiled, selfish brat too?


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Sieglinde said:


> That's why I love Wotan.
> 
> But isn't Don Giovanni a spoiled, selfish brat too?


Love??  I do love Don Giovanni for being as utterly decadent as one is able to imagine a human being. But Wotan? When someone carries the sign around his neck: "I'm the Boss", does this mean that he* is *a boss? Don Giovanni's being decadent will remain so incorporated in his character even when you would strip him stark naked before throwing him down into hell. When Wotan looses his sign "I'm the Boss" (= the spear), he shows himself as a divine nobody  . The only comfort I get out of him is his _Leitmotiv_. Mozart's _Don Giovanni _libretto is a literary masterpiece. Wagner's libretto is cut out of 19th century cardboard.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

TxllxT said:


> But Wotan? When someone carries the sign around his neck: "I'm the Boss", does this mean that he* is *a boss?


Well it might, in a Myth - perhaps even in reality (where wearing a crown may be an accepted symbol of kingship). I think if we treat the _Ring_ just as a soap opera we run into a brick wall, and indeed everything would inevitably tend to seem cardboard-ish and unconvincing. But we're dealing with a particularly complex art form here, which draws not only on music, poetry and story, but also - because we're dealing with Myth - with archetypal elements of the kind that run through all the folk tales and myths of the world. If one approaches _any_ myth with an expectation of literal, everyday sense, everything will unravel pretty quickly. I've long been of the view that any great art can be made to seem inadequate merely by approaching it with inappropriate criteria, and demanding that it fit them.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Elgarian said:


> Well it might, in a Myth - perhaps even in reality (where wearing a crown may be an accepted symbol of kingship). I think if we treat the _Ring_ just as a soap opera we run into a brick wall, and indeed everything would inevitably tend to seem cardboard-ish and unconvincing. But we're dealing with a particularly complex art form here, which draws not only on music, poetry and story, but also - because we're dealing with Myth - with archetypal elements of the kind that run through all the folk tales and myths of the world. If one approaches _any_ myth with an expectation of literal, everyday sense, everything will unravel pretty quickly. I've long been of the view that any great art can be made to seem inadequate merely by approaching it with inappropriate criteria, and demanding that it fit them.


Wagner's mythical imagination has an inherent nationalistic (German) undercurrent, that can also be observed in the works of his dwarfish pupil Smetana, who also mixed legend & myth to prop his people's (Czech) nationalism. This kind of swampland I would like to address with common sense: it is great & grand musicdrama, let's be careful with 'loving' it.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

TxllxT said:


> This kind of swampland I would like to address with common sense: it is great & grand musicdrama, let's be careful with 'loving' it.


Yes, and we can do that. We can stand outside a myth and study it, and draw all kinds of interesting analytical (even common sense) connections, and indeed this is the sort of thing we do and are doing in this thread. The danger is that in studying it 'from outside' as it were, we may be misled after our efforts into thinking that we've got it sorted out. As with the analysis of a fine malt whisky, in studying its chemistry we may neglect to drink it, and thereby miss its entire _raison d'etre_.

So with Wotan. Theories about what Wotan stands for need to be distinguished from the result of diving into the world of the _Ring_ and experiencing the complexity of the music, poetry, drama and myth directly. (Not to _love_ it, but to _taste_ it.)


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> Yes, the music is definitely sublime. The first time I saw the scene where Alberich steals the gold, and the ensuing surge of rising scales in the strings, culminating in the flutes carrying us up to the V79 chord, I was so overwhelmed with the power and drama of it I literally almost blacked out. There isn't a moment of music in the entire opera that isn't completely brilliant.


I felt the same way the first time I saw the descent to Nibelheim. That is easily one of my all time favorite moments in all of opera, especially the way it's presented in the 90s Met traditional staging.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

TxllxT said:


> Wagner's mythical imagination has an inherent nationalistic (German) undercurrent, that can also be observed in the works of his dwarfish pupil Smetana, who also mixed legend & myth to prop his people's (Czech) nationalism. This kind of swampland I would like to address with common sense: it is great & grand musicdrama, let's be careful with 'loving' it.


I don't think I "love" any character in the Ring. The one I admire the most is Siegmund, but I don't "love" it and I think this is certainly not required to appreciate the Ring. But I certainly do love the music, and actually the plot as well, which is extremely interesting and entertaining. If this is what a cardboard plot is, then bravo, cardboard!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*If anyone is still keeping score at home...*

... let me go ahead and address this one:


Chi_townPhilly said:


> (extra credit)- In what significant manner does Wagner's Froh/Donner encounter with the Giants differ from the encounter as described in the _Prose Edda_ Norse source material?





> [Wotan] interposes his spear with *its laws* [emphasis author's] between Donner and the giants, to enforce the contract; and in so doing roars out 'Stop, you madman! *Nothing by force!*' [emphasis again the author's]. [T]his... was one of Wagner's direct contradictions of his source materials: in the original myth in the *Prose Edda*, the contract is ignored, the hammer falls, and the murder is done. Deryck Cooke- _I Saw the World End_, page 266


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

CTP's post gets my vote for this month's most impressive intervention.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

Thanks for all the great responses everyone! I understand the character a lot better now, and am not so annoyed when watching it. And like someone mentioned, he does become deeper in Die Walküre. I've watched Die Walküre a couple times already, and listened to it a couple more. Wow. That's all I'll say about that.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> Thanks for all the great responses everyone! I understand the character a lot better now, and am not so annoyed when watching it. And like someone mentioned, he does become deeper in Die Walküre. I've watched Die Walküre a couple times already, and listened to it a couple more. Wow. That's all I'll say about that.


Oh yeah. Die Walküre *is* 'wow' indeed!


----------



## FragendeFrau (May 30, 2011)

Macgeek, if you are able you need to get yourself to the nearest Met in HD encore showing of Die Walküre this Weds, June 1st. It's a big time commitment, but...you won't be sorry!

Oh and I am a big fan of Donnington's _The Ring and Its Symbols_, a book that I picked up (and evidently read, judging by the pencil marks) in my misspent youth. They don't make Jungian analysis of works of art like that anymore. Or at all, really.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

I am going to the Met in HD encore tomorrow evening with my brother and mom! I saw Das Rheingold live in HD in October, but I wasn't into Wagner yet, and none of the music got through to me yet at that point. But I still don't know how keen I am on the set. I like the traditional sets of the 1990s Met cycle. But I'm Definitely looking forward to it. I know it'll be amazing regardless. The music is unbelievable.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I've actually heard Rheingold twice now, but I can't ever bring myself to move on to Die Walkure because of its plot. I'm _really_ against the whole incest thing, in real life or otherwise, and I don't think I could force myself to enjoy the music when I hate the story so much. I guess I'll just have to listen to find out, right? ...


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> I've actually heard Rheingold twice now, but I can't ever bring myself to move on to Die Walkure because of its plot. I'm _really_ against the whole incest thing, in real life or otherwise, and I don't think I could force myself to enjoy the music when I hate the story so much. I guess I'll just have to listen to find out, right? ...


Oh come on, it's a mythology thing, it happens in Greek mythology all the time, so why not in Norse?


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

Ravellian said:


> I've actually heard Rheingold twice now, but I can't ever bring myself to move on to Die Walkure because of its plot. I'm _really_ against the whole incest thing, in real life or otherwise, and I don't think I could force myself to enjoy the music when I hate the story so much. I guess I'll just have to listen to find out, right? ...


The first act of Die Walküre starts with a vicious and thunderous orchestral introduction, depicting a storm, which takes us into the first scene where a hero, exhausted and battle weary, collapses on the hearth of a strangers house.

For the next hour, we are blessed with music of such beauty and subtlety, complimenting a story of such mythological power and mystery, that being against incest is indeed a very poor excuse for refraining from indulging in it and being moved by it, in my opinion.

Wagner's orchestration paints the scene of a shack in the middle of the night in the middle of a storm so incredibly brilliantly that you'll think you're not hearing instruments, but have been gifted with the ability to hear and understand the sounds and smells of life itself in musical terms. Add to that the fact that the music is Also, simultaneously describing the explosive and significant weight and meaning of the three characters in this act, as they are in the full picture of the cycle.

The other two acts transcend my ability to rave about them, in their mind blowing brilliance.

I've had Die Walküre in my iTunes library for six days now, and have listened to the entire opera nearly four times through, in addition to watching the DVD twice through. Trust me, you don't want to skip this.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*Again, at the risk of a little digression...*

...it's interesting (and not unexpected) that over 140 years after the premiere of _Die Walküre_, the incest angle of the story still retains some capacity to shock. Imagine, however, the reaction of some Victorian-era audiences to that aspect of the opera! Some of the reviews of the time call for Act I's bowdlerization or even banning.

I'm a big fan of Deryck Cooke- and in his book "I Saw the World End" he reinforces the point already made by *Almaviva* concerning how prior mythologies are rife with such activity. This is self-evident to a point- but fails to capture the fact that _Wagner himself_ could not possibly have been unaware of the reaction this could elicit, premiering during the period that it did.

If one were to sponsor a 'Wagner-essay-contest' and think of suitable topics for disseration, an entirely worthy one would be: It wouldn't have taken much stagecraft and narrative alteration for Wagner to make Siegmund & Sieglinde accidentally incestuous rather than purposefully so- _why didn't he?!_


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

The writer(s?) of the German Nibelungenlied also "cleaned up" this situation by making Siegfried the legitimate son of the married (and otherwise unrelated) Siegmund and Sieglinde. It's also interesting to note that, in the Norse myths that were part of Wagner's source material, Sigurd (a.k.a. Siegfried) is the son of Si(e)gmund and his second wife, Hjordis. The result of Sigmund's liaison with his twin sister, Signy (a.k.a. Sieglinde) was Sinfiotli. It seems Signy had persuaded a beautiful young witch to exchange forms with her, and in this guise, she had gone to her brother's hut -- so she was aware of the incestuous relationship, but he was not. Signy's husband, Siggeir, king of the Goths, was a real ******* (figuratively speaking) who killed off his father-in-law, Volsung, and nine of Signy's 10 brothers -- Sigmund being the youngest and only survivor.

And Volsung wasn't Odin's/Wotan's alter ego, but his great-grandson. That rather dubious honor went to Sigi.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> I am going to the Met in HD encore tomorrow evening with my brother and mom! I saw Das Rheingold live in HD in October, but I wasn't into Wagner yet, and none of the music got through to me yet at that point. But I still don't know how keen I am on the set. I like the traditional sets of the 1990s Met cycle. But I'm Definitely looking forward to it. I know it'll be amazing regardless. The music is unbelievable.


I would still consider the new Met staging 100% traditional. It's a modern kinetic sculpture sure, but it still takes the form Hunding's house, mountains, etc. exactly as Wagner set the story. I haven't seen Das Rhinegold but it appears a lot of people think the machine is better utilized in Walkure.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Couchie said:


> I haven't seen Das Rhinegold but it appears a lot of people think the machine is better utilized in Walkure.


This is indeed my opinion. I thought that the machine was too intrusive in Das Rheingold and made the stage look/feel crowded, while it was more discreet in Die Walküre. When it did become more exhuberant - the ride scene - it was to a very successful effect.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

I just returned from the theater. That was beyond incredible. The Met orchestra has achieved a level of perfection that's almost unreal, and the singers were all stellar. I thought Siegmund and Sieglinde weren't acted very well (singing was great), but other than that the singers were all amazing. The machine didn't bother me too much this time, but there was never a point where I would have missed it had it not been there.


----------



## FragendeFrau (May 30, 2011)

You know, when I saw Die Walkuere HD on May 14th, before I got back into opera and had no idea who any of the principals, except Bryn Terfel, were, I thought it was all fantastically acted and sung. Since then I've watched the JK Carmen and many, many YouTube clips from Werther, Tosca, Lohengrin, etc etc and much as it pains me to say this, when I watched the Walkuere encore last night I was immediately struck by how ... stiff? emotionless? lifeless? JK's Siegmund was. Of course the SOUND was gorgeous hence the well-deserved bravos and standing ovation.

At first I thought it was just that the "blocking" of the whole thing was terrible, and much much more could have been done with that. Then I tried to give the excuse that perhaps Ring Wagner is so tough vocally for everyone that there is a limit to how much physically a singer can do. (I still am in utter and complete amazement at the way singers can maintain a beautiful, loud sound while kneeling, standing up and down, leaping onto the front of the stage, since I can't even WALK and sing at the same time!)

But I was also struck the second time about how great Deborah Voigt and Bryn Terfel did with their acting--sure, it's not acting in the sense that they are going to win any Academy Awards, but for "opera acting"--larger than life--it was quite good!

So, in short, clearly JK is capable of great "opera acting". Whether it was debuting this huge role, or what I don't know, but I do hope that when he returns next year we may see a more developed portrayal along with the spectacular singing!

(see I don't have completely rose-colored glasses on when it comes to El Guapo! )


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

Oh c'mon, incest is ok as long as they sing!  And you better never fall in love with someone who isn't your aunt, as we know from Russell.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

The acting of the two singers playing Siegmund and Sieglinde was actually beyond awful. Siegmund reminded me of Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars prequels. He had one facial expression on the Whole time, and it was that "I'm being intense, look, I'm acting good" facial expression. Basically just a frown.

And she... well, she couldn't feel the emotions at all. Compared to Jesse Norman in 1989, she could have been a cardboard cutout. She made some attempts at emotional faces sometimes, but that's exactly what they looked like, attempts at emotional faces. It didn't look like they spring from a connection with the text or anything, just random instances of trying to look "emotional." She couldn't feel the role at all, her face maintained a bland distance from it, and thus the performance was completely unmemorable.


----------



## FragendeFrau (May 30, 2011)

"beyond awful"? *raises eyebrow* I wouldn't go nearly that far. And both singers were highly praised during the run of the production. The Sieglinde has sung the role before, although this was her Met debut. This was a role debut for Siegmund, although he has sung at the Met before.

I still believe that some of this is down to whatever direction the singers receive. My disappointment (mild) is simply because I know Kaufmann is capable of superb acting. That's what makes it so puzzling to me--and also wonder about the direction.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

FragendeFrau said:


> I still believe that *some of this is down to whatever direction the singers receive*. My disappointment (mild) is simply because I know Kaufmann is capable of superb acting. That's what makes it so puzzling to me--and also wonder about the direction.


I think that LePage is more interested in machines and stages than Personenregie. It might also depend in the amount of time the principals had to rehearse and develop their characters - it's much longer in European houses where some of those other productions took place.

Can't wait to see this but I have to wait until the end of June for it to hit NZ.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> The acting of the two singers playing Siegmund and Sieglinde was actually beyond awful. Siegmund reminded me of Hayden Christensen in the Star Wars prequels. He had one facial expression on the Whole time, and it was that "I'm being intense, look, I'm acting good" facial expression. Basically just a frown.
> 
> And she... well, she couldn't feel the emotions at all. Compared to Jesse Norman in 1989, she could have been a cardboard cutout. She made some attempts at emotional faces sometimes, but that's exactly what they looked like, attempts at emotional faces. It didn't look like they spring from a connection with the text or anything, just random instances of trying to look "emotional." She couldn't feel the role at all, her face maintained a bland distance from it, and thus the performance was completely unmemorable.


Performing at the same time both excellent singing *and* excellent acting is not easy. I'm pretty content with the fact that musically they both did very well. Their acting was comparatively weaker but not as bad as to really detract a lot from the experience. I thought that overall both artists were very successful, especially for a role debut and a Met debut.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

Almaviva said:


> Performing at the same time both excellent singing *and* excellent acting is not easy. I'm pretty content with the fact that musically they both did very well. Their acting was comparatively weaker but not as bad as to really detract a lot from the experience. I thought that overall both artists were very successful, especially for a role debut and a Met debut.


Well, that's why people like Domingo, Morris, Norman, Zajick, Chernov, Millo, Terfel, Fleming, etc, are considered the legends that they are. And there are enough legends at the met that when someone is merely "great" they stand out as not good enough. The singing of both Siegmund and Sieglinde was very good indeed, but they were hardly in character, and I think that's below the standards of the Met.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> Well, that's why people like Domingo, Morris, Norman, Zajick, Chernov, Millo, Terfel, Fleming, etc, are considered the legends that they are. And there are enough legends at the met that when someone is merely "great" they stand out as not good enough. The singing of both Siegmund and Sieglinde was very good indeed, but they were hardly in character, and I think that's below the standards of the Met.


Don't read me wrong, I'm a Met supporter (in all aspects of the term, including, I'm a Guild member and donor) but the Met has both spectacular productions and very mediocre ones. I'm not sure if there is such thing as a Met standard. I'd say that a house like Glyndebourne is much more consistently good than the Met. The Met is capable of the best *and* the worst productions, while Glyndebourne *very* rarely fires up a dud.

The Ring is an extremely difficult cycle to produce. It is the top of the top of the operatic world, and is made of the most difficult operas to get done properly.

I found the Met's recent _Die Walküre_ extremely successful (and I was the first one to bitch and complain about the much less successful _Das Rheingold_).

I think that JK and Westbroek were wonderful. Don't be too harsh on them. Let them grow into their characters. This was *one* performance, with relatively short rehearsal time, being shown to the whole world. Put yourself in these people's skins. It's not easy.

We know from previous experience that both artists can be extraordinary actors, in addition to being extraordinary singers.

But then, they were facing the entire world, while performing one of the most legendary operas in the repertory, in one of the most legendary houses, in a new role or venue for them. Nerve-wrecking to say the least.

We shouldn't nitpick.

This was a great afternoon of opera, with very good artists, very good performances. No need to pick on their less-than-ideal acting. Many other things could have failed. They didn't. A little nervous/stiff acting by artists who are otherwise perfectly capable of delivering better acting, while still delivering exquisite singing, is good enough for me.

Oh, and by the way, both Kaufmann and Westbroeck are still young. When you compare them to the greats you have just mentioned, you need to give them time to evolve. I'm quite sure they will be both worthy members of that list, when our children look back at our generation and - hopefully, if we can get them interested in opera (I've not been very successful with mine) - think of the best singers/actors, they may very well be part of this select few.

Sure, Morris was great - but how was he when he first sang a Wagnerian role in a major venue?

Look, I wasn't a big fan of Kaufmann's and wasn't particularly fond of Westbroeck (although I was *extremely* impressed with her performance in _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_), but this _Die Walküre_ only increased my appreciation. My respect for their talent grew a lot after this performance.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

Hey again everyone!

So, I've now familiarized myself with Die Walküre and Siegfried, and I have to say, I'm not any more impressed with Wotan than I was after Das Rheingold.

In Die Walküre, he's set up this whole drama between Siegmund and Sieglinde, with the sword, only to realize that it doesn't work because he helped Siegmund too much along the way. Then he locks his daughter away in sleep.

In Siegfried, he gets super annoying again. He shows up at Mime's place, and sits down laughing and smirking and insisting that they play a "three question" game, when Mime has specifically told him he's not welcome. What's his issue? Why does he insist on coming in and doing what he does? What purpose does this play in the story, other than to reinforce the super annoying side of Wotan's character present in Das Rheingold?

Every time "Heil Dir, Weiser Schmeid!" comes on as I listen to the recording, I cringe. The music annoys me now, because I see Wotan there, busting in uninvited, with nothing remotely interesting to do or say.

Then it gets even better in the third act. Why does he wake up Erda? Is it just an ego trip? He wakes her up to say "I'm no longer upset about what you told me before, I myself will let the gods fall. You lose. I now want the doom that you prophesied. Na na na." He practically sticks his tongue out at her.

What's with his character? He walks around with this massive ego, doing things as though they are important (when they're not), saying things as though they're meaningful (when they're not), and waving his spear around.

I'm so glad he's not in Götterdämmerung.

Oh, and Siegfried is of course absurdly dorky and annoying as well, but at least he's like a small spoiled child, a kind of realistic character. I just don't quite get Wotan.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

macgeek2005 said:


> In Siegfried, he gets super annoying again. He shows up at Mime's place, and sits down laughing and smirking and insisting that they play a "three question" game, when Mime has specifically told him he's not welcome. What's his issue? Why does he insist on coming in and doing what he does? What purpose does this play in the story, other than to reinforce the super annoying side of Wotan's character present in Das Rheingold?


I'm not an expert on The Ring Cycle, but I think the above scene is influenced by the idea present in Greek Mythology known as the guest/host relationship. The ancient Greeks thought it was basically a divine decree to honor the guest/host relationship - therefore if a straggler came by your door late one evening looking for a place to stay, and had no where else to go, it would be blasphemous towards Zeus to turn this individual away.

Therefore I believe the above scene would be intended to emphasize Mime's sinful nature and lack of respect towards the Gods, being ironically reinforced by the fact that Wotan is one of the Gods.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

macgeek2005 said:


> In Siegfried, he gets super annoying again. He shows up at Mime's place, and sits down laughing and smirking and insisting that they play a "three question" game, when Mime has specifically told him he's not welcome.


At least in the Copenhagen Ring he brings pastry!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> I'm so glad he's not in Götterdämmerung.


Oh well, he ends up dead when his castle catches fire, so, you'll get your revenge.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> I just don't quite get Wotan.


He's eternally constipated.
Everything he does should make sense now.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Couchie said:


> He's eternally constipated.
> Everything he does should make sense now.


Kind of like Martin Luther... What a strange pair.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

There has to be a logical explanation why he does what he does in Siegfried. Does he come to Mime's place because he knows he's raising Siegfried, and he wants to scout it out and see how things are going?

Does he come there to inform Mime that Siegfried is the one who needs to forge the sword?

In Siegfried, what are Wotan's intentions in terms of the ring? What does he want to happen?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

macgeek2005 said:


> There has to be a logical explanation why he does what he does in Siegfried. Does he come to Mime's place because he knows he's raising Siegfried, and he wants to scout it out and see how things are going?
> 
> Does he come there to inform Mime that Siegfried is the one who needs to forge the sword?
> 
> In Siegfried, what are Wotan's intentions in terms of the ring? What does he want to happen?


I think the primary reason Wotan visits Mime is to impart information, to reveal that only the one who has not learned fear will be able to reforge the sword. This of course sets Siegfried's whole quest in motion, leading him to kill the dragon, acquire the ring, and awaken the sleeping Brunnhilde.

This motivation of Wotan's is of course problematic, since he risks tampering with affairs and having the same kind of undue influence on Siegfried that ultimately led to Siegmund's undoing. I think the scene shows that, though Wotan is capable of learning from his mistakes, he is also capable of backsliding and flirting with some of the same old self-defeating patterns.

I think a similar vacillation is the only way to account logically for the Erda scene. Wotan awakens her, asks her how to stop the destructive course of events--and then when she says that there is no escape, he announces that he now wills his own downfall anyway. This may well be true, and makes for an impressive renunciation, but understandably it's hard for him to maintain such an attitude consistently. Even as late as Gotterdammerung, he is described as walled up in Valhalla, waiting for the end--while still holding on to a faint, forlorn hope that all will be well if the ring is just restored to the Rhinemaidens.

Of course, the ring is restored, but the gods go down in flames anyway. Critics have long puzzled over this seeming inconsistency, but it really shouldn't create any interpretive difficulties. After so much water under the bridge, Wotan having compromised himself in so many ways, the time for the gods is past. But it is Wotan's ongoing confrontation with this reality and his struggle to accept it (admittedly not always successful) that lends his character a poignancy and tragic grandeur . . . whether or not we ever "like" him.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

amfortas said:


> Of course, the ring is restored, but the gods go down in flames anyway. Critics have long puzzled over this seeming inconsistency, but it really shouldn't create any interpretive difficulties. After so much water under the bridge, Wotan having compromised himself in so many ways, the time for the gods is past. But it is Wotan's ongoing confrontation with this reality and his struggle to accept it (admittedly not always successful) that lends his character a poignancy and tragic grandeur . . . whether or not we ever "like" him.


My understanding was that Wotan ensured his eventual doom when he tore a limb from the World Ash Tree to make his spear, and he progression of its wilting mirrored the increased corruption of the gods and the world. The ring with the transgressions committed around its curse was really just a catalyst ushering in the final blow - the ash tree dies and Wotan chops it up and places the pieces around Valhalla. Gotterdammerung was an inescapable destiny foretold by Erda and the Norns and Wotan realizes this by the end of Die Walkure, despite, as you said, occasionally hoping fruitlessly otherwise. Returning the ring prevented its curse from wrecking havoc in the 'new world', but didn't afford any kind of redemption for the gods.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

macgeek2005 said:


> In Siegfried, [Wotan] gets super annoying again. He shows up at Mime's place, and sits down laughing and smirking and insisting that they play a "three question" game, when Mime has specifically told him he's not welcome. What's his issue? Why does he insist on coming in and doing what he does? What purpose does this play in the story, other than to reinforce the super annoying side of Wotan's character present in Das Rheingold?


For me, I _most easily_ relate to Wotan during his appearances as "Wanderer" in *Siegfried*. Here's another way of looking at it:

Wotan comes to Mime's hovel, and basically lays the following position out- "the most vexing thing(s) in your life... I have the wherewithal to solve-- all you need to do is welcome me as a guest, and ask the right questions. *Hello!!??*

Of course, one could say that Wotan could tender the indicated advice unbidden... but that would _too_ obviously violate the contractual stricture against proxy intervention exposed by Fricka back in *Die Walküre*.


macgeek2005 said:


> Why does he wake up Erda? Is it just an ego trip? He wakes her up to say "I'm no longer upset about what you told me before, I myself will let the gods fall. You lose. I now want the doom that you prophesied. Na na na." He practically sticks his tongue out at her.


In this exchange, I'll assert that Erda gave better than she got. Wotan queries "how do you stop a rolling wheel?" Of course Erda answers "you can't," but there's a lot more to the tale than this. Recall that Erda first says "why don't you go ask Brünnhilde instead?" Then, when Wotan explains how his own actions have discarded that as an option, Erda (figuratively speaking) reams him out for presuming to punish Brünnhilde for trangressions that he himself has committed in prior circumstances. "The world spins insanely," she muses- and leaves us with little doubt that Wotan bears much more than his own weight for the state of the insanity.

Wotan's statement that he now accepts the end of the gods is best understood as a moment of dramatic nexus potential. If following along with the story for the first time, the audience's sense is one of relief. Now, at last (we think) there's the possibility that Wotan will desist his fruitless interventions and let the more natural course of events play out. However, like much in Wagner, the closer we look at it, the more we understand. He _says_ he's accepting... but does he _mean_ it?! Of course (based the final moments of his confronation with Siegfried) he doesn't mean it- but we don't need hindsight from that moment to recognize this. You see, back in *Die Walküre* Wotan tells Brünnhilde "one thing left for me to long for... The End!" So (if we're following the Wotan's putative resignations closely) we see his declaration in *Siegfried* and reason "seems to me I've heard this tune before."

The thing that keeps us from saying "oh, boy-- here we go again" is that THIS time, Siegfried is cast as the heir presumptive, and not Alberich. So, in spite of our caution, we are allowed to hope. Doubtless Wagner sought to give our hope plausibility- though ultimately, Wotan reverts to form- and the drama will need to be resolved some other way...


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Couchie said:


> My understanding was that Wotan ensured his eventual doom when he tore a limb from the World Ash Tree to make his spear, and he progression of its wilting mirrored the increased corruption of the gods and the world. The ring with the transgressions committed around its curse was really just a catalyst ushering in the final blow - the ash tree dies and Wotan chops it up and places the pieces around Valhalla. Gotterdammerung was an inescapable destiny foretold by Erda and the Norns and Wotan realizes this by the end of Die Walkure, despite, as you said, occasionally hoping fruitlessly otherwise. Returning the ring prevented its curse from wrecking havoc in the 'new world', but didn't afford any kind of redemption for the gods.


It may well be that the gods are doomed from early on. As for what Wotan believes or hopes, I think the text is somewhat ambiguous on this point. His final words, as reported in Waltraute's narrative, are as follows:

_Des tiefen Rheines Töchtern
gäbe den Ring sie wieder zurück,
von des Fluches Last
erlöst wär' Gott und Welt!_

[If she would return the ring
to the Rhine's daughters in its depths,
from the weight of the curse
would the gods and the world be redeemed.]

The implication could be that Wotan hopes for both gods and world to be redeemed from the curse in the same way (i.e., by surviving it). But then again, perhaps at this point he realizes that redemption for the gods and redemption for the world mean two different things--with the former having to go down in flames so that the latter can go on to a new beginning.

Or perhaps, true to form, Wotan vacillates between these two ideas--sometimes flirting with a forlorn hope, sometimes facing the hard reality.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Wotan's statement that he now accepts the end of the gods is best understood as a moment of dramatic nexus potential. If following along with the story for the first time, the audience's sense is one of relief. Now, at last (we think) there's the possibility that Wotan will desist his fruitless interventions and let the more natural course of events play out. However, like much in Wagner, the closer we look at it, the more we understand. He _says_ he's accepting... but does he _mean_ it?! Of course (based the final moments of his confronation with Siegfried) he doesn't mean it- but we don't need hindsight from that moment to recognize this. You see, back in *Die Walküre* Wotan tells Brünnhilde "one thing left for me to long for... The End!" So (if we're following the Wotan's putative resignations closely) we see his declaration in *Siegfried* and reason "seems to me I've heard this tune before."
> 
> The thing that keeps us from saying "oh, boy-- here we go again" is that THIS time, Siegfried is cast as the heir presumptive, and not Alberich. So, in spite of our caution, we are allowed to hope. Doubtless Wagner sought to give our hope plausibility- though ultimately, Wotan reverts to form- and the drama will need to be resolved some other way...


I think the question of Wotan's repeated renunciations is a bit problematic. What does it really mean to "mean" something? It's certainly very human (and so, presumably, godlike) to make a firm resolution, with all the sincerity in the world . . . and then backslide on it.

After his great scene with Erda, Wotan believes that he's ready to step aside. But he can't resist the temptation to hang around for Siegfried's arrival. He wants to meet his grandson for the first time, wants to reveal at least a part of himself to his heir. With all he's giving up for the sake of this next generation, he's eager for a little recognition, for some acknowledgement, perhaps even . . . for love.

But of course the true free hero is under no obligation to love the gods--especially not the one responsible for his father's death. Siegfried tells the annoying old man to step aside; Wotan is stung by the rebuke, and predictably loses his cool. For a moment, all of his beautiful renunciation is forgotten--the old warfather rises up within him. But destiny has already moved past him, and this time his angry storming is fruitless. Siegfried shatters the spear; Wotan fades away to Valhalla. _Zieh hin! Ich kann dich nicht halten . . . _

It's true that Wotan has a hard time holding to any consistent position, and it's certainly possible to find such vacillation frustrating or annoying. Personally, I'm moved by his ongoing struggle to achieve a difficult renunciation and acceptance--including those moments of agonized protest that inevitably accompany such a process.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

amfortas said:


> I think the primary reason Wotan visits Mime is to impart information, to reveal that only the one who has not learned fear will be able to reforge the sword. This of course sets Siegfried's whole quest in motion, leading him to kill the dragon, acquire the ring, and awaken the sleeping Brunnhilde.
> 
> This motivation of Wotan's is of course problematic, since he risks tampering with affairs and having the same kind of undue influence on Siegfried that ultimately led to Siegmund's undoing. I think the scene shows that, though Wotan is capable of learning from his mistakes, he is also capable of backsliding and flirting with some of the same old self-defeating patterns.


I'm not sure if I follow you. Wotan did want the events to unfold like this. Remember, the whole point of giving birth to Siegmund and Sieglinde was for them to in their turn give birth to a fearless hero who would slain the dragon and recover the ring. So naturally his intervention set things in motion, but was done in purpose, not as a way of backsliding into the same mistake. There was also a self-destructive hint, since it becomes clear after a certain point (which happens before this scene in Siegfried) that Wotan is flirting more and more with the idea of throwing the towel, letting the Gods meet their doom, and leaving the world for the mortals. So in a sense the apparent repetition of a mistake is rather the fact that this suicidal tendency is slowly getting the upper hand in his mind.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> I'm not sure if I follow you. Wotan did want the events to unfold like this. Remember, the whole point of giving birth to Siegmund and Sieglinde was for them to in their turn give birth to a fearless hero who would slain the dragon and recover the ring. So naturally his intervention set things in motion, but was done in purpose, not as a way of backsliding into the same mistake. There was also a self-destructive hint, since it becomes clear after a certain point (which happens before this scene in Siegfried) that Wotan is flirting more and more with the idea of throwing the towel, letting the Gods meet their doom, and leaving the world for the mortals. So in a sense the apparent repetition of a mistake is rather the fact that this suicidal tendency is slowly getting the upper hand in his mind.


But the point of giving birth to Siegmund and Sieglinde was so that *Siegmund* would slay the dragon and recover the ring. Only when Wotan was made to realize (by Fricka) that he had overstepped his bounds and had an undue influence on his "free" hero did that plan have to be revised.

My point was that *any* subsequent intervention by Wotan could be seen, at least in theory, as risking the same kind of fiasco. Presumably, had he helped Siegfried too much, this new free hero would have become just as tainted, and therefore just as useless to the plan, as his father.

Wagner never makes this point explicit, so I admit that my speculations are based on the logic established in Die Walkure, rather than on any specific cues in the text.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

amfortas said:


> But the point of giving birth to Siegmund and Sieglinde was so that *Siegmund* would slay the dragon and recover the ring.


That's not my recollection but I may be wrong. I believe that Wotan early on does say that the twins will mate and have a son who will slain the dragon, no?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> That's not my recollection but I may be wrong. I believe that Wotan early on does say that the twins will mate and have a son who will slain the dragon, no?


Deryck Cooke, in his exhaustive (though sadly uncompleted) book on Wagner's Ring, _I Saw the World End_, is emphatic on this often-overlooked point: Siegmund is the one originally intended to slay the dragon.

This is why Wotan never includes the twins having a child as part of his plan. Brunnhilde is the first one to refer to (and name) Siegfried, when she tells Sieglinde that she is carrying Siegmund's child. Shortly thereafter she tells Wotan that Sieglinde will give birth to a great hero, news that Wotan initially dismisses as irrelevant. Only gradually does he come to realize that this child will become the truly free man he was looking for all along.

And yes, you're right that even as Siegfried starts fulfilling Wotan's plan to recover the ring, Wotan himself is undergoing a change of mind and heart which will lead him to renounce any hope of saving the gods. So there's an interesting dual action going on in _Siegfried_: Wotan's old scheme is carried out at the very same time that it is rendered obsolete--or, perhaps more accurately, is transcended and given a whole new significance.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

amfortas said:


> Deryck Cooke, in his exhaustive (though sadly uncompleted) book on Wagner's Ring, _I Saw the World End_, is emphatic on this often-overlooked point: Siegmund is the one originally intended to slay the dragon.
> 
> This is why Wotan never includes the twins having a child as part of his plan. Brunnhilde is the first one to refer to (and name) Siegfried, when she tells Sieglinde that she is carrying Siegmund's child. Shortly thereafter she tells Wotan that Sieglinde will give birth to a great hero, news that Wotan initially dismisses as irrelevant. Only gradually does he come to realize that this child will become the truly free man he was looking for all along.
> 
> And yes, you're right that even as Siegfried starts fulfilling Wotan's plan to recover the ring, Wotan himself is undergoing a change of mind and heart which will lead him to renounce any hope of saving the gods. So there's an interesting dual action going on in _Siegfried_: Wotan's old scheme is carried out at the very same time that it is rendered obsolete--or, perhaps more accurately, is transcended and given a whole new significance.


OK, I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification.:tiphat:


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> OK, I stand corrected, thanks for the clarification.:tiphat:


No problem. And thank *you* for the clarification on another thread about the Tannhauser overture. I'm learning a lot just by participating here.


----------

