# Lohengrin: Misogyny, Bigotry and a distinct lack of compassion.



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I’ve always been a Prima la musica, dopo le parole kind of guy but having acquired some new recordings of Lohengrin recently and a very handy little ENO guide with a singable translation I felt that I should perhaps spend some time listening to how the text is interpreted. My initial recording was the Karajan. I will not go into the merits or otherwise of this particular recording here but rather I wish to relay my feelings about Lohengrin himself based on the libretto. 

There was a thread fairly recently asking who was the nastiest opera character? Or something like that.
The usual suspects were there; Iago, Hagen, Don Pizzaro et al.

I wish to add Lohengrin to that ignominious list and my reasons are the three things I put in the thread title.

Misogyny. Let’s look at Lohengrin’s attitude to Elsa. He arrives out of the blue to “help” her but right off the bat he tells her that she only gets his help provided she asks him no questions about his antecedents. She must trust and have faith in him but he shows absolutely no trust or faith in her ability to keep his secrets. I am reminded of the words Arthur Conan Doyle put into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes in Sign of Four - “ Women are never to be entirely trusted - not the best of them.” If this isn’t a similar view then I don’t know what is. Lohengrin continually reminds Elsa of this right up until he dumps her!

Bigotry. I know that religious tolerance and freedom of worship wasn’t uppermost in the medieval mind but the treatment of Ortrud hardly shows Christian charity at its best. Non Christian worship predates Christianity by many thousands of years so why should Ortrud not be free to worship the Norse gods that she did. Possibly the use of magic to transform Gottfried was a step too far but Lohengrin’s use of “magic” to transform him back is no different. 

Lack of compassion. Lohengrin’s punishment of Elsa, Telramund and indeed, all of Brabant is hardly commensurate with the crime. Elsa asked a “forbidden” question and for that she loses her husband, breaking her heart and eventually killing her. If Ortrud hadn’t blurted out that she enchanted Gottfried then Lohengrin would have left Gottfried under that enchantment depriving Brabant of their rightful leader and Elsa of her brother. He had already deprived Ortrud of her husband who had only acted according to his beliefs, even allowing for his being misled by Ortrud. Lohengrin’s punishment shows a distinct lack of Christian charity and only at the last moment does he relent. Only when Elsa dies! Nice!

Feel free to discuss and/or disagree. :lol:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Barb!!! What on earth is this!? I just listened to Act III of _Lohengrin_ in awe and now I read this :lol:!

Wagner saw the poem of Lohengrin as a story about man's longing and yearning which seeds from the depths of universal human nature. Lohengrin comes from his lonely splendour down to earth in yearning to be understood through human love.

Wagner explained the character of Ortrud to Liszt. Ortrud is a representation of a political woman (Wagner said that a political man is terrible, but a political woman is even worse - rephrased by me as I don't have time to look the actual thing up). He also wrote that Ortrud's worship of ancient gods is to emphasise that Ortrud lives in past. If I recall correctly from that letter, then Wagner said that Ortrud is unable to love and is against any change, reform, or progression. Considering Wagner's revolutionary ideology of art, that could depict the reluctance of the society transform their understanding of art. Woodduck proposed a theory that Lohengrin _is_ Wagner's art (if not Wagner himself). I find the idea super fascinating but I think Woodduck can elaborate on that much better than I can. That would probably solve many of those questions as well.

Lohengrin sought the woman who would trust in him and would love him unconditionally exactly the way he was. That's the reason why he cloaks his higher essence to guarantee that he is loved as a human not worshipped as some higher being. "His longing was not for worship nor for adoration, but for the only thing sufficient to redeem him from his loneliness, to still his deep desire,-for Love, for being loved, for being understood through Love." Wagner said that when Lohengrin came to earth, he was a "warmth-inspiring Man" and not a God i.e "absolute artist". I think this only further emphasises that Wagner recognised himself in Lohengrin as an artist. When Lohengrin leaves and returns to his loneliness, he is convinced that he was not understood, simply worshipped.

Wagner was certainly not a misogynist. Very un-Romantic-German idea considering what a leading idea was Goethe's eternal feminine. Wagner saw Elsa's final outburst inevitable and he says he deeply suffered as he understood the necessity of that parting. Wagner describes Elsa in almost psychoanalytical terms saying that she's the unconscious into into which Lohengrin's conscious, deliberate being yearns to be redeemed. The outburst of Elsa's jealousy, "wakes first from out the thrill of worship into the full reality of Love", and her wreck reveals its essence to Lohengrin who failed to recognise it. Lohengrin himself fails to achieve his redemption in Elsa through not recognising the true redeeming Womanhood.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I never said Wagner was a misogynist although ......! I believe I was talking about the character of Lohengrin 

Mind you, who said invented characters had to be likeable? I don’t subscribe to the theory that there must be something of the author in the characters that they write otherwise you could almost say that all writers have some sort of multiple personality disorder!!:lol:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> I never said Wagner was a misogynist although ......! I believe I was talking about the character of Lohengrin
> 
> Mind you, who said invented characters had to be likeable? I don't subscribe to the theory that there must be something of the author in the characters that they write otherwise you could almost say that all writers have some sort of multiple personality disorder!!:lol:


I see, true that :lol:. Or those traits of author are sometimes much more brutally emphasised in the characters.

Btw, my above post is largely a summary of a few pages from this: http://users.skynet.be/johndeere/wlpdf/wlpr0079.pdf (pp 39-42)

It was an interesting read, _Lohengrin_ has been difficult to understand for me due to many reasons/questions you pointed out yourself.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

When I first heard Lohengrin, the Kempe studio version, I was, like yourself, transported by the sheer ethereal beauty of the music. As I said I’ve always come to opera through the music and paid less attention to the libretto. Probably to my detriment! In my later years I’ve been starting to look at the words as much as the music and, my goodness, I have had my eyes opened somewhat, either by the sheer banality of some libretti or by the callousness of others and very often by the erudition and uncannily clever construction of even more. 

Again my opinion of Lohengrin is merely that, my opinion and as the Gershwins said - you can’t take that away from me!:lol:


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Possibly the use of magic to transform Gottfried was a step too far but Lohengrin's use of "magic" to transform him back is no different.


that word "possibly" is doing a lot of work here. and if someone uses magic on me to turn me into a swan, everyone has my explicit permission to please use magic to turn me back!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> that word "possibly" is doing a lot of work here. and if someone uses magic on me to turn me into a swan, everyone has my explicit permission to please use magic to turn me back!


:lol:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Consider it done. I'll need to consult one or two of my old grimoires though. Might start with Honorius!


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I've always thought Lohengrin was cruel to Elsa, forbidding her to ask his name, while repeatedly bellowing *ELSA!* at her every twenty minutes. 
That said, it's my favorite Wagner opera.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

I think it's a genre mistake to understand Lohengrin not revealing his name and Elsa not being allowed to ask about it as evidence that Lohengrin doesn't think women can be trusted. I mean, what does he think she's going to do with his name once she has it? Identity theft? Empty his bank accounts? He arrives by swan boat. That's the kind of story this is. It's one in which an action's symbolic meaning determines its plot significance. In a modern realistic novel, I'd say someone not telling someone their name is evidence of trying to hide something, or lack of trust, or whatever else was indicated by context of the plot and the character's psychology. In a mythical story like this, I would look at what "name" as a concept means to the people who created the story, and what withholding it might symbolize in that context. I'm not a _Lohengrin_ expert or anything, and Wagner may also have had psychological intentions that manifest in other elements of the story, but generally people's actions in mythical-type stories have nothing to do with their unique psychology. (Usually, they don't have a unique psychology. Their actions are generally driven by fate, manipulation by divine beings, or simple emotions.) Their actions are interesting for their symbolic meaning. This true in the absurdly maligned and misunderstood _Turandot_ as well. You have to start with the idea that what you're seeing is symbolic rather than literal, and only then can you understand what's happening and why. For all the talk from critics about how Liu is one of Puccini's "little women", she is fundamentally different in that she has almost no psychological complexity. Cio-Cio San, Mimi, Minnie, Tosca, Magda, Giorgetta and on and on are modern, realistic, psychologically interesting characters. Liu is a purely mythical character whose only character traits are that she is loyal and in love with Calaf. This is not because of an impoverished understanding of female agency and complexity, as his previous portrayals of complex women whose choices drive their own plots prove. It is because this is a different kind of story that has different narrative conventions. Liu is to be taken symbolically, just as everything else in that opera is. He death is a reenactment of the death of Lou-Ling (the fact that their names sound almost identical is surely not coincidental) that Turandot cites as the reason she is taking revenge on all men who pursue her. Iow, Turandot reenacts the crime she is supposedly pursuing justice for. We as modern people find a character that mainly exists as a vehicle for symbolic meaning odd, which is why often fail to understand the heroes of ancient literature and myth. (Of course, as in any good modern literature, Puccini's other heroines also have symbolic value. Mimi symbolizes the poetic imagination of youthful innocence. As Rodolfo says, he is the poet and she is the poetry. Her death and his disillusionment coincide in that she dies because the bohemians have no money. No amount of pseudo-intellectual posturing or witty Romanticism will provide medical care. Etc.)

So, in sum, I think you're taking it too literally. I think that's causing you to import real concerns about similar behavior in our modern context to a story working on entirely different principles.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

You misunderstand. I am in no way taking this too literally. I have no concerns about Lohengrin’s behaviour relating to a modern context. He is a fantasy figure acting in a fairytale for our amusement. However, for my part, in any milieu I would consider him, as written, to be a nasty piece of work.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> However, for my part, in any milieu I would consider him, as written, to be a nasty piece of work.


And so far I've thought it's the sweetest among Wagner's operas... :angel:

New try. Consider the opera _without_ Lohengrin. Elsa would have been - I don't know - sent to exile or killed. Lohengrin did give her an opportunity but both of them failed in different things. I think Lohengrin's eternal loneliness isn't much better outcome than Elsa's death. If you see him as a sympathetic character, which he surely is, he's not that cold-hearted anymore.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

annaw said:


> And so far I've thought it's the sweetest among Wagner's operas... :angel:
> 
> New try. Consider the opera _without_ Lohengrin. Elsa would have been - I don't know - sent to exile or killed. Lohengrin did give her an opportunity but both of them failed in different things. I think Lohengrin's eternal loneliness isn't much better outcome than Elsa's death. If you see him as a sympathetic character, which he surely is, he's not that cold-hearted anymore.


It certainly has some of his sweetest music for which fact alone I love it. Remember I did say that I've always been a music first, words second, kind of guy!:lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Is this what the Covid-19 pandemic does to people?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Why on earth does the OP brings the word 'Christian' in? The legend of Lohengrin has nothing to do with Christianity. It's a version of the Knight of the Swan legend known from a variety of medieval sources. As for the dear old Norse religion of Ortrud, it did involve human sacrifice but don't let that worry you! Be tolerant!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Is Lohengrin not the son of Parsifal? Was Parsifal not one of the Grail knights and were the Grail knights not a Christian order? Was Lohengrin not Christian? Was Henry and his court not Christian? I wasn’t talking about who or what Lohengrin was (and I’m pretty sure we all know the mythology) but rather how the libretto portrays a rather unchristian attitude to ones errors. 

We atheists sometimes forget how touchy those with faith can be!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu has an inner Ortrud against whom his inner Elsa doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

My inner Ortrud also has an inner Venus to back her up!

The plague years will be the death of us!! Perhaps we need a Masque?:devil:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

My inner Erda not only doesn't think this is going to end well, but is also really tired and just wants to go off to bed.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

My inner Loge stands back and thinks:

They are hastening to their end,
they who deem themselves cleverly subversive.
I blush to share in their exegetical heresies.

I fancy myself changing back into flickering flames: 
To burn and waste them who disturb my tranquility
With painful sophistries fit for regietheater
Would seem not a bad idea.

I'll think it over. Who knows what I will do?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Barbebleu has an inner Ortrud against whom his inner Elsa doesn't stand a chance.


That's a beaut! Made my day.:tiphat:


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> My inner Loge stands back and thinks:
> 
> They are hastening to their end,
> they who deem themselves cleverly subversive.
> ...


Did you create this?
Very clever.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Did you create this?
> Very clever.


Well, we know that Wagner didn't.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I have always seen Lohengrin as illustrating that No matter how much they love us Gods are always going to hurt the humans they love as our lives are too different.

The great tragedy of Lohengrin for me is that Elsa and Lohengrin thought their love would be enough.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> Is Lohengrin not the son of Parsifal? Was Parsifal not one of the Grail knights and were the Grail knights not a Christian order? Was Lohengrin not Christian? Was Henry and his court not Christian? I wasn't talking about who or what Lohengrin was (and I'm pretty sure we all know the mythology) but rather how the libretto portrays a rather unchristian attitude to ones errors.
> 
> We atheists sometimes forget how touchy those with faith can be!


For goodness sake it is a fairy tale! You talk about it as if it were true! Wagner was not a Christian and he was writing about things that never happened. I'm not being touchy just reminding an atheist the difference between fantasy and reality! :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

No I don’t talk about it as if it were true because all religion is a fairy tale. Some choose to have faith in those fairy tales others, such as myself, don’t. I am talking about how a character acts within the fairy tale he or she exists in. So get off my case before I get myself barred!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> No I don't talk about it as if it were true because all religion is a fairy tale[Some choose to have faith in those fairy tales others, such as myself, don't. I am talking about how a character acts within the fairy tale he or she exists in. So get off my case before I get myself barred!


That is of course where you are completely wrong, as true faith is based on facts not fantasy. The trick is distinguishing between them . But I don't wanna get into a discussion on religion with you but I'll leave the fantasies like Lohengrin to people like yourself. From your posts seem to have faith in them


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> My inner Loge stands back and thinks:
> 
> They are hastening to their end,
> they who deem themselves cleverly subversive.
> ...


He asked himself.

And in _Ash Land_ he dwells... 

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

"Lack of compassion. Lohengrin’s punishment of Elsa, Telramund and indeed, all of Brabant is hardly commensurate with the crime. Elsa asked a “forbidden” question and for that she loses her husband, breaking her heart and eventually killing her. "

I don't blame Lohengrin for Elsa's death but Wagner! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

zxxyxxz said:


> The great tragedy of Lohengrin for me is that Elsa and Lohengrin thought their love would be enough.


So did Tristan and Isolde, Walther and Eva, Siegmund and Sieglinde, and Siegfried and Brunnhilde. It's the Wagnerian Problem, and the Romantic Delusion. After the Gotterdammerung, Wagner had had enough of it and wrote _Parsifal._


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Elsa was Lohengrin's dream even more than he was Elsa's. Dreams die at sunrise.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Elsa was Lohengrin's dream even more than he was Elsa's. *Dreams die at sunrise*.


Disturbingly accurate in the context of the opera...


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> So did Tristan and Isolde, Walther and Eva, Siegmund and Sieglinde, and Siegfried and Brunnhilde. It's the Wagnerian Problem, and the Romantic Delusion. After the Gotterdammerung, Wagner had had enough of it and wrote _Parsifal._


I always felt the others stood a chance and I thought Walther and Eva live happily together.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

zxxyxxz said:


> I always felt the others stood a chance and *I thought Walther and Eva live happily together*.


It wasn't really thanks to their love but Sachs' rejection of his. It went that way thanks to Sachs who rejected romantic love, helped Walther write the song, and convinced others to let Walther even sing. In the sense it had more to do with Sachs' rejection of love than the existence of Walther's love. Sachs must be the most sensible Wagner character .


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> That is of course where you are completely wrong, as true faith is based on facts not fantasy. The trick is distinguishing between them . But I don't wanna get into a discussion on religion with you but I'll leave the fantasies like Lohengrin to people like yourself. From your posts seem to have faith in them


Definition of faith -

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Every dictionary definition of faith would seem to disagree with you regarding the need for facts where faith is concerned.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> Definition of faith -
> 
> 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
> 
> ...


Totally wrong. Sorry. You are absolutely wrong. You have obviously been listening to much to Mr Dawkins. He accepts that sort of fantasy. I don't. It doesn't matter what the dictionary says because we do not go by the dictionary. You appear to believe anything you read :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

No I’m not wrong. I am completely right. 

Just because you say it doesn’t make it correct and we can go on like this forever or at least until the mods stop us. 

I suggest that we conclude this now because nothing you can ever say will convince me otherwise. 

Mind you that was a cracker you came up with, and I quote - ‘It doesn’t matter what the dictionary says because we don’t go by the dictionary!‘

Btw, I don’t, and again I quote, - ‘appear to believe anything’ because, if you’ve forgotten, I’m an atheist and believe in nothing!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

zxxyxxz said:


> I always felt the others stood a chance and I thought Walther and Eva live happily together.


Walther and Eva had to be stopped by Sachs from simply running away together. The need for reconciliation of the individual with the world, and the respect original genius must have for the disciplines of tradition, are the moral of _Die Meistersinger._ Wagner's return, after _Tristan,_ to diatonic harmony and traditional musical forms and techniques carry out this dramatic theme on the plane of abstract music.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

annaw said:


> It wasn't really thanks to their love but Sachs' rejection of his. It went that way thanks to Sachs who rejected romantic love, helped Walther write the song, and convinced others to let Walther even sing. In the sense it had more to do with Sachs' rejection of love than the existence of Walther's love. Sachs must be the most sensible Wagner character .


Is it truly a sacrifice if the girl doesn't love you back?

I tend not to read too much into things, as I start to over analyze and while the results are amusing they are not particularly insightful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

No arguing about religion - PLEASE!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

zxxyxxz said:


> Is it truly a sacrifice if the girl doesn't love you back?
> 
> I tend not to read too much into things, as I start to over analyze and while the results are amusing they are not particularly insightful.


Eva certainly loved Sachs to some extent:

_Yes, dear Master, scold me if you will;
but I was on the right path,
for, if I had the choice,
I would choose none but you;
you would have been my husband,
I would have given the prize to none but you._

In the beginning of Act II she tried to convince Sachs to marry her. It was up to Sachs really - had he not helped Walther and had he himself competed, he would have been the most likely winner. He rejects that because he knows Eva loves Walther more.

But I don't think this even matters. I think Wagner followed the Schopenhauerian line here, rejecting one's desires to avoid suffering. Imagine what a happy ending _Tristan_ would have had, had Marke acted like Sachs.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> No I'm not wrong. I am completely right.
> 
> Just because you say it doesn't make it correct and we can go on like this forever or at least until the mods stop us.
> 
> ...


Thanks for knowing more about what I believe than I do! :lol:

Actually the dictionary is wrong because secular dictionaries cannot be expected to know that true faith is actually based on evidence so they come up with these superficial definitions which people take as 'gospel' and just believe them without evidence or examination.

As Chesterton said: "Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

So conclude it there with your daring assertion!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Eva certainly loved Sachs to some extent:
> 
> _Yes, dear Master, scold me if you will;
> but I was on the right path,
> ...


With Isolde's irish temper and Tristan's struggles with depression and childhood trauma? I'd give the marriage about two months.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

My translation and synposis always implied that she loved sachs as the best of what was on offer but her regard for him was more famillial like an uncle rather than husband.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> With Isolde's irish temper and Tristan's struggles with depression and childhood trauma? I'd give the marriage about two months.


Fair enough :lol:. Or they could get more of that love potion....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Thanks for knowing more about what I believe than I do! :lol:
> 
> Actually the dictionary is wrong because secular dictionaries cannot be expected to know that true faith is actually based on evidence so they come up with these superficial definitions which people take as 'gospel' and just believe them without evidence or examination.
> 
> ...


You had to get in one more post, didn't you? Who gives you the authority to tell anyone else to "conclude it there"?

Speaking of faith, ever hear of "bad faith?"

I repeat: No arguing about religion - PLEASE!


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> With Isolde's irish temper and Tristan's struggles with depression and childhood trauma? I'd give the marriage about two months.


Nah they'd make it work. No more picking between love and duty. My headcannon in this scenario always had Kurnewal joining them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> Fair enough :lol:. Or they could get more of that love potion....


The love potion thing didn't work for Siegfried either.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> No arguing about religion - PLEASE!


Mmm! I'm not very good with being instructed what to do, particularly when someone raises their voice, but I'll try.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

zxxyxxz said:


> Is it truly a sacrifice if the girl doesn't love you back?


In that society, in which women didn't have full rights, Sachs could have essentially bought Eva from Pogner, who was, remember, initially inclined simply to offer her as property to the winner of the song contest. Sachs was an enlightened man for his time and place. Besides, as annaw points out, Eva did love him, or imagine that she did. Sachs knew what was best for her, and worked to bring it about despite his own sadness.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> Mmm! I'm not very good with being instructed what to do, particularly when someone raises their voice, but I'll try.


I did say "please"...


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I did say "please"...


You did indeed.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Can any one advise me who I contact about changing my name from Barbebleu, to say, Dawkins?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> In that society, in which women didn't have full rights, *Sachs could have essentially bought Eva from Pogner,* who was, remember, initially inclined simply to offer her as property to the winner of the song contest. Sachs was an enlightened man for his time and place. Besides, as annaw points out, Eva did love him, or imagine that she did. Sachs knew what was best for her, and worked to bring it about despite his own sadness.


This one sentence adds a whole new dimension to the cute little Nürnberg I've imagined. Lohengrin yesterday, Meistersinger today...


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> In that society, in which women didn't have full rights, Sachs could have essentially bought Eva from Pogner, who was, remember, initially inclined simply to offer her as property to the winner of the song contest. Sachs was an enlightened man for his time and place. Besides, as annaw points out, Eva did love him, or imagine that she did. Sachs knew what was best for her, and worked to bring it about despite his own sadness.


Yes and by that logic Walther as a nobleman would just play the noble card and really in that time no well to do peasant would say no. (This is where my over analyzing comes into play)

I like the plot to Meistersingers quite alot and I quite like taking my Wagner at face value and enjoying the tragedy of romantic love.

As an aside I usually end up feeling out of my depth talking about art. But I still maintain that art is always in the eyes of the beholder. And will always post my usually wrong opinions.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

annaw said:


> This one sentence adds a whole new dimension to the cute little Nürnberg I've imagined. Lohengrin yesterday, Meistersinger today...


There's a whole Meistersinger thread where a former member and myself had a long back and forth about Sachs, Eva and Pogner. You might enjoy it if enjoy is the right term!

Here we go.

https://www.talkclassical.com/52131-wagner-disc-die-meistersinger-16.html?highlight=Meistersinger

From page 16 onward if you have the time and patience :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

zxxyxxz said:


> Yes and by that logic Walther as a nobleman would just play the noble card and really in that time no well to do peasant would say no. (This is where my over analyzing comes into play)
> 
> I like the plot to Meistersingers quite alot and I quite like taking my Wagner at face value and enjoying the tragedy of romantic love.
> 
> As an aside I usually end up feeling out of my depth talking about art. But I still maintain that art is always in the eyes of the beholder. *And will always post my usually wrong opinions.*


What fun would TC be without wrong opinions? :tiphat:


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

That is true this has been a fun afternoon


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> Mmm! *I'm not very good with being instructed what to do, *particularly when someone raises their voice, but I'll try.


Unless it's in the dictionary! :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Sigh! .


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please leave pure religion out of the thread. The OP introduced Christian charity simply to support his view that Lohengrin was not the nicest person and not to investigate Lohengrin in a religious sense. So, please get back to Lohengrin.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> Can any one advise me who I contact about changing my name from Barbebleu, to say, Dawkins?


How about just Barbie Doll?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> How about just Barbie Doll?


Or even just Barbed! Wha daur meddle wi' me?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I rather like Kekszakallu. It's got some edge to it.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Barbebleu said:


> Lohengrin: Misogyny, Bigotry and a distinct lack of compassion.


how are those bad traits ?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> how are those bad traits ?


:lol::lol::lol:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I've been listening through Wagner's operas recently, and I'm at _Lohengrin_ currently. I would like to put in my opinion on the summation in the OP after I listen to the opera and have it fresh in my mind.

But one thing that I've not been able to figure out is Lohengrin's knowledge of Gottfried. At the end, he seems to hint that he had knowledge of the curse placed on Gottfried. If he knew this, why did he not pray for the curse to be removed until after Ortrud reveals that she turned Gottfried into the swan? He seemed ready to leave as if there was nothing to do but wait for the swan's year of service to be over. Am I misunderstanding something?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

adriesba said:


> I've been listening through Wagner's operas recently, and I'm at _Lohengrin_ currently. I would like to put in my opinion on the summation in the OP after I listen to the opera and have it fresh in my mind.
> 
> But one thing that I've not been able to figure out is Lohengrin's knowledge of Gottfried. At the end, he seems to hint that he had knowledge of the curse placed on Gottfried. If he knew this, why did he not pray for the curse to be removed until after Ortrud reveals that she turned Gottfried into the swan? He seemed ready to leave as if there was nothing to do but wait for the swan's year of service to be over. Am I misunderstanding something?


I was getting at this in my last point in my OP under lack of compassion.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> I was getting at this in my last point in my OP under lack of compassion.


Yes, I see. I don't understand why Ortrud telling everyone made him decide to pray for Gottfried to turn back. It seems he already knew. What does Ortrud's declaration change???  This whole aspect has confused me for awhile.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> I was getting at this in my last point in my OP under lack of compassion.


Don't forget it's Wagner who is writing this, showing his view of women who must be subservient and perish in the cause. Senta sacrifices herself, so does Elizabeth, then Elsa perishes, as does Sieglinde in bearing the hero, as does Brunnhilde at the end in a sacrifice, as does Isolde over the body of her lover, then of course the shape shifter Kundry is used and abused by men before expiring in the end. The only female to be allowed to live is Eva but then she has been used as a pawn by her father. So we get this disturbing theme of women being used, as is not surprising given the composer's track record as a womaniser, in addition to abusing his first wife and then stealing someone else's as he found in her an echo of his own boundless self-adoration. So one might take into account Wagner's view on women and their subservience that might be playing out in the misogyny, bigotry and lack of compassion. He after all wrote the thing and so the accusations of the OP must first be laid at his door!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Don't forget it's Wagner who is writing this, showing his view of women who must be subservient and perish in the cause. Senta sacrifices herself, so does Elizabeth, then Elsa perishes, as does Sieglinde in bearing the hero, as does Brunnhilde at the end in a sacrifice, as does Isolde over the body of her lover, then of course the shape shifter Kundry is used and abused by men before expiring in the end. The only female to be allowed to live is Eva but then she has been used as a pawn by her father. So we get this disturbing theme of women being used, as is not surprising given the composer's track record as a womaniser, in addition to abusing his first wife and then stealing someone else's as he found in her an echo of his own boundless self-adoration. So one might take into account Wagner's view on women and their subservience that might be playing out in the misogyny, bigotry and lack of compassion. He after all wrote the thing and so the accusations of the OP must first be laid at his door!


One must not forget the way how women where praised in Romantic Germany. Wagner writes about *redeeming Womanhood* and *egoism of Manhood* in his writings. He was a huge fan of Goethe whose last verses of _Faust_ talk about eternal feminine - a concept which became very prominent in Romantic Germany. Good old Wikipedia gives a nice description of it: "the conceptual ideal was particularly vivid in the 19th century, when women were often depicted as angelic, responsible for drawing men upward on a moral and spiritual path."

Wagner might have had questionable social skills, might have been an egomaniac and a self-centred person with overly high self-confidence but I cannot imagine how he could have been a misogynist if I read his libretti. All his libretti depict women as heroic and redeeming characters. If you read my post (#2), you'd see how Wagner saw Elsa. Wagner said he shed bitter tears when he wrote the ending... I cannot imagine he would have cried if he had enjoyed that parting and the death of Elsa. He simply saw it as something inevitable.

Wagner's depiction of women was much more noble and heroic than that of so many other composers. He honoured and praised his female heroines. Even Kundry is depicted as a deeply sympathetic but very mature character. Brünnhilde brings redemption for the whole world! Wagner loved women. I also think that some of the principles Wagner didn't manage to realise in his own life, he managed to very successfully project onto his characters.

Wagner killed his male heroes as well. And if we just consider the amount of killed female characters, how are the Italian composers any better?


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

annaw said:


> One must not forget the way how women where praised in Romantic Germany. Wagner writes about *redeeming Womanhood* and *egoism of Manhood* in his writings. He was a huge fan of Goethe whose last verses of _Faust_ talk about eternal feminine - a concept which became very prominent in Romantic Germany. Good old Wikipedia gives a nice description of it: "the conceptual ideal was particularly vivid in the 19th century, when women were often depicted as angelic, responsible for drawing men upward on a moral and spiritual path."
> 
> Wagner might have had questionable social skills, might have been an egomaniac and a self-centred person with overly high self-confidence but I cannot imagine how he could have been a misogynist if I read his libretti. All his libretti depict women as heroic and redeeming characters. If you read my post (#2), you'd see how Wagner saw Elsa. Wagner said he shed bitter tears when he wrote the ending... I cannot imagine he would have cried if he had enjoyed that parting and the death of Elsa. He simply saw it as something inevitable.
> 
> ...


I agree with this. The women in Wagner's operas are very often the heroes. They persist to noble goals, and they do so _willingly_. Often the men also die. People dying is just something that happens in opera.

One thing I love about music, especially with opera, is that through it the composers manage to express some higher principle in spite of themselves. In the case of Wagner, his operas do not bring us down to his level as far as his personal flaws, but instead they elevate us to show us some greater value.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I've been thinking about the idea of Lohengrin apparently knowing about Gottfried being turned into the swan. I'm still confused, but this is the best answer I could come up with.

When Lohengrin talks about Gottfried coming back, he describes it as happening in a year after he (Gottfried) completes his service to the grail. He despairs that he will not be with Elsa to _see _Gottfried return. He does not speak as if he himself will or is able to help Gottfried. So perhaps he assumes (maybe not an intelligent assumption) that he has no ability to do anything? But notice when Ortrud gives her final exclamation, she tells Elsa that _Lohengrin_ would have helped Gottfried come back had he not left so soon. Notice that after this, the libretto, before mentioning that Lohengrin prays, says that Lohengrin had heard everything Ortrud said (doesn't help that the libretto with the Kempe recording for some reason does not include this detail! ). Perhaps this detail is important. It could be that Lohengrin has a "lightbulb turn on" once Ortrud tells everyone what she did. Then Lohengrin realizes the nature of the curse. Considering that Ortrud is a witch and that this opera has Christian elements, it can be assumed that the pagan gods that Ortrud gets her power from are demonic forces. Lohengrin would then realize that God would have power over these forces and that he could pray for Gottfried's release.

Also recall _why_ the curse was placed on Gottfried. He had presumably done nothing wrong, but it was purely the evil of Ortrud behind this curse. Thus, it does not make sense for Gottfried to have to take the avenue of serving the grail in order to be freed, as he was innocent. Recall that other characters in Wagner's operas (the Dutchman, Kundry) suffered curses as punishment for some misdeed. Perhaps Lohengrin has the assumption that curses are as punishment and that they must be broken solely through a certain path of redemption. Of course, who knows how safe it is to extrapolate based on other operas.

I'm thinking that Ortrud's declaration gives Lohengrin the realization that he can help and helps make the situation clear so that the problem can be readily addressed.

I would like to add the disclaimer that this does not necessarily make sense from a religious point of view. There is plenty in Wagner's operas that does not make sense though. These are Wagner's operas, and he makes the rules.

But this is simply my opinion, the best I could think of. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Lohengrin's actions appear to be strictly regulated under the Grail's supernatural edicts. He does what he is commanded to do. This, and his grief at losing Elsa, should clear him of any charge of cruelty, and we should assume that he bears no personal responsibility for the peculiar situation of Gottfried. But who or what _is_ responsible? How did Gottfried end up serving the Grail as a swan pulling Lohengrin's boat? As Lohengrin tells it, Elsa needed to be faithful for one year to get her brother back. Who imposed this condition? It seems as if Ortrud's boastful confession caused the waiver of that one-year restriction and allowed Gottfried to return. If Elsa's death is the necessary punishment for her lack of belief, is the freeing of Gottfried a punishment for Ortrud's sin of pride? Is there some sort of conspiracy between the Grail and Ortrud's pagan gods by which Elsa is to be tested, similar to the agreement between Jehovah and Satan designed to try the faithfulness of Job?

I've always felt that _Lohengrin_ is more of a "fairy tale" than Wagner's other operas. It isn't lacking in meaning, but it seems less bound by the need for its elements to transcend the merely fanciful and magical.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Lohengrin's actions appear to be strictly regulated under the Grail's supernatural edicts. He does what he is commanded to do. This, and his grief at losing Elsa, should clear him of any charge of cruelty, and we should assume that he bears no personal responsibility for the peculiar situation of Gottfried. But who or what _is_ responsible? How did Gottfried end up serving the Grail as a swan pulling Lohengrin's boat? As Lohengrin tells it, Elsa needed to be faithful for one year to get her brother back. Who imposed this condition? It seems as if Ortrud's boastful confession caused the waiver of that one-year restriction and allowed Gottfried to return. If Elsa's death is the necessary punishment for her lack of belief, is the freeing of Gottfried a punishment for Ortrud's sin of pride? Is there some sort of conspiracy between the Grail and Ortrud's pagan gods by which Elsa is to be tested, similar to the agreement between Jehovah and Satan designed to try the faithfulness of Job?
> 
> I've always felt that _Lohengrin_ is more of a "fairy tale" than Wagner's other operas. It isn't lacking in meaning, but it seems less bound by the need for its elements to transcend the merely fanciful and magical.


This is an interesting concept. I largely agree, but I don't believe Gottfried's freedom was ever dependent on Elsa's faith. When Lohengrin gives Elsa the horn, sword, and ring, he says that he will be far off when Gottfried comes back and tells her to give said items to Gottfried. This is before Ortrud's exclamation and implies that Gottfried is coming back regardless of Elsa's faith or Lohengrin's presence. Also, in the normally cut second half of "In fernem Land" Lohengrin says that the swan came to them (presumably the Grail knights based on the context) with the boat (how he got the boat I don't know) and that Parsifal put the swan into service for the Grail. He then explains that one who completes a year of service for the grail will have any magic curse removed from them. This background isn't normally presented, but even without it, it can be seen that Gottfried is not freed because of Elsa's faith.

I do like your comparison to Job and the idea of Good and Evil working behind the scenes. Perhaps Lohengrin is given some sort of spiritual communication to pray after Ortrud reveals her deeds. And perhaps the early release of Gottfried is to punish Ortrud. Indeed she falls to the ground shrieking when she sees Gottfried.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

adriesba said:


> I agree with this. The women in Wagner's operas are very often the heroes. They persist to noble goals, and they do so _willingly_. Often the men also die. People dying is just something that happens in opera.
> 
> One thing I love about music, especially with opera, is that through it the composers manage to express some higher principle in spite of themselves. In the case of Wagner, his operas do not bring us down to his level as far as his personal flaws, but instead they elevate us to show us some greater value.


The OP asked about the misogyny, bigotry and lack of compassion in the opera. The obvious answer is that they come from Wagner himself as he wrote both the libretto and the music. I can't see why people are debating that. There is no other source. he put them there. They are a reflection of his ideals


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> The OP asked about the misogyny, bigotry and lack of compassion in the opera. The obvious answer is that they come from Wagner himself as he wrote both the libretto and the music. I can't see why people are debating that. There is no other source. he put them there. They are a reflection of his ideals


I'm not saying the ideas in the opera don't come from Wagner. I'm saying that they aren't even there. There is no misigynism in _Lohengrin_ which is also proved by the fact that Wagner was not a misogynist at least based on what I wrote in my post. Elsa was a redeeming character.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

OK, I'll put in my opinion about the OP.

1. Misogyny

Lohengrin's conditions are not his own. They are imposed on him by his service to the grail. Without knowing this, it looks mysterious, but these are the conditions that are to be obeyed. Lohengrin wants to be with Elsa. He most certainly is full of anxiety that Elsa will ask the questions. Indeed there is much pressure on her and the odd condition placed on her naturally makes her uncomfortable. Lohengrin knows this. Thus, his insistence, though it may look ridiculous, is understandable. That quote brought up in the OP is not relevant. The reason to worry about Elsa's faith is not because she is a woman, but because she is understandably under a lot of pressure. Given the unusual circumstances, things could go wrong easily. This isn't misogyny. It's anxiety about a touchy situation going wrong.

2. Bigotry

I'm not sure that this idea applies. The OP mentions religious tolerance, but that's not the problem. It's not Ortrud's religion that isn't being tolerated (though it probably isn't, considering the setting) as much as it is her actions that aren't tolerated. Ortrud is plotting to takeover Brabant, intentionally deceiving Telramund to falsely accuse Elsa of murder, and turned the duke into a swan. Gottfried is presumably a child. By turning him into a swan, Ortrud is putting his life in danger. He could easily have been killed by a hunter or wild animals. As a swan, he's practically dead, and he likely would have been if he had not come under the authority of the Grail. So basically, Ortrud is endangering a child on top of her other schemes. Ortrud is not the victim here.

3. Lack of compassion.

Lohengrin did not punish Elsa. She brought punishment upon herself. Lohengrin was under command of the Grail to leave if his name, origin, and place from whence he came were asked of him by Elsa. Perhaps one might ask, "Why doesn't he just stay?" Recall that he tells Heinrich that he would have his human strength taken away were he to go to battle while breaking the command of the Grail. This would imply consequences for not following orders. Who knows what having one's human strength (or manly strength as translations may say) taken away entails. Plus, Lohengrin strikes me as man of duty. As for Telramund, Lohengrin did indeed show him compassion by sparing his life in the first act. As for his banishment, I may give you that one. But picture yourself in Lohengrin's position in the third act: you are in your private quarters at night with your newly-wedded wife. Suddenly, five men sneak in on you armed. One of them comes at you with his sword raised. Whether or not that situation calls for mercy is one discussion, but can you really blame Lohengrin? I discussed him leaving without freeing Gottfried above. As I surmise, it's likely that Lohengrin was unaware of being able to break the curse early.

So overall, I don't agree with the OP. Lohengrin, though he still may be human, strikes me as a generally good person. He is a man of duty and is not without compassion. I don't see him as misogynist. He really seemed to love Elsa and wanted to stay with her, but sacred duty prevented that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> I'm not saying the ideas in the opera don't come from Wagner. I'm saying that they aren't even there. There is no misigynism in _Lohengrin_ which is also proved by the fact that Wagner was not a misogynist at least based on what I wrote in my post. Elsa was a redeeming character.


 Or a misogynist? The way he treated women? :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Or a misogynist? The way he treated women? :lol:


I believe the people to ask about Wagner's "misogyny" are Minna Planer, Mathilde Wesendonck, and Cosima Liszt von Bulow.

Got anything for us, or just mouthing off for effect, as usual?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Or a misogynist? The way he treated women? :lol:


Wagner in opera and Wagner in daily life seemed to be somewhat different characters. Tbh, the way Wagner treated women seemed to come from different shortcomings, not misogynism. Wouldn't it make sense that he just loved women too much  ? He really didn't seem to hate them...

I brought up the reasons why I think Lohengrin, actually any of his operas, isn't misogynistic. If you disagree, then show me where I'm wrong.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> Wagner in opera and Wagner in daily life seemed to be somewhat different characters. Tbh, the way Wagner treated women seemed to come from different shortcomings, not misogynism. Wouldn't it make sense that he just loved women _too_ much ? He really didn't seem to hate them...
> 
> I brought up the reasons why I think _Lohengrin_, actually any of his operas, isn't misogynistic. If you disagree, then show me where I'm wrong.


He didn't love women. He was infatuated by them Which is somewhat different. True love is based on self-giving. All Wagner knew was self adoration.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> I'm not saying the ideas in the opera don't come from Wagner. I'm saying that they aren't even there. There is no misigynism in _Lohengrin_ which is also proved by the fact that Wagner was not a misogynist at least based on what I wrote in my post. Elsa was a redeeming character.


All true. but truth matters so little to some people, annaw. They come here to indulge their sad little egos, not to think, inform and be informed. DavidA gets his kicks by throwing wrenches into the spokes of turning wheels. His claim that misogyny is a reflection of Wagner's ideals is a fabrication, and he knows it. But it made you respond, so he got the attention he wanted.

Two-year-olds get attention by throwing tantrums, and some people never lose the knack or the need.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> He didn't love women. He was infatuated by them Which is somewhat different. True love is based on self-giving. All Wagner knew was self adoration.


I repeat: ask the women in his life if self-adoration was "all he knew."

Wagner was NOT a misogynist, and I believe he had a closeness to the "feminine" side of his own nature, exceptional for a man in his culture, which gave him an empathy with women which was part of his appeal to them. It also allowed him to create strong, sympathetic and sometimes heroic female characters who were often more interesting than their male counterparts. I see less respect for women in the operas of Mozart, Verdi and Puccini.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

See people who start Wagner threads!!! I'd shoot the lot of them:lol:

All you end up with is the usual suspect putting his or her unwanted tuppenceworth in.

In the words of the bard "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"

I apologise for starting this thread and I will endeavour to never start another Wagner thread.

Instead I'm going to devote my time to pulling apart Mozart operas.


----------



## zxxyxxz (Apr 14, 2020)

I for one have learnt a lot in this thread even if I might still disagree with other members.

But what is fascinating his how different people view everything. 

But I think most of us can atleast agree that as a work Lohengrin is sublime.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> See people who start Wagner threads!!! I'd shoot the lot of them:lol:
> 
> All you end up with is the usual suspect putting his or her unwanted tuppenceworth in.
> 
> ...


Funny when people ask the question and they get the obvious answer! :lol:


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> See people who start Wagner threads!!! I'd shoot the lot of them:lol:
> 
> All you end up with is the usual suspect putting his or her unwanted tuppenceworth in.
> 
> ...


Start more! I've been watching discussion on this thread and a Wagner thread I started. Going back and forth between the two threads, I was very entertained, lol.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

If we take _Cosi fan tutte_ and _Don Giovanni_ uncritically as reflections of the composer's attitude towards women, the picture is dark indeed. Throw in the racism and sexism of _Zauberflote_ and Mozart is headed for cancellation. I mean, honestly, all that stuff is the least interesting part of a work. Everybody has their faults and prejudices. Puccini had racist views of Native Americans. They show up briefly in _Fanciulla_. Does that mean that that's _all_ the opera is? Does that mean everything needs to be interpreted through the lens of race, sex, oppression etc.? Why would we take the lowest and basest aspect of great works of art, and throw out the noble, elevated aspects of those works? Mozart, Puccini, and Wagner also had very interesting, important, beautiful things to contribute. We should, while acknowledging their humanity and mistakes, as we too are human and probably just as flawed as they were, focus on what they can teach us about a deeper, fuller human nature.

I will reiterate my point from before. Lohengrin's condition that Elsa not ask his name has nothing to do with Lohengrin. It's not a personality trait or a quirk. It doesn't bespeak insecurity or misogyny. It's a symbolic action which drives the plot. That's the point. It's like a parable. The fig tree story isn't a reflection on Jesus' personality. He just randomly gets mad at a tree that wouldn't give him fruit out of season? "Let's talk about the vindictiveness and pettiness of the character of Jesus." That's not the point. The point is that the fig tree symbolizes something, so its inability to bear fruit and Jesus' reaction are also symbolic and should be treated as symbolic events not normal, literal plot events. Trying to analyze Jesus psychology because of the fig tree and determining if he's got a problem with anti-fig bias is totally irrelevant. (This isn't an attempt reintroduce certain previous lines of discussion. It's purely an example of how metaphor/allegory works in certain types of stories.)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The prosecution withdraws its allegations m’lud. No further witnesses. :lol:

But it did ruffle a few feathers, didn’t it?:tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> The prosecution withdraws its allegations m'lud. No further witnesses. :lol:
> 
> *But it did ruffle a few feathers, didn't it?*:tiphat:


Yours I think, Mr Prosecutor! :lol:


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> The prosecution withdraws its allegations m'lud. No further witnesses. :lol:
> 
> But it did ruffle a few feathers, didn't it?:tiphat:


Ah yes it did. But I'm glad that we didn't need to resort to trial by combat.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Yours I think, Mr Prosecutor! :lol:


Not in the slightest. Only one person on this whole forum gets on my wick. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks so.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I've only been half following this thread and meaning to contribute once I have the time. I've now read through the whole thing and will look at the idea that Lohengrin is misogynist (the character of course, not the opera). (I'm not going to consider whether Wagner was or wasn't misogynist as that wasn't the original question posed and if anyone is interested in that, they could start their own thread on that specific subject.)

I find the plot of Lohengrin somewhat unsatisfying. It doesn't feel fair for a good character such as Elsa to suffer so much for having been tricked into betraying Lohengrin. It feels like she is being held to an impossibly high standard, especially when one compares her to Tannhauser who is redeemed at the end of that opera. Is there no redemption for Elsa? Why can't Lohengrin forgive her and the opera end with the blessed union of the couple and a strong and unified Brabant? (Interestingly, Elizabeth _doesn't_ lose faith in her knight and still dies!)

However, the high price that Lohengrin asks for needs to be balanced with the high price he pays in act one of the opera. Shortly after his appearance he sings:

"To stand in combat for a maiden accused of a great crime is why I have been sent. Now let me see whether I am right in coming to her."

This implies that he doesn't know whether she is innocent or not and therefore is placing his life in her hands. (Were she guilty he would die in the combat.) In other words he trusts her with his life, but he can only do that if she will do likewise and so he next turns to her and sings:

"Speak then, Elsa of Brabant: If I am appointed as your champion will you without fear or trepidation entrust yourself to my protection?"

This leads to him asking her to promise that she won't ever ask him his name. She must trust him as much as he is trusting her. He isn't asking her for anything that he hasn't already given her himself. So yes, it seems an impossibly high bar, however, it's one that he himself has reached.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^Interesting take. It would be strange, though, if Lohengrin didn't know that Elsa was innocent, since he is "sent" to save her.

Wagner's attempt to make divine powers human in the figure of Lohengrin does land us in some paradoxes. But haven't all incarnations of divinity done the same? Theologians for two millennia have tied themselves in knots trying to explain how Jesus could be both god and man.

I agree that _Lohengrin _is the most dramatically unsatisfying of Wagner's operas. Good thing it has such beautiful music. Of course, music has rescued some opera plots that make Lohengrin's problems seem trivial.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> Not in the slightest. Only one person on this whole forum gets on my wick. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks so.


Oh these people who ruffle your feathers!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

The Conte said:


> However, the high price that Lohengrin asks for needs to be balanced with the high price he pays in act one of the opera. Shortly after his appearance he sings:
> 
> "To stand in combat for a maiden accused of a great crime is why I have been sent. Now let me see whether I am right in coming to her."
> 
> ...


This is a good analysis! But I agree with the following:



Woodduck said:


> ^^^Interesting take. It would be strange, though, if Lohengrin didn't know that Elsa was innocent, since he is "sent" to save her.


Lohengrin risking himself as her champion, one time, seems quite different from Elsa's risk. He was sent by the grail to do this; he has some backing to trust that he's doing the right thing. She, however, is in a very different position. She basically has no choice but to accept this offer, no matter what ridiculous demands her champion makes. Her pledge to never ask his name or anything about him was made under duress.

And even beyond that, the conditions on Lohengrin were one and done. The conditions on Elsa are on-going. She breaks them quite quickly, but if she hadn't it would have just remained a lingering issue.

Perhaps we are supposed to infer that everything would have been explained after a year when Gottfried was freed by the power of the grail and returned, accompanied by other knights of the grail... but I don't think this is clear. Or perhaps it would be revealed who he was, but then he'd still have to depart (or retire as a grail knight). Of course there doesn't have to be a clear plan for what would happen if Elsa had never asked... because that was never a reasonable expectation.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Everything criticized is true, but, boy, it has some of the most beautiful music of any opera. I must not be a good person to say that.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The prelude is probably the best ever written, and forgives the rest.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Lohengrin doesn't make the demands on Elsa for his own personal reasons . He's been sent to defend her by the brotherhood of the knights of the Holy Grail - in effect he's a kind of secret agent .
These are the same priestly knights of Parsifal , and in the opera , he is the son of Parsifal , as he reveals in the famous grail narrative . 
He is doing this in order to keep the brotherhood as secret as possible - these are his orders .


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Bigotry. I know that religious tolerance and freedom of worship wasn't uppermost in the medieval mind but the treatment of Ortrud hardly shows Christian charity at its best. Non Christian worship predates Christianity by many thousands of years so why should Ortrud not be free to worship the Norse gods that she did. Possibly the use of magic to transform Gottfried was a step too far but Lohengrin's use of "magic" to transform him back is no different.


I've been meaning to come back to this thread and comment on this aspect of the opera. This is a complex question. When critiquing religious intolerance in Lohengrin should we be looking at the medieval period in which the opera is set? Or Wagner's time? Should we consider Wagner's religious views and if so, should we only consider those he held at the time he wrote the libretto and music? Can we judge an artwork of the past according to today's values?

I am going to take this on face value and look at the question of how Ortrud is treated by Lohnegrin and whether we can say that he is intolerant and treats her unfairly. Putting aside the religion of the characters, let's look at their actions. Ortrud tells Telramund that she saw Elsa drown her brother (this is a lie) so that he will challenge her with the expected outcome being that he will become ruler of Brabant (but since Ortrud is able to manipulate him, he would end up just being her puppet). In order to protect the kingdom it makes sense to exile Telramund and Ortrud, they may repent at leisure, but as they are a threat to the kingdom, away from it. (Although Lohengrin doesn't exile them and it is expected that he would kill Telramund in the trial combat, but instead he spares his life, so much for intolerance on his part!)

In act two Elsa has pity on Ortrud in line with Christian charity, but this turns out to be casting pearls before swine. (Note that Ortrud isn't treated unfairly due to her religion, but treated fairly taking into account her evil actions.) Also there is nothing in _Lohengrin's_ treatment of her that I see as being unfair. He turns the swan back into Gottfried and that causes her to fall to the ground. This is an act of kindness on the part of Lohengrin and it only has a negative effect on Ortrud due to her having been the one to cast the spell on Gottfried in the first place. I can't see any bad treatment of Ortrud due to her religion on the part of Lohengrin in the opera. Nor any bad treatment of her by him for any reason. She is the archetype of the 'they had it coming' character, as what happens to her are merely the negative consequences of her evil actions. As already pointed out, Elsa's tolerance of Ortrud to the extent of taking her into the palace turns out to be an error of judgement. I don't think the claim of religious intolerance on Lohengrin's part stands up to any sort of scrutiny.

N.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I've been meaning to come back to this thread and comment on this aspect of the opera. This is a complex question. When critiquing religious intolerance in Lohengrin should we be looking at the medieval period in which the opera is set? Or Wagner's time? Should we consider Wagner's religious views and if so, should we only consider those he held at the time he wrote the libretto and music? Can we judge an artwork of the past according to today's values?
> 
> I am going to take this on face value and look at the question of how Ortrud is treated by Lohnegrin and whether we can say that he is intolerant and treats her unfairly. Putting aside the religion of the characters, let's look at their actions. Ortrud tells Telramund that she saw Elsa drown her brother (this is a lie) so that he will challenge her with the expected outcome being that he will become ruler of Brabant (but since Ortrud is able to manipulate him, he would end up just being her puppet). In order to protect the kingdom it makes sense to exile Telramund and Ortrud, they may repent at leisure, but as they are a threat to the kingdom, away from it. (Although Lohengrin doesn't exile them and it is expected that he would kill Telramund in the trial combat, but instead he spares his life, so much for intolerance on his part!)
> 
> ...


Fair enough!:tiphat:


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

When Wagner wrote Lohengrin he likely had never met any feminists nor read any of the probably very few feminist writings available at that time. He was part of the male dominant culture that prevailed at the time.I grew up in a very racist culture but I was lucky to have been influenced by more enlightened people after I left my home city. We don't exist in vacuums.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> When Wagner wrote Lohengrin he likely had never met any feminists nor read any of the probably very few feminist writings available at that time. He was part of the male dominant culture that prevailed at the time.I grew up in a very racist culture but I was lucky to have been influenced by more enlightened people after I left my home city. We don't exist in vacuums.


I'm still not entirely sure whether he needed enlightenment in this particular respect . Most Wagner characters are sympathetic and I don't think he portrays his female characters as inferior to the male heroes, often it seems to be the opposite. I think Wagner used gender as a more abstract philosophical underlying theme (the idea of redeeming Womanhood, particularly).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> I'm still not entirely sure whether he needed enlightenment in this particular respect . Most Wagner characters are sympathetic and I don't think he portrays his female characters as inferior to the male heroes, often it seems to be the opposite. I think Wagner used gender as a more abstract philosophical underlying theme (the idea of redeeming Womanhood, particularly).


Wagner does seem to have been fairly enlightened and admiring in his depiction of women. Granted the mythical and legendary milieus he depicts in his operas, his female heroines and villains are often forces to reckon with. Senta dares to hold her romantic vision against all the gossipy nellies around her, Elisabeth stands up to her society in defense of Tannhauser, Ortrud yields only to Lohengrin's supernatural powers, Isolde most definitely does not take her disgraceful treatment by men lying down, and Brunnhilde is the independent agent who follows her conscience and ushers out the reign of the gods.

Wagner in person was a homely little guy who wasn't exactly a head-turner, but intelligent women found him quite interesting. My feeling is that part of his charm was that he took women seriously and engaged with them on an assumption of intellectual equality.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> I'm still not entirely sure whether he needed enlightenment in this particular respect . *Most Wagner characters are sympathetic *and I don't think he portrays his female characters as inferior to the male heroes, often it seems to be the opposite. I think Wagner used gender as a more abstract philosophical underlying theme (the idea of redeeming Womanhood, particularly).


Funny! I find them the opposite


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Funny! I find them the opposite


Funny, indeed.

I'll provide two examples of characters, whom I find extremely moving in their essence. Otherwise I'd just go on repeating how Wagner's works show what it means to be a human, without ever showing what I mean by that. This is purely my own personal interpretation not a search for truth, though:

*Klingsor*: I think his a perfect reperesentation of bitterness which results from not being able to live up to our own moral standards as Gurnemanz says: "Powerless to stifle the sin within him, on himself he laid dastardly hands" This is a rawly brutal image of our own powerlessness to live the way we want and even Wagner might have seen himself in Klingsor and in his fight with his inner corruptness. What I feel Wagner wants to say here is that our salvation doesn't come from within ourselves and Kundry's redemption indeed came through Parsifal's compassion. Klingsor's physical deeds were not able to redeem him from it and the resulting bitterness evokes deep sympathy, at least in me:

_Dire distress!
So now the fiend mocks me
that once I strove after holiness?
Dire distress!
The pain of untamed desire,
most horrible, hell-inspired impulse
which I had throttled to deathly silence
does it now laugh aloud and mock
through you, bride of the devil?_

"For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."

*Wotan:* Wotan starts off as brash and self-centred character. His uncalculated actions, done without in-depth consideration about their consequences, which he later deeply regrets makes him very relatable. I think we all have moments when we'd like to turn back time to undo something but we know it's not possible. The whole _Die Walküre_ depicts Wotan's humanity very well. He is entirely convinced his plan is going to work until Fricka shows him why it doesn't. Similarly, we create ourselves utopian pictures to justify our actions. We can be fully convinced that what we're about to do is what is right, until someone comes and destroys both our plans and our utopian illusion of their outcomes. Wotan is a father figure and I think the pain of having to lose, or literally kill, one's child is extremely moving. So is the Act III where Wotan desperately tries to avoid showing any human emotions. When his daughter asks him to rather kill her than continue with his plan, he cannot keep himself together and sings the utterly sublime _Leb wohl_.

Hotter said that his whole career he sang Wotan's Farewell according to what Bruno Walter said to him when he sang it first time in public: "Throughout these twenty minutes, you should be constantly close to tears - not in reality but in your artistic imagination." The deep sympathy, which Wotan's character evokes in me, is the very reason why he's still my favourite Wagner character. The scene is so heavy that last time I watched _Die Walküre_, I wasn't able to get myself to watch the final scene and left it for morning. And I'm a generally rather unemotional Northern European .

I think Wagner's characters are thus thoroughly sympathetic, just because we can relate with them on a very clear human level. Surely, it's highly personal but I just thought I'd use the opportunity to explain what I think is one of Wagner's greatest appeals.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> Funny, indeed.
> 
> I'll provide two examples of characters, whom I find extremely moving in their essence. Otherwise I'd just go on repeating how Wagner's works show what it means to be a human, without ever showing what I mean by that. This is purely my own personal interpretation not a search for truth, though:
> 
> ...


You obviously take sympathetic in a different sense to what I do. 'Sympathetic' means we can have sympathy with them. I cannot. I mean who can have sympathy with a self-centred oaf like Wotan or an evil being like Kingslor? This is where the philosophy becomes twisted. I can find sympathy in tons for Rigoletto under the influence of Verdi's music but none for Wotan. He is just a dolt. But I know one cannot possibly argue with you so leave it at that.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> You obviously take sympathetic in a different sense to what I do. 'Sympathetic' means we can have sympathy with them. I cannot. I mean who can have sympathy with a self-centred oaf like Wotan or an evil being like Kingslor? This is where the philosophy becomes twisted. I can find sympathy in tons for Rigoletto under the influence of Verdi's music but none for Wotan. He is just a dolt. But I know one cannot possibly argue with you so leave it at that.


I understand the word "sympathetic" exactly the same way in this context. It was a purely my own personal view, not even an argument. I fully understand that our emotional response to art is highly personal and thus I think it's a matter that should be discussed not argued.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> I understand the word "sympathetic" exactly the same way in this context. It was a purely my own personal view, not even an argument. I fully understand that our emotional response to art is highly personal and thus I think it's a matter that should be discussed not argued.


DavidA's remarks on Wagner aren't arguments but simply stink bombs. The number of times he's entered discussions of Wagner's works to inform the world that he doesn't like one or another aspect of the composer's work are by now beyond counting. The most appropriate response is probably "Who cares?" or "Can't you find anything better to do?"


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> I understand the word "sympathetic" exactly the same way in this context. It was a purely my own personal view, not even an argument. I fully understand that our emotional response to art is highly personal and thus I think it's a matter that should be discussed not argued.


As I say I cannot sympathise with Wagner's characters no matter how splendid the music appears. Nor the plots either. I know Wagnerites put this down to a certain lack within people like me but I put it down to just a personal response - as you say. People who argue otherwise do not allow for this personal element.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> As I say I cannot sympathise with Wagner's characters no matter how splendid the music appears. Nor the plots either. I know Wagnerites put this down to a certain lack within people like me but I put it down to just a personal response - as you say. People who argue otherwise do not allow for this personal element.


There's nothing to argue about: people simply have differing responses. It's just that "I'm fascinated," "I'm excited," or "I'm moved" leaves more room for productive discussion than "It does nothing for me."


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I find it extraordinary that anyone can claim that they don't feel sympathy for _any_ of Wagner's characters. There are so many of them in so many different situations, it's as absurd as not feeling sympathy for any of Verdi's, Puccini's or Mozart's characters. Perhaps empathy comes with more difficulty to some people rather than others.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I find it extraordinary that anyone can claim that they don't feel sympathy for _any_ of Wagner's characters. There are so many of them in so many different situations, it's as absurd as not feeling sympathy for any of Verdi's, Puccini's or Mozart's characters. Perhaps empathy comes with more difficulty to some people rather than others.
> 
> N.


It's extraordinary that someone can not see that someone cannot find sympathy with Wagner's characters. My wife feels no sympathy whatsoever for any operatic character apart from Fidelio as she doesn't dig the form. Other people don't get opera at all. The problem is we can be in our operatic bubble and not realise how other people think. Claiming it is extraordinary just shows our own lack of empathy and understanding of the rest of the population at large as well as a whole stack of music lovers who don't do opera and cannot get Wagner.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I find it baffling that this thread, (yes, I know I started it,) is still trundling on like some mindless, aimless behemoth. :lol:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> It's extraordinary that someone can not see that someone cannot find sympathy with Wagner's characters. My wife feels no sympathy whatsoever for any operatic character apart from Fidelio as she doesn't dig the form. Other people don't get opera at all. The problem is we can be in our operatic bubble and not realise how other people think. Claiming it is extraordinary just shows our own lack of empathy and understanding of the rest of the population at large as well as a whole stack of music lovers who don't do opera and cannot get Wagner.


I'm not sure we mean the same thing when we say sympathy. It's nothing to do with sympathy for the form, but rather sympathy for the character's predicaments and life situations. Like in life, I find that I sympathise with most people on some level. I find most operatic characters are sympathetic in some way and very few are totally unredeemable.

N.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I'm not sure we mean the same thing when we say sympathy. It's nothing to do with sympathy for the form, but rather sympathy for the character's predicaments and life situations. Like in life, I find that I sympathise with most people on some level. I find most operatic characters are sympathetic in some way and very few are totally unredeemable.
> 
> N.


Maybe not Iago!:lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I'm not sure we mean the same thing when we say sympathy. It's nothing to do with sympathy for the form, but rather sympathy for the character's predicaments and life situations. Like in life, I find that I sympathise with most people on some level. I find most operatic characters are sympathetic in some way and very few are totally unredeemable.
> 
> N.


I think it's because Wagner's characters are wrapped in this Teutonic blanket of unreality. I mean, who can honestly believe in Tristan and Isolde? Or Siegfried and Brunnhilde? Especially when pkayed by generously proportioned and usually middle aged singers? Who can believe in such a preposterous fairy tale as Parsifal where a serial womaniser with a fetish for silks writes about chastity and temperance? Can you take it seriously? I mean, opera is a ridiculous art form anyway, but really? That is for the devotees only, surely!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> Maybe not Iago!:lol:


I have worked with a few peopke who have appeared to be secret disciples of Iago! í ½í¸Š


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Maybe not Iago!:lol:


Exactly! How many of Wagner's characters are thoroughly evil or devoid of any redeeming features? Hagen is totally unsympathetic, of course. Siegfried is far from perfect (like all human beings, so that aspect of his character is entirely realistic), but who can fail to sympathise with him when he dies in Gotterdamerung as he is the victim of Hagen's evil plan and has been tricked into betraying Brunhilde?

The personal circumstances of the librettists or composers has nothing to do with how sympathetic their characters are and their nationality is neither here nor there. Perhaps the characters we sympathise with or can't sympathise with says more about us, than it does about the characters themselves.

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I think it's because Wagner's characters are wrapped in this Teutonic blanket of unreality. I mean, who can honestly believe in Tristan and Isolde? Or Siegfried and Brunnhilde? Especially when pkayed by generously proportioned and usually middle aged singers? Who can believe in such a preposterous fairy tale as Parsifal where a serial womaniser with a fetish for silks writes about chastity and temperance? Can you take it seriously? I mean, opera is a ridiculous art form anyway, but really? That is for the devotees only, surely!


Similarly, one could ask why we take Goethe's "Faust" or Shakespeare's plays seriously? They are regarded as some of the greatest literary pieces ever written despite that they include supernatural elements and all sorts of other unrealistic things and relationships. They may appear ridiculous if you transfer them to our contemporary world or even view them in the context of the world where they were written in but their goal is not to be realistic. We take them seriously because they say something significant about human nature, they can evoke a strong emotional response, and they describe human society. Most of art is a product of someone's imagination but its ability to describe the world through analogues and situations, which reveal something fundamental about human nature, makes it timeless. Orwell's "Animal farm" is absolutely ridiculous, if one insists upon realism but it's an extremely serious book. I doubt Goethe wrote "Faust" for mere entertainment and neither did Wagner write his operas simply for fun.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> Similarly, one could ask why we take Goethe's "Faust" or Shakespeare's plays seriously? They are regarded as some of the greatest literary pieces ever written despite that they include supernatural elements and all sorts of other unrealistic things and relationships. They may appear ridiculous if you transfer them to our contemporary world or even view them in the context of the world where they were written in but their goal is not to be realistic. We take them seriously because they say something significant about human nature, they can evoke a strong emotional response, and they describe human society. Most of art is a product of someone's imagination but its ability to describe the world through analogues and situations, which reveal something fundamental about human nature, makes it timeless. Orwell's "Animal farm" is absolutely ridiculous, if one insists upon realism but it's an extremely serious book. I doubt Goethe wrote "Faust" for mere entertainment and neither did Wagner write his operas simply for fun.


Do you honestly take Shakespeare seriously as history? As drama yes but not as history. Faust? As theology? Laughable! Animal Farm is actually brilliant but of course ridiculous for literalists as it's a parable. Wagner fun? You're joking!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

annaw said:


> Similarly, one could ask why we take Goethe's "Faust" or Shakespeare's plays seriously? They are regarded as some of the greatest literary pieces ever written despite that they include supernatural elements and all sorts of other unrealistic things and relationships. They may appear ridiculous if you transfer them to our contemporary world or even view them in the context of the world where they were written in but their goal is not to be realistic. We take them seriously because they say something significant about human nature, they can evoke a strong emotional response, and they describe human society. Most of art is a product of someone's imagination but its ability to describe the world through analogues and situations, which reveal something fundamental about human nature, makes it timeless. Orwell's "Animal farm" is absolutely ridiculous, if one insists upon realism but it's an extremely serious book. I doubt Goethe wrote "Faust" for mere entertainment and neither did Wagner write his operas simply for fun.


This is all obvious and totally uncontroversial. In other words it goes without saying and I can't imagine there being many (if any) who would disagree with it. So why are we discussing this? (HINT: See post #110)

N.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

The Conte said:


> This is all obvious and totally uncontroversial. In other words it goes without saying and I can't imagine there being many (if any) who would disagree with it. So why are we discussing this? (HINT: See post #110)
> 
> N.


I mean, I think I delivered my main point nevertheless .


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

In response to post #122. 

I cannot speak for Annaw but I can’t see in any of her posts where she says that “she takes Shakespeare seriously as history“ or “Goethe as theology “. What are you saying this for?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> In response to post #122.
> 
> I cannot speak for Annaw but I can't see in any of her posts where she says that "she takes Shakespeare seriously as history" or "Goethe as theology ". What are you saying this for?


You're right, I do not take Shakespeare seriously as history or Goethe as theology. But neither really seemed to aim for such correctness - that was the point I was trying to make.

I talked about their seriousness as art and drama.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Barbebleu said:


> I cannot speak for Annaw but I can't see in any of her posts where she says that "she takes Shakespeare seriously as history" or "Goethe as theology ". What are you saying this for?


Because nothing scores points in an argument like a good non sequitur! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> I mean, I think I delivered my main point nevertheless .


I don';t know what point you are trying to make. All I said is that I don't find Wagner's characters at all sympathetic. That is a fact. I don't. Another I don't find at all sympathetic is Werther. I keep wanting to say, "Get a grip man! Get a life! Get a job!" :lol:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I don';t know what point you are trying to make. All I said is that I don't find Wagner's characters at all sympathetic. That is a fact. I don't. Another I don't find at all sympathetic is Werther. I keep wanting to say, "Get a grip man! Get a life! Get a job!" :lol:


My previous point was to explain why Wagner (or any opera composer) shouldn't be taken without seriousness just because their work seems ridiculous in the real world. They don't necessarily strive to be truthful to our real world but to discover some deeper and fundamental qualities.

The problem with Massenet's Werther seems to be that it's crazy difficult to make the character look similar to Goethe's Werther because the latter didn't have to push his work into a time frame of two hours.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Picasso said, "Art is the lie that makes us see the truth." Very little art is truly realistic; it's virtually a defining quality of art that it alters and distorts to some degree in order to bring some aspect of reality into sharper focus. As far as Wagner is concerned, the degree of realism varies: _Meistersinger_ is generally thought of as more realistic than his other operas because it looks more like real life in its mise en scene and has no supernatural or magical beings or occurrences, but its dramatic situations are no more realistic, and possibly less so, than those of _Tristan und Isolde,_ which has a very simple story that might actually have taken place in the medieval world it depicts (assuming we accept a non-magical interpretation of the love potion, which I do). _Lohengrin_, obviously, has one of Wagner's less realistic plots, surpassed in this respect only by _Parsifal,_ which is the stuff of dreams.

The extent to which the prevalence of fantastic elements in an opera's stories interfere with one's ability to "sympathize" with the characters is certainly an individual matter. But I find the argument here a little confused given the different definitions of "sympathy," "sympathize" and "sympathetic." If "sympathy" implies an emotional response to a character, then sympathy will be created largely by the music and may have little to do whether we "like" the character's behavior. It's hard to sympathize with Giorgio Germont barging in and wrecking his son's and Violetta's happiness, but if the baritone gives us a beautifully sung "Di provenza" we will feel for him. Wotan may have done little to inspire our sympathy for two whole operas, but his music rises to a powerful despair as he opens up to his daughter after Fricka cuts him down, and if we can't feel deeply for him after his glorious farewell to Brunnhilde we surely need heart surgery. For me the mythical element doesn't diminish my sympathy but enhances it: the very fact that Wotan is the king of the gods and not the little league dad next door is what allowed Wagner to compose music of matchless grandeur and nobility, a transcendental summation of the grief of all men who must part with what they love.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

annaw said:


> My previous point was to explain why Wagner (or any opera composer) shouldn't be taken without seriousness just because their work seems ridiculous in the real world. They don't necessarily strive to be truthful to our real world but to discover some deeper and fundamental qualities.
> 
> The problem with Massenet's Werther seems to be that it's crazy difficult to make the character look similar to Goethe's Werther because the latter didn't have to push his work into a time frame of two hours.


If Wagner was striving for some deeper meanings (which he was of course) they were lost on a lot of people apart from the aficionados. D H Lawrence was one such lost soul: " Damn Wagner, and his bellowings at Fate and death. Damn Debussy, and his averted face. I like the Italians who run all on impulse, and don't care about their immortal souls, and don't worry about the ultimate."


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> If Wagner was striving for some deeper meanings (which he was of course) they were lost on a lot of people apart from the aficionados. D H Lawrence was one such lost soul: " Damn Wagner, and his bellowings at Fate and death. Damn Debussy, and his averted face. I like the Italians who run all on impulse, and don't care about their immortal souls, and don't worry about the ultimate."


I wonder how "the Italians"--say, Verdi writing his Requiem--would have felt about this.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> If Wagner was striving for some deeper meanings (which he was of course) they were lost on a lot of people apart from the aficionados. D H Lawrence was one such lost soul: " Damn Wagner, and his bellowings at Fate and death. Damn Debussy, and his averted face. I like the Italians who run all on impulse, and don't care about their immortal souls, and don't worry about the ultimate."


There do seem to be an enormous number of "aficionados", don't there? Quite a few even on this forum.

Why is it interesting that some people don't appreciate some things? I should think it crashingly obvious. I, for example, don't like Mahler's 8th symphony. I find it musically overwrought and bloated and its high-flown text rather adolescent. A goodly number of people "apart from the aficionados" have similar reservations about it.

Which is neither here nor there.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> I wonder how "the Italians"--say, Verdi writing his Requiem--would have felt about this.


Verdi was an agnostic


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Verdi was an agnostic


And agnostics--Italian or otherwise--can "care about their immortal souls" and "worry about the ultimate."


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I, for example, don't like Mahler's 8th symphony. I find it musically overwrought and bloated and its high-flown text rather adolescent. A goodly number of people "apart from the aficionados" have similar reservations about it.


Heretics, all of you!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> And agnostics--Italian or otherwise--can "care about their immortal souls" and "worry about the ultimate."


Not according to D H Lawrence! Wagner can bellow all he likes about fate, for all he cares! :lol:


----------

