Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 +MULTI+2.11; site stc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!pete
From: pete@stc.UUCP (Peter Kendell)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re:  critics
Message-ID: <584@stc-b.stc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 10:41:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: stc-b.584
Posted: Mon Sep 16 10:41:31 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 01:40:12 EDT
References: <3633@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: pete@stc.UUCP (Peter Kendell)
Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB.
Lines: 72

Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:
Xpath: stc stc-b stc-a

In article <3633@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> chen@mitre-gateway.arpa writes:

>Shakespeare, for example, in his time was a very popular playwright,
>and not because his plays were thought to be that good or profound.
>(In fact, a lot of people looked down him and his work.)  He was
>well liked because his plays were FUN.  There were sexual innuendos,
>puns galore, and slapstick humor throughout all his plays.  They
>just don't appear that obvious to us now, because we don't know
>Elizabethan slang.

        E.g. "country matters" in Hamlet.

        Having seen several Shakespeare performances by the Royal
        Shakespeare Company in London and Stratford, and also by
        the National Theatre in London over the last year, all I
        can say is that Shakespeare transcends all the arguments
        about 'Art' V. 'Entertainment'.

        Seeing a London audience literally creasing itself laughing
        at "Love's Labours Lost" last month sent shivers up and
        down my spine (I was laughing too!!). I mean, these were
        400 (or so) year old lines that not only meant something
        but were also funny. Now, *that* is an achievement.

        "Richard III" last year in Stratford was possibly the most
        extraordinary play I have ever seen. Etc, etc.

        Now here's my 2p's worth in the Great Debate:

        Surely, a great and lasting work is one that works on many
        different levels.

        The upper level may be a simple story, song or farce; easily
        assimilated. But when you've finished it you think - "Wait.
        I think there was more to that than first appears." So you
        read, listen or look again. And you find more. And you find
        that every time you go back to it you find something new, or
        a different way of looking at it. Or you find that your way
        of looking at the world has changed.

        This can't happen if the work is not accessible at the upper
        level. In fact, many may not want to go any further or even
        suspect that there is further to go, and yet it will still
        have been satisfying for them. Some may take a short-cut
        through the upper levels and go straight to the deeper
        meaning. If there is nothing below the upper, visible, level,
        then what you have may be entertainment, but it's not art.

        Naming some examples of what I mean is self-defeating;
        everyone has had this sort of experience. A typical example
        is an exciting adventure story that turns out to be an
        allegory *AS WELL*. An allegory by itself is unutterably
        tedious.

        Quality and craftsmanship ARE absolutes - a well-made table
        is one that is good for putting things on, is visually
        satisfying, and carries on being both these things. A
        badly-made table looks trashy and falls apart in use.
        Similar criteria apply to any man-made thing, be it a table,
        your rewrite of 'ls' or a SF (or other) novel.

        Now go and take a 5 minute break,
-- 
	Peter Kendell 

	...mcvax!ukc!stc!pete

	'Give it all you can,
	 It's much better than,
	 The prefabricated concrete coal bunker!'

	Who ? When? Answers on a postcard or stuck-down envelope.