And fascinating about Diderot's "role" in the invention of acting.
The dialogue resonted with my reading of Simon Critchley's book about Greek tragedy as the collision of different views of justice, in violent scenes of moral ambiguity--a condition of "disappointed or decayed" democracy which Plato could not abide. (Presumably the scribes and Pharisees would have agreed.)
I like Critchley's argument that Athenian drama was a space in which all the citizens were actors, creating the glue of democracy and the spectacle of politics looking at itself. No pettifogging attempts at universalism can "fix" it.
More of these not-exactly-Platonic dialogues, please!
You've sold me on Critchley's book, as did its 59 engaging chapter titles ("Mechanical Prebuttal," "Philosophy as Affect Regulation," "Political Forms and Demonic Excess"). Critchley's argument that all the citizens are actors sounds much like Sennett's positive view of the theatrum mundi, arguing that in societies with a healthy public life (his 18th-century Paris and London), their street life and theater are much alike. Besides, Cort wants a Greek chorus in my next dialogue, something I don't think even Plato mastered, so I'd better read up!
Fun. Great exercise. Hupocretes (sp?) vs hypocrites. Hypercritical vs double dealing. You even managed to get in Sennett. Next time – and I certainly hope there will be a next time – I will look for the chorus, my favorite actor in Greek drama, to have a role.
Three things stand out: the redefinition of hypocrisy as interpretation rather than duplicity, the link between the fourth wall and modern suspicion of interior life, and the striking use of Meursault as a communal voice. I especially appreciate the first—it sharpens the moral argument without moralizing. - Thanks, of course, for the acknowledgement of “Saving Appearances.” - Intriguing work here, again, Bryce!
William, thank you for your comment and your inspiration. I found so much juice left over after reading "Saving Appearances"—so much, "Yes, and . . ."—that I've been like the Energizer Bunny at this dialogue ever since.
I wonder how much Preuss saw how generative, from the standpoint of public life, his idea of having a chorus play Meursault is. The interview doesn't suggest a lot in that regard. But I wish some theater company, like my crew here, would try doing something like it today.
What a lark this post must have been to create!
And fascinating about Diderot's "role" in the invention of acting.
The dialogue resonted with my reading of Simon Critchley's book about Greek tragedy as the collision of different views of justice, in violent scenes of moral ambiguity--a condition of "disappointed or decayed" democracy which Plato could not abide. (Presumably the scribes and Pharisees would have agreed.)
I like Critchley's argument that Athenian drama was a space in which all the citizens were actors, creating the glue of democracy and the spectacle of politics looking at itself. No pettifogging attempts at universalism can "fix" it.
More of these not-exactly-Platonic dialogues, please!
You've sold me on Critchley's book, as did its 59 engaging chapter titles ("Mechanical Prebuttal," "Philosophy as Affect Regulation," "Political Forms and Demonic Excess"). Critchley's argument that all the citizens are actors sounds much like Sennett's positive view of the theatrum mundi, arguing that in societies with a healthy public life (his 18th-century Paris and London), their street life and theater are much alike. Besides, Cort wants a Greek chorus in my next dialogue, something I don't think even Plato mastered, so I'd better read up!
Fun. Great exercise. Hupocretes (sp?) vs hypocrites. Hypercritical vs double dealing. You even managed to get in Sennett. Next time – and I certainly hope there will be a next time – I will look for the chorus, my favorite actor in Greek drama, to have a role.
Thanks! Yeah, totally into Sennett again right now. And fun homework! I gotta get up on the Greek chorus to do you proud.
Three things stand out: the redefinition of hypocrisy as interpretation rather than duplicity, the link between the fourth wall and modern suspicion of interior life, and the striking use of Meursault as a communal voice. I especially appreciate the first—it sharpens the moral argument without moralizing. - Thanks, of course, for the acknowledgement of “Saving Appearances.” - Intriguing work here, again, Bryce!
William, thank you for your comment and your inspiration. I found so much juice left over after reading "Saving Appearances"—so much, "Yes, and . . ."—that I've been like the Energizer Bunny at this dialogue ever since.
I wonder how much Preuss saw how generative, from the standpoint of public life, his idea of having a chorus play Meursault is. The interview doesn't suggest a lot in that regard. But I wish some theater company, like my crew here, would try doing something like it today.
Bryce: You are constitutionally incapable of being uninteresting. !!