Geoff writes: > > If Macbeth aspires to replace the king, is the aspiration only > > emotional? His intellect informs him of potential benefits of his > > succeeding, his emotion spurs him to tragedy. > Kate responds: > > He couldn't do it without both aspects. The aspiration is both emotional and > intellectual. Think a little about how you want things. > As a playwright, I'm an elitist to this extent: I don't want to spend my time with slackers, no-hope losers, those whose only concern is where the next fix, beer, or screw will come from. I don't want to do this when I GO to theater, and, since I spend a lot more time with characters I'm writing, I sure don't want to do this as I work on a play. Similarly I find limited interest in writing about great performers whose gift allows them to succeed without ever "thinking".
I'm content to see other writers do that, and to find an audience. I WANT writers to be different. One of the results is that, in always having characters who are "high-achievers", I write roles that have the man or woman at more than one point saying something "intellectual". Meantime, however, I hate talking about "themes". It tends to suggest the story is merely a useful ladder leading up to the real value: a non-fiction lesson. But for me the "real value" of a play or novel or movie lies in the multi-rung ladder itself, the story and its effects at each rung, just as it does in an opera or symphony. I get downright uncivil with people who would claim there is a "the meaning of" HAMLET or GATSBY or even PRIDE AND PREJUDICE or TWELFTH NIGHT, and that it can be expressed in one sentence. Still, one friendly reader has told me that a big reason my plays have such visceral effects on him is the "themes". I don't intend this, so I've pressed him, asking if he doesn't find a scene moving, a character's predicament seizing. Oh, yes-yes, he will insist kindly, but I also like that they give me something to think about. I'm aware that his reaction implies nothing about whether anyone else will find the plays worthy. But I believe he's not alone in getting different "kinds" of "pleasure" from what he reads or sees. Michael Frayn's COPENHAGEN is immensely "cerebral". I myself didn't like it because I found it without emotion or humor. My friend loved it. I love Frayn's farce, NOISES OFF. So does my friend. On the other hand, he prefers TWELFTH NIGHT to HAMLET or LEAR or MACBETH. I find no genrealization behind all this except that we contemplators vary immensely. In particular -- pertinent to this moment on thread -- it implies there are people who at least some of the time want something that appeals to their intellect. And yet none of them say it's because they find such appeals "beautiful". But they do find them "interesting". I find the Monty Hall problem intensely interesting, but I can't say I'd ever find "beauty" in it. So the mere fact that something gives me pleasure, even within a "work of art", does not depend on "beauty" at all. All of Michael's dictionary defintions are defective -- but that's fodder for another posting. ************** One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
