Re: The new, improved Sophie's Choice...

I think I may pick up that book sometime, John. But you should note
that the progression I envisioned went beyond just the stage you
describe in this response. On one level -- following the logic of my
prior e-mail -- we can compare "Citizen Kane" with "Weekend at
Bernie's." Citizen Kane confronts us with the world we live in on a
number of different levels, and it is a confrontation. WB just
represents the world as given to provide a platform for its silly, dark
humor. They do just about every shtick possible that two guys can with
a dead body. So the "pleasure" (and I agree this word needs to be
developed a lot more) we get from CK is of a much different kind than
the pleasure we get from WB, and perhaps more "important" to us.

I think the problem comes when we engage in this process without
considering that all these different pleasures have their place, and
then start disparaging works that don't appeal to our "higher" impulses.
We forget about the Duck Soup moments, so to speak.

Jim

Omlor@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> You write:
>
> "But once I've done that I've set up a hierarchy, intentionally or
> not."
>
> Yes, and as I've said, we all do this, we all make these judgments all
> the time. And in the very specific terms (pleasure giving half-hours
> of specific episodes of South Park) you are discussing, I have no real
> problem with such discussions (although here "pleasure" remains to be
> worked on as a term). As I've now said too many times, the problems
> arise when the discussions take place in more vague and general terms,
> comparing such different projects as *Citizen Kane* and *Weekend and
> Bernie's* and then arguing in favor of some "primary greater worth"
> beyond our momentary rankings of pleasure or art or whatever the
> criteria of the day might happen to be and outside of our own
> subjective conclusions. It's then that I begin to wonder what's
> behind the desire not only to create such competitions but then to
> insist on the "primary" nature of the conclusions -- and for and to whom?
>
> But you and I agree on this, I think.
>
> And I have no problem, personally, not setting up such battles in such
> terms. In fact, I've never really found such things interesting and
> have always been bored by "criticism" (and other writing) that
> participates in such a process and such assertions.
>
> I've heard Robbie's arguments, or those very similar to them, for many
> years now and I've never found them the least bit convincing.
>
> Of course, I'm sure he's heard mine for years and not found mine the
> least bit convincing either.
>
> And that's as it should be, perhaps. In fact, that's how it must be, I
> suspect. I'm not at all surprised, obviously.
>
> And, of course, that's why the rest of the discussion between us
> finally became both circular and silly.
>
> Thanks for the thoughts,
>
> --John
>
> PS: Barbara Herrnstein Smith's book, *Contingencies of Value*, really
> does do the work on this.
>
>
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Dec 19 14:03:25 2003