{ Wednesday, February 4, 2004 }
I reproduce here the two passages that Anthony Lane provides at the outset of his review of Joe Eszterhas's Hollywood Animal in this week's New Yorker to illustrate the different ways Henry James and Eszterhas try to "reach the people", because it amused me:
Somewhat constipated? And then we have the anal-expulsive:
"It's gonna have a fuck-'em-if-they-can't-take-a-joke ending," Marty said.
Frank looked blank, the creative assistants nodded.
It's gonna have great word of mouth on it," Marty said. "Fuck the critics, it'll be an audience picture."
More blankness, more nods
Marty's litany went on: Nastier than In Cold Blood, lots of sex, scare-'em-pissless moments...We were gonna scare the living shit out of all those assholes out there.
"What assholes?" I said.
"The audience," Marty said.
There is something really beautiful here, a distinction drawn, like the "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show" anti-Dean ad that was in the news a couple weeks ago. One of my Vassar professors, Paul Russell, said that drawing distinctions and remarking differences is a worthier endeavor than finding similaritiesl, and I thought of that remark recently as I was reading Forthcoming by Jalal Toufic. In it there is a section about the famous lines from The Merchant of Venice where Shylock says, "If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" Of this passage, Toufic writes:
LINK | 4:46 PM | TB
Not to knock distinction, which I would agree is an important intellectual endeavor, but I find myself of late questioning all these ethics of difference, all this treating of others as incomprehensibly outside of the self. I'm not sure that this humanistic universalizing is intrinsically vengeful. One of the reasons I don't hurt other people is because I sympathize with the possibility of their pain. One of the reasons I respect their bodily integrity is because I don't want anyone messing with mine. Is my sympathy exact? No, of course not--I'm always going to mess up in projecting myself onto others. But the risks in the other direction--thinking of them as unthinkable--are great as well. Drawing distinctions or establishing similarities both seem to tend towards solipsism. Perhaps the decisive factor is whether we're masochistic solipsists or not.
Um, if that all isn't gibberish itself.
Miki | February 5, 2004 6:04 PMI don't read The Merchant of Venice in that way. Not "You and I are similar, so I'll do onto you what you did onto me", but rather "You and I are similar, so I'll seek revenge just as you would in my place". I think it was taken for granted in Shakespearean times that revenge is a proper and noble thing. The question for Hamlet is whether he has the strength to avenge his father, not whether it is morally right to do so. We tend to adopt a more ambivalent position today, but I don't see how it relates to similarity or difference.
(You don't know me, but I've been enjoying your site for some time. Hope you don't mind me posting.)
I don't know what you're talking about. I consider myself a capable person, but I can't figure out if any of you are saying anything. I thinks its fair to say your reading of Hamlet, not just Hamlet, perhaps the most famous lines in Western Literature, is a bit lacking. But the real point is, I can't figure if caterina is saying anything. I really can't. Can someone help? Is she trying to make a point? Is she saying anything? Are any of you saying anything?
As for your take on ethics and solipism, I think your questionable take on what qualifies as distinctions is the problem there, not the act of making distinctions. Perhaps some eastern philosophy (Confucius, Chuang-Tzu) would open your eyes.
Greg | February 11, 2004 6:40 PM{ Post a comment }
Gibberish. Sorry, but it just sounds like gibberish to me.
Lamar | February 5, 2004 9:46 AM