|
Bittersweet at the Barnes
In “The new bittersweet Barnes,” Steve Cohen writes, “Albert Barnes and his legacy may never rest in peace here, but there’s reason to hope that his formidable collection will.” A very fair and deftly taken juxtaposition. Thanks for it.
Dan Larkin
Merion Station, Pa.
May 24, 2012
Steve Cohen writes, “Our 40-minute drive to get to Merion was no great handicap.” What if you don’t have a car?
Joseph Glantz
Levittown, Pa.
May 26, 2012
Steve Cohen replies: And how do you get to 21st and the Parkway if you don’t have a car? That’s about an eight-block walk from the nearest subway stop. OK for youngsters but daunting for seniors and anyone with a disability.
Joseph Glantz replies: Well – it would be an interesting survey question for BSR readers: Everything else being equal, would you prefer a 10-15 minute walk or a three-minute cab ride (from Suburban Station) down perhaps the most beautiful street in America or the 40-minute ride to Merion? For good measure, let’s confine the question to “seniors” and those who are disabled?
Steve Cohen replies: A further comment, prompted in part by the recent announcement of the Philadelphia Award:
I’m happy with the way the collection appears in its new location. But, really, can’t some of the boosters stop praising themselves and giving medals for “discovering” and “providing access” to something that was there all along and was seen by those who cared to make a small effort? The triumphant boasting that Philadelphia has rescued something from the clutches of Merion is unseemly.
Why quibble about how difficult it was, or is, to get to either location? Giverny, after all, is 50 miles from Paris and I’ve never heard a Frenchman complain that Monet’s home is inaccessible.
I just thought it worth mentioning that plenty of buses go right by the new location. Routes 32, 33 and 38 would take you there from just by City Hall.
As someone without a car, I find it much easier to get to the Barnes now.
Robert Fennell
South Philadelphia
May 30, 2012
Sweeping generalizations
Re “You too can play this game: The Bissinger-Malcolm sweepstakes,” by Dan Rottenberg (Editor’s Notebook)—
When I saw the Buzz Bissinger quote in the New York Times review, my first thought was “I wonder what Dan Rottenberg thinks about that?” Now that I know, I am sure I speak for defamed-by-over-generalization writers everywhere when I commend you for springing to our defense.
Bob Levin
Berkeley, Calif.
May 16, 2012
I made this up many years ago, and was so proud of myself, of my general sweepiness and turned-in-on-myself-wrongheadedness that if anyone else invented it, please don’t tell me, as it’s really the height of my writing career:
“There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think that there are two kinds of people in the world, and those of us who know better.”
Kile Smith
Fox Chase/ Philadelphia
May 16, 2012
Editor’s comment: Actually, the late humorist Robert Benchley said something very similar: “There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don’t.”
Kile Smith replies: You mean he’s allowed to take credit for it just because he thought of it first? The originality of the ending of mine does not improve it; Benchley wins. He’s a true aphorist, although I think there’s a plant spray for that. Your article, by the way, was right on, although I didn’t read the book prompting your response. I have read Benchley, however, so I am defenseless.
I’ve been under the misapprehension for years, and have quoted him this way in speeches and articles, that Benchley actually wrote, “The world is divided into two types of people; those who divide the world into two types of people and those who do not.”
W. David Woods
Society Hill/ Philadelphia
May 23, 2012
I can tell you have not read my book. So how could you write about it? What I write about myself is about 25 to 30% of the book. The rest is about my son and my relationship to him. So you have no idea what the book is about.
You rely on a review that concentrates on my own personal role in the book. Are you that sloppy? Obviously you are. And also that vindictive. You actually seem happy about it. As for ungrammatical I will trust my editor and copyeditor.
As for what I said about journalists, it is true. Except for quasi-journalists such as yourself whose whole role is to ingratiate.
Just sad. I guess that is what happens to quasi-writers who lost any relevance long ago if you ever had any. I think you may have but that was long before I got to Philadelphia. Just one failed venture after another.
Right I am!
Buzz Bissinger
Chestnut Hill/ Philadelphia
May 16, 2012
Editor’s comment: Please stop beating around the bush and answer forthrightly: Are you now, or have you ever been, a practitioner of sweeping generalizations? And where do you stand on subtlety and nuance— pro or con?
Boston Marriage
Marshall Ledger’s review of David Mamet’s Boston Marriage was wonderful and realistic. My friend and I both like Mamet but were bored during most of the play. I suppose he was trying to write a “play of manners.” We are subscribers to 1812 Productions, but we could have done without this one.
Dorothy Tomassini
Center City/ Philadelphia
May 17, 2012
Confessions of a go-go dancer
“Confessions of an ex-go-go dancer,” by Merilyn Jackson, was just as good as watching Gypsy and Valley of the Dolls. Go-go on, Merilyn.
Lewis Whittington
Center City, Philadelphia
May 6, 2012
As always, Merilyn takes us to the moment that is happening. She has a great gift of telling it as it is and involving the reader completely.
Geny Dignac
Phoenix, Ariz.
May 9, 2012
A tough and funny piece that cuts through all the hand wringing that usually accompanies articles on erotic dancing. This is the reality, folks.
Jack DeWitt
Glenside, Pa.
May 9, 2012
Yay!! That’s the Merilyn Jackson I know and love. Smart, funny, tough. A superb writer and a great cook! Brava!
Maralyn Lois Polak
Center City/ Philadelphia
May 22, 2012
Cabin in the Woods
Re Jake Blumgart’s review of The Cabin in the Woods—
I think we have to recognize that a sea change has overtaken the horror movie genre. Whereas the classic horror films of the period 1919-1945 were set in a world of poetic (or pinch-penny, depending upon the studio) fantasy, the new horror is all about reality: Werewolves don’t torture and kill people. Other people torture and kill people.
I’m old enough now to deplore this trend. If I were 20, I might feel differently. At least the revitalized Hammer Films is trying to nudge things back in the other direction. But I fear there is great divide here. Youth can’t make me want to watch Hostel, and I can’t make youth appreciate White Zombie.
Andrew Mangravite
Yeadon, Pa.
May 9, 2012
Historical injustice
Re “Who invented the telegraph?” by Dan Rottenberg (Editor’s Notebook)—
Wikipedia (for what it’s worth) says Joseph Henry’s work on the electromagnetic relay was the basis of the electrical telegraph, invented by Samuel Morse and Charles Wheatstone separately.
Hmm— no mention of Hayyim Selig Slonimski.
Wikipedia does mention Slonimiski (Slonimiksy) elsewhere— as the inventor in 1856 of an electrochemical device for sending quadruple telegrams. The system of multiple telegraphy perfected by Lord Kelvin in 1858 was based on Slonimski’s discovery.
Our own Benjamin Franklin found an easy answer to notoriety. He made his discovery of the lightning rod public to the world— for free. Franklin also believed in letting others have the credit— so I vote for Franklin as the source of your “credit” quote. Of course Franklin may have believed in giving others credit because he had achieved his fame or because he wasn’t beyond using the material of others too.
Franklin once wrote of Thomas Leeds, a rival in the Almanac business, that Mr. Leeds was going to die later that year. When Mr. Leeds didn’t die, he wrote in his Almanac all sorts of nasty things about Franklin. Franklin responded by saying he knew the real Mr. Leeds; that the real Mr. Leeds would never say nasty things and this only proved that the real Mr. Leeds did die and that an imposter was running the other Almanac.
Years later Mr. Leeds did die and Franklin said, “I knew it all along.”
It was a wonderful story— the back and forth sold plenty of Almanacs for both publishers. I should mention I learned of this story from H.W. Brand’s book on Franklin: The First American.
Joseph Glantz
Levittown, Pa.
May 10, 2012
Editor’s comment: Is Wikipedia the only research resource available in Levittown?
Sculptor’s complaint
I’m the bronze sculptor exhibiting this month at Artists’ House gallery. Andrew Mangravite, in his review, made a few errors.
My work is distributed throughout the gallery and can be found in every room. It does not “infiltrate” somebody else’s front space. The only “animal studies” and “figure studies” I am showing are preparatory drawings for particular sculptures, although your reviewer failed to mention that there are drawings on exhibit at all.
The rest of my work are bronze sculptures intended to emotionally reach the viewer. While I don’t expect that kind of a response from everyone, the fact remains that all of my pieces on exhibit, figures as well as animals, have titles and none of those titles read “study of.”
Kindly correct these inaccuracies.
Julia Levitina
South Philadelphia
May 9, 2012
Andrew Mangravite replies: I think that in grousing over the fact that I overlooked her drawing— I didn’t, I just didn’t think that it was especially noteworthy— she ignored the fact that I likened her Heraclitus piece to a sculpture by Rodin. Perhaps she receives compliments like that every day, so mine really didn’t impress her.
Hollinger’s Ghost Writer
Re Jane Biberman’s review of Michael Hollinger’s The Ghost-Writer, at the Arden (September 2010)—
I’ve just attended a fine matineé performance of this amazing play at the Merrimack Repertory Theatre in Lowell, Mass., and was impressed by the creative writing, the amazing performance and the very high standard of production in what was a most enjoyable afternoon! Thanks for calling it to my attention.
William H Davis
Nashua, N.H.
May 12, 2012
Poe on ecstasy
Re “Edgar Allan Poe: Ecstasy junkie,” by Steve Antinoff (January 2009)—
It’s not even a real unity anyway; it’s a quantifiable expansion of self that is only satisfying in contrast to the normal limitations of self. If it lasted forever it would get boring, just as isolated consciousness has certain boundaries and a certain degree of space, which becomes boring.
Gordon Blair
Glasgow, Scotland
May 13, 2012
Editor’s comment: We know what Poe was smoking. What about you?
Jets, Sharks, Jews and ‘Niggers’
Re “Of ‘Jews’ and ‘Niggers’ ” (Editor’s Notebook)—
The Gospel of John may have been written as late as 115 C.E., by which time a Christian redactor would hardly have considered himself Jewish. John is certainly, as Harold Bloom points out, at war with Jewish tradition in it, and he even tries to rewrite Genesis.
"Jew," as an ethnic descriptor and as an ethnic slur, can be discriminated only by context, and John’s use of the word is hardly neutral. It is otherwise with “Nigger” and “Negro,” the former a pejorative of the latter. “Yid” and “Jew” might be comparable for Jews.
I regret the loss of “Negro.” The word was full of affirmation and pride when Martin Luther King used it, and the hyphenations “Afro-American” and “African-American” are parlor-polite ways of not saying “black.” This does not seem to me a gain.
Robert Zaller
Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
May 4, 2012
There’s just one flaw in Dan Rottenberg’s thesis. If we assume that John the Evangelist thought of himself as a Jew who was writing for other Jews, then his choice of that word was weak. It was the least-specific way of describing the people who were present around the time of the Crucifixion.
Rather, by the time that the Gospel was written, its author thought of himself as separate, as Robert Zaller pointed out (above). The Evangelist (or whoever actually wrote John’s Gospel) was resentful that many of his countrymen refused to accept Jesus’s divinity.
He branded them, pejoratively, as “Jews,” writing with resentment against those who failed to embrace his new theology. He used the word with anger against them, not to generate sympathy, as Hammerstein did when describing slaves as “Niggers.”
I’d like to turn the conversation back to the parts of that Gospel that humanize Jesus and that appealed to Bach. And I’d like to recognize that Bach was a human being, not a saint, when he failed to discern the malice in the word which he set to music.
Steve Cohen
King of Prussia, Pa.
May 6, 2012
I liked your “Nigger/Jew” piece.We ought to be able to say/write anything we want. Its the context that matters. When my kids were little and asked me about “dirty” words, I told them their were no dirty words, just dirty intentions.
Merilyn Jackson
South Philadelphia
May 2, 2012
I was wondering why “Nigger” was equated to “Jew” in your discussion, rather than, say, “kike” or “sheeny.” As I reflected, I came to the conclusion that, consistently throughout history, “Jew” could be applied as a term of denigration, whereas, depending on the period in question, “Negro” or “black” or, I imagine “Afro-American” could not.
(It also seems that there is no word in the English language for the children of Abraham sufficiently steeped in neutrality that it could not, with some intonation or context, be offensive. I am not sure what to make of this, but it does appear to be the case. I await education from your readership.)
You seemed to suggest that if the Sharks in West Side Story were a white ethnic group, our response would be different. Is that right?
Bob Levin
Berkeley, Calif.
May 2, 2012
Editor’s comment: I was referring to the Jets (who were portrayed as a generic white gang), not the Sharks (who were portrayed specifically as Puerto Ricans). My point being: If you say, “The whole world is crazy” or “Everybody killed Christ,” you may be correct, but no one will take offense and no one will give it much thought. But if you say “The Irish are crazy” or “The Jews killed Christ,” you may be mistaken, but at least you’ll arouse enough of a response to provoke a dialogue that might generate some understanding.
Martha Marcy and cults
Re “The not-so-awful truth about cults”—
Thank you, Judy Weightman, for a spot-on review, illuminating the tension between cults and their surrounding communities as few do.
Right now the “dance” is under way in a little spat between the student editors of the Daily Pennsylvanian and the graduating students of Penn who are Unificationists.
Doug Burton
University City/ Philadelphia
May 2, 2012
L’Elisir d’Amore
Thanks for Steve Cohen’s review of L’Elisir d’Amore by the Academy of Vocal Arts.
I did want to mention that the Italian tricolore was represented in the final scene (with the “CLN” liberation symbol sewn on it). It was what Belcore was tied up in. You are quite right that it was the Italian partisans who captured Mussolini.
Nicholas Muni
Center City/ Philadelphia
May 2, 2012
Editor’s note: The writer directed the AVA’s production of L’Elisir d’Amore.
Rattle, the Orchestra and death
Re Victor Schermer’s Philadelphia Orchestra review (“Rattle confronts the Grim Reaper”)—
Thank you. You not only heard the same concert I did but you know what you’re talking about.
Leslie Kandell
New York
May 2, 2012
Editor’s note: The writer is a long-time music and dance critic for the New York Times and other publications,
Bach, St. John and anti-Semitism
Re “Bach, Christians and anti-Semitism”—
I agree with much of what Kile Smith says so articulately, though I would add that other considerations come into play in modern performances or readings of the St. John Passion.
I would prefer to characterize the gospel of John as “one of the canonical interpretations of what happened” rather than a “report of what happened,” since there are irreconcilable conflicts between all four of the gospels, all written years after the events themselves.
More important, while a strong argument can be made that Bach’s St. John Passion wasn’t intended to express or promote anti-Semitism, and that the Gospel itself was probably written by Jews for a primarily Jewish audience, words can take on different connotations over time. When those connotations are so strong as to risk obscuring and distorting the intent of the original creators, I think it’s reasonable for performers to modify them in an attempt to avoid that misinterpretation on a conscious or unconscious level.
In this case, that can easily be done in modern performances by changing the word “Jews” to “people” in English or ”Juden” to ”Leute” in German in passages where the author’s clear intention is to refer to “all those present.” I am accustomed to doing this in performances of the Bach or Schutz settings of the passions, whether in liturgical or concert contexts, and I know others have made this modification as well.
I would argue strongly against thinking of such adaptations as somehow morally necessary (i.e., “politically correct"), made only to avoid charges of anti-Semitism. Such attempts to avoid guilt are really more attempts to avoid our own shared responsibility, I think. Rather, this can be simply respected as a legitimate way to acknowledge how unintended associations can become irrevocably attached to language over time.
At the core of modern anti-Semitism has been the outrageous charge of “Christ-killers.” Given the horrific consequences of that deeply mistaken belief, it’s good to avoid putting Bach or modern performers in the unintended position of rubbing salt into that especially pernicious wound when telling the story of Christ’s passion and death.
Thomas Lloyd
Havertown, Pa.
April 24, 2012
Editor’s note: The writer is director of choral and vocal studies at Haverford College.
Kile Smith replies: Changing the sung text is a solution some have used to address the very real power of words that you’ve described; leaving them unchanged, but having a pre-concert discussion, or some type of explanation, is another. Different people coming to different solutions so that the work may continue to live, as you have done, is admirable.
Thomas Lloyd replies: While generally I don’t think it’s a good idea to change even small details of original texts, I think the texts referring to the Jews in the Passions are a special case, primarily because of the Holocaust, and the way those specific texts were used to justify it. If Bach didn’t intend to single out Jews for criticism but it becomes difficult for modern ears to hear those words without being reminded of their use otherwise, how is Bach’s original intention best served?
Kile Smith’s last point (above) is perhaps the most important: Bach’s highlighting the ongoing significance of the events of the original Passion, so that the blame for those events is not merely or even primarily historical ("their" fault, whether “they” were Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, the Roman soldiers, or some members of the crowd), but rather universally human-- ontological, if you will.
Bach’s interpretive libretto and score remind us of orthodox Christian theology. The Nicene Creed says: “He also was crucified for us...” and thus affixes the blame squarely on the realm of the human, rather than the individual, or even the ethnic.
Fred Putnam
Hatfield, Pa.
May 4, 2012
Editor’s comment: To read my two cents’ worth, click here.
Editor’s note: The dialogue between Kile Smith and Thomas Lloyd continues here.
Footnotes about Joseph Cedar’s Footnote
Re AJ Sabatini’s review of Joseph Cedar’s Footnote—
I’m currently slogging through an art book that puts notes at the back of the book, together with a separate bibliography for sources of quotations only minimally documented in the notes. Plate numbers of course don’t correspond with page numbers, so an inadequate index and list of illustrations lead to mazes of tracking information. The volume is large and unwieldy.
This is typical of scholarly art publications now. Literary scholarship too often hides documentation at the back of the book, sometimes even without indication in the running text to what is elsewhere identified. Reading scholarly texts has become an archeological dig.
Mary E. Hazard
Center City/ Philadelphia
April 25, 2012
Pulitzer Prizes
I enjoyed Dan Rottenberg’s piece on the Pulitzers (Editor’s Notebook). I’m no fan of prizes either. But Faulkner didn’t have much time after his Nobel (13 years) and Hemingway after his Pulitzer (eight years), so you may have pressed the point about their diminished productivity a little.
Faulkner did write a very long book in this period, A Fable, which you didn’t mention, and Hemingway a very engaging memoir, A Moveable Feast. That their best work was already behind them (in Hemingway’s case, long behind him) was neither here nor there.
Thomas Mann’s Nobel didn’t prevent him from writing Doctor Faustus. Harper Lee may only have had one book in her. Allen Drury may simply have had 20 too many.
Robert Zaller
Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
April 25, 2012
I think the problem is the Pulitzer doesn’t have any good award presenters. I hear James Franco, Anne Hathaway and Ricky Gervais are available
Joseph Glantz
Levittown, Pa.
April 25, 2012
Editor’s comment: Of course the theoretical justification for prizes is not their effect on the winners but the standard they set for writers to aspire to. Whether they do any such thing is the question I raised.
Uffizi treasures
Re ”Treasures from the Uffizi,” at the Michener Museum—
Anne R. Fabbri has managed to take on my least favorite art genre (religious art) and make it enticing, with her down-to-earth commentary about the process, such as artists having used their mistresses to pose as saints, etc. Delicious!
E. Sherman Hayman
Washington Square West/ Philadelphia
April 27, 2012
Anne Fabbri is not only incredibly knowledgeable about art history, but her writing conveys it in a way to make it accessible to all. Bravo for your insights, Anne, and for what you teach us.
Ilene Dube
Doylestown, Pa.
April 27, 2012
Unsung pianist
Re “The greatest pianist you never heard of,” by Dan Coren (January 2011)—
Lisitsa just didn’t pop out of nowhere. I was an employee of the Florida Philharmonic under the direction of James Judd in the early ’90s, and Lisitsa was contracted with us to perform a Rachmaninoff concert. She was the most beautiful creature any of us had ever seen, and a phenomenally powerful performer. Frankly, I thought she would be snapped up by a major agent and would be the next Horowitz.
There is still time, but she appears to be very savy as far as technology goes and is thriving on Youtube. But she really belongs in the concert halls. She is an extremely intelligent and intuitive performer, and the journey she takes you to is sublime.
Dana DeMartino
Charleston, S.C.
April 27, 2012
Dan Coren replies: It perplexes me that Lisitsa hasn’t become a regular on the concert circuit the way, for example, Helene Grimaud has. I recall that she performed as a soloist under Yannick Nézet-Séguin’s direction while he was in Montreal, so I hope that he will soon invite her to play in Philadelphia.
♦
Respond to this Article
|
