Whitmore
03-08-2008, 12:56 AM
I haven't read it, but Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy... supposedly talks about how early Greek theater was a perfect balance of the Dionysian and the Apollonian forces. Here's the Wikipedia definitions:
Apollo (Apollonian or Apollinian): the dream state or the wish to create order, principium individuationis (principle of individuation), plastic (visual) arts, beauty, clarity, stint to formed boundaries, individuality, celebration of appearance/illusion, human beings as artists (or media of art's manifestation), self-control, perfection, exhaustion of possibilities, creation.
Dionysus (Dionysian): chaos, intoxication, celebration of nature, instinctual, intuitive, pertaining to the sensation of pleasure or pain, individuality dissolved and hence destroyed, wholeness of existence, orgiastic passion, dissolution of all boundaries, excess, human being(s) as the work and glorification of art, destruction.
This seems like the underlying idea working in JS&MN. So I guess I'm saying Nietzsche would like JS&MN.
But I'm something of a writer myself* (see http://darkgreen.org) and I'm not yet successful because I just can't seem to do what Clarke has done so well with JS&MN, namely, to get so much through this mean, narrow little alleyway called modern lit. If there's anything I'm 100% sure of it's that these times will be dismissed outright not too long into the future. But like I'm saying, Clarke will be seen as somebody who somehow managed to get lots of oxygen through the tiny little straw of the modern book.
As far as what the future will be in arts and literature, some form of style, depth and substance will necessarily have to re-emerge. I'm no lit scholar, but I'm desperately reading and studying everything 19th century English and German. Those folks had chops, wind, and technique in spades. (Just pick up and read Bronte's "Jane Eyre" for five minutes! Or, more obscurely, Count S.E. Stenbock, e.g., "Gabriel") Today, being vaguely witty and routinely crude is the cheap substitute for talent, any substance covered under layers of smarm and pose. This will all be swept away someday soon.
But I'm odd. For example, I believe the Beatles will be forgotten and the Cocteau Twins will be rediscovered ca. 100 years from now. Sure, CT and Clarke and the rest of the tiny pin-pricks of light will all be classified subculture of the late-20th, early-21st century dead zone, but I think they'll make the cut. Today one succeeds by whipping up a claque and feeding it nice pabulum. Someday people with very deep thoughts and feelings, magical expression, and virtuoso skills will once again regain the spotlight. Until then there are the occasional miracles like JS&MN that seem to win races even though weighted down by the fashions of this mean, narrow time.
Yeah, I know, most of you won't like any of this talk, but I felt I had to say it before I move on.
*As a writer I'm really only mildly proud of a chapter in "Folleneck" where hero Kevin merges for a time with General Niles's wraith existence.
Apollo (Apollonian or Apollinian): the dream state or the wish to create order, principium individuationis (principle of individuation), plastic (visual) arts, beauty, clarity, stint to formed boundaries, individuality, celebration of appearance/illusion, human beings as artists (or media of art's manifestation), self-control, perfection, exhaustion of possibilities, creation.
Dionysus (Dionysian): chaos, intoxication, celebration of nature, instinctual, intuitive, pertaining to the sensation of pleasure or pain, individuality dissolved and hence destroyed, wholeness of existence, orgiastic passion, dissolution of all boundaries, excess, human being(s) as the work and glorification of art, destruction.
This seems like the underlying idea working in JS&MN. So I guess I'm saying Nietzsche would like JS&MN.
But I'm something of a writer myself* (see http://darkgreen.org) and I'm not yet successful because I just can't seem to do what Clarke has done so well with JS&MN, namely, to get so much through this mean, narrow little alleyway called modern lit. If there's anything I'm 100% sure of it's that these times will be dismissed outright not too long into the future. But like I'm saying, Clarke will be seen as somebody who somehow managed to get lots of oxygen through the tiny little straw of the modern book.
As far as what the future will be in arts and literature, some form of style, depth and substance will necessarily have to re-emerge. I'm no lit scholar, but I'm desperately reading and studying everything 19th century English and German. Those folks had chops, wind, and technique in spades. (Just pick up and read Bronte's "Jane Eyre" for five minutes! Or, more obscurely, Count S.E. Stenbock, e.g., "Gabriel") Today, being vaguely witty and routinely crude is the cheap substitute for talent, any substance covered under layers of smarm and pose. This will all be swept away someday soon.
But I'm odd. For example, I believe the Beatles will be forgotten and the Cocteau Twins will be rediscovered ca. 100 years from now. Sure, CT and Clarke and the rest of the tiny pin-pricks of light will all be classified subculture of the late-20th, early-21st century dead zone, but I think they'll make the cut. Today one succeeds by whipping up a claque and feeding it nice pabulum. Someday people with very deep thoughts and feelings, magical expression, and virtuoso skills will once again regain the spotlight. Until then there are the occasional miracles like JS&MN that seem to win races even though weighted down by the fashions of this mean, narrow time.
Yeah, I know, most of you won't like any of this talk, but I felt I had to say it before I move on.
*As a writer I'm really only mildly proud of a chapter in "Folleneck" where hero Kevin merges for a time with General Niles's wraith existence.