I just read the worst bit of blather I have ever read from OSC. Did anyone else read his diatribe on "Ornery American" about the state of community theatre?
And then comment... I was disappointed, not only with the whole article, but then with the dippy follow up by Kathryn Kidd. It was like they took every grumpy old conservative and quoted them for a few pages. He fell into the description of anyone not conservative as the "elitist, biggoted" straw man that every conservative pushes out the door when they can't find anything better to talk about. But I won't dwell on the weakest arguments, as they are apparent...I mean, c'mon, you think a show with "kike" in it wouldn't sell in NYC just because it had the word "kike" in it? Weak.
But as an author, I am surprised at OSC. One of the big reasons that "Ender's Game" isn't a movie yet is because he wants to control the script (at least that is what I remember). WHAT?! He berates Simon because he doesn't want his work editted, but I am sure he would have a problem if someone wanted to change his. Hey, its only words, right? What if a producer wanted to punch up the movie and add the "f-word" to Ender's Game? Would he have the same problem? If removing a seemingly useless word isn't a big deal, what about adding it?
I guess it wouldn't be so bad if he just chose to have a reasonable discussion about the state of theatre today. That I would agree with and it isn't the 'intellectuals,' whatever those folks are...it is big business, the same people that ruin big Hollywood. For every crappy Broadway play, there are 10 interesting, novel Off (and off-off-off) Broadways shows being tried out. Sure, 9 might be horrible, but innovation happens, they just don't sell as well as "Lion King" or another revival of "Chicago." That would be a good discussion. But to let the discussion turn into the same lame diatribe that I can hear on the droning Rush Limbaugh show is a disappointment from one of my favorite authors.
And then what was up with Kidd's letter? "The only one that was missed was abortion, and I firmly believe that's because nobody has yet written an "ain't abortion grand" folksong... " What is up with that? I know pro-life people think pro-choice people get pregnant just so they can HAVE an abortion, but even this is going a bit far. Sheesh. By the way, there is an "abortion" song but it ain't grand and it is somewhat poignant..."Brick" by Ben Folds Five.
But anyway, she goes and sees one of the most popular bands from the 60's who were FOLK SINGERS who, if I recall, sang about all that kind of liberal stuff that she apparently gets sick about and needs a bath after hearing. What did she think she was going to see? Just because a good number of hippy, lefty, socialist kids from the 60's grew up to be conservative, capitalist right wingers doesn't mean they all did. Sheesh. That is like saying "I went to this Eminem concert and the cursing! Oh My God! I kept waiting for it to end and it didn't!" and then acting surprised about it. Get a grip.
I don't mind good discussions about the state of arts, either in community theatre or professional, but simple minded discussions of "elite" vs. the wise "provincial" folk of OSC's world is just inane. If you don't like the condition of the theatre arts, make something good that people will see. For every "Urinetown" produced that would get OSC's head in a lather, there is some quiet, family oriented show being ignored somewhere else. For every loud, obnoxious, rude animated feature "Shrek" that parents lament and decry wanting something more appropriate, there is an "Iron Giant" being shown to empty houses, even if it is was the greatest animated feature in 30 years.
I don't know. I have read his conservative diatribes before and didn't agree with them all the time, but they usually never fell prey to the old conservative grump playbook like this article did. Maybe it was a joke and I didn't get it?
fil
[ August 21, 2003, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Strange. OSC has specifically stated that the reason he's a Democrat is because he's emphatically not a conservative, by his own definition, at least.
Actually, I find this article in contradiction to some of his earlier writing (one of the foreword or afterwords in Maps in a Mirror for the story "Damn Fine Novel," IIRC) in which he stated that words by themselves aren't "good" or "bad" as they are merely collections of sounds. In fact, I think he went so far as to says he want to call the story "F***ing Good Read!" but the editor/censor wouldn't let him.
However, because people interpet these "collections of sounds" to mean things, and certain collections are deemed offensive by those people, it makes sense that either they will be offended by such words if used in a play and refuse patronage for the playwright in the future, or they will not go to the play in the 1st place. Either way, it's the playwright who loses. . . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There's already a discussion about this on the other side of this forum, and on the Ornery.org site. Most people agree with you, but put it more politely.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: American intellectuals are generally elitist, bigoted twits who are incapable of questioning the biases and shibboleths of their own narrow-minded community.
That's incorrect. If that is held true, then how can you ever have social reform? Many people are bound to speak up against something that is wrong sooner or later.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Kathryn Kidd in her letter said:
quote: Ideas that wash over a person are infinitely harder to eradicate, and more dangerous to the health of the person who has been exposed to them than an evening's worth of tobacco smoke.
Who is this person she's referring to? I imagine it's someone who's dumb enough to swallow any ideas that have been shoved into their mouths.
Come on, if you're an intelligent person then why should exposure to ideas bother you? You listen, you contemplate, and if you don't agree, then you reject. And if you really don't like the ideas, you shouldn't listen. If you don't like them and you continue to listen, and then you feel dirty because of it, you have no one to blame but yourself.
The entire letter had a nasty tone, which suggested an utter and obvious inferiority of anyone who happens to agree with the ideas of the folk singers who were the subject of the letter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: From OSC:
American intellectuals are generally elitist, bigoted twits who are incapable of questioning the biases and shibboleths of their own narrow-minded community.
From Glue:
That's incorrect. If that is held true, then how can you ever have social reform? Many people are bound to speak up against something that is wrong sooner or later.
Intellectuals are not the only ones that can cause social reform. They don't want you to know this, though.
quote:if you're an intelligent person then why should exposure to ideas bother you?
Because there are so many people who are idiots out there, Fitz, and most of them don't even know it.
Lots of extremely smart people found reasons to continue slavery. Lots of bright, scientific minds performed experiments on human beings in the Mussolini/Hitler regimes. Great analytical, logical thought went into pogroms, genocides, larcenies. . .
Intelligence and talent do not give moral superiority.
[ August 22, 2003, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)