There have been
several blog-discussions not long ago about singing opera in translation. The
discussions have been fairly balanced, good-humored, and cordial, and there
seem to be good arguments both pro and con. This post is not about opera in
translation, nor is it about balanced, good-humored, and cordial discussions.
In the blogosphere, there invariably are troll-ish sorts whose writing tends toward lectures and pronouncements,
rather than collegial dialogue. In
one case, not only were a comment writer’s assertions unsupported by any real
evidence, but his word choices were irritating. Language that was borderline abusive
(perverse, noxious, ass-backwards) was “balanced” with high-mindedly
formal language (whence, firstly), all of which struck me as unnecessary
and unnecessarily off-putting.
I think it's
possible to express a contrary opinion without insulting others; and I think it's just
pretentious to use words like "whence" and "firstly" in a
blog. At least he did not refer to himself in the first person plural. More
than one blogger has put me off their writing by doing so. (Well, one
"we" blogger also has annoyingly narrow-minded opinions and tends to
the abusive—under cover of clever politeness, of course—when criticizing
anything "they" don't like.)
Now that I think
about it, what probably really annoys me the most about these snobby bloggers and
commentators is they lack: (a) a sense of humor; and (b) basic common
courtesy.
My favorite
bloggers, commenters, (and people in general) have a good sense
of humor and know how to have a polite, friendly (and even occasionally snarky) exchange
of ideas. Without these two essential qualities, it’s just not worth engaging.
But that's just my opinion.
There is definitely a certain style of opera-blog/comment prose that I have come to dislike whenever I encounter it: it's somewhere between fussy and precious, and it usually goes hand in hand with an utter lack of a sense of humor. (It's completely unclear to me how anyone appreciates opera without a sense of humor, but some folks out there in the world appear to be doing so.) Ugh.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. I just read what you mention, Rob. So much nonsense in it, and so much aggression. I actually prefer the original languages, but the crackers non-argument he used to justify that position weakens the position considerably, so I stayed away.
ReplyDeleteSo the "argument" goes like this: "THE purpose of opera is X and only X; all the composers who ever lived only had X in mind (I know because... I telepathically interviewed them in their respective graves); why would anybody ever thing that opera may be an additional letter of the alphabet but X is beyond me. Noxious, ass-backward perversion!"
I think what really puts me off this argument (apart from the unsupported, and unsupportable generalisations) is that it seems deeply rooted in a particular kind of entitlement. Never mind that people have been drawn to opera who otherwise wouldn't be (and there's direct evidence for that in the comments thread in question as well as my own experience as articulated in the original post). They are coming for the wrong reasons and have no right to enter my Temple of the One Pure Way of Appreciating Opera. Furthermore, apparently I was patronising such people despite having clearly identified myself as one of their number. My mind simply cannot get around the notion of patronising myself! I remain boggled.
DeleteThat was my feeling, John, and what prompted this post. It's great to have differing opinions. What's not so great in that case was someone so emphatically insisting that one way is THE way and the other is just wrong.
DeleteWell, I wholeheartedly agree with this blogger's position:
ReplyDeletehttp://genevievecastleroom.blogspot.com/
@Earworm: It is amazing how many opera lovers have virtually no sense of humor.
Delete@definitely: Thanks. I don't disagree with some of the arguments, although, remembering that the discussion started about opera in translation, the comment came somewhat out of left field.
@Anonymous: Funny you should post that link...either the person who posted the identical comment on John's blog is Mr. S&F, or quoted him without attribution. Are YOU (singular or plural) Mr. S&F?
To all: thanks for your comments. Discussion is a good thing. Since THIS post was about blog etiquette, not opera, I will save my other comments for another post.
Rob,
ReplyDelete"Are you Mr. S&F?"
No.
I am just someone who believes that the "contemplative, deep listening" approach is the ideal way of experiencing the art form. I have never been drawn to the “live theatre” aspect of opera.
I think because technology has changed access to opera radically in the last thirty years, we are now divided into the pre-internet / commercial video crowd and the post- crowd. But per Rob, I'll save the elaboration for elsewhere.
DeleteFair enough. How you appreciate opera is very much your affair and good luck to you. Why though do you feel it necessary to express support for a position that demeans and insults anyone who holds a different opinion?
Deleteah yes...the "pontificator". who does more to trap opera into fossilization than anything else. Perpetrates a stereotype, and guarantees that newcomers will feel as if they are barefoot and backwoods.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you posted this - its a belief that I have held for about 15 years.
I also agree with stray - there *is* a divide, and the future is electronic keyboards clicking away, paired with in-house attendance.
Thanks for your comment. First, I appreciate the support, and second, I did not know your website and I am excited to explore it. Thanks again!
Delete