Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong withNot that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
fade away before a term is invented.
On 2023-04-09 3:46 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong withNot that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
fade away before a term is invented.
I think that it isn't remotely plausible to call it a "fad". People
have been critical of works of art because of the artists' behaviour for
a *long* time. I'm not even convinced that it's much more common now
than in the past.
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
Not that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
fade away before a term is invented.
On 2023-04-09 3:46 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong withNot that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating the work of
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its
creator?
artists on account of personal peccadilloes will fade away before a
term is invented.
I think that it isn't remotely plausible to call it a "fad". People
have been critical of works of art because of the artists' behaviour for
a *long* time. I'm not even convinced that it's much more common now
than in the past.
Joel
On 2023-04-09 1:46 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
Not that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
fade away before a term is invented.
The ghost of Fatty Arbuckle would like to have a word with you about how
it's a "fad". The ghost of Rock Hudson would too, except it seems to be trapped in a closet. And neither of them were complicit in rape.
Whether an artist's peccadilloes actually damage their art depends on
both what the peccadilloes are and the nature of the art. For example Lovecraft's "peccadilloes" don't spoil people's enjoyment of his art
that much because because they come as no surprise. Lovecraft's brand
is neurotic xenophobia and so learning that manifested in the form of
racism isn't that offputting.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:25:19 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
wrote:
On 4/9/23 11:14 PM, David Johnston wrote:
On 2023-04-09 1:46 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
Not that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with >>>>> the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator? >>>>
the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
fade away before a term is invented.
The ghost of Fatty Arbuckle would like to have a word with you about how >>> it's a "fad". The ghost of Rock Hudson would too, except it seems to be >>> trapped in a closet. And neither of them were complicit in rape.
Whether an artist's peccadilloes actually damage their art depends on
both what the peccadilloes are and the nature of the art. For example
Lovecraft's "peccadilloes" don't spoil people's enjoyment of his art
that much because because they come as no surprise. Lovecraft's brand
is neurotic xenophobia and so learning that manifested in the form of
racism isn't that offputting.
Many Jews avoid Wagner because of his antisemitism, mostly focusing on
his essay "Judentum in der Musik." It was nasty but not really unusual
for Germans of the period; he put into writing what most Germans didn't >>express in as public and permanent a form. It didn't help his historical >>reputation that the Nazis adopted him so enthusiastically.
The conductor Herbert von Karajan, who actually joined the Nazis, hasn't >>suffered much long-term harm to his reputation.
Should Wagner's writings affect people's responses to his operas? Most >>people don't think so, but some are adamant about it. I discussed the >>question in my "Wagner and Nazism":
https://oll.libertyfund.org/reading_room/2023-03-02-mcgath-wagner-and-nazism
One thing I'll say for Wagner -- his Ring series inspired one heck of
good bit by Anna Russell. But then, so did Verdi's operas based on >Shakespeare's plays.
I did hear the Ring once. This was four-LP set which turned out to be
mono because it was recorded from 78RPM records (you could here it
when the switched the original disks). The summary ended all
enthusiasm: it starts with mythology -- and ends up with Peyton Place.
Or so I concluded at the time (I make no claim that my conclusion was >correct). What a decline!
There are, IOW, reasons for disliking Wagner that have /nothing/ to do
with anti-Semitism.
On 4/9/23 11:14 PM, David Johnston wrote:
On 2023-04-09 1:46 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
Not that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with >>> the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator? >>
the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
fade away before a term is invented.
The ghost of Fatty Arbuckle would like to have a word with you about how it's a "fad". The ghost of Rock Hudson would too, except it seems to be trapped in a closet. And neither of them were complicit in rape.
Whether an artist's peccadilloes actually damage their art depends onMany Jews avoid Wagner because of his antisemitism, mostly focusing on
both what the peccadilloes are and the nature of the art. For example Lovecraft's "peccadilloes" don't spoil people's enjoyment of his art
that much because because they come as no surprise. Lovecraft's brand
is neurotic xenophobia and so learning that manifested in the form of racism isn't that offputting.
his essay "Judentum in der Musik." It was nasty but not really unusual
for Germans of the period; he put into writing what most Germans didn't express in as public and permanent a form. It didn't help his historical reputation that the Nazis adopted him so enthusiastically.
The conductor Herbert von Karajan, who actually joined the Nazis, hasn't suffered much long-term harm to his reputation.
Should Wagner's writings affect people's responses to his operas? Most people don't think so, but some are adamant about it. I discussed the question in my "Wagner and Nazism":
https://oll.libertyfund.org/reading_room/2023-03-02-mcgath-wagner-and-nazism
On 4/9/23 11:14 PM, David Johnston wrote:
On 2023-04-09 1:46 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 02:14:44 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
Not that I know of. And maybe the whole fad of denigrating
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator? >>>
the work of artists on account of personal peccadilloes will
fade away before a term is invented.
The ghost of Fatty Arbuckle would like to have a word with you about how
it's a "fad". The ghost of Rock Hudson would too, except it seems to be
trapped in a closet. And neither of them were complicit in rape.
Whether an artist's peccadilloes actually damage their art depends on
both what the peccadilloes are and the nature of the art. For example
Lovecraft's "peccadilloes" don't spoil people's enjoyment of his art
that much because because they come as no surprise. Lovecraft's brand
is neurotic xenophobia and so learning that manifested in the form of
racism isn't that offputting.
Many Jews avoid Wagner because of his antisemitism, mostly focusing on
his essay "Judentum in der Musik." It was nasty but not really unusual
for Germans of the period; he put into writing what most Germans didn't >express in as public and permanent a form. It didn't help his historical >reputation that the Nazis adopted him so enthusiastically.
The conductor Herbert von Karajan, who actually joined the Nazis, hasn't >suffered much long-term harm to his reputation.
Should Wagner's writings affect people's responses to his operas? Most >people don't think so, but some are adamant about it. I discussed the >question in my "Wagner and Nazism":
https://oll.libertyfund.org/reading_room/2023-03-02-mcgath-wagner-and-nazism
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 15:10:43 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
I think that it isn't remotely plausible to call it a "fad". PeopleI've been a reader of reviews in newspapers for 50 years --
have been critical of works of art because of the artists' behaviour for
a *long* time. I'm not even convinced that it's much more common now
than in the past.
of literature, art and music, and I'll say again that it's a
fad. Or you could call it "critical reassessment" or you could
call it self-flagellation by the chattering classes. Whatever.
But it's most certainly a thing in the past decade.
On 2023-04-10 3:51 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 15:10:43 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
I think that it isn't remotely plausible to call it a "fad". PeopleI've been a reader of reviews in newspapers for 50 years --
have been critical of works of art because of the artists' behaviour for >>> a *long* time. I'm not even convinced that it's much more common now
than in the past.
of literature, art and music, and I'll say again that it's a
fad. Or you could call it "critical reassessment" or you could
call it self-flagellation by the chattering classes. Whatever.
But it's most certainly a thing in the past decade.
A thing in the past decade, yes. More so now than in previous decades,
I profoundly doubt. And "fad" implies a passing trend, and I don't
think that's the case either.
One thing I'll say for Wagner -- his Ring series inspired one heck of
good bit by Anna Russell. But then, so did Verdi's operas based on Shakespeare's plays.
I did hear the Ring once. This was four-LP set which turned out to be
mono because it was recorded from 78RPM records (you could here it
when the switched the original disks). The summary ended all
enthusiasm: it starts with mythology -- and ends up with Peyton Place.
Or so I concluded at the time (I make no claim that my conclusion was correct). What a decline!
There are, IOW, reasons for disliking Wagner that have /nothing/ to do
with anti-Semitism.
I wonder how many 78s the Ring took and how many bookcases they required.
On 4/10/23 12:07 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
One thing I'll say for Wagner -- his Ring series inspired one heck of
good bit by Anna Russell. But then, so did Verdi's operas based on
Shakespeare's plays.
I did hear the Ring once. This was four-LP set which turned out to be
mono because it was recorded from 78RPM records (you could here it
when the switched the original disks). The summary ended all
enthusiasm: it starts with mythology -- and ends up with Peyton Place.
Or so I concluded at the time (I make no claim that my conclusion was
correct). What a decline!
There are, IOW, reasons for disliking Wagner that have /nothing/ to do
with anti-Semitism.
Someone once said, "Wagner has some great moments, and some boring
quarter hours."
I wonder how many 78s the Ring took and how many bookcases they required.
I don't quite understand the wp entry, but it suggests that 12" 78s could
get at least 4.5 minutes per side. That seems low to me given that 10" 78s >could do a 3 minute pop song per side.
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
I don't quite understand the wp entry, but it suggests that 12" 78s
could get at least 4.5 minutes per side. That seems low to me
given that 10" 78s could do a 3 minute pop song per side.
It depends on the groove pitch.... use a coarser pitch and you can
make the record louder but you don't get as many minutes on it.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
I don't quite understand the wp entry, but it suggests that 12" 78s
could get at least 4.5 minutes per side. That seems low to me
given that 10" 78s could do a 3 minute pop song per side.
It depends on the groove pitch.... use a coarser pitch and you can
make the record louder but you don't get as many minutes on it.
That's true of 33s (and 45s, and 16s), but I don't think it's true of
78s, since on 78s the encoding in grooves was vertical, not horizontal.
On 2023-04-10 3:51 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 15:10:43 -0400, Joel Polowin wrote:
I think that it isn't remotely plausible to call it a "fad". PeopleI've been a reader of reviews in newspapers for 50 years -- of
have been critical of works of art because of the artists' behaviour
for a *long* time. I'm not even convinced that it's much more common
now than in the past.
literature, art and music, and I'll say again that it's a fad. Or you
could call it "critical reassessment" or you could call it
self-flagellation by the chattering classes. Whatever.
But it's most certainly a thing in the past decade.
A thing in the past decade, yes. More so now than in previous decades,
I profoundly doubt. And "fad" implies a passing trend, and I don't
think that's the case either.
Joel
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
I don't quite understand the wp entry, but it suggests that 12" 78s
could get at least 4.5 minutes per side. That seems low to me
given that 10" 78s could do a 3 minute pop song per side.
It depends on the groove pitch.... use a coarser pitch and you canThat's true of 33s (and 45s, and 16s), but I don't think it's true of
make the record louder but you don't get as many minutes on it.
78s, since on 78s the encoding in grooves was vertical, not horizontal.
In article <u12622$in8$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
I don't quite understand the wp entry, but it suggests that 12" 78s
could get at least 4.5 minutes per side. That seems low to me
given that 10" 78s could do a 3 minute pop song per side.
It depends on the groove pitch.... use a coarser pitch and you can
make the record louder but you don't get as many minutes on it.
That's true of 33s (and 45s, and 16s), but I don't think it's true of
78s, since on 78s the encoding in grooves was vertical, not horizontal.
I thought that was just the "Edison" 78s? (Which wouldn't play on Victrolas).
I'm familiar with the work of the "suck fairy", who notionally visits artistic works one enjoyed many years earlier and adds "suckiness" so
that they later seem dire. Sometimes it's the result of a changing
personal viewpoint -- with more maturity and breadth of experience, one
can see flaws to which one was blind. Sometimes it comes from changes
in social mores and customs; attitudes towards minorities, women, etc.
become very dated, and even a work which was progressive for its time
can later seem painful.
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
 Sometimes it's later discovered that the creator had some pretty awful behaviour in secret (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Bill Cosby). Sometimes an artist changes over time and becomes an awful person (Orson Scott Card,
Scott Adams), which usually results in later works becoming problematic
even if the earlier ones are otherwise generally okay.
Joel
On 4/8/23 23:14, Joel Polowin wrote:
I'm familiar with the work of the "suck fairy", who notionally visits
artistic works one enjoyed many years earlier and adds "suckiness" so
that they later seem dire. Sometimes it's the result of a changing
personal viewpoint -- with more maturity and breadth of experience, one
can see flaws to which one was blind. Sometimes it comes from changes
in social mores and customs; attitudes towards minorities, women, etc.
become very dated, and even a work which was progressive for its time
can later seem painful.
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
Sometimes it's later discovered that the creator had some pretty awful
behaviour in secret (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Bill Cosby). Sometimes an
artist changes over time and becomes an awful person (Orson Scott Card,
Scott Adams), which usually results in later works becoming problematic
even if the earlier ones are otherwise generally okay.
Joel
A year or so ago I reread the Foundation Trilogy. It didn't exactly
suck, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I did as a teen. Now I am afraid
to reread Dune because it might suffer the same fate. I tried to reread >Thomas Covenant many years ago and it sucked. I am afraid to reread Dune
as it might suck too.
On 4/8/23 23:14, Joel Polowin wrote:
I'm familiar with the work of the "suck fairy", who notionally visits
artistic works one enjoyed many years earlier and adds "suckiness" so
that they later seem dire. Sometimes it's the result of a changing
personal viewpoint -- with more maturity and breadth of experience, one
can see flaws to which one was blind. Sometimes it comes from changes
in social mores and customs; attitudes towards minorities, women, etc.
become very dated, and even a work which was progressive for its time
can later seem painful.
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator?
Sometimes it's later discovered that the creator had some pretty awful
behaviour in secret (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Bill Cosby). Sometimes an
artist changes over time and becomes an awful person (Orson Scott Card,
Scott Adams), which usually results in later works becoming problematic
even if the earlier ones are otherwise generally okay.
Joel
A year or so ago I reread the Foundation Trilogy. It didn't exactly
suck, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I did as a teen. Now I am afraid
to reread Dune because it might suffer the same fate. I tried to reread >Thomas Covenant many years ago and it sucked. I am afraid to reread Dune
as it might suck too.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:18:21 -0700, BCFD36 <bcf...@cruzio.com> wrote:
On 4/8/23 23:14, Joel Polowin wrote:
I'm familiar with the work of the "suck fairy", who notionally visits
artistic works one enjoyed many years earlier and adds "suckiness" so
that they later seem dire. Sometimes it's the result of a changing
personal viewpoint -- with more maturity and breadth of experience, one >> can see flaws to which one was blind. Sometimes it comes from changes
in social mores and customs; attitudes towards minorities, women, etc.
become very dated, and even a work which was progressive for its time
can later seem painful.
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator? >> Sometimes it's later discovered that the creator had some pretty awful >> behaviour in secret (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Bill Cosby). Sometimes an
artist changes over time and becomes an awful person (Orson Scott Card, >> Scott Adams), which usually results in later works becoming problematic >> even if the earlier ones are otherwise generally okay.
Joel
A year or so ago I reread the Foundation Trilogy. It didn't exactlyHow is it Thomas Convenient didn't suck the first time you read it? As
suck, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I did as a teen. Now I am afraid
to reread Dune because it might suffer the same fate. I tried to reread >Thomas Covenant many years ago and it sucked. I am afraid to reread Dune >as it might suck too.
it did for me.
--
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:18:21 -0700, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
On 4/8/23 23:14, Joel Polowin wrote:
I'm familiar with the work of the "suck fairy", who notionally visits
artistic works one enjoyed many years earlier and adds "suckiness" so
that they later seem dire. Sometimes it's the result of a changing
personal viewpoint -- with more maturity and breadth of experience, one
can see flaws to which one was blind. Sometimes it comes from changes
in social mores and customs; attitudes towards minorities, women, etc.
become very dated, and even a work which was progressive for its time
can later seem painful.
Is there a different term to describe when there's nothing wrong with
the work itself, but it becomes tainted by association with its creator? >>>  Sometimes it's later discovered that the creator had some pretty awful >>> behaviour in secret (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Bill Cosby). Sometimes an
artist changes over time and becomes an awful person (Orson Scott Card,
Scott Adams), which usually results in later works becoming problematic
even if the earlier ones are otherwise generally okay.
Joel
A year or so ago I reread the Foundation Trilogy. It didn't exactly
suck, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I did as a teen. Now I am afraid
to reread Dune because it might suffer the same fate. I tried to reread
Thomas Covenant many years ago and it sucked. I am afraid to reread Dune
as it might suck too.
How is it Thomas Convenient didn't suck the first time you read it? As
it did for me.
How is it Thomas Convenient didn't suck the first time you read it?
As it did for me.
Various college friends were raving over it when I was a freshman. I
started Lord Foul's Bane and gave up maybe 70-80 pages in because it
sucked big-time. That year taught me a lot about reading.
How is it Thomas Convenient didn't suck the first time you read it? As
it did for me.
I presume John that you remember the Clench Racing that Nick Lowe
used to do at conventions. Throw copies of the books into the
audience, get people to start reading at random, and the first
person to find the word "clench" wins. Didn't use to take long.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:26:53 |
| Calls: | 8,356 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,159 |
| Messages: | 5,895,048 |