Mini-post: The Brilliance of Balanchine

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

Last weekend I was privileged to see a trilogy of three ballets by the Russian-Georgian genius George Balanchine beautifully performed by the City Ballet of San Diego. Having been a fan of the New York City ballet when I lived there, a ballet he cofounded, I was eager to see his works once again after many years. The pieces performed were “Concerto Baroco,” “Jewels,” and “Square Dance.”

What struck me the most was the way in which Balanchine understood the music. “Concerto Baroco” was performed to the “Bach Double” (a piece with which all Suzuki violin students are familiar). While in most ballets the music serves to underscore or highlight the movements of the dancers, movements that are determined by the choreographer, here, the dancers were the music. That is, the choreography was music-driven, rather than dancer-driven.

Choosing the music for choreography is more than putting a soundtrack to movement; it requires understanding how the dancers will serve the music and vice versa. It requires a deep sense of rhythm, melody, phrasing, and music. It also requires a deep understanding of the body and its abilities, its angles and lines (a very key concept to classical ballet), and also spatial thinking, as dancers do not stand still but move across a stage. Anyone who is a musician can only benefit from training in dance, because dancers are musicians who make music with their bodies. Flamenco and tap dance are great examples of dancers who have to create their own music and rhythm, for the sound of their feet accompanies them.

Choreographers who do not understand music well will only produce a palatable or unpleasant result. Non-experts or non-connoisseurs of dance may not be able to pinpoint what they didn’t like when viewing a ballet dance performance, but they might sense that something was “off.”

Choreography is indeed an underrated and underappreciated art. Let’s continue to look for and support the Balanchines–male and female–of tomorrow.

Why American Feminism Has Failed

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

Much of my work on The Women of Letters has focused on bringing a cross-cultural/international perspective to American culture and institutions. It is time to turn our attention to American feminism and to see why, despite the United States being the most powerful country in the world and a leading developed nation, certain markers of progress for women still lag behind other developed nations.

Mine was the first American generation that was equal by law in terms of race and gender. I grew up feeling strong and capable of anything, unhindered by gender. However, at Stanford, I found that the definition of “feminist” was something entirely foreign to my own conception of feminism. I felt very alienated by the women who called themselves feminists, found their conception of feminism and women’s rights extremely militant and divisive. Once I entered the “real world,” I indeed encountered sexism on a concrete level that was often subtle and not easy to prove. I also saw how difficult it was for working women, especially married mothers, to balance career and family, to be able to afford childcare and to take time off from their jobs. I saw how this affected women across class and race, and how the law and health care system did not address women’s needs adequately. A woman’s co-pay to see a gynecologist, who is wrongly considered a “specialist,” costs more than a visit to a primary care physician.

The feminists of the 60’s and 70’s who laid the groundwork for my generation focused on the wrong perspectives or took the wrong approaches. Some academic feminists have contributed to the problem as well, focusing on esoterica and frivolity. Here are some reasons why I believe American feminism has not achieved enough:

-American feminism has focused on sexuality rather than economics. The Nordic countries have the lowest rates of economic inequality and the best policies for maternity leave, and rank highest on various global indices for “best countries for women.” American women can read about the best sex positions in Cosmo, enjoy the antics of “Sex and the City,” debate the use of the word “history” instead of “herstory” (which is ridiculous, as it reveals an ignorance of Latin etymology), sign petitions about being proud to have an abortion (is it really a source of pride, when it shows the failure of effective birth control for women?), go to endless performances of “The Vagina Monologues,” but in the end, a woman will have to put her baby in daycare at six weeks, if she can even afford it, because women are not paid as much as men. How is this progress?

If we use our rather short-sighted American criteria as for what is “progressive” for women (which usually means sexual freedom), then popular opinion has it that Nordic women are very open in their sexuality and sexually fulfilled (one study cited in “The Economist” showed that Finnish women are the most “promiscuous” in the world, having had the most number of sexual partners). Based on this simplistic American criterion, we would find that the country that is rated best for women on numerous indices, Iceland, had a lesbian prime minister. But this is overlooking the key point–if we attend to a woman’s economic needs, then she will be free to be whoever she is sexually. We have focused too much on sex, and now a woman can be sexually equal to a man. The problem is, he still won’t call you the next morning, and your insurance might not cover your birth control.

-American feminism has focused too much on individualism. We see individual women who have followed their paths and found success–the Hillary Clintons, Sheryl Sandbergs, Alice Walkers, Meryl Streeps of America have all been extraordinary women in their respective fields. Women like Gloria Steinem have been idolized for decades. While I certainly admire Ms. Steinem’s accomplishments, I feel that she and her 1970’s ilk have focused too much on their own positions, which are unlike that of the majority of American women who are concerned with getting good schooling for their kids, getting vacation time, and negotiating with their spouse about who is doing the vacuuming.

The problem comes because it raises the issue of marriage as the norm for society. Feminists who have opposed marriage have cited that it is oppressive as an institution, and that individual freedom is the antidote. We are in an era where women are free to make their choices as to their lifestyle and lovers, which is a healthy thing. But again, we have to look at the majority of American women who are wives and mothers, even lesbian couples, or single or married but childless women who help care for children or child relatives. American feminism has refused to see family as the normative unit, all under the name of “oppression.” How is it oppressive to a non-married woman, who is now free to live as she likes, and her society is able to care for her as well as families? The late Betty Friedan was aware of these things, and NOW was originally founded to help the ordinary woman. Unfortunately, things took a different turn and feminism lost its focus on helping the majority of women. This is not to say that a woman must be married or partnered in order to be whole and fulfilled, that she is any less than a married woman. It is simply saying we need to address the issues that will help as many women as possible.

-American feminism has not included men enough. This relates to the above point–even even women who have no intention of getting married or having children lament the irresponsibility of the modern American male who can’t even commit to a romantic relationship. This is the result of the lack of focus on feminism and its relation to human relationships, be it marriage or motherhood. Men have not been held responsible since women are free to be whomever they want as an individual. Many women say that men are not as “evolved” as they are, while men say that they do not feel like they can “be a man” anymore. We have not reevaluated male gender roles, nor taken their needs into account.

And yet, there still is a lot of deeply-ingrained sexism towards women: out-of-touch male politicians make decisions about women’s reproductive rights, rape and sexual assault are too prevalent on college campuses, and paid maternity leave is very inadequate. We still have a long way to go for institutional change.

-The LGBT community still suffers. While we see sensationalized girl-on-girl action in movies or an openly gay show host on TV, our LGBT friends are dealing with a host of issues: domestic violence among lesbian couples, transgender youth being beaten up, discrimination in the workplace, and hate crimes. If our society focused on collective welfare that began with taking care of women, I believe that people would be able to accept people who were not heterosexual. Certainly, women who are not straight would certainly accuse society of being “heteronormative.” This is a legitimate criticism. However, once again I cite the Nordic example of having the best cultures for women as well as gays, and also the fact that one of the key psychological issues many LGBT people suffer is being shunned by their families.

It is time that we look at American society as a bit aberrant compared to most other places in the world. It is time we reevaluate our definitions of feminism, our individualism that is both our greatest asset as well as, perhaps, our curse. It is time we truly, deeply respect women.

 

 

Oscars So White: A Critique of Hollywood

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

In the past few weeks, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the lack of diversity in Oscar nominees and in the Academy. This is a very necessary discussion to have, however uncomfortable it is, because Hollywood is still overwhelmingly white. There is nothing wrong with being white; there is no need to ostracize anyone of white or European origin. And I do not believe that multiculturalism and diversity should be evaluated in the same way in different settings: academic curriculum, for example, is not the same as looking at racial profiling by police. However, it is important to understand why Hollywood continues not to reflect the diversity in American society nor the various points of view that are so vital to American culture.

What are some of the reasons that there are so few minorities in Hollywood, especially in terms of power players? Blaming the voters who choose the nominees is like looking at the source of the problem down river instead of upstream. That is, so many steps have filtered out the choices that by the time these choices arrive at the ballots for the Oscars, there is not so much diversity. We have to go back further.

Hollywood was white at its founding. Even in the era of silent films (which are beautiful works of art), we seldom see Black people. This was, naturally, and sadly, a reflection of an earlier society. The trend continued into “talkies”; we might start to see a Black person here or there, tap dancing, serving, or, at its worst, stereotyped or shown as servants. Hollywood was also the beneficiary of gifted artists from Europe who came to make a fresh start in the United States. These legendary filmmakers and directors and film-related professionals brought a wonderfully aesthetic European eye to the film world, and many of us grew up on these stunning classics and still enjoy them immensely. However, with some exceptions (such as Otto Preminger, who championed – and romanced — the gorgeous and talented Dorothy Dandridge), these film industry people carried with them a very white sensibility that reflected the cultures from which they came. This in and of itself is not to be blamed. The problem is that this mentality did not evolve.

Through the 50s and 60s, as American society began to change, Hollywood was slow to embrace these changes. The images of families–white families–in bourgeois suburban settings were the norm. Many white actors, directors, and writers themselves were blacklisted because of the unfounded fear of communism. Slowly, as civil rights began to be granted to all Americans, we began to see more African-Americans as well as other minority performers such as Rita Moreno or Harry Belafonte. Movies occasionally touched on these sensitive topics, such as “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”, but anything to do with minorities was few and far between. Through the 70s, when Americans were finally equal by law, we began to see more representation of non-whites on screen, but still, this was proportionally low. The 80s and 90s brought more Blacks to the forefront, and in the 90s, we began to see other ethnicities such as Latinos, Asians, Native Americans represented. Through the new millennium, we have seen an even greater push for diversity, which is necessary.

Given such a history of a non-progressive industry, we have to look at the people who are choosing the actors to perform in films: the casting agents. How many of them come from an upbringing or city that was diverse? How many of them are nonwhite? How many of them grew up in all-white suburbs or small towns, knowing very little about Native Americans, Blacks, or immigrants? Especially if their perspectives were shaped by media through the 50s and 60s? How many of them have mixed with a wide variety of classes, even? Does it matter if the cop in a police scene is white or non-white? Does it matter in a commercial, a white actor selling toilet paper or a minority one? Pardon the paraphrased vulgarism, but everybody defecates.

After pointing the finger at casting agents, we need to look at the basis upon which films are made: the scripts. Who is writing them? A largely white group. What is their socioeconomic background? This may also play a part as to why there are so few minorities in Hollywood, because it takes a lot of sacrifice and risk on one’s part in terms of finances in order to pursue a Hollywood career. Perhaps it is people of means writing films as well as making them. And so, the scripts themselves reflect a lack of diversity. Just as in the literary publishing world where novels by Black authors are marketed towards Black audiences and not everybody, so it is in the movie business as well. Sure, they might say, there are “Black films” and there is Spike Lee, but that’s just for “their kind.” A producer or financial backers may opt for more “white” films rather than Black or other minority ones, because of what they think will sell. And how many nonwhites are financial backers for Hollywood films? It is an unwritten law in America that white is considered universal.

And just as financial status influences one’s choice of going into film writing or making, it influences going into acting. Many people simply cannot afford to go into acting. Also, many immigrant groups do not see it as a viable way of living, as actors go from job to job and it is financially unstable. For actors who do choose to make that leap, there is always the issue of typecasting: if you’re Latina woman, you will get cast as the maid; if you are South Asian or Middle Eastern, you will get cast as the terrorist. Hollywood has a hard time in seeing a femme fatale who is Pacific Islander, a superhero who is Black, a politician character who is Latino, etc. Hollywood is more comfortable with showing sensationalized gay sex or contact than it is with showing someone with dark skin. One could only imagine how hard it would be for a gay minority actor!

This is not to say that there aren’t many whites who do support diversity in whatever aspect of the film business they work in. Nor can we change the past; I personally find it easier to accept the lack of diversity in earlier films, given that it was the climate of the times. But now, it seems that there is no excuse, and that Hollywood is shamefully behind. Not only is it difficult for minorities, but it is also extremely difficult for women as well. While I am above all a believer in “art for art’s sake” and do not believe in doing things sheerly for political correctness, I do believe that Hollywood is still very much a conservative bastion of power that needs to question itself and include everybody, both the new and the old guard.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to work. That way, I will have time to go see “Spotlight” tomorrow.

David Bowie: A Tribute to the Legend

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

What can be said about David Bowie that hasn’t been said already? Chameleon, gender-bender, androgyne, king of reinvention, alien, 70s star, English gentleman, icon–the list goes on. I discovered David Bowie’s music only in his English gentleman-pop star phase, and only as an adult did I get to know his earlier works. This, however, does not diminish my appreciation for the man and his artistry. It seems necessary that as an artist, I needed to pay tribute to him. After much thought, it did not seem possible to write any sort of objective essay on the man. Then it became clear: David Bowie requires a subjective response. (Readers may enjoy another such subjective response in the form of a poem by writer Anya Krushelnitskaya at http://imperfectimpostor.com/2016/01/14/bowie-died/)

Then the question became, What can an artist learn from David Bowie? What made him so unique?

-Live in different places. Bowie grew up in London, but in Los Angeles, Berlin, New York, etc. One cannot help but be influenced by the culture in various cities when one is an artist. It creates a cross-pollination that one cannot otherwise have. He also worked with musicians and artists from different places around the world, and later married Somali supermodel Iman. So his aesthetic was a global one.

-Create your own aesthetic. A rather contradictory thing to say, given the last statement above. But being the true artist he was–he went to art school–he created a sound and personalities like nobody else. There was or is no one quite like David Bowie. Originality was his mode of being.

-Reinvention. “Chameleon” is a word one frequently hears about David Bowie. No two albums were the same, for they were often concept albums based on characters. Being able to inhabit different identities is something a writer does, for each story or novel is its own personality. Reinvention allows the artist to explore different avenues, ideas, personalities, styles, etc. It is the greatest gift a creative person can have.

-Maintain a certain modicum of mystery. The artist we know is David Bowie was really David Jones. Those who know him have commented on a certain amount of unknowableness, that one could not quite grasp his motives or his contradictory words and actions. Was he gay? Sexually ambiguous? Really just a shy family man who put on personas on stage? We don’t need to know. We only need to see his art.

-Have integrity and no ego. Many colleagues of his have commented on his ability to leave his ego at the door and be open to working with various musicians. This is a must for anyone who collaborates with others in the arts.

-Great art is beyond gender. Bowie’s androgynous characters and personal style (one need only see a photo of him with his first wife and newborn son, in which he looks rather like the mother of the child, with his long hair and tender hold of the baby) pushed the limits of sexuality and conventional gender roles. Was he a beautiful man? A handsome woman? Drag queen? Alien? Or a slim, elegant, masculine Englishman married to a beautiful African model? Perhaps none of this matters when you have such brilliantly poignant songs as “Space Oddity” or the catchy danceability of “Modern Love.”

-A degree of popular success doesn’t hurt. “Let’s Dance” was a Billboard Number 1 hit. As almost every artist knows, it is difficult to be financially successful in this career, so perhaps commercial triumphs can allow an artist to have the means to work in more obscure avenues.

-Cross-pollinate in a variety of artistic genres. David Bowie was a pioneer in performance art, videos, a singer, a champion of costume design, an actor, and so much more. A great artist is someone who can be creative in a variety of media, who can synthesize them and come up with a language of his or her own.

-David Bowie was uniquely English. Perhaps one could say that there is no eccentric quite like an English eccentric! Why the island nation seems to have a proliferation of oddballs and unconventional individuals is certainly of interest. It is a society that values, to a degree, a certain sense of homogeneity and tradition — look at the terraced house architecture everywhere throughout Britain, the presence of monarchy, or the use of school uniforms for example — and community values that we lack in America, and so perhaps creative rebellion is one of the few outlets a person can have. The English sense of fantasy and imagination (a subject worthy of a future post) is renowned the world over, as seen in Harry Potter novels and Alice in Wonderland and Monty Python. The Swinging Sixties were perhaps one of England’s most creatively fertile periods, encouraging a “letting loose” of social mores and previously held habits. In any case, David Bowie is one of the best examples of English creativity.

There was never anyone like David Bowie, nor will there ever be anyone like him. He is a great example for future artists to study, but not to emulate. Would Bowie really have wanted clones?

A Woman of Strings: Violinist Hanna Lachert (Part II)

/ The Women of Letters / 1 Comment

And what of Hanna’s career? She says has had a wonderful professional career in retrospect after 40 years with the NY Phil and 60 years on the stage, after thousands of concerts. This does not mean everything was a bed of roses. However, her experience of playing as a violinist with the NY Philharmonic and sharing the stage with greatest artists of the century standing just a few feet away, and learning so much from them, is something no school could have given her! She learned a lot from her colleagues too, whom she describes as “fantastic.” These were musicians for whom the sky was the limit, who had a quest for perfection, to play each note the way the conductor wanted –and better!

At the NY Phil, she was the 6th woman when she joined—there were 100 men!—and she described herself as “liberal and a free bird, single.” She was making the same starting salary, and had her own life. But her Continental ways raised eyebrows among her more traditional male colleagues, for this was not what they expected. Hanna suggests there were some inappropriate words from colleagues (she describes them as “a few encounters”), such as when she was told her skirts were too short!

When asked about great musicians that she played with, Hanna named Horowitz, Rostropovich, all the great violinists, and singers like Domingo, Pavarotti, Price! As to which one has been most influential, she names Leonard Bernstein. She acknowledges, despite her love for “Lenny,” that he was a polarizing figure: you either had to be in his orbit, or you could not stand him—the usual reaction! Either love or hate. Perhaps others disliked his theatrics, but Hanna said this was genuine; listen to his legacy, and one can see his genius way of seeing teaching music to both musicians and listeners.

What makes for a great musician? Hanna offers some very unique insights. For the great orchestral musicians, there is no unimportant note! This is the essence. From outside, non-musicians think it’s simple “to bang” on an instrument or play, but each single note, the color, timing, or timbre, is as important as the melody, whichever instrument is carrying it. Every single bar, articulation, or rest matters. This is evident even in a great painting—take out one color, and it’s not the same. The attention to detail, to each individual note, is the difference between musicians in an ordinary orchestra and in a great one.

How has Hanna managed to do all this, to have a good professional life, while also being a wife and a mother? She credits violinmaker David Segal from whom she had full support, a man who is her husband. Hanna describes him as a second mom! She had two kids who were also musicians, involved in acting, and she and her husband were busy taking them to activities. (Son Yaniv is a conductor and composer, and daughter Adi is a visual artist.) Hanna had a solo career too, playing 10-15 concerts a season, and was artistically happy. She performed a lot of chamber music, mostly with her New York Philharmonic colleagues.

When asked if the culture of violin playing has changed over the last few decades, Hanna says an emphatic yes. That maybe today’s schooling and pedagogy are at a much higher level than before. Schools, conservatories, etcetera are full of youngsters who play tremendously well. Technique is started early for the students, as is performance. But does it make them better violinists or artists? She does not think so. Historically, Menuhin was a prodigy and so were others, but that is a separate story that cannot be compared to the path of talented young musicians. The ultimate test, she says, is over time. It also boils down to a musician’s ability to communicate. If you can do what you wish w/your instrument, she says, it comes down to if you are able to say what you want to with it. To have a dialogue and have something to offer to the audience. Musicians have to understand their world of music and what the composer is trying to say.

Which composers does Hanna Lachert wish she could have met? What are her thoughts on composers? Composers are inspired suddenly by an idea; who knows where it comes from? Mozart’s manuscripts (she has seen many in Krakow) she says are so humbling—they are perfect from start to finish, without corrections! The process of writing the idea or divine spark varies from composer to composer: it is nice to observe this process. She could have done this w/Krzysztof Penderecki, 81, one of the greatest composers, who is a friend. Hanna concludes by noting that everyone has a different technique. Time will tell who was great and who was trying hard to be great.

Thus we have some reflections by a wonderful musician and artist. Huge thanks to Hanna for her time! Do visit her website to hear her music at http://www.hannalachert.com

A Woman of Strings: Violinist Hanna Lachert (Part I)

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

We are incredibly lucky to have an interview with renowned violinist, Hanna Lachert! Originally from Poland, she has lived in the US for over four decades, and has played with the New York Philharmonic in addition to having a successful chamber and solo career. Hanna not only comes from a musical family, but also has a musical family of her own. While the true test of an artist is ultimately beyond gender, I asked Hanna to comment on her own experiences in being a woman in classical music. The following is from a recorded interview by Hanna, posted in two parts.

Violin culture in Poland is very much alive, and doing well. The music scene is vibrant, as is reflected in many concerts, festivals, and international and local competitions, etc. There are many orchestras, chamber music ensembles, etc. Polish violinists are concertmasters of orchestras around the world!

The roots of Polish violin music go back to the medieval ages, when it was part of courtly life. Hanna continued that tradition as a member of an ensemble in the 1960s in Warsaw called “Con Moto Ma Cantabile” that was mostly strings and harpsichord. They played Polish music of the 16th and 17th centuries (plus concertos by Vivaldi). Western audiences have probably never heard of Mielczewski (1600-65), Szarzynski (also 17th century) and others. There was also Karol Lipiński (1790-1861), a contemporary of Paganini. He left a large body of work for violin, including concerti, symphonies, caprices, and other works. Perhaps the ultimate compliment came from Paganini, who himself is considered by many to be the greatest virtuoso violinist who ever lived. While Paganini said he did not know who the greatest violinist was, the second would certainly be Lipiński!

Then of course there was Henryk Wieniawski (1835 – 1880), a major violin virtuoso and composer for whom the Poznań International Violin competition is named. Wieniawski was employed by the czar in St. Petersburg; there, he started what we know of today as the Russian school, which was later developed by Auer. One of his trips took him to America for 8 months, where he played 215 concerts with pianist Anton Rubinstein!

The next major figure that Hanna cites is Karol Szymanowski (1882 – 1937). His input into the literature of the violin is enormous. With the help of his violinist friend Paul Kochański, a new sound was created in compositions like Myths, two violin concerti, symphonies, and others. Hanna finds his music mesmerizing! Szymanowski’s music is still played globally, thus bringing Poland’s contributions to a wider audience. In addition to violin music, there is also symphonic music from Poland that Hanna finds significant. Karłowicz (1876 – 1909), who died tragically in an avalanche, wrote symphonic poems in addition to a noted violin concerto.

In the 20th century, Bronisław Huberman (1882-1947), a virtuoso violinist, created the Israel Philharmonic. Of course there were violinists Henryk Szeryng (1918-88) and Ida Haendel. Grazyna Bacewicz (1909-69), a woman composer, left a large legacy of music for the violin, such as sonatas, concerti, quartets, etcetera, that are widely performed in Poland and abroad. A current composer of note is Penderecki, who has written several concerti for famed violinists Isaac Stern, Anne-Sophie Mutter, as well as symphonies and chamber music.

But what about our interviewee herself? What was her journey as a violinist?

Not surprisingly, Hanna comes from a musical family. Her mother was a pianist, and her brother is a pianist and composer. When asked about the status of women in classical music in Poland, she provided an answer that some may find surprising. When she came to the US in her early 20’s and with a Master’s, she found a discrepancy between the number of men and women in music, as there was total gender equality in Poland! She says she has done, and still does well, as a female violinist.

But before coming to America, Hanna went from Warsaw to Hanover, Germany to study with Andre Gertler. Then came a twist of fate that changed her life: a Polish expatriate violinist who was visiting from the United States offered her a graduate assistantship to study at the University of Connecticut. Hanna thought it was terrific, but there were the nuts and bolts questions of a visa, passport, etcetera. She stayed in Europe, going to Belgium for another degree, and then finally came to New York and on to Connecticut. The musical culture she found in New York completely floored her! The amount of concerts, choices, was (and is) in her view unparalleled. She has traveled to the great capitals of the world and is very knowledgeable about classical music all over; while she finds the quality in those cities excellent, she says nothing compares to New York. One of the first things Hanna observed in New York was that it was possible to find absolutely everything! Be it ancient or new, from Africa or Antarctica, everything was available. And that was also the case with music. In general, she says all the performing arts flourish in New York. She also says that performances in concert series given at universities around the country are also amazing – something America can be proud of!

But this is not enough. What is problematic is the lack of basic musical and arts education in our elementary schools. Hanna wisely mentions that science has been proving the effect of music on our developing brains, something that is very effective in our lives. Hanna adds that it is even more important now, as children and teenagers are spending more and more time in front of a screen, that they balance this by immersing themselves in the world of the arts, especially in music–whatever instrument they choose.

(Part II will follow; meanwhile, visit http://www.hannalachert.com)

TWOL is back for its 3rd Anniversary!

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

Dear readers,
Wow, three years and going strong!  I can’t believe it!  Summer has been an incredibly busy and fruitful time for me as a writer. I was fortunate to participate in a workshop with writer Antonya Nelson (who is a very good teacher). In July I participated in a workshop with her husband Robert Boswell at the Napa Valley Writers’ Conference (talk about a writing power couple! He knows everything!). In August, I had the extraordinary privilege of going to the Breadloaf Writers’ Conference in Vermont, where I was in a workshop with Lan Samantha Chang (she is remarkably down-to-earth for being so talented!) So posts came to a standstill for a while, but stay tuned for some exciting things here, including a unique interview. Thanks for reading and your support!
Warmest wishes,
Sonja

Since 1776: Britain and/vs. the United States

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

With Independence Day soon approaching on July 4, I thought it would be interesting to explore the similarities and differences between British and American culture. As a devoted Anglophile who has studied abroad in England, visited the London area many times, and has family and friends there, I am always fascinated by America’s “homeland” and the culture there. There are a few things that absolutely make me scratch my head in wonder (the English fry up–baked beans at breakfast??), and other things I admire or can relate to. In no particular order, here are some of the similarities and differences I have noticed:

-England’s English is more ornate, flowery, and wordy than American English. Our use of language here is very direct, efficient, and about not wasting anybody’s time. One can see this in the language of our obsessive, dumbed-down text culture. While this efficiency is often very admirable and shows a certain confidence in expressing one’s ideas with an economy of words, at the same time, we can lack the eloquence, visible erudition, and even clever wordplay (there is nothing like British sarcasm, nothing!) that we find in the same language used across the pond. The language has had a longer time to develop in its homeland, and there are much deeper roots and history entwined with British English. American English’s strength is its innovation, which has surprisingly led the Oxford English Dictionary to include slangy words that might not have been considered decades earlier.

-Britons and Americans are both rather good-humored people. But there is more public bawdiness allowed on TV, in the media, etc. A streak of Puritanism still can run through American culture despite the fact that one can very easily find extremely racy, dirty, and vulgar American humor in the media. But the bawdy humor runs back centuries–think of Shakespeare, and the actors performing the play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Juliet’s nurse teasing about the pleasures of the nuptial bed in Romeo and Juliet.

-Both the United States and Great Britain are large, Anglo-Saxon-based multicultural societies. While there is the dominance of culture, there is also a huge inclusion and tolerance of diversity, minorities, and various ethnic groups. Part of this is due to the countries’ history of colonization and/or slavery. While someone who is Jamaican British for 2 generations would be considered British, someone who is Moroccan in France for two generations would still be considered Moroccan. Britain is very unique in Europe, and cannot be rightly considered Continental in her values, despite EU membership. Britain has proudly retained the pound sterling as her currency, and with the current economic crises in the EU, that was a wise decision.

-I once read a quote (I believe it was by JB Priestley) that England is “reasonable, not rational.” This has its pros and cons. As above, England is less puritanical overall, can accept more behaviors with a reasonable point of view. The long traditions of the English imagination, dandyism, architecture, royal culture, even its religion (Catholicism which then morphed into the Church of England) all illustrate a certain sense of grace and luxuriousness beyond the practicality of American day-to-day life. However, day-to-day life is run with much more smoothness and efficiency in the United States. Ours is not a bureaucratic country, and many institutional processes happen much more quickly here. Each visit to London makes me realize how disorganized the country can be—train stations are a mess, nobody knows which bus goes where, and one must either freeze or burn one’s hands when deciding between the cold or hot taps on the sink.

-Both the US and UK rely heavily on processed, prepackaged foods. Perhaps it is a leftover habit from the war, but supermarkets offer any variety of edible or prepare a bowl in a box, tin/can, or bag. Both the US and UK have gone through a foodie revolution, so to speak, in the past couple of decades, and the number of excellent restaurants has exponentially increased in both countries (primarily in urban areas). Britain does have the advantage of being a smaller country in that the distance from which locally grown foods are shipped is much smaller, although a number of items are imported from southern Europe and northern Africa. But this general reliance on processed foods is still very prevalent in both countries, and perhaps it is no surprise that both the US and UK have high rates of obesity (with the former having the highest rates in the world).

-Naturally, the reason for the colonies’ split from England was the dislike of monarchy and the love of freedom. But what does it mean to have a monarchy and how does this filter out into society? The primary factor that comes to mind is class. The UK is still very class-oriented, and though the upper class is a very small percentage, their landholding and wealth can be quite staggering. With any nobility-holding society comes a great tradition of the arts, high arts. In the United States, we are still developing an arts culture, and it tends to be based more on wealth and individualism rather than something historical. A sense of monarchy also lends itself to a more complacent society, in my opinion. People are more willing to be deferential in the UK in a way that we do not see here in the United States. Social harmony and well being are a higher priority than the extreme individualism and freedom we see in the US. Everything seems more calm, accepting, and unquestioned in the United Kingdom. In the United States, people are much less willing to accept what is put in the baby’s bottle, so to speak, without thinking it through and seeing if it meets the individual’s needs.

-Class differences and social structure are very different between the US and UK. Americans might falsely present an image of our country being a classless society, while the UK still retains the reputation of being run by the upper class and royals, while the rest of the country lives in detached houses. The US does indeed have different social classes, but the markers are often less obvious. Speech, for one, is relatively homogenized compared to Britain. How one speaks does not clearly indicate one’s social position. Also, people cross class barriers much more frequently here. For example, the child of multimillionaires may be working as a waitress in the summer during high school, or a plumber may be on a luxury cruise with passengers who are wealthy professionals. However, it is rare that we discuss class in the United States or very distinctly portray working-class people in our media. One of the rare exceptions was the groundbreaking TV sitcom “Roseanne” which was unabashedly working class. The idea in America is that everyone works, and everyone is self-made, whether or not this is entirely true. We would never have, financially or culturally, a social designation such as
“long term unemployed” as does the UK (as per the Office of National Statistics)!

The comparisons are endless, but the discussion must end here for now. Happy July 4 to all my American readers, and hopefully the Britons aren’t still bitter over 1776…

La Bohème: The Opera about “Nothing”

/ The Women of Letters / Leave a comment

A friend complained that she profoundly disliked the opera La Bohème. Her criticism of Puccini’s hugely popular masterpiece is that the opera drags on, that it takes too long for Mimi to die, and that all of the operas she dislikes happen to be written by Puccini. These might sound like invalid criticisms, comments made by hurried, uncultured Americans who always want to “get somewhere” or something to happen. Lest one assume she is a complete cultural ignoramus, my friend is actually very knowledgeable about opera and the fine arts, and holds memberships to New York art museums though she lives in the Midwest. I was offended in jest, as I am currently learning the role of Musetta, which is as delightful as it is challenging, and will later learn the role of Mimi.

One could argue that we all have an artist we dislike in a particular genre. I doubt I will ever sit through an entire opera by Wagner, despite being an opera singer. But Wagner’s music is absolutely stunning in small doses. I find the overtures to Rienzi and Tannhäuser (one of my marooned-on-a-desert-island picks) and the Prelude to Act I of Lohengrin (tear-inducing when heard live by the Mariinsky Orchestra) to be heartbreakingly gorgeous. I have also joked that I refuse to see Puccini’s Turandot on moral grounds, that the opera is a sort of play-the-black-keys-on-the piano-and-it’s “Chinese” kind of Orientalism at its worst. But I do think it worthwhile to examine La Bohème in detail, to see if there is validity in my friend’s criticism of the opera.

La Bohème, essentially, is “an opera about nothing,” to borrow the analogy from the description of the hugely popular television show “Seinfeld.” The show focused on minutiae, where each episode was not about something grand or dramatic, but something small and silly, where the pleasure in watching came simply from being in the moment and enjoying the pleasure of watching, from funny lines or absurd situations or characters’ quirks. There is something to be said about this characteristic in all genres of artwork, where the realization of the work of art and its details, the way it reproduces reality or conjures the particular emotional feeling of the moment, is what makes it noteworthy. Impressionist paintings, for example, evoke a mood, as do 19th-century symphonic tone poems or a film like the stunning “Wings of Desire” (“Der Himmel Über Berlin”) by Wim Wenders, which is poetry on screen.

The main plotline to La Bohème is relatively simple—-a young dying woman, Mimì, falls in love with poor poet Rodolfo, who lives with his painter friend Marcello, and they are friends with other starving artists. Their relationship goes through ups and downs, as does the painter’s relationship with the coquettish Musetta. In the end, Mimì dies. All relatively straightforward, and not so much to stretch out into 4 acts. On this point, I would agree: La Bohème is too long; Act III could be condensed into Act IV. The opera could work in two acts, actually. The first could accelerate the meeting of Mimì and Rodolfo, then involve a set change into the café. At this peak of happiness, we could then see it all go downhill: Mimì seeks Marcello out to tell him of her unhappiness with Rodolfo, and then, after a set change, she dies. But even in condensing the opera into two acts, we are still ignoring a structural problem: too much of the action of here happens offstage. In this, the criticism that nothing happens in La Bohème may be well justified.

In Act I, the plot is set into action. We see Rodolfo writing and Marcello painting. We see their struggles as artists, we feel their suffering due to the lack of heat and food. And then most importantly, we see Mimì introduced onto the scene. We see her faint, we get to know her sickness. And then we see her falling in love with Rodolfo, and vice versa. In other words, Act I is active, because we are engaged with the events shown onstage.

Act II is less active, but we can forgive it because of one key reason—Musetta. She is one of opera’s greatest female characters, a free-spirited, vain, flirtatious, independent woman who will do as she pleases. She is one of the rare characters who does not suffer a tragic end, nor is she punished for enjoying her sexuality. Though we do not get much of the backstory of Marcello and Musetta’s, we get enough: theirs is an eternally on-off relationship that is generally taken lightly, in contrast to the deep, intimate, emotionally tortured relationship of Rodolfo and Mimì. We enjoy Musetta’s attention-seeking antics she uses to seduce Marcello, and her showcase aria, “Quando m’en vo” is arguably one of the most beautiful arias in all of opera. Act II is all about pleasure, pleasure in romance, pleasure in eating, pleasure in being surrounded by townsfolk. Though not super active, there is still visible action that drives the plot forward. Musetta is reunited with Marcello, and Rodolfo and Mimì are deeply in love forever.

Act III is where the opera becomes more passive. This fact is probably the most passive of all the 4 acts. Mimì has gone to seek Rodolfo at a tavern during winter. She reveals to Marcello what she has suffered from Rodolfo’s jealousy. Then, Rodolfo tells Marcello that he can’t bear it that Mimì is dying. The couple meets, and agrees to stay together until spring. While this is all fine and well, it is only because the music is so beautiful that the audience remains engaged. So much of the action has happened offstage–we have not gotten to see the downfall of their relationship, the arguments, the jealousies, Mimì’s slow decline. The contrast of a fight between Marcello and Musetta serves for comic relief: if Act II was a love moment, Act III is a hate moment in the roller coaster of their relationship. These two characters are not critical to the plot in the way Rodolfo and Mimì are. Time is stretched out in this act; it moves even more slowly than real-time.

Act IV is also rather passive until Mimì arrives on the scene. We have found out that she took up with a viscount after leaving Rodolfo, but has dragged herself, with the help of Musetta, to Rodolfo’s apartment to die. Again, too much has happened offstage that we want to know about–how did they survive the parting? What was Mimi’s relationship with this viscount? Did Rodolfo see any other women in the meantime? How has Mimì’s arrived at death’s door? Has she tried to save her life? Meanwhile, Musetta’s character arc shows her as less selfish than she was before. She has gone with Marcello to sell her earrings to buy Mimi a muff, and makes a sincere prayer to the Virgin Mary to save Mimi, an angel, considering herself unworthy of pardon. Her death scene is indeed touching, the group of friends surrounding her with their warmth and love. But again, one could argue that this act is stretched out longer than necessary, without much going on.

In sum, then, the problem with La Bohème is pacing and the portrayal of time. One must remember that the opera is based on a book, Scènes de la vie de bohème (scenes from a bohemian life), and therein lies the problem: the libretto is based on scenes. Any time a group of stories is woven together into a film or a longer work, such as an opera (and opera might be considered the equivalent of a novel), there is the danger of the longer work being fragmented. Longer works need structure and plot development. These two literary devices are the backbone or skeleton for a film or opera. Two people, Giacosa and Illica, also wrote the libretto and this may also be another source of the problem. Many films that seem unclear, messy, or fragmented have multiple writers, and it is rare when they can find unity in their vision.

This said, I still find La Bohème to be one of the most beautiful and engaging operas ever written. Puccini’s music carries the story even when it is weak, the language of the libretto is simply gorgeous and poetic, and the characters are as relevant today as they were over 100 years ago. They are rounded and complex, real and flawed. Proof of La Bohème’s popularity and relevance can be seen in Jonathan Larson’s 1996 musical, Rent. I personally happen to find the musical a somewhat vulgar copy of the opera, though I am always a fan of any modern work that draws on classics, such as the brilliant films that comprised 2005’s “ShakespeaRe-told”. There is no question that La Bohème will continue to be a classic for decades if not centuries to come.

Poem “We to the World” by Lorna Goodison

/ The Women of Letters / 1 Comment

Dear readers,
Your patience in waiting for a new post has paid off–The Women of Letters is unbelievably proud and grateful to present a new poem by Professor Lorna Goodison of the University of Michigan, a distinguished poet from Jamaica who is renowned the world over!  I hope you will be encouraged to read more of her work, for her poetry is very accessible. Professor Goodison is a true woman of letters, and her poem for TWOL is of an especially relevant subject: the Boko Haram kidnapping of schoolgirls, young women who are being denied their right to become women of letters.

***********************************************************************************

We to the World: Bring Back Our Girls!
Reply from the world: They are your girls, not ours.

Memo to the World:
Armies have not yet managed
to spring our stolen school girls
from that pack of barking mad loco haram .
To remind you, here is a snapshot of them:

In this picture we see our lost girls swathed
in rough regulation grey dress.
From afar they look like wooden vessels
seized on a storm-tossed sea;
or a school graduation group portrait
from bad luck’s let them down academy.