John Lahr and August Wilson
"How can you think against society and be owned by it at the same time?"
By John Lahr
Posted Monday, Sept. 10, 2001, at 12:33 PM ETDear August,
Hello from London, where you'll be coming in a few weeks for the Royal National's production of Jitney. When you arrive, you'll find the right wing as clapped out and devoid of ideas as Bush and Co., the food better than you probably remember, the gap between the white culture and people of color even greater than it is at home. Today, reading an article about the fight promoter Don King, I thought of you and riding around the Hill in Pittsburgh with your mate "Chawley" Williams, who ran numbers and was a civic leader--then and now--on the Hill in Pittsburgh. King, who did time as I'm sure you know for killing a guy in a fistfight, was trying to explain to the British reporter about being a "digitarian," as Chawley called himself at the time. "From the very beginning when I started to hustle," King is reported saying in the Sunday Telegraph, "... I was always a man of community." The article goes on: "Then, spotting my incredulous expression, he adds: 'I'm telling you, man! I would feed the community, feed the poor, give them things. That's the way of life.' " Having spent five months writing about you and walking the Hill, I know that King is telling it absolutely true--the number runners did/do take the role of civic leaders in the ghetto community; they are the ones with the surplus and the entrepreneurial skills. I also know that the reporter's incredulity, like my own until recently, was due to the fact that he had not spent one waking minute inside the ghetto. The distance between cultures is so much wider than we fondly think; language gives us the illusion that we understand something which as a nation we have almost no visceral, meaningful experience of. By the way--and this is why I like reading the sports pages, because the language is vivid and unlettered and poetic--King told the writer, "I understand exactly what the system is and what I'm up against. I have a Ph.D. in Caucasianism."
You told me you wrote Jitney over 10 days sitting at Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips in Minneapolis. According to what feels like a trend emerging in the arts over here, I might suggest that you hit on the franchise for some sponsorship for the production--a kind of product placement. As I write, the English National Ballet has signed a sponsorship deal with Barbie dolls to stage a six week run of Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker, which begins in December and will carry Barbie's name in the billing. And one of England's best novelists, Fay Weldon, has signed a contract with the Italian jewelers for a sizeable check for mentions in her forthcoming novel, The Bulgari Connection. There are all sorts of economic rationalizations for the trend, but I think it's lamentable. The artist--who has to please to live--must always, in some sense, pick the pocket of the public. It's another thing to join forces with the corporations; instead of speaking your mind, you're speaking, albeit obliquely, capitalism's agenda. How can you think against society and be owned by it at the same time? To me, it's hilariously corrupt and a reflection of our increasingly winded, timid times.
Finally, I read that some English galleon that sunk centuries ago off the coast of Gibraltar and was carrying £500m in gold is being excavated. That led me to think of your mythic Aunt Esther and the play I assume you're mulling over in the basement right now about her transportation from Africa to the New World and the millions of Africans who were lost in the Middle Passage ... Has Aunt Esther spoken to you about the trip? She came to mind while I was reading about exiled poet and novelist Syl Cheney-Coker, a Sierra Leonean who is the first guest of Las Vegas' City of Asylum scheme to support writers in exile. I remember you said, when she finally spoke to you, how strange Aunt Esther found the flora and fauna of the New World to which she was exiled. Here is Cheney-Coker: "I miss my house. I miss watching kingfishers diving for fish. I miss waking up and listening to little birds in the coconut trees. When I wake here, I can hear birds, but I don't know what they are."
Speak soon. Warm best regards,
John
"How can you think against society and be owned by it at the same time?"
By John Lahr
Posted Monday, Sept. 10, 2001, at 12:33 PM ETJohn Lahr is senior drama critic for The New Yorker and author of 18 books. He recently co-authored, with Elaine Stritch, the play Elaine Stritch at Liberty
, which will premier at the Public Theater in New York City in October. August Wilson is the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright who's best known for his 20th-century, decade-by-decade cycle of plays. Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Thursday Fray Notes: There were harsh words in the "Breakfast Table" Fray; many Fraysters were not happy with the writers' views. The hot topics were moral relativism and moral equivalence: Tom R said "At best August's metaphysics is chaff; at worst his moral relativism is straw fit only for stable bedding." WillV was using the word "obnoxious." Over at the defense table, Zeitguy said "The frenzy of jingoistic violence that is starting to choke off any possibility of intelligent discussion is more toxic than all the burning plastic insulation and jet fuel that is choking lower Manhatten," and ended up "When it comes to freedom of speech, I don't split hairs."
Meanwhile, news from two New York-based star posters: Claude Scales recounted his story here; and Thrasymachus, here.]
OK we've all had our chance to marvel at this notion that, because the hatred which terrorist organizations feel towards the US presumably has some sort of explanation, their actions are at least partially justified. We've all had the chance to notice, among other things, the equivocation between "explanation" and "justification" on which it rests.
But there's another marvel here-- that an argument of this sort should be raised at all by the sort of people who've been raising it. Wasn't it conventional wisdom in lefty circles, prior to Tuesday, that being motivated by hatred aggravates a crime rather than excusing it? Someone was pushing for all those hate-crime laws, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. If the trauma of Tuesday were to change anyone's mind on that issue, wouldn't a change in the opposite direction have been a lot likelier? I can understand how watching that day's deluge of horrors would make someone start believing in "hate crime" even though I don't believe in it myself. But how could it make someone stop?
It's getting harder and harder to escape the conclusion that nothing has changed; that the real criterion is, as it has always been, not the presence or absence of hate but rather the palatibility of whatever ideological message comes attached to the crime. If the message is "I hate gays", that's good for an extra sentence. But if it's "I hate America", you've got their respectful attention.
--Fully Brusque Man
(To reply, click here.)
[Tuesday Fray Notes: There was, of course, only one topic for discussion. Compared with some of the other threads, (and typical of the "Breakfast Table" Fray) there were fewer calls for revenge, and more serious thoughtful posts. Mike J quoted from W.H.Auden's great poem September 1 1939 here.]
Walking down Pennsylvania Ave toward the Archives Metro station I saw something that I've only seen in movies--people scrambling to "get the hell outta Dodge." Five lanes of a six lane two-way avenue were commandeered by traffic going in the same direction, and cars were creeping over into the last remaining lane. People are scared, and they should be. But, what I saw was only a half step down from the type of public hysteria where it's no holds barred, every man for himself.
The attacks on the WTC, State Department, and Pentagon, are no less than acts of war. The loss of life in New York is tragic. But, what bothers me most is that the terrorist acts have produced exactly the desired reaction. I'm typing from my home in a Maryland suburb because I left work early out of fear. And now I'm angry. I'm angry because the fear and confusion is exactly what the terrorist hopes to promote. I'm angry because the object of my anger isn't here in front of me where I can see justice done.
I'm most angered by the fact that the terrorist has been successful--whether or not his ultimate goal is achieved (I'm very confident that it won't be) he has already won a major victory...
--Tony Adragna
(To reply, click here.)
Fear is only your daily bread if you choose to eat it... No doubt America is filled with yammerheads who will bay and cry for other innocents to be killed in exchange for our dead innocents. Americans don't, or shouldn't, commit foul deeds to trade for foul deeds. Bury and mourn the dead, take a close look at who rejoices and who joins us in mourning, rebuild and repair. Only then after a steady and thoughtful hunt for the guilty and weighing of evidence should anyone begin to decide what to do. Tomorrow the sun rises for most of us, and the Post Office will be open, coffee will need to be brewed, etc.
--Neill Hamilton
(To reply, click here.)
What we are faced with is our society's--our civilization's--enemies, on whom we ought now to wage war without stint and war without pity. Globalization has limits; all of humanity does not go forward together after all. Some must be excluded, and that is cause for great sadness. There is every reason to think that this coming war will change our way of life in some regrettable ways, will make us less tolerant and optimistic. It will be the price of our future
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
We cannot allow the reptilian part of our brains control our response to this atrocity. If we throw bombs at people who have nothing to do with this act we will confirm the opinion of our enemies that we are no better than the terrorists. The terrorists will then win recruits and support. We should ask ourselves two questions: (1) How can we obtain adequate proof of who is really responsible for this crime and take appropriate measures that do not harm innocent people? (2) Why are there people in the world as intelligent as these terrorists who hate us so much that they would commit this evil act and sacrifice their own lives in the process. "Nuke 'um" is not a response worthy of our country.
--Thomas D. Hennessy
(To reply, click here.)
(9/11)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
What Ever Happened to Hood Ornaments?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Thursday Fray Notes: There were harsh words in the "Breakfast Table" Fray; many Fraysters were not happy with the writers' views. The hot topics were moral relativism and moral equivalence: Tom R said "At best August's metaphysics is chaff; at worst his moral relativism is straw fit only for stable bedding." WillV was using the word "obnoxious." Over at the defense table, Zeitguy said "The frenzy of jingoistic violence that is starting to choke off any possibility of intelligent discussion is more toxic than all the burning plastic insulation and jet fuel that is choking lower Manhatten," and ended up "When it comes to freedom of speech, I don't split hairs."
Meanwhile, news from two New York-based star posters: Claude Scales recounted his story here; and Thrasymachus, here.]
OK we've all had our chance to marvel at this notion that, because the hatred which terrorist organizations feel towards the US presumably has some sort of explanation, their actions are at least partially justified. We've all had the chance to notice, among other things, the equivocation between "explanation" and "justification" on which it rests.
But there's another marvel here-- that an argument of this sort should be raised at all by the sort of people who've been raising it. Wasn't it conventional wisdom in lefty circles, prior to Tuesday, that being motivated by hatred aggravates a crime rather than excusing it? Someone was pushing for all those hate-crime laws, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. If the trauma of Tuesday were to change anyone's mind on that issue, wouldn't a change in the opposite direction have been a lot likelier? I can understand how watching that day's deluge of horrors would make someone start believing in "hate crime" even though I don't believe in it myself. But how could it make someone stop?
It's getting harder and harder to escape the conclusion that nothing has changed; that the real criterion is, as it has always been, not the presence or absence of hate but rather the palatibility of whatever ideological message comes attached to the crime. If the message is "I hate gays", that's good for an extra sentence. But if it's "I hate America", you've got their respectful attention.
--Fully Brusque Man
(To reply, click here.)
[Tuesday Fray Notes: There was, of course, only one topic for discussion. Compared with some of the other threads, (and typical of the "Breakfast Table" Fray) there were fewer calls for revenge, and more serious thoughtful posts. Mike J quoted from W.H.Auden's great poem September 1 1939 here.]
Walking down Pennsylvania Ave toward the Archives Metro station I saw something that I've only seen in movies--people scrambling to "get the hell outta Dodge." Five lanes of a six lane two-way avenue were commandeered by traffic going in the same direction, and cars were creeping over into the last remaining lane. People are scared, and they should be. But, what I saw was only a half step down from the type of public hysteria where it's no holds barred, every man for himself.
The attacks on the WTC, State Department, and Pentagon, are no less than acts of war. The loss of life in New York is tragic. But, what bothers me most is that the terrorist acts have produced exactly the desired reaction. I'm typing from my home in a Maryland suburb because I left work early out of fear. And now I'm angry. I'm angry because the fear and confusion is exactly what the terrorist hopes to promote. I'm angry because the object of my anger isn't here in front of me where I can see justice done.
I'm most angered by the fact that the terrorist has been successful--whether or not his ultimate goal is achieved (I'm very confident that it won't be) he has already won a major victory...
--Tony Adragna
(To reply, click here.)
Fear is only your daily bread if you choose to eat it... No doubt America is filled with yammerheads who will bay and cry for other innocents to be killed in exchange for our dead innocents. Americans don't, or shouldn't, commit foul deeds to trade for foul deeds. Bury and mourn the dead, take a close look at who rejoices and who joins us in mourning, rebuild and repair. Only then after a steady and thoughtful hunt for the guilty and weighing of evidence should anyone begin to decide what to do. Tomorrow the sun rises for most of us, and the Post Office will be open, coffee will need to be brewed, etc.
--Neill Hamilton
(To reply, click here.)
What we are faced with is our society's--our civilization's--enemies, on whom we ought now to wage war without stint and war without pity. Globalization has limits; all of humanity does not go forward together after all. Some must be excluded, and that is cause for great sadness. There is every reason to think that this coming war will change our way of life in some regrettable ways, will make us less tolerant and optimistic. It will be the price of our future
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
We cannot allow the reptilian part of our brains control our response to this atrocity. If we throw bombs at people who have nothing to do with this act we will confirm the opinion of our enemies that we are no better than the terrorists. The terrorists will then win recruits and support. We should ask ourselves two questions: (1) How can we obtain adequate proof of who is really responsible for this crime and take appropriate measures that do not harm innocent people? (2) Why are there people in the world as intelligent as these terrorists who hate us so much that they would commit this evil act and sacrifice their own lives in the process. "Nuke 'um" is not a response worthy of our country.
--Thomas D. Hennessy
(To reply, click here.)
(9/11)