Have you ever felt, when seeing characters in other settings deal with their problems, that they would be much better off if they had your values and your ethical equipment? The Great Gatsby would have been resolved very differently if it had occurred in the modern day.
I think we’re supposed to find the actions of the characters immoral and depraved (that is to say, that Fitzgerald was attempting to invoke Values Dissonance), but all I felt was that they were being terribly stupid about the way they handled problems that we wouldn’t bat an eye towards nowadays.
This exchange reminded me a lot of Brave New World: the idea that in a rational world (and perhaps just with a rational outlook) the drama of certain situations is lost because they just seem silly. Thus Helmhotz’s confused reaction to Romeo and Juliet of being gripped by the language, but laughing at the crazy concepts of forbidden love and family tensions
“And yet,” said Helmholtz when, having recovered breath enough to apologize, he had mollified the Savage into listening to his explanations, “I know quite well that one needs ridiculous, mad situations like that; one can’t write really well about anything else. Why was that old fellow such a marvellous propaganda technician? Because he had so many insane, excruciating things to get excited about. You’ve got to be hurt and upset; otherwise you can’t think of the really good, penetrating, X-rayish phrases. But fathers and mothers!” He shook his head. “You can’t expect me to keep a straight face about fathers and mothers. And who’s going to get excited about a boy having a girl or not having her?” (The Savage winced; but Helmholtz, who was staring pensively at the floor, saw nothing.) “No.” he concluded, with a sigh, “it won’t do. We need some other kind of madness and violence. But what? What? Where can one find it?” He was silent; then, shaking his head, “I don’t know,” he said at last, “I don’t know.”
This is reminding me of The Gaslight Effect, a book about emotional abuse. It includes that a healthy relationship simply isn’t going to have the extreme high and low contrast, nor the intellectual fascination of trying to figure out how to deal with something that really can’t be dealt with.
Well, Values Dissonance aside (as in “Why don’t you just not shoot him?”), a lot of old stories, especially tragedies, rely on people being stupid, stubborn, impulsive, and otherwise unwise. And this can be silly.
Beatrice and Benedick’s relationship troubles make sense: they’re shy (possibly “once burned”) and can’t stop poking fun at each other long enough to admit they like each other. They’re being dorky, and that’s a fitting subject for comedy.
But Claudio and Hero, on the other hand? Claudio thinks he’s seen Hero getting it on with Borachio, but instead of confronting her privately — or even talking to her father and calling off the wedding — Claudio publicly humiliates her in front of the whole villa. To my values, this would be intolerably abusive behavior even if she actually had been cheating, and it’s really weird that Hero still wants anything to do with him afterward.
I haven’t read it, but the Wikipedia article points to the topic of the superfluous man,
The Russian critics such as Vissarion Belinsky viewed the superfluous man as a by-product of Nicholas I’s reactionary reign when the best educated men would not enter the discredited government service and, lacking other options for self-realization, doomed themselves to live out their life in passivity. Scholar David Patterson describes the superfluous man as “not just...another literary type but...a paradigm of a person who has lost a point, a place, a presence in life” before concluding that “the superfluous man is a homeless man”
which makes me wonder, “Why don’t you just emigrate? You are wealthy, aren’t you, and you have valuable skills, so why not?”
Have you ever felt, when seeing characters in other settings deal with their problems, that they would be much better off if they had your values and your ethical equipment? The Great Gatsby would have been resolved very differently if it had occurred in the modern day.
I think we’re supposed to find the actions of the characters immoral and depraved (that is to say, that Fitzgerald was attempting to invoke Values Dissonance), but all I felt was that they were being terribly stupid about the way they handled problems that we wouldn’t bat an eye towards nowadays.
This exchange reminded me a lot of Brave New World: the idea that in a rational world (and perhaps just with a rational outlook) the drama of certain situations is lost because they just seem silly. Thus Helmhotz’s confused reaction to Romeo and Juliet of being gripped by the language, but laughing at the crazy concepts of forbidden love and family tensions
“And yet,” said Helmholtz when, having recovered breath enough to apologize, he had mollified the Savage into listening to his explanations, “I know quite well that one needs ridiculous, mad situations like that; one can’t write really well about anything else. Why was that old fellow such a marvellous propaganda technician? Because he had so many insane, excruciating things to get excited about. You’ve got to be hurt and upset; otherwise you can’t think of the really good, penetrating, X-rayish phrases. But fathers and mothers!” He shook his head. “You can’t expect me to keep a straight face about fathers and mothers. And who’s going to get excited about a boy having a girl or not having her?” (The Savage winced; but Helmholtz, who was staring pensively at the floor, saw nothing.) “No.” he concluded, with a sigh, “it won’t do. We need some other kind of madness and violence. But what? What? Where can one find it?” He was silent; then, shaking his head, “I don’t know,” he said at last, “I don’t know.”
This is reminding me of The Gaslight Effect, a book about emotional abuse. It includes that a healthy relationship simply isn’t going to have the extreme high and low contrast, nor the intellectual fascination of trying to figure out how to deal with something that really can’t be dealt with.
Well, Values Dissonance aside (as in “Why don’t you just not shoot him?”), a lot of old stories, especially tragedies, rely on people being stupid, stubborn, impulsive, and otherwise unwise. And this can be silly.
Much Ado About Nothing, for instance.
Beatrice and Benedick’s relationship troubles make sense: they’re shy (possibly “once burned”) and can’t stop poking fun at each other long enough to admit they like each other. They’re being dorky, and that’s a fitting subject for comedy.
But Claudio and Hero, on the other hand? Claudio thinks he’s seen Hero getting it on with Borachio, but instead of confronting her privately — or even talking to her father and calling off the wedding — Claudio publicly humiliates her in front of the whole villa. To my values, this would be intolerably abusive behavior even if she actually had been cheating, and it’s really weird that Hero still wants anything to do with him afterward.
And what about The Taming Of The Shrew? Psychological abuse, harassment, and gaslighting, non-violent though it was… and everyone’s happy in the end?
Eugene Onegin comes to mind even more starkly.
I haven’t read it, but the Wikipedia article points to the topic of the superfluous man,
which makes me wonder, “Why don’t you just emigrate? You are wealthy, aren’t you, and you have valuable skills, so why not?”
I was thinking more of the ‘get into a deadly duel with your best friend over his girlfriend, whom you aren’t all that into anyway’ aspect.
That sounds enormously stupid, unless these people place very little value in human life.
Well, yes. That was why I brought it up. Hard to relate to.