Burgess, Beethoven, Tolstoy and art

[Alexiev]

Beethoven's music romps gleefully through two excellent works of fiction: A Clockwork Orange (Burgess) and the Kreutzer Sonata (Tolstoy).

In Clockwork, Beethoven is played during Alex's aversion therapy. The result: Alex cannot listen to his beloved Ludwig Von without feeling nauseated. The standard interpretation – with which Kubrik beats us over the head in his film – is that Beethoven’s music represents Alex’s soul, which the authoritarian state has stolen.

But does the novel support this notion? Kubrick whitewashed some of Alex’s more disgusting practices: raping 10 year old girls, crushing pet rodents with his boots, raping, pillaging and plundering. Kubrik presents the rich twits so unattractive that the audience has no sympathy for them. Close-ups of Alex’s tortured visage as he undergoes aversion therapy invite our sympathy instead.

The novel Is more graphic and less sympathetic lying in bed after making after maiming the writer and his wife, Alex lies naked in his bed blasting Beetboven.

“And I thought slooshying away to the brown gorgeousness of the starry old German master that I would like to have tolchocked them both harder and ripped them to ribbons on their own floor.”

Beethiven’s music inspires dreams of supremacy and conquest. Perhaps Alex’s soul should have been excised.

In the Kreutzer Sonata Tolstoy’s narrator listens as a man tells him the story of how he murdered his wife. She was having an affair with her piano teacher, stimulated to that sin, apparently, by listening to Beethoven’s famous Sonata, Tolstoy notoriously claimed Beethoven’s 9th was false art, more like a drug than a meditation. In his long short story, he. continues this notion.

What is ir about Beethoven that engenders such suspicious doubts? Does his music stimulate whatever propensities the listener might otherwise suppress? Tolstoy was a didact, wanting art to “infect” the consumer with enlightened emotions and thoughtjs But might not it also stimulate those who have a tendency to evil?. And why is Beethoven often selected has the perpetrator of this art?

[accelafine]

What about Hannibal Lecter and Bach? FFS. What a ridiculous question and thread.

Does this make you feel like becoming a cannibal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuY20YN6F4k

[Alexiev]

What about Hannibal Lecter and Bach? FFS. What a ridiculous question and thread.

Does this make you feel like becoming a cannibal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuY20YN6F4k

I thought you had me on ignore! Uh oh!

I admit my post is rambling, instead of making an argument. Nonetheless, it's a better post than any acelefine has ever written (no great mastery).

[accelafine]

Doesn't stop me from seeing the thread title, genius. The name 'Beethoven' is incongruous where you are concerned to say the least--unless you are talking about the dog.

[Walker]

Beethiven’s music inspires dreams of supremacy and conquest. Perhaps Alex’s soul should have been excised.

As I recall, Burgess was a composer who wrote five novels in one year, Clockwork was one of them. He said he wanted to explore the depths of violence with the novel. Ultra violence. Interesting that he saw Beethoven's energy transmissions via vibrations (body vibrations for Beethoven) as part of that. Bypassing the intellect to touch a universal human nerve.

*

Battle Frequencies, acapella, ultra violence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI

[Alexiev]

Beethiven’s music inspires dreams of supremacy and conquest. Perhaps Alex’s soul should have been excised.

As I recall, Burgess was a composer who wrote five novels in one year, Clockwork was one of them. He said he wanted to explore the depths of violence with the novel. Ultra violence. Interesting that he saw Beethoven's energy transmissions via vibrations (body vibrations for Beethoven) as part of that. Bypassing the intellect to touch a universal human nerve.

*

Battle Frequencies, acapella, ultra violence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI

Tolstoy probably thought stimulating vibrations that lead nowhere are unartistic (moral didact that he was). That was his objection to Shakespeare: all fizz, no substance. How can the fool Polonius be so eloquent? He thought Beethoven was all fizz, too. Here's Tolstoy on Shakespeare:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/2 ... 7726-h.htm

Here's Tolstoy on Wagner (his objections to Beethoven are similar):

https://www.marxists.org/archive/tolsto ... er-13.html

"On Art" and "The Kreutzer Sonata" are available on line.

I was stimulated to write the OP after reading an excellent essay on A Clockwork Orange by Martin Amis. Pauline Kael's eviseration of the Kubrik movie is well worth reading, too.

[Walker]

All fizz makes a fizzle and relatively speaking, Beethoven was not a fizzle.

Interesting. Perhaps Tolstoy heard Beethoven as an immature, like Alex was with his primitive savagery, not yet awakened to romanticism and in fact, like a warrior surviving in a war zone, compelled to crush the perceived weakness that generates romanticism.

Vaughan Williams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcTWnV6 ... rt_radio=1

[Walker]

Beethoven portrayed as a reactionary of resentment, channeling unrequited energy into art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9mcwE0 ... rt_radio=1

[Dubious]

It would have been much better for Tolstoy to have written another major novel than a bunch of useless bullshit he wasn't qualified for or the ability to properly examine.

[Walker]

Kinda tough to ignore the resumé.

The old boy was a dynamo.

[Alexiev]

It would have been much better for Tolstoy to have written another major novel than a bunch of useless bullshit he wasn't qualified for or the ability to properly examine.

In his later years. Tolstoy also condemned his two masterpieces (Anna and War) to the class of second rate art. I like some of Tolstoy's later "peasant" stories, and Hadji Marat is great. The guy could write -- which makes his philosophy of art persuasive,, if controversial, when you read it. His critique of King Lear is a wonderful piece of invective.

[Dubious]

It would have been much better for Tolstoy to have written another major novel than a bunch of useless bullshit he wasn't qualified for or the ability to properly examine.

In his later years. Tolstoy also condemned his two masterpieces (Anna and War) to the class of second rate art. I like some of Tolstoy's later "peasant" stories, and Hadji Marat is great. The guy could write -- which makes his philosophy of art persuasive,, if controversial, when you read it. His critique of King Lear is a wonderful piece of invective.

To me, the ramblings of Tolstoy in regard to Beethoven but especially Shakespeare and Wagner are those of a moral imbecile and hypocrite. Tolstoy's late views amount to a levelling process in which art has merit only when it caters to ordinary people, which begs the question, what is art supposed to be if not exceptional!

His view of Shakespeare was idiotic in the extreme. Shakespeare barely took a position on anything which is precisely what made him universal, each play, more or less, producing a different context. Furthermore, he was obviously very well understood by the society and time in which he wrote as are most contemporary writers of any age. There was nothing elitist about him as Tolstoy considered him to be. Clearly Shakespeare worked as a craftsman, not unlike Bach, making a living by doing what he's best qualified to do. When he died, there was hardly a mention of him unlike the main actors who performed in his plays. What's most astounding, he himself did nothing to preserve them for posterity which is certainly not the outcome Tolstoy would ever have imagined or expected for himself.

Tolstoy was much too inebriated with his own mystical version of Jesus to consider anything of merit which, in some way, didn't conform with his beliefs. He succumbed to his own brand of theism, ending in a state which can only be described as decrepitly pathetic.

Also, I won't hesitate to say both Beethoven and Wagner in the history of art and creativity were far more exceptional and valuable than anything Tolstoy produced. Only in rare cases can literature equal music in its ability to express the subterranean depths and movements of the human psyche as expressed by its most talented agents.

[accelafine]

I wouldn't put Wagner in a sentence with Beethoven (except to say I wouldn't put them in a sentence together).

[Alexiev]

It would have been much better for Tolstoy to have written another major novel than a bunch of useless bullshit he wasn't qualified for or the ability to properly examine.

In his later years. Tolstoy also condemned his two masterpieces (Anna and War) to the class of second rate art. I like some of Tolstoy's later "peasant" stories, and Hadji Marat is great. The guy could write -- which makes his philosophy of art persuasive,, if controversial, when you read it. His critique of King Lear is a wonderful piece of invective.

To me, the ramblings of Tolstoy in regard to Beethoven but especially Shakespeare and Wagner are those of a moral imbecile and hypocrite. Tolstoy's late views amount to a levelling process in which art has merit only when it caters to ordinary people, which begs the question, what is art supposed to be if not exceptional!

His view of Shakespeare was idiotic in the extreme. Shakespeare barely took a position on anything which is precisely what made him universal, each play, more or less, producing a different context. Furthermore, he was obviously very well understood by the society and time in which he wrote as are most contemporary writers of any age. There was nothing elitist about him as Tolstoy considered him to be. Clearly Shakespeare worked as a craftsman, not unlike Bach, making a living by doing what he's best qualified to do. When he died, there was hardly a mention of him unlike the main actors who performed in his plays. What's most astounding, he himself did nothing to preserve them for posterity which is certainly not the outcome Tolstoy would ever have imagined or expected for himself.

Tolstoy was much too inebriated with his own mystical version of Jesus to consider anything of merit which, in some way, didn't conform with his beliefs. He succumbed to his own brand of theism, ending in a state which can only be described as decrepitly pathetic.

Also, I won't hesitate to say both Beethoven and Wagner in the history of art and creativity were far more exceptional and valuable than anything Tolstoy produced. Only in rare cases can literature equal music in its ability to express the subterranean depths and movements of the human psyche as expressed by its most talented agents.

Tolstoy was a strange dude later in life. That's clear. But his view of Shakespeare was not idiotic. Have you read is critique of King Lear? It's a masterpiece of invective (even if you disagree). I think Tolstoy disliked Shakespeare precisely because Shakespeare had no moral point of view. He was interested in his characters. Even there he could not always resist giving them fancy speeches which were "out of character". I forget if it was Tolstoy or G.B. Shaw who complained about Polonius' "neither a borrower or a lender be..." speech. He thought it unreasonable that a buffoon like Polonius could suddenly become eloquent.

Personally, I'm a fan of literature. It's my favorite art (although I like them all). And Tolstoy stands at the pinnacle of great novelists (and short story writers). The simplicity of his style masks the depth of his technique. Unfortunately, those of us in love with Anna find that novel difficult to reread. It's about time I dipped into "War and Peace" again, though. I like the chapters of straight philosophy ("The movement of history is compared to the movement of a locomotive"). The anti-great-man theory of history may or may not be reasonable. But the action of the novel (in which the fictional motives and actions of each character affect the war as much as the orders of Generals) makes it seem obvious. It's a work of genius.

By the way, Tolstoy's vision of Jesus was not "mystical". He denied the divinity of Jesus. He thought of Jesus as a holy teacher. I'm not an expert on Chertkov or Tolstoy's religious beliefs. He was a pacifist who influenced Ghandi. He was something of an anarchist. In "The Kingdom of God is Within You" he argued that the State is more dangerous than thieves, and he wanted to give his estate to the peasants who lived on it (which led to a falling out with his wife, who thought their 13 children should get it).

I think he objected to Beethoven and Shakespeare because, in his vanity and pride, his anarchist side always wanted to kill the king.

[Dubious]

I wouldn't put Wagner in a sentence with Beethoven (except to say I wouldn't put them in a sentence together).

Certainly, Mahler didn't hesitate when he said...

Among poets and composers of more recent times we can, perhaps, name but three: Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Wagner.

This is too simplistic, it leaves out a few others whose inclusion would be thoroughly justified, but I still understand the sentiment.