@hightor,
As for Howard Jacobson's piece this is probably going to make your day for today, layman was absolutely correct
layman wrote:Well, that was one pretentious crock of ****, which completely ignores the reasons the objectors were protesting.
Johnson made this promising start:
Quote:I didn’t see the production that turned Julius Caesar into a Donald Trump look-alike, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of the impersonation or the violence against the president that some people believe it meant to incite
If he didn't see the production he couldn't have possibly seen the reaction of critical members of the audience, and there is absolutely no reason to believe he has every met or spoken with either of the two men (The "Trumpists" as he calls them) and yet he feels perfectly comfortable in identifying, with certainty, what the two men objected to, why they did so and even the way their minds work in general.
It's clear by his pretentious lecture on dramaturgy meant to cast him in the role of the brilliant critic and man of letters that he is of the belief that unlike him, the Trumpists are a couple of rubes who couldn't possibly understand and appreciate both the richness and the subtleties of drama and Shakespeare, implying that maybe if they did they wouldn't have reacted like thin skinned rustics.
He also dismisses out of hand, the possibility that their demonstration had nothing to do with failing to appreciate and understand the play or it's author, and everything to do with understanding the production and appreciating what it's director's intent was. This is quite presumptuous for someone who acknowledges that he didn't see the production and
"can’t comment on the accuracy of the impersonation or the violence against the president that some people believe it meant to incite" By his own admission he doesn't know and can't comment on whether or not the production exceeded the limits of artistic license and entered into the realm of incitement of violence, but nevertheless moves full steam ahead and discusses the Trumpists' reaction to it as if he could; and it didn't.
Of course his
promising start was the real crock of ****. He led with this "disclaimer" because that's what intellectually honest people do (even the pretentious ones) when there is a pertinent point to be disclosed like:
"I didn't see the production and I don't know the Trumpists who protested, so realize that there is every reason to believe I am operating out of my ass when I write like I did see it or know them."
However, just as intellectually dishonest people do, (although not often this blatantly) the disclosure was plugged in for appearance sake only.