for me it just didn't work for fundamental narrative reasons. it was a fun idea and a harmless experiment but all it proved was that actually, the audience shouldn't have *any* say in how the story goes. that's not their job
When one is notified (warned?) in advance that such-and-such is not an “ordinary” such-and-such, things are off to a bad start. I am neither a movie goer nor a gamer, so I have no opinion about “Bandersnatch,” but I find Larkin’s Coltrane review interesting and his analogy unconvincing. With a “drawing” you can show multiple possibilities simultaneously; you present not just the illusion, but the process by which the illusion is created. Among other things, this is what Cezanne and the Cubists, working in a spatial medium, demonstrate. (I wonder what Larkin must’ve made of Picasso’s many seven-nosed beauties?) Music, operating in time rather than space, does, as Larkin says, impose a choice, but it’s not a choice that visual artists have to make.
Your first line is practically a dictum and I agree with it. And although I like Larkin’s line, I think I agree with what you say about that, too. He was a thoroughgoing artistic reactionary, which I only occasionally pretend to be… I seem to remember either he or Kingsley Amis referring to Picasso as ‘Pablo the piss-poor paint-pusher…’
Been reading some Larkin myself lately. He’s not in general an obscure or confusing poet, but “Dry-Point” baffles me. I’m drawn to it, have read it many times, but if I were asked to “explain” it, I couldn’t. I guess the “time-honored irritant” is sex, but if so, the attitude toward it here differs greatly from Larkin’s usual bluff, comical, burlesque tone. And the title adds to my confusion. Most perplexing “Birmingham magic all discredited,” which I think might be clearer to an Englishman like you. Do you have any enlightening thoughts about this poem?
‘Dry-Point’ is one of the more obscure ones, for sure. It definitely does relate to sex: I think it originally had a title to that effect which he then changed for some reason. And I see a lot of penises in that poem…
I didn’t understand the Birmingham line when I first read it - apparently it’s connected to Birmingham’s reputation for cheap jewellery, i.e. the ring that looks expensive and glamorous at first and then ends up ‘leaden’.
But what I don’t know is whether that was easy to understand when he wrote it, because I feel pretty sure that nobody these days in England would know what that meant without being told. Larkin usually knows when something needs explaining or doesn’t, but in that case it’s hard for me to tell…
for me it just didn't work for fundamental narrative reasons. it was a fun idea and a harmless experiment but all it proved was that actually, the audience shouldn't have *any* say in how the story goes. that's not their job
Sure, there was definitely no harm in trying it out. And maybe it worked for some people, but sadly not for me…
Larkin was very wrong about Coltrane but you are very right about Bandersnatch
I’ll take that! Thank you for saying so.
When one is notified (warned?) in advance that such-and-such is not an “ordinary” such-and-such, things are off to a bad start. I am neither a movie goer nor a gamer, so I have no opinion about “Bandersnatch,” but I find Larkin’s Coltrane review interesting and his analogy unconvincing. With a “drawing” you can show multiple possibilities simultaneously; you present not just the illusion, but the process by which the illusion is created. Among other things, this is what Cezanne and the Cubists, working in a spatial medium, demonstrate. (I wonder what Larkin must’ve made of Picasso’s many seven-nosed beauties?) Music, operating in time rather than space, does, as Larkin says, impose a choice, but it’s not a choice that visual artists have to make.
Your first line is practically a dictum and I agree with it. And although I like Larkin’s line, I think I agree with what you say about that, too. He was a thoroughgoing artistic reactionary, which I only occasionally pretend to be… I seem to remember either he or Kingsley Amis referring to Picasso as ‘Pablo the piss-poor paint-pusher…’
Been reading some Larkin myself lately. He’s not in general an obscure or confusing poet, but “Dry-Point” baffles me. I’m drawn to it, have read it many times, but if I were asked to “explain” it, I couldn’t. I guess the “time-honored irritant” is sex, but if so, the attitude toward it here differs greatly from Larkin’s usual bluff, comical, burlesque tone. And the title adds to my confusion. Most perplexing “Birmingham magic all discredited,” which I think might be clearer to an Englishman like you. Do you have any enlightening thoughts about this poem?
‘Dry-Point’ is one of the more obscure ones, for sure. It definitely does relate to sex: I think it originally had a title to that effect which he then changed for some reason. And I see a lot of penises in that poem…
I didn’t understand the Birmingham line when I first read it - apparently it’s connected to Birmingham’s reputation for cheap jewellery, i.e. the ring that looks expensive and glamorous at first and then ends up ‘leaden’.
But what I don’t know is whether that was easy to understand when he wrote it, because I feel pretty sure that nobody these days in England would know what that meant without being told. Larkin usually knows when something needs explaining or doesn’t, but in that case it’s hard for me to tell…