Jump to content


The Misanthrope


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
98 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_JH_*

Guest_JH_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2009 - 12:47 PM

Goodness, you're a miserable lot. I went last Thursday & thought it was excellent. Had to concentrate at first to get into the verse, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Cast were all good & worked well together. I was  pleasantly surprised at the range of Kiera Knightley's acting and thought she was both delightful and powerful.

#62 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2009 - 03:34 PM

Hello again,

I wrote the post asking people not to assume the motive's of creative teams.  Yikes.  Some rather paranoid responses.

@paultheatre
I'm finding it very hard to believe you're not somehow invovled in this production.


One doesn't to have a personal stake in something in order to hold a different opinion to you.  I was making a general point about people assuming the motives of others (i.e. that a team would approach a production saying to themselves "let's mindlessly ruin this play").

@paultheatre
Why, if you're "no great fan of Moliere, Crimp or Knightley" would you be taking an interest in this thread? Hmm...


Because I'm interested in London theatre and in people's opinions on productions.  In fact, I'd like nothing more than to be completely wrong about this production, read positive reviews, turn up and be blown away by it.  That's why people read about things we don't know about: in order to get to know more about them.

@weez
Or maybe I was in a bit of a hurry posting before, and "mindlessly" accidentally came out when I actually meant "pointlessly". Sorry to completely ruin your rant


It's okay, you haven't ruined my rant.  "Mindless" was the word you used and therefore the word I responded to.  Shifting the goalposts after the fact doesn't help us, here.

@weez
you obviously had a bit more free time for posting than I did today.


Go to Wikipedia, look up "ad hominum".

#63 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1779 posts

Posted 14 December 2009 - 03:43 PM

Ad hominem.

#64 Guest_Pedant_*

Guest_Pedant_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2009 - 03:48 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Dec 14 2009, 03:34 PM) View Post
Hello again,

I wrote the post asking people not to assume the motive's of creative teams.  Yikes.  Some rather paranoid responses.

@paultheatre
I'm finding it very hard to believe you're not somehow invovled in this production.


One doesn't to have a personal stake in something in order to hold a different opinion to you.  I was making a general point about people assuming the motives of others (i.e. that a team would approach a production saying to themselves "let's mindlessly ruin this play").

@paultheatre
Why, if you're "no great fan of Moliere, Crimp or Knightley" would you be taking an interest in this thread? Hmm...


Because I'm interested in London theatre and in people's opinions on productions.  In fact, I'd like nothing more than to be completely wrong about this production, read positive reviews, turn up and be blown away by it.  That's why people read about things we don't know about: in order to get to know more about them.

@weez
Or maybe I was in a bit of a hurry posting before, and "mindlessly" accidentally came out when I actually meant "pointlessly". Sorry to completely ruin your rant


It's okay, you haven't ruined my rant.  "Mindless" was the word you used and therefore the word I responded to.  Shifting the goalposts after the fact doesn't help us, here.

@weez
you obviously had a bit more free time for posting than I did today.


Go to Wikipedia, look up "ad hominum".


I can't believe I am doing this but just to say I think you should be looking up "ad hominEm".

So sorry.  I'll get back in my box now.



#65 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1779 posts

Posted 14 December 2009 - 03:57 PM

laugh.gif Pedant, you were not alone in your pedantry.

#66 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2009 - 03:57 PM

Ad hominEm, touché. laugh.gif

I also wrote "motive's" which was incorrect and I'm sure there are a few other slips here and there.  I love pedantry as much as the next pedant but I hope there remains enough of value for people to engage with.

#67 Weez

Weez

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2632 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bucks, UK
  • Interests:Theatre. :D

Posted 14 December 2009 - 04:25 PM

Ah, I love pedantry. I'm a fan myself, when I have time. smile.gif

Anyway!

QUOTE
An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false


So if I'm person 1 and claim X is that updating old plays is mindless, then the objectionability of... my socks? My taste in television? means that the claim of mindlessness is false. Unless you mean the claim of mindlessness itself is objectionable, in which case this could get convoluted and/or just plain wrong. Can claim X also be the objectionable thing, or is that a different sort of argument all together?

Mind you, person 1 could be you, making the claim that I'm arrogant and naive. Your complete lack of manners is objectionable to not only myself, but every regular who enjoys civilised discussion on this board, therefore your claim that I am arrogant and naive is false! Wonderful! Thank you for pointing out this little game, I SHALL enjoy twisting arguments around in pointless fashion from now on.

The problem with message boards is that it can take days to proceed with a discussion. And in hindsight, having had it so kindly (if incredibly pompously) pointed out that "mindless" was completely the wrong word, I'm actually agreeing with you. It's not mindless, that was the wrong word, my bad. In a real life discussion, I'd've noticed that right away rather than having it sit for ages, and would have corrected myself at the time.

And now, in the name of getting the conversation about the play and not "my internet ###### is bigger than yours" back on track, allow me to rephrase so my point gets across as I intended it to:

"Plus things don't need to be pointlessly updated to be relevant. It's not uncommon for people to take a 400 year old play, stage it in Elizabethan dress, and still have it hammer home with audiences."

So shall we move on? smile.gif

Notes from the Earlham Street Gutter
http://earlhamstreet...r.blogspot.com/

#68 Guest_Other guest_*

Guest_Other guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2009 - 04:58 PM

QUOTE(Weez @ Dec 14 2009, 04:25 PM) View Post
the objectionability of... my socks?

Has anyone ever objected to your socks? Off topic I know, but I just wondered.

#69 AnnieInTheStalls

AnnieInTheStalls

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Surrey

Posted 14 December 2009 - 05:48 PM

QUOTE(JH @ Dec 14 2009, 12:47 PM) View Post
Goodness, you're a miserable lot.


I didn't particularly enjoy the production, but I can assure you, I'm full of the joys of the season.

I'd be interested to know what anyone who knows and likes Moliere thinks of it - I suspect it's just not my sort of thing.

Annie

#70 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2009 - 11:14 PM

QUOTE(JH @ Dec 14 2009, 12:47 PM) View Post
Goodness, you're a miserable lot.



A bunch of Misanthropes perchance?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users