:up:

I am reading, 'Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure? by A. D. Nuttall (1996), which I picked on a library shelf because I saw it as an interesting question. The author looks at Aristotle's ideas, especially catharsis, Freud's thinking about 'the pleasure principle' [...]

Nuttall suggests that Freud depended on 'that great mass of repressed matter, the Unconscious'. He also looks at Freud's understanding of the Pleasure Principle, including the expression of sexuality and how Freud showed how sexual gratification 'was curbed by the deadening restrictions of civilisation,' with 'Freud's State of Nature' being ' like the fierce "war of every man in Hobbes's 'Leviathan'." ' — Jack Cummins

Freud must be feeling seriously left out of our discussion. How frustrating!
The expression or suppression of sexuality related to civilisation. Law and order, rising from the muddy swamp. How far have we come?

What is the Pleasure Principle? The driving force of the id seeking instant gratification of all needs, wants and primitive urges including sex.
How is this related to the art of tragedy/drama, its writers and audience?

According to Aristotle, the purpose of tragedy is to arouse “terror and pity” and thereby effect the catharsis of these emotions. So, there is a release of what we might be feeling but unwilling or scared to uncover or show. A way of coping?

A view of what humans are like deep down in the darkest recesses of the mind.
Cue Deadwood!
I wondered whether this drama appealed more to men than women. The grab for gold and power; the manipulations and realisations of women in a man's world.
Sex and its use/abuse in the unfolding process of becoming civilised...

If You Want to Know Why Deadwood Is a Classic, Look to Its Women
(8min read):
https://time.com/5597321/deadwood-movie-hbo-women/

Deadwood can be read as a power struggle between three archetypes of American machismo:[...] But, more than any other show of its kind, it understands the impossibility of discussing men and power without creating equally vivid female characters [...]

The show’s aesthetics echo its themes. As the man whose gaze shapes our understanding of each woman, Milch mostly avoids hypocrisy by minimizing scenes that use their bodies purely for titillation or as sites of violence. Unlike Game of Thrones, 13 Reasons Why or the increasingly incoherent feminist polemic that is The Handmaid’s Tale, Deadwood shows almost none of the rape, abuse and exploitation that its characters experience. Layered dialogue and subtle acting prove more effective at communicating women’s (and in some cases men’s) trauma than lurid visuals.

I have never been tempted to watch The Handmaid's Tale, but I am increasingly drawn to the depths of Deadwood. Whether it's a 'modern tragedy' or an 'absurdist historical drama' or a combination of both doesn't really matter.
It serves as an appreciation of humans - how we rise and fall in tragi-comedy.

As for Freud...is that a gun in his pocket?

As for Freud...is that a gun in his pocket? — Amity

:smirk:

I know, I know. I couldn't resist it. I was imagining him as a Deadwood character!

Yes, poor Freud has been ignored here a bit. I see his thought as vital, especially as the art therapy course I did was based so much on his psychodynamic theory. A lot of people are put off his thinking, based on the emphasis he places on sexuality and the idea of the Oedipus complex. I see the Oedipus complex as rather restrictive and his viewpoint can be seen as sexist.

However, the emphasis he placed on sexuality had a profound influence on culture and dealing with the repression of sexual aspects of life. It may be central to pleasure itself and it would be hard to imagine trajedy without a sexual aspect. The nature of trajedy itself may be about the way in which sexuality causes conflict and potential destruction. His philosophy, which drew upon mythology, emphasised the tension between Eros and Thanatos, the life and death drives/instincts.

Also, the whole idea of catharsis was central to his perspective on therapy. The idea was that the ventilation of emotional expression is the road to 'cure'. This was based on his work with patients. The problem which I see is that it does not always follow that ventilation of emotions and traumatic experiences will lead to a cure and the CBT therapists see him psychodynamic therapy as placing too much emphasis on the past.

The other important idea in his work is that of sublimation, especially in expression of the arts. This is particularly relevant for thinking about the pleasure of trajedy. It is possible to channel the nature of the sexual into creativity. This also was suggested in Tantric philosophy. With suffering, in general, sublimation may enable transformation on a mythic and aesthetic level, and from what I have observed in the arts therapies, this is an area for reframing human experiences.

As for Freud...is that a gun in his pocket? — Amity

Parfois, une pipe n'est qu'une pipe.... Only someone accustomed to television imagery would think that of Freud.

Now you got me all worked up about it, turns out I can't watch Deadwood. It's available on Prime, to which I subscribe, but behind yet another of their extra-pay options. No, wait, You Tube has an introductory offer I may be able to use. Quality is usually inferior, but I can live with that. Anyway, if I can pry the OG away from wet Olympic events.
Update: I did get some commentary on the making of the series and some excerpts.
I've concluded that I will not be making a heroic effort to see it. Whatever its literary and dramatic merits - and I gather they are prodigious - it's not my idea of entertainment.

Yes, I know that preferring entertainment over heavy philosophical content is frivolous, but I'm okay with that. At 78, whatever I still need to learn about the human condition will probably come unbidden, in humiliating, inelegant forms. I don't need to watch other people pretend to get there first.

Update: I did get some commentary on the making of the series and some excerpts.
I've concluded that I will not be making a heroic effort to see it. Whatever its literary and dramatic merits - and I gather they are prodigious - it's not my idea of entertainment. — Vera Mont

I was surprised that you were even considering it! It's bound to be brutal and nasty. I haven't even looked at excerpts and since I can't watch for free... there's no boldly going forth to face up to any horrors...

At 78, whatever I still need to learn about the human condition will probably come unbidden, in humiliating, inelegant forms. I don't need to watch other people pretend to get there first. — Vera Mont

It's being so cheerful that keeps you going! Wise Old Gal :wink:

It's bound to be brutal and nasty. — Amity

Nevertheless, intriguing. Strong echoes of Orson Welles. It also stirred memories of Gunsmoke and The Rifleman. Of course, the TV frontier towns of my youth were very clean and the good guys were all fastidiously shaved, scrubbed and laundered. But there was a plausible austerity about the sets, matched by the characters' single-mindedness.
I didn't much like the grubby - supposedly realistic - westerns that came later. (My cat loved Rawhide! When the theme music started to play, she'd rush to the tv, crouch on top of the cabinet and fish for cattle.)

Also a different kind of arrogance and a different kind of divine retribution. — Vera Mont

Yes. I think those two elements are intertwined.

The witches in Macbeth do play an important part of why he thought he was invincible. In the midst of complaining about how boring he found his success; he suddenly learns he misunderstood the original message.

Lear's arrogance is believing he knows what true love looks like when he does not. In one sense, his realization of the truth is more brutal than the one Macbeth experienced.

I've concluded that I will not be making a heroic effort to see it. Whatever its literary and dramatic merits - and I gather they are prodigious - it's not my idea of entertainment.

Yes, I know that preferring entertainment over heavy philosophical content is frivolous, but I'm okay with that. — Vera Mont

I think Deadwood works well as entertainment and at a deeper level. But it is violent and pessimistic. In that way, it is not much different to other long form, scrupulously written, television shows. The performances and the script are astonishing.

Lear's arrogance is believing he knows what true love looks like when he does not. — Paine

Here is a father with three adult daughters, whom he claims to love and whose love he demands, and he has no frickin' idea who they are! So he falls for flattery instead of accepting honesty. Asking for it!

But it [Deadwood] is violent and pessimistic. — Tom Storm

So was King Lear. I can deal with some level of each, and still be entertained, but not wall-to-wall both.
TheFringe series had some of those same elements, including magic and humour, after a fashion. We watched it all the way through once, then it sat on the shelf for a long time. Last week, I gave it to the thrift shop.

Who can account for personal taste? I love Deadwood (it's very funny too) but I find Shakespeare and the Greeks tedious, and have not enjoyed most of the other 'big' TV series like Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Succession, etc. Well written and performed, but I just don't care about the stories or the characters.

Yes, pissing into the wind is not an effective strategy.

I recently completed Elizabeth Gaskell's Wives and Daughters. It works through many of the social devices presented by Jane Austen but shows how different versions of ego mania produce different outcomes. Gaskell's account reveals there is no significant difference between genders and class in the experience of self-interest. We pursue what is best for us. The difference of outcomes come about from slight gains or losses of self-awareness in each person. And nobody gets to check the scorecard since it involves life beyond one's view.

We pursue what is best for us. — Paine

We pursue what we believe to be best for us - and sometimes what we know to be bad for us, yet want anyway.

It's bound to be brutal and nasty.
— Amity
Nevertheless, intriguing. — Vera Mont

'Brutal and nasty' as depicted traditionally and contemporary (personal, social relationships and economic/political dynamics) will intrigue the curious and those willing to compare and contrast perspectives. Human behaviour. Aren't we all psychologists?

Here, we can share memories of past TV programmes; Western sets/characters ridiculed. How could we ever have been be scared by the Daleks in Dr.Who? Clunky, metal boxes on wheels, vocally challenged and probing with a sink plunger. The iconic "Exterminate"! Perhaps a single, menacing word can trigger deep, basic fears or past trauma...some things never change.

There are always foes to be fought but friends sought too, sometimes. Drama needs a balance for it to work well. To release emotions and make us think. Hence the OP...'Tragedy and Pleasure?'.
As the world moves on, so must we take into account new concerns. New elements related to the environment and AI. Our brains are bombarded with conflicting accounts, or even washed by the wicked.

There is a need to switch off, sit back and be entertained. Even intellectuals need simple. Balance.
Disengagement before re-engaging.

Yes, I know that preferring entertainment over heavy philosophical content is frivolous, but I'm okay with that.
— Vera Mont

I think Deadwood works well as entertainment and at a deeper level. — Tom Storm

Like most art forms, then? We can enjoy the simple pleasures, possibly 'catharsis' without being too analytical even as strong ideas/messages might be slipped in surreptitiously for consumption. A bit like kids not being force-fed green vegetables and fruit but enjoying as burgers or milk shakes.

But it is violent and pessimistic. In that way, it is not much different to other long form, scrupulously written, television shows. The performances and the script are astonishing. — Tom Storm

From the little I've read, it doesn't sound like 'wall-to-wall' violence and pessimism. It includes humour and hope as most tragedies must.

Gaskell's account reveals there is no significant difference between genders and class in the experience of self-interest. We pursue what is best for us. The difference of outcomes come about from slight gains or losses of self-awareness in each person. And nobody gets to check the scorecard since it involves life beyond one's view. — Paine

Yes, no matter the differences between humans, mostly it comes down to ego ( back to Freud?).
The outcomes of our pursuits, including watching drama, will partly depend on our willingness or personal freedom to become open to others. To learn. Not to avoid that which is uncomfortable or not to our taste. To grow and develop.
But, hey, we all have our comfort zones. Even philosophers... having found their niche or income.

We pursue what is best for us.
— Paine

We pursue what we believe to be best for us - and sometimes what we know to be bad for us, yet want anyway. — Vera Mont

Oh yeah, gimme that bar of chocolate...Now!

And of course, we don't always 'know' what might be best for us at any given time or the consequences of following certain choices. Therein lies the fun of it...and our stories...the tragi-comedy.
'All's well that ends well'? Somebody might have said...or questioned...

Who can account for personal taste? I love Deadwood (it's very funny too) — Tom Storm

Yes it is! :up:

... other 'big' TV series like  Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Succession, etc. Well written and performed, but I just don't care about the stories or the characters.

No fuckin' doubt, Tom, we be a couple of dusty ol' cocksuckers drinkin' from the same crack'd bottle ... like all them other hoopleheads down on their fuckin' luck, laughin' and pissin' it all away in that limey cocksucker Swearengen's saloon. :smirk:

(Btw, I really liked Rome and enjoyed the slow burn of Six Feet Under and, years later, Westworld & The Expanse. And, of course, True Detective.)

Rome was fantastic and so was True Detective. Yet to see Westworld. Will try to do so.

from the same crack'd bottle ... like all them other hoopleheads down on their fuckin' luck, laughin' and pissin' it all away in that limey cocksucker Swearingen's saloon. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Fuck yeah!

Dan dismantle the titty corner and set up a poker table.

- Al Swearingen

Dan dismantle the titty corner and set up a poker table.

- Al Swearingen — Tom Storm

"Ah, Wild Bill ..." :cool:

Rouse him to spend on pussy, or rob the son of a bitch!

also

You can't slit the throat of everyone whose character it would improve. — Al Swearengen

And some more fuckin' words to live by:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792330 :death: :flower:

:rofl: Words to live by.

And some more fuckin' words to live by:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792330 — 180 Proof

A fascinating insight.
"I’d rather try touching the moon than take on a whore’s thinking."

Words to live... or die by. I suppose the whores referred to are the female prostitutes? No males, no homosexuality? It's a big white man's world...whoring, being hard and fucking each other.

What would 'trying to touch the moon' mean for Al?
Did he really know the thinking of his whores? How did he view them, other than means to money?
'Taking on' some thoughts is what he apparently managed. He empathised with being a victim, being brought to his knees. He didn't like it up him either.

There are certainly more eloquent lines in Deadwood than “I don’t like it, either.” But after rewatching all three seasons of the great HBO western this spring, they’re the words I can’t get over. As uttered by a sex worker named Dolly (Ashleigh Kizer), who spends most of her screen time between the legs of Ian McShane’s coarse saloon owner Al Swearengen, they constitute an assertion of personhood from a heretofore insignificant character. “They hold you down from behind,” Al fumes, as she kneels beside him. “Then you wonder why you’re helpless. How the f-ck could you not be?”

He’s referring to powerful men like George Hearst (Gerald McRaney), who is slowly bringing Al—along with everyone else in the prosperous frontier mining camp of Deadwood—to his metaphorical knees. And so it’s jarring when Dolly replies “I don’t like it, either,” because she’s really talking about the johns who physically pin her down during sex. “I guess I do that, too, with your f-ckin’ hair,” Al muses, his voice softening to an uncharacteristic whisper. Though he does plenty of despicable things in the subsequent eight episodes of the show’s final season, he never treats Dolly so roughly again. — Time - Deadwood was the rare show about men that did women justice

In sum, Deadwood unflinchingly yet thoughtfully, even sometimes comically, depicts many of the barbarities and injusticies (both documented & inferred) upon which the American frontier was settled-expropriated and which were then buried under thick layers of slick-to-garish façade aka "industrial civilization". The show doesn't deconstruct so much as it performs seances of – exhumes – angry ghosts which "the myth of the Wild West" (e.g. Hollyweird "cowboys & injuns" Western movies) for over a century and a half has helped America collectively forget, much as literary masterpieces like Toni Morrison's novel of the same period Beloved and Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. The telling is grounded in the historical place, amid a smirl – maelstrom ‐ of historical events, which involve some of people who actually lived and died in 1870s Deadwood. Of course, there are very many creative liberties taken for the sake of televisual drama and the scripted language is a highly stylized patois of gorgeously funny vulgarities that makes the milieu both alien and familiar to contemporary ears. Poetry. Deadwood is as much a place as it is it's own language – a singular achievement for an American television
drama.

Two of my all-time favorite television shows [Deadwood & True Detective]. I need to watch both again soon.
— 180 Proof
Why? Do you have a thesis to write? — Amity

To wake the Muse ... :smirk:

Brutal and nasty' as depicted traditionally and contemporary (personal, social relationships and economic/political dynamics) will intrigue the curious and those willing to compare and contrast perspectives. — Amity

No,no! That's not what I found intriguing. I was intrigued, in spite of that, by the cinematic and structural care that went into making the series. The artistry, not the subject matter.

Here, we can share memories of past TV programmes; Western sets/characters ridiculed. — Amity

I'm interested in Americans' (and other nation's) self image and how its depiction changes over time. Tv westerns were family fare - not intended as history lessons, but social and moral instruction. And entertainment, of course.

Got to run. Catch up with yous later.

Thank you for this intelligent, informative summary. Words can work wonders, can't they? To read and think imaginatively - to grab, pin down and convey thoughts and ideas in writing - that, for me, is a major challenge. I haven't observed you having much, if any, difficulty but no doubt, when it comes to fiction it's different...
'To wake the Muse'. Is there only one?

:up:

'To wake the Muse'. Is there only one? — Amity

Could you cope with a committee of the of the pesky things?

Could you cope with a committee of the of the pesky things? — Vera Mont

Ooh err, missus! Who said anything about a 'committee'? The very word makes me shudder. *shudders*
I thought it a case of praying to any muses that might float your fancy. Like Melpomene, Thalia or Erato.
A bit like how Catholics call up St Anthony - that kinda thing.
Or I can see them as spirits of the bar; shaking a cock or mock tail your way...I could cope with that!
A Mock Tale, yay :cool:

When do they start becoming 'pesky' or go AWOL? Hmmm.

I thought it a case of praying to any muses that might float your fancy. Like Melpomene, Thalia or Erato.
A bit like how Catholics call up St Anthony - that kinda thing. — Amity

Ah, a muse for every purpose. I suppose... Me, I prefer one familiar spirit, even not a particularly powerful one. (My top favourite Terry Pratchett book is Small Gods.)

When do they start becoming 'pesky' — Amity

When it nags me to work on this, work on that, say "Stop mooching around the forums and matching stupid patterns and get your ass in gear. There's only so much time left!", throws a perfect first line out of the blue, then takes a vacation. (They're entitled - volunteers, not conscripts; we can ask, cajole, tease, petition, but never command.)

As I understand the literature, the role of the muses is different from 'familiar spirits'. The daimon who encourages Socrates to compose music is not the same powers who make that possible.

When reading Hesiod, it does seem that different muses have access to different expressions of divinity. It is not a denial of personal creativity but a request for more than that. The outward turning that escapes echoes.

In that case, I don't suppose our alarm clocks or prayers would have much effect on them.
I won't bother them; I'm not in that league.

They are means of access and sing when asked politely.