Life In Topseyturveydom 3 clown monty opera.

Life In Topseyturveydom

Yesterday, I was listening to Matthew SVIT and BBC Radio 3 program "Sound of Movie", he was a film composer David-Arnold, not only James-Bond, but "IPKERRESS Dossie, but" IPKERRESS Dossie. We interviewed John Barry for almost all movies, such as "Cowboy at midnight" and "from Africa". David Arnold was asked to sketch John Barry's face, but did not say anything detailed ("He was not a family from Yorkshire" -This is a rant he used).

Recently, I have designed this problem well. For example, the name is hidden, but in the case of a writer, the writer's behavior is actually thinking about him (yes, this is him), almost all based on his audience. It looks like it's shaking. This is often confused. How is this person's work and his actions in society? If there is an objection and it appears frequently, does this effectively mean that art is a "lie"? Or is life a deception, and is the real part open only by writing a book?

Rather, let's use unconditional models. P. G. Word House was often said to have been disappointed when he met raw, although he was an interesting masterpiece written in an urban wel l-known humor. He was a "actually" weak man, and he was a little hated, and there was no splendid storyteller that almost everyone was waiting for. Suddenly, when he was called for a large dinner greeting, he said that he was confused and said, "Thank you," and said he was sitting again. Again, he was also a master of being called "glide from Wad House". It was a temperament that would not be noticed by erasing it from a social place in advance.

So, who was the "real" man, the man behind the typewriter, or the man who disappeared from the party?

Dormitory Shostakovich was terribly nervous, timid and clumsy, like him himself. However, how Shostakovich was standing out of the music was brave, desperate, and always shouted that it was impossible to execute from the roof! What is a real Shostakovich?

Or, in the case of U. S. Gilbert, a lyricist of Gilbert & Salivan Opera, a real person-an unusual smile on the foolishness of the world echoing, jealous, inexplicable. A narcissist, often a young man who lacks the sense of humor, and was the possibility of the encounter in London in the Victorian Dynasty?

The examples are endless, but the data is plentiful. And the answer to the question is of course obvious. Each of the people I mentioned was a public figure, an artist, and at the same time something else. For the sake of simplicity, perhaps we can call this third "something" the private person - inaudible outside the private head, because the means of expression are always defective.

I sometimes say that there are several voices inside each of us, and that we confirm them every time we debate with ourselves. This is not an unnatural peculiarity characteristic only of designers, but something that is obligatory for every human being born, and perhaps every animal.

I turn again to the author who seems to me sincere and admirable, whose reputation is now at stake. This "darkness" was there every time, and every time it was a large part of what we actually saw, but now we see it in a different way. And it is highly likely that his public statements were actually a disguised confession, an attempt to justify his actions.

No matter how clayey the artist's feet may seem, I believe that art never has the ability to lie. For bad art (in English) is always an inner revelation, and sometimes makes the designer regretful.

But this is not always directly interpretable by the visitor. Sometimes the source is needed to properly decipher the code. What should have meant one thing suddenly becomes indisputable. Wade House wrote the urbane prose he dreamed of but lacked in his social life. Shostakovich shouted in his music what in another life he hid behind an impenetrable barrier. After all, what is the point of making art of something that is difficult to say to your face? Art is the expression of the ineffable.

In fact, it would be wrong to accept that a true designer only reveals himself in a work of art, because that would seem, in effect, an excuse for shortcomings, including personal human cruelty. Of course, impact is not everything. But often the truth only becomes clear when art and artist are examined together.

What They Say About “Down to Earth”

Whenever I mention my novel Down to Earth, I'm always tempted to use this excuse to get self-deprecating, but I'm trying not to do that here. The intention is to encourage people to buy it by saying lots of good things about it, and given the circumstances of life, authors shouldn't get too self-deprecating.

Down to Earth is published by Stairwell Books, York. You can buy it here, at Blackwell's, or at Barnes & Noble. You'll have to look in other countries, but you'll usually find a willing seller. Just in case, there's always Amazon.

The famous Mike Leigh -- the wonderful Mike Leigh -- developer of Abigail's Party and creator and director of Nuts in May, Secrets and Lies, Naked, Topsy-Turvy, Vera Drake, Peterloo, and many others, put it aptly (and I'm emphasizing it in bold considering how proud I am of the lyrics):

"Andrew Crowther's masterful dystopian vision is as striking as it is disturbing and unsettling.

But if his concept isn't enough for you, Emma Clayton of The Telegraph & Argus reviewed the book:

"... it's a sweet dystopian satire, intense, scary and humorous at the same time.... I read Love in one sitting and was hooked."

Diana McGrath, author of such acclaimed books as Daughter of the Wolf, has a stellar following on Goodreads: "This book is a scintillating satire that will remain a fascinating read for a long time." Blogger Berthold Gambrel said of her: "I highly recommend this book. It's a thought-provoking Orwellian satire that touches on almost every burning issue. Apart from that, Crowther is a mythical novelist who should be widely read." Oli Baird called Love "a profound dystopia wrapped in perfectly observed and exquisitely executed humour" on his Twitter account. Stairwell Books' tweet quotes a rather pleased reader! I barely had time to stop reading on the train back to York, and grudgingly read to the end. " Amazon reviewer M. J. Norris gave the book four stars and called it "worth a read." My founder called it "a page-turner." Given this influx of unconditional praise, why not buy a copy for yourself? You probably won't regret it.

Finally, I wrote love. Down to Earth], a fable on the future. For those who haven't read it yet, don't talk too much, but the stages of the shock are suffering from deficiencies, strong regulations, universities' resistance to changes, and fantastic British Golden Fetishisms. It is a major British city.

This is the situation about tomorrow, and of course, the current situation. This book is only 100 pages, and it will be interesting and fun to recite. You can buy it directly from the publisher Steawell Books, buy it from Blackwells, or buy it from Barns and Noble. Of course, you can also order at a bookstore near you.

Above: "Down to Earth" (ShutterStock), which Anton Gwos Dikov decorates the cover

The excellent film director Mike Lee reads this book and says, "The stunning dystopia vision drawn by Andrew Clouser is so impressive that it makes you anxious. Telegraph & amp; amp; AMP; AMP; amp; ARGUS also features a book review, and the book reviewer Emma Clayton said, "Suspense, scary, humor ....... Suspense, scary, humorous ...

*Note: This review includes spoilers!

I wanted to be a writer since I was 12 ("writer" means a person who understands the status of print.) Everything started from small galaxy operas, such as running on a small notebook, going to a different world on a galaxy rocket, and traveling on a time machine. I didn't know what to create if my characters went to a different world or did a time travel. I think it's just going back to the galaxy rocket and time machine. As is common, travel is everything.

Every time, I told myself about the situation in my head. Most of them are not recorded. These are obviously, the best things that have no impact.

However, Down To Earth is a situation that I managed to use with techniques, and I am proud of the results. I think it contains the important part of what I wanted to say. There are also shifts and hope that are not bad. < SPAN> Finally, I wrote love. Down to Earth], a fable on the future. For those who haven't read it yet, don't talk too much, but the stages of the shock are suffering from deficiencies, strong regulations, universities' resistance to changes, and fantastic British Golden Fetishisms. It is a major British city.

“Down to Earth”: a fable and a fib

Above: "Down to Earth" (ShutterStock), which Anton Gwos Dikov decorates the cover

*Note: This review includes spoilers!

Every time, I told myself about the situation in my head. Most of them are not recorded. These are obviously, the best things that have no impact.

However, Down To Earth is a situation that I managed to use with techniques, and I am proud of the results. I think it contains the important part of what I wanted to say. There are also shifts and hope that are not bad. Finally, I wrote love. Down to Earth], a fable on the future. For those who haven't read it yet, don't talk too much, but the stages of the shock are suffering from deficiencies, strong regulations, universities' resistance to changes, and fantastic British Golden Fetishisms. It is a major British city.

Above: "Down to Earth" (ShutterStock), which Anton Gwos Dikov decorates the cover

*Note: This review includes spoilers!

Every time, I told myself about the situation in my head. Most of them are not recorded. These are obviously, the best things that have no impact.

The Screw May Twist: English National Opera and Gilbert and Sullivan

It started as a short story I wrote in the spring of 2019. It was a very simple idea, an attempt to describe the sensations and images of another place parallel to ours, a kind of strange hallucination, that come to me when I don't have words. After writing this story, several months passed before I realized that what I was doing was too compressed for anyone else to understand, and that if this was going to work, I had to make it longer. At first I thought, "Yeah, this is all very well, but unfortunately, to make it longer I'd have to think of so many more things to put on the page, so unfortunately I can't write it. But then I thought of one thing, and then I thought of another, and then I thought of another, and finally I realised I had no excuse for not writing what I knew would be some kind of novel.

The rest, at least as a draft version, was written during the first block in spring 2020. It then took another year and a half to find a publisher: a fantastic publisher called Stairwell Books, based in York. The two main people at the company, Rose and Alan, were so patient, supported me and showed incredible enthusiasm throughout the process of turning my manuscript into the real book that my 12-year-old had always dreamed of. It was released (like a gorilla), launched (like a ship), and now it's freely available.

If you buy it, I and the publisher make money. So please, please.

Above: Truman's "on the ground" presentation moment - the book at the farmhouse, cover. I read the first chapter to an enthusiastic audience. Photo courtesy of stairsjagbooks.

I have long believed that if there is any meaning to the phrase "English national opera," it is Gilbert and Sullivan. Their comic operas are the most purely English works ever written, and may even have helped create what we now think of as "English."

It is surprising that English National Opera (Eino) will perform the "Oper a-like" work of Gilbert & Salivan's work. I haven't seen their production, so I will refrain from commenting on it, but in principle, I prefer Gilbert's work to be performed as written, except in cases where change is needed. (Examples of the necessary changes include deleting the character of "M" in the 1940s).

At present, it is outrageous, such as the crisis of cash flow that is in danger. But this will not surprise Gilbert. He looked at the essence of humans with a critical aura, noted much of an attitude that would clearly see it, and degrade authority.

This is clearly reflected in the "guard" itself. However, this moment tends to be overlooked because of the natural instinct of listening to the music of the song, not the lyrics of the song. One day in the 16th century, the London Tower Economy, Lady Caltus, is a song that needs to be careful. Let's introduce here with the dialogue that needs to be connected to her:

Phoeby. This evil tower resembles the cruel giant in a fairy tale, should eat blood, this blood should be the best brave in England, and otherwise it is suitable for older gunplate. do not have. Uh!

Song with choru s-Lady Caltus and Yomenny

When our brave Norman enemy conquered our cheerful land and the Saxon escaped from the conqueror, in his order, the stone robe, invisible, lost life and cannot be destroyed. It has risen. The important thing is that I think the patrols should be saving their neck, even the queen, even if he flies on him, his cherries have a legend, I am eloquent, and she's duty. Talk about what you do.

The screws turn around, the holes are opened, people fled, and people may burn. However, I continue to patrol and guard silently to protect the golden treasure with London! It is surprising that

Brave men died consistently within the stone walls. From the prison to the block, from the scaffold to the grave - this path has been followed by almost every brave heart. And while the evil fire has the ability to hiss in all its beauty around the heroes who fought for conscience, for country, its faded, sombre powers do not arouse any direct interest in what is actually going on beyond their duty.

Wodehouse and the Statues

The screw has the power to turn, the rack has the power to turn, people have a chance to bleed, people have a chance to burn!

Poster for The Guardsman by Dudley Hardy, 1897.

It is important to read the words of the song correctly. Mrs. Carruthers's reply sounds as if it is a rebuttal to Phoebe's accusation that the Tower of England (and the power it represents) is a ruthless giant devouring its own people. But in fact, the woman Carruthers is talking about something quite different. In essence, he is saying that yes, the Tower of England is a harsh monster that doesn't care about the people on the ground. And he adds that that's what he likes about it. Gilbert laughs here too, but it's important to understand that the drama doesn't necessarily have to be funny.

Not at the Londoners who could be burned at the stake for their "conscience" and "country", but at the space itself, and especially at the yellow, the treasure he bought, either well or dishonestly. The emphasis on wealth is crucial, but easy to miss in a play where the audience's ears might simply confuse the gold, London's "treasure", with its "horde", the people.

Yomen of the Guard does not sentimentalize England's past. Power crushes the powerless, as in Jack Point's story. It is the fetishization of the importance of civilization's "golden treasure" over human life itself that Gilbert witnessed with his ruthless eye. ENO can focus on this in its nightly opera performances.

At the time of writing, The Guardian is reporting that Chancellor candidate Rishi Sunak has cited the "demolition of sculptures of historical figures" as an example, saying, "What's the point of pulling up the bulldozers on the Green Belt if we allow left-wing demagogues to destroy our habits and our circumstances?"

By the time he recites this, the time will have changed and he will surely utter the lyrics that The Guardian mysteriously predicted would come out of his mouth.

Of course, the lyrics are thought to be an indirect reference to the end of the sculpture of Edward Colston, the 18th century Bristol "philanthropist" and slave trader, which was uprooted in Bristol Harbour in 2020.

Edward Colston jumping into the sea. BBC

Churchill's statue outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster has also come under attack from time to time, with some buying him a greenish Mohawk hairstyle and splashing him with blood-red spray.

Punk Churchill. Time Out.

A statue of Margaret Thatcher was splashed with paint and pelted with eggs. The statue, created by the creepy pedophile Eric Gill, stands over the important entrance to BBC Broadcasting House, but was attacked and badly damaged.

One clan of Pundits finds an excuse for outrage in all this. For example, former archivist and part-time Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in 2020: "We cannot now edit or censor the past.... To tear down (these images) is to lie about our situation and to impoverish the education of future generations."

Of course, if you are an admirer of the work of P. G. Wadhouse, as Johnson is, you will not find these events new. Wadhouse's work is full of attacks on sculpture. I'm thinking of "The Bishop's Move," from Meet Mr Mulliner (1927), in which a bishop and a high school headmaster, fuelled by the aphrodisiac Buck-Uppo, decide to paint a sculpture rainbow colors; Gus the Dog (1937), in which child Hollywood star Joey Cooley paints the beak of a sculpture by movie mogul T. P. Brinkmeyer red; and Something Fish (1957), in which Lord Wuffenham gets revenge on a sculpture he dislikes by giving it a beard.

The Right Word

However, the most injured example of Wad House's popular story is the most clever politics. In the school story "Gold Bat Mouse" (1904), an Irish supporter, an Irish part of the Vickin, named Ohala, is angry at the ant i-Ireland rant of the District of Lord Ustas Briggs.

"After breakfast, I pointed out that Moriarty came to me with a printed publisher and was talking about Irish people. Brigs's message was written." From Lord Ustas Brigs. They called them as a very deep and small message, but unfortunately, if they were small messages, I would actually ask the nobles that this was incontinence. Well, we read to the end, and Moriarty told me. So I answered, "No, I can't." In fact, Moriarty told me: I want to apply a tar to this man and cover it with feathers. " "But what if it was covered with tar and was covered with the feathers of his bronze statue?"

The cover of Vodo House's novel "Golden Bat" published in the 1920s.

As a result, the feathers were not found, and the leaves used wings in return. Urikin Patriot's printed matter has been posted for a few days that calls this event "Furigan Realic Activities" and "Sneaky Act". However, the narrator is assigned to perform these atrocities, and as a result, the culprit will go with the obvious encouragement of Vodo House.

This leads us to a fairly exciting phenomenon. The people who protect our sculptures do so to protect our culture and heritage. Still, is there a person who symbolizes British culture and heritage more than P. G. Vodo House?

When the penetration was over, the fiction writer was first arrested. His thorns have been stuck in the tyrant's body for many years.

In fact, he had lost productivity, but they didn't know that. The invaders of the invaders caught up in the times.

The door was closed behind. There were almost no one in the room. A futon and a pot were placed on a crimson mattress.

He saw the room in detail. Perhaps this was the last room he knew. Perhaps the tyrant, probably, illuminated his death at that time that he actually wrote this much time.

How many hours did he have? How many hours? In the turmoil following the penetration, they may not be measured to kill him for a few days. It was impossible to convince something.

He thought calmly. If this was the end, he should at least leave something behind, something like a message, some final words. The wall was uneven and dark brick colored. He found a piece of stone in the corner. He carefully picked up the stone and was able to scratch the mark on the wall. Yes. If he couldn't get that, the words, the writer's final words, would be written on the wall. Maybe this would make someone think for a moment. That could become a reality. Maybe these words would become a cry, a symbol of resistance. No one knows the power of the right words better than he does.

He faced the wall, held the stone in his hand, and thought.

Love, he thought.

But it was wrong. What kind of atrocities were committed in the name of love? These are not the right words.

Righteousness? No, it's worse. It was "justice" that captured him on camera.

In the face of inhumanity, what was the real answer...? No, not inhumanity, but because actions like theirs are always a bad characteristic of humans? What words would get in the way?

Thinking like that, he carefully wrote the only word on the wall, "kindness."

The Last of Sherlock

He walked away and looked at it. It wasn't perfect, and it was a little off from what he had in mind.

He paced around the cell, glancing at his words every few seconds. When he has to leave a will, does he really say what he needs to say? Is there really nothing else left? After all, he thought, a verdict needs a verb.

The next day, the director's afternoon dream was interrupted by a knock on the camera door and a lively voice. He hummed as he opened the door shutter. "What?

The writer's face lit up with joy. The wall behind his shoulders was covered from floor to ceiling with rough white spots. "What's this?" he cried.

"Good morning, officer," the writer said. Can I have another camera? I think I've already used this one."

I will review the four series of "Sherlock", a BBC series starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman that aired from 2010 to 2017. It is called "Sherlock in the 21st century".

Sherlock in the 21st century

One might call it, rather, the "Sherlock" of the Cameron era. Of course, the first series has a nostalgic charm. It exudes this exquisite confidence, the confidence that comes from knowing that London is as successful, thriving, and cult-like as it was in Conan Doyle's time. (One may recall that the real Dr. Watson, in his novel Scarlet, outlined London as "a great crowned pit into which all the robots and parasites of the Empire flow uncontrollably" and, unusually, the inclusion of these sentences finds him to have more charm.) It was burgeoning Olympic London, the money, the banks, the "eyes", the "black cabs", the impossible but relentless, conscientious policing - a world that he had long since departed from, if it existed in general.

Sherlock's strengths and weaknesses were in his creative adventurism. The writers, for fun, featured visitors in the dead-end episodes. What was actually possible and what was actually imaginary? What is actually conceivable (the distinction between what is imagined in one's mind and what is "actually" happening in the "real world" is often blurred): the dead are alive; the fact that they are actually being seen by a character is actually considered different. And for example, and similar, due to the fact that the meaning of a television series is to think of all one's sins and adventures as a game (what is a game?).

But since each episode is an experience, some things are not included in it. Of course, things happen, for example, creativity is put at risk. The risk is the risk of collapse, and some things really fail. But Sherlock, in its best manifestations, is brilliant.

Some time ago, I named the best episode of the third series "Sign of Three". In my eyes, it was a perfect mix of darkness and light, mystery, understatement and comedy. The image of John's boyfriend should be a very reckless laugh priority in one of the episodes.

John Watson and Sherlock Holmes threw about three pints of beer out of their skulls.

But from the end of the third series to the fourth Something went wrong towards the start of the series. The one-off New Year episode, "The Nasty Bride", in which the protagonists travel back in time to Victorian times, had an unnatural hallucinogenic tinge. Of course, this was nothing new for a TV series, but here it was tiresomely exaggerated. A resumption of this tone was seen in the fourth series. We were basically bought a soap opera that faded into comedy.

Sherlock was the best example, with a high atmosphere and a connection to reality (often symbolized by Mrs. Hudson playing Una Stubbs).

Ms. Hudson continues to protect Sherlock in the UEs

Leo Baxendale and the Badtime Bedtime Books

The fourth series, broadcast in 2017, depicted a world in the process of delicimation. Famous celebrities are framed as serial killers for all to see. The noble John dies a violent death, and the business with Sherlock literally falls apart. Everything is at stake. The scenery of the latest episode, "The Final Problem", depicts the landscape of dormitories, psychiatric hospitals, and all sorts of destructive fakes in a murky look and light. Baker Street, 221B, the immortal cliff on which the series is based, is scattered to pieces. This has since become the Brex, and the fortress of the first series has long since ceased to exist.

We often lose our support in the real world. The Final Problem is a James Bond film whose impact takes place in a mysterious, secluded castle/shelter where, in fact, Mrs. Hudson is literally off. We dive into the depths of savageness, where life is expendable and almost stupid. One of the characters splits his head for himself as a result of John and Mycroft's refusal to settle the first round of the bad guy test. (This does not comply with Hitchcock's cardinal rule: according to Hitchcock, the power lies in the threat of a bomb going off, not in the fact that the bomb actually goes off). Layers of heresy are applied and then peeled back, leaving the audience exhausted and listless. All the while, I was thinking of the immortal Ted Bovis's wisest words: "Where is your reality?" Without reality, all these sounds and fury mean nothing.

There is still talk of a continued Sherlock TV series. I doubt it will happen. There are practical issues, and almost everything that "-UP" has created has already been put to the test of strength (I'd love to enjoy a John and Sherlock episode in a blockbuster, but it's definitely not happening now).

Still, it was pretty fun in the best of times!

Will the game continue?

I first met Leo Buckendale in 1976, when I was still a little kid, and my guardian inherited a Murtin book for me and my brother (I guess only for my brother on a technical level, but you can see how that goes). She was anarchic, tough, mischievous, and very funny. A second book came out the following year, with a promise of annual freezes for the foreseeable future, but then it seems to have disappeared. (Actually there was a third, but it literally never took off. I have one, but it's been hard to find since.

In the 1970s Baxendale -- one of the founders of post-1950s comics such as The Beano and Wham, and developer of such shows as The Bash Street Kids and Minnie the Minx -- made a conscious decision to create a fresh, more "playful" style. In his autobiography, A Very Funny Business (1978), he explained: "The universe seemed to have changed beyond recognition during my time in comics. My 22 years in comics coincided with the rise and dominance of television. In my experience, the kids who read comics watched TV into the evening. Children whose humour stereotypes included Monty Python, Steptoe and Son, Fawlty Towers and Porridge would no doubt seek out modern comics for something quite relaxing.... I was equally convinced that times had changed, that I had, that kids had changed, and that comic humour had to change. I had no doubt that I was right, but I had to be sure. I was going to use The Badtime Bedtime Books as a testbed." The Badtime Bedtime Books were created for a comic book called Monster Fan, published in 1975. BBB was a funny, scary scenario to read to a boy in bed under his covers:

We definitely had to recite "Monster Fan" from the beginning, but I don't remember much about it, apart from the rubber skeletons that came with the early issues. I bought some BBB a while ago and they seemed completely new to me. Their freedom-loving absurdity is epic, their subversive power irresistible:

It's easy to trace the influence of Monty Python, Porridge and the like in this little book. They even mock authority and set aside the standards of comics with absolute contempt, like the moment in Jack and the Beans in Tomato Sauce when one character says to the cow! 250. 976 miles 7'2 "It's gone!" and suddenly:

Being funny is not the same as being happy

Then we are immediately struck by how this precedent was tested:

I have a lot to report on BBB. Too much for one blog, I think. At times, the cartoon boys can really come off as Monty Python-esque, and there's every chance they'll be really bad (the Willie the Kid themed book still has some awful vibes in some cases). I love the circular title, which depicts a little boy in bed while scary things happen around him, and it reflects how I really feel in the morning:

Click here for details about BBB.

But isn't it true? The clown shed tears is a very old complaint. But this is still a lot of misunderstandings.

For example, Prokofiev's Symphony No. 5 premiered in 1946. The final movement is fast, bright, manic music, exciting, and certainly interesting. The commenters seem to think so. The two comments I have are saying that "festive mood" has led to a "cheerful end", and "Prokofiev seems to be facing a bright and positive future." But, of course, his smile is strict and laughing. What is the "bright and positive future" here?

Leopold Hegar Conducted Belgian Broadcasting Orchestra The final movement of Prokofiev's Symphony No. 5.

Dmitry Shostakovich, the Prokofiev's brothers, was sometimes misunderstood. In Soviet Russia, he often laughed in many suffering, fear and oppression. But, of course, that is important. Shostakovich was afraid of the knock on the door that might last forever every day (every night). No matter how much effort you make, his music resonates in his own way, and it doesn't always affect what the authorities want. He was a shy and nervous man and hated to be a focus. However, in a certain situation, he had a hard core that never succumbed. Humor was a defense means for him, making it possible to talk about the truth and maintain a certain kind of honesty. (After all, the point of the joke is that it is true and a lie at the same time.)

This Symphony No. 9 (1945) is a typical example, a magnificent and heroic work based on Beethoven's magnificent ninth spirit, and in the shadows of the authorities who expected to celebrate the war of the war. It was written. Instead, he listened to a short (only 25 minute) indoor symphony full of cheerful melodies and musical jokes. Certainly, you can read the final movement as a kind of triumphalation, but if so, as if it were a movie that is played at the wrong speed, it will be more and more faster and faster, and the entire matrix is many. Continue until you run and fall.

Shostakovich's Symphony No. 9's final movement by Valerie Gelgiev Orchestra.

At the time, Shostakovich managed to gloss over the symphony by saying that it was merely an expression of Russian gentlemen's joy on the pretext of winning the war, an inevitable consequence of the ambiguity of humor. But some were not convinced, and it did not save him from harsh official criticism a few years later.

Today, it even seems that some people consider the symphony a mistake, or at least something to ascribe to it: it is because they are aware, on some level, that in a catastrophic story, being funny does not lead to a reaction.

But humor and comedy (which are not necessarily the same thing, but more on that another time) are supposed to play, or have the chance to play, a defensive role in an unhappy story. When Shostakovich musicalized Yevgeny Yevtushenko's poem "Humor" in his Symphony No. 13, he acknowledged its power over oppression:

The lords, the lords, the kings, the lords of the whole earth, they conducted almost all the parades, but they had no chance to rule with humor.

Reading Isn’t Believing

This is the voice of a simple person who looks around and says: "But there is not a bit of meaning in this!" This is the voice of dissatisfaction. Comedy is not the voice of someone who talks about how wonderful everything is, but often the exact opposite. For example, Fawlty Towers can be quite funny, but it cannot be called literally bright.

In principle, there are things I wanted to touch on in this blog, but now I see that it is absolutely not appropriate. I wanted to continue, for example, about the operas of Gilbert and Sullivan and how some scholars think that these operas express support for the status quo. But this is for another time.

Maybe something like this would be a good closing idea. For example, Wadhaus. As if God really was in heaven and all was right with the world. Wadahouse himself was probably one of those rare people, a genuinely successful person. But comedy that expresses the absurdity of the world far more often comes from poor people, or at least dissatisfied people. And finally, one more thing: comedy has the power to make you grin. But if the laughs don't all end up in your pocket, they won't necessarily make you successful.

Last year, I wrote A Little Love while I was locked up. I've been looking for a publisher ever since, and I'm still trying.

Writing (i. e., creating) has been a core passion and motivation for most of my life. I wrote a play that was performed locally without any problems. But the problem with a play is that it's gone after it's performed. A script can't be published. A script only lives in memory.

So I'm trying to create something permanent, a story that is meant to be published. I haven't written it yet, but I definitely will. There are so many circle members out there, and sooner or later, someone is bound to come across my dust and fall into my trap.

The novel is, of course, my chef's cooking, not to mention my piece de resistance, and so on. It's a depressingly powerless collection, but it's mine anyway.

The process of revising this book and trying to sell it to a skeptical publishing world has forced me to think more than ever before about what I'm actually writing, and what it actually means. After all, if I want to convince the publishing world that my handful of worn-out sentences are worth buying, it's important that I be able to explain exactly why I write them.

For me, writing is a kind of chatter. I'm a bit of a mouthful. I get stuck under the stress of writing. Some people see the pause before I speak as a sign that they're chattering away for me. For me, scribbling is will.

In fact, I think people waste sentences. I like to write economically, and in the meantime, books are concise. I can only imagine in my head a fairly simple situation, without any twists, surprises, or little details to complete the story. This is the main reason why my love affair was short.

Publishers don't like short stories (which they snortishly call "novellas"). But I like short stories, and this is a picture of a novel I can one day compose. As a result, I have no choice but to keep looking for a publisher who will see my short love affair, knowing that I'm complicating everything myself.

Another problem is that writers who write (fantastic and satire) are usually considered "dark." For example, I love death and suffering, sometimes really scared. Unfortunately, at this time I can't write without sympathy with the characters, and as a result, I can't force the characters to suffer. As a result, in his book, they were blessed with them. Which publishers see this?

There are others. Similarly, my writing schedule is really a past.

He said in his personal love, "Everything written in this book is wrong." It's not as easy as it looks. In fact, it was an amulet to make up a book. In other words, don't tell me that what was written in this book could not happen. This is impossible from beginning to end. I have tweeted without thinking about this world (I don't write the reality. "

In addition, the reader will definitely oppose some of them, without paying attention to all of my concepts are liberal. Occasionally, they also irritate me.

But for me, reading is not a process to understand things correctly. All the novelists I love make mistakes here and there. For example, G. K. Chesteraton can be expressed in just one sentence, from the most sublime wisdom and poems to the cheapest racism and the ant i-Semitism. S. Gilbert is sometimes on the border with strong prejudice. Bad elements, including the dignified wad houses. However, there is no obligation to boycott. I read them, take out really wonderful things, and leave the rest on the plate.

What I want is that the reader treats my text in the same way.

Consumed by Love

However, we do not consider whether reading is correct now. Occasionally, it seems that it is expected to throw away the good parts of the bad part and start reciting only those who are 100 % correct. This is basically possible to recite without criticism. < SPAN> Another problem is that writers who do what I like (fantastic and satire) are usually considered "dark." For example, I love death and suffering, sometimes really scared. Unfortunately, at this time I can't write without sympathy with the characters, and as a result, I can't force the characters to suffer. As a result, in his book, they were blessed with them. Which publishers see this?

There are others. Similarly, my writing schedule is really a past.

A SEASON CONSUMED BY LOVE

In addition, the reader will definitely oppose some of them, without paying attention to all of my concepts are liberal. Occasionally, they also irritate me.

YOUR EXPERIENCE AWAITS

OPERA ON STAGE

What I want is that the reader treats my text in the same way.

Truly. Madly. Deeply.

However, we do not consider whether reading is correct now. Occasionally, it seems that it is expected to throw away the good parts of the bad part and start reciting only those who are 100 % correct. This is basically possible to recite without criticism. Another problem is that writers who write (fantastic and satire) are usually considered "dark." For example, I love death and suffering, sometimes really scared. Unfortunately, at this time I can't write without sympathy with the characters, and as a result, I can't force the characters to suffer. As a result, in his book, they were blessed with them. Which publishers see this?

There are others. Similarly, my writing schedule is really a past.

WELCOME TO YOUR OPERA EXPERIENCE.

In addition, the reader will definitely oppose some of them, without paying attention to all of my concepts are liberal. Sometimes they also irritate me.

What I want is that the reader treats my text in the same way.

I can't guarantee that my book will be this way. Of course, I'm going to do my best, but that's what creativity is like that, so I can't affirm that the devil lurking around is not speaking. Certainly, it is certain that there are occasional devils between words. This is the biggest concern about my book. That's why I had to tell the reader from the beginning that everything I wrote was wrong. This was the only way to clear and clear how to read me correctly.

Elim Rim - Journalist, creative writer

Last modified 21.08.2025

Play

accepted