Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tom Stoppard has died

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Tom Stoppard has died

#21

Post by windowshopping »

mstep wrote: post #6

GUIL: Hm? ROS: Yes? GUIL: What? ROS: I thought you... GUIL: No. ROS: Ah.

See now while I love this play I don't find that exchange notable. It's very plain, no? The implication is that one thought the other was going to say something but he wasn't. This exact dialogue takes place in real life regularly.

The alternative reading, where an entire exchange cleverly takes place without any substance, seems almost mistaken to me? In context it seems very clear it's "I thought you...[were going to say something.]" "No." "Ah."

Re: Tom Stoppard has died

#23

Post by dcminter »

The Player giving a bit of meta-commentary (meta-meta-commentary?) on plays in Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead:

"Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see."

Re: Tom Stoppard has died

#25

Post by curiousObject »

windowshopping wrote: post #21
mstep wrote: post #6

GUIL: Hm? ROS: Yes? GUIL: What? ROS: I thought you... GUIL: No. ROS: Ah.

See now while I love this play I don't find that exchange notable. It's very plain, no? The implication is that one thought the other was going to say something but he wasn't. This exact dialogue takes place in real life regularly. The alternative reading, where an entire exchange cleverly takes place without any substance, seems almost mistaken to me? In context it seems very clear it's "I thought you...[were going…

This exact dialogue takes place in real life regularly.

One reason that it is funny is that it plays against that.

We the audience maybe forget for a moment that we are not watching real life. We are watching a drama or entertainment. So we expect something relevant to happen. That’s the convention.

The exchange plays with that expectation. It deliberately forces us out of our pleasant illusion and makes think us about our real experience - we are sitting in a seat and watching a performance, which is happening at that moment.

And nothing happens, just the same as real life

Re: Tom Stoppard has died

#27

Post by mstep »

windowshopping wrote: post #21
mstep wrote: post #6

GUIL: Hm? ROS: Yes? GUIL: What? ROS: I thought you... GUIL: No. ROS: Ah.

See now while I love this play I don't find that exchange notable. It's very plain, no? The implication is that one thought the other was going to say something but he wasn't. This exact dialogue takes place in real life regularly. The alternative reading, where an entire exchange cleverly takes place without any substance, seems almost mistaken to me? In context it seems very clear it's "I thought you...[were going…

i don-t think so. the stage direction before that dialogue is:

(ROS and GUIL ponder. Each reluctant to speak first.)

if the dialogue should be clearly about who speaks first, wouldn-t the stage direction have been something like:

(ROS and GUIL ponder. Each reluctant to speak first. ROS tries to say something but does not) ?

i mean - you could play it like that. But then to me some of the beauty of that dialogue is lost, that comes from the fact that for the spectator it-s not clear what is the subject of it.

Re: Tom Stoppard has died

#28

Post by aa-jv »

inglor_cz wrote: post #18
nephihaha wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many people who never make it because they grow up under the wrong regime or in a place where no one will publish or publicise them. For what it's worth, a lot of people think the Nazis undermined their own war machine by persecuting Jewish scientists.

They absolutely did, and German science never recovered its former dominant position after Hitler. People don't even realize that as late as 100 years ago, Americans would travel to Germany for first-class university education. Harvard was good for networking and decent for overall education, but top notch science was done in places like Heidelberg.

Its still the case today, its just that America has gotten louder about its academic accomplishments being a key factor in economic success.

Your average German/Austrian universities have plenty of ex-pat Americans, there for precisely the fact that the education systems have such variety between the two nations. They are understated and under-represented in mainstream culture about academia, but for sure there are still Americans making the pilgrimage to older universities, for the diversity and strengths they offer.

Re: Tom Stoppard has died

#29

Post by inglor_cz »

aa-jv wrote: post #28
inglor_cz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely did, and German science never recovered its former dominant position after Hitler. People don't even realize that as late as 100 years ago, Americans would travel to Germany for first-class university education. Harvard was good for networking and decent for overall education, but top notch science was done in places like Heidelberg.

Its still the case today, its just that America has gotten louder about its academic accomplishments being a key factor in economic success. Your average German/Austrian universities have plenty of ex-pat Americans, there for precisely the fact that the education systems have such variety between the two nations. They are understated and under-represented in mainstream culture about academia, but for sure there are s…

Nevertheless, when it comes to top research, Germany has become a shadow of its former self. No way around it. This graph speaks volumes.

Prior to Nazism, Germans would collect as many science Nobel Prizes as the British, the French and the Americans together.

https://preview.redd.it/nobel-prizes-by-country-manually-upd...

Post reply on HN