Jonathan Ellis wrote:

>I understand what Jon means, but really feel these are totally different
>to his objections to G&S.  With both Wagner and Breacht/Weill the objection
>seems to be through association; with G&S, Jon actually objected to the
>language used by the 19th century Gilbert and thought it may offend a late
>20th century audience.
>
>With a constant change in attitudes, ideas, morals, vocabulary, we will
>always face things which were accepted in their day, but become offensive
>in a changing environment.  Perhaps for this reason, many productions of
>G&S "adapt" the lyrics - and I see little wrong with that.  But I do feel
>that to charge him with offences which did not exist when he was writing
>is misplaced.

You see, the problem is that, the more I think about it, the less sure I
am that the offenses *didn't* exist, in the sense that the Gilbert lyrics
(and of course I'm not singling him out unfairly--the same applies to many
other "classics") reflected attitudes toward non-whites, women, etc., which
standards of public propriety allowed to be expressed more openly and
frankly than they do today, but which were recognized as wrong even then
by sensitive people such as John Stuart Mill.  When some people complain
bitterly about what they call "political correctness," what they seem to be
objecting to is this shift over time in what people are not embarrassed to
express in public.

The question this raises in my mind is: was Gilbert aware of the
hostility his words contained? (Think about it for a second--an executioner
threatens to behead non-white singers and women writers, among various other
categories of people who are not standard targets of bigotry, and therefore
are clearly meant to be humorous.) How could he not have been aware of the
clear implications of what he was writing? And if he was, why did he think
it was funny? Did no one even then think that there was something a little
suspicious going on here?

I put it in the category of the kind of off-color "humor" which the guys
in the locker room indulge in when the targets of their "jokes" are not
present.  If you object, they say, "Aw, come on, we're only having a little
fun.  Why be so serious? Lighten up!" Well, all I can say is that this is
not quite my idea of fun.

>Incidentally, it is rather strange that both Gilbert and Sullivan
>considered the work they did together far inferior to that which they did
>alone.  Sullivan much preferred his "serious" work - as did Gilbert.  The
>fact that both of them have found fame with works they both considered
>inferior is ironic to say the least.

I wouldn't call it ironic; after all, they wrote the Savoy operas as
popular entertainment, so it's no surprise that these turned out to be the
most popular among their works.  I'm glad that they did realize that their
other works were on a superior level.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]