3 ms·

I think some people are taking exactly the opposite from this talk than what Vonnegut intended. It is not like Vonnegut have discovered stories have different

by goto11 8y ago

I think some people are taking exactly the opposite from this talk than what Vonnegut intended. It is not like Vonnegut have discovered stories have different dramatic curves. This was common knowledge at the time of Aristotle. The genres Tragedy and Comedy was defined by the Greeks according to the curve of fortune: A tragedy was about bad things happening to good people (to put is succinctly) while comedy was the opposite. So the curves of fortune have been fundamental for the understanding of drama since antiquity. What Vonnegut is pointing out is that in Hamlet the change in fortune is actually not so clear-cut. It is often ambiguous if what happens is actually "good" or "bad". So you cant really plot it on such a curve. Hence his assertion that Shakespeare was a bad storyteller - at least according to simplified narrative models. What he actually states is that real life is too ambiguous to plot on a god/bad curve, and that Hamlet is a masterpiece because it reflects this ambiguity. He is not condoning Heroes Journey or other cookie-cutter narrative models.

foobarbecue 8y ago
Yes, and vonnegut's stories really are like Shakespeare in this way. Events in them tend to make you go "woah" or "hunh" rather than "phew" or "waah".
weinzierl 8y ago
This is an excellent summary. > I think some people are taking exactly the opposite from this talk than what Vonnegut intended. It's understandable though: Vonnegut spends more than half of the talk explaining the curves. When he comes to the really interesting point about Hamlet the connection to the first part is only loose. He only references Cinderalla and The Metamorphosis. And this is were my real gripe is: Of all the typical comedies and tragedies of the world he could have chosen any two to make his point. But he chose The Metamorphosis which is one of the worst examples to support his point. Sure, Gregor Samsa starts out in a bad position, but does he end worse? He doesn't seem to be concerned much about his death. Besides that everyone else in the novella ends up much better than in the beginning and the last chapter is certainly the brightest (warm sun and all).

by goto11 8y ago

foobarbecue 8y ago

Yes, and vonnegut's stories really are like Shakespeare in this way. Events in them tend to make you go "woah" or "hunh" rather than "phew" or "waah".

weinzierl 8y ago

This is an excellent summary. > I think some people are taking exactly the opposite from this talk than what Vonnegut intended. It's understandable though: Vonnegut spends more than half of the talk explaining the curves. When he comes to the really interesting point about Hamlet the connection to the first part is only loose. He only references Cinderalla and The Metamorphosis. And this is were my real gripe is: Of all the typical comedies and tragedies of the world he could have chosen any two to make his point. But he chose The Metamorphosis which is one of the worst examples to support his point. Sure, Gregor Samsa starts out in a bad position, but does he end worse? He doesn't seem to be concerned much about his death. Besides that everyone else in the novella ends up much better than in the beginning and the last chapter is certainly the brightest (warm sun and all).