AT LEAST THEY DIDN’T CALL RICHARD STRAUSS “ANTI-CHOICE”
Kevin Roderick at L.A. Observed has a wonderful story about liberal bias at the L.A. Times resulting in a very silly mistake.
Last week, an opera reviewer at the Times filed a review of the L.A. Opera’s performance of Richard Strauss’s “Die Frau Ohne Schatten.” According to Roderick, the reviewer wrote that the opera is “an incomparably glorious and goofy pro-life paean…”
Apparently, some copy editor saw the word “pro-life” and reflexively changed it to “anti-abortion.” The only problem is that the Strauss opera has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. It is exactly what the reviewer had said: a celebration of procreation.
Read the L.A. Observed account linked above for the follow-up story. The Times issued two corrections concerning this piece — one correcting the error, and a second explaining that the error wasn’t the reviewer’s fault. The “Reader’s Representative” then issued an internal memo criticizing the second correction, explaining that corrections should not explain who made the mistake. As the memo explains:
The thinking is that readers don’t care who made the mistake.
Ah, but when the mistake reflects a reflexive liberal bias, we do care.
P.S. I have concluded that, if aliens from outer space ever attack our planet, the headline in the L.A. Times the next day will be “Undocumented Workers Invade Earth.” (This headline will follow an intense debate regarding whether the word “invade” is insensitive.)
UPDATE: Reuters has picked up the story. Reuters confirms L.A. Observed’s report that Swed meant to describe the opera as “pro-life” and not “anti-abortion” — but was thwarted by unthinking political correctness. Swed is quoted as saying:
It’s about children who aren’t born yet screaming to be born — not abortion. . . . Somebody who didn’t quite get it got a little bit too politically correct . . . and we had a little breakdown in communications.
(Reuters link courtesy of Justin Levine at Calblog.)
Yahoos maybe, but hilarious yahoos.
Comment by Jackie — 3/4/2004 @ 8:28 am
Yahoos maybe, but hilarious yahoos.
Comment by Jackie — 3/4/2004 @ 8:28 am
Media Watchers
New to the blogroll, “Oh, ThatLiberal Media” introduced by Patterico’s Pontifications and including contributions from bloggers XRLQ, Stefan Sharkansky, Jason Van Beek, Captain Ed, Ombudsgod, and Spoons. There’s already some great content incuding this…
Trackback by BoiFromTroy — 3/4/2004 @ 8:48 am
In this instance, it is certainly fair that they identify who really made the mistake. It was the editor’s idiocy in expressing his own political views that caused the embarrassing mistake, afterall.
Comment by dowingba — 3/4/2004 @ 12:42 pm
When I am done, the California budget will be back in the African-American.
Comment by Arnold — 3/4/2004 @ 2:29 pm
Speaking of reflexive bias - has this clown even listened to the opera? Read the libretto? Know thing one about Hugo von Hofmannsthal?
Die Frau Ohne Schatten is the Empress, who, as the title suggests, lacks a shadow, lacks humanity, and therefore lacks the ability to bear children.
The Nurse leads her to the Dyer’s Wife, suggesting that she take the Dyer’s Wife’s shadow. Since her marriage to the Dyer isn’t going so well, it’s a proposition that the Dyer’s Wife might not mind so much.
At the end of the first Act, the unborn children of the Dyer’s Wife call out to her for help. She is oblivious to their pleas. Instead she cries out, “I will put away from my body the unborn children, and my womb will not be fruitful for you nor for any other….”
Let there be no doubt, the Dyer’s Wife is contemplating abortion. The unborn children already exist. The audience can hear their voices. Since Hofmannsthal viewed motherhood as the only noble (and only possible) calling of Woman, there is no doubt he condemns in this opera any path that does not lead to multiple-motherhood.
That’s why he has the Dyer’s Wife immediately regret her momentous decision. The gods are clement, she is reconciled with her husband, and the chorus of their unborn children sing her praises.
Comment by M.Croche — 3/4/2004 @ 3:53 pm
If you are right, the L.A. Times needs to issue a third correction, saying that their first correction was incorrect.
However, the Unborn Children sound metaphorical to me.
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 4:20 pm
In other words, you don’t know a thing about the opera - yet presume to talk about it.
Metaphors don’t speak. These unborn do. And the voices of the unborn explicitly address Barak and his wife as their parents..
“Mother, your shadow!
Look, how beautiful it is!
See, you husband
is coming to you!”
“Father, nothing threatens you;
see already the trouble is vanishing.
Mother, the trouble
that perplexed you.”
Comment by M.Croche — 3/4/2004 @ 4:26 pm
Uh, last time I checked, unborn children don’t speak. (Of course, in a fictional work, unborn children could speak — and so could metaphorical figures.)
I think you’re missing the point. I don’t presume to speak about the opera; the L.A. Times does. The Times’s correction states: “In fact, there is no issue of abortion in the opera, which extols procreation.”
As I said above, if the Times is wrong about this, I am sure they will issue a third correction, correcting their first correction. If anything could make this whole episode even goofier, I think that’d be it.
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 6:34 pm
Why does Patterico continue to debate about an opera he apparently has neither seen nor heard? And he makes categorical statements about it in boldface, no less. That says a lot about his integrity.
Anyway, Patterico claims that “Uh, last time I checked, unborn children don’t speak. (Of course, in a fictional work, unborn children could speak — and so could metaphorical figures.)”
This is an opera in which an Eagle speaks. In which a human being is turned to stone. It’s not exactly verisimilar. There is nothing in Hofmannsthal’s libretto to indiciate that the voices heard are not those of Barak’s and his wife’s future children. If Patterico thinks otherwise, let him cite the libretto.
And in what fiction could “a metaphor” speak. A metaphor is a linguistic construction. It is not animal, vegetable or mineral.
Comment by M.Croche — 3/4/2004 @ 6:57 pm
View from the copy desk: the reflexive change of “pro-life” was not a matter of liberal bias, it was a matter of the paper having a rule for trying to use neutral language. One half of the spectrum of opinion has defined itself “pro-life” and made the term politically charged, so newspapers have tried to find a *less* politically charged way of describing opposition to abortion. That underlies the L.A. Times’ style and that of most other newspapers.
One of the reasons why newspapers don’t like “pro-life” is the semantic counterargument it poses: who among rational people on earth is anti-life?
I realize if you’re among the people w/your mind made up on the issue you’ll find this unpersuasive… I just wanted to throw it out there.
Comment by tom — 3/4/2004 @ 7:14 pm
Dude,
I get it already: you’re proud of yourself for knowing the ins and outs of this opera. I’m very happy for you.
However, none of this changes the fact that the Times has issued two corrections now, both stating that there is no issue of abortion in the opera — apparently at the behest of their music critic, who feels the same way. This fact kinda makes the whole episode seem like P.C. gone wild.
We bloggers aren’t setting ourselves up as music experts. We are simply citing to those corrections. If the corrections are wrong, take it up with the Times. Maybe they’ll issue corrections to the corrections.
I figured out what the “M.” in your name stands for: “Missing the Point Every Time.” Enough already — we’re all bored.
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 7:17 pm
Sorry, Patterico. If you’re going to score points off of the LA Times, you have to take responsibility for the accuracy of your assertions. Aren’t conservatives the ones who hyperventilate about personal responsibility?
Instead you snark regardless of the facts of the matter.
That you don’t seem to particularly care what the facts of the matter are says a good deal about your integrity.
Comment by M.Croche — 3/4/2004 @ 8:22 pm
Tom- that same argument could be made for “pro-choice” as well, but (not) surprisingly isn’t.
Comment by The Angry Clam — 3/4/2004 @ 9:02 pm
M.Croche,
The Reuters story in the update to my post, above, shows that everything you have said is irrelevant and pointless.
As for your accusations re my “integrity,” I refer the reader to your comments at Calblog, where you took Swed’s quote from the Reuters story:
and neatly snipped off the last two words (the part that undercut your argument) so that it read as follows:
This was dishonest of you. It was also stupid, since it’s so easy to check the actual quote.
So, M.Croche, you’ll pardon me if I don’t regard you as the expert on “integrity.”
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 9:07 pm
Tom, I understand your point, but disagree, for two reasons:
1) Use of P.C. terms is rampant at newspapers, e.g. “gun control advocates” vs. “gun lobby.” In particular, the culture of P.C. at the L.A. Times is well known.
2) The “neutral term” in this case distorted Mr. Swed’s meaning, which is the biggest problem. Accuracy suffered due to political correctness. Many (I among them) believe that this silly episode is emblematic of a greater problem, where truly significant stories (as well as opera reviews) are rendered less accurate due to political correctness.
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 9:13 pm
I haven’t seen the opera, so I hope my integrity won’t be questioned for commenting, but I read a synopsis here:
http://www.metopera.org/synopses/frau.html
Based on what I’m reading, it’s not at all clear to me that the unborn children have already been conceived. I interpret it to mean all the children who might have been conceived, but never will be because of the actions of the Dyer’s Wife. In other words, they’re metaphorical, and the L.A. Times correction was correct.
Comment by steve m. — 3/4/2004 @ 9:14 pm
Steve, don’t get this guy started again with the “you’re too lazy to see the opera” schtick. I agree with you entirely, but I also don’t really care about the finer points of the opera. The Reuters story makes the true point quite clear. Swed meant to say one thing, but his review was turned into something he didn’t intend, by a copy editor displaying reflexive and unthinking political correctness. End of story.
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 9:19 pm
Patterico writes: “This was dishonest of you. It was also stupid, since it’s so easy to check the actual quote.”
It wasn’t a relevant part of the quote. Reinstate those two words, if you like. Does it in the least affect the subsequent argument in my post? I’m saying that Mark Swed is being disingenuous. Adding those two words makes him more disingenuous, not less.
I notice that Steve M. hasn’t read the opera, but offers an opinion of it based on Cliff’s Notes. Patterico doesn’t care about what he terms “the finer points” of the opera. Just how does Patterico know which points about the opera are “the finer points”? He doesn’t even know the goshdarn thing.
That “Swed meant to say one thing” is undeniably true. Just as every anti-abortion protester would rather that s/he be called “pro-life” in the press and not “anti-abortion.” But the emended sentence is in no way false, notwithstanding Swed’s claims to the contrary. Hofmannsthal/Strauss’ opera is “anti-abortion” precisely to the extent that it is “pro-life.”
I have demonstrated this with reference to the text and plot of the opera. Can you guys do the same in backing up your position? What hacks.
Comment by M.Croche — 3/4/2004 @ 9:34 pm
Well, I don’t think this opera is showing where I live. So synopses will have to do…
Comment by steve m. — 3/4/2004 @ 9:36 pm
I think every reader of this site, with one glaring exception, understands that this is not a debate about the opera. It is a debate about an editor changing a writer’s intended meaning — not because of a philosophical disagreement, but rather because of reflexive, unthinking political correctness.
One wonders: how often does this sort of thing happen with stories that are actually significant?
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 9:41 pm
This more detailed synopsis not only makes it clear that the Unborn Children represent future possibilities, it even implies that the Dyer’s Wife is only imagining their voices.
http://info.royaloperahouse.org/mobile/Index.cfm?sc=77&ic=49
These synopses are provided by opera houses, by the way. I suspect if employees there got caught using Cliff’s Notes they’d be tossed out on their ears.
After wading through this story line, I sure hope the songs in this thing are catchy.
Comment by steve m. — 3/4/2004 @ 9:50 pm
“Anything too stupid to be spoken is sung.”
- Voltaire
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 10:00 pm
OK, back to the real issue. I can second what the copy editor said in an earlier comment. When I worked as a copy editor we had similar marching orders.
***** start tangent *****
Copy editors like to demonstrate their superiority over other copy editors by reciting rules like this, loudly. Here are some examples. It’s not “totally destroyed,” it’s just destroyed, because there’s no such thing as “partially destroyed”. It’s either destroyed or it’s damaged.
Or here’s another good one. Did you know that it’s incorrect to call it a “near miss” when two airplanes get too close to each other? Because if they nearly miss, that means they hit! So you have to call it a near hit. Even though NOBODY TALKS THAT WAY.
Do I miss working in newspapers? Not one bit.
***** end tangent ******
Comment by steve m. — 3/4/2004 @ 10:03 pm
Steve M writes: “This more detailed synopsis not only makes it clear that the Unborn Children represent future possibilities, it even implies that the Dyer’s Wife is only imagining their voices.”
What is the textual support for either of these interpretations? I have the libretto in front of me and cannot find it. Here’s what the children say at the end of the first act:
“Mother, mother let us come home!
The door is bolted, we can’t get in;
we are in the dark and we’re frightened!
Mother! Alas!”
“We are in the dark and we’re frightened!
Ah! Mother, let us in!
Or call our dear father
so that he can open the door to us!”
“Oh Mother, alas for your hard heart.”
There is not indication that these are mere “possibilities.” They are the (five) children who already belong in some sense to the Dyer’s Wife and to Barak. And it is the Dyer’s Wife who is considering consigning them to oblivion by giving up her shadow.
Comment by M.Croche — 3/4/2004 @ 10:17 pm
Quintuplets!
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 10:19 pm
Steve M also writes: “After wading through this story line, I sure hope the songs in this thing are catchy.”
There are some good tunes in here, but there is also a good deal of extremely sophisticated contrapuntal writing, recondite harmonic progressions, unusual musical syntax etc. This score is more complex than the much-feared Salome or Elektra. On stage, though, the tableaux are extremely colorful and there are a lot of arresting visual effects to counterbalance the sometimes ponderous course of Hofmannsthal’s poetic logic.
There is a beautiful DVD (and VHS) of the opera from a German production with excellent singing (Cheryl Studer, Marjana Lipovsek if I recall correctly), conducting (Sawallisch) and staging. Highly recommended.
Comment by M.Croche — 3/4/2004 @ 10:25 pm
I’m beginning to wonder if the M. stands for Maureen, and her last name is really Dowd, not Croche. Just a hunch.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/4/2004 @ 10:36 pm
Couple points: I’m pretty sure most stylebooks direct us to avoid “pro-choice” as well, for the same reason as “pro-life.” In reality the rules are not always enforced equally because not everybody has the stylebook memorized.
Rigid, uncritical adherence to style dictum is the culprit. Stylistic correctness, vs. political. It’s in the same family, though, which is why it’s so odious.
Comment by tom mangan — 3/4/2004 @ 10:37 pm
“Quintuplets!”
Wish the Dyer’s wife luck. She’s still got Barak’s three brothers (one’s one-armed, one’s one-eyed, one’s hunchbacked) to see to as well……..
Comment by M.Croche — 3/4/2004 @ 10:40 pm
X,
The guy thinks he’s Debussy.
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 11:00 pm
Tom,
Just to take a quick example I pulled up in 2 seconds: here is Patt Morrison’s latest column, using the phrase “pro-choice” (to describe Arnold S. as “the pro-choice, glute-grabbing Schwarzenegger.”)
I guess you’re right: the rules aren’t enforced equally. . .
Comment by Patterico — 3/4/2004 @ 11:08 pm
“…and there are a lot of arresting visual effects to counterbalance the sometimes ponderous course of Hofmannsthal’s poetic logic…”
Visual effects! Cool! Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about. There might be hope for this thing yet. So who did the CGI? Lucasfilm?
Comment by steve M. — 3/5/2004 @ 2:50 pm
Framing double standard
Here are three different articles outlining recent anti-Jew thuggery in Toronto (one, two, three). Here are some of the terms that show up throughout the three articles: “anti-Semitic vandalism”, “anti-Semitic attacks”, “anti-Semitic hate crimes”. Now,…
Trackback by Tao of Dowingba — 3/21/2004 @ 9:36 pm
The Kobe Files: He Said, We Said
Kobe Bryant said: He’s a “Laker for life” We said: He’s a Laker until he gets life! The Los Angeles Times Said: Bryant an “anti-abortion” Laker…
Trackback by BoiFromTroy — 7/16/2004 @ 7:01 am