In Which games and snow come in a flurry. Israel is in the Psychiatrist’s Chair and First Month Moyes Report

Post 33

Thankful for small mercies, Don and Little Don left the Bowl of Broken Dreams after the Leicester game with a spring in our step and endorphins if not exactly sprinting around our system, then at least recalling the direction of travel. You’d think we had just beaten Man U whereas we had drawn with Leicester but as I say, small mercies. Since then and the commencement of this Pulitzer Prize effort, despondency against Everton, pride at City and euphoria at home to Chelsea.

Footie, as befits our table position, is dealt with at the foot of this rather long post.


First, on the Wagner front, we look at a part of the world, Israel, where for the best part of a century, Wagner has been musically absent but in every other sense alive and kicking out for all he’s worth. Don investigates why this is (bleeding obvious ain’t it?) and whether it reveals more about Wagner or the collective consciousness of a new and traumatized nation.  As a casual observer of Israeli society over the decades and as a relative newbie to the joy of Wagner, Don feels as ill-equipped to write on this as anything else…..so here we go.

220px-Arturo_Toscanini_1908.png Arturo Toscanini     ProgramCoverSigned.jpg

In 1936 Arturo Toscanini, arguably the greatest 20th century Maestro, travelled to British Mandate Palestine to conduct what would become the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. Performances included the preludes to Acts 1 and 3 of Lohengrin. He conducted Wagner in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa. He was aware of some resistance to Wagner among the populace of the then embryo of the Jewish state but he was determined to play because “nothing should interfere with music”.

The concerts were widely reported in domestic and foreign press and amid some polite resistance, were well and respectfully received. Intellectual central European Jews, of which plenty had emigrated to Palestine, were aware of the Wagner “issues” but by and large and perhaps out of deferential respect to Toscanini, he (Wagner) was judged on musical and in general positive terms. This is no blanket validation; after all, to the vast majority in mandate Palestine, both Wagner and Toscanini were irrelevant to daily life in much the same way as if The Sun canvassed views today on Daniel Barenboim.

Yet that would be the last time Wagner was played in Israel in public performance (private and radio performances have occurred) pretty much to date, excepting one performance in the 1990’s when Barenboim, amidst tumult, sneaked in a Leibestod.

Rightly or wrongly, Wagner, indelibly associated with the Nazi party, was never going to be top of the pops in Israel. Prospects were little better for Richard Strauss and Carl Orff. Yet, whereas those actual contemporaries of the Nazis (possibly even Party members), have since the 1990’s, almost without murmur, become regular parts of the Israeli concert repertoire, Wagner who died in 1883, 50 years prior to Nazi domination, remains the devil incarnate. Never actually banned; the Israeli government reluctantly but consistently asserting since the 40’s that it is not its place to interfere with the arts, a groundswell of public opinion, fanned by the media and various politicians has ensured he and his works remain beyond the pale. Even to this day, where cable TV, the internet and foreign travel mean that in private, Israelis listen to what and when they want, Wagner is not publicly performed.

It is unimaginable how one psychologically copes with surviving the holocaust; whether that survival is literal or vicariously via family or even observing from safe distance. So inevitably at the creation of a nation, in controversial and extreme circumstances, where the majority of the populace had been so affected, the Holocaust cast a giant shadow over the Israeli psyche. Accepting for now that a nation or a people can have a psyche.

At this point it may be as well to clarify that Palestinian Arab claims (many and legitimate as they may be) are beyond the scope of this musing which is really looking at the post-holocaust collective Israeli (Jewish) psyche and how Wagner fed into that. Though from the late ’70’s onward, Palestinian direct action (terrorism and/or later the intifadas – both of course loaded terms) became in that psyche, increasingly blurred with the Holocaust in creating a siege mentality.

I think its fair to say that until the late 1930’s intellectual and cultural life in Jewish Palestine was dominated by people who thought German-speaking or German influenced lands were and had been for centuries the cultural capital of Europe. The pillars of which were Beethoven, Bach, Mendelssohn. Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Brecht, Thomas Mann etc. In philosophy, one need look no further than Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and of course, Marx.  Such people were directors of theatres, newspaper editors, political activists and much of café society looked to replicate Munich, Vienna or Budapest. Wagner occupied an ambiguous place in their hearts. His music was loved and his genius never in doubt but it may have been their grandparents that protested the 1868 premiere of Die Meistersinger, having read his essay Judaism and Music a few months earlier. Equally, they may have been descended from Hermann Levi, the Jew selected by Wagner to conduct the 1882 premiere of Parsifal, his final opera. An example was Theodore Herzl who most would describe as the “father” of Zionism. A man prone to obsessiveness, he like Levi before and Mahler after (among thousands of other Jews), worshipped Wagner and in particular the opera Tannhäuser, in which the battle between sensual hedonism and a purer chaste love, mirrored some of Herzl’s personal demons.

swasIn any event, these middle class intellectuals had a serious wake up call two years after Toscanini’s visit. Kristallnacht. Whilst the full horror of the holocaust was still beyond human imagination, on this night, the extent to which the German state was prepared to tolerate anti-Jewish violence, even going so far as to legalize and sponsor it, became clear.

On this night, the Palestine view of Germany and things German changed, so that anything German was to be reviled. This view was robustly held by those Palestinian Jews of other descent not only because they saw Germany for what it had become but with added piquancy, resented the intellectual snobbery of the Palestinian Jews of German heritage.

From this night and continuously as World War II and the Final Solution to the Jewish Question unfolded, Jewish immigration to Palestine exploded, often breaking embargoes of the British, who were trying to maintain some sort of peace among ferociously competing positions of Arab and Jew. With partiality and prejudice…as claimed by both sides.

On his next visit, Toscanini was persuaded to drop the prelude to Die Meistersinger from the repertoire. 

It took several years for the world to comprehend the enormity of the Holocaust. Churchill had received intelligence of death camps during the war. He rejected the opportunity to obliterate certain of them on the ground that such intelligence could not be accurate. Not Passchendaele, The Somme and not Stalingrad. None of these could convince him that man could be capable of such barbarism….eventually the evidence was compelling.

Alongside this, and significantly influenced by the horror of the Holocaust, the UN voted to create a Jewish state in Palestine in 1947 and the State of Israel came into being in 1948. It was immediately attacked by five surrounding Arab nations, yet with a nascent army, succeeded in overcoming  them after a long and hideously difficult war. This is crucial in establishing the psyche of the fledgling nation and why of all things, a cultural icon would have any significance in that psyche.

It was a multi-faceted psyche for a multi-faceted people. Consider for example the following.

  1. Under Siege. Until the late 1950’s, the Jewish population in Israel, were largely people who had survived the Holocaust in one way or another. Thousands liberated directly from the camps or from ghettos, thousands more having fled during or just before the war and thousands of pioneering Zionists that witnessed the horror from Palestine or further afield and many of those had fled the Russian pogroms at the turn of the century.

Hundreds of thousands came, desolate, exhausted, directly from a systematic machine designed to destroy an entire race, into a war at the birth of Israel, in which five nations attacked with the avowed aim of driving the Jews into the sea. United against those that would destroy the Jews; Germans and Arabs, naturally a siege mentality arose, that with various peaks and troughs, survives to this day.

2.    Shame.  There have been many Israeli studies into the psychological effect of surviving. These show that many survivors were ashamed. Ashamed not to have resisted further, ashamed simply to  have survived. Consequently and bizarrely as it now sounds, the Holocaust, for not dissimilar reasons prevalent at the time in (West) Germany, was not a discussion for polite society. Notwithstanding the inauguration of Yad Vashem in 1953. Many parents could not discuss with children; the horror bottled up and buried deep. On the surface however, was hatred of anything German – language, culture, history. The abduction from Argentina and trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann in 1963 was a turning point. Not since Nuremberg had the world confronted personal accounts of the Holocaust on such scale and in such detail. For Israelis, the process was an immense catharsis. Apart from the obvious of the victim exacting some revenge, survivors were giving eyewitness accounts live on TV and before the world. Thousands were empowered to finally confront personal demons and parents would finally be receptive to enquiries of their children as to what had happened to them.  Hatred of all things German intensified and passed to the next generation. Even in Britain, Jews eschewed German goods well into the ’70’s.

3. Race relations.  In Arab nations, where as a generalisation, Moslem and Jew had co-existed semi-comfortably for generations, from the birth of Israel, Jewish life became increasingly untenable. This reached an apex (nadir) in 1956 with the Suez Crisis and consequently many thousands of Arab Jews poured into Israel. These were generally speaking, comparatively poor, less educated, though rich in culture and far less aware of the Holocaust. These people and in particular their children would in the late 1970’s re-direct the nature of Israeli society but for now they were a burden on the new and impoverished nation, several rungs below the influential Europeans. In terms of psyche, Israeli society shapers would be forced to confront their own racism towards other Jews, never mind Moslem and Christian Arabs.

4. Socialism and secularism. The early Zionists were influenced by Marx as much as anyone else and  from the 20’s to the 70’s (much as many ignore this now), Zionism was tinged with socialism in many respects; from political leadership, to the Kibbutz movement, urban co-operatives and the hugely influential Histadrut (trade union movement). Inevitably the military was an incredibly important social institution and this too was dominated by a left of centre leadership. Allied to this was a feminist movement arguably in advance of Western Europe equivalents. Also worthy of mention in contrast to the victim/siege/holocaust mentality, is the idealistic and optimistic notion of building a new and better society. The phrase “Light Unto the Nations”, was oft banded about. These idealists were setting out to make the desert bloom and create society free of many of the failings of the ultra-structured religious shtetls from whence many came and free of centuries of discrimination whereby Jews were by law, limited to money lending type functions and denied purer occupation, say working the land. Ironically it was such lofty ideals that led to the displacement of many Arab Palestinians because whereas first wave Zionists (pre-WW1) were often content to hire local labour to do the dirty work, for the socialist “second wave” (1920’s) it was by dint of idealistic purity, vital that they did manual labour themselves, women too.

5. German relations. In the 1950’s Israel was trying and by and large failing, to house and incorporate into society tens of thousands of Sephardi Jews from Arab lands. Not trying very hard according to most Sephardi’s at the time and fuelling resentment that burst forth in the 1977 election. But a real obstacle was that the country was broke. Its balance of payments was terrible and the military was sucking out any surplus. At same time in the late ’50’s, the German Chancellor Adennaur , was making tentative overtures that the new generation in West Germany was ready to face up to responsibilities. He sought a thaw in relations. This would entail Israelis evolving into a nation that could not only confront “the annihilators” but would accept millions of Marks in reparations and so which over the next 20 years, moved from the utter exclusion of anything German to more Volkswagens than one could shake a stick at.  One of the largest ever Israel TV audiences watched West Germany play East Germany at the World Cup in 1974…on their Grundig colour TVs. Remembering of course that only two years earlier, eleven Israeli athletes were murdered by terrorists, in West Germany. What does that lot do to your psyche???

6. Super (not to say Greater) Israel. The wars in 1967 and 1973 , the rescue of the hostages from Entebbe in 1974 and the airlifting of virtually all Ethiopian Jewry from the mid ’80’s famine all fed into the transformation of the national psyche from the defenceless victims of the Holocaust to a player on the world stage and evolving regional superpower, capable of anything. (The Yom Kippur war being a huge generalisation in that statement, seeing as the Prime Minister and most of the cabinet were sacked in the aftermath for taking the country close to Armageddon). Add in the huge territorial gain made in 1967 which changed the country from plucky little Israel, darling of Western media to occupational force. At a stroke, thousands of non-Israeli Palestinian Arabs were under Israeli control. This had major implications for the rule of law, democracy and how Israel saw itself. How the various factions in society reacted to and coped with that occupation, haemorrhages pain in Israeli society to this day.

7. Menachem Begin and religion.  Even in the context of what had previously occurred, 1977 is a if not the pivotal year in the country’s history. Menachem Begin, was swept to power on a wave of nationalist and religious fervour and for the first time, Israel had a Prime Minister not of the intellectual, genteel Left but one who spoke, despite his Polish origin, for the underprivileged Sephardi Jew. The parents, downtrodden in Arab lands, had come to Israel and faced at best snobbery and glass ceilings and at worst, effete racism. Their children though, not only learned to read and write in their new country of which they were intensely proud but also to vote. They weren’t going to be pushed around any more and neither on a world stage, were Jews.

13170-004-185B6E2F.jpg

So when Begin, always a man of action before words, started talking in bellicose language about Arabs, the US or Europe and most fundamentally, of a Greater Israel incorporating the Territories, he found his constituency. And such talk (retaining the Territories), was not because of some military and temporary expediency but rather because of biblical and therefore permanent right. Whether he was cause or effect, he caught the zeitgeist in Israel of increased religious influence, increased militarism and aggression. And so an invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was considered a justifiable protection of interests in a way that would not have been contemplated a decade earlier.  In parallel (and maybe because of) we have seen since the mid ’70’s an explosion in and world recognition of, (Arab) Palestinian identity, driven home at various times in political and terrorist terms. Increased radicalization has continued for a generation (on both sides) in which we have seen countless loss of innocent life (on both sides) and the assassination of an Israeli Prime Minister…by a Jew .

Interim report. Skipping a few decades, the patient on the couch is victim turned regional super-power. Anti-German yet embracing of all things German. Occident and Orient. Disappointed idealist. Hawk, Dove, Left, Right, Religious, Secular, Tolerant, Fundamental. Hi-tech ultra wealthy along with breadline poor. Expansionist yet has returned to Egypt land equal to the area of the entire country….oh and throw in about half a million Russians.


How does Wagner fit into all this madness?

75fbda439fb50d2d869dfa6155a510a5

The Case Against Wagner….is easy. He thought lots of bad things and what he thought he tended to say and what he said either he or his second wife wrote down.

These have been catalogued ad nausea, including in this blog and does not bear repeating, though we alight on some aspects below. Check it out further if you wish.

The anti-German sentiment spawned in the aftermath of Kristallnacht and which engulfed the country as news of the Holocaust unfolded, naturally extended to rejection of contemporary German composers Richard Strauss and Carl Orff but also to the long dead Richard Wagner, regarded as the spiritual inspiration of the Nazis.

Every now and then, broadly once a decade, the scar would be ripped open by an occurrence which would erupt the debate; usually it was the Israel Philharmonic announcing it proposed to play something by Strauss or Wagner. Cue huge angry and emotional debate in the media, calls for the government to intervene before invariably the orchestra relented and excluded the piece and all was quiet until the wound re-opened some years hence. A full account of this history in which dramatis personae include Jascha Heifetz, Zubin Mehta, Leonard Bernstein and naturally Daniel Barenboim, is set out in Na’ama Sheffi’s – Ring of Myths

Arguments on both sides remained broadly consistent over the generations with little originality introduced. In general terms the pro-Wagner camp argued music is music and the country’s lead orchestra should, by way of national pride as well as the advancement of culture, play the most challenging and serious pieces. They dissociated Wagner’s personal views from his art and Strauss’ and Orff’s actions from theirs. If any pieces gave personal offence, people were free to switch off the radio or walk out; no offence taken.  The anti-Wagner side’s views were equally predictable; the Germans were the annihilators; nothing German should be tolerated never mind celebrated and in particular, survivors and their families (and of course out of respect for those perished) should not have to re-live unimaginable trauma of hearing music played in the camps (see below).

In time (the ’90’s), emotion relented toward Strauss and Orff, particularly when it was established that the Nazi Party may have been something forced upon both of them, particularly Strauss, rather than the other way around and that Strauss had a Jewish daughter-in-law and so Jewish grandchildren.

But Wagner never. Hitler was infatuated with him from his teenage years and undoubtedly found soulful if not political inspiration in his art. Whether Wagner intended anything like such effect upon a fascist is another matter.

Why does he inspire such intense feeling for and against? Particularly in Israel.

For those seeking an answer beyond he was a bad and horribly anti-Semitic man (and surely that alone is insufficient – Henry Ford, Walt Disney and the jury’s out on Shakespeare)…..there is no single answer but consider the following..

He is convenient. There is a Yes Minister episode where James Hacker wants to take a moral stand against a particular smallish country on a matter of principle. Why Sir Humphrey asks, if it’s a matter of principle, don’t you take the same stand against the Soviet Union for the same action? Well replies Hacker, they are just too big and too powerful.

When government takes the gut wrenching decision that the time is right (for Geo/economic reasons) to accept reparations from West Germany, something has to fill that void in the soul. And where government, in such excruciating circumstances, feels it is the custodian of the nation’s soul, it has to listen to the anger and try to placate. Music is the soft underbelly of fascism. I may drive into Tel Aviv in my Volkswagen but I will not listen to Wagner on the car radio. It’s something to hang onto, something on which to pour out vitriol and grief. And who can deny that to Holocaust survivors?

Moreover, music is emotional, evocative. It stirs the soul whereas Volkswagens go from A to B. Wagner is far from a unique composer in this regard, yet many, Don included, contend that he had special qualities when conveying depth of feeling and life experience. Contrary to the popular conception that his music is mainly loud, bombastic and long it is often in fact anything but…ok it is long. Therefore whilst arguments about money generally and the Israeli GDP in particular can be held at a rational level, arguments around music rip at the soul of the nation. For a soul in torment, that cannot be tolerated.

More so, as was regularly maintained, Wagner’s music was played at the death camps where it was used to torment inmates, who even had to march to their death to its nationalistic strains. On a recent visit to Auschwitz my daughter was told by a tour guide that on arrival prisoners were greeted by an orchestra playing Wagner. So it has been given some historical credence but…Did this happen? Is it more than apocryphal?

Validation of anything concerning concentration camp life has an essential evidential difficulty; few lived to tell the story. But that must cut both ways. Proving a negative is also difficult. But of the thousands of  testimonies given at the trials at Nuremberg and Jerusalem, there is little reference to  Wagner’s music being played. One reason may be, why would prisoners know or care? Like today, beyond perhaps Ride of the Valkyries, relatively few would know Wagner’s music if they heard it. It would have been another piece of classical and probably German nationalist music.

In the early 1930’s at Dachau (and elsewhere but especially there), by design, German music was used to intimidate, upset and even (they thought!) culturally improve prisoners but in those early days, inmates tended to be political opponents, not Jews qua Jews, this being well before the Final Solution was implemented or even conceived. See this article of Holocaust Music for further reading on the use of forced and voluntary music in the camps.

Such testimony as there is, tends towards music being heard from officer quarters several hundred yards away. If those officers were into opera, then Wagner was by far the most popular opera composer of the time. But there is little to suggest that Wagner was used as an instrument of torture in any sort of systematic way. Though Ben-Zion Leitner, an usher of the Mann Auditorium in Tel Aviv and anti-Wagner protester, always maintained so, from personal recollection, whilst other Israeli survivors are equally vehement that it was not.

This of course is not a seriously researched piece but others such as Na’ama Sheffi, also conclude that there is little or no conclusive evidence that Wagner was “weaponised” in this way. The probability is that he and no doubt Strauss, Beethoven and a plethora of German nationalist street songs were used in a vindictive way on a personal and ad-hoc basis.

What also made Wagner so difficult to take, was the extent to which, generally at the whim of Hitler, he was the Party composer of choice and that he represented the soul of the new fascist Germany, with anti-Semitism at its heart. All true.  Yet also significant was the politicisation of Bayreuth after Wagner’s death, initially by Cosima but forcibly so by his son-in-law Stuart Houston Chamberlain and his daughter-in-law Winifred Wagner (nee Williams), both British. The former, a proponent of Arthur comte de Gobinau’s racial inequality theories (rejected by Wagner), who happily extracted from his father-in law’s writings what he needed to suit his purposes, a salient one being the aggrandisement of the Wagnerian dynastic myth and its place in the new Germany. The latter, Winifred, embraced Nazism in every respect and was infatuated with Hitler personally (irrespective of her husband) and all he stood for.  Wagner was long dead, could not have foreseen the Nazis and there is as much to suggest he would have rejected them as the opposite of a Feuerbachian or Schopenhauerian ideal. Also worth noting while on the subject, that his last opera, Parsifal was banned by the Nazis because of its Christian overtones, albeit it has many other interpretations, including what one would have thought would have been a rather useful line concerning pure blood. Don can find little (or no) evidence of  the Nazis highlighting an anti-Semitic message in Wagner’s operas and one expects that had they thought it there, they would have done so.

Finally (finally for Don’s idling at least), there was his fervent nationalism. He was a nationalist and yearned for the reunification of Germany which indeed he saw in his lifetime. But nationalism, in modern negative terms, was not necessarily so then and his politics were generally “Left wing” on  his terms and in his context. His nationalism grew out of being born in Saxony, under the yoke of Napoleon. In his town alone, in excess of 50,000 Saxons were killed by the French before he reached puberty. His nationalism was fuelled by Young Germany; a romantic movement looking to throw off the shackles of a hierarchical religious and codified society. It revered nature, free love and women’s emancipation. In a funny way, reminiscent of some of the early Zionist youth movements and the lyrics of some of their songs don’t sound so good when taken out of context. Yes, anti-Semitism was never far from the surface at the Young Germany festivals. Such were the times, not only there but across Europe. One expects that few movements of self-determination, then and now, would stand up to scrutiny if put under the microscope.

Concluding thoughts..

So as ever with Wagner, matters remain controversial and evidence inconclusive.  We know he was a genius, it is undeniable that some of his music, poetry and the messages they convey are some of the most profound subtle and important ever written.

He was an anti-Semite but history is littered with worse. However they tended not also to be a musical maestro. Or if they were, their timing was better and they didn’t precede a fascist dictatorship. Or if they did, that dictatorship wasn’t so successful at genocide. It seems to Don, that Wagner’s greatest crime was drawing all these strings together into a neat bundle. A manageable bundle to be used by all sides. It is undeniable and readily understandable how and why his music came to be symbolic of the Third Reich. But it also goes to show that Wagner could be used and iconized by the victims of the Holocaust as much as by the perpetrators; whilst logic dictates that, long since departed, he can only be neutral and oblivious.

Personally and as a Jew, even leaving to one side the sheer joy gleaned from his art, there is when watching a Wagner opera, maybe an infinitesimal extra burst of pleasure attributable to Hitler’s wish to deny Jews…. Period; and yet here we are, free to like it or loathe it. It’s like kicking Hitler in the ball; his one and only..


Enough with Wagner, Israel and Nazis, time for something controversial. Whisper it but the David Moyes effect may actually be happening and not only in a bad way.


So at last to Stratford and a review of David Moyes’ first month.

First home game, Leicester and it looked like business as usual; we start ok, the opponents score with first attack, confidence drains, Dementors suck life from the crowd save those plucky chaps that remain up for a bit of booing and the team eases seamlessly to another home defeat. Same shit, different manager. Except the crowd held its nerve and just before half time Kouyate used various anatomical parts to bundle home something we thought extinct – a goal in the first half. Cue split second of suspended belief while we checked in which half we were playing, then pandemonium, relief, half time whistle, cup of tea.

Also a touch of Schadenfreude towards the 5000 so-called fans for whom its obligatory to leave the stadium temporarily on 40 minutes and permanently on 80.

In the second half, raucous support infected the players which in turn bounced back to the crowd. It’s not often the crowd merits a mention on Match of the Day but we did and we got one.

Don and Little Don sit in that mass of humanity known affectionately at the Stratford Bowl-eyn, as the East Stand. We’re generally a polite lot, don’t like a lot of noise, occasionally a whistle or polite applause. Frankly the main observed activity seems to be smart Alecks trying to smuggle a pint passed those fearsome (sic) stewards. Little Don does his bit to stir emotion and occasionally its a duet with Don but generally and more’s the pity,  its library-esque. So it was a funny thing mid-way through the second half, when for no apparent reason, everyone went berserk. Everyone was at it and not just singing….dancing. For fuck’s sake, dancing! What the hell was going on? The game stopped to have a look, cameras panned over the crowd as the ground reverberated, aircraft flying overhead tipped their wing. It was quite something; the sort of something that happened in the last ten home games at the Boleyn (but not much before – lets not kid ourselves) and we all remembered we have a voice and it’s not an offence to use it. My it was liberating! Don used the cover of general loud cavorting to slip in an unconnected Spurs slur and insulted a couple of unreceptive would-be girlfriends from 30 years ago.  By god it was good to be alive.

And then …Everton.

Everton

Goodness me it was dross. And not just from us. Don’t let the score kid you, they too were awful. Five attempts on target and four goals. Actually four attempts when one considers two were bound up in Rooney’s penalty. But that is deflecting from our drudgery. The first half was one of the worst performances I have ever seen. The second half we actually played some football and any football was enough to send Everton into a tizzy; that’s how bad they were. One could say luck deserted us; Creswell hit the bar and Jordan Pickford had the nerve to palm Lanzini’s penalty safely away rather than conveniently back into his path as per Hart/Rooney. Manners!

And then that Rooney magic against the run of play and it was 0-3 and game over. Lets not fuck around with sour grapes. It was amazing skill from one of the best players of his generation.

Apparently the players were all getting fitter but that doesn’t happen over night…well something needed to happen and quick…

Citeh

Don’s not much of a gambler but even he was tempted by circa 100-1 in a two-horse race. Fortunately as we were one of the runners he thought better of it, too busy wondering what bitcoin was.

ManchesterCityFCbadge.png

Lambs to the slaughter bla bla bla, bah bah bah.

Ensconced safely behind the couch that we put behind another couch, Don and Little Don zapped on the TV and awaited incoming. Decked out in funereal black, the boys tentatively entered the fray.

But bugger me sideways, that’s West Ham for you. Has Don learned nothing since 1969? Optimism constantly crushed and just when one expects annihilation, they put in a creditable performance.  Declan Rice deserving special mention in dispatches. Yes we lost but moral victory was ours and that, after all is what really counts….

Chelsea.

b8bb0612b45825deb8a4b76c316cc28a

Were it not for Spurs, this lot would be top of the list when Don is king of the world and its comeuppance time. Don spent the day cavorting on Watership Down for a 60th birthday bash (I kid you not and lovely it was too), so it was left to Little Don and his grandfather to fly the family flag. As no one needs to read a report from an absentee, I won’t bother. Suffice to say the Wellington Arms in Berks/Hants was treated to a fine and drunken rendition of Bubbles much to the annoyance of all present.

And I would also add that Creswell looks much more at home in the back three and King Arthur can wreak havoc knowing he has some cover.

A few weeks back, Don purveyed the fixtures and predicted the Hammers would not only be bottom but also detached by Christmas Eve. Delighted to report that seems unlikely (though never underestimate our ability to implode) and we approach the Arsenal game in surprisingly good heart. We’ve beaten off Chelsea, we’ve beaten the snow…..now bring on the Gunners.

If you have been, thanks for listening.

COYI! 

©DonnertheHammer.com 2017

 In Which we may have Redemption for the Redeemer (fingers crossed and weather permitting)

heaven-02.jpgPost 32 – Bumper New Manager Edition! Save Yourselves Now!!

Hello folks. Been a while.

I give you; Senta, Elizabeth, Elsa/Lohengrin, Brunhilde, Tristan, Sachs, Parsifal, Davy Moyes, David Sullivan, West Ham Fans, The West Ham Way.

That’s a bit of a list of saviours and/or entities seeking salvation.

Forget Bob Marley, no-one does redemption like Wagner. In trying to make any sort of sense of the operas (sorry, music-dramas) within his oeuvre (and they’re chock-a-block with insight, if not sense), Don finds it helpful to keep the concept Redemption, front and central. Then all one need do, is work out who needs redeeming, whose doing it and why.

Not into the West Ham thing? Skip about ten paragraphs…

Likewise, in the enduring Stratford soap opera, West Ham are in need of help. Big time. Never mind the results, we seem to have lost our way, our hearts, our focus, our cohesiveness, our home, our ability to sprint and unless we have a care, our roots and our soul. For West Ham (though don’t all clubs claim this?), has always been more than eleven players kicking a football; we have (or had) ..soul.

And to whom have we turned for our salvation? A man equally in need of at the very least, a good makeover, if not a blood transfusion. David Moyes, of no fixed abode, whose last three endeavours; at Man Utd, Real Sociedad and Sunderland, were if not outright failures, perched upon that end of the spectrum. He too is in need of a bit of a leg up. In His words, He has something to prove.

Can two lost souls meeting at the crossroads of life really be mutually redeeming? Or do we have two screaming blokes, colliding and hugging in quicksand? Their combined shackles entwining and hauling them both below the viscous depths?

CLEAVON LITTLE & CHARLES MCGREGOR BLAZING SADDLES (1974)

I don’t know, Don doesn’t know.

But we have an initial premise to test. Has He been brought in to save our souls? Were David Brent here, he’d probably dredge up the old “impossible is immediate, miracles take a little longer.” Poor old Davy M has just 6 months to save himself and WHUFC. So preservation of soul may be a little dramatic (not to say ambitious), what we’re talking here is Premier League status, where a win is a win is a win and be that with soul, Mo’town or R&B, no-one gives a stuff.

If that is the extent of our horizons, we may have got the right guy.

For when it comes to steely eyed, forthrightedness, roll up your sleeves, tracky bottoms and give me 5 laps and 100 press-ups…. Davy is your man. And we do need quite a bit of that. The stats that have (coincidentally?) come out this week have really just borne out what us ITK types have known for some time (via players we couldn’t possibly name) and to what the plebs that go to games is simply the bleeding obvious; we ain’t fit.

As much as we all loved Slav (and Don is as up for a bit of bro’mo as much the next guy – see below..), it is something of a fucking disgrace to see team after team out fight us, especially towards the end of the game.

Having said that (for you Seinfeld fans), I’m sure even under Sam, I recall any number of average teams looking fitter, passing crisper and being better than us. Maybe that’s pessimist me.

So to ignore that slight fly in the ointment, Don was quite impressed with Him at the press conference. Honest, urgent, footballing guy, whom (whom is good, if only we knew where to put it) has enough in the bank from Everton days for us to think he can inspire the 25 pretty talented blokes he has available.

To take an oversimplified case in point, Zaha’s last second goal that deprived us of 2 points at Palace; he shouldn’t have been allowed to turn, he shouldn’t have been allowed to shoot. Everyone should have been about a yard more bothered than they were.

Even before that, ignoring criticism of Antonio because that’s too easy and obvious, various Palace players should have been fouled in their half and the game won.

Its a little bizarre to reference naivety in a manager successful at  international level for several years, but the way Bilic had us set up for our own corner against Liverpool was almost laughable. Once the ball floated in it was 50/50 if we or they won the header; but once Liverpool did, the odds were quickly stacked for them to score some 90 metres away. Such was the paucity of our defensive cover. And those poor souls raised on a diet of West Ham over the last three years, know this was no isolated incident.

Though at this point; a word or two in support of Slaven are in order. For we come to praise Caesar, not to dig him up and bury him again.

1. He brought in and for our purposes, discovered, Payet. If the West Ham Way means anything (and of course it doesn’t), it is Dimitri Payet gracing Upton Park and the current fishbowl. Not since Di Canio or Joe Cole in his youthful pomp, have we seen anything like Payet and nor will we do so again as far as the eye can see. Presumably other managers also noted he created an abundance of chances in France but it was Slav that moved quickly and decisively. For the memories Don and Little Don have of that man, we thank you Slav.

2. The same to a lesser degree applies to Lanzini,  Obiang and Antonio.  Lanzini could easily been overlooked in exotic desert leagues but he wasn’t. A fantastic talent whose entire potential is yet to be realised. Has he always been played in the right position? No. Does he often come too deep to get involved? Yes. But well done Slav for bringing him in. Same with Obiang, Slav’s first signing and probably rubber stamped rather than driven by him. Particularly as if memory serves, obstinacy kept this obvious talent behind Noble in the pecking order for half a season. Antonio, was and to a degree maybe still is, raw talent to be harnessed in the most effective way. Like Obiang he wasn’t an immediate favourite of Slaven’s but came to be such.

All in all, Moyes inherits a decent squad. Thanks Slav.

3. He presided over the best season in Little Don’s living memory. Don is ancient. Not only cutting his teeth on the boys of ’86 but even tasting the delights of Moore, Peters, Brooking, Robson and Devonshire. But for Little Don that last season at Upton Park happened to coincide with our decision to take in a few away games. Father and son, together on the road, seeing the Irons win and/or perform well in unexpected places, counts for something. Thanks Slav. Winning the final ever home games against Chelsea and Liverpool – thanks Slav. For febrile excitement at home to Arsenal – thanks Slav. Winning the final ever game against Spurs at UP – thanks even more Slav. And for that last game ever…..you have Don’s eternal gratitude.

4. What a guy. On the day you get sacked to say it was the right decision and no hard feelings. To say this will always be your club. To say this was more than a job…these are unnecessary words that one only says if they are heartfelt. And with them, he inscribes a place in our hearts. Get your next job Slav but feel free to turn up on the “terraces” with us any time you get. Cheers pal and all the best.

Back to our Redeemer. One season. What are his chances?  First advantage is he doesn’t need to work out the problem. That much s obvious; conceding way too many goals. Yet, we have a good keeper and decent reserve keeper. Reid is a perfectly acceptable Premier League defender, albeit on the creative side he’s no Rio. Similar re Fonte (after a sticky start). Ogbonna; also pretty good, provides left balance and better distribution. Loved what I’ve seen of Rice so far. Zabaletta means we shouldn’t be exposed on the right and Byrom, pretty good back-up. I worry about our defending at left full back. Creswell the better disciplined of the two gets exposed too often. Masuako, for all (and maybe because of) his attacking prowess is no defender, so that needs looking at. Add Kouyate and surely we have something to work with and working and organising defences is Moyes territory.

 

We live or die in front of our defence. In Don’s opinion we have one classy operator; Obiang and two that are played there that don’t have a defensive mentality. One is Kouyate a supreme athlete who if he is to fulfil the role has to stop getting wrong side and the other, the Captain who whatever his talents, never could think defensively and less so now his legs have gone (by Premier League standards).  So if all teams need a Kante, we are short and maybe where we head in January, especially if Carvalho remains an option.

Further forward, why shouldn’t we be ok? There is strength in depth and in variety.

Then youth. At Everton, Moyes had a reputation of giving it a chance and there is some talent to call upon. But lets not kid ourselves, he needs results and quick which is not typically fertile ground for blooding the kids.

So squad-wise give or take, He and we have a chance.

Another plus, is that the spirit also seems willing. Even though Slav looked a dead man walking for maybe a month, which must impact on the players even at subliminal level, they gave the impression they remained behind him. Much of this Don expects is because they liked the guy, which is a little surprising in this mercenary age but appeared to be the case. So also good.

Not so good is the amount of games pre-Christmas and the opposition strength in that run-in. If this goes bad we could be bottom and even detached by Christmas which will increase the panic and substantially reduce the effectiveness of the January window. Frankly if we are not in the bottom three come Jan 1st, Moyes will have done well. Probably comes down to home games against Leicester and Newcastle and picking up something (anything) at Watford, Bournemouth and Stoke, none of whom are bad teams and all capable of beating us.

Also challenging is the potential toxicity of the London Stadium. Us fans need to take full responsibility for the crap atmosphere, though if we had something to cheer, maybe ten thousand wouldn’t religiously head for Gidea Park on 80 minutes. Gidea Park must be a hell of a place.

Without wanting to labour the downside, also not so good is Him having to deal with our management hierarchy but hey, that’s the gig.

So Don on behalf of his family and the whole Don community (his family), welcomes Mr Moyes. Forgive the formality but we have more than enough Davids as it is. Wagner fans will know from Die Meistersinger how one can get mixed up over Davids. We’d like the one from the picture please, that slew Goliath.

Do your job, keep us up and we’ll get on fine. The West Ham Way can probably wait until next season.

Okay, West Ham fans, you are free to go. Any Wagner devotees that are still with us, Die Zeit ist da. Anyone that combines both, contact me immediately….we have so much to discuss.

So…Erlösung dem Erlöser, as until 1903 they could only say in Bayreuth. Redemption to the Redeemer. Don is too exhausted with West Ham to embark on a serious study of redemption in the mature ten and frankly there are thousands out there far better equipped to do so but maybe for a bit of fun, lets have a a quick peek at who is redeeming who(m).

Der Fliegende Hollander. Wagner’s youthful offering. This seems straightforward. The Dutchman (beautifully named only thus), is in desperate need of salvation. Not of course to walk off into the sunset, that would be too Disney but to finally sustain death (and keep that in mind for future works). Having made his pact with the devil, his only out is to find a women that will be true to him, Step forward Senta.

Tannhäuser. In modern parlance Heinrich  Tannhäuser is desperate to be saved from his porn addiction. He longs for the time when pleasure was not an orgy but the trees, the meadows and pleasant walks with Elizabeth. Resorting to a couple of Hail Marys he eventually escapes the clutches of Venus and her domain in Venusberg. But his old buddies on the outside are sooo boring, how can they be salvation? Elizabeth, a wonderful combination of both worlds, offers  real salvation but Tann is to dopey to see it and decides only the Pope in Rome is the answer, which it isn’t. For all the tremendous music, Tannhäuser as a piece, doesn’t really convince because neither of the worlds he’s stuck between seem terribly attractive and following Wagner’s pimping up of the Venus music for Paris, Don finds himself rooting for the dark side. So no salvation and we dont really care.

Lohengrin. Elsa is accused of royal fratricide and faces serious consequences unless she has a champion to defend her. Of all the best legal brains and top soldiers there must have been in 13th century Brabant, she chooses as her saviour, some knight that she saw in a dream. As you do. And yet, bugger me sideways, he turns up and does the business. We don’t find out his name (see Dutchman above) until the very end but you won’t be surprised to learn its Lohengrin. So some obvious saving there, which is tricky amidst the machinations of Ortrud, evil purveyor of the dark arts who not only seeks the throne for he family but who also gets most of the best lines.

But lets look at this guy Lohengrin. A more one dimensional cardboard cut-out you couldn’t wish to meet. Won’t tell anyone his name or anything about himself. Only if Elsa asks the question, will he spill the beans but he must then disappear.  So if Elsa wants to keep him as her champ (in every respect…), she needs to put a lid on that curiosity and get back to blind faith.

Of course it ends badly and he has to return to Montsalvat and guard that grail. But beneath that silvery cardboard exterior, one suspects Lohengrin, was desperate to be saved from his cardboard existence. Elsa wasn’t quite up to the job. All very allegorical of our attitude to religion and art. Plus music to die for…..and to.

The Ring Cycle. Four operas joined together for one story and if you think Don is going to (has ability to) pick out the various acts of salvation in a couple of paragraphs, you’ve another think coming. Brunhilde is a decent bet for saviour but she along with the most of the rest of the cast need saving, primarily (from himself), Wotan, king of the gods.

Tristan & Isolde. Their love is so far beyond the rule of law, any form of morality, metaphysics and life itself, that any consideration of salvation is futile.

Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg. Well Sachs saves: the day, the headstrong couple, the community, artistic traditions as well as artistic flair so I guess he must be the saviour.  Underlined by orchestral and other references to John the Baptist. He does so willingly and at the expense of his own happiness but lets not head  down any Schopenhauer rabbit holes at this point. What he’s saving them from is interesting to some…pedantry, Wahn (no, we’re down the rabbit hole again – touched on in post 22 and others), art critics, the French, (the Jews??), urbanisation and I’m sure others.

Parsifal. The final line of Wagner’s final opera is Redemption to the Redeemer. We can safely say that Parsifal is a if not the redeemer. He has re-united the holy relics and so saved the Grail community, including of course Amfortas. He has redeemed Kundry and allowed her curse like that of the Dutchman, to finally be lifted so she can die in peace. Depending on one’s take on the whole piece, one may say it is cleansing and cathartic for audiences and the whole world.

But does Parsifal himself need redeeming, for that is the heavy hint of the final line? He is a sinner from when he did not understand the concept of sin. He left his mother to suffer alone, breaking her heart and he shot the swan. The latter a sin of equal measure now Wagner is embracing a Buddhist and vegetarian agenda. He redeems himself in that he awakens to the concept of sin and other people’s suffering and then more graphicly, Kundry washes his feet with her hair. Kundry is therefore both in need of redemption and is a redeemer but it is doubtful that the last line is devoted to her.

Of course, Wagner himself needs redemption (boy, does he), though I’ve not seen much sign of him seeking that, unless one counts vicariously through characters. He believes he’s saved opera and because of its elevated status (in his eyes), art itself. By the time he finally came to produce Parsifal, I doubt he still felt art could radically change society, as he did twenty years earlier. But for the gift of his oeuvre for humanity, does he think he’s been redeemed?

 

If you have been, thanks for listening.

COYI! 

©DonnertheHammer.com 2017

In which Don just doesn’t think he understands

Post 8

So my whole life I supported this ok but fairly crappy team (note to self – mention brilliant quote about Spurs from In Bruges). Some good times, some amazing times but there were months, years, even decades in between.

Chelsea could say the same but they can point to a clear obvious factor that changed their fortune. We can’t.

Lets imagine for one perverted moment that we go on to become a mega club. Envious people in five years time, will say its because we got the Olympic Stadium for next to nothing. But in the here and now we know the new stadium is not a meaningful factor in our transition from relegation form in the last half of last season to pushing for Champions League, this. We have transformed into a great team, a great squad, a settled and seemingly united board and out of nowhere, more fans than you can shake a stick at.

What has happened? How have we come good so quickly? Will it last or are we simply being teased? I don’t know but hazard some guesses.

First and obvious; the owners. Looking back, in these (and those) days of mega rich foreign owners, I was very pleased proper local people bought the club for what seemed the right reasons. Of course they saw the potential opportunity of the Olympic Stadium from the outset and whilst that was a fair bet it was also replete with risk and a potential black hole for their not inexhaustible fortunes.

I felt they dispensed with Zola too quickly and questioned their judgement with the appointment of Uncle Avram. But since the appointment of Sam they have not put a foot wrong (give or take the odd errant tweet). If Sullivan really was responsible for Sakho and one or two others, that is remarkable and @dg has via twitter engaged with fans in a brave move that has endeared him to many.

They have also had some luck. Top of the list is the appointment of the manager. Clearly not first choice, Bilic has been a perfect fit and in him we may well have struck gold. He is tactically aware and seems equally comfortable handling squad and media. Open and friendly it is also clear who is in charge. His knowledge and reputation secured Payet and Lanzini while other richer suitors missed their chance.

The announcement of the increased stadium  capacity to an amazing 60,000 is a testament to the hitherto untapped power of the club. We are going places and uncharacteristically, it is not via the relegation trap door.

A note of caution; we are West Ham and maintain a noble tradition of teasing defeat from the jaws of victory.  I don’t discount that this could be a life size version of 3-0 up against Wimbledon 1998. But for now, we are a happy ship and the outlook is clear, calm and sunny.

Looking forward to the Mark Noble testimonial tomorrow. Richly deserved and a full house means he can make a meaningful difference to his chosen charities. Will be so good to see some old favourites. Trevor, Billy, Paolo, Rio etc. Mrs Don will be making a rare and final appearance at The Boleyn. We have gone for Bobby Moore Lower to experience all parts of the ground in this final year. I don’t think I’ve “sat” there more that once or twice since the north bank. Then its on to three home games that will define our season. Can’t wait and more anticipation of that next week.

Regular viewers will know I am not over familiar with either Lohengrin or Tannhäuser. The David Alden 1995 Tannhäuser blue-ray was available at a pretty good price so I gave it a go. The reviews weren’t great, the general theme being that Rene Kollo’s voice had all but gone. I’m not so technically aware and hoped that wouldn’t detract too much. I had heard a little of Alden’s political edginess and was looking forward to that.

For a production over 20 years old, the opening scene certainly packs a punch and one can only imagine the impact on opening night. Tannhäuser is in Venusberg in an endless orgy but to prove one can have too much of a good thing, somehow yearns for simple rural bliss where the birds and bees are just birds and bees.  He pleads with Venus to let him escape and eventually she relents. Will life on the outside match up? Can Christianity cut the mustard now he’s dabbled with Pagan fun? That’s for Acts 2 and 3. For now, the erotically charged power of Waltraud Meier’s Venus was overwhelming; her singing powerful and evocative. Throw in the post apocalypse set, the Freudian imagery and the Pilgrim’s Chorus and one has an opening couple of scenes that must be up there with the best in all opera. Don recommends it to those new to Wagner and of a liberal disposition.

Finally to the Spurs quote from one of Don’s favourite films, In Bruges  (this is going to look a little silly if those swine go on to win the league. Come on Leicester!)

Ken: Yeah. And what’s the other place?

Ray: Purgatory.

Ken: Purgatory… what’s that?

Ray: Purgatory’s kind of like the in-betweeny one. You weren’t really shit, but you weren’t all that great either. Like Tottenham.

coyi!

©DonnertheHammer.com 2016

In which Don tiptoes around the touchy subject of incest

Post 7

Don’s brother (Brother Don) has a Spurs season ticket; worse yet, he uses it to go and watch them. This notwithstanding (seamlessly assumes the first person), I am relatively fond of him but I can honestly say in the 50 plus years in which we have both been around, not once have I thought of jumping into bed with him.

Tricky Dickie Wagner on the other hand, seems to have a more cavalier approach to the treacherous waters of incestuous relations. Do join me in a poorly researched romp through some musings as to why that might be.

[For West Ham scroll down but why not hang around here for a bit…?]

The scene was set in last week’s Post 6 . In Act 1 Die Valkyrie, there is a rapturous love scene between the twins Siegmund and Seiglinde set to some of the most glorious and uplifting music in the tetralogy. What is the point of it?

In the first opera, Das Rheingold, Wotan has made a bad contract which he resolves by paying the giants with the stolen gold, including the Ring. This however, presents a much greater problem and everything depends on the retrieval of the Ring. He can’t do it himself because it will take violent coercion and that goes against his own rule of law. So his big idea (last scene, Rhinegold), is to find/create someone to do the job for him. A hero, Siegmund. The tension between the independence of the hero and Wotan’s hidden guidance feeds into the next couple of operas.

The main narrative thrust of Act 1 Valkyrie is to ensure Siegmund gains the powerful sword, Nothung, that Wotan thrust into an ash tree years before. Wagner didn’t need a love affair with a married women to achieve that, let alone for the married women to be the hero’s twin sister Sieglinde. He found certain hints in the mythology but nothing essential. So I wonder why Wagner felt this was necessary.

Freud

The Freudians would have us believe that all us little boys, latently lust after our mothers and resent our fathers as rivals. We spend our lives trying to escape that guilt and punish ourselves with castration fantasies (this literally occurs in Wagner’s final opera, Parsifal).  Can’t say this really strikes a chord with me but that seems to be the theory.

In The Wagner Complex, Tom Artin talks of the sword representing the father’s penis and the tree the mother’s vagina. The thrusting of the sword into the tree is therefore the intercourse of the hero’s parents. In the absence of the father, the incest guilt wains and the mother being displaced by the sister, the incest occurs with her. Sieglinde, product of same parents is comparatively passive in this theory but lets leave that.

Before Mr Artin gets annoyed, I am not a scholar of psychoanalysis and may have got the wrong end of the sword but that’s the gist as I took it.

Wagner’s parentage is ambiguous. He did not know his natural father, Carl Friederich Wagner, who died shortly after he was born. His mother took her young family from Leipzig to Dresden and into the arms of the journeyman actor Ludwig Geyer whom she married and whom the young Wagner considered his father. Geyer is rumoured to be the natural father and so the journey might have occurred pre-Carl Frederich’s death and because he discovered the boy was not his. Wagner would have no first hand memory of this but he would hear the rumours and know he is the product of an unsuccessful marriage.

Geyer also dies too soon with RW aged 8, so marriage and fathers have disappointed twice. Wagner’s own first marriage was a disaster and he was brazenly adulterous. There are no successful marriages in The Ring Cycle.

It is safe to say that Wagner’s relationship with his mother was complex. He yearned in vain for her love but she was often distant emotionally and physically and Wagner transferred his (the Freudians may say Oedipul), affections and needs to his elder sister Rosalie.

Free love. Queue this side only.

As a young man, Wagner was attracted to the Young Germany movement of the 1830’s. Influenced by utopian socialists, it rejected the church dominated, restricted society of the post-industrial revolution German principalities. It encouraged free thinking, separation of church and state, feminism and the incorporation of some Romantic ideas into practical society. It advocated free love; marriage and the nuclear family being artificial church imposed mores.

Wagner was a student of philosophy, if no philosopher. Prior to his discovery of Schopenhauer in his mid forties his prime philosophical influence was Feuerbach, “the breathlessly optimistic apostle of secular humanism”1.   Feuerbach rejected Christianity and other God centred religion. He considered that reference to the divine was a convenient means of dealing with abstract and elevated human qualities. ” Feuerbach maintained that when we speak of the nature and existence of God, we are confusedly trying to imagine certain admirable qualities in substantial form. So, for example, to say that “God is loving” or “God is love” is really just an indirect (and muddled) way of saying that “love is God”—which in turn simply is to say that love is divine, or of transcendent worth and importance.”2

For Feuerbach, there was no limit to human achievement when driven by the most elevated and purest of human emotion- love. Whilst he wasn’t so naively optimistic to say All You Need is Love, he felt we are at our best as a result of loving interaction with others and  society should be configured so that love may flourish unrestrained.

As if to appeal particularly to Wagner, music held special appeal for Feuerbach, (as Wagner would also discover with Schopenhauer), who thought that through music, man could elevate to a higher transcendental plane.

So philosophically and if we believe the Freudians, psychologically, Wagner was not wedded to wedlock, nor to “unnatural” fetters upon love in its various forms.

Plot

Lets hastily return to safer ground; the plot. Das Rhinegold we recall was about strong but fallible men, weak women and rules. Bad things happen if you break the rules. Alberich and Wotan both separately steal the gold, Wotan creates his powerful stronghold, Valhalla , built by male giants. The clever male Loge is expected to think of a solution to the big problem.

In the female camp, the Rheinmaidens are passive and superficial. Freia, goddess of either youth or love (Don says both), is traded like a pawn in a male contract. Love literally being traded for power. I conveniently ignore Erda as whilst passive (and certainly so in Götterdammering), she doesn’t quite fit the type

Which brings us to Fricka. Her role seems to be to complain from stage left to little effect, to be barren and to be shallow in her thinking. Not only is she the wife of the Wotan the most significant character but she is the ineffectual goddess and protector of marriage and fidelity. Wotan meantime, wanders off for trysts with other women, with whom we later learn he has begot a dozen or so children.

Then we come to Die Valkure. We are no longer in the heavens but on earth, with real people. The coal face so to speak. From the off we relate to Siegmund and Sieglinde. We don’t yet know they are twins and neither do they. We learn that her marriage is forced and wrong.

Love sweeps in. Mere rules evaporate in its white heat. It cares little for marriage; incest is just another bourgeois rule. There’s no analysis of right and wrong, there’s just Love.

And I think therein lies the point. If power is not the answer to the big question, might love be? The tetralogy continues that exploration.

the Hammers

A linesman’s lack of attention is all that stood between us and five wins on the bounce. Was so proud of my team and the magnificent travelling army. Much to Little Don’s frustration, I have curtailed the away day travel in his gcse year, especially (whisper it) as we are hoping for additional Wembley day(s) out.

As we prepare for Chelsea we look in such good shape. The best second goalie around. Ogbonna looks to have completely settled. I expect Reid to join him against Chelsea. Solid. Antonio will move back into midfield to scare them witless. The rest of midfield speaks for itself. Up front, whilst I don’t see a champions league grade natural goal scorer, there’s lots of good options.

Mrs Don and I were at Stamford Bridge last time we won in 2003 and there’s been precious little hope since. I don’t expect to win today or even get a draw but I love our attitude that we are in every game to win it; home and away. That attitude will take us far and in style. I am confident we will score every game so we have to concede at least two to lose and we don’t do that too often and when we do, we still quite often get a result.

The Don is sanguine about Noble’s non-selection for England. Of course he deserves his chance but one could argue the same for Drinkwater had it gone the other way. Even with claret and blue glasses, Noble is not a shoe-in for England. Beginning of the season I thought he may struggle to get into WHU midfield. He’s been brilliant for us; long may that continue and that’s enough for Don. Apologies for that balanced view.

Am getting increasingly unsettled at how few games left at Boleyn. The brilliance of the football is in direct contrast to how I feel inside. I am excited about the shiny new stadium but this feeling is not great. My consolation is we could not have wished for a better last season.

Looking forward to Chelsea. They will need to score at least twice to beat us and I am optimistic of at least a point.

If you have been, thanks for listening.

COYI!!

Don

  1. Finding an Ending: Reflections on Wagner’s Ring
    Philip Kitcher, Richard Schacht
  2. ditto.

©DonnertheHammer.com 2016