Intimations of morality

Review of Ralph Vaughan Williams, The Pilgrim’s Progress, English National Opera. Published in the Times Literary Supplement, 23 November 2012, p. 18.


“What is truth?”, asks Pontius Pilate as, clutching his enormous prosthetic breasts, he waves nipple tassels at the Pilgrim. In ENO’s new staging of Vaughan Williams’s “morality” (not, he said, an opera) on John Bunyan’s allegory, the director Yoshi Oida takes a step beyond the composer’s intention that the work should “appeal to anybody who aims at the spiritual life whether he is Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Shintoist or 5th Day Adventist”. As well as bringing Eastern religions into the spiritual space of the work, the production manages, with only one notable misjudgement, to permit an ambiguous secular parable to emerge.

Bunyan’s tale occupied Vaughan Williams from 1906, when he first composed music for twelve episodes, to 1952, as he revised it a year after its premiere. Appropriately for a work which spans a period from the gorgeous lyricism of the Norfolk Rhapsodies to the discomfiting visions of the Sixth Symphony, the piece offers a kind of smorgasbord of Vaughan Williams’s mature compositional styles, each of which turns out to be well suited to different episodes in the Pilgrim’s journey. Rapturous opening and closing hymn tunes present the framing device of Bunyan in prison, narrating his doubly mediated “similitude of a dream”, while the composer’s darker, post-war language is reserved for the confrontation with Apollyon and the excess of Vanity Fair.

Central to the conception of this staging is Bunyan’s blurring of the difference between dream and reality. This becomes more pronounced as the evening proceeds. Act Four and the epilogue are set entirely in the prison building where Bunyan first appears. While the libretto has the Pilgrim directed towards the Celestial City, on stage the prisoner is being prepared for execution by electric chair. This straightforwardly realistic denouement had been grotesquely prefigured at Vanity Fair, at the high point of this production’s least realistic passage of action, and it is only when the dead prisoner rises from his chair to resume the voice of Bunyan for the epilogue that the minimal distance between dream and reality is clarified. As a metaphor added to the existing Christian metaphor of the journey, and here in its final stages the crossing of a river, this staging makes perfect logical sense. And as well as responding to the epilogue’s exhortation to the audience to “turn up [its] metaphors” and interpret the tale for itself, it gives an inner dramatic motion to music which, while some of the most beautiful in the work, perhaps lacks the necessary theatrical force to guarantee a satisfactory experience in the opera house.

The fantastical first half is managed with almost as much success. The Pilgrim’s ritual initiation is achieved by fire, water, and a little t’ai chi. Allegorical figures like Pliable, Obstinate, Mistrust, and Timorous carry name placards so that we miss neither their specific individual significance nor the dreamlike surrealism of their intervention. The high point of the evening is the scene with the gigantic Apollyon, two storeys high and controlled by puppeteers on stage and scaffolds. He is imagined as a kind of massive, demonic vacuum cleaner, with thick hoses for legs and a suction tube for a mouth. His body is a mass of rags, perhaps the last surviving parts of the human souls he has sucked into oblivion. He is given menacing voice by Mark Richardson, singing through a tube, which, typically for the ingenuity of this staging, both echoes the modelling of the puppet and also provides a Fafneresque awesomeness to his music, which somehow exerts itself over the deafening brass writing.

The production’s one disappointment is the treatment of Vanity Fair in the next scene, which betrays a limited directorial conception both of puritanical morality and of the possibilities for contemporary allegory. At Vanity Fair everything, including human souls, is for sale, but for the director only one thing stands out: sex. Specifically it is gender-bending sex, or rather sexual identity, that has the upper hand. Bunyan’s phantasmagoric political protest is reduced to a false presumption that puritanism was only concerned with sex, and I am not sure what the negative portrayal of transexuals and camp Asian dancers – representative of all that is base and venal – is meant to communicate to contemporary audiences. And there are obvious alternative staging decisions the director could have taken here. For instance, while certainly unsurprising, a staging of the scene which populated the stage with bankers, CEOs and so on, would at least have had an allegorical point to make. The crossdressing, pouting, and mock buggery of this scene are not only curiously reactionary in the attitude they present to alternatives to conventional heterosexual behaviour but also intellectually lazy. (I suppose it could be noted for balance that the director did at least avoid the two dullest contemporary directorial fixations: Nazis and gang rape.)

Musically, every contribution is excellent. The orchestra, vigorously conducted by Martyn Brabbins, is radiant when it needs to be and hair-raisingly loud at the moments of high drama, to which the ENO chorus adds a devilish mass of sound. Every solo part is sung well, and the performance coheres around a particularly mellifluous Pilgrim (Roland Wood). Always musically and dramatically gripping, and complex and thought-provoking as a visual conception, this deserves to be packed every night.

Review of ‘Victory Over the Sun’

Creative Commons Licence
Review of ‘Victory Over the Sun’ by J. P. E. Harper-Scott is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at http://www.jpehs.co.uk/2012/11/14/review-of-victory-under-the-sun/.

Review of Rosamund Bartlett and Sarah Dadswell, eds., Victory over the Sun: the World’s First Futurist Opera (University of Exeter Press, 2012). Published in the Times Literary Supplement, 2 November 2012, p. 18.

The world’s first Futurist opera, a collaboration by composer Mikhail Matiushin, the librettist Aleksei Kruchenykh, and the designer Kazimir Malevich, was described at the time of its premiere in St Petersburg on 3 December 1913 as “wild, boring, indecent and senseless”. Victory over the Sun has no arias, no female singers, no named or developed characters, essentially no plot, and despite being an opera, it has hardly any music: the longest extant source runs to only fifteen pages. It was performed twice, by under-rehearsed and inadequate singers, to the jangling accompaniment of a clapped-out piano, yet Rosamund Bartlett and Sarah Dadswell suggest that its artistic significance is “comparable to Stravinsky’s explosive score for The Rite of Spring“, which had been premiered seven months earlier.

This book bases its case for the bold claim on an anatomy of the opera’s impact as a spectacular presentation of the new. The documentation is extensive. There are colour and monochrome drawings and photographs of its Cubist sets and costumes, a facsimile of the original libretto – intoxicatingly larded with neologisms (fifty of them in the first thirty lines of Viktor Khlebnikov’s prologue) – and a punchy translation by Bartlett. It is quite difficult to judge the music, since the composer’s manuscripts are exiguous and the transcription by his student (the principal and most detailed source, which is reproduced in full here) is blighted by so many obvious errors that it is impossible to be certain of anything about it. Nevertheless, what survives suggests that the composer had essayed a rather bland cacophany: certainly the score lacks the parodic genius of Schoenberg’s Pierrot lunaire (1912) or Walton’s Façade (1922–9). Still, as part of an iconoclastic whole it does what it needs to, not least by avoiding any gestures that might in the slightest suggest Wagnerism.

The libretto opens up a new, destabilizing world of language which erupts from the interstices of Russian etymology. Bartlett chooses to footnote Kruchenykh’s zaum (“transrational” language) extensively rather than approximate it in English, which is surely a wise move. Michaela Böhmig’s essay on the libretto not only situates the linguistic experiments in Russian modernism but lays bare the misogyny of its rejection of “effeminiate” Symbolism in favour of the brute masculine world of the machine. Although the opera’s revolutionary aesthetic had an internationalist outlook, its opposition to Russian imperial theatre, documented by Murray Frame and Laurence Senelick, and particularly its central thematic focus on humanity’s victory over the sun, the object at the centre of Slavonic mythology, clearly invested it with a special symbolic violence in the dog days of late imperial Russia.

This collection opens fascinating and enriching views into a brief but powerful explosion.

Is opera really all that expensive?

La Scala opera house, Milan

The Proms season has begun, so it’s time for the media to laud and damn high culture all at once. I didn’t get far in a little Guardian discussion between Roger Wright, the director of the BBC Proms, and Laura Barton, a writer on rock music before this little nugget popped up (from Barton):

Away from the Proms, the problem I have with classical music is the lack of democracy – not just to do with how much it costs to go to the opera.

The cost of opera tickets is a kind of totemic measure of ‘elitism’, so casually invoked that it is seldom enquired into. Hundreds of people are involved in every opera performance. There are likely to be between 150 and 200 musicians if it’s a large orchestra with a hefty chorus and a decent number of soloists. There are also backstage people managing the scenery, props, and lighting. These people have to be present at every performance, and they have to be paid each time. There is, then, an inescapable labour cost in opera that far exceeds that required in theatre, or – a more interesting comparison, I think – football. It’s a comparison that Wright makes, and which Barton acknowledges, but it is passed over as a small point not worth examining in their discussion. Yet the figures are interesting.

A BBC sports blogpost from last year investigates the ticket price costs for football matches. The argument is specious.

It’s the football fans’ favourite anecdote to bemoan the price of tickets. But expensive or not, 16 million people watched Football Leagues games last season. Not all of them could have been the wealthy middle classes, munching on prawn sandwiches from the corporate boxes.

That football is expensive is relative. Head to Iron Maiden (remember them) at the Manchester Evening News Arena recently, and the cheapest price was £43. At Old Trafford and the Etihad Stadium this season – to watch the Premier League champions and the world’s richest club – it could cost you as little as £28 or £25.

Even at Arsenal where the most expensive ticket will cost you £100 – just 1% of tickets available – they hardly struggle to sell seats.

The measure, then, of whether football tickets cost too much is simply whether they sell. Absent here is any awareness of the sense that for many people, football is the most important or cherished form of entertainment and that they would happily compromise on other things – holidays, quality of housing, nutrition – in order to attend matches. Absent, too, is any measure of the true cost of putting on football, and the extraordinarily level of naked capital generation – the direct transfer of money from many of the poorest in our society (football’s fan base, numerically) to the very richest. There is in short no political analysis of the economics. If the football clubs can get away with it, the ticket price is OK, on this view.

So what are the football and opera ticket prices that people allude to but never really focus on? Here is a snapshot of ticket prices for Arsenal games, taken from their website. They range from £10 to £123.50.

Maybe those are London prices. Here, then, are ticket prices at Manchester United (£16 to £52):

The Old Vic theatre in London has prices ranging from £11 to £58:

And here are Welsh National Opera’s ticket prices at their Cardiff home for a popular (and therefore more than usually expensive) opera:

£5 to £40 for a world-class opera performance, by a company that tours widely round the country, where its ticket prices may be even lower. Ticket prices at Covent Garden are higher – to attend an opera of the Ring you will have to pay between £15 for a standby ticket on the day to about £200 for the best seat in the house – but at English National Opera I’ve never seen a production with a ticket price over £90-odd, and seats in the massive Coliseum balcony range between £12 and £25 for their current production of The Magic Flute.

I wouldn’t make the fatuous argument that as long as tickets are being sold there is nothing wrong with the price of opera tickets. The Royal Opera House in particular – in fact, here it is pretty much out on its own – has scandalously high ticket prices, and often stages very boring productions. But ENO and WNO, and a range of fantastic regional or touring opera companies present interesting, original, and high-quality – Premier League, if you like – opera performances at prices that are often lower than for theatre (which has far fewer people to employ for every performance) or football (which employs a couple of dozen people on pitch). Only Covent Garden can rival the prices of Arsenal ticket prices.

Barton notes that the working-class interest in classical music seemed to drop off ‘probably’ around the birth of rock. The implication is that this is because the working class found a medium that spoke to them more vitally than classical music, and even that the new form was essentially more democratic, morally better, not tainted by ‘elitism’.

Elitism is, of course, the word used to mean ‘The cultural form in which the power of a privileged few is maintained.’ It is a deeply dubious designation. But if we change one word in that definition, so we have ‘The economic form in which the power of the privileged few is maintained’, not only do we have a concern that is infinitely more pressing – because economics exert a much more total control over human beings than cultural entertainments – but we find quite different targets for scrutiny, and football and rock music would be rather higher up the list than classical music.

One of the most important reasons why rock music is more popular than classical is that it is more immediately enjoyable and is therefore more saleable. Classical music, even really freakish stuff like Schoenberg or Birtwistle – is certainly not immune to the pressures of commodification, and CDs sell in their millions, with a few artists, and even fewer record company chief executives, becoming very rich as a result. But the commodification of popular musical forms is in a different league altogether. And again, plenty of pop music (I use that term to include every sub-genre, for brevity) resists its commodity form, and has lyrics and performers who strongly oppose the politico–economic order. Pop isn’t monolithic, and certainly isn’t uniformly a mere tool of capital, generating easily digestible and instantly discardable pap commodities that must be replaced within five minutes. But its greater amenability to commodity exploitation is a characteristic that clearly marks it out from classical music, and it is that, not just questions of taste, that gives it its cultural position today.

According to Marx, the difference between the capitalist and the worker depends on the different cyclical relations they have between money and commodities. The worker has a commodity, their body, which can be sold for money (through paid work) in order that they can buy more commodities: the worker’s cycle is C–M–C. The capitalist, however, has money, which is used to buy commodities (the work of workers), which in turn generates more money. Although the capitalist also buys commodities, he or she doesn’t spend anywhere near as much of their available resources on them. Bill Gates could buy a hundred yachts quicker than a Sainsbury’s checkout operator could buy a nice barbecue. The capitalist’s cycle is therefore M–C–M.

Cultural products like pop and football, which are immensely popular among the working class, demonstrate with uncomfortable clarity the differences between these two cycles, and the way in which these cultural forms can exert economic control over the majority on behalf of the very few.

But in this case it is football, whose real costs are or should be low, that seems to exert the most nakedly unreasonable economic force here, yet it escapes the obloquy customarily hurled at classical music. Ticket prices paid for opera compare extremely favourably to those paid for football. The fact that opera tickets are often (not always) subsidized doesn’t make much difference: anyone can buy them and benefit from the subsidy (though, again, at the Royal Opera House, unless you’re a very expensive category of ‘Friend’, and so capable of buying tickets during the privileged period before they are open to the general public who haven’t paid hundreds or thousands of pounds to show their ‘friendship’, you might not be able to buy any tickets at all).

Opera companies aren’t run by saints and are just as capable of exploitation as anybody else, but can we drop the easy supposition that opera tickets are somehow expensive? Even relative to football they are not. And their costs can quite easily be justified by the costs of staging. Not so with football. When we’re faced with a cultural form that so obviously extracts money so cruelly from millions of people who could do without the exploitation, it’s time for liberals to start thinking a bit more about the positions they hold. Stop making ‘elitism’ the principal cultural target. Attack the thing that really hurts people economically. Attack football.

We know no one crueller

Creative Commons Licence
We know no one crueller by J. P. E. Harper-Scott is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at http://www.jpehs.co.uk/2012/05/21/we-know-no-one-crueller/.

In her book Richard Wagner’s Women Eva Rieger examines the presentation of feminine-gendered qualities in both female and male characters in Wagner’s operas. Her focus is on negatively construed feminine qualities, but in this TLS review I suggest that feminine characters like Isolde, Brünnhilde, and the ‘feminine’ figure of Hans Sachs all occupy the Lacanian position of the hysterical subject who sees that the irresolvable lack in their own character is reflected by the inconsistency of the big Other. Their rejection of the big Other’s limited range of ideological scripts makes them truly feminist characters, whose proposed solutions to the deadlock of modern sexual relations are so radical that we perpetually choose to cover them over with fantasies.


Review of Eva Rieger, Richard Wagner’s Women (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2011). Published in the Times Literary Supplement, 18 May 2012, p. 13.

In a vital sense, women were for Wagner the chief means of achieving revolutionary change. The most obvious artistic examination of the tension between the bourgeois fantasy of marriage and Wagner’s sympathy for revolutionary overthrow of existing economic and social structures takes place in what Rieger calls ‘the feminine realm of love’.

Reminding us that intellectual, moral, and political superiority is traditionally assigned to the masculine and inferiority to the feminine, in Richard Wagner’s Women Rieger traces the presentation of masculine and feminine qualities, in stage characters of both sexes, across the operas from Rienzi to Parsifal, as a way of demonstrating Wagner’s commitment to his society’s belief in the essential link between feminine gender roles and flesh-and-blood women. Time and again the role played by women tends towards ‘sacrifice, pain and negation’, with Senta (Der fliegende Holländer) and Elisabeth (Tannhäuser) being typical cases. By contrast, those women who seek a higher political or sexual status than their sex ‘essentially’ allows them conform to the misogynist stereotype of the harridan. ‘In the whole of history we know no one crueller than the political woman’, Wagner wrote to Liszt about Ortrud in Lohengrin. Certainly no female political leader who adopted such a ‘cruel’ Wagnerian mantle could do anything but bad for women’s political representation.

Men are typically represented by strident, masterly music, or else (as often with Wotan) music of great nobility. The strong, brassy orchestration and on-stage phallic props (swords and spears abound) add to the sense of their essential and natural domination of women – whose contrastingly drooping melodic lines and softer woodwind or string accompaniment Rieger frequently highlights. Men who adopt feminine qualities are either rejected as of little account (as Erik in The Flying Dutchman, whom Senta guiltlessly rejects in favour of the more thrusting and dangerous Dutchman) or else satisfyingly killed off (Siegmund ‘must die’ because he falls too deeply into the ‘feminine’ world of love). Conversely, the wickedness of men is excused so their predominance can be maintained. For instance, Siegfried’s betrayal of Brünnhilde is forgiven because he was acting under the influence of a magic potion.

All this is astute but, as may already be obvious, Rieger seems unwilling to conceive of positive expressions of feminine-gendered qualities, and it is this failing that prevents her from answering the excellent question she poses towards the beginning: how can we love Wagner’s music despite its apparent misogyny? The answer is that, just as he does with his anti-Semitism, Wagner subverts his insupportable message at the same time as he enunciates it. Specifically, it is the stereotypically ‘feminine’ figure of the hysteric who rejects the world whom later Wagner considers the greatest and most insightful figure of all.

Hans Sachs

The central character of Die Meistersinger, Hans Sachs, is one of the most interesting of Wagner’s hysterical ‘women’, and typical of his conception of the role of the ‘feminine’ in his later work (after Das Rheingold). Rieger notes that Sachs renounces his love for Elsa in order that the younger man, Walther, can win her in the song contest (like Freia, Isolde, and Brünnhilde before her, Elsa is in important respects just an exchange-value). But while she draws out the Schopenhauerian resonance of much of late Wagner’s renunciations – that of Tristan and Isolde being only the most famous – Rieger misses the more striking fact that Wagner’s great later characters do not renounce love as such but rather the delusion that existing templates for its acting-out, which build female subjection into their core, are a guarantor of universal human happiness (‘Wahn, Wahn, überall Wahn!’, ‘Delusion, everywhere!’, is Sachs’s characteristic reflection).

Two of the last of Wagner’s ‘women’ to accede to the fantasy of stable erotic union are Siegmund and Siegfried; their ends are, significantly, shaped not by choice but by force. Isolde, Brünnhilde, and Sachs, by contrast, achieve their radically different ends by their own volition. Isolde rejects life itself as the essential framework for human suffering, but Brünnhilde goes a step further. She returns the Ring to the Rhinemaidens from whom it was stolen in the form of primordial gold, and so reverses the process by which nature was metabolized into a surplus value that sustained male power – which is to say that she destroys the capitalist economy of her world. Since, in the Ring, women are merely something to be exchanged for gold (as with Freia) or lain defenceless on a rock to be raped and taken by the first man to find them (Brünnhilde’s own fate), they function as erotic commodities, valuable insofar as they are sexually desirable to more powerful men. Having relieved Wotan of his commitment to the pursuit of social power, Brünnhilde’s final act is to throw herself, the female erotic commodity, onto the fire along with everything else. It is therefore strange for Rieger to claim that Brünnhilde achieves nothing because ‘the love of women for their men is hardly going to create a new society. On the contrary, those same men, strengthened by love, can continue their dominance – a dominance grounded on the pursuit of power.’ The world of power mediated through commodity exchange and propped up by the faithful love of women is precisely what Brünnhilde has destroyed. There can be no return of the same.

Our reluctance to swallow Wagner’s vision entirely is perhaps best illustrated by Sachs himself. Although we, like the people of Nuremberg who hail him with the last words of the opera, recognize his greatness and probably even nod sagely at his diagnosis of universal delusion, in the closing minutes Walther’s gorgeous prize song and the final choral big sing bring us ineluctably back into the presence of the fantasies that he implores us to reject. We succumb again to the surreptitious promptings of perpetual, devoted marital love, the wisdom of youth’s erotic vision, and finally the smokescreen of social cohesion that smoothes over tensions within human society (the controversial final paean to the German spirit) – knowing full well that Sachs is right about its emptiness yet nevertheless wanting to retain the psychological benefits of the fantasy. Greater sensitivity to this kind of psychological ambivalence in Wagner’s music would have made this a much more satisfactory study.

As it is, readers dismissive of feminism will doubtless find the language of ‘phallocentrism’, ‘patriarchy’, and ‘gendering’ offensive, while readers who are at home in the discourse will find the arguments a little shallow. As an introduction to how music reflects cultural assumptions about gender this book has value, but as an examination of the ways that music can criticize of those assumptions, it lacks imagination.

Abortion, Wagnerian heroes, and the body of the Other

Siegmund and Sieglinde (illustration by Arthur Rackham)

The House of Commons voted this week to reject an amendment by Nadine Dorries MP to the Health and Social Care Bill 2011, which could have had the effect of limiting women’s right to abortion by redoubling the social pressure against their decision. It is only one news story this week in which people’s decisions about what to do with themselves bodily was brought into focus. It has two unlikely bedfellows in the Scottish newspapers: Continue reading

Wagner, Sex, and Capitalism

Richard Wagner

The next issue of The Wagner Journal will carry my review-article on Laurence Dreyfus’s Wagner and the Erotic Impulse. The full text PDF is available here; the full text may also be read as a web page. Dreyfus’s discussion of the erotics in Wagner’s music is based on an attentiveness to historical voices, including Wagner’s own. I find the decision to sidestep more than a century of later thought problematic and the decision to offer a personal reading of the erotic in Wagner’s music, rather than broadening out into cultural criticism, something of a missed opportunity. Continue reading

Women in Postwar Britten

Britten on Aldeburgh beach, 1959 (Britten-Pears Foundation)

At Utrecht University last week I delivered the latest version of a developing paper on Britten’s presentation of women in his postwar operas Peter Grimes and The Rape of Lucretia. It forms part of a larger Britten project that is detailed elsewhere on this blog (see the archive).

Drawing on the music-analytical findings of earlier work (see here and here) and Žižek’s exploration of Lacan’s apothegm that ‘there is no sexual relationship’, frequently restated in Žižek’s writing on opera and elsewhere, I interrogate the female figures in Grimes and Lucretia in terms both of Britten’s reflexion of prevailing ideology and of its revelatory force in our own situation. Continue reading

Britten’s retelling of Henry James’s ghost story

Henry James (John Singer Sargent: charcoal, 1912)

I delivered a paper last weekend at Liverpool Hope University’s ‘Britten in Context’ conference, with the title ‘Dead Sexy: The Turn of the Screw, or Miles Must Die!’. I’ll offer a slightly oblique flavour of it here; the full, controversial written version will follow in due course.

Britten’s 1954 operatic adaptation of Henry James’s The Turn of the Screw, with a libretto by Myfanwy Piper, takes a diametrically opposed view to Edmund Wilson’s influential interpretation of the literary original. Wilson suggests that the ghosts Quint and Jessell are a product of the sexual hysteria of the governess, who projects the figure of Quint onto the real world because she cannot acknowledge to herself her love for her master (the father of the children Miles and Flora who are under her care). The opera does not allow such an interpretation, because it presents the ghosts as living, moving, singing, visible human characters as really and as vitally present on stage as any other. One of the questions my paper seeks to answer is: why do the ghosts sing? Continue reading

Peter Grimes and his Others

Benjamin Britten

One of the first things I wrote on Britten’s operas will appear later this year in a Festschrift in honour of Julian Rushton (‘Being-With Grimes: the Problem of Others in Britten’s First Opera’. In Art and Ideology in European Opera: Essays in Honour of Julian Rushton, edited by Clive Brown, David Cooper, and Rachel Cowgill. Woodbridge: Boydell Brewer. In press.). It forms part of a larger series of studies of constructions of the human subject in Britten’s operas (see here and here).

Peter Grimes has the unusual double honour of guaranteeing the persistence of opera as an art-form in the second half of the twentieth century and providing the intellectual focus for the beginnings of the cultural turn and the ‘New Musicology’. Philip Brett’s groundbreaking 1977 study of the opera provided a springboard for the study of Britten’s operas, and Western art music more generally, from the perspective of victimized others, in this case mid-century British male homosexuals.
Continue reading

Dangerous children in Strauss and Britten

Salome (Nadja Michael in David McVicar's Royal Opera House production)

I’ve recently had an article published as part of a bigger project (see also here and here) that examines Britten’s postwar interrogation of the human subject (‘Made You Look! Children in Salome and Death in Venice’. In Benjamin Britten: New Perspectives on his Life and Music, edited by Lucy Walker, 116–37. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2009.). This is fascinating in its focus on the role of a symbolically powerful authority – das Man in Heideggerese, or the big Other in Žižek’s Lacanian idiolect – which structures, through the language it uses, the space for individuals to create a self-identical personality.

The essay explores the links between two seemingly unrelated operas as a means of situating one of Britten’s most astonishing musical statements in a longer cultural moment – an exploration of varieties of sexual expression – which began in the fin-de-siècle and has not yet run out of steam. Continue reading