> "Perhaps the first explicit formulation of interpassivity was given
> by Lacan in his commentary on the role of the Chorus in Greek
> tragedy:
> When you go to the theatre in the evening, you are preoccupied
> by the affairs of the day, by the pen that you lost, by the check
> that you will have to sign next day. You shouldn't give yourselves
> too much credit. Your emotions are taken charge of by the healthy
> order displayed on the stage. The Chorus takes care of them. The
> emotional commentary is done for you. . .Therefore you don't
> have to worry; even if you don't feel anything, the Chorus will
> feel in your stead."
>
> This is not the clumsy comment of someone who has read at least
> a summary of some Greek tragedy. This is pure fraud. No one
> who has ever spent 30 minutes reading either Greek tragedy or
> the most naive commentary on it could possibly make a statement
> of this sort.
Carrol,
It's the illustration of an idea, which is perfectly reasonable. Why do TV shows have canned laugh?
So we don't have to. The TV laughs for us. Sure, we're permitted to laugh (obviously), but we have the option of opting out, and sitting there passively.
Have you ever taped a movie that you've never watched? I guess your VCR enjoyed that one, eh?
I do have a historical question though - what was the average 'wage' of the chorus in relation to the performers? and then in relation to those who attended the drama? I'm asking because Derrida uses the idea of the chora in his essay on religion and a friend once remarked that Derrida exploits the chora in the same way that the aristocrats exploited the chorus, but didn't expand on this...
ken