Interpretations, as always, follow Stoppard
What this blog post was almost about today was playwright Tom Stoppard's visit to the Academy. But the visit went off the record at the last minute, and pending release of any remarks or clips from the event, this blog post couldn't report or examine what Stoppard said.
Thankfully, the Stoppard discussion continued at lunch. As after any event, people who had been there talked about what he talked about. So, like Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, this blog post became metatheater. The blog couldn't know what was really happening with Hamlet, as the plot goes, but it had to exist anyway.
Syracuse journalism dean Lorraine Branham had quoted in her Academy-opening speech a line of Stoppard's, "I still believe that if your aim is to change the world, journalism is a more immediate short-term weapon." (Full disclosure: That line was my high school yearbook quote.) There were mentions at the lunch table that Stoppard had given a different version of that line today. But another quote of his appeared to fit today's session — or at least the discussion of it.
"I write plays because dialogue is the most respectable way of contradicting myself," Stoppard has been quoted as saying. Reaction to the line over time has been mixed. On a positive note, Wikiquote once named it a quote of the day. (Not the Nobel Prize, but still, a popular nod.) On the negative, a 1977New Yorker story used it to put him down, running it below a headline nabbed from his own words, "Withdrawing with Style from the Chaos."
The central questions at lunch among several tables of our students and faculty were whether Stoppard had contradicted himself in his views on media and writing, and whether this — your answer to the contradiction question, whatever it was — was a good thing or not. Much like reactions to a new Stoppard work, interpretations varied wildly. On media consumption and artistic direction:
- Yes, his views there were contradictory, and, yes, contradictory expression was human and a good thing.
- Yes, they contradicted themselves, but, no, not a good thing, contradiction in expression was bad or lazy.
- No, he hadn't contradicted himself at all, and, yes, this was a good and complex vision of life's inputs.
- No, he hadn't contradicted himself, but, no, not a good thing, this was disengaged and a bit disappointing.
Stepping back, the angles of argument were similar to those we've heard constantly here in the past week. When did journalism develop inconsistencies? Were these inconsistencies natural, or were they unacceptable? When was the "media" monolith responsible, and when were we prisoners to our monolithic perceptions? When had we seen enough to judge? With just an hour with Tom Stoppard, or just an hour consuming news, how much had we seen?
Crossposted with some editing from Salzburg Global E-Media blog.


















