Just a little Snape musing...

[valis2]

rickfan37 did her own build-a-snape here and mentioned this really excellent point:

Here’s the Urbane!Snape myth again. I don’t know, and we’re given no clue in canon. I simply don’t believe he’s a closet opera buff and spends his spare time humming along to great arias, or that he can quote Dante or Shakespeare at will.

It really made me think of something new. I've always been a bit apprehensive about fics where Snape quotes Byron and listens to Bach.

I think what really is happening is that giving Snape these "pretentious" hobbies is a way for an inexperienced writer to "shorthand" their characterization of him, because in just a sentence of quoting/playing classical music, they set him up (in their minds) as a certain sort of character, aloof, mysterious, educated, etc. It's a short-cut.

The thing is, the sort of character they're trying to develop is not canon. Snape is a pure-blood, and would most likely know very little, if anything, about the Muggle world (his matchbox comment notwithstanding). And I'm certain that most pure-bloods wouldn't want to involve themselves in any sort of Muggle-world scrutiny.

So authors who attempt this short-cut are really doing canon a disservice, when what they really need to do is discover what would make him an aloof, mysterious, and educated character in Rowling's world.

Just my little musing for the moment.

Comments

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

Why couldn't there be a wizarding opera? They have their own musical "artistes" on the wizarding wireless, their own rock bands...just because it seems Hogwarts is culture-deprived doesn't mean there isn't a subculture of artistic wizards starving in garretts composing magical poetry and operas.
I don't know if Snape would go to one, but I see no reason for them not to exist.

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

I'm now completely ripping off what straussmonster explained (and probably mangling her far greater factual knowledge while I'm at it), but to paraphrase what I've discussed with her:

Opera is an art form that arises in exactly two sorts of circumstances: court and urban society. All of Britain has one wizarding village, so it's not like the wizarding world has any sort of urban culture to speak of; the British wizarding world functions under one massively bureaucratic system and there has been no mention of any sort of wizarding royalty. No all-powerful mayors, no kings, no organised courts.

The thing is, I could believe wizarding theatre. It can be accomplished by small, travelling troupes with little or no financial backing save for what they get from selling tickets. Opera, however, is an extremely non-individualistic art form (and according to JKR, wizards are about as individualistic a folk as one can get) that takes an awful lot of organisation, resources, and labour force to kick off the ground. Opera as we understand it today is aesthetically rich, extremely formalised, resistant to change, and historically and even today a very stage-oriented form of art (i.e. not a travelling genre).

So, in summary, while the wizarding world would have the necessary singers, etc. it's the inception of the art form that is unlikely in the first place. (I have counter-arguments against this, e.g. what if wizarding opera is an off-shoot of Muggle opera, but they are rather specious at best.) If it never gets kicked off the ground, it's not happening, even if the necessary building blocks could be scrounged together. A pile of bricks does not a house make, IOW.

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

Nah, wizarding culture isn't that far removed from the muggle world. It's entirely possible that there's some tragic operas about ill-fated affairs between a muggle and a wizard or some operatic retelling of events leading to the WW going underground. Opera's courtly origins are irrelevant really, there's no reason why the art form coudn't be adapted. Lot's of small cities have opera companies--granted not very good ones--but I don't see why London, while not a completely wizarding city couldn't manage to cobble together a troupe or for that matter even Hogsmeade come up with a small regional company that 'magics up' muggle opera for some high-brow entertainment.

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

Actually, opera's courtly origins have everything to do with it. Because of its history and how it has turned out, of all available music forms, it is by far the most resistant to change and individual forces of change. It's stayed virtually unchangeable since the 1600s; you could've gone to the opening show of the opera house in Venice in 1637 and the aesthetics would've been exactly the same as they are in today's opera (though let's not go on the obvious Wagner tangent).

So, I maintain that without sufficient critical mass and without a few happy coincidences and some hefty figures in play, it ain't going to happen. Sure, I can see some gee-whizz impresario kid taking the Muggle concept and running off with it. But I'm talking more about opera as an institution, not as a one-off curiosity. To have an opera culture worthy of fans and not just curious culture-starved people, one needs more than a nutter with delusions of grandieur.

To give an example I've seen a student showing of La Boheme in New Haven, CT (pop. 100,000+). It was a one-off and AFAIK, New Haven does not have a steady opera company; opera fans travel to NY or Boston for their opera fixes. That was it for New Haven.

Does New Haven have an opera institution? No.

Consequently, would Nicholas Flamel or anyone call himself an opera fan if he went to see one odd wizarding opera in Hogsmeade every three years? Na.

So opera as a curiosity, sure. Opera as an institution? A completely different ballgame, and no. Show me a village the size of Hogsmeade (pop. surely less than 100,000) that maintains an opera company and I'm sold on the point. I live in a city of 500,000 people and we have a rather excellent opera company; it would stand to reason that to have an opera as a cultural institution, the critical mass is somewhere between New Haven and Helsinki.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

you could've gone to the opening show of the opera house in Venice in 1637 and the aesthetics would've been exactly the same as they are in today's opera

I hate to be categorial, but no. The aesthetics of opera are very dependent upon situation, but it's unproductive to talk about that in the abstract. Modern operagoers would look at a performance of a Cavalli opera in Venice from the 17th century and go "What the hell is that?". That's part of why it's taken so long to get into understanding opera seria (and a book like Kerman's Opera as Drama just dismisses it as bad art.) French and Italian Baroque operas have very different aesthetics precisely because of different situations.

The rest of that is pretty much what I would argue, though. :)

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

A-ha! I now know one book I can point at and say "wrrronggg!" Thank you for the correction. (Also, quite possible what we mean with "aesthetics" is different, considering I approach it from a layman's background. I understood only about 2% of what Downing A. Thomas is trying to tell me, after all.)

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

Happy to help. In fact, I think that after I obtain some food, I could try to write out a better explanation of the aesthetic issues (if it'd be useful).

*waves at valis2 and hopes the journal crashing isn't too pedantic*

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

More on aesthetics? Please! (Though, uh, this is going beyond being tangential. Oops. Sorry, valis.) My comprehension of "aesthetic" is purely visual; what I'm assuming is really meant in this context is more along the lines of artistic impact and themes?

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

I've made a placeholder over in my journal here. There's nothing there right now, but as I went out to grab food, I know what I'll talk about first--voice types. :)

[valis2.livejournal.com]

Oh, no, I'm enjoying it tremendously. I am interested in opera, but very much a beginner, and this is fascinating. Thank you!

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

* grandeur. Also, abysmal punctuation. Gah. 1 a.m., no coffee left in the pot...

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

It's stayed virtually unchangeable since the 1600s; you could've gone to the opening show of the opera house in Venice in 1637 and the aesthetics would've been exactly the same as they are in today's opera

Which sounds astonishingly like the WW, doesn't it?

To have an opera culture worthy of fans and not just curious culture-starved people, one needs more than a nutter with delusions of grandieur.

Like Mozart.
*ducks* Yes, he was a genius, but like most geniuses he was a nutter.

I think everyone's working at cross purposes here. "Wizard Opera" doesn't have to be an entity into itself any more than "wizard candy" or "wizard chess" is. When I think of wizard opera or even wizard theater I think of an offshoot (for want of a better word) of the non-wizard tradition of the same. Which is why the origin really doesn't matter. What matters is what the culture ultimately chose to do with it. Do they just attend muggle opera? Do witches and wizards perform muggle operas 'by the book'? Do they just throw in a few whiz-bang special effects (imagine what wizards could do with Wagner!) or, what I'd guess, did opera evolve, even just a little bit, into something slightly different in the WW than what you'd expect to see at the Met.

You know what the weirdest thing about this entire conversation is? I absolute despise opera. I enjoy many types of music, classical and modern, but was raised with opera almost 24hrs a day, 7days a week screeching through my childhood home. Both my parents were opera lovers and my mother was a fangurl of Beverly Sills. It still sounds to me like someone backing over the cat. And this from someone who lives with a trumpeter.

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

Oh believe me, I've seen it staged. You don't think I was allowed to escape that, do you? I grew up in NY. I saw "the best." Also, about two years ago I decided maybe I'd "grown into it" and went to see an acclaimed traveling production of an exceptionally popular work. I still punch the car radio off my NPR station faster than you can blink every Saturday afternoon.

[gillieweed.livejournal.com]

Well ... I grew up in California. I've seen opera around the US and in Europe. New York's opera productions are not the best.

Oh, well then. Excuuuse me.

*bows deeply to world authority*

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

did opera evolve, even just a little bit, into something slightly different in the WW than what you'd expect to see at the Met.

It's just how I would apply Occam's Razor. There are various different types of classical music, not as in types of music but how it is performed (symphony orchestras, chamber music, solo instrument works, etc.) Opera hasn't evolved into any other form of expression than what it is now -- there is no art house opera, there is no alternative opera or "chamber opera" -- so why assume, without proof, that the wizarding opera is the only exception to the rule?

And I can completely understand people not liking opera. When viewed objectively, it is rather bizarre a genre, and on occasion does sound like a particularly painful animal mating session. Yet, I love it so much. (The odd thing? I grew up with 24/7 opera, too, and I grew up to be a fan.) Same thing as I have with country music. I like pop, I love jazz (another very American genre), I listen to just about everything, but country? Nuh-uh. Makes my skin crawl, for reasons clearly passing my understanding.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

there is no alternative opera or "chamber opera"

Actually, there are such things as 'chamber operas'. The most frequently performed is Britten's Turn of the Screw, which has only 11 instrumentalists and was deliberately written for a very small ensemble because of monetary concerns. It's done in mid-sized houses but a lot of the effect is lost. As well, some of the early operas were intended for chamber performance in a courtly context. One might also consider the French division of operas by type, as they were performed in different houses.

Basic argument is sound, though. :)

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

Really? How fascinating! I mean, I've seen operas done with a minimal orchestra, but those have been scaled-back productions of the usual suspects, not operas specifically written for a small number of instrumentalists. Would you consider it more a modern genre, the experimentations of a few individualists, or a legitimate off-shoot of the big-house opera tradition we know? Any other example operas that would come to mind?

As for Britten... due to being scarred by a Peter Grimes production, I'm actively trying to forget what little I've heard of his stuff. :P

[lady_songsmith]

On the other hand, it seems that at various points in wizarding history they have been more integrated in Muggle society. We know that Slytherin wasn't keen on Muggleborns attending Hogwarts, so the isolationist tendencies go pretty far back, but we also have grandfather clocks and pocketwatches, wireless radios, trains... What Muggle time-period does the description of Diagon Alley evoke? Or other wizarding locales we've seen? So it's entirely possible that wizards have been exposed to and enjoy opera, chamber music, and the like.

Whether the wizarding world can support opera houses is debatable. On the one hand, if Hogsmeade is the only all-wizarding village in Britain, and it's pretty small, there's an argument to be made that there isn't a critical mass. On the other hand, wizards do live in mixed-locales, and can hide their own establishments in along with the Muggle buildings. (Leaky Cauldron, MoM) And from the World Cup, presumably the actual wizarding population is fairly large.

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

So it's entirely possible that wizards have been exposed to and enjoy opera, chamber music, and the like.

We know from canon that wizards enjoy chamber music (Dumbledore) and opera (Nicholas Flamel). Presumably, because there is no "wizard" prefix to them, they are the Muggle versions. That was not the question here.

And from the World Cup, presumably the actual wizarding population is fairly large.

The Quidditch World Cup was actually one of the arguments I made when speaking on behalf of a wizarding opera. As an analogy from Muggle world, Helsinki can draw 40,000 people to watch the hockey world cup finals and we have an opera house; hence, if the wizarding society as an aggregate can draw 40,000 people to watch the QWC, they could support an opera house.

So I'm totally buying that wizards have the necessary critical mass to support an opera company. The contention was, if the art form never gets off the ground, there's no point in saying that there are enough wizards to support it. If the tradition isn't there, it isn't there.

[sophie-spence.livejournal.com]

Show me a village the size of Hogsmeade (pop. surely less than 100,000) that maintains an opera company and I'm sold on the point.

*raises a timid hand*
Our Santa Fe Opera was founded in 1957 and is still going strong in a town with a population of 64,700 (2004 est). SFO has a first-class reputation and an amazing Opera House (http://www.santafeopera.org/). The season is short, however, about eight weeks every summer, five operas a season, and many of the audience members come to Santa Fe from Elsewhere for the season - so perhaps this doesn't meet your criteria?

[pen-and-umbra.livejournal.com]

Sure -- there's an opera house and opera is played in it. ;) However, Santa Fe (pop. 64,700) is still a few magnitudes greater than I would assume from Hogsmeade (pop. a few hundred, maybe a thousand). In the case of New Haven, I'm assuming the relative proximity to big cities is also what eats at their chances of having a resident opera company; hence, Santa Fe as a smaller city has one when New Haven doesn't.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

No, because Santa Fe is a festival house as opposed to a repertory/regular company. It exists because of a number of factors, the major one being that it pulls most of its spectators from people who are willing and able to travel to see things that they usually wouldn't--the reputation of the Festival was built on its performance of at least one Strauss opera a year, and usually one of the rarer ones. They've moved away from that since Crosby died, but have built up the reputation and the clientele to be able to. [Festivals are a distinctly late 19th/early 20th century phenomena in their founding: Bayreuth, Salzburg, Glyndebourne....]

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

Part of why smaller cities have opera companies is that they would get the big work from Vienna or Berlin after it was debuted in the big house. (And the limited resources of these companies becomes an increasing problem in the 19th century and into the 20th; Rossini complains about poor treatments of his works and so does R. Strauss). But the works were only done in the first place because of the big centers, which could provide the financial and material (sets, dancers, musicians, etc.) to put on the work enough that it could be financially profitable. One of the main ways that operas were spread out into the countryside was not through actual performance, but through piano reductions and arrangements of the big tunes.

Some kinds of opera travel better than others, as well. Italy has several major theatres but no one dominant center, and Italian opera tends to be singer-oriented; the singers would travel in a company, using the same costumes for any number of roles. This traveling also fueled the intense drive for 'new' works, which is why there are so many reworkings/pastiche in the 18th/early 19th century rep. French opera does not travel until the 19th century, when it becomes the biggest thing in London; only because there are impresarios with a lot of money to lure across the singers and shill out for the decor. Opera is an institutional art even more dependent on fixed places than the theatre, and that's what the WW seems to lack.