nanushka

Thanks, abatt! Just out of curiosity: which fairy did each of the four dance?

Did anyone go last night? Even amidst all the other excitement, I'd love to read any reviews!

Ah, right. That one hadn't occurred to me as being particularly R's doing, since she was already a prominent Florine for the company. But it certainly may have been. Don't think I saw her in Bright Stream.

Has Ratmansky shown a particular interest in Copeland other than for Firebird? (Note: this question has no subtext! I am simply curious about the possible plural, because I can't think of any other examples! just trying to fill in a gap in my memory! not racist!)

Interesting theory!

If this is why you're here, that's certainly your prerogative. I don't engage in these discussions because I need to uncover the prejudices/biases/assumptions that I readily agree I have (as do we all). I engage in these discussions because I want to understand the world of ballet better, not because I want to achieve self-awareness. To that end, I want to understand what other people think and what support they have for those opinions. And careful attention to the words they use is essential to that. I find it's best not to assume I know why someone says what they say and not to assume they really mean something more or other than what their words say. It's true they might mean more, or have problematic motivations. But I think it's better to discover that by engaging, levelheadedly, with their actual words. As for "pretend[ing] these biases don't exist in Misty's discussions" -- I have said repeatedly that I agree with you on this, and I haven't heard anyone here say they don't exist.

I agree that Trenary is a surprise. This seems to have been her "breakout" season, with more featured roles, and I feel like that has typically come the year before promotion to soloist in recent years (e.g. in the case of Shevchenko), rather than in the same year as promotion. Consider, for example, the difference between what Gorak did before being promoted to soloist and what Trenary has done.

But abatt did not suggest that "Misty's audience" is wholly or even primarily made up of such people. canbelto has interpreted abatt's words to mean that.

I don't think anyone here has disputed the fact that this has been an issue in the Misty discussions. (At least I haven't. See above.) The problem comes when this becomes an excuse to dismiss any statement one disagrees with as being motivated by racism, particularly when doing so depends on one's mischaracterizing those statements. The problem comes when one assumes that those one disagrees with on particular, discrete issues are necessarily the same as those one disagrees with on deeper, more fundamental issues. And the problem comes when one assumes that others have more extreme negative views than their words actually express -- causing one to misinterpret those words. As I said above: if you're going to do that, what's the point of having a discussion? Reasoned debate of the many interesting issues surrounding this public figure becomes impossible.

You persist in either misreading or willfully mischaracterizing what abatt wrote. The point was not about Misty's audience -- which is diverse, both racially and in their motivations for attending. The point was about KM's attempt (true or not) to draw in people who wouldn't otherwise come to ballet. Those people, then, would make up a "segment" of Misty's audience. Did abatt suggest that "Misty's audience" (your term, not abatt's) is wholly or even primarily made up of such people? No. Is KM interested in drawing such people? That's what's debatable.

I'm not disputing the fact that there have been statements made on this board that have such undertones (though, to be honest, I don't think you've chosen particularly strong examples here). But I think that fact has caused you to misread statements that don't have those undertones and to mischaracterize what they literally say rather than engaging with what they do say.

I don't think you're wrong about this. I think you're right that that has been an undercurrent in some of the comments made about Misty. But I think the problem arises when this causes one to misread what a specific person has said in a specific instance, because one assumes that everyone who says something negative about Misty -- or even something not obviously positive about Misty -- is motivated by racial animus. I think this prevents our ability to see and engage with what people who disagree with us (who have a whole diversity of opinions and reasons for those opinions) are actually saying. And if we're going to do that, then why bother having a discussion?

There's a difference, in very basic logical terms, between assuming, on the one hand, that those who want to see black dancers are themselves black and assuming, on the other hand, that those who are black want to see non-black dancers. I'm not saying that abatt was making either assumption, but you seem to conflate the two, which is a logical fallacy.

abatt said nothing about Misty's audience. abatt's point was about the people that KM is (in abatt's view) trying to attract. abatt did not say that Misty's audience is entirely made up of those people. abatt simply said that KM is trying to attract people who want to see non-white dancers. abatt did not say that those are the only people who have an interest in seeing Misty dance. Again, one can certainly disagree with the claim that KM is trying to attract those people.

And by the way, I'm not disputing the point you make here, or the history behind it. I just think that it's important not to assume that what sounds like it may be a coded message actually is one and thus to jump right to an accusation. I think it's better to engage with what someone is saying and to try to understand what they really mean and think, when that's not immediately clear. When one does so, one often finds that others' views are less clear-cut than one assumes.

Okay, well if you choose to read what other people say as coded messages and attach non-articulated meanings to those messages, then it becomes very difficult, perhaps impossible, to have a reasonable conversation. A lot of us discussing this issue have much subtler and more complex and more conflicted views than the two obvious poles of the discussion would suggest. And I think it's essential to recognize that. We've seen elsewhere (e.g. in the discussion of what kfw meant in complaining about the word "honor" -- which had nothing to do with Misty in particular and was purely a language quibble, not a point about race) how assumptions about others' hidden extremist views can cause us to misunderstand the basic meanings of what they say. And in your second paragraph above you're lumping together a lot of different claims that have been made about Misty. You seem to assume that anyone who says anything negative about her shares all of those beliefs. I think that's problematic.

abatt did not complain about people preferring to see non-white dancers.

I think if you read abatt's comment carefully you'll see that you are mischaracterizing what it says. This is exactly the type of mischaracterization I was describing above, based on an assumption that others' views are more in extreme opposition to one's own than they may in fact be. abatt does not say that the entire black race prefers to see non-white dancers. abatt does not say that the entire black race would not go to the ballet otherwise. abatt does not say that Misty's' entire audience prefers to see non-white dancers. abatt does not say anything at all about any entire race or about Misty's audience in general. abatt says that KM is attempting to draw those who do prefer to see non-white dancers. And abatt says that those who do prefer to see non-white dancers may not come to the ballet otherwise. I'm not saying I agree, but it's important to make sure one is disagreeing with what another is actually saying.

Which assumption of abatt's are you questioning here? That there are people who prefer to see non-white dancers in lead roles? That McKenzie is attempting to tap into that audience? That people with that preference might never have attended an ABT performance if there weren't an opportunity to see a non-white dancer in the lead?

Yes, I understood your point. I was just providing the info (i.e. the dates -- though still inexact -- of their being at ABT, which you'd originally said you were unable to find) in case you had still not found it.

The info (though inexact in terms of dates) is in the article by Theresa Ruth Howard that I linked to upthread:

Certainly something more than just an objective analysis of the quality of Misty's dancing is happening in some of those responses that are at times, as you say, excoriating. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that there is a whole range of possible biases that may be motivating those responses. A reaction against Misty's race is just one possibility. True, some may not want to see anything other than a white body onstage. But others may not, for example, want to see their own personal favorite dancers get overshadowed by a dancer they think is overly self-promoting. And still others may have quite different subjective reasons for finding Misty intolerable. My point is not that any of these biases justifies an excoriating description of Misty's dancing. My point is that one should be careful not to assume that those with whom one disagrees are driven by the darkest possible motives. Discussions such as these break down when people begin jumping to conclusions about the hidden meanings behind others' words -- especially because, as I've noted, there's a tendency to assume that others have more extreme opposite views than is necessarily the case.

That's a really illuminating example of what I had in mind in post #118 above, Moonlily!

Thanks for the clarification, Helene. And this: is certainly a telling detail!

There is a difference between saying, "I do not believe X was lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive," and saying, "I believe X was not lying, because there's no evidence that X spoke with intention to deceive." I wonder if this difference is at the root of some of the debate between Helene and kfw in this discussion thread. Helene, which of those would you say best articulates your mindset in relation to Copeland and to Hallberg?