nanushka

Could not agree more! It may not be as good for audience building or other programming considerations (I'm not sure), but personally, selfishly, I would much rather have the new, untested material segregated off in separate programs, or at the very least placed last so I can leave early if I don't feel like taking the chance. I'd much rather see things I'm pretty sure I'm going to like, let some others on here who are more motivated go see the new stuff and report back on what's worth catching, then see some of those pieces when they likely return in another season or two. I would almost certainly boost my NYCB attendance by at least 50% yearly if I could see more of the pieces I really want to see without having to sit through the pieces I don't. When it comes to paying for, taking time out of my schedule for, and traveling to performances, I am unashamedly conservative in that way.

$80K?! And the company's lucky soloists are going to get 0% in the first year of their new contract, 0% in the second year, and 1% in the third year. That's even grosser than the cockroaches.

Does the company actually make the arrangements for accommodations and pay for them directly, or do the dancers get a per diem and make their own arrangements? The story from Lane with the SL image seems to suggest the former, but I thought I once heard that it was the latter. (I could well be misremembering, though.)

Thanks so much for the links, naomikage! I look forward to reading more.

The memoir is in Japanese? I just did a quick google search (in English) and couldn't find anything, unfortunately, not even any news articles about it. Your summary definitely makes me curious to know more, though.

Oh wow I had no idea it was down to just one week there! That's terrible, how long has that been the case? I've never made it to a performance up there, and now it sounds even less likely.

I saw them in NYC at the Joyce on Christmas Eve 2016. They did two programs, listed here. I saw the first; particularly enjoyed the Pas de Six from Napoli, which I believe was a relatively new work for them at the time (NYC premiere). Some very nice dancing in Bournonville style. Here's a review by Alastair Macaulay in the Times. As noted there, the program also included "Dying Swan" and a Cunningham spoof. Will try to remember to check my program when home, if I still have it, for info on staging. Update: Must have thrown it out, unfortunately!

Since I’ve explained why the example you gave seems to me to be unproblematic, and since you’ve given no further examples of cases in which singular they raises obstacles that aren’t quite easily surmountable, I guess that here, too, I must simply disagree. It’s true that our written language does not have the particles you speak of, but it does offer many fine options for working around the ambiguities that sometimes arise from its forms — as I suspect we’ve all experienced, when the need to tinker with a phrase in order to avoid an ambiguous pronoun has arisen. Singular they, in my opinion, would require only a bit more of the same. I am always open to considering further specific examples or pragmatic explanations that might sway my thinking, though. If it’s a choice between making the (in my opinion minor) necessary adjustments to make singular they work, on the one hand, and leaving non-binary individuals without a viable pronoun option, on the other, I know which has my vote at present. With respect, I must say that I have never found the hypothetical opinions of long-dead individuals on contemporary matters to be inherently persuasive — no matter how much I love and respect the thoughts they had and the works they produced while alive. Being hypothetical, such opinions are far too subject to influence by our own biases, projections and blind spots. Bishop was, almost without fail, marvelously sensible, as her letters amply demonstrate; I might just as easily say that she would approve after only the slightest hesitation. But I couldn’t possibly be sure of that. As for philosophy, I happen to know a group of teenagers who have recently formed a philosophy club, to read and discuss some of the great works in their after-school hours.

I am a great lover of Bishop’s poetry, but I must say that I think the issue we are discussing is much more of a pragmatic one than a poetic one. And I think that our language is more than capable of responding to these pragmatic challenges.

If there were a second “she,” or a second “he,” wouldn’t it be exactly the same problem? I don’t see how it’s different. In context, pronouns always have referents — whether indicated by gesture, by intonation, by syntactic proximity, by logical inference, or by other means. Once one is used to the possibility that “they” could refer to a third, individual person, the usage you mention actually becomes even less ambiguous. (That’s why I think many of the anticipated problems would actually diminish if this use of “they” really catches on.) The listener wouldn’t think “they” referred to the preceding “she” plus the preceding “he,” since intonation would clarify that the question being asked was about a third, separate person. (After the first sentence, a response that sounds like “Oh, DID they?” would mean, “Oh, did they REALLY?” Whereas a response that sounds like “Oh, did THEY?” would mean, “Oh, did person #3 go too?”) Plus, when pronouns prove too ambiguous, we revert to using nouns. We make those accommodations to language’s ambiguities all the time, already. Again, I don’t see how this case would be different.

That's great! I was really hoping she was just thrown off mentally by the fall and that the toppling supported arabesque was merely an effect of that. When she came up from the fall, there was no look of pain on her face, that I could see — more a look of consternation.

I guess I must simply disagree, then, until a linguistically feasible and overall more satisfactory solution is proposed — or until a reason for why it is so unsatisfactory is more fully explained. The choice seems, to my mind, to be between the options I have described.

Thanks, dirac. I do see what you mean. Alas, our language is much more readily able to absorb a new honorific, such as Ms., which never has to change its form, than to absorb a new pronoun, which does (e.g. from they to them or their). But the much bigger obstacle is that new function words, such as pronouns, are particularly difficult for a language to absorb — as opposed to content words, such as nouns and verbs, which are very easily absorbed. New content words are quite common (e.g. email); new function words are extremely rare. (When’s the last time we got a new preposition, conjunction or auxiliary verb?) For that reason, function words are often referred to as a "closed class" of words (as opposed to the "open class" of content words). That’s probably why I didn’t even think to list it as one of the possibilities when I asked you the question. New pronouns have indeed been suggested (see the table of "Non-traditional pronouns" here, for example). But the vast majority of those who have tried to find a solution have landed on they as the best option, since it already has a long history of singular usage (although of a different kind, as we've discussed) in the language, and since it would be a matter of adapting an existing usage rather than introducing a whole new one. It's certainly not a perfect solution, but it may, alas, be the best option we've got for a workable and lasting solution to the problem. It may come down to which we value most: adherence to the language forms we now have or accommodation to the newly accepted reality of non-binary gender. (I'm also not convinced that it's that all that much more ambiguous than other pronoun usages, all of which depend upon context, as I've explained in a previous post. Once we're used to the fact that they can refer to a singular, named antecedent, I'm not sure it would lack the clarity of other options.) As for the aesthetics, personally I think a lot of that is more about preconceived notions than about what's inherent in the sounds of the language. Ms. has a perfectly fine sound, to my ear.

Good point. I wasn't so much thinking height, though, as the shape of shoulders and chest, which I noticed almost more when she wasn't doing expansive movements — something distinctly adolescent in her figure. Likely there are a few different factors at work, though, including what you mention.

The NYCB repertory page for T&V says, "Balanchine created Theme and Variations in 1947 for Ballet Theatre (now American Ballet Theatre), and it briefly entered the NYCB repertory in 1960. In 1970 Balanchine used the complete orchestral suite to create Tschaikovsky Suite No. 3, and Theme and Variations, with a few minor revisions, returned to the repertory as the fourth and final movement of the ballet." There's a page for Sylvia PDD as well, but it has the old b&w curtain image that seems to be used on rep pages for works no longer active.

I was sad to have missed Aaron Sanz in two scheduled good roles this year — La Valse in the fall and Divertimento this week. Wonder if he is particularly prone to injury.

To me she comes across the same way, but my initial read was that it was more due to body type than stage presence — i.e. her instrument, not what she was doing with it. I'll be curious to see her again with your comment in mind, though, to judge whether you may in fact be right. She is certainly talented, regardless.

Completely agree with everything you say about tonight, CharlieH. It wasn’t a flawless night but the company felt very alive.

I’ve never seen the piece live before so I don’t really have a basis for comparison but that seemed like a pretty special Chaconne. Maria K luminous in first part, regal in second part. Adrian D-W quite excellent.

Oh I understood and I completely agree. I was referring to vipa’s implied (as I understood it) Levine comparison about proportionality.

Olivia Boisson had a rough night in Four Ts. She danced a good first theme duet until near the end when she kicked Lars Nelson in the back of the head. Then in Choleric she fell down practically on her face and later almost toppled out of a supported arabesque. Savannah L switched to Sanguinic and I liked her better in that than in anything else I’ve seen her in before, including Choleric. Megan LeCrone stepped into that, decently. Russell J quite good. Sean S disappointing.

To me, "I'm thinking of you in my bed with your clothes off," delivered to a colleague, in the workplace, is not “a remark that is found to be offensive.” It is simply an offensive remark, period.

Only few people refrain from making comments like that in the workplace? We know nothing of the alleged victim, so it seems to me unwise to comment on the nature of his reaction. (Hypothetical: what if he is the victim of previous sexual abuse? Obviously that wouldn't alter the nature of this currently alleged offense, but it could certainly explain the relative strength of his reaction to it. We simply do not know.) On the Levine comparison, none of his alleged abuses were in the workplace, I believe.

Unity P danced a gorgeous, excellent Div 15 variation. Less impressive in the Andante (possibly in part due to partnering). Ashley B was of course delightful. Erica P dances beautifully but I wish she didn’t have such a child’s figure and such red lips. Cameron D was a disappointing sub for Aaron S. Chase F’s legs looked tired.

Wait, so these are opera singers who weren’t even present? So the fact that they’re opera singers is actually irrelevant to how trustworthy their statements may be?