kfw

False on both counts. I've never criticized Copeland's performances, and I've made it a point of saying that not having seen her, I have no opinion of her dancing. Also, I will repeat, I did not say Woetzel was comped. Please go back and read what I did write, including the compliments I have given Copeland on several occasions, before you make more false charges. ETA: Michael Cooper in the NY Times story about Copeland's promotion writes that

In other words, criticizing a community that is enduring tragedy is by definition bigotry, and well-known conservatism is by definition bigotry, period.

First, canbelto you were charging racism, now when pressed you're only making the vague charge of ugly bad faith. Bad faith is of course exactly what you exhibit yourself in parsing words, taking them out of their context, and insisting on attributing bad motives to the people who wrote them when other explanations are plausible. I didn't make any of those comments but they're all defensible. 1) A critic would risk the charge of racism for harshly criticizing Copeland's performance. A humane critic would also hate having to harshly criticize a rising African-American dancer. So most critics would be disinclined to harshly criticize Copeland. 2) There would be nothing wrong with Copeland's people inviting Wilkinson and Anderson. 3) The person who made that observation was there and you weren't, so you can't challenge them on the facts. And no one likes to have Swan Lake unnecessarily interrupted by applause.

Wow, what an interesting discussion here since I last tuned in. 1) From the sound of it, lots of white people, including at least one on this board, made it a point to see Copeland's SL specifically to see her. People do this for specific dancers all the time. If I lived in New York, I would have been at her performance last week, drawn in part by the fact that she's the first African-American to dance O/O. What in the world is wrong with a minority member, or anyone else showing up to see a dancer specifically or in large part because she's a minority member? 2) did anyone actually say or suggest that Woetzel was a shill? I mentioned the possibility of his being comped in passing as a possibility which would have made his use of "honored" correct - in other words, if she had invited him as a friend. "Shill" is your own imagination. Likewise, did anyone actually say or suggest Wilkinson's appearance was a PR move, or is that another assumption of bad faith on your part? You cry "racism," but I see another form of prejudice, political correctness, which has very honorable roots, but too often hardens into what we've seen here: the policing of and parsing language, the isolation of criticism from its context, the inability or unwillingness to credit the other side's good faith, and which finds "vile" the proposition that an African-American might act in both praiseworthy and unpraiseworthy fashion - in other words be fully human.

Another excellent post, nanushka, thank you. Isn't there any kind of BA rule against writing one excellent post after another?? Also, does anyone here want to claim Hallberg wasn't lying, like some people reject all possibility that Copeland was? What this site needs is a good debate. ;)

Princeton University Press put out a critical edition of the Auden poem a few years ago, with an introduction and notes that very much added to my pleasure in the poem when I read it.

If you feel someone deserves defending, it's certainly honorable to defend them.

What about Veronika Part with her technical weaknesses? (I happen to love her dancing.)

Well I'm glad of that. Me, I’m just fine about what people think of Copeland’s promotion and how she gets it. I love reading different opinions, especially when people are clearly thinking them through to defend them, because that makes for a good debate.

That's right.

I don't know it could ever be proved, or could shown to be a deciding factor, unless he told us. If ABT is not just called but successfully labeled racist, then I think it's safe to say good people will run from it like they run from anything else racist.

Helene, I think my answer comes down to one word, racist. To not be called racist is a powerful motivator. Especially so in this, ABT's 75th anniversary year. It's true she could always be promoted later, but the spotlight is on the organization now. People expect it now. ETA: As I said, the people initially attracted by her triumph-over-racism story. Really now, she's a big celebrity because of this story, and McKenzie's feeling no pressure not to ruin the ending?

Copeland is of interest to the media and to the non-balletomane culture at large because she’s breaking ground racially, because she’s perceived as triumphing over racism in the ballet world. (I assume we can all agree on that. Of course her story is interesting in other ways as well, and she’s lovely and personable too, but outside of the hardcore dance community, the racial angle is the root of her appeal). If she’s not promoted, and if she chooses to chalk that up to racism, it stands to reason that the same people initially drawn to her by this narrative won’t suddenly lose interest in her, but will instead be angry on her behalf. I think it’s safe to say that even if she doesn’t, a lot of those same people, journalists and the other commentators nanushka mentions among them, will think they smell a rat. A lot of dance fans will anyhow, and McKenzie’s the subject of enough criticism right now for other things. I can’t image he’d invite more. Anyhow, would anyone here bet against her being promoted next month?

Judging from a large headshot in Ballet Panorama by Baron, published in 1954, it looks like Elvin to me. In any case, the whole video is just delightful. Thanks, meunier fan!

Given that she's a smart human being and can see more than one reason to promote herself, I imagine she has more than one reason, including but not limited to that noble one. No doubt.

I think we need a Ballet Alert countdown clock!

If Copeland doesn't make principal - a huge if - and she then calls that racist - another huge if - I'm sure her claim will get tons of attention, although I'm not sure what a 60 Minutes story on it would consist of - interviews with critics illustrated by video clips that could clearly show the non-dance public how much better she is than Hee Seo? Helene, I think there has been no negative groundswell because her story has made her look like a rising star who would eventually be promoted. It's only now, as her profile has been cresting (and as she's been given a ballet even many non-balletomanes have heard of) that those in the know say "if it's going to happen, now's the time, or soon."

You must be kidding! Because there would be a huge and immediate "groundswell of negative publicity," the flip side of the groundswell of positive publicity Copeland's been getting.

Helene wrote: Interesting argument. I don’t remember anyone saying her promotion has come unjustly late, but interesting argument. Thank you for explaining. Just to be clear and detailed, your position is that having been conscious of standing out due to race (probably since she first joined the company in 2000 and even before – perhaps someone who’s read her whole book can say for sure, but it stands to reason) after 14 years she still had not bothered to ascertain the truth of something so central to important to her narrative – that being so (naturally) concerned with setting precedent, she had never even been interested enough to just ask, say Kevin McKenzie or another longtime company person, how much a precedent she had actually set? I don’t find that scenario convincing. Lots of things that can’t be proved are considered most likely true based on available facts and logic. No, saying someone lied about something is not, when I say it, the same as characterizing them a Big Fat Liar, for reasons I took time to explain. I find that lack of correction curious too. As to Copeland, I agree, the claim wasn’t too smart, no, but people blurt things out sometimes, and since the impulse to correct would clash with the impulse to cheer on another trailblazer, I’m not surprised those dancers didn’t (to my knowledge) publicly correct her. I doubt her PR team told her to not to correct the Glamour interviewer. Why would PR – in effect, publicity - “delay” the casting that generates more publicity and sells all those tickets?

You bet. Like I said, I hear the phrase a lot. It bugs me. In fact I said in my original post that I wish "people," plural, would quit misusing the word.

Thank you. canbelto, to me the question isn't whether or not Woetzel felt honored - he said he did - but whether he was or not. I think I've explained why.

Sounds wonderful. There is this 14-minute rehearsal video. Having enjoyed Sarah Lamb's Aurora in D.C. way back in 2006 (?), I love reading such good things about her on this thread.

No, you're right, some of us language lovers are bugged (I prefer this technical term, “bugged,” in honor - wry usage there - of Esther Balintz’s great line in Jim Jarmusch’s comedy “Stranger Than Paradise,” “This dress bugs me” ) when a new usage of a word threatens to obscure the old one. I agree that it wasn't literally a privilege for Woetzel to be there unless of course he was invited and comped, in which case I’ll borrow Emily Latella’s line (“never mind”), and just lament the new usage of the term in general) I don’t see why it’s anymore a privilege than it is a honor to have the money to see Copeland’s Swan Lake, As you said, the performance wasn’t about him. Woetzel was fortunate, sure. If he was privileged, i.e. preferred over others, who did the preferring? Who conferred to privilege? Who conferred the distinction? You may be right that “honored” in the way Woetzel used it is generally understood to mean “lucky” or “fortunate,” but if so, for how long? Language changes all the time, of course, but maybe sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. “Honor” is an important concept, obviously, so it’s worth preserving in a way that clearly understood. We wouldn’t say we privilege a hero. Why say we are honored by good fortune? Language doesn’t just help us understand, it teaches us what to think. It seems to me that the way we keep concepts clear and distinct is to use clear and distinct terms for them. Sorry if that sounds like a rant. It’s not meant to. Thanks for furthering what to me is an interesting if perhaps too Off Topic discussion.

It sounds like you're asking dirac, but I'll just say a couple of things. If I've used the term "PR offensive, then "PR campaign" would have been better. She's hardly conducting a war. In regards to appeals to merit, her dancing is of course an appeal to merit (an awkward term which I think was mine, but I'll let it stand).

Judging from the Swan Lake reviews, she seems to have earned a promotion. dirac wrote: “The Big Lie” is your rhetoric, not my thinking. I could call Copeland a lot of positive things, like incredibly hard-working, determined, brave, beautifully poised, etc., and I’ve called her some or all of them here. She wants to be a role model. Overall she’s a wonderful role model but, like the rest of us, not always. I don’t choose to call her by the name “liar” because that denotes someone who lies habitually, for whom lying is an integral part of their character, and I have no reason to believe that describes her. I do, however, think that one has to make a lot of excuses for her not to think she probably lied about this. The impulse to make those excuses and to believe every particular of her story unreservedly, can be honorable. Unfortunately, some people with honorable intentions on many issues habitually distort the other side’s arguments, and then dismiss the distortions. As for specifics, when directly asked for specifics, you specifically have fallen silent or replied with generalities. Enuf said.