kfw

I may not understand the problem. but if I want to edit I just highlight and delete, or backspace. And if I want to break a quote up into two parts, I cut and paste, highlight what I've pasted, and then hit the quote icon. Sometimes when I break up a quote I have the problem I believe sandik has noted a few times, where the cursor won't advance past the quote box. So I've started typing a few characters - mmm, for example - below where I'm going to paste the quote. After I've pasted, I can type over them.

That’s true, Hallberg didn’t need a publicist, or a self-flattering book, in order to advance his career – which is to say that he already had all the opportunities he could handle. The same was not true of Copeland. Well, to quote Monty Python, that’s not an argument, it’s a contradiction. The reasons why some of us believe Copeland’s making principal may be somewhat suspect now have been made here more than once.

What is the manner they supposedly have to behave in?

But he got his shot in Russia because of his dancing, not his self-promotion. Do we even know he had a publicist before his Russian adventure? Canbelto, I think the difference is that Copeland's story - black woman overcomes adversity and discrimination - was a sure-fire hit.

Indeed. Hallberg was a star dancer and the publicity, or at least the opportunity for it, came to him. Copeland has made herself a star through her self-publicizing, not her dancing. If she'd waited to publish until she'd been made principal, it's unlikely this thread would be nearing 40 pages. That's for sure.

People generally drop false claims when they're exposed as such. It's just possible Copeland didn't know it was false, but like I said, it seems unlikely. Copeland said she was ABT's first black soloist. Her wikipedia page said the same. A fair comparison, but I know next to nothing about Womack, and we don't have an active thread about her anyhow, so I haven't commented.

The distinction is that Copeland is selling herself as a groundbreaker. The false claim is almost at the heart of her story. Also, Hallberg didn't even speak Russian when he went over there. It's much, much easier to believe his was an honest mistake than that hers was.

In other words, while Copeland wrote the book, if she said something that's not true, it's her publisher's fault, not hers. And how could she and her people not know such a central claim wasn't true? How long had she been in the company? Are her people not professionals? I don't know if that error is in her book or not, but she told it to an L.A. reporter. Is that her publisher's fault too? It was also on her wikipedia page, which one has to assume she was responsible for, or at least read. No one is willing to criticize Copeland here for not telling the truth? If Hallberg let a falsehood pass without correcting it, Plisskin, yes I object to it, although I'll note that he's not selling a triumph-over-victimization story, and was a star before the Bolshoi. But you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask you again: Do you object to Copeland not telling the truth?

Hallberg didn't publish a self-glorifying book. Nor are he and his "media team" - if in fact he has one - selling anything. No one objects to Copeland being on Prince's tour. Do you object to her not telling the truth?

Nureyev didn't have to promote himself; he was asked because he was already a huge star. Copeland did have to promote herself, if she wanted attention outside of the ballet world at that stage in her career, and she did it in part by making a claim - first black ABT soloist - she either knew or had every reason to know wasn't true. But she gets a pass because . . . ?

Could be, and as Tapfan points out, she's been a soloist for eight years and has been self-promoting for over half of them, so it's not like her media campaign has fast-tracked her to principal. But whether it "worked" so far or not, it's given McKenzie three clear reasons, irrespective of artistic merit, why he can hardly not promote her soon. 1) She sells tickets, and 2) he and the organization will be demonized as racist if he doesn’t (and not just by people in the ballet community), which 3) is a financial dis-incentive. He sells more tickets if he promotes her, and risks selling less if he doesn’t.

Yeah, my bad, sorry. I amended my reply, but we must have been posting at the same time.

A choreographed breath.

I don't see anything cynical about that. "Black Ballerina Breaks Color Barrier" is a good story in both senses of the word. "Sinister"? Why would anyone think it's sinister?

Thank you. I've answered about a hundred questions here myself. I don't want to answer them all again.

Kathleen, I don’t really want to reiterate all my opinions of Copeland’s publicity campaign. Of course there’s nothing wrong with social media per se. Other than that, I could write a detailed reply to your questions, which I don’t think have simple, yes or no, black or white answers. But essentially, in this thread, I already have. My own questions, meanwhile, don’t always get answers, although I don’t remember if you were one of the non-respondents.

Well, who can object to people trying to further their careers? But I appreciate the humility and disinclination to boast of the people Garrison Keillor gently mocks. Brooks: “We live in the culture of the Big Me. The meritocracy wants you to promote yourself. Social media wants you to broadcast a highlight reel of your life. Your parents and teachers were always telling you how wonderful you were.” Usually whatever other side there is. Brooks is willing to acknowledge the other side’s points while making his own.

It's never "if so and so said it, it must be so" with me, but I think Brooks is one of the too few public intellectuals around who tries to give the other side their due. It's still shameless then?

Certainly, and it's good of those of you who feel that way to defend her.

As are those who reject any criticism of a member a minority. That's not what I call color blind.

I'd rather not name names here. Those things are hardly new, obviously, but seem to be more common nowadays, in part because of social media. David Brooks has written about it.

I'll take your word for the first point. I don't think I've said anything contrary to it. I can also imagine that some people might have doubted a black dancer no matter what route she took to principal. But she took a route that has already made others doubt as well. It's the way people do things these days - the self-promotion, the triumph over adversity story, the I-just-want-to-be-a-role-model line. In that respect, she's not a ground breaker.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my original points, Helene, which were that a) some people who haven't even seen Copeland dance are sure she deserves a promotion, and b) when any criticism is presumed to be racist, many if not most people won't make any criticism. Good. Because some people have said they'll have them, and it needn't have been that way.

Seems I've been too sweeping with my generalizations. I understand how you feel. Then again, Angelica doesn't seem to love Mearns, period. To each his own. Helene wrote: I'm talking about ballet professionals, excluding critics for obvious reasons. I think people care about allegations once they're made, and as far as I know, racism in ballet was not much discussed in the media - certainly wasn't a big issue in the media - until Copeland made it one. As others have pointed out, it's unfortunate that when Copeland gets her promotion, there will always some doubt about whether her PR and her allegations played a role - about whether McKenzie, being only human, cared. Would it some shameful for, say, the head of a classical company to have said of [a specific white dancer], she'll become "hefty and barrel-chested" and so I can't use her? Then why would be it be shameful to say something similar of a black dancer if it's true? If it's said of any and every black dancer, that's another thing, obviously.

Well there had to be someone. I'm sure you have your reasons. That is true. And there is also such a thing as unconscious bias the other way, also often derived from one's environment, where criticism of minorities is presumed or at least suspected of being racist. Seems to me that most everyone does,