This is a wonderful interview. A real conversation about Marilyn Monroe with no hidden agenda or axes to grind. Thank you. To me her most admirable quality was that her intelligence never failed her. Marilyn knew, I think, deep down, that she was responsible for her life, no matter how difficult it was. While I was listening, I kept wondering what she would have thought of your interview with Charles. I think she would have liked it.
Mary, this is off topic, i haven’t listened to the conversation yet.
But just wanted to let you know I’ve been reading “Somebody With A Little Hammer” - so beautifully put, and moving. The title essay alone…and now I’m in the middle of “Lost Cat.” Thank you for everything you do, including these generous posts.
Thank you Mary for ‘context’ and Charles for ‘tone of voice’. Both so important and often forgotten.
How many of us are emotionally literate or can articulate our feelings accurately? Speaking for myself, 65, I am not. It wasn’t something taught in my all girls high school in England which prided itself on academic achievement. That I didn’t even hear feeling words wasn’t something I was aware of till I did the prerequisite class to start studying to be an Addiction’s counsellor when I was 54. Theoretically, with a PhD I was ‘more educated’ than my instructors-- yet while I could paraphrase something I heard I couldn’t reflect back the ‘feeling’ words because I simply didn’t hear them. I had to download lists of feeling words and use a thesaurus for the the first time in my life to pass the course. Stunningly ignorant and very revealing.
Terror beyond fear requires knowing what fear is, knowing what it is to be afraid and what is most frightening. Terror beyond is a whole other level.
Yes Marilyn was smart.
And who can blame her for not wanting to be a housewife in the suburbs, for caring more about her career? It’s too bad she lived at a time when careers weren’t considered womanly, when aging gracefully was not part of the deal for someone with her looks and talent.
This is an extraordinary comment, so much in it. First, I am so glad you liked Charles tone, I really love his voice, I hear so much warmth and emotional expressiveness in it. Second, I think I understand you about "feeling words". My experience isn't exactly like yours, but I was backward too in terms of expressing emotions or accurately identifying them partly because they were often so contradictory for me but also because I so often saw them despised (not just my emotions, I mean generally). Also I was often bewildered by what I sensed was raw feeling expressed as opinions--for example political positions, angrily expressed, that I felt were coming from a deeper, more personal anger. That is probably not real clear, but perhaps you understand. It sounds like you have developed your ability a great deal since you identified the issue. I find that people who become aware of their lack of strength in some area can become stronger in that area than people who have it naturally and therefor take it for granted.
there's a great book by some doctor guy called THE MAN WHO TASTED WORDS that was very intriguing because my relationship to the word(s) has been I think more intense than it is for a lot of folks. It's almost a schizophrenic second sense of words entering and exiting my body like a night cafe or something and they have lives of their own. A schizophrenic intellectual who was very important for a time to french academics wrote a book called LES SCHIZO ET LE LANGUES something like that, where he translated every english word into a french word because it felt less imprecise. Joy Williams also said something somewhere about desire and how that always precedes language. I'm always looking for the places where language falls off and something else emerges. Those are the most interesting areas that I feel require talking about. Because they cannot be talked about.
Interesting. Didn’t Beckett write a lot of his work in French because he found it more precise? Only later did he translate the books to English. Some have suggested he was rewriting the books when he translated. Rather I think languages are different and it is possible to think in different ways predicated on grammatical structure and vocabulary of each. I will look for les schizo et le langue. As well as tasting, some see words as colours.
Yeah and he was super bummed because the title ENDGAME has a totally different connotation in french. I think the french version was FIN DE PARTIE something like that. ENDGAME has chess connotations after a check mate.
Beckett chose the title. In a letter dated 28.4.1957 he stated; “I have now to tackle the horrible job of translation. Close of Play is not quite right for the title nor the American The Game is up”. If I can use Endgame in the text phrase at the end, I shall use it for the title.
Page 45 in: The letters of Samuel Beckett 1957-1965. Edited by George Craig, Martha Dow Fehsenfeld, Dan Gunn and Lois More Overbeck. Cambridge university Press, 2014.
I’ve been thinking a lot about your discussion of Marilyn as powerful and vulnerable along with powerfully vulnerable / powerful vulnerability. It’s so rarely seen -- a conjunction of profound differences. I’m wondering if you have to know something about the person in order to recognize it? Because otherwise, how do you put the two together?
Assuming my memory is right, would you consider Ginger in Sylvia’s kitchen as being such a moment? Was this what you were aiming for? Now I’m second guessing myself and thinking perhaps she was always vulnerable (as others thought) and had never achieved the power she thought she possessed or might have. Unfortunately I’ve forgotten the ending of the book which doesn’t help!
As far as putting the two together, I can only think of one instance where I’ve encountered it and recognized it without quite being able to name it. At the time, close to six years ago, my initial thought was a rather bland ‘who knew you could be like that?’ But it was such a stunning moment of disconnect that it’s remained etched in my memory.
It was a person with a violent history who was cradling my then 11 week old puppy and cooing baby talk to her. We were at the short term Emergency (homeless) Shelter where I worked. I’d witnessed this person’s rage several years earlier when fortunately the perspex half wall he’d punched only ballooned out in slow motion but didn’t break.
While watching him with my puppy, someone walked by and made a passing comment that normally would have elicited a comment/ snide remarks from both sides and potential argument. I didn’t know if he didn’t hear or chose to ignore it. He was too wrapped up with Solo, cradling her and crooning to her. It crossed my mind that he was extremely vulnerable in that moment for a variety of reasons. Now I would describe it powerful vulnerability. I saw for the first time the person who was the father of six kids, rather than someone who had six kids. It was also a stark reminder of public versus private, and how little we can know of peoples private selves. Some people (usually) only show vulnerability in private. Others only in public. I’m wondering if we only notice the conjunction when it appears in the wrong or unexpected context?
It doesn’t help that the word ‘vulnerable’ has now been been co-opted by housing and other service providers. IE in order to get people into supportive housing in my province we need to fill out what is called a Vulnerability Assessment Test (VAT) and then score it. Theoretically the scale is constructed so it’s scientifically reproducible. I think this kind of vulnerable, for the most part, is separate and apart from the type of vulnerable under discussion.
We know Marilyn was powerful and used her power in advocacy and in studio negotiations. I haven’t seen the film and have only just started to listen to Blonde (Oates) on audio. They say knowledge is power. I may be playing with metaphors here, but I’m wondering if knowledge is a prerequisite for recognizing power and vulnerability in the same moment.
Charles mentioned the importance of hearing tone- which we don’t always get in the written word -- making it easy to misinterpret what is read. Without going back to listen, I think this was in reference to a letter someone (Arthur Miller?) had written where a comment (dumb blonde?) has subsequently been taken and used completely out of context. (Apologies if I’ve misremembered).
Terrific exchange--and, as part of this conversation, the "monster" image signifies to me a certain misogyny, all too common, particularly considering as Lahr says the "wit and curiosity and talent". In reading Miller's _Timebends_, though I read it a long time ago, recall having this hope that he could have helped more ...
Absolutely measures up to granularity of human emotion. Loved that holding her by the big toe.
Interesting instance of a complex person smudged into the impressionistic simple smear somebody thinks the public wants. Interesting and ugly. But wow, as this progresses, it opens the heart.
I have to say it is so unfair some have lost brains and looks in the birth lottery. That said, we should not lose sight of this brains/sensuality/beauty "package". Not PC, "package". Fuck it. Lazy tonight.
Good call Mary to let the Suicide vs. CIA, barbiturates slide to get to what we see as her essence.
It is unfair, that some people are born with more than others. (Great lesson from my mom when I would protest "It's not fair!" and she would reply "Life's not fair.") But I think great beauty really does come with certain perils that mere prettiness or attractiveness does not have to deal with. And I've known many very bright people who can't do much for mysterious reasons. I think that in general what you do with what you have is more important than the raw material. Then there's also luck, society into which you were born, things you can't control. Lazy today myself!
You are right. And re-reading, my post "life is so unfair", geesh. That is embarrassing. Indeed, it's a crap shoot, the "birth lottery".
A notion which resonated deeply with me is that a fair amount of human activity can be attributed to avoiding realizations about the fragility and randomness of our lives. I may have to re-read "The Denial of Death".
Mary and Charles, thank you so much for your interesting talk regarding Marilyn. The time went by quickly, but was very informative. I think that a lot of people view her as a sex symbol, not realizing how intelligent she was and how human she was. I haven’t watched the new series regarding her, and likely won’t. Thank you again for your insight on someone who battled both the struggles of her past, and how dedicated to her art.
Absolutely measures up to granularity of human emotion. Loved that holding her by the big toe.
Interesting instance of a complex person smudged into the impressionistic simple smear somebody thinks the public wants. Interesting and ugly.
This is a wonderful interview. A real conversation about Marilyn Monroe with no hidden agenda or axes to grind. Thank you. To me her most admirable quality was that her intelligence never failed her. Marilyn knew, I think, deep down, that she was responsible for her life, no matter how difficult it was. While I was listening, I kept wondering what she would have thought of your interview with Charles. I think she would have liked it.
Mary, this is off topic, i haven’t listened to the conversation yet.
But just wanted to let you know I’ve been reading “Somebody With A Little Hammer” - so beautifully put, and moving. The title essay alone…and now I’m in the middle of “Lost Cat.” Thank you for everything you do, including these generous posts.
Thank you Mary for ‘context’ and Charles for ‘tone of voice’. Both so important and often forgotten.
How many of us are emotionally literate or can articulate our feelings accurately? Speaking for myself, 65, I am not. It wasn’t something taught in my all girls high school in England which prided itself on academic achievement. That I didn’t even hear feeling words wasn’t something I was aware of till I did the prerequisite class to start studying to be an Addiction’s counsellor when I was 54. Theoretically, with a PhD I was ‘more educated’ than my instructors-- yet while I could paraphrase something I heard I couldn’t reflect back the ‘feeling’ words because I simply didn’t hear them. I had to download lists of feeling words and use a thesaurus for the the first time in my life to pass the course. Stunningly ignorant and very revealing.
Terror beyond fear requires knowing what fear is, knowing what it is to be afraid and what is most frightening. Terror beyond is a whole other level.
Yes Marilyn was smart.
And who can blame her for not wanting to be a housewife in the suburbs, for caring more about her career? It’s too bad she lived at a time when careers weren’t considered womanly, when aging gracefully was not part of the deal for someone with her looks and talent.
Thank you
This is an extraordinary comment, so much in it. First, I am so glad you liked Charles tone, I really love his voice, I hear so much warmth and emotional expressiveness in it. Second, I think I understand you about "feeling words". My experience isn't exactly like yours, but I was backward too in terms of expressing emotions or accurately identifying them partly because they were often so contradictory for me but also because I so often saw them despised (not just my emotions, I mean generally). Also I was often bewildered by what I sensed was raw feeling expressed as opinions--for example political positions, angrily expressed, that I felt were coming from a deeper, more personal anger. That is probably not real clear, but perhaps you understand. It sounds like you have developed your ability a great deal since you identified the issue. I find that people who become aware of their lack of strength in some area can become stronger in that area than people who have it naturally and therefor take it for granted.
there's a great book by some doctor guy called THE MAN WHO TASTED WORDS that was very intriguing because my relationship to the word(s) has been I think more intense than it is for a lot of folks. It's almost a schizophrenic second sense of words entering and exiting my body like a night cafe or something and they have lives of their own. A schizophrenic intellectual who was very important for a time to french academics wrote a book called LES SCHIZO ET LE LANGUES something like that, where he translated every english word into a french word because it felt less imprecise. Joy Williams also said something somewhere about desire and how that always precedes language. I'm always looking for the places where language falls off and something else emerges. Those are the most interesting areas that I feel require talking about. Because they cannot be talked about.
Interesting. Didn’t Beckett write a lot of his work in French because he found it more precise? Only later did he translate the books to English. Some have suggested he was rewriting the books when he translated. Rather I think languages are different and it is possible to think in different ways predicated on grammatical structure and vocabulary of each. I will look for les schizo et le langue. As well as tasting, some see words as colours.
Yeah and he was super bummed because the title ENDGAME has a totally different connotation in french. I think the french version was FIN DE PARTIE something like that. ENDGAME has chess connotations after a check mate.
Beckett chose the title. In a letter dated 28.4.1957 he stated; “I have now to tackle the horrible job of translation. Close of Play is not quite right for the title nor the American The Game is up”. If I can use Endgame in the text phrase at the end, I shall use it for the title.
Page 45 in: The letters of Samuel Beckett 1957-1965. Edited by George Craig, Martha Dow Fehsenfeld, Dan Gunn and Lois More Overbeck. Cambridge university Press, 2014.
You are on your game, girl!
I’ve been thinking a lot about your discussion of Marilyn as powerful and vulnerable along with powerfully vulnerable / powerful vulnerability. It’s so rarely seen -- a conjunction of profound differences. I’m wondering if you have to know something about the person in order to recognize it? Because otherwise, how do you put the two together?
Assuming my memory is right, would you consider Ginger in Sylvia’s kitchen as being such a moment? Was this what you were aiming for? Now I’m second guessing myself and thinking perhaps she was always vulnerable (as others thought) and had never achieved the power she thought she possessed or might have. Unfortunately I’ve forgotten the ending of the book which doesn’t help!
As far as putting the two together, I can only think of one instance where I’ve encountered it and recognized it without quite being able to name it. At the time, close to six years ago, my initial thought was a rather bland ‘who knew you could be like that?’ But it was such a stunning moment of disconnect that it’s remained etched in my memory.
It was a person with a violent history who was cradling my then 11 week old puppy and cooing baby talk to her. We were at the short term Emergency (homeless) Shelter where I worked. I’d witnessed this person’s rage several years earlier when fortunately the perspex half wall he’d punched only ballooned out in slow motion but didn’t break.
While watching him with my puppy, someone walked by and made a passing comment that normally would have elicited a comment/ snide remarks from both sides and potential argument. I didn’t know if he didn’t hear or chose to ignore it. He was too wrapped up with Solo, cradling her and crooning to her. It crossed my mind that he was extremely vulnerable in that moment for a variety of reasons. Now I would describe it powerful vulnerability. I saw for the first time the person who was the father of six kids, rather than someone who had six kids. It was also a stark reminder of public versus private, and how little we can know of peoples private selves. Some people (usually) only show vulnerability in private. Others only in public. I’m wondering if we only notice the conjunction when it appears in the wrong or unexpected context?
It doesn’t help that the word ‘vulnerable’ has now been been co-opted by housing and other service providers. IE in order to get people into supportive housing in my province we need to fill out what is called a Vulnerability Assessment Test (VAT) and then score it. Theoretically the scale is constructed so it’s scientifically reproducible. I think this kind of vulnerable, for the most part, is separate and apart from the type of vulnerable under discussion.
We know Marilyn was powerful and used her power in advocacy and in studio negotiations. I haven’t seen the film and have only just started to listen to Blonde (Oates) on audio. They say knowledge is power. I may be playing with metaphors here, but I’m wondering if knowledge is a prerequisite for recognizing power and vulnerability in the same moment.
Charles mentioned the importance of hearing tone- which we don’t always get in the written word -- making it easy to misinterpret what is read. Without going back to listen, I think this was in reference to a letter someone (Arthur Miller?) had written where a comment (dumb blonde?) has subsequently been taken and used completely out of context. (Apologies if I’ve misremembered).
This was great. Thank you.
Terrific exchange--and, as part of this conversation, the "monster" image signifies to me a certain misogyny, all too common, particularly considering as Lahr says the "wit and curiosity and talent". In reading Miller's _Timebends_, though I read it a long time ago, recall having this hope that he could have helped more ...
Absolutely measures up to granularity of human emotion. Loved that holding her by the big toe.
Interesting instance of a complex person smudged into the impressionistic simple smear somebody thinks the public wants. Interesting and ugly. But wow, as this progresses, it opens the heart.
I have to say it is so unfair some have lost brains and looks in the birth lottery. That said, we should not lose sight of this brains/sensuality/beauty "package". Not PC, "package". Fuck it. Lazy tonight.
Good call Mary to let the Suicide vs. CIA, barbiturates slide to get to what we see as her essence.
It is unfair, that some people are born with more than others. (Great lesson from my mom when I would protest "It's not fair!" and she would reply "Life's not fair.") But I think great beauty really does come with certain perils that mere prettiness or attractiveness does not have to deal with. And I've known many very bright people who can't do much for mysterious reasons. I think that in general what you do with what you have is more important than the raw material. Then there's also luck, society into which you were born, things you can't control. Lazy today myself!
You are right. And re-reading, my post "life is so unfair", geesh. That is embarrassing. Indeed, it's a crap shoot, the "birth lottery".
A notion which resonated deeply with me is that a fair amount of human activity can be attributed to avoiding realizations about the fragility and randomness of our lives. I may have to re-read "The Denial of Death".
A sound future lies ahead for you… and for us. Thanks!
That is a very encouraging thought, thank you!
This was great. Thank you both.
That was a very cool listen. A great gift on a rainy day. Thank you Mary and Charles.
Mary and Charles, thank you so much for your interesting talk regarding Marilyn. The time went by quickly, but was very informative. I think that a lot of people view her as a sex symbol, not realizing how intelligent she was and how human she was. I haven’t watched the new series regarding her, and likely won’t. Thank you again for your insight on someone who battled both the struggles of her past, and how dedicated to her art.
Ah, the complexity of being human. So beautifully investigated here. Thank you.