"he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." -gandalf
spoken after saruman declares his disdain for his former rank of "white." "white light can be broken," he says, to which gandalf replies: "in which case it is no longer white." which begs the question: is there value in "breaking a thing?" as an artist of sorts, my first reaction is: no! you destroy the artistry and impact of a thing by breaking it down into its strands of DNA; but the scientist in me (of which i must confess is *not* legion) says: but the strands of DNA are equally as beautiful as the body they compose. let's consider our town shall we? a beautiful treatise on the complex appreciation of simplicity. am i aided in my appreciation of the "live every moment" theme by understanding each character's individual lines? when i follow the spine of emily's development as a human, and my own identification with her plight (simple though it may be), am i more satisfied with my our town experience? (is the fact that i'm even having this schizophrenic, sybil-like dialogue with myself an indication that "breaking a thing" is indeed profitable?) yes, i have to admit, it makes the overall aesthetic experience more satisfying. i can step away from the analysis, sit in my seat and revel in the message thru salty tears. but what happens if i define that aesthetic experience only by it's component parts? what if i "watson and crick" emily's double helix? what if when i sit and observe our town (note: i used the action of the scientific method) am i only amused or wryly facinated by the helixy curve of her character's spine thru my electron microscope? it seems to be less of a satisfying experience. it lacks artisty as only a distant observation of the adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine that form the building blocks of the play.
so, do i agree with gandalf? yes: to break a thing (and leave it broken) is most definitely folly. and no: to break a thing (and put it back together) is wisdom. white light broken is many colored (and saruman of many colors is definitely not what i'm going for here), but who would want to miss the varietal shades that make up white?
so, do i agree with gandalf? yes: to break a thing (and leave it broken) is most definitely folly. and no: to break a thing (and put it back together) is wisdom. white light broken is many colored (and saruman of many colors is definitely not what i'm going for here), but who would want to miss the varietal shades that make up white?
1 comment:
Saruman's heart was so black with evil that he hated the light. He hated not only the white, which exposed his malevolent heart, but each individual element of ROYGBIV which he could neither own, control nor manipulate to his ends. Thus he would "take it apart" only to destroy, not to study, enjoy, draw wisdom from, and then reassemble for the purpose of allowing the manifestation of its original glory as intended by the Creator.
A pure artist has a different goal (which is why most of the good ones are starving). That being, taking it apart to understand the miracle of each individual strand that composes the whole, in order to put it back together in such a way that all the intended joy and glory are unlocked and unleashed. Gandalf in his reply clearly was focused on the folly of Saruman’s defection. I suspect with a little tobacco from the Shire and a peaceful afternoon to sit and think, (perhaps in a meadow with Tom Bombadil after a soft rain), he would also agree that the individual shades of the rainbow are a delight.
Post a Comment