Many perplexing questions regarding Wagner's Ring Cycle

[marvinbrown]

  I do not know how successfull this attempt is going to be but I'd like to generate some discussion about Wagner's Ring Cycle.  I have a few perplexing questions that I am interested in getting answers to, which I hope will turn into a debate-or at least shed some light on my queries.

  Question 1: Did the world that Wotan create when he gave up one eye and entered into "contractual" agreements that were based on materialistic needs (ie Palace at Valhalla etc.) in any way lead to  Alberich renouncing love and lusting after power and wealth?  I ask this question because at the end of the Ring Brunhilde, now a woman of wisdom realizes that the "materialistic" driven world created by the Gods which ultimately led to Siegfried's death needs to be redeemed through destruction and rebirth.  She not only returns the Ring to the Rheinmaidens but sends Loge to burn Valhalla and end the world Wotan created.

  More questions:  What did Wotan ultimately want?  To return the Ring to the Rheinmaidens and release the curse?   Or to only prevent the ring from returning to Alberich? (by his own admission to Brunhilde in the 2nd act of Die Walkure, his fallen heroes can defeat Alberich's army provided Alberich does not have the Ring) What I find quite strange is that Wotan's biggest worry was the return of the Ring to Alberich and yet this does not happen. The end of the Gods occurs regardless, not through Alberich's army but through Brunhilde (by sending Loge) of all people??  In Act 3 of Siegfried Wotan tells Erda that he no longer fears the end of the Gods it is what he wants and desires now but he send Waltraute to persuade Brunhilde to throw away the Ring in Gotterdammerung- what are his true intentions?

Erda's take on this is also perplexing.  She informs Wotan that the end of the Gods is near when Alberich fathers a child, yet the three Norns can not see into the future as the rope of destiny gets cut?  Was the end of the Gods really predestined?- if not why do we find Wotan at the end of the Ring resloved to accept the end of the Gods' existence? He chops the logs of the World Ash Tree and asks his "fallen" heroes to surround Valhalla with these logs which Wotan himself shall ignite with the sparks of his spear resulting from his interaction with Loge- according to the Norns.

  We have touched upon this point before but it bears repeating.  What is Alberich's fate?  why would Wagner destroy the Gods and their world, create a more humane world through death and redemption and keep Alberich alive?  He is part and parcel of that old decadent world, what role could he possible play in the new redeemed world? 

  I welcome any discussion or clarification to any errors written above.

  marvin

   

[uffeviking]

Now that is a fascinating topic, marvin, and I thank you for posting it. My first impulse was to merge it with any of the previous topics about Wagner's Ring, but after reading it, I realise it is a topic all by it's own. The one person able to help I wish we would still count among our members, ACD A.C. Douglas, but alas, he has been banned because of being too outspoken for the prevailing bourgeoisie members.

Maybe David Zalmann will drop by. No, I have no intention to take a stab at your excellent questions. 

[Mark]

   Question 1: Did the world that Wotan create when he gave up one eye and entered into "contractual" agreements that were based on materialistic needs (ie Palace at Valhalla etc.) in any way lead to  Alberich renouncing love and lusting after power and wealth? 

Marvin, my knowledge here is very limited, but I thought it was the teasing that Alberich got from the Rhinemaidens while attempting to woo them that made him renounce love - particularly when he knew that doing so woud mean he could steal the gold and forge a powerful ring. In which case, this wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with Wotan's created world; clearly, the capacity for love of a less materialistic kind was already existant in such a world, no?

[marvinbrown]

Marvin, my knowledge here is very limited, but I thought it was the teasing that Alberich got from the Rhinemaidens while attempting to woo them that made him renounce love - particularly when he knew that doing so woud mean he could steal the gold and forge a powerful ring. In which case, this wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with Wotan's created world; clearly, the capacity for love of a less materialistic kind was already existant in such a world, no?

  You raise a good point here Mark.  Yes Alberich did renounce love once the Rheinmaidens rejected his advances and Loge's failure to find any being other than Alberich who would choose wealth over love would suggest that the capacity for love of a less materialistic kind was already existant- however I am left wondering if Alberich was a victim of a materialistic world Wotan created or helped to create since he was the one to give Freia (the love of a woman) to the Giants as payment for the palace at Valhalla (materialism) even before alberich's encounter with the Rheinmaidens-  it is curious that at the end of the Ring Brunhilde becomes resolved to destroy the Gods in her attempts to redeem the world, she points no blame nor shows any anger nor hostility towards Alberich?? Its a philosophical question at best.  I must admit that I was intially shocked while watching the end of the Ring, when I saw Brunhilde give the Ring back to the Rheinmaidens I thought, GREAT it is all finished, but it wasn't--- Brunhilde does not stop there, she sends Loge to burn Valhalla and as per Wagner's stage directions the Rhein overflows flooding the banks Valhalla burns and a new world is ushered in.  Where is Alberich in all this?  nobody knows??

  marvin

  PS: Perhaps I think too much and should just enjoy the music and leave questions like this unanswered.

[uffeviking]

Oh no, please don't give up! You had me thinking last evening and already this morning. We can't have such behaviour here! 

This is the allure of the Ring, all the questions showing up and arousing intense interest in Wagner's motivations, intensions and thoughts. He certainly wasn't putting us on by simply setting to music an old Germanic myth!

[longears]

ACD A.C. Douglas, but alas, he has been banned because of being too outspoken for the prevailing bourgeoisie members.

Maybe David Zalmann will drop by. No, I have no intention to take a stab at your excellent questions. 

Is that really true, Lis?  I thought he took his ball and went home in a snit because others just laughed at his pretensions to authority.  And isn't Zalman just an A.C. Douglas sock puppet? And didn't the very few members Rob had banned for repeated intentionally offensive behavior get amnesty when the new site launched?

Marvin, if you're really interested in this sort of stuff there are all sorts of books dealing with the subject...but then you doubtless know that already.

[EmpNapoleon]

Greek myth is also full of questions, ambiguities, and perplexes.  There's something childish about it all.

Did Wagner know the answers you pose?  Maybe some of them, but he was also a spectator to his own invention.

Wagner's world is like a dream world.  It lifts up and crashed down, and reason can only begin to understand after it is over.   

[uffeviking]

Is that really true, Lis?  I thought he took his ball and went home in a snit because others just laughed at his pretensions to authority.  And isn't Zalman just an A.C. Douglas sock puppet? And didn't the very few members Rob had banned for repeated intentionally offensive behavior get amnesty when the new site launched?

I do not concern myself with the personality of ACD - nor D.Zalman, -  it is ACD's deep knowledge of Richard Wagner I wish we could turn to and glean answers to Marvin's questions. Isn't this the purpose of the topic? 

[longears]

I do not concern myself with the personality of ACD - nor D.Zalman, -  it is ACD's deep knowledge of Richard Wagner I wish we could turn to and glean answers to Marvin's questions. Isn't this the purpose of the topic? 

Getting ACD's or DZa's opinions may have nothing to do with getting answers to the questions, but they could help spur the sort of discussion marv seeks.  The answer, as Marvin no doubt knows after all, is that there are no answers: the Ring is just a work of art, a fiction based on mythology incorporating some of Wagner's half-baked metaphors (I mean that in the good way) relating to the world as he saw it and that was intended at best as an entertainment transmitting some cultural values dear to the poor twisted little gnome.

71dB was recently going on about the deep meaning and artistry of the Star Wars franchise...I wonder what he makes of the Ring?

[DavidW]

71dB was recently going on about the deep meaning and artistry of the Star Wars franchise...I wonder what he makes of the Ring?

Perhaps Lucas is the Dittersdorf of cinema! jeje

[David Zalman]

Now that is a fascinating topic, marvin, and I thank you for posting it. My first impulse was to merge it with any of the previous topics about Wagner's Ring, but after reading it, I realise it is a topic all by it's own. The one person able to help I wish we would still count among our members, ACD A.C. Douglas, but alas, he has been banned because of being too outspoken for the prevailing bourgeoisie members.

Maybe David Zalmann will drop by. No, I have no intention to take a stab at your excellent questions. 

ACD didn't get booted from this forum.  He simply stopped posting here because of the, shall we say, uh....  Well, perhaps it's better I not finish that sentence.

To Marvinbrown:  Your questions are really intelligent and thoughtful.  I would attempt to answer them myself, but as Uffeviking remarked, ACD is really the expert to consult on this even though the answers to your philosophic questions can never be definitive but simply suggestive.  I'll do two things here.  First, point you to an ACD piece on Gotterdammerung that goes a long way toward explaining why it's so confused as a drama and as a wrap-up of the Ring.  Second, I'll e-mail ACD with a link to this thread.  I suspect he'll choose not to take part either by logging on here or through e-mail answers to me, but it's worth the try.  His knowledge of this work and other Wagner late-period operas is immense.  The link to ACD's piece on Gotterdammerung is:

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2005/02/the_trouble_wit.html

[marvinbrown]

ACD didn't get booted from this forum.  He simply stopped posting here because of the, shall we say, uh....  Well, perhaps it's better I not finish that sentence.

To Marvinbrown:  Your questions are really intelligent and thoughtful.  I would attempt to answer them myself, but as Uffeviking remarked, ACD is really the expert to consult on this even though the answers to your philosophic questions can never be definitive but simply suggestive.  I'll do two things here.  First, point you to an ACD piece on Gotterdammerung that goes a long way toward explaining why it's so confused as a drama and as a wrap-up of the Ring.  Second, I'll e-mail ACD with a link to this thread.  I suspect he'll choose not to take part either by logging on here or through e-mail answers to me, but it's worth the try.  His knowledge of this work and other Wagner late-period operas is immense.  The link to ACD's piece on Gotterdammerung is:

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2005/02/the_trouble_wit.html

  First of all thank you David for the link and I appreciate the favor of e-mailing ACD for added information and clarity and in my case perhaps corrections to erroneous conclusions I might have reached as I tried to dig deeper into the plot and hidden meanings of the Ring.  I must admit that I found the article The Trouble with Gotterdammerung a very interesting read indeed.  Now that I think about it, it is Gotterdammerung that has posed the most problems for me as I find myself searching for answers to questions raised in the first 3 operas that were not clearly or definitively answered in Gotterdammerung.   The disorganized way that Wagner composed the Ring helps explain the trouble I have had trying to make sense of it all.  According to the article Wagner wrote the text for Gotterdammerung first and then worked backwards as he felt it necessary to explain to his audiences the history behind all the characters and actions etc.   I am  now inclined to believe that this disorganized way led to some loose ends that Wagner ultimately chose to ignore, or at least not contend with (such as Alberich's fate and role in the new redeemed world for example, Wotan's fears and intentions which seem to sway from desiring the end of the Gods to hopes and aspirations that one day the Ring will be returned to the Rheinmaidens and the Gods saved, ultimate fate of the  Gods was it predestined? was there ever any hope of salvation and so on) that still exist.  At first I thought that Wagner purposely left some issues unresolved so as to encourage the listener to think and contemplate or my thought process was incorrect- but then again I could well be the next victim of Wagner's sloppy approach to a complicated libretto that never got its due share of attention-  either way the music speaks for itself (truly wonderful) and as per the article if thats all we are left with then that's good enough.! 

  I will be watching Siegfried (MET Levine) tonight and Gotterdammerung tomorrow- When I get to Gotterdammerung I think I'll pay special attention to the scene with the Three Norns. 

  marvin   

[David Zalman]

Marvinbrown—

ACD has replied to my e-mail, and asks me to please pass on his compliments to you for your thoughtful questioning.

Here's ACD's response to your questions which I've put in BBC form to make the reading easier.

Mr. Marvinbrown writes:

Question 1: Did the world that Wotan create when he gave up one eye and entered into "contractual" agreements that were based on materialistic needs (ie Palace at Valhalla etc.) in any way lead to  Alberich renouncing love and lusting after power and wealth?

Wotan's world is NOT "based on materialistic needs," but on the acquisition and accumulation of power for which he's even willing to sacrifice love itself as shown by his treatment of Freia.  That happened *after* Alberich's primal deed of renouncing love — a kind of secular Original Sin, as I've called it — for the acquisition of the power of the ring.

Two questions Mr. Marvinbrown might want to contemplate are, 1) How much (dramatic) time has passed between the last few measures of the _Rheingold_ prelude and the opening of Scene 1?  And, 2) How much (dramatic) time has passed between Alberich snatching the Rheingold from the Rhine and the opening of Scene 2?

What did Wotan ultimately want?  To return the Ring to the Rheinmaidens and release the curse?   Or to only prevent the ring from returning to Alberich? [...] What I find quite strange is that Wotan's biggest worry was the return of the Ring to Alberich and yet this does not happen. The end of the Gods occurs regardless, not through Alberich's army but through Brunhilde (by sending Loge) of all people??  In Act 3 of Siegfried Wotan tells Erda that he no longer fears the end of the Gods it is what he wants and desires now but he send Waltraute to persuade Brunhilde to throw away the Ring in Gotterdammerung- what are his true intentions?

What Wotan wants by the close of Act II of _Walküre_ is "das Ende!" The end of all and everything for him and the gods.  It's then that Wotan realizes at last that he sealed his own and the gods' fate by not immediately returning to the Rhine the ring he stole from Alberich as Erda warned him to do, and now he just wants out of it all, both for himself and for the entire godly gang.

Erda's take on this is also perplexing.  She informs Wotan that the end of the Gods is near when Alberich fathers a child, yet the three Norns can not see into the future as the rope of destiny gets cut?  Was the end of the Gods really predestined?- if not why do we find Wotan at the end of the Ring resloved to accept the end of the Gods' existence?

See my above.

What is Alberich's fate?  why would Wagner destroy the Gods and their world, create a more humane world through death and redemption and keep Alberich alive?

Alberich is left alive?  I think not.  *No-one* on earth is left alive at the close of _Götterdämmerung_.  At the close of _Götterdämmerung_ the old world and all its residents have all been swallowed up and gone under.  But by virtue of Brünnhilde's redeeming act there's a promise that a new world will be born, and begin again in the same state of primal innocence which the old world inhabited at the opening of _Das Rheingold_.

Does Wagner tell us all this in his poem (libretto)?  He does not.  Instead (and quite rightly) he had his music do the telling for him.  Listen, and you will hear it too.

ACD

[marvinbrown]

Marvinbrown—

ACD has replied to my e-mail, and asks me to please pass on his compliments to you for your thoughtful questioning.

Here's ACD's response to your questions which I've put in BBC form to make the reading easier.

  Thank you David, this is most helpful.  Please pass my thanks to ACD for clearly answering my questions and most importantly correcting the sequence of events which now makes sense- Alberich renounces love for the quest of power followed by Wotan's hunger for more power (not materialism- thank you for the correction) and so forth.  So, it all starts with Alberich, Wotan becoming the protagonist and eventually falling victim to Alberich's curse and not the other way around. The lapse in time between the prelude and the opening of Scene 1 as well as the time passed between Alberich snatching the Rheingold and the opening of Scene 2 (where Wotan first appears) are issues I am going to have to go back and look into and ponder.

  But most importantly-most importantly- is ACD's explanation for the end of Gotterdammerung.  Alberich is dead and the world is returned to how it began at the prelude of Das Rheingold- hence the OVERALL CYCLE is complete, we have come full circle not only with the path that the Rheingold follows eventutally returning to the rheinmaidens but the world has returned to what it once was, innocent as it started in Das Rheingold.  If I understand ACD correctly I believe that when I get to the end of Gotterdammerung I will find that the music as well  will tie in with that of the Prelude of Das Rheingold- coming full circle on itself- this I will pay close attention to.

  David please be kind enough to pass my thanks to ACD as well as this message.

  Once again thank you,

  marvin   

[David Zalman]

If I understand ACD correctly I believe that when I get to the end of Gotterdammerung I will find that the music will tie in with that of the Prelude of Das Rheingold- coming full circle on itself- this I will pay close attention to.

No, that's not what ACD meant (I know because I went through this "lesson" with him several years ago).  At the close of Gotterdammerung the music says what it says in a whole new way.  As ACD said, "Listen, and you will hear it too."

And I will certainly pass on your thanks to ACD.

[uffeviking]

What a great exchange of posts and messages! Enlightening, always learning new aspects of this Gesamtkunstwerk, which I convinced myself - mistakenly! - to be very familiar with!

I also want to thank David Z. for catching your original post and my reply to it, and of course for clarifying the issue of ACD's absence from GMG. I was mistaken on this issue also. 

[marvinbrown]

No, that's not what ACD meant (I know because I went through this "lesson" with him several years ago).  At the close of Gotterdammerung the music says what it says in a whole new way.  As ACD said, "Listen, and you will hear it too."

And I will certainly pass on your thanks to ACD.

  David thanks for clarifying this issue up.  I will certainly Listen intently to the music at the close of Getterdammerung to hear "what it says in a whole new way."  I have re-read ACD's explanation regarding the colse of Gotterdammerung and as per ACD's clarification Brunhilde's redeeming act brings about the promise of the birth of a new redeemed world- it is this that is reflected and expressed in music.  Granted this new world has nothing to do with the older one that is present at the prelude of Das Rheingold and perhaps will be an even better world (the music will tell) 

   marvin
   

[Wendell_E]

Quote from ACD:

Alberich is left alive?  I think not.  *No-one* on earth is left alive at the close of _Götterdämmerung_.  At the close of _Götterdämmerung_ the old world and all its residents have all been swallowed up and gone under.

While most of what ACD writes makes sense, the above contradicts Wagner's stage directions:  After the stage directions that the Gibich hall has been destroyed, and that the Rhine is gradually subsiding into its bed, he writes that the men and women are still watching what's going on.  There's no reason to believe that "*No-one* on earth is left alive at the close of _Götterdämmerung_". 

As for Alberich, though his actions lead to the destruction of the gods, Brünnhilde, and Siegfried, Alberich himself just isn't that important.  He was a little nobody at the beginning of the cycle, and he's nobody at the end.  He was only important while he had the ring, and potentially important while there was a chance he'd get it back.  He gave up everything to get the ring (as we all know, "All you need is love, and love is all you need").  Due to the way he treats his fellow Nibelungs in Das Rheingold, I imagine if they ever catch up with him, his fate would be similar to Mussolini's.  And if they don't get them, he'll probably spend the rest of his life alone, mumbling about his "precious". 

[marvinbrown]

Quote from ACD:


While most of what ACD writes makes sense, the above contradicts Wagner's stage directions:  After the stage directions that the Gibich hall has been destroyed, and that the Rhine is gradually subsiding into its bed, he writes that the men and women are still watching what's going on.  There's no reason to believe that "*No-one* on earth is left alive at the close of _Götterdämmerung_". 

As for Alberich, though his actions lead to the destruction of the gods, Brünnhilde, and Siegfried, Alberich himself just isn't that important.  He was a little nobody at the beginning of the cycle, and he's nobody at the end.  He was only important while he had the ring, and potentially important while there was a chance he'd get it back.  He gave up everything to get the ring (as we all know, "All you need is love, and love is all you need").  Due to the way he treats his fellow Nibelungs in Das Rheingold, I imagine if they ever catch up with him, his fate would be similar to Mussolini's.  And if they don't get them, he'll probably spend the rest of his life alone, mumbling about his "precious". 

  Wendell a possible explanation (and I could be mistaken) here is that the men and women (onlookers) are not an integral part of the plot to begin with,  Wagner may have intended for the destruction to occur to all those who partook in the old world and its ways.  Which brings us to Alberich, who as I have just learned from this thread is the essence (his lust for power) of the old world. I am inclined to believe that he perishes as well for all this to make overall sense.  But as ACD writes, Wagner does not express the destruction followed by redemption, rebirth through words (poem) but through music. The music does the "talking". I have not yet reached the end of Gotterdammerung which I shall start watching tonight and will be looking for those clues in the music that ACD and David refer to.  This is probably the 8th or 9th time I watch the complete Ring but I have learned something new here which I will bear in mind when I listen to the music at the close of Gotterdammerung once more.  Lets what happens, what conclusions I will reach

  ....the other GMG members have been quite silent, what do all of you make of the ending of the Ring and the points that Wendell, ACD and David raise??
  marvin

[max]

Wendell_E's assessment seems to me quite close to the mark!

Alberich is left alive?  I think not.  *No-one* on earth is left alive at the close of _Götterdämmerung_.  At the close of _Götterdämmerung_ the old world and all its residents have all been swallowed up and gone under.  But by virtue of Brünnhilde's redeeming act there's a promise that a new world will be born, and begin again in the same state of primal innocence which the old world inhabited at the opening of _Das Rheingold_.

Does Wagner tell us all this in his poem (libretto)?  He does not.  Instead (and quite rightly) he had his music do the telling for him.  Listen, and you will hear it too.

ACD

Only to mention a few points where many more can be mentioned regarding the whole cycle.

Does the end of the Ring sound like a requiem or a renewal? Must a ‘twilight’ not also presage a ‘dawn’? The final question being, what is myth supposed to convey in the first place if not an insight into truth and it’s redemptive qualities, that is, the REAL POWERS which keep life and the generations moving?

Love becomes it’s own negative, a nuclear event when it transmutes to a single purpose, the unrestricted greed for power, the Holy Grail of low lifes to become potent and for Gods – let’s call them CEO’s - allowance to exceed their limits. It’s consequences are colossal – a Götterdämmerung in the making!

But in the END, the old Gods and their power-broking ways are nullified and The Ring is returned to the Rhine Maidens. Why would that be if nothing were left alive and what would be the point? Power will return to those who have no Will to Power denoted in the Redemption through Love motive. No words can describe it therefore no words exist! It’s ultra-verbal and only Sound has the power to confirm it’s meaning which is why we must listen to the music as already mentioned! But even then, it seems, we interpret in different ways.

I don't believe Wagner would have found it necessary that the world be expunged only that it be reordered. Evidently there were lines written by him but never set to music. It refers to Brunnhilde addressing those who will remain after the annihilation of Herself, Valhalla and the Gods. To them she surrenders:

...her wisdom's holiest hoard!
Not Gods, nor gold, nor house, nor hearth, not empty treaties, nor false tradition's pitiless law! Blessed in joy and in sorrow, I bequeath only love!

It may sound corny and could be the reason why Wagner sublimated it into a peroration far in advance of its verbal meaning.

Her death and the corruption she destroyed with it denote a beginning. She is one of 'Those Mythic Hero’s of a Thousand Faces!', the means to a necessary end which is also an incipience.

In Wagner’s output what followed was the mystic and psychologically twisted kind of Christianity rendered in Parsifal. Nietzsche had other ideas!
   
The Ring can be interpreted in so many ways as manifested by the number of books which attempt it and the stage productions which present it. Jung regarded the work as one of the world's most visionary and therefore capable of many meanings. But consider the title itself: Götterdämmerung, "The Twilight of the Gods", NOT the Twilight of the World which has seen many Gods. Wagner was certainly among the first as composer and dramatist to be interested in Buddhism, Hindu myths and philosophy and it's corresponding time scales.