Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
20 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A deformed history lesson., May 3, 1999
By A Customer
When is it wrong to tell the truth? As in many of Bertolt Brecht's plays, the author uses historical analogies to address the social and political problems of his own time. I the case of Galileo, Brecht saw a simularity between the physicist's submitting to the Church authorities' demand for recanation with the situation in WWII Germany in which the scientists were turning over their knowledge to aid the Nazi effort. Galileo is considered a masterpiece and one of the most relevant plays of the 20th century, and I agree. I beleive Galileo was a remarkable play and deserves to be enjoyed by people all over the world
|
|
|
18 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good play, bad packaging, January 7, 2002
Bertolt Brecht, Galileo (Grove Press, 1952)Publishers who put out "literature" (perhaps I should capitalize the L) have felt it necessary for the past half-century or so to include long-winded dissections of the texts as a part of their editions. No mind is paid, seemingly, to whether these long-winded dissections contain major plot spoilers (they almost always do). Add Eric Bentley's interminable preface to the Grove Press edition of Brecht's Galileo to the list. Perhaps Grove assumes anyone reading the thing will either have already read the play or will be so turned off by Belntley's wooden prose style that they won't read far enough to get to the spoilers. My advice: go the second route. And book publishers, if you're putting essays in your editions, PLEASE put them AFTER the actual text, so the novice reader of a given work will be able to approach it without the coloring of another reader's analysis. Bentley spends forty-odd pages discussing the historical inaccuracies of Brecht's Galileo and the two extant versions of the text (though Bentley says both are presented in the Grive edition, this is not the case; from his comments, I gather this is the second version of the play, completed after WW2 [the first was completed in 1937]). Bentley goes on forever about the socialist qualities of Galileo, and whether the scientist makes a worthy Marxist hero, both in the reader's eyes and in Brecht's. Whether anyone outside those writing a paper for a Marxist lit class would care doesn't seem to have crossed his mind. Brecht is one of the few authors who is capable of taking a political statement and couching it in such writing as to make the statement itself visible only to those looking for it; Galileo's Marxism, or lack of same, doesn't hit the reader in the face with a dead herring (or a dropped pebble, as 'twere) throughout the text. Commendable, especially for as fervent a Marxist as was Brecht. Here is a man who never let the message overtake the medium, and scads of modern authors could do with repeated readings of this text to get a handle on what it is they're doing wrong. Bentley aside, the play itself is certainly worth the reader's time. Galileo is presented from the time of his first findings with which Mother Church took offense until twenty years after his recantation. While the play mainly focuses on Galileo and how his own views toward his work affect him and those around him, we're not allowed to go away without understanding how those views also affected the Italian society around him; as with all things, the subversion to be found in Galileo's discovery that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice-versa seeps into the public mind, much to the Church's dismay. But at its heart, the play is about the man himself and those around him. Galileo himself, historically accurate or not, is a convincing character, and his family, friends, and supporters are also very well-drawn (with the arguable exception of his daughter, who never seems to really flesh out and become a believable human being; her actions and reactions are predictable and wooden). Whatever the message underlying, and whether the reader agrees with it or not, Galileo is first and foremost a decent piece of drama. Leave Bentley's preface until after you've drawn your own conclusions. ** 1/2 (**** for the play, zero for Bentley's comments)
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Any man who does what I have done must not be tolerated in the ranks of science" *, October 5, 2008
Recently, the American Psychological Association discovered, to its general embarrassment, that a good number its members had collaborated with Pentagon- and CIA-sponsored torturers--or practitioners of "enhanced interrogation." The psychologists had provided expert advice about levels of endurance, psychological techniques for cracking resistance, and so on.
To its credit, the APA formally condemned such collaboration. But the whole sordid incident reminds us (as if we need reminding) that when men and women of science allow their knowledge to be misused, either out of cowardice or misguided patriotism, science can become a horrible tool for exploitation and destruction. This, in a nutshell, is the central theme of Brecht's second version of "Galileo."
The play is one of Brecht's best. Written with a nondidactic hand, the play is anything but dreary socialist realism. At times funny and at other times incredibly sad, the sober message that it is the scientist's responsibility to make sure that his or her discoveries are used properly runs throughout. In abjuring his physics under threats from the Inquisition, Brecht's Galileo displays moral cowardice: first, because he allows established power to usurp his discoveries, and second because he lets down the people who could most profit from his specific discoveries as well as the spirit of unfettered inquiry that generated them. As Galileo says at one point in the play, "The practice of science would seem to call for valor."
Several reviewers have remarked that the introduction by Eric Bentley is long-winded and have accordingly reduced their rating for the book. This strikes me as odd for two reasons. First, presumably one purchases "Galileo" to read Brecht, not attached commentary. If the commentary is good, that's just a bonus. But the center of attention surely is the play itself. Second, for all his long-windedness, Bentley's thesis is cogent and, I think, important: that historical drama properly seeks to shed light on its own time by appealing to past events. It's not important that Brecht reinvents Galileo for his play. After all, he isn't writing history. What's significant is the way in which Galileo becomes a symbol that can shed light on our own understanding of science and moral responsibility. Truth ought never to be reduced simply to fact.
_________
* Galileo's final self-judgment, Scene 13 (p. 124).
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Barbara B. Diefendorf
by Brent D. Shaw
by John Aberth
by Lynn Avery Hunt
by Friedrich Engels
See all 24 books this book cites
