Mar. 4th, 2011

ironymaiden: (sagittarius)
we have season tickets to the opera (well, partial season, we signed up during intermission at Lucia di Lammermoor), but Wednesday night was the first time we actually went on our regular night and sat in our regular seats.

i like the seats quite a bit, but found myself wishing that we were further back so that i didn't have to look away from the action in order to catch changing supertitles. this is not a big deal for chestnuts like Barber of Seville, but for an unfamiliar work like Don Quixote it was kind of a pain. going on Wednesday night gets us the best deal on seeing the Gold cast. (opera singing is pretty hard on the body. the solution is either to space out the performances or double-cast major roles. Seattle Opera does the double cast, and there's nothing wrong with the Silver team - they're up and comers, and i've never felt cheated by a Silver performance - but the Gold team is the people who also work at places like the Met and la Scala. i say if you're going to go, go big.) Wednesday also appears to have a less crowded Bravo Club (under-40 opera fans - discounts, free wine, special events) reception where we could actually enjoy the room/wine/chocolates instead of shuffling about like cattle in a feedlot.

the opera is early 20th century and doesn't sort into a comedy or tragedy bucket.* it's an adaptation of an adapted French play, so Don Quixote = Dulcinea + Sancho Panza + windmill. there the resemblance to the novel ends. the conceit of this production is that Quixote is indeed lost in his books: the set is mostly composed of giant books, inkwells, quill pens, and sand shakers. it's as if all this is happening on the elderly dreamer's library desk.

the ensemble scenes are ravishing, accented by a team of flamenco dancers. it's easy to understand why the opera's Dulcinea is "the queen" in her little town.

the music is...okay. not bad, but not memorable. the principals are very good; i look forward to seeing them in other operas.

the highlight of the evening for me was that the ensemble included Dapple and Rocinante. and i was like okay, grand entrance for our heroes, mounted on live equines. we will never see the horse and donkey again, right? no. the opera paid for the donkey and the horse, so they were totally going to appear in every outdoor scene with Quixote and Panza all the way through the curtain call. Rocinante wasn't too crazy about being on stage. she did a bit of sidling even when her handler was feeing her treats nonstop. Dapple was more chill - there was actually a tie-off point for her on the set so that she could be on stage without an actor holding her. and she had been slipped several treats before Panza walked away...which was obvious since she was enthusiastically chewing and then dropping stuff from her mouth, and then picking it up again and chewing some more. i think there may have been singing happening with Don Quixote on the other side of the stage at the time, but donkey! the clever clever opera merch booth did a brisk business in stuffed horses and donkeys at intermission.



*actually, it's classed as a comédie-héroïque. like The Cherry Orchard, it appears to be a comedy because only one old guy dies at the end.
ironymaiden: (chinstrap)
i've been reading Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, a collection of parables sugar-coated with fanfic. i love the meta commentary about both Harry Potter and Harry Potter fandom, i'm skeptical about some of the other thought behind the stories. anyway, it's a fun diversion if Harry Potter deciding that Ron Weasley is a waste of time makes you fist-pump (or that at one point Draco casts a spell called Gom Jabbar).

this led me in a roundabout way to a discussion of the parent site, Less Wrong...where there was rationalist wank.

Yudkowsky is interested in causality that goes backwards in time: future events causing past events by simulating what someone will do in the future and using this in the present, e.g. not giving a gun to someone you believe will shoot you. This gets odd when you imagine a super-human intelligence simulating a human level intelligence, because their predictions may be near perfect. Roko (a top contributor at the time) wondered if a future Friendly AI would punish people who didn't donate all they could to AI research. He reasoned that every day without AI, bad things happen (150,000+ people die every day, war is fought, millions go hungry) and a future Friendly AI would want to prevent this, so it might punish those who understood the importance of donating but didn't donate all they could. He then wondered if future AIs would be more likely to punish those who had wondered if future AIs would punish them. That final thought proved too much for some LessWrong readers, who then had nightmares about being tortured for not donating enough to SIAI. Eliezer Yudkowsly replied to Roko's post calling him names and claiming that posting such things on an Internet forum could have caused incalculable harm to the future of humanity. Four hours later, Eliezer Yudkowsly deleted Roko's post including all comments. Roko left LessWrong, deleting his thousands of posts and comments, though he later returned.
One butthurt poster then protested this censorship with a threat to ... harm the future of humanity by posting things to an Internet forum. LessWrong then ... took this threat seriously. One shudders to think what the future Friendly AI will do when it finds 4chan.


i love the internet.

Profile

ironymaiden: (Default)
ironymaiden

November 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10 111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 11th, 2026 04:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios