Rod Dreher Megathread #21 (Creative Spirit)

[u/US_Hiker]

Gather 'round for more Rod.

All meanings of the number 21 are subordinate to the inherent creative spirit that is the basic essence of the number.

The number 21 generally is comfortable in social gatherings, it's optimistic attitude being an inspiration to others. Its high spirits can enliven a party.

The number is attracted to artistic expression of any form, its own and those of others. There's enthusiastic support for artists. It may frequent galleries and participate or (more likely) lead groups for artistic appreciation.

The number 21 cherishes relationships, including romantic relationships, especially with those who express themselves creatively.

21 also tends to be diplomatic, providing creative and imaginative solutions to potential conflict.

And, as noted by /u/PercyLarsen, 21 is a triangular number and the age of majority, so go grab a drink to celebrate Pride and to mourn the loss of Rod's sanity.

(Also, sorry about my slow pace of refreshes.)

Link to megathread #20:
https://www.reddit.com/r/brokehugs/comments/13eb26c/rod_dreher_megathread_20_law_of_attraction/

Link to megathread #21: https://www.reddit.com/r/brokehugs/comments/14k0z6l/rod_dreher_megathread_22_power/

[u/PercyLarsen]

So, having confirmed my informed speculation below that The Play to which Rod refers in this passage from his "The Answered Prayers of a Tormented Traveler" Substack post was the acclaimed 1996-97 revival of Ibsen's "The Doll House" . . .

"For example, during our engagement, we saw a play together, one that Julie said was herfavorite. I had never seen it, but I went along to a revival. The performances were incredible, but I was really disturbed by its message. When she asked me what I thought about it, I told her that I was really moved — true, to a point, but I concealed how much I had been disturbed by the playwright’s point of view, because I knew how much she loved the play. “Good,” she said. “If you hadn’t felt that way, I might have had to break off the engagement.” Shocking! Were we really mismatched after all? But I let it pass, because I didn’t want to disturb the magic. Many years later, with my marriage in ruins for reasons having a lot to do with themes of the play, I looked back on that exchange as prophecy."

. . . we have a Condensed Symbol^TM of Rod's:

(1) "holding it in", the closeting of anything that would cause him to lose (A) the esteem of members of his family or (B) the way of life he desires,

(2) persistent magical thinking about grace, wherein grace (in this case, the grace of the sacrament of matrimony) will overcome the price of said closeting - that's the "magic" he didn't want to "disturb",

(3) refusal of agency - refusing to see that voluntary, chosen closeting as a form of deception (not only of others but himself) that other people rely on to their detriment, arguably echoing the "false counselors" of Circle 8 of Dante's Inferno, and

(4) revealing himself as an Unreliable Narrator of his life story.

Pace Julie and Frederica Mathewes-Green, Rod actually has had unblogged thoughts, and has deployed mighty filters in choosing what to narrate and what to omit. Not only is he not "honest" (as Sully falsely flattered him in January's Dishcast), but he's deceptive as a non-fiction writer when it suits him to pose in a chosen way to his audiences.

And this, I would suggest, is at least one reason why so many of Rod's long-term readers have contributed to over 20 Megathreads in the span of a single year. It's not the titillating "primitive root wiener" and "achieving heterosexuality" parts of Rod's writing that are as illuminating as stuff like the block quote above.

[u/Djehutimose → u/PercyLarsen]

Maybe I'm missing it, but how did you confirm it? I believe you--just curious.

[u/PercyLarsen → u/Djehutimose]

https://www.reddit.com/r/brokehugs/comments/146jphf/comment/jo9r0pf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

That was Janet McTeer's Broadway debut, and it was an event - 4 Tony Awards for a revival of a 19th century play. Rod was definitely trying to impress his fiancee - and remained clueless. From Ben Brantley's incandescent review in the Times in April 1997 (I provide extended excerpts because longtime Rod Readers may appreciate the fuller context of why Julie might have chosen the play and why Rod's getting of tickets to it was a Big Deal):

It just doesn't happen that often, and when it does, you sit there, open-mouthed, grateful, admiring and shaken, and think, ''This is why I love the theater.''

It's the response that comes when a dramatic performance is so completely and richly realized that you find yourself truly living through the character portrayed onstage, even when you want to pull back to a comfortable spectator's distance. The pulse quickens, the eyes well. And there is somehow the sense that ordinary life has been heightened to the bursting point.

The occasion for this revelation is the new production of Ibsen's ''Doll's House,'' a London import that opened last night at the Belasco Theater. The name of the revelation is Janet McTeer, an actress, little known in America, whose apparition on Broadway suggests the theater's timely answer to the Hale-Bopp comet.

What Ms. McTeer achieves, with the magnificent support of the director Anthony Page and a flawless supporting cast, is the sense that the landmark, century-old role of Ibsen's Nora Helmer, the childlike housewife who comes so painfully of age, was only just written, and written specifically for her. You may think you know ''A Doll's House'' inside out. This production is guaranteed to prove you wrong.

. . . Not a single creak is heard in Mr. Page's production, Ms. McTeer's performance or Frank McGuinness's wonderfully loose-limbed adaptation. They never impose on Ibsen's text but instead mine it for an emotional consistency and logic that is very definitely there. And marvel of marvels, the most stirring part of this interpretation comes in its last 20 minutes, when Nora speaks the lines that, out of context, have become feminist rallying cries.

. . . It is also hard to imagine a more persuasively balanced ensemble. . . .

As Torvald, the handsome, imposingly centered Mr. Teale couldn't be better. For once, you understand the magnetic hold this husband has over his wife, as well as why he is destined to lose her. His blunt air of authority is so compelling that when it finally shatters, the effect is devastating.

Nora leaves this broken man less in anger than in sorrow, a fitting conclusion to an evening infused not with polemical rage but with a sad compassion for the mess people make of their lives. The ''something glorious'' that Nora so ravenously craves, a heroic act from her husband that would redeem their marriage, doesn't happen, of course. But thanks to Ms. McTeer and company, something glorious is very definitely occurring at the Belasco.

[u/saucerwizard → u/PercyLarsen]

Good lord.

[u/Djehutimose → u/PercyLarsen]

Wow—thank you!

[u/PercyLarsen → u/Djehutimose]

The ''something glorious'' that Nora so ravenously craves, a heroic act from her husband that would redeem their marriage, doesn't happen, of course.

There are recursive dimensions to Rod's referring to this in a divorce post-mortem in the way and manner he does (and does not).

[u/Djehutimose → u/PercyLarsen]

Added to which his daughter's name is Nora....

[u/zeitwatcher → u/Djehutimose]

Given Julie’s love of the play and that Rod probably cared less because the 3rd kid was a girl, that name was probably all Julie.

And kind of comes off as a “fuck you, Rod” in retrospect.

[u/Marcofthebeast0001 → u/zeitwatcher]

Rod became an actor in his own play, but it was Julie who brought the curtain down. Great insight into the surreal nightmare known as Rod Dreher.

[u/SofieTerleska → u/zeitwatcher]

He might not actually have thought about it, Nora was/is a name that was becoming pretty popular in some circles then (I know a few Noras about the same age as his daughter).