Tennessee Williams

by little witch 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  little witch

  While doing some research on Tennessee Williams and his works, I came across this quote. He said, " We never know each other truly, but only through the flaws of our egos are we known".

  That really made me ponder, and I think that generally the statement is true. It especially hit me as true on forums online, where looks are not a factor, all kinds of details of ones life and personality are left out, etc.

  Often we speak of our flaws, or the flaws are apparent to others and by them we tend to personify each other not as a whole person, but simply by those "flaws of ego".

  Does anyone else think that was a profound thing for TW to recongnize? Do you think it is true?
• 

  talesin

  Yes, I do think that is a profound thing to realize.

  Good thought, LW, I never really looked at his work this way.

  Thinking of Streetcar, would Stella or Stanley Kowalski be as sympathetic a character if it weren't for their flaws?
• 

  czarofmischief

  Characters without flaws aren't characters; they are superhuman. It's when somebody makes a wrong / disadvantageous decision based on reasons we can understand that we connect with them...

  CZAR
• 

  talesin

  Exactly, Czar.

  And if you substitute the word people for characters, it can give quite a world view.

  When looking in the mirror, I find that the more I can acknowledge the negative, the more I appreciate the positive about myself. The same with other people.

  As LW said, it works well in the context of online. There is so much we don't know about each other.

  Shades of grey, huh?
• 

  little witch

  Yes, exactly Czar.

  That we tend to be understanding and sympathetic if we relate somehow to how someone comes across.

  More importantly, how do we view someone that we can't relate to? Are we judging them by some percieved "flaw in their ego"?

  For example;

  Someone comes across as harsh and abrasive. A few will relate to being that way with others and understand that particular flaw.

  Many others will see that person as combative, unusual, stand-offish.

  We do not tend to see the cause or story behind the flaw. We just see the flaw and judge the person by it.

  Another example:

  Someone wrote today that Simon is always bashing america, and that he is unduly involved in american politics. Is that true of his person in general? Or is it that this area is a small part of himself that we see and fixate on?

  Do we zero in on Simon's weak spot (he tends to write more about american politics, and not comment so much about his own country and it's problems)?

  His "flaw" may be that his life experience is directly connected to a unique american religion, and that his anger and focus is on the origin of that sect. If his passion against that religion and it's origin bleeds over into other areas focused on america, should that be a source of contention? Or should we more deeply understand that there is more to it than what he writes here (which is the only way that we "know" him?

  Sorry Simon for using you as an example, I needed a subject who we could all relate to is all.

  Moreover, giving credit where credit is due, TW was a homosexual when it was not ok to be homosexual. So his saying this was from his heart. He apparently felt very strongly that he was misunderstood, that he was coming across to people as odd, he acknowledged that our true selves are often hidden by defense mechanisms.

  Tails,

  Streetcar is a favorite of mine, although there are major deviations from the play. Censorship forced the director to cut the guts out of the film.

  I would love to see the original play (marlon starred in it also) redone with the original content preserved.

  Thanks for your comments.
• 

  talesin

  Thanks for the info, LW. I will read it, then. That will be a good read. The only TW I've read is Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Right on. :)