To become an expert on...Jono (part 1 of...)

I read Sheldon Vanauken's book A Severe Mercy a couple years ago and in it Vanauken chronicles his love story with his wife. They come up with a wonderful idea, as they see themselves as defenders and architects of their love and think strategically about how to protect and sustain it. One of their methods was to invest time and energy into investigating whatever the other was interested in. To be devoted to the same hobbies (or at least knowledgeable about the area) created a stronger bond. Vanauken writes (swiped from her blog): "If one of us likes anything, there must be something to like in it-and the other one must find it. Every single thing that either of us likes. That way we shall create a thousand strands, great and small, that will link us together. Then we shall be so close that it would be impossible-unthinkable-for either of us to suppose that we could ever recreate such a closeness with anyone else. And our trust in each other will not only be based on love and loyalty but on the fact of a thousand sharings-a thousand strands twisted into something unbreakable.”*

As I was talking with JL about how I didn't really understand or appreciate classical music, JL brought up the idea from Vanauken's book. And so that is what I'm doing here. To seek to understand what is good and likeable about Mahler's 2nd symphony "The Resurrection." It's a good thing, too, because Jono and I are going to go hear it live at the Royal Festival Hall for his birthday. Might as well understand and enjoy the 90 minutes of it.

Okay, so here's the deal. What's hard for me with classical music is that I don't really understand the language. I need to understand what is going on to mentally engage with the music because I often don't find it purely pleasurable to just listen to that style of music. It's similar for me with most art, actually. If I understand kind of what the artist was maybe trying to say and it is a lot more enjoyable for me (some might say that this is cheating and that one should just experience the art and draw their own conclusions. To that I say rubbish!).

So, this is from wikipedia (honestly couldn't find anyone else talking about it) "Mahler devised a narrative programme for the work, which he told to a number of friends. In this programme, the first movement represents a funeral and asks questions such as "Is there life after death?"; the second movement is a remembrance of happy times in the life of the deceased; the third movement represents a view of life as meaningless activity; the fourth movement is a wish for release from life without meaning; and the fifth movement – after a return of the doubts of the third movement and the questions of the first – ends with a fervent hope for everlasting, transcendent renewal, a theme that Mahler would ultimately transfigure into the music of his sublime Das Lied von der Erde."

See? That's helpful. Then I can understand where Gustav Mahler was coming from and choose to agree or disagree with his handling of the subject matter. Or...decide that the music really means something else and be self-satisfied with my own interpretation.

*as a side note: later on in the book Vanauken is honest about how, once his wife became a Christian (and he wasn't yet), he did have a moment of emotional infidelity where he felt a bond with another woman. I still feel that the idea stands up as a good one. At the very least it is a loving thing to seek to understand what your other half sees as good.