Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(special thanks to Kristi/K2 and zoe for a) by letting me know that we are back to having simple Doctrine fun, thereby causing Posts like the following and 2) saying something that caused me to crack myself up thanks guys!)
So I took a long lunch hour yesterday. I felt my cold attempt to make a comeback, plus it was snowing, so I thought I would watch a movie. I picked ‘Hamlet 2000‘ with Ethan Hawke and Kyle MacLachlan and a bunch of people you’d recognize. It was a good movie. The ‘hook’ for me, was that it was done against the backdrop of contemporary Manhattan (I think the correct term is ‘modernized’, go figure). I always enjoy ‘modernized’ versions of old plays…there’s something so ‘worldview-ey’ about how the story comes across, like the Director is saying, ‘you know this originally had guys with swords and swooning maidens and shit, but look, swap the swords for guns and bring in some hip hop on the soundtrack and it totally works’. And, of course, that’s exactly what we say about the Wakefield Doctrine, never mind if
- you’re young or old, male or female, living in the get-tow or a house on the ocean,
- you look around this morning and feel like everything makes sense (with a little effort on your part)
- you get out of bed and think, ‘today I’m going to make up for all the things I’ve let everyone down on before’
- you stand in the shower and enjoy the water pounding your body, knowing that life is fast-paced, exciting, dangerous and fun,
the world around you is a world in which you are the Outsider (clark) or the Predator (scott) or the Herd Member (roger) and that is as it should be, but know that, because we are all heir to all three of the worldviews, you have within you, the innate capacity to deal with life no matter what it throws at you today. Even if you find that you seem to be walking into the same trap again and again or you find that you fall back into being a mumbling, projectile apologetic well-meaning person or if you find your temper rising, even though you know if should not bother you so much, take heart. You have an inner (clark) and (scott) and (roger).
so anyway, I enjoyed the movie, man! more famous quotes in that single play than anywhere!! I liked ‘the clothes doth oft proclaim the man’ (lol, yeah, it’s a lot like listening to old blues records and then modern artists, sometimes it’s just the influence you can hear in the new ‘versions’, and other times it’s the whole lick).
Snow White? oh yeah! lol just like Hamlet except done for: children and/or girls*
Hamlet is a clark and Snow White is a clark
Claudius is a roger and Queen stepmother is a roger
Gertrude is a scott and all Seven Dwarfs are (collectively) a scott
…gotta get out to work. Let me know how totally on target this is…. lol
*the Wakefield Doctrine is totally gender neutral, loosen your minds up! this is a lot like music, it is not necessarily note for note in a matching or complimentary key or even steady pitch… it’s the feeling you get when you hear: ‘it’s Hamlet for children and/or girls’ lol no!! seriously
About clarkscottroger
Well other than I think its Snow White (not Cinderella) I guess its on target. Mostly cuz I trust you to get it right not cuz I thought about it yet… I will have to do that.
(edit much, clark?)
lol
thanks Z
hahahahahahahahah ! I got up this morning and have not quit for a second. I have only stopped by to say hey to you, direct from the geh-tow.
My very first part in a play was a riff of snow white. I played snowy white, and I was “discovered”. My parents were forced to send me into NYC for acting lessons and I did that, acting, until I got married and had kids. Then I quit. Is there a lesson here? not that I can see, just jeh showing off AGAIN
Jean
funny about (what) remember from childhood, I seem to remember the Disney version, but whenever I do these fairy tale Posts I like to check in with wikipedia, as, not so surprisingly, popular re-telling of Grimm Brothers and other fairy tales tend to get a touch fixed and adjusted and made market ready. acting is a fairly amazing talent, it seems so simple and straightforward a proposition, but of course it is not
I enjoy doing Doctrine and Fairy Tales because it gives us an objective common ground to (apply) the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.
I am older than any one here, we read the real thing. The fairy tales by Grimm, Oscar Wilde and Hans Christian Anderson as well as all the others–we loved them all! — and the illustrations were from the turn of the century. It was not horrible or frightening to read, for example, the real version of The Little Mermaid, despite the fact that she does not “win the Prince” in the end. The ending is so beautiful you manage to override your sad feelings. The Snow Queen is another which is totally different from the movie Frozen, a mpvie which I enjoyed with some of my kids and my grandsons.But the fact that they said it came from the Snow Queen made me nuts!!! I read books from Scotland written in scottish dialect–those fairy tales were by Andrew lang. I read British fairy tales called The five children and it. You gotta love “it”!!! He/she was a cranky sand fairy! I read edward eager’s fairy tales, such as half magic.
When Lizzi went into the wardrobe in IKEA I expected her to step right into narnia, and was surprised she didn’t come out with snow on her shoulders. I have read that CS Lewis book, The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe, hundreds of times and also his interesting book The Screwtape Letters.
I love cartoons for cartoons’ sake. I love original fairy tales for quite a different reason. They led me into the world of books and introduced me to all sorts of possibilities. And ways to think.
As for acting, I never learned much from my teachers except for breathing properly. I taught myself, by practicing in front of a mirror, I remember when I finally got it. It wasn’t until I was in college and I had a part playing a dumb secretary. It was so different from any other acting I had ever done it was like it just clicked right into place but it was serious work. I was so thrilled. the early stuff had been “for fun:” and was just instinctive. This was a different sort of REAL.
AS YOU CAN SEE, i AM finished work for the day and blathering around-just ignore me.
If you asked me if I see myself more as an actress than a jewelry designer or a writer, even now the answer would be yes however! :) jeh
however, only comedy or commercials.
Oh MAN! That would’ve been an AMAZING video, if I’d’ve only had some fake snow!
Lizzi
(on comment later…) we (clarks) have this really inordinate fear…not of failure but…. wait a minute (yes, I didn’t fully read your previous comment)…ok you got it covered lol
I know, I should say that I trust you, because you are the mighty Clark, the creator of the doctrine, but I still carefully dare to totally disagree for whatever reason. I see Hamlet / Snow White as clark, Claudius / Evil Queen as scott, and Gertrude as roger, maybe with a clarkian secondary aspect. The dwarves, I see either as roger secondary clark, or (collective) clarks with a secondary roger, depending on whether one focuses on the (outside) society of rogers, or a herd of connected outsiders. *waiting for the retribution* <- the light moment this late in the day being brought to you by a 1-hour nap at 6:15 pm!!
OMGosh Steph is so SMART!!!
Thanks a lot *blushes*..
Stephanie
I am heartened by your email… (in the early days of the blog) when we did not get as many Comments, one of the more plausible explanations was that people were ‘afraid of getting it wrong’… at least in the context of being in ‘print’.
While you are certainly correct in trusting me to know more about the Doctrine than anyone else in the world, I will state that I am not always right when it comes to applying the principles/interpreting characteristic of people vis a vis the Wakefield Doctrine, mostly but not always ya know?
I genuinely want to encourage disagreement, when you (or anyone) feels that there is a different interpretation that is more correct, (imagine if we were all sitting around discussing some Doctrine matter), were you to make the statement (as seen in your Comment), I would be inclined to say… ‘oh yeah!!?? why??!! what are you seeing that tells you this??! why is Gertrude a roger??’ While this sounds like a challenge to your conclusions, never forget that one of the three qualities that I have attributed to this thing is ‘fun’ I seriously want you (or anyone else) to say, ‘well because… look at the Gertrude is being… passive aggressive in this scene!!’ or “how can you not get the implication of….” but, this whole thing is on a level, with you and other Readers clearly understanding the Doctrine, I can and do benefit from hearing other opinions and insights.
It is not so much the, ‘hey this is true not that’ but the ‘hey, look at how Ophelia regards Laertes that’s so passive but still referential…’ in other words, what do you see?
Admittedly the ‘Comment/Reply’ forum is a bit clunky and Essay Test like…. but I sense that you get (from today’s Post) that sense of fun… no grades…there are rules and principles to this thing, but show me what you are seeing, the more I see of the principles through the eyes of others, the more I learn about this thing… and since I’m way the hell ahead of you guys (at the moment), as long as I pay attention to what you and Lizzi and Jean the others are seeing, I can stay ahead.
OK…so lets take your comment and maybe build a Post around it… let everyone have a shot at it…see what we can learn that we may have missed… hey!! Lizzi I’ll include your question of how do the dwarfs make a collective scott in tomorrow’s ‘Readers On the Attack!!!’ post… lol
I see Gertrude as roger because (as you have mentioned) she is rather passive and (seems to me) very addicted to harmony (poor G. is definitely in the wrong play here) and doing what’s “right” and expected of her.
I think I mentioned that on my response to tomorrow’s post, but it seems as if our own world views also contribute on how we analyze other’s world views. Your thoughts?
Doc – roger
Sneezy – scott
Happy – scott
Grumpy – clark
Dopey – scott
Bashful – clark
Sleepy – roger
HOW DO THEY MAKE A SCOTT?
I want to see the WD take on something like Toy Story… naaaaah too easy.
Lizzi
now this is going to get interesting… (see Reply to Stephanie) I’ll focus on the question of how can the group of dwarfs represent a scottian perspective (in this fairy tale)… build a Post around this and Stephanie’s Comment
Im trying to recall where I read it but there is a concept put forward of the dwarf collective as a communist party… a herd as it were to a very Scottian female (Snow White or Cinderella? lol) who interjects herself into their world to the point of coercing them to provide for her etc…
zoe
ayiiee! tomorrow’s post promises to be interesting… focusing (or so the ambition will be) on the ‘character’ of the Seven Dwarfs
I read Stephanie as proposing a collective clark (with a secondary rogerian aspect) or vice versa, depending on perspective external/internal
Do you want the position that the Dwarves as rogerian collective?
I’ve asked Lizzi to weigh in
Sure . I’m game. They did everything as the herd. No society in the area without them… and the Scottian female even got the little woodland animals to do her bidding (of course that’s the Disney version where all the animals are easily taken in by the idea of innocence.) But pardon the pun Snow White’s step mother may be a Scott but the apple didn’t fall far from that tree…. Snowy learned a thing or two.
right!
How I loved Toy Story! “falling, with style!”
I think you did great Lizzi!