Comments on: Michael Frayn’s “Copenhagen”: Giving high school existentialism a bad name

By: des r�gles du jeu de poker

des r�gles du jeu de poker — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:17:15 +0000

blackberry free mp3 ringtones…

Eventually carte da gioco poker texas holdem poker game 100 free mobile ringtones craps online play online poker…

By: Hal O'Brien

Hal O'Brien — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:19:01 +0000

No,no,no, David… The appropriate play for Pasteur would be a 1950’s Western radio serial.

“‘Frontiers of Medicine’! With Louis ‘Frenchy’ Pasteur! And his sidekick, Émile ‘Rabid’ Roux!”

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:20:32 +0000

Such ‘overwhelming cleverness’ smacks of a lack of confidence in maintaining the audience’s interest in the material. Something you eventually learn to ignore in this age of dumbed-down science/entertainment.

Be thankful people weren’t dressed as animals or prone to song. Adverts and placed products are also thankfully absent

Like cream on ice cream. It makes a dessert appeal to a wider audience, whilst mildly irritating a few connoisseurs who feel the ice cream is better enjoyed undistracted.

By: davidw

davidw — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:12:00 +0000

Crosbie, those themes in the play are important, but I thought the play overwhelmed them with its own cleverness.

Seth, we meant markets are literally conversations. People talking with other people. We are guilty of extending that metaphor, but we are not guilty of not _also_ meaning it literally. (Calling selling interactive is exactly the reduction we were arguing _against_.)

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:01:42 +0000

Nevertheless, the point is that for those who opened Pandora’s box it is at least possible that they took pains to ensure the adverse risks of its inevitable opening were minimised.

This play demonstrates the plausibility of that possibility.

Despite appearances, scientists are not necessarily entirely divorced from humanity.

But then, only the arrogant can be certain.

Am I arrogant?

By: Devan

Devan — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:23:27 +0000

I saw this at the AmRep a couple of weeks ago and felt the same way. It felt hokey. It promises a ‘high concept’- Bohr and Heisenberg met at an intriguing time in their careers (and world politics)- but doesn’t take it too far.

@SethF- nice.

By: Frank Hecker

Frank Hecker — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:58:41 +0000

Also, don’t forget that Einstein proved that “everything is relative”, so we now have no basis for making universal moral or aesthetic judgments. (I hope the playwright remembered to include this point as well.) If you also add in the amount of pseudo-scientific fluff that’s been written on wave-particle duality, the EPR paradox and quantum entanglement, and so on, you’ve got a whole Jeopardy category: “I’ll take popular misreadings of modern physics for $20, Alex.”

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:55:45 +0000

Oh, I shouldn’t, I shouldn’t, this sort of thing gets me in trouble, but the temptation is too great …

What about a whole business-guru marketing schtick about how selling is an interaction, and so is people talking to one another, thus they’re kind of the same, so Markets Are Conversations?