Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 11:04:54 GMT -5
Evelyn Waugh, when asked what he thought of Edmund Wilson, responded "Is he an American? . . . I don't think what they have to say is of much interest, do you?" Quite. (As reported by Julian Barnes in the Times Literary Supplement of January the sixth, 1984.)
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 30, 2013 13:58:01 GMT -5
Evelyn Waugh, when asked what he thought of Edmund Wilson, responded "Is he an American? . . . I don't think what they have to say is of much interest, do you?" Quite. (As reported by Julian Barnes in the Times Literary Supplement of January the sixth, 1984.) "Quite" what?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 19:21:21 GMT -5
Quite indisputably so, Mr. H. (But had Waugh which he very possibly never was been aware of the work of Burroughs and Vidal he may well have excepted them.)
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 31, 2013 3:02:00 GMT -5
Quite indisputably so, Mr. H. (But had Waugh which he very possibly never was been aware of the work of Burroughs and Vidal he may well have excepted them.) On what grounds is the assertion that Americans in general have nothing of interest to say "indisputable"? For that to be the case, everyone - or at least the vast majority of people (and almost 1 in every 20 people are Americans anyway!) - would have to agree that it is so; provide evidence of that and your claim might acquire a validity that it cannot possibly possess in the absence of such proof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 5:31:10 GMT -5
Good morning to you all! I trust that all is well with all of you, and may I take this opportunity to wish you all a Happy New Year for 2014! As it happens, I received a late Christmas card from an old American friend this morning, although to be technical, it was a happy holidays card with a picture of her offspring, who will soon be off to college, and a hope to be in the UK sometime in the next year. As for Americans, I can only read what you write ironically, Sydney. Over the past century or so, the United States of America (USA) has emerged as the most powerful nation on Earth, some critics have defined the twentieth century as the American century, although there is some doubt, as ever, as to what comes next! The Asian century, perhaps? So what Americans have said and done over the past hundred years or so is arguably far more significant than what anybody else has said or done, although whether what Americans have to say is of much interest ultimately depends upon what interests you. The real question, therefore, Sydney, is what actually does interest you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 6:18:27 GMT -5
On what grounds is the assertion that Americans in general have nothing of interest to say "indisputable"? . . . We fear the member misquotes Evelyn Waugh. What Waugh so rightly said was not that "Americans in general have nothing of interest to say" but that in his view what they have to say is "not of much interest." The notion of "nothing" is introduced by the member and merely confuses the issue. What a difference a much makes! .
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 31, 2013 10:06:01 GMT -5
On what grounds is the assertion that Americans in general have nothing of interest to say "indisputable"? . . . We fear the member misquotes Evelyn Waugh. What Waugh so rightly said was not that "Americans in general have nothing of interest to say" but that in his view what they have to say is "not of much interest." The notion of "nothing" is introduced by the member and merely confuses the issue. What a difference a much makes! To pedantically correct quotation, perhaps, but not to the matter at hand! The sweeping and wholly unevidenced generalisation remains, with or without the purportedly tempering "much".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 14:58:16 GMT -5
If I may address your opening post (OP) directly, Sydney: "Evelyn Waugh, when asked what he thought of Edmund Wilson, responded "Is he an American? . . . I don't think what they have to say is of much interest, do you?" Quite. (As reported by Julian Barnes in the Times Literary Supplement of January the sixth, 1984.)" Evelyn Waugh was a satirist, widely recognised as one of the great prose stylists of the twentieth century. Waugh's 1945 masterpiece, ' Brideshead Revisited', was criticised by Edmund Wilson, who thought that Waugh was a snob. In my opinion, Wilson was correct! When asked in his ' Paris Review' interview of 1962 whether Wilson's literary criticism was of interest to him, Evelyn Waugh, still clinging to his affectations, responded, " 'Is he an American?' 'Yes.' 'I don't think what they have to say is of much interest, do you?' " Wilson had far more in common with Orwell than Waugh. Google Books - Edmund Wilson: A BiographyAs novelists, I would argue that Waugh was good, but that Orwell was better! Almost a decade ago, I sailed out of the Thames Estuary and up the Suffolk coast to Southwold. George Orwell is closely associated with this charming coastal resort, as this is where his parents retired. His real name, of course, was Eric Blair. Peter C, who has lived in East Anglia all his life and knew the real Eric Blair as a young man, was once in a pub with him, and Eric gave him a lecture saying, "The thing is, Peter, you will never be accepted by the working classes if you speak in that way and wear that tie." I guess that the old Etonian had much to live down. His accent betrayed his class. He was a tall, gaunt figure who used to walk around town with his hands in his pockets and a cigarette in his mouth, at least until he wanted to kiss someone. Then he would stub it out and do his stuff. The manager at ' The Swan' immediately referred to Eric Blair as Sir and called Peter C, Peter: Eric was a bit of a ladies' man, or rather, "a pursuer of Southwold girlhood", Sydney. I once met an old lady who had been handed a poem by Orwell when she was sixteen. I did not think that much of it, but it was sweet enough. A certain George Summers actually came to blows with Eric over his girl friend on Southwold Common in 1931. Eric simply would not leave her alone. I would argue that Eric Blair, one of the most penetrating political writers of the twentieth century, struggled to fit into such a conservative place. Yet his social failures with the locals probably made him excel all the more in his novels. Eric last visited Southwold in 1939. It was a marvellous Orwellian moment. His father died that year, but they were reconciled before the end as his father had just read a favourable ' Sunday Times' review of his book ' Coming Up For Air'. In the fashion of the time, they put a couple of copper pennies on his father's eyelids. After the funeral it didn't seem right just to put the coins in his pocket, so Eric walked down to the front at Southwold and just chucked them into the sea. I cannot say I found any Orwellian coppers on the beach, but I understand why he did it. So I did a little rain dance on the beach instead, ran into the crashing waves and turned back the tide. Even King Cnut would have been impressed, Sydney! In the spirit of Dylan Thomas, who was living on the west rather than the east coast of Britain at the time, do not go gentle into that good night: [/i] Eric himself was as sharp an observer of the English as Dylan was of the Welsh. He saw the English as a mild-mannered if slightly insular people, characterised by an aversion to extremism and a general faith in 'common sense' over abstract philosophical ideas, which tend to be associated more with thinkers from the continental mainland. He was critical, however, of any romantic notion of England as a nation that was in some way united, as was often said of the British people, especially during periods of national crisis such as wartime: Eric was therefore an intriguing, rather paradoxical individual; an upper-middle-class 'man of the people' who tried, through the course of his life, to overcome the prejudices that his upbringing had educated him into. Although traces of Orwell's England can still be seen today in places like Southwold, the best part of a century later, England appears to be a more open, multicultural society, and it would be fair to say that the passing of the more old-fashioned notion of 'Englishness' is largely unmourned. He is perhaps best studied today from a historical perspective, as someone who was on the scene with his own idiosyncratic insights to offer on many of the key turning points in twentieth century history. Yet in his repudiation of totalitarianism in his great novels, ' Animal Farm' and ' 1984', he arguably did more than any other writer to advance the cause of freedom. As children of the great ideological battles of the twentieth century, which he fought so passionately on an intellectual level, we owe him much. I suspect that were he to reappear right now, I would like him very much indeed. So I would discount Evelyn Waugh as a brilliant satirist but an awful snob, Sydney, but rate George Orwell as a far greater writer. As for Americans, well, we musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918. Except that I wasn't, and they didn't, but so what, Sydney? The Soviets "blundered" into Berlin in 1945 instead, and kleines c finally "blundered" into East Berlin in 1989! Happy New Year to you all!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 18:39:42 GMT -5
. . . it would be fair to say that the passing of the more old-fashioned notion of 'Englishness' is largely unmourned. "Fair to say" - "old-fashioned" - "largely unmourned" . . . A good example of the Newspeak in practice, is that not. kleines c finally "blundered" into East Berlin in 1989! Happy New Year to you all! I by blundering into East Berlin in 1967 evidently anticipated him by two decades. I was able to wander in the steps of Arnold Schönberg up and down unter den Linden, purchase the local Radio Times, and visit some of the museums where European culture still lay in ruins thanks to the barbarians. The only indignity I suffered was at the time of my exit by tube, when the ticket and passport inspector insisted I remove my dark glasses - in fact he removed them from my nose at gun-point and I was obliged to replace them myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 4:49:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 1, 2014 5:47:38 GMT -5
. . . it would be fair to say that the passing of the more old-fashioned notion of 'Englishness' is largely unmourned. "Fair to say" - "old-fashioned" - "largely unmourned" . . . A good example of the Newspeak in practice, is that not. The absence of a question mark prompts me to ask whether you are asking a question but, aside from the fact that I have no idea whether or not it is as you suggest, does it really matter? What matters is surely the content of what kleines c wrote rather than one other member's apparent view of the manner of its presentation? kleines c finally "blundered" into East Berlin in 1989! Happy New Year to you all! I by blundering into East Berlin in 1967 evidently anticipated him by two decades. I was able to wander in the steps of Arnold Schönberg up and down unter den Linden, purchase the local Radio Times, and visit some of the museums where European culture still lay in ruins thanks to the barbarians. The only indignity I suffered was at the time of my exit by tube, when the ticket and passport inspector insisted I remove my dark glasses - in fact he removed them from my nose at gun-point and I was obliged to replace them myself. Interesting as that anecdote is, I fail to perceive any obvious connection between it and Americans...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 6:36:42 GMT -5
. . . does it really matter? What matters is surely the content of what kleines c wrote rather than one other member's apparent view of the manner of its presentation? Actually I doubt kleines c, whose taste and spelling are almost faultless, would ever have written in those terms were he expressing his own views. No, the Newspeak phrase has been lifted from somewhere. From where we might ask. And indeed much of the earlier stuff about Orwell (who incidentally is even less relevant to Waugh and his view than East Berlin) is familiar to me from having recently read it elsewhere in much the same words - surely not in the T.L.S.?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 1, 2014 7:26:37 GMT -5
. . . does it really matter? What matters is surely the content of what kleines c wrote rather than one other member's apparent view of the manner of its presentation? Actually I doubt kleines c, whose taste and spelling are almost faultless, would ever have written in those terms were he expressing his own views. Why are you querying the terms (by which I assume you once again to impoly the manner rather than the substance, though please correct me if I'm wrong about that) and not the content (if indeed you must query it at all) - and whose views do you suppose he was expressing if not his own and what makes you assume that the views expressed were other than his own? Do you not suppose that he would have credited the views appropriately had they not been his?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 7:59:07 GMT -5
You could begin your investigations, Mr. H, with the Corporation: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/3001502.stmwhere some of the stuff may be found. But I think it likely that the B.B.C.'s Mr. "Nic" [ sic] Rigby lifted it in turn - perhaps indeed from the T.L.S. Or are you claiming that our kleines c is Mr. "Nic" Rigby in disguise? Could be. P.S.: That particular phrase in the Newspeak language, I now discover, is also a B.B.C. effort. It may be seen here www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A392735and/or here news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/C4CB98C3A2E2809AC2ACC3A2E2ACC485plain/A392735both of which pages appear to have appeared around the year 2000. The bias in the language is at once obvious - is it really not to you Mr. H.? I have long believed that the Corporation has a very active department of propaganda, and this Newspeak is just typical of what they put out day in day out. "Nic" could probably tell you more. .
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 1, 2014 10:59:46 GMT -5
You could begin your investigations, Mr. H, with the Corporation: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/3001502.stmwhere some of the stuff may be found. But I think it likely that the B.B.C.'s Mr. "Nic" [ sic] Rigby lifted it in turn - perhaps indeed from the T.L.S. Or are you claiming that our kleines c is Mr. "Nic" Rigby in disguise? Could be. P.S.: That particular phrase in the Newspeak language, I now discover, is also a B.B.C. effort. It may be seen here www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A392735and/or here news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/C4CB98C3A2E2809AC2ACC3A2E2ACC485plain/A392735both of which pages appear to have appeared around the year 2000. The bias in the language is at once obvious - is it really not to you Mr. H.? I have long believed that the Corporation has a very active department of propaganda, and this Newspeak is just typical of what they put out day in day out. "Nic" could probably tell you more. If by "Newspeak" you refer to expressions typical of what you describe as BBC's department of propaganda, that's entirely up to you, of course, but I do not see this as having any kind of input into or relevance to the views expressed by kleines c of which there appears so far to be no evidence (and certainly none from the hand of kleines c himself) that they are other than his own, despite your apparent implication to the contrary.
|
|