Just some cursory thoughts
mramius
I've always pictured Clancy as a pretty pround American, if that assumption
is wrong I'm open to some other thoughts on that. However, it seems that
he uses his most romantic language when a Russian character is doing the
action/thinking. And his wording is very terse and dry when Americans are
speaking or acting.
I think it was Red Rabbit where he talked a lot about Russian poets, or his
Russian characters referenced Russian poetry quite a bit.
Is this merely a reflection of the cultural differences of the two peoples?
Or is there something different?
Sorry if I didn't make much sense...
--
Thanks,
Paul
mramius
Ok, here is what I, kind of, think is going on.
I think it's merely an artistic way in which Clancy paints the mindset of
each culture. The Russians, being more untrusting of each other, tend to
look inward more often than his American characters do.
I guess I don't really have a point, just throwing stuff out there.
--
Thanks,
Paul
Diane Wilson
mra...@nospamfool.attbi.com says...
I think it does pretty much reflect cultural differences. Russians
can be very openly emotional, or not, depending on setting.
Their literature is wonderful, as is their music.
Nothing wrong with Clancy being a Russophile. I'm one, too. One can
admire and enjoy their culture, while keeping an honest understanding
of what communism was and what it did to their country.... and also
recognizing how communism grew out of their culture (Marx not withstanding,
Soviet communism was rooted in Russian culture and philosophy).
And belatedly, welcome to the jungle!
Diane
Danny Bhoy
romantic view of Russians as a people. He might have deliberately
intended that to reduce the edge of Cold War superpower rivalry, that
the Russians were humans too. Sort of like Sting's 'Russians'...
Those of us who actually had to work with the Russians for a living,
especially if you're not really a Russophile, probably think
otherwise.
From my personal experience, many Russians are not particularly well
educated. Granted I spent more time with the embassy drivers/handymen
when I was in Moscow than with my Russian counterparts (waiting is a
fulltime job anywhere).
But even amongst their diplomats, many/most of whom were MGIMO
graduates, I really doubt that few could quote Pushkin etc. apart from
certain famous phrases/lines; maybe they spent more time with their
Marx and Lenin. Romanticism is not something I associate with the
Russians today (things may have been different in the Cold War but I
doubt it) although I sense a certain 'sadness': loss of empire, loss
of individual and national status, nostalgic for an age when they were
feared for the hordes of the Red Army and not of prostitutes
threatening to storm the world...
DB
cMAD
> mramius <mra...@nospamfool.attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93549E8A08213mr...@140.99.99.130>...
> > Just an idea I'd like to toss out there, for what it's worth.
> >
> > I've always pictured Clancy as a pretty pround American, if that assumption
> > is wrong I'm open to some other thoughts on that. However, it seems that
> > he uses his most romantic language when a Russian character is doing the
> > action/thinking. And his wording is very terse and dry when Americans are
> > speaking or acting.
> >
> > I think it was Red Rabbit where he talked a lot about Russian poets, or his
> > Russian characters referenced Russian poetry quite a bit.
> >
> > Is this merely a reflection of the cultural differences of the two peoples?
> > Or is there something different?
> >
> > Sorry if I didn't make much sense...
> >
> I got the impression that Clancy had or at least portrayed a very
> romantic view of Russians as a people. He might have deliberately
> intended that to reduce the edge of Cold War superpower rivalry, that
> the Russians were humans too. Sort of like Sting's 'Russians'...
Except that "Russians" was really composed by Sergei Prokofiev.
cMAD
Chris Vail
Somebody oughta blow the whistle and
give this guy an On-Topic violation. For
a regular member of the NG, thats when
we put parts of their anatomy into the machine
that makes astroturf--and gives a whole new
meaning to the term "15 yard penalty". But
since he's a FNG, we'll let this one pass.
And posts here don't have to make much sense--
thats a given. And though GWS already beat
me to it: Welcome to the Jungle(tm).
Chris
Tom Clancy
Russian characters referenced Russian poetry quite a bit.
The USSR was the last place where a poet could earn a living, which was, in its
way, admirable.
But poetry is an obsolete art form. It was essentially prose for the
illiterate, containing mnemonics to make it easier to remember. It started
dying out when literacy became more widespread.
You know the most important liberator in human history must have been Gutenberg
with his invention of the printing press. Only he enabled people to swap ideas,
and when the happened, the Aristocracy was doomed. They were too stupid to
realized it, of course.
Almost like the democrats. (That‘s humor, Loki, not subtlety.)
TC
Howard Berkowitz
tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
I don't know if you remember a fairly good series in the Washington Post
around Y2K, but there were a lot of "most significant of the millenium"
discussions (yes, I _know_ when the millenium started).
When it came to the most significant invention, I can't quibble with:
"The printing press. Any questions?"
Bailey
>You know the most important liberator in human history must have been Gutenberg
>with his invention of the printing press. Only he enabled people to swap ideas,
>and when the happened, the Aristocracy was doomed. They were too stupid to
>realized it, of course.
Piggybacking off what Howard typed above, Gutenberg was the #1 Most
Influential People of the Past 1,000 Years by Biography.com
<URL:http://search.biography.com/print_record.pl?id=5342>
<URL:http://www.biography.com/features/millennium/>
--
Jeff Bailey
je...@baileyjs.com
<www.baileyjs.com>
"There are certain sections of New York ...
that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade."
Rick (Humphrey Bogart) - Casablanca
Howard Berkowitz
> On 07 Apr 2003 20:59:55 GMT, tomc...@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:
>
> >You know the most important liberator in human history must have been
> >Gutenberg
> >with his invention of the printing press. Only he enabled people to swap
> >ideas,
> >and when the happened, the Aristocracy was doomed. They were too stupid
> >to
> >realized it, of course.
>
> Piggybacking off what Howard typed above, Gutenberg was the #1 Most
> Influential People of the Past 1,000 Years by Biography.com
> <URL:http://search.biography.com/print_record.pl?id=5342>
> <URL:http://www.biography.com/features/millennium/>
I have to share my more-or-less personal Gutenberg story. While I was
attending an IEEE networking conference in Los Angeles, I was horribly
tempted to skip one day so I could take the spouses' tour. You see, one
of the stops on that tour involved visiting a mansion that included a
Gutenberg Bible in its collection.
I wanted to go on that trip so I could get to that stop, yawn, and say
"no thanks, I have one at the office."
Afterwards, I told the tale to one of the Assistant Librarians of
Congress, who cracked up, recovering long enough to tell me I was wrong.
"You have _two_ at the office.."
For the record, the Library's absolutely prize Bible is the Great Bible
of Mainz, which doesn't have the historical significance of the
Gutenbergs, but is an incredible work of art. It's heavily illuminated,
but, ISTR, partially printed.
loki
>
> Almost like the democrats. (That's humor, Loki, not subtlety.)
<chuckle> Ok, I'll let ya slide this time. <grin>
Loki
charles krin
based on bodily comfort, I'd list hot running water first.....
ck
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)
Howard Berkowitz
kri...@aol.invalid.com wrote:
> >
> >When it came to the most significant invention, I can't quibble with:
> >
> > "The printing press. Any questions?"
>
> based on bodily comfort, I'd list hot running water first.....
Earlier than the last 1000 years -- where's that Roman or Korean spa?
charles krin
While the Romans (and some of the Arabs) did nicely with piping in
water, I don't think that was one of the things in the Orient until
relatively recently...
and I didn't say that it was a recent invention....although the
improvements between the Glory that was Rome and the Broad Street Pump
could be listed with a large crayon on the back of a matchbook...
We have done somewhat better since then in a fair chunk of the world.
Gml...@scvnet.com
"charles krin" <ck...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:7s269v8qlsql32h3p...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 11:47:10 -0400, Howard Berkowitz
> <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <r3g59vcns5aj7uguj...@4ax.com>,
> >kri...@aol.invalid.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >When it came to the most significant invention, I can't quibble with:
> >> >
> >> > "The printing press. Any questions?"
> >>
> >> based on bodily comfort, I'd list hot running water first.....
> >
> >Earlier than the last 1000 years -- where's that Roman or Korean spa?
Or simply soaking in a handy hot spring...
Mary Shafer
wrote:
>and I didn't say that it was a recent invention....although the
>improvements between the Glory that was Rome and the Broad Street Pump
>could be listed with a large crayon on the back of a matchbook...
The Broad Street Pump illustrates the social value of brewing beer,
though. The brewere, either because they had their own well or
because they drank only thier own product, didn't get cholera.
Of course, brewing was invented before this millenium, but doing it in
large quantites, not at home, is a relatively new development, one I
think most people would applaud.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
Retired aerospace engineer
"The guy you don't see will kill you." BGEN Robim Olds, USAF
charles krin
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:43:30 GMT, charles krin <ck...@iamerica.net>
>wrote:
>
>>and I didn't say that it was a recent invention....although the
>>improvements between the Glory that was Rome and the Broad Street Pump
>>could be listed with a large crayon on the back of a matchbook...
>
>The Broad Street Pump illustrates the social value of brewing beer,
>though. The brewere, either because they had their own well or
>because they drank only thier own product, didn't get cholera.
There is a more subtle trick to brewing...either tea, coffee or
beer... in all cases (sun tea excepted), the water is heated to *at
least 180 deg F* for more than 10 minutes, which is enough to kill off
all but the hardiest spores...which would eliminate the transmission
of all serious forms of diarrhea...
>
>Of course, brewing was invented before this millenium, but doing it in
>large quantites, not at home, is a relatively new development, one I
>think most people would applaud.
>
>Mary
Hear, Hear!
BlackBeard
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 07:02:30 -0700, Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com>
> wrote:
>>
> There is a more subtle trick to brewing...either tea, coffee or
> beer... in all cases (sun tea excepted), the water is heated to *at
> least 180 deg F* for more than 10 minutes, which is enough to kill off
> all but the hardiest spores...which would eliminate the transmission
> of all serious forms of diarrhea...
> ck
> country doc in louisiana
> (no fancy sayings right now)
There are some "no-boil" brew kits out there but I've never tried
one. Your statement is true, but in the case of beer, the boiled
water is then cooled and you add all sorts of good food-stuff and
yeast to the water and make a great little nest for things to grow.
The often repeated "nothing toxic grows in beer" line is readily cast
about in the brewers news groups, but less malevolent infections
sometimes occur requiring the consumer/brewer to keep a clear path to
the throne.
>
> >
> >Of course, brewing was invented before this millenium, but doing it in
> >large quantites, not at home, is a relatively new development, one I
> >think most people would applaud.
> >
> >Mary
>
Except for a few of us... ;)
BB
Mary Shafer
wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 07:02:30 -0700, Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:43:30 GMT, charles krin <ck...@iamerica.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>and I didn't say that it was a recent invention....although the
>>>improvements between the Glory that was Rome and the Broad Street Pump
>>>could be listed with a large crayon on the back of a matchbook...
>>
>>The Broad Street Pump illustrates the social value of brewing beer,
>>though. The brewere, either because they had their own well or
>>because they drank only thier own product, didn't get cholera.
>
>There is a more subtle trick to brewing...either tea, coffee or
>beer... in all cases (sun tea excepted), the water is heated to *at
>least 180 deg F* for more than 10 minutes, which is enough to kill off
>all but the hardiest spores...which would eliminate the transmission
>of all serious forms of diarrhea...
The wort is essentially sterile, as you say. However, I couldn't
think of a way to work in an adjective or two describing that. I
mean, "their own boiled product"? "their own sterile product"? How
would you write it?
By the way, making whisky begins with brewing beer and fermenting it.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
Retired aerospace engineer
"The guy you don't see will kill you." BGEN Robin Olds, USAF
charles krin
wrote:
>
> There are some "no-boil" brew kits out there but I've never tried
>one. Your statement is true, but in the case of beer, the boiled
>water is then cooled and you add all sorts of good food-stuff and
>yeast to the water and make a great little nest for things to grow.
>The often repeated "nothing toxic grows in beer" line is readily cast
>about in the brewers news groups, but less malevolent infections
>sometimes occur requiring the consumer/brewer to keep a clear path to
>the throne.
Interesting, as IIRC, Busch, Heilmann and Stroh all indicate in their
literature that the wort itself is simmered before adding the yeast
and hops...
and as far as the nasties go, much of old Louie's work applied to the
brewer's industry as well as the Vintner's...
BlackBeard
>
> Interesting, as IIRC, Busch, Heilmann and Stroh all indicate in their
> literature that the wort itself is simmered before adding the yeast
> and hops...
True (boiled, not simmered), that doesn't conflict with what I said.
You boil up your wort, cool it and then add your yeast. Once it was
cooled it became a great place to nurture the yeast, or any other bug
that might get in there.
They probably boil the hops. You usually boil hops at least five
minutes to get the Lupin oils extracted, but some home-brewers dry hop
(add hops to the 'cooled' secondary after primary fermentation is
complete). Hops are a natural preservative. Additionaly, once primary
fermentation is complete it's doubtful any new bug can grow in the
beer (thanks mister alcohol).
>
> and as far as the nasties go, much of old Louie's work applied to the
> brewer's industry as well as the Vintner's...
>
There's still a few (especially the micros) of the breweries that do
not heat pasteurize.
BB
BlackBeard
>
> By the way, making whisky begins with brewing beer and fermenting it.
>
>
> Mary
sans hops. ;)
BB
charles krin
wrote:
>
> There's still a few (especially the micros) of the breweries that do
>not heat pasteurize.
>
Um, BB, the phrase is "in hot water up to your neck"...if it's past
your eyes, then you are in *way* too deep...
BlackBeard
> On 10 Apr 2003 07:57:10 -0700, kec...@navair.navy.mil (BlackBeard)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > There's still a few (especially the micros) of the breweries that do
> >not heat pasteurize.
> >
"...if it's past
> your eyes, then you are in *way* too deep...
>
> ck
Use a pun, go to jail...
BB