Sleeping Arrangements [SNUKish]
Enzo Matrix
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I can't sleep. Dunno why. So, seeing as I can't sleep, I've been pondering
the sleeping arrangements of the denizens of Coronation Street. It must be
a tight squeeze for some of 'em and for others the sleeping arrangements
could be cause for concern or maybe even illegal!
So lets take each house in turn. I am assuming that the terraced houses have
two bedrooms upstairs.
The Rovers - probably three bedrooms, taken up by Shelley, Bev and now
Sunita. So where is Violet going to sleep, 'cos you can be that she'll pitch
up there...
No 1 - The Barlows. Ken and Dreary in the master bedroom. Toxic Tracy and
Amy in the other bedroom, although it wouldn't surprise me if Tracy had
forced Ken and Dreary to take the smaller bedroom. Blanche sleeps
downstairs in the front room. This arrangement should eventually cause
problems as Amy will soon need her own room.
No 3 - Emily & Norris. Two bedrooms - two occupants. Nothing untoward there!
No 5 - The Battersbys. Here's where we start having problems. Les and Cilla
in one bedroom. Kirk and Chesneh in the other. Is it actually legal for an
eleven-year-old child to share a bedroom with an unrelated man in his
twenties? It certainly isn't legal for Les to sub-let in a council
property. I know that Les and Kirk pulled that whole "gay couple" scam, but
that's not gonna work now that The Blob is there.
No 7 - The Baldwins. Frankie in one bedroom. Jamie in another. Where does
Carol sleep? It is somewhere upstairs, but *where* ? Or maybe Jamie lets
Carol have his room and he sleeps downstairs.
No 9 - The Duckies. Jack and Vera in one room. Tyrone in the other.
No 11 - The Grimshaws. Eileen in one bedroom. Jason in another. Violet
gone... Sean must sleep in the front room, 'cos before Violet's arrival
there was no way that Jason would have shared a room with him!
No 13 - The Websters. Kev and madSally in one bedroom. The Gurls in the
other... oh dear...
Across the road, I assume that the houses have three bedrooms.
The Platts - more problems. No doubt Gail in one bedroom, David in another,
with Sarah and Bethany sharing the third. Is it healthy for a five-year-old
to share a room with an adult, even if it *is* her mother?
The Appleyards - Keith and Craig in a three bedroomed house. That means
there's room for a model railway!
The Peacocks - Ashleh & Clur in one bedroom. Joshuah in another, Fred in the
third. Fair enough...
So who is living in Martin's ex-flat? Not Lloyd, 'cos he's in the flat above
Streetcars.
And are Leanne and Janice in the flat over the bookies?
How do Mariah and Fiz afford the rent on their flat now that Candice has
gone?
Please let me sleeeeep...
I know... I'll count something. But wot? Maybe those bars on the window.
One... two... three... nope, not working...
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
SouthSeas
> I've been pondering
>the sleeping arrangements of the denizens of Coronation Street.
>So lets take each house in turn. I am >assuming that the terraced houses have
>two bedrooms upstairs.
I have an idea that one of the terraced houses had only two bedrooms,
but don't ask me where I read that.
>The Rovers - probably three bedrooms, >taken up by Shelley, Bev and now
>Sunita. So where is Violet going to >sleep, 'cos you can be that she'll pitch
>up there...
In the fictional "little bedroom at the back", as used by Bet when
storylines demanded it. The number of bedrooms at the Rovers has
fluctuated between one and five, apparently. There was a detailed
thread on it here a couple of years ago.
>No 1 - The Barlows. Ken and Dreary in >the master bedroom. Toxic Tracy and
>Amy in the other bedroom, although it >wouldn't surprise me if Tracy had
>forced Ken and Dreary to take the smaller >bedroom. Blanche sleeps
>downstairs in the front room. This >arrangement should eventually cause
>problems as Amy will soon need her own >room.
Tracy will have a council house before then. The real problem was when
Liz was staying with them as well, "on the sofa". What, the sofa in
the dining room? Not humanly possible.
The queues for the loo must be hazardous. Is their outside cludgy still
operational? I don't remember noticing one. Maybe they duck into the
Rovers all the time.
>No 3 - Emily & Norris. Two bedrooms - >two occupants. Nothing untoward there!
When Curly rented that second room, it was huge. Really. There were
some scenes set there.
>No 11 - The Grimshaws. Eileen in one >bedroom. Jason in another. Violet
>gone... Sean must sleep in the front >room,
Yes, he does, on a bed-settee thingamawhoflip. We saw it in the early
scenes of his fiasco with Kelly.
>Across the road, I assume that the >houses have three bedrooms.
>The Platts - more problems. No doubt Gail >in one bedroom, David in another,
>with Sarah and Bethany sharing the >third. Is it healthy for a five-year-old
>to share a room with an adult, even if it >*is* her mother?
Was it healthy for Nick to (presumably)share the room with David and
bring Maria back to his pad?
I can't figure out why some off the Platts are not offloaded to
Audreh's mansion. She must be fair rattling round in that, while her
offspring live like termites in a mound.
>The Peacocks - Ashleh & Clur in one >bedroom. Joshuah in another, Fred in the
>third. Fair enough...
What did Fred do with all the dosh he made from selling his big house?
Time he foudn independent accommodation now that Clur and Ashleh are
wed. Newlyweds need their space. He's a real gooseberry, I say, a right
fifth wheel.
>How do Mariah and Fiz afford the rent on >their flat now that Candice has
>gone?
The same way that Fiona afforded it before they started renting out the
linen cupboard to make it a three person flat, i.e., spending less on
alcopops.
Enzo, have you tried ignatia for insomnia? It's sold in homeopathic and
healthfood outlets and is very effective.
SouthSeas
MartinS
>>No 1 - The Barlows. Ken and Dreary in the master bedroom. Toxic
>>Tracy and Amy in the other bedroom, although it wouldn't surprise me
>>if Tracy had forced Ken and Dreary to take the smaller bedroom.
>>Blanche sleeps downstairs in the front room. This arrangement should
>>eventually cause problems as Amy will soon need her own room.
>
> Tracy will have a council house before then. The real problem was when
> Liz was staying with them as well, "on the sofa". What, the sofa in
> the dining room? Not humanly possible.
> The queues for the loo must be hazardous. Is their outside cludgy
> still operational? I don't remember noticing one. Maybe they duck into
> the Rovers all the time.
It was seen quite recently in one of the updates. Given that Ken was the
first to have an inside loo over 40 years ago, from what I could see it
was in remarkably good condition. Perhaps, given the influx of women into
Number 1 at various times (Blanche, Tracy, Amy, Wanda, Lena, Liz) Ken had
the outside biffy refurbished so he'd have somewhere to pass all that
coffee he supposedly drinks, or to sit and read the paper in peace.
--
Martin S.
Katherine
You call Sarah an adult???
TTFN
Katherine
Mudge
On 11/23/2005 18:02:00 "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
> I know... I'll count something. But wot? Maybe those bars on the
> window. One... two... three... nope, not working...
How about counting the buttons on those padded walls ???
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (grinning evilly in Calgary)
Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently
and for the same reason. -- Anonymous
Gillian V
SouthSeas <dale...@lycos.com> wrote
> When Curly rented that second room, it was huge. Really. There were
> some scenes set there.
I remember Curly shared with Kev before Kev went to Hilda's. Kev had Issues
with Curly's telescope. There was a storyline that involved a number of
scenes of Kev in very skimpy undies.
Gill
Enzo Matrix
>
> Tracy will have a council house before then. The real problem was when
> Liz was staying with them as well, "on the sofa". What, the sofa in
> the dining room? Not humanly possible.
> The queues for the loo must be hazardous. Is their outside cludgy
> still operational? I don't remember noticing one. Maybe they duck
> into the Rovers all the time.
Apparently it is... in a recent storyline where Kirk was trying to nick
Blanches c****t, he hid in their outside bog. Blanche made some comment
about use of the toilet. The very fact that Kirk was able to get in there
points towards it being usable. If it was disused, it would be full of old
prams and bicycles.
>
>> The Platts - more problems. No doubt Gail >in one bedroom, David in
>> another, with Sarah and Bethany sharing the >third. Is it healthy
>> for a five-year-old to share a room with an adult, even if it >*is*
>> her mother?
>
> Was it healthy for Nick to (presumably)share the room with David and
> bring Maria back to his pad?
Nope... but Gail worshipped the ground that Nicky walked on, so he could get
away with anything.
> I can't figure out why some off the Platts are not offloaded to
> Audreh's mansion. She must be fair rattling round in that, while her
> offspring live like termites in a mound.
If you were Audreh would *you* want any of that tribe of thugs and slappers
living anywhere near you?
>> The Peacocks - Ashleh & Clur in one >bedroom. Joshuah in another,
>> Fred in the third. Fair enough...
>
> What did Fred do with all the dosh he made from selling his big house?
> Time he foudn independent accommodation now that Clur and Ashleh are
> wed. Newlyweds need their space. He's a real gooseberry, I say, a
> right fifth wheel.
And has he still got his other shops. At one time he was supposed to have a
chain of butcher's shops as well as the butchery franchise at Freshcos. We
never hear anything about them any more. If he has sold them he must be
sitting on an absolute fortune! On further consideration, he *must* have
sold them otherwise he wouldn't have got in such a tizzy over losing the
Viaduct St shop to Baldwin in a poker game.
> Enzo, have you tried ignatia for insomnia? It's sold in homeopathic
> and healthfood outlets and is very effective.
Ta for the tip, but I don't get insomnia very often. Last night was just a
bit odd...
Enzo Matrix
It's amazing how many different euphoniums there are for "toilet"....
Loo, lav, bog, cludgy, biffy, khasi, heads, traps, thunderbox, porcelain
telephone... any more?
Enzo Matrix
She's eighteen, so legally she is an adult... but then, the law is an ass!
Enzo Matrix
Careful now! You know RRenee's back?
Ophelia
"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GrednREYrMbwHRje...@giganews.com...
> Gillian V sniggered evilly behind my back:
>> SouthSeas <dale...@lycos.com> wrote
>>> When Curly rented that second room, it was huge. Really. There were
>>> some scenes set there.
>>
>> I remember Curly shared with Kev before Kev went to Hilda's. Kev had
>> Issues with Curly's telescope. There was a storyline that involved a
>> number of scenes of Kev in very skimpy undies.
>
> Careful now! You know RRenee's back?
Why would she know RRenee's back. Personally I have only spoken to her
front
Diane Johnston
> Enzo reckons:
>
>>The Peacocks - Ashleh & Clur in one >bedroom. Joshuah in another, Fred in the
>>third. Fair enough...
>
>
> What did Fred do with all the dosh he made from selling his big house?
> Time he foudn independent accommodation now that Clur and Ashleh are
> wed. Newlyweds need their space. He's a real gooseberry, I say, a right
> fifth wheel.
>
>
I believe fred used the money from the sale of his house to buy
Eve the Rovers Return.
Diane
Katherine
Eggzackerly!
TTFN
Katherine (It is too early to remember which Dickens character said that.)
Nick T.
loos, except I believe
the Walker's, now they do, and have bathrooms, where was the space
found for the inside loo and bath??
Enzo Matrix
aha yes... good remembering, RDiane!
renee...@myway.com
Gillian V wrote:
> There was a storyline that involved a number of
> scenes of Kev in very skimpy undies.
Do you, perchance, have a video of those episodes, dear? If so, I'd
like a copy. For archiving purposes, naturally.
your friend,
Renee
JPG
Enzo Matrix wrote:
Starting stall, dunny, reading room, sh*thouse, outhouse, john, meeting
room of the ASPRS (Armitage-Shanks Plastering and Rendering Society).
Mudge
On 11/24/2005 01:42:33 "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
> And has he still got his other shops. At one time he was supposed to have
> a chain of butcher's shops as well as the butchery franchise at Freshcos.
> We never hear anything about them any more. If he has sold them he must
> be sitting on an absolute fortune! On further consideration, he *must*
> have sold them otherwise he wouldn't have got in such a tizzy over losing
> the Viaduct St shop to Baldwin in a poker game.
Didn't the shop he had in Freshco close when Freshco changed hands
(sold to an American Co. as I recall) and wasn't his "chain" all
located in various Freshco outlets - as I recall he only had one
stand-alone shop which was closed when he moved to Viaduct Street at
the time Granada revised the street layout.
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in sunny, 16.6C, Calgary)
Gillian V
<renee...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1132839971.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Naturally. But I can't oblige - your imagination will have to suffice!
It was very unCorrie-like at the time and almost had the whiff of a promo
for Michael le Vell. Perhaps this was early in the drive to attract younger
viewers?
Gill
Anne
Where did Ray sleep when he was staying with Emily (Cdn timeline)? Norris
wouldn't share his room - or we'd have heard about it repeatedly wouldn't
we? And where did/does Ray sleep now that he has left Emily's and gone to
No 1 (perhaps we will see tonight?)?
Enzo Matrix
I think that he slept downstairs in the front room, in the same room where
Magneto stayed. I don't think that Ray was mobile enough to get up and down
the stiars, which also brings up the question of which bog did he use?
> And where did/does Ray sleep now that he has
> left Emily's and gone to No 1 (perhaps we will see tonight?)?
I think that Tracy and Amy moved out for the duration. Blanche would
therefore have taken Tracy's room and Ray took Blanche's room. The bog
enigma is still valid.
Mudge
On 11/24/2005 13:59:57 "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
> I think that he slept downstairs in the front room, in the same room where
> Magneto stayed. I don't think that Ray was mobile enough to get up and
> down the stiars, which also brings up the question of which bog did he
> use?
Wouldn't Emily have one in the back yard (like Les B) or maybe he used
Les' loo !
Enzo Matrix
> On 11/24/2005 13:59:57 "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
>
>> I think that he slept downstairs in the front room, in the same room
>> where Magneto stayed. I don't think that Ray was mobile enough to
>> get up and down the stiars, which also brings up the question of
>> which bog did he use?
>
> Wouldn't Emily have one in the back yard (like Les B) or maybe he used
> Les' loo !
This links into another current thread. It seems that there are at least
three of the terraced houses which may still have serviceable outside loos:
Nos 1, 3 and 5. These houses are all contiguous. I wonder if that is a
significant fact. Isn't the next house in line the one that collapsed and
was rebuilt by Len Fairclough?
Anne
Deirdre, Ray having Blanche's room, Tracy staying in hers because she'd have
to look after Amy during the day (when does Tracy EVER look after Amy, and
why would she need a bedroom during the day - couldn't the toddler nap in
Deirdre's room?) and Ken got the couch. I am with him, for it is HIS house,
not that of any of the females with whom he shares it. Anyway, is this
tardis effect (I've never seen Doctor Who), as that means there are three
bedrooms upstairs.
Enzo Matrix
And when does Sarah *ever* look after the Bethanies?
> and why would she need a bedroom during the day -
> couldn't the toddler nap in Deirdre's room?) and Ken got the couch.
> I am with him, for it is HIS house, not that of any of the females
> with whom he shares it. Anyway, is this tardis effect (I've never
> seen Doctor Who), as that means there are three bedrooms upstairs.
Blanche has the front room downstairs. Well, in your timeline, Ray has it
now...
I remember now... Tracy wanted to move into Steve's with Amy, but Steve
wasn't having any of it... *That's* why Tracy "needed" a bedroom.
I has hoped that Steve would have *really* set the cat amongst the pigeons
by offering his spare room to Ken! That could have been fun...
MartinS
> And has he still got his other shops. At one time he was supposed to
> have a chain of butcher's shops as well as the butchery franchise at
> Freshcos. We never hear anything about them any more. If he has sold
> them he must be sitting on an absolute fortune! On further
> consideration, he *must* have sold them otherwise he wouldn't have got
> in such a tizzy over losing the Viaduct St shop to Baldwin in a poker
> game.
Victoria Street. Pay attention at he back!!
--
Martin S.
MartinS
>>
>>> I think that he slept downstairs in the front room, in the same room
>>> where Magneto stayed. I don't think that Ray was mobile enough to
>>> get up and down the stiars, which also brings up the question of
>>> which bog did he use?
>>
>> Wouldn't Emily have one in the back yard (like Les B) or maybe he
>> used Les' loo !
>
> This links into another current thread. It seems that there are at
> least three of the terraced houses which may still have serviceable
> outside loos: Nos 1, 3 and 5. These houses are all contiguous. I
> wonder if that is a significant fact. Isn't the next house in line
> the one that collapsed and was rebuilt by Len Fairclough?
Those little outhouses are too tiny for loos. The bog that was installed
for a Les storyline actually extends through into Emily's. I saw it with
my own eyes when I visited the set, 'way back.
And the "brick" walls between the back yards are made of styrofoam, so as
to be easily movable for the cameras. It was only this week I noticed
there is only a run-down fence, not a brick wall, between Nos. 1 and 3.
--
Martin S.
Enzo Matrix
So which one is Viaduct Street? I know, I know... we have this discussion
every few months! :-)
Anne
> Anne sniggered evilly behind my back:
> > "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:keOdnSMjn8t...@giganews.com...
> >> Anne sniggered evilly behind my back:
> >>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:hL6dnRUBlfO...@giganews.com...
> >>>> Spolierish space
> >>>> -
> >>>> -
> >>>> -
> >>>> -
> >>>>
> >>>>
Well, she used to take her to and from the day care centre, and did care for
her when she was with Todd.
>
> > and why would she need a bedroom during the day -
> > couldn't the toddler nap in Deirdre's room?) and Ken got the couch.
> > I am with him, for it is HIS house, not that of any of the females
> > with whom he shares it. Anyway, is this tardis effect (I've never
> > seen Doctor Who), as that means there are three bedrooms upstairs.
>
> Blanche has the front room downstairs. Well, in your timeline, Ray has it
> now...
Where is the front room downstairs? I know we see one in the Webster's
House, where they sit and watch TV. But don't recall ever seeing one in
Ken's house. Is it at the front of the house?
>
> I remember now... Tracy wanted to move into Steve's with Amy, but Steve
> wasn't having any of it... *That's* why Tracy "needed" a bedroom.
>
> I has hoped that Steve would have *really* set the cat amongst the pigeons
> by offering his spare room to Ken! That could have been fun...
Yes!
Anne
"MartinS" <m...@my.place> wrote in message
news:4387c24f$0$233$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
Enzo Matrix
>> has it now...
>
> Where is the front room downstairs?
It's downstairs. At the front! <Enzo ducks>
> I know we see one in the
> Webster's House, where they sit and watch TV. But don't recall ever
> seeing one in Ken's house. Is it at the front of the house?
nodnodnod :-) Between the living room and the front door is a little
hallway. The stairs lead up from the hallway and the front room leads off
from it. Some of the houses have had the front rooms knocked through.
Those that definitely have front rooms are:
No 1 - The Barlows
No 3 - Emily & Norris
No 11 - The Grimshaws
No 13 - The Websters
No 5 - The Battersbys and No 7 - Frankie and Jamie have had their walls
knocked through. The front door opens directly into their main room.
I can't remember about No 9 - The Duckies. I think that they have a hallway
which must mean that they also have a front room, but I can't ever remember
seeing inside it. Mind you, David the Spawn of Satan put the front window
through once.
Maybe the reason that we have never seen it is that Jack is never allowed in
there. Actually, that's a typical Northern thing. My Gran and Grandad had a
house very similar to the terraces in Coronation Street. The front room was
only for best and no one - but *no one* - was allowed in unless it was a
very special occasion indeed. The only time I can remember my Grandad being
allowed in there was when he was in his coffin.
Anne
> Anne sniggered evilly behind my back:
> >> Blanche has the front room downstairs. Well, in your timeline, Ray
> >> has it now...
>
> > Webster's House, where they sit and watch TV. But don't recall ever
> > seeing one in Ken's house. Is it at the front of the house?
>
> nodnodnod :-) Between the living room and the front door is a little
> hallway. The stairs lead up from the hallway and the front room leads off
> from it. Some of the houses have had the front rooms knocked through.
>
> Those that definitely have front rooms are:
>
> No 1 - The Barlows
> No 3 - Emily & Norris
> No 11 - The Grimshaws
> No 13 - The Websters
>
> No 5 - The Battersbys and No 7 - Frankie and Jamie have had their walls
> knocked through. The front door opens directly into their main room.
>
> I can't remember about No 9 - The Duckies. I think that they have a
hallway
> which must mean that they also have a front room, but I can't ever
remember
> seeing inside it. Mind you, David the Spawn of Satan put the front window
> through once.
Thanks Enzo. We do see a phone in the hall at the Duckies, don't we?
Gillian V
Enzo Matrix <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Maybe the reason that we have never seen it is that Jack is never allowed
in
> there. Actually, that's a typical Northern thing. My Gran and Grandad had
a
> house very similar to the terraces in Coronation Street. The front room
was
> only for best and no one - but *no one* - was allowed in unless it was a
> very special occasion indeed. The only time I can remember my Grandad
being
> allowed in there was when he was in his coffin.
Interesting memories, Enzo. Whilst old houses in NZ varied enormously in
layout, if the kitchen/living was big enough, often the "sitting room" was
kept for entertaining visitors - up to the time of telly, that is, then many
people had their telly installed in the "sitting room". Telly watching
quickly ceased to be a special occasion thingy, so the sitting rooms were
opened up for general use.
Long before our family's telly days, we had our phone in the "sitting room"
as using the phone was almost in the category of a special occasion, too,
i.e. you only used it if you had to and making a toll call (trunk call?) was
a mammoth occasion for which you had to be mentally and financially prepared
(I jest a little, but only a little).
My big brother took to entertaining his girlfriend in the sitting room, so
then I would find a reason for plonking myself in there at the same time
(books were kept there too!!).
Gill
Enzo Matrix
> My big brother took to entertaining his girlfriend in the sitting
> room, so then I would find a reason for plonking myself in there at
> the same time (books were kept there too!!).
I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom is
exempt.
<Enzo likes books! :-) >
Gillian V
> Gillian V sniggered evilly behind my back:
> > My big brother took to entertaining his girlfriend in the sitting
> > room, so then I would find a reason for plonking myself in there at
> > the same time (books were kept there too!!).
>
> I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom is
> exempt.
>
> <Enzo likes books! :-) >
Is that bathroom in the American sense? If not, do you have 'em in the loo,
too?
Gill
Enzo Matrix
> Enzo Matrix <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9s6dncbTcJ09QxXe...@giganews.com...
>> Gillian V sniggered evilly behind my back:
>>> My big brother took to entertaining his girlfriend in the sitting
>>> room, so then I would find a reason for plonking myself in there at
>>> the same time (books were kept there too!!).
>>
>> I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom is
>> exempt.
>>
>> <Enzo likes books! :-) >
>
> Is that bathroom in the American sense? If not, do you have 'em in
> the loo, too?
It's "bathroom" because it has a bath in it. It also has a loo...
I don't keep books in there, 'cos they'd probably get all soggy.
Maggy
> Maybe the reason that we have never seen it is that Jack is never allowed in
> there. Actually, that's a typical Northern thing. My Gran and Grandad had a
> house very similar to the terraces in Coronation Street. The front room was
> only for best and no one - but *no one* - was allowed in unless it was a
> very special occasion indeed. The only time I can remember my Grandad being
> allowed in there was when he was in his coffin.
>
No, don't think it's a northern thing, I grew up in a very similar house
to the corrie ones, and that was in Somerset. The only difference I can
see is we had a little walled 'garden' outside the front door. Anyway
we only used the front room on special occasions, at Christmas we put a
tree in there and lit a fire. lol and when peter and I were courting we
were allowed a little privacy by using it . So In would say it is?was a
british thing
Gillian V
Even the rather dry ones...... ?
MartinS
My grandparents had a terrace house with a front room that I don't ever
remember being used, even on special occasions. It had a musty smell,
and contained a suite of furniture, a china cabinet and a wind-up
console gramophone. I seem to remember the curtains were always drawn.
A few years ago, I saw an estate agent's listing for the same house,
which was unrecognizable. The bay window had been removed, and internal
walls knocked out. I don't remember the price, but it was obviously many
times what my grandparents paid for it around 1910. They lived there
until they both died in 1962.
--
Martin S.
MartinS
Maggy
were in .
SouthSeas
>Whilst old houses in NZ varied enormously in
>layout, if the kitchen/living was big enough, often the "sitting room" was
>kept for entertaining visitors - up to the time of telly, that is, then many
>people had their telly installed in the "sitting room
My grandparents lived in a sprawly 1920s "Californian bungalow", and
the good front room could not have been further away from the kitchen,
so was reserved for formal afternoon teas, and the Christmas tree
gathering and frolics. The back parlour sufficed for daily life. (Mind
you, the front room was also a good place to put children when the
grownups wanted a private chat. Along with the riding instructions
about what we were and were not allowed to touch. ) We liked raiding
the china cabinet for my great-grandmother's Goss collection, which was
cheap enough to let kids play with. Including the Sussex pig that said
"You can push and you can shove, but I'm hanged if I'll be druv." And
the trick jug that would not pour unless you know where to put your
fingers, and Anne Hathaway's cottage, and all the other residue of late
Victorian and Edwardian holidays in the UK.
A three piece velvet suite in serviceable shades of taupe, the carpet
square in a rather advanced fauvist pattern, the gold edged convex
mirror hung low enough to amuse the grandchildren, and the pianny with
the brass candle sconces. The furniture was pure 1920s, as it lasted
forever being so seldom used. The huge cabinet radio and the elegant
china cabinet with a motley of contents including granny's brother's
curios from his service in India, and a crazed egg cup "that had been
through the Napier earthquake". Grandfather had travelled a lot as a
young man, so some of his curios were very curious indeed. Spoils of
empire, you might say. Load of old tat, you might also say.
Nothing whatsoever to do with Corrie, I just enjoyed walking through
the old rooms today in my mind. Ta.
Except that a glance through modern real estate pages (NZ ones anyway)
on the net confirms that the tradition of keeping the sitting room for
best continues today no matter what your house shape and standard of
elegance. If you've got two living areas, they will be formal and
informal, sure as eggs.
SouthSeas
Gillian V
SouthSeas <dale...@lycos.com> wrote
> Nothing whatsoever to do with Corrie, I just enjoyed walking through
> the old rooms today in my mind. Ta.
It's easy for forget, too, how c-c-c-c-cooooold those "best" rooms were in
winter-time, too.
> Except that a glance through modern real estate pages (NZ ones anyway)
> on the net confirms that the tradition of keeping the sitting room for
> best continues today no matter what your house shape and standard of
> elegance. If you've got two living areas, they will be formal and
> informal, sure as eggs.
Well.... "if" must be the operative word then, cos hubby and I are not and
never have been in that posh category!
Gill
Mamie007
Indeed Dale. My parents' house had a lovely large living room with my
mother's best furniture and decor which we were virtually forbidden from
entering. The room ran the full width of the house with an entrance at
either end. At one end was the "family" room which was where most of the
family activities took place. The decor there was considerably more rustic
and included a full wall fieldstone fireplace. That was the room that the
kids had full run of.
Mary Sue (mamie007)
Ottawa
Mamie007
We'd call it dating these days Maggy. That can be done whilst going out or
staying in. :-)
Mary Sue (mamie007)
Ottawa
Ophelia
shared their childhood memories.
I have put them on a website and I wondered whether those of you who
have shared memories here, would object to me putting their memories on
the site too.
http://www.qpat.co.uk/Memories.htm
Enzo Matrix
> Enzo Matrix wrote:
>
>> Maybe the reason that we have never seen it is that Jack is never
>> allowed in there. Actually, that's a typical Northern thing. My Gran
>> and Grandad had a house very similar to the terraces in Coronation
>> Street. The front room was only for best and no one - but *no one* -
>> was allowed in unless it was a very special occasion indeed. The
>> only time I can remember my Grandad being allowed in there was when
>> he was in his coffin.
>>
> No, don't think it's a northern thing, I grew up in a very similar
> house to the corrie ones, and that was in Somerset. The only
> difference I can see is we had a little walled 'garden' outside the
> front door.
You grew up in a very posh 'ouse. There were some houses like that in the
street at the bottom of the hill from my grandparents place. I remember that
one of them was a toffee shop.
Enzo Matrix
Round our way, drawn curtains in the daytime were a sign of mourning.
Enzo Matrix
By all means, put mine up there if you wish. :-)
Ophelia
"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:luadnasqvvgBABTe...@giganews.com...
> Ophelia sniggered evilly behind my back:
>> On alt.fan.goons there has been a similar thread where people have
>> shared their childhood memories.
>>
>> I have put them on a website and I wondered whether those of you who
>> have shared memories here, would object to me putting their memories
>> on the site too.
>>
>> http://www.qpat.co.uk/Memories.htm
>
> By all means, put mine up there if you wish. :-)
ta:)
Ophelia
"Ophelia" <oph...@nix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Zdhif.81500$375....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
BTW write some more stuff eh? Get that mind going back and
remembering:)
Katherine
I'll do that, Ophelia, when I get some free time. Please remind me, either
here or in the other place.
TTFN
Katherine
Maggy
>
> Round our way, drawn curtains in the daytime were a sign of mourning.
>
that was the same for us, drawn curtains were a mark of respect, on the
day of the funeral all the curtains in the street would be drawn.
Ophelia
--
Childhood Memories
http://www.qpat.co.uk/Memories.htm
"Katherine" <kbur...@crrstv.net> wrote in message
news:3utq4jF...@individual.net...
Ok I will look forward to seeing it:))
Gordon Davie
These days it shows that a student lives there.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Gillian V
E. Barry Bruyea <liberala...@program.pc.ca> wrote
> A little bit of historical trivia: One of my wife's first jobs was
> with Bell Canada as part time Telephone Operator. She worked in the
> section that handled overseas calls, as you had to contact the
> operator to make the call. She would place the call through Montreal
> and after connected, she would listen in so that the time the
> caller/callee spent 'crying' or being very emotional, would not be
> charged, as it was hellishly expensive. A different time.
:-)
Indeed, a different time...
Gill
Alf...@gmail.com
..OI! Erm - reaction from some thirty years ago, but reflex still working..
--
Josef
Mudge
On 11/26/2005 07:31:54 "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
> Maybe the reason that we have never seen it is that Jack is never allowed
> in there. Actually, that's a typical Northern thing. My Gran and Grandad
> had a house very similar to the terraces in Coronation Street. The front
> room was only for best and no one - but *no one* - was allowed in unless
> it was a very special occasion indeed. The only time I can remember my
> Grandad being allowed in there was when he was in his coffin.
Was 'e a wake ???
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in sunny, -3C, snowy, Calgary)
Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and
for the same reason. -- Anonymous
Nick T.
used for special occasions,the furniture was usually covered, and it
was freezing in the winter No bathroom, and the loo was out back. Their
terraced house is still there, presumably it has been modernised.(there
is a satellite dish on the outside).
Mudge
On 11/26/2005 15:15:46 "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
> I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom is
> exempt.
Why - the loo is the only place I can catch up on me "light reading"
Enzo Matrix
> On 11/26/2005 07:31:54 "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
>
>> Maybe the reason that we have never seen it is that Jack is never
>> allowed in there. Actually, that's a typical Northern thing. My
>> Gran and Grandad had a house very similar to the terraces in
>> Coronation Street. The front room was only for best and no one -
>> but *no one* - was allowed in unless it was a very special occasion
>> indeed. The only time I can remember my Grandad being allowed in
>> there was when he was in his coffin.
>
> Was 'e a wake ???
Me Gran wouldn't have a wake. Shame really... me Grandad would've liked
that.
Alf...@gmail.com
>
> On 11/26/2005 15:15:46 "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
>
>
>>I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom is
>>exempt.
>
>
> Why - the loo is the only place I can catch up on me "light reading"
..Like Peanuts, and Garfield? Haegar The Horrible?
:-)
--
Josef
SouthSeas
I went to a loo once (in Milton Keynes - don't snigger) in which three
of the four walls were lined with bookshelves full of books, and the
fourth - the back of the door - was papered with topographical maps.
The owners were Americans, and university lecturers. Friends of
friends.
Truly some people will go to any length in their ceaseless quest for
knowledge.
SouthSeas
Ophelia
"SouthSeas" <dale...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1133134646.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Blimey!!!
Alex Cunningham
>>"Enzo Matrix" wrote:
>> I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom is
>> exempt.
>"Mudge" <mu...@nospam.ever> wrote
> Why - the loo is the only place I can catch up on me "light reading"
Ditto.
--
Cheers.
Alex C.
There are 12,000,000 sheep in Ontario.
Problem is 9,000,000 of them think they are people.
Mudge
On 11/27/2005 15:18:01 "AlfaMS" wrote:
> Mudge wrote:
>> "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
>>> I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom is
>>> exempt.
>> Why - the loo is the only place I can catch up on me "light reading"
> ...Like Peanuts, and Garfield? Haegar The Horrible?
Nope - At this moment - "Constable on the Green" by Nicholas Rhea -
last week it was a re-read of "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov and next week a
re-read of "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel
Mudge
On 11/27/2005 17:02:37 "Ophelia" wrote:
> "SouthSeas" wrote
>> A true story.
>> I went to a loo once (in Milton Keynes - don't snigger) in which three of
>> the four walls were lined with bookshelves full of books, and the fourth
>> - the back of the door - was papered with topographical maps.
>> The owners were Americans, and university lecturers. Friends of friends.
>> Truly some people will go to any length in their ceaseless quest for
>> knowledge.
> Blimey!!!
Bet all them books made for good insulation and sound proofing !!!
Alf...@gmail.com
>
> On 11/27/2005 15:18:01 "AlfaMS" wrote:
>
>
>>Mudge wrote:
>
>
>>>"Enzo Matrix" wrote:
>
>
>>>>I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom is
>>>>exempt.
>
>
>>>Why - the loo is the only place I can catch up on me "light reading"
>
>
>>...Like Peanuts, and Garfield? Haegar The Horrible?
>
>
> Nope - At this moment - "Constable on the Green" by Nicholas Rhea -
> last week it was a re-read of "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov and next week a
> re-read of "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel
..Don't know the first one - the other two are very recommendable.
Do you know Walter M. Miller jr.'s "A Canticle For Leibowitz" (1959)?
Not "light reading", though..
--
Josef
Gordon Davie
The main difference between an Irish wake and an Irish wedding is that
there's one fewer drunk at the wake.
Enzo Matrix
>
>> Mudge wrote:
>
>>> "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
>
>>>> I have books in almost every room of the house. Only the bathroom
>>>> is exempt.
>
>>> Why - the loo is the only place I can catch up on me "light reading"
>
>> ...Like Peanuts, and Garfield? Haegar The Horrible?
>
> Nope - At this moment - "Constable on the Green" by Nicholas Rhea -
> last week it was a re-read of "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov
Didn't take you long, did it? 's only a short story! ;-)
Have you read Roger MacBride Allen's "Utopia" trilogy? The books -
"Caliban", "Inferno" and "Utopia" - are set in Asimov's robot universe and
deal with the rivalry between Spacers and Settlers and the fact that robots
have become mankind's greatest danger. The premise of the trilogy was
developed in co-operation with Dr Asimov before his death. Recommended.
Mudge
On 11/28/2005 12:04:08 "AlfaMS wrote:
> Mudge wrote:
>> Nope - At this moment - "Constable on the Green" by Nicholas Rhea - last
>> week it was a re-read of "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov and next week a
>> re-read of "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel
> ...Don't know the first one - the other two are very recommendable.
The "Constable" books are the ones which formed the base for the
"Heartbeat" TV series - a tad surprised you had heard of the last - I
have had two of those books stolen by "borrowers" the one I still have
is staying in my library as I find it fascinating and somewhat
prophetic.
> Do you know Walter M. Miller jr.'s "A Canticle For Leibowitz" (1959)? Not
> "light reading", though..
I started reading that one a few years ago and must admit I did not
finish it - I also could not finish James Joyce' "Ulysses" (can anyone) ?
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in sunny, -5C, snowy, Calgary)
Alf...@gmail.com
>
> On 11/28/2005 12:04:08 "AlfaMS wrote:
>
>
>>Mudge wrote:
>
>
>>>Nope - At this moment - "Constable on the Green" by Nicholas Rhea - last
>>>week it was a re-read of "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov and next week a
>>>re-read of "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel
>
>
>>...Don't know the first one - the other two are very recommendable.
>
>
> The "Constable" books are the ones which formed the base for the
> "Heartbeat" TV series - a tad surprised you had heard of the last - I
> have had two of those books stolen by "borrowers" the one I still have
> is staying in my library as I find it fascinating and somewhat
> prophetic.
..Ah - heartbeat - that is what rang a bell here, but I could not put a
name to it, so to speak. And it weren't me who stole that book from your
bog - honest!
>>Do you know Walter M. Miller jr.'s "A Canticle For Leibowitz" (1959)? Not
>>"light reading", though..
>
>
> I started reading that one a few years ago and must admit I did not
> finish it - I also could not finish James Joyce' "Ulysses" (can anyone) ?
I found ACFL really fascinating in the early 70ies. And I bet that even
my profs at uni 'cross-read' Ulysses - LOL! I serpently did not!
--
Josef
Alf...@gmail.com
I haven't read them, Enzo. Does the word, 'exterminate' occur?
--
Josef
Enzo Matrix
Nope. Robots are seen as mankind's greatest danger simply because they
won't allow mankind to *get* into danger. Therefore robots start to cause
mankind to stagnate. They are very interesting books, with a resolution
that brings its own problems!
SouthSeas
>Nope. Robots are seen as mankind's greatest danger simply because they
>won't allow mankind to *get* into danger.
I haven't read much sci-fi since my teens, when I loved it, but ISTR a
tacit acceptance that robots would have some moral imperatives
hardwired in.
Now that the Japanese are making all the great leaps in robotics, do
you think they are building a Japanese world view into their robots?
What moral assumptions might a Japanese robot make, and how might these
differ from those of a US-made robot?
SouthSeas
just pondering out loud, so to speak
Alf...@gmail.com
..Thanks for that reply. A danger I have read about in quite a few
sci-fi books. Once the bots take over control, etc. Stagnation being the
key word here..
--
Josef
Alf...@gmail.com
> Enzo reckons:
>
>>Nope. Robots are seen as mankind's greatest danger simply because they
>>won't allow mankind to *get* into danger.
>
>
> I haven't read much sci-fi since my teens, when I loved it, but ISTR a
> tacit acceptance that robots would have some moral imperatives
> hardwired in.
..I think you are thinking of 'robotic laws', c.o. Isaac Asimov?
> Now that the Japanese are making all the great leaps in robotics, do
> you think they are building a Japanese world view into their robots?
Who knows? Maybe a doggie going 'Banzai!' on you when you least expect
it? A sheet of paper doing a self-folding origami in your pocket?
> What moral assumptions might a Japanese robot make, and how might these
> differ from those of a US-made robot?
..Erm - the US robots were acting quite well, until they acted up..
;-)
--
Josef
Enzo Matrix
> Enzo reckons:
>> Nope. Robots are seen as mankind's greatest danger simply because
>> they won't allow mankind to *get* into danger.
>
> I haven't read much sci-fi since my teens, when I loved it, but ISTR a
> tacit acceptance that robots would have some moral imperatives
> hardwired in.
Yes, Asimov's robots had the Three Laws of Robotics built into them. These
were:
First Law: A robot may not harm a human being or through inaction allow a
human being to come to harm.
Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except
where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence, except where such
protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
(Note: it is a measure of my sad-and-geekiness that I didn't have to Google
for that!)
Robots themselves later formulated a Zeroth Law which stated that robots may
not injure humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.
Having given his robots these laws, Asimov then spent virtually every robot
story working out ways to show that these hard-and-fast laws were actually
inadequate.
Many science-fiction writers took the Three Laws of Robotics as a basis for
their own writing. Data, in Star Trek: TNG is a positronic android and,
although he doesn't actually have the Three Laws built in, he does have
"ethical subroutines", which are software equivalents. However Data's
subroutines can be deactivated. The Three Laws of Asimov's robots are a
feature of the robot's brain and any tampering will damage the robot so much
that it will become inactive.
Other sf writers have rebelled against Asimov's view of robots. Alastair
Reynolds has two types of robots in his books: Asimov-compliant and
Non-Asimov-compliant. In one book ("Century Rain") the main protagonist asks
a robot if it is Asimov-compliant. The robot is very offended and displays
its weaponry to make the point. Is this the first instance of robot racism?
> Now that the Japanese are making all the great leaps in robotics, do
> you think they are building a Japanese world view into their robots?
I doubt it. Asimov's robots came into being fully developed, rather than
being developed in an incremental manner as most machines are. In Asimov's
universe people were suffering from the "Frankenstein Complex" where they
saw robots as a threat to their own well-being or even their very existence.
Therefore positronic robots were invented at great expense and were not
released to the general public until they were fully developed (although as
events showed, not necessarily reliable).
In *our* universe, no one would spend that sort of money over a long period
without wanting some return on their investment. Therefore, robots of
varying capabilities would be (and have been) introduced to industry in an
unsafe condition. Any robots that are produced have their programming
introduced after they are built, much like Data's ethical subroutines.
Therefore any competent programmer should be able to produce his or her own
"laws" with which to overwrite the originals.
In a way, Asimov's robots were reflections of ourselves to allow us to
examine aspects of our own behaviour through the eyes of another.
Enzo Matrix
>> Enzo reckons:
>>
>>> Nope. Robots are seen as mankind's greatest danger simply because
>>> they won't allow mankind to *get* into danger.
>>
>>
>> I haven't read much sci-fi since my teens, when I loved it, but ISTR
>> a tacit acceptance that robots would have some moral imperatives
>> hardwired in.
>
> ..I think you are thinking of 'robotic laws', c.o. Isaac Asimov?
>
>> Now that the Japanese are making all the great leaps in robotics, do
>> you think they are building a Japanese world view into their robots?
>
> Who knows? Maybe a doggie going 'Banzai!' on you when you least expect
> it? A sheet of paper doing a self-folding origami in your pocket?
LOL
And what about that robot velociraptor thingy? It's just crap!
Alf...@gmail.com
..Very good, REnzo
--
Josef
Enzo Matrix
SouthSeas
No, I was not talking about the fiction. Of course I remember old
Asimov's laws and the disagreement with them that you cite. It did not
grip me much at the time and has failed to hold my attention since, so
I alluded to it only as a starting point.
But what is happening in the real world now does intrigue me. The
Japanese seem so very "other" in many of their social assumptions and
givens, and I wondered if a similar national bent could be perceived in
their robotic development. I am bit pressed for time at the moment
(going out in a few minutes) to think of examples, but maybe you bright
sparks might.
SouthSeas
LandLockedSue
>
> I started reading that one a few years ago and must admit I did not
> finish it - I also could not finish James Joyce' "Ulysses" (can
> anyone) ?
>
HTH
Sue ;-)
ps...I never finished it, either but have found an even more wordy,
dragging, when-will-something-ever-happen book which beats Ulysses for
tedium (not to mention wondering what anyone - 'critic' or reader - found
to recommend it). And the winner is....Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read it, unless you're having trouble sleeping or
are into self-inflicted torture.
Enzo Matrix
> ps...I never finished it, either but have found an even more wordy,
> dragging, when-will-something-ever-happen book which beats Ulysses for
> tedium (not to mention wondering what anyone - 'critic' or reader -
> found to recommend it). And the winner is....Jonathan Strange and Mr
> Norrell. Whatever you do, DO NOT read it, unless you're having
> trouble sleeping or are into self-inflicted torture.
You're not the first person I know to have given it a big thumbs down, RSue!
Alex Cunningham
>>>Mudge wrote
>>> I started reading that one a few years ago and must admit I did not
>>> finish it - I also could not finish James Joyce' "Ulysses" (can
>>> anyone) ?
>> LandLockedSue <no...@home.ca> wrote:
>>The butler did it.
>>ps...I never finished it, either but have found an even more wordy,
>>dragging, when-will-something-ever-happen book which beats Ulysses for
>>tedium (not to mention wondering what anyone - 'critic' or reader - found
>>to recommend it). And the winner is....Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.
>>Whatever you do, DO NOT read it, unless you're having trouble sleeping or
>>are into self-inflicted torture.
>E. Barry Bruyea" wrote:
> "Ulyssses" is the ultimate test for patience and dedication. I
> remember ploughing through it, minute by minute, hour by hour;
> painful.
Thanks for the warning, Barry. I guess I will wait for the movie. ;-)
Katherine
> E. Barry Bruyea <liberala...@program.pc.ca> wrote
>> A little bit of historical trivia: One of my wife's first jobs was
>> with Bell Canada as part time Telephone Operator. She worked in the
>> section that handled overseas calls, as you had to contact the
>> operator to make the call. She would place the call through Montreal
>> and after connected, she would listen in so that the time the
>> caller/callee spent 'crying' or being very emotional, would not be
>> charged, as it was hellishly expensive. A different time.
So, your wife used to be a call girl? <g>
TTFN
Katherine
Katherine
Really, Sue? I have just acquired that, and was looking forward to reading
it over the holidays. Hmmm!!!
TTFN
Katherine
LandLockedSue
> LandLockedSue wrote:
>>
>> ps...I never finished it, either but have found an even more wordy,
>> dragging, when-will-something-ever-happen book which beats Ulysses
>> for tedium (not to mention wondering what anyone - 'critic' or reader
>> - found to recommend it). And the winner is....Jonathan Strange and
>> Mr Norrell. Whatever you do, DO NOT read it, unless you're having
>> trouble sleeping or are into self-inflicted torture.
>
> Really, Sue? I have just acquired that, and was looking forward to
> reading it over the holidays. Hmmm!!!
Truthfully, Katherine, I would return it to the store and get your money
back. It is that bad. However, if you are determined, than read it but
IGNORE ALL FOOTNOTES!!! The footnotes don't provide any information
(real or otherwise) but they do drag out the story without adding
anything to it. You literally won't miss out on any info relevant to the
book by skipping them. Some of the footnotes are a page long. So there
is good reason for avoiding them. Unfortunately, I ignored this advice
but gave up reading them around page 280 (about one-quarter of the way
through the book). I gave up reading the book around page 380. It's rare
that I do not finish a book and even more rare that I skip through a
book and read the final pages just to put myself out of my misery.
According to John, things began to happen around page 500 or so but it's
not on his 'recommend' list, either!
The most positive comment I've heard from those who've read it is "it's
okay."
Probably raining on your parade but I'd go out and try to find a copy of
Rockbound by Frank Parker Day. It's Canadian, it's bloody interesting,
it's a slice of life of early 20th century life on an island community
off the coast of Nova Scotia and it's one of the most compelling and
vivid books I've ever read.
I'm also very fond of Catch-22, Eldred, and Far Side cartoon
compilations.
But have no books on my Christmas wish list for the first time in
memory.
Sigh.
Sue
Enzo Matrix
> Truthfully, Katherine, I would return it to the store and get your
> money back. It is that bad. However, if you are determined, than read
> it but IGNORE ALL FOOTNOTES!!! The footnotes don't provide any
> information (real or otherwise) but they do drag out the story
> without adding anything to it. You literally won't miss out on any
> info relevant to the book by skipping them. Some of the footnotes are
> a page long. So there is good reason for avoiding them.
> Unfortunately, I ignored this advice but gave up reading them around
> page 280 (about one-quarter of the way through the book). I gave up
> reading the book around page 380. It's rare that I do not finish a
> book and even more rare that I skip through a book and read the final
> pages just to put myself out of my misery. According to John, things
> began to happen around page 500
They begin to happen around page 500...? How long is the flippin' book?
I've just read two science-fiction books that were each about 1000 pages
long (Pandora's Star and Judas Unchained by Peter F Hamilton). They were two
parts of an epic story. By page 500 in the first book things had long since
started to happen. Page 500 was just about the first major plot twist where
things *really* got interesting. I think five hundred pages waiting around
for summat to happen is asking a little too much of the reader.
> But have no books on my Christmas wish list for the first time in
> memory.
Here's a couple of recommendations:
The First Crusade: A New History by Thomas Asbridge. It's a history book
about... well... the First Crusade! The difference is that this one manages
to avoid a po-faced politically correct 21st century mindset and actually
deals with the history from a medieval viewpoint. It is also the first
crusades book that I've read that gives a plausible military reason why the
Crusaders won the Battle of Antioch when by rights they should have been
slaughtered to a man. It isn't a dry and dusty historical treatise but
rather a vibrant, living history. Highly recommended! RGill first
recommended it to me - I'm glad she did.
Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons. A wonderful parody of some of DH
Lawrence and Thomas Hardy's more doom-laden works. It is bright and funny
and somewhat surreal and never ever takes itself seriously. Again, hghly
recommended.
Gordon Davie
Oh dear - don't get me started on The Far Side. Or else I'm liable to reel
off a list of my favourites into the wee small hours...
Katherine
I read Rockbound last summer, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was prepared for
yet another book of the type A Shipping News, so was pleasantly surprised.
Right now I am reading a new Neil Gaimon, plus the first of the Outlander
series. I have ordered a couple of heavy tomes from Amazon, which will by my
after-Christmas reading. And of course, I have to read Johnathan Strange and
Mr. Norrell. <g>
TTFN
Katherine
Katherine
> On 11/28/2005 12:04:08 "AlfaMS wrote:
>
>> Mudge wrote:
>
>>> Nope - At this moment - "Constable on the Green" by Nicholas Rhea -
>>> last week it was a re-read of "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov and next
>>> week a re-read of "Star of the Unborn" by Franz Werfel
>
>> ...Don't know the first one - the other two are very recommendable.
>
> The "Constable" books are the ones which formed the base for the
> "Heartbeat" TV series - a tad surprised you had heard of the last - I
> have had two of those books stolen by "borrowers" the one I still have
> is staying in my library as I find it fascinating and somewhat
> prophetic.
>
>> Do you know Walter M. Miller jr.'s "A Canticle For Leibowitz"
>> (1959)? Not "light reading", though..
>
> I started reading that one a few years ago and must admit I did not
> finish it - I also could not finish James Joyce' "Ulysses" (can
> anyone) ?
Not in my world.
TTFN
Katherine
Katherine
I agree! But children really, really want it! (According to my
granddaughter!)
TTFN
Katherine
Katherine
> SouthSeas sniggered evilly behind my back:
>> Enzo reckons:
>>> Nope. Robots are seen as mankind's greatest danger simply because
>>> they won't allow mankind to *get* into danger.
>>
>> I haven't read much sci-fi since my teens, when I loved it, but ISTR
>> a tacit acceptance that robots would have some moral imperatives
>> hardwired in.
>
> Yes, Asimov's robots had the Three Laws of Robotics built into them.
> These were:
>
> First Law: A robot may not harm a human being or through inaction
> allow a human being to come to harm.
>
> Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings,
> except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
>
> Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence, except where such
> protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
>
> (Note: it is a measure of my sad-and-geekiness that I didn't have to
> Google for that!)
Does anybody???
TTFN
Katherine
LandLockedSue
> LandLockedSue sniggered evilly behind my back:
>> pages just to put myself out of my misery. According to John, things
>> began to happen around page 500
>
>
> They begin to happen around page 500...? How long is the flippin'
> book?
>
I believe it's a zillion pages long but perhaps it suffers from the print
version of the Tardis-effect. It's 800 pages or so.
> I've just read two science-fiction books that were each about 1000
> pages long (Pandora's Star and Judas Unchained by Peter F Hamilton).
> They were two parts of an epic story. By page 500 in the first book
> things had long since started to happen. Page 500 was just about the
> first major plot twist where things *really* got interesting. I think
> five hundred pages waiting around for summat to happen is asking a
> little too much of the reader.
>
Not so much a sci-fi fan although John is. I'll note these titles for him.
>
>> But have no books on my Christmas wish list for the first time in
>> memory.
>
> Here's a couple of recommendations:
>
> The First Crusade: A New History by Thomas Asbridge. It's a history
> book about... well... the First Crusade! The difference is that this
> one manages to avoid a po-faced politically correct 21st century
...they've made a religious holocaust politically correct? I missed that
one!!
> Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons. A wonderful parody of some of DH
> Lawrence and Thomas Hardy's more doom-laden works. It is bright and
> funny and somewhat surreal and never ever takes itself seriously.
> Again, hghly recommended.
>
I keep meaning to grab this one! Can't stand Hardy; read most of his works
(and not even because they were part of Uni courses) and I'm sorry, but
pages of blather about a tree or brook or blade of grass doesn't do it for
me. As for most of his characters, I'm rooting for a runaway barrel-laden
cart to run them down to put both them and myself out of misery before the
book is half-done!
:-)
Sue
Alex Cunningham
>"LandLockedSue"
> I keep meaning to grab this one! Can't stand Hardy; read most of his works
> (and not even because they were part of Uni courses) and I'm sorry, but
> pages of blather about a tree or brook or blade of grass doesn't do it for
> me. As for most of his characters, I'm rooting for a runaway barrel-laden
> cart to run them down to put both them and myself out of misery before the
> book is half-done! :-)
What's in the barrels? ;-)
Enzo Matrix
>> book about... well... the First Crusade! The difference is that this
>> one manages to avoid a po-faced politically correct 21st century
>
> ...they've made a religious holocaust politically correct? I missed
> that one!!
No... most modern histories that I have read have presented the crusaders as
a ravening horde of avaricious, racist barbarians using the cover of an
armed pilgrimage to further their material and colonial ambitions. They
present the Crusade from a modern perspective and conclude that the
crusaders were totally wrong for doing so and that it is all our fault. They
also like to gloss over the fact that various Muslim factions such as the
Seljuks and the Fatimids were doing *exactly* the same thing - the Seljuks
were actually doing it in *exactly* the same place! What was the Seljuk
invasion of Byzantine Cilicia and Anatolia if not a Muslim Crusade?
This book takes the viewpoint that one cannot judge events that happened a
thousand years ago by today's standards. It also explains that the Crusade
was, first and foremost, an expression of piety and religious devotion,
rather than a war of conquest. If it had to be considered as a war, then it
was a war of liberation, because Jerusalem had been in Byzantine (and
therefore Christian) territory four hundred years before and had been taken
by an aggressive colonising force.
The book also points out that the Crusaders made many Muslim allies on their
journey to Jerusalem, without whom the Crusader states would never have
flourished. It is a very balanced and even-handed account. I enjoyed it.
>> Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons. A wonderful parody of some of
>> DH Lawrence and Thomas Hardy's more doom-laden works. It is bright
>> and funny and somewhat surreal and never ever takes itself seriously.
>> Again, hghly recommended.
>>
> I keep meaning to grab this one! Can't stand Hardy; read most of his
> works (and not even because they were part of Uni courses) and I'm
> sorry, but pages of blather about a tree or brook or blade of grass
> doesn't do it for me.
You will like some parts of Cold Comfort Farm then... Stella Gibbons
obviously had the same opinion as you do about the pages of blather. There
are certain passages where she is obviously having a lot of fun taking the
mickey out of that style of writing. The prose is as purple as she can
possibly make it, and the reader can almost hear her sniggering at the
silliness of it all. She even marks those passages with a "***".