Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Negative quaint?
174 views
Skip to first unread message
Patok
Dec 22, 2011, 3:03:10 PM12/22/11
to
I was minding me own business, checking out the precise definition of
"quaint" on dictionary.com, when it lashed out at me with a quote:
"It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also impossible
to damn it as quaint."
-E.M. Forster
How can one "damn" something as quaint? From my pre-existing
understanding, and from all dictionary entries, I don't see a single
aspect of "quaint" that is negative. What did E.M. Forster mean by that
sentence? Or was he just a bit fruity (as reading other quotations by
him seems to indicate), and above should be chalked up to his personal
idiosyncrazies? (sic)
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
"quaint" on dictionary.com, when it lashed out at me with a quote:
"It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also impossible
to damn it as quaint."
-E.M. Forster
How can one "damn" something as quaint? From my pre-existing
understanding, and from all dictionary entries, I don't see a single
aspect of "quaint" that is negative. What did E.M. Forster mean by that
sentence? Or was he just a bit fruity (as reading other quotations by
him seems to indicate), and above should be chalked up to his personal
idiosyncrazies? (sic)
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Glenn Knickerbocker
Dec 22, 2011, 3:43:30 PM12/22/11
to
On 12/22/2011 3:03 PM, Patok wrote:
> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also impossible
> to damn it as quaint."
> -E.M. Forster
>
> How can one "damn" something as quaint?
Something that is quaint as opposed to beautiful is *merely* quaint,
> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also impossible
> to damn it as quaint."
> -E.M. Forster
>
> How can one "damn" something as quaint?
with no other qualities to recommend it. "How quaint" is spoken in
a dismissive tone to belittle something as being parochial in taste
(often, of course, betraying the speaker's own parochialism).
ŹR
Patok
Dec 22, 2011, 4:04:41 PM12/22/11
to
as quaint, the fault is entirely the damner's.
Glenn Knickerbocker
Dec 22, 2011, 5:54:27 PM12/22/11
to
On 12/22/2011 4:04 PM, Patok wrote:
> Thanks! So it is indeed as I thought - when something is being damned
> as quaint, the fault is entirely the damner's.
I should have marked more clearly that I was talking about two different
> Thanks! So it is indeed as I thought - when something is being damned
> as quaint, the fault is entirely the damner's.
things. There are snobs who mistakenly believe their own parochialisms
to be cosmopolitan, yes, but there's also plenty that's truly inferior
with nothing but quaintness to make people like it. Think of Thomas
Kinkade, for instance, as opposed to Jan Vermeer.
ŽR
Patok
Dec 22, 2011, 6:44:36 PM12/22/11
to
isn't nice in some old-fashioned way, it can't be quaint, or at least
that's how I understand the word. It would be just old-fashioned or
archaic. It seems to me that it is not the quaintness that makes people
like something, but rather the converse - people liking it, and finding
it endearing, makes it quaint. So it seems to me that people that don't
like something, shouldn't call it quaint, but let's say kitsch - as in
the Kinkade case.
Unless what you say is part of the usage that doesn't figure
prominently in the dictionaries yet?
tony cooper
Dec 22, 2011, 7:32:32 PM12/22/11
to
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:44:36 -0500, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>> On 12/22/2011 4:04 PM, Patok wrote:
>>> Thanks! So it is indeed as I thought - when something is being damned
>>> as quaint, the fault is entirely the damner's.
>>
>> I should have marked more clearly that I was talking about two different
>> things. There are snobs who mistakenly believe their own parochialisms
>> to be cosmopolitan, yes, but there's also plenty that's truly inferior
>> with nothing but quaintness to make people like it. Think of Thomas
>> Kinkade, for instance, as opposed to Jan Vermeer.
>
> Well, but doesn't quaintness by definition include likability? If it
>isn't nice in some old-fashioned way, it can't be quaint, or at least
>that's how I understand the word. It would be just old-fashioned or
>archaic. It seems to me that it is not the quaintness that makes people
>like something, but rather the converse - people liking it, and finding
>it endearing, makes it quaint. So it seems to me that people that don't
>like something, shouldn't call it quaint, but let's say kitsch - as in
>the Kinkade case.
> Unless what you say is part of the usage that doesn't figure
>prominently in the dictionaries yet?
You have "quaint" in a box that I don't put it in. "Quaint" is often
used as a "damn with faint praise" description.
Walk into someone's house that is wall-to-wall Precious Moments,
Hummels, salt and pepper shakers, or paintings of big-eyed kids or
anatomically distorted cute cats and you might say "How quaint". Your
observation is not based on likability.
Like many other words, "quaint" is used to indicate approval or to
indicate disdain inoffensively.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
wrote:
>Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>> On 12/22/2011 4:04 PM, Patok wrote:
>>> Thanks! So it is indeed as I thought - when something is being damned
>>> as quaint, the fault is entirely the damner's.
>>
>> I should have marked more clearly that I was talking about two different
>> things. There are snobs who mistakenly believe their own parochialisms
>> to be cosmopolitan, yes, but there's also plenty that's truly inferior
>> with nothing but quaintness to make people like it. Think of Thomas
>> Kinkade, for instance, as opposed to Jan Vermeer.
>
> Well, but doesn't quaintness by definition include likability? If it
>isn't nice in some old-fashioned way, it can't be quaint, or at least
>that's how I understand the word. It would be just old-fashioned or
>archaic. It seems to me that it is not the quaintness that makes people
>like something, but rather the converse - people liking it, and finding
>it endearing, makes it quaint. So it seems to me that people that don't
>like something, shouldn't call it quaint, but let's say kitsch - as in
>the Kinkade case.
> Unless what you say is part of the usage that doesn't figure
>prominently in the dictionaries yet?
used as a "damn with faint praise" description.
Walk into someone's house that is wall-to-wall Precious Moments,
Hummels, salt and pepper shakers, or paintings of big-eyed kids or
anatomically distorted cute cats and you might say "How quaint". Your
observation is not based on likability.
Like many other words, "quaint" is used to indicate approval or to
indicate disdain inoffensively.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Varela
Dec 22, 2011, 8:16:56 PM12/22/11
to
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:44:36 UTC, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> > On 12/22/2011 4:04 PM, Patok wrote:
> >> Thanks! So it is indeed as I thought - when something is being damned
> >> as quaint, the fault is entirely the damner's.
> >
> > I should have marked more clearly that I was talking about two different
> > things. There are snobs who mistakenly believe their own parochialisms
> > to be cosmopolitan, yes, but there's also plenty that's truly inferior
> > with nothing but quaintness to make people like it. Think of Thomas
> > Kinkade, for instance, as opposed to Jan Vermeer.
>
> Well, but doesn't quaintness by definition include likability? If it
> isn't nice in some old-fashioned way, it can't be quaint, or at least
> that's how I understand the word. It would be just old-fashioned or
> archaic. It seems to me that it is not the quaintness that makes people
> like something, but rather the converse - people liking it, and finding
> it endearing, makes it quaint. So it seems to me that people that don't
> like something, shouldn't call it quaint, but let's say kitsch - as in
> the Kinkade case.
> Unless what you say is part of the usage that doesn't figure
> prominently in the dictionaries yet?
"Quaint" can apply to tourist-trap townes full of olde shoppes. Some
like 'em, some don't. For example, my wife was MUCH more
enthusiastic about Nantucket than I was.
--
John Varela
wrote:
> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> > On 12/22/2011 4:04 PM, Patok wrote:
> >> Thanks! So it is indeed as I thought - when something is being damned
> >> as quaint, the fault is entirely the damner's.
> >
> > I should have marked more clearly that I was talking about two different
> > things. There are snobs who mistakenly believe their own parochialisms
> > to be cosmopolitan, yes, but there's also plenty that's truly inferior
> > with nothing but quaintness to make people like it. Think of Thomas
> > Kinkade, for instance, as opposed to Jan Vermeer.
>
> Well, but doesn't quaintness by definition include likability? If it
> isn't nice in some old-fashioned way, it can't be quaint, or at least
> that's how I understand the word. It would be just old-fashioned or
> archaic. It seems to me that it is not the quaintness that makes people
> like something, but rather the converse - people liking it, and finding
> it endearing, makes it quaint. So it seems to me that people that don't
> like something, shouldn't call it quaint, but let's say kitsch - as in
> the Kinkade case.
> Unless what you say is part of the usage that doesn't figure
> prominently in the dictionaries yet?
like 'em, some don't. For example, my wife was MUCH more
enthusiastic about Nantucket than I was.
--
John Varela
Jerry Avins
Dec 22, 2011, 9:17:37 PM12/22/11
to
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Glenn Knickerbocker
Dec 22, 2011, 11:56:04 PM12/22/11
to
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:44:36 -0500, Patok wrote:
> Unless what you say is part of the usage that doesn't figure
>prominently in the dictionaries yet?
M-W, which generally lists senses chronologically, suggests that the
> Unless what you say is part of the usage that doesn't figure
>prominently in the dictionaries yet?
positive sense of quirkiness is the newer one:
>3 a : unusual or different in character or appearance : odd
> b : pleasingly or strikingly old-fashioned or unfamiliar
ŹR / "We know the difference between good and bad corn early in life and
/ have the confidence that comes from such discernment." Chris Squire
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/ (of Ontario's *London Free Press*)
Joel Olson
Dec 23, 2011, 2:55:38 PM12/23/11
to
"Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jd02ef$sbu$1...@dont-email.me...
The usual usage is that something quaint is outdated, not modern, nor
with-it. With some connotation of nostalgia.
One who would damn things as quaint places a high value on keeping up
with the times, is perhaps "an early adopter" in the marketing sense. Perhaps
a snob in other ways as well.
news:jd02ef$sbu$1...@dont-email.me...
with-it. With some connotation of nostalgia.
One who would damn things as quaint places a high value on keeping up
with the times, is perhaps "an early adopter" in the marketing sense. Perhaps
a snob in other ways as well.
CDB
Dec 31, 2011, 11:15:50 AM12/31/11
to
Patok wrote:
> I was minding me own business, checking out the precise
> definition of "quaint" on dictionary.com, when it lashed out at me
> with a quote:
> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also
> impossible to damn it as quaint."
> -E.M. Forster
>
> How can one "damn" something as quaint? From my pre-existing
> understanding, and from all dictionary entries, I don't see a single
> aspect of "quaint" that is negative. What did E.M. Forster mean by
> that sentence? Or was he just a bit fruity (as reading other
> quotations by him seems to indicate), and above should be chalked
> up to his personal idiosyncrazies? (sic)
>
He would probably have said "dismiss", if he hadn't wanted to imply
> I was minding me own business, checking out the precise
> definition of "quaint" on dictionary.com, when it lashed out at me
> with a quote:
> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also
> impossible to damn it as quaint."
> -E.M. Forster
>
> How can one "damn" something as quaint? From my pre-existing
> understanding, and from all dictionary entries, I don't see a single
> aspect of "quaint" that is negative. What did E.M. Forster mean by
> that sentence? Or was he just a bit fruity (as reading other
> quotations by him seems to indicate), and above should be chalked
> up to his personal idiosyncrazies? (sic)
>
"damn with faint praise".
Why would Forster's use of "damn", even if inappropriate, be
considered "fruity"? Could you supply one or two of the fruity
quotations by him that you have been reading, for purposes of
comparison?
Patok
Jan 14, 2012, 2:47:21 PM1/14/12
to
CDB wrote:
are all from the dictionary.com site,
http://quotes.dictionary.com/author/E.M.+Forster ):
"Belfast ... as uncivilised as ever—savage black mothers in houses of
dark red brick, friendly manufacturers too drunk to entertain you when
you arrive."
"Life. - No, I've nothing to teach you about it for the moment. May be
writing about it another week."
"To make us feel small in the right way is a function of art; men can
only make us feel small in the wrong way."
"Hope, politeness, the blowing of a nose, the squeak of a boot, all
produce "boum.""
"We must exclude someone from our gathering, or we shall be left with
nothing."
"It is so difficult - at least, I find it difficult - to understand
people who speak the truth."
"Paganism is infectious - more infectious than diphtheria or piety...."
"Men fall into two classes - those who forget views and those who
remember them."
"There are occasions when I would rather feel like a fly than a spider."
and so on...
> Patok wrote:
>>
>> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also
>> impossible to damn it as quaint."
>> -E.M. Forster
>>
>>
>> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also
>> impossible to damn it as quaint."
>> -E.M. Forster
>>
> He would probably have said "dismiss", if he hadn't wanted to imply
> "damn with faint praise".
>
> Why would Forster's use of "damn", even if inappropriate, be
> considered "fruity"? Could you supply one or two of the fruity
> quotations by him that you have been reading, for purposes of
> comparison?
Well, since fruity is in the eye of the beholder, here it goes (they
> "damn with faint praise".
>
> Why would Forster's use of "damn", even if inappropriate, be
> considered "fruity"? Could you supply one or two of the fruity
> quotations by him that you have been reading, for purposes of
> comparison?
are all from the dictionary.com site,
http://quotes.dictionary.com/author/E.M.+Forster ):
"Belfast ... as uncivilised as ever—savage black mothers in houses of
dark red brick, friendly manufacturers too drunk to entertain you when
you arrive."
"Life. - No, I've nothing to teach you about it for the moment. May be
writing about it another week."
"To make us feel small in the right way is a function of art; men can
only make us feel small in the wrong way."
"Hope, politeness, the blowing of a nose, the squeak of a boot, all
produce "boum.""
"We must exclude someone from our gathering, or we shall be left with
nothing."
"It is so difficult - at least, I find it difficult - to understand
people who speak the truth."
"Paganism is infectious - more infectious than diphtheria or piety...."
"Men fall into two classes - those who forget views and those who
remember them."
"There are occasions when I would rather feel like a fly than a spider."
and so on...
Eric Walker
Jan 14, 2012, 5:09:27 PM1/14/12
to
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:15:50 -0500, CDB wrote:
> Patok wrote:
>> I was minding me own business, checking out the precise
>> definition of "quaint" on dictionary.com, when it lashed out at me with
>> a quote:
>> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also
>> impossible to damn it as quaint."
>> -E.M. Forster
>>
>> How can one "damn" something as quaint? From my pre-existing
>> understanding, and from all dictionary entries, I don't see a single
>> aspect of "quaint" that is negative. . . .
> Patok wrote:
>> I was minding me own business, checking out the precise
>> definition of "quaint" on dictionary.com, when it lashed out at me with
>> a quote:
>> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also
>> impossible to damn it as quaint."
>> -E.M. Forster
>>
>> How can one "damn" something as quaint? From my pre-existing
>> understanding, and from all dictionary entries, I don't see a single
Doubtless he was alluding to things that are more or less artificially
"quaint", for which I once hereabouts coined the term "quainterie" (by
analogy with "grotesquerie"). Forced "quaintness" (perhaps along the
lines of "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe") is widely felt as saccharine..
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Avins
Jan 14, 2012, 6:22:46 PM1/14/12
to
"thorn" makes the first word all but identical to the way that we
pronounce "the". in the second and lastv words, the final 'e' is
pronounced explicitly, so that it is really "The Olda Tea Shoppa". Snobs
in particular are careful to try to pronounce French. Why do they snub
Middle English?
Daniel James
Jan 15, 2012, 8:40:16 AM1/15/12
to
In article <37oQq.90$DS5...@newsfe23.iad>, Jerry Avins wrote:
> Not only quaint, but mispronounced. the Y, standing in for the letter
> "thorn" ...
> Not only quaint, but mispronounced. the Y, standing in for the letter
Do you really think Eric doesn't know that?
> ... it is really "The Olda Tea Shoppa". Snobs in particular are
> careful to try to pronounce French. Why do they snub Middle English?
By "snobs" I take it that you mean specifically "language snobs"?
Snobbery in general has little to do with this issue.
Those who see "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" and pronounce it "Ye oldie tea
shoppie" are usually doing to ridicule the idea of naming a tea shop in
cod Middle English in the misguided hope of making it seem charming and
attractive. It's not a snub to Middle English, it's a snub to the notion
of "quainterie" as a tourist-magnet.
Cheers,
Daniel.
John Varela
Jan 15, 2012, 1:24:05 PM1/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:40:16 UTC, Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid>
wrote:
> In article <37oQq.90$DS5...@newsfe23.iad>, Jerry Avins wrote:
> > Not only quaint, but mispronounced. the Y, standing in for the letter
> > "thorn" ...
>
> Do you really think Eric doesn't know that?
>
> > ... it is really "The Olda Tea Shoppa". Snobs in particular are
> > careful to try to pronounce French. Why do they snub Middle English?
>
> By "snobs" I take it that you mean specifically "language snobs"?
> Snobbery in general has little to do with this issue.
>
> Those who see "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" and pronounce it "Ye oldie tea
> shoppie" are usually doing to ridicule the idea of naming a tea shop in
> cod Middle English in the misguided hope of making it seem charming and
> attractive.
Exactly. I particularly like "Antique Shoppe", which I render as
"anteekee shoppee". Which reminds me that my father-in-law liked to
pronounce "picturesque" as "picture-skwee", which has nothing to do
with the present conversation except that I liked it.
>It's not a snub to Middle English, it's a snub to the notion
> of "quainterie" as a tourist-magnet.
--
John Varela
wrote:
> In article <37oQq.90$DS5...@newsfe23.iad>, Jerry Avins wrote:
> > Not only quaint, but mispronounced. the Y, standing in for the letter
> > "thorn" ...
>
> Do you really think Eric doesn't know that?
>
> > ... it is really "The Olda Tea Shoppa". Snobs in particular are
> > careful to try to pronounce French. Why do they snub Middle English?
>
> By "snobs" I take it that you mean specifically "language snobs"?
> Snobbery in general has little to do with this issue.
>
> Those who see "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" and pronounce it "Ye oldie tea
> shoppie" are usually doing to ridicule the idea of naming a tea shop in
> cod Middle English in the misguided hope of making it seem charming and
> attractive.
"anteekee shoppee". Which reminds me that my father-in-law liked to
pronounce "picturesque" as "picture-skwee", which has nothing to do
with the present conversation except that I liked it.
>It's not a snub to Middle English, it's a snub to the notion
> of "quainterie" as a tourist-magnet.
John Varela
Patok
Jan 15, 2012, 7:13:00 PM1/15/12
to
the rest of that ilk as "kitsch". Are you saying that quaint overlaps in
meaning to some extent, when applied to pretend-old kitsch?
Eric Walker
Jan 16, 2012, 4:41:52 AM1/16/12
to
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:13:00 -0500, Patok wrote:
[...]
> Right. I think of "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" and porcelain figurines and
> the rest of that ilk as "kitsch". Are you saying that quaint overlaps in
> meaning to some extent, when applied to pretend-old kitsch?
They shouldn't (in my opinion), but quainterie is now such a plague that
the word "quaint", unless well qualified by context, must, I think,
inevitably convey at least some flavor of kitsch.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
> Right. I think of "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" and porcelain figurines and
> the rest of that ilk as "kitsch". Are you saying that quaint overlaps in
> meaning to some extent, when applied to pretend-old kitsch?
the word "quaint", unless well qualified by context, must, I think,
inevitably convey at least some flavor of kitsch.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
CDB
Jan 22, 2012, 8:40:13 AM1/22/12
to
Patok wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Patok wrote:
>>>
>>> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also
>>> impossible to damn it as quaint."
>>> -E.M. Forster
>>>
>> He would probably have said "dismiss", if he hadn't wanted to imply
>> "damn with faint praise".
>>
[How can one "damn" something as quaint? From my pre-existing
> CDB wrote:
>> Patok wrote:
>>>
>>> "It was impossible to praise it as beautiful, but it was also
>>> impossible to damn it as quaint."
>>> -E.M. Forster
>>>
>> He would probably have said "dismiss", if he hadn't wanted to imply
>> "damn with faint praise".
>>
understanding, and from all dictionary entries, I don't see a single
aspect of "quaint" that is negative. What did E.M. Forster mean by
that sentence? Or was he just a bit fruity (as reading other
quotations by him seems to indicate), and above should be chalked up
to his personal idiosyncrazies (sic)]
aspect of "quaint" that is negative. What did E.M. Forster mean by
that sentence? Or was he just a bit fruity (as reading other
quotations by him seems to indicate), and above should be chalked up
though.
0 new messages