[I] The immortals
"@lec ©awley"
very banal, came to me that no-one can write fantasy after about 1960
without ackowledging the legacy of JRR Tolkein. There is, of course,
nothing original in such a remark; PTerry has openly ackwnoledged many
times that he writes in a Tolkein-infuenced world.
But it did occur to me to wonder who are the authors who have changed
the language: who have left behind characters or scenarios which don't
need to be explained? Tolkein's dwarves and elves have been takeup by
PTerry. But what others are there? What works have contributed so much
to the world that you can quote their characters or situations without
need to explain to the audience what you are about?
Shakespeare obviously - no question.
Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
Any More?
Stig M. Valstad
>I have just been watching Lord of the Rings on DVD. And the thought,
>very banal, came to me that no-one can write fantasy after about 1960
Still, influential as he was, almost noone in the English-speaking
world manage to spell the name Tolkien correctly. What is it with
you people and the inability to put i and e in the correct order?
--
Stig M. Valstad
"Gods like to see an atheist around, gives them something
to aim at" "Charcoal" Abraxas
David Cameron Staples
(sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no (Stig M. Valstad)) in hoc locus scripsit:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:46:02 +0000, @lec ©awley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>>I have just been watching Lord of the Rings on DVD. And the thought,
>>very banal, came to me that no-one can write fantasy after about 1960
>>without ackowledging the legacy of JRR Tolkein. <snip>
>
> Still, influential as he was, almost noone in the English-speaking
> world manage to spell the name Tolkien correctly. What is it with
> you people and the inability to put i and e in the correct order?
The rule seems to be "'i' before 'e' except after 'c', except when it's
pronounced 'ay', like neighbor or weigh. Or for rare words like seize,
weird science or foreign. That should be sufficient. Bwaa ha haa, suffer,
Anglophones! Suffer!"
Epicycles upon epicycles, and everyone gets dizzy and confused.
Besides, I remember it as "Tolkien: toll-key-en", notwithstanding the
name's origin as Toll-kühn (which JRR himself calqued into 'Rashbold').
IGMC.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
I for one, do not like to damage my precious equipment, especially
when it involves repeatedly hitting it with a computer.
-- Peter Corlett, in the Monastery
Peachy Ashie Passion
Jeeves I know, that's a butler. Who is Wooster?
--
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image,
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
Stacie Hanes
<snip>
>> Shakespeare obviously - no question.
>> Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
>> Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
>> Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
>>
>> Any More?
>
>
> Jeeves I know, that's a butler. Who is Wooster?
Wife of Bath?
(I trust that homework is done)
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
"swordswomen of the afpocalypse" copyright Jon of afp, 2004.
Paul E. Jamison
"Peachy Ashie Passion" <res1...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:Ccwqd.4631$6o5.2021@trnddc08...
> @lec Šawley wrote:
> > I have just been watching Lord of the Rings on DVD. And the thought,
> > very banal, came to me that no-one can write fantasy after about 1960
> > without ackowledging the legacy of JRR Tolkein. There is, of course,
> > nothing original in such a remark; PTerry has openly ackwnoledged many
> > times that he writes in a Tolkein-infuenced world.
> >
> > But it did occur to me to wonder who are the authors who have changed
> > the language: who have left behind characters or scenarios which don't
> > need to be explained? Tolkein's dwarves and elves have been takeup by
> > PTerry. But what others are there? What works have contributed so much
> > to the world that you can quote their characters or situations without
> > need to explain to the audience what you are about?
> >
> > Shakespeare obviously - no question.
> > Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
> > Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
> > Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
> >
> > Any More?
>
>
> Jeeves I know, that's a butler. Who is Wooster?
>
The Upper-Class Twit that Jeeves, um, buttles for. He's the narrator for the
Jeeves and Wooster stories and a wonderfully funny creation. It had to be
difficult for Wodehouse to write Upper-Class-Twittery so well.
Paul
--
"Who reads, learns, lives the Ferret Way becomes keeper
of light, ennobling outer worlds from one within."
- a prophecy from the Ancients
raymond larsson
> Jeeves I know, that's a butler. Who is Wooster?
The little wed hen's husband. Bertie Wooster is Jeeves' charge (or J is
BW's servant).
--
rgl
Matlock Jones Cook Lydon
Campaign Cleveland 2002^H3^H4^H5
Flesh-eating Dragon
> The rule seems to be "'i' before 'e' except after 'c', except when it's
> pronounced 'ay', like neighbor or weigh. Or for rare words like seize,
> weird science or foreign. That should be sufficient. Bwaa ha haa, suffer,
> Anglophones! Suffer!"
Every native speaker of English is taught in school that:
"When the sound is Eeeee,
Put I before E
Except after C"
(exceptions include, as you say, seize and weird, but there aren't that many)
However, Tolkien:
(a) Isn't an English word, so there's no reason to expect English
spelling rules to apply; and
(b) Is usually pronounced with a schwa in the second syllable, not
an Eeeee.
Therefore, English speakers can spell Tolkein only by either guessing
or copying it down from the front of a book.
Adrian.
Puck
> Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
> Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
>
> Any More?
Probably Charles Dickens. Definitely Mark Twain.
As a comic book fan I feel that Joe Schuster and Jerry Siegel (creators of
Superman) and Bob Kane (creator of Batman) sould be included. I don't think
there is a single super-hero character who can't be traced back to those two
archetypes.
Poe, perhaps? Or is his stuff too vague? Lots of atmosphere but not alot
that is really imitatable.
Asimov is the probably the single most definitive individual for science
fiction, although even his stuff can be traced back to H.G. Wells.
Chaucer is a maybe. Certainly his Canterbury Tales is one of the most famous
English language works in the world, but if you mentioned it to the average
person on the street they probably wouldn't be familiar with it beyond a few
mandatory lessons they got in school. Actually, the real reason your average
moron is not familiar with it is that it doesn't lend itself well to movie
versions. Face it, not everyone is as big on reading as I assume most Pterry
fans are.
I'd include Homer because the Illiad and Oddessy were some of the earliest
great works of literature, but they were in Greek. Are we only counting
English language works?
What about Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley? They really only had one work a
piece that everyone is familiar with, but both are pretty universal.
Of course, 100 years from now people will be having this same conversation
and by then it should include Pterry, Douglas Adams, Neil Gaiman, Stephen
King and me (by this point I'll have won my Nobel, cured cancer, walked on
Mars, and settled down with my supermodel wife. You'll see! As soon as I
invent time travel I'll go back to now and prove it)
Future Puck
> invent time travel I'll go back to now and prove it
See? I was right. Because I'm such a generous individual, here is some
inside information from 50 years in the future:
1) We have long since eliminated fossil fuels. Our vehicles are powered by
the one thing in the universe that even Einstein claimed was infinite: Human
Stupidity. A single season of any given reality tv show can power a city for
a year.
2) The current president of the US is Jack Nicholson. This has ushered in an
unprecidented period of peace as even the most hardcore terrorists are
afraid to attack someone who is so clearly dangerous and psychotic. His
recent peace talks in the mid-east earned him both a Nobel Peace Prize and
an Academy Award for Best Actor (his 27th to date)
3) The winning lottery number for tomorrow is 37684. I'm not telling you
which lotto this is for, but if you ignore this and it turns out that that's
the winning number in *your* area you will be kicking yourself for the rest
of your life. Best not take the chance, is my advice.
4) Terry Pratchett recently completed his 500th Discworld novel, which now
tops the best-sellers list in 23 countires and 5 interplanetary colonies. It
is entitled "Please! No More!" and chronicles the zany adventures Rincewind
III and the Luggage have when the patrician of Ankh-Morpork, Lord Dibbler,
sends them on a vital mission to the vast empire of Nobbs to retrieve the
lost broomstick of Granny Ridcully. Expect a cameo from the Susan the Grim
Reaper, and her sidekick the Death of Ravens.
5) In another Pterry related note, the Good Omens movie is in talks to open
discussions to table the possibility of begining filming soon. Roger Gilliam
is set to direct.
6) T(He) ru(l)ers of this (p)lanet, our robot (M)ast(e)rs, are (P)erfect and
just and their carefu(l) scr(e)ning of (a)ll me(s)ag(e!)s keeps us safe from
going a(Long) with those few still a(Live) members of (The Rebellion!).
7) And a personal note to my present self: If by any chance you are ever
invited to, say, a banquet at the White House, and are, for whatever reason
asked to give a speech of some sort in front some very powerful heads of
state, when you stand up just make sure you look your best. Y'know, check to
make sure you haven't, um, left your fly down. Or anything.
That's all for now. As soon as I refill Mr. Fusion and calibrate the flux
capacitor I'm off to 1939 to pick up copies of Action Comics 1 and Detective
Comics 27. Between them I will have enough wealth to purchase 2/3 of the
Earth's surface. Bye!
gipsy boy
> I have just been watching Lord of the Rings on DVD. And the thought,
> very banal, came to me that no-one can write fantasy after about 1960
> without ackowledging the legacy of JRR Tolkein. There is, of course,
> nothing original in such a remark; PTerry has openly ackwnoledged many
> times that he writes in a Tolkein-infuenced world.
>
> But it did occur to me to wonder who are the authors who have changed
> the language: who have left behind characters or scenarios which don't
> need to be explained? Tolkein's dwarves and elves have been takeup by
> PTerry. But what others are there? What works have contributed so much
> to the world that you can quote their characters or situations without
> need to explain to the audience what you are about?
I don't agree on Tolkien's 'originality' when it comes to his
characters. Oh, and Tolkien's elves have not really been picked up by
PTerry, if anything..
Scandinavian mythology already described trolls and dwarves
stereotypically, and in DW there are a lot of complicated things that
Tolkien is too simplistic for. Such as, the way dwarfs do not understand
metaphors, or how the sicilium brain of a troll causes interesting
events. There's also not a "good" and a "bad" race as there were in
Tolkien's books. It's all a lot more realistic and tuned in with our
world and itself; I don't even agree with Pterry if he said that he
writes in a Tolkien-influenced world, at least not in the way that
sentence suggests it? In many ways he's doing the exact opposite than
the former, he creates a fantasy from reality more than the other way
around.
But I think he *does* belong to that list you named, because his humour,
his "chances of one in a million have a one out of ten way of cropping
up" lines of thoughts..the whole DW universe, has become so archetypical
and self-providing (I'm not very good at english, I mean the way
something can start feeding itself) that, it has started to grow and
live. I wonder if we can see that better than the author, the way
something can start a life of its own.
Let's hope they don't ruin it by making a movie of DW.. - which, in
retrospect, kinda ruined the mood of LotR for me.
--
- gipsy boy
Stacie Hanes
<snip>
> 4) Terry Pratchett recently completed his 500th Discworld novel,
> which now tops the best-sellers list in 23 countires and 5
> interplanetary colonies. It is entitled "Please! No More!" and
> chronicles the zany adventures Rincewind III and the Luggage have
> when the patrician of Ankh-Morpork, Lord Dibbler, sends them on a
> vital mission to the vast empire of Nobbs to retrieve the lost
> broomstick of Granny Ridcully. Expect a cameo from the Susan the Grim
> Reaper, and her sidekick the Death of Ravens.
>
> 5) In another Pterry related note, the Good Omens movie is in talks
> to open discussions to table the possibility of begining filming
> soon. Roger Gilliam is set to direct.
These two are things of beauty. The others were pretty good, but these, I
like.
Gid Holyoake
generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> I'm not sure I knew there were stories..
> Jeeves is a butler on the net, but mostly a chauffer on countless
> old movies I've seen.. It's a saying "Home Jeeves".
> I hadn't any idea where it came from.
Nonononono.. Jeeves is the butler, *James* is the chauffeur.. he was
originally the coachman, but was retrained after the invention of the
infernal combustion engine.. that's why some of us still say (when we
forget that it's now a horseless carriage) "Home James, and don't spare
the horses."..
Gid
gipsy boy
> Flesh-eating Dragon <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Therefore, English speakers can spell Tolkein only by either guessing
>>or copying it down from the front of a book.
>
>
> Why use rules if memory suffices?
>
> What I wonder about is why Tolkien so often misspelt, while you hardly ever
> see "Peit Hien", "Peter Gabreil", "Romeo and Juleit" or "David Bowei".
> Edvard Grieg is a special case, in that the family changed their name from
> Greig, because of local pronounciation.
>
> Another word that seems just as difficult is "wiener", which more often than
> not is misspelt "weiner". It's become so consistent that I wouldn't be
> surprised if Webster started to allow it as an alternative spelling.
Yet many spell "weird" as "wierd".
Odd eh?
--
- gipsy boy
Arthur Hagen
>
> Therefore, English speakers can spell Tolkein only by either guessing
> or copying it down from the front of a book.
Or by having seen Tolkien written correctly at least a hundred times before.
Why use rules if memory suffices?
What I wonder about is why Tolkien so often misspelt, while you hardly ever
see "Peit Hien", "Peter Gabreil", "Romeo and Juleit" or "David Bowei".
Edvard Grieg is a special case, in that the family changed their name from
Greig, because of local pronounciation.
Another word that seems just as difficult is "wiener", which more often than
not is misspelt "weiner". It's become so consistent that I wouldn't be
surprised if Webster started to allow it as an alternative spelling.
--
*Art
Peachy Ashie Passion
> Flesh-eating Dragon <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Therefore, English speakers can spell Tolkein only by either guessing
>>or copying it down from the front of a book.
>
>
> Or by having seen Tolkien written correctly at least a hundred times before.
> Why use rules if memory suffices?
ahh, but there is the rub.
They've also seen it written incorrectly at least a hundred times.
Memory doesn't provide the answer of which is correct.
Peachy Ashie Passion
> Peachy Ashie Passion wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>Shakespeare obviously - no question.
>>>Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
>>>Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
>>>Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
>>>
>>> Any More?
>>
>>
>> Jeeves I know, that's a butler. Who is Wooster?
>
>
> Wife of Bath?
>
> (I trust that homework is done)
It was a 4 minute break, I swear. Honest!
Peachy Ashie Passion
I'm not sure I knew there were stories..
Jeeves is a butler on the net, but mostly a chauffer on countless
old movies I've seen.. It's a saying "Home Jeeves".
I hadn't any idea where it came from.
ashie
feeling woefully ignorant
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 29/11/04 14:19 GMT Standard Time
<snip>
>Nonononono.. Jeeves is the butler, *James* is the chauffeur.. he was
>originally the coachman, but was retrained after the invention of the
>infernal combustion engine.. that's why some of us still say (when we
>forget that it's now a horseless carriage) "Home James, and don't spare
>the horses."..
Didn't a character in Neighbours, back in the 80s, run a limo-service from
Lassiter's called "Home, James"? Or am I confused[1]?
[1] Well, evidently; why else would I watch Neighbours?
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
In life, as in breakfast cereal, it is always best to read the instructions on
the box.
-Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett
PleegWat
stubburnness will prevent any of this for coming true?
--
PleegWat
Remove caps to reply
Rgemini
> David Cameron Staples wrote:
>
>> The rule seems to be "'i' before 'e' except after 'c', except when
>> it's pronounced 'ay', like neighbor or weigh. Or for rare words like
>> seize, weird science or foreign. That should be sufficient. Bwaa ha
>> haa, suffer, Anglophones! Suffer!"
>
> Every native speaker of English is taught in school that:
>
> "When the sound is Eeeee,
> Put I before E
> Except after C"
>
> (exceptions include, as you say, seize and weird, but there aren't
> that many)
<snip>
Also includes the name Sheila. I kept getting that one wrong. But now I've
visited Oz and bein einleightein'd.
Rgemini, who shall remain sigless
Peachy Ashie Passion
see? I'm hopelessly undereducated.
I should read more books.
"@lec ©awley"
> @lec Šawley wrote:
>> Shakespeare obviously - no question.
>> Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
>> Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
>> Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
>>
>> Any More?
>
>
>
> Jeeves I know, that's a butler. Who is Wooster?
Jeeves' employer. The person who got into scrapes from which Jeeves had
to rescue him.
If you are not familiar with the writing of PG Wodehouse, you have
missed the 20th centuries finest humourist (in English, at least).
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 29/11/04 18:31 GMT Standard Time
> Future Puck wrote:
>>>You'll see! As soon as I
>>>invent time travel I'll go back to now and prove it
>>
>>
>> See? I was right. Because I'm such a generous individual, here is some
>> inside information from 50 years in the future:
<snip futurosity>
>You realize temporal dicontinuity, human free will, and basic human
>stubburnness will prevent any of this for coming true?
The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at
children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end,
which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to
which it is most attached is called, "Keep tomorrow dark," and which is also
named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The
players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have
to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait
until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. Then they go and do
something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great
fun.
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Napoleon of Notting Hill"
Pudde Fjord
Jeeves is well known, Wooster not.
> Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
>
> Any More?
Back to the subject:
Mary Shelley: Frankenstein (and the Monster, which most people believe
carry that name...)
Bram Stoker: Dracula
Jules Verne: Phileas Fogg and around the world in 80 days.
Dickens: Oliver Twist and others.
Victor Hugo: Les Miserables.
Alexandre Dumas: The Three Musketeers and "all for one, one for all"
John le Carre: The Spy who came in from the cold.
Lewis Carroll: Alice in Wonderland
Grimms Fairy-tales: Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and so on.
Also, a lot of comics, movies and TV series have had influence of
everyday language. These overlap a lot, and will have different values
in GB/US/other places, e.g. Dr. Who and Daleks are well-known in GB, not
in the US.
Pudde.
Thomas Zahr
> However, Tolkien:
>
> (a) Isn't an English word, so there's no reason to expect
> English
> spelling rules to apply; and
> (b) Is usually pronounced with a schwa in the second
> syllable, not
> an Eeeee.
(c) It is a personal name, and so the correct spelling / pronounciation doesn't need to
follow any languages norms, if Tolkien did not like it.
>
> Therefore, English speakers can spell Tolkein only by
> either guessing or copying it down from the front of a
> book.
>
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<To sig or not to sig, that is the question?>
Thomas Zahr
> I have just been watching Lord of the Rings on DVD. And the
> thought, very banal, came to me that no-one can write
> fantasy after about 1960 without ackowledging the legacy of
> JRR Tolkein. There is, of course, nothing original in such
> a remark; PTerry has openly ackwnoledged many times that he
> writes in a Tolkein-infuenced world.
>
> But it did occur to me to wonder who are the authors who
> have changed the language: who have left behind characters
> or scenarios which don't need to be explained? Tolkein's
> dwarves and elves have been takeup by PTerry. But what
> others are there? What works have contributed so much to
> the world that you can quote their characters or situations
> without need to explain to the audience what you are about?
>
> Shakespeare obviously - no question.
> Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
> Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
> Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
>
> Any More?
>
Are you talking about English only, or are you opening the discussion on any language?
If not, Twain and Dickens.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Good sig's are rare>
"@lec ©awley"
> Are you talking about English only, or are you opening the discussion on any language?
> If not, Twain and Dickens.
English only, simply because I am not qualified to discuss any other
languages.
Darin Johnson
> As a comic book fan I feel that Joe Schuster and Jerry Siegel (creators of
> Superman) and Bob Kane (creator of Batman) sould be included.
I was a bit surprised when younger to learn that Superman wasn't so
archetypical as I thought. I took a Swedish friend to see a Superman
movie, and afterwords she remarked "that was a the stupidest movie
I ever saw, do they really expect us to believe that this guy can
actually fly?"
--
Darin Johnson
Where am I? In the village... What do you want? Information...
Darin Johnson
> I'm not sure I knew there were stories..
> Jeeves is a butler on the net,
I'd say that Jeeves has managed to become an archetype in America,
but Wooster is mostly unknown.
--
Darin Johnson
"You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."
Puck
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
news:cu1sm6s...@nokia.com...
> Peachy Ashie Passion <res1...@invalid.net> writes:
>
> > I'm not sure I knew there were stories..
> > Jeeves is a butler on the net,
>
> I'd say that Jeeves has managed to become an archetype in America,
> but Wooster is mostly unknown.
Probably true. The generic name for any fictional butler (meaning it is
almost never actually used because it's TOO generic) is Jeeves, and even
butlers who do not have his name often have his mannerisms. Wooster,
however, is far less well known. You need to have actually read Wodehouse to
be familiar with him, whereas every cartoon and comedy sketch for the last
50 years has named any butlers present "Jeeves"
Puck
> Also, a lot of comics, movies and TV series have had influence of
> everyday language. These overlap a lot, and will have different values
> in GB/US/other places, e.g. Dr. Who and Daleks are well-known in GB, not
> in the US.
>
Well, true and untrue. Dr. Who may not be as universal over here as Star
Wars or Star Trek, but anyone with even a passing interest in SF will be
familiar with them.
Thomas Zahr
"@lec ©awley"
> Peachy Ashie Passion <res1...@invalid.net> writes:
>
>
>> I'm not sure I knew there were stories..
>> Jeeves is a butler on the net,
>
>
> I'd say that Jeeves has managed to become an archetype in America,
> but Wooster is mostly unknown.
Interesting, because as far as I know, Jeeves only *ever* appears in
stories with his employer, Bertie Wooster, who is the narrator.
Though Jeeves is emphatically not a butler (though he can buttle if he
needs to). He is a valet or, as he prefers to put it, a gentleman's
gentleman.
--
@lec Šawley
Eric Jarvis
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:46:02 +0000, "@lec Šawley"
> <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >But it did occur to me to wonder who are the authors who have changed
> >the language: who have left behind characters or scenarios which don't
> >need to be explained? Tolkein's dwarves and elves have been takeup by
> >PTerry. But what others are there? What works have contributed so much
> >to the world that you can quote their characters or situations without
> >need to explain to the audience what you are about?
> >
> >Shakespeare obviously - no question.
> >Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
> >Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
> >Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
>
>
There's a strong case to be made for some TV writers. For instance the
Monty Python team, and maybe Paul Whitehouse and Charlie Higson - you
ain't red this, right?
I'll get me script.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Ed Weatherup
> Darin Johnson wrote:
>> Peachy Ashie Passion <res1...@invalid.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not sure I knew there were stories..
>>> Jeeves is a butler on the net,
>>
>>
>> I'd say that Jeeves has managed to become an archetype in America,
>> but Wooster is mostly unknown.
>
> Interesting, because as far as I know, Jeeves only *ever* appears in
> stories with his employer, Bertie Wooster, who is the narrator.
Jeeves appears without Bertie -- except for a couple of references -- in
"Ring for Jeeves".
> Though Jeeves is emphatically not a butler (though he can buttle if he
> needs to). He is a valet or, as he prefers to put it, a gentleman's
> gentleman.
Are there any USian apfers who have read J & W? I'd been interested in a
left-pondian view of Wodehouse's Americans circa 1935.
--
Ed.
"@lec ©awley"
> Are there any USian apfers who have read J & W? I'd been interested in a
> left-pondian view of Wodehouse's Americans circa 1935.
No less fair a representation than that of England in the same books.
Remember that in the 20s he probably spent more time there than in
England. He us better known in the US as a Broadway lyricist than as a
novelist.
--
@lec Šawley
Darin Johnson
> Are there any USian apfers who have read J & W? I'd been interested
> in a left-pondian view of Wodehouse's Americans circa 1935.
I've read partway through Live With Jeeves. His view of Americans
is restricted to Manhattan from what I saw, and Manhattan is
essentially a foreign country to other Americans, so his view could
be completely distorted and we wouldn't be able to tell...
--
Darin Johnson
Laziness is the father of invention
Lady Lettuce
> tops the best-sellers list in 23 countires and 5 interplanetary colonies. It
> is entitled "Please! No More!" and chronicles the zany adventures Rincewind
> III and the Luggage have when the patrician of Ankh-Morpork, Lord Dibbler,
> sends them on a vital mission to the vast empire of Nobbs to retrieve the
> lost broomstick of Granny Ridcully. Expect a cameo from the Susan the Grim
> Reaper, and her sidekick the Death of Ravens.
LORD DIBBLER??? Please, NO!!!
>
> 5) In another Pterry related note, the Good Omens movie is in talks to open
> discussions to table the possibility of begining filming soon. Roger Gilliam
> is set to direct.
Yay! My friend [1] keeps updating me on that, but both of us have
been dead busy with homework and I haven't gotten new news about it
for ages. I'm trying to convince him to read Good Omens, but he's a
slow reader, and promises he will read it over the winter break once
he's done with American Gods (Neil Gaiman again)
[1] This is the friend who originall introduced me to DW, which is
funny, cause he hasn't read a single book himself yet. (As I said,
he's a slow reader, but he'll get around to it). He picked up
Pyramids once, started on the first few pages, and told me about what
he'd read so far. Me, being the obessessive
I-wanna-be-an-assassin-when-I-grow-up type personality enjoyed what I
heard (hey, the beginning was all at the Assassin's Guild, what can I
say?) immediately went and bought the book. And so my addiction
began.
Brian Wakeling
Peachy Ashie Passion uttered thus:
> @lec Šawley wrote:
>> I have just been watching Lord of the Rings on DVD. And
>> the thought, very banal, came to me that no-one can write
>> fantasy after about 1960 without ackowledging the legacy
>> of JRR Tolkein. There is, of course, nothing original in
>> such a remark; PTerry has openly ackwnoledged many times
>> that he writes in a Tolkein-infuenced world.
>>
>> have changed the language: who have left behind characters
>> or scenarios which don't need to be explained? Tolkein's
>> dwarves and elves have been takeup by PTerry. But what
>> others are there? What works have contributed so much to
>> the world that you can quote their characters or
>> situations without need to explain to the audience what
>> you are about?
>>
>> Shakespeare obviously - no question.
>> Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
>> Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
>> Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
>>
>
>
> Jeeves I know, that's a butler. Who is Wooster?
Jeeves was not a butler, he was a valet. A butler is merely a
senior servant in a house, in charge of serving meals in
general, and especially wine. A valet is a "gentleman's
gentleman" - he was there to help his employer dress, to keep
his appointments in order, to make sure he had the right
number of folds in his pocket handkerchief, and to have a
spare glove to slap someone in the face with and challenge
them to a duel. He would have prepared the pistols or swords
to be used in the duel for use, although the second would
actually have taken them to the field, he would have retained
the services of a doctor for immediately afterwards, and would
have arranged the repast for slightly later afterwards.
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
Someone pass me that shovel
Stig M. Valstad
>Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>
>> Another word that seems just as difficult is "wiener", which more often than
>> not is misspelt "weiner". It's become so consistent that I wouldn't be
>> surprised if Webster started to allow it as an alternative spelling.
I tend to think of "weiner" as slang for penis while "wiener"
is the sausage.
>Yet many spell "weird" as "wierd".
>Odd eh?
Weird sounds like it should be spelled "wierd". With the other
frequently misspelled ie/ei words pronounciation pretty much
matches up with the correct spelling.
--
Stig M. Valstad
Great is truth, it will prevail a bit.
Caroline Alexander
> If you are not familiar with the writing of PG Wodehouse, you have
> missed the 20th centuries finest humourist (in English, at least).
I've had this feeling of missing out for some time now. You know, when
everytime you read an author's name you think that you should really
read some of his writing? The name is pretty familiar by now and firmly
linked with a notion of lack.
Can you recommend a book to start with?
--
Carl.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 30/11/04 02:16 GMT Standard Time
To me "weird" sounds like it should be spelt "weird". It's a one-and-a-half
syllable word, as can be seen when people emphasise it[1].
"Wierd" looks like it should be pronnounced "Wired". I think it's the "r" that
makes the difference, as I don't think "thief" looks like it should be
pronnounced "thy-eff".
But that's just me.
[1] "Let me tell you something: *You* are *wee*-ird!"
Andy Davison
<MPG.1c15b1f8...@news.individual.net>, Eric Jarvis wrote:
> There's a strong case to be made for some TV writers. For instance the
> Monty Python team, and maybe Paul Whitehouse and Charlie Higson - you
> ain't red this, right?
In days gone by radio writers as well. Basically anything with strong
catchphrases and characters that became a national or international
favourite. Spike Milligan springs to mind with catchphrases from the Goon
Show and thanks to Galton & Simspon Tony Hancock will always be on his
uppers and moaning about it, Bill Kerr an amiable idiot and Sid James a
crook.
--
Andy Davison
an...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
Flesh-eating Dragon
> To me "weird" sounds like it should be spelt "weird". It's a one-and-a-half
> syllable word, as can be seen when people emphasise it[1].
Yes, but a word like "weird" _ought_ to be an exception to at least one rule.
Adrian.
Leo Breebaart
I *really* like _Leave it to Psmith_.
Wodehouse is always light and frothy, but (in my opinion) it is
particularly in the earlier books that the froth gets whipped up
to something utterly delightful by the language, the dialog, and
the witty variations on classic slapstick/farce themes.
In the later books, the language no longer sparkles as much, and
as a consequence the endless parade of mistaken identities,
lawncrossed lovers, overbearing aunts and stolen or lost jewels
and necklaces and pigs becomes quite a bit less interesting.
Mark Gallagher
0000, the whole art of rock climbing is...
> Nonononono.. Jeeves is the butler, *James* is the chauffeur.. he was
> originally the coachman, but was retrained after the invention of the
> infernal combustion engine.. that's why some of us still say (when we
> forget that it's now a horseless carriage) "Home James, and don't spare
> the horses."..
Easy to do when inebriated; that would also be why saying "Home, James,
and don't spare the horses!" in a variety of funny voices is so
hilarious. At the time.
--
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] student [dot] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
a...@broomstick.com "Arthur Hagen" wrote:
> Or by having seen Tolkien written correctly at least a hundred times before.
> Why use rules if memory suffices?
>
> What I wonder about is why Tolkien so often misspelt, while you hardly ever
> see "Peit Hien", "Peter Gabreil", "Romeo and Juleit" or "David Bowei".
> Edvard Grieg is a special case, in that the family changed their name from
> Greig, because of local pronounciation.
>
> Another word that seems just as difficult is "wiener", which more often than
> not is misspelt "weiner". It's become so consistent that I wouldn't be
> surprised if Webster started to allow it as an alternative spelling.
In Tolkien (and Piet, and Bowie, and wiener), the "ie" is pronounced as
an "ee" sound. Very often that sound has entered English from a more
Germanic language, and English speakers aren't always sure of themselves
with that sound. (I recall that my chemistry master at school, who had
studied in Heidelberg[1] between the two world wars, used to drum into us
a method[2] to ensure that we always wrote Liebig[3] correctly.)
[In Gabriel and Juliet, the letters are not diphthongized, and hence
people can manage to spell these correctly.]
Speakers of BrEnglish make this mistake; for some peculiar reason,
speakers of AmerEnglish are even worse. Now one might have thought that,
having a large admixture of various immigrants, they'd have more exposure
to such spellings, and hence be able to get them right. However, I
suspect yet more intrusion by the dreaded Ellis Island officials here;
why else would so many American names including the syllable -stein- end
up being pronounced as -steen-, whereas correctly they should be -stine-?
OK, most manage to get old Albert right, but many others wrong.
[1] That's another bit of Germanic language that Anglophones have trouble
with: is <some placename> a -berg (because it's on/near a mountain) or is
it a -burg (cognate with borough).
[2] The rule is very simple; when -ie- or -ei- appear in a word or name
of Germanic origin, pronounce the combination by using the *name* of the
second letter: -ee- or -eye-.
[3] Of course, the method fails if one is so stupid as to pronounce that
chemist's name as Lye-big (which once again is a pronunciation that seems
more natural to Merkins).
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support."
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
puddesp...@netscape.net "Pudde Fjord" wrote:
> Grimms Fairy-tales: Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and so on.
DID the brothers record those two particular tales? I thought they were
recorded by La Fontaine a couple of centuries pre-Grimm?
Ed Weatherup
The thing that intrigues me is that Bertie Wooster hardly notices any
differences between the people and cultures he encounters in the US and
those in the UK. I suppose it could be the filtering effect of Bertie
Wooster's narrative but it does cause me to wonder if the US and UK have
have diverged, or whether the Bertie Wooster type was common in 20's/30's
New York.
--
Ed.
Ed Weatherup
> "Ed Weatherup" <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> Are there any USian apfers who have read J & W? I'd been interested
>> in a left-pondian view of Wodehouse's Americans circa 1935.
>
>
> I've read partway through Live With Jeeves. His view of Americans
> is restricted to Manhattan from what I saw, and Manhattan is
> essentially a foreign country to other Americans, so his view could
> be completely distorted and we wouldn't be able to tell...
That's a good point: As best as I remember Bertie ventures as far as Long
Island and may (or may not) go on touring with theatre company.
--
Ed.
Ed Weatherup
> spam....@gmx.net (Caroline Alexander) writes:
>
[snip]
>>
>> I've had this feeling of missing out for some time now. You
>> know, when everytime you read an author's name you think that
>> you should really read some of his writing? The name is pretty
>> familiar by now and firmly linked with a notion of lack.
>>
>> Can you recommend a book to start with?
There is a loose chronological sequence to the Jeeves & Wooster books -- I
don't know it off the top of my head but I know I've seen it on a J&W
website somewhere .... if you're bothered by such things.
>
> I *really* like _Leave it to Psmith_.
>
> Wodehouse is always light and frothy, but (in my opinion) it is
> particularly in the earlier books that the froth gets whipped up
> to something utterly delightful by the language, the dialog, and
> the witty variations on classic slapstick/farce themes.
>
> In the later books, the language no longer sparkles as much, and
> as a consequence the endless parade of mistaken identities,
> lawncrossed lovers, overbearing aunts and stolen or lost jewels
> and necklaces and pigs becomes quite a bit less interesting.
For my part I've never really got on with the PSmith series, although from
that reccomendation it sounds as though it is time for another try.
--
Ed.
Eric Jarvis
I've always assumed that to be indicative of Bertie Wooster's inability to
really get to grips with the idea that people aren't identical. He does
rather assume that everyone he encounters will behave precisely as he
would until proven otherwise. In Bertie's case proof generally needing to
be driven home with a fair degree of brute force.
Sarah Warren
news:20041130050121...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> From: sti...@siclone.itea.ntnu.no (Stig M. Valstad)
> Date: 30/11/04 02:16 GMT Standard Time
>
> >On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:38:40 GMT, gipsy boy <x...@x.pi> wrote:
>
> >>Yet many spell "weird" as "wierd".
> >>Odd eh?
> >
> >Weird sounds like it should be spelled "wierd". With the other
> >frequently misspelled ie/ei words pronounciation pretty much
> >matches up with the correct spelling.
>
> To me "weird" sounds like it should be spelt "weird".
Yeah... we ird, we to rhyme with, um, "we", ird to rhyme with bird.
I guess wier + d could be pronounced like that too, but to me wier
always looks odd in the first place.
Richard Bos
> But it did occur to me to wonder who are the authors who have changed
> the language: who have left behind characters or scenarios which don't
> need to be explained? Tolkein's dwarves and elves have been takeup by
> PTerry. But what others are there? What works have contributed so much
> to the world that you can quote their characters or situations without
> need to explain to the audience what you are about?
>
> Shakespeare obviously - no question.
> Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
> Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
> Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
I think the real classics, the characters which aren't merely famous but
archetypes in the true meaning of the word, can be spotted not because
everybody remembers them but because everybody forgets about them,
because they're so much part of our historical background that we take
them for granted. In that light...
Arthur, Lancelot, Gawain, the whole lot. Most famously by Malory, but
originally by just about anybody.
Reynard - once a creation of a certain "Willem, who also wrote Madoc".
Petrus Diesthemius - Elckerlijck a.k.a. Everyman. Bunyan? Johnny-come-
lately...
A lot of Greek mythology, of course.
Ditto, though to a lesser degree, Germanic myths. Sleipnir is less well
known than Pegasus, but Thor is pretty famous.
The Bible - whether you believe in its message or not, it's one of the
most important books of our society, and its character are part of
everybody's background.
Milton's Satan. "Pandemonium" is in the dictionary, and not just in
English.
Wodehouse? Not one in ten Dutchmen probably even knows who he is. He's
famous in the UK, but has probably not contributed a lot to the
non-Anglophone world. Shakespeare, yes.
In Dutch only, Toonder, for the same reason as Milton - anybody who
wants to challenge this, take a Groen Boekje and check the word between
"denkpsychologie" and "denkrichting". Als je begrijpt wat ik bedoel.
Probably completely unknown anywhere else, though.
And even all that is assuming Western culture. Figure in the far East,
and things get to be a lot more complicated...
Richard
Richard Bos
> @lec Šawley posted:
>
> > Thomas Zahr wrote:
> >
> >> Are you talking about English only, or are you opening the
> >> discussion on any language? If not, Twain and Dickens.
> >
> > English only, simply because I am not qualified to discuss
> > any other languages.
>
> Not a problem.
>
> Joyce
>
> Kurt Vonnegut
I can't think of a single character from either that has entered our
common culture. In fact, I doubt many people could name any character at
all from Vonnegut, or have read anything beyond Dubliners by Joyce
(whose characters are anything but archetypal, IYAM, and probably
intentionally so. Bloom was partly based on Ulysses, but a distorted
Ulysses.).
Richard
Richard Bos
> From: PleegWat Plee...@PLEEGWAT.leegwater-68.demon.nl.INVALID
>
> >You realize temporal dicontinuity, human free will, and basic human
> >stubburnness will prevent any of this for coming true?
>
> The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at
> children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end,
> which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to
> which it is most attached is called, "Keep tomorrow dark," and which is also
> named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The
> players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have
> to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait
> until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. Then they go and do
> something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great
> fun.
>
> -- G. K. Chesterton, "The Napoleon of Notting Hill"
While I agree with the general tenor of Chesterton's statement, IYAM
it's even more amusing to prove the prophets wrong while they're still
alive. The coils they'll wriggle themselves into just to prove that they
weren't wrong, no honestly, this is what they predicted all along, are
most entertaining. Pity 'tisn't done publicly more often - it would
serve most admirably as a bloodless kind of pillory.
Richard
CCA
>I have just been watching Lord of the Rings on DVD. And the thought,
>very banal, came to me that no-one can write fantasy after about 1960
>without ackowledging the legacy of JRR Tolkein.
Weeeell... I don't know about that - thinking of Jasper Fforde and Tom Holt,
particularly.
>But it did occur to me to wonder who are the authors who have changed
>the language: who have left behind characters or scenarios which don't
>need to be explained?
>What works have contributed so much
>to the world that you can quote their characters or situations without
>need to explain to the audience what you are about?
I think it's possible Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Stoker's Dracula come in
here. Maybe some of the Bronte novels too, and Jane Austen's Pride and
Prejudice.
CCA:)
Family Bites Website and Sample Chapter at http://www.falboroughhall.co.uk
Pudde Fjord
> On Monday, in article <41ab8a8d$1...@news.broadpark.no>
> puddesp...@netscape.net "Pudde Fjord" wrote:
>
>
>>Grimms Fairy-tales: Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and so on.
>
>
> DID the brothers record those two particular tales? I thought they were
> recorded by La Fontaine a couple of centuries pre-Grimm?
>
recorded elswhere. Their versions were toned down somewhat from the
original stories they had heard (in similar to many of the
tale-collectors of the time) and has since been simplified even more to
be palatable as "childrens stories".
I *know* that "sleeping beauty" was in there, but since my copy of the
complete Grimm stories are in a box somewhere, I can't verify if
"Cinderella" really is part of that collection. I'm fairly certain it
was in there, along with "Snow White" and other favourites.
Most of the Grimm collections have only a small selection of their
tales, I think the full verson had about 250 tales.
Pudde.
Pudde.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 30/11/04 19:34 GMT Standard Time
Based on my in-depth research of having watched a few "Murder She Wrote"s set
in the upper echelons of NY society, there would appear to *still* be plenty of
Bertie Wooster types.
Almost as many as there are murderers, in fact (although slightly more than
there are gentleman cracksmen)...
Brian Wakeling
Ed Weatherup uttered thus:
Wasn't "Leave it to PSmith" one of the Blandings sereis?
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
"I just got lost in thought
It was unfamiliar territory"
Brian Wakeling
@lec Šawley uttered thus:
> I have just been watching Lord of the Rings on DVD. And the
> thought, very banal, came to me that no-one can write
> fantasy after about 1960 without ackowledging the legacy of
> a remark; PTerry has openly ackwnoledged many times that he
> writes in a Tolkein-infuenced world.
>
> have changed the language: who have left behind characters
> dwarves and elves have been takeup by PTerry. But what
> the world that you can quote their characters or situations
> without need to explain to the audience what you are about?
>
> Conan D'Oyle? Holmes and Watson need no introduction
> Wodehouse? Surely Jeeves and Wooster are archetypal?
> Swift. Surely Gilliver is archetypal?
>
Y'know - it has suddenly struck me across the forehead with
all the force of a wet kipper[1] that a couple of months ago I
was speculating along much the same lines, although in a
rather more music-oriented way.
Or, to put it slightly more intelligibly: What are the bands
that have had the most effect on music? Which ones have the
most staying power? Which are the colossi, and which are the
titans?
F'rinstance - Status Quo. As a recent advert said,
"Twenty-five years; eighteen tours; fourteen albums; twelve
number ones; three chords: Status Quo".
Or RHCP[2]. From the obscurity of Californian underground
techno-rock, to world-touring, stadium-filling giants of the
rock world in under ten years, and still going strong.
Or U2. Possibly the band with the most sought-after tickets in
the world (in certain circles).
Or REM. Anthemic, timeless, and just ever-so-slightly weird.
I'd suggest groups like the Rolling Stones or the Beatles, but
as I wasn't there when they had their biggest effect, I'm
probably not really qualified to say how mind-stonkingly huge
they are. Even though it's practically impossible to go to any
party where the DJ *won't* play a song by one of those two
groups (or a cover of one) these days, I wouldn't feel I had
a - y'know, a, a, a *right* to say how great they are, simply
because all we're feeling now are aftershocks, not the
original seismic upheaval of the music world.
Erm...
Okay, that's me done for now.
[1] don't know why that particular metaphor trotted across my
keyboard just then, but what the hell, I'll stick with it...
[2] Red Hot Chilli Peppers
--
Sabremeister Brian :-)
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
There's a secret to good cooking.
I've no idea what it is though.
Beth Winter
>
> Y'know - it has suddenly struck me across the forehead with
> all the force of a wet kipper[1] that a couple of months ago I
> was speculating along much the same lines, although in a
> rather more music-oriented way.
>
> Or, to put it slightly more intelligibly: What are the bands
> that have had the most effect on music? Which ones have the
> most staying power? Which are the colossi, and which are the
> titans?
I think I'd add Metallica to that list. Up to my first year of secondary
school, people here didn't say "I'm a metal fan", they said "I'm a
Metallica fan" - and it meant the same.
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
PleegWat
--
PleegWat
Remove caps to reply
Arthur Hagen
>
> I think I'd add Metallica to that list. Up to my first year of
> secondary school, people here didn't say "I'm a metal fan", they said
> "I'm a Metallica fan" - and it meant the same.
How could it mean the same? A Metallica fan isn't necessarily a death metal
(Sepultura) or heavy metal (Deep Purple) fan. I would guess that many
people who enjoy Metallica don't like or listen to metal genres at all,
except for pop metal.
Regards,
--
*Art
Beth Winter
I can only comment on what it meant among teenagers in Poland up to 1996
or so. I'm not to blame for it, you know.
Beta Aquilae
> While I agree with the general tenor of Chesterton's statement, IYAM
> it's even more amusing to prove the prophets wrong while they're still
> alive. The coils they'll wriggle themselves into just to prove that they
> weren't wrong, no honestly, this is what they predicted all along, are
> most entertaining. Pity 'tisn't done publicly more often - it would
> serve most admirably as a bloodless kind of pillory.
>
> Richard
In reply to Daibhid, Richard, and Chesterton, who was indeed a man who
knew what was going on:
Aahh, I knew someone would one day catch on to us social scientists.
Actually, a lot of the prophecies are formulated so as to work as
reverse psychology: Scare'em good and sharp and you don't need to worry
about your predictions coming true (which you don't want to happen;
otherwise you wouldn't be making them). What's a little pillorying if
you've managed to save the world?
Drat, me and my big mouth. Now I'll have to kill you.
--
"I do not know how many of us it will take. But we must dream it, and if
enough of us dream it, then it will happen...
Dreams change the world."
--Neil Gaiman, A Dream of A Thousand Cats
Beta Aquilae
>
> I *know* that "sleeping beauty" was in there, but since my copy of the
> complete Grimm stories are in a box somewhere, I can't verify if
> "Cinderella" really is part of that collection. I'm fairly certain it
> was in there, along with "Snow White" and other favourites.
>
> Most of the Grimm collections have only a small selection of their
> tales, I think the full verson had about 250 tales.
>
> Pudde.
IIRC the first written-down version of Cinderella is in Charles
Perrault's Tales of Mother Goose, and he's got a version of Sleeping
Beauty as well (the gruesome one with the evil stepmother). Then again
there's a lot of overlap between the brothers Grimm and Perrault, and
both of them are rather processed to suit middle-class and children's
palates. Bawdy elements and most of the gore removed. Makes you wonder
at which point the censorship occurred. The uncertainty principle of
folklore?
Helen Nettleton
Had a quick google and Cinderella and Snow White are definitely in
there. I also remember Cinderella from the book years ago, because one
of the step-sisters carves her foot up to fit the slipper.
HTH
Helen
Helen Nettleton
This maybe me being a bit sad, but what about Queen and Abba? WHo
doesn't know at least one of their songs? Michael Jackson also had huge
influence on people at the time.
Helen
Sarah Warren
> Sarah Warren wrote:
> > Yeah... we ird, we to rhyme with, um, "we", ird to rhyme with bird.
> > I guess wier + d could be pronounced like that too, but to me wier
> > always looks odd in the first place.
> >
> >
> I'd consider weird to rhyme with beard. No idea why.
Yeah... sounds about right to me. If you add "we" to "ird" and
make them a dipthong. I have no idea if there's a different/correct
way of saying it. I definitely would not pronounce it so that
wierd would be a logical spelling.
Thomas Zahr
From Alecs orignal post
>>> But it did occur to me to wonder who are the authors who
>>> have changed the language: who have left behind
>>> characters or scenarios which don't need to be explained?
>>> Tolkein's dwarves and elves have been takeup by PTerry.
>>> But what others are there? What works have contributed so
>>> much to the world that you can quote their characters or
>>> situations without need to explain to the audience what
>>> you are about?
So I wasn't restricting it to characters. Things like
Heller's Catch 22 (which I should have chosen instead of
Vonnegut) which have entered the language without (some)
people being aware of the original book at all.
Marlows and Goethes Faust (to name a character), where again
many people do not have read either of the book, but talk
about Faustian this or that.
Finnegans Wake and Ulysses as the ultimate unreadable book
(ok, I'm cheating and take your point on Joyce).
How do you feel about Mackie Messer?
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<I'm in urgent need of a coffee>
Ed Weatherup
[snip]
>>> I *really* like _Leave it to Psmith_.
>>>
>>> Wodehouse is always light and frothy, but (in my opinion)
>>> it is particularly in the earlier books that the froth
>>> gets whipped up to something utterly delightful by the
>>> language, the dialog, and the witty variations on classic
>>> slapstick/farce themes.
>>>
>>> In the later books, the language no longer sparkles as
>>> much, and as a consequence the endless parade of mistaken
>>> identities, lawncrossed lovers, overbearing aunts and
>>> stolen or lost jewels and necklaces and pigs becomes quite
>>> a bit less interesting.
>>
>> For my part I've never really got on with the PSmith
>> series, although from that reccomendation it sounds as
>> though it is time for another try.
>
> Wasn't "Leave it to PSmith" one of the Blandings sereis?
TBH I don't know -- I only remember reading non-Wooster Wodehouse many years
(30+) ago and not liking them.
--
Ed.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Or, to put it slightly more intelligibly: What are the bands
> that have had the most effect on music? Which ones have the
> most staying power? Which are the colossi, and which are the
> titans?
>
Staying power and influence aren't related.
For staying power, nobody gets near the Rolling Stones and David Bowie
when it comes to rock and roll. Though in blues, jazz, country and many
international styles staying power is the norm.
For influence, over the last few decades I'd suggest:
Chuck Berry, Louis Armstrong, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Chris Barber,
Lonnie Donegan, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, Papa Wemba,
Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix,
The Yardbirds, Marc Bolan, The Velvet Underground, The Kinks, The Small
Faces (particularly Steve Marriott and Ronnie Lane), Salif Keita, Miriam
Makeba, Oum Calthoum. Ravi Shankar, Hawkwind, Asha Bhosle, Led Zepellin,
Fela Kuti, Sunny Ade, Youssou N'Dour, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Peter Green,
Rick Nelson, Gram Parsons, Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, JJ Cale, The Clash
(particularly Strummer), The Damned, The Sex Pistols, Wire, Swell
Maps, XTC, Blur, Norman Cook, The Happy Mondays, Big in Japan
(particularly Ian Broudie), Alex Harvey, The Jesus and Mary Chain, The
Television Personalities, Phil Lythman, The Chemical Brothers, Goldie,
Orbital, Barry White, George Clinton, Angelique Kidjo, The Standells, Van
Morrison, Beevamp, Brenda Fassie, The Laughing Apple, Roni Size, Kilburn
and the High Roads, Richard Thompson, Ashley Hutchings, Martin Carthy.
I've probably missed out a few, but without the above music today would be
very different and probably a lot less interesting.
Leo Breebaart
>>>
>
Yes, I'm sorry -- I hadn't realised that the recommendation was
perhaps expected to be for Jeeves and Wooster Wodehouse.
_Leave it to PSmith_ is indeed part of the Blandings Castle
series. I like those books a bit better than J&W, to be honest,
but I don't think the difference matters *that* much.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Orjan Westin
<snip list>
> I've probably missed out a few, but without the above music today
> would be very different and probably a lot less interesting.
Abba, Pet Shop Boys, Deep Purple, Quincy Jones, Phil Spector, Joy Division
and Marylin Manson, for instance.
Orjan
--
Get your Tale paperback or CD here:
http://tale.cunobaros.com
Or just read it there, if you don't want the illustrations
Orjan Westin
Unless Beth is a lot younger than I thought, I don't think the black album
had come out by then, so it's not really fair to call it pop metal.
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
> <snip list>
>
> > I've probably missed out a few, but without the above music today
> > would be very different and probably a lot less interesting.
>
> Abba, Pet Shop Boys, Deep Purple, Quincy Jones, Phil Spector, Joy Division
> and Marylin Manson, for instance.
>
I left out Quincy Jones and Phil Spector for the same reason I left out
several other important producers, it's just the influential performers in
tat list. I left out the Pet Shop Boys because I count them as followers
not leaders (the same reason I left out many of my favourites). I forgot
the others.
I also, unforgivably, missed out Television, Iggy and the Stooges, MC5 and
The New York Dolls.
Beth Winter
>
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
> > Beth Winter <bwi...@extenuation.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think I'd add Metallica to that list. Up to my first year of
> >> secondary school, people here didn't say "I'm a metal fan", they said
> >> "I'm a Metallica fan" - and it meant the same.
> >
> > How could it mean the same? A Metallica fan isn't necessarily a
> > death metal (Sepultura) or heavy metal (Deep Purple) fan. I would
> > guess that many people who enjoy Metallica don't like or listen to
> > metal genres at all, except for pop metal.
>
> Unless Beth is a lot younger than I thought, I don't think the black album
> had come out by then, so it's not really fair to call it pop metal.
Um, you're overestimating my age rather dramatically ;) I'm 22 right
now.
But it's worth noting that most local kids then didn't buy records -
they copied tapes from friends, so new releases trickled down much
slower and it was easier to build up a library of older music. Those
Metallica fans usually did give some disclaimers like "up to the Black
Album" if they were more clueful, but basically the scene was divided
into the Metallica fans and the Backstreet/N'Sync/Hanson/whatever ones.
Hip-hop didn't start making it big over here until the mid-nineties,
maybe a bit later.
PDoc
Definitely agree, and I would add: Leftfield, Radiohead (how did you miss
them??), The Stone Roses, Pavement, Nirvana, Aphex Twin, Underworld, The
Smashing Pumpkins, The Cure, Paul Weller and the Boards of Canada. I would
ask you to remove Norman Cook from your list, though. He learnt everything
he knows from the Chemicals, and has admitted as much.
--
PDoc
Alchemist at large, eyebrows still intact...
http://www.cohesic.co.uk/
Eric Jarvis
That may be what he says, I think he added a whole layer of a melodic
sensibility that moved dance music well into the mainstream. However it's
not my field.
I left off The Stone Roses because I think they are the finest exponents
of something started by somebody else. The same with the Smashing Pumpkins
and The Cure. I couldn't make up my mind about Paul Weller, so I left him
out along with Elvis Costello and a few others. Wonderful, but didn;t add
anything genuinely new.
I humbly abase myself and will apologetically accept whatever ablations
are required for forgetting to include Nirvana, especially since it was my
former sing writing partner who first brought them to anyone's attention
outside of Seattle. If I were to include influential music journalists
then Jerry would be VERY high up the list.
I guess I should also have included Radiohead, though I'm not sure how
positive I think their contribution has been. I don't know the others
well, I shall attempt to rectify that.
Mark Gallagher
the whole art of rock climbing is...
> Definitely agree, and I would add: Leftfield, Radiohead (how did you miss
> them??), The Stone Roses, Pavement, Nirvana, Aphex Twin, Underworld, The
> Smashing Pumpkins, The Cure, Paul Weller and the Boards of Canada. I would
> ask you to remove Norman Cook from your list, though. He learnt everything
> he knows from the Chemicals, and has admitted as much.
Then there's Cold Chisel and suchlike. Admittedly, a lot of
influential Australian music completely failed to influence the world
outside Australia.
Your loss...
--
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
Web: http://donotuselifts.net/
Email: m [dot] gallagher [at] student [dot] canberra [dot] edu [dot] au
Eric Jarvis
> Now, as PDoc might have put it on Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:28:54 +0000 (UTC),
> the whole art of rock climbing is...
> > Definitely agree, and I would add: Leftfield, Radiohead (how did you miss
> > them??), The Stone Roses, Pavement, Nirvana, Aphex Twin, Underworld, The
> > Smashing Pumpkins, The Cure, Paul Weller and the Boards of Canada. I would
> > ask you to remove Norman Cook from your list, though. He learnt everything
> > he knows from the Chemicals, and has admitted as much.
>
> Then there's Cold Chisel and suchlike. Admittedly, a lot of
> influential Australian music completely failed to influence the world
> outside Australia.
>
> Your loss...
>
I try.
I also missed out Nick Cave and The Birthday Party. I don't know that I'd
count anyone else from Oz as being that influential, however that may well
be a case of not exporting the really good stuff.
Arthur Hagen
>
> Unless Beth is a lot younger than I thought, I don't think the black
> album had come out by then, so it's not really fair to call it pop
> metal.
True - they were much closer to heavy metal back then. However, I still
can't see how someone liking Metallica back then would necessarily be a
metal fan in general. There's quite a bit of subgenre difference between
Metallica's "Seek and Destroy" and Sepultura's "Roots, bloody roots" or JP's
"The Sentinel".
That said, I fail to see how people today can call bands like System of a
Down, Korn and Staind metal bands. At the very least the kids should buy
some black leather, start drinking undiluted liquor, grow a decent hair and
call their band Körn.
Regards,
--
*Art
Mark Gallagher
0000, the whole art of rock climbing is...
> For influence, over the last few decades I'd suggest:
> Chuck Berry, Louis Armstrong, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Chris Barber,
> Lonnie Donegan, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, Papa Wemba,
> Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix,
> The Yardbirds, Marc Bolan, The Velvet Underground, The Kinks, The Small
> Faces (particularly Steve Marriott and Ronnie Lane), Salif Keita, Miriam
> Makeba, Oum Calthoum. Ravi Shankar, Hawkwind, Asha Bhosle, Led Zepellin,
> Fela Kuti, Sunny Ade, Youssou N'Dour, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Peter Green,
> Rick Nelson, Gram Parsons, Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, JJ Cale, The Clash
> (particularly Strummer), The Damned, The Sex Pistols, Wire, Swell
> Maps, XTC, Blur, Norman Cook, The Happy Mondays, Big in Japan
> (particularly Ian Broudie), Alex Harvey, The Jesus and Mary Chain, The
> Television Personalities, Phil Lythman, The Chemical Brothers, Goldie,
> Orbital, Barry White, George Clinton, Angelique Kidjo, The Standells, Van
> Morrison, Beevamp, Brenda Fassie, The Laughing Apple, Roni Size, Kilburn
> and the High Roads, Richard Thompson, Ashley Hutchings, Martin Carthy.
Kinda ashamed by how many of those I've not heard of (Miriam Makeba?
Oum Calthoum? The Television Personalities?). But surely, Shirley,
you're missing the Pixies?
And how 'bout Pulp?
Eric Jarvis
> Now, as Eric Jarvis might have put it on Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:51:53 -
> 0000, the whole art of rock climbing is...
> > For influence, over the last few decades I'd suggest:
> > Chuck Berry, Louis Armstrong, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Chris Barber,
> > Lonnie Donegan, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, Papa Wemba,
> > Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix,
> > The Yardbirds, Marc Bolan, The Velvet Underground, The Kinks, The Small
> > Faces (particularly Steve Marriott and Ronnie Lane), Salif Keita, Miriam
> > Makeba, Oum Calthoum. Ravi Shankar, Hawkwind, Asha Bhosle, Led Zepellin,
> > Fela Kuti, Sunny Ade, Youssou N'Dour, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Peter Green,
> > Rick Nelson, Gram Parsons, Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, JJ Cale, The Clash
> > (particularly Strummer), The Damned, The Sex Pistols, Wire, Swell
> > Maps, XTC, Blur, Norman Cook, The Happy Mondays, Big in Japan
> > (particularly Ian Broudie), Alex Harvey, The Jesus and Mary Chain, The
> > Television Personalities, Phil Lythman, The Chemical Brothers, Goldie,
> > Orbital, Barry White, George Clinton, Angelique Kidjo, The Standells, Van
> > Morrison, Beevamp, Brenda Fassie, The Laughing Apple, Roni Size, Kilburn
> > and the High Roads, Richard Thompson, Ashley Hutchings, Martin Carthy.
>
> Kinda ashamed by how many of those I've not heard of (Miriam Makeba?
> Oum Calthoum? The Television Personalities?). But surely, Shirley,
> you're missing the Pixies?
>
Difficult one, but I think they go in. As do Talking Heads.
> And how 'bout Pulp?
>
Nope. Much as I admire Jarvis Cocker as writer, performer and al round
nice geezer, I'm not sure he counts as seriously influential. Just bloody
good. I haven't seen him on a "big stage", but for a small scale gig I
haven't seen anyone to match him with the possible exceptions of Siouxsie
and Nick Cave.
I also missed The Fall and The Associates.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess"
jester
<nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>and Marylin Manson, for instance.
I think you mispelled Alice Cooper.
--
Andy Brown
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
Caroline Alexander
> >>> I *really* like _Leave it to Psmith_.
> >>>
> >
> > Wasn't "Leave it to PSmith" one of the Blandings sereis?
>
> Yes, I'm sorry -- I hadn't realised that the recommendation was
> perhaps expected to be for Jeeves and Wooster Wodehouse.
It was not expected to be anything except a good starting point.
Someplace to make an uninitiated fall in love with the writer. And now
I'm confused....
> _Leave it to PSmith_ is indeed part of the Blandings Castle
> series. I like those books a bit better than J&W, to be honest,
> but I don't think the difference matters *that* much.
I gather that it's a matter of taste, really? Has he written anything
not tied to a series and still worth reading?
--
Carl.
"@lec ©awley"
Unlike DW, the Wodehouse books are not really a series, more a
collection. You will lose very little by reading them out of order.
There are numerous groups - Jeeves and Wooster, the Blandings Stories,
the Mulliner short stories, the Golf stories, the Psmith stories (which
I do not think form part of the Blandings set).
Personally, I'd probably start with a Blandings story - any one. Such
back-story as you need is always given in the first few pages. And,
since it only mentions outcomes, does not act as spoilers for the
"earlier" books.
--
@lec Šawley
Caroline Alexander
> Caroline Alexander wrote:
[How to read Wodehouse]
> > I gather that it's a matter of taste, really? Has he written anything
> > not tied to a series and still worth reading?
>
> Unlike DW, the Wodehouse books are not really a series, more a
> collection. You will lose very little by reading them out of order.
> There are numerous groups - Jeeves and Wooster, the Blandings Stories,
> the Mulliner short stories, the Golf stories, the Psmith stories (which
> I do not think form part of the Blandings set).
>
> Personally, I'd probably start with a Blandings story - any one. Such
> back-story as you need is always given in the first few pages. And,
> since it only mentions outcomes, does not act as spoilers for the
> "earlier" books.
Thank you, that is exactly the kind of information I was after.
--
Carl.
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
> > While I agree with the general tenor of Chesterton's statement, IYAM
> > it's even more amusing to prove the prophets wrong while they're still
> > alive. The coils they'll wriggle themselves into just to prove that they
> > weren't wrong, no honestly, this is what they predicted all along, are
> > most entertaining. Pity 'tisn't done publicly more often - it would
> > serve most admirably as a bloodless kind of pillory.
>
> In reply to Daibhid, Richard, and Chesterton, who was indeed a man who
> knew what was going on:
>
> Aahh, I knew someone would one day catch on to us social scientists.
Catch on? We were way ahead of you. Tellers of the future and writers of
prophetic quatrains existed long before social scientists, and Cheat the
Prophet was invented not much later.
> Drat, me and my big mouth. Now I'll have to kill you.
What with - paper cuts?
Richard
Richard Bos
> why else would so many American names including the syllable -stein- end
> up being pronounced as -steen-, whereas correctly they should be -stine-?
> OK, most manage to get old Albert right, but many others wrong.
Albert Einstein was a first-generation immigrant, who had lived half his
life in a country where they'd automatically pronounce his name
correctly; he was present himself to correct its pronunciation; and he
lived in an era in which radio and even TV already existed.
I don't know what generation immigrant, say, Gertrude Stein was, but
it's not unlikely that she herself pronounced her name "steen". When the
first Steins arrived from Europe, there probably wasn't any radio, so
people who didn't speak to them directly had no choice but to attempt to
pronounce the written word.
Then, of course, "Einstein" has two "ei"s, and "eensteen" sounds just
too silly.
Richard
PDoc
</snip>
> That may be what he says, I think he added a whole layer of a melodic
> sensibility that moved dance music well into the mainstream. However
> it's not my field.
And then he did slash-dot-dash-comma-colon or whatever it was. Grrrr...
> I left off The Stone Roses because I think they are the finest
> exponents of something started by somebody else. The same with the
> Smashing Pumpkins and The Cure. I couldn't make up my mind about Paul
> Weller, so I left him out along with Elvis Costello and a few others.
> Wonderful, but didn;t add anything genuinely new.
>
> I humbly abase myself and will apologetically accept whatever
> ablations are required for forgetting to include Nirvana, especially
> since it was my former sing writing partner who first brought them to
> anyone's attention outside of Seattle. If I were to include
> influential music journalists then Jerry would be VERY high up the
> list.
>
> I guess I should also have included Radiohead, though I'm not sure how
> positive I think their contribution has been. I don't know the others
> well, I shall attempt to rectify that.
Positive or not, without Radiohead, I doubt we'd have Muse, Coldplay, Fout
Tet, Clinic or Sigur Ros. Five groups I love, and I'm stil quite a fan of
the 'Head. They still write amazing songs, but the best are often b-side
these days. Try "True Love Waits" or "Gagging Order" for size.
Peter Ellis
>
>I don't know what generation immigrant, say, Gertrude Stein was, but
>it's not unlikely that she herself pronounced her name "steen".
Really? I don't. Should I?
Peter
Beth Winter
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:51:14 -0000, Orjan Westin
> <nos...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
> >and Marylin Manson, for instance.
>
> I think you mispelled Alice Cooper.
Seconded. (And I still think Marylin Manson owes Alice Cooper
royalties...)
Orjan Westin
> Mark Gallagher n...@spam.INVALID wrote:
>>
>> Then there's Cold Chisel and suchlike. Admittedly, a lot of
>> influential Australian music completely failed to influence the world
>> outside Australia.
>
> I'd count anyone else from Oz as being that influential, however that
> may well be a case of not exporting the really good stuff.
You know, I'd include the most bog-standard-simple-music-band of all, simply
because they have been influential, are still playing and have a very
recognisable sound. For those about to rock...
Oh, talking about Cave - don't forget Einsturzenden Neubauten (sp?).
And Nitzer Ebb, and Kraftwerk, and Vangelis...
Leo Breebaart
> Unlike DW, the Wodehouse books are not really a series, more a
> collection. You will lose very little by reading them out of
> order.
It's a little bit like Discworld. The books are perfectly
standalone, but there are recurring characters, and a shallow
timeline of events and occurrences that can add to your enjoyment
if you experience it in the right chronological order.
> There are numerous groups - Jeeves and Wooster, the Blandings
> Stories, the Mulliner short stories, the Golf stories, the
> Psmith stories (which I do not think form part of the Blandings
> set).
_Leave it to Psmith_ does. So if you start there that's two birds
with one Pstone. :-)
> Personally, I'd probably start with a Blandings story - any
> one. Such back-story as you need is always given in the first
> few pages. And, since it only mentions outcomes, does not act
> as spoilers for the "earlier" books.
For spoilers it doesn't matter. For language and wit, I can only
repeat that I recommend the earlier (pre-1945?) books over the
later ones.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>