PG Wodehouse and Pratchett, a comparison
Michael Morgan
awareness. Where Woodhouse tried soley to entertain, Pratchett does
that but he also has a kind of message. Has anyone got any good
metaphors from Discworld that we can compare to Woodhouse? Cool.
Woodhouse was affectionately called Plum. I suggest that Pratchett
instead of Pterry should be called Kzack {and accordingly should not
be allowed near short grandmothers}.
My legs hurt. I drank too much. I literally pushed my tongue into a
glass of vodka.
Derek.Moody
<URL:mailto:morgan_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I think that Pratchett is a bit like Wodehouse with political
> awareness. Where Woodhouse tried soley to entertain, Pratchett does
Review PGW's history. I think you'll find him -very- politically aware.
Cheerio,
--
>> derek...@clara.net
Andrew Hickey
Eh?!
Are you sure you're thinking of the same P G Wodehouse? The one who
broadcast on enemy propaganda radio shows in WWII because he didn't realise
what he was doing? The one who in hundreds of books makes maybe 5 references
to contemporary political events, of which about the most subtle is the
parody of the 'brownshorts' ?
Alec Cawley
On the contrary, he owned up to extreme political naivete - a bit more,
perhapos, than he really had, but I really don't think he was at all
politically in touch - hence gattung caught out in France.
--
@lec Šawley
From address is valid
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:morgan_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Wodehouse is amusing on one level, and capable of provoking nausea in
non-Anglophiles.
"Plum" is the posh abbreviation for "Pelham". Also used for the Warner
bloke who was involved in the Bodyline tour. Like "Rafe" for "Ralph", I
suppose.
--
Michael Gilbert: in his own write
"If the Xbox console falls and hits someone, especially a small child,
it may cause serious injury"
Andrew Hickey
> In article <68ba0b38.03031...@posting.google.com>, Michael
> Morgan <URL:mailto:morgan_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think that Pratchett is a bit like Wodehouse with political
>> awareness. Where Woodhouse tried soley to entertain, Pratchett does
>> that but he also has a kind of message. Has anyone got any good
>> metaphors from Discworld that we can compare to Woodhouse? Cool.
>> Woodhouse was affectionately called Plum. I suggest that Pratchett
>> instead of Pterry should be called Kzack {and accordingly should not
>> be allowed near short grandmothers}.
>> My legs hurt. I drank too much. I literally pushed my tongue into a
>> glass of vodka.
>>
> Pratchett is funny on several levels, and capable of provoking
> thought. Wodehouse is amusing on one level, and capable of provoking
> nausea in non-Anglophiles.
Anyone who thinks Wodehouse is only amusing on one level hasn't been paying
attention. Wodehouse's jokes often work on at least two or three levels, and
he's also probably the greatest prose stylist of the 20th Century (with the
possible exception of Joyce, but Wodehouse was far funnier).
Tom Joyce
} Anyone who thinks Wodehouse is only amusing on one level hasn't been paying
} attention. Wodehouse's jokes often work on at least two or three levels, and
} he's also probably the greatest prose stylist of the 20th Century (with the
} possible exception of Joyce, but Wodehouse was far funnier).
The other person I put on a level with Plum as a prose stylist was a
fellow alumnus of Dulwich College, Raymond Chandler. But, as you say,
Wodehouse was funnier...
--
yours aye,
Tom
Come to think of it, gurls hav to put up with boys. so their lot it hard too.
N Molesworth (1) Esq, Whizz For Atomms
Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Derek.Moody wrote:
>
>> In article <68ba0b38.03031...@posting.google.com>, Michael
>> Morgan <URL:mailto:morgan_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I think that Pratchett is a bit like Wodehouse with political
>>> awareness. Where Woodhouse tried soley to entertain, Pratchett does
>>
>> Review PGW's history. I think you'll find him -very- politically aware.
>
> On the contrary, he owned up to extreme political naivete - a bit more,
Naivete, my ass. I read some of those speeches - and there's all the classic
PGW humor there. Pity, a war-weary England didn't see the joke at all.
srs
Suresh Ramasubramanian
> I think that Pratchett is a bit like Wodehouse with political
> awareness. Where Woodhouse tried soley to entertain, Pratchett does
> that but he also has a kind of message. Has anyone got any good
> metaphors from Discworld that we can compare to Woodhouse? Cool.
I won't say he's like Plum. The Discworld is a lot more like Gaul, with Ankh
Morpork instead of the tiny little village surrounded by four humorously named
Roman camps.
srs
Eric Jarvis
I'd say the big difference is in the ability to empathise
with characters...Pterry does...pretty much always...and
for a wide range of characters...Wodehouse sees his
characters from outside and isn't impressed...Pterry sees
them from inside
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess"
Añejo
>I'd say the big difference is in the ability to empathise
>with characters...Pterry does...pretty much always...and
>for a wide range of characters...Wodehouse sees his
>characters from outside and isn't impressed...Pterry sees
>them from inside
With the exception of the Mike and Psmith books, where Wodehouse does a
very good job of putting over the fact that even Psmith is essentially a
good bloke.
This could be why the M&P books are my favourites, come to think of it.
I've never particularly enjoyed Jeeves and Wooster or any of the
Blandings-type ones.
Lena
--
http://www.anejo.nu \\ http://derry.anejo.nu
http://www.livejournal.com/~anejo
"God made flesh. So what? Man made plastic. It's durable, comes in a
variety of colours and it lasts a lifetime." - Paul McDermott
Derek.Moody
<URL:mailto:stealth...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
> Derek.Moody wrote:
> > Review PGW's history. I think you'll find him -very- politically
> > aware.
>
> Eh?!
> Are you sure you're thinking of the same P G Wodehouse? The one who
> broadcast on enemy propaganda radio shows in WWII because he didn't realise
> what he was doing?
Yes - the one who's political awareness grew out of half a lifetime's exile.
> The one who in hundreds of books makes maybe 5 references
> to contemporary political events, of which about the most subtle is the
Just because you're aware of something it doesn't mean you have to write
about it - awareness may mean that you don't write about it.
For eg. I am aware of an itch between my shoulderblades but that doesn't
mean I'm goung to wri... ah, er, b#**@r I just did :-(
Cheerio,
--
>> derek...@clara.net
Jean
> I'd say the big difference is in the ability to empathise
> with characters...Pterry does...pretty much always...and
> for a wide range of characters...Wodehouse sees his
> characters from outside and isn't impressed...Pterry sees
> them from inside
Oh dear, oh dear, I'm afraid you've got Wodehouse all wrong
if you think he doesn't empathize with his characters! Plum
practically *was* one of his characters; he wrote about the
world he grew up in (albeit an idealized version) and based
many of his creations on people he knew and was fond of. The
trouble comes when people try to read his books as satire
which they simply are not. They are farce. And the comparison
to Pratchett comes in partly because some of his (TP's) situations
are farcical (most of the stuff that happens at UU, for instance)
and because of his gentleness and obvious affection for his
characters. TP has more "bad guys" than Wodehouse, of course
(the worst Plum could create was Roderick Spode; even his actual
criminals - Dolly Molloy, Chimp Twist and co. - are people you
feel you'd quite like to meet), but the Pratchett characters who
are not wholly evil he obviously cares for very much (if he
didn't, we wouldn't either).
Another similarity between Plum and TP is the lack of explicit
sex and, to some extent, violence. There is real violence in
Pratchett's work, but he doesn't usually get graphic about it
and never *gratuitously* graphic. As for sex, though, they are
definitely on a par.
Both authors created detailed, fully-realized worlds that somehow
make us feel, when we read the books, as though we're actually
there. And we feel as though we know the characters - that's why
Wodehouse conventions and Discworld conventions are so similar!
I've never been to a Discworld convention, but I've visited many
of your sites, read your trip reports and looked at your pictures,
and I've been to every Wodehouse convention in the U.S. and UK
since 1995. You do all the same things we do, only different, of
course. You play Thud and we play TWS Rules Cricket, but the
desire is the same - to enter the world the author created and
drink a lot (we also eat a lot).
Style-wise, Pratchett sounds like Wodehouse sometimes. Wodehouse
wrote things like "Jeeves clutched at a passing occasional table"
and "I ate a moody forkful of eggs and b.". TP does similar things
and carries it one step further when he gives actual emotions to
things like storms and light.
Sorry to go on like this, but I am so very fond of both authors
I just couldn't resist.
Yours ever,
Pighooey
at mindspring dot com, really.
Andrew Hickey
"Jean" <pigh...@ici.net> wrote in message
news:45039ac.03031...@posting.google.com...
> Style-wise, Pratchett sounds like Wodehouse sometimes. Wodehouse
> wrote things like "Jeeves clutched at a passing occasional table"
> and "I ate a moody forkful of eggs and b.". TP does similar things
> and carries it one step further when he gives actual emotions to
> things like storms and light.
Stylistically almost every British humourist/humorous writer of the last
century has sounded like Wodehouse - the man invented modern British comic
writing. The only ones who don't sound like him are the ones who try to be
Beachcomber and/or Spike Milligan, and even those usually have a large chuck
of PGW as well...
Michael Gilbert
mythical idyll of the 1920s. Re-reading reveals no new insights into the
deeper levels of the books. Unlike Mr P, who has managed to hide layers
that I pick up even on the nth read for the first time. I'll give you
that he has a pretty turn of phrase. On the other hand, in the same
milieu but infinitely better, Saki is sublime.
Brian Howlett
[snip]
> On the other hand, in the same milieu but infinitely better, Saki is
> sublime.
>
<James Bond>
Provided it's served at the correct temperature...
</JB>
--
Brian Howlett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I put instant coffee in the microwave, and almost went back in time...
Terry Pratchett
<stealth...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>Stylistically almost every British humourist/humorous writer of the last
>century has sounded like Wodehouse - the man invented modern British comic
>writing. The only ones who don't sound like him are the ones who try to be
>Beachcomber and/or Spike Milligan, and even those usually have a large chuck
>of PGW as well...
Hmm. Not true, I think. I'd hand that crown to Jerome K Jerome, who
was a master of the detached, ironic style.
--
Terry Pratchett
Alec Cawley
The programs he made for the Germans were, indeed, totally innocuous. But he
was naive to think that making them, however innocuous, would not be
regarded as symbolic in its own right. Parictularly in view of the person
he was - the creator of an archetypally British fantasy world symbolic of
all that people though was under threat fromm the ware (and was indeed
destroyed, insofar as it had ever existed, by the war). For that matter he
was naive sitting in southern France thinking that wars could go on around
without bothering him; he should have got out long before.
Andrew Hickey
You're quite probably right - I haven't read enough Jerome to know (a
mistake I've been meaning to rectify for some time). But Wodehouse certainly
seems to be a *major* influence on every British humorous writer I've
read...
Aquarion
The best work to read is the infamous "Three Men In A Boat", but there
is also an omnibus ("Three Men In An Omnibus") available.
Three Men... appears to be at Amazon at a price where the postage will
exceed the contents
("http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140621334/", £1.50) The
sequel, Three Men on the Bummel
("http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140621458") is priced the
same, but isn't as good.
Go forth. Be englightened.
--
Did you get my memo about the squid-tossing contest?
LoneCat
<Jerome K Jerome>
> The best work to read is the infamous "Three Men In A Boat", but there
> is also an omnibus ("Three Men In An Omnibus") available.
> Go forth. Be englightened.
Aha! My evil plot has succeeded!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to sing the Judges song from
Pinafore. You must all sing along with the chorus, you know.
#And I diddle diddle diddle diddle diddle diddle dee
#'Til I am the ruler of the Queen's Naveeee
The nearest thing to Jerome I've found recently is Bill Bryson's Notes
from a Small Island, which was voted as being the novel that best
reflects England on World Book Day. Radio 4 listeners voted for 1984.
For once, I'm going to have to disagree with R4 listeners on this one.
--
Susan/LoneCat, AFPgoddess of indecision
http://www.lonecat.org/
Music: http://www.numfrunct.co.uk/
The cat who walks by herself
Tom Joyce
} On the other hand, in the same
} milieu but infinitely better, Saki is sublime.
I beg to differ. While Mr Munro undoubtedly had a way with words, for
my money his works lack the joie de vivre inherent in Wodehouse's
(and, indeed, Pterry's) work. Saki always seems to put phrases
together to show how clever he is at crafting phrases, whereas Plum's
lyrical excesses seem to come from an enjoyment of the language; seems
to me at least.
I would venture to suggest Wodehouse is more similar to Austen.
Tom Joyce
} In article <%5rba.12247$Lq.975982@stones>, Andrew Hickey wrote:
} > Terry Pratchett wrote:
} >> Hmm. Not true, I think. I'd hand that crown to Jerome K Jerome, who
} >> was a master of the detached, ironic style.
} >
} > You're quite probably right - I haven't read enough Jerome to know (a
} > mistake I've been meaning to rectify for some time). But Wodehouse certainly
} > seems to be a *major* influence on every British humorous writer I've
} > read...
} >
} Fix this.
}
} The best work to read is the infamous "Three Men In A Boat", but there
} is also an omnibus ("Three Men In An Omnibus") available.
}
} Three Men... appears to be at Amazon at a price where the postage will
} exceed the contents
} ("http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140621334/", £1.50)
Or, for speed and convenience, you could try
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=308
and download a copy... after which you could go to
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/author?name=Jerome%2c%20Jerome%20K%2e
and look at his other works.
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:t.m....@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> Also sprach Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk>:
>
> } On the other hand, in the same
> } milieu but infinitely better, Saki is sublime.
>
> I beg to differ. While Mr Munro undoubtedly had a way with words, for
> my money his works lack the joie de vivre inherent in Wodehouse's
> (and, indeed, Pterry's) work. Saki always seems to put phrases
> together to show how clever he is at crafting phrases, whereas Plum's
> lyrical excesses seem to come from an enjoyment of the language; seems
> to me at least.
Wodehouse never ventured beyond the banal excesses of the English upper
class, or poor caricatures of the middle and working class. Saki, at
least, ventured beyond trying to be funny all the time.
>
> I would venture to suggest Wodehouse is more similar to Austen.
>
Sorry, no, can't see that.
On the other hand, I think we can agree on the pure comic genius of the
Molesworth books, from the look of your sig.
Susannah
ahhh....Jerome K Jerome.....all my books by him are at
home...sob....but yes, he's brilliantly ironic and much more
believable than Wodehouse - i mean, much as i love jeeves and wooster
et al, they are quie definitely exaggerations....the three men in a
boat, you could believe you might meet....much as you might wish not
to.
Derek.Moody
<URL:mailto:mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Wodehouse wrote escapist tosh about the English upper class in some
> mythical idyll of the 1920s. Re-reading reveals no new insights into the
And film-scripts, shows, sketches, lyrics...
Cheerio,
--
>> derek...@clara.net
Kamen Kirilov
> In article <zc9ba.12062$Lq.960072@stones>, Andrew Hickey
> <URL:mailto:stealth...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>> Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> > In article <68ba0b38.03031...@posting.google.com>, Michael
>> > Morgan <URL:mailto:morgan_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Please excuse the top-posting. First time poster, lurker for a few
months. A huge fan of Terry Pratchet (surprise!) and Wodehouse as well.
[snip]
>> Anyone who thinks Wodehouse is only amusing on one level hasn't been paying
>> attention. Wodehouse's jokes often work on at least two or three levels, and
>> he's also probably the greatest prose stylist of the 20th Century (with the
>> possible exception of Joyce, but Wodehouse was far funnier).
Couldn't have said it better myself.
>>
> Wodehouse wrote escapist tosh about the English upper class in some
> mythical idyll of the 1920s. Re-reading reveals no new insights into the
> deeper levels of the books. Unlike Mr P, who has managed to hide layers
> that I pick up even on the nth read for the first time. I'll give you
> that he has a pretty turn of phrase. On the other hand, in the same
> milieu but infinitely better, Saki is sublime.
>
I read a biography of P.G. Wodehouse and it said there that a lot of
people - British people, even(!) - didn't realise the genious of that
man. He was regarded as a somewhat funny author without any clue
whatsoever about the real world, and not very intelligent at that -
that's what the biographer wrote. I never believed it for a second. And
now I'm seeing this *blasphemous* thread, and it's in afp, of all
newsgroups! What gives?
--
Kamen K. |The only way you can get a
|person to let go of his illusions
http://free.top.bg/kamenk/ |is to pry his cold, dead
Registered Linux user #300908|fingers away from them.
Briarpatch
>
> I read a biography of P.G. Wodehouse and it said there that a lot of
> people - British people, even(!) - didn't realise the genious of that
> man. He was regarded as a somewhat funny author without any clue
> whatsoever about the real world, and not very intelligent at that -
> that's what the biographer wrote. I never believed it for a second. And
> now I'm seeing this *blasphemous* thread, and it's in afp, of all
> newsgroups! What gives?
At his peak (1930's and 40s), Wodehouse was a genius
of plot construction, and a careful, long-toiling craftsman.
In fact, I've seen speculation that "Joy In the Morning"
has the most airtight of all his plots because of the fact
that he wrote it during his Nazi internment (and, thus,
he had more time to focus on fine-tuning the plot).
As for the "idiocy" thing, remember that a lot of people
thought of him as a traitor. His knighthood in 1975 was
an implied statement from the government that he was
absolved (or forgiven, depending on whether you believed
that his German broadcasts were "treasonous" in the first
place). There are still some people who hear Wodehouse's
name and wrinkle their noses and say, "Wasn't he a Nazi
or something?" Personally, I think it was much more a
matter of optimism and naivete than of idiocy.
The other reason people remember Wodehouse badly was his
entanglements with income taxes. However, you can't
really claim this as idiocy on his part so much as idiocy
on the part of the British and US governments, who still
at that time had not worked out international tax laws and
tried to claim that 100% of his income was subject to tax
in both countries (causing him to be taxed twice on every
dollar he made). When he stood up and complained, "Hey,
you can't *both* do that, please make up your mind so that
I get to keep more than 10 cents on the dollar," he got in
serious legal trouble.
Otherwise, his life was pretty quiet and uneventful.
Which some might say requires its own special form
of genius.
And, if the biography you read was by Frances Donaldson,
I seem to recall that she was not particularly a fan
of his works, especially in his treatment of female
characters. Her biography of him, though very long and
comprehensive, contained enough direct criticism of his
writing that it's easy to question her objectivity
as a biographer and, thus, question whether the book should
be considered a "biography" or a "critical analysis" of his
life.
Jen Birren
> } On the other hand, in the same
> } milieu but infinitely better, Saki is sublime.
>
> I beg to differ. While Mr Munro undoubtedly had a way with words, for
> my money his works lack the joie de vivre inherent in Wodehouse's
> (and, indeed, Pterry's) work.
That's true, but I don't think it's necessarily relevant. He wasn't
*trying* for joie de vivre. It's like saying "Pratchett has a way with
words but he lacks the seriousness of Cordwainer Smith".
Jen
--
Afpengaged to ingenious paradox. Afpbarger to Ptenbob.
Derek.Moody
<URL:mailto:squo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ahhh....Jerome K Jerome.....all my books by him are at
> home...sob....but yes, he's brilliantly ironic and much more
> believable than Wodehouse - i mean, much as i love jeeves and wooster
> et al, they are quie definitely exaggerations....the three men in a
> boat, you could believe you might meet....much as you might wish not
> to.
JKJ was lucky. One of those authors who happen to chime with and maybe
shape the spirit of the time. 3MiaB was all the rage and for a generation
it was -the- shared experience. His attempts to cash in with sequels were
well received but not particularly successful.
Other that managed similar success include Trilby (Tree), The Old Curiosity
Shop (Dickens), Three Weeks (Glyn), The Sheik (Hull), The Good Companions
(Priestly) and Rebecca (Du Maurier).
The selection is deliberately somewhat dated - more recently the shared
experience may have included radio, film, television or even computer games.
In general they are not the best works of their respective authors, just the
one that clicked at the time. Mostly they are not great, or even good
literature either - but they were popular once and worth a read for that
reason alone.
Was JKJ 'better' than PGW - a bit like comparing soft limestone and hard
milk. Maybe JKJ's best was a fraction better but PGW was considerably more
versatile and once he'd found a genre that worked he was able to keep up a
steady output without compromising quality. A very different animal.
Cheerio,
--
>> derek...@clara.net
Tom Joyce
} > Also sprach Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk>:
} > } On the other hand, in the same
} > } milieu but infinitely better, Saki is sublime.
} >
} Tom Joyce wrote:
} > I beg to differ. While Mr Munro undoubtedly had a way with words, for
} > my money his works lack the joie de vivre inherent in Wodehouse's
} > (and, indeed, Pterry's) work.
}
} That's true, but I don't think it's necessarily relevant. He wasn't
} *trying* for joie de vivre. It's like saying "Pratchett has a way with
} words but he lacks the seriousness of Cordwainer Smith".
Possibly so; however, I read for enjoyment and while many things can
provoke that the effortless fun which shines forth from the works of
Pratchett and Wodehouse (and, indeed, Jerome) is hard to beat.
Therefore I would argue to the death (or thereabouts) against a claim
that Saki's stuff, good though it is, is infinitely better than
Plum's.
Jean
> In article <%5rba.12247$Lq.975982@stones>, Andrew Hickey wrote:
> > Terry Pratchett wrote:
> >> In article <Dupba.12229$Lq.972663@stones>, Andrew Hickey
> >> <stealth...@lycos.co.uk> writes
> >>> Stylistically almost every British humourist/humorous writer of the
> >>> last century has sounded like Wodehouse - the man invented modern
> >>> British comic writing. The only ones who don't sound like him are
> >>> the ones who try to be Beachcomber and/or Spike Milligan, and even
> >>> those usually have a large chuck of PGW as well...
> >>
> >> Hmm. Not true, I think. I'd hand that crown to Jerome K Jerome, who
> >> was a master of the detached, ironic style.
> >
> > You're quite probably right - I haven't read enough Jerome to know (a
> > mistake I've been meaning to rectify for some time). But Wodehouse certainly
> > seems to be a *major* influence on every British humorous writer I've
> > read...
> >
> Fix this.
Hear, hear! JKJ is brilliant and TP quite right that, for all the
influence Wodehouse has had on British humour writers (which is, as
you say, considerable), JKJ had a huge influence on Plum (read "Idle
Thoughts of an Idle Fellow and you can't help but notice it). One
thing Jerome does, though, is go off on tangents. Three Men In A Boat
(not to mention the dog!) will make you choke with laughter in places
(that bit where they try to open the pineapple tin always slays me),
but in between the action there is all this dreamy, poetic,
descriptive stuff that just doesn't seem of a piece with the rest.
Brilliant writing, though, of course.
Yours ever,
Pighooey
Jean
> Aquarion wrote:
> The nearest thing to Jerome I've found recently is Bill Bryson's Notes
> from a Small Island, which was voted as being the novel that best
Which is fine except that it isn't a novel.
Sorry, but I've been down on Bryson ever since he did a book on the
States and totally dissed my home state of Maine. He drove up a major
highway for a couple of hours during a rain storm, complained that
nothing looked like his preconceived notion of a quaint New England
village and then left. Bit like looking for Reeth or Masham in
Sheffield and getting all irritated when it's not there.
Humph,
Pighooey
Jon
<snip discussion of PGW and JKJ, influence thereof on Brithumour>
> Hear, hear! JKJ is brilliant and TP quite right that, for all the
> influence Wodehouse has had on British humour writers (which is, as
> you say, considerable), JKJ had a huge influence on Plum (read "Idle
> Thoughts of an Idle Fellow and you can't help but notice it). One
> thing Jerome does, though, is go off on tangents. Three Men In A Boat
> (not to mention the dog!) will make you choke with laughter in places
> (that bit where they try to open the pineapple tin always slays me),
> but in between the action there is all this dreamy, poetic,
> descriptive stuff that just doesn't seem of a piece with the rest.
> Brilliant writing, though, of course.
Ah, now, dere's a reason for dat. IIRC, JKJ was originally commissioned to
write a guidebook of sorts for boaters up the Thames, and all that
descriptive stuff is a hangover from that. Actually the descriptive writing
is quite interesting of itself as a portrait of the Thames in his day - it
might be instructive to compare it with how things are now.
There is no excuse whatever for that Goodly Knight in the Forest passage,
though.
Jon
"We gathered we had come into the vicinity of human beings, and that they
were vexed and discontented."
- J, Harris, George and Montmorency collide with a punt.
Kamen Kirilov
> Kamen Kirilov wrote:
>>
>> I read a biography of P.G. Wodehouse and it said there that a lot of
>> people - British people, even(!) - didn't realise the genious of that
>> man. He was regarded as a somewhat funny author without any clue
>> whatsoever about the real world, and not very intelligent at that -
>> that's what the biographer wrote. I never believed it for a second. And
>> now I'm seeing this *blasphemous* thread, and it's in afp, of all
>> newsgroups! What gives?
>
> At his peak (1930's and 40s), Wodehouse was a genius
> of plot construction, and a careful, long-toiling craftsman.
> In fact, I've seen speculation that "Joy In the Morning"
> has the most airtight of all his plots because of the fact
> that he wrote it during his Nazi internment (and, thus,
> he had more time to focus on fine-tuning the plot).
>
> As for the "idiocy" thing, remember that a lot of people
> thought of him as a traitor. His knighthood in 1975 was
> an implied statement from the government that he was
> absolved (or forgiven, depending on whether you believed
> that his German broadcasts were "treasonous" in the first
> place). There are still some people who hear Wodehouse's
> name and wrinkle their noses and say, "Wasn't he a Nazi
> or something?" Personally, I think it was much more a
> matter of optimism and naivete than of idiocy.
Now, if somebody has read anything by Wodehouse and still thinks he
(Wodehouse) was a nazi, I think that person is ready for the loony bin.
Talk about idiocy... I read about that nazi incident in the biography,
and I still don't understand.
[snip]
> And, if the biography you read was by Frances Donaldson,
> I seem to recall that she was not particularly a fan
> of his works, especially in his treatment of female
> characters. Her biography of him, though very long and
> comprehensive, contained enough direct criticism of his
> writing that it's easy to question her objectivity
> as a biographer and, thus, question whether the book should
> be considered a "biography" or a "critical analysis" of his
> life.
No, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the same biography. The author of the one
I read was explaining how it was time for Wodehouse to be recognized as
a genious and one of Britain's greatest authors of all time, and so on
in that vein. The whole book was one huge praise of Wodehouse and his
literary genious.
But that was a long time ago and I don't have the book handy, so I
can't check who the biographer was.
Briarpatch
>
> Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > As for the "idiocy" thing, remember that a lot of people
> > thought of him as a traitor. His knighthood in 1975 was
> > an implied statement from the government that he was
> > absolved (or forgiven, depending on whether you believed
> > that his German broadcasts were "treasonous" in the first
> > place). There are still some people who hear Wodehouse's
> > name and wrinkle their noses and say, "Wasn't he a Nazi
> > or something?" Personally, I think it was much more a
> > matter of optimism and naivete than of idiocy.
>
> Now, if somebody has read anything by Wodehouse and still thinks he
> (Wodehouse) was a nazi, I think that person is ready for the loony bin.
> Talk about idiocy... I read about that nazi incident in the biography,
> and I still don't understand.
>
Most of the people who believed it had not heard
the radio broadcasts in question. Much like the
church people who condemned "Life of Brian" as
heresy without bothering to watch it.
They just figured, "Hey, if he's broadcasting on
Nazi radio, he must be sympathetic with their cause."
And the Nazis were certainly aware of this implied
sympathy as well--he was out of internment for about
fifteen minutes before the offer to broadcast came
to him.
There's a book called "Wodehouse At War" (probably
out of print now, but I found it several years ago
in a used book store) that goes through this
incident in great detail.
Interesting trivia:
One of Wodehouse's biggest detractors was A.A. Milne.
As a result, Wodehouse took some pokes at Milne in
his story, "Rodney Has a Relapse," in which Rodney
Spelvin stops playing golf and starts writing sappy
children's poetry. One of the examples begins,
"Timothy Bobbin has ten little toes/He carries them
with him wherever he goes." A rare intance of
Wodehouse resorting to direct parody. That's about
the extent to which Wodehouse was capable of
being nasty.
Jon
"Briarpatch" <briar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E6F5529...@earthlink.net...
<snippage re Wodehouse unfortunate wartime broadcasts>
> Interesting trivia:
>
> One of Wodehouse's biggest detractors was A.A. Milne.
> As a result, Wodehouse took some pokes at Milne in
> his story, "Rodney Has a Relapse," in which Rodney
> Spelvin stops playing golf and starts writing sappy
> children's poetry. One of the examples begins,
> "Timothy Bobbin has ten little toes/He carries them
> with him wherever he goes." A rare intance of
> Wodehouse resorting to direct parody. That's about
> the extent to which Wodehouse was capable of
> being nasty.
In another story, PGW got back at the wartime minister who led the
denunciation of PGW by having Bertie give 'Alfred Duff Cooper' as a false
name to a magistrate.
Jon
"Tinkerty-tonk," I said. And I meant it to sting.
Suresh Ramasubramanian
What do you say to Sir Walter Scott? The english is a bit archaic, but he can
hold his own with any of the 20th century humorists - Wodehouse and the rest.
This is part of note #10 from Waverly -
> When the landlord of an inn presented his guests with deoch an doruis, that
> is, the drink at the door, or the stirrup-cup, the draught was not charged in
> the reckoning. On this point a learned bailie of the town of Forfar
> pronounced a very sound judgment.
>
> A., an ale-wife in Forfar, had brewed her 'peck of malt' and set the liquor
> out of doors to cool; the cow of B., a neighbour of A., chanced to come by,
> and seeing the good beverage, was allured to taste it, and finally to drink
> it up. When A. came to take in her liquor, she found her tub empty, and from
> the cow's staggering and staring, so as to betray her intemperance, she
> easily divined the mode in which her 'browst' had disappeared. To take
> vengeance on Crummie's ribs with a stick was her first effort. The roaring of
> the cow brought B., her master, who remonstrated with his angry neighbour,
> and received in reply a demand for the value of the ale which Crummie had
> drunk up. B. refused payment, and was conveyed before C., the bailie, or
> sitting magistrate. He heard the case patiently; and then demanded of the
> plaintiff A. whether the cow had sat down to her potation or taken it
> standing. The plaintiff answered, she had not seen the deed committed, but
> she supposed the cow drank the ale while standing on her feet, adding, that
> had she been near she would have made her use them to some purpose. The
> bailie, on this admission, solemnly adjudged the cow's drink to be deoch an
> doruis, a stirrup-cup, for which no charge could be made without violating
> the ancient hospitality of Scotland.
Michael Gilbert
<URL:mailto:derek...@clara.net> wrote:
> In article <ant11084...@riscpc.local>, Michael Gilbert
> <URL:mailto:mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Wodehouse wrote escapist tosh about the English upper class in some
> > mythical idyll of the 1920s. Re-reading reveals no new insights into the
>
> And film-scripts, shows, sketches, lyrics...
>
Operatic Society at the minute, so I shouldn't have ignored one of those
credited with the book) However, the "Escapist tosh" tag stands.
Tom Joyce
} > I would venture to suggest Wodehouse is more similar to Austen.
} >
} Sorry, no, can't see that.
Both authors of light, romantic comedies of upper class manners based
in part on a series of misunderstandings where fundamentally decent
people come up trumps, scathing portrayals of people who put propriety
before decency (Mrs Norris vs sundry Aunts), deeply felicitous turns
of phrase... I could go on.
} On the other hand, I think we can agree on the pure comic genius of the
} Molesworth books, from the look of your sig.
Well, any fule kno that.
Alec Cawley
> Also sprach Jen Birren <jana...@hotmail.com>:
>
> } > Also sprach Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk>:
> } > } On the other hand, in the same
> } > } milieu but infinitely better, Saki is sublime.
> } >
> } Tom Joyce wrote:
> } > I beg to differ. While Mr Munro undoubtedly had a way with words, for
> } > my money his works lack the joie de vivre inherent in Wodehouse's
> } > (and, indeed, Pterry's) work.
> }
> } That's true, but I don't think it's necessarily relevant. He wasn't
> } *trying* for joie de vivre. It's like saying "Pratchett has a way with
> } words but he lacks the seriousness of Cordwainer Smith".
>
> Possibly so; however, I read for enjoyment and while many things can
> provoke that the effortless fun which shines forth from the works of
> Pratchett and Wodehouse (and, indeed, Jerome) is hard to beat.
> Therefore I would argue to the death (or thereabouts) against a claim
> that Saki's stuff, good though it is, is infinitely better than
> Plum's.
While both humorous, I find Saki and PGW so far apart that comparison is
practically impossible. PGW wrote reams and reams of very amusing but
lightweight stuff which one can enjoy with the brain essentially in
standby. His situations are generally interchangeable, and the pleasure is
in the way it flows from page to page, full of beutiful metaphors and
ligtly-painted exposition.
By contrast, everything Saki wrote can be published in one thisk volume.
Perhaps half of that is not of his best, so you end wioth one booksworth of
top-grade stuff. But to read such a book, certainly for the first time,
would be to invite serious literary indigestion. Saki's stories whould be
taken one or two at a time, no more.
In some senses, TP could be said to have virtues of both. His total output
is coming into the same league as PGWs, though he has a way to go. His
writing certainly flows, and he has many passages which match PGW for
quality of metaphor - though not as many. However, there is no
interchangeability about PTerry's books, unlike many of PGW's (IMO). And
PGW'#s characters never change - Bertie is the same likeable idiot in tha
last book as the first, Jeeves as infallible, Lord Emworth as absent minded
and so on. In TP's work, that is possibly true of many of the Wizards[1]
but not of any of the other long-term characters. Saki doesn't have the
sustained characters to develop.
[1]Ponder Stibbons has certainly developed. The Rincewind of TLH is not the
Rincewind of TCOM - he has become more embittered and fatalistic. But may
of the other Wizards don't seem to have much room to develop - though I
would love to be proved wrong.
Eric Jarvis
>
> [1]Ponder Stibbons has certainly developed. The Rincewind of TLH is not the
> Rincewind of TCOM - he has become more embittered and fatalistic. But may
> of the other Wizards don't seem to have much room to develop - though I
> would love to be proved wrong.
>
the Librarian and Windle Poons come immediately to mind...but I'm not sure
you meant that type of development
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Michael Gilbert
the "British". The nearest in Irish literature is possibly Somerville
and Ross, but they at least manage to make their characters slightly
deeper. Scotland can boast Compton Mackenzie, whose Glenbogle stuff is
of a period and style with Wodehouse, but makes me smile more.
Torak
>
> What do you say to Sir Walter Scott? The english is a bit archaic, but
> he can hold his own with any of the 20th century humorists - Wodehouse
> and the rest.
>
> This is part of note #10 from Waverly -
>
>
>> When the landlord of an inn presented his guests with deoch an doruis,
>> that is, the drink at the door, or the stirrup-cup, the draught was not
>> charged in the reckoning. On this point a learned bailie of the town of
>> Forfar pronounced a very sound judgment.
>>
>> A., an ale-wife in Forfar, had brewed her 'peck of malt' and set the
>> liquor out of doors to cool; the cow of B., a neighbour of A., chanced
>> to come by, and seeing the good beverage, was allured to taste it, and
>> finally to drink it up. When A. came to take in her liquor, she found
>> her tub empty, and from the cow's staggering and staring, so as to
>> betray her intemperance, she easily divined the mode in which her
>> 'browst' had disappeared. To take vengeance on Crummie's ribs with a
>> stick was her first effort. The roaring of the cow brought B., her
>> master, who remonstrated with his angry neighbour, and received in reply
>> a demand for the value of the ale which Crummie had drunk up. B. refused
>> payment, and was conveyed before C., the bailie, or sitting magistrate.
>> He heard the case patiently; and then demanded of the plaintiff A.
>> whether the cow had sat down to her potation or taken it standing. The
>> plaintiff answered, she had not seen the deed committed, but she
>> supposed the cow drank the ale while standing on her feet, adding, that
>> had she been near she would have made her use them to some purpose. The
>> bailie, on this admission, solemnly adjudged the cow's drink to be deoch
>> an doruis, a stirrup-cup, for which no charge could be made without
>> violating the ancient hospitality of Scotland.
Sounds like a Denning to me... ;-)
Lesley Weston
aqua...@suespammers.org wrote on 11/03/2003 12:29 PM:
> In article <%5rba.12247$Lq.975982@stones>, Andrew Hickey wrote:
>> Terry Pratchett wrote:
>>> In article <Dupba.12229$Lq.972663@stones>, Andrew Hickey
>>> <stealth...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>>>> Stylistically almost every British humourist/humorous writer of the
>>>> last century has sounded like Wodehouse - the man invented modern
>>>> British comic writing. The only ones who don't sound like him are
>>>> the ones who try to be Beachcomber and/or Spike Milligan, and even
>>>> those usually have a large chuck of PGW as well...
>>>
>>> Hmm. Not true, I think. I'd hand that crown to Jerome K Jerome, who
>>> was a master of the detached, ironic style.
>>
>> You're quite probably right - I haven't read enough Jerome to know (a
>> mistake I've been meaning to rectify for some time). But Wodehouse certainly
>> seems to be a *major* influence on every British humorous writer I've
>> read...
>>
> Fix this.
>
> The best work to read is the infamous "Three Men In A Boat", but there
> is also an omnibus ("Three Men In An Omnibus") available.
But IIRC Three Men anywhere other than in a Boat aren't anywhere near as
funny.
Lesley Weston.
Lesley Weston
t.m....@dunelm.org.uk wrote on 11/03/2003 1:44 PM:
> Also sprach Michael Gilbert <mgil...@eclipse.co.uk>:
>
> } On the other hand, in the same
> } milieu but infinitely better, Saki is sublime.
>
> I beg to differ. While Mr Munro undoubtedly had a way with words, for
> my money his works lack the joie de vivre inherent in Wodehouse's
> (and, indeed, Pterry's) work.
He would have been hard put to it to produce joie de vivre, considering his
appalling childhood. That's why so many of his jokes are gallows humour.
Lesley Weston.
Lesley Weston
mgil...@eclipse.co.uk wrote on 11/03/2003 11:40 PM:
> In article <ant12000...@half-baked-idea.co.uk>, Derek.Moody
> <URL:mailto:derek...@clara.net> wrote:
>> In article <ant11084...@riscpc.local>, Michael Gilbert
>> <URL:mailto:mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Wodehouse wrote escapist tosh about the English upper class in some
>>> mythical idyll of the 1920s. Re-reading reveals no new insights into the
>>
>> And film-scripts, shows, sketches, lyrics...
>>
> Okay, given. (And herself is directing Anything Goes for the local
> Operatic Society at the minute, so I shouldn't have ignored one of those
> credited with the book) However, the "Escapist tosh" tag stands.
What's wrong with escapism? Our favourite author can hardly be accused of
writing kitchen-sink dramas.
Lesley Weston.
Michael Gilbert
escape in some way. On the other hand, I very much doubt if a convention
of Wodehouse fans would produce the same range of debate from topics
sparked by his works as this group and the rest of the Pratchett world.
Wodehouse (aside from the occasional snide remark, as noted by other
contributors) operated in a way wholly detached from reality or any
comment thereon.
Tom Joyce
} Wodehouse (aside from the occasional snide remark, as noted by other
} contributors) operated in a way wholly detached from reality or any
} comment thereon.
With the possible exception of "Psmith Jounalist".
Kamen Kirilov
> In article <BA9556FB.6D1E%les...@vancouverbc.net>, Lesley Weston
> <URL:mailto:les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote:
>> in article ant12070...@riscpc.local, Michael Gilbert at
>> mgil...@eclipse.co.uk wrote on 11/03/2003 11:40 PM:
>>
>> > In article <ant12000...@half-baked-idea.co.uk>, Derek.Moody
>> > <URL:mailto:derek...@clara.net> wrote:
>> >> In article <ant11084...@riscpc.local>, Michael Gilbert
>> >> <URL:mailto:mgil...@eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Wodehouse wrote escapist tosh about the English upper class in some
>> >>> mythical idyll of the 1920s. Re-reading reveals no new insights into the
>> >>
>> >> And film-scripts, shows, sketches, lyrics...
>> >>
>> > Okay, given. (And herself is directing Anything Goes for the local
>> > Operatic Society at the minute, so I shouldn't have ignored one of those
>> > credited with the book) However, the "Escapist tosh" tag stands.
>>
>> What's wrong with escapism? Our favourite author can hardly be accused of
>> writing kitchen-sink dramas.
>>
> "Escapist" is fine. "tosh" is the problem. All reading for pleasure is
> escape in some way. On the other hand, I very much doubt if a convention
> of Wodehouse fans would produce the same range of debate from topics
> sparked by his works as this group and the rest of the Pratchett world.
So, according to you, the topics fans discuss determine the quality of
an author's works? This is, well, interesting. Besides, how many
conventions of Wodehouse fans have you attended? No, I've not been to
any but then I don't concider myself a person incapable of "producing"
a wide range of topics.
> Wodehouse (aside from the occasional snide remark, as noted by other
> contributors) operated in a way wholly detached from reality or any
> comment thereon.
>
You (should) know this is not true, but still you go on posting this.
Any particular reason for that?
Richard Eney
Lesley Weston <les...@vancouverbc.net> wrote:
>Aquarion at
>aqua...@suespammers.org wrote on 11/03/2003 12:29 PM:
>> The best work to read is the infamous "Three Men In A Boat", but
>> there is also an omnibus ("Three Men In An Omnibus") available.
>
>But IIRC Three Men anywhere other than in a Boat aren't anywhere
>near as funny.
OTOH, Connie Willis's "To Say Nothing of the Dog" is a marvelously
funny book that uses that setting with plenty of contrasts from other
eras.
=Tamar
Matt Silberstein
<Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk>:
>In article <Dupba.12229$Lq.972663@stones>, Andrew Hickey
><stealth...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>>Stylistically almost every British humourist/humorous writer of the last
>>century has sounded like Wodehouse - the man invented modern British comic
>>writing. The only ones who don't sound like him are the ones who try to be
>>Beachcomber and/or Spike Milligan, and even those usually have a large chuck
>>of PGW as well...
>
>Hmm. Not true, I think. I'd hand that crown to Jerome K Jerome, who
>was a master of the detached, ironic style.
I just read Connie Willis' _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ and so my
next book is the aforesaid (wow, I actually got to use that word)
JKJ _Three Men in a Boat_. I gather it is a classic I have simply
missed.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
Politics is the art of the possible
Bismarck, but not the ship
Eric Jarvis
>
> I just read Connie Willis' _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ and so my
> next book is the aforesaid (wow, I actually got to use that word)
> JKJ _Three Men in a Boat_. I gather it is a classic I have simply
> missed.
>
I've got the same two in the queueueue but will be reading them
the other way around...but I have to finish Linda Nagata's The
Bohr Maker first
--
eric
Michael McNeil
> I just read Connie Willis' _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ and so my
> next book is the aforesaid (wow, I actually got to use that word)
> JKJ _Three Men in a Boat_. I gather it is a classic I have simply
> missed.
Rather in the style of that TP emulator who thinks he is a tea-pot, in my humble.
Matt Silberstein
<mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>In alt.fan.pratchett I read this message from Terry Pratchett
><Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk>:
>
>>In article <Dupba.12229$Lq.972663@stones>, Andrew Hickey
>><stealth...@lycos.co.uk> writes
>>>Stylistically almost every British humourist/humorous writer of the last
>>>century has sounded like Wodehouse - the man invented modern British comic
>>>writing. The only ones who don't sound like him are the ones who try to be
>>>Beachcomber and/or Spike Milligan, and even those usually have a large chuck
>>>of PGW as well...
>>
>>Hmm. Not true, I think. I'd hand that crown to Jerome K Jerome, who
>>was a master of the detached, ironic style.
>
>I just read Connie Willis' _To Say Nothing of the Dog_ and so my
>next book is the aforesaid (wow, I actually got to use that word)
>JKJ _Three Men in a Boat_. I gather it is a classic I have simply
>missed.
Ok, I have now read _Three Men in a Boat_ and I can't say that I
feel that I missed much. Stylistically it reminds me very much of
Mark Twain, Twain with neither the vision nor the edge. It was
fun-ish I suppose, but no more.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.