[R] Still less dead...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
"Bleak House", and, describing how Dickens' prose style sucked you in, the
presenter said no-one else could do it as well "with the possible exception
of Terry Pratchett".
Yep, a programme about a "classic" author and how great he was took a
second to compare Pterry favourably. How cool is that?
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Special poetry offer -
Byron, get one free.
Puck
> Did anyone else catch "Open Book" on Radio 4 yesterday? They were
> plugging "Bleak House", and, describing how Dickens' prose style
> sucked you in, the presenter said no-one else could do it as well
> "with the possible exception of Terry Pratchett".
>
> Yep, a programme about a "classic" author and how great he was took a
> second to compare Pterry favourably. How cool is that?
Seriously cool.
Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests? I
realize it's all subjective, but his stuff never seemed to live up to the
hype. I really do love Shakespeare, Chaucer, Doyle, Byron, Poe, Twain,
Shelly and all the other people that English teachers tell me I should love,
but when one announces that we will be reading a book by Dickens (with the
exception of A Christmas Carol, which kind of fits to a different standard
because it is primarily a children's tale) my brain waves take on the
semblance of a dial tone.
A quick poll of others around me suggests I'm not the only one. Even my
batty friend who flatly refuses to read anything less than 100 years old
(seriously: last new year she celebrated by getting all the books she could
find from 1905, because they are "okay now") doesn't think he is all that
great. I'm not saying he was a bad writer (far from it) but of all the great
literature to come out of the Victorian Era, I can name a dozen authors who
should be more synonimous with the period.
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): "I am that merry wanderer of the night",
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
James Mitchelhill
> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests? I
> realize it's all subjective, but his stuff never seemed to live up to the
> hype. I really do love Shakespeare, Chaucer, Doyle, Byron, Poe, Twain,
> Shelly and all the other people that English teachers tell me I should love,
> but when one announces that we will be reading a book by Dickens (with the
> exception of A Christmas Carol, which kind of fits to a different standard
> because it is primarily a children's tale) my brain waves take on the
> semblance of a dial tone.
I agree completely. I find Dickens almost completely unreadable, so I
don't bother. Then again, I don't actually read much 'classic' fiction.
I tend to avoid anything pre-1930, with a few exceptions (H.P.
Lovecraft, Dorothy Parker). My tastes run towards minimalism, I think
and maybe this is why I hate Dickens and other similar writers - they're
so long, drawn-out, verbose, excessively descriptive and labour every
point. People who enjoy being utterly submerged in a book may be the
ones who enjoy such things. For me, it's not a rewarding experience and
the ratio between time-investment and enjoyment isn't high enough.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Puck
> My tastes run towards minimalism
And you read Terry Pratchett???
Nigel Stapley
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>
>>Did anyone else catch "Open Book" on Radio 4 yesterday? They were
>>plugging "Bleak House", and, describing how Dickens' prose style
>>sucked you in, the presenter said no-one else could do it as well
>>"with the possible exception of Terry Pratchett".
>>
>>Yep, a programme about a "classic" author and how great he was took a
>>second to compare Pterry favourably. How cool is that?
>
>
> Seriously cool.
>
> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests?
We'll burn together then.
I was permanently put off Dickens (1) in the same way you were, by
having to read some of his stuff at school (aged 11~12). "A Christmas
Carol" is, perhaps, not the best place to start with him in any case -
being nauseating in its sentimentality. I tried reading others, though.
It didn't work.
I echo all your other criticisms, but would add another: nothing is
quite so grating as the naming of many of his characters. One suspects
that CD was trying too hard for the 'freak-show' effect.
Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like that of
Dylan Thomas in poetry (for my extended rant on *that*, see
http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Main/Rants/Rants_Archive.htm#12_11_03 ). It
depends hugely on his having ingratiated himself with those who placed
themselves in the role of arbiters, and what they deluded themselves
into thinking was what would now be called "social realism". If the
'lower orders' or the somehow 'other' are being described to you, it is
easy to be comfortable with your own comfort if those 'others' are
irredeemably 'comic' in some sense, even if it's just in having silly names.
(1) Old joke alert!
Him : Do you like Dickens?
Her : I don't know - I've never been to one.
(Works better spoken than written)
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Sorry, I'm in the middle of a book with characters named A.E.
Pessimal and Mr John Not-A-Vampire-At-All Smith, so I clearly
don't share this problem 8-)...
> Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like
> that of Dylan Thomas in poetry (for my extended rant on
> *that*, see
> http://www.thejudge.me.uk/Main/Rants/Rants_Archive.htm#12_11
> _03 ). It depends hugely on his having ingratiated himself
> with those who placed themselves in the role of arbiters,
> and what they deluded themselves into thinking was what
> would now be called "social realism". If the 'lower orders'
> or the somehow 'other' are being described to you, it is
> easy to be comfortable with your own comfort if those
> 'others' are irredeemably 'comic' in some sense, even if
> it's just in having silly names.
Er, I don't know *much* about Dickens beyond the books, but
wasn't he a child-labourer with a father permanently in
debtors' prison?
In any case, I don't believe anyone thought what Dickens was
writing was social realism, any more than it's what Pterry's
writing; it's *informed* by the realities of society, but not
bound by them.
Emma Anne
> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests? I
Me!
Actually, I think he probably is a good as his rep; he just doesn't do
it for me. If I'm going to read classics it's usually Jane Austen, who
is funny and ironic. Like PTerry, actually. With Dickens I usually
feel like I am getting bludgeoned with both the pathos and the humor.
Lesley Weston
Korm...@osu.edu wrote on 28/10/2005 7:37 AM:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> Did anyone else catch "Open Book" on Radio 4 yesterday? They were
>> plugging "Bleak House", and, describing how Dickens' prose style
>> sucked you in, the presenter said no-one else could do it as well
>> "with the possible exception of Terry Pratchett".
>>
>> Yep, a programme about a "classic" author and how great he was took a
>> second to compare Pterry favourably. How cool is that?
>
> Seriously cool.
>
> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests? I
> realize it's all subjective, but his stuff never seemed to live up to the
> hype.
I don't like his style or his material, but I always thought that was just
me. I would say TP's style is far superior, especially in the "sucks you in"
way, and I prefer his plots, characterisation and message, too.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
Stapley at un...@judgemental.plus.com wrote on 28/10/2005 1:24 PM:
> Puck wrote:
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>>
>>> Did anyone else catch "Open Book" on Radio 4 yesterday? They were
>>> plugging "Bleak House", and, describing how Dickens' prose style
>>> sucked you in, the presenter said no-one else could do it as well
>>> "with the possible exception of Terry Pratchett".
>>>
>>> Yep, a programme about a "classic" author and how great he was took a
>>> second to compare Pterry favourably. How cool is that?
>>
>>
>> Seriously cool.
>>
>> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
>> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests?
>
> We'll burn together then.
>
> I was permanently put off Dickens (1) in the same way you were, by
> having to read some of his stuff at school (aged 11~12). "A Christmas
> Carol" is, perhaps, not the best place to start with him in any case -
> being nauseating in its sentimentality. I tried reading others, though.
> It didn't work.
Agreed, though I like the "The boy is Ignorance, the girl is Want" bit.
>
> I echo all your other criticisms, but would add another: nothing is
> quite so grating as the naming of many of his characters. One suspects
> that CD was trying too hard for the 'freak-show' effect.
Agreed. Those elephantine jokes are embarrassing.
>
> Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like that of
> Dylan Thomas in poetry
Uh-oh! How can you possibly say that about the man who wrote about dogs in
the nose-wet yard and pigs in the pig-loving sun, and all the other
wonderful things in Under Milk Wood?
Eric Jarvis
state.edu>:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> > Did anyone else catch "Open Book" on Radio 4 yesterday? They were
> > plugging "Bleak House", and, describing how Dickens' prose style
> > sucked you in, the presenter said no-one else could do it as well
> > "with the possible exception of Terry Pratchett".
> >
> > Yep, a programme about a "classic" author and how great he was took a
> > second to compare Pterry favourably. How cool is that?
>
> Seriously cool.
>
> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests? I
> realize it's all subjective, but his stuff never seemed to live up to the
> hype. I really do love Shakespeare, Chaucer, Doyle, Byron, Poe, Twain,
> Shelly and all the other people that English teachers tell me I should love,
> but when one announces that we will be reading a book by Dickens (with the
> exception of A Christmas Carol, which kind of fits to a different standard
> because it is primarily a children's tale) my brain waves take on the
> semblance of a dial tone.
>
> A quick poll of others around me suggests I'm not the only one. Even my
> batty friend who flatly refuses to read anything less than 100 years old
> (seriously: last new year she celebrated by getting all the books she could
> find from 1905, because they are "okay now") doesn't think he is all that
> great. I'm not saying he was a bad writer (far from it) but of all the great
> literature to come out of the Victorian Era, I can name a dozen authors who
> should be more synonimous with the period.
>
Welcome to the revolution Comrade!
Actually I won't go so far as to claim Dickens isn't any good. Some of the
stories are fine, the characters are sometimes fascinating, and obviously
his work reaches a lot of people very effectively. However I bounce off
his prose. I find it nearly unreadable after a paragraph or two. I see
this as my weakness and not his, but every time I try t9o go back to
Dickens I just give up after a few pages.
I can't think of another writer who affects me that way, All the other
writers whose prose style baffles me are definitely weak in that
department (trans: they are rubbish).
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
David Jensen
emma...@mac.com (Emma Anne) wrote in
<1h55gj2.1ia7lagduqjc3N%emma...@mac.com>:
I've found that all sorts of things matter in enjoying literature.
Dickens appeals to me sometimes and sometimes does not -- it is likely
that the book is less important than the mood I'm in. Yes, he is a bit
dated, but so is the Bard, and I can put up with him most of the time.
David Jensen
Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in
<MPG.1dccc2863...@news.dircon.co.uk>:
My son is a voracious reader and he has problems connecting with Twain
let alone Dickens or Shakespeare. Yes, there are rubbish writers out
there, but there is also _time_ playing with language and style. PTerry
works in part because he is of our time.
Pudde Fjord
> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests? I
> realize it's all subjective, but his stuff never seemed to live up to the
> hype. I really do love Shakespeare, Chaucer, Doyle, Byron, Poe, Twain,
> Shelly and all the other people that English teachers tell me I should love,
> but when one announces that we will be reading a book by Dickens (with the
> exception of A Christmas Carol, which kind of fits to a different standard
> because it is primarily a children's tale) my brain waves take on the
> semblance of a dial tone.
>
> A quick poll of others around me suggests I'm not the only one. Even my
> batty friend who flatly refuses to read anything less than 100 years old
> (seriously: last new year she celebrated by getting all the books she could
> find from 1905, because they are "okay now") doesn't think he is all that
> great. I'm not saying he was a bad writer (far from it) but of all the great
> literature to come out of the Victorian Era, I can name a dozen authors who
> should be more synonimous with the period.
Dickens, like Conan Doyle and Tolstoy, wrote his works as serials for
magazines/newspapers and had a large contemporary following, waiting to
see how his new story would turn out. A lot like much of what's haunting
the bestseller lists today. His stories had to be easily related to, so
when a lot of the charaters strikes us today as stereotypes, that's just
part of the style he used to this effect. This is roughly equivalent to
soap-operas and such today, but his work has qualities that lift them to
a higher level than what the soaps strive for.
This also is the reason for the "colorful" names he is apt to use, as
they immidiately signal some attributes of the character to the readers,
enabling them to read a part of a story even if they missed something or
don't remember them.
As with other classics, like Shakespeare, his works has been paraphrased
so many times that his plots and story twists is almost too familiar to
modern readers. As with all works, some like them and some don't, but
among my favourites are "Oliver Twist" and "David Copperfield".
And one part of being a *classic*, is that it should be familiar to most
people, at least that they have heard of the stories somehow. The
literary qualities are IMHO second to that, but also one reason for its
staying power.
Pudde.
Diane L
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:37:11 -0400, Puck wrote:
>
>> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does
>> anyone else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his
>> reputation suggests? I realize it's all subjective, but his stuff
>> never seemed to live up to the hype. I really do love Shakespeare,
>> Chaucer, Doyle, Byron, Poe, Twain, Shelly and all the other people
>> that English teachers tell me I should love, but when one announces
>> that we will be reading a book by Dickens (with the exception of A
>> Christmas Carol, which kind of fits to a different standard because
>> it is primarily a children's tale) my brain waves take on the
>> semblance of a dial tone.
I enjoy Dickens when I'm in the right mood, but I probably benefitted
from not having to read him at school and so being able to read his
books by choice as an adult.
> I agree completely. I find Dickens almost completely unreadable, so I
> don't bother. Then again, I don't actually read much 'classic'
> fiction. I tend to avoid anything pre-1930, with a few exceptions
> (H.P. Lovecraft, Dorothy Parker). My tastes run towards minimalism, I
> think and maybe this is why I hate Dickens and other similar writers
> - they're so long, drawn-out, verbose, excessively descriptive and
> labour every point.
I like his prose style, it's like sinking into a big warm bath full of
prose (OK, as similes go that's pretty poor, but it's the nearest I'll
get at this time of night). OTOH, I *can't* read Hemingway at all.
The rhythm of his sentences is so staccato that I find it almost
physically distressing, and I've never managed more than a couple
of paragraphs. Which is weird, really.
> People who enjoy being utterly submerged in a
> book may be the ones who enjoy such things. For me, it's not a
> rewarding experience and the ratio between time-investment and
> enjoyment isn't high enough.
Diane L.
Stig M. Valstad
>
> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests? I
> realize it's all subjective, but his stuff never seemed to live up to the
> hype. I really do love Shakespeare, Chaucer, Doyle, Byron, Poe, Twain,
> Shelly and all the other people that English teachers tell me I should love,
> but when one announces that we will be reading a book by Dickens (with the
> exception of A Christmas Carol, which kind of fits to a different standard
> because it is primarily a children's tale) my brain waves take on the
> semblance of a dial tone.
I kinda like Dickens. Apart from his tendency to say
beautiful=good, ugly=evil and being a bit long-winded,
I found a tale of two cities very captivating and the
pickwick papers very funny. I have more problems with
Shakespeare, and I find Doyle a pale imitation of Poe's
C. Auguste Dupin tales. Twain I generally love, except
his horrible Connecticut Yankee in Arthur's court. As
far as I know, Dickens described the first Hollywood
style car chase. That alone should count for something.
--
Stig M. Valstad
"P[o]ison yourself, and you'll be glad on it arterwards." Weller sr.
Boyd Bottorff
> else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests?
I agree. I also agree in regards to Dickensen [1], Blake [2], and damn
near everybody after Twain that gets studied by scholars [4].
And somehow I graduated with a B.A. in English, despite hating at least
three quarters of the authors I read. No idea how. Not too sure on the
why, either, after fifteen years. I guess it seemed like a good idea at
the time.
[1] OK, she can parse simple proverbs and pass them off as poetry. So
what?
[2] OK, it's interesting that he could mix, match, and blend various
religious themes and ideas until he's come up with a vibrant,
semi-cohesive mythos [3], and expressing it with some occasionally
pretty and usually arcane poetry. He's still a fruitcake for actually
believing what he came up with, though.
[3] Though, to be honest, I've seen Dungeon Masters who came up with
more cohesive and *way* more interesting mythos. And they didn't even
have to believe in what they were creating.
[4] Tolkein is the notable standout from the twentieth century. But
evidence suggests that he actually wanted his works to be enjoyed, not
merely studied, which differentiates him from most of the pack.
Stacie Hanes
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:37:11 -0400, Puck wrote:
>
>> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but
>> does anyone else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his
>> reputation suggests?
>
> I agree completely. I find Dickens almost completely unreadable, so
> I don't bother.
When I was in high school, I made it to page TWO of _A Tale of Two Cities_.
The experience put me off Dickens until, oh, last Thursday. I chose a
dissertation and approach that owes a lot to Martha Nussbaum, and she talks
about Dickens's novel _Hard Times_. To do an assignment for this class I'm
in now, I needed to write something, and I thought I should read _Hard
Times_.
It's not nearly as bad as ATo2C. I know a hell of a lot more, and it's
funnier. 2C is probably the worst way to start on Dickens. I couldn't afford
to avoid him anymore, though, specializing in Vic Lit.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
Boyd Bottorff
> prose (OK, as similes go that's pretty poor, but it's the nearest I'll
> get at this time of night). OTOH, I *can't* read Hemingway at all.
Billy Bud... eighty-eight pages, reasonably large typeface... second
longest book I read in high school, right after Crime and Punishment.
Boyd Bottorff
> That alone should count for something.
That he started a genre of bad art?
Stacie Hanes
>> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but
>> does anyone else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his
>> reputation suggests?
>
> I agree. I also agree in regards to Dickensen [1], Blake [2], and
> damn near everybody after Twain that gets studied by scholars [4].
> [1] OK, she can parse simple proverbs and pass them off as poetry.
> So what?
<begins mixing napalm>
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
Puck
> longest book I read in high school, right after Crime and Punishment.
Don't get me freakin started on Billy Budd! Please, we'll be here all night!
Okay, here's the short version of my feelings for Melville's lesser work.
They say that if you put an infinite number of monkeys in a room for an
infinite ammount of time they will eventually produce the complete works of
Shakespeare (major Hollywood screenplays are often concocted the same way)
Billy Budd? Three monkeys, ten minutes.
Puck
> The experience put me off Dickens until, oh, last Thursday. I chose a
> dissertation and approach that owes a lot to Martha Nussbaum, and she
> talks about Dickens's novel _Hard Times_. To do an assignment for
> this class I'm in now, I needed to write something, and I thought I
> should read _Hard Times_.
I will give Dickens one pass: his shorter stuff can be pretty good. But I
never meant to imply that I find Dickens to be completely intolerable. It's
just that his name is so inexplicably synonimous with "Good" and I don't get
it. There are a few authors so universally revered that a discussion on them
will give any Lit major a need for an immediate cold shower. Shakespeare,
Chaucer, Byron etc. I just don't think that Dickens is in the same ballpark,
or even playing the same sport.
Puck
> let alone Dickens or Shakespeare. Yes, there are rubbish writers out
> there, but there is also _time_ playing with language and style.
> PTerry works in part because he is of our time.
I will go to the matresses for either Twain or Shakespeare ;)
Danny
wrote the following stuff about Re: [R] Still less dead...:
I think Tale of Two Cities is the only Dickens I've actually *read* (and own)
although I am familiar with some of his other stories through movies/tv. In
fact, I think the only reason I read To2C was because I'd seen a film adaption
and I used it for something in English class, although I can't quite remember
what at the moment. In any case, I didn't *hate* the book... but it was a long
time ago, and the past is another country, right?
Seeya. Danny.
PS. I suspect the only pre-1930's author I read and enjoy with any regularity
is H.G. Wells, of course, pretty much only his SF stuff.
--
E-Mail: Danny (at) grovers (dash) sa (dot) com
Puck
> magazines/newspapers and had a large contemporary following, waiting
> to see how his new story would turn out. A lot like much of what's
> haunting the bestseller lists today. His stories had to be easily
> related to, so when a lot of the charaters strikes us today as
> stereotypes, that's just part of the style he used to this effect.
> This is roughly equivalent to soap-operas and such today, but his
> work has qualities that lift them to a higher level than what the
> soaps strive for.
Agreed, but I love plenty of other writers who use that format. You
mentioned Doyle, for instance, and if there is a single book I would like to
have shipwrecked with me on a desert island (other than "The Professor's
Guide to Building Boats from Coconuts") it might well be the Complete
Sherlock Holmes.
In fact, I would even go so far as to claim this format is an advantage for
the author. At the time it was really The Thing. Last year I wrote a bloody
huge research paper about how the entertainment that is best remembered by
future generations, the "classics" if you will, is almost always that which
was designed to appeal to the least common denominator, i.e. the "common
man". Dickens and Doyle had their serials and penny dreadfuls, Shakespeare
was designed to appeal to the "groundlings" and was full of low humor and
off-color puns, and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales was full of risque elements
that resembled bar-room anecdotes. Going back even further, you will find
that Beowulf, and similar epics, read more like a comic books than serious
stories, and that even the Greek era classics like The Oddessy and the
Oedipus Trilogy were basically intended for the less "sophisticated".
At the time the literary critics (I am taking some licence here; I bet any
sort of literary critic in the time of Beowulf would have been eaten. And to
think they say that was a barbaric age!) would have scorned all these works
(remember the scandal when Queen Elizabeth I admited that she actually liked
theater? Nor do I, I wasn't born yet, but I heard about it ;) ) but nowadays
they are positively synonimous with elegance and sophistication.
Kind of makes you wonder if lit students a hundred years from now will be
considerred pretentious for witing long thesises (thesii?) about Family Guy
and the works of Stephen King.
David Jensen
"Puck" <Korm...@osu.edu> wrote in
<djuoh8$1bl$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>:
>
>> The experience put me off Dickens until, oh, last Thursday. I chose a
>> dissertation and approach that owes a lot to Martha Nussbaum, and she
>> talks about Dickens's novel _Hard Times_. To do an assignment for
>> this class I'm in now, I needed to write something, and I thought I
>> should read _Hard Times_.
>
>I will give Dickens one pass: his shorter stuff can be pretty good. But I
>never meant to imply that I find Dickens to be completely intolerable. It's
>just that his name is so inexplicably synonimous with "Good" and I don't get
>it. There are a few authors so universally revered that a discussion on them
>will give any Lit major a need for an immediate cold shower. Shakespeare,
>Chaucer, Byron etc. I just don't think that Dickens is in the same ballpark,
>or even playing the same sport.
Even Shakespeare has works that are honored by never (never? well,
hardly ever) being produced -- as it should be.
David Jensen
Danny <da...@atgroversdashsadot.com> wrote in
<j8q5m1pdn2rse3fpa...@4ax.com>:
And, of course, it has a great pair of bookend sentences.
David Jensen
"Puck" <Korm...@osu.edu> wrote in
<djuong$1br$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>:
>> My son is a voracious reader and he has problems connecting with Twain
>> let alone Dickens or Shakespeare. Yes, there are rubbish writers out
>> there, but there is also _time_ playing with language and style.
>> PTerry works in part because he is of our time.
>
>I will go to the matresses for either Twain or Shakespeare ;)
I love them both as well, but I can see why school kids don't jump at
the opportunity to read them.
James Mitchelhill
>> My tastes run towards minimalism
>
> And you read Terry Pratchett???
No. I read books written by him. ;)
Actually, thinking about it a little harder, I have several different
tastes in literature, some of which are wildly contradictory. Minimalism
is one strand, but I also like some incredibly excessive stuff so long
as it's excessive enough to do odd things to my brain (_Illuminatus!_ by
Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea for example, or _Ada or Ardor_ by
Vladimir Nabokov).
Pratchett falls into a few different categories for me:
1) Funny with a higher purpose. (joined by Harry Harrisson and Phillip
K. Dick)
2) Coinciding interests (with Neil Gaiman, Neal Stephenson (sometimes)
and others)
3) Comfort Reading (I probably re-read Pratchett more than any other
author, but somewhat strangely, Haruki Murakami also falls into this
category for me).
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Last year I wrote a bloody huge research paper about
> how the entertainment that is best remembered by future
> generations, the "classics" if you will, is almost always
> that which was designed to appeal to the least common
> denominator, i.e. the "common man". Dickens and Doyle had
> their serials and penny dreadfuls, Shakespeare was designed
> to appeal to the "groundlings" and was full of low humor
> and off-color puns, and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales was full
> of risque elements that resembled bar-room anecdotes. Going
> back even further, you will find that Beowulf, and similar
> epics, read more like a comic books than serious stories,
> and that even the Greek era classics like The Oddessy and
> the Oedipus Trilogy were basically intended for the less
> "sophisticated".
>
> At the time the literary critics (I am taking some licence
> here; I bet any sort of literary critic in the time of
> Beowulf would have been eaten. And to think they say that
> was a barbaric age!) would have scorned all these works
> (remember the scandal when Queen Elizabeth I admited that
> she actually liked theater? Nor do I, I wasn't born yet,
> but I heard about it ;) ) but nowadays they are positively
> synonimous with elegance and sophistication.
Don't forget that in Jane Austen's day, novels were so
despised by the lit crits that she gets into a bit of a rant
about it in Northanger Abbey.
Torak
> James Mitchelhill wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:37:11 -0400, Puck wrote:
> >
> >> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does
> >> anyone else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his
> >> reputation suggests? I realize it's all subjective, but his stuff
> >> never seemed to live up to the hype. I really do love Shakespeare,
> >> Chaucer, Doyle, Byron, Poe, Twain, Shelly and all the other people
> >> that English teachers tell me I should love, but when one announces
> >> that we will be reading a book by Dickens (with the exception of A
> >> Christmas Carol, which kind of fits to a different standard because
> >> it is primarily a children's tale) my brain waves take on the
> >> semblance of a dial tone.
>
> I enjoy Dickens when I'm in the right mood, but I probably benefitted
> from not having to read him at school and so being able to read his
> books by choice as an adult.
I never minded Dickens, mainly because I read fast enough to have
finished the book before the rest of my class ever started it, and thus
at least got to set the timing myself. And I was good enough at
bluffing my way through the lit crit, a talent which seems to have
vanished now.
> I like his prose style, it's like sinking into a big warm bath full of
> prose (OK, as similes go that's pretty poor, but it's the nearest I'll
> get at this time of night). OTOH, I *can't* read Hemingway at all.
> The rhythm of his sentences is so staccato that I find it almost
> physically distressing, and I've never managed more than a couple
> of paragraphs. Which is weird, really.
Don't get me started on bloody Hemingway. Tedium in a bucket... I had
to read A Farewell To Arms, and it was one of the dullest books we read
that year (apart from Equus and the others)...
gem...@tpg.com.au
>Kind of makes you wonder if lit students a hundred years from now will be
>considerred pretentious for witing long thesises (thesii?) about Family Guy
>and the works of Stephen King.
"All right, class. five hundred words on the sayings of Bart Simpson, by
Tuesday."
I shudder to think that kids in the twenty-second century will be forced
to read from the archives of Oprah's Book Club, or the works of Barbara
Cartland.
And kids of the 22nd, if you're reading this after trawling through the
ancient archives, try reading different books altogether. Pick up _A Brief
History of Time_ and have a laugh at the outdated physics, or something.
-SteveD
--
P.S. I hope I don't become famous. That could be really retroactively
embarrassing. Um... just assume I am/was young and stupid. Thanks.
Kegs
[snip Dickens]
> OTOH, I *can't* read Hemingway at all.
> The rhythm of his sentences is so staccato that I find it almost
> physically distressing, and I've never managed more than a couple
> of paragraphs. Which is weird, really.
Which just goes to show that it takes all sorts, I, personally, love
Hemingway's spare prose style, though I am not so into his fetishisation
of machismo. While Dickens I have never been able to read much of, though
I like people like Laurence Durrell, who do have pretty dense writing
styles.
--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
"Can we wound him? Just a little?" (Cmdr. Ivanova, B5 "Dust to Dust")
Puck
> the ancient archives, try reading different books altogether. Pick up
> _A Brief History of Time_ and have a laugh at the outdated physics,
> or something.
"Awww....how cute. Mr. Hawking thinks that black holes transmit data about
all the matter they consume and that therefore there is no such thing as a
true event horizon, merely an apparent one. That's sweet."
fybar
news:1h55w4h.gsaqf8qnukqeN%bbot...@nomail.com:
Ok, I am delurking. I have read this froup on and off for about 5 years.
I am 'inspired' enough to finally break the silence.
>> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does
>> anyone else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his
>> reputation suggests?
>
> I agree. I also agree in regards to Dickensen [1], Blake [2], and
> damn near everybody after Twain that gets studied by scholars [4].
I will agree with Dickensen. Have you ever heard the 'Yellow Rose of
Texas' theory? Ruined her forever for me. Or, more precisely, gave me
another reason to dislike her work. I'll take ee cummings any day.
> And somehow I graduated with a B.A. in English, despite hating at
> least three quarters of the authors I read. No idea how. Not too
> sure on the why, either, after fifteen years. I guess it seemed like
> a good idea at the time.
Maybe when your passion started to become a vocation you began to become
more critical? Or maybe it was the curriculum? I have read 20 of the
bard's plays in study at college level and never once read Romeo and
Juliet or Macbeth. But, I studied the hell out of Twelfth Night! Odd
that.
My English proffesor once said that we were never start a sentance with
but or and. I can't for the life of me remember why and refuse to obey
such an arbitrary rule!
Also, I pledge to single-handedly wear out the exclamation point!!! <
(look, three, a sure sign of a deranged mind)
> [1] OK, she can parse simple proverbs and pass them off as poetry. So
> what?
>
> [2] OK, it's interesting that he could mix, match, and blend various
> religious themes and ideas until he's come up with a vibrant,
> semi-cohesive mythos [3], and expressing it with some occasionally
> pretty and usually arcane poetry. He's still a fruitcake for actually
> believing what he came up with, though.
>
> [3] Though, to be honest, I've seen Dungeon Masters who came up with
> more cohesive and *way* more interesting mythos. And they didn't even
> have to believe in what they were creating.
Hah, you owe me a new keyboard! Though the one I have now has a pleasant
aroma of Glenfiddich! I have a friend who created a brilliant campaign
that we turned into a tournament at the UofA in Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada, eh. That was in the late 80's, it is still referred to by gamers
at the local club. Geek immoratilty![1]
> [4] Tolkein is the notable standout from the twentieth century. But
> evidence suggests that he actually wanted his works to be enjoyed, not
> merely studied, which differentiates him from most of the pack.
The real reason why I posted. Tolkien is one of the driest most
untalented writers that I can say that I have enjoyed. In fact I have
stated on more than one occasion that LOTR would have greatly benefitted
from a Dickens like infusion of descriptive ablility. Ironic? The story
is fantastic, but his descriptions of the characters are one dimensional
and, uh, crappy. My adjective library fails me.
It takes the imagination of the reader to flesh them out, like it does in
all prose, but in this case it is a much taller order. Also, the
characters don't grow. Frodo is the reluctant hero till the end and Sam
the bravest from start to finish.[2]
JRRT is the standard by which all fantasy is judged, but I give you
George RR Martin as his able successor and better. The richness and
multidimensional characters in ASOIAF would certainly blow Aragorn and
Frodo out of the water, IMNSHO. GRRM's mythology is not nearly as well
developed as JRRT's I will admit, but JRRT had a goal beyond
entertaining. He WANTED to create a mythology. I would say that he
WANTED his works to be studied. Why else would he have developed a
fictitious written language? To entertain? Ha![3]
To get back to the original point I wanted to make; I guess, as suggested
by other posters, that to enjoy Dickens you have to enjoy immersing
yourself in a tale. When I read a book I get completely lost. In fact
you could replace my curry with a CMOT meat pie special and I would
hardly notice were I in mid-sentance! Maybe a little hyperoble here?
Why not, I use it everywhere else.
fybar the cantankerous
1. Insane geek jealousy! I was voted best DM, but my campaign was much
less imaginative. Much less.(weeps into odiferous keyboard)
2. Sam and R2-D2 both have a special place in my heart as the most
underrated[4] and under-appreciated[4] characters in their respective
stories.
3. Sorry, I say 'Ha!' a lot when I am in my cup(s). It is part of my,
uh, er, charm?
4. Why is one of these hyphenated? Why does flammable=inflammable? Does
visible=invisble? Aaaaargh!
Dave Crisp
> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does
> anyone else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation
> suggests? I realize it's all subjective, but his stuff never seemed to
> live up to the hype. I really do love Shakespeare, Chaucer, Doyle, Byron,
> Poe, Twain, Shelly and all the other people that English teachers tell me
> I should love, but when one announces that we will be reading a book by
> Dickens (with the exception of A Christmas Carol, which kind of fits to a
> different standard because it is primarily a children's tale) my brain
> waves take on the semblance of a dial tone.
Dickens wrote great stories but seriously boring prose. This is probably
going to sound even more heretical than your post - but I really do think
that Dickens in one of a very small number of authors who actually work
better in a good film or TV adaptation (note: emphasis on the *good*) than
they do in print - you get all of the plot, without having to wade through
Dickens' prose.
--
----- Dave Crisp ----- da...@goldeneyes.org.uk -----
'Most things make sense when you look at them right.
It's just sometimes you have to look really, really cockeyed.'
-- Florence Ambrose, circa 2270AD (http://freefall.purrsia.com)
Richard Bos
> Puck wrote:
> > Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> >
> >>Did anyone else catch "Open Book" on Radio 4 yesterday? They were
> >>plugging "Bleak House", and, describing how Dickens' prose style
> >>sucked you in, the presenter said no-one else could do it as well
> >>"with the possible exception of Terry Pratchett".
> >>
> >>Yep, a programme about a "classic" author and how great he was took a
> >>second to compare Pterry favourably. How cool is that?
> >
> > Seriously cool.
> >
> > Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but does anyone
> > else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his reputation suggests?
>
> We'll burn together then.
Save a spot at the stake for me.
> I was permanently put off Dickens (1) in the same way you were, by
> having to read some of his stuff at school (aged 11~12). "A Christmas
> Carol" is, perhaps, not the best place to start with him in any case -
> being nauseating in its sentimentality. I tried reading others, though.
> It didn't work.
The only one I managed to finish (and actually liked, despite its
obvious and great faults) was the Pickwick Papers. It was just as
larmoyant as his other works, but it had the advantage of being intended
as humour. Unlike the rest of his work that I read or saw films of,
which were plainly intended to do nothing but jerk on the heartstrings.
> I echo all your other criticisms, but would add another: nothing is
> quite so grating as the naming of many of his characters. One suspects
> that CD was trying too hard for the 'freak-show' effect.
He was, and he had his reasons, butt hat doesn't make it any more
palatable now.
> Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like that of
> Dylan Thomas in poetry
And the other Dylan in pop music. Another guy who just couldn't do it,
but got a reputation by impressing those who could do even less, and
wanted someone to look up to.
Richard
Richard Bos
> Also Sprach Nigel Stapley:
[ About Dickens: ]
> > I echo all your other criticisms, but would add another:
> > nothing is quite so grating as the naming of many of his
> > characters. One suspects that CD was trying too hard for
> > the 'freak-show' effect.
>
> Sorry, I'm in the middle of a book with characters named A.E.
> Pessimal and Mr John Not-A-Vampire-At-All Smith, so I clearly
> don't share this problem 8-)...
Well, yeah, but _that_ book is obviously intended as a satire, something
to be taken with a dash of salt. I guess that's another reason why it
didn't grate as much in the Pickwick Papers.
Richard
Brion K. Lienhart
>>I echo all your other criticisms, but would add another: nothing is
>>quite so grating as the naming of many of his characters. One suspects
>>that CD was trying too hard for the 'freak-show' effect.
>
>
> He was, and he had his reasons, butt hat doesn't make it any more
> palatable now.
henhenhenh you said "butt hat".
Well, I'm going to have to go against the flow there, and say that I
liked Dickens. I read a lot of his stuff as a teenager and really liked
it. Purple Spit was one of my favorites. I like the nineteenth century
prose style anyway.
Puck
Here's a hint. If you are trying to convince someone of your good taste you
should not start out by quoting Bravis and Butthead :)
Puck
> probably going to sound even more heretical than your post - but I
> really do think that Dickens in one of a very small number of authors
> who actually work better in a good film or TV adaptation (note:
> emphasis on the *good*) than they do in print - you get all of the
> plot, without having to wade through Dickens' prose.
True. W.C. Fields' performance in David Copperfield was fantastic. And there
have been a dozen great childrens adaptations of A Christmas Carol (Disney,
Warner Brothers, Muppets, Flintstones, hell even Mr. Magoo). His stories are
good and so are his characters but you need a red hot machette to cut
through all the prose when you are reading.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I'm starting to wonder if the reason I have a greater
tolerence of Dickens than many on this group is that I read
all his work like that? Since I've never analysed the books,
much less my own reaction to them,I'm not sure, but I think
it's a possibility.
To take the scene that always sticks in my mind for some
reason, the woman who buys David Copperfield's caul so she'll
never be shipwrecked, when she has no intention of ever
stepping foot on a boat, and then claims it clearly worked, is
clearly ridiculous. I don't recall anything that made me think
Dickens was trying for realism. *Realisticness*, yes, just
like Pterry, and with variable success, but not realism.
Brion K. Lienhart
> Brion K. Lienhart wrote:
>
>>Richard Bos wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I echo all your other criticisms, but would add another: nothing is
>>>>quite so grating as the naming of many of his characters. One
>>>>suspects that CD was trying too hard for the 'freak-show' effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>He was, and he had his reasons, butt hat doesn't make it any more
>>>palatable now.
>>
>>henhenhenh you said "butt hat".
>>
>>Well, I'm going to have to go against the flow there, and say that I
>>liked Dickens. I read a lot of his stuff as a teenager and really
>>liked it. Purple Spit was one of my favorites. I like the nineteenth
>>century prose style anyway.
>
>
> Here's a hint. If you are trying to convince someone of your good taste you
> should not start out by quoting Bravis and Butthead :)
>
Well, normally I don't. But that was too good to pass up.
Puck
I mispelled Beavis. What kind of MTV kid am I? :(
Nigel Stapley
> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like that of
>>Dylan Thomas in poetry
>
>
> And the other Dylan in pop music. Another guy who just couldn't do it,
> but got a reputation by impressing those who could do even less, and
> wanted someone to look up to.
>
Ah! I'm with you on that one as well! As someone who occasionally
indulges (the absolutely correct verb for it) in folk singing, it's a
dangerous thing to admit to in those purlieus.
After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled him...or at least
taught him to sing.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
rja.ca...@excite.com
Puck wrote:
> Brion K. Lienhart wrote:
> > Puck wrote:
> >
> >> Brion K. Lienhart wrote:
> >>
> >>> Richard Bos wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I echo all your other criticisms, but would add another: nothing
> >>>>> is quite so grating as the naming of many of his characters. One
> >>>>> suspects that CD was trying too hard for the 'freak-show' effect.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> He was, and he had his reasons, butt hat doesn't make it any more
> >>>> palatable now.
> >>>
> >>> henhenhenh you said "butt hat".
> >>>
> >>> Well, I'm going to have to go against the flow there, and say that I
> >>> liked Dickens. I read a lot of his stuff as a teenager and really
> >>> liked it. Purple Spit was one of my favorites. I like the nineteenth
> >>> century prose style anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's a hint. If you are trying to convince someone of your good
> >> taste you should not start out by quoting Bravis and Butthead :)
> >>
> >
> > Well, normally I don't. But that was too good to pass up.
>
> I mispelled Beavis. What kind of MTV kid am I? :(
henhenhenh you said "Bra vis". henhenhenh.
...actually is that funny in Merkin or do they always say brazeer?
http://m-w.com/dictionary/bra offers 3 sponsored links to buy the
things and they're all in the UK.
David Jensen
"rja.ca...@excite.com" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
<1130720098.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
People hardly ever say _brassiere_ in the US. _Bra_ is more than
adequate to get certain young folk to turn red or giggle.
Stacie Hanes
> bbot...@nomail.com (Boyd Bottorff) wrote in
> news:1h55w4h.gsaqf8qnukqeN%bbot...@nomail.com:
>
> Ok, I am delurking. I have read this froup on and off for about 5
> years. I am 'inspired' enough to finally break the silence.
>
>>> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but
>>> does anyone else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his
>>> reputation suggests?
>>
>> I agree. I also agree in regards to Dickensen [1], Blake [2], and
>> damn near everybody after Twain that gets studied by scholars [4].
>
> I will agree with Dickensen. Have you ever heard the 'Yellow Rose
> of Texas' theory? Ruined her forever for me.
Let me point out that that is because she was an expert at manipulating
older hymn structures, and that "yellow rose" is a descendant of the same
hymns. It's like finding a family resemblance in a great-great-grandchild
and claiming the grandmother stole the kid's hairstyle.
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5814
Dickinson was a technical virtuoso; she took old forms and played them like
violins, while at the same time making the structures into poetry original
enough that it didn't gain acceptance for quite a while. She's also got, for
my money, some excellent imagery.
She still may not be to your taste, but she was in no wise incompetent.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
Eric Jarvis
state.edu>:
> > My son is a voracious reader and he has problems connecting with Twain
> > let alone Dickens or Shakespeare. Yes, there are rubbish writers out
> > there, but there is also _time_ playing with language and style.
> > PTerry works in part because he is of our time.
>
> I will go to the matresses for either Twain or Shakespeare ;)
>
It's definitely not a matter of how contemporary the prose is for me, or
of how "dense" the writing is. I count Hardy, Dostoevsky and Cervantes
amongst my favourite novelists, and when it comes to play Dhakespeare has
to be number one with Marlowe, Moliere and Aristophanes not far behind.
It's purely something specific in Dickens that I simply can't get to grips
with.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
<873bmkj...@athena.homeric.co.uk>:
> "Diane L" <di...@lindquist.plus.com> writes:
>
> [snip Dickens]
>
> > OTOH, I *can't* read Hemingway at all.
> > The rhythm of his sentences is so staccato that I find it almost
> > physically distressing, and I've never managed more than a couple
> > of paragraphs. Which is weird, really.
>
> Which just goes to show that it takes all sorts, I, personally, love
> Hemingway's spare prose style, though I am not so into his fetishisation
> of machismo. While Dickens I have never been able to read much of, though
> I like people like Laurence Durrell, who do have pretty dense writing
> styles.
>
I'd count Hemingway as the "opposite" of Dickens. I love Hemingway's prose
style and find it very easy to read. However I don't like Hemingway's
ideas and consider Dickens to have an admirable philosophy on the whole.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> developed as JRRT's I will admit, but JRRT had a goal beyond
> entertaining. He WANTED to create a mythology. I would say that he
> WANTED his works to be studied. Why else would he have developed a
> fictitious written language? To entertain? Ha![3]
Yes ... to entertain HIMSELF, mostly.
Adrian.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> henhenhenh you said "Bra vis". henhenhenh.
What I can't work out is: what sort of weird person spells laughter
"henhenhenh"?
Adrian.
rja.ca...@excite.com
That's how Bra-vis and Butthead sound. I think it's a question of
nasal construction.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>> What I can't work out is: what sort of weird person spells laughter
>> "henhenhenh"?
>
> That's how Bra-vis and Butthead sound. I think it's a question of
> nasal construction.
I'm puzzled by that. It's a TV cartoon series, isn't it? So, when have
you seen it written down? Have you read the scripts?
Adrian.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Stacie Hanes wrote:
> fybar wrote:
> > bbot...@nomail.com (Boyd Bottorff) wrote in
> > news:1h55w4h.gsaqf8qnukqeN%bbot...@nomail.com:
> >
> > Ok, I am delurking. I have read this froup on and off for about 5
> > years. I am 'inspired' enough to finally break the silence.
> >
> >>> Um, this is going to get me flamed to small lump of carbon, but
> >>> does anyone else think that Dickens wasn't really as good as his
> >>> reputation suggests?
> >>
> >> I agree. I also agree in regards to Dickensen [1], Blake [2], and
> >> damn near everybody after Twain that gets studied by scholars [4].
> >
> > I will agree with Dickensen. Have you ever heard the 'Yellow Rose
> > of Texas' theory? Ruined her forever for me.
>
> Let me point out that that is because she was an expert at manipulating
> older hymn structures, and that "yellow rose" is a descendant of the same
> hymns. It's like finding a family resemblance in a great-great-grandchild
> and claiming the grandmother stole the kid's hairstyle.
>
> http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5814
Tonight I listened to a nice little documentary-type programme on BBC
Radio 4, available online for a week probably on the usual terms,
called _Faking The Classics_. Part one was Shakespeare, I think, and
part two Mozart. This guy named Simon Townley - we used to use the
same newsgroup - was commissioned to produce a new Mozart pastiche to
see if experts would be fooled. (I reflected that experts probably had
already heard every note Mozart actually wrote, and, on the evidence of
the show, a few more.) Mr Townley explained that the real difficulty
as he saw it was to pick a good tune because Mozart was good at those.
He said he tried to do it with one of Abba's (I forget already if it
was Money Money Money or another) and realised after some work that
Mozart did in fact write a tune rather too close to it for the purpose
of the exercise. So he took The Archers theme tune instead. That was
the newsgroup, by the way.
Arthur Hagen
>
> People hardly ever say _brassiere_ in the US. _Bra_ is more than
> adequate to get certain young folk to turn red or giggle.
Sweden had, IIRC, a Eurovision song a few years ago named "Bra
vibrationer", and although it /really/ translates to "Good vibrations",
it reinforced (npi) some stereotypes about Swedes...
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
That's a fowl laughter.
--
*Art
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>> What I can't work out is: what sort of weird person spells laughter
>> "henhenhenh"?
>
> That's a fowl laughter.
In Australian English: "chookchookchook"
8'FED.
Arthur Hagen
I could almost follow your train of thought there.
--
*Art
Phil Davison
> Richard Bos wrote:
>> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like that of
>>>Dylan Thomas in poetry
>>
>> And the other Dylan in pop music. Another guy who just couldn't do it,
>> but got a reputation by impressing those who could do even less, and
>> wanted someone to look up to.
>>
> Ah! I'm with you on that one as well! As someone who occasionally indulges
> (the absolutely correct verb for it) in folk singing, it's a dangerous
> thing to admit to in those purlieus.
>
> After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled him...or at least
> taught him to sing.
Can't say I agree with you there. Dylan can sing when he puts his mind to
it. It's bloody awful! I prefer him just ranting, which is something he's
good at. He's always been good at writing long songs as well, because his
style never really came from rock'n'roll. I suppose he probably wanted to
come up with something for people with a longer attention span than your
average DJ.
Anyway, I like a lot of his stuff. Not that I have heard it all but I
prefer, for example, his version of Percy's Song to the Fairport
Convention one, his version of Desolation Row to Chris Smither's [1], his
version of Buckets of Rain to either Redbird's or Jeffrey Foucault's [2].
And those are all covers of Dylan songs which I like.
I think a problem with a lot of covers of his stuff is that the
protagonists sing them with feeling and their love of his material really
comes across in their versions, which really doesn't suit Dylan's style.
While I suppose you could classify Dylan's stuff as folk [4] these days it
is more likely to be described with that almost catch-all description of
"Americana". I had a good discussion of this with Rocky Frisco some time
ago. It basically a genre which was invented to allow US radio stations to
play artists who don't otherwise fit, such as the aforementioned Smither
and Foucault, but also includes the likes of Dylan and J J Cale.
So, after 45 years Dylan hasn't been rumbled because people really do
like him.
[1] And I really rate Chris Smither
[2] Likewise, I really rate Redbird and all its members [3].
[3] Foucault is a member of Redbird, just in case you think I don't like
him!
[4] As Louis Armstrong famously said, all music is folk music...
--
Cyclops
Evil Heretic Infiltrator
James Mitchelhill
One possible place: There was a rather bad PC adventure game called
"Beavis and Butthead's Big U" based on the series. I'm fairly sure there
was an option to turn on subtitles. I don't, however, recall how their
laughter was spelt (although "hehnhehnhehn" is a possibility).
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Puck
> "Beavis and Butthead's Big U" based on the series. I'm fairly sure
> there was an option to turn on subtitles. I don't, however, recall
> how their laughter was spelt (although "hehnhehnhehn" is a
> possibility).
They had a comic book series for a while. Beavis goes "Heh heh heh heh" and
Butthead goes "Huh huh huh huh" From what I remember of the show (blocking
those memories out was quite expensive) this is a pretty accurate
transcript.
Incidentally, although it was a pretty deplorable show, it did have one
*very* positive effect: The totally different show Daria was technically a
spin-off of it. She was a minor recurring character in B&B who served
basically to display that the writers, when pressed, could use words of more
than two sylables. Her own eponymous show was a completely different beast.
It was smart, funny and very deep at times (it also ran for longer). The
creators made certain to sever all ties from the previous program as well;
B&B are only reffered to once, as "two boys".
It was, and remains, one of my favorites. I even had kind of a crush on
Daria. Smart women are irresitable.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>>
>>>> What I can't work out is: what sort of weird person spells laughter
>>>> "henhenhenh"?
>>> That's a fowl laughter.
>> In Australian English: "chookchookchook"
> I could almost follow your train of thought there.
Well, "chook" is Australian English for "hen", basically.
Should technically have been "chookchookchookch", but that would be too
pedantic.
8'FED.
Peter Ellis
>Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>> Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What I can't work out is: what sort of weird person spells laughter
>>>>> "henhenhenh"?
>>>> That's a fowl laughter.
>>> In Australian English: "chookchookchook"
>> I could almost follow your train of thought there.
>
>Well, "chook" is Australian English for "hen", basically.
Yes, but you were making train noises.
Peter
Graycat
>Richard Bos wrote:
>> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like that of
>>>Dylan Thomas in poetry
>>
>>
>> And the other Dylan in pop music. Another guy who just couldn't do it,
>> but got a reputation by impressing those who could do even less, and
>> wanted someone to look up to.
>>
>
>Ah! I'm with you on that one as well! As someone who occasionally
>indulges (the absolutely correct verb for it) in folk singing, it's a
>dangerous thing to admit to in those purlieus.
>
>After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled him...or at least
>taught him to sing.
I don't think that's possible - he has a terrible voice.
It's completely flat and whiney.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Graycat
<a...@broomstick.com> jotted down:
Depends on your definition of "a few"...it was 1985.
James Mitchelhill
>> One possible place: There was a rather bad PC adventure game called
>> "Beavis and Butthead's Big U" based on the series. I'm fairly sure
>> there was an option to turn on subtitles. I don't, however, recall
>> how their laughter was spelt (although "hehnhehnhehn" is a
>> possibility).
>
> They had a comic book series for a while. Beavis goes "Heh heh heh heh" and
> Butthead goes "Huh huh huh huh" From what I remember of the show (blocking
> those memories out was quite expensive) this is a pretty accurate
> transcript.
>
> Incidentally, although it was a pretty deplorable show, it did have one
> *very* positive effect: The totally different show Daria was technically a
> spin-off of it. She was a minor recurring character in B&B who served
> basically to display that the writers, when pressed, could use words of more
> than two sylables. Her own eponymous show was a completely different beast.
> It was smart, funny and very deep at times (it also ran for longer). The
> creators made certain to sever all ties from the previous program as well;
> B&B are only reffered to once, as "two boys".
I had no idea it was a spin-off. It's hard to imagine the two shows
being related at all. I did enjoy it whenever I managed to catch it,
though. It's probably in my top ten of cartoons.
> It was, and remains, one of my favorites. I even had kind of a crush on
> Daria. Smart women are irresitable.
You're not the only one who feels this way, it appears. I have,
unfortunately, seen fan-made Daria porn. It disturbs. Oh, how it
disturbs.
Puck
>> on Daria. Smart women are irresitable.
>
> You're not the only one who feels this way, it appears. I have,
> unfortunately, seen fan-made Daria porn. It disturbs. Oh, how it
> disturbs.
Porn??? *Daria* porn????? God, no matter how twisted you are, there is a
corner of the internet made especially for you.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Arthur Hagen jotted down:
>>Sweden had, IIRC, a Eurovision song a few years ago named "Bra
>>vibrationer", and although it /really/ translates to "Good vibrations",
>>it reinforced (npi) some stereotypes about Swedes...
>
> Depends on your definition of "a few"...it was 1985.
I think of 1985 primarily as the year when personal computers in homes
and schools really started to catch on. It was also the year in which
I turned eight. So, yeah, a fair while ago. :-)
Adrian.
Richard Bos
> I mispelled Beavis. What kind of MTV kid am I? :(
Entirely typical? MTV never struck me as particularly literate...
Richard
gem...@tpg.com.au
[snippage]
>Incidentally, although it was a pretty deplorable show, it did have one
>*very* positive effect: The totally different show Daria was technically a
>spin-off of it. She was a minor recurring character in B&B who served
>basically to display that the writers, when pressed, could use words of more
>than two sylables. Her own eponymous show was a completely different beast.
>It was smart, funny and very deep at times (it also ran for longer). The
>creators made certain to sever all ties from the previous program as well;
>B&B are only reffered to once, as "two boys".
>
>It was, and remains, one of my favorites. I even had kind of a crush on
>Daria. Smart women are irresitable.
Smart, witty, unflappable and sarcastic in the face of almost [1] anything
up to and including imminent death, a sense of humour so dry it must have
been baking in the Gobi, and a cast of stereotypes right out of almost any
highschooler's own experience.
*swoon*
[1] Trent aside
-SteveD
--
"Excuse me."
Emma Anne
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:02:05 -0400, in alt.fan.pratchett
> "Puck" <Korm...@osu.edu> wrote in
> <djuong$1br$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>:
> >> My son is a voracious reader and he has problems connecting with Twain
> >> let alone Dickens or Shakespeare. Yes, there are rubbish writers out
> >> there, but there is also _time_ playing with language and style.
> >> PTerry works in part because he is of our time.
> >
> >I will go to the matresses for either Twain or Shakespeare ;)
>
> I love them both as well, but I can see why school kids don't jump at
> the opportunity to read them.
They shouldn't be *reading* Shakespeare. They should be acting it.
Especially the witches in Macbeth or any scene with sword fighting.
Kids have to enjoy it first and appreciate it after. In fact, I don't
know why I am talking about kids. *I* have to enjoy it first and
appreciate it after.
Dom
>>> It was, and remains, one of my favorites. I even had kind of a crush
>>> on Daria. Smart women are irresitable.
>>
>> You're not the only one who feels this way, it appears. I have,
>> unfortunately, seen fan-made Daria porn. It disturbs. Oh, how it
>> disturbs.
>
> Porn??? *Daria* porn????? God, no matter how twisted you are, there is a
> corner of the internet made especially for you.
Somehow I'm not at all suprised.
Mind you, Daria was *hot* :)
--
Dom
Alec Cawley
says...
Even I know what Beavis sounds like - and I have never watched it. It is
*not* a laugh - it is a stylised, distinctly nasal, snigger. I would say
that FED's transliteration is as close as one is likely to get with
standard typography.
--
@lec Šawley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
Puck
>> is a corner of the internet made especially for you.
>
> Somehow I'm not at all suprised.
>
> Mind you, Daria was *hot* :)
Yes, she very much was. But we are missing an important point. She was two
dimensional and constructed entirely out of ink.
Mind you, I've had worse dates...
Puck
These days it doesn't strike me as typically musical either.
Dom
>>> Porn??? *Daria* porn????? God, no matter how twisted you are, there
>>> is a corner of the internet made especially for you.
>>
>> Somehow I'm not at all suprised.
>>
>> Mind you, Daria was *hot* :)
>
> Yes, she very much was. But we are missing an important point. She was two
> dimensional and constructed entirely out of ink.
A mere technicality.
--
Dom
Puck
>> the opportunity to read them.
>
> They shouldn't be *reading* Shakespeare. They should be acting it.
> Especially the witches in Macbeth or any scene with sword fighting.
> Kids have to enjoy it first and appreciate it after. In fact, I don't
> know why I am talking about kids. *I* have to enjoy it first and
> appreciate it after.
Agreed. I remember when we had to read Romeo and Juliet in the 6th grade and
couldn't make heade nor taile of yt until we divided the parts up and read
it out loud.
Arthur Hagen
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:05:20 -0500, "Arthur Hagen"
> <a...@broomstick.com> jotted down:
>
>> vibrationer", and although it /really/ translates to "Good
>> vibrations", it reinforced (npi) some stereotypes about Swedes...
>
> Depends on your definition of "a few"...it was 1985.
For me, 1985 is just the other side of yesterday. It's after the
Discworld era started.
Regards,
--
*Art
Lesley Weston
grayca...@gmail.com wrote on 31/10/2005 2:12 AM:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:12:13 +0000, Nigel Stapley
> <un...@judgemental.plus.com> jotted down:
>
>> Richard Bos wrote:
>>> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like that of
>>>> Dylan Thomas in poetry
>>>
>>>
>>> And the other Dylan in pop music. Another guy who just couldn't do it,
>>> but got a reputation by impressing those who could do even less, and
>>> wanted someone to look up to.
>>>
>>
>> Ah! I'm with you on that one as well! As someone who occasionally
>> indulges (the absolutely correct verb for it) in folk singing, it's a
>> dangerous thing to admit to in those purlieus.
>>
>> After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled him...or at least
>> taught him to sing.
>
> I don't think that's possible - he has a terrible voice.
> It's completely flat and whiney.
When his first records after the accident came out, with him using his new
voice, they put people off so much that we pretty much stopped listening to
him, until he went back to his normal style of singing. He's always been an
important poet, but he's not much of a musician.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
dra...@netyp.com.au wrote on 30/10/2005 7:04 PM:
> rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:
>
>> henhenhenh you said "Bra vis". henhenhenh.
>
> What I can't work out is: what sort of weird person spells laughter
> "henhenhenh"?
More of a snigger, isn't it?
Len Oil
> Even Shakespeare has works that are honored by never (never? well,
> hardly ever) being produced -- as it should be.
Titus Andronicus can certainly be fun, especially if done with the
aplomb they did with the Anthony Hopkins version, but probably best not
repeated too often... ;)
Len Oil
> My son is a voracious reader and he has problems connecting with Twain
> let alone Dickens or Shakespeare. Yes, there are rubbish writers out
> there, but there is also _time_ playing with language and style.
PTerry
> works in part because he is of our time.
I think a lot of the problems with Shakespeare is that he really
/cannot/ be "read" in the same way. You either get the playscripts
(which may or may not be attractive when well performed, but really
should not be 'cold read'[1]) or the sonnets, which are probably not
something to "just read" unless you're doing some sort of lesson having
a "poetic comprehension" segment of syllabus attached to it and
counter-examples from the poetry world.
My contact with Dickens is almost all non-literary, whether it be the
adaptations, spoofs or blatant rip-offs (i.e. "Oliver!" musical, "The
Muppet's Christmas Carol" and "Scrooged"), and on the silver/phosphor
screens. Twain similarly. I was considering this to be a huge hole in
my experience, but some of the comments here seem to indicate I'm
missing naught by this omission.
[1] I was 'taught' Julius Caesar[2] and Romeo and Juliet in one
particular year in English Literature, and they were indeed cold-taught
with no recitals witnessed outside of the classroom (sat at the desks,
assigned parts, reading direct from the page, no prep, very little
interest, no attempt to teach a recital style), but I'd already seen
other Shakespeare plays so was perhaps found it psychologically better
to take it all in. Since then I've seen R&J on stage, but not JC.
Maybe a film adaptation, but my mind is playing tricks with me and keeps
on inserting Kenneth Williams shouting "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got
it in-fo'-me!" into segments of what I assume was a true and serious
Hollywood representation.
[2] Can still remember the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen..." speech up
until the first instance of Brutus being an honourable man, but like the
Gumby Cat poem and Pi (originally to 50 places) my current knowledge is
a mere shadow.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Even I know what Beavis sounds like - and I have never watched it. It is
> *not* a laugh - it is a stylised, distinctly nasal, snigger. I would say
> that FED's transliteration is as close as one is likely to get with
> standard typography.
Not my transliteration - used in this thread by Brion K. Lienhart and
RJA Carnegie, and it was obvious in context that they were quoting the
spelling from some other source, which is why I inquired about it.
It works _IF_ you read it as though it were French, but who is likely
to do that?
Should of course be h?h?h? where ? represents unicode 1EBD ...
Adrian.
Anke
Puck wrote:
> >> Porn??? *Daria* porn????? God, no matter how twisted
> >> you are, there is a corner of the internet made
> >> especially for you.
> >
> > Somehow I'm not at all suprised.
> >
> > Mind you, Daria was *hot* :)
>
> Yes, she very much was. But we are missing an important
> point. She was two dimensional and constructed entirely
> out of ink.
>
Well, I assume she's human, and as it seems the show was not
aimed at children, that would mean it's not half as
disturbing as a lot of the fan-porn out there...
Anke
Puck
>>
>> Yes, she very much was. But we are missing an important
>> point. She was two dimensional and constructed entirely
>> out of ink.
>>
>
> Well, I assume she's human, and as it seems the show was not
> aimed at children, that would mean it's not half as
> disturbing as a lot of the fan-porn out there...
Please don't go into details. I treasure the fact that certain facets of my
life remain more or less innocent. Being told that there are people who are
turned on by Nicktoons would shatter my delicate illusions of humanity.
Emma Anne
> >> I love them both as well, but I can see why school kids don't jump at
> >> the opportunity to read them.
> >
> > They shouldn't be *reading* Shakespeare. They should be acting it.
> > Especially the witches in Macbeth or any scene with sword fighting.
> > Kids have to enjoy it first and appreciate it after. In fact, I don't
> > know why I am talking about kids. *I* have to enjoy it first and
> > appreciate it after.
>
> Agreed. I remember when we had to read Romeo and Juliet in the 6th grade and
> couldn't make heade nor taile of yt until we divided the parts up and read
> it out loud.
>
And then it is a blast! Swordfights and secret meetings and poisonings.
Yay!
Thomas Zahr
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:12:13 +0000, Nigel Stapley
> <un...@judgemental.plus.com> jotted down:
...
>> After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled
>> him...or at least taught him to sing.
> I don't think that's possible - he has a terrible voice.
> It's completely flat and whiney.
A voice [1] is independent from being able to
sing [2].
All combinations are possible.
[1] good or bad
[2] yes/no
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<If god is omnipotent, why create monday to friday?>
Jinzo Musume Lime-chan
Nigel Stapley wrote:
<Bob Dylan>
> indulges (the absolutely correct verb for it) in folk singing, it's a
> dangerous thing to admit to in those purlieus.
>
> taught him to sing.
But folk singers can't. (OK, There are probably some that can, but the
stereotype is that they can't.)
I would say he reminds me of Billy Bragg if that wasn't getting things
somewhat backwards [Come to think of it, I now find I can't remember
the name of the song that sounds more like a Ben Elton monologue than
anything else 'Richard belongs to Jane, but Jane belongs to
yesterday...']
And I would add that while I like The Byrds, I prefer his versions of
his songs to theirs - and it isn't because I heard his versions first
either. [Which is also true of 'Stone Cold Crazy' where I quite liked
Metallica's version till I heard the original.] I also have to say that
IMO, the one true version of 'Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow is the
one on Tapestry, that Joe Cocker's version of 'With a Little Help from
my Friends' is an abomination on a par with the US TV version of Card
Captor Sakura - or maybe even worse...
Anyway... I'll get me coat. : )
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos wrote:
> > Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Dickens' reputation in the field of the novel is a bit like that of
> >>Dylan Thomas in poetry
> >
> > And the other Dylan in pop music. Another guy who just couldn't do it,
> > but got a reputation by impressing those who could do even less, and
> > wanted someone to look up to.
>
> Ah! I'm with you on that one as well! As someone who occasionally
> indulges (the absolutely correct verb for it) in folk singing, it's a
> dangerous thing to admit to in those purlieus.
>
> After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled him...or at least
> taught him to sing.
And to play the harmonica. And not to whine so much all the time. Yes.
But by now he's a legend, and he doesn't have to listen to anyone.
Richard
gem...@tpg.com.au
>>> Porn??? *Daria* porn????? God, no matter how twisted you are, there
>>> is a corner of the internet made especially for you.
>>
>> Somehow I'm not at all suprised.
>>
>> Mind you, Daria was *hot* :)
>
>Yes, she very much was. But we are missing an important point. She was two
>dimensional and constructed entirely out of ink.
Allow me to present a counterpoint:
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled him...or at least
>> taught him to sing.
>
> But folk singers can't. (OK, There are probably some that can, but the
> stereotype is that they can't.)
Where have you heard a stereotype like that? Lots of people don't like
folk music, which is fine, but I've never heard anyone say that the
singers can't sing.
Excerpts from my favourite folk:
http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/listen/favouritefolk.mp3
Adrian.
Jinzo Musume Lime-chan
Flesh-eating Dragon wrote:
> Jinzo Musume Lime-chan wrote:
> > Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
> >> After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled him...or at least
> >> taught him to sing.
> >
> > But folk singers can't. (OK, There are probably some that can, but the
> > stereotype is that they can't.)
>
> Where have you heard a stereotype like that? Lots of people don't like
> folk music, which is fine, but I've never heard anyone say that the
> singers can't sing.
I'm not sure, to be honest. It probably comes from the same place that
says they all put their little finger in their ear.
Anyway it doesn't matter whether someone can or can't sing as to
whether I like them or not, and as I said later in the post, I prefer
his versions of his songs (by and large) to other peoples (I haven't
heard Jimi Hendrix's version of 'All along the Watchtower', so I can't
comment.)
[And actually, having listened to Jeremy Hardy on 'I'm Sorry I Haven't
a Clue' I have to say that anybody else sounds good in comparison]
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Jinzo Musume Lime-chan wrote:
>> Nigel Stapley wrote:
>
>>> After 45 years, you'd think someone would have rumbled
>>> him...or at least taught him to sing.
>>
>> But folk singers can't. (OK, There are probably some that
>> can, but the stereotype is that they can't.)
>
> Where have you heard a stereotype like that? Lots of people
> don't like folk music, which is fine, but I've never heard
> anyone say that the singers can't sing.
From someone who *does* like folk music[1]:
"There were the folk singers, who couldn't play, but that was
all right, because most of them couldn't sing either."
-Soul Music p188
I think origin of this is that many folk clubs and folk nights
encourage everyone to have a go. It's like karaoke night, only
without the backing track keeping people straight.
If whenever you go to a pop concert, Jenny from down the road,
who auditioned for Pop Idol but got rejected, is encouraged to
do a turn, it might shade your opinion of pop music.
>Excerpts from my favourite folk:
>http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/listen/favouritefolk.mp3
Beautiful. Thanks.
[1] What *does* baffle me is the line in the UU Diary about
the AM Folk club "If you"..."call all kinds of beer 'ale' and
can make a half pint last all evening." Maybe things are
different in England (although I find it hard to believe) but
up here that's the exact *opposite* of the established
stereotype, as evidenced at the last concert I went to. The
bar staff never knew what hit them...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Hooray, Hooray, it's a wonderful day
For I have found my cow!
-"Where's My Cow?" (original version)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> [And actually, having listened to Jeremy Hardy on 'I'm
> Sorry I Haven't a Clue' I have to say that anybody else
> sounds good in comparison]
In centuries to come Jeremy Hardy will be recognised as a
musical genius of astounding subtlety.
Eric Jarvis
<dk6i6k$5s0$3$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>:
I was in the musical version.
I played Bugdog the Goth and Bassianus's boxing coach, roles that
Shekespeare cut from his final version.
The music was provided by members of The Monochrome Set, Furniture,
Transglobal Underground and The Bollywood Brass Band. It was very good. It
was also a tad on the tasteless side.
It's one of the things I'm proudest of having been involved in.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Jinzo Musume Lime-chan
> Also Sprach Jinzo Musume Lime-chan:
>
> > [And actually, having listened to Jeremy Hardy on 'I'm
> > Sorry I Haven't a Clue' I have to say that anybody else
> > sounds good in comparison]
>
> In centuries to come Jeremy Hardy will be recognised as a
> musical genius of astounding subtlety.
What *was* scary was when they were in Salford and he had to do 'Heaven
Knows I'm Miserable Now' and he actually sang in tune - or at least as
far as I could tell. Shocked everybody, it did.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Well, singing The Smiths in tune *is* getting it wrong, isn't
it?
<gd&r>
Nigel Stapley
>
> "There were the folk singers, who couldn't play, but that was
> all right, because most of them couldn't sing either."
> -Soul Music p188
>
> I think origin of this is that many folk clubs and folk nights
> encourage everyone to have a go. It's like karaoke night, only
> without the backing track keeping people straight.
>
This is where I came into the scene in the first place. I'd never been
to a folk club until early 1994. I went to one because I was chasing a
woman (she got away, alas) who was in a bona fide band. I was so pleased
with the atmosphere of the club that I went back the next week, for
something they called a "singers' night" (1).
It was only when the evening began that I realised what a "singers'
night" actually was, viz. people getting up from the audience (2) and
doing a couple of songs.
I was approached by one of the club organisers, who asked if I was going
to take part. I muttered something embarrassed about the world not being
quite ready for such an experience.
By the time of the next singers' night, however, I had dusted off a
couple of songs I'd learned out in Conamara nearly a decade earlier and,
hands trembling and knees knocking, proceeded to deliver them: the first
time I'd sang in public in over twenty years.
I might not have helped myself by starting the first song in far too
high a key, but got to the end of it with underwear just about intact.
When, between songs, I made an apologetic remark about my nervousness,
one of the "veterans" sitting at the back of the room (3) said, "Never
you mind! You keep going!". I've never forgotten that.
I've appeared regularly at singers' nights in the years since (getting
better at it and adding in some comedy patter as well), and I only
remember one singer (a regular) who was, by generally accepted norms, a
'bad' singer. However, he always gave it his best shot, and this made
him a sort of hero. He later added guitar to his repertoire. This at
least meant that he stayed in the key he started in.
I also frequent uk.music.folk, and some of the people there are very
sniffy about 'amateurs'. And then they wonder why people don't go to
clubs...
>
> [1] What *does* baffle me is the line in the UU Diary about
> the AM Folk club "If you"..."call all kinds of beer 'ale' and
> can make a half pint last all evening." Maybe things are
> different in England (although I find it hard to believe) but
> up here that's the exact *opposite* of the established
> stereotype, as evidenced at the last concert I went to. The
> bar staff never knew what hit them...
>
I don't know about England myself, although as most of the regulars at
Wrexham also frequent folk clubs and festivals in England, I'd be
surprised if the stereotype you've just described held true there
either. And, I might add, I've come across no unpleasantness caused by
alcohol *at all* in the years I've been attending. There have been one
or two occasions where people have caused a problem by talking during
the performances, but that had naff all to do with booze - just sheer,
fscking rudeness.
(1) Except that they didn't use an apostrophe, of course.
(2) Who, that evening, just about outnumbered the house band, but not by
much.
(3) About twelve feet away - it was a very small room.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Orjan Westin
>
> Dickens, like Conan Doyle and Tolstoy, wrote his works as serials for
> magazines/newspapers and had a large contemporary following, waiting
> to see how his new story would turn out.
*nods*
Just like that other great, but contemporary, serialist: Villalta.
<g,d&rvvf>
Orjan
--
Get your Tale paperback or CD here:
http://tale.cunobaros.com
Or just read it there, if you don't want the illustrations