Pullman's CBE
Jane Lumley
Is heaven no longer a republic, then? A monarchy, perhaps?
don't think Milton or Blake would have done the same.....
--
Jane Lumley
H Schinske
I thought a CBE was just a general sort of honor, and accepting something like
that from the Queen was not such a big deal, just an outdated sort of ritual to
most people. Now, if he'd been given a seat in the House of Lords or something,
that would be different, seems to me, not that I know much about it.
In Milton or Blake's time, the monarchy would actually have had real power
(besides the power of money and influence, which is a separate matter really --
Milton for one certainly didn't refuse to deal with rich people!).
--Helen
Deborah Stevenson
Don't think Milton would have been offered the chance, unless Cromwell did
honors.
--
Deborah Stevenson
dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu
[eliminate OBSTACLES to email me]
Derek Janssen
> I see Philip Pullman has accepted a CBE.
He did, however, breach protocol in accepting the award from the Queen,
when, immediately upon entering, he gave a whistle and shouted, "Okay,
toots, GET off my chair!" ;)
Derek Janssen (adapting the time-worn Hilary Clinton joke)
dja...@rcn.com
Derek Janssen
>>I see Philip Pullman has accepted a CBE.
>
>>Is heaven no longer a republic, then? A monarchy, perhaps?
>
>>don't think Milton or Blake would have done the same.....
>
> Don't think Milton would have been offered the chance, unless Cromwell did
> honors.
"All honorees are notified five weeks ahead; it give them a chance to
refuse, you know--"
"When did a civil servant last refuse an honor?"
"Well, I think there was someone in the Treasury who refused a knighthood."
"Really? When?"
"1496."
"Why?"
"He already had one."
(And then, of course, there's that other "Yes, Minister" joke Pullman
would be more specifically deserving of, but unfortunately he didn't get
a GCMG.) ;)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I see Philip Pullman has accepted a CBE.
>
>Is heaven no longer a republic, then? A monarchy, perhaps?
>
> don't think Milton or Blake would have done the same.....
Interesting - was such an honour ever offered to authors children's books of
more monarchist leanings, like C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien?
And if so, did they accept?
Would it have made them "sirs"?
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm
Deborah Stevenson
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:06:41 +0000, Jane Lumley <lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>I see Philip Pullman has accepted a CBE.
>>
>>Is heaven no longer a republic, then? A monarchy, perhaps?
>>
>> don't think Milton or Blake would have done the same.....
>Interesting - was such an honour ever offered to authors children's books of
>more monarchist leanings, like C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien?
Tolkien was awarded the CBE.
>And if so, did they accept?
I don't think rejecting honors was that common back then, though it could
just be that the rejections are more publicized now. They apparently send
out sort of a pre-award "would you accept?" inquiry, so it's not like the
honors are being spurned at the podium.
>Would it have made them "sirs"?
No. He'd have had to be knighted for that.
Alan Reynolds
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ff40c25...@news.saix.net...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:06:41 +0000, Jane Lumley
<lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I see Philip Pullman has accepted a CBE.
> >
> >Is heaven no longer a republic, then? A monarchy, perhaps?
> >
> > don't think Milton or Blake would have done the same.....
>
> Interesting - was such an honour ever offered to authors children's books
of
> more monarchist leanings, like C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien?
>
> And if so, did they accept?
>
> Would it have made them "sirs"?
>
>
>
> --
not make its recipient a knight, but a Commander of the British Empire.
Alan
Stan Brown
>On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:06:41 +0000, Jane Lumley <lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>I see Philip Pullman has accepted a CBE.
>Interesting - was such an honour ever offered to authors children's books of
>more monarchist leanings, like C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien?
>And if so, did they accept?
I don't know about Lewis, but Tolkien received a CBE in 1972. He
writes about it in Letter 334: "I was very deeply moved by my brief
meeting with the Queen, & our few words together. Quite unlike
anything that I had expected."
>Would it have made them "sirs"?
No. Only the top grade of most orders (top two grades of some) count
as Knights. Tolkien was entitled to use the letters "CBE" after his
name, but he was still Mr Tolkien.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
H Schinske
>In Milton's time the monarchy had real powers? Now I am all in favour
>of beheading the parasites but if it gives them real powers we might
>have to think again :)
Milton was born under one monarchy and died under another monarchy, no? The
Britannica says "How Milton escaped the scaffold at the Restoration is a
mystory now, and was a mystery at the time."
But I'll admit I hadn't thought about the "empire" part of CBE. That would give
me pause as well. Not that my country is any cleaner-handed, of course.
--Helen
Deborah Stevenson
>user...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>In Milton's time the monarchy had real powers? Now I am all in favour
>>of beheading the parasites but if it gives them real powers we might
>>have to think again :)
>Milton was born under one monarchy and died under another monarchy, no? The
>Britannica says "How Milton escaped the scaffold at the Restoration is a
>mystory now, and was a mystery at the time."
Right. And the monarchy he started under had considerably more power than
the one he died under, what with decapitation declining the office's
powers and all. It's thought that Andrew Marvell did some intervention
for Milton with Charles II, but Milton's work for the Cromwell
administration would have pretty much ruled him out from honors
consideration.
>But I'll admit I hadn't thought about the "empire" part of CBE. That would give
>me pause as well. Not that my country is any cleaner-handed, of course.
There was actually an interesting piece in the newspaper (I think it was
an AP piece, but I saw it in the Cleveland Plain Dealer) about those who
have refused honors. Zephaniah was one of the most public, but it's an
interesting list in general.
John Jones
news:MPG.1a5e7a3d4...@news.odyssey.net...
> In article <3ff40c25...@news.saix.net> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Steve Hayes wrote:
> >On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:06:41 +0000, Jane Lumley
<lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >>I see Philip Pullman has accepted a CBE.
>
> >Interesting - was such an honour ever offered to authors children's books
of
> >more monarchist leanings, like C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien?
> >And if so, did they accept?
>
> I don't know about Lewis, but Tolkien received a CBE in 1972. He
> writes about it in Letter 334: "I was very deeply moved by my brief
> meeting with the Queen, & our few words together. Quite unlike
> anything that I had expected."
>
> >Would it have made them "sirs"?
>
> No. Only the top grade of most orders (top two grades of some) count
> as Knights. Tolkien was entitled to use the letters "CBE" after his
> name, but he was still Mr Tolkien.
>
been knighted if he had published a bit more on philology and less on elves!
Stan Brown
>And one suspects that, as the senior professor at Oxford, Tolkien could have
>been knighted if he had published a bit more on philology and less on elves!
Why? P.G. Wodehouse was knighted. It's hard to see why Tolkien was
not, unless perhaps the government were waiting to see whether his
work was just a fad.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>In article <bt6msj$afe$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> in
>rec.arts.books.tolkien, John Jones wrote:
>>And one suspects that, as the senior professor at Oxford, Tolkien could have
>>been knighted if he had published a bit more on philology and less on elves!
>
>Why? P.G. Wodehouse was knighted. It's hard to see why Tolkien was
>not, unless perhaps the government were waiting to see whether his
>work was just a fad.
Wasn't Mick Jagger knighted?
Jane Lumley
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes
>In article <bt6msj$afe$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> in
>rec.arts.books.tolkien, John Jones wrote:
>>And one suspects that, as the senior professor at Oxford, Tolkien could have
>>been knighted if he had published a bit more on philology and less on elves!
>
>Why? P.G. Wodehouse was knighted. It's hard to see why Tolkien was
>not, unless perhaps the government were waiting to see whether his
>work was just a fad.
>
current Goldsmiths Prof got a CBE last year.
Yes, it's the Empire bit of CBE that I think should have deterred
Pullman, if he has any integrity at all. You also have to acknowledge
the Queen's authority to receive the thing. I am seriously disappointed
in him, and shall turn a deaf ear to any further pontifications from him
on the state we're in.
An interesting question is why Pullman got gonged and not J K Rowling?
Wonder if she said no, as a loyal Scot?
--
Jane Lumley
Deborah Stevenson
>An interesting question is why Pullman got gonged and not J K Rowling?
>Wonder if she said no, as a loyal Scot?
If the Big Leak of the "refuseniks," as they're calling them, is recent
enough to include those from this New Year's, I'd say no, since she'd
surely have been mentioned in reports. Come to think of it, they probably
wouldn't do both of them in one go, would they?
Here's an interesting article on the leak and the decliners:
<http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2323810>
Tamzin
"Jane Lumley" wrote re some trifling awards in the UK:
>
> An interesting question is why Pullman got gonged and not J K Rowling?
> Wonder if she said no, as a loyal Scot?
J K Rowling may have lived in Scotland for many years but she is actually
English though IIRC her hubby is Scottish!
Tamzin
Nitpickers Anonymous
Elrond of Rivendell
> I see Philip Pullman has accepted a CBE.
>
> Is heaven no longer a republic, then? A monarchy, perhaps?
>
> don't think Milton or Blake would have done the same.....
Just for fun I googled CBE. It was created in 1917. Milton died in
1674 and Blake in 1827, so... ;>)
But General Wesley Clark, Steven Spielberg, Rudy Guliani, Pele, Bob
Hope, Billy Graham (ah! a clergy member), and Alan Greenspan were
offered the honors and accepted. I get the distinct impression the
British honours system is actually a more Victorian and post-Victorian
creation than an ancient one.
See http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBE
And wouldn't heaven be (a) a theocracy, and (b) the ultimate honours
system? <grin>
Thanks for bringing a sparkle to an otherwise rainy day.
H Schinske
>But General Wesley Clark, Steven Spielberg, Rudy Guliani, Pele, Bob
>Hope, Billy Graham (ah! a clergy member), and Alan Greenspan were
>offered the honors and accepted.
Um ... surely it's even MORE ridiculous for a US citizen to accept such an
honor? Strictly speaking, it seems unpatriotic.
However, the more different kinds of people CBE's have been doled out to (I
didn't realize it was such a widespread thing), the more it becomes possible
for some to take the whole thing with a grain of salt as just a silly custom.
Pullman has said he simply thinks it's an excellent joke for a thing with "For
God and Empire" to be given to a noted atheist and republican.
--Helen
James Hyder
"Jane Lumley" <lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> An interesting question is why Pullman got gonged and not J K Rowling?
> Wonder if she said no, as a loyal Scot?
ROWLING !?! Good God, no, for heaven's sake. I realize that the honours
system is mostly bereft of honour, but not JK Rowling !?! What next, Mick
Jagger ?!?
JH
r...@rosemarylake.com
<lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It would be fun to post elsewhere saying he had declined, and see what
insults people would give him for that. :-)
Rosemary --
http://www.rosemarylake.com
fairy tales online
John Jones
> In article <bt6msj$afe$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, John Jones wrote:
> >And one suspects that, as the senior professor at Oxford, Tolkien could
have
> >been knighted if he had published a bit more on philology and less on
elves!
>
> Why? P.G. Wodehouse was knighted. It's hard to see why Tolkien was
> not, unless perhaps the government were waiting to see whether his
> work was just a fad.
>
probably a lot worse 40 years ago (as they were not with Wodehouse). Mind
you, if he was still alive, the government would probably see political
capital in knighting him now.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1a60f53dc...@news.odyssey.net...
>> Why? P.G. Wodehouse was knighted. It's hard to see why Tolkien was
>> not, unless perhaps the government were waiting to see whether his
>> work was just a fad.
>>
>The Literary Establishment is still very stuffy about Tolkien; they were
>probably a lot worse 40 years ago (as they were not with Wodehouse). Mind
>you, if he was still alive, the government would probably see political
>capital in knighting him now.
Who constituted the "literary establishment" then and now?
In what way were they stuffy with Tolkien that they were not with Wodehouse?
While doubtless many literary critics did not regard Tolkien's fiction as
"serious" literature, and perhaps saw it as belonging more to the "popular"
category, it his hard to see how they would regard Wodehouse's work as
"serious".
How many academic theses and dissertations have been written about Tolkien's
fiction, and how many about Wodehouse's? Anyone know?
Jane Lumley
<hsch...@aol.com> writes
Perhaps, but who is the butt of the joke?
--
Jane Lumley
the softrat
wrote:
>In what way were they stuffy with Tolkien that they were not with Wodehouse?
They didn't like Tolkien because he wrote about elfs and dwarfs and
stuff. Wodehouse wrote about butlers and the essentially silly upper
classes.
the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"Being happy isn't always fun." (Fassbinder, Pre-Paradise Sorry
Now)
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <dmumvvs6sg8uffvt7...@4ax.com>, the softrat
<sof...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:48:19 GMT, haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes)
> wrote:
>
>>In what way were they stuffy with Tolkien that they were not with Wodehouse?
>
> They didn't like Tolkien because he wrote about elfs and dwarfs and
> stuff. Wodehouse wrote about butlers and the essentially silly upper
> classes.
>
He also had an unfortunate habit of making borderline pro-Fascist wartime
radio broadcasts, something that also put him very much in sync with the
perhaps-silly-but-no-less-repugnant British upper classes.
Jane Lumley
<gm...@pop2.intergate.ca> writes
>>In what way were they stuffy with Tolkien that they were not with Wodehouse?
>>
>>
overstate the opposition faced by successful novelists.
Auden liked Tolkien, both as an Anglo-Saxonist and as a writer. Reviews
of LOTR were mostly enthusiastic, though Tolkien himself felt he'd been
snubbed by a few people who were reacting not against him, but against C
S Lewis's praise of him. British literary gurus have always been very
tolerant of fantasy writers (e.g. Ruskin, Morris).
The Angry Young Men and the Movement didn't like JRRT of course, but
that was because they associated him (not unfairly) with anti-modernist
ancien regime ideals.
On the other hand, no-one thought LOTR was as good as War and Peace of
Bleak House or Middlemarch, and of course it wasn't. It wasn't trying
to be. it was trying to do something else.
--
Jane Lumley
Deborah Stevenson
>In article <vvq5qra...@corp.supernews.com>, G. M. Watson
><gm...@pop2.intergate.ca> writes
>>>In what way were they stuffy with Tolkien that they were not with Wodehouse?
>>>
>>>
>Who are 'they'? I'm always entertained by the repeated tendency to
>overstate the opposition faced by successful novelists.
Ooh, me too :-).
When it comes to Honours as opposed to honors, though, it may not be just
a question of critical opposition. Most literary types would probably
come from the Prime Minister's list. I confess to being a bit unfamiliar
with the various steps, but I presume that that would mean approval by the
PM's office as well as the initial recommendation (otherwise what would
be the point of the people who refused it under one Prime Minister and
accepted under another?), and the name would also have to be approved by
the Sovereign. I suspect not all nominees are quite suiting the image
that the administration du jour is hoping to project with the list.
(Perhaps Pullman but not Rowling is an example of this as well?)
Actually, it'd be interesting to see a list of children's authors and
illustrators who *have* received an honor and when they did. It strikes
me as plausible that Tolkien simply had the fortune to live into a time when
writing for children was starting to be considered worthy of that kind of
note, and "that kind of note" had its own independent considerations that
didn't completely correlate with larger cultural changes.
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <7hxlgtDKNW$$Ew...@purkiss.demon.co.uk>, Jane Lumley
<lum...@purkiss.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <vvq5qra...@corp.supernews.com>, G. M. Watson
> <gm...@pop2.intergate.ca> writes
>>>In what way were they stuffy with Tolkien that they were not with Wodehouse?
>>>
>>>
> Who are 'they'? I'm always entertained by the repeated tendency to
> overstate the opposition faced by successful novelists.
>
(snip)
I did not make the statement/question you attribute to me above. Rather, I
responded to it. You should learn how to read posts properly. If you don't
know how, ask someone who does.
H Schinske
>It strikes
>me as plausible that Tolkien simply had the fortune to live into a time when
>writing for children was starting to be considered worthy of that kind of
>note, and "that kind of note" had its own independent considerations that
>didn't completely correlate with larger cultural changes.
This made me blink, because I have never thought of Tolkien as a children's
author in any primary sense. I think of him as a writer for adults who happened
to also write _The Hobbit_.
--Helen
Deborah Stevenson
>Deborah (dste...@OBSTACLESSuiuc.edu) wrote:
I'm by no means a fantasist historian, but my impression has always been
that the whole pile was largely considered significant for its place in
literature for young people, not for its place in adult literature (and
some of that can involve exciting arguments about fantasy in general, of
course). As a crude measure I'll note he gets 13 lines in Drabble's
Oxford Companion to English Literature but four whole columns in the
shorter Oxford Companion to Children's Literature, plus two titular
cross-references. Lest you think that's just a reflection of Humphrey
Carpenter's special interest (he did do a biography), he gets 56 lines in
the Cambridge Guide to Children's Books in English.
Whether that's how it should be or not is another question, but when
you're talking about consideration for the Honours Lists I suspect you're
talking about considerers who, for many portions of the 20th century,
wouldn't have given that much credence to what he produced.
Steve Hayes
H Schinske
>I'm by no means a fantasist historian, but my impression has always been
>that the whole pile was largely considered significant for its place in
>literature for young people, not for its place in adult literature
Well, I'd say that fantasy is, or was, considered central in children's lit in
a way that it is, or was, not in adult lit. But Tolkien was then at the height
of his fame specifically for _The Lord of the Rings_, which was published and
reviewed as a book for adults (no matter how many reviewers made arch comments
about arrested development, yada yada). So it simply didn't occur to me that he
would have been honored *as a children's author* at that time.
--Helen
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <3ffe1e03....@news.saix.net>, haye...@hotmail.com (Steve
Hayes) wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:39:56 -0800, "G. M. Watson" <gm...@pop2.intergate.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>In article <dmumvvs6sg8uffvt7...@4ax.com>, the softrat
>><sof...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 03:48:19 GMT, haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In what way were they stuffy with Tolkien that they were not with Wodehouse?
>>>
>>> They didn't like Tolkien because he wrote about elfs and dwarfs and
>>> stuff. Wodehouse wrote about butlers and the essentially silly upper
>>> classes.
>>>
>>He also had an unfortunate habit of making borderline pro-Fascist wartime
>>radio broadcasts, something that also put him very much in sync with the
>>perhaps-silly-but-no-less-repugnant British upper classes.
>
> He did?
>
> Tell more!
>
>
Wodehouse and his wife were living in Normandy when the Germans invaded
France. In July 1940 they were interred and removed to Germany, but were
later released, and wound up living at the luxurious Hotel Adlon in Berlin
for a time. In 1941 Wodehouse was approached by a German officer and asked
if he would like to make some radio broadcasts to the USA to thank his many
fans there for their letters of support. With what must be regarded as, at
best, staggering naivety, Wodehouse proceed to make six such broadcasts. He
wasn't necessarily singing the praises of the Reich, but it was nonetheless
a propaganda coup for the Germans to have a famous British author on their
airwaves, burbling on in his Wodehousian way as though everything in Europe
was perfectly normal. There were calls in England after the war to have him
prosecuted for treason, but it was ultimately concluded that he was too much
of an idiot, politically speaking,to make it worthwhile. Nonethless, he had
to wait for his knighthood until 1975, and even then it stirred up a
controversy among Britons with long memories.
Incidentally, a quick Google search incorporating the phrases "PG Wodehouse"
and "radio broadcasts" turned up the following relevant links (including a
defense of him by George Orwell), along with quite a few others. Note how
quick the old fool's fans are to leap to his defense. Imagine if, say, Dave
Barry had done broadcasts from Baghdad on Iraqi radio at the invitation of
the regime during the invasion! Given the American political climate last
spring, he'd likely have been shot the moment he stepped off the plane on
his return:
<http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/pg_wodehouse.htm>
<http://wodehouse.ru/dt011096.htm>
<http://www.wodehouse.org/MoreAboutPGW.html>
<http://wodehouse.ru/dt060700.htm>
<http://www.drones.com/orwell.html>
Hope this helps.
GMW
Deborah Stevenson
>Deborah (dste...@OBSTACLESuiuc.edu) wrote:
I dunno. It would be interesting to see the newspaper reports of his
honor--I checked our online resources, and none of them go back that far,
so I'd probably have to brave Microforms to see it.
I'm less theorizing that he was honored as a children's author in '72,
however, than I am that his work was viewed as more for young people,
really, and therefore not literature in the previous honor-less years.
Stan Brown
<vvt3dpn...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Wodehouse and his wife were living in Normandy when the Germans invaded
>France. In July 1940 they were interred and removed to Germany,
You mean they were dug up alive from their graves and taken to
Germany?
In that case I'd have been grateful to the Germans too!
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Thanks for the info - I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that Toklien
had made dubious broadcasts, and that that may have been why he was not
knighted.
H Schinske
>I'm less theorizing that he was honored as a children's author in '72,
>however, than I am that his work was viewed as more for young people,
>really, and therefore not literature in the previous honor-less years.
Well, *that's* perfectly possible. I'd agree with you there.
--Helen
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <3ffe9814....@news.saix.net>, haye...@hotmail.com (Steve
Hayes) wrote:
No; Tolkien was not knighted simply because those who bestow such honors
were too stupid and/or arrogant to think of it prior to his death. In that
he certainly is not alone; many great British writers and artists never
received knighthoods. Maybe if he'd lived another ten years... It's irksome
in the extreme to think that a Mick Jagger is considered worthy of
knighthood, while JRRT wasn't, even though by 1973 Tolkien must have done
damn near as much for the British economy-- or whatever the hell it is
that's considered to merit knighthood nowadays. The standards for inclusion
definitely appear to have been lowered since Tolkien's day.
Oh well, at least it looks less and less likely that Conrad "Lord" Black
will ever get one, either. Which will be a crushing disappointment to him,
you may be certain.