Knowing the author.

[MarkBastable]

According to the informational thread on the matter, one of the "Minimum Essential" components of a LitNet book review is this:

2. Something about, not a biography of, the author. Biographical information should be relevant to the subject of the review and enhance the reader's understanding of the work under discussion.

I don't want to discuss whether or not the rule's good or bad, but I am interested in one of the implications of the rule for the reader of fiction. It's this:

Does it matter - should it matter - that the reader knows anything at all about the author when reading a work of fiction?

[papayahed]

I don't know about all that but that anonymous guy really turns me off, that wonton lifestyle, that totaly disregard for authority. blech!

[Calidore]

Knowing something about the author may add depth to the reading experience, but I wouldn't say it's necessary, at least when reading for entertainment. On the other hand, actually writing a review involves analysis, so the ability to tie something about the author into his/her work would be more important.

[cafolini]

You might know a detailed biography about an author. Yet, to try to tie the biography to the writing may be madness in most cases. A writer is an actor and he has no obligation to limit himself/herself to his personal experience, which, biographically already lacks foundation as a reality.
"Life is not the one we lived, but the one we remember and how we remember it in order to tell it." Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

[Charles Darnay]

My way of approaching this is that I will read a book without much knowledge of the author, then if I liked the book and have an interest in reading more of his/her stuff, I will begin to do some biographic research, so I can see how the books might fit together. I have read some books by authors I know nothing about - I have also read books whose authors I cannot name.

[soundofmusic]

Excellent Question Mark. I like to read an author before I know anything about him/her. My experience, however, has led me to the conclusion that when you read someones work, you become acquainted with their deepest fears, their hurts. The rich girl who threw them over when they were 17 keeps poking her head into their stories even when they have left her behind, married, have grandchildren. I usually go back and read their biography to, at some point, identify the characters...I like to poke around the ashes.

[osho]

Excellent Question Mark. I like to read an author before I know anything about him/her. My experience, however, has led me to the conclusion that when you read someones work, you become acquainted with their deepest fears, their hurts. The rich girl who threw them over when they were 17 keeps poking her head into their stories even when they have left her behind, married, have grandchildren. I usually go back and read their biography to, at some point, identify the characters...I like to poke around the ashes.

I second your opinion, sound and I myself like the idea of reading biographies first and poking into their natures, and their interests and possibly their environments, both human and natural one can get a lot about the works and in fact I want prior to going through a book read everything available so that I can easily figure out the substance in the book. I had to read Tolstoy's Biography to understand War and Peace. This is one of the most complex works and in fact some critics ranked it number one novel. The sheer size of the novel is repel us, not to mention the innumerable long named Russian characters and their intricate dialogues about the war and the typical Russian society the writer had lived through. The war topics pivoting around the entire book also necessitates to know about the history of Russia and the author's time in particular.

[prendrelemick]

2. Something about, not a biography of, the author. Biographical information should be relevant to the subject of the review and enhance the reader's understanding of the work under discussion.

The statement is fair enough, it is good to know a little. It opens, as Sound of Music said, another facet of the reading experience. But I think it can be a mistake to read too much of the author into the work - or conversely, to try and find the author through his/her words. Look at Shakespeare. Armies of scholars have searched his works in friutless attempts to find the man. Whole forests have been felled to publish their conclusions. In the end does it matter?

I'm reading a random work on my new Kindle at the moment, switch it on and you are taken directly to the last page you read. There are no reminders as to who or what the author is. With a book there is at least a photo, a paragraph or two of bio and a name across the cover, so he/she is there infront of you. I can't even remember the name on the kindle, and I admit I keep coming across bits of text – phrases or quotations - that make me wonder about him/her. I find I am unconciously constructing my own biography. When I look them up (as I certainly will) it may change the experience of the book for me, but will probably not make me think any more or less of it.

[cafolini]

2. Something about, not a biography of, the author. Biographical information should be relevant to the subject of the review and enhance the reader's understanding of the work under discussion.

The statement is fair enough, it is good to know a little. It opens, as Sound of Music said, another facet of the reading experience. But I think it can be a mistake to read too much of the author into the work - or conversely, to try and find the author through his/her words. Look at Shakespeare. Armies of scholars have searched his works in friutless attempts to find the man. Whole forests have been felled to publish their conclusions. In the end does it matter?

I'm reading a random work on my new Kindle at the moment, switch it on and you are taken directly to the last page you read. There are no reminders as to who or what the author is. With a book there is at least a photo, a paragraph or two of bio and a name across the cover, so he/she is there infront of you. I can't even remember the name on the kindle, and I admit I keep coming across bits of text – phrases or quotations - that make me wonder about him/her. I find I am unconciously constructing my own biography. When I look them up (as I certainly will) it may change the experience of the book for me, but will probably not make me think any more or less of it.

I partially agree with this. But for every work where the biography of an author helped I found tens where the fiction of the biography did harm by being pure assumptions. And often, it becomes obvious that some critic, disliking a book, uses biographical fiction and misnomers to put it down. I could speak about an orange and always find many ashes that will claim that I do that because my mother forced me to drink orange juice during childhood.

[Paulclem]

I usually read the book before i find out anything about the author. If the book is good and I want to read more, then i will look them up out of idle interest. It doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the book I read.

Having said that, i wouldn't buy a Geoffrey Archer precisely because of his priviledged, perjurious, lying biography. You couldn't give me one of his books. (I'm sure there have been worse characters in history whose books i have read, but they are history. He's current).

When I read posts on here I find I construct a persona according to what they say. i suppose that's why actual pictures of people are often surprising as they conflict with the impressions they give in words. Perhaps I do the same with authors. One sci fi author writes very exotically - Neal Asher - but he lives in some non-descript place like Basingstoke. (It might actually be Basingstoke - I forget, but you get the idea). Perhaps that's why he writes so exotically, because he lives in a mundane southern town. (Northern towns are more edgy).

[Whifflingpin]

One of the finest English writers for children between about 1960 & 1990 was William Mayne. When he was convicted in the early '90s for paedophile offences his books disappeared from school & library shelves. So, were they any less good literature because they were written by a man who had a deeply undesirable side?

[AuntShecky]

I don't know about all that but that anonymous guy really turns me off, that wonton lifestyle, that totaly disregard for authority. blech!


A "wonton lifestyle" does tell us something about the author:
he really likes Chinese food.

Oh, we kid! We kid papayahed 'cause we love!

[Emil Miller]

One sci fi author writes very exotically - Neal Asher - but he lives in some non-descript place like Basingstoke. (It might actually be Basingstoke - I forget, but you get the idea). Perhaps that's why he writes so exotically, because he lives in a mundane southern town. (Northern towns are more edgy).

Well they don't come any more nondescript than Basingstoke that, despite the attempt to turn it into a mini silicon valley, is as dull as ditch water. I still have the dressing gown that I purchased from its Marks and Spencer: whatever would Noel Coward have said? No wonder the guy writes science fiction, Basingstoke is enough to drive anyone to extremes.

[MarkBastable]

One of the finest English writers for children between about 1960 & 1990 was William Mayne. When he was convicted in the early '90s for paedophile offences his books disappeared from school & library shelves. So, were they any less good literature because they were written by a man who had a deeply undesirable side?

Yeah - good point. I feel the same way about Ezra Pound - is his poetry in any way diminished because he was an anti-semite?

Apparently, though, people do care who wrote the book. They care so much that their opinion of the work is influenced by what they know of the author.

There was a big scandal in US publishing a while back, when it turned out that a novel by JTLeroy about an abused childhood - which was assumed to be based on the author's real experiences as a boy - turned out to have been written by an accomplished female author. People were outraged, as if they'd been duped.

Me, I couldn't understand what the fuss was about. If it was a good novel when you thought it was semi-autobiographical, why is it any less good when you find out that it's completely made up? In my opinion, that makes it better.

But readers had somehow invested in the idea that the author was also pretty much the protagonist - and they felt cheated when they discovered that this work of fiction really was a work of fiction.

I think that a novel should work completely alone - everything that you need to get the most from it should be in it. I don't care about writers. I care about writing. If this evening I discovered that PGWodehouse was a drunken philandering dope-raddled paedophile Mormon who funded the IRA, What-Ho Jeeves! would remain just as brilliant tomorrow as it was yesterday.

[Paulclem]

If this evening I discovered that PGWodehouse was a drunken philandering dope-raddled paedophile Mormon who funded the IRA, What-Ho Jeeves! would remain just as brilliant tomorrow as it was yesterday.

He wouldn't have had the time, or, with all that activity, the inclination.

For me the issue is important. I don't want to support someone who, in other ways, is having a negative effect. When they're dead, it doesn't matter. It's their beneficiaries who benefit unless it's out of copyright. I'm sure we all have people from whom we wouldn't enter into a retail/ business/ service arrangement with, however good their stuff. Why would books be any different?

[Whifflingpin]

"If this evening I discovered that PGWodehouse was a drunken philandering dope-raddled paedophile Mormon who funded the IRA, What-Ho Jeeves! would remain just as brilliant tomorrow as it was yesterday."

I'd forgotten this for half a century or so, but I have a vague memory of my mother saying, when I first started reading Wodehouse, "we stopped reading him because he supported the Germans during the war," or something like that.

[MarkBastable]

He wouldn't have had the time, or, with all that activity, the inclination.

For me the issue is important. I don't want to support someone who, in other ways, is having a negative effect. When they're dead, it doesn't matter. It's their beneficiaries who benefit unless it's out of copyright. I'm sure we all have people from whom we wouldn't enter into a retail/ business/ service arrangement with, however good their stuff. Why would books be any different?

That's a different matter - you're not saying that your attitude to the author diminishes the work. You're saying that however good the work, you don't want to benefit the author.

[Paulclem]

That's a different matter - you're not saying that your attitude to the author diminishes the work. You're saying that however good the work, you don't want to benefit the author.

Agreed. I could concede that the writing was good whether I liked the author or not. It's more obvious in music where the personalities are more apparent.

[MarkBastable]

I have a vague memory of my mother saying, when I first started reading Wodehouse, "we stopped reading him because he supported the Germans during the war," or something like that.

He didn't - but for a long time people thought he might have.

[stlukesguild]

You might know a detailed biography about an author. Yet, to try to tie the biography to the writing may be madness in most cases. A writer is an actor and he has no obligation to limit himself/herself to his personal experience, which, biographically already lacks foundation as a reality.
"Life is not the one we lived, but the one we remember and how we remember it in order to tell it." Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

I agree with cafolini. Romanticism and the "cult of personality" and Freud have both done a great disservice to how we approach reading. Too many readers confuse the artist with the artwork. Wilde was on the money when he suggested, "The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim." Not all art is autobiographical in nature.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think that a novel should work completely alone - everything that you need to get the most from it should be in it. I don't care about writers. I care about writing. If this evening I discovered that PGWodehouse was a drunken philandering dope-raddled paedophile Mormon who funded the IRA, What-Ho Jeeves! would remain just as brilliant tomorrow as it was yesterday.

I think I'd have to agree. It also brings up Barthes' essay on the subject "The Death of the Author" which supports such a claim. It can be found here:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm


He's not the first to distance the author from a work though, so I don't quite know why he seems to get so much credit on literature programmes, for you can see the same argument presented by Wilde even and more besides, but there you go.

This doesn't mean that you can dismiss the biography from the text completely though. It's still useful and it can still help and it can still be interesting, but that it is just on wholly necessary either.

It can also be that the writer becomes more than the work. Personally it is Wilde I love more than his work; his work is a pale shadow of what he would have been like I think, but if you are looking/judging a work of art or a piece of writing then biography all the same, is pretty much redundant.

Edit: ha, ha old Stluke 'snaps' me with Wilde...

[papayahed]

A "wonton lifestyle" does tells us something about the author:
he really likes Chinese food.



I meant to do that.:p

[soundofmusic]

I second your opinion, sound and I myself like the idea of reading biographies first and poking into their natures, and their interests and possibly their environments, both human and natural one can get a lot about the works and in fact I want prior to going through a book read everything available so that I can easily figure out the substance in the book. I had to read Tolstoy's Biography to understand War and Peace. This is one of the most complex works and in fact some critics ranked it number one novel. The sheer size of the novel is repel us, not to mention the innumerable long named Russian characters and their intricate dialogues about the war and the typical Russian society the writer had lived through. The war topics pivoting around the entire book also necessitates to know about the history of Russia and the author's time in particular.

That is a very good point, Osho. I like to "walk a mile" in the writers shoes, try his personality on so that I can see the world through his eyes. It's the same with an abstract painting, what does a women with a head on one shoulder and three breasts mean to me:confused5:


2. Something about, not a biography of, the author. Biographical information should be relevant to the subject of the review and enhance the reader's understanding of the work under discussion.

The statement is fair enough, it is good to know a little. It opens, as Sound of Music said, another facet of the reading experience. But I think it can be a mistake to read too much of the author into the work - or conversely, to try and find the author through his/her words. Look at Shakespeare. Armies of scholars have searched his works in friutless attempts to find the man. Whole forests have been felled to publish their conclusions. In the end does it matter?
I'm reading a random work on my new Kindle at the moment, switch it on and you are taken directly to the last page you read. There are no reminders as to who or what the author is. .

I know some people, my daughter for instance, who goes about taking in information, "puts on peoples personalities" and writes from their perspective; so, with her, you will never see the same person twice in her writing...although, there does seem to crop up a rather care free, wanton mother quite often:skep:
Me, when I write, no matter what I begin, it all becomes me.
Shakespeare could have been the latter sort...
Of course, on the other hand, I have often thought writers like Stephen King, JKRowling and Anne Rice sometimes have ghost writers.
I always lose my place; that kindel sounds like a great idea.


I usually read the book before i find out anything about the author. If the book is good and I want to read more, then i will look them up out of idle interest. It doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the book I read.
Having said that, i wouldn't buy a Geoffrey Archer precisely because of his priviledged, perjurious, lying biography. You couldn't give me one of his books. (I'm sure there have been worse characters in history whose books i have read, but they are history. He's current).
QUOTE]
I know so many people who read or listen to music for the sheer sake of it, what it "does for them". Personally, I could never listen to Michael Jackson, even though I love his music, after all of the pedophilia reports. NaboKov positively gave me the creeps...I watched the Lolita movie with James Mason and loved it; but I read the book...:cold:

[QUOTE=Whifflingpin;1104182]One of the finest English writers for children between about 1960 & 1990 was William Mayne. When he was convicted in the early '90s for paedophile offences his books disappeared from school & library shelves. So, were they any less good literature because they were written by a man who had a deeply undesirable side?

It depends on how much of his soul the writer has put in his book...not literally of course. Even with some of the writers on litnet: there are some I read and it's a good read, a nice story; but I don't feel as if I just slept with them in the next room. Some of the others, if their character gets ran over by a car; I begin to bleed. I may never be able to read their stuff.


A "wonton lifestyle" does tells us something about the author:
he really likes Chinese food.

Oh, we kid! We kid papayahed 'cause we love!

I think we have to examine that:goof:


Yeah - good point. I feel the same way about Ezra Pound - is his poetry in any way diminished because he was an anti-semite?

Apparently, though, people do care who wrote the book. They care so much that their opinion of the work is influenced by what they know of the author.

There was a big scandal in US publishing a while back, when it turned out that a novel by JTLeroy about an abused childhood - which was assumed to be based on the author's real experiences as a boy - turned out to have been written by an accomplished female author. People were outraged, as if they'd been duped.

Me, I couldn't understand what the fuss was about. If it was a good novel when you thought it was semi-autobiographical, why is it any less good when you find out that it's completely made up? In my opinion, that makes it better.

But readers had somehow invested in the idea that the author was also pretty much the protagonist - and they felt cheated when they discovered that this work of fiction really was a work of fiction.

I think that a novel should work completely alone - everything that you need to get the most from it should be in it. I don't care about writers. I care about writing. If this evening I discovered that PGWodehouse was a drunken philandering dope-raddled paedophile Mormon who funded the IRA, What-Ho Jeeves! would remain just as brilliant tomorrow as it was yesterday.

I think for the intellectual, who reads for the sake of it; the authors personality means nothing. Having said that, most of us aren't intellectuals who read for the sake of it. If we buy an autobiography by Princess Di, we want to hear her thoughts, we want to feel a part of her for a few moments. If we buy a book by a man who was sexually abused by the clergy, we want to know how he dealt with it, take lessons from him, look for the words between the lines; if it's written by a woman columnist for diet weekly, it's not going to give us what we need even if the vocabulary is correct and the wording is thought provoking.

[mona amon]

That's a different matter - you're not saying that your attitude to the author diminishes the work. You're saying that however good the work, you don't want to benefit the author.

For me it's more than that. I'll read and enjoy a book about a paedophile (Lolita) but I'd never read a book written by a known paedophile. Some things just cross the line. However good it is, for me it will be tainted. Not rational, but there it is.

[qimissung]

Excellent Question Mark. I like to read an author before I know anything about him/her. My experience, however, has led me to the conclusion that when you read someones work, you become acquainted with their deepest fears, their hurts. The rich girl who threw them over when they were 17 keeps poking her head into their stories even when they have left her behind, married, have grandchildren. I usually go back and read their biography to, at some point, identify the characters...I like to poke around the ashes.

That sums it up beautifully for me. Sometimes I'm interested, other times not so much. I spent an evening looking up everything I could find on Shirley Jackson. I found some fascinating family photos.

And I'm the same way, Mona Amon. Lolita is on my to read list; I adore his use of language. But there's a book out there about a woman who was in a relationship with her molester from the age of seven on. I will not be reading it.

[Emillatilla]

Sometimes I read a book or listen to music or watch movies when I don't know who created it, but usually I only read a book if the author appeals to me in some way. I don't listen to music if I don't like the singers or musicians, or watch movies if I really don't like the actors.

[prendrelemick]

Is the whole industry of literary biography just another branch of our celebrity obsessed society? Does curiosity about stars like Shakespere and Hemingway stem from the same root as the insatable appetite to follow the likes of Jordan and Madonna?

(Jordan may be a bad example as she is now a novelist as well as a celeb I believe.)

[Jack of Hearts]

If it is the writing that matters and not the writers, Is the whole industry of literary biography just another branch of our celebrity obsessed society? Does curiosity about stars like Shakespere and Hemingway stem from the same root as the insatable appetite to follow the likes of Jordan and Madonna?

(Jordan may be a bad example as she is now a novelist as well as a celeb I believe.)

Who the heck is Jordan?

Anyways, this reader follows a writer once's he's decided that said writer can 'deliver the goods.' Case and point, Bukowski. Read five of his novels in one month. Great month. Great reading. The sixth novel was 'Pulp.' Hated it. Still have it, only three pages used. Anyone want a copy of 'Pulp'?








J


EDIT: There are still some Bukowski short story collections/poetry collections that this reader has not read. He sees them, thinks they'll probably be pretty good... but always lingers the quiet thought, Well, he did write 'Pulp'...

EDIT EDIT: Also, this reader arbitrarily follows writers on the Short Story Forum.

[osho]

That is a very good point, Osho. I like to "walk a mile" in the writers shoes, try his personality on so that I can see the world through his eyes. It's the same with an abstract painting, what does a women with a head on one shoulder and three breasts mean to me:confused5:



.

I like your intriguing comment, sound and the last line women with a head on one shoulder and three breasts mean to me. This parable has a lot of substance and I got roused for a while and ran amok. This flamed something inside me, my sense of imagination flared and flew. Yes every writer incredibly puts something of him, and the reader can feel it if he can read something between the lines. The mystery remains revealed if the observer has the eye to see something underneath the other' shirt, to something that goes beyond a verbal expression - repertoire.

[prendrelemick]

I like your intriguing comment, sound and the last line women with a head on one shoulder and three breasts mean to me. This parable has a lot of substance and I got roused for a while and ran amok. This flamed something inside me, my sense of imagination flared and flew. Yes every writer incredibly puts something of him, and the reader can feel it if he can read something between the lines. The mystery remains revealed if the observer has the eye to see something underneath the other' shirt, to something that goes beyond a verbal expression - repertoire.


Is this real or imagined though. Does the writer put something in there or does the reader imagine it. If the former is true, is it done purposely or is this the unconcious product a "good" writer.
I would say knowing something of the writers history, or of his former works, is a factor in this respect, as it may point the reader towards a particular understanding of the work he would not see otherwise, and may not have even been the authors intent.

[prendrelemick]

Who the heck is Jordan?




She rose to prominence on her prominant breasts

[Jack of Hearts]

She rose to prominence on her prominant breasts

Ah. It's really too bad when people only love you for your personality, or your general nature as a human being. Personally, this reader finds it a bit disgusting. Where is the woman who will love a man based on the symmetry of his left nostril?







- Jack Plays Darts

[osho]

Is this real or imagined though. Does the writer put something in there or does the reader imagine it. If the former is true, is it done purposely or is this the unconcious product a "good" writer.
I would say knowing something of the writers history, or of his former works, is a factor in this respect, as it may point the reader towards a particular understanding of the work he would not see otherwise, and may not have even been the authors intent.

I used to hungrily read Tolstoy's books and I almost covered most of his titles from his essays to virtually all of his stories and I always took him for sainthood and yet when I read some of the spicy stuff in his writing and particularly Anna Karenna. His life and the book do not measure up and I smelled of voluptuary in his character and somebody of a saintly projection could never dangle their minds on such things to write something of romance, sexual passion and the like. This drove me to read lengthily his biography and I something startled my mind that he was a lusty fellow and that had reflections through his novels though in his later days when he wrote some of the masterpieces he had already taken to an austere life.

I want to read the life of Nabokov and to dig up the realities that flared his imaginative faculty to write Lolita or else Lolita would never have happened if there was no "Lolit" inside him

[prendrelemick]

Tolstoy is a case in point.

He was uncomfortable in being one of the elite - thats in his works.

He sympathised with the peasents - thats in his works.

He was interested in agriculture - thats in too.

But did his biographers read those works and come to those conclusions mainly from fictional text, and published them, and therefore reinforced them.

So you get a self supporting circle, the biography supports the works - the works support the biography, and somwhere in the middle is the author.

[Alexander III]

From an objective point of view, it does not matter if a man was a racist, murderer, hate-monger, thief, drunk, addict, gambler, cruel, revolting,rapist, pedophile ect...

Only the art matters. A man may have been a saint, but been of mediocre talent, and another man might have been an SS concentration camp officer, but a literary genius, and the later would deserve to be remembered and the former forgotten. From a point of view of art that is the only real answer, all that matters is the art.

But we are all human, none of us are perfect, and yes the only thing which should count is the art, but any man who says that the life of the author has not interference with his judgment is just a plain out liar or fool. We can't help it, it is human nature, to try and fight it is futile, to claim to be immune to it is bigoted.

Personally I dont care if the writer was a rapist, murderer, nazi, communist, racist, piece of **** scumbag imaginable. That I can forgive. Very easily, in fact I prefer it that way. I am drawn to the murderer and theif and heartless man far more than by the honest man.

But the one thing I cannot forgive is a dull man. A writer might have written the best poetry every seen by man, but if he lived a dull life I could never appreciate his art or him. Dulness is the one sin I cannot forgive.

[osho]

Tolstoy is a case in point.

He was uncomfortable in being one of the elite - thats in his works.

He sympathised with the peasents - thats in his works.

He was interested in agriculture - thats in too.

But did his biographers read those works and come to those conclusions mainly from fictional text, and published them, and therefore reinforced them.

So you get a self supporting circle, the biography supports the works - the works support the biography, and somwhere in the middle is the author.

I will have to agree with you and in fact the truth of somebody becomes rarely biographic and most get skipped in point of fact. Somewhere I have read Tolstoy lived a very promiscuous life and he had romance, foreplay, sex and with the peasants he came across in his youthful life specially with the serfs. The darker side of most writers get obliterated and we try to judge them by what is written about them.

All of us have heard about Gandhi and we do not his other part, his sexual life. He is famous for his asceticism and yet he was a passionate and sexy man.

[Whifflingpin]

Whifflingpin: I have a vague memory of my mother saying, when I first started reading Wodehouse, "we stopped reading him because he supported the Germans during the war," or something like that.

MarkBastable: He didn't - but for a long time people thought he might have.

Well, he seems to have lived in comfort in enemy territory, and did not denounce them categorically, and then, when free to do so, he scuttled off to safety in the U.S. Those are fairly good reasons for earning the contempt of people who were fighting that enemy abroad or on the "home front."

But the point was not whether he did or did not actively support the enemy. You had just mentioned that you'd still appreciate his work even if you found out bad things about him. I thought it interesting that you had chosen for an example a writer whom, in fact, ordinary people had stopped reading because they disliked some non-literature-related aspects of his behaviour.

[Emil Miller]

Whifflingpin: I have a vague memory of my mother saying, when I first started reading Wodehouse, "we stopped reading him because he supported the Germans during the war," or something like that.

MarkBastable: He didn't - but for a long time people thought he might have.

Well, he seems to have lived in comfort in enemy territory, and did not denounce them categorically, and then, when free to do so, he scuttled off to safety in the U.S. Those are fairly good reasons for earning the contempt of people who were fighting that enemy abroad or on the "home front."

But the point was not whether he did or did not actively support the enemy. You had just mentioned that you'd still appreciate his work even if you found out bad things about him. I thought it interesting that you had chosen for an example a writer whom, in fact, ordinary people had stopped reading because they disliked some non-literature-related aspects of his behaviour.

This is being grossly unfair to Wodehouse, regardless of his being one of the most amusing writers ever. The facts are that he was in France when the Germans overran it and was quite naturally interned as an enemy alien. As a well-known English writer, he was asked to broadcast that he was being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. He did so and simply told the truth of the conditions he was living in. That is all he did but that didn't stop many of his vindictive countrymen claiming he was a traitor; Lord Hailsham even demanded that he be executed after the war. The reason he went to the US was because he was persona non grata in the UK and he'd had a successful career in American musical comedy before the war.

[stlukesguild]

But the one thing I cannot forgive is a dull man. A writer might have written the best poetry every seen by man, but if he lived a dull life I could never appreciate his art or him. Dulness is the one sin I cannot forgive.

Alex... you continue to model yourself more and more upon Oscar Wilde. I greatly approve.:nod::biggrin5:

[MarkBastable]

But the one thing I cannot forgive is a dull man. A writer might have written the best poetry every seen by man, but if he lived a dull life I could never appreciate his art or him. Dulness is the one sin I cannot forgive.

Alex... you continue to model yourself more and more upon Oscar Wilde. I greatly approve.:nod::biggrin5:

Well, except that Wilde would have cared only about the art. Wilde's apparent shallowness was the camouflage of a profound intelligence. Which is not necessarily true of all who appear shallow.

[Alexander III]

Well, except that Wilde would have cared only about the art. Wilde's apparent shallowness was the camouflage of a profound intelligence. Which is not necessarily true of all who appear shallow.


Well the shallow makes sense to me, why bother with what I cannot comprehend.

a man is dull= I cannot respect said man= I cannot respect anything that man created.

It is rather straightforward.

I doubt Wilde would have cared solely about the art though. As I said before, only a fool would think he could approach art from a purely objective point of view. Many things can be said of Wilde, but he was no fool.

It was his ideal, doesn't mean he could do it.

[Whifflingpin]

"As a well-known English writer, he was asked to broadcast that he was being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. He did so"

That action, in wartime, counts at least as "giving comfort to the enemy." Obviously, having a British celebrity to declare that he was being treated according to the Geneva convention, was useful propaganda to the Germans. Equally obviously, broadcasting on German radio could not have been seen by anyone other than a raving idiot as sending private messages to assure his friends that he was safe, which is what some of his apologists have argued he thought he was doing.

My mother's comment was a chance remark, mildly, not vindictively, expressed. I had all but forgotten it until yesterday, so I have never, until now, had any interest in what Wodehouse did in the war. However, a quick Google trawl shows that the best excuse his supporters can come up with is that he was "naive" and "unworldly." You may, if you wish, believe that "one of the most amusing writers ever" was naive and unwordly. Stating good things about the enemy, on the enemy's radio in time of war, is not naive, it is, at best, culpably stupid. It is, at worst, treachery and deserving punishment as such, which, at the time, meant the death penalty.

Clearly, since he received a knighthood in due course, the establishment chose to believe in his naivety. Maybe they turned the basis of this thread's discussion on its head, and decided that the creator of the Drones could not possibly harbour treacherous thoughts. Interesting, if that is the case, that they credited Wodehouse with being the empty-headed Wooster, rather than the astute Macchiavellian Jeeves.

[JuniperWoolf]

a man is dull= I cannot respect said man= I cannot respect anything that man created.

Well, what's your definition of "dull?" And how would you know that an author was dull? You don't read many biographies about classic writers which go "although his work is excellent, he did live what was objectively considered a very dull life and having a conversation with him was tedious."

[blazeofglory]

From an objective point of view, it does not matter if a man was a racist, murderer, hate-monger, thief, drunk, addict, gambler, cruel, revolting,rapist, pedophile ect...

Only the art matters. A man may have been a saint, but been of mediocre talent, and another man might have been an SS concentration camp officer, but a literary genius, and the later would deserve to be remembered and the former forgotten. From a point of view of art that is the only real answer, all that matters is the art.

But we are all human, none of us are perfect, and yes the only thing which should count is the art, but any man who says that the life of the author has not interference with his judgment is just a plain out liar or fool. We can't help it, it is human nature, to try and fight it is futile, to claim to be immune to it is bigoted.

Personally I dont care if the writer was a rapist, murderer, nazi, communist, racist, piece of **** scumbag imaginable. That I can forgive. Very easily, in fact I prefer it that way. I am drawn to the murderer and theif and heartless man far more than by the honest man.

But the one thing I cannot forgive is a dull man. A writer might have written the best poetry every seen by man, but if he lived a dull life I could never appreciate his art or him. Dulness is the one sin I cannot forgive.

I do not agree a writer to be unforgiven of he is dull. We are talking about the personality issue and not his writing. A writer can be personally dull, uninteresting and yet his capacity for imagination, thinking and writing I support him. Few people personally like murders, rapists and racist, drunk, pedophile and the like but as you said I do not care their background if they have something interesting present. Though we may have a passion for reading their biographies we may however be focused on their writings only.

[prendrelemick]

I can't understand the dull man is not worth reading opinion. Or I cannot understand the process. You read a book, you like it, you research the author, you find him dull, you disdain his work. It doesn't make sense to revise your opinion to that degree because of his life.
As an example.
I've read a biography where W B Yeats appears a couple of times and is dull, infact his
peers know him to be dull. But look what he produced, his inner life was as Byronic as Byron's.

[Alexander III]

Well, what's your definition of "dull?" And how would you know that an author was dull? You don't read many biographies about classic writers which go "although his work is excellent, he did live what was objectively considered a very dull life and having a conversation with him was tedious."

By dull, I mean an uninteresting life. Wikipedia usually suffices.


I do not agree a writer to be unforgiven of he is dull. We are talking about the personality issue and not his writing. A writer can be personally dull, uninteresting and yet his capacity for imagination, thinking and writing I support him. Few people personally like murders, rapists and racist, drunk, pedophile and the like but as you said I do not care their background if they have something interesting present. Though we may have a passion for reading their biographies we may however be focused on their writings only.

I do not believe that it matters if a writer is dull or not, when it comes to his art. I was just saying that humans are fallible and there will always be something for each of us were we draw the line and judge art based on the artists. For me it is if a man lived a boring life, for another it might be if he was an atheist, another might have peeves against woman writers...ect


I can't understand the dull man is not worth reading opinion. Or I cannot understand the process. You read a book, you like it, you research the author, you find him dull, you disdain his work. It doesn't make sense to revise your opinion to that degree because of his life.
As an example.
I've read a biography where W B Yeats appears a couple of times and is dull, infact his
peers know him to be dull. But look what he produced, his inner life was as Byronic as Byron's.

I suppose at the end of the day it boils down to courage and cowardice. Any coward can be byronic on the inside, but it takes courage to actually do it in life. I admire courage, and those who grabbed life by the balls were men of courage. Those who choose to live like domestic cats, irrelevant of their thoughts and fantasies, especially if they did want to grab life by the balls, can only be seen as cowards. I detest cowardice.

[prendrelemick]

By dull, I mean an uninteresting life. Wikipedia usually suffices.



I do not believe that it matters if a writer is dull or not, when it comes to his art. I was just saying that humans are fallible and there will always be something for each of us were we draw the line and judge art based on the artists. For me it is if a man lived a boring life, for another it might be if he was an atheist, another might have peeves against woman writers...ect



I suppose at the end of the day it boils down to courage and cowardice. Any coward can be byronic on the inside, but it takes courage to actually do it in life. I admire courage, and those who grabbed life by the balls were men of courage. Those who choose to live like domestic cats, irrelevant of their thoughts and fantasies, especially if they did want to grab life by the balls, can only be seen as cowards. I detest cowardice.

I sort of know what you mean, I have felt dissapointment with an author's life, but what is the process of your judgement. It can only mean a complete about turn in your opinion of a work, if you find the writer was dull.

[MarkBastable]

By dull, I mean an uninteresting life. Wikipedia usually suffices.

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think of the work and the life of TSEliot?

[Alexander III]

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think of the work and the life of TSEliot?

Never read any of his stuff, and know nothing about him except for his fondness for plagiarism - but that is not much of a fault in a poet.

I like Pound a lot tough, he is one of my favorite poets.

[Emil Miller]

"As a well-known English writer, he was asked to broadcast that he was being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. He did so"

That action, in wartime, counts at least as "giving comfort to the enemy." Obviously, having a British celebrity to declare that he was being treated according to the Geneva convention, was useful propaganda to the Germans. Equally obviously, broadcasting on German radio could not have been seen by anyone other than a raving idiot as sending private messages to assure his friends that he was safe, which is what some of his apologists have argued he thought he was doing.

My mother's comment was a chance remark, mildly, not vindictively, expressed. I had all but forgotten it until yesterday, so I have never, until now, had any interest in what Wodehouse did in the war. However, a quick Google trawl shows that the best excuse his supporters can come up with is that he was "naive" and "unworldly." You may, if you wish, believe that "one of the most amusing writers ever" was naive and unwordly. Stating good things about the enemy, on the enemy's radio in time of war, is not naive, it is, at best, culpably stupid. It is, at worst, treachery and deserving punishment as such, which, at the time, meant the death penalty.

Clearly, since he received a knighthood in due course, the establishment chose to believe in his naivety. Maybe they turned the basis of this thread's discussion on its head, and decided that the creator of the Drones could not possibly harbour treacherous thoughts. Interesting, if that is the case, that they credited Wodehouse with being the empty-headed Wooster, rather than the astute Macchiavellian Jeeves.

I did not mean to imply that your mother's remark was vindictive; during the war, the media were constantly whipping up anti-German sentiment and the slightest deviation from the patriotic line was immediately seized upon as treachery, as was par for the course in all the combatant nations. Public hysteria about possible German agents was kept at the boil by the popular press and most people fell into line with it. Wodehouse baiting was all part of the propaganda machine and was continued after the war by a self-righteous establishment that at least had the merit of exhibiting a national characteristic. It is notable that despite their best efforts, they were unable to dim peoples' sense of humour and Wodehouse sales rocketed with his publication in paperback. I have read literally dozens of his books and never for one moment thought less of him because he told the truth about his internment during the war. Should anyone think that he harboured pro-fascist sentiments, this extract from a Daily Telegraph book review gives the lie to it:

In The Code of the Woosters (1938), Wodehouse has Bertie remonstrating with the rising fascist glamour boy Roderick Spode – plainly based on Sir Oswald Mosley. “The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone. You hear them shouting ‘Heil Spode’ and you imagine it is the voice of the people. That is where you make your bloomer. What the voice of the people is saying is, ‘Look at that frightful *** Spode swanking around in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?’”

[B. Laumness]

Many people think they have an interesting life. But, had I to live their life, it would be dull to death.

[Emil Miller]

But the one thing I cannot forgive is a dull man. A writer might have written the best poetry every seen by man, but if he lived a dull life I could never appreciate his art or him. Dulness is the one sin I cannot forgive.

Alex... you continue to model yourself more and more upon Oscar Wilde. I greatly approve.:nod::biggrin5:

Yes but it's a moot point as to whether Oscar would have approved.

Perhaps this from one of Frances Cornford's poems best sums it up:

A young Apollo, golden-haired,
Stands dreaming on the verge of strife,
Magnificently unprepared
For the long littleness of life.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes but it's a moot point as to whether Oscar would have approved?

Perhaps this from one of Frances Cornford's poems best sums it up:

A young Apollo, golden-haired,
Stands dreaming on the verge of strife,
Magnificently unprepared
For the long littleness of life.

That's a magic little verse. I'll have to look up Frances Cornford.

[Emil Miller]

That's a magic little verse. I'll have to look up Frances Cornford.

I thought you might see the relevance of it. :biggrin5:

[Alexander III]

Yes but it's a moot point as to whether Oscar would have approved?

Perhaps this from one of Frances Cornford's poems best sums it up:

A young Apollo, golden-haired,
Stands dreaming on the verge of strife,
Magnificently unprepared
For the long littleness of life.

The long littleness of life is the direct consequence of cowardice. There is no real other way to put it.

[Emil Miller]

The long littleness of life is the direct consequence of cowardice. There is no real other way to put it.

You don't understand the reality of life, we are all endowed with the ability to do something important with our lives but circumstances often intrude to reduce or completely annul our intentions. Experience is the only yardstick that governs behaviour and it is to be hoped that you will, in due course, aspire to such experience that will enable you to see more clearly the reason why things are as they are.

[MystyrMystyry]

I don't follow, Alexander. The poet goes off to war and takes a bullet for king and country. Surely that moment of excitement is worth far less than all the millions of poems ever written?

Or perhaps you mean not so extreme interesting - like a cricketer who is expected to bat away a red leather ball travelling at him 150 mph? Stupid in any context other than having drawn a ready-made crowd prepared to cheer at anything?

Or they've climbed the highest mountain and survived to tell the tale? Not much of a story, but I see the survival aspect in the best-seller lists all the time.

Or there's the possibility that you mean they are a world traveller and have seen everything there is to see before putting pen to paper. But what have they missed?

Maybe they've chosen their interestingness to be to read everything worth reading that's ever been written?

But these individual things only constitute single interesting things. Perhaps one is expected only to do one interesting thing, and to follow on with another is seen as a character flaw until after their death when they are still perceived as being too interesting (or mad) for the times they lived in.

Though the smart thing is to avoid risk and death (thus reducing the odds the writer's work gets finished), you would rather not read anything because very few books have been written when the circumstances are against the odds (Oooh, looks like I'm about to get mugged - better pull out my dictaphone and get this all down: 'Now why is it you want to mug me again? No no - you have to talk into the little hole...')

Most people are in fact smart enough to want just a place to call home (and frequent holidays), regular meals and a good night's sleep. Byrons, Hemingways and Joyces are actually rare in the writing world, most who lead an 'interesting' life don't bother writing about it, or else they write about a fantasy life, and most who don't lead an interesting one write about a fantasy life too. This makes living and writing - with the exception of the few exceptions - almost mutually exclusive.

And with all our yesterdays being but mere dreams anyway, we should all be thankful that some have given themselves the time out from their hectic adventures to scribble it down for posterity.

[LitNetIsGreat]

...Magnificently unprepared
For the long littleness of life.

I really like it. :nod:

[Emillatilla]

...Magnificently unprepared
For the long littleness of life.

I really like it. :nod:


And we can all figure it out together! :cheers2:

[prendrelemick]

Is it cowardice that makes us take on the long littleness ordinary life? Or is it cowardice to run from such a life?

I am reminded of that scene in the Magnificent 7 where some village boys tell Charles Bronson they are ashamed of their fathers.

Bronson thrashes them and says he is the coward, because he was too afraid to take on the responsabilities of a wife and family, and became a mercenary gunslinger instead.

[JuniperWoolf]

...Magnificently unprepared
For the long littleness of life.

I really like it. :nod:

Me too.


Is it cowardice that makes us take on the long littleness ordinary life? Or is it cowardice to run from such a life?

I am reminded of that scene in the Magnificent 7 where some village boys tell Charles Bronson they are ashamed of their fathers.

Bronson thrashes them and says he is the coward, because he was too afraid to take on the responsabilities of a wife and family, and became a mercenary gunslinger instead.

That's an interesting idea. I guess I've always thought that the people who have "ordinary" lives with the whole 9-5 workday and 2.5 kids feel the same trapped sense of revulsion that I do, and it's that feeling which motivates me to move all over Canada and end up in such weird situations. Maybe it is a form of cowardice, and maybe "compromising" is a type of bravery.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes the fire of youth soon dies down. All those grand unrealistic 'conquering the world' ideals soon fade away until one day, all of a sudden, you find yourself stuck in the middle of a supermarket wondering what beans to buy. :cornut:

Ideals are fine if you have plenty of money and don't need to work. As soon as you need to work it all goes downhill after then. If you want to hang on to youth then don't work.

[MarkBastable]

Is it cowardice that makes us take on the long littleness ordinary life? Or is it cowardice to run from such a life?

I am reminded of that scene in the Magnificent 7 where some village boys tell Charles Bronson they are ashamed of their fathers.

Bronson thrashes them and says he is the coward, because he was too afraid to take on the responsabilities of a wife and family, and became a mercenary gunslinger instead.

I tend to agree. This is pretty much the attitude Kingsley Amis takes when he reproaches Jesus Christ for taking the easy way out.

Should you revisit us,
Stay a little longer,
And get to know the place.
Experience hunger,
Madness, disease and war.
You heard about them, true,
The last time you came here;
It's different having them.
And what about a go
At love, marriage, children?
All good, but bringing some
Risk of remorse and pain
And fear of an odd sort:
A sort one should, again,
Feel, not just hear about,
To be qualified as
A human-race expert.
On local life, we trust
The resident witness,
Not the royal tourist,

People have suffered worse
And more durable wrongs
Than you did on that cross
(I know—you won't get me
Up on one of those things),
Without sure prospect of
Ascending good as new
On the third day, without
"I die, but man shall live"
As a nice cheering thought.

So, next time, come off it,
And get some service in,
Jack, long before you start
Laying down the old law:
If you still want to then.
Tell your dad that from me.

[Alexander III]

All of your arguments however, are simply rationalizing cowardice. Cowardice is rational, it is smart in the majority of cases, that it would be stupid to deny.

But then again, millions of Italian men chose to do the smart thing and the rational thing - But amongst those millions there is always one Garibaldi. When we look back at those lives, who is it that inspires awe in us, that makes us think, he did it right, he did not merley exist, he lived.

Is it the man who worked his job raised his children, loved his wife - or is it Garibaldi.

Think of it this way, when does a man most apreciate his love? When she has left him. When does a son apreciate most his parents and love them most, when they are dead. The simple life of a home induce boredom, but the soldier who has been gone for years, comes back and apreciates it all.

The same with life, the man who most values it and understands it's worth is the man who has risked it. Can we argee on this principle?

During the american revolution - the british kept captured american soldiers on prison ships. The conditions of those prison ships in unimaginable to most of us. 1 of every 4 soldiers died on those ships due to disease and hunger.

The british in order to win the hearts of those men and their loyalty, made a simple offer to every one of those captured men. If they swore to renounce American freedom, and swore loyalty to the crown, they would be set free. A few simpel words and their lives would be spared. Roughly 28 thousand men died on those ships. 28 thousand men preferd death than to relinquish their freedom and their cause. They chose death rather than uttering a few simple words.

Tell me where is the smartness in that? Where is the reason?

Tell me, would any of you look back on those men and say, "lol, those idiots?" or do you admire them?

You can rationalize cowardice all you want, that is easy. But thankfully there throughut history there were and shall be men, like those 28 thousand men, who choose not cowardice - who choose something more, because they know it is better to suffer and even die as a man rather than exist as a mere animal.

[Alexander III]

Ideals are fine if you have plenty of money and don't need to work. As soon as you need to work it all goes downhill after then. If you want to hang on to youth then don't work.

That is true, I cannot deny it. The leaisred classes have far more opurtunity in this regard. But then again, history is littered with cases who show that poverty is just another obstacle which a man of true ability can overcome.

[Emil Miller]

Yes the fire of youth soon dies down. All those grand unrealistic 'conquering the world' ideals soon fade away until one day, all of a sudden, you find yourself stuck in the middle of a supermarket wondering what beans to buy. :cornut:


The long littleness of life is the direct consequence of cowardice. There is no real other way to put it.

One day, some years hence, when you find yourself in the supermarket and unable to decide which beans to buy, do not select the shop's own brand but choose Heinz, they are always better.

[Alexander III]

One day, some years hence, when you find yourself in the supermarket and unable to decide which beans to buy, do not select the shop's own brand but choose Heinz, they are always better.

Well there is it, it is simply a question of envy for my youth.

Where there no envy, one would have said "look, probablility is by far against you, but I hope that when you reach my age you do not find yourself deciding which beans to buy. I wish you the best of luck, though know that the odds are heavily against you"

But that is not what was said. There is assumption that I too will age and that I too will end up deciding which beans to buy. That assumption comforts your envy.

But I can hardly condemn said envy. For though you all appear little icons which write on my screen, you are just as human as I and just as subject to the flaws of humanity. Hence the envy.

Do you deny that if there was no envy of my youth in your heart and bitterness of yours gone by - the above would have been your reply instead of the what you said in fact?

[Emil Miller]

Well there is it, it is simply a question of envy for my youth.

Where there no envy, one would have said "look, probablility is by far against you, but I hope that when you reach my age you do not find yourself deciding which beans to buy. I wish you the best of luck, though know that the odds are heavily against you"

But that is not what was said. There is assumption that I too will age and that I too will end up deciding which beans to buy. That assumption comforts your envy.

But I can hardly condemn said envy. For though you all appear little icons which write on my screen, you are just as human as I and just as subject to the flaws of humanity. Hence the envy.

Do you deny that if there was no envy of my youth in your heart and bitterness of yours gone by - the above would have been your reply instead of the what you said in fact?

If you mean do I wish that I were young again, the answer is yes but only with what I know now. As Oscar Wilde said so pertinently: "Youth is wasted on the young."

[Alexander III]

If you mean do I wish that I were young again, the answer is yes but only with what I know now. As Oscar Wilde said so pertinently: "Youth is wasted on the young."

You did not answer the question I posed, not to you directly but to everyone, nonetheless the question remains unanswered. Or should I take silence as the answer?

[MarkBastable]

Do you deny that if there was no envy of my youth in your heart and bitterness of yours gone by - the above would have been your reply instead of the what you said in fact?


Actually, I hope that you grow up to understand the inestimable value of the kind of life that leads one to buy baked beans for one's kids. I might wish that I had more years ahead of me, but if I did, I'd hope to spend a large proportion of that time doing the stuff that you consider cowardly. None of which, incidentally, rules out writing great novels or painting great paintings, if that's something you also want to do (assuming you have the talent). Neither, I suppose, does it stop you climbing Kilimanjaro - though at no point in my small cowardly life have I ever had the slightest inclination to do such a thing.

[prendrelemick]

We're getting off subject here, but now I know you're young I understand. Inspite of the bitterness of my years gone by I remember what it was like.

I wish you the pleasure of deciding what metaphorical beans to buy for your children and grandchildren.

[MarkBastable]

We're getting off subject here, but now I know you're young I understand. Inspite of the bitterness of my years gone by I remember what it was like.

I wish you the pleasure of deciding what metaphorical beans to buy for your children and grandchildren.

I think one's attitude is much like one's nose. It doesn't change as you get older, except perhaps to get more accentuated. So I doubt that anything Alex thinks is down to youth - it's what's intrinsic to him. And, in forty years time, his nose will be much the same, though the things he's sniffy about might have changed. The attitudes he now takes to age he'll then apply to youth.

[Emil Miller]

I wish you the pleasure of deciding what metaphorical beans to buy for your children and grandchildren.


But he will be better off with....http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5460/imagesbeanz.jpg

[OrphanPip]

A proper baked bean should be done with salted pork and molasses, or sometimes maple syrup.

[MystyrMystyry]

I've been a tenner, and a tween, and a teen, and a twenny. Teen was the the best for clear problem solving ability and the feeling that everything could be achieved if I took life rationally, and didn't take anyone's nonsense to heart. But then things happen like important people in your family die, and you try something new that you unexpectedly really like more than the things you thought you were going to like, and then realise that life's isn't just about yourself but keeping busy in whatever comes your way. If there's a party go to it, if everyone's hitting the beach be there first.

When I thought I had all the answers (as one does), an old philosoph said this:


'The most important thing about life is to enjoy it.'

Which still makes as much sense now as it did then.

[Emillatilla]

When I thought I had all the answers (as one does), an old philosoph said this:


'The most important thing about life is to enjoy it.'

Which still makes as much sense now as it did then.


I'm all for this one! :cheers2:

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please discuss the topic at hand, not each other.

Personalised and/or off-topic comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[Emil Miller]

I've been a tenner, and a tween, and a teen, and a twenny. Teen was the the best for clear problem solving ability and the feeling that everything could be achieved if I took life rationally, and didn't take anyone's nonsense to heart. But then things happen like important people in your family die, and you try something new that you unexpectedly really like more than the things you thought you were going to like, and then realise that life's isn't just about yourself but keeping busy in whatever comes your way. If there's a party go to it, if everyone's hitting the beach be there first.

When I thought I had all the answers (as one does), an old philosoph said this:


'The most important thing about life is to enjoy it.'

Which still makes as much sense now as it did then.

Try telling it to these guys.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3084/534159933662b0bc0387b.jpg

[Paulclem]

It is good that different generations are able to communicate in this way. It's perhaps never been done in the past in such a way as to include all ages without respect to the social niceties that go along with human contact, and the consequent lack of honesty, or rather the inhibiting effects of social awareness.

I think as a young person it must be difficult without phrases like:


'The most important thing about life is to enjoy it.'

We get learners in our classes who can read or write at only a very basic level, and I think if we told them that it would take 5 or 6 years for them to become literate enough to really start to engage with stuff like newspapers and books, then they wouldn't continue.

Being young is like that - you can only crack on with life under certain illusions, useful fictions and encouragement, because the truth of it might just make you go whoaaaaa. :biggrinjester:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well the shallow makes sense to me, why bother with what I cannot comprehend.

a man is dull= I cannot respect said man= I cannot respect anything that man created.

It is rather straightforward.

I doubt Wilde would have cared solely about the art though. As I said before, only a fool would think he could approach art from a purely objective point of view. Many things can be said of Wilde, but he was no fool.

It was his ideal, doesn't mean he could do it.
So, if you read a novel and absolutely loved it, and later found out the author lived an excruciatingly dull life, you wouldn't like it anymore? This doesn't make sense to me.

As to the OP's question, I don't think it's wise to be too polemic in either direction. It seems equally unsound to completely diregard the artist as it does to try and involve the author's life and experiences in all aspects of a piecenof art. After all, a piece of art has to reflect the artist in some way--it did come from the artist, so to say connections can't, shouldn't, be made seems short sighted.

[soundofmusic]

That sums it up beautifully for me. Sometimes I'm interested, other times not so much. I spent an evening looking up everything I could find on Shirley Jackson. I found some fascinating family photos.
And I'm the same way, Mona Amon. Lolita is on my to read list; I adore his use of language. But there's a book out there about a woman who was in a relationship with her molester from the age of seven on. I will not be reading it.

I stay away from writers like Nabakov because I tend to absorb too much of what I read/who I associate with. I went to England for a month some years ago, when I returned home, it took me 4 months to get back to superfical conersation mode and stop hitting the consonants at the end of a word. :lol:


Sometimes I read a book or listen to music or watch movies when I don't know who created it, but usually I only read a book if the author appeals to me in some way. I don't listen to music if I don't like the singers or musicians, or watch movies if I really don't like the actors.
I tend to look for my favorite actors or authors because I hate to be disappointed when I check out a movie I don't like; of course, I find that when they start going through a dry period, the change genre's and I get screwed up.


Is the whole industry of literary biography just another branch of our celebrity obsessed society? Does curiosity about stars like Shakespere and Hemingway stem from the same root as the insatable appetite to follow the likes of Jordan and Madonna?
(Jordan may be a bad example as she is now a novelist as well as a celeb I believe.)

I think, as a society, we have more of a need to emulate than we once did...we have lost the ability to become individuals...there's no time for it.


Who the heck is Jordan?

Anyways, this reader follows a writer once's he's decided that said writer can 'deliver the goods.' Case and point, Bukowski. Read five of his novels in one month. Great month. Great reading. The sixth novel was 'Pulp.' Hated it. Still have it, only three pages used. Anyone want a copy of 'Pulp'?

EDIT: There are still some Bukowski short story collections/poetry collections that this reader has not read. He sees them, thinks they'll probably be pretty good... but always lingers the quiet thought, Well, he did write 'Pulp'...

EDIT EDIT: Also, this reader arbitrarily follows writers on the Short Story Forum.

Don't you hate it when the writer or perhaps, their managers, change the recipe that worked for them in order to reach a wider audience.


I like your intriguing comment, sound and the last line women with a head on one shoulder and three breasts mean to me. This parable has a lot of substance and I got roused for a while and ran amok. This flamed something inside me, my sense of imagination flared and flew. Yes every writer incredibly puts something of him, and the reader can feel it if he can read something between the lines. The mystery remains revealed if the observer has the eye to see something underneath the other' shirt, to something that goes beyond a verbal expression - repertoire.

That is an excellent point, Osho. You did something that many great artists and writers do, you took a bit of a root idea from another and turned it into something spectacular. It reminds me of Oscar Wilde (I think someone mentioned him) who had a great mind, turned the rambling of coal miners into poetry, his experiences in prison into art. Of course, his downfall was in seeing Alfred Douglas as something more than what he was: a beautiful simpleton that, for Wilde, was a muse.

[soundofmusic]

Sorry folks, I was discussing the former conversations...I hadn't realized we were now discussing beans...

You must try this recipe: black beans, pinapple, pork sausage and parmesan cheese fried together with a bit of rosemary:drool5:

[osho]

[


That is an excellent point, Osho. You did something that many great artists and writers do, you took a bit of a root idea from another and turned it into something spectacular. It reminds me of Oscar Wilde (I think someone mentioned him) who had a great mind, turned the rambling of coal miners into poetry, his experiences in prison into art. Of course, his downfall was in seeing Alfred Douglas as something more than what he was: a beautiful simpleton that, for Wilde, was a muse.[/QUOTE]

Thank sound, I had read Oscar Wild as a teenager and his book the Importance of being Earnest was really intriguing. I like flamboyancy though the way he presented himself publicly that mirrors what he is inside artistically. His sense of beauty in art is reflected through his outfits and that can in a way speaks up the man he is in person and in art. Yes there were rains of charges against him as you said taking his relationship, kind of homosexual with Doulas who was rebuked to have incensed his father. His homoerotic writings have stirred his people and however his aesthetic beauty in his plays got the better of this aspect, a kind of defaming and we forget that part today and we revere him as a writer. Homosexuality is not something despicable today but in his days though his society was not short of homosexuals, used to provoke something. Sometime knowing the writer prior to reading his books gives one an air of his track too but sometimes it may breed biases too

[JuniperWoolf]

A proper baked bean should be done with salted pork and molasses, or sometimes maple syrup.

Hell yeah, and not that stupid little square of pork fat that heinz throws in the top of the can either. Pork throughout.

Incidentally, I'm twenty three and I still have to choose which beans to buy. Why wouldn't I? There is one difference which can be solely attributed to my age however: I generally tend to buy the can with the lowest price tag. Beyond our lack of money I can't really see the advantage that older people have on young people. They're certainly not inherently smarter, and you can trust me on that - I've worked in public service. The majority of people of all ages are equally stupid.

As for experience, that doesn't necessarily come with age, it varies from person to person. Some people live more in thirty years than others do in eighty. I know many people who haven't done a whole lot with themselves. There's one woman I work with, mid-forties, she was born here and hasn't left town since the 80's and she has four cats (cliche I know, but there it is). Her whole life seems to revolve around going out for coffee and watching reality shows. She's got almost a quarter of a century on me, but does she have more experience? I think not.

[MarkBastable]

Hell yeah, and not that stupid little square of pork fat that heinz throws in the top of the can either. Pork throughout.

Incidentally, I'm twenty three and I still have to choose which beans to buy. Why wouldn't I? There is one difference which can be solely attributed to my age however: I generally tend to buy the can with the lowest price tag. Beyond our lack of money I can't really see the advantage that older people have on young people. They're certainly not inherently smarter, and you can trust me on that - I've worked in public service. The majority of people of all ages are equally stupid.

As for experience, that doesn't necessarily come with age, it varies from person to person. Some people live more in thirty years than others do in eighty. I know many people who haven't done a whole lot with themselves. There's one woman I work with, fifty years old, she was born here and hasn't left town since the 80's. She's never lived anywhere else and her whole life seems to revolve around her pets, going out for coffee and watching reality shows. She's got a quarter of a decade on me, but does she have more experience? I think not.

You're right. The world is full of stupid, unimaginative, insensitive, dim people, and age has absolutely nothing to do with that. The trouble with stupid older people is that they think they've achieved something by avoiding walking under a bus, and they further think that that achievement entitles them to some kind of respect. These are the kind of people who say of younger people, "Do you think the world owes you a living?" to which, it seems to me, the proper response is "Do you think the world owes you a hearing?"

Age - and youth - matter in all sorts of ways - but neither is any guarantee of intelligence or even, as you point out, of the ability to learn from experience.

[sally1987]

emerson,hi ,i love emerson,and his essay,i appreciate its artistic ideorealm, and its theory of life, hope everybody could read it and express yours appreciation.

[soundofmusic]

[

Thank sound, I had read Oscar Wild as a teenager and his book the Importance of being Earnest was really intriguing. I like flamboyancy though the way he presented himself publicly that mirrors what he is inside artistically. His sense of beauty in art is reflected through his outfits and that can in a way speaks up the man he is in person and in art. Yes there were rains of charges against him as you said taking his relationship, kind of homosexual with Doulas who was rebuked to have incensed his father. His homoerotic writings have stirred his people and however his aesthetic beauty in his plays got the better of this aspect, a kind of defaming and we forget that part today and we revere him as a writer. Homosexuality is not something despicable today but in his days though his society was not short of homosexuals, used to provoke something. Sometime knowing the writer prior to reading his books gives one an air of his track too but sometimes it may breed biases too

It seemed like the age that Wilde lived in was very superficial and flamboyant; but I always had the feeling that underneath it all, Wilde was a very humble, moral chap who would have loved to sit on his front porch, write for hours in his study, have a few friends over, maybe even garden. I think he wrote for his audience...personally, I hated his simple little plays that he wrote for the theatre; but Dorian Gray is good and I really love the Ballad of Reading Gaol.
He, of course, also had giganticism and I think he was flamboyant to sort of mask his size. Then, Douglas had mentioned that there was some difficulty making love because of Wildes size, so then they got into all sorts of wierd swapping partners and voyerism...it destroyed him. I think even though it was sodomy was illegal at the time, a good many of Wildes friends were.
He had this idea he was saving Douglas from his dad...very noble; but Wilde was a bit of an innocent; Douglas was a foul minded pervert even at that age.


Hell yeah, and not that stupid little square of pork fat that heinz throws in the top of the can either. Pork throughout.

Incidentally, I'm twenty three and I still have to choose which beans to buy. Why wouldn't I? There is one difference which can be solely attributed to my age however: I generally tend to buy the can with the lowest price tag. Beyond our lack of money I can't really see the advantage that older people have on young people. They're certainly not inherently smarter, and you can trust me on that - I've worked in public service. The majority of people of all ages are equally stupid.

As for experience, that doesn't necessarily come with age, it varies from person to person. Some people live more in thirty years than others do in eighty. I know many people who haven't done a whole lot with themselves. There's one woman I work with, mid-forties, she was born here and hasn't left town since the 80's and she has four cats (cliche I know, but there it is). Her whole life seems to revolve around going out for coffee and watching reality shows. She's got almost a quarter of a century on me, but does she have more experience? I think not.

Dry beans are a great value, particularly garbanzos.
I think the thing with age reflects Eriksons ideas, not all of us progress at the same speed.
[

[Emil Miller]

I stay away from writers like Nabakov because I tend to absorb too much of what I read/who I associate with. I went to England for a month some years ago, when I returned home, it took me 4 months to get back to superfical conersation mode and stop hitting the consonants at the end of a word. :lol:

You must have moved in some rarefied circles during your stay in England if it took 4 months to get back into superficial conversation mode. Superficiality is the guiding light of a great majority of the English, whose conversation normally revolves around football, pop music and media created celebrities.

[qimissung]

I like cannilini beans, especially in a salad. I like Great Northern beans in my chili. I usually used canned beans, and yes, our pork and beans usually have that little square of pork. Van Camp is the brand, I believe.

I work in a school, and sometimes I do find myself saying annoying things to students like "It's going to be hard out there if you don't do your best here." I can see them dismissing it as claptrap. I understand. Ironically, the ones I feel the need to lecture, are, of course, doing the most poorly.

Back to the subject at hand, of course I often read books about whose authors I know nothing. Sometimes my curiosity is piqued and I must find out more, or on rarer occasions, I stumble across something that enlightens me about thier thought processes. I'm always interested in where creativity springs from. I found this the other day on Shakespeare- which ponders that age-old question of how he separated himself from the pack of aspiring playwrights in London to become as lauded and admired as he did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/magazine/12SHAKESPEARE.html


It is a really fascinating.

[LitNetIsGreat]

:lol: I love how the beans comment has snowballed. For the record, there's nothing wrong with the likes of Branston's or superior supermarket home brands. Of course there is the urban myth that all beans come from the same factory and are just fitted with different labels, so I am always weary of paying more for Heinz - shocking stuff.

In terms of old fools, intelligent youths and all of that, of course I agree that age doesn't equal intelligence and that there are plenty of idiots of all ages out there. However, I also think that you just can't teach life experience.


I work in a school, and sometimes I do find myself saying annoying things to students like "It's going to be hard out there if you don't do your best here." I can see them dismissing it as claptrap. I understand. Ironically, the ones I feel the need to lecture, are, of course, doing the most poorly.

Which is what I mean. I fall into the same errors. It is always a silly thing to give advice, but to give good advice is fatal - that's another one of Wilde's.

[qimissung]

The world according to Wilde. He was a very wise man. :D

[JuniperWoolf]

Which is what I mean. I fall into the same errors. It is always a silly thing to give advice, but to give good advice is fatal - that's another one of Wilde's.

When I was in highschool the "good" advice from the teachers scared the hell out of me. So if I don't get at least an 80% in this grade eight math class my entire future is ruined and I'm likely to end up living off of kraft dinner in a trailer park? Wonderful. That's what I needed to hear.

[osho]

It seemed like the age that Wilde lived in was very superficial and flamboyant; but I always had the feeling that underneath it all, Wilde was a very humble, moral chap who would have loved to sit on his front porch, write for hours in his study, have a few friends over, maybe even garden. I think he wrote for his audience...personally, I hated his simple little plays that he wrote for the theatre; but Dorian Gray is good and I really love the Ballad of Reading Gaol.
He, of course, also had giganticism and I think he was flamboyant to sort of mask his size. Then, Douglas had mentioned that there was some difficulty making love because of Wildes size, so then they got into all sorts of wierd swapping partners and voyerism...it destroyed him. I think even though it was sodomy was illegal at the time, a good many of Wildes friends were.
He had this idea he was saving Douglas from his dad...very noble; but Wilde was a bit of an innocent; Douglas was a foul minded pervert even at that age.



Dry beans are a great value, particularly garbanzos.
I think the thing with age reflects Eriksons ideas, not all of us progress at the same speed.
[


Yes you are right he was rather ignoble by then and their value standards and yet since then so many iconoclastic ideas have infiltrated into our society and by today's standards he is a gentle man and his demeanor is tolerable and today we have no short of homosexuals in the literary world and our postmodern literature cannot be complete if we do not learn to venerate the homosexuals. Beneath this gigantic and gay persona there was a humble and sensitive human, and he is not in isolation stands among we moderns beyond our masks. I do not know about Douglas.

As to the topic we are obsessed with the writer's personality and maybe every writer has a double personality, not double standards, one as we see outwardly, flamboyant, gay, somebody enjoying watching others having sex and the like. Honestly speaking, Wilde is not outside us, and do we too if we dissect the psyche and check we form part of that personality, secretly yet romantically.

[prendrelemick]

^ I think you are right Osho. Now I only say this speculatively but I also think the gender of an author is a factor. I think men are more apt to having an internal fantasy life than women. Women authors tend to write about real life and issues that the ordinary person must deal with.

Also, knowing whether a writer is a man or woman does affect me as a reader I think.

[MarkBastable]

You must have moved in some rarefied circles during your stay in England if it took 4 months to get back into superficial conversation mode. Superficiality is the guiding light of a great majority of the English, whose conversation normally revolves around football, pop music and media created celebrities.

What do you feel people ought to be talking about, day to day?

[JuniperWoolf]

In my experience, people in the UK talk about the rain a lot. People who live in places with rainforests don't even talk about the rain as much.

[prendrelemick]

:lol: I love how the beans comment has snowballed. For the record, there's nothing wrong with the likes of Branston's or superior supermarket home brands. Of course there is the urban myth that all beans come from the same factory and are just fitted with different labels, so I am always weary of paying more for Heinz - shocking stuff.




Branston's are a superior bean and are on special offer at the Co-op at the moment. _It's worth knowing.
Plus, in the last 35 days we have had 30 days of rain.
Also, Arsenal were lucky last night.

And so the time passes...

[Emil Miller]

:lol: I love how the beans comment has snowballed. For the record, there's nothing wrong with the likes of Branston's or superior supermarket home brands. Of course there is the urban myth that all beans come from the same factory and are just fitted with different labels, so I am always weary of paying more for Heinz - shocking stuff.

Now now Neely, I seem to recall you saying that one of your relatives found an insect in a tin of supermarket brand beans a while ago. I'm pretty sure that Heinz are more reliable in this respect even though I can't be certain.
There's that famous incident concerning the Heinz patriarch who was being interviewed on BBC radio after his company had spent a fortune promoting the 'True Taste of Tomatoes' in Heinz tomato soup, and the interviewer said that he hated the taste of tomatoes but loved Heinz tomato soup because it didn't taste anything like tomatoes. Mr Heinz was not best pleased. :biggrin5:




What do you feel people ought to be talking about, day to day?

I don't feel that people ought to talk about anything, they can talk about what they like, but a quick glance at the General Chat or Serious Discussions slots reveals a multitude of things that people on LitNet talk about day to day other than those I have mentioned.
I don't say that LitNet is a particularly rarefied circle but many of its members are more interesting in their conversation than the generality of English people I have come across.

[osho]

^ I think you are right Osho. Now I only say this speculatively but I also think the gender of an author is a factor. I think men are more apt to having an internal fantasy life than women. Women authors tend to write about real life and issues that the ordinary person must deal with.

Also, knowing whether a writer is a man or woman does affect me as a reader I think.

You are true and I second your response. In fact it has some connotation whether the writer is "he or she".

[JuniperWoolf]

I once found a beatle in a thing of frozen peas. Ruined my whole day.

[qimissung]

When I was in highschool the "good" advice from the teachers scared the hell out of me. So if I don't get at least an 80% in this grade eight math class my entire future is ruined and I'm likely to end up living off of kraft dinner in a trailer park? Wonderful. That's what I needed to hear.

That scared you? I find that a little hard to believe. :D

But if a kid is doing their work, they're able to focus, study, contemplate, see cause and effect, understand negative consequences, delay gratification, not insist on seeing the teacher as an enemy. With the kids who aren't doing so well, you're really fumbling around, trying to find something that will have meaning for them to help them pull back from that edge of self-destruction they insist on perching on. Humor, quiet conversation and praise when warranted are more effective ways of reeling them back in, but every once in awhile you get frustrated and then you hear yourself making one of those pompous pronouncements adults seem to be so very good at.

And really, Prendrelmick? Men tend to write about their inner fantasy life more than men? :toetap05: I highly doubt the accuracy of that statement.

[JuniperWoolf]

That scared you? I find that a little hard to believe. :D

Haha, it did. Those fire-and-doomsday, "your whole future depends on this moment so don't **** it up" speeches that teachers are so fond of really messed with my slightly neurotic, over-achieving head. Caused me many sleepless nights and bouts of anxiety (I know, I know, I play it so cool, don't I?).


And really, Prendrelmick? Men tend to write about their inner fantasy life more than women? :toetap05: I highly doubt the accuracy of that statement.

I don't know, many of the actually good female writers (meaning the ones who don't fire out a terrible quality paperback romance once every couple of months) are pretty fond of the whole "life is a struggle, reality is gritty" style. Look at Ayn Rand or Margaret Atwood.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Now now Neely, I seem to recall you saying that one of your relatives found an insect in a tin of supermarket brand beans a while ago. I'm pretty sure that Heinz are more reliable in this respect even though I can't be certain.

There's that famous incident concerning the Heinz patriarch who was being interviewed on BBC radio after his company had spent a fortune promoting the 'True Taste of Tomatoes' in Heinz tomato soup, and the interviewer said that he hated the taste of tomatoes but loved Heinz tomato soup because it didn't taste anything like tomatoes. Mr Heinz was not best pleased. :biggrin5:


Ah, that was of the lower end supermarket brand, Morrisons one, yes I'm definitely avoiding those.

If Mrs Neely comes home with Heinz or that expensive qulited toilet paper I always say something like "what's with those, have we won the lottery?" Money should only be spent freely on books and beer and things like that, not toilet paper or beans.


Branston's are a superior bean and are on special offer at the Co-op at the moment. _It's worth knowing.
Plus, in the last 35 days we have had 30 days of rain.
Also, Arsenal were lucky last night.

And so the time passes...

Thanks for the heads up - I'm there.


I once found a beatle in a thing of frozen peas. Ruined my whole day.

Yuk. But as the old joke goes, don't say anything or they'll all want one.


In my experience, people in the UK talk about the rain a lot. People who live in places with rainforests don't even talk about the rain as much.

That's true as well. The weather is a national obsession.

Another thing to worry about are wheelie bins. Every Wednesday night I have the frantic episode of trying to cram everything in so the binmen will take it and so that you don't get the red sticker of shame (your bin is an inch too high). I often have to cram stuff into neighbours bins too. When they're not looking of course, sneaky like. For some pensioners though taking the bins out is the highlight of the week. I can't wait for old age.

[JuniperWoolf]

If Mrs Neely comes home with Heinz or that expensive qulited toilet paper I always say something like "what's with those, have we won the lottery?" Money should only be spent freely on books and beer and things like that, not toilet paper or beans.

Spending money on things which are useless has always bugged me, too. Why pay more money for a name brand battery? It's a battery, for god's sake.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Neely;1105441] Money should only be spent freely on books and beer and things like that, not toilet paper or beans.

There's a joke in there somewhere but I can't think of it.

[Emil Miller]

For some pensioners though taking the bins out is the highlight of the week. I can't wait for old age.

Don't worry, it will come soon enough.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well it's got to be better than work.

[OrphanPip]

I once found a beatle in a thing of frozen peas. Ruined my whole day.

When my dad was a teenager, he worked in a Green Giant canning plant in the early 60s, and they deliberately put a frog in one of the cans of corn.


Yes you are right he was rather ignoble by then and their value standards and yet since then so many iconoclastic ideas have infiltrated into our society and by today's standards he is a gentle man and his demeanor is tolerable and today we have no short of homosexuals in the literary world and our postmodern literature cannot be complete if we do not learn to venerate the homosexuals. Beneath this gigantic and gay persona there was a humble and sensitive human, and he is not in isolation stands among we moderns beyond our masks.

Because, as we all know, you can't be a giant gay man and be a sensitive human being simultaneously, one of them has to be an artificial persona.

I have something more rude to say about this post, but I'll restrain myself.

Edit: Also, sorry about the double post, meant to copy paste this response into an edit of the previous one, blah.

[Emil Miller]

Well it's got to be better than work.

Anything is better than work but on current trends you only have another 30 years to go. No wait a minute, they have increased the retirement age by another 2 years, so make that 32. No wait another minute, they are saying that further revisions will be made as people start living even longer, and because the pension pot keeps getting smaller through devaluation. So the way things are going, you might be retiring when you are 100.

Keep doing the lottery and retire the same day you get the winning ticket.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Anything is better than work but on current trends you only have another 30 years to go. No wait a minute, they have increased the retirement age by another 2 years, so make that 32. No wait another minute, they are saying that further revisions will be made as people start living even longer, and because the pension pot keeps getting smaller through devaluation. So the way things are going, you might be retiring when you are 100.

Keep doing the lottery and retire the same day you get the winning ticket.

God that's right, it's all too depressing, damn country. My grandfather retired at 55 on full pension and he was only a working chap. Sold up house and bought a little cottage in Lincolnshire and spent his time fishing and in the pub, he had sense. He's too ill to leave the house much now but at least he had the sense and opportunity to get out of it when he could. Early retirement for you.

Funnily enough a student asked me what I would do if I won the lottery only yesterday, I think I must have brought the conversation up I can't remember, anyway he seemed shocked by my reply. I told him that I wouldn't do a days work ever again nor work my notice or till the end of the week (he thought this was normal under lottery winning circumstances) - hell I told him that I wouldn't even clear my locker out. I can't understand why he was so shocked. What did he expect me to say?

Anyway, I've taken to watching a Carry On films to help get me through the dark months. I've bought the box set, it was Mrs Neely's idea. Carry on Again Doctor tonight and I've got some Landlord ale in too and some left over nuts from Christmas.

[Emil Miller]

God that's right, it's all too depressing, damn country. My grandfather retired at 55 on full pension and he was only a working chap. Sold up house and bought a little cottage in Lincolnshire and spent his time fishing and in the pub, he had sense. He's too ill to leave the house much now but at least he had the sense and opportunity to get out of it when he could. Early retirement for you.

Funnily enough a student asked me what I would do if I won the lottery only yesterday, I think I must have brought the conversation up I can't remember, anyway he seemed shocked by my reply. I told him that I wouldn't do a days work ever again nor work my notice or till the end of the week (he thought this was normal under lottery winning circumstances) - hell I told him that I wouldn't even clear my locker out. I can't understand why he was so shocked. What did he expect me to say?

Anyway, I've taken to watching a Carry On films to help get me through the dark months. I've bought the box set, it was Mrs Neely's idea. Carry on Again Doctor tonight and I've got some Landlord ale in too and some left over nuts from Christmas.

Carry on films eh? The dark months are very dark indeed but, given the proliferation of boxed sets, I would have thought that something along the lines of Midsommer Murders might have been a better choice. I have seen a few of them and they are reasonably diverting. They are also quite big in France where they were shown in dubbed versions, and when the guy who plays Inspector Barnaby retired, there were some sorrowful letters to the French newspapers regretting his departure. Personally I much preferred the old Maigret series starring Rupert Davies, when Inspector Barnaby was just another member of the boy scouts. All of which seems way out of context to the OP but in the words of the song .... 'funny, that's how it goes and Joe I know you're getting anxious to close.'

Is that a moderator with a padlock I see before me?

[osho]

Because, as we all know, you can't be a giant gay man and be a sensitive human being simultaneously, one of them has to be an artificial persona.

I have something more rude to say about this post, but I'll restrain myself.

Edit: Also, sorry about the double post, meant to copy paste this response into an edit of the previous one, blah.

Are giant gay men insensitive? Maybe you to reason it. I could not understand your statement

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't think I'm looking forward to retirement. My poppa hates it, says he feels useless.


When my dad was a teenager, he worked in a Green Giant canning plant in the early 60s, and they deliberately put a frog in one of the cans of corn.

Hahaha, that's actually really funny. If I found a frog in my corn, I'd be telling people about it for decades.

[MarkBastable]

Because, as we all know, you can't be a giant gay man and be a sensitive human being simultaneously, one of them has to be an artificial persona.

Oh, for Pete's sake, come on. What have I told you? Never use irony here - it'll only be misconstrued. Really, Pip. Time and time again, I've said this.

Oo - hold on. Reply coming in...


Are giant gay men insensitive? Maybe you to reason it. I could not understand your statement

Aha! There you go. Don't say I didn't warn you. Now let's see you sort that out. No, no - don't look at me, sunshine. You've made your bed....

[billl]

About this Wilde stuff and giant gay men--is there maybe a miscommunication happening? At least for people who aren't close students of Wilde, I think there's a tendency to see him as less than humble, and as being so often scathing in his criticism of others, and as a man of fantastic skill with language (a giant... But not like the one sitting beneath the tree...).

It might seem ridiculous, in the light of Dorian Gray--his most famous work probably--for some to see him simply as the supremely superior fop and dandy who made fun of other people for not being shallow enough. But I can sort of see how someone might want to wag their fingers for a moment (at themselves, at least), and consider if there is maybe a persona and something else present when we look at how Wilde used his talents.

EDIT: Never mind, I do see an unfortunate separation at the end of the quote there, possibly suggesting sensitivity and humility would not be expected alongside being gay. That's the objection, right? I guess I missed it because it's pretty much ridiculous.

[osho]

Oh, for Pete's sake, come on. What have I told you? Never use irony here - it'll only be misconstrued. Really, Pip. Time and time again, I've said this.

Oo - hold on. Reply coming in...



Aha! There you go. Don't say I didn't warn you. Now let's see you sort that out. No, no - don't look at me, sunshine. You've made your bed....

You are often rationally awry and I however like your ways of commenting and of course there is essence in your remark. Kind of free flow of ideas... unstoppably ridiculing though.

[MarkBastable]

You are often rationally awry...

...Just when you think you know a guy, he turns out to have a sense of humour.

[osho]

...Just when you think you know a guy, he turns out to have a sense of humour.

I enjoy the way you are humoring and you can hit on the topic comically for the arty effect and I have no resentment

[Alexander III]

About this Wilde stuff and giant gay men--is there maybe a miscommunication happening? At least for people who aren't close students of Wilde, I think there's a tendency to see him as less than humble, and as being so often scathing in his criticism of others, and as a man of fantastic skill with language (a giant... But not like the one sitting beneath the tree...).

It might seem ridiculous, in the light of Dorian Gray--his most famous work probably--for some to see him simply as the supremely superior fop and dandy who made fun of other people for not being shallow enough. But I can sort of see how someone might want to wag their fingers for a moment (at themselves, at least), and consider if there is maybe a persona and something else present when we look at how Wilde used his talents.

EDIT: Never mind, I do see an unfortunate separation at the end of the quote there, possibly suggesting sensitivity and humility would not be expected alongside being gay. That's the objection, right? I guess I missed it because it's pretty much ridiculous.


I doubt anyone who has read wilde's work thinks of him as a big gay flamboyant shallow ***** - I am confident when I say that everyone here knows most of it was just having some fun, or an otward charcter to protect the inward charcter from external judgement.

[qimissung]

I think, too, because we have never met Wilde, and never will, the only way we can know him is through his works. I think particularly because of "The Importance of Being Earnest," , my personal favorite, I will always think of him as one of those witty, cheeky people, who are devastatingly funny and extraordinarily good at skewering the overbearing, the pompous, the self-righteous, which at one time or another, is all of us. :D

[soundofmusic]

:lol: I love how the beans comment has snowballed. For the record, there's nothing wrong with the likes of Branston's or superior supermarket home brands. Of course there is the urban myth that all beans come from the same factory and are just fitted with different labels, so I am always weary of paying more for Heinz - shocking stuff.
In terms of old fools, intelligent youths and all of that, of course I agree that age doesn't equal intelligence and that there are plenty of idiots of all ages out there. However, I also think that you just can't teach life experience.
Which is what I mean. I fall into the same errors. It is always a silly thing to give advice, but to give good advice is fatal - that's another one of Wilde's.

I don't think we even have Heinz beans over here...the catsup is good. It's an odd thing, the catsup sells by claiming that it takes a really long time to get out of the bottle.
Th life experience reminds me of a story I once heard, I have no idea if it is true: a tribe in some distant land puts their youngsters out into the elements to find food, shelter for a year or so; if they don't die, they are welcomed back into the tribe.
I remember running away from home at 18 with some boy who cried every night until his dad came for him. We stayed in a horrible little apartment with a huge hole in the entrance, doors all falling off and even at 80 pounds, I could barely fit into the bathroom. One day, I was so hungry that when the neighbor brought some beef bones for the dog, I kept them to make soup. Now instead of patronizing young people, I tell them my stories and they laugh; but I think they walk away a bit wiser...or I like to think they do.



Yes you are right he was rather ignoble by then and their value standards and yet since then so many iconoclastic ideas have infiltrated into our society and by today's standards he is a gentle man and his demeanor is tolerable and today we have no short of homosexuals in the literary world and our postmodern literature cannot be complete if we do not learn to venerate the homosexuals. Beneath this gigantic and gay persona there was a humble and sensitive human, and he is not in isolation stands among we moderns beyond our masks. I do not know about Douglas.

As to the topic we are obsessed with the writer's personality and maybe every writer has a double personality, not double standards, one as we see outwardly, flamboyant, gay, somebody enjoying watching others having sex and the like. Honestly speaking, Wilde is not outside us, and do we too if we dissect the psyche and check we form part of that personality, secretly yet romantically.

I must admit, with Wilde, I found his life to be more of an art than his works. I was particularly fascinated with the relationship he had with Alfred Douglas, an incredibly beautiful young man who came from a rather turbulent family background. Douglas was much younger, kept getting himself into scrapes at school, got thrown out several times. Douglas' father was trying to get him to toughen up and meanwhile, Wilde indulged the boy; so eventually, the old man went after Wilde. Wildes friends wanted him to leave the country and not face up the old fellow; but Wilde thought he had the upper hand because of his fame and the unpopularity of the old man...the old man made Wilde look like a pervert though and ruined him.


^Also, knowing whether a writer is a man or woman does affect me as a reader I think.
Do you think you can tell if an author is a man or a woman.


There's that famous incident concerning the Heinz patriarch who was being interviewed on BBC radio after his company had spent a fortune promoting the 'True Taste of Tomatoes' in Heinz tomato soup, and the interviewer said that he hated the taste of tomatoes but loved Heinz tomato soup because it didn't taste anything like tomatoes. Mr Heinz was not best pleased. :biggrin5:

I don't feel that people ought to talk about anything, they can talk about what they like, but a quick glance at the General Chat or Serious Discussions slots reveals a multitude of things that people on LitNet talk about day to day other than those I have mentioned.
I don't say that LitNet is a particularly rarefied circle but many of its members are more interesting in their conversation than the generality of English people I have come across.

Reminds me of a company here that puts out V8 soups in boxes. It is the nastiest tasting stuff; but you feel like superman after you eat it.
I love rambling conversations, like this one where several ideas come up at once. Of course, now that I am getting older, people assume that I am just losing my train of thought.

That scared you? I find that a little hard to believe. :D

But if a kid is doing their work, they're able to focus, study, contemplate, see cause and effect, understand negative consequences, delay gratification, not insist on seeing the teacher as an enemy. With the kids who aren't doing so well, you're really fumbling around, trying to find something that will have meaning for them to help them pull back from that edge of self-destruction they insist on perching on. Humor, quiet conversation and praise when warranted are more effective ways of reeling them back in, but every once in awhile you get frustrated and then you hear yourself making one of those pompous pronouncements adults seem to be so very good at.

And really, Prendrelmick? Men tend to write about their inner fantasy life more than men? :toetap05: I highly doubt the accuracy of that statement.

Those are some very good points. I never really minded suggestions from adults because I never thought of people as being any particular age; and I don't think I started feeling like an adult until my youthful equipment started breaking down...you know: teeth, eyes...


Spending money on things which are useless has always bugged me, too. Why pay more money for a name brand battery? It's a battery, for god's sake.

I pay more for certain brands because I find that some of the better brands have the younger, fresher vegetables; where the cheaper brands have older and the culls.


When my dad was a teenager, he worked in a Green Giant canning plant in the early 60s, and they deliberately put a frog in one of the cans of corn.

Because, as we all know, you can't be a giant gay man and be a sensitive human being simultaneously, one of them has to be an artificial persona.

I have something more rude to say about this post, but I'll restrain myself.

Edit: Also, sorry about the double post, meant to copy paste this response into an edit of the previous one, blah.
Where the employees mad at the boss?
Interesting point, Pip, I am finding that as a "big, heterosexual woman" I am less sensitive than when I am a "small heterosexual woman". As an old woman, I tend to make a louder entrance than when I was younger. When I was young and small, people looked up immediately when I came into a room; now I tend to have to make them look up. And yes, somehow, I have lost a bit of sensitivity along the way.
A gay man with giganticism may start out sensitive; but after being smacked around by the world a bit, he may become flamboyant or angry or introverted.

[Alexander III]

Spending money on things which are useless has always bugged me, too. Why pay more money for a name brand battery? It's a battery, for god's sake.

Not true. At home we always used at good type of toilet paper. As soon as I got to university, I thought I will just buy the cheapest toilet paper, as buying the better stuff is just a waste. I was naive, the cheap tesco brand toillete paper, gave me rashing and pain. As soon as I went back to the more expensive toillete paper I could undertand the huge difference- it was like wipping my bottom with clouds as opposed to sandpaper. Huge difference for the just an extra 2 pounds.

Name brands, in most cases are just better overall.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh yes I don't go for the sandpaper either, somewhere in-between both extremes is fine though.

Needless to say I am quite fascinated by the life of Oscar Wilde and spent a deal of time reading all sorts on him. His complete letters are a must source of information if you really want to get a feel for the private figure, even though the flamboyant mask is still evident in his letters.

Richard Ellmann's biography remains the best biography on Wilde to date. Hyde's is also good but relies heavily on Ellmann anyway. Frank Harris' account is pretty inaccurate in places and I didn't like Mckenna's agenda, nor was I impressed with him when I attended one of his lectures. So in terms of obvious biography stick with Ellmann. Oh Peter Raby's is OK too.

Other good books on Wilde include Alfred Douglas' second autobiography A Summing Up 1940 which is deemed to be more frank and honest that his first.

If you can get hold of Interviews and Recollections vol 1 & 11 edited by Khail then this is a great collection of interesting first hand accounts by numerous people who met Wilde, a great collection, though I think they are rare/out of print.

John Sloan's Author's in Context is also easily available little book on Wilde and his work, though short.

Merlin Holland's works on Wilde are also of interest, especially looking at events from his chldren's point of view.

I could go on and on (but I'm ill:nopity:) but these are some of the best works on Wilde from a biographical point of view out there.

Oh his Oxford Notebooks are also interesting (two diaries he kept while at Oxford) though the editors' theories on Wilde are worth a miss. (The Oxford Notebooks show a very different Wilde, a much more serious hardworking Wilde than anything else on him out there. They show Wilde fully knowledge in both the arts and the sciences in equal measure from acient to modern thought.)

If I had to choose just two then his letters and Ellmann's biography would be my choice. Ellmann is not perfect, there are even a few embarrassing mistakes in there, but on the whole it is a decent biography for those interested in reading more about him.

[stlukesguild]

I once found a beatle in a thing of frozen peas. Ruined my whole day.

Would that have been John, Paul, George, or Ringo?

(Beetle not Beatle;))

[stlukesguild]

Funnily enough a student asked me what I would do if I won the lottery only yesterday, I think I must have brought the conversation up I can't remember, anyway he seemed shocked by my reply. I told him that I wouldn't do a days work ever again nor work my notice or till the end of the week (he thought this was normal under lottery winning circumstances) - hell I told him that I wouldn't even clear my locker out. I can't understand why he was so shocked. What did he expect me to say?

Neely... i fully understand. I used to buy the occasional lottery ticket with a friend and co-worker, the Gym (or Physical Education) teacher. We both vowed that the day we won we would walk down to the Board of Education and urinate on the CEO's desk.:ciappa:

I am always blown away by the lottery winners who end up buying a new car or paying off the house... but keep on working because they have no idea what else to do. Worse yet are the ones who win some huge amount... say $20 or $40 million US... and end up broke in ten years because they can't stop gambling... buying lottery tickets by the tens of thousands... or going to Vegas and dropping $50,000 or $100,000 in no time at all in some high stakes poker match because they have some illusions of being a big roller.

Indeed... this might make for an interesting thread..."What would you do if you won the lottery?"

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"What would you do if you won the lottery?"

I already no my answer: two chicks at the same time.

[osho]

I must admit, with Wilde, I found his life to be more of an art than his works. I was particularly fascinated with the relationship he had with Alfred Douglas, an incredibly beautiful young man who came from a rather turbulent family background. Douglas was much younger, kept getting himself into scrapes at school, got thrown out several times. Douglas' father was trying to get him to toughen up and meanwhile, Wilde indulged the boy; so eventually, the old man went after Wilde. Wildes friends wanted him to leave the country and not face up the old fellow; but Wilde thought he had the upper hand because of his fame and the unpopularity of the old man...the old man made Wilde look like a pervert though and ruined him.


.

While it is interesting to know about the writer and their personal domains of interest as a matter of fact we never look down on their promiscuity. Everybody has a private life and when one becomes a celeb his private life becomes a matter of concern and interest to all. England then might have not been short of gays, in fact every country always has, but he was in focus since he had already earned a great reputation as a writer. Homo or hetero is a choice and few frown on their preferences. Why should one after all. We are living in a post-post modern world where life is not a bed of roses and sex is a game and homosexuality is a norm and by today's standards he was normal and deserve great respect. However as to the topic we always want to know about the man whose thoughts and imaginations we revisit. One thing we must understand is time obliterates the stains of individuals. Mahatma Gandhi was a not an ascetic and he used to have regular acts of sex with his near and dear ones coming to his Ashram and yet he was in public a pure sedated and unsexed being. This is trash. Everybody has double standards and it is really interesting if we know a little about the man we love to know and admire whose books.

[osho]

Where the employees mad at the boss?
Interesting point, Pip, I am finding that as a "big, heterosexual woman" I am less sensitive than when I am a "small heterosexual woman". As an old woman, I tend to make a louder entrance than when I was younger. When I was young and small, people looked up immediately when I came into a room; now I tend to have to make them look up. And yes, somehow, I have lost a bit of sensitivity along the way.
A gay man with giganticism may start out sensitive; but after being smacked around by the world a bit, he may become flamboyant or angry or introverted.

This really is comforting to know people making a louder entrance and flamboyant. I am also looking forward to making a grand entrance and maybe I will look sexier than I am now since I am not making an entrance.

Sound, I simply like the way you present yourself indeed grandly. I think your entrance itself will suffice and you do not have to present yourself gigantically and flamboyantly.

[MarkBastable]

This gives rise to one of those 'translation' lists.

Tabloid Newspaper Celebrity Homo-phones.


'flamboyant' - almost certainly gay
'private' - probably gay, but liable to sue
'outrageous' - gay, loud, apparently promiscuous
'bubbly' - gay and fat
'a national treasure' - gay, fat, unthreatening, mostly celibate
'sick' - gay, and we're running an ex-lover's story next week
'shamed' - gay and married to a woman who's more popular

[JuniperWoolf]

Not true. At home we always used at good type of toilet paper. As soon as I got to university, I thought I will just buy the cheapest toilet paper, as buying the better stuff is just a waste. I was naive, the cheap tesco brand toillete paper, gave me rashing and pain. As soon as I went back to the more expensive toillete paper I could undertand the huge difference- it was like wipping my bottom with clouds as opposed to sandpaper. Huge difference for the just an extra 2 pounds.

Name brands, in most cases are just better overall.

Bah! You're soft. I'm not, I've lived in frozen mud for weeks when I was a little army cadet. Toilet paper is toilet paper.


I once found a beatle in a thing of frozen peas. Ruined my whole day.

Would that have been John, Paul, George, or Ringo?

(Beetle not Beatle;))

Aaah! Stupid, stupid, stupid!


Indeed... this might make for an interesting thread..."What would you do if you won the lottery?"

Haha, we've done that and then Istvan came on (remember him?) and insulted everyone because no one mentioned that they would give anything to charity. The thread instantly died as everyone sulked away in shame and resentment.

[blazeofglory]

This gives rise to one of those 'translation' lists.

Tabloid Newspaper Celebrity Homo-phones.


'flamboyant' - almost certainly gay
'private' - probably gay, but liable to sue
'outrageous' - gay, loud, apparently promiscuous
'bubbly' - gay and fat
'a national treasure' - gay, fat, unthreatening, mostly celibate
'sick' - gay, and we're running an ex-lover's story next week
'shamed' - gay and married to a woman who's more popular

You choose to play with puns and funs with you biting foibles. Maybe every great literary piece epitomizes something of that sort. Your quirky collection is intriguing

[LitNetIsGreat]

Funnily enough a student asked me what I would do if I won the lottery only yesterday, I think I must have brought the conversation up I can't remember, anyway he seemed shocked by my reply. I told him that I wouldn't do a days work ever again nor work my notice or till the end of the week (he thought this was normal under lottery winning circumstances) - hell I told him that I wouldn't even clear my locker out. I can't understand why he was so shocked. What did he expect me to say?

Neely... i fully understand. I used to buy the occasional lottery ticket with a friend and co-worker, the Gym (or Physical Education) teacher. We both vowed that the day we won we would walk down to the Board of Education and urinate on the CEO's desk.:ciappa:

I am always blown away by the lottery winners who end up buying a new car or paying off the house... but keep on working because they have no idea what else to do. Worse yet are the ones who win some huge amount... say $20 or $40 million US... and end up broke in ten years because they can't stop gambling... buying lottery tickets by the tens of thousands... or going to Vegas and dropping $50,000 or $100,000 in no time at all in some high stakes poker match because they have some illusions of being a big roller.

Indeed... this might make for an interesting thread..."What would you do if you won the lottery?"

Oh those people make for depressing reading, especially the first sort who can't think what to do with the money so carry on working, unbelievable. Like the couple who won around £2m and continued to work at McDonald's. Or the women who worked at a post office who won the jackpot and continued to work there because she would "miss her friends". It just shows a complete lack of any imagination ("work is the last refuge of the unimaginative" another apt Wilde) and is testament to how individuals become brainwashed by the system like indoctrinated prisoners, it's the ultimate waste of opportunity.

I went about 5 years without buying a ticket, but now find myself buying a few tickets every week.

[JuniperWoolf]

Like the couple who won around £2m and continued to work at McDonald's. Or the women who worked at a post office who won the jackpot and continued to work there because she would "miss her friends".

That's insane!!!

[MarkBastable]

That's insane!!!

I don't think it is, necessarily. I think that for many people - possibly the majority of people - work is what gives their lives structure, focus, friendship, context, coherence. Money might be the ostensible reason people work, but they get a lot more out of it than that.

So - yeah - there are those who could make the most of being freed from the routine that they endure in order to earn money. But not everyone could, and I think that it's quite sane - and bright - of some lottery winners to realise that stopping work would make them unhappy, eventually.

[Emil Miller]

I went about 5 years without buying a ticket, but now find myself buying a few tickets every week.

I don't bother with it but I was part of a syndicate at one place I worked for, simply because I knew that if I didn't join they would almost certainly win and I would be the only one left in the office. I do like to see people beat the system and the couple who recently won £100,000,000 pounds on the Euro lottery seemed fairly level-headed about it but the wastrels are everybody's fools.


I already no my answer: two chicks at the same time.

You don't have to win the lottery to do that.

[osho]

I don't think it is, necessarily. I think that for many people - possibly the majority of people - work is what gives their lives structure, focus, friendship, context, coherence. Money might be the ostensible reason people work, but they get a lot more out of it than that.

So - yeah - there are those who could make the most of being freed from the routine that they endure in order to earn money. But not everyone could, and I think that it's quite sane - and bright - of some lottery winners to realise that stopping work would make them unhappy, eventually.

Money indeed has a role in directing a certain piece of work, creative or business or farming but once the artist / worker transcends the ostensible limit he sees the beauty of the work. I have seen farmers who are overwhelmed by the beauty of the harvest. I have come across sculptors who do not want part with the idols they have sculpted but there are orders / contracts they have to abide by. Yes a writer in a seeming vein can not resist the temptation of the shiny lucre. But when a piece of art is produced or the duration in which he engages himself in something creative the lucre becomes filthy and the joy of outshines the joy of profit

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't think it is, necessarily. I think that for many people - possibly the majority of people - work is what gives their lives structure, focus, friendship, context, coherence. Money might be the ostensible reason people work, but they get a lot more out of it than that.

So - yeah - there are those who could make the most of being freed from the routine that they endure in order to earn money. But not everyone could, and I think that it's quite sane - and bright - of some lottery winners to realise that stopping work would make them unhappy, eventually.

You don't need work to give your life any of those things. Maybe people who haven't got any sense or are stupid do, but if you've got any degree of common sense then you don't. To me if you can't think what to do with your (one short) life without the need to work, then you might as well be in prison. At the very least you are taking a job that someone else needs more than you.

[MarkBastable]

You don't need work to give your life any of those things. Maybe people who haven't got any sense or are stupid do, but if you've got any degree of common sense then you don't.

Well, I guess you could characterise them as senseless and stupid, though I know many very bright people who work for reasons other than the money (and some of them have all the money they'll ever need). But whatever the reason for people liking to work, it seems to me very understandable that they should want to carry on doing what they enjoy, even if they don't need the money.

[soundofmusic]

Not true. At home we always used at good type of toilet paper. As soon as I got to university, I thought I will just buy the cheapest toilet paper, as buying the better stuff is just a waste. I was naive, the cheap tesco brand toillete paper, gave me rashing and pain. As soon as I went back to the more expensive toillete paper I could undertand the huge difference- it was like wipping my bottom with clouds as opposed to sandpaper. Huge difference for the just an extra 2 pounds.

Name brands, in most cases are just better overall.
God, that puts an image in my head:rofl::devil: I wonder why you had a rash, cheap tp doesn't usually have perfume. Well, constantly going into different peoples homes, I am a tp expert. At home, I use the 2 ply, soft enough to not drag; but tough enough to go down the drain without a fight. I frequently run into the "good stuff" where one pull of the tp, sets it to jumping off the roller and to the floor. It is so soft, a good deal of it stays behind. What really bothers me is the places where you see 2 sheets of tp in a house with 5 people and 2 washclothes on the towel bar:sick:


Oh yes I don't go for the sandpaper either, somewhere in-between both extremes is fine though.

Needless to say I am quite fascinated by the life of Oscar Wilde and spent a deal of time reading all sorts on him. His complete letters are a must source of information if you really want to get a feel for the private figure, even though the flamboyant mask is still evident in his letters.

Richard Ellmann's biography remains the best biography on Wilde to date. Hyde's is also good but relies heavily on Ellmann anyway. Frank Harris' account is pretty inaccurate in places and I didn't like Mckenna's agenda, nor was I impressed with him when I attended one of his lectures. So in terms of obvious biography stick with Ellmann. Oh Peter Raby's is OK too.

Other good books on Wilde include Alfred Douglas' second autobiography A Summing Up 1940 which is deemed to be more frank and honest that his first.

If you can get hold of Interviews and Recollections vol 1 & 11 edited by Khail then this is a great collection of interesting first hand accounts by numerous people who met Wilde, a great collection, though I think they are rare/out of print.

John Sloan's Author's in Context is also easily available little book on Wilde and his work, though short.

Merlin Holland's works on Wilde are also of interest, especially looking at events from his chldren's point of view.

I could go on and on (but I'm ill:nopity:) but these are some of the best works on Wilde from a biographical point of view out there.

Oh his Oxford Notebooks are also interesting (two diaries he kept while at Oxford) though the editors' theories on Wilde are worth a miss. (The Oxford Notebooks show a very different Wilde, a much more serious hardworking Wilde than anything else on him out there. They show Wilde fully knowledge in both the arts and the sciences in equal measure from acient to modern thought.)

If I had to choose just two then his letters and Ellmann's biography would be my choice. Ellmann is not perfect, there are even a few embarrassing mistakes in there, but on the whole it is a decent biography for those interested in reading more about him.
I didn't realize that much was left behind of Wilde. I had one book of his letters and some unpublished works. I tried to read through Douglas biography; but couldn't bring myself to finish it.


I once found a beatle in a thing of frozen peas. Ruined my whole day.

Would that have been John, Paul, George, or Ringo?
(Beetle not Beatle;))
I guess John might be more likely to go looking through a package of peas; George would philosophize about it, Paul would write a love song "Peas in a pod" or something...and Ringo:confused5:


I already no my answer: two chicks at the same time. 2 gay women or 2 straight women?



This really is comforting to know people making a louder entrance and flamboyant. I am also looking forward to making a grand entrance and maybe I will look sexier than I am now since I am not making an entrance.

Sound, I simply like the way you present yourself indeed grandly. I think your entrance itself will suffice and you do not have to present yourself gigantically and flamboyantly.

Thank you Osho, Well, as long as I am happy most folks appreciate the "big entrance"...well, Americans like that sort of thing, don't we? Problem is, as I get older, the aches and pains make me have a big departure when things don't go my way...I really felt like making a fuss the other day because the cashier forgot to count my blueberries and they stopped me at the door with them:mad::rage::cuss:


This gives rise to one of those 'translation' lists.

Tabloid Newspaper Celebrity Homo-phones.


'flamboyant' - almost certainly gay
'private' - probably gay, but liable to sue
'outrageous' - gay, loud, apparently promiscuous
'bubbly' - gay and fat
'a national treasure' - gay, fat, unthreatening, mostly celibate
'sick' - gay, and we're running an ex-lover's story next week
'shamed' - gay and married to a woman who's more popular

Brilliant Mark...I wonder what a bubbly straight women is?

Bah! You're soft. I'm not, I've lived in frozen mud for weeks when I was a little army cadet. Toilet paper is toilet paper.

Aaah! Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Haha, we've done that and then Istvan came on (remember him?) and insulted everyone because no one mentioned that they would give anything to charity. The thread instantly died as everyone sulked away in shame and resentment.

Isn't it funny the wierd conversations that get people heated. I keep telling myself I am going to be neutral about everything; but I have a big mouth, so sometimes it wins out.


You choose to play with puns and funs with you biting foibles. Maybe every great literary piece epitomizes something of that sort. Your quirky collection is intriguing

Hey Blaze, where have you been? :cheers2:

[osho]

Thank you Osho, Well, as long as I am happy most folks appreciate the "big entrance"...well, Americans like that sort of thing, don't we? Problem is, as I get older, the aches and pains make me have a big departure when things don't go my way...I really felt like making a fuss the other day because the cashier forgot to count my blueberries and they stopped me at the door with them:mad::rage::cuss:



:

I find this big entrance stuff engaging and something spicing, in fact we often go skipping something that comes our way naturally. I always feel I am missing it though I always am in the chase. sound has something that can put the reader in an amusing mood. I guess you had something profound, femaleness few can have and I do not think aging will dry out that fount of life, beauty and longing. You still have that flow and your choice of language endorses this fact. It is sexy and appealing

[WyattGwyon]

I have no particular need to know about the authors I read beyond when and where they lived. If I am especially impressed, I may get curious and seek further information. On the whole, I deeply despise the practice of ascribing beliefs and qualities to authors based on their fiction and fictional characters.

[soundofmusic]

I find this big entrance stuff engaging and something spicing, in fact we often go skipping something that comes our way naturally. I always feel I am missing it though I always am in the chase. sound has something that can put the reader in an amusing mood. I guess you had something profound, femaleness few can have and I do not think aging will dry out that fount of life, beauty and longing. You still have that flow and your choice of language endorses this fact. It is sexy and appealing

Thank you Osho, I wish I could always see me through your eyes.

[osho]

Thank you Osho, I wish I could always see me through your eyes.

It is so nice of you sound, you are a material girl, full of vigor and power in your words. I am running amok to have a friend like you to talk with you. In fact I want to repeat your words "big entrance". This big entrance is magical in effect and people are normally shrinking back and they leave unfulfilled since they never make a big entrance and their glasses go half-filled for their very commencement is weak. I want to use this formula in life and see the result. In fact people fail in their affairs because they shy away from doing it robustly and making the entire event enervating. You must be a romantic and passionate who can knock any spectator

[qimissung]

Here's a very good article on this very topic. It isn't long. :D



http://www.salon.com/2012/03/07/the_private_lives_of_great_writers/