Satunnaisia kirjoja, jotka Rule42 omistaa

Lavoisier in the Year One : The Birth of a New Science in an Age of Revolution – tekijä: Madison Smartt Bell

The History Man – tekijä: Malcolm Bradbury

Is Sex Necessary? – tekijä: James Thurber

Octopus omnibus : "Lord Jim" ; "The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'" ; "Typhoon" ; "Nostromo" ; "The Secret Agent" – tekijä: Joseph Conrad

Dreams of a Final Theory – tekijä: Steven Weinberg

The Voyage of the Armada – tekijä: David Howarth

A Dead Man in Deptford – tekijä: Anthony Burgess

Jäsenet, jotka omistavat samoja kirjoja kuin Rule42

Yhteydet jäseniin

ystävät: boekerij, Booksloth, lotofwhiskers, Novak, Porius, sjflan, thorold

kiinnostavia kirjastoja: LordNigelKnickKnack, thorold

RSS-syötteet

Viimeksi tallennetut kirjat

Arvostelut, jotka on tehnyt Rule42

Arvosteluja kirjoista, jotka omistaa Rule42, lukuunottamatta hänen omia arvostelujaan

Avustaja-ansiomerkit

HelperCommon KnowledgeWork Combination

 

Jäsen: Rule42

KokoelmatOma kirjasto (110), Anthony Burgess (28), Howard Jacobson (5), David Lodge (8), Evelyn Waugh (7), History (14), History of Science (12), Philosophy (11), Shakespeare Biographies (7), Parhaillaan lukemassa (16), Kaikki kokoelmat (201)

Kirja-arvostelut2 arvostelua

Avainsanathumor (56), wit (37), satire (32), social satire (15), philosophy (15), farce (10), British history (8), Norton 'Great Discoveries' series (7), intellectual biography (6), linguistic / etymological wordplay (5) — kaikki avainsanat

Pilvetavainsanapilvi, tekijäpilvi

RyhmätBBC Radio 3 Listeners, Edward De Vere and The Shakespeare Authorship Mystery, The Globe

LempikirjailijatDouglas Adams, Scott Adams, Malcolm Bradbury, Anthony Burgess, James Lee Burke, Len Deighton, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Aldous Huxley, Howard Jacobson, Garrison Keillor, W. Somerset Maugham, John Mortimer, Walter Mosley, Philip Roth, William Shakespeare, Tom Sharpe, Muriel Spark, Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut, Evelyn Waugh, Colin Wilson, P.G. Wodehouse (Yhteiset suosikit)

Tietoja minusta.
______________________________ ~ ______________________________

Read this and weep!

In 2007 the National Education Association commissioned a survey titled "Reading at Risk" and learned that 57% of Americans had not read a single book in a year, and that the average American reads only five books a year!

So is it that those 57% of Americans (over 160,000,000 people!) simply don't want to read, or that they can't read? Does it even matter? Because as Mark Twain supposedly once said, "the man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them."

What makes that 57% statistic truly scary is the subsequent realization that many of the 43% of Americans that did manage to crack open a book in the last year only read a Dan Brown or Harry Potter novel ... or "If I Did It" by O.J. Simpson! :(
______________________________ ~ ______________________________

Video Links

What are you reading for?
The Quest for Freedom, Truth and Justice
Dinosaurs?
I'm so glad we're free
Making Nature against the Law
High on Miniature Golf
I don't mean to sound cold or cruel or viscious ... but I am, so that's the way it comes out
Is life real or just a ride?

Experiences Down The Mine
Everybody's a dreamer and everybody's a star
Atheist Spirituality
A Thousand Years of Darkness
Friends, Romans and Countrymen
The Ascent of Man
A Stick in the Mud
Is that a fact?
______________________________ ~ ______________________________

My Secret Angst

Alan Harper (having a nervous breakdown in a book store): "Life's too damn short. I’ll never have enough time to read all the great classics I've always wanted to read."

Charlie Harper (trying to placate his neurotic brother): "Well ... perhaps if you put a few books by the toilet and read one every couple of weeks you’ll be able knock a whole bunch off."

Alan Harper (sliding despairingly to the floor): "No, no, no ... don't you see? It's too late. There just aren't enough bowel movements left!"

- Classic scene from the American sitcom Two and a Half Men

______________________________ ~ ______________________________

Books most recently read include:
______________________________





______________________________ ~ ______________________________

My Philosophy of Life:

Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow
Find us farther than to-day.

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.

In the world's broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!

Trust no Future, howe'er pleasant!
Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act,--act in the living Present!
Heart within, and God o'erhead!

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time;--

Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing o'er life's solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us, then, be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.


- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

________________________________ ~ ________________________________

My Favorite Authors:

To kick things off, here are a few Kurt Vonnegut quotes (because IMHO he is soooo damn quotable!) ...

- "Who is more to be pitied, a writer bound and gagged by policemen or one living in perfect freedom who has nothing more to say?"
- "Educating a beautiful woman is like pouring honey into a fine Swiss watch. Everything stops."
- "True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country."
- "Human beings will be happier - not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That's my utopia."
- "Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae."


Since the few books I have bothered to catalogue on LT are just an arbitrary random selection of what I own and read (NOT necessarily the same thing!) I probably should state here who my favorite authors are, as much as I really hate the concept of compiling some kind of Rule42 "Hall of Fame" of English literature / pulp fiction.

My main reading interests lie in the area of humor, philosophy and political / psychological sociology (which might just be a fancy way of saying "the human condition"). Consequently, Kurt Vonnegut is one of my all-time favorite authors since he is a master of satire and the very sorry state of the human condition. As was Mark Twain before him, another of my venerated "hall-of-famers".

I have read, and own multiple copies (mostly signed leatherbound and first trade editions) of, everything Vonnegut has published and I am an avid collector of his works - mostly because he is eminently collectible. Unlike Vonnegut, first editions of Mark Twain are a little out of my price range, but back in 1996 I invested in The Oxford Mark Twain, which is a 29-volume series that reproduced facsimile copies of the first editions of each of the 29 works of Twain that were published during his own lifetime. This was probably one of the smartest purchases of reading material I have ever made, and I am now happily committed to similarly reading everything Mr. Clements wrote in the heavily illustrated format that it was originally published by the author.

One of the things that initially attracted me to this series (other than the wonderful facsimile reproductions of the original illustrations) was the fact that the introductions and afterwords in each of these volumes were written by a whole slew of my favorite authors - viz. Kurt Vonnegut, Malcolm Bradbury, E.L.Doctorow, Walter Mosley, Gore Vidal, Arthur Miller, Erica Jong and Ursula K. LeGuin, to name just a few of the 58 literary notables featured in this series paying their own homage to the father of modern American literature.

There are probably only a handful of other writers to whom I am committed to reading almost everything they penned. One is Douglas Adams (and because of his scant output, I unfortunately polished off his entire roster quite some time ago) and another is P.G. Wodehouse (and due to his extraordinarily prolific output, I fortunately still have quite a ways to go yet in order to similarly consume his whole canon). Anthony Burgess, Philip Roth, Evelyn Waugh, Walter Mosley and James Lee Burke would be five other authors whose work I avidly collect, read and periodically re-read.

Outside of the specific names listed under the "favorite authors" section above, some of the other writers that I most admire and enthusiastically read and collect are (in no particular order): Gore Vidal, Joseph Heller, John Irving, John Fowles, John Updike, John Steinbeck, Saul Bellow, Raymond Chandler, Donald Westlake, John MacDonald, Georges Simenon, Umberto Eco, E.M. Forster, Paul Theroux, Tom Wolfe, Angus Wilson, David Lodge, Kingsley Amis, William Golding, George Orwell, Graham Greene and John LeCarre. Of the older school, Oscar Wilde, Lewis Carroll, Edgar Allan Poe, Robert Louis Stevenson and Thomas Hardy have always been long-standing favorites of mine.

The criteria I used to determine whether one of my favorite authors was identified in the above list (rather than in the "favorite authors" section) was that I must own, have read - and here's the kicker, have thoroughly enjoyed! - the equivalent of at least 6 full-length works by an author, poet or playwright before I identify them in that latter section. In most cases I own way more than 6 works by all of the writers mentioned above (plus other writers that get no mention here) but in the case of those listed that don't make the "favorite authors" section I just haven't got around to reading enough of their works yet.

One of my "pet peeves" WRT the habits of other LT members is that I hate it when someone indiscriminately adds virtually every author they've come across into the "favorite authors" section of their profile, thereby making nonsense of the term "favorite" while also screwing up the LT "shared favorites" feature! In order to keep my own list of "favorite authors" suitably trim I realize that over time I will have to raise that threshold of 6; while also fully appreciating that my criterion will increasingly discriminate against authors with a relatively small canon of work (such as Edgar Allan Poe, Douglas Adams or Jane Austen).

________________________________ ~ ________________________________

Books I am currently reading include:
________________________________





________________________________ ~ ________________________________

My Reading Habits:

The guiding principle here is probably best expressed by a Franz Kafka quote: I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound and stab us ... We need the books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us.

Perhaps that is a little way melodramatic and typically Kafkaesque, but his plea that we should never allow ourselves to become far too comfortable and familiar in our choices of what we read is a very sagacious one. IMO someone that has read only 8 total works but by very different authors is much better read than someone that has consumed 80 titles by the same single genre author such as Agatha Christie - or P.G.Wodehouse to change the example to one of my own favorite restricted genre authors.

Consequently, in addition to being a completist WRT my own personal enthusiasms I also try and keep my reading material as broad as it is deep by regularly cycling in as many of the classics or you-really-should-read authors as I feel I can handle.

I usually have a dozen or more books "on the go" at all times. That way, if my engagement with one slackens, rather than simply abandoning it I can cycle to one of the other ones instead, and return back to the one I moved on from when I feel that I am in a more appropriate frame of mind to concentrate on it again.

The majority of books I read do not need to be cycled in this manner; they will be read within a few days at most (and their book covers are displayed in my list of most recently read books). The cycle list is for longer, dryer or more complex works, and books - such as classics - that I'm determined to complete even though a new Wodehouse, Tom Sharpe or David Sedaris title is beckoning to me like a siren (and their book covers remain displayed in my list of books currently in progress until finally completed).

I never give up on worthwhile books - they just stay in the recycle queue quite a long time. I rarely, if ever, buy a bad book and consequently don't read any. But if I did, I would drop it like a steaming turd ... because life's too damn short to waste on bad literature! One of the very few books that I own that I would consider to fall into this bad category is Jack Kerouac's 'On the Road'.

________________________________ ~ ________________________________

My Approach to Personal Messaging (PM):

I don't know if others feel exactly as I do about this, but the way that LT only permits duplex conversations via PMs to be displayed in a simplex manner - viz. "my half there, their half here" - is somewhat annoying to me.

When I go to other people's profiles on LT and read the PMs (to them) which they have left posted up there, it always makes me feel like I'm prying on someone having a private conversation on the telephone - such that I can only hear their side of the conversation and I have to surmise what the person on the other end of the line said from their responses to it; except, in the case of LT PMs, it's really the opposite situation, where I can't actually hear (see) what they are saying, but only what others are saying to them. Anyway, that aspect of posted PMs makes me feel accordingly queasy - as if I was, in a like fashion, snooping on others.

Consequently, so others don't feel that way when reading the PMs from others posted to my profile, I usually take my own PM text (posted to someone else) and intersperse it back, correctly sequenced, into the PM responses I received from that person, and then re-post the combined result back on my own profile in order to reconstitute the conversation that actually occurred. Of course, if there is obvious private content in their messages to me (because they were posted "in the pink") then, for those communications, I don't do that.

________________________________ ~ ________________________________

My Approach to Posting on the LT Message Board (MB):

What follows is a public service announcement for the humor-impaired. The 'Red Flag of Abuse' satire below was added out of frustration at having had some perfectly innocuous posts flagged on the LT 'Talk' MB (and also seeing equally innocuous posts by others similarly flagged). I do not condone the use of abuse on the LT or any other MB. OTOH, I will also not countenance the blatant intolerance or the deficient comprehension of others.

A Vexing Experience

In amongst the ancient vexillographical records that are held by the North American Vexillological Association (NAVA) located in Trenton, New Jersey, I have finally managed to track down the authentic original design of the flag of my home state - the State of Abuse. A replica of this authentic state flag now permanently flies above my condo. in this nation's capital.

I would hereby like to take this opportunity to thank all of my many fervently patriotic family and friends who have each gone to such great trouble turning out in all kinds of severe weather conditions in order to proudly wave the Red Flag of Abuse whenever they see one of Rule42's posts on the LT message board. Thank you all so very much for your exuberance and dedicated passion; your loyalty and tenacity are gratefully appreciated.

Pull these threads and watch me unravel ...

If I'm not at home on this profile page when you come a-calling on me then it's probably because I'm off on one of the following LTMB threads sowing my seeds on stony ground:

The World's Best Reading thread
The Best Mysteries of All Time thread
Spelling/Punctuation Horrors thread
Translating American English thread
Anglophiles thread
Maps and Atlases thread
________________________________ ~ ________________________________

Books I am about to read include:
________________________________





________________________________ ~ ________________________________

Tietoja kirjastostani"When a natural discourse paints a passion or an effect, one feels within oneself the truth of what one reads, which was there before, although one did not know it. Hence one is inclined to love him who makes us feel it, for he has not shown his own riches, but ours." - Blaise Pascal.
________________________________ ~ ________________________________

What I Got and Not Got:

Only a small selection of my personal library (~10%) is catalogued here for right now. I have absolutely no idea how many books I own - I much prefer to be actually reading 'em rather than anally counting and cataloguing 'em. But based on the average number of books on a typical bookshelf, and multiplying that by the approximate number of bookshelves in all of my bookcases, it comes out at just shy of 1800. About 5% of these are leatherbound (Franklin Library or Easton Press) and about another 5% are softcover; the remainder - the vast majority - are hard bound.

In addition to those books, I also own tons of Computer Science text books (Yourdon, Tanenbaum, James Martin and Donald Knuth all bought their second homes on MY tab), dictionaries and encyclopaedias - none of which, like the majority of my main library, I intend to catalogue here right now. Nor do I intend to catalogue my coffee mugs, Hallmark greeting cards, Christmas ornaments, Rand McNally road maps and Eric Clapton CDs here, even if they all do have an ISBN or any other kind of barcode. After all, one must draw a fine line between organizing the extent of one's personal library and being an anal-retentive moron!

Areas of my main library that have already been catalogued by other means (and so they almost certainly will never appear on LT) includes a shelf and a half of Harvard Classics (the Grolier edition - yes, you SHOULD be impressed!) plus 14 volumes of Black's Readers Service classic works. Ditto 29 volumes of the Oxford University Press Mark Twain (whatever was I thinking, it's not as if Shelley Fisher Fishkin ever bought anything of mine!).

I also own over 90 elegant editions in the Reader's Digest "World's Best Reading" series of classic literary titles; just under five dozen RD ImPress "The Best Mysteries of All Time" series of classic detective, crime and espionage titles; and similarly just under five dozen titles in the "The Collector's Wodehouse" series published by The Overlook Press in North America and Everyman's Library elsewhere (yes, yes, I'm Plum crazy); and the full set of 24 Black Dog and Leventhal Agatha Christie titles.

Oxford University ........... The BD&L Agatha ....... The Overlook Press
Press Mark Twain
........... Christie Collection ...... Collector's Wodehouse

The number of tomes on my book shelves (not to mention also in strategically placed book stacks around my floors) published by both Everyman's Library and The Library of America seems to grow weekly; at any rate, they multiply far quicker than I can catalogue them here. I also own, and have read in its entirety, the complete canon of Kurt Vonnegut. Then there are over 4 dozen of the 'Dilbert' comic-strip and written publications by Scott Adams that are not catalogued here. Finally, I certainly do not wish to admit openly on LibraryThing that I own anything written by Dan Brown so, of course, I won't be cataloguing either of those two books here either!

Phew, that should now significantly cut down the time I spend entering data on LT such that I can finally regain my personal life again. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket! Unfortunately, my personal life only seems to consist of buying books and building new bookcases ... why is that, I wonder?

Hmmm, I seem to own a few titles all to myself. Currently, it is 3 (out of however many I have catalogued to date). But it used to be quite a few more than that. I similarly used to share a number of titles with only one other person, but as LT membership has grown, I now no longer share any of my titles with just one other. And that, right there, is the story of my life ... every time I find a potential "soul mate" they up and disappear off into the sunset! In fact, quite often, there isn't even a sunset! :(

________________________________ ~ ________________________________

My Book Rating Philosophy:

I really only rate the books in my catalogue for my own convenience - mostly in order to remind me how much I might want to re-read that particular book rather than many of the others in my library that I have read. However, since you are now looking at my profile and reading this, and are thus somewhat likely to also take a subsequent peek at my catalogue, you might as well be fully appraised before doing so as to how I actually arrived at the star ratings that you will find assigned to some of my books once you start perusing them.

First off, because only a small fraction of my library (200 books or so) is catalogued here on LT, the titles that I have chosen to include here are all much better than average reads (fiction) or works of reference (non-fiction). That would probably make any title you find in my catalogue worth at least 3 stars, and most likely 4 stars or above, on most other readers' star rating system. So the bottom line is, if I have included a book in my LT catalogue then it is IMHO well worth a read whether or not I have taken the trouble to assign it a star rating here.

Furthermore, I have read many more of the books listed in my catalogue (but by no means ALL of them) than I have rated. In order to try and bring a modicum of objectivity to this blatantly subjective rating process, I have usually only bothered giving ratings to books that I have read (or re-read) in the last ten to twelve years or so (a.k.a. the maturity of my life :( ).

The reason for doing that is because even though I may well know I have read some book when I was much younger - and I still have some residual vague warm and fuzzy feelings about it having been a very good read at the time - nevertheless that really doesn't help me assign it an appropriate star rating NOW ... so I don't even attempt to do so. If my feelings about the book are that strong anyway, I will probably re-read it some time in the future, and so I will rate it here at that time (but don't hold your breath!).

There are also quite a few omnibus editions and collections of multiple stories in my catalogue that I may have dipped into over the years, yet I have still not read the whole book from cover to cover. Once again, until I have read the complete content of such a book (and recently enough to actually remember it clearly enough to be able to rate it!) I don't feel I should assign it a star rating just yet. For all I know, the portions of the book that I still haven't read yet may be truly abysmal ... it CAN happen!

So, with all those caveats out of the way, here is my star rating system:

* .......... way below average for MY tastes - to the point that I disliked it
** ........ very average for MY tastes
*** ...... IMO an enjoyable and satisfying read (for whatever reasons)
**** .... has some special qualities in addition to being enjoyable and satisfying
***** .. Not necessarily a "perfect read" but IMO the book did perfectly achieve what it set out to do (thus if someone else doesn't appreciate what it was trying to achieve they may very well rate it much lower)

Please note that under this perverse rating system of mine, I may actually "enjoy" reading a 3-star rated book more than a 5-star rated book. Because my rating system is about much more than simply how much the book entertained and distracted me at the time I read it. For instance, I read James Lee Burke or Arthur Conan Doyle mostly for distraction and enjoyment; OTOH I read Joseph Campbell or Immanuel Kant mostly for edification and self-improvement purposes; while I read Franz Kafka or William Golding with a goal of BOTH edification and entertainment. Consequently, I would rate a Kant or Campbell read based on almost completely different criteria than I would a JLB or ACD read.

These distinctions even apply to different works by the same author - thus I will rate a non-fiction title such as Blood, Tears and Folly by Len Deighton based on a completely different set of criteria than, say, The IPCRESS File or Berlin Game.

As stated up top, although I may own one or two 1- and 2-star rated books, I believe all of the books currently listed in my LT catalogue are rated 3 stars and above as per the rating system just defined.

________________________________ ~ ________________________________

Käyttäjätilin tyyppijulkinen, ilmainen

YhteysuutisetYhteysuutiset

URL-osoitteet http://www.librarything.com/profile/Rule42 (profiili)
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/Rule42 (kirjasto)

Yhteinen tietoSarjat (24), Palkinnot (69), Hahmot (512), Tapahtumapaikat (69)

RekisteröitymispäiväNov 17, 2006

Parhaillaan lukemassaOctopus omnibus : "Lord Jim" ; "The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'" ; "Typhoon" ; "Nostromo" ; "The Secret Agent" – tekijä: Joseph Conrad
Four Complete Philip Marlowe Novels : "The Big Sleep" ; "Farewell, My Lovely" ; "The High Window" ; "The Lady in the Lake" – tekijä: Raymond Chandler
The Oxford Book of Humorous Prose : From William Caxton to P.G. Wodehouse – tekijä:
The Kingdom of the Wicked – tekijä: Anthony Burgess
Of Human Bondage – tekijä: W. Somerset Maugham
piilota ylimääräiset" extramore="näytä kaikki (16)" onclick="LibraryThing.profile.crToggleShowMore('4b30a7e0a3a392.86316169', '4b30a7e0a3b570.37732534');return false;">näytä kaikki (16)

Jätä kommentti

DO YOU HAVE 'PERSUASION'?
Thanks for detailing your Profile and the quantity and quality of your contributions to Common Knowledge. Your details and OTHs give me valuable insights. The opportunity afforded even those like me with less, is a kind of infinity created with more.
Sorry about your computer woes.
I tried to smoke out C-W but he remains tomb-silent. I think that he was serious when he said it would be his swan-song.
From the looks of it you won't be any too active on the waves in the near future. Would you rather I keep my posts infrequent. Let me know how the land lies.
I'm slowly reading Mark Anderson's book. It's better than I earlier gave it credit for. I'm not wild about the facile connections between deVere's life and the works of WS. The certainty. I'm all for Korzybski's MAYBE scale: 1 to 10, etc. I'm not convinced those connections prove much, of anything. But Anderson is no crack-pot, of this much I am certain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au5BWBvkK...

Read previous message before you watch video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faK9HUvH2...

A Strange man. Tuned in to stations witheld from most of us, noh?
This is another good one. G. Chapman is very funny here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSxmFFMCC...
P. Cook's delivery is great. Deadpan humor of the first water. Very funny courtroom antics, all I culd do is bang my little gavel.
Here's 2 funny ones from MPFC. The first one is one of my very favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1leDAwjt...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMR-yPA4l...

We looked forward to MPFC every Monday night on Public TV. !970 or thereabouts, 38 yrs. ago, a lifetime for Mozart. Whoops, 39 yrs. ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPMYkITzx...

para-noya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv4fcwona...

From a great film.

from another
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A3rFfyRa...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4FEn-ZKd...

post-science music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbM6MqT_V...

a truly great one.
I'm here to entertain. I thought it was you I was entertaining, but I find myself laughing right out of my chair.

Sure. Maybe. Well, no. There's a guy named Smudgie and a dog and Readers Digest has horrible customer service. And you may have been incarcerated.

I only posted once? Really? I kept up several times a week for a year or two and I only once had anything to say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ExK90Mmq...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PlILl2aa...

What fabulous head fakes on the first clip.
enthralled by D.R. sounds better, doesn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG68hO6ia...

Reggie doing some nifty footwerk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd4sKrkIn...

Not terrifically funny, but worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQBHM__30...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlXB4fgj_...

A great interview featuring Burton and Kenneth Tynan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p856CfM64...
Have you seen this?
PS - And I have just read your personal reply to this lady (I'm not rascist but I am nosey - mea culpa!) and I see that your defence continues there. I'm so pleased and grateful that someone, at least, realises I don't go around trying to deliberately upset people and the fact that a complete stranger would support me in this way moves me more than I can say. As I've tried several times now to point out, if someone had contacted me off-thread, and in a rational manner, to say they were hurt by anything I had written I would have been more than happy to apologise and make the necessary changes but it seems these people don't really want to effect change, they just want to be seen as morally superior to everyone else.
BTW - I now realise I have been assuming that you are a 'he'. I don't know why I thought that but I always have. I hope I'm right or, if not, that I haven't just offended you too ;_)
I do agree with you that this person seems to switch the facts around for her own benefit, which is why I was keen to make it very clear that things hadn't been quite the way she described (I think it's a 'she'). I have done my best to put a stop to the whole thing but I suspect there are people who just want to complain, rather than drop the subject with a little grace once their wishes have been acceded to. I suggest we now rise above the whole thing - thanks again for your support.
To continue the discussion from Book Talk, if you are so inclined...

Your definition of "racist" seems quite narrow to me; since when does someone have to hit me to be abusive to me? And since when is intent a requirement for racism? If I, in complete ignorance of the term's origin or status as a derogatory term, call an Irishman a Mick, does that exempt me from responsibility for any anger or hurt that causes for that Irishman? Furthermore, should it never be brought to my attention that my choice of words could be considered offensive? That doesn't help educate the general public when it comes to matters as small as jokingly using broken English, or as large as discriminating against black people because your father did it.
hello R42
i can't claim 70, though my plans are to track down and read all of PGW. have you looked into E.F. Benson's LUCIA books?
pgt
Yep, just finished it, and enjoyed it thoroughly. It took me a while to get the rhythm of the language, but then I moved along. I'll be starting another this weekend. I thought I'd go through the Twains next because I'm ready for some adventures. Or, any favorites you'd suggest? Remember, I only get to read about 20 minutes 4 or 5 nights a week, so anything 3 inches thick had better be riveting.
What happened to our WBR thread? I jumped on to update my list and can't find it! I'm still at 97 (of the 121 I know about) and I'm ready to hunt down a few more. Can you catch me up?
I'll try to be brief, as I don't really have the time to spend, so I'll just pick out a few points. I think we're broadly in agreement on most of the issues, although I don't feel as strongly as you that this needs to be won.

how do you know when you've reached a consensus in ANY discussion on a message board
I couldn't find the discussion I remembered when I looked for it, what I found were a few people mentioning combining followed by people advocating separation and no further discussion, so each exchange concluded with a message in favor of separation. It seemed clear enough to me at the time. I suspect that the people who are currently strongly advocating combining did not participate in those exchanges, but I'm not going to go back and cross-reference participants. If you want, this search may get you started.

all the Group (C) owners have to do is remove the ISBN from their ISBN field
This suggestion in particular Os objected to. Alas.

So why is it OK to individually catalogue on LT the twelve short story works that constitute The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes work but NOT appropriate nor necessary to be able to catalogue on LT some or all of the many essays and literary criticism works that constitute, say, the NCE Sense and Sensibility work?

Of course you can catalog them as you wish. We all look forward to the day that we can say this essay or short story which is cataloged on its own is contained in this other collection of essays or stories. It works fine for both. When publishing an NCE, is the purpose of the editors to collect together an assortment of essays and articles, and publish them with the work they refer to, or is it to publish an edition of a work, along with essays and articles that expand upon it? You appear to believe the former, and I the latter. We don't need to argue, since we both come to the same conclusion, and are probably both somewhat right in different ways. (Your point of view is most likely more informed than mine, since mine is based solely on discussions on LT!) But I still hold that the primary reason for separation of NCEs is because of the social difference, not because the non-titular (using that word instead of the possibly prejudicial "additional") essays and works could and sometimes do stand alone, although that is a perfectly valid reason as well.

I didn't point out the obvious contradiction between your two statements, "I don't have any myself and don't have my own opinion on the matter" and "I don't think I would apply that rule to the NCEs where the added material is integral to the work and not intended to be separate."

Allow me to clarify: I don't have an opinion about what people who own NCEs should or should not do. If there was a vote about what LibraryThing policy regarding NCEs should be, I would abstain. My personal opinion, after reading or at least skimming most of the arguments, is that NCEs as a single published work (composed of many separate literary works) are distinct from their titular work primarily for social reasons.

you personally don't have a dog in the fight...
Correct
...but that nevertheless you do somewhat buy the argument of the NCE "lumpers" that the added material in the NCEs is integral to the work and not intended to be separate
I hope my position on this is made more clear above. While clearly much non-titular material in NCEs can and has stood alone, in the context of the NCE itself it is additional to the titular work. There is also (and perhaps here I'm on shaky ground) content in the NCEs that was written specifically for inclusion in that edition; it is that sort of thing that I was referring to as integral. Perhaps there is less of that than I thought. I would consider the annotations in the Annotated Alice and A Fire Upon the Deep Special Edition to be integral in the same way, yet I agree those editions should be separated.

I don't hold this opinion particularly strongly, but if you make me defend it, it will get stronger. :-)
A quick reply to the quick reply:
A work in the LibraryThing sense is just an entry in a database. This is a work. You could, if you wanted, catalog a single footnote as a work. Those are extreme examples; it's not unreasonable to enter an essay or single article out of a publication as a work. And then you could use the part/whole rule to separate a book containing those works from one that doesn't. I just don't think it's useful. I, personally, would draw the line between works that are intended to stand alone, and works that are not. I will probably some day catalog all my short stores out of anthologies, but I will not catalog the introductions from those anthologies.

However, I think the more useful distinction between the NCEs and their base works is the social one.

To put more detail to my response to your original question, in two parts:
Do you agree that NCEs are anthologies...
Some clearly are, apparently: they contain multiple works by the original author and independant essays about those works. Others I think not. Oh, I'm sure you could find definitions of anthology that you could stretch to include all NCEs. This one could work. But then you could apply the same definition to a dictionary which includes samples of usage in each entry. But, in general, that's not their purpose. Their purpose is not to be a collection of works, but to expand upon a single work by including additional material, some of which as it happens could stand alone.

...and that the whole/part rule is what primarily separates them from the crowd? (emphasis mine)
Oh you can, certainly, but I don't think that's the primary distinction - see my original reply about the social significance.
Good morning - I'm going out for the day so this will have to be even quicker than last night's. Apologies for any spelling errors and lack of editing - consider it a first draft for which there will be no final draft.

if you were very sensitive to that issue I felt you would have posted in pink rather than white
I posted off the group thread so as not to sidetrack the conversation yet again if someone took offense, not so much out of concern for the offense itself.

Do you agree that NCEs are anthologies and that the whole/part rule is what primarily separates them from the crowd?
In short, no. I used to think they should be separated because of the social implications, as the result of a previous thread on this exact topic which I seem to recall reaching a clear consensus. Now I'm not so sure, because the consensus is no longer clear, although I do suspect that the people who buy the NCE primarily for the base work and to whom the extra content is incidental are a tiny but vocal minority compared to people who buy it for the added content, and that the separation is still valid. But as I've said, I don't have any myself and don't have my own opinion on the matter.

I think the part/whole distinction exists because without the rule there is the possibility of transitive combination could lead to even bigger messes than we have now. If you combine Fellowship of the Ring with Lord of the Rings, you should also include Two Towers and Return of the King, and The Hobbit (since there's a box set that includes all four), leading to just one work, which I think everyone would agree is unreasonable. You can buy individual short stories as ebooks from Fictionwise, each of which may be collected into multiple print collections with completely different focus, but if you combine the short story into one such collection you should also combine it into any others, resulting in short story collections with different social connotations that are none-the-less combined (not to mention any magazine issues that it may have been published in). I don't think I would apply that rule to the NCEs where the added material is integral to the work and not intended to be separate, but then I don't think it's necessary as I described above.

Time to go.
It's almost 1am so this is a short and perhaps not well thought out reply... My note to you was meant to be very much tongue in cheek, and I feared it might be possibly offensive to some who recognised its origin.

I wouldn't say that Tim created the muddled mess; from reading the descriptions of the various editions of all the works in that thread it's clear that the muddled mess predates LibraryThing by many years. Tim has tried to create a structure into which the mess can be fit, with *the primary aim being to connect people*, not books. The "social significance" is the defining purpose of the work structure. If all he wanted to do was connect books, then the work level would be unnecessary and we'd just have editions in which the books need to be an exact match and life would be easy for the combiners and separaters. Connecting people is much harder, as people don't like to be pigeonholed.

But yes, more guidance would help the combiners. There will still be people that don't read the rules, and people that do but disagree, so there will still be ... discussions.

Anyway, to answer your question: go ahead and use the quote, but don't misrepresent it as meaning that I think that Tim is "at fault" or responsible for the difficulty we have in deciding how to use the tools he's provided.
I think everyone has learned that the issue isn't as cut and dried as they may have thought at first. I started the thread, not wanting to work on Persuasion (NCE) because I didn't have the knowledge or interest to do the separation, so I'm still right on the fence where I've always been!

Actually, that's not quite true - my assumption at the beginning was that because someone had gone to the work of separating the editions and adding a disambiguation notice, that should be respected. I didn't expect any discussion at all!
Lump them all, and let Tim sort them out.

(I didn't post that in the message thread, because I didn't want to detract from your excellent message.)
Aha! Just finished Tales of the South Pacific. Moving on to Captains Courageous, because it's really skinny.
Pardon me, one small correction: I have seven "favorite authors" listed at present. Still a fairly exclusive club...
I am deeply honored to be listed as a full half of the libraries you have listed as "interesting". I suspect that your own library would be likewise worthy of notice should you ever deign to list those many volumes that you allude to in your profile. Yes, it would entail a bit of bother, but it certainly would not as labor-intensive as the carousel bookcase system that you employ at present. It would be considerate to reconsider it.

Now, as to your "pet peeves": You have probably suspected that you were sharing them with others.

I swear on my life that I didn't know that those peeves were anybody's pets! I thought that they were strays! They just showed up begging at my doorstep so I felt compelled to toss them some scraps! -Well, if it bothers you so much, maybe you should feed them better! -Or train them to keep on their own property!

I heartfully concur: There is entirely too much of this red flag business. I have NEVER planted one on another poster.

I also strongly agree: Too many people have too many "favorite authors". I thought that by listing six favorites, I was being extravagant, but I wanted to balance things by having two British, two American and two International writers.

Finally, and most fiercely: Yes! The best books in the best editions! -whenever and wherever possible.
Happy Xmas, Grumpy!

From Snow White and Novak.
Ahoy Cap’n:

When I click the links on your very comprehensive WBR thread entry they will not work for me. Is it me? I suppose they take everyone else where they are supposed to go, don’t they?

Anyway, even without the links it is very, very useful. I am happily into “Three men in a boat, and also “The Gift of the Magi” at present and totally absorbed.

All because of you!!! I have also picked up “ The Best of James Herriot” once again, having enjoyed it years ago. You are right, it is just as fresh all over again.

Ruley! I have arrived!! Abby has told me I have hooked a “Early reviewers book” that will arrive within the next three years or so. I am so so so excited, I never won anything before. Will I like it?
Hey Cap’n

Pleasantville, we have a problem! Now, I have so much reading material available to me that I am spoilt for choice, so what happens next?

The sun comes out is what happens and there a so many moors to walk and so many rock climbs that are well worth a sunny day when my young and energetic climbing second can get time off work (yes, some of ‘em still have to go) that we just have to go for it.

So now I am just exhausted and very content. But everything else in the world has been put on hold.

Am going now to have a look at the WBR thread coz I see there are 6 new posts I have not seen yet. (While the cat’s away……..) I have checked out a lot of your RD listing and will be checking more on the UK listings tomorrow.

Bacson.
Hey Matey:

Sorry about that! Just back from a trip and catching up on comments and there the yellow slip comes up to say I have a comment even a I am reading. Thats a first for me on LT. Are you still on line?
Re that rating system - I have seen so many people who have given 2-3 stars to books they absolutely couldn't stand so I thought I should make it clear that mine doesn't work that way. If I've truly hated a book then I have various tags that I suspect make that clear. Apart from that, why should I waste time awarding it anything? I sometimes wonder whether it would make life easier if we all rated by the same system, but on the whole I think I prefer it the way it is. Thanks for taking an interest anyway.

Oh, and no hairs on the palms of the hands yet. I don't think that's a sign of madness anyway - at least, the voices in my head say it isn't.
You are kidding, aren't you? No, I was soundly lambasted from all sides! A few people agreed that it would be a good idea but mostly I seemed to attract the bulk of the comments from people who have been here since the dawn of time and come over all funny at the thought of change. Ah well - at least now we can both say we tried.

And thanks you so much for noticing I'm now talking to myself ;-) (I get better answers that way). I come up with all these brilliant ideas for change and everyone ignores me; I start talking to myself and the whole world spots it. Yes, I'm losing it at last. It's not the first time I've done that either. What was really funny about that is that another person who spotted it was the person the message was intended for. She asked me to let her know if I got the information I wanted because she'd also be interested!

Re the whole two-tier conversations thing - I'm just sticking with split-screen but I think my tendency to write to myself proves one of two things - either, that the current system is confusing, or that I probably shouldn't be let loose on these things anyway. I suspect it's the latter!

Best wishes
Sloth
Hey Cap'n

"That sounds exactly the same as Far From the Madding Crowd also released in the UK in 1999"

Dead right once again: Both dated © RD1999. End papers with maps of Wessex are the same in both books. FFTMC afterword dated Dec 1999. 399 pages.

TMOC: Afterword dated Jan 1999. 351 pages.

I would describe both books as Beige in colour, but not the same beige! ( Cate has just called TMOC light sage green with a black spine) FFTMC has a maroon spine.

I have just been photographing these and other books today, with and without flash, and I cannot get the colours anywhere near right.

Just posted CC as Captains Corageous 2 in my library so you can see difference.
Hey Cap’n

Just to bear out what you were telling me ref: re-released WBRs, there is an auction 140240774241 on eBay at present. The seller's other items are all WBRs and many seem to be re-released since 2001. The covers are all sorts of colours. Nothing like my copies.

Working on my WBR duplicate list. Have just got hold of The 39 Steps.
Hey Cap'n: Thanks for the message:

$11.22 per book. If it had been in UK I would have jumped at it! Less per book than a paperback and all in pristine condition. I think the buyer did very well. I love the way the seller sends them to google and they end up with the benefit of all YOUR research. Mind you, it is probably only you and the thread that got their interest in the first place, seller and buyer!

Better shot of “Jungle Books” in my library now. WBR shot has wrong colour (or was that how it was in US?) I was lucky to get it. It is the only one I have ever seen and is “as new”.

Later……
Hi Ruley:

That novak has a shot of "Sons and Lovers" in his library.

Back soon.
Hi Cap'n:

The bookswap all seems like a good idea. I have just returned from a weekend walking on the moors so I will be back with more details when I awake refreshed. (I am knackered!) I'm glad I didn't wade across to Welsh Wales on the way!!!

Bacson
Hi Ruley:

Thanks to your help I have much back as it was and will be working on A-Z layout today. Cannot master that at present. If it ever happens again I will just run, throwing WBRs in every direction. I never "play about" with the library layout so I know it was nothing I did wrong. I assumed the layout I was using was a default, which suited me fine and I was used to it. Now, to get back and arrange in alphabetical order by title of work..........
Hi Ruley:

It is a mystery. The only explanation I can come up with it that my library appears differently on your screen than it does on mine.

When viewed by me, not only is my library a mess but yours is also. The same parameters that apply on my library are apparent when viewing other libraries from my profile. Probably the same applies to all other LT profiles.

Put another way, it appears that you view my library through the same parameters set by you for your library in your profile.

After the last major shutdown my books were all scrambled and I have not been able to change anything in my library. I have spent a lot of time putting things right, only to find that the “spring” back the way they were.

It is a real shame because all the “brilliance” of LT has gone now.
Hi Cap'n:

My library is still messed up so badly I just can't be bothered with it anymore. It's all just impossible to sort out.
Hi there Cap'n:

So how many Les Barker CDs do you now own?

Firstly, thank you so much for not saying “So how many Les Barker CDs do you have? Ruley, I never heard of him, but if he is your dachshund man, then I am off to get some of him to give my friends on birthdays etc; coz they don’t know him either.

Thanks for your tips to remake my profile. Tried to thank you before but LT had a 24 hour outrage on.

Must go, my dog has just set her tail alight!

Backson
What a gem of a friend you are! I thank you.

Hey FYI,I purchased a collection of RD Best Loved Books for Young Readers from the late 60's. There are 14 volumes total with 3-4 books in each one. This set is much more visually appealing than the individual books from the 80's. I bought them primarily for my eldest daughter but chances are I'll never let her touch them because she seems to ruin everything she gets her hands on!! She is only 8 so she may not be ready for most of them anyway. I've just added another 12 WBR to my collection as well. I'm gonna need another set bookshelves soon! Addictive isn't it?
I wish I understood the more 'technical' bits of your message (I know how to switch my computer on and type - that's about it, I'm afraid) but I do agree about both your points and I'll certainly mention in on that thread, though I won't be able to tell them how it's done.
Hi there! I was just mooching around Thorold's library (hiding his favourite books behind the ones he never reads and leaving coffee-mug rings on the tables) when I noticed your Homer Simpson quote. Just had to add that my fave Homer Simpson moment is when he refers to god as 'Oh, vindictive one!' And they say Homer's stupid!

Oh, also agree with you about these 'duplex' conversations. I usually solve the problem with a split-screen but I wish I didn't have to bother. Have you mentioned it on the 'site recommendations' group? If not, maybe I will.
Ahoy! Matey:

Black Arrow now fixed for friends. I must have dreamed that I had done that weeks ago!

WBR thread is now making me cry with laughter. I must be sick :o)

You will be aware that I am not overly bright. I have now lost control (rhymed with knoll as there is no “e”) of my LT library. It was in alphabetical order, not now. It had star ratings, not anymore. It had comments, all gone. Nothing I can do returns me to where I once was.

What am I missing?
Hey Ruley:

“fascination with Ray Stevens, Ivanhoe and Miss Mills”

So I said “Don’t look Heather, but it’s toooo late, he’s already throw aside the tin suit and………..”

So why did Ivenhoe have 500 pairs of reading glasses? (Ask Bobby Vee)

Did you make that duchshund poem up yourself? It is such a hit with my mates and no-one has ever heard the song you pretend to be remembering. It should be from someone like Mike Harding if it is anyone but I don’t remember it.
Hi Cap'n

How did you know about the dogs and the stairs? Oh! it is just too funny for words, I am afraid I have pinched it and emailed it to all the other defendants on my block.
Hi Matey:

“doesn't Arlo also rhyme "motorcycle" with "pickle" in this song? ... “

He does on another track on the same album.

I don’t want a pickle
Just wanna ride on my motorcycle
An’ I don’t wanna die
Just wanna ride on my motorcye.


I am delighted to discover that ancient Americans get this CD out every Thanksgiving just to annoy their kids.
Hi Cap’n:

You’re the man for this one, Alice’s Restaurant (Arlo Guthrie), not well known in UK. Known in USA as AR “massacree”. The CD was played at a party a few days ago and I was the only one who knew the song. Everyone enjoyed it and laughed in all the right places, till this word came up. I also had to explain that it was not a “senile dog” but a “seeing eye dog” and what that was (what we call a guide dog in UK as you know.) On the massacree I was stumped. It’s not even in my BIG dictionary which has most USA slang.

So I am asking you, Ruley, what does it mean?
Rule 42
In message 130 You asked if I could help. Not on the month the books were issued. I get my wbr by calling ahead to used book stores. I drive a semi (which ought to give you some fodder) and since I can't get to stores easily, most owners will read me their inventory of WBR. I have picked up 12 books this way. So by telling me what they have I feel I have a good chance of stumbling on something rare.
I am counting Tanglewood as out there until something definitive comes up.
Amazon USA has a picture of The Phantom on RD WBR list. That is only evidence
of one being sold here.
I posted all my WBR on my page. If you have any questions about those books don't hesitate to ask.
Jeff
So I assume you are following this thread then?

No, I had not even seen it before, loved it. So a Spillane in the top 100!!!

Nor does Caxton sell scrumpy!

Now! You worry me! You know who Tom Paxton is, you even recognise a very old Rock record by an obscure line. (mind, you did slip up with Hot Chocolate. WRT “White Fang” you brought into play “you sexy fang”. The TROGS [Reg Presley] “Wild Thang” would have suited much better, must try harder ;-)

1959 cover of The Boll Weevil Song.

When I was a Rock Star……………in another life, this song would get the floor packed. My band hated it because it’s only has two chords in it.

Some of us had to make a decision, Rock and Roll lifestyle or Uni-geek. You appear to have a firm foot in each camp, you must have worked very hard in the past. In fact, looking at the work you’ve put in on the WBR thread, whilst still listening to the inane comments in the background from Novak and the like, you still do.

When I was a folk singer…………….in yet another life, I’d say “Here’s a song that’s up- tight, out of sight and in a grove. That’s coz it was written by an American called Tampaxton.” No-one in UK knew of him then. Oh well! Those were the days.

"Don't teach your grandmother how to milk ducks."

Nice one! In a book about freedom-fighting in VN, one of the soldiers tells his argumentative son, “I didn’t plant you to harvest me” I think that covers it well.

Well, exactly how does quoting the lyrics of a famous rockabilly song help prove your point?

Well, Give EP his due. He only made one Blues hit and that was the one. He never even attempted another. I really rated all the SUN labels though. “Play House” ( The best Rock record ever) wasn’t released in UK. When we played it kids went crazy, we used to tell ‘em we wrote it ourselves.

Your mate sounds like a really daft bugger!

Ruley, I was talking about you!
Scroll....check. Still no save. Maybe I need to try this first thing in the morning when my brain is most rested and ready for a save button challenge.

That silly egg comic makes me smile every year!
In confidence of course,

Excuse me sir, I'm terribly sorry, I couldn't help but notice that you must be feeling quite ill. Since I myself am inflicted with the same illness on occasion, I carry with me a variety of medicinal remedies. Could I interest you in one?

Next...I'm acutally asking for help this time.....the only thing I am able to update in my profile is the picture. Am I missing the "save" button? I write stuff then it goes away. To where I don't know. Just away. I'm quite sure after I post this it will work just fine!

I want to know what happens to "the"? "I went to hospital." "I had a stay in hospital." "Did you know Heather was in hospital after Paul had a row with her leg?"
Hey Cap’n:

So who purveys your homebrew over there? It’s a new one on me.

English: Suckers are mugs and retards, i.e. still at the breast, un-grown. But what on earth made the “teach your grandmother to suck eggs” come into being is beyond me.

[I have just tried to post this page to you and there is a LT outrage. On the “Back in 5 Mins” note is a picture of a pile of 8 books. #4 is “You Suck” (Christopher Moore)]

Another of my favourites is “willy-nilly”. Often used by otherwise intelligent persons.

Look at the USA use of the word “Mooch” which UK users would not even recognise, and V.V.

“Never mind” is the most ridiculous expression used by the Brits and to hear yanks begin a sentence with the word “why” when it is NOT a question is so funny. My dad did it all the time. “Why, you can’t call that music!” ( He was referring to a 78rpm vinyl by “a guitar picker from Oklahoma City, widda paira blue-jeans on.”) Probably before your time, Ruley.

Blues singers start every line with “well”

Well since my baby left me
Well I found a new place to dwell
Well it’s down at the end of lonely street……….

I think the best USA/UK divide is the word “Got”. Americans can sit up all night and still not know that “How many pints of milk do you have?” is not the same question as “How many pints of milk have you?”

Answer to former Q: Two per day.
Answer to latter Q: Ten.

Because the Americans invented them they are elevators.
Because the English invented the language they are lifts.
(Bill Bryson)

Bill does a wonderful job of explaining (but in a whole chapter) that if “She was there” and “I was there” and “He was there” then “You was there.” It is correct and cannot be challenged, but there it is,

This would have made an interesting LT thread on it’s own but my mate got in there early an’ called ’em all Nazis and frightened ’em all away.
Hey You:

Will come back to the suckers later.

Just finished Pride and Prejudice. What a gem! The last time I went to school I was 14. Some smart ass teacher was trying to ram this down our throats, no way! No Jane Bloody Austin for us Anglo-Saxon artful dodgers. I bought all the “Mickey Spillane” series one at a time. This was real reading.

Well, here is 2008, P&P was on the shelf so it had to be read. That was the only reason I took it up. It had me laughing out loud, it is so clever, those bitches, that mother, the pantomime dame, (does Liz ever give her some stick, Yeah!) I know all these people, I see ‘em every day.

Now lets have another look into the past, what other reading did they try and put us off for ever………..
Don’t be so sensitive Ruley, I bet you don’t know about Sully’s bucket.

Did ya get any eggs?
Watch out for yerself Matey. Heather is free again and looking out for such as thee!

Cost poor ole Sir Paul a nice few bucks to get shot of her didn't it? He looks a "Hard dazed Knight" in the press this week.
Hi Yule 42:

Somninscribilism eh? I hope this doesn’t mean you won’t be sharing your abundant lottery winnings with me as you promised in your recent post. Readers Digest will be really disappointed if I have to cancel once again.
Life observation....threads, blogs, boards etc. always turn into the Jerry Springer show at some point. Sad. At least you can't get hit with a chair here!
Ahhh, literally bold....I'm with ya now. Thank your for the info. I will try and correct my error.
DANG! Just noticed I missed message 122. With your wordy talent I can only imagine what I missed!
I must admit that in my first post, when I asked not to be knocked for my bad English, it was all because of you! I had read quite a few and thought man, I'm gonna get growled at for sure.
You are waaaay beyond my simple (or unedumacated)mind! ;^)

My comment bold? Why?
Those oft are stratagems which errors seem,
Nor is it Homer nods, but we that dream.


- Alexander Pope (courtesy of the invaluable Mr Bartlett)
I'm quite sure I've been a bit vampire-ish in my day but I try to keep it suppressed. I'm constantly filing the fangs.
Hi Cap’n:

I have never read “Free Fall” or “The Spire” but will be looking out for them on my travels. Have just been reading up about Westlake after reading your post, now I have to look out for his books too. One life is not enough, is it?

It’s OK for you to talk about our North of the Boarder friends as “Jocks”. In UK we have to be more careful. They form most of our government today and are intent on avenging Rob Roy & Co. We are suffering. They are good distillers though!

Just finished “Kim”. Loved it! There is a LT member, MichaelMenche, who wrote a review [21 May 2007] for it. I found it interesting and wondered what you would make of it. Have a look when you’re mooching and see what you think. What really made me smile about the RD edition though……………Mowgli on the front cover!!!! Kim rarely catches sight of an elephant and certainly never rides one as a passenger let alone the driver. Nice American touch there.

Mmmmmmmmm must get hold of “A passage to India” [the book, I mean]. I have a good shelf of WBRs waiting to be read now. It’s like being a junkie looking at a whole years stash.

More soon Matey!
29.02.08
Had to post today as it wont come round again for 4 years!

I’m giving up anyway, I will never top the “Cornish pastiche” line no matter how hard I try, makes me soooooooooooooo
Mad! Just seen there is a post from you, gone to read it.
Hi Cap'n

It's good to see the old WBR board alive and well. I was going to choose "Crime and Punishment", but changed my mind.

I don't really want to say this, but you know, there is a charm about these books somehow. Like you, I have a full set of Charles Dickens, old and in nice condition, most of which I have really enjoyed reading. Yet I have enjoyed the WBR Dickens copies more. Makes no sense does it?

The Black Arrow, which I have not yet read, has a plain cover, no illustrations of any kind, no bold letters even to start a chapter, black and white, colourless, no afterword. It feels like a utility volume and I am not attracted to reading it at all. No charm working there in the least.

So what you are saying about buying multi copies of the same works is so true, but hard to explain.

I'm reading "Roughing it" (MT) after thumbing through it years ago. Imagine losing a whole $1M gold mine in 10 days. It's old fashionded but still good. Just finished "The Caine Mutiny", probably one of the best books I've ever read, really sorry when I got to the end. I like that.

Seem to have lost all the posts from my profile, I don't know how.

You have me searching the shelves for all my old James Harriotts, I could read them again anyday. So, what are you reading??

Very cold here.
Hey Cap’n:

Sitting here reading my RD copy of “The Black Arrow” which arrived this day complete in the RD packaging.

See my post on lot whiskers LT profile for full story, that will make you smile.
Hi Rule 42:

I must catch up on your posts. “The turn of the screw”, I have only read “Daisy Millar” so HJ is new to me. With TTOTS I enjoyed the read but was disappointed with the ending. You know that feeling you get with Sci-Fi pbs where you are 90% through the gripping story and are able to see that it is not all going to be sorted out in the last remaining 10% of the book…..so, in the end there is a vast explosion! The End!

Even Charles Dickens, could not finish “Domby and Son” so he cheated and had a house collapse on the badies! It just wont do!

Thinking back over TTOTS though, what HJ did IMO was to give us a box of tools and say “Here is a template, write you own book.” Filling in the gaps he left, the book can be: funny, sad, erotic, macho, schoolgirly, porno, horror, religious, moralistic, you name it. Kind of one size fits all.

If that is what was intended, and I can’t see it any other way, it was a clever concept and it worked. Will find some more HJ and let you know how it hits me. I think EAP would have put in more detail and spoiled it.

You know, it has just occurred to me, that this book is probably where “Damian” made his entrance.

Bacson
Hi, You really have done some work on this profile over the holiday haven’t you. It is looking (and reading) good.

Chuckled recently, in your “Frank Muir” (I think the quote was from Groucho Marx) it is suggested that Evelyn Waugh was George Eliot’s wife. J

If you are reading this, it means my first cut, paste, spell check on the new machine. You have made history, but then I guess you’re used to that.
Hey Captain,

Bear with me, I am running in a new laptop. Changed back to PC because I was finding the Apple-Mac strange, now I find I have forgotten Microsoft ways altogether. Really pleased with the new purchase except the new bells and whistles keep beating me to the punch.

Thanks for your comments on S&H costs in moving books over the pond. Have a couple of deals going on and will let you know how I fare. The last quote from Royal Mail to send over LORNA was £15! For the one book!

I have to echo your feelings on the modern popular fiction. I do try, Ben Brown has seen me half way through a couple of his, and then I find I don't really care where it is all heading and I give up. I guess the best thing about popular fiction is that it isn't popular for very long!

Have you read "The turn of the Screw" (The"" are in a different place on this new job)? Just finnished it and would like your comments. Missed the illustrations and was suprised how disapointed I was when there was no afterword. I have rather got used to them and enjoy them.

More comment on your post soon, at least I managed to get on line again by myself, things are looking up !!: )
Hey Cap’n:

Thanks for your marvellous Xmas post with lots of info’. I see you had the sort of time I would have loved, good for you! well organised.

So! We have all made it through into 2008. I never expected to get this far, how about you? Will return with more regarding your post later. Have a chance locally of a copy of “The Black Arrow” so I’m off to chase it, let you know how I get on.
Hi Ruley.

Just a smile for you, genuine! Seen on ebay today: The Adventures of Robin Hood for sale, bow in front cover!!!
Hello again!

Just winding you up Cap’n. It is such a novelty to have you back in circulation again. Battered by gales here, in the warm reading ‘Lost Horizon’ for the first time. I love it.
Ahoy Cap'n

Friend I once knew was into stock car racing. Had a wreck with a very powerful engine and transmision. The stock car organisers maintained it and he was paid a good rate to attend and drive at every meeting. His job, however, was not to race. It was to disrupt and cause chaos. He hid among the hopeful racers, then flipped them and spun them. In short, he spiced up the meetings and entertained the crowd. Lets call him Denis the Menace.

Whatever LT is paying you it is not enough.
Hey Rule 42, No! Sorry you’re out! Same thread, Message 67, last line,
…….…generation of those “who” can actually read.

Mnnnnnn…….who wrote that then???? :-)

People who need people is the rule………42. And another thing, “Good pie, missed the chips.” No! It’s just not good enough. *Grin* Sorry to make such a meal of it.

I am afraid you will not succeed with your trump card either, because: The language is English. It was made in England. That is why it is called English. One of the authors you cite, although a literary genius and all round shining star who should have been English, was sadly, born elsewhere. Which explains the mistake in the title of his book. Furthermore, his rival does make exceedingly good cakes.
Hey 42: I’m worried about you. I have read about this tattoo thing sweeping USA but having some dodgy Ruskies name on the tip of your tongue is a bit sharp, even for you.
Actually, I always thought punning was considered to be the lowest form of wit. To quote Frank Muir (someone that is known the world over as being totally humorless)

Tut! Tut! Rule 42, ……someone "who" is known…..
Hi Rule 42,

Yep! We must get to exchange some books. I would certainly like the two you have (got the Michener) but it will take time to acquire what you need. Laurwner Doon (You have obviously seen the French version that rhymes with Wane Rooney) I have in perfect condition with insert so maybe that is a start. I got hold of 3 good copies in anticipation of just this situation.

I probably have 10-12 duplicates now, from wheeling and dealing but I pass up most books because they’re not in perfect condition. I will get my duplicate list organised.

Now! it cannot be beyond our combined wit to find a way of transporting these bloody things across the water. Until recently I was importing air conditioning plant from USA that weighed tons. 25 books would not have been noticed. Mind you, the irony is that I didn’t have time to read then!

You are saying that you will be in UK sometime but do take into account that that was before LT put the red marks in your passport. The UK’s Polish airport officials may turn you back…………….with my books!!

Your Robinson Crusoe pun is really two week. Then I see that you have ripped into that poor chap on the RD/WBR thread all because he has just one of these 14 knights that is written in German. That is probably how the war started.

Your cinema memories are not the same as mine. Now you explain it, it all seems so logical. That person with the tray was known to us urchins as “The target”. I understood they were part of the entertainment. So, they were, in fact, selling things we could not afford? No wonder we never saw the same person twice. :-)

So WTFI Mollie Sugden?
Hi Rule42.

Didn’t get the Wodehouse (LITTLE NUGGETS) so no rev you.

You could prove to be right on the staying-home-reading-books-saves-gas theory but I don’t understand what you say about Americans running their cars on large sea birds.

Fleetwood Mac had only one, albertry refers to three and albertribe is more. Even you cannot get your plurals mixed as badly as you do by accident. ☺ You have lost me on the wafers though.

Picked up TESS OF THE D’URBERVILLES, (Hardy) at the weekend, but still unable to collect 5-in-one-go like some folks do. ; ) Further, your understanding that Robinson Crusoe had seven Fridays is not correct. Did you read “Castaway” or see the film? If so, did you know what turned out to be in the box the castaway saved and eventually delivered to its correct address some years late?

Now then! About your being an American. You are right again, it is an assumption. I notice you are something of an Anglophile (you even know about Tommy Cooper and Basil & co) so you are free to be any nationality you wish from now on. To assume is foolish, it makes an ass(of)u(+)me. So who is going to sort out poor Joshua Slocome then?
Hi Rule 42, Thats it! No more books, petrol prices just risen again to over $10 a gallon. I would turn to drink but I can't afford it.
Yeah! Spit, I never noticed that (nor did Brad). We had a guy at school called Brian Oliver Lock………Interesting signature. Then your forebears over here ( the SK's) named a future princess “Despencer.”

Hey! That’s a good term you have there “Ass backwards”. Having a job thinking of anything in nature that isn’t. Bit like saying “Dark black”. :)

Bid on a Wodehouse today, I’ll send you a nasty revue if I don’t like it. When I was in Portugal (Jeeeeze! is that a difficult language? Harder even than Dutch.) The only sentence I could master was “It is all your fault.”
Help! Rule 42, what is the matter with the Americans? The first man to sail alone around the world was Joshua Slocome, American. Hero! In my book. Wiki and Google don’t know who he is!!! You’re an American………..get it fixed! :)

Do you ever read a book, love it but then years later when they make it into a film, you feel sad (perhaps even jealous) that, somehow, it is no longer yours? It is a strange sensation. Some time ago, on release, I read “Into the wild” (Jon Crakauer). It has just been announced as a major new film project (I don’t watch TV or most films) and I don’t want them to spoil it. Stupid! Isn’t it?

Your US ebay makes me jealous, 36 WBR titles at about $5 a copy. Why has one copy of “Robinson Crusoe” attracted 7 bids? Is it scarce?

RD are like some fly-by-night stockbrokers. I emailed back to the address on the May 2007 email, it’s just bounced back, no such address! WTF? How do they sell books??

“BTW, you do indeed get to choose which book you want, plus I also warranty that I'll never, ever send you the same book twice! However, it's not a $15 bimonthly fee ... Novak also got that wrong! It's a bisexual fee. If you're straight or gay it will only cost you $7.50. :)” (Felix wants to know if there is discount for those who haven’t made their minds up yet.)

“Before I can even fink fink about returning a frig frigging FOFO to to yo yo I have to first first find find out fo fo myself self what the f**k f**k a FOFO eff effing is. :( IF if yo yo ask me, yo yo been fond fondling yo yo frick fricking faux faux leather books too too foo foo king much!” (Reads like a job application to join THE WHO as lead singer)

Cate wants to know what I am laughing at!

“Only the books again, dearest!”
Damn! (I knew you would spoil it). Ummm, I mean oh! Well done indeed. Good innit?

Now look! I am not going to go collecting red flags and I can see how you attract them and I will never catch up, BUT; the second half of FOFO stands for “find out”. It is hard to believe USA in general and you in particular don’t use it more. After all, you invented abbreviations. (Yes! How come that’s such a long word?)

Brad Pitt, on the surface of things seems a thinking person. Then he christens his baby
“Shylloe”. Now what would word botcher Spooner think about that! What’s she gonna be called at school?
Hey, thank you for your patience. I can take in your explanations; you should be making a fortune explaining things to numbskulls.

Nice try with the Bishop but short of the mark. Now! YOU tell ME what an ornithologist is………….

I have not forgotten you have to return a FOFO to me for my comments.

posted by Novak at 6:42 pm (EST) on Oct 10, 2007
Hi Rule 42, On a lighter note, your comment on bibliophiles, do you know what a thorniologist is?

posted by Novak at 1:11 pm (EST) on Oct 9, 2007
Hi again!

NiW. 1987 (Aus only): Marcus Clarke – For The Term of His Natural Life

Copyright 1987 Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd (Inc. in N.S.W.) Typesetting and reproduction by William Brooks & Company, Sydney. Printed and and bound by Everbest Printing Company Ltd, Hong Kong in 1987 for Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd, 26-32 Waterloo Street, Surry Hills, New South Wales 2010

Illustrations by Doublas Albion, Afterword by W.N. Scott. The World's Best Reading, Reader's Digest - Sydney - Auckland

NiW. 1990 (Aus only): Steele Rudd – On Our Selection & Our New Selection

Copyright 1990 Reader's Digest (Australia) Pty Ltd (Inc. in NSW). Typesetting by The Captions Company, Sydney. Reproduction by Sinnott Bros Pty Ltd, Sydney. Printed and bound by The Griffin Press, Adelaide.

NiW. 1993 (Aus only): Frank Dalby Davison – Dusty & Man Shy

Copyright 1993 Reader's Digest (Australia) Pty. Ltd.
Copyright 1993 Reader's Digest (New Zealand) Limited

Edited and Produced by Oldstyle Publishing Services, Sydney. Designed by Lamond Art & Design, Sydney. Reproduction by Inter-Colour International Pty. Ltd. Sydney. Printed and bound by Dai Nippon Printing Company (HK) Ltd., Hong Kong, for Reader's Digest (Australia) Pty. Ltd., 26-32 Waterloo Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 and Reader's Digest (New Zealand) Ltd., 11 York Street, Parnell, Auckland 1.

Illustrations by Tony Pyrzakowski and Afterword by H.P. Heseltine

Hope that helps.
Hey, Im hurt! I am really good at spelling, it is one of my pet subjects and I consider myself skillful at it.
The problem comes because I don't spell the same as other people.
If you really are overwate :) My gran started walking 5 miles a day when she was 65. She is 93 now and we don't know where she is!

Bacson with more

posted by Novak at 7:05 am (EST) on Sep 16, 2007
________________________________________...

"Tried to get back quickly cos I can see your wasting away."

Yes, unfortunately my doctor has just told me that he thinks I might have a touch of the Tolstoys. Nothing too serious, mind, he thinks it's just a mild infection. But I would prefer that any discussion of this "problem" of mine remained right here between the two of us and went no further than this screen because, to tell the truth, I'm a bit embarrassed by it. The technical term for my little "condition" is anorexia karenina ... but that's just a fancy name for the fact that my continual reading of long turgid Russian novels is completely putting me off my food, and consequently I seem to be losing weight at an alarming rate and, as a consequence, becoming quite frail. But I would appreciate it if you would please keep this information to yourself. Thanks.

I just typed about an A4 sheet in here and went back to my profile to check something and upon returning it was all gone.

Aha, there was a time when a true blue Brit wouldn't be caught dead using anything but a full sheet of good ol' English foolscap. But I guess those days are now long since gone, eh? Now you, too, are reduced to using wimpy foreign sized paper like A4. Take it from me, pal, A4 is for pussies. No wonder Britain lost its empire! Just like you, one day in the early part of the twentieth century, Britain went over to other side of the globe to solve a quick international crisis, and when she returned home again her empire was all gone! Aha, just like that! *adopts his best Tommy Cooper voice*

"(in longhand cos I know you do it all the wrong way around!)"

Hey, I resemble that remark. We only get two thirds of our dates the wrong way round. Normally, we manage to get the year in the right place ... but, of course, I cannot speak for the date writing competence of all Yanks! :(

"It would have struck me if it had NO illlustrations and I was NOT struck."

So what the frick does that tell me? Maybe you ducked when the book lashed out at you? Or possibly it took a swing at your noggin when you weren't even looking? Maybe the book is too polite to strike you? Perhaps it was printed on wimpy A4 paper? FYI, I've been reading my copy of the WBR edition of Robinson Crusoe all evening and it hasn't once tried to strike me, yet it too is not illustrated. :( I don't really think that's a very good criterion for determining an accurate answer to my question, now, do you?

"HJ. started into "Comming from Behind" (GOK what you will make of that!)"

Just don't read it with your back to the door. And that pain in your buttocks ... "You've got mail!" (you have to imagine the AOL jingle). BTW, after spelling "coming" with two 'm's and "illustrations" with three 'l's I still don't believe you had the gall to make that postscript in your previous message! Now I'm confused why you let the Adventures of Robinhood go by without a comment. :(

"Shipping costs too much from USA so I am about to assault the Uk bookstores and collectors."

Why not get yourself a copy of PL and have it assault the bookstores and collectors for you? The copy you told me about sounded pretty aggressive ...

"Keep taking the tablets"

The last time I heard those words they were said to me by a white rabbit. You're not a rabbit, too, are you? You live in what used to be known as West Wales, so I'm guessing you might well be a Welsh rabbit. After all, all your messages to me are cheesy enough! :)

Rule45 (ppppssssssssssssssssss... ◄- that's a Welsh leak)

posted by Rule42 at 10:27 pm (EST) on Sep 15, 2007
________________________________________...

Hi Rule 42, Tried to get back quickly cos I can see your wasting away. I just typed about an A4 sheet in here and went back to my profile to check something and upon returning it was all gone. How can life be so unkind: I blame global warming!! Onwards: PL, Purchased Great Expectations and Sherlock Holmes that day so it was 08 December 2006 (in longhand cos I know you do it all the wrong way around!) It would have struck me if it had NO illlustrations and I was NOT struck. It was not in good condition and looked older than the other two. I must get this right cos it is going to turn up one day. I have all my feelers out for this book.

HJ. started into " Comming from Behind" (GOK what you will make of that!) He is so funny. Ros' in the dedication is his wife, she can curdle milk from 40 paces ( that is her own father says that, and I think it is a bit mild)

WBR, I have about 4/5 duplicates in that pic that I am hoping to swap. Shipping costs too much from USA so I am about to assault the Uk bookstores and collectors. Have never seen To Kill a Mockingbird" or "the Virginian" which are two of my must haves so I keep looking.
Keep taking the tablets,

posted by Novak at 4:20 pm (EST) on Sep 15, 2007
________________________________________...

Ps Your WBR list is ace! I love your *Aventures of Tom Huckleberry Finn*

Hey, that's not my doing ... I only passed that list along to you, remember. Please don't shoot the messenger. :(

That faux pas also wasn't on venture's original list either. All I can say is, whoever subsequently did that edit definitely knew how to keep his options open! :) I also reckon this might be a very scarce WBR title to track down ... harder to find than even Tanglewood Tales or Paradise Lost!

You still haven't told me when you saw PL. Also, was it illustrated?

Rule45½

posted by Rule42 at 3:08 pm (EST) on Sep 15, 2007
________________________________________...

Hi Rule 42, No.....no......your just too sharp. The pillow book was "A Tree grows in Brooklyn" (Betty Smith), finished today with regret. (five stars) and I cannot branch into a pun from that.
Am now checking out your WBR and Kipling threads and am beginning to see the wisdom in your alternate italic and normal typeface. I can't do that yet, this aint WORD is it? there's no icons!
Went into our local library recently and asked for "How to Commit Suicide" (Nolan) The reply?....." Sorry! The last reader hasn't returned it yet!"

Oh never mind.

Take care.

Ps Your WBR list is ace! I love your *Aventures of Tom Huckleberry Finn*

posted by Novak at 2:22 pm (EST) on Sep 15, 2007
________________________________________...

Captains Courageous, read it yet? Tell me honestly, if you read it without the cover, it could be Mark Twain.

It's on my "currently reading" list which means I started it (I'm about a quarter of the way through it) but put it aside because something else caught my attention - in this particular case, it was Kim. There's a conversation (meaning multiple posts) between thorold and myself lower down on my profile page that discusses Kipling in the very manner you just did, where I lumped Kipling in with RLS, Burns, Dylan Thomas, James Joyce and Mark Twain. Rather than repeat myself here I'll let you read that first. Hit "Control F" and type "Captains Courageous" to locate the last part of that conversation. You may have to hit "Next" once or twice too.

WRT your previous post ...

Wife's dining room table ... I guess that's why they are called Reader's Digest, huh?

Books collected together from all over the house, one even from under my pillow!

Let me guess, m'Lord ... that one was Dickens' Hard Times ... or perhaps Twain's Roughing It? No, wait a minute, my money goes on The Legend of Sleepy Hollow! :) How's your cricked neck coming along, BTW?

Also, m'Lord, you never told me which HJ you had recently started to re-read. Kalooki Nights arrived yesterday and I'm looking forward to reading it some time soon (that probably means it will be the other side of Christmas before I can even think of getting to it :( ).

Finally, I updated my post #35 with the information you gave me. I would appreciate you checking it out for accuracy. Take care.

Rule46 (see, my diet's beginning to work!)

posted by Rule42 at 5:49 pm (EST) on Sep 14, 2007

________________________________________...

Captains Courageous, read it yet? Tell me honestly, if you read it without the cover, it could be Mark Twain. I just love that kid being rude to the skipper, and the skipper laying him out. Would do an awful lot of people a lot of good. Wonderful read, sorry when the last page turned.

Regards

posted by Novak at 5:49 pm (EST) on Sep 14, 2007

________________________________________...

Hey Rule 42, Impressed huh? Stage managed, all of it. Wife's dining room table, Books collected together from all over the house, one even from under my pillow! First, and probably last, time they have all been together. Take shot, then get it all cleared up before she returns and sees what you get up to when shes out.

BTW that's the most I have seen in one photo.............unless anyone knows better..........

bacson

posted by Novak at 8:15 am (EST) on Sep 14, 2007
________________________________________...

Thanks for info, see my new image, all my own work (with your help, of course!)

Aha, you're going to need at least another 3 fancy dandy desks like that one afore ya done collecting all of the WBR books! :) FYI, the last time I looked at your profile page photo image it was something so small that I thought I had a dirty fingerprint on my monitor, and so I spent the next 5 minutes trying to clean my screen! :(

BTW, never mind answering that last question in my previous post, because I can see from your catalogue which ones you have. I noticed there are 40 books in your photo and only 37 in your catalogue (and not all those are WBR) ... so what gives, huh?

posted by Rule42 at 12:40 am (EST) on Sep 14, 2007
________________________________________...

If you deferentuate between "scarce" and "rare"........................Your a collector!!

Touché, Monsieur Ouroboros! :) But I was stressing the term "scarce" rather than "rare" to emphasize your own point that that book was merely hard to locate, whereas the term "rare" normally implies to the average person "hard to locate because there are very few good copies of them available (and consequently those copies are very valuable)."

To some extent all the WBR books are relatively scarce because they were only sold via subscription. They didn't exactly go flying off the shelves of Foyles or Barnes & Noble in vast quantities like Harry Potter or Dan Brown books. That's because most folks would feel as hesitant about almost ALL the titles in the WBR series in the same manner you feel about the Milton.

Having said that, and without trying to sound too Orwellian, although all the WBR books are scarce, some appear to be much scarcer than others! :) And the Milton would appear to be one of those. Understand also that I am applying that term from a US perspective. Over here, ALL of the UK variants of these books are scarce. However, in the UK, that Milton title may be no scarcer than any of the other UK WBR titles.

Can you remember when exactly it was that you saw the Milton? Also, how many of the other "UK only" issued titles (as listed in post #35) do you own?

posted by Rule42 at 12:05 am (EST) on Sep 14, 2007
________________________________________...

Ho Rule 42, Thanks for info, see my new image, all my own work (with your help, of course!)
If you deferentuate between "scarce" and "rare"........................Your a collector!!

posted by Novak at 7:53 am (EST) on Sep 13, 2007
The book is scarce rather than rare, and in the sense that there aren't very many copies currently floating around on the secondary market. Thus it is scarce because we cannot find a copy right now, and not in the sense of it being a very valuable rare book.

posted by Rule42 at 11:45 pm (EST) on Sep 12, 2007
________________________________________...

Really, have I missed buying a rare book? or is it just that we can't find it. I'd buy it if I saw it again but I don't think I'd enjoy reading it..........still yer never know.......

posted by Novak at 7:57 pm (EST) on Sep 12, 2007
________________________________________...

Paradise lost really does exist. Saw it in a shop with two other titles and I could not afford all three, It looked a bit boring so I left it. Does that mean there's 113 titles lurking out there?

Yes, yes, yes it most certainly does, and it also means I've just been vindicated (see note 1 to my post #35 on the WBR thread). Yippee. :)

Now I don't have to keep qualifying my running tally on that thread with a "not including the book safe" caveat any more. You don't happen to remember its RD copyright year, do you? *laughing to myself*.

Hey, here's a thought, can you remember what year you saw that book? If, say, you saw it in 2004, then it could not possibly be a 2005 or later issue. Stating as accurately as you can in that post when you examined that book would really help a lot. I have always secretly suspected that this title is the long lost WBR title with id. #114 from 2003 that is identified on that Wikipedia page as "Unknown Title". Yes, yes, this book is so aptly named ... it is truly "Paradise Lost"! :)

BTW you are the ONLY person I'm aware of that has seen the actual Paradise Lost book.

I'm not really a collector, I'm just a reader but one does get caught up.

Me too. I'm now actually more caught up with the process of solving the virtual jig-saw puzzle that this WBR series represents than even with the collecting of the books. About this time last year when I made my first post on that thread I owned less than 50 titles (in fact, I was pretty much where you are now) which I had mostly picked up in used book stores because these books (with their quality bindings and illustrations) usually stand out from the crowd on a shelf and just demand to be bought. After accumulating a number of the multiple titles by Twain, Dickens, Doyle, et al, I became curious as to just how many Twain or London or Kipling were available in the series, so I went online to see how many I could find of those authors I just mentioned. And that's when I stumbled onto that WBR thread with just the OP's post on it ... and the rest is history.

After searching around some I had to make a list of all the new titles I'd found. By the time I found the LT thread I owned 45 (give or take) but had located another 40 odd titles by watching eBay auctions, etc. Today I possess 80 titles, so I've almost doubled what I owned back then, but where the high water mark this time last year was 87, it's now up to 113 and I'm not that much friggin' nearer to completing the series. Talk about moving goal posts ...

posted by Rule42 at 6:29 pm (EST) on Sep 12, 2007
________________________________________...

Paradise lost really does exist. Saw it in a shop with two other titles and I could not afford all three, It looked a bit boring so I left it. Does that mean there's 113 titles lurking out there? I'm not really a collector, I'm just a reader but one does get caught up.

Your right about the Collins quote too.

posted by Novak at 1:28 pm (EST) on Sep 12, 2007
________________________________________...

Hmmm, that sounds something like Joan Collins might possibly have said. :)

I just purchased Jacobson's Kalooki Nights last week. It was an online purchase so I haven't even received it yet. It was interesting to learn from you that his wife is Australian (or at least she was when you met him!). That explains many of his "Aussie insights" in Redback. Until you told me that, I had always assumed he was just an "Aussiephile" who had incorporated his experience of an Australian vacation into that novel. The Manchester portions were dead on, but he's a Mancunian so I would expect that.

I was actually thinking about Tom Sharpe as I mentioned the inflatable doll in my last message (because of his Wilt novel) and also because of my reference to Bradbury. In my own mind, I always link MB, TS, HJ and David Lodge together because I read the last 3 authors for the first time in the same year in the early to mid 80s, and they all reminded me of MB (who I personally knew and first started reading back in 1975) because they each wrote really funny "campus novels" on a par with The History Man. TS wrote Porterhouse Blue, HJ wrote Coming from Behind, and DL wrote ... hmm, I can't remember which one it was now ... Small World I'm guessing?

Anyway, so now I shelve all of the books I own by these four authors together mostly because of that "British campus novel" aspect. BTW, I liked your friend's idea of a Tom Sharpe "chain read".

Rule47 (but I'm working hard on trying to shed that extra weight, honest ...)

posted by Rule42 at 11:26 am (EST) on Sep 12, 2007
________________________________________...

Hi Rule42, I'll put my money on Barnham. But who said recently? " When I was a little girl my gran used to take me to the circus to see the fat lady and the tattooed man..................Now they're everywhere!"

Picked up Jacobson to read all over again today.

Friend years ago gave all his contacts a Tom Sharp paperback at Xmas with a list in the front cover of who had which so we could read and swap. Worked well. we kept in touch and laughed for years.

Best wishes

Novak

posted by Novak at 5:12 am (EST) on Sep 12, 2007
________________________________________...

"I believe I inflated you to rule 47 in one of my coms, sorry about that."

Hey, I don't care what you write about me on LT just as long as you spell my goddam name right! That's Rule1 of marketing and PR. :)

Wasn't it P.T. Barnum that originally said that? Wait, no, I believe it was really Will Rogers. No, no, my mistake, it was actually George M. Cohan.

Or was it Mae West that originally said it? Perhaps not - although she's frequently attributed with originating that statement, I read somewhere that she was actually only quoting W.C. Fields. Who, I have it on good authority, was in turn quoting Mark Twain ... or was it Oscar Wilde? Sheesh, I can't remember now. :(

Anyways, a little inflation is good for the soul. At least that's what my blow-up doll keeps telling me! :)

WRT Howard Jacobson, I think he's an excellent comic writer. I assume the novel the Wolverhampton wit was writing when you met him was Redback. Or maybe it was his Hardy satire Peeping Tom since Cornwall is pretty close to Dorset? I consider him the British Philip Roth ... the Mancunian William F. Buckley ... the poor man's Malcolm Bradbury! :)

"He was not very funny on the surface"

Well, still alcohol runs deep!

"I never dreamed he would sell books."

I didn't know he was a book seller ... I thought he just wrote them! Isn't it his publisher's job to sell the books?

You gotta like someone that is as intellectually original as Howard. How many other authors do you know that can feature synchronized swimmers as characters in their books?

posted by Rule42 at 2:21 am (EST) on Sep 12, 2007
________________________________________...

Hi Rule 42. I believe I inflated you to rule 47 in one of my coms, sorry about that. In full circle I see you have Howard Jacobson's work in your library. Spent a lot of time with the man and his huge Australian wife in Boscastle, Cornwall, UK, (King Athur country) while he wrote this novel. He was not very funny on the surface, I never dreamed he would sell books.

Regards Novak

posted by Novak at 7:15 pm (EST) on Sep 10, 2007
"Can't remember exactly, but I think there was yet another version of Love Among the Chickens in between 1906 and 1921."

I think you might be thinking of the novel Mike instead. That is the only novel I can think of that went through three separate distinct iterations, or if you prefer, had three different book manifestations ... viz. Mike in 1909 (originally 59 chapters long); then Enter Psmith in 1935 (a stand-alone reissue of chapters 30-59 of Mike); and finally as Mike at Wrykn (chapters 1-29) and Mike and Psmith (chapters 30-59), both in 1953. Even if those were essentially only re-titling / repackaging differences there still had to be corresponding changes made to chapter numbering and, correspondingly, the list of contents, etc. I've never read or seen a copy of any of those titles, but I find it very hard to believe that Plum could start a novel at chapter 30 without having to do some re-writing of what already existed to create an acceptably smooth introduction to the new independent version of the last part of the original Mike novel.

It is that novel (or those 2/3/4 novels) plus the two iterations of Love Among the Chickens that divide Plum aficionados as to exactly how many works are actually in the Wodehouse canon. I know I am significantly oversimplifying the situation here, but those two "efforts" alone can be counted as representing anything from 2 to 6 distinct works within his canon. Of course there are many other contentious issues that all go to compound the complexity of deciding what actually belongs in or out of the official Wodehouse canon.

Such as an independent publishing of his short story The Great Sermon Handicap; or the works which he co-authored with Herbert Westbrook; or works for which he bought the original copyright from another author in order to adapt them for his own purposes (e.g., The Butter and Egg Man by George Kaufman which became Barmy in Wonderland in the UK and Angel Cake in the USA); or works which he published psuedonymously such as The Luck Stone; or works which he had serialized in magazines that never made in into final book format such as A Man of Means; or works which were only first published posthumously such as his unfinished novel Sunset at Blandings as well as a number of popular collections of his works that were never published while he was still alive (e.g., Uncollected Wodehouse); or his three non-fictional works that we've already touched upon that are significantly different in their UK and USA editions and titles; and on and on. :(

"Update: The original UK edition of 1906 was published in the US in 1911 (by a literary agent who cannily copyrighted it in his own name, so that Wodehouse ended up paying him off to get the rights back)."

According to the Wodehouse bibliography I use (which I originally downloaded into Word from the web, and which I add my own annotations to as I discover and reconcile this kind of new information), the American edition of LATC was first published in 1909 by Circle Publishing Co.. I have absolutely no idea which date is correct, or even if that is the publisher that McCrum mentions in his introduction. I'm just throwing that out there FYI. However, if McCrum discussed the history of LATC in some detail in his introduction, then I personally would defer to his information on that one.

"The Gutenberg text is indeed the 1921 revised edition."

I had assumed so mostly because I didn't remember it being written in two different voices.

posted by Rule42 at 7:19 pm (EST) on Jul 11, 2007
________________________________________...

"One of my lasting regrets is that I didn't take the opportunity to steal The Pothunters and The Gold Bat from the school library."

Of course, what you really meant to say was: "... didn't take the opportunity to check The Pothunters and The Gold Bat out of the school library and then accidentally forget to return them"! No one can condone theft, but we all sometimes suffer from lapses of memory, particularly as we get older! :)

posted by Rule42 at 4:12 pm (EST) on Jul 11, 2007
________________________________________...

Update: my Penguin edition of Love among the Chickens has an introduction by the ubiquitous McCrum, which summarises the history. The original UK edition of 1906 was published in the US in 1911 (by a literary agent who cannily copyrighted it in his own name, so that Wodehouse ended up paying him off to get the rights back). The Gutenberg text is indeed the 1921 revised edition. According to McCrum the main changes were general updating of references and putting the whole thing in the first person (apparently the 1st edition switches between 1st and 3rd, like The Little Nugget), and taking out the original "happy ending" where Garnet marries Phyllis.

posted by thorold at 3:53 pm (EST) on Jul 10, 2007
________________________________________...

A while back, I read a Project Gutenberg online version of Love Among the Chickens and that, so far, is probably the worst PGW I've read. Plum wrote it in 1906 but reworked it significantly to republish it again in 1921. I'm pretty certain it was the 1921 version that I read but I might be wrong.

Can't remember exactly, but I think there was yet another version of Love Among the Chickens in between 1906 and 1921. I'll look it up. I agree that it counts as "competent" rather than "Wodehouse". There are a couple of good jokes, but that's about it. Much the same goes for Not George Washington, which I have in a modern reprint. Both mainly interesting because of what they reveal about PGW's early life.

One of my lasting regrets is that I didn't take the opportunity to steal The Pothunters and The Gold Bat from the school library. I don't suppose they were first editions, but they must have been fairly early ones. I don't suppose reading them would take you more than a tiny fraction of the time it takes to read Vanity Fair and Tristram Shandy, but I wouldn't class any of Wodehouse's school stories as worth missing Sterne for!

posted by thorold at 9:49 am (EST) on Jul 10, 2007
"Henry Esmond is an interesting historical novel, the rest are essentially more of the same recipe. Some of the short stuff is more interesting, especially Barry Lyndon - a Flashmanesque send-up of the 18th-century novel, you might remember the film ..."

Those two would have been about the only two other Thackeray titles I might have been able to name, but even if I did remember them, I would probably have attributed them to Anthony Trollope instead! :(

Remember the movie? You betcha ... it's probably my all-time favorite Stanley Kubrick movie (and he's my favorite film director!). I remember reading somewhere that Martin Scorsese considers it his favorite Kubrick film and I have to agree with him. Even now, I can still visualize the highly original "natural" lighting Kubrick used throughout the movie, plus he also utilized many of my favorite baroque pieces for the soundtrack - not to mention the music of the Chieftains! I think Ryan O'Neal was perfect for the role he played; and any movie which features Reginald Perrin in it can't possibly be bad, IMO! :)

I've always been disappointed that most people regard BL as Kubrick's worst movie ... that just convinces me that most people are idiots. It's funny (ironic) but perhaps my second favorite film director is Ridley Scott, and a couple of years after I saw BL I saw my first Ridley Scott movie, The Duellists, which immediately reminded me of BL. That movie, too, has really beautiful cinematography. Now, if only Roman Polanski had also made a movie about duelling! To return back to BL, the novel, it was always my understanding that it is considered to be one of the first novels, if not actually THE first novel, in the English language to feature an anti-hero - which I assume is what you meant by "Flashmanesque". Today, we accept novels that feature anti-heros almost as the norm, so much so that is hard to fully appreciate from our modern perspective how innovative that novel may have really been at the time Thackeray wrote it.

I also thought that Thackeray rewrote the BL story to a certain extent for its publication as a novel. Wasn't it first serialized in a magazine? In which case, we are right back into the same territory we were discussing WRT Plum modifying his short stories and novels between when they were first published in a magazine and when they were finally published as a book - or alternatively, his utilizing the time delay between a title being first published in the UK and then subsequently being published in the USA, and vice versa - in order to tweak them further such as to rewrite the voice in which they were narrated, or to add/delete a romantic connection into/from the storyline (as per Love Among the Chickens).

"... and Memoirs of C.J. Yellowplush"

That particular title was completely off of my radar, but I'll now go and research it. Interesting enough, I am currently reading a biography of Marshall McLuhan who was a voracious reader of the classics when he was a teenager in college (in fact, he was a voracious reader throughout his whole life, but my point is that he started early). As an undergraduate, he was fully immersed in the works of Samuel Johnson and the subsequent biographies of him, and commentaries on his work, by the likes of Macaulay, Boswell and Carlyle.

Of course, he also indulged himself in Thackeray and was quite enthralled with his lectures on Charity and Humor. It's when I come across implicit recommendations like that in the stuff I'm currently reading that causes me to spontaneously pull something off my shelves and immediately indulge my own curiosity further, or to at least move the referenced title onto my "to read some time soon" list. Of course, that assumes I already own it. If I don't, such references will usually cause me to get on eBay or AbeBooks and start searching instead. So now I'm intrigued about Thackeray's lectures on Charity and Humor. Do you have any advice to offer?

"The other great thing about Thackeray, of course, is that he was trained as an illustrator before he became a writer, so you get all these entertaining little sketches in the text."

Yes, indeedy. Thackeray appears to have added his own carbonated "Phiz" to his own "Boz"! (Insert groan here.) And there I was thinking that it was James Thurber that was the first author to illustrate his own works! :( What's that? William who? William Blake? I guess I need to go check him out too!

"The Oxford Dickens is nice"

Yes it is. Heron Books also produced a pretty nice complete (36+ volumes) illustrated edition of Dickens. I passed over the Oxford Dickens in order to plump for the Oxford Mark Twain instead, and so far, I don't regret having done that. Although he was born only two dozen or so years after Dickens he is a much more modern and pertinent writer (not to mention much funnier), and he was still writing during the first decade of the 20th century right up until he died (40 years after Dickens). It's amazing what a difference 20-30 years and a different continent makes!

posted by Rule42 at 4:12 pm (EST) on Jul 11, 2007
________________________________________...

I have a Franklin Library leatherbound copy of Vanity Fair which I only recently purchased so I haven't read it yet, but that's all the Thackeray I own (and although I clearly have an intent to read it, right now it's pretty low down on my "to read" list; I bought it mostly because it's a really beautiful edition and is illustrated by Thackeray himself). (snip) I wasn't even aware Thackaray's total output ran to that many volumes.

There are only six or seven full-scale novels (2 vols each), the rest is short fiction, essays and journalism. I dip in from time to time, but have never had the mad urge to read the lot in one go. VF is definitely the best of the novels. Henry Esmond is an interesting historical novel, the rest are essentially more of the same recipe. Some of the short stuff is more interesting, especially Barry Lyndon - a Flashmanesque send-up of the 18th-century novel, you might remember the film - and Memoirs of C.J. Yellowplush -- spoof autobiography told in the voice of a superbly pompous footman. The other great thing about Thackeray, of course, is that he was trained as an illustrator before he became a writer, so you get all these entertaining little sketches in the text.

I remember about a decade ago I came this close to purchasing a complete set of the "Oxford Illustrated Dickens" (issued in the USA by the Oxford University Press during the late 80s, I believe) but changed my mind at the last minute because I really couldn't see myself ploughing through Dickens' more obscure works.

The Oxford Dickens is nice - I've got Pickwick Papers in that (or a similar) series, well worth having. But I think the same applies as to Thackeray (even though there is more variety in the style and subject-matter of Dickens's novels) -- complete works of Great Victorians give you a lot of very ephemeral writing that isn't likely to be interesting to anyone not currently writing a PhD thesis on whoever it is.

posted by thorold at 9:49 am (EST) on Jul 10, 2007
________________________________________...

"... my mouldering 26-volume Thackeray ..."

26 volumes ??? Really ??? Sheesh, I have a Franklin Library leatherbound copy of Vanity Fair which I only recently purchased so I haven't read it yet, but that's all the Thackeray I own (and although I clearly have an intent to read it, right now it's pretty low down on my "to read" list; I bought it mostly because it's a really beautiful edition and is illustrated by Thackeray himself). Do you see me getting hooked? I mean hooked to the point that we're both hooked on Plum, with my wanting to track down and read all the other 25 volumes of his works. I wasn't even aware Thackaray's total output ran to that many volumes.

The other week I was looking at a used 2-dozen plus volumes leatherbound edition of the works of Robert Louis Stevenson (probably WW1 era) and all I could think was, despite how much I like RLS, if I bought it I would probably never read 70% of it. I remember about a decade ago I came this close to purchasing a complete set of the "Oxford Illustrated Dickens" (issued in the USA by the Oxford University Press during the late 80s, I believe) but changed my mind at the last minute because I really couldn't see myself ploughing through Dickens' more obscure works. I can see myself possibly ignoring Wodehouse's school novels and some other stuff he wrote before 1909 for similar reasons. I don't want to spend my time reading second rate anything if it means I miss out reading first rate something elsewhere. For instance, reading The Pothunters might mean I never finally get around to reading, say, Tristan Shandy or Vanity Fair.

A while back, I read a Project Gutenberg online version of Love Among the Chickens and that, so far, is probably the worst PGW I've read. Plum wrote it in 1906 but reworked it significantly to republish it again in 1921. I'm pretty certain it was the 1921 version that I read but I might be wrong. If it was, I'm certainly not going to knock myself out to go read the original 1906 version. That's one title that I would take a "been there, done that" attitude to; while, in contrast, I have found that I've already read some of my Overlook novels more than once, and I could quite easily see myself rereading those yet again. That even goes for The Little Nugget which is another of his weaker offerings (as you yourself pointed out in your review of it).

posted by Rule42 at 12:54 am (EST) on Jul 9, 2007
Lucozade and Vick's Vapour Rub

Don't knock it -- that's exactly how I started with PGW. As a small child I was perpetually ill and perpetually running out of books, as I think I've described before, until my father had the bright idea of supplying me with PGW from his school library. The drawback being that the supply was essentially unlimited, so there wasn't much incentive to get better and go back to school!

posted by thorold at 5:27 pm (EST) on Jul 11, 2007
________________________________________...

"Secondhand Wodehouse has always been at a bit of a premium ..."

That was my point; considering how many of his books are in circulation I find that fact non-intuitive.

"... and it's difficult to compare exactly, since so much depends on condition and the dustjacket is often worth more than the book."

That's true of any expensive collectible book. The more expensive the item, the higher the percentage the DJ seems to be worth. A first edition book that is worth $1000 with the original DJ, might only be worth $300-$400 without a DJ.

"I'd guess that prices for first editions of even the less obscure Wodehouse titles have doubled in the last six or seven years."

You've just confirmed what I suspected. That probably means that Wodehouse (if you owned the right titles in the appropriate condition) has been a better investment that real estate over the last five years or more!

"Most British secondhand bookshops are likely to have a few PGW titles in stock, even if they are rarely the ones you want..."

And that was also my point. That's what I would expect to be the situation over here, too. However, in my own personal experience, it's not the case. It appears that people either hang onto their HC Wodehouse here, or pass it on to family and friends; or if they do trade it in, other readers have always managed to grab it before I ever got a chance to see it. Of course, I'm only a sample of one, and my experience may not be typical. Additionally, I've only been keeping an eye out for Wodehouse during the last seven years or so, anyway. I can understand his pre-WW2 HC titles being quite rare, but I have never seen any of his post-WW2 titles either! He appears to be an author that readers, once they've acquired his HC books, tend to hang on to them rather than recycle them.

Either that, or they read his books to destruction instead. Since, by his own admission, Wodehouse is mostly read by people that are incarcerated, or laid up in bed sick, that may well be the case! For instance, do any of your own Wodehouse HC copies contain any Lucozade or chicken noodle soup stains by any chance? Do they possibly smell of camphor oil or Vick's Vapor Rub, or did they come with very worn nail files and/or rather heavily used Kleenex inserted between the pages (supposedly as place markers)? Just testing my theory here. :)

posted by Rule42 at 4:12 pm (EST) on Jul 11, 2007
________________________________________...

Secondhand Wodehouse has always been at a bit of a premium, and it's difficult to compare exactly, since so much depends on condition and the dustjacket is often worth more than the book. But I'd guess that prices for first editions of even the less obscure Wodehouse titles have doubled in the last six or seven years. I suppose secondhand availability depends on the number of people who own a given book in the catchment area of the bookseller. Maybe Wodehouse sales per square kilometer or per head of population were lower in the US than the UK, even if the US was still his biggest single market. Until the fifties, most of his income probably came from US magazine sales, which wouldn't necessarily have led people to buy books. Most British secondhand bookshops are likely to have a few PGW titles in stock, even if they are rarely the ones you want...

posted by thorold at 9:49 am (EST) on Jul 10, 2007
________________________________________...

"... I'm not likely to replace any of my tatty "reading copies" by first editions any time soon."

Have the titles you own gone up considerably in price since you bought them 20-30 years ago? Before I discovered the Overlook Press releases I saw very few HC editions of his books in used book stores over here, and if I did stumble across one it would most likely be in very tatty condition and quite expensive - far too expensive relative to how tatty it was, IMO. PGW was every bit as popular in the USA as in the UK, and given the relative population sizes and American disposable incomes, I would strongly suspect that he sold more copies of his works on this side of the Atlantic than he did on that side (I'm hedging that statement simply because I have never seen any hard numbers to back it up). So given how prolific his output was taken together with how well he sold, I was always quite surprised how rarely I came across HC copies of his books in used book stores. You'd have thought that the "W" and "humor" sections would have been relatively overflowing with recycled copies of his books, yet they were scarcer than a pork chop in a synagogue! I have never understood why that was the case.

posted by Rule42 at 12:54 am (EST) on Jul 9, 2007
"I wonder if the reason for the non-publication in the US has more to do with the original US version of the book having significantly different contents from the UK version. Many of the short story collections have different mixes of stories, for no apparent reason."

That had been my original theory, too, but it's easily falsified (thank you, Sir Karl Popper) by the fact that on that basis the following two other collections of short stories (at a minimum) from the period 1936 - 1940 would also not have be published here (which they already have):

- Young Men in Spats, 1936 ... UK edition: 11 stories; US edition: 12 stories
- Lord Emsworth and Others, 1937 ... UK edition: 9 stories; US edition (retitled: A Crime Wave at Blandings): 7 stories

Hence, I don't believe that the fact that there are major differences between the contents of the UK and US initial editions of EB&C is the reason for Overlook Press not publishing it here.

"My copy of Eggs, Beans and Crumpets seems to be fine - there are another six lines on page 60 after "...quivered for the third". Sounds as though yours had some sort of paper-feed fault in printing. If you bought it new, you might still be able to get it replaced.

Well, it's not that simple. Besides the fact that it's quite a while since I purchased it, any return and refund restitution can really only come from the international book seller that I bought it from via Amazon. But it is NOT that seller's fault; it is a publishing error NOT a damage to or misrepresentation of product error. It is no good my contacting Overlook because it's not one of its published titles, and if I contacted Everyman in the USA it would similarly not be one of its supported titles either, since it was the European arm of Everyman that published it in the UK. For the cost of the book it really isn't an issue worth pursuing.

Publisher's screw up the first editions of books all the time; admittedly, the addition or omission of chunks of text is much rarer than spelling and punctuation errors. OTOH, those kind of typos and spurious punctuation events are usually one of the ways of being able to identify true first editions of books printed prior to the common adoption of the "number line" sometime in the seventies. If you collect first editions, one of the things that you have to learn to live with are the initial flaws in them that always manage to creep past the original proof readers and editors but which ultimately get reported and corrected in subsequent printings. So I'm just treating my copy as if it was one of those instances.

posted by Rule42 at 7:19 pm (EST) on Jul 11, 2007
________________________________________...

My copy of Eggs, Beans and Crumpets seems to be fine - there are another six lines on page 60 after "...quivered for the third". Sounds as though yours had some sort of paper-feed fault in printing. If you bought it new, you might still be able to get it replaced. About half the stories in the US version of EB&C are different from those in the UK version. Even Garrison gets muddled on this point, and the tables in Jasen require infinite patience and good eyesight to decipher, so I won't attempt to work out which they are, unless you insist!

posted by thorold at 3:53 pm (EST) on Jul 10, 2007
________________________________________...

I'll check my copy for the error. I wonder if the reason for the non-publication in the US has more to do with the original US version of the book having significantly different contents from the UK version. Many of the short story collections have different mixes of stories, for no apparent reason.

posted by thorold at 9:49 am (EST) on Jul 10, 2007
________________________________________...

"It's a good job we've got Everyman!"

Or in my case, Overlook Press. However, I do own a couple of the Everyman editions as well, because for some reason Overlook never released them over here, and it still hasn't. So I had to buy imported copies of those two. One of those titles is Eggs, Beans and Crumpets which you also own. My theory why Overlook never published that particular title here is that the text of the Everyman edition is screwed up. Since Overlook uses the same manufacturing / publishing source in Germany for its editions as Everyman does, once it saw the error in the Everyman edition it presumably nixed its own scheduled release rather than publish a flawed copy. In my version of EB&C the second Bingo Little story, Bingo and the Peke Crisis, ends in mid sentence on page 60 as follows: "Purkiss took another look, and quivered for the third" ... That's it! How is the text on that page in your copy?

posted by Rule42 at 12:54 am (EST) on Jul 9, 2007
subtle German wordplay

It does exist: try Christian Morgenstern. Or even Günter Grass (though Grass is generally using it for satire, rather than comedy). But I agree that most German humour is more like slapstick, e.g. Wilhelm Busch.

BTW: Not-so-subtle German wordplay - because of the way the letter "V" is pronounced in German, Vick´s use the name "Wick" in Germany. A German friend´s very respectable French mother-in-law had an embarrassing experience at a Munich chemist's through not knowing this ("Ich möchte einen Vick...").
Sounds suspiciously like the J.K. Jerome anecdote, where he goes shopping under the mistaken impression that "Küsschen" is the German word for "cushion"...

posted by thorold at 5:27 pm (EST) on Jul 11, 2007
________________________________________...

When I read in McCrum's biography his description of how Plum was initially captured and how he was subsequently treated during his internment, I got the distinct impression that the Germans were somewhat in awe of him. Maybe it was just his financial success as an author and his celebrity status that impressed them (I believe he was one of the best remunerated authors of the thirties, up there close behind W. Somerset Maugham) rather than the literacy of his output. That, now I think about it, would actually make a lot more sense. The Germans are not known for their sense of humor. They do have one, but it is not tied to the language (e.g., puns, spoonerisms, malapropisms, etc.), like much playful English humor is, simply because the German language doesn't lend itself to as many of those kind of linguistic jests like English does.

All the Germans I've personally known have had a very dark, physical sense of humor. Practical jokes and physical pranks are much more typical of the German psyche ... Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, the Three Stooges, or even Harold & Maud are much more likely to appeal than, say, Spike Milligan, Frank Muir or Howard Jacobson. There is a very physical aspect to Wodehouse's farce - for instance, knocking off policeman's helmets and throwing flower pots through windows, etc. - that would put him in the former group; but for me the larger part of Plum's humor lies in the verbal word play of his classical misquotes, Babu talk, and his very English penchant for straightfaced understatement, which places him more in the latter group.

If Wodehouse only relied on his farce (i.e., situational comedy) for his humor, I think I would have got bored with him a long time ago. It's all the other facets of his humor that keep me coming back for more, and as I said in my last PM, I wonder just how much of that survives translation into languages like German and Russian.

"Well, actually, even a Dutch cyclist has difficulties reading a book while cycling with an umbrella in one hand, a shopping bag in the other, a bunch of flowers under the arm, a baby on the handlebars and a friend on the rear carrier..."

I've seen the Dutch do things on bicycles that I can't even do standing on my own two feet. :( I'll address your other points in a separate PM.

posted by Rule42 at 4:12 pm (EST) on Jul 11, 2007
________________________________________...

When I mention to German friends that I'm a Wodehouse enthusiast, they look at me very strangely. Most educated Germans seem to dismiss him as an author of Mills & Boon/Harlequin type romances, full of lords and ladies and butlers. I've never gone so far as to read a German translation to find out whether they actually take the jokes out, or whether it's just intellectual prejudice. There are Dutch translations of some Wodehouse novels, but I think most people must read him in English. And they do laugh at the jokes.

Knowing the Dutch, I bet a great many of them also read Wodehouse while out riding their bikes! :)

Well, actually, even a Dutch cyclist has difficulties reading a book while cycling with an umbrella in one hand, a shopping bag in the other, a bunch of flowers under the arm, a baby on the handlebars and a friend on the rear carrier...

posted by thorold at 9:49 am (EST) on Jul 10, 2007
________________________________________...

"Wodehouse has always been popular in Holland ..."

No surprises there. Given how well Plum was treated by the Nazis during the war years I assume that he has always been popular in Germany too. He's also extremely popular in Russia if I'm not mistaken. Most of his humor is based on situational farce and the human condition so I would imagine that doesn't lose very much in the translation. But I particularly like Wodehouse for his lyrical turn of phrase and perfect tongue-in-cheek delivery, much of which is intrinsically tied to the English language. I've always wondered how well that aspect of his writing translates into Russian or German, for instance. Would I be correct in assuming that the Dutch, being the natural linguists that they are, mostly read Wodehouse's actual English text rather than a Dutch translation?

Knowing the Dutch, I bet a great many of them also read Wodehouse while out riding their bikes! :)

posted by Rule42 at 12:54 am (EST) on Jul 9, 2007
I think your point re: the limitations of message boards is valid.

It's not the place for a detailed philosophical exchange.

Sad but true...
I see you changed your profile photo. :)

Just playing with a new camera on a wet day! It's surprisingly hard to get a shot of books that looks like something other than generic spines in thumbnail size -- I'll probably keep on tinkering with it. Maybe I should feature my mouldering 26-volume Thackeray (bought 25 years ago with the intention of getting it rebound...) next time?

I'm assuming those are all Herbert Jenkins first edition PGW titles. Are they easy to obtain in Holland or do you have to go on regular book-buying forays into the U.K. to find them, either virtually via the web or even physically via Eurail?

Yes, practically all my PGW are UK editions. Quite a lot are from before I came to Holland 20 years ago, others I bought here or got from UK dealers on holiday or via ABE. I always time my Christmas break in York to take in the New Year bookfair there. When I see what people like Nigel Williams are charging these days, I get the distinct impression that I'm not likely to replace any of my tatty "reading copies" by first editions any time soon. It's a good job we've got Everyman!

Joy in the Morning, The Ice in the Bedroom and Bring on the Girls are US editions I picked up in Dutch secondhand shops. BOTG seems to have come via a US Army library in Germany.

Dutch bookshops are pretty good for English-language books. In our local branch of "De Slegte" (the main secondhand bookshop chain in Netherlands and Belgium) the English fiction section is perhaps 50% of the size of the Dutch fiction section (and contains far fewer duplicates). Generally speaking you find a mix of UK, US and "Continental" editions (before Penguin became interested in the European mainland around 1950, there were a couple of German and Swedish publishers that specialised in English-language paperbacks). Wodehouse has always been popular in Holland -- apart from BOTG, most of the older Wodehouse editions I've bought here have Dutch names or bookplates in them, so they're not just the relics of expats' libraries.

posted by thorold at 6:20 am (EST) on Jul 8, 2007
________________________________________...

Hi Mark,

I see you changed your profile photo. :)

I'm assuming those are all Herbert Jenkins first edition PGW titles. Are they easy to obtain in Holland or do you have to go on regular book-buying forays into the U.K. to find them, either virtually via the web or even physically via Eurail?

posted by Rule42 at 8:17 pm (EST) on Jul 7, 2007
Thanks for the overview of the W-on-W. WRT my original comment about Anstey and Kipling, yeah, I had simply assumed that Kipling had published Kim first and that the success of that novel had spawned all the other Babu literature, such as Anstey, as others got on the bandwagon. So I was a little surprised that the Anstey preceded Kim. I agree that even if Kipling post-dated the early Anstey, since he had lived out in India himself, he almost certainly would have drawn on his own experiences (and prejudices) in order to create his Babu character. If Anstey had any influence on Kipling at all, it would probably only have been WRT the fact that the popular success of the Anstey Punch pieces may well have convinced Kipling that such a character in his next novel would be well received. Thank God Anstey didn't write about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles; the ending of the novel Kim may have turned out very different! :(

I'm guessing that even though a more mature Plum happily quoted from Kim in his later novels, the Babu influence on his early characters such as Psmith and Ukridge (as per Usborne) came almost entirely from his late teenage reading of Punch magazine where he was exposed to the Anstey. I had completely forgotten about the Billy Bunter books, and I don't remember Usborne saying much (if anything) about those, while I do remember Usborne discussing the Baboo Jabberjee articles as being one of the many influences on the early Wodehouse. Then, on reading Kim and realizing that it was published at the turn of the millenium, I had just assumed that he was in turn the influence for Anstey without even thinking about the dates involved.

To return to those Frank Richards books, they were still being written well into the fifties and sixties, if I remember correctly. I did a search of FR titles on LT and the ownership of Billy Bunter books is quite scarce (I see you are one of the many sole owners of a title). I guess it was the same market for those kind of books right back in 1907 (when Richards first started) that Plum was competing for with his own school stories.

"Kipling usually makes them look ridiculous by telling us what other Indians say about them."

So are you telling me that Kipling was passive-aggressive? :)

"Wodehouse actually refers to Mr Baboo Jabberjee in Love Among the Chickens, ch.2."

It's been awhile, but now that you mention it, I think I remember that.

I had better stop here.

posted by Rule42 at 3:58 pm (EST) on Jun 25, 2007
________________________________________...

...Back to Babus -- I see I got the wrong end of the stick in the comment I just posted. You were asking if Kipling could have got his Babu from Anstey, and I was still talking about where Wodehouse discovered the Babu-talk.

"Babu" is a Bengali title of respect, which in British-Indian slang became a derogatory term for educated Indians. This was already current by the 1850s (see Hobson-Jobson ). There's not necessarily any direct connection between the Babu in Kim and Anstey's Baboo Jabberjee -- Kipling certainly wasn't the only British-Indian with that sort of prejudice. And Kipling was writing about Indians out of place in their own society: Anstey about an Indian out of place in London. They probably came independently from the same cultural stereotype.

BTW: While googling for babus, I was reminded, thanks to Terry's notes, that Wodehouse actually refers to Mr Baboo Jabberjee in Love Among the Chickens, ch.2.

posted by thorold at 4:45 pm (EST) on Jun 22, 2007
________________________________________...

I see you have a copy of Wodehouse on Wodehouse in your library. How is that? Are the 3 titles it contains unabridged? Perhaps you could review it?

It's basically the complete UK text of Bring on the girls, Performing Flea, and Over Seventy. As always with Wodehouse, there are odd differences between the UK and US texts. I understand that the differences are quite big for Performing Flea / Author, Author! and OverSeventy / America, I like you, but I don't have the US editions of those to compare. For BOTG, the changes were quite minor. The nice thing about W-on-W is that the three books have a common index. And it's probably cheaper than buying the three separately.

I'll do a proper review when I get the chance to re-read them, but in thumbnail terms:

BOTG is fun to read but doesn't tell you anything useful. It's basically a collection of theatrical anecdotes retold as though they happened to Wodehouse and Bolton, interspersed with a handful of verifiable facts. Don't even think of attempting to follow the chronology.

PF is more revealing, since it consists of letters to Bill Townend that weren't written for publication (although they were certainly pruned and beautified for the book...). It covers the period from 1920 to 1952, which is much the most interesting bit of Wodehouse's life, and includes excerpts from a diary of life in the internment camp during the war. It's supposedly edited by Townend, just as BOTG is supposedly co-written with Bolton.

OS does contain a few passages of autobiography, but most of the material is cobbled together out of recycled newspaper columns, so yet get plenty of Wodehouse but comparatively little on Wodehouse.

... the Anstey. I hadn't realized that Kipling got the idea for his Babu character from the Punch humor pieces ... that's news to me. Hmmm, I need to go reference my Usborne again! Are you sure about that chronology?

The date for Anstey comes from Usborne. And Kim is definitely 1901. Kipling was getting known in England by around 1890, though, so it's possible that he sowed the seeds of the Babu character picked up by Anstey. (Frank Richards used a Babu character in the Billy Bunter stories, of course - they started in 1907.) Certainly, Kipling had a prejudice against educated Indians (especially Bengalis) that comes out in a lot of the stories. But I don't immediately remember one who talks "Babu-talk" -- Kipling usually makes them look ridiculous by telling us what other Indians say about them. A neat way of distracting attention from his prejudice.

posted by thorold at 4:17 pm (EST) on Jun 22, 2007
________________________________________...

"Well, I wouldn't take anything that Wodehouse said about his own writing at face value. He had a myth to keep up as well."

To tell the truth, I think I got that he only used Bartlett (thank you) from Usborne. It was possibly McCrum. I haven't read (don't own) any of Plum's autobiographical non-fiction, but again I know I've read somewhere (probably McCrum again) that Plum spent quite some time and effort embellishing - a.k.a. "fictionizing" - his non-fiction before it was published in order to maintain that myth.

I'm quite lucky that the point that I decided that I wanted to read more PGW it was just after Everyman had published the first titles in its series. So I got on board right at the beginning and I'm now pretty committed to working my way through Plum's canon via this collection. The titles are published in the USA (and probably Canada) by Overlook Press. They are exactly the same as the Everyman releases in Europe except the schedule of releases over here have now settled into running 6 months in arrears.

But I suspect this series is going to be confined to only covering his fiction (and possibly nothing earlier than A Gentleman of Leisure). I see you have a copy of Wodehouse on Wodehouse in your library. How is that? Are the 3 titles it contains unabridged? Perhaps you could review it?

"The Babu in Kim doesn't really talk more than a few words of "Babu talk" in direct speech."

That's true, but I thought Kim pre-dated ...

"I'm not sure if he got Babu talk from Kim, though -- Usborne cites Anstey's Baboo Jabberjee stories, published in Punch in 1896 while Wodehouse was still at school, and four years before Kim."

... the Anstey. I hadn't realized that Kipling got the idea for his Babu character from the Punch humor pieces ... that's news to me. Hmmm, I need to go read my Usborne again! Are you sure about that chronology?

"Ralston McTodd was of course the Canadian writer par excellence. (Wodehouse would probably add that Dostoievsky was the Russian writer par four...)"

*groans* Ah, yes ... I had completely forgotten about the "Singer of Saskatoon"! I'll have to go and read his collection of Songs of Squalor again. That's always been one of my favorites! :) * starts to recite to himself: "Across the pale parabola of Joy ..." *

"What about Flann O'Brien for Ireland?"

OK, OK ... I give up. Which golf story did he appear in?

posted by Rule42 at 2:10 am (EST) on Jun 22, 2007
Going back to last November, the question now is whether 1984 was a warning or a blueprint
Captains Courageous is displayed there in all it's glory

Yes, I enjoyed the bad punctuation thread -- thanks for pointing it out. I'm glad to see that you escaped the attentions of the apostrophe police :-)

It is funny (i.e., ironic - note the change of font!) that so much of the "Great Game" today - meaning the international intelligence focus of all the current major world powers - is once again being played out in exactly the same regions of the world (e.g., Pakistan and Afghanistan) that the main characters in Kim are from.

Yes, ironic. Seems to go with the territory: Hopkirk's The Great Game was written in 1990, and (at least in the edition I have) ends with central Asia quiet and all but forgotten...

Plum himself dismissed the effects of his "classical education" on his writing when admirers attributed it to being the source of all his wonderful literary misquotes by admitting that he used a single book of quotations (I can't remember offhand which one, but it's a standard respected reference work) as the sole source of these bungled aphorisms. However, I personally think a large source of Plum's initial inspiration for the mangling of the English language - both in word usage (e.g., Psmith and the origins of that name) as well as in, say, Wooster's misappropriation and misquoting of the classics followed by Jeeves' corrections - came from the Kipling character Babu in Kim.

Well, I wouldn't take anything that Wodehouse said about his own writing at face value. He had a myth to keep up as well. Obviously he did get a lot of stuff out of Bartlett It's really noticeable when he is citing things like obscure American essayists he wouldn't have been likely to come across anywhere else, or when he uses a whole string of things indexed with the same keyword. There are also places, like the famous tirade against dance crazes in Summer Lightning where he magically transforms a couple of pages of the encyclopaedia into something rich and strange. He'd have loved Google!

But he quotes chunks of Tennyson, Shakespeare, Byron, etc. that aren't in Bartlett; he makes consistent mistakes ("Aix to Ghent"; "the very word is like a knell") that can only be things he is quoting from memory; he also knows a lot of comparatively obscure bits of the Bible and Anglican Prayer Book.

There is a lot of Kipling, mostly poetry, in Wodehouse, and Kim references like "little friend of all the world" comes up quite regularly. Terry Mordue is a big Kim enthusiast and has tabulated a lot of the Kipling references in Wodehouse on his site. I'm not sure if he got Babu talk from Kim, though -- Usborne cites Anstey's Baboo Jabberjee stories, published in Punch in 1896 while Wodehouse was still at school, and four years before Kim. The Babu in Kim doesn't really talk more than a few words of "Babu talk" in direct speech.

Kipling was to English as spoken in the crown jewel of the British empire as Robert Louis Stevenson or Rabby Burns are to the Scottish dialect, Dylan Thomas is to the Welsh dialect, James Joyce is to the Irish dialect (perhaps, I'm not a big Joyce fan and feel there may be better champions of the Irish brogue in English literature) and Mark Twain is to the American south dialect(s). Hmmm, what happened to the Canadians?

Ralston McTodd was of course the Canadian writer par excellence. (Wodehouse would probably add that Dostoievsky was the Russian writer par four...)

What about Flann O'Brien for Ireland?

posted by thorold at 3:36 pm (EST) on Jun 20, 2007
________________________________________...

Hi Mark.

"... there are people around who evidently don't understand the concept of irony."

Especially Americans! And that is the case despite the fact that some of the best exponents of irony are American authors - viz. Twain and Vonnegut. I have posted on that topic elsewhere on LT a number of times but will need time to locate such - more later on that topic, so stay tuned (hee, hee, a little Hilversum radio humor there!). In the past I have even suggested to Tim (tongue in cheek, of course!) that there should be an irony and satire font (or perhaps even a different font color!).

"Have you been following the 'How to read a book' thread?"

To be quite frank, NO. With a title like that I had naturally assumed that such a thread was directed at the younger members of LT (say, 6 and under) as well as those members with the smaller library catalogues (say, less than 2 books, give or take)! But I'll go and check it out (honest) ... :)

"After all, we Europeans know that all white Americans south of Hudson's Bay (or somewhere of that sort) spend their weekends driving around from one Macdonald's to the next looking for black people to lynch..."

Actually, that probably should be the Mason-Dixon line, although every American I've ever asked appears to have absolutely no idea where that line runs (or perhaps that should be ran). When asked to show me on a map they just wiggle their fingers around (as if they were sprinkling salt on their French fries) somewhere over Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and Delaware and mutter "there, see"; then they distractedly ask "what's on TV?" I have often wondered if a modern day German or Dutchman could actually tell me where the Siegfried Line ran, or whether they, too, would similarly bluff and try and change the subject. But the question is definitely worth pursuing ... I obtained as a gift (bribe?) my current first ed. copy of the Pynchon novel after relentlessly asking one of my friends (victims?) to please show me. :)

That should be Burger King NOT McDonald's BTW. Believe it or not, in America many good ol' boys actually apply class distinctions to their low-end burger emporiums and, in their humble opinion, those of an African-American heritage are much more likely to frequent a BK than a MCD. No really! And the Yanks have the gall to accuse the Limeys of being "too class conscious" ...

So unbeknownst to you, you were kind of correct in your statement. "White Americans" would indeed have to "spend their weekends driving around from one Macdonald's to the next looking for black people to lynch..." However, if instead they had only bothered to drop in at their local BK they would have found plenty of patrons ideal for the lynching. I know I always do. How was your weekend, BTW? Good, too?

"Lynne Truss is not so much linguistic jokes ... as short pieces mocking other people's ignorance of punctuation."

But of course, I knew that! You might enjoy this thread: bad punctuation thread

"BTW: Have you ever kippled?"

I'm surprised you asked that. If you look at my "currently reading" list in my profile (and I know you did that in order to see the Potter work we've been discussing) you'll see that Captains Courageous is displayed there in all it's glory (at the opposite end of the row to the Potter!). Furthermore, I only put that Kipple aside because I picked Kim off of my shelf to look something up and ended up reading it again! Until yesterday when I added Ashenden to my "recently read" list, the image of the RD WBR Kim book was also displayed there instead.

I removed the Kim rather than the Norman Solomon title (which was at the end of the line and ready to drop off, and now still is) because I thought that Kipling was over-represented there anyway, as would be early British espionage fiction if both Kim and Ashenden were both there. Many people believe that Ashenden was the book that started the modern "spy novel" genre of Greene, Fleming, Deighton, Forsythe and Le Carre (all favorite authors of mine and well represented in my library, although I think I only acknowledge Graham Greene in my profile) but it was, in fact, Kim - in which Kipling coined the phrase "the Great Game" - that is really the first book in this genre, IMHO.

It is funny (i.e., ironic - note the change of font!) that so much of the "Great Game" today - meaning the international intelligence focus of all the current major world powers - is once again being played out in exactly the same regions of the world (e.g., Pakistan and Afghanistan) that the main characters in Kim are from. The action never moves from India, but the main characters in the book are the Tibetan Buddhist lama, the Islamic Afghani horse trader, the Hindu Babu, and the Christian English Creighton. The Russians are also well represented, as is the RC church. There are less than a dozen major characters in the book, but each one is given an ethnicity and/or religion by Kipling (which adds to the overall conflict between the interests if these characters WRT the Kim story line) that is now the source of most of today's major political and religious conflicts.

I indeed did have Kipling in mind when originally mentioning the effects of "discipline of form" on Plum, Maugham and Adams that you so correctly picked up on. However, I'm not so convinced that Plum's journalistic background had the effect on his writing as Kipling's did on his. The catalyst for Plum achieving what I called his "purple prose period" was, I believe, the theatre, NOT his journalism nor his classical education any more than his banking experience in the City at HSBC. Plum himself dismissed the effects of his "classical education" on his writing when admirers attributed it to being the source of all his wonderful literary misquotes by admitting that he used a single book of quotations (I can't remember offhand which one, but it's a standard respected reference work) as the sole source of these bungled aphorisms.

However, I personally think a large source of Plum's initial inspiration for the mangling of the English language - both in word usage (e.g., Psmith and the origins of that name) as well as in, say, Wooster's misappropriation and misquoting of the classics followed by Jeeves' corrections - came from the Kipling character Babu in Kim. So what do you think of that, eh? Kipling as inspiration for both Wodehouse and all those other wonderful British "spy novel" genre writers that I listed above.

I had better stop here on that thought.

P.S. Oh, re Kipling's "precise ear" ... yes, yes, Kipling was to English as spoken in the crown jewel of the British empire as Robert Louis Stevenson or Rabby Burns are to the Scottish dialect, Dylan Thomas is to the Welsh dialect, James Joyce is to the Irish dialect (perhaps, I'm not a big Joyce fan and feel there may be better champions of the Irish brogue in English literature) and Mark Twain is to the American south dialect(s). Hmmm, what happened to the Canadians?

posted by Rule42 at 3:10 pm (EST) on Jun 19, 2007
________________________________________...

I knowingly went into the "illegal violent bigotry" territory with my post believing it was really OK

Maybe it's a case of "unproximity" -- people these days are simply programmed to see any mention of IVB as abusive, unless it comes with a clear condemnation. And as you said initially, there are people around who evidently don't understand the concept of irony. (Have you been following the "How to read a book" thread?) But it's hard to say from this distance: maybe there are really people on LT who are so close to IVB that even an ironic mention of it is painful. After all, we Europeans know that all white Americans south of Hudson's Bay (or somewhere of that sort) spend their weekends driving around from one Macdonald's to the next looking for black people to lynch...

The four Potter books were all written in the fifties

Of course they were -- it was a long time ago that I read them, but now that you remind me...

Lynne Truss is not so much linguistic jokes (apart from the one in the title, which she acknowledges as an old chestnut) as short pieces mocking other people's ignorance of punctuation. Things like the notorious "Greenrocer's apo'strophe". They were mildly funny in their original context as a weekly column in the Torygraph, but are just petulant pedantry when you get them all together in a book. But very successful as agift book, because everyone knows someone who would profit from a bit of punctuation advice...

Pride and Prejudice

No -- I was being serious: I was far too young to get the point, and genuinely didn't spot that there was any satire or irony. It was a Great Book and written in old-fashioned English, therefore must be entirely serious. When I heard it read aloud, the penny dropped.

BTW: Have you ever kippled? I'm just reading a Kipling short story collection: it strikes me that he's another author who profited from working in different media -- in his case journalism made him good at fitting what had to be said into the minimum space economical and encouraged him to listen closely to what people said, while verse gave him a precise ear.

Mark

posted by thorold at 1:51 am (EST) on Jun 19, 2007
Hi Mark.

Without beating that "proximity" thing to death, I probably should add that after I posted that explanation to you I realized that that "KKK" post really doesn't fully meet the criteria. The irrational response to the post is exactly the same as for a genuine case of "proximity" (which was my main point) however the cause of that response was not. I knowingly went into the "illegal violent bigotry" territory with my post believing it was really OK (since the KKK is effectively defunct today and Kaczynski is safely behind bars). For it to have been a true case of "proximity" I would have had to accidentally stumble into the "proximity" of the rat's nest rather than have gone there voluntarily.

"I haven't read any Dan Brown, so I suppose they may be better than they're made out to be, but I don't see the attraction."

That was exactly how I felt about his The Da Vinci Code. I had read Holy Blood, Holy Grail when it first came out in the mid eighties because my then wife had read it and thought it was great - and I still feel that that book is indeed a compelling read - and I had also read other Baigent & Leigh books since that one. Thus the whole premise for Brown's book sounded to me to be quite derivative (if not, as they claimed, actually plagiarized) and lame - plus 20 years too late! Which is why I simply avoided it.

However, having now read it, I will say this about Brown. He is by no means a great literary writer, but then again, he is no worse than any other top selling commercial author such as, say, Clancy or Cussler. But he does do a good job of building his plot around a number of hidden puzzles which is what personally kept me engrossed in the book. The main reason I had avoided it until I finally succumbed is that for many people it provided their first exposure to the heretical (for them) concept that Christ had produced progeny with Mary Magdalene, and it was this sensational aspect (*yawn*) of the story that was given inordinate amounts of attention by the book stores and the media. That was why I, too, could never fathom the great attraction of the book - hadn't we all been there and done that already?!

"... maybe they were the 60s/70s counterparts of Lynne Truss, hilarious in small doses as a newspaper column, but deadly dull in quantity?"

I was a little confused by that remark. The four Potter books were all written in the fifties (something like 50, 51, 52 & 58) and NOT the 60s/70s ... that's only when we were exposed to them at school (at least I was; I'm assuming you were too!). Actually I was quite surprised to find that they were written as recently as the fifties because I had always thought of them as being from an earlier era - contemporaneous with, say, Jerome K. Jerome. Most probably because they utilize / spoof those old Victorian illustrations.

All four of the books are formulaic, so put all four books back to back and the formula becomes totally transparent (that is, if you were particularly slow and it wasn't already glaringly so!) and deadly repetitive ... which is probably the reason I flagged so quickly and threw (well, placed - I don't actually throw books around) it aside.

I'm not familiar with Ms. Truss's work (other than simply knowing that she wrote the Eats Shoots and Leaves work) but I can imagine she might well be a good contemporary comparison. Even though I have never seen any of her books, I have always surmised they are just full of lists of similar homophonic phrases to the one contained in the title - e.g., a lunatic escapes from the asylum and rapes some women cleaning offices early in the morning, thus causing the morning newspapers to carry the headline: "Nut Screws Washers and Bolts"!

The first few of these are probably quite funny, but I can quite imagine that reading them all back to back quickly becomes very wearisome, and no doubt the effort ultimately becomes as turgid as trying to read a dictionary or telephone directory. Or a whole volume of quotations ... or limericks ... or haiku ... or popular graffiti (such as Nigel Rees used to churn out!). They are all fine in small doses but very tedious in large quantities.

I have the same problem reading any of my collections of Dilbert cartoons - each strip may be extremely funny, nevertheless the repetition of the same 3-panel format (interspersed every six strips with an 8-panel Sunday strip) does become rather tiresome very quickly. One really needs to read such items in quite small but regular doses ... say one a day, for instance. Oh, wait a minute, that's how they originally appeared ... hmmm, that makes you kind of wonder, doesn't it? Which is why I recommended Scott's written output to you (viz. the stuff published by HarperCollins) rather than any particular collection of his comic strips (viz. the stuff published by Andrews McMeel Publishing) in my last message.

In classical music, there are thousands of wonderful pieces written in the A:B:A musical structure that's called sonata form which have a wide diversity of harmony and melody; in contrast, when someone composes in the A:A:A musical structure it's called "turn that f***ing monotonous racket off!"

"I don't think it's safe to assume that something that makes you laugh when you're 13 is necessarily funny, unless it's by P.G. Wodehouse, of course."

Oh, I don't know though. *holds out his hand* "Here, pull my finger ..."

"I didn't spot that Pride and Prejudice was meant to be funny when I read it at about that age, until I heard it serialised on Radio 4..."

I may be missing the joke here. :( Although there is plenty of satire and irony in Austen that may make me smile wryly, I don't find her very ROTFLMAO funny. Was the Radio 4 serialization you refer to particularly horrendous?

Later.

posted by Rule42 at 9:48 pm (EST) on Jun 18, 2007
________________________________________...

Hi,

Briefly, because I've a train to catch...

Thanks for explaining the background to Scott Adams and "proximity". When I said I wasn't a Dilbert fan, I meant (as you inferred) that I haven't taken the trouble to go out and look for them, and I don't read a paper they appear in -- they often get pinned up on the noticeboards at work, of course. It's lways hard to judge from small random samples whether they are stating the obvious or going to the heart of the matter with marvellous economy.

Yes, I agree about the benefits of "discipline of form". In my mad youth I used to write poetry, and mix with other amateur poets to a disgusting extent. It soon became clear that the ones who took the trouble to work in strict form also wrote much better free verse. With Wodehouse it's very obvious how working for the stage helped him, and he acknowledges it himself. Of course, he also had the benefit of working as a journalist, and a classical education...!

posted by thorold at 1:07 am (EST) on Jun 17, 2007
________________________________________...

Hi Mark.

"Not a Dilbert fan, really, but I've seen the comment on proximity quoted elsewhere."

The reason I avoided addressing that issue in my last message (and just put the hanging reference to Scott Adams) was mostly to keep the length of that message down - but it was also to buy myself some additional time in order to find some text on my hard drive where I've addressed this issue before. Although you state that you've seen the comment on proximity quoted elsewhere, since I don't know that what you've read is what I intended and, more importantly, since I've now located the text of my previous explanation of this point, let me revisit that issue here ...

About ten years ago Scott Adams published a series of Dilbert strips around a story line where the pointy-haired boss' plane flight crashes. Everyone in the office - Dilbert, Wally, Alice, Tina, etc. - are ecstatic at the news and celebrate the boss' assumed demise in different ways. In its own way that was quite tasteless - i.e., humor at the expense of air crash victims - and he probably couldn't have got that story line printed post 9-11. Well, maybe today, now that there's some distance from that event, but possibly not in the immediate aftermath.

But what caused Scott to be totally flamed by disgusted readers of his strip was when the boss turns up back in the office again - now with one of his hair points bandaged. :) All the Dilbert characters are trying to hide their disappointment and they ask the boss what happened. "I survived with only minor hair injuries. I was lucky to be on a flight that had a hundred nuns aboard!" "You were saved by prayer?" asks Alice. The strip's final punch line from the boss is: "No. Padding. They don't do a lot of aerobics at the nunnery."

Unfortunately, that cartoon strip ran in the same week that Mother Teresa died. Scott creates his comic strips weeks, or even months, ahead of when they are eventually published in the syndicated newspapers, and so there was no way he could control that. Although people were upset at both his poking fun at air crash victims and the cliché that nuns are plump, what really upset them and made his mailbox burst into spontaneous combustion was simply the fact that he chose to make nun jokes so soon following the death of Mother Teresa.

The fact that Scott didn't actually make fun of Mother Teresa per se, nor the fact that he had no intent of linking his strip content to that event (which he could not have possibly foreseen), were completely irrelevant in preventing the resultant brouhaha. It was all an irrational outrage to the proximity of nun jokes and Mother Teresa's death, and there was nothing he could do about it even if he wanted to. When "proximity" kicks in, logic, intent and context all fly out the window.

In my case my post has proximity to "illegal violent bigotry"! The only way I can remove that is to remove the implicit "KKK" and "Unabomber" references, but that would then mean essentially giving up the joke. I might as well just delete the post - but, of course, now that it has been flagged to disappear, I don't have the option to do that any more. :)

WRT your not being much of a Dilbert fan, I can understand you not necessarily liking his output more because of the medium that it's delivered in (viz. comic strips) rather than the message (viz. humor) that it delivers. You are probably like me, primarily a reader of books, and don't find much reward (depth) in most newspaper comic strips. But Scott Adams is also an author in his own right (i.e., he's NOT just a cartoonist) with at least seven books to his name. He does include many sample strips in his Dilbert-oriented written books - but IMO more in the same manner as Vonnegut, who went through a phase of illustrating his novels with his simple sketches (e.g., Breakfast of Champions) - in order to illustrate his points / jokes, but I feel he writes and delivers his humor just as well via the printed word as he does via the more visual medium of cartoons.

In fact, I personally believe that the discipline of having to deliver a joke / humorous observation via the very limited medium of a 3-panel comic strip has made Scott's writing much sharper and wittier, somewhat in the same way that being a theatrical writer (the stage being a much more visual, and to some extent, a much more limited medium than the written page) makes Plum a sharper and wittier writer than perhaps he would otherwise have been.

I'll back up that observation by saying consider the quality of Plum's early writing in novels such as Love Amongst the Chickens or The Little Nugget or even all his public school stories written prior to 1907, and then compare how his style and delivery almost suddenly blossoms into his purple period prose (1920s through the 1950s) once he is exposed to writing song lyrics and the book for musicals for the New York stage during the (roughly) 1910 through end of WW1 period of his life. Admittedly, maturity in general will simply account for some of this noticeable growth in style and delivery, but I also think his new found ability to visualize theatrically (which most of us, including most working authors, never have to do) accounts for a good deal of that increased skill set.

W. Somerset Maugham's writing is similarly all the stronger because of his theatrical focus IMO (he was an extremely successful playwright before he shook the Literary world with his semi-autobiographical Of Human Bondage). I have only recently started reading Maugham in the last year or so and he is rapidly working himself into my literary affections. I don't currently list him as being one of my favorite authors simply because I don't feel I have read enough of him yet. I just started reading OHB a few days ago, BTW.

I need to stop here. There were some other points in your last message that I wanted to respond to, but they will now have to wait to a subsequent message. I just wanted to get that proximity thing out of the way and urge you to possibly check out some of Scott Adams' written work rather than just one of the many published collections of his syndicated comic strips. For instance, Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel can hold its own with any other classic humorous books by, say, Tom Sharpe, Woody Allen or Malcolm Bradbury.

posted by Rule42 at 6:50 pm (EST) on Jun 16, 2007
________________________________________...

LITP is one of my favourites. Mind you, I have at least 60 favourite Wodehouse books, and I'm very fond of most of the rest...

I agree that LT isn't an ideal cataloguing tool. I've been using BookCat for a long time, and it has a great many useful features that are missing in LT (multiple authors, far more formatted fields for book description and classification, etc. But it's so time-consuming adding all the data to my satisfaction, that I never got the whole library covered. When I started with LT, I found that I had about 33% more books than I had entered into BookCat. LT cataloguing is a bit rough and ready, but it's fine for what I need, and (once I'd worked out that I should use the Library of Scotland, NOT Amazon), managed to import most of the data for me cleanly. It's irritating that there's no reliable data source for books in Dutch, but otherwise the social aspect more than makes up for the rough edges. In fact, the rough edges are a useful brake on my tendency to classify everything in sight (professional deformation). And the social aspect is an invitation to discover new books. I've only been using LT for a couple of months and already found several worthwhile things I probably wouldn't have come across otherwise.

Not a Dilbert fan, really, but I've seen the comment on proximity quoted elsewhere.

When I first heard colleagues raving about The Da Vinci Code, my reaction was "Didn't Umberto Eco kill that genre stone dead with Foucault's Pendulum?" I haven't read any Dan Brown, so I suppose they may be better than they're made out to be, but I don't see the attraction. OTOH, I do enjoy Simon Raven, who plays with conspiracy-theory plots in some of his later novels.

"Or could it be that the League for Defending Scottish scientists stepped in?"

Or possibly the League for Defending Irish Scientists that Worked and Died in Scotland stepped in instead! :)


-- touché!

I don't remember very much about the Stephen Potter books. I wonder if they were ever really funny in book form -- maybe they were the 60s/70s counterparts of Lynne Truss, hilarious in small doses as a newspaper column, but deadly dull in quantity? I don't think it's safe to assume that something that makes you laugh when you're 13 is necessarily funny, unless it's by P.G. Wodehouse, of course.

Or the converse: I didn't spot that Pride and Prejudice was meant to be funny when I read it at about that age, until I heard it serialised on Radio 4...

posted by thorold at 5:26 pm (EST) on Jun 15, 2007
Greetings.

"Yes, the downtime has been very frustrating."

Well, not all that frustrating ... as I say in my profile, I'm really not an anal-retentive cataloguer of books. I prefer to read them. Plus, my need to catalogue certain areas of what I own so that I didn't duplicate stuff arose many years - possibly a decade or two! - before LT came into existence. You don't need LT in order to catalogue your library; depending on how sophisticated you want to get about it Access, Excel or even Word will all get the job done, and they have been around for most of those decades to which I just referred. Besides, I seem to spend so much time fixing the auto-generated data LT gets from Amazon that LT probably wouldn't be my first choice as a cataloguing tool even today. The recent lengthy downtown - plus learning during the outage that LT is only using the lowest level of RAID to protect the data - has now made me even more hesitant to start investing endless hours cataloguing here.

Furthermore, for me, the ability to catalogue is NOT what makes LT interesting ... what intrigues me much more about LT are all its social implications. What I think is LT's strongest feature is its ability to turn reading - which is inherently a solitary and somewhat anti-social activity - into a potential worldwide socializing and networking force. That's somewhat akin to the old Alchemists' dream of turning lead into gold ... but a considerably bigger and grander one IMO.

"... though I can see why it might have offended some people. Were they flagging it because you mentioned the KKK, or because you weren't taking it seriously, I wonder?"

It might be a case of what Scott Adams calls "proximity" - if I need to explain that concept further I will do so in another message. Something else that might also apply here is what I will call "Dan Brown syndrome"! There are many people that are very bright and enjoy reading Brown's books because they are able to solve the embedded puzzles as they go along which is what keeps them engrossed in his books (at least that is how it worked for me for the two books of his that I've read). However, despite the fact that they are smart enough to decrypt his puzzles they are completely unaware of how his books are heavily mass-marketed to them, and they probably ended up reading them in the first place because they blindly follow B&N's or Borders' or even the NY Times' best-seller lists.

I personally avoided any of Brown's titles like the plague because I like to follow (direct) my own literary interests rather than have my reading material dictated to me by book lists created by marketing executives at the previously mentioned corporations, so the more they were hyped the more I eschewed them. But I finally succumbed and read a couple of his books last summer when someone whose opinion I respect suggested I check them out despite my inate urge to rebel and reject when confronted with mass-marketing hype.

How does this apply here? Well, it seems that the flaggers of that "KKK" post were similarly bright enough to decode the "wooden cross" and "Theodore Kaczynski" references in my post while being simultaneously too dumb to appreciate the satire / sarcasm of the post, nor to be able to place its true context in a chain of comic badinage exchanged between the two of us. They may also have read the term "anti-semantic" (and if that old chestnut wasn't a sufficient a clue to humor content, I don't what is!) as the very term that it was punning.

I am continually surprised (although I probably shouldn't be - see below) by the low reading comprehension levels demonstrated by many of the users on what purports to be a literary and book-oriented web site. I'm also disappointed with some of the low tolerance levels demonstrated on the LT MB, but there is nothing that correlates how liberal and easy-going versus how prudish and up-tight a person is to how many books they own. Plus, you don't even have to have read a book, let alone catalogued one on LT (or anywhere else, for that matter) in order to open an LT account and post on the MB. In fact, I think you can post anonymously on the LT MB without even having a user account, although, since it only takes the entering of two pieces of info. (user id. and PW) to set up a completely anonymous free account you hardly ever see that happening.

I guess you can't assume that everyone reading and posting to the LT MB is very "Literary" (with a capital "L") or even just "literary" (with a small "l") - nor that all they want to talk about is books and all things book-related. I personally don't want to talk about books all the time either. Thus, I probably shouldn't be so surprised when LT members demonstrate that they read without context and/or with low comprehension. But enough of this ...

"Or could it be that the League for Defending Scottish scientists stepped in?"

Or possibly the League for Defending Irish Scientists that Worked and Died in Scotland stepped in instead! :)

"Evidently, if you're more than a mile high, you attract attention."

Yes, I probably need to take my pill ... *sounds of Jefferson Airplane playing in the background*

"I'm rather jealous of you still having a lot of Wodehouse to read for the first time, BTW."

Oh, I've read and own a lot more than what is showing in my Rule42 account - I'm about 65% of my way through his canon.

"I see you're currently reading Stephen Potter -- is he still funny? I don't think I've seen any of the One-upmanship books in the wild since about 1975, and they struck me as pretty dated even then. Maybe he improves with age?"

The books under the heading "currently reading" are in fact the books on my "slow burner" - ones that I've put aside for whatever reason. I can polish off a PGW 250+ page novel in about 6 hours so I don't normally enter those in my profile - I would be entering them in the morning and deleting them again in the evening kind of deal. The only reason I did it this time around is that I bought 6 at once (plus some Scott Adams titles, hence those too) and entered them all in up front as "books about to be read" on the basis it might take me 3-4 weeks to get through them (with other stuff interspersed). That was just over a week ago and, because I had a bit of a Plum binge with my Jaffa Cakes last week, I've already read 4 of the PGW titles!

So back to the Stephen Potter title. I bought it about a year ago - the book contains all 4 of his works (Gamemanship, Lifemanship, One-Upmanship and Supermanship) - and started reading it immediately since I had fond memories of having read One-Upmanship when I was a teenager back in the seventies. But I started to flag after about the first part (book) for the very reasons you state. It may have been cutting-edge humor in its day (although I doubt that), but by today's standards it's fairly tame - and yes it was probably relatively tame when I read it in school, too, but I was also assuming I would get a lot more out of it this time around that I didn't understand back then!

So now it is simmering on a back-burner waiting for me to find the mood to pick it up again. That's why I entered it in the "currently reading" list - mostly to remind myself that I am indeed in the midst of reading it and must resume and finish it some time soon.

I had better stop here.

posted by Rule42 at 12:59 pm (EST) on Jun 15, 2007

________________________________________...

Hi,

Yes, the downtime has been very frustrating.

No, I wasn't one of the people who flagged the "KKK" posting, though I can see why it might have offended some people. Were they flagging it because you mentioned the KKK, or because you weren't taking it seriously, I wonder? Or could it be that the League for Defending Scottish scientists stepped in? Evidently, if you're more than a mile high, you attract attention.

The affinity thing doesn't seem to be working at the moment, but I think yours came up in the high 90s for me too. Not sure why that should be, looking at the handful of books we actually have in common in our catalogues, although we clearly share quite a few tastes apart from PGW. I'm rather jealous of you still having a lot of Wodehouse to read for the first time, BTW.

I see you're currently reading Stephen Potter -- is he still funny? I don't think I've seen any of the One-upmanship books in the wild since about 1975, and they struck me as pretty dated even then. Maybe he improves with age?

posted by thorold at 8:57 am (EST) on Jun 15, 2007

________________________________________...

Well, the system has been down most of the time since I posted my last message to you. Actually, I wasn't surprised that it failed like it did because every previous time that I have been online and it started to run like molasses in winter LT went on to fail - or, at least, to be taken down by the system admin. - but the resultant downtime has never been anywhere near as long as this last one.

All I wanted to add here was that it appears I am much more likely to taunt you too much rather than vice versa as the multiple flagging of that KKK post demonstrates. I do hope you weren't one of the people that were offended by it.

BTW, your posts are showing up with a 98% affinity rating when displayed to me - I am not certain (WRT how that feature is implemented) whether that means mine show up similarly to you or not.

Take care.

posted by Rule42 at 7:38 pm (EST) on Jun 14, 2007
Posted by morphidae 6/13/07 on the LT blog page during the recent site outage: "I met my husband online using a Commodore 64 and 300 baum modem in 1989. :D"

Ahhhh ... how I miss all the old romance in life! Tea at Tiffany's; a late supper at the Savoy; a Mediterranean cruise through the Greek islands; a glorious night at the Met. or Covent Garden opera house; drinking and gambling into the night at Monte Carlo; being dressed to the nines in a tux and dancing and carousing in the early hours of the morning to the dulcet strains of Bix Beiderbecke and his hot jazz ensemble; and, of course, those halcyon, carefree hours spent unshaven in my terrycloth bathrobe chatting-up chics on a Commodore 64 via a 300 baud modem. :) Oh, how I miss the eighties!

That decade had such class ... such elegance ... such style ... such poise ... such joie de vivre. Unfortunately, all those happy, indolent, lotus-eating, frolics of my salad days spent with a bulky keyboard and a battered Hayes modem are now just faint, fond memories of a past Golden Age. :(

So thank you so much, morphidae, for helping me to recapture some of the ecstasy and joy of my misspent youth with such a poetic post ... for a brief moment there all my past bliss came flooding back to me!
Aha, the old Hammurabi Code - one can only dread the thought of that phrase being featured as the title of a future Dan Brown novel. :(

Thanks for posting that trivia to me ... I didn't know that. However, that is not the source of my LT moniker. Long before Douglas Adams came along and made 42 the answer to the ultimate question, the number 42 made recurrent appearances throughout historical literature and it has quite a bit of numerology associated with it. For example, it occurs with some frequency in the 'Bible’ and also again in the Sherlock Holmes canon of Arthur Conan Doyle, as well as elsewhere in lesser known works.

But there was one famous author (that just also happens to be one of my own many "enthusiasms") for which the number 42 held somewhat of a special meaning. References to the number are sprinkled throughout his works, the most famous of which is the citing of a 'Rule 42' in a very popular work. No doubt you are very familiar with the one to which I'm referring.

I'm so glad to see you are as Plum crazy as myself. I have a short list of authors whose complete works I would like to read before I myself go to that great reading room in the sky and Wodehouse is number one on the list (there is, unfortunately, no number 42 on this agenda ... as I said, it is a short list!). Sadly, I have already achieved this feat for Douglas Adams and there are a number of authors still producing - such as Vonnegut - for which I'm current. The trouble with Plum is that he was so prolific, with about one hundred works give or take (depending on how you count and what you include) to his credit. I'm probably about 60% of my way there.

There are also many biographies of Wodehouse and analyses of his work to the point that the total output of the Plumographers may now outweigh even the author's own extensive canon. I read the McCrum biography just over a year ago and thought it was very good.

I see you have currently catalogued 69 works on LT ... now there's a number I could wax poetically about! :)

posted by Rule42 at 3:11 pm (EST) on Jan 15, 2007
________________________________________...

Trivia:
The 42nd rule in Hammurabi's Code is:
"If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest therefrom, it must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he must deliver grain, just as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the field."
(from the Wikisource translation )

Just throwing that out there...

posted by nick.wiebe at 5:30 am (EST) on Jan 15, 2007
No shoes in heaven? *shock* You mean I may actually be able to get rid of these poor blisters on my feet? Y'know, the only reason women actually wear heels is to make men forget their plans of world domination. Heels stretch the calves and push the butt out futher, increasing the arch of the back. The higher the heel, the sexier the curve. I'm guessing in Heaven, there's no need to prove alpha-maledom so there's no need for shoes... quite an interesting topic, I believe. :-P *

*Dammit, with posts like these I'm going to be thought of as a feminist. I AM NOT A FEMINIST! Please, call me sweetie, honey, sugarpie. Open the door for me. Give me your coat when I'm cold. Be a gentleman. Clean my gun. Don't condescend me. Etc... :)

posted by imaginelove at 4:19 pm (EST) on Dec 14, 2006
________________________________________...

Hi there. I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for having a brain and a sense of humor. Or perhaps you just don't have a mouse on your PC and are therefore unable to click on those aluring "abuse flag" links with the same gusto exhibited by morphidae and co. Anyway, when the Apocalypse finally comes I'll definitely try and put in a good word with my Father to reserve you a place on MY cloud. :)

Oh, BTW, there are no shoes in Heaven. :( Everybody strolls around barefoot wearing togas and strumming harps. I do hope I haven't ruined your day with that Revelation. So you may want to check out your options with the other guy. If you do, my personal lawyer, Dr. Johann Georg Faust, is a legal contracts expert working in this field and I would be only too happy to refer you to him.

Take care, sweetie.*

* Oh, dear, I do hope that didn't sound a little sexist. I'm afraid I'm not very savvy when it comes to these kind of things.

posted by Rule42 at 2:42 pm (EST) on Dec 14, 2006
Hi Roxy,

I just read your profile. WRT recommendations for what you call "science fiction that focuses on humans in a broken future" the obvious title that you are missing from the group of four that you listed is Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that any of these novels (except possibly Asimov's) are really about a "broken future" anymore. They were all written in the past and the "broken future" that they possibly predicted back then is, to a very large extent, the present day!

Orwell's 1984 and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 both focus on mankind's perennial danger of becoming a slave due to (i.e., losing his Democratic freedom as a consequence of) false history and lack of availability to truth and knowledge: "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."

In Huxley's Brave New World the focus is on man's slavery to profit and commercialism and general "intellectual numbness and comfort" - that is the biggest endangerment to man losing his freedom. At a speech given in 1961 at the California Medical School in San Francisco, Huxley warned: "There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it." From where I'm sitting, that sounds a lot like today's political environment!

Finally, in Vonnegut's Player Piano it is man's ultimate fate to become a slave to the productivity of one of his mechanical contrivances. In his novel (which was originally published in 1952 as Player Piano but it was then republished in 1954 as Utopia 14, a clear nod at Sir Thomas More's handling of this perennial topic back in 1515) it was machines based on player piano technology, but you can easily substitute the modern day computer and computer network for it today (or the automobile, or possibly television). In this respect, Vonnegut's novel most resembles Asimov's I, Robot WRT the represented dangers to our freedom by our becoming physically lazy and complacently dependent on our own inventions - which then take over.

Personally, I don't read much sci-fi literature, but like you, I do have quite a fascination for what you call sci-fi that "focuses on humans in a broken future" but which I would prefer to call sci-fi that "identifies mankind's potential for losing his freedom." I probably approach the topic from a political / sociological perspective rather than a pure sci-fi one. That is, I actually prefer intelligent social thinkers - Orwell, Huxley and Vonnegut are all liberal socialist humanists - that use the medium of sci-fi to better get their ideas across, rather than hard core sci-fi genre writers (such as Ray Bradbury, Philip K. Dick or Arthur C. Clarke) that happen to stumble into this area of political sociology. The Asimov I have read I have found relatively boring (and so I currently don't own any) and therefore I haven't read I, Robot! Despite that, I would put it in the latter category rather than the former one.

I'm a big Vonnegut fan and it annoys me that everybody seems to focus on just his Slaughterhouse-Five novel at the expense of the rest of his canon. As good as it is S-F is by no means his best novel. I sometimes suspect that there is some kind of conspiracy to get everybody to read S-F in high school so that they all then feel as if they have "done" that author and can move on to other writers, thereby causing the rest of his work to be relatively ignored! That would be a bit like only reading Oliver Twist and then feeling that you have had quite enough of Dickens, thank you very much.

I had better stop here. I'm afraid that what started as a response to your plea for suggestions in your profile just turned into a "stream of consciousness"! :(

posted by Rule42 at 1:42 am (EST) on Nov 27, 2006
________________________________________...

Thank you for the recommendation. Another Vonnegut read I'd like to get my hands on is Harrsion Bergeron, a short story in the same sort of category we're discussing. I read it in high school, but it's been a while. I own Slaughterhouse-Five, but haven't read it yet, and certainly didn't read it in school.

I, Robot is a collection of short stories. I can see why you'd get bored with his writing - it's not the best. However, I purchased the book right after seeing the movie, which is very loosely based on a combination of those stories. I'm interested in the three laws of Robotics, which Asimov uses (and I think created?) in I, Robot.

It's true that books like 1984 seem more real every day, but I still refer to them as futuristic because that's what they were when published. Still, you make a good point with calling them books that identify mankind's potential for losing his freedom.

posted by roxainaboxa at 2:34 pm (EST) on Nov 27, 2006
Apua/FAQ | Lisätietoja | Yksityisyys/Käyttöehdot | Blogi | Ota yhteyttä | LibraryThing.com | APIs | WikiThing | Yhteinen tieto | 46,656,862 kirjaa!