So taking my cue from D.W. Harding I read the next chapter of Emma - chapter 11 - quite carefully.
In the Penguin edition it is 5 & 1/2 pages long.
It took me three hours.
And I'm going to have to go back and look at it again. This stuff is really complicated.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Monday, 12 October 2009
Emma
This post clearly has to be about Jane Austen, as the last one suggested. (Regulated Hatred, the title of the last post, is an essay by D.W. Harding, in part about misreadings of Austen).
The new BBC Emma. Hmmm. I'm not sure.
I hated the beginning of the first episode (Jane, Emma and Frank as toddlers, all losing mothers. Jane and Frank sent away, etc. Moralising, unecessary and annoying. But maybe that's just me). And I don't understand why the narrating voiceover is by a bloke who seems to think he's telling us a fairy tale. And Mr Knightley is too young (and not grumpy enough). And the village scenes are far too cosy and costume drama-ish (if you see what I mean). I could go on.
And yet I have to admit it is growing on me. Tamsin Greig makes a fine Miss Bates, and the scene where she tells of Mr Elton's engagement - blurting it out in front of a distraught Harriet - was well done. And the script does point up - and sometimes dramatises - snatches from the book that I had missed or forgotten (eg Jane making lists of books she means to read but doesn't read them).
All in all, however (and this takes me back to the beginning of the post) it just doesn't feel nasty enough. Austen, as Harding spotted, writes beautiful, balanced sentences showing just how stupid people are. Not always very nice at all. The adaptation just feels too, well, happy. Still perhaps it will get better...
The new BBC Emma. Hmmm. I'm not sure.
I hated the beginning of the first episode (Jane, Emma and Frank as toddlers, all losing mothers. Jane and Frank sent away, etc. Moralising, unecessary and annoying. But maybe that's just me). And I don't understand why the narrating voiceover is by a bloke who seems to think he's telling us a fairy tale. And Mr Knightley is too young (and not grumpy enough). And the village scenes are far too cosy and costume drama-ish (if you see what I mean). I could go on.
And yet I have to admit it is growing on me. Tamsin Greig makes a fine Miss Bates, and the scene where she tells of Mr Elton's engagement - blurting it out in front of a distraught Harriet - was well done. And the script does point up - and sometimes dramatises - snatches from the book that I had missed or forgotten (eg Jane making lists of books she means to read but doesn't read them).
All in all, however (and this takes me back to the beginning of the post) it just doesn't feel nasty enough. Austen, as Harding spotted, writes beautiful, balanced sentences showing just how stupid people are. Not always very nice at all. The adaptation just feels too, well, happy. Still perhaps it will get better...
Regulated Hatred
Now, Richard Murdoch I respected and enjoyed. Never mind that his nickname was ‘stinker’ – he was a fine man who made fine radio shows.
Iris Murdoch I know less about, but she seems to have been a fairly good writer, and respected by many.
Even Captain H. M. Murdoch on the ‘A’ Team was mildly entertaining.
And that kinda leaves me with no other Murdochs I can quickly think of that I don’t despise. Just Rupert and James.
I’m not going to write much about Roop. Unpleasant, damaging, exploitative – his background is well known. However, this seems to be being taken to new heights and in a particularly noisome way by his malodorous offspring James.
James Murdoch, as is also well known, recently used a high-profile speech to launch an attack on the BBC in some detail. He argued - for instance - that the corporation has a distorting effect on the market and needs to be reined in. Clearly this is in part because of the various commentators who have said exactly the same thing about the Murdochs’ own media empire. So the attack, which also claims that the BBC’s news output is highly biased, is intended in part as a distraction.
At the same time, the commercial broadcasters who rely so heavily on advertising revenues and also, I think, pay-per-view broadcasting, are losing out as a result of the credit crunch. There is less advertising being commissioned and their viewers are less keen to spend at high levels. They are losing money, and see the BBC as a threat. Now, there seems to be only one sane response to the Sky empire feeling threatened:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…
More seriously, I have no real interest in the commercial broadcasters being weakened too much – at least not the terrestrial broadcasters. ITV has cancelled one or two shows I really liked because they were too expensive, and I don’t like that. But the vicious, pernicious Murdoch News Corporation empire is a different thing. Wapping. Fox News. The Sun. Here is a list of what they own.
One thing is clear from all of this, if we care about our media and what it says about us.
The BBC is far too small.
It needs to be seriously ramped up if these people aren't going to overrun the World. Particularly the Web site and the Commercial arm. In the context of the threat of News Corporation, purchasing Lonely Planet was just too small a deal.
But the people who can make this a reality don't seem to be thinking like this just yet. However, while we wait for them to see sense, there are a few simple steps we can take.
Don't spend money on any Murdoch-owned company or product.
Don't buy the Sun or the Times, or Sky or any of that stuff.
Just don't.
We need to get this nasty empire down to about a quarter of its present size. And damn quickly.
Instead support the Beeb. It's better stuff, better made, and less evil. I was off work on Friday, and was kept happily entertained by the i-Player, watching some fantastic TV I'd missed earlier. Smashing. We should tell them.
You know it makes sense.
Iris Murdoch I know less about, but she seems to have been a fairly good writer, and respected by many.
Even Captain H. M. Murdoch on the ‘A’ Team was mildly entertaining.
And that kinda leaves me with no other Murdochs I can quickly think of that I don’t despise. Just Rupert and James.
I’m not going to write much about Roop. Unpleasant, damaging, exploitative – his background is well known. However, this seems to be being taken to new heights and in a particularly noisome way by his malodorous offspring James.
James Murdoch, as is also well known, recently used a high-profile speech to launch an attack on the BBC in some detail. He argued - for instance - that the corporation has a distorting effect on the market and needs to be reined in. Clearly this is in part because of the various commentators who have said exactly the same thing about the Murdochs’ own media empire. So the attack, which also claims that the BBC’s news output is highly biased, is intended in part as a distraction.
At the same time, the commercial broadcasters who rely so heavily on advertising revenues and also, I think, pay-per-view broadcasting, are losing out as a result of the credit crunch. There is less advertising being commissioned and their viewers are less keen to spend at high levels. They are losing money, and see the BBC as a threat. Now, there seems to be only one sane response to the Sky empire feeling threatened:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…
More seriously, I have no real interest in the commercial broadcasters being weakened too much – at least not the terrestrial broadcasters. ITV has cancelled one or two shows I really liked because they were too expensive, and I don’t like that. But the vicious, pernicious Murdoch News Corporation empire is a different thing. Wapping. Fox News. The Sun. Here is a list of what they own.
One thing is clear from all of this, if we care about our media and what it says about us.
The BBC is far too small.
It needs to be seriously ramped up if these people aren't going to overrun the World. Particularly the Web site and the Commercial arm. In the context of the threat of News Corporation, purchasing Lonely Planet was just too small a deal.
But the people who can make this a reality don't seem to be thinking like this just yet. However, while we wait for them to see sense, there are a few simple steps we can take.
Don't spend money on any Murdoch-owned company or product.
Don't buy the Sun or the Times, or Sky or any of that stuff.
Just don't.
We need to get this nasty empire down to about a quarter of its present size. And damn quickly.
Instead support the Beeb. It's better stuff, better made, and less evil. I was off work on Friday, and was kept happily entertained by the i-Player, watching some fantastic TV I'd missed earlier. Smashing. We should tell them.
You know it makes sense.
Sunday, 11 October 2009
William and the Don
R4 yesterday gave us a new production of Shadowlands in the afternoon play spot. Now, I'm not absolutely sure a new production of this piece was needed. There is quite a good film with Anthony Hopkins available, for example. That being said, I like the play. So I listened to it.
Partner said that C.S. Lewis was played by Stephen Fry, but I was sure that wasn't right. No -there was something out of kilter. Then I got it. Bloody Martin Jarvis. From then on the whole piece had a peculiar echo of William Brown standing just behind it and off to one side. At times, when it got too much, the other Inklings began to seem like Douglas, Henry and Ginger. The weirdest experience. Sigh.
Partner said that C.S. Lewis was played by Stephen Fry, but I was sure that wasn't right. No -there was something out of kilter. Then I got it. Bloody Martin Jarvis. From then on the whole piece had a peculiar echo of William Brown standing just behind it and off to one side. At times, when it got too much, the other Inklings began to seem like Douglas, Henry and Ginger. The weirdest experience. Sigh.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Obama's Prize
For every person who thinks Barack Obama should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize, just remember:
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
There.
'nuff said.
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize
There.
'nuff said.
In praise of proper spiders
It is definitely autumnal now, and huge spiders abound. These are proper spiders, not like those spindly things that hang around in the bath, nor the tiny scrabbling things that hide in the skirting boards.
These spiders build proper, big webs and lurk in them, catching and eating littler bugs.
Click on this one!
These spiders build proper, big webs and lurk in them, catching and eating littler bugs.
Click on this one!
Home Improvements
Rex omnibus ad quos etc. salutem. Sciatis quod de gratia nostra speciali concessimus et licentiam dedimus, quantum in nobis est, dilecto et fideli nostro Edwardo dalyngrigge chivaler, quod ipse mansum manerii sui de Bodyham, juxta mare in comitatu Sussex, muro de petra et calce firmare et kernellare, et castrum inde in defensionem partriae adjacentis et pro resistencia inimicorum nostrorum construere et facere, et mansum predictum sic firmatum et kernellatum et castrum inde sic factum tenere posit sibi et heredibus suis in perpetuum, sine impedimento nostri et heredum nostrorum aut ministrorum nostrorum quoruncunque. In cujus rei testimonium, Rex apud Westmonast. Xx die Octobris.
So there you go.
I want one of those.
As I wrote in the last post, Edward III gave Sir Edward Dalyngrigge permission to build the castle/manor house at Bodiam. This isn't strictly correct. What he did do was give the knight a License to Crenellate his existing manor house. That is what the latin above covers. Sir Edward interpreted this planning permission as providing the opportunity to build a brand new castle and manor somewhat nearer to the Rother. Possibly a little cheeky, I'm not sure.
Now, don't get me wrong, but I think it's a shame they don't issue these licences any more. OK, it would be a temptation for some of the posher Tory MPs and their expenses. But I was thinking that the licences could be democratised. Anyone could get one at the local post office, say. While we still have post offices. I'm sure our house would look better with some crinkly bits at the top.
(This is what the latin says, according to the guide book:
The King to all men to whom, etc. greeting. Know that of our special grace we have granted and given licence on behalf of ourselves and our heirs, so far as in us lies, to our beloved and faithful Edward Dalyngrigge Knight, that he may strengthen with a wall of stone and lime, and crenellate and may construct and make into a Castle his manor house of Bodyham, near the sea, in the County of Sussex, for the defence of the adjacent country, and the resistance to our enemies, and may hold his aforesaid house so strengthened and crenellated and made into a Castle for himself and his heirs for ever, without let or hindrance of ourselves or our heirs, or of any of our agents whatsoever. In witness of this, etc. The King at Westminster 20 October).
So there you go.
I want one of those.
As I wrote in the last post, Edward III gave Sir Edward Dalyngrigge permission to build the castle/manor house at Bodiam. This isn't strictly correct. What he did do was give the knight a License to Crenellate his existing manor house. That is what the latin above covers. Sir Edward interpreted this planning permission as providing the opportunity to build a brand new castle and manor somewhat nearer to the Rother. Possibly a little cheeky, I'm not sure.
Now, don't get me wrong, but I think it's a shame they don't issue these licences any more. OK, it would be a temptation for some of the posher Tory MPs and their expenses. But I was thinking that the licences could be democratised. Anyone could get one at the local post office, say. While we still have post offices. I'm sure our house would look better with some crinkly bits at the top.
(This is what the latin says, according to the guide book:
The King to all men to whom, etc. greeting. Know that of our special grace we have granted and given licence on behalf of ourselves and our heirs, so far as in us lies, to our beloved and faithful Edward Dalyngrigge Knight, that he may strengthen with a wall of stone and lime, and crenellate and may construct and make into a Castle his manor house of Bodyham, near the sea, in the County of Sussex, for the defence of the adjacent country, and the resistance to our enemies, and may hold his aforesaid house so strengthened and crenellated and made into a Castle for himself and his heirs for ever, without let or hindrance of ourselves or our heirs, or of any of our agents whatsoever. In witness of this, etc. The King at Westminster 20 October).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)