John Ray: Dickens

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

But the truth is, they are works of fiction

Of course. Dickens, like Shakespeare, Moliere, Updike, et al, first and foremost writes to tell a story. A saleable story. He described degradation and squalor not to have everyone run to the barricades but to arouse sympathy for his protagonist - which in turn would mean they would be happy when that protagonist overcame the odds and prospered. The thing these self-proclaim literary critics show no sign of understanding is that in order to have a happy ending, one needs to have an unhappy beginning. No-one will be glad at heart because Tiny Tim did not die, if we had not already been told that he would die within a year.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

As far as Ilion and Stan are concerned, it is evident that they are placing things outside of historical context.

They have no idea what that context is. Ignorance, in this case, is not bliss, but asininity

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

You are trying to deal yourself into a high-stakes poker game and you don't even have enough for the ante. Your "analysis" is not only all wrong, it is pathetically bad. It classifies you with Ilion as a wannabee educated person trying hard to sound knowledgeable about something when every word you speak reveals your ignorance.

And you, Jon, are not the final arbiter of what represents education. I am actually pretty damn sure that I am far more well educated than you are, both in terms of degrees held, and personal research. So, sorry, but I simply do not need your approval to register an opinion. I do not, and have not for a very long time, accepted the standard interpretation of history provided by the current educational system. It is simply fraught with blatant inaccuracies and leftwing biases. Again, your own ideas on the SOuth are a perfect example of that. YOu have clearly read a small bit of literature on the topic which supports your preconcieved opinions and have done no actual personal research on the topic at all. Hell, Jon, I see precious little evidence that you understand what an education even is. The ultimate goal of being educated is being able to formulate your own opinions and world views, not simply regurgitating and quoting the views of others. And your continued comparison of me to Illion is actually quite humorous. Illion and I have virtually nothing in common aside from a certain agreement concerning politics. What you, and others, demonstrate is that anyone who dare interject any disagreement with the standard left leaning model of history, government and society comprise a dangerous collective 'other' who must not be allowed into you little closely guarded intellectual circle. In other words, Jon, you are a perfect example of how the anti-intellectual left 'Palinizes' its opposition.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

*grin* it's a Boratism that has drifted into every day use.

Actually I heard it used in Buffy the Vampire Slayer circa 1997, but in context, 'tis veddy veddy British, donchaknow.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Charles Dickens was a teller of stories. These stories happened to reflect life as he saw it.

Well, hells bells, I just refer to Jane Austin than.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Lost User

Jane Austin - another great story teller. But was a story teller of English middle and upper classes, and as with Dickens, there is some degree of truth to what she wrote about.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

I am actually pretty damn sure that I am far more well educated than you are, both in terms of degrees held, and personal research.

Could be. However, I have trouble believing that anyone who claims English as his mother tongue and who has never read Dickens is worthy of the label, "educated." Illiterate seems far more appropriate.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I do not, and have not for a very long time, accepted the standard interpretation of history provided by the current educational system.

Yes. I understand that. I can't imagine that there is anyone else in the world besides you and Ilion who thinks that Dickens is a cause of Hitler.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The ultimate goal of being educated is being able to formulate your own opinions and world views, not simply regurgitating and quoting the views of others.

Really? I thought the idea was to learn about, and ultimately to understand some small part of, the universe. Perhaps if you spent more time receiving and less broadcasting, you might be shoocked to discover how much more there is to learn.

Stan Shannon wrote:

And your continued comparison of me to Illion is actually quite humorous.

No, it sad. You have far more potential than he does, yet you emulate him in the forum more and more.

Stan Shannon wrote:

What you, and others, demonstrate is that anyone who dare interject any disagreement with the standard left leaning model of history, government and society comprise a dangerous collective 'other' who must not be allowed into you little closely guarded intellectual circle.

Yes, I have noticed how Mr. Plankton, or Mike Gaskey have been ostracized for their non-left-leaning views. It is not your views, Stan. It is you that is being isolated, because you prove over and over again unable to learn. Unable to admit you are wrong. Unable to change. Unable to respect anyone's views that do not coincide with your own. Likewise, it is not Ilion's views that make his name synonymous with "asshole" in this forum, it is his behavior. If you want people to stop associating the two of you in their minds, it's up to you to stop acting like him.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Jane Austin - another great story teller.

Stan's only contact with Dicken is via Mr. Magoo; with Austin's novels it is the Bollywood classic: Bride and Prejudice. Think I am making the name up?[^] However, I am sure we will shortly be blessed with a treatise on why Jane Austin caused Gordon Brown. Or maybe Sarah Palin.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Could be. However, I have trouble believing that anyone who claims English as his mother tongue and who has never read Dickens is worthy of the label, "educated." Illiterate seems far more appropriate.

I actually find that to be just about the most boring place and time of human history. I've never been able to generate much intellectual interest in it. But, then, I've also never cared for Melvile, Twain, Hemmingway either, or really any other form or art and expression from the 19th and early 20th century. Though, I really do enjoy Steinbeck and Faulkner. So, maybe it is just personal taste. Heck, I eve detest Shakespeare.

Oakman wrote:

I thought the idea was to learn about, and ultimately to understand some small part of, the universe. Perhaps if you spent more time receiving and less broadcasting, you might be shoocked to discover how much more there is to learn.

No, that itsn't it at all. Understaninding, which I have devoted my life to, is, of course, important. But understanding can never be perfect. At some point, you must form your own unique perspectives on what it all means.

Oakman wrote:

Yes, I have noticed how Mr. Plankton, or Mike Gaskey have been ostracized for their non-left-leaning views.

That is only becuase both, to some extent, endorse a libertarian perspective. I don't. And it is that which you cannot tolerate.

Oakman wrote:

It is you that is being isolated, because you prove over and over again unable to learn. Unable to admit you are wrong. Unable to change. Unable to respect anyone's views that do not coincide with your own.

That statement is an absurdity on its surface. First, my entire argument is evidence of my ability to change and admit to being wrong. There was a time in my life when you and I would have agreed on far more than we do now. I now understand more than I once did and I realize why your views are intellectually flawed and self serving. I have shown far less disrespect for the views of others than they have for mine. Hell, my great crime is that I endorse true Jeffersonian principles and I tend to be a contrarian even on issues tht I largely agree with - such as evolution, for example. That is probably something Illion and I have in common. Illion promotes a farily traditioanlly christ

Lost User

Truth is very much stranger than fiction. As a comparison between the classes during the Victorian era... When the earl of Yarborough dies in 1875, his stock of cigars is sold for £850, the equivalent of 18 years' pay for the impoverished agricultural labourers on his estate. I would like to see Stan justify that with respect to Capitalism and Jeffersonianism. And Marx makes comments along the lines of "a struggle between oppressor and oppressed", it is not hard to see the how, and the why, of reasoning for political movements to start to take shape.

Stan Shannon

Actually, my wife is a huge Jane Ausin fan. I've had to endure that shit for the last 25 years.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

When the earl of Yarborough dies in 1875, his stock of cigars is sold for £850, the equivalent of 18 years' pay for the impoverished agricultural labourers on his estate. I would like to see Stan justify that with respect to Capitalism and Jeffersonianism. And Marx makes comments along the lines of "a struggle between oppressor and oppressed", it is not hard to see the how, and the why, of reasoning for political movements to start to take shape.

Isn't the term "earl" an hereditary title? I'm actually pretty damn sure hereditary titles are not a component of either capitalism or Jeffersonianism. In my own view, the rise of Marxism, far from being a rejection of traditional European society, was rather a way of trying to continue it by other means precisely because the ruling elites were so afraid of the consequencies of the American revolution ("Oh my God! The common man can rule himself perfectly well without us after all. Who knew?!!!!") Marxism is a way of leaving power concentrated at the center in the hands of a ruling elite, which was actually perfectly ok with those already there. Sure, the more traditional among them had to be removed, but those willing to adapt to a little pretend democracy were perfectly welcome.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Lost User

Earl as you say is an hereditary title. What I am trying to convey is the obscenity of a box (or boxes) or cigars that has the equivalent value of 18 years wages for a labourer. The same type (or style) of obscenity seen all too often that is attached to the label "Capitalism". The reference to Marx was to try to show that obscenity with respect to "oppressed and oppressor", not that Marx got his Communist Manifesto at all right, clearly, there are aspects in that manifesto that are equally obscene. Actually, you will find that many of the Aristocracy were heavily involved in the Capitalism of the day. Many were board members of various Banks and other institutions.

Last modified: 6mins after originally posted --

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

At some point, you must form your own unique perspectives on what it all means.

And that point can come quite early in life if you choose to have little or no knowledge of literature from Shakespeare to Hemingway. It would appear that by ignoring much of gives a man the right to call himself educated, you have never learned what it is that you don't know. Your claim to be better educated than I am is hanging by a very slender thread.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Hell, my great crime is that I endorse true Jeffersonian principles

Not at all. As I told you, it is the way you choose to act, not what you say that causes more and more people to ostracise you. Once again, I tell you that if you don't want to be lumped in with Ilion, you need to stop emulating him. By the way, both of you are extremely unJeffersonian inasmuch as you show tolerance for dissent on the level of Torquemada and Tojo.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Illion promotes a farily traditioanlly christian fundamentalist world view.

So do Gary and Christian. Indeed, the three of us have gone round the mulberry bush over their readings of biblical history - but since all three of us have a respect for viewpoints not our own, we were able to work through our disagreements - even though we still don't agree. In my humble opinion, Ilion's virulent hatred of any religion that does not jibe with his rather parochial beliefs suggests that he should stop preaching Christianity until he learns to act like a Christian. I'm pretty sure he finds himself on the wrong side of most of the beatitudes. Once you or Ilion starts showing respect for the majority of the very bright and well educated people in this forum, then you can start demanding respect in return. But not until then.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Earl as you say is an hereditary title.

Queen Elizabeth granted the Royal Charter for the East India Company to to George, Earl of Cumberland -- oops, there's another "Earl" and it appears he's a capitalist! Maybe, just maybe you weren't wrong. How can that be?

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Actually, you will find that many of the Aristocracy were heavily involved in the Capitalism of the day. Many were board members of various Banks and other institutions.

Apparently, Stan knows as much about capitalism in the 19th century as he does literature in the 19th century. Ironically, even the word, "capitalism," was coined by William Makepeace Thackery in the middle of the 19th century - but I am quite sure that Stan has read nothing written by him. Probably calls him "shit."

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Lost User

Capitalism. And within 20 years of the invention of that word, Britain suffered "A Great Depression".

Oakman wrote:

Royal Charter for the East India Company

At its peak, its influence stretched from western India to eastern China via the farthest reaches of the Indonesian archipelago. It had a fleet of 130 twelve hundred tonne ships and commanded an army of 200,000 troops that came to dominate the Indian subcontinent. It funded governments, toppled princes and generated spectacular amounts of money from trading textiles and spices. But this wasn’t an empire, it wasn’t even a state, it was a company. The East India Company, founded in 1600, lasted for 258 years before the British state gained full control of its activities. [^] That's some private army :omg:

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

And within 20 years of the invention of that word, Britain suffered "A Great Depression".

Well, what's the use of having a capitalist society if you can't have a good depression every quarter of a century or so?

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

But this wasn’t an empire, it wasn’t even a state, it was a company

Perfect Jeffersonism?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Lost User

Oakman wrote:

Perfect Jeffersonism?

A question for Stan I feel :)

Lost User

Stan Shannon wrote:

Heck, I eve detest Shakespeare.

I can understand why you might have a loathing of "The Bard". The words and phrases are from a time when Latin was actively taught at Public Schools. Over time, languages change and develop. Elizabethan English bares almost no resemblance to the English of today consequently, the works of Shakespeare becomes a hard subject to understand and master. But the words he used were, nonetheless, beautiful. However, with regards to your comments above regarding your wife's likes of Jane Austin. As she is such a fan of those novels, why not show her your endearing love by getting her a boxed set of those rather excellent BBCtv dramatisations. An excellent gift I'm sure you will agree.

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

A question for Stan I feel

He's still trying to Google William Makepeace Thackery.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

modified on Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:47 PM

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Elizabethan English bares almost no resemblance to the English of today consequently, the works of Shakespeare becomes a hard subject to understand and master.

Shakespeare certainly wrote for his time and no ours, but he also wrote to be watched, not read. It does take a special skill to read any of the 37 plays, of course. It's a skill that can be learned, but need not be, if someone sees a production of one of his plays done by a first rate company. On the other hand, much of his other writing - his sonnets, for instance, are easily accessible to anyone with even a modicum of literacy. Certainly the King James Version of the bible - written in no small part by Wm Shakespeare - is still beloved by a great number of people. Regardless of what you think of the religion, this is beautiful prose: And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Read it aloud and you can understand why any actor worth his salt loves Shakespeare.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface