a indication -- an indication
Thomas Hardy
Guest99, I'd be glad to join you in a discussion of Hardy's novels -- if I'd read any. I do like some of his poems, though. Also I have a copy of Jude the Obscure that I've never gotten around to reading.
As others have pointed out, forums tend to wander from topic to topic. A discussion that stays on topic for very long is unusual. If there were plenty of persons writing on-topic posts, the digressions wouldn't be such a problem, especially the ones that aren't provocative.
[By the way, I believe it's a good idea to put the labels "PLOT SPOILER START" and "PLOT SPOILER END" around passages that could significantly detract from a new reader's enjoyment of a work of fiction. Most persons don't want to know what will happen ahead of time. That's why I've merely skimmed your posts. I suppose I could make some general comments about some ideas that you bring up, but I don't want to stray into things that give away the plot.]
As for trying www.langcafe.net, you might do that. There aren't many persons over there, though. The chances of finding some who are prepared for a detailed discussion of that particular Hardy novel aren't very good. Also, though I haven't noticed any problems there with obvious trolls, that forum has been politicized too. There's one discussion there where they've been bashing the United States -- present and past -- for a couple of hundred posts.
Your best bet is to search the net for some Thomas Hardy sites, and see if they have forums. (I happen to know that there are some for Austen, and have had in-depth discussions at a couple of them, examining particular passages just as you seem to want to do with Hardy.) I wouldn't give up on this forum, www.langcafe.net, or any other forum, though, just because of one disappointing thread. Your main problem here is that almost nobody has read the book. I'm sure that many of us would be glad to discuss it if we'd read it.
As others have pointed out, forums tend to wander from topic to topic. A discussion that stays on topic for very long is unusual. If there were plenty of persons writing on-topic posts, the digressions wouldn't be such a problem, especially the ones that aren't provocative.
[By the way, I believe it's a good idea to put the labels "PLOT SPOILER START" and "PLOT SPOILER END" around passages that could significantly detract from a new reader's enjoyment of a work of fiction. Most persons don't want to know what will happen ahead of time. That's why I've merely skimmed your posts. I suppose I could make some general comments about some ideas that you bring up, but I don't want to stray into things that give away the plot.]
As for trying www.langcafe.net, you might do that. There aren't many persons over there, though. The chances of finding some who are prepared for a detailed discussion of that particular Hardy novel aren't very good. Also, though I haven't noticed any problems there with obvious trolls, that forum has been politicized too. There's one discussion there where they've been bashing the United States -- present and past -- for a couple of hundred posts.
Your best bet is to search the net for some Thomas Hardy sites, and see if they have forums. (I happen to know that there are some for Austen, and have had in-depth discussions at a couple of them, examining particular passages just as you seem to want to do with Hardy.) I wouldn't give up on this forum, www.langcafe.net, or any other forum, though, just because of one disappointing thread. Your main problem here is that almost nobody has read the book. I'm sure that many of us would be glad to discuss it if we'd read it.
Travis, Adam: I believe you've both given an inaccurate picture of the US role in the Falkland Islands crisis (and that's typical of the political digressions that people make on this and other language forums). It's not true that the Reagan administration "liked" the Argentine dictatorship. It was concerned at times that the most likely alternative might be a Communist dictatorship (or a regime of the extreme left that could soon become transformed into a Communist dictatorship), but it didn't like the regime. And that concern was understandable. Communist dictatorships tended to be very long-lasting. The US wanted moderate regimes in Argentina and elsewhere, not extremist regimes (of the right or the left). It put pressure on the Argentinean dictatorship and other Latin American dictatorships, and helped bring about a movement towards more freedom and democracy. (The Latin Americans themselves, though, were the ones primarily responsible for both the good and the bad there.) The only survivor now of the dictatorships of that time, of course, is not a US ally but an enemy -- Castro's Cuba.
During the Falklands crisis the United States was caught in an awkward position. It was linked to the UK by NATO and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Before the war the United States tried to maintain its neutrality and act as a mediator. By no means, though, did the administration (or the people of the country in general) favor an Argentinean invasion of territory that had been British for so long. Many countries had previous claims to the islands (often uninhabited), and I believe the United States was neutral on that. But whoever the proper owner hundreds of years ago, it's hard to justify using military force now to redraw the borders to fit the borders of that time. (Would it be just if the rest of the world were forced to return to the borders of the early 1800s? The whole idea of using violence to redress historically remote wrongs is absurd. It leads to new wrongs now.) The United States blamed the failure of negotiations on Argentina, and Reagan came out in favor of the UK, announcing economic sanctions against Argentina.
Though the UK didn't really need US troops, it did give military support. It allowed the British to use its military base on Ascension Island (built by the US on a UK possession), provided them with the latest -- and very effective -- Sidewinder missiles, and added its own contributions to military intelligence. If the US had played the role that some of you seem to think it did, Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have said, "without the Harrier jets and their immense manoeuvrability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands."
During the Falklands crisis the United States was caught in an awkward position. It was linked to the UK by NATO and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Before the war the United States tried to maintain its neutrality and act as a mediator. By no means, though, did the administration (or the people of the country in general) favor an Argentinean invasion of territory that had been British for so long. Many countries had previous claims to the islands (often uninhabited), and I believe the United States was neutral on that. But whoever the proper owner hundreds of years ago, it's hard to justify using military force now to redraw the borders to fit the borders of that time. (Would it be just if the rest of the world were forced to return to the borders of the early 1800s? The whole idea of using violence to redress historically remote wrongs is absurd. It leads to new wrongs now.) The United States blamed the failure of negotiations on Argentina, and Reagan came out in favor of the UK, announcing economic sanctions against Argentina.
Though the UK didn't really need US troops, it did give military support. It allowed the British to use its military base on Ascension Island (built by the US on a UK possession), provided them with the latest -- and very effective -- Sidewinder missiles, and added its own contributions to military intelligence. If the US had played the role that some of you seem to think it did, Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have said, "without the Harrier jets and their immense manoeuvrability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands."
>>Travis, Adam: I believe you've both given an inaccurate picture of the US role in the Falkland Islands crisis (and that's typical of the political digressions that people make on this and other language forums). It's not true that the Reagan administration "liked" the Argentine dictatorship. It was concerned at times that the most likely alternative might be a Communist dictatorship (or a regime of the extreme left that could soon become transformed into a Communist dictatorship), but it didn't like the regime. And that concern was understandable. Communist dictatorships tended to be very long-lasting. The US wanted moderate regimes in Argentina and elsewhere, not extremist regimes (of the right or the left). It put pressure on the Argentinean dictatorship and other Latin American dictatorships, and helped bring about a movement towards more freedom and democracy. (The Latin Americans themselves, though, were the ones primarily responsible for both the good and the bad there.) The only survivor now of the dictatorships of that time, of course, is not a US ally but an enemy -- Castro's Cuba.<<
You could have just made reference to the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which is pretty much what you exactly describe above and, which, yes, was the official rationale made by the US gov't, especially the Reagan administration, for supporting authoritarian regimes, in particular in Latin America. Of course, the irony of this all is that, while still plenty authoritarian in nature, the Cuban gov't was definitely surpassed in sheer bloodiness by many military regimes and like in the rest of Latin America (c.f. the "Dirty War" in Argentina, Pinochet's coup in Chile, for example). So much for "authoritarian gov'ts are better than totalitarian gov'ts".
>>Though the UK didn't really need US troops, it did give military support. It allowed the British to use its military base on Ascension Island (built by the US on a UK possession), provided them with the latest -- and very effective -- Sidewinder missiles, and added its own contributions to military intelligence. If the US had played the role that some of you seem to think it did, Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have said, "without the Harrier jets and their immense manoeuvrability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands."<<
I had said that the US gov't as a whole was rather mixed with respect to their overall position with respect to the Falkland Islands War, not that they were opposed per se to the British in it. And yes, you are right that in the end it did end up supporting the UK, but it was not exactly enthusiastic in its support (as contrasted with the nearly extreme nationalism that was sweeping the UK at that time).
You could have just made reference to the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which is pretty much what you exactly describe above and, which, yes, was the official rationale made by the US gov't, especially the Reagan administration, for supporting authoritarian regimes, in particular in Latin America. Of course, the irony of this all is that, while still plenty authoritarian in nature, the Cuban gov't was definitely surpassed in sheer bloodiness by many military regimes and like in the rest of Latin America (c.f. the "Dirty War" in Argentina, Pinochet's coup in Chile, for example). So much for "authoritarian gov'ts are better than totalitarian gov'ts".
>>Though the UK didn't really need US troops, it did give military support. It allowed the British to use its military base on Ascension Island (built by the US on a UK possession), provided them with the latest -- and very effective -- Sidewinder missiles, and added its own contributions to military intelligence. If the US had played the role that some of you seem to think it did, Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have said, "without the Harrier jets and their immense manoeuvrability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands."<<
I had said that the US gov't as a whole was rather mixed with respect to their overall position with respect to the Falkland Islands War, not that they were opposed per se to the British in it. And yes, you are right that in the end it did end up supporting the UK, but it was not exactly enthusiastic in its support (as contrasted with the nearly extreme nationalism that was sweeping the UK at that time).
I was the cause of the Falklands War.....I was born right in the middle of it.
I think it was that war that made Lady (Margaret) Thatcher a heroine in some people's eyes and a she-Devil in many, many others....a sort of Queen Boadicea (Boudicca) charging along in her chariot waving the cannon fodder guys on to their slaughter on some remotely distant barren islands miles from anywhere civilised.....on the back of which she won an election. Now she's some sort of Baronness..... or something.
I think it was that war that made Lady (Margaret) Thatcher a heroine in some people's eyes and a she-Devil in many, many others....a sort of Queen Boadicea (Boudicca) charging along in her chariot waving the cannon fodder guys on to their slaughter on some remotely distant barren islands miles from anywhere civilised.....on the back of which she won an election. Now she's some sort of Baronness..... or something.
Travis, it's true that Castro hasn't killed an unusually large number of persons. I recall the firing squads when he first took power, though (I was a Castro supporter as a young teenager). I believe the relatively small number killed is because his totalitarian regime finds it easy to keep the opposition under control (and to a great degree because most of his enemies have chosen to escape to the United States and elsewhere). Some Communist regimes in large countries, though, killed millions. Anyway I'd prefer a few years under a rightist dictatorship to decades of poverty and oppression in Cuba. (Fortunately those aren't the only alternatives in most situations.)
>I once heard a radio version of Sterne's "Tristram Shandy", and I agree about the "impenetrable" part - it seemed as if one was meant to get lost in the style before one could get to the plot. [Easterner]
Yes, and the plot itself is little more than a kind of practical joke, with the victim being the reader. Sterne intentionally leads us to expect that he's going to move forward in the plot only to drag us off in another direction. This isn't ordinary digression, of course. It's literary gimmickry, and in my opinion only appropriate for shorter works (whimsical, cerebral ones that play with ideas -- e.g., some stories by Borges).
I liked Tristram Shandy because I enjoyed some of the other kinds of humor and appreciated his skill in character depiction. After the first few times, though, I found the digressions to be very annoying. Once you get Sterne's practical joke, I see no good reason for him to keep playing it for hundreds of pages.
Yes, and the plot itself is little more than a kind of practical joke, with the victim being the reader. Sterne intentionally leads us to expect that he's going to move forward in the plot only to drag us off in another direction. This isn't ordinary digression, of course. It's literary gimmickry, and in my opinion only appropriate for shorter works (whimsical, cerebral ones that play with ideas -- e.g., some stories by Borges).
I liked Tristram Shandy because I enjoyed some of the other kinds of humor and appreciated his skill in character depiction. After the first few times, though, I found the digressions to be very annoying. Once you get Sterne's practical joke, I see no good reason for him to keep playing it for hundreds of pages.
>We have to remember that the United States is a very "young" country by European standards whereas Europeans have had centuries of culture in all its forms behind them. [Damian in Edinburgh]
Of course you're not the only one to make that point. Both Europeans and Americans make it all the time, claiming either that the youth of the Americans makes them naive and ignorant, or that the age of the Europeans makes them jaded and mistrustful of innovation.
I've never put much store in either interpretation myself. Any person who can read and who has access to books can be as "old" as anybody else. (Just a few days ago I was reading something by Lao Tzu.) Jefferson and Adams, being founders of the United States, might be expected to reflect the youth of the nation, yet I've read a good bit of their correspondence, and guess what I often find in it? Quotations in Greek and Latin from ancient writers. :-)
Of course you're not the only one to make that point. Both Europeans and Americans make it all the time, claiming either that the youth of the Americans makes them naive and ignorant, or that the age of the Europeans makes them jaded and mistrustful of innovation.
I've never put much store in either interpretation myself. Any person who can read and who has access to books can be as "old" as anybody else. (Just a few days ago I was reading something by Lao Tzu.) Jefferson and Adams, being founders of the United States, might be expected to reflect the youth of the nation, yet I've read a good bit of their correspondence, and guess what I often find in it? Quotations in Greek and Latin from ancient writers. :-)
"I think it was that war that made Lady (Margaret) Thatcher a heroine in some people's eyes and a she-Devil in many, many others....a sort of Queen Boadicea (Boudicca) charging along in her chariot waving the cannon fodder guys on to their slaughter on some remotely distant barren islands miles from anywhere civilised.....on the back of which she won an election. Now she's some sort of Baronness..... or something. "
Unlike Iraq War II, in 2003, in which the majority of the British people opposed it, Margaret Thatcher's decision to go to war with Argentina was very popular in Britain. About 85% of the British people were in favour of the war, and it definetely helped her to be re-elected in 1983, the year after the war.
However, rrcent polls show that more Brits are now in favour of the War in Iraq - 48% for, and 43% against.
Unlike Iraq War II, in 2003, in which the majority of the British people opposed it, Margaret Thatcher's decision to go to war with Argentina was very popular in Britain. About 85% of the British people were in favour of the war, and it definetely helped her to be re-elected in 1983, the year after the war.
However, rrcent polls show that more Brits are now in favour of the War in Iraq - 48% for, and 43% against.
And it always gets on my nerves when I hear people say "Britain has no right to the Falkland Islands. They should belong to Argentina!"
And I say "Why should they? The Falkland Islands became British before Argentina even existed. The first person to ever see the Falkland Islands was an Englishman. And, according to UN law, a country, or territory, or dependency, has to let its people vote to decide which country they want to be ruled by. Everytime there is a vote in the Falklands, the people vote to be British, not Argentinian so, according to international law, the islands roghtly belong to Britain, so Argentina is wrong when it tries to claim them.
Gibraltar is similar. The amount of times I've heard Spanish people, and even other Europeans, say that Britain should give Gibraltar back to Spain (even though Spain GAVE Gibraltar to Britain). But in the last referendum that was held about 2 or 3 years ago, a massive 99% of Gibraltareans voted to remain British - so Gibraltar is Britain's by law. If Spain used military action to take Gibraltar, it would be breaking international law.
However, it would be suicide if Spain decided that it wants a war with Britain.
And I say "Why should they? The Falkland Islands became British before Argentina even existed. The first person to ever see the Falkland Islands was an Englishman. And, according to UN law, a country, or territory, or dependency, has to let its people vote to decide which country they want to be ruled by. Everytime there is a vote in the Falklands, the people vote to be British, not Argentinian so, according to international law, the islands roghtly belong to Britain, so Argentina is wrong when it tries to claim them.
Gibraltar is similar. The amount of times I've heard Spanish people, and even other Europeans, say that Britain should give Gibraltar back to Spain (even though Spain GAVE Gibraltar to Britain). But in the last referendum that was held about 2 or 3 years ago, a massive 99% of Gibraltareans voted to remain British - so Gibraltar is Britain's by law. If Spain used military action to take Gibraltar, it would be breaking international law.
However, it would be suicide if Spain decided that it wants a war with Britain.
>You just sound like lots of other ignorant Americans (NOT all of them, or even a majority!) who think that because many people in the world watch American films etc, we're all American now, or want to be....A lot of the kneejerk anti-Americanism here in Europe - and occasionally displayed on this forum - is intensely irritating to me. I've never thought of myself as 'anti-American'. When I read this sort of stuff, however, I have to concede that a lot of Europeans have a valid point.
Candy, I hope that you'll do your best to avoid getting embroiled in the US-UK squabbling. Note that it was Travis (who says that he's critical of much of American foreign policy) who has denied any feeling of cultural closeness to Great Britain. I -- who tend to defend American foreign policy -- said that I "feel closely connected with English literature." Also I praised Jane Austen. (Remember too the American woman who was so moved just to find herself at a place where Austen had been. I can recall reading some remarks by Washington Irving in which he expressed similar feelings at being at some British literary sites.)
The way I look at it is that the people of both countries can choose to take or leave what they wish from the other country's culture (or from the world's culture). If we choose badly as individuals -- or as peoples -- that's our own fault.
As for Americans being influenced by English culture, of course we are. When I was in school, there was no systematic study of a particular literature in the early grades (just works drawn from all sources, arranged thematically). In high school, though, the study of literature ended with two one-year survey courses, one on American literature and one on British literature. Each started at the beginning of that country's literature and went through to the present (or close to it). Also in college a Bachelor of Arts degree usually required the college counterparts of those courses, even if the students weren't going to major in literature.
Candy, I hope that you'll do your best to avoid getting embroiled in the US-UK squabbling. Note that it was Travis (who says that he's critical of much of American foreign policy) who has denied any feeling of cultural closeness to Great Britain. I -- who tend to defend American foreign policy -- said that I "feel closely connected with English literature." Also I praised Jane Austen. (Remember too the American woman who was so moved just to find herself at a place where Austen had been. I can recall reading some remarks by Washington Irving in which he expressed similar feelings at being at some British literary sites.)
The way I look at it is that the people of both countries can choose to take or leave what they wish from the other country's culture (or from the world's culture). If we choose badly as individuals -- or as peoples -- that's our own fault.
As for Americans being influenced by English culture, of course we are. When I was in school, there was no systematic study of a particular literature in the early grades (just works drawn from all sources, arranged thematically). In high school, though, the study of literature ended with two one-year survey courses, one on American literature and one on British literature. Each started at the beginning of that country's literature and went through to the present (or close to it). Also in college a Bachelor of Arts degree usually required the college counterparts of those courses, even if the students weren't going to major in literature.
Hi Gjones,
Yes, I really really don't want to get into all that! Because this thread was about culture and literature, I assumed that was what Travis meant with his 'the UK is a satellite state of the US' comment - I didn't realise he'd moved on to foreign policy. That, I'd mostly agree with. However, I thought (misunderstood, apparently) he meant that cuturally the UK is just a pale copy of the US these days. Hence my reaction (which with hindsight was an over-reaction) to what 'seemed' to be cultural arrogance, and I now realise wasn't. For what it's worth, the anti-Americanism displayed by so many Europeans these days annoys the hell out of me 99.99% of the time!! (And that thread on langcafe.....grr!)
Yes, I really really don't want to get into all that! Because this thread was about culture and literature, I assumed that was what Travis meant with his 'the UK is a satellite state of the US' comment - I didn't realise he'd moved on to foreign policy. That, I'd mostly agree with. However, I thought (misunderstood, apparently) he meant that cuturally the UK is just a pale copy of the US these days. Hence my reaction (which with hindsight was an over-reaction) to what 'seemed' to be cultural arrogance, and I now realise wasn't. For what it's worth, the anti-Americanism displayed by so many Europeans these days annoys the hell out of me 99.99% of the time!! (And that thread on langcafe.....grr!)
Oops, I almost forgot to post this paragraph (what a loss to the world if I had :).
>Well, the US, to most British people, is also 'alien' and 'different', regardless of how many crappy US sitcoms we might watch. [Candy]
Sorry that you don't like American situation comedies, but then you are free to watch or not watch them as you choose. (Somebody over there must like them, or they wouldn't be on the air.) I've never watched Friends much myself, but I've watched nearly all the Jerry Seinfeld reruns. Living in a less populated area of the South, I find his New York, big-city culture rather alien too. :-) I can still enjoy it, though. Also I've probably watched thousands of hours of British comedies.
>Well, the US, to most British people, is also 'alien' and 'different', regardless of how many crappy US sitcoms we might watch. [Candy]
Sorry that you don't like American situation comedies, but then you are free to watch or not watch them as you choose. (Somebody over there must like them, or they wouldn't be on the air.) I've never watched Friends much myself, but I've watched nearly all the Jerry Seinfeld reruns. Living in a less populated area of the South, I find his New York, big-city culture rather alien too. :-) I can still enjoy it, though. Also I've probably watched thousands of hours of British comedies.
I was posting another part while you were making your post, but I didn't miss it. I agree. I definitely don't see the UK as a pale copy of the US. Both countries have influenced each other, but each retains a separate -- and in some respects -- very different identity.
'Crappy' was part of my annoyed over-reaction....! :( Although I have to say that now I live in Germany, I almost never watch US TV shows because they're all dubbed into German here (hideous). I do really enjoy a lot of US drama in fact, like ER, NYPD Blue, 24.....however, apart from Friends, US comedy just doesn't tickle my funny bone that much, for some reason. Still, most people in Germany don't 'get' British comedy that much either...