|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 17, 2016 19:24:46 GMT
Delighted to hear it! NO book should be presented - EVER - in anything but its original form. For the little namby-pambies of today, their books can be sold with an explanatory leaflet, so as not to upset their delicate little brains. Colin. As I understand it,the standard Famous Five books that are around have been tweaked a bit,but nothing like the rejected ones. It can be difficult to know if you're getting the full text.Monica Edwards,for instance,was a popular author for decades,but it's only by getting the Girls Gone By reprints that you can be sure of getting the full text-reprints,including Book Club editions sometimes took whole paragraphs out! |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Sept 17, 2016 22:35:35 GMT
There was an attempt at updating the Malory Towers & St Clare's books by Enid Blyton, changing some terminology such as currency to be less dated.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 17, 2016 22:46:32 GMT
There was an attempt at updating the Malory Towers & St Clare's books by Enid Blyton, changing some terminology such as currency to be less dated. Somehow,that's better than a rubric at the beginning saying "Pre-decimal currency consisted of 240 pennies...". |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 18, 2016 13:01:25 GMT
The early Tintin books have had some issues with outdated ways of thinking. For me,the problem is with the word 'outdated',as though the more modern an idea,the better it is.I'm wary of the self-justification of a uni-linear view of history.The liberal view is both that all views are valid (in themselves) and that only the liberal view is right. Additionaly,the liberal's is the only philosophy which is not a consequence of one's historical/class position,and especially the opinions one has read.("In the bourgeois press").It's a huge,unresolved,contradiction.Apparently,all religions will vanish under the scrutiny of enlightenment. And slowly answer’d Arthur from the barge: “The old order changeth, yielding place to new, And God fulfils himself in many ways, Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.". |
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Sept 18, 2016 13:40:17 GMT
The early Tintin books have had some issues with outdated ways of thinking. For me,the problem is with the word 'outdated',as though the more modern an idea,the better it is.I'm wary of the self-justification of a uni-linear view of history.The liberal view is both that all views are valid (in themselves) and that only the liberal view is right. Additionaly,the liberal's is the only philosophy which is not a consequence of one's historical/class position,and especially the opinions one has read.("In the bourgeois press").It's a huge,unresolved,contradiction.Apparently,all religions will vanish under the scrutiny of enlightenment. And slowly answer’d Arthur from the barge: “The old order changeth, yielding place to new, And God fulfils himself in many ways, Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.". No, not necessarily, but in this example I'm pretty sure we have progressed. Just because "Tintin in the Congo" was normal for its time doesn't mean that we have to look at it the same way. I don't really see why object to this example, when colonialism and inequality are perfect examples of outdated practices, to put it mildly. It doesn't mean you have to subscribe to a teleological view of society. But maybe I misunderstand. And for the record I always object whenever Hergé is called a racist because I think that's just asking too much from 1930, and he didn't persist in it either. Besides, what is " the liberal view"? Liberal is a very vague term. (Are you serious when you say it's not related to someone's background/upbringing?) |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 18, 2016 14:35:04 GMT
For me,the problem is with the word 'outdated',as though the more modern an idea,the better it is.I'm wary of the self-justification of a uni-linear view of history.The liberal view is both that all views are valid (in themselves) and that only the liberal view is right. Additionaly,the liberal's is the only philosophy which is not a consequence of one's historical/class position,and especially the opinions one has read.("In the bourgeois press").It's a huge,unresolved,contradiction.Apparently,all religions will vanish under the scrutiny of enlightenment. And slowly answer’d Arthur from the barge: “The old order changeth, yielding place to new, And God fulfils himself in many ways, Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.". No, not necessarily, but in this example I'm pretty sure we have progressed. Just because "Tintin in the Congo" was normal for its time doesn't mean that we have to look at it the same way. I don't really see why object to this example, when colonialism and inequality are perfect examples of outdated practices, to put it mildly. It doesn't mean you have to subscribe to a teleological view of society. But maybe I misunderstand. And for the record I always object whenever Hergé is called a racist because I think that's just asking too much from 1930, and he didn't persist in it either. Besides, what is " the liberal view"? Liberal is a very vague term. (Are you serious when you say it's not related to someone's background/upbringing?) Good points. As far as 'liberal' goes,it's a wooly way of dismissing anyone who posits a progressive view of history,leading to The End of History in a Perfect Society. You're right,it's easy to waggle the finger at Herge for his depiction of Black people,but obviously there were a lot of people around at the time who wouldn't have depicted characters the way he did.Despite this,I hate it when heroes and (especially) heroines in historical dramas are shown as having the same attitude towards suffrage,race,class,the 'woman question'...as their present-day authors. If I've got it right,the view expressed in Carr's 'What is History' is that everyone-except E.H.Carr and his fellows-is restricted in their outlook and intellectual growth by the media they consume,and their class-determined attitude.I've never understood why historical-determinism,or whatever,hasn't shaped that one particular group. |
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Sept 18, 2016 16:58:50 GMT
Never read it myself; I don't remember it being talked about at university. It's from 1961, I see; the debate naturally carried on afterwards. This kind of thing tends to become quite complicated, take for example this random quote from wikipedia "Carr dismissed the free will arguments made by Sir Karl Popper and Sir Isaiah Berlin as Cold War propaganda", that could easily be inserted into any monty python sketch. I don't mean to say it's nonsense, only that it's concentrated philosophical stuff. but obviously there were a lot of people around at the time who wouldn't have depicted characters the way he did. I hate it when heroes and (especially) heroines in historical dramas are shown as having the same attitude towards suffrage,race,class,the 'woman question'...as their present-day authors. Yes! It's probably just as rife than errors in events, dates, objects or dress. Heroes and heroines will ALWAYS give something to the poor for example. Ah, you mean that in Hergés time there already was a different viewpoint available, and he could've been less 'traditional' about it? Wikipedia suggests so, for what that's worth. It would have been a feather in his cap. But you can't really blame him for not having radically new ideas. (That is more or less what you meant too, right?) |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 18, 2016 18:02:25 GMT
Carr was still fairly central to part of the History syllabus at Warwick in the early '80s.What I found more worrying at the time was the notion of 'Higher Consciousness',Consciousness 1..Consciousness 2...Consciousness 3...Sounds like something off the White Album!
It can be very tempting to use selective quotation to redeem historical authors,if only to present a counter-argument. Kipling,for instance has a British soldier say of a low-caste Indian:
Yes, Din! Din! Din!
You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
Though I’ve belted you and flayed you,
By the livin’ Gawd that made you,
You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
And wrote at the height of Empire:
God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!
The tumult and the shouting dies;
The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!
Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!
For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding, calls not Thee to guard,
For frantic boast and foolish word—
Thy mercy on Thy People, Lord!
('Recessional' 1897)
The past was often complicated.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Sept 18, 2016 20:32:09 GMT
Carr was still fairly central to part of the History syllabus at Warwick in the early '80s.What I found more worrying at the time was the notion of 'Higher Consciousness',Consciousness 1..Consciousness 2...Consciousness 3...Sounds like something off the White Album! It's possible the book/author were mentioned to me in passing and that I just don't remember. There is a fair piece on it on wikipedia but I better resist the temptation to base my opinion on that; wikipedia is nice and all, but I'm not sure if it's good enough to use as a proper synopsis. |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 18, 2016 21:07:28 GMT
Carr was last reprinted in 2002,and if Amazon reviews are anything to go by,they're keener on him in the U.S. than here.One quote from the book:
"the historian who is most conscious of his own situation is also more capable of transcending it, and more capable of appreciating the essential nature of the differences between his own society and outlook and those of other periods and other countries, than the historian who loudly protests that he is an individual and not a social phenomenon."
It's that 'transcendence' I worry about; apparently,we can never see beyond our own attitudes/pre-conceptions,but the further along the road we go,the more accurate our view...or something like that.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,910
|
Post by RWels on Sept 18, 2016 21:50:45 GMT
Carr was last reprinted in 2002,and if Amazon reviews are anything to go by,they're keener on him in the U.S. than here.One quote from the book: "the historian who is most conscious of his own situation is also more capable of transcending it, and more capable of appreciating the essential nature of the differences between his own society and outlook and those of other periods and other countries, than the historian who loudly protests that he is an individual and not a social phenomenon." It's that 'transcendence' I worry about; apparently,we can never see beyond our own attitudes/pre-conceptions,but the further along the road we go,the more accurate our view...or something like that. Perhaps you worry too much; isn't it simply in essence a case of knowing your limitations? For example, these days historians no longer pretend total objectivity is possible. I'd call that progress because it clears away false pretensions. No doubt in future there may come another moment when most of us go "ooohhh, I never thought about it like that, NOW it makes so much more sense", but that's unavoidable. The fundamental difference with the past is one of the interesting things, isn't it? At first you'd tend to assume everyone thinks like you. But so much nurture in our entire culture, thought patterns included. "The past is a foreign country" still captures it quite nicely. |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 18, 2016 22:00:08 GMT
The fundamental difference with the past is one of the interesting things, isn't it? At first you'd tend to assume everyone thinks like you. But so much nurture in our entire culture, thought patterns included. "The past is a foreign country" still captures it quite nicely. Which reminds us of just how many jokes and cultural references we-re missing-from Shakespeare to Steptoe... |
|
|
|
Post by tombeveridge on Sept 18, 2016 22:56:39 GMT
In today's climate, would Galton and Simpson still be allowed to have Harold ejaculate "You dirty old man" given that this comment shows a bias against either the "unclean" (a loaded term in itself) or those with particular sexual proclivities, a propensity to ageism, and a sexist bias against one gender?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Sept 19, 2016 0:05:33 GMT
In today's climate, would Galton and Simpson still be allowed to have Harold ejaculate "You dirty old man" given that this comment shows a bias against either the "unclean" (a loaded term in itself) or those with particular sexual proclivities, a propensity to ageism, and a sexist bias against one gender? Ah,but the Beatles made up for that in A Hard Day's Night! |
|
|
|
Post by Stuart Douglas on Sept 23, 2016 8:37:56 GMT
This thread has been trimmed down to just those posts which either relate to old tv/movies or which are at least polite - try and stay on topic within the thread even if the whole sub-section is for off topic posts  |
|
