The Canons of Culture (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Mick Harper]

Pete Jones put me onto this:

[Mick Harper]

And not only because it begins with this exact description of me, my life and times, and the people I (don't much) hang out with:

--------------

Truth be told, I'm not an easy man. I can be an entertaining one, though it's been my experience that most people don't want to be entertained. They want to be comforted. And of course my idea of entertaining might not be yours. I'm in complete agreement with all those people who say, regarding movies, "I just want to be entertained."

This populist position is much derided by my academic colleagues as simple-minded and unsophisticated, evidence of questionable analytical and critical acuity. But I agree with the premise, and I too just want to be entertained. That I am almost never entertained by what entertains other people who just want to be entertained doesn't make us philosophically incompatible. It just means we shouldn't go to movies together.

[Mick Harper]

I pride myself on being the world authority on everything so it is irritating when doubts arise. It can take several minutes to banish them via some rationale or other.

[Mick Harper]

One of the very few drawbacks to being a know-all is when you meet new people and they start on about their pet enthusiasm. When you start discoursing on whatever-it-is with detailed knowledge including having thought of their astounding new theory before they did, what do you suppose happens? Nothing. They just assume everyone has a detailed knowledge of whatever-it-is and that you probably read about their new theory on the internet.

One example I remember quite well because it was witnessed by Hatty when she took me to have supper with a relative of hers who taught an Ancient Egypt course at some major academic centre or other.

"What are you working on at the moment?" I asked politely over the onion soup.
"I'm trying to prove Amenhotep IV was in fact Amenhotep III," she said, not without some pride in her voice.
"I'll send you my paper confirming that," I said between slurps. There were no croutons which I thought a bit off.

Hatty by the way won't be able to confirm this because she's helping Thames Valley police with their Prince Andrew enquiries. I didn't ask what that was all about in case the Official Secrets Act was involved. Perhaps her work with The Samaritans qualifies her to sit in as an 'appropriate adult'.

[Mick Harper]

Wim Wenders Shocks Cinema-Goers

Asked for his position on Gaza at this year's Berlin Film Festival, Wim Wenders said, "I try to keep out of politics." A petition was immediately launched by producers, directors and actors with films 'in competition' to have him removed from chairing the jury.

[Hatty]

[Mick Harper]

You may have truth on your side but my version has more resonance.

[Mick Harper]

True or False? (Canon Edition)

[Mick Harper]

How'd you fancy a novel with four characters called William Henry Devereux? Richard Russo manages this elegantly in Straight Man:

1. There is William Henry Devereux Senior, the father of the protagonist and (though I haven't got there yet) the presumed villain of the piece. He is a reasonably important 'man of letters'.

2. There is Mrs William Henry Devereux, his estranged wife who habitually adopts this arcane usage, partly because she is old-fashioned, but mainly to provide her with a certain cachet in society.

3. There is William Henry Devereux, the first person narrator who uses the name because it is his name.

4. There is Mrs William Henry Devereux, his wife who doesn't normally go by this moniker but gets irritated because Mrs William Henry Devereux (Senior) writes pungent pieces in the local rag under this name and she, Mrs William Henry Devereux (Junior), is often accused of being responsible for writing them, because people assume she is trading on her husband's name, him being a minor man of letters.

I wish I'd thought of the device even if, thus far, not much literary advantage has been gained by it.

[Mick Harper]

One difference between US and UK novels is that in the former you can use 'across the pond' in its literal sense. As in 'Across the pond, the ducks were in a restive mood.'

[Mick Harper]

I am reading another Russo novel, Empire Falls, for which he got a Pulitzer Prize. One thing I have noticed is that all the good characters have internal thought mechanisms of great complexity whereas none of the bad characters have.

Is this general in novels of manners? Is it true of life?

[Pete Jones]

There's a rule of logic that says "One is incapable of writing a character who is convincingly smarter/funnier/wiser/etc than oneself." But does it apply to negative qualities?

(The Bogus List above could be condensed to "better than oneself")

[Mick Harper]

That puts me in a difficult position.

[Mick Harper]

A parallel problem--which applies to sitcoms as well--is that all characters have to possess the abilities of either Jewish jokesmiths or professional stooges. Since nobody has these characteristics (even Jewish jokesmiths when they're off duty) this is tricky in a realistic novel.

[Mick Harper]

Which of these is correct?

* Like many men addicted to sports, Clive was a short man.
* Like many men addicted to sports, Clive was an overweight man.
* Like many men addicted to sports, Clive was a bad-tempered man.
* Like many men addicted to sports, Clive was a highly intelligent man.
* Like many men addicted to sports, Clive was a religious man.

I made all but one of them up--and could, if necessary, defend the validity of all but that one. The exception was the one I read last night in a Richard Russo novel, as an authorial comment, and which led me to write this.

All the statements are doubtful, unprovable, possible but unless the reader immediately recognises them as something they hadn't thought of but vaguely agrees might be true, writers should avoid using such nebulous claims. I trust you recognised it was the last of them that raised my eyebrows. And not in a good way.