I draw your attention to the letters page of the Times today, where William Julius Wilson smacks down Krugman for last weeks' "Nixonland" column. It really was a nasty column. The reader is clearly given the impression that the MSNBC guy who made the inexcusable comment about Chelsea was acting at the behest of Obama's campaign. The column is a prime example of the sneaking insinuation it purports to decry.
But enough of the road to the White House. I took an escapist break this past weekend and re-read Pigs Have Wings, by P.G. Wodehouse. I have read just about all of Wodehouse's stuff and he is just phenomenal. Wodehouse has been admired by people as different as Evelyn Waugh and Alexander Cockburn. He is the best writer of comedy ever to have lifted a pen, I think. While the novels involving Bertie Wooster and his butler Jeeves are more widely known, I strongly recommend the Blandings Castle series, of which Pigs is one. Much of the plotting revolves around the corpulent Empress of Blandings, Lord Emsworth's prize pig, who has won the prize for corpulence at the local Agricultural Show on multiple occasions, despite the nefarious attempts on the part of owners of rival pigs to hobble him. I guess you had to be there - as it were- but if you've never read him before, drop everything until you have. You will thank me. How can you not like a man who pens throwaway lines such as:
"If not positively disgruntled, he was certainly far from gruntled,"
14 comments:
I can dislike Wodehouse because, despite his undoubted wit, he was reputedly a Nazi sympathizer during (or maybe just before) WW II, although perhaps this is one of those untrue canards.
Barkley, he was taken prisoner by the Nazis and prevailed upon to make cheery broadcasts from the camp, creating the impression that conditions were better than they were. He showed poor judgement and naivete, certainly. But he was by no means a Nazi sympathizer - I don't think anyone has made this claim. One of the characters in the Jeeves novels is Roderick Spode, a British Nazi clearly patterned after Oswald Moseley, to whom Wodehouse shows no mercy.
Kevin
Personally, I like The Code of the Woosters best.
My favorite stories are "Uncle Fred Flits By" and "The Great Sermon Handicap." I have the second in a small book, which includes the English original with translations into Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Faroese, Icelandic and Old Norse.
I have read two explanations of Wodehouse's broadcasts for the Nazis: he was utterly clueless and genuinely did not realize how awful the Nazis were, or he was making fun of his captors in ways they did not catch -- and that many English did not catch, either.
He is a peerless writer, but I have never been able to find any social content in his work, except maybe for the fact that his members of the ruling class are all either idiots or criminals.
best writer. comedy doesn't need to be there.
Great Sermon Handicap best story.
no social content, but excellent advice on dietary needs of the brain.
Kevin,
I taken aback by your reading of Krugman's column. He is not insinuating that BO's campaign was behind Shuster's comment. Not in the slightest. What he's saying is that: "What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."
I've been hearing that very thing from BO's supporters on progressive talk radio this past week. Ed Schultz's show and Randy Rhodes have been full of callers verifying the very thing PK is warning about.
Instead of all Dems decrying the MSM's application of the "Clinton Rules" OB's supporters are jumping on the pro-Shuster band wagon. Minimizing his statement and blaming HRC for making too much out of it.
The moral of the story is that the "Clinton Rules" are really the "Democratic Candidate's Rules" and that whoever the next Dem nominee is- he or she will be subject to the same overwhelming bias and distortion.
You may not see the cult like aspect present in some of OB's support- but I sense it- and when it finally comes time to vote here in Oregon I will vote OB, not HRC.
Gee Dr. Quinn, I never thought I would hear the words "smack down" from you! Anyway, I'm not dropping everything for Wodehouse, despite the fact that I have never encountered him *blush*. I'll add him to the list after the all the other books you've recommended. I haven't even gotten to Sources of Self yet.
I best get busy.
Here's a link to the Krugman column. Given the nature of his post, Kevin Quinn's failure to include the link should alert the reader right off that he might be up to no good.
************
Kevin Quinn writes:
The reader is clearly given the impression that the MSNBC guy who made the inexcusable comment about Chelsea was acting at the behest of Obama's campaign.
*************
That's a stone cold lie. No one with reasonable reading skills in English and some amount of emotional balance would have read the column and come away thinking Krugman had left "the impression the MSNBC guy...was acting at the behest of the Obama campaign." Kevin Quinn swings for the fences working in the word "clearly."
Don't take my word, and certainly don't take Kevin Quinn's word, for what impression Krugman gave the reader regarding the Obama campaign role in the Schuster matter. Read the column yourself.
(Here is a link to the "letter to the editor" by William Julius Wilson that Kevin Quinn referred to in his post.)
I've got to agree with childres and CMike regarding what seems to be a misinterpretation of Krugman'a column. The focus of the column seems to be wholely on the dangers of campaigns that focus too much on innuendo and personality, and too little on substance. I'd say that both Democrats could be seen as failing to get above that approach. Krugman only seems to be cautioning Obama's fans not to take satisfaction from dirty tricks
played by others. That can come back to bite one's rear.
Frankly, Prof. Wilson sounds like a twit. I'm not surprised by his focus on "refreshing inclusiveness"
rather than the need for substance.
George Bush told us all of the usefulness of an inclusive intention. Intentions are little better than BS. I'm still waiting for either Clinton or Obama to distinguish themselves from the Republican lite or neo-Democratic philosphies of Billy Boy's administration, which on the whole can only be seen as not as disastrous as the Bush years. Not great for the midlle class wage earner, just not as disastrous as Bush.
CMike, the column makes a vague association between Obama's supporters and the Clinton rules. If he wants to talk about the Clinton rules, fine. Why is Obama in there at all, then? It still seems to me that he aims to leave the impression that Obama not only "benefits from" the Clinton Rules, but in fact is helping to make them. It is a masterpiece of insinuation. He wants the reader to make the fallacious inference.
Kevin,
There is only what you may want to read into Krugman's words that support your contention. Yes, he's suggesting that Obama may benefit from the media's nonsense regarding all things Clinton. That's simply a benefit to a third party player from the inappropriate commentary of a second party about the first. All other potential candidates may benefit from the criticisms showered on another. Krugman's column does not even suggest that Obama or his associates are taking an active role in dissembling.
You seem to have a strong need to find fault with Krugman over this issue to the extent that you're dong what you're accusing him of doing. It's not there. Krugman's not being affectionate toward Obama, but the worst you can say about the column is that he is trying to be protective of Clinton
and the process of choosing the nominee. Where is that wrong? I'd have gone a big step further, and noted that neither candidate is all that good on the issues. Obama's offering only a Mr. Feel Good platform. We know they are both in bed with the DLC and corporate America. We know that neither is difinitive regarding the economy, health care or even the "war" on terror.
I agree with Jack. I don't see the slightest possibility of a gray area here: what Kevin says is just plain wrong.
At the risk of piling on I have to agree with molnar, Jack,dale & cmike against Kevin. The Obama camp is not resonsible for the existence of Clinton Rules, they were in place more than a decade ago. What they are guilty of is tolerating their use by supporters without challenge.
The essence of Clinton Rules is devilishly simple: start from a position that assumes that every decision that can be cast from a corrupt interpretation puts the burden on the Clintons instead of the accuser. This started as Speaker Wright Rules where Gingrich et freres threw everything they had up on the board in hopes that something stuck. They cheerfully admitted they didn't necessarily believe there was anything there, they were perfectly happy to play power politics by innuendo. And of course Speaker Wright got taken down by a book deal that not only did the Gingrichites actually raise but paled in comparison to the Gingrich/Murdoch book deal Newt tried to pull. Having taken down Wright by thoroughly dishonest tactics Gingrich and his Merry Men proceeded to rewrite this as Clinton Rules. On reexamination not only were most Clinton 'offenses' unsubstantiated after multi-million dollar investigations none of them remotely rise to the rampant cronyism of Bush. Well some us are sick and tired of Wright/Clinton Rules and are a little disgusted at their tolerance, if not active deployment by the Obama camp.
Wodehouse's stuff on golf and the stories set in Hollywood are not up to the rest of his stuff. The Psmith (remember, that's p as in psychology) stories are as good as anything in the Wooster or Blandings opera.
Post a Comment