Though the possession statistics from the West Brom v Leeds match are the most out of kilter I can recall in a long time for a 4-0 margin. West Brom have managed 4 goals out of 29% of the possession.
He was overrated, but the man had style and knew what the crowds wanted. Trump is clearly jealous of him, and can't even look good with his beautiful wife on his arm
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
Hardly underrated given he was awarded the Nobel prize...
He was overrated, but the man had style and knew what the crowds wanted. Trump is clearly jealous of him, and can't even look good with his beautiful wife on his arm
Well if it is the rain that has “ prevented” him from attending the cemetery, it’s pretty shameful as far as I can see. It’s not as if the poor sods six foot under could call a halt to being killed due to the weather, is it?
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I'm a huge admirer of Rudyard Kipling. He's very problematic but then again, if a writer wasn't problematic, you'd wonder what they had to tell you.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
Hardly underrated given he was awarded the Nobel prize...
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
Hardly underrated given he was awarded the Nobel prize...
F1: according to Twitter, Hamilton isn't under investigation right now (Vettel is, for two offences, both related to the weigh bridge). Sirotkin/Magnussen under investigation for driving unnecessarily slowly.
If Hamilton doesn't get a penalty, or even investigated, that'd be something.
A good day for teams in yellow. Dortmund are 33-1 to win the Champions League which seems generous. They look like they might be able to cause problems for the likes of Man City and Barcelona.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
His stories remain magical. As a child I loved Rikki Tikki Tavi and The Cat who walks by himself.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
That's you struck off the Manchester Student Union Christmas card list...that is if they still do Christmas Cards, probably been banned for being oppressive and racist.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
His stories remain magical. As a child I loved Rikki Tikki Tavi and The Cat who walks by himself.
'Mary Postgate' - absolutely chilling.
'The Gardener' - very appropriate for tomorrow
I also love the Sussex stories (Bateman's is not far from where I live). And of course the wonderful 'Kim'.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
That's you struck off the Manchester Student Union Christmas card list...that is if they still do Christmas Cards, probably been banned for being oppressive and racist.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
Agree about that, but I'm not sure it is all political. More that writers come in and out of fashion. As someone mentioned down thread, Owen came into fashion in the 60's. Ditto Blake. Compare how Dickens and Austen were viewed 50 years ago. One the giant of the 19th Century, the other as a skilled writer of light romances for females. Kipling won the Nobel Prize. He is now out of fashion. But not as much as Sinclair Lewis or Ford Maddox Ford for example.
Though I suspect being deaf to the misfortunes of the glitterati will not do him any harm.
One thing that has stuck me. He is always so quick to lash out, find somebody to blame and the turn over of staff in the White House has been unprecedented.
I wonder what the staff retention is like in his businesses?
Though I suspect being deaf to the misfortunes of the glitterati will not do him any harm.
Trump the emperor is a loose egotistical blame merchant. He and his fans still seem to think he's wearing clothes. Was it not he who said, a couple of school massacres ago, that he'd like to think that he would have charged in to sort out the gunman (boy)? I find it a bit scary, the system of checks and balances notwithstanding.
Off topic, but topical - I've just attended a dedication service for a new war memorial in our village . I learnt that one of those listed was killed on 8th November 1918. Three days before the armistice. He was 19.
Utterly, utterly senseless.
I think I heard that Lloyd George had a poetic notion of the guns falling silent on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. He instructed his generals and set up the PR accordingly. One general felt after four years of relentless killing that he wasn't going to waste a single soldier's life to satisfy Lloyd George's fancy and ordered an immediate ceasefire and didn't wait until 11am. The news got out, bypassing the PR operation. Lloyd George was furious and made sure the general didn't get his war bounty, which was a massive amount of money in 1918 terms.
I don't know if this is true or not.
The recent BBC series, 100 Days to Victory, is worth catching on iplayer. How the Allies turned the tide in the final months of 1918 to win the First World War. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0bpvyb1
This programme was utter tripe.
According to it - which several reputable historians refused to appear on because it was so obvious there was an agenda - victory was all down to the Aussies and the Canadians, the BEF had no part. FYI the Aussies played no part after mid Sept 1918, instead breaking the Hindenburg Line was done by the 46th North Midland Division from the Nottingham area, and the Battle of Amiens - that started the 100 Days was the brainchild of, and the execution of Henry Rawlinson. 1918 was the worst year for British casualties - worse than Ypres or Somme as open warfare is a dangerous game .
The war was finally won, if we are to play this game, by the failure of the German offensive, which was specifically aimed at knocking out the British. Although the Germans attacked the French as well, predominantly they targeted the against the BEF. Once they failed in that, the game was up, and it finally dawned on the Germans they could not win.
Off topic, but topical - I've just attended a dedication service for a new war memorial in our village . I learnt that one of those listed was killed on 8th November 1918. Three days before the armistice. He was 19.
Utterly, utterly senseless.
Indeed. It is often forgotten that the greatest of the War poets, Wilfrid Owen, was killed on November 4, 1918. Age just 25. Goodness knows what he could have produced had he lived another week.
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori
Amen. It is quite sobering to think he could easily have been around as the grand old man of British literature as late as the 1980's...
Edward Thomas, killed at Ypres in 1917, was a far greater poet in my view.
Anyone interested in this discussion or wishing to judge that for themselves, check out this website:
Not all Thomas's poems took the war as their subject, or if thy did, they did so tangentially, subtly. Place, environment and language were his main themes. And though he had been an active reviewer and prose writer for a decade or so before the war, it was only in the war years that he started to write poetry - under the influence of Robert Frost. But he is the one victim of the war who I'm sure would have gone on to become a major literary figure had he survived.
I'm much less sure about Owen, though his last few poems ('Exposure', 'Strange Meeting') suggest that he was developing in quite interesting ways.
Edward Thomas -- we did him for O-level many decades back.
This is no case of petty right or wrong That politicians or philosophers Can judge. I hate not Germans, nor grow hot With love of Englishmen, to please newspapers. Beside my hate for one fat patriot My hatred of the Kaiser is love true
That said, so far as I remember from English lessons, he wrote one good poem, Adelstrop, and all the rest. Our teachers were adamant we only needed to analyse that one.
Just catching up with this one. You've quoted probably the worst lines he ever wrote, and if your teachers said that about the rest of his work, is it possible to go back and punch them? Just one recommendation: 'As the Team's Head Brass' touches on the war and demonstrates the subtlety and poise of his best verse.
Though the possession statistics from the West Brom v Leeds match are the most out of kilter I can recall in a long time for a 4-0 margin. West Brom have managed 4 goals out of 29% of the possession.
Cat with a mouse. "I can catch you. Any. Moment. I. Choose........"
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
I like Kipling, but his earlier works were full of Imperialistic pride, after the death of hos son in WW1 his tone changed.
Very much a man of his times, so when the times changed, he no longer fitted. In many ways he reminds me of General Candy in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, an honourable anachronism.
I would be careful about statements like that. He wrote War poetry of the highest standard. Would he have produced anything in peace? One of the greatest war poets, Edward Thomas, who had been a poet before the war, had had writer's block before going into the trenches. Almost all his good poetry dates from the First World War, when the misery and boredom of the trenches and indeed furlough saw his brain seek other outlets. He was killed, but I doubt if he would have produced anything worth reading had he lived.
This is not the same as saying it is a good thing Owen or Thomas was killed - just that I don't think it would necessarily have made a difference to their literary output had they lived. Music, now, is different. Who knows what George Butterworth might have achieved had he lived, or Ivor Gurney had he not gone mad?
Who knows indeed. Vaughan Williams was inspired by his experiences in the Great War to write the heart-wrenching Third Symphony. But then Herbert Howells escaped (his friend) Gurney's fate by contracting Graves' disease and being too ill to be called up. I've never sensed that Howells' music has any sense of shame at not being called up, but then his life would turn out to have tragedy of its own.
Off topic, but topical - I've just attended a dedication service for a new war memorial in our village . I learnt that one of those listed was killed on 8th November 1918. Three days before the armistice. He was 19.
Utterly, utterly senseless.
I think I heard that Lloyd George had a poetic notion of the guns falling silent on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. He instructed his generals and set up the PR accordingly. One general felt after four years of relentless killing that he wasn't going to waste a single soldier's life to satisfy Lloyd George's fancy and ordered an immediate ceasefire and didn't wait until 11am. The news got out, bypassing the PR operation. Lloyd George was furious and made sure the general didn't get his war bounty, which was a massive amount of money in 1918 terms.
I don't know if this is true or not.
The recent BBC series, 100 Days to Victory, is worth catching on iplayer. How the Allies turned the tide in the final months of 1918 to win the First World War. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0bpvyb1
The BBC Armistice Programme on Thursday implied that Admiral Rosslyn Wemyss had suggested the 11.00 am timing rather than the 2.30 pm which Lloyd George wanted. The Mail had a piece that suggested that he was not paid the same bounty as others.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
I like Kipling, but his earlier works were full of Imperialistic pride, after the death of hos son in WW1 his tone changed.
Very much a man of his times, so when the times changed, he no longer fitted. In many ways he reminds me of General Candy in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, an honourable anachronism.
Off topic, but topical - I've just attended a dedication service for a new war memorial in our village . I learnt that one of those listed was killed on 8th November 1918. Three days before the armistice. He was 19.
Utterly, utterly senseless.
I think I heard that Lloyd George had a poetic notion of the guns falling silent on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. He instructed his generals and set up the PR accordingly. One general felt after four years of relentless killing that he wasn't going to waste a single soldier's life to satisfy Lloyd George's fancy and ordered an immediate ceasefire and didn't wait until 11am. The news got out, bypassing the PR operation. Lloyd George was furious and made sure the general didn't get his war bounty, which was a massive amount of money in 1918 terms.
I don't know if this is true or not.
The recent BBC series, 100 Days to Victory, is worth catching on iplayer. How the Allies turned the tide in the final months of 1918 to win the First World War. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0bpvyb1
The BBC Armistice Programme on Thursday implied that Admiral Rosslyn Wemyss had suggested the 11.00 am timing rather than the 2.30 pm which Lloyd George wanted. The Mail had a piece that suggested that he was not paid the same bounty as others.
Reminder for those thinking of betting on F1 that Vettel is likely to get a large penalty, Hamilton ought to get a small one (but appears not to be under investigation), and Sirotkin/Magnussen have been called to the stewards for driving unnecessarily slowly.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
I like Kipling, but his earlier works were full of Imperialistic pride, after the death of hos son in WW1 his tone changed.
Very much a man of his times, so when the times changed, he no longer fitted. In many ways he reminds me of General Candy in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, an honourable anachronism.
I think Kipling is far more important than that. Paradoxically the enduring success of the Jungle Book and the Just So Stories holds his reputation back, seen as essentially a children's writer and one with dubious politics to boot.
Yet he has an ability to put complex ideas in simple words, an ability that no other 20th century English writer matched. He had an understanding of ordinary humanity that few writers of any age possess (perhaps best seen in "the Absent-Minded Beggar", which with few alterations would seem current in 2018, never mind 1899).
He gave his worldview honestly but the greatness in his writing lies beneath that in his understanding of people and the clarity and precision of his words. Like all of us he had his prejudices and unlike most of us he was forced to reconsider them. He is a writer of the very first rank, in my view.
Off topic, but topical - I've just attended a dedication service for a new war memorial in our village . I learnt that one of those listed was killed on 8th November 1918. Three days before the armistice. He was 19.
Utterly, utterly senseless.
I think I heard that Lloyd George had a poetic notion of the guns falling silent on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. He instructed his generals and set up the PR accordingly. One general felt after four years of relentless killing that he wasn't going to waste a single soldier's life to satisfy Lloyd George's fancy and ordered an immediate ceasefire and didn't wait until 11am. The news got out, bypassing the PR operation. Lloyd George was furious and made sure the general didn't get his war bounty, which was a massive amount of money in 1918 terms.
I don't know if this is true or not.
The recent BBC series, 100 Days to Victory, is worth catching on iplayer. How the Allies turned the tide in the final months of 1918 to win the First World War. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0bpvyb1
The BBC Armistice Programme on Thursday implied that Admiral Rosslyn Wemyss had suggested the 11.00 am timing rather than the 2.30 pm which Lloyd George wanted. The Mail had a piece that suggested that he was not paid the same bounty as others.
I found that quite an interesting piece of history.
Tragically above 680 men died on Armistice day between the signing at 0500, and the implementation at 1100. They fought to the last minute, even though both sides knew the end time.
I saw They Shall Not Grow Old the other night. It is on BBC2 tommorow, and a remarkeable work of restoration. It matched my Grandfather's war stories, and manages to avoid getting stuck in victimhood.
Though I suspect being deaf to the misfortunes of the glitterati will not do him any harm.
Pasadena is not a glitterati place, it's a (historically Republican) working class town to the North of LA.
Be careful using "class". There were, and I suppose still are, some pretty posh houses in the surrounds of Cal Tech when I was an undergraduate there when the Beach Boys were getting started. https://tinyurl.com/ybh89oj3
This FCO piece might raise an eyebrow or two, the scale of the final morning's losses is compared unfavourably with D Day. It also points to some lingering hot problem areas in the Baltic and Russia.
The speed of the unravelling of The Bulgarians, Ottomans & Austro-Hungarian forces is quite a surprise, given the Salonika Campaign started in mid September 1918. Bulgaria sued for peace on Sept 28th, Ottomans Oct 30th and AH on Nov 4th.
Fighting in Europe did not end in 1918, there were numerous border disputes in Central and Eastern Europe from 1919-22 with prolonged fighting between Poland and Soviet Russia, Greece and Turkey.
I have enjoyed reading Robert Gerwarth’s book The Vanquished on post Armistice Europe.
Off topic, but topical - I've just attended a dedication service for a new war memorial in our village . I learnt that one of those listed was killed on 8th November 1918. Three days before the armistice. He was 19.
Utterly, utterly senseless.
I think I heard that Lloyd George had a poetic notion of the guns falling silent on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. He instructed his generals and set up the PR accordingly. One general felt after four years of relentless killing that he wasn't going to waste a single soldier's life to satisfy Lloyd George's fancy and ordered an immediate ceasefire and didn't wait until 11am. The news got out, bypassing the PR operation. Lloyd George was furious and made sure the general didn't get his war bounty, which was a massive amount of money in 1918 terms.
I don't know if this is true or not.
The recent BBC series, 100 Days to Victory, is worth catching on iplayer. How the Allies turned the tide in the final months of 1918 to win the First World War. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0bpvyb1
This programme was utter tripe.
According to it - which several reputable historians refused to appear on because it was so obvious there was an agenda - victory was all down to the Aussies and the Canadians, the BEF had no part. FYI the Aussies played no part after mid Sept 1918, instead breaking the Hindenburg Line was done by the 46th North Midland Division from the Nottingham area, and the Battle of Amiens - that started the 100 Days was the brainchild of, and the execution of Henry Rawlinson. 1918 was the worst year for British casualties - worse than Ypres or Somme as open warfare is a dangerous game .
The war was finally won, if we are to play this game, by the failure of the German offensive, which was specifically aimed at knocking out the British. Although the Germans attacked the French as well, predominantly they targeted the against the BEF. Once they failed in that, the game was up, and it finally dawned on the Germans they could not win.
I am sure that Messrs Monash and Currie are duly grateful for having been put in their place.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
I like Kipling, but his earlier works were full of Imperialistic pride, after the death of hos son in WW1 his tone changed.
Very much a man of his times, so when the times changed, he no longer fitted. In many ways he reminds me of General Candy in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, an honourable anachronism.
I think Kipling is far more important than that. Paradoxically the enduring success of the Jungle Book and the Just So Stories holds his reputation back, seen as essentially a children's writer and one with dubious politics to boot.
Yet he has an ability to put complex ideas in simple words, an ability that no other 20th century English writer matched.
No other English writer of the 20th Century? I would say that both Graham Greene and Joseph Conrad both covered complex issues in readable books equally well, possibly better.
I found Plain Tales from the Hills his best work, but Kiping's characters are often fairly one dimensional, and his dialogue written in working class dialect often barely readable.
Off topic, but topical - I've just attended a dedication service for a new war memorial in our village . I learnt that one of those listed was killed on 8th November 1918. Three days before the armistice. He was 19.
Utterly, utterly senseless.
I think I heard that Lloyd George had a poetic notion of the guns falling silent on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. He instructed his generals and set up the PR accordingly. One general felt after four years of relentless killing that he wasn't going to waste a single soldier's life to satisfy Lloyd George's fancy and ordered an immediate ceasefire and didn't wait until 11am. The news got out, bypassing the PR operation. Lloyd George was furious and made sure the general didn't get his war bounty, which was a massive amount of money in 1918 terms.
I don't know if this is true or not.
The recent BBC series, 100 Days to Victory, is worth catching on iplayer. How the Allies turned the tide in the final months of 1918 to win the First World War. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0bpvyb1
This programme was utter tripe.
According to it - which several reputable historians refused to appear on because it was so obvious there was an agenda - victory was all down to the Aussies and the Canadians, the BEF had no part. FYI the Aussies played no part after mid Sept 1918, instead breaking the Hindenburg Line was done by the 46th North Midland Division from the Nottingham area, and the Battle of Amiens - that started the 100 Days was the brainchild of, and the execution of Henry Rawlinson. 1918 was the worst year for British casualties - worse than Ypres or Somme as open warfare is a dangerous game .
The war was finally won, if we are to play this game, by the failure of the German offensive, which was specifically aimed at knocking out the British. Although the Germans attacked the French as well, predominantly they targeted the against the BEF. Once they failed in that, the game was up, and it finally dawned on the Germans they could not win.
I am sure that Messrs Monash and Currie are duly grateful for having been put in their place.
Besides the Western Front, the bit often overlooked is that Germany was more or less starved into submission by a naval blockade.
Off topic, but topical - I've just attended a dedication service for a new war memorial in our village . I learnt that one of those listed was killed on 8th November 1918. Three days before the armistice. He was 19.
Utterly, utterly senseless.
I think I heard that Lloyd George had a poetic notion of the guns falling silent on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. He instructed his generals and set up the PR accordingly. One general felt after four years of relentless killing that he wasn't going to waste a single soldier's life to satisfy Lloyd George's fancy and ordered an immediate ceasefire and didn't wait until 11am. The news got out, bypassing the PR operation. Lloyd George was furious and made sure the general didn't get his war bounty, which was a massive amount of money in 1918 terms.
I don't know if this is true or not.
The recent BBC series, 100 Days to Victory, is worth catching on iplayer. How the Allies turned the tide in the final months of 1918 to win the First World War. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0bpvyb1
This programme was utter tripe.
According to it - which several reputable historians refused to appear on because it was so obvious there was an agenda - victory was all down to the Aussies and the Canadians, the BEF had no part. FYI the Aussies played no part after mid Sept 1918, instead breaking the Hindenburg Line was done by the 46th North Midland Division from the Nottingham area, and the Battle of Amiens - that started the 100 Days was the brainchild of, and the execution of Henry Rawlinson. 1918 was the worst year for British casualties - worse than Ypres or Somme as open warfare is a dangerous game .
The war was finally won, if we are to play this game, by the failure of the German offensive, which was specifically aimed at knocking out the British. Although the Germans attacked the French as well, predominantly they targeted the against the BEF. Once they failed in that, the game was up, and it finally dawned on the Germans they could not win.
I am sure that Messrs Monash and Currie are duly grateful for having been put in their place.
Besides the Western Front, the bit often overlooked is that Germany was more or less starved into submission by a naval blockade.
And with the collapse of the Bulgarians on the Thessalonika front in Sept 18, soon followed by Ottoman and Austrio-Hungarian armistices, completely without allies.
Reminder for those thinking of betting on F1 that Vettel is likely to get a large penalty, Hamilton ought to get a small one (but appears not to be under investigation), and Sirotkin/Magnussen have been called to the stewards for driving unnecessarily slowly.
Nope just a repimand and a €25,000 fine. It's his lucky day. He could have been finished much more severely given the circumstances.
Besides the Western Front, the bit often overlooked is that Germany was more or less starved into submission by a naval blockade.
I wouldn't have said that was overlooked. It was widely understood at the time that Germany was starving and a recurring theme of war stories about Germany itself even in the West - Manning Coles' Drink to Yesterday, or Emeric Pressburger's The Spy in Black spring to mind as well as Erich Maria Remarque's Im Westen, Nichts Neues.
Where it was most notably overlooked was (1) among German army veterans who didn't want to accept they really had lost the war and (2) unfortunately, among far too many historians (and not just on the political left) in the West who wanted to stress the ridiculous fantasy of equal guilt and an indecisive outcome to push an agenda that the whole war was a colossal, unnecessary and futile waste of lives. That's always baffled me given there are far better reasons to believe that than by falsifying historical facts, but there we are.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
The two lines that conjure up the senselessness of the Great War best for me were written by a poet who is now most remembered as the most jingoistic of writers:
"If any question why we died Tell them, because our fathers lied"
So much in so few simple words.
Kipling is one of the most underestimated of literary figures, and the reputation he has for jingoism is completely unjustified. He wrote some wonderful short stories about the terrible grief of the Great War.
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
I like Kipling, but his earlier works were full of Imperialistic pride, after the death of hos son in WW1 his tone changed.
Very much a man of his times, so when the times changed, he no longer fitted. In many ways he reminds me of General Candy in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, an honourable anachronism.
I think Kipling is far more important than that. Paradoxically the enduring success of the Jungle Book and the Just So Stories holds his reputation back, seen as essentially a children's writer and one with dubious politics to boot.
Yet he has an ability to put complex ideas in simple words, an ability that no other 20th century English writer matched.
No other English writer of the 20th Century? I would say that both Graham Greene and Joseph Conrad both covered complex issues in readable books equally well, possibly better.
I found Plain Tales from the Hills his best work, but Kiping's characters are often fairly one dimensional, and his dialogue written in working class dialect often barely readable.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
The more I read of this, the more I wonder if Trump has actually had enough. It's the centenary of the end of World War One, fer fucks sake, and the narcissistic little boy can't even be arsed to show his face in the rain. It's bizarre.
Yet he has an ability to put complex ideas in simple words, an ability that no other 20th century English writer matched.
Terry Pratchett (yes, seriously)? John Le Carre?
I've read pretty much everything Terry Pratchett has written but he's the Burger King of writers - I devour him but I'm not proud of it. He's not really very good when all's said and done, but readable for all that.
John Le Carré is a good suggestion, as was Graham Greene (Travels With My Aunt is a particular favourite of mine). But I don't think either at heart has as much to say.
Joseph Conrad is an excellent writer but his prose doesn't sing with the same simplicity. He has other virtues.
The more I read of this, the more I wonder if trump has actually had enough. It's the centenary of the end of World War One, fer fucks sake, and the narcissistic little boy can't even be arsed to show his face in the rain. It's bizarre.
Or Fox News were talking about him and he wouldn't leave until they had finished their segment on how he won this week.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
Yes, it seems so.
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
Yes, it seems so.
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
I let you into a secret...I agree with you....I just don't have any interest in any of these franchises, but neither do I worry about kids who do want to dress up and pretend to be one.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
Yes, it seems so.
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
Yes, it seems so.
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
Could be worse.
Could be men without underpants.
I'm clearly in the wrong universe if that's thought to be worse.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
Yes, it seems so.
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Like the kid from Kansas who grew up on a farm and went to work in the big city as a journalist...
...or the kid from Brooklyn who was too short to fight in WWII so got a scientist to help him bulk up...
...or the [that's enough - Ed]
Yes, they did not become heroes via courage or strenghth of character, but by scientific or supernatural accident. Not an interesting way to develop a character, or to provide a role model.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
Yes, it seems so.
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
Could be worse.
Could be men without underpants.
I'm clearly in the wrong universe if that's thought to be worse.
It depends on what else they've forgotten. Like President Deschanel, for example.
If Wonder Woman had been a solely Hollywood creation, she wouldn't have bothered with knickers.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
Yes, it seems so.
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
I let you into a secret...I agree with you....I just don't have any interest in any of these franchises, but neither do I worry about kids who do want to dress up and pretend to be one.
I don't mind other people having boring interests different to my own. Not everyone is of refined taste and interested in statistics, epidemiology, and political betting. Except here of couse
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Given how wildly successful the likes of the Marvel universe is, I think you are definitely in the minority on that one.
Yes, it seems so.
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
I have never liked "superheros", as I have always found that real heroes arise from fairly unremarkeable people, who have risen to the occasion.
Like the kid from Kansas who grew up on a farm and went to work in the big city as a journalist...
...or the kid from Brooklyn who was too short to fight in WWII so got a scientist to help him bulk up...
...or the [that's enough - Ed]
Yes, they did not become heroes via courage or strenghth of character, but by scientific or supernatural accident. Not an interesting way to develop a character, or to provide a role model.
Um, the whole point about Steve Rogers/Captain America is that he displayed courage, determination and strength of character despite a weak frame, and was chosen for said scientific augmentation precisely for those qualities, and even when augmented he is courteous to women, defiant to corruption, and eschews bad language. What more do you want?
As the leading geek on PB, j'adore comics and the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
DC need to pull their bloody finger out.
If we're discussing low brow entertainment can I make the case for Johnny English Strikes Again. The critics have been pretty mean but I had a fun afternoon. Even a slightly topical angle - tech/Brexit/British incompetence and ingenuity.
Why Marvel have not yet seen fit to make a superhero character out of a pension lawyer is utterly beyond me.
We all have our crosses to bear.
Some superheroes need invisibility cloaks apparently. They should try becoming middle-aged women. Immediately invisible to all.
The invisibility-of-middle-aged-women-as-a-superpower is specifically a superpower of a female character in Stross's Laundry Series. Yes, I know: obscure.
Comments
I suppose he's seen as reprehensible because he's seen as the poet of the British Empire, and for some strange reason we're supposed to be ashamed of the British Empire. But of course, anyone who has actually read much Kipling will realise that he's a very subtle and observant writer about the empire - it's certainly not crude jingoism or nationalism.
https://www.axios.com/trump-acting-attorney-general-whitaker-legal-challenges-a9199197-9817-42b4-8df2-95f92cabc861.html
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2388771/
https://twitter.com/PFA809/status/1061307981638193152
Though I suspect being deaf to the misfortunes of the glitterati will not do him any harm.
If Hamilton doesn't get a penalty, or even investigated, that'd be something.
'The Gardener' - very appropriate for tomorrow
I also love the Sussex stories (Bateman's is not far from where I live). And of course the wonderful 'Kim'.
Kipling won the Nobel Prize. He is now out of fashion. But not as much as Sinclair Lewis or Ford Maddox Ford for example.
I wonder what the staff retention is like in his businesses?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/416010-flake-not-ruling-out-2020-run-against-trump
According to it - which several reputable historians refused to appear on because it was so obvious there was an agenda - victory was all down to the Aussies and the Canadians, the BEF had no part. FYI the Aussies played no part after mid Sept 1918, instead breaking the Hindenburg Line was done by the 46th North Midland Division from the Nottingham area, and the Battle of Amiens - that started the 100 Days was the brainchild of, and the execution of Henry Rawlinson. 1918 was the worst year for British casualties - worse than Ypres or Somme as open warfare is a dangerous game .
The war was finally won, if we are to play this game, by the failure of the German offensive, which was specifically aimed at knocking out the British. Although the Germans attacked the French as well, predominantly they targeted the against the BEF. Once they failed in that, the game was up, and it finally dawned on the Germans they could not win.
And it's Leeds. Just rejoice at that news......
Very much a man of his times, so when the times changed, he no longer fitted. In many ways he reminds me of General Candy in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, an honourable anachronism.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/uk-world/760199/how-a-fife-naval-officer-shortened-the-first-world-war-by-hours-after-defying-his-prime-minister-at-the-armistice/
Kipling was "Very much a man of his times". So, I guess, was H. G. Wells, but, to my mind, less magical.
Reminder for those thinking of betting on F1 that Vettel is likely to get a large penalty, Hamilton ought to get a small one (but appears not to be under investigation), and Sirotkin/Magnussen have been called to the stewards for driving unnecessarily slowly.
Yet he has an ability to put complex ideas in simple words, an ability that no other 20th century English writer matched. He had an understanding of ordinary humanity that few writers of any age possess (perhaps best seen in "the Absent-Minded Beggar", which with few alterations would seem current in 2018, never mind 1899).
He gave his worldview honestly but the greatness in his writing lies beneath that in his understanding of people and the clarity and precision of his words. Like all of us he had his prejudices and unlike most of us he was forced to reconsider them. He is a writer of the very first rank, in my view.
Tragically above 680 men died on Armistice day between the signing at 0500, and the implementation at 1100. They fought to the last minute, even though both sides knew the end time.
I saw They Shall Not Grow Old the other night. It is on BBC2 tommorow, and a remarkeable work of restoration. It matched my Grandfather's war stories, and manages to avoid getting stuck in victimhood.
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/09/the-war-that-did-not-end-at-11am-on-11-november/
The speed of the unravelling of The Bulgarians, Ottomans & Austro-Hungarian forces is quite a surprise, given the Salonika Campaign started in mid September 1918. Bulgaria sued for peace on Sept 28th, Ottomans Oct 30th and AH on Nov 4th.
Fighting in Europe did not end in 1918, there were numerous border disputes in Central and Eastern Europe from 1919-22 with prolonged fighting between Poland and Soviet Russia, Greece and Turkey.
I have enjoyed reading Robert Gerwarth’s book The Vanquished on post Armistice Europe.
https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/2045
I found Plain Tales from the Hills his best work, but Kiping's characters are often fairly one dimensional, and his dialogue written in working class dialect often barely readable.
[googles]
Arse. It's Pasedena.
Where it was most notably overlooked was (1) among German army veterans who didn't want to accept they really had lost the war and (2) unfortunately, among far too many historians (and not just on the political left) in the West who wanted to stress the ridiculous fantasy of equal guilt and an indecisive outcome to push an agenda that the whole war was a colossal, unnecessary and futile waste of lives. That's always baffled me given there are far better reasons to believe that than by falsifying historical facts, but there we are.
The Batman obsession led me to fret, because – Superman aside – these heroes are bad role models. The superhero is the unexceptional man made exceptional by tragedy – Batman, Iron Man, Hulk, Magneto – and/or by the application of powers: Batman, Iron Man and Hulk again, plus Captain America and the X-Men. But he is usually narcissistic (Iron Man, who describes himself as “a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”, like a complete inadequate, or Elon Musk, or Arron Banks). He is often depressive (Batman, Hulk, Magneto) or frozen in ice (Captain America, though it’s not really his fault). He cannot form stable relationships with women (this applies to all of them). Anti-intellectualism is essential; none of the superheroes seems to read books, except Professor X of X-Men. They exist to punch people.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/10/superman-batman-iron-man-bad-role-models-tanya-gold
I somehow doubt Terry the Tranny, who lives in an unremarkable council house in Harringay and lists their superpowers as expert tea maker and hobbies as reading, Sudoku and quilting will have quite the same appeal to kids.
You see, I just read that and think ‘more proof that religion is a waste of time’.
(Worth watching to the end for comments on Boris that have aged surprisingly well.)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094590/
The more I read of this, the more I wonder if Trump has actually had enough. It's the centenary of the end of World War One, fer fucks sake, and the narcissistic little boy can't even be arsed to show his face in the rain. It's bizarre.
John Le Carré is a good suggestion, as was Graham Greene (Travels With My Aunt is a particular favourite of mine). But I don't think either at heart has as much to say.
Joseph Conrad is an excellent writer but his prose doesn't sing with the same simplicity. He has other virtues.
...or the kid from Brooklyn who was too short to fight in WWII so got a scientist to help him bulk up...
...or the [that's enough - Ed]
I must be one of the few that find men in underpants resolving issues by acts of violence, living in a Simpsons like world of neither ageing or developing characters, tedious and uninteresting.
Could be men without underpants.
If Wonder Woman had been a solely Hollywood creation, she wouldn't have bothered with knickers.
DC need to pull their bloody finger out.
Good night.
Although the Daredevil film was nearly as bad as pineapple on pizza.
Thinking about it She Hulk was also a lawyer, am sure there's a WASPI gag to be made there.
Thought not!
EDIT: TMI!!!
Trump is beneath contempt not bothering to turn up to honour those who gave their lives because of a bit of rain.
We all have our crosses to bear.
Some superheroes need invisibility cloaks apparently. They should try becoming middle-aged women. Immediately invisible to all.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChazReddBear/status/1061258545893699584?s=04&fbclid=IwAR1N2WzgMGCfnC6fewsDLAUb-3misaIXDW3XsD5Zmkh_WPvw73YN7_nzhCg