![]() But I’m not saying anything that everyone here doesn’t or shouldn’t already know. What’s remarkable about his plays is how layered they are and how much there really is underneath the hagiography and “middle-class moral compass”. ![]() Myles, you’re just taking the piss, I’m sure—but having some Greek and being well familiar with Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles, I’m still very inclined to rate Shaksepeare very highly. That’s what I did when I was in school, though they knew no Greek—a fact well evident to my tutors and classmates. I have my servants translate the Greek for me while I lounge in the bath. “It didn’t hurt a bit,” she said triumphantly, “because I had my girdle on.” 66 THE FIGHT OVER, Barbara Jean indicates spot where she got spanked. ![]() He said he’d call it quits, but she followed him to his room, dared him to “come out and fight”. “I was lucky,” he admits, “to get off with only three weeks of her.”ĭURING A LULL George helps Barbara to her feet. He responded by pushing her to the floor, giving her a few husbandly whacks and saying she could have her divorce. “Boy,” George told reporters, “have I been taken.” It was at this point that Barbara summoned up her indignation and the press, and proceeded to hit, scratch and bite George. When Cauthen arrived in pursuit two weeks ago, Barbara demanded a divorce. Shortly thereafter, she was in New Orleans denying that she had been married. Several weeks later, telling George an ex-suitor in Detroit had attempted suicide and needed her help, she flew to Miami. The tiff has its origin two months ago in Columbia, where Barbara, stranded on a South American tour, married George Cauthen, 28, a pilot for an airline. (I’ve also extracted it to a web page here.) There must be some sort of ironic cultural context here that I’m not getting.īarbara Jean Floyd, 18, “Miss New Orleans of 1948”, gave her home-town reporters a field day last week by inviting them to one of the liveliest tussles ever put on public view in that city. It’s on page 91, for those who wish to look—and one really ought to, as the text alone is insufficient. It left me deeply baffled and very slightly nauseated. The divorce case in that issue is a window into a distant and pretty bizarre past. Note that the time in which Shakespeare was held in the lowest esteem, the late Georgian era, was also the time during which Britain had the most resplendent flowering of high culture on a Continental scale, and with Continental lushness. Not to mention that the moral compass of Shakespeare’s plays seems to always have a curious disposition to mirror that of the middle classes. (The Waste Land has always been a genuinely high-brow, but nonetheless ethereally beautiful, poem) Eliot, and the like, which too requires a moral disposition somewhat distanced from the middle-brow norm. The same people are also more likely to appreciate Milton, Byron, Yeats, T.S. There is always a mild stench of unseemly social-climbing associated with a lot of the middle-class Shakespeare worshipers, people who likely did not have a good (and exclusive) classical education in Latin and Greek, that would, with exposure to Vergil and Ovid and Catullus and Aeschylus and so on, counterbalance what is really sometimes hagiographic impressions of Shakespeare’s greatness. Shakespeare has always been, and probably always will be, unmistakably upper-middle class. 10.19.09 at 7:40 corrections: Probably worth noting that Shakespeare didn’t climb the brow ladder over time- it may have been evacuated from the lower brow tiers, although I doubt that as well because of it’s function as totem of acceptable art.” and in a separate move, middle is also just assumed to be the largest demographic, and so the most amenable to subdivision (after all, the middle class is the most numerous here in postwar america, innit?) 8 middle is just assumed to be the natural triplet alongside low and high. looks to me like the three “basic” categories, if judged by the average distances between nodes, would be 1) high+upper-middle 2) lower-middle and 3) low.īut i think this really just shows that they had not thought much about basicness, or about the naturalness of the categories. Indeed, by content i would say that the upper-middle has much more in common with the high than it does with the lower-middle. Granted, the three are presumably high/middle/low, but from the chart there is no evidence that the upper/lower subcategory of the middle-brow is any less “basic” of a split than any of the others. Apparently the authors felt no compunction in talking about the “three basic categories” in spite of the fact that they then go on to detail four.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |