Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Digest Number 530

Expand Messages
  • Steve Schaper
    ... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= It is true that if you tell me what you read, I can tell you who you are.
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      mythsoc@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > There are 9 messages in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: Digest Number 529
      > From: Steve Schaper <sschaper@...>
      > 2. HARRY POTTER gets OBE
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > 3. Re: Philip Pullman article
      > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
      > 4. Re: Philip Pullman article
      > From: "Christine Howlett" <chowlett@...>
      > 5. Re: Philip Pullman article
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > 6. Re: Philip Pullman article
      > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
      > 7. Re: Philip Pullman article
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > 8. Re: Philip Pullman article
      > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
      > 9. Re: Philip Pullman article
      > From: Stolzi@...
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 10:42:16 -0600
      > From: Steve Schaper <sschaper@...>
      > Subject: Re: Digest Number 529
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > Just to be fair (though I still don't know what a "fascist style" in writing
      > > is, despite a certain unhappy acquaintance with both "Pravda-style" and
      > > "socialist realism") -- one could detect a certain whiff of fascism in the
      > > way Caspian & Co. in DAWN TREADER deal with the unsatisfactory administration
      > > of Governor Gumpas.
      > >
      >
      > That is not what fascism is. Fascism is the ideology that rejects the idea of the transcendant-objective signified as a 'Jewish' (or Christian) notion, rejects the concept of the individual and individual responsibility as a bourgeois notion, and embraces the group will to power as the greatest good. What Caspian did is representative of monarchism. (at, perhaps, its very best, which, in a fallen world, is very seldom realized)
      >
      > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      > "It is true that if you tell me what you read, I can tell
      > you who you are. But I will know you better if you tell
      > me what you re-read." -- Francois Mauriac
      >
      > http://www.users.qwest.net/~sschaper/
      > sschaper@...
      > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:17:51 EST
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > Subject: HARRY POTTER gets OBE
      >
      > Harry Potter Gets Royal Seal of Approval
      >
      >
      > "LONDON (Reuters) - J.K. Rowling, creator of the hugely popular Harry Potter
      > series, enjoyed a magical moment on Friday when Britain's Prince Charles
      > presented her with an Order of the British Empire.
      >
      > "The author, whose bewitching books about a bespectacled schoolboy wizard
      > have catapulted her into the ranks of Britain's wealthiest women, was honored
      > for services to children's literature. " [etc]
      >
      > Too bad Prince Harry couldn't have done the presentation.
      >
      > Mary S
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 3
      > Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:33:28 -0800
      > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
      > Subject: Re: Philip Pullman article
      >
      > Just to make a contribution to this discussion consisting of something
      > other than tsk'ing over this incomprehensible criticism ...
      >
      > At 06:49 PM 3/3/2001 , Mary S. wrote:
      >
      > >"Take C. S. Lewis's allegories. They are some of the vilest ever written.
      > >They are fascist in style and in method. If you want to see what I mean,
      > >read the first page of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Although I may happen
      > >to agree with the opinions, Lewis sneers at people. People who behave in the
      > >way he describes I _may_ find objectionable. But he says they _are_. Also I
      > >think the books are very badly written and morally repugnant." -- Not
      > >Philip Pullman
      > >
      > >Of course Lewis never says anything at all about Harold, Alberta and Eustace
      > >except to report how they live, and act. The author doesn't "sneer" at this
      > >family, but he does report that the Pevensies find all of them unlikable: is
      > >that a crime?
      >
      > I would describe Lewis's depiction of Eustace's parents as the textbook
      > example of how to sneer at somebody without saying so in so many words.
      > The art of writing a purportedly neutral description that conveys disdain
      > is a very old art, practiced often by journalists. It can even be
      > accomplished in documentary film: see "Trekkies" if you don't believe it
      > can be done. As for Eustace himself, Lewis says (quote from memory) "he
      > almost deserved" his name. I'd call that a sneer.
      >
      > If you read the whole book, this impression is only confirmed. Eustace, as
      > we first meet him, is portrayed in a strongly negative way, and one can't
      > say, "Well, that's just the Pevensies' opinion of him" (and the Narnians',
      > too). As far as Eustace is concerned, the plot of the book is his
      > redemption. Thus, his initial bad behavior isn't inherent in him: it's how
      > he's been raised. His initial description doesn't focus on his behavior
      > (which we learn of later), but on his parents being vegetarians, etc. How
      > is that relevant if not as an explanation of the kind of person he is? And
      > at the end, his mother disapproves of the new Eustace.
      >
      > >Fascist? Could someone explain to me what "fascist style" is? Whatever it
      > >is, it can hardly be Lewis'. Poor man. This, it seems to me, is not
      > >literary criticism but mere name-calling.
      >
      > Only insofar as "fascist" is a dirty word. And it is, to an extent.
      > Not-Pullman should not have said that. Nevertheless, I know what he means.
      > "Fascist style," as I think Mary guessed from her reference to "bullying"
      > below, is a bullying approach to argumentation. Hiding argumentation under
      > the guise of being neutral is a particularly effective form of bullying.
      >
      > >It absolutely beats me, really.
      > >Harold and Alberta's regime is far more like fascism than the Pevensies' way
      > >of life. And it is Eustace who "likes bullying."
      >
      > Not-Pullman isn't accusing Lewis's favored characters of bullying, but
      > Lewis himself. And he said nothing about fascism itself, or fascist tastes
      > (did Mussolini promote vegetarianism?), but fascist style.
      >
      > I like VDT, but despite, not because of, these matters. I try to ignore
      > the argumentation, and read the book as an imram - a re-envisaging of a
      > voyage like St. Brendan's. As such, it's effective and wonderfully evocative.
      >
      > >And all this is to ignore the fact that Lewis' tales are most emphatically
      > >(he protests) NOT allegories.
      >
      > Aslan is not an allegory of Christ? Could have fooled me.
      >
      > Steve Schaper wrote:
      >
      > >That is not what fascism is. Fascism is the ideology that rejects the idea
      > >of the transcendant-objective signified as a 'Jewish' (or Christian) notion,
      > >rejects the concept of the individual and individual responsibility as a
      > >bourgeois notion, and embraces the group will to power as the greatest good.
      >
      > This is so general, it could almost describe Communism.
      >
      > David Bratman
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 4
      > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:55:37 -0500
      > From: "Christine Howlett" <chowlett@...>
      > Subject: Re: Philip Pullman article
      >
      > I suppose CSL is trying to describe in shorthand people who are
      > condescending and superficial - as well as very unimaginative (worse, he
      > probably couldn't say!). But I have to agree that his thumbnail sketch is
      > most unfortunate; CSL becomes the one who is condescending and superficial.
      > Nevertheless, I love the books and have re-read them a dozen times at least.
      > If I were going to be measured by the worst that ever came out of my mouth
      > or pen, it would be a lot more mean-spirited and stupid than CSL's worst,
      > though my best wouldn't come nearly up to his ankle in imaginative power.
      > That inspite of the fact that I'd like to take a ruler to his hand sometimes
      > for silly sexism and racial insensitivity.
      >
      > Even Homer nods.
      >
      > Christine
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: David S. Bratman <dbratman@...>
      > To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:33 PM
      > Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Philip Pullman article
      >
      > >Just to make a contribution to this discussion consisting of something
      > >other than tsk'ing over this incomprehensible criticism ...
      > >
      > >At 06:49 PM 3/3/2001 , Mary S. wrote:
      > >
      > >>"Take C. S. Lewis's allegories. They are some of the vilest ever written.
      > >>They are fascist in style and in method. If you want to see what I mean,
      > >>read the first page of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Although I may
      > happen
      > >>to agree with the opinions, Lewis sneers at people. People who behave in
      > the
      > >>way he describes I _may_ find objectionable. But he says they _are_.
      > Also I
      > >>think the books are very badly written and morally repugnant." -- Not
      > >>Philip Pullman
      > >>
      > >>Of course Lewis never says anything at all about Harold, Alberta and
      > Eustace
      > >>except to report how they live, and act. The author doesn't "sneer" at
      > this
      > >>family, but he does report that the Pevensies find all of them unlikable:
      > is
      > >>that a crime?
      > >
      > >I would describe Lewis's depiction of Eustace's parents as the textbook
      > >example of how to sneer at somebody without saying so in so many words.
      > >The art of writing a purportedly neutral description that conveys disdain
      > >is a very old art, practiced often by journalists. It can even be
      > >accomplished in documentary film: see "Trekkies" if you don't believe it
      > >can be done. As for Eustace himself, Lewis says (quote from memory) "he
      > >almost deserved" his name. I'd call that a sneer.
      > >
      > >If you read the whole book, this impression is only confirmed. Eustace, as
      > >we first meet him, is portrayed in a strongly negative way, and one can't
      > >say, "Well, that's just the Pevensies' opinion of him" (and the Narnians',
      > >too). As far as Eustace is concerned, the plot of the book is his
      > >redemption. Thus, his initial bad behavior isn't inherent in him: it's how
      > >he's been raised. His initial description doesn't focus on his behavior
      > >(which we learn of later), but on his parents being vegetarians, etc. How
      > >is that relevant if not as an explanation of the kind of person he is? And
      > >at the end, his mother disapproves of the new Eustace.
      > >
      > >>Fascist? Could someone explain to me what "fascist style" is? Whatever
      > it
      > >>is, it can hardly be Lewis'. Poor man. This, it seems to me, is not
      > >>literary criticism but mere name-calling.
      > >
      > >Only insofar as "fascist" is a dirty word. And it is, to an extent.
      > >Not-Pullman should not have said that. Nevertheless, I know what he means.
      > > "Fascist style," as I think Mary guessed from her reference to "bullying"
      > >below, is a bullying approach to argumentation. Hiding argumentation under
      > >the guise of being neutral is a particularly effective form of bullying.
      > >
      > >>It absolutely beats me, really.
      > >>Harold and Alberta's regime is far more like fascism than the Pevensies'
      > way
      > >>of life. And it is Eustace who "likes bullying."
      > >
      > >Not-Pullman isn't accusing Lewis's favored characters of bullying, but
      > >Lewis himself. And he said nothing about fascism itself, or fascist tastes
      > >(did Mussolini promote vegetarianism?), but fascist style.
      > >
      > >I like VDT, but despite, not because of, these matters. I try to ignore
      > >the argumentation, and read the book as an imram - a re-envisaging of a
      > >voyage like St. Brendan's. As such, it's effective and wonderfully
      > evocative.
      > >
      > >>And all this is to ignore the fact that Lewis' tales are most emphatically
      > >>(he protests) NOT allegories.
      > >
      > >Aslan is not an allegory of Christ? Could have fooled me.
      > >
      > >
      > >Steve Schaper wrote:
      > >
      > >>That is not what fascism is. Fascism is the ideology that rejects the idea
      > >>of the transcendant-objective signified as a 'Jewish' (or Christian)
      > notion,
      > >>rejects the concept of the individual and individual responsibility as a
      > >>bourgeois notion, and embraces the group will to power as the greatest
      > good.
      > >
      > >This is so general, it could almost describe Communism.
      > >
      > >
      > >David Bratman
      > >
      > >
      > >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      > >
      > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 5
      > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 18:02:03 EST
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > Subject: Re: Philip Pullman article
      >
      > In a message dated 3/5/01 1:34:20 PM Central Standard Time,
      > dbratman@... writes:
      >
      > > At 06:49 PM 3/3/2001 , Mary S. wrote:
      > >
      > > >"Take C. S. Lewis's allegories. They are some of the vilest ever
      > written.
      > > >They are fascist in style and in method. If you want to see what I mean,
      > > >read the first page of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Although I may
      > > happen
      > > >to agree with the opinions, Lewis sneers at people. People who behave in
      > > the
      > > >way he describes I _may_ find objectionable. But he says they _are_.
      > Also
      > > I
      > > >think the books are very badly written and morally repugnant." -- Not
      > > >Philip Pullman
      > > >
      > > >Of course Lewis never says anything at all about Harold, Alberta and
      > > Eustace
      > > >except to report how they live, and act. The author doesn't "sneer" at
      > > this
      > > >family, but he does report that the Pevensies find all of them unlikable:
      >
      > > is
      > > >that a crime?
      > >
      > > I would describe Lewis's depiction of Eustace's parents as the textbook
      > > example of how to sneer at somebody without saying so in so many words.
      > > The art of writing a purportedly neutral description that conveys disdain
      > > is a very old art, practiced often by journalists. It can even be
      > > accomplished in documentary film: see "Trekkies" if you don't believe it
      > > can be done. As for Eustace himself, Lewis says (quote from memory) "he
      > > almost deserved" his name. I'd call that a sneer.
      >
      > You make some good points here, but let's argue further.
      >
      > > If you read the whole book, this impression is only confirmed. Eustace, as
      > > we first meet him, is portrayed in a strongly negative way, and one can't
      > > say, "Well, that's just the Pevensies' opinion of him" (and the Narnians',
      > > too). As far as Eustace is concerned, the plot of the book is his
      > > redemption. Thus, his initial bad behavior isn't inherent in him: it's how
      > > he's been raised. His initial description doesn't focus on his behavior
      > > (which we learn of later), but on his parents being vegetarians, etc. How
      > > is that relevant if not as an explanation of the kind of person he is? And
      > > at the end, his mother disapproves of the new Eustace.
      > >
      > > >Fascist? Could someone explain to me what "fascist style" is? Whatever
      > it
      > > >is, it can hardly be Lewis'. Poor man. This, it seems to me, is not
      > > >literary criticism but mere name-calling.
      > >
      > > Only insofar as "fascist" is a dirty word. And it is, to an extent.
      > > Not-Pullman should not have said that. Nevertheless, I know what he means.
      > > "Fascist style," as I think Mary guessed from her reference to "bullying"
      > > below, is a bullying approach to argumentation. Hiding argumentation under
      > > the guise of being neutral is a particularly effective form of bullying.
      > >
      > > >It absolutely beats me, really.
      > > >Harold and Alberta's regime is far more like fascism than the Pevensies'
      > > way
      > > >of life. And it is Eustace who "likes bullying."
      > >
      > > Not-Pullman isn't accusing Lewis's favored characters of bullying, but
      > > Lewis himself. And he said nothing about fascism itself, or fascist tastes
      >
      > Well, yes: but I was making a counter-case. Also it's my opinion that
      > Fascists are bullies. Thus a character like Eustace, who bullies, is more
      > like a Fascist than the Pevensies, whom Lewis approves and who do not bully.
      >
      > > (did Mussolini promote vegetarianism?), but fascist style.
      >
      > I don't know if Hitler "promoted" vegetarianism, but he was, in fact, a
      > vegetarian, which is what I was thinking of when I made the allusion.
      > Fascists were also big on fresh air and calisthenics (though I don't know
      > about underwear) - ever hear of "Strength through Joy"?
      >
      > > I like VDT, but despite, not because of, these matters. I try to ignore
      > > the argumentation, and read the book as an imram - a re-envisaging of a
      > > voyage like St. Brendan's. As such, it's effective and wonderfully
      > > evocative.
      >
      > I agree! in fact it's my favorite of the seven. And given your statement
      > above, would you agree that Not-Pullman is wrong when he calls the books
      > "badly-written?"
      > I mean, almost everybody thinks Lewis is a good =writer=, even those who
      > reject his ideology and argumentation.
      >
      > > >And all this is to ignore the fact that Lewis' tales are most
      > emphatically
      > > >(he protests) NOT allegories.
      > >
      > > Aslan is not an allegory of Christ? Could have fooled me.
      >
      > Nope, you need to re-read Lewis' own description of what he was doing and how
      > it differed from allegory.
      >
      > > Steve Schaper wrote:
      > >
      > > >That is not what fascism is. Fascism is the ideology that rejects the
      > idea
      > > >of the transcendant-objective signified as a 'Jewish' (or Christian)
      > notion,
      > > > >rejects the concept of the individual and individual responsibility as
      > a
      > > >bourgeois notion, and embraces the group will to power as the greatest
      > good.
      > >
      > >
      > > This is so general, it could almost describe Communism.
      >
      > Of course. Tyrannies of the Left and the Right are alike... as Orwell (for
      > one) recognized. And btw, the Soviet writers I had to read for my courses
      > were also adept at sneering at the characters they wanted the reader to
      > disapprove.
      >
      > mary s
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 6
      > Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:14:53 -0800
      > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
      > Subject: Re: Philip Pullman article
      >
      > At 03:02 PM 3/5/2001 , Mary S. wrote:
      >
      > >> Not-Pullman isn't accusing Lewis's favored characters of bullying, but
      > >> Lewis himself. And he said nothing about fascism itself, or fascist tastes
      > >
      > >Well, yes: but I was making a counter-case. Also it's my opinion that
      > >Fascists are bullies. Thus a character like Eustace, who bullies, is more
      > >like a Fascist than the Pevensies, whom Lewis approves and who do not bully.
      >
      > I don't think counter-cases are improved by bringing in other factors that
      > make it appear (however incorrectly) that you're confused about what case
      > Not-Pullman is trying to make.
      >
      > While bullying may be characteristic of fascists, it's also characteristic
      > of enough other people that its presence does not itself make a character
      > more like a fascist, any more than great height would by itself make him
      > more like a basketball player.
      >
      > I don't think it would be completely wanton of Not-Pullman to describe the
      > Pevensies as bullies, either. Their, and the Narnians', behavior to
      > Eustace resembles Tough Love treatments to an extent, and I've read such
      > behavior by Tough Love operatives described as bullying. I don't wish to
      > make this case myself, but it could be advocated without being completely
      > ludicrous.
      >
      > >> (did Mussolini promote vegetarianism?), but fascist style.
      > >
      > >I don't know if Hitler "promoted" vegetarianism, but he was, in fact, a
      > >vegetarian, which is what I was thinking of when I made the allusion.
      >
      > The problem with Not-Pullman's use of the term "fascist" is that, like most
      > people who use the word, he used it very loosely. I am attempting to be
      > conscientious and use it more strictly (and to understand exactly what he
      > means by it), and strict usage compels me to note that Hitler was not a
      > fascist. He was a Nazi. Yes, the Nazis had much in common with the
      > fascists, but once you go down that route, where do you stop? Here we have
      > Not-Pullman almost calling Lewis a fascist, which seems extreme. If we
      > want to find out exactly how accurate Not-Pullman is being, we should
      > compare with Mussolini, not with Hitler. Mussolini _was_ a fascist. And
      > Eustace's parents were vegetarians, among other things.
      >
      > I don't know if Hitler promoted vegetarianism. He might have (the Nazis
      > were big on public health matters of all sorts, down to and including
      > sanitation), but if he did not, then his private practice of it is no
      > evidence that there's anything relevant to Nazism about vegetarianism.
      > Hitler also loved dogs.
      >
      > >Fascists were also big on fresh air and calisthenics (though I don't know
      > >about underwear) - ever hear of "Strength through Joy"?
      >
      > What was Lewis thinking of when he described Eustace's parents' "special
      > underwear": does anyone know?
      >
      > >> I like VDT, but despite, not because of, these matters. I try to ignore
      > >> the argumentation, and read the book as an imram - a re-envisaging of a
      > >> voyage like St. Brendan's. As such, it's effective and wonderfully
      > >> evocative.
      > >
      > >I agree! in fact it's my favorite of the seven. And given your statement
      > >above, would you agree that Not-Pullman is wrong when he calls the books
      > >"badly-written?"
      >
      > Not-Pullman also describes the books as "some of the vilest ever written."
      > I didn't feel it necessary to record skepticism about that either.
      >
      > >> >And all this is to ignore the fact that Lewis' tales are most
      > >emphatically
      > >> >(he protests) NOT allegories.
      > >>
      > >> Aslan is not an allegory of Christ? Could have fooled me.
      > >
      > >Nope, you need to re-read Lewis' own description of what he was doing and how
      > >it differed from allegory.
      >
      > What description is that? The one I remember is the one in which he said
      > that in LWW he deliberately made Aslan's death and resurrection into a
      > parallel with Christ's. That sounds like an allegory to me. Many people
      > feel that Tolkien protested too much when he claimed he detested allegory,
      > and his work is much farther from an allegory than Lewis's is.
      >
      > >> Steve Schaper wrote:
      > >>
      > >> >That is not what fascism is. Fascism is the ideology that rejects the
      > >idea
      > >> >of the transcendant-objective signified as a 'Jewish' (or Christian)
      > >notion,
      > >> > >rejects the concept of the individual and individual responsibility as
      > >a
      > >> >bourgeois notion, and embraces the group will to power as the greatest
      > >good.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> This is so general, it could almost describe Communism.
      > >
      > >Of course. Tyrannies of the Left and the Right are alike... as Orwell (for
      > >one) recognized.
      >
      > Indeed they are, but my point is that Steve was trying to define "fascist."
      > Instead, he defined "totalitarian", which is a different term with a
      > broader meaning. If we wish to criticize Not-Pullman for throwing the term
      > "fascist" around loosely, we should not use it loosely ourselves.
      >
      > David Bratman
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 7
      > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 19:18:06 EST
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > Subject: Re: Philip Pullman article
      >
      > An afterthought.
      >
      > Not-Philip-Pullman says
      >
      > " People who behave in the way he describes I _may_ find objectionable. But
      > he says they _are_. "
      >
      > But he then calls Lewis "sneering" - and you, DavidB, defended this
      > assessment on the grounds that Lewis =didn't= say it, he just described them
      > "in a sneering way."
      >
      > But N-P-P says that he DOES say it.
      >
      > Mary S
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 8
      > Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:38:51 -0800
      > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
      > Subject: Re: Philip Pullman article
      >
      > At 04:18 PM 3/5/2001 , Mary S. wrote:
      >
      > >An afterthought.
      > >
      > >Not-Philip-Pullman says
      > >
      > >" People who behave in the way he describes I _may_ find objectionable. But
      > >he says they _are_. "
      > >
      > >But he then calls Lewis "sneering" - and you, DavidB, defended this
      > >assessment on the grounds that Lewis =didn't= say it, he just described them
      > >"in a sneering way."
      > >
      > >But N-P-P says that he DOES say it.
      >
      > To what defending post are you referring? I cannot find where I wrote the
      > words "a sneering way", nor did I make that argument.
      >
      > I called Lewis's description of Eustace's parents "the textbook example of
      > how to sneer at somebody without saying so in so many words." Thus, he
      > _is_ sneering, but he's _not_ doing it in a sneering way. If it makes a
      > difference.
      >
      > I said of Lewis's description of Eustace himself, "I'd call that a sneer."
      >
      > I consider this whole point to be picayune beyond believability, but if you
      > consider it worthwhile to make a post drawing a distinction between "a
      > sneer" and "in a sneering way," please at least do so accurately.
      >
      > David Bratman
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 9
      > Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:37:12 EST
      > From: Stolzi@...
      > Subject: Re: Philip Pullman article
      >
      > In a message dated 3/5/01 6:17:53 PM Central Standard Time,
      > dbratman@... writes:
      >
      > > What was Lewis thinking of when he described Eustace's parents' "special
      > > underwear": does anyone know?
      > >
      >
      > I'd always thought it meant Jaeger, but this seems a bit early in date:
      >
      > "A must for those 'in the know' in the 1880s was Dr. Gustav Jaeger's sanitary
      > woolen clothing that was said to be the most healthy kind in all
      > circumstances.
      > It was believed that in hot weather, wool was cooler than any other material
      > since it didn't conduct the heat of the atmosphere to the body. These
      > garments became popular initially among the intellectual circles. "
      >
      > Still, i think Jaeger knits hung on and were known much later... but this is
      > an impression I can't substantiate other than from vague memory. I think
      > George Bernard Shaw wore and recommended them. Harold and Alberta seem very
      > like Shaw -- in everything but genius.
      >
      > Must honorably say that I know some very nice vegetarians who =aren't=
      > fascists: your wife for one, David; my daughter-in-law for another.
      >
      > Since no one has ventured a guess - the quote condemning Lewis is (I am told)
      > taken from Alan Garner, author of WEIRDSTONE OF BRISINGAMEN, MOON OF GOMRATH,
      > THE OWL SERVICE and several other books for young people.
      >
      > Mary S
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      --

      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      "It is true that if you tell me what you read, I can tell
      you who you are. But I will know you better if you tell
      me what you re-read." -- Francois Mauriac

      http://www.users.qwest.net/~sschaper/
      sschaper@...
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    • Steve Schaper
      ... I was actually using other people s definition of that particular ideology. In so doing, I was trying to be precise rather than loose. I would argue that
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > >> Steve Schaper wrote:
        > >>
        > >> >That is not what fascism is. Fascism is the ideology that rejects the
        > >idea
        > >> >of the transcendant-objective signified as a 'Jewish' (or Christian)
        > >notion,
        > >> > >rejects the concept of the individual and individual responsibility as
        > >a
        > >> >bourgeois notion, and embraces the group will to power as the greatest
        > >good.
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> This is so general, it could almost describe Communism.
        > >
        > >Of course. Tyrannies of the Left and the Right are alike... as Orwell (for
        > >one) recognized.
        >
        > Indeed they are, but my point is that Steve was trying to define "fascist."
        > Instead, he defined "totalitarian", which is a different term with a
        > broader meaning. If we wish to criticize Not-Pullman for throwing the term
        > "fascist" around loosely, we should not use it loosely ourselves.
        >

        I was actually using other people's definition of that particular ideology. In so doing, I was trying to be precise rather than loose. I would argue that any manifestation of all three of those doctrines at once, is indeed fascism, whatever the manifestation might call itself. I would disagree that it defines communism. Though communism is a rather general term and could describe the Pilgrim's first year in Massachusetts as much as
        Marx and Engels :-) I suspect 20th century Marxism was meant, and I would disagree. It might describe Stalin, but then, was Stalin a true follower of Marx and Lenin, or was he an opportunist? Perhaps Marxian socialism and the German National Social Democratic Worker's Party are sufficiently close to be a caution. But Marx was a modernist, not a post-modernist. He still believed in objective truth. His greatest good was not the
        group will to power, but fairness, (as he understood it anyway). I would also disagree that the NSDWP was that different from Mussolini's fascist party. Fascism is an ideology that was very popular in the 1930s throughout Europe and America. WWII changed destroyed its popularity, at least for two or three decades. Mussolini's group identity was ancient Rome, as he imagined it. Hitler's was a imaginary Aryan people, and very much
        neo-pagan, influenced by the interpretations of Wagner. But any group identity will do.

        My main sources are Gene Edward Veith's _Modern Fascism_ (Concordia Press) and George Steiner's _The Portage to San Cristobal of A. H._

        In saying all this, my original point was that CSL was about as far from being a fascist as is imaginable, whereas Pullman, well, I haven't read his works, so I can't say, but from what has been quoted here, one must wonder.

        --

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
        "It is true that if you tell me what you read, I can tell
        you who you are. But I will know you better if you tell
        me what you re-read." -- Francois Mauriac

        http://www.users.qwest.net/~sschaper/
        sschaper@...
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      • Ted Sherman
        Steve, Please don t send the complete digests to the list. Thanks, Ted -- Dr. Theodore James Sherman, Editor Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S.
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Steve,

          Please don't send the complete digests to the list.

          Thanks,

          Ted

          --
          Dr. Theodore James Sherman, Editor
          Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature
          Associate Professor of English
          Box X041, Middle Tennessee State University
          Murfreesboro, TN 37132
          615 898-5836 Office
          615 898-5098 FAX
          tsherman@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.