The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
April Diary: Lockdown Lit; Great Unpublishables; and Down and Out In New York City, Etc. [12 ITEMS!]
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
It's May! Above, Derb dances around a Maypole with actress Lily James.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Lockdown Lit

I think every educated person keeps somewhere in his head a mental list of Great Books he hasn’t read. This lockdown is a good opportunity to tick a box or two on that list. Well, I have now read Middlemarch.

  • Spoiler alert. If you haven’t read Middlemarch but are planning to, this segment, and the next, and the next but two (“Great unpublishables”) contain references to the plot.

I came late to George Eliot. It was my mid-thirties. I was teaching English at a college in provincial China. The college had a library with a small English-language section. For leisure-time reading I plundered that section. It included Eliot’s first three novels: Adam Bede (whose story is set in Derbyshire), The Mill on the Floss, and Silas Marner. No Middlemarch, though.

Having enjoyed those three, and knowing that Middlemarch is the book Eliot is best remembered for, I resolved to read it when I returned to England. It’s a dauntingly big book, though—eight hundred pages in my Penguin Classics paperback—and once back in England I had to find a job and restore my finances … then I moved to the States … then I got married … What with one thing and another, the Middlemarch box on my mental list remained unticked for 37 years.

That was far too long. Middlemarch is a lovely book: rich and deep, with a strong narrative thread and sound psychological insight. “One of the few English novels written for grown-up people,” said Virginia Woolf, and for once I agree with the crazy old bat.

I had to pause to look things up: “pilulous,” “megrim,” “Harpagon,” “leather and prunella,” … Also, enstupidated as I am from too much Twitter browsing, there were sentences I had to read twice to get the sense of them:

No one quicker than Rosamond to see causes and effects which lay within the track of her own tastes and interests: she had seen clearly Lydgate’s preeminence in Middlemarch society, and could go on imaginatively tracing still more agreeable social effects when his talent should have advanced him; but for her, his professional and scientific ambition had no other relation to these desirable effects than if they had been the fortunate discovery of an ill-smelling oil.

If you’re not willing to apply some mental effort, though, don’t read Victorian novels.

The nearest I can get to finding any fault with Middlemarch is, I wish the author could have included a nice lively girl for Mr Farebrother to marry … but perhaps that would have made the plot a bit too symmetrical.

Mr. Brooke’s Joe Biden moment

I defy any present-day American to read Chapter 51 of Middlemarch without Joe Biden coming to mind.

Mr. Brooke is running for election to parliament. He has to give a speech to the electors of Middlemarch from a balcony overlooking the town market-place. Nervous, he fortifies himself with a second glass of sherry: “a surprise to his system which tended to scatter his energies instead of collecting them.”

The speech is a disaster:

He began with some confidence.

“Gentlemen—Electors of Middlemarch!”

This was so much the right thing that a little pause after it seemed natural. “I’m uncommonly glad to be here—I was never so proud and happy in my life—never so happy, you know.”

This was a bold figure of speech, but not exactly the right thing; for, unhappily, the pat opening had slipped away—even couplets from Pope may be but “fallings from us, vanishings,” when fear clutches us, and a glass of sherry is hurrying like smoke among our ideas. Ladislaw, who stood at the window behind the speaker, thought, “it’s all up now. The only chance is that, since the best thing won’t always do, floundering may answer for once.” Mr Brooke, meanwhile, having lost other clews, fell back on himself and his qualifications—always an appropriate graceful subject for a candidate.

“I am a close neighbor of yours, my good friends—you’ve known me on the bench a good while—I’ve always gone a good deal into public questions—machinery, now, and machine-breaking—you’re many of you concerned with machinery, and I’ve been going into that lately. It won’t do, you know, breaking machines: everything must go on—trade, manufactures, commerce, interchange of staples—that kind of thing—since Adam Smith, that must go on. We must look all over the globe:—’Observation with extensive view,’ must look everywhere, ‘from China to Peru,’ as somebody says—Johnson, I think, ‘The Rambler,’ you know. That is what I have done up to a certain point—not as far as Peru; but I’ve not always stayed at home—I saw it wouldn’t do. I’ve been in the Levant, where some of your Middlemarch goods go—and then, again, in the Baltic. The Baltic, now …”

Quantifying the death of the novel

Speaking of novels, Joseph Epstein has a long grumbly piece in the current Commentary about how no-one takes novels seriously any more.

Joseph Bottum mentions Andrew Ferguson’s cocktail-party test for books—would you be embarrassed at a cocktail party for not having read it?—and notes the last such novel Ferguson cites passing this test was Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities in 1987.

Well, duh. Things aren’t real until you quantify them, though. I did the quantification leg-work in Chapter 4 of We Are Doomed:

An approximate measure of glory in our culture is getting your picture on the cover of Time magazine. How are authors doing on that? …

As of early 2009, it has been over ten years since Time did a cover story on an author. That was Tom Wolfe (Nov. 2, 1998). Two other authors showed up in the 1990s: Toni Morrison (Jan. 19, 1998) and Michael Crichton (Sept. 25, 1995). So that’s three for the 1990s, none to date for the 2000s …

Ignoring the poets and scaling where necessary, I have for the past nine decades (present to past), the following numbers of authors with Time cover stories to their glory:

2000s: 0
1990s: 3
1980s: 3
1970s: 5
1960s: 6
1950s: 7
1940s: 5
1930s: 10
1920s: 12

If you add in the poets:

2000s: 0
1990s: 3
1980s: 3
1970s: 5
1960s: 9
1950s: 9
1940s: 5
1930s: 13
1920s: 16

Allowing the 1940s as a pardonable lapse, the trend is all too plain. If “the chief glory of every people arises from its authors,” we have clear run out of glory.

You’re welcome, guys.

Great unpublishables

As mentioned in last month’s diary, I was reading the Joseph Mitchell anthology Up in the Old Hotel. Following that with Middlemarch, I was struck by one of those occurrences for which there is no word in English, although there ought to be. The meaning is something like “not quite a coincidence.”

One of the mid-20th-century New York City characters in Up in the Old Hotel is bohemian eccentric Joe Gould. He gets a 19-page sketch near the beginning of the book, then a much fuller 93-page description—it was actually published as a book in itself, then made into a movie—at the very end. Joseph Mitchell was plainly fascinated by Gould.

Every day, even when he has a bad hangover or even when he is weak and listless from hunger, he spends at least a couple of hours working on a formless, rather mysterious book that he calls “An Oral History of Our Time.” He began this book twenty-six years ago, and it is nowhere near finished.

It was still unfinished when Gould died in 1957 at age 67, and was never published. To say more would spoil the story Joseph Mitchell tells.

ORDER IT NOW

Forward to this month and Middlemarch. A major character in the novel is the cold, dry clergyman Edward Casaubon, whose life is dedicated to a massive scholarly work titled Key to All Mythologies. His wife, an earnest soul who married Casaubon with the hope of being able to help him complete the work, eventually perceives that it has, in fact, no scholarly value, and is probably unpublishable. Casaubon dies, the book for ever unfinished and unpublished.

There is the not-quite-coincidence (“coincidencette”? “quasi-coincidence”?) I read two books, one after the other, one nonfiction and the other fiction, both featuring a huge unpublished and probably unpublishable manuscript.

Down and out in New York City

Also featuring in Joseph Mitchell’s book is the Occidental Hotel, “at the southwest corner of Broome and the Bowery.”

The Occidental was quite a grand place in the 1890s and 1900s, before the Bowery slid out of respectability. Among its patrons was Timothy D. Sullivan, “the Tammany boss of the Bowery district … the most powerful and the most open-handed politician in the city.”

He was a member of a syndicate which controlled all the gambling houses in Manhattan, he owned saloons, racehorses, and prizefighters, and he had a partnership in a chain of vaudeville and burlesque theatres. His clubrooms were at 207 Bowery, but he also kept a suite on the second floor of the Occidental, where he and other politicians played poker and he received reports from the managers of his various enterprises.

What got my attention there in Mitchell’s book was that phrase “at the southwest corner of Broome and the Bowery.” As it happens, I once lived at exactly that location, in a seedy just-not-quite flophouse called the Pioneer Hotel. That was in the fall of 1973, when the Bowery had become a slum. Like Big Tim, I kept a suite on the second floor — Room 93. And yes, checking up, it was the same hotel.

That whole area has undergone major gentrification since 1973. The Pioneer is now the Sohotel. A room the size of mine at the Sohotel today will cost you $159 a night. Back in the day I paid either $4.25 or $4.75, I forget precisely. That’s an annual compounding rate of either 8 or 7¾ percent across 47 years—way better than the 3.9 percent for overall inflation.

(The Occidental/Pioneer/Sohotel is not, I should add, the “old hotel” in the title of Mitchell’s anthology. That’s a different place, the Fulton Ferry Hotel, at 92 South Street, down by the old Fulton Fish Market. Last I heard, the ground floor of the Fulton Ferry Hotel is today a bicycle rental shop. I don’t know what’s happened to the upper floors.)

Speaking truth to power

April 13th we had a storm. It wasn’t anything dramatic: rain, wind … until we heard an almighty BANG! outside and the power failed.

We get our power from overhead wires that are held aloft on wooden utility poles. Where wires meet pole they sometimes pass through a big cylindrical tub fixed to the pole. Transformer? Don’t ask me.

The utility pole nearest our house was old and rotten. The weight of the tub, with an assist from the wind, had snapped it. The tub would have dropped to the ground with all its wires if a mess of tree branches hadn’t got in the way. If anyone had been passing by the pole, or even sitting in a parked car right there, serious injury might have been done.

In the fullness of time—it took 24 hours—the utility company sent a crew round to plant a handsome new pole, fix the tub on it, and rewire the whole arrangement. You can see the rotten old pole (at right) and the spiffy new one (at left, with tub) here. I have a portable generator, so we didn’t suffer any great inconvenience, though the street was closed for those 24 hours with wires all over.

Something similar happens every couple of years, which is why I bought a generator. Each time I find myself wondering why we have overhead power lines. I grew up on a public-housing estate, built from scratch in the late 1940s on the outskirts of a small English town. I subsequently lived all over England, in every kind of neighborhood from leafy upper-middle-class suburbs to Victorian slums. All those places were comprehensively and reliably electrified, but I never saw overhead power lines in any of them. Nor did I ever know anyone who owned a generator, as most of my Long Island neighbors do.

Do other First World countries have overhead power lines in residential neighborhoods? Does Australia? Sweden? Poland? Japan? It seems to me like a really bad idea.

Michigan’s strict governess

In my April 17th podcast I had some fun with the power-crazed governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer:

Targets for my hate this week will be the Democratic Party of course, innumerate journalists, reckless globalization, the language police, false religions, Jeff Bezos, and the Governess of Michigan. That is the female of “Governor,” isn’t it? “Governess”? I think so.

I can’t resist a smile when typing the word “Governess.” For me it has a slightly salacious color to it. That is a result of my having gone to college where and when I did: in West-Central London, the early 1960s.

Within walking distance of my college was Soho, at that time still a red light district of the old type, with streetwalkers actually walking the streets, or at any rate hanging out on the street corners calling out suggestively to possible customers. Soho also had a lot of good cheap restaurants; Charing Cross Road, which bordered it on the east, was home to many bookshops; the West End—theaters, movie houses—was a few minutes walk further on.

So one way and another I spent a lot of time in and around early-1960s Soho. One of the minor amusements of doing so was reading the business cards on display, advertising specialist services available from the resident ladies. These cards would be Scotch-taped to the wall behind the phone in the old-style public phone booths, or pinned to notice-boards in open entrance-ways with flights of stairs leading up.

Swedish and Karate Lessons from Karla, 2nd Floor.

Relief massage—Call MUS eum-3277, ask for Lulu.

That kind of thing. There was generally a card from a governess in there:

Strict governess will discipline naughty boys—Madame Whippe-Lashe, 3rd Floor

Would it give offense to Governess Whitmer to know that I thought of her in this precise context? I hope so.

Over-lawyered?

ORDER IT NOW

Are we—the Anglosphere in general, the U.S.A. in particular—over-lawyered? Leslie Carwell’s book April Fools’ Day Every Day in the Courts makes the case that we are, simply by listing short (one- or two-page) summaries, in plain language, of 171 cases that have been litigated since 1905, the great majority of them in the past forty years.

Every kind of make-work for our legions of lawyers is covered here: imagined new entitlements, workplace grievances, shakedowns of “deep pocket” defendants, improbable claims of emotional distress, prisoner lawsuits (what else is there to do in the pokey?), litigious compulsives, amateur constitutional scholars, … Hit with a civil paternity suit? Countersue for a stud fee. Accidentally shot yourself with a gun you stole? Sue the manufacturer.

Carwell’s stated intent is to entertain. He takes a light approach, denying any lawyer-bashing intentions: “Far from it. It’s an admirable feat what the [legal] industry has managed to pull off in full daylight in every country at every level and for so long.”

Almost all of Carwell’s cases in fact come from court records in the U.S.A., with appellate courts most heavily represented. There are also five cases from Canada, four from the U.K., and one each from Australia and New Zealand. The author helpfully provides an URL for each case so that you can see the original documents on the internet as PDFs.

I’m glad to live in a society under the rule of law. Speaking some years ago with a visitor from mainland China, I grumbled about the over-lawyering of America. He disagreed very forcefully: “You can’t have too many lawyers. You can’t. Impossible. Never too many.”

Given where my visitor was coming from, I saw his point, but … never too many? Leslie Carwell’s book left me wondering.

The Fab Four Humors

And yet another coincidencette, this one concerning the Beatles.

Our weekly rental from Netflix for Saturday, April 25th was the 2019 Brit-flick Yesterday. It’s an alternate-world story: there’s a hiccup in the spacetime continuum causing the lead character, a penniless and unknown guitarist, to find himself in a world identical to his own in almost every way except that on his new world-line the Beatles never existed and no-one knows any of their songs. He does what you’d expect, attaining international fame and fortune.

I’ve been a sucker for alternate-world stories since reading Damon Knight’s “What Rough Beast” at age fourteen in Fantasy & Science Fiction magazine. [February, 1959]

(Concerning which magazine—this is totally unrelated to the main point—did you know that Jared Taylor once had a short story published in F&SF? See the August 1991 issue. [PDF] I am so envious—really. The story is ingenious. On some alternate world-line my fellow Thought Criminal is an internationally-famous writer of short stories.)

Yesterday isn’t bad: light and a bit silly, but it makes approximate sense on its premises, and Lily James is easy on the eye. (“Hot? Nah, but cute,” is the verdict of my 24-year-old son, whose judgment in these matters I take to be dispositive.) Then there are the songs, which have aged wonderfully well across fifty-odd years.

So I exited the weekend with the Beatles on my mind—the part of my mind, I mean, not still occupied by Lily James. Then on Monday my subscription copy of Literary Review arrived from London. What should I find on page 12 but a full-length review of a new book about the Beatles: Craig Brown’s One Two Three Four: The Beatles in Time. The review is by Dominic Green. (That’s right: Green reviewing a book by Brown. Magazine editors find amusement where they can.)

At 642 pages Brown’s book isn’t as long as Middlemarch, but it’s sufficiently amazing that he could get that much material out of a subject that’s been so thoroughly worked over across so many decades. After reading Dominic Green’s review, though, I think I’ll pass on the book itself.

The Beatles begin in four-part harmony, but after a while they no longer know who they are. Brown notes how each of them personifies a different element: John is fire, Paul is water, Ringo is earth, George is air.

Uh-huh. If I remember my Four Humors theory correctly, that means that John was choleric (“have enormous vitality and get angry quickly”), Paul phlegmatic (“deep thinkers, fair, calm, willing to compromise, and hard workers”), Ringo melancholic (“very sensitive, and enjoy artistic pursuits”), and George sanguine (“confident, joyful, optimistic, expressive, and sociable”). As personality sketches of the Fab Four, those aren’t even close.

Left behind

Like the protagonist of Yesterday, I may myself have slipped through a rent in the fabric of the cosmos at some point in the last few years without noticing. He found himself on a world-line where no-one knew the Beatles; I find myself on one where everyone except me knows who Ed Sheeran is. Even my wife, who is by no means a close follower of current pop, recognized Ed when he showed up in the movie.

Who is Ed Sheeran? What is Tik Tok? Who or what is the Tiger King? Don’t bother telling me; I’m not even trying to keep up any more.

Central concerns

On March 27th VDARE.com posted a piece under my name with the title “John Derbyshire, 30 Miles From Coronavirus Epicenter, Is Skeptically Social Distancing.”

The piece was an edited extract from my Radio Derb of that date. The deal is, when I send in the audio of a Radio Derb podcast, I attach a full transcript for the VDARE.com editors to use in any way they please. If they need an article for the website, they can cannibalize distill one from parts of the podcast transcript.

Well, that piece drew the following email from a reader:

You may be innocent, and someone else wrote the headline, but “epicenter” doesn’t mean what everyone now using it thinks it means, i.e., an even grander, more deadly, more powerful, etc., location than an ordinary center. But as you no doubt know, it means the spot on the earth’s surface above (as in epidermis) the center of an earthquake, which may be many miles below. So metaphorically it actually diminishes the effect that the writers and news readers are striving for since earthquake forces far away at the earth’s surface are necessarily weaker than those at its center.

I replied:

I am indeed innocent: You can hear me say “center” at 8m05s here. The transcript confirms.

That said, I must confess that if the newspaper I am quoting had said “epicenter” I would likely have repeated it without thinking. It is always good to be reminded of the need for precision in usage. Thank you!

Since then I have of course been seeing “epicenter” all over. I might be using—I mean, mis-using—the word myself if that reader hadn’t sensitized me (although I hope I wouldn’t be).

Given the massive misuse of “epicenter,” there is a lot of corrective work to be done here, many souls to be saved. Get on it, VDARE.com readers! Onward, word-precision soldiers!

Math Corner

John Horton Conway died on April 11th, aged 82. There is a good full obituary in the April 25th Economist. Like the Beatles, Conway was a native Liverpudlian—three years older than John Lennon. He apparently died from COVID-19.

There is a wealth of books by and about Conway. A favorite of mine is The Book of Numbers, which Conway co-wrote with Richard Guy. You can open it at wellnigh any page and find something interesting. (Well, if you think numbers are interesting.) Among Conway’s research subjects was the monster group, a/k/a the friendly giant group, a family of symmetries in a space of 196,883 dimensions: he gives it a passing mention on page 62 of The Book of Numbers.

Conway attained lasting fame outside the sphere of professional mathematicians in 1970, when Martin Gardner, in his Scientific American column, described Conway’s Game of Life. If you’re not acquainted with it, take a look. The rules for the Game of Life (unlike those for the game of life) are absurdly simple, and it only uses two dimensions of space. “In the early 1970s a quarter of the world’s computers were playing it,” says The Economist.

ORDER IT NOW

Mine certainly was in 1970. Those were mainframe days, of course. I was a couple of years into my career as a programmer, helping to develop an interpreter for the then-newish BASIC language on ICL System 4 mainframes. We only had teletype machines for input and output—no monitors—but I got the Game of Life coded up in no time and wasted great stacks of teletype paper printing successive generations of the game for different starting configurations.

R.I.P. John Horton Conway … and thanks!

OK, a brainteaser. This is from the National Museum of Mathematics in New York City. The place is, like everything else, currently closed; but they are running an online subscription feature called Mind-Benders for the Quarantine, with a new brainteaser every Sunday. Here’s one from mid-April. It got my attention because I had just posted something about hand-shaking.

Handshakes at a Party

Nicholas and Alexandra went to a reception with ten other couples; each person there shook hands with everyone he or she didn’t know. (Obviously, this took place before the COVID-19 epidemic.) Later, Alexandra asked each of the other 21 partygoers with how many people they shook hands, and got a different answer every time.

With how many people did Nicholas shake hands?

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness 
Hide 30 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. BlackFlag says:

    Is Middlemarch the novel that best portrays Victorian England?

    • Replies: @John Derbyshire
  2. I was struck by one of those occurrences for which there is no word in English, although there ought to be. The meaning is something like “not quite a coincidence.”

    Serendipity, maybe??? Well, not quite…

    As for overhead electrical wires – longer distances in the USA and cheaper to install and to repair. Among developed countries, Japan uses them almost exclusively, I suppose because of earthquakes (easier and faster repairs). Took a day because utilities service in America is execrable.

  3. Then there are the songs, which have aged wonderfully well across fifty-odd years.

    The extraordinary thing highlighted by that movie (which I enjoyed – more for the music than the story) was how well it showed the mind-boggling variety of songs produced by the Lennon/McCartney partnership. Every few minutes, another pop-masterpiece that I had forgotten about – even though in the olden days I used to listen to albums all the way through.

    It was also interesting that none of them lost much when they were ‘re-arranged’ (i.e., played in a different style to the original); I suspect Sheeran has an ear for that type of thing.

    Best bit was when the protagonist discovered that Oasis also didn’t exist: he immediately thought that made sense. BURN.

    The movie also showed that it’s ridiculously easy to spot Beatles songs written by George or Ringo. I knew that already, but it was really obvious in the film.

    No shame for not knowing who Sheeran is – for my money he only has one good track (‘The A Team‘), but that’s an absolute belter.

  4. Also: on Middlemarch – much easier to get the audiobook than the e-book (at least the latter’s easier than stupid dead-tree versions: who wants to squint at stupid 9pt for hours on end?).

    Middlemarch is my longest audiobook by far: 35 hours 38 minutes.

    Plus, you can set them to switch off after half an hour and go to sleep with a bedtime story in RP.

    That’s why all my Wodehouse audiobooks are are voiced by Jonathan Cecil, even though I don’t quite understand why he insisted on mispronouncing Featherstonehaugh (i.e., not as Farnshaw).

    It’s not because he didn’t know better –
     • he was an OE (before it got over-run by Arabs) and an Oxon [New College];
     • his father was a peer, a Prof of English (and a good chum of the Inklings);
     • his grandad was a Marquess (4th Salisbury);
     • his great-grandad was a Marquess (3rd Salisbury duh) and a Prime Minister.

    So it must have been an in-joke of some sort – perhaps making fun of people who would listen to a book rather than read it?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  5. In answer to your question, yes in Australia we do have overhead power wires. And yes they are a problem exactly as you describe.

  6. lloyd says: • Website

    I had written a careful comment about Casaubon. How he is modelled on Saint Aquinas but tragically his scholarship had been superceded by German scholarship years before. Then it disappearred in a power failure and in the age of Covid-19 I lacked the energy to repeat it. So the poor fellow misses out again. A statement on the present state of English speaking scholarship.

  7. The answer to your brainteaser is that the situation is impossible.

    It is to be assumed that each couple know each other. So the number of hands shaken by anyone is in the range 0 to 20 (no one shakes his partner’s or his own hand).

    If each person of 21 people gives a different number from all others in the range 0 to 20, then they all as a group have given inclusively the range 0 to 20. But the person saying he shook 20 hands conflicts with the person saying he shook 0 hands – because he had to have shaken all hands other than his own and his spouse’s and therefore had to have shaken the hand of the person who claims to have shook no hands. This is a contradiction.

  8. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes

    Heterophones can intimidate those who may be articulate and well read, but lack the class background of a Jonathan Cecil. People should never stop trying to learn and teach as much as they can.* But when someone steps in bull feathers like this and is put down, the greater revelation is the insecurity of the other guy.

    And that’s not you. You’re one of my favorite commenters: freely thoughtful, principled, and ornery.

    —-

    *What I found and listened to just now online favors “Fanshaw,” unless I’m too lowbrow to hear the “r.”

  9. Middlemarch: I have read it, & thankfully forgotten most of it.
    Victorian (ie UK) literature, indeed the whole period lacks much fascination for me. (which puts me in a minority, because it seems to obsesse many)
    Just can’t think of any Victorian Lit’ I have enjoyed. Have to move to France, the US, or Russia for inspiring Lit’ from that period.
    (Was Dickens paid by the word? God, he’s long…. )
    Re: electricity poles– most of Australia has them. Yes, they are cheaper, & they also make great targets for wayward drivers.
    Lawyers: one of my favorite cases — Robertson v Balmain New Ferry CO (1910). Case went all the way to Aust’ High Court, then to the Privy Council in the UK. Why? Robertson refused to pay one penny — on principle. Not sure — can the lawyers be blamed here? (actually, yes — Robertson, I think, was a lawyer….)

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @John Derbyshire
  10. I believe her husband said “zero”.

    There’s no way we can answer the question if there were any number of people who her husband didn’t know, if, in other words, he were to say any number but “zero”. There are only two possibilities, zero and twenty. He either shook hands with everyone or no one. How would she know how many people he didn’t know? We can’t know. But, we can reach an answer if she knew that he knew everyone there, which meant, of course, that he shook hands with no one.

  11. @blake121666

    If each person of 21 people gives a different number from all others in the range 0 to 20, then they all as a group have given inclusively the range 0 to 20. But the person saying he shook 20 hands conflicts with the person saying he shook 0 hands – because he had to have shaken all hands other than his own and his spouse’s and therefore had to have shaken the hand of the person who claims to have shook no hands. This is a contradiction.

    The person who shook 0 hands is the spouse of the person who shook 20 hands.

    • Replies: @blake121666
  12. He has to give a speech to the electors of Middlemarch from a balcony overlooking the town market-place. Nervous, he fortifies himself with a second glass of sherry: “a surprise to his system which tended to scatter his energies instead of collecting them.”

    I wonder how many instances there are of this little literary device–of a person fortifying themselves with liquor before a public appearance, and then falling apart, to hilarious effect?

    The most famous of all, of course, is the speech by the fictional Gussie Fink-Nottle to the Market Snodsbury Grammar School, in P.G. Wodehouse’s Right Ho, Jeeves, written a full 72 years after George Eliot wrote Middlemarch.

    • Replies: @moshe
  13. @Milo Minderbinder

    Oh yes, I see what you are saying. The question then becomes: is that 0-20 pairing Alexandra and Nicholas or another couple?

    It cannot be Alexandra and Nicholas because Alexandra’s number of handshakes has to be the same as someone else’s – because there are no other numbers to choose from 0 to 20. If she shook 20 hands, then someone else must have shaken 20 hands and you get the contradiction again. There is a similar contradiction if she shook 0 hands. So the 0-20 couple cannot be Alexandra and Nicholas.

    If it is not Alexandra and Nicholas, then remove that other couple from consideration and consider what is left: Nicholas and 9 couples who have numbers 1 to 19 inclusive. You can then renumber after removing that removed couple’s handshakes from consideration – the person who shook 20 hands shook everyone’s hand – in particular the person who shook one hand – namely him! So you can recursively drill down, removing the 1-19 couple and so on and so forth.

    You are at the end of this recursion left with only 10-10 – which must be what Alexandra and Nicolas are (the 10-10 couple)!

    Therefore Nicholas shook 10 hands!

    That was an interesting problem! Thanks for helping out with that. One of those rare problems that can be thought through entirely in one’s head.

  14. Coincidentally — or only almost so? — Daughter Calvinist and I also just read Middlemarch as part of our working-and-schooling-from-home entertainment and enrichment program. She’s off to study English literature in the Autumn (we hope), and she thought it would be a good one to knock off in advance. I’d also been planning to read it for the better part of three decades, and decided the current novel circumstances neutralized any and all of my excuses.

    It’s an enjoyable book, and quite funny at times, poignant at others, but gosh, it did take a while. The reader must adopt the stately, dignified pace of the horse and carriage; attempts to motor one’s way through result in just those sorts of re-reads you mentioned.

    Daughter C is now trying to find the exit to the labyrinth that is Bleak House, which I think is even longer. I’m giving it a pass.

    On the subject of power lines: in my youth (early 1980s), in my obscure hometown on the lonesome Iowa prairies, I devoted two summers to working for the local power company, and spent most of my time filling in the trenches in which the town’s power cables were being systematically laid. So there are at least some places in the USA that have been free from overhead power lines sullying the sightlines, and coming down in storms, for almost 40 years.

  15. Dumbo says:
    @animalogic

    For me it’s the same. I enjoy things written before and after, or things from other countries from that same period — but most novels from Victorian England (exception for R. L. Stevenson and perhaps a couple of others) seem very wordy and long-winded. Perhaps because they were mostly published as serials in newspapers and, as you say, the authors were paid by the word, or at least by published text?

  16. Anon[716] • Disclaimer says:

    Too many to mention! Any Dickens novel. My personal favourites are any novel by Anthony Trollope. Actually, another possible candidate might be Neal Stephenson’s SF novel “The Diamond Age, or a Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer”, which stars a neo-Victorian community and includes some discussion of Victorian values.

  17. Anon[716] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Derbyshire, (can’t help recalling Jennings’ bespectacled pal of that name), does Japan have overhead power lines? Is the Pope Catholic?!?!? There are very few UNDERground power lines in Japan, due to the frequency of earthquakes: it’s cheaper to fix downed above-ground power lines than ones beneath the surface. But it makes the place incredibly ugly.

    • Replies: @John Derbyshire
  18. I don’t think my previous answer is right but I’ve got work to do and places to go.

  19. I put off reading Middlemarch for decades because I thought it was nasty to small towns.

    I love the Casaubon bit, because Eliot had translated Germans like David Strauss and therefore knew that the Brit approach was as dead as the Dodo.

    I only realized what a delight Middlemarch was when it was serialized on TV. Then I read the book and never looked back.

    Another George Eliot inside joke is the antagonists in Adam Bede: Arthur Donnithorne and Hetty Sorrel. Could that have any relation to Arthur Dimmesdale and Hester Prynne, written about a few years earlier in The Scarlet Letter? And what did our Mary Ann mean by that?

  20. tyler volt says: • Website

    If each person of 21 people gives a different number from all others in the range 0 to 20, then they all as a group have given inclusively the range 0 to 20. But the person saying he shook 20 hands conflicts with the person saying he shook 0 hands – because he had to have shaken all hands other than his own and his spouse’s and therefore had to have shaken the hand of the person who claims to have shook no hands. This is a contradiction.

    • Replies: @blake121666
  21. @tyler volt

    I said the same thing in post 7 – but reconsidered in post 13 after being made aware that the 0 and 20 handshakers must be a couple.

    That 20-0 couple cannot be Alexandra and Nicholas because Alexandra has to have the same number of handshakes as someone else – since the others have all numbers inclusive. And if Alexandra shook 20 hands, then someone else must have shaken 20 hands and therefore had to have shaken Nicholas’ hand – but he has 0 shakes. Likewise, Alexandra cannot have shaken 0 hands because the other person who has shaken 0 hands conflicts with Nicholas having shaken 20 hands.

    On considering all other couples minus the 20-0 couple, you then recurse down to eliminating Nicholas and Alexandra as being a 20-0, 19-1, 18-2, … (renumber the handshakes removing 1 from each – given the fact of the one removed couple having someone shaking all hands and the other none). So Alexandra and Nicholas must be the 10-10 pairing.

    Nicholas shook 10 hands.

    Interesting party arrangement!

  22. @BlackFlag

    It’s a Victorian novel in the sense of having been written & published in the 1870s. The action, however, takes place in the early 1830s. Victoria didn’t come to the throne until 1837…

  23. Svevlad says:

    What surprises me about America is how much they use wooden utility poles. Here they all got replaced by concrete ones years back, wood ones are rare

    In Belgrade some central parts of the city don’t have overhead power lines, but they’re ubiquitous on the intermediate (like, how does one even name that one layer between the downtown and the edge parts?) and peripheral parts of the city

  24. George Eliot. When her name appears on my radar, I invariably remember Myers’ words….

    I remember how, at Cambridge, I walked with her once in the Fellows’ Garden of Trinity, on an evening of rainy May; and she, stirred somewhat beyond her wont, and taking as her text the three words which have been used so often as the inspiring trumpet-calls of men—the words God, Immortality, Duty—pronounced, with terrible earnestness, how inconceivable was the first, how unbelievable the second, and yet how peremptory and absolute the third. Never perhaps, have sterner accents affirmed the sovereignty of impersonal and unrecompensing Law. I listened, and night fell; her grave, majestic countenance turned toward me like a sibyl’s in the gloom; it was as though she withdrew from my grasp, one by one, the two scrolls of promise, and left me the third scroll only, awful with inevitable fates. And when we stood at length and parted amid that columnar circuit of the forest trees, beneath the last twilight of starless skies, I seemed to be gazing, like Titus at Jerusalem, on vacant seats and empty halls—on a sanctuary with no Presence to hallow it, and heaven left lonely of a God.

    Frederic Myers 1881, on George Eliot’s visit to Cambridge 1873

  25. Re Samuel Johnson quote: https://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/johnsons/dictnry.htm

    The chief glory of every people arises from its authors

    ………

    Perhaps this applies to the English language (as well as Russian) culture, but, with Germans (as a culture), their “chief glory” is evidently in music & philosophy; with Italians- painting & architecture; with Spaniards, I guess, visual arts too.

    Just, I’m not sure about the French. They seem to be “scattered” along imaginative literature & painting.

    The American “chief glory” – pop music, movies & comics.

  26. moshe says:
    @PiltdownMan

    The most famous of all, of course, is the speech by the fictional Gussie Fink-Nottle to the Market Snodsbury Grammar School, in P.G. Wodehouse’s Right Ho, Jeeves

    Holy hell, I read that on the train in NYC a few years ago and I couldn’t stop laughing. It was hilariously beautiful.

  27. “…enstupidated as I am from too much Twitter browsing,…” Derbyshire, you were stupid long before Twitter existed.

    As usual, Derbyshire’s stupid scribblings reveal what happens to a Western man when he makes stupid choices in life, i.e., marrying a Chinese woman and producing Chinese offspring.

    In his stupid book “We are Doomed” (which is actually about his homelife) he lamented
    about the lack of authors that give a people glory. He started his article about an educated person having mental a list of great books to read. Is he teaching his barely mediocre Chinese offspring about great literature? No. He watches some stupid, alternate-world sci-fi movie with his troubled Chinese son and asks him to rate the looks of a Western actress. The Chinese son did not consider the actress particularly attractive. Of course not. The Chinese son wants a yellow-brown Chinese woman like his Chinese mother. Derbyshire, you have an alternate world in your home. It’s populated by Chinese people.

    His puerile scribblings about governor Whitmer reveal that Derbyshire’s cuckery is endless. He should write about the New York dictator Capezzoli (“Nipples”) Cuomo and ways to get rid of him. He can’t because his Chinese females voted for him.

    https://vdare.com/posts/scotland-s-old-blasphemy-law-out-new-law-forbids-blaspheming-minorities-transgenders-but-not-women In this article, Derbyshire scribbles about the name of “Scotland’s Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf—there’s a fine old Scottish name for you—.”

    He thinks Qi Hongmei (his Chinese woman’s name) is a fine old English name.

    https://vdare.com/posts/trump-appoints-normal-judges-washington-state-appoints-disabled-black-lesbian-from-trinidad In this article, he doesn’t approve of the Jewish/Native American Raquel-Montoya Lewis. Derbyshire, Raquel’s mother was Jewish so she is a member of the tribe you love and fear. Remember your place when you deal with the Joooooz.

    Derbyshire, you are not a Goodwhite.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS