Discussion:
Liberal Anarchy XXX (Clockwork Orange)
(too old to reply)
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-17 22:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Gary Newlove, kicked to death in front of his daughter by three boys,
one of whom was out on bail (thanks big-hearted lawyers who become
judges).

'Mr Newlove, 47, suffered massive head injuries after he left his home
in Warrington, Cheshire, last year to confront a gang of teenagers
about vandalism to cars parked outside.

He was punched to the ground and kicked "as if he were a football,"
according to prosecutors. Mr Newlove died at Warrington Hospital two
days later, his brutal killing striking a chord with millions.'

Take a look at Alex and the droogs:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3199119.ece

Now let's have a look at the Downing Street press release:

'Put that the wife of Gary Newlove had spoken this morning about the
Respect Agenda failing, the PMS replied that the Respect Agenda was
being taken forward and the Prime Minister was very keen on taking
action to deal with the causes of crime, particularly among young
people. The Government had created a new department, the Department
for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) that brought together in an
integrated and coherent way, the issues that affected young people.
The Children's Plan set out a number of issues in relation to this
area.

Asked if the Prime Minister would recognise the description of the
Respect Agenda as failing, given the amount of loutish behaviour among
young people, the PMS replied that the overwhelming majority of young
people in this country were well behaved, diligent and should be
praised. Where there were problems, they needed to be addressed, but
he did not think the Prime Minister would recognise the
characterisation placed on it by the journalist.

Asked if there was such a thing as the Respect Agenda still, the PMS
said that the responsibility for dealing with young peoples issues had
been changed in the formation of the new department (DCSF.)

From memory, the PMS thought there had been some organisational
changes that had flowed from that, However, the principles underlying
the Respect Agenda, such as the need to continue to address anti-
social behaviour, was something that the Prime Minister took very
seriously.'

BUT, look at this from the Times last Friday:

'Tony Blair's drive against antisocial behaviour has been scrapped by
the Government.

The Respect agenda, announced with a fanfare of publicity two years
ago, has been ditched as part of a shift of government emphasis in
tackling youth crime.'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168611.ece

The main parties are both bodies that any normal or decent person
would refuse to have anything to do with. After ten years of being
governed by lefty lawyers, this country is a fucking pigsty - and it
hits the ordinary people harder than anyone else. Where's Blair?
Signing his half-million pound jackpot salary with JP Morgan, while
the two wars he started rage on.

Thatcher on Blair: 'I don't start wars, I finish them.'

Maybe Larkin and Amis had a point about her after all.

ROBBIE
P.S.Burton
2008-01-21 10:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Gary Newlove, kicked to death in front of his daughter by three boys,
one of whom was out on bail (thanks big-hearted lawyers who become
judges).
'Mr Newlove, 47, suffered massive head injuries after he left his home
in Warrington, Cheshire, last year to confront a gang of teenagers
about vandalism to cars parked outside.
He was punched to the ground and kicked "as if he were a football,"
according to prosecutors. Mr Newlove died at Warrington Hospital two
days later, his brutal killing striking a chord with millions.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3199119.ece
'Put that the wife of Gary Newlove had spoken this morning about the
Respect Agenda failing, the PMS replied that the Respect Agenda was
being taken forward and the Prime Minister was very keen on taking
action to deal with the causes of crime, particularly among young
people. The Government had created a new department, the Department
for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) that brought together in an
integrated and coherent way, the issues that affected young people.
The Children's Plan set out a number of issues in relation to this
area.
Asked if the Prime Minister would recognise the description of the
Respect Agenda as failing, given the amount of loutish behaviour among
young people, the PMS replied that the overwhelming majority of young
people in this country were well behaved, diligent and should be
praised. Where there were problems, they needed to be addressed, but
he did not think the Prime Minister would recognise the
characterisation placed on it by the journalist.
Asked if there was such a thing as the Respect Agenda still, the PMS
said that the responsibility for dealing with young peoples issues had
been changed in the formation of the new department (DCSF.)
From memory, the PMS thought there had been some organisational
changes that had flowed from that, However, the principles underlying
the Respect Agenda, such as the need to continue to address anti-
social behaviour, was something that the Prime Minister took very
seriously.'
'Tony Blair's drive against antisocial behaviour has been scrapped by
the Government.
The Respect agenda, announced with a fanfare of publicity two years
ago, has been ditched as part of a shift of government emphasis in
tackling youth crime.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168611.ece
The main parties are both bodies that any normal or decent person
would refuse to have anything to do with. After ten years of being
governed by lefty lawyers, this country is a fucking pigsty - and it
hits the ordinary people harder than anyone else. Where's Blair?
Signing his half-million pound jackpot salary with JP Morgan, while
the two wars he started rage on.
Thatcher on Blair: 'I don't start wars, I finish them.'
Maybe Larkin and Amis had a point about her after all.
ROBBIE
I got robbed at knifepoint last week. Made to lie down and then
stamped on good bit, before being relieved of all my stuff, right down
to my suit jacket and jumper. This was on a busy well lit street
(admittedly in stratford). After the two geezers that did it ran off,
I was stood there wondering what to do when a police car pulled up.
The exchange went like this

them: have you just been robbed

me: yeah, how did you know?

them: we drove past a few minutes back, you were crying out for it to
be honest.

Nice attitude chaps. And good work. A friend of mine sent the
following to London Lite to make me laugh the next day. BITING SATIRE.

""'You were the hot guy in the white shirt that got off at stratford
on Thursday night. I was wearing a police uniform. Wanted to get your
number but you were being robbed at knifepoint. Drink?'"
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-22 10:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Gary Newlove, kicked to death in front of his daughter by three boys,
one of whom was out on bail (thanks big-hearted lawyers who become
judges).
'Mr Newlove, 47, suffered massive head injuries after he left his home
in Warrington, Cheshire, last year to confront a gang of teenagers
about vandalism to cars parked outside.
He was punched to the ground and kicked "as if he were a football,"
according to prosecutors. Mr Newlove died at Warrington Hospital two
days later, his brutal killing striking a chord with millions.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3199119.ece
'Put that the wife of Gary Newlove had spoken this morning about the
Respect Agenda failing, the PMS replied that the Respect Agenda was
being taken forward and the Prime Minister was very keen on taking
action to deal with the causes of crime, particularly among young
people. The Government had created a new department, the Department
for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) that brought together in an
integrated and coherent way, the issues that affected young people.
The Children's Plan set out a number of issues in relation to this
area.
Asked if the Prime Minister would recognise the description of the
Respect Agenda as failing, given the amount of loutish behaviour among
young people, the PMS replied that the overwhelming majority of young
people in this country were well behaved, diligent and should be
praised. Where there were problems, they needed to be addressed, but
he did not think the Prime Minister would recognise the
characterisation placed on it by the journalist.
Asked if there was such a thing as the Respect Agenda still, the PMS
said that the responsibility for dealing with young peoples issues had
been changed in the formation of the new department (DCSF.)
From memory, the PMS thought there had been some organisational
changes that had flowed from that, However, the principles underlying
the Respect Agenda, such as the need to continue to address anti-
social behaviour, was something that the Prime Minister took very
seriously.'
'Tony Blair's drive against antisocial behaviour has been scrapped by
the Government.
The Respect agenda, announced with a fanfare of publicity two years
ago, has been ditched as part of a shift of government emphasis in
tackling youth crime.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168611.ece
The main parties are both bodies that any normal or decent person
would refuse to have anything to do with. After ten years of being
governed by lefty lawyers, this country is a fucking pigsty - and it
hits the ordinary people harder than anyone else. Where's Blair?
Signing his half-million pound jackpot salary with JP Morgan, while
the two wars he started rage on.
Thatcher on Blair: 'I don't start wars, I finish them.'
Maybe Larkin and Amis had a point about her after all.
ROBBIE
I got robbed at knifepoint last week. Made to lie down and then
stamped on good bit, before being relieved of all my stuff, right down
to my suit jacket and jumper. This was on a busy well lit street
(admittedly in stratford). After the two geezers that did it ran off,
I was stood there wondering what to do when a police car pulled up.
The exchange went like this
them: have you just been robbed
me: yeah, how did you know?
them: we drove past a few minutes back, you were crying out for it to
be honest.
Nice attitude chaps. And good work. A friend of mine sent the
following to London Lite to make me laugh the next day. BITING SATIRE.
""'You were the hot guy in the white shirt that got off at stratford
on Thursday night. I was wearing a police uniform. Wanted to get your
number but you were being robbed at knifepoint. Drink?'"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
207,000 British citizens emigrated in 2006. There's going to be a lot
more. I wasn't so wrong to have this sequence in my novel:

As they passed a supermarket, Gimmick commented on its new logo: 'I
like it. I know one of the guys on the production team - went to my
college.'
'I don't like it,' said John, 'it looks a bit poncy.'
He felt a sharp tap on his back. Turning, he found himself facing a
mean-looking policeman wearing a fluorescent tabard, holding a long
stick and on whose waist jangled the paramilitary appurtenances of
postmodern law enforcement.
'What did you say?' he demanded with brute authority.
'I said it looked a bit...poncy.'
The last word of the sentence was obliterated by the sound of a
bottle thrown at a passing car smashing on its passenger window. The
policeman repeated his question. John answered.
'You do realise that's a potential hate crime against homosexuals?'
the policeman said nastily, in the archetypal accent and inflection of
a London copper.
'Come off it,' said John, who was half-drunk. He turned to seek
Gimmick's support but he'd disappeared into the crowds with Tina.
'He didn't mean it like that,' said Amanda.
'How do you know what he meant? Are you inside his head?'
People drunkenly pushed past them.
'No, but I know that he wasn't being hateful towards homosexuals.'
'Intcha read any Michel Foucault?' asked the policeman, raising his
radio to his lips.
'A bit,' said John.
'2-1,' said the policeman into his radio. 'Got section six-three-
nine-two-four here. Back up needed.' The policeman looked at John
again. 'Foucault was a post-structuralist, basically. The
structuralists believed that the individual is shaped by linguistic,
sociological and psychological structures over which he has little
control. In that respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well. But the law is the law - even though a
final and definitive interpretation of it is, by Derrida's standards,
impossible. However, it isn't my job to interpret the law - that is a
magistrates' job.'
A large shaven-headed man in a football kit swiped the policeman's
helmet off and danced around with it for a bit.
'This guy here is responding to certain pathological deep
structures,' said the policeman calmly, indicating the man. 'But at
the same time, he, unlike you, is not indulging or promulgating
prejudice or bigotry to sexual, racial or gender differences, know
what I mean?'
'Isn't he making you look foolish though?' asked John.
'A righteous thing to do in many ways,' said a second policeman who
had just got out of a flashing and squawking patrol car; 'a subversion
of the hegemonic debate and all that.'
'Gramsci,' beamed the first policeman by way of explanation. The
second policeman retrieved the first policeman's helmet. 'Come on,' he
said, 'leave this - a barman called someone a 'wop' at the Cod's Eye.'
'Did he? Right,' said the first policeman. He turned to John and
raised his finger to the sign: 'remember what we discussed.'

But of course it's yet to find a publisher; publishing, like PR and
journalism, being full of extremely greedy, blindly ambitious people
who purport to be Left Wing.

Walk safely,

ROBBIE
Walter Traprock
2008-01-22 17:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
207,000 British citizens emigrated in 2006. There's going to be a lot
As they passed a supermarket, Gimmick commented on its new logo: 'I
like it. I know one of the guys on the production team - went to my
college.'
'I don't like it,' said John, 'it looks a bit poncy.'
He felt a sharp tap on his back. Turning, he found himself facing a
mean-looking policeman wearing a fluorescent tabard, holding a long
stick and on whose waist jangled the paramilitary appurtenances of
postmodern law enforcement.
'What did you say?' he demanded with brute authority.
'I said it looked a bit...poncy.'
The last word of the sentence was obliterated by the sound of a
bottle thrown at a passing car smashing on its passenger window. The
policeman repeated his question. John answered.
'You do realise that's a potential hate crime against homosexuals?'
the policeman said nastily, in the archetypal accent and inflection of
a London copper.
'Come off it,' said John, who was half-drunk. He turned to seek
Gimmick's support but he'd disappeared into the crowds with Tina.
'He didn't mean it like that,' said Amanda.
'How do you know what he meant? Are you inside his head?'
People drunkenly pushed past them.
'No, but I know that he wasn't being hateful towards homosexuals.'
'Intcha read any Michel Foucault?' asked the policeman, raising his
radio to his lips.
'A bit,' said John.
'2-1,' said the policeman into his radio. 'Got section six-three-
nine-two-four here. Back up needed.' The policeman looked at John
again. 'Foucault was a post-structuralist, basically. The
structuralists believed that the individual is shaped by linguistic,
sociological and psychological structures over which he has little
control. In that respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well. But the law is the law - even though a
final and definitive interpretation of it is, by Derrida's standards,
impossible. However, it isn't my job to interpret the law - that is a
magistrates' job.'
A large shaven-headed man in a football kit swiped the policeman's
helmet off and danced around with it for a bit.
'This guy here is responding to certain pathological deep
structures,' said the policeman calmly, indicating the man. 'But at
the same time, he, unlike you, is not indulging or promulgating
prejudice or bigotry to sexual, racial or gender differences, know
what I mean?'
'Isn't he making you look foolish though?' asked John.
'A righteous thing to do in many ways,' said a second policeman who
had just got out of a flashing and squawking patrol car; 'a subversion
of the hegemonic debate and all that.'
'Gramsci,' beamed the first policeman by way of explanation. The
second policeman retrieved the first policeman's helmet. 'Come on,' he
said, 'leave this - a barman called someone a 'wop' at the Cod's Eye.'
'Did he? Right,' said the first policeman. He turned to John and
raised his finger to the sign: 'remember what we discussed.'
But of course it's yet to find a publisher; publishing, like PR and
journalism, being full of extremely greedy, blindly ambitious people
who purport to be Left Wing.
Walk safely,
ROBBIE
I'D BUY YOUR NOVEL.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-22 20:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
207,000 British citizens emigrated in 2006. There's going to be a lot
As they passed a supermarket, Gimmick commented on its new logo: 'I
like it. I know one of the guys on the production team - went to my
college.'
  'I don't like it,' said John, 'it looks a bit poncy.'
  He felt a sharp tap on his back. Turning, he found himself facing a
mean-looking policeman wearing a fluorescent tabard, holding a long
stick and on whose waist jangled the paramilitary appurtenances of
postmodern law enforcement.
  'What did you say?' he demanded with brute authority.
  'I said it looked a bit...poncy.'
  The last word of the sentence was obliterated by the sound of a
bottle thrown at a passing car smashing on its passenger window. The
policeman repeated his question. John answered.
  'You do realise that's a potential hate crime against homosexuals?'
the policeman said nastily, in the archetypal accent and inflection of
a London copper.
 'Come off it,' said John, who was half-drunk. He turned to seek
Gimmick's support but he'd disappeared into the crowds with Tina.
  'He didn't mean it like that,' said Amanda.
  'How do you know what he meant? Are you inside his head?'
  People drunkenly pushed past them.
  'No, but I know that he wasn't being hateful towards homosexuals.'
  'Intcha read any Michel Foucault?' asked the policeman, raising his
radio to his lips.
  'A bit,' said John.
  '2-1,' said the policeman into his radio. 'Got section six-three-
nine-two-four here. Back up needed.' The policeman looked at John
again. 'Foucault was a post-structuralist, basically. The
structuralists believed that the individual is shaped by linguistic,
sociological and psychological structures over which he has little
control. In that respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well. But the law is the law - even though a
final and definitive interpretation of it is, by Derrida's standards,
impossible. However, it isn't my job to interpret the law - that is a
magistrates' job.'
  A large shaven-headed man in a football kit swiped the policeman's
helmet off and danced around with it for a bit.
  'This guy here is responding to certain pathological deep
structures,' said the policeman calmly, indicating the man. 'But at
the same time, he, unlike you, is not indulging or promulgating
prejudice or bigotry to sexual, racial or gender differences, know
what I mean?'
  'Isn't he making you look foolish though?' asked John.
  'A righteous thing to do in many ways,' said a second policeman who
had just got out of a flashing and squawking patrol car; 'a subversion
of the hegemonic debate and all that.'
  'Gramsci,' beamed the first policeman by way of explanation. The
second policeman retrieved the first policeman's helmet. 'Come on,' he
said, 'leave this - a barman called someone a 'wop' at the Cod's Eye.'
   'Did he? Right,' said the first policeman. He turned to John and
raised his finger to the sign: 'remember what we discussed.'
But of course it's yet to find a publisher; publishing, like PR and
journalism, being full of extremely greedy, blindly ambitious people
who purport to be Left Wing.
Walk safely,
ROBBIE
I'D BUY YOUR NOVEL.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'll keep you informed. I'm considering having it printed privately,
like the old woofter poets before the war.

ROBBIE
g***@googlemail.com
2008-01-23 22:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by g***@googlemail.com
207,000 British citizens emigrated in 2006. There's going to be a lot
As they passed a supermarket, Gimmick commented on its new logo: 'I
like it. I know one of the guys on the production team - went to my
college.'
  'I don't like it,' said John, 'it looks a bit poncy.'
  He felt a sharp tap on his back. Turning, he found himself facing a
mean-looking policeman wearing a fluorescent tabard, holding a long
stick and on whose waist jangled the paramilitary appurtenances of
postmodern law enforcement.
  'What did you say?' he demanded with brute authority.
  'I said it looked a bit...poncy.'
  The last word of the sentence was obliterated by the sound of a
bottle thrown at a passing car smashing on its passenger window. The
policeman repeated his question. John answered.
  'You do realise that's a potential hate crime against homosexuals?'
the policeman said nastily, in the archetypal accent and inflection of
a London copper.
 'Come off it,' said John, who was half-drunk. He turned to seek
Gimmick's support but he'd disappeared into the crowds with Tina.
  'He didn't mean it like that,' said Amanda.
  'How do you know what he meant? Are you inside his head?'
  People drunkenly pushed past them.
  'No, but I know that he wasn't being hateful towards homosexuals.'
  'Intcha read any Michel Foucault?' asked the policeman, raising his
radio to his lips.
  'A bit,' said John.
  '2-1,' said the policeman into his radio. 'Got section six-three-
nine-two-four here. Back up needed.' The policeman looked at John
again. 'Foucault was a post-structuralist, basically. The
structuralists believed that the individual is shaped by linguistic,
sociological and psychological structures over which he has little
control. In that respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well. But the law is the law - even though a
final and definitive interpretation of it is, by Derrida's standards,
impossible. However, it isn't my job to interpret the law - that is a
magistrates' job.'
  A large shaven-headed man in a football kit swiped the policeman's
helmet off and danced around with it for a bit.
  'This guy here is responding to certain pathological deep
structures,' said the policeman calmly, indicating the man. 'But at
the same time, he, unlike you, is not indulging or promulgating
prejudice or bigotry to sexual, racial or gender differences, know
what I mean?'
  'Isn't he making you look foolish though?' asked John.
  'A righteous thing to do in many ways,' said a second policeman who
had just got out of a flashing and squawking patrol car; 'a subversion
of the hegemonic debate and all that.'
  'Gramsci,' beamed the first policeman by way of explanation. The
second policeman retrieved the first policeman's helmet. 'Come on,' he
said, 'leave this - a barman called someone a 'wop' at the Cod's Eye.'
   'Did he? Right,' said the first policeman. He turned to John and
raised his finger to the sign: 'remember what we discussed.'
But of course it's yet to find a publisher; publishing, like PR and
journalism, being full of extremely greedy, blindly ambitious people
who purport to be Left Wing.
Walk safely,
ROBBIE
I'D BUY YOUR NOVEL.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'll keep you informed. I'm considering having it printed privately,
like the old woofter poets before the war.
ROBBIE- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As a postscript it emerges that two years ago the Labour Government
advised the CPS and the judiciary through its guise at Her Majesty's
Court Service that bail should be granted in all cases except for
exceptional circumstances. The ringleader of the droogs who kicked
Gary Newlove to death had just been bailed for threatened witnesses
and attacking a 16-year-old girl. Yet the Home Secretary and Gordon
Brown all make concerned 'we'll find out whose fault it is' noises.
IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT, YOU STUPID BASTARDS. Why have all Labour
Governments got this reputation? Would have made a good Orwell type
essay.

ROBBIE
P.S.Burton
2008-02-06 15:25:36 UTC
Permalink
"But of course it's yet to find a publisher; publishing, like PR and
journalism, being full of extremely greedy, blindly ambitious people
who purport to be Left Wing. "

there is self belief and no mistake. Another reason it has failed to
find a publisher is because it's not much cop. I'm surprised that
anyone who has read and enjoyed Kingsley's letters could produce, let
alone fail to recognise, such a lot of what he would have called PISS
WITH FROTH ON. It's just clumsy and not at all funny or interesting.
Sorry you had to find out this way.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-02-10 12:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
"But of course it's yet to find a publisher; publishing, like PR and
journalism, being full of extremely greedy, blindly ambitious people
who purport to be Left Wing. "
there is self belief and no mistake. Another reason it has failed to
find a publisher is because it's not much cop. I'm surprised that
anyone who has read and enjoyed Kingsley's letters could produce, let
alone fail to recognise, such a lot of what he would have called PISS
WITH FROTH ON. It's just clumsy and not at all funny or interesting.
Sorry you had to find out this way.
You are entitled to review a 75,000 word book on the strength of 300
words. This will not present a problem to your indomitable north
country omniscience. You are also entitled to your opinion. Good for
you! Aside from stuff like Kipling and Agatha Christie, Kingers'
tastes in prose are a long, long way from mine. For example I like
Dickens, Joyce, Firbank, and can even tolerate some small doses of EM
Forster. Poor Kingers even thought The Man Who Would Be King was
rubbish. He was very fond of Swarzenegger films however. One hopes
Kingers could see the good in JB Morton and Saki, but one would not be
surprised if he thought them piss with froth on as well.
In fact I was glad when I read DJ Taylor's book about post war
fiction -- read it, it'll be a nice corrective for you -- to find a
critic who thought Amis's later books 'more or less unreadable'. He
also thinks Jim Dixon is a selfish, shallow little prat (Taylor even
thinks Billy Fisher is an arsehole and I agree there too) and Lucky
Jim's ending as trite as an Andy Hardy film - and just as trite as the
ending of Brideshead Revisited if it comes to it.
In other words, Kingsley was a pretty disastrous judge of fiction (but
recognized Flashman as a seam of gold - everyone gets it right
sometime). I don't see how enjoying someone's letters should mean that
you are recruited to their tastes. I enjoy Francois Trauffaut's
letters for example but he'll never persuade me that Johnny Guitar is
a good film.


Cheers! ps: Did I tell you I met Amis Jnr? Funny little fella (writes
like his old man would have written if he'd been into smoking skunk).
Has the cheek to talk about the staid pleasures of plot! Wipe that
semen off the thesaurus, Mart, and tell your organ grinder's monkey W.
Self to do the same!
P.S.Burton
2008-02-12 12:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
You are entitled to review a 75,000 word book on the strength of 300
words. This will not present a problem to your indomitable north
country omniscience. You are also entitled to your opinion. Good for
you!  Aside from stuff like Kipling and Agatha Christie, Kingers'
tastes in prose are a long, long way from mine. For example I like
Dickens, Joyce, Firbank, and can even tolerate some small doses of EM
Forster. Poor Kingers even thought The Man Who Would Be King was
rubbish. He was very fond of Swarzenegger films however.
Yeah, he was a funny one. I'm not much of a one for his tastes either,
but I agree with a lot of what he pissed on. I liked the way he did it
too. Terminator II is a good film. I'd put it in my top 10 ever. I
freely admit to knowing cock all about film though.

One hopes
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Kingers could see the good in JB Morton and Saki, but one would not be
surprised if he thought them piss with froth on as well.
 In fact I was glad when I read DJ Taylor's book about post war
fiction -- read it, it'll be a nice corrective for you -- to find a
critic who thought Amis's later books 'more or less unreadable'.  He
also thinks Jim Dixon is a selfish, shallow little prat
That's interesting. I did not know that. Also, you've probably seen
Maugham on Jim, but I paste (most of) it just in case

"I am told that today rather more than 60 per cent of the men who go
to university go on a Government grant. This is a new class that has
entered upon the scene. It is the white-collar proletariat. They do
not go to university to acquire culture but to get a job, and when
they have got one, scamp it. They have no manners and are woefully
unable to deal with any social predicament. Their idea of a
celebration is to go to a public house and drink six beers. They are
mean, malicious and envious . They are scum. "

That's a chopped down version, I couldn't find the full text online.
Took me aback a bit that did. I thought (and think) of Jim as really
very likable, and also at times surprisingly honourable. Much more so
than would be expected nowadays - eg his anger with catchpole, his
unwillingness to lay into bertrand when he and christine are talking
in the back of the cab etc. That probably says more about me - and
Maugham's powers of prediction - than it does about anything else.
What do you think of him? Jim I mean.


(Taylor even
Post by g***@googlemail.com
thinks Billy Fisher is an arsehole and I agree there too) and Lucky
Jim's ending as trite as an Andy Hardy film - and just as trite as the
ending of Brideshead Revisited if it comes to it.
If anything, rather worse than brideshead in terms of neatly tying
everything up and it being an unequivocally happy ending.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
In other words, Kingsley was a pretty disastrous judge of fiction (but
recognized Flashman as a seam of gold - everyone gets it right
sometime). I don't see how enjoying someone's letters should mean that
you are recruited to their tastes. I enjoy Francois Trauffaut's
letters for example but he'll never persuade me that Johnny Guitar is
a good film.
I didn't mean that, although well put. I just meant that I think I see
what you are trying to do, but it's cack (heavy?) handed and doesn't
come close to coming off (in my opinion, re your extract - again, fair
enough points you make in your defence)
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Cheers! ps: Did I tell you I met Amis Jnr? Funny little fella (writes
like his old man would have written if he'd been into smoking skunk).
Has the cheek to talk about the staid pleasures of plot! Wipe that
semen off the thesaurus, Mart, and tell your organ grinder's monkey W.
Self to do the same!
I can't get on with amis junior at all. I, like kinglsey, felt
"buggered about" and massively irritated by most of what I have read.
Money was okay, rachel papers pish, yellow dog even worse, london
fields 5/10 but not funny or nearly as clever as it thinks it is. a
handstand - to piss with an erection!?!?! oh mercy!! keith's not got
many books?! and the ones he has got are about - wai for it -
darts!!! oh do fuck off mart, you ponce.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-02-12 22:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
You are entitled to review a 75,000 word book on the strength of 300
words. This will not present a problem to your indomitable north
country omniscience. You are also entitled to your opinion. Good for
you!  Aside from stuff like Kipling and Agatha Christie, Kingers'
tastes in prose are a long, long way from mine. For example I like
Dickens, Joyce, Firbank, and can even tolerate some small doses of EM
Forster. Poor Kingers even thought The Man Who Would Be King was
rubbish. He was very fond of Swarzenegger films however.
Yeah, he was a funny one. I'm not much of a one for his tastes either,
but I agree with a lot of what he pissed on. I liked the way he did it
too. Terminator II is a good film.
It's very watchable if you like that sort of thing. Cameron's like
Ridley Scott - he doesn't know when to stop and it becomes exhausting
and gross. But hey, that's Hollywood all over.


I'd put it in my top 10 ever. I
Post by P.S.Burton
freely admit to knowing cock all about film though.
One hopes
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Kingers could see the good in JB Morton and Saki, but one would not be
surprised if he thought them piss with froth on as well.
 In fact I was glad when I read DJ Taylor's book about post war
fiction -- read it, it'll be a nice corrective for you -- to find a
critic who thought Amis's later books 'more or less unreadable'.  He
also thinks Jim Dixon is a selfish, shallow little prat
That's interesting. I did not know that.
Taylor's 'After the War' is rather good. I still have a couple of
chapters to go but you have to take your hat off to him for the sheer
amount of lit he's consumed and categorised. His general take is that
English fiction has been going down the carsy since Victorian times
because of a lack of character. It was published in '93 when Kingers
was still breathing and he doesn't come out of it too well. I suppose
he would have called Taylor a 'young shag'. Taylor's very even-handed
about Right and Left and his absorbed so much Orwell that it echoes in
his prose (he uses the word 'queer' in the Orwell way). It's full of
good little apphos: 'The deracination of the average working class
protaganist seldom led him to a direct political statement. As an
examination of later, more conventional English fiction will show,
this tended to be the prerogative of the radical middle classes. But
then the class struggle in this country has nearly always been
superintended by forces other than those it was immediately intended
to benefit.'
Or: 'To Guy Crouchback, it seems fair to say, Catholicism is not much
more than the spiritual equivalent of Whites Club'
Or: 'Hooper in Brideshead is treated with unfeigned contempt, but
Hooper is not a bad man, simply foolish and ineffectual. His
conspicuous failing is to be middle-class and have no knowledge of the
Brideshead mystique. A lack of *style* damns Hooper, not any want of
moral sense but for Waugh the two are indissoluble.'
He also demonstrates why a left-wing novelist who makes his creations
purely product of their environments robs them of character and moral
interest.



Also, you've probably seen
Post by P.S.Burton
Maugham on Jim, but I paste (most of) it just in case
"I am told that today rather more than 60 per cent of the men who go
to university go on a Government grant. This is a new class that has
entered upon the scene. It is the white-collar proletariat. They do
not go to university to acquire culture but to get a job, and when
they have got one, scamp it. They have no manners and are woefully
unable to deal with any social predicament. Their idea of a
celebration is to go to a public house and drink six beers. They are
mean, malicious and envious . They are scum. "
That's a chopped down version, I couldn't find the full text online.
Took me aback a bit that did.
Yeah I've seen it. They got pally later though.


I thought (and think) of Jim as really
Post by P.S.Burton
very likable, and also at times surprisingly honourable. Much more so
than would be expected nowadays - eg his anger with catchpole, his
unwillingness to lay into bertrand when he and christine are talking
in the back of the cab etc. That probably says more about me - and
Maugham's powers of prediction - than it does about anything else.
What do you think of him? Jim I mean.
He seems likeable enough but something nagged at me about him when I
read it again a couple of years ago and that was that although Welch
is a prat and Bertrand a pseud, it doesn't follow that the culture
that they were nominally interested in was a load of laughable bollox;
you sort of thought: what would Dixon end up doing by the end of the
60s say? Who might the next generation's Dixon be? Keith Richards? OK,
I'm still interested. And the next? Lydon on Bill Grundy? OK, I'm
still amused, there's still a point. And the next? Oh, here were are,
it's Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton perpetually - the bill for 50
years of unremitting Dixonism. Everything is a trivial laugh and
nothing matters much: but from where I am, lots of things matter, and
not what Paul Morley thinks is important, neither.
Taylor on Dixon is much more refined: 'Loathing, whether of oneself
or others is not morality. What Jim wants is what he can get: the
nicest girl, the best job - and no creed sustains him in this pursuit
except opportunism.'
Post by P.S.Burton
(Taylor even
Post by g***@googlemail.com
thinks Billy Fisher is an arsehole and I agree there too) and Lucky
Jim's ending as trite as an Andy Hardy film - and just as trite as the
ending of Brideshead Revisited if it comes to it.
If anything, rather worse than brideshead in terms of neatly tying
everything up and it being an unequivocally happy ending.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
In other words, Kingsley was a pretty disastrous judge of fiction (but
recognized Flashman as a seam of gold - everyone gets it right
sometime). I don't see how enjoying someone's letters should mean that
you are recruited to their tastes. I enjoy Francois Trauffaut's
letters for example but he'll never persuade me that Johnny Guitar is
a good film.
I didn't mean that
You did. You said that you were surprised that anyone who'd enjoyed
Amis's letters could produce something he would not have liked; your
contention being that to enjoy Kingers' letters is to share Kingers'
tastes; there really is no getting away from that.

, although well put. I just meant that I think I see
Post by P.S.Burton
what you are trying to do, but it's cack (heavy?) handed and doesn't
come close to coming off (in my opinion, re your extract - again, fair
enough points you make in your defence)
The point of the scene is certainly not 'piss' (and at this stage in
our history I rather think Kingers may well have deplored the manner
but not the intention of the scene, which is to show the far-reaching
effects of leftist academic thought on coppers' business) but who now
under forty could recognise it as satire anyway? Martin Amis says its
dead because the world is now beyond satire; only pure comedy will do,
and I think I sadly agree.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Cheers! ps: Did I tell you I met Amis Jnr? Funny little fella (writes
like his old man would have written if he'd been into smoking skunk).
Has the cheek to talk about the staid pleasures of plot! Wipe that
semen off the thesaurus, Mart, and tell your organ grinder's monkey W.
Self to do the same!
I can't get on with amis junior at all. I, like kinglsey, felt
"buggered about" and massively irritated by most of what I have read.
Money was okay, rachel papers pish, yellow dog even worse, london
fields 5/10 but not funny or nearly as clever as it thinks it is. a
handstand - to piss with an erection!?!?! oh mercy!! keith's not got
many books?! and the ones he has got are about -  wai for it -
darts!!! oh do fuck off mart, you ponce.
He's a clever clogs but what has he really had happen to him that will
make him write interesting stories?

N
P.S.Burton
2008-02-13 10:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
In other words, Kingsley was a pretty disastrous judge of fiction (but
recognized Flashman as a seam of gold - everyone gets it right
sometime). I don't see how enjoying someone's letters should mean that
you are recruited to their tastes. I enjoy Francois Trauffaut's
letters for example but he'll never persuade me that Johnny Guitar is
a good film.
I didn't mean that
You did. You said that you were surprised that anyone who'd enjoyed
Amis's letters could produce something he would not have liked; your
contention being that to enjoy Kingers' letters is to share Kingers'
tastes; there really is no getting away from that.
I really didn't. I meant the stylistic stuff, like the ugliness of
this " In that respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well", and the fact that the satire is as
heavy handed as a sixth form revue. THE POLICE AREN'T INTERESTED IN
BREAKING GLASS OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR THEY ARE MORE BOTHERED ABOUT
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THESE DAYS is what your extract says. It's not
exactly swiftian though, is it?
P.S.Burton
2008-02-13 10:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I didn't mean that
You did. You said that you were surprised that anyone who'd enjoyed
Amis's letters could produce something he would not have liked; your
contention being that to enjoy Kingers' letters is to share Kingers'
tastes; there really is no getting away from that.
Irritatingly, my response seems to have disappeared so at the risk of
it reappearing and me saying the same thing twice in slightly
different words (always embarrassing), I will re-type what I tried to
post.

I did not mean that. I meant the stylistic ugliness, such as "In that
respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well" which Kingers was very good on.

I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
P.S.Burton
2008-02-13 16:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
You did. You said that you were surprised that anyone who'd enjoyed
Amis's letters could produce something he would not have liked;
Here's the mistake. I didn't say produce something he would not have
liked, but rather something he'd have actively disliked and to such an
extent too).
g***@googlemail.com
2008-02-14 22:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I didn't mean that
You did. You said that you were surprised that anyone who'd enjoyed
Amis's letters could produce something he would not have liked; your
contention being that to enjoy Kingers' letters is to share Kingers'
tastes; there really is no getting away from that.
Irritatingly, my response seems to have disappeared so at the risk of
it reappearing and me saying the same thing twice in slightly
different words (always embarrassing), I will re-type what I tried to
post.
I did not mean that. I meant the stylistic ugliness, such as "In that
respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well" which Kingers was very good on.
It's speech. It's deliberate. <laughs sardonically> And you, a
nominally educated man. Ever hear Kingers famous saying, 'more will
mean worse'?
Post by P.S.Burton
I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
That is a matter of opinion (I'd be heartened to find sixth formers
producing material like that; unfortunatly they are more likely to be
lecturing people on climate change and racism).
Post by P.S.Burton
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
How incisive! Now, let us follow the Burton brilliance. Ah yes,
Shakespeare might as well have written YOUNG PRINCE FINDS HIS FATHER
MURDERED AND COGITATES ON LIFE, DEATH AND CHOICES. VERY SAD.

Grow up mate, for fuck sake.
P.S.Burton
2008-02-15 10:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I didn't mean that
You did. You said that you were surprised that anyone who'd enjoyed
Amis's letters could produce something he would not have liked; your
contention being that to enjoy Kingers' letters is to share Kingers'
tastes; there really is no getting away from that.
Irritatingly, my response seems to have disappeared so at the risk of
it reappearing and me saying the same thing twice in slightly
different words (always embarrassing), I will re-type what I tried to
post.
I did not mean that. I meant the stylistic ugliness, such as "In that
respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well" which Kingers was very good on.
It's speech. It's deliberate. <laughs sardonically> And you, a
nominally educated man. Ever hear Kingers famous saying, 'more will
mean worse'?
what, so you're going to allow an ugly little howler like that in the
name of accurately reported speech even though your book is a BITING
SATIRE and the dialogue as a whole in the extract you've offered never
even comes close to capturing the way anyone does, ever has or ever
will speak?? you can't have it both ways.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
That is a matter of opinion (I'd be heartened to find sixth formers
producing material like that; unfortunatly they are more likely to be
lecturing people on climate change and racism).
Post by P.S.Burton
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
How incisive! Now, let us follow the Burton brilliance. Ah yes,
Shakespeare might as well have written YOUNG PRINCE FINDS HIS FATHER
MURDERED AND COGITATES ON LIFE, DEATH AND CHOICES. VERY SAD.
Shakespeare was usually capable of getting his point across a bit more
subtly and entertainingly. Why don't you have another go at making
yours without the hamfisted obviousness of habving the coppers
ignoring smashing glass and stolen helmets? Lazy and trite.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Grow up mate, for fuck sake.
heh.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-02-16 00:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I didn't mean that
You did. You said that you were surprised that anyone who'd enjoyed
Amis's letters could produce something he would not have liked; your
contention being that to enjoy Kingers' letters is to share Kingers'
tastes; there really is no getting away from that.
Irritatingly, my response seems to have disappeared so at the risk of
it reappearing and me saying the same thing twice in slightly
different words (always embarrassing), I will re-type what I tried to
post.
I did not mean that. I meant the stylistic ugliness, such as "In that
respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well" which Kingers was very good on.
It's speech. It's deliberate. <laughs sardonically> And you, a
nominally educated man. Ever hear Kingers famous saying, 'more will
mean worse'?
what, so you're going to allow an ugly little howler like that in the
name of accurately reported speech
No, you ignorant little bore. It isn't accurately reported speech.


even though your book is a BITING
Post by P.S.Burton
SATIRE and the dialogue as a whole in the extract you've offered never
even comes close to capturing the way anyone does, ever has or ever
will speak??
I feel you need to do a great deal more reading and thinking on the
subject of art and artifice. At present, like most people of your age
and outlook, you cannot tell the difference between art and
journalism.

But hey, let's cut to the chase; your mission here, since your first
scalding, is to invalidate and degrade me. You try SO hard, Tommy, so
very very hard and yet it's you who comes across as what you insist I
am: a gobshite pseud who wants to do me down at all costs.

You've snipped this discussion down from Kingers, Dixon and the post-
war novel to just bashing me; cos that's what the vast Mason ego MUST
do; it must invalidate ROBBIE; it must prove he's a no-hoper, a
wanker, a nothing; it must overcome the monster, only then will the
insecurity be hushed - for a while. And the north country Shining One
can stroll forth righteously, DH Lawrencing and Alan Sillitoe-ing all
comers with vinegary, coal dusted utilitarian sense.

Sorry for sarcasm; with you I can't help it. If only you didn't reveal
how ignorant you are, everything would be rosy.



you can't have it both ways.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
That is a matter of opinion (I'd be heartened to find sixth formers
producing material like that; unfortunatly they are more likely to be
lecturing people on climate change and racism).
Post by P.S.Burton
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
How incisive! Now, let us follow the Burton brilliance. Ah yes,
Shakespeare might as well have written YOUNG PRINCE FINDS HIS FATHER
MURDERED AND COGITATES ON LIFE, DEATH AND CHOICES. VERY SAD.
Shakespeare was usually capable of getting his point across a bit more
subtly and entertainingly.
That is neither here nor there. Shakespeare was a giant and I a worm
but we are in the same business and you revealed a great deal of
boneheadedness in your statement; in fact you revealed a COMPLETE
IGNORANCE of the point of art and literature. Doesn't surprise me. You
thought Pete Doherty was great. You were caught out making a very
stupid statement. Kingers having read your retort would have diagnosed
your problem immediately: someone who should have been a bus driver in
the middle of nowhere finds himself with a degree in the brave new
dumb down world (see Kingers statement: MORE WILL MEAN WORSE)

I mean to say: Why didn't Kingers just type YOUNG ACADEMIC HAS
GIRLFRIEND AND BOSS TROUBLE BUT EVERYTHING'S ALL RIGHT IN THE END? Or
Joyce: TWO MEN BOWL AROUND DUBLIN ON THE 16TH JUNE 1904.
Or CAPTAIN AHAB CHASES A BIG WHITE WHALE WHAT BIT HIS LEG OFF ONCE.



Why don't you have another go at making
Post by P.S.Burton
yours without the hamfisted obviousness of habving the coppers
ignoring smashing glass and stolen helmets?  Lazy and trite.
Nope, it works for me. Soz, mate soz. But like I say, this isn't about
my writing, it's about your ego.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Grow up mate, for fuck sake.
heh
You must. Or at lease become educated. Or shut up. You can't go on
like this, it's embarassing.
P.S.Burton
2008-02-18 11:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I didn't mean that
You did. You said that you were surprised that anyone who'd enjoyed
Amis's letters could produce something he would not have liked; your
contention being that to enjoy Kingers' letters is to share Kingers'
tastes; there really is no getting away from that.
Irritatingly, my response seems to have disappeared so at the risk of
it reappearing and me saying the same thing twice in slightly
different words (always embarrassing), I will re-type what I tried to
post.
I did not mean that. I meant the stylistic ugliness, such as "In that
respect I have sympathy for you. That's my Derrida
sympathies coming out as well" which Kingers was very good on.
It's speech. It's deliberate. <laughs sardonically> And you, a
nominally educated man. Ever hear Kingers famous saying, 'more will
mean worse'?
what, so you're going to allow an ugly little howler like that in the
name of accurately reported speech
No, you ignorant little bore. It isn't accurately reported speech.
Here come the insults. Touchy.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 even though your book is a BITING
Post by P.S.Burton
SATIRE and the dialogue as a whole in the extract you've offered never
even comes close to capturing the way anyone does, ever has or ever
will speak??
I feel you need to do a great deal more reading and thinking on the
subject of art and artifice. At present, like most people of your age
and outlook, you cannot tell the difference between art and
journalism.
But hey, let's cut to the chase; your mission here, since your first
scalding, is to invalidate and degrade me. You try SO hard, Tommy, so
very very hard and yet it's you who comes across as what you insist I
am: a gobshite pseud who wants to do me down at all costs.
You've snipped this discussion down from Kingers, Dixon and the post-
war novel to just bashing me; cos that's what the vast Mason ego MUST
do; it must invalidate ROBBIE; it must prove he's a no-hoper, a
wanker, a nothing; it must overcome the monster, only then will the
insecurity be hushed - for a while. And the north country Shining One
can stroll forth righteously, DH Lawrencing and Alan Sillitoe-ing all
comers with vinegary, coal dusted utilitarian sense.
Sorry for sarcasm; with you I can't help it. If only you didn't reveal
how ignorant you are, everything would be rosy.
I was having a go at your rpose, not at you. You are the one who is
trying to make this personal
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 you can't have it both ways.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
That is a matter of opinion (I'd be heartened to find sixth formers
producing material like that; unfortunatly they are more likely to be
lecturing people on climate change and racism).
Post by P.S.Burton
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
How incisive! Now, let us follow the Burton brilliance. Ah yes,
Shakespeare might as well have written YOUNG PRINCE FINDS HIS FATHER
MURDERED AND COGITATES ON LIFE, DEATH AND CHOICES. VERY SAD.
Shakespeare was usually capable of getting his point across a bit more
subtly and entertainingly.
That is neither here nor there. Shakespeare was a giant and I a worm
but we are in the same business and you revealed a great deal of
boneheadedness in your statement; in fact you revealed a COMPLETE
IGNORANCE of the point of art and literature. Doesn't surprise me. You
thought Pete Doherty was great.You were caught out making a very
stupid statement. Kingers having read your retort would have diagnosed
your problem immediately: someone who should have been a bus driver in
the middle of nowhere finds himself with a degree in the brave new
dumb down world (see Kingers statement: MORE WILL MEAN WORSE)
hahahaha
Post by g***@googlemail.com
I mean to say: Why didn't Kingers just type YOUNG ACADEMIC HAS
GIRLFRIEND AND BOSS TROUBLE BUT EVERYTHING'S ALL RIGHT IN THE END? Or
Joyce: TWO MEN BOWL AROUND DUBLIN ON THE 16TH JUNE 1904.
Or CAPTAIN AHAB CHASES A BIG WHITE WHALE WHAT BIT HIS LEG OFF ONCE.
because they had a point to make and made it well BY WRITING A DECENT
NOVEL ABOUT IT. Which is what you have singularly failed to do. You
wouldn't catch amis having dixon wearily forced to give a degree to
someone who couldn't read or write,which is roughly as subtle as your
broken glass/stolen helmet scene is in terms of carrying a point.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Why don't you have another go at making
Post by P.S.Burton
yours without the hamfisted obviousness of habving the coppers
ignoring smashing glass and stolen helmets?  Lazy and trite.
Nope, it works for me. Soz, mate soz. But like I say, this isn't about
my writing, it's about your ego.
As I've said, I was criticising your prose not you. You say it hasn't
been published because there is a conspiracy, I say it hasn't because
it's crap.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Grow up mate, for fuck sake.
heh
You must. Or at lease become educated. Or shut up. You can't go on
like this, it's embarassing.-
is it though? compared to, say, your spats with alan hope?? Don't make
me laugh.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-02-18 21:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
Here come the insults. Touchy.
Mere exasperation, dear boy. I apologise, forgive me. I'd come in
after a few beers.

<The rest of the newsgroup:
ANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKSALOONBARREACTIONARYBORE>

You do WANT me to be offended though, don't you. I'm glad you have a a
point of view. It is narrow, but there you are.

You are exasperating because this is personal to you. You are so keen
to invalidate me that you still haven't got it clear in your mind what
exactly it is that you are saying.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 even though your book is a BITING
Post by P.S.Burton
SATIRE and the dialogue as a whole in the extract you've offered never
even comes close to capturing the way anyone does, ever has or ever
will speak??
I feel you need to do a great deal more reading and thinking on the
subject of art and artifice. At present, like most people of your age
and outlook, you cannot tell the difference between art and
journalism.
But hey, let's cut to the chase; your mission here, since your first
scalding, is to invalidate and degrade me. You try SO hard, Tommy, so
very very hard and yet it's you who comes across as what you insist I
am: a gobshite pseud who wants to do me down at all costs.
You've snipped this discussion down from Kingers, Dixon and the post-
war novel to just bashing me; cos that's what the vast Mason ego MUST
do; it must invalidate ROBBIE; it must prove he's a no-hoper, a
wanker, a nothing; it must overcome the monster, only then will the
insecurity be hushed - for a while. And the north country Shining One
can stroll forth righteously, DH Lawrencing and Alan Sillitoe-ing all
comers with vinegary, coal dusted utilitarian sense.
Sorry for sarcasm; with you I can't help it. If only you didn't reveal
how ignorant you are, everything would be rosy.
I was having a go at your rpose, not at you.
No, you were having a go at three hundred words I'd written because
it's a good way of having a go at me. I have always annoyed you
because I've challenged your view of the world and people don't like
that. Especially not people with a high regard for their own
intellect.

You are the one who is
Post by P.S.Burton
trying to make this personal
Not at all. Ever since we crossed swords about God knows what, God
knows when (my 'lurch' to the Right probably - have you noticed there
are rarely any lurches to the Left?) you've been laying into me by
laying into what I write; to troll me about what is important to me in
a righteous attempt to punish me for my 'trolling' of Wanky Leftism.
You probably don't even see it like that, but it's pretty clear that's
the case. You even followed me into another newsgroup to continue the
fight. I think I worry you because I might be right on a few things.
True, you admitted I was right about the BBC in the end, but then only
a fucking fool would deny it at this stage.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 you can't have it both ways.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
That is a matter of opinion (I'd be heartened to find sixth formers
producing material like that; unfortunatly they are more likely to be
lecturing people on climate change and racism).
Post by P.S.Burton
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
How incisive! Now, let us follow the Burton brilliance. Ah yes,
Shakespeare might as well have written YOUNG PRINCE FINDS HIS FATHER
MURDERED AND COGITATES ON LIFE, DEATH AND CHOICES. VERY SAD.
Shakespeare was usually capable of getting his point across a bit more
subtly and entertainingly.
That is neither here nor there. Shakespeare was a giant and I a worm
but we are in the same business and you revealed a great deal of
boneheadedness in your statement; in fact you revealed a COMPLETE
IGNORANCE of the point of art and literature. Doesn't surprise me. You
thought Pete Doherty was great.You were caught out making a very
stupid statement. Kingers having read your retort would have diagnosed
your problem immediately: someone who should have been a bus driver in
the middle of nowhere finds himself with a degree in the brave new
dumb down world (see Kingers statement: MORE WILL MEAN WORSE)
hahahaha
That was pretty strong, but if you consider how flabby and unfocused
your arguments in this thread are...
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
I mean to say: Why didn't Kingers just type YOUNG ACADEMIC HAS
GIRLFRIEND AND BOSS TROUBLE BUT EVERYTHING'S ALL RIGHT IN THE END? Or
Joyce: TWO MEN BOWL AROUND DUBLIN ON THE 16TH JUNE 1904.
Or CAPTAIN AHAB CHASES A BIG WHITE WHALE WHAT BIT HIS LEG OFF ONCE.
because they had a point to make
Here's where 'More will mean worse' applies: The point in the scene
was, in a surreal moment to satirise the emasculation of the police by
the trendy left. But IT WAS AN ASIDE. It is not what the WHOLE BOOK is
about. But you wouldn't know because you haven't read it and if you
were really worthy of a university education you would have known not
to attempt to argue critically and aesthetically about SOMETHING YOU
HAVEN'T READ. It's like damning A Sentimental Education on half a
page. It's like when the religious nutters want films banned because
they seen a snippet or heard something. It's weak.

(I do not compare myself to Flaubert)

and made it well BY WRITING A DECENT
Post by P.S.Burton
NOVEL ABOUT IT
But as I say, you can't say that because you've only read half a page.
See why I call you ignorant? You're just lashing out like little Billy
Elliott.


. >Which is what you have singularly failed to do.

But you haven't read my book so you cannot say that with any authority
at all. Did you do logic with your degree?

You
Post by P.S.Burton
wouldn't catch amis having dixon wearily forced to give a degree to
someone who couldn't read or write
There was no need to satirise a dumb down in 1954. Your point is
invalid. Whereas in our epoch policeman ignore real crime and
prosecute thought crime. Which was the point of the aside in my novel
which you have not read but insist on pronouncing judgement on.

,which is roughly as subtle as your
Post by P.S.Burton
broken glass/stolen helmet scene is in terms of carrying a point.
Subtlety is something we could argue about all day.I would give you
examples of highly unsubtle satire from authors we both admire but
then you would shift your argument to plagiarism, such is your desire
to invalidate me.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Why don't you have another go at making
Post by P.S.Burton
yours without the hamfisted obviousness of habving the coppers
ignoring smashing glass and stolen helmets?  Lazy and trite.
Nope, it works for me. Soz, mate soz. But like I say, this isn't about
my writing, it's about your ego.
As I've said, I was criticising your prose not you. You say it hasn't
been published because there is a conspiracy,
It saddens me to see an Orwell fan twist my original point in this
playground manner; you ought to be above that, but you ain't! (more
will mean worse)

Of course there's no conspiracy to suppress my book. My sloth is the
biggest conspiracy. But if you think publishing ISN'T full of wanky
leftists more fool you. The basic premise of the book, the
illiberality of the contemporary liberal mind, doesn't play well with
agents or publishers. But give them some olf post-colonial, magic
realism, multicultural boogie and then things change. VERY bad books
have been published because of that mindset.

I say it hasn't because
Post by P.S.Burton
it's crap.
You really ought to read it before you make noisy public
announcements. It makes you look like some kind of mullah or christian
fanatic. But it ain't about the book, is it, Tom, it's about me!
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Grow up mate, for fuck sake.
heh
You must. Or at lease become educated. Or shut up. You can't go on
like this, it's embarassing.-
is it though? compared to, say, your spats with alan hope??
Who stalked me to read them?

And he was the one who would refuse to answer when pressed. He was
motivated by exactly the reasons you are: I'd stung him, his politics
and his worldview AND HE NEVER GOT OVER IT!
P.S.Burton
2008-02-20 09:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Here come the insults. Touchy.
Mere exasperation, dear boy. I apologise, forgive me. I'd come in
after a few beers.
ANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKSALOONBARREACTIONARYBORE>
You do WANT me to be offended though, don't you. I'm glad you have a a
point of view. It is narrow, but there you are.
You are exasperating because this is personal to you. You are so keen
to invalidate me that you still haven't got it clear in your mind what
exactly it is that you are saying.
I have. I am saying your rpose isn't very good and THAT is why it
hasn't been published, not because it is ideologicaly offensive to the
publishing houses. This isn't Cape consulting the Home Office and
turning down animal farm, it's a rejection slip.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 even though your book is a BITING
Post by P.S.Burton
SATIRE and the dialogue as a whole in the extract you've offered never
even comes close to capturing the way anyone does, ever has or ever
will speak??
I feel you need to do a great deal more reading and thinking on the
subject of art and artifice. At present, like most people of your age
and outlook, you cannot tell the difference between art and
journalism.
But hey, let's cut to the chase; your mission here, since your first
scalding, is to invalidate and degrade me. You try SO hard, Tommy, so
very very hard and yet it's you who comes across as what you insist I
am: a gobshite pseud who wants to do me down at all costs.
You've snipped this discussion down from Kingers, Dixon and the post-
war novel to just bashing me; cos that's what the vast Mason ego MUST
do; it must invalidate ROBBIE; it must prove he's a no-hoper, a
wanker, a nothing; it must overcome the monster, only then will the
insecurity be hushed - for a while. And the north country Shining One
can stroll forth righteously, DH Lawrencing and Alan Sillitoe-ing all
comers with vinegary, coal dusted utilitarian sense.
No. I had a go at your prose and rather than admit it was no good or
have an argument about it you've decided to make it about
personalities and inist I am having a go at you personally. You've
also started lobbing insults about. Pffft.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Sorry for sarcasm; with you I can't help it. If only you didn't reveal
how ignorant you are, everything would be rosy.
I was having a go at your rpose, not at you.
No, you were having a go at three hundred words I'd written because
it's a good way of having a go at me. I have always annoyed you
because I've challenged your view of the world and people don't like
that. Especially not people with a high regard for their own
intellect.
 You are the one who is
Post by P.S.Burton
trying to make this personal
Not at all. Ever since we crossed swords about God knows what, God
knows when (my 'lurch' to the Right probably - have you noticed there
are rarely any lurches to the Left?) you've been laying into me by
laying into what I write; to troll me about what is important to me in
a righteous attempt to punish me for my 'trolling' of Wanky Leftism.
You probably don't even see it like that, but it's pretty clear that's
the case. You even followed me into another newsgroup to continue the
fight.
I didn't. You banged the drum for your blog on here, which turned out
to contain a lot of entries which were "I posted this on the R4
newsgroup today". I don't remember posting much, if at all on there.




I think I worry you because I might be right on a few things.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
True, you admitted I was right about the BBC in the end, but then only
a fucking fool would deny it at this stage.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 you can't have it both ways.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
That is a matter of opinion (I'd be heartened to find sixth formers
producing material like that; unfortunatly they are more likely to be
lecturing people on climate change and racism).
Post by P.S.Burton
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
How incisive! Now, let us follow the Burton brilliance. Ah yes,
Shakespeare might as well have written YOUNG PRINCE FINDS HIS FATHER
MURDERED AND COGITATES ON LIFE, DEATH AND CHOICES. VERY SAD.
Shakespeare was usually capable of getting his point across a bit more
subtly and entertainingly.
That is neither here nor there. Shakespeare was a giant and I a worm
but we are in the same business and you revealed a great deal of
boneheadedness in your statement; in fact you revealed a COMPLETE
IGNORANCE of the point of art and literature. Doesn't surprise me. You
thought Pete Doherty was great.You were caught out making a very
stupid statement. Kingers having read your retort would have diagnosed
your problem immediately: someone who should have been a bus driver in
the middle of nowhere finds himself with a degree in the brave new
dumb down world (see Kingers statement: MORE WILL MEAN WORSE)
hahahaha
That was pretty strong, but if you consider how flabby and unfocused
your arguments in this thread are...
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
I mean to say: Why didn't Kingers just type YOUNG ACADEMIC HAS
GIRLFRIEND AND BOSS TROUBLE BUT EVERYTHING'S ALL RIGHT IN THE END? Or
Joyce: TWO MEN BOWL AROUND DUBLIN ON THE 16TH JUNE 1904.
Or CAPTAIN AHAB CHASES A BIG WHITE WHALE WHAT BIT HIS LEG OFF ONCE.
because they had a point to make
Here's where 'More will mean worse' applies: The point in the scene
was, in a surreal moment to satirise the emasculation of the police by
the trendy left. But IT WAS AN ASIDE. It is not what the WHOLE BOOK is
about. But you wouldn't know because you haven't read it and if you
were really worthy of a university education you would have known not
to attempt to argue critically and aesthetically about SOMETHING YOU
HAVEN'T READ. It's like damning A Sentimental Education on half a
page. It's like when the religious nutters want films banned because
they seen a snippet or heard something. It's weak.
Possibly, but in fairness I've only got 300 words to go on. If the
rest is as different as you seem to be suggesting then the 300 words
you've posted will surely not fit in very well.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
(I do not compare myself to Flaubert)
 and made it well BY WRITING A DECENT
Post by P.S.Burton
NOVEL ABOUT IT
But as I say, you can't say that because you've only read half a page.
See why I call you ignorant? You're just lashing out like little Billy
Elliott.
. >Which is what you have singularly failed to do.
But you haven't read my book so you cannot say that with any authority
at all. Did you do logic with your degree?
I can say that your prose is bad based on what I have read of it. And
I do.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 You
Post by P.S.Burton
wouldn't catch amis having dixon wearily forced to give a degree to
someone who couldn't read or write
There was no need to satirise a dumb down in 1954. Your point is
invalid. Whereas in our epoch policeman ignore real crime and
prosecute thought crime. Which was the point of the aside in my novel
which you have not read but insist on pronouncing judgement on.
,which is roughly as subtle as your
Post by P.S.Burton
broken glass/stolen helmet scene is in terms of carrying a point.
Subtlety is something we could argue about all day.I would give you
examples of highly unsubtle satire from authors we both admire but
then you would shift your argument to plagiarism, such is your desire
to invalidate me.
I don't think I would have done that.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Why don't you have another go at making
Post by P.S.Burton
yours without the hamfisted obviousness of habving the coppers
ignoring smashing glass and stolen helmets?  Lazy and trite.
Nope, it works for me. Soz, mate soz. But like I say, this isn't about
my writing, it's about your ego.
Nah. It is (from my end at least) about your writing. But then, the
burden of proof isn't on me.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
As I've said, I was criticising your prose not you. You say it hasn't
been published because there is a conspiracy,
It saddens me to see an Orwell fan twist my original point in this
playground manner; you ought to be above that, but you ain't! (more
will mean worse)
Of course there's no conspiracy to suppress my book. My sloth is the
biggest conspiracy. But if you think publishing ISN'T full of wanky
leftists more fool you.
Oh no, I'm sure it is. But that's not the reason you're getting
nowhere with this one, imo.

The basic premise of the book, the
Post by g***@googlemail.com
illiberality of the contemporary liberal mind, doesn't play well with
agents or publishers. But give them some olf post-colonial, magic
realism, multicultural boogie and then things change. VERY bad books
have been published because of that mindset.
I say it hasn't because
Post by P.S.Burton
it's crap.
You really ought to read it before you make noisy public
announcements. It makes you look like some kind of mullah or christian
fanatic. But it ain't about the book, is it, Tom, it's about me!
see above.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Grow up mate, for fuck sake.
heh
You must. Or at lease become educated. Or shut up. You can't go on
like this, it's embarassing.-
is it though? compared to, say, your spats with alan hope??
Who stalked me to read them?
again, see above. here ---> blog you asked us to read hardly makes me
barry bulsara.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
And he was the one who would refuse to answer when pressed. He was
motivated by exactly the reasons you are: I'd stung him, his politics
and his worldview AND HE NEVER GOT OVER IT!-
all I ever saw were witless and spectacularly ugly exchanges of 4
letter words. I'm sure the reasoned debate came earlier, before I
stalked onto the scene.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-03-09 00:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Here come the insults. Touchy.
Mere exasperation, dear boy. I apologise, forgive me. I'd come in
after a few beers.
ANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKSALOONBARREACTIONARYBORE>
You do WANT me to be offended though, don't you. I'm glad you have a a
point of view. It is narrow, but there you are.
You are exasperating because this is personal to you. You are so keen
to invalidate me that you still haven't got it clear in your mind what
exactly it is that you are saying.
I have. I am saying your rpose isn't very good
You started out saying that but then ended up saying the *book* wasn't
good and since you had read but 300 words of it it was a stupid stance
to take. Your exposure to my fiction is extremely limited but your
attempts to invalidate it and degrade it and me are obsessional. I
conclude, after years of this, that it is because you've had your
evidently mighty ego bruised in one of our newsgroup encounters and
you are out to do the same to me, come hell or high water.
I don't mind, but for a nominally highly educated person you will keep
making errors in logic that 20 years ago one would not have expected
from a 14-year-old. This, I know, is egalitarianism in action. But
still...


and THAT is why it
Post by P.S.Burton
hasn't been published, not because it is ideologicaly offensive to the
publishing houses. This isn't Cape consulting the Home Office and
turning down animal farm, it's a rejection slip.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 even though your book is a BITING
Post by P.S.Burton
SATIRE and the dialogue as a whole in the extract you've offered never
even comes close to capturing the way anyone does, ever has or ever
will speak??
I feel you need to do a great deal more reading and thinking on the
subject of art and artifice. At present, like most people of your age
and outlook, you cannot tell the difference between art and
journalism.
But hey, let's cut to the chase; your mission here, since your first
scalding, is to invalidate and degrade me. You try SO hard, Tommy, so
very very hard and yet it's you who comes across as what you insist I
am: a gobshite pseud who wants to do me down at all costs.
You've snipped this discussion down from Kingers, Dixon and the post-
war novel to just bashing me; cos that's what the vast Mason ego MUST
do; it must invalidate ROBBIE; it must prove he's a no-hoper, a
wanker, a nothing; it must overcome the monster, only then will the
insecurity be hushed - for a while. And the north country Shining One
can stroll forth righteously, DH Lawrencing and Alan Sillitoe-ing all
comers with vinegary, coal dusted utilitarian sense.
No. I had a go at your prose and rather than admit it was no good or
have an argument about it you've decided to make it about
personalities and inist I am having a go at you personally. You've
also started lobbing insults about. Pffft.
I think an honest or sane man who looks over this thread would
conclude that I have argued with logic and you haven't. My defence has
been focused, your attack specious and disorganized. WARNING: This is
how you behaved when I criticised the BBC for its left-wing bias and
inaibility to report Islamic issues objectively.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Sorry for sarcasm; with you I can't help it. If only you didn't reveal
how ignorant you are, everything would be rosy.
I was having a go at your rpose, not at you.
No, you were having a go at three hundred words I'd written because
it's a good way of having a go at me. I have always annoyed you
because I've challenged your view of the world and people don't like
that. Especially not people with a high regard for their own
intellect.
 You are the one who is
Post by P.S.Burton
trying to make this personal
Not at all. Ever since we crossed swords about God knows what, God
knows when (my 'lurch' to the Right probably - have you noticed there
are rarely any lurches to the Left?) you've been laying into me by
laying into what I write; to troll me about what is important to me in
a righteous attempt to punish me for my 'trolling' of Wanky Leftism.
You probably don't even see it like that, but it's pretty clear that's
the case. You even followed me into another newsgroup to continue the
fight.
I didn't. You banged the drum for your blog on here, which turned out
to contain a lot of entries which were "I posted this on the R4
newsgroup today". I don't remember posting much, if at all on there.
You showed up there to try and invalidate me; you attempted to do this
with a bit of pinhead dancing and pedantry about Orwell and
Nationalism.
Post by P.S.Burton
I think I worry you because I might be right on a few things.
You don't worry me at all. You have a little doublethink going on:
1)You try and hold on to a view of me which, rather like Martha
Bridageam's view, goes like this: 'desperate loser with an vastly
inflated regard for his own writing and some unsavoury semi-fascist
ideas'; but, 2) you know, in what Graham Greene called 'the room in
your head where you think what you really think', that that isn't
really true, because if it was true then you wouldn't have had to work
as hard as you have done to try and outpace me in discussions. In
short, if I was as bigger cunt as you and Viva El Bridegam imagine me
to be, you could both despatch me in a few sentences. But that just
doesn't work or happen...
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
True, you admitted I was right about the BBC in the end, but then only
a fucking fool would deny it at this stage.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 you can't have it both ways.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
That is a matter of opinion (I'd be heartened to find sixth formers
producing material like that; unfortunatly they are more likely to be
lecturing people on climate change and racism).
Post by P.S.Burton
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
How incisive! Now, let us follow the Burton brilliance. Ah yes,
Shakespeare might as well have written YOUNG PRINCE FINDS HIS FATHER
MURDERED AND COGITATES ON LIFE, DEATH AND CHOICES. VERY SAD.
Shakespeare was usually capable of getting his point across a bit more
subtly and entertainingly.
That is neither here nor there. Shakespeare was a giant and I a worm
but we are in the same business and you revealed a great deal of
boneheadedness in your statement; in fact you revealed a COMPLETE
IGNORANCE of the point of art and literature. Doesn't surprise me. You
thought Pete Doherty was great.You were caught out making a very
stupid statement. Kingers having read your retort would have diagnosed
your problem immediately: someone who should have been a bus driver in
the middle of nowhere finds himself with a degree in the brave new
dumb down world (see Kingers statement: MORE WILL MEAN WORSE)
hahahaha
That was pretty strong, but if you consider how flabby and unfocused
your arguments in this thread are...
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
I mean to say: Why didn't Kingers just type YOUNG ACADEMIC HAS
GIRLFRIEND AND BOSS TROUBLE BUT EVERYTHING'S ALL RIGHT IN THE END? Or
Joyce: TWO MEN BOWL AROUND DUBLIN ON THE 16TH JUNE 1904.
Or CAPTAIN AHAB CHASES A BIG WHITE WHALE WHAT BIT HIS LEG OFF ONCE.
because they had a point to make
Here's where 'More will mean worse' applies: The point in the scene
was, in a surreal moment to satirise the emasculation of the police by
the trendy left. But IT WAS AN ASIDE. It is not what the WHOLE BOOK is
about. But you wouldn't know because you haven't read it and if you
were really worthy of a university education you would have known not
to attempt to argue critically and aesthetically about SOMETHING YOU
HAVEN'T READ. It's like damning A Sentimental Education on half a
page. It's like when the religious nutters want films banned because
they seen a snippet or heard something. It's weak.
Possibly,
Not possibly, old cock, definitely. You made an error in logic. I
forgive you. We are in the Age of Docherty after all.
Post by P.S.Burton
but in fairness I've only got 300 words to go on.
Indeed. THAT IS WHY AN INTELLIGENT MAN WOULD NOT HAVE ATTEMPTED DO
WHAT YOU ATTEMPTED.

You're a lawyer, yes? Tsk, pity the poor fucker who needs you to get
him off a dose of porridge.



If the
Post by P.S.Burton
rest is as different as you seem to be suggesting then the 300 words
you've posted will surely not fit in very well.
Look mate, you'd say it was crap even if it the TLS said it was the
greatest thing since sliced bread. I think it's a funny and unusual
read that is outside the Hornby/Parsons/Self/Chicklit or Multi-culti
guiltwank vernacular that is industry standard today. I'm already at
work on something else. You written any books lately?
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
(I do not compare myself to Flaubert)
 and made it well BY WRITING A DECENT
Post by P.S.Burton
NOVEL ABOUT IT
But as I say, you can't say that because you've only read half a page.
See why I call you ignorant? You're just lashing out like little Billy
Elliott.
. >Which is what you have singularly failed to do.
But you haven't read my book so you cannot say that with any authority
at all. Did you do logic with your degree?
I can say that your prose is bad based on what I have read of it
300 words is a slim ration to make such unequivocal judgements. But
needs must when you're desperate to get a rise and an invalidate
someone...




. And
Post by P.S.Burton
I do.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 You
Post by P.S.Burton
wouldn't catch amis having dixon wearily forced to give a degree to
someone who couldn't read or write
There was no need to satirise a dumb down in 1954. Your point is
invalid. Whereas in our epoch policeman ignore real crime and
prosecute thought crime. Which was the point of the aside in my novel
which you have not read but insist on pronouncing judgement on.
,which is roughly as subtle as your
Post by P.S.Burton
broken glass/stolen helmet scene is in terms of carrying a point.
Subtlety is something we could argue about all day.I would give you
examples of highly unsubtle satire from authors we both admire but
then you would shift your argument to plagiarism, such is your desire
to invalidate me.
I don't think I would have done that.
Tony Blair himself could not have said it better! LOL
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Why don't you have another go at making
Post by P.S.Burton
yours without the hamfisted obviousness of habving the coppers
ignoring smashing glass and stolen helmets?  Lazy and trite.
Nope, it works for me. Soz, mate soz. But like I say, this isn't about
my writing, it's about your ego.
Nah. It is (from my end at least) about your writing. But then, the
burden of proof isn't on me.
In this pathetic epoch I don't expect an Englishman who has studied
law to know that in England a man is innocent until proven guilty. You
have dragged my book before the court and used the only 300 words you
have read of it to try and invalidate me. Your case was based on an
illogical argument and yet you now say it is MY job to prove myself
talented. I feel the 'c' word looming...
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
As I've said, I was criticising your prose not you. You say it hasn't
been published because there is a conspiracy,
It saddens me to see an Orwell fan twist my original point in this
playground manner; you ought to be above that, but you ain't! (more
will mean worse)
Of course there's no conspiracy to suppress my book. My sloth is the
biggest conspiracy. But if you think publishing ISN'T full of wanky
leftists more fool you.
Oh no, I'm sure it is. But that's not the reason you're getting
nowhere with this one, imo.
Yes and as I've already said (NOTE: IT IS BECOMING OBVIOUS THAT YOU
DON'T READ MY REPLIES IN THIS THREAD) I do NOT think there is a
conspiracy to suppress my writing. I. HAVE. SAID. THIS. *YOU* were the
person who asserted that I thought there was a conspiracy. Jesus, I
hope you're not involved in Law, I really do. You're fucking
dangerous.
Post by P.S.Burton
 The basic premise of the book, the
Post by g***@googlemail.com
illiberality of the contemporary liberal mind, doesn't play well with
agents or publishers. But give them some olf post-colonial, magic
realism, multicultural boogie and then things change. VERY bad books
have been published because of that mindset.
I say it hasn't because
Post by P.S.Burton
it's crap.
You really ought to read it before you make noisy public
announcements. It makes you look like some kind of mullah or christian
fanatic. But it ain't about the book, is it, Tom, it's about me!
see above.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Grow up mate, for fuck sake.
heh
You must. Or at lease become educated. Or shut up. You can't go on
like this, it's embarassing.-
is it though? compared to, say, your spats with alan hope??
Who stalked me to read them?
again, see above. here ---> blog you asked us to read hardly makes me
barry ...
You followed me into the radio four group to read them.

Hope, like you, simply went into denial and illogicality when beaten
on a point.
P.S.Burton
2008-03-11 10:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Here come the insults. Touchy.
Mere exasperation, dear boy. I apologise, forgive me. I'd come in
after a few beers.
ANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKSALOONBARREACTIONARYBORE>
You do WANT me to be offended though, don't you. I'm glad you have a a
point of view. It is narrow, but there you are.
You are exasperating because this is personal to you. You are so keen
to invalidate me that you still haven't got it clear in your mind what
exactly it is that you are saying.
I have. I am saying your rpose isn't very good
You started out saying that but then ended up saying the *book* wasn't
good and since you had read but 300 words of it it was a stupid stance
to take. Your exposure to my fiction is extremely limited but your
attempts to invalidate it and degrade it and me are obsessional. I
conclude, after years of this, that it is because you've had your
evidently mighty ego bruised in one of our newsgroup encounters and
you are out to do the same to me, come hell or high water.
I don't mind, but for a nominally highly educated person you will keep
making errors in logic that 20 years ago one would not have expected
from a 14-year-old. This, I know, is egalitarianism in action. But
still...
I said I don't like your prose and that it isn't very good, based on
what I've seen of it. If I didn't express that clearly enough,
apologies. Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to
hear.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
and THAT is why it
Post by P.S.Burton
hasn't been published, not because it is ideologicaly offensive to the
publishing houses. This isn't Cape consulting the Home Office and
turning down animal farm, it's a rejection slip.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 even though your book is a BITING
Post by P.S.Burton
SATIRE and the dialogue as a whole in the extract you've offered never
even comes close to capturing the way anyone does, ever has or ever
will speak??
I feel you need to do a great deal more reading and thinking on the
subject of art and artifice. At present, like most people of your age
and outlook, you cannot tell the difference between art and
journalism.
But hey, let's cut to the chase; your mission here, since your first
scalding, is to invalidate and degrade me.
Nope. You put a sample of your book on here and I have laughed at it a
bit. You don't like that. You mustn't take disagreement 9about its
merits) as opposition (to you as a person)




You try SO hard, Tommy, so
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
very very hard and yet it's you who comes across as what you insist I
am: a gobshite pseud who wants to do me down at all costs.
You've snipped this discussion down from Kingers, Dixon and the post-
war novel to just bashing me;
hahaha. NO, that is what you have done, rather than defend the
stylistic awkwardsness of the stuff you've shown us.

cos that's what the vast Mason ego MUST
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
do; it must invalidate ROBBIE; it must prove he's a no-hoper, a
wanker, a nothing; it must overcome the monster, only then will the
insecurity be hushed - for a while. And the north country Shining One
can stroll forth righteously, DH Lawrencing and Alan Sillitoe-ing all
comers with vinegary, coal dusted utilitarian sense.
No. I had a go at your prose and rather than admit it was no good or
have an argument about it you've decided to make it about
personalities and inist I am having a go at you personally. You've
also started lobbing insults about. Pffft.
I think an honest or sane man who looks over this thread would
conclude that I have argued with logic and you haven't. My defence has
been focused, your attack specious and disorganized.
You satying it doesn't make it so, but yeah, my attack has been
thoroughly disorganised. I haven't got an excuse apart from pressure
of time and writing off the cuff without re-reading. It is only a spat
on a newsgroup after all, you surely don't think it's worth much more
effort than that.

WARNING: This is
Post by g***@googlemail.com
how you behaved when I criticised the BBC for its left-wing bias and
inaibility to report Islamic issues objectively.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Sorry for sarcasm; with you I can't help it. If only you didn't reveal
how ignorant you are, everything would be rosy.
I was having a go at your rpose, not at you.
No, you were having a go at three hundred words I'd written because
it's a good way of having a go at me. I have always annoyed you
because I've challenged your view of the world and people don't like
that. Especially not people with a high regard for their own
intellect.
 You are the one who is
Post by P.S.Burton
trying to make this personal
Not at all. Ever since we crossed swords about God knows what, God
knows when (my 'lurch' to the Right probably - have you noticed there
are rarely any lurches to the Left?) you've been laying into me by
laying into what I write; to troll me about what is important to me in
a righteous attempt to punish me for my 'trolling' of Wanky Leftism.
You probably don't even see it like that, but it's pretty clear that's
the case. You even followed me into another newsgroup to continue the
fight.
I didn't. You banged the drum for your blog on here, which turned out
to contain a lot of entries which were "I posted this on the R4
newsgroup today". I don't remember posting much, if at all on there.
You showed up there to try and invalidate me; you attempted to do this
with a bit of pinhead dancing and pedantry about Orwell and
Nationalism.
Post by P.S.Burton
I think I worry you because I might be right on a few things.
You are quoting yourself there, you fool. From this paragraph

"Not at all. Ever since we crossed swords about God knows what, God
knows when (my 'lurch' to the Right probably - have you noticed there
are rarely any lurches to the Left?) you've been laying into me by
laying into what I write; to troll me about what is important to me
in
a righteous attempt to punish me for my 'trolling' of Wanky Leftism.
You probably don't even see it like that, but it's pretty clear
that's
the case. You even followed me into another newsgroup to continue the
fight. I think I worry you because I might be right on a few things.
True, you admitted I was right about the BBC in the end, but then
only
a fucking fool would deny it at this stage. "

How embarrassing.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
1)You try and hold on to a view of me which, rather like Martha
Bridageam's view, goes like this: 'desperate loser with an vastly
inflated regard for his own writing and some unsavoury semi-fascist
ideas'; but, 2) you know, in what Graham Greene called 'the room in
your head where you think what you really think', that that isn't
really true, because if it was true then you wouldn't have had to work
as hard as you have done to try and outpace me in discussions. In
short, if I was as bigger cunt as you and Viva El Bridegam imagine me
to be, you could both despatch me in a few sentences. But that just
doesn't work or happen...
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
True, you admitted I was right about the BBC in the end, but then only
a fucking fool would deny it at this stage.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 you can't have it both ways.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
I also meant that the satire doesn't read like that of someone with a
particularly subtle ear for comedy, which I would assume anyone who
had enjoyed the Letters to have. It's more like a sixth form revue.
That is a matter of opinion (I'd be heartened to find sixth formers
producing material like that; unfortunatly they are more likely to be
lecturing people on climate change and racism).
Post by P.S.Burton
You might as well just have typed "THE POLICE DON'T CARE ABOUT
VANDALISM OR ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ANYMORE THEY ARE TOO BUSY WORRYING
ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS TSK TSK"
How incisive! Now, let us follow the Burton brilliance. Ah yes,
Shakespeare might as well have written YOUNG PRINCE FINDS HIS FATHER
MURDERED AND COGITATES ON LIFE, DEATH AND CHOICES. VERY SAD.
Shakespeare was usually capable of getting his point across a bit more
subtly and entertainingly.
That is neither here nor there. Shakespeare was a giant and I a worm
but we are in the same business and you revealed a great deal of
boneheadedness in your statement; in fact you revealed a COMPLETE
IGNORANCE of the point of art and literature. Doesn't surprise me. You
thought Pete Doherty was great.You were caught out making a very
stupid statement. Kingers having read your retort would have diagnosed
your problem immediately: someone who should have been a bus driver in
the middle of nowhere finds himself with a degree in the brave new
dumb down world (see Kingers statement: MORE WILL MEAN WORSE)
hahahaha
That was pretty strong, but if you consider how flabby and unfocused
your arguments in this thread are...
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
I mean to say: Why didn't Kingers just type YOUNG ACADEMIC HAS
GIRLFRIEND AND BOSS TROUBLE BUT EVERYTHING'S ALL RIGHT IN THE END? Or
Joyce: TWO MEN BOWL AROUND DUBLIN ON THE 16TH JUNE 1904.
Or CAPTAIN AHAB CHASES A BIG WHITE WHALE WHAT BIT HIS LEG OFF ONCE.
because they had a point to make
Here's where 'More will mean worse' applies: The point in the scene
was, in a surreal moment to satirise the emasculation of the police by
the trendy left. But IT WAS AN ASIDE. It is not what the WHOLE BOOK is
about. But you wouldn't know because you haven't read it and if you
were really worthy of a university education you would have known not
to attempt to argue critically and aesthetically about SOMETHING YOU
HAVEN'T READ. It's like damning A Sentimental Education on half a
page. It's like when the religious nutters want films banned because
they seen a snippet or heard something. It's weak.
Possibly,
Not possibly, old cock, definitely. You made an error in logic. I
forgive you. We are in the Age of Docherty after all.
It is not an error in logic to assume that if a sample of something is
bad, the rest will probably also be bad.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
but in fairness I've only got 300 words to go on.
Indeed. THAT IS WHY AN INTELLIGENT MAN WOULD NOT HAVE ATTEMPTED DO
WHAT YOU ATTEMPTED.
You're a lawyer, yes? Tsk, pity the poor fucker who needs you to get
him off a dose of porridge.
The fact that you think that being a lawyer consists entirely of
criminal defence work shows you right up. There is life after The Bill
old cock.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 If the
Post by P.S.Burton
rest is as different as you seem to be suggesting then the 300 words
you've posted will surely not fit in very well.
Look mate, you'd say it was crap even if it the TLS said it was the
greatest thing since sliced bread. I think it's a funny and unusual
read that is outside the Hornby/Parsons/Self/Chicklit or Multi-culti
guiltwank vernacular that is industry standard today. I'm already at
work on something else. You written any books lately?
What has THAT got to do with anything/ For someone who loves logic and
focussed argument so much that is a lurch sideways isn't it?

Look, don't feel you have to respond to any or all of this. We're not
going to get anywhere. I didn't like your prose, I think you're a
nice, fairly interesting fella with a chip on his shoulder, liable to
become a bit of a pub bore. That is my position, baldly stated, on you
and your work. I cannot make it any simpler than that.
g***@googlemail.com
2008-03-11 20:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Here come the insults. Touchy.
Mere exasperation, dear boy. I apologise, forgive me. I'd come in
after a few beers.
ANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKSALOONBARREACTIONARYBORE>
You do WANT me to be offended though, don't you. I'm glad you have a a
point of view. It is narrow, but there you are.
You are exasperating because this is personal to you. You are so keen
to invalidate me that you still haven't got it clear in your mind what
exactly it is that you are saying.
I have. I am saying your rpose isn't very good
You started out saying that but then ended up saying the *book* wasn't
good and since you had read but 300 words of it it was a stupid stance
to take. Your exposure to my fiction is extremely limited but your
attempts to invalidate it and degrade it and me are obsessional. I
conclude, after years of this, that it is because you've had your
evidently mighty ego bruised in one of our newsgroup encounters and
you are out to do the same to me, come hell or high water.
I don't mind, but for a nominally highly educated person you will keep
making errors in logic that 20 years ago one would not have expected
from a 14-year-old. This, I know, is egalitarianism in action. But
still...
I said I don't like your prose and that it isn't very good, based on
what I've seen of it. If I didn't express that clearly enough,
apologies. Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to
hear.
Freedom is also the right to pick apart breezy judgements.
Post by P.S.Burton
You satying it doesn't make it so, but yeah, my attack has been
thoroughly disorganised. I haven't got an excuse apart from pressure
of time and writing off the cuff without re-reading. It is only a spat
on a newsgroup after all, you surely don't think it's worth much more
effort than that.
I think if something's worth doing...
Post by P.S.Burton
You are quoting yourself there, you fool. From this paragraph
"Not at all. Ever since we crossed swords about God knows what, God
knows when (my 'lurch' to the Right probably - have you noticed there
are rarely any lurches to the Left?) you've been laying into me by
laying into what I write; to troll me about what is important to me in
a righteous attempt to punish me for my 'trolling' of Wanky Leftism.
You probably don't even see it like that, but it's pretty clear that's
the case. You even followed me into another newsgroup to continue the
fight. I think I worry you because I might be right on a few things.
True, you admitted I was right about the BBC in the end, but then only
a fucking fool would deny it at this stage. "
How embarrassing.
Easy mistake to make in this google browser; and let's face it, the
tone of your whole argument is contained in that sentence.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
We are in the Age of Docherty after all.
It is not an error in logic to assume that if a sample of something is
bad, the rest will probably also be bad.
I think you protest too much about its 'badness'. As prose, it isn't
'bad' at all in the sense of stylistic objections: it isn't purple, it
isn't cod-beat, it certainly isn't overwritten adjectivally or full of
overblown similes, nor is it MBB (Modern British Banal). It is
reasonably clean prose. WHAT YOU REALLY DON'T LIKE is what the scene
is *about*.
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
but in fairness I've only got 300 words to go on.
Indeed. THAT IS WHY AN INTELLIGENT MAN WOULD NOT HAVE ATTEMPTED DO
WHAT YOU ATTEMPTED.
You're a lawyer, yes? Tsk, pity the poor fucker who needs you to get
him off a dose of porridge.
The fact
That isn't a fact. I was being flippant.

that you think that being a lawyer consists entirely of
Post by P.S.Burton
criminal defence work shows you right up.
'Shows me right up' That you have decided that I don't know what a
solicitor/intellectual property rights/human rights/showbiz is? You
poor drone. You are a MONUMENT to the Left's interference in
education. I don't blame you for loving this epoch, people like you
have done so well out of it.

There is life after The Bill
Post by P.S.Burton
old cock.
Not for Tosh Lines there wasn't. (That was a small jest; please don't
extrapolate any great ignorance on my part from it)
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 If the
Post by P.S.Burton
rest is as different as you seem to be suggesting then the 300 words
you've posted will surely not fit in very well.
Look mate, you'd say it was crap even if it the TLS said it was the
greatest thing since sliced bread. I think it's a funny and unusual
read that is outside the Hornby/Parsons/Self/Chicklit or Multi-culti
guiltwank vernacular that is industry standard today. I'm already at
work on something else. You written any books lately?
What has THAT got to do with anything
You're not a writer manque?

/ For someone who loves logic and
Post by P.S.Burton
focussed argument so much that is a lurch sideways isn't it?
Look, don't feel you have to respond to any or all of this. We're not
going to get anywhere.
Indeed we're not. Because you have a little fixation on trying to
invalidate me, but at the same time you want appear to be Mr Big Calm
Sensible Liberal. We'll get somewhere when you admit that I've
bothered you and challenged you and you've been alert to the
possibility of scoring a few points back ever since.
Post by P.S.Burton
I didn't like your prose
You didn't like the idea that lay behind a 300 passage in my book. You
objected to it on ideological grounds and then found a pretext to go
on the attack with a highly unconvincing, indeed un-argued, charge of
aesthetic failure.

, I think you're a
Post by P.S.Burton
nice, fairly interesting fella with a chip on his shoulder
Ah; I see; complaints about the status quo are just chippy. You'll be
blackballed from the Social Democracy club if you keep that line up.

, liable to
Post by P.S.Burton
become a bit of a pub bore.
I don't do politics, race relations, diversity, religion or global
warming in pubs; I do banter, sex, writers, films comic fabulism,
horse racing and etc You wouldn't like me because I'm just not
flippant/sarky enough to be truly Age of Docherty.

That is my position, baldly stated, on you
Post by P.S.Burton
and your work. I cannot make it any simpler than that.
Pomposity AND condescension! Age of Docherty in excelsis.

What is the nature of your work in Law?
P.S.Burton
2008-03-12 09:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Here come the insults. Touchy.
Mere exasperation, dear boy. I apologise, forgive me. I'd come in
after a few beers.
ANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKANGRYDRUNKSALOONBARREACTIONARYBORE>
You do WANT me to be offended though, don't you. I'm glad you have a a
point of view. It is narrow, but there you are.
You are exasperating because this is personal to you. You are so keen
to invalidate me that you still haven't got it clear in your mind what
exactly it is that you are saying.
I have. I am saying your rpose isn't very good
You started out saying that but then ended up saying the *book* wasn't
good and since you had read but 300 words of it it was a stupid stance
to take. Your exposure to my fiction is extremely limited but your
attempts to invalidate it and degrade it and me are obsessional. I
conclude, after years of this, that it is because you've had your
evidently mighty ego bruised in one of our newsgroup encounters and
you are out to do the same to me, come hell or high water.
I don't mind, but for a nominally highly educated person you will keep
making errors in logic that 20 years ago one would not have expected
from a 14-year-old. This, I know, is egalitarianism in action. But
still...
I said I don't like your prose and that it isn't very good, based on
what I've seen of it. If I didn't express that clearly enough,
apologies. Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to
hear.
Freedom is also the right to pick apart breezy judgements.
Post by P.S.Burton
You satying it doesn't make it so, but yeah, my attack has been
thoroughly disorganised. I haven't got an excuse apart from pressure
of time and writing off the cuff without re-reading. It is only a spat
on a newsgroup after all, you surely don't think it's worth much more
effort than that.
I think if something's worth doing...
Yeah, but this ISN'T worth doing is it? I know it's no defence to say
that "mine's not much good because I'm not really trying" but there it
is. It would take a good few hours to nail down everything I object to
about your arguments in a way that even you couldn't wilfully
misinterpret, and who wants that? No-one.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
You are quoting yourself there, you fool. From this paragraph
"Not at all. Ever since we crossed swords about God knows what, God
knows when (my 'lurch' to the Right probably - have you noticed there
are rarely any lurches to the Left?) you've been laying into me by
laying into what I write; to troll me about what is important to me in
a righteous attempt to punish me for my 'trolling' of Wanky Leftism.
You probably don't even see it like that, but it's pretty clear that's
the case. You even followed me into another newsgroup to continue the
fight. I think I worry you because I might be right on a few things.
True, you admitted I was right about the BBC in the end, but then only
a fucking fool would deny it at this stage. "
How embarrassing.
Easy mistake to make in this google browser; and let's face it, the
tone of your whole argument is contained in that sentence.
Still supplying me with my arguments I see. But yeah, easy mistake to
make.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
We are in the Age of Docherty after all.
It is not an error in logic to assume that if a sample of something is
bad, the rest will probably also be bad.
I think you protest too much about its 'badness'. As prose, it isn't
'bad' at all in the sense of stylistic objections: it isn't purple, it
isn't cod-beat, it certainly isn't overwritten adjectivally or full of
overblown similes, nor is it MBB (Modern British Banal). It is
reasonably clean prose. WHAT YOU REALLY DON'T LIKE is what the scene
is *about*.
I think there probably is a good novel to be written about the cult of
pc but that definitely isn't it. Brace yourself to get really
irritated, but I think Ricky Gervais has lampooned PC far, far better
in the character of David Brent. For example when he looks at some
porn on the internet titled Dutch Girls Must be Punished for Having
Big Boobs

David: "now you do not punish anyone, Dutch or otherwise for having
big boobs

Gareth: If anything they should be rewarded

David: "They should be equal."

Gareth: "Women are equal."

David: "I've always said that."
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
Post by P.S.Burton
but in fairness I've only got 300 words to go on.
Indeed. THAT IS WHY AN INTELLIGENT MAN WOULD NOT HAVE ATTEMPTED DO
WHAT YOU ATTEMPTED.
You're a lawyer, yes? Tsk, pity the poor fucker who needs you to get
him off a dose of porridge.
The fact
That isn't a fact. I was being flippant.
 that you think that being a lawyer consists entirely of
Post by P.S.Burton
criminal defence work shows you right up.
'Shows me right up' That you have decided that I don't know what a
solicitor/intellectual property rights/human rights/showbiz is? You
poor drone. You are a MONUMENT to the Left's interference in
education. I don't blame you for loving this epoch, people like you
have done so well out of it.
Yeah yeah. Has it occurred to you that I might be on a wind up
sometimes too? At the risk of spoiling it, quoting gervais above was
one example of it. That was another. I could have gone further - I
toyed with the idea of telling you that I have been to university and
you haven't and so there's no point me arguing with you because you
don't know how to argue. That would have been a *beauty*. Thing is, in
print no-one can be sure how things are meant. What was it old kingers
said about never saying anything even in jest that some shit of a
journo can twist and use against you?
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 There is life after The Bill
Post by P.S.Burton
old cock.
Not for Tosh Lines there wasn't. (That was a small jest; please don't
extrapolate any great ignorance on my part from it)
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
 If the
Post by P.S.Burton
rest is as different as you seem to be suggesting then the 300 words
you've posted will surely not fit in very well.
Look mate, you'd say it was crap even if it the TLS said it was the
greatest thing since sliced bread. I think it's a funny and unusual
read that is outside the Hornby/Parsons/Self/Chicklit or Multi-culti
guiltwank vernacular that is industry standard today. I'm already at
work on something else. You written any books lately?
What has THAT got to do with anything
You're not a writer manque?
Not really. I take a bit more care over my letters and emails than
most people and enjoy writing up bits and bobs that have happened to
me for other people to read, but I've never tried anything ambitious.
Post by g***@googlemail.com
/ For someone who loves logic and
Post by P.S.Burton
focussed argument so much that is a lurch sideways isn't it?
Look, don't feel you have to respond to any or all of this. We're not
going to get anywhere.
Indeed we're not. Because you have a little fixation on trying to
invalidate me, but at the same time you want appear to be Mr Big Calm
Sensible Liberal. We'll get somewhere when you admit that I've
bothered you and challenged you and you've been alert to the
possibility of scoring a few points back ever since.
Post by P.S.Burton
I didn't like your prose
You didn't like the idea that lay behind a 300 passage in my book. You
objected to it on ideological grounds and then found a pretext to go
on the attack with a highly unconvincing, indeed un-argued, charge of
aesthetic failure.
It wasn't the idea, as edxplained above, it was the ham fisted way you
went after it. And here we are back at the beginning...
Post by g***@googlemail.com
, I think you're a
Post by P.S.Burton
nice, fairly interesting fella with a chip on his shoulder
Ah; I see; complaints about the status quo are just chippy. You'll be
blackballed from the Social Democracy club if you keep that line up.
, liable to
Post by P.S.Burton
become a bit of a pub bore.
I don't do politics, race relations, diversity, religion or global
warming in pubs; I do banter, sex, writers, films comic fabulism,
horse racing and etc You wouldn't like me because I'm just not
flippant/sarky enough to be truly Age of Docherty.
That is my position, baldly stated, on you
Post by P.S.Burton
and your work. I cannot make it any simpler than that.
Pomposity AND condescension! Age of Docherty in excelsis.
What is the nature of your work in Law?
To quote Gatsby (you know how we common room intellectuals love a bit
of F. Scott) "that's my affair"
g***@googlemail.com
2008-03-14 22:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.S.Burton
Yeah, but this ISN'T worth doing is it?
Then why have you been doing it for so long?


I know it's no defence to say
Post by P.S.Burton
that "mine's not much good because I'm not really trying" but there it
is.
In my opinion, that last breezy bit of waffle reveals tremendous
vanity and duplicity in your nature.

Yes, all *is* vanity, but still, what a cuntish way of buffing your
nails and saying: Look, matey, I'm great and I've won this really - I
just can't be arsed to actually win it in reality, so I've won it in
my head and I'm telling you I've won it in my head and, hey, except
that because, like, I'm a <Blair voice> pretty straight kinda guy.

It would take a good few hours to nail down everything I object to
Post by P.S.Burton
about your arguments in a way that even you couldn't wilfully
misinterpret
A refutation of my position in plain English takes hours? Bollox! Let
me tell you why I THINK you can't be arsed: because 1) you're
intelligent enough to know that swallowing the party lib-left line on
issues x,y and z and aesthetic issues x, y and z is becoming
increasingly difficult; 2) you don't know what to believe anymore; 3)
the one belief you have left is that this loudmouth cunt on the Orwell
newsgroup cannot be right, no sir, anything but that.


,> and who wants that? No-one.
I wouldn't mind seeing you put down some plain argument in plain
English. Maybe you fear opposition...

Now and again on the net I enjoy a discussion.
Post by P.S.Burton
I think there probably is a good novel to be written about the cult of
pc but that definitely isn't it.
Since you have no idea of the plot or the nature of the rest of it -
and it all isn't like that one scene - you're writing cheques you
can't really honour again. You're showboating.


Brace yourself to get really
Post by P.S.Burton
irritated, but I think Ricky Gervais has lampooned PC far, far better
in the character of David Brent.
No, what Gervais has done is this, broadly speaking: making jokes very
un-PC things, usually disabled people, then simply wink at the
audience, as if to say 'heck, this is irony, we're all enlightened
liberals aren't we?'. It's a weak comedian's way of playing on a
public which is now as a neurotic about these issues as they once were
about sex. To an extent, that is what Little Britain does. It's all
quite rubbishy, but the BBC has decided that Gervais and his coterie
are comedy geniuses, and that's that. Outside of telly-tax land he's
at best mildly funny.
Post by P.S.Burton
Yeah yeah. Has it occurred to you that I might be on a wind up
sometimes too?
Obviously. But by answering you with full seriousness I can pin you up
against the wall and say, cumma nen, son, what do you *really* think,
and *that's* what you're avoiding. Because my guess is you don;t know
what you think about anything - except that I am wrong and my writing
is rubbish.


At the risk of spoiling it, quoting gervais above was
Post by P.S.Burton
one example of it. That was another. I could have gone further - I
toyed with the idea of telling you that I have been to university and
you haven't and so there's no point me arguing with you because you
don't know how to argue. That would have been a *beauty*
But of course it wouldn;t have been a beauty, because it's been done
so many times (and I would imagine that as a Amis junior-o-phile you
hate cliche) and would have been obvious. It would have been
serviceable for you because once again you could have obfuscated any
really argument (which you must at all costs, because you have no
arguments)

. Thing is, in
Post by P.S.Burton
print no-one can be sure how things are meant.
Rubbish. *Very* po-mo, Tommy boy... Certainly, some types of writing
lack a tone of voice, but you can overcome it to a great extent.

What was it old kingers
Post by P.S.Burton
said about never saying anything even in jest that some shit of a
journo can twist and use against you?
If he or you really believed that you'd never say anything again. And
anyway, if he belived that, why did he say that the best thing to do
in South Africa was to 'kill as many blacks as possible'?
Post by P.S.Burton
Post by g***@googlemail.com
You're not a writer manque?
Not really. I take a bit more care over my letters and emails than
most people and enjoy writing up bits and bobs that have happened to
me for other people to read, but I've never tried anything ambitious.
I have a feeling you will.
Post by P.S.Burton
It wasn't the idea, as edxplained above, it was the ham fisted way you
went after it.
One of the things I notice today, is how people think that by
rejecting broad comedy and insisting on great subtlety they are making
themselves appear sophisticated. I wanted that scene to be as wide and
unsubtle as that. I wanted it to be broad. But it strikes me that you,
like other people I know who've studied philosophy, never really
approve of anyone who hasn't studied philosophy to use it. It is a
form of snobism. It's a broad gag but not unintelligent. It's meant to
give an intelligent reader a laugh, because it tells a truth but is
absurdly funny in itself. People are also committed to social realism,
blindly so. Reality is not allowed to slip, to echo Orwell reviewing
Henry Miller, anymore. One way out of the malaise of British fiction
would be to be a little more audacious. The next Johnny Rotten on Bill
Grundy moment will come when someone tells Jonathan 18 million quid
Ross that saying the word fuck ten times on Friday night to get laughs
is the action of a completely talentless cunt. It will be a
reactionary statement, because they've decided that people like him
and his values are the way forward.
Post by P.S.Burton
And here we are back at the beginning...
You will always end up back at the beginning because you're not
prepared to argue your corner with any clarity; because, in truth, you
have no corner to argue. You're just having a pop and are too lazy to
back it up. Pathetic. I know you can do better.

Loading...