IX- Women in HD.

Penelope · Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:22 pm

Dear Robert (and Ophelia)

Robert, I hope you have seen the film from the play by Willie Russell - 'Educating Rita'.

I feel as though that is you and me in reverse....so to speak.

Being half-educated...I have missed out on the Greek Classics....

There is so much of value to know about them. But I can't just look it up on the internet....I need a tutor....help me..please.

All I can offer you (and Ophelia) in return, is my gratitude.

and honesty...I have a quaint Lancashire accent....and a desire for enlightenment.

Joke alert!!!! The difference between 'Wisdom' and 'Knowledge' - Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to include it in a fruit salad.

ginof · Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:47 pm


	Quote: Calling European women of the nineteenth century "oppressed" ignores the extent to which they were beneficiaries of imperial exploitation

Robert, i'd have to agree that my use of the word oppressed is out of sorts here. but you did capture the idea of what i meant. Given that our communication method is single mode (i.e. written) I'm going to have to choose my words more carefully. Perhaps I shouldn't write when I'm in a hurry!

:oops:

Ophelia · Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:15 pm

Penelope wrote:


	Quote: Dear Robert (and Ophelia) Robert, I hope you have seen the film from the play by Willie Russell - 'Educating Rita'. I feel as though that is you and me in reverse....so to speak. Being half-educated...I have missed out on the Greek Classics.... There is so much of value to know about them. But I can't just look it up on the internet....I need a tutor....help me..please. All I can offer you (and Ophelia) in return, is my gratitude

Penelope,

I confess to knowing absolutely nothing about the Classics in Greek or in Latin!

(OK, I remember that we read extracts from The Iliad and The Odyssey in class when I was 12, but that's it.)
It's a funny thing, because as far as studying literature in English I find this has been far less of an obstacle than lack of knowledge of the Bible.
So of course I greatly admire those who do know about these subjects.

I have seen "Educating Rita" though.
It was fun, and well-made.

Penelope · Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:30 pm

Well, Ophelia - The Bible is not just a book and I think it definitely adds up to more than the sum of its parts.

It is a collection of books - and the binding together of which seems to have been somewhat arbitrary.....in view of all the conflict it has caused.

However, I have studied the Bible over many years......albeit in my own individual way. I do know quite a lot of what it says. Although I can't quote Chapter and verse. So when I know of a verse or two - I have to go and consult my old copy of 'Cruden's Concordence' - to find where it states certain thoughts. However over the years I have memorised lots of verses.....especially from the New Testament. The King James Version is in Elizabethan English and so is like poetry and so, is easier to memorise. It does help to know what it says.....if you are trying to have a discussion with a fundamentalist Christian. Wonderfully, it also helps if you are having a conversation with a Christian who speaks a different language because if they know their Bible, you can just say - e.g. John Chpter 1 -Verse 1. And they can go and look it up in their own language - that is pretty remarkable isn't it?

But it is more than that....the words, the ideas and the philosophy latch themselves into your mind.....and that can be very helpful, I have found in solving many of life's problems. Because basically, that is what the Bible is for me......people facing conflict.....and finding solace in the fact that others have been there many years before them.

Some people, in this day and age....in their fear.....treat the Bible as though it is God. It is not God....it is just a collection of books.

I also read the Upanishads (Hindu) - but they are not so widely known. Nor are they so useful in comunicating with people who speak a different language because they don't number the verses and chapters.

It is a good, though disturbing, read.....and many parts are very, very, very, boring....

Love Px

George Ricker · Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:25 pm

Robert Tulip wrote:


	George Ricker wrote: Conrad seems most interested in telling tales of men and ships.

I don't agree

Robert Tulip · Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:03 pm

George Ricker wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:


	George Ricker wrote: Conrad seems most interested in telling tales of men and ships.

I don't agree

George Ricker · Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:21 am

Robert Tulip wrote: There is a big difference between 'men and ships' being the subject and the stage for a novel. For Heart of Darkness they are just the stage.

Of course, there is. When an author like Conrad or Melville writes about men and ships, those things are, as you say, the setting. They are rarely the subject. I didn't say they were. You did. Or, you said, that was implied in a comment that was one line in a discussion about why the women characters in Heart of Darkness, which is either a long short story or a novella but hardly a novel, seem "sketchy." If you want to keep belaboring this, go right ahead. I won't waste any more time on it.

What is 'mileage'?

The phrase, "your mileage may vary," simply indicates folks have different opinions about things. I use it now and then. Sorry if it caused any confusion.

George

Penelope · Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:27 pm

Please Miss, George Ricker said, to Robert Tulip:-

If you want to spin that into labeling him a "shallow action author," that's your privilege, but it's your inference, not my implication.

George - you are a little older than me.......so I like you.

But I do think you are being a bit deliberately grumpy with Robert here, because Robert explained to me very graciously about the meaning of the three women at the beginning of the book and gave me the Greek Mythic philosophy behind it......when I knew there was something there...but didn't know what was missing..... I don't think we can accuse Robert of dubbing Conrad a 'shallow action author'.

There is nothing shallow about Conrad....even I know that....the book is about men and ships....as a background....it is also about male psychology - because Conrad was a man - how could he do otherwise?

I notice that I quite often address questions - by saying.....'Well I think'.. or 'Well, I feel'.... or 'This happened to me'.....giving an interminable anecdote.... and I feel embarrassed because people must think that I am totally self-absorbed.....but I do not know any other way of measuring, balancing other peoples' experiences, than by comparing them with my own......I don't know how it feels to be some one else......so in my way, I am telling the truth. Conrad....was writing about what he knew about, which I believe is the best way to do it. Don't you think?

WildCityWoman · Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:37 am

George Ricker said . . .

Conrad's portrayal of the women in Heart of Darkness is sketchy at best. When he says anything at all, he seems to reflect the chauvinistic attitudes that were probably fairly typical for the time and place.

Yep - I agree with that - I personally think Hemingway is chauvinistic - although women are much included in his stories, he assumes he knows a lot about them - but he doesn't.

About the length of the story - there isn't much room to put any more characters anyway - I have a problem with writing short stories because of that - I get so many people going in my stories, there isn't room for them.

I don't write novels and doubt that I could - so if I want to get short stories published, I have to watch I don't bring a lot of people into them.

WildCityWoman · Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:43 am


	ginof wrote: i think george and wild city woman said it best. it would have distracted from the story. The idea of a woman on such and adventure during this period of history doesn't sound plausible. Also, a woman would have been the wrong character to play someone so clueless about the true nature of kurtz

I don't think Kurtz's fiance would have known him in the same way that the men involved in the story would have.

It wasn't the kind of thing a fella' would have discussed with a woman in those days anyway - women (most women) wouldn't have been that interested.

This book isn't in danger of being labelled as 'chic lit'.

;-)

Ophelia · Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:51 am

Ginof wrote:


	Quote: Also, a woman would have been the wrong character to play someone so clueless about the true nature of kurtz.

I had missed this line by ginof.

WildCityWoman · Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:51 am


	Penelope wrote: ginof said:- The idea of a woman on such and adventure during this period of history doesn't sound plausible. Also, a woman would have been the wrong character to play someone so clueless about the true nature of kurtz Yet at this period of history - there was Florence Nightingale and Elizabeth Fry - working against inhumanity to man......because...(not in spite of)....the fact that they were women.

Yeah, but there were very few women around who were like 'Nightengale' and 'Fry'.

Most women, in those days, were coveted by their fathers/brothers/husbands - they weren't 'allowed' to go running off to places dark and deep.

There were a few adventurous women, of course . . . in fiction and in real life - but they didn't make up the 'majority' of women.

If women went to war, it was as 'nurses' or somebody's 'secretary'.

Today, the girls march out to war . . . right or wrong? I dunno' . . . after the 911 hit, I was so angry I wished I could go join up with some army, get a gun, sling it over my shoulder and join the 'war'.

The only thing is, I don't know if I could actually shoot somebody . . . unless somebody was hurting somebody else - like my daughter, my granddaughter - my husband - one of my own - I might shoot somebody, I dunno'.

As much as I say that - that it made me feel like 'going to war', my basic opinion is that 'women shouldn't be there'.

Not because we're weak - no; I don't think that at all - some women are brilliant fighters - I've seen women kick the itshay outta' men a foot taller than them - but because we are women - we are different than men and there's nothing wrong with that.

And I don't think that men should be sent off to war as young as they are -I think a man oughta' have a few years on him and a lot of training before he's sent off to fight these wars.

Maybe if people were trained better in the art of communication we wouldn't have to go to war at all.

That would be nice.

I'm rambling . . . sorry.

WildCityWoman · Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:15 am


	Penelope wrote: I do see what you mean, but do you remember the two women at the very beginning of book. At the offices where he went to be designated his ship? One was knitting if I remember correctly. What were they about? Can anyone enlighten me? I feel as though I missed something there.......

I think they were Marlowe's aunts.

(Or Kurtz's aunts? Dunno')

WildCityWoman · Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:17 am


	Penelope wrote: Please miss, Robert said:- Moirae: Clotho spun the thread of life from her distaff onto her spindle; Lachesis measured the thread of life with her rod; Atropos was the cutter of the thread of life. Ooooh Thank you Robert - for that explanation. How fabulous!!! I am going back to read it all again. I am so glad you are joining in this discussion.....don't go away will you!!

Oh . . . ok - so I'm wrong about the 'aunts'. But there were two aunts in this story? Or one . . . I'm just vaguely recalling now - been a couple of weeks since I looked at it.

WildCityWoman · Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:24 am

Penelope said . . .

Some people, in this day and age....in their fear.....treat the Bible as though it is God. It is not God....it is just a collection of books.

Unquote

I liked that . . . very good explanation of The Bible.

It was written by 'man' - other than is depicted in The Ten Commandments, God didn't write it himself - it was inspired by God, God's prophets and written by man.

Forum rules

IX- Women in HD. Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!