HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: "Ex" Catholics (was Re: 92 in rabreview)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:49:36 GMT
Organization: Austerlitz, Gershovitz, and Carmichael

Mary Loveless writes:
>
>Two burning questions to all De-Frocked RCr.a.b.ble
>
>1) Explain to me, if you can, why I learned most of my sacrilegious songs
>from practicing Catholics. 

Few practicing Catholics are long on piety so blasphemy among the 
lapsed is neither particularly startling or disturbing. Blasphemy
is, after all, a form of belief. 

After a life time of the affliction of laughing at the worst moments,
I recently learned that there's a name for it "Church laughter." With the
RCs of my familiarity it is a sort of art form: laughing (in the old
days) during sermons, in queue for the confessional, at funerals of
anyone, particularly those closest to you. My worst attack came in
my seminary days. We had been stumped for days trying to remember the
name of Topper's dog. Our concentration passed for solemnity so I'm
sure the reverend fathers assumed that some outbreak of grace was
imminent. It came to a head during lunch one day in Lent when meals
was eaten in silence, during which we were treated to a reading from
the book of saints and martyrs. A book of squamous platitudes and
formulae. The reader had just droned on about some saint and finished
up with something like "our Lord and Saviour, at whose name each
knee should kneel" when one of our crowd blurted out "Neal!" [i.e. the
name of Topper's dog] Our mysterious fits of laughter went unexplained, 
of course, with pious Fr. White clanging us down from the high table
like he was calling out the fire brigade.

I've always felt that transubstantiation was the core of Catholic
carnality. Sacred cannibalism, as such, doesn't leave much room
for squeamishness about the body. Couple that with the Catholic
practice of affixing a battered Christ to its crucifixes rather than
a Protestant simple cross and the Catholic child's imagination is fed
regularly with that knowledge of flesh's corruptibilty without which
scatology is just bad manners. The Miller's Tale might be the
English equivalent of The Song of Songs. 
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> One never knows, do one?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Paglia (was: Cross-Writing)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 12 JAN 93 04:57:31 GMT

I wrote: 

> The fact is, men rape, and women are in danger. 

Mark Taranto writes:

>I find the generality of this statement offensive. 

Then you're an asshole.

Nothing personal, of course, Mark.  I *like* you.  But I have the 12-step
plan to consider.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mgrimes@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael Grimes)
Subject: Re: Reading as an addiction
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <1993Jan4.184825.7668@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:07:03 GMT

 I'm adding a few more FAQs to my original post:

1: Do you read in the bathroom?  The throne or the bathtub?  The bathtub is a 
great, relaxing place to read. You have to master the art of turning on more 
hot water using your foot.

2: Do you read in restaurants or on buses or other public places?

3: If you see someone reading a book in a public place (beach, bus, 
restaurant,etc) do you try to see what they are reading?  Yes, I do and
"judge" that person accordingly ;-) !!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Paglia
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:18:06 GMT

By the way, the latest Spy magazine (with Hillary Clinton in black leather
dominatrix outfit on the cover) has Paglia's first advice column in it.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Homophobia
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:48:48 GMT

In article <1in1kkINNjb@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>This thread might
>become more interesting by referencing a book *Faces at the Bottom of
>the Well* (?) by Derek (?), an ex-Law Professor from Harvard who has
>managed to inject some interesting and novel arguments into the general
>discussion of the past, present, and future place of Blacks in America.

Derrick Bell, I think. Not to be confused with Derek Bok, former president
of Harvard.

--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 04:28:58 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Mike Godwin writes:

	Perhaps so, but while these data would be interesting, it 
	seems to me they wouldn't directly address the issue we've 
	raised in this thread: namely, whether "people are more 
	demanding of a female writer writing from a male point of 
	view."  

I suppose there are many who share my view that Jane Austen is the
type novelist par excellence. And yet, her men are totally absurd
creatures. Do we care? No, not at all. Likewise, the Shagger Pagger
wins no prizes for his women qua women. Contrariwise, two of my
favorites, Somerville & Ross and E.F.Benson -- minor luminaries by
most scores -- were superb creators of other-sex characters. All of
which seems to prove there is no point to make. The thread is unravelled.
help. HH to the rescue!

						RABworm
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:23873 sci.environment:14278
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Education and the Environment by Gregory A. Smith
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:18:28 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec31.175658.12913@samba.oit.unc.edu>, joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields) writes:
# Clayton Cramer writes about an experience he had in a class:
# 
# #The professor is a Marxist, and attempted to per-
# #suade the class that the First Amendment includes the right of the
# #government to regulate the contents of news broadcasts, control what
# #sort of advertising can be refused, and what sort must be refused,
# #etc. -- the entire liberal agenda, in brief.
# 
# Bad professors are everywhere, Clayton, they're both conservative as well
# as liberal (btw, what does this word really mean?  I've seen it bounced

I've never had a conservative professor (at least, that I was aware
of.)  I've had professors who might be conservatives, but they didn't
express their politics in the classroom in any manner, so I couldn't
tell.  On the other hand, liberal professors let you know it -- again
and again.  Why?

# around a lot in the past 10 years and it seems to mean everything and
# nothing).  I've run into some pretty strange ones myself preaching a
# similar agenda who claimed to be conservative right-wingers.

There ARE conservative right-winger professors?  They would frustrate
me also, but at least there would be more than one wing of the academic
community.

# #Fortunately, there
# #were enough self-described conservatives in the class who cherish
# #free speech -- unlike liberals.
# 
# Aw, come on, Clayton!  If you're so godamned shit hot why do you insist on
# using such sweeping generalizations when you know as well as the rest of
# us they don't mean anything?  You don't want to be lumped into a mass

I think the fact that I pointed out that "self-described conservatives"
are the ones that cherish free speech, and the left end of the spectrum
supports restrictions on free speech, and that I quite self-consciously
described these conservatives as "self-described" shows that I realize
full well how false the sweeping generalizations are with respect to
free speech.

# stereotype so why do you insist on doing it to others?  Besides, you only
# do it to annoy people so they'll ignore the body of your post and
# concentrate on the "fighting words" you pepper it with.  Personally, this
# confuses me since I've seen you write some pretty well-thought out posts.

Why, thank you.

# Joan


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: "Jeeves and Wooster"
Date: 5 Jan 1993 13:44:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Keith Morgan writes:

	Tom Maddox writes:

		Also, on an almost unrelated note:  the Guthrie/Fry 
		"Jeeves and Wooster" series on PBS is half done (2 
		out of 4), and I for one love it-- also, would be 
		interested to hear how other r.a.b.ble Wodehouse 
		fanciers respond.

	I am also loving every looney minute of it. The second
	episode was absolutely priceless with Bertie and Gussie 
	Fink-Nottle changing places. The scene where Bertie tries 
	to tell a joke to the assembled aunts was hilarious. Fry 
	and Laurie have brought Jeeves and Wooster to life. 

The new series is truly phantasmic, and the second episode was the best
yet. I particularly enjoyed Bertie's sheer terror at the thought of
getting involved again with Madeleine Bassett (?), Gussie's afianced
one, who believes that "Stars are God's Daisy-Chain, and every time
an Angel blows its nose a Baby is Born." The Thirties detail is also
startlingly accurate, which is a nice feature for those of us who
have remembered ties to the English past. Production values are also
quite superb; there's a wide-angle lens look to the thing as Plum peers
around his creations.

					The Plum-crazed RABworm
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Reading as an addiction
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:00:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1993Jan4.212446.12465@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> callahan@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan) writes:

>Besides that, there may be more personal reasons.  I remember a woman I once
>liked.  She said she liked me too, but when she would visit after a long
>absence, the most banal reading material would draw her attention away from 
>conversation with *me*.  I didn't understand.  The magazine would be there 
>whenever she needed it, but I would be gone from her life in a day or so 
>(pardon me for sounding like Jesus Christ).  To me, a book is a less than 
>satisfying one-way conversation I put up with when a real one isn't feasible.  

For the most part, I concur with this.  But I know I also use reading as a
way to draw back and regroup sometimes.  While at the family home over the
holidays, I found myself pretty frequently turning to banal reading
material (interspersed with VANITY FAIR -- the book, not the rag), often
the more banal the better.  I scoured "Interior Homes" magazine, "Reader's
Digest," even Lands' End catalogs.  I think it was my way of dealing with
the added stress and enforced togetherness ... not to mention the
ever-present football games.  

I'm also a read-before-I-sleep-er.  Every night I take 10-15 minutes and
read in bed; it's how I unwind.  (Yes, Meg, Wodehouse works real well here.)
My fiance finds this remarkable and has insinuated that this may be a bit
difficult for him to take; I think he sees it as shutting him out.  (To
his credit, he's also trying to get into the habit himself.)  To a degree,
he's right; it's my way of shutting everyone and everything out so that I
can unwind enough to sleep.  But hey, I'm open to new methods.  A warm
glass of milk and a cuddle, perhaps?



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com (Joel Hanes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:21:18 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@diag.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation  Sunnyvale California


  hoosiers@carson.u.washington.edu (Mary Loveless) writes:
>
>Have any of the men read the 4th book in the Earthsea series?

Yes

>  This is
> where the Wizard loses his powers and must, at age 50 or so, undergo
> adolescence. ...
>  At any rate, the character
> seemed real enough, and *I* could identify with him, but would a man?

I did.

--
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 5 JAN 93 23:05:21 GMT

Fido writes:

>Heather Henderson writes: 
>  
>    In the essay I quoted in my original posting, Joyce Carol 
>    Oates discusses the situation faced by women who are writers. 
>    To summarize what she says: while male writers are viewed 
>    simply as "writers", women writers can never escape being 
>    tagged with their gender. 
>   
>I could not believe this post the first time through, and then I realized  
>Joyce Carol Oates and Heather Henderson must be limiting their discussion 
>to the situation in America, because it just is not true in England. 

I don't think there's much of a difference, really, between the way women
writers are perceived in America and in England; but I'm willing to be proved
wrong.

>HH seems to recognize this in that the women writers (albeit genre writers
>for the most part) she mentions as able to "write like men" were, for the  
>most, English. 

Hey, Fido, I didn't say any of them could "write like men"; I would never say
a woman "writes like a man", nor would I say a man "writes like a woman". 
What a stupid idea.  Like *which* man?  Like *which* woman?  I don't think
all male writers have similar characteristics, nor do I think all female
writers have similar characteristics.

Pur-LEEZE, get it straight.

And two out of three of the non-genre women writers I mentioned were American
(Cather and O'Connor).  

>Also, the genre classification as a kind of mark of second-class status may
>hold good in the States, but certainly does not in the UK, where the quality
>of writing is judged quite independently of the subject matter.  

Do they teach Wodehouse and Benson in literature courses at Oxford?

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: What to Teach Your Children (Was Re:  Homophobia )( Was Re: Homeschooling (spp's response to multiple) posts)
Followup-To: rec.arts.books
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:10:20 GMT
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1993Jan10.161933.15358@lunatix.uucp>, lmollett@lunatix.uucp
(Laura Mollett) wrote:
> Actually, I would 
> probably attempt to homeschool my own (as others here wish to do) and
> considered it, however I _am_ a liberal, and honestly believe all children
> should have the same right to a good education.  I attempt to change the
> system, wherever my voice has any weight, and feel that change should
> really come from within the system...thus I don't choose to remove my
> children from it.

But you are sacrificing your own children's education for the "benefit" of
others.  I put benefit in quotes above because the small amount of good
that you can presumably accomplish by keeping your kids in school (if any
at all) is far outweighted by the great good you could do your children by
homeschooling them.  

Even if I were to buy this keeping your kids in school improves the school
system argument (and I don't), it would not stop me from homeschooling.

--John L. Scott
From: rhogan@aludra.usc.edu (Ron Hogan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: ah, sweet serendipity of life
Date: 6 Jan 1993 10:38:11 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu


I was flying back to Los Angeles from Boston after a quiet,
mostly relaxful holiday/term break-- more on which in another
post-- and killing time in the Logan Aiport when I decided to
see if they had any interesting magazines I hadn't read and
might want to pick up.

They didn't, but they did have a hardcover copy of Ronald
Reagan's autobiography for only $3.99.  Well, although I am
primarily a film student, I do have an interest in American
history, and have been fascinated by the Iran-Contra thing since
it broke when I was in high school, so I picked it up.

Plus, hey-- it was on sale.

The flight was a drag, except for reading Martin Amis' _The_Rachel_
_Papers_ in its entirety-- fabulous book from one of the best writers
of his generation, not to be too generalizing ;)

Anyway, back in Los Angeles, I end up going to the Beverly Center that
night, and walking into the Gallery of History, a small store which
sells historical autographs: everyone from Napoleon to Emperor Norton.

BTW, Tom Maddox, you might tell Bruce Sterling or William Gibson that,
if they are the least bit interested, they can get one of Charles
Babbage's letters for only $1,999.

The manager recommended a book-- _Nuts_and_Bolts_of_the_Past_,
by David Freeman Hawke, which was on sale for $4.98 at Bookstar,
which is across the street from the Beverly Center on La Brea.

They also had a hardcover copy of Lou Cannon's biography of
Ronald Reagan for $4.98.  Which, of course, I also had to get.
I mean, tow books on Reagam, remaindered in two bookstores on
opposite sides of the country, in the same day?

If one believed in such things, one might take it for a sign.

Ron Hogan
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Cross-Writing (was: Books I Got For Xmas)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 22:15:51 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Heather Henderson writes:

	In the essay I quoted in my original posting, Joyce Carol
	Oates discusses the situation faced by women who are writers.
	To summarize what she says: while male writers are viewed
	simply as "writers", women writers can never escape being
	tagged with their gender.

	&c., &c.

I could not believe this post the first time through, and then I realized 
Joyce Carol Oates and Heather Henderson must be limiting their discussion
to the situation in America, because it just is not true in England. HH 
seems to recognize this in that the women writers (albeit genre writers 
for the most part) she mentions as able to "write like men" were, for the 
most, English. The truth of the matter is that there is a tradition of 
"strong" women writers in Britain that started, I guess, with Jane Austen 
and has carried on ever since. Also, the genre classification as a kind of
mark of second-class status may hold good in the States, but certainly does
not in the UK, where the quality of writing is judged quite independently
of the subject matter. 

					Grrr from Fido
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: nunn@sura.net (Deborah Nunn)
Subject: Re: Mangled Song Lyrics
Organization: SURAnet, College Park, MD, USA, NA, Earth, Milky Way
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:52:56 GMT

In article <1i55h2INNml2@morrow.stanford.edu> GE.SPM@forsythe.stanford.edu (Suzanne Mills) writes:

>My favorite was the little boy who heard the Bob Dylan song as:
>
>   The ants are my friends, they're blowing in the wind,
>   The ants are blowing in the wind.
>
>
Oh, that's a good one.  After having read many of these (very amusing)
misheard lyrics, I have plucked up the courage to admit to one of my
own.  I don't know who it's sung by, but:

What I heard:				What he said

I'm not talking 'bout your linen	I'm not talking 'bout movin' in
and I don't want to change your line	and I don't wanna change your life

(Blush!)  When my sister heard me singing that, she burst out laughing,
then had to admmit that my lyrics really did fit in with the music.

Deb Nunn
nunn@sura.net

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: nickles@sage.cc.purdue.edu (John A. Nickles)
Subject: Re: Paul Johnson (was Paglia)
Summary: The Light Dawns
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:21:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.202522.29017@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.164724.562@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall) writes:
>
>>3) I think Johnson is responding more to the cult of personality
>>that "left" intellectuals have.
>
>Yeah, I'm a charter member of the Victor Gollancz cult.


For years, I had been bewildered and annoyed by a line in Edmund Crispin's
THE MOVING TOYSHOP. Gervase Fen is attempting to find a kidnapped witness.
He is in a truck being driven by a D.H. Lawrence fan. They come to a crossroad
Fen says: "Let's go left. Gollancz is publishing this book."  I didn't have the
foggiest idea what that meant. Now I know. This illustrates the principle that
biographical detail is needed to truly understand a writer. 

John A. Nickles 
Standard Disclaimer: Purdue has their opinions, I have mine.
"Fen steps in. A Don Dares Death (A Gervase Fen Mystery) Blood on the Motarboard"What are you doing?"
"Making up titles for Crispin"
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Meaning shifts (was Re: academic settings)
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:44:43 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Followup-To: alt.usage.english
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

dlatane@hibbs.vcu.edu (David E. Latane) wrote:
> With regard to when the practice of 'fagging' was given up in British
> public schools, obviously it was long after Dr. Arnold's time, if
> ever!  My guess would be post WW II...

My guess would be around WW2 as well.  I don't think it still persists.

But, what meaning shift?  Is somebody under the impression that the US
meanings of "fag" or "faggot" are current in any dialect of British English?
They aren't - most British people know the US sense from American TV shows,
but they know "vin" is French for wine from the labels, too - they wouldn't
ever use either themselves.

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mtaranto@panix.com (Mark Taranto)
Subject: SHAMELA (was Re: Women Writers (was: Cross-Writing)
Organization: The Inner Clique
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:49:53 GMT


rcrowley@donne.zso.dec.com (Rebecca Crowley) writes:

> Diane Olsen (olsen@Csli.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

>: P.S. -- Speaking of cross-writing, I'm nearly finished Richardson's 
>: _Pamela_.  Does anyone else find the plot in this book just a little,
>: uh, implausible?

> Heh.  Didn't Henry Fielding spoof this one?  _Shamela_, I think,
> but I have no proof to hand. 

I have the proof.  Somehow I ended up with copies of PAMELA and SHAMELA
when my first marriage ended.  SHAMELA is about 40 pages long, and is 
included in the Houghton Mifflin Riverside Edition of Fielding's JOSEPH 
ANDREWS.  In the introduction, Martin C. Battestin writes:

	. . . arising from the conflicting temperments and
	literary motives of two very different men, Samuel 
	Richardson and Henry Fielding.  It could hardly be 
	called a marriage, but from the rude and often hilarious 
	conjunction of Richardson's feminine sensibilities
	and Fielding's robust masculinity, the modern novel
	was born.  Richardson's PAMELA began it all.  Reaching
	the bookstalls in November 1740, it enjoyed almost 
	immediately a popularity so vast and vociferous that 
	Fielding, who despised the book, could describe the 
	commotion only as an "epidemical phrenzy" that needed
	to be checked and cured.  In his brilliant parody, SHAMELA
	(April 1741), he set about the destructive task of exposing,
	uproariously, the absurdities of Richardson's work.  In
	JOSEPH ANDREWS (February 1742) he offered his own alternative
	conception of the art and purpose of the novel.



Mark