Topic started by Saketh on Mon Aug 30 17:11:04 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

What do you think of British Humour?
Partiularly the funny world of Wodehouse and his characters?

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Ramji (@ 205.177.170.111) on: Fri Dec 8 11:29:55 EST 2000
  
  Ravi:
  
  Yes, that was Wembley.
  
  Did "Lord Ikenham" ring a bell?
  
  One non- PGW. Forgive the related digression:
  
  Her name was Virginia. She was called Virgin for short but she was not a virgin for long.
  
  ( This is from the days when the author could write such things and get away without being branded a sexist )
  
  
• From: ravi sundaram (@ 192.149.1.187) on: Fri Dec 8 12:41:40 EST 2000
  
  Could be Lord Ikenham. But I dont remember
  the name well enough.
  
  A quick search in google turned up
  
  http://www.eclipse.co.uk/wodehouse/
  
  Try the quiz page.
  
  --Jams, Jellies and Potted Preserved---#0004
  The guy mentioned in #0003 works in the dept store
  as the shop assistant in the Jams, Jellies and Potted preserves section and he confides in
  Lady Schoonmacker, "The roumour has it that soon I'll be promoted to the Hats, Kerchiefs and Walking sticks section and everyone knows from there promotion to something, something and Ladies Undergarments is just around the corner".
  Everytime I catch an episode of "Are you Being Served" I am reminded of this guy.
  --------End of #0004
  
  
• From: ravi sundaram (@ 192.149.1.187) on: Fri Dec 8 12:45:49 EST 2000
  
  In the eclipse website about PGW
  some more info regarding #0001
  
  1. At what time on Friday, July 1, did Freddie Threepwood stipulate that somebody wearing a pink chrysanthemum should meet him in the lobby of the
  Piccadilly Palace Hotel,?
  At noon, twelve sharp. "Leave it to Psmith", chapter 6 ("Lord Emsworth meets a Poet"), section 1. As Freddie didn't know what the somebody (Psmith, as it
  turned out) looked like, nor what a chrysanthemum looked like, nor how much Psmith prattled on, and hadn't allowed for the fact that he had promised to catch
  the twelve-fifty from Paddington, the meeting ended in undignified haste.
  ----------------
  
  
• From: Vishvesh Obla (@ dsl-20-141-214.boston.navipath.net) on: Mon Dec 11 08:51:12 EST 2000
  
  British humour, hmmm! I have always thought Wodehouse had the 'bestseller' kind of humour. You would make yourself a crackpot laughing loudly while reading his works. He was a master in laughing at the absurdities of the human mind, particularly of the English Upper class.
  
  He would certainly be a favorite writer of anyone who can appreciate good English and above all humor. I was very much impressed by his PSmith series (I won’t forget to put the ‘P’ before the name and do gross injustice to the humor that was generated behind the name; ‘Leave it to Psmith’ was my favorite book among his works); no one who reads him can forget the lazy but lovable lords of English aristocracy with their interest in weird things like pig breeding (I can’t forget Blandings castle and Lord Emsworth and his terrorizing sister or cousin), the young, spoiled but again lovable brats of the English Aristocracy, and above all the impeccable butler, Jeeves, who could come out with solutions for all these lovable idiots.
  
  But then, I wouldn’t place him in the lines of Charles Di*kens and Oscar Wilde for his humor; he was certainly a good writer and had a good sense of English language too but he wasn’t any kind of ‘literary’ personality, for his humour, as it appeared to me, didn't have a content ; he was more of a ‘best seller’ kind of writer, but any way he was so enjoyable to read.
  
  
• From: ravi sundaram (@ 192.149.1.187) on: Mon Dec 11 14:16:57 EST 2000
  
  Come on Vish, you seem to consider being a "best seller" somehow lessens one's literary abilities. Such a line of thinking would be considered elitist. PGW made fun of such "I am better than the masses" attitudes.
  
  But I know you are a good guy at the core and can be salvaged ;-) after all you laughed out aloud in public places reading PGW.
  
  ---------------Vice Presidents in USA---#0005
  Freddie Threepwood, son of Lord Emsworth, the ninth Earl of Emsworth marries the daughter of the owner of Donaldson's Dog-Joy dog biscuits company and goes off to USA. Then he returns as the Vice President of Sales and tries to get the accout of
  Sir Gregory Parsloe-Parsloe. Someone asks him, "So you are the Vice President, eh? mm. It pays to marry into the family in America, looks like, old chap". Freddie replies, "Everyone over there starts as the vice president. If I do a really good job I might be promoted to the level of assistant saleman".
  -------------End of #0005
  
  
• From: Saketh@Binghamton (@ bing53.net107.binghamton.edu) on: Wed Jan 24 15:01:45
  
  Vishvesh:
  "I wouldn’t place him in the lines of Charles Di*kens and Oscar Wilde for his humor."
  
  PGW is a class on his own. Di*kens, for the most part, presented life in its real form, esp. the uglier side. However, I see PGW in Di*kens' works such as 'Pickwick Papers' & 'Hard Times'. Sure, PGW came 50 years later, but I feel PGW carried that 'spirit' of Di*kens through all his works.
  
  What is the literary worth of humor anyway? Humor should be brief, spontaneous and crackingly funny. That is what PGW's works are all about. Objective humor borders on pessimism and indifference and as you said they are not popular. They are sought after by literature students or highly academic readers.
  I can agree that PGW was a bestseller sort of writer. But to say that his humor does not have literary worth is injustice.
  
  
• From: Vishvesh Obla (@ unknown-24-9.pilot.net) on: Fri Jan 26 10:01:58
  
  The question of looking for any ‘literary’ merit in a writer is a question of standards one develops in one’s acquaintance with works of different kinds. This distinction never exists in a society in which there is a possibility of a kind of homogenous context of taste and response. In our age, anything passes on as the best by the popularity it generates, our lack of any standards of judgement and so many other factors. When you look into the works of Woodhouse along with the works of Di*kens or even with the works of a minor writer like Gogol, and if you have developed some ‘standards of judgement’ , you would find the glaring difference in the quality of humor that is generated. A book, if it is to be of any value, has to have some purpose apart from just making people laughing ; it should make you an altered person after reading it by affecting your sensibility and your way of looking at life. The humor that is generated by Di*kens always has the content of a related reality, while Woodhouse just laughs at certain imagined quirks. While Di*kens uses humor as an emphasis and coloring to a subtler understanding of an issue, Woodhouse just feels happy to be light-hearted by just a loud laugh on pseudo-issues. In a way, it tends to lead one away from the realities and be an escapist. Not to say that Di*kens’ humor is always tragic. I have laughed even louder while reading the works of Di*kens. But then as I said it has a ‘content’ most of the times, and relates to an inward understanding of a related issue than just make you laugh and stop at that. I have read “Hard Times” and I still remember the liveliness of Sissy Jupe and her father, who tends horse, if I remember it right and has a funny ‘nasal’ accent. I still remember the pathos behind his humor which is subtly related to the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution in England demolishing the simpler ways of living which existed till then.
  
  
• From: Saketh@Binghamton (@ bing243.net108.binghamton.edu) on: Sun Feb 4 17:08:21
  
  Vishvesh:
  "A book, if it is to be of any value, has to have some purpose apart from just making people laughing"
  You hit the nail right on its head. I do not go to PGW for hidden messages in his prose. In PGW's own words, his works are a sort of 'musical comedy' without the music. Humor, this is strictly IMHO, should be as unreal as possible and if it is tied in with some daily occurence it just makes me sad and pessimistic.
  Sure PGW is unreal, Di*kens is just too real.
  
  
  
• From: Nagarajan (@ dkf-gw.dkf.de) on: Mon Feb 5 07:47:29
  
  I found "Three men in a boat" to be very
  humorous. Much better than the very dilute
  humour in PGW's works.
  
  
• From: ravi sundaram (@ 192.149.1.187) on: Mon Feb 5 08:37:39
  
  Three men in a boat was written by Jerome K Jerome. A very good humorist who has written many short pieces. "Uncle Roger hangs a picture", "Uncle Roger goes on vacation" etc come to my mind. I read them xlated in tamil, so the title might be slightly different.
  
  PGW finds humor in a complete fantasy land filled with lords and butlers and the boy who cleans knives and boots. JKJ finds humor in mundane day to day occurances of the middleclass families.
  
  
• From: Nagarajan (@ dkf-gw.dkf.de) on: Mon Feb 5 09:21:15
  
  Recently I read "Three men on a Bummel". This
  was written before the First World War. The book
  is about Jerome and his two friends' cycle trip
  through Germany. Many of his observations are
  true even now.
  
  It is the Genius of some people that they can
  make ordinary day-to-day life appear humourous.
  
  
• From: Ramji (@ 205.177.170.135) on: Thu Feb 8 09:10:54
  
  With due respect to Visvesh's width of literary knowledge, I want to give my 2 cents worth of dissent.
  
  >>>>A book, if it is to be of any value, has to have some purpose apart from just making people laughing ;it should make you an altered person after reading it by affecting your sensibility and your way of looking at life.<<<<<<
  
  First, I do not think that a book should have a purpose. Purpose normally relates to some part ( NOT the whole) of life- like an issue,a problem,a malady. When we sit on a beach and watch the sunset, there is no purpose but that experience sometimes affects us in ways intangible. And it is not an escape from the issues of life.
  
  Reading PGW always gave me such an enriching experience. Did it affect my sensibilty and way of lokking at life? Ofcourse yes.
  
  Gandhi said " If I did not have a sense of humor, I would have committed suicide long ago."
  
  
  
• From: Nagarajan (@ dkf-gw.dkf.de) on: Thu Feb 8 11:36:15
  
  "When we sit on a beach and watch the sunset, there is no purpose but that experience sometimes affects us in ways intangible"
  
  Beautiful!
  
  
• From: Vishvesh Obla (@ unknown-24-9.pilot.net) on: Fri Feb 9 15:33:46
  
  By the bye, did I ever say that Woodhouse doesn’t have any sense of humor or that we should always be serious in our attitude to life ? But isn’t it true that there could be various levels of getting affected in one’s sensibility ? Take for instance, a crude example of the cacophony that is called music today. It could affect (and does affect) in so many intangible ways, any human being who could be justified too in his response to it. If that is so, why did we develop something higher like Classical Music? It is all a question of making value judgements as one evolves in one’s attitude towards the various dimensions of life and a development of one’s sensibility that makes the difference between a writer like Woodhouse and a greater writer like Di*kens.
  
  
• From: Ramji (@ 205.177.170.109) on: Mon Feb 12 09:36:54
  
  Visvesh:
  
  "Great and Greater" are in my opinion not absolute as nothingelse in life is. As we seem to differ on this basic premise, I don't see any point in arguing further.
  
  Let us agree to disagree.
  
  
• From: Vishvesh Obla (@ 1cust187.tnt6.albany.ny.da.uu.net) on: Mon Feb 12 21:16:47
  
  
  I wasn't arguing with you either. I was just ruminating myself on the difference between two writers of different significance to me. I was just reading Robin Mayhead's "Understanding Literature", when this passage struck me. I thought I could just share it here (not for argument's sake, Pal, but for an appreciation of the fine thought content I found in it).
  
  “Literature is to be enjoyed. It DOES make for relaxation ; it DOES bring distraction from the monotony or strain of day-to-day concerns. But it does these things in ways from which mental laziness is quite remote. It relaxes by exercising, bringing into play faculties of the mind that would otherwise lie dormant. It distracts, not by offering a cowardly escape from the business of living, but by making life fuller and more meaningful. Literature can take us out of the track of weary routine, by leading us to understand something of that whole vast body of human living in which our day-to-day concerns have their place…”
  
  Somehow reminds me of what I was trying to point out or rather ruminating on the differences earlier !!!
  
  
• From: Vishvesh Obla (@ 1cust187.tnt6.albany.ny.da.uu.net) on: Mon Feb 12 21:19:12
  
  Sorry, the first line "Hi Ramji" seems to have vanished in the above message !
  
  
• From: Ramadas (@ globalc38.citicorp.com) on: Sat Feb 17 04:39:30
  
  Whatever people say, I enjoyed every bit of PGW
  in all his books I read. Especially I like his
  style of writing. I can't argue like literary
  buffs but PGW is PGW. Cricket and PGW are two
  institutions which I like of the British.
  
  

Want to post a response?