My shortlist

[is that my watch]

but maybe it’s as well that we don’t know Chaucer’s views on feudalism. I’m speaking light-heartedly, obviously.

well think the Canterbury tale speaks for him

[Kronos]

well think the Canterbury tale speaks for him

Embarrassingly enough, I'm not literate enough to know what the Tales say on his behalf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kronos]

To quote one of Fleming’s near-contemporaries: “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

Fleming was certainly as you describe, but maybe it’s as well that we don’t know Chaucer’s views on feudalism. I’m speaking light-heartedly, obviously.

Earlier this year, The New Yorker published a review of two new biographies -- one of Franz Fanon, a radical psychiatrist, theorist of anti-colonialism, and current darling of the far left, and the other of Fleming. For Fanon, European colonialism could not quickly or brutally enough. For Fleming, the loss of the British Empire was an unmitigated tragedy, not only for Britain, but for the world.

For the reviewer, Bond was Fleming's fictional answer to the loss of power, influence and prestige that came along with the loss of Empire. In Bond stories, when hostile forces threaten the West, it is to British Intelligence and James Bond that the world turns. They possess what the blundering Americans still lack: deep experience and knowledge of the world, first class spy craft, sang-froid, and effortless style and inherent cool.

[is that my watch]

Embarrassingly enough, I'm not literate enough to know what the Tales say on his behalf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

not one of my fav writers just trying to remember them the knights tale is the first but yeah can't honest remember them past the pecking order the kings and queens at the top the lords ladies and knights in the middle and peasants and serfs at the bottom ...

so yes gives one a view as it were of cast system which every country you was in japan, china, England , Europe, russia all had it in some ways my ever last thought on this was sum up perfectly by Orson wells ...every one is equal. just some are more equal then others


only thing I took away from Chaucer was Thy drasty rymyng is nat worth a toord! think it was from the tale of sir topas was it ? ... but was a kid so some bemusement of swear words is a given ...

oh plus my sign at the minute too....

[tribe125]

I think the New Yorker writer was straining a bit there, ascribing more significance to Fleming’s books than they might deserve. Fleming was producing popular fiction loosely based on his wartime experience in naval intelligence. I get the impression that the Bond books were knocked out without too much reflection or seriousness of purpose. His world view and social attitudes would have come through, partly because he wasn’t a good enough writer to rise above them.

[tribe125]

my ever last thought on this was sum up perfectly by Orson wells ...

I know you meant Orwell.

Chaucer had no time for charlatans and buffoons, but he was also of the Establishment - right at the top. It’s hard to know if he was taking a risk with his satire but he may have been too well connected for it to matter. A huge figure, and probably good company in the pub.

[is that my watch]

I know you meant Orwell.

Chaucer had no time for charlatans and buffoons, but he was also of the Establishment - right at the top. It’s hard to know if he was taking a risk with his satire but he may have been too well connected for it to matter. A huge figure, and probably good company in the pub.

was going to blame spellchecker... but you all know my spelling or lack of it

think would have prefer a coffee with the inklings in the bird

[Kronos]

I know you meant Orwell.

Chaucer had no time for charlatans and buffoons, but he was also of the Establishment - right at the top. It’s hard to know if he was taking a risk with his satire but he may have been too well connected for it to matter. A huge figure, and probably good company in the pub.

I tried a Chaucer course my freshman year of college. It was taught by a prof who was said to be a star of the English Department. I learned quickly that I was too lazy at that point to wrestle with the English of his period. (My loss, for sure.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[is that my watch]

I tried a Chaucer course my freshman year of college. It was taught by a prof who was said to be a star of the English Department. I learned quickly that I was too lazy at that point to wrestle with the English of his period. (My loss, for sure.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yes even for us brits does have to take some getting use too... maybe why I did not re-read anytime soon .. must really get on to that really I'm re-reading player one (I know not again read it once or twice a year it's becoming my hospital book for when waiting in waiting rooms...) want to start again with terry pratchett books as read most all of them at some point.

[tribe125]

Chaucer was a ‘set book’ for us if you did Eng. Lit. You didn’t have to learn Middle English, and I think our text books had Middle English and Modern English side-by-side. The teacher would sometimes read the Middle English as we followed it in text. The ribaldry was a bit of an eye-opener for a schoolboy. Had we spoken like some of Chaucer’s pilgrims we’d have been clipped round the ear. We had Beowulf before we got to Chaucer, and then onto Shakespeare.