Comments for EMSWORTH

Comment on The most famous men and women in American history by Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 May 2013 23:39:42 +0000

Some of the most famous people are not even here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment on The most famous men and women in American history by Morgan

Morgan — Thu, 16 May 2013 02:04:28 +0000

These are good but I wish people would stop arguing in comments

Comment on The most famous men and women in American history by Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 May 2013 22:34:58 +0000

What about the right brothers and neil armstrong?

Comment on The most famous men and women in American history by Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 May 2013 06:16:28 +0000

Where is Michael Jackson on ur male list. If he is not there u list is not believeable

Comment on Bartholomew Fair at the Stratford Festival by Will

Will — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 02:19:49 +0000

This is an interesting review, and while the play may be chaotic and disorienting, that in itself is the point of the work. As a snapshot of London, it is an exemplification of the role of wit and cultural capital in the socioeconomic environment of London. This is not a throw-away play. Marlowe and Jonson are comparable to Shakespeare in many respects. But it is in the meta-theatrical moments that their genius shines through…not in the seemingly cheap puns. Shakespeare plays are masterpieces, but it is a fool’s argument to say Jonson and Marlowe are incomparable based on a play whose purpose was to disorient and provide a cheap experience. Hint: analyze the scene with the puppets and the role of Littlewit.

Comment on “What ho, Pisanio!” — Echoes of Cymbeline in P. G. Wodehouse by emsworth

emsworth — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:40:38 +0000

Ninepennyworth:

I suppose you are right about my main point. For instance, I recently ran across “What ho” in E. M. Forster’s Howard’s End. In Chapter VI Leonard and his trashy mistress Jacky greet each other with “what ho”s.

But your last point seems a bit off. I don’t think there’s anything in all of Shakespeare that rivals “Uncle Fred Flits By.”

Emsworth

Comment on Political correctness takes a hunk out of Peter Pan at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival by Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:40:38 +0000

This article is the a perfect example of what was wrong with Peter Pan: it normalizes and even promotes the use of the word “Indian.” This misnomer is extremely offensive to the Native community. It’s basically saying “all brown people look the same to me” via Colombus’s false conclusion that North America was India. Does this look like India to you?
While politically correct when the book was written and the film made, it is now similar to the word “negro,” which was also “correct” then. And the lost boys run around chanting “injuns,” which is equivalent to the n word. That’s a word that’ll get your kids suspended from school.

Comment on Nobody to blame but Albert C. Barnes for the Barnes Foundation’s moving by Andrew Frost

Andrew Frost — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:04:46 +0000

I just saw “The Art of the Steal” and I agree with its overall conclusion, but with what I believe is tighter logic. The court decision cites the “doctrine of deviation” as the basis for deviating from Mr. Barnes’s wishes as spelled out in his indenture. However, the court decision states, “if the court is convinced that deviation is appropriate, it must choose the least drastic modification.” The art collection was apparently worth at least $25 billion versus the cost of a new building in Philadelphia of $100 million and a new endowment of $50 million. It would have been much less “drastic” to sell 1% of the collection for $250 million, renovate the Merion facility for $50 million, and create a very strong endowment of $200 million. The judge violated his own case law and chose an extremely drastic modification of Mr. Barnes’s indenture.

Comment on A final visit to the Barnes Foundation in Merion by emsworth

emsworth — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:37:09 +0000

Phoenix:

Pardon my belated response to the ill-tempered comments you left on my “Emsworth” blog several weeks ago.

First, I never claimed to have any “qualifications” or “scholarly experience” in the field of art. What gave you the idea that I did make such a claim?

Second, I don’t have any axe to grind. I’m just a middling lawyer in Rochester, New York who happens to love fine art and has spent a lot of time studying it on his own. As far as the Barnes Foundation controversy is concerned, I have no connection with it whatsoever and don’t know any of the people involved. But that’s no reason why I shouldn’t have an opinion on it, like anyone else.

Third, what gives you the idea I’m some kind of “elitist”? I don’t have money and never have had any. I haven’t gotten rich at my work. I don’t mingle with the rich and powerful.

Fourth, I’ve kept my blog anonymous because it seems risky to me to put personal information out on the internet. That doesn’t seem especially “spineless” to me, just prudent. What’s with the name-calling? I never did anything to you.

Fifth, doesn’t it seem obvious even to you that Dr. Barnes acted foolishly in naming the trustees of his will — the folks who bungled and mismanaged the trust assets? As both a lawyer and an art lover, I surely would have advised him to choose different trustees. If that’s “blaming the victim”, so be it, but I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of my observations.

Sixth, I don’t understand why you think the government had any obligation to carry out Dr. Barnes’s vision for his collection. If a person wants his wishes to be carried out after his death, that’s his responsibility. He takes the risk that his legacy will be mismanaged, as Dr. Barnes’s was. Where does the government come in?

Seventh, did you really fail to gather from my posts that I was genuinely sorry that the collection was being moved from Merion, where I have enjoyed seeing it for so many years? I said so in the clearest possible words.

Finally, I suppose my blogging in the first person plural might seem pretentious. I’m sorry you didn’t care for it.

Comment on What Harry Potter could have learned from Hamlet by Ilfiyantri Intyas

Ilfiyantri Intyas — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 07:01:44 +0000

first of all, i am not a native English speaker, so sometimes i found it hard to express precisely what i want to say in English. But i’ll try my best, because i think your opinion is interesting. And here is my opinion:

first, imagination is free.there’s no rules in the world of imagination. so, i don’t agree with your opinion that Harry Potter and the deathly hollows should’ve followed the ‘standard pattern’ of a tragedy story. Harry Potter is Rowling’s. it’s hers, so it’s up to her about where she wanted the story plot to go.

second, in my opinion, it’s understandable why harry never went to the dark side throughout the story. i mean, would you really unite with the person who killed your parents mercilessly, and made you live with your uncle, aunt and cousin – who don’t even want you to live with them and never gave you enough food, and proper clothes and treated you like dirt- and turn your life into a total misery? i don’t think so.

And it’s not like Harry was described as a perfect kid. he has flaws. is he genius? No. yes, he excelled at Defense against the dark art, but was so bad at Poison, and was just so-so in other subjects. He’s got bad temper, and there were moments when he felt jealous to his friends. He has his dark side, but that never got the best of him, because he was always surrounded by people who always find ways to keep him in the right track, whether it’s intentional or not. So, i don’t think Harry is a perfect kid. he’s just a normal (as normal as a wizard could be) kid who was surrounded by good (but not perfect) people.

and the fact that not all bad characters in the book got proper punishment made the story realistic to me. because, hey, i know that’s not how things work in real life. Bad people don’t always get punished.

to put my points in a nut shell, i think Harry Potter is a good book, it is a very good conclusion of the whole story, and i love it.