The Grumble Thread - No energy for a full on rant.

[madcow]

Saturday was completely bolloxed by having to go to Old Trafford (again) to watch the scummers play Sunderland. I made a pact with the devil and supported Sunderland.The only good part of the day was when the ball went in the mufc goal.
Sunday was partially bolloxed as mrs m is suffering with a bad muscle strain in her back and our long ride got cut to only 50 miles and no hills.
Today is set aside  decorating and cleaning duties and is therefore once again bolloxed .

At least we get away next BH.

[Jaded]

This sounds like a very good afternoon.

[T42]

Our mountains were full of bloody bikers this weekend. Nothing better when you're slogging up an 8% slope than a bunch of weekend Darth Vaders blasting the silence to bits and stinking up the air.  Four of them pulled in three metres past one of our control points and one of them started revving his engine while they all listened with heads cocked for some putative irregularity, never worrying that a bunch of folk were standing right behind the exhaust pipes. They should stay home and blast the fuck out of the Black Forest. Bah.

[madcow]

This sounds like a very good afternoon.

My employer has half share in an  executive box so we entertain customers with lunch and the match. On Saturday one was a true  Sunderland supporter, who was impressed that I knew where Houghton le Spring was. (halfway on Pollag Sniplig  200k don't ya know))
 When the Black cats scored we raised the roof, but the rest of OT was very quiet.
I must be a good omen for Sunderland. I have seen them play at OT twice this season and they have won both games.
the days of attendance were chosen by the previous keeper of my job. When I get to choose I think someone else can have May bank holiday weekend .

[Bledlow]

Some Guardian tosser has drawn up a list of ten 'overlooked' novels, described as "dead and forgotten works", which one might "dig up from the dusty vaults of the British Library". It includes (wait for it . . . )


Oblomov 
The Young Visiters
The Diary of a Mad Old Man

A hint: if it's been in print for most of the last 155 years, it isn't bloody 'dead and forgotten'! Nor is it 'dead and forgotten' if it was written in Japanese but multiple copies are available on Amazon in English 53 years after publication, it was made into a film re-set in a European country, & Mrs B exclaims in pleasure when she sees my OUP 1988 edition on a shelf. And it's hard to call anything 'dead and forgotten' when you can watch Jim Broadbent, Bill Nighy, Hugh Laurie, Geoffrey Palmer & Anne Reid (been working as long as I've been alive) in the TV adaptation.

[mcshroom]

My knees hurting and objecting to any position I can put my chair in.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I remember reading Oblomov and I found it online here http://www.eldritchpress.org/iag/oblomov.htm but I'm not at all tempted to read it again.

[jsabine]

Some Guardian tosser has drawn up a list of ten 'overlooked' novels, described as "dead and forgotten works", which one might "dig up from the dusty vaults of the British Library". It includes (wait for it . . . )


Oblomov 
The Young Visiters
The Diary of a Mad Old Man

A hint: if it's been in print for most of the last 155 years, it isn't bloody 'dead and forgotten'! Nor is it 'dead and forgotten' if it was written in Japanese but multiple copies are available on Amazon in English 53 years after publication, it was made into a film re-set in a European country, & Mrs B exclaims in pleasure when she sees my OUP 1988 edition on a shelf. And it's hard to call anything 'dead and forgotten' when you can watch Jim Broadbent, Bill Nighy, Hugh Laurie, Geoffrey Palmer & Anne Reid (been working as long as I've been alive) in the TV adaptation.

Hmm. I hadn't heard of any of those (prompted recall might dredge something up, but certainly not unprompted) and I'd have reckoned my self to be reasonably well read.

Googling for prompts suggests that I've heard of Oblomov and simply forgotten about it because I've never actually read it or seen any detail; that I've got a very dim memory (not including its title) of the JM Barrie authorship controversy around the Young Visiters and no knowledge at all of the TV adaptation; that Diary of a Mad Old Man is completely new to me and I've never heard of Tanizaki.

'Dead and forgotten' might be a bit strong, but I'd say none of them are exactly household names, and 'overlooked' (which is the word the 'Guardian tosser' actually uses in the headline) or 'little known' (used in the standfirst) are both fair enough.

[hellymedic]

I read The Young Visiters when I was the same age as the author had been when she wrote the book.
Both are ancient history...

[andrewc]

Broadband just gone off again. Bloody intermittent fault. Engineer coming to check on Friday before I head off to Long Itch.

[Bledlow]

Some Guardian tosser has drawn up a list of ten 'overlooked' novels, described as "dead and forgotten works", which one might "dig up from the dusty vaults of the British Library". It includes (wait for it . . . )


Oblomov 
The Young Visiters
The Diary of a Mad Old Man

A hint: if it's been in print for most of the last 155 years, it isn't bloody 'dead and forgotten'! Nor is it 'dead and forgotten' if it was written in Japanese but multiple copies are available on Amazon in English 53 years after publication, it was made into a film re-set in a European country, & Mrs B exclaims in pleasure when she sees my OUP 1988 edition on a shelf. And it's hard to call anything 'dead and forgotten' when you can watch Jim Broadbent, Bill Nighy, Hugh Laurie, Geoffrey Palmer & Anne Reid (been working as long as I've been alive) in the TV adaptation.

Hmm. I hadn't heard of any of those (prompted recall might dredge something up, but certainly not unprompted) and I'd have reckoned my self to be reasonably well read.

Googling for prompts suggests that I've heard of Oblomov and simply forgotten about it because I've never actually read it or seen any detail; that I've got a very dim memory (not including its title) of the JM Barrie authorship controversy around the Young Visiters and no knowledge at all of the TV adaptation; that Diary of a Mad Old Man is completely new to me and I've never heard of Tanizaki.

'Dead and forgotten' might be a bit strong, but I'd say none of them are exactly household names, and 'overlooked' (which is the word the 'Guardian tosser' actually uses in the headline) or 'little known' (used in the standfirst) are both fair enough.

So? You're one person.

"Dead and forgotten" are the words of the author of the article. Not being exactly household names is not the same as dead and forgotten. I didn't claim that they're all in the forefront of public attention, just that the description applied to them was ridiculously inaccurate - and I stand by that.

Tanizaki is famous in Japan; famous enough to have been translated into many languages. His books, including the one in question, are available in English translation - new - on Amazon. That isn't 'dead and forgotten'. For a foreign writer who died 50 years ago, it's high-profile.

I didn't watch the TV adaptation of The Young Visiters, & I've not read it (I looked in it once, & found it irritating, rather than cute), but I clearly remember it being all over the TV & press when the TV adaptation was shown, ten years ago. I found the blanket coverage rather tiresome. That wasn't the first time it had been revived, & new editions published, in my memory. For a book published in 1919, that's a bloody long way from 'dead and forgotten'.

Oblomov is a classic - & there's a Penguin Classic edition, just in case you doubt it. It's always been available in English in my memory, & new editions continue to be published in many languages. Amazon will sell you a Kindle edition. A new English translation was published in London less than three weeks ago. There are bars & restaurants around the world named after the main character. "Dead and forgotten"?  "Little known"? Or "overlooked"?

I don't understand why you butted in.

[jsabine]

I don't understand why you butted in.

I'm most terribly sorry. I hadn't realised that this was a private grumble thread.

I'll butt out now and take my own opinions and viewpoints with me.

[Tim Hall]

Very very busy at work, which means I do a lot of driving just lately.

So could all of you in the happy position of being able to go for a bike ride when I'm working my nuts off at least have the decency to do it where I can't see you.

Gits.

[Bledlow]

I don't understand why you butted in.

I'm most terribly sorry. I hadn't realised that this was a private grumble thread.

I'll butt out now and take my own opinions and viewpoints with me.

My incomprehension wasn't because the thread is private, but because I found the opinion you expressed incomprehensible. The article seems akin to the "this is the worst snow in living memory" articles we get every time it snows, written by people old enough to remember much  heavier snow, & I thought your intervention in support of it rather odd.

Doesn't anyone remember anything any more?

[orienteer]

I don't understand why you butted in.

I'm most terribly sorry. I hadn't realised that this was a private grumble thread.

I'll butt out now and take my own opinions and viewpoints with me.

My incomprehension wasn't because the thread is private, but because I found the opinion you expressed incomprehensible. The article seems akin to the "this is the worst snow in living memory" articles we get every time it snows, written by people old enough to remember much  heavier snow, & I thought your intervention in support of it rather odd.

Doesn't anyone remember anything any more?

Sadly, we live in an age where documentaries on commercial TV find it necessary to provide a resumé  of what preceded the ad break every time they return.

Such is the length of attention spans 

[Basil]

Sadly, we live in an age where documentaries on commercial TV find it necessary to provide a resumé  of what preceded the ad break every time they return.

Such is the length of attention spans 

In my opinion, that has more to do with keeping the cost of a 50 minute programme down by using as little original material as possible.

[jsabine]

I don't understand why you butted in.

I'm most terribly sorry. I hadn't realised that this was a private grumble thread.

I'll butt out now and take my own opinions and viewpoints with me.

My incomprehension wasn't because the thread is private,

Well, suggesting that I was 'butting in' rather gives the impression you thought I had no business contributing.

but because I found the opinion you expressed incomprehensible.

Not quite sure why you found it so hard, so I'll try again.

The author talked about ten books he felt were undervalued, unappreciated, nearly forgotten. Clearly he used a bit of hyperbole in the article, but, um, that's something a lot of people do, not just journalists.

You disagreed with him about at least three of the books, and said so.
 
I was surprised by how vituperative you'd felt the need to be, and said that I hadn't heard at all of one of the books, and had no detailed knowledge at all of the other two. Given that I'd see myself as being reasonably well educated and read, that's a data point - one, yes - in support of the Guardian piece. It suggests that, although 'dead and forgotten' may be a bit strong, 'little known' or 'overlooked' may well be appropriate.

Does that render my opinion any more comprehensible?

What's more, given that one effect of such a piece may be to provoke interest in the titles it refers to, and you're apparently an aficionado of at least the Tanizaki work, I'd have thought you might have been a little more graceful in your criticism than simply resorting to abusing John Sutherland as a 'Guardian tosser.'

Ah well, no matter. I shall consider whether to remedy some of these gaps in my reading.

[jsabine]

Sadly, we live in an age where documentaries on commercial TV find it necessary to provide a resumé  of what preceded the ad break every time they return.

Such is the length of attention spans 

In my opinion, that has more to do with keeping the cost of a 50 minute programme down by using as little original material as possible.

Indeed. Lets them fill the slot with about 20 mins of material.

(It also lets them repeat the message they've decided they want the doco to push, whether or not it's justified by the balance of the other material they show.)

[Bledlow]

I don't understand why you butted in.

I'm most terribly sorry. I hadn't realised that this was a private grumble thread.

I'll butt out now and take my own opinions and viewpoints with me.

My incomprehension wasn't because the thread is private,

Well, suggesting that I was 'butting in' rather gives the impression you thought I had no business contributing.

but because I found the opinion you expressed incomprehensible.

Not quite sure why you found it so hard, so I'll try again.

The author talked about ten books he felt were undervalued, unappreciated, nearly forgotten. Clearly he used a bit of hyperbole in the article, but, um, that's something a lot of people do, not just journalists.

You disagreed with him about at least three of the books, and said so.
 
I was surprised by how vituperative you'd felt the need to be, and said that I hadn't heard at all of one of the books, and had no detailed knowledge at all of the other two. Given that I'd see myself as being reasonably well educated and read, that's a data point - one, yes - in support of the Guardian piece. It suggests that, although 'dead and forgotten' may be a bit strong, 'little known' or 'overlooked' may well be appropriate.

Does that render my opinion any more comprehensible?

What's more, given that one effect of such a piece may be to provoke interest in the titles it refers to, and you're apparently an aficionado of at least the Tanizaki work, I'd have thought you might have been a little more graceful in your criticism than simply resorting to abusing John Sutherland as a 'Guardian tosser.'

Ah well, no matter. I shall consider whether to remedy some of these gaps in my reading.

To me, it was a lazy article, one of a type I find irritating. Someone with a personal agenda found a hook on which to hang a piece promoting a few books he likes & would like to see better known - or even better known, in some cases. To hell with reality, let's lump in some truly obscure books with a few classics & some past best sellers that might deserve reviving, wrap 'em all in a bit of hyperbolic boilerplate & call it an article. Some of them are mis-described? Who cares?

It annoys me that someone gets well-paid for that sort of tosh. It's no better than what a thousand bloggers put online for the love of the books they're pushing, & worse than some.

You then came in saying, in effect, that he was right. You didn't say "I think you're overreacting to a harmless puff", which I might have felt I should own up to, but suggested that your own unfamiliarity with a couple of the books I named justified the author's description of them. I'm still not sure how a 155 year old Russian book which is in print around the world, & which has been translated into English at least six times, including at least twice in the last decade, is 'nearly forgotten', let alone 'dead and forgotten'.

BTW, I consider myself to be fairly well read & well educated, but I'd not be so arrogant as to presume that a book is little known or overlooked because I'm not familiar with it.

[jsabine]

I think overall we're arguing about angels on pins ...

Because I'm not familiar with the works you'd called out, I've got no reason to dispute the central premise of the article, which is essentially that these books aren't as well known as they perhaps deserve to be.

I'm still not sure that the fact you're familiar with them, or that they've been adapted for TV, or that they're still in print necessarily means they're not relatively poorly known though. Hell, you pick out the fact one's published as a Penguin Classic - there's plenty of fairly ill-kent stuff on that list. Even the first of their Editors' Picks on the catalogue website - it's a particular Maigret novel. Sure, loads of people have heard of Simenon, loads have read Maigret books, I'm 90% sure I've read this one, though I couldn't put my finger on my copy of it. But how many can actually name a specific work? I'd say that one probably qualifies as pretty obscure.

And you're right, there would be an arrogance in saying "I'm fairly well read, and I've never heard of it, so it must be obscure" - I certainly didn't mean to imply anything so absolute, though I'll happily hold myself up as a datapoint in support of someone else's speculation.

[Vince]

Sadly, we live in an age where documentaries on commercial TV find it necessary to provide a resumé  of what preceded the ad break every time they return.

Such is the length of attention spans 

In my opinion, that has more to do with keeping the cost of a 50 minute programme down by using as little original material as possible.

Indeed. Lets them fill the slot with about 20 mins of material.

(It also lets them repeat the message they've decided they want the doco to push, whether or not it's justified by the balance of the other material they show.)

Ah,but its worse. For there is a limit to the amount of advertising they can sell, so they fill the commercial break with adverts for the program you're currently watching.

[ian]

I can't find the link but someone once did a breakdown of a US factual TV format and from an hour of TV (18 minutes statutory adverts) there was a nicely symmetrical 18 minutes of actual programme. The remainder was 'coming up after the break' and then recapping what had happened before the break and general twizzle and filler.

Mind you, my brain works like that. Only a small portion of my actual thinking is even subjectively useful. At the moment I'm worrying about just how, with those little arms, a Tyrannosaurus would use a mobile phone. I suppose they'd have to use the speakerphone. It won't help them be discrete.

Oh, grumble. BT Openreach. I'm tentatively happy that the roadworks at the bottom of my street might signal the arrival of FTTC (it looks like they're putting a new cabinet in). Less so that you've not left enough room for the bin lorry (or any other lorry for that matter) to get by so no bins got emptied this week. Mind you judging by the amount of recycling my wife has been hosting some crazy parties while I was away.

[Guy]

Not a grumble.  I'd like to nick this

At the moment I'm worrying about just how, with those little arms, a Tyrannosaurus would use a mobile phone. I suppose they'd have to use the speakerphone. It won't help them be discrete.

[mcshroom]

Knee is still complaining, back in the car today

[Moultonaught]

Dishwasher is kaput. Six months remain of the 5 year warranty. Engineer visited and found that a mouse had been living inside it, and not only has it eaten the wiring but also bits of the hard plastic inner panels. Sadly not covered by the guarantee...