UKC

Philip Larkin: what a disgrace.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Postmanpat 17 Jun 2015
So the porn-addled, two-timing, racist, misogynist is going to get his own plaque in Poet's Corner. Lucky he didn't make some dumb comments in front of an audience in South Korea that the Today show got hold of. That would've scuppered him and his poetry career……Serve him right, too.
4
In reply to Postmanpat:

I blame the parents...
 JJL 17 Jun 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:

Yeah, but they don't mean to
OP Postmanpat 17 Jun 2015
In reply to captain paranoia:

So don't have any kids yourself…
 Andy Morley 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

I quite like Philip Larkin, and now that it seems he's posthumously managed to wind up the self-righteous brigade, I suddenly like him a whole lot more
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes what a disgrace that this private individual has to suffer this tedious fate

This is what what you get FOR dying Philip
Post edited at 00:56
1

What is the best unfineshd line ?

"and someone running up to bowl"

or

Tom patey's last ?
Post edited at 02:29
 Offwidth 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

Too right. St Byron must be turning in his grave.
 DaveHK 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So the porn-addled, two-timing, racist, misogynist is going to get his own plaque in Poet's Corner.

Do you need the full set to get a plaque? Thus far I'm only porn-addled.
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

Inclusion in Poet's Corner is about being a great poet, rather than being whatever the opposite of a Daily Mail reader is.

I thought two-timing women was pretty much par for the course for accomplished poets.

Sorry to point this out to someone so obviously perfect as yourself.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> Inclusion in Poet's Corner is about being a great poet, rather than being whatever the opposite of a Daily Mail reader is.

> I thought two-timing women was pretty much par for the course for accomplished poets.

>
You mean like holding somewhat idiosyncratic views is par for the course for leading academics and pushing somewhat bohemian lifestyles par for the course for artists of all kinds?

They should all lose their jobs.


1
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

TS Eliot was an anti-Semite, and I think Picasso's lifestyle could safely be called bohemian. So what?
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> TS Eliot was an anti-Semite, and I think Picasso's lifestyle could safely be called bohemian. So what?

Exactly. Shame the Today programme wasn't there to hang them out to dry.At least they got that Watson bloke.
In reply to Postmanpat:

Philip Larkin is arguably the greatest English poet of the twentieth century, and absolutely equal to those he will now be commemorated with. Your comment about him being a 'porn-addled, two-timing, racist, misogynist' suggests you've read or heard about his private life but have not bothered to read much of his poetry.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Philip Larkin is arguably the greatest English poet of the twentieth century, and absolutely equal to those he will now be commemorated with. Your comment about him being a 'porn-addled, two-timing, racist, misogynist' suggests you've read or heard about his private life but have not bothered to read much of his poetry.

You can be a great poet and also be a "porn-addled, two-timing, racist, misogynist", just as you can be a brilliant scientist but hold some antediluvian views or be a less than stellar stand up comic.

My question is why we embrace one but not the other. Why?
 Mick Ward 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

> My question is why we embrace one but not the other. Why?

'Dear God, what would they say
did their Catullus walk that way?'

Mick (probably misquoting as ever, but I've had a long and singularly eventful day and can't be arsed to look it up.)

In reply to Postmanpat:

Are we not talking about Larkin as a poet? You might just as well be say it's a disgrace for Isaac Newton to be buried in Westminster Abbey because he was an unpleasant man.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Are we not talking about Larkin as a poet? You might just as well be say it's a disgrace for Isaac Newton to be buried in Westminster Abbey because he was an unpleasant man.

Well, Tim Hunt might not be Newton but he seems to be pretty well regarded but he seems to have scuppered his chances of a plaque, let alone an Abbey burial.
In reply to Postmanpat:

Your league tables are most peculiar. Great medical scientist as Tim Hunt is, he is not in the same all-time league.

To go back to the subject of English poets. IMHO, the greatest English poets since Shakespeare are: Wordsworth, Tennyson, Hopkins, Owen and Larkin. They're in a unique Alpha league (Alpha + being rightly regarded, historically, as an 'impossible' rating). Most of the great names in poetry, apart from those I've mentioned (of course we can argue about that), belong to the classical 'top rating' of Alpha Minus.
 Mick Ward 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Wot? No T.S. No William Butler.

Flamin' heck!

Mick

In reply to Postmanpat:

My alpha minus list (remember, this is very high, virtual tops) would probably be something like:

Betjeman
Blake
Byron
Browning
Clare
Coleridge
Donne
Eliot
Gray
Keats
Lawrence
Longfellow
McGough
Milton
Pope
Shelley
In reply to Mick Ward:

Er .. he was Irish, and arguably their greatest.
 MG 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

>
> My question is why we embrace one but not the other. Why?

Because we are a bunch of hypocrites, obviously.
I would prefer to "reinstate" Hunt that demote Larkin personally.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Your league tables are most peculiar. Great medical scientist as Tim Hunt is, he is not in the same all-time league.

>
Gordon, it's not about the quality of the poet or the scientist. It's about the contradiction and hypocrisy of embracing and celebrating one talent despite his flaws and denigrating another (albeit less outstanding) on the basis of his flaws.
 Mick Ward 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Certainly our greatest. But not to claim Yeats as a great English (i.e writing in English) poet is a bit like saying Boysen isn't a great British climber because, err... he's German.

McGough and Eliot in any way comparable? Don't get me wrong, I've always had a soft spot for the Scouse git but bloody hell, he must have raised his game (half-way across the Milky Way?) somewhere along the way.

And you do realise that sheer, unfettered genius defies vulgar categorising.

Mick

(no poetic genius
just a silly sod
a little gamma minus
off to the land of nod)
In reply to Postmanpat:

Typo:

Missed out Milton from the Alpha league.
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

Pity we're not all perfect like you.
In reply to Mick Ward:

Ah, but 'English language poets' enlarges the whole thing enormously. Fine, if that was the original subject.

Then of course we have folks like e.e.cummings.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> Pity we're not all perfect like you.

Is there an echo in here or have you said that twice? I've explained my point now. Can you tell what it is yet?
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Then of course we have folks like e.e.cummings.

Who should have been convicted of crimes against punctuation

 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

To be honest, no. I note you take your catch phrase from a jailed sex abuser.

To take this a little more seriously, if we have learnt anything from the trials of the appalling Jimmy Saville et al it is that social mores have changed dramatically in the last 50 years, and things that were thought acceptable or a good laugh in the past can now lead to a jail sentence. Not that Larkin ever did anything that would lead to prosecution.
 The New NickB 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well, Tim Hunt might not be Newton but he seems to be pretty well regarded but he seems to have scuppered his chances of a plaque, let alone an Abbey burial.

Was he after one? Have UCL given Hunt's emeritus position to Larkin?
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Gordon, it's not about the quality of the poet or the scientist. It's about the contradiction and hypocrisy of embracing and celebrating one talent despite his flaws and denigrating another (albeit less outstanding) on the basis of his flaws.

You'll have a huge problem judging any great achievers in whatever walk of life, throughout history, if you trouble yourself with their alleged personal flaws. I'm not the slightest bit interested in the notion of denigrating people for the latter. Why bother, when their achievements are of such greater importance?
In reply to John2:

> Not that Larkin ever did anything that would lead to prosecution.

Even that is wicked to say. In one of the sunday papers I was reading several people were going out of their way to say what a nice, decent, humorous man Larkin was. So, please cut out this crap.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> To be honest, no. I note you take your catch phrase from a jailed sex abuser.

> To take this a little more seriously, if we have learnt anything from the trials of the appalling Jimmy Saville et al it is that social mores have changed dramatically in the last 50 years, and things that were thought acceptable or a good laugh in the past can now lead to a jail sentence. Not that Larkin ever did anything that would lead to prosecution.

What has any of that got to do with my question of 21.33?
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Who should have been convicted of crimes against punctuation

By you, yes.

sorry by
you
yes
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm supporting him, you idiot. His wit was widely renowned. Not that the possession of a sense of humour was ever a bar to the commission of crime.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> You'll have a huge problem judging any great achievers in whatever walk of life, throughout history, if you trouble yourself with their alleged personal flaws. I'm not the slightest bit interested in the notion of denigrating people for the latter. Why bother, when their achievements are of such greater importance?

Gordon, that's the point I'm making. We pillory and ruin the reputation of fine scientists like Hunt and Watson and yet laud others despite their flaws. Unless they are going around abusing kids or murdering people (and actually there's a few artists who have been guilty of that) none of it is relevant to they talents or reputations within their fields.
Post edited at 22:36
In reply to John2:

> I'm supporting him, you idiot. His wit was widely renowned. Not that the possession of a sense of humour was ever a bar to the commission of crime.

So why did you say this thing about nothing he did would have lead to prosecution, as if he got quite close?
KevinD 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:
> My question is why we embrace one but not the other. Why?

I somewhat doubt Larkin would hold any honorary positions at university nowadays either.
I also suspect that even if Hunt had said what he did prior to getting the Nobel he would have got it anyway.
Post edited at 22:38
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

Because to be one of the greatest poets of the twentieth century is a remarkable thing, in no way devalued by espousing attitudes which were unremarkable at the time but are now thought antediluvian.

Really, are you so ignorant of the history of literature, and indeed the arts in general, that you don't realise that a bit of two-timing is probably more common among the artistic greats than the population at large? Larkin was never even married (he admitted that he was too selfish to ever live with another person), so the Daily Mail could not have thrown the accusation of adultery at him.

By the way, he was also an old boy of my school.
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I was pointing out that he was not a reprehensible person such as Saville.
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Gordon, that's the point I'm making. We pillory and ruin the reputation of fine scientists like Hunt and Watson and yet laud others despite their flaws. Unless they are going around abusing kids or murdering people (and actually there's a few artists who have been guilty of that) none of it is relevant to they talents or reputations within their fields.

You may do, and many modern analysts may do, but it's completely alien to the tradition of historical research that I was brought up in. Don't let's waste time being 'holier than thou'. There are some misogynist comments in Larkin's private writings and letters that are now in the public domain. But they add up to nothing in terms of his public life.
In reply to John2:

Well, not reprehensible at all. Revolting that you should mention Savile in this context anyway.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> Because to be one of the greatest poets of the twentieth century is a remarkable thing, in no way devalued by espousing attitudes which were unremarkable at the time but are now thought antediluvian.

But its fine to pillory an elderly scientist for uttering, possibly in misjudged jest, some antediluvian views? Have you not noticed that the "mad scientist " is a stock character, and possibly for a reason?

> Really, are you so ignorant of the history of literature, and indeed the arts in general, that you don't realise that a bit of two-timing is probably more common among the artistic greats than the population at large?
>
Lol
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Calm down and have a cup of tea, Gordon. Savile was a revolting man, but a good contrast to Larkin.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> You may do, and many modern analysts may do, but it's completely alien to the tradition of historical research that I was brought up in. Don't let's waste time being 'holier than thou'. There are some misogynist comments in Larkin's private writings and letters that are now in the public domain. But they add up to nothing in terms of his public life.

Have you been following the Hunt case at all?
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

'But its fine to pillory an elderly scientist for uttering, possibly in misjudged jest, some antediluvian views?'

Sorry, did I say that? Old age must be making me more forgetful than I thought.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> 'But its fine to pillory an elderly scientist for uttering, possibly in misjudged jest, some antediluvian views?'
>

No, but since you missed the irony in my OP and then failed to understand my explanation of what I was getting at I thought taking you through it one question at a time might help you out.
 nufkin 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:
> My question is why we embrace one but not the other. Why?

Does being dead have a bearing, maybe? Can't do much about the behaviour of Larkin now, whereas Tim Hunt can still be brought into line
Post edited at 22:52
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Have you been following the Hunt case at all?

No.

Beyond everything, I'm still baffled by your motives for such an extraordinary hate-filled, prejudiced original posting about one of our greatest poets.

Signing off now, because nothing to add.
 John2 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

I didn't miss the allusion to Hunt in your OP at all, I objected to what you said about Larkin. Anyway they both pale into insignificance compared with Godfrey whatever his name was who managed the magnificent feat of getting thrown out of UKIP for political incorrectness.
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> Beyond everything, I'm still baffled by your motives for such an extraordinary hate-filled, prejudiced original posting about one of our greatest poets.

> Signing off now, because nothing to add.

Sheesh. I was being ironical, sarcastic even, to highlight the hypocrisy! At the risk of massive generalisation or political incorrectness it would seem that there is a higher incidence of eccentric views or even slightly autistic characteristics amongst brilliant academics than in the broader population. It seems ludicrous to "punish" them for it.
Post edited at 23:02
OP Postmanpat 18 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> I didn't miss the allusion to Hunt in your OP at all, I objected to what you said about Larkin. Anyway they both pale into insignificance compared with Godfrey whatever his name was who managed the magnificent feat of getting thrown out of UKIP for political incorrectness.

Godfrey wotisname doesn't appear to have any redeeming talents
 Offwidth 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

Why do you keep banging on about Hunt... he said something he admits was stupid and doesnt even agree with when representing his University on more political than academic territory, he then allowed himself to get get ambushed by Radio 4 into a bungled apology and saying he sort of did believe it, and then he resigned instead of facing up to the bullies in his instituition ... who should be bloody ashamed of themselves. He was triply dumb for such a clever man (read the Observer article) . His career also isn't over despite being in his mid 70s, being damaged goods etc: plenty of places would take such a man as some in academia still respect his qualities as an academic and proportionality of discpline for problematic actions.
 Rob Exile Ward 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think perhaps you have highlighted a need for Irony Training. I'm going on a speed awareness course shortly, maybe I could ask them to add Irony Training to their schedules?

You know, how to spot irony, how to recover if you don't get it first time round, how to deliberately ignore it if you're feeling self righteousness ... that sort of thing.
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I think perhaps you have highlighted a need for Irony Training. I'm going on a speed awareness course shortly, maybe I could ask them to add Irony Training to their schedules?

>
Yes, i was very naughty. I deliberately didn't include a smiley in order to establish who needed the irony trading!

 Offwidth 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

Ah! its ironic that you regard Hunt as similar to Larkin, fair enough.
 MG 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

Thinking about it, has being "nice" ever been a criterion for being buried in Westminster Abbey? There are quite a few monarchs there of dubious repute.

OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Offwidth:
> Ah! its ironic that you regard Hunt as similar to Larkin, fair enough.

No, I regard there to be an equivalence between the treatment of each of them, which is of course very different to rerarding them as "similar"

I "keep banging on about Hunt" for the same reason I "keep banging on about Larkin". They were both in the news and representative of a contradiction I wanted to highlight.
Post edited at 12:19
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:
> Thinking about it, has being "nice" ever been a criterion for being buried in Westminster Abbey? There are quite a few monarchs there of dubious repute.

No, nor St.Peter's!
Post edited at 12:06
KevinD 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

> They were both in the news and representative of a contradiction I wanted to highlight.

You do realise Hunt has retained several positions and the ones he has lost are more to do with science outreach rather than doing research?
UCL was purely honorary.
RS committee was an awards committee. So one which its best to be seen as completely impartial.
ERC council was one making future scientific research strategy. So again could prove somewhat awkward.
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:
> You do realise Hunt has retained several positions and the ones he has lost are more to do with science outreach rather than doing research?

> UCL was purely honorary.

>
Yes and I'm glad to see that other institutions are not as supine as UCL.
Post edited at 12:28
 aln 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'd give up if I were you. There seems to be a lot of usually intelligent people missing what seems to be an obvious point.
 Luke90 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

> the contradiction and hypocrisy of embracing and celebrating one talent despite his flaws and denigrating another (albeit less outstanding) on the basis of his flaws.

Surely it can only be hypocritical or a contradiction if the same group of people are doing it?

One group of people (whichever University committee it was), decided they no longer wanted Tim Hunt to hold an honorary position with them.

A completely separate and unrelated group of people has decided that Larkin is a good poet.

OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Luke90:

> Surely it can only be hypocritical or a contradiction if the same group of people are doing it?

>
One group of people, call them the "twitterati", "media", "self righteous prxcks" or whatever you prefer, decided that Hunt deserved a good shellacking but not, apparently that Larkin deserved the same. Whether the powers that be would have caved in over Larkin as other powers that be did over Hunt we don't know.
 Luke90 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

Just because you can think of some daft names for a group of people you disagree with, doesn't mean that they have anything to do with each other or anything in common. Accusing "the media" of being hypocritical over an issue is like accusing the Tories of being hypocritical for disagreeing with Labour. "The media" encompasses institutions representing every possible range of opinion on any issue you care to name.

Elements of "the media" and many, many people on twitter supported Hunt (though I'm sure that the term "Twitterati" only includes people you disagree with). Conversely, I'm sure we could dig up some media stories that criticised Larkin. Presumably that's how you knew that he was a "porn-addled, two-timing, racist, misogynist".

Basically, Larkin is completely unrelated to Hunt and there's not much to link them together.
 Offwidth 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

If Larkin lived now, the same folk would probably be on his back. They are cruel and run in packs. I bet he would have put up a better fight though.

Hardly anyone seems to give a shit that most Universities now regard themselves as businesses rather than academic institutions and are more than willing to shed people at their convenience rather than for real gross misconduct or lack of academic merit. In the case of postdocs probably several go every day, usually without a peep from the leading profs (who are very much part of the problem). Hunt was supine when he needed to fight, like many of his kind. We didn't get the institutions we have from such behaviour and I can see the reputation of our Universities plummeting soon if something isn't done about improving academic governance.
 FrankBooth 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> ... Wordsworth, Tennyson, Hopkins, Owen and Larkin.

and Ayres?
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Luke90:

> Just because you can think of some daft names for a group of people you disagree with, doesn't mean that they have anything to do with each other or anything in common. Accusing "the media" of being hypocritical over an issue is like accusing the Tories of being hypocritical for disagreeing with Labour. "The media" encompasses institutions representing every possible range of opinion on any issue you care to name.

There was a shit storm over Hunt's comments. A week later there was no shit storm over Larkin's plaque. So whoever caused the first shit storm, which includes the "Today" programme amongst many, failed to create a second one. Hence they are guilty of dual standards.


In reply to Postmanpat:

> There was a shit storm over Hunt's comments. A week later there was no shit storm over Larkin's plaque. So whoever caused the first shit storm, which includes the "Today" programme amongst many, failed to create a second one. Hence they are guilty of dual standards.

You have to be very careful with irony. Yours I submit was a failure because it achieved no purpose, and so was misplaced. The target was so false that one had to make the assumption that it was not irony, or only partly irony and partly a reflection of what you yourself really feel about Larkin. Otherwise, why on earth did you post it? You've rather shot yourself in the foot now by admitting that there was no shit storm over his plaque. All your post has done/the only thing it's achieved is to add to a smear campaign that certain reactionaries (a v small minority) have been fostering for many years. You show no hint anywhere of a genuine enthusiasm for, or appreciation of, Larkin's poetry.

Also, I think you are mistaking 'dual standards' for one simplistic lot of standards that's crudely and widely applied to almost all news items by a certain type of journalist.
KevinD 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Hence they are guilty of dual standards.

Can you really not spot a difference between the two situations?
Do you really think if they ever come up with a scientists corner that Hunt wouldnt be added?
Do you think Larkin would get an honorary academic post if he was alive today and his views were known (as opposed to only coming out several years after his death).
There is a fundamental difference between recognising someone as talented in a particular field and having them as an ambassador for your organisation.
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> You have to be very careful with irony. Yours I submit was a failure because it achieved no purpose, and so was misplaced. The target was so false that one had to make the assumption that it was not irony, or only partly irony and partly a reflection of what you yourself really feel about Larkin. Otherwise, why on earth did you post it? You've rather shot yourself in the foot now by admitting that there was no shit storm over his plaque. All your post has done/the only thing it's achieved is to add to a smear campaign that certain reactionaries (a v small minority) have been fostering for many years. You show no hint anywhere of a genuine enthusiasm for, or appreciation of, Larkin's poetry.

My purpose was to draw attention to the ludicrous dual standards that "a certain type of journalist/twiteratti/ media/self righteous pr*cks" apply to their views and reporting and to draw the conclusion that any such self righteous virtue signalling twittery is nonsense. Whether I achieved that is dubious given that many who read it either didn't grasp this or disagreed.

I cannot imagine why you think that I "admitted" there was no shitstorm over his plaque is an "admission". That was the crux of my point in the first place: that if Hunt's speech deserved a shellacking so did Larkin's plaque (and one got a shellacking and the other didn't). In my view neither of them do.

That you still view it as critical of Larkin, at least of his poetry, suggests that you are still barking up the wrong tree. My "point" implicitly assumes that Larkin is a fine poet just as Hunt is a fine scientist (I'm not interested in league tables of "fineness"). The point is to question whether whatever flawed views or characteristics they may have should impact upon their status in their chosen fields and my answer is "no".



2
 Offwidth 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat: Maybe you are just a clever man guilty of being a poor communicator.
1
In reply to Offwidth:

> Maybe you are just a clever man guilty of being a poor communicator.

Ouch!!
1
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to dissonance:

> Can you really not spot a difference between the two situations?

> Do you really think if they ever come up with a scientists corner that Hunt wouldnt be added?

Quite possibly

> Do you think Larkin would get an honorary academic post if he was alive today and his views were known (as opposed to only coming out several years after his death).

I'm not sure. Is your argument that as soon as someone shuffles off their mortal then we can safely ignore their personal views and behaviour because they are not their to undergo retraining any more?

> There is a fundamental difference between recognising someone as talented in a particular field and having them as an ambassador for your organisation.

There is a difference but there is an overlap. One says, we respect and honour your talents in your field and ignore your personal views which are not relevant. The other says you cannot be respected and honoured in your field or a member of our organisation if we disagree with your personal views or you have a poor sense of humour.
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Offwidth:

> Maybe you are just a clever man guilty of being a poor communicator.

Maybe I overestimated my audience
2
 Rob Exile Ward 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

'The point is to question whether whatever flawed views or characteristics they may have should impact upon their status in their chosen fields and my answer is "no".'

It does beg a question though; is there ANY behaviour that would give you pause for thought when contemplating and honouring someone's achievements?
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'The point is to question whether whatever flawed views or characteristics they may have should impact upon their status in their chosen fields and my answer is "no".'

> It does beg a question though; is there ANY behaviour that would give you pause for thought when contemplating and honouring someone's achievements?

It's a question worth begging but difficult to answer. Above I suggested murder and child abuse, but there's a few(deceased) guilty of one or other of those who are nevertheless feted for their achievements.
KevinD 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Quite possibly

Nah he would be on it.

> I'm not sure. Is your argument that as soon as someone shuffles off their mortal then we can safely ignore their personal views and behaviour because they are not their to undergo retraining any more?

No I didnt say that. Although I would say that within certain limits people do tend to be forgiven if their behaviour isnt to outlandish for the standards of their time.
However the bit you seem determined to ignore is the difference between being recognised for contribution to a particular field and being a representative of a particular organisation, particularly in a field known to have some problems with gender mix.
Say someone has the views Larkin is said to have and made them public. Regardless of how great they were in a field what do you reckon the impact would be on any women signing up for the poetry course at an uni he was a member of? Dont you think it might be mildly offputting?


> There is a difference but there is an overlap.

You seem determined to miss choice number 3. Its ok to admire someones contribution to a field whilst deciding he doesnt suit your organisation.
Note he retains the FRS etc just not specific positions.

 John2 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

And maybe your attempts at satire are inept. Do you do dad dancing as well?
2
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> And maybe your attempts at satire are inept. Do you do dad dancing as well?

Satire? You might want to look that word up.
 John2 19 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

'use of ridicule, irony, sarcasm, etc., in speech or writing for the ostensible purpose of exposing and discouraging vice or folly'. Concise Oxford Dictionary.
In reply to dissonance:

(as opposed to only coming out several years after his death).

By Christ that's clever!
 Tom Valentine 19 Jun 2015
In reply to FrankBooth:

Don't forget McGonagall.
Since misunderstood irony is what's giving this thread currency, you might be interested to know that some bright spark's idea of a clever joke was to include "The Tay Bridge Disaster" in one of the teaching anthologies for GCSE English a few years ago.
OP Postmanpat 19 Jun 2015
In reply to John2:

> 'use of ridicule, irony, sarcasm, etc., in speech or writing for the ostensible purpose of exposing and discouraging vice or folly'. Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Bah! That'll learn me. I'm chuffed to be lumped together with Swift, Pope and Beyond the Fringe, however inept.
 Offwidth 20 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

If only Hunt could have responded more like that.
 Duncan Bourne 21 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

I always find it interesting that we build people up and then act shocked when they are not perfect. On the otherside of the coin we like to re-evaluate villains and say that they weren't as bad as they were painted. Currently last week R4 ran a programme saying how Napoleon was a really great bloke.
Rolf Harris was a cuddly bloke who liked painting and puppies now he is a vile sexual predator, give it another hundered years and he will be back to bloke who made fun records and liked animals.
Yeah Larkin was all those things, but he was still a great poet. There is no one who is perfect so it would'nt be hard to vilify any of our cultural icons.
I like Aleister Crowley - Drug addled, misogynist, racist, magician, who's motto was "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". You got what it said on the tin
 Luke90 22 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:
> There was a shit storm over Hunt's comments. A week later there was no shit storm over Larkin's plaque. So whoever caused the first shit storm, which includes the "Today" programme amongst many, failed to create a second one. Hence they are guilty of dual standards.

I just don't buy that as an example of double standards. Let's set aside the very obvious differences between the two situations. Other people have already brought those up, and you've already dismissed them without addressing them. The news that gets reported can only ever be a subset of what's going on. A missing girl made national news recently, but I'm sure countless others have gone missing without making the news since then. That's not hypocrisy or double standards, that's a clash of limited time with infinite stories. I'm sure other people have made sexist comments since Hunt and not ended up in the media. That's also not a double standard.

At the end of the day, it's no different than when I tell a school student off for doing something wrong and they point out that somebody else was doing the same thing and didn't get caught. The answer is the same, "what you did was still wrong". The fact that other people have also done controversial things is of no consequence to the Hunt situation. He was still wrong to say what he said. Perhaps you could argue that he was unlucky to incite as much reaction as he got but he was stupid enough to make his comments in front of a load of journalists.
OP Postmanpat 22 Jun 2015
In reply to Luke90:
>That's not hypocrisy or double standards, that's a clash of limited time with infinite stories. I'm sure other people have made sexist comments since Hunt and not ended up in the media. That's also not a double standard.

It's bog standard practise for the media to follow up on one story by finding similar stories. Think dangerous dogs. Interesting that in this case they didn't despite being gifted the opportunity.

> At the end of the day, it's no different than when I tell a school student off for doing something wrong and they point out that somebody else was doing the same thing and didn't get caught. The answer is the same, "what you did was still wrong".

And the student's answer would be the same and legimate: your standards were inconsistent. That is not to dispute that the student did something wrong. Not many people are arguing that Hunt wasn't dumb to say what he said, not even Hunt.

Post edited at 12:45
 felt 22 Jun 2015
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Re the A- list

Betjeman but no Auden?
Lawrence but no Edward Thomas?
Longfellow but no Hardy?
McGough but no Hughes?
Pope but no Dryden?

> Ah, but 'English language poets' enlarges the whole thing enormously. Fine, if that was the original subject.

> Then of course we have folks like e.e.cummings.

Oh, and indeed Longfellow, and originally Eliot
 Andy Morley 22 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:

If we insisted that all our writers and poets should be 'nice' people we'd end up with cr*p literature. Byron was a 5-star **** but he wrote great poetry [insert a few meaningless rants by those who don't like him].

What do you want? Heaps of drivel written by amiable wallies? Plenty of that around already - just trawl your neighbours or colleagues at work and ask to read their poetry/ novels. Hope you have an interesting life!
 Luke90 22 Jun 2015
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It's bog standard practise for the media to follow up on one story by finding similar stories. Think dangerous dogs. Interesting that in this case they didn't despite being gifted the opportunity.

Except that you're pretty much the only person who sees these stories as very similar!
I think that's the main reason why so many people have consistently missed your actual point and tried to argue with your "attack" on Larkin (that and the fact that UKC insists on truncating threads so that the same points get repeated over and over because people don't see the early posts).

> And the student's answer would be the same and legimate: your standards were inconsistent.

I would argue not. No justice system in the world, formal or informal, catches every infringer of every rule. That's not inconsistent, it's inevitable. Things will slip through the cracks. A whole load of people will break rules and/or say regrettable things. Some of them will get caught/called out on it, some of them won't be seen/noticed/caught/villified.
OP Postmanpat 22 Jun 2015
In reply to Luke90:
> Except that you're pretty much the only person who sees these stories as very similar!

> I think that's the main reason why so many people have consistently missed your actual point and tried to argue with your "attack" on Larkin (that and the fact that UKC insists on truncating threads so that the same points get repeated over and over because people don't see the early posts).

More likely most people had lost the will to live after reading the first few posts

> I would argue not. No justice system in the world, formal or informal, catches every infringer of every rule.
>
Yes, but when it does catch them it should treat them equally. Unless, of course, they are simply trying to find a scapegoat to make a point……….
Post edited at 17:33

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...