The New Yorker
#1
Posted 08 December 2004 - 04:58 PM
But then they go and publish an article which completely ruined my digestion last night. 'Mysterious Circumstances' by David Grann, a purported investigation of the violent death of Richard Lancelyn Green, son of the popular UK children's author Roger Lancelyn Green, and would-be biographer of Arthur Conan Doyle.
It looked interesting. The unsolved murder or suicide of a literary researcher on the trail of documents jealously guarded by sinister and mysterious collectors of Sherlock Holmes memorabilia, and the greedy and wayward heirs of Conan Doyle.
It turns out that Grann is holding so many salient facts up his sleeve, and the mystery isn't really much of a mystery at all. What a detective fiction fan calls "not playing fair with the reader".
But the real misery of the article was the relentless display of ignorance of the subject matter. Grann thinks Poe's fictional detective C. Auguste Dupin was a police inspector. He doesn't know who Andrew Lang was. He thinks Green discovered that Holmes was named for Oliver Wendell Holmes some time in the 1980s. The most banal facts about Conan Doyle's work come as marvellous surprises to him.
He might have read just a basic historical work relating to Holmes or detective fiction before launching off on this piece. Way below the level I still expect from this magazine.
***Every Monday***At the Sign of the Pink Pig.
If the author could go around the place hitting random readers with a rubber hammer, the Pink Pig would still be worth a visit.
#2
Posted 08 December 2004 - 05:23 PM
Surely this is a joke?He thinks Green discovered that Holmes was named for Oliver Wendell Holmes some time in the 1980s.
Monty Burns
#3
Posted 08 December 2004 - 09:40 PM
#4
Posted 08 December 2004 - 09:48 PM
Hollywood, is what a joke? I think it's common currency that Conan Doyle probably got the surname Holmes from Oliver Wendell Holmes. But it was old news by the 1980s (as I'm sure Green himself would have known).
***Every Monday***At the Sign of the Pink Pig.
If the author could go around the place hitting random readers with a rubber hammer, the Pink Pig would still be worth a visit.
#5
Posted 08 December 2004 - 09:57 PM
That article definitely got a lot of the professionals in our parent company in an uproar. Several senior execs called the HR people in to justify the seven figure testing bill, all the consultants, and the pointlessness of the piddling results.
Warren Buffett
#6
Posted 08 December 2004 - 10:01 PM
#7
Posted 08 December 2004 - 10:50 PM
Sorry for the indistinct query. I meant the late discovery being the joke.I remember that piece, and it was indeed odd, but outside my field.
Hollywood, is what a joke? I think it's common currency that Conan Doyle probably got the surname Holmes from Oliver Wendell Holmes. But it was old news by the 1980s (as I'm sure Green himself would have known).
Monty Burns
#8
Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:05 PM
First we have Louis Menand twittering about "Lerman was a New Yorker—he was born in 1914 in what is now Spanish Harlem" - emphasis added. Yes, and there's a rose there too. Does he "fricking" live in New York?
Worse, from Anthony Lane on Dunkirk in his review of Atonement (the lead article in their online edition):
As I recall, this was the orderly retreat and evacuation of an army under heavy enemy fire with the assistance of countless civilian vessels; the alternative being, presumably, a surrender to the advancing Germans. And Lane, note, is British.
***Every Monday***At the Sign of the Pink Pig.
If the author could go around the place hitting random readers with a rubber hammer, the Pink Pig would still be worth a visit.
#9
Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:18 PM
I read somewhere that there was a joke at the time that BEF stood for "back every fortnight."
Yes, it was a brilliant maneuver. It probably prevented a British capitualation and was a turning point in the war. To this day there is speculation that Hitler held off on administering the killing blow during the evacuation because there were back channel negotiations going on for a cease fire. Putative terms were that Britain would keep the empire and the Germans would have kept Europe. Churchill had other plans.
"None of you get it." - Wilfrid (on the Beatles)
"I don't have time to point out all the ways in which you're wrong" - irnscrabblechf52
#10
Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:31 PM
***Every Monday***At the Sign of the Pink Pig.
If the author could go around the place hitting random readers with a rubber hammer, the Pink Pig would still be worth a visit.
#11
Posted 07 December 2007 - 06:19 PM
That article definitely got a lot of the professionals in our parent company in an uproar. Several senior execs called the HR people in to justify the seven figure testing bill, all the consultants, and the pointlessness of the piddling results.
I had to take one of those for my first job out of college. I felt like if you knew the type of job you were applying for, they were kind of easy to game. (Not that I ever, ever would!) I think they are useful for private exploration, or to figure out what management techniques work for the people one is already supervising, but to use them to fill a job seemed completely absurd to me at the time.
Just got this week's issue a minute ago but haven't had a chance to look at it yet.
-Chomskybot
#12
Posted 07 December 2007 - 06:40 PM
Lane must have been overcome by his smoke and mirrors metaphor.
Monty Burns
#13
Posted 07 December 2007 - 06:54 PM
I read somewhere that there was a joke at the time that BEF stood for "back every fortnight."
Yes, it was a brilliant maneuver. It probably prevented a British capitualation and was a turning point in the war. To this day there is speculation that Hitler held off on administering the killing blow during the evacuation because there were back channel negotiations going on for a cease fire. Putative terms were that Britain would keep the empire and the Germans would have kept Europe. Churchill had other plans.
The British government was busy shipping the crown jewels and the royal treasury to Canada during this period. There was a very real fear the Germans would invade. The "hedgerow" speech and all that.
Given the collapse and capture of the Polish army in 1939, the collapse and dispersal of the French army and navy, and the absence of resistance in the Benelux, the imminent fall of the British kingdom wasn't an unlikely proposition in 1940. And, a significant portion of the Royal Army was in Malaya / Singapore / Hong Kong / India / Africa etc defending or oppressing the locals, depending on your point of view
Many speculated at the time that the Germans planned to reinstate Edward VIII and Queen Wallis on the throne, after a negotiated cease fire.
Warren Buffett
#14
Posted 07 December 2007 - 07:11 PM
"None of you get it." - Wilfrid (on the Beatles)
"I don't have time to point out all the ways in which you're wrong" - irnscrabblechf52
#15
Posted 07 December 2007 - 07:19 PM
Teaching them cricket. Which I suppose is a form of oppression.
Yes, invasion was anticipated, which is why it was thought important to bring the three hundred thousand troops home.
***Every Monday***At the Sign of the Pink Pig.
If the author could go around the place hitting random readers with a rubber hammer, the Pink Pig would still be worth a visit.













