Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

In Defense of Wallpaper


Bold wallpaper in Coronation Street interior


From my Camera Lucida (2005-2013) blog post In Defense of Wallpaper, December 2, 2009.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Defense of Wallpaper

I hardly watch any series, serials or sitcoms. But, one that I follow is the gritty working class British soap opera (I think the longest standing), Coronation Street, which the CBC obligingly airs six months later than the British schedule. The actors are all excellent, with their Western England accents. All the characters show a resilient cheerfulness, where tragedies never handicap anyone, and a loss is sooner or later forgotten in the pursuit of a possible gain.

One thing I've noticed, which I don't think occurs in any other sitcom, is the abundance of wallpapers. From gaudy silvery leaves to delicate poppies, and entangled vines and flowers to modern, monochromatic versions of old-fashioned designs, decorative paper covers the walls of almost all the homes in Corrie Street.

I wonder if wallpaper has been relegated to working class homes in Britain? The fanciful and opulent these days prefer their walls stark and bare, showing off their wealth with "less is more" pretentiousness. Yet, they don't know what they're missing. The abundance of pattern that adorns the homes of these modest people surely influences their charitable spirit and cheerful bearing. An empty and sterile home breeds empty and sterile personalities. Wallpaper converts the poor man’s home (any man’s home) into a rich and warm abode. The intricate repeat pattern splendor of shapes and forms highlights generosity and abundance. How can one remain stingy and dissatisfied when the walls are covered with such glory?

Friday, December 7, 2018

The Head Table: How to Lead


Dining Hall at Betteshanger School (now called Northbourne Park School)
The panels on the far wall lists student leaders and scholarship recipients
The Head Table (not visible) is at the opposite end (image source)


The Head Table

All the prefects, and the head girl and head boy, sat at the head table. There were no other staff other than Mr. Peacock, the head staff himself, the headmaster.

As Head Girl, I sat on the right hand of Mr. Peacock. My co-ruler. the Head Boy. sat on his left.

There was no conversation on the Head Table, not even when the dining room was murmuring with the conversations of the young diners (what could they be talking about?). We, at the Head Table, sat stoically still, unobtrusively moving our hands to eat our meals, which we did in an exemplary manner. We were well-educated by patient teachers determined to civilize us, which they certainly had succeeded by the time we were appointed as the leaders of the school. Even the handling of cutlery had it own peculiar protocol, peculiar that is, to the English. One cuts the food with fork in left hand and knife in right, then switches the fork over to the right to pick the meat and the potatoes with the knife in the left gently pushing the food onto the fork. For dessert, if it some solid food like cake, trifle or pie, then the fork is in the right hand nudging the food onto the spoon in the left. There is no switching of utensils required here. There was of course the golden rule of no talking while chewing (or eating), which kept one's mouth tightly shut, otherwise exposing unsightly half-eaten food.

The dearth of conversation at our silent head-post helped us to concentrate on chewing and eating, relieving us from the errors of exposing half-eaten food while attempting to talk at the same time. Those of our very young proteges out in the plebeians' sections had to follow the same rules of decorum and of proper chewing and eating. But they were not so lucky, not having built mechanism to ensure that they kept quiet, and mouths closed, as they chewed. Our Headmaster would occasionally shout into the dining room at some poor junior who neglected a rule, or a mischievous senior who thought he could get away with it, not that they were they only miscreants, rather they served as examples for all the others to try harder at being civilized. But Mr. Peacock was not all about punishments and reprimands. He would occasionally emit a deep guffaw at some prankish youngster, a future comic who, is inadvertently auditioning for a part in the next school production of a Shakespearean comedy.

But the silent Head Table was strangely comforting. We knew our Headmaster was actually protecting us with this code of silence from emitting odd sounds, as children are wont to do, and we were 13-year-old children still, or disclosing undisclosable stories and events: "Did you now that Carruthers rode his bike all the way down the hill without holding the handles?" Which would result in said boy having his bike confiscated for a whole week!

And how does one converse with a Headmaster anyway?

We were being trained fit to be at Her Royal Highness’ Table, or any other Highness' for that matter, and that was the point: perfection with the highest goal in mind. That was the meaning of the "preparatory school," to prepare these pupils to be civilized, cultured AND educated adults.

But before we started the mundane activity of eating our meal, there were thanks to be made. And as Head Girl, I had the heavy responsibility of Thanking our Saviour "for what we are about to receive."

"May the Lord make us truly thankful,” I would finish off the blessing.

But I was also ready to forestall this blessing if I felt not all the students came to the required attention, a privilege I rarely used. But one meal time, I made the decision of telling an especially irritating senior student, who regularly disrupted meals, often with minor misbehavior requiring a simple "Tamara that's enough," try her luck at disrupting my Grace.

I waited for her to come to attention. But she didn't, she wouldn't. With no prior warning, I said: "Tamara, please leave the dining room." All heads and prefects are constantly being tested by students. This particular one got angry, then apologetic, then loud. I talked over her and repeated "Please leave the room." She left the dining room and waited outside until the end of the meal when she received hers in the empty dining hall. She had no choice, else a heavy punishment. I had won, not just that battle, but a possible prolonged war. She never disturbed my Grace again.

Once the Grace was over, this very short but very important part of the meal signaled the permission to "go ahead, eat and be merry" for this roomful of robust, rambunctious school children, mostly boys, and though the girls were quieter they no less devious. And they certainly knew how to eat, and even be merry, under the watchful eyes of the silent table at the far end of the hall, at the Head Table.

I left a tangible legacy in this Great Room, not just floating memories of reprimanded pupils. My name is engraved in gold letters on two beautiful boards of red-brown wood hanging on one of the dark oak-paneled walls: on one as head girl (along with the head boy with whom I ruled), and on the other as an "Astor Student" named after the scholarship I would receive to attend my secondary school, Dover College, only an hour's drive away, by the famed White Cliffs and the turbulent waters of the English Channel, and daunting for a young girl about to return to the bottom rungs of the scholastic and social ladder.

But I had my years of training and education at my Great Hall, a true student of Mr. Peacock. I knew I would handle my new adventure.

Sunday, November 25, 2018

Diversity in Writers: Will the Real Jeeves Please Stand?

The article below is from my Camera Lucida blog posted on December 7, 2005 (twelve years ago).

Then, I started to examine what multiculturalism meant to non-White Canadians (Americans, British etc.) and my views have remained exactly the same today as shows my article a couple of days ago Thanksgiving.

Note: The links to the Amazon.com book lists are not current. Ishiguro, Smith and Rushdie are prolific and have produced books through 2018, and they continue to write in the dystopian style they adopted early in their careers. I recommend changing the Amazon.com search by "publication date" to see their current activities, and the rave reviews all round, including:

- Kazuo Ishiguro's The Buried Giant, published in 2015:
Ishiguro has created a fantastical alternate reality in which, in spite of the extremity of its setting and because of its integrity and emotional truth, you believe unhesitatingly. - The Financial Times, February 2015
- Salman Rushdie's 2017 The Golden House, published in 2017:
The Golden House” has been billed by its publisher as Rushdie’s return to realism. Yet the New York City on offer is so gilded and remote that the novel reads like what one’s impressions would be if all one knew of it came from back issues of Vanity Fair magazine. - The New York Times, September 2017
- Zadie Smith's Feel Free:
“…You will have to take liberties, you will have to feel free to write as you like…even if it is irresponsible. - Zadiesmith.com

(Note: Rather than use "truth" as the target, Smith, like all dislocated people, who gravitate towards dystopia - and violence - choses "irresponsible" instead. She knows words and her word choice is not an error.)
All have won various prizes and perhaps the most prestigious is Ishiguro's Nobel Prize for Literature in 2017:
Kazuo Ishiguro
The Nobel Prize in Literature 2017
[...]
Prize motivation: "who, in novels of great emotional force, has uncovered the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with the world." - The Nobel Prize in Literature 2017
Jeeves of course died in 1975 (born in 1881), and his ghost did not write the 2018 listed books. Rather, they are contemporary reprints which probably do not do the aesthetic credit that the older versions did to his craft.


First edition
Author: P. G. Wodehouse
Publisher: George Newnes
Publication date: May 1919
[Source]


Diversity in Writers: Will the Real Jeeves Please Stand?

England has witnessed several years of non-English authors who keep winning literary prizes, or just literary acclaim. Zadie Smith was recently in the headlines, Salman Rushdie has managed to outlive his fatwa, and another less famous but prolific writer, Kazuo Ishiguro, has written yet another book from those fair British Isles.
I’ve read books by all three, even tried more than one of each. And all leave me less than enthralled, slightly confused, and struck by a lack of authenticity. I find their characters to be caricatures. Both Rushdie and Smith go for hyperbole, while Ishiguro goes for exactly the opposite.

I’m beginning to wonder if non-British writers, however much they were born on the Island, can really capture the spirit of the land.

“Remains of the Day” by Ishiguro has a gloomy, undecipherable, remorseful butler try to recapture something of what he’s lost during all those years of selfless service. Actually, I recant my observation about Ishiguro’s understatement. What could be more of a hyperbole than this?

Then there is P.G. Wodehouse, with the inimitable Jeeves. His adroit butler who really always does save the day, after a lot of scampers and near-disasters along the way. And he does get to have his day at the sea-side also, and quite frequently.

I think Wodehouse captured his character with affection as a butler who certainly is not going to be bossed around by any Lord! No remains for him to collect.

Sometimes I wonder; if you don’t have your full emotions invested in a place, how can you write positive things about it? Like Rushdie, Smith and Ishiguro, who seem to deny a possibility for a future in their books, and press on with their circular exaggerations trying to find meanings for themselves.

Ishiguro’s 2001 book “When we were orphans” is about an Englishman who mysteriously lost his parents as a young boy in Shanghai. He returns as a professional detective to solve that ultimate mystery. It reminds me of these writers, trying to find clues about their past by digging into words.

Ishiguro’s latest book forfeited the unapproachable Far East, and his ancestral home, for something even more alien. It seems like he’s completely given up on ‘his’ England. “Never let me go” is about a Utopia (or a dystopia) on cloning. No more real people, real places or real stories for Ishiguro in the advent of the 21st century.

Why doesn’t this progression of his thoughts and stories not surprise me?

Quote from an interview with Ishiguro on "When we were Orphans":
There's a certain kind of branded, packaged atmosphere of Shanghai: this exotic, mysterious, decadent place. The same in Remains of the Day. It was a case of manipulating certain stereotypical images of a certain kind of classical England. Butlers and tea and scones: it's not really about describing a world that you know well and firsthand. It's about describing stereotypes that exist in people's heads all around the world and manipulating them engagingly.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

"Les Anglais"



The contemporary thinking about foreigners turns them into moral, cultural or social issues, but downplays the most important one: actual logistics.

Foreigners are people who travel to lands which are not their own, with cultures and social structures different from theirs, with languages they don't speak or speak without the fluency of their own languages.

In less progressive eras, when a foreigner came to a country other than his own, he had to understand the country he came to and subjugate himself to these different circumstances, and behave accordingly. He would always remain a foreigner, however many years he has lived there, and however many obstacle tests he has passed (and with distinction even).

There was an intriguing and endearing time in my life in Paris.

When we just arrived, our apartment was in a neighborhood which had its own boulangerie, patisserie, cafe, tabac and all the other accoutrements of French neighborhood life. It was like a mini-village within the large city, as all Parisian residential neighborhoods are (our next neighbourhood was slightly more cosmopolitan being near the Tour Eiffel and the shopkeepers were friendly but too busy to ask for details, although they always greeted us familiarly).

I went to a French bilingual school for the first six months and later we went to the first of two boarding schools in England, in Kent.

We had always been English speakers, having had our elementary education in Addis Ababa at what was then called The English School. I was fluent in English at a very early age.

As is always the case, neighborhood merchants, especially those one frequents regularly and with a Mom & Pop management style, make an effort to know their clientele, and even their names.

This particular French boulanger and his wife would greet us in a familiar way and I'm sure, when we (the kids) no longer came accompanied by their mother, asked: "Ou sont les enfant?"

By then my mother knew some French and no doubt told them as best she could that we were at school in England.

This was an instinctive association by country. If this Arab-looking family sent their children to a pensionat in England, then they must be of the English cultural persuasion and therefore they are English. Most Arabs in France have a French - colonial - association, and they would have kept their children within the French culture.

On a side note, this was the argument - the debate - used to say that North Africans (Moroccans and Algerians mostly) were French because of this colonial past, and that the huge numbers of immigrant North Africans can live in France as Frenchmen. Of course Arabs feel differently: they ARE NOT Frenchmen!!! They would always be Arab.

Back to my Parisian neighbourhood. We became known as "Les Anglais!" The patriotic neighbourhood baker and his wife (his wife mostly because she was the one who ran the storefront and communicated with the customers) associated us with their perennial and historical antagonists, the English, those most foreign of foreigners!

But she loved us! Who wouldn't! This cute threesome, with their coats and hoods in the winter rushing to school early in the morning, or coming in for their favorite "Kim-Cone" ice cream in the summer which they bought with long-saved pennies, now going across the seas to learn things! How brave they are!

"Quand viennent-ils, les enfant?" she would ask my mother those long months when we were away.

But we always remained "Les Anglais."