Discussion:
Andrew Lang
(too old to reply)
Arthur Neuendorffer
2020-08-28 20:56:13 UTC
Permalink
-------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lang

<<Andrew Lang FBA (31 March 1844 – 20 July 1912) was a Scottish poet, novelist, literary critic, and contributor to the field of anthropology. He is best known as a collector of folk and fairy tales. The Andrew Lang lectures at the University of St Andrews are named after him.

He was educated at Selkirk Grammar School, Loretto School, and the Edinburgh Academy, as well as the University of St Andrews and Balliol College, Oxford, where he took a first class in the final classical schools in 1868, becoming a fellow and subsequently honorary fellow of Merton College. He soon made a reputation as one of the most able and versatile writers of the day as a journalist, poet, critic, and historian. He was a member of the Order of the White Rose, a Neo-Jacobite society which attracted many writers and artists in the 1890s and 1900s.

He also wrote monographs on The Portraits and Jewels of Mary Stuart (1906) and James VI and the Gowrie Mystery (1902). The somewhat unfavourable view of John Knox presented in his book John Knox and the Reformation (1905) aroused considerable controversy. He gave new information about the continental career of the Young Pretender in Pickle the Spy (1897), an account of Alestair Ruadh MacDonnell, whom he identified with Pickle, a notorious Hanoverian spy. This was followed by The Companions of Pickle (1898) and a monograph on Prince Charles Edward (1900). In 1900 he began a History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation (1900). The Valet's Tragedy (1903), which takes its title from an essay on Dumas's Man in the Iron Mask, collects twelve papers on historical mysteries, and A Monk of Fife (1896) is a fictitious narrative purporting to be written by a young Scot in France in 1429–1431.>>
------------------------------------------------------
PRINCE PRIGIO BY ANDREW LANG

The prince blushed at this, for he knew his conduct had not (B)een
hono(U)rable. (BUT) he at onc[E] fell ove[R] head and [E]ars in lo[V]e with th[E]
young la[D]y, a thing he had never done in his life before, because--he
said--"women were so stupid!" You see he was so clever!
............................
. <= 8 =>
.
. c o n d u c t h
. a d n o t (B) e e
. n h o n o (U) r a
. b l e.(B U T) h e
. a t o n c [E] f e
. l l o v e [R] h e
. a d a n d [E] a r
. s i n l o [V] e w
. i t h t h [E] y o
. u n g l a [D] y,
.
[DEVERE] -8
------------------------------------------------------
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2566/2566-h/2566-h.htm

HOW TO FAIL IN LITERATURE: A LECTURE BY ANDREW LANG

PREFACE

What should be a man’s or a woman’s reason for taking literature as a vocation, what sort of success ought they to desire, what sort of ambition should possess them? These are natural questions, now that so many readers exist in the world, all asking for something new, now that so many writers are making their pens “in running to devour the way” over so many acres of foolscap. The legitimate reasons for enlisting (too often without receiving the shilling) in this army of writers are not far to seek. A man may be convinced that he has useful, or beautiful, or entertaining ideas within him, he may hold that he can express them in fresh and charming language. He may, in short, have a “vocation,” or feel conscious of a vocation, which is not exactly the same thing. There are “many thyrsus bearers, few mystics,” many are called, few chosen. Still, to be sensible of a vocation is something, nay, is much, for most of us drift without any particular aim or predominant purpose. Nobody can justly censure people whose chief interest is in letters, whose chief pleasure is in study or composition, who rejoice in a fine [S]ente[N]ce as [O]ther[S] do in [A] well [M]odelled limb, or a delicately touched landscape, nobody can censure them for trying their fortunes in literature. Most of them will fail, for, as the bookseller’s young man told an author once, they have the poetic temperament, without the poetic power. Still among these whom Pendennis has tempted, in boyhood, to run away from school to literature as Marryat has tempted others to run away to sea, there must be some who will succeed. But an early and intense ambition is not everything, any more than a capacity for taking pains is everything in literature or in any art.
............................
. <= 5 =>
.
. a f i n e
. [S] e n t e
. [N] c e a s
. [O] t h e r
. [S] d o i n
. [A] w e l l
. [M] o d e l
. l e d l i
. m b

[MASONS] -5 : Prob. in preface ~ 1 in 645
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Thus a great deal may be done by studying inappropriateness of style, by adopting a style alien to our matter and to our audience. If we “haver” discursively about serious, and difficult, and intricate topics, we fail; and we fail if we write on happy, pleasant, and popular topics in an abstruse and intent, and analytic style. We fail, too, if in style we go outside our natural selves. “The style is the man,” and the man will be nothing, and nobody, if he tries for an incongruous manner, not naturally his own, for example if Miss Yonge were suddenly to emulate the manner of Lever, or if Mr. John Morley were to s(T)rive to s(H)ine in th(E) fashion {O}f Uncle R{E}mus, or if [M]r. Rider H[A]ggard we[R]e to be al[L]ured int[O] imitati{O}n by the e{X}ample, so admirable in itself, of the Master of Balliol. It is ourselves we must try to improve, our attentiveness, our interest in life, our seriousness of purpose, and then the style will improve with the self. Or perhaps, to be perfectly frank, we shall thus convert ourselves into prigs, throw ourselves out of our stride, lapse into self-consciousness, lose all that is natural, naif, and instinctive within us. Verily there are many dangers, and the paths to failure are infinite.
............................
. <= 8 =>
.
. s (T) r i v e t o
. s (H) i n e i n t
. h (E) f a s h i o
. n {O} f U n c l e
. R {E} m u s,o r i
. f [M] r.R i d e r
. H [A] g g a r d w
. e [R] e t o b e a
. l [L] u r e d i n
. t [O] i m i t a t
. i {O} n b y t h e
. e {X} a m p l e,
.
[MARLO/OX]
---------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David Webb
2020-08-29 19:25:01 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 4:56:14 PM UTC-4, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
PRINCE PRIGIO BY ANDREW LANG
The prince blushed at this, for he knew his conduct had not (B)een
hono(U)rable. (BUT) he at onc[E] fell ove[R] head and [E]ars in lo[V]e with th[E]
young la[D]y, a thing he had never done in his life before, because--he
said--"women were so stupid!" You see he was so clever!
............................
. <= 8 =>
.
. c o n d u c t h
. a d n o t (B) e e
. n h o n o (U) r a
. b l e.(B U T) h e
. a t o n c [E] f e
. l l o v e [R] h e
. a d a n d [E] a r
. s i n l o [V] e w
. i t h t h [E] y o
. u n g l a [D] y,
.
[DEVERE] -8
You are by no means the first to suggest that Oxford is most apt to be found in close prOXimity to multiple "butts" that are not yet fully developed, Art -- indeed, Arundel and others said the same thing centuries earlier.
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2566/2566-h/2566-h.htm
HOW TO FAIL IN LITERATURE: A LECTURE BY ANDREW LANG
You could follow up Lang's work with your own tome, Art: _How to fail in literary attribution_.

[Crackpot cryptography snipped]
Post by Arthur Neuendorffer
---------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Loading...