About Me

My photo
New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
Admire John McPhee, Bill Bryson, David Remnick, Thomas Merton, Richard Rohr and James Martin (and most open and curious minds)

30.6.13

It's Only Rock & Roll

The Rolling Stones have made their Glastonbury debut, 43 years after the festival first took place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23116750

The rockers, whose average age is 69, performed for more than two hours, pulling in the biggest audience in the event's history.

As well as the classic hits, Sir Mick Jagger was inspired to write a new song, called Glastonbury Girl, when the band arrived on site the night before.


Yosemite

Sunday with Georgia and Alfred

O’Keeffe is like, “look at my massive pelvis, look how it echoes the landscape”, and the artist Stieglitz is like, “if you love me, why don’t you come back to New York?” O’Keeffe is like, “look at the contrast between convex and concave forms, between smooth and jagged edges”, and Stieglitz is like, “are you listening to me? Why don’t you come back to New York?” O’Keefe is like “the light is so good in New Mexico, I’m so glad I left that deadbeat Stieglitz.”
shop  by

29.6.13

Stones

The Rolling Stones' hit-packed Glastonbury debut has been hailed as "the high spot of 43 years" of the festival by organiser Michael Eavis.
The band opened with Jumpin' Jack Flash, with Mick Jagger prowling the stage in a green sequinned jacket.
He repeatedly thanked the crowd and, after It's Only Rock 'N' Roll (But I Like It), joked organisers had "finally got round to asking us" to play.
Tens of thousands of fans cheered on the two-hour set featuring 20 songs.
'Come again'
Speaking immediately after the band came off stage, festival boss Eavis called it "the high spot of 43 years of Glastonbury".
"They finally did it, and it was fantastic. My God, did they deliver."
Eavis also said he had bumped into Prince Harry at the festival during the day, "and I recommended he stay the night".
The Stones had arrived on stage after an intro tape featuring the sounds of Worthy Farm's usual residents, 350 dairy cows.
Eavis was heard saying "we waited a long time" as the unmistakable rhythm track of Sympathy For The Devil played and the crowd spontaneously broke into the familiar "whoo whoo" backing vocals.
"It's great to be here doing this show, doing this festival," said Jagger after It's Only Rock 'N' Roll (But I Like It).
"After all these years they finally got round to asking us," he added. Drummer Charlie Watts gave the joke a desultory cymbal crash.
The band had modified the Pyramid stage with three catwalks, allowing Jagger to bridge the cavernous gap that separates most Glastonbury performers from the audience.
It was in almost constant use as the 69-year-old strutted back and forth, clapping his hands thrusting his thick-lipped pout into the air.
Five songs into the set, Jagger introduced a new song, written for a girl "in cut-off jeans" he claimed to have met at the festival on Friday night.
A swampy country-rock number, it featured the refrain "Waiting for my Glastonbury girl".
Keith Richards, his guitar slung low around his skinny jeans, was handed the microphone for a couple of songs, and former Stones' guitarist Mick Taylor joined the band to layer an intricate blues solo over 1969's Midnight Rambler.
He was the only surprise guest of the night, despite rumours that Adele or even Bruce Springsteen would make an appearance.
After 90 minutes, Sympathy For The Devil got a full airing, as flares turned the sky red and a mechanical phoenix rose from atop the Pyramid stage.
Jagger said: "We've been doing this for 50 years or something. And if this is the first time you've seen a band, please come again."
The encore was You Can't Always Get What You Want, and an extended, hyperactive take on (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction.
"Thank you very much Glastonbury," sang Jagger as the song reached its climax.
Fireworks lit up the farm and the band took a series of bows, while the audience continued to chant the riff to Satisfaction.
Meanwhile, at the Acoustic tent, the Bootleg Beatles played a Stones riff and commented: "Sign of a good band - you've got to know when to split up."
'Mental battle'
Earlier on Saturday proceedings had started with Malian musician Rokia Traore, whose upbeat blend of African roots, blues and jazz gave early risers a chance to dance off the fug of a late night.
A headliner at this year's Womad festival, Traore was offered a Glastonbury slot as a gesture of solidarity with Mali, where Islamist militants all but banned music in some areas.
Billy Bragg got into the spirit of the day by playing classic Stones track Dead Flowers during his set, while soul singer Laura Mvula welcomed the sun by breaking into a sing-a-long rendition of Bob Marley's One Love.
Speaking to the BBC afterwards, she said the cover had been suggested by her musical director, Troy Miller "whose last appearance here was with Amy Winehouse, so he knows what he's talking about".
Mvula, who only released her debut album Sing To The Moon, in March, said stepping out on the festival's main stage was overwhelming.
"Let me tell you something, there's nothing like it. A sort of nervousness I've never experienced before.
"It was like a mental battle - the goal was to get through it and enjoy as many moments as possible."

The Press

IT SOUNDS LIKE A WOMAN GASPING over and over, in constant astonishment. She gasps twice. The first note holds, a drawn breath; then a quick exhale and a deep, compressive sigh. The repetition makes a shuffle beat, taah ta TAH, taah ta TAH, taah ta TAH: cymbal dragging behind the snare, syncopated on the off-count.
Covered in a layer of grease and ink, the machine looks like something out of a Jules Verne novel. It runs about the length of a dining room table and rises to shoulder height. Individual pieces shudder and click: blackened teeth ticking over gears; arms grabbing pieces of paper and burying them in the bowels; chutes spitting them back into neat, collated piles. A plaque, suspended atop an iron bar like an antenna, reads ORIGINAL HEIDELBERG. The letters might once have been gold, or at least burnished, but are now greased black. Mr. Chan says the machine is between 55 and 60 years old.
As the machine depletes the stack of papers — an advertisement for free drinks at a local bar — Mr. Chan places a towel beneath the stack. When he does this, the papers tilt up at an angle. “Easier,” says Mr. Chan, miming a grabbing motion. He changes the position of the towel as the stack gets shorter.
His glasses have fallen down his tiny fleur-de-lis nose. He absently pushes them back up and leans back on his heels. In house slippers and a burgundy sweater-vest, he looks more ready to crack a beer on the couch than deal with industrial machinery. His potbelly protrudes just slightly, but for a man in his sixties, Mr. Chan moves well, with the languid attention of someone who has spent his life on his feet. He is among the few remaining people in Hong Kong who know how to operate a printer like this, who have spent their lives nursing the convulsions and enduring the clamor; one of the last for whom a beautiful, weird machine like this is a day at work, rather than an exercise in nostalgia.
Mr. Chan’s shop smells of ramen noodles and ink. Degreasers sit on shelves; stacks of paper; a machine for cutting name cards. Another man holds a piece of paper to the light, squinting through it. The shop could exist at any point within the last century, except for a cell phone charging in the back.
Mr. Chan occasionally collects and shuffles the papers into stacks. He sits in the swivel office chair on the stoop. Much of his job, it seems, is waiting. Being present with the machine, attuned to its needs, ministering to its moods.
A tourist could find Mr. Chan’s print shop by turning down an alley near the Gage Street wet market. On either side of the alley, central Hong Kong teems with commercial activity. But hardly anyone walks down this way. Scrawled with graffiti, the alley collects forgotten items — screws and wires, air ducts, a stack of plastic chairs and an empty slop bucket — which mark the back entrance to the Shanghai Kitchen. From the market drift the smells of carnations and rot, which mingle with the ink to make a sour, unpleasant perfume.
Like this alley, traditional print culture in Hong Kong has nearly been forgotten. “It’s a sunset industry,” Mr. Chan says, slipping a hand onto a lever. One yank, and the machine shudders to a stop. “Nowadays no one needs envelopes.”
¤
Fifty years ago, the area around Mr. Chan’s shop would have been filled with the snapping and whirring of print machines. Hong Kong’s post-war print industry centered around the hillsides of SoHo and Sheung Wan, old neighborhoods perched above the central commercial district. Mr. Chan moved the family business to Hong Kong Island from Kowloon, across Victoria Harbor, to join the boom. “All my friends were here,” he says. He remembers the entire street full of print shops. Most of them have long disappeared, their workshops turned into tapas bars, their machines disassembled and sold for parts. Only Mr. Chan and few others remain, tucked down alleys: the remnants of a dying industry.
Most of the mid-century printers used a machine like Mr. Chan’s: the Original Heidelberg Platen Press, produced in West Germany by the Schnellpressenfabrik AG Heidelberg. In the postwar era, Heidelberg printers were the cream of the crop, the ultimate in engineering. Fully automated, pneumatic presses like Mr. Chan’s became an industry standard. His machine earned the nickname The Windmill, for the flying arms that scooped and fed paper into the printer — an innovation that made it one of Heidelberg’s most successful products.
The Heidelberg company hasn’t produced a printer like Mr. Chan’s in 30 years; they, along with the rest of the industry, transitioned to offset printing starting in the late 1960s. But no one has produced a better product since, Mr. Chan insists.
“One thing that I really like about it is it’s machinery. It doesn’t require fixing. It’s from Germany, and they use really good quality parts and it doesn’t break down easily,” he says. I ask how he fixes it when it does need repair.
“It never breaks down,” he says. I stare at him, unbelieving. He stops and gazes at the florescent lights, searching memory, to make sure. “Yes, forty years it has never broken down. It still has all the original parts.” He runs one finger over the body of the Heidelberg. “Only chipped paint.”
The bestial, snorting machine is so different from today’s technology, where all the functions are miniaturized and hidden inside a sleek silver package, like an iPod. Mr. Chan's machine looks like it should require elaborate repair. And yet, we replace our phones year after year, while the ORIGINAL HEIDELBERG chugs on.
¤
Inside Youth Square, it is cold and air-conditioned and feels like school. A mottled grey carpet runs under fluorescent lights. Teenagers sit at tables, bent over books, sharing bags of potato chips, tapping thumbs on smartphones. A short walk from the metro in Chai Wan, the last stop on the Hong Kong Island line, the Youth Square community center has a dance studio, a hostel, and private study rooms. It also now houses the complete contents of the former Wai Che Printing Company.
Along a narrow raised platform, two Heidelberg printers lie on their backs like overturned beetles. Their knobs and arms poke stiffly into the air, the greased black shells silent and still. Around the corner, the rest of the Wai Che company sits under lights on a separate platform. Held up by their original rusty tables, covered in a fine layer of machinery dust, sit the Blueprinting Machine, the Eyelet Machine, the Hand-Press Printing Machine, the Lead Sheet Cutter, and the Electrical Long-Reach Stapler. The Adana Thermograph originally came from Twickenham, England, at least according to the plaque; it was used to emboss business cards by flash-melting white powder. A conveyor grille over the top once sucked the powdered cards inside and spit them out again, gleaming, tattooed with raised type. A cardboard box nearby is full of brass tacks.
The Wai Che Printing Company operated for 60 years in Mr. Chan’s neighborhood. It specialized in moveable type: metal letters laid manually onto the press. In Chinese, this involves thousands of characters; it can take hours to set a paragraph. When Wai Che closed its doors in December 2012, Hong Kong lost one of its last manual letterpresses. An artist and curator, Mr. Stanley Wong, arranged for the shop’s contents, including its files, clock, and the desk where the owner did his accounts, to become an exhibition in Youth Square.
The display intends to educate the youth of Hong Kong about heritage printing, the sign reads. A black-and-white video imbedded in the wall shows Mr. Stanley Wong directing the machines into place. In the video, he wears hipster glasses and a scarf. He gazes lovingly at the machines: no longer functional, they now await the reverence of museum pieces. Admiration, protectiveness: this is how curators look at an objet d'art. It is not the way Mr. Chan sometimes glares at his machine, like it’s a stubborn family member.
Teenage girls wander past, chatting in Cantonese. The hallway is narrow and there are no distractions, nothing to look at except the huge black carapaces of dead machinery. The students do not look up. One seems absorbed in her phone, a pink earbud dangling on her shoulder. The other girls, in woolen school uniforms, prance by without even noticing the display.
I sit for two hours, watching to see if anyone stops. No one does.
Finally, one boy walks by slowly, his eyes scanning the displays. He wears a blue school polo and has a pudgy face. When he stops to look at a box of moveable type, I swoop in. “What do you think of the machines?” I ask him.
He looks at me from behind the simultaneous disdain and awkwardness of adolescence. “It’s very old,” he says finally, and turns away.
¤
The first mechanized printer arrived in Hong Kong in 1843, courtesy of the London Missionary society. Just after the British took control of Hong Kong Island, the Society decided to move its Asian operations from the Straits of Malacca, in what is now modern Malaysia, to the new colony. Reverend James Legge sailed into Hong Kong Harbor bearing his evangelical zeal and a printing press. “It is true that to move from Malacca to Hong-Kong is a great step in advance — a long march nearer to the seat where Satan has enthroned his power; and so far there is reason for joy in the movement,” he wrote in a letter. His printer churned out religious material, but also translations and Chinese literature.
In 1870, a Shanghai man who had studied under Legge, Wang Tao, bought the press. Wang had worked as a translator of Chinese classics and penned a travelogue about his tour of Europe with Legge; after he acquired the press, he began to print a popular Chinese newspaper called The Universal Circulating Herald. A supporter of parliamentary democracy and educational reform, Wang helped establish the commercial print industry in Hong Kong. His printing house was a short walk from where Mr. Chan’s shop is today.
Nearly a century after the first printer arrived in Hong Kong, Mr. Chan began his apprenticeship. His father had bought the Heidelberg Windmill after the war and passed the family business on to his teenage son. Today, letterpress printing is a craft industry, experiencing a nostalgic revival in the U.S. and the U.K. In Mr. Chan’s youth, those romantic associations didn’t matter; printers simply made a good living.
Print apprentices usually trained for three years, Mr. Chan says. When he finally inherited the press and moved the business to Hong Kong Island, he made enough to support a family.
“The machine watched my kids grow up,” he says. The business paid for his children to attend college; both now work in casinos in Macau. I ask if his children know how to use the ORIGINAL HEIDELBERG. He laughs. “They don’t know how to use the machine and they don’t want to know.”
Around 20 years ago, his print work began disappearing. Larger, faster machines took the high-volume jobs; then computers made ink even more obsolete. Mr. Chan still prints small-batch jobs, anything under 1,000 copies. He specializes in the thin, fragile paper used to make receipts. Nowadays, nobody could make a living as a printer, he says. You can’t raise a family on an antique.
¤
“It’s kind of like driving a car.” Mr. Chan pulls on a lever with a bulbous red head near the base. The machine immediately reacts: its wings fold out, the flying arms scoop paper away. He grins, exposing his few remaining teeth and set of uneven dimples, which skew at different angles when he smiles.
Since the Wai Che exhibit, I’ve started to worry about what will happen to Mr. Chan’s machine in the future. I ask if he has plans to take on an apprentice or train a new generation in Hong Kong’s printing heritage.
His raised eyebrows say: Get real. “It’s not necessary to learn how to use it now, because it’s not going to earn you anything,” he says, shaking his head. “I wouldn’t want my kids to use it.”
Then, abruptly, he leans into the levers and the machine stills. He turns, speaking more directly than he ever has before. “Even though it’s an antique, no one appreciates it — no one knows how to use it and there’s not enough space,” he says. His eyebrows droop over his eyes. One hand remains on the lever, resting on a knob a few inches from the end. He doesn’t even look at it. His hand just finds the knob, knows where it is by touch.
“What will happen to the Windmill when you retire?” I ask.
“They will take it apart and sell it for parts,” he says simply. I ask if he will feel sad, but he shakes his head no. It is, in the end, just a machine.
“You could donate it to a museum,” I say. I realize at this point I am not so much asking questions as making suggestions — almost pleading with him.
“They wouldn’t take it. There’s no value in it.” With a shrug of his shoulders, Mr. Chan tilts a new stack of papers onto the plate. A few shifts of knobs and levers, and the ORIGINAL HEIDELBERG kicks into action: a roar of compression and convulsion, paper disappearing between its black molars.
Mr. Chan reaches for a San Miguel can, rattles it, finds it empty, places it back on the desk. After a lifetime of standing with the machine, nursing it, tweaking it, waiting for it, he doesn’t see the value in preserving it as an artifact. “There’s not much point in not putting it to work,” he says.
Mr. Chan turns to begin sorting the finished papers. The machine gasps on in the background, permanently out of breath. Down the street, men in suits are hurrying along crowded sidewalks and women are sliding up glass buildings with views of the harbor. Ten steps from Mr. Chan’s stoop, you can’t even hear the ORIGINAL HEIDELBERG; it’s just another rattle among urban noise, a sigh lost in the roar of a city pushing forward.
¤
PRINT

Pukka


What can a Victorian glossary of Anglo-Indian slang tell us about the British empire? (Image by Josephine Livingstone)
Pyjamas did not exist until the 19th century. I’m not sure what people wore to bed in the 1700s, but it wasn’t pyjamas. Pyjamas by any other name may well have been as snug, but the fact remains: without the English in India, there would be no India in English. The best way to understand this story is to get your hands on a Hobson-Jobson.
As its subtitle says, Hobson-Jobson is  “A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, And of Kindred Terms; Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Discursive.” The first edition was published in 1886. And now Kate Teltscher, a scholar at Roehampton University, has heroically abridged the 1903 2nd edition for our reading pleasure (Oxford University Press, £14.99). She has halved its size to a very manageable 570 pages, without cutting any good bits.
The glossary was the brainchild of two men, each representative of their age. The first was born in 1820, in East Lothian, Scotland. He was named Henry, after his aunt. The aunt named Henry is a good metaphor for the life and career of Colonel Sir Henry Yule—Bengal Engineer, editor of medieval texts, historical geographer—perfectly normal for 19th-century Britain; utterly strange to us, looking back.
Yule lived a classic Victorian life. His father, himself a fine Persian and Arabic Orientalist, was in the Bengal army and Henry followed him to India, picking up his interest in languages. As part of the Bengal Engineers, Henry was involved in the expansion of the Indian canal system and railway network. He also received the Royal Geographical Society’s gold medal for his English edition of Marco Polo’s travels.
If these twin accomplishments—engineering and translating—seem discordant, consider that he would sometimes sign his letters “Marcus Paulus Venetus”—as Marco Polo himself. A successful man of Yule’s type in Victorian British India felt himself to be at the frontier of civilisation. He followed the mythic path of imperial western heroes, from Alexander the Great to Marco Polo, who had explored India, to the benefit of the “natives.”
An anecdote from Amy Yule’s biography of her father illustrates the doublethink that characterised the colonist’s simultaneous good nature and arrogance. Around 1845, Yule was occupied at the engineering workshops that helped build the canal at Roorkee. He had no trouble tolerating the din of construction, but “the unpunctuality and carelessness of the native workmen sorely tried his patience, of which Nature had endowed him with but a small reserve.” He would lose his temper, and then feel so remorseful afterwards that he began fining himself two rupees per outburst. When he left Roorkee, “he devoted this accumulation of self-imposed fines to the erection of a sun-dial, to teach the natives the value of time.” Well-intentioned, pragmatic, paternalistic: classic Henry.
In 1840, the same year Yule arrived in Calcutta, future South Indian magistrate and judge Arthur Coke Burnell was born in Gloucestershire. Burnell was physically weak but had a fearsome intellect. His copious work on Sanskrit made an immense contribution to western scholarship. He offered Arabic as his oriental language when applying to the Indian Civil Service after university, but eventually mastered Sanskrit, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, Javanese, Coptic, and Tibetan.
Henry and Arthur met around 1872, in what I imagine to be the ultimate meet-cute over a dusty volume, at the Indian Office Library. Yule proposed that they write a glossary of Anglo-Indian slang—that is, words used by English people in India. He presided over the project with Burnell as his employee. (Burnell sadly never lived to see their project’s publication—he died at 42, ravaged by cholera, pneumonia, and overwork.)
Two Victorian lives, then, whose combined colonial knowledge, enthusiasm for language and literature, immense capacity for work, and position of social authority mixed together to produce something quite special: Hobson-Jobson.
In her delicate introduction to this new edition, Teltscher explains that the book’s charming title is a “distorted, anglicised version of the mourning cries of ‘Ya Hassan! Ya Hosain!’ at the Shia festival of Muharram.” Hence, “the law of Hobson-Jobson” is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the process by which a foreign word is wrenched into the sound-system of the adoptive language. Hobson-Jobsonism is the reason that “mulligatawny” sounds quite different from Tamil milagu-tannir (“pepper-water”) but meets the eye less like a soup and more like some kind of Scottish owl.
Hobson-Jobson provides a lexical snapshot of a truly strange and fascinating moment in world history—the very pinnacle of British imperial dominance over other lands—and for that reason alone, this new edition is worth your time. But this glossary is also an indispensable handbook to the rich and awkward inheritance of the British Empire, as it lives on in the mouths of contemporary speakers of English today.
Perhaps this is best illustrated by example. I loved my childhood drama teacher. I loved her so much that I got my mum to draw a picture of her. She sketched a little caricature, in which the teacher made an “ok” sign, with a catchphrase hovering beside her in a speech-bubble: “Pukka!” When she saw the catchphrase spelled out, my teacher was horrified. She had visualised the word as spelled differently, imagined it as Scottish regional dialect, I think. She wasn’t in the least repulsed by Hindi or Tamil, from which “pukka” is loaned—a nicer drama teacher one could not imagine. Rather, she was upset to think that she had been appropriating somebody else’s language. She thought she’d been saying one thing, when all along it was another. The teacher didn’t like that she was saying pukka because she hadn’t been in control of its implications.
For a full biography of this tricky little word, specifically in its incarnation as a loan-word into English, there is no better place to look than Hobson-Jobson. So, what’s the true definition of “pukka”? Well, firstly, the present-day British English slang use of “pukka” is a true definition. People all over Britain use the word, all the time, to mean solid, trustworthy, sure. Observe definition 3.b in the OED’s entry:
 b. Brit. slang. Excellent, superb; ‘cool’.
1991   Sun 13 June 23/6   Hey, man, that shirt’s pukka.
1996   Observer 5 May (Review Suppl.) 7/6   Girls mug girls for jewellery or pukka clothes.
2002   C. Newland Snakeskin xix. 255   ‘Yuh mum’s pukka,’ Davey chimed in, with so much passion I knew he wasn’t just being polite.
Hey, man, that word is pretty nineties. (Those drama classes did take place in 1997, now I think of it.) But where did it come from in the first place? Pucka is most fully defined in Hobson-Jobson in contradistinction to its antonym, cutcha:
CUTCHA, KUTCHA, adj. Hind. kachcha, ‘raw, crude, unripe, uncooked.’ This word is with its oppositepakka (see PUCKA) among the most constantly recurring Anglo-Indian colloquial terms, owing to the great variety of metaphorical applications of which both are susceptible.
1863. – “In short, in America, where they cannot get a pucka railway they take a kutcha one instead. This, I think, is what we must do in India.” – Lord Elgin, in Letters and Journals, 432.
This entry is characteristic of Yule and Burnell’s approach throughout; gently witty anecdotes illuminate each entry’s definition. They also provide a handy side-by-side comparison of the two words’ meanings. Selected highlights below:
So, from Hobson-Jobson we learn that British pukka is a fairly literal loan from Hindi and Urdu (pakka), but that the English adopted it as a metaphor. Its literal sense survives in Indian terms like “pucca housing,” often used today to describe permanent residences which are less susceptible to natural disaster. Pukka as a metaphor is rather poetic and lovely, particularly in its equal applicability to a mortal fever or a macadamised road.
Hobson-Jobson reveals some of its cultural bias, however, in what it leaves out. There is no entry, for example, for pukka-sahib. This term literally means a high-class European; a European might describe his friend thus if he wanted to suggest that he was a first-class gent. As we can read in EM Forster’s A Passage to India, however, pukka-sahib is also used satirically to refer to an attitude of prim, arrogant, magisterial aloofness: the ruling hypocrite’s pose. Henry Yule was a pukka-sahib for the ages. Teltscher wisely points out that the extensive Anglo-Indian lexicon of abuse and obscenity is left almost entirely out of the glossary, along with the prominent omission of the East India Company’s monopoly in the entry for “Opium.” By contrast, “Nigger” is included—not of Indian origin, but in such wide currency that it was deemed relevant.
Most of the entries in Hobson-Jobson contain the prejudices of the time but remain disarmingly charming. For example:
“Lit. ‘leg-clothing.’ A pair of loose drawers or trowsers, tied round the waist. Such a garment is used by various persons in India, e.g. by women of various classes, by Sikh men, and by most Mahommedans of both sexes. It was adopted from the Mahommedans by Europeans as an article of dishabille and of night attire, and is synonymous with Long Drawers, Shulwáurs, and Mogul-breeches.
Pyjamas, that is. Or, should I say, “PYJAMMAS, s. Hind. pae-jama (see JAMMA).” Your reaction to “Mohammedan,” the archaic English misnomer for “Muslim” based on the assumption that Mohammed was Islam’s “version” of Christ, is up to you. See entries also for: kedgeree, gymkhanadungareebungalow, gingham, kiosque, khakee, mantra, muslin, polo, pepper, pundit, sarong, shampoo, sherbet, and shawl.
If that list sound a bit too much like a Center Parcs apparatus list, look up the entertainingly violent origins of “juggernaut,” “to run amok,” “loot,” and “thug.” Yule’s preface to the 2nd edition is included here, offering such nuggets as these:
“Even phrases of a different character—slang indeed, but slang generally supposed to be vernacular as well as vulgar—e.g. ‘that is the cheese’; or supposed to be vernacular and profane—e.g. ‘I don’t care a dam’—are in reality, however, vulgar they may be, neither vernacular nor profane, but phrases turning upon innocent Hindustani vocables.”
That is the cheese. Many readers will be surprised to discover the extent of Portuguese influence upon the Anglo-Indian jargon (in words like “catamaran” and “mango”), which is down to their role in South Asia prior to British monopoly. A vast variety of origin languages are quoted here, including Urdu, Tamil, Hindi, Arabic, Marathi and Malayalam among many others.
The most interesting entries include something of the contemporary social mores of colonial British India, while also communicating linguistic mysteries behind common words. My favourite entry for sheer surprise value is that for “compound,” as in enclosed grounds rather than a molecule. It turns out that “compound” is probably a corruption of Malay kampong, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the word “compound” which one uses in chemistry (that one derives from the Latin componere). Also brilliant are the number of Indian wildlife referred to simply by a British name with “brahminy” prefixed to it, e.g.: brahminy bull, brahminy duck, brahminy kite.
All very interesting, and fully warranting Hobson-Jobson’s position on your shelf. But something is nagging about that title. Hobson-Jobson, Jobson-Hobson. Its cuteness, its Victorian nursery-rhyme appeal makes me uneasy. There is something jolly and old-fashioned about this book which will appeal to the trivia-loving, moustache-twirling, Eats, Shoots and Leaves-owning, tea-dance-attending, Waugh-quoting pedant.
In the past few years, an aesthetic lust for the past has gone mainstream. Britain rode a great wave of nostalgia in 2012. The Diamond Jubilee, quite rightly, gave the nation and its Commonwealth licence to cast its eye affectionately over 60 years of its history. But it isn’t healthy to look backwards so long, so hard, and so uncritically. We used to luxuriate in one Dickens adaptation every so often, but now Downton Abbey has thrust the costume-drama viewing experience into a soap opera allegro. From Peter Moffat’s romp through the early 20th century in The Village, to Radio 4 programmes on Steampunk, to the indisputably mainstream status of vintage clothing, to YouTube tutorials on how to do your hair like a Land Girl: we can’t get enough of the consumable past.
I’m not suggesting that there is anything dubious about being interested in the etymology of “shampoo” or “sherbet” (“dungarees” are doubtless innocent of this charge also, although the jury is still out on “harem,” as in pants.) But it is the case that patriotism and the vintage aesthetic feed off one another. If we are lazy about our enthusiasm for the British past, especially when it all starts looking a bit Henry Yule, then we risk forgetting about the nasty, violent bits. As the blogger Silver Goggles reminds us, our delighted recreation of the look of British history can sometimes mean dealing clumsily with the reality of British history.
“Hobson-Jobson” is a sweet rhyming term, and, like “pukka,” it means something. But it is also a pretty disrespectful bastardisation of a real religious practice. Better to use a word and know its biography than fear unknown implications, I’d say. Best of all, the more we learn about this little lexicon, the more we can talk about all this: our oddly absorbent language, the things the British did in the name of Empire, the inestimable debt we owe the countries and cultures that were and are tethered to us by history. Teltscher’s new edition is a door into these conversations—one worth opening.

Nelson Mandela

With Nelson Mandela, the devil would not like the details. We all know that he spent 27 years in jail, much of it on Robben Island. We all know about his remarkable strength, intellect and tolerance. But I did not know that when he was in prison, he studied Afrikaans, the language of his jailers, so he could get to know them better and possibly convert them to his cause. Physically he was a big man. But it is how he conducted himself that made other men seem so small.
Mandela is no demigod. He has his faults, but rage, anger, jealousy, egotism and the need for revenge are not among them. He was born into tribal nobility: he is the son of a counselor to the chief and, later, was a ward of the chief. An easy life was his for the asking. But he chose the path of rebellion against racist apartheid, which is to say he chose to be on the run, to live underground, to forsake the love of the astonishingly attractive Winnie — and yet all the time to pursue knowledge. It seems he did not waste a moment in prison. He was forever studying something.
On Robben Island, where he spent 18 years, he was largely confined to a fetid cell. He slept on a straw mat. He was persecuted by the guards. He spent his days breaking rocks. Because he was forbidden to wear sunglasses, his eyes were damaged. On occasion, he was put into solitary confinement for the infraction of reading a smuggled newspaper. At night, somehow, he studied for advanced degrees and when, eventually, he got out of prison, he brimmed with forgiveness and demanded a colorblind society.
When Frank Lautenberg died, we noted that he was the last World War II veteran in the Senate. Not many of our politicians have been to war, fewer still have been in solitary and few of those have chosen to forsake the easy life for the deprivations of a cause. They talk — and so do we journalists — about the bravery of this or that political position, but, to my knowledge, only Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.), both prisoners of war in Vietnam, know the utter terror of hearing the approaching footsteps of the torturer.
I remember when Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin met with Ronald Reagan in 1981. The contrast could not have been more vivid. Here was the amiable movie actor, a man who had had an easy, fortunate life. And here was a man who had been a terrorist, a guerrilla fighter, who had lost his family in the Holocaust and had been imprisoned in the Soviet Gulag. At night, “after twelve or fourteen or sixteen hours of work, we had to dig ourselves deep into the snow and go to sleep,” Begin wrote in “White Nights,” a memoir of those days. In the morning, he would awake to find some of his fellow prisoners frozen to death. Reagan probably told Begin some Hollywood story. Begin probably kept his mouth shut.
Most of us are like Ronald Reagan. What do we know of such travails? Could we be as brave, as indomitable and as averse to self-pity? Could we rise above it all as Mandela has or, less successfully, as Begin did? When Mandela’s mother died in 1968, he was not permitted to attend her funeral. When his son died a bit later, he was not allowed to attend his funeral. When his wife Winnie cheated on him, he stood by her, divorcing her only later. When Reagan and Margaret Thatcher sided with the apartheid regime and refused to join the calls for Mandela’s release, he forgave them and later met with them. He is not merely a big man. He is bigger than any man.
What you find often in insurgents is a bitter hatred and the need to carry on the struggle even after it’s over. This is not what happened with Mandela. He was not a freedom fighter looking to continue the fight — a Yasser Arafat unable to put down his gun and take yes for an answer. Mandela was able to administer, to turn to politics, to plead for racial understanding and tolerance. More important, he embodies those qualities. He evened no scores, waged no vendettas, never made himself the cause and casts a shadow across the inner lives of all people. He was the first black president of South Africa. He remains the standard by which we must judge ourselves.

28.6.13

Orson Wells

From 1983 until just before his death, in 1985, at the age of seventy, Orson Welles met his friend, the director Henry Jaglom, for lunch nearly every week at the Hollywood restaurant Ma Maison. Welles was then in poor health and dire straits. He hadn’t completed a dramatic feature since “Chimes at Midnight,” in 1966. His essay-film “F for Fake,” an ironic self-portrait, from 1973, had failed commercially, and he was struggling—with the help of Jaglom, who was serving as a sort of agent—to find funding for films and, for that matter, to make a living. At Welles’s request, Jaglom recorded their conversations, the transcripts of which have now been edited by Peter Biskind in the new book “My Lunches with Orson.” “His only proviso,” Biskind explains in his introduction, “was that the recorder be out of sight, concealed in Jaglom’s bag, so he didn’t have to look at it.” Welles was obviously uninhibited by the invisible device: the book is a trove of classic-era Hollywood gossip. If it were only that, it would be, at best, candy; instead, it’s a treasure, both as a portrait of the artist and as a copious record of his ideas—it is, in fact, a key source for understanding Welles, the director and the man.
First, it’s a shocking vision of the aging but still cunning lion in a very, very cold winter. The book is a kind of horror story: Welles’s lonely travails should quash any nostalgia for an ostensibly more cinema-friendly bygone age. The movies that he directed early on—even “Citizen Kane” alone—should have assured him the equivalent of a permanent artistic annuity. No one said a Hollywood career would be easy; but it should have been possible, and a new generation of young moguls who had made quick fortunes in the seventies and early eighties could have financed the projects of this aging master. Instead, Welles spends much of his last years flailing—seeking out actors whose involvement would have made his projects more sellable. He was especially hopeful that he could realize “The Dreamers,” an adaptation of stories by Isak Dinesen, which Welles had been shooting in bits and pieces over the course of several years, and “The Big Brass Ring,” a political thriller that, as Biskind explains, Jaglom saw as “the bookend to ‘Kane.’ ”
Instead, Welles, in serious financial trouble, desperately tried—and failed—to get contracts for endorsements. By contrast, John Houseman, his former associate in the Mercury Theatre who, having become in later years a bigger star, was a nemesis of sorts and the target of some of Welles’s most acerbic remarks, made a fortune from commercials. Welles’s envy of Houseman gives rise to one of his most painful laments:
Houseman has had twenty commercials on camera. I’ve had one. I’m in terrible financial trouble…. If Wesson Oil would let me say that Wesson Oil is good, instead of Houseman, I’d be delighted, but nobody will take me for a commercial…. A real mystery: why they prefer Houseman, with his petulant, arrogant, unpleasant manner…. It’s a very weird and terrible situation. I don’t know where to turn… If I got just one commercial, it would change my life!… There is no “meantime.” It’s the grocery bill. I haven’t got the money. It’s that urgent…. Get me on that fuckin’ screen and my life is changed.
One of the book’s most poignant episodes is a meeting that Welles and Jaglom had with an HBO executive, who is given the pseudonym Susan Smith. Welles proposes a mini-series, a story about a Latin American resort where shady financiers and deposed dictators cavort, but is obviously winging it. Smith is interested, but the justifiably proud Welles—who was perversely unwilling to “sell it,” as Smith seems to want him to—becomes amazingly contentious, angry, and arrogant; every time Smith opens her mouth, Welles responds with bluster, condescension, wild frustration, and, ultimately, dismissal. Had it been otherwise—had Welles beaten David Chase to cable—the very notion of what constitutes greatness on television might have been defined differently from the start. Having gotten his start in radio (a subject on which he riffs comically with Jaglom), Welles—whose work on such films as “F for Fake” and “Filming ‘Othello’ ” (his last finished feature, from 1978) was vertiginously open-ended and reflexive—might have made something astonishingly original of the serial format.
Second, if this teeming, discursive book of a mere three hundred pages were filleted to its slender core of aphoristic brilliance, it would be a chapbook of cinematic wisdom to rival Robert Bresson’s “Notes on the Cinematographer,” but with a decidedly historical perspective. Some of Welles’s choicest remarks target classic Hollywood and, especially, its producer-centric tendencies: “The truth is, I was not very fond of the movies of the late thirties, the few years just before I went to Hollywood. The so-called ‘Golden Age.’ ” In particular, he has it in for the producer who made producers supreme, the short-lived “boy wonder” Irving Thalberg, who inspired F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Love of the Last Tycoon,” and Louis B. Mayer, the M-G-M studio head who gave Thalberg the keys to the kingdom:

Thalberg was the biggest single villain in the history of Hollywood. Before him, a producer made the least contribution, by necessity…. But Mayer made way for the producer system. He created the fellow who decides, who makes the directors’ decisions, which had never existed before.

The diatribe runs for pages: “The director became the fellow whose only job was to say, ‘Action’ and ‘Cut.’ Suddenly you were ‘just a director’ on a ‘Thalberg production.’ ” And Thalberg, Welles added, was “Satan!… He would reduce people; and, having reduced them, flatter them. He was obviously a weaver of spells who was able to convince everyone that he was the artist. Thalberg was way up here, and the director was way down there. The result was that he negated the personal motion picture in favor of the manufactured movie.”
Such remarks bring to the fore the very question that underlies the book: Who, after all, was Orson Welles, and why was he such a big deal? When Welles came to Hollywood, in 1939, at the age of twenty-four, he was already famous for his radio work—not least for the great “War of the Worlds” hoax—and heralded as the next big thing without having made a movie. (In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1940 short story “Pat Hobby and Orson Welles,” members of the Hollywood old guard, high and low, see him as as a “menace” and a “radical.”) The movie industry was at the apogee of its vertical integration and industrial organization. Great directors were working there, for the most part under tight constraints. Welles was the great liberator: with “Citizen Kane,” he demonstrated the artistic power of the director unleashed, and became personally identified with the art of directing itself. He wasn’t the only one-man show around; Charlie Chaplin, who owned his own studio, was writing, directing, and performing in movies that seemed like the total personal creations they were (and the book makes clear Welles’s sense of rivalry with Chaplin, whose film “Monsieur Verdoux” was based on an idea by Welles). But Chaplin, for all his genius, was a man of the nineteenth century; Welles was modernity and modernism personified, the living future of the art form. In “Citizen Kane,” images seemed unchained, a sort of immediate imprint of the imagination and a mighty music that didn’t so much tell a story as display his mercurial emotions. That great début, about a media mogul who, starting at age twenty-five, uses a newspaper to project his voice and his vision worldwide, takes the cinema itself as its premise and evokes a wild new world, one of vast echo chambers of outsized personalities, which, as it turns out, is the world we live in.
With his grandly clashing passions—and with his extravagant images, scripts, and, for that matter, performances (starting with his own)—Welles is the most Shakespearean figure in the history of cinema. Shakespeare adaptations are a constant throughout his career—including his efforts at a “King Lear,” to be shot in 16 mm. (“mostly close-ups”), that he discusses in the book. But—as is obvious from “Citizen Kane” itself—he knew that his ambitions and his abilities contained the seed of a great fall, one that wouldn’t so much resound as it would pathetically dwindle. After “Kane,” he made many great films (including “The Magnificent Ambersons,” “The Lady from Shanghai,” “Macbeth,” “Mr. Arkadin,” “Touch of Evil,” “The Trial,” “Chimes at Midnight,” and “F for Fake”). But, early on (even with “Ambersons,” his second film, mutilated by the studio), his difficulties multiplied, due to unfortunate coincidences, the nature of the studio system, and his own personality. His 1952 “Othello” was largely self-financed with his earnings as an actor, and throughout the book he refers to his troubled relations with producers on his smaller-budget movies of the fifties and sixties (who did such things as stiffing the actors and sticking Welles with hotel bills). At the time of his death, Welles was planning to shoot and star in his version of “Lear” (“the part I was born to play”) but knew that this and other low-budget movies he planned would “be judged by the standards of the time when I had more money.”
He judges his own artistic legacy and his place in the history of cinema with Olympian discernment. The two movies that Welles talks about at length—and that, in his mind, he pairs—are “Citizen Kane” and “F for Fake” (the 1973 essay-film, loosely sketched around a portrait of the art forger Elmyr de Hory).

The tragedy of my life is that I can’t get the Americans to like it…. Anyway, I think, “F for Fake” is the only really original movie I’ve made since “Kane.” You see, everything else is only carrying movies a little further along the same path. I believe that the movies—I’ll say a terrible thing—have never gone beyond “Kane.” That doesn’t mean that there haven’t been good movies, or great movies. But everything has been done now in movies, to the point of fatigue. You can do it better, but it’s always gonna be the same grammar, you know? Every artistic form—the blank-verse drama, the Greek plays, the novel—has only so many possibilities and only so long a life. And I have a feeling that in movies, until we break completely, we are only increasing the library of good works. I know that as a director of movie actors in front of the camera, I have nowhere to move forward. I can only make another good work.

The “tragedy” of the poor reviews and box-office failure of “F for Fake” wasn’t just aesthetic but also practical and financial: “Because that would have solved my old age. I could have made an essay movie—two of ’em a year, you see? On different subjects. Various variations of that form.”
Instead, Welles was forced to become a celebrity—a talk-show regular who had become better known for his commercials from the nineteen-seventies for Paul Masson wine than for any movie but his first. His genius, as the book shows, was fuelled with an energy that seemed, at times, tragically centrifugal: its torrent of ideas, opinions, memories, grudges, insights, theories, speculations, complaints, and pleas are the living trace of a mind born in overdrive and which, suspended in a kind of content-free fame, is reduced to spinning its wheels. Yet even here, on the subject of celebrity, he offers a moment of genius, one of the greatest and saddest anecdotes on the subject that I’ve ever heard.

What I do like is when they come up to me and don’t know who I am. I was in the airport in Las Vegas last year, and a man on crutches, an older man, looked at me with that finally-found-his-favorite-movie-star expression, and started limping toward me. Of course, I met him halfway, and he said, “Milton Berle! I’d know you anywhere.” So I signed Milton Berle for him. True story. I swear. I finally figured out that he meant Burl Ives, who is a big fat bearded fellow. And out came “Milton Berle.”

And, at that moment during Welles’s lunch, Jack Lemmon shows up in the restaurant. Welles bellows, “There he is!,” and more dishing follows.
P.S. In the mid-forties, as Welles tells Jaglom, he wrote a column in the New York Post that followed his political activity (he tells Jaglom that he was “a well-known Hollywood Red”). Here’s his printed exchange of invective with The New Yorkers John McCarten, from 1945. I wonder whether Welles’s journalism has been collected. It should be.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/06/my-lunches-with-orson.html?printable=true&currentPage=all#ixzz2XWeQQGvC

Horace

Financial Times Email article
The following email has been sent to you by: gmagnuson@gmail.com
June 21, 2013 6:21 pm
Horace saved my life
By Harry Eyres

Rudyard Kipling, in his autobiography Something of Myself, says that his Latin teacher at school taught him "to loathe Horace...
The full article can be found at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3b4ff77e-d734-11e2-a26a-00144feab7de.html
© THE FINANCIAL TIMES LTD 2012 FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
HelpAbout usSitemapAdvertise with the FTTerms & ConditionsPrivacy PolicyCopyright

India

Spirituality informs all aspects of Indian culture, and according to a recent Gallup survey, no county has a higher percentage of respondents who believe that religion is "very important" to their lives. (The United States ranks second.) However, the term "Hindu" is often mistakenly viewed as referring to a single religious system, when in fact, the term came into being as a geographical designation used primarily by foreigners, and is not found is the Bhagavad-gita or any of the classical writings of India. Even today the term is better understood as a collection of many religious traditions as diverse as Jainism and Shaktism: 

"It should be pointed out that the word "Hindu" is not found in any of the classical writings of India. Nor can it be traced to the classical Indian languages, such as Sanskrit or Tamil. In fact, the word 'Hinduism' has absolutely no origins within India itself. Still, it persists, and traditions as diverse as Shaivism and Jainism, Shaktism and Vaishnavism, have been described as 'Hinduism.' This may work as a matter of convenience, but ultimately it is inaccurate.

"His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder and spiritual preceptor of the present-day Hare Krishna movement, saw the word as a misnomer: 

" 'Sometimes Indians both inside and outside India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not. One will not find the work 'Hindu' in the Bhagavad-gita. Indeed, there is no such word as 'Hindu' in the entire Vedic literature.  This work has been introduced by the Muslims from provinces next to India, such as Afghanistan, Baluchistan, and Persia. There is a river called Sindhu bordering the northwestern provinces of India and since the Muslims there could not pronounce Sindhu properly, they instead called the river 'Hindu' and the inhabitants of this tract of land they called 'Hindus' "...

In Seven Systems of Indian Philosophy, ... Pandit Rajmani Tigunait writes along similar lines: 

"... [T]he current popular usage of the term Hinduism does not correspond to its original meaning. When Alexander the Great invaded the subcontinent around 325 B.C.E., he crossed the river Sindhu and renamed it Indus, which was easier for the Greek tongue to pronounce. Alexander's Macedonian forced subsequently called the land  to the east of this river India. Later, the Moslem invaders called the Sindhu River the Hindu River because of their language, Parsee, the Sanskrit sound s converts to h. Thus, for the invaders, Sindhu became Hindu, and the land east of that river became known as Hindustan."

"The concept is also articulated by historian C. J. Fuller, who underscores the fact that the word 'Hindu' originally meant something geographical, not cultural or religious. In addition, he points out the convenient usage of the term in separating Muslims from other peoples in India: 

" 'The Persian word 'Hindu' derives from Sindhu, the Sanskrit name of the river Indus (in modern Pakistan). It originally meant a native of India, the land around and beyond the Indus. When 'Hindu' (or 'Hindoo') entered the English language in the seventeenth century, it was similarly used to denoted any native of Hindustan (India), but gradually came to mean someone who retained the indigenous religion and had not converted to Islam. 'Hinduism,' as a term for that indigenous religion, became current in English in the early nineteenth century and was coined to label an 'ism' that was itself partly a product of western orientalist thought, which (mis)constructed Hinduism on the model of occidental religions, particularly Christianity. Hinduism, in other words, came to be seen as a single system of doctrines, beliefs, and practices properly equivalent to those that make up Christianity, and 'Hindu' now clearly specified an Indian's religious affiliation.'

"Using the overarching term 'Hinduism' for the many religions of India is comparable to ignoring the different religious orientations within each of the Western traditions, arbitrarily merging them under a single banner -- [e.g.] 'Semitism' (which, like 'Hinduism,' merely denotes geographical location). Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others constitute the diverse religious traditions of the Western world. Just as the term Semitism is too broad and reductionistic to represent properly the unique religious manifestations of the great Western traditions, and just as it would be inappropriate to refer to all these traditions as one religion, the term Hinduism falls short. 

Author: Steven J. Rosen 
Title: The Hidden Glory of India
Publisher: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust