Absolutely--the greatest movie. "Citizen Kane" usually gets that title, but while it was influential, as a story, it doesn't connect with me. "Casablanca" touches me. I can't stay dry-eyed through that film, and the scene you showed is one of the most powerful. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Ingrid Bergman was a true beauty. And then there's Bogart.
I want it noted again that when the topic is about something unrelated to guns, the only comment comes from a supposedly single-minded gun loon. Some people need to be more rounded.
That's funny coming from someone who has been in error on so many other topics than guns.
Ireland invasions come to mind.
Clearly Laci and I and other commenters - Microdot comes to mind - are better educated and well rounded by experience, including especially in the arts.
Let's see: To summarize Laci's claim, England never invaded Ireland, was that it? Yup, that's a true love and understanding of history.
My point is that unless goaded to do so, you rarely have anything to say about any article that isn't related to firearms. There is little discussion about these articles.
You claim to be better educated, but you come off as someone who is obsessed with one subject.
An invitation and a fealty agreement in exchange for military assistance is not quite the same thing as an invasion.
You also were clearly ignorant of the religious aspect of the arrangement:
The Norman invasion of Ireland was a two-stage process, which began on 1 May 1169 when a force of loosely associated Norman knights landed near Bannow, County Wexford. This was at the request of Dermot MacMurrough (Diarmait Mac Murchada), the ousted King of Leinster, who sought their help in regaining his kingdom.
and
Pope Adrian IV, the only English pope, in one of his earliest acts issued a Papal Bull in 1155, giving Henry authority to invade Ireland as a means of ensuring reform by bringing the Irish Church more directly under the control of the Holy See.[1] Little contemporary use, however, was made of the Bull Laudabiliter since its text enforced papal suzerainty not only over the island of Ireland but of all islands off of the European coast, including England, in virtue of the Constantinian Donation. The relevant text reads:
There is indeed no doubt, as thy Highness doth also acknowledge, that Ireland and all other islands which Christ the Son of Righteousness has illumined, and which have received the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the jurisdiction of St. Peter and of the holy Roman Church.
References to Laudabiliter become more frequent in the later Tudor period when the researches of the Renaissance humanist scholars cast doubt on the historicity of the Donation. But even if the Donation was spurious, other documents such as Dictatus papae (1075–87) reveal that by the 12th century the Papacy felt it had political powers superior to all kings and local rulers.
Pope Alexander III, who was Pope at the time of the invasion, mentioned and reconfirmed the effect of Laudabiliter in his "Privilege" of 1172. [edit]
Invasion of 1169 Original landing site for the invasion - Bannow Bay
After losing the protection of Tyrone Chief, Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn, High King of Ireland, who died in 1166, MacMorrough was forcibly exiled by a confederation of Irish forces under the new High King, Rory O'Connor. MacMurrough fled first to Bristol and then to Normandy. He sought and obtained permission from Henry II of England to use the latter's subjects to regain his kingdom. Having received an oath of fealty from Dermod, Henry gave him letters patent in the following words:
Henry, King of England, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and earl of Anjou, to all his liegemen, English, Norman, Welsh and Scotch, and to all the nations under his dominion, greeting. When these letters shall come into your hands, know ye, that we have received Dermod, Prince of Leinster, into the bosom of our grace and benevolence. Wherefore, whosoever, in the ample extent of all our territories, shall be willing to assist in restoring that prince, as our vassal and liegeman, let such person know, that we do hereby grant to him our licence and favour for the said undertaking.[2]
Arrival of Henry II in 1171 Henry landed with a large fleet at Waterford in 1171, becoming the first King of England to set foot on Irish soil. Both Waterford and Dublin were proclaimed Royal Cities. In November Henry accepted the submission of the Irish kings in Dublin. In 1172 Henry arranged for the Irish bishops to attend the Synod of Cashel and to run the Irish Church in the same manner as the Church in England. Adrian's successor, Pope Alexander III, then ratified the grant of Ireland to Henry, ".. following in the footsteps of the late venerable Pope Adrian, and in expectation also of seeing the fruits of our own earnest wishes on this head, ratify and confirm the permission of the said Pope granted you in reference to the dominion of the kingdom of Ireland."
Henry was happily acknowledged by most of the Irish Kings, who saw in him a chance to curb the expansion of both Leinster and the Normans.
Invasions don't usually come with invitations and ratifications by the inhabitants for their benefit.
I rather doubt that you, Greg, are better read or better educated than Laci, for example. I also doubt you are as widely read as I am, in English or French.
I doubt that the people of Ireland felt the same way about the situation, especially in the later years when the real purpose became clear.
Do you seriously doubt that the Donation of Constantine was bullshit? And are you seriously suggesting that the enforcement of papal authority over the Irish clergy was a good thing? Can't you see how the facts are available to all of us, but the interpretation of those facts can differ? English control of Ireland was not good for Ireland. That's the bottom line.
But then, you probably like the idea of a pope who gets to be lord over all. Unfortunately for you, the Church doesn't let women become popes, unless you believe in Pope Joan. I, on the other hand, have a healthy distrust of central authority.
You guys are incorrigible. I posted a scene from my favorite movie of all time, one which just like Greg, never fails to move me deeply, and you two immediately start bickering. tsk,tsk,tsk
How about in the final moments when Captain Renault hesitates for a moment before telling his men that someone has shot Major Strasser and to round up the usual suspects. Imagine how powerful that was on the first viewing, those seconds before her speaks.
Do you have any other favorite moments? I have several.
Rick's cynicism is priceless all the way through, but what we see is that a cynic is truly a tired idealist. The idea of ordinary people standing up to evil is beautiful (you know I'd say that). "Casablanca" is a standout also in that the hero doesn't end up with the girl, and that's for the right reason. As much as I want Ilsa to stay with Rick, I know that it's right for her to go. That doesn't make it any easier to watch. Of course, there's also the classic scene of the corrupt official: I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on here. Here are your winnings, sir. And I haven't even mentioned Dooley Wilson's singing. And what Rick says, It's December, 1941 in Casablanca. Yup, it's propaganda, but it's spot on.
I could go on for an hour here. I wish that Hollywood would make more movies like this.
I find the subtle but very potent latent bisexuality and same sex attraction of the character Capt. Renault played by the inimitable Claude Rains to Bogart's Rick Blaine to be fascinating, particularly in view of attitudes of the time.
It is much more interesting, imho, than the more blatant way of dealing with the subject in the same era in Cabaret.
It adds to the inherent tensions of attraction and pushing away between the characters that define the dynamics of the relationships.
Bisexuality between Captain Renault and Rick? Now I know you're a wacko. Have you heard of friendship? Do you read or watch everything through the lens of some Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory? Thank the gods for New Criticism.
This was a conclusion observed long before I noticed it.
Sorry you have a problem with it, but it forms the basis of some very interesting ideas on the predatory sexual nature of Capt. Renault towards both men and women.
Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it has nothing to do with 'Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory".
It has been discussed by experts on the history of movies like those featured on Turner Classic Movies. They have a tradition that has been in place for some five years now where in the month of July they focus on minority groups and their portrayal in film. It has included Asians, Blacks, LCBT individuals, etc.; this year it was a chronological history of how Muslims have been portrayed in movies.
This is an example from an earlier focus on the topic in the month of June on TCM:
"Past editions of TCM’s Race and Hollywood film series explored how Hollywood has portrayed such groups as African-Americans (2006), Asians (2008), Latinos (2009) and Native Americans (2010). In addition, TCM examined Hollywood’s depiction of gay characters and themes in 2007."
http://www.arabstereotypes.org/blog/201105/25-389
Absolutely no Marxists, queer, feminist whatever; just mainstream widely acknowledged movie history.
I hope I haven't ruined the movie for Greg by introducing him to a foreign idea?
Because there are a lot of ideas that are foreign to Greg....
Homophobe? Hardly. If you'll recall, I argued in favor of gay marriage here a while ago. That's not exactly the action of a homophobe. I just don't see any evidence of bisexuality in "Casablanca." Nor do I judge the quality of a film on the basis of how many members of groups X, Y, and Z are in it.
Certainly, Hollywood has presented some groups in a bad light. Things are changing in that regard.
Dog Gone, that bisexuality angle is a new one on me too, but I believe you. I'll think about it next time I watch which will probably be in 4 to 6 months. It's one of my regulars.
This is something that I have to explain to my students all the time. Friendship years ago and in much of the rest of the world today involved a lot more affection than Americans are comfortable with. Consider the Aubrey/Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian--a well-researched set of novels, Dog Gone. Captain Aubrey and Doctor Maturin call each other by pet names and are quite close, but they're both heterosexual. The same is true about Sam and Frodo in "The Lord of the Rings." Philos doesn't have to be eros, even if some actions look the same.
I rather doubt you have much knowledge of history to teach me, including in the areas of human sex and sexuality. I'm pretty confident I'm more widely traveled, and more familiar with the differences you outline than you are. My knowledge about it doesn't come exclusively from books.
Please note for example that I we are talking about the 1940s. Please note we are talking about an era where there were a lot of actors and directors and writers who were gay and had to lead lives that at least gave the appearance of being heterosexual. Please understand as well that the military had issues at that time about allowing gays to serve - the issue of women who were Lesbians was one that Eisenhower had to deal with; perhaps you were unaware of that? "From World War I until 1993 lesbians were not allowed to serve in the U.S. military, but some served while keeping their sexuality secret, knowing they would be dismissed if they were found out.[32] [33][34]. From 1993 until 2011 lesbians were only allowed to serve in the military if they kept their sexuality secret which was known as the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. [32] Over the years the military not only dismissed women who announced their lesbianism, but sometimes went on "witch hunts" for lesbians in the ranks [33][34]. In 1947, Johnnie Phelps, a member of the Women's Army Corps (WACs) and a lesbian, was told by General Eisenhower, "It's come to my attention that there are lesbians in the WACs, we need to ferret them out...[35]." Johnnie Phelps said, "If the General pleases, sir, I'll be happy to do that, but the first name on the list will be mine [35]." Eisenhower's secretary added, "If the General pleases, sir, my name will be first and hers will be second [35]." Phelps then told Eisenhower, "Sir, you're right, there are lesbians in the WACs – and if you want to replace all the file clerks, section commanders, drivers, every woman in the WAC detachment, I will be happy to make that list [35]. But you must know, sir, that they are the most decorated group – there have been no illegal pregnancies, no AWOLs, no charges of misconduct [35]." Eisenhower dropped the idea [35]."
This was an issue in Hollywood. This was an issue where many of them felt that gays and lesbians DID serve, and did so with considerable bravery, while having to do so leading a double life to hide their sexuality.
I would point out that I asserted the Capt. Renault character appears to be bisexual, not that there it is reciprocated by the Rick Blaine character. The case for that argument is well made.
^ Donnelly, William (1968). "Love and Death in Casablanca" Persistence of Vision: A Collection of Film Criticisms, ed. Joseph McBride. Madison: Wisconsin Fim Society Press, pp. 103–7 quoted in Rosenzweig, p.78 and Harmetz, p. 347
From wikipedia: William Donelley, in his Love and Death in Casablanca, argues that Rick's relationship with Sam, and subsequently with Renault, is, "a standard case of the repressed homosexuality that underlies most American adventure stories".[85]
Rosenzweig, and Harmetz, have each written well regarded books on the movie Casablanca; both of them include Donelly's observations.
So, in terms of research, Greg - maybe YOU should accept this as a reasonable nuance of character rather than being so quick to dismiss it.
I would also point out that as has been noted here earlier, the only slightly earlier movie, the Maltese Falcon, was made in 1941, Casablanca in '42. The Maltese Falcon, which has several of the same character actors, also has nuances of homosexual relationships between characters. Both movies were made by Warner Brothers, and I think if you look at the movies from that studio in that era, you can find other examples of this kind of nuanced sexuality.
"I doubt that the people of Ireland felt the same way about the situation, especially in the later years when the real purpose became clear."
The foregoing comment is not intended to be a factual statement, I hope.
"I doubt" is fine, but without any attempt whatsoever to back up the assertion that follows it. You're a maroon.
"Do you read or watch everything through the lens of some Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory? Thank the gods for New Criticism."
AND a misogynistic, bircher homophobe, who also has a pathalogical aversion to mental health professionals.
Greg, buddy, here's a suggestion. If you want to have people think that you're not a misogynistic, bircher homophobe who also has a pathalogical aversion to mental health professionals try to avoid the use of such phrases as "Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory". It's only a suggestion.
Once again, you've flooded the page with irrelevant information. It is not news to me that gays and lesbians have been in the military or in acting for a long time. We were talking about the characters in "Casablanca." Would you care to show your evidence for your claim of bisexuality in that movie?
I'm not interested in what some critics want to find in the text or the film. I care about what is actually there. You just tossed out this extraordinary claim without providing any evidence.
I wouldn't expect you to be aware of literary theories. The terms that I used are each a school of interpretation. I don't have to agree with those schools so as not to be a misogynist, a homophobe, or a member of the John Birch Society. I am none of those things.
I'm not interested in what some critics want to find in the text or the film. I care about what is actually there. You just tossed out this extraordinary claim without providing any evidence.
No, I reported an assertion made by multiple movie experts, which is included in two of the leading books written about the movie - highly acclaimed books, btw.
I then posted the original person's observations who is in print as a movie expert, and the author's of the two books, including on what pages the references occur.
Your source is to claim that I don't know how other cultures express friendship and affection, without any proof, and without any substantiating source for that conclusion.
So, once again - you first with the evidence. I've already provided sources.
You made the claim that there is bisexuality in "Casablanca." Now prove it. Show us what you mean. You can summarize the argument made in your sources. I'm not going to do the work for you, especially when I see no evidence for that claim.
As I said, people find all kinds of things in texts or films that they go looking to find. I prefer to let the text speak to me on its own.
If you'd like a discussion about love as expressed sexually or in friendship, see C. S. Lewis's "The Four Loves."
It's appropriate that the verification word for this comment is "contra."
Greg, I'd be happy to discuss all the different kinds of love in language, but that is a different topic. We can cover agape versus eros, philia, etc.
I asserted here that movie experts have posited a bisexuality and attraction to the Bogart character in Casablanca.
If you wish to pursue their explanation, be my guest. If you'd like to read my explanation for why they are credible, first you have to document why or how I fail to understand expressions of friendship in other cultures.
You know - the stuff you try to explain to your students, which you seem not to know first hand. I pointed out that I know first hand about other cultures and affection.
I provided the source to multiple movie experts who have dealt with this premise. This is not exclusively MY idea.
CS Lewis on the other hand has NO relationship to reasonably understanding Casablanca.
I answered your question. I gave you to references from literature that illustrate what I'm talking about. If that's not good enough for you, I don't care. Your problem is that you make claims that you won't even elaborate on, while at the same time dismissing what anyone else writes.
C.S. Lewis is relevant to this discussion, thanks to his analysis of the meaning of philos--friendship.
You DO understand I trust that literature is fiction not fact,Greg?
You seem to confuse the two a lot.
How many people in how many countries have you observed expressing affection?
You don't strike me as widely traveled.
So, you accuse me of lacking an understanding of other cultures, but you don't back up that claim.
You back up yours with fiction.
I present the opinion of multiple experts not only on movies generally, and on sexuality in the movies specifically, but experts specifically ON CASABLANCA.
Further since this is an American made movie by American writers made at an American studio, I'd be interested in your justification for this reflecting foreign attitudes of affection.
I'll give you that Claud Rains was born in the UK, but both Laci and I are quite familiar with the affectionate customs of the UK. Ditto France.
Further Rains had been in the U.S. for some twenty years at this point, so it's not like he was unacquainted with what was expected by AMERICAN audiences, which is who this was made.
So show me that CS Lews applies here, but FIRST show me your justification for asserting I don't know about the expressions of affection in other cultures, including btw Middle eastern ones.
So you back up your assertion that I don't recognize or understand those cultures.
And why don't you go peruse the Casablanca movie experts while you're at it, then you can explain why they and I are wrong, in your opinion.
My point was that you seem unaware of the possible behaviors of friends. I said that since you think that there's bisexuality being shown in "Casablanca." I just see friendship.
Works of fiction often illustrate the culture of the time in which they were written or of the time about which they were written. Lewis's discussion applies since we're talking about friendship.
You're the one making the claim about bisexuality in the film. I don't make that claim. I don't need to find support for the claim; you do. I don't have to make your case for you. Until you defend your claim, I'll consider the subject decided.
You said that Captain Renault had a bisexual attraction to Rick. I said that they are just friends. I'm asking you to defend your claim. If you know about friendship around the world, good for you.
It's exhausting when you make a claim, attack anyone who doesn't agree with you, and refuse to defend your own claim. It's not my job to support your position. I also see no reason to go on at length about minor points.
You said that there is bisexuality in "Casablanca." Support that claim.
GC wrote:I said that since you think that there's bisexuality being shown in "Casablanca." I just see friendship.
Actually, I pointed out that movie experts in both the areas of bisexuality and homosexuality see this, as well as acknowledged experts in movie history writing specifically about the movie Casablanca.
You appear to be asserting that I am wrong, because of some imaginary deficiency that you cannot describe or explain. I'd love to see you elaborate on my lack of exposure to other cultures - please, expound away.
AND you appear to be claiming that of course, the experts are wrong, because you know best.
So because you don't see what experts in the depiction of bisexuality and homosexuality and experts in analyzing movies and movie history, and very specifically THIS movie see it, you assert that it is MY understanding which must be deficient somehow.
You bring up an essay by CS Lewis on love which is written from a strictly Christian orientation, and which relies on 'thought experiments'.
Not exactly a factual base - thought experiments - or an expert one on which to found your criticism.
So I go to Casablanca experts.....and you go pretty damn far afield, with a religious interpretation of love - I think you have an uphill battle demonstrating that the authors/ screen writers, director and cast had as their intent to express. I don't think it applies AT ALL. (And yes I'm familiar with the work, and I'm also familiar with the various biblical language terms for love, thank you. It was included in my religious education.)
Maybe what you should do is check out the experts and let THEM persuade you or not.
And maybe you should allow that you might not be seeing everything there is to see.
You complain about the use of thought experiments, but we're talking about a movie here. It's the subject of film interpretation, not scientific analysis.
My mention of Lewis was solely thanks to his analysis of the word, philos. His religious additions are interesting, but not relevant to my concerns.
If you want to see bisexuality in "Casablanca," I suppose that you can read that into it, but it's not in the film itself. I don't commit the intentional fallacy, so I have no idea what the screenwriters, actors, or director want me to think. I know what the film itself presents.
In "The Maltese Falcon," there are certainly references to homosexuality. We've noted that Wilmer is called a gunsel, and there's been discussion of what that meant. Joel Cairo is also obviously gay. Those elements were in the original novel and are in the film.
As I've said before, though, this is your claim. It is not up to me to defend it or to research it. Unless you can provide me some reason to think otherwise, I see no reason to believe what you say. Telling me that some film expert also sees bisexuality in "Casablanca" is no help, since you haven't yet given any account of what said expert argues. What you're doing is name dropping again. This book said such and such, and so I'm smarter than you. You're presenting the claim. It's your job to give at least a precis of why we should believe it.
Greg, once again, you insist that you see everything that there is to see, and that because I presented something different, I must not understand the expressions of affection in other cultures.
You fail to show what other culture than American is presented in the movie.
And apparently you are unable to support how it is that you claim I don't know how friendship and affection is expressed in other cultures differently from here.
Yet another claim on which I am waiting.
But YOU know, and teach it to your students.
How is it exactly 'you know' this? Particularly if you are not widely traveled. You show nothing which ties CS Lewis ideas on philos to Casablanca.
Start answering questions, and I'll answer yours. Otherwise, I've provided you the means to answer those questions for yourself, and substantiated my comments.
And I've done so rather better than you have.
I provided you the link to the TCM series on homosexuality and bisexuality as it is represented in films.
And I provided you the links to THREE authors who are expert on the topic and/or on the movie Casablanca, including the page numbers.
I'll be happy to give you greater detail...after you deliver, which you consistently fail to do.
When I do so, you apparently miss the significance of what I present, AND you dismiss it as a 'data dump'. It is not; what is presented is applicable and specific to the point.
You are attacking minor points, and I don't care about them. Let them go. I want to know why you see bisexuality in "Casablanca." Not why X, Y, or Z see it. You claimed that it's there. It may be. I'd like to know your reasoning. You're the one who raised the topic in the first place. It's your job to answer first.
Sure you would, so long as all he wants to talk about is what a great movie "Casablanca" is. If he had taken the tack that dog gone has, you'd want to talk to someone else about it.
So, this:
" Do you read or watch everything through the lens of some Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory?"
is not yours? You didn't say this?
You say, "The terms that I used are each a school of interpretation.".
Please point me towards those schools of interpretation. Are they all individual schools? You know what I mean? Is there one school that looks at "Marxist" stuff, another that looks at "Feminism" or "Queer" stuff? Or, ar there as many as 24 different schools* in their varied permutations.
I suspect that you're just using weasel words because you have, once again, let slip a revelatory comment. You hate marxists, feminists, mental health care professionals and queers. It's okay, Greg, I know how you feel; I reaaly, Really, REALLY know how you feel. I absolutely HATEZ me some supercilious dickhead who sets himself up as an expert and consistently says incredibly stupid things, then tries to weasel out of having said them. Oh, yeah, I be lookin' at you, Greg Camp--and pointing and laughimg.
* I can't do math, but I'm sure you have an advanced degree in that as well as your english, film and gunzloonery degrees--so you can explain permutations to me if I'm wrong.
The word you wanted was combination. In a permutation, order makes a difference. The dial locks are actually permutation locks, not combination locks.
The term, school, used in this way refers to an approach to interpretation held in common by those who buy into that system. It doesn't mean a physical building or institution. The Marxist school, then, would be those critics who use Marxist methods in interpreting texts--attributing actions of characters to their economic classes, and so forth. Queer theory is more difficult to define, but its main idea is to analyze what is considered normal behavior and what is "queer."
Those are methods of analyzing texts and films. A person does not have to hate gay people, women, minorities, or any other group to disagree with a theory of literary criticism. Nor does it mean that one must disagree with those methods in other areas such as economics. I don't agree with Marxism in any field, although I do find that Marx's analysis of economics has some validity. I support gay marriage and equal rights, and I've had many gay and lesbian friends over the years. That doesn't mean that I have to see bisexuality in a given film.
You are as thick as a brick. Permutation or combination is not really the point, now is it.
You said something sexist, bircherite, homophobic and paranoid. You claim that those are not your terms, but relate to various "schools" (btw, I'm pretty clear on the conceptual difference between a school building and a school of thought, idiot). Please furninsh me the address/website for the "Queer School" and whether that school is accredited or not.
If you know the difference, then why did you make the elementary mistake that you did. I put the word "theory" with the schools of thought listed in the original comment. There is a branch of interpretation called queer theory. I think that it deals with matters that go outside the text itself, and so it isn't really a theory of literature at all.
Oh, I'm sorry, Greg; please point out where I said that?
And please furnish the information about the "Queer school", who propounded it originally, when they did so, how widely accepted it is in academic or other professional circles. Show your work.
I mean, for all I know you're perfectly correct (despite the dismal track record you've accrued with various of your idiotic ideas and quite a few FUCKING LIES), but as Mr. Reagan said, "Trust and verify". Well, the trust thing, not so much.
"There is a branch of interpretation called queer theory. I think that it deals with matters that go outside the text itself, and so it isn't really a theory of literature at all.".
And that is why you used it, because it isn't really a theory of literature? Well, then, Mr. Cowchips, wtf is it? And how, exactly, does it apply to dog gone's post?
Absolutely--the greatest movie. "Citizen Kane" usually gets that title, but while it was influential, as a story, it doesn't connect with me. "Casablanca" touches me. I can't stay dry-eyed through that film, and the scene you showed is one of the most powerful. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Ingrid Bergman was a true beauty. And then there's Bogart.
ReplyDeleteI want it noted again that when the topic is about something unrelated to guns, the only comment comes from a supposedly single-minded gun loon. Some people need to be more rounded.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny coming from someone who has been in error on so many other topics than guns.
ReplyDeleteIreland invasions come to mind.
Clearly Laci and I and other commenters - Microdot comes to mind - are better educated and well rounded by experience, including especially in the arts.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteLet's see: To summarize Laci's claim, England never invaded Ireland, was that it? Yup, that's a true love and understanding of history.
My point is that unless goaded to do so, you rarely have anything to say about any article that isn't related to firearms. There is little discussion about these articles.
You claim to be better educated, but you come off as someone who is obsessed with one subject.
Oh goodie, another occasion to educate you.
ReplyDeleteNo, what Laci said, which was correct.
An invitation and a fealty agreement in exchange for military assistance is not quite the same thing as an invasion.
You also were clearly ignorant of the religious aspect of the arrangement:
The Norman invasion of Ireland was a two-stage process, which began on 1 May 1169 when a force of loosely associated Norman knights landed near Bannow, County Wexford. This was at the request of Dermot MacMurrough (Diarmait Mac Murchada), the ousted King of Leinster, who sought their help in regaining his kingdom.
and
Pope Adrian IV, the only English pope, in one of his earliest acts issued a Papal Bull in 1155, giving Henry authority to invade Ireland as a means of ensuring reform by bringing the Irish Church more directly under the control of the Holy See.[1] Little contemporary use, however, was made of the Bull Laudabiliter since its text enforced papal suzerainty not only over the island of Ireland but of all islands off of the European coast, including England, in virtue of the Constantinian Donation. The relevant text reads:
There is indeed no doubt, as thy Highness doth also acknowledge, that Ireland and all other islands which Christ the Son of Righteousness has illumined, and which have received the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the jurisdiction of St. Peter and of the holy Roman Church.
References to Laudabiliter become more frequent in the later Tudor period when the researches of the Renaissance humanist scholars cast doubt on the historicity of the Donation. But even if the Donation was spurious, other documents such as Dictatus papae (1075–87) reveal that by the 12th century the Papacy felt it had political powers superior to all kings and local rulers.
Pope Alexander III, who was Pope at the time of the invasion, mentioned and reconfirmed the effect of Laudabiliter in his "Privilege" of 1172.
[edit]
Invasion of 1169
Original landing site for the invasion -
Bannow Bay
After losing the protection of Tyrone Chief, Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn, High King of Ireland, who died in 1166, MacMorrough was forcibly exiled by a confederation of Irish forces under the new High King, Rory O'Connor. MacMurrough fled first to Bristol and then to Normandy. He sought and obtained permission from Henry II of England to use the latter's subjects to regain his kingdom. Having received an oath of fealty from Dermod, Henry gave him letters patent in the following words:
Henry, King of England, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and earl of Anjou, to all his liegemen, English, Norman, Welsh and Scotch, and to all the nations under his dominion, greeting. When these letters shall come into your hands, know ye, that we have received Dermod, Prince of Leinster, into the bosom of our grace and benevolence. Wherefore, whosoever, in the ample extent of all our territories, shall be willing to assist in restoring that prince, as our vassal and liegeman, let such person know, that we do hereby grant to him our licence and favour for the said undertaking.[2]
and (continued)
Arrival of Henry II in 1171
ReplyDeleteHenry landed with a large fleet at Waterford in 1171, becoming the first King of England to set foot on Irish soil. Both Waterford and Dublin were proclaimed Royal Cities. In November Henry accepted the submission of the Irish kings in Dublin. In 1172 Henry arranged for the Irish bishops to attend the Synod of Cashel and to run the Irish Church in the same manner as the Church in England. Adrian's successor, Pope Alexander III, then ratified the grant of Ireland to Henry, ".. following in the footsteps of the late venerable Pope Adrian, and in expectation also of seeing the fruits of our own earnest wishes on this head, ratify and confirm the permission of the said Pope granted you in reference to the dominion of the kingdom of Ireland."
Henry was happily acknowledged by most of the Irish Kings, who saw in him a chance to curb the expansion of both Leinster and the Normans.
Invasions don't usually come with invitations and ratifications by the inhabitants for their benefit.
I rather doubt that you, Greg, are better read or better educated than Laci, for example. I also doubt you are as widely read as I am, in English or French.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI doubt that the people of Ireland felt the same way about the situation, especially in the later years when the real purpose became clear.
Do you seriously doubt that the Donation of Constantine was bullshit? And are you seriously suggesting that the enforcement of papal authority over the Irish clergy was a good thing? Can't you see how the facts are available to all of us, but the interpretation of those facts can differ? English control of Ireland was not good for Ireland. That's the bottom line.
But then, you probably like the idea of a pope who gets to be lord over all. Unfortunately for you, the Church doesn't let women become popes, unless you believe in Pope Joan. I, on the other hand, have a healthy distrust of central authority.
You guys are incorrigible. I posted a scene from my favorite movie of all time, one which just like Greg, never fails to move me deeply, and you two immediately start bickering. tsk,tsk,tsk
ReplyDeleteHow about in the final moments when Captain Renault hesitates for a moment before telling his men that someone has shot Major Strasser and to round up the usual suspects. Imagine how powerful that was on the first viewing, those seconds before her speaks.
Do you have any other favorite moments? I have several.
Rick's cynicism is priceless all the way through, but what we see is that a cynic is truly a tired idealist. The idea of ordinary people standing up to evil is beautiful (you know I'd say that). "Casablanca" is a standout also in that the hero doesn't end up with the girl, and that's for the right reason. As much as I want Ilsa to stay with Rick, I know that it's right for her to go. That doesn't make it any easier to watch. Of course, there's also the classic scene of the corrupt official: I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling going on here. Here are your winnings, sir. And I haven't even mentioned Dooley Wilson's singing. And what Rick says, It's December, 1941 in Casablanca. Yup, it's propaganda, but it's spot on.
ReplyDeleteI could go on for an hour here. I wish that Hollywood would make more movies like this.
I find the subtle but very potent latent bisexuality and same sex attraction of the character Capt. Renault played by the inimitable Claude Rains to Bogart's Rick Blaine to be fascinating, particularly in view of attitudes of the time.
ReplyDeleteIt is much more interesting, imho, than the more blatant way of dealing with the subject in the same era in Cabaret.
It adds to the inherent tensions of attraction and pushing away between the characters that define the dynamics of the relationships.
GC writes:
ReplyDeleteI doubt that the people of Ireland felt the same way about the situation, especially in the later years when the real purpose became clear.
WHICH people of Ireland?
Would you care to go through the many immigrations and invasions over the years?
It is clear that some of the Irish made an alliance with the Brits, and that it was widely endorsed as a feudal allegiance.
That is not quite the same thing as an invasion.
And don't forget it was Henry VIII who liberated them from the pope, if you have such strong objections to the papacy.
You know fuck-all about history Greg, and you are trying to fake a proficiency badly that you do not in fact possess.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteBisexuality between Captain Renault and Rick? Now I know you're a wacko. Have you heard of friendship? Do you read or watch everything through the lens of some Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory? Thank the gods for New Criticism.
Ah, Greg, you are not widely read.
ReplyDeleteThis was a conclusion observed long before I noticed it.
Sorry you have a problem with it, but it forms the basis of some very interesting ideas on the predatory sexual nature of Capt. Renault towards both men and women.
Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it has nothing to do with 'Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory".
It has been discussed by experts on the history of movies like those featured on Turner Classic Movies. They have a tradition that has been in place for some five years now where in the month of July they focus on minority groups and their portrayal in film. It has included Asians, Blacks, LCBT individuals, etc.; this year it was a chronological history of how Muslims have been portrayed in movies.
This is an example from an earlier focus on the topic in the month of June on TCM:
http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/159623|0/Screened-Out-Gay-Images-in-Films.html
Are you a homophobe Greg?
"Past editions of TCM’s Race and Hollywood film series explored how Hollywood has portrayed such groups as African-Americans (2006), Asians (2008), Latinos (2009) and Native Americans (2010). In addition, TCM examined Hollywood’s depiction of gay characters and themes in 2007."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.arabstereotypes.org/blog/201105/25-389
Absolutely no Marxists, queer, feminist whatever; just mainstream widely acknowledged movie history.
I hope I haven't ruined the movie for Greg by introducing him to a foreign idea?
Because there are a lot of ideas that are foreign to Greg....
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHomophobe? Hardly. If you'll recall, I argued in favor of gay marriage here a while ago. That's not exactly the action of a homophobe. I just don't see any evidence of bisexuality in "Casablanca." Nor do I judge the quality of a film on the basis of how many members of groups X, Y, and Z are in it.
Certainly, Hollywood has presented some groups in a bad light. Things are changing in that regard.
Dog Gone, that bisexuality angle is a new one on me too, but I believe you. I'll think about it next time I watch which will probably be in 4 to 6 months. It's one of my regulars.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThis is something that I have to explain to my students all the time. Friendship years ago and in much of the rest of the world today involved a lot more affection than Americans are comfortable with. Consider the Aubrey/Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian--a well-researched set of novels, Dog Gone. Captain Aubrey and Doctor Maturin call each other by pet names and are quite close, but they're both heterosexual. The same is true about Sam and Frodo in "The Lord of the Rings." Philos doesn't have to be eros, even if some actions look the same.
How about instead we deal with real life.
ReplyDeleteI rather doubt you have much knowledge of history to teach me, including in the areas of human sex and sexuality. I'm pretty confident I'm more widely traveled, and more familiar with the differences you outline than you are. My knowledge about it doesn't come exclusively from books.
Please note for example that I we are talking about the 1940s. Please note we are talking about an era where there were a lot of actors and directors and writers who were gay and had to lead lives that at least gave the appearance of being heterosexual. Please understand as well that the military had issues at that time about allowing gays to serve - the issue of women who were Lesbians was one that Eisenhower had to deal with; perhaps you were unaware of that?
"From World War I until 1993 lesbians were not allowed to serve in the U.S. military, but some served while keeping their sexuality secret, knowing they would be dismissed if they were found out.[32] [33][34]. From 1993 until 2011 lesbians were only allowed to serve in the military if they kept their sexuality secret which was known as the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. [32] Over the years the military not only dismissed women who announced their lesbianism, but sometimes went on "witch hunts" for lesbians in the ranks [33][34]. In 1947, Johnnie Phelps, a member of the Women's Army Corps (WACs) and a lesbian, was told by General Eisenhower, "It's come to my attention that there are lesbians in the WACs, we need to ferret them out...[35]." Johnnie Phelps said, "If the General pleases, sir, I'll be happy to do that, but the first name on the list will be mine [35]." Eisenhower's secretary added, "If the General pleases, sir, my name will be first and hers will be second [35]." Phelps then told Eisenhower, "Sir, you're right, there are lesbians in the WACs – and if you want to replace all the file clerks, section commanders, drivers, every woman in the WAC detachment, I will be happy to make that list [35]. But you must know, sir, that they are the most decorated group – there have been no illegal pregnancies, no AWOLs, no charges of misconduct [35]." Eisenhower dropped the idea [35]."
This was an issue in Hollywood. This was an issue where many of them felt that gays and lesbians DID serve, and did so with considerable bravery, while having to do so leading a double life to hide their sexuality.
I would point out that I asserted the Capt. Renault character appears to be bisexual, not that there it is reciprocated by the Rick Blaine character. The case for that argument is well made.
^ Donnelly, William (1968). "Love and Death in Casablanca" Persistence of Vision: A Collection of Film Criticisms, ed. Joseph McBride. Madison: Wisconsin Fim Society Press, pp. 103–7 quoted in Rosenzweig, p.78 and Harmetz, p. 347
ReplyDeleteFrom wikipedia: William Donelley, in his Love and Death in Casablanca, argues that Rick's relationship with Sam, and subsequently with Renault, is, "a standard case of the repressed homosexuality that underlies most American adventure stories".[85]
Rosenzweig, and Harmetz, have each written well regarded books on the movie Casablanca; both of them include Donelly's observations.
So, in terms of research, Greg - maybe YOU should accept this as a reasonable nuance of character rather than being so quick to dismiss it.
I would also point out that as has been noted here earlier, the only slightly earlier movie, the Maltese Falcon, was made in 1941, Casablanca in '42. The Maltese Falcon, which has several of the same character actors, also has nuances of homosexual relationships between characters. Both movies were made by Warner Brothers, and I think if you look at the movies from that studio in that era, you can find other examples of this kind of nuanced sexuality.
"I doubt that the people of Ireland felt the same way about the situation, especially in the later years when the real purpose became clear."
ReplyDeleteThe foregoing comment is not intended to be a factual statement, I hope.
"I doubt" is fine, but without any attempt whatsoever to back up the assertion that follows it. You're a maroon.
"Do you read or watch everything through the lens of some Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory? Thank the gods for New Criticism."
AND a misogynistic, bircher homophobe, who also has a pathalogical aversion to mental health professionals.
Greg, buddy, here's a suggestion. If you want to have people think that you're not a misogynistic, bircher homophobe who also has a pathalogical aversion to mental health professionals try to avoid the use of such phrases as "Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory". It's only a suggestion.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you've flooded the page with irrelevant information. It is not news to me that gays and lesbians have been in the military or in acting for a long time. We were talking about the characters in "Casablanca." Would you care to show your evidence for your claim of bisexuality in that movie?
I'm not interested in what some critics want to find in the text or the film. I care about what is actually there. You just tossed out this extraordinary claim without providing any evidence.
"Would you care to show your evidence for your claim of bisexuality in that movie?"
ReplyDeleteAdd blindness to the list of " misogynistic, bircher homophobe, who also has a pathalogical aversion to mental health professionals.".
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't expect you to be aware of literary theories. The terms that I used are each a school of interpretation. I don't have to agree with those schools so as not to be a misogynist, a homophobe, or a member of the John Birch Society. I am none of those things.
I'm not interested in what some critics want to find in the text or the film. I care about what is actually there. You just tossed out this extraordinary claim without providing any evidence.
ReplyDeleteNo, I reported an assertion made by multiple movie experts, which is included in two of the leading books written about the movie - highly acclaimed books, btw.
I then posted the original person's observations who is in print as a movie expert, and the author's of the two books, including on what pages the references occur.
Your source is to claim that I don't know how other cultures express friendship and affection, without any proof, and without any substantiating source for that conclusion.
So, once again - you first with the evidence. I've already provided sources.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou made the claim that there is bisexuality in "Casablanca." Now prove it. Show us what you mean. You can summarize the argument made in your sources. I'm not going to do the work for you, especially when I see no evidence for that claim.
As I said, people find all kinds of things in texts or films that they go looking to find. I prefer to let the text speak to me on its own.
If you'd like a discussion about love as expressed sexually or in friendship, see C. S. Lewis's "The Four Loves."
It's appropriate that the verification word for this comment is "contra."
Greg, I'd be happy to discuss all the different kinds of love in language, but that is a different topic. We can cover agape versus eros, philia, etc.
ReplyDeleteI asserted here that movie experts have posited a bisexuality and attraction to the Bogart character in Casablanca.
If you wish to pursue their explanation, be my guest. If you'd like to read my explanation for why they are credible, first you have to document why or how I fail to understand expressions of friendship in other cultures.
You know - the stuff you try to explain to your students, which you seem not to know first hand. I pointed out that I know first hand about other cultures and affection.
I provided the source to multiple movie experts who have dealt with this premise. This is not exclusively MY idea.
CS Lewis on the other hand has NO relationship to reasonably understanding Casablanca.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI answered your question. I gave you to references from literature that illustrate what I'm talking about. If that's not good enough for you, I don't care. Your problem is that you make claims that you won't even elaborate on, while at the same time dismissing what anyone else writes.
C.S. Lewis is relevant to this discussion, thanks to his analysis of the meaning of philos--friendship.
You DO understand I trust that literature is fiction not fact,Greg?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to confuse the two a lot.
How many people in how many countries have you observed expressing affection?
You don't strike me as widely traveled.
So, you accuse me of lacking an understanding of other cultures, but you don't back up that claim.
You back up yours with fiction.
I present the opinion of multiple experts not only on movies generally, and on sexuality in the movies specifically, but experts specifically ON CASABLANCA.
Further since this is an American made movie by American writers made at an American studio, I'd be interested in your justification for this reflecting foreign attitudes of affection.
I'll give you that Claud Rains was born in the UK, but both Laci and I are quite familiar with the affectionate customs of the UK. Ditto France.
Further Rains had been in the U.S. for some twenty years at this point, so it's not like he was unacquainted with what was expected by AMERICAN audiences, which is who this was made.
So show me that CS Lews applies here, but FIRST show me your justification for asserting I don't know about the expressions of affection in other cultures, including btw Middle eastern ones.
So you back up your assertion that I don't recognize or understand those cultures.
And why don't you go peruse the Casablanca movie experts while you're at it, then you can explain why they and I are wrong, in your opinion.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteMy point was that you seem unaware of the possible behaviors of friends. I said that since you think that there's bisexuality being shown in "Casablanca." I just see friendship.
Works of fiction often illustrate the culture of the time in which they were written or of the time about which they were written. Lewis's discussion applies since we're talking about friendship.
You're the one making the claim about bisexuality in the film. I don't make that claim. I don't need to find support for the claim; you do. I don't have to make your case for you. Until you defend your claim, I'll consider the subject decided.
Gc wrote:
ReplyDeleteMy point was that you seem unaware of the possible behaviors of friends.
You made that point based on......what?
That was the challenge to you. To provide a reasonable or factual basis for that statement.
And then to show that it applied here, to a movie made in 1942 in the U.S. for an American audience.
I'm still waiting.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou said that Captain Renault had a bisexual attraction to Rick. I said that they are just friends. I'm asking you to defend your claim. If you know about friendship around the world, good for you.
It's exhausting when you make a claim, attack anyone who doesn't agree with you, and refuse to defend your own claim. It's not my job to support your position. I also see no reason to go on at length about minor points.
You said that there is bisexuality in "Casablanca." Support that claim.
GC wrote:I said that since you think that there's bisexuality being shown in "Casablanca." I just see friendship.
ReplyDeleteActually, I pointed out that movie experts in both the areas of bisexuality and homosexuality see this, as well as acknowledged experts in movie history writing specifically about the movie Casablanca.
You appear to be asserting that I am wrong, because of some imaginary deficiency that you cannot describe or explain. I'd love to see you elaborate on my lack of exposure to other cultures - please, expound away.
AND you appear to be claiming that of course, the experts are wrong, because you know best.
So because you don't see what experts in the depiction of bisexuality and homosexuality and experts in analyzing movies and movie history, and very specifically THIS movie see it, you assert that it is MY understanding which must be deficient somehow.
You bring up an essay by CS Lewis on love which is written from a strictly Christian orientation, and which relies on 'thought experiments'.
Not exactly a factual base - thought experiments - or an expert one on which to found your criticism.
So I go to Casablanca experts.....and you go pretty damn far afield, with a religious interpretation of love - I think you have an uphill battle demonstrating that the authors/ screen writers, director and cast had as their intent to express. I don't think it applies AT ALL. (And yes I'm familiar with the work, and I'm also familiar with the various biblical language terms for love, thank you. It was included in my religious education.)
Maybe what you should do is check out the experts and let THEM persuade you or not.
And maybe you should allow that you might not be seeing everything there is to see.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou complain about the use of thought experiments, but we're talking about a movie here. It's the subject of film interpretation, not scientific analysis.
My mention of Lewis was solely thanks to his analysis of the word, philos. His religious additions are interesting, but not relevant to my concerns.
If you want to see bisexuality in "Casablanca," I suppose that you can read that into it, but it's not in the film itself. I don't commit the intentional fallacy, so I have no idea what the screenwriters, actors, or director want me to think. I know what the film itself presents.
In "The Maltese Falcon," there are certainly references to homosexuality. We've noted that Wilmer is called a gunsel, and there's been discussion of what that meant. Joel Cairo is also obviously gay. Those elements were in the original novel and are in the film.
As I've said before, though, this is your claim. It is not up to me to defend it or to research it. Unless you can provide me some reason to think otherwise, I see no reason to believe what you say. Telling me that some film expert also sees bisexuality in "Casablanca" is no help, since you haven't yet given any account of what said expert argues. What you're doing is name dropping again. This book said such and such, and so I'm smarter than you. You're presenting the claim. It's your job to give at least a precis of why we should believe it.
Greg, once again, you insist that you see everything that there is to see, and that because I presented something different, I must not understand the expressions of affection in other cultures.
ReplyDeleteYou fail to show what other culture than American is presented in the movie.
And apparently you are unable to support how it is that you claim I don't know how friendship and affection is expressed in other cultures differently from here.
Yet another claim on which I am waiting.
But YOU know, and teach it to your students.
How is it exactly 'you know' this? Particularly if you are not widely traveled. You show nothing which ties CS Lewis ideas on philos to Casablanca.
Start answering questions, and I'll answer yours. Otherwise, I've provided you the means to answer those questions for yourself, and substantiated my comments.
And I've done so rather better than you have.
I provided you the link to the TCM series on homosexuality and bisexuality as it is represented in films.
And I provided you the links to THREE authors who are expert on the topic and/or on the movie Casablanca, including the page numbers.
I'll be happy to give you greater detail...after you deliver, which you consistently fail to do.
When I do so, you apparently miss the significance of what I present, AND you dismiss it as a 'data dump'. It is not; what is presented is applicable and specific to the point.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou are attacking minor points, and I don't care about them. Let them go. I want to know why you see bisexuality in "Casablanca." Not why X, Y, or Z see it. You claimed that it's there. It may be. I'd like to know your reasoning. You're the one who raised the topic in the first place. It's your job to answer first.
I'd really rather talk to Mikeb about this film.
I'd really rather talk to Mikeb about this film.
ReplyDeleteDecember 15, 2011 4:28 AM
Sure you would, so long as all he wants to talk about is what a great movie "Casablanca" is. If he had taken the tack that dog gone has, you'd want to talk to someone else about it.
So, this:
" Do you read or watch everything through the lens of some Marxist-Freudian-feminist-queer theory?"
is not yours? You didn't say this?
You say, "The terms that I used are each a school of interpretation.".
Please point me towards those schools of interpretation. Are they all individual schools? You know what I mean? Is there one school that looks at "Marxist" stuff, another that looks at "Feminism" or "Queer" stuff? Or, ar there as many as 24 different schools* in their varied permutations.
I suspect that you're just using weasel words because you have, once again, let slip a revelatory comment. You hate marxists, feminists, mental health care professionals and queers. It's okay, Greg, I know how you feel; I reaaly, Really, REALLY know how you feel. I absolutely HATEZ me some supercilious dickhead who sets himself up as an expert and consistently says incredibly stupid things, then tries to weasel out of having said them. Oh, yeah, I be lookin' at you, Greg Camp--and pointing and laughimg.
* I can't do math, but I'm sure you have an advanced degree in that as well as your english, film and gunzloonery degrees--so you can explain permutations to me if I'm wrong.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteThe word you wanted was combination. In a permutation, order makes a difference. The dial locks are actually permutation locks, not combination locks.
The term, school, used in this way refers to an approach to interpretation held in common by those who buy into that system. It doesn't mean a physical building or institution. The Marxist school, then, would be those critics who use Marxist methods in interpreting texts--attributing actions of characters to their economic classes, and so forth. Queer theory is more difficult to define, but its main idea is to analyze what is considered normal behavior and what is "queer."
Those are methods of analyzing texts and films. A person does not have to hate gay people, women, minorities, or any other group to disagree with a theory of literary criticism. Nor does it mean that one must disagree with those methods in other areas such as economics. I don't agree with Marxism in any field, although I do find that Marx's analysis of economics has some validity. I support gay marriage and equal rights, and I've had many gay and lesbian friends over the years. That doesn't mean that I have to see bisexuality in a given film.
Now, he's an expert locksmith!
ReplyDeleteJeez, no wonder he's hung up on the "know it all" thing--He hates having his ignorance being shown up.
Demo says:
ReplyDeleteYou hate marxists, feminists, mental health care professionals and queers.
You missed lawyers and judges as well.
I think Greg hates most people since he still has PTSD from being teased in school for being an oik.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteYou are as thick as a brick. Permutation or combination is not really the point, now is it.
You said something sexist, bircherite, homophobic and paranoid. You claim that those are not your terms, but relate to various "schools" (btw, I'm pretty clear on the conceptual difference between a school building and a school of thought, idiot). Please furninsh me the address/website for the "Queer School" and whether that school is accredited or not.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteIf you know the difference, then why did you make the elementary mistake that you did. I put the word "theory" with the schools of thought listed in the original comment. There is a branch of interpretation called queer theory. I think that it deals with matters that go outside the text itself, and so it isn't really a theory of literature at all.
"If you know the difference..."
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm sorry, Greg; please point out where I said that?
And please furnish the information about the "Queer school", who propounded it originally, when they did so, how widely accepted it is in academic or other professional circles. Show your work.
I mean, for all I know you're perfectly correct (despite the dismal track record you've accrued with various of your idiotic ideas and quite a few FUCKING LIES), but as Mr. Reagan said, "Trust and verify". Well, the trust thing, not so much.
"There is a branch of interpretation called queer theory. I think that it deals with matters that go outside the text itself, and so it isn't really a theory of literature at all.".
And that is why you used it, because it isn't really a theory of literature? Well, then, Mr. Cowchips, wtf is it? And how, exactly, does it apply to dog gone's post?