Pages

30 December 2012

A page of Jerome K. Jerome

Surely, you know Three Men in a Boat, by Jerome K. Jerome. If not, read it. It contains many extremely funny anecdotes, of which the author (Preface to the First Edition,1889) claims they are the record of events that really happened. (Read more here, and see a photograph of the real Three Men.) It's not much of a novel though. In places, it's more like a travel guide, or a history book.

It's not likely that you ever heard of the sequel, Three Men on a Bummel.  To get a taste of it, read these few pages from the latter part of Chapter Two.

o - o - o

Harris, in his early married days, made much trouble for himself on one occasion, owing to this impossibility of knowing what the person behind is doing.  He was riding with his wife through Holland.  The roads were stony, and the machine jumped a good deal.

“Sit tight,” said Harris, without turning his head.

What Mrs. Harris thought he said was, “Jump off.”  Why she should have thought he said “Jump off,” when he said “Sit tight,” neither of them can explain.

Mrs. Harris puts it in this way, “If you had said, ‘Sit tight,’ why should I have jumped off?”

Harris puts it, “If I had wanted you to jump off, why should I have said ‘Sit tight!’?”

The bitterness is past, but they argue about the matter to this day.

Be the explanation what it may, however, nothing alters the fact that Mrs. Harris did jump off, while Harris pedalled away hard, under the impression she was still behind him.  It appears that at first she thought he was riding up the hill merely to show off.  They were both young in those days, and he used to do that sort of thing.  She expected him to spring to earth on reaching the summit, and lean in a careless and graceful attitude against the machine, waiting for her.  When, on the contrary, she saw him pass the summit and proceed rapidly down a long and steep incline, she was seized, first with surprise, secondly with indignation, and lastly with alarm.  She ran to the top of the hill and shouted, but he never turned his head.  She watched him disappear into a wood a mile and a half distant, and then sat down and cried.  They had had a slight difference that morning, and she wondered if he had taken it seriously and intended desertion.  She had no money; she knew no Dutch.  People passed, and seemed sorry for her; she tried to make them understand what had happened.  They gathered that she had lost something, but could not grasp what.  They took her to the nearest village, and found a policeman for her.  He concluded from her pantomime that some man had stolen her bicycle.  They put the telegraph into operation, and discovered in a village four miles off an unfortunate boy riding a lady’s machine of an obsolete pattern.  They brought him to her in a cart, but as she did not appear to want either him or his bicycle they let him go again, and resigned themselves to bewilderment.

Meanwhile, Harris continued his ride with much enjoyment.  It seemed to him that he had suddenly become a stronger, and in every way a more capable cyclist.  Said he to what he thought was Mrs. Harris:
“I haven’t felt this machine so light for months.  It’s this air, I think; it’s doing me good.”

Then he told her not to be afraid, and he would show her how fast he could go.  He bent down over the handles, and put his heart into his work.  The bicycle bounded over the road like a thing of life; farmhouses and churches, dogs and chickens came to him and passed.  Old folks stood and gazed at him, the children cheered him.

In this way he sped merrily onward for about five miles.  Then, as he explains it, the feeling began to grow upon him that something was wrong.  He was not surprised at the silence; the wind was blowing strongly, and the machine was rattling a good deal.  It was a sense of void that came upon him.  He stretched out his hand behind him, and felt; there was nothing there but space.  He jumped, or rather fell off, and looked back up the road; it stretched white and straight through the dark wood, and not a living soul could be seen upon it.  He remounted, and rode back up the hill.  In ten minutes he came to where the road broke into four; there he dismounted and tried to remember which fork he had come down.

While he was deliberating a man passed, sitting sideways on a horse.  Harris stopped him, and explained to him that he had lost his wife.  The man appeared to be neither surprised nor sorry for him.  While they were talking another farmer came along, to whom the first man explained the matter, not as an accident, but as a good story.  What appeared to surprise the second man most was that Harris should be making a fuss about the thing.  He could get no sense out of either of them, and cursing them he mounted his machine again, and took the middle road on chance.  Half-way up, he came upon a party of two young women with one young man between them.  They appeared to be making the most of him.  He asked them if they had seen his wife.  They asked him what she was like.  He did not know enough Dutch to describe her properly; all he could tell them was she was a very beautiful woman, of medium size.  Evidently this did not satisfy them, the description was too general; any man could say that, and by this means perhaps get possession of a wife that did not belong to him.  They asked him how she was dressed; for the life of him he could not recollect.

I doubt if any man could tell how any woman was dressed ten minutes after he had left her.  He recollected a blue skirt, and then there was something that carried the dress on, as it were, up to the neck.  Possibly, this may have been a blouse; he retained a dim vision of a belt; but what sort of a blouse?  Was it green, or yellow, or blue?  Had it a collar, or was it fastened with a bow?  Were there feathers in her hat, or flowers?  Or was it a hat at all?  He dared not say, for fear of making a mistake and being sent miles after the wrong party.  The two young women giggled, which in his then state of mind irritated Harris.  The young man, who appeared anxious to get rid of him, suggested the police station at the next town.  Harris made his way there.  The police gave him a piece of paper, and told him to write down a full description of his wife, together with details of when and where he had lost her.  He did not know where he had lost her; all he could tell them was the name of the village where he had lunched.  He knew he had her with him then, and that they had started from there together.

The police looked suspicious; they were doubtful about three matters: Firstly, was she really his wife?  Secondly, had he really lost her?  Thirdly, why had he lost her?  With the aid of a hotel-keeper, however, who spoke a little English, he overcame their scruples.  They promised to act, and in the evening they brought her to him in a covered wagon, together with a bill for expenses.  The meeting was not a tender one.  Mrs. Harris is not a good actress, and always has great difficulty in disguising her feelings.  On this occasion, she frankly admits, she made no attempt to disguise them.

21 December 2012

Free Speech Online

The January 2013 issue of Scientific American contains A To-Do List for Washington, by the Editors, urging dramatic action on three science policy issues that matter most. Their second is the one we quote below. Italics are ours.

PROTECT FREE SPEECH ONLINE IN THE 21ST CENTURY 

The Internet has become our public square and printing press—a place where citizens have their voices heard. That freedom to speak must be protected. Network neutrality—the idea that all data on the Internet should be treated equally regardless of creator or content—is often considered to be a technical business matter. At its core, however, net neutrality guarantees the right to speak freely on the Internet without fear of gatekeepers who would block content with which they disagree. The Federal Communications Commission must enforce policies that would protect free speech on the Internet. The most powerful method at the commission’s disposal is to reverse policies enacted a decade ago by the FCC and reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service. Just as the telephone companies cannot now referee your phone conversations, the owners of broadband Internet lines should not be allowed to interfere with what online content citizens have access to.


09 December 2012

The Bill Clinton handshake

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton has definitely left his mark in social conventions. Thus he personally redefined the meaning of "sexual relations with a woman", he introduced "pot smoking without inhaling" and "cigar smoking without fire" (not without consequences for the expression "close but no cigar"). All this is common knowledge. But did you know the Clinton Handshake? It's a delicate manoeuvre to keep people away from you while giving the opposite impression. It was invented in order to keep terrorist-turned-chairman Arafat from publicly hugging the president. Arab and former communist leaders are universally dreaded for their embarrassing habit of hugging and passionately kissing men they consider as friends. Clinton, of course, prefers the other gender. Besides personal ones, he also had political reasons not to be harassed in front of the third party involved, the Israeli prime minister. In this interview, Clinton's collaborator George  Stephanopoulos offers backstage information about the Arafat-Rabin handshake.  

We didn't have a lot of time, but we did an awful lot of prep for a single handshake. We actually choreographed it. We did dress rehearsals in my office on the Saturday. [...] Everybody played a character and tried to figure out which order the handshakes go in. [...] And the big concern that morning was not the handshake itself, but the potential hug. There was a deep concern that all of these months and years of negotiations would be upset by Arafat's exuberance —when Clinton reached over to shake Arafat's hand, he would reach over to Clinton and hug him. And that would just be unacceptable to the Israelis, who were happy to be signing this agreement, but didn't want it to be seen like purely a moment of great joy. 

Q:  How did they prep to avoid a hug?

Tony Lake is playing Arafat. And Clinton comes up with the defensive maneuver that he would use in case Arafat goes for the hug. If Arafat went for the hug, Clinton would squeeze in underneath the biceps and block him. If that didn't work, he'd do a knee to the groin. Everybody broke up laughing.

Below, a diagram making things clear. [Not from the interview. CI]


A suspicious Clinton ready for the Emergency Manoeuvre
Try it, it works wonderfully.  While being purely defensive, it creates the impression of a most cordial welcome. There's a politician for you! Clinton did not have to resort to it, but his successor Obama applied it successfully to his own predecessor.

The Clinton Manoeuvre skillfully applied in action
To the best of our knowledge, the Ultimate Manoeuvre (a knee to the groin) has not seen presidential action yet.

Added January 16, 2013.  Recently uncovered document reveals Bill Clinton practicing with Cameron Diaz.



05 December 2012

Een expert over het Sinterklaasbedrog

Bomans is heel zijn leven lang een soort Sinterklaas geweest. Hij heeft de heilige man talloze keren geïncarneerd, en heeft er bij vele gelegenheden over gesproken en geschreven. Een onverdachte sympathisant dus, om het woord 'collaborateur' nog te vermijden.  Een van zijn talloze teksten over het onderwerp heet 'Het geloof in Sinterklaas' (Werken V, p.732-736, Elzeviers Weekblad 10 december 1966) en eindigt als volgt.

Geloven en weten zijn twee rails, die evenwijdig lopen en elkaar nooit ontmoeten. Elk kind beweegt zich in die dagen [rond Sinterklaas dus] op beide voort. Zijn linkerkant weet dat het onzin is en met zijn rechterzijde gelooft het. Ik heb bevend voor Sinterklaas gestaan en tegelijk gezien dat het onze buurman was. Alle twee wist ik zeker. En toch waren ze niet met elkaar in tegenspraak. Er kwam geen onderlinge verbinding tot stand. De spoorstaven hadden geen dwarsliggers.
Op een keer—en dat is in het leven van elk mens toch eigenlijk een belangrijke gebeurteni, die al evenmin aandacht krijgt—verdwijnt deze wonderlijke schizofrenie. Het kind 'weet' dan alleen. Er breekt echter niet een nieuw inzicht door, want de bewustheid van de leugen is er altijd geweest. De daaraan parallel lopende lijn wordt eenvoudig opgeheven. 

[Met het voorafgaande ben ik het niet eens. Ik citeer het enkel als aanloop tot hetgeen volgt.]

Het is voor mij altijd een raadsel dat het kind hier geen rancune uit overhoudt. Het is toch al die tijd bedrogen geweest en dit in een vitale kwestie. Want wat is er vitaler dan een verzekering die normatief is en waarnaar men zijn gedrag te regelen heeft? En dit blijkt dan een praatje voor de vaak te zijn! Vermoedelijk wordt de gekwetstheid hierover volkomen toegedekt door de voldoening van nu af bij de groten te horen.

Met de laatste zin ben ik het evenmin eens. Ter attentie van de heer Bomans (die van op grote hoogte over mijn schouder meeleest) wil ik er op wijzen dat er kinderen zijn die aan die leugen (zoals hij het terecht noemt)  wel degelijk rancune overhouden. Eén daarvan ken ik zeer goed, want ik ben het zelf. Toen mijn ouders het mij vertelden was ik helemaal ondersteboven, niet (zoals zij dachten) omdat een mooie droom aan diggelen ging, maar omdat ze mij al die tijd wetens en willens wat op de mouw gespeld hadden. Deze fout heb ik als volwassene alvast niet op mijn beurt gemaakt. 

(Hier verdere bekentenissen van een Sinterklaasfan.)