Baedecker ratings!
Posted by Kate on April 20, 1998 at 18:52:53:
In response to The irony of it, written by Constanza on April 20, 1998 at 17:19:57
]
] In the letter to Anthony Pookworthy printed as a foreword to the novel (at least in my copy), Stella Gibbons says:
] it is just sheer flapdoodle, that I have adopted the method perfected by the late Herr Baedeker, and firmly marked what I consider the finer passages with one, two or three stars. In such a manner did the good man deal with cathedrals, hotels and paintings by men of genius. There seems no reason why it should not be applied to passages in novels.
] It ought to help the reviewers, too."
] The first paragraph of chapter 3 is rated **. And consider it the worst one of all I 've read up to now. However, if as you said, she is parodying other author's styles, it would be an altogether different thing, wouldn't it? And in such a case, the letter above would have been a little on the ironic side. That is, she would have been mocking authors by imitating the pompous phrasing, and making fun of reviewers by rating higher the elaborate passages, "finer" meaning "finer according to the then accepted standards". And further mocking them all by using Baedeker's method. I dare say it makes sense. Polite with a bite, eh?
]
]
I had missed this completely till you pointed it out. And yes it is an AWFUL passage, isn't it?
"mullions and scullions"
"fields, fanged with flints"
I notice that paragraph 6 of Chapter 3 in my edition starts with three dots: . . . I wonder if this is a misprint and is meant to be three stars. If anything it is worse than the first paragraph.
- LOL! Cheryl 00:55:54 4/21/98
(0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
