Saturday, September 07, 2013

The Times poses a question only Christianity can answer


From Mr Alexander Boot:

The evolution of The Times mirrors that of the Tory party. The paper, for so long a universally respected mouthpiece of conservatism, has become the embodiment of everything objectionable in British politics.

It unfailingly puts forth the cause of republicanism patterned after the US model. This, according to their Executive Editor, should even include things like presidential (at a pinch prime-ministerial) primaries.

The paper’s party sympathies are faux Tory, which is to say pro-Dave and everything he stands for, which is nothing much this side of homomarriage. In foreign policy, The Times is close to American (and exceedingly British) neoconservatism. The principal tenet is that if at first you don’t succeed, bomb and bomb again.

If Britain doesn’t meekly obey EU diktats, she’s isolated from Europe. If Parliament, just this once, refuses to commit the country to yet another idiotic adventure, Britain is isolated from the USA.

To listen to The Times, we’ve become a pariah state surrounded by an isolationist wall with razor wire on top. That’s not exactly the impression one gets in my part of London, where many of the 300,000 French immigrants live, but perhaps Times columnists reside in a different part of town.

Rachael Sylvester’s article Britain Hasn’t a Clue Where Its Loyalties Lie is a typical Times product. Replace ‘Britain’ with ‘Rachael’, ‘its’ with ‘her’, and the title would be much more accurate.

“After the Syria vote last week,” she writes, “the UK is now distanced from the US and increasingly detached from Europe.” Considering that France is the only European country that has so far supported aggression against Syria, we really haven’t detached ourselves from Europe on this one. But The Times, like the heart, has its reasons that reason knows not of.

As a rule, I can seldom put my brain to sleep for long enough to engage arguments pitched at this infra-low level. But one sentence caught my eye, for inadvertently Miss Sylvester’s silly article posed a serious question: “Too many politicians from all parties know what they are against but they are less keen to say what they are for.”

To narrow this to just one party, what is it that the Conservative party is for? What would it like to conserve?

I’d suggest that a Western conservative – regardless of his faith – can only answer this question one way without losing intellectual credibility. His desideratum has to be the preservation of whatever is left of the religious, cultural and political heritage of Christendom.

This explains why political (as distinct from cultural) conservatism has had such a rough ride in America. An American who calls himself a conservative would probably answer the lapidary question by saying ‘the Constitution of the United States’.

But that was the constitution of a revolutionary republic, the first secular state in Western history that came into being as a result of insurgency against a legitimate – and benign – government. What would it like to conserve? The secular, proto-socialist fallacy that all men are created equal?

This explains why real conservatism in America has been taken over by libertarianism or, even worse, neoconservatism.

The libertarians define themselves by their opposition to the central state, which is close to the conservative position. But they also fight tooth and nail against the influence of the familial groups (clan, parish, village community, cooperative, trade guild, kindred) that have traditionally defined the Christian body politic.

The neocons, on the other hand, are an odd cocktail of Trotskyite temperament, Keynesian economics, welfarism and unbridled aggression – all mixed with vaguely conservative phrases, misunderstood and misused.   

On the other hand, British conservatism practically defines itself. The triad ‘God, king and country’ encapsulates neatly the essence of British conservatism, both its transcendent inspiration and political expression.

The starting point of deliberation for any Christian thinker is that the key institutions of Christendom, which is to say of the West, must somehow reflect the teaching of Christ and, on a deeper level, his person.

The essence of Christ, as accepted by all apostolic denominations, is that he is both fully divine and fully human, uniting within himself the transcendent and the transient, the timeless and the temporal, the physical and the metaphysical.

In politics, this unity is communicated by the triad of ‘God, king and country’. However, the parallel could be made to work even harder if we relate it not to the umbrella slogan but to a specific political system.

I’d suggest that constitutional monarchy underpinned by qualified franchise is the only method of government that truly reflects the essence of Christendom and its founding religion.

A monarch ruling by divine right or some similar claim to legitimacy represents the transcendent aspect, a factor of constancy linking generations past, present and future on a timeline demarcated by Creation at one end and the Second Coming at the other.

At the same time, an elected parliament is a temporal institution translating public interests into political action and also preventing the monarch from becoming a despot. To achieve a workable balance, Parliament’s power must be real but limited, the monarch’s power limited but real, and they should both feel accountable to the institution that is itself accountable to God only.

I realise that this understanding of conservatism is a million miles away from that of Dave, The Times or any of its columnists. But I know of no other that could explain not only what we are against but also what we are for.

Alexander Boot is a writer on political, cultural and religious themes

50 Comments:

Blogger NamronMit said...

My friend, you are a genius.

7 September 2013 at 10:22  
Blogger David B said...

I had a lot of sympathy with the start of this post, which I would precis to the effect of 'Britain should do the right thing, rather than do the wrong thing because our friends want to'.

And, too me, the right thing, in politics, even outside foreign affairs, is certainly not neocon or libertarian, the more unpalatable side of conservatism. How enlightened the One Nation Conservatism of Mac and his ilk seems now, in retrospect.

Yet, as opposed to Christian values and old fashioned conservatism, I can't for the life of me see that secularism, old fashioned liberalism, and enlightenment values are not far preferable.

David

7 September 2013 at 10:51  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness Mr Boot! That's my Conservatism to a tea! Well said Sir, well said...

7 September 2013 at 11:00  
Blogger Corrigan said...

To narrow this to just one party, what is it that the Conservative party is for?

Why, what it has always been for, of course: money, power and privilege. The essential difference, is that, under the grandees, there was at least some minimal sense of noblesse oblige, cold comfort though it was. Under Thatcher Conservatism (the C here being deliberately capitalized because I'm referring to what it essentially a new political party) it is the regime of the barrow boys.

In one sense, therefore, it is business as usual for the Tories, but if that party is bleeding support in the country, it is because it has become essentially a masonic lodge for the advancement of its senior members.

7 September 2013 at 11:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

To achieve a workable balance, Parliament’s power must be real but limited, the monarch’s power limited but real, and they should both feel accountable to the institution that is itself accountable to God only.

Sounds a bit like Iran if you substitute monarch for ayatollah - some democracy!

7 September 2013 at 11:20  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

what is it that the Conservative party is for?

It’s for anything that kills off the nation state, the home of a unique people identified by race, religion, language and culture. To that end, the Conservatives and Labour have imported alien races and religions and exported sovereignty. Both parties have betrayed the British but, to my mind, the Conservatives are the worse of the two because they have betrayed us while maintaining a façade of patriotism. Frankly, they sicken me.

7 September 2013 at 12:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "The libertarians define themselves by their opposition to the central state, which is close to the conservative position. But they also fight tooth and nail against the influence of the familial groups (clan, parish, village community, cooperative, trade guild, kindred) that have traditionally defined the Christian body politic."

Is that actually true? At least if libertarianism is much the same as classical liberalism where 'negative liberty' is a core aspect. For sure, these things start from the point of the individual but freedom of association is linked to that, I'd have thought.

7 September 2013 at 12:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Another Saturday on Cranmer's weblog. Another screed by Mr Boot. He really should stop writing about Americans until he learns something about us. In the meantime I would ask a few questions:

1. In what meaningful sense does the English monarch Rule?

2. Does Mr Boot really reject the idea that all men are created equal? God is no respecter of persons, and that is the genesis of the concept. We are all of us in our inequalities morally equidistant from God. But perhaps English nobility is somewhat closer.

3. What has changed in the 200 years since Britain fought a war to force the opium trade on China such that neoconservative are now the antithesis of Christendom? Wasn't it previously called 'the White Man's Burden?' Is that the glorious past that Mr Boot's conservatism would like to conserve?

carl

7 September 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You’re a good fellow Boot. This fellow suffered as his Times went yuppie and then tabloid. One recalls, it became orientated to the well to do London commuter, and, God help us, pandered to the gals. And if there is anything worse than a lady political columnist, it’s the same who manages to mention her family members on occasion. Stick to lifestyle, those gals who think you’re doing us men all of a favour by giving your usually petty take on men’s affairs. To wit, the political situation. Of course the Times was abandoned by this man. One even wonders if the fledgling political assistant Cameron was an avid reader. Now, that would explain everything...

There. Said it !

7 September 2013 at 13:17  
Blogger Roy said...

Dreadnaught said...

Sounds a bit like Iran if you substitute monarch for ayatollah - some democracy!

It sounds absolutely nothing like Iran. All that Mr. Boot is advocating is that people should follow their consciences, which should be informed by basic Christian principles.

7 September 2013 at 14:55  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Mr Boot,
Since I have left my opinions at the door, I'm not sure what one can say except well done.
However since this is Cranmer's Blog, I might as well have a wee pot shot. Conservative and conservative no longer have any connection. The traditional Conservative voter is very reluctant to abandon that which they have valued for so long.
Like the lobster in a pot of cold water does not realize that the temperature is rising till it is too late.
We surely need a new breed of politician. One who is not bound to party leadership loyalty but to the foundational principals of the party. It was such a political ideal that I considered a party of Integrity. Using Biblical principals in the most as the basis of a political manifesto but equally selecting candidates from all walks of life that have proven their ability to act with integrity. Nearly every Blog article and Media pieces show disenchanted the general public is and how singularly minded the politicians are. They don't care what the public want, it's all about what they want to do.

As to the sovereigns ability to rule, rather than strip her of any remaining involvement that they have, they should restore some measure of veto on what she is being asked to approve. At present she would have to approve her own dissolution just as she had to approve the SSM Bill. She should be allowed to delay legislation that is against constitutional principles at least to the next Government.

So much of what is happening is obvious to the common man but not to these Morons that we seem to have elected.

7 September 2013 at 15:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr B said he would like a...

'constitutional monarchy [[a monarch ruling by divine right or some similar claim]],underpinned by qualified franchise (What a darkly loaded expression)(it)...is the only method of government that truly reflects the essence of Christendom and its founding religion.

How in the name of the insane, can you advocate the principle of Divine Rule yet feel the need of a 'Parliament' to stop the monarch turning in to a despot.

And who I would ask of him, would hold the deciding vote when The Monarch is in terminal disagreement with Parliament?

Mr Boot (and Roy) have lost the plot, not to mention the long run Cromwell Day post a couple of days back.

7 September 2013 at 15:56  
Blogger Albert said...

My Integrity,

these Morons that we seem to have elected

Well, I didn't elect them. From the first moment Cameron appeared, I thought he was a vacuous PR man. I have been surprised only by the degree to which that was true. As for Clegg, on the TV debate in which everyone thought he was great, I literally cringed whenever he spoke.

It amazes me that any intelligent person voted for either of them. But, to those who did, thanks for imposing them on the rest of us.

7 September 2013 at 15:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I actual think the British monarchy as currently structured is a perfect analog for the modern vision of God. It's all ritual and pomp and symbol - the visual manifestation of a civilization that seeks to honor itself through its long history. 'Long live the King' becomes a cloaked way of saying 'See how great we are.'

But that monarchy is also cloistered and powerless - carefully sealed away from any interference in the affairs of men. The intersection of Sovereign and Subject is closely controlled and limited to ceremonial functions. It is a Sovereign without sovereignty for sovereignty must be rooted in the autonomous will of man. No Law is forthcoming lest man be required to obey.

Thus sayeth the sons of men: 'I will play a tune, and God will dance. I will play a dirge and God will mourn. He will make an appearance on stage and I will applaud. Otherwise he can leave me alone.'

carl

7 September 2013 at 16:55  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch so what would anyone expect?

7 September 2013 at 17:27  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Thank you for that post Mr Boot,

I am at heart both a Burkean Conservative and a One Nation Conservative, so the overall drift of your article, Mr Boot, is very much to my liking. Though I lecture not to the US, as that is their country not mine, so I would apply my ideas to these isles, only.

The history of The Times represents how the trendy liberal so called Conservative movement, albeit in a commercial from, take over a previously useful institution and subvert it to their purposes. I would have more respect for them if they started something fresh, and argued their case. However this "colonization" does, I feel, typify what is happening generally in a range of institutions all of which is quite deliberate I'm sure, and which presumably is why this article was posted, to illustrate a general trend. Another example of this process, recently in the news, being The Girl Guides of course.
The only home now for genuine pro-British conservatives is Ukip of course, which is not a perfect fit for me, but then what organization ever is suitable, as each individual inevitably has to compromise their particular flavour of politics or faith when they join a large group.

7 September 2013 at 17:44  
Blogger Unce Brian said...

Albert

As for Clegg, on the TV debate in which everyone thought he was great, I literally cringed whenever he spoke.

Same here. Some of the questions, I thought, Cameron answered best and some of them Brown answered best. Never Clegg, who seemed to be out of his depth. On controversial issues such as immigration and pensions, Brown or Cameron or both quoted names and figures and facts, showing that they had been properly briefed, but the best that silly little Clegg could do was to spout some Dame Edna Everage waffle along the lines of, "If only we could all learn to be nice to one another, we'd find that our problems would just melt away."

7 September 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Inspector General.
If you want to find a female life partner it might help if you actually take the step of believing that females are human beings with brains and souls too. So stop being patronising about women's political nous. Maybe you are sending yourself up? I find it hard to take seriously it is so obviously weird.

So you think all those women who get Firsts in P.P.E. somehow managed to cheat and were really more interested in painting their toenails and getting tattoos? or that "this is a woman; please mark paper higher;-)" was put there in luminous marker pen? What world do you live in?

What you wrote is not offensive because it is politically incorrect. It is offensive because it puts people who worked hard and have good brains down because of which gender they are. When girls' serious education was started at the turn of last century by Christian pioneers, one of the objections, believe it or not, was that the intellectual effort might prevent them from having periods and thus render them infertile!! Society has moved far from that absurdity. It is time you also moved further, not as far as the sillier reaches of feminism, but as far as an honest assessment based on merit.



7 September 2013 at 17:57  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Lucy Mullen

The Inspector General enjoys being provocative. Sometimes he makes points that are both serious and amusing but often they are more amusing than serious, although he would probably claim he is completely serious.

However, I don't think you should be offended by his comments on women. After all, many women enjoy having digs at men!

7 September 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Unce Brian,

I'm delighted to hear that. The next morning I heard how everyone was going on about how great Clegg had been, and I found myself wondering if I had watched the same debate!

7 September 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Roy,

The problem with the Inspector is that even he doesn't know when he's being serious.

7 September 2013 at 19:07  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Well, I'm thinking maybe the Inspector needs a cross-party panel of Glenda Jackson, Elspeth Howe and Shirley Williams to discuss the matter with! All in good fun!

7 September 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Lucy,

Thank you for a wonderful image. I'm just wondering how that would run.

7 September 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Carl Jacobs,

An interesting reflection there from you.

So society has tamed Royalty, reducing it to a ceremonial role. I agree. Also society believes that it has "tamed" God. But of course He isn't tame and his laws, which we mock at our peril, will come back and bite us, very hard. It will not be God directly Himself, doing the biting, but it will simply be the natural out flowing, the consequences, of ignoring those laws that exist, for yes, there exists not merely the physical laws which science has unearthed and society acknowledges, but also the theological laws, revealed to us, the moral ones if you wish.
That statement may get the atheists on here excited ! Bless their little cotton socks. Some of them are so earnest in their faith.

7 September 2013 at 20:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings all, the Inspector is fresh back from a visit to Cheltenham. On his travel, he thought he’d buy the Times for what would be the first occasion this century, only to get ‘Private Eye’ instead. You see, when a paper has lost the faith of its erstwhile readership, it’s lost it forever. Conservatives, take note ! Anyway, that fellow Hislop is a humorous card, what !

Now, what’s this gripe that usually splendid thing Lucy has published ? Seems the Inspector has been blamed for everything woman reviles including the monthly cycle. Have a care, you nicety - a chap is sensitive to criticism, or at least feels he should be...

All a fellow did was to mention how ghastly he finds female political commentators. No crime in that, unless of course, the misdemeanour is in criticising anything female. Anyway, where were you when political parties issued all female prospective parliamentary candidate lists. Surely, the most condescending outrage, don’t you think ? One shudders to think the vapours that would be produced by all men lists...

Besides, if a lady wanted to read a paper, she’d read the Mail. Excellent coverage in there on women’s things even now. Now there is a quality paper aimed at the ladies. Jolly good read too, one might add when he has found the odd one abandoned in a railway carriage.

What’s P.P.E. ? Is that what they are calling domestic science these days ?

7 September 2013 at 20:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 September 2013 at 21:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

You said rather more that. You as much as said that women should stick to knitting and kittens. What was that phrase? 'Their petty take on men's affairs.' We should all be grateful that Mrs Thatcher didn't agree.

carl

Who apologizes for the spittle and froth and venom and rage that Corrigan will visit upon this thread for the mention of Mrs Thatcher. It couldn't be helped.

7 September 2013 at 21:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Carl, one presumes your last effort was the result of discussion with Mrs Jacobs, and the good lady hath dictated your ‘wisdom’, as she peers over your shoulder...

7 September 2013 at 21:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Matthew Parris is worth the price of a copy of The Times on his own.

7 September 2013 at 21:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Slight aside chaps. Inspector listening to the glorious Last Night of the Proms. Verdi’s Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves. Superb !

7 September 2013 at 21:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Nah. She's out shopping this afternoon. Looking for a computer, I think. So you aren't much of a Thatcher fan, huh? Should I have mentioned Elizabeth I, instead?

carl

7 September 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Women make superb monarchs. Can’t say there is a duff one in there. Not so with prime ministers. The ability to multi task does come at a price – that of deep thought, and dare it be said, wisdom. Not part of God’s plan, don’t you know...


7 September 2013 at 22:16  
Blogger bluedog said...

OIG, remember that the Federal Republic of Germany is currently run by a woman, and a devoutly Christian woman at that.

To suggest that the multi-tasking Kanzellorin is incapable of deep thought is patently absurd. We may not agree with all her thoughts and her apparent ambitions for the EU, but it would be foolish to deny Merkel's ability and the respect in which she is held, globally.

Can you imagine any better representative of Christendom to be sent out to open the batting for the West in the face of militant-Islam? Merkel is the anti-thesis of everything that Islam stands for.

7 September 2013 at 23:14  
Blogger Peter D said...

Mr Boot appears to have captured what I understand to be a very Catholic view on the relationship between Church and State:

"I’d suggest that constitutional monarchy underpinned by qualified franchise is the only method of government that truly reflects the essence of Christendom and its founding religion.

A monarch ruling by divine right or some similar claim to legitimacy represents the transcendent aspect, a factor of constancy linking generations past, present and future on a timeline demarcated by Creation at one end and the Second Coming at the other.

At the same time, an elected parliament is a temporal institution translating public interests into political action and also preventing the monarch from becoming a despot. To achieve a workable balance, Parliament’s power must be real but limited, the monarch’s power limited but real, and they should both feel accountable to the institution that is itself accountable to God only."


Unfortunately, Henry VIII and the *Glorious Revolution*, not to mention Oliver Cromwell and the subsequent murder of two Monarchs, put paid to any chances of this in Britain.

7 September 2013 at 23:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


A blue tinged dog puts human on guilt trip, or at least tries to.

As to what you state, agreed, there’s always the exception that hound. But as a general rule...

Having said that, Cameron has only gone and wrecked ones dearly held beliefs. Might need to reconsider...


7 September 2013 at 23:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

alright, wooden puppet

7 September 2013 at 23:39  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Agreed about Clegg. I thought the way this photogenic nonentity's vacuous performance on TV debates wllgedly 'electrified' the 2010 general election just showed how daft many voters were.

'Ooh I think I'll vote for that Nick Clegg. He's a very nice man, nice hair and tall.'

One moron one vote looks set to deliver deficit denying brain dead Ed as our next PM. We're stuffed.

8 September 2013 at 06:32  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Mr Boot said "To narrow this to just one party, what is it that the Conservative party is for? What would it like to conserve?"

The Conservative Party's purpose is to keep Old Etonian's in power, because as they see it Old Etonian's are worthy of power and are surely the only people fit to rule in their view.

8 September 2013 at 08:17  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Following the "surprise" election result in Australia, returning a distinctly right of centre, committed Christian ( of the Catholic variety ), non PC, and generally right good chap, as they say in Lancashire, it is possible that the death wish CONservative Party may rethink their ever rightwards disastrous strategy, sack The Heir to Bliar, move distinctly rightwards, pick someone gritty, tough and with good well balanced judgement (like Davies ) and then all things become possible again. Pause for breath after that sentence.
What is possible ? An alliance with Ukip ! That would create a solid, broad right of centre political force that would keep our pinko friends out of office for several terms of office, long enough to turn the ship of state onto a good heading, again. That in my opinion, Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends and Foes, is the only direction in which hope lies for this once great Britain. Conservatives, wake up and smell the coffee ! You are throwing away success. Ditch Dave and go right !

8 September 2013 at 09:21  
Blogger IanCad said...

David,

Davies or Davis?

8 September 2013 at 10:46  
Blogger bluedog said...

OIG @ 23.38, it's nothing to do with guilt trips, imaginary or otherwise. If you are going to be a polemicist, at least get it right. There have been a number of notable female PMs within living memory apart from Margaret Thatcher. Consider the wonderful Golda Meir, whose watch included the 1973 war in which Israel nearly suffered catastrophic defeat. Indira Ghandi would have to rate a mention too.

8 September 2013 at 13:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Bluedog. Indira Ghandi might be around today had she not personally picked her ironically named bodyguard. One gives you Meir. A remarkable woman. And we must not forget that Burmese lady whose name one has forgot.

8 September 2013 at 13:25  
Blogger Gregory Morris said...

This thread makes me wonder how GK Chesterton's fine hymn has survived into the absurdly PC Anglican Hymns Old and New.

Tie in a living tether
The Prince and Priest and Thrall,
Bind all our lives together,
Smite us and save us all;
In ire and exaltation
Aflame with faith and free,
Lift up a living nation,
A single sword to thee.


Part of being conservative (with a small c) is a determination to keep what is good, so I was very annoyed when playing the organ this am, to hear the faithful departing from the words of the final hymn "King of Glory, King of peace". In the first verse, "Thou hast granted my request" is now "Thou hast granted my appeal". Readily understood by generations of benefit claimants, I admit. Followed by "Thou didst note my ardent zeal”to replace "working breast". I was trying to work out if my annoyance derived from the different words or from a feeling that the changes seem to make the sense very trivial.

8 September 2013 at 13:42  
Blogger Anglican said...

Returning to The Times, I (still) buy it on Saturdays. It has a quite good financial section, the radio/TV programmes are set out clearly and some of the in-depth articles are good. However I bin the ghastly magazine immediately after reading Melanie Reid and ditto the ghastly Weekend section after reading the Outdoor part (Simon Barnes, gardens and walks). It also has some good religious comment at the back (including the excellent Jonathan Sacks and a very few of the others).

Otherwise I agree with Mr Boot's description of the lamentable decline of a once good paper.

8 September 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger David Hussell said...

IanCad,

Well spotted eagle eyed Ian,

It's David Davis !

8 September 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger IanCad said...

David Hussell,

If it's any consolation, somewhere in the archives is a post where I did exactly the same thing.

Without getting into the pro's and con's of UKIP (I'm con) your post @ 9:21 makes a lot of sense.

Getting rid of Cameron is essential to the renewal of the Tories.

Davis, as I understand puts religious and personal liberties at the top of his agenda, thus, for me, he is the future
leader of choice.

"An alliance with UKIP?"
I don't particularly like the idea but if it would work then, maybe.

8 September 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ gregory morris.

You are right. Quite why they hired people who had little sensitivity to words to jiggle with these phrases beats me. They tend to replace vivid imagery with pyscho-jargon that will readily date.

But I have to say, if those are Chesterton's real words you can count me out. Sounds like a real bore and jolly hard work. Who wants to be "tied in a living tether"? I am really not sure about an image of Prince Charles tied to some priest, and a down and out!! Sounds like the kind of thing I would hotfoot it from and pretend never to have seen!!

One of the most annoying revisions is to take "Fading is the wordling's pleasure" and to turn it into "Fading is the world's best pleasure" which is both not the same and far inferior.

On the subject of theologico-pyschobabble there is virtually no decent hymn ever written by anyone, whatever the surname, called Fred. The name seems to magnetically repel good writing!!

8 September 2013 at 16:26  
Blogger IanCad said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 September 2013 at 18:37  
Blogger IanCad said...

Anglican,

"--It also has some good religious comment at the back ---"

Just drove down to the Co-op to pick up some cat food and noticed that the front of The Sunday Times has, emblazoned across the top of the page:

"Get Ready For School -- Evolution Calendar Inside"

8 September 2013 at 20:05  
Blogger Anglican said...

Ian Cad

I was referring to the Saturday Times. I do not read the Sunday Times. In any case I do not see the relevance of your remark.

9 September 2013 at 11:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older