Formbs - on the Eagleton piece - do you not have views of your own on Strong's book, or do the views of this red-under-the-bed menace stand as your own? The truth about Ye Olde Englande probably lies somewhere in between the views of those with vested interests in selling their points of view, or with chips on their shoulders but I certainly have my own memories of community life in rural England, where there was a fair measure of tranquility and harmony between people as well as harmony between people, on the one hand, and the flora and fauna and landscape, on the other. I am not convinced that Strong (outside the bounds of his carefully pruned 4 acre formal garden) knows much about real country life, beyond artistic representations of it - I mean I can't see him riding to hounds or getting shit-faced in the Drover's Ams; even going for a windy cliff walk - with that diamond stud twinkling in his ear. Eagleton is quite right when he says that many town-dwellers know and understand little about the countryside and my comment on that is that it does not stop them sticking their oars in, or reinventing the definition of simple contentment, according to modern standards of greedy consumerism, in an age in which the socio-economic support unit of the family has egregiously failed and the familiarity and trust between long-standing members of rural communities has disappeared; being replaced by the occasional appearance of out-of-towners in their four-by-fours, skidding in and out of their holiday home drives.
And I thought that Gray, Hood and Cowper gave pretty good descriptions of rural life and the effects of poverty across the board.
Last edited by Dudley Clarke (2014-08-26 12:29:25)
OK Formbs: PAX BUFFANICA. Let peace and tranquility be restored and Dud can continue on his rural rides down the rabbit hole.
Roy Strong's views are irrelevant.
Poets and PC types have long had a view on the countryside. The whole Romantic movement was their invention although the notion of PC was a few centuries distant. Arts and Crafts is a later version.
Blood and soil was Adolf's take on it. An important element was that you cannot reduce everything to simple profit and loss.
You cannot reduce everything to profit and loss, but if it's mostly loss it won't go on for long.
Unless of course maintained by a patron whose wealth and power does not depend on profit, but on title.
Everybody pines for that, provided they get placed amongst the titled or the favored by the titled.
I'd rather take my chances in the profit and loss camp and dream of Constable as I sip my drink.
Honest toil for a reasonable reward in natural surroundings perhaps explains it better than profit and loss.
The polar opposite of banksterism as we now call it.
For me James Herriot belongs in the same camp as H.E. Bates; a romanticized view of rural life viewed through rose tinted glasses, or maybe the bottom of a middle class sherry glass. Thomas Hardy paints a more realistic picture of harsh toil for scant reward.
The situation hasn't got much better. Agriculture and fishing are in decline, mechanised farming and diversification have reduced the number of jobs on the land. For example; outside of the enclaves of wealthy retirees and second home owners Cornwall has been cited as one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe .
Last edited by Dudley Clarke (2014-08-27 05:29:23)
Last edited by doghouse (2014-08-27 07:51:46)
^
Dud's been asleep since the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Now that made me laugh.
^
I think it could be...
Last edited by Dudley Clarke (2014-08-27 13:57:10)
Formbs - The last bit was off piste.