OT: Barry Humphries is incapable of being dreary

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Barrie J. Wright

OT: Barry Humphries is incapable of being dreary

Legg inn av Barrie J. Wright » 30 jan 2005 23:40:02

Not sure of the author of this prattle:

I never thought of comic genius as a distinctly national achievement, much
less an abiding possession - Mark Twain certainly was much better
appreciated outside the USA for most of his life, and not least in
Australia where he found adoring audiences.

Americans have lately discovered an Australian comic genius, although now
well past his prime, in Barry Humphreys. However, his literary writings -
as opposed to his stage & TV performances - have always been very dreary
indeed. The best of his Edna Everage and Sandy Stone routines up to the
late 1970s were supremely funny.

I first saw Barry Humphries [sic] on stage in 1963. I have followed his career
since.
He must be nearing 70 now, but I assure you all, he is still IN his prime both
as a writer and a seemingly indestructible performer.
He's a Living National Treasure.
He won over the English decades ago.

Mark Twain admirers, eat your heart out.
Humphries tried out on Broadway many years ago, without any success then.
It was the insensitive Americans' huge loss.
'Lately discovered' is a grossly impertinent phrase in this context.
Just what does 'well past his prime mean', again?!

Humphries is simply incapable of being 'dreary' on any subject.
Only people ignorant of Australian culture and mores could fail to
appreciate his many acute and humorous observations in his biographical
and other works.

I believe he has also written on his keen artistic interests [He's a highly
intelligent and erudite man with eccentric tastes].

But 'literary writings'? Which, pray?

Barrie Wright

Adelaide
South Australia

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 31 jan 2005 00:01:01

Peter Stewart, an Australian, is the author of the appended
pontificatory prattle mentioned by Mr Wright.

DSH

""Barrie J. Wright"" <bjmwri@esc.net.au> wrote in message
news:000001c5071c$4e6a5f80$47360bd2@barriewr...

| Not sure of the author of this prattle:
|
| > I never thought of comic genius as a distinctly national
achievement, much
| > less an abiding possession - Mark Twain certainly was much better
| > appreciated outside the USA for most of his life, and not least in
| > Australia where he found adoring audiences.
| >
| > Americans have lately discovered an Australian comic genius,
although now
| > well past his prime, in Barry Humphreys. However, his literary
writings -
| > as opposed to his stage & TV performances - have always been very
dreary
| > indeed. The best of his Edna Everage and Sandy Stone routines up to
the
| > late 1970s were supremely funny.
|
| I first saw Barry Humphries [sic] on stage in 1963. I have followed
his career
| since.
| He must be nearing 70 now, but I assure you all, he is still IN his
prime both
| as a writer and a seemingly indestructible performer.
| He's a Living National Treasure.
| He won over the English decades ago.
|
| Mark Twain admirers, eat your heart out.
| Humphries tried out on Broadway many years ago, without any success
then.
| It was the insensitive Americans' huge loss.
| 'Lately discovered' is a grossly impertinent phrase in this context.
| Just what does 'well past his prime mean', again?!
|
| Humphries is simply incapable of being 'dreary' on any subject.
| Only people ignorant of Australian culture and mores could fail to
| appreciate his many acute and humorous observations in his
biographical
| and other works.
|
| I believe he has also written on his keen artistic interests [He's a
highly
| intelligent and erudite man with eccentric tastes].
|
| But 'literary writings'? Which, pray?
|
| Barrie Wright
|
| Adelaide
| South Australia

Peter Stewart

Re: Barry Humphries is incapable of being dreary

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 jan 2005 02:12:38

Comments interspersed:

""Barrie J. Wright"" <bjmwri@esc.net.au> wrote in message
news:000001c5071c$4e6a5f80$47360bd2@barriewr...
Not sure of the author of this prattle:

It is clear from your further remarks that you are a fan of Barry Humphries,
and fans are always prone to take issue with the views of more objective
observers & critics - as indeed are critics to disagree amongst themselves
anyway. SGM is not the place to resolve such disagreements. But "prattle"
means a stream of nonsense, and however contrary to your own opinions my
comments may be, these were definitely not "prattle". Spencer Hines is
inclined to characterise views that he can't engage with intellectually as
signs of mental decay, or whatever, but surely you (Barrie Wright) can do
better.

I never thought of comic genius as a distinctly national achievement,
much
less an abiding possession - Mark Twain certainly was much better
appreciated outside the USA for most of his life, and not least in
Australia where he found adoring audiences.

Americans have lately discovered an Australian comic genius, although now
well past his prime, in Barry Humphreys. However, his literary writings -
as opposed to his stage & TV performances - have always been very dreary
indeed. The best of his Edna Everage and Sandy Stone routines up to the
late 1970s were supremely funny.

I first saw Barry Humphries [sic] on stage in 1963. I have followed his
career
since.
He must be nearing 70 now, but I assure you all, he is still IN his prime
both
as a writer and a seemingly indestructible performer.
He's a Living National Treasure.
He won over the English decades ago.

Mark Twain admirers, eat your heart out.

With the best will in the world, you can't be seriously suggesting that
Humphries is the superior humorist between these two. They are scarcely
cmparable - John Brandon suggested that it would be a feat to name any
Australian comic genius, and with good reason I nominated Humphries. His
genius was for performing, inventing and enlivening farcical characters, and
especially for improvising along with members of his audience. Live
appearances were merely a side-benefit of the much less ephemeral genius of
Mark Twain.

Humphries tried out on Broadway many years ago, without any success then.
It was the insensitive Americans' huge loss.
'Lately discovered' is a grossly impertinent phrase in this context.

No, it means exactly what you are repeating - that American audiences have
just lately twigged to the comedy of Humphries. If you are going to jump on
a post, it is always wise to comprehend it first.

Just what does 'well past his prime mean', again?!

It means that his performances have gone off the boil - even the voice of
Edna Everage isn't what it used to be. The lastest stage show is like a
MacDonald's banquet, coated in a slimy layer of self-satisfied contempt for
the paying customers, warmed-over remains from previous triumphs. If you
stayed to the end, the spookily sudden ceasing of applause when everyone
decided to stop playing along with his narcissism & go home was testament to
this, night after night. I witnessed the same thing in several cities,
months apart.

Humphries is simply incapable of being 'dreary' on any subject.
Only people ignorant of Australian culture and mores could fail to
appreciate his many acute and humorous observations in his biographical
and other works.

But his books don't sell particularly well in Australia - why is that, do
you suppose? Have you read "Women in the Background"? It's derivative,
predictable, the kind of work that a conceited & overly-sophisticated
adolescent might produce, determined to use every last recondite word that
he has recently learned. Mark Twain said that the art of writing was in
getting precisely the right word, and that compared to any other this is
like lightening vs a lightening bug. Humphries in literary mode is merely a
lightening bug. If you want to investigate this, try reading transcripts of
his stage routines - the best of these, now decades past, came across
marvellously live, but not so on the page. It's the way he delivered the
jokes, not their substance, that made up his genius.

I believe he has also written on his keen artistic interests [He's a
highly
intelligent and erudite man with eccentric tastes].

But 'literary writings'? Which, pray?

Novels and autobiographies, two of each that I can think of. Fans may love
them, the wider public don't & I suspect posterity will agree with the
numbers. Your opposite opinion is perfectly legitimate, and not "prattle".

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: Barry Humphries is incapable of being dreary

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 31 jan 2005 04:28:21

Dear Newsgroup ~

It is clear from Peter Stewart's remarks in his post below that he
fails to comprehend that this newsgroup is devoted to medieval
genealogy, not personal comments regarding the Australian entertainment
industry. Perhaps Mr. Stewart is like the good Mr. Parsons who in
recent time accidentally pressed the wrong send button to the wrong
person/newsgroup. Ooops! Whatever, .... it is hard to take Mr.
Stewart seriously when his comments are so errant and off topic. I'm
sure Mr. Parsons will agree that this marks another new low for the
newsgroup.

Just teasing you, Peter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF PETER STEWART'S POST
Comments interspersed:

""

Barrie J. Wright"" <bjm...@esc.net.au> wrote in message
news:000001c5071c$4e6a5f80$47360bd2@barriewr...
Not sure of the author of this prattle:

It is clear from your further remarks that you are a fan of Barry
Humphries,
and fans are always prone to take issue with the views of more
objective
observers & critics - as indeed are critics to disagree amongst
themselves
anyway. SGM is not the place to resolve such disagreements. But
"prattle"
means a stream of nonsense, and however contrary to your own opinions
my
comments may be, these were definitely not "prattle". Spencer Hines is
inclined to characterise views that he can't engage with intellectually
as
signs of mental decay, or whatever, but surely you (Barrie Wright) can
do
better.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I never thought of comic genius as a distinctly national
achievement,
much
less an abiding possession - Mark Twain certainly was much better
appreciated outside the USA for most of his life, and not least in
Australia where he found adoring audiences.

Americans have lately discovered an Australian comic genius,
although now
well past his prime, in Barry Humphreys. However, his literary
writings -
as opposed to his stage & TV performances - have always been very
dreary
indeed. The best of his Edna Everage and Sandy Stone routines up to
the
late 1970s were supremely funny.

I first saw Barry Humphries [sic] on stage in 1963. I have followed
his
career
since.
He must be nearing 70 now, but I assure you all, he is still IN his
prime
both
as a writer and a seemingly indestructible performer.
He's a Living National Treasure.
He won over the English decades ago.

Mark Twain admirers, eat your heart out.

With the best will in the world, you can't be seriously suggesting that
Humphries is the superior humorist between these two. They are scarcely
cmparable - John Brandon suggested that it would be a feat to name any
Australian comic genius, and with good reason I nominated Humphries.
His
genius was for performing, inventing and enlivening farcical
characters, and
especially for improvising along with members of his audience. Live
appearances were merely a side-benefit of the much less ephemeral
genius of
Mark Twain.

Humphries tried out on Broadway many years ago, without any success
then.
It was the insensitive Americans' huge loss.
'Lately discovered' is a grossly impertinent phrase in this context.

No, it means exactly what you are repeating - that American audiences
have
just lately twigged to the comedy of Humphries. If you are going to
jump on
a post, it is always wise to comprehend it first.

Just what does 'well past his prime mean', again?!

It means that his performances have gone off the boil - even the voice
of
Edna Everage isn't what it used to be. The lastest stage show is like a
MacDonald's banquet, coated in a slimy layer of self-satisfied contempt
for
the paying customers, warmed-over remains from previous triumphs. If
you
stayed to the end, the spookily sudden ceasing of applause when
everyone
decided to stop playing along with his narcissism & go home was
testament to
this, night after night. I witnessed the same thing in several cities,
months apart.

Humphries is simply incapable of being 'dreary' on any subject.
Only people ignorant of Australian culture and mores could fail to
appreciate his many acute and humorous observations in his
biographical
and other works.

But his books don't sell particularly well in Australia - why is that,
do
you suppose? Have you read "Women in the Background"? It's derivative,
predictable, the kind of work that a conceited & overly-sophisticated
adolescent might produce, determined to use every last recondite word
that
he has recently learned. Mark Twain said that the art of writing was in
getting precisely the right word, and that compared to any other this
is
like lightening vs a lightening bug. Humphries in literary mode is
merely a
lightening bug. If you want to investigate this, try reading
transcripts of
his stage routines - the best of these, now decades past, came across
marvellously live, but not so on the page. It's the way he delivered
the
jokes, not their substance, that made up his genius.

I believe he has also written on his keen artistic interests [He's a
highly
intelligent and erudite man with eccentric tastes].

But 'literary writings'? Which, pray?

Novels and autobiographies, two of each that I can think of. Fans may
love
them, the wider public don't & I suspect posterity will agree with the
numbers. Your opposite opinion is perfectly legitimate, and not
"prattle".

Peter Stewart

Reply


©2005 Google

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»