Toonbots message board: Two more!

The Pale, Wan Form of Emsworth Tue Apr 24 13:13:05 2001 Re: Two more! > Two more posts and I beat Gopher!! Woo!! I'll have to think of something > truly memorable to dazzle the unwashed masses with. Well, perhaps, but speaking for myself, at the moment, even though my entire existence seems to be slowly crumbling away as the seemingly secure foundations of my emotional stability continue to deteriorate, and the future can be glimpsed only in a dim light with very bad reception and may very well involve pulling wire or tumbling from a treacherous precipice in a public place, I can take some solace in the fact that I am currently at the top of the PAFTWJ hierarchy, and have my meta-fictional wolverines to comfort me. Sigh. (My mother may be right. It hasn't updated in days, I don't really have the time to spare, and I still cave in and check this forum today! Michael, you faceless fiend, you!)

Michael Wed Apr 25 00:25:12 2001 Re: Two more! > (My mother may be right. It hasn't updated in days, I don't really have > the time to spare, and I still cave in and check this forum today! > Michael, you faceless fiend, you!) I'm not faceless. Bear with me, Emsworth. Getting font metrics is harder than it looks. And without font metrics, I don't know how big captions are, so I can't tell encode their positions in the SVG output. It's a hassle, I know, but ... META-FICTIONAL?!?? One of those so-called "meta-fictional" wolverines just chewed up the sofa yesterday, mister! (Fortunately it was the cushion that gopher spilled grape juice on, so I would have had to replace it anyway.)

Napoleon Wed Apr 25 02:55:04 2001 Re: Two more! > It's a hassle, I know, but ... META-FICTIONAL?!?? One of those so-called > "meta-fictional" wolverines just chewed up the sofa yesterday, > mister! (Fortunately it was the cushion that gopher spilled grape juice > on, so I would have had to replace it anyway.) Yeah, but let's be honest -- it was a meta-fictional sofa, wasn't it.

Michael Wed Apr 25 11:44:55 2001 Re: Two more! > Yeah, but let's be honest -- it was a meta-fictional sofa, wasn't it. Well, yeah, but -- hey, waitaminnit. That's not the point, Napoleon!

Tirdun Wed Apr 25 14:01:23 2001 Re: Two more! > Well, yeah, but -- hey, waitaminnit. That's not the point, Napoleon! I like meta-fictional futons, myself. Oh, damn... I was going to save up and say something truly deep and inspiring! Well... that's somewhat inspiring... I suppose. Or not. (sigh) Oh well, at least I'm beating gopher, and I'll take all the message-board degredation and anything else it takes to boost my totals!

gopher Wed Apr 25 22:47:22 2001 Re: Two more! > Oh well, at least I'm beating gopher Fool! You cannot defeat me! And everyone knows that meta-fictional bean bag chairs are far superior to your silly futons.

Tirdun Thu Apr 26 07:52:55 2001 Re: Two more! > And everyone knows that meta-fictional bean > bag chairs are far superior to your silly futons. Heresy! Blasphemy! Uh, Larceny! Meta-fictional futons can be converted into a variety of meta-fictional shapes. Like meta-fictional beds or mf-recliners. Your mf-bean bags chairs are good for nothing except teething toys for the wolverines!

gopher Thu Apr 26 11:24:45 2001 Re: Two more! > Heresy! Blasphemy! Uh, Larceny! Meta-fictional futons can be converted > into a variety of meta-fictional shapes. Like meta-fictional beds or > mf-recliners. Your mf-bean bags chairs are good for nothing except > teething toys for the wolverines! Bah! And there's no reason to start swearing. They're just beanbag chairs...

gopher Wed Apr 25 22:31:43 2001 Re: Two more! > Yeah, but let's be honest -- it was a meta-fictional sofa, wasn't it. And meta-fictional grape juice. In fact, I often wonder if I'm meta-fictional myself

gopher Wed Apr 25 22:52:58 2001 Re: Two more! > It's a hassle, I know, but ... META-FICTIONAL?!?? One of those so-called > "meta-fictional" wolverines just chewed up the sofa yesterday, > mister! (Fortunately it was the cushion that gopher spilled grape juice > on, so I would have had to replace it anyway.) Why does everyone always blame it on the rodent? It was Boxjam that spilled the juice! That jerk...

Michael Wed Apr 25 01:09:06 2001 Re: Two more! By the way, thread decay seems to have helped you along.

gopher Wed Apr 25 22:49:34 2001 Re: Two more! > By the way, thread decay seems to have helped you along. High loads of school work helped a bit as well. Just one more week to go, though.

gopher Wed Apr 25 22:44:11 2001 Re: Two more! > Two more posts and I beat Gopher!! Because I haven't been posting.. Because my computer died. I don't like Netscape very much (my only choice for a graphical browser in the labs), and it's taken me a little bit to readjust to using lynx. However, it looks like I have caught this potentialy devastating event before the post count put you ahead of me, so all is well.

gopher Wed Apr 25 22:54:46 2001 Re: Two more! > Netscape very much (my only choice for a graphical browser in the labs), > and it's taken me a little bit to readjust to using lynx. ...though I suppose I could try compiling Mozilla in /tmp. Let's see how fast these Ultra 80s really go.

gopher Wed Apr 25 23:01:39 2001 Re: Two more! > ...though I suppose I could try compiling Mozilla in /tmp. Let's see how > fast these Ultra 80s really go. Not at all, aparently. Cursed things are locked up at the login screen. Oh well, back to the 10s

gopher Wed Apr 25 23:38:49 2001 Re: Two more! > Not at all, aparently. Cursed things are locked up at the login screen. Oh > well, back to the 10s Bleh. So much for that. Aparently the mozilla source tarball requires GNU tar, which to compile needs ar, which is in binutils, which seems to also require ar to compile. I'm too lazy to figure it out tonight.

Tirdun Thu Apr 26 07:57:01 2001 Re: Two more! > Bleh. So much for that. Aparently the mozilla source tarball requires GNU > tar, which to compile needs ar, which is in binutils, which seems to also > require ar to compile. I'm too lazy to figure it out tonight. I see that the Toonbots board has no flood control to stop the waves of gopher posts. ;)

gopher Thu Apr 26 11:10:21 2001 Re: Two more! > I see that the Toonbots board has no flood control to stop the waves of > gopher posts. ;) How would flood control help? The shortest delay between any of those posts was 5 minutes.

gopher Thu Apr 26 11:12:58 2001 Re: Two more! > How would flood control help? The shortest delay between any of those > posts was 5 minutes. Oh, right, I posted outside of that little thread, too. Still, there were no two posts posted in the same minute.

Tirdun Mon Apr 30 07:45:33 2001 Re: Two more! > Oh, right, I posted outside of that little thread, too. Still, there were > no two posts posted in the same minute. Bah. You know, at this rate, I'll end up beating Napoleon and you'll end up beating Emsworth. I'll get promoted regardless ;)

Napoleon Mon Apr 30 17:14:19 2001 Re: Two more! > Bah. You know, at this rate, I'll end up beating Napoleon and you'll end > up beating Emsworth. I'll get promoted regardless ;) No! No beat me! I'm not dead yet! I think I might go for a walk!

Tirdun Tue May 1 11:29:15 2001 Re: Two more! > No! No beat me! I'm not dead yet! I think I might go for a walk! You're not fooling anyone. You'll be stone dead in a moment. [Brought to you by the letter "Q" as in QuAnTiTy.]

Brother Emsworth Mon Apr 30 17:55:40 2001 Re: Two more! > Bah. You know, at this rate, I'll end up beating Napoleon and you'll end > up beating Emsworth. I'll get promoted regardless ;) Noted English playwright Tom Stoppard has derived the framework or inspiration for most of his plays from literary genres or from the works of others such as William Shakespeare ("Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead," first performed in 1966) or Oscar Wilde ("Travesties," 1974.) Stoppard uses these existing frameworks to present his own absurd satirical viewpoint. However, these frameworks also allow Stoppard, often through his protagonists, to comment on the ways in which we approach literature and the theatre, and their conventions. One of the best examples of this is the hilarious yet somewhat perplexing "The Real Inspector Hound" (1968), which uses the country house thriller, particularly Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap," as its framework. The interjections and later involvement of a pair of pretentious yet self-absorbed theatre critics serve to raise questions about approaches to literature and theatre. Satire and social commentary are used in most of Stoppard's plays, and in "The Real Inspector Hound," the principal targets are the mystery genre, dramatic critics, and to some extent, the theatrical nature of theatre, and by extension, life. The Real Inspector Hound is presented as a play within a play, a favorite theme of Stoppard's, used also in "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" and, in a different manner, in "Travesties." The major shift occurs when the play and its observers collide, and the absurdities and conventions of both are amplified (Brassell, 95-98.) The play happens to be a, as critic Birdboot puts it, "a sort of a thriller," a "whodunnit." The plot of this mystery play centers around a small group trapped by adverse weather conditions in a typical English country house, Muldoon Manor. This group includes such stock figures as Major Magnus, the invalid relative; Mrs. Drudge, the simpleminded charwoman; the charming Lady Cynthia Mulddon; Felicity, her jealous old friend; and Simon Gascoyne, the stereotypical cad, as well as a stranger with a murky past. All of these characters are stock figures in mystery fiction, and there are references to mystery works or authors. Moon makes a passing reference to Dorothy L. Sayers (alongside the likes of Dante, Samuel Beckett, and Jean-Paul Sartre, amongst others) and there are allusions to "The Hound of the Baskervilles," not only within the title, but highlighted in the following exchange: Felicity: It sounds like the cry of a gigantic hound. Birdboot: Rings a bell. More importantly, the structure of "The Real Inspector Hound" is built around the mystery play, which is also the object of the satire (Gabbard, 61.) Though many of the characters and cliched actions can be found in most English mystery novels or plays from that period, the most specific target is the type perpetuated by Agatha Christie. The clear target was probably Christie's long-running play "The Mousetrap" though there are also similarities to another Christie stage play, "The Unexpected Guest," as the solutions to both turn on a sudden change in identity. During his own stint as a second-string critic, Stoppard acerbically commented on thrillers in general and "The Mousetrap" in particular through a 1963 article entitled "Who Killed Peter Saunders," which was presented as a playlet and may indeed be considered to be the seed of "The Real Inspector Hound. In that article, Stoppard, through another fictional critic called Slum, refers to "The Mousetrap" (1952) as existing in a sort of perpetual motion, relying on cardboard characters and cliches (shortly thereafter, the critic finds himself interrogated by literally cardboard policemen.) (Sammels, 24-25.) "The Real Inspector Hound" borrows the isolated setting, the idea of revenge for past wrongs in one's youth, and the unmasking of characters from "The Mousetrap." However, perhaps the most inconsequential and yet the sharpest stab at the play may be Inspector Hound's arrival in swamp boots and carrying a foghorn, parodying Sergeant Trottter's arrival on skis in Christie's play. Unlike Christie or most mystery novelists, however, Stoppard avoids a pat ending, and the denouement serves to open up new questions, and may still leave the audience uncertain as to who was the real Inspector Hound. In response to this stagy thriller, the pompous critics Moon and Birdboot refer to it in a way which could just as effectively be applied to Stoppard's play: Moon: Derivative of course. Birdboot: But not unsound. The way in which these critics perceive this play and deliver such pithy pronouncements forms the basis for the next level of satire. Stoppard himself asserts that originally the play was not meant to be about critics. He merely wanted to show two members of the audience becoming swept up in the action, and critics happened to be distinct, recognizable types (Londre, 118.) Intentional or not, much of the effectiveness of "The Real Inspector Hound" derives from the presence of the critics. The pair's discourses on their personal lives and the way in which their eventual involvement in the play overlaps or parallels their own lives provide the impetus for moving the plots of both the play and the play within the play forward. However, their public pronouncements of opinion on the play are of equal interest, as they provide insight into the field of literary criticism, and the differences of perception. Birdboot approaches the play in a straightforward manner, noticing the superficial details and elements. Having noticed the body on stage, Birdboot naturally assumes they are watching a thriller. He approaches the play as such, and when not distracted by the physical charms of the female leads, keeps an eye on various suspects and musing over possible motives, without so much as considering a serious subtext. This approach contrasts sharply with the attempts of the brooding Moon to dig deeper into the work, but ultimately, Birdboot proves to be correct. The insightful, introverted Moon is reluctant to judge the play by what appears to be present on the outside. He insists on seeing what is "underneath," to know "where the play is going." He attempts to interpret the play on a metaphorical level. He makes various lofty pronouncements during the course of the play, making grand assumptions as to the play's purpose and significance. This attitude highlighted by the following critical pronouncement shortly after Simon's introduction, which also serves to contrast his attitude to that of Birdboot: Moon: Already in the opening stages we note the classic impact of the catalystic figure - the outsider - plunging through to the center of an ordered world and setting up the disruptions - the shock waves - which unless I am much mistaken, will strip these comfortable people - these crustaceans in the rock pool of society - strip them of their shells and leave them exposed as the trembling raw meat which, at heart, is all of us. But there is more to it than that -- Birdboot: I agree -- keep your eye on Magnus. While Moon searches for potential meaning, Birdboot continues to watch the potential suspects. At one point, Moon decides that the play is concerned with "the nature of indentity," and further concludes that the central question which the critic is "entitled to ask" in regard to the play is "Where is God?" The more literal minded Birdboot responds by dubiously looking for God's name in his program (Stoppard, 32). Moon's earnestness seems laughable in the face of the subject matter. This attitude also suggests that one can often try too hard to "get at" the inner meaning in literature. While applied specifically to a play, the approaches of both critics cast a skeptical light on criticism and literary study. While those engaged in literary study seek to find the purpose and significance of a text, and to determine the author's intentions, one must also approach a text according to its own merits. A thriller with cliched situations, stock figures, and overly stagy dialogue hardly merits such minute analysis, and any attempts to extract spiritual significance from such a work are ultimately meaningless and distracting. However, the blunt approach, examining only the external elements of a work, can be equally misleading. While this approach is usually ideal for certain genres, such as detective stories or thrillers, if Birdboot were to apply it to the works of Charles Dickens or James Joyce in such a way, or most of the Romantic poets, this approach would also serve to distract rather than enlighten. The ideal critical approach, then, depends to a significant extent on the nature and merits of the work itself. Their personal musings also reflect their differing critical approaches. The earthy Birdboot becomes infatuated in turn with both of the lead actresses in the play, and constructs elaborate romantic fantasies, beyond the safety of his "homely wife," Myrtle. When Birdboot finds himself caught up within the play, after answering a phone call from the suspicious Myrtle, he lives out his own fantasies, while at the same point playing the role of the philandering Simon Gascoyne. The characters within the play essentially repeat the same dialogue in response to Birdboot as they used with Simon. Also like Simon, Birdboot meets a tragic end, the result of his own follies and his eagerness to accept the apparent fulfillment of his own fantasies. The more introspective and somewhat neurotic Moon's musings follow a different path. Moon keenly resents his position as a second-string critic, and feels that Higgs, the first-string critic, is standing in his limelight. He muses on the relationship of himself to Higgs, and how each seems to define the others. Slowly these musings become darker as Moon imagines Higgs' death, and at one point even seems to contemplate murdering his successor. The third-string critic, Puckeridge, also figures into Moon's musings at times. These musings seem to delve into, as Moon says in regard to the play, "the question of identity." This question again arises when Moon too is swept up into the play. Birdboot is shot shortly after discovering that the corpse on stage is actually Higgs, the first-string critic, thus fulfilling Moon's dreams. Moon finds himself playing the cliched Inspector Hound; however, to further complicate matters, it appears that Moon's role is not that of the real Inspector. In rapid succession, the crippled Magnus is revealed to be first the real Hound, then the third-string critic Puckeridge, and finally and most fantastically, the long lost Lord Albert Muldoon. With such rapid unmaskings, Moon appears to have been astute in suggesting that the play deals with the question of identity, a question which in many ways remains unresolved at the play's end. It is significant to point out Tom Stoppard's own experience and opinions with critics and criticism. From 1962 through 1963, Stoppard was employed as a critic by the London magazine "Scene." Tom Stoppard refers to the work of critics as "a sort of second-rate journalism that presents the journalist more than the subject" (Sammels, 16). This view is clearly presented in The Real Inspector Hound. The musings of Birdboot and Moon, even when focused on the play, reveal more about the pair's lives, thoughts, fears, and dreams, than about the play. This opinion of the profession may have led to Birdboot's jocular greeting: "Me and the lads have had a meeting in the bar and decided it's first-class family entertainment but if it goes on beyond half-past ten it's self-indulgent - pass it on…" (Stoppard, 8). This skepticism towards the profession further serves to promote a skeptical response from the audience. Apart from their functions as critics, Birdboot and Moon also represent certain character types which appear in most of Stoppard's works, referred to by critic Felicia Hardison Londre as "boots and moons" (Londre, 107.) The insightful Moon is the character to whom "things happen." Similar to Rosencrantz, George Moore of "Jumpers" (1972), and indeed another character called Moon, from Stoppard's only novel "Lord Malquist and Mr. Moon" (1966), Moon attempts to find order and meaning in events which are actually either insignificant or absurd, or both. Birdboot represents a "rather more aggressive" type, approaching circumstances and events in a direct, heavy-handed manner, much like Guildenestern. The Real Inspector Hound displays other thematic tendencies common to Stoppard. Like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, the protagonists seem to be caught up in a wave of events beyond their control. Like that play, there is also the blurring of reality and the theatrical, and questions on the nature of existence and even, as Moon puts it, "the nature of identity." Comic police inspectors also appear in later plays such as "After Magritte," "Jumpers" and "Cahoot's MacBeth," all of which also contain mystery elements as well. All of these works also use established works, genres, or conventions as the focal point to critique these conventions while at the same time displaying Stoppard's own ideas and creativity. "The Real Inspector Hound," then, does expose some of the conceits and absurdities of the mystery genre. It also suggests that cliches and conventions affect not only literature and fiction, but one's approach to them as well. Indeed, the play's real success is in its expose of critics, despite Stoppard's claim that such was not his intention. Birdboot and Moon demonstrate the ways in which our personal preoccupations may distract us when attempting to approach literature or plays from a critical perspective. Moreover, their critical approaches are also made to seem absurd. The treatment of critics and criticism also raises some questions and difficulties for the reader or audience member, however. It is difficult to attempt to analyze this play without suspecting that one may be falling prey to the Birdboot approach, and looking at the obvious while ignoring the subtleties and significance of the play. However, when attempting to probe the play, one feels that one is adopting the pretentious approach of Moon, and digging beneath a thin surface. In suggesting that individuals may become literally caught up in fiction, Stoppard dramatizes the pitfalls of either approach. Ultimately, Stoppard's play leads the reader to question his own approach towards literature.

Michael Mon Apr 30 23:26:26 2001 Re: Two more! > Noted English playwright Tom Stoppard has derived the framework or > inspiration for most of his plays from literary genres or from the works > of others such as William Shakespeare ("Rosencrantz and Guildenstern > are Dead," first performed in 1966) or Oscar Wilde > ("Travesties," 1974.) At this juncture I feel compelled to note two things: 1. Emsworth has obviously elected to swing towards quality and away from quantity. 2. The standings, unfortunately, are biased 100% towards quantity.

gopher Tue May 1 21:26:06 2001 Re: Two more! > At this juncture I feel compelled to note two things: > 1. Emsworth has obviously elected to swing towards quality and away from > quantity. > 2. The standings, unfortunately, are biased 100% towards quantity. It looks like quite a bit of quantity to me, there's just too much of it concentrated in one post.

Brother Emsworth Thu May 3 22:25:10 2001 Re: Two more! > It looks like quite a bit of quantity to me, there's just too much of it > concentrated in one post. THE RELUCTANT DRAGON (1941) A Walt Disney Production released by RKO Radio Pictures. Producer: Walt Disney; Live action director: Alfred L. Werker; Animation director: Hamilton Luske; Assistant animation directors: Jim Handley, Ford Beebe, Erwin Verity; Assistant director: Jasper Blystone; Screenplay: Ted Sears, Al Perkins, Larry Clemmons, Bill Cottrell, Harry Clark; Animation story: Joe Grant, Dick Huemer, John P. Miller, Erdman Penner, T. Hee; Music: Frank Churchill, Larry Morey; Animation: Ward Kimball (The Dragon), Fred Moore (Donald Duck), Milt Neil, Wolfgang Reitherman (Goofy), Bud Swift, Walt Kelly, Jack Campbell, Claude Smith, and Harvey Toombs. Songs: “Oh Fleecy Cloud,” “To an Upside Down Cake,” “Radish So Red,” “Tis Evening,” and “The Reluctant Dragon. Running time: 72 minutes. Cast: Robert Benchley: Himself Studio Artist: Frances Gifford Studio Guide (Humphrey): Buddy Pepper Mrs. Benchley: Nana Bryant Florence Gill: Herself Clarence Nash: Himself “Baby Weems” Model: Jimmy Luske Head Storyboard Artist: Alan Ladd, Studio Animators: Truman Woodworth Hamilton McFaddden Maurice Murphy Jeff Corey Storyboard Artist: John Dehner Studio Cop: Henry Hall Orchestra Leader: Frank Faylen Slim (Camera Operator): Lester Dorr Guard: Gerald Mohr Members of the Staff as Themselves: Walt Disney Ward Kimball Norman Ferguson Voices: The Dragon, Father: Barnett Parker Sir Giles: Claude Allister The Boy: Billy Lee Donald Duck: Clarence Nash “Baby Weems” Narrator: Gerald Mohr Baby Weems: Leone LeDoux Raymond Severn John Weems: Ernie Alexander Mrs. John Weems: Linda Marwood FDR: Art Gilmore Walter Winchell: Edward Marr “How to Ride a Horse” Narrator: John McLeish “Reluctant Dragon” Narrator: J. Donald Wilson Goofy: Pinto Colvig This was the first “package” feature Walt Disney produced, and is largely live action. Humorist Robert Benchley (playing himself) is nagged by his wife (Nana Bryant) to see Walt about making a cartoon based on Kenneth Grahame’s "The Reluctant Dragon." Anxious to escape his officious tour guide Humphrey (Buddy Pepper), Benchley wanders about the studio on his own. Along the way, teh noted humnorist stumbles upon such events of interest as a life drawing class with an elephant as model (presumably preparation for "Dumbo"), an amusing operatic voice recording session between Florence Gill (Clara Cluck) and Clarence Nash (Donald Duck), and a sound recording session of train noises for a brief, black-and-white animated sequence featuring Casey Jr., the circus train in "Dumbo." Benchley, accompanied by a lovely studio artist (Frances Gifford), then visits the camera department, paint lab, and modeling department, interrupts a group of story men (including Alan Ladd and radio and film character actor John Dehner, who was actually employed as a Disney animator at the time, working on "Dumbo") working on "Baby Weems," the story of a child genius (the tale is told through the storyboards and limited, stylized animation, with appearances by contemporary figures such as FDR, Walter Winchell, and Salvador Dali, and one of the film's highlights), meets animator Ward Kimball, who draws Goofy and shows Benchley the latest Goofy short and the first in the “How To” series, "How To Ride A Horse" (the uncredited director was apparently long-time Goofy animator Jack Kinney), and watches Norman Ferguson work on Pluto before finally seeing Walt, who’s busy screening his latest cartoon, "The Reluctant Dragon!" The way in which the animation process is described in the film is not entirely accurate, but there were some revealing peeks into the Disney studio. While decidedly uneven at times, "The Reluctant Dragon" is somewhat more cohesive than certain of the later package features, though many of the parts seem better than a whole. Still, a decidedly enjoyable oddity, and worth seeing if one has the chance (the film occasionally airs on the Disney channel, and was released on a limited basis to Disney theme parks and stores around 1998, and the title short has been released seperately as a featurette.) Ironically, while the film attempts to convey the impression of a "happy family" atmosphere at the Disney studio, Art Babbitt and other animators were fomenting a strike at the time (which may have been part of the reason that most of the "animators" in the film, with such exceptions as "Fergy" Ferguson and Ward Kimball, were played by actors rather than actual Disney artists.)

Pooga Tue May 1 00:26:26 2001 Re: Two more! I couldn't have said it better myself! Except > Noted English playwright Tom Stoppard has derived the framework or > inspiration for most of his plays from literary genres or from the works > of others such as William Shakespeare ("Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ...........^ I think I'd use a comma here (between "others" and "such"), > are Dead," first performed in 1966) or Oscar Wilde > ("Travesties," 1974.) ... > The play happens to be a, as critic Birdboot puts it, "a sort of a .........................^ leave out this "a" (the second, if the formatting is off), > thriller," a "whodunnit." ... > and the unmasking of characters from "The Mousetrap." However, > perhaps the most inconsequential and yet the sharpest stab at the play may ...........................................^^^ and this "the", > be Inspector Hound's arrival in swamp boots and carrying a foghorn, > parodying Sergeant Trottter's arrival on skis in Christie's play. ... > assumptions as to the play's purpose and significance. This attitude either add an "is" between "attitude" and "highlighted" or > highlighted by the following critical pronouncement shortly after Simon's > introduction, which also serves to contrast his attitude to that of ................^^^^^ drop this "which", > Birdboot: ... > limelight. He muses on the relationship of himself to Higgs, and how each > seems to define the others. change "others" to "other" here, if this refers to two people as it seems, ... > view is clearly presented in The Real Inspector Hound. The musings of > Birdboot and Moon, even when focused on the play, reveal more about the > pair's lives, thoughts, fears, and dreams, than about the play. drop the comma after dreams, ... > absurd, or both. Birdboot represents a "rather more aggressive" > type, approaching circumstances and events in a direct, heavy-handed > manner, much like Guildenestern. start a new paragraph after this sentence, ... > The treatment of critics and criticism also and I'd leave out either this "also" > raises some questions and difficulties for the reader or audience member, > however. or this "however", but that's just me. :)

Pooga Tue May 1 00:30:22 2001 Re: Two more! Bah! It is impossible to do editorial deconstruction in a WYGIAG format!

Tirdun Tue May 1 11:30:31 2001 Re: Two more! > Bah! It is impossible to do editorial deconstruction in a WYGIAG format! I second that BAH! Buh, uh, WTF is WYGIAG... What you get is auto generated??

Pooga Tue May 1 11:47:36 2001 Re: Two more! > I second that BAH! Buh, uh, WTF is WYGIAG... What you get is auto > generated?? Close. What You Get Is Anyone's Guess.

Brother Emsworth Thu May 3 22:19:37 2001 Re: Two more! Thanks, illustrious Poogissima! That was actually my last paper for my English course, and I had overlooked those errors. Always helps to have an extra proof-reader (though I confess I posted that largely to see what reaction I might get, and also on the off-chance of stimulating discussion on theatre, literature, Tom Stoppard, mystery plays, dramatic critics, or something, although the return of the competetive spirit to the jihad has managed to revitalize this forum, it seems. Good thing, too. The wolverines were getting fidgety.)