Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Nearly 30 years ago the BBC made a new adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Now, anyone who had to suffer that book for English Lit (as I had to) will tell you it is the most tedious book ever written. The BBC not only made it watchable, but somehow actually made it entertaining! I'm willing to put money on this new adaptation of Great Expectations being both watchable and entertaining. Its one of the things the BBC does best.

Hitchens is a twat, not so much a stick-in-the-mud as a mired-in-the-tar-pit, immobile and unable to move forward. And he thinks everything should be like him. Frozen in time, unchanged and unchanging.

Bollocks to him.

He's the worst type of snob - he endured learning poems and "classics" by rote, and thinks that this somehow makes him superior to anyone who had the good fortune to enjoy a more accessible version.

And in unpopular opinion time, Dickens isn't that great a writer. What he is, is familiar - thanks largely to his works being out of copyright since the early days of cinema and TV. In all seriousness, what do we commonly remember about Dickens? Funny character names, some memorable situations, but aside from a handful of quotes, how much of his actual writing sticks in the mind? Not much, I'd guess. Nothing like the waspish asides of Austen, or passages of sheer fluid poetry such as Joyce's "Snow was general...". Indeed, his entire style is basically overwritten, paid by the word, reliant on desperate ass-pulls and cliffhangers,

He's meat and potatoes at best. Of all his works, maybe half a dozen really occupy a place in the common knowledge - Christmas Carol, Oliver, Copperfeld, Nickleby, Expectations and perhaps Bleak House. So yes, Hitch can do one.

Whereas Shakespeare, of course, has never been updated.

Hitchens' reaction to Great Expectations exactly as expected. He's simply rehashed one his many previous rants about BBC dramas that don't pass his 19th century Tory standards.

Last Sunday we once again marked National Peter Hitchens Day, the day clocks move forward an hour and the climax of Mr. Hitchens' week long whine about the evils of our sceptered isle adopting Berlin time, all the loose-moral, bone idol bohemians who never rise before midday dictating what time it should be for everyone else, plus, a bit of half-arsed science which allegedly demonstrates the huge public health risk this ghastly modern invention creates.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 3:26 pm He's the worst type of snob - he endured learning poems and "classics" by rote, and thinks that this somehow makes him superior to anyone who had the good fortune to enjoy a more accessible version.

And in unpopular opinion time, Dickens isn't that great a writer. What he is, is familiar - thanks largely to his works being out of copyright since the early days of cinema and TV. In all seriousness, what do we commonly remember about Dickens? Funny character names, some memorable situations, but aside from a handful of quotes, how much of his actual writing sticks in the mind? Not much, I'd guess. Nothing like the waspish asides of Austen, or passages of sheer fluid poetry such as Joyce's "Snow was general...". Indeed, his entire style is basically overwritten, paid by the word, reliant on desperate ass-pulls and cliffhangers,

He's meat and potatoes at best. Of all his works, maybe half a dozen really occupy a place in the common knowledge - Christmas Carol, Oliver, Copperfeld, Nickleby, Expectations and perhaps Bleak House. So yes, Hitch can do one.

There's no small stylistic overlap between Dickens and any number of pulp horror and sci-fi writers like HP Lovecraft or Robert E. Howard because of the serialised format they first appeared in. I doubt Hitchens would find either of those worth his time or complain much about the liberties taken with those in the thousands of derivative works and adaptations.

He'd probably quite like Lovecraft's politics, though

Pete’s worldview is summed up by one short answer he once gave about wanting to go back to the imperial system. It wasn’t because it was better, or simpler, or had more function. It’s because it was harder.

All he wants is for life to be difficult. Literature hard to understand. Simple things like measurements and coinage absurd to work out. Healthcare to offer nothing for those with mental health issues because you just have to grit your teeth and get on with it. No adjustments for any minority. And most feeble of all, no sunlight unless you get up at 5am to enjoy it.

He’s a tedious, one-note Mayflower-era puritan. Misery for all under stupid, pointless rules and restrictions to make himself feel superior. Because I’m sure it’s no coincidence all the things he rallies for are things that make him artificially advantaged and able to look down on others. I’m sure he’d delight in the bewilderment of young people forced to use feet and inches, or shillings.

And most feeble of all, no sunlight unless you get up at 5am to enjoy it.

If the clocks didn’t go back (Berlin time), the mornings would be darker. But far more fatalities occur on dark evenings so it maybe a good idea that wouldn’t wash with Hitchens.

I guess one of my philosophies in life is that as long as you don't go out to cause deliberate harm or conflict to any other person or the environment around you, then you have the right to be happy/content with what you do. I realise that in a real world context this is far more complex and tricky to put into practice than it sounds, for example, if being happy means having to throw more shite back at the people that have been flinging it at you, that might be justified. Nor do you have an automatic right to be exempt from rules & laws others have to follow, you need a strong justification to make it so. Context matters alongside written & unwritten laws & conventions. But other than that, you've the right to be happy.

But I get the feeling that with Hitchens The Lesser, it's pretty much the opposite. If he can't be happy, no one else can, and it should be the case that everyone else should feel almost as miserable as he is - though not as or more miserable that he, or he might not have much to be miserable about.

Tweet from Hitchens

I challenged a Professor of Miserabilism what his qualifications were, compared to mine. He can only quote academic study were as I have lived my whole life as a miserable cunt

I saw in his latest "Berlin time" piece, he actually referred to "Good old British GMT". As if it's up there with Yorkshire Tea and London buses.

Youngian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm

And most feeble of all, no sunlight unless you get up at 5am to enjoy it.

If the clocks didn’t go back (Berlin time), the mornings would be darker. But far more fatalities occur on dark evenings so it maybe a good idea that wouldn’t wash with Hitchens.

Just to clarify, I haven’t wrongly put my clocks back last weekend, just badly phrased my point! In reply to various commenters, Hitchens seems to suggest that people should just get up earlier rather than enjoy lighter evenings. Which is entirely on brand - no nice evenings, no lie ins.

The man must have nowt but vinegar in his veins.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:53 pm

Youngian wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:52 pm

And most feeble of all, no sunlight unless you get up at 5am to enjoy it.

If the clocks didn’t go back (Berlin time), the mornings would be darker. But far more fatalities occur on dark evenings so it maybe a good idea that wouldn’t wash with Hitchens.

Just to clarify, I haven’t wrongly put my clocks back last weekend, just badly phrased my point! In reply to various commenters, Hitchens seems to suggest that people should just get up earlier rather than enjoy lighter evenings. Which is entirely on brand - no nice evenings, no lie ins.

The man must have nowt but vinegar in his veins.

It's a strangely English Puritan idea that someone who sleeps from ten until six am is less idle than someone who sleeps from two am until nine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... icals.html

In which Hitch gets wet at the thought of some Ruritanian pomp, has a wank over Churchill, whinges about the royals giving him the brush off, and talks bollocks about tradition.

Funtime Peter likes ostentatious parties does he?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/ ... women.html

My goodness, he has issues. Sex makes him have strange thoughts, and he doesn't deal with them well.

13 years of Tory moral degeneracy in office has rekindled my old fashioned views about respect, civic values and kindness. Hitchens is one of the few conservatives left who get that. Which proves my point.

https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/into-the-ditch

Not his MoS column, but a fascinating insight into his head. Hitchens dissects humour, apparently he's actually hilarious, it's just that nobody else can see it.

Peter’s humour has been no help to him getting laid.

Then there is the question of sex. Women, I believe, often have completely different senses of humor from men.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

In which Peter encourages his readers to bully their kids and harass teachers, because while he can't be bothered to read up on the national curriculum, he's taking as gospel some leaflet written by a crank. Meanwhile, boo for green cars!

That is a vile puddle of arse gravy in which he supports and encourages a child abuser.