"Beware Of entrance to a fight; but, being in, Bear't that the opponent may beware of thee." I do not ask for battles, but I do not refuse them once offered, either. Ah, and another passage from the same authority: "Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel; But do not dull thy palm with entertainment Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade." This about the remark about "little band of friends".
I do not ask for battles, but I do not refuse them once offered, either.
In my experience, refusing battles is often the wisest thing to do. I am aware that I am a temperamental person, and it's frequently best not to know what other people are saying about me, or, if that is an impossibility, to ignore what they are saying. I'm too prone to speaking without thinking, and quite often the only result of many verbal engagements is to make myself look foolish. And some of your posts seem to have the same effect. If someone is irritating to you, the best thing to do is to avoid reading what they say about you, whether it is in their journal or elsewhere.
I am not saying you are wrong: but it is not to the point. These people started a witch-hunt against me. To refuse was not an option. They were filling my own LJ with hate mail. In point of fact, I let a fic by Moon that was grossly defamatory of me and my country stand for months, until someone else was shocked and complained, because I wanted nothing to do with her and felt that she had only condemned herself. And if you notice, what started this last round of mailings was a remark of mine that the row had finally died down, and thank God for that - clearly a few people did not like the idea that it could be allowed to die.
No, I'm under the impression that you keep it going, and I wonder why. Your enthusiastic participation certainly seems like an invitation for further warfare.
Because however many insults I may ignore (I never did anything about Moon's fic, in spite of repeated invitations from her and friends), I will not ignore those thrown at me in my own open space. I would much rather quietly discuss music or comics or religion, but evidently those do not stimulate writers so much as hatred.
But you delete most of the comments that offend you. Doesn't that count as ignoring them? Why ignore some but not others? Why not just ignore all of them?
(I'm not trying to harass you here, really; I genuinely don't understand your position)
I delete those which, in addition to being gross and stupid, have nothing that needs replying to. I do not delete those I respond to, if nothing else because the reader has to see what I was responding to. And sometimes I just let something in to allow someone to condemn her/himself with her/his own words.
You know that much of Polonius's advice was pure bluster, right? And not meant to be taken seriously. He was a magnificently written caricature of a court adviser. A milder form of comic relief than the grave-diggers, to be sure, but not exactly the most authoritative source to quote.
Here we see the problems of education from books. First, a viewpoint that is at best a hypothesis (that everything that Polonius says is meant as bluster, from beginning to end, as though Shakespeare were incapable of depth or vatiation in his comic characters) is quoted as a fact, with no doubt or sign of difficulty. Why? I am not sure, but this sort of thing reminds me of what I used to do when I was younger and was struck by the interpretation of some book or other: I immediately replaced the book interpretation for any independent view, and ended up pushing it too far. Second, there is the formulaic description of the character: "magnificently written caricature of a court adviser" - pure textbook (for why it should be necessary to tell me that Hamlet is magnificently written is not clear; it is neither polemic nor very serious assessment). To the contrary, it has always struck me that Polonius (unlike Osric, who is certainly to be played by the same actor) has several layers. I think that when he dies, it is necessary that we should feel the pathos of his death - that the Queen's "the unseen good old man" should be more than empty sound - and that therefore this speech is by no means on the same level as the nonsense he mouths to the king when he is trying to sound wise. The difference ought to be clear to every ear. On the one hand: "My liege, and madam,--to expostulate/ What majesty should be, what duty is,/ Why day is day, night is night, and time is time./ Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time./ Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,/ And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,/ I will be brief:--your noble son is mad:/ Mad call I it; for to define true madness,/ What is't but to be nothing else but mad?" This, and lots more like this, is pretty nearly nonsense; I say pretty nearly, because even here Polonius manages one perfectly sensible statement - "brevity is the sould of wit" - that has passed into the stock of English proverbs. On the other hand: "Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,/ Nor any unproportion'd thought his act./ Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar./ Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,/ Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;/ But do not dull thy palm with entertainment/ Of each new-hatch'd, unfledg'd comrade. Beware/ Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,/ Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee./ Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice:/ Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment./ Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy, But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy:/ For the apparel oft proclaims the man;/ And they in France of the best rank and station/ Are most select and generous chief in that./ Neither a borrower nor a lender be:/ For loan oft loses both itself and friend;/ And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry./ This above all,--to thine own self be true;/ And it must follow, as the night the day,/ Thou canst not then be false to any man." What is wrong, silly, or blustering, with any of this? It is all good, sound, epigrammatically simple, proverb-like fatherly advice, expressed, except for a little falling-off in the wandering about noble Frenchmen, with a pregnant minimum of words. If Polonius had been able to speak to the King as he spoke to his son, he would have been a counselor indeed. And even the fact that after giving all this advice he nevertheless feels the need to send a spy after Laertes is not altogether despicable: he is clear to Voltimand - in spite of all his chatter - that he must not make Laertes sound altogether bad, but only try to see whether he has been kicking over the traces a bit. "Pure bluster?" Hardly, if you listen to the actual sound and flow of the words and do not insist on applying pre-conceived views to everything.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:26 am (UTC)Of entrance to a fight; but, being in,
Bear't that the opponent may beware of thee."
I do not ask for battles, but I do not refuse them once offered, either.
Ah, and another passage from the same authority:
"Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade."
This about the remark about "little band of friends".
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:38 am (UTC)In my experience, refusing battles is often the wisest thing to do. I am aware that I am a temperamental person, and it's frequently best not to know what other people are saying about me, or, if that is an impossibility, to ignore what they are saying. I'm too prone to speaking without thinking, and quite often the only result of many verbal engagements is to make myself look foolish. And some of your posts seem to have the same effect. If someone is irritating to you, the best thing to do is to avoid reading what they say about you, whether it is in their journal or elsewhere.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:57 am (UTC)By that, do you mean this post?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 08:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 08:04 am (UTC)But by posting negative posts about these people, over and over, you do ask for battles! What else are such entries supposed to accomplish?
(not the same anonymous person as any of the above, fyi)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 08:19 am (UTC)Excuse me, you are perhaps under the impression that I started it?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 02:32 pm (UTC)(I'm not trying to harass you here, really; I genuinely don't understand your position)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 02:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 05:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 10:07 pm (UTC)To the contrary, it has always struck me that Polonius (unlike Osric, who is certainly to be played by the same actor) has several layers. I think that when he dies, it is necessary that we should feel the pathos of his death - that the Queen's "the unseen good old man" should be more than empty sound - and that therefore this speech is by no means on the same level as the nonsense he mouths to the king when he is trying to sound wise. The difference ought to be clear to every ear. On the one hand: "My liege, and madam,--to expostulate/ What majesty should be, what duty is,/ Why day is day, night is night, and time is time./ Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time./ Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,/ And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,/ I will be brief:--your noble son is mad:/ Mad call I it; for to define true madness,/ What is't but to be nothing else but mad?" This, and lots more like this, is pretty nearly nonsense; I say pretty nearly, because even here Polonius manages one perfectly sensible statement - "brevity is the sould of wit" - that has passed into the stock of English proverbs. On the other hand: "Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,/ Nor any unproportion'd thought his act./ Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar./ Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,/ Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel;/ But do not dull thy palm with entertainment/ Of each new-hatch'd, unfledg'd comrade. Beware/ Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,/ Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee./ Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice:/ Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment./ Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express'd in fancy; rich, not gaudy:/ For the apparel oft proclaims the man;/ And they in France of the best rank and station/ Are most select and generous chief in that./ Neither a borrower nor a lender be:/ For loan oft loses both itself and friend;/ And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry./ This above all,--to thine own self be true;/ And it must follow, as the night the day,/ Thou canst not then be false to any man." What is wrong, silly, or blustering, with any of this? It is all good, sound, epigrammatically simple, proverb-like fatherly advice, expressed, except for a little falling-off in the wandering about noble Frenchmen, with a pregnant minimum of words. If Polonius had been able to speak to the King as he spoke to his son, he would have been a counselor indeed. And even the fact that after giving all this advice he nevertheless feels the need to send a spy after Laertes is not altogether despicable: he is clear to Voltimand - in spite of all his chatter - that he must not make Laertes sound altogether bad, but only try to see whether he has been kicking over the traces a bit. "Pure bluster?" Hardly, if you listen to the actual sound and flow of the words and do not insist on applying pre-conceived views to everything.