Oscar Wilde: Victorian or Not?

Up to this point, we have examined two periods, the Romantic and the Victorian, each of which was defined primarily in terms of time.  The Romantic period, we said ran basically from 1789 to 1832. (Froisy)  The Victorian period which immediately followed ran on until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901.  There were some general trends associated with each period and, by and large, the writers who wrote during those eras tended to follow them.  The thing, however, that classified a writer as Romantic or Victorian was not whether he was a trend follower, but when did he/she actually write.

Oscar Wilde

Now we must answer the question about whether a certain writer, namely, Oscar Wilde, was or was not a Victorian.  Of course, the immediate answer is that he was without question a Victorian writer; his heyday was the late 19^th Century, the Victorian era.  But we know the question cannot be answered so simply because we are asked to answer in a way that tells us that the basis of the question had nothing to do with time but with things like style, and technique, and the writer’s willingness to publish things that did not exactly run true to the Victorian ideal. 

The suggestion is that Oscar Wilde was not a Victorian writer because he satirized Victorian morals, Victorian attitudes, especially toward sex, and Victorian manners and thinking in general.  Two of Wilde’s poems, Impression du Matin and The Harlot’s House, touch on the theme of prostitution, the whole idea behind these two satirical poems being that:  Hark! here, in the heart of prim and proper, Victorian England, there are prostitutes and men who frequent them.  These are the real Victorian virtues.  That is what he was saying.

Phil Mickelson

I like to watch a big-time golf tournament when Phil Mickelson wins and beats Tiger Woods.  I just wish it would happen more often.

The Lords of British Literature: Byron and Tennyson and their Times

A comparison of the lives and works of Byron and Tennyson opens to readers the Romantic and Victorian periods of British Literature.  These two poets, both Lords, are emblematic of their respective eras.  George Gordon, Lord Byron has been described as the most “flamboyant” and “notorious” of the major Romantics (Poetry Foundation) while Alfred, Lord Tennyson, shy and withdrawn though he was, is said to be “the defining English poet of the Victorian era.” (Poetry Archive)  A reader may study but these two men and come away with well-founded impressions of British literature during the times in which these men lived and wrote, as well as a greater appreciation of their poetic works.

The respective ancestries of these two men provide early clues not only about the lives of the poets themselves, but also give hints as to the eventual character of the Romantic and Victorian eras.  Take first Lord Byron.  According to the editors of the Norton Anthology of English Literature, “Byron was descended from two aristocratic families, both of them colorful, violent, and dissolute.” (Greenblatt, 608)   This foreshadowed the notorious Byronic lifestyle, but it also prefigures the Romantic Period itself with its crime, madness, and rebellion against authority (Froisy, Week 3)  Mental illness, drug addiction, and some drunkenness were characteristics of Tennyson’s family, observable deviances in any age, but perhaps a bit more noticeable during the Victorian era as they contrasted so severely with the times.

On Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum

Quote of the day -

After sweeping all three Republican primary contests on February 7, Senator Rick Santorum had this to say  ...

"I am not the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.  I am the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."

People like Donald Trump can't figure this out.

Reagan vs. Obama

President Reagan was wrong about one thing.  He did not live to see the end of communism. Communism succeeded him into office four administrations later ...

Boykin and Black Hawk Down

Lt. Gen. William G.  "Jerry" Boykin

Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski, writing for Big Peace, have published an article about Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin.  The purpose of their piece was to counter some of the prevailing media bias against General Boykin because of his religious beliefs.  General Boykin is in the news because he has declined, under pressure from the controversial organization known as CAIR, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an invitation from West Point to speak at a prayer breakfast.

Ken Blackwell is a conservative writer.  Ken Klukowski is an attorney.  Neither man served in the military and their bios show nothing that would qualify either of them as military historians.

This is relevant because, in their Big Peace article, attempting to burnish the image of General Boykin, they write that Boykin was "the commanding officer of the mission in the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia forever memorialized in the movie Black Hawk Down."

Author Mark Bowden, author of the book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War, never mentions Boykin.  Neither does retired colonel David H. Hackworth in his book, Hazardous Duty.  Hackworth covered U.S. operations in Somalia during the time of the Black Hawk Down incident as a correspondent for Newsweek.  Both of these men name Major General William F. Garrison as the commanding officer during the Battle of Mogadishu. [1]

Writing Tips from a Recovering Doctrine Writer

Some writer I know

Came across this piece on writing tips today and it put me in sort of a nostalgic mood.  Readers of this page will recall that yours truly was once a doctrine writer.  A rather frustrated one, but still a writer.  Here, for what they're worth, are my tips -- at least the first twenty that come to mind.

1.  Outside of getting her help with the template and a few of the basic rules, ignore your editor when starting out.
2.  The reason for #1 is that, in doctrine, content is everything; unless your editor is a subject matter expert in what you are writing, she cannot help you.  It doesn't matter how finely crafted your sentences are if the content in them is wanting.
3.  Doctrine writing is a team sport; if there is no writing team, there will be no resulting doctrine.  The editor is a key player on that team, but she is not a starter.  Her best contributions are off the bench.
4.  The chain of command likes for you to write your doctrine then bring it to them so they can tell you what's wrong with it.  This masks the fact that most times they are clueless as to what the content should be and is totally unproductive.  It is a complete waste of government time and money to begin writing if you haven't received clear guidance from your boss, and his boss, and your boss's boss's boss.
5.  If you are writing your center of excellence's flagship field manual, and this manual was last revised more than 20 years ago, expect trouble.  If, in 20 years, the chain of command hasn't figured out what the revision should look like, they probably won't solve this problem on your watch.  It's no use to try to write when the basic content issues have not been resolved.