So we can add theatre to the list of things Mo knows nothing about

[World's End Stella]

as The Goat was actually very good, I quite enjoyed a play for the first time in my life. Wonderfully acted and enough laugh out loud moments that the entire 1 hour and 50 minutes went remarkably quickly.

Barrafina was also very good, thank you Charles. Loved the tortilla morcilla and the fennel and pear salad although I thought the artichokes and aioli was the best thing we had. Suckling pig was merely good and the chap who cut our jamon should have been sacked but overall it was still very good.

Theatre eh? Hmmm, I'm still unconvinced. :rubchin:

[Sir C]

as The Goat was actually very good, I quite enjoyed a play for the first time in my life. Wonderfully acted and enough laugh out loud moments that the entire 1 hour and 50 minutes went remarkably quickly.

Barrafina was also very good, thank you Charles. Loved the tortilla morcilla and the fennel and pear salad although I thought the artichokes and aioli was the best thing we had. Suckling pig was merely good and the chap who cut our jamon should have been sacked but overall it was still very good.

Theatre eh? Hmmm, I'm still unconvinced. :rubchin:

No seafood from the Josper? The langoustines are pretty spectacular. The problem with the place is that you pop in for a quick early evening supper and can easily do £250for two, because everything's so delightful.

[Monty92]

No seafood from the Josper? The langoustines are pretty spectacular. The problem with the place is that you pop in for a quick early evening supper and can easily do £250for two, because everything's so delightful.

Why is this a problem? For you, I mean..

[Sir C]

Why is this a problem? For you, I mean..

It just seems like an awful lot of money for a casual mid-week meal. It's not changing my life, or anything, it just feels sort of wrong.

Mind you, everything seems ridiculously expensive to me these days; clearly a matter of age. In my mind, a round of drinks for four should be a tenner, and filling the car up should cost 40 quid. :shrug: I live in a state of almost permanent surprise.

[barrybueno]

It just seems like an awful lot of money for a casual mid-week meal. It's not changing my life, or anything, it just feels sort of wrong.

Mind you, everything seems ridiculously expensive to me these days; clearly a matter of age. In my mind, a round of drinks for four should be a tenner, and filling the car up should cost 40 quid. :shrug: I live in a state of almost permanent surprise.

You can still do those two things imo. The other three would not be happy with their half pints though and you wouldnt be happy driving your 1.0 Fiesta home :hehe:

[Sir C]

You can still do those two things imo. The other three would not be happy with their half pints though and you wouldnt be happy driving your 1.0 Fiesta home :hehe:

The last round of four I bought cost 72 quid :-(

[barrybueno]

The last round of four I bought cost 72 quid :-(

Jebus wept :yikes: You will go to these flash places tho. I like to keep it real. 14 quid for 4 decent Stellas down the local ****hole :cloud9:

[World's End Stella]

No seafood from the Josper? The langoustines are pretty spectacular. The problem with the place is that you pop in for a quick early evening supper and can easily do £250for two, because everything's so delightful.

We had an enormous shrimp of some kind that was delicious although rather overpriced. They had a whole load of seafood specials of which we selected just the one although Mrs WES wanted more seafood. What is the Josper?

[Sir C]

We had an enormous shrimp of some kind that was delicious although rather overpriced. They had a whole load of seafood specials of which we selected just the one although Mrs WES wanted more seafood. What is the Josper?

The indoor barbecue jobbie on which they cook the seafood.

[Peter]

The last round of four I bought cost 72 quid :-(

Champagne for my real friends and all that :D

[Sir C]

Champagne for my real friends and all that :D

A day without champagne always feels like a day wasted, doesn't it peter? If I were ever poor again, (which, God forbid) the thing I would most miss is a glass or two of champagne each day before dinner.

[Burney]

A day without champagne always feels like a day wasted, doesn't it peter? If I were ever poor again, (which, God forbid) the thing I would most miss is a glass or two of champagne each day before dinner.

Hmmm. I'm right off it, I must say. If you told me I could never have a drop of the stuff again, I'd not be terribly bothered.

It makes your breath go manky and basically isn't a proper drink.

[Sir C]

Hmmm. I'm right off it, I must say. If you told me I could never have a drop of the stuff again, I'd not be terribly bothered.

It makes your breath go manky and basically isn't a proper drink.

I shall be saddened if I am ever afflicted by such a brain injury, b :-(

[PSRB]

Hmmm. I'm right off it, I must say. If you told me I could never have a drop of the stuff again, I'd not be terribly bothered.

It makes your breath go manky and basically isn't a proper drink.

Can't say I'm that bothered with it, would far prefer a decent red for half the price.

[Burney]

I shall be saddened if I am ever afflicted by such a brain injury, b :-(

I like a Champagne cocktail. But the brandy's doing all the heavy lifting there.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

as The Goat was actually very good, I quite enjoyed a play for the first time in my life. Wonderfully acted and enough laugh out loud moments that the entire 1 hour and 50 minutes went remarkably quickly.

Barrafina was also very good, thank you Charles. Loved the tortilla morcilla and the fennel and pear salad although I thought the artichokes and aioli was the best thing we had. Suckling pig was merely good and the chap who cut our jamon should have been sacked but overall it was still very good.

Theatre eh? Hmmm, I'm still unconvinced. :rubchin:

Glad you enjoyed it but it is unmitigated crap. If you are the kind of guy who laughs at the idea of a guy having sex with a goat well... bully for you. Plenty of that on the net for free.

It's clearly a metaphor but it's so clunky and dated I thought it was from the sixties.

[World's End Stella]

Glad you enjoyed it but it is unmitigated crap. If you are the kind of guy who laughs at the idea of a guy having sex with a goat well... bully for you. Plenty of that on the net for free.

It's clearly a metaphor but it's so clunky and dated I thought it was from the sixties.

No, *you think* it is unmitigated crap but rather a lot of other people including theatre critics think it is very good. The reviews were excellent and it had a very nice run, which suggests it had some merit was clearly not unmitigated crap.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

No, *you think* it is unmitigated crap but rather a lot of other people including theatre critics think it is very good. The reviews were excellent and it had a very nice run, which suggests it had some merit was clearly not unmitigated crap.


It has a nice run on the basis of people wanting to see Damian Lewis. Reviews have been mixed.

I know it's crap and I can give you a detailed analysis why it is crap, but first I'd need to see your detailed analysis of why it isn't crap.

I know more about theatre than quite a few theatre critics so excuse me if I'm not overawed by some of them liking this play.

[Sir C]

It has a nice run on the basis of people wanting to see Damian Lewis. Reviews have been mixed.

I know it's crap and I can give you a detailed analysis why it is crap, but first I'd need to see your detailed analysis of why it isn't crap.

I know more about theatre than quite a few theatre critics so excuse me if I'm not overawed by some of them liking this play.

Is the primary purpose of theatre not to entertain, m? That being the case, if wes was entertained, the play was successful, for him at least.

[Pokster]

It has a nice run on the basis of people wanting to see Damian Lewis. Reviews have been mixed.

I know it's crap and I can give you a detailed analysis why it is crap, but first I'd need to see your detailed analysis of why it isn't crap.

I know more about theatre than quite a few theatre critics so excuse me if I'm not overawed by some of them liking this play.

I would assume a play/film/band is asll up to the individuals taste... i mean, AW (who knows a lot about football) likes AR....WES thinks he is ****, so does that mean WES knows nothing about football........ oh

[Luis Anaconda]

Is the primary purpose of theatre not to entertain, m? That being the case, if wes was entertained, the play was successful, for him at least.

Good lord - quite the radical idea there, sir c

[Sir C]

Good lord - quite the radical idea there, sir c

Am I being naive, la? :-(

[Pokster]

Am I being naive, la? :-(

African defending

[Burney]

Is the primary purpose of theatre not to entertain, m? That being the case, if wes was entertained, the play was successful, for him at least.

Could have fùcking fooled me.

Also, I would venture to suggest that WES would be entertained by watching chimps fling faeces. That does not ennoble the spectacle, however.

[Pokster]

Could have fùcking fooled me.

Also, I would venture to suggest that WES would be entertained by watching chimps fling faeces. That does not ennoble the spectacle, however.

But Chimps are fun b, I mean watching those rip another one to bits at Kansas Zoo must have been entertaining

[Sir C]

Could have fùcking fooled me.

Also, I would venture to suggest that WES would be entertained by watching chimps fling faeces. That does not ennoble the spectacle, however.

Lots of people are enjoy going to the theatre and are entertained :shrug: Clearly, wes is no arbiter of ojective quality in any matter, but I simply don't believe one can apply objective standards to a piece of entertainment.

[Burney]

But Chimps are fun b, I mean watching those rip another one to bits at Kansas Zoo must have been entertaining

Nasty bàstards, p. When they attack humans, they go first for the eyes and genitals, which seems a bit off to me.

Blind and dickiess is no way to go through life. :-(

[Ash]

Lots of people are enjoy going to the theatre and are entertained :shrug: Clearly, wes is no arbiter of ojective quality in any matter, but I simply don't believe one can apply objective standards to a piece of entertainment.

Except George Graham's 92-94 cup teams, of course.

[Burney]

Lots of people are enjoy going to the theatre and are entertained :shrug: Clearly, wes is no arbiter of ojective quality in any matter, but I simply don't believe one can apply objective standards to a piece of entertainment.


We're not having this argument again. Clearly, Tolstoy is objectively better than Jackie Collins.

Also, I am prepared to bet that WES was largely there for the goatsex.

[Sir C]

Except George Graham's 92-94 cup teams, of course.

You're right, objectively I objected strongly to that dung ration.

[Sir C]

We're not having this argument again. Clearly, Tolstoy is objectively better than Jackie Collins.

:shrug: You haven't defined any parameters. What is he better at? Being wordy, turgid and incomprehensible to the less educated? You might as well claim that Radiohead are the best band in history except on the odd occasion when they made the mistake of being too accessible.

You may prefer Tolstoy's prose. That is because you are a pretentious student type, and you have every right so to do. If it gives you pleasure to wánk on about literature with your equally nerdy chums, good for you - I hope you all enjoy, and that one day one of you will see a real naked lady and describe her to the rest of the group. It will be the nearest any of you get to a sexual experience. But I digress.

Tolstoy is objectively better at 5th form art student wánk, whilst Jackie Collins is objectively better at titillating frustrated housewives. They're not trying to do the same job.

[Burney]

:shrug: You haven't defined any parameters. What is he better at? Being wordy, turgid and incomprehensible to the less educated? You might as well claim that Radiohead are the best band in history except on the odd occasion when they made the mistake of being too accessible.

You may prefer Tolstoy's prose. That is because you are a pretentious student type, and you have every right so to do. If it gives you pleasure to wánk on about literature with your equally nerdy chums, good for you - I hope you all enjoy, and that one day one of you will see a real naked lady and describe her to the rest of the group. It will be the nearest any of you get to a sexual experience. But I digress.

Tolstoy is objectively better at 5th form art student wánk, whilst Jackie Collins is objectively better at titillating frustrated housewives. They're not trying to do the same job.

They are both writers. They both write novels. The difference is that Tolstoy's concern the vast sweep of history, religion, philosophy, man's inhumanity to man and the human condition, while Jackie Collins' concern people in Beverley Hills having rather unconvincing sex.

[Sir C]

They are both writers. They both write novels. The difference is that Tolstoy's concern the vast sweep of history, religion, philosophy, man's inhumanity to man and the human condition, while Jackie Collins' concern people in Beverley Hills having rather unconvincing sex.

I understand that. But why does that make Tolstoy's novels better? More to your taste, perhaps. More educational, so better in some vague moral sense? For the average punter Tolstoy's writing will be dull when it isn't indecipherable; and a writer who cannot make himself understood has failed, no?

[Mo Britain less Europe]

The best theatre entertains and educates, makes you see things differently or sheds new light on something. For me The Goat is all about Albee's hidden homosexuality, except it was written years after the event when homosexuality had more or less become the new norm. So this play is tilting at a windmill which gave up the ghost a long time ago, unless he is defending the right of people to have sexual aberrations which are still unacceptable?

I didn't find it funny, I found it boring and rather pathetic.

[Ash]

... Tolstoy's concern the vast sweep of history, religion, philosophy, man's inhumanity to man and the human condition

Terry Pratchett's novels do all of those as well, and very funnily, but you think he's shít too. Because he's too accessible and does cheesy puns? And doesn't even write in chapters?

[Burney]

I understand that. But why does that make Tolstoy's novels better? More to your taste, perhaps. More educational, so better in some vague moral sense? For the average punter Tolstoy's writing will be dull when it isn't indecipherable; and a writer who cannot make himself understood has failed, no?

One offers edification, the other titillation, so yes, there is a moral dimension to the superiority. The whole concept of art is bound up with a sense of moral purpose.

[Sir C]

One offers edification, the other titillation, so yes, there is a moral dimension to the superiority. The whole concept of art is bound up with a sense of moral purpose.

So for a song, a painting, a play or a book to be 'good', as defined by you, it must wear a cloak of moral rectitude?

Fúck. That.

[World's End Stella]

We're not having this argument again. Clearly, Tolstoy is objectively better than Jackie Collins.

Also, I am prepared to bet that WES was largely there for the goatsex.

No goatsex, sadly. In fact, the only time you saw it, it was dead.

And he didn't even have sex with it then. :-(

[Burney]

Terry Pratchett's novels do all of those as well, and very funnily, but you think he's shít too. Because he's too accessible and does cheesy puns? And doesn't even write in chapters?

They involve dwarves, trolls, magic and other nonsense, a. That makes them silly and makes serious consideration impossible. You might as well introduce Harry Potter into the argument.

And as for that cünt Tolkien... :rolleyes:

[Burney]

So for a song, a painting, a play or a book to be 'good', as defined by you, it must wear a cloak of moral rectitude?

Fúck. That.

Not rectitude. Weight and purpose.

[Sir C]

They involve dwarves, trolls, magic and other nonsense, a. That makes them silly and makes serious consideration impossible. You might as well introduce Harry Potter into the argument.

And as for that cünt Tolkien... :rolleyes:

Moral though, your JRR. Terrifically moral.

[World's End Stella]

They involve dwarves, trolls, magic and other nonsense, a. That makes them silly and makes serious consideration impossible. You might as well introduce Harry Potter into the argument.

And as for that cünt Tolkien... :rolleyes:

My most favouritest book ever is The Naked and the Dead.

What does that say about me, Burney? :-(

[Sir C]

Not rectitude. Weight and purpose.

Sounds like pretentious wánk, but as I know you are incapable of ego-inflating pseudo-intellectual masturbation, it can't be.

I will certainly think carefully about what you have said, b.

[Burney]

Moral though, your JRR. Terrifically moral.

Yes, but elves and goblins and shít, so silly. You can't be moral and silly.

[Sir C]

My most favouritest book ever is The Naked and the Dead.

What does that say about me, Burney? :-(

Is that the one after The Two Towers?

[Sir C]

Yes, but elves and goblins and shít, so silly. You can't be moral and silly.

Some **** should have told Aesop.

[Ash]

They involve dwarves, trolls, magic and other nonsense, a. That makes them silly and makes serious consideration impossible. You might as well introduce Harry Potter into the argument.

And as for that cünt Tolkien... :rolleyes:

Dwarves and Trolls are there to represent different ethnicities, and he phased out most of the magic in favour of technology, which is kind-of ironic as he started a sci-fi writer, switched to fantasy and ended up writing about the industrial revolution. And football.

And you like GoT so ner.

[Burney]

My most favouritest book ever is The Naked and the Dead.

What does that say about me, Burney? :-(

That you like stories about sweaty men constantly obsessing about whether someone at home is 'fugging' their wives and girlfriends? :shrug:

I remember reading that and being annoyed by all the fugging

[Burney]

Dwarves and Trolls are there to represent different ethnicities, and he phased out most of the magic in favour of technology, which is kind-of ironic as he started a sci-fi writer, switched to fantasy and ended up writing about the industrial revolution. And football.

And you like GoT so ner.


I like GoT because it's full of sword fights and knockers, a. :shrug: I don't think it's art.

[Sir C]

I like GoT because it's full of sword fights and knockers, a. :shrug: I don't think it's art.

Who the hell mentioned art?

[World's End Stella]

That you like stories about sweaty men constantly obsessing about whether someone at home is 'fugging' their wives and girlfriends? :shrug:

I remember reading that and being annoyed by all the fugging

To be fair, my criteria for it being my most favouritest book ever was that I read it in Greece in the late 80s whilst sitting on a beach which had two pert, topless, blonde Scandanavian birds running around. The fact that I was able to read it with that sort of distraction was impressive, I thought.

A Bright Shining Lie would be up there, as well. I really do prefer American writers for some reason.

[Burney]

Who the hell mentioned art?

I did. A few posts back.

[Sir C]

I did. A few posts back.

Oh. Carry on then. As you were.

[Burney]

To be fair, my criteria for it being my most favouritest book ever was that I read it in Greece in the late 80s whilst sitting on a beach which had two pert, topless, blonde Scandanavian birds running around. The fact that I was able to read it with that sort of distraction was impressive, I thought.

A Bright Shining Lie would be up there, as well. I really do prefer American writers for some reason.

England really hasn't produced many great novelists. It's a major shortcoming in our literary canon.

Compared to the Russians and the French and - latterly - the Americans, the likes of Dickens, Eliot and Hardy are pretty lightweight, I'm afraid.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Funny. I have the opposite view, whilst I enjoy some American novelists - Auster, Tartt, Easton Ellis - British novelists have consistently produced work of the highest calibre.

The Russians? They had a good spell in the nineteenth century but after that? Not much on the ground.

Current French novelists of merit? Can't think of anyone beyond Houellebecq.

I note the exclusion of the Bronte sisters and Austen amongst the classics. Iris Murdoch is a great in my book, as is Tolkien despite the barbs. Surely Orwell and Waugh deserve mentions? Golding for sure and Conrad definitely. Fowles? Greene? Spark?

Current authors who may well be considered "greats" in the future:

McEwen, Ishiguro, Boyd, Mitchell, Barnes, Zadie Smith, Lanchester, Ali Smith

[SWv2]

Funny. I have the opposite view, whilst I enjoy some American novelists - Auster, Tartt, Easton Ellis - British novelists have consistently produced work of the highest calibre.

The Russians? They had a good spell in the nineteenth century but after that? Not much on the ground.

Current French novelists of merit? Can't think of anyone beyond Houellebecq.

I note the exclusion of the Bronte sisters and Austen amongst the classics. Iris Murdoch is a great in my book, as is Tolkien despite the barbs. Surely Orwell and Waugh deserve mentions? Golding for sure and Conrad definitely. Fowles? Greene? Spark?

Current authors who may well be considered "greats" in the future:

McEwen, Ishiguro, Boyd, Mitchell, Barnes, Zadie Smith, Lanchester, Ali Smith

Nick Hornby obviously.

[Luis Anaconda]

Funny. I have the opposite view, whilst I enjoy some American novelists - Auster, Tartt, Easton Ellis - British novelists have consistently produced work of the highest calibre.

The Russians? They had a good spell in the nineteenth century but after that? Not much on the ground.

Current French novelists of merit? Can't think of anyone beyond Houellebecq.

I note the exclusion of the Bronte sisters and Austen amongst the classics. Iris Murdoch is a great in my book, as is Tolkien despite the barbs. Surely Orwell and Waugh deserve mentions? Golding for sure and Conrad definitely. Fowles? Greene? Spark?

Current authors who may well be considered "greats" in the future:

McEwen, Ishiguro, Boyd, Mitchell, Barnes, Zadie Smith, Lanchester, Ali Smith
Trollope ...