ellauri028.html on line 88: Initially, a surviving one of his daughters, Clara Clemens, objected to its publication in March 1939, probably because of its controversial and iconoclastic views on religion, claiming it presented a "distorted" view of her father. Henry Nash Smith helped change her position in 1960. Clara explained her change of heart in 1962 saying that "Mark Twain belonged to the world" and that public opinion had become more tolerant. (Ehkä se myös tarvizi vähän pätäkkää leivän syrjäxi.) She was also influenced to release the papers by her annoyance with Soviet reports that her father's ideas were being suppressed in the United States. (Ei Laika ole ainut koira radalla. Vuosi 1962 oli Kuuban kriisi, kylmä sota kuumeni. Popovin nuhruista mutta optimistista nuoruutta.) The papers were selected, edited and sequenced for the book in 1939 by Bernard DeVoto. (Sota tuli väliin, jumala piti varmistaa voittajien puolelle. No ainahan se on voittajien puolella. Tai sit se haluu antaa opetuxen tai sillä on joku ovelampi suunnitelma mielessä.)
ellauri048.html on line 1114: Hallam spent the 1830 Easter holidays with Tennyson in Somersby and declared his love for Emilia. Hallam and Tennyson planned to publish a book of poems together: Hallam told Mrs Tennyson that he saw this "as a sort of seal of our friendship". Hallam's father, however, objected, and Hallam's Poems was privately published and printed in 1830. In the summer holidays, Tennyson and Hallam travelled to the Pyrenees (on a secret mission to take money and instructions written in invisible ink to General Torrijos who was planning a revolution against the tyranny of King Ferdinand VII of Spain). In December, Hallam again visited Somersby and became engaged to Emilia. His father forbade him to visit Somersby until he came of age at twenty-one.
ellauri052.html on line 566: The split became irrevocable when Annie Besant, then president of the Theosophical Society, presented the child Jiddu Krishnamurti as the reincarnated Christ. Steiner strongly objected and considered any comparison between Krishnamurti and Christ to be nonsense; many years later, Krishnamurti also repudiated the assertion.
ellauri072.html on line 206: What has gone mainly unnoticed in the various discussions of the problem is something that has puzzled me for some time. Why does Dante treat the homosexual Florentines in Inf. 16 with greater respect than any other infernal figures except those in Limbo? I do not have an answer to that question, but would like to bring it forward. Let me begin with Purg. 26. We have probably not been surprised enough at Dante's insistence that roughly half of those who sinned in lust, repented, and were saved (and are now on their way to that salvation) were homosexual. It would have been easy for him to have left the homosexuals out of Purgatory, and it is hard to imagine an early (or a later) commentator who would have objected to the omission, especially since, in Hell, homosexuality is treated, not as a sin of the flesh, but as one of violence against nature. However, for a unique instance of a commentator who is aware of Dante's unusual gesture see Trifon Gabriele on Inf. 15.46: "Non e' dubbio che 'l Poeta vuol applaudere a questo vitio quanto egli puo'. Puopa hyvinkin. Ecco, gli fa parlare di belle cose e gli fa tutti grand'uomini nelle lettere e nell'arme e nella religione, e finalmente non e' peccato ne l'Inferno o Purgatorio che egli men danni con le parole sue che questo; anzi lo polisce quanto puo' con suoi versi".
ellauri131.html on line 954: Only three people have objected to the intimate nature of his moral instruction -- two Germans and a Frenchman.
ellauri150.html on line 484: Based on an 1880 novel, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, the film was directed by Hollywood great William Wyler, and screenwriter Gore Vidal was one of many who took a pass at the screenplay. In The Celluloid Closet, Vidal states in no uncertain terms that he scripted the film as a confrontation between ex-lovers Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) and Messala (Stephen Boyd). Further, Vidal claims that, after consultation with Wyler and Boyd (but not Heston, who would have objected), he wrote one particular scene, where the estranged Ben-Hur and Messala meet again, with heavy gay subtext.
ellauri152.html on line 555: Haman had 365 counselors, 1/day, but the advice of none was so good as that of his wife, Zeresh. She induced Haman to build a tree for Mordechai, assuring him that this was the only way in which he would be able to prevail over his enemy, for hitherto the just had always been rescued from every other kind of death. As God foresaw that Haman himself would be hanged on some tree, He asked which tree would volunteer to serve as the instrument of death. Each tree, declaring that it was used for some holy purpose, objected to being soiled by the unclean body of Haman. Only the thorn-tree could find no excuse, and therefore offered itself for a tree (Esther Rabbah 9; Midrash Abba Gorion 7 (ed. Buber, Wilna, 1886); in Targum Sheni this is narrated somewhat differently).
ellauri159.html on line 803: In 2004, he published The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories, a Jungian-influenced analysis of stories andń their psychological meaning, on which he had been working for over 30 years. The book was dismissed by Adam Mars-Jones, who objected to Booker employing his generalisations about conventional plot structures prescriptively: "He sets up criteria for art, and ends up condemning Rigoletto, The Cherry Orchard, Wagner, Proust, Joyce, Kafka and Lawrence – the list goes on – while praising Crocodile Dundee, ET and Terminator 2".
ellauri172.html on line 256: It may be objected, if man does not act from free will, what will happen if the incentives to action are equally balanced, as in the case of Buridan's ass? I am quite ready to admit, that a man placed in the equilibrium described (namely, as perceiving nothing but hunger and thirst, a certain food and a certain drink, each equally distant from him) would die of hunger and thirst. If I am asked, whether such a one should not rather be considered an ass than a man; I answer, that I do not know, neither do I know how a man should be considered, who hangs himself, or how we should consider children, fools, madmen, &c. Hyvä Pentti!
ellauri236.html on line 200: The thing that the ordinary reader ought to have objected to — almost certainly would have objected to, a few decades earlier — was the equivocal attitude towards crime. It is implied throughout No Orchids that being a criminal is only reprehensible in the sense that it does not pay. Being a policeman pays better, but there is no moral difference, since the police use essentially criminal methods. In a book like He Won't Need It Now the distinction between crime and crime-prevention practically disappears. This is a new departure for English sensational fiction, in which till recently there has always been a sharp distinction between right and wrong and a general agreement that virtue must triumph in the last chapter. English books glorifying crime (modern crime, that is — pirates and highwaymen are different) are very rare. Even a book like Raffles, as I have pointed out, is governed by powerful taboos, and it is clearly understood that Raffles's crimes must be expiated sooner or later. In America, both in life and fiction, the tendency to tolerate crime, even to admire the criminal so long as he is success, is very much more marked. It is, indeed, ultimately this attitude that has made it possible for crime to flourish upon so huge a scale. Books have been written about Al Capone that are hardly different in tone from the books written about Henry Ford, Stalin, Lord Northcliffe and all the rest of the ‘log cabin to White House’ brigade. And switching back eighty years, one finds Mark Twain adopting much the same attitude towards the disgusting bandit Slade, hero of twenty-eight murders, and towards the Western desperadoes generally. They were successful, they ‘made good’, therefore he admired them.
ellauri236.html on line 202: In a book like No Orchids one is not, as in the old-style crime story, simply escaping from dull reality into an imaginary world of action. One's escape is essentially into cruelty and sexual perversion. No Orchids is aimed at the power-instinct, which Raffles or the Sherlock Holmes stories are not. At the same time the English attitude towards crime is not so superior to the American as I may have seemed to imply. It too is mixed up with power-worship, and has become more noticeably so in the last twenty years. A writer who is worth examining is Edgar Wallace, especially in such typical books as The Orator and the Mr. J. G. Reeder stories. Wallace was one of the first crime-story writers to break away from the old tradition of the private detective and make his central figure a Scotland Yard official. Sherlock Holmes is an amateur, solving his problems without the help and even, in the earlier stories, against the opposition of the police. Moreover, like Lupin, he is essentially an intellectual, even a scientist. He reasons logically from observed fact, and his intellectuality is constantly contrasted with the routine methods of the police. Wallace objected strongly to this slur, as he considered it, on Scotland Yard, and in several newspaper articles he went out of his way to denounce Holmes by name. His own ideal was the detective-inspector who catches criminals not because he is intellectually brilliant but because he is part of an all-powerful organization. Hence the curious fact that in Wallace's most characteristic stories the ‘clue’ and the ‘deduction’ play no part. The criminal is always defeated by an incredible coincidence, or because in some unexplained manner the police know all about the crime beforehand. The tone of the stories makes it quite clear that Wallace's admiration for the police is pure bully-worship. A Scotland Yard detective is the most powerful kind of being that he can imagine, while the criminal figures in his mind as an outlaw against whom anything is permissible, like the condemned slaves in the Roman arena. His policemen behave much more brutally than British policemen do in real life — they hit people with out provocation, fire revolvers past their ears to terrify them and so on — and some of the stories exhibit a fearful intellectual sadism. (For instance, Wallace likes to arrange things so that the villain is hanged on the same day as the heroine is married.) But it is sadism after the English fashion: that is to say, it is unconscious, there is not overtly any sex in it, and it keeps within the bounds of the law. The British public tolerates a harsh criminal law and gets a kick out of monstrously unfair murder trials: but still that is better, on any account, than tolerating or admiring crime. If one must worship a bully, it is better that he should be a policeman than a gangster. Wallace is still governed to some extent by the concept of ‘not done’. In No Orchids anything is ‘done’ so long as it leads on to power. All the barriers are down, all the motives are out in the open. Chase is a worse symptom than Wallace, to the extent that all-in wrestling is worse than boxing, or Fascism is worse than capitalist democracy.
ellauri240.html on line 124: Vang Pao has been widely portrayed by his Hmong supporters and the US media as an American war hero and venerated leader of the Hmong people. The former CIA chief William Colby once called him "the biggest hero of the Vietnam war". He came very close to having a park in Madison City, Wisconsin, named after him in 2002. But McCoy objected to the honouring of a man who had ordered the summary executions of prisoners and soldiers who crossed him, and accused Vang Pao of war crimes and heroin-trafficking. Five years later, Vang Pao's name was removed from a new school in Madison after opponents said it should not bear the name of a man with such a blood-stained history.
ellauri244.html on line 593: Here in my opinion is the only imaginative prose-writer of the slightest value who has appeared among the English-speaking races for some years past. Even if that is objected to as an overstatement (there is me, after all), it will probably be admitted that Miller is a writer out of the ordinary, worth more than a single glance; and after all, he is a completely negative, unconstructive, amoral writer, a mere Jonah, a passive acceptor of evil, a sort of Whitman among the corpses. Paizi Whatman oli peräreikämiehiä.
ellauri245.html on line 675: Jonas Gahr Støre, Norway´s Foreign Minister said: "I strongly react to the death sentence of two Norwegians ... Norway is a principled opponent of the death penalty and I will contact the DRC's foreign minister to gabble about this." According to Bloomberg.com "Norway also objected to the espionage conviction and the inclusion of the country in the fine, Stoere [sic] said. 'Norway isn't a part of this case.'" Sick. It is more than obvious that she was.
ellauri262.html on line 405: The critic Sean Latham has defended Sayers, arguing that Wilson and Leavis simply objected to a detective story writer having pretensions beyond what they saw as her role of popular culture "hack". Latham says that, in their eyes, "Sayers' primary crime lay in her attempt to transform the detective novel into something other than an ephemeral bit of popular culture".
ellauri333.html on line 364: His thesis was on "The problem of the rupee: Its origin and its solution". He worked as a private tutor, as an accountant, and established an investment consulting business, but it failed when his clients learned that he was an untouchable. In 1918, he became professor of political economy in the Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai. Although he was successful with the students, other professors objected to his sharing a drinking-water jug with them.
ellauri369.html on line 381: According to Rodger L. Tarbaby, "The influence of Sartor Resartus upon American Literature is so vast, so pervasive, that it is difficult to overstate." Tarr notes its influence on such leading American writers as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emily Dickinson, Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville, Margaret Fuller, Louisa May Alcott and Mark Twain (Nathaniel Hawthorne and Edgar Allan Poe were among those that read and objected to the book).
xxx/ellauri103.html on line 252: In fact, I’m reminded of a letter I received in relation to my seventh novel from an Armenian-American who objected – why did I have to make the narrator of We Need to Talk About Kevin Armenian? He didn’t like my narrator, and felt that her ethnicity disparaged his community. I took pains to explain that I knew something about Armenian heritage, because my best friend in the States was Armenian, and I also thought there was something dark and aggrieved in the culture of the Armenian diaspora that was atmospherically germane to that book. Besides, I despaired, everyone in the US has an ethnic background of some sort, and she had to be something! Joe Biden has finally admitted that the Armenian genocide was a genocide and not just an unusually bad case of flu. I am not convinced of it yet.
xxx/ellauri261.html on line 658: In his book Mere Christianity, the apologist C. S. Lewis, creator of Narnia and writer of fascinating scifi books in Portuguese about Mars and Venus*, objected to Hamilton´s version of Christian atheism and the claim that Jesus was merely a moral guide:

xxx/ellauri394.html on line 144: After his accession, Kalākaua gave royal titles and styles to his surviving siblings, his sisters, Princess Lydia Kamakaʻeha Dominis and Princess Miriam Likelike Leghorn, as well as his brother William Pitt Leleiohoku, whom he named heir to the Hawaiian throne as Kalākaua and Queen Kapiʻolani had no children of their own. Leleiohoku died without an heir in 1877. Leleiohoku's hānai (adoptive) mother, Ruth Keʻelikōlani, wanted to be named heir, but the king's cabinet ministers objected as that would place Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Ruth's first cousin, next in line. This would put the Kamehamehas back in succession to the throne again, which Kalākaua did not wish. On top of that, Kalākaua's court genealogists had already cast doubt on Ruth's direct lineage, and in doing so placed doubt on Bernice's. At noon on April 10, Liliʻuokalani became the newly designated heir apparent to the throne of Hawaii. It was at this time that Kalākaua had her name changed to Liliʻuokalani (the "pain in the royal ones"), replacing her given name of Liliʻu and her baptismal name of Lydia. (Lydiahan oli se ämmä Paavalin possessa.) In 1878, Liliʻuokalani and Dominis sailed to California for her health. They stayed in San Francisco and Sacramento where she visited the Crocker Art Museum! Wauzi wauz.
xxx/ellauri417.html on line 233: guy objected to what he saw as scientism, fanaticism and
21