Podcasts about galsworthy

In this conversation, Karmen and Katie Galsworthy discuss the relationship between nutrition, psychology, and body image. Katie shares her personal struggle with food and how she found a better relationship with her own body. They dive in on the importance of listening to your body's needs, distinguishing between emotional and physical hunger, and giving yourself permission to indulge in foods that bring you comfort to prevent bingeing and build a more balanced approach to eating. They also highlight the negative effects of diet culture and the power of finding out what you truly want out of life and yourself. Diet culture and societal pressures can be strong, but restrictive mindsets don't help anyone and intuitive nutrition is key. When in doubt, give your body the microphone. Connect with Katie:IG: @foodfreedomwithkatieAnge, Katie's coach: @ange.afterglowConnect with Karmen and A Line:aline-online.comIG: @alineboutique@karmenberentsenYouTube: A Line BoutiqueTikTok: @a_line_boutiqueCheck out Karmen's memoir Learning to Fly, here.https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Fly-Memoir-Karmen-Berentsen/dp/1735235008

Summary

Joyce, Proust, Woolf och Eliot präglar modernismens gyllene år 1922. Men allt fokus på detta år har varit skadligt och gjort litteraturen mindre än vad den är, menar litteraturvetaren Paul Tenngart. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Det är ett välkänt faktum att flera av huvudfigurerna under modernismens viktigaste år, 1922, aldrig fick Nobelpriset i litteratur: James Joyce, Marcel Proust och Virginia Woolf – alla saknas de på listan över stockholmsprisade världsförfattare. Det är väl egentligen bara T.S. Eliot som både bidrog till de legendariska litterära experimenten 1922 och belönades av Svenska Akademien, även om han fick vänta i tjugofem år efter det att The Waste Land publicerades innan han fick priset 1948.Dessa luckor har gett upphov till stark kritik genom årens lopp, ibland rentav föraktfullt hån. Oförmågan att belöna Joyce, Proust och Woolf har setts som belägg för att Svenska Akademien är en inskränkt och obsolet sammanslutning långt ute – eller långt uppe – i den kulturella och geografiska periferin som aldrig borde ha fått uppdraget att dela ut världens viktigaste litterära pris.Vem var det då som fick Nobelpriset 1922? Jo, det gick förstås inte till någon modernist, utan till ett av de idag allra mest bortglömda författarskapen i prisets historia, den spanske dramatikern Jacinto Benavente. Benaventes realistiska dramatik förhåller sig på ett direkt sätt till samtidens sociala frågor och strävar efter en naturlig, icke-teatral dialog. Författarskapet ligger med andra ord långt ifrån högmodernismens eruption av formella experiment.Den litteraturhistoria som Nobelpriserna tecknar är en annan än den vanliga. Men det innebär inte att den är felaktig eller destruktiv. Tvärtom: Nobelprisets parallella historia ger ett lika uppfriskande som konstruktivt – ja, kanske rentav nödvändigt relativiserande – alternativ till den litteraturhistoriska normen.Det är ju faktiskt inte givet att den litteratur som Joyce, Proust, Woolf och Eliot producerade 1922 är bättre än all annan litteratur. Litterära värden är ju knappast naturgivna. Det blir inte minst tydligt när man tittar på vilka Nobelpris som har hyllats och vilka som har kritiserats genom åren. Beslutet att ge schweizaren Carl Spitteler 1919 års pris har i efterhand kritiserats i flera omgångar av internationella bedömare. Men på åttiotalet framstod detta överraskande val som ett av Svenska Akademiens allra bästa. Ett av de pris som de flesta har tyckt om men som enstaka kritiker har fnyst åt är T.S. Eliots. ”Framtiden kommer att skratta”, menade litteraturprofessorn Henri Peyre från Yale University 1951, ”åt det brist på perspektiv i vår tid som gör att vi uppfattar Eliot som en litterär talang av högsta rang.”Den västeuropeiska modernismen – med året 1922 som kronologiskt epicentrum – har under en lång tid lagt sig som en gigantisk blöt filt över hela den internationella litteraturhistorieskrivningen. Vad som hände under det tidiga 20-talet i Paris och London har blivit en grundmurad norm: då och där skrevs det bästa av det bästa. Aldrig tidigare och aldrig senare har litteraturen varit så modern. Hmm.Som inget annat år i världshistorien har universitetskurser och läroböcker tjatat sönder 1922 och dess litterära utgivning. Denna historieskrivning är inte bara slö och slentrianmässig, den är också ordentligt förminskande av en hel modern världshistoria där det skrivits litteratur på alla platser, på alla språk och i alla genrer.Denna kronologiska normativitet har också med all önskvärd tydlighet hjälpt till att gång på gång bekräfta och upprätthålla den västerländska kulturella hegemonin. Som den franska världslitteraturforskaren Pascale Casanova skriver: Västeuropa och USA har kommit att äga det moderna. Moderniteten har kommit att definieras som västerländsk, och det som definierats som modernt har betraktats som per definition bra. De få texter och författarskap som lyfts in i den moderna världslitteraturen från andra delar av världen har fått sin plats där för att de påminner om fransk, brittisk eller amerikansk modernism.Den här normativa litteraturhistorieskrivningen ger också en väldigt sned uppfattning om hur litteratur existerar i världen, och hur den utvecklas och förändras. Det var ju knappast så att läsarna 1922 hängde på låsen till bokhandlarna för att skaffa Joyces nya 900-sidiga experiment Ulysses och T.S. Eliots notförsedda friversdikt The Waste Land så fort dessa texter anlände från trycket. Nä, 1922 var de flesta läsande människor upptagna med andra författare, till exempel sådana som fick Nobelpriset under den perioden: den franske sedesskildraren Anatole France, den norska författaren till historiska romaner Sigrid Undset eller den italienska skildraren av sardiniskt folkliv Grazia Deledda.Än mer brett tilltalande var den litteratur som prisades på trettiotalet, då många kritiker i efterhand har tyckt att Svenska Akademien borde ha kunnat ha vett och tidskänsla nog att ge de inte helt lättillgängliga modernisterna Paul Valéry eller John Dos Passos priset. Då belönades istället Forsythe-sagans skapare John Galsworthy, då fick Roger Martin du Gard priset för sin stora realistiska romansvit om familjen Thibault, och då belönades Erik Axel Karlfeldt – som inte var någon gigant ute i världen, det medges, men mycket omtyckt av många svenska läsare.Det är också under den här tiden som det mest hånade av alla litterära Nobelpris delas ut, till Pearl S. Buck. Men Buck har fått en renässans på senare år. Hon var visserligen från USA, men levde stora delar av sitt liv i Kina och förde med sina lantlivsskildringar in det stora landet i öster i den prisvinnande litteraturen. Och i sin motivering lyfte Nobelkommittéen fram just dessa världsvidgande egenskaper: den amerikanska författarens romaner är ”avgjort märkliga genom äkthet och rikedom i skildringen och sällsynt kunskap och insikt i en för västerländska läsare föga känd och mycket svårtillgänglig värld”. Buck ger inblick i nya kulturella sammanhang, berikar den kulturellt sett högst begränsade västerländska litteraturen med motiv och tematik från en mångtusenårig kultur med en minst lika gedigen litterär tradition som den europeiska.Vad hade hänt om Nobelpriset istället hade gett postuma pris till Rainer Maria Rilke och Marcel Proust, och hunnit belöna Joyce och Woolf innan de dog i början av fyrtiotalet? Rilke, Proust, Joyce och Woolf hade ju knappast kunnat vara större och mer centrala än de redan är. Ingen skillnad där alltså. Men det hade varit mycket svårare för oss att hitta fram till Buck, du Gard, Galsworthy, Deledda, France – och till 1922 års stora litterära namn när det begav sig: Jacinto Benavente. Utan pris hade de alla varit helt undanskymda, osynliga, bortglömda. Nu ser vi dem fortfarande, tack vare den alternativa historieskrivning som Nobelprisets löpande och oåterkalleliga kanonisering skapar. Paul Tenngart, litteraturvetare och författareModernismåret 192227.1 Kafka påbörjar "Slottet".2.2 James Joyces "Ulysses" publiceras.Rainer Maria Rilke får feeling. På tre veckor skriver han hela "Sonetterna till Orfeus" samt avslutar "Duino-elegierna".18.5 Proust, Joyce, Stravinsky, Picasso, Satie med flera äter middag.18.10 BBC Startar26.10 Virginia Woolfs "Jacob's room" publiceras.18.11 Proust dör.15.12 T S Eliots "The waste land" utkommer i bokform.Andra händelser: Karin Boyes debutdiktsamling "Moln" utkommer; Katherine Mansfields "The garden party and other stories" publiceras; Birger Sjöbergs "Fridas bok" utkommer; F Scott Fitzgerald har ett produktivt år (det är också under 1922 som "Den store Gatsby", publicerad 1925, utspelar sig); Prousts "På spaning efter den tid som flytt" börjar publiceras på engelska; i december blir Hemingways portfölj med flera års skrivande stulen på Gare de Lyon.FototVirginina Woolf: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virginia_Woolf_1927.jpgJame Joyce: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Joyce_by_Alex_Ehrenzweig,_1915_cropped.jpgT S Eliot:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T_S_Elliot_-_Mar_1923_Shadowland.jpg

Last time we spoke about the assassination of Kim Ok-kyun and the Donhak Rebellion. Conflicts between China and Japan had heated up to the boiling point at last. The pro Japanese politician Kim Ok-kyun was assassinated serving also as an insult towards Japan. The Beiyang Fleet's visit to Nagasaki resulted in embarrassment and an awkward threat for Japan. Japan was not happy with the SINO situation and actively began building her navy to have the capability of facing off against the Beiyang fleet. Then a violent rebellion of the Donghak faith emerged in Korea prompting a very panicked King Gojong to call upon his Qing allies for aid. The Qing took up the call for help and although it differs from source to source, did or did not notify the Japanese of their actions. Regardless, both China and Japan prepared forces that would embark for Korea. The chess pieces were on the board and now things were set into motion that could not be undone.   #49 The First Sino-Japanese War of 1898-1895 Part 1: The Battle of Pungdo   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. The Tonghak rebels can be seen more as a symptom than a disease of the ailing Joseon dynasty. She was a nation stuck between two tigers, two tigers who were both trying to eat her. The turmoil of the later half of the 19th century was tearing Korea apart. Her citizens were forced into this quasi black and white choice between China or Japan, particularly when it came to the topic of modernization. The Tonghak followers were rallying against a tyrannical government who were overtaxing them. Major revolts occurred in 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892 and 1893. By February of 1894 the unrest rose dramatically and in April the Tonghaks were in a full scale open rebellion. The target of their hatred were the corrupt officials oppressing them through over taxation and incompetency. But one thing that is funny about the Tonghak story, one that is almost never mentioned, is rumors spread to the Tonghaks that China and Japan were on the verge of sending troops and this prompted them on June 1st to agree to a cease-fire to remove the possibility of foreign intervention. Well that should have been the end of our story, China and Japan keep their boys home and the 3 nations lived happily ever after? On June 2nd, the Japanese cabinet decided to send troops to Korea, if China did so, they also made sure to muzzle any political opposition by asking the emperor to dissolve the lower chamber of the diet. We have the official documentation to back this, thus if China did not send troops, Japan would not have a justification to send there's, however a problem arose. The next day, King Gojong on the recommendation of the Min clan and Yuang Shikai, requested China send troops to help suppress the rebellion. King Gojong had thus unwittingly given the hawkish Japanese military leaders the pretext they desired for so long, another chance to intervene in Korea on a large scale. Why did the Min clan push King Gojong to do this despite the Tonghak basically calling a truce? Turns out the Tonghak's were particularly targeting the Min clan and their allies and there were rumors they had contact with the Daewongun. Within a few days Japan is on a military footing. On June 5th the first IJA HQ is established and on the 6th the ministries of the IJA and IJN issued instructions to the press not to print any information concerning warlike operations, they mean business. Despite this many Japanese news outlets ignore the order, leading to countless being suspended for a day. Now again the sources are sticky with how this part goes down, but on June 7th, China notified Japan in accordance with the Treaty of Tianjin. The notification states that China is sending 2000 troops to Nanyang, which is located on the coast between Seoul and Asan. Within hours of receiving the notification, Japan sends its own notice to China that it is also sending troops, which is in line with the treaty. Also at this same time the Asahi Shinbun reports that Russia is sending ground forces and warships to Korea. It seems the Asahi Shinbun made this report largely to compare the actions of Japan and China to a western power, alongside noting how much Japan had modernized. Remember, Japan's Meiji restoration began exclusively as a means to thwart colonization, but by this point Japan now seeks to become a world power. Japan is emulating the greatest nations of the world, and the actions she will take for the following years certainly emphasize that. Within days, 2000 Japanese IJA forces have landed and are marching towards Seoul despite the Korean government pleading for them to refrain from sending forces. It is far too late however, the troops are arriving and it seems Japan was prepared well in advance to do this. In accordance with the treaty of Tianjin, the end of the rebellion meant that China and Japan no longer had legitimate grounds to send forces and should have withdrawn. But Japan began making claims their troop deployment was necessary for the protection of their embassy, consulates and citizens within Korea. Now by the 8th, 4000 Japanese soldiers and 500 sailors have landed at Jemulpo, current day Incheon. A public ceasefire acknowledge for the Donghak rebellion is issued on the 11th, though it is already known days before. The harbor of Incheon looks like its participating in an international naval show. On the 13th 9 IJN warships and transports along with 4 Beiyang warships are anchored there. Alongside them are an assortment of international ships from nations like Russia, Britain, France and America. Also on the 13th the Japanese government sends a telegraph to the commander of Japanese forces in Korea, Otori Keisuke to keep the forces within Korea for as long as possible despite the public announcement that the Donghak rebellion is over. On the 15th another 8 more Japanese transports arrive with 6000 troops disembarked. On the 16th Japanese foreign minister Mutsu Munemistu meets with the Qing ambassador to Japan, Wang Fengzao to discuss the future status of Korea. Wang states the Qing government intends to pull out of Korea once the Donghak rebellion is fully suppressed and expects Japan to do the same. But he also acknowledges that China will retain a resident to look after Chinese primacy in Korea, ie: Mr Yuan Shikai. Soon there are 10 IJN warships actively patrolling Korean waters and on the 18th the ministry of the IJN issues new naval fleet regulations. On the other side, Li Hongzhang is trying desperately to avoid war and maintain stable relations with Japan. He has been spending years doing this, trying to get other Western powers to take a more active role in Korea to thwart Japan's ambitions over her. During this period and even in the upcoming war, Li Hongzhang continues to try and involve western powers to end the conflict. When King Gojong pleaded for help, Li Hongzhang made sure the troops would not go directly to Seoul, which he knew would upset Japan. The troops instead went to Nanyang and Asan where they could hit the Donghak before they marched northwards from Cholla upon Seoul. Li Hongzhang had hoped by doing this, the Japanese would choose not to become involved, but he was gravely wrong. Once Japan began sending troops, Li proposed to the Japanese that both nations should agree to withdraw. On the 16th Japan made a counterproposal, stating China and Japan should cooperate in assisting Korea to undertake the major steps to promote modernization. However it was obvious to all, Japan sought to promote economic development in Korea for its own interests, to obtain Korean grain at cheap prices. Thus Japan's proposal was refused. On the 22nd Prime Minister Ito Hirobumi told his fellow politician colleague Matsukata Masayoshi, he believed the Qing empire was making military preparations and that “there is probably no policy but to go to war”. Mutsu Munemitsu likewise sends word to Otori Keisuke to press the Korean government on Japanese demands. On the 26nd Otori presents a set of reform proposal to King Gojong, but instead of accepting them, he insists on troop withdrawals. At about this time, Yuan Shikai see's the paint on the wall and on the 27th requests permission from Li Hongzhang to return to China. However Li Hongzhang only sent a response 20 days later granting it. On July 19th, Yuan Shikai would disguise himself as a Chinese servant of a Russian military attache and flee Seoul for Peking. In the later half of June, Japanese newspapers are ramping things up. The Japan Weekly Mail read this “It is apparent that the restless energies of the people yearn for employment in a foreign war”, a week later “The Tokyo journals unite in urging upon the Government the importance of utilizing the present opportunity for wiping away the stain left on the national honor by th fatal error of 1884”. The bitter lesson learnt from 1884, next time bring more men. Such news articles were working wonders as during the last week of June, Japanese public petitions from multiple prefectures were requesting permission to raise troops. In early July an imperial ordinance established extraordinary powers to regulate the sale of goods with military applications raising public concern. By the third week of july, the “Korean question” was the only thing in the Japanese press and the Japan Weekly Mail predicted “It now looks as though war is inevitable”. Indeed on July 7th the British ambassador to China openly acknowledged the mediation between China and Japan had failed. Now initially China just sent 2-3 thousand forces, while Japan matched them with 8000, these are the numbers they are reporting officially, the real numbers for both are much higher. Regardless, once the fighting begins, both sides toss troops into Korea at such a high rate it was hard for people to keep actual figures. Now Li Hongzhang made no war preparation attempts to match the increasing Japanese numbers coming into Korea. His strategy remained to avoid hostilities. He hoped to secure European intervention to rein in the Japanese, this was his primary strategy. Li Hongzhang was the commander of the Qing's most modern military force and had a considerable amount of knowledge about Japan because of his role as a diplomat. He knew the Qing forces were no match for the IJA, for that there is no doubt. Li worked like a mad dog to push European powers to rescue the Korea situation, but he had overestimated their willingness to intervene and to be honest their disgust with the Qing political situation. Li Hongzhang seems to have misread the political situation in Japan as well. Many Chinese officials in Japan were feeding reports back to China about feuding between the Diet and Cabinet and their conclusions were that the political divisions would most likely prevent Japan from launching an effective military campaign. Its sort of interesting they came to such conclusions, as it may have been more of a understanding of their own Chinese political situation rather than Japan. The Manchu-Han division was indeed hampering Chinese foreign policy for example, but Japan shared a national identity, it was a case of apples and oranges. Li Hongzhang first turned to Russia for help in mid June, but it came to nothing. Britain made an effort, but failed. Italy tried mediation and like Britain failed. King Gojong went to the Americans for help, but they were employing an isolationist policy at the time. Yes good old isolationist America, back in the ol days.  Now when the Japanese made their counter proposal and the Qing declined it on June 21st, Japan responded by stating they did not intend to withdraw from Korea until their reforms were implemented. Li responded “On the approach of the Chinese forces the insurgents [Tonghaks] dispersed. China now desires to withdraw, but Japan refuses to evacuate simultaneously with China, and proposes a joint occupation, the administration of Korean finances, and the introduction of reforms. These are tasks which China cannot accept." The reality of the matte for the Japanese government was that the current Korean situation did not meet her national security interests nor her economic ones. As Japan poured her troops into Korea, her politicians also put relentless pressure on King Gojong to implement their desired reforms. The Korean government unsuccessfully tried to convince Japan that they would adopt the reforms if they withdrew their troops.  On July 22nd, the Japanese received word, Li Hongzhang had overcome domestic opposition with the Qing court and now large reinforcements were going to be sent to Korea. Though Li Hongzhang wanted to avoid hostilities, his hands were tied, if the Qing did retain a presence in Korea it would threaten the legitimacy of their Manchu dynasty. But in a typical Qing fashion, the troops were delayed and would not make it to Korea in time. Well the Japanese were done dancing with the Chinese and Korean, on the 23rd the IJA forces in Seoul suddenly stormed the Joseon royal palace and took King Gojong hostage. The New York Times had this to say "The Japanese have announced that they will hold the King of Corea as a hostage until the internal reforms demanded by Japan shall have been satisfactorily guaranteed." Well the Tonghak rebellion flared right back up and took rapid momentum, going from what was a regional event to a national uprising. The IJA were brutal in their suppression of the Tonghaks and this fueled the Korean public against them. Likewise the Qing were placed with their backs against the wall, if they did nothing about Japans seizure of King Gojong, they were basically giving up suzerainty over Korea. Japan's actions were obvious, they wanted war and they were going to get it. On the afternoon of the 23rd, with King Gojong in hand, the IJA began storming and disarming Korean garrisons in Seoul. By the end of the day the capital of Korea was in Japanese hands. The Japanese then recalled the Daewongun to oversee the Japanese style reform program. Yes the anti-foreign, isolationist icon ironically was chosen. The Daewongun always looking for an opportunity to regain power had little options laid bare to him so he took up the job, on the sole condition Japan refrain from annexing any Korean territory. That day the Daewongun met with King Gojong at the royal palace, they had not seen each other for nearly a decade. The father scolded his son for misrule and Gojong apologized requesting the Daewongun become regent again. I will add these sources are coming from Japan, I am sure it did not at all go down like this. Give the sort of feeling when you read about Hernan Cortez and Moctezuma II, if you know the sources for that one, well you know. The Daewongun went to work, immediately exiling the Min clan to some small islands and the new government renounced multiple treaties with the Qing dynasty, thus severing its tributary ties.  The Japanese backed reform program became known as the Kabo reform movement, which would go on from July 1894 to February 1896. It was not all bad to be honest, a lot of it was to create an efficient and honest government. Posts were given fixed responsibilities and salaries; a national budget was established; better tax structure; the military/judiciary and educational system were given overhauls and the nation's infrastructure was modernized rapidly. The most significant reform was taking away the Yangbang class monopoly on public offices, basically an end to the Chinese examination system. In a single stroke the Japanese had destroyed Korea's aristocracy, the elites were destroyed. As for the Daewongun, ever the plotter, he secretly envisioned a pincer movement on Seoul with the Tonghaks from the south and the Qing from the north. Unfortunately for him, the Japanese found out about this later on when they found documents containing such plans and this would lead later on to him being forced into retirement.  Li Hongzhang knew Qing forces were no match for the Japanese. Zhili, Shandong and the Fengtian provinces had around 40 battalions with 20,000 or so first-line action men and 20 battalions only fit for garrison duty. All of the rest were Green Standards who were pretty useless. And lets be honest, this series has shown the Green Standards to be …well nothing less than so. He faced around 50,000 Japanese to his estimates, and he concluded they would need to recruit 20-30 additional battalions which would set back the dynasty 2-3 million taels. William Ferdinand Tyler who served in the Beiyang northern squadron and witness the battles of Yali and Weihaiwei later on had this to say of Li's position "the Viceroy's game was merely bluff, not genuine defence; his army and navy were the equivalent of the terrifying masks which Eastern medieval soldiers wore to scare their enemy. He knew that if it came to actual blows he would stand but little chance; but he carried on his bluff so far that withdrawal was impossible, and the Empress Dowager urged him on - probably much against his will. And Japan 'saw him,' as they say in poker." Just about everyone believed China would stomp Japan however. British envoy to China, Sir Robert Hart embodied the worldview stating “999 out of every 1000 Chinese are sure big China can thrash little Japan”. But China was fractured realistically. Empress Dowager Cixi's authority over the dynasty was only held because it was fractured, she could not allow the nation to have a real unified government. Such a government would most certainly unify against her and the Manchu. To stay in power Cixi checked every possible rival, even Li Hongzhang. All of the internal turmoil undermined the Qing's ability to modernize its military and this also caused factional rivalries within the military. Cixi controlled the funds for the Qing navy and infamously siphoned naval funds for the renovation of the Summer Palace. Li Hongzhang could not do anything about this specific matter because he would lose favor with her, and her favor was all that kept his authority so he could deal with the conflict. Yet all these internal problems were non existent in the minds of the elites in China nor the western onlookers who simply believed China would give Japan a quick spanking, take this from the North China Herald  "the breaking out of war between China and Japan is only a question of days, perhaps of hours. The real reason for Japan's desire for war was "that the Japanese government prefers a foreign to a civil war. The discontent of the majority of the House of Representatives was getting serious...A foreign war, however, is expected to reunite the people; it is an outlet for the bad blood which has been accumulating of late years in the body politic."  While the Japanese were doing everything possible to stir up a war, Li Hongzhang was extremely careful to minimize the possibility of a clash. He ordered the Qing forces to encamp 80 miles to the south of Seoul around Asan. He was in contact with the Tonghak and indeed a pincer maneuver was agreed upon. The Qing forces took up a stance between Asan and Pyongyang and the Japanese realized it would be much easier to hit their reinforcements at sea rather than commence with a land offensive. On July 16th, when 8000 Qing forces arrived to Pyongyang, the Japanese sent Li Hongzhang an ultimatum, threatening to take action if any additional forces were sent to Korea. At the same time orders were given to General Oshima Yoshimasa leading the 9th brigade of the 5th division at Chemulpo and the commanders of IJN warships there to initiate military operations if any more Chinese troops were sent to Korea. Li Hongzhang suspected Japan was bluffing and therefore sent reinforcements to the commander at Asan, General Ye Zhichao, 2500 troops who left Dagu on 3 transports, the Irene, Fei Ching and Kowshing. The first two transports carrying 1300 of the troops left on the night of July 23rd with cruiser Jiyuan, torpedo boats Kwang-yi and Tsao-kiang as escort, they could also rely on the cruiser Weiyuan at port in Chemulpo for support. The two transports successfully landed their troops on the 24th. The IJN had deployed a component of their combined fleet to Korean waters by this point. The IJN sent 15 major warships and 7 torpedo boats under Vice Admiral Ito Sukeyuki from Sasebo to Gunsan on July 23rd. There was also the flying squadron of Rear Admiral Tsuboi Kozo who was dispatched to Chemulpo to aid the weak forced anchored there. At Chemulpo were the ships Yaeyama, Musashi and Oshima, while Tsuboi was bringing the cruisers Yoshino, Akitsushima and Naniwa. Tsuboi's task was to prevent any Qing landings. The, Captain Fang Boqian of the Jiyuan received word of the Japanese actions in Seoul and Chemulpo from the Weiyuan and on July 25 ordered the Irene and Fei Ching to head back to Dagu, while the Weiyuan would head for Weihaiwei to report to Admiral Ding Ruchang of the situation unfolding in Korea. However the third transport, the Kowshing was late, thus Fang Boqian decided to remain at Asan bay with cruiser Jiyuan and torpedo boat Kawng-yi to protect its landing.  On the morning of the 25th the Jiyuan and Kwang-yi departed Asan to meet up with the Kowshing and Tsao-kiang. Near the small island of Pundo the Qing vessels would run into the Tsuboi's squadron. Tsbuoi's had gone to Pungdo trying to rendezvous with the Yaeyama and Oshima. At around 6:40am, the Japanese spotted two warships heading south-west, these were the Jiyuan and Kawng-yi. Tsuboi guessed they were escorting Qing transports and went in to investigate. Captain Fang Boqian spotted the incoming Japanese warships, greatly alarmed by their appearance. He ordered the Qing ships to increase speed to escape and this prompted the Japanese to do the same. Yoshino headed the formation with Naniwa and Akitsushima behind, trying to outmaneuver the Qing and prevent their escape.  At 7:45am the Yoshino and Jiyuan were closing in around 3km from another, then at 7:52 Naniwa suddenly opened fire on the Jiyuan. After Naniwa, the Yoshina and Akitsushima began firing. Yoshina and Naniwa concentrated on Jiyuan while the Akitsushima fired upon the Kwang-yi which was around a km behind Jiyuan. The Qing ships returned fire, but the Japanese had distinctly taken the advantage by opening up first. The first shells hit Jiyuan's conning tower, demolishing it and severely damaged her steering mechanism. The second volley hit her forward barbette guns taking them out of action and soon shells were hitting her midship causing carnage and panic amongst her crew. Qing commanders had to quell the panic with their revolvers pointed at the gunners until they regained their composure and continued to fire upon the enemy. The Jiyuan made a dash for open sea as her crews tried to repair her steering mechanism. Meanwhile the Kwang-yi was hit at the offset of battle, the Akitsushima had fired a shell penetrating her hull below the waterline and damaging her boiler room. She rapidly took on water, prompting Captain Lin Kuohsiang to ordered her beached. Enveloped by fire, smoke and steam Kwang-yi turned southeast to beach along the shore while Naniwa began firing on her. Kwang-yi's crews quickly abandoned ship as the Naniwa shelled her ferociously causing numerous explosions and turning her into a fiery wreck. 37 of her crew died while 71 including captain Lin Kuohsiang swam to shore.  While the Kwang-yi was destroyed, the Japanese cruisers continued to pursue the Jiyuan which they caught up to at 8:10am. Yoshino and Naniwa were almost abeam of her prompting Captain Fang to prepare to surrender his warship, but then they all saw smoke from the horizon, two more warships were approaching Asan. It was the Kowshing and Tsao-Kiang. The Japanese immediately turned their attention to the new ships bolting towards them as the Jiyuan attempting sneakingaway. Upon spotting the Japanese coming at them, the Tsao-Kiang immediately turned around for Weihaiwei as the poor Kowshing continued slowly towards Asan. Upon seeing what Qing warships were before him, Tsuboi sent Naniwa over to investigate the Kowshing, Yoshino to hunt the Jiyuan and Akitsushima after the Tsao-Kiang. The Tsao-Kiang was caught by 11:37 and surrendered without a fight to the Akitsushima. At 12:05pm the Yoshino ran down the Jiyuan and began firing upon her from 2.5kms away. Captain Fang made daring move and steered his ship among some shoals, managing to escape the Yoshino who would not risk the dangerous waters. Meanwhile the Kowshing, which was a British vessel captained by Thomas Ryder Galsworthy chattered last minute by the Qing had no knowledge of the battle that had occurred. Galsworthy felt safe under the protection of the British civil ensign and just kept sailing. At 9am the Captain of the Naniwa, Captain Togo Heihachiro, yes the future legendary fleet admiral of the IJN combined fleet who would win the legendary battle of Tsushima ordered the Kowshing to follow him as he would escort it to the Japanese squadron. Galsworthy made a protest citing British neutrality, but complied nonetheless. The unfortunate issue, was the Qing soldiers on his ship who did not comply. The Qing soldiers began threatening to kill the crew if they continued to sail over with the Japanese. Galsworthy tried negotiating with the angry Qing soldiers, but when it became obvious they were in real danger he along with the British crew jumped overboard, swimming for the Naniwa. Allegedly, as the sources are Japanese mind you. The Qing soldiers began firing upon the British in the water killing all but Galsworthy and two other sailors who were rescued by the Naniwa. Upon seeing all of this, the Naniwa then opened fire on the Kowshing, completely obliterating her. Very few aboard managed to swim to safety. It was carnage. The Kowshing launched 2 lifeboats full of Qing soldiers which were fired upon by the Naniwa. 1100 Chinese died in what became known as the battle of Pungdo, 800 alone from the Kowshing. As a foreign commentator said of the event "It was truly a pitiable sight that such a number of officers [on the Kowshing], amongst whom were two generals, should not have sufficient military experience to understand the absurdity of attempting resistance in a merchant vessel against a powerful man-of-war.". The Japanese had damaged a cruiser, captured a gunboat and sank another. Something was noted by a reporter of the Japan weekly mail about the battle "the Chinese ships made a miserable fight. There seemed to be a problem with bad ammunition. The Qing had scored a hit, but  the shell had failed to explode and thus did no significant damage. It is suspected to be a result of bad equipment or careless inspection." For those of you who know about the first Sino-Japanese war, or perhaps just know the general history of Empress Dowager Cixi and the corruption of the late Qing dynasty, this is indeed one of the earliest pieces of evidence of what will be a large problem for the Qing Navy. The battle of Pungdo and sinking of the Kowshing would be soon followed by formal declarations of war. On August 1st, Japan declared war on China, stating Korea was an independent state and that China was trying to hold her as a dependency and had rejected Japan's offer to cooperate. Japan had to declare war because China had made “warlike preparations and sent large reinforcements and had opened fire on Japanese ships”. Sounds about right? There was no mention of Japanese much larger warlike preparations, the taking of King Gojong and the first shots being fired from IJN vessels. However the Japanese clearly were writing a declaration not aimed solely at China, but at the world powers, because the thing she coveted most was to join them of course. The declaration made in the name of Emperor Meiji used specific terms like “family of nations, law of nations, international treaties and such”. Japan was being very diplomatically minded. On the other side, Emperor Guangxi on the same day Japan declared ware made the formal declaration of war against Japan and did so by calling the Japanese “Woren” multiple times in the declaration. The declaration showed disdain for the Japanese, and to even make a point the Qing had it translated in English specifically referencing what Woren meant haha. The declaration wreaked of the traditional way the Qing spoke of those they considered inferior and showcased to the world powers, China had not changed much.  The world's press still remained certain, Japan would be crushed by big China. On July 24th, the Times of London predicted China would win because of her size, population and that time was on her side. British advisor to the Qing military, William Lang was interviewed by Reuters and predicted the Japanese would lose. Lang thought that the Chinese navy was well-drilled, the ships were fit, the artillery was at least adequate, and the coastal forts were strong. Weihaiwei “ was impregnable. Although Lang emphasized that everything depended on how China's forces were led, he had faith that 'in the end, there is no doubt that Japan must be utterly crushed'. Only time would tell. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. It seems despite all the efforts, war has finally broken out amongst the siblings of China and Japan. The world seemed convinced big brother would defeat little brother, but little did they know how wrong they would be.

The Fugitive: A Play in Four Acts

The Pigeon: A Fantasy in Three Acts

Data Mesh Radio Patreon - get access to interviews well before they are releasedEpisode list and links to all available episode transcripts (most interviews from #32 on) hereProvided as a free resource by DataStax AstraDB; George Trujillo's contact info: email (george.trujillo@datastax.com) and LinkedInTranscript for this episode (link) provided by Starburst. See their Data Mesh Summit recordings here and their great data mesh resource center here. You can download their Data Mesh for Dummies e-book (info gated) here.Data Mesh Radio is hosted by Scott Hirleman. If you want to connect with Scott, reach out to him at community at datameshlearning.com or on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scotthirleman/If you want to learn more and/or join the Data Mesh Learning Community, see here: https://datameshlearning.com/community/If you want to be a guest or give feedback (suggestions for topics, comments, etc.), please see hereAll music used this episode was found on PixaBay and was created by (including slight edits by Scott Hirleman): Lesfm, MondayHopes, SergeQuadrado, ItsWatR, Lexin_Music, and/or nevesfData Mesh Radio is brought to you as a community resource by DataStax. Check out their high-scale, multi-region database offering (w/ lots of great APIs) and use code DAAP500 for a free $500 credit (apply under "add payment"): AstraDB

‘The Descent of Money: Literature, Inheritance, and Trust in Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth (1905) and John Galsworthy's The Man of Property (1906)'Rob Hawkes' paper argues that Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth (1905) and John Galsworthy's The Man of Property (1906) foreground, interrogate and enact questions of trust, both in their engagements with and departures from literary realism/naturalism and in their preoccupations with the value and power of money. Wharton's novel is saturated with the language of costs, payments, investments, and debts, while the first of Galsworthy's Forsyte novels presents ‘Forsyteism' as an inescapable set of hereditary traits. Both texts, furthermore, implicitly associate money with nature and imagine a ‘sense of property' as inherited in more ways than one, whilst simultaneously offering glimpses of a different understanding of money altogether: one that reveals surprising connections between literature, money, and trust.Visit our Patreon page here: https://www.patreon.com/MoLsuperstructure

In this episode, Jason Foster talks to Stephen Galsworthy, Head of Data at TomTom, a leading provider of mapping and location technology. They discuss the gradual integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into data products to create a better user experience, how TomTom navigated the shift from hardware to software and AI, and the challenges associated with integrating AI with data. Stephen also shares his brilliant journey in data & analytics, his extensive experience leading data science teams since 2011 and how to align a data team depending on the maturity of the business.

Joyce, Proust, Woolf och Eliot präglar modernismens gyllene år 1922. Men allt fokus på detta år har varit skadligt och gjort litteraturen mindre än vad den är, menar litteraturvetaren Paul Tenngart. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Det är ett välkänt faktum att flera av huvudfigurerna under modernismens viktigaste år, 1922, aldrig fick Nobelpriset i litteratur: James Joyce, Marcel Proust och Virginia Woolf alla saknas de på listan över stockholmsprisade världsförfattare. Det är väl egentligen bara T.S. Eliot som både bidrog till de legendariska litterära experimenten 1922 och belönades av Svenska Akademien, även om han fick vänta i tjugofem år efter det att The Waste Land publicerades innan han fick priset 1948.Dessa luckor har gett upphov till stark kritik genom årens lopp, ibland rentav föraktfullt hån. Oförmågan att belöna Joyce, Proust och Woolf har setts som belägg för att Svenska Akademien är en inskränkt och obsolet sammanslutning långt ute eller långt uppe i den kulturella och geografiska periferin som aldrig borde ha fått uppdraget att dela ut världens viktigaste litterära pris.Vem var det då som fick Nobelpriset 1922? Jo, det gick förstås inte till någon modernist, utan till ett av de idag allra mest bortglömda författarskapen i prisets historia, den spanske dramatikern Jacinto Benavente. Benaventes realistiska dramatik förhåller sig på ett direkt sätt till samtidens sociala frågor och strävar efter en naturlig, icke-teatral dialog. Författarskapet ligger med andra ord långt ifrån högmodernismens eruption av formella experiment.Den litteraturhistoria som Nobelpriserna tecknar är en annan än den vanliga. Men det innebär inte att den är felaktig eller destruktiv. Tvärtom: Nobelprisets parallella historia ger ett lika uppfriskande som konstruktivt ja, kanske rentav nödvändigt relativiserande alternativ till den litteraturhistoriska normen.Det är ju faktiskt inte givet att den litteratur som Joyce, Proust, Woolf och Eliot producerade 1922 är bättre än all annan litteratur. Litterära värden är ju knappast naturgivna. Det blir inte minst tydligt när man tittar på vilka Nobelpris som har hyllats och vilka som har kritiserats genom åren. Beslutet att ge schweizaren Carl Spitteler 1919 års pris har i efterhand kritiserats i flera omgångar av internationella bedömare. Men på åttiotalet framstod detta överraskande val som ett av Svenska Akademiens allra bästa. Ett av de pris som de flesta har tyckt om men som enstaka kritiker har fnyst åt är T.S. Eliots. Framtiden kommer att skratta, menade litteraturprofessorn Henri Peyre från Yale University 1951, åt det brist på perspektiv i vår tid som gör att vi uppfattar Eliot som en litterär talang av högsta rang.Den västeuropeiska modernismen med året 1922 som kronologiskt epicentrum har under en lång tid lagt sig som en gigantisk blöt filt över hela den internationella litteraturhistorieskrivningen. Vad som hände under det tidiga 20-talet i Paris och London har blivit en grundmurad norm: då och där skrevs det bästa av det bästa. Aldrig tidigare och aldrig senare har litteraturen varit så modern. Hmm.Som inget annat år i världshistorien har universitetskurser och läroböcker tjatat sönder 1922 och dess litterära utgivning. Denna historieskrivning är inte bara slö och slentrianmässig, den är också ordentligt förminskande av en hel modern världshistoria där det skrivits litteratur på alla platser, på alla språk och i alla genrer.Denna kronologiska normativitet har också med all önskvärd tydlighet hjälpt till att gång på gång bekräfta och upprätthålla den västerländska kulturella hegemonin. Som den franska världslitteraturforskaren Pascale Casanova skriver: Västeuropa och USA har kommit att äga det moderna. Moderniteten har kommit att definieras som västerländsk, och det som definierats som modernt har betraktats som per definition bra. De få texter och författarskap som lyfts in i den moderna världslitteraturen från andra delar av världen har fått sin plats där för att de påminner om fransk, brittisk eller amerikansk modernism.Den här normativa litteraturhistorieskrivningen ger också en väldigt sned uppfattning om hur litteratur existerar i världen, och hur den utvecklas och förändras. Det var ju knappast så att läsarna 1922 hängde på låsen till bokhandlarna för att skaffa Joyces nya 900-sidiga experiment Ulysses och T.S. Eliots notförsedda friversdikt The Waste Land så fort dessa texter anlände från trycket. Nä, 1922 var de flesta läsande människor upptagna med andra författare, till exempel sådana som fick Nobelpriset under den perioden: den franske sedesskildraren Anatole France, den norska författaren till historiska romaner Sigrid Undset eller den italienska skildraren av sardiniskt folkliv Grazia Deledda.Än mer brett tilltalande var den litteratur som prisades på trettiotalet, då många kritiker i efterhand har tyckt att Svenska Akademien borde ha kunnat ha vett och tidskänsla nog att ge de inte helt lättillgängliga modernisterna Paul Valéry eller John Dos Passos priset. Då belönades istället Forsythe-sagans skapare John Galsworthy, då fick Roger Martin du Gard priset för sin stora realistiska romansvit om familjen Thibault, och då belönades Erik Axel Karlfeldt som inte var någon gigant ute i världen, det medges, men mycket omtyckt av många svenska läsare.Det är också under den här tiden som det mest hånade av alla litterära Nobelpris delas ut, till Pearl S. Buck. Men Buck har fått en renässans på senare år. Hon var visserligen från USA, men levde stora delar av sitt liv i Kina och förde med sina lantlivsskildringar in det stora landet i öster i den prisvinnande litteraturen. Och i sin motivering lyfte Nobelkommittéen fram just dessa världsvidgande egenskaper: den amerikanska författarens romaner är avgjort märkliga genom äkthet och rikedom i skildringen och sällsynt kunskap och insikt i en för västerländska läsare föga känd och mycket svårtillgänglig värld. Buck ger inblick i nya kulturella sammanhang, berikar den kulturellt sett högst begränsade västerländska litteraturen med motiv och tematik från en mångtusenårig kultur med en minst lika gedigen litterär tradition som den europeiska.Vad hade hänt om Nobelpriset istället hade gett postuma pris till Rainer Maria Rilke och Marcel Proust, och hunnit belöna Joyce och Woolf innan de dog i början av fyrtiotalet? Rilke, Proust, Joyce och Woolf hade ju knappast kunnat vara större och mer centrala än de redan är. Ingen skillnad där alltså. Men det hade varit mycket svårare för oss att hitta fram till Buck, du Gard, Galsworthy, Deledda, France och till 1922 års stora litterära namn när det begav sig: Jacinto Benavente. Utan pris hade de alla varit helt undanskymda, osynliga, bortglömda. Nu ser vi dem fortfarande, tack vare den alternativa historieskrivning som Nobelprisets löpande och oåterkalleliga kanonisering skapar. Paul Tenngart, litteraturvetare och författareModernismåret 192227.1 Kafka påbörjar "Slottet".2.2 James Joyces "Ulysses" publiceras.Rainer Maria Rilke får feeling. På tre veckor skriver han hela "Sonetterna till Orfeus" samt avslutar "Duino-elegierna".18.5 Proust, Joyce, Stravinsky, Picasso, Satie med flera äter middag.18.10 BBC Startar26.10 Virginia Woolfs "Jacob's room" publiceras.18.11 Proust dör.15.12 T S Eliots "The waste land" utkommer i bokform.Andra händelser: Karin Boyes debutdiktsamling "Moln" utkommer; Katherine Mansfields "The garden party and other stories" publiceras; Birger Sjöbergs "Fridas bok" utkommer; F Scott Fitzgerald har ett produktivt år (det är också under 1922 som "Den store Gatsby", publicerad 1925, utspelar sig); Prousts "På spaning efter den tid som flytt" börjar publiceras på engelska; i december blir Hemingways portfölj med flera års skrivande stulen på Gare de Lyon.FototVirginina Woolf: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virginia_Woolf_1927.jpgJame Joyce: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Joyce_by_Alex_Ehrenzweig,_1915_cropped.jpgT S Eliot: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T_S_Elliot_-_Mar_1923_Shadowland.jpg

In episode 49, we take a leap into the mind of a Data Scientist

Coffee Sessions #39 with Stephen Galsworthy of Quby, MLOps: A leader's perspective. //Abstract //Bio Dr. Stephen Galsworthy is a data leader skilled at building high-performing teams and passionate about developing data-powered products with lasting impact on users, businesses, and society. Most recently he was the Chief Data and Product Officer at Quby, an Amsterdam-based tech company offering data-driven energy services. He oversaw its transformation from a hardware-based business to a digital organization with data and AI at its core. He put in place a central cloud-based data infrastructure and unified analytics platform to collect and take advantage of petabytes of IoT data. His team deployed real-time monitoring and energy insight services for 500k homes across Europe. Stephen has a Master’s degree and Ph.D. in Mathematics from Oxford University and has been leading data science teams since 2011. //Takeaways MLOps as a process, people, and technological problem. Experiences from a team working at the forefront of data and AI. --------------- ✌️Connect With Us ✌️ ------------- Join our slack community: https://go.mlops.community/slack Follow us on Twitter: @mlopscommunity Sign up for the next meetup: https://go.mlops.community/register Connect with Demetrios on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dpbrinkm/ Connect with Vishnu on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vrachakonda/ Connect with Stephen on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/galsworthy/

Our guest today is Amanda Galsworthy, for whom the worlds of languages and diplomacy were familiar territory long before they became part and parcel of her career as an interpreter. Today Amanda shares with us some of the stresses, joys and incredible moments of her journey and her job, from issues surrounding high-profile work, to the impact of the current pandemic.

Sipsmith founders, Fairfax Hall and Sam Galsworthy, on refusing to hear the word “no” – and changing the law

It’s a one-to-one pint after Parliament this week. Mike Galsworthy – Final Say vote champion, founder of Scientists For EU and rock star of Remain – joins Phillip Lee for a drink, a political head-to-head on what a Brexit election means for the NHS and science policy… and the obligatory ton of dry-roast peanuts. This week: The car-crash of Conservative Campaign Week One. How Brexit really could put Britain at the back of the queue for vital new drug launches – and cost us an extra £10bn. Will the country buy a spending splurge from the main parties or the Lib Dems’ Remain bonus? And how the single rudest MP that Phillip ever encountered is now his election opponent in Wokingham: the hard Brexiter John Redwood. “People who are hard up and resentful of the world around them, often rightly so, they care about who has their back,” says Mike. “Nurses, doctors, the police… these people have their back. We need to convince people that science has their back.”Hold tight, regular listeners. Sam Gyimah will be back next week. Audio production by Alex Rees. Producer: Andrew Harrison. Theme music: ‘The Wind-Up’ by Brian Lipps, under licence from premiumbeat.com. ON THE HOUSE is a Podmasters production. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Conversations of Inspiration, Holly made the short journey down the road to the beautiful Sipsmith distillery in Chiswick, to meet Sipsmith founders Sam Galsworthy and Fairfax Hall. This is a story that shows the beauty and power of building a company with a close friend, with a shared vision and passion. Sipsmith's story is a special one - in an industry that has not seen a new independent gin distillery opened in over 200 years, Sipsmith single-handedly changed the entire industry, simultaneously bringing  with it a connection to the traditions of the gin industry, whilst also bringing the fun that its founders embody so completely. They discuss their startup journey to success, the decision to sell their business after 10 years and their formative years that laid the foundations for building the Sipsmith empire. Sam and Fairfax share incredibly heartfelt and emotional letters at the end of this conversation, they are not to be missed. Conversations of Inspiration is brought to you with support from NatWest: visit natwestbusinesshub.com for information, tips and insights to help business owners meet their goals.  Follow Holly on Instagram: instagram.com/hollytucker/?hl=en

This week Femi was away so the lovely Emma Burnell was our guest host. Joining her was Young Conservative Stephen Canning and founder of Scientists 4 EU, Mike Galsworthy. They discussed austerity in the UK and the effects it has on crime, policing, schools and public services. Activist and feminist Sophie Walker was also in the studio to talk through the week's headlines, including what happened in the Spring Statement and the sad events in New Zealand. Finally, activist Angela Ramsell joined Emma on the phone to add further comments to our topic of austerity.

The NHS was the topic of the week on the latest edition of The Floor Is Yours, and joining Femi was Mike Galsworthy, founder of NHS vs Brexit and Scientists 4 EU, and Ria Bernard, speech and language specialist. Also on the show was journalist Lucy Pasha-Robinson and Dr Mike, from Dr Mike on A Bike, who is currently cycling around the world to raise awareness for mental health for NHS staff.

This question was sent by Leon. And, he writes: Galsworthy encouraged Streatfeild to know three times more than she needed to about whatever she chose to write. Does it take three times the knowledge of music to be able to compose?

May’s deal is the worst of all worlds. If there’s no general election, is it time to back a #PeoplesVote? Michael Walker is joined by Mike Galsworthy and Aaron Bastani.

May’s deal is the worst of all worlds. If there’s no general election, is it time to back a #PeoplesVote? Michael Walker is joined by Mike Galsworthy and Aaron Bastani.

Sam Galsworthy is co-founder of Sipsmith, producers of classic London dry gin. In order to do so, though, he and he co-founder Fairfax first had to change a 200-year-old law. They did reverse it, and therefore gave life to the beverage landscape in the UK. In this episode, Sam and I talk about what’s behind making things by hand/small batch, how Sipsmith changed the gin game -- a 'ginaissance,' as he calls it -- the different phases of entrepreneurialism, and not riding the trends, but rather sailing through them. I love Sam's formula for a successful entrepreneur: perseverance + determination + passion. "What entrepreneurship takes is grit," he says. If you're listening to this episode live (Aug.1), just know that I'm taking about a month hiatus while I do lots of travel and work on various projects, but I've got some excellent episodes down the pipeline. So please subscribe if you haven't yet so you don't miss a thing! --Sam & Sipsmith Gin-- @sipsmithsam // @sipsmith sipsmith.com --keep it quirky-- @keepitquirkypodcast - instagram @qkatie - katie quinn on instagram & twitter www.youtube.com/TheQKatie www.facebook.com/TheQKatie See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

"It was selling slower than we thought, only because we were still only letting tech businesses in. So we had recruiters turn up, agencies, and we told them we couldn't accommodate them because we were focused on creating an atmosphere for tech businesses. And that was hard to do when available funds in the bank were at one point two thousand pounds and we had quite a lot of bills to pay..and that's available funds..we were deep into overdraft." On today's show I speak to David Galsworthy, co-founder of Techspace, Europe's co-working space for tech scale-ups in London and Berlin. Tech space now has six properties in London with a community of over 1,500 people and has recently opened a new space in Berlin. David's first forays as an entrepreneur were in the wild west of Ecuador over twenty years ago. He's now the proud co-owner of some of the best looking and best value co-working spaces i've seen.  And with demand outstripping supply he believes we're still nowhere near saturation point.  Tonight we're also 'live' at Thisworkspace in Bournemouth with Xero co-founder Gary Turner and the Richmond Group's James Benamor.Go to the StartUPU eventbrite page to come down and ask YOUR questions!

What impact will Brexit have on scientific research? Will the UK suffer in terms of innovation and talent? And can any positives be taken from the democratic decision to leave the European Union? Dr Mike Galsworthy is the founder of Scientists for EU, a lobbying group set up before last year’s referendum to try and educate both government - and the public - on the pros and cons of voting In or Out. Mike joins Tim to outline the importance of scientific research to a healthy UK economy and discusses his fears of a hard Brexit. For more from Mike and Scientists4EU go to http://scientistsforeu.uk/ or follow on Twitter @Scientists4EU

A long forgotten tale of terror from John Galsworthy. Open the vault door, sit by the fire, and join me for this short foray into the macabre... Got a request? Or perhaps a submission? Or maybe you just want to say hi! Drop us a line at ghastlytales@gmail.com  Support the Show by: Donating via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MichaelWhitehouse Buying a book: https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Whitehouse/e/B00D791RUI Reviewing us on your site of choice.  Watch us on Youtube!: http://www.youtube.com/ghastlytales   Our Website: http://www.vaultofghastlytales.com Stalk us on Social Media: http://www.facebook.com/ghastlytalespresents https://twitter.com/Ghastly_Tales Follow Michael Whitehouse's Work: http://www.michael-whitehouse.com https://www.facebook.com/Michael.Whitehouse.Author http://www.twitter.com/horrorofmike    

Here's a Sixth Sense! Galsworthy sheds light -- but where did it come from? -- and jump-starts us "Going Up The Country".

John Galsworthy's play "A Bit O'Love" (1915) and his novel "Saint's Progress" (1919) diagnose the problem and also the possibility inherent in parish ministry, and especially within parish clergy. Galsworthy gives his readers a shattering exercise but also a hopeful one. So we just want to say: Goodbye, Columbus !

Wordquest-fm episode 9 featuring: "Portrait of Dartmoor" Vian Smith, broadcast on 22nd September 2011. Around the County of Devon (and perhaps beyond) you can pick up copies of our 'Literary Map for Devon' - but you can also explore the online map here for much more information. If you can't find one and you'd like one, please contact us and if they are still available we'll send you one. The project grew out of a love for words and a love for Devon. If you have anything you'd like to add to the project, just go here. Wordquest Devon is a project of Aune Head Arts, Cyprus Well, Devon Libraries (Devon County Council), and the University of Exeter. It began life as a response to the 'questing' themes of the Cultural Olympiad, and still retains many of these playful and game-playing aspects. The project's live presence began in June 2011 and continues until September 2012. For more info please visit, http://www.wordquestdevon.info http://www.auneheadarts.org.uk http://www.soundartradio.org.uk

Wordquest-fm episode 7 featuring Galsworthy: The Apple Tree (pt 2), broadcast on 3rd August 2011. Around the County of Devon (and perhaps beyond) you can pick up copies of our 'Literary Map for Devon' - but you can also explore the online map here for much more information. If you can't find one and you'd like one, please contact us and if they are still available we'll send you one. The project grew out of a love for words and a love for Devon. If you have anything you'd like to add to the project, just go here. Wordquest Devon is a project of Aune Head Arts, Cyprus Well, Devon Libraries (Devon County Council), and the University of Exeter. It began life as a response to the 'questing' themes of the Cultural Olympiad, and still retains many of these playful and game-playing aspects. The project's live presence began in June 2011 and continues until September 2012. For more info please visit, http://www.wordquestdevon.info http://www.auneheadarts.org.uk http://www.soundartradio.org.uk

Wordquest-fm episode 6 featuring Galsworthy: The Apple Tree (pt 1), broadcast on 3rd August 2011. Around the County of Devon (and perhaps beyond) you can pick up copies of our 'Literary Map for Devon' - but you can also explore the online map here for much more information. If you can't find one and you'd like one, please contact us and if they are still available we'll send you one. The project grew out of a love for words and a love for Devon. If you have anything you'd like to add to the project, just go here. Wordquest Devon is a project of Aune Head Arts, Cyprus Well, Devon Libraries (Devon County Council), and the University of Exeter. It began life as a response to the 'questing' themes of the Cultural Olympiad, and still retains many of these playful and game-playing aspects. The project's live presence began in June 2011 and continues until September 2012. For more info please visit, http://www.wordquestdevon.info http://www.auneheadarts.org.uk http://www.soundartradio.org.uk

You may not know who John Galsworthy is, but you probably know his work. Who hasn't seen some production of The Forsyte Saga? Galsworthy was one of the most popular and famous British writers of the early 20th century (the Edwardian Era). He left an enormous body of work, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932. But Galsworthy was also what we might call a “public humanitarian,” that is, he used his high profile and influence in a great, good cause. The focus of his effort was disabled solders returning from World War I. We, of course, are well acquainted with the remarkable destructive power of modern weaponry. Not a week goes by (alas) in which we do not hear about a soldier being wounded by mines, grenades, artillery fire or bombs (often of the “roadside” variety). But we also have come to expect that soldier, no matter how grievously wounded, will receive medical treatment that will stand at least a fighting chance of saving their lives. And indeed, many wounded soldiers do survive incredibly severe injuries and return to our world. The generation that fought and suffered World War I–or as they called it “The Great War”–were really not familiar with any of this. Europeans and Americans of the nineteenth century were surely used to wars, but they were generally short and decided by pivotal battles (Waterloo, Gettysburg, Sedan). But the Great War was different. Millions of men lived for years at the “front” and under the shells. Many died there and many more were wounded. Thanks to advances in medical knowledge (and particularly the discovery of the germ theory of disease), a goodly proportion of the wounded survived. This presented a new problem: How to re-integrate wounded men into society? This became Galsworthy's cause. The course of his efforts on the part of wounded soldiers is detailed with great skill and care by Jeffrey Reznick in his John Galsworthy and the Disabled Soldiers of the Great War (Manchester UP, 2009). Reznick shows us Galsworthy attempting to create the modern infrastructure of veterans' care: special hospitals, rehabilitation programs, work-transition agencies and so on. And we get to read Galsworthy's writing on the subject, both non-fiction and fiction. All this give us–or gave me–a new understanding of Galsworthy's literary work. Galsworthy was a great man. But as it turned out he was greater than I knew. We should thank Jeff for bringing his good-works to our attention. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may not know who John Galsworthy is, but you probably know his work. Who hasn’t seen some production of The Forsyte Saga? Galsworthy was one of the most popular and famous British writers of the early 20th century (the Edwardian Era). He left an enormous body of work, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932. But Galsworthy was also what we might call a “public humanitarian,” that is, he used his high profile and influence in a great, good cause. The focus of his effort was disabled solders returning from World War I. We, of course, are well acquainted with the remarkable destructive power of modern weaponry. Not a week goes by (alas) in which we do not hear about a soldier being wounded by mines, grenades, artillery fire or bombs (often of the “roadside” variety). But we also have come to expect that soldier, no matter how grievously wounded, will receive medical treatment that will stand at least a fighting chance of saving their lives. And indeed, many wounded soldiers do survive incredibly severe injuries and return to our world. The generation that fought and suffered World War I–or as they called it “The Great War”–were really not familiar with any of this. Europeans and Americans of the nineteenth century were surely used to wars, but they were generally short and decided by pivotal battles (Waterloo, Gettysburg, Sedan). But the Great War was different. Millions of men lived for years at the “front” and under the shells. Many died there and many more were wounded. Thanks to advances in medical knowledge (and particularly the discovery of the germ theory of disease), a goodly proportion of the wounded survived. This presented a new problem: How to re-integrate wounded men into society? This became Galsworthy’s cause. The course of his efforts on the part of wounded soldiers is detailed with great skill and care by Jeffrey Reznick in his John Galsworthy and the Disabled Soldiers of the Great War (Manchester UP, 2009). Reznick shows us Galsworthy attempting to create the modern infrastructure of veterans’ care: special hospitals, rehabilitation programs, work-transition agencies and so on. And we get to read Galsworthy’s writing on the subject, both non-fiction and fiction. All this give us–or gave me–a new understanding of Galsworthy’s literary work. Galsworthy was a great man. But as it turned out he was greater than I knew. We should thank Jeff for bringing his good-works to our attention. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may not know who John Galsworthy is, but you probably know his work. Who hasn’t seen some production of The Forsyte Saga? Galsworthy was one of the most popular and famous British writers of the early 20th century (the Edwardian Era). He left an enormous body of work, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932. But Galsworthy was also what we might call a “public humanitarian,” that is, he used his high profile and influence in a great, good cause. The focus of his effort was disabled solders returning from World War I. We, of course, are well acquainted with the remarkable destructive power of modern weaponry. Not a week goes by (alas) in which we do not hear about a soldier being wounded by mines, grenades, artillery fire or bombs (often of the “roadside” variety). But we also have come to expect that soldier, no matter how grievously wounded, will receive medical treatment that will stand at least a fighting chance of saving their lives. And indeed, many wounded soldiers do survive incredibly severe injuries and return to our world. The generation that fought and suffered World War I–or as they called it “The Great War”–were really not familiar with any of this. Europeans and Americans of the nineteenth century were surely used to wars, but they were generally short and decided by pivotal battles (Waterloo, Gettysburg, Sedan). But the Great War was different. Millions of men lived for years at the “front” and under the shells. Many died there and many more were wounded. Thanks to advances in medical knowledge (and particularly the discovery of the germ theory of disease), a goodly proportion of the wounded survived. This presented a new problem: How to re-integrate wounded men into society? This became Galsworthy’s cause. The course of his efforts on the part of wounded soldiers is detailed with great skill and care by Jeffrey Reznick in his John Galsworthy and the Disabled Soldiers of the Great War (Manchester UP, 2009). Reznick shows us Galsworthy attempting to create the modern infrastructure of veterans’ care: special hospitals, rehabilitation programs, work-transition agencies and so on. And we get to read Galsworthy’s writing on the subject, both non-fiction and fiction. All this give us–or gave me–a new understanding of Galsworthy’s literary work. Galsworthy was a great man. But as it turned out he was greater than I knew. We should thank Jeff for bringing his good-works to our attention. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may not know who John Galsworthy is, but you probably know his work. Who hasn't seen some production of The Forsyte Saga? Galsworthy was one of the most popular and famous British writers of the early 20th century (the Edwardian Era). He left an enormous body of work, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932. But Galsworthy was also what we might call a “public humanitarian,” that is, he used his high profile and influence in a great, good cause. The focus of his effort was disabled solders returning from World War I. We, of course, are well acquainted with the remarkable destructive power of modern weaponry. Not a week goes by (alas) in which we do not hear about a soldier being wounded by mines, grenades, artillery fire or bombs (often of the “roadside” variety). But we also have come to expect that soldier, no matter how grievously wounded, will receive medical treatment that will stand at least a fighting chance of saving their lives. And indeed, many wounded soldiers do survive incredibly severe injuries and return to our world. The generation that fought and suffered World War I–or as they called it “The Great War”–were really not familiar with any of this. Europeans and Americans of the nineteenth century were surely used to wars, but they were generally short and decided by pivotal battles (Waterloo, Gettysburg, Sedan). But the Great War was different. Millions of men lived for years at the “front” and under the shells. Many died there and many more were wounded. Thanks to advances in medical knowledge (and particularly the discovery of the germ theory of disease), a goodly proportion of the wounded survived. This presented a new problem: How to re-integrate wounded men into society? This became Galsworthy's cause. The course of his efforts on the part of wounded soldiers is detailed with great skill and care by Jeffrey Reznick in his John Galsworthy and the Disabled Soldiers of the Great War (Manchester UP, 2009). Reznick shows us Galsworthy attempting to create the modern infrastructure of veterans' care: special hospitals, rehabilitation programs, work-transition agencies and so on. And we get to read Galsworthy's writing on the subject, both non-fiction and fiction. All this give us–or gave me–a new understanding of Galsworthy's literary work. Galsworthy was a great man. But as it turned out he was greater than I knew. We should thank Jeff for bringing his good-works to our attention. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

You may not know who John Galsworthy is, but you probably know his work. Who hasn’t seen some production of The Forsyte Saga? Galsworthy was one of the most popular and famous British writers of the early 20th century (the Edwardian Era). He left an enormous body of work, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932. But Galsworthy was also what we might call a “public humanitarian,” that is, he used his high profile and influence in a great, good cause. The focus of his effort was disabled solders returning from World War I. We, of course, are well acquainted with the remarkable destructive power of modern weaponry. Not a week goes by (alas) in which we do not hear about a soldier being wounded by mines, grenades, artillery fire or bombs (often of the “roadside” variety). But we also have come to expect that soldier, no matter how grievously wounded, will receive medical treatment that will stand at least a fighting chance of saving their lives. And indeed, many wounded soldiers do survive incredibly severe injuries and return to our world. The generation that fought and suffered World War I–or as they called it “The Great War”–were really not familiar with any of this. Europeans and Americans of the nineteenth century were surely used to wars, but they were generally short and decided by pivotal battles (Waterloo, Gettysburg, Sedan). But the Great War was different. Millions of men lived for years at the “front” and under the shells. Many died there and many more were wounded. Thanks to advances in medical knowledge (and particularly the discovery of the germ theory of disease), a goodly proportion of the wounded survived. This presented a new problem: How to re-integrate wounded men into society? This became Galsworthy’s cause. The course of his efforts on the part of wounded soldiers is detailed with great skill and care by Jeffrey Reznick in his John Galsworthy and the Disabled Soldiers of the Great War (Manchester UP, 2009). Reznick shows us Galsworthy attempting to create the modern infrastructure of veterans’ care: special hospitals, rehabilitation programs, work-transition agencies and so on. And we get to read Galsworthy’s writing on the subject, both non-fiction and fiction. All this give us–or gave me–a new understanding of Galsworthy’s literary work. Galsworthy was a great man. But as it turned out he was greater than I knew. We should thank Jeff for bringing his good-works to our attention. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may not know who John Galsworthy is, but you probably know his work. Who hasn’t seen some production of The Forsyte Saga? Galsworthy was one of the most popular and famous British writers of the early 20th century (the Edwardian Era). He left an enormous body of work, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932. But Galsworthy was also what we might call a “public humanitarian,” that is, he used his high profile and influence in a great, good cause. The focus of his effort was disabled solders returning from World War I. We, of course, are well acquainted with the remarkable destructive power of modern weaponry. Not a week goes by (alas) in which we do not hear about a soldier being wounded by mines, grenades, artillery fire or bombs (often of the “roadside” variety). But we also have come to expect that soldier, no matter how grievously wounded, will receive medical treatment that will stand at least a fighting chance of saving their lives. And indeed, many wounded soldiers do survive incredibly severe injuries and return to our world. The generation that fought and suffered World War I–or as they called it “The Great War”–were really not familiar with any of this. Europeans and Americans of the nineteenth century were surely used to wars, but they were generally short and decided by pivotal battles (Waterloo, Gettysburg, Sedan). But the Great War was different. Millions of men lived for years at the “front” and under the shells. Many died there and many more were wounded. Thanks to advances in medical knowledge (and particularly the discovery of the germ theory of disease), a goodly proportion of the wounded survived. This presented a new problem: How to re-integrate wounded men into society? This became Galsworthy’s cause. The course of his efforts on the part of wounded soldiers is detailed with great skill and care by Jeffrey Reznick in his John Galsworthy and the Disabled Soldiers of the Great War (Manchester UP, 2009). Reznick shows us Galsworthy attempting to create the modern infrastructure of veterans’ care: special hospitals, rehabilitation programs, work-transition agencies and so on. And we get to read Galsworthy’s writing on the subject, both non-fiction and fiction. All this give us–or gave me–a new understanding of Galsworthy’s literary work. Galsworthy was a great man. But as it turned out he was greater than I knew. We should thank Jeff for bringing his good-works to our attention. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You may not know who John Galsworthy is, but you probably know his work. Who hasn’t seen some production of The Forsyte Saga? Galsworthy was one of the most popular and famous British writers of the early 20th century (the Edwardian Era). He left an enormous body of work, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1932. But Galsworthy was also what we might call a “public humanitarian,” that is, he used his high profile and influence in a great, good cause. The focus of his effort was disabled solders returning from World War I. We, of course, are well acquainted with the remarkable destructive power of modern weaponry. Not a week goes by (alas) in which we do not hear about a soldier being wounded by mines, grenades, artillery fire or bombs (often of the “roadside” variety). But we also have come to expect that soldier, no matter how grievously wounded, will receive medical treatment that will stand at least a fighting chance of saving their lives. And indeed, many wounded soldiers do survive incredibly severe injuries and return to our world. The generation that fought and suffered World War I–or as they called it “The Great War”–were really not familiar with any of this. Europeans and Americans of the nineteenth century were surely used to wars, but they were generally short and decided by pivotal battles (Waterloo, Gettysburg, Sedan). But the Great War was different. Millions of men lived for years at the “front” and under the shells. Many died there and many more were wounded. Thanks to advances in medical knowledge (and particularly the discovery of the germ theory of disease), a goodly proportion of the wounded survived. This presented a new problem: How to re-integrate wounded men into society? This became Galsworthy’s cause. The course of his efforts on the part of wounded soldiers is detailed with great skill and care by Jeffrey Reznick in his John Galsworthy and the Disabled Soldiers of the Great War (Manchester UP, 2009). Reznick shows us Galsworthy attempting to create the modern infrastructure of veterans’ care: special hospitals, rehabilitation programs, work-transition agencies and so on. And we get to read Galsworthy’s writing on the subject, both non-fiction and fiction. All this give us–or gave me–a new understanding of Galsworthy’s literary work. Galsworthy was a great man. But as it turned out he was greater than I knew. We should thank Jeff for bringing his good-works to our attention. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Because memorials aren’t really a lamentation of death as much as they are a celebration of life, I want to emphasize that this episode is not at all sad. In it, I read several poems by celebrated writers (Robinson Jeffers, John Galsworthy, Eugene O'Neill, William Cowper), who memorialize their lost animal companions with whom they lived and loved. May you find joy and solace in their words.