Podcasts about romantics

Dennis Crowley, most famous for his work in big tech, including Dodgeball, Foursquare, and Hopscotch Labs, joins The Soccer Romantics to discuss his passion project - soccer. A founder of the now decade-old soccer club Kingston Stockade and one of the primary influencers and cofounders of The League for Clubs, Dennis' passion for the sport is making it more sustainable. 

On our brand new show, The Soccer Romantics, Josh Duder welcomes the Country Manager of Hummel USA, former San Diego Nomad, Boston Bolt, Tampa Bay Rowdy, Charlotte Eagle and US National Team player, Jeff Duback. We talk about his work in the soccer apparel industry, playing in an era without a national first division, and how he fell in love with the game. 

Get ready to escape to the lake isle of Innisfree, because for the penultimate episode of Forgotten Melodies we're talking all about Nature Songs!We explore the English trees and plants which have inspired folk musicians, poets and all true Romantics, and the songs which use them as motifs.First, we look at stone cold classic A North Country Maid, and its oak, ash and bonny ivy.More oak and ash abound in our second selection, A Tree Song, written by Rudyard Kipling for the 1906 book Puck of Pook's Hill, and set to music by Peter Bellamy. The third song might just be the best known song we've covered in the series, a staple of pub folk sessions, ideal for the end of the night. We'll be gathering the Wild Mountain Thyme - or possibly just making an elaborate excuse to take our sweethearts up into the hills...Martin and Eleanor explore the history and context behind each song, and the surrounding folklore for the plants and trees which inspired them!We really hope you enjoy the episode, and we will speak to you again on Thursday for a new Lang Fairy Tale triple bill, featuring Rapunzel, The Nettle Spinner, and Farmer Weatherbeard!The Three Ravens is a Myth and Folklore podcast hosted by award-winning writers Martin Vaux and Eleanor Conlon.Released on Mondays, each weekly episode focuses on a historic county, exploring the heritage, folklore and traditions of the area, from ghosts and mermaids to mythical monsters, half-forgotten heroes, bloody legends, and much, much more. Then, and most importantly, the pair take turns to tell a new version of an ancient story from that county - all before discussing what that tale might mean, where it might have come from, and the truths it reveals about England's hidden past...Bonus Episodes are released on Thursdays plus Local Legends episodes on Saturdays - interviews with acclaimed authors, folklorists, podcasters and historians with unique perspectives on that week's county.With a range of exclusive content on Patreon too, including audio ghost tours, the Three Ravens Newsletter, and monthly Three Ravens Film Club episodes about folk horror films from across the decades, why not join us around the campfire and listen in?REGISTER FOR THE TALES OF SOUTHERN ENGLAND TOURVisit our website Join our Patreon Social media channels and sponsors Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on The Metro, Rev. Jeff Ivins brings you the following artists: Altered Images, Pearl Harbor & The Explosions, Kenny Loggins, Nick Lowe, Wham!, The Smiths, Truth, Annie Lennox, Real Life, The Romantics, Power Station, The Police, Midnight Oil, Joe Jackson, and finishing up with Adam & The Ants.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comTiffany is a cultural historian, writer, and broadcaster. She has been a critic and presenter on BBC Radio 4 and now serves as a trustee of the British Museum. Her latest book is Strangers and Intimates: The Rise and Fall of Private Life. It's a fascinating book of history and political insight: how privacy is deeply connected to liberal values, and why its abeyance matters.For two clips of the episode — on the first sexual revolution in England, and when privacy strengthened patriarchy — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in an Anglo-American household; losing and keeping accents; privacy a rare thing in history; the Greeks and Romans; the human tendency to gossip; the Reformation and private faith; Thomas More against Martin Luther; Cromwell banning Christmas; Hobbes and the right of conscience; Locke and natural rights; Marie Antoinette; Rousseau and self-creation; spying; the emergence of the back stairs; the Romantics and subjectivity; Wollstonecraft and women's equality; the Sodomites' Walk; the rise of coffee shops; John Stuart Mill; child abuse; marital rape; Betty Friedan; defending homosexuality based on privacy; outings; Lewinsky and the Starr Report; consent and policing sex; hook-up culture on campus; Obama's private life; Hunter's laptop; reality TV and Trump; Harry and Meghan's worldwide privacy tour; OnlyFans; and a defense of hypocrisy.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Bob Wright on the evolutionary force of AI, John Gray on Trump's new world, Stephen Grosz on the struggles of love, David Thomson on cinema history, John O'Sullivan on conservatism, Robby George on all our disagreements, and Megan McArdle on everything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Roy L Hales / Cortes Currents - At the Old Schoolhouse Art Gallery: Meinsje's Uncanny Puppets and Sublime Paintings The “Uncanny and the Sublime” exhibition opens at the Old Schoolhouse Art Gallery at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, June 19, and runs until July 5. In this morning's interview, exhibiting artist Meinsje Vlaming discusses her puppets and paintings. Meinsje: "I've been involved with the Academy of the Wooden Puppets. That's a two-year education online by Bernd Ogrodnik, a German teacher, master puppeteer, and carver who lives now in Iceland. That's one of the good things that happened with COVID: we have a lot of things online now, and we don't have to go there. “Bernd put together a program on carving puppets—from the beginning, very simple puppets, to a very, very complicated marionette. Of course, being a puppeteer, that had my interest. So I enrolled.” “Well, actually, I first applied for a grant. I got it, I enrolled, and I started carving. I got all these puppets that are not really related, and I haven't put them in a puppet show, but it would be nice to hang them on the walls in a gallery and display them.” “So we thought about that, and then it's like, well, I don't have enough to fill the gallery. And then I also enrolled with a wonderful painter teacher, Michael Orwick, whose style is really resonating with my own style—my own work. So I thought, ‘Why don't I put those two together?' - But how do you connect the wooden puppets with the paintings that are about light?" “If you look through my work, it's very diverse—there's a lot of different styles and trying out styles. But the thing they all have in common is the light. So I took two elements from two different disciplines and tried to connect them. What they have in common is painting and puppets—then I started to dive a little deeper into what they have in common, which is the sublime in the paintings.” “The Romantics, the Tonalists, the Luminists—they've all used that. I personally think light is the most sublime thing on this planet. It's in paintings, and it's connected to the spiritual.” “That's how I came to decide: ‘Let's put puppets and the paintings together into the show.' And that works—I think, I hope.”

All ideas have a history, no matter how inevitable and well-entrenched they may seem to us today. The later Enlightenment was a heady time when people were exploring new conceptions of nature, humanity, and the self. Andrea Wulf is a writer of narrative histories, examining the origins of ideas through the lives of the people who explored them. In this episode we discuss three of her books: The Invention of Nature, about Alexander von Humboldt and environmentalism; Magnificent Rebels, about the Jena circle of Romantics including Goethe, Schiller, Schlegel, and others; and most recently The Traveller, about George Forster, an early naturalist, ethnographer, and champion of human equality. Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/06/08/356-andrea-wulf-on-enlightenment-nature-romanticism-and-modernity/   Support Mindscape on Patreon. Andrea Wulf was born in India, raised in Germany, and studied design history at the Royal College of Art, London. She is the author of seven books. She is a Miller Scholar at the Santa Fe Institute and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. The Invention of Nature won multiple prizes, including the Royal Society science book prize and the LA Times book prize. Web site Amazon author page Wikipedia

Continuing on Faith and Knowledge (1802), Ch. 1 and 2. We start off by discussing how beauty might give us a window into things-in-themselves according to the Romantics, who were in part following Kant's lead. Also, what version of the ontological argument for the existence of God does Hegel believe? We try to figure out what Hegel is praising in Kant's positing of synthetic a priori claims, and yet how he thinks Kant didn't understand the implications of this view. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsors: Don't get caught running yesterday's security on today's web: visit nordlayer.com/browser. Get a $1/month e-commerce trial at shopify.com/pel.

In previous episodes we've talked about Lewis being "the last of the Romantics". It's time to return to this literary movement with Dr. Weber and learn about the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.[Show Notes]

Mayday Parade joins Teaser Talk at Welcome to Rockville 2026 for a conversation about 20 years as a band, their Florida roots, new music, fan-favorite songs, and what is next.In this episode, Mayday Parade reflects on playing Welcome to Rockville for the first time, how their longtime friendship has helped keep the band together, and what still makes festival performances exciting after two decades. They also talk about the emotional legacy of “Jamie All Over,” the upcoming 20-year anniversary of A Lesson in Romantics, their thoughts on AI-generated music, and how fans continue to connect with the band across generations.Plus, Mayday Parade answers fan-submitted questions about setlists, deep cuts, songs they never get tired of playing, and what fans may be able to look forward to next.Listen now to the full Mayday Parade interview with Teaser Talk from Welcome to Rockville 2026.

This week on the longest-running '80s pop culture podcast, Steve Spears and Brad Williams return to one of their favorite recurring topics: unlikely cover songs of the 1980s. Did you know Eddie Money's “I Wanna Go Back” was originally recorded by Billy Satellite? Or that Chaka Khan's Grammy-winning “I Feel for You” began as a deep cut by Prince? Episode Timeline 00:00 – Welcome back to Unlikely Cover Songs of the '80s 02:14 – “Wind Beneath My Wings” and its surprising origins 10:42 – Eddie Money vs. Billy Satellite: “I Wanna Go Back” 22:31 – Chaka Khan, Prince and “I Feel for You” 35:48 – The Clash cover Eddy Grant's “Police on My Back” 46:17 – TV Party seggy 51:42 – Arcade seggy 56:03 – Book updates, Barnes & Noble signing and Classic Pop review 59:50 – Closing thoughts   In this episode, the guys explore the surprising origins behind some of the decade's most beloved songs, including: “Wind Beneath My Wings” by Bette Midler “I Wanna Go Back” by Eddie Money “I Feel for You” by Chaka Khan “Police on My Back” by The Clash Along the way, they discuss: Forgotten original artists MTV-era music videos Prince songwriting trivia Jamaican rude boy culture Accidental studio moments that became iconic And why '80s music history is weirder than you remember Plus: Listener mail Arcade and TV Party seggies Updates on the Stuck in the '80s book Upcoming Florida book signings And more nostalgic chaos from your favorite retro podcast If you love '80s music, new wave, classic rock, MTV memories, and pop culture deep dives, this episode is for you. On Sale Now! Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, is finally for sale as both a paperback and ebook. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book is available on most online bookstore websites including: Amazon Barnes and Noble Walmart Our Sponsors The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. Use the promo code STUCK when booking to get $250 cabin credit. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

We honor the "star cars" of the '80s including the General Lee, the "Back to the Future" DeLorean and more. Guest co-host Retro DJ Travis Bell. Seggies include Spin Me Round and Please Please Tell Me Now. Plus we reveal our promo code for The 80s Cruise. On Sale Now! Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, is finally for sale as both a paperback and ebook. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book is available on most online bookstore websites including: Amazon Barnes and Noble Walmart Our Sponsors The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. Use the promo code STUCK when booking to get $250 cabin credit. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

If you've felt compelled to pick up a steamy, smutty book throughout the last few months, you wouldn't have been the first - and you probably won't be the last. It's no doubt romance novels are having their moment, and besides the books themselves, readers and consumers alike are going beyond the pages and diving into their respective worlds. Host Maria Kestane speaks to Deborah Aarts, a freelance business writer about how Canadians are opting to invest in community, and how the recent boom in romance novels could teach other traditional media how to meet consumers where they're at. You can read Deborah's article here: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/rob-magazine/article-the-swoon-boom-meet-the-business-savvy-smut-mongers-of-the-great-hot/#comments We love feedback at The Big Story, as well as suggestions for future episodes. You can find us:Through email at hello@thebigstorypodcast.ca Or @thebigstory.bsky.social on Bluesky

Rob Tyner's Best Friend. Lester Bang's confidante. One of Townes VanZandt's favorite songwriters. Motown's Bob Babbitt played for him. The one and only Gil Clark has breached the Michigan Music enigma, as a folk musician, rock and blues bassist, first call vocalist, record store owner, and friend to rebel-rousing stars. From the late '70s to now, Clark has immersed himself as a musician and Michigan music touchstone for all of his adult life. His stories are unmatched and his music is still being sought after. Now he wants to share his story.     Here in part 1 of 2, Clark takes us to Tyner's house, gigs a the Old Miami with Tyner and Rodriguez, guitar lessons from Mike Skill of the Romantics, hangs with Dennis 'Machine Gun' Thompson, Cub Koda inspiration, tours with Destroy All Monsters/Niagara and Ron Asheton, Rockets love, and tours with Michael Katon. That's just the tip of the iceberg here. Did we mention he is in the Jim DeRogatis book, Let It Blurt: The Life and Times of Lester Bangs? Do yourself a favor and hit play, NOW!

Enjoy our review of the Japanese drama Romantics Anonymous. Hopefully you fell for it as hard as we did. (Originally aired in Patreon November 2025)You can also find us on X, BlueSky, and Facebook.Click HERE for our show notes.Remember to check out our Patreon which is full of extra content for our Kimchi VIPS!! Come check it out HERE, and make sure you don't miss a single moment of our drama-filled banter Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Soccer legend and longtime friend Alexi Lalas joins us to talk about the 1981 movie "Victory" starring Michael Caine and Sylvester Stallone. On Sale Now! Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, is finally for sale as both a paperback and ebook. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book is available on most online bookstore websites including: Amazon Barnes and Noble Walmart Our Sponsors The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. We will have a promo code for you soon. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Buckle up, babes, we read 500 First Editions by Queen Maggie Gates this week! This is the final installment in the Romantics series and–spoiler alert–it might be her best book yet. Relationship coach Ryan Ford bets romance author Willow Winslet that he can make her fall in love with him in 12 weeks with his patented Ford Method. If he wins, she has to endorse his program. If she wins, he'll stop podcasting. Any bets who who'll win?SOS: Railed: A Why Cho-Cho-Choose Romance by Zane E. StoriUp Next: Penalty Play by Julia ConnorsWhat We're Reading:Cursed with Benefits by Roxie RayHeated Rivalry by Rachel Reid (re-Reid)Follow us on SpotifyWebsite: www.chicklitbookclubpodcast.comMerch: https://chicklitbookclubpodcast.threadless.com/TikTok: ChickLitBookClubInstagram and Threads: ChickLitBookClubPodcastPinterest: ChickLitBookClubPodcastBlueSky:@clbcpodcast.bsky.socialYoutube: @ChickLitBookClubEmail: chicklitbookclubpodcast@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We introduce the 2026 class of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. We talk who got in, who got snubbed, and which choices will have us yelling at our dashboards like it's 1987 and the DJ just skipped our favorite song. On Sale Now! Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, is finally for sale as both a paperback and ebook. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book is available on most online bookstore websites including: Amazon Barnes and Noble Walmart Our Sponsors The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. We will have a promo code for you soon. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Remember our amazing interview with Kenny Loggins? Here it is again from 2007. Full show with co-host Sean Daly. On Sale Now! Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, is finally for sale as both a paperback and ebook. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book is available on most online bookstore websites including: Amazon Barnes and Noble Walmart Our Sponsors SIT80s fans get 10% off everything at our new sponsor Rotellaresale.com. Collectibles, action figures, novelty genres, diecast cars, and even vinyl records, Zippo lighters and comic books. Use the promo code STUCK. The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. We will have a promo code for you soon. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Macbeth begins ominously: "Enter three witches." What did Scottish people believe about witches? Historian and author Mary Craig joins Royals, Rebels, and Romantics to explain.Show Notes:Mary Craighttps://marywcraig.com/ Mary and Doug's podcast: https://bordersbletherings.uk/#podcast Twitter: https://x.com/11mwc Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/marywcraig Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/11mwc/ Scottish Witches (Pen and Sword) available for preorder!Carol Ann Lloyd@shakeuphistoryhttps://carolannlloyd.com/ https://patreon.com/carolannlloydhttps://bookshop.org/shop/carolannThe Tudors by NumbersCourting the Virgin QueenSupport the showHistory reveals what's possible.

A new series on Royals, Rebels, and Romantics!Leadership Lessons from History and Shakespeare.This week we take a deep dive into Shakespeare's Henry V and why listening is a leader's superpower.Carol Ann LloydTEDx talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVWJml2otH0 @shakeuphistoryhttps://carolannlloyd.com/ https://patreon.com/carolannlloydhttps://bookshop.org/shop/carolannThe Tudors by NumbersCourting the Virgin QueenSupport the showHistory reveals what's possible.

Which '80s teen romance movie is stronger: "Pretty in Pink" or "Some Kind of Wonderful?" We decide today. Plus, full seggies, a book update, and our review of the 2026 voyage of The 80s Cruise. On Sale Now! Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, is finally for sale as both a paperback and ebook. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book is available on most online bookstore websites including: Amazon Barnes and Noble Walmart Our Sponsors SIT80s fans get 10% off everything at our new sponsor Rotellaresale.com. Collectibles, action figures, novelty genres, diecast cars, and even vinyl records, Zippo lighters and comic books. Use the promo code STUCK. The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. We will have a promo code for you soon. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

TV's "The Greatest American Hero" debuted 45 years ago today - March 18, 1981. We honor the '80s TV show with a reairing of our 2007 interview with actor William Katt. On Sale Now! Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, is finally for sale as both a paperback and ebook. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book is available on most online bookstore websites including: Amazon Barnes and Noble Walmart Our Sponsors SIT80s fans get 10% off everything at our new sponsor Rotellaresale.com. Collectibles, action figures, novelty genres, diecast cars, and even vinyl records, Zippo lighters and comic books. Use the promo code STUCK. The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. We will have a promo code for you soon. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The new Stuck in the '80s podcast book is finally for sale. Brad interviews Spearsy about a project 20 years in the making. On Sale Now! Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, is finally for sale as both a paperback and ebook. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book is available on most online bookstore websites including: Amazon Barnes and Noble Walmart Our Sponsors SIT80s fans get 10% off everything at our new sponsor Rotellaresale.com. Collectibles, action figures, novelty genres, diecast cars, and even vinyl records, Zippo lighters and comic books. Use the promo code STUCK. The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. We will have a promo code for you soon. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Has conservatism really defeated utilitarianism? Or are modern conservatives just utilitarians at their core? Find out as we discuss Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Walter Scott, George Canning, and Samuel Coleridge in their war for English politics!Follow us on X!Give us your opinions here!

"Highlander" is officially 40 years old. Well, technically Connor MacLeod is 508 years old now. Here's our tribute episode recorded in 2012 with co-host Sean Daly. Coming in March Stuck in the '80s: 20 Years of Conversations with Pop Culture Icons Who Defined a Decade, by podcast creator Steve Spears, will finally be published. Featuring more than 60 interviews from the podcast, along with insider stories and other previously unpublished insights, the book will be available on March 11. Our Sponsors   Our Sponsors SIT80s fans get 10% off everything at our new sponsor Rotellaresale.com. Collectibles, action figures, novelty genres, diecast cars, and even vinyl records, Zippo lighters and comic books. Use the promo code STUCK. The 2027 lineup of The 80s Cruise has been announced. Join us Feb. 27 to March 6 onboard Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas along with Chaka Khan, Night Ranger, Loverboy, DMC, John Waite, Peter Hook & the Light, Public Image Ltd., DJ Jazzy Jeff, Bob Geldof and the Boomtown Rats, Stryper, The Romantics, Nick Heyward of Haircut 100, Bulletboys, Katrina of Katrina and the Waves, Slim Jom Phantom, the Plimsouls and more. We will have a promo code for you soon. For more information, go to www.the80scruise.com. Our podcast is listener-supported via Patreon. Members get special swag and invitations to patron-only Zoom happy hours with the podcast hosts. Find out more at our official Patreon page. The Stuck in the '80s podcast is hosted by creator Steve Spears and Brad Williams. Find out more about the show, celebrating its 21st year in 2026, at sit80s.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Episode 89 From An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope  Mark McGuinness reads and discusses an excerpt from Epistle II of An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope. https://media.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/media.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/content.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/89_From_An_Essay_on_Man_by_Alexander_Pope.mp3 Poet Alexander Pope Reading and commentary by Mark McGuinness From An Essay on Man Epistle II By Alexander Pope Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;The proper study of mankind is man.Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,A being darkly wise, and rudely great:With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,With too much weakness for the stoic's pride,He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;In doubt his mind or body to prefer;Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;Alike in ignorance, his reason such,Whether he thinks too little, or too much:Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;Still by himself abused, or disabused;Created half to rise, and half to fall;Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:The glory, jest, and riddle of the world! Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides,Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,Correct old time, and regulate the sun;Go, soar with Plato to th' empyreal sphere,To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,And quitting sense call imitating God;As Eastern priests in giddy circles run,And turn their heads to imitate the sun.Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule –Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!   Podcast Transcript In the early 18th century, Alexander Pope's poetry was known to every cultured person in England. He was a fashionable, successful, wealthy writer and the preeminent poet of his age. He was also a canny businessman who published his translations of Homer via subscription, an early form of crowdfunding, and they sold so well he built himself, an extravagantly large villa in Twickenham – and its famous subterranean grotto still exists today. His political satires were so sharp and topical that he was rumoured to carry a pair of loaded pistols when going for a walk, in case one of his targets took violent exception. Phrases from his poetry are still proverbial: ‘hope springs eternal', ‘Fools rush in where angels fear to tread', ‘a little learning is a dangerous thing', ‘To err is human; to forgive divine', ‘What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed', and also the title of the movie, ‘eternal sunshine of the spotless mind'. But these days, Pope has really fallen out of fashion. He's seen as archaic and artificial. In an age when formal poetry is out of fashion, for many people he represents the worst kind of formal poetry: his very regular metre and full rhymes sound clunky to our ears. His rhyming couplets are undoubtedly clever, but that's part of the problem, because these days we associate poetry with emotions and self-expression, so cleverness is seen as a little suspect and somehow inauthentic. And I'll be honest, for a long time, I had that image of Pope. He represented everything the Romantics rebelled against at the end of the 18th century, and as a young poet I was on the side of the Romantics, so I had no interest in Pope. However, a few years ago, I challenged myself to have another look at his work, and what I discovered was a really sharp and thought-provoking and witty and formidably skilful poet, who in certain moods, is an absolute pleasure to read. And he doesn't fit every mood, but then there aren't many poets who do. So turning to today's poem, An Essay on Man is one of Pope's major works, it's about 1,300 lines long. As the title suggests it's a meditation on the nature of what he called mankind, and we call humankind, we have to make allowance for the historic focus on the male as representative of the species. It's also a didactic poem, he's not just reflecting on the subject, he is telling us what we should think about it. Which again, is a deeply unfashionable stance for poets these days, at least when they are on the side of a conservative or establishment position. And he does this in the form of a series of verse epistles, verse letters, which are addressed to Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke. The epistle form also means that the poem addresses the reader in a very direct manner, as you would expect in a letter. His basic stance, which we find in many of his poems, is of a reasonable man writing for a group of like-minded people, trying to establish some sort of common sense, shared ideas and principles, in a world where these need to be debated and defined and defended. This was the world of the coffee house and the salon, where people came together to debate, sometimes in very robust fashion. It came to be known as the Augustan age in English literature, by comparison with the satirical and political poetry of the age of Augustus Caesar. OK looking more closely at the poem itself, the excerpt I just read is from the second Epistle, and one of the first things we notice is what Milton would have called the ‘jingling' rhymes: Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man. Placed on this isthmus of a middle state, A being darkly wise, and rudely great: With too much knowledge for the sceptic side, With too much weakness for the stoic’s pride, It's pretty unmistakeable isn't it? One pair of rhymes after another. And in case you're wondering, yes, these rhyming couplets do go on all the way through the poem, and indeed all the way through most of Pope's work. And not just in Pope: for over a century, from about 1650 to 1780, this was a hugely popular verse form. They are known as heroic couplets because they are associated with epic narrative poems, such as John Dryden's translations of Virgil and Pope's translations of Homer. Each line is in iambic pentameter, the familiar ti TUM ti TUM ti TUm ti TUM ti TUM, with two lines next to each other forming couplets, and the poem proceeding with one couplet after another. The form can be traced back to Chaucer, who used rhyming couplets for many of his narrative poems. But by the time of Dryden and Pope it had evolved into a tighter couplet form, described as closed couplets, meaning that they were typically self contained, with a sentence, or a discrete part of a sentence, beginning and ending inside the couplet. For instance: Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man. That stands on its own as a single thought, a unit of sense, ending with a full stop. And the full rhyme of ‘scan' and ‘man' means the couplet snaps shut at the end – this is the closed couplet effect we associate with heroic couplets. In the next couplet he introduces the idea of man as a creature of ‘middle state': Placed on this isthmus of a middle state, A being darkly wise, and rudely great: And then another couplet elaborates on the sense of being pulled in different directions: With too much knowledge for the sceptic side, With too much weakness for the stoic's pride, So the poem proceeds one unit of sense at a time. The couplets are like Lego bricks, and Pope used them to build just about anything he wanted: literary and philosophical discourse here in the Essay on Man and in his Essay on Criticism; mock-heroic social comedy in The Rape of the Lock; actual epic in his translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey; and satire in The Dunciad. It's easy to see how this could become monotonous, and in the work of most poets of the time, it did. But Pope's great achievement was to take this established form and perfect it, sticking very strictly to the formal pattern, while varying the syntax, the grammatical patterns, with great subtlety and complexity, to keep the reader on their toes. Let's take another look at the first couplet. Notice the little pause in the middle of the first line, after ‘thyself': Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; This divides the line into two parts, conveying the dramatic tension in Pope's argument: he's saying that humans are ambitious for knowledge, they want to ‘scan' God, to examine him, but they should really focus on self-knowledge. This tension between opposites is known as antithesis, it's a rhetorical pattern we looked at back in episode 58 about one of Sir Philip Sidney's sonnets, and it's very common in Pope. And the tension is resolved in the next line, which is all one phrase, with no pause: The proper study of mankind is man. Have another listen to the couplet, to hear how the tension is established and then released: Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man. So when all of this comes together, the tension and release, the regular rhythm of the metre and the full rhymes clinching the couplet, it has the effect of making the words sound truer than true. The following couplet picks up on the antithesis, and extends it into paradox: Placed on this isthmus of a middle state, A being darkly wise, and rudely great: An isthmus is a narrow strip of land between two bodies of water, so standing on it, you could easily feel precarious and threatened. ‘Darkly wise' means ‘dimly wise', possessing a little knowledge, but not enough for full understanding. And ‘rudely great' means ‘powerful but coarse and unfinished'. And I think we can recognise what Pope is saying from our own experience – that sense of knowing enough to know how little we really know; of having great potential, but struggling to fulfil it. And isn't it delightful how Pope compresses all those feelings into these neat little paradoxes: ‘darkly wise and rudely great'. In another famous line, he describes true eloquence as ‘What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed', which is exactly what he achieves here. We can also note that ‘darkly wise' and ‘rudely great' are not only antitheses expressed as paradoxes, they are also an example of another rhetorical pattern: parallelism, where similar structures are repeated with variation. In this case ‘darkly' and ‘rudely' are both adverbs and ‘wise' and ‘great' are both adjectives, so grammatically they are identical, which suggests both similarity and difference in mankind's relationship to knowledge and power. The next couplet uses a more elaborate parallelism: With too much knowledge for the sceptic side, With too much weakness for the stoic's pride, So both lines say ‘With too much something for the something else'. It's hard to miss the pattern, isn't it? And notice how the couplet form is perfect for laying out two ideas that seem to counterbalance each other perfectly. So we're only six lines in and Pope has put his finger on a central conundrum in human existence, and conveyed it with at least three rhetorical patterns nested inside each other – antithesis, paradox and parallelism. Not only that, he's handled the metre and rhyme with great skill, wrapping each thought up in the neat little bow of a rhyming couplet. And if your mind is starting to boggle, welcome to the world of Pope's verse: elegant, authoritative and very, very clever. When we look closely, there's a lot going on inside every single couplet. He's like a watchmaker, working at a tiny scale, making an instrument with great precision and balance, that keeps perfect time, and chimes beautifully. And Pope's contemporaries would have found it easier to follow the sense than we do, because they were used to reading this kind of stuff. But I'm sure the poetry would often have given them pause, even if only for a moment, as they read. And my guess is that they would have enjoyed this slight difficulty, and the pleasure of making out the sense, with the little dopamine hit of understanding. Like unwrapping a sweet before you can pop it in your mouth and taste it. So I hope we're starting to see why Pope is the undisputed master of the heroic couplet. Even T. S. Eliot had to admit defeat, when he wrote a passage in this style for The Waste Land, only for Ezra Pound to point out tactfully that he couldn't compete with Pope, and draw the red pencil through it. But the form is more than simply one couplet after another. When he stacks them together, they create verse paragraphs, longer units of thought, that function very like paragraphs in prose. So having established the idea of man caught between opposing forces, he goes on to elaborate on the theme to dazzling effect: He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest; In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast; In doubt his mind or body to prefer; Born but to die, and reasoning but to err; Alike in ignorance, his reason such, Whether he thinks too little, or too much: The couplets are individually brilliant, and cumulatively overwhelming, both in terms of the mental effort required to tease out their meanings, and the tension between action and inaction, divine and bestial impulses, mind and body, birth and death, reason and error. And I think that's why I find this line so funny: Whether he thinks too little, or too much: It feels like he's throwing his arms up and laughing and admitting that he's overthinking it all. The verse paragraph ends with three more couplets, where he sums up the nature of man: Chaos of thought and passion, all confused; Still by himself abused, or disabused; Created half to rise, and half to fall; Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all; Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled: The glory, jest, and riddle of the world! Although Pope is describing a ‘chaos of thought', his own thinking is always sharp, however convoluted his argument becomes. So he sticks to the themes of power and knowledge, undercutting man's pretension by saying he is ‘Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all', and ‘Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled'. And he ends this paragraph with another rhetorical device, the tricolon, which uses three parallel elements to build to a conclusion: The glory, jest, and riddle of the world! We're familiar with this pattern in famous quotes from Julius Caesar, ‘I came, I saw, I conquered', the US Declaration of Independence, ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', and Shakespeare: ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen!' Here, Pope uses it with typical precision, since if someone is both the ‘glory… of the world' and it's ‘jest', i.e. the butt of its jokes, then that makes that person a ‘riddle': The glory, jest, and riddle of the world! So this sums up the nature of man, and sets up the jesting irony of the next verse paragraph: Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides, Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides; Instruct the planets in what orbs to run, Correct old time, and regulate the sun; If this were the start of the poem, we might be forgiven for taking Pope's words at face value, but in the light of what has gone before, it's pretty clear that ‘wondrous creature' is a mocking criticism. He was writing this in an age where Newtonian physics was in the ascendancy and people were full of enthusiasm about the new discoveries in science and the possibility of understanding and mastering the physical world. And given that we are still living in a so-called age of reason, I think his criticisms of scientific overreach are still relevant, and the joke is still funny, when he talks about instructing the planets in what orbits to follow, correcting time and regulating the sun. As if measuring were full understanding, let alone complete power. But Pope doesn't confine his criticism to scientists. He also has philosophers in his sight: Go, soar with Plato to th' empyreal sphere, To the first good, first perfect, and first fair; Or tread the mazy round his followers trod, And quitting sense call imitating God; He clearly doesn't have a lot of time for Plato's first principles. Neither is he impressed by the contemporary vogue for what we would call Orientalism: As Eastern priests in giddy circles run, And turn their heads to imitate the sun. It's possible that he had in mind the whirling dervishes of Persia, or maybe this is just a caricature of his idea of ‘Eastern priests'. So obviously this is a joke that hasn't aged so well. OK he ends this verse paragraph with a final jab, which restates the idea from the opening couplet in bluntly comic fashion: Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule – Then drop into thyself, and be a fool! It's hard to imagine a more apt image of intellectual presumption than trying to teach Eternal Wisdom a thing or two, but just in case we miss the point, Pope rams it home with relish: Then drop into thyself, and be a fool! And this is another characteristic aspect of Augustan poetry, particularly the satirical kind, that it can be very crude and direct, with a passage of sophisticated argument followed by a line or two where the mask drops and the insult is laid bare. And no, it's not big or clever, but let's face it, sometimes it can be deeply satisfying. One more little detail, which I can't help wondering about: notice how both of these couplets, conveying the same basic idea in very different tones, both hinge on the word ‘thyself': Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man. Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule – Then drop into thyself, and be a fool! So that word ‘thyself' could be used to refer to various individuals, and knowing Pope, I wouldn't be surprised if he intended all of them at once. Firstly, the phrasing sounds proverbial, in which case each couplet is an injunction to mankind at large. Secondly, it could refer to the reader, any reader, of the poem, whether Viscount Bolingbroke, an 18th-century wit, or you and me, reading the poem together on this podcast. It could also refer to the specific targets of Pope's criticism, such as the overreaching scientists or philosophers. I think Pope may also have had in mind a target nearer to home: himself. W. B. Yeats wrote in one of his essays, ‘We make out of the quarrel with others, rhetoric, but of the quarrel with ourselves, poetry'. And it's entirely possible that Pope is doing both at once: we've seen the brilliance of his rhetoric, in puncturing the pretensions of his fellow men and women. Yet by making poetry as well as rhetoric, he is arguably arguing with himself as well. It was of course be entirely right and proper and expected for a Christian such as Pope to admonish himself as well as others, for the many and various sins he describes in An Essay on Man. So from a moral viewpoint, I think I'm on pretty safe ground in suggesting that ‘thyself' includes Pope. But I would go further, and say that the idea of a brilliant mind that is not quite brilliant enough to fully understand itself may have been a deeply personal subject for Pope. Because what we have here is an extremely clever warning about taking cleverness to extremes. Maybe the irony was not lost on Pope. As he wrote in another poem, An Essay on Criticism, ‘A little learning is a dangerous thing'. So perhaps as we hear this passage again, and enjoy the sparkling wit and scurrilous attacks on others, we can also detect a note of self-reflection, and self-accusation, that makes it a little more poignant than it first appears. From An Essay on Man Epistle II By Alexander Pope Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;The proper study of mankind is man.Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,A being darkly wise, and rudely great:With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,With too much weakness for the stoic's pride,He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;In doubt his mind or body to prefer;Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;Alike in ignorance, his reason such,Whether he thinks too little, or too much:Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;Still by himself abused, or disabused;Created half to rise, and half to fall;Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:The glory, jest, and riddle of the world! Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides,Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,Correct old time, and regulate the sun;Go, soar with Plato to th' empyreal sphere,To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,And quitting sense call imitating God;As Eastern priests in giddy circles run,And turn their heads to imitate the sun.Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule –Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!   Alexander Pope Alexander Pope was an English poet and translator who was born in 1688 and died in 1744. As a Catholic he was barred from university and public office, so he educated himself and forged a brilliant literary career, becoming the leading poet of Augustan England, celebrated for his razor-sharp satire and polished heroic couplets. Early success came with An Essay on Criticism and The Rape of the Lock, followed by monumental translations of Homer that made him financially independent. His later works, including The Dunciad, attacked dullness and corruption. In An Essay on Man, he explored human nature, providence, and moral order with epigrammatic clarity. He lived at Twickenham, where he created a famous garden and grotto.   A Mouthful of Air – the podcast This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday. You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app. You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email. The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman. A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant. Listen to the show You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms Related Episodes From An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope Episode 89 From An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope Mark McGuinness reads and discusses an excerpt from Epistle II of An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope.Poet Alexander PopeReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessFrom An Essay on Man Epistle II By Alexander Pope Know... Occupied by Tim Rich Episode 88 Occupied by Tim Rich  Tim Rich reads ‘Occupied' and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: Dark Angels: Three Contemporary PoetsAvailable from: Dark Angels is available from: The publisher: Paekakariki Press Amazon: UK... Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold Episode 87 Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold  Mark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Dover Beach' by Matthew Arnold.Poet Matthew ArnoldReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessDover Beach By Matthew Arnold The sea is calm tonight.The tide is full, the moon lies...

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comMichael is quite simply one of the best nonfiction writers out the planet: a real role model. He's been a contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine since 1987, and he's the bestselling author of many books, including How to Change Your Mind — which I reviewed in 2018 — and its sequel, This Is Your Mind on Plants, which we discussed on the Dishcast in 2021. This week we covered his new book, A World Appears: A Journey Into Consciousness.For two clips of our convo — on the magic of spontaneous thoughts, and the consciousness of kids — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: toasters and other things that don't have consciousness; Thomas Nagel's bat; panpsychism; Francis Crick trying to solve consciousness; the global neuronal workspace theory; how brains are not like computers; AI and consciousness; Proust; James Joyce; Wordsworth and the Romantics; William James and stream of consciousness; Lucy Ellmann's Ducks, Newburyport; words on the tip of your tongue; phenomenology; letting your mind wander; Addison's Walk at Oxford; how smartphones distract from thinking; Trump taking up our headspace; Oakeshott and “the deadliness of doing”; AI and UBI; Allison Gopnik's lantern vs spotlight consciousness; how a child's brain resembles an adult's on psychedelics; ego death; the default mode network; meditation; the flow state of deep reading; the benefits of boredom; habit and ritual; my 10-day silent meditation retreat; the sentience of plants; Buddhism and Matthieu Ricard; the soul; the film Into Great Silence; and the disenchantment of the Enlightenment.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Jeffrey Toobin on the pardon power, Derek Thompson on abundance, Matt Goodwin on the earthquake in UK politics, Jonah Goldberg on the state of conservatism, Tom Holland on the Christian roots of liberalism, Tiffany Jenkins on privacy, Adrian Wooldridge on “the lost genius of liberalism,” Tom Junod on his memoir and masculinity, and Kathryn Paige Harden on the genetics of vice and virtue. As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Primavera de 1991: 'Cuidado con Paloma (que me han dicho que es de goma)' convierte a Emilio Aragón en número uno mientras el mundo escucha a Madonna o Guns N' Roses.Décadas después, la comparación con 'What I Like About You' de The Romantics, publicada en los años 70, sigue alimentando el debate: mismo nervio rítmico, estribillo contagioso y un 'parecido razonable' que muchos oyen, aunque nunca hubo denuncia ni pleito. ¿Influencia, coincidencia o simple aire de familia? El misterio pop sigue abierto.

We build a spectacular mix tape featuring all the best songs with "call & response" – a fun song element where back-up vocals echo or "respond" to the lead vocals in a back and forth manner . You'll catch on quickly once we start jamming with The Romantics, Billy Joel, Aerosmith, the Mamas & the Papas, and more!

Host Silas Farley is back with another fascinating Hear the Dance conversation, joined this week by Kay Mazzo, Christine Redpath, and Jean-Pierre Frohlich to discuss Jerome Robbins' masterpiece Dances at a Gathering. In this wide-ranging and intimate conversation, they share memories of the ballet's momentous 1969 premiere as well as time spent with Robbins in the rehearsal studio. As they discuss the various sections of Dances, they reflect on moments when Robbins' humor emerges; the "freedom" and even suspense of certain passages; and the ways in which the ballet is a gift from the choreographer as much to the dancers, who share in its rich sense of community, as to the audience. (1:09:57) Written by Silas Farley Edited by Emilie Silvestri Music:  Concerto for Violin and Orchestra in D major (1931) by Igor Stravinsky Mazurka, op. 63, no. 3; Waltz, op. 69, no. 2; Mazurka, op. 33, no. 3; Mazurkas, op. 6, nos. 2 and 4, op. 7, nos. 4 and 5, op. 24, no. 2; Waltz, op. 24; Waltz, op. 34, no. 2; Mazurka, op. 56, no. 2; Etude, op. 25, no. 4; Waltz, op. 34, no. 1; Waltz, op. 70, no. 2; Etude, op. 25, no. 5; Etude, op. 10, no. 2; Scherzo, op. 20, no. 1; Nocturne, op. 15, no. 1 All music performed by New York City Ballet Orchestra Reading List: Somewhere: The Life of Jerome Robbins by Amanda Vaill Jerome Robbins, by Himself: Selections from His Letters, Journals, Drawings, Photographs, and an Unfinished Memoir Edited and with Commentary by Amanda Vaill Life of Chopin by Franz Liszt Chopin: Prince of the Romantics by Adam Zamoyski Thirty Years: Lincoln Kirstein's The New York City Ballet by Lincoln Kirstein Repertory in Review: 40 Years of the New York City Ballet by Nancy Reynolds, with an Introduction by Lincoln Kirstein

Korean-Japanese crossover dramas are a phenomenon that's building steam for a few years. Taking a look at the shows we have till now with Frabby (from crabbyfordramas.wordpress.com).(Paroma recorded this livestream for her YouTube Channel: The Drama Notes)TIMESTAMPS:Dramas as they first come up in the discussion:00:00 Intro 06:00 First Love (2022) 08:45 Eye Love You (2024) 10:12 What Comes After Love (2024) 15:13 Romantics Anonymous (2025) 16:57 Kimbap and Onigiri (2026) 23:10 Winter Sonata (2002) 26:13 Marry My Husband Japan (2025) 30:30 Can This Love Be Translated? (2026) 32:40 Will You Be My Manager? (2025) 45:53 Unnatural (2018) 46:17 Full time wife escapist (2016) 47:55 Learning to Love (2025) 54:24 Orange Days (2004) 1:01:04 Friends (2002) 1:04:35 Soul Mate (2026)Leave us your COMMENTS here.LINKS MENTIONED:Frabby's blog that convinced me to like the AMNESIA trope (not the childhood romance got that wrong): https://share.google/rwGc8VvKtOJEv8sctLEAVE US A REVIEW:Apple podcasts | Spotify | Audible!MORE EPISODES YOU MAY LIKE:Episode:NEWSLETTER:Join our email list for the monthly newsletter with podcast announcements and special episodes!PATRONS:SPECIAL THANK YOU to our beloved patrons for another year of helping us light the lanterns to sail our ship! Join it here!❤︎ You can MAJORLY support us by leaving a review on your podcast app, or sharing the episode with friends! ❤︎SOCIAL:Follow us on Twitter @dramasoverflow and Instagram @dramasoverflowers_.Email us at dramasoverflowers@gmail.com.CREDITS:This episode was edited by _____. Music is ___ by ____

There is an inkling of a legend that one day scientists will perfect a regular orbit for the audio edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement. Or at least, in the current day and age, this podcast edition happens as a secondary or perhaps tertiary by-product of the creation of many stories. The optimal time for this to come is Monday morning but the mini Ice Age has taken its toll on normal routines. I'm Sean Tubbs, and I do hope you'll take a listen whenever you can.In this edition:* City Council took a look at national financial picture at recent retreat (read the story)* Charlottesville City Council briefed on FY27 budget; assessments up an average of 3.72 percent in 2026 (read the story)* Charlottesville's FY25 surplus totals $8.5 million (read the story)* The Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority meets for the first time in 2026 (read the story)* Albemarle County seeking changes to form-based code at Rio / 29 (read the story)* Council confirms willingness to let group build bridge to Vietnam memorial, accept the infrastructure (read the story)* City Manager Sanders goes through his work plan; Ashley Marshall leaving city government (read the story)First shout-out: Camp Albemarle!Today's subscriber-supported public service announcement goes out to Camp Albemarle, which has for over eighty years been a “wholesome rural, rustic and restful site for youth activities, church groups, civic events and occasional private programs.”Located on 14 acres on the banks of the Moorman's River near Free Union, Camp Albemarle continues as a legacy of being a Civilian Conservation Corps project that sought to promote the importance of rural activities. Rebuilt in the early 1980's, a legacy of 4-H programming thrives along with a wide range of additional activities. Educational initiatives from schools across the region spark environmental learning moments at every turn.Second shout-out: WTJU Folk Marathon running this weekWTJU's volunteer hosts are curating a Folk music mecca, running February 2 – 9, all to raise money for the non-commercial radio station as it continues to find its footing after federal funding cuts. Check out the schedule on the website here!Keep your dial set to 91.1 FM (or stream from their player) for a week of Folk sounds, including old-time, honky tonk, global music, roots, and mind-bending psych folk. There will be deep dives into the work of singular artists, including Brandi Carlile, John Prine, Jesse Welles, Martin Carthy, and many more. There will be tributes to some of the musicians we lost in 2025, including Raul Malo, Danny Thompson, Joe Ely, Michael Hurley, and Todd Snider.The Marathon will boast eight live concerts, open to the public, and broadcast on air, online, and on the WTJU YouTube channel. Stop by to see Mama Tried, Scuffletown, the Buzzard Hollow Boys, Red and the Romantics, Ramona and the Holy Smokes, and others! Every hour of the seven days and nights broadcasts directly from WTJU; even the overnight programming is populated with archived concerts from our very own stage! We have also invited some of our favorite local musicians in to present special programming, including Banjo Hall of Fame member Bill Evans, singer/songwriter extraordinaire Terri Allard, and band leader Waverly Minor. Where else but WTJU can you find such support from the community?End notes on #995-APeople who listen to the audio of this one may notice some interesting errors. More than usual, I'm popping my p's and otherwise hitting plosives. That's because something weird is happening with my recording set-up that I can't hear proper gain on my voice when I'm recording. If I can't hear them when I'm narrating a script, then they end up in the final mix because there's no choice.I'll figure it out, but I left it in for this one because this may have been one of the hardest audio editions to have done for a while. I barely took a breather in January and sometimes when I do too much work I don't process all of the stories properly.So yesterday I took off from writing new stories to get caught up with what I've already done. I usually do this work on Saturdays but I wanted to look at the General Assembly. This particular audio version also includes brand new interstitials. Those are the bits of sound in between the audio segments. One of the original ideas was that I would continue to make new ones but I've been using the same 20 stings over and over. So, today I made an effort to make new ones from existing weird things I've made over the years.Speaking of which, I've had an idea. In the coming weeks I'll be announcing a new way people can support my work, and that also involves changing the Patreon away from reporting and to something more artistic and creative. Probably not at all even close to the mainstream and it may not work, but I don't want to close the account.In any case, there may or may not be a regular newsletter today. I have to attend to the business of it all and this is a day where I may need to give myself over to that.Then again, maybe I won't. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

Send us a textJoin DJ Paulie and Lou on this week's episode of the Back in Time Brothers Radio Show as they explore the intersection of 90s music, marketing, and movies.Top 10 Countdown: Songs from 90s Commercials DJ Britt leads the charge with a countdown of the best tracks that found a second life selling us everything from jeans to toaster pastries. The brothers discuss the memorable tunes that lived rent-free in our heads, including Was Not Was's "Walk the Dinosaur" (Burger King), Billy Idol's "Dancing with Myself" (Toyota), and The Romantics' high-energy anthem "What I Like About You" (Budweiser). The segment culminates with the quirky use of The Vapors' "Turning Japanese" in a Pop-Tarts campaign.Movie Time: Flops That Became Legends The hosts dive into a surprising list of 90s movies that failed to perform at the box office but later achieved legendary status on DVD and cable. The discussion covers why summer release dates doomed holiday favorites like Hocus Pocus and how poor marketing sank The Iron Giant and Fight Club. They also examine how The Shawshank Redemption went from a financial disappointment to being considered one of the greatest films of all time.TV Time: The Legacy of 90210 In this segment, the brothers analyze the cultural phenomenon of Beverly Hills, 90210. They discuss how the show tackled heavy social issues and paved the way for a generation of teen dramas. The conversation traces the show's DNA through its spin-offs and spiritual successors, including Melrose Place, Dawson's Creek, The O.C., and One Tree Hill.Rock Talk with Todd Snyder Todd takes a darker look at the decade with "Scandalous 90s TV Commercials." This segment explores the friction between rock integrity and corporate advertising, detailing the fallout from Madonna's controversial "Like a Prayer" Pepsi spot, the legal battles over Nike using The Beatles' music, and the "happy slapping" craze caused by the Tango Orange Man ads in the UK.Stupid Criminals & Random Facts The episode features a hilarious lineup of inept criminals, including a woman who misused a "beer cave" in Pennsylvania, a naked man with a chainsaw in Minnesota, and a robber who tried to hold up a bank by simply claiming he was the boss. Finally, the team shares random facts ranging from Abraham Lincoln's wrestling career to the history of the "I Love NY" logo.Support the showThanks for listening. Join us each Monday at 1pm Central at www.urlradio.net and follow us on Facebook!

Welcome to PTBN Pop's Video Jukebox Song of The Day! Every weekday will be featuring a live watch of a great and memorable music video. This week, since we need to catch up on sleep from the exhaustion of the holidays, we are featuring songs that are about sleep. On today's episode, Andy Atherton is watching, “Talking In Your Sleep” by The Romantics from 1983.   The YouTube link for the video is below so you can watch along! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmGMzyajA2U

Episode 87 Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold Mark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Dover Beach' by Matthew Arnold. https://media.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/media.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/content.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/87_Dover_Beach_by_Matthew_Arnold.mp3 Poet Matthew Arnold Reading and commentary by Mark McGuinness Dover Beach By Matthew Arnold The sea is calm tonight.The tide is full, the moon lies fairUpon the straits; on the French coast the lightGleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!Only, from the long line of sprayWhere the sea meets the moon-blanched land,Listen! you hear the grating roarOf pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,At their return, up the high strand,Begin, and cease, and then again begin,With tremulous cadence slow, and bringThe eternal note of sadness in. Sophocles long agoHeard it on the Aegean, and it broughtInto his mind the turbid ebb and flowOf human misery; weFind also in the sound a thought,Hearing it by this distant northern sea. The Sea of FaithWas once, too, at the full, and round earth's shoreLay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.But now I only hearIts melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,Retreating, to the breathOf the night-wind, down the vast edges drearAnd naked shingles of the world. Ah, love, let us be trueTo one another! for the world, which seemsTo lie before us like a land of dreams,So various, so beautiful, so new,Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;And we are here as on a darkling plainSwept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,Where ignorant armies clash by night. Podcast Transcript This is a magnificent and haunting poem by Matthew Arnold, an eminent Victorian poet. Written and published at the mid-point of the nineteenth century – it was probably written around 1851 and published in 1867 – it is not only a shining example of Victorian poetry at its best, but it also, and not coincidentally, embodies some of the central preoccupations of the Victorian age. The basic scenario is very simple: a man is looking out at the sea at night and thinking deep thoughts. It's something that we've all done, isn't it? The two tend to go hand-in-hand. When you're looking out into the darkness, listening to the sound of the sea, it's hard not to be thinking deep thoughts. If you've been a long time listener to this podcast, it may remind you of another poet who wrote about standing on the shore thinking deep thoughts, looking at the sea, Shakespeare, in his Sonnet 60: Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,So do our minutes hasten to their end; Arnold's poem is not a sonnet but a poem in four verse paragraphs. They're not stanzas, because they're not regular, but if you look at the text on the website, you can clearly see it's divided into four sections. The first part is a description of the sea, as seen from Dover Beach, which is on the shore of the narrowest part of the English channel, making it the closest part of England to France: The sea is calm tonight.The tide is full, the moon lies fairUpon the straits; – on the French coast the lightGleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay. And as you can hear, the poem has a pretty regular and conventional rhythm, based on iambic metre, ti TUM, with the second syllable taking the stress in every metrical unit. But what's slightly unusual is that the lines have varying lengths. By the time we get to the third line: Upon the straits; – on the French coast the light There are five beats. There's a bit of variation in the middle of the line, but it's very recognisable as classic iambic pentameter, which has a baseline pattern going ti TUM, ti TUM, ti TUM, ti TUM, ti TUM. But before we get to the pentameter, we get two short lines: The sea is calm tonight.Only three beats; andThe tide is full, the moon lies fair – four beats. We also start to notice the rhymes: ‘tonight' and ‘light'. And we have an absolutely delightful enjambment, where a phrase spills over the end of one line into the next one: On the French coast the light,Gleams and is gone. Isn't that just fantastic? The light flashes out like a little surprise at the start of the line, just as it's a little surprise for the speaker looking out to sea. OK, once he's set the scene, he makes an invitation: Come to the window, sweet is the night-air! So if there's a window, he must be in a room. There's somebody in the room with him, and given that it's night it could well be a bedroom. So this person could be a lover. It's quite likely that this poem was written on Arnold's honeymoon, which would obviously fit this scenario. But anyway, he's inviting this person to come to the window and listen. And what does this person hear? Well, helpfully, the speaker tells us: Listen! you hear the grating roarOf pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,At their return, up the high strand,Begin, and cease, and then again begin,With tremulous cadence slow, and bringThe eternal note of sadness in. Isn't that just great? The iambic metre is continuing with some more variations, which we needn't go into. And the rhyme is coming more and more to the fore. Just about every line in this section rhymes with another line, but it doesn't have a regular pattern. Some of the rhymes are close together, some are further apart. There's only one line in this paragraph that doesn't rhyme, and that's ‘Listen! You hear the grating roar'. If this kind of shifting rhyme pattern reminds you of something you've heard before, you may be thinking all the way back to Episode 34 where we looked at Coleridge's use of floating rhymes in his magical poem ‘Kubla Khan'. And it's pretty evident that Arnold is also casting a spell, in this case to mimic the rhythm of the waves coming in and going out, as they ‘Begin, and cease, and then again begin,'. And then the wonderful last line of the paragraph, as the waves ‘bring / The eternal note of sadness in'. You know, in the heart of the Victorian Age, when the Romantics were still within living memory, poets were still allowed to do that kind of thing. Try it nowadays of course, and the Poetry Police will be round to kick your front door in at 5am and arrest you. Anyway. The next paragraph is a bit of a jump cut: Sophocles long agoHeard it on the Aegean, and it broughtInto his mind the turbid ebb and flowOf human misery; So Arnold, a classical scholar, is letting us know he knows who Sophocles, the ancient Greek playwright was. And he's establishing a continuity across time of people looking out at the sea and thinking these deep thoughts. At this point, Arnold explicitly links the sea and the thinking:                                     weFind also in the sound a thought,Hearing it by this distant northern sea. And the thought that we hear when we listen to the waves is what Arnold announces in the next verse paragraph, and he announces it with capital letters: The Sea of FaithWas once, too, at the full, and round earth's shoreLay like the folds of a bright girdle furled. And for a modern reader, I think this is the point of greatest peril for Arnold, where he's most at risk of losing us. We may be okay with ‘the eternal note of sadness', but as soon as he starts giving us the Sea of Faith, we start to brace ourselves. Is this going to turn into a horrible religious allegory, like The Pilgrim's Progress? I mean, it's a short step from the Sea of Faith to the Slough of Despond and the City of Destruction. And it doesn't help that Arnold uses the awkwardly rhyming phrase ‘a bright girdle furled' – that's not going to get past the Poetry Police, is it? But fear not; Arnold doesn't go there. What comes next is, I think, the best bit of the poem. So he says the Sea of Faith ‘was once, too, at the full', and then: But now I only hearIts melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,Retreating, to the breathOf the night-wind, down the vast edges drearAnd naked shingles of the world. Well, if you thought the eternal note of sadness was great, this tops it! It's absolutely fantastic. That line, ‘Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,' where the ‘it' is faith, the Sea of Faith. And the significance of the line is underlined by the fact that the word ‘roar' is a repetition – remember, that one line in the first section that didn't rhyme? Listen! you hear the grating roar See what Arnold did there? He left that sound hovering at the back of the mind, without a rhyme, until it came back in this section, a subtle but unmistakeable link between the ‘grating roar' of the actual sea at Dover Beach, and the ‘withdrawing roar' of the Sea of Faith: Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, Isn't that the most Victorian line ever? It encapsulates the despair that accompanied the crisis of faith in 19th century England. This crisis was triggered by the advance of modern science – including the discoveries of fossils, evidence of mass extinction of previous species, and the theory of evolution, with Darwin's Origin of Species published in 1859, in between the writing and publication of ‘Dover Beach'. Richard Holmes, in his wonderful new biography of the young Tennyson, compares this growing awareness of the nature of life on Earth to the modern anxiety over climate change. For the Victorians, he writes, it created a ‘deep and existential terror'. One thing that makes this passage so effective is that Arnold has already cast the spell in the first verse paragraph, hypnotising us with the rhythm and rhyme, and linking it to the movement of the waves. In the second paragraph, he says, ‘we find also in the sound a thought'. And then in the third paragraph, he tells us the thought. And the thought that he attaches to this movement, which we are by now emotionally invested in, is a thought of such horror and profundity – certainly for his Victorian readers – that the retreat of the sea of faith really does feel devastating. It leaves us gazing down at the naked shingles of the world. The speaker is now imaginatively out of the bedroom and down on the beach. This is very relatable; we've all stood on the beach and watched the waves withdrawing beneath our feet and the shingle being left there. It's an incredibly vivid evocation of a pretty abstract concept. Then, in the fourth and final verse paragraph, comes a bit of a surprise: Ah, love, let us be trueTo one another! Well, I for one was not expecting that! From existential despair to an appeal to his beloved. What a delightful, romantic (with a small ‘r') response to the big-picture, existential catastrophe. And for me, it's another little echo of Shakespeare's Sonnet 60, which opens with a poet contemplating the sea and the passing of time and feeling the temptation to despair, yet also ends with an appeal to the consolation of love: And yet to times in hope my verse shall stand,blockquotePraising thy worth, despite his cruel hand. Turning back to Arnold. He says ‘let us be true / To one another'. And then he links their situation to the existential catastrophe, and says this is precisely why they should be true to each other: for the world, which seemsTo lie before us like a land of dreams,So various, so beautiful, so new,Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; It sounds, on the face of it, a pretty unlikely justification for being true to one another in a romantic sense. But actually, this is a very modern stance towards romantic love. It's like the gleam of light that just flashed across the Channel from France – the idea of you and me against an unfeeling world, of love as redemption, or at least consolation, in a meaningless universe. In a world with ‘neither joy, nor love, nor light,' our love becomes all the more poignant and important. Of course, we could easily object that, regardless of religious faith, the world does have joy and love and light. His very declaration of love is evidence of this. But let's face it, we don't always come to poets for logical consistency, do we? And we don't have to agree with Matthew Arnold to find this passage moving; most of us have felt like this at some time when we've looked at the world in what feels like the cold light of reality. He evokes it so vividly and dramatically that I, for one, am quite prepared to go with him on this. Then we get the final three lines of the poem:We are here as on a darkling plainSwept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,Where ignorant armies clash by night. I don't know about you, but I find this a little jarring in the light of what we've just heard. We've had the magnificent description of the sea and its effect on human thought, extending that into the idea of faith receding into illusion, and settling on human love as some kind of consolation for the loss of faith. So why do we need to be transported to a windswept plain where armies are clashing and struggling? It turns out to be another classical reference, to the Greek historian Thucydides' account of the night battle of Epipolae, where the two armies were running around in the dark and some of them ended up fighting their own side in the confusion. I mean, fine, he's a classical scholar. And obviously, it's deeply meaningful to him. But to me, this feels a little bit bolted on. A lot of people love that ending, but to me, it's is not as good as some of the earlier bits, or at least it doesn't quite feel all of a piece with the imagery of the sea. But overall, it is a magnificent poem, and this is a small quibble. Stepping back, I want to have another look at the poem's form, specifically the meter, and even more specifically, the irregularity of the meter, which is quite unusual and actually quite innovative for its time. As I've said, it's in iambic meter, but it's not strictly iambic pentameter. You may recall I did a mini series on the podcast a while ago looking at the evolution of blank verse, unrhymed iambic pentameter, from Christopher Marlowe and Shakespeare's dramatic verse, then Milton's Paradise Lost and finally Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey. ‘Dover Beach' is rhymed, so it's not blank verse, but most of the techniques Arnold uses here are familiar from those other poets, with variations on the basic rhythm, sometimes switching the beats around, and using enjambment and caesura (a break or pause in the middle of the line). But, and – this is quite a big but – not every line has five beats. The lines get longer and shorter in an irregular pattern, apparently according to Arnold's instinct. And this is pretty unusual, certainly for 1851. It's not unique, we could point to bits of Tennyson or Arthur Hugh Clough for metrical experiments in a similar vein, but it's certainly not common practice. And I looked into this, to see what the critics have said about it. And it turns out the scholars are divided. In one camp, the critics say that what Arnold is doing is firmly in the iambic pentameter tradition – it's just one more variation on the pattern. But in the other camp are people who say, ‘No, this is something new; this is freer verse,' and it is anticipating free verse, the non-metrical poetry with no set line lengths that came to be the dominant verse form of the 20th century. Personally, I think you can look back to Wordsworth and see a continuity with his poetic practice. But you could equally look forward, to a link with T. S. Eliot's innovations in ‘The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' and The Waste Land. Eliot is often described as an innovator in free verse, which is true up to a point, but a lot of his writing in that early period isn't strictly free verse; it's a kind of broken up metrical verse, where he often uses an iambic metre with long and short lines, which he varies with great intuitive skill – in a similar manner to Arnold's ‘Dover Beach'. Interestingly, when ‘Dover Beach' was first published, the reviews didn't really talk about the metre, which is ammunition for the people who say, ‘Well, this is just a kind of iambic pentameter'. Personally, I think what we have here is something like the well-known Duck-Rabbit illusion, where you can look at the same drawing and either see a duck or a rabbit, depending how you look at it. So from one angle, ‘Dover Beach' is clearly continuing the iambic pentameter tradition; from another angle, it anticipates the innovations of free verse. We can draw a line from the regular iambic pentameter of Wordsworth (writing at the turn of the 18th and 19th century) to the fractured iambic verse of Eliot at the start of the 20th century. ‘Dover Beach' is pretty well halfway between them, historically and poetically. And I don't think this is just a dry technical development. There is something going on here in terms of the poet's sense of order and disorder, faith and doubt. Wordsworth, in the regular unfolding of his blank verse, conveys his basic trust in an ordered and meaningful universe. Matthew Arnold is writing very explicitly about the breakup of faith, and we can start to see it in the breakup of the ordered iambic pentameter. By the time we get to the existential despair of Eliot's Waste Land, the meter is really falling apart, like the Waste Land Eliot describes. So overall, I think we can appreciate what a finely balanced poem Arnold has written. It's hard to categorise. You read it the first time and think, ‘Oh, right, another conventional Victorian melancholy lament'. But just when we think he's about to go overboard with the Sea of Faith, he surprises us and with that magnificent central passage. And just as he's about to give in to despair, we get that glimmering spark of love lighting up, and we think, ‘Well, maybe this is a romantic poem after all'. And maybe Arnold might look at me over his spectacles and patiently explain that actually, this is why that final metaphor of the clashing armies is exactly right. Friend and foe are running in first one direction, then another, inadvertently killing the people on the wrong side. So the simile gives us that sense of being caught in the cross-currents of a larger sweep of history. With all of that hovering in our mind, let's go over to the window once more and heed his call to listen to the sound of the Victorian sea at Dover Beach. Dover Beach By Matthew Arnold The sea is calm tonight.The tide is full, the moon lies fairUpon the straits; on the French coast the lightGleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!Only, from the long line of sprayWhere the sea meets the moon-blanched land,Listen! you hear the grating roarOf pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,At their return, up the high strand,Begin, and cease, and then again begin,With tremulous cadence slow, and bringThe eternal note of sadness in. Sophocles long agoHeard it on the Aegean, and it broughtInto his mind the turbid ebb and flowOf human misery; weFind also in the sound a thought,Hearing it by this distant northern sea. The Sea of FaithWas once, too, at the full, and round earth's shoreLay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.But now I only hearIts melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,Retreating, to the breathOf the night-wind, down the vast edges drearAnd naked shingles of the world. Ah, love, let us be trueTo one another! for the world, which seemsTo lie before us like a land of dreams,So various, so beautiful, so new,Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;And we are here as on a darkling plainSwept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,Where ignorant armies clash by night. Matthew Arnold Matthew Arnold was a British poet, critic, and public intellectual who was born in 1822 and died in 1888. His father was Thomas Arnold, the famed headmaster of Rugby School. Arnold studied Classics at Oxford and first became known for lyrical, melancholic poems such as ‘Dover Beach', ‘The Scholar-Gipsy', and ‘Thyrsis', that explore the loss of faith in the modern world. Appointed an inspector of schools, he travelled widely and developed strong views on culture, education, and society. His critical essays, especially Culture and Anarchy, shaped debates about the role of culture in public life. Arnold remains a central figure bridging Romanticism and early modern thought. A Mouthful of Air – the podcast This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday. You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app. You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email. The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman. A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant. Listen to the show You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms Related Episodes Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold Episode 87 Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold Mark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Dover Beach' by Matthew Arnold.Poet Matthew ArnoldReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessDover Beach By Matthew Arnold The sea is calm tonight.The tide is full, the moon lies... Recalling Brigid by Orna Ross Orna Ross reads and discusses ‘Recalling Brigid’ from Poet Town. From The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge Episode 85 From The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge Mark McGuinness reads and discusses a passage from ‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner' by Samuel Taylor Coleridge.Poet Samuel Taylor ColeridgeReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessFrom...

"Nostalgia" is a portmanteau coined in 1688 by Johannes Hofer, combining the Greek nostros (homecoming) and algos (pain, ache).  Hofer was a medical student, and he invented this term to describe a kind of melancholia, a somewhat depressive state–- and so, from its inception, "nostalgia" was viewed as a mood disorder.  For the Romantics, it was a sentimentality for the past, the good old days of yore, combining the sadness of loss with a joy that that loss is not complete or total.  Nostalgia is also paradoxical, because the past we long for and re-member is a past that was never present.  If it is a "homecoming," what one discovers in returning home, as Odysseus does, is that there is no "there" there.  That is, nostalgia is always unheimlich ("unhomely") or more accurately, "uncanny."  It always involves a manner of self-deception about what was by distorting or idealizing the past. This can often have negative, even dangerous consequences: individually, socially, and politically.  More than just a "mood," nostalgia is a vector of philosophical investigation par excellence that opens onto a wide range of themes: memory, time, the hermeneutics of personal identity, and even reality itself.   So, pour a drink, and let's see what might be problematic about what we "fondly remember"!Full episode notes available at this link:https://hotelbarpodcast.com/nostalgia---------------------SUBSCRIBE to the podcast now to automatically download new episodes!SUPPORT Hotel Bar Sessions podcast on Patreon here! (Or by contributing one-time donations here!)BOOKMARK the Hotel Bar Sessions website here for detailed show notes and reading lists, and contact any of our co-hosts here.Hotel Bar Sessions is also on Facebook, YouTube, BlueSky, and TikTok. Like, follow, share, duet, whatever... just make sure your friends know about us! ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Murph & Markus - hour 4: Another one not with us, gauging the temperature on a potential Bryce Eldridge trade, & WDYTLT: "What I Like About You" by The RomanticsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Murph & Markus - hour 4: Another one not with us, gauging the temperature on a potential Bryce Eldridge trade, & WDYTLT: "What I Like About You" by The RomanticsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week is all poetry—our first all-poetry week of the Immersive Humanities project! After struggling through young Werther, I decided I needed to step back and understand Romanticism as a movement. I offer a brief review of the history leading up to Romanticism; after all, most movements are reactions against what precedes them. The printing press and Protestant Reformation blew open European thought, leading to centuries of philosophical upheaval. Empiricists like Bacon and Hume insisted that knowledge must be tested; rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza trusted pure reason. Kant eventually tried to unite both. Their world gave rise to the Enlightenment—and then came the Romantics, pushing back with emotion, imagination, and nature.That's the world our poets wrote in. This week I used Pocket Book of Romantic Poetry and read Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, and Keats (skipping Novalis and Hölderlin). I loved some poems, disliked others. Blake's mystical, anti-Christian tone left me cold. Wordsworth's childhood wonder won me over. Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner shocked me--it's gripping, almost epic. Byron was brilliant, scandalous, and endlessly readable. His Prisoner of Chillon might have been my favorite poem of the week. Shelley felt dreamlike and visionary, while Keats, to me, seemed talented but young. What did the world lose when he died?Reading these poets in their historical context changed everything. They're passionate, experimental, and surprisingly radical—not quaint! We are missing out when we resort to tired anthologies to get to know these poets--something that I didn't expect to feel so strongly about! Paired with Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony and Chopin's preludes, this week was a revelation.LINKTed Gioia/The Honest Broker's 12-Month Immersive Humanities Course (paywalled!)My Amazon Book List (NOT an affiliate link)That cool Medieval Science Book The Genesis of Science by James HannamCONNECTThe complete list of Crack the Book Episodes: https://cheryldrury.substack.com/p/crack-the-book-start-here?r=u3t2rTo read more of my writing, visit my Substack - https://www.cheryldrury.substack.com.Follow me on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/cldrury/ LISTENSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/5GpySInw1e8IqNQvXow7Lv?si=9ebd5508daa245bdApple Podcasts -

In this episode, I turn to the Romantics as guides for a world coming apart, viewing Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as a protest against a mechanistic worldview that devalues feeling. Some questions that emerge from this journey are:   What do we do when technology outpaces our moral framework? Just because we're able to do something, should we? What responsibilities do we incur when we create a new form of life?  Are we repeating Frankenstein's mistake when we build systems and then disclaim any obligation to the creatures we have released onto the world? Books Mentioned: Magnificent Rebels, Andrea Wulf Romantic Outlaws, Charlotte Gordon Frankenstein, Mary Shelley A Flash of Golden Fire, Thomas Elsner The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge The Romantics and Us, Simon Schama BERGHAIN, Rosalia [Lux] Guillermo del Toro's, Frankenstein

Our November Yak covers a bunch of dramas we just started and one drama we needed to talk in depth about - Kim Eun-suk's Make a Wish Genie. Join Paroma and Anisa as we get back into talking at you for 90 minutes again.Leave us your COMMENTS here. LINKS MENTIONED:Paroma's video on Make a Wish Genie.TIMESTAMPS:00:00 Hello!01:20 Ms Incognito10:30 My Troublesome Star18:10 Romantics Anonymous33:25 Typhoon Family35:09 Oh My Ghost Client43:26 Make a Wish, GenieLEAVE US A REVIEW:Apple podcasts | Spotify | Audible!MORE EPISODES YOU MAY LIKE:Episode 188: The Rise of the Murder Rom-Com in K-DramasNEWSLETTER:Join our email list for the monthly newsletter with podcast announcements and special episodes!PATRONS:SPECIAL THANK YOU to our beloved patrons for another year of helping us light the lanterns to sail our ship! Join it here! ❤︎ You can MAJORLY support us by leaving a review on your podcast app, or sharing the episode with friends! ❤︎SOCIAL:Follow us on Twitter @dramasoverflow and Instagram @dramasoverflowers_.Email us at dramasoverflowers@gmail.com.CREDITS:This episode was edited by Paroma.

We take a look at the latest romantic drama coming out of Japan. Come find out if Romantics Anonymous made us giddy as we review the whole drama in this month's Patreon.Access this Patreon VIP episode HEREYou can also find us on Twitter, BlueSky, and Facebook.Click HERE for our show notes. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The duo candidly discusses the advantages of their diverse performance backgrounds, including music, juggling, and even jiu-jitsu, in creating entertaining magic that prioritizes audience connection over mere sleight of hand. And then a big confrontation in Chapter 19 of “The Linking Rings.” The Cosmic Romantics Interview starts at 00:02:22"I Love That" starts at 00:58:07Chapter Nineteen of “The Linking Rings" starts at 01:11:09 LINKSThe Eli Marks Mystery Series: http://www.elimarksmysteries.com/Get yourself a Free Eli Marks Short Story: https://dl.bookfunnel.com/jj1r1yaavjListen to an Eli Marks Audio Short Story: https://BookHip.com/LZBPPMDThe Cosmic Romantics Website: https://www.thecosmicromantics.com/blogFireFly TV Series: https://tinyurl.com/4r2ztn8mW1A TV Series: https://tinyurl.com/5n6s84shW1A Clip: https://youtu.be/GKWZlWaGKgcRicky Jay Card Throwing: https://youtu.be/4F93VCA_TCQCheck out the Occasional Film Podcast: https://www.fastcheapfilm.com/the-podcast

This is the last of the year-specific shows, leading up to the last show of Suburban Underground in late November. This show contains all 1983 songs by these artists: Thompson Twins, Sparks, UB40, Industry, Violent Femmes, The Romantics, Yaz, R.E.M., Spandau Ballet, The Cure, Elvis Costello & The Attractions, Espionage, A Flock Of Seagulls, Beat Rodeo, SSQ, Billy Bragg. AI-free since 2016! On the Air on Bedford 105.1 FM Radio      *** 5pm Friday ***      *** 10am Sunday ***      *** 8pm Monday *** Stream live at http://209.95.50.189:8178/stream Stream on-demand most recent episodes at https://wbnh1051.podbean.com/category/suburban-underground/ And available on demand on your favorite podcast app! Facebook: SuburbanUndergroundRadio   ***    Instagram: SuburbanUnderground   ***    #newwave #altrock #alternativerock #punkrock #indierock

“This is a sea that will take your life,” says Matthew Hollis in this week's episode of The World in Time. “This is the cruel sea. This is the hard sea. And it takes extraordinary skill and good luck to survive it. But we come quickly to realize in this poem that actually there is a different kind of allegorical turmoil within as well. It's one of the things that makes this poem so compelling, it seems to me, because it does have ideas about moral choices, and it does have ideas about belonging that seem as important today as they were then. One of the great things that strikes me with the great parts of the Anglo-Saxon opus is how modern it feels—or rather, to put it a different way, how timeless the cares and concerns and worries of human beings can be. Some of the fears about loneliness, some of the fears about pain, some of the worries about doubt, about making a good life or the life of right choosing, are issues that trouble us in exactly the same way, or challenge us in exactly the same way, as they did this sailor.” This week on the podcast, Donovan Hohn speaks with poet Matthew Hollis about his new translation of The Seafarer, about the world from which this mysterious tenth-century Anglo-Saxon poem emerged, about the history of the poem's improbable survival, and about its rediscovery by the Romantics and the Modernists. Into the conversation the episode weaves audio samples from different translations and different recordings, including one made by Lewis Lapham, another by Ezra Pound, and a third by Matthew Hollis himself.

The brilliant Roman love poet is the poster boy for teen angst. He feels everything intensely, from the stealing of his favourite napkin to the death of his lover Lesbia's pet sparrow. And then he dies young. Of course the Romantics loved him, as do his biographer Dr Daisy Dunn and Professor Llewelyn Morgan. Born to an aristocratic family in Verona, Catullus is fearless in abusing in sophisticated verse his father's friend Julius Caesar, his ex-lover Lesbia and the poets unlucky enough to be his contemporaries. Satirical, scurrilous and obscene, his popularity endures.'Rockstar mythologist' Natalie Haynes is the best-selling author of 'Divine Might', 'Stone Blind', and 'A Thousand Ships' as well as a reformed comedian who is a little bit obsessive about Ancient Greek and Rome.Dr Daisy Dunn is an award-winning classicist. Her books, Catullus' Bedspread: The Life of Rome's Most Erotic Poet, and The Poems of Catullus: A New Translation, were published in 2016 and earned her a place in the Guardian‘s list of leading female historians.Producer...Beth O'Dea

Tudor monarchs didn't just sit on thrones—they moved with them. In this special interview, historian Carol Ann Lloyd joins me to explore the world of Tudor progresses: the royal road trips that brought the court (and the mess) to towns across England. We chat about:Why Henry VII hit the road just months after becoming kingHow nobles went bankrupt trying to impress Elizabeth IThe epic disaster of Henry VIII's progress with Catherine HowardRobert Dudley's full-blown 1575 Kenilworth Proposal-palooza (mermaids! fireworks! matching portraits!)And yes—mud, plague, and poop logistics.It's part political strategy, part royal flex, and 100% fascinating. Don't miss it!