|
Ian Pace
|
 |
« Reply #405 on: 18:40:50, 01-05-2007 » |
|
(I haven't read his biography of Stalin) I do strongly recommend it, Ian. He must have spent three years banging on the doors of obscure archive repositories and "forbidden" records departments until they opened up the documents he sought. The level of research involved in that book is exemplary scholarship at the most advanced level. I will do - found A History of Modern Russia excellent (find I get a feeling for those historians who haven't written their narrative before they've investigated the documents in detail - I trust Service a lot). Haven't read his Lenin biography either - imagine that is also worth it, any thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #406 on: 19:17:33, 01-05-2007 » |
|
Am I to understand it's a Stalin 'family snap', then, not a Zhdanov one? Any idea why Zhdanov was present if so? This "happy family snap" doesn't look too happy to me! The youngster furthest right looks - through his body language - very uneasy indeed. Why is the young girl not smiling? Then there is the other youngster furthest left whose expression seems quite disconnected with the event. It is true that Zdanov looks quite chuffed with himself! But who would not - with the oppressive and towering figure of STALIN breathing down everybody's neck only one chair to Zdanov's own left? Furthermore, Stalin was not (as far as I am aware) a family member of this group, and he doesn't look exactly "happy" to be there does he? The three young persons are in fact said to be the children of Joseph S. Andrew Zhdaneff became an in-law of Stalin when his son Yuri married Stalin's daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva. He was in fact her second husband so admittedly that would we presume judging by the apparent age of said Svetlana here have been some years subsequent to the date of this photograph. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 07:25:59, 02-05-2007 by Sydney Grew »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #407 on: 19:44:58, 01-05-2007 » |
|
Admittedly that would we presume judging by the apparent age of said Svetlana here have been some years subsequent to the date of this photograph. What did the comma ever do to Mr Grew that he shuns it so deliberately we wonder? Which leads us to offer a prize to the first Member to produce a grammatically acceptable punctuation of the following: smith where jones had had had had had had had had had had had the examiners approval Apologies for off-topic posting. Maybe I should start a Punctuation Thread.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #408 on: 19:46:20, 01-05-2007 » |
|
Am I to understand it's a Stalin 'family snap', then, not a Zhdanov one? Any idea why Zhdanov was present if so? This "happy family snap" doesn't look too happy to me! The youngster furthest right looks - through his body language - very uneasy indeed. Why is the young girl not smiling? Then there is the other youngster furthest left whose expression seems quite disconnected with the event. It is true that Zdanov looks quite chuffed with himself! But who would not - with the oppressive and towering figure of STALIN breathing down everybody's neck only one chair to Zdanov's own left? Furthermore, Stalin was not (as far as I am aware) a family member of this group, and he doesn't look exactly "happy" to be there does he? The three young persons are in fact said to be the children of Joseph S. Andrew Zhdaneff became an in-law of Stalin when his son Yuri married Stalin's daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva. Admittedly that would we presume judging by the apparent age of said Svetlana here have been some years subsequent to the date of this photograph. Thanks Sydney. That would explain a) why she has her left arm on Stalin, and b) why she is not smiling too much. I assume, therefore, that it is a "Stalin" family photo, and not a "Zhdanov" one. If so, that would explain why, out of the group, Zhdanov alone appears to be somewhat isolated in his expression of "happiness" (feigned or not), while all the other members of the group appear to be - well - just as one would imagine members of the "Stalin" family would normally be (i.e. a mixture of apprehension, expectancy, resignation and/or insecurity). Do we know, I wonder, exactly when the photo was taken? Best, Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #409 on: 19:57:48, 01-05-2007 » |
|
How about this stab?
Smith, where Jones had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiners approval.
Does this make round 2?
Baz
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 20:06:09, 01-05-2007 by Baziron »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #410 on: 20:06:21, 01-05-2007 » |
|
How about this stab?
Smith, where Jones had had "had" had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiners approval.
Does this make round 2?
Baz
You need an extra comma, I think (and I prefer single quotes ), also a possessive apostrophe with 'examiners' (either before or after the s): Smith, where Jones had had 'had', had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had the examiners' approval. (so that there is a place called 'Smith', which played host to someone/something called 'had had', where the person entitled Jones had taken possession of someone/something called 'had'. The someone/something that visited 'Smith', had received with the approval of examiners) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 20:09:01, 01-05-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
trained-pianist
|
|
« Reply #411 on: 20:07:01, 01-05-2007 » |
|
Stalin had a bunch of holiday homes around the USSR and spent several months a year at them, dragging the politburo with him: the Ukrainian famine was orchestrated from such places, eg, while Stalin and his crew went duck hunting. All the families used to go on holiday together. One thing that emerges from SS-M's book is that the Kremlin - especially pre-war - was run like a particularly incestuous hall of residence. Of all the top men, only Beria, I think, actually had a permanent home outside the Kremlin itself, and they constantly dropped in on one another for cups of sugar, etc. They were all good chums - before they started killing one another that is.
[/quote]
This is a problem with Proletarian Dictatorship, everybody was suppose to be chammy with each other. There was no manners, no decour, no respect, no distance. If people are too cold and distant that is not good. But such a close cameradery was awful. People had to live in communal appartment when everybody knew everything about each other. Also to live with your parents in the same room is not very good. But that was life in the USSR.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #412 on: 20:09:05, 01-05-2007 » |
|
How about this stab?
Smith, where Jones had had "had" had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiners approval.
Does this make round 2?
Baz
You need an extra comma, I think (and I prefer single quotes ), also a possessive apostrophe with 'examiners' (either before or after the s): Smith, where Jones had had 'had', had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had the examiners' approval. My editing was too slow for your reply, but I was stupid over "examiners'". Sorry - but I tried. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bryn
|
|
« Reply #413 on: 20:09:35, 01-05-2007 » |
|
I'd feel happier with:
Smith, where Jones had had "had had", had "had had had". "had had" had the examiners' approval.
Alternatively:
Smith, where Jones had had "had had", had "had had had". Had "had had" the examiners' approval?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baziron
Guest
|
|
« Reply #414 on: 20:30:24, 01-05-2007 » |
|
I'd feel happier with:
Smith, where Jones had had "had had", had "had had had". "had had" had the examiners' approval.
Alternatively:
Smith, where Jones had had "had had", had "had had had". Had "had had" the examiners' approval?
For God's sake, who the hell CARES?! Baz  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
« Reply #415 on: 21:54:28, 01-05-2007 » |
|
I'd feel happier with:
Smith, where Jones had had "had had", had "had had had". "had had" had the examiners' approval.
Alternatively:
Smith, where Jones had had "had had", had "had had had". Had "had had" the examiners' approval?
For God's sake, who the hell CARES?! Baz Probably no-one, Baz, especially amongst Shostakovich scholars, but for the record I feel obligated to the cause of linguistics to point out that fourteen 'had's are possible if the discrepancy is to do with bold or italic fonts: "Thus John, where Bill had had had had, had had had had; had had had had had had corrected in the final version, no-one would have spotted the discrepancy". Many apologies for such off-topic semantic subterfuge. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #416 on: 22:04:52, 01-05-2007 » |
|
God, I love this board!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #417 on: 01:10:49, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Do we know, I wonder, exactly when the photo was taken? It comes straight from the B.B.C.'s propaganda department, mainstream wing, so we really must admit that it could not be other than absolutely true. No date is stated: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/stalin_07.shtmlStill one or two among the most perverse of our Members may care for an alternative: "He thinks it is possible even that `wreckers' may be behind it in an attempt to discredit him."http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #418 on: 10:14:59, 02-05-2007 » |
|
Sorry guys, I completely forgot I'd posed that question and left you all to it last night! A bit gutted that Baz got the right answer first time round (well, with minor edits, by the looks of things), though I do like Bryn's interpretation as the surreal alternative! Does 'mainstream wing' qualify as a mixed metaphor we wonder? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #419 on: 10:23:00, 02-05-2007 » |
|
How about this stab?
Smith, where Jones had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiners approval.
Does this make round 2?
Baz
We do realise that this can undergo infinite recursion, don't we? Baz, where Ian had had "had had 'had', had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had" had had "had had 'had' had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had". Had "had had 'had' had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had" had time_is_now's approval, Baz would have won the smartie point. 'Had' is beginning to look weird for some reason so I'll leave it to someone else to find the deliberate error which I may or may not have left in that example. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
