Wordsmith.org
Posted By: anchita Socratic - 05/29/03 08:43 PM
From John le Carré's 'The Tailor of Panama': "...a framed photograph that hung centre stage on the back wall, showing a Socratic , bespectacled gentleman in rounded collars and black jacket, frowning on a younger world."

I found this usage of 'Socratic' interesting, as the usages of 'Socratic' I researched since seemed to refer to philosophy, method etc., but never to an appearance...

Posted By: tsuwm Re: Socratic - 05/29/03 09:43 PM
can't you just picture an elderly, white-bearded man with a very dour expression, looking as though he might have just swallowed a lethal dose of hemlock?

Posted By: wwh Re: Socratic - 05/29/03 10:31 PM
Since nobody knows what Socrates looked like, it seems
an absurd description of a photgraph.

Posted By: Wordwind Re: Socratic - 05/29/03 10:37 PM
But, wwh, sometimes you are so literal that you fail to see imaginative possibilities. Life [for some] ain't always a scientific equation. Permeate. That is a very good word.

Posted By: Father Steve Re: Socratic - 05/29/03 10:42 PM
We all know what Socrates looked like. See http://fmwww.bc.edu/pl/


Posted By: websafe Re: Socratic - 05/29/03 11:13 PM
http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_portraits?page=12

Posted By: Father Steve Re: Socratic - 05/29/03 11:42 PM
Okay. So anybody who is male with a round face and is missing most of his nose may properly be referred to as "Socratic" in appearance.


Posted By: Capfka Re: Socratic - 05/30/03 08:10 AM
Perhaps you should add "and speaks riddles in classical Greek".

Posted By: Faldage Re: Socratic - 05/30/03 10:02 AM
And teaches by showing you that you already know it.

Posted By: Jackie Re: Socratic - 05/30/03 12:28 PM
Well, anchita, *I* at least will try to give you a serious answer! I think he meant you to imagine a wise-looking man.

Posted By: websafe Re: Socratic - 05/30/03 06:17 PM
Father Steve: There was more on my link than male with a round face and is missing most of his nose -- scroll down to about the middle, right before the words "extant portraits."

But yeah, maybe the original quote meant more the guy's attitude than his appearance.

Posted By: anchita Re: Socratic - 05/30/03 08:09 PM
Okay, to quote what websafe is talking about:

"Ancient sources, both written and visual, provide a consistent view of Socrates’ physical form. His appearance was often compared to that of a Silenos, with regard to his stocky, broad-shouldered body (Plat. Symp. 215a ff.; Xen. Symp. 5.7), thick neck (Cic. De Fato ch. 5), protruding belly (Xen. Symp. 2.19), baldness (Sidon. Apoll. Epist. 9.9.14; Lucian, Dialog. mortuorem 20, Menippi et Aeaci 417), prominent eyeballs (Xen. Symp. 5.7), broad nose with wide nostrils and large mouth with thick lips (Xen. Symp. 5.7)."

I do agree that in this case, 'Socratic' refers more to the guy's facial expression/attitude ("frowning on a younger world,") than his actual features.

That le Carré used facial definition as a means to convey the person's attitude, using this very specific adjective otherwise limited to qualify philosophy and not physical description, seemed intriguing to me.

Posted By: Father Steve Re: Socratic - 05/30/03 08:10 PM
scroll down to about the middle, right before the words "extant portraits."


I did, I did. Most interesting.

PS: Too bad about his nose.

Padre

Posted By: musick sophistric - 05/31/03 08:43 PM
...a wise-looking man.

Jackie - What the ***** is that supposed to mean???

The first "*" in that group of five actually® is an asterisk.

Posted By: wordminstrel Re: Socratic - 06/01/03 06:28 PM
"...a framed photograph that hung centre stage on the back wall, showing a Socratic, bespectacled gentleman in rounded collars and black jacket, frowning on a younger world."

John le Carre knows he is writing a spy thriller which will become a blockbuster movie so he has left the details of his "Socratic" portrait to the casting director or prop department, as the case may be.

Few writers have the opportunity to write so self-consciously for readers and viewers at the same time. [Perhaps he also visualized Pierce Brosnan in the lead when he wrote the story.]
Posted By: wsieber Re: Socratic - 06/02/03 08:48 AM
John le Carre knows he is writing a spy thriller
And at the time, writers of such literature were busily fighting for respectability. One ploy was to sprinkle the text with more or less enigmatic "classical" references.

Posted By: Capfka Re: Socratic - 06/02/03 10:35 AM
Poor old John le Carre. He had a niche which he did really well - cold war spy scenarios - and which I reread again and again, still stunned by the attention to detail and the word pictures he could build up of the situation. A Small Town in Germany is still, I think, the best, although of course the Smiley books were absolutely brilliant.

But now he's floundering around looking for a new genre. None of his post cold war novels have really grabbed me. The Little Drummer Girl came and went, quality-wise, and The Tailor of Panama was downright boring IMHO.

Another author of that ilk, and who has had his most famous book filmed, is Martin Cruz Smith. The Renko trilogy (which has, of course, become a quadlogy) were absolutely brilliant, a Soviet-era policeman stumbling through life in an amazingly believable welter of competence, incompetence, blind luck and sheer bloodymindedness. Smith is another author who doesn't do so well outside of his normal milieu; Gypsy in Amber was laboured by comparison with Gorky Park or Red Square. Red Square would film well, although I think they'd have to alter Polar Star quite considerably to make it "fly" as a film.

Sorry. Rambling rather than working. Software testing is NOT fun ...

Posted By: Faldage Re: Socratic - 06/02/03 10:38 AM
Poor old John le Carre

Does he still write them, his own se'f?

Posted By: Capfka Re: Socratic - 06/02/03 11:17 AM
Yes, unless (a) he's died (possible, (b) I didn't hear about it (likely) or (c) he's stopped writing books which I believe would be dependent on (a).

I don't think anyone could ape his style anyway. I've tried and failed, since I admire his approach so much. You have to think the way he does ...

And BTW, "The Constant Gardener" was pretty good, in direct contradiction to what I posted above.

I don't think le Carre has ever written a book with the screen play in the back of his mind.

Posted By: Faldage Re: John le Carré - 06/02/03 01:00 PM
I just asked cause so many of these thangs are franchised these days. A writer gets so popular that demand outstrips supply and Bonzo's yer uncle. If the quality's been slipping that might be what's happening.

Posted By: anchita Re: Socratic - 06/02/03 09:06 PM
"I don't think le Carre has ever written a book with the screen play in the back of his mind."

Me neither... at least not Brosnan for Osnard; there are ample references in the book that Osnard was 'portly'... not how I'd describe Brosnan.

PS: Thanks for the review... I've just started reading le Carre... "A Perfect Spy" was my first one - loved it - "A Tailor.." is the second. Seems good so far... dunno how well he'll build upto the core issue though. Glad to be warned; keeps one from having great expectations...




Posted By: Jackie Re: sophistric - 06/03/03 12:57 AM
...a wise-looking man.

Jackie - What the ***** is that supposed to mean???

Mercy--just that the reader is supposed to imagine the character with a wise expression on his face.
=======================================================

A writer gets so popular that demand outstrips supply
Yes--I was quite shocked to learn of this practice, back when my daughter was in the Baby-sitters' Club stage. Ann M. Martin had all kinds of ghost-writers, apparently, after Vol. 50 or so. I just figured it was for "bubble gum" type books like this, though, not serious writers like LeCarré.

Posted By: musick Re: sophistric - 06/03/03 11:26 AM
Who is this ghost person called "Mercy"???

I'm still waiting for a *reasonable definition of "wise expression"...hardee-har-har

Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: Writing by committee - 06/03/03 11:55 AM
Tom Clancy comes to mind. Also, what's her name? The one who writes thrillers for teenagers—V.S. Andrews ©?, who is dead but her name is copyrighted.

Posted By: Capfka Re: Writing by committee - 06/03/03 11:59 AM
Speaking of which, Roger Zelazny, one of the better SF writers, died a few years ago. Perhaps his best known work was the Amber series, which ran to some 10 books over 20 years. Another author, completely unmemorable, has taken up the mantle and is turning out more of them. As one fan put it "he's dead, and he should have stayed that way!".

Posted By: birdfeed Re: Writing by committee - 06/03/03 12:53 PM
"Tom Clancy comes to mind. Also, what's her name? The one who writes thrillers for teenagers—V.S. Andrews ©?, who is dead but her name is copyrighted."

Also L. Frank Baum, the author of The wonderful wizard of OZ. Some suggest he wrote only the first two in the series and the rest were done by his nephew. After the 14 published under L. Frank Baum's name, Ruth Plumly Thompson took over in admirable fashion. Apparently the next guy was basically no good.

I think novels featuring Ellery Queen were written by several different authors, or maybe I'm thinking of someone else.


Posted By: TEd Remington Re: Writing by committee - 06/03/03 01:12 PM
During the Depression, my father supported himself partly by running a lending library out of his home (5 cents a day for a book) and partly by writing dime novels (these were in addition to his day job, which was running an ad agency with his first wife.)

He churned out a novel every weekend, turned it in to the publisher on Monday, and got a check for $10 on Friday. The publisher had a whole string of "authors" under whose names he published the books. The only credit my father ever received for the books was his name on the check, and no one in the family has the least clue of how many he wrote, what the titles were, or anything more than the above. This is another reason to interview family members to find out interesting things about them. I never knew this about my father until after he died, taking all the knowledge of the books with him.

While writing the last paragraph, I was reminded of one of my pet peeves, one which I don't think has been touched upon: the use of into where in to is required. Had I written "he ... turned it into the publisher" that would have meant a magical transformation of the manuscript to become the physicality of the publisher. And while Rem was good, he weren't THAT good!

TEd

Posted By: dxb Re: Socratic - 06/03/03 03:46 PM
The Little Drummer Girl came and went, quality-wise ~ Capfka

Each to his own, I guess. I thought the book was different in some ways from his previous work, but up there with his best, so travel hopefully anchita! You never know. The Smiley books were always good reading and are worth rereading.

Has anyone tried Len Deighton's massive Bernard Sampson series? As always his knowledge of Berlin is fascinating, but the series is endless! I'm glad that I read them as they appeared. I'm not sure I would take on the task of reading through them again, intriguing and well written as they may be.

Posted By: Jackie Re: sophistric - 06/04/03 03:09 AM
I'm still waiting for a *reasonable definition of "wise expression"...
Wait no more, my friend. A person with a wise expression would almost certainly not be very young. He might be smiling slightly or not at all--his face would not be expressing much emotion at the time. His eyes would be looking directly into yours, and in their depths (and only there) you could read the knowledge, sorrow, and subsequent acceptancy. And THAT is wisdom.

Posted By: wsieber Re: sophistric - 06/04/03 05:07 AM
almost certainly not be very young .. Do you picture him with white eyebrows, at least?

Posted By: Faldage Re: sophistric - 06/04/03 05:39 AM
And THAT is wisdom.

Or either that or he's REALLY stoned.

Posted By: consuelo hmmmmmmmmmrcrumb - 06/04/03 07:11 AM
Or either that or he's REALLY stoned.

Sometimes I wonder........

So, Faldage, you picturing him something like Mr. Natural?
© Wordsmith.org