Archives
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Irony
![]() McGill
University's Stephen Leacock Building, example of "The New Brutalism."
FUNNY IS STILL FUNNY. Irony and serendipity. I've had it at the back of my mind for a while now to (re)acquaint InstaPunk readers with some of the fine but largely forgotten humorists of the twentieth century. (I have a list, which I'll tell you about if you ask...) It's actually a good time for humor, what with the whole world suddenly sliding into the sea with the force of an avalanche, and I've been meaning to get around to it. But I just haven't. Like Obama, my life seems to have become full of unwelcome distractions. Like Obama. But a truly unexpected sequence of events led to this post, and I'm happy it did. Maybe it can soften the grimace on some of your faces. For a few minutes at least. Here's what happened. I was browsing (or is it drowsing?) my way through The Corner at National Review Online and stumbled on an aside by Jonah Goldberg, who was reporting on a speech he had given at St. John's/St. Benedict's College in Minnesota. He thanked his hosts and then observed: Anyway, the one negative thing: St.
John's architecture is quite simply hideous. It's an old school,
founded and run by Catholics, and yet the buildings look like they are
straight out of late 1970s Romania. One student told me they were
something like "Neo-realist brutalist" or some such. Even the Church
looks like a Bond villain headquarters to me. A Hollywood production
company should scout the place out for all sorts of dystopian sets and
whatnot.
I was suitably amused but not especially intrigued. His phrase "straight out of late 1970s Romania" said all I needed to know. But then he returned a few posts later with a half-assed mea culpa: To say I don't know much about
architecture is to insult far more knowledgable people who still
consider themselves fairly ignorant. Still, in response to my earlier
post, lots of folks are writing in to defend St. John's University's
architecture by noting that much of it was designed by Marcel Breuer, a
leader of the "brutalist" school.
Here's the thing: I don't care. I remember hearing an NPR interview with some architecture muckety-muck in which he noted that the tastes of architects and the tastes of the public at large are further apart than in almost any other area of the "art" world. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, I'm with the public. I really dislike the vast bulk of modern architecture (I don't necessarily feel the same way about interior design). I think the folks who tore down the old Penn Station are just shy of criminals. I think architects have a habit of making buildings for other architects not for their own societies. In short, I don't like ugly buildings. I think buildings should be functional, attractive and comfortable. They don't have to be old-fashioned, though I think old-fashioned buildings are nifty. And if they aren't going to be old fashioned, they shouldn't be ugly or communicate a sense of dread and foreboding. Ideally, they should have some connections with the traditions of the community and the larger society. Minimally, they shouldn't mock those traditions If that makes me bourgeois, or a know-nothing, or philistine, I say: Jimmy crack corn and I don't care. I agreed with Jonah, but now my pride had been, well, not stung but pricked. I did take a few courses on art and architecture in college, and I had no recollection of Marcel Breuer or anything called the "brutalist school." Hmmm. So I took the link to the Wiki site and the first building I saw pictured there was one I had actually been required to do a paper about in college, the (then new) Boston City Hall. ![]() The assignment had been to explain how the architecture complemented the much older surrounding buildings, which I tried manfully but incredulously to do, and so I was surprised to read this Wiki critique of "brutalism": Critics argue that this abstract nature
of Brutalism makes the style unfriendly and uncommunicative, instead of
being integrating and protective, as its proponents intended. Brutalism
also is criticised as disregarding the social, historic, and
architectural environment of its surroundings, making the introduction
of such structures in existing developed areas appear starkly out of
place and alien.
Where was Wiki when I was struggling with that ridiculous essay assignment? As I read on, of course, I realized that the term "Brutalism" was actually a nickname for the mainstream modern architecture pioneered by Le Corbusier, who was practically God Himself to the architecture schools and art history departments of my undergraduate years. I knew a lot of architecture students in those days and I grew mightily sick of hearing them repeat their mantra, "Form follows function." Of course it does. But that doesn't mean it has to be cold, ugly, grim, and inhuman. As I read on, I encountered this, to me, extraordinary sentence: Examples outside of the U.S. include
McLennan Library, Burnside Hall and the Stephen Leacock building at McGill
University in Montreal... [boldface
mine]
Pure shock. Because I know who Stephen Leacock was. And the very last thing he was was cold, ugly, grim, and inhuman. Yes, he was a mathematician and an economist, but he was also a delightful humorist with an absolutely inspired sense of the absurd in a way that crossed contexts in bizarrely creative ways. You can read his bio here, but I'm not going to tell you about him. I'm going to show him to you. The good news for us -- if not for his estate -- is that there is no U.S. copyright on his work, which has resulted in a big chunk of his humor being available online. The first piece I'm reproducing here is from a book called Literary Lapses, all of which is here. It's a perfect sendup of the modern urge to reduce everything to facts and figures and dry statistics. A, B, and C
THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN MATHEMATICS The student of arithmetic who has mastered the first four rules of his art, and successfully striven with money sums and fractions, finds himself confronted by an unbroken expanse of questions known as problems. These are short stories of adventure and industry with the end omitted, and though betraying a strong family resemblance, are not without a certain element of romance. The characters in the plot of a problem are three people called A, B, and C. The form of the question is generally of this sort: "A, B, and C do a certain piece of work. A can do as much work in one hour as B in two, or C in four. Find how long they work at it." Or thus: "A, B, and C are employed to dig a ditch. A can dig as much in one hour as B can dig in two, and B can dig twice as fast as C. Find how long, etc. etc." Or after this wise: "A lays a wager that he can walk faster than B or C. A can walk half as fast again as B, and C is only an indifferent walker. Find how far, and so forth." The occupations of A, B, and C are many and varied. In the older arithmetics they contented themselves with doing "a certain piece of work." This statement of the case however, was found too sly and mysterious, or possibly lacking in romantic charm. It became the fashion to define the job more clearly and to set them at walking matches, ditch-digging, regattas, and piling cord wood. At times, they became commercial and entered into partnership, having with their old mystery a "certain" capital. Above all they revel in motion. When they tire of walking-matches--A rides on horseback, or borrows a bicycle and competes with his weaker-minded associates on foot. Now they race on locomotives; now they row; or again they become historical and engage stage-coaches; or at times they are aquatic and swim. If their occupation is actual work they prefer to pump water into cisterns, two of which leak through holes in the bottom and one of which is water-tight. A, of course, has the good one; he also takes the bicycle, and the best locomotive, and the right of swimming with the current. Whatever they do they put money on it, being all three sports. A always wins. In the early chapters of the arithmetic, their identity is concealed under the names John, William, and Henry, and they wrangle over the division of marbles. In algebra they are often called X, Y, Z. But these are only their Christian names, and they are really the same people. Now to one who has followed the history of these men through countless pages of problems, watched them in their leisure hours dallying with cord wood, and seen their panting sides heave in the full frenzy of filling a cistern with a leak in it, they become something more than mere symbols. They appear as creatures of flesh and blood, living men with their own passions, ambitions, and aspirations like the rest of us. Let us view them in turn. A is a full-blooded blustering fellow, of energetic temperament, hot-headed and strong-willed. It is he who proposes everything, challenges B to work, makes the bets, and bends the others to his will. He is a man of great physical strength and phenomenal endurance. He has been known to walk forty-eight hours at a stretch, and to pump ninety-six. His life is arduous and full of peril. A mistake in the working of a sum may keep him digging a fortnight without sleep. A repeating decimal in the answer might kill him. B is a quiet, easy-going fellow, afraid of A and bullied by him, but very gentle and brotherly to little C, the weakling. He is quite in A's power, having lost all his money in bets. Poor C is an undersized, frail man, with a plaintive face. Constant walking, digging, and pumping has broken his health and ruined his nervous system. His joyless life has driven him to drink and smoke more than is good for him, and his hand often shakes as he digs ditches. He has not the strength to work as the others can, in fact, as Hamlin Smith has said, "A can do more work in one hour than C in four." The first time that ever I saw these men was one evening after a regatta. They had all been rowing in it, and it had transpired that A could row as much in one hour as B in two, or C in four. B and C had come in dead fagged and C was coughing badly. "Never mind, old fellow," I heard B say, "I'll fix you up on the sofa and get you some hot tea." Just then A came blustering in and shouted, "I say, you fellows, Hamlin Smith has shown me three cisterns in his garden and he says we can pump them until to-morrow night. I bet I can beat you both. Come on. You can pump in your rowing things, you know. Your cistern leaks a little, I think, C." I heard B growl that it was a dirty shame and that C was used up now, but they went, and presently I could tell from the sound of the water that A was pumping four times as fast as C. For years after that I used to see them constantly about town and always busy. I never heard of any of them eating or sleeping. Then owing to a long absence from home, I lost sight of them. On my return I was surprised to no longer find A, B, and C at their accustomed tasks; on inquiry I heard that work in this line was now done by N, M, and O, and that some people were employing for algebraica jobs four foreigners called Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta. Now it chanced one day that I stumbled upon old D, in the little garden in front of his cottage, hoeing in the sun. D is an aged labouring man who used occasionally to be called in to help A, B, and C. "Did I know 'em, sir?" he answered, "why, I knowed 'em ever since they was little fellows in brackets. Master A, he were a fine lad, sir, though I always said, give me Master B for kind-heartedness-like. Many's the job as we've been on together, sir, though I never did no racing nor aught of that, but just the plain labour, as you might say. I'm getting a bit too old and stiff for it nowadays, sir--just scratch about in the garden here and grow a bit of a logarithm, or raise a common denominator or two. But Mr. Euclid he use me still for them propositions, he do." From the garrulous old man I learned the melancholy end of my former acquaintances. Soon after I left town, he told me, C had been taken ill. It seems that A and B had been rowing on the river for a wager, and C had been running on the bank and then sat in a draught. Of course the bank had refused the draught and C was taken ill. A and B came home and found C lying helpless in bed. A shook him roughly and said, "Get up, C, we're going to pile wood." C looked so worn and pitiful that B said, "Look here, A, I won't stand this, he isn't fit to pile wood to-night." C smiled feebly and said, "Perhaps I might pile a little if I sat up in bed." Then B, thoroughly alarmed, said, "See here, A, I'm going to fetch a doctor; he's dying." A flared up and answered, "You've no money to fetch a doctor." "I'll reduce him to his lowest terms," B said firmly, "that'll fetch him." C's life might even then have been saved but they made a mistake about the medicine. It stood at the head of the bed on a bracket, and the nurse accidentally removed it from the bracket without changing the sign. After the fatal blunder C seems to have sunk rapidly. On the evening of the next day, as the shadows deepened in the little room, it was clear to all that the end was near. I think that even A was affected at the last as he stood with bowed head, aimlessly offering to bet with the doctor on C's laboured breathing. "A," whispered C, "I think I'm going fast." "How fast do you think you'll go, old man?" murmured A. "I don't know," said C, "but I'm going at any rate."--The end came soon after that. C rallied for a moment and asked for a certain piece of work that he had left downstairs. A put it in his arms and he expired. As his soul sped heavenward A watched its flight with melancholy admiration. B burst into a passionate flood of tears and sobbed, "Put away his little cistern and the rowing clothes he used to wear, I feel as if I could hardly ever dig again."--The funeral was plain and unostentatious. It differed in nothing from the ordinary, except that out of deference to sporting men and mathematicians, A engaged two hearses. Both vehicles started at the same time, B driving the one which bore the sable parallelopiped containing the last remains of his ill-fated friend. A on the box of the empty hearse generously consented to a handicap of a hundred yards, but arrived first at the cemetery by driving four times as fast as B. (Find the distance to the cemetery.) As the sarcophagus was lowered, the grave was surrounded by the broken figures of the first book of Euclid.--It was noticed that after the death of C, A became a changed man. He lost interest in racing with B, and dug but languidly. He finally gave up his work and settled down to live on the interest of his bets.--B never recovered from the shock of C's death; his grief preyed upon his intellect and it became deranged. He grew moody and spoke only in monosyllables. His disease became rapidly aggravated, and he presently spoke only in words whose spelling was regular and which presented no difficulty to the beginner. Realizing his precarious condition he voluntarily submitted to be incarcerated in an asylum, where he abjured mathematics and devoted himself to writing the History of the Swiss Family Robinson in words of one syllable. Everyone who's ever studied Algebra must appreciate the genius of turning so many dreary math problems into a touchingly human saga. If you're with me so far, there's a Leacock "nonsense novel" reproduced in full below the fold, but before you go there, let me tease you by suggesting that it proves what an appropriate "Stephen Leacock Building" might have looked like. ![]() But no. Instead, his memory is desecrated with one of those soul-killing concrete monstrosities that made modernism a drab gateway to post-modern nihilism. It's heresy to "honor" a man with a memorial that embodies the exact opposite of what he was. That's a cruel irony indeed. But also a post-modern propensity. So maybe the Stephen Leacock building is actually the first post-modern architecture. That might have given Dr. Leacock a laugh. And now he can give you a few more laughs. |
Thanks for getting this far. There are more Nonsense Novels here.
![]() |
![]() Home Page |
![]() InstaPunk.com |
|
![]() |