Fathers and Suns and Gerunds
May 2, 2010 7:54 PM Subscribe
In his book "Fathers and Sons", Alexander Waugh quotes an essay written by his grandfather Evelyn Waugh that includes this sentence:"He would have liked to do the same with me, but my school was less conveniently placed for visiting (sic) and the hard times of the First World War made hospitality difficult." Why the (sic)? What was Evelyn Waugh's error here?
Yes, a comma should be there, since the next clause could stand on its own.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 8:01 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 8:01 PM on May 2, 2010
No grammatical error that I can see. Comma before "and" is more a style thing than a grammatical one.
Perhaps the (sic) was actually not inserted by Alexander but by Evelyn, to show that an excuse thought to be incredibly feeble was being reported in exactly the words given.
posted by flabdablet at 8:03 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Perhaps the (sic) was actually not inserted by Alexander but by Evelyn, to show that an excuse thought to be incredibly feeble was being reported in exactly the words given.
posted by flabdablet at 8:03 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
I would assume that schools are not placed anywhere for visiting, more usually placed or built in a certain spot due to market causes, availability of students, pre-existing buildings etc. Perhaps a more correct way of writing it would have been "but my school was less conveniently situated for visiting".
posted by b33j at 8:07 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by b33j at 8:07 PM on May 2, 2010
I suspect that it's intended to imply that it wouldn't just be "visiting" that was going on. It's a sarcastic sic.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:23 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:23 PM on May 2, 2010
"Sic" does not mean "there was an error here; it's not my mistake!". It means, "the original was thus", or, "reprinted exactly as the original".
In an article, I might choose to refer to Tales of Caunterbury [sic]. Although that spelling of Canterbury is no longer in vogue, I am pointing out (via the "[sic]" notation) that I am being faithful to Geoffrey Chaucer's text.
Thus, Evelyn may be noting nothing more than that he is quoting the author's phrasing, "my school was less conveniently placed for visiting"... perhaps sarcastically noting a pretty (but euphemistic) reason, for instance.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:36 PM on May 2, 2010
In an article, I might choose to refer to Tales of Caunterbury [sic]. Although that spelling of Canterbury is no longer in vogue, I am pointing out (via the "[sic]" notation) that I am being faithful to Geoffrey Chaucer's text.
Thus, Evelyn may be noting nothing more than that he is quoting the author's phrasing, "my school was less conveniently placed for visiting"... perhaps sarcastically noting a pretty (but euphemistic) reason, for instance.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:36 PM on May 2, 2010
While I too would put a comma there (if I were being careful and not writing the way I do on line), I suspect you have it right in the title, and it's the use of the gerund 'visiting' that is being pointed to and Evelyn who is doing the fussing.
posted by Some1 at 11:05 PM on May 2, 2010
posted by Some1 at 11:05 PM on May 2, 2010
Yes, the (sic) is from the original, not a gloss added by Waugh (A). Waugh (E) is simply disassociating himself from the excuse his father gave him for not visiting. It's like a written shrug of the shoulders: "one would like to think that "convenience" would not be a prime consideration when deciding whether to visit your young son at school, but that was what he told me."
posted by genesta at 11:45 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by genesta at 11:45 PM on May 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Perhaps the (sic) was actually not inserted by Alexander but by Evelyn
Yes, the (sic) is from the original, not a gloss added by Waugh (A). Waugh (E) is simply disassociating himself from the excuse his father gave him for not visiting.
This is incorrect. The passage comes from Evelyn Waugh's article, 'My Father', published in the Sunday Telegraph on 2 December 1962. I haven't been able to consult the original, but it was reprinted for American readers in The Atlantic in 1963, and this version is available in Google Books 'snippet view'. The 'sic' does not appear in the original text (not surprisingly, as Evelyn Waugh was a meticulous prose stylist who would never have committed the solecism of putting '(sic)' in the middle of one of his own sentences). It was added by Alexander Waugh when he reprinted the passage in Fathers and Sons, p. 97, presumably to imply that this was a spurious excuse invented by Evelyn Waugh to disguise the true fact of the matter, namely that his father took no interest in his school career.
By 'visiting', Waugh may be referring to his father visiting (or rather not visiting) him at school. However, the context of the passage suggests that he is talking about his friends visiting him at home during the school holidays: 'my school was less conveniently placed for visiting and the hard times of the First World War made hospitality difficult'. Why Evelyn's school (Lancing, in West Sussex) should be 'less conveniently placed for visiting' than his brother Alec's school (Sherborne, in Dorset) is not clear, as both Lancing and Sherborne have direct train connections to London. So Alexander Waugh is probably right to suggest that this is a spurious excuse.
If you're interested in the lives of the Waughs, I recommend Evelyn Waugh's autobiography, A Little Learning, particularly the chapter on his father, a masterpiece of vengeful irony in which every turn of phrase is calculated to inflict maximum damage. Unfortunately Alexander Waugh has inherited none of his grandfather's gifts as a writer.
posted by verstegan at 8:18 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yes, the (sic) is from the original, not a gloss added by Waugh (A). Waugh (E) is simply disassociating himself from the excuse his father gave him for not visiting.
This is incorrect. The passage comes from Evelyn Waugh's article, 'My Father', published in the Sunday Telegraph on 2 December 1962. I haven't been able to consult the original, but it was reprinted for American readers in The Atlantic in 1963, and this version is available in Google Books 'snippet view'. The 'sic' does not appear in the original text (not surprisingly, as Evelyn Waugh was a meticulous prose stylist who would never have committed the solecism of putting '(sic)' in the middle of one of his own sentences). It was added by Alexander Waugh when he reprinted the passage in Fathers and Sons, p. 97, presumably to imply that this was a spurious excuse invented by Evelyn Waugh to disguise the true fact of the matter, namely that his father took no interest in his school career.
By 'visiting', Waugh may be referring to his father visiting (or rather not visiting) him at school. However, the context of the passage suggests that he is talking about his friends visiting him at home during the school holidays: 'my school was less conveniently placed for visiting and the hard times of the First World War made hospitality difficult'. Why Evelyn's school (Lancing, in West Sussex) should be 'less conveniently placed for visiting' than his brother Alec's school (Sherborne, in Dorset) is not clear, as both Lancing and Sherborne have direct train connections to London. So Alexander Waugh is probably right to suggest that this is a spurious excuse.
If you're interested in the lives of the Waughs, I recommend Evelyn Waugh's autobiography, A Little Learning, particularly the chapter on his father, a masterpiece of vengeful irony in which every turn of phrase is calculated to inflict maximum damage. Unfortunately Alexander Waugh has inherited none of his grandfather's gifts as a writer.
posted by verstegan at 8:18 AM on May 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I stand corrected by verstegan; I am very happy to be so and have favourited accordingly. I am in awe of your research skills, Sir. I am also slightly appalled at having been awarded best answer by davidjmcgee for a post that has since been shown quite indisputably to be incorrect.
Evelyn Waugh was a meticulous prose stylist who would never have committed the solecism of putting '(sic)' in the middle of one of his own sentences.
Would it have been a solecism? As an economical means of indicating that he was indirectly quoting his father's excuse without endorsing it, I think its meaning would have been clear and the usage not wholly without precedent. At which point, the realisation dawns that I am posting about the hypothetical merits of a sentence that was never written in the first place... Time to move on.
posted by genesta at 1:06 PM on May 19, 2010
Evelyn Waugh was a meticulous prose stylist who would never have committed the solecism of putting '(sic)' in the middle of one of his own sentences.
Would it have been a solecism? As an economical means of indicating that he was indirectly quoting his father's excuse without endorsing it, I think its meaning would have been clear and the usage not wholly without precedent. At which point, the realisation dawns that I am posting about the hypothetical merits of a sentence that was never written in the first place... Time to move on.
posted by genesta at 1:06 PM on May 19, 2010
Response by poster: I am also slightly appalled at having been awarded best answer by davidjmcgee for a post that has since been shown quite indisputably to be incorrect.
I thought it would be kind of a dick move to remove a "best answer" after having previously selected one, but, I suppose you're right: A BESTER ANSWER HAS COME ALONG. Let the great unmarking begin.
posted by davidjmcgee at 3:18 PM on May 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
I thought it would be kind of a dick move to remove a "best answer" after having previously selected one, but, I suppose you're right: A BESTER ANSWER HAS COME ALONG. Let the great unmarking begin.
posted by davidjmcgee at 3:18 PM on May 25, 2010 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by amtho at 7:58 PM on May 2, 2010