In the May issue of The Critic, the discerning doctor calls out the BBC for allowing some imprecise language to appear on its website.
The BBC’s headline was symptomatic of the attitude of a superior class that divides people into those who, like themselves, choose to act, and those who are forced to act; that is to say the human automata of this world. The latter, of course, need the former to redeem them, to make their lives whole.
Over at Australia’s Quadrant, the dubious doctor weighs in on the increasingly ‘controversial’ free speech topic, as well as Scotland’s outrageous, quasi-totalitarian ‘hate-speech’ law.
Most people want it for themselves, of course, but many would far rather that others would shut up. It does not come naturally to people to enjoy being contradicted, much less severely criticised. We want freedom from opinion at least much as we want freedom of it.
Over at Law & Liberty, Dr. Dalrymple considers the perceived increase in scientific fraud and the possible reasons behind this recent phenomenon.
There are, of course, good reasons why scientific fraud should have increased. The number of practising scientists has exploded; they are in fierce competition with one another; their careers depend to a large extent on their productivity as measured by publication. The difference between what is ethical and unethical has blurred.
Our theater critic doctor laments the poor diction and exuberant emotional displays of many modern actors on the British stage over at Takimag.
The actor’s words must not only be decipherable, but their meaning should not be lost in a welter of distractingly extravagant gesture, all the more so where the meaning is subtle. No interpretation of Shakespeare can be final, but mode of delivery can destroy. It is a mistake to suppose that the poetry of the 17th century must be delivered with the intonations of a discussion in a bar at the present time.
Over at The Epoch Times, our irritated doctor slams the Oklahoma—and by extension, the American—justice system for allowing a convicted murderer to be on death row for 27 years before his execution.
What kind of criminal justice system takes 27 years to decide that a man should die, even if he deserves to do so? What kind of criminal justice system plays cat and mouse with a man’s life in this fashion?
In the May issue of New English Review, our bookish doctor covers the brutal communist regime of Albania’s Enver Hoxha and how it allowed its most famous writer, Ismail Kadare, to continue writing.
The strangest contradiction about Albania was that it was the home to one of the greatest of European writers of the epoch, Ismail Kadare, who would surely be a worthy recipient of the Nobel Prize (unlike some others who have recently received it).
The critical doctor once again masterfully castigates the declining standards of dress in the Western world in his latest Takimag piece.
Not only do people fail to make the most of themselves, they seem determined to make the worst of themselves, as if they were setting a challenge to others not to remark on them or pass a judgment about the way they look.
Our bibliophile doctor reviews and resoundingly endorses a new book on George Orwell by D.J. Taylor over at Law & Liberty.
His Orwell is a complex man, tormented and conflicted to some degree but also, overall, admirable. The fact that Orwell was not all of a piece and contained contradictions within himself is what lends depth to his work. There may be better books about Orwell than this, but if so I do not know them.
In this week’s Takimag, Dr. Dalrymple comments on the plagiarism case of a run-of-the-mill, mediocre ‘diversity’ commissar at a major American medical university.
I rather fear, however, that Dr. Perry might be both sincere and hardworking; and no busybody is busier than the one who thinks that he or she is engaged in God’s work. A cynical careerist is far preferable, though it is possible that we have created—I almost said built—a culture in which true belief and ruthless careerism are happily conjoined.