At The Financial Times: Janan Ganesh on Jeremy Corbyn as Apostate Episode CI, a comment by Chrysostom & Almost Marx

Mr. Ganesh is the master of the feuilleton form, heavily inflected with his moral/political rage at Mr. Corbyn as Apostate. He makes a minor form of the past sing with invective. The quality of his bile, allied to a well of resentment, always makes for bracing reading. Call it London Spleen after Baudelaire.

But of more political import Mr. Ganesh plays the part of a Show Doctor, brought in during the out of town tryouts, to make changes to a production, that needs to be punched up for more audience appeal : it is after all Show Business! Mr. Abe Burrows was the most charming, agreeable, not to speak of reliable and proficient practitioner of this now seemingly vanished specialty. Where my comparison fall utterly apart, an unhappy consequence of showing off,  is that one never attacks the Star of the Show, one simply  turns the minor players into featured players, by skillfully rewriting and producing songs for those players, that make for a cunning garnish to a weak and now diminished central character. While still trading on the Star’s drawing power that sells tickets.

I know, this is labored, but is Mr. Jones that featured player, who can, with some new material, turn his role into something that transcends his status as a secondary player, who steals the show? Thank you for your patience.

Chrysostom & Almost Marx

My reply to Legal Tender:

See the comments of Mr. Jonathan Freedland, at the Guardian, who is the official Ring Master of the manufactured Antisemitism Crisis: the evidence is, in part, an editorial cartoon that depicts Israel as America’s 51’st State, a statement of fact. How inconvenient are facts! The cost to America has been raised from 3.5 billion to 5.5 billion per year, in order to placate Caudillo Netanyahu.





About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.