What's Wrong With Wodehouse!!!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't know what any one sees in Wodehouse. The only thing that amazes me about him is that he is still read forty years after his death, and a hundred years after he ceased to be funny. On that note, I wish to draw you attention to an article in last months First things about Wodehouse, by Joseph Bottum. (As you can guess, it is a little hard to get First Things out here, so I can no longer be the first on in the blogosphere to comment on the new issues.) I am not too sure what the point of the article is. I can only assume that it is what all Wodehouse is, viz. filler. Like all Wodehouse this article is a lot like reading nothing. I am a little disappointed in First Things this month (October). They also ran an article by Stephen M. Barr, on some hack pseudo-theory of the origin of life. In all its a good thing that I'm out of the country, because RJN would be hearing from me otherwise.

Back to Wodehouse. Please don't try to convert me. Sure the man was a good writer, i.e. he would have passed with an 'A' in Strunk English comp class. Also, I admit, that he has influenced so many authors whom I do love, Waugh, Chris Buckley, and I'm sure a couple others. On the other hand that does not make you a worthy writer. For example, Wolfe (the 18th century philosopher) influenced Kant and Hegel, but is he worth reading, of course not.

Then there is the whole Nazi thing. To suckle on the tit of Nazi Germany for five years is beyond reprehensible. Granted, he was not evil; just an idiot. Though I think that is Wodehouse in a nutshell, he was just an idiot.

appendix, Ole Hjortland has a blog. One of my fellow M.Litt. students here. He is a great philosopher, and for all of you who are going into philosophy of logic you will here much about him in a few years. He will certainly be added to my links page when I update that again.