STOP CLAPPING!

Which shows that you don’t understand the poem at all.

trisher if you take anything out of context. it will become meaningless, so why quote just 4 lines from a poem and state that that is all that the poem is about? I appreciate that your school days are some distance away from you now, but do you not remember dissecting a poem so that its meaning could be more fully understood?

Of course Chewbacca but the point is if you stick it on a wall and don't discuss it any passing person (young or old) can look at it and take from it what they wish. The fact that both you and lemon find me doing that so objectionable, and that you berate me for "not understanding", indicates that actually taking it down was enirely correct.
Which is why I said "If" has its place but it isn't on walls.

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss
“Promoting or hiding gambling”?
Oh dear
I wonder what you would make of the words of Montrose on the Commando memorial at Amfreville in Normandy Trisher ?
He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small
That puts it not unto the touch
To win, or lose it all

(Exactly lemongrove!)

MawBroon the inability of GN posters to be objective and depersonalise arguments never ceases to amaze me. I didn't say I thought the poem promoted or advised hiding gambling I said it could be construed as such. It really isn't helpful or reasonable to then post a question about what my opinion on some other piece of writing is. It's not my opinion in the first place it's an objective comment in support of another argument. If you want to discuss poetry I suggest you do so on an appropriate thread

The fact that both you and lemon find me doing that so objectionable, and that you berate me for "not understanding", indicates that actually taking it down was enirely correct.

Posters that don't agree with you are not one homogenous mass trisher! It is perfectly plausible that individual posters can, and do, disagree on topics. And I have not berated you for anything on this subject at all. I've posted items that demonstrate why I believe that RK's If poem is not promoting racism, sexism, transgenderism or even, heaven's above, gambling! You're taking posts far to personally imo and seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is in a gang. I'm not and neither is lemon to my knowledge anyway

I appreciate that your school days are some distance away from you now, but do you not remember dissecting a poem so that its meaning could be more fully understood?
That isn't berating someone Chewbacca what is it?
You and lemon posted much the same thing so I replied to you collectively. Why would that imply I think you are part of a gang?

I haven't taken anything personally I have produced an argument which actually both yours and lemon's comments reinforced.

Whateve trisher, whatever.....

I'm with trisher on this. "If" should not be on a wall; in fact I would stick it with a lot of Kipling's poems which really aren't all that good, even when sung by florid bass-baritones or boy choirs rolling down to Mandalay via Rio.

But nor are they particularly imperialist; they often take the side of the rank and file soldier and indeed the downtrodden subject.

MawBroon the inability of GN posters to be objective and depersonalise arguments never ceases to amaze me. I didn't say I thought the poem promoted or advised hiding gambling I said it could be construed as such

Of course you may think you never said that the poem promoted gambling or whatever, but used common enough “ weasel words “ to suggest something while ducking out of the responsibility.
So I am afraid it could be construed as such Trisher

I said MawBroon Arguably it's a poem that promotes gambling (and hiding it)
But I accept that there are those on GN who do not understand objective argument and insist on making things personal.

Whenever I come across this wretched poem (and I certainly don't seek it out) I am reminded of Polonius' officious advice to his son:- "Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy.....", and envisage the poet's son and Laertes stifling yawns and trying to keep a straight face as the old men witter on.

And whether Kipling intended it or not, it can certainly be read as condoning gambling.

As you do Trisher.

grumppa have you been on the

Condoning gambling! is gambling ( lottery, bingo having a flutter on the Grand National) a bad thing ? Only for an addict.Is drinking wine a bad thing? Only for an addict.
In any case, Kipling was only using the anology to reinforce
Strength of character.

I sometimes think GN is worse for our collective blood pressure than either gambling or red wine in copious quantities.

The world is going to hell in a handcart and we are arguing about a dead man's writing from some years ago! Kipling was of his time..not sure he resonates with many younger folk ..might do if enthusiatically taught but there are probably equal poets / writers that are more relevant to the current day. I think reverence for the past is overrated.

For God's sake! 'If' condones gambling ...? What nit-picking, miserable, critics some posters are!

PECS - thanks so much for your comment about Kipling being 'of his time. It isn't about reference for the past in my case, it's about the way the past informs our present and future. All these heroes of our imperial past are exactly that, part of our history. We can't wipe them out but we can accept their influence at the time. That means we should be able to reflect on how different they would be if living now (we hope, not in the case of BoJo of course.....)

Of course Kipling was "of his time" which is why his poem doesn't belong on a wall in a university today.

Should we still be having productions of Shakespeare's plays then.?

Of course. There is so much difference between the production of a play and sticking a poem on a wall even comparing the two is difficult. But for example the play is translated through the director and the actors, sometimes the script is adapted, sometimes the costumes and sets move the time of the play. There are too many variables to list. But basically the play carries with it some elements of analysis and explanation, a poem on a wall doesn't.

As I said earlier I am not sure what I feel about excluding historical artists/musicians/writers works from our culture. I think they need to be understood within their context...some works will still have relevance to contemporary life and others may not but are important in understanding the era they were from. I am not sure brushing out uncomfortable truth is a good way to go..but in the case of companies/ aristocrats/business men, that made money from slavery for example, who were honoured with buildings and statues. Do we wipe them out or just make sure we do not make wealth on dirty practice now? Think we are already failing there! Were we happy to see statues fall in Bagdhad , is there one rule for foreigners and one for us … ? So many questions and I am not sure what I feel!

Dickens could, and has, been accused of both racism and anti semitism; in particular regarding his caricature of Fagin in Oliver Twist. Should his work be condemned? Should his books be removed from libraries so that they no longer offend the yoof of today's sensibilities?

I think there’s a case of “watch this space” there, chewie.

The ability of people to misunderstand or to extrapolate from posts something that has never been said is amazing (could it be deliberate?) . Believing a poem shouldn't be posted on a wall is about as far away from destroying statues as you can get. It has already been proved that a poem can be misunderstood without proper analysis, particularly a long complicated one such as "If". To imagine from this that any writer or any other artist should be censored is just imagination. All writing and all art has its place and should be available somewhere. No one has actually said they shouldn't.