It’s Labor Day and I do hope that you aren’t working. I am of course working. There are a lot of reasons that are specific to me. One is that I work with people all over the world. International Workers’ Day is on 1 May. We have Labor Day because of the federal government’s disastrous response to the Pullman Strike. Those were the days when politicians actually worried about revolution (although not enough to do what was right in the first place). So most of the people I work with will not have today off.
The other reason is because I work all the time. The closest I’ve had to a day off since I returned from Mexico was on Friday when I worked about two and a half hours. The truth is that this work is kind of addictive. I’ve come to think of it as providing me with Sudoku Meaning. It’s the kind of meaning that I get from doing Sudoku puzzles. I’m very good at them. They engage my mind. They require a fair bit of creativity. But they aren’t deep. What television is to most people, Sudoku is to me.
Sudoku Meaning and My Job
I get Sudoku Meaning from my job. What’s more: I get paid to get Sudoku Meaning. I consider myself quite lucky in this regard. Just the same, this feeds itself. I shouldn’t work this much. But to stay with the television analogy, it’s like people who always watch The History Channel or whatever. They know there are other things on. But it’s just convenient. In this regard, my job is way easier than running Frankly Curious. I never know what I’m going to write around here. There’s no structure. There’s just a vague notion that I should write something interesting for the people who make a special trip here each day — and there are quite a number of them.
Frankly Curious Too!
But the truth is that Frankly Curious mostly provides Sudoku Meaning to me. There isn’t anything fundamental about it. There are times when what I write about transcends the format. Some of my work on Don Quixote works that way — providing me with sense of self-actualization. But way too much of it is facile craft. Give me any subject and two hours and I’ll give you an 800 word article, typeset with images. Hell: give me a first sentence! After writing over 7,000 articles for this blog, I’m good at that kind of stuff.
Rather than find meaning that has substance, we settle for a simulacrum…
It’s all Sudoku Meaning. So I’m looking for some deeper meaning. What that requires, I think, is slowing down. And that brings us back to Labor Day. We should have lots of them. But the truth is that most people don’t get one of them. Even if they get the day off, they don’t get paid for it. It’s hard to have friends and family over for a barbecue if you don’t have any money. But I think we lack leisure because we’ve embraced Sudoku Meaning.
Sudoku Meaning Is the Modern Sisyphus
Think about Sisyphus — the guy who rolls a huge boulder up a hill, only for it to roll back down, requiring him to repeat the process — for eternity. I see this — Quelle surprise! — in Schopenhauerian terms. It is the struggle of life that we live through each day just so we can repeat the same struggle tomorrow.
But we don’t need to struggle anymore. There is more than enough food for all. We can shelter everyone. In the west, we are doing quite well. So I think we developed Sudoku Meaning to help us carry on the Sisyphusian struggle. As Neil Postman put it in Amusing Ourselves to Death, “Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours.” Rather than find meaning that has substance, we settle for a simulacrum of it.
I see the problem very clearly in my own life. And I am fighting it. And losing. Badly.
I love math. You all know that! God is a mathematician. But that should tell you something right there. Jim Holt once speculated that “the universe was created by a being that is 100 percent malevolent but only 80 percent effective.” There’s no question but that mathematicians are an odd bunch. And the choice of these two words does strike me 100 percent malevolent.
So first up, we have: aliquant:
Al·i·quantadjective \al’-ə-kwənt\
1. (of a number) not dividing evenly into a larger number, as 6 is an aliquant part of 16. See also aliquot.
Date: late 17th century.
Origin: it comes from the Latin words alius (one of many) and quantus (amount or number).
Example: You don’t mean “aliquant” you mean “aliquot.” —Countless Mathematics Students
Next, we have: aliquot:
Al·i·quotadjective \al’-ə-kwət\
1. (of a number) dividing evenly into a larger number, as 6 is an aliquot part of 18. See also aliquant.
Date: late 16th century.
Origin: it comes from the Latin word aliquot (some, a small number).
Example: You don’t mean “aliquot” you mean “aliquant.” —Countless Mathematics Students
That’s right: these two words that sound almost identical mean exactly the opposite. It would be like deciding the best words for “yes” and “no” would be “yes” and “yef.” Only a mathematician would do this!
Those at the other ideological extreme [atheists] gnashed their teeth — Marxists in particular. Quite aside from its religious aura, the new theory contradicted their belief in the infinity and eternity of matter, which was one of the axioms of Lenin’s dialectical materialism. Accordingly, the theory was dismissed as “idealistic.” The Marxisant physicist David Bohm rebuked the developers of the theory as “scientists who effectively turn traitor to science, and discard scientific facts to reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church.” Atheists of a non-Marxist stripe were also recalcitrant. “Some younger scientists were so upset by these theological trends that they resolved simply to block their cosmological sources,” commented the German astronomer Otto Heckmann, a prominent investigator of cosmic expansion. The dean of the profession, Sir Arthur Eddington, wrote that “the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me… I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang… the expanding universe is preposterous… incredible… it leaves me cold.”
I saw that tweet the other day. And I got a little annoyed.
Why? Because I actually don’t think it sounds like Clinton. At all. I didn’t think that a year ago. And I don’t think it now. There is a reason for that.
Clinton Has Been Very Open
Clinton has always released her taxes, her email, her family’s foundation records, her fundraising records, her donation records, and her life’s story when asked by appropriate parties. Appropriate parties are: the American people, the government, the press, and the editors of her books.
Not once do you have a record of her refusing to release something that she felt she had a legal or ethical obligation to release.
When you have someone who is that willing to release information, you have someone not trying to hide anything. Are there times she fails to release? Yes — because we are talking about multiple tons of documents. Is there a pattern of her hiding anything? No.
Now on to the bribing. Because she has released all of this information, we can go through and see if she has any record of using sketchy ways of handling business. And guess what? She doesn’t have that record. She complies with the rules even when she gets suggestions to not do so. (I’m looking at you Colin Powell.) Even when she probably should have used an Official Government Email Account™, she followed the rules for not using one.
Having been in government, I know why she used the single device. It is a decision most people in leadership have to make. And most of them hate using two or three devices. Clinton’s having it set up with her husband’s server was probably better than using gmail. But I digress.
Clinton’s Clean Donation Record
The fact is that you can trace her giving to whomever via her taxes, her family’s direct foundation, and the Clinton Foundation. You can look to see what they did with every dollar they received. You can spend months on this — just like most of the charity watchers do. And nothing — Absolutely nothing! — shows it was not above board. There was no using donation funds to buy things, no using funds to make political donations, nothing. Nada. Nichts.
Clinton does have a track record: not lying whenever she wants; not using her money to get out of scrapes; admitting fault; apologizing when she screws up…
Yet where does Justin Green, Political Editor for Independent Journal Review, start? Saying that Hillary Clinton is who first comes to mind when reading, “Rich person laundering political donation (bribe) through his foundation and hiding it on IRS filings”? And he is surprised that it is Trump?! Clinton has zero record of doing anything so unbelievably illegal and Trump is, well, Trump.
Clinton’s Track Record
Clinton does have a track record: not lying whenever she wants; not using her money to get out of scrapes; admitting fault; apologizing when she screws up; not breaking the law; not bribing public officials; not creating investment or university scams; and on and on.
So why the hell would anyone — especially a professional political editor — even conceive of writing such a statement?
Clinton has screwed up before — the Iraq war vote, using a private server that the State Department hadn’t authorized[1], most of the 2008 campaign, pushing for the use of American power when a wait-and-see approach would probably have been better. But these are policy decisions. When it comes to behavior? She doesn’t do anything wrong.
[1] This always struck me as weird, since she was in charge of it and Obama clearly knew she had the server and didn’t care.
Over the past few days, I’ve been very glad to have A Latin-English Dictionary for the Use of Junior Students. I picked it up at a thrift store years ago when I was writing a play about Latin. I have the Thirteenth Edition, which is from 1898. But it must have been a best-seller because it was up to the Twenty-fourth Edition by 1915. Regardless, it’s far more dependable than Google Translate. Of course, Latin is a late edition to the system. But you would think: Latin. That ought to be an easy one. I mean it gets Spanish and Italian and they are just Latin++. What’s the big deal?
Beyond Agglutinate
There were other interesting words. “Agio” is supposedly the fee charged by brokers to turn coin into cash. So that’s what those awful machines are charging. And it’s like 8.9 percent, which is an outrage! But this is the page that includes a personal favorite of mine: agoraphobia. Most people will never know the thrill of being freaked out by an empty parking lot!
Instead, you have have to settle for thrilling to the word “agglutinate”:
Ag·glu·ti·nateverb \ə-‘gloo-tən-āt\
1. (in linguistics) to form and express grammatical relationships by the continued additions of strings of meaningful elements, as in Turkish.
Date: 16th century.
Origin: Latin: agglutino, which means “to fasten to, or attach.”
Example: Let’s get together and agglutinate – and more linguistics valentines. —AllThingsLinguistic
The Real Meaning of Agglutinate
Dictionary.com defines agglutination as, “a process of word formation in which morphemes, each having one relatively constant shape, are combined without fusion or morphophonemic change, and in which each grammatical category is typically represented by a single morpheme in the resulting word, especially such a process involving the addition of one or more affixes to a base, as in Turkish, in which ev means ‘house,’ ev-den means ‘from a house,’ and ev-ler-den means ‘from houses.'” So now you understand that business about Turkish!
Image cropped from an electron micrograph of influenza A virus. It is in the public domain.
On September 3, 1991, a chicken factory in Hamlet, North Carolina caught fire thanks to nonexistent safety procedures, killing 25 workers and injuring another 55. This was the largest workplace disaster in North Carolina history. This entirely avoidable accident was reminiscent of workplace disasters of the past, with open employer contempt for safety regulations and the lives of their workers.
In 1980, [the factory] was purchased by Imperial Foods… The factory had no fire alarm system. The factory was used to process chicken for fast food restaurants and pre-frozen products for grocery stores. That meant cutting, bagging, weighing, and, most importantly for this story, frying it. About three-quarters of the workers were African-Americans. Hamlet is a small town close to the South Carolina border and the worker histories reflected that. Many of these workers had grown up doing farm work in the area and for some, this was their first factory job.
Imperial’s CEO Emmett Roe had moved from Pennsylvania to the South in order to bust the unions in his plants there and move to a state with a “more favorable regulatory climate,” ie, the kind of state that won’t inspect your factories or enforce safety violations… North Carolina regulators never inspected the factory because the budget for inspections was minuscule. In 11 years of operation, it received no fire inspections… According to one survivor of the fire, the plant managers locked the door to stop workers from stealing chicken. This was the same excuse sweatshop managers gave to locking the doors at Triangle when that disaster killed 146 workers in 1911.
[T]he deep fryer caught fire after a hydraulic line to a cooking vat failed, with obvious problems with it not found because of the company’s indifferent safety culture. It spread very quickly thanks to a combination of burning cooking oil, insulation, and exploding gas lines hanging from the ceiling. It didn’t help that all of the phones inside the building were nonfunctional. The workers at the front of the plant all managed to get out. But at the back of the plant the company did not place any fire alarms. Moreover, Imperial managers not only locked all the exits but sealed the windows as well. Those workers had nowhere to go. As an old plant, it was a maze of paths inside. The smoke meant they couldn’t find their way to the front. They were doomed. Like at Triangle, which this fire reminded many of, a few workers did get out the back by breaking open a locked loading bay, but most died. On one door, near charred bodies, blackened footprints could still be seen, signs of the desperate attempt to escape. Eighteen of the dead were women. Most of the dead were African-American.
There are no more open toss-up districts. So I’m going to discuss some of the juicer campaigns. We have incumbents to talk about! So off we go to Frank’s current stomping grounds and my home state: California. So I am going to look at an almost certain Democratic pick-up, California District 25, and then the promising District 10.
California has a top two primary system. This creates some interesting general election contests. While this system was sold as a way to increase voter turn out, it doesn’t. It was supposed to make politics less partisan, it hasn’t. In fact, in a general sense, Top-Two Primary System Hasn’t Worked as Proponents Promised.
California District 25 (CA-25)
I start with the most vulnerable incumbent — Representative Steve Knight. Knight is known for his being conservative but not too conservative. Oh, and telling off his constituents after realizing that Congress-critters don’t have total power over the US government. He also has a fairly dismal record of working well with others, but at least he shows up for work.
He is facing challenger Bryan Caforio, an attorney originally from Los Angeles. Caforio seems to have one main flaw: he is new to the district. Otherwise he doesn’t seem capable of putting a single foot wrong. The Democrats have been active in getting voter registration figures up. This California District went from a 14,000 deficit (PDF) to a 5,000 advantage (PDF).
Caforio is stapling Trump all over Knight who keeps trying to duck questions about his party’s presidential nominee. Back in June, Caforio polled 6 percentage points down. A month later, he polled 8 points ahead of Knight in California District 25.
This means that this race is probably already over, even though no ballots have dropped. It should be an easy pick-up for the Democrats.
California District 10 (CA-10)
The current serving Representative in California District 10 is Republican Jeff Denham. He has been around since 2010, when he got the dubious distinction of getting dishonorable mention in CREW’s Most Corrupt Report. Otherwise, he has been a fairly conservative politician who works somewhat well with others. Outside of that he hasn’t done much to distinguish himself or make himself look bad.
He is facing, for the second time, a Democrat by the name of Michael Eggman. This is where sometimes looking stuff up on candidates will yield bizarre results. Michael Eggman is something of a stereotypical California dad. Well, he has had frosted tips. Regardless, he is definitely bringing up Trump.
There has been one poll done in the race by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research. It was done back in July and found Eggman losing by 7 percentage points. However, Eggman had little name recognition at that time. What’s more, the fundamentals of this California district are distinctly Democratic — 7 point advantage for a generic Democrat versus a generic Republican. Eggman’s problem is getting his name out there. And since he has less than a million dollars on hand, that might be difficult.
This may be a keep for the Republicans but hey, frosted tips can do wonders for a man!
Image of Michael Eggman cropped from a screenshot of his website, licensed under Fair Use. Image of Bryan Caforio cropped from a screenshot of his website, licensed under Fair Use.
I was struck by the definition of a fairly common word: aesthete. I do know that people very often use it as a pejorative. But I was still struck with this: “a lover of beautiful things, especially to the scornful exclusion of practicalities.” Ouch! Why is it necessary to throw “scornful” in there? It makes aesthetes sound like monsters!
Other Good Words
There were other good words as well. “Advalorem” has something to do with the value of something for the purpose of an import tax. There was also “afferent,” which has something to do with a nerve impulse toward the inside of the body. So maybe when you touch something, the signal moves in an afferent way? I don’t know. And I don’t have to know. It isn’t today’s word!
Today’s word is a great one: afflatus.
Af·fla·tusnoun \ə-flā’-təs\
1. inspiration; knowledge or understanding. (Note: other sources tend to include the word “divine” in this definition.)
Date: 17th century.
Origin: it comes from the Latin word afflare, which means “to blow or breath on.”
Example: But [Thomas] Wolfe’s temperament was white-hot, his need to digest experience more urgent, and his style of expression too full of the divine afflatus, to the point where his bombastic writing strikes contemporary tastes as almost unreadable. —Gerald Howard
The polls continue to look better and better for Donald Trump. FiveThirtyEight’s “polls plus” analysis now give him a 30% chance of winning the presidency. This would be a catastrophe for the country. And I say that not because he is a bigot and a buffoon. I say it because if elected, he will be just like any other Republican. The truth is that I believe this presidential race will be like any other one: a Democrat versus a Republican. And so what we really need to do is look at the fundamentals. And that’s why today’s jobs report is important.
Today’s report is slightly bad. The economy added 151,000 jobs, this is a bit less than expected. The unemployment rate stayed flat at 4.9 percent. Since my very simple model of the presidency only takes this number into account, it isn’t good news. Whereas last month, Clinton had roughly the advantage that her husband had against Bush in 1992, she now has the advantage that Al Gore had in 2000. The trend is not good, but certainly it is better to have the economic fundamentals on your side than to not.
Does It Matter That Trump Is a Terrible Candidate?
Now it is true that Donald Trump is a terrible presidential candidate. I don’t mean that in an ideological sense. I mean simply that he isn’t good at the nuts and bolts of campaigning. But I really wonder if that matters. And I’ve wondered that for a very long time. While virtually every liberal I know is outraged about Citizens United and money in campaigns, I’m really not. It is clear to me that money soils politics indirectly because politicians believe that they need it and so govern in ways they wouldn’t normally. What happens usually is that business interests see that a candidate is going to win, so they flood them with cash they don’t need in order to curry favor.
Whereas last month, Clinton had roughly the advantage that her husband had against Bush in 1992, she now has the advantage that Al Gore had in 2000.
It’s quite clear why Trump’s polling looks better: Clinton has been getting a lot of bad press recently. And this will change over time. But it does seem that there is nothing that the Clinton or Trump campaigns themselves do that has much of an effect on the numbers. The only reason I’m not freaking out and making plans to move to Uruguay is that I think the baseline for Trump is low and that the economy will remain stable through election day.
The Jobs Report Won’t Change Next Month
It would not surprise me in the least if the next jobs report has the same 4.9 percent unemployment rate. There will also be a jobs report right before the election, but my model disregards it. Anyway, I won’t be surprised if it too is 4.9 percent. It’s funny that this seems to be the new normal. Of course, it isn’t helped by the Federal Reserve. The top two people at the Fed seem to look for any opportunity to tell everyone that they really, really, really want to raise interest rates. And this always has the same effect of freaking out the business community and constraining the economy.
And what does this jobs report tell us about the current state of the economy and if the Fed should really be worried about inflation? Well, Dean Baker noted a few things that are interesting. First, although the employment-to-population rate was unchanged, it was down 0.2 percentage points for prime age workers. And it is still 2.5 percentage points below its pre-recession level. There was an increase of over a hundred thousand people working part-time involuntarily. The total number of hours worked is down. And wages are not accelerating. So where is the potential inflation?!
The Fed Won’t Screw Us — Yet
The one good thing is that this jobs report does not give the Fed any excuse for raising rates before the presidential election. And that’s good news for the country, because any Republican president would be terrible just on the basis of the Supreme Court. But you can depend upon the Fed to screw the American worker just as soon as they can possibly justify it.
But the page does bring up something I said earlier: that if you get past 50,000 words, you’re basically down to different kinds of fish. Most of the words I don’t know are technical — usually medical. At this point, I’m thinking that I may actually have a vocabulary of 50,000 words. That’s a shocking thought. Where are they? And do I really need all those little buggers clogging up my brain? Certainly I don’t use them for writing.
How Long Can This Go On?
To be honest, I’m not sure how long I can keep this all up. The words aren’t that interesting. And dealing with the definitions is a real pain. That’s especially true because I’m trying to stay as close to the book as possible. And the type is so small and my eyes so bad that I can’t use the book while writing because the light isn’t good enough.
Regardless, I have a science word for you today. And given what it is, it’s surprising that I didn’t know it: actinism.
Ac·ti·nismnoun \ak’-ti-nizm\
1. the property of radiation to produce chemical changes.
Date: 1840.
Origin: it comes from the Greek word ἀκτῖνος, which means beam, as in “light beam.”
Example: Niepce, a Frenchman, discovered “actinism,” that power in the sun’s rays which produces a chemical effect… —Henry David Thoreau
Image created from Sunrise by clausheupel, which is in the public domain.
As I’ve mentioned many times, the 2008 film Dean Spanley is one of my very favorites. A big part of this is that it is mostly the story of a father and son. I tend to be an easy mark for such stories. Indeed, I tend to like any stories about men who interact in a genuine way instead of the stereotyped “punching each other on the shoulder” way. Thus, when I first approached Lord Dunsany’s novella My Talks with Dean Spanley, I was disappointed. There is no father and son. And the male relationships are more the kinds of stereotypes that I dislike.
Don’t take this to mean that My Talks with Dean Spanley is bad. In its way, it’s just as good as the film. But it is direct. And the whole story is told through a haze of alcohol intoxication. This makes for a very amusing read. The book is about a dean in the Church of England who seems to have memories of being a dog in a past life. In the film, this is also true; but it acts mostly in the service of bringing the narrator and his father together.
My Talks With Dean Spanley Summary
The novella is written in the first person. It starts, “Were I to tell how I came to know that Dean Spanley had a secret, I should have to start this tale at a point many weeks earlier.” This departs completely from the film, where the dean’s secret comes about by chance, well into the narrative. In the book, the narrator tells us that he is a scientist and that he wants to publish a study of reincarnation for his western comrades so that they can better understand it. He does this using the well-known scientific tool of getting his subject drunk.
This does work. When drunk enough, Dean Spanley speaks forthrightly about his life as a dog. And based upon the technology that he remembers, the narrator is even able to roughly date this past life. But very quickly, the dean becomes disinclined to drink enough when dining with the narrator. Luckily, the narrator befriends a man named Wrather, who is quite the drinker and is fond of giving advice from his father, “Never trust a teetotaler or a man that wears elastic-sided boots.” The narrator feels that if Wrather joins their dinners, he can get the dean to the proper level of intoxication.
Drunker, Drunker
This too works. But Wrather eventually screws up by offending the dean and bringing him back to reality. So then the dean must be convinced to dine again with Wrather under the pretense that he needs to be around other men who know how to drink responsibly. Eventually even this fails. Finally, a grand dinner is given with the Maharajah of Haikwar. It is a stunning success. Dean Spanley reveals all, including the details of the secret dog religious belief that once man teaches dog the secret of fire, man and dog will be equals. There’s just one problem.
None of the narrator, Wrather, nor the Maharajah can remember what the dean said. They were all too drunk! And the dean is soon after promoted to bishop and so will have little to do with the likes of the narrator and Wrather.
In the film, the biggest obstacles are getting the Tokay. This is not an issue at all in the book. Instead, it is all about getting Dean Spanley past his reticence to get really drunk. As a result, there’s the wonderful catch-22 denouement. It also serves to make the narrator and Wrather end up as close friends, unlike in the movie where it is implied that the dean and Wrather may go on their own adventure together (as they did in their past lives).
Satirical Targets
Lord Dunsany’s satire takes aim at any number of life’s foibles. He makes fun of everyone: clergy and scientists; drunks and teetotaler; dogs and cats. This last bit is particularly interesting, given that Dunsany was president of a local RSPCA. But he is savage to dogs, although in a way that is indicative of one who has spent a lot of time with them. Dogs are disgusting, and this is presented in much detail.
There is also a remarkable moment in the novella at the end of Chapter 8. Dean Spanley mentions coming upon another dog that had been trapped in a tunnel it had dug. The narrator asks, “And what did you do for him?” The dean replies, “He was nobody I knew.” In the middle of such an amusing story, this moment is shocking. But it isn’t just the reader. Wrather is livid. He says, “If one thinks one’s a dog, one should think one is a decent kind of a dog.” No Lassie was our dean.
The Book Stands Alone
Most people who read My Talks with Dean Spanley after seeing the movie are disappointed. That’s understandable. Normally books are far more detailed than movies. In this case, screenwriter Alan Sharp built a mansion out of Lord Dunsany’s cottage. But that cottage is a fine one. And I guarantee, you will laugh much more in it than in Sharp’s glorious mansion.
Just How Expensive Is the Tokay in Dean Spanley
A big part of the film Dean Spanley is the difficulty that Henslowe Fisk has in acquiring Tokay — and just how expensive it is. When he finds his first bottle, he asks how much it is, and Wrather says to him, as though doing a favor, “Five guineas for you.” Fisk is shocked, “Five guineas?! That’s a bit bloody steep!” Wrather cheekily responds, “These little things were sent to try us, as the man said of the Pygmy judge.”
But Fisk, having no choice pays the five guineas. Now, as an American, I don’t know much about British currency. So I had no idea what they were talking about. What is a guinea? Is it like a pound? And just how much does five guineas represent.
How Much Would I Pay?
The more I thought about it, the more I approached the problem internally. How much money would make me react that way? I figured it couldn’t be as little as a couple hundred dollars. That’s a lot of money for a bottle of wine. But he’s got to understand that this isn’t going to be cheap. He’s only talking to Wrather because literally no one else has it for sale at any cost. So if I were in his situation, I would gladly pay several hundred bucks.
On the other hand, if it were $10,000, it would be a deal-breaker. At that price, I would simply go to the Dean and tell him I had heard from my source and that he wasn’t able to get me the Tokay. Given that the Dean was only going because of the Tokay, I’m sure he would respond with something like, “It is all for the best because I just found out I need to have dinner that night with the Bishop.” And that would be that.
As a result, I figured it had to be in the range of $1,000. Maybe it was just a bit less, or twice as much, but it had to be in that range. That is the amount of money I would pay to both do something I really wanted to and to save face. Given that Fisk and I are both roughly as rich as each other (at least until his father dies), I figure this would apply to Fisk as well as it does to me.
What Is a Guinea?
British currency — like most of its units of measure — is a mess. As All About Romance has noted, “The monetary system of Great Britain can be very confusing to the average American reader, especially since the system until fairly recently, was not a decimal one.” For an example, I wrote an article called Numeracy in Shakespeare in Love. I noted there that there were 240 Pennies in a Pound. Who but the British would come up with a system like that?
Well, a Guinea is worth one Pound and one Shilling. There were 20 Shillings in a Pound, so a Guinea is worth 1.05 Pounds. In other words, it really is a useless unit of measure. But there you have it. I’m only throwing it in for completeness, but for most purposes, a Guinea’s as good as a pound.
The Guinea Over Time
Concertina has a great webpage to help us answer this question, Calculate Modern Values of Historic Concertina Prices. It allows you to enter a year from 1830 through 2000 with an amount in Pounds, Shillings, and Pence. Then it spits back its year 2000 value in Pounds and decimal Pence.
Before we can use the calculator, however, we have to date the film. The book was published in 1936. But that doesn’t help us all that much. For one thing, the movie and book are quite different. And the Second Boer War plays a major role in the movie. It ended in 1902. Given that Jeremy Northam (who played Fisk) was only 47 at the time of the film, he would have been 13 at the end of the war and so his younger brother would not have been in it.
Overall, the feel of the film is that it exists in that time between the Boer War and World War I. For one thing, cars are brand new. The one in the film has a single headlight, and looks more typical of cars around 1910. This is certainly not the 1930s. But since the younger brother’s death seems to be something in the distant past, I will place it right before World War I: 1914.
5 Guineas in 1914
Assuming this, the calculator finds 5 1914 Guineas to be worth £1,385.11. That’s in the year 2000. According to Macro Trends, the exchange rate at that time was 1.65. In the year 2008 (when the film was made), the exchange rate was 1.98. So we can set the value to £1,662.13.
That gives us rather a larger number in dollars: $3,291.02. But it’s important to note that the exchange rate jumps around quite a lot. The rate is 1.31 right now, which brings the number to $1,814.49.
Conclusion
Although my gut feeling seems to have been a bit on the low side — about half what the Tokay actually cost, it was definitely in the ball park. It shows how well you can do with these kinds of calculations. And I, at least, think it’s pretty fun to play around with this kind of thing.
If you haven’t seen Dean Spanley, you really owe it to yourself to see it. It is filmmaking at its finest. It isn’t psychotronic at all. It’s just a good film, made for adults. If your parents are still alive, it’s a nice one to share with them.
Image of My Talks with Dean Spanley cropped from one at Amazon. Licensed under Fair Use.
The funny thing is that I’ve recently reconnected with an old friend, Mark Neville. When I first met him, I was perhaps 20 years old. And I was struggling to improve my vocabulary, looking forward to eventually taking the SAT. I had a list of about 20 words that I was trying to learn. And Mark knew them all. I never did memorize those words.
But something changed around that time. I started reading a lot more — and widely. And if you want to develop your vocabulary, that’s the way to do it: read. Then you learn words without even trying. But I do remember struggling through some George Eliot with a dictionary close by. And much later, I did the same thing when I was going through a William Faulkner and Flannery O’Connor phase. But mostly, you just learn the words without thinking much about it. And that’s much more pleasant than memorizing words out of context.
I Suffer From Acouasm
I could have gone with “acariasis” — but I don’t want to think about mites right now. Anyway, there was a much better word: “acouasm.” I have these all the time. I assume most people do. But if you don’t, it doesn’t mean I’m crazy. In fact, I don’t even know why you would suggest that. Really, there’s nothing wrong with me. Those doctors don’t know what they’re talking about anyway. I’m fine. Really, I am!
A·cou·asmnoun \ə-‘koo-azm\
1. an imagined ringing in the head.
Date: unknown, but as a psychiatric term, probably fairly recent.
Origin: Greek: άκου, which is something like a hailing, “Hark!”
Example: Its singles have been imported from another, much better album, and any suggestion of a direct Wu-Tang influence can only be described as an acouasm. —Barry Schwart
Not Feeling Too Good
I’ll bet you anything Mark already knew that word!