large/8011/letterstohischildren_1510_librivox_64kb_mp3/letterstohischildren_51_roosevelt_64kb_10
large/8011/letterstohischildren_1510_librivox_64kb_mp3/letterstohischildren_51_roosevelt_64kb
English
8011
He was utterly incapable of seeing the high purpose and the real greatness which (in spite of the presence also of much that was bad or vile) could have been visible all around him here in America to any man whose vision was both keen and lofty. HE WAS UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF SEEING THE HIGH PURPOSE AND THE REAL GREATNESS WHICH IN SPITE OF THE PRESENCE ALSO OF MUCH THAT WAS BAD OR VILE COULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE ALL AROUND HIM HERE IN AMERICA TO ANY MAN WHOSE VISION WAS BOTH KEEN AND LOFTY
ore I think the wise thing to do is simply to skip the bosh and twaddle and vulgarity and untruth, and get the benefit out of the rest. Of course one fundamental difference between Thackeray and Dickens is that Thackeray was a gentleman and Dickens was not. But a man might do some mighty good work and not be a gentleman in any sense. "MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT" White House, February 29, 1908. DEAREST KERMIT: Of course I entirely agree with you about "Martin Chuzzlewit." But the point seems to me that the preposterous perversion of truth and the ill-nature and malice of the book are of consequence chiefly as indicating Dickens' own character, about which I care not a rap; whereas, the characters in American shortcomings and vices and follies as typified are immortal, and, moreover, can be studied with great profit by all of us to-day. Dickens was an ill-natured, selfish cad and boor, who had no understanding of what the word gentleman meant, and no appreciation of hospitality or good treatment. THEREFORE I THINK THE WISE THING TO DO IS SIMPLY TO SKIP THE BOSH AND TWADDLE AND VULGARITY AND UNTRUTH AND GET THE BENEFIT OUT OF THE REST OF COURSE ONE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THACKERAY AND DICKENS IS THAT THACKERAY WAS A GENTLEMAN AND DICKENS WAS NOT BUT A MAN MIGHT DO SOME MIGHTY GOOD WORK AND NOT BE A GENTLEMAN IN ANY SENSE MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT WHITE HOUSE FEBRUARY TWENTY NINTH NINETEEN O EIGHT DEAREST KERMIT OF COURSE I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT BUT THE POINT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PREPOSTEROUS PERVERSION OF TRUTH AND THE ILL NATURE AND MALICE OF THE BOOK ARE OF CONSEQUENCE CHIEFLY AS INDICATING DICKENS OWN CHARACTER BUT WHICH I CARE NOT ERAP WHEREAS THE CHARACTERS IN AMERICAN SHORTCOMINGS AND VICES AND FOLLIES AS TYPIFIED ARE IMMORTAL AND MOREOVER CAN BE STUDIED WITH GREAT PROFIT BY ALL OF US TO DAY DICKENS WAS AN ILL NATURED SELFISH CAT AND BORE WHO HAD NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE WORD GENTLEMAN MEANT AND NO APPRECIATION OF HOSPITALITY OR GOOD TREATMENT
large/8011/letterstohischildren_1510_librivox_64kb_mp3/letterstohischildren_51_roosevelt_64kb
file
download/librilight/large/8011/letterstohischildren_1510_librivox_64kb_mp3/letterstohischildren_51_roosevelt_64kb.flac