If you've read my Facebook recently, you'll see that I was at the Upstart Crow Bookstore in San Diego. In looking up what it meant, I found this site, which says that the first reference was by Robert Greene in 1592. He was a well-known poet and playwright and apparently didn't like Shakespeare. Greene attacked Shakespeare in a pamphlet called the "Groatsworth of Wit", where Geene calls the actor William Shakespeare as an "upstart crow." An Upstart, the site says, is characteristic of someone who has risen economically or socially but lacks the social skills appropriate for this new position. To crow is to boast and a crow is a scavenger who steals from others. Here's the text of the pamphlet:
quote:
"Yes, trust them not, for there is an upstart crow, beautified with our feathers, that, with his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you; and being an absolute Johannes Factotum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrie."
I think it's an interesting use of the word pamphlet as well.
I think it's an interesting use of the word pamphlet as well
Why is that? In the days before TV and radio soundbites pamphlets were the regular way of making your opinion known on a subject. To judge from some of them, hyperbole was almost mandatory ...
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
They've changed over the years. From around the 16th century to the 19th pamphlets consisted of densely-written prose on a particular subject. Often they were diatribes for or against a particular person or thing.
Nowadays pamphlets are generally used commercially and politically and often consist of lots of pictures and not much text. See our old friend Wikipedia.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Then we did have a different definition of a pamphlet. I had no idea they used to be detailed "diatribes." Indeed, I've always thought they were bulleted summaries of topics. For example, we have pamphlets on the nurses' use of social media or on professional boundaries. They do a wonderful job of summarizing the detailed work we did on both of those subjects.
In your Wikipedia site, arnie, I was surprised that UNESCO says that "to count as a pamphlet," it had to have from 5 to 48 pages. Many of ours wouldn't "count" because they are 4 pages (front and back of a folded sheet).
In the days before TV and radio soundbites pamphlets were the regular way of making your opinion known on a subject.
See the works of Thomas Paine. Pamphlets did not have to be solely diatribes. I think the UNESCO requirement for at least five pages is to make it more than just a single folded sheet of paper. To make five pages requires at least two sheets folded together.
Originally posted by Proofreader: Pamphlets did not have to be solely diatribes. I think the UNESCO requirement for at least five pages is to make it more than just a single folded sheet of paper. To make five pages requires at least two sheets folded together.
I agree; that's why I used the word 'often' in my post. But why should UNESCO decide on the make up of pamphlets? What does it matter to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation that there are four, five or more sheets in a pamphlet?
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
What does it matter to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation that there are four, five or more sheets in a pamphlet?
Probably just another bureaucrat making a definition for a contract requirement. I recall the Pentagon having ten pages of printing detailing how to bake a cookie for the Army.
