en Duyvil feels like your coolest friend’s living room and backyard, if they had a really impressive beer collection and a solid wine list. It’s rustic and laidback, with worn wooden tables and mismatched iron chairs in the back — the kind of place you want to hang out in for a while.
Full of nostalgic, camping-kitsch, like a bright red canoe and a deer head on the wall, Camp is one of Carroll Gardens’ coolest bars. A roaring fireplace, exposed brick walls, classic board games on offer, and the chance to make your own s’mores will make you feel like you’re definitely not in Brooklyn anymore.No… is it in “The Complete Nonsense of Edward Lear”?
No, this was a cartoon serious (a Sid and Marty Kroffts production) which animated some of Lear’s poems.
Yeah, I kind of remember it. Came out in the early 70’s, around the same time as “Make a Wish” with Tom Chapin.
Edward Lear’s “Book of Nonsense” was one of my favorite books in grade school.
Actually it was a cartoon series.
I remember it WELL. It was great! Perfect fodder for little hippies-in-training. It included Lewis Carroll as well as Lear.
Remember the version of the “White Knight’s Song”? Instead of a white knight, the narrator was a Victorian dandy riding a penny-farthing bicycle. And the “aged, aged man a-sitting on a gate” looked like Mister Natural!
Whoa…stocking stuffer time. Are TOMFOOLERY videos available?
Nope–and don’t think I haven’t looked for them.
You can find “Land of the Lost,” “Lidsville,” and some other Sid&Marty gems–but something based on some real literature? Oh, no!
Then I must assume that my search for a Beanie Baby of the Yonghy-Bonghy-Bo is doomed to failure?
Indeed, as well as the Enthusiastic Elephant and the Fizzgiggious Fish.
Nuts. I remember the Enthusiastic Elephant well (didn’t he have a W.C. Fields voice?) but I’m drawing a complete blank on the Fizzgiggious Fish.
Who were the other “regulars”?
The writers also included jokes from other sources, including HELLZAPOPPIN’. I remember the “Plant for Mister Pappadoupoulous!” routine, where the porter keeps walking through the scene with a houseplant, which grows larger and larger.
Don’t look now, Mjollnir, but I think we’re all alone here.
Yes, EE did indeed speak like WC Fields.
I’ve been on a jihad for a number of years to get them. So far, it’s all been a dead end.
Now, if I knew how the contact the Kroffts, hmmm....
It was on the air for an entire season, wasn’t it? There must have been more than a dozen installments, so they covered a HELL of a lot of poetry.
While I don’t think they ever did THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK, they DID serialize that long prose piece of Lear’s, “The Four Children Who Sailed Around the World.” Right? They had a boat with a HUGE tea-kettle in it, and they fished for Soles, which came out of the sea complete with anchovy sauce? And Lionel took the feathers out of the Parrots’ tails, and Violet put them in her headdress, which created a Pleasing Effect?
OK, I was wrong about something: It wasn’t the Kroffts clan–it was Rankin/Bass.
According to my source (“The Encyclopedia of Television Series, Pilots, and Specials 1936-1973,” there were 17 episodes, and it ran from the fall of 1970 thru early 1971.
He spoke sort of like Sylvester the cat, sort of a lisping, almost spitting voice.
Also, taking a cue from Lear, they created “recipes.” They might have even used some of his recipes, but I don’t remember them well enough.
BTW, the aforementioned book is to this day the only evidence (other than my own memory) that this cartoon ever existed.
Don’t say that…there’s MY memory of it, too.
As long as I KEEP MY SANITY, YOU ARE NOT ALONE.
Seventeen episodes, you say? Just like THE PRISONER.
You don’t think…nahhhhhhh.Johanna ist die Geschichte der totalen psychischen, geistigen, körperlichen Vernichtung einer Frau durch verschiedene - verwandschaftliche, politische, geschlechtliche etc. - Machtpositionen.  September 1506) ihres Ehemannes, Philipp der Schönen, bis 1509 mit dem Sarg des Totes umher. Sie wurde dann in 1509 interniert und bis zu ihrem Tod (also 45 Jahre lang!) in einem Turm eingesperrt. Johanna war förmlich von 1504 die Königin von Kastilien, sie wurde jedoch in der Praxis mit den herkömmlichen Mitteln einer mittelalterlichen Macho-Gesellschaft aus der Macht gedrängt. Wir kennen die Gründe des Herumirrens von Johanna nicht.  Viele Motive des Textes basieren auf historischen Tatsachen. Diese von den fiktiven Episoden zu trennen ist aus meiner Sicht, unwesentlich. Johanna ist kein historischer Roman, sie ist eine allgemeine Figur. Die Bestialität der Geschichte funktioniert heute in seinem Wesen ganz genau so, wie vor fünfhundert Jahre und wie sie bis ans Ende der Geschichte funktionieren wird. Die Johannas leben also fortwährend in der Geschichte, sie sind jedoch nicht immer Königinnen und der Ort ist nicht immer Kastilien. Was mich an das Schicksal von Johanna und an der historischen Zeit interessierte, ist sozusagen die "Present Continuous".
Die zwei zentrale Motive des Verweissystems des Textes sind die Arie "Cold Song" (Oh What Power Art Thou) aus der Purcell-Oper „King Arthur“ in der Interpretation von Klaus Nomi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hGpjsgquqw und die Erzählung "Turmalin" von Adalbert Stifter.
The heroine of Péter Farkas’s new novel "Johanna" is not St Joan of Arc, but a much less known queen of the same name: Joanna of Castile, nicknamed the Mad (1479–1555), who was supposedly so crazy about her husband that she went insane when he died. This novel is the passion play of a woman; the portrait of a sensitive woman in an austere, mechanical world.
The eponymous heroine of Péter Farkas’s new novel Johanna is not St Joan of Arc, but a much less known queen of the same name: Joanna of Castile, nicknamed the Mad (1479–1555), who, according to the novel’s blurb “did not let her husband [Philip the Handsome], who died young, be buried. She roamed around for seven hundred and eighty days with the coffin that held the corpse. Later on she was imprisoned by her children in a tower where she was confined for forty-six years.”  However, there are sources which claim that she was not mad at all, it was only in the interest of the usurpers of her power to declare her insane.
Péter Farkas’s novel mingles historical truth with fiction. The narrator himself sometimes refers to contemporary historiographers, but we also learn that their data are not to be trusted blindly, because they tend to be faulty or contradictory at times. The narrator does not identify his heroine with the historical character, but neither does he deny their similarity. He introduces the story with the sentence: “So the protagonist of the following narrative could as well be Joanna.” Sometimes he breaks away from historical events, at other times he seems to follow them. Just like the cover, which merely hints at Joanna’s portrait by John of Flanders: all we can see are the distant look in the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the medal and the chest (of course, covered with clothes)—it shows just one thin streak of the painting, surrounded by darkness from left and right, as if death was slowly and gradually, but irrevocably closing in on the queen.
Farkas’s short novel does not follow the line of the ‘fool of love’ myth. The Joanna of this novel had always possessed weird abilities and intuitions, since her childhood. “Apart from her own body she only had contact with dead things”; she had a very sensitive touch; she made stones speak; her imagination—if that is an appropriate word at all—made everything that was lifeless alive. Joan is not the fool of love because there is no love involved, only sexuality; here we have a woman who is at the mercy