Literature and Medicine: A Nobel week for France

 

Two major Nobel prizes in one week is not bad for a country that is anguishing about its cultural decline.

France has just pulled it off with the literature award for its novelist JMG le Clézio after Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barre-Sinouss (below) shared the medicine prize with Germany's Harald zur Hausen for their discovery of the HIV virus.

   

It was only the third time that a French writer has won the Literature Nobel since Jean-Paul Sartre was anointed but refused the honour in 1964. Not since 1952 had it won two prizes. They went that year to Albert Schweitzer for Peace and François Mauriac for literature. There was even an outside chance that this week could have produced a hat trick. Ingrid Betancourt, the Franco-Colombian former hostage, was thought to have been in the running for the peace prize and had even tempted fate by reserving a hotel room for a victory news conference.

Here's my story from today's newspaper. One of the first conclusions is that Le Clézio, 68, was well qualified for a Nobel. His style may be avant garde, but he is not one of the navel-gazing introverts who have given a bad name to the modern French novel (see last month's post on Christine Angot). He is seen as a big picture writer, dealing in universal human themes in the tradition of Hugo and Zola. He is also an apostle of the environment and specialist in endangered cultures -- qualities that play well with the Stockholm committee.   

Le Clézio, whose father had British nationality, is a polyglot globe-trotter who lives mainly in New Mexico after a life travelling in Latin America, Africa and Asia. He was one of the signatories of a proposal by a group of authors last year to save the Gallic novel by uncoupling the language from France and turning French literature into "world literature" written in French.

An enigmatic character with the looks of a handsome adventurer, JMG le Clézio had been tipped for a Nobel for the past two decades and he was favourite yesterday. He is quite familiar in France from his television appearances and he has a devoted following but he has a reputation for being difficult and never been really fashionable. Most of his 48 novels have been translated, but he is far from a celebrity in the English-speaking world. Newsrooms scrambled yesterday to find background and  commentary on him. I had to confess that I had never read him -- a shameful admission for a long-serving Paris journalist. All that will change as his work, ranging from his 1963 Procès Verbal (The Interrogation) to Ritournelle de la Faim (Same old Story About Hunger), published last week, reach global bookshops.

Here are some excerpts in English from Clézio's texts, in today's NYT

President Sarkozy was naturally quick to hail Le Clézio for bringing honour on his country. "He embodies the influence of France, its culture and its values in a globalized world," said the President's statement. "A child in Mauritius and Nigeria, a teenager in Nice, a nomad of the American and African deserts, Jean-Marie Le Clézio is a citizen of the world, the son of all continents and cultures."  I would guess that Sarko, who is no great lover of fiction, may be among those inculte people who have not read him yet.

In the eternal contest of France versus les Anglo-Saxons, it has been a pretty good month for Gallic pride. As well as the Nobels, many in France have been saluting what is seen as the end of the "Anglo-Saxon" creed of deregulation and free markets which has held sway since the early 1980s.

Comments

[dot king]

Haha!! I've read one - one out of forty, well it's a start . . .
"Le peuple du ciel" that's the one, but I can't remember what it's about, but that's parr for the course for me too!

Apologies in advance to ultra-sensitive Americans, but he's more readable than Toni Morrison, even if the interest she brings as a speaker makes you want to read her (that's how I come to have 3 of her books, 2 only half-read).

I'd heard too that Bétancourt was on the list for the Peace Prize. That would have considerably diminished the value and distinction of the Nobel institution - what a nonsense it would have been when there are people who strive for and achieve something, qui font avancer le monde and thus merit recognition. It would have been an insult and would have reduced respect for other more deserving recipients.

[Mauvezin]

In the eternal contest of France versus les Anglo-Saxons
****************
Contest or contempt !?

[Randy_Flagg]

"In the eternal contest of France versus les Anglo-Saxons,"

In the 'how dare those frogs continue to have a strong and independant seperate culture and way of life seperate from our oh so superior anglo-saxon ways contest' you mean.

It is no secret that anything but total subservience from the French is taken as an insult to your misplaced sense of superiority.

By the way, the contest is only in your head and those of your fellow hate mongers who lie through their teeth about the French in their populist rags.
French people don't spend their days lamenting about some pseudo-contest with 'anglo-saxons'(since you have chose to tuse this French terminology).

"it has been a pretty good month for Gallic pride"

Newsflash, Gaul has been dead for 1600 years.
And seriously why are you people so obsessed with what the France's supposed wounded pride ? Go see a shrink already.

And if you're gonna tell us you're a francophile then tell us what is a francophile doing working for a man like Rupert Murdoch who has made francophobia his bread and butter for decades please...

[Thanks "Randy", your thoughtful comments are an elegant balance to the ranting here from American rednecks lately. I suspect you may be one of them in disguise. CB]

[John Gregory Flinn]

Well I'm no literary buff, but the excerpts I read remind me of John Steinbeck. Easy to read and with very human themes.

Charles - lest your final sentence be intepreted as a jibe, as MAUVEZIN asks, I thought including John Steinbeck would help...
Actually "globalization" is more relevant as a culprit. Because this has made human-kind's inclination to create (asset) bubbles global, and therefore much bigger and more dangerous, as we are experiencing.

[Randy_Flagg]

Sorry, Charles.
But French people have no reasons to be nice and/or cordial with Murdch's henchmen.

I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings.
You may have noticed, though, that
my attacks are focused on you and your biased anti-French propaganda.

But hey, if you want to compare that with calling the French stinky and cowards (you know, those comments you never moderate), more power to us. Lose what little credibility you
have left with the French (and no rocket doesn't count).

Je suis français et fier de l'etre. Ce n'est ni la première ni la dernière qu'on vous attaque pour French-bashing, Charles. Il serait peut-etre temps de vous remettre en question.

[Bernard Pereire]

Funny how your blog draws irrational mail from people like Randy Flagg above. It's such a misplaced caricature of what you write that I wonder if it's an envious colleague or perhaps one of your ex-épouses?.

[Joan Arles]

I admit I haven't read any of him either. I like the idea of all those media people informing the world knowledgably about "the nomad writer" and the great traveller just copying it all out of old files... but i suppose that's the only thing to do with a deadline.

[Rick]

CHARLES, I fear you are inciting people to fling themselves into injudicious crowing, on the one hand, or in to insensitive ‘put-downs’, on the other. It’s better to remain above the clamour, coughing now and then up one’s sleeve and thinking one’s thoughts... Or is it?

Why, for God’s sake did such trite announcements occupy the top spot on news programmes?

The CAC40 loses half its value but all’s for the best in the best of all possible worlds ‘coz France’s picked up a couple of Nobels!

[The Nobel item was a genuine salute to France. It is significant to win these two prizes surely. And it is legitimate to bring up Franco-Anglo-Saxon rivalry. Look at the huge media ride that France has given to the Morrison article in Time magazine alleging French cultural decline. I can put up with mindless ranting against me from both sides. They cancel one-another out.. CB]

[Pierre]

Randy Flagg

Je comprends votre irritation, et la partage parfois. Ceci posé, vous vous trompez de cible et de constat en confondant l'auteur de ce blog et les commentaires ou posts qu'il peut susciter. L'acuité du regard posé sur les diverses facettes de l'actualité française témoigne d'une profonde et enviable connaissance de cette culture dont vous dites être fier, et fait de ce blog un pont entre deux rives bien plus que la barrière de préjugés que vous décrivez. Mais probablement la lecture des commentaires vous aura-t-elle occupé au point de négliger celle des chroniques.

This said/written it's interesting to notice that the use of the word "gallic" annoyed Randy Flagg. The word has been used as an eternal metaphore used by AS medias observers of french news and is genrally associated with variations on particularism, such as flair or pride, but more often complex of superiority, outdated traditions, bureaucracy ASO....
It's interesting to notice that until recently the reference had disappeared from french langage, except to mock the old nationalist constuction of a hitorical identity beginning with "Nos ancêtres les Gaulois...".
The word came back in everyday language not thanks to our AS scrutators but with youngsters issued from immigration calling "gaulois" any symbol or representant of a society not often keen to consider them as being a part.

[Thank you Pierre. I think our friend Randy and others who dislike the word Gallic do not understand that it is merely a neutral variation for the word French. Writers use it to avoid saying "French" twice in the same sentence. It does not carry any of the negative tones of gaulois in French. CB]

[dot king]

"The CAC40 loses half its value but all’s for the best in the best of all possible worlds ‘coz France’s picked up a couple of Nobels!"

RICK

Oh, come on Rick! This is a blog article ABOUT the Nobel Prize for literature - it's of more interest to some of us than eternal ramblings about the stock exchanges, US capitalism vs French market regulation, each side blaming it on the other and nothing new being said.
There are other threads for those subjects - keep it off this one, let those of us who can take pleasure in someone's success have a little moment of it here and there. Honestly! :)
(I come in peace, in a general sort of way.)

[dot king]

The word "gallic" must have entered the English language as long ago as 1066 to describe those coming from Gaul, surely?
There's nothing réducteur about it, it's a perfectly respectable English word and has no anti-French connotation, not like "Frogs" for example which carries all sorts of implications of mockery.
If Randy_Flagg is French and proud to be so, perhaps he should reconsider his pseudonym for blogging as it certainly does him no credit. (With my luck in these matters, it's probably his real name - in which case oops:))

[Daniel Strohl]

RANDY-FLAGG,

Je suis français comme vous et heureux de l'être. Vous me permettrez à ce titre de vous dire que vous êtes complètement à côté de la plaque. Si le blog de CHARLES ne vous convient pas, personne ne vous oblige à le lire.

Pour ma part, je lis ce blog depuis au moins deux ans, et toujours avec plaisir, même si je m'intéresse plus à certains sujets qu'à d'autres.

Je n'ai jamais remarqué de "biased anti-French propaganda". Propaganda, avec un P majuscule :), est un mot très fort et complètement déplacé dans le cas présent.

Par ailleurs, vous ne pouvez pas non plus attendre d'un journaliste étranger, britannique en l'occurence (mais il pourrait être allemand ou japonais) qu'il se transforme en hagiographe de la société française, dont quelques éléments ne brillent pas toujours par leur ouverture d'esprit et leur humour, du moins si l'on extrapole à partir de ce vous avez écrit ci-dessus :)

CHARLES,

"among those inculte people who have not read him yet"

This is also my case - I am waiting my turn at the confessional :).

[Blendi Progri]

Well done to FRANCE! What else can I say. Well deserved too!

Now, will have to find something from this guy, JMG le Clézio and read it.
----

Randy, Murdoch isnt the devil, Berlusconi is..., and careful as Rupert reads this blog too.

Try as he might Randy can't be a real reactionary ( a lil extreme, yes), but I like him, as Randy Flag (?) brings ( adds?) some colour to this blog.

Let's hear what R.F. has to say, lets weight his grievances and then say sorry for any name calling to the French (I never did thou...) and toast the free speach.

Extreme* -as he may be- I like Randy!

[ patriots, visionaries and nationalists have all been called extremist in their earlier stages, but later people accept them- so why not Randy ;) ]

[azloon]

Charles, as a former journalist from a family of journalists, who reads way too many newspapers and magazines, i can only wonder what the hell anyone sees to object to in your perfectly balanced piece about the nobel.

congrats to france for its recognition by the nobel committe.

congrats to the winner for choosing to live in one of the world's most beautiful areas, the southwest (u.s.) desert.

and a bronx cheer for Randy.

[richard.jones]

I as red two books by le Clezio an ee remind me of J.Dee. Salinger. I fink I red 'Le procès-verbal' an 'Trois villes saintes'.
I fink he deserve the Nobble Prize cus I can't unnnerstand most of the books like wot the uvvers rote.

[Rick]

I took some care over my contribution to your blog, CHARLES, and deny that it was ‘mindless ranting’. If you re-read what I wrote, you will find that it is a plea for a modicum of sanity in the prioritization of news items; plus a salutary warning on winning graciously.

[Misunderstanding Rick. The words were absolutely not directed at you in the slightest. I was referring to people who have been accusing me of being an agent of supposed anti-French and pro-French propaganda. Thanks for the sensible contributions. CB]

[Don]

[CB: In the eternal contest of France versus les Anglo-Saxons, it has been a pretty good month for Gallic pride.]

This made me curious so I looked up some figures for the US part of the Anglo Saxon world:

Number of French Winners of Nobel Prize in Medicine vs US

France - 12
US - 90

For all categories of Nobel Prize

France

28 - pre WW II (pre 1945)
29 - post WW II (post 1945)

United States

28 - pre WW II (pre 1945)
276 - post WW II (post 1945)

[Don]

Regarding my last post, I undercounted the number of Nobels for the U.S. by leaving out the 2008 wins

U.S. in all categories

28 - pre WW II (pre 1945)
279 - post WW II ( post 1945)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country

[Dodo]

DON
"Number of French Winners of Nobel Prize in Medicine vs US

France - 12
US - 90"

Fine !
Now what about France against Monaco ?

[christopher muir]

I’ll put my hand up. It must have been 1970 when I came across a copy of le Clézio’s Procès Verbal. After all this time, I remember it as being rather dark and certainly quirky. The novel should have been made into a ground-breaking feature film, much in the style of Betty Blue. Anybody who has read the work will understand why - for many years - the sight of a stray dog made me think of author le Clezio. I see that the book’s Engish edition is out of print.

[Francois D]

Montagnier, we knew he would one day the Nobel Prize. The controversy with US Gallo has certainly delayed that.

It is very pleasant that Ms. Barre Senoussi is involved because she is a quiet person (and was almost .. student at the discovery).

It is Willy Rozembaum, a clinician (now in Salpêtrière Hospital), who came in their laboratory one day (January 1983) with a ganglion taken from a young homosexual, clinically suspect, asking them to "research a virus in that".

Ms. Barré has shown, by a specific producing enzyme (transcript reversase), that there was a virus in the sample. Virus was seen by electron microscopy in an another Institut Pasteur Laboratory, at the beginning following month by C Dauguet. Mrs Barre was learning in JC Cherman laboratory. He is now in Marseille (and disapointed).

Montagnier ans Barre have publicly recognized their importance for discovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier

Rozembaum, seen past evening at TV is faiplay after distinction.

About JM Le Clezio, I have always imagined that, with a physic like that, he was a writer exclusively for women.. His father was british..

When I shall have a little time, I shall read one book (what please?). But for me, it's a WE work. So sorry in advance for bad translation..Important is message about Mrs Barre Senoussi.

[Don]

[Dodo : DON
"Number of French Winners of Nobel Prize in Medicine vs US

France - 12
US - 90"
Fine !
Now what about France against Monaco ?]

I deliberately did NOT do the per capita analysis so as not to embarrass France.

OK, let’s do the arithmetic.
And let’s apply ourselves to ALL categories of Nobel prizes – since it’s not just Medicine that benefits mankind.

France in all categories:
28 - pre WW II (pre 1945)
29 - post WW II (post 1945)

U.S. in all categories
28 - pre WW II (pre 1945)
279 - post WW II ( post 1945)

I am only going to analyze post WW II because in reality, pre WW II is too far in the past to be relevant and the U.S. population figures were changing incredibly rapidly pre- WW II due to massive immigration from (mostly) Eastern Europe so it hard to be accurate. [Eastern Europe immigration due to the fact that the Nobel prize only began in 1901. There was much immigration from Western Europe pre 1901].

Post WW II covers 63 years (almost 3 generations).

The U.S today has about 5 times the population of France;
therefore PER CAPITA the U.S has won approximately twice ( 2X ) the number
of Nobel prizes as France.

The U.S. is only part of the Anglo-Saxon world.
[CB referred to the Anglo Saxon world in his blog, not just the U.S. but I chose to only look at the U.S. ] If you add in all the Nobel prizes from Great Britain, Australia,
New Zealand etc. the numbers are even more in favor of the Anglo Saxons.

I welcome your comments. No comment from you will say volumes to any thoughtful person.

[Karthic Dixit]

Charles, I respect your freely allowing the occasional tilting at windmills in the comments. The Quixotes invariably do an excellent job of hoisting themselves on their own petards; why even bother, therefore, to respond, or, as some readers have understandably done, take exception?
As for Dot king's relief at The Academy avoiding a diminution in its stature by glossing over Betancourt, I'm afraid the horse has already bolted with Henry Kissinger astride it.

[dot king]

DON, DODO, Why, oh why, does EVERYTHING have to be turned into a dogfight?
There are individuals of all nationalities who have contributed to the advancement, understanding (and sometimes by the same token, the regression) of mankind and the world we live in.

Where these brilliant people came from is immaterial.

It is wrong to dismiss everything that happened pre-WW2 as irrelevant because every discovery, invention, development, has it's origins in work that has been painstakingly carried out before.
Don seems to want to "prove" USA superiority, why do Americans or "Anglo Saxons" (in general) have this need?
Perhaps, Don, you should look at your figures again and find out how many of the Nobel recompensed researchers were first generation French or other European first generation immigrants; then you could see how many were second generation immigrants and where their parents came from and back into their ancestry and then their genes, why not?
You could post detailed family trees of all Nobel prize winners WOW!! You might even get a Nobel prize for it - though it wouldn't be for either Peace or Literature.

Can we not talk quality instead of quantity?

The lack of generosity of spirit towards those who achieve never fails to surprise, it's even depressing.

[V]

"I am only going to analyze post WW II because in reality, pre WW II is too far in the past to be relevant"

And that kind of suits you too, since you compare a booming post war economy with a devastated Europe. No wonder the results.

I could also point to the population, since you speak of today's population, which is hardly relevant.

I could also point to the well known american habit of talent recruiting. Like in sports, in science too most top performers have been tempted in the US from Europe. I suppose you count Einstein too as an american scientist, right :)

I'm not criticizing the procédée: often americans put a lot of ressources in research, because their research is much more applied, ie, connected to the industry, so in the end it was all for the benefit of the world.

Let alone the more general idea of the origin of the US: we're not speaking about american native peoples, but about the most adventurous, pioneering, looking for something better people from the whole world, especially from Europe. I find it odd to see such comparisons from a country inspired from Europe and until recently made up of European immigrants. America now is the world in miniature, one more reason to drop some of this annoying arrogance, and play more for the team.

[dot king]

RICK - I'd like to add to what I said yesterday - why should the greedy cynical speculators who have brought the world to the edge of financial ruin occupy all our thoughts? Why should we be preoccupied by those who do harm, are themselves preoccupied only by the accumulation of money?

Le Clézio, Montagnier, and Barre-Sinousse have been awarded a prize that recompenses the work of their whole lives, they are all past their 60th birthday. They have all contributed positively to the world we live in, not set out with self-aggrandisement in mind, not unbridled greed and selfishness.

I wonder how many of the "golden boys" will get such recognition? Can we even hope for notoriety in their case? Will any go to jail where they belong?

Here's a parachute doré JFY :)

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/buzz_sur_le_web/20081008.OBS4846/alain_souchon_offre_un_parachute_dore_aux_internautes.html

[V]

"Look at the huge media ride that France has given to the Morrison article in Time magazine alleging French cultural decline"

"In the eternal contest of France versus les Anglo-Saxons, it has been a pretty good month for Gallic pride. As well as the Nobels, many in France have been saluting what is seen as the end of the "Anglo-Saxon" creed of deregulation and free markets which has held sway since the early 1980s."
(CB)

I confess I didn't notice any of these.
The Time article was taken in the self-analyzing way in France, from what Ive seen, as in: is it true, are they correct, or is this yet another neocon rant at France.

Also, speaking of navel gazing French, writers or not, is a well known bashing reply from americans annoyed by redneck libeling.

Also, living in Paris, I didn't notice remarks on US/french Nobel rivalry - it would be misplaced, as it is well known that due to their economical weight, the US dominate the Nobel prizes by a huge length.

Also, off the top of my head I cant see what regulation of financial markets have to do with Nobels or Le Clézio. Europe is mostly angered at americans for their dire economic mismanagement and narrow ultra-short-term thinking.

So maybe the rant about Murdoch wasn't justified, but CB's thoughts weren't much either and risk sending us on yet another redneck showoff about who has the biggest muscles.
(which offensive posts will of course be allowed, so that we can "make an idea").

[Thanks V. Just for your and other critics' information, I have censored zero anti-American, anti-me comments while I have erased dozens of nasty anti-French comments comments that landed on the blog over the past couple of weeks. CB]

[J]

And, dear Don, how many US nobel prize winners were born and educated abroad ( yes I know that Marie Curie was from Poland)?

[dot king]

"As for Dot king's relief at The Academy avoiding a diminution in its stature by glossing over Betancourt, I'm afraid the horse has already bolted with Henry Kissinger astride it."

Karthic Dixit

Unfair comment - nothing to do with Kissinger in my post which was focussed only on Bétancourt - though I see what you're saying.
If anything, Bétancourt has done even less in the cause of "Peace" than HK.

[Randy_Flagg]

""[CB referred to the Anglo Saxon world in his blog, not just the U.S. but I chose to only look at the U.S. ] If you add in all the Nobel prizes from Great Britain, Australia,
New Zealand etc. the numbers are even more in favor of the Anglo Saxons.]

So, in your twisted logic France is to take alone, the US, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc... lol

That's a nice made up fantasy, you have concocted yourself there.
No wonder you feel so superior if you have based your entire fantasy on those odds.

[Randy_Flagg]

"[Thanks V. Just for your and other critics' information, I have censored zero anti-American, anti-me comments while I have erased dozens of nasty anti-French comments comments that landed on the blog over the past couple of weeks. CB]"

So, on the Obama thread, instead of letting through 520 vile anti-French comments, you only let through like 500.

Thanx for the laugh, Charles.

Charles, on a more serious note.
What do you think about the role Rupert Murdoch's media oulets, (Fox News, the Sun, the NY Post, the newspaper currently employing you and others...) played in fostering anti-French feelings in the anglo-saxon world in the run up for the war in Iraq ?

[sebastien]

DON:
If you're still in book-keeping mood, could you indulge in another futile exercise and give us the figures for Nobel Literature prizes?

[Pierre]

Don:
So what?

That would be my main comment.

I'll add a few.
*Dot is righ about the dogfight. If Nobel are to be observed through the same reductionist perspective as the Olympic games have turned to be (a national counting of medals) the Institution's value is in real trouble.

*Lead by American economical and cultural expansion and domination values common to the "AS" sphere have been adopted throughout the world. Who would deny that?

*The same global development has boosted and been boosted by research in various fields. It is logically "transcripted" in Nobel awards. Who would be surprised by that?

*As any domination, this dynamic also supports itself, many claim not only the Gallic sphere, and gives another advantage in promoting its results and claiming the awards. The Montagnier/Gallo case provides some sort of illustration that merit can be wrongfully denied or claimed. There again who would be surprised?

[Rick]

You tease, DOT. Alain Suchon wanted my particulars before he’d part with any of his ‘parachute doré’. I fear that we differ in this respect: I see it as being rather more amusing and much less pink than you do. As for ‘parachute doré’, shouldn’t this strictly speaking denote an inducement to take up a particular post; plus something of a ‘shoe-in’ as par as ‘due process’ and fair play are concerned?

You objected to the ‘discussion’ (I use the term loosely) between the ‘boys’ (I use the term loosely) about something or other to do with number of Nobels/conkers/goals/girls acquired. As Kate Fox noted in her book on the English, men’s conversation is pitched somewhere between boasting and arguing and, ‘au fond’, concerns respective ‘lengths’ – hence, the obsessive quoting of numbers as they circle each other in the conversational ring.

As for the Nobel prize: cue Gallic shrug. Hell, it comes round every year, doesn’t it? As for the jury picking literary greats – it’s ‘a custom more honoured in the breach than in the observance’, as I’m not the only person to maintain.

BTW, I’m looking to the Montauban ‘Verts’ to wallop Munster in the return-leg.

Does JFY mean ‘just for you’? I’m blushing...

[dot king]

BTW, I’m looking to the Montauban ‘Verts’ to wallop Munster in the return-leg. RICK

Oh, me too, absolutely! ;D

JFY - yes just for you, but don't blush it soesn't suit you.

PS if you give Mr Suchon your name and e-mail address you get the song sent to you for free and then you can click out of his newsletter - peasy no problem.
PPS I've often wondered who his hairdresser is . . . :)

[Lex]

The Nobel Assembly is a bit of a closed circuit, so it only follows that the numbers for nations will increase disproportionately.

We must also remember that, thanks to Mr. Hitler, an enormous percentage of the European intelligentsia decamped to the United States in the 1930's. Were it not for WWII, the US would look nothing like it does today.

To get a better image of national influences in the arts and sciences, I think one would need to also look at who the "American" Nobel laureates studied under, as well as the founders of the university departments where they studied.

Outside of what one considers a proper breakfast and what unintelligible national sport one enjoys, aren't most things transcendent? The sciences must be, if they are to be truly called science, and the arts that win the Nobel must be if they have appealed to so many across national borders.

The fact of the matter is that western culture has been in decline since the end of the 1960's. After the upheavals of the sixties and early seventies we patched things up, fixed our hair, sat back down and said, "Now, dear, where were we?" Alors, continuons.

[dot king]

"we patched things up, fixed our hair, sat back down and said, "Now, dear, where were we?" Alors, continuons."
LEX

priceless! next door is still for sale . . .

[rocket]

J

"And, dear Don, how many US nobel prize winners were born and educated abroad ( yes I know that Marie Curie was from Poland)?"

Very good point J but may I ask how many of these people would have won the Nobel Prize had the means not been given them by the United States.

[azloon]

[the same reductionist perspective as the Olympic games have turned to be (a national counting of medals) the Institution's value is in real trouble] Pierre

imo, it's been in trouble for some time. the literature prize, france's win notwithstanding, is sort of joke. many recent winners have been barely readable. in fact, the 'ulysses' factor, as it might be thought of, seems to work in a candidate's favor. the french winner seems not to be in this mold, so i think i'll check him out.

the best thing ever to come out of the nobel literature awards, imo, is william faulkner's acceptance speech in 1950 (yes, much of his stuff is barely readable):

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1949/faulkner-speech.html

it has the quality of abraham lincoln about it. faulkner and lincoln are two americans who clearly don't fit the insular, ethnocentric american stereotype. these guys 'get it

----------------

re: medals, prizes

we are score-keepers*: of olympic medals, nobel prizes, GDP and 'notional' value of financial derivatives.

live by the sword, die by the sword (big ouch!). oh yeah, Terry, i 've heard the nobel committee is reviewing its economic prize to milton friedman for possible posthumous confiscation.

* it's in our DNA which we know about from the pioneering work of OUR nobel laureate james watson.

USA 1, world 0.

:)

[Rick]

Talking of Nobel literature laureates, does somebody recall the unspeakable 2004 winner, Elfriede Jelinek?

[Don]

[“DON, DODO, Why, oh why, does EVERYTHING have to be turned into a dogfight?” –
Dot King]

My first email on this subject was generated by CB’s statement that there is
an “eternal contest of France versus les Anglo-Saxons” when he was writing about the recent Nobel prizes France has won I apologize for wanting to know more in this area and presenting my findings (and giving the web site where I found them so that the numbers I was presenting could be checked by anyone else.) I presented the figures with ZERO comments from me.

My second email was in response to DODO writing “Fine! Now what about France against Monaco?” implying that I was unfairly comparing France to the U.S since the U.S. is a larger country. So, I did the only thing that any responsible, rational person would do: I took up the challenge and did a per capita analysis of Nobel Prize wins.
I apologize here as well. I should have let stand the totally erroneous idea that I was unfairly comparing a smaller country to a larger country.

It is interesting to see all the heated responses I have received from two emails based upon a few simple numbers. If it is all so meaningless, as some claim, why all this vitriol directed at me for just presenting some “meaningless” numbers?

J wrote: “And, dear Don, how many US nobel prize winners were born and educated abroad (yes I know that Marie Curie was from Poland)?”.

My response: When France stops taking credit for Marie Curie the United States will stop taking credit for its Nobel prize winners. When France stops taking credit for its soccer wins because many (most?) of its members were born outside of France.

Rocket wrote: “Very good point J but may I ask how many of these people would have won the Nobel Prize had the means not been given them by the United States.”

That is, of course, an excellent point. It takes a rich country to be able to afford the research facilities for these people to do their work. On average, it costs $800 million and 10 to 12 years to produce one drug on the market. 80% of the world’s biotech firms are in the United States which takes tens of billions of dollars from venture capital firms. The U.S. spent billions of dollars to decode the human genome upon which most of the future advances in medicine will come. And the decoded genome is on the internet for anyone to use and access regardless of what countries those researches are in. The U.S. may not win a Nobel prize for that work, but you can bet that many Nobel prizes will be won (in the U.S. and around the world) for medical research based on that genome decoding. Millions of people are alive today in Africa because the U.S has spent billions of dollars developing anti-viral HIV drugs.

There has been much talk recently in France about the end of capitalism. If that happens, then the world should understand that the greatest medical research machine will come to a grinding halt. And, in the end, that will cost millions of lives. It’s not just the enormous sums of money that medical research requires. It also requires a culture that is willing to take risks and put their money where their mouth is. It takes a “cowboy” culture that is so demeaned and criticized these days. No system is perfect, but without the U.S. capitalist society, many advances in medicine from ibuprofen to MRI machines and laser surgery that people take for granted would not be available. The French do not seem to understand the connection between capitalism and research and innovation.

Modern medical research is not just done in the traditional laboratory. It takes huge amounts of computer power in addition to test tubes. Silicon Valley is the world center for developing computers. Chances are almost 99% that the heart [processor] of the computer you are using to access this blog was developed in Silicon Valley. It takes an economic system and a certain culture to nurture innovation. If the current financial crisis results in the U.S. becoming more like France, than the innovation in computers, networks and medical research will be similarly affected. If the U.S. becomes more socialist its pace of innovation will slow to a crawl.

If you are a poor person in Africa with AIDS, your best hope is that the U.S. continues its economic system and its culture that enabled it to win so many Nobel prizes. It’s not simply a matter of proving one system superior over another. It is a matter of life and death for some people. The EU has a bigger population and a larger GDP than the U.S. I truly welcome those countries to step up their research into AIDS, cancer, biotechnology etc. We would all be better off if they did. They should develop their own Silicon Valleys, their own biotech firms. If they don’t , it’s not because they don’t have the means. It will be because their economic and cultural systems do not foster innovation and risk taking.

[Lex]

"...how many of these people would have won the Nobel Prize had the means not been given them by the United States." Rocket

I imagine if the Germans had chosen someone more like Roosevelt instead of Hitler, there would be more Nobel prizes from Germany, Austria & France. That's always the problem with history: it isn't possible to have a control group, or to run the experiment again.

As for HIV, Gallo should have been taken into the alley and shot.

Azloon -- Faulkner is pure genius. Try again. Start with "Go Down, Moses" or "The Reivers." The Reivers is my favorite.

[Blendi Progri]

I know this subject is supposed for us to be taking sides, either pro -usa, or pro france. ( I am pro both BTW, strangely I like them the same) but I am in deeper thinking mode.

This Blog doesnt have a Topic called:
'Helping Others'

So, here I am, going completely OTT in the hope of some help.*

Today went around London, central london to be precise, on foot and on a bus, so many people moving around, so much life and camaradery (not really- but it goes better like this) and I felt something was missing.

Didnt know what, till from the top floor of the bus it hit me, it hit me so bad, it nearly blinded me, literally, for more than 3 bus stops the Sun was so strong I couldn't believe it.

Then I thought, its a nearly a week the weather has been so good, unseemingly good, what is ging on?
Global warming. Am I still in London or is this a joke.

1 week, a full, uninterrupted week with glowing, warm Sun (it could be 4-5 days, but brothers, it feels much more)I could be tempting fate and wake this very morning - onto a choir of We Told you So - amidst the usual Rain ( Department of T&T is considering to make UK rain a TM) and then go out and get wet.

Another thing I wonder in London is why do I get wet. Always Rain, never with an umbrealla in my hand and yet am surrounded by Umbrellas.

The beauty of it is that I have 2-3-4 umbrellas at work, 4-5-6 at home in cupboards and in other places, 2-3 in my car (1 small & 2 big ones) and always I am out without an umbrella in the rain.
Thinking its light rain, I can walk up to there, I walk..and get wet.lol.

That is what I missed this SATurday morning, getting wet.

20-1 that come Monday my wish will come true... and I may need to buy one umbrella, just one more. :)

* What is going on, anyone who's good at weather...I only need to know that the coming week wont be sunny, so can happily go back to my former life...rainy as it was before, indeed the whole summer.

[Judith]

Azloon
In the context of the current financial upheaval, I do think it is ironic that the US has consistently won the Noble economic prize between 2000 and 2007.

[Ranokivio]

"[Thank you Pierre. I think our friend Randy and others who dislike the word Gallic do not understand that it is merely a neutral variation for the word French. Writers use it to avoid saying "French" twice in the same sentence. It does not carry any of the negative tones of gaulois in French. CB]"

"The word "gallic" must have entered the English language as long ago as 1066 to describe those coming from Gaul, surely?
There's nothing réducteur about it, it's a perfectly respectable English word and has no anti-French connotation, not like "Frogs" for example which carries all sorts of implications of mockery."

Well, it seems some linguists have a different opinion:
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/gallic.html

[Ranokivio]

Excerpt from the link above:
"
But one way or the other, Gallic always implies the traits of character -- you don't see people talking about "Gallic aircraft carriers" or "Gallic pharmaceutical companies." According to Edward Knox, a professor at Middlebury who has studied the way France is reported in the American press, Gallic isn't really a synonym for French at all -- it's more like a shorthand for "the French are at it again." "

[Maybe in the US media, but not in the British. As I said, Gallic is used most of the time as a simple variation of French. And we do talk about Gallic aircraft carriers or industries if we've already used the word 'French'. CB]

[Monika]

If you want to count Nobel prize winners per country in order to compare you should consider population, too.

US: 304 482 526 people
France: 64 473 140

This makes 4.7 times more Americans than Indians.

So if you multiply the number of French Nobel Prizes (57) with the factor 4.7 you come up to 267.9 = 268 versus the 307 for the US. I'd say that's not so bad at all for our Gallic friends.

PS: I am not French.

[christopher muir]

Here’s a sobering thought for any aspring Nobel winner. It comes from TS Eliot.

"The Nobel is a ticket to one's own funeral. No one has ever done anything after he got it."

[Monika]

Me: This makes 4.7 times more Americans than Indians.

Arg, I meant "French" not "Indians"

(This happens if one does two things at the same time ^^)

[Dodo]

DOT [DON, DODO, Why, oh why, does EVERYTHING have to be turned into a dogfight?]

...mais c’est lui qu’a commencé. Y fait rien que nous embêter.. ;)
Where this strange idea to look up figures comes from ? From DON.
Why ? Because CB said “in the eternal contest of France versus les Anglo-Saxons, it has been a pretty good month for Gallic pride.” . Is now DON was accusing Charles of pro-french bias.
My suggestion to look up with Monaco (or Andorra or whatever ) was ironic.

On the Morrison article in Time Magazine, what offended the French was the title “The Death of French Culture”

Of course Vincent Josse (France-Inter) called Morrison after the Le Clezio Nobel.
After a couple of embarrassed answer he put the blame to a London based editor accusing him for the choice of the provocative title. Où est donc passée la fraternité Anglo Saxone ? ;)
Listen at 6:40
http://www.tv-radio.com/ondemand/france_inter/ESPRIT/ESPRIT20081010.ram

[dot king]

"I fink he deserve the Nobble Prize cus I can't unnnerstand most of the books like wot the uvvers rote."

Richard Jones

Yeh, me too. I'm gonna reed annuver one we I've finnished rereedink me old "Famerse Fives".
I also like is bruvver, Julio, grate singer.

[dot king]

"I know this subject is supposed for us to be taking sides,"

BLENDI PROGRI

No, I don't think it is FOR taking sides, I think charles introduces a subject for discussion and it always TURNS INTO "taking sides" by which read "USA vs France one-upmanship", which mostly brings precisely NOTHING, expressed in thousands of hard words, to the discussion.

IMHO of course.

[dot king]

Ranokivio

The linguist in question was American and was pointing out how the word "Gallic" is used NOW, but has nothing to do it's oroginal meaning.

I can say "You're American" and depending on how I say it, where I put the emphasis, my tone of voice etc, you will understand a variety of things from that simple phrase.

The word "American" can mean something positive or negative, depending on how you use it, so can 'Gallic".

[dot king]

"The Nobel is a ticket to one's own funeral. No one has ever done anything after he got it."

CHRISTOPHER MUIR quoting TS Eliot

That sounds like sour grapes!

Of course a writer will carry on writing, and will be read as much or maybe more than before, and no doubt a physicist or medical researcher will go on researching, but surely one major breakthrough per lifetime is enough? :)

[dot king]

DODO - I had picked up your irony in "France - Monaco", but the exchange I was commenting was between you and Don, so I put both names in my opening.
Of course playing the numbers game in personal achievement is a nonsense, I'm sure we agree on that, and were both saying the same thing, sorry if you felt "targeted".

[John Gregory Flinn]

With the literary thread in mind I thought I might add my view in a simple quatrain - with apologies to the more erudite among us....

Not only bloggers called Rick and named Flagg;
Can acquire the hang of Charles' versatile blagues,
Despite help and examples of worldly success;
They continue their claim of American prowess.

[rocket]

Monica

"So if you multiply the number of French Nobel Prizes (57) with the factor 4.7 you come up to 267.9 = 268 versus the 307 for the US. I'd say that's not so bad at all for our Gallic friends."

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Except for maybe road deaths. It's one prize = one individual regardless of population.

In that case 18,000 people dying in a heatwave in France would have been 90,000 in the US. So would 18,000 heat related deaths in the US equal 3600 in France or for that matter 30 deaths in Luxembourg.

[rocket]

Judith

"Azloon
In the context of the current financial upheaval, I do think it is ironic that the US has consistently won the Noble economic prize between 2000 and 2007."

Why not. Things were great until 2008. LOL

[christopher muir]

DOT KING -

That Eliot quote was certainly peppery. The Booker Prize would show that high level recognition doesn't suffocate creativity. But the cheque received by a Booker winner is rather modest compared with the massive Nobel gift.

[sharon stone]

"but has nothing to do it's oroginal meaning."

Dot King REALLY does need a new keyboard - hey people - even pink fluffy ones would do . . .

[Monika]

Na na, rocket.

It makes sense. I think we really can consider that talent and gift are equally distributed in any population. Let's say that 0.5% of a standard population is gifted in music. That would make approx 1.5 mio people in the US excellent musicians while in a country like Irland there would be only 21 000 musicians equally gifted. This doesn't mean that as a whole the Irish are less gifted in music. So it does matter if you want compare which country won how many nobel prizes.

[Pierre]

Don
« why all this vitriol directed at me … ? »
I suggest you think back to the meaning of vitriol and do hope you see the difference with a contest or an argument.
The rest of your post provides a wonderful exemple of how over optimistics we mighjt be in France (and elsewhere) thinking that some guardians of the « No Regulation Dogma » might now learn of their errors.

« The U.S. spent billions of dollars to decode the human genome upon which most of the future advances in medicine will come. »

Who do you refer too ? The international consortium that considered the genome as a common patrimony of mankind ? Or the investments of Celera Genomics that aimed to privatize the genome ?

« There has been much talk recently in France about the end of capitalism. If that happens, then the world should understand that the greatest medical research machine will come to a grinding halt. »

The talk (not only in France) is not about the « end of capitalism » but the end of unrestricted and un controlled « capitalisme financier », and the beginning of balanced globalised regulation for a global economy. A new Breatton Woods if you prefer. If this happen, then maybe ordinary people (working people for most) might still hope they’ll benefit in public hospitals from those great mediacl research.

« When France stops taking credit for its soccer wins because many (most?) of its members were born outside of France. »
What exactly are you suggesting ? Like JMLP (Le Pen) or some Italian football commentators that there are too many blacks in the French team ? Or maybe are you trying to redefining on your own the law principles of nationality that go back to the french revolution?

« If the current financial crisis results in the U.S. becoming more like France, than the innovation in computers, networks and medical research will be similarly affected. »
Still in need of a big bad french wolf ? Surely the financial crisis is the result of french prefrence towards a regulation of capitalism. And surely this research you care so much for, is not gonna miss the public money spent to stop the fire lit up by the financial pyromanes (all of them French as everybody knows).

« If the U.S. becomes more socialist its pace of innovation will slow to a crawl. »
Au pays des borgnes les aveugles se croient toujours rois…

[Pierre]

"In that case 18,000 people dying in a heatwave in France would have been 90,000 in the US. So would 18,000 heat related deaths in the US equal 3600 in France or for that matter 30 deaths in Luxembourg."
Interesting Rocket. Could you enlight us with the same arithmetics applied to the number of death by fire arms, or individuals without health coverage?

[Blendi Progri]

The Nobel price is good, but sometimes isn’t that good. It has stirred controversy since its creation and often bows to political pressure, and to the factor of Here & Now. More controversial than Admissions to the Noble house I find the Omissions.

Good ol uncle Al after giving us one more method of blowing things en masse started to think how it could make folks argue till the dust settles down. And we argue.

Sometimes is confers an importance of sorts to people who don’t deserve it, other times it isn’t given to someone who doesn’t really need it.
Gandhi, died Nobel-less (poor fellow, surely he forgave them) and if he didn’t deserve it, then who does?

Who can name Nobel price winners of 50 years ago, indeed who can name the guys from last year? Of course we all know of Bert Einstein, Maria* ( & her daughter& her husband& her son-in law- just a greedy French family, but thas an exception) Mama Theresa of Bolshoi & few others; truth be told we Know the people who got the Nobel, -mostly- before the Nobel or - even- despite the Nobel.

[* Maria Skłodowska, her husband was 1 whole French Pierre Curie, As was her daughter (0.5 French) Irène and son in law Frederic Joliot-Curie. So 2.5 medals totally French in one family. Beat that, I say.]

All ‘big guys’ and ‘big girls’ that are well known we remember them from their work, not cos they are Nobel price winners. Who will read H. Pinter in 150 years, but Hemingway's work will still be there. Both price winners, but the inequality is astounding.

Also by giving it every year I think there’s a kind of devaluation in it.

It has become almost proletarian, even with a list in front one can hardly say Who IS Who and Who did What. Unless it’s in ones field and even then no guarantee of remembrance.

It may have been better to give it to someone every 5 years, 10 or 20 years, even 50... so the very best will have a chance. Like it is, is almost like the X-Factor, minus Simon C.
50 years from now, when we’ll chose a price winner by public vote…that will be fun.

‘ Now the professor is booted from the house, on his place we have the people’s winner…XXX…FFFF.DDDD.@nd Applause. ‘

Folks seem to think that USA has too many Nobel prices, I think it has too little. Nobel has its own prejudices especially in the first 50 years didn’t seem to like USA, Africa, Asia or Australia a lot.

T. Eliot had a point there. Many have echoed it and it seems that once the Nobel is won the productivity is stifled. Saul Bellow, called Nobel the kiss of death, however as it ‘tries’ recognises a masterpiece it’ll be unreasonable to expect another and then another.
------

Who won and who lost, it doesn’t matter, really.

-----
As another web contributor says:

‘Maybe this isn’t so bad when one considers the stunning list of European and Non-European non-winners which leads one to conclude that the Nobel committee knows nothing about literature. Consider this partial list of non-winning European writers who were eligible since the prize was created in 1901: Leo Tolstoy, Emile Zola, Anton Chekhov, Henrik Ibsen, Thomas Hardy, August Strindberg, Edmond Rostand, Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G. Wells, Joseph Conrad, Rainer Maria Rilke, A.E. Housman, Miguel de Unamuno, Marcel Proust, Maxim Gorky, Hugo von Hoffmansthal, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, G.K. Chesterton, Fernando Pessoa, Isaac Babel, Virginia Woolf, Federico Garcia Lorca, Osip Mandelstam, Paul Valery, Aldous Huxley, E.M. Forster, Bertolt Brecht, George Orwell, Luis Cernuda, Isak Dinesen, W.H. Auden, Nikos Kazantzakis, Paul Celan, Jorge Luis Borges, Graham Greene, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Jean Anouilh, Italo Calvino, Eugene Ionesco, Stanislaw Lem, Iris Murdoch, Milan Kundera. None of these writers were deemed worthy by the Nobel Committee.

Consider this partial - he continues- list of North/South American writers who were also ignored by Nobel: Henry James, Mark Twain, Joaquim M. Machado de Assis, Edith Wharton, Willa Cather, John Dos Passos, Theodore Dreiser, Robert Frost, Wallace Stevens, Flannery O’Connor, Vladimir Nobokov, Alejo Carpentier, Julio Cortazor, Robertson Davies, Mario Vargas Llosa, Philip Roth, Arthur Miller, Carlos Fuentes, Thomas Pynchon, Norman Mailer, Don DeLillo, Cormac McCarthy, Ralph Ellison, F. Scott Fitzgerald,
John Updike, Margaret Atwood, Roberto Bolano etc. etc.
----

Don’t know why, amongst few favs of mine Tolstoy, Zola, Proust, Brecht, Ionesco, Kundera, Dreiser, V.Llosa, Frost, Updike, Borges etc…what p***** me off most, is that Mr. Twain didn’t get one. They must go an’ apologise to him, in person!
Am very cross, but thinking it over why should I be?
Mark didn’t/doesn’t need a token.
---.

It is a little strange how few folks from Sweden, and some from Norway ( all 5 of them) have risen to such heights as to pronounce/ announce/ confer (?) such ‘gravely’ price on others. Others steam on the internet, and rightly so.

It seems a tad provincial, to me too. The process is rigorous they ( nobel possy) say, the selections is so thorough that nothing escapes the good nordic judges and yet that is just bull, cos in the end the judges decide. All else is smoke-screen.

Usually in most (serious uns) fields of life, the Most Qualified, give prices to the ‘younger uns’ … not in the Nobel. Few people go through proposals and they (non- nobelists) award the Nobel price! Hmm.

I think the French academy is fairer!
Let one of us die, then let’s accept a new one. Equal amongst equals.

It could have been better if the ‘panel’ was composed of few wise- learned guys from different parts of the world. Just a thought. As it is from two small/ very small countries that could represent 0.006 of the total world population the prize has grown to huge PR dimensions. It could even benefit the Norway- Swedish tourist Board but is doesn’t do a lot for the world. So much pomposity, As Shakespeare would have said:
Much Ado About Nothing.
That brings me to The Rules, if you are dead they won’t give the prize, can’t you break the darn rules Once, just once for Good Ol Shakey? No they wont.

So in few ‘000 years time, folks will go through the list and say: Harold Pinter (forget Miller/ Ionesco other dem unworthy ones) got the Prize and then see Shakespeare excluded (by being few ‘00 years early) and they will feel bad.

Or they will see the List and say:

Damn it is too long for our taste, lets burn the list and use our fingers to count the best in the last 3000 years:

Aristotle,
Galileo,
Newton,
Voltaire,

…and Max Von Sydow

…and…Bon Jovi…etc…

10 are more than enough for us- they will say. Forget the others.
Maybe San Remo winners will last longer, I think, than Noble Nobel prize winners.
---.

Mr Twain once said:
‘On the whole, it is better to deserve honours and not have them than to have them and not deserve them’

[Monika]

Heard about that: "Or the investments of Celera Genomics that aimed to privatize the genome ?"

Soon, if they come through, we'll have to pay license fees for our existance ...

Incredible story. I don't mind people licensing the knowledge gained from the deconding of a genome, may it be humand or else but wanting to licence it as such is insane.

[Daniel Strohl]

DON,

No good-faithed person doubts of the American achievements you mentioned.

However, I have some doubts regarding the American economic achievements in the last couple of years. Probably the above mentioned economy Nobel prizes recently granted to Americans have been attributed to persons whose work has been consistently disregarded or misunderstood or misused by less intelligent but more greedy bankers and the like - including of course some Europeans as well ... ***

One American achievement which you did not mention, but who IMHO would have deserved a Nobel prize (even if I know that it does not pertain to the Nobel prize scope) is the Internet search machines - and first of all Google.

These are powerful and free of charge vectors of knowledge available to almost anybody, working with an incredible speed (at least for my understanding !) since one gets most of the time pertinent answers in less than one second ! They replace thousands of libraries, and if one gets garbage occasionally, there is also occasionally stored garbage in libraries ...

*** Yesterday, there was an article in the Spiegel on line with the title "Köhler fordert Entschuldigung von Banken-Managern" (Köhler requires apologies from bank managers"). Hereafter a link to the article :

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,583549,00.html

Mr. Köhler is the German Bundespräsident. Formerly, he was chief of the International Monetary Fund - therefore, one may safely assume that financial matters are not terra incognito for Mr. Köhler ...

The German President addresses of course to the German Bank managers. May be he could as well have added at least one well known French bank manager I am thinking of right now ...

[rocket]

Pierre

"Interesting Rocket. Could you enlight us with the same arithmetics applied to the number of death by fire arms, or individuals without health coverage?"

Stupid comment. Just another one of your attempts at one upmanship.

[Randy_Flagg]

[ When France stops taking credit for its soccer wins because many (most?) of its members were born outside of France. ]

""What exactly are you suggesting ? Like JMLP (Le Pen) or some Italian football commentators that there are too many blacks in the French team ? Or maybe are you trying to redefining on your own the law principles of nationality that go back to the french revolution?""

Well said, Pierre.
Besides the only French player born outside of France in '98 was Marcel Dessaily (from a French father to boot).
So the French victory was 100% French wether they like it or not.

[In that case 18,000 people dying in a heatwave in France would have been 90,000 in the US. So would 18,000 heat related deaths in the US equal 3600 in France or for that matter 30 deaths in Luxembourg.]

""Interesting Rocket. Could you enlight us with the same arithmetics applied to the number of death by fire arms, or individuals without health coverage?""

Well said again, Pierre.
Interesting analogy there, rocket. The first thing that came to your mind was the heatwave, comme par hasard.
And 18 000...please. This may be an acceptably number for someone always willing to bash the French but it's a gross lie to the rest of us.

By the way, rocket. Can you tell one thing you admire about the French and France (another than croissants) after living here for 30 years ?
Thanx.

Charles, I'm still waiting for a reply.

"
What do you think about the role Rupert Murdoch's media oulets, (Fox News, the Sun, the NY Post, the newspaper currently employing you and others...) played in fostering anti-French feelings in the anglo-saxon world in the run up for the war in Iraq ?"

[Ranokivio]

Dot King

"The linguist in question was American and was pointing out how the word "Gallic" is used NOW, but has nothing to do it's oroginal meaning."

Yes, that was the point. The debat is about the meaning of "Gallic" NOW. I am still not convinced British and American meaning of the word is that different (see below)

"I can say "You're American" and depending on how I say it, where I put the emphasis, my tone of voice etc, you will understand a variety of things from that simple phrase."

I completely agree.

"The word "American" can mean something positive or negative, depending on how you use it, so can 'Gallic"."

Well, that's more debatable. I am not saying it always has a negative connotation but to me it is always used to mean something like "typically French".

If you look on Google (which is UK+US):
"French aircraft carriers":780
"Gallic aircraft carriers": 1 (Nunberg's website!)
"French car": 346000 hits
"Gallic car": 80 hits.
"French company": 987000 hits
"Gallic company":272 hits
"French pride": 22800 hits
"Gallic pride": 3600 hits.
"French arrogance": 6810 hits
"Gallic arrogance": 1080 hits
"French shrug": 3090 hits
"Gallic shrug": 18000 hits

You see the trend...

So, "French" and "Gallic" might be exchangeable in theory but in practice, they're not (as Nunberg says) and "Gallic" has definitely a connotation. That's the reason why "Gallic pride" which sounds to me like "typical french pride" is more negative than just "french pride".

Anyway, it is not a very big deal but that's a point I wanted to make as it looks obvious to me.
And keep up the good work Charles. I do enjoy reading your blog which I find is usually fair and balanced with France and the French.

[Randy_Flagg]

[His style may be avant garde, but he is not one of the navel-gazing introverts who have given a bad name to the modern French novel]

Charle's and his accolytes' fantasy #2: the modern French novel has a bad name. Says who, Charles ? Your supervisor at Murdoch.corp ?

[Le Clézio, whose father had British nationality, is a polyglot globe-trotter who lives mainly in New Mexico after a life travelling in Latin America, Africa and Asia. He was one of the signatories of a proposal by a group of authors last year to save the Gallic novel by uncoupling the language from France and turning French literature into "world literature" written in French. ]

Charle's and his accolytes' fantasy #3: Le Clezio is actually a Brit in disguise. ( I knew those frogs couldn't win anything without some angl-saxon help)
despite the fact that he writes only in French and was influenced mainly by French writers, the stress on his father’s british nationality (Mauritius) must be adressed.
But Le Clezio is not even bilingual, Charles. He confesses he always had problems with English. His father was British citizen from Mauritius, where there is a very complex linguistic situation, and a permanent fight since 1814 between French and English (locally won by French for political reasons). His ancestor went to Mauritius from Brittany (where “Le Clézio” is the name of a tiny village). His father and his mothers were cousins and had the same French ancestor.

which brings up to Charle's and his accolytes' fantasy #4: the "Gallic" novel must be saved. Newsflash, Charles: The French novel doesn't need saving. If anything the French
write too much novels, which from some people's point of view is the sign of a vibrant culture.
It's not our fault if you are too arogant or too high on your anglo superiority complex to notice it.

[Randy_Flagg]

"""Interesting Rocket. Could you enlight us with the same arithmetics applied to the number of death by fire arms, or individuals without health coverage?"

Stupid comment. Just another one of your attempts at one upmanship.""

You went straight for the heatwave (and with fake numbers too) so what exactly do you expect in return ?

[Daniel Strohl]

RANOKIVIO,

I agree with the above. Most of the time, there is some connotation of mockery in the term "Gallic" - it may be gentle mockery or teasing, but it may also go over that.

The Germans use the word "Gallier" in a similar way. When they want to insist, they speak additionally of the "Grande Nation" (typical of some Der Spiegel articles :). But right now and for already a few days , the Spiegel journalists are full busy reporting their own national smaller banking problems :)

Educated French speaking of the Germans in a similar way would say "les Teutons". UK citizens are sometimes called "les Grands Bretons" :). August papers as for instance Le Monde may also call them "les insulaires" :)

Germans speaking of the Americans will call them "die Amis" (the final "s" is pronounced, similar to "miss"). In French, "les amis" means "the friends" :), but the final "s" is not pronounced (amee).

Germans like abbreviations - as an example, I wondered for a long time what the word "Azubi" often used in job offers meant. Eventually, I found out that it was the abbreviation of "auszubildenden (Personen)" - persons to be trained (for instance young engineers with no experience)...

If one uses the words Gallic, Gallier, Grands Bretons, Amis etc in a teasing way, there is no problem - the teased persons should smile as well as the teasers. This is humour - i.e the ability to smile of one's own supposed or real weaknesses.

[azloon]

Judith --

yes, ironic indeed. hence my note to Terry, our Ayn Rand Fan Club president:

"Terry, i 've heard the nobel committee is reviewing its economic prize to milton friedman for possible posthumous confiscation."

friedman is the nobel laureate most closely associated with 'coyboy capitalism.' the others you cite may or may not be/have been so blatant in their 'unfettered markets' orientation.

incidentally, it is not generally known that alan greenspan (our iconic former chairman of the federal reserve board) long resisted regulation of sophisticated derivatives believing as he did that the Market would likely sort out any problems.

greenspan was a fan of ayn rand as well, and i suspect he would continue to defend his stance on regulation on the grounds that the present crisis is an unavoidable hazard of lightly-regulated capitalism (the best kind).

alan is not answering his phone these days.

p.s. regulation is not all it's cracked up to be. the u.s. congress will no doubt pass all sorts of ignorant laws 'designed' to prevent future meltdowns many of which will probably have the unintended consequences of making things worse.

if limits on leverage were changed back to 12:1 as they were before 2001 (from 'unlimited' which resulted in 30:1 leverage among large u.s. investment banks), much of the problem would be solved. if anyone on this board has ever been 'margined' out of a brokerage account, they certainly understand the nuclear hazard of margin.

at 30:1 leverage/margin, loan collateral has to decrease in value by only 3-4% before the loan is 'called in,' and the collateral put up for forced sale. this is what happened with trillions of dollars of CDOs. their forced sale into highly illiquid markets (made more illiquid by the massive selling) caused the havoc we are witnessing today.

if a bank, particularly, can't sell something, it has zero value for purposes of minimum capital requirements even if the instruments contained within are not actually worthless. hence the current call for massive capital infusions. (suffice it to say that not everyone will lose in this disaster: 'deep pockets' will scoop up these supposedly worthless securities and make a fortune).

si, voila !! ici nous sommes ou nous sommes ici, whatever.

those velibs are looking better every day. i may suggest them to

[Judith]

Azloon
I always thought capitalism is a good economic system when it is moderated by a sound regulatory framework and a good safety net for those who slip through the cracks. Perhaps the current regulatory framework is not sound enough. We must hope for some wisdom in our lawmakers as effective reform can come out of turmoil (and sometimes it is the only space where reform can overcome the vested interests in the system).

[Pierre]

Rocket
"Stupid comment".
Not exactly an answer. But a compliment indeed.

[Romain]

Azloon,

Recently I watched a CBS news report explaining that krach came less from subprime derivates than from Credit Default Swaps which was another derivate on the derivate.
CDS were mischiefly sold as an insurance cover on bad debts, what do you think ?

[Daniel Strohl]

AZLOON,

"Alan is not answering his phone these days"

May be he read the following New York Times article :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?em

[Rick]

A thought’s just crossed my mind, DANIEL. What if, through a combination of altruism, enlightened self-interest, and a total lack of wriggle-room, the German Federal Republic rises to the occasion and saves the euro? And what if they don’t go and spoil it all by reminding the rest of Euro-land of their indebtedness? We can but wish...

[dot king]

"So, "French" and "Gallic" might be exchangeable in theory but in practice, they're not (as Nunberg says) and "Gallic" has definitely a connotation."

RANOKIVIO

You are going by what one American linguist writes, choosing to accept his definition. That's your choice. Questioning is also an option.

I'm not American, I'm English with bits of Scottish and Irish thrown in, so British and, as Charles has pointed out above, "Gallic" does not have any negative connotation in English (British) English.

Just because a linguist writes something and gets it published, it doesn't mean it's definitively correct and absolute. At best it's opinion or observation - and any researcher worth anything at all, publishes results of their research with the proviso that further research is needed to arrive at proof.
In fact "proof" in this sort of matter is well nigh impossible. One should always allow for other conclusions - and for gaps in one's own research.

Having researched myself in that area (linguistics), I've read some very sloppy stuff masquerading as the result of "research" carried out on the basis of highly questionable hypotheses. (Notably in texts for reading teaching and the weight of words in institutionalised discrimination.)

I'm not anti-French, nor anti-American, nor anti-anybody, but auto-flagellation and whingeing of this nature gets no sympathy from me. If you are going to continue to swoon clean away each time you hear a word that someone else has convinced you is bad for you to hear, then you're in for repeated doses of smelling salts. :)

[christopher muir]

I can think of two famous gentlemen who won't have to consider buying special suits to attend a Nobel Prize-giving gala. The short list for a Nobel (Economics) award will never contain these two names: Ben Bernanke and Henry "Hank" Paulson. What about Gordon Brown? One day perhaps he'll find himself on the Nobel stage.

[Randy_Flagg]

[Thanks V. Just for your and other critics' information, I have censored zero anti-American, anti-me comments while I have erased dozens of nasty anti-French comments comments that landed on the blog over the past couple of weeks. CB]

That's a nice bed time story, Charles.
Except for the part where you just censored my last 4 posts criticizing and debunking some of your claims on Le clezio and the French novel.

Also you still haven't answered me about Murdoch 's newspapers and networks fostering anti-French sentiments in the anglo-saxon world in the run up for the Iraq war.

[Wrong. I posted all your comments, Randy/Barney etc. CB]

[Mauvezin]

>>DOT
" "Gallic" does not have any negative connotation in English (British) English."
************************
Gallic (garlic !?? )= French as Albion,British, briton or improperly English=UK,England & people from UK
Frog=rosbif....not very offensive :)

[dot king]

MAUVEZIN - not altogether sure what you mean, but I'm sure I agree with it - entente cordiale (my aunt has fallen in the orange juice) :)

[Mauvezin]

>>DOT
"MAUVEZIN - not altogether sure what you mean, but I'm sure I agree with it - entente cordiale (my aunt has fallen in the orange juice) :)"
**********************
not altogether sure what you mean, but I'm sure I agree with it.....
Votre tante est tombée dans le jus d'orange !!??
Seriez-vous une dangereuse espionne parlant en langage codé !?
------------------------------
Je pense que la perfide Albion aime employer le mot "gallic" pour sa proximité phonetique d'avec "garlic".
Sinon les mots "frogs" ou "rosbifs" sont d'aimables surnoms que l'on se donne entre voisins .

[dot king]

"Je pense que la perfide Albion aime employer le mot "gallic" pour sa proximité phonetique d'avec "garlic"."

MAUVEZIN

Bonne nouvelle! Un traitement est désormais disponible! ;D

Rassurez-vous: le "ar" en "garlic" fait en sorte que celui-ci n'a pas du tout la même prononciation que "gallic" - dans le cas de ce dernier, c'est le double "ll" qui fait un "a" court, tandis que "ar" fait prononcer une voyelle "a" longue.
Votre idée est en tous cas plutôt démodée, on utilise de l'ail en Angleterre de nos jours (ayant découvert et apprécié depuis longtemps la cuisine indienne) :)

[Daniel Strohl]

RICK,

"And what if they don’t go and spoil it all by reminding the rest of Euro-land of their indebtedness?"

There is no question that Germany is the major economic power in the EU. However, their banking system is not "au-dessus de tout reproche", if one listens to what Mr. Köhler said two days ago to the Spiegel on line :) :

"Besonders in der angelsächsisch geprägten Finanzbranche habe man geglaubt, "aus nichts Gold machen zu können, und das dauerhaft", sagt Köhler. Es sei nur noch um die Maximierung der Rendite gegangen".

He was speaking specifically of the German banking system (where some problems appeared already a few months ago).

Let us all hope that what has been launched yesterday and today by the EU will work. We are all sitting in the same boat and seas are heavy ...

[ray everitt]

I find it rather peculiar that
no- one has remarked on the fact that maybe, just maybe, the mayor of Paris had something to do with the reason the Stade Français started wearing PINK "maillots" and now ones with QUEENS on! WHOOPEE!!!!!!!
RAY EVERITT
Gabian
France

[Ranokivio]

Dot King,

"You are going by what one American linguist writes, choosing to accept his definition. That's your choice. Questioning is also an option."

It is not just one linguist. How do you explain that people use "french" for a car 99.97% of the time while it is used only 84% for arrogance and pride and is used less than Gallic for shrug? (Google is not that off the reality!)

It also confirms what I usually experience everyday (I am French leaving in an "anglo-saxon" country) and I can definitely tell when people use the term Gallic, they do mean something different. And shrug, arrogance, pride, charm are often the most used words after Gallic (and it is the same in the newspapers I read). So that's why I found and quoted this publication as it reflects perfectly what I experience. And then, the Google's results just confirmed that.

"as Charles has pointed out above, "Gallic" does not have any negative connotation in English (British) English."

Once again, I am not saying it is always negative. I am just saying it has a connotation and most of the time emphasize a quality or a default typically French. "Gallic charm" is rather positive for example.

"That's your choice. Questioning is also an option."

I agree

[Don]

[Monika wrote:
If you want to count Nobel prize winners per country in order to compare you should consider population, too.
US: 304 482 526 people
France: 64 473 140
This makes 4.7 times more Americans than French.
So if you multiply the number of French Nobel Prizes (57) with the factor 4.7 you come up to 267.9 = 268 versus the 307 for the US. I'd say that's not so bad at all for our Gallic friends.
PS: I am not French.
Posted by: Monika | 12 Oct 2008 01:33:26 ]

Monika,
I broke out the Nobel Prizes for France and the U.S. pre WW II and post WW II because I wished to compare the two economic systems. It was only after WW II that France went to a state run economy [socialism] in stages, culminating in 1981 with the election of the first Socialist President, Metterand, when he nationalized many industries. [“nationalized” is a nice word for took over through governmental force.]

[Pierre wrote: “The rest of your post provides a wonderful exemple of how over optimistics we mighjt be in France (and elsewhere) thinking that some guardians of the « No Regulation Dogma » might now learn of their errors.]

Pierre, I documented in previous posts to this blog that it was governmental institutions in the U.S. that was at the heart of the current financial crisis – not “No Regulation Dogma”. (Federal Reserve created historically low interest rates - 1% for three years - and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created a market for those terrible sub-prime loans.) It could not have occurred without those governmental bodies.
[Daniel Strohl wrote: One American achievement which you did not mention, but who IMHO would have deserved a Nobel prize (even if I know that it does not pertain to the Nobel prize scope) is the Internet search machines - and first of all Google.]

Yes, I agree Daniel. What changes the world for the better in a major way very often does not come under the categories that the Nobel committee looks at. In that sense, one can question the relevancy of the Nobel prize. The creation of the Internet which makes possible the rapid exchange of information across the world among research scientists will never be given a Nobel prize, but without it a lot of collaborative research would not be possible. There are increasingly rapid methods of sequencing DNA that can only serve mankind in innumerable ways, but not likely to get an award either.

[Lex]

I am thinking if the Google search for Gallic was broken out into British and American usage, there would be virtually no American hits.

I can't think of the last time I heard the word used, though I do remember the last time I used it, and it caused so much confusion, I now just say 'French.'

In Boston, of course, if one were to say Gallic, people would first try to determine if you were a native Bostonian saying 'garlic' or if you were mispronouncing Gaelic. They might eventually get to 'French,' but....I don't really think Gallic is a word that more than a few Americans would know without having to think about it for a moment.

As an American speaker, it also sounds rather odd.

[justfrench]

You can use "Gallic" as you want.But you don't understand well the meaning it seems.

Gallic(Gaulois) were the first known tribe living in the current France(celt people). But the name France comes from the germanic tribe "Franks".

So the french could be as well Gallic or Franks or Romans...

Rarely a french would call himself Gallic.

We talk about Gallic sometimes but in a historical context.

About this "contest" thing,the most often we search only to stop aggressions from the couple uk/usa.

See "Chirac is a worm" printed by the SUN tabloid in Paris during the iraqi crisis( we are not ready to forget this one,hummm ??)

And for those who would not have understood,France has the same economy than Uk and since the credit crunch, i bet uk will know much more difficulty than France..

Let's hope this comment will appear here.

Bye bye.(Nothing against CB)

[rocket]

I am happy to see a number of Frenchmen/women receive the Nobel prizes. There is no doubt as to the contribution of these competent persons.

I regret unfortunately that certain blogs are making this out to be an us vs them affair.

Yes, France did well, yes France is worthy. Given the media celebration and reading the headlines in the French papers I often wonder if the media doubts this or if they believe that "recompenses" attributed to the French are so rare that they need to shout it from the rooftops and turn it into a who is better forum.

If you look at the Nobel prizes awarded this year you will notice:

4 were born in Japan and as per nationality there were 5 Americans albeit not all born in the United States which adds credence to my previous comment as to the research opportunities available in the United States.

Fortunately I don't have to listen to my Japanese friends lecture me as to how they are superior to the Americans and how the American culture is falling.

[Rick]

RAY EVERITT, apropos the pink strip of ‘Stade’, I feel honour bound to pass on your name to (Dr) Rodrigo Roncero. BTW, the pink is practical: have you ever tried washing blood-stains?

[Pierre]

Don
Your documentation remains unconvincing.
To put it in Franglais you're blaming "l'arbre qui cache la forêt"'. I'm not questioning that governmental institutions might have taken wrong decisions, int he US or here, and been part of the perverted subprimes system. From my understanding -even if limited in that field- and that -less limited- of several analysts it is more a "facteur aggravant" maybe at most a "facteur déclenchant". Deconnexion betwin "real" economy and "virtual financial economy" is a much deeper and global cause. Complete it with the absence of moral or social responsability.
It is from my understanding the essence of the crisis, and the reason of peoples growing disbelief in the system(s).
It has for years been denied or put aside.
Now we've got the bill.

[Rick]

DANIEL,

I think I can understand Angela Merkel’s initial line: that each state clean up its own mess and, besides, Germany has its own ‘Mezzogiorno’ or cross to bear – in this case the ailing East. She had a further problem which remains unresolved – she must get the provincial (Länder) governments to agree with the rescue plan. And this is never plain sailing, is it? Too often, doesn’t it involve a laborious haggling process?

Of course Herr Köhler was right. And a lot of us were alternately attracted and repelled by the glamour of the trading floor and all who sailed in her. Perhaps we tut-tutted quietly; while others wallowed in self-righteousness. As I recall, Franz Müntefering set off the ‘Heuschreckendebatte’, the controversy about whether private equity funds, hedge funds and the like acted as ‘locusts’.

Now I may be wrong here, DANIEL, but your Köhler quotation is an over-simplification of a point of view that can be called ‘risk-free’ capitalism. People may have been lulled into behaving as if this were true; but nobody with a grain of sense will have believed it as incontrovertible. As a career financier, wasn’t he being a touch ingenuous? After all, fortunes have – most certainly - been made by a number of people. And, while ‘risk-free’ capitalism may not exist, provided you’ve got loads of money and are prepared to be careful, there’s no reason why a great deal of money can still be made - with minimal risk. Lastly, and ironically, isn’t it from such ‘locusts’ that a lot of the funding for the stricken banks is coming?

Thank you for showing how un-‘Germanically’ the banks there have been dabbling. Please don’t think I am in any way correcting you; it’s just that simple financial ‘fairy tales’ should not be fed to the man in the street. Paradoxically, over-simplifying money matters for the benefit of the general population is a very ANTI-democratic thing to do. Moralising comes right at the end; after understanding.

A lot of capitalism’s loudest critics are intellectually dishonest or lazy.

[dot king]

"There are increasingly rapid methods of sequencing DNA that can only serve mankind in innumerable ways, but not likely to get an award either."

Posted by: Don

Not necessarily true, the Nobel prize for medicine was awarded for work that started 3 decades ago (approx) with the identification of HIV - the Nobel is usully awarded for work over a long period, perhaps one day the DNA pioneers will be recompensed. Who knows?

JUSTFRENCH: I refuse to be held responsible for anything The Sun newspaper publishes - good God! of course The Sun is a great bastion of anti-French journalism - it gives its readers what they want to read - and I would say that very few Sun readers would come to France for whatever reason.

LEX is right, I don't use the word "Gallic" very often either, but say "French" rather.
However to say (JUSTFRENCH) that "Gallic" shouldn't be used in modern times because its context is historical is a bit of a red herring. Should we no longer use "Gascon" or "Gascony" just because historical boundaries no longer exist? Should we drop the use of "Normandy" because it was originally called that after the Viking (men from the north) invasion?
Goodness, fancy being overrun in that way - how very bad for the French image - Normandy must be banished from the language forthwith!
Good heavens, there are more important things to worry about than whether "gallic" is an insult or not. The insult is in the mouth of the one intending the insult, but it's also in the ears of those who (want to) hear it.

JUSTFRENCH - have you ever used the word "rosbif" to describe an English person? When a French person uses this word for that purpose, does it carry an insult? Or is it jokey?
It was coined, just like "frog" to diminish the other.

"Gallic" AT LEAST has an historical context for its existence and usage - "rosbif" doesn't. And yet, it's still used quite regularly on TV and radio - often by humorists.
Do you see any of the English and or British people here making an issue of French usage of "rosbif"?
Better things to think about, frankly.

[Mauvezin]

>>DOT
"on utilise de l'ail en Angleterre de nos jours......."
***********************
........pour chasser les vampires !?

[Rick]

I’m informed that the term ‘Gallic’ is most commonly found in such couplings as ‘Gallic ineptitude’, ‘Gallic intransigence’. In other words there’s something arch about its usage. E.g. the Gallic sense of humour doesn’t extend to seeing the funny side.

[Daniel Strohl]

RICK,

" but your Köhler quotation is an over-simplification of a point of view that can be called ‘risk-free’ capitalism"

A quotation of one or two sentences may be somewhat misleading. Therefore, I gave already in a previous thread a link to the full interview of Mr. Köhler. I should have mentioned it again here; I do this now - somewhat late :)

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,583549,00.html

My understanding of Mr. Köhler's sayings is that the German bankers have grossly exaggerated. This is also the case of a few other bankers from various countries, France included; - the latter is MY opinion - of course, Mr.Köhler didn't say what opinion he has of some foreign bankers :).

What goes me especially on the nerves is the cynicism of these people and the way they try to escape their responsibilities - the present crisis is not due only to the fact that ordinary bank customers are too "dumb" to read and understand the papers they sign. It is also due to the fact that many bankers and finance "geniuses" seem(ed) to believe that "one can make gold out of nothing, and this in a lasting way" (dauerhaft), as Mr.Köhler said.

" A lot of capitalism’s loudest critics are intellectually dishonest or lazy".

I agree. We just have an illustration of this at our "Assemblée Nationale" - the socialists and the greens abstain on Sarkozy's plan (the communists vote against it, of course) - since Sarkozy's party (UMP) holds an absolute majority at the Assemblée Nationale and the Senate, the plan will be voted.

At least in the present situation, the socialists and the greens should have put aside their constant bickering. Les électeurs jugeront ...

[Pierre]

Dot (sorry if I add to this gallic issue..)

"and I would say that very few Sun readers would come to France for whatever reason."

I wouldn't be so sure considering the number of promotional operations "France for free" in that newspaper. The price of beer in Calais' supermarkets might at least provide one good reason.

However The Sun's (and others tabloids) traditional inclination towards francophobia of course does not prove that most Brits are found of french bashing.
But it reveals a sort of "accoutumance" (familiarization) by shifting the limits of what's acceptable or not. Bashing sometimes, taunting some other times. It goes even unoticed. A bit as mocking the Parisians in Marseille.
I would say, considering the global AS tonality represented here (mainly "gimme a break with your sniveling about french bashing")show that it is practised like Mr Jourdain practised prose.
The "gallic" controversy is interesting from that point of view, even if as mentioned " there are more important things to worry about than whether "gallic" is an insult or not.."
"Rosbif" is the french sneering equivalent to "Frogs". But there in't any to the ambiguous "gallic" (certainly not contemptuous in CB's words, not so certainly in others'). Though we could use a synonim to "British" too... Ranokivio's points & figures were pretty clear and matched my perception after years of more or less regular readings of british press.
I agree insult is " also in the ears of those who (want to) hear it". But denial might also be in the mouth of the intending.
I've heard many French complaining for instance tht the Belgiums had no sense of humor....