There are two notions of "gentleman" - one is class-dependent and the other not.
The class-independent gentleman is what we mean when we say, about anybody, "he's a real gentleman." And what we mean is that he is a man who has attained a certain mortal state of grace. He is a compassionate, thoughtful, self-sacrificing, just man. He could be a baggage porter (like my grandfather), or he could be more advatangeously stationed, but it is not his social position that matters. It doesn't matter what he looks like, nor what he wears, nor where he lives, nor what color his skin is. He's a rare and wonderful species.
The class-dependent gentleman can be further divided into two categories:
-- The gentlemanliness to which the bourgeoisie aspires: this is a matter of aping the fashions and habits of the aristocracy or of old money and it doesn't mean a thing. In this sense, a gentleman is cut to the extent that he has the time to perfect his body (and distinguish himself from the pale, flabby office dweller) and in this sense Bond is a gentleman because he consumes the right kind of vodka and has fastidious tastes.
--The gentlemanliness which the aristocracy likes to cultivate as proof that they deserve to be at the top. In this sense a gentleman is one who wears his privileges lightly because they must look like a byproduct of his grace rather than its cause. The virtues of such a gentleman are discretion, loyalty, discrimination, tolerance, humor, and an interest in diffusing the exercise of power in any situation so as to minimize as much as possible the perception that might makes right.
It does not matter what this gentleman wears because he dignifies whatever he happens to wear; it does not matter what such a gentleman consumes because a concern with consumption is a bourgeois issue. (For this reason Bond is not a gentleman.) The only thing this type of gentleman must avoid is the appearance of "effort" because this would indicate that his state of grace is not "natural." Thus, a gentleman would naturally be in reasonable shape, but should never invite comparison to the professional athelete, who arrives at his physique through arduous effort. A gentleman is not cut.
It is allright for a gentleman of this type to engage in arduous pursuits so long as they are quixotic and punctuated with spectacular failures -- climbing Everest, going to the South Pole, searching for the source of the Nile, etc.
So says Joanna :)
mike larkin wrote:
> http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTgzOWI0NjhmZGJiNDRiMmM5MTVmYTJlZWIwZDY4OWM=
> A reader takes issue with my assertion
> <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmZjZTE5NDA5YzQzOTI5ZWEyZTA1ZTllODgxYWM0NWY%20=>
> that "a gentleman is not 'cut'." [NB for readers who have no idea what
> we're talking about: "cut" is gym-rat slang for the look your body has
> when, by diligent working-out, you have brought all your muscles to
> such clear definition that the zones where muscle meets muscle look as
> though they have been cut into your flesh.]
> "Derb—-I disagree on a number of levels, well, two. First, I don't
> think Bond is a gentleman.
> I think he's decidedly middle class (mentioned in the movie, but taken
> from Kingsley Amis and Fleming). And second, body types have changed,
> and a gentleman is someone who has time for leisure, and leisure has
> changed over the years. It used to be farm laborers and boxers who had
> bodies like that. Now gentlemen spend time doing things like... well,
> boxing and weightlifting. It's not just lepidoptery and golf anymore."
> [Derb] I have problems with that, mainly with the idea that a gent
> would spend his leisure time doing something /narcissistic/. Also with
> the idea that gentlemanliness is a matter of class. It is certainly
> true, though, that styles in male body type have changed. I watched a
> Fred Astaire movie
> <http://static.flickr.com/10/14557723_d2541b476e.jpg> the other day,
> and reflected on how no studio nowadays would hire any male with
> Astaire's physique, however good a dancer he was—certainly not for a
> leading man role.
> But wait—didn't I once do an article about all that for NR? Yes, I
> did. <http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/Ectomorph.htm>
> Posted at 3:37 PM
> <http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTgzOWI0NjhmZGJiNDRiMmM5MTVmYTJlZWIwZDY4OWM=>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cheap Talk? Check out
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com>
> Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
