The Delavigne Corporation

Bruno Delavigne's traits

Spoiler

User since 2008
Posts: 499

28 Feb. 2009

Dear Gymglish community!

It's high time we gossiped a little, just as in real life. Since we only talk about imaginary
characters, we can do it without offending anybody.

Bruno Devaligne is not only an artificial person, he''s the perfect image of a flawless human being:
never ridicolous, always souvereign, sensible and good at repartee, generous, just, prudent,
calm, diligent, competent, intelligent, handsome etc. etc. Nobody has ever made fun of him, simply because he
has never given a reason for it. That's kind of scary. No,no, I'm not envious. It's only I've never seen a person like
him in real life. That's interesting.

I reckon he's the secret alter ego of all of us? All the flaws which Bruno doesn't have
are, more or less evenly, distributed over the rest of the Delavign's staff, the customers and business partners,
such as: vanity, relentlessness, stupidiness, superficiality, envy, boast, greed, laziness, clumsiness, incompetence,
greediness, pride....

At the moment, I'm not in the mood to assign all of these traits to the correspondent persons, but it would
be interesting to charactize each character by associating them with the individual features.

Regards,
Klemens

Dear Gymglish community!  
 
 
 It's high time we gossiped a little, just as in real life. Since we only talk about imaginary 
 characters, we can do it without offending anybody.  
 
 
 Bruno Devaligne is not only an artificial person, he''s the perfect image of a flawless human being: 
 never ridicolous, always souvereign, sensible and good at repartee, generous, just, prudent, 
 calm, diligent, competent, intelligent, handsome etc. etc. Nobody has ever made fun of him, simply because he 
 has never given a reason for it. That's kind of scary. No,no, I'm not envious. It's only I've never seen a person like 
 him in real life. That's interesting.  
 
 
 I reckon he's the secret alter ego of all of us? All the flaws which Bruno doesn't have 
 are, more or less evenly, distributed over the rest of the Delavign's staff, the customers and business partners, 
 such as: vanity, relentlessness, stupidiness, superficiality, envy, boast, greed, laziness, clumsiness, incompetence, 
 greediness, pride....  
 
 
 At the moment, I'm not in the mood to assign all of these traits to the correspondent persons, but it would 
 be interesting to charactize each character by associating them with the individual features.  
 
 
 Regards, 
 Klemens

15 comments

AhQ ['a: kiu]
User since 2006
Posts: 2715
1 March 2009

Dear co-learner (1) inside the GG community-

I wouldn't let the opportunity slip to tell you how much I am pleased to come across a feature article by a columnist of your quality. What makes me wonder though is that you pretend to gossip a little, â€œjust as in real lifeâ€ as you put it. I thought that in real life gossips were barrack-rooms, rearguards and scullery maids pastimes. If we were at the same level as the imaginary characters we could take pleasure gossiping; but we are not. We are outside the story, watching it with close attention because learning a foreign language at the GG goes through watching and carrying out a close analysis of a play we are provided with. Hence some of us are very concerned about the characters; need I to refer to Cordelia's concerns handed over under her â€œWantedâ€ thread. For newcomers it's not that easy to discern the who's who. But I think it's a triggering mean among others to stimulate the learner.

All that said I want to add that, along with most of my co-learners, I appreciate the teaching technique implemented by the GG team. On the side I'd say that every character of the Delavigne Corporation is extremely well-drawn, and well-played as well. It's amazing!

Now let's get to your main point: the apologia for the CEO character. Is it an apologia? Really? Am I sure? Not really. To my mind, what's looking like an apologia is in fact the opposite; you are portraying Bruno as a pure â€œartificialâ€ character (that's your own words). â€œThat character is the perfect image of a flawless human beingâ€; if so, such character is â€œnever ridiculous, â€¦â€ through to â€œhandsomeâ€ in our own description and we must replace your â€œetcâ€ with features like affected, pretended, standard-mannered, showing forced-laughs off, speaking, moving and behaving as every well-bred people does. Such a portrayal is of no interest because it is flat, dull, trite, ordinary as the portrait of the man in the street's. But the man in the street is a hero only for himself.
It goes with men like in fine arts, it's what is breaking the monotony and dullness of perfection that makes people enjoy aesthetic feelings. It's like an original sin that man trails along at thinking that perfect balance is the best; Galileo Galilei thought the orbit of Earth around the Sun must be perfectly round as a perfect God was supposed to be vouching for perfection. We all know that the beauty of nature is quite due to its flaws in the eyes of a putative perfect balance. In fine arts the spur of attraction is the merest trifle that unbalances the straight lines. The same goes with men. And your Bruno is simply too well-balanced.

Mind you! I speak about the character only. About the person featuring Bruno, his talks and the way he does utter it, that's another fish to fry. It's goody! An easygoing and easy-hearing speaking, challenging the British Jones, Brian Jones, and many female characters. And from our point of
Dear co-learner (1) inside the GG community- I wouldn't let the opportunity slip to tell you how much I am pleased to come across a feature article by a columnist of your quality. What makes me wonder though is that you pretend to gossip a little, â€œjust as in real lifeâ€ as you put it. I thought that in real life gossips were barrack-rooms, rearguards and scullery maids pastimes. If we were at the same level as the imaginary characters we could take pleasure gossiping; but we are not. We are outside the story, watching it with close attention because learning a foreign language at the GG goes through watching and carrying out a close analysis of a play we are provided with. Hence some of us are very concerned about the characters; need I to refer to Cordelia's concerns handed over under her â€œWantedâ€ thread. For newcomers it's not that easy to discern the who's who. But I think it's a triggering mean among others to stimulate the learner. All that said I want to add that, along with most of my co-learners, I appreciate the teaching technique implemented by the GG team. On the side I'd say that every character of the Delavigne Corporation is extremely well-drawn, and well-played as well. It's amazing! Now let's get to your main point: the apologia for the CEO character. Is it an apologia? Really? Am I sure? Not really. To my mind, what's looking like an apologia is in fact the opposite; you are portraying Bruno as a pure â€œartificialâ€ character (that's your own words). â€œThat character is the perfect image of a flawless human beingâ€; if so, such character is â€œnever ridiculous, â€¦â€ through to â€œhandsomeâ€ in our own description and we must replace your â€œetcâ€ with features like affected, pretended, standard-mannered, showing forced-laughs off, speaking, moving and behaving as every well-bred people does. Such a portrayal is of no interest because it is flat, dull, trite, ordinary as the portrait of the man in the street's. But the man in the street is a hero only for himself. It goes with men like in fine arts, it's what is breaking the monotony and dullness of perfection that makes people enjoy aesthetic feelings. It's like an original sin that man trails along at thinking that perfect balance is the best; Galileo Galilei thought the orbit of Earth around the Sun must be perfectly round as a perfect God was supposed to be vouching for perfection. We all know that the beauty of nature is quite due to its flaws in the eyes of a putative perfect balance. In fine arts the spur of attraction is the merest trifle that unbalances the straight lines. The same goes with men. And your Bruno is simply too well-balanced. Mind you! I speak about the character only. About the person featuring Bruno, his talks and the way he does utter it, that's another fish to fry. It's goody! An easygoing and easy-hearing speaking, challenging the British Jones, Brian Jones, and many female characters. And from our point of
Fugendichter
User since 2008
Posts: 588
2 March 2009

Nice features!

But did you forget the fly to San Francisco where Bruno was so tremendously undecisive that Donna had to decide nearly everything. Don't you remember his anxiouxsly broken voice?
Or Bruno with Brian on that unforgettable trip to London, where he lost his sovereignty at the station, hitting his head an in the cab, where he was in difficulties because he couldn't understand a word of the taxi-driver?

Other Gymglish colleagues would perhaps remember other scenes like that.
Nice features! But did you forget the fly to San Francisco where Bruno was so tremendously undecisive that Donna had to decide nearly everything. Don't you remember his anxiouxsly broken voice? Or Bruno with Brian on that unforgettable trip to London, where he lost his sovereignty at the station, hitting his head an in the cab, where he was in difficulties because he couldn't understand a word of the taxi-driver? Other Gymglish colleagues would perhaps remember other scenes like that.
Sunny19
User since 2008
Posts: 121
2 March 2009

Dear Gwendo,

just to recab on our main characters: of course I remember this flight to San Francisco and the nervous Bruno. Incredible change of character! Perhaps Donna D. has that special charisma of an overprotecting mother, so it was unavoidable for Bruno to return to the state of a child with little self-confidence.
And I remember the scene at the station in London, where the voice of a loudspeeker announced: "Mind the gab!" But Bruno wasn't careful enough and hit his head at the door. Didn't he lost his hat, too? Wasn't he angry and upset about that incident?...In London it was Brian who impressed me by his perfect composure at every time. They seemed to have changed their roles.
CW (like you required regularly in the past)
Dear Gwendo, just to recab on our main characters: of course I remember this flight to San Francisco and the nervous Bruno. Incredible change of character! Perhaps Donna D. has that special charisma of an overprotecting mother, so it was unavoidable for Bruno to return to the state of a child with little self-confidence. And I remember the scene at the station in London, where the voice of a loudspeeker announced: "Mind the gab!" But Bruno wasn't careful enough and hit his head at the door. Didn't he lost his hat, too? Wasn't he angry and upset about that incident?...In London it was Brian who impressed me by his perfect composure at every time. They seemed to have changed their roles. CW (like you required regularly in the past)
AhQ ['a: kiu]
User since 2006
Posts: 2715
2 March 2009

From Samson:
Dear Gwendo,

just to recab on our main characters:
(...)
...In London it was Brian who impressed me by his perfect composure at every time. (...)

----------------------------------------------------------
Hi there Samson and Gwendo from Germany!

It served me right that both of you reminded me those episodes. It had gone right out of my head. Lapses of memory are all in a day's work inside my nob!

Now the question is: Are the episodes you recalled, either symptoms of a hidden flawed trait of Bruno's character, or a step aside made on purpose by the tellers to keep the story riveting? You are gonna tell me that it's six of one and half a dozen of the other! A slight flaw showing up when it is the least expected makes the character more human and living. At the same time it keeps the listener in suspense. It's actually killing to birds with one stone. Good to everyone: the character and the listener.

To fix the problem I'd like to get a reaction from Klemens himself.

As both of you, Gwendo and Samson, seem to have a memory size up to so many Mb, why wouldn't you get in touch with Cordelia who is busy with setting up characters' files? Come to think of it, I have a hazy memory that the Delavigne's staffs résumé is reading somewhere on their blog.

Cheerio!
Gee

[CW]

[CS to Samson]
I presume you mean: Just to recap our main characters...
to recap, coming from recapitulate, is a transitive verb.

I'd say: ... Brian impressed me by his perfect composure at all times.
Do you think that a native would say "at every time"?
Usually they say "at all times" -> at any moment (often)
Whereas "at any time" means at any hour, at any moment (not often) ex.: He could come at any time.
[blockquote]From Samson: Dear Gwendo, just to recab on our main characters: (...) ...In London it was Brian who impressed me by his perfect composure at every time. (...)[/blockquote] ---------------------------------------------------------- Hi there Samson and Gwendo from Germany! It served me right that both of you reminded me those episodes. It had gone right out of my head. Lapses of memory are all in a day's work inside my nob! Now the question is: Are the episodes you recalled, either symptoms of a hidden flawed trait of Bruno's character, or a step aside made on purpose by the tellers to keep the story riveting? You are gonna tell me that it's six of one and half a dozen of the other! A slight flaw showing up when it is the least expected makes the character more human and living. At the same time it keeps the listener in suspense. It's actually killing to birds with one stone. Good to everyone: the character and the listener. To fix the problem I'd like to get a reaction from Klemens himself. As both of you, Gwendo and Samson, seem to have a memory size up to so many Mb, why wouldn't you get in touch with Cordelia who is busy with setting up characters' files? Come to think of it, I have a hazy memory that the Delavigne's staffs résumé is reading somewhere on their blog. Cheerio! Gee [CW] [CS to Samson] I presume you mean: Just to recap our main characters... to recap, coming from recapitulate, is a transitive verb. I'd say: ... Brian impressed me by his perfect composure at all times. Do you think that a native would say "at every time"? Usually they say "at all times" -> at any moment (often) Whereas "at any time" means at any hour, at any moment (not often) ex.: He could come at any time.
Fugendichter
User since 2008
Posts: 588
3 March 2009

Yes of course, a false friend, zu jeder Zeit = at every time.
I'll eliminate that old pattern in my brain and replace it by the new one: at any moment, at all times.
Thanks Gee.
Concerning the b and the p, I mixed them since my first class at school and that bad habit keeps going till now: new pattern to install: the gap and recap instead of the gab and recab.
Yes of course, a false friend, zu jeder Zeit = at every time. I'll eliminate that old pattern in my brain and replace it by the new one: at any moment, at all times. Thanks Gee. Concerning the b and the p, I mixed them since my first class at school and that bad habit keeps going till now: new pattern to install: the gap and recap instead of the gab and recab.
Spoiler
User since 2008
Posts: 499
4 March 2009

Hello Gee,

It's me, the person who wrote the introducing article of this thread.

I don't see the problem here. Yes, my "article" is superficial and would never not fit into the NY Times. But what do you expect here? I'm a English learner, and as many other learners I want to use this forum in order to practice my writing skills, not more, not less. I'm neither a writer, nor a philosopher, nor a columnist and I don't have to be one, at least in English. Furthermore, I'm not a native speaker at all.

Now, you have proven that you are interlectual superior to us all and that your English is great. That's great for you.

I think, we should others learners write their "superficial" entries here. We all are here in order to learn and to practice, we are not columnists for the NY Times.
Hello Gee, It's me, the person who wrote the introducing article of this thread. I don't see the problem here. Yes, my "article" is superficial and would never not fit into the NY Times. But what do you expect here? I'm a English learner, and as many other learners I want to use this forum in order to practice my writing skills, not more, not less. I'm neither a writer, nor a philosopher, nor a columnist and I don't have to be one, at least in English. Furthermore, I'm not a native speaker at all. Now, you have proven that you are interlectual superior to us all and that your English is great. That's great for you. I think, we should others learners write their "superficial" entries here. We all are here in order to learn and to practice, we are not columnists for the NY Times.
Spoiler
User since 2008
Posts: 499
4 March 2009

From Gee:
I wouldn't let the opportunity slip to tell you how much I am pleased to come across a feature article by a columnist of your quality.
[...]
Before leaving I want to thank you for your riveting article â€“ even if I don't share your mind about every point.
[...]
To fix the problem I'd like to get a reaction from ... himself.
[...]

Hello Gee,

It's me, the person who wrote the introducing article of this thread.

I don't see the problem here. Yes, my "article" is superficial and would never not fit into the NY Times. But what do you expect here? I'm an English learner and as many other learners I want to use this forum in order to practice my writing skills, not more, not less. I'm neither a writer, nor a philosopher, nor a columnist and I don't have to be one, at least in English. Furthermore, I'm not a native speaker at all.

Now you have proven that you are interlectually superior to us all and that your English is great. That's great for you.

I think, we should others learners write their "superficial" entries here. We all are here in order to learn and to practice our English, we are not columnists for the NY Times.

K.G.
[blockquote]From Gee: I wouldn't let the opportunity slip to tell you how much I am pleased to come across a feature article by a columnist of your quality. [...] Before leaving I want to thank you for your riveting article â€“ even if I don't share your mind about every point. [...] To fix the problem I'd like to get a reaction from ... himself. [...] [/blockquote] Hello Gee, It's me, the person who wrote the introducing article of this thread. I don't see the problem here. Yes, my "article" is superficial and would never not fit into the NY Times. But what do you expect here? I'm an English learner and as many other learners I want to use this forum in order to practice my writing skills, not more, not less. I'm neither a writer, nor a philosopher, nor a columnist and I don't have to be one, at least in English. Furthermore, I'm not a native speaker at all. Now you have proven that you are interlectually superior to us all and that your English is great. That's great for you. I think, we should others learners write their "superficial" entries here. We all are here in order to learn and to practice our English, we are not columnists for the NY Times. K.G.
AhQ ['a: kiu]
User since 2006
Posts: 2715
4 March 2009

Hi there, you hidden behind the pen name of Klemens, you going by the name of Stephan G, you signing K.G., you the secret agent of a mysterious connection,

It's very kind of you to personally react, hence fulfilling my wish.

First and foremost I'd like to enhance the obvious fact that there is no real problem at all. If I spoke of a problem, it was to fuel the chitchat you had started about Bruno and which had prompted the say of three GG-users - a success! Like your second pen name, I am an English learner and as very few other learners I use this forum in order to practice my skills, writing for the sake of learning, full stop.

About your article, I found it written by the hand of a professional columnist who had taken the pen name of a tycoon. I wanted to play yourself at your own game, at the game of your "groÃŸ Mann". And my footnote about co-worker wasn't really relevant as I meant to make out a co-learner of mine from a co-worker in the GG-team.

If you caught my say as qualifying your article as superficial, that proves I am a bad writer because I have never thought your article superficial. Your description of Bruno was just a bit risquÃ© for being an apologia that both Samson and Gwendo steered to its right measure. But your article was not superficial in my mind, just a trigger for a chat about the Delavigne characters.

As your second pen name, you pretend not to be a native speaker. That's coherent inasmuch as your writing is contrasting with the perfect one of your first pen name, some intended mistakes spoiling your last posting.

About the two last paragraphs of your reply, I suppose you mean that I don't behave the best way to prompt beginners to came and have their say. That's a basic issue regarding the forum structure.

Be sure, dear, that I enjoyed a lot your way of starting this thread.
Gee

[CW]
Hi there, you hidden behind the pen name of Klemens, you going by the name of Stephan G, you signing K.G., you the secret agent of a mysterious connection, It's very kind of you to personally react, hence fulfilling my wish. First and foremost I'd like to enhance the obvious fact that there is no real problem at all. If I spoke of a problem, it was to fuel the chitchat you had started about Bruno and which had prompted the say of three GG-users - a success! Like your second pen name, I am an English learner and as very few other learners I use this forum in order to practice my skills, writing for the sake of learning, full stop. About your article, I found it written by the hand of a professional columnist who had taken the pen name of a tycoon. I wanted to play yourself at your own game, at the game of your "groÃŸ Mann". And my footnote about co-worker wasn't really relevant as I meant to make out a co-learner of mine from a co-worker in the GG-team. If you caught my say as qualifying your article as superficial, that proves I am a bad writer because I have never thought your article superficial. Your description of Bruno was just a bit risquÃ© for being an apologia that both Samson and Gwendo steered to its right measure. But your article was not superficial in my mind, just a trigger for a chat about the Delavigne characters. As your second pen name, you pretend not to be a native speaker. That's coherent inasmuch as your writing is contrasting with the perfect one of your first pen name, some intended mistakes spoiling your last posting. About the two last paragraphs of your reply, I suppose you mean that I don't behave the best way to prompt beginners to came and have their say. That's a basic issue regarding the forum structure. Be sure, dear, that I enjoyed a lot your way of starting this thread. Gee [CW]
Spoiler
User since 2008
Posts: 499
21 April 2009

You don't have to admire me, Gee. I'm not that demanding.
I would be satisfied if you fell down on your knees - humble
and modest- and build me a shrine.
You don't have to admire me, Gee. I'm not that demanding. I would be satisfied if you fell down on your knees - humble and modest- and build me a shrine.

New comment

Please sign in to leave a comment.