stoutfellow

One of the e-books I'm currently reading is The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table, by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. (Not to be confused with OWH Jr., legal scholar, Supreme Court Justice, and far less entertaining writer.) It's a compilation of essays originally published in Atlantic Monthly; the basic conceit is that Holmes is a resident at a boarding house, and the essays are records of breakfast-table conversations among the inmates. Naturally, Holmes dominates the conversations, but isn't afraid to allow a little self-mockery, and the results are pretty funny.

Example: Holmes is pontificating on the difficulty of true conversation, pointing out that in a dialogue between John and Thomas, at least six personalities are involved:

1. The real John; known only to his Maker.
2. John's ideal John; never the real one, and often very unlike him.
3. Thomas's ideal John; never the real John, nor John's John, but often very unlike either.

and similarly for Thomas. Holmes goes on to give flesh to this argument, ending with, "No wonder two disputants often get angry, when there are six of them talking and listening all at the same time."

This is followed by a parenthetical comment.

[A very unphilosophical application of the above remarks was made by a young fellow, answering to the name of John, who sits near me at table. A certain basket of peaches, a rare vegetable, little known to boarding-houses, was on its way to me via the unlettered Johannes. He appropriated the three that remained in the basket, remarking that there was just one apiece for him. I convinced him that his practical inference was hasty and illogical, but in the mean time he had eaten the peaches.]

That deadpan ending appeals to me. Just a sample of what is to be found in the collection....