My Discovery of England — 12 - Have the English any Sense of Humour? Part 2

In America also we run perpetually to the (supposed) humour of slang, a form not used in England.

If we were to analyse what we mean by slang I think it would be found to consist of the introduction of new metaphors or new forms of language of a metaphorical character, strained almost to the breaking point.

Sometimes we do it with a single word.

When some genius discovers that a "hat" is really only "a lid" placed on top of a human being, straightway the word "lid" goes rippling over the continent.

Similarly a woman becomes a "skirt," and so on ad infinitum.

These words presently either disappear or else retain a permanent place, being slang no longer.

No doubt half our words, if not all of them, were once slang.

Even within our own memory we can see the whole process carried through; "cinch" once sounded funny; it is now standard American-English.

But other slang is made up of descriptive phrases.

At the best, these slang phrases are--at least we think they are--extremely funny.

But they are funniest when newly coined, and it takes a master hand to coin them well.

For a supreme example of wild vagaries of language used for humour, one might take O. Henry's "Gentle Grafter."

But here the imitation is as easy as it is tiresome.

The invention of pointless slang phrases without real suggestion or merit is one of our most familiar forms of factory-made humour.

Now the English people are apt to turn away from the whole field of slang.

In the first place it puzzles them--they don't know whether each particular word or phrase is a sort of idiom already known to Americans, or something (as with O. Henry) never said before and to be analysed for its own sake.

The result is that with the English public the great mass of American slang writing (genius apart) doesn't go.

I have even found English people of undoubted literary taste repelled from such a master as O. Henry (now read by millions in England) because at first sight they get the impression that it is "all American slang."

Another point in which American humour, or at least the form which it takes, differs notably from British, is in the matter of story telling.

It was a great surprise to me the first time I went out to a dinner party in London to find that my host did not open the dinner by telling a funny story; that the guests did not then sit silent trying to "think of another"; that some one did not presently break silence by saying, "I heard a good one the other day,"--and so forth.

And I realised that in this respect English society is luckier than ours.

It is my candid opinion that no man ought to be allowed to tell a funny story or anecdote without a license.

We insist rightly enough that every taxi-driver must have a license, and the same principle should apply to anybody who proposes to act as a raconteur.

Telling a story is a difficult thing--quite as difficult as driving a taxi.

And the risks of failure and accident and the unfortunate consequences of such to the public, if not exactly identical, are, at any rate, analogous.

This is a point of view not generally appreciated.

A man is apt to think that just because he has heard a good story he is able and entitled to repeat it.

He might as well undertake to do a snake dance merely because he has seen Madame Pavlowa do one.

The point of a story is apt to lie in the telling, or at least to depend upon it in a high degree.

Certain stories, it is true, depend so much on the final point, or "nub," as we Americans call it, that they are almost fool-proof.

But even these can be made so prolix and tiresome, can be so messed up with irrelevant detail, that the general effect is utter weariness relieved by a kind of shock at the end.

Let me illustrate what I mean by a story with a "nub" or point.

I will take one of the best known, so as to make no claim to originality--for example, the famous anecdote of the man who wanted to be "put off at Buffalo."

Here it is: A man entered a sleeping-car and said to the porter, "At what time do we get to Buffalo?"

The porter answered, "At half-past three in the morning, sir."

"All right," the man said; "now I want to get off at Buffalo, and I want you to see that I get off.

I sleep heavily and I'm hard to rouse.

But you just make me wake up, don't mind what I say, don't pay attention if I kick about it, just put me off, do you see?"

"All right, sir," said the porter.

The man got into his berth and fell fast asleep.

He never woke or moved till it was broad daylight and the train was a hundred miles beyond Buffalo.

He called angrily to the porter, "See here, you, didn't I tell you to put me off at Buffalo?"

The porter looked at him, aghast.

"Well, I declare to goodness, boss!"

he exclaimed; "if it wasn't you, who was that man that I threw off this train at half-past three at Buffalo?"

Now this story is as nearly fool-proof as can be.

And yet it is amazing how badly it can be messed up by a person with a special gift for mangling a story.

He does it something after this fashion: "There was a fellow got on the train one night and he had a berth reserved for Buffalo; at least the way I heard it, it was Buffalo, though I guess, as a matter of fact, you might tell it on any other town just as well--or no, I guess he didn't have his berth reserved, he got on the train and asked the porter for a reservation for Buffalo--or, anyway, that part doesn't matter--say that he had a berth for Buffalo or any other place, and the porter came through and said, 'Do you want an early call?'

--or no, he went to the porter--that was it--and said--" But stop.

The rest of the story becomes a mere painful waiting for the end.

Of course the higher type of funny story is the one that depends for its amusing quality not on the final point, or not solely on it, but on the wording and the narration all through.

This is the way in which a story is told by a comedian or a person who is a raconteur in the real sense.

When Sir Harry Lauder narrates an incident, the telling of it is funny from beginning to end.

When some lesser person tries to repeat it afterwards, there is nothing left but the final point.

The rest is weariness.

As a consequence most story-tellers are driven to telling stories that depend on the point or "nub" and not on the narration.

The storyteller gathers these up till he is equipped with a sort of little repertory of fun by which he hopes to surround himself with social charm.

In America especially (by which I mean here the United States and Canada, but not Mexico) we suffer from the story-telling habit.

As far as I am able to judge, English society is not pervaded and damaged by the story-telling habit as much as is society in the United States and Canada.

On our side of the Atlantic story-telling at dinners and on every other social occasion has become a curse.

In every phase of social and intellectual life one is haunted by the funny anecdote.

Any one who has ever attended a Canadian or American banquet will recall the solemn way in which the chairman rises and says: "Gentlemen, it is to me a very great pleasure and a very great honour to preside at this annual dinner.

There was an old darky once--" and so forth.

When he concludes he says, "I will now call upon the Rev. Dr. Stooge, Head of the Provincial University, Haroe English Any Sense of Humour?

to propose the toast 'Our Dominion.'

" Dr. Stooge rises amid great applause and with great solemnity begins, "There were once two Irishmen--" and so on to the end.

But in London, England, it is apparently not so.

Not long ago I had the pleasure of meeting at dinner a member of the Government.

I fully anticipated that as a member of the Government he would be expected to tell a funny story about an old darky, just as he would on our side of the water.

In fact, I should have supposed that he could hardly get into the Government unless he did tell a funny story of some sort.

But all through dinner the Cabinet Minister never said a word about either a Methodist minister, or a commercial traveller, or an old darky, or two Irishmen, or any of the stock characters of the American repertory.

On another occasion I dined with a bishop of the Church.

I expected that when the soup came he would say, "There was an old darky--" After which I should have had to listen with rapt attention, and, when he had finished, without any pause, rejoin, "There were a couple of Irishmen once--" and so on.

But the bishop never said a word of the sort.

I can further, for the sake of my fellow-men in Canada and the United States who may think of going to England, vouchsafe the following facts: If you meet a director of the Bank of England, he does not say: "I am very glad to meet you.

Sit down.

There was a mule in Arkansas once," etc. How they do their banking without that mule I don't know.

But they manage it.

I can certify also that if you meet the proprietor of a great newspaper he will not begin by saying, "There was a Scotchman once."

In fact, in England, you can mingle freely in general society without being called upon either to produce a funny story or to suffer from one.

I don't mean to deny that the American funny story, in capable hands, is amazingly funny and that it does brighten up human intercourse.

But the real trouble lies, not in the fun of the story, but in the painful waiting for the point to come and in the strained and anxious silence that succeeds it.

Each person around the dinner table is trying to "think of another."

There is a dreadful pause.

The hostess puts up a prayer that some one may "think of another."

Then at last, to the relief of everybody, some one says: "I heard a story the other day--I don't know whether you've heard it--" And the grateful cries of "No!

no!

go ahead" show how great the tension has been.

Nine times out of ten the people have heard the story before; and ten times out of nine the teller damages it in the telling.

But his hearers are grateful to him for having saved them from the appalling mantle of silence and introspection which had fallen upon the table.

For the trouble is that when once two or three stories have been told it seems to be a point of honour not to subside into mere conversation.

It seems rude, when a story-teller has at last reached the triumphant ending and climax of the mule from Arkansas, it seems impolite, to follow it up by saying, "I see that Germany refuses to pay the indemnity."

It can't be done.

Either the mule or the indemnity--one can't have both.

The English, I say, have not developed the American custom of the funny story as a form of social intercourse.

But I do not mean to say that they are sinless in this respect.

As I see it, they hand round in general conversation something nearly as bad in the form of what one may call the literal anecdote or personal experience.

By this I refer to the habit of narrating some silly little event that has actually happened to them or in their sight, which they designate as "screamingly funny," and which was perhaps very funny when it happened but which is not the least funny in the telling.

The American funny story is imaginary.

It never happened.

Somebody presumably once made it up.

It is fiction.

Thus there must once have been some great palpitating brain, some glowing imagination, which invented the story of the man who was put off at Buffalo.

But the English "screamingly funny" story is not imaginary.

It really did happen.

It is an actual personal experience.

In short, it is not fiction but history.

I think--if one may say it with all respect--that in English society girls and women are especially prone to narrate these personal experiences as contributions to general merriment rather than the men.

The English girl has a sort of traditional idea of being amusing; the English man cares less about it.

He prefers facts to fancy every time, and as a rule is free from that desire to pose as a humourist which haunts the American mind.

So it comes about that most of the "screamingly funny" stories are told in English society by the women.

Thus the counterpart of "put me off at Buffalo" done into English would be something like this: "We were so amused the other night in the sleeping-car going to Buffalo.

There was the most amusing old negro making the beds, a perfect scream, you know, and he kept insisting that if we wanted to get up at Buffalo we must all go to bed at nine o'clock.

He positively wouldn't let us sit up--I mean to say it was killing the way he wanted to put us to bed.

We all roared!"

Please note that roar at the end of the English personal anecdote.

It is the sign that indicates that the story is over.

When you are assured by the narrators that all the persons present "roared" or "simply roared," then you can be quite sure that the humorous incident is closed and that laughter is in place.

Now, as a matter of fact, the scene with the darky porter may have been, when it really happened, most amusing.

But not a trace of it gets over in the story.

There is nothing but the bare assertion that it was "screamingly funny" or "simply killing."

But the English are such an honest people that when they say this sort of thing they believe one another and they laugh.

But, after all, why should people insist on telling funny stories at all?

Why not be content to buy the works of some really first-class humourist and read them aloud in proper humility of mind without trying to emulate them?

Either that or talk theology.

On my own side of the Atlantic I often marvel at our extraordinary tolerance and courtesy to one another in the matter of story-telling.

I have never seen a bad story-teller thrown forcibly out of the room or even stopped and warned; we listen with the most wonderful patience to the worst of narration.

The story is always without any interest except in the unknown point that will be brought in later.

But this, until it does come, is no more interesting than to-morrow's breakfast.

Yet for some reason or other we permit this story-telling habit to invade and damage our whole social life.

The English always criticise this and think they are absolutely right.

To my mind in their social life they give the "funny story" its proper place and room and no more.

That is to say--if ten people draw their chairs in to the dinner table and somebody really has just heard a story and wants to tell it, there is no reason against it.

If he says, "Oh, by the way, I heard a good story to-day," it is just as if he said, "Oh, by the way, I heard a piece of news about John Smith."

It is quite admissible as conversation.

But he doesn't sit down to try to think, along with nine other rival thinkers, of all the stories that he had heard, and that makes all the difference.

The Scotch, by the way, resemble us in liking to tell and hear stories.

But they have their own line.

They like the stories to be grim, dealing in a jocose way with death and funerals.

The story begins (will the reader kindly turn it into Scotch pronunciation for himself), "There was a Sandy MacDonald had died and the wife had the body all laid out for burial and dressed up very fine in his best suit," etc. Now for me that beginning is enough.

To me that is not a story, but a tragedy.

I am so sorry for Mrs. MacDonald that I can't think of anything else.

But I think the explanation is that the Scotch are essentially such a devout people and live so closely within the shadow of death itself that they may without irreverence or pain jest where our lips would falter.

Or else, perhaps they don't care a cuss whether Sandy MacDonald died or not.

Take it either way.

But I am tired of talking of our faults.

Let me turn to the more pleasing task of discussing those of the English.

In the first place, and as a minor matter of form, I think that English humour suffers from the tolerance afforded to the pun.

For some reason English people find puns funny.

We don't. Here and there, no doubt, a pun may be made that for some exceptional reason becomes a matter of genuine wit.

But the great mass of the English puns that disfigure the Press every week are mere pointless verbalisms that to the American mind cause nothing but weariness.

But even worse than the use of puns is the peculiar pedantry, not to say priggishness, that haunts the English expression of humour.

To make a mistake in a Latin quotation or to stick on a wrong ending to a Latin word is not really an amusing thing.

To an ancient Roman, perhaps, it might be.

But then we are not ancient Romans; indeed, I imagine that if an ancient Roman could be resurrected, all the Latin that any of our classical scholars can command would be about equivalent to the French of a cockney waiter on a Channel steamer.

Yet one finds even the immortal Punch citing recently as a very funny thing a newspaper misquotation of "urbis et orbis" instead of "urbi et orbos," or the other way round.

I forget which.

Perhaps there was some further point in it that I didn't see, but, anyway, it wasn't funny.

Neither is it funny if a person, instead of saying Archimedes, says Archimeeds; why shouldn't it have been Archimeeds?

The English scale of values in these things is all wrong.

Very few Englishmen can pronounce Chicago properly and they think nothing of that.

But if a person mispronounces the name of a Greek village of what O. Henry called "The Year B. C."

it is supposed to be excruciatingly funny.

I think in reality that this is only a part of the overdone scholarship that haunts so much of English writing--not the best of it, but a lot of it.

It is too full of allusions and indirect references to all sorts of extraneous facts.

The English writer finds it hard to say a plain thing in a plain way.

He is too anxious to show in every sentence what a fine scholar he is.

He carries in his mind an accumulated treasure of quotations, allusions, and scraps and tags of history, and into this, like Jack Horner, he must needs "stick in his thumb and pull out a plum."

Instead of saying, "It is a fine morning," he prefers to write, "This is a day of which one might say with the melancholy Jacques, it is a fine morning."

Hence it is that many plain American readers find English humour "highbrow."

Just as the English are apt to find our humour "slangy" and "cheap," so we find theirs academic and heavy.

But the difference, after all, is of far less moment than might be supposed.

It lies only on the surface.

Fundamentally, as I said in starting, the humour of the two peoples is of the same kind and on an equal level.

There is one form of humour which the English have more or less to themselves, nor do I envy it to them.

I mean the merriment that they appear able to draw out of the criminal courts.

To me a criminal court is a place of horror, and a murder trial the last word in human tragedy.

The English criminal courts I know only from the newspapers and ask no nearer acquaintance.

But according to the newspapers the courts, especially when a murder case is on, are enlivened by flashes of judicial and legal humour that seem to meet with general approval.

The current reports in the Press run like this: "The prisoner, who is being tried on a charge of having burned his wife to death in a furnace, was placed in the dock and gave his name as Evans.

Did he say 'Evans or Ovens?'

asked Mr. Justice Blank.

The court broke into a roar, in which all joined but the prisoner...."

Or take this: "How many years did you say you served the last time?"

asked the judge.

"Three," said the prisoner.

"Well, twice three is six," said the judge, laughing till his sides shook; "so I'll give you six years."

I don't say that those are literal examples of the humour of the criminal court.

But they are close to it.

For a judge to joke is as easy as it is for a schoolmaster to joke in his class.

His unhappy audience has no choice but laughter.

No doubt in point of intellect the English judges and the bar represent the most highly trained product of the British Empire.

But when it comes to fun, they ought not to pit themselves against the unhappy prisoner.

Why not take a man of their own size?

For true amusement Mr. Charles Chaplin or Mr. Leslie Henson could give them sixty in a hundred.

I even think I could myself.

One final judgment, however, might with due caution be hazarded.

I do not think that, on the whole, the English are quite as fond of humour as we are.

I mean they are not so willing to welcome at all times the humorous point of view as we are in America.

The English are a serious people, with many serious things to think of--football, horse racing, dogs, fish, and many other concerns that demand much national thought: they have so many national preoccupations of this kind that they have less need for jokes than we have.

They have higher things to talk about, whereas on our side of the water, except when the World's Series is being played, we have few, if any, truly national topics.

And yet I know that many people in England would exactly reverse this last judgment and say that the Americans are a desperately serious people.

That in a sense is true.

Any American who takes up with an idea such as New Thought, Psychoanalysis or Eating Sawdust, or any "uplift" of the kind becomes desperately lopsided in his seriousness, and as a very large number of us cultivate New Thought, or practise breathing exercises, or eat sawdust, no doubt the English visitors think us a desperate lot.

Anyway, it's an ill business to criticise another people's shortcomings.

What I said at the start was that the British are just as humorous as are the Americans, or the Canadians, or any of us across the Atlantic, and for greater Certainty I repeat it at the end.

End of Project Gutenberg's My Discovery of England, by Stephen Leacock *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MY DISCOVERY OF ENGLAND *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U. S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!

) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.

Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark.

Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark.

If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy.

You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.

Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U. S.

copyright law.

Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.

gutenberg.

org/license.

Section 1.

General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works 1. A.

By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement.

If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession.

If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1. E.

8. 1. B.

“Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark.

It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.

There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.

See paragraph 1. C below.

There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works.

See paragraph 1. E below.

1. C.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works.

Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States.

If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed.

Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work.

You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others.

1. D.

The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work.

Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change.

If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.

The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1. E.

Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1. E.

1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever.

You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.

gutenberg.

org.

If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1. E.

2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U. S.

copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.

If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1. E.

1 through 1. E.

7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1. E.

8 or 1. E.

9. 1. E.

3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1. E.

1 through 1. E.

7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.

Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1. E.

4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1. E.

5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1. E.

1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1. E.

6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form.

However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.

gutenberg.

org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form.

Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1. E.

1. 1. E.

7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1. E.

8 or 1. E.

9. 1. E.

8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.

The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.

Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns.

Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.

” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License.

You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1. F.

3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1. E.

9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark.

Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1. F.

1. F.

1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U. S.

copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection.

Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1. F.

2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1. F.

3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees.