Where's it all going to end - Page 2

MargaretR · 22-03-2011, 11:53

Most of Shakespeare's plays are written using iambic pentameter
Iambic Pentameter - How to Study Iambic Pentameter
That is the reason why they are so famous.

To convert that to 'modern speech' is sacriledge and reduces them to the level of soap operas.

Margaret Pilkington · 22-03-2011, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

And writers were not, and are not social commentators. When Shakespeare wrote "Othello", I doubt that he considered Iago's actions were motivated by the fact that a nigger was banging a white chick.

This is where I exercise my prerogative and disagree with you.
The plays were a work of fiction, and they were a comment on what was happening at the time.......the writer must have given some of his own experience of his view of life.
All fiction writers are social commentators, whether they want to be or not.
Their works are the imaginings, seasoned by their view of life at the time the published piece was written.......even if they have to research the work, it will be biased from their own experience of life...much as the readers perception of the story is biased by their experience of life.

And as far as Jaysay protesting too much......don't the people have a right to do that to prevent these works from disappearing altogether?
I know that you reckon works of art will always survive, but who knows?
One day the powers that be may come along and burn these books......it has happened in the past.

Less · 22-03-2011, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

That is the reason why they are so famous.

Who are? Only you go to their site.

Silly Moo.

Less · 22-03-2011, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric View Post
And writers were not, and are not social commentators.

Of course they were, and still are, Dickens, reported about his time, Orwell reported about his time, the best writers always report what they know, some even suffer for their works.

Stumped · 22-03-2011, 19:15

At the oposite end of the spectrum, it has been announced that Radio 4 Extra (a new digital channel soon to be launched) are to broadcast an updated version of Jane Ayr to include moden day expletives and sexual content. Bet the PC Anus-Orifices can't wait to tune in!

Margaret Pilkington · 22-03-2011, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

Of course they were, and still are, Dickens, reported about his time, Orwell reported about his time, the best writers always report what they know, some even suffer for their works.

I am pleased to see that I am not alone in my beliefs. Thanks Less, you put it so clearly.

walkinman221 · 22-03-2011, 20:02

The thing about any text is, it is open to personal interpretation ie koran,bible etc. So what offends some people or makes them go out and do wicked or evil things may not make others do the same.Also language is often of a time so text written years ago can seem offensive or outdated to the modern eye. Some people have problems adjusting to that but thats their problem in my opinion , these folk need to see the classics for what they are and not to try and modernise them to pander to the pc brigade.

Eric · 23-03-2011, 04:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I am pleased to see that I am not alone in my beliefs. Thanks Less, you put it so clearly.

And so clearly wrong. Nothing more than falling foul of "The Intentional Fallacy".

"An old, mad, blind, despised and dying king" is no doubt a political and social observation. However, much of Shelley's other work cannot without tortuous interpretation be placed into this category. Much satire can be social commentary, Swift's "Modest Proposal" for example. But we have no idea what Swift believed he was writing when he penned it. Probably not literature ... oops, that should be "Literature", a subject that doesn't arrive on the scene until the late nineteenth century. Most texts that are allowed into the canon by the academics present a diversity that defies being placed into neat categories. What the hell, for example, is Browne's "Urn Burial"? The sermons of Andrewes are considered "Literature", and they were plundered by T. S. Eliot, but are they comments on contemporary life? I don't be thinking so. Gibbon is no longer history; it is "Literature". I could go on for ever, and I have been known to

; however, there is nothing in any text that is independent of the reader and the ideology he brings to the act of reading.

Margaret Pilkington · 23-03-2011, 07:24

Eric you are a master......of obfuscation.
I wonder just how many of the books you quote have been read by anyone who isn't doing a degree in Literature, History or some other such subject.
You mention academics...ah well, what they read is different to what is being commented on in this thread.
I am pretty sure that not many folk will read them for the pleasure of the story.
The kind of stories that this thread alludes to are the one which clearly are for 'pleasure reading', but also give an insight of the life and times of a young boy in America at the time of slavery........the writer always writes from their own perspective, so they are writing social commentary....whether that was their intention or not.
How can it be otherwise...we write what we know...what our life experineces have taught us...therfore that bit of experience says something about us, to anyone who then comes after and wishes to read what we penned.

You seem to be a very learned man, and far too serious to participate in such a lowly debate with us 'commoners'. (tug forelock and walks away shaking head)

jaysay · 23-03-2011, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkinman221

The thing about any text is, it is open to personal interpretation ie koran,bible etc. So what offends some people or makes them go out and do wicked or evil things may not make others do the same.Also language is often of a time so text written years ago can seem offensive or outdated to the modern eye. Some people have problems adjusting to that but that's their problem in my opinion , these folk need to see the classics for what they are and not to try and modernise them to pander to the pc brigade.

The thing is with language is the interpretations of it, things that we class as swear words are not classed the same way in say America and Australia

Eric · 23-03-2011, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Eric you are a master......of obfuscation.
I wonder just how many of the books you quote have been read by anyone who isn't doing a degree in Literature, History or some other such subject.
You mention academics...ah well, what they read is different to what is being commented on in this thread.
I am pretty sure that not many folk will read them for the pleasure of the story.
The kind of stories that this thread alludes to are the one which clearly are for 'pleasure reading', but also give an insight of the life and times of a young boy in America at the time of slavery........the writer always writes from their own perspective, so they are writing social commentary....whether that was their intention or not.
How can it be otherwise...we write what we know...what our life experineces have taught us...therfore that bit of experience says something about us, to anyone who then comes after and wishes to read what we penned.

You seem to be a very learned man, and far too serious to participate in such a lowly debate with us 'commoners'. (tug forelock and walks away shaking head)

"Learned" ... mmm, don't know about that ... but I have devoted (wasted?) a great deal of time and effort in the study of bibliography. So, I think I do know what I'm talking about.

Let's leave "Literature" for the moment. Say a particular thread were devoted to the "Pals", local war memorials, or the First World War in general. It would, no doubt, attract the attentions of, and comments from Retlaw. He would bring to the debate his compendious knowledge of the subject, the result of years of hard work and study. Would you suggest that he is "far too serious" to participate in the debate? Would you "tug forelock and [walk] away shaking [your] head"? I doubt it.

Less · 23-03-2011, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

"Learned" ... mmm, don't know about that ... but I have devoted (wasted?) a great deal of time and effort in the study of bibliography. So, I think I do know what I'm talking about.

Let's leave "Literature" for the moment. Say a particular thread were devoted to the "Pals", local war memorials, or the First World War in general. It would, no doubt, attract the attentions of, and comments from Retlaw. He would bring to the debate his compendious knowledge of the subject, the result of years of hard work and study. Would you suggest that he is "far too serious" to participate in the debate? Would you "tug forelock and [walk] away shaking [your] head"? I doubt it.

Let's leave "Literature", completely, why should we believe that because of a few quotes found on google, you are more knowlegable than the rest of us thick sod's that believe in, for example, Dickens?

Eric · 23-03-2011, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

Let's leave "Literature", completely, why should we believe that because of a few quotes found on google, you are more knowlegable than the rest of us thick sod's that believe in, for example, Dickens?

I don't need google ... I have a brain and a memory. The ability to read, probably moving your lips as you do it, doesn't qualify you as an authority on Dickens or any other writer for that matter. Sarah Palin once claimed to be an authority on foreign policy because she could could see Russia from here back yard. Which gave rise to one commentator's saying that he could see the moon from his yard, but that didn't make him an astronaut.