GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>which all too easily faded when Noah Webster froze grammar in place with his dictionary and its additions.</STRONG>

I am going to assume you are not saying that the dictionary is a bad thing?

No no way some of it is cool

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>I am going to assume you are not saying that the dictionary is a bad thing?</STRONG>

I believe the saying "the Graveyard of language" best sums up a dictionary.

Shakespear not the dictionary TOOOOOOOOOOOO long

Originally posted by craig:
<STRONG>Shakespear not the dictionary TOOOOOOOOOOOO long</STRONG>

So you've read the dictonary and found it shorter than Shakespeare

I'm afraid Shakespeare's writings are no match Dr. Suess. That one about the boy with all the hats, what a great story. Of course I must say that I enjoyed Hamlet very much, with all the betrayl and violence.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>I am going to assume you are not saying that the dictionary is a bad thing?</STRONG>

Not as a resource, no. But Webster didn't merely create a dictionary. He formulated and aggressively pushed a series of exact rules for the use of the English language (note, I wrote *additions*) which were fundamentalist in nature. They were simple, direct, allowed for *no* exceptions, and reduced English to a series of forumlae. English was chaotic in its spelling before Webster, but it was luxuriant in its growth and variety. After Webster finished with it, English was generally reduced to a starched collar on a grade school teacher.

@Fable, So are you saying that English is mathematical to some degree?

I think that guildelines are definately a good thing, i am not sure of the history of the English language but structure in a language certainly helps, but the question is how many people adhere to it anyway? Look at many of the different variations in and around Britain, there are any number of uses for certain words.

*Cracks his knuckles, and prepares to talk*

I believe that Shakespere was the prime influence in many of this world great modern, and pre-modern writers. Even though a lot of his plot and story development was predicatable, and patchy, it was he that formed the building blocks of literature. He was, in a sense, a pioneer when it came to what would be "the norm" in England for his time. He took a chance, and instead of writing comedy like every other writing (Namely people like Marlowe) he stood up and worte a tragedy, something that wasn't widely accepted at that time becuase of the problems in England. He, by writing R&J, made himself stand out, and be recognized. At that point, it didn't matter if he could write worth a damn (There are very few plays of his I enjoyed) but he was giving the crowds something new and different. He challenged the stability of literature at the time, and if he hadn't, how many authors in the future would've have never took a step, and wrote books that have caused controversy in North America (Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mocking Bird).

Yes, he was over-rated, but when it came to his genius, he was way up there. He formed the stepping stones for writers. Although none of this can really be proved, that is what I feel. You can look at almost any writer, and ask them whose work inspired them, and among the names given, Shakespere will usually get an honourable mention.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>@Fable, So are you saying that English is mathematical to some degree?

I think that guildelines are definately a good thing, i am not sure of the history of the English language but structure in a language certainly helps, but the question is how many people adhere to it anyway? Look at many of the different variations in and around Britain, there are any number of uses for certain words.</STRONG>

@Sleep, I don't disagree with you. Webster, after all, had nearly no effect on English-as-she-is-spoken. He only affected English as taught and written in proper schools, which at the time (and until the 20th century) meant in some urban environments among white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon kids.

However, American literature tended to grow from some of these kids. I think a case can be made for the hidebound, fussy, limited English of much secondrate literature in the 19th and 20th century being ultimately derived from Webster's ironclad rules--with plenty of additional factors, of course.

IMO Shakespeare was important in his era, not in ours, it is important to see history and view its effect on our culture/literature, but as to Shakespeare being the most immportant of literatures works seems a little bit short sighted. if we are going to look at impressive literary work read the Bible

My main problem with Shakespeare is a lack of objectivity towards his work by media etc. He is seen as all important but writers of this day who technically surpass him are undreappriciated and ignored.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@Sleep, I don't disagree with you. Webster, after all, had nearly no effect on English-as-she-is-spoken. He only affected English as taught and written in proper schools, which at the time (and until the 20th century) meant in some urban environments among white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon kids.

However, American literature tended to grow from some of these kids. I think a case can be made for the hidebound, fussy, limited English of much secondrate literature in the 19th and 20th century being ultimately derived from Webster's ironclad rules--with plenty of additional factors, of course. </STRONG>

@Fable Ever read any of Roddy Doyles work?

What about Feersum Endjin (phoeneic BTW) by Iain M Banks?

I don't think he's over rated, so to speak. I'm not overly impressed with his works, either. I absolutely love "A Midsummer Night's Dream," though I seem to be the only person who likes it. I think Romeo And Juliet has a good storyline. I don't enjoy reading his works because it annoys me to read a script. But I do enjoy seeing some of the plays. I don't see him as much of a literary icon, though. I think he did a great job writing plays, but I doubt his ability to write books. I like the dialogue of his plays, but it lacks the descriptive techniques necessary in a book. Middle English is, generally, more poetic than Modern English, imo.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Middle English is, generally, more poetic than Modern English, imo.</STRONG>

This isn't meant to be condescending, but--Modern English actually started around 1300. Middle English began around 1000. I posted a few examples of Middle English, once, when somebody in the BG2 area argued that people spoke and wrote in the Middle Ages like bad fantasy novels, today. I ought to look that stuff up, again, and repost it.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Romeo And Juliet has a good storyline.</STRONG>

IMPO the Romeo & Juliet plot is not that good, what is it about? Two people fall in love and their families oppose it so they kill/get killed by each other, seems almost selfish to me (sorry i forgot the spoiler )

<STRONG>
Middle English is, generally, more poetic than Modern English, imo.</STRONG>

I'd have to agree with you there After Fables post i should say i prefer romantic period dialect

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

For what it's worth, here's my two cents...

Shakespeare was, for all practical purposes, the equivalent of a modern film maker. He wrote plays not to be read, but to be seen. In that light, I think that it would be difficult to consider his plays over rated. If you've seen any of the films by Kenneth Branagh, perhaps it brings a better idea of the ideas behind the plays to light. I would suggest that if you're criticizing Will because you've read his plays and they don't seem too great, try reading the script to say, Indiana Jones, or Jurassic Park, and see if you just love the idea because you've read the script. The depth that can be portrayed in his plays is excellent - consider Merchant of Venice, or Othello (Branagh did a killer screenplay for that one.) I think that anyone that could write material some 400 + years ago that still appeals to an audience today should be given some measure of respect. Now, as for his sonnets, well, they're okay. But "the play's the thing"!

Worldfrog

Originally posted by Worldfrog:
<STRONG>should be given some measure of respect</STRONG>

True, but we should each come to our personal opinion on whether he deserves respect, not be forced by schools etc. to 'know' that he deserves respect. I respect him for writing what he did when he did, but i think that is the important issue, hasn't literature moved on since the time of Wil?

My class and our science teacher:

Me: Is Shakespeare overrated?

Teacher*After about 10 mintues of attempting to think*: Why don't you tell me.

Me: I don't know, thats why I'm asking you.
*Several more minutes*
Teacher: Lets talk about density.
Me: No lets not.
Teacher: Would anybody want to volunteer to look up in some book to see if Shakespear is overrated?
*Some suck up raises his or her hand*
Teacher: Stop, why don't i give you this for your homework.
Me: So you don't know, do you?
Teacher: Lets talk about density.

--A typical day in my science class. --

Fable my friend, this thread might be over-rated.

PrincessBride Over-rated
Star Wars -Over-rated
Tolken -Over-rated.

just to name a few.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>This isn't meant to be condescending, but--Modern English actually started around 1300. Middle English began around 1000. I posted a few examples of Middle English, once, when somebody in the BG2 area argued that people spoke and wrote in the Middle Ages like bad fantasy novels, today. I ought to look that stuff up, again, and repost it.</STRONG>

Really? Then why is the King James Version of the Bible in Middle English? Wasn't it translated in the 1400s? *shrugs* Either way, I still prefer Middle English and Old English. I especially like the story Beowulf(sp?). I've been meaning to by the copy at Barnes&Noble that's a parellel version, having the original version on the left page and the translated, or modernized, version on the right page.