GameBanshee Forums

LOL Vehemence

I see your point, though. I was never taught Chaucer in school, he only got an honorary mentioning. I didn't even read Shakespeare in school, only fragments from his most famous plays, in Swedish translation of course.

I started reading those authors myself, when I was about 17-18, and I enjoyed it greatly.

On the other hand I just puke at Strindberg and Moberg (famous Swedish writers), I've had them stuffed from primary school to college.

CE, I agree, I find that when I want to do something rather than have to do something, I generally like it a lot more.

It's only now that I appreciate the 17th century Cavalier poets like Thomas Carew and Henry Vaughan. Whereas, back in highschool, I'd never even glance sideways at poetry.

Still, that can be explained by other things besides have to/want to scenario.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>

Originally posted by fable:
[qb]And Chaucer is really towards the end of Middle English--if you listen to him being read while drunk, you can more or less make out what's being said.

</STRONG>

I have never had Chaucer read to me, but a long time ago I read an original spelling version of Canterbury tales, and I had no difficulties at all with understanding that.

I've also read some original spelling Anglosaxon works (like Lazamon's(sp?) King Arthur) and I had even less problems - all the worlds that were not recognisable forms of Modern English words, were older forms of words still used in German or Scandinavian. I think it would be much harder for me to understand if I heard if spoken, though. Pronounciation tend to change more than spelling over time...[/QB]

Very true. It's actually easier to spend the time analyzing Chaucer, especially since I have a working knowledge of German, and a bit of remembered Flemish. And a tiny bit of English.

But I heard a recording once of The Canterbury Tales, and for some reason, that's what stuck in my mind. It actually did make sense, if you just went for the general sense, rather than specific meanings. Rather like the way one would try to focus on a modern speaker in a foreign tongue of which you knew enough to get by.

#Fezek lurking#
Really, you can't mean PrincessBride is over-rated. Say it ain't so. I've read it countless times to my partner. She can't get enough of it.

Originally posted by Fezek:
<STRONG>#Fezek lurking#
Really, you can't mean PrincessBride is over-rated. Say it ain't so. I've read it countless times to my partner. She can't get enough of it. </STRONG>

That's because your reading style is so captivating. Try something with a little more content to it, like A Hundred and One Dalmations. She'll probably like that, given that you read it, too.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>That's because your reading style is so captivating. Try something with a little more content to it, like A Hundred and One Dalmations. She'll probably like that, given that you read it, too.</STRONG>

@Sigh@

What is PrincessBride about?

I'll be by to see the answer in the morning, but I've got to get to bed now because I have a class in less than 8 hours. Oyasuminasai, minna-san!

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>What is PrincessBride about?

I'll be by to see the answer in the morning, but I've got to get to bed now because I have a class in less than 8 hours. Oyasuminasai, minna-san! </STRONG>

It's a silly romance novel.

Shakespeare was hyped up to the clouds which doesn't mean he was bad it means he was very good but the press (you know what i mean) took further than it was worth. Probably one of the reasons you dislike shakespeare is because there have been so many rubbish filmes and cliches of him. In the 60's they were bringing out films of shakespeare on mars and there have been countless crappy romance novels based on Romeo and Juliet but what you have to remember is that he was ONE of the guys who invented all this stuff and that it was mostly for the peasants and people that could not afford seats and had to stand that all these easily understandable plots

(takes deep breath)

Shakespeare is old tat. Its only popular because hollywood seems to think its classy, encouraged by snobby brits who continue to spout his lines because it was the only theatrical talent we think we ever had.

Its also Tudor propaganda.

Though he came up with a few memorable lines, I tired quickly of the "I'm a man pretending to be a woman dressed up as a man and I've fallen in love with the Princess (who is dressed like a man)" soap-opera plot lines.

Which is why "Titus Andronicus" stands out as one of his best - drops the soap eek for Tarantino-esque shock violence.

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Gruntboy ]

Shakepeare is not classy.... but Grunt, he is the epitome of class

Yep. Gotta have class to shove $1 bills down a semi-nekked girls g-string.

Billie never wrote about that did he? Just stuff about wenches and harlots.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>Yep. Gotta have class to shove $1 bills down a semi-nekked girls g-string.

Billie never wrote about that did he? Just stuff about wenches and harlots. </STRONG>

Just a typical night out with Grunt

I think you are mistaking class for being a tightfisted

Gadzooks!

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>Gadzooks!

</STRONG>

Suffering Suckatash

Heavens to Mergatroid even...

Grunt writes:
Its also Tudor propaganda.

He's right about that. Many of the "Chronicle" plays are almost fairytales, given the way characters are portrayed in broad, inaccurate colors, followed about by curses, and making decisions based on personal character instead of political policy. The worst of the lot IMO is Richard III, which is great theatrical fun, but total nonsense as history. If you assume almost everything in it is the opposite of what Shakespeare wrote, you're a lot closer to the truth.