The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Is there anyone out there who is also studying this crap? If so, could you give me some help with this essay:
"How does Frost use the world of dreams compared to the world of experience?"
If there is anyone reading this who doesn't know who Frost is, here's one of his shorter poems:
I'm going to clean out the pasture spring;
I'll only stop to rake the leaves away
(And wait to watch the water clear, I may):
I shan't be gone long - You come too.
I'm going out to fetch the little calf
That's standing by the mother. It's so young
It totters when she licks it with her tongue.
I shan't be gone long - You come too.
Why are we forced to study stuff like this? How the hell does it improve our understanding of English Literature?
"How does Frost use the world of dreams compared to the world of experience?"
If there is anyone reading this who doesn't know who Frost is, here's one of his shorter poems:
I'm going to clean out the pasture spring;
I'll only stop to rake the leaves away
(And wait to watch the water clear, I may):
I shan't be gone long - You come too.
I'm going out to fetch the little calf
That's standing by the mother. It's so young
It totters when she licks it with her tongue.
I shan't be gone long - You come too.
Why are we forced to study stuff like this? How the hell does it improve our understanding of English Literature?
Page:
That oak bloke is the one i am after....
Gabriel Oak. Thats it. I remember the fact that we discussed whether Hardy had used 'Gabriel' as the name to conjour images of angel Gabriel in the bible. To show that he was Bathsheba's saviour or angel of light etc.
Endless hours of fun...
Gabriel Oak. Thats it. I remember the fact that we discussed whether Hardy had used 'Gabriel' as the name to conjour images of angel Gabriel in the bible. To show that he was Bathsheba's saviour or angel of light etc.
Endless hours of fun...
Gangsta Hamsta wrote:
>
> Glad I read it actually. Can't for the life of me remember the main
> guys name though: F***y, Bathsheba and ??????
>
> ARGH
Well she had a few blokes, didn't she?
Something Oak was the one that was with her throughout. Troy was the soldier, then there was the nutty bloke, but I don't remember his name either. But it was 9 years ago!
>
> Glad I read it actually. Can't for the life of me remember the main
> guys name though: F***y, Bathsheba and ??????
>
> ARGH
Well she had a few blokes, didn't she?
Something Oak was the one that was with her throughout. Troy was the soldier, then there was the nutty bloke, but I don't remember his name either. But it was 9 years ago!
Meka Dragon wrote:
Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd....
Thats what I did too. It was one of those book which I would have NEVER picked up unless it was given to me. We analysed it for about 2 months and it slowly grew on me.
Glad I read it actually. Can't for the life of me remember the main guys name though: F***y, Bathsheba and ??????
ARGH
Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd....
Thats what I did too. It was one of those book which I would have NEVER picked up unless it was given to me. We analysed it for about 2 months and it slowly grew on me.
Glad I read it actually. Can't for the life of me remember the main guys name though: F***y, Bathsheba and ??????
ARGH
Goatboy wrote:
> Just take a look around at a vast number of posters here, they've
> never even heard of Keats of Milton and it shows in their posts.
Weren't Keats & Milton the two strikers for a famous football team?? ;)
Only kidding, I enjoyed studying Keats at school. Lamia, The Eve of St. Agnes, Ode to a Nightingale, Ode on a Grecian Urne, To Autumn, Hyperion etc are great works.
> Just take a look around at a vast number of posters here, they've
> never even heard of Keats of Milton and it shows in their posts.
Weren't Keats & Milton the two strikers for a famous football team?? ;)
Only kidding, I enjoyed studying Keats at school. Lamia, The Eve of St. Agnes, Ode to a Nightingale, Ode on a Grecian Urne, To Autumn, Hyperion etc are great works.
Christ, I wish I could have studied Robert Frost for A-Level rather than the Bloodaxe book of contemporary Woman's Poetry.
Man, that was hard going. I really struggled to empathise with a middle aged woman's angst over her menopause, as I just couldn't relate to it.
Most of it was really bitter stuff about failed relationships, something I's never experienced. I didn't get where they were coming from at all.
Some of those woman are still alive, but I so much more enjoyed studying the poetry of Thomas Hardy, as much of it was about nature.
Oh, A-Levels also gifted me with Jane Austin's Emma, and that I didn't much enjoy either. I appreciated where it was coming from, but again, Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd was a far more enjoyable read.
Man, that was hard going. I really struggled to empathise with a middle aged woman's angst over her menopause, as I just couldn't relate to it.
Most of it was really bitter stuff about failed relationships, something I's never experienced. I didn't get where they were coming from at all.
Some of those woman are still alive, but I so much more enjoyed studying the poetry of Thomas Hardy, as much of it was about nature.
Oh, A-Levels also gifted me with Jane Austin's Emma, and that I didn't much enjoy either. I appreciated where it was coming from, but again, Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd was a far more enjoyable read.
I get what you're saying. I agree you on the fact that I enjoy Shakespeare - when I'm not forced too. I find myself reading books like screenplays - this is why I enjoy stuff like Grisham and King.
I like Lord of the Flies, I like Catcher in the rye. These are reasonably modern, and sort of relate to my way of thinking.
What doesn't relate to my way of thinking is someone saying "This is Shakespeare. He was great. You will like this. Read it". That isn't a tradition, and it isn't any way to go about enjoying literature. That is just a stuffy old man somewhere telling me what makes a classic.
Like you said, maybe I just haven't found any 'classics' that really speak out to me. I think I'll keep looking.
I like Lord of the Flies, I like Catcher in the rye. These are reasonably modern, and sort of relate to my way of thinking.
What doesn't relate to my way of thinking is someone saying "This is Shakespeare. He was great. You will like this. Read it". That isn't a tradition, and it isn't any way to go about enjoying literature. That is just a stuffy old man somewhere telling me what makes a classic.
Like you said, maybe I just haven't found any 'classics' that really speak out to me. I think I'll keep looking.
Here you go...
www.the-quill.com
www.the-quill.com
I would argue that learning things like Shelley, Keats, Byron, Shakespeare etc you are keeping these traditions of literature alive.
Otherwise it would only be read by scholars and hardcore intellectuals and I think this world would lose something if we stopped reading and learning about classic literature.
It's a link to the history of this language and the achievements by people.
That sounds really poncy but I think keeping those things alive by teaching them to the generations that follow allows for the chance to keep this stuff relevant and alive.
It's all in how it's taught I've found.
Go watch the Reduced Shakespeare Company do their thing, it brings Shakespeare alive and keeps it fresh.
Some of the stuff I did bored me to tears (D H Lawrence can #### right off as can Chaucer with The Canterbury Tales), but I'm glad I did them looking back.
If only a tiny bit of the passion of language and intensity of communication filters through from being taught this stuff then I find it well worthwhile.
Just take a look around at a vast number of posters here, they've never even heard of Keats of Milton and it shows in their posts.
Full of idiot ebonics and no clue about history or classic literature references.
I love that stuff, it fuels my soul to read classic poetry.
Yet at the same time, as you say, modern stuff can be relevant.
Charles Bukowski is my fav poet and he's of this century (dead now though).
Poetry doesn't have to be flowery rubbish about clouds and ponies, which is why I abhor Wordsworth and other classical romantic poets.
But sit down with "Paradise Lost" by Milton or any of William Blake's stuff and it reads like Stephen King.
It's about finding relevance to today, that's how you continue these traditions.
W H Auden is another good "recent" poet, as is T S Elliot with stuff like "The Wasteland", a lot of good poetry come from WW1 era.
Poetry doesn't have to be girly at all, you just have to find the stuff that speaks to you.
But I would rather grimace and be taught "Othello" or "Hamlet" and be part of a great literary tradition than spend 2 months learning about John Grisham.
What may seem like irrelevany crap now will stand you in good stead for later life, if only for the fact that reading this old stuff will add to your vocabulary and writing abilities.
Anyone that can quote Shakespeare or Chaucer makes for a more interesting read than "Yo I was playing with my Homies in da ball courts".
I think we're losing the power and glory of classical literature traditions and that makes me despair for the future, illiterate halfwits that are no more familiar with Mary Shelley than they are with being able to play Chess.
Instead it's all Nike and Ali G.
And that would be a scary and bleak world for us all, whether you like Shakespeare or not.
Otherwise it would only be read by scholars and hardcore intellectuals and I think this world would lose something if we stopped reading and learning about classic literature.
It's a link to the history of this language and the achievements by people.
That sounds really poncy but I think keeping those things alive by teaching them to the generations that follow allows for the chance to keep this stuff relevant and alive.
It's all in how it's taught I've found.
Go watch the Reduced Shakespeare Company do their thing, it brings Shakespeare alive and keeps it fresh.
Some of the stuff I did bored me to tears (D H Lawrence can #### right off as can Chaucer with The Canterbury Tales), but I'm glad I did them looking back.
If only a tiny bit of the passion of language and intensity of communication filters through from being taught this stuff then I find it well worthwhile.
Just take a look around at a vast number of posters here, they've never even heard of Keats of Milton and it shows in their posts.
Full of idiot ebonics and no clue about history or classic literature references.
I love that stuff, it fuels my soul to read classic poetry.
Yet at the same time, as you say, modern stuff can be relevant.
Charles Bukowski is my fav poet and he's of this century (dead now though).
Poetry doesn't have to be flowery rubbish about clouds and ponies, which is why I abhor Wordsworth and other classical romantic poets.
But sit down with "Paradise Lost" by Milton or any of William Blake's stuff and it reads like Stephen King.
It's about finding relevance to today, that's how you continue these traditions.
W H Auden is another good "recent" poet, as is T S Elliot with stuff like "The Wasteland", a lot of good poetry come from WW1 era.
Poetry doesn't have to be girly at all, you just have to find the stuff that speaks to you.
But I would rather grimace and be taught "Othello" or "Hamlet" and be part of a great literary tradition than spend 2 months learning about John Grisham.
What may seem like irrelevany crap now will stand you in good stead for later life, if only for the fact that reading this old stuff will add to your vocabulary and writing abilities.
Anyone that can quote Shakespeare or Chaucer makes for a more interesting read than "Yo I was playing with my Homies in da ball courts".
I think we're losing the power and glory of classical literature traditions and that makes me despair for the future, illiterate halfwits that are no more familiar with Mary Shelley than they are with being able to play Chess.
Instead it's all Nike and Ali G.
And that would be a scary and bleak world for us all, whether you like Shakespeare or not.
Shakespeare didn't even write half his plays. It's true.
*kneels down, raises arms in supplication and cries "Why, God, why?" to anyone near enough to listen*
*kneels down, raises arms in supplication and cries "Why, God, why?" to anyone near enough to listen*
You have had a sniff of the past. When you have got it fully, you graduate/get A-levels (whatever).
Thats when you get to look at the present. When you are thrown into society trained well enough to know whats expected and able to apply things you know to modern writings.
You can't just skip the learning bit out though. The best way to learn is using something that all writers are likely to have in common - Shakespear
Thats when you get to look at the present. When you are thrown into society trained well enough to know whats expected and able to apply things you know to modern writings.
You can't just skip the learning bit out though. The best way to learn is using something that all writers are likely to have in common - Shakespear
Page: