Viewing Thread:
"The poetry of Robert Frost"

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?

Yeah, I've grasped the past until it's dead. Now I want to have some sort of contact with the present.

Even a little stroke would do.

Well, at least all this talk of Shakespeare, poetry, literature etc is bringing up the quality of discussion in the forums.....Now lets talk about modern art.......no, lets not go that far ;)

To conquer the future, you must first conquer the past.

Heard that somewhere, may have been red alert. True though, I think everyone needs a grasp of whats gone before because thats what has inspired the current writers.

Gangsta Hamsta wrote:

> > Apologies, I was in no way having a go at you. Just pointing out that
> the best way to do things is to choose one of the greatest writers who
> ever lived and make everyone study the same thing.

No worries mate, I didn't take it personally anyway :)

While I agree Shakespeare is very *very* good, I would simply appreciate the opportunity to study some slightly less dead people. Stephen King (I know I've mentioned him already) was - and still is - one of the greatest authors of the last century. His books arouse substantially more tension and emotion in me than 'The Tempest' did. Yet when we glossed over Gothic Horror at GCSE level, we looked at Shelley and Stoker - both good authors, but still both dead :( . I understand that without Frankenstein there might very well not have been a Stephen King or a Clive Barker. It's the same with Music AS. But why can't we study the modern artists - it would give us a better indication of how to write if we wanted to be a successful author in *today's* market, rather than the market of the 15th century.

That must have come over wrong. I didn't mean that you are illiterate (whatever), I was answering your question as to why english is not a free subject. My point was that, while YOU obviously would like to choose a good author, most people would not be bothered and would choose something which should be studied by primary school kids.

Apologies, I was in no way having a go at you. Just pointing out that the best way to do things is to choose one of the greatest writers who ever lived and make everyone study the same thing.

Its far easier to assess that way too.

Shakespeare should be compulsory.
I hated it when I did it at College, yet since leaving I have a compendium of his plays and read them a lot.
Why?
Because I went back to them on my own time, at my own pace. But being forced to learn them in College gave me an appreciation and understanding I wouldn't otherwise have had.
Shakespeare is all about the language, reading and learning it expands your vocabulary and stuff.
(intentional irony)

You may hate it now, but there will be a time when you enjoy it.
Or at least appreciate the fact you did it.
Now cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war

Studying Shakespeare is just one of those evil things every child/young adult has to endure. Nobody likes it, but you have to go through all that pain and frustration at some point in your life.

I think that's a bit harsh. I'm studying English at AS-Level, and intend to take it to A2. However, I have to study one Shakespeare play each year. While I can see why Shakespeare is regarded as a great author, there are many others who write novels that follow the same plot, but aren't applauded anywhere near as much. Shakespeare tends to deal with social matters (like anti-semitism in 'Merchant of Venice'). So do many other authors. Why can't we study them instead?

Because if everyone could study what they wanted too, most would not get past the Beano.

I did Romeo and Juliet in school. Hated every minute of it. Appreciate it now though. You'll be glad you experienced something new - something you would otherwises have had no interest in.

I think it is just you.

You see, I understand fully that English Lit is about creating stuff. What I object to is having no choice as to what aspects of literature I study. Shakespeare should NOT be compulsory for SATs, GCSEs and A-Levels.

We study so-called 'classics'. No modern literature. Instead of studying the great living writers like Stephen King, Terry Pratchett or Tolkein, we study Shakespeare and Jane Austen.

Jane Austen's Emma. The most interesting thing that happens in this book is someone coughing after some tea goes down the wrong way.

I want choice in English. It's a personal subject, so why can't we learn it personally?