The Christian meddling was part of what I liked. Nowhere else do I get to see giants, trolls, and ogres directly connected to Cain and Able.
The best line in Beowulf comes from a translation released in 2011, which takes considerable creative license with both the metrics and the meaning. Around line 1700, Hrothgar counsels Beowulf on those properties considered most desirable in a king, and relates the tale of Heremod. Around line 1720, we get:
"He lived without joy, an ache and affliction to his own people. Learn from his story: be manly and munificent - shape worth from wealth."
"Shape worth from wealth" is an awesome line that is definitely not in the original Old English. It's a decision by a modern translator who is applying 21st-century values to an ancient work.
At some point, you are sufficiently separated from the original work that you aren't actually drawing from it - you're adding to it. Also see every modern take on Loki.
You just called Shakespeare "trite."
My point's made; I'm going to go eat wings and drink beer. This was fun, dudes.
I called Romeo and Juliet trite, because it is.
I also had an English professor who specialized in Shakespeare call his work "the WWF of the day." So, y'know, different strokes for different folks.
Newsflash: everything Shakespeare wrote isn't great. There's some gems like Hamlet and MacBeth, but Twelfth Night is really just "lol queer theory."
The Christian meddling was part of what I liked. Nowhere else do I get to see giants, trolls, and ogres directly connected to Cain and Able.
The best line in Beowulf comes from a translation released in 2011, which takes considerable creative license with both the metrics and the meaning. Around line 1700, Hrothgar counsels Beowulf on those properties considered most desirable in a king, and relates the tale of Heremod. Around line 1720, we get:
"He lived without joy, an ache and affliction to his own people. Learn from his story: be manly and munificent - shape worth from wealth."
"Shape worth from wealth" is an awesome line that is definitely not in the original Old English. It's a decision by a modern translator who is applying 21st-century values to an ancient work.
At some point, you are sufficiently separated from the original work that you aren't actually drawing from it - you're adding to it. Also see every modern take on Loki.
Interesting. I've seen this criticism before, though not of this particular thing. It came up all the time in Latin classes. I recall Dr. Carroll realizing that he had been mis-interpreting a particular passage of Cicero for years when a student (who spoke three languages fluently, due to the nature of how and where she had grown up) suggested that a word was in a different case which would look exactly the same as the one he had been using.
Rubin, I'm pretty sure it was in either in a conversation about Robert Heinlein, or when you guys were talking about Foundation (probably about Heinlein because I'm pretty sure it occurred outside of the show) :-p
/But who knows since witness testimony is flawed :-p
While knowing the origin of "star-crossed lovers" and how it carried through to today is interesting, I would be hesitant to call it necessary. Studying that lineage without consideration of where to go next is meaningless. It's great to study history and know where you're from - but where are you going?
I read TGG back in college, so my memory of it is not fantastic, but I do seem to remember liking the Gatsby character, but not really caring for much of the rest of the book. It's kind of hard to really recollect my thoughts on it because that book shares the same period of time with Catcher in the Rye, which is probably the book I hate the most, ever.
Also classics tend to be good. They're just basically like recommendations from a friend, but that friend is a group of writers, readers, publishers, and teachers that spans history. Some recommendations are good, but some are bad too.
While knowing the origin of "star-crossed lovers" and how it carried through to today is interesting, I would be hesitant to call it necessary. Studying that lineage without consideration of where to go next is meaningless. It's great to study history and know where you're from - but where are you going?
In what situation would a person not study both??
In a classroom setting? In the vast majority of my undergraduate literature classes, the emphasis was always on classic literature over all other forms. There were exceptions, of course - like the guy that used Fear and Loathing in his class. But he was an exception in the department.
Which Fear and Loathing? Superbowl and Campaign trail ought to be, but I don't think they are. Las Vegas, well... it's probably a classic now, but it's inferior to other Fear and Loathings.
While knowing the origin of "star-crossed lovers" and how it carried through to today is interesting, I would be hesitant to call it necessary. Studying that lineage without consideration of where to go next is meaningless. It's great to study history and know where you're from - but where are you going?
In what situation would a person not study both??
In a classroom setting? In the vast majority of my undergraduate literature classes, the emphasis was always on classic literature over all other forms. There were exceptions, of course - like the guy that used Fear and Loathing in his class. But he was an exception in the department.
You also went to a tech school my dude. Ive had a professor use the first Terminator movie in a lit class, and it wasnt particularly unusual. I mean if you take a class on Romantic Lit then yeah, youre probably not going to be studying modern work at all, but in any non period specific lit class, there really should be contemporary work as well. Its only your English departments'/professor's fault if there isn't!
That's certainly part of it. We did 't exactly have the most innovative lit department. Like I said, there was one guy who thought to use modern works - everyone else was hell-bent on teaching the classics.
In short - a professor at Tennessee State University is doing a class about Harry Potter, presenting a critical analysis of its take on numerous "timeless" themes typically presented in classic literature.
Bildungsroman is Bildungsroman. Study HP or study Candide; there's little difference in terms of genre and character development. That said, I do prefer Voltaire's philosophical musings to Rowling's stilted sentence structure.
It's also a college-level class, so it's not like this would be the first time these people would have encountered these themes. Not to mention I'm sure everybody enrolled has already read all of Harry Potter.
Yeah, we somehow went from undergraduate English (where classics are more heavily emphasized) to college courses (where English and Literature courses are generally separated.) If I take a college Lit course, I am going to have to expect to read some "Classic" works.
Reading for the 3rd time, (1 obligatory high-school reading, 1 in undergrad), and I just gotta say this 3rd reading is the best. No paper is due. I'm really enjoying it. I feel very close to this book now.
Can't wait for the book club episode on this one, and glad to have a reason to pick it up again.
I didn't enjoy Moby Dick that much, though I understand why it's important. For me, Nathaniel Philbrick's In the Heart of the Sea was more interesting.
What do people think of This Side of Paradise? I think it matches bildungsroman with an American Psycho-like description of psychopathy quite well.
Comments
"He lived without joy, an ache and affliction
to his own people. Learn from his story:
be manly and munificent - shape worth from wealth."
"Shape worth from wealth" is an awesome line that is definitely not in the original Old English. It's a decision by a modern translator who is applying 21st-century values to an ancient work.
At some point, you are sufficiently separated from the original work that you aren't actually drawing from it - you're adding to it. Also see every modern take on Loki. I called Romeo and Juliet trite, because it is.
I also had an English professor who specialized in Shakespeare call his work "the WWF of the day." So, y'know, different strokes for different folks.
/But who knows since witness testimony is flawed :-p
So what do we think of this:
http://expectocurriculum.blogspot.com/
In short - a professor at Tennessee State University is doing a class about Harry Potter, presenting a critical analysis of its take on numerous "timeless" themes typically presented in classic literature.
A lot of classics are good.
weird.
Can't wait for the book club episode on this one, and glad to have a reason to pick it up again.
Good pick.
What do people think of This Side of Paradise? I think it matches bildungsroman with an American Psycho-like description of psychopathy quite well.
Still, it didn't cause me as much suffering as Catcher in the Rye or The Good Earth.
In related news, I've petitioned for a name change to Scott Fitzgerald.