Being Banned: a Sonnet - Page 2
Blogs > [UoN]Sentinel |
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
| ||
Japhybaby
Canada301 Posts
On February 21 2014 01:49 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Freudian, Jungian, and in general psychoanalytic readings of Lord of the Rings/Tolkien are absurd. No it's a legitimate way to study theme and character in work that is not "serious" literature. Whether one agrees with the "studies" and the "information" they yield is up to that person. how did that shakespeare vs tolkien thing even happen? its like.. shakespeare is a poet of voice and texture and an inventor of grammar. One would be better off to say Hemingway or Joyce or Blake. I'm not really into poetry at all. My ear for poetry is like a feather, in the wind. Like most, I don't really care. Tolkien did write verse too, eh? I think Shakespeare had a lot of variety in his writing. think of the witches in macbeth "double double toil and trouble" not so different from the similarly fear-invoking "chip the glasses/and crack the plates" but somehow less... magical? Anyways most of the "big names" when speaking of a good writer is someone who was distinctively original in a style. To me Tolkien's prose doesn't have much originality. Myself I like prose that is simple but still challenges my focus and can show me some good use of english to explain shit. My favourite writers are Kazuo Ishiguro, Alice Munro, Ernest Hemingway and Herman Hesse. My favourite poet is Geoffrey Chaucer. It's very good but it's in couplets so I don't need to be stress un stressing through iambs and dactylls. | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21242 Posts
On February 21 2014 02:52 Japhybaby wrote: No it's a legitimate way to study theme and character in work that is not "serious" literature. Whether one agrees with the "studies" and the "information" they yield is up to that person. You "make" no sense in this "post." how did that shakespeare vs tolkien thing even happen? its like.. shakespeare is a poet of voice and texture and an inventor of grammar. One would be better off to say Hemingway or Joyce or Blake. I'm not really into poetry at all. My ear for poetry is like a feather, in the wind. Like most, I don't really care. Ok. Tolkien did write verse too, eh? I think Shakespeare had a lot of variety in his writing. think of the witches in macbeth "double double toil and trouble" not so different from the similarly fear-invoking "chip the glasses/and crack the plates" but somehow less... magical? Tolkien wrote verse, but it was certainly inferior to Shakespeare's verse. In addition to what verse there was in his plays (and there is a lot, sometimes disguised), Shakespeare also wrote 154 sonnets and five long poems. They're indisputably of greater merit and importance than any verse Tolkien wrote, which is fine and not a mark against Tolkien at all. Anyways most of the "big names" when speaking of a good writer is someone who was distinctively original in a style. To me Tolkien's prose doesn't have much originality. You incorrectly separate style and substance. There can be distinctions drawn, but a clear separation is quite impossible, and they are both part of writing.Tolkien's innovation of substance is not to be discredited, which contributes to the overall originality of his writing. With that said, there is also nothing inherently good about novelty and originality. Indeed, you can challenge that Tolkien is not necessarily wholly original in a lot of his concepts - you can trace a great majority of his stories to ancient legends, myths, fairy tales, and even fantasy novels that came before him. It is the way that he takes the familiar and recombines them into something new that creates a novel work of art. It's not something that is traditionally conceived of as originality, but it is no less groundbreaking. Myself I like prose that is simple but still challenges my focus and can show me some good use of english to explain shit. My favourite writers are Kazuo Ishiguro, Alice Munro, Ernest Hemingway and Herman Hesse. Nothing wrong with that and to each his own, but might I venture to suggest that complex, probing prose is just as capable of showing what the written word can do? There has been, over the past few decades, an obsession with reducing everything to bare basics, and it is frankly naive and misguided, especially when parroted by those who aren't fully aware of the context for this trend. You yourself acknowledge Joyce to be one of the greats, and his prose is certainly not simple by any stretch of the imagination. My favourite poet is Geoffrey Chaucer. It's very good but it's in couplets so I don't need to be stress un stressing through iambs and dactylls. I'm not sure what you mean here. There is nothing mutually exclusive between coupleted verse and iambs or dactyls or any other foot. in addition, I have to point out that Chaucer wrote in Middle English, which has not insignificant differences in pronunciation compared to Modern English. You are reading, essentially, a work in translation when reading his works such as the Canterbury Tales, and no matter how faithful a translation is, it is impossible to simultaneously preserve both sound and meaning. | ||
Japhybaby
Canada301 Posts
In the first part I just wanted to make two distinctions. There is story telling, and there is writing. Writing is when the sentences have a beauty of their own and storytelling is when they are just the vehicle for suspense, allegory, plot, character entertainment and so on. The other distinction I want to make is serious stories and unserious stories. A serious story shows uncomfortable truth about culture or the human condition in the hopes to strengthen or educate. I think elves and things are further from day to day reality but still tell truth of the mind. That's Myth. Jung and Freud (Joseph Campbell) and their various words for functions of the mind just provide a way to make a scholarly use of something like a comic book by helping answer the question of "what is its value." I guess it all depends how academic one wants to be. I agree novelty has no inherent value but look at David Foster Wallace's use of footnotes or John Barth's conscious narrators. It can change the message completely and raises questions such as "why are we reading?" So I think what people who are more "serious" are looking for is a way to improve their life through literature. The point I wanted to make about Chaucer is i just really enjoy his language and it clicks with me. The effect Shakespeare has on some people where they hardly need to check the translations because of the language's flow is something like Chaucer has for me. (maybe i'm an alien) And yes despite my having no ear for verse I still appreciate the visual and grammatical mastery of Shakespeare. Noone can copy him either. A truly undeniable writer. Thanks for your reply. | ||
Japhybaby
Canada301 Posts
| ||
| ||