"To be, or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to set arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them..."
In third grade, me and several other people in my English class (Becca, Mike) were all in Hamlet. Granted, we did not understand a thing that was going on, but I do still have that speech memorized. But anyway, I've learned a lot about Hamlet that I didn't learn by being in it in 2003.
Freshman year, I learned about Shakespeare's life and the Globe Theater and such, just like the rest of you probably did. I also learned about iambic pentameter, which I think is a good excuse for Shakespeare using so many random words. I mean, if you have to fit what you want to say in ten syllables with specific ones stressed, you're going to have to make some stuff up. Like, I know I couldn't do it.
This year, I learned about all the symbolism and puns and crazy stuff Shakespeare slips into his plays. I know for sure I didn't notice it then, and I missed out on some of it this time when I read, but there's definitely a ton of wordplay. Also a lot of humor that eight-year-old me missed out on. For example, Hamlet makes fun of Polonius after he kills him. Here's a website with a modern-day translation for you non-Shakespeare-loving English students out there.
King: Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?
(Where's the corpse, you brat?)
Hamlet: At supper.
(Wouldn't you like to know?)
King: At supper! Where?
(Watch it, kid!)
Hamlet: Not where he eats, but where he is eaten...
(Guess how many worms he's feeding!)
King: Alas, alas!
(The guy was an idiot, but what can you do?)
Hamlet: A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.
(King becomes worm food, worm becomes fish food, fish becomes fisherman food. Ergo, fisherman chows down on royalty. Circle of life, sucker.)
Hamlet is just a twisted little genius, isn't he? Who comes up with stuff like that on the spot? I don't know, but taking a closer look at Hamlet has definitely made me appreciate Shakespeare's writing a lot more.
Oh, and if you were wondering, I was Horatio in the play. :)
Full article:
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3433776
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
What makes a word beautiful?
Aesthetics
Carouse - To party hearty; celebrate and jubilate
Coffee
Flaneur - A soulful urban wanderer.
Ramble
Smirk
Sub Rosa - Under the rose, confidential, secret.
Voluptuous
Zenith
In this article by the huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-cousineau/beautiful-words_b_2077755.html?utm_hp_ref=books#slide=more261269, some random writer picked out what he believed to be the nine most beautiful words in the English language. Now, while I like these words, not all of them strike me as the most beautiful words ever. What makes a word beautiful? If I had to come up with criteria, it would be:
1. It has to flow well (this one is kind of hard to define, but each person will have their own definition of flow and each person will have their own 9 words)
2. It has to be easy to pronounce
3. Lots of vowels and not too many consonants (this might be because I sing, and vowel-y words are prettier)
4. It doesn't necessarily have to mean something beautiful or great, but if by definition it is gross or dark, it should be crossed off the list on principle.
5. It shouldn't be extremely short (an) or obnoxiously long (perfidiousness), but just right (like Goldilocks? I guess?). Extremely long words are fun, but most of the time they have too many syllables to be really beautiful.
So, here's my list:
Lovely
Illusion
Rose
Iridescent
Cascade
Beheld
Complete
Lullabye
These aren't perfect, but what do you all think? Any criteria I missed out on? Any words you'd like to add to the list?
Carouse - To party hearty; celebrate and jubilate
Coffee
Flaneur - A soulful urban wanderer.
Ramble
Smirk
Sub Rosa - Under the rose, confidential, secret.
Voluptuous
Zenith
In this article by the huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-cousineau/beautiful-words_b_2077755.html?utm_hp_ref=books#slide=more261269, some random writer picked out what he believed to be the nine most beautiful words in the English language. Now, while I like these words, not all of them strike me as the most beautiful words ever. What makes a word beautiful? If I had to come up with criteria, it would be:
1. It has to flow well (this one is kind of hard to define, but each person will have their own definition of flow and each person will have their own 9 words)
2. It has to be easy to pronounce
3. Lots of vowels and not too many consonants (this might be because I sing, and vowel-y words are prettier)
4. It doesn't necessarily have to mean something beautiful or great, but if by definition it is gross or dark, it should be crossed off the list on principle.
5. It shouldn't be extremely short (an) or obnoxiously long (perfidiousness), but just right (like Goldilocks? I guess?). Extremely long words are fun, but most of the time they have too many syllables to be really beautiful.
So, here's my list:
Lovely
Illusion
Rose
Iridescent
Cascade
Beheld
Complete
Lullabye
These aren't perfect, but what do you all think? Any criteria I missed out on? Any words you'd like to add to the list?
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Fiction is good for the soul
In the educational debate presented here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fiction-vs-nonfiction-smackdown/2012/10/17/cbb333d0-16f0-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html
experts argue on whether English classes should have more fiction or nonfiction reading in them. One person suggests that by 12th grade, students be reading 70% nonfiction! Now, I don't know about you all, but I think that is ridiculous.
Non-Fiction reading is for learning facts. You don't really learn enough about creativity, culture, or style unless you're reading fiction books. Most of the literature we've gotten this year has been fiction, and it has been way more interesting than reading your history textbook. I think that cutting out fiction is like cutting out labs from science. You just can't learn all there is to know without it.
Also, fiction reading keeps kids more interested in what they're learning. Granted, not all of our English short stories or books are going to be everybody's favorite, but I guarantee they're better than reading nonfiction.
"Pondiscio says he admires Bauerlein and Stotsky and doesn’t see why English classes have to carry the nonfiction weight. Social studies and science courses can do that."
I agree a lot more with this guy ^^ than the guy who was on the side of non-fiction. Kids will enjoy fiction more, learn more creative writing skills from fiction, and the non-fiction skills can be covered by other classes. I feel like I learned most of the non-fiction reading skills I needed from reading the entire AP World and AP US textbooks. Personally, that was enough for me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fiction-vs-nonfiction-smackdown/2012/10/17/cbb333d0-16f0-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html
experts argue on whether English classes should have more fiction or nonfiction reading in them. One person suggests that by 12th grade, students be reading 70% nonfiction! Now, I don't know about you all, but I think that is ridiculous.
Non-Fiction reading is for learning facts. You don't really learn enough about creativity, culture, or style unless you're reading fiction books. Most of the literature we've gotten this year has been fiction, and it has been way more interesting than reading your history textbook. I think that cutting out fiction is like cutting out labs from science. You just can't learn all there is to know without it.
Also, fiction reading keeps kids more interested in what they're learning. Granted, not all of our English short stories or books are going to be everybody's favorite, but I guarantee they're better than reading nonfiction.
"Pondiscio says he admires Bauerlein and Stotsky and doesn’t see why English classes have to carry the nonfiction weight. Social studies and science courses can do that."
I agree a lot more with this guy ^^ than the guy who was on the side of non-fiction. Kids will enjoy fiction more, learn more creative writing skills from fiction, and the non-fiction skills can be covered by other classes. I feel like I learned most of the non-fiction reading skills I needed from reading the entire AP World and AP US textbooks. Personally, that was enough for me.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Oedipus may be tragic, but he's not my hero
So, we're reading Oedipus Rex right now in English, and before we read it we read about tragic heroes. Here are some characteristics of tragic heroes, as defined by our book:
Usually of noble birth
Good, but not perfect, and his fall results from "an act of injustice"
His downfall is his own fault
His misfortune is not wholly deserved
The fall is not pure loss, that is, they gain something before they die
The audience feels some kind of pity for him
Now, I have one really big complaint with Oedipus being a tragic hero:
He hasn't done anything good yet.
Tragic heroes are defined as essentially good, but having a flaw or two. They're imperfect. Oedipus has not done anything that suggests to me he is a good person deep down. He kills five or six men (including his father, but he didn't know), turns on his best friend, and is really happy when the dad who raised him dies. He is selfish, angry, violent, and stubborn. He also refuses to listen to anyone, and assumes the world is out to get him when they're trying to tell him the truth.
We read the Odyssey (well, parts of it) Freshman year, and used Odysseus as a model for a tragic hero. Odysseus has hubris (which is kind of like pride, but not really, according to Mr. Mullins) just like Oedipus, and he is also a little bit unlikable, but they still come across differently to me.
Here's more about Odysseus if you haven't read or don't remember all the way back to Freshman year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysseus#Journey_home_to_Ithaca
Do you think Oedipus deserves some credit? I might be kind of harsh. Obviously the people who wrote this book think he was a tragic hero, and they know a lot more than I do. We've only read half the play, do you think he is going to change before he dies?
Usually of noble birth
Good, but not perfect, and his fall results from "an act of injustice"
His downfall is his own fault
His misfortune is not wholly deserved
The fall is not pure loss, that is, they gain something before they die
The audience feels some kind of pity for him
Now, I have one really big complaint with Oedipus being a tragic hero:
He hasn't done anything good yet.
Tragic heroes are defined as essentially good, but having a flaw or two. They're imperfect. Oedipus has not done anything that suggests to me he is a good person deep down. He kills five or six men (including his father, but he didn't know), turns on his best friend, and is really happy when the dad who raised him dies. He is selfish, angry, violent, and stubborn. He also refuses to listen to anyone, and assumes the world is out to get him when they're trying to tell him the truth.
We read the Odyssey (well, parts of it) Freshman year, and used Odysseus as a model for a tragic hero. Odysseus has hubris (which is kind of like pride, but not really, according to Mr. Mullins) just like Oedipus, and he is also a little bit unlikable, but they still come across differently to me.
Here's more about Odysseus if you haven't read or don't remember all the way back to Freshman year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysseus#Journey_home_to_Ithaca
Do you think Oedipus deserves some credit? I might be kind of harsh. Obviously the people who wrote this book think he was a tragic hero, and they know a lot more than I do. We've only read half the play, do you think he is going to change before he dies?
Thursday, October 18, 2012
When is it overkill?
In most English classes, especially AP Junior, we were taught to analyze an author's style, but very rarely do we actually talk about whether we like it or not. This article that Mr. Mullins posted a link to on his webpage (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/a-short-defense-of-literary-excess/?src=recg) gives his view on what the best writing is. The author is pro-putting-as-many-words-as-possible-into-a-sentence, as opposed to more simplistic writing styles that may be easier to understand.
This is one of the sentences that this journalist says is "teeming with life"
"Outside the window, there slides past that unimaginable and deserted vastness where night is coming on, the sun declining in ghastly blood-streaked splendour like a public execution across, it would seem, half a continent, where live only bears and shooting stars and the wolves who lap congealing ice from water that holds within it the entire sky." - Angela Carter
Now, the easiest way to write this sentence is something like:
"The sun set over a vast landscape and the wilderness seemed to go on forever."
I'm not trying to say that my sentence is better, but I would like to argue for a middle ground. Not that I know more about English than Angela Carter (whoever that is), but I really don't see the need for all those words. Good writing doesn't always mean more writing. Think about Hills Like White Elephants. It was simplistic, didn't have a lot to it, but it was still good writing because of all that wasn't on the surface.
I think that sometimes writers who use too many words or too much description are just trying too hard. They lose people's interest because it's boring, but also I think it sometimes sounds like they just want their writing to be impressive. Work hard on it, by all means, but don't try to make yourself sound like Shakespeare when you're not. I think that writers shouldn't go overboard, but they should try to use good writing to tell a good story.
This is one of the sentences that this journalist says is "teeming with life"
"Outside the window, there slides past that unimaginable and deserted vastness where night is coming on, the sun declining in ghastly blood-streaked splendour like a public execution across, it would seem, half a continent, where live only bears and shooting stars and the wolves who lap congealing ice from water that holds within it the entire sky." - Angela Carter
Now, the easiest way to write this sentence is something like:
"The sun set over a vast landscape and the wilderness seemed to go on forever."
I'm not trying to say that my sentence is better, but I would like to argue for a middle ground. Not that I know more about English than Angela Carter (whoever that is), but I really don't see the need for all those words. Good writing doesn't always mean more writing. Think about Hills Like White Elephants. It was simplistic, didn't have a lot to it, but it was still good writing because of all that wasn't on the surface.
I think that sometimes writers who use too many words or too much description are just trying too hard. They lose people's interest because it's boring, but also I think it sometimes sounds like they just want their writing to be impressive. Work hard on it, by all means, but don't try to make yourself sound like Shakespeare when you're not. I think that writers shouldn't go overboard, but they should try to use good writing to tell a good story.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Southern Gothic/Flannery O'Connor
I wasn't in class for the discussion of the Flannery O'Connor stories, but I looked up a few things to get a better picture of Southern Gothic style and particularly the story "A Good Man is Hard To Find". This is one of the most interesting things I found:
"This sickening adherence to just about every stereotype of the old South that the grandmother represents is part of what makes her a grotesque character. In fact, every member of the family is grotesque in some way; the children by their over-the-top rudeness and lack of manners, the father by his intense, simmering anger paired with a bright, happy-looking parrot shirt, the mother by her lack of personality or character—and, of course, the Misfit by his complete lack of regard for anything or anyone. This is not a delightful portrait of the south or a southern family—it is a critique."
I didn't feel that each of the characters was "grotesque" at all. The grandmother and the kids were kind of annoying, and the dad just seemed like he didn't want to go on the road trip in the first place. But I didn't feel like, even after reading it through twice, the story was supposed to be dark and creepy all the way through.To me, it wasn't obvious that they were headed down a bad road. For the most part I was unprepared for the horrifying ending to the story.
Also, a lot of the analysis I read had to do with the religious aspect of the story. The grandmother is a Christian, but she's much more concerned with looking like a Christian than acting like one. She gets a little bit more spiritual when she realizes she's about to die and is talking to the Misfit, but overall she strikes me as one of those people who pretends she's Christian because she was raised that way, and doesn't necessarily live a fully Christian lifestyle.
http://english.tjc.edu/engl2333nbyr/o%27connor.htm
http://supersummary.com/component/content/article/23-plot-summary-of-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-by-flannery-oconnor?start=4
Here's some more in-depth analysis of the story.
"This sickening adherence to just about every stereotype of the old South that the grandmother represents is part of what makes her a grotesque character. In fact, every member of the family is grotesque in some way; the children by their over-the-top rudeness and lack of manners, the father by his intense, simmering anger paired with a bright, happy-looking parrot shirt, the mother by her lack of personality or character—and, of course, the Misfit by his complete lack of regard for anything or anyone. This is not a delightful portrait of the south or a southern family—it is a critique."
I didn't feel that each of the characters was "grotesque" at all. The grandmother and the kids were kind of annoying, and the dad just seemed like he didn't want to go on the road trip in the first place. But I didn't feel like, even after reading it through twice, the story was supposed to be dark and creepy all the way through.To me, it wasn't obvious that they were headed down a bad road. For the most part I was unprepared for the horrifying ending to the story.
Also, a lot of the analysis I read had to do with the religious aspect of the story. The grandmother is a Christian, but she's much more concerned with looking like a Christian than acting like one. She gets a little bit more spiritual when she realizes she's about to die and is talking to the Misfit, but overall she strikes me as one of those people who pretends she's Christian because she was raised that way, and doesn't necessarily live a fully Christian lifestyle.
http://english.tjc.edu/engl2333nbyr/o%27connor.htm
http://supersummary.com/component/content/article/23-plot-summary-of-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-by-flannery-oconnor?start=4
Here's some more in-depth analysis of the story.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Existentialism
We talked about existentialism for over an hour in English today, and I don't know about you all, but I still don't really get it. The main idea is supposed to be that existentialists determine their own destiny. Here is the definition of destiny:
Destiny (noun): the predetermined, usually inevitable or irresistible, course of events.
How are you going to decide what is already predetermined? If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
What I think causes confusion is people take inevitability too far. You can't decide not to act on something and just assume destiny will take care of it. Destiny isn't going to take action for you. You can't be destined to win something or do something or accomplish something if you don't work for it. Your "destiny" is to win, do, and accomplish what you have worked for. So in a way, I both agree and disagree with existentialists. You determine what happens to you, but it was already predetermined that you were going to do that.
Here's a link to a further explanation of the existentialist mindset: http://www.thecry.com/existentialism/
What do you guys think? I'm obviously not an expert on this at all, and I feel like we didn't really talk about this today in class.
Destiny (noun): the predetermined, usually inevitable or irresistible, course of events.
How are you going to decide what is already predetermined? If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
What I think causes confusion is people take inevitability too far. You can't decide not to act on something and just assume destiny will take care of it. Destiny isn't going to take action for you. You can't be destined to win something or do something or accomplish something if you don't work for it. Your "destiny" is to win, do, and accomplish what you have worked for. So in a way, I both agree and disagree with existentialists. You determine what happens to you, but it was already predetermined that you were going to do that.
Here's a link to a further explanation of the existentialist mindset: http://www.thecry.com/existentialism/
What do you guys think? I'm obviously not an expert on this at all, and I feel like we didn't really talk about this today in class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)