13 May 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI agree. Also spoken English has been debased by the sloppy elision of consonants, and mangled vowel sounds, emanating from the mouths of most radio/television news readers and programme 'presenters' in recent years.
I believe that anyone who attempts to write like Shakespeare should be shot. There's just no place for pastiches in society. My point is that we are abandoning the origins of our literature. And how can we atempt to examine a contemporary text without an understanding of its precursors? One couldn't apply exegetical methods on the the gospel of Luke without ...[text shortened]... with literature. The younger ones are avoiding Milton and the like by limiting their language.
13 May 06
Originally posted by Conrau KHmmm, yes, but we're also in the world of Watership Down, The Magus and Thomas Ligotti, and as literature goes, it was never a plenum: lowbrow, middlebrow (and Shakespeare was fearsomely middlebrow) and highbrow, there is no single discrete world of anything. I have some sympathy for what you're saying, but to dismiss contemporary literature as unchallenging is a bit of a reach: to give yet another example, take the unjustly despised weird tale genre - Clive Barker's "In the Hills, the Cities" is one of the most popular and original short stories of recent years...but is the meaning so very obvious and unchallenging? I wonder.
Well its not just that. Even our literature has changed. Society, in general, appreciates only the most abherant literature: novels, poems, films -- they no longer challenge or extend us. We are in a world that praises the Da Vinci Code and looks at "Miss Congeniality" as a classic film.
I'm also a little bit puzzled by your contempt for pastiche. I don't see anything inherently inferior in the practice, and of course Shakespeare himself used it to great effect on several occasions, most notably when he used Pistol to burlesque Marlowe.
13 May 06
Originally posted by Conrau KHow do you spell "Knight" and how do you say "Knight"?
Given that the English language is "nonintuitive" I still managed to understand what you just said. I challenge your assertion that English is non-intuitive. In fact, logic and intuition are first axquired from our native language. I find the English language quite intuitive. When I experiment with other languages it is them which is non-intuitive. For inst ...[text shortened]...
I dont see these changes as a good sign. I see them as another part of Orwell's predictions.
13 May 06
Every generation seems to think that standards are declining, crime is up, and that society is generally going down the tubes. Almost everyone seems to think things were better when they were kids. There have been countless prognosticators prophesying imminent doom for civilization. But it never seems to come to pass. Things just keep going, a little worse in some areas, a little better in others. Text messaging shortcuts will not be the end of Western culture. So I think people would generally be better off if they did a little less hand wringing, teeth gnashing, and brow furrowing and just made peace with the fact that change is the only constant.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 May 06
Originally posted by AmauroteDon't get me wrong, there is a lot of contemporary literature that I findly genuinely challenging and is highly enjoyable. However, my concerns are that people are neglecting traditional literature too much and this ties in with the pervasive trend to of SMS language.
Hmmm, yes, but we're also in the world of Watership Down, The Magus and Thomas Ligotti, and as literature goes, it was never a plenum: lowbrow, middlebrow (and Shakespeare was fearsomely middlebrow) and highbrow, there is no single discrete world of anything. I have some sympathy for what you're saying, but to dismiss contemporary literature a ...[text shortened]... great effect on several occasions, most notably when he used Pistol to burlesque Marlowe.
Perhaps "pastiche" is the wrong word. Certainly anyone can write a tragedy similar to Shakespeare but I'm a bit tentative to read anything contemporary that is written in iambic pentameter and has a suspiciously high amount of archaic word use. Shakespeare's idiom is defintely outdated but the day someone writes a book called "like yuh no r u 4 real?" is the day I will buy a revolver and go on a shooting spree.
As for Shakespeare being middlebrow, I'm not so sure. Shakespeare tends to vacillate between farce and tragedy. Sometimes he conveys substance; sometimes his work is just slapstick humour. He also tended to make up words and experiment with expression. I encourage people to do that. However, expression has become something apathetic. This SMS language narrows the range of expression whereas Shakspeare expanded it. That is my main worry. Sure, we should allow the English language to alter over generations - that is inevitable - but a systematic rejection of almost every word over one syllable would transform us into inflated infants.
13 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KHave you ever read Leon Rooke's Shakespeare's Dog? It's pure whimsy in the fine, unashamedly popular tradition of The Plague Dogs, Fluke, Doctor Rat and Horwood's Duncton series, but it's as entertaining and novel a pastiche (and even a critique) of Shakespeare as you're liable to find.
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of contemporary literature that I findly genuinely challenging and is highly enjoyable. However, my concerns are that people are neglecting traditional literature too much and this ties in with the pervasive trend to of SMS language.
Perhaps "pastiche" is the wrong word. Certainly anyone can write a tragedy similar to jection of almost every word over one syllable would transform us into inflated infants.
I absolutely take your point about texting (I can't stand cablese either), but there are canonical classics evolving out of many of these supposedly transient contemporary genres: personally, I have very little time for graphic novels, but no-one is going to seriously advance the argument that Watchmen or V for Vendetta are not classics.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 May 06
Originally posted by rwingettSurely you wouldn't dispute that there has been significant changes in society over the past few decades? We live in a world of unbiquitous televisions, I-pods and mobile phones, which are all the result of a surge in technology. Its clear that this has affected communication which in turn has contributed to the evolution of language. I'm just commenting that these changes are not good. I in no way suggest an "end of the world" outcome but I am commenting that it will be sad when we lose a rich source of wisdom in our classical literature. I am also despondent that this post could become indecipherable within a century and then again so would yours 😛
Every generation seems to think that standards are declining, crime is up, and that society is generally going down the tubes. Almost everyone seems to think things were better when they were kids. There have been countless prognosticators prophesying imminent doom for civilization. But it never seems to come to pass. Things just keep going, a little worse ...[text shortened]... gnashing, and brow furrowing and just made peace with the fact that change is the only constant.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 May 06
Originally posted by AmauroteNo, I live in Australia, its virtually impossile to obtain these types of books without visiting the city.
Have you ever read Leon Rooke's Shakespeare's Dog?
I'm not so much against pastiches, but I dont think there's a market for Shakespearean lookalikes. We have to put literature in context. I just hope that one day, I dont have read a book with no full stops and put in context with this century.
13 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KMy point is that I think all your claims about the imminent loss of our "wisdom in our classical literature" are overblown to the point of hysteria. The printing press made literature available to mass audiences. The internet expanded it's reach even further. Although it has spawned some deleterious, but peripheral, side effects like text messaging, technology has been a great boon to the dissemination of literature. Your wild assertion that we are breeding a generation of dunces is simply not true. I don't think fine literature was read any more widely prior to the advent of text messaging than it has been after. I don't think one has any effect on the other. Or if it does, it's effect is minimal at best.
Surely you wouldn't dispute that there has been significant changes in society over the past few decades? We live in a world of unbiquitous televisions, I-pods and mobile phones, which are all the result of a surge in technology. Its clear that this has affected communication which in turn has contributed to the evolution of language. I'm just commenting th that this post could become indecipherable within a century and then again so would yours 😛
13 May 06
Originally posted by DraxusThe english language has changed significantly over it's history, the spanish language too.
Language morphs, it is a proven fact. In spanish, the poor areas lose the "s" at the ends of their words. For example, most people understand the term "como estas." In poor or costal areas the same phrase sounds like "como esta," where the "s" part of the phrase is implied but not said. This is called lenition.
There are tons of examples in the English language as well. The language that survives won't be the "proper" English either.
Not pronouncing an ending 's' is a matter of dialect, and not indicative of the wealth of the speaker. 'Como esta' means 'how is he', 'Como estas' means 'how are you'.
Some english words (such as one of my favourites, prithee) are not used any longer, others (such as Chav) come into existance. This is the evolution of the language.
Unfortunately the english language is being corrupted and debased, principally in Northern America, but also to an extent in England too.
13 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by fooeyAlthough considered dialect because of it's regionality, it is lenition as well because the language in it's entirety is doing it. Other examples of the same thing include the softening of the b (so that it sounds like a v) and the softening of the d (so that it sounds like the IPA thorn).
The english language has changed significantly over it's history, the spanish language too.
Not pronouncing an ending 's' is a matter of dialect, and not indicative of the wealth of the speaker. 'Como esta' means 'how is he', 'Como estas' means 'how are you'.
Some english words (such as one of my favourites, prithee) are not used any longer, others (su ...[text shortened]... d and debased, principally in Northern America, but also to an extent in England too.
But yes, poor people in central Mexico do it as much as costal Haitians and Jamaicans.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 May 06
Originally posted by rwingettLimited? I just read a report given by a junior researcher in a prominent real estate company. There was minimal punctuation. Slang word use. No capital letters.
My point is that I think all your claims about the imminent loss of our "wisdom in our classical literature" are overblown to the point of hysteria. The printing press made literature available to mass audiences. The internet expanded it's reach even further. Although it has spawned some deleterious, but peripheral, side effects like text messaging, technol ...[text shortened]... on't think one has any effect on the other. Or if it does, it's effect is minimal at best.
It irrefutable that the language has changed most over the past few decades then ever in the same amount of time. As for your opinion that fine literature was not read as often in the past either. I completely agree. In fact, we read more often then we did in the past and literacy rates are improving (depends on how your testing though). However, what are we reading? Most literature available now is complete rubish and readig it is at the expense of fine literature.
By the way, I'm not being hysterical. I'm referring to a process over centuries. Its not like "m predicting that the English language will be abolished in ten years.
14 May 06
This is reminiscent of the old farts who bemoan the pronunciation of words on television and radio.
The reality is, our language - spoken and written - like Shakespeare's is the result of a long history of evolution. And it continues its evolution today.
Does this represent a degradation of our thinking processes?
No, I don't think so.
Those people who love to give their thumbs a workout on their mobile phones aren;t making us any dumber. They were already the stupid ones.
