Author Topic: Shakespeare vs. Chrono  (Read 12183 times)

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2009, 05:34:15 am »

If it helps, V, read the Great Illustrated Classic edition of the novel.

Don't get me wrong.  I read the original novel, but I always had some trouble visualizing the story world.

Thank goodness somebody wanted to be an artist for such books.

ZealKnight

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1067
  • Loyal Knight of the Kingdom of Zeal
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2009, 01:22:58 pm »
Whats the name of the book where its a comedy science fiction book. they land on a planet where robots kill all humans on sight, but then they figure out that there were no robots, everyone was a human in disguise. the people in disguise didn't even know that everyone else was a human. I liked that novel whatever its called.

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2009, 11:55:58 pm »

Don't know, ZealKnight.  The only sci-fi comedy book I know of is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and its sequels.

Post your question on Yahoo! Answers.  It's been really helpful to me in the past.

ZaichikArky

  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
    • Livejournal
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2009, 07:27:06 am »
Yeah, I'm a pretty big sci fi nut. I was considering reading some of the ancient classical sci fi. I read War of the Worlds. It was ok. I liked how the guy described the aliens. One exception to the hating almost all literature before the turn of the century is that I was really really enjoyed Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I even read it twice. Hm, probably because it was a melodrama! HAH. It was more of a melodrama than a sci fi, really, but I count that as one of the first sci fi books ever written.

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2009, 04:36:07 pm »

Well, in essence, science fiction speaks about the potential of the future of science and the goals we hope to someday achieve with its continued application in society.  In the case of Frankenstein, it speaks about the potential to bring back to life what was once dead.

In "2001", it was the potential of space travel to find a means to achieve some form of immortality.

In "War of the Worlds", it was the potential of visitation of beings from another planet.

Any sci-fi book worth its weight in pages will always have a good potential in its plot.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2009, 01:36:26 pm »
The thing with ol' Shakespeare is his words. No one ever talked in Shakespearean English, but he is such a master of words that he can make it feel like they might have.

Regarding Sci-Fi (or Science Fiction, as Sci-Fi apparently can designante a particular subgenre), there is a book I'd highly recommend if only I could confirm that it exists. I think the title of it is "A Century of Science Fiction" but I can't seem to find it on Amazon. It was a fabulous book that gave a by decade breakdown of science fiction history (about 2-3 pages of history for each decade) and then followed it up with several stories selected from that era. Hmm... when I get home I'll see about consulting my "list." Having over 900 books, it is easy to loose track of names.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2009, 02:23:45 am »
The thing with ol' Shakespeare is his words. No one ever talked in Shakespearean English, but he is such a master of words that he can make it feel like they might have.

O, calumny! Roguish fool! Whilst our intrepidities yet endure a'gainst thy ill-cornered fabrications, I pray thou fix't thine attentions forthwith upon these matters which are in the interests of historie: For sooth, it is that in days of yor our tunges were not aught cluckethed in the sensyble moderne sophistryes whereunto our present plentie abides these railleryes shar'd between friends, but with decorum and sanctytee befitting the charactre of those tymes, so ably captured immortale by our dear Bard, William Shakespeare, whose words liveth and thriveth unto our own daye. If to'ward these enduring verities thou in thy persistitude would yet incredyulate, against all reason, I would counseil thee: Were it not so that these be the words of long ago, then surely our current tele-vision comedies and video gaymes would so e'labor themselves of re-creating a fantast! Now I put it to thee: What babel!

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2009, 11:01:25 am »
Oh don't get me started on faux Old English. I foam at the mouth every time I hear someone say "Ye Olde ____ Shoppe." The e's were silent and that isn't a y, that's a thorn! Yarblagablaga! It's all so simple, if people just know there linguistics!

Ahem, not then: I was specifically referring to the poetic nature of Shakespeare's words. People copy the rags in which the poetry is clothed and mistake it for the heart of the matter.

Side note:

... I pray thou fix't thine attentions forthwith upon these matters which are in the interests of historie...

I'm fairly sure that should be "I pray thee..." If I recall correctly, "thou" is the nominitive case while you want the dative, here.

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2009, 12:35:06 pm »
Actually, Thought, Shakespeare is Modern English. In addition, Middle English was the language of Chaucer and Malory and was well before Shakespeare, starting after the Norman Conquest (1066 A.D. and so on).
 
Old English is the language of the Venerable Bede and was before Middle English.  Ergo, Lord J Esq was speaking in Modern English, given 400 years of shift and invention to the English vernacular.

« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 05:45:20 pm by GenesisOne »

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2009, 02:56:20 pm »
Old English is also known as Anglo-Saxon, the language in which many beautiful literary works were composed or recorded, such as Beowulf, the Law Codes of King Aethelbert of Kent, Genesis B, a particularly interesting form of Judith, the Wanderer, and many others.

Anglo-Saxon (which is a bit of a more correct term, since it was not limited to England as the name "Old English" might imply) of course being a branch of the Proto-Indo European language group (PIE, the best academic acronym there is), sharing roots with languages like Latin. This gives modern English a curious linguistic position as both a derivative and cognate language to Latin. A-S went out of fashion with the coming of the French-speaking Normans, but it made a lovely comeback, albeit in a significantly different form, when the Normans finally were well assimilated. At that point the language rapidly barrowed words from Latin so as to fulfill the role of intellectual discourse (of course, most intellectuals knowing Latin, a form of French, and English).

Thus modern English has the oddity of having Latin and Germanic-via-A-S words side by side (king and regicide, for example). It is neither a largely cognate language, such as German, nor a largely derivative language, such as French.

Anywho, I will endeavor to ensure that the next time I use the phrase "Old English" I keep in mind that I ought to assume an academic, rather than lay, audience, and thus be more careful with my terminology.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 03:08:38 pm by Thought »

JforJayson

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2009, 06:13:00 pm »
IMost of the time I hear that his writing wasn't great he just knew his audience, which was retarded.

You mean like Stephanie Meyer who wrote the single worst thing put on paper (aside from Evangelion fanfiction) but knew her audience was a bunch of dumb teenage girls so it sold like hotcakes covered in white china heroin?

ZealKnight

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1067
  • Loyal Knight of the Kingdom of Zeal
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2009, 10:33:32 pm »
pretty much

Crono666

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Queen Zeal is best Waifu
    • View Profile
    • My deviantart
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2009, 03:44:02 am »
I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare.
I'm not a big fan of the way the characters talk.
I also find his stories to be boring.
I think that Shakespeare is meant to appeal to classy people.

With Chrono you get cool characters who go though character development, and a interesting story.
With Shakespeare all I got was bored reading though his stuff.

Well that's my opinion anyway.

JforJayson

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2009, 04:58:57 am »
I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare.
I'm not a big fan of the way the characters talk.
I also find his stories to be boring.
I think that Shakespeare is meant to appeal to classy people.

With Chrono you get cool characters who go though character development, and a interesting story.
With Shakespeare all I got was bored reading though his stuff.

Well that's my opinion anyway.

I respect his stuff, but it's hard for me to like it.  It was made for a different culture.  And things like character development have come a very long way since them, so you really shouldn't compare the two.

Given the choice, I'd choose Chrono though.

Sajainta

  • Survivor of the Darkness
  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2004
  • Reporting live from Purgatory.
    • View Profile
Re: Shakespeare vs. Chrono
« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2009, 03:57:14 am »
I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare.
I'm not a big fan of the way the characters talk.
I also find his stories to be boring.
I think that Shakespeare is meant to appeal to classy people.

With Chrono you get cool characters who go though character development, and a interesting story.
With Shakespeare all I got was bored reading though his stuff.

Well that's my opinion anyway.

I don't really know what "classy people" means.  I wouldn't really consider myself "classy", and I like Shakespeare.

What plays / sonnets of his have you read?  The language can be a bit difficult to understand at first, and I understand that not everyone likes Shakespeare, but I think you should give him another chance.  Some of the things he says in his plays are just downright fucking hilarious--even by today's standards.  He was a pretty bawdy character, that ol' Willy Shakespeare.  :)