Thomas Hardy
<not bothering to read Travis's post because I'm so sick of all the bullshit here. Back to literature!:) >
I've never been a fan of Dickens myself - he seems to be one of those people who polarises opinion. A lot of people love him, I've never seen the point myself. When it comes to 19th century literature, I'm much more a fan of the Bronte sisters, especially 'Wuthering Heights'. Strangely enough, I hated it when we did it at school, and came to it again much later. I've never seen a good film (or movie!) of it though; it doesn't seem to translate well at all. Anybody else a fan, or is it too 'girly' for others? :-)
Agree with Uriel about the writing style of much literature of the past: it takes some getting used to. I love Austen's style, but I can see why people wouldn't.
Wessex used to be an Anglo-Saxon kingdom. Now is just a grouping of some South East counties.
And it's not the British who follow American policy - it's the Americans that follow British policy. The US is just a poodle of Britain and Israel.
"was the Falkland Islands War, and that was only because the Reagan administration liked the military regime in power in Argentina, and thus was torn between its ties with the UK and its support for the military dictatorship in Argentina."
So the United States lkiked a dictatorship that killed about 300,000 of its own people, many of whose bodies are yet to be found? Because evil despot General Galtieri was Argentina's leader during the Falklands War.
Typical of the US - it supports dictators, as long as the country doesn't have oil.
>>"was the Falkland Islands War, and that was only because the Reagan administration liked the military regime in power in Argentina, and thus was torn between its ties with the UK and its support for the military dictatorship in Argentina."
So the United States lkiked a dictatorship that killed about 300,000 of its own people, many of whose bodies are yet to be found? Because evil despot General Galtieri was Argentina's leader during the Falklands War.<<
Yes the Reagan administration did - not that I was any fan of Reagan, but that's another story.
>>Typical of the US - it supports dictators, as long as the country doesn't have oil.<<
Well, depends - I wouldn't exactly call many regimes in the Middle East which the US supports up to this day as even resembling "representative democracy", as some like to call it (re: Mubarak).
Whoops - forgot - Egypt really doesn't have oil - but still, the US significantly supports many regimes on the Arabian peninsula, which have *plenty* of oil, which are nothing resembling what most would call "democracy" (even though I wouldn't say that what most people call "democracy" these days is truly democratic, but that's another story).
I love words and their use.......it's my lifeblood professionally...or I hope it will be! There is a difference between verbosity and good writing style. The Victorians generally were inclined to verbosity - using superfluous words and wrapping things up in flowery language, and that it alien to us in the 21st century.
We are now governed by technology and as a result our written communications are much more basic and straight to the point....see, succinct would have sufficed for that last phrase but there you go. Perhaps we would sound horribly clinical and sterile to a Victorian suddenly resurrected to a 2006 world.
**"Jeez, were they paid by the word?"**
Uriel: with respect.....only an American would evaluate in monetary terms!!! I've no intention whatsoever of perpetuating the Transatlantic flaming here, but there is a discernable American tendency to think in terms of $$$ for practically everything! Touch of Mammon......
One thing I agree with you wholeheartedly....people do enjoy the richness and varied style of Language......that's what Literature is all about. If every great writer of the past and present used the same style it would be purgatory.....they would not achieve the status they did and do. Reading the style of Austen, Dickens, Thackeray, Trollope, Hardy et al is an enjoyable challenge and makes for an escape from the more mechanical techno-speak of today.
[Now I've done it again I reckon....och...time to go and do some more grafting, Damian.......remember you need to eat. LOL]
William Shakespeare...probably the UK's (or Englands's, considering his era) greatest playwright...most probably the world's while we're at it.
Interesting BBC TV series coming up very soon....adapting some of Will's plays to 21st century settings, the first series featuring some of his most famous women, all strong and feisty characters:
Beatrice and Hero (Much Ado About Nothing)
Lady Macbeth (The "Scottish play"! The name Macbeth is never uttered in theatrical circles...)
Bianca (Taming of the Shrew)
Hippolyta (A Midsummer Night's Dream)
First showing on BBC1 TV Monday 07 Nov 05:
Much Ado About Nothing
Beatrice and Benedick become 21st century versions of the original.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Alison Graham, Radio Times 05-11 Nov 2005:
"Shakespeare's confection of love, jealousy, barbed insults and lies smoothly transferred to 2005 England, and an English regional newsroom. The updating works well, as long as you approach it as "based on" rather than a word-for-word transposing of "Much Ado".
Its verbally sparring twosome Beatrice and Benedick (played by a sparky Sarah Parish and a suave Damian Lewis, initially resplendent with bouffant and George-Michael beard) are co-anchors of the TV programme "Wessex Tonight" [my bit here: now we know which part of England in which it's set - Wessex again! Hope Hardy watches on his heavenly plasma...], and though they have to keep up that "faux" mateyness we all recognise from local news shows, once the cameras stop rolling they're bitching about, and at, one another!
Their fed-up colleagues collude to trick Beatrice and Benedick into falling in love by a series of ruses, just as another love affair, that of weathergirl Hero (played by Billie Piper) and sports presenter Claude (played by Tom Ellis), starts to flourish. But someone wishes Hero and Claude ill.
It doesn't matter if you're unfamiliar with the Bard of Avon's original play, as this version stands up well in its own right, and fizzes along with plenty of English humour and sexual tension.
Should be good fun!
Just shows that human emotions remain the same whatever the period in history. It's just the style of Language expressing them at changes with time...and place.
"William Shakespeare...probably the UK's (or Englands's, considering his era) greatest playwright...most probably the world's while we're at it."
Or England and Wales's.
That's if you believe that Shakespeare actually wrote his plays.
"was the Falkland Islands War, and that was only because the Reagan administration liked the military regime in power in Argentina, and thus was torn between its ties with the UK and its support for the military dictatorship in Argentina."
Another thing that annoys me about the Falklands war is that most of the missiles that the Ardies used to sink our ships were supplied to them by our "allies" the French.
The French would supply weapons to anyone as long as the price is right, even dictators. After Russia, they were the biggest suppliers of weapons to Saddam's Iraq, they are the only EU country (along with their pals the Germans) who want the EU to sell weapons to the Chinese, but the British have refused to do so, and Chirac is quite close to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - a violator of human rights.
I actually like Shakespeare quite a bit -- his plays are fun to watch with my dad, who can just quote all those speeches from memory! They aren't as much fun to read, but then, what plays are?
I think A Tale of Two Cities is the only Dickens book I've ever really liked, but then it was also the only one we studied at school. I flipped through a few others that were lying around the house when I was little (we had a buttload of books!--and no TV), but they didn't grab me.
Anti-Materialistic Damian -- some authors actually WERE paid by the word back in the old days -- I remember reading some short-story authors who complained mightily about it -- including a great short story about such an author who finally realizes that he will maximize his return per word by switching from writing stories to writing things like "I have a gun in my pocket. Give me all the money in your till." Funny, biting satire about the writing industry!
<<Uriel: with respect.....only an American would evaluate in monetary terms!!! I've no intention whatsoever of perpetuating the Transatlantic flaming here, but there is a discernable American tendency to think in terms of $$$ for practically everything! Touch of Mammon......>>
Well, first, she was joking, and second, there actually *was* a practice in Victorian times where at least some publishers did pay authors by the word. That doesn't explain the verbosity of many of the novels of the era but it actually did happen :)
<<only an American would evaluate in monetary terms!!!>>
Yes. Obviously the European writters would NEVER EVER wonder how much they would make from their books. Never ever... Honest...!
>>**"Jeez, were they paid by the word?"**
Uriel: with respect.....only an American would evaluate in monetary terms!!! I've no intention whatsoever of perpetuating the Transatlantic flaming here, but there is a discernable American tendency to think in terms of $$$ for practically everything! Touch of Mammon......<<
And you *really* think that such is somehow unique to Americans? Also, somehow I can't see how such doesn't completely contradict your statement that you have "no intention whatsoever of perpetuating the Transatlantic flaming here", as you seem to be doing exactly such here.
Och, who needs money except for me? You should all be happy working for nothing because you can beg for pennies! I'd be happy to evaluate your work in terms of haggis slices. Just don't count me in.