Don't Study Shakespeare The Anti-Semite...

[Zevico]

Their point is stupid. They are stupid. They are probably lying to get out of doing work.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Why you choose a subject is a different issue to what is more useful to society. Studying entertainment is far more useful for someone who wants to work in entertainment than studying biochemistry is.

I don't think most people who get graduate degrees in Shakespearean literature (et. al.) plan to work in the entertainment industry. And even if they do, it would be more efficient to major in something like creative writing or film or art.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by BeBro


Yeah, literacy is certainly great

you can't build the great library without it.

[Dauphin]

Kuci, maybe. Not having studied any of those I wouldn't really know.

I do know however that most (if not all the) people I work with didn't do an accounting degree, and most people I studied with didn't become physicists. Is a physics degree useful in my career? Yes. But not because of the subject matter but because of the techniques I learnt. Would I have been better off studying accountancy? I doubt it.

[dannubis]

Jewish only schools ?

WTF ????

[Zoid]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


*ignores second part of comment, attempts to make serious reply instead of rightfully dismissing as a crass troll like others*

How is it a "get out of jail free" card? Their test scores suffered, the school's ranking suffered.

The students bravely made this personal sacrifice to bring light to a subject that they cared about, and a subject that few people discuss. Now people are discussing it. Seems like a great success to me.

You may disagree with their point, but I don't think there is anything wrong with their tactics. Better than just whining on an internet forum when you see something you think is wrong.

It's discussed on a forum for game geeks, big success... And that isn't even the point. The point is that they're hiding behind their religion, using it to get out of an assignment. What they're doing is saying that normal rules don't apply to them. But to be fair, this is done by muslims and catholics as well and that is equally repehensible.

I'd like to start a religion that prohibits me working, then I could go up to the unemployment office and claim that they are racists and that they're offending the prophets and scriptures of my religion by forcing me to work for my living. How long do you think it would take for them to kick me out on my ass?

[C0ckney]

you work for a living now zoid?

[Zoid]

No it's against my religion...

Actually, I'm on sick leave due to depression...

[Stuie]

Re: Re: Re: Don't Study Shakespeare The Anti-Semite...

Originally posted by molly bloom
Did I say that, Stuie ?

No.

So, counting onwards from the early Middle Ages, until we reach the 19th Century....

Got it. Mea culpa.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher


Can you please list those words for my edification?

I could, but edification wouldn't be guaranteed. And that wouldn't be Shakespeare's fault either...

Shakespeare today is merely entertainment.

Big assertion; prove it.

Even if his plays were 'merely' entertainment, then so what ? Good entertainment is hardly that common.

'Hamlet' is the most performed drama in any language- something tells me that audiences and actors aren't just going to it because it's the equivalent of 'As The World Turns'...

I don't care that you insist the world would not spin without Shakespeare

I don't care that you don't care, because I've never said it, nor claimed it. Your assertion is a barefaced lie, laughable, premeditated in its falsehood, and lacklustre in its effect.

that he invented English

He didn't; no one writer did.

it's all nonsense.

Your tirade dwindles to this pathetic attempted literary assassination. How sad...

(* Many thanks to one William Shakespeare for the words: assassination, laughable, barefaced, lacklustre and premeditated. His assistance in furthering the cause of English literacy is much appreciated....)

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I could

No, you couldn't, and no, you won't.

Big assertion; prove it.

Yes, I will get right on the complex proof that Shakespeare -- purveyor of plays -- is entertainment.

I don't care that you don't care, because I've never said it, nor claimed it. Your assertion is a barefaced lie, laughable, premeditated in its falsehood, and lacklustre in its effect.

And yet, any reasonably intelligent person would've seen that the comment was hyperbole for effect and not meant to be taken literally.

[quote]He didn't; no one writer did.

Your tirade dwindles to this pathetic attempted literary assassination. How sad...

(* Many thanks to one William Shakespeare for the words: assassination

You seem to be confused.

The term 'Assassin' derives from Hashshashin, a militant Ismaili Muslim sect, active in the Middle East from the eighth to the fourteenth centuries. This mystic secret society killed members of the Abbasid and Seljuq élite for political and religious reasons.

Shakespeare was the first to use the word in a piece of literature, but this doesn't mean he invented the word.

laughable

He invented laugh + able?

Look at me, I'm the next Shakespeare: You are supersad.
^^ new word.

barefaced

Another concatenation. Does his genius ever end?

lacklustre

Another concatenation! It doesn't end! FWIW, this word dates back to 1175 which, if my history is correct, pre-dates Shakespeare?

premeditated

1432, from L. præmeditationem (nom. præmeditatio) "consideration beforehand," from præmeditatus, pp. of præmeditari "to consider beforehand," from præ- "before" + meditari "to consider"

So he either didn't invent these words and instead used them first in literature, or he just concatenated two words? Man, we wouldn't be able to communicate without this work on furthering our language!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher

No, you couldn't, and no, you won't.

Actually, I could. But I fail to see why you should get anything which would involve that amount of my time free from me.

Yes, I will get right on the complex proof that Shakespeare -- purveyor of plays -- is entertainment.

I'd say most people were already aware that Shakespeare was a dramatist (and a playwright, and an actor...). What you said was:

Shakespeare today is merely entertainment.

Prove that Shakespeare's work is 'merely' entertainment, and nothing else. Still waiting for proof of this assertion since you first made it.

And yet, any reasonably intelligent person would've seen that the comment was hyperbole for effect and not meant to be taken literally

Uh huh. So that's your excuse for today, then, is it ?

You seem to be confused.

No, that would be you; you think your aesthetic judgments or literary criticism actually matter to me.

If someone has told you this, they are very cruel and wrong to do so.

Shakespeare was the first to use the word in a piece of literature, but this doesn't mean he invented the word.

I didn't say he invented 'assassin'.

Is 'assassination' different from 'assassin' ?

Why yes, it is.

And he did use it first it seems. In 'Macbeth'.

He invented laugh + able?

Yes. But your reply seems to be defining it...

Does his genius ever end?

Will yours never begin ?

FWIW, this word dates back to 1175 which, if my history is correct, pre-dates Shakespeare?

Then please show us which text used it before Shakespeare's usage.

So he either didn't invent these words and instead used them first in literature, or he just concatenated two words

Or, as in our reality, he did indeed invent words and coined neologisms by turning nouns into verbs (or vice versa) and also by yoking two words together.

So far we've had your 'supersad immense douchebaggery', which to my judgment is not quite up there with 'multitudinous seas incarnadine'.

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Prove that Shakespeare's work is 'merely' entertainment, and nothing else. Still waiting for proof of this assertion since you first made it.

I don't think you comprehend the correct meaning of the word "proof", because it cannot apply here. This is very clearly a value judgment and not something that can be proven.

In my world, by definition, Shakespeare is entertainment. Whether you want to argue that Shakespeare surpasses being entertainment because he was so smart as to put "lack" and "luster" together, that's your call, but might I suggest you raise your standards...

Uh huh. So that's your excuse for today, then, is it ?

How is it an excuse when it's bloody obvious? Every single statement made was obviously over-the-top. It never occurred to you that this might've been intentional and for effect?

No, that would be you; you think your aesthetic judgments or literary criticism actually matter to me.

You tell me...you're the one with his panties in a twist over my assertion that Shakespeare is entertainment.

Then please show us which text used it before Shakespeare's usage.

A quick google search shows that while "lackluster" in its current form as made popular by As You Like It, its origins date back to lackland (1594), of a landless man; lack-Latin (c.1534). Before As You Like It. Looks like our man Shakespeare was just following a trend.

So far we've had your 'supersad immense douchebaggery', which to my judgment is not quite up there with 'multitudinous seas incarnadine'.

To my judgment, supersad immense douchebaggery is very clearly the superior phrase to "multitudinous seas incarnadine".

In fact, anyone who uses "multitudinous seas incarnadine" is no doubt an example of "supersad immense douchebaggery".

See, anyone can be a genius an invent words. Which literary genius can we thank for "dunno" as well? The world is filled with world-changing idiots...if we use your definition.

[Asher]

BTW, read this article and thought of you Molly...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1721968,00.html

"His visage described discountenance." Eliot Spitzer wrote those words about a character in a short story for his high school literary magazine. The sentence was florid in an adolescent way — Spitzer was always something of an intellectual show-off. Jason Brown, a friend from those days, later told Spitzer biographer Brooke Masters that Spitzer might simply have written, "He was unhappy."

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

QFT.

Wow, shameless editorializing of that quote there.

as for your sad general point, that knowledge and words are here only to serve toil, and not to uplift, thank god people with your mindset are quickly forgotten and ignored in terms of history. Thank goodness the ancient Greeks did not feel that way, or man would have stagnated for centuries, satisfied with that was "useful", not "wasting time" on silly things that did not relate specifically to their material needs.

The simplest measure of Shakespears worth (myself being someone who has never read any works of his for fun, and am not particulally interested in them) is the fact he has remained as popular and influential as he has for centuries, and will continue to be so.
That in an of itself is more than sufficient proof that your point is wrong.