"Edited for the Modern Reader"

In article <480E0F04.2070108 DeleteThis @sgeObviousinc.com>,
Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious DeleteThis @sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>> In article <48092420.1040802 DeleteThis @sgeObviousinc.com>,
>> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious DeleteThis @sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>>> Well, I don't know Pynchon, but I didn't find anything I read by
>>>Stoppard - which was a fair amount -- to be hard to read, or anything
>>>by Joyce that I tried except the one which uses the invented language.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Allow me to assure you that other people difference, and as for Stoppard,
>> I give you "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead."
>
> No, please, you can keep it. I've read it twice, it wasn't hard at
>all to read, but it sucks, so I have no desire to have it again .

But that play is like 20 percent Shakespeare.
--
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Michael Alan Chary wrote:
> In article <480E0F04.2070108.RemoveThis@sgeObviousinc.com>,
> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious.RemoveThis@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>
>>>In article <48092420.1040802.RemoveThis@sgeObviousinc.com>,
>>>Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious.RemoveThis@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, I don't know Pynchon, but I didn't find anything I read by
>>>>Stoppard - which was a fair amount -- to be hard to read, or anything
>>>>by Joyce that I tried except the one which uses the invented language.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Allow me to assure you that other people difference, and as for Stoppard,
>>>I give you "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead."
>>
>> No, please, you can keep it. I've read it twice, it wasn't hard at
>>all to read, but it sucks, so I have no desire to have it again .
>
>
> But that play is like 20 percent Shakespeare.

Apparently that pushes it back over the readable boundary. I've
always said that Shakespeare was hovering just at the edge. If you
give me a lot of regular or near-regular material and throw in
occasional Shakespeare, that probably gives me enough of a handle on
what's going on to reasonably accurately manage it.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Michael Alan Chary wrote:
> In article <480E0F04.2070108 DeleteThis @sgeObviousinc.com>,
> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious DeleteThis @sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>> Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>> In article <48092420.1040802 DeleteThis @sgeObviousinc.com>,
>>> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious DeleteThis @sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>> Well, I don't know Pynchon, but I didn't find anything I read by
>>>> Stoppard - which was a fair amount -- to be hard to read, or anything
>>>> by Joyce that I tried except the one which uses the invented language.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Allow me to assure you that other people difference, and as for Stoppard,
>>> I give you "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead."
>> No, please, you can keep it. I've read it twice, it wasn't hard at
>> all to read, but it sucks, so I have no desire to have it again .
>
> But that play is like 20 percent Shakespeare.

It's also bloody hilarious.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:38:49 -0400, Sean O'Hara <seanohara.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Smith didn't write in a different version of English. He wrote in
>>> our language, badly. Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Howard are perfectly
>>> understandable from the same period.
>>
>> Smith didn't write "badly." He wrote in an earlier and more florid
>> style. Just because Hemingway popularized extremely bald prose does
>> not mean that florid prose is therefore "bad."
>
>Oh, please, just compare him to Lord Dunsany -- the failings of
>Smith are obvious.

Depends on the Dunsany. His more "normal" stuff was okay, but some of that
fantasy was just blah, blah, blah.


--
chuk
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful William
December Starr declared:
> >
> If nobody talks that way (unless they're trying to sound
> Shakespearean) and nobody writes that way (unless they're trying to
> create a Shakespearean pastiche), then it's not really the language
> of the day, is it?
>

Nobody actually talks like Bill and Ted either, but that is English.

--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
"Bastardy" is in the dictionary, even if the word is so antiquated
that my Microsoft Word program regards it as a spelling error.
-Jim Pinkerton
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:19:02 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwkenne.DeleteThis@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>> In article <480E0F04.2070108.DeleteThis@sgeObviousinc.com>,
>> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious.DeleteThis@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>>> In article <48092420.1040802.DeleteThis@sgeObviousinc.com>,
>>>> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious.DeleteThis@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>>> Well, I don't know Pynchon, but I didn't find anything I read by
>>>>> Stoppard - which was a fair amount -- to be hard to read, or anything
>>>>> by Joyce that I tried except the one which uses the invented language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Allow me to assure you that other people difference, and as for Stoppard,
>>>> I give you "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead."
>>> No, please, you can keep it. I've read it twice, it wasn't hard at
>>> all to read, but it sucks, so I have no desire to have it again .
>>
>> But that play is like 20 percent Shakespeare.
>
>It's also bloody hilarious.

It certainly is.

And yes, you have to pay attention while reading it.
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Rich Horton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:19:02 -0400, John W Kennedy
> <jwkenne.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>> In article <480E0F04.2070108.TakeThisOut@sgeObviousinc.com>,
>>> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious.TakeThisOut@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>>>> In article <48092420.1040802.TakeThisOut@sgeObviousinc.com>,
>>>>> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious.TakeThisOut@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Well, I don't know Pynchon, but I didn't find anything I read
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> Stoppard - which was a fair amount -- to be hard to read, or
>>>>>> anything by Joyce that I tried except the one which uses the
>>>>>> invented language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Allow me to assure you that other people difference, and as for
>>>>> Stoppard, I give you "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead."
>>>> No, please, you can keep it. I've read it twice, it wasn't hard
>>>> at
>>>> all to read, but it sucks, so I have no desire to have it again .
>>>
>>> But that play is like 20 percent Shakespeare.
>>
>> It's also bloody hilarious.
>
> It certainly is.
>
> And yes, you have to pay attention while reading it.

Ah, yes, "Redwreath and Goldstar Have Traveled to Deathsgate". I'd
guess William doesn't care for those bloody hilarious books either.
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 21, 5:50 pm, John Schilling <schil....RemoveThis@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT), norrin <adweil....RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Catawumpus <kimmer....RemoveThis@fastmail.fm>:
> >> > You referenced Mr. Peachum, but I don't think the name
> >> > means anything to you.
> >> No, peaches, I alluded to Shelley, but I agree that you're
> >> not thinking. Now beggar off, eh?
> >Without law, soldiers are reduced to beggars.
>
> Or elevated to warlords. Not something legislators or poets like
> to acknowledge, but worth keeping in mind.

When poets mention them, they're called knights.
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Apr 23, 9:26 am, norrin <adweil....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:50 pm, John Schilling <schil....TakeThisOut@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT), norrin <adweil....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Catawumpus <kimmer....TakeThisOut@fastmail.fm>:
> > >> > You referenced Mr. Peachum, but I don't think the name
> > >> > means anything to you.
> > >> No, peaches, I alluded to Shelley, but I agree that you're
> > >> not thinking. Now beggar off, eh?
> > >Without law, soldiers are reduced to beggars.
>
> > Or elevated to warlords. Not something legislators or poets like
> > to acknowledge, but worth keeping in mind.
>
> When poets mention them, they're called knights.

Warlords give VERY clear negative reviews if they don't.
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

In article <aezPj.9652$V14.783@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> said:

> Rich Horton wrote:
>> John W Kennedy <jwkenne.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>>
>>>> But that play ["Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"] is
>>>> like 20 percent Shakespeare.
>>>
>>> It's also bloody hilarious.
>>
>> It certainly is.
>> And yes, you have to pay attention while reading it.
>
> Ah, yes, "Redwreath and Goldstar Have Traveled to Deathsgate".
> I'd guess William doesn't care for those bloody hilarious books
> either.

Moi? Am I even _in_ this R&G-related sub-thread?

--
William December Starr <wdstarr.TakeThisOut@panix.com>
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On 2008-04-23 14:48:39 -0700, wdstarr.TakeThisOut@panix.com (William December Starr) said:

> In article <aezPj.9652$V14.783@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> Rich Horton wrote:
>>> John W Kennedy <jwkenne.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But that play ["Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"] is
>>>>> like 20 percent Shakespeare.
>>>>
>>>> It's also bloody hilarious.
>>>
>>> It certainly is.
>>> And yes, you have to pay attention while reading it.
>>
>> Ah, yes, "Redwreath and Goldstar Have Traveled to Deathsgate".
>> I'd guess William doesn't care for those bloody hilarious books
>> either.
>
> Moi? Am I even _in_ this R&G-related sub-thread?

Hah! You are now! No escape!

kdb
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

In article <2008042313205816807-kurt@busiekcomics>,
Kurt Busiek <kurt.RemoveThis@busiek.comics> said:

> There were just over 20,138 different basewords in Shakespeare's
> published works, and that represents approximately 40% of the
> known words in English at the time. For over 1700 of those words,
> Shakespeare is the first known user of them.

1ST SERVANT: Didst thou say 'a madcap venture,' my lord?

LORD ATHWAY: Yes, madcap! 'Tis a perfectly cromulent word, varlet!

2ND SERVANT: Word.

--
William December Starr <wdstarr.RemoveThis@panix.com>
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On 2008-04-23 14:56:17 -0700, wdstarr.DeleteThis@panix.com (William December Starr) said:

> In article <2008042313205816807-kurt@busiekcomics>,
> Kurt Busiek <kurt.DeleteThis@busiek.comics> said:
>
>> There were just over 20,138 different basewords in Shakespeare's
>> published works, and that represents approximately 40% of the
>> known words in English at the time. For over 1700 of those words,
>> Shakespeare is the first known user of them.
>
> 1ST SERVANT: Didst thou say 'a madcap venture,' my lord?
>
> LORD ATHWAY: Yes, madcap! 'Tis a perfectly cromulent word, varlet!
>
> 2ND SERVANT: Word.

And thus did the Bard of Avon embiggen our noble tongue...

kdb
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader"