Oliver Twist....

[MagicNakor]

I read the full and unabridged version of Dickens' A Christmas Carol when I was in grade four. The Hobbit was written for children ages four to eight.

Kids today simply aren't as literate as they used to be.

[blackhatknight]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@4 October 2003 - 18:01


Kids today simply aren't as literate as they used to be.

I think you may be right but at the same time the reason probably is reading isn’t just as fun as it used to be, we probably have more books than ever before but also have never had so much crap in print, I’m always believed that art is what an artist brings to you, and I would argue that Yeats, Shakespeare no longer bring anything to people as they are now so outdated (and I’m prepared to admit dickens may now also be), I understand why we treasure these classical works and I really value the contribution dickens made to literature however I don’t think it is right to force these more classical novels on children (In my country you have to study Shakespeare if you want your GCSE in English)

I feel the education system (well indeed ours the British one) makes if difficult for people to develop a love of reading and by staying classical actually disadvantages new talent.

Call it sad but I see this thread as touching on some really important issues and I think they call for constructive comments how can we make people better read, do they need to be, does classical=irrelevant?

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by blackhatknight@4 October 2003 - 19:31
...I’m always believed that art is what an artist brings to you, and I would argue that Yeats, Shakespeare no longer bring anything to people as they are now so outdated...

So outdated that people still base works off of theirs? Simply because one does not understand the language does not mean that the author is of no value, and I believe that's the stumbling block for most people in school "forced" to read Shakespeare (in particular, Yeats' work is in "modern" English). They don't take the time to either a) learn the language or B) glance at the bottom of the page (I've seen the school-texts have definitions as footnotes). But if they see (or read) West Side Story, it's cool. If they see (or read) Romeo and Juliet, it's boring. I wonder where Leonard Bernstein lifted it from.

Your hands easy
weight, teasing the bees
hived in my hair, your smile at the
slope of my cheek. On the
occasion, you press
above me, glowing, spouting
readiness, mystery rapes
my reason

When you have withdrawn
your self and the magic, when
only the smell of your
love lingers between
my breasts, then, only
then, can I greedily consume
your presence.

compared to

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red, than her lips red:
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound:
I grant I never saw a goddess go,
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet by heaven, I think my love as rare,
As any she belied with false compare.

Unfortunately, I could hardly call the first poetry. There isn't even any rhythm, let alone a rhyme.

[blackhatknight]

I understand what your saying in the sense their is nothing new even Romeo and Juliet was based on a poem by Pluto (the philosopher not the planet), its funny your post towards the end appears to more or less agree with myself. Personally rythme to me only makes prose; a poem should ryhme (though not a lot of people argue that and a lot of people would brand you a fool for saying that, aw well, if their right I have a problem, if their wrong they have a bigger problem)

When I said art is what you bring to someone the likes of Yeats (who I mentioned for his style not the language), even Seamus Heaney appear to have the attitude if you don't do your outside reading - f$%* you if you don't understand it.

I feel this is wrong and there is a very strong sense of self indulgence almost that they are writing for themselves, after all writing (in particular fiction) is entertainment.

I guess it is very much a matter of style, some people won't feel that but I personally think that artists that can sever you a platter of self contained art, not only are more accessible, but infinitely more gifted

Notably Dickens and Shakespeare did this in there time but I feel holding onto them with an almost divine reverence is actually harmful.

Notably I am not saying burn Shakespeare but I probably would take him and a hell of a lot of others of the school curriculum. What do you guys thing would we be losing part of our heritage (as english speaking individuals) by doing this, and if we should get rid of him who should replace him (I’d nominate Willy Russell, Educating Rita, Blood Brothers, and Philip Larkin, High Windows and The less decieved, for a start) if you haven't read there works try it maybe all literature isn't as dull as most people think

[Powdered Water]

I think reading anything by Dicken's forced or otherwise is a good thing. At the very least he will improve your vocabulary. I always keep a dictionary close by when reading one of his books.

[MagicNakor]

I think you mean Plato, not Pluto. Shakespeare wrote a sonnet inspired by Plato's Lysis, but Romeo and Juliet was heavily based on Arthur Brooke's The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet. It's pretty tedious and heavy-handed.

I don't agree with you. I was using a poem written by a person hailed as a great poet in today's time and contrasting it with one of Shakespeare's sonnets. The theme is even similar, although the sonnet is a parody, while the first is, from what I can tell, pretty ernest.

Poems don't have to rhyme, although they usually do, but they do have to have a consistent rhythm.

I'm not sure what you mean by "...When I said art is what you bring to someone the likes of Yeats..."

Writers do write for themselves. Some of them happen to make money some off of it. You don't become a writer if you want to become rich, unfortunately.

Funny thing about Dickens - he got paid by the word, which is why he's so verbose.

There really hasn't been a good writer for quite some time. Nor has there been a good painter. Or a good sculptor. Society no longer places any value on the arts, and so a lot of things have been forgotten. Or the people who know them have no one to teach them to. Arts departments in schools are terribly underfunded, but the football team gets new jerseys every year.

[YoRu]

Ok Dickens was a great writer, he knew how to express his story like only a few would be able to, and sure he was verbose... in a really possitiv way...

BUT the STORY of OLIVER TWIST really SUCKS

Examples: Hes in London (London had 1 Mio inhabitants in the time the book plays) but he only meet about 10 - 15 people... these people reapear during the book again and again..... ....like it would be a coincidence...

Also i hate how things like Twists question "Can i have more to eat?" (dont know the orginal text right now) are overstressed ... Not even in those days they run mad for a child asking for more to eat (NOT EVEN in an ORPHANARIUM)

Its been a while since i read it so tell me if i mixed up something (i hope not )

[AngryChick]

Well I think that it's important to expose kids to the classic books, outdated or not. How will anyone ever know or learn about it otherwise? Besides not everybody minds reading the books they are given as assignments, and if they do mind then too bad! Read it anyways or get the coles notes.

[AngryChick]

[Anthony]

BUT the STORY of OLIVER TWIST really SUCKS

Examples: Hes in London (London had 1 Mio inhabitants in the time the book plays) but he only meet about 10 - 15 people... these people reapear during the book again and again..... ....like it would be a coincidence...

Would you prefer it if the cast of characters was higher? One of the drawbacks to Dickens was a lot of his work was serialised in broadsheets, with parts of his stories coming out periodically. This does draw up problems, not with how many characters are in the book but how many caracatures are in the book. (the problem not being they were used, after all he needed people to remember minor people for months before they were reintroduced, but they were used in central positions such as Miss Havisham in Great Expectations and to a large extent Scrooge). So if you need to pick apart his work you need to understand how he worked. Personally i love Dickens, his work is more relevant today than it was when he first penned it (the class system is still in place in every country in the world, we just seemed to have changed our mindset that we can progress up it and be accepted once we make it, which is in all honesty not the case).

My opinion is if you hate a book and you cant give a solid argument as to why then you dont understand it, you could ever try a little harder or ask your teacher if you could read a comic instead and see where you end up in fifteen years or so.