|
What do you think of this? I came across it in a collection of Wittgenstein's marginalia.quote:The reason why I cannot understand Shakespeare is that I want to find symmetry in all this asymmetry.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Great, great thread, Brainworm. What do you think is the significance of the third murderer in Macbeth?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2009 05:51
|
|
|
Did you take a break after undergrad? If so, what did you do? Would you recommend it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2009 10:57
|
|
|
What do you think of Pericles? It didn't really do anything for me. Is there anything deeper going on there? Also, whose song lyrics do you admire the most?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 10:08
|
|
|
What are your thoughts on Freudian criticism? Especially on using Freud with pre-1800 literature.
emys fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jul 25, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2009 09:55
|
|
|
You've talked about understanding the motivations of a book's characters. What about authors that don't go in for psychological realism?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2009 13:39
|
|
|
I don't know, Brainworm. You're being a bit hard on St. John's. (It's actually not a Catholic college by the way. The name's a bit of a misnomer.) It's hard to judge which 20th century intellectuals will have real staying power. Isn't it better to focus on the stuff we know people will still care about and think about in a hundred years?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2009 16:14
|
|
|
OK, Brainworm, one of the themes of this thread has been the importance of understanding literary works as responses to other literary works, as part of a tradition. If you were going to argue against this position, what would you say? Why doesn't everyone take your line?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
Brainworm, you are getting a lot of love, and you deserve all of it. A truly great thread. I hope you don't mind if I keep asking questions. As an academic discipline, English looks to Continental philosophers for guidance -- Foucault, Marx, Derrida, Freud, for instance. But, hardly any English professor (as far as I know) pays any attention to analytic philosophy, even though most Anglo-American philosophers are analytic. How come? Do you think this is a mistake?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2011 13:39
|
|
|
Brainworm, I have a problem. It's all your fault, really: I was reading my favorite authors and trying to pick up their tricks. Now, the guys I like have very rhythmic prose, so the question is: how do I master metrical prose? I've been copying out passages I like and then trying to write passages with the different content but the same rhythm. It doesn't work. My passages come off as (at best) stilted and (at worst) Engrish-y.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Since you mentioned them, can you give us your readings of "Watership Down" and "The Once and Future King?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 04:41
|
|