Great Expectations
Who here has read Great Expectations? I had to read it for English, and it is awful. Don't read it.
The Black Forrest
10-09-2004, 01:50
Hmmm American education?
Ok champ; why did you hate it?
Roach-Busters
10-09-2004, 01:51
Thanks for the warning.
However, it can't be as awful as Shakespeare.
Superpower07
10-09-2004, 01:52
It's not as bad as The Crucible!
It's not as bad as The Crucible!
haha that is our school play this fall.
thing is,Shakespear is meant to be seen,thats why they were plays.The script is not really that entertaining,I agree.
Thanks for the warning.
However, it can't be as awful as Shakespeare.
Yeah, I have to read Shakespeare also later this year. In the original language. Its gonna suck.
Hmmm American education?
Ok champ; why did you hate it?
Its just so dull. Every student in NC has to read it. I dont know, but I was soooo bored by it. Not exciting at all.
Roach-Busters
10-09-2004, 01:54
Yeah, I have to read Shakespeare also later this year. In the original language. Its gonna suck.
My condolences.
Enisumentela
10-09-2004, 01:58
Thanks for the warning.
However, it can't be as awful as Shakespeare.
I love Shakespear, more in the original Middle English.
But I'm Canadian. ;)
Antebellum South
10-09-2004, 02:00
Shakespeare wrote in modern English
no he didn't.Don't be foolish.I also prefer the original english.
Straughn
10-09-2004, 02:03
Maybe it's like the title implies,
Great Expectations
.... but lousy or tepid resolution.
Maybe it's like the title implies,
Great Expectations
.... but lousy or tepid resolution.
Exactly. You start reading the book like, "Oh gee, this book is a classic, i have some great expectations about this book!" And it turns out, just like in the book, your expectations were unfounded and the book (and the main characters life) sucks!
Mezzaluna
10-09-2004, 02:06
You must be kidding! I love, love, love Great Expectations. It's so funny, not to mention sad and sweet. Of course, then there's the fact that a really hot guy once saw me reading it, and it was one of his favorites, too...*Sigh* I miss him.
Anyhoo, The Crucible is also excellent. I mean, extramarital affairs, backbiting, revenge, death...how much more could you want?
Don't even get me started on Shakespeare!
And, no, before you ask, I don't like all the classics. The Red Badge of Courage, for example, is one of the worst books ever written, in my opinion. But the two works you mentioned are very accessible, have great characters, skillful writing, and superb plotlines. What else could you ask for?
Mezzaluna
10-09-2004, 02:08
no he didn't.Don't be foolish.I also prefer the original english.
Yes, he did. Shakespeare certainly wrote in modern English, not Middle English. The vocabulary and usage has changed some since then, certainly, but it is essentially the same language we use today.
Kleptonis
10-09-2004, 02:11
Well, my teacher is making us read it in a few weeks, and she keeps saying things like "OMG Great Expectations is like teh UBER SIHT!!11!", of course I'm paraphrasing, but I don't have great expectations about Great Expectations.
By the time we were finished with Romeo and Juliet, my 8th grade English class all agreed that Romeo and Juliet deserved to die. Romeo was whiny and Juliet was a bimbo.
What else could you ask for?
A good story?
Brittanic States
10-09-2004, 02:12
The worst expierience I ever had in an english classroom was having to listen to my complete twat of an english teacher reading thru "Sunset Song" by Lewis Grassic Gibbon.It was the only book that absolutely everyone in the class thought was utter utter shit
Antebellum South
10-09-2004, 02:13
no he didn't.Don't be foolish.I also prefer the original english.
The fact that we modern day English speakers can comprehend Shakespeare in the original proves that he wrote in modern English. The grammatical and vocabulary differences between modern English and Middle English are so great that Middle English is like a foreign language, which without proper training we modern English speakers cannot understand. The era of Modern English began in the 1500s, when Shakespeare wrote. In fact Shakespeare was on the vanguard of modern English's evolution and influenced the language's development by inventing countless new words, figures of speech, etc. Middle English is 1000 AD - 1500s AD, the outstanding example of the language being Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Old English is pre-1000 AD, represented by Beowulf.
Oh, and I think Shakespeare sucks.
Mezzaluna
10-09-2004, 02:13
By the time we were finished with Romeo and Juliet, my 8th grade English class all agreed that Romeo and Juliet deserved to die. Romeo was whiny and Juliet was a bimbo.
Well, yeah...that's sort of the point. Romeo and Juliet were foolish and impetuous. Hell, they were just plain stupid at times. That was one of the themes of the play!
Sprawling slums,street gangs,and ghettofabulousness............and I'd like some political power..........for me I mean................I don want much just like............Prime Minister for life,and like,I dunno,supreme commander of the military or something...........not asking for much..............
actually,my post was in response to the girl saying what more could you ask for....I not sure how it got here............
Katganistan
10-09-2004, 02:18
So, let me understand this:
Shakespeare, a prolific and world renowned poet and playwright sucks because
1) he uses Thee and Thou for you
2) he uses dost for does and art for are
3) students can't be bothered to, oh, rent the videos of the plays (they're all out there, and if you see and hear it you will understand it.)
Charles Dickens, an important English writer of the 19th Century, whose works (especially Oliver Twist, Little Dorrit, and Great Expectations) helped to effect vast social changes (helping to bring to the public's attention the horrors of the workhouse and the abuse of orphans) is dismissed as boring. You may remember another story of his: A Christmas Carol, which has been made into various movies (including Scrooge and Scrooged.)
*shakes head*
If you're going to say they suck, at least EXPLAIN why. WHAT is boring about them? What do you consider to be examples of BETTER writing? (There are better writers.)
Katganistan
10-09-2004, 02:19
no he didn't.Don't be foolish.I also prefer the original english.
English teacher here. He wrote in Early Modern English.
So, let me understand this:
Shakespeare, a prolific and world renowned poet and playwright sucks because
1) he uses Thee and Thou for you
2) he uses dost for does and art for are
3) students can't be bothered to, oh, rent the videos of the plays (they're all out there, and if you see and hear it you will understand it.)
Charles Dickens, an important English writer of the 19th Century, whose works (especially Oliver Twist, Little Dorrit, and Great Expectations) helped to effect vast social changes (helping to bring to the public's attention the horrors of the workhouse and the abuse of orphans) is dismissed as boring. You may remember another story of his: A Christmas Carol, which has been made into various movies (including Scrooge and Scrooged.)
*shakes head*
If you're going to say they suck, at least EXPLAIN why. WHAT is boring about them? What do you consider to be examples of BETTER writing? (There are better writers.)
Great Expectations sucks. What more do you need :)? It just does!
English teacher here. He wrote in Early Modern English.
OH, ok, you are an English teacher, that is why you like Dick. Scuse me, I meant to say Dickens. :)
Katganistan
10-09-2004, 02:24
By the time we were finished with Romeo and Juliet, my 8th grade English class all agreed that Romeo and Juliet deserved to die. Romeo was whiny and Juliet was a bimbo.
Romeo was a player. He was desperately in love with Rosamund in the morning; the minute he saw Juliet he was desperately in love with her.
;) The point was, in Elizabethan society they DID deserve to die -- Juliet defied her father to be with him and OMG had sex with a man her father did not approve of!
Moral of R&J = disobey your parents and die. ;)
OH, ok, you are an English teacher, that is why you like Dick. Scuse me, I meant to say Dickens. :)
At least he has a job and doesn't live with his parents like some people.Not gonna name names here....no offence...
no no no,disobey RICH powerfull nobility type parents and die.Poor parents,it not really matter.
Katganistan
10-09-2004, 02:28
OH, ok, you are an English teacher, that is why you like Dick. Scuse me, I meant to say Dickens. :)
Thank you. You are officially the first player I will warn, for obscenity and flaming.
why do we have to start this again?Why?Please don't start,I already openly insulted it,is that not enough?
Trotterstan
10-09-2004, 02:54
_Susa_ I have to agree with Katganistan, Great expectations is a good book. The fact that you seem too close minded to appreciate it clearly isnt the authors fault.
Katganistan
10-09-2004, 03:38
Alexias, don't flame/insult other players.
The Shakespeare discussion is off-topic; therefore, I've split it to its own thread.
Terra Matsu
10-09-2004, 03:46
The fact that we modern day English speakers can comprehend Shakespeare in the original proves that he wrote in modern English. The grammatical and vocabulary differences between modern English and Middle English are so great that Middle English is like a foreign language, which without proper training we modern English speakers cannot understand. The era of Modern English began in the 1500s, when Shakespeare wrote. In fact Shakespeare was on the vanguard of modern English's evolution and influenced the language's development by inventing countless new words, figures of speech, etc. Middle English is 1000 AD - 1500s AD, the outstanding example of the language being Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Old English is pre-1000 AD, represented by Beowulf.
Oh, and I think Shakespeare sucks.
Actually, middle English isn't TERRIBLY incomprehensible. I can read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales with only a slight amount of difficulty.
Peopleandstuff
10-09-2004, 11:39
Great Expectations is ok, and certainly the effects of Dicken's writing is significant in itself, but the fact that a work was once influential does not make it good entertainment, and even if it is good entertainment that does not mean that everyone will like it. I for example have never managed to read Oliver Twist, it just bores me, yet I found Great Expectations to be a pleasant enough diversion for a few hours. People like what they like, it's no insult to the writer if that particulars author's works or one particular work is not a particular person's cup of tea.
I'm not convinced that having only one book that everyone reads is the best way to engineer a good attitude towards literature anyway, why not group together books and allow students to choose from among a selection. There are for instance other Dickens' works, other works that examine the subject matter in the book described, and other writers who have been influential in social progress, so for whatever reason that particular book was chosen, there are other books that could be offered as alternatives that would be equally appropriate. Why have students read works they hate when if offered a choice from an appropriate set, they might choice a book that would leave them interested in further pursuing literature?
Legless Pirates
10-09-2004, 12:11
So, let me understand this:
Shakespeare, a prolific and world renowned poet and playwright sucks because
1) he uses Thee and Thou for you
2) he uses dost for does and art for are
3) students can't be bothered to, oh, rent the videos of the plays (they're all out there, and if you see and hear it you will understand it.)
Charles Dickens, an important English writer of the 19th Century, whose works (especially Oliver Twist, Little Dorrit, and Great Expectations) helped to effect vast social changes (helping to bring to the public's attention the horrors of the workhouse and the abuse of orphans) is dismissed as boring. You may remember another story of his: A Christmas Carol, which has been made into various movies (including Scrooge and Scrooged.)
*shakes head*
If you're going to say they suck, at least EXPLAIN why. WHAT is boring about them? What do you consider to be examples of BETTER writing? (There are better writers.)
What sucks about shakespeare: it's terribly cliché, you see every thing coming from a 1000 miles away
I am reminded of the skit "Lowered Expectations" from Mad TV, I think.
Proletariat-Francais
10-09-2004, 13:05
What sucks about shakespeare: it's terribly cliché, you see every thing coming from a 1000 miles away
Perhaps because Shakespeare invented those 'clichés' and they have been used ever since. I didn't like Shakespeare when I studied it at GCSE, but now I'm getting into him. His plays have fundamentally good stories about basic human motices, which is why he is still relevant today. Oh, and he did write in 'Modern' English since much of our langauge today was coined by him. He wrote so the commoners could understand, which is commendable I think.
I'm not convinced that having only one book that everyone reads is the best way to engineer a good attitude towards literature anyway, why not group together books and allow students to choose from among a selection.
We did this in my secondry school, only once though. It's what got me into George Orwell, for which I am forever thankful.
Roachsylvania
10-09-2004, 13:14
I thought Great Expectations was really good. I'm not liking Nicholas Nickleby as much, but I've always heard his early stuff wasn't as good, so I guess that makes sense. However, I wasn't terribly impressed with Romeo and Juliet, but the only other Shakespeare play I've read, Julius Caesar, was pretty good.
Keruvalia
10-09-2004, 13:23
Who here has read Great Expectations? I had to read it for English, and it is awful. Don't read it.
*shudder* ... it's cruel and unusual punishment, I tells ya!
Semi-decent characters + rambling + pointless storylines == Charles Dickens
Gee ... so is Stephen King.
So ... Charles Dickens == Stephen King ...
You should tell your teacher that reading "Pet Sematary" would be just as worth your time.