|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 11, 2011 18:08:59 GMT -5
There are some words that are being clung to in this thread that are not serving their purpose. I would suggest either the use of a thesaurus or the creation of a new word with a precise definition (as a means of moving back on topic).
That said, I don't tend to think of Shakespeare as anything other than someone I have to read and discuss for my classes, or a source of entertainment in the movies or theater. He's just not my cup of tea for pleasure reading.
Was he "Just an entertainer?" Maybe, maybe not. I can't say that I've met the guy to ask, nor have I provided with adequate evidence to sway me towards one view point or another. As an artist however, I can say that some of my greatest creations began as activities that were "just entertainment" and were not initially intended to be taken seriously.
Contrary to the professed belief of some in this thread, to become aghast at the mere thought of someone like Shakespeare belonging to that category does convey a value judgement about people who partake in such activities. It alludes to the idea that people who are "just entertainers" can not be achieve greatness or produce works that have great meaning. It is a suggestion that I and others in this thread do not agree with.
Moving back to the initial topic, perhaps I will begin brainstorming a new word to suit the content of the discussion.
Disconslude - v - An act of alluding to an idea, theme, or subject with words without intending to do so.
Disconslusion - n - The state of information or misinformation having been unintentionally spread via allusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 11, 2011 18:16:01 GMT -5
I thought Shakespeare came up with new words because he couldn't find those that he needed. I think it was more for convenience sake, but that's just my opinion. I mean we come up with words all the time, some of them stick, some of them don't. Expressions like "lol" and "omg" have already been added to the dictionary, although I bet no one ever would have thought that would happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 11, 2011 18:21:05 GMT -5
I thought Shakespeare came up with new words because he couldn't find those that he needed. I think it was more for convenience sake, but that's just my opinion. I mean we come up with words all the time, some of them stick, some of them don't. Expressions like "lol" and "omg" have already been added to the dictionary, although I bet no one ever would have thought that would happen. OMG was added? Really? I suppose there's still hope for my personal favorites : ZOMG - "Oh My God" with an inflection of surprised exasperation or mirthful incredulity. PWND - v - To mercilessly defeat It could be the first word in the English dictionary that has no vowels! ... Why do I get the feeling that someone is going to correct me on that last point? |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 11, 2011 18:39:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by embonpoint on Jun 11, 2011 18:47:07 GMT -5
PWND - v - To mercilessly defeat It could be the first word in the English dictionary that has no vowels! ... Why do I get the feeling that someone is going to correct me on that last point? "A number of vowelless onomatopoeic vocalisations exist (mmm, grrr etc.), which may or may not be considered "words". The verb tsktsk (making a "tsktsk" sound) appears in Chambers Dictionary, making tsktsks, seven letters and no vowels, possible. nth (an unspecified ordinal number) is included in many dictionaries. The Welsh words crwth and cwm use the letter w as a vowel. The word pwn (an exclamation of victory) is common in internet usage, and the letter w may be pronounced as a vowel or a consonant." Just from Wiki. -shrug- |
|
|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 11, 2011 19:03:05 GMT -5
It appears my intuition was correct. Ha ha.
Thank you for the information.
I actually just realized an error in my earlier post, but since I've already been quoted Ill have to make the correction here.
PWN - v - To mercilessly defeat.
PWND - adj - To have been mercilessly defeated.
PWND - v - The past tense of PWN.
|
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 12, 2011 2:37:09 GMT -5
Contrary to the professed belief of some in this thread, to become aghast at the mere thought of someone like Shakespeare belonging to that category does convey a value judgement about people who partake in such activities. It alludes to the idea that people who are "just entertainers" can not be achieve greatness or produce works that have great meaning. It is a suggestion that I and others in this thread do not agree with. This. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 12, 2011 4:01:28 GMT -5
There is a difference between someone who creates solely to entertain and someone whose work transcends generation. To say otherwise is to equate Bob Dylan to 3OH!3, or Stephanie Meyer to Kurt Vonnegut. In essence, they are no different, but in significance, to equate them is silly. To entertain is a purpose in all art. To say Shakespeare is "just an entertainer," is to say that his work only serves that purpose, which is historically literarily incorrect (note my new word).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 12, 2011 5:05:01 GMT -5
There is a difference between someone who creates solely to entertain and someone whose work transcends generation. Simply put... you're wrong. To say otherwise is to equate Bob Dylan to 3OH!3, or Stephanie Meyer to Kurt Vonnegut. In essence, they are no different, but in significance, to equate them is silly. To entertain is a purpose in all art. To say Shakespeare is "just an entertainer," is to say that his work only serves that purpose, which is historically literarily incorrect (note my new word). First, Shakespeare is not an entertainer, he's a long decomposed corpse that rotted in the ground beneath some church centuries ago. He is not creating art. He is not writing new plays. He is not entertaining. He is an inanimate object that once lived. Moving on, You can not equate someone's intentions with history eventually says about their work. It's kind of like saying, "Which do you like best, pine trees, nacho cheese, or Dexter?" They are completely unrelated. People who create works of art to entertain can and do find that their work is cherished for generations to come. Furthermore, popularity does NOT necessarily equal quality, artistic merit, or genius. All it signifies that someone was able to create something that a many people like or have liked, which, I might add, is the role of an entertainer. It is possible that an artist is a visionary who seeks to create something that will 'transcend generations,' however simply creating something with such a motivation does not necessitate quality or any other form of merit. The most basic truth is that more people who approach their work with this vision in mind fail than those who do not. The failures have not achieved any greatness, just as some of those individuals who created art to entertain have. It is not appropriate to speak of artists as if they were alive today and can reap the benefits of their own fame because the vast majority of artists do NOT achieve the legendary acknowledgement we have bestowed upon them until after they are dead. You compare authors and musical artists of today with those that came long before, and yet you have NO WAY to tell what people will say about ANY of them 170 years from now. In the case of Bob Dylan, I'd much rather listen to a random CD by a band I've never heard of before than ANYTHING by him, because to some, myself included, his voice is the auditory equivalent to the taste of extremely orange juice and tomato sauce vomit. I assure you, I do not savor the taste of such things (the vomit that is). You're heralding this guy as if he is some kind of legend, and yet how many 12 year olds can name even one of his songs? 15 year olds? 18 year olds? This is "Transcending Generations?" I think not. The point is that even as an older artist, his renown is already becoming endangered and it will eventually become extinct. If greatness is determined by popularity, then Dylan for one can be said to be becoming less great. Now, the question is, what has changed about his work to merit his diminished greatness? The answer is, nothing. The work hasn't been changed, and thus popularity can not be used as means to attribute any value to the art except it's ability to entertain, and to forecast revenue from sales. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 12, 2011 6:11:41 GMT -5
Why does everyone keep calling me out on points I'm not arguing?
Edit: And I'm sorry, but just because 15 year olds don't listen to Bob Dylan, doesn't mean he's not transcendent. 15 year olds are members of Generation Y, and many members of our generation still revere Dylan. I'm not saying everyone loves him, or that everyone likes him, but just that his art has survived the test of time, just like Shakespeare's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 12, 2011 11:09:24 GMT -5
H'OKAY I think that's gone on long enough. Perhaps move it* to another thread? Thanks.
*discussion of Shakespeare's genius or lack thereof; entertainers vs. genius; everything else that isn't based on the original post
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 12, 2011 12:28:18 GMT -5
H'OKAY I think that's gone on long enough. Perhaps move it* to another thread? Thanks. *discussion of Shakespeare's genius or lack thereof; entertainers vs. genius; everything else that isn't based on the original post LET'S STICK WORDS TOGETHER AND MAKE OUR OWN NEOLOGISMS! giddycrank = the feeling when you've gotten three hours of sleep and so are somewhere between giddy and cranky (often flashing between the two) |
|
|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 12, 2011 14:39:05 GMT -5
Giddywonk - The feeling of having gotten too much sleep and the ambien STILL hasn't worn off.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 14, 2011 1:25:59 GMT -5
Giddygone = the state (often following giddycrank) of sleeping for the first time in days and passing out for 12+ hours (often followed by giddywonk)
(I'm sensing a theme.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 14, 2011 1:27:22 GMT -5
Skitching - that weird scraping sound that metal makes on concrete
|
|
