Reading Shakespeare is akin to reading Beowulf...it can be a tough slog because the alnguage is so archaic.
Why does society hate chess?
Sort:
ipcress12 wrote:
ab121705 wrote:
actually the language is still full of Shakespeare
Of course, but fewer and fewer know it. Shakespeare is being phased out of high school and college curricula. It's a shame.
However, there have been some fine film adaptions of Shakespeare in the past twenty years -- a bunch by Branagh, of course, including his great Hamlet and Henry V.
Just last week I watched the Pacino/Irons "Merchant of Venice" from 2004. It was riveting.
It always takes me a half hour or so to get used to the language and I'll refer to wiki if I lose the plot, but once I am settled into the play, it's a treat. I am surprised how modern the plays seem in psychology and plot.
Branagh has a way of making it clear what he is saying even though the language is Early Modern English. He and Emma Thompson - automatically worth watching (but why did they put Kneau Reeves in that one movie (which one was it??); mercifully he had few lines
Elubas wrote:
"I think poetry and chess are wonderful, but really, the world owes nothing to poets and chess players."
Well sure it's an economics thing I suppose. But I could understand why a poet for example would feel unlucky in the sense that they happened to have a talent that people didn't care so much about, whereas sports players had a talent that people happened to care about.
Poetry would not be poetry if money were involved. The concept of "marketing a poem" or "tailoring one's poems for a certain market" literally make me nauseous (not that it doesn't happen; it's the norm, actually). A poem ceases to be a poem if written just for money
"But that topic is interesting too. When people disagree about analogies. Is it because one of them doesn't understand? Refuses to think about it? Or are the two sides focusing on different points?"
Analogies are useful yet dangerous. Because someone can just think up an analogy in a few seconds that sounds similar to the situation. It could take 10 minutes to figure out the important difference. Arguing by analogy can often be a lazy matter that way. Because of course it's always easy to find some similarities; so finding an analogy isn't necessarily impressive.
Analogies are generally useful, but sometimes they can obfuscate things. Like, a principle might sound really good until a silly analogy comes along that it doesn't quite fit with. Chances are there is something wrong with the analogy even if on the surface it looks ok.
I'm not saying don't use them; we should probably use them. But people too often use them sort of lazily.
ab121705 wrote:
Elubas wrote:
"I think poetry and chess are wonderful, but really, the world owes nothing to poets and chess players."
Well sure it's an economics thing I suppose. But I could understand why a poet for example would feel unlucky in the sense that they happened to have a talent that people didn't care so much about, whereas sports players had a talent that people happened to care about.
Poetry would not be poetry if money were involved. The concept of "marketing a poem" or "tailoring one's poems for a certain market" literally make me nauseous (not that it doesn't happen; it's the norm, actually). A poem ceases to be a poem if written just for money
You could say the same about sports. People who love what they do don't just care about the money (you could point to athletes who just care about the money, but then they don't otherwise love what they do, hence my point). But even if an athlete didn't care about money, without getting money for what they do they would not be able to devote more time to performing well because they would spend a lot of that time working some other job to pay the bills.
So giving them money is like saying, hey, we appreciate what you do, and we want to help you keep doing it, both for our sake (watching as great of a performance as possible), and yours.
But, again, economics is going to rule who gets the money and who doesn't :)
ab121705 wrote:
Poetry would not be poetry if money were involved. The concept of "marketing a poem" or "tailoring one's poems for a certain market" literally make me nauseous (not that it doesn't happen; it's the norm, actually). A poem ceases to be a poem if written just for money
Why? Is there a reason poetry must be pure unlike any other arts -- music, novels, film, painting, and so on -- that somehow manage to pay their way?
There's none that I can see, and frankly I think poets and poetry would be better off if poets focused on reaching people for whatever reason, including money.
Instead poets pretend they are above "pandering" to an audience, while fighting like hell to fit with the current fashions and in-groups of the presses they hope will publish their poems which almost no one will read.
OMG. that is so lame and cliche; it's late and I am too tired to respond. I don't know what your definition of poetry is, but if it includes rhyming for dollars, I'll have to pass, thanks. (what do you mean by "pure"?? it is about beauty, not purity). If a poem is a poem, and is beautiful, it doesn't matter whether it earns any money. it is what it is regardless of the money. The money is incidental
This is not complicated. Money is beside the point. Poetry is poetry, money is money.
bukowski rules
Jul 17, 2015
0
#70
I'm society and I like chess, so it seems the OP's premise is flawed, but for fun I'll assume the premise is correct..
I must be weird to those who don't play chess but observe me. I imagine it is akin to watching paint dry. I get excited when I win, nobody gets excited when paint dries. How foolish I must look to the observer who risks nothing, but has wasted a few precious minutes watching me.
My total lack of concern over their presence or their opinion of what they have just observed may be a little off-setting to them. Oh well, re-set the board, let's do it again..
Oops, did somebody just leave?
Reading Shakespeare is akin to reading Beowulf...it can be a tough slog because the alnguage is so archaic.
Beowulf was written in Old English, which must be translated for Modern English speakers. It looks like this:
HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum,
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!
Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English, which is an effort for modern ears, but nothing extreme.
I turn the subtitles on for Shakespeare or have the text handy in printed form.
ab121705 wrote:
OMG. that is so lame and cliche; it's late and I am too tired to respond. I don't know what your definition of poetry is, but if it includes rhyming for dollars, I'll have to pass, thanks. (what do you mean by "pure"?? it is about beauty, not purity). If a poem is a poem, and is beautiful, it doesn't matter whether it earns any money. it is what it is regardless of the money. The money is incidental
This is not complicated. Money is beside the point. Poetry is poetry, money is money.
Yeah, well, this is why I don't hang out with poets anymore nor read anything contemporary.
No, it's not complicated. Poetry is an art form and historically an art functions in the give-and-take of society. It's not a recovery group for writer-victims who imagine they are so pure their work must be subsidized by ordinary people whom the poets mostly despise.
What has recent poetry given us? What current poems are worth reading, much less remembering?
I know many cultured people who read complex novels, listen to cutting-edge music, or go to art films. None of them read poems unless they are poets. And the poets don't read much new poetry either.
Poets have no answers to this. They just shoot the messenger and get back to complaining about how society doesn't care about them and give them enough money.
How many here at chess.com read poetry? I'll bet the number is close to zero.
Why not? Is it because you are all too stupid or debased to appreciate the grandeur of poetry?
I say no. If you can enjoy "Casey at the Bat" or "O Captain! My Captain!", you've got what it takes.
Poets just aren't writing for anyone but themselves anymore. As far as they are concerned, it's your problem if you can't appreciate them.
As far as I'm concerned, poets have the audience they deserve.
Good. But how about new poetry? Or even poetry of the last fifty years?
As far as I can tell, the last American poem to penetrate American culture, aside from the occasional tiny splashes at presidential inaugurations, was "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg in 1955. If I'm honest, I'll admit that "Howl" has largely been forgotten by those born later.
Since then song lyrics have taken over the cultural function of poetry. By the way, all those songwriters accepted money for their work.
most new poetry...indeed most new art in general...is trash. the only creative pursuit people are good at these days compared to the past is comedy.
Yes, the rot goes deeper than poetry.
I believe we are living in a golden age of long-arc television shows -- Sopranos, Breaking Bad, etc.
stuzzicadenti wrote:
people read poetry and books in the old times of history when no other forms of entertainment were available to them. technology continues to improve and as a result certain cultural achievements are left in the dust and will probably seldom be appreciated by upcoming generations.
Could be. On the other hand, one might wonder how much the audience-unfriendly approach of current American poets might play into poetry's lack of audience.
I was looking up Shakespeare articles on the web and discovered that in the UK there are lots of young people who love Shakespeare today.
Jul 18, 2015
0
#79
Wasn't it Bobby Fischer who said in his last interviews that the chess world was full of "nasty" people? Of course he DID not include himself. Bugger!
"I think poetry and chess are wonderful, but really, the world owes nothing to poets and chess players."
Well sure it's an economics thing I suppose. But I could understand why a poet for example would feel unlucky in the sense that they happened to have a talent that people didn't care so much about, whereas sports players had a talent that people happened to care about.
We can all feel unlucky for any number of reasons. That's life and life ain't fair and sometimes it's pretty crummy. But let my friend, WIll, tell it:
==================================
SONNET 29
When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featur'd like him, like him with friends possess'd,
Desiring this man's art and that man's scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;
For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings
That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
--William Shakespeare